How the plot of Star Wars frighteningly resembles modern day America
This is a long but very important and insightful analysis of our world, I believe. It's an op-ed by Dan Sanchez as http://Anti-Media.org. Anyone who is afraid that Trump will lead us closer to a dictatorship will get reinforcement from this analysis too. Reality may be just as true--and equally scary--as some fiction. http://theantimedia.org/the-plot-of-s...
Congress has allowed Obama to create a path to totalitarianism that will, no doubt, be followed by his successor no matter who he or she may be. As such they are facilitators of the destruction of the republic. Ben Franklin's answer when asked "What have you given us?", "A republic, if you can keep it". Rings as true today as it did over 200 years ago. Franklin was being optimistic when he predicted that the republic might last 100 years. It is now over 235 years but the end is in sight. Do we have the insight and courage to protect what we have or will we join the long history of civilizations that rose and fell. The decay is from within. It is as if the immune system of our civilization has turned against its host. When we die it will be from a cancer not an assault.
"What if they threw a war, and nobody came?"
What, bankers are extinct?
Skunks don't need to change their odor when people can't oe won't smell. Or see, or listen Subjectivist Secular Progressive AND Hollywood will have a field day
One con-man after another.
In TR's case he was appointed Ass. Sec Navy in time to help perpetrate the Maine false flag, and elected later by the duped (and gloriously patriotic) public. Or perhaps was it rewarded for services rendered and the voters really had no choice at all?
USA! USA! USA! USA!
The problem with honest bankers is they have been reviled out of existence. When it comes to money, hardly anyone wants to hear the truth.
I don't think the 'honest banker' was reviled into extinction. It's power that corrupts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0h50...
Luke Skywalker was radicalized after his family was killed in a raid. He joined an ancient sect and participated in an attack that killed countless people... Which begs the question: was he right?
I will answer the question with another question: What constitutes self-defense and what constitutes an initial attack? Objective law should define this distinction. But it is clear that the error made by terrorists is that killing innocent people does not comprise proper retribution. Further, killing an innocent person on accident is not equivalent to killing an innocent person on purpose. One is called manslaughter, the other, murder.
The US is, no doubt, responsible for the deaths of some innocent people. At the same time, it is not self defense to kill innocent civilians, even in response to the deaths of innocent people. It is not self defense to encourage martyrdom (and I distinguish this from service) among young people. It is not self defense to use women and children as suicide bombers in order to "end American arrogance" as has been claimed. These acts are initiations of the use of physical force against individuals who are innocent.
"Luke Skywalker was radicalized..."
The question is really whether or not the principles he was fighting for were principles of freedom. How he arrived there is secondary.
" it is not self defense to kill innocent civilians, even in response..."
Correct. Self-defense is necessarily a spur-of-the-moment action. Anything premeditated fails this criterion.
In addition, the law does objectively define self-defense and what the US does when it attacks other countries is not considered self-defense. It is considered to be retaliatory in nature and only the state has the legal right to conduct retaliatory attacks and only under the guise of war.
Thus, part of the problem for "terrorists" (and the American revolutionaries were considered terrorists from the British perspective) is that we have never explicitly recognized their right to attack military targets. I proposed that they be allowed to do so without fear of judicial punishment (but they still would be subject to military response) in a paper I authored three months before 9/11 occurred. I classified attacks on government and military installations carried out while attempting to limit damage to other targets as best as one could to be an act of war, not terrorism, and considered it legitimate. As such, I considered the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon and the sinking of USS Cole to be "legitimate" actions of war that should not have criminal repercussions but actions undertaken on 9/11 would definitely not fit this definition since two of the attacks were against civilian targets and the third (the attack on the Pentagon), while ordinarily a legitimate target, was carried out with a civilian airliner.
Part of the problem is that the US wants to punish everyone who carries out attacks on it regardless of intent as being a crime, which basically means that we should not look at the American Revolutionaries as patriots but rather as traitors. I do not support that view. There are legitimate mechanisms that can be objectively defined for waging war against the state and we need to stop thinking that automatically an attack on America interests, whatever they might be (including military targets), is, by definition, an attack on innocents, such as is currently the theory that is being used by the American government.
Also, I appreciate the detailed explanations on what constitutes manslaughter versus murder, etc. as well as the point regarding attacks on US military versus US civilians. I should let you know my comments assumed said attacks were on civilians (I was writing with San Bernardino in mind). I suppose the difference between insurgent vs. innocent and that between soldier vs. civilian is a notable one. The first is more vague while the second is objective.
The problem here is that they don't play by the same rules. They want to portray themselves as civilians with a cause rather than a nation-state with a definite military. While your idea is interesting, I feel constrained to point out that you are proposing a principles and reasoned solution to an unprincipled and unreasonable aggressor.
Indeed, in the paper I wrote, I proposed a clear and obvious distinction that basically forces revolutionary forces to "declare war" on a country before they can engage in actual war against it. Then it forces them to abide by the same exact rules of war that standing armies must adhere to with the single exception that they are not required to wear clearly defined uniforms (this exception being created since such forces need to have some equalization mechanism to take on the state and the only way that they can do so is through subterfuge and disguise rather than painting a bright red X on their backs). In other words, they must abide by (almost all of) the same rules of war, though they are permitted to do so stealthily (not that the US and other nations do not also engage in such behavior although typically such soldiers are not). After all, you cannot blame the wild animal for lashing out at you if you make no attempt to train it.
Finally, the irony is that under the proposed solution that I detailed (and published in the Journal of Diplomatic Language), all of those detained at Guantanamo Bay who held allegiance to the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or ISIS could be held indefinitely and without formal charges until the end of hostilities as they would be considered "prisoners of war" and thus would never be able to avail themselves of rights to habeas corpus or legal counsel. Since the terrorist organizations of which they are a part never unconditionally surrender, we never have to release them :)
We still could, by the way, prosecute the mastermind of 9/11 as a war criminal since attacks on civilians are an act of war and we would not have to try to arrest enemy combatants from terrorist groups (unless they wave the white flag of surrender) since any attack on a military installation would be considered an "act of war" rather than a criminal act.
In addition, by establishing this clear delineation, all Americans who pledge allegiance to ISIS are, by their own admission via an overt act, committing treason, as defined in the US Constitution. As such, we can prosecute them for treason (and thus imprison them for life or even execute them), even if they do not succeed in their criminal aspirations. So long as we fail to declare war against them and consider their actions as "acts of war" rather than merely criminal actions, we end up potentially defanging the biggest single threat we can use against such Americans: expatriation (committing treason is one of the few remaining expatriating acts, which is the only way that a natural-born US citizen can lose citizenship).
Legitimacy frequently comes from recognition by others, which makes it a subjective criteria rather than an objective one. The UN condones (legitimizes) the attacks against Israel by Palestinians even though by any objective measure it should be the other way 'round. The Geneva Convention is only as good as the nations of the world legitimizing it by adhering to it...
"Furthermore, your argument that our aggressors are "unprincipled and unreasonable" is a bit off, I think because we have made them that way by refusing to define the legitimate parameters for their rebellions."
In my thinking, legitimacy comes from the principles on which one conducts their actions - not the arbitrary support of third parties. I appreciate what you are saying, I just see the notion of "legitimacy" as being highly problematic due it's nature in politics. I can see how you would view my comments interpreting the actions of current terrorists as being "unprincipled and unreasonable" as being off, so I will present it in this manner: if a principle is destructive or anti-liberty, does that not in fact make it definitionally unreasonable/illogical and of questionable value? That was my approach in the words I selected. If others are more to your liking, feel free to substitute.
"When you state that ALL uprisings and actions undertaken by force are automatically illegitimate when undertaken by a non-state actor but turn around and allow similar actions by state actors, you run the risk of making Osama bin Laden and the American Revolutionaries (at least at the start of the US Revolutionary War) moral equivalents, which they objectively are not."
I don't believe I ever stated such. If I said any such thing, I would retract it. The initiation of force against another is only justified if in self-defense IMO. That includes, however, actions taken to reclaim infringed liberties. That does not apply to bin Laden's groups, etc. Their goal is subjugation of others - not merely the right to self-rule. The separation is not state vs non-state actors, but rather pursuit of individual liberty. If this is what you were pointing out, I agree.
"in the paper I wrote"
In my opinion (and if you are able), you should post this to look at. Though you may have already done so, I'd appreciate a link.
"you cannot blame the wild animal for lashing out at you if you make no attempt to train it."
If it is a sentient being - a human being - I do not consider it a wild animal. These radical groups are comprised of humans who have been trained, but who also in most part actively chose to pursue their desires for power and control. And while a rational discussion would absolutely be a preferred method of re-education, I somehow doubt many are overly interested.
"I proposed a clear and obvious distinction that basically forces revolutionary forces to "declare war" on a country before they can engage in actual war against it."
It's a great idea. The question is how formal this needs to be. The Qu'ran has many passages which specifically call for war on the infidel and non-believer and justify actions against such under the term jihad or "holy war". I think that the declaration has already been made by that side, some just refuse to see it on this side.
'In other words, they must abide by (almost all of) the same rules of war"
I think here you're going to get pinned up against the notion of dealing conventionally with an unconventional warrior. The notion of "convention" again falls back on the notion of "legitimacy" by recognition. I think we might be better served to recognize (no pun intended) that instead of trying to re-write our rules of engagement, we simply look at the ones they have already written and sworn to, starting with the Qu'ran. Instead of trying to get them to use Western terms and methods, why don't we reverse-engineer how they approach things and use that to understand them. The conversation about military conflict always starts with knowing the enemy, yet we keep trying to define them in our terms. I'd say we need to start looking at how they see things. The battle with the female Kurdish freedom fighters comes to mind as a very unconventional way to deal with unconventional methods.
I don't say this to downplay your suggestions at all. It's very clear you've spent a great deal of time and thought on the matter. I just look at all the efforts made by the "West" to deal with the cultures of the Middle East and what strikes me as a recurring theme is how we treat every problem over there from a Western perspective. IMHO, it's the reason why the elections in Baghdad were only partially successful and why our democracy exports haven't necessarily met with much success. We're trying to apply Western thinking to a literally foreign atmosphere.
The rest of your post was insightful and well-written and I found it thoroughly enjoyable. Well done.
In trumps case, the tyrant in him, his very narcissism will be endeared by those that support him but later they will be betrayed by him.
History 101
Second, he has often said. "I had no choice. I had to do it." That shows a man that is not open to reason, debate, and alternative approaches.
From the Oath, you can see that you will be defending the Constitution - not a person.
"I, _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The Oath of Office (for officers):
"I, (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of ___ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
Sorry. The Constitution was thought worth the effort. I guess you are on your own. Uncle Sam has us slated for other parts of the world.
"Those who treat their military despicably train their military to despise them." A true statement which is why the Oath doesn't include anyone in or out of government.
US Army cutting to 450,000 in the next few years. No More Cannon Fodder.
I believe Cruz and Rubio want to give it more money, too. But not Paul. Not sure about Christie, Bush, and the rest.
Who was it who said the story of civilization is the battle of the individual against the state? Doesn't matter what 'side' or cause the State may be on at any particular time.
After that it's self explanatory. No landslides, no mandates. The goal is to destroy the present system and return to open elections with real choice. If it destroys the nation? That's happening anyway. Best part is our little group has no contact with each other once the guidelines were agreed to but judging from the articles, comments, and headlines and the percentage movements it's working.
One prime area is military people. One question then open discussion. "What would it take for you to uphold your oath of office?"
A second target area is called - enablers or toilet flushers.
The best way to better insure realistic representation is to change the electoral college system by requiring a candidate win a congressional district in order to garner that district's electoral vote. Setting a minimum number of votes cast as a ratio of the district's population in order for an electoral vote to be permitted at all would enable a "none of the above" strategy to work, as a failure to gain enough electoral votes to constitute a majority would invalidate an election.
Cease Enabling
Take Control
Make Changes
The point behind the under vote be it No Confidence or None of the Above is to force a change and the only way to do that is a real two party system and honest elections.
That's not going to come from the extreme left democrats and such but might come from the right wing of the left IF some current Republicans form their own separate party affiliation and make a firm stand of being Constitutionalist not just in word but in deed.
Which brings us back to destroying their credibility with the under vote... For the top two spots that's left. Coupled with never voting for one of those two leftist parties at any level in any election.etc etc. A lot more can be done within the local district and oh yes IF the legal vote buying scheme is stopped.
Lots of if's but the rest of the methods get an F for failure. Failing yourself primarily
Power is elusive and the concept of 'having power' is often an illusion, a self defeating cloud of judgement. To maintain power means maintaining control so let's talk about power. To have power requires either a protective echelon or a standard security force. Both may have civilian (LEA) and military components. In our case the first example hasn't developed enough and the second example even cut in half is fully developed. The rule is take care of your security forces and they will take care of you. Treat them despicably and they will despise you in return.
Who has more divisions? The military or status quo? Who would the bulk of Law Enforcement support? Who has the legal right, duty and responsibility to take action and under what circumstances?
Who has the right, the duty, the responsibility and all they have to do is declare a counter revolution. Is it any more difficult to imagine than a socialist takeover. That's almost an accomplished fact.The only power status quo has is what is given to them. Take it away it 's yesterdays news. It will make no difference to the public. To make it easier status quo has given away that protection. And replaced it with what?
The controlling factor for the military the protection for the government has always been the Constitution. The oath is taken to that document and nothing else. It serves as check until it is gone. Then it's open season. Every day every violation tears down the shield wall and makes status quo an open target.
To think other wise is not only naive it's arrogant. Taking over the government was an open topic of discussion in the barracks back when Carter was President. We always managed to guide the conversation back to the oath of office. These days? If Status Quo is counting on protection from that which this administration has openly disrespected and despised both Constitution and soldiers
To think only one side has all the power and ignore the one entity that can legally act if they so choose is worse than naive it's foolish. There is not too much except for that oath of office to stop them.
So I'm Naive because I try to introduce other options. Remember that when a speech from the oval office features someone with lot of stars on their collar sitting behind that big desk saying "My fellow Americans...
I'm going to run my flag to the top of the mast and then salute it. I refer to those suggestions as lack of confidence or none of the above. In the military we referred to it as the no more cannon fodder creed.
and for the women it's no more baby factories. You are not excluded.
A military coup seems within the realm of possible, which is incredible paradoxically. But then I happen to belleve that we already had that happen in 1963.
Perhaps I missed it, but I think the author should have gone one step further to expose that the political forces of American government (Dems, Neocons, RINOs, etc) are not the forces behind the path to the dark side. They are puppets, and the real danger to individual liberty and to free markets is allowing America to commit suicide on orders from Palpatine's new world order.
I agree with almost everything in the article. We respond as if were facing terrifying perils even though we are not Actually, as American history and human history go, we're in a time of peace, amazing prosperity, falling crime, and increased security. In my lifetime, the average citizen's chance of being a victim of violence of any kind has dramatically decreased. It concerns me that people act so terrified. If something truly terrifying happened, I wonder if we would just self-distruct. We're ought to be braver.
Technology has reduced the chances of dying due to disease and accident, but death as a (possibly unintended) consequence of politically based irrational legislation is greater. I suspect that the much higher incidence of violence in media has also had a negative effect.
OTOH, I could be wrong. It could be that the death statistics are down, but the media ahs been successful at creating greater fear than is warranted.
Property crimes are down, imo, because the worst offenders have manipulated the law to legalize their crimes.
(Looking for links to data on this issue and will post when I find them. Please post any pertinent valid statistics links you find on this here.)
If I can find an active link again to the stats I'll post gem here. They were very sobering and depressing. The point is that most of our suffering is self-imposed. That goes for individuals as well as our nation.
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/us...
What is different is the media distribution of information and the cultural change: The earlier you go in human history, the more likely that the 'other guy' was not considered 'really human' and hence it was OK to kill them without let or hindrance. We now consider all humans to be...well...human.
Jan
Jan
Jan