If you want to know who is really a threat to the status quo look at the persecution factor.
I was watching a clip the other day with a couple of guys “warning” the public concerning Wikileaks and Julian Assange. After a while, one of them, the guy who runs the “Corbett Report” said the problem with, all this data, or information, was it’s not necessarily truth.
I have some sort of automatic alert response to things I need to understand deeper, like a little chime goes off
I usually write it down so I don’t forget it… I just thought about it as I worked on other things and put it together with another thing I’ve been looking at for a while.
First: The Wikileaks deal is the most important thing happening right now – by far.
We hear all the time about – What Makes This Country Great. Have you ever thought about that? Here’s something that’s often spouting along side – Nowhere do people have this kind of opportunity. In fact – The land of opportunity – has become a kind of catch phrase for people selling their ideas.
Here, in “the land of opportunity” men and women can work and become whatever they want to be. True? What jumps out at me when I hear this is “Work – To Become Something”. Is that what makes this country great? You, and everybody else, gets to work… and become something?
I see this is a big part of the problem we face today… People everywhere are working there asses off to protect themselves from whatever they perceive as a threat to their being able to work and become something. This “Ideal” has become the focus of activists from many of the varied camps.
There are a lot of different opinions as to how this “work and become something” would best be set up. But it’s the basic theme for most activist banners. This has developed into what I think is a really dangerous situation. People from all political ideologies are fighting to coerce the government to execute their ideas on how best to create conditions for everyone to – Work and become something.
“The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This statement means that people are guaranteed the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.
The first amendment guarantees that anyone may speak in public. The first amendment also guarantees that Congress cannot prohibit such an action from taking place. Throughout history there have been organizations and individuals that have differed from the majority in their views and beliefs.
In the United States, these organizations have the right to meet and announce their beliefs, no matter how controversial these beliefs may be. Malcolm X was free, under the Constitution, to deliver his views, even though they were anti-white and antigovernmental. Only an assassin’s bullet could end his freedom. The Ku Klux Klan, an organization that promotes anti-black, anti-Catholic, and anti-Jewish sentiments, is still allowed to parade and speak in public. So, could Adolf Hitler speak his views at Nazi rallies in America? Yes, and be within his rights to do so under the Constitution.
The freedom of speech and expression belongs to everyone from the president down to America’s youth.
At the beginning of World War II, Americans were expected to support their country in the war effort. On January 9, 1942, the West Virginia State Board of Education passed a law that made saluting the flag “a regular part of activities in the public schools.” The act also stated that “refusal to salute the flag be regarded as an act of insubordination, and shall be dealt with accordingly.””
Refusal to salute the flag to be regarded as an act of insubordination? Is that freedom? This is from 1942. Wouldn’t the – West Virginia State Board of Education – be considered an arm of government? So can this governmental body say that not doing something is insubordination?
According to me – This is where the problem lies. People don’t understand the meaning of freedom. Freedom is just an idea – Until it’s put into some constitutional form. Freedom, in reality – Is something that really needs to be understood at the deepest level. It is the most important concept in living as “The People of Earth”. If and when the people of Earth adopt freedom as – the most important thing there is – we will begin to solve most all the problems we are dealing with.
This is easy to understand once we really understand individual freedom. It is the lack of “Individual Freedom” that causes all problems stemming from public policy and government. That word – Policy – is very important to the conversation.
English has two distinct and completely unrelated words policy. The one meaning ‘plan of action’ (14th c.) comes via Old French policie from Latin polītīa ‘civil administration’, source also of English police and the now archaic polity (16th c.). This in turn came from Greek polīteíā, a derivative of pólis ‘city’ (source of English politics). But the insurance policy (16th c.) comes via French police ‘document’ and Provençal polissa from medieval Latin apodissa, an alteration of Latin apodīxis ‘proof, demonstration’, which in turn was acquired from Greek apódeixis, a compound noun derived ultimately from the verb deiknúnai ‘show’.
Date of Origin 16th c.
Politics is etymologically the art of ‘civil administration’. It is an English rendering of Greek tà polītiká ‘affairs of state’. Greek polītikós ‘of the city or state, civil, political’ was a derivative of polī́tēs ‘citizen’, which in turn came from pólis ‘city, state’ (source also of English police and policy and related to Sanskrit pūr ‘stronghold, fortified place’). It passed into English via Latin polīticus and Old French politique as politic (15th c.), which originally meant ‘political’ as well as ‘judicious’ (political was coined in the 16th century).
Police, polite (society), politics, policy … all dealing with, in general, people (governments) in societies, establishing public policy.
The societal rules
Do we make these according to the ideal of individual freedom as upper most important? When you think about “The way things ought to be” do you consider them in the context of individual freedom?
Here’s what I see happening in the louder activist community: We want to promote a policy based on our ideas about what’s best for society. So they all work separately to influence – The rule makers, the law brokers, the administration, the courts, congressman, senators and the people of the nation. They tirelessly and passionately fight for their causes – there are thousands of them out there – fighting.
Here’s the title of an activist website “Truth, Justice, and the American Way – Intellectual activism in defense of the American way of life”. Doesn’t that sound ideal? I mean, who could argue that this is a good thing to speak out for and promote? But there is a question that needs asked, “What Is It” …? What is Truth? What is justice? What is this “American Way of Life”? The answer is, of course, it depends on who you ask. So how could it ever be implemented?
Coming back to the – Wikileaks’ document release – not standing up to the truth test and therefore being something other than “a good thing”. Truth is what causes people to join adventures like witch hunts and off shore torture chambers. The current system for justice has Assange arrested and catching rain water a crime. The American Way is what – To, work and become something? How will all these varied ideas, concepts, wants, don’t wants and “truth” ever translate into a workable public policy?
If you create a way for whistle blowers to get information to the public, and you get that information to the public, you have done so because you have that individual freedom. As long as there is freedom, there is no way for “Truth, Justice, the American Way or any other Intellectual activism”, to gain control over your life by influencing public policy. This is where real freedom can stop the progression to tyranny.
When people really understand and choose “Individual Freedom” they must see there are some freedoms they are denied. In short, I don’t have the ethical freedom to make you pledge allegiance to a flag because that would infringe on your individual freedom. It’s hard enough to keep ourselves free, we don’t need to do anything else politically. If, whenever a politically associated idea popped up in a persons mind it was made to pass the individual freedom test this multitude of problems we’ve created wouldn’t have been possible.
If anybody is interested in doing the best for people in this country all they have to do is concentrate on and promote Individual Freedom. But first they may want to learn about it. Many causes people support and defend today have nothing to do with promoting freedom. Individual Freedom isn’t all fun and games.