Why would someone look to someone else and ask if its OK to say what you want to say ?  We are a free people.  Nobody decides what is proper to say. The European socialist may control language ( can even over rule what you name your child ( Italy) ) but here we have a Constitution with the Bill of Rights that protects our freedom of speech, but we have no right not to be offended. One should not be afraid to offend someone with their speech because of what others will say,  but only out of personal respect and consideration for that person. Not a group.

In America we are all individuals. All people are free and different. When someone allows someone else to speak for them they give-up their freedom and any chance of success as a person.  No person can speak for others.  What may offend one may compliment another.  When someone says they speak for a race, a sex, or any other group , they are, in effect disrespecting those in that group as individuals and stripping them of their own personal power of opinion. When, those in that group start believing what is being represented about them their own initiative is devolved and they become slaves to the group leaders opinion. Their lack of personal power and self respect hinders them from obtaining, self respect , jobs , relationships and yes even respecting the law. Its only in the state of no self respect can one be offended.

When we find these “ Personal Power Thieves “ who claim to speak for others we should prosecute them for theft but, instead we glorify them as great leaders ( i.e. jessie jackson, ) and when we recognize them as such we commit a crime against those they claim to speak for.

I have some friends who describe themselves as Black, one who is Negro and yes some who are Colored, Dutchman, Hillbilly, Crout, White and African American but all are proud Americans only. When one considers if what he may say is politically correct,  he to has fallen into someones controlled group and loses his individual respect.

Remember that only in socialism are there divisions and to " Divide and Conquer or Control ” is whats being attempted here as evident  when questioning ones own speech.

And That's The National Word 

Comments

Add New Search RSS

Max Smithwick - Yes but...   | Unregistered | 2007-12-22 07:28:14 Surely at times it is necessary to allow yourself to be represented within a group? A crowd of individuals shouting out different views is going to get far less done than a unified body with a representative. Belonging to a 'group' protects individual liberties rather than removing them. Before societies and governing organisations were formed we had no individual rights, it was as in Hobbes words, every man against every man (in over words free for all). Groupings protect our liberties and rights. Reply 0   0

Greg Halloway - William your right on   | Unregistered | 2007-12-22 10:23:55 In America we all have a vote. The result of the election is what we must appreciate. In America the word "Rights" is spelled "Responsibility" I can see by the previous commenter that when you become a slave to a group it hard to understand what a individual is. I agree that only in socialism are there groups but not in a free America. Reply 2   0

Max Smithwick   | Unregistered | 2008-01-07 09:00:32 I'm sorry but how do you mean in a free America there are no Groups? In general, groups are inevitable, America itself is a group, if you were not all in unison under a president America would have none of the power or Influence it has now. If you are suggesting that nationalism (Submitting yourselves to a group called America) is a bad thing, you are proposing anarchy, living in a society with No Rights, No Liberties and No Protection. Furthermore, what about trade unions, when they did not exist, workers were horrendously exploited in workhouses and factories for little pay, and the reason this could be done is because they were not unified under a group, as soon as the unions came round, there prospects increased. Tell me this, were the workers more or less free when they were forced to work for little in the work houses, or when they had increased pay and a better choice of ways of life? Max Raleigh Smithwick Reply 0   0

Max   | Unregistered | 2008-01-07 18:07:42 America is a country not a social or special interest group that the article is about. Also, slavery was abolished in the mid 1800's in the US so nobody has to work for nobody. Millions of families left their homes in the south and Appalachia and traveled 100's of miles to places where there was work. Unions took advantage of those who didn't leave for greener grass and enslaved them. Reply 0   1

Don   | Unregistered | 2008-01-09 12:26:09 Some can't understand Reply 0   0

Max Smithwick   | Unregistered | 2008-01-09 15:25:33 To the other Max, By 'forced' to work I don’t mean through slavery but the fact that they had no other way to survive. Secondly I was referring to England where people did not have the luxury of greener pastures to move to. Next you say America is not included as a group well I feel: "In America we are all individuals. All people are free and different. When someone allows someone else to speak for them they give-up their freedom and any chance of success as a person. No person can speak for others. What may offend one may compliment another. When someone says they speak for a race, a sex, or any other group " necessarily includes America, which is one man (Your president) speaking for the rest of you (group or race whatever you call it). Despite the fact that George Bush speaking for you damages your countries reputation it does not sacrifice your chances in life. Max Raleigh Smithwick Reply 0   0

Max   | Unregistered | 2008-01-09 17:29:58 Mr Smithwick, I was trying to point out that his article referred to social and special interest groups not governments. Though you have a point that even in the politics lately since in the US ,socialist have tried to consumed the Democrat Party and have brought anarchy and lose of statesmanship, not only to the party but has affected the civil coarse of our political system. I understand that because of different types of governments the opportunities may be different but his article was a warning to Americans against a socialistic systems that denies its people of those greener pastures. Not sure the comment about President Bush but he will go down in history as one of Americas greatest leaders. You mentioned England ( Americas Greatest Allie )as if you know someone their. If you ask any well educated intelligent Brit they will tell you that America's reputation can't be damaged but only envied. Reply 1   0

Puzzled ?   | Unregistered | 2008-01-09 22:12:09 How can a Englishmen who's country is being conquered, not by the Nazi's they once appeased but this time by the muslims who they appease now, try to insult a man of character, insight and balls like President George W. Bush who has gone to war with the same radical muslims that's over throwing you now . If this man was in office in the late 30's we wouldn't have had to lose a million American lives to save you ungrateful wimps. George W. Bush keeps his word and won't surrender like you cowards just did so maybe you won't you just might not find the Ayatollah Khomeini living in the Buckingham Palace. I for one would never vote to bale your ass's out again. Before you ever question America's reputation which can never be tarnished First look at Brittin's reputation of surrendering appeasing cowards who will surely come looking for more bale outs like the french do. If not for the US you would not even be here. German would be your countymens laungage and your national food would be all... Reply 2   1

Max Smithwick   | Unregistered | 2008-01-10 13:40:06 Firstly to the other max, I have probably missed the point and you are most likely right However I am myself British, and I do not envy Americas reputation in any way or form. To ‘Puzzled’, Thanks for your rant, It was an enjoyable read. I did like the 'if it were not for the US you would not even be here' (note I have corrected your grammar). I am sure that may be reciprocated seeing as we did start off your country. Next there is no reason to say that even if we had been driven from the continent that the Germans, who were already breaking up before you arrived, would have successfully been able to invade British shores, so I would thank you not to make absurd unjustified statements. Furthermore you did not arrive to ‘bale’ us out but to serve your own interests. Rather reminiscent of contemporary times is it not? Next, invaded by Muslims? Unlike America where I hear the Hispanic population is reaching close to 50%, in England the total foreign population is not even ne... Reply 0   0

Max   | Unregistered | 2008-01-10 20:08:32 I said " If you ask any well educated intelligent Brit they will tell you that America's reputation can't be damaged but only envied." Reply 1   2

Puzzled ?   | Unregistered | 2008-01-10 23:04:23 The US has 12 million Mexicans here illegally. Thats about 4%. Mexican is one of over a hundred nationalities that make up this Nation. islam is a cult started around 550 AD by a self proclaimed prophet that worships a moon god. It also requires the control of its members government and the death to those who won't convert. It also has a doctrine of deception of the non-believer in their mission of the above. To Join the islam cult is a choice being a proud Mexican is a God given nationality. You seem to only be able to think in one dimension and have no education on the issues you speak on. I think you are a perfect example of the damage socialism can have on a society. You need to break out and think independent of your ideology. For man to properly analyze social issues he must be able to think in at least 4 if not 5 dimensions. For it's in the fifth dimension understanding and wisdom begins. Reply 2   1

Max Smithwick   | Unregistered | 2008-01-11 11:39:13 To the other Max, Any well educated Brit? Well as an experiment I asked my colleagues at Cambridge university (Its like Harvard, except better and you can't get in by just being rich) what they thought of Americas reputation and they all pretty much concurred. To Puzzled: 'It also requires the control of its members government and the death to those who won't convert' There was a point believe it or not, when that phrase summand up the Christian church. Would you have said the Christian adherents were evil? Whether or not you would, Christianity has changed and adapted to society, Islam will do likewise in ours. Its all very well ranting about dimensions but you have not actually proved anything apart from the fact that you are intolerant, backwards and completely puzzled. I am no socialist; I resent the fact that when I leave university I shall have to pay 40% of my fees to support a 13 year old girl who has decided to get herself pregnant. But I also enjoy the bene... Reply 1   0

Puzzled?   | Unregistered | 2008-01-11 23:56:43 Max, Sorry to here about your daughter. I've had those challenges in my life too and I know it's not easy. She'll surely need your moral loving support. I know we come from different social norms and that it can be difficult for us to communicate without using the same contrast within our norms on issues from which we speak. Remember that America is of many made as one. It grew that way because our system only promised to keep our government out of our way and thats all. We had to take advantage of our own strengths and make things happen for ourselves. If we worked hard we succeeded, if we didn't we starved. This built enormous strength, self respect and character in our people and our society. In America prior to the socialist's attack, the word "class" referred to a school room not a group of people. Everyone had the same freedoms to succeed. Now the socialist who have infiltrated parts of our government ie: The Clinton's, insult the ones who don't have as much as ot... Reply 0   1

Max Smithwick   | Unregistered | 2008-01-12 05:08:46 To Puzzled? You are obviously very passionate about this, and I am sorry if I have caused any offence, I just have several Muslim friends and react badly to any prejudice or indeed generalisation against their race. Secondly are you talking to me or the other max about the daughter? I'm only 18 and have yet to start a family... If your referring to the pregnant girl I mentioned that was a generalisation about the fact that most of money I will pay in taxes will go towards benefits. Don't get me wrong, I am not against the in invasion in Iraq per say, just the way it has been administered. I believe that their society does commit many evils, for instance the subjugation of women, and I believe that it is terrible that developed countries like ours can sit around and watch without doing anything (Burma springs to mind). Reply 0   0

Puzzled ?   | Unregistered | 2008-01-12 22:52:24 Max, I'm impressed, at 18 you take an interest in seeking and dealing with the truth on things that matter. With this you will do well and be far ahead of your generation. Your right about Iraq. Saddam also gassed 134,000 plus of his own people (Kurds). Go back and watch GW BUSH's Speeches and you'll find these things were talked about more than the suspected nukes. When I sit back and watch the UN do nothing about these things and in the name of fashion attack President Bush I can only wonder where Satin is at in all this. Max, I meant no harm to your friends. islam is what it is and I only deal with truth, but islam is not a race. One should deal with this as any potential problem a friend may be in. There are millions of very grateful people to Bush / Blair who now have a chance. We need to honor those who do good. From both our countries. And not tolerate those who do bad. Remember, The wisest decisions are always the least understood. P.S. Your right about Harvard. Reply 0   0

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.12

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.

Recommend this article...

---