|
|||||||||||||
|
By Punkerslut
I have written an essay before, defending the right of every individual to use their voice to express the questions of their mind, the concerns of their heart. No person, regardless of their confessed religion, regardless of their duty to any political party, and regardless of whatever ideology or creed they call their own -- no person should ever be denied the right to speak what they feel, what they believe, what their judgments of the world are. It is this freedom, this right to opinion, that so many have claimed for everyone, yet have found specific cases where they do not believe in liberty. The United States Constitution clearly dictates a separation of church and state, yet the congressmen and senators of this country pledge their allegiance to a nation "under god." Such blatant hypocrisy and contradiction, it only requires someone with a conviction equaled by their ignorance -- and so we have a generalization of the ruling class that finally seems fitting. The First Amendment of the American Constitution claims for all citizens the right to speak their minds, but again and again, this opinion has been repressed, crushed under the feet of a blood thirsty juggernaut In the late 1700's and early 1800's, we have the witch hunts. Every oddity about a person's character became a reason to suspect that they adhered to the dark, Satanic crafts -- and religion, again, served the foul purposes of iniquitors. In the late 1800's and early 1900's, we have the rise of Comstock. Any writings that dealt with human sexuality were repressed, and humans were kept in silent ignorance. The 1900's gave rise to the Red Scare and McCarthy's denunciations of the Communist Party, as well as the Black Listing of suspects. A individual's personal affiliations and creeds were now subject to government interference, and the human conscience remained in the grasp of a tyrant. Every effort to fight back was suppressed, but there was no humane person who didn't fight back. Wherever there has been an unpopular opinion, there has always been a government to oppress its followers. When a person is allowed to think and speak freely, then I will call their environment a living Democracy. It is true, I cannot always defend the conclusions of their own heart -- the verdict of the jury that is their mind. If a person comes to the conclusion that Adolf Hitler was right and that Nazi ideology is truth, I will stand by their right to make that decision. I will stand by it so long as the blood in my veins continues to flow. The advancement of science and understanding will only be hampered if restrictions are put on what the mind may study. If it is true that humaneness is the natural creed of the heart, that there are no gods to plague the dreams of men, that the tale of the Ark is no more than a myth, and that it is cruel to kill an animal to consume it -- if these things are true, then to censor any other opinion certainly does not aid your cause. Let the mind be free. There can be no greater action to ensure the happiness of every person. But there may be arguments, that if we allow true liberty to exist, people will join the Nazi ranks, and that we ought to ban any literature or talk if it promotes White Supremacy, or whatever vile doctrine. Fascism can never work for the people. The attitude that, "Fascism can work, as long as it is working for us," is flawed. Every person has their own mind, and their right to study any creed, any religion, any tenet of political theory, this right ought to forever remain unabridged. Disagreement comes from the fear of the potential of intelligence combined with liberty. Every person has the right to think and say what they will, to weigh the evidence for any claim and make their own conclusions. This is a right I will grant to any person, no matter what conclusions they come to. I must reiterate this: I believe in the right to opinion, no matter what the opinion. It has been the habit of many a past writer to so vaguely yet powerful stand by every person's right to opinion, but then when the evil beast of Partisan Politics caught their attention, or when something so foul came about that they denied anyone the right to research it. Well I say this is wrong. No person has the right to disallow another person's right to knowledge. No person can say it is a crime to believe in anything, no matter how "vicious" the "civilized world" believes it. If today we burn the books written by Nazis, it is done with no less ignorance than when the Nazis burned books of their opposition. There is a trend in this, and the trend is oppression. Again, I will say it: every person can believe what they want, and draw whatever conclusions they desire from what they observe. Anyone who has read my words can find it no difficult proposition to believe that I admire the writings of Robert Green Ingersoll, but he, too, had made a declaration for the right to opinion, only later to repeal certain groups from having that opinion.... To quote him... "Only a few years ago there was a great awakening of the human mind. Men began to inquire by what right a crowned robber made them work for him? The man who asked this question was called a traitor. Others asked by what right does a robed hypocrite rule my thought? Such men were called infidels. The priest said, and the king said, where is this spirit of investigation to stop? They said then and they say now, that it is dangerous for man to be free. I deny it. Out on the intellectual sea there is room enough for every sail. In the intellectual air there is space enough for every wing. "The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a traitor to himself and to his fellowmen." ["The Liberty of All," by Robert Green Ingersoll, 1877.] It is not abnormal -- when we read these words, we instantly find ourselves full of inspiration, of peace, of tranquility. Still, beyond these natural emotions, we find something more: an empathic admiration of the author -- we understand what they are saying, why they are saying it, and we agree wholeheartedly. Much of Ingersoll's writings are like this: sensitive to the dualistic nature of man's heart, understanding of concerns just as much as addressing the emotional lust of a man's mind. But then, when a person reads of the other writings of Ingersoll, they find a wholly different opinion on the matter of the right to opinion. Speaking of the cruelty enacted on certain political parties, Colonel Ingersoll said...
No person who believes in freedom will find inspiration in these words, and all who understand the basic precepts of logic and reason will find Ingersoll to be contradicting himself. In one passage, he wrote "Out on the intellectual sea there is room enough for every sail. In the intellectual air there is space enough for every wing." He didn't include that, as far as the intellectual air goes, Democratic wings were unfit for flight. He didn't write that, on the intellectual sea, there isn't enough space for non-Republican sails. In his heart, he believed in freedom of speech, but in his mind, he denied it. Again, "From the bottom of my heart I despise the publishers of obscene literature. Below them there is no depth of filth." [Robert Green Ingersoll, letter to the Boston Journal, on March 18, 1878.] I still hold admiration for Ingersoll and many of the values he held, but I hold in unrelenting contempt and disappointment that he opposed freedom of literature -- that he believed no minds should exist unless chains, too exist. It is sort of a matter of maturity. When we fall in love with someone, an idol or hero, and then we find something about them that stands in contradiction with our own values -- do will still stand by them or abandon them wholly? In these matters, we must disapprove of what they did that we abhor, but still concur that their positive qualities are worthy of admiration. Often times, when I debate Christians, they disbelieve in the qualities of rape, brutality, and murder, but when I show them how the Bible literally condones such actions, they are unwavering in their devotion to the vicious book. In this nation, this land of the United States, it is preached by every demagogue and believed by every patriot that the foundation for this country is a charter for freedom, a paper called the Constitution. The founders of this country are hailed as liberators. There is but one founder I hold admiration for: Thomas Paine, who has been the source of least inspiration by the government. Paine differed from the other founders: he didn't own slaves, he was imprisoned for opposing the Death Penalty, he was constantly exiled on account of his opinions. But it is still believed by people today that this image of Paine was shared by the other founders. This is but a treacherous lie. One law that was passed at the beginning of the Revolutionary War....
The Gestapo existed hundreds of years previously to development of National Socialism and the concentration camps of Germany. They were Americans. They received payment from the state. They were given authorization to detain any person of their liking. The idea that they didn't abuse their power is ridiculous. Furthermore, the idea that their power was intrinsically cruel and brutal can hardly be denied, but I will not go into detail here on a defense of humaneness and compassion to those who defend the government's powers -- in this paper, it is my purpose to expound a short history of the struggle for the Right to Opinion. It would be highly unjust, though, to accuse the United States government of being the only patron of state terrorism. In every land that has had a ruler that was not the people, in every region where a man has said "I am lord" and those around him believed and supported him -- these places are not naive to the terrors of a police state. The U.S. government was no different than any other in its rise. To those, though, who believe that the above quoted passage may simply be a fluke of irrational thinking among leaders, I here quote again from the Journal of Congress...
Permission and recommendation to "apprehend and secure" those "persons who have in their general conduct and conversation evinced a disposition inimical to the cause of America," -- this is the very definition of a police state. The founders of the USA didn't take any slow strides when it came to instituting a Totalitarianism. Every precept of this resolution by the government has the same roots as those governments which our schools teach against. There is hypocrisy and ignorance, attempting to keep the public in perpetual darkness about the past deeds of this horrific nation. No school text book writes of these lies, and why would they? The books about America are typically entitled such idiotic names, as "History of a Free Nation." Perhaps, though, some will think that two laws against liberty and truth are a fluke. I here quote again from the Journal of Congress...
And so, every jail cell was filled, every home was searched, and no heart was left feeling more than dissatisfied with the government. This was done so that future leaders of the government could "spread their freedom and liberty" to such nations as Vietnam, Cuba, Colombia, and typically any nation that could harbor the vicious conditions of sweat factories and cheap labor. The government boasted so much of its track record, of liberty and justice, that it literally transformed into a Public Relations operation, only veiling the true agenda of the ruling class. There may be more doubts, though, to the questionable character of the founders of the United States. They may have passed these resolutions, they have made these foul laws, they may have done everything that would offend just men and women, but did they actually act on these laws? There was a man named David Franks, who was living in the colonies and wrote to England. His letter was apprehended and read by the authorities. He had written that the colonies were becoming disheartened and sick of the war. To this end, Congress passed a resolution that inasmuch as the said letter showed a disposition inimical to the liberties of the United States, Major General Arnold be requested to cause the said David Franks to be forthwith arrested, put in jail and confined till the further order of Congress. (Jour. Cong., vol. 3, P. 96 and 97.) Thomas Harriott was called before a Committee of Safety of New York -- such a light and happy way to put it, "Committee of Safety" -- , and there convicted of having refused to receive in payment the Continental bills, due to their dwindling worth. The Continental Congress passed the following resolution...
I shall present another law passed by this government, allegedly "formed on freedom"...
A Totalitarian, Police State would be entirely incomplete unless there was access for the inquisitors to military and other forms of advanced terror. Another resolution passed by the United States government...
In this previous act, troops aren't only given the right to search and burn down houses -- they are ordered to by their commanding officers. Perhaps when the United States entered into a war to keep Vietnam as a colony, it wasn't the first time that the U.S. military acted upon such brutal and cruel methods. Perhaps, though, the words I am offering towards the US government, and the idea of government in general, are harsh, and perhaps sometimes even over emphasized. If there is one thing I believe it, it is that truth is better than a lie, compassion has more value in one day than tyranny will have in a century, and that freedom of opinion is essential for any person to know happiness. There is more I believe, but not enough to be expanded upon in such a short paper. I must say this, though: I believe in Anarchy. To this end, I mean that when it comes to the affairs of society, it ought to be governed by society -- not a select group of people, or person, no matter how they came to power, who control all of the people. An population-elected dictator varies little from a military-elected dictator. I believe that no law should come into action without the public voting it into action. I believe that a true leader will have no more influence than the argument he presents, and that in the end, after hearing the different speakers and different leaders on the matter, the public still vote for the decision of one matter over another. The right to vote on matters of concern to society -- a right I wish would be realized globally. Here, I quote two resolutions from the Continental Congress...
In a just and fair society, voting means that when a matter of social significance comes to hand, the public votes for a resolution to this matter. The resolution that had the most votes is then adopted. In this process, in no way is the minority voting population ever punished for their opinion. In the election where George Bush came to power, would it seem fair to terrorize the majority, since most people in this nation voted against him, yet the military kept him in power? In the above quoted passage, the government tramples upon the ideal that is held most sacred to every freeman: the right to vote, without punishment of what they vote. Furthermore, to compound its crime upon humanity, the government has threatened any person who would defend those who voted with their conscience! If its jurisdiction was slightly wider, perhaps legislation would be passed against the dreams of these citizens, disallowing them from having any visual conception of something unAmerican or anti-American. I have no doubt that the government would breach into the conscience of every citizen, if only it were more practical. But alas, unfortunately, it must resort to the antiquated torture chambers. President Theodore Roosevelt, who once called the only Abolitionist founding father a "filthy atheist," once said...
It is true. As we become more and more observant of the ways in which our leaders think and have thought, we become more and more revolted by the system of government established. The general law regarding Anarchy reads as follows...
Oppression of political uprising is common among any ruling class. We find that it is not their intent to serve the community, but for the community to serve them. New York Penal Laws 160 and 161 (1902 criminal anarchy statute); upheld by US Supreme Court in 1925 in Gitlow versus New York (NY 268, US 652) "made it an offense to advocate, advise, or teach, by word or writing, 'the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force or violence...'" Due to this law, it became a felony to join or support any group with an ideology of Anarchism. California Statute 281 (1919 criminal syndicalism law); upheld by US Supreme Court in 1926 in Whitney versus California (CA 274, US 357, 371). This law prohibited "advocating, teaching or aiding and abetting the commission of crime, sabotage..." for the purpose of "accomplishing a change in industrial ownership or control, or effecting any political change." Essentially, those liberties which we cherished and loved so dearly, the government deems it necessary to strangle them. The types of laws enacted against Anarchists were also enacted against Communists and the Communist Party. To quote one law, one regulation that passed under the "banner of freedom"...
Through a lengthy disposition, the powers that be decided that the Communist party and its members were a threat to the nation. Could it possibly be that Communism believes in a more equal distribution of income -- that workers should receive more pay (if not all the pay) from working, whereas the investors ought to receive none? Could it also possibly due to the fact that a large sum of political campaign contributions come from the wealthiest industries and companies, that legalized bribery is just an intrinsic concept to government? The following regulation was passed regarding Communists...
There are two quotes I would like to compare. From this quoted passage, we have: "In determining membership or participation in the Communist Party... the jury... shall consider evidence... as to whether the accused person... has written, spoken or in any other way communicated by signal, semaphore, sign, or in any other form of communication orders, directives, or plans of the organization." This seems straight forward enough: it is illegal to speak if the words you are conjuring are sympathetic to the cause of Communism. Allow me to quote something else: "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." It is a quote from the United States Constitution, whose writers were responsible for giving orders on detaining and arresting any person who rose suspicion of their character. It will be no difficulty, with the evidence I submitted, that the leaders of this nation do not, and have not, ever believed in any idea of the idea of freedom -- and if they did, they remained impotent in acting upon these convictions. To those who believe that we are no longer living in a Police State, that somehow magically, the idea of slavery which has been embedded in government just disappeared, it takes little more examining recent protests. On September 27, 2002, 649 of 1,500 and 2,000 protesters were arrested while protesting the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Several protesters had to go to the hospital for police brutality. Police outfitted in riot gear rounded up protesters at Freedom Plaza and forced them onto 6 buses, where they were taking to a DC Holding Center. "These are people trying to protest against a system that represses people around the world, and their response is repression on the streets here too," said Flora Little, 38, from Richmond, Virginia. [Source: "DC Police Crack Down on Anti-Capitalist Protests," Sep 27, 8:38 pm ET, By Laura MacInnis, Reuters.] In many of these incidents, if a protester is carrying an address book, it is apprehended -- and I'm sure it's purely for non-terrorist reasons. I do not need to draw correlations between these events and those which took place to the Fascist countries of Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, or Stalin's Russia. It is already obvious that the government is intrinsically opposed to the interests of the people. What the United States government does is horrifying, not because it is identical to the actions of the Nazi storm troopers, but rather because it is cruel, brutal, and vicious -- holding no remorse for the stockpile of bodies, the casualties in a losing war for freedom. Perhaps, in this essay, I expressed too many anti-government sentiments, but this were only my natural reactions to censorship. And perhaps it is quite true that censorship is greatest in those nations led by a leader, and least in those nations led by the people. Whatever the case, I shall state it once more: I believe in a person's right to speak and think as they wish, regardless of the opinions of other men. I believe that the mind is a sacred thing, deserving of rights. To be able to choose any author to read -- this has been one right that has been infringed upon countless times. It seems almost as though it is not just banning books that would stir political unrest, but with the bombardment of poor quality music and literature that are advertised, it seems that inspiration and creativity are looked down upon -- that anything that can give one's soul a glimpse at liberty and happiness is dangerous for the public. I deny this. In the constellation of history, the star I gaze upon with hope is the one of liberty. To this end, I will defend every person's right to speak and think as their mind directs them. The ability to capture your soul's words in to a song is a rare one, so I end this paper with the lyrics to a song...
Punkerslut,
|
