Tag: 1984 was a Warning not a Blueprint

Creating Fear to Justify Law Enforcement

Consider law enforcement agents for a moment. What is their primary task? Most people would say protecting the public is the primary task of law enforcement but the truth lies in their name: law enforcement. The primary job of law enforcement officers is to enforce the state’s laws. Some of these laws revolve around activities that harm others such as rape, murder, and assault. Most of these laws revolve around activities that don’t harm others such as smoking marijuana, tax evasion, and producing distilled spirits. What the latter category of laws create is a revenue source for the state. Being caught smoking marijuana often involves fines. Evading taxes deprives the state from its stolen goods. Distilled liquors are heavily taxes so producing your own, even for personal consumption, stands to deprive the state of more stolen goods. Effectively law enforcement agents are gloried tax collectors.

Why do law enforcement agents ever protect anybody? It’s not because they’re required to. They offer minor protection because it’s the only way people will put up with them. Think about it. Would you put up with a gang of thugs roving your neighborhood and forcefully taking money from individuals that partook in activities that the gang didn’t approve of? Most people would not and without the support of public opinion the state would be unable to inflict its tax collectors on society. On the other hand people like to be safe so selling them protection is fairly easy. Instead of claiming law enforcement agents exist to expropriate wealth from the people the state sells them as protection officers.

What are they protecting people from? They are primarily protecting people from imaginary threats. The state is very good at making up threats or exaggerating threats. One example of these made up threats is the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) numerous arrests of agency-created terrorists. Even though the threat of terrorism in this country is very low the state spends a great deal of time propagandizing the populace into believing terrorism is a common threat. Another interesting example of a state-create threat is hitchhiking:

Before the Second World War, it was a common practice for people in all walks of life. Hollywood films often had cute hitchhiking scenes like the one in “It Happened One Night,” where Claudette Colbert flashes a leg to get a ride. Magazines like Sports Illustrated declared it fun to thumb a ride and, during the war, picking up soldiers was nothing less than a patriotic duty. Even the etiquette doyenne Emily Post gave hitching a green light in the 1940s, offering tips on how to keep the conversation light and impersonal.

But it was the ’60s and ’70s counterculture that embraced hitching as an anti-consumerist, pro-environment celebration of human interdependence. Students were hitchhiking to antiwar demonstrations. Civil rights advocates thumbed rides to register voters in the South. The American automotive industry, by then, had gone into overdrive: there were more cars than ever on the road. Yet an entire generation of young people, it seemed, was on the move without buying them.

This, apparently, irked local police officials, as well as the F.B.I. First, in the late 1950s, the F.B.I. began warning American motorists that hitchhikers might be criminals. A typical F.B.I. poster showed a well-dressed yet menacing hitchhiker under the title “Death in Disguise?”

Demonizing hitchhikers was likely a precursor to stranger danger, another very minor risk exaggerated by the state. Most people naturally fear the unknown and therefore it’s easy for the state to exploit this fear in order to justify its own existence. Hitchhiking, ultimately, can be viewed as a form of mutual aid. Those unable to afford automobiles can cooperate with those who can afford automobiles. High school and college students are well aware of the fact some people can’t afford automobiles. To get around this lack of automobiles many students offer to exchange something; be it gas money, alcohol, or food; for transportation. Through the miracle of cooperation students with automobiles and students without automobiles can come together and benefit one another. Hitchhiking is similar but introduces the risk of unknown persons.

It’s the risk of the unknown that the state exaggerates in order to create fear in the populace. We’re told by law enforcement agents that hitchhikers are dangerous individuals who usually have murder in their hearts. According to the state hitchhikers aren’t looking for a ride, they’re looking for somebody to rape, murder, or torture. By exploiting this threat the state is able to create fear and offer a solution to alleviate that fear, law enforcement. While a majority of law enforcement activities revolve around issuing traffic tickets and enforcing other finable offenses, the people welcome the presences of officers because it alleviates their fear of the unknown.

Fear is one of the state’s most powerful weapons. Because of this they constantly create new fears and then claim they are the sole protection from that fear. We’re constantly told about the dangers of terrorism, strangers, poisonous products, diseased food, greedy capitalists, and other assorted boogeymen. The state then offers to protect us from these dangers, an offer most people gladly accept. Sadly most people can’t see through the propaganda and are doomed to submit to the state’s tyranny for their entire lives.

Consider this thought exercise. Have you ever been the victim of non-state terrorism, assault, or theft? For those of you who have how many times have you been the victims of such crimes? Now, how many of you have been the victims of a speeding ticket, parking ticker, or a tax audit? For those of you who have how many times have you been the victims of such crimes? In all likelihood more people of members of the latter group or, perhaps, both groups. What is more dangerous then? Threats exaggerated by the state or the state itself?

Obama’s Lies About the Wars

Thanks to one of my Obamabot friends on Facebook I came across a speech given by His Majesty, Barak Obama, in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The speech was notable because Obama is now trying to make himself appear to be both a great military leader and an advocate of peace:

Thanks to the service and sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform, the war in Iraq is over. (Applause.) The war in Afghanistan is winding down. Al Qaeda has been decimated. Osama bin Laden is dead. (Applause.)

When Obama announced America’s withdrawal from Iraq my first prediction was that United States soldiers would merely be replaced by private contractors. That prediction held out. Obama can claim that the war has ended in Iraq all he wants but so long as American foot soldiers are there, whether they be military or mercenaries, there is a war. Furthermore the fact that Obama is lying about the war in Iraq makes any claim that the war in Afghanistan is winding down is completely empty. During his speech Obama also forgot to mention the war in Pakistan.

What’s sad is that many of Obama’s supporters, including my Obamabot friend, are allowing themselves to believe Obama’s lies. When I posted the above information in response to my friend’s post she deleted my comment. Apparently full cognitive dissonance is now being practice by those trying to ensure Obama’s reelection.

Map of Pakistani Drone Strikes

It appears as though our Nobel Peace Prize winning president has been blowing piles of Pakistanis to pieces. Salon posted a map of American drone strikes in Pakistan noting whether Bush or Obama ordered the strike and the number of reported militants (which is any military age male regardless of whether or not they were actually engaged in hostilities) killed. It’s amazing how a president who campaigned on peace managed to order so many assassinations.

The Obama Administration Plans to Continue Murdering People After the Wars are Declared Over

Obama and his supporters are making claims that the president will work to end the war in Afghanistan. Judging by Obama’s bloody history this promise is as empty as any other that he’s made. But if the war is ended Obama and his administration want you to know that they still plan on murdering people there for at least another decade:

Based on interviews with “current and former officials from the White House and the Pentagon, as well as intelligence and counterterrorism agencies”, Miller reports that as “the United States’ conventional wars are winding down”, the Obama administration “expects to continue adding names to kill or capture lists for years” (the “capture” part of that list is little more than symbolic, as the US focus is overwhelmingly on the “kill” part). Specifically, “among senior Obama administration officials, there is broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade.” As Miller puts it: “That timeline suggests that the United States has reached only the midpoint of what was once known as the global war on terrorism.”

When the “conventional war” is concluded names are going to continue being added to Obama’s kill list for “at least another decade.” I didn’t realize there was a difference between “conventional war” and ongoing targeted assassinations. As far as I know it’s considered war whenever the government of one country kills people of another country. War is peace I guess.

More on the State’s Witch Hunt Against Anarchists

The more I research the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) recent arrest of anarchists the more it’s appearing to be a state witch hunt. During this witch hunt the FBI has claimed that the anarchists were arrested for property damage that was caused during May Day. A warrant accidentally unsealed in the Seattle United States District Court shows that the agency’s story is questionable at best:

May Day began with peaceful demonstrations in downtown Seattle, but shortly before noon a swarm of protesters, dressed all in black, massed together and began striking out. They targeted Nike and banks; they slashed tires and broke windows and sprayed anti-capitalist graffiti as some made their way to the Nakamura courthouse. Afterward, members of the so-called “black bloc” protesters shed their dark clothing and blended into the crowd.

The search warrant says the courthouse building, on Spring Street and Sixth Avenue, sustained tens of thousands of dollars in damage, but the U.S. Attorney’s Office could not provide a specific dollar amount. Destruction of government property in excess of $1,000 is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.

[…]

Meanwhile, the FBI set out to find those responsible for the courthouse damage. Agents reported spending long hours reviewing surveillance-camera footage, news video and still photos of the crowd that day, trying to identify suspects based on clues: the white strip around one suspect’s waist, the “fringe” of a shirt, the shape of a backpack.

What the warrant makes clear is that state and federal agents were watching some members of the small group of Portland anarchists even before May Day. The affidavit says they were tracking members as early as April 9, when they and others were “all observed by FBI surveillance at an event” in Portland that day changing out of black clothing.

If this investigation was related to damage caused on May Day why was the FBI spying on the arrested individuals beforehand? My guess is the FBI wanted to create more glory for themselves. Since they lacked any cases that would put them on the front page of newspapers throughout the country they reverted to their usual trick of making up a boogeyman. Historically anarchists have made excellent boogeymen because the state has most people convinced that all anarchists are violent. When the headlines say the FBI arrested a group of anarchists most people say, “Good job, those guys deserve to be in prison!” Going after anarchists is a fairly safe thing to do when you’re an agency trying to create a little hero worship.

After selecting their boogeyman the FBI sat back, spied on some anarchists, and waited for the proper opportunity to move in. That opportunity came on May Day when a peaceful demonstrated suddenly turned violent. The state has a history of using police provocateurs during anarchist demonstrations to incite violence and the FBI has been caught creating and “stopping” terrorists so often that the mainstream media has even caught on. Considering those facts I would not be surprised if the individuals who incited the violence in Seattle on May Day were actually state agents. After all anarchist black bloc demonstrations involve participants covering their faces, which makes identification almost impossible. It’s not difficult for police officers to dress in black, cover their faces, and break things in order to create an excuse to make mass arrests.

Combining the evidence accidentally revealed through the unsealed (and quickly resealed) warrant, the fact that not enough evidence exists to press charges against the arrested anarchists, and the FBI’s history of making up criminals gives this case has all the indicators of being fabricated malarkey.

What’s in a Word

Words are powerful tools that can convey any number of ideas. Unfortunately, as with any tool, words can be used for both good and evil. Some people use words to express ideas of liberty, others use words to entertain, but the state uses words to deceive:

“Never believe anything until it is officially denied,” is a useful saying, advising scepticism towards whatever the government claims to be doing. This is the right mental attitude for any journalist or observer of the political scene. But for sniffing out official or journalistic mendacity, evasion and ignorance, a good guide is the use of tired and misleading words or phrases, their real purpose being not to illuminate but to conceal.

Suspicion of an attempt to deceive should be aroused by any sighting of the word “community”, as in “international community” or “Islamic community”: the phrases suggest solidarity and consensus of opinion where it does not exist. More toxic are policies pretending that there is something called “the community” that can look after people hitherto cared for by the state. When care in the community was introduced in Britain, it meant that people living in mental hospitals which were being sold by the government were kicked out to be looked after by a community that either feared or ignored them.

A good wordsmith can portray one idea while actually saying the exact opposite. By saying the “Islamic community” supports terrorism a politician can portray every Muslim as a supporter of terrorism without actually saying every Muslim supports terrorism. The article has many more examples of words to keep an ear open for.

Same Tactics, Different Party

People, especially self-proclaimed Democrats, often chided the Bush administration for using patriotism to silence their opposition. Now that Bush is out of office and the tables have turn the Obama administration is trying its damnedest to show that there is only one party, the party of the state, by using Bush’s exact tactics to silence its opposition:

In the eight years since then, Democrats haven’t learned how to beat Bush’s tactics. What they’ve learned instead is how to mimic them. “There were very important moments in the discussion about Libya,” Obama adviser David Plouffe told CNN last night. “Gov. Romney looked like someone playing politics, and I think the president looked like a resolute commander-in-chief.” On MSNBC, Obama strategist David Axelrod said the president “is aware every single moment that he’s responsible for the lives of the Americans he sends overseas. … He feels that intensely. So it is offensive, the suggestion that somehow he would play politics with this issue.” Today on Good Morning America, Vice President Biden added:

It became so clear to the American people how Gov. Romney and the campaign continue to try to politicize a tragedy. … The president was clear: We are going to get to the bottom of this. The whole world will know it. And I think when the president turned and looked at Gov. Romney and made that assertion, saying, basically, “Don’t question me on this, in terms of my caring,” I thought it was a powerful moment.

Patriotism is a powerful and frightening tool. It allows the state to great a religious zealotry in those it expropriates from. Instead of fighting against the exploiters the people defend and even worship them. When you speak out against the exploiters the people throw out accusations of treason and being unpatriotic (as if that is supposed to be bad). The state itself uses this reverence for all it’s worth in an attempt to silence all critics. Unfortunately people often fail to see “their” party use patriotism to silence opposition, they only see it when “the other” party does it.

We must avoid succumbing to patriotism. If we allow yourselves to worship the state, to see the state as benevolent, then it becomes far easier to sucker us into supporting heinous crimes such as the stripping of liberties, wars, and ever increasing expropriation.

FBI Captures Another FBI Created Terrorist

Stop me if you’ve heard this story before. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) made a big announcement bragging about the terrorist they captured. It is later found out that the terrorist was actually contacted by an undercover FBI agent, urged to commit an act of terror by the undercover FBI agent, and provided a weapon by the undercover FBI agent. Yes, the FBI is again bragging about stopping a terrorist plot of their own creation:

A terrorist tried to blow up the Federal Reserve Bank in Lower Manhattan with a 1,000-pound bomb this morning, authorities said.

Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis, 21, parked a van filled with what he thought were real explosives outside of the Liberty Street building, sources said, then tried to set them off using a cell phone detonator.

Nafis obtained 20 50-pound bags of explosives from an undercover FBI agent that he met on the Internet, authorities said.

In a statement meant to take responsibility for the attack, Nafis said he wanted to “destroy America,” by targeting its economy.

These supposed plots become more ridiculous every time. Apparently Nafis wanted to destroy America by targeting the Federal Reserve. What makes this story hilarious is that the Federal Reserve is one of the primary reasons the American economy is in the toilet.

The only thing left to say about this story is that it demonstrates that the only reason we need the FBI is to protect us against the FBI.

We Were Never at War with the So-Called Jihadists

We were never at war with so-called jihadists, we were always at war with Eastasia. Don’t be alarmed by the fact that your government is giving arms to so-called jihadists:

Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats.

That conclusion, of which President Obama and other senior officials are aware from classified assessments of the Syrian conflict that has now claimed more than 25,000 lives, casts into doubt whether the White House’s strategy of minimal and indirect intervention in the Syrian conflict is accomplishing its intended purpose of helping a democratic-minded opposition topple an oppressive government, or is instead sowing the seeds of future insurgencies hostile to the United States.

“The opposition groups that are receiving the most of the lethal aid are exactly the ones we don’t want to have it,” said one American official familiar with the outlines of those findings, commenting on an operation that in American eyes has increasingly gone awry.

This really makes you wonder what the United States’s interest in toppling the Syrian regime is. What is it about the Syrian regime that makes them so increadibly dangerous that America is willing to arm the same groups that it claims are a threat to the American people? Is the Syrian regime more brutal than the theocratic regimes that have been filling power vacuums left in the Middle East as of late? As it currently stands the Syrian constitution requires the president to be Muslim but doesn’t establish Islam as the state’s religion. In fact it has the following to say:

Citizens are equal in rights and duties, without discrimination on grounds of sex, race, language,religion or creed.

Would the situation in Syria improve if a more theocratic regime gained power? Historically such a thing is extremely rare. In general more theocratic states end up being more tyrannical and use whatever religion they claim to believe in as justification for solidifying their power. I would argue that it’s unlikely that America is arming so-called jihadists for the benefit of the Syrian people. On the other hand Syria is on the border of Iran and would make a great launching point for any war against Iran. That’s something to consider.

Propagandizing the People to Support War

Interesting research has arisen that demonstrates humans become more dogmatic when they are shown evidence of destruction:

In a series of studies, students who were shown pictures of destroyed buildings — as opposed to fully intact or under-construction buildings — responded to queries with more dogmatic attitudes and greater support for military action against Iran, according to Kenneth E. Vail III of the University of Missouri-Columbia, who conducted the studies with a team of researchers from Missouri, Virginia and Colorado.

[…]

Since destruction breeds dogmatism, Vail says, it’s conceivable that visual reminders of terrorist attacks and other violent disasters have shaped the psyche of Americans in the shadow of 9/11. Have we been primed for a confrontation?

“Over the past 10 to 12 years or so, we saw some pretty blatant demonstrations of that tactic,” he says. “Both politicians and the media [tend] to replay and display images and footage from those sorts of events when they’re trying to push various policies and/or military campaigns.”

It appears that humans can be provoked into course of action if they are propagandized with images of destruction. Obviously the war mongers have been aware of this idea for some time as they often use the tactic in order to build support for war. Take Syria for example, it’s obvious that many war mongers are interested in a war with Syria. President Obama has gone so far as to put American troops in harm’s way with the apparent desire to instigate a war with Syria. An Austrian newspaper was caught photoshopping an image with the only plausible reason being to propagandize people against Syria:

VIENNA, Austria — Austrian newspaper publisher Christoph Dichand apologized after Kronen Zeitung was caught using a faked dramatic photograph of a family fleeing Syria’s civil war-torn city Aleppo.

The picture – published in the country’s biggest selling Kronen Zeitung (Krone) newspaper – shows a father cradling a child with a woman in a hijab beside him as they hurry through what appears to be the bombed out ruins of the city. It was being used to illustrate a story on people fleeing the city as government forces clash with rebels.

But sharp-eyed bloggers at the social news website Reddit noticed that while the family image was genuine, the background had been photoshopped.

Considering the findings of the previously mentioned research and the apparent desire of America and many European countries to instigate a war with Syria it’s easy to understand why the image was photoshopped. We return to the fact that states require popular support in order to continue. The overall population of a country far outnumbers the number of goons employed by the state so the possibility of the people rising up and overthrowing the current rulers is always there. In order to prevent this the state feeds up propaganda meant to either instill love of the state or fear of others. If we fear others then it’s easy for the state to justify its existence; it can claim it’s necessary in order to protect the state’s people from the others.

When you see reports of atrocities occurring in other nations ask yourself whether or not the state you live under has a vested interest in warring with the accused state. If there appears to be a vested interest in a war you must dig deeper because you may find out that the photograph showing a bombed out city is nothing more than a fabrication.