Donoso Cortes on Freedom of Speech

Freedom of the press for mediocre cartoonists to shock people with profane imagery
Freedom of the press for mediocre cartoonists to shock people with profane imagery

“She has had anathemas only for impious men, for rebellious peoples and tyrannous kings. She has defended liberty against those who aspired to convert authority into tyranny, and authority against peoples who aspired to an absolute emancipation; and against all, the rights of God and the inviolability of His commandments. There is no truth the Church has not proclaimed, nor error she has not anathematised. There is no truth the Church has not proclaimed, nor error she has not anathematised.”

Those who fight for the absolute libertine lifestyle counterfeiting the word liberty under no moral basis except an extreme distrust for authority can proclaim the right of their blasphemous vulgarity. The only thing they use their talents for is to desacralize everything and to level it down to the level of base man.

“Liberty, in truth, has been in her eyes holy, and in error, as error itself, abominable. In her eyes, error is born and lives without rights, and for that reason she has sought it out, and persecuted it, and extirpated it from the most hidden folds of the human intellect. And that perpetual illegitimacy, and that perpetual nakedness of error, as it has been a religious dogma, so also has it been a political dogma, proclaimed in all time by all the powers of the world. All have placed beyond discussion the principle on which they rest; all have called the principle which served as its contrast, error, and have despoiled it of all legitimacy and of all rights.”

Error has no rights. To have error in the same room as truth only equalizes them and makes a mockery of what is already established as unquestionable dogma. Those who make a absolute out of the relative and have established it as the foundation of a society have only done so on quicksand.

“All have declared themselves infallible in that supreme qualification; and if they have not condemned all political errors, it is not because the conscience of the human race recognizes the legitimacy of any error, but because it has never recognised in human authorities the privilege of infallibility in the qualification of errors. From that radical impotence of human authorities to designate errors, has sprung the principle of liberty of discussion, foundation of modern constitutions. That principle does not suppose in society, as might at first sight appear, an incomprehensible and culpable impartiality between truth and error: it is founded on two other suppositions, one of which is true, and the other false; it is founded, on one hand, on the fact that governments are not infallible, which is evident; it is founded, on the other, on the infallibility of discussion, which is false in every light we view it. Infallibility cannot result from discussion unless it be previously in those who discuss; it cannot be in those who discuss unless it be at the same time in those who govern.”

Infallibility of discussion as the core basis of society is not some ideal that was bestowed down from above to bless mankind with rationality to discern truth by way of skepticism and to sustain a civilization, but as a weapon, a truncheon that gave blows to the previous regime, which ushered in the terminal stage of a society.

It is not some providential golden era of “progress” but a concerted subversive open conspiracy that every nation on this planet today is forced to abide by constitutions that grant liberty of thought and religion.

 “The day when society, forgetting her doctrinal decisions, has asked the press and the tribune, news writers and assemblies, what is truth and what is error, on that day error and truth are confounded in all intellects, society enters on the regions of shadows, and falls under the empire of fictions.”

Raising a question on something simply raises and promotes it to level of the current legitimate topics in favor of it by the very nature of bringing it up as something that is respectable enough to be discussed in a formal civil debate. When the principles and morals that all sane and normal people have once taken for granted and without question have been forgone in favor for the lust of novelty and supposedly clever questioning, it only leads to an endless cycle of discussion where the only direction it begets is skepticism as opposed to any shred of truth.

“The doctrinal intolerance of the Church has saved the world from chaos. Her doctrinal intolerance has placed beyond question political, domestic, social, and religious, truths—primitive and holy truths, which are not subject to discussion, because they are the foundation of all discussions; truths which cannot be called into doubt for a moment without the understanding on that moment oscillating, lost between truth and error, and the clear mirror of human reason becoming soiled and obscured.”

Truth which can also be called prejudice is the immutable foundation in which every great society revolves around. The authority of the husband over his wife, the obedience of the child to its parents, a marriage based off love and the propagation of the family, the natural elites of a society that people mirror themselves upon, these are all things that need not be debating or discussed, as it is so self-evident.

” The Cartesian theory, according to which truth comes from doubt, like Minerva from the head of Jupiter, is contrary to that divine law which presides at the generation of bodies as well as ideas, and in virtue of which contraries perpetually exclude their contraries, and like ever begets like. In virtue of this law doubt perpetually comes from doubt, and scepticism from scepticism, as truth from faith, and science from truth.”

The spirit of doubting everything to find some novelty of truth off the desire of being original or iconoclastic only leads man to darkness and uncertainty, and no light of truth. It can never create anything of significance, but can only bring down.