Brutality, and Efforts to Control the Internet, Are Essential to the State
Whenever justice is uncertain and police spying and terror are at work, human beings fall into isolation, which, of course, is the aim and purpose of the dictator state, since it is based on the greatest accumulation of depotentiated social units.
~ Carl Jung
The title of this article encompasses topics that arouse attention and criticism among persons of libertarian persuasion. The discussion of such matters usually treats each issue as though it were sui generis, independent of one another. Most of us respond as though the woman who is groped at the airport has no connection with the man who is tasered by a police officer; that the person serving time in prison for selling marijuana is unrelated to the men being held at Guantanamo. The belief that one person's maltreatment is isolated from the rest of us, is essential to the maintenance of state power.
more here
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer237.html
Fire the TSA and profile.
Bring home the troops.
Stay out of my kitchen.
If you are dumb enough to NOT wear seatbelts I'm smart enough to let you clean the gene pool all by yourself.
If it were a serious war it would focus on the supply at source. We send armed drones and cruise missiles flying for less; A dozen C-130's and some Agent Orange could wipe out over half of the cocaine and heroin supply in just a few "raids". Smart Bomb a few meth labs and the suppliers would think twice. It's not a war, it's an Ad Campaign.
Police, yes. Paramilitary force, no.
Quote from: Native_NM on June 11, 2011, 06:41:13 AM
Fire the TSA and profile.
Bring home the troops.
Stay out of my kitchen.
If you are dumb enough to NOT wear seatbelts I'm smart enough to let you clean the gene pool all by yourself.
If it were a serious war it would focus on the supply at source. We send armed drones and cruise missiles flying for less; A dozen C-130's and some Agent Orange could wipe out over half of the cocaine and heroin supply in just a few "raids". Smart Bomb a few meth labs and the suppliers would think twice. It's not a war, it's an Ad Campaign.
Police, yes. Paramilitary force, no.
Oh My I like how you think [cool]
Quote from NM
"If it were a serious war it would focus on the supply at source. We send armed drones and cruise missiles flying for less; A dozen C-130's and some Agent Orange could wipe out over half of the cocaine and heroin supply in just a few "raids". Smart Bomb a few meth labs and the suppliers would think twice. It's not a war, it's an Ad Campaign."
Spraying marijuana and coca fields was tried and failed due to difficulty identifying the thousands of small fields in south and central america. Also, the toxicity of the agents used was causing too much collateral damage to people and other crops. Countries targeted protested loudly, as we would if someone was spraying poison on our population. In addition, agent orange and related efforts were not particularly effective and many GIs suffered long term and fatal consequences from exposure---had one friend who is now dead from multiple cancers due to agent orange exposure in viet nam.
If we knew where the meth labs were at, maybe we could do that but, most meth labs are very small and locations are short-term and/or located all over US-----want us to bomb your neighbors house? Most meth in this country is "homegrown" and not the product of big foreign labs.
I don't have any easy solutions to the drug culture----those that do tend to be simplistic and most have been tried and failed. Despite great efforts and heavy costs the govt was unable to win the earlier war on alcohol and we still pay on ongoing price for providing a huge market for the mafia and other crime families----they were small time neighborhood thugs until we handed them a financial bonanza that bankrolled their expansion and influence.
Draconian penalties for simple possession, especially of marijuana, was an expensive failure and did not make even an inconvenience for users or suppliers. Few jurisdictions now do more than ticket small holders for civil fines. In 1974 Alaska, through a Alaskan Supreme Court ruling, made possession of small amounts for personal use legal-----the sky has not yet fallen. Subsequently the legislature recriminalized possession but state does not prosecute to avoid court striking it down. Law was a purely political act to satisfy part of the electorate by a little posturing. Despite dire predictions of catastrophe due to the 1974 court ruling, Alaska and their pot smokers seem to coexist without much difficulty. Commercial growing operations and sellers are still pursued though it does not result in any scarcity for those seeking to buy---it does keep the prices and profits high for the trafficers though----they thank us for that I am sure.
For most of our history drugs of all kind were legally sold and used----some lives were surely badly affected but, the great majority of us managed to resist their temptations and the republic did not fall. Of course, a lot of nice jobs in the DEA and state and local governments might go away. And drug dealers may suffer a great drop in revenue.
It's a tough call. I did read that there are a couple of regions that account for the majority of the poppy and coca. I think if we really wanted to eradicate the supply we could. A government with the resources to extract the fingernail clippers from our luggage could eliminate the supply of poppy blowing in the wind.
I don't disagree with the collateral damage or political implications. But war is hell. What we have now hardly counts as a war in the truest sense.
Quote from: Native_NM on June 11, 2011, 06:41:13 AM
Fire the TSA and profile.
Bring home the troops.
Stay out of my kitchen.
If you are dumb enough to NOT wear seatbelts I'm smart enough to let you clean the gene pool all by yourself.
If it were a serious war it would focus on the supply at source. We send armed drones and cruise missiles flying for less; A dozen C-130's and some Agent Orange could wipe out over half of the cocaine and heroin supply in just a few "raids". Smart Bomb a few meth labs and the suppliers would think twice. It's not a war, it's an Ad Campaign.
Police, yes. Paramilitary force, no.
Ditto!
d*
I can understand the frustration of all those who have watched the everlasting "war on drugs". It actually began in 1935 a few years after the "war on alcohol" was mercifully ended. That's when all the surplus revenue agents and the vast bureaucracy that developed during prohibition was suddenly a great moral force for good in need of a new crusade. Not a conspiracy---just a bureaucracy doing what they do best---perpetuate themselves and get bigger if at all possible.
Reefer, Weed,or Smoke was tapped to become the new "evil drug" , a new and powerful threat to the public. The crusade was kicked off by the release of "Reefer Madness" to publicize a threat that had been used for literally centuries. Luck was with the new crusaders. Marijuana was then almost exclusively a drug used by "colored folks" and a few dissolute white folks like musicians and other bohemians. This happy situation made it easy to portray it like it was in their ridiculous propaganda films and there was no resistance by the voters to the new "war". Only the lower classes would be the foes for the old revenuer army----a truly serendipitous opportunity---no upper class users like the ones filling the old speakeasies---at least not until the 60's, 30 years into the war.
The war has now been fought for 76 years. Drugs of all kinds are available, abundant, stronger and numerous new chemical delights are designed, marketed and readily distributed and used with relatively little risk of prosecution. The illicit drug business is almost assuredly the very biggest component of the un-taxed underground economy in the US. The compensation of its' CEOs make even the Goldman Sachs executives green with envy.
Over the 76 years we have constantly been assured that if we only spend a little more money, build a few hundred new prisons, grit our teeth and just keep on keeping on,victory will be just around the corner. We're the ones who have been drugged---by our righteous indignation, our arrogance towards the "lower classes" and our faith that we can impose on the drug market what we completely failed to do to the alcohol market.
Can anyone explain to me why doing more of the same will be successful after 76 years of more of the same has been an incredible complete failure by anyone's measure? Am I missing something?
One of the planks of gary Johnson's bid for President 2012 is centered on the failed war on drugs. Quite controversial. He doesn't stand much chance but I'd vote for him. Best governor NM ever had IMO.
I suggest that we make it all legal...Should put the goberment out of buisness...They hate competition..
To put a little bit of conspiracy theory into that rwanders, I'm just parroting something I've heard and have not researched it, but the timing is about right. Hemp became reefer, something to be stamped out, at the same time synthetic fiber was being introduced. I do feel that by labelling people who are not bad as criminals they then haven't got a thing to lose by living up to our expectations.
The argument for the legalization of drugs should not be confused or intertwined with the effectiveness of the "war on drugs".
I'd also vote for Johnson, as his ideology most closely matches mine: fiscal conservative, limited government, social liberal in the areas that matter to most people.
Quote from: Don_P on June 12, 2011, 07:04:06 AM
To put a little bit of conspiracy theory into that rwanders, I'm just parroting something I've heard and have not researched it, but the timing is about right. Hemp became reefer, something to be stamped out, at the same time synthetic fiber was being introduced. I do feel that by labelling people who are not bad as criminals they then haven't got a thing to lose by living up to our expectations.
In much the same way alcohol became demon rum before it was outlawed. If you look at at the past you'll see a great many things that have been outlawed and made legal again later on. How do you justify the lives ruined and lost for a cause when that cause is later ruled to be wrong when the times change? They need to get away from making people into criminals. There are enough criminals already without needing to invent them.
Quote from: Don_P on June 12, 2011, 07:04:06 AM
To put a little bit of conspiracy theory into that rwanders, I'm just parroting something I've heard and have not researched it, but the timing is about right. Hemp became reefer, something to be stamped out, at the same time synthetic fiber was being introduced. I do feel that by labelling people who are not bad as criminals they then haven't got a thing to lose by living up to our expectations.
There are several varieties of hemp, or marijuana. The variety used for hemp fibers is so low in THC that you would have to smoke the worlds biggest joint to even begin to get high. The variety used as marijuana is not a good source of fiber so the old story quoted above is just that---an old story.
Though hemp fibers can be used in clothing, almost 100% was used for rope and artificial fibers are so superior hemp ropes are now a tiny part of that market. When we stopped hanging people hemp rope fell on hard times----lol
And another good conspiracy bites the dust :D
Quick show of hands
Did anyone actually read the article at Lew Rockwell
just look at the posts on the front page here:
As we sink deeper, they try harder to maintain control
This is A NEW LEVEL OF A POLICE STATE
Rat and mouse poison
I read it.
Quote from: Windpower on June 13, 2011, 06:30:57 AM
Quick show of hands
Did anyone actually read the article at Lew Rockwell
just look at the posts on the front page here:
As we sink deeper, they try harder to maintain control
This is A NEW LEVEL OF A POLICE STATE
Rat and mouse poison
Windpower, I did read Lew Rockwell (or at least most of it). I did skim parts where he began to repeat, in good professorial manner, his points. Not a criticism, just an observation.
After reading and trying to digest his thesis, I finally came to my final question; So what do we do about it?
Prof Rockwell seems to want us to perceive every "threat" addressed by government as a ruse to achieve and maintain their power over us. Perhaps I missed where he distinguishes between legitimate threats to us as either communities or individuals and the ruses.
Again, I have not studied his article in depth. My perception is that he has taken a philosophical position based on libertarian/anarchist ideology and pushed it past its' boundaries to absurdity. All, I repeat, all philosophical doctrines can and are put to that stress test----it is a very good method to bring the weaknesses and underlying assumption to the fore where they can be discussed---all systems have them, that's why philosophers never have reached any lasting conclusion.
If one accepts his premise and follows it into its ultimate state of complete paranoia, it is particularly telling that paranoid people are easily led---all you have to do is keep pointing out new threats for them and what better "threat" then the government. They do exercise a lot of power, but at least so far we have been fairly successful at regularly changing out those who wield the power. Yeah, I understand that they are all part of the conspiracy----but I do wonder if they've agreed on who the final dictator will be? Quite a trick---joining in a vast conspiracy which requires you to conspire at your own undoing and enslavement with everybody else.
Of course we relinquish some part of our personal independence with each layer of government, with each law or regulation---if I was living on a deserted island like Crusoe and didn't have to deal with other humans I would have no need to make those compromises. However, when Friday showed up, Crusoe needed to adapt to life with others.
Personally, I might enjoy being the only captain of my ship, retaining total control over all I survey
but, It may get dicey when a group of us ubermensh meet up and we all claim total authority---we could all wage our own little civil wars.
This unfortunate destination of anarchic principles have made it very difficult for anarchy to sustain itself past its' bomb throwing idealists of the early 20th century. Interesting that they thought the best way to demonstrate the benefits of anarchy was to try and create the chaos they thought would save us from the evils of authority. I support many libertarian issues but, taken to the absurd, they reveal their imperfections.
I probably have it all wrong. if only we had some authority to show us the correct line of thought.
I probably have it all wrong. if only we had some authority to show us the correct line of thought.
I am sure your mother would just love that sentence ;D
Bruce
Quote from: firefox on June 14, 2011, 04:18:55 AM
I probably have it all wrong. if only we had some authority to show us the correct line of thought.
I am sure your mother would just love that sentence ;D
Bruce
Hey! was I just insulted? Especially humbling when you can't figure out if you have been slapped down. Get carried away sometimes and manage to fit both feet in my mouth. It was only my feeble attempt to be clever and sarcastic. Have faith that Windpower will let me know if I have booted it.
RW
"After reading and trying to digest his thesis, I finally came to my final question; So what do we do about it?"
I just skimmed the rest of your post after this quote, RW
I agree this is the crux of the phenomenom we are living through. "What do we do about it ?"
note this post this morning
http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=10793.0
Had I been a student in that kind of school stunt 45 years ago when my dad was alive there would have been a few people responsible with (at least) bloody noses. And I am sure others would have joined into the frey or at least cheered him on.
I am not saying that is "what do we do about it" I am just pointing out that the level of direct action that was considered "normal" has undergone a sea change in the last 40 years.
The average level of response from adult people to outrages of this sort is childlike.
This is by design.
Oh, and the author is Butler Shaffer, btw not Lew Rockwell
Windpower, I imagine there is at least some objective truth hidden in the Pro Libertate propaganda post you attached----I continue to be amazed that you do not apply the same BS detector to blogs published by those with such obvious axes to grind. It appears that you are always willing, no, eager, to accept any assertion by anyone as long as it is directed at authority of any kind. Yes, authorities lie sometimes, spin sometimes, exaggerate and distort reality often----so do others----especially those with fringe ideologies and blogs to sell---like the Pro Libertate publisher. You are an intelligent man--just why should I accept him as some kind of unbiased teller of truth rather then as just another internet BS peddler. You gotta believe something I guess but, swallowing anything as long as it tastes like your favorite kool aid contradicts your self-image as a guy who sees the world as it really is.
I don't know how much of Pro Libertate is unvarnished truth and how much is unvarnished BS but, I have noticed in life that strong words often reveal a weak argument. Fevered rhetoric is not required to prop up accurate information but, I'm sure it helps sell internet diatribes to those anxious to read what they need to believe.
This is a big world. Lots of bad and/or ridiculous things happen. Sometimes they are criminal, more often just stupid things done by silly people. There are enough of both every day to allow those inclined to any world view to find fodder for propaganda or just foolish stuff to sell to those sharing their views.
We all believe what we want to believe-----ideally, some intellectual honesty is applied to it all to prevent one's falling through the looking glass. I try and probably fail more often then I know.
Your Friend, RW
No, you haven't been insulted!
I just figured that your mother was the appropriate person
to establish the correct authority.
I was just pulling your leg ;D
Bruce
A couple more news articles about this event
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110513/cm_ac/8463439_illinois_school_terrorizes_students_with_fake_gunman_drill
http://www.journalstandard.com/news/education/x2132689378/Orangeville-superintendent-Otto-resigns-from-office
I guess there were a couple things that 'got my attention' about the school 'drill'
first, the school is only 50 miles from my home.
second, being a regular listener to radio news local and international (BBC) I was surprised that I had not heard anything at all about this outrageous abuse of students in a town very close to home on local stations. It would seem to me that it was a relatively big story for a small place as the Superintendant of the school board resigned as a result of parental outrage.
third it was not just some 'stupid thing done by a silly person' it involved the Sheriffs department and apparently all of the teachers as well. No one stood up and said 'this is a bad idea ?' incredible !
Also it seems to me that wielding a firearm and threatening a child with murder is a felony in Illinois.
and to those that say "schools have fire drills all the time"
A: the students know it is a drill and B: they don't routinely set the school on fire or fill the school with smoke for more realism either.
But back to the point "what do we do about it ?"
the 'it' being, IMO, an increasingly tyranical society and and increasingly dumbed down and docile public that acepts these outrages from the TSA, FDA, DHS, Police brutality, etc etc etc
Quote from: rwanders on June 14, 2011, 05:15:06 PM
Windpower, I imagine there is at least some objective truth hidden in the Pro Libertate propaganda post you attached----I continue to be amazed that you do not apply the same BS detector to blogs published by those with such obvious axes to grind. It appears that you are always willing, no, eager, to accept any assertion by anyone as long as it is directed at authority of any kind. Yes, authorities lie sometimes, spin sometimes, exaggerate and distort reality often----so do others----especially those with fringe ideologies and blogs to sell---like the Pro Libertate publisher. You are an intelligent man--just why should I accept him as some kind of unbiased teller of truth rather then as just another internet BS peddler. You gotta believe something I guess but, swallowing anything as long as it tastes like your favorite kool aid contradicts your self-image as a guy who sees the world as it really is.
I don't know how much of Pro Libertate is unvarnished truth and how much is unvarnished BS but, I have noticed in life that strong words often reveal a weak argument. Fevered rhetoric is not required to prop up accurate information but, I'm sure it helps sell internet diatribes to those anxious to read what they need to believe.
This is a big world. Lots of bad and/or ridiculous things happen. Sometimes they are criminal, more often just stupid things done by silly people. There are enough of both every day to allow those inclined to any world view to find fodder for propaganda or just foolish stuff to sell to those sharing their views.
We all believe what we want to believe-----ideally, some intellectual honesty is applied to it all to prevent one's falling through the looking glass. I try and probably fail more often then I know.
Your Friend, RW
Wise words indeed. d*
QuoteA couple more news articles about this event
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110513/cm_ac/8463439_illinois_school_terrorizes_students_with_fake_gunman_drill
http://www.journalstandard.com/news/education/x2132689378/Orangeville-superintendent-Otto-resigns-from-office
Brrrrr... that chills the spine! The only positive aspect I can gather from this latest outrage is that those kids got a good education as to who the real terrorists are. If my kid was at that school I would be seeking a good lawyer.
QuoteBut back to the point "what do we do about it ?"
Teach your children well, stay true to your moral convictions, pray for the best. Hopefully a hundred monkeys will come on board.
Bread and circuses. All this talk is just another take on the Roman's strategy to placate the masses:
"the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses"
Red/Blue and Left/Right bickering is the new circus. Meanwhile, back in Washington....
Quote from: dug on June 15, 2011, 10:55:20 AM
Brrrrr... that chills the spine! The only positive aspect I can gather from this latest outrage is that those kids got a good education as to who the real terrorists are. If my kid was at that school I would be seeking a good lawyer.
Teach your children well, stay true to your moral convictions, pray for the best. Hopefully a hundred monkeys will come on board.
you got it, dug
War on drugs...I'll summarize an article I cannot find: Prison guards and visitors are getting caught smuggling drugs into prison and we think we can keep them out of the US?
Yes, I realize some are getting caught. However, if you believe all, or even a majority are, then you're doing a very good imitation of an ostrich.
Quote from: IronRanger on June 22, 2011, 06:47:52 PM
War on drugs...I'll summarize an article I cannot find: Prison guards and visitors are getting caught smuggling drugs into prison and we think we can keep them out of the US?
Yes, I realize some are getting caught. However, if you believe all, or even a majority are, then you're doing a very good imitation of an ostrich.
i would say it's 10% or, more likely much less than that-----just keeping on keeping on with Prohibition, Act II is an incredibly expensive and, even worse, an ineffective policy. It's an act of political cowardice----refusing to face the truth and admit to the voters that we gotta try something different.
I agree, rwanders. If you've seen The Wire, they had an idea to centralize the drug industry in a rundown/abandoned area of the city. All the drug dealers and drug users were to operate/use in this area only, or the police would crack down hardcore on them.
These are the types of ideas we need to start looking at. Homeless people could move into the surrounding area, for very cheap rent and health care, creating a buffer zone from the hardcore users.
It' time to confront these types of issues, rather than looking the other way or calling someone an "unpatriotic democrat" for exposing these problems in our society.
As an aside, I believe fining or jailing people for homelessness is unconstitutional.
I need to quit, or it'll turn into a long-winded off-topic diatribe.
Who would pay for the cheap rent and health care? Drug users have serious health issues and or more likely NOT to hold a stable job. Who's dime?
I'm pretty sure that "The War on Drugs" has been proven to be far more expensive than it would be to provide full rehab for addicts.
I don't disagree that it would be cheaper. If we legalize drugs, who is going to pay for the lost productivity and the associated costs?
Quote from: Native_NM on June 23, 2011, 08:10:02 PM
I don't disagree that it would be cheaper. If we legalize drugs, who is going to pay for the lost productivity and the associated costs?
Who pays for it now or for same caused by alcohol? It is simply part of the cost of business for society as a whole. At least we would not be paying for the ineffective war on drugs.
About 10% of those who initially use recreational drugs (including alcohol) become addicted---that rate has been observed to be true in many studies of drug/alcohol usage. Some just decide they don't like them, some just are able to maintain occasional usage patterns. The 10% are suspected of having a genetic pre-disposition though the mechanism has not been completely defined. The 10% rate has been found even in those on extended opiate treatment due to traumatic injuries--roughly 10% will have difficulties when their medication is stopped. Surprisingly, the majority of these patients will have uneventful or minor addictive indications when their opiates are stopped. Of course, there is no way to identify the unlucky 10 percenters in advance and some genetically and/or culturally similar groups can suffer much higher addiction rates (i.e. native americans)
Rational approaches to the drug issues are difficult due the puritanical streak still much inherent in our history and culture. Good examples of this cultural hallmark can be found in the so-called "blue laws" still on the books and often enforced in many jurisdictions. (i.e. No alcohol sales on Sundays or not before noon on Sundays----what's the rational basis for that?) For many years in Virginia, it was illegal to sell a loaf of bread on Sundays but, you could buy a car---cars came along after the law was written to ensure we all focused on church-going instead of crass commercial business. In DC you weren't allowed to stand up at a bar--had to sit down (never did figure out what inspired that one)
Just a few examples of the irrational approaches we seem to embrace about substances or activities seen as "immoral" in our culture.
I agree that alcohol is an expensive to society. I think that the negative effects of certain drugs, particularly if they are legalized and the stigma is removed, would be greater than than alcohol. I understand that plenty of people use alcohol and marijuana on a recreational basis; I doubt that many use crack or meth or heroin on a recreational basis.
I'm mixed. I'm a strong advocate for personal freedoms, liberty, and personal responsibility. I also recognize that if we give them the rope, 10% of the population will hang themselves. Sadly, it is not a quick death, but rather an expensive, downward spiral that is usually subsidized by the taxpayer.
Quote from: Native_NM on June 24, 2011, 07:27:48 AM
I agree that alcohol is an expensive to society. I think that the negative effects of certain drugs, particularly if they are legalized and the stigma is removed, would be greater than than alcohol. I understand that plenty of people use alcohol and marijuana on a recreational basis; I doubt that many use crack or meth or heroin on a recreational basis.
I'm mixed. I'm a strong advocate for personal freedoms, liberty, and personal responsibility. I also recognize that if we give them the rope, 10% of the population will hang themselves. Sadly, it is not a quick death, but rather an expensive, downward spiral that is usually subsidized by the taxpayer.
I think the answer is obvious NM...although not very PC. Fortunately, I'm not either ::)
We have reached the point where the government cannot support peoples bad habits anymore. That's evident by the number of programs that are being cut now.
It's time for people to start taking responsibility for their actions again.
I drink very little. It could be measured in ounces per year. This isn't because I can't afford help if I become a drunk, rather because I have other things to do and can't do them while drinking. Like most, I had my affair with beer in my younger years but when I had to start accepting responsibility, I did.
Even though I was a young adult in the 60's and 70's, I never used drugs. It was popular but I just never had the urge and was aware of the consequences.
Most people are that way and always have been.
Those that choose to get involved deeply in drugs or alcohol should have the right to do so but when it comes down to getting public help, which normally doesn't cure the problem anyway, or hitching up their drawers and getting straight on their own.......
will just have to do it on their own or die.
It's a harsh reality but it is reality.
Prohibition didn't curb drinking, and it's repeal didn't increase it. It just raised the price and turned former upstanding citizens into criminals, and made some criminals rich.
People who take illegal drugs have no problem buying them now so I don't think legalizing them would entice non-users to suddenly have an urge to take up crystal meth, heroin, crack cocaine, or huffing spray paint. Sensible people would avoid these because they are debilitating, just as they would avoid excessive alcohol use.
I believe the war on drugs is a political one and as usual it involves money (lots) and societal control.
Dug's got it right folks. When you pose the question of legalizing drugs as a choice between a society with drugs and one without drugs. That choice is bogus----The real choice is between imposing some doable restraints on their usage and the current ineffective attempts to totally ban the "manufacture and sale of....". Precisely what they tried with alcohol. Except drinking alcoholic beverages was NEVER illegal even during Prohibition and each person could brew their own beer or make their own wine for their use (200 gallons per year) Even with those exceptions Prohibition proved unworkable.
*attempting to nudge the conversation back on topic*
"What we have in common is the need to protect one another's inviolability from governmental force. When we understand that the woman being groped by a TSA agent stands in the same shoes as our wife, mother, or grandmother; when the man being beaten by a sadist cop is seen, by us, as our father or grandfather, we become less willing to evade the nature of the wrongdoing by invoking the coward's plea: "better him than me." The state owes its very existence to the success it has had in fostering division among us, a topic I explored in my Calculated Chaos book. Divide-and-conquer has long been the mainstay in political strategy. If blacks and whites; or Christians and Muslims; or employees and employers; or "straights" and "gays"; or men and women; or any of seemingly endless abstractions, learn to identify and separate themselves from one another, the state has established its base of power. From such mutually-exclusive categories do we draw the endless "enemies" (e.g., communists, drug-dealers, terrorists, tobacco companies) we are to fear, and against whom the state promises its protection. By becoming fearful, we become existentially disabled, and readily accept whatever safeguards the institutional fear-mongers impose, . . . all for our "benefit," of course!
Look at the title of this article: do you find any governmental program or practice therein that is not grounded in state-generated fear? Each one – and the numerous others not mentioned – presumes a threat to your well-being against which the state must take restrictive and intrusive action. Terrorists might threaten the flight you are about to take; terrorist nations might have "weapons of mass destruction" and the intention to use them against you; your children might be at risk from drug dealers or from sex perverts using the Internet; driving without a seat-belt, or eating "junk" foods might endanger you: the list goes on and on, changing as the fear-peddlers dream up another dreaded condition in life."
Fear affects the weak-minded. Bullies fear intelligence and brute strength.
"the list goes on and on, changing as the fear-peddlers dream up another dreaded condition in life."
-------By windpower
You're right Windpower, No better proof of what you say then reading your substantial contributions to the folklore of dire threats that can be found in the threads of these forums. Readers will be transfixed by your shocking exposure of both private and public cabals dedicated to the destruction of our way of life which has never existed.
It is courageous alarmists like you that have earned our enduring gratitude for providing the truth about the multitude of mythical evildoers, irrefutable evidence of which can be found in the writings of numerous bloggers, anonymous rumor mongers, noted snake oil salesmen, and other acclaimed sources found in that newest testament of the received word, the internet. Deniers of these well varnished truths are bravely confronted by you and other tireless defenders of the faith waving websites which will testify to the truth of the cries of world-wide cataclysms, due as early as next week, the threats to our precious bodily fluids, and births of babies with two heads whose mothers were forced to drink water poisoned with fluoride as they fled with their hybrid alien/human children from nurses waving needles filled with vaccines. Deniers are often admonished by you, master of the ancient and honorable art of sophistry, to read for yourself how these other pioneers of the new internet testament all guarantee that their information has received the endorsements of leading mad scientists and medical doctors who will get their licenses back as soon as they reveal the insidious plot to silence them. When the doubting sheeples cry out for even more illusions of evidence they are gobsmacked by your deft use of numerous, at least two, websites who will each firmly attest to the veracity of the other, except for that whacko at theworldwillendtomorrowataroundtwothirtypm.com, who never returns the favor, Screw him.
RW
ps: the devil makes me do it
RW quote
"the list goes on and on, changing as the fear-peddlers dream up another dreaded condition in life."
-------By windpower
unquote
Since you clearly didn't recognize the quote was from the original article by Butler Shaffer, I didn't bother to even skim the rest of your post, RW
;D
Windpower, you take yourself way too seriously. You need to lighten up and find some laughter in life. Your blood pressure and stomach would thank you.
Was looking forward to being put straight by a real old fashioned Windpowered blast. I assumed that the article you quoted reflected your agreement with the original writer's sentiments. It just seemed to be you speaking through him. I always try to properly appreciate the existential threats you see so clearly. I apologize for my failure to embrace their gravitas on so many occasions.
Your Friend
RW
ps: to NM--I don't think Wind wants to play anymore.