Forum Post: Leading Questions Shape Perception

On June 8, 2012 LeoYo put up a forum post titled:

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

In his post LeoYo cites several founding fathers, including George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson - whom he cites at least three times.

He ends with a pair of questions, academically contrived, as if this entire exercise were some sort of final exam . . .

So, in the beginning, in what way had America been a free country?

If America hadn't been a free country at that time, then, at what point in history did America ever become a free country?

Since this forum is itself a place conducive to faceless anonymity, we could perhaps begin an examination of this essay with an examination of the name of its author, and begin by breaking this name into its distinct linguistic parts: Leo Yo. Given that there was indeed a time, long ago, where I did find highly stylistic forms of graffiti all over town, a large percentage of which did read ELeo, I confess, I do find this opening approach somewhat attractive.

Yo is a colloquial term most often used to draw attention. The term Leo on the other hand, is a bit more complex. Let us pass on matters of astro.meta.physicallity and focus exclusively on the social construct itself:

1. Leo Clubs

   • these are volunteer opportunities aimed at children and associated with the Lions Club International. The acronym itself is said to stand for Leadership, Equality, Opportunity

2. Leo is also an acronym often used by police officers, law enforcement industry professionals, bloggers and writers, and those who forget to tell us before hand that LEO stands for Law Enforcement Officer.

3. The U.S. Department of Defense uses the term Leo to denote law enforcement operations

While some may argue in LeoYo's defense and insist that the possibility that Leo is simply this poster's real name is a real possibility, I would argue that the closing pair of questions clearly indicate a scholarly intellect who has in all likelihood considered carefully the impact a name may make where all other identifiers are non existent. LeoYo in my view is a clear attempt to suggest something, but what and to whom remains in question.

Turning to the title of this particular post, what is suggested is abundantly clear:

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

The suggestion is stark and undeniable: there is no freedom, there is only hopelessness.

Once upon a time this . . . suggestion . . . was known by what it attempts to do - and that is to instill a conditioned state of helplessness. The term originated from an experiment, using animals and electrical shock therapy, to behaviorally condition helplessness as a response to environmental conditions. As you may plainly see, the term has been sanitized - it is no longer conditioned but rather learned. There can be only one reason for sanitizing such a term - and that is because we are currently cultivating helplessness as a state of being. Those engaged in the cultivation do not care to admit, to themselves nor to those with whom they are so engaged, that they are not teaching so much as they are conditioning a behavioral response, a process that is much more controversial and does unavoidably carry negative connotation.

Though bound by and I confess, completely subject to the law of Gravity, I for one am not helpless - and when shocked I do insist, will contrive some means of biting that hand that shocks.

Turning to the body of the essay, we see the Founding Fathers' citations this author has chosen do express some undeniable pessimism regarding the viability of the government they helped establish to secure Freedom for the People. The events of today do clearly illustrate that this pessimism was not without reason.

Since no alternative to this overwhelming pessimism is presented within the body of the essay, since instead the body of the essay does reflect and reinforce the title itself, we must conclude that this is the position of the author himself - there is no freedom and all is hopeless. At the very least, we must accept that this is what the author would teach, and have us . . . learn.

To that there can be only one response . . .

LeoYo

Finally, there are the closing questions themselves.

So, in the beginning, in what way had America been a free country?

If America hadn't been a free country at that time, then, at what point in history did America ever become a free country?

If we accept that the phrase in the beginning contained in the first question is a cue indicating some point immediately following The Declaration or the final conclusion of the Revolution that followed, then clearly we are summoned to the entire list of grievances originally issued by the Founders. It conjures the imagery of Tea floating in Boston Harbor. It suggests Taxation without Representation.

First and foremost among repelican complaints today is that of Taxation. In fact, never in the history of the IRS has it experienced such a low point in terms of influence or authority as that to which it is subjected today - and this during a period where corporate taxation is at its lowest in over 50 years and corporate entitlement is at an all time high.

LeoYo is a repelican.

The final question presents the click of the lock in this inescapable box of negativity. It suggests that if, in over 200 years of effort, we are not yet free, then surely at this point we must cease the struggle.

After our forefathers valiantly bled in the violence of revolution against global empire to secure their freedom, and after more than half a million Americans left their lives to congeal upon the battlefield to end cotton picking slavery, after the bloodshed in the cause to reassert that right under the First Amendment to assemble - and so to Unionize, after the great victory of the Suffragettes; after all of this suffering, this heartache, this sacrifice of human life - we are now told it is hopeless.

We are now told to just give up.

And to that, there can be only one response . . .

.

---

---

Memory surfaces of widespread and universal condemnation of the Founding Fathers on this very forum in the fall of 2011. It seems to me that this may have been the end result of conservative attempts to define our current struggle as that between patriots against the scourge of communism. With this effort their weakness is revealed.

If in the opening salvo of this contest the enemy of freedom has set to define the shape and nature of the struggle itself, as well as the meaning of patriotism and who is a patriot, then we must understand that what we are seeing is a direct attempt to control the narrative and so shape perception.

We cannot leave it to the enemies of Freedom and of Democracy to define either who we are or for what we struggle.

I say we fight to reaffirm that which is indisputable: The Sovereign Authority of the People

---

---

Consider two - no three - vital facts behind LeoYo's Post

1. the question of freedom itself is or at least has been within the past decade and a half by my estimate, -- < we could argue far longer > -- a subject of intense curiosity and as such a justification for profound violation of human rights. Too often the victims are left either dead, terrified into silence, or so curbed by our system of Justice that no hint of wrong doing will ever attain to the ivory tower of academia . . .

1. Acceptance of the premise put forth by LeoYo is to place all those who accept it in a state where they are open to the charge of being unAmerican - a charge quite suited to the likes of Slimy little repelican reptiles

1. Acceptance of the premise put forth by LeoYo is to completely disregard the length of time required to reinvent a government completely from scratch that might work and then sell that program to the general public. Nothing short of armed rebellion followed by overwhelming success would make such a task even remotely possible.

Hence I say - LeoYo's Post is a service to repelicans.