The country was never really a democracy --- nor intended to be a democracy ... yet neocons and zionists are exporting it at the end of a gun.
On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 6:28:56 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > http://fredoneverything.net/Internet.shtml > > > > *Cometh the Censor* > > *Birth of What Will Prove a Short Siege* > > *February 15, 2015* > > I see with no surprise that Washington is stepping up its campaign to > censor the internet. It had to come, and will succeed. It will put paid > forever to America’s flirtation with freedom. > > The country was never really a democracy, meaning a polity in which final > power rested with the people. The voters have always been too remote from > the levers of power to have much influence. Yet for a brief window of time > there actually was freedom of a sort. With the censorship of the net—it > will be called “regulation”—the last hope of retaining former liberty will > expire. > > Over the years freedom has declined in inverse proportion to the reach of > the central government. (Robert E. Lee: “I consider the constitutional > power of the General Government as the chief source of stability to our > political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast > republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the > certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have > preceded it.” Yep.) > > Through most of the country’s history, Washington lacked the ability to > meddle, control, micromanage, and punish. In 1850, it had precious little > knowledge of events in lands such as Wyoming, Tennessee, or West Virginia, > no capacity to do much about them, and not a great deal of interest. People > on remote farms and in small towns governed themselves as they chose, not > always well but without rule by distant bureaucracies and moneyed interests. > > For a sunny few years, local freedom rested substantially on principle, a > notion inconceivable now. The Thomas Jeffersons, George Washingtons, and > Robert E. Lees genuinely believed in freedom, and worried about the coming > of tyranny. Justices of the Supreme Court often upheld the tenets of the > Bill of Rights. As human affairs go—poorly, as a rule—it was impressive. > > As time went by, however, it became clear that incapacity, not principle, > was the only reliable brake on the rise of dictatorship. In 1950, the > government could put a mail cover on anyone, quite possibly illegally if > the FBI were involved, but steaming envelopes open required time, effort, > and manpower. Mass surveillance was impossible, and so didn’t happen. > Without surveillance, there can be no control. > > Fora long time it was due to principle that freedom of the press remained, > no matter how much the government hated it. During the war in Vietnam, > “underground” papers, which of course published openly, were virulently > critical of the government. The mainstream media of the time published > shocking photographs of the war, much to the fury of the Pentagon. The > courts allowed it. > > Today, that has changed. Washington has learned to avoid dissent from its > wars by using a volunteer army of men about whom no one of influence cares. > The use of “drones” further reduces public interest, and today the major > media, owned by corporations aligned with arms manufacturers and manned by > intimidated reporters, hide the results on the battlefield. For practical > purposes, today’s press is an arm of government. > > The old checks and balances, however modest in their effects, have > withered. The Supreme Court is now a branch office of Madame Tussaud’s, > Congress a two-headed corpse, the Constitution a scrap of moldering > parchment remembered only by hopeless romantics, and Washington a sandbox > of unaccountable hacks inbred to the point of hemophilia. Obama has > discovered that he can do almost anything, calling it an executive order, > and no one will dare challenge him. > > In its rare waking moments, the Supreme Court has shown little inclination > to protect the Bill of Rights, which Washington regards as quaint at best > and, usually, an annoyance to be overcome by executive order and judicial > somnolence. The obvious reality that having the government read every > email, record every telephone conversation, monitor every financial > transaction and so on is a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment bothers > neither the Supremes nor, heaven knows, the President. It is clearly > unconstitutional, but we do not live in constitutional times. Governments > aggregate power. They do not relinquish it, short of revolution. > > Today the internet is the only free press we have, all that stands against > total control of information. Consider how relentlessly the media impose > political correctness, how the slightest offense to the protected groups—we > all know who they are—or to sacred policies leads to firing of reporters > and groveling by politicians. The wars are buried and serious criticism of > Washington suppressed. That leaves the net, only the net, without which we > would know nothing. > > Which is why it must be and will be censored, sooner if Washington can get > away with it and later if not. The tactics are predictable. First, “hate > speech” will be banned. The government will tell us whom we can hate and > whom we cannot. “Hatred” will be vaguely defined so that one will never be > sure when one is engaging in it and, since it will be prosecutable, one > will have to be very careful. Disapproval of favored groups, or of their > behavior, will be defined as hatred. National security will be invoked, > silencing whistle-blowers or, eventually, anything that might make the > public uneasy with Washington’s wars. > > The next step probably will be to block links to foreign sites deemed to > transgress. China is good at this. The most likely avenue will be executive > orders of increasingly Draconian nature, about which Congress and the > Dead—the Supreme Court, I meant to say—will do nothing. > > At that point, coming soon to a theater near you, the United States as it > was intended to be, and to an extent was, will be over. Our increasingly > characterless young, raised to ignorance and Appropriate Thought by > government schools, will question nothing. They will have no way of knowing > that there is anything to question. > > I suppose it can be debated whether the current enstupidation of the > rising generations is deliberate or merely the consequence of a return to > peasantry inescapable in a democracy. The petulance and immaturity running > through so much of society may be inevitable in a spoiled people who have > never *had* to do anything and have never been told “no.” Certainly > things today resemble the end games of other once-dominant cultures. > > Mental darkness facilitates authoritarianism, and darkness we have. Many > college graduates can barely read. Their ignorance of history, politics, > and geography (and practically everything else) is profound, and they see > no reason why they should know anything. They seem not to suspect that > there might be things worth knowing. > > I am hard pressed to think of a society in such internal decline that has > turned itself around, and I cannot imagine how ours might do so. One sure > thing is that, once the internet is gelded, there will be no hope at all. > And the assault has begun. > > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
