There is much talk today of the losses of freedoms of the individual.
It used to be – at least in theory, and, for the most part also in law – that the individual, and therefore the rights of the individual, were held to be sacrosanct. That word, contrary to its generally held meaning, has little association with aspects of holiness or the sacred, or the sanctified (even though those are said to be the root meanings of the derived parts), those concepts having long been viewed as impositions on the attitudes of the many toward the privileged few (and therefore rightly rejected as irrelevant), but is more akin to the ideas of being inviolable, inalienable and largely untouchable, as applied to the sanctity of the individual.
That long held sanctity is now being eroded by the accumulating losses of freedom (of action and of choice) of individuals, as members of nations. Resulting in punishments which can only be described as breeches of the sanctity of the individual in deference to a new and sinister raising of the status of the nation – as a community – which is itself becoming the newly endowed, fully holy, fully sacrosanct, ‘sacred cow’, to which all individuals will eventually be required to bow.
This is not right. This is not just. This is a change to the rules governing the nation club we all joined at birth – or at some later time for those of us who have moved around a bit. The club rules cannot be changed just to suit the current management committee.
Mao Zedong had something to say about that. I made an image of what he said – because I think it is relevant and a subject for some careful thought.
A crime, no less… no greater crime… hmm…
Let me say that I am no expert in the writings of Mao Zedong. I came across this quote today, while reading something else, and thought it relevant and appropriate to what is happening right now in the West …and, come to think of it, in most other parts of the world too.
Of course, there are times when a nation must call on its individual constituents to band and act together in unison, each according to their capabilities and strengths to support the idea of nationhood and the ideals that their nation stands for and for its continued existence, since an external attack on the nation is also an attack on each individual within that nation. But that is something different entirely. In all other circumstances, the nation takes second place to its individual members.