Treason
I was told today that I was being treasonous. I overheard a group of students at my college talking about how all conspiracy theorists should be silenced, especially on the anniversaries of 9/11. Playing the devil's advocate, I said that I personally didn't believe 9/11 was an inside job, but it was an option that needed to be considered--that all possible solutions to a problem must be considered before any conclusions are reached. The student I talked to called me out on what is apparently treason: not trusting the government with a faith-like dementia. He said, "You're just as bad as the troofers. You should be put in for treason, bro."
I said this: "Maybe it's treason. I don't know. In a totalitarian dictatorship, it is treason to think. If my thinking is treason now, then I fear for what our government has become. But if my thoughts are treason, then I must embrace treason, because our country was founded on treason. Treason brings change. Change is good. Change is necessary."
After searching for words, he walked away.
Here is my urging today: stand up for what is right. Stand up against the church, the government, consumerism, and all other forms of social corruption. Tell the world that no one can tell you what to think without some damn good evidence for what they say. Be stubborn, be inquisitive, be aggressive. If any agency demands anything of you, ask them from whence comes their authority. The answer to that question is you. Power over the people comes from the people. Government can only work with the consent of the governed. You have the right to withdraw your consent. You have the right to your own humanity.
I have in front of me a reprinted letter from our third President, Thomas Jefferson:The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
That, my friends, is treason. Treason is a wonderful thing. Nationalism spawns war. Treason begets enlightenment. We need more treason in America today.









7 comments:
what is right?
America needs more people who are willing to do more thinking, rather then spit out some flawed phrase like "America needs more treason." What kind of half-witted nonsense is this, Reed? Are you really going to wholesale advocate treason as if it is a blanket good thing? I suppose you will stand in support of the Confederacy of the South since you are such a fan of rebellion and autonomy? I understand what you are trying to say, but you pretty much negate and merit to it when you act like nationalism is to fault for war or that treason necessarily begets enlightenment.
What were Jefferson's thougthts on the French Revolution, pretell? Was he for it? Did he view is as a "wonderful thing?" The letter you quote is from 1787, and he didn't share that opinion of the what was going on in France. Also, one could even take your position as pro-Iraq War. Isn't that rebellion? Isn't that usurping power? Treason, baby, keep it up!
And don't call America a "totalitarian dictatorship." You show your ignorance and lack of gratitude that you don't really live in one and you do a great disservice to those that do live in those places. You can call it mismanaged or flawed or disagree with the president or other politicians, but we are far from a dictatorship.
I have to retract some of my statements concerning Jefferson and the French Revolution. I thought he was more outspoken against it later on, but after doing some more reading, it turns out that he remained a supporter throughout. Even when reports of rampant murder during the The Reign of Terror, Jefferson against several other Founding Fathers stood by the revolution. Here's a quote from one of his letters:
"My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. were there but an Adam and Eve left in every country, left free, it would be better than as it now is."
Whoa, did he just say that he would rather half the world die for the sake of a revolution? Yes, yes he did. Turns out that Jefferson was quite the ideologue for revolutions and the the "holy" cause of liberty and man's "sacred" rights...what the hell?! He's starting to sound like on of those crazies atheists hate so much.
Jefferson was truly a great man, and he was integral in the founding of this nation and of many advancements in multiple fields, but I'm afraid his ideological views of revolution aren't as above reproach as some of his other accomplishments and stances.
Wait a minute, you don't get to go putting "holy" and "sacred" in quote marks referring to Jefferson without citing a relevant quote of his in this context. They certainly weren't used in the quote you provided. Otherwise, their only use is as "scare quotes,"* to make his beliefs sound scarier.
* Irony intended
Words are important. They carry a cloud of meaning around them wich can cause one person to understand something entirely different than the second, when they have heard the same word. Therefore, If you want to hold a meaningfull discussion of ideas, you first have to agree on what the words, describing your ideas, actually mean.
Point in cas: nationalism. I'm a Flemish nationalist myself. Flanders is the dutch-speaking part of Belgium and it is my opinion that an independent Flanders would be better suited to fight the socio-economic challenges facing us in the coming years than a united Belgium. This, because both regions have drifted apart in the previous years to the point where there is a different majority opinion about every issue imaginable in each region wich makes national policy a spaghetti of half-and half compromises, suited to neither region.
My party, wich is currently involved in the formation of a natinal Belgian government, defines nationalism simply as the idea that political borders best coincide with cultural-linguistical borders. This of course does not preclude coöperation on higher levels, such as the European community. Some competencies can only effectively b e managed by supra-national authorities, but things as health care, education, mobility, labour are best settled, in our humble opinion, within a stable cultural-linguistical circle. We make it a point, for those who doubt, to define this circle inclusive and dynamic. Anybody willing to work within the (ever-changing) framework of our public culture (privately, do what you want, within the borders of the law) is welcome, regardless of color or creed.
"Nationalism spawns war" is therefore not justified or at least not nuanced enough. An ethnocentric, centralistic and exclusive nationlism spawns war.
...the citizen who thinks he sees that the commonwealth's political clothes are worn out, and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal; he is a traitor.
- Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
And don't call America a "totalitarian dictatorship."
Erm . . . he didn't. He said: "In a totalitarian dictatorship, it is treason to think. If my thinking is treason now, then I fear for what our government has become."
And he's right. In healthy democratic societies, you don't deal with ideas you don't like by punishing them as thought crimes or labelling them as "treasonous." You engage with them in the spirit of thoughtful, rational, enlightened debate. If you disagree with an idea, the democratic thing to do is to argue against--to actually use your brain--rather than reflexively screaming "TREASON!!" and calling for the guards to clap the perpetrator in irons.
I think that's the point Reed was trying to make.
Post a Comment