Freedom to blame, to invalidate, attack and undermine other people - in the name of 'freedom'?
Hatred born of fear and guilt can take many disguises. None of them are free to love. Love is free to create - but deceit can only work to deny, distort and destroy. Who wants to be outraged and offended or use proxies for their grievance, will seek and find the basis for justifying hate and attack - on some level. Is there not a fanaticism that denies and subverts all communication in the name of 'freedom' - and it works every side of every conflict. For it makes the darkness in which to operate and grow in power unnoticed.
The deceiver is for many an archaic term for an agenda that operates destructively, largely by remaining hidden or in disguise. In any potential event of undoing by exposure it will sacrifice 'others' by scape-goating them as evil, worthless and heretical or insane. It offers 'righteous vengeance' to cover over the evil one fears in oneself.
In a world where false flags have been historically shown to be normally part of a war of manipulating perceptions to trigger predictable reaction, one is wise to look and see what agendas ARE being pushed. The 'war on terror' propagates terror. It increase darkness against light of true understanding.
When Jesus said "Resist ye not evil" he taught a fundamental creative responsibility - for what one focus on and feeds attention to, magnifies.
Murder is murder. Incitement or provocation to hate may be foolhardy but doesn't call for or warrant murder. But those who believe they are aggrieved, will believe it the basis for vengeance in one form or another - and hatred is not a sane perspective.
Is Derek Fox embodying freedom of speech? Are those who vilify him trying to shut down his right to free speech? In such confusions as are our world, we un-mindfully react and compound them. Fear is not a true foundation from which to live. It steals our joy in life and ravages our world. Seek a true foundation!
Gary Carkeek reacted thusly:
The fact that Fox was able to make his comments is proof he (and we) are allowed to - we have freedom of speech. Evaluating another's words is also freedom of speech, and being disgusted by it is not and attempt to 'shut down' that right. Do you honestly not get that?
To Gary I say:
Communication is - as far as I am concerned - an exchange within a relationship. The use of communication as a weapon of coercion or manipulation operates to deny relationship and communication under the 'name' of some appeal for an ideal such as 'freedom' or under the appeal of self-righteousness in opposing something tarred as 'disgusting'.
Manipulated consciousness is in many ways, the current world order, and works by guile and deceit such as to deny its own exposure. Personal or collective emotionality is not holy, but it is a point of leverage for manipulators.
Vilification is an attempt to deny or invalidate another. Can you not address the issue without attacking the person? All choices have consequences. The idea of acting without consequence is a false idea of freedom. What we give out sets the measure of what we get back. If you believe emotionally backed coercions will free you, you will believe in their reality when they rebound.
So much miscommunication arises from holding completely irreconcilable self definitions, from which irreconcilable notions of freedom extend automatically. If one is 'allowed' a freedom, is it then innate or true? Who 'allows'? Who or what is the power that chooses to allow or disallow freedom? Is it that which consolidates through fear? Can reacting fearfully truly express freedom? Is not fear's dictum, 'divide and rule'?
Emotionality is not holy - but a true capacity to feel is innate to our Soul and our sanity. Tokenism may posit its 'proofs'. I suggest that 'political correctness' gives rise to fear of vilification that is actively undermining our willingness to communicate and relate, but merely reacting against it only feeds its appetite. War breeds war. War is the condition in which light cannot enter, truth is denied and persona agenda indulged as if THAT is freedom.
Freedom to assert what one is NOT at the expense of what we truly are, is the insanity of
human-un-kind. To uncover this in part IS disgusting in ourselves and so most will seek to get rid of it by whatever means asap. True sanity cannot be founded on running away from what we hate and fear in ourselves in attempt to put it out upon the other and attack them so as to aggressively disown our own part. But this pattern is a collective human defence mechanism that operates destructively in our midst. It generates and feeds war and woe.
Also please notice the comments you reacted to were questions inviting consideration and not assertions imposing themselves on the reader. You missed the very next sentence after the one you misread.
" In such confusions as are our world, we un-mindfully react and compound them".
Are you free to evaluate or is that already sold out to a defensive reflex? I do not mean this to demean you - but as a moment of noticing how easy it is to react to what isn't there - but which the mind believes is there. This is the direction of enquiry that uncovers opportunity for healing and unifying in place of polarized insanity.