Dear Friends,
It seems to me, no one should be above criticism, especially those who have chosen the spot light as a career. In whatever society, when it is illegal, overtly or subvertly, to criticize a certain person, faction or group, while that same criticism could legally be leveled against another, that society is unjust. Not simply unjust, as a backwards ignorant barbarian might be unjust, but unjust as a matter of law. In other words, the legal system is a tool of injustice. You see, law is not only a tool for good, but is often exploited by evil. In fact evil always becomes monopolistic when it wields the reigns of law. One sure way to measure then, if the law is being used as a means of oppression, is to examine if some cannot be criticized while we are encouraged to criticize others.
Criticism takes many forms, sometimes it is humorous, sharp, roundabout, tacit, witty, vitriolic and open. While some criticism should be off limits, ungentlemanly remarks for example. If a society allows them said of one group then all groups should also be subject to such banal witticisms. This provides an incentive to elevate the standard of discourse rather than lower it to mere gutter talk. To exploit the instinctual revulsion we all have when confronted by trash talk, yet demand to be above it, is not just to be hypocritical, it is to be oppressive as well. A human being, mature in development, or put another way, men grown, should be able to stand criticism, someone who cannot is certainly not mature enough to hold an office of public trust.
To argue that someone cannot be criticized, because they are a member of a “victim” group, is like saying, in a game of soccer, one person can choose play any position, at any time he or she wants, because they have no choice. You cannot both be oppressed and be above criticism. Unless the definition of oppressed has changed. If I can criticize you, but you cannot criticize me, I am oppressing you, and when I bring law into it, I am exploiting law to oppress you. I am using law to do evil, (oppression), and therefore establishing evil’s monopoly on law. To that end, those without scruples will joyfully claim the mantle of victim to further their oppression. It is a good trick though, for the oppressor to claim to be the oppressed, it will work for awhile with anyone, longer with fools.
Law does not distinguish between good and evil, law is… violence to impose order. When law is used to promote good, then law is useful, but when it promotes oppression, it is a tool of evil, and promotes a monopoly on evil. Law is like water… it can be clean or it can be dirty. The difference is distinct and yet the transition can be blurry. How much filth can we add to water before it is dirty? How much can law be bent to evil before it is tainted? If the ends are just, does that mean we can add as much foulness to water as we want, and once we get our way it will be clean again? Doesn’t that same apply to the law as well. Not just law but civility, social acceptability, cultural demands and group politics. The reason law is synonymous with order, and not good, is because law is a tool and good is a state of being.
Anytime you see a double standard, when some are above criticism by law and others are criticized below normal gentlemanly standards, you are witnessing law being exploited by evil to gain monopoly. History is rife with examples of what happens when evil gets a monopoly on law, millions die in famines, are swallowed up by gulags, families are shattered, ethnic cleansing, mass migration, eugenics and religion is diverted from God to the State. That double standard is not the benign thing those who are above criticism claim, it is a diabolical thing, that is always exploited to give a malevolent political faction the upper hand. You cannot logically have a faction that is above criticism, by law, while others are not, because by definition, those above criticism are exploiting law to oppress those who are not.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
