Entry Submitted by ubiety at 6:33 PM EDT on May 17, 2017
I address this post to "OWK" and those who seek to limit differing points of view within this blog forum, even those offered with civility and reason:
OWK has just today said, "It turns out that Free Speech is "By Invitation Only." While agreeing that direct and overt harm by words (calling out "fire" in a crowded theater, for instance) exceeds the limits of "free speech", OWK explains quite different limitations. Without any distortion or meaning added, it is fair to understand this to grasp the implications for "freedoms" in the near future.
Given a month solid of cries for exclusion of differing views and opinions on this public forum, we now hear from a putative leader of this currency holder contingent that free speech "is by invitation only". Of course, there are several vital questions this "revelation" begs. Who is in control of the invitation? If the invitation is not open to all, mustn't we conclude that "free speech" is, therefore, a privilege to only those invited? Under the control of a person, group, or ideology, is such speech legitimately "free"?
I believe the only rational conclusion is that, here, the use of the term "free" (in conjunction with the word "speech") is a device intended to redefine the centuries long meaning of the term as a political, cultural, and legal concept. In other words, OWK (otherwise a fairly meticulous writer) seems to deliberately use the expression with a "new" and different meaning.
In fact, the "new" meaning of "free speech" (as a privilege granted by a controlling class to those upon whom they choose to bestow favor) is not new at all. Despots have great use for and a long history of just this sort of "free speech". It's a common notion that if one can control what the masses say, certainly publicly, then the behavior and even the thinking of the masses can be "better" subjugated. Outright proscription of opposing views, even if civilly spoken, is within no rational definition of "free". Even passionately spoken opposing views are not even close to the logical basis for "prohibiting harm" as in the classic example of free speech abused and resulting in people trampled by others fleeing a false cry of "fire" in a crowded public place.
It is neither reaching or "new" that the current speech prohibitions comes with the explanation that this is their "house" or (as said today) their "stage". Until these explanations were offered, I think it's fair to say no one reading this blog actually understood that it's a safe haven and protected enclave for new age thinking. Well, until now, if our blog host, Patrick, intends to enforce the wishes of some prolific posters that this blog shall be limited to a strict new age ideology and thinking. That would be a shame, and certainly not reflective of any rational interpretation of "free speech". This is not a U2 concert and OWK is not Bono controlling a stage and choosing to exclude hecklers from stage. I hope it escape no one that anyone with a differing point of view is disparaged as "a heckler".
It is my view that the attempted logic of OWK has reached the style of Orwellian "double-speak" in which "free speech" refers to a privilege granted to citizens - thus, an inversion of meaning. This is not the first time, and certainly will not be the last, where restriction of freedoms by those with a bully pulpit is revealed as a standard operating procedure. In my experience, creative justifications aside, attempting to crush opposing thinking is most often a sign that one's own logic and philosophy cannot survive long in the bright light of an open exchange of ideas.
Freedom, like selfless love, is both fragile and precious. Those who seek to redefine and limit freedom, are really seeking to control it. Freedom controlled is no longer freedom, but is a privilege which can be (and usually is) taken away sooner or later for the convenience of those in control. Freedom only for those controlling the "stage" is actually not about freedom at all - it's a performance.
Where is this leadership leading? And, why is it so aggressively opposed to differing ideas and thinking?
Guard you minds and stay grounded (meaning "mentally and emotionally stable; admirably sensible, realistic, and unpretentious").
P.S. OWK... I have read a few posts referring to "NESARA law", including a recent one which sought to chronicle the "at gun point signed into law" narrative (does that not raise a question in your mind as to validity?). A number of times in posts, you've referred to "natural law" and, in a couple of particular posts, you tried to flesh out the "financial fraud laws" on which you base your warnings against those who say they've not seen reasonable proof of the value of 2008-2009 Zim currency. This is an area of both special interest and experience for me. Since I am under the impression that you have no text of law which you have read for this authority, can you offer all of us the benefit of what you rely on (aside from "your gut") for such certainty of legal meaning and application of unwritten "law"? Thanks in advance.