We live in an electronic concentration camp.
Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
"The purpose of the evil that masquerades as a government in Washington is to prevent those few Americans who do have a clue from informing the rest of the population. Whistleblowers are arrested and falsely prosecuted and imprisoned. Journalists have been intimidated into silence.
...
Whitehead says that the mass of the citizenry cannot be assassinated. If citizens simply stop cooperating by listening to the lies on TV, by purchasing the devices used to control them, by amusing themselves in front of propaganda screens, by learning again how to think, how to be human, how to be moral, the American police state can be defeated.
It worked in the past, and possibly it can work again. If not, Washington will remain the home of Sauron, a threat to every American citizen and to the entire world."
...
Whitehead says that the mass of the citizenry cannot be assassinated. If citizens simply stop cooperating by listening to the lies on TV, by purchasing the devices used to control them, by amusing themselves in front of propaganda screens, by learning again how to think, how to be human, how to be moral, the American police state can be defeated.
It worked in the past, and possibly it can work again. If not, Washington will remain the home of Sauron, a threat to every American citizen and to the entire world."
Ayn Rand certainly nailed Robin Hood for what he was.
Robin Hood is Evil
Ragnar Danneskjold: "But I’ve chosen a special mission of my own. I’m after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men’s minds, we will not have a decent world to live in."
Hank Rearden: "What man?"
Ragnar: "Robin Hood."
Ragnar: ". . . [Robin Hood] is not remembered as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, by making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became a symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, had demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures – the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich – whom men have come to regard as the moral idea." ". . . Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting, Mr. Rearden. Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive."
The Pirate Ragnar Danneskjöld
From Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged
Blood suckers, Parasites and Carnivores. Surrounded by lots of rot and decay.
How is a normal person with a normal job going to react to such an article? By distancing themselves from the writer and his cause, I think. This is not what we need.
Insofar as the presentation of facts in the article is concerned, please note that they were just 'statements' - no discussion, few statistics. There was an equation drawn between people watching TV and people being reduced to mindless droids. How many times have we heard that argument? How much TV have you watched in your lives?
I think that the Internet has brought about an unprecedented distribution of minority views and that we have access to much more varied information than ever before in history. Our information is not filtered through a gatekeeper any more - we can go and see 'what the other side said'.
We do need to limit government and the police. There are laws on the books that are terrible and which need to be challenged and repealed (eg civil forfeiture). There is lots of stuff that needs to be done, but this article is not the way to achieve that goal.
Jan
I do agree with your conclusions.
I expect a book review (no caps - calming down, now) to indicate 'the author says' more than 'This Is the Truth'. I am afraid to read the book, now - though I should at least look it up on Amazon and preview a few pages to get the sense of it.
I watched TV when I was a kid, but have not had one in 30+ years. Most of my friends have a TV, though, and they are far from sheep.
Jan
No tv for about 20 years, although I look in just to observe the current state of propaganda regularly. I think the obvious bias of the news chased me away more than program content propaganda. That makes the propaganda so much more obvious to me now.
I recall watching Boston Legal on occasion starting just after 9/11. Their Bush hating was so obvious and conclusions so hypocritical. I was really wondering what they would do when a Dem was elected and he/she didn't change anything they had criticized.
The answer? Although their ranking hadn't changed in 4 years, suddenly the demographic was wrong and they cancelled the show although a strike of union workers was also used as an excuse. Clever using a socialist problem to cancel a socialist leaning show just before it might be exposed as hypocritical by conservatives.
At least on TWW, the Prez had balls and occasionally sensible reactions to events, unlike 'what's his name' who's in the Big Oval today.
(Shatner's bud, James Spader, is still doing well as Red in the Blacklist, another weird wealthy character. He's been doing off the wall characters well his entire career, from Daniel Jackson in Stargate movie to (shades of) Grey in Secretary.)
As a non-Democrat/non-Republican, I enjoyed the writing and acting by just about everyone in the cast, and was sorry when the program ended.
I could tell the propaganda from the writing and would often make comments about what came out of the cast members' mouths (to my quite-liberal (relatively) wife) but the show was, imnsho, quite well-done.
I first noticed this kind of reaction in my first wife in the 1970s, so I think the roots may be that deep or deeper.
Today, the MainScream Media carries the banner, making every non-event seem as if it directly will affect everyone's life, and that's simply not the case.
My (new) wife and I love the mysteries and situationals and sci-fi series on TV and rarely, if ever, watch the Talking News Heads such as "Woof Blister."
Life's too short for that shit.
"It is now routine for a traffic stop, whether justified or not, to result in the confiscation of your cash, other possessions, and your car itself. You can be robbed by police on the basis of their assumptions without being ticketed or charged with a crime."
Routine? In Northern Nevada it has come to light there has been a rogue cop out of Winnemucca that was abusing civil forfeiture procedures and confiscating cash from Interstate drivers he was stopping. That cop is under investigation now.
"It is now routine for police to amuse themselves by carrying out strip searches and vaginal searches of women." Really? Routine?
Then how can the following statement be true?
"In my opinion, as I so often write, Americans are distracted by sex, entertainment, the difficulty of providing for themselves and for families. Americans simply have no clue."
I really don't think a distracted populace would ignore such "routine" searches.
There is a strange underlying negativity to this article and some of the others written by the same guy. The other article about the Dying Oceans is primarily predicated on climate change, plastic debris, and overfishing. While there may be some issues that need addressing, buying into the climate change rigmarole is problematic, but, there is more in there:
"From my perspective the human destruction of the oceans is yet more evidence of the ruinous nature of private capitalism."
Alarm Bells! And then the Titles of some of his books: "The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism" and "How America Was Lost".
Something is off here.
Jan
Sometimes people who have made points in articles repeatedly get lazy and forget that the reader may not have seen the other 75 times details were included. I can much easier forgive the statements in this review than recent statements from Penn Jillete, but that's because I have more experience with Paul Craig Roberts. Others will give Penn a pass because of familiarity with his work, too.
I understand your reticence and I have that sort of response to some sources, for example, rantings from Alex Jones. That said, if you just assume someone wearing a tinfoil hat is always wrong you may find yourself eating margarine for decades unnecessarily.
I suspect that I might agree with Paul Craig Roberts on many of his conclusions: Certainly I agree that government needs to be limited and that police actions need to be constrained by the Bill of Rights. By using examples that are contrary to our daily experience, the article distances us from the subject matter, which is not its purpose. I think we need to keep a heightened awareness of this factor when we write for publication.
Jan, no margarine
He was giving the host a primer on free markets and a results oriented understanding of the economic policies they followed.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/26...
Perhaps you should read more than this book review and book titles.
I suggest listening to this interview for a start on his views and experience:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/26...
A truly interesting, but also terrifying article.
Now how to start a nonviolent nationwide strike, while the masses are addicted to bread and circuses?
Regards,
O.A.
If the only addiction was bread and circuses we'd have a better chance.
Make our circus more appealing than their circus, and include those little tasty canapes?
Did you see video of college students that had no idea who won the Civil War? Most of them didn't even know what it was or who fought it. And only one of them could name our vice president.
But I do get your point.
The movie would be harder to make appealing to "modern" people than AS.
Let's see, vice president, thats a touchy feely job, right?
I don't answer the cell phone just because it rings. I do take the battery out when the rest of my life desires no interruptions. I don't answer anything that isn't identified by more than a telephone or cell radio phone number,
Social Media? I think of it as half waste of time and half block wardens.
It's called freedom of choice. Al it takes is the will power to use the off switch.
Especially easy as I now have to make an effort to go find a wifi or cell signal..
Which makes this forum one of the favored few.