Blog Archive

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Freedom of Speech Must Mean More Than This:

I think everyone is properly appalled by what happened to Juan Williams.  Juan Williams, in the middle of saying a typically liberal, typically political correct message, that we must tolerate Muslims in our midst and not be 'bigoted,' but stand up for 'civil rights for all,' was still fired because he confessed, shamefacedly, that he did feel a little nervous on airplanes shared with muslims in fundamentalist garb.  That tiny crack in his armor of liberalism, the admission that in some deep corner of his mind, he still had sane instincts of self-preservation, was enough to be fired immediately, and be told that he was bigoted, and needed to see a psychiatrist.

Nevertheless, we are told his freedom of speech wasn't violated because being fired, and demonized, isn't the same as being thrown in jail.

However, most people are just as afraid of being fired and publicly demonized/humiliated as being thrown in jail.  If the public consequences of saying the tiniest little thing, the most unimaginably unoffensive thing in the world, can be this grievous, then who dares say anything in public?

It is stupid to say people have freedom of speech when our country has just arranged 'other means' to suppress dissent.  Extra-legal, extra-judicial tyranny is still tyranny.  A lynch mob is still tyranny.  A mafia is still tyranny.  A non-state tyrant powerful enough to deprive you of a livelihood and a reputation is just as dangerous as a state actor who can do the same.  One's life isn't worth much without a livelihood or a reputation anyway -- what good is it that the non-state actor can't take away your life when he can make your life not worth living?  Do you think anyone isn't properly cowed by these threats alone?  Do you think most people will speak freely and openly so long as bodily harm isn't threatened and they aren't thrown in jail?  Give me a break.  After the 1950's, the Soviet Union suppressed freedom of speech without ever resorting to gulags -- all they had to do was fire you and refuse to hire your kids for speaking out, and wonder of wonders, people kept quiet.  What we are seeing here isn't more freedom, it's just more efficient slavery.

Why use whips and collars when you can just use words?  Why use gulags when you can just use payrolls?  Why use guns when you can just use editorials?  We aren't being spared for the sake of liberty, or mercy, but only for the sake of efficiency.  Physical threats are crude and highly visible.  Invisible blows that leave no visible marks on our flesh are so much better.  They are cheaper to inflict, arouse less indignation, arouse less sympathy, and always allow for 'plausible deniability.'  "What are you talking about?  Everyone is completely free to speak their mind.  There are no speech rules in America.  How paranoid you are!"

But look how far we've come.  It is now 'bigoted' to even hold an irrational emotion in your heart of hearts.  You don't even have to act on it or endorse it.  Just to even feel fear around muslims dressed up in muslim fundamentalist robes and turbans while stuck helplessly on an airplane alongside them is enough.  Even a black man who feels this way is just as bigoted.  There is no escape anywhere.  If you're bigoted enough to think there might be any relation whatsoever between muslims and terrorist attacks on airplanes, you will be fired by the powers that be.  ((And by the way, yes, the firer of Juan Williams was a jew.  This case completely verifies everything I said in my previous post about jewish suppression of our freedom of speech.))  It is no excuse that all terror attacks on airplanes are done by muslims.  It's no excuse that we're currently at war with muslim terrorists who are trying to blow up our airplanes every day.  It's no excuse that we've uncovered multiple al qaeda plots to blow up our airplanes since 9/11.  The truth is no excuse.  Feeling any hint of fear around muslims, no matter how much evidence there is that muslims pose a heightened risk while riding an airplane, is now evil and intolerable in our brave new America.
 
Are we really the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Can a people terrified of speaking their mind on any subject, about anything, still be considered the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Has any American mainstream politician spoken as freely or bravely as Geert Wilders?  Has any American mainstream pundit spoken as freely or bravely as Thilo Sarrazin?  Has any American president called muslim rioters 'scum,' or said 'multiculturalism has utterly failed?'  Sarkozy and Merkel have said those lines in their countries.  Geert Wilders is the head of the most popular party in the Netherlands, with around 1/4 of the country's vote.  Europe is saying things Americans dare not, will not, cannot say.  Is it because we are more enlightened and less bigoted than Europeans?  The polls don't say that.  The polls show that people, when speaking anonymously, feel the exact same way about gays, muslims, illegal immigrants, etc.  But nothing is ever said publicly at the same level as what is said in Europe -- a continent dominated by hate speech laws with tons of political prisoners currently rotting away in jail.

The only conclusion is that Europeans are inefficient and ineffectual at suppressing freedom of speech.  Americans are so much better.  They have figured out the perfect 'soft power' recipe that pretends to have no authority and no power at all.  Why put people on trial when you can just summarily fire them without any appeal or defense?  How easy it is to slander and destroy your political enemies -- just look at Mel Gibson's inability to land a cameo role in Hangover 2.  Why go through the effort, and risk the failure, of putting people in jail for their crimes against the state speech code?  Juan Williams, Rick Sanchez, and all the rest learned their lesson much faster, and such public executions keep the fear of God in the hearts of all Americans everywhere who thought to say something similar of their own.  It is just like what Mao said, that if you kill 1 in every 10,000 people, the other 9,999 are properly terrified and don't cause any trouble.  Everyone fired for speaking his mind has a cascading effect, a numbing silencing tyrannical effect, on all Americans everywhere.  These firings and demonizings are meant to be 'teachable moments' for the American public.  "Look what this guy said and look what happened to him.  Let this be a lesson to you."

Making martyrs out of free speakers is counterproductive.  that might actually inspire more people to admire the man for his steadfast adherence to his beliefs.  It's so much better to humiliate and then ignore the man, so that no one can rally to his cause or be inspired by his sacrifice.  If America wanted to crucify Jesus today, how slick it would be!  No blood, no torture, no death, no public spectacle.  Just a suggestion that he see a 'psychiatrist,' some ironic jokes at his expense by the local satirist, and a sniffing condescension that everything he says is beneath the 'intelligent's' notice.  No religion could have been nurtured from such a mundane, banal thought control.  Who can gain intellectual traction in such a world?  And how, pray tell, does a democracy function when the people can no longer share ideas with each other, can no longer compare notes, can no longer express themselves, and can no longer hope to influence others?  Wasn't the whole idea that the people were wise enough to come up with their own solutions on how to run our country?  If no one dares speak about any issue because they're afraid of offending someone and getting fired, won't democracy itself fall apart?  Does anyone think a deliberately misinformed, muzzled public, that cannot compare notes and cannot learn much less speak the truth, is still actually 'sovereign?'

What we are seeing today is the slow and steady shredding of the original intention of our Constitution's founders.  The letter of the law is followed, but the spirit of the law is betrayed over and over.  The entire point of freedom of speech was so that truth could be spoken to power.  If truth can no longer be spoken to power, if people can no longer overthrow their would-be tyrants by sharing and comparing feelings and notes for fear of being fired or demonized, then freedom of speech is meaningless.  We weren't given these rights just because they were abstractly pretty when printed on a wall.  They were meant to ensure our ability to communicate with each other, and most importantly, arrive at true conclusions at the end of the day.  If we can no longer do this, then we have lost our freedom of speech in fact, regardless of whether we have lost it in theory.  Our slavers, our tyrants, are perfectly willing to give us theoretical rights, so long as we in fact are their slaves.  I think anyone would take that deal.  What dupes we are for agreeing to it though!  When is enough ever enough?  Will Americans ever insist on their right to actually hold and express opinions, rather than a useless, meaningless right to not be thrown in jail?  Is Geert Wilders, facing jail time, on trial, really more constrained in his freedom of speech than we are?  Why are we less free and less brave than he is?

I do not think that all Americans, on the turn of a dime, suddenly became servile cowards, and this is why we never say anything as radical as Geert Wilders or Thilo Sarrazin.  Genetics doesn't work that way.  Someone has upset and hijacked our national character.  Someone has upset and hijacked the spirit of our society.  Someone is hard at work today, and every day, making us servile cowards, against our instincts, against our nature, against our wishes.  These people must be removed from any position of power, and our laws must be chagned to make sure none of their tricks work again:

"No one can be fired for expressing a political or religious opinion.  Henceforth, people can only be fired for work-related issues.  No one can be insulted, mislabeled, attributed false motives or feelings, or otherwise character assassinated in the press for expressing a political or religious opinion.  If someone wishes to discredit an opponent, they may only use quotes and labels provided directly by their opponent's self-description, facts, and logic.  Everything else will be considered slander and punished accordingly."

If we are serious about freedom of speech, democracy, rule of, by, and for the people, or any of America's founding principles, the old bill of rights can't save us.  Liberals have already found ways to circumvent and neutralize them all.  Only a new, more thorough, more modern bill of rights can restore Americans to their God-given, inalienable rights we fought so hard for in the past.

No comments: