Liberty Liberally - Vol I Issue II - February 2021

From the Journal of Joshua Fryfogle

Liberty, Liberally Volume I - Issue II

I am so encouraged by the positive feedback I’ve received since I published the first edition of Liberty, Liberally last month. And that’s what I hope future editions of Liberty, Liberally, are to you. An encouragement.

Liberty, and liberalism in general, are poorly understood topics. However, I believe that there are many true liberals in our community, who were the first to be silenced by the totalitarians. It happened years ago, they were the first to go. And it went unnoticed.

Now that the corporations have an open marriage with whichever ruling party happens to be running things, liberals are recognizing their old foe from Europe totalitarianism. More surprising, those philosophical liberals, who hang their heritage on a strong tradition of free speech... many remain silent today.

If they can silence a liberal, then that liberal is made less liberal. A Liberal is one who is free, to think and to speak most especially. Yet so many have been silenced by the so-called progressive ideas that are rooted in the tyranny of totalitarian politics.

These people who call themselves progressive, they’re regressing, using ideas that were written in the 19th and 20th century, not the 21st. They don’t realize this, of course. They think these ideas that they espouse, like repressive tolerance, are nouveau and ‘woke’.

The conservatives are demanding more liberty, more freedom to express themselves - finally.

They don’t understand that this is literally the Liberal tradition. Not to say they shouldn’t speak, but actual liberals should definitely, definitively speak up, like liberals. The conservatives are being silenced by the corporations, that support the policies of the prevailing political party. It’s textbook fascism.

But the liberals, and liberal ideals, are also lacking in the public discourse.

Those who speak of liberty today too often do so without regard for the philosophical tradition of which they speak. Conservatives, unversed in the true philosophies of liberalism, are ironically using true liberal philosophy every time they express their desire for

February, 2021

Liberty of expression. This is not to say that they ought not speak, but those who understand the tradition of liberalism, and it’s opposite, totalitarianism, are under an obligation to share that tradition with everyone who is willing to hear - liberalism is, at it’s core, free expression.

The philosophy of Liberty wants to be free, it is your own conscience, once made aware, yearning to speak!

In Europe, there were two streams of thought that were at odds with one another - liberalism and totalitarianism.

Today, in the US, most people are one or the other, no matter what they call themselves. Some totalitarians call themselves liberal, but then demand censorship. Some liberals call themselves progressive, because it suggests that they are forward thinking, though their ideas are borrowed from the previous century.

Our liberal philosophies are largely lost.

The masses have been indoctrinated with corporatism, which is synonymous with fascism, according to Mussolini himself.

But the philosophies of totalitarianism have permeated academia, which is how true Liberals were first silenced.

Now the liberals remain silent. The totalitarians oppose liberalism - which is fundamentally focused on free expression of the individual - and liberals in the US are silent, for fear of the mob.

If you are a liberal, not in tribe but in character, if you believe in liberty for all - know that you’re not alone. Be encouraged by this publication, and know that I’ve already heard from so many who were encouraged by seeing liberal philosophical content being published in the first edition of Liberty, Liberally.

Just because classical liberalism is not present in the public discourse does not mean it is not present in our hearts and minds. Just because conservatives are demanding liberal free expression does not mean that free expression is a conservative idea - it’s not.

Be encouraged, be free.

- Martin Luther

Indignation and Liberty are two different things, but a liberal person (someone who is free in mind and body, and in that order) is not driven primarily by their own sense of indignation.

A free-thinking person (a liberal) doesn’t get bogged down in emotions, but is instead free from the gravitational pull of aggravation. Instead, the freethinking person (being liberal) will think through all of the emotions, and into the truth of the notion at hand.

They will consider the question, while putting aside their own reactive response, in order to determine truth as they are able, via unrestrained critical thinking.

“I don’t want to be at the mercy of my emotions. I want to use them, to enjoy them, and to dominate them.”

– Oscar Wilde A liberal person (a person who acknowledges their own Liberty) is not bound by emotions, they are not bound to their feelings, for if they were, they would be easily controlled.

But they are free individuals - liberals!

- so they are not bound or burdened by their emotions. They are free to consider all available information, and to attempt objective reflection thereof, approximating their own informed perspective. A people who are triggered by outside stimuli is no different than herd of cattle, moved about by the bark of a dog or the spark of a prod.

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

- Voltaire Indulging Indignation

Let’s express ourselves... liberally.

“If you want to change the world, pick up your pen and write.”

We’ve been converted from a liberal society (liberal meaning ‘free’), into an indignant one. We’re indentured to indignation.

The modern culture of indignation indulgence, across the political spectrum, is abhorrent to liberalism. Our society has fallen away from Liberal Idealism, almost entirely. We’ve embraced the motive force of emotion to move the political needle. A free people, in their minds, would acknowledge that their emotions are the lowest part of their conscious being, and their subsequent actions and reactions would be an acknowledgement that all knowledge is gleaned from free thought and public discourse.

Emotive Force

by Joshua Fryfogle Tyranny isn't afraid of your guns Go to the gun store, buy every one Tyranny controls your guns with your fear Go to the gun range - plug up your ears Tyranny is the State of man Go any place, in every land Tyranny fears the littlest seed More than the guns you think that you need Tyranny likes that you think you are free Let's you have guns, but won't let you see That all of these weapons of war are so weak Compared to the truth and the wisdom to speak... ...wordswordswordSWORDSwordswordswords...

The emotional manipulation of indignation is what passes for public discourse these days. It’s sad.

It’s happy, too. It’s angry, and fed up.

It’s overwhelmed and worn thin. It’s all the emotions - the whole spectrum of human feeling - being engaged in a chaotic rollercoaster that keeps us clinging to the moment, forgetting the past and future - along for the ride.

But indignation, that feeling that truly separates people from one another better than any other, that’s the crown jewel of the media monarchy.

Even those most intellectual journalists have learned to premise their articles and content with some open admission of their own disgust and contempt. Any pretense of objectivity is suspended entirely, as they bloviate. If they have something of substance to say, they weave it into a tapestry of sophistry, meant to entangle the emotions of the individual.

Whether to the right or left - or the rare independent voice - those engaged

Liberty, Liberally

www.LibertyLiberally.com

Alaska

in media communications tend to do so without a substantive foundation.

Instead, they found their findings upon the shifting sand of changing emotional response. They first tell you how angry they are about the topic, and then you feel empowered to explore your own emotional response, while they confirm your biases, requiring little to no intellectual engagement from the individual.

In fact, it’s easier to engage emotions when the intellect is repressed, incapable of tempering our temptation to lose our temper.

Truth is discovered through the fires of the intellect. The gold of truth will withstand the temporary temperature increase in the hot crucible of honest criticism, while the impurities of fallacious and emotional response will be burned away. We don’t discover truth by indulging our indignation, but by overcoming it and all emotional response.

This has led to a considerable loss of Liberty. Not a loss because of changing laws that infringe on individual Liberty (although that is certainly a topic to consider), but a loss of Liberty of the individual, of the mind. Liberty, as I’ve written elsewhere, is rooted in the Latin word ‘liber’, which means both ‘book’ and ‘free’. So an individual who truly has Liberty has it in their mind first, and in their body second.

"As to the history of the Revolution, my Ideas may be peculiar, perhaps Singular.

What do We mean by the Revolution?

The War? That was no part of the Revolution. It was only an Effect and Consequence of it. The Revolution was in the Minds of the People, and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen Years before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington. The Records of thirteen Legislatures, the Pamphlets, Newspapers in all the Colonies ought be consulted, during that Period, to ascertain the Steps by which the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the Authority of Parliament over the Colonies."

— John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 24 August 1815 Being free in body, but not in mind, is to be enslaved and not know it. Endless enmity and emotional engagement pushes aside our own ability to learn about, and love Liberty, being the Self in others. You don’t need a totalitarian dictator to make you a serf, if you’re content with serfdom yourself. And a dictator prefers that you not learn that Liberty begins with how you think... or more accurately, if.

True Liberty is an intellectual pursuit, an ongoing love affair with learning, and the True Liberal knows this, because they’ve learned it for themselves.

The emotionally enslaved masses, constantly arguing without substance, but with the substitution of outrage, they simply do not know what they do not know. That’s why the True Liberal makes liberal use of the liberal arts to teach Liberty to all.

“So hopeless is the world without, The world within I doubly prize; Thy world where guile and hate and doubt And cold suspicion never rise; Where thou and I and Liberty Have undisputed sovereignty.”

Emily Bronte, To Imagination, 1844

From the Journal of Joshua Fryfogle

Volume I - Issue II

Liberty, Liberally

2

ACLU Defends KKK!

Is Liberalism Lost, And At What Cost?

The year was 2012. Obama was wrapping up his first term, and was well on his way to his second, when the ACLU set out to defend the KKK and their right to distribute recruitment materials in Cape Girardeau, Missouri.

Yes, the American Civil Liberties Union - the longtime liberal champions that they’ve been - defended the KKK’s right to leave recruitment pamphlets on the windows of random vehicles. In 2012. Can you imagine them being so liberal today?

This was only 8 or 9 years ago. We were in the midst of the presidency of a black man in the US, and the ACLU could still defend the KKK without a consensus of outrage from American liberals.

The ACLU, and American liberals were still... well... they were still liberal.

For those younger readers who are new to politics, perhaps you’re just now paying attention in the last 8 years or less, you should know - American Liberalism has become anything but. Liberal, the word as it was still understood only 8 years ago, was about liberty for individuals, even if their liberty was being used to promote the KKK’s reprehensible ideas.

Consider this quote from the ACLU website page:

“Defending the rights of groups that the government tries to censor because of their viewpoints is at the heart of what the First Amendment and the ACLU stand for, even when the viewpoints are not popular,” says Brenda L. Jones, executive director of the ACLUEM. “If we don’t protect the free speech rights of all, we risk having the government arbitrarily decide what is, or is not, acceptable speech.”

The above quote was issued by the ACLU in regards to their defense of the KKK in Missouri in 2012.

We can understand a few things from this piece of history. One thing, even 8 years ago modern liberals were intellectually consistent. 8 years ago, liberals were liberal, even when it was uncomfortable. Just 8 years ago, while a black man sat in the White House, the ACLU - an organization premised upon classically liberal ideals - was able to see things through a liberal lens.

No more.

I agree with Liberty, and I agree with the classical liberal ideology that led the American Civil LIBERTIES Union to the counterintuitive conclusion to defend the KKK. I believe in the wisdom of liberalism, in the classical sense, and I agree that you can’t defend free expression without defending it for people you disagree with. Liberalism, as it originally intended, is the the belief that individuals ought to be free.

Liberalism believes that individuals, if left to their own liberty, will (over time) leave behind the old ideas of power and control that ruled the Old World.

Liberals understand that this can’t be forced, and that force is antithetical to peace and Liberty.

This isn’t to say that I’m defending the KKK either, but like the ACLU only 8 years ago, I see how predictably illiberal laws will lead to totalitarian tendencies in government. For this reason, I maintain my belief in free expression for all.

Today, we’ve been taught that liberal means something else. And this hasn’t been a gradual change, but a jarring and jeering process over a short time period, shaming liberal people in public for expressing unpopular ideas.

‘Cancelling’ is cool, these days. They think this makes them progressive, but it’s an old idea, equally at home in either a fascist or communist country. The self-proclaimed “Liberals” of today, they are not liberal at all.

Dear Leader, Dear Reader Perhaps you’re an exception, dear reader.

Perhaps you don’t want to silence people you disagree with, or defer to Dear Leader. Perhaps you are intellectually consistent, and honest about it. Perhaps you can grasp the complexity of the Liberty to which liberalism owes it’s name. But ask yourself this: would your political group - your progressive peers - defend the rights of those you disagree with? Would those who see things your way, would they defend the KKK? Today?

Liberty, Liberally

The change from liberalism to the mere mockery of liberalism has been hard to watch. Those of you who have gotten into politics in the last 8 years, and who think you’re a liberal - you might want to do a little research into what that means. It means that you don’t silence others, you don’t cancel people, you don’t block them from expressing even heinous ideas, no matter how heinous.

It means that your personal philosophy is tolerance of others.

When I was younger, it was the conservatives who did the book burning and public shaming. It was the Republican right winger who protested publicly around burning piles of rock n roll records. I remember as a kid, thinking how absurd this was, as if burning something that you disagree with does anything but make me want to learn more about it... foolishness.

There are consequences to free speech, but their are consequences to censorship, too.

I remember learning about Western philosophy - classic liberalism - and how it differed from Eastern European philosophies of totalitarianism.

I remember being taught to think liberally, and being taught the wisdom of tolerance. I remember learning that those who want to silence dissent are the tyrants in waiting, and that if we let them lead, it always leads to subservience to the state.

I miss liberalism, I miss what it meant to me when I was young, when the conservatives were burning Ice-T CD’s on television. These days, the so-called liberals are burning J.K. Rowling books on the the internet. It makes my chest hurt, the foolishness of it all, and how serious the consequences will be.

Only 8 years ago, in 2012, liberals commonly understood the nuance that I’m writing about here in this essay. Less than a decade ago, we still had enough of a liberal worldview to uphold our liberal principles - to uphold our Liberty. The change to this totalitarian-trending worldview, it’s toxic. It’s poison in the veins of our culture.

It’s a completely different worldview, devoid of the ideas of individual liberty, or as we used to call it: being liberal.

In Charlottesville, in 2017, a white nationalist (read that “fascist” and “totalitarian”) committed a terrorist attack against a First Amendment activity - killing one woman and injuring others, but the attack was really against Liberty itself. The human casualties of this attack were not the point the attacker was making, but it’s the one that was made to us by the media.

The takeaway should have been that a totalitarian-minded person, who did not respect our way of life - our liberalism - attacked the same. This individual, infected with a “repressive tolerance” ideology, thinking himself justified, took life and liberty from Americans.

He didn’t think that those people should have a right to free expression. He thought they should be made fearful of expressing themselves, liberally.

But instead of the establishment seeing it for what it was - a terrorist attack meant to undermine the ideas of Liberty and the liberal beliefs of our society they saw it as a “hate crime”, a thought crime, and seeing it as such, a reason to actively repress unpopular views. But this totalitarian white nationalist - like all totalitarians - wanted to undermine liberalism, the longtime enemy of all totalitarian types. Killing and maiming was his means to that end.

Unfortunately, he succeeded in undermining liberalism, and it’s precisely because his terrorist attack against our liberal way of life was interpreted instead as a “hate crime”.

This is very unfortunate, because the response from the ACLU (and society) was exactly what that totalitarian terrorist wanted.

We relinquished ground in our ongoing defense of liberal society. The terrorist achieved exactly what he wanted to achieve, because he was attacking our liberal society. He attacked and successfully diminished liberalism, leaving totalitarianism in it’s place.

This was written on November 30, 2017.

It looks at the censorship of the mob, and how many people have forgotten about liberal tolerance, exchanging it for the oxymoronic ‘Repressive Tolerance’ doctrine of totalitarian thought.

I was baffled.

There I was, the day before Thanksgiving, minding my own business, when I start getting alerts from social media, and comment notifications from the MakeASceneAK.com website.

More than usual.

After reading the wall of comments on this recently published article, I couldn’t help but take notice of certain comments. Those who supported this article’s message were the majority, but those who opposed wrote the majority of words.

That’s to be expected, but among some of those opposing comments was something that I found quite ironic, almost painfully so.

They were saying that this man’s opinion about the legality of abortion was ill-informed, because it was from an overtly religious perspective, and therefore should not be published. They were even threatening to pull advertising - not that they were advertising in The People’s Paper, pfft - in an attempt to squash this man’s opinion. They wanted to muffle, or baffle, his voice.

They stirred up a cacophony of confusion, not only disagreeing, but demanding that someone else’s opinion be silenced by The People’s Paper.

Silenced... by The People’s Paper. Let those words settle for a minute.

Several of these commenters went so far as to name me, the owner of The People’s Paper, as somehow responsible for what the People contribute to it. Like I’m supposed to keep out the crazies.

Well... that’s crazy!

The First Amendment is not a difficult to understand amendment. It covers everyone, in case we have unpopular opinions that others want silenced.

It covers freedom of Press, for the Individual. It covers freedom of speech, for the human being. It covers freedom of Religion, for everyone. It covers all of these aspects of free expression, and even caps it off with the right to a redress of their grievances. Not only can we say it, print it, think it, we can also expect a response from out representatives.

Now, perhaps I spend more time thinking about the First Amendment than most.

Of course, I probably do. I use it as my guiding principle, both personally and professionally. I go so far as to proxy the freedom of the press for others, clearing a path for local people to use the freedom of the press that is guaranteed to them by the First Amendment. Honestly, I take that very seriously. It gives me a feeling of purpose that I treasure.

And then some fellow that I don’t know, he gets online, submits his article, and I print it. That’s what I’ve done for more than a decade, for many local people, without regard to their particular perspectives.

From my perspective, and considering my mandate under the First Amendment, the content of that article is irrelevant. I am not a gatekeeper. I am a servant. Get

it? Apparently some people don’t get it.

I don’t know which articles will go in the paper from month to month, except for a few days before print, when everyone sends in their content, up to the deadline. That’s when we take account of what we have to work with, and process that information for grammar and punctuation, and away it goes.

We respect the content we receive, and we are not investigative journalists working for corporations. We’ve never hired a journalist in all these years. We don’t create content, we don’t heavily edit content, we simply present it for your consideration. We help people use their freedom of Press.

We are your neighbors, being neighborly and civilized. And this man chose the civilized route to express his opinion about abortion.

Civilized people communicate.

use

words

Uncivilized people would silence words, choosing threats and coercion instead.

The demands that I not publish something are baffling to me. It shows a profound ignorance of the First Amendment - especially in regards to religious opinion. That is why the First Amendment specifies religion as the primary clause, alongside speech and... wait for it... the Press!

What connection could there possibly be between a printing press and all these Christians...?

Right! The Bible.

Let’s take a moment to remind ourselves of the history of the printing press, and the effect that it had on the organized Church in Old World Europe. Consider that it is precisely these people who were finally able to access the Bible for the first time - because of the Printing Press that would eventually lead the Protestant movement that would take root here in North America. These religious people were the genesis of modern protest.

I mean, calling for religious opinion to be silenced - in the press even? It’s outlandish. It’s ignorant. It’s illiberal.

It’s intolerant. It’s bigoted.

No, religious thought won’t be censored in The People’s Paper any times soon.

And that includes those less than mainstream opinions, too. Especially those.

Honestly, as I finish up this writing I can’t help but feel a bit dismayed. How did we get here, where the people would use their freedom of expression to call for that same freedom to be taken away from someone else?

It’s baffling.

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

You can respond to what you’ve read, or write what matters to you.

2012: aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-emdefends-kkks-right-free-speech 1999: aclu.org/press-releases/aclupraises-cleveland-mayors-support-kkksfirst-amendment-right-march

www.LibertyLiberally.com

to

From the Journal of Joshua Fryfogle

Volume I - Issue II

Liberty, Liberally

3

Your Self

by Joshua Fryfogle First, if you want to normalize censorship, you have to identify the least popular points of view possible.

Finding a view that is so unpopular, so despised, that you’re virtually guaranteed to find support for censoring that particular viewpoint.

Because this particular perspective is so unpopular, it is easy to find people who will reject that perspective as a ‘bad idea’. Now, in order to normalize censorship, after identifying a completely unpopular viewpoint that most everyone rejects, (a bad idea), you need only to suggest that failing to censor such a viewpoint is to accept that viewpoint, and therefore, the average individual feels as if they’ve become partly responsible for that bad idea continuing to gain popularity.

Conflating these two different ideas, (1) supporting a bad idea and (2) not wanting to censor it, is essential to normalizing censorship.

The irony is, of course, that most people already reject this bad idea, and many other bad ideas - just as they reject censorship. That’s the only reason this normalizing method is effective - because this particular bad idea is basically, universally rejected. Of course, this means that this unpopular idea is not a threat, because bad ideas need to spread in order to be dangerous, and this particular unpopular idea won’t spread on it’s own - because it’s a bad idea.

The urgency is manufactured.

Now, using the power of public relations and marketing skill, censorship can be normalized by popularizing that this otherwise unpopular idea is heinous, and gaining popularity - even though would-be censors are themselves promoting it. Prior to this PR campaign to promote this heinous, almost universally rejected, bad idea, it was not spreading. The campaign to censor this unpopular idea needs to popularize this idea first, in order to make people aware of it, and more fearful of it’s spread.

The public, now more aware of this bad idea, is then asked by the wouldbe censor if this bad idea should be removed from the public discourse, by censor. Keep in mind, the media itself was utilized to popularize the idea in the first place, because the idea is a bad idea, and as a result was previously obscure to the public.

The awareness of the bad idea has been increased, artificially, by the very campaign being waged to censor it. They magnify the bad idea, that is already ignored into obscurity by almost everyone, and create the awareness of that bad idea that it could not garner on it’s own.

The PR campaign to push how bad the idea is, while simultaneously promoting the idea artificially, acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s adherents feel fulfilled, morally upright in their own submission to the power of the censor.

Meanwhile, from the average persons perspective it seems that this idea that is obviously a bad idea is somehow gaining traction and popularity.

But it was artificially induced by the media, who simultaneously maligned but magnified the bad idea.

Some very vocal adherents, filled with fear, use their own voices to support the cause - and it’s all over the news, so...

Now there seems to be a threat, that this heinous perspective - this bad idea - is growing in popularity, even though that wouldn’t have been the case had they not made that suggestion. But the threat to the general public, whose members almost completely reject that bad idea, seems to be imminent. And the extreme minority of people who do support this bad idea are also afforded a place in the public discourse that they wouldn’t have had on their own.

The censorship that is being

Liberty, Liberally

You cannot live your life for others

normalized must first find a foothold - it must first be justified as a necessity. This can’t happen unless bad ideas are amplified artificially.

Now that everyone has been forcefully made aware of this bad idea, and they’ve been convinced that this bad idea is somehow gaining ground, despite that almost no one you know actually believes that bad idea, now it seems to be a real threat.

You must be more stoic You must do what others won’t This much is heroic You cannot think that your ideas Won’t be ridiculed, Or trust that trusted institutions Won’t call you a fool

Censorship itself is a bad idea.

Almost no one believes in censorship.

However, almost no one believes in this bad idea that is being used to justify censorship. The public is then given a conundrum to consider:

You must stand for truth instead But not as you’ve been told You cannot be afraid of speaking -

Sure, censorship is bad, but this other bad idea is much worse.

No, you must be bold!

And the only answer conundrum? Censorship.

You are you and no one else

to

this

Of this I am sure

The public is then persuaded towards accepting censorship, because this other, more heinous bad idea has been popularized - which should not have happened, and would not, except that the media was weaponized to increase awareness of it.

You must seek to find your Self And as your Self, endure

“Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.”

The public is told that if censorship is not used, then this other heinous idea, artificially popularized by the information gatekeepers, will overtake them.

Now, they’ve been pushed into an impossible impasse. Clearly, the popularity of this bad idea has increased, (but only because of the asymmetrical, disproportionate media response to this otherwise unpopular idea), which leads the public to overestimate the threat.

Now, those who would wage this propaganda war on the public consciousness need only to suggest that to be anti-censorship is to be probad idea. Now, to oppose censorship seems to suggest that you support this other, more heinous idea. So, if you reject this other bad idea, that is only popular because they’ve made it popular, you feel obligated to support censorship - but only for even worse bad ideas, of course.

It doesn’t matter, though, that you only accept censorship for really bad ideas. Now, censorship has been normalized. And who are you to decide what ideas are bad in the first place? Who are you to decide which bad ideas are dangerous, or growing in popularity? The media corporations tell you which bad ideas to worry about.

CENSORSHIP DEFINITION: The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. censor (n.)

1530s, "Roman magistrate of 5c.

B.C.E. who took censuses and oversaw public manners and morals," from French censor and directly from Latin censor, from censere "to appraise, value, judge," from PIE root *kens- "speak solemnly, proclaim" (source also of Sanskrit amsati "recites, praises," asa "song of praise").

They also had charge of public finances and public works.

Transferred sense of "officious judge of morals and conduct" in English is from 1590s. Latin censor also had a transferred sense of "a severe judge; a rigid moralist; a censurer."

From 1640s as "official empowered to examine books, plays (later films, etc.) to see they are free of anything immoral or heretical." By the early decades of the 19c. the meaning of the English word had concentrated into "state agent charged with suppression of speech or published matter deemed politically subversive." Related: Censorial; censorian. censor (v.)

1833, "to act as a censor (of news or public media); from censor (n.).

Related: Censored; censoring.

- Oscar Wilde

Dear Reader, As you may already know, my small team and I have built my media company around the central pillar of free expression for local people. In this way, our team of contributors number in the thousands!

Whether in Make A Scene Magazine, The People’s Paper, 95.5 The Pass, or on one of the many event stages that I’ve set up for thousands of local voices to be heard, all of my passion and profession have been devoted to Liberty of the individual here in Alaska.

That’s how my team and I do what we do.

However, this new publication Liberty, Liberally - is WHY we do what we do.

I count myself fortunate to have been able to do this civic work in our community for so many years. With this new publication, I hope to inspire more people to contemplate this perfect law of individual Liberty that is the lawful foundation of our great Republic. So many of our problems could be solved if we could simply get on the same page about this one fundamental topic - true Liberalism.

Our Liberty is always under constant pressure, and it’s a bi-partisan pressure from the-powers-that-be, against the individual - you and me.

I’ve been doing this civic work, regarding our First Amendment rights, in multiple ways, for 15+ years, actively engaging my own rights, and facilitating that same right for my neighbors.

Now that this very fight for free expression is at the forefront of our awareness, I need your help to expand my efforts to share with local people

about our shared Liberty. Not for partisan ends, but to disrupt that partisan narrative with the one thing that we truly have in common with each other: Individuality!

I’m writing you today to ask for your patronage towards these efforts to promote individual Liberty, especially free expression, which I’ve championed for most of my adult life.

Your voluntary donation will be used to continue that work, and to secure for local Alaskans a means of communication that is not controlled by Big Tech.

Please consider becoming a patron of Liberty, Liberally, by committing to a donation.

Liberty, Liberally, is content that I have personally created as an outgrowth of my own passion and profession. For this reason I am seeking patrons rather than advertising support, to ensure to the reader that what they are reading is not ‘the news’, but something else entirely.

Not a publication about the next election, or some salacious sensationalist headline, but a journal about freedom itself.

The level and frequency of contribution is yours to decide. You can make a onetime or monthly contribution, or set up recurring payments as you like.

You can be listed as a patron in the published materials I produce, or choose to remain anonymous.

Thank you for consideration.

your

time

Sincerely, Joshua Fryfogle

www.libertyliberally.com/donate

Thanks for all the encouragement about the first edition of Liberty, Liberally. I hope future editions are a continued encouragement to you.

Send me any inquiries or suggestions about other liberty-related topics that are of concern to you, and perhaps I’ll explore that topic in future editions.

Joshua Fryfogle 851 E Westpont Dr., Ste B-12 Wasilla, AK 99654 Let’s express ourselves... liberally. Contribute your own writings for publication in The People’s Paper. Visit www.thepeoplespaper.news.

www.LibertyLiberally.com

and

From the Journal of Joshua Fryfogle

Volume I - Issue II

One of my more socially-conscious friends, someone who immigrated from one of the more socialist countries in Europe to the USA many years ago, recently engaged me about my publication of the first edition of Liberty, Liberally.

In that publication, I made clear my classically liberal perspective that free speech, and free press, and all of Liberty, belongs to everyone - even those we despise. I made my point by quoting Noam Chomsky, a well-known liberal political philosopher.

Following our discussion about the rise of fascism through the recent marriage of corporation and state, as is exposed by recent unanimous decision from all of the major online platforms to deplatform those who dissent from the dominant political narrative, I told my friend how this is literally textbook fascism, and being well-read, my friend understood.

After we fleshed out that idea of classical liberalism, that all are free and ought to remain so, my friend asked a question, and I paraphrase: “Surely you draw the line somewhere when it comes to publishing content in the paper, though, right?”

This really brought to the top of our friendly conversation a consideration that needs considering. When talking about the internet, and social media, there are no social media outlets that deny the individual the right to delete their own posts. You, the user (the used), are given the ability to post whatever you want, and then delete it if you decide. We, the People, feel like this constitutes free expression, but it’s not.

In real life, in public and on paper, you said what you said. No take-backs, no do-overs.

I told my friend that I really don’t have the problem that online platforms have, because the contributors to The People’s Paper know that they can’t delete what they publish. Once we print 10,000 copies and distribute them to hundreds of locations all over the Mat-Su, there’s no going back.

The Delete Option Works Both Ways Now we see that those in these power positions, who own these online platforms, have scratched the itch of selfexpression that we all feel, but removed from the process any sense permanence.

Unlike saying something said at a City Council Meeting, or printing an article on paper, the internet allows for revision of history.

First, they offered their users this unnatural power, to delete from the public discourse what has already been made public. This lowered the quality of discourse, of course. People could express themselves when they feel emotionally compelled to, and once their chemical-emotional response subsided, they could reconsider their words, editing them, or even deleting them entirely.

Never in the history of public discourse has it been so easy to revise the record.

Second, and years later, with these platforms having corralled many millions of users into their service, the social media corporations began using that same reverse power that they had given first to the individual user. The platforms started deleting the posts of individuals that they didn’t agree with, mostly aimed at ideas that are almostuniversally despised. Unlike Chomsky, or any true liberal, these political progressives believed in the doctrine of ‘repressive tolerance’, an oxymoron that cancels its own meaning, while cancelling those they repress.

Liberty, Liberally

by Joshua Fryfogle Everything that you learn Is gold you have earned For books can all burn But not thought You can spend it all day And there’s no less to pay Every truth you relay Has been bought

I told my friend, as I had written in the last edition of Liberty, Liberally, that this de facto fascism would not necessarily remain on the political left, but would surely partner with whatever political power comes next.

However there’s more For the gold is just ore Just earth like before It is wrought

The online platforms that have taken away so many millions’ ability to express themselves have first taught the People to express themselves poorly. They’ve given them the ability to edit their words after they’ve been made public, and used the resulting barrage of low-quality content to create a constant flow of new information, so any information that’s been removed is quickly forgotten, any edits unnoticed. They’ve replaced quality with quantity, and they’ve used the impermanence of the online quasimedium to facilitate this culture of historical revision.

The gold is all there But its spread everywhere And its beauty is ne’er Till its sought So we all understand We can trust every man Who will learn when he can As he ought

The People’s Paper is written completely by community members, of their own accord.

We can wander around On this earth we are bound

We don’t pay anyone to write what they write, and it is each writer who actually serves as publisher when they choose to make public what they’ve written. We just help them do it. Each one of those people must think through what they’re saying, because they know that they can’t go back and change it later.

We almost never get content that we can’t print. And when we have, it’s been because of the incoherence of the content, rather than the content itself.

If it’s gibberish, we don’t print it.

It turns out, when you give people the ability to delete what they’ve written, they’ll write much lower quality content. But if you want the power to delete what people have written - even though that goes against the ideals of public discourse - you have to first give that same power to each individual over their own public discourse.

The culture of deleting content from the internet began with the individual.

After the individual realized this power, to take-back what they’ve said, to memory-hole their own expressive indiscretions, then the platform owners could easily justify doing the same.

And then the platform could do the same on behalf of the political powers that happen to be most powerful at the time.

We all experience these emotional ups and downs, and when these acute feelings of imperative are given an avenue, and outrage an outlet, our public discourse is damaged and made moot. If what you have to say is not weighed by reason, but is only an emotional outburst, then you really aren’t saying much anyway. If you can memory-hole your own public input, so can they.

A people can demand their freedom, but they must also have a command of their freedom. That requires that each individual exercise a measure of control over their own emotional response.

That means that each individual must take responsibility for what they express.

You can’t be surprised that these platforms that first provided you with the ability to edit your own history of self-expression would also make use of that power. They literally created that power, it’s theirs to give.

www.LibertyLiberally.com

Liberty, Liberally

Golden Opportunity

Third, and most recently, this power to cancel those who most of us despise has grown beyond that small group.

Beyond those ideas that almost everyone disagrees with, they’ve ‘progressed’ this power, creating an unholy union of state and corporation.

Now, these social media platforms have partnered with the dominant (at the moment) political party to silence dissent from literally tens of millions of Americans.

The result?

4

But if gold is not found It is naught

Local Media Limits Big Tech’s Power More locally-owned media leaves less power for Big Tech The only reason why the censorship on the internet is capable of silencing dissent effectively is because the internet has become our primary means of communication.

If the internet were not the primary means of communication, controlling the flow of information in general, then censorship on the internet would not be an effective way of silencing dissent.

But we gave up on all of the media that each community controls locally - like radio and print. We traded our birthright, as Free People, without even considering what we were losing.

Imagine if we hadn’t been so shortsighted, and we hadn’t jumped on the corporate bandwagon while invalidating radio and print in our culture. Imagine if we had maintained a robust local media ownership in each of our communities across the nation.

If the internet companies had tried to silence dissent, it wouldn’t have been effective. We, the People, would have used locally controlled media to counter their attempt at censorship.

In fact, they probably wouldn’t have even tried it.

Censorship only works at silencing dissent when the censor can actually silence dissent. When the censor has control over the flow of information, they can control the flow of information.

When they don’t, they can’t.

What our leaders should have done, if they were people of vision, was to secure locally owned media companies, assuring that those companies have access to the power and paper that radio and newsprint requires to function. They should have reminded the People in each community that supporting local ownership and control of media is imperative to the welfare of our Constitutional Republic.

Our leaders should have reminded us of the role of our own individual rights, like the freedom of the press, and encouraged an education in Liberty, and the classical liberal philosophies that shaped our constitution from the

www.LibertyLiberally.com

beginning.

We’ve given control over to these corporate entities, and rather than decentralizing power - as was the designed function of our union of States - we’ve allowed corporate persons to centralize power in their imaginary hands.

Our leaders should care about the security of our communities, and our communication. They should be concerned with big picture issues, and with the spirit of our constitutional form of government. They should be leading us with wisdom, and foresight.

But most of them are absolutely subsumed by their political party, and obsessed with defending their party, not the People who elected them.

The internet did not raise the quality of our public discourse. In fact, it lowered the quality to the point that most debates online are just low-brow brow-beatings.

Endless ‘gotchas’ and ‘whataboutery’, emotionally engaging content meant to captivate you - but captives aren’t free.

The free mind, that can think critically, must overcome emotional response to do so. This requires time, and careful consideration. That’s not what the internet engenders.

Instead, social media companies have captured our conversation, lowering the quality while increasing the quantity. Now we’re overloaded with low quality information, and we’ve become accustomed to expecting less and less quality from the propagandists at the corporate media companies. It’s not just individuals on social media whose discourse has hit a detour, but even those companies who claim to provide news and information, even their quality has fallen to abysmal depths.

We, the People, need to take stock.

Consider that our voices are being silenced, but first, before they could effectively do so, these corporations disrupted and dismantled local media companies all around the nation. The blamed the paper they print on, instead of what they print on the paper. The media blamed the medium. But now, as our primary means of communication is the internet, where there is no paper at all, we see the public discourse is in shambles, proving that declining

From the Journal of Joshua Fryfogle

Volume I - Issue II

Liberty, Liberally

5

Local Media Limits Big Tech’s Power, Continued newspaper sales were the result of declining integrity in the corporate media industry.

The solution? Invest your time and resources in supporting locally-owned media, especially media that doesn’t depend on or seek the good graces of Big Tech and the Establishment political class. The People’s Paper and Make A Scene Magazine are my own effort, and that of my small team of local people, to facilitate your voice, and to help disrupt the corporate control over our public discourse. But any locally owned media company is a better investment than those corporate entities who haven’t a civic bone in their non-existent corporate bodies.

to communicate through our own First Amendment rights as individuals, if we do not create platforms that can’t be removed from the App Store, or banned from social media, or blocked from Google searches, then we are literally at the mercy of a few corporations’ whim.

“If you want to know who controls you, look at who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Liberty is she whom every individual yearns for, and it is in that yearning that our learning of Liberty becomes amorous.

Liberty is what the subjugated masses in time desire, each and every one of us. It’s the freedom to do no harm, but to otherwise freely express our most beautiful Self.

Liberty lets art flow from the fingertips, it lets relationships and culture grow, peacefully, like a garden.

Liberty has grace, and with kindness by her side, her mere appearance will silence those who doubt her. She is striking to behold.

Liberty is the gift of Self, the free will to decide how you will be in the world.

Freedom & Friendship There is no freedom without friendship, and no friendship without freedom.

Friendship arises from a free society.

Liberals long ago knew this, too:

“Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it.”

- Thomas Jefferson

- Voltaire

Life is your only chance to dance, in her thrilling embrace, this face to face union...

Liberty sings a song that, once heard, makes the heart feel forever full, like a pool, with a fountain.

“I can't believe what God has done Through us He's given life to one But isn't she lovely made from love?”

Why did Andrew Jackson hate the banks? Consider these additional quotes from President Jackson:

“When you get in debt you become a slave.”

A political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

- ‘representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism’ liberal Pronunciation /ˈlɪbərəl/

He liked to think of himself as a liberal

It’s absolutely true that the Conservatives are currently being silenced, at the hands of corporations, as is the will of the prevailing political party. But the self-proclaimed “progressives” on the Left first silenced the liberals among them. And silencing a liberal is itself oxymoronic.

Liberals have always championed freedom of expression, and tolerance of opposing views, in the same breath.

Where are those champions when we need them?

If this is “progress”, it’s not progress for liberalism. If anything, it effectively ends liberalism as a philosophy. The liberal-minded person must - MUST speak up, or they’re not liberal at all.

Those who speak up for Liberty are the true Liberals, no matter what they call themselves.

NOUN

Recently I’ve been writing more.

Scratch that, I’ve been sharing more of what I write. Writing, for me, is a right - not a profession. And as I’ve been writing more for my neighbors than I usually do, I see it as a civic action, not a professional one. Usually, I write for myself.

philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

- Thomas Jefferson to William Hamilton, April 22, 18001

So much so, that I think it’s necessary to write this piece, to explain that I am not what most people think of as a reporter or an investigative journalist. Not only that, I’m not trying to be either of those things.

Peaceful cooperation is the result of individual Liberty.

Without individual liberty, there would be no ability to seek out affinity, or alliance, as our freedom of association would be lost.

“If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution by morning.”

“The bold effort the present Central Bank had made to control the government... are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.”

So the real controversy is not that they are removing a former President from the $20 bank note, which only ends their mockery of him, but that they’re replacing his visage with that of Harriet Tubman, a former slave.

“I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more, if only they knew they were slaves...”

- Harriet Tubman

Liberty, Liberally

NOUN

In doing this, I’ve had several people - well-meaning but misguided compliment me as a ‘journalist’ or a ‘reporter’.

Freedom for friendship... liberty to love...

He hated central banks, and central banking, and his face on a bank note has always been a mockery of his greatest accomplishment, which was undone when the People “established another like it” in 1913.

Pronunciation /ˈlib(ə)rəˌlizəm/ /ˈlɪb(ə) rəˌlɪzəm/

- Stevie Wonder, Isn’t She Lovely

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in

“I killed the banks.”

liberalism

Previously published in The People’s Paper, August 14, 2018

Liberty is lovely.

Liberty of the individual makes friendship possible. It is a concept that is entirely dependent upon the freedom we have, to befriend those whom we choose, and who in return choose us.

When they asked the former President what his greatest accomplishment was while in office, he said:

Liberalism is literally what the Conservatives are demanding. Consider this definition from Oxford Dictionary:

somebody who respects others a person who understands and respects other people’s opinions and behaviour, especially when they are different from their own

Liberty decorates the drab, destitute world, freely and without force.

Liberty need not force anything... she allows.

“I can never think of promoting my convenience at the expense of a friend's interest and inclination.”

- George Washington

Andrew Jackson would be relieved that his face is being removed from the $20 bill.

It’s true.

Willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.

The internet can serve humanity well, but if we do not invest in our own ability

Liberty Is Lovely

No, no, don’t turn away.

My writing is my writing, and nothing else. I have spent more than a decade trying to re-educate people on the true intent of the First Amendment’s Freedom of the Press. Now, with my increase in publishing my own thoughts and words, I am attempting to lead by example.

However, because the corporate, privately owned media industry has had it’s way with our freedom of the press for so long, I can understand why people would be confused.

The freedom of the Press was a freedom guaranteed to everyone - you, me, and those who disagree. The paid journalists and reporters, well, that’s a side effect.

It’s not - I repeat NOT - the intent of the First Amendment.

The intent of the First Amendment was as clear on freedom of the Press as it was on freedom of religion and speech. It’s an individual right.

Now, why would that be? Why would the First Amendment seek to protect your right, and mine, to use a printing press?

So that we, the People, could gauge consensus, and so that we, the People, could share our perspectives and adjust accordingly. Any police officer will tell you that if there are three witnesses to an event, they will have three slightly different accounts of what happened.

Not because they are liars, but because they are different people, with different perspectives. Even the four gospels of the story of Christ vary. If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John couldn’t tell the same tale, what are the chances that anyone else can?

This is where the corporate media goes wrong. They tell you that you don’t have to think, they’ll tell you what to think, and that you can trust them to do so. Like a mama bird, they predigest your food, and then vomit it into our eager mouths. It’s gross.

This was not the intent or design of the first amendment. It was designed to create a conversation among the people,

www.LibertyLiberally.com

using speech, community, the printing press, and conscience/religion, to allow the people the information necessary to govern themselves.

Does that sound like the media today?

Nope. No it does not.

So, when you read something that I write, don’t think that it’s the truth.

Read it and wonder if it’s true, and dig in and find out. Test it. Kick the tires.

And if it doesn’t feel solid, well, use your own right to freedom of the press to respond.

We all have that right, after all.

One more thing. Not only do I lead by example, by writing what I think, but I’ve spent the last 11 years publishing other people’s words and thoughts should they choose to send them to me - in my monthly publication. There is no cost, you are free to submit your thoughts at www.MakeASceneAK.com

And another thing - I publish things I disagree with all the time. It’s what I do. What I write does not represent what I publish. What I publish, I do so on your behalf, with your trust that I will be faithful to your words, and not change them around to suit any agenda.

I expect my community to extend the same tolerance, and even appreciation, for my own writings that I’ve invested in yours.

No matter what I happen to think, or write, I care more about the freedom to think and write than whatever that topic might be. No matter what you think or write, I will not be the one to decide what goes to print, and what doesn’t.

You will, by writing it, and sending it in to be published.

Finally, if you disagree with anything I’ve written, please, send it in. I will publish it. That’s what The People’s Paper represents. Not me, but all of us - the People.

Thanks.

"As to the history of the Revolution, my Ideas may be peculiar, perhaps Singular. What do We mean by the Revolution? The War? That was no part of the Revolution. It was only an Effect and Consequence of it. The Revolution was in the Minds of the People, and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen Years before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington. The Records of thirteen Legislatures, the Pamphlets, Newspapers in all the Colonies ought be consulted, during that Period, to ascertain the Steps by which the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the Authority of Parliament over the Colonies."

— John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 24 August 1815

From the Journal of Joshua Fryfogle

Volume I - Issue II

The idea is simple - if the tolerant tolerate intolerance, then intolerance will overtake the tolerant. Based on this non sequitur, this faulty logic, we should be tolerant of everyone as long as we agree with them. This is the prevailing philosophy of so many who (probably unknowingly) follow this teaching of Herbert Marcuse, and...

It’s nonsense.

First, and most concerning, is that the ‘paradox of tolerance’ insists that tolerance is, ultimately, the weaker ideology, and implies that the natural order is for the intolerant to rule over those who will let them - those who will tolerate it. The ‘paradox of tolerance’, then, is an affront to true liberalism.

True Liberalism is the belief that free expression will dissolve bad ideas, because good ideas are superior to bad.

This is most concerning, because tolerance of others is the fruit of the tree of individual Liberty.

Only an individual who doesn’t believe in the human spirit as being capable of making right and moral decisions would insinuate that society should not tolerate those who hold differing views.

Liberty, Liberally

wrong, then by all means speak out about them. But if you believe that you speaking out cannot possibly make a difference, yet the intolerant ideologues will definitely win the public debate well, that is indeed a paradox, isn’t it?

If you believe that individual humans are only taught intolerance, and that their natural state is to be tolerant of other individuals relative to how that individual treats them, without prejudice, bigotry, or racism, then why would you assume that an tolerant worldview would ultimately concede to an intolerant ideology? Only because you don’t believe in tolerance.

The arc of history suggests just the opposite.

Liberty, being set free on the earth only recently, has ignited those brush fires, clearing the path for the inevitable: that this law of Liberty will prevail.

“Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”

- Herbert Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance

The fear of the “other”, whoever that other might be, is the beginning of this folly. It says that the opinions of other people can sometimes be so egregious, that we must not tolerate those opinions, lest they win out in the marketplace of ideas. The public narrative around these presumably errant ideas and ideologies will never be enough to counter the power of intolerance, according to this socially-enforced intolerance of intolerance - this ouroboros of idiocy.

“The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

If you think that intolerant ideas are

- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

These days, if we hear or read this phrase, ‘paradox of tolerance’, or ‘the tolerance paradox’, it’s likely coming from a political “progressive” who does not actually see a paradox at all.

They’re describing how liberals might perceive their supposedly ‘progressive’ yet somehow intolerant political philosophy. For them, the solution is clear, and without conflict. They do not tolerate that which they believe to be intolerant.

alone is no match for intolerance, and that humanity’s ability to reason as individuals is, itself, dangerous.

This seems like a paradox to many people, but certainly not to those who believe in silencing the opinions of those individuals whom they despise.

It’s the liberals that see the paradox.

But the progressives who speak about it, they’re not vexed by a paradoxical feeling, and instead they speak clearly that the are intolerant of the intolerant, and tolerant of the tolerant. They say this because they believe that if they tolerate intolerant ideas, then those intolerant ideas will inevitably overwhelm the tolerant society, making it intolerant. Their solution to their perceived and prophesied threat is to be intolerant themselves, establishing it as the norm, because that’s what they expect of their opposition, because that’s what they would do… and they do.

It’s a power play, philosophically speaking, and very totalitarian in thought. That position says more about these “progressives”, these intentionally intolerant post-modernist, than society at large.

From Encyclopedia Brittanica: Postmodernism, also spelled postmodernism, in Western philosophy, a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.

If one is to believe that intolerance will overcome tolerance, as tolerance allows intolerance to increase, then it follows that intolerance must be a greater force that reason. It follows that reason

That is totalitarianism in a nutshell, folks.

Consider that the ability to reason is the means by which even this understanding of ‘repressive tolerance’ has been made known. Without the ability to reason, the individual could not hope to understand this ‘tolerance paradox’, and could not come to the conclusion that intolerance ought not be tolerated.

It’s a fallacious failure of reasoning, but reasoning still, so following that reasoning we must presume that this philosophy of ‘repressive tolerance’ is no match for intolerant philosophy, either.

Now we’ve found yet another paradox, a meta-paradox. The paradox of paradox.

It’s confounding.

The deeper the mind delves into this downward spiral of spurious folly, the harder it is to accept. The reasoning required to make sense of the ‘tolerance paradox’ is, well... intolerable.

So the issue isn’t really some paradox regarding tolerance, but our egoistic inability to tolerate paradox that is vexing us.

In this one philosophical conundrum we find the human limitations of reason.

And our intellect doesn’t like to let go, it likes to make decisions, to take control. It likes to decide things, and believes that it should be able to make sense of things. Our ego tends towards force.

We reach a point, in any honest reasoning, where we find the limitations of human understanding.

This is different for everyone, but it’s also the same for everyone. It is at this paradoxical precipice where we either keep walking like a fool, right off the cliff of continuity, or we accept our limitations, and rest easy in the majesty of it all.

“Doubt is an uncomfortable condition, but certainty is a ridiculous one.”

The doctrine of ‘Repressive Tolerance’ presumes that if we allow intolerant views to be expressed in our tolerant society, our society will no longer be tolerant.

One flaw in reasoning here is the presumption that a tolerant society has ever existed, and there is no better evidence that we’ve never actually achieved a tolerant society than this argument justifying intolerance.

Repressive Tolerance, as a doctrine of Marcuse and his unwitting adherents, is built on the faulty premise that a tolerant society is achievable (through intolerance, no less).

However, tolerance is an activity of the individual. An individual tolerates, and since individuals are capable of toleration, but not prone to tolerance without effort, then the collective of individuals will never be tolerant. A tolerant society would require that all individuals be tolerant, but that would require that the thoughts and opinions of each individual be in concord with this groupthink. The group is, by it’s very function, intolerant of those that differ from the group.

A truly tolerant society has never been achieved, and there is no logical way it can be achieved. Any attempt to achieve a tolerant society, meaning a society that is homogenous in it’s tolerance, is folly. It’s a misunderstanding of tolerance, and it’s wellspring. The individual is the source of all tolerance.

The individual has the ability to tolerate those with whom they have differences. As individuals, we are capable of making a value judgement, moment by moment, individual by individual, as to what we will and won’t tolerate from each individual in each moment. Society is a construct, while the individual exists in reality.

Society does not have a moral or ethical disposition of it’s own, but is always inevitably an amalgam of the morality of all the individuals in that society.

Repressive Tolerance is therefore repression of tolerance, because it removes from the individual the task of toleration, and insists via social or civic mandate that toleration be subject to the definition of the state or other, non-civic governing body, i.e. the corporation, the collective, etc...

While groups and collectives can certainly crowd-source a consensus,

The term “freedom of the press” has been largely displaced in the narrative with the simpler-sounding ‘Free Press’. However, along with being different phrases that are similar but not the same, the two are different concepts that are commonly conflated.

In the vernacular, ‘The Free Press’, and the even shorter ‘The Press’, represents the corporate media industrial complex that has co-opted our own, individual ‘freedom of the Press.’

The real purpose of the First Amendment freedom of the Press?

You, the individual, because you are an individual and for no other reason, have an inherent right to use the (printing) press, freely. You and everyone else. Literally everyone.

This is exactly the opposite of our shared understanding of the phrase, ‘The Press’. The Press is an elite industry, also referred to as the Fourth Estate.

6

they cannot engage each moment of each individual’s life, so they cannot ensure that their agreed upon (oxymoronic) vision of tolerance will be carried out. In fact, human nature is such that we can be sure that many individuals will not tolerate such intrusions into the prerogative of the individual.

It’s virtually guaranteed that there will be push-back, suggesting again that repressive tolerance is a selfdefeating doctrine.

“There is no official censorship in literature, but I feel a certain fear when I see that a kind of selfcensorship is developing in Poland.

Authors are somehow afraid of expressing what they really think or feel because they fear political consequences.”

- Olga Tokarczuk “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty “The master no longer says: You will think like me or die; he says: You are free not to think as I do; your life, your goods, everything remains with you; but from this day on you are a stranger among us. You will keep your privileges as a citizen, but they will become useless to you.

If you aspire to be the choice of your fellow citizens, they will not choose you, and if you ask only for their esteem, they will still pretend to refuse it to you. You will remain among men, but you will lose your rights to humanity. When you approach your fellows, they will flee from you like an impure being. And those who believe in your innocence, even they will abandon you, for people would flee from them in turn. Go in peace; I spare your life, but I leave you a life worse than death.”

- Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835

“No Rack can torture me— My Soul—at Liberty— Behind this mortal Bone There knits a bolder One— You cannot prick with saw— Nor pierce with Scimitar— Two Bodies—therefore be— Bind One—The Other fly— The Eagle of his Nest No easier divest— And gain the Sky Than mayest Thou— Except Thyself may be Thine Enemy— Captivity is Consciousness— So’s Liberty.”

- Emily Dickinson, 1830-1886, No Rack Can Torture Me

You can respond to what you’ve read, or write what matters to you.

- Voltaire

www.LibertyLiberally.com Liberty, Liberally

www.LibertyLiberally.com

From the Journal of Joshua Fryfogle