Beyond the Cusp

September 2, 2017

Free Speech Has Real and Legal Limits

 

Most of us past the eighth grade understand that one cannot legally scream “Fire” in a crowded dark movie theater as doing so causes a threat to human life. Another example of restricted speech is one would be advised not to scream or even whisper in an audible voice “Kill the President,” even if it be the current President. Speech calling for the overthrow of the government or the Constitutional form of government would also get you placed before a judge rather quickly. One is not permitted speech which threatens to do physical bodily harm, cause irreparable harm to one’s personal property, to incite other forms of harm including financial, to make false accusations, make false crime report, make slanderous accusations or commentary, and a number of other forms of speech which have been specifically named as illegal due to damages or threats they relate. These are obvious forms of speech which are not permissible. But these are all spelled out in criminal and other codes and are not what all the screaming, yelling and protesting is all about now, is it. So, what idiocy can we add to these discussions? Well, let us see what we can come up with. Freedom of Speech is easily defined that universally, all sides and views will have equal access to the media and to all forms of communication with the same identical application of law prohibiting talk of revolution, violence, harm to any group, public safety and protection of the governing entities. That is the easy definition and it only gets complicated when a society passes from total free speech to limited free speech where they now disallow hate speech.

 

Our look into this phenomenon will use the United States as the basis for the attempt to use speech codes as a weapon. This has already been going on for quite some time but we will try and be brief. The attempt to use speech as a weapon has long been a known manner of taking over the political system. This type of takeover has been covered in science fiction with books such as 1984, where history and language were redefined in order to support the state and Fahrenheit 451 where all knowledge of books was banned and the title is the flash-point for paper where it will spontaneously combust. In both of these literary masterpieces, the governance was fascist though they would never admit it but were very happy to define their enemies as such. The limitations for the good of the people as to what speech is approved is a common thread in the imposition of a dictatorial fascist state upon the people and it almost always starts either with a military styled coup and the assassination or execution of all the political leadership which stood in opposition or with the takeover of the language and the history rewriting both to favor the new leadership and to exclude any and all other groups placing them beyond the protection of the language enforcers.

 

1984 and Fahrenheit 451

 

First, we will examine the wordsmith limitations where the dictatorial fascists start by defining terminology in order to limit and frame permissible debate. This is initially done once the elementary education has been placed in the control of the group initiating a political takeover. At this phase, the limitations on language are framed as making conversation polite and the removal of hate-filled words and terms. The teachers are taught a new and “better” teaching method which will make students learning ability improved and their education more productive. This new and better system replaces phonics where students are taught the sounds made by individual letters and then sound out the worlds using such sounds. The exceptions such as “enough” pronounced “ih-nuhf” are then taught by use of whole word recognition. This method the student learns to recognize certain exceptions and adds others as they are encountered and otherwise has a means to learn any word they see through the application of phonics. The new method is called Whole Word Recognition where every word is taught as a set of meaningless symbols randomly chosen to represent the word. Spelling is considered less important as it is only important that you have you own representation with which to identify each word taught. This method will limit the majority of students vocabularies to a large percentage of the words they are taught and they will have little if any ability to learn new words with any ease as they will be unable to sound out new words thus their spelling will have no real meaning or purpose other than to differentiate the word from other words. This limitation on vocabulary is the first and largest step to control of language as if certain words are not taught, they cease to be within the lexicon of the language and become unusable and, when used by more learned people, they are meaningless as either the spoken or written word.

 

A corollary to whole word recognition is that these words approved for teaching also will only have the definitions that are taught when the word is introduced. The use of these two simple steps accomplishes two of the goals of the language fascists, the debate can only be made with the terms taught if it is to make sense, and certain thoughts become obsolete if their terms are not introduced. How can one defend what many consider a simple and basic idea in governance, “liberty” if the word itself is never taught and no definition is given outside reference material? With the word not taught, as an example, then it will not find much use on social media, the place where the debates now are engaged. Once excluded from there the word “liberty” becomes a high word used only by the most erudite and educated amongst the population. When they use the word, they must then define the term if their readers are to understand what the term, a strange and foreign term, means for its use to make sense. Such a restriction on that one word will lead to even the educated avoiding its use because of the clumsiness its use entails. Thus, Whole Word Recognition has established a limitation on debate and a limit on knowledge. Now the rest of the debate and language modification can proceed.

 

Once the vocabulary has been modified and restricted comes the next step, a direct challenge to the definition of free speech. Now freedom of speech will be transformed into freedom from offence. This is where defining “hate speech” becomes the central field of battle in the war over language. With the usable words now limited, this debate will favor the leftist or fascist dumbing down of language, whichever group is committing this, in our minds, crime against the society. The initial entry into hate speech is usually initiated by those attempting to limit debate and redefine concepts making those they disapprove of forbidden or even made illegal for use. Initially they target obvious hate speech often going after supremacist groups, Nazis and known hate groups. They restrict terminology often defining terms using a single letter such as the n- word or the l-word. These words become unacceptable in society and with little fuss. Now that the easy to disallow words are ostracized and cut from acceptable use, they will go after other words and make them unacceptable until they reach a point where they have entire concepts refuted from use. Such terms today would include “Islamic terrorism” which must be removed, as it is Islamophobic and hateful to peaceful Muslims.

 

Why it is offensive to people ,as it is obviously not being applied, is never explained; the thought police simply make the claim and scream from the highest heights making any use of the term unacceptable even when it actually applies. This removes entire thoughts from acceptable debate. How does one debate even “radical and extremist Islamic terrorism” if the entire thought of Islamic terrorism is disallowed. If there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism, then there actually cannot be radical or extremist Islamic terrorism as that would be a form of Islamic terrorism. Now it must be considered to be radical extremist terrorism and no singular group is responsible, just radical extremists. The next step is to define those groups who are opposing the leftist ideas as radical and extremist such as has been done to religious Christians and evangelical Christians. Now when there is an act of terror, those making excuses for Islamic terrorism can shift the debate to which group is likely to have committed each individual act of terrorism? By the time an actual group has been identified, if it is not to the likings of the leftists, meaning it was committed by one of their protected groups, then that act of terror is old news and no longer needs to be discussed. If the terror was committed by one of their target groups then it remains news of the day for as long as humanly possible and is brought up then every time there is any reference to their protected group as proof that there exists other groups amongst the unprotected who do the same thing.

 

This type of debate framing and representative exacting is a form of deception that has long been used against Israel. There are, and we are not going to give them the dignity of reference, a relative few number of Israeli Jewish terror attacks which have been perpetrated over the years. Unlike the heroes martyrdom welcome that the Arab Islamic terrorists (we are anything but PC here at BTC) receive after their murder sprees, we do not name youth camps, streets, parks or soccer tournaments after these criminal elements, we try them and place them in prisons for extensive lengths of time. We disapprove of such acts and they are known to be an anathema to our society. Still, in any discussion with the protectors of the Arab murderers of Israelis, and not all their victims are Jews despite their care to make it such, these few exceptions are almost always waved as evidence that the Israelis, often simply referred to as the Jews, commit terror as well. These exceptions get so much play that they become well known acts while the terrorism against Israel becomes so common that it stops being news and is accepted by the left wing media as normal. That is how this part of one debate has been stretched into absurdity.

 

The next step is to control the media such that reporting is limited to the useable word list. What many do not know is that there is an actual word list of approved terminology for use by print media and is also applied often to spoken media. This list is compiled by our good friends at the New York Times and is utilized almost industry wide. With the media now toting the new speech codes which disallow hate speech, reporting becomes political. Now no terror attack can be considered to have been perpetrated by a Muslim but must be attributed to every other extremist group until proven to have been committed by a Muslim. So what if the assailant is seen on YouTube screaming “Allah Akbar” while stabbing people in a mall, this is not proof of anything as the perpetrator could be a fanatical Christian trying to make Islam appear violent. After all, we all know that Islam is the religion of peace and presumably, Christianity is the religion of violence, Crusades being the proof we hear incessantly. Once the media and entertainment have been brought on board with the new language, it is time for the final battle for speech regulation, forbidding hate speech.

 

Should hate speech be illegal? Well, actually it already is but the definition is to narrow for our friends on the left. It is against the law to threaten other groups with violence, damage to property or other extreme harms. Basically, one may not threaten an illegal act. There is your objective and straightforward definition of hate speech. But we can do better say the purveyors of approved language, we can make language so benign that it will never offend anyone, and there you have the switch from “Freedom of Speech” to “Freedom from Offense.” This is where things get tricky as now we need to define what exactly hate speech is. We soon learn that Islamic terrorism is hate speech and Jewish terrorism along with Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and virtually every other religious terrorism is not hate speech. That is an extreme example and of course should it be proven that an act of terror was committed by a Muslim, then the person will be described as mentally unstable and not representative of Islam. President Obama often explained that the Islamic State was not Islam. President George W. Bush initiated the widespread use of defining Islam as the religion of peace. Both of these instances were examples of how to frame speech to control thought. It is also an example that leftists come from both major political parties in the United States. One needs remember the political lines which can be used to represent political thought, the falsified “left vs. right” against the more honest “statist vs. individualist” as shown below. The formal name used by many Republicans is “Compassionate Conservative” which means Progressive individual or leftist.

 

Political Spectrum Taught Versus Actual

 

The problem with banning hate speech is, who gets to define what is and is not hate speech. The leftists tend to reserve that right to themselves and will suggest a panel of academics from respected English Studies departments. This is a fraud as these departments are almost without exception leftists themselves and has been proven in study after study that college and university professors contribute almost exclusively to the Democrat Party and not the Republican Party. The only exception is often in the hard sciences where occasionally balance can be found, if such actually does exist. The controversy in the United States only recently was brought to a head and by the person at the center of all the controversy, President Trump. The new President unlike anyone before him has torn the lid off of the partisan media and academia and thrown open the debate on whether or not these leanings are healthy for the United States in specific and the Western World as a whole. President Trump revealed how the news was massaged and often completely turned upon its head to support a leftist worldview and how the media would go so far as to invent stories to support their leftist politics. The problem is after President Trump this tear in the disguise will be sewn closed and made to appear that what occurred was but a hiccup, a blip in the reporting and the world will be lulled back to sleep. Well, that is what these leftist controlled groups are praying will happen, we will need wait to see.

 

In the end, once one side controls the media, entertainment, academia and social media then they have the youth and thus the future. There is a flaw in their plans and it hits every protected and coddled youth eventually, it is called life out in the real world. The initial shock to these coddled youths come when they find out their college degree will often only earn them a starting salary of $35,000 per year. Many were expecting a much larger payout as their professors painted for them a world where their special nature and specific wonderfulness would be treasured and their special nature would be seen by all and they would be lauded with money receiving a six or even seven figure income. What a shock, and then there is always that first paycheck where there are all these terms such as FICA and other taxes and healthcare deduction and the paycheck has a net salary which is quite distressing. This shock comes to those who did not hold summer jobs or need to work after school as many did from my not so exclusive neighborhood. We had seen our pay eaten up by government asides and taxes. These muggings can make one think that maybe there are other things the professors lied about. Life is a great wake-up call which eventually gets to most of us and makes some of us think, often for the first time.

 

Still, if the leftists can force making their definitions of hate speech stick and be illegal, which they are very close to succeeding, then the war will be almost lost. With limits on permissible speech placed by law, then conservative talking points will be defined as hate speech. This has already begun as we see every holiday season where it is not Christmas but the winter holiday and similarly it is not Easter but the spring holiday. St. Patrick’s Day has been made into a fun study of Irish history, and a pleasant glossing over of the reality behind the holiday which celebrates the bringing of Christianity (Catholicism) to Ireland and the presumed taming of the land and bringing forth from barbarism and paganism. Again, the presumed advancement of civilization by Christianity in Europe and Islam across the Middle East, North Africa and into Europe and Asia were both conducted by the definition of language to depict all who were not of the faith as evil, uncivilized and requiring saving by bringing them into the religion unquestioningly. From those times to the present both religions have attempted to frame the debate in their favor and with the current adoption of the Islamic line by the leftists, they are feeding their own destruction in this war of the words for eventually the words are dropped and the sword deployed.

 

St Patrick’s Day Montage

 

There is one final point which need be made. That is the definition of Fascist and Fascism. The first definition given in a dictionary was, Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. The one addition we would add is that such a system can also have elections as long as the fascists control the vote counting, which they would in almost every case where they have gained power. Often the appearance of choice is required to enslave, North Korea or Venezuela are two prime examples. These leftist we have been referring to in the article claim they are fighting fascism and against fascists. This was why pegging their opposition at Charlottesville as Nazi fascists was necessary before this assault on language and the society of the United States could be executed. They are now in a frenzied approach because they know there is a limit to the time that the hate in Charlottesville can be used as a bludgeon to silence their opposition. Once they succeed, and they will, as they will continue to try until they win, one of the tools of Progressive Fascism is determination never quitting, as complete power is the only acceptable result. This is why the loss by Hillary Clinton has been such a detrimental blow, as they cannot permit power to slip from their grasp, so for now they must do whatever is required to disembowel Trump and prevent him fulfilling his campaign promises as that would set them back a decade or more. Fascist target language as a means of control and hate speech is the most convenient of terms as all they need do is hold protests against any phrase or idea until it becomes classified as hate speech as why else would people take to the streets over a phrase? This is the secret behind the enormous efforts against President Trump and to paint all conservatives as Nazis or white supremacists despite knowing that this is a lie, a fabrication to silence the right. The rioting on campuses to prevent right leaning speakers from presenting ideas to their minions attending college, and that is how the left sees these college age kids, as mere minions to serve their cause. Immediately as any student shows signs of thinking freely they are ridiculed and derided hoping to intimidate them back into the fold. It is all about power and control, nothing more, nothing less. So, our suggestion is learn phonics and watch your word lists and vocabulary grow and along with it, your mind and your understanding of life and everything it will throw your way.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

August 25, 2017

Overton Window Being Slammed Shut

 

The Overton Window, in the political dictionary, refers to the range of policies on any given issue that are, at that moment, popular enough for a politician to campaign on successfully and marks the defined lines of discourse permitted by the general mainstream public media. Simply stated, the Overton Window is our presumed acceptable political vocabulary. There are a lot of words and definitions we will be giving out in this article which are currently not within or are soon to be excluded from the currently defined Overton Window. The permitted lexicon changes with time and under different political pressures. For example, during the terms of President Obama the phrase “prolonged recession” was replaced in the Overton Window by the phrase “gradual recovery.” We never heard the word fascist during his eight years and now President Trump is a fascist. What is the interesting part is the actual definition of fascist is of one supporting fascism whose definition is what becomes important and reads, “a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.” What is interesting is that fascism is one form of socialism which is usually associated with the left, so fascism would not be considered as necessarily right wing though fascists come in both types. In Europe, a fascist is considered right wing and in the United States a true fascist who is socialist would be left wing, but they would never use that term. Fascist and fascism in the current Overton Window would be defined as anybody who the Democrat Party, mainstream media and leftists disapprove of and wish to label as something undesirable. That is a more honest definition especially as when it is applied to President Donald Trump.

 

So, let us step outside the Overton Window and find some words and definitions which our friends would not include in their current list of definitions and some words they might also exclude. The first thing we need to understand is that right and left are arbitrary terms which depend entirely upon whose systems and what dates one is referencing. When the United States was initially founded, the Founding Fathers would have been considered left wing. The right wing in those days were the monarchists, those who supported having Kings, Queens and a Royal Court. In the United States today, a Constitutionalist is considered right wing despite their supporting what was the most extreme left wing set of ideas in its day. The left wing today demands that the First Amendment be rewritten such that offensive speech be disallowed and that freedom of speech need be censored so as to remove all offending words and phrases. And guess who gets to decide which words are to be disallowed? Yes, the same people who define the Overton Window which means that fascist would mean Donald Trump and anybody opposing the Democrat and leftist media ideology. There is a far better means of establishing the spectrum for governance than left wing and right wing as this one does not change with time. That is to use Statism against Individualism. Below is an example of the difference where the top is true by the definitions given by the current Overton Window which is why it is the one taught to students in Political Science. The use of right and left is popular because these terms have come to mean something completely unhinged from politics. Left wing means acceptable and right wing means abhorrent. When the political spectrum is viewed from an absolute scale, one realizes that in the United States the choices are very limited when choosing from the two political parties and their core politicians. President Trump, for everyone’s information and some people’s enjoyment, would definitely be towards the right end of the spectrum and somewhere between the political parties and the Constitution and we hope for the people’s sake he lies very close to the Constitution.

 

Political Spectrum Taught Versus Actual

 

The Overton Window uses left, liberal, Democrat, BLM, Anti-fa, “The Revolution” and everything else anti-Trump and presumably anti-capitalist to be wonderful, honorable and good and uses right, Republican, conservative and pro-Trump as evil, untrustworthy or bad. When something exists with which they disagree it gains some label which defines it particular evil or simply labels it as such. Terms such as fascist, racist, sexist, homophobic and newly added Islamophobic are all bad titles. On the other side are the enlightened, pluralistic, inclusive, acceptive and other such terms all of which just drip with love and beauty for defining the wonderful people with which they agree. The problem with the media definitions is that the media is no longer the watchdog defending freedoms and liberties but has taken a political stand alongside the Democrats for better or worse. The media has decided that the future and ownership of all that is correct and proper lies with the leftist camp and the Democrat Party and that there can be no more debate. They have thus decided that there are certain terms which require redefining and others which simply must be banned. Constitutionalist is no longer permitted as a term defining any position and anyone taking a stand for what was a Constitutionalist has become a fascist or a racist. They are racist because when the constitution was signed, slavery existed and many of those men who signed it owned slaves thus you must approve of slavery thus you are a racist. What people refuse to recognize is there have been almost if not as many white slaves as slaves of color and for proof just read about the Barbary Pirates and their activities in the slave trade and what they did with the sailors who were not worth a ransom taken from European sailing ships. It was due to the preponderance of African slaves in the United States which made slavery racist. There has been the redefinition of freedom of speech into freedom from hurtful speech demanding that words which offend must be removed from the permitted vocabulary. Freedom of religion has also been changed to freedom from having to see anything religious outside a religious structure. Thus we have the winter season replacing Christmas and spring festival replacing Easter and other harmless and inoffensive terms used to hide the religious trimmings of holiday seasons. These are just the start of a litany of redefined words and terms all of which are trying to erase one side from the political scene and make only one side acceptable before the people simply by refusing to have balanced coverage.

 

What is unsettling about these efforts is they are closer to fascism than the people they so label. The media is trying to sell a statist, totalitarian, single part system to the American people with no room for opposing viewpoints. The really sorrowful truth is that they are so very close to doing exactly that. The examples abound from the events which have gone into the first year of President Trump so far. There has been no repeal or replace of Obamacare and that is just the half of it. Speaking about this failure in the Senate, Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell flatly stated, “If Senate Republicans can’t get the 50 votes required to get an Obamacare repeal and replacement over the finish line, they may have to work with Democrats to repair the existing marketplace.” Really, this is the answer? Does he really mean that the Republicans who promised for six years to repeal Obamacare and who passed uncountable bills doing such when they knew President Obama would veto them now are going to simply surrender and try to repair Obamacare to make it work? Why is it always the Republicans who must surrender on things and give in to the big government leftists? Let us tell you why, it is because they too are for big government and simply play with the words for individualism and freedom and liberty and all those high and mighty words any honest Constitutionalist would use but they do not mean a single syllable of what they say.

 

Then there is another piece of work called John McCain who appears to have an undiagnosed brain problem called demands of bipartisanship in a partisan battle, and his stand cannot be blamed on his diagnosed disease with which we hope he can recover, but has to do with an idea which died when the Democrats passed Obamacare. His first words to the media we heard were these, “I’ve stated time and time again that one of the major failures of Obamacare was that it was rammed through Congress by Democrats on a strict party-line basis without a single Republican vote.” Senator John McCain stated recalling history very clearly. It was when he added this little gem we see the crack in the wall and the reality coming through as he stated, “We must now return to the correct way of legislating and send the bill back to committee, hold hearings, receive input from both sides of aisle, heed the recommendations of nation’s governors, and produce a bill that finally delivers affordable health care for the American people. We must do the hard work our citizens expect of us and deserve.” So we now know that Senator John McCain will vote with the Democrats until they decide to support a repeal of Obamacare, something which will never happen. As Senator McCain will likely gain another half dozen looney-toon Republicans to his boycott of sanity, President Trump will have to find ten Democrats willing to cross the line drawn in the sand by their leadership knowing their campaign will be starved of funds and they will receive an opponent in their primary to unseat them as no such traitorous action will be countenanced by the Democrat Party, they are out for blood and they will take their own if necessitated. The Democrats have made clear they will not permit the repeal or replace of Obamacare and McCain has made clear that he stands with the Democrats on that point.

 

So, what does all of this mean for our future? First off, it means that the American people are stuck with Obamacare. What the Democrats are fully aware of, as is John McCain and the other Republicans who are blocking its repeal, Obamacare was designed to fail and by failing manage to destroy and bring down the entire Health Insurance network bankrupting every such company forcing them all to no longer offer insurance which would be affordable by any measure. This was intended to produce such an uproar that when single payer healthcare, which will work just as it has in Switzerland, Great Britain, Canada and much of Scandinavia and Europe, would be offered to repair the problem and return sanity to healthcare prices gone wild, the people would embrace anything just to get healthcare to be affordable. The blame for the prices would be heaped on the insurance industry and their demands to make uncontrolled profit and the hospitals for charging outrageous prices and the physicians and their uncontrolled salaries which are so much higher than the average American that it is reprehensible. There would be no blame in the media or from the political front placed with the real culprit, the government and its leftist agenda to have the government take over as much of the economy as possible. This has been a power grab from the beginning to take over close to one-sixth of the economy by the government and give government the control over the life and death of everybody. The government will never admit that socialized medicine means there will be a board which will decide by formulae whether or not any procedure or medication should be provided to any individual. The physician who assisted in designing Obamacare, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist and one of the country’s leading health care experts, says by age 75 he would opt out of medical treatments in order to not prolong his life in favor of letting nature take its course (see below). Further, you want an example of what happens when you fall outside the cost analysis charts on single payer government healthcare we just need to look to the story of one such victim of the system, Charlie Gard. There will be a cost analysis done where your past earnings potential and future earning potential is presumably figured into the equation. The reason that past earning potential is in the equation is because children have zero past earning potential and this places children under on some charts somewhere between age four and seven to be permitted similar care to somebody between seventy and eighty. Under a certain age almost no expensive surgical procedure would be permitted because the odds of the patient living long enough to have made such an investment pay off is too small. This is what doomed Charlie Gard so much so, that the courts would not even permit him to receive free treatments in the United States or, in the end, provided by the United States in Britain and still free. That, in a nutshell, is single payer government healthcare Britain style, and that was one that had been held up as being one the United States should emulate.

 

 

Then there are those items which the news refuses to inform the people of in events. Leftists have appeared at numerous college and university campuses with the intent on preventing somebody with whom they believe they disagree from speaking. Many have not exactly arrived with any desire for an exchange of ideas and do not even care to hear the individual out and see if they agree with them or not but instead came loaded for bear. They brought baseball bats, tire irons, steel rods and other weaponry. At some of these places they set buildings on fire and have even injured at least one college professor, Professor Allison Stanger, who is, or at least was, a fellow leftist. She was treated at Porter Hospital and fortunately released. At Berkley, they cause tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars of damage and many of the protestors were identified as not attending Berkley. What has been even more distressing has been the demand from administrators at many of these venues for their campus security or police to stand down. Even some cities have instructed their police to stand down and allow demonstrators to damage, loot and burn down stores and properties as stated about the situation when Baltimore police commanders acknowledge to the Baltimore Sun that they ordered officers not to engage rioters multiple times on the day of Freddie Gray’s funeral but said they did so to protect officers and citizens as they prioritized life over property. Regarding Charlottesville, Virginia altercations recently, there was a report in The Atlantic where mostly counter-protestors but some from both sides complained that the police could have been more proactive in preventing violence. The concept of allowing leftists to protest with some degree of violence as well as destruction of property without any interference from law enforcement is the new concept for freedom of speech. It is odd that while certain words are to be banned as offensive, destruction of stores and property can be considered an acceptable form of free speech, depending on your political preferences, of course.

 

No matter how one looks at things in the political and public spheres, the Overton Window is being slammed shut closing off that which will be acceptable and permitted. The concept is to strangle debate by making the individualist side of the argument considered obscene and disavowed from acceptable language while purporting that all things serving the state are great and fine and that the socialist venue to the point of allowing for universal powers to be aligned with the statists be considered freedom of speech. By closing out the debate and permitting such a one sided conversation in the public sphere and only the socialist agenda to be aired publicly the political class will be restricted in their ability to persuade and debate the issues honestly. This will lead to only one place, and then everyone will learn exactly what is meant by fascist because that will be exactly what kind of rule that will result. There will be the appearance of choice but there will be no choice as both parties, the Democrats and the Republicans will stand before you claiming to be completely different but finally agree that they had reached the stage they always desired, where the government instructs and the people simply cower and obey. They will have their all-powerful state and the people will have rid their lives of controversy, as only the one approved dialogue will exist, well, until an underground movement emerges selling freedom. We must keep the hope that the love of individual rights and true freedom never dies as should such happen it would be a world warned against in a book three thousand plus years ago. It is a very good book but it has fallen out of favor of late, which is really something to be sorry over.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Blog at WordPress.com.