After a few weeks' hiatus, I am back on the scene of the Fourteen Signposts to Slavery. Before I get into the details for this week's red flag of impending tyranny, I wanted to make just a few comments about myself and how it is that a blog that I originally started a year ago to share my story of recovery from chronic fatigue syndrome, has now been turned into an outlet for sharing my views on politics.
And how did I go from where I was a few years ago, blindly and dumbly voting Republican, getting my information from the nightly news, and trusting that those in charge had my best interest in mind, to where I am now?!? Some people who know me are baffled at the views I now broadcast, as they seem contrary to what some may consider "normal".
I don't know for sure, all I know is that in 2007 some things began to click in my mind. The years I spent in grad school studying Soviet history and the Soviet government's cruel tactics of control and manipulation for the "good" of the masses, and an awakening to the awful situation of medicine and the sick care industry through my own experiences with cfs -- all of this led me to espouse the belief that if I want to know about any given trend, event, or even health concern, I must do my own research. I must push past the veils of marketing tactics and propaganda schemes to see what really lies behind the green curtain, if only to catch a glimpse!
I still know next to nothing. But what I have found has caused me to want to research further and share my findings, meager though they may be, with anyone who cares to take a look.
With that, here is the 8th Signpost to Slavery --
8. An official declaration that anti-Communist organizations are subversive and subsequent legal action taken to suppress them.
Today we live in a world where threats of modern-day Communism, Socialism, and Fascism are poo-pooed by the general media as ridiculous, hyperbolic claims. Those who warn of encroaching tyranny are labeled as kooks at best, and at worst -- potential domestic terrorists. It's even gotten so bad that those who oppose President Obama's bailouts and health care bills, considering them to be an assault to our liberties, are dubbed "racist". The same thing goes, of course, for those who are against illegal immigration.
But do we see the government and the media denouncing anti-Communist organizations? Well, are there really any big anti-Communist organizations left to speak of after they were so denigrated in earlier years?
Certainly The John Birch Society comes to mind as one of the most vocal anti-Communist (and anti-Big Government) organizations in America, but it hardly retained much national influence after the barrage of assault against it in the 60's. Interestingly, the initial blows to the John Birch Society came from Communist organizations with ties to Moscow. After a time, the American mass media joined the bandwagon. How disturbing to see a collusion between foreign Communist agencies and our own mass media!
Even more frightening is that fact that in 1963 upon his failed bid for President, New York State Governor Nelson Rockefeller, a member of the most prominent elitist family in America, gave a speech before the Republican National Convention denouncing members of the John Birch Society and equating them with the Klan:
The tactic of associating a group or person you wish to discredit with other groups and persons known to be of ill repute is a common one in political smear campaigns, and Nelson Rockefeller used that tactic quite proficiently in this instance. Because of Rockefeller's speech and other negative pieces in the mass media, the John Birch Society was effectively black-balled from mainstream America. No direct government involvement was needed to shut them up.
Gone are the days of old-school Red Communism, bomb shelters, and rampant McCarthyism. If you want to know my opinion, Communism as it was during the Cold War is never to be again. The Soviet Communist experiment came to an end in the early 1990's for a reason -- the command economy of the Soviet state was unsustainable. And some of the Soviet state's tactics of secluding its people from the rest of the world were failing.
Today, China is the shining star of Communism, and it looks a little different from its Soviet cousin -- at least on the surface. China's market economy emphasis and PR with the West to portray it as hip and savvy have done wonders for the nation's economic growth as well as its standing in the world (never mind that political prisoners still languish away in China's vast Gulag and the average farmer or worker struggles just for basic subsistence).
Never again will we see a Communist state emerge that totally resembles the USSR, though there are still a few struggling nations, such as North Korea, who appear to be hanging on to old-school Communism for dear life.
Today we have a different kind of tyranny that has been spreading like a super-virulent swine flu virus to practically all of the nations of the earth. Unlike the swine flu, however, no government agency exists to hedge its progress, and no National Emergency has been declared to warn the populaces.
The type of tyranny I am referring to has been quietly bankrupting 3rd world countries for decades, and since then has set its desires on bankrupting the rest of the world including the coveted U.S.A.
This type of tyranny might be referred to as Corporate Fascism, or the New World Order in which a few, self-appointed elite gain control of all big business and set up a global government with themselves at the helm. This New World Order has many faces, only one of which is Communism, and it can shape-shift to please and appease the minds of the unsuspecting masses in any nation.
Just as the John Birch Society was a "voice in the wilderness" against Communism and Communist infiltration in earlier years, today there are those who actively speak out against our current breeds of tyranny. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Alex Jones of Infowars.com, Chuck Baldwin, and others are vocal critics of world government run by a tiny elite -- the "new Anti-Communists". And they are also at the brunt of attacks by the media and politicians alike, and accused of the very same crimes with which Nelson Rockefeller accused the "Bircher's" -- hate, racism, gross ignorance, and militism.
But do we see the government and the media denouncing anti-Communist organizations? Well, are there really any big anti-Communist organizations left to speak of after they were so denigrated in earlier years?
Certainly The John Birch Society comes to mind as one of the most vocal anti-Communist (and anti-Big Government) organizations in America, but it hardly retained much national influence after the barrage of assault against it in the 60's. Interestingly, the initial blows to the John Birch Society came from Communist organizations with ties to Moscow. After a time, the American mass media joined the bandwagon. How disturbing to see a collusion between foreign Communist agencies and our own mass media!
Even more frightening is that fact that in 1963 upon his failed bid for President, New York State Governor Nelson Rockefeller, a member of the most prominent elitist family in America, gave a speech before the Republican National Convention denouncing members of the John Birch Society and equating them with the Klan:
"These extremists feed on fear, hate and terror, [they have] no program for America and the Republican Party... [they] operate from dark shadows of secrecy. It is essential that this convention repudiate here and now any doctrinaire, militant minority whether Communist, Ku Klux Klan or Birchers." (1)
The tactic of associating a group or person you wish to discredit with other groups and persons known to be of ill repute is a common one in political smear campaigns, and Nelson Rockefeller used that tactic quite proficiently in this instance. Because of Rockefeller's speech and other negative pieces in the mass media, the John Birch Society was effectively black-balled from mainstream America. No direct government involvement was needed to shut them up.
___________________________________________________
Gone are the days of old-school Red Communism, bomb shelters, and rampant McCarthyism. If you want to know my opinion, Communism as it was during the Cold War is never to be again. The Soviet Communist experiment came to an end in the early 1990's for a reason -- the command economy of the Soviet state was unsustainable. And some of the Soviet state's tactics of secluding its people from the rest of the world were failing.
Today, China is the shining star of Communism, and it looks a little different from its Soviet cousin -- at least on the surface. China's market economy emphasis and PR with the West to portray it as hip and savvy have done wonders for the nation's economic growth as well as its standing in the world (never mind that political prisoners still languish away in China's vast Gulag and the average farmer or worker struggles just for basic subsistence).
Never again will we see a Communist state emerge that totally resembles the USSR, though there are still a few struggling nations, such as North Korea, who appear to be hanging on to old-school Communism for dear life.
Today we have a different kind of tyranny that has been spreading like a super-virulent swine flu virus to practically all of the nations of the earth. Unlike the swine flu, however, no government agency exists to hedge its progress, and no National Emergency has been declared to warn the populaces.
The type of tyranny I am referring to has been quietly bankrupting 3rd world countries for decades, and since then has set its desires on bankrupting the rest of the world including the coveted U.S.A.
This type of tyranny might be referred to as Corporate Fascism, or the New World Order in which a few, self-appointed elite gain control of all big business and set up a global government with themselves at the helm. This New World Order has many faces, only one of which is Communism, and it can shape-shift to please and appease the minds of the unsuspecting masses in any nation.
Just as the John Birch Society was a "voice in the wilderness" against Communism and Communist infiltration in earlier years, today there are those who actively speak out against our current breeds of tyranny. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Alex Jones of Infowars.com, Chuck Baldwin, and others are vocal critics of world government run by a tiny elite -- the "new Anti-Communists". And they are also at the brunt of attacks by the media and politicians alike, and accused of the very same crimes with which Nelson Rockefeller accused the "Bircher's" -- hate, racism, gross ignorance, and militism.
In February of 2009, the Missouri State Police issued the MIAC report instructing policemen to consider people driving vehicles displaying militia symbols, including the famous "Don't Tread on Me" flag, as potentially dangerous.
The report went on to specify that individuals who support candidates such as Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin (of the Constitution Party), Bob Barr (of the Libertarian Party), and anyone who was against such things as gun control, illegal immigration, and abortion on demand should be considered a possible threat.
Recently, the Southern Poverty Law Center issued a list of individuals it considers as threats to America. The list of course, includes most of the individuals I have already named, and comes complete with their bio, mugshot, and fake criminal alias (one man is dubbed the "Apostle of Disunion", another "The Repentant Taxman".) One by one, each of these activists for small, Constitutional government is mocked and discredited.
On June 16 of this year, MSNBC will air a new documentary characterizing the Tea Party movement, Constitutionalists, and those who expose tyranny in our nation as dangerous extremists.
Rand Paul's recent win in Kentucky caused him to be the focus of media attack for supposed racism because he happens to espouse Libertarian philosophies in regards to business and private organizations and who they associate with.
Lastly, in my mind the most unsettling move of all to discredit and silence those who speak out against our new breed of tyranny is the law proposed by White House Information Tsar Cass Sunstein that would curtail the freedom of speech of bloggers, reporters, and independent media organizations. Cass Sunstein is the author of a book entitled "Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech", and is a proponent of the "Fairness Doctrine" that would criminalize "hate speech" and conspiracy theorizing.
Under Sunstein's watch, nobody would be allowed to voice an opinion that discredits the government or goes against mainstream media's talking points without first proving to a government agency that their points are moral and correct. Because, of course, government agencies are the ultimate authority on that which is moral and correct. . .
Such a law would effectively silence small fry bloggers like myself and would severely limit the ability of anti-establishment media outlets to operate freely, while big media would continue to spout its rhetoric untouched.
How similar this is to the state monopoly over media in Communist nations! The Soviets worked feverishly to silence the dissidents in their nation, China will throw you in the slammer if you go against the grain, and now the U.S.A. is considering muting the voices of certain non-mainstream views?!
Whether you consider yourselves Conservative or Liberal, if you are an American this should appall you! Our nation was founded on principles of free speech for majorities and minorities alike!
I hate to say it but --
The report went on to specify that individuals who support candidates such as Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin (of the Constitution Party), Bob Barr (of the Libertarian Party), and anyone who was against such things as gun control, illegal immigration, and abortion on demand should be considered a possible threat.
Recently, the Southern Poverty Law Center issued a list of individuals it considers as threats to America. The list of course, includes most of the individuals I have already named, and comes complete with their bio, mugshot, and fake criminal alias (one man is dubbed the "Apostle of Disunion", another "The Repentant Taxman".) One by one, each of these activists for small, Constitutional government is mocked and discredited.
On June 16 of this year, MSNBC will air a new documentary characterizing the Tea Party movement, Constitutionalists, and those who expose tyranny in our nation as dangerous extremists.
Rand Paul's recent win in Kentucky caused him to be the focus of media attack for supposed racism because he happens to espouse Libertarian philosophies in regards to business and private organizations and who they associate with.
Lastly, in my mind the most unsettling move of all to discredit and silence those who speak out against our new breed of tyranny is the law proposed by White House Information Tsar Cass Sunstein that would curtail the freedom of speech of bloggers, reporters, and independent media organizations. Cass Sunstein is the author of a book entitled "Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech", and is a proponent of the "Fairness Doctrine" that would criminalize "hate speech" and conspiracy theorizing.
Under Sunstein's watch, nobody would be allowed to voice an opinion that discredits the government or goes against mainstream media's talking points without first proving to a government agency that their points are moral and correct. Because, of course, government agencies are the ultimate authority on that which is moral and correct. . .
Such a law would effectively silence small fry bloggers like myself and would severely limit the ability of anti-establishment media outlets to operate freely, while big media would continue to spout its rhetoric untouched.
How similar this is to the state monopoly over media in Communist nations! The Soviets worked feverishly to silence the dissidents in their nation, China will throw you in the slammer if you go against the grain, and now the U.S.A. is considering muting the voices of certain non-mainstream views?!
Whether you consider yourselves Conservative or Liberal, if you are an American this should appall you! Our nation was founded on principles of free speech for majorities and minorities alike!
I hate to say it but --
I only have three issues with the Tea Party:
ReplyDelete1 - To be discredited as insane, the organization truly needs to oust their most extreme members.
2 - Godwin's Law. Everything get's compared to Hitler, despite no mass genocide. Thanks, Internet!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
3 - Having someone define me as 'not Republican enough,' which in 2008 would have had me referred to by the Maverick and Palin as "Anti-American" (because I agreed with only 60% and actually questioned some of their ideals) caused me to NOT vote Republican as I've done most of my adult life.
The Tea Party started as a method to say 'The Republicans and Democrats have failed us' (which I agreed with.)
It has now turned into 'we support only Republicans who are more Republican than the other Republican, and only THAT Republican will save us.'
It's sad that this is their stance, because I would have supported their original statements.
Unfortunately in Obama's case, the comparisons that can be made between some of his policies and Hitler's are genuine. The same might be said of Bush. . . .
ReplyDeleteThere is plenty of evidence suggesting that the Tea Party movement has been hijacked by the Republican Party to some degree, and I too don't agree with everything that Tea Partiers might have to say. The grassroots Tea Party movement is eclectic. I kind of like it that way. =)
A couple facts from the Wiki on the John Birch Society, who isn't just anti-communist but also racist:
ReplyDeleteThe society opposed aspects of the civil rights movement in the 1960s because of its concerns that the movement had communists in important positions. The society opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying it was in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and overstepped the rights of individual states to enact laws regarding civil rights.
It is entirely possible that some members of the John Birch Society were/are genuinely racist (mainstream members of both political parties in the 60's, incidentally, also opposed the Civil Rights Act). What I have seen of their writings are more libertarian in regards to race rather than racist.
ReplyDeleteThere is a big difference between libertarianism with race and racism.