Dear Friends,
It seems to me, when someone denies a right to another, they also deny that right to themselves. By this logic, the latest push by the government to stifle the free expression of conservative media outlets, can easily backfire. The left has had a monopoly on information for several generations now. They are naturally alarmed that another point of view is becoming available threatening their control. Taking such a fundamental right however is tantamount to denying that right to everyone. Freedoms of information, of the press and of speech, are our primary defense against a tyrannical government, (the normal state of humanity). Any threat to one or all of those freedoms is a direct assault on our liberty.
One of the fundamental realities of human existence is that we are all equal. We are equal in value, equal in rights and equal in the eyes of God. If a right is denied to anyone, then by the fact that we are equal, that right can be denied to anyone. To argue otherwise requires as a prerequisite… that we are not equal, that some of us are more equal than others. This is sophistry pure and simple. If we are not all equal then who decides who is more equal? The judge will naturally decide he or she is more equal of course, no matter who the judge is, proving the spuriousness of the argument.
Limiting the ability of one faction of the political spectrum to speak while giving carte blanch to another is the epitome of inequality. Furthermore, that very limitation gives the limited faction not only the legal ability to limit the free speech of those in power today should they get power, but a moral right to do so as well. This is based on reciprocal applicability. When one person attributes a quality, action or consideration to another, that other has the human right to apply those same things to the first. That is why killing in self defense is moral while murder is not. When the killer considers that the victim’s life can be taken, the would be victim then has the moral right to apply that same consideration to the would be killer, because the would be killer applied the logic first.
The left, or better put, the new class, has held a monopoly on information for generations. All the major news outlets are owned, run, edited, reported and overseen, by the new class. This includes FOX News. They are all simply walls in an echo chamber, bouncing around the information the new class wants us to “know,” and thereby think about. Notice the climate hoax is in the news every day despite the fact that most people think it is none sense, or more to the point, because people believe it is foolishness. We must be convinced to disbelieve our own eyes and believe those who we have caught lying to us over and over.
Their monopoly gives them great power to control the thoughts and actions of the people. Such power is never given up willingly it can only be taken by a lion or a fox. Today the new class has outsmarted themselves. They thought control of information would be easier with the internet since it was initially only populated by the new class, but as with many new technologies the results can be hard to predict, and in this case it has spun out of their hands. New media are increasingly offering a refreshingly different perspective from the echo chamber. People can get news not only conservative voices but from the world over. This opens the people’s minds to new possibilities and realities. Possibilities that fly in the face of where the new class wants to take us, and the realities history teaches us, that the new class find problematic.
Like North Korea, China and all other socialist regimes the new class need total control of the media and the flow of information to forward their agenda. To them, the rise of new media threatens their monopoly, and thereby their power. So conservative voices must be silenced. Since the only way that socialists like the new class and Marxists argue is through intimidation, lies, violence and propaganda fueled by government power, they are playing that one card… government’s power to coerce. The theme of all socialists, like the new class, is that some are more equal than others and so they see no difficulty in denying rights to others they demand for themselves, but the reality is that by their own actions they are making it possible and even moral, for others to deny them the right to free speech as well. In fact, it becomes a moral imperative through reciprocal applicability to do so, since they seek to deny that right to others. Therefore, it would be wise for the new class and socialists of every stripe to remember, when you deny a right to another, you deny that right to yourself.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
