Speak, speak, speak, & remember that whenever anyone's liberty to speak is denied, your liberty is denied also, & your place is where the attack is.
Voltairine De CleyreRead
If the believers in liberty wish the principles of liberty taught, let them never intrust that instruction to any government; for the nature of government is to become a thing apart, an institution existing for its own sake, preying upon the people, and teaching whatever will tend to keep it secure in its seat.
Interpretation
Liberty should not be taught by the government, as its nature is to preserve its own power over the people.
Voltairine De Cleyre emphasizes the danger of allowing government entities to educate about liberty. She argues that governments tend to prioritize their own preservation and power, often distorting the message of liberty to maintain control over the populace. Thus, if true liberty is to be imparted, it must come from independent sources, untainted by governmental influence.
In practice
In a speech advocating for educational reforms, I will quote Voltairine De Cleyre to illustrate the dangers of government control over education.
Speak, speak, speak, & remember that whenever anyone's liberty to speak is denied, your liberty is denied also, & your place is where the attack is.
Anarchism, to me, means not only the denial of authority, not only a new economy, but a revision of the principles of morality. It means the development of the individual as well as the assertion of the individual. It means self-responsibility, and not leader worship.
Make no laws whatever concerning speech, and speech will be free; so soon as you make a declaration on paper that speech shall be free, you will have a hundred lawyers proving that "freedom does not mean abuse, nor liberty license," and they will define freedom out of existence.
I think it can be shown that the law makes ten criminals where it restrains one.
The question of souls is old—we demand our bodies, now. We are tired of promises, god is deaf, and his church is our worst enemy.
Is it not enough that 'things are cruel and blind'? Must we also be cruel and blind?
There are no insoluble problems. Only time-consuming ones.
I cannot illustrate huge differences between male and female spiritualities except in their starting points, style and fascinations along the way. This is significant, however, and has huge pastoral implications: men must be challenged in the world of doing; women must be challenged in the world of relating.
We tell ourselves stories in order to live...We look for the sermon in the suicide, for the social or moral lesson in the murder of five. We interpret what we see, select the most workable of the multiple choices. We live entirely, especially if we are writers, by the imposition of a narrative line upon disparate images, by the "ideas" with which we have learned to freeze the shifting phantasmagoria which is our actual experience.
It is a monstrous thing that I will say, but I will say it all the same: I find in many things more restraint and order in my morals than in my opinions, and my lust less depraved than my reason.
Remember that you have only one soul; that you have only one death to die; that you have only one life. . . . If you do this, there will be many things about which you care nothing.
It feels like we're always juggling many pieces of information at once or trying out many personas at once. It makes life slightly nonlinear.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.