Why is it beyond the comprehension for (many) others to entertain the thought that the real danger any terrorist presents is that Govco feels that to best combat them we need to erode that which we are protecting; namely privacy, the constitution and other beacons of freedom?
Have others simply chosen to skirt their civic responsibility to restrain Govco and question and be skeptical of everything Govco?
It seems that almost everyone in the country has one eye closed. Half the country has their left eye closed, and the other half has their right eye closed.
Conservatives who bashed Clinton as being a corrupt, dishonest, war-mongering socialist (which he was) seem unable to see all the same qualities in THEIR chosen tyrant dujour, George W. Bush. They don’t even notice that in most cases, their own complaints about Clinton could be used, word for word, to justifiably criticize THEIR megalomaniac of choice.
And it goes the other way, as well. The following is a link to a video of a talk given by Naomi Wolf, regarding the end of America. She gets a lot right, regarding the historical pattern of how countries turn into fascist dictatorships. But what struck me most about her talk, though it was very subtle, was the fact that she SUPPORTS the American left-wing tyrants, and even fails to notice that they are the SAME THING as what she now paints as Hitlers-waiting-to-happen. Here is the link to her speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc
She is a Democrat, and talks about “restoring liberty.” When has the Democratic party ever been about individual liberty? When it tried to confiscate more from everyone? When it tried to nationalize/socialize health care? When it tried to disarm all its victims? (I found it very odd that disarming the populace was NOT one of the ten points Ms. Wolf discusses, since it is such an obvious one.) BOTH parties–or both faces of the one ruling class–are ALWAYS expanding their power in any way they can. And yet Ms. Wolf spoke of having a resolution signed by all the Democrat tyrants in Congress as something to prevent a police state. Good grief. (That’s like saying a letter signed by all the Cryps, denigrating the Bloods, will reduce gang violence.)
Does she not remember Waco, where the jackbooted thugs of a DEMOCRAT administration murdered nearly a hundred men, women and children? How about Ruby Ridge? How about the Clinton regime using the IRS to harass its political opponents–plainly a symptom of an out of control, lawless police state? How about the dozens of “mysterious” deaths in Arkansas, when King Clinton reigned there?
Oddly, people are so accustomed to the “two party” view of the world, that when I bash THEIR party’s tyrant, they assume I like the OTHER party’s tyrant. I bash Bush, and Republicans assume I’m a Democrat. I bash Clinton, and the Democrats assume I’m a Republican. Apparently the only political question most people are capable of considering is WHICH tyrant should oppress us all, rather than asking WHETHER we should be oppressed by anyone.
———< "How To Be a Successful Tyrant" >———-
These days the most popular illusion of “peasant power” is the voting both. Open resistance has been averted numerous times by offering the peasants a choice between Tyrant A and Tyrant B.
“A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” [Lysander Spooner]
No matter how many times the people are stomped on, harassed, and oppressed by “elected” tyrants (usually taking turns, as one tyrant is replaced by another), the vast majority of the peasants will continue to fall for the idea (pushed by you, of course), that another “election” is their only civilized recourse to any government-imposed injustice they see.
“Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one’s government is not necessarily to secure freedom.” [F. A. Hayek]
People would think it insane to have an election to choose a carjacker or bank-robber for their town. The only difference between that and choosing a “ruler” comes from the now deeply ingrained assumption that having a ruler is necessary and essential to society (a delusion you should reinforce constantly). The question must always be which person or group of people should have the power to rule everyone else; the question must never be whether anyone should have such power.
“We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.” [Helen Keller]
If the peasants accept the assertion that someone must rule them, their thoughts and efforts will revolve, not around preserving their own freedom, but around deciding whom they should surrender their freedom to.
– ————-< end >—————
I don’t know how people, like this Naomi Wolf, can be so perceptive and so completely oblivious at the same time. And the “selective blindness” afflicts all statists, Democrats and Republicans alike. And when some fringe wacko suggests that NO ONE should be oppressing us, BOTH groups of pro-tyrannt folk can be counted on to lash out against him as the biggest threat in the world. (Ron Paul anyone?)
Go figure.
Leave a Reply