If you give even half a damn about free speech, subscribe. It means I can continue doing this without needing to ask a gender-neutral AI for spare change. I’m a suspended university professor, not a pundit barking from the cheap seats. The link is below, click it before the lawyers take it away.
Please subscribe to get at least three uncensored, impolite, fire-in-the-belly essays per week. Open comments, $6/month. Less than \ $4. Everyone says, “That’s just a cup of coffee.”
Well, then order mine.
Protestors on Vancouver streets shouting death to Canada, shots fired at Jewish schools in Toronto, Palestinian thugs burning cars in Montreal, Muslim activists doing their prayers on the Westminster lawn in England (the mosques were being renovated?); the police in Peterborough, Canada going to people’s doors and harassing them about a Facebook post, the British PM and his supporters enacting legislation that lets paedophiles out early and gives suspended sentences to immigrant rapists, a British MP getting support from the PM when he calls for blasphemy laws in Britain, a British state that sees fit to jail or threatens jail for those who complain about their neighbourhood being covered in Palestinian flags.
Back in Canada, Khalistani thugs attack Hindus in Brampton; the federal government turns a blind eye to a movement that is responsible for the worst act of terrorism in Canada’s history - Air India Flight 182, 307 lost.
The ruling Liberals allow a violent separatist movement to use Canada as its base, with the government more interested in Sikh votes than peace and order. Violence on the street is fine for the government; ethnic vote farming efforts are more important to them.
In Montreal, a Palestinian advocate is allowed to threaten Jews with the Final Solution while doing the Hitler salute. But later, it is the Jewish rabbi and the Jewish journalist who are forced off the streets, or in journalist Ezra Levant’s case, arrested.
In Canada, everyone is equal before the law, but violent Muslim demonstrators are more equal than others.
But while cars are burning at the Palais de Congres in Montreal and violent Palestinian mobs are smashing windows, PM Trudeau frolics at a Taylor Swift concert, making the nation cringe as he makes death metal hand signs and swaps friendship bracelets.
Of course, leaving early wouldn’t have led him to break up the mobs, but it would have signalled that he cared about his constituents and was willing to make a personal sacrifice to support them. For God’s sake, when Churchill stayed in the City of London during the German raids, he wasn’t maintaining a machine gun turret, but his presence strengthened a nation.
But Trudeau is always there, weak and effeminate, to say that anti-Semitism is unacceptable, though always eager to say, “and so is Islamophobia,” making sure that moral equivalence is established. Earth to Trudeau - if you let something happen without consequences, you have deemed it acceptable.
Many sympathetic souls, born in the West, couched in its comforts, still make a common bond with those who don’t hide their intentions; they support the butcher of St. Petersburg, they sell their souls to those who crush democracy in Hong Kong, and express solidarity with those who dream of a global Islamic caliphate.
Is it just the actions? Actions like the story of the nine-year-old boy who police in England harassed for saying “retard,” though the police had no trunk with screaming anti-semites who threatened both shoppers and police in a Toronto shopping mall. In Quebec, the government is happy to aid the depressed by pre-booking a state-assisted suicide MAID. Now, MAID is the fifth leading cause of death in Canada.
We see academics who think that changing phrasing and talking about something like ‘minor-attracted persons’ will help them normalise immorality. Of course, that couldn’t happen, sceptics say; well, who would have put money on a bet in 2000 that the 2024 New York Times would rebrand females as ‘non-trans females?’
Research by Ipsos and Pew shows that about 70% of Americans, 73% of the French, and similar numbers in Canada and England see their democracy in peril. It is not social contagion or an attack of cultural nerves; it is real.
If the soul of a culture is its values, what is happening to the West? In 1964, James Burnham wrote "Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism," in which he argued that liberalism undermines the will to defend the values that made the West strong.
Douglas Murray’s 2017 book, “The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam”, shares thematic similarities with Suicide of the West. In 2018, Jonah Goldberg wrote Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy.
It examined contemporary challenges, such as tribalism, populism, and the rejection of Enlightenment values, which Goldberg argues are eroding the foundations of Western democracy.
It is not the similarity in titles that makes them relevant. It is the pervading feeling that they could have been written yesterday.
How have we become so unmoored1 from our Western values, dislodged from the foundation of the West?
Does it matter?
Of course, we may not yet be under siege, but we have our enemies; we know this because they reveal their intentions to us.
Of course, not every Muslim is the enemy, but the West has enemies - they are not all wearing keffiyehs on the streets or doing off-the-cuff rants on TikTok; they are too clever for this; they have a playbook.
Amongst many, they include the CCP, the Kremlin, the Iranian Axis of Evil, and the Palestinian Brotherhood.
Still, our greatest enemy, our greatest crisis in the West, is our disconnection with our fundamental historical values. We have said that we can be moral with secularism, that though unmoored, the rough seas will not lead us onto the cruel rocks that line the shore.
The frightening scenes coming from Europe, not merely of the aggressive attempts at Islamization, not simply of the confidence of Islamist fanatics in the face of a passive West, but the most troubling is the reaction, the criminalising of dissent, the hope that if we accommodate and flatter our citizens and aspiring citizens that hate us, that they will let go of their dreams of sharia law. And it’s not just the odd one; 40% of Muslims in Denmark and 32% in England support sharia law in their new countries.
Many say the noble spirit of multiculturalism will surely allow value systems, as opposed to each other as oil and water, to blend into a pleasant and diluted mix.
However, even as the aspiring authoritarians in Europe and their beaming Carney-loving fellow travellers in Canada criminalise dissent when citizens criticise the state, society seems angrier and more divided.
The authoritarians in China, Iran and Russia must be euphoric as they see our politicians, full of vanity and conceit, preaching at us that we must wait on the crocodiles, not take away their food. Surely, these beasts will have their hunger satiated and walk away contented. Surely, utopia beckons.
Our domestic aspiring authoritarians tell us that if we just let them clear the pathway of all the excesses of free speech, they will show us the way.
But we have already dipped our toes into the waters of criminalising dissent and are moving to go ankle-deep, and it does not seem well-received.
Of course, random videos on social media or Substack don’t give us statistical certainty. But even on suppression of free speech, whether it is the police arresting and charging, or just showing up at one’s door, or even a human rights department that, in my case, takes the complaint of a man who says he has hurt feelings at Hamas being called Nazis.
However, he is himself a proud anti-semite, publicly calling for the extermination of Israel and referring to Hamas as being ‘noble warriors’ - and weaponising their authority. After over a year of harassment and threats interspersed between vast moments of silence and shunning, they are now simply trying to end a 15-year university teaching career as expeditiously and quietly as possible.
At the same time, my union, headed by an unashamed anti-semite Fred Hahn, refuses to offer anything but the minimum of aid. They have fed the crocodiles well.
My accusers were clever; they backwards engineered a human rights complaint to include all the appropriate language; he and co-accusers emptied their clip: violence = words, harassment = hurt feelings, racist = anyone after you have run out of rhetorical ammunition and reason, Islamophobia = a distraction from anti-semitism and a fancy pathologised variant of “shut up and don’t mention anything about Islam or I’ll play the victim”, and emotional safety = the expectation that no one ever may say anything you disagree with and makes you feel bad.
I don’t recall Mohammed using such methodologies. He was more, especially at the end, more of a do what I say or shuffle off this mortal coil type of fellow.
And yes, you have other horrid cases, like in England, where they arrest a 67-year-old retiree for an intemperate Facebook post. Indeed, as Konstantin Kisin notes, in Russia, during the last year, 400 were arrested for violating the fascist Russian speech dictates on not criticising the savage war in Ukraine, but in England, over 3300 were arrested for social media posts.
No, that doesn’t mean we win.
While the conventional labels of left and right may seem less accurate (for example, right-wingers often urge appeasement), the problem of authoritarianism tends to fall on the left side of the spectrum. Now, it is not just that they disagree with you; they believe you should not be able to speak, and if you dare, they believe you should be punished.
In Canada, where the left drives on the right side of the road, David Suzuki, the famous environmentalist with multiple homes and a huge carbon footprint, recommends jail for those who deny global warming; the NDP’s Charlie Angus proposes to criminalise anyone who promotes fossil fuels.
Yes, segments of the modern left have surely shifted toward a more authoritarian approach to ideological dissent, moving beyond mere disagreement to advocating punitive measures against those who express alternative or politically incorrect opinions.
The Certainty of Moral Rectitude and the New Puritans
Many on the modern left adopt a posture of absolute moral certainty, often based on identity politics or social justice frameworks. Historian Niall Ferguson describes this as a form of “secular puritanism”, where ideological purity is paramount, and deviation is seen as sinful.
This certainty fuels an intolerance for pluralism, making dialogue or debate with opposing viewpoints increasingly rare. Instead of engaging with dissenting ideas, some prefer to delegitimise, silence, or punish those who hold them.
While hate speech laws exist in many democracies, the definition of “hate” has expanded dramatically, often encompassing legitimate, albeit controversial, political opinions. The classic definition is “incitement to violence.” A woman in the UK was recently jailed for 31 months for urging the burning of hotels with immigrants.
Of course, what she said was wrong, but the application is always selective and reflects uneven standards. In my suspension as a professor, with the baying hounds, now numbering in the five-digit range with the super fuel of social media, calling for my termination for calling Hamas Nazis, I note that despite every accuser using the word violent (what a strange coincidence!) it would take some Simon Biles cognitive contortions to pin incitement on me. Was my typing violent?
But you never know; if you want to use a word that doesn’t apply, just change its meaning. Justice seems highly selective, like the Dodge Coronet 440 my parents had with the sticky throttle; it just decided when it wanted to move. But that was also because my brother crashed it into the school.
The grand inquisitor, in my case, believes that my accuser posting a map with Israel removed and praising terrorists as noble warriors is okay. It sounds like an old-school incitement to violence and hate crime. But people chant death to Jews on the streets, and our justice warriors seem to miss that, too. The police are probably off fetching coffee again for the Palestinian demonstrators.
Selective justice is a symptom of a failing society.
Surely, the standard of incitement to violence cannot have an Islamic exception clause.
We also see language mutation, in which words are violent. No, they are not. They cannot be. But many people have a binary mentality, so they choose between high censorship and authoritarianism and complete freedom.
Nobody advocates that shouting fire in a theatre is acceptable, but there should be no criminal prosecution if the theatre is empty.
Free speech was never going to be pretty.
But the idea that politicians and prosecutors can effectively measure intent and use civil and criminal prosecutorial powers to excise the ‘really bad speech’ is wildly hubristic. Of course, speech protections will lead to the policing of speech that only one political constituency doesn’t want. It is happening now.
Overall, this approach is illiberal, as it seeks not only to refute opposing views but to remove them entirely from public discourse, often through legal or institutional means.
In Canada, Justin Trudeau and now Carney, with his aspirations for internet censorship, are aspiring authoritarians who are not distracting citizens with $250 gifts, hoping they forget that he shut down parliament because he refused to redact documents showing his government had used a $400 million green slush fund to enrich friends. And we just voted in Trudeau 2.0 with Carney.
Nevertheless, his Bill C-63 is still out there, and it is a dangerous and illiberal attack on free expression and dissent.
The Democracy Fund agrees, arguing that the bill establishes an online speech control system that threatens free expression in Canada. It cites historical instances where authoritarian regimes used censorship to suppress dissent.
Similarly, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association warns that the bill’s overbroad Criminal Code provisions could lead to draconian rules and chilling effects on free expression, potentially harming those it aims to protect.
The bill includes measures such as increased penalties for hate propaganda offences. It creates a new peace bond that restricts freedom of movement and doesn’t need difficult and messy issues like guilt, charges, or a judge to be involved—just a bureaucrat. What could go wrong?
This trend reinforces a chilling effect, where individuals self-censor for fear of professional or personal consequences. It also has a gatekeeping effect in which hiring and promotional practices increasingly align with ideological conformity, further entrenching a single worldview.
If you visit a union office in Canada, you’ll see the same political peas in the union pod.
Such censorship also demonstrates the censors' lack of confidence in the inherent validity of their ideas. They don’t want to use reason or debate with them; they just want to use the police or friendly bureaucrats to shut you up forcefully. When will the first Western state announce that criticising politicians in power is a crime?
According to writer Fraser Myers, Ireland’s defamation laws already impede freedom of expression and freedom of the press. The Act allows individuals to sue for defamation if a published statement harms their reputation, even if the statement is true, provided it causes harm.
Just to bring it home, I could be prosecuted for this post if Canada went the same way.
Despite its booming economy, the Irish government isn’t particularly fond of free speech. Their new ‘online harms bill’ will outlaw the ‘communication’ of material or speech that might ‘incite hatred’ against people with certain protected characteristics (such as race, religion and gender).
Sounds rather vague, doesn’t it? I recently had the police arrive at my door in Toronto because my mother-in-law set off the alarm. They asked me for ID in my own house; I think my face might be illegal in some states.
In practice, if other European hate-speech laws are any guide, ‘inciting hatred’ tends to mean little more than offending. This can be punishable by up to five years in prison, so much for the lovely, charming, green country of Guinness-drinking, whiskey-slamming redheads. When they aren’t screaming their hatred of Jews on TikTok or in the European Parliament, I guess they can get the police to go around asking people for their passcodes for their phones so they can see if your memes are permissible.
“Top of the morning to you. You wouldn’t have any bad memes on your phone, would you? “
And the Scots? They arrested and convicted a comedian because he trained his Pug to do a Nazi salute. Pugs don’t have human arms, and the Scottish National Party doesn’t seem to get this; their front paw extension will always look like a Heil Hitler. Here is a dog like mine, another secret Nazi.
Examples of Unmoored Politics
On the Right:
The right has abandoned its Burkean2 roots of prudence, tradition, and incremental reform.
However, although many have abandoned tradition, a dangerous nostalgia for a mythologised past remains. The rejection of globalisation and liberalism has led to a paradoxical alignment with autocratic regimes, which seem more driven by cultural anxiety than strategic reasoning.
The most perplexing phenomenon of the current moment is the right’s newfound admiration for figures like Vladimir Putin. Once the party of Churchillian resolve against totalitarianism, segments of the political right, stand up Tucker Carlson, now embrace an authoritarian leader whose geopolitical ambitions echo the imperialist designs of the 19th century. This alignment with Putin defies historical precedent and moral coherence.
The reasons for this shift are multifaceted. For one, Putin’s rhetoric about defending “traditional values” resonates with a conservative base that feels increasingly alienated by the West's secular liberalism.
Putin positions himself as a defender of Christianity and the family while simultaneously suppressing dissent and invading sovereign nations. This contradiction seems lost on his admirers, who mistake his authoritarian control for moral leadership.
Another factor is the erosion of clear moral paradigms within the right itself. Once grounded in a blend of Judeo-Christian ethics and Enlightenment rationality, the conservative movement flirts with relativism, abandoning its commitment to universal truths for tribal allegiance.
Populism vs. Classical Conservatism
The rise of populist movements within the right has created internal fractures:
Populists emphasise anti-elite sentiment, protectionism, and cultural nationalism, often at odds with traditional conservatism's free-market, rule-of-law priorities.
Erosion of Intellectual Foundations: The intellectual rigour of past conservative leaders, such as William F. Buckley Jr. or Margaret Thatcher, has been replaced by reactionary politics and grievance-based messaging, leaving the movement ideologically rudderless.
Identity Crisis in Foreign Policy
Traditionally, the right championed strong international alliances (e.g., NATO) and a proactive stance against tyranny. Today, parts of the right lean toward isolationism, questioning the costs of defending global democracy
On the Left
The Rise of Moral Relativism
The left was historically a champion of social progress and human rights—now exhibits sympathy for groups like Hamas, whose ideological framework opposes nearly every Enlightenment value, from gender equality to freedom of expression.
This shift reflects a moral confusion within the left, where post-colonial guilt overrides reasoned judgment.
The West, perpetually the historical oppressor, is reflexively cast as the villain in any conflict, even when opposing actors, like Iran or Hamas, espouse values that are antithetical to liberalism. As historian Niall Ferguson observes, “The irony is that those who purport to defend the oppressed often end up excusing the oppressors.”
The left has strayed from Enlightenment principles of reason, universal rights, and social progress, replacing them with relativism and tribalism.
The left’s focus on identity politics has created fractures within its coalition and created competing victimhood narratives among racial, gender, and ideological groups.
The emphasis on intersectionality often leads to internal contradictions, such as feminists being called TERFS for not wanting biological men who have said they feel female to be in locker rooms with their daughters, let alone raping women in women’s prisons or winning women’s sporting competitions.
Rejection of Traditional Institutions
While the left historically sought to reform institutions, today’s progressives often aim to dismantle them entirely, labelling them as inherently oppressive.
Calls to “defund the police” reject the rule of law, alienate moderates, hurt the poor and undermine public safety.
Anti-capitalist rhetoric fails to provide viable alternatives, creating a vacuum where populism and reactionary politics thrive.
Gad Saad, a renowned evolutionary psychologist, explores the concept of “suicidal empathy” in his book The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense.
He describes it as a psychological and cultural phenomenon in which individuals or societies adopt extreme empathy that undermines survival. While empathy may be little more than a conceit that we can imagine ourselves in someone else’s shoes, Saad warns that when these attempts at empathy are unchecked, they can be weaponised and lead to destructive outcomes. For example, prioritising the feelings of those with harmful ideologies over protecting societal values can allow dangerous ideas to flourish unchecked.
Saad ties this to the broader concept of “parasitic ideas”, which he defines as ideological frameworks or dogmas that infect the human mind, much like biological parasites infect the body.
These ideas, such as moral relativism, identity politics, or cultural self-loathing, distort rational thinking and common sense, leading individuals to abandon self-preservation and critical analysis.
Suicidal empathy fits into this framework, as it often manifests in the unwillingness to critique harmful ideologies or behaviours for fear of being labelled intolerant or unkind.
Social media amplifies extremes on both sides, and the lack of critical thinking means that few engage with history, philosophy, or political theory, resulting in shallow arguments and unprincipled stances. Instead of forming positions based on evidence or values, many adopt prepackaged opinions aligned with their tribes.
THE VACUUM
A vacuum is a space that wants to be filled. Over the last 50 years, Western society has seen a 30% decline in the number of Christians who self-declare. The historical truth is that the foundations of Western civilisation are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Biblical principles have shaped the West’s legal systems, emphasizing justice and equality under the law. Human rights concepts, such as the inherent dignity of individuals, draw from the Christian belief that humans are made in God’s image.
Educational institutions, including early universities, were established by the Church. Charitable organisations and social welfare systems reflect Christian values of care for the poor.
Even secular Enlightenment ideals, such as liberty and equality, arose within a cultural context informed by Christian ethics.
However, a vacuum does not want to remain void, so what has replaced the values established by Judeo-Christian tradition?
As Western society has become increasingly secular, Christianity’s influence has diminished, and various ideologies, philosophies, and practices have emerged to fill the resulting cultural and moral void.
These replacements include individualism and self-help culture, materialism and consumerism, science, environmentalism, identity politics, para-social relationships and celebrity worship, post-modernism and pure subjectivity.
Of course, the solution is not a state-mandated nostalgic return to old values or asking everyone to attend church.
Russia is currently attempting to do so, which is not beneficial for the world. But surely we must not look back at the roots of Judeo-Christian moral values and deny their connection to our present culture. We must weigh modern values and determine their moral weight. We must surely admit that all cultural values have a foundation; they do not exist in a vacuum.
And no, sorry, Justin Trudeau, diversity is not a value; it is a state of dissimilarity; kind treatment of those who are different and strangers would be a moral value, and certainly a Christian one.
Compounding this problem is the decline in reading and historical awareness. As historian David McCullough lamented, “History is not just about dates and battles; it’s about understanding who we are and where we come from.” Without this understanding, societies lose their sense of continuity and purpose.
The ignorance of history allows for the rise of moral relativism.
When one is unaware of the horrors of totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, it becomes easier to equate the flaws of liberal democracies with the atrocities of authoritarian states. This ignorance fosters the belief that the West is uniquely culpable for the world’s ills, a narrative eagerly exploited by adversaries like Russia and China.
These replacement values may offer meaning for some but seem to lack the communal, enduring structure and transcendent purpose that religion provides.
This cultural shift has left many grappling with existential questions, societal fragmentation, and moral relativism.
A society without a moral foundation risks degenerating into chaos or authoritarianism:
In Proverbs 14:12, the Bible warns about the self-deception inherent in human arrogance and hubris:
“There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end, it leads to death.”
The authoritarian's heart is always full of hubris. They know better, and they believe their hearts and minds are uncorrupted and do not need the balancing and reflective wisdom of a democracy.
But the extremes of the madness of the authoritarians scream out of the history books, the 100 million lost in the 20th century to communism, the madness of Hitler’s final solution, the Shining Path’s 37,000 dead and the tragedy of Jonestown.
They were all utopian, but they brought not heaven on earth but hell, not divine guidance but madness. Modern Islamism, or Medina Islam as some scholars have called it, is equally utopian.
Yes, Islamism, represented by groups like Hamas and the ideology of the Iranian state, can be characterised as a form of utopianism, where the state claims to implement a divinely ordained system that is believed to be inherently superior. This ideology often positions the state or leadership as the ultimate interpreter and executor of God’s will, subordinating individual freedoms to collective religious and ideological goals.
The state would suppress dissent, much like our Western liberal utopians, but the reasoning would differ. The state assumes the role of moral and spiritual guide, claiming to know better than the individual.
Historically, Western roots are connected to European monarchies that touted the divine right of Kings—their pretensions of divine guidance were similar to those of Islamic theocratic leaders.
Louis XIV in France said, “L’état, c’est moi - I am the state,” he believed, as did monarchs across the continent, that to question him and other monarchs was to question God Himself. It's a rather convenient position.
The theocratic aspirations of the Iranian Axis are the same, and they draw on Koranic scriptures to compel them.
Surah As-Saff (61:9):
“It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religions, even though the polytheists dislike it.”
The Reformation largely killed the utopian bent in interpreting Christianity (except for Calvin, who wanted a utopian state).
Islam has not had its reformation.
The rejection of the absolutisation of human wisdom lies at the heart of any Liberal democracy. Democracy is built on recognising human fallibility and the need for collective decision-making to mitigate the limitations of any person’s or group’s understanding.
This principle ensures that governance is a shared, dynamic process rather than being dominated by an elite claiming ultimate wisdom or authority, whether it comes from God or Michel Foucault.
The Ecclesiastical writer says,
“For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.”3
The Old Testament consistently portrays excessive worship of human wisdom as foolishness that leads to destruction. From the Tower of Babel to the fall of Eden, from idol worship to nation-state arrogance, humanity’s pride blinds it to divine truth.
“They have mouths but cannot speak, eyes but cannot see. They have ears but cannot hear, nor is there breath in their mouths. Those who make them will be like them, and so will all who trust in them.”4
Solomon acknowledges that human wisdom often leads to frustration and despair when disconnected from divine truth. He reflected on the arrogance of thinking that we can fully understand life’s mysteries, concluding that such efforts are like “chasing after the wind.”5
Whether it is the utopianism of Islamism or the hubris of our modern autocrats, they similarly believe that the world would be a better place if they could control speech or we could join them in worship at the altar of identity politics, and censorship of ideas they disapprove of.
Sometimes, it seems that those who create absolute binaries in environmentalism or foreign policy are full of a religious zeal that does not call itself religion. Still, they have such confidence in their positions - it is as if they were speaking the very words of God.
Zealots believe they are justified in blowing themselves up in a church in Sri Lanka, destroying oil equipment in British Columbia, or murdering 50 at a nightclub in Orlando, FL. It is the same arrogant, blind zeal, a different source.
Different songs, same band.
Conclusion
The West is at a crossroads. Its external and internal enemies capitalise on its divisions and doubts, testing its resilience as a moral force. The West, beset by hubris, pursues censorship and compelled speech—ideas that history should have taught us always end badly.
Yet, the West has faced existential crises and emerged stronger, guided by leaders with the courage to confront hard truths and inspire action.
As Churchill said, “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that count.”
For the West, the courage to reflect, rebuild, and rise again will determine whether it remains a beacon of hope or fades into history as another fallen empire.
If you found value in this article and wish to support my ongoing work, especially during my 18-month suspension, please consider leaving a tip. Your support helps me continue producing uncensored content on critical issues. If you are inebriated and simply open to irrational spending, you may also participate.
Unmoored: No longer secured to a fixed place, especially about a boat or ship untied or released from its moorings. Ex: The boat became unmoored during the storm and drifted out to sea.
Edmund Burke, an 18th-century Irish statesman and philosopher, emphasised the importance of open debate, respect for tradition and order and a healthy balance between freedom and responsibility.
