Posts Tagged ‘undemocratic’

21
Oct

Where are “The Others” at?

   Posted by: AUDIOMIND   in Random

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.

7
May

Right vs. Left vs 3rd Parties

   Posted by: AUDIOMIND   in Random


“I’ll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs. I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking. Hey, wait a minute, there’s one guy holding out both puppets!”

– Bill Hicks

If you’re not voting third party, you’re wasting your vote.

If you don’t vote what you believe, you’ll never get what you want.

The people elect the government they deserve.

Two options is only one more than they had in the Soviet Union.

Every November the same party wins: the Politician Party.

A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

It amazes me that for all the talk of reform and eliminating corruption in government, no one ever addresses the fundamental issue: lack of choices, which is caused directly by our (plurality) voting method. Give non-Dem/Rep voices a fair and equal chance to discuss and promote the merits of their platform instead of dismissing them outright. This means changing the voting system to something that doesn’t predetermine the “leading two”. Anything other than this is a charade. “They” don’t care who wins, because it’s still one of “them”. The real danger (in “their” minds) is if an outsider were to get in and shake things up. Yes, the past 6 years have really demonstrated the truth in “not a dime’s worth of difference”. Who would have thought that a member of the “party of Reagan” would preside over the largest budget increase in history? Both parties want bigger government, so they can curtail your rights – whether they grab them from the left or the right makes no difference in the end.

<=====>
*EDIT*

In response to a recent comment…..

  • Congress is a product of the people.

    • Congress is a product of a process controlled by the political parties. The political parties are in turn controlled by monied and powerful interests who let the parties know who they will back, and who they will not. The parties pick from candidates that can get backing, of course, otherwise they will be picking candidates who cannot advertise, campaign and travel freely – in other words, losing candidates. Once acceptable candidates are chosen, then they let the people vote on which one of these hand-picked people is to continue in the (very, very expensive) process. Once elected, carrying out any promises made during the political campaign is strictly optional.

    In this way, congress (and the senate, and the presidency) end up being 100% made up of people selected by those same monied and powerful interests. “The people” do not control the type of person, or the obligations of that person. Once in power, the usual currency of politics – being supported to run again by the party, junkets, “fact-finding” trips, dinners, appointments to powerful committees, visits to the white house, campaign contributions, rubbing elbows with the powerful, pork for their district, commitments for speaking engagements, returning as a lobbyist, employment at a think tank, tips on everything from stocks to escorts – these, and more, are the “currency” of “elected” government service. It also doesn’t hurt to remember Orwell’s assertion that “the purpose of power – is power.”

    Aside from those people, there is a vast army of unelected, but very powerful individuals who manipulate our daily lives with absolutely no requirement to, or evidence of electing to, pay any attention to public input or subject to public accountability. Not that such input is lacking; they just don’t listen. Examples abound; the FCC with its censorship and pandering to the rich for broadcast (broadcast speech belongs to the rich – period), the FDA with its holding back of therapies even to those who are about to die, the US park service which takes homes from people by force (eminent domain), the Supreme Court with its topsy-turvy interpretation of the commerce clause, disingenuous support for ex post facto laws, craven ducking of religion, and of course, just generally trampling the constitution left and right. And of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    So when you talk about the government – any of it – as being “the people” – you’re speaking of a situation that doesn’t exist in the United States of America. Our federal and state governments are operating broadly outside the bounds of its constitutional authority, within a cycle that is entirely controlled by special interests who have money and power. There are absolutely no signs that this situation is going to change.

    You may wonder why free speech is allowed with GovCo gone so catastrophically wrong. The answer is simple: It is far better for them to let you vent than it is have you smolder and suddenly show up on some politician’s doorstep with what used to be your second amendment rights in hand. Between that and making sure you achieve a general level of complacency, while being distracted by the current round of boogeymen (Terrorists! Pedophiles! Immigrants! Global Warming!), they can keep the population from getting out of hand, even as they trample constitutional rights, engage in broad repression of personal, victimless choices, and pursue military adventures on sovereign foreign soil for the benefit of industry.

    Page 1 of 11