Why do we arrest peaceful protesters but not violent thugs?

Dear Mayor Olivia Chow, Renfrew Catholic School board Superintendent Jennifer Barnes, Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier Doug Ford,

mayor_chow@toronto inquiry@rccdsb.ca Officeofthechief@torontopolice.on.ca Jagmeet.Singh@parl.gc.ca doug.fordco@pc.ola.org justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca

I had heard about how Josh Alexander was treated and suspended by the Catholic Renfrew high school last year. As a Catholic myself I was embarrassed that this happened, especially when Josh was standing up for the young ladies in his school, which one would naturally expect him to be praised for. But no, the sad truth is that the woke mob has infiltrated our Catholic schools.

Fast forward to this fall when I now learn how the Toronto police treated Josh, his brother Nick and their friends during their peaceful protest in Toronto. Dr. Jordan Peterson did Canadians the great public service of interviewing these two fine young men, so that we could all learn the horrific details of what transpired during their attempt at practicing their Charter rights in Toronto.

During this peaceful protest on Sept. 22, Nick was attacked by an antifa thug wearing a bladed glove, who was with a bunch of other antifa masked thugs (30 masked thugs against five young men AND hiding their identity tells us a lot). The police driving by this, did nothing to protect these young men, even as they witnessed this violent behaviour by the antifa thugs. And there were no repercussions to the thugs. But Nick was arrested. Does this make any sense at all?

And NDP leader Jagmeet Singh marched with Antifa. He actually made a sign at the young men gesturing: "I'm watching you". Wow. 

There is a lot more that transpired that day, way too much bullying to go into detail here. So I hope you will take the time to listen to Dr. Peterson's interview to get all the details of this horrific treatment of young Canadian citizens who stand up for freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.

Today's gospel reading was the story of the only time in the Bible when Jesus got angry in the Temple. I wonder how Jesus would react if he witnessed the treatment of Josh and Nick Alexander that day? I think it might have been the second time we would witness Jesus getting publicly angry.

Thank God that Canada still has brave and courageous men like Josh, Nick and Jordan. There is hope for us yet.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Why did Liberal MPs vote against Bill C-311?

Liberal MPs do whatever Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition tells them to do when a child in the womb is involved. Just like their leader does. It's kind of sad. What it tells me is that Liberal MPs have a problem thinking for themselves whenever a pre-born child is involved. Whether it's a wanted child, whether it's an unwanted child, whether it's a child that is harmed or murdered along with its mother, as long as that child is in the womb, Liberal MPs and their leader follow what Joyce Arthur tells them to do.

Clearly the Liberals should have supported this bill but they did not.

Michelle Rempel Garner who is pro-choice (as opposed to pro-abortion), did support the bill because as she points out, this bill did address Arthur's concerns about previous similar bills:

"So, this year, Wagantall tabled Bill C-311, which did precisely what ARCC suggested as part of an alternative path forward in its past criticism of Bill C-225. Bill C-311's concise text is explicit. It seeks solely to amend Paragraph 718.‍2(a) of Canada's Criminal Code by adding the following after subparagraph (ii.‍1):

(ii.‍2) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person whom the offender knew to be pregnant,

(ii.‍3) evidence that the offence caused physical or emotional harm to a pregnant victim.

Bill C-311 includes no language that changes access to abortion in any way, shape, or form. It creates no new criminal offenses at all. It states that if someone is convicted of a crime against someone they knew to be pregnant, or that crime caused physical or emotional harm to a pregnant woman during the commission of a crime, then a judge should consider these circumstances in sentencing."

Leah Gazan of Winnipeg Centre, MB actually brings up Jordan Peterson in the debate on the bill. I am not kidding.

"Madam Speaker, the member for Carleton has a history of supporting anti-choice legislation that impacts a woman's right to choose, including, now, his support of Bill C-311. He also has a history of backing up and holding up folks such as Jordan Peterson, who has spoken out aggressively against the trans community and its members' right to bodily autonomy. This is about bodily autonomy and the right to choose. It is very much a part of the debate.

When Cathay Wagantall objects to this and says:

"Madam Speaker, she is not referring to the bill at all. She is defaming and abusing—"

Unbelievably the Liberal speaker allows Gazan's remarks against Jordan Peterson.

Next Leah Gazan actually tells us why she is against the bill:

"The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada opposes this bill, saying “The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada opposes this bill and urges MPs to oppose the bill as well...The bill is redundant.” It goes on to say that the anti-choice movement is using it as a vehicle to advance fetal rights, saying, “Several anti-choice groups have been promoting this Bill C-311 as a means to recognize two victims. They are looking for a route to establish fetal personhood in law, and if this bill passes, they would leverage the bill for that purpose”."

Well then. If Arthur says blah blah blah, then clearly we Liberal MPs have our marching orders.

If I were a Liberal MP, and I shudder at the thought, I would be pretty embarrassed to know that I voted against this important bill because Joyce Arthur told me to.

Catholics should not support "equity"

I had been having an email conversation with members of Ottawa's Catholic School Board. It began with their support of Black Live Matter (which was a big red flag for me). Then I discovered the board supports Bill 67, Racial Equity in the Education System Act. Catholic bishops and other Catholics have come out against "equity". And so should our schools. But in fact, they support it.

From the BC Catholic.https://bccatholic.ca/news/catholic-van/wokeness-and-pseudo-religions-catholic-colleges-look-for-ways-to-challenge-growing-cancel-culture 

Bishop Gomez:

"Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez recently said, “Today’s critical theories and ideologies are profoundly atheistic.” An integral part of the agenda is “diversity, equity, and inclusion” mandates that critics say end up discriminating against members of groups that have not been identified as oppressed or under-represented."

 

And this from Peter Nolan:

“Adults themselves need to be educated before our young people can stand against cancel culture,” he said. “One problem has been that woke ideology has been camouflaged by terminology like ‘diversity, inclusivity, and equity,’ and ‘social justice,’ which sound like they are secular initiatives that could be aligned with Catholic social teaching. They are not.” 

And this from Bishop Baron:

“Fourth, they tend to demonize the market economy and the institutions of democracy as part of a superstructure defending the privileged,” Bishop Barron explained. “Fifth, they push toward equity of outcome throughout the society, rather than equality of opportunity.” And finally, “wokeism” employs divisive strategies of accusation that are contrary to the Gospel demand to love our enemies.”

Bishop Barron, Bishop Gomez and Peter Nolan, did not change the Board members' minds.

This is a very dangerous path our Catholic Board is taking. Jordan Peterson and Rex Murphy go into detail about how harmful this Bill 67 will be for our schools (see link below).

So today I wrote a final letter to the Ottawa Catholic School Board. It seems we need to pray a lot for them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ottawa School Board,

I hope you will listen to this video Jordan Peterson made yesterday on Bill 67, with newspaper columnist Rex Murphy.

They discuss the impact Bill 67 will have on our schools, which includes our Catholic schools here in Ottawa. 

From the responses I have received from those of you who have responded to me, it seems very clear that my emails have not changed your minds on the subject of implementing "equity" policies in our Catholic schools. 

Nevertheless, I feel that in good conscience, I must make this final effort to reach out to you. I will not contact you again on this subject. 

I will pray for all of you that your hearts will change regarding the dangers this bill will have on our children, their parents and their teachers.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

[0:00 ] Intro

[1:30 ] Education & Dogma

[2:00 ] Related Podcasts (links above)

[6:10 ] Why Education Matters

[9:20 ] Is Bill 67 Anything but Ideology?

[12:00 ] Bias Training

[19:00 ] Racial Equity, Judgment, & Power

[24:00 ] Teachers, Bill 67, & "Anti-racism Awareness"

[28:00 ] Nadia Murad, Disinvited from Speaking in Toronto

[32:30 ] Diversity & Inclusión Programs

[36:20 ] Bill 67 & Affirmative Action

[42:30 ] Alleged Offenses

[46:10 ] Potential Long-term Consequences

[50:40 ] An Example

[53:40 ] Outro

Free Speech is a Right and an Obligation

Below is an excerpt of the presentation Wednesday, May 5, 2021, via zoom by Fr. Tony Van Hee. 

People will recall that Fr. Tony uses quotes from Dr. Jordan Peterson on his sandwich board when he stands peacefully near the abortion facility in Ottawa.

Fr. Tony draws upon Dr. Peterson's discussion on the topic of free speech to demonstrate that in a democratic society such as Canada, free speech truly is the cornerstone of Western civilization.

The Importance of Free Speech

My knowledge of free speech, and its importance, comes from Dr. Jordan Peterson, professor and clinical psychologist at Toronto University. I will quote him especially in regard to the importance of free speech grounded in the ineradicable value of the human being.

Jordan Peterson has extraordinary knowledge, a passion to help people, and the vocabulary to do just that. He is at his best in this talk that he gave March 11, 2017, at the Ottawa Public Library,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqFo32lwY_g

Before discussing that talk, I want you to hear what he has to say on the obligation of free speech, which he mentioned in a talk at Linfield College in Oregon, five weeks after the Ottawa Public Library talk.

“We've talked a lot about, the right to free speech. And something you might also want to consider, is the obligation of free speech, because I actually think it's deeper than a right. I think you're obligated to speak freely, because otherwise people don't have the benefit of whatever wisdom you possess, and at least you possess the wisdom of your own experience, at the very least you have that, and that's as valid a form of truth, as any other form of truth, and it's often a truth that can be usefully communicated to other people, and so, it's to the community's benefit that you say what your experience has taught you, because there isn't anyone who has your experience”.

Besides the obligation to share the wisdom of your experience, we have a further obligation to oppose unjust laws.

Martin Luther King Jr said in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963:

“One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.' “How does one determine, whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law, is a human law, that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.”

How much more unjust is the case for abortion, which not only distorts and damages, but painfully dismembers and kills. Therefore any law which allows, or promotes the killing of an innocent person is an unjust law, and any law that protects those who kill an innocent person, such as the bubble zone law, is doubly unjust, and we have a moral obligation to disobey and oppose such laws and work to get them repealed.

Now some excerpts from Professor Peterson's Ottawa talk. Because they are excerpts the connections between them will not always be immediately evident, but the importance of free speech, and the importance of the individual are the common thread in all of them, the primacy of free speech is grounded in the sovereignty of the individual, or put in another way, free speech is the distinctive sign of the sovereignty of the individual.

“You support free speech, because it’s the mechanism, that maintains the sanity of the individual and society, and you live in relationship with the spoken truth, to the best of your ability, because the alternative is Hell, and if Hell is what you want, then you can remain arrogant, and resentful, and deceitful. But if you want to work to better the world, to bring it up to what it might be, then you speak forthrightly, you clarify yourself, and you act properly in the world, and then you see what happens” (1:09:37-1:10:21)."

“You never know what will happen if you say something that's true. It's a miracle! Miracles will happen.”

Because Peterson maintains, that “respect for the Logos, and respect for free speech are the same thing”, I want to say something about the word itself. Logos is a Greek word which can mean: word or speech or reason or wisdom. In the prologue of St John's Gospel, (Jn 1:1-18) the Logos is presented as the Son of God who became man and speaks the Logos (the Word of God) into the world.

“So here’s the idea that lurks at the beginning of Genesis. There’s three elements that are involved in the creation of habitable order from chaos, at the beginning of time. One of them is, whatever is represented by God the Father, and one of them is whatever is represented by the chaos that exists at the same time, and the other is whatever is represented by the idea of God’s Word."

"That’s the Logos from a Christian perspective....The story at the beginning of Genesis means that structure, that’s the Father, structure extracts habitable order from chaos, through speech, and that’s what we do.... The idea is, that there's something about the human being, and whatever it is that makes us conscious, that interacts with the chaotic potential, that constitutes reality, and extracts out from that, the order within which we live."

“And there's something divine about that, and that's the value of the human being, that's the ineradicable value of the human being, and the idea that each individual, even the criminal, even murderers, the worst and most reprehensible people, have to be treated with the respect due to a divinity, because we partake in the capacity, to extract habitable order, from chaos with our consciousness, with our speech, and with our capacity to communicate”.

“The story that is being sold to people who are sold a Nationalist story is: [T]he State is the ultimate identity! Well, actually that's technically wrong, because the problem with the State is, that the State is what is uniform across people, and the thing is, that we need what’s actually diverse across people, in order to rejuvenate the State, and to keep it awake, and so if you reduce individuals, to what’s homogeneous about them, across all people, you eradicate the very variability, that allows people to adapt to new things, and because we are constantly being presented with new things, we need to keep that individual variability paramount, because it’s upon that variability, that the very State depends, and that’s actually what the West discovered."

"That’s why we have always subordinated the State, to the divinity of the individual, and that’s expressed, as I already said, in the primacy of free speech in our civilization. It’s the cornerstone, the primacy of free speech, and it’s because the individual has something to offer the State.... The State is a corpse. The State is dead, but it’s a gift that the dead have given to [us], and [we] have to provide it with vision, and with speech, because otherwise it can only blunder around like a zombie”

”We could solve any problem, we can solve any problem, if we used all the resources that are available to us, if we lived properly, we have no idea what we could turn what we're in, into.

"And this is the final thing I'll say. I spent a long time studying the Sermon on the Mount. It's a key document. It's Christ's commentary on the 10 Commandments. In a sense, the question being, if you codify the rules, by which a society might function, is there something within the structure of the rules, that rises above them, that acts as the fundamental principle, from which they're all derived? It's the ultimate question of human ethics, what is the highest principle? And the answer that's put forward in the Sermon on the Mount is quite straightforward. Aim at the highest possible good that you can conceive of. That serves as your God, for all practical purposes...Having aligned yourself with that good, speak the truth, and see what happens."

“That's the act of faith. The act of faith is, whatever the truth reveals, is the best of all possible worlds, regardless of how it appears to you now. It's a guess. It's something you stake a bet on. Well, what do you think? The best of all possible worlds will be brought into being by deceit? It seems unlikely. You know that doesn't work in your own life, (1:11.38) you tangle yourself up in your own lies, one lie breeds 10, and 10 breeds 100, and maybe you put the consequences on down the road, and you don't fall into the pit for 5 or 6 years, maybe you've even forgotten why you fell in, when you finally do fall in, but everyone knows, everyone knows that you don't get away with anything."

"And so the issue is, well, what would happen if you just said what you thought, stupid as it is, inaccurate as it is, and listen to people criticize you in response, to shape you and make you more articulate? What would your life be like? And the answer to that is, and I know this to be true. I've worked with many, many people on precisely this problem. Your life gets better, and better, and better, and richer, and deeper, but that comes with a heavier and heavier burden of responsibility. Well, that's okay. You use the observation of your own capability, to bear responsibility, to buttress yourself against the terrors of being finite. You say, “Weak and miserable as I am, I can still stand up to the terrible tragedy of life, and prevail. And that's good enough."

Jordan Peterson and the postmodernist "assault on the most fundamental principles by which the West is governed"

Transcribed from Jordan Peterson’s dialogue with Dennis Prager, on Prager U, May 23, 2019.

35.00-42.20 This segment speaks about the postmodernist collectivist stranglehold on universities, and its doctrine denying the reality of the individual.

Jordan Peterson: I think that universities do more harm than good now, and I’m very loath to say that, you know, because I’ve been part of the academy for thirty years and taught at great institutions.

But the postmodern collectivist doctrine is so psychologically and politically toxic that I think that academia now does more harm than good.

And it is not only what it teaches which is the ideology, this ungrateful ideology, which denies the existence of the individual.

One of the things I might tell you, just so you know this, is that, you know, you hear that there are debates about free speech on campus, about who should talk and who shouldn’t, and people think that that’s what the debate is about, about who should talk and who shouldn’t, but that’s not what the debate is about. You’re not even scraping the surface of the debate if that’s what you think it’s about.

The debate on campus is about whether or not a human being has the capacity to communicate intelligibly as an individual or not, and the answer for the postmodernist collective types is that there is no such thing as an individual. And therefore the very notion of free speech is absurd, because free speech is predicated on the idea that each of us have something to say that’s ours, that’s a consequence of our unique individuality, not our group identity, or the multiplicity of our group identities, but something, that’s something that we have that speaks from our spirit that can speak to the spirit of another and produce a negotiated peace, and that’s what’s being debated.

The war that’s going on philosophically or theologically in the campuses is far deeper than you think. The entire notion of the reality of the individual, which is, I think, also the entire notion of the idea that human beings are made in the image of God most fundamentally. That is what’s being attacked.

It wasn’t for nothing that Derrida called western culture, phallogocentric, phallus for masculine and logos for logos, for truth and courage, and centric for centric. That was a criticism from his perspective, the idea of the sovereignty of the individual.

If you don’t have the idea of the sovereignty of the individual ‘cause there is no individual, there’s no free speech. All you are is an avatar of your group interests and if I’m not in your group it’s not in my interest to let you speak. There’s nothing that we have to say to one other. There’s nothing but power. It’s a Hobbesian nightmare of group against group, and that’s the postmodern doctrine.

And so, it’s, to call it appalling is to barely scrape the surface. It’s an assault, it is truly an assault on the most fundamental principles by which the West is governed. It’s not surface level philosophy. It goes all the way to the bottom and this is partly why I have been concentrating on religious themes in my lectures, let’s say, because the argument goes all the way down to first principles.

Is there, is the idea of the sovereignty of the individual correct? The Western answer is, it’s the great discovery of the West, the Western answer is, that’s the most fundamental truth. That is exactly what is under assault at the universities. The reason that the collectivist types hate me is because I’ve got their number. I know what they’re up to.

And I think further that they do not wish to shoulder the unbearable responsibility of being a sovereign individual, so not only is it – and that accounts for the cowardice, and that accounts for the attempt to weaken the spirit of the people that they’re teaching by overprotecting them -- they’re not willing to take on the responsibility, and the fault has to lie elsewhere.

And I think that’s a good judge of someone, someone’s character in general. It’s like, well the world is in a messy state, let’s say, and the question is, “Whose fault is it?” And the answer is: yours. That’s the right answer.

It’s not the patriarchy, it’s not some identifiable group, it’s not some structure that’s gone wrong, even though those things can go wrong.

And that’s the other fundamental truth of the West, is that, things would be a lot better if you were a lot better. And you have to decide if you’re willing to accept that, and you have every reason not to. It’s a terrible thought.

You know, it was Solzhenitsyn, I think—this is a paraphrase but I think it’s close enough—he said that one person who stopped lying could bring down a tyranny, and when I first read that I thought that can’t possibly be true, and as I understood I thought that can’t possibly not be true because the only thing that can break the spine of a tyranny is the truth, and the only person that, and the only way that the truth can be told is that some individual tells it, and so it’s necessarily the case that tyranny is broken by the truth of the individual.

But then the question is, well is it gonna be you that’s going to do that? It’s no trivial thing. You know, people come and tell me, very frequently, and they write me, and they say well, you know, I agree with what you say and this terrible thing is happening in my workplace and, you know, I don’t know what to do about it, and I don’t want you to make my story public, and because of the potential for repercussion.

And I think, yeah, well I understand your position. It’s no joke to, it’s no joke to stand up when the amateur totalitarians are knocking on your office door, but if you don’t, then sooner than you think, it will be the professional totalitarians, and then you will be in the sort of trouble that unless you’ve tried to imagine it, you can’t possibly imagine it. So.

Positive news on Freedom of Speech Charter Challenge

The Catholic Civil Rights League has joined Fr. Tony Van Hee in his constitutional challenge to Ontario's bubble zone law, Bill 163, Safe Access to Abortion Service Act.

As well, Dr. Jordan Peterson mentioned Fr. Tony's case in his June 10th newsletter when he referenced the recent article in the Ottawa Citizen on Fr. Tony's case:

OTTAWA CITIZEN - KELLY EGAN

Charged priest uses charter freedoms in strike at abortion bubble-zone law

"He is 83, tiny and, in the eyes of the law, a threat."

JBP: "Bubble Zone." Where the laws of the Dominion no longer apply?

It does seem to be the case as sad as that seems--that Canadians are forced to go to court to protect their freedom of speech rights.

As we already know, Fr. Tony's text for his signs were inspired from Jordan Peterson's talk at the Ottawa Public Library on March 11 or 12, 2017.

Here is something Fr. Tony wrote about his work for the Interim back in 1996. It is still applicable today:

"Randall Terry, founder and leader of Operation Rescue, prisoner for Christ and the child in the womb, along with Joan Andrews Bell, Linda Gibbons and all pro-life prisoners of a conscience, are such powerful witnesses.

A small but essential key to such outstanding service, however, is simply showing up “for work” each day.

If I’m not in my place when the right moment [comes] along, God has to wait for another right moment. 

As Mother Teresa said, I’m not asked to be successful, but to be faithful. “Paul plants, Apollo waters, but God gives the increase.” Faith, fidelity, courage, perseverance, are my part.”

"O my Jesus, You do not give a reward for the successful performance of a work, but for the good will and the labor undertaken. Therefore, I am completely at peace, even if all my undertakings and efforts should be thwarted or should come to naught. If I do all that is in my power, the rest is not my business. And therefore the greatest storms do not disturb the depths of my peace; the will of God dwells in my conscience." [Divine Mercy In My Soul, the Diary of St Faustina Kowalska, Marian Press, Stockbridge, Massachusetts, #952.]"

All posts on Fr. Tony's case here.
Donations are still being accepted for Fr. Tony's case here.  

Dr. Jordan Peterson and the primacy of free speech

Below are partial transcripts from Dr. Jordan Peterson's talk at the Public Library in Ottawa, March 11, 2017.

The signs Fr. Tony's wears to protest the attack on our free speech rights, uses these words from Dr. Peterson's talk:

"The primacy of free speech - cornerstone of western civilization - without free speech the state is a corpse"

Jordan Peterson is a professor and clinical psychologist at Toronto University. He stressed the primacy of free speech for a society to survive, in his talk. Below are the links to his talk and some excerpts from his talk. Emphasis are Fr. Tony's.

I love the way Dr. Peterson posits how free speech goes back to Genesis and God's Word.

https://youtu.be/WqFo32lwY_g (Talk 1:13:40)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s9a9jtQpYs (Q&A Part I, 37:55)

https://youtu.be/W9NP4XlveGs (Q&A Part II, 23:05)

https://youtu.be/dKwWkAwlVps (Q&A Part II: final, 2738)

“So here’s the idea that lurks at the beginning of Genesis. So, there’s three elements that are involved in the creation of habitable order, from chaos, at the beginning of time. One of them is, whatever is represented by God the Father, and one of them is whatever is represented by the chaos that exists at the same time, and the other is whatever is represented by the idea of God’s Word. That’s the Logos from a Christian perspective which is a very, very strange idea. So there’s this idea that developed over the course of thousands of years, that the redeeming Saviour was also the thing that God used to extract habitable order out of chaos at the beginning of time. It’s a very strange idea and to assimilate an idea of that preposterousness and magnitude to mere pre-rational superstition is foolish. First of all because we don’t even understand what it means. But it means something utterly profound and it means something that we cannot forget. We forget it at our peril. The story at the beginning of Genesis means that structure, that’s the Father, that’s the patriarchy, if you will, structure extracts habitable order from chaos through speech, and that’s what we do. …

“[W]e partake in the capacity to extract habitable order from chaos with our consciousness, with our speech and with our capacity to communicate. …You understand that in that communication between people something of inestimable value emerges that you have to pursue, and you live for that.… It’s the core of meaning in life, and it’s not an illusion. In fact it’s a manifestation of the highest functions of your nervous system … your nervous system which has evolved over billions of years has learned to tell you when you’re standing on the border between chaos and order and keeping them in balance, and that’s what manifests itself as meaningful and that’s the same phenomena that’s referred to in the creation stories in Genesis and it’s the same idea that’s reflected in this strange Christian insistence that the thing that saves mankind is the same thing that draws order from chaos at the beginning of time. It’s unbelievably brilliant and we’ve been trying to figure it out for, who knows how long, forever, and have never been able fully to articulate it because it’s so complicated. It’s such a complicated idea, but there’s nothing in the least illusory about it” (40:28-44:53).

2

“[R]espect for the Logos and respect for free speech are the same thing, and that without that respect our societies cannot maintain their structure, differentiate and progress. They cannot do it. We use our free speech to face the chaotic potential of the world and its horrors, to structure it, to understand it, to communicate about it and to reach consensus. It’s the mechanism by which we adapt. There can be no restrictions put upon that unless you want to sacrifice adaptation, and I wouldn’t recommend that. Things get stale, old, decayed, dead and dangerous, with extraordinary rapidity...if living people don’t maintain their responsibility to update the state...It’s an ancient, ancient idea, and the reason that we haven’t forgotten it was because everyone who forgot it, died, so unless that’s where we want to go we better stop forgetting about it. … (47:50-49:02).

“And because we are constantly being presented with new things we need to keep that individual variability paramount because it’s upon that variability that the very state depends and that’s actually what the West discovered. That’s why we have always subordinated the state to the divinity of the individual, and that’s expressed, as I already said, in the primacy of free speech in our civilization. It’s the cornerstone, the primacy of free speech, and it’s because the individual has something to offer the state, and so state identity is something that can only, it can structure, and it can reassure, but it also constrains to too great a degree, and so societies that become only state, immediately become old, and blind, malevolent, and collapse, and that’s an ancient story... But that’s the relationship that has to obtain between the individual and the state. The state is a corpse. The state is dead, but it’s a gift that the dead have given to you, and you have to provide it with vision, and with speech, because otherwise it can only blunder around like a zombie. You go to university, you become educated, so that you can serve as the eye, and the mouth of the rejuvenated state. … But that’s the purpose of that education, to turn you into the thing that ensures that the entire ship doesn’t founder and sink, and that’s your responsibility. And if you’re looking for a meaning in your life, that’s the meaning. Keep the state afloat. Why? Well, because it’s better for us all to be in a ship than drowning in the icy water, and that’s the alternative” (54:21-57:36).

“So I would say, you support free speech because it’s the mechanism that maintains the sanity of the individual and society, and you live in relationship with the spoken truth to the best of your ability because the alternative is Hell, and if Hell is what you want, then you can remain arrogant, and resentful, and deceitful, but if you want to work to better the world, to bring it up to what it might be, then you speak forthrightly, you clarify yourself, and you act properly in the world and then you see what happens (1:09:37-1:10:21)”.