Parts of the article might not be correcly converted. For best experience, go to the Tor site.
http://ttauyzmy4kbm5yxpujpnahy7uxwnb32hh3dja7uda64vefpkomf3s4yd.onion
How They Made Freedom Illegal
Freedom is illegal. There is not a single country in the world that is 100% Free. And it is not a mistake. If a country is 100% Free the government has no control. And therefor why bother trying at the elections. Right? We all are somewhat familiar with the tactics of how governments make sure that their countries are not free. They use the same 2 boogiemen every time:
- Terrorists
- Pedophiles
Sometimes one works better than the other. In the time of tension and cold war Terrorists are those brought into the picture every time the public demands more freedom. But lately this tactic no longer works in civilized counties. At the very least people are realizing that it is just a tactic. And that fighting somebody who threatens the freedom of the people in the country by taking away freedom is in the very least counter-productive.
It leaves us with the second category and the topic of this article.
How "Think Of The Children" Ruins Our Freedom?
Have you ever noticed that organizations or people that are fighting for freedom for a long time sound like group of child molesters? You probably head about all kind of ways those who want to collect our personal information claim that it is to stop child pornography from spreading. Various laws are being proposed to scan people's encrypted communications for it. But then freedom activists are often attacked like this as well:
- Richard Stallman famously said that the word "Assault" in the Epstein's case makes no sense for him. And said other things that made a lot of people claim that he is a pedophile.
- EFF is apparently arguing against age verification on the internet making the case that kids should have rights to access pornography.
- Julian Assange, even though not related to children, was arrested originally based on some bogus sexual harassment allegation. But then it was completely forgotten in favor of focusing on the real reason he was arrested. He had way to much Free Speech.
- Justin Sane from a very political band "Anti-Flag" was canceled with allegations of rape and child molestation.
- People even spread rumors that Steven Spielberg, a director who recently made a handful of pro-freedom political movies, is some kind of child molester too.
All those examples seem like bogus attempts at canceling people that are pro freedom on charges that are obviously against freedom. Rape is often brought up, like in the case of Justin Sane or Julian Assange. Because rape is in essence a violation of freedom of another person. And therefor if you spread rumors that some political pro-freedom person is a rapist, you automatically disqualify this person. But it is not that simple. It's not all lies.
Richard Stallman actually had a problem with the word "Assault" and had other publication where he argued for borderline pro-pedophilic stances. And EFF is actually claiming that porn is free speech and therefor kids should be able to access it. And that is where the problem lies.
If you are pro-freedom you are anti-ageism
If you are pro-freedom, you are pro all freedom. There is a distinction to be made between freedom and power, of course. Power being somebody taking away freedom from somebody. So if you are pro-freedom you are anti-power. But as long as something is freedom and not power you pro it.
But who's freedom? Well everybody's. Right? If you are pro-freedom you are not thinking only about yourself or your group. You are not limiting yourself to who gets freedom and who doesn't. Everybody gets freedom. All freedom.
Is walking around the street freedom? Yes. Are Asian people part of all people? Yes. So if you are pro-freedom you are pro Asian people walking down the street? Yes.
But then sex is a freedom, if all participants consent to it. Otherwise it is rape ( power ). So all consensual sex is freedom. And therefor if you are pro-freedom you are pro all consensual sex. What if a man and man wanted to have consensual sex? Well you are not excluding nobody from the freedom and therefor if you are pro-freedom you are pro homosexual rights.
But then kids are also people. And you see how the logic goes. If you are pro-freedom you pro kids walking down the street. You pro kids having consensual sex. You pro kids accessing whatever information they want to access. And so on and so forth.
Making you a target for the government.
To avoid being a target, you should not be pro-freedom. Which makes the government win either way.
Lies in the law
One way government can undermine your stance on freedom is by using lies written in the law. There was a law proposed in the early 20'st century in the US which was going to define the value of Pi. Making what's called a "Statutory Pi". The funny and ironic thing is that the law in question had a wrong value for Pi ( 3.2 ). Therefor making Pi legally something else than the real thing. The law didn't pass, but the concept stayed.
In the case of, say, Justin Sane from Anti-Flag a big part of it are allegations of so called "Statutory Rape" against him. Those are not allegations of Rape. Those are allegations of "Statutory Rape" a different kind of rape. One that is defined in the law but actually didn't take place in the real world.
When you hear that something is "Statutory Rape" it means that two people had normal consensual sex. Something that a pro-freedom person would fight for. But that the law claims that this particular consensual sex was rape. Turning pro-freedom into pro-power by utilizing lies in the law.
Paternalism and emotional manipulation
It is hard to argue with "Think of the children" because children are so cute. And of course you want them to be safe. War crimes reports, for example, bring special attention to harm caused to children. Because it works. People are more emotionally resonant with children. It is like this for evolutionary reasons. Children are actually weaker and stupider than most adults. And the smallest ones are borderline helpless. And therefor we developed into child-caring machines.
Therefor whenever somebody uses words that sound like harm is being done to a child, people's automatic reaction is hate toward whoever is claimed to be doing that harm.
But there are two types of people:
- Those who react without much thinking.
- Those who actually think of the children.
Who in their right mind wants harm? So a pro-freedom person is anti-harm. But not necessarily. Sometimes people are not in their right mind and will consent to harm. Which puts a pro-freedom person into a weird state of paradox.
Should freedom be beyond safety? Or should safety be beyond freedom? Governments and people who want to take the freedom away side with the safety. And making all those people who are pro-freedom sound like savages that only want to harm people. But we are not.
Being anti-paternalism is hard because it is so paradoxical. But it is important if we want to have freedom. If you are actually thinking of the children, you should make sure that if they want, and only if they want, they could harm themselves. Because that is what freedom is. There are plenty of ways to argue with them out of wanting it. There is free speech to do so. But restricting them against their will is even more harm.
Happy Hacking!!!
Comments work only on the Tor site:
http://ttauyzmy4kbm5yxpujpnahy7uxwnb32hh3dja7uda64vefpkomf3s4yd.onion
http://ttauyzmy4kbm5yxpujpnahy7uxwnb32hh3dja7uda64vefpkomf3s4yd.onion