freedom of speech?

We claim to enjoy many freedoms in this country, we hope them to be protected and while that may be simplistically and relatively so, we must ask at what cost and at what cost to ourselves, and to whose denigration do we enjoy these freedoms?

I’m sure its a fine life to be one of the ones whose work is handy to the cause, well compensated and effectively compartmentalized from the purpose and thereby protected by the system.  Not so fine to disagree.  Opposition faces a withering attack and media silence, the true heroes of our day fight in the worst conditions. The wisest among us have postulated that freedom of speech is an illusion, and it can be revealingly debated by starting with the questions which show that the platform for any debate is always a slanted one.:

  1. Does freedom of speech include the freedom to lie?
  2. Who is compelled by  to be truthful?
  3. Who is allowed to lie?
  4. Does the law decide the fate of humanity, or does humanity decide the fate of law?

Realistically, if a debate isn’t independent and beyond the control of the existing political and industrial mechanisms, then it is absolutely subject to sabotage, since the infiltration of corporate agenda into the discussion will cause it to be manipulated into desirable outcomes. Politics can interfere by changing the rules of conduct making it easier to win.  once scientists are muzzled they may say what they wish without the rule of law has become an impediment to debates and, placing itself above the facts and truth of humanities evolution, has become a menace to peace.

As the compartmentalized arm of corporate power, the rule of law is the visible end of the corporate threat emerging today to exploit, waste, pollute and profit from the human population, and it behaves exactly like a viral infection.

Independent debate is the key. Honest discussion is the antivirus, and they know it. The rule of law impedes honest debate, and is the fundamental flaw of modern democracy.

Daniel Boughen