Freedom Of Speech (What needs to come with it?)

Freedom Of Speech:


Freedom of speech an idea which teaches us we can say and believe in anything we want. This idea is promoted in the west as only being available in the west. But there is a lie behind this. The lie is that we do not have freedom of speech and we do not have freedom after speech.

It is illegal to deny the horrors of the holocaust. I agree the holocaust happened I do not deny but if someone wished to deny it why should it be illegal in a society that promoted so called freedom of speech.

We may have freedom of speech but after what we say we are not free at all. If we reveal a true conspiracy or a government ideology that is true we are allowed to share are views under freedom of speech but after that it is the complete opposite. Our phone calls may be recorded and we will be spied on by the secret service of our country for our views expressed under freedom of speech. We need freedom of speech and freedom after speech. It is like having legs but not knowing how to walk. You need to know how to walk with your legs. This is the same with freedom of speech we need freedom after speech.

Democracy In The West

The So Called Democracy In The West:

The countries in the west from a young age teach its citizens that democracy is the only system to run a country. Along this mentality they claim with democracy comes freedom, order and equality. From a young age they show us the failure of systems such as communism which has failed in the USSR and then show the success of implementing democracy. This is a mentality that people are raised up with up with in the west. During the ruling of Hitler he put very stereotypical questions and answers about Jews in the German curriculum. He showed them to be evil and wrong this false opinion was put forward to the young and as a result the young population of Germany began to have a hate towards Jews. Therefore from this we can understand that a false mentality can be implemented when in the education system.

Democracy is a way where the people elect the rulers of the country. This is a very good quality of democracy. After a ruler is elected in a democratic country there is no control for his actions. The rulers actions cannot be controlled by the people; for example a countries foreign policy. Before the invasion of Iraq more than a million people when out in protest in the streets of London and more than a million people objected the act of invasion. If the country of the United Kingdom was a true democracy then why when its people demanded the invasion of Iraq not to happen they still happened. Where is the democracy in this case? Another example of this is the foreign presence in Afghanistan. Many people in Britain and the United States object to the presence in Afghanistan and want withdraw of the troops. This is due to the problems created and the huge amount of foreign deaths. But right now at this moment can you vote to leave Afghanistan or do you just wait.

I have shown that in the west democracy is implemented in the young population as the only successful ruling system possible for a country. There is freedom to vote for a ruler but it is clear after the ruler is elected the actions of the ruler cannot be controlled or voted for by the people. This is shown with Iraq and Afghanistan. If you personally as a citizen of whatever country you are in knew every action that the government of your country is doing right now which you disprove of would you still have voted for the ruler of your country? Right now if your ruler decided to invade an innocent foreign country for absolutely no reason you would object but you cannot vote and your opinion will not affect the action of the government. I would like to put forwards some questions which I would like you to think about. Is this a true democracy? Is democracy the true and successful way? Does democracy let you express your views on the running of the country after the elections?