User Rating: 0 / 5

Star inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactive

Thinking Is DangerousThis is most certainly not a new concept. Throughout history every single government system has attempted to suppress thinking to one degree or another. Although you may believe that the USSR with their official policy of political persecution (i.e. dissidents) was the epitome of such tendencies, this could not be further from the truth. We only remember the USSR because it is still relatively fresh in our memory. However, if we walk down the history path, we will find out that at every step those in charge attempted to "dissuade" those being charged upon. It took a revolution in France to finally challenge the absolute power of the monarchy. In most modern countries, it took armed revolutions to get rid of colonial powers. It did so because any other thinking and/or rational (i.e. peaceful) opposition was summarily neutralized (i.e. executed).

We must be clear. For those in power thinking is not the problem; the lack of self-censorship it. You may think whatever you want in the privacy of your mind, but your thinking must not challenge the powers that be in any way and for good reasons.

These reasons, when distilled down to their essence, are quite simple to understand. It so happens that every single political theory or system is indeed a theory and a very poor at it (see for example Political Theories and Systems - What They Are And How They Work ). As such, they are increasingly fallible, subjective and irrational. Politicians desiring to stay in power need an ideology (as a front and selling point) and therefore they accept a set of deep flaws. Not only that, but they are forced to re-package and re-sell these flaws as something desirable to the voters: disinformation to be precise.

The problem with this process is that eventually all flaws become obvious. When this happens it spells trouble for politicians. Therefore, their goal is to extend this disinformation period for as long as possible. They can do so in two ways: they can confuse people or they can control them. Any good politician will do both; but there is a tiny flaw in the plan: thinkers.

By definition thinkers are people who are not satisfied with regular answers. They want to understand the issue top to bottom and worse, they link and relate to other forms of information. This does not bode well for politicians as any political theory or system cannot resist any real logical analysis (it will however survive a cursory or superficial review).

By their very nature, thinkers focus on strange events; they are curious. The problem (for politicians) is that strange events are flaws in their political theories. This is, thinkers focus precisely in the places where politicians are vulnerable; this makes them dangerous.

Are all thinkers dangerous? Certainly not. Thinkers only become dangerous once they achieve pull, this is, once they have an audience who follow them. Only then they become dangerous, when they begin to present a real danger to politicians' jobs.

Politicians are not stupid and they do understand that the concept of "freedom of speech" is a vote-selling proposition no matter how twisted and ineffective it may be (see for example Freedom Of Speech Is A Figment Of Your Imagination ).

Therefore they are forced to support it… however… if this "freedom of speech" threatens their jobs they will find a way around it. Call it "national security", call it "privacy", call it "moral outrage", call it "ethics", call it "subversive thinking", call it whatever you prefer to call it. When necessary, they will find a suitable PR (Public Relations) excuse.

These are the reasons as to why when you look at other countries "freedom of speech" limitations do not seem so terrible. Because they don't yet have pull. This is indeed cognitive dissonance because on one side you may find tolerance for opinions that are outright aggressively opposed to current politicians and on the other side you will find pervasive "secret police" and "security services" operations. The trick is in the small print. If you are really interested in the truth, you must dig deeper and look for "dissidents" and "the opposition" that was suddenly "disbanded" and is currently sitting (i.e. rotting) in jail… or worse (can you spell "disappeared"?).

Contrast this situation with an Absolute Austro-Libertarian system where freedom of speech is absolute for as long as it does not interact with other peoples' properties without a voluntary agreement. In our system thinking is encouraged because it becomes profitable through entrepreneurship. There is a massive incentive to think. Is this very thinking that protect us from tyranny. There you have it. An automated, built-in process for mutual protection based on self-interest. Let the supporters of state-based political systems try to match this one!

Thinking is indeed a dangerous profession since you never know where the line in the sand is. You may have already crossed it inadvertently. However, if there is any consolation, once you cross it, once you move to "the other side" you will find it liberating. If you don't believe us, just ask how Russians felt when Gorbachev started with Glasnost and Perestroika.

But if this kind of satisfaction is not good enough, then perhaps micro-free-thinking may be the solution for you. Share your thoughts with one person at the time; eventually all those people will become majority and by then they will be unstoppable. Remember, we cannot alter the course of history but we can accelerate it. Whether your choose to help or not is entirely up to you. History is watching.

Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.

English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditNewsvineTechnoratiLinkedinMixxRSS FeedPinterest
Pin It