On the fear of Government violence, secret police forces, and martial law

[Inkblots]

This musing of mine was inspired by the Obama "private army" thread, here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=237848

There seems to be a great deal of angst from various corners of the Liberty movement about 'civilian national security forces' and FEMA camps, but I feel it is unlikely and unnecessary for the US government, under Obama or otherwise, to set up secret police corps or declare martial law. The current system of agencies and Federal competencies is perfectly capable of controlling the population without the need for drastic measures, and I think that these concerns about potential American Gestapos are a red herring that distracts liberty activists from focusing on the vital issues at hand. They are showy and flashy, and seem specifically designed to grab the attention and use fears of sudden fascism to distract from the slow, everyday creep of authoritarianism that is endemic to the current Federal client state.

I am thinking just now of a favorite quote from de Tocqueville's Democracy in America:

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the sovereignty extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents things from coming into being; it does not tyrannize, but it hinders, it presses down upon men, it enervates, it extinguishes, and it stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.

Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain.

Who can deny that these prophetic words have, in great measure, come to pass in our own time in the US? And to their fullest extent in, for instance, Canada and the UK? The public education system in our nation does indeed take each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashion him at will; our Federal government does indeed combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; our two main political parties between them have contrived to cover the economic life of our nation with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform.

The sovereignty of this great nation, vested by the people in their Federal government, has little need of jackbooted thugs and secret detention camps, because the great masses of the people do indeed want to be led just as much as they wish to remain free. Even in this exciting moment for the Liberty movement, this time of political awakening and TEA Party protests, this singular fact is overwhelming. Another thread on the forum this morning pointed out that more than half of Americans don't understand what the Tea Party movement is about. And what percentage of the Tea Party protesters themselves opposed Obamacare because it might cut their Medicare? How many oppose Obama because he isn't a strong leader who commands respect from our allies and inspires terror in our enemies? How many aren't reactionaries, seeking to roll back Great Society, the New Deal, and the Nanny State, but are merely conservatives, seeking to maintain the comfortable status quo of 2005? More than half, I'd say from my own admittedly unscientific observations.

It is a powerful fact of modern life that the American people as a whole hold the end of our chains. GunnyFreedom said to me that he fears that internal security "programs, forces, and authorities are being held in reserve for when the wheels come off and the people generally resort to torches and pitchforks." But I can confidently predict that the torches and pitchforks are not coming. And I say this because a small cabal of would-be despots, desperate to hold on to power and plotting detentions and martial law is not the great enemy. My friends, I have met the enemy - and he is us.

[Anti Federalist]

We already have a gulag system that is overflowing.

It's called the prison industry.

More people in the system than any other nation on earth, both in raw numbers and per capita. And it's overflowing and overcrowded.

If another 10 or 20 million, "refuseniks" such as myself, dug in our heels and said no, the system most certainly would need a system of internment camps across the country to house them.

To say that an authoritarian "jihad" against our fellow citizens is not going to happen simply because of the measures already put in place, then I suggest you are whistling past the graveyard.

As bad as it is now, there room for a hundredfold increase in "bad".

[FrankRep]

Naomi Wolf - The End of America: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot

YouTube - Talk - Naomi Wolf - The End of America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc)



Ten Steps To Close Down an Open Society (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_46695.html)

Naomi Wolf
April 24, 2007

1.) Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2.) Create a gulag
3.) Develop a thug caste
4.) Set up an internal surveillance system
5.) Harass citizens' groups
6.) Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7.) Target key individuals
8.) Control the press
9.) Dissent equals treason
10.) Suspend the rule of law

[Inkblots]

Ten Steps To Close Down an Open Society


Frank, I'm not denying that it is POSSIBLE for a Republic to give way to a dictatorship; and Rome and Berlin can attest to that. My point is that it is not NECESSARY for such a thing to happen in America, because most people agree to greater or lesser extent with the vast, modern centralized state. It is a comfort to them to be led and cared for, and they can justify it to themselves that it is by their own will that such things are done.

A people gets the politicians it wants, and 21st century America is no different.

[pcosmar]

. The current system of agencies and Federal competencies is perfectly capable of controlling the population without the need for drastic measures,
Bullshit
and I find the very concept revolting.
There is no doubt that they try, but the more they do, and the more they lie the stronger the resistance becomes.


My friends, I have met the enemy - and he is us.
Speak for yourself. I have found very little that you and I have in common.
:mad:


Sorry about that, pcosmar. I decided that my post would probably throw this thread off-topic, so I made a new one. Please repost your reply there, though - I'd like to get the discussion started, and disagreement is always a good way to do so ;)

It's here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=237864

I had already seen it.
And what is you purpose? Do you hope to confuse or disarm us?
There is a wealth of information available. The plans for our future are documented on the CFR and UN websites. History is full of examples.

It is your opinion that everything is good and fine and the beneficent Government has everything under control.

Clue:
I don't like being under control.
I am perfectly content with self control.

[Travlyr]

This musing of mine was inspired by the Obama private army, here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=237848

There seems to be a great deal of angst from various corners of the Liberty movement about 'civilian national security forces' and FEMA camps, but I feel it is unlikely and unnecessary for the US government, under Obama or otherwise, to set up secret police corps or declare martial law. The current system of agencies and Federal competencies is perfectly capable of controlling the population without the need for drastic measures, and I think that these concerns about potential American Gestapos are a red herring that distracts liberty activists from focusing on the vital issues at hand. They are showy and flashy, and seem specifically designed to grab the attention and use fears of sudden fascism to distract from the slow, everyday creep of authoritarianism that is endemic to the current Federal client state.

I am thinking just now of a favorite quote from de Tocqueville's Democracy in America:


Who can deny that these prophetic words have, in great measure, come to pass in our own time in the US? And to their fullest extent in, for instance, Canada and the UK? The public education system in our nation does indeed take each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashion him at will; our Federal government does indeed combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; our two main political parties between them have contrived to cover the economic life of our nation with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform.

The sovereignty of this great nation, vested by the people in their Federal government, has little need of jackbooted thugs and secret detention camps, because the great masses of the people do indeed want to be led just as much as they wish to remain free. Even in this exciting moment for the Liberty movement, this time of political awakening and TEA Party protests, this singular fact is overwhelming. Another thread on the forum this morning pointed out that more than half of Americans don't understand what the Tea Party movement is about. And what percentage of the Tea Party protesters themselves opposed Obamacare because it might cut their Medicare? How many oppose Obama because he isn't a strong leader who commands respect from our allies and inspires terror in our enemies? How many aren't reactionaries, seeking to roll back Great Society, the New Deal, and the Nanny State, but are merely conservatives, seeking to maintain the comfortable status quo of 2005? More than half, I'd say from my own admittedly unscientific observations.

It is a powerful fact of modern life that the American people as a whole hold the end of our chains. GunnyFreedom said to me that he fears that internal security "programs, forces, and authorities are being held in reserve for when the wheels come off and the people generally resort to torches and pitchforks." But I can confidently predict that the torches and pitchforks are not coming. And I say this because a small cabal of would-be despots, desperate to hold on to power and plotting detentions and martial law is not the great enemy. My friends, I have met the enemy - and he is us.

Barack Obama has shown that he means what he says:
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've gotta have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." - Barack Obama


YouTube - A Chilling Proposal by Barack Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXvLWB_NLKE&feature=player_embedded)

[FrankRep]

My point is that it is not NECESSARY for such a thing to happen in America, because most people agree to greater or lesser extent with the vast, modern centralized state.
The Fabian Socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society) method of a slow progressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism) movement to a centralized state has been quite effective and impressive so far. How far can the Progressives get before the people say "Enough!" I don't know. Right now I think we're hitting the tipping point where the government will need to start implementing a more aggressive approach to centralizing the state.

[Inkblots]

It is your opinion that everything is good and fine and the beneficent Government has everything under control.

Clue:
I don't like being under control.
I am perfectly content with self control.

pcosmar, you seem to have missed the point of my posting. Everything is very much NOT fine and good - any objective observer of reality much realize that the US government is on an unsustainable spending arc that will end in default, devaluation, and disaster. An astute observer of foreign affairs must concede the US blunders from tragedy to tragedy, burning billions and exacerbating enmities every time it tries to pacify and Westernize far-off lands of which we know nothing. The Federal government in many ways is not beneficent, and certainly not beneficial. However, yes, it does have 'everything under control'. And when the inevitable dollar crisis comes, it will be blamed on capitalism and low taxes, mark my words; many people will be clamoring for what we have now, but in greater measure.

You and I, and, I imagine, most everyone in the Liberty Forest does not like being under control. But the different strains of freedom philosophy are very much a minority viewpoint, even among our natural allies (see my point about Tea partiers, above). It is a fact that everywhere in the West over the past two centuries, the decline of liberty and advance of central planning has correlated strongly with the extending of the franchise. In other words, to great extent, it is what the people want. Our solutions are either to disenfranchise the majority (impossible), get the Federal government (judiciary) to restrain the Federal government (Congress and executive) from violating its contract with the people (most unlikely), or to change many, many peoples minds, overcoming their statist education and in many cases basic instinct. This last is the path I choose, but it is quite difficult and the work of generations. And to do so, we must be clear-eyed about the fact that the majority of Americans, at this time, are in some ways the enemies of Liberty.

[pcosmar]

The Fabian Socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society) method of a slow progressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism) movement to a centralized state has been quite effective and impressive so far. How far can the Progressives get before the people say "Enough!" I don't know. Right now I think we're hitting the tipping point where the government will need to start implementing a more aggressive approach to centralizing the state.
Yup, and we will see more resistance grow as more of this shit hits people where they live.
I suppose that it is heartening that we are seeing more socialist oriented folks posting here in an attempt to diffuse that resistance.

[pcosmar]

pcosmar, you seem to have missed the point of my posting. .

No, I really don't think I have missed it, and we have discussed and disagreed before.

I would offer a completely different view.

http://neithercorp.us/npress/?p=271


The Purposes And Pitfalls Of Revolution
The word “revolution” draws a loaded set of reactions from people living in our information age. It elicits ire, suspicion, even shock, and with good reason. Most revolutions of the past two centuries have ended in disaster for the people who supported them, leading only to a more tragic state of affairs than what they had suffered before. We have grown to distrust immediate change, even when the alternative is a misery stretching generations. We turn towards words like “hope”; hollow words that denote apathy and vacillation. When one “hopes” for change, one generally sits and waits. Unfortunately, people like this realize too little too late that it takes much more than a “positive disposition” to establish a viable and sovereign future. It takes work, and it takes will. Somewhere along the line, “revolution” became a four letter word in our culture, but the reality is, revolution is a logical extension of all cultures. If imbalance exists, it must be undone, one way or another. There will always be times in which revolt is the only rational option.

The natural inclinations of man lean towards a search for wholeness, connection, and understanding, not isolation and obscurity, not slavery. When a government turns away from the people, when it institutes laws and legislation that are an affront to the average citizen and benefit only a select few, when it turns towards domination and fear as its means of social communication, when it must lie unswervingly in order to function, it is no longer feasible, nor maintainable. It cannot exist without offending the intuitive proclivities of a free people.

Often these kinds of governments refuse to be diplomatically replaced, even if the laws of a system demand it be done. The only remaining alternative is for the average man to take matters into his own hands, and drag them kicking and screaming from their self-appointed throne. Whether we like the term or not, this act is called “revolution.” Not “terrorism,” not “insurgency,” not “extremism,” but REVOLUTION.

All men who seek to keep a patch of earth free from despotism, as long as they remain faithful to the ideals of individuality, and truth, honor the tradition of revolution. A war for liberty, whether waged with information, or with force of arms, is one of the few wars worth fighting for, worth dying for. Victory requires not that we “hope,” but that we act. Not that we “believe,” but that we know. To stand in defiance of criminal reign, regardless of the odds. To truly risk something for the sake of ourselves, and for the sake of others. To cast aside the malformed standards of an age, and begin anew. This is not extreme. This is essential.

btw, I do not expect a Revolution as such. I do expect the United States Will end. Collapse and chaos rather than revolution.
My hope is that there will be areas where liberty lives on.

[Inkblots]

"The only remaining alternative is for the average man to take matters into his own hands, and drag them kicking and screaming from their self-appointed throne."

This is exactly where the argument breaks down. One of the key points I'm trying to get across is that our present government isn't self-appointed. It was freely elected by "the average man". Do you dispute my above point about the Tea Partiers? About the difference between a reactionary and a conservative?

I'm trying to point out the reality of our present situation, pcosmar. If we are living in a tyranny, it is a tyranny with the consent of the governed, and therefore no tyranny at all by most people's lights. Most people dearly love their Medicare and Social Security and unemployment insurance and FDIC backed bank accounts and capped credit card penalty payments and national minimum wages and corn subsidies and renewable energy initiatives and sugar quotas and steel tariffs and bilateral trade regulations and Interstate Highways and faith-based initiatives and TSA scanners who keep us safe and DEA raids who get the baddies and endangered species acts and defense of marriage acts and disparate impact lawsuits and easy student loans and automobile crash safety standards and FDA approved medications and the postman who comes around each day. And if they don't love all of them, they probably like more of them than they dislike, and are therefore all too willing to take the "good" with the bad.

It's a big job to educate them about why the Federal government shouldn't or can't do all these things and manage all the other areas of our life, and it's growing all the time; after all, if Obamacare isn't repealed soon, in a generation it will be as beloved as the NHS (well, if the whole thing hasn't completely collapsed by then). But many people in this country WANT to be led, want to be taken care of, and many of them care about that as much or more than they do about human freedom. We need to win the war of ideas, my friend. Because if there were to be a true revolution in the nation today, I can confidently assert you would not like the outcome.

[pcosmar]

This is exactly where the argument breaks down. One of the key points I'm trying to get across is that our present government isn't self-appointed. It was freely elected by "the average man". .

And I disagree with this also. They are "elected" by a fraction of people based on false information fed to them by a controlled media.
I fully believe that the outcome is predetermined. I have seen no substantial evidence to convince me otherwise.

[Inkblots]

I fully believe that the outcome is predetermined. I have seen no substantial evidence to convince me otherwise.

Are you denying that there are free and fair elections in this country, pcosmar? And are you aware that asserting something is true because you have no evidence against it is a classic logical fallacy?

[Travlyr]

Are you denying that there are free and fair elections in this country, pcosmar? And are you aware that asserting something is true because you have no evidence against it is a classic logical fallacy?

Inkblots, WAKE-UP. You are not making any sense.

[Inkblots]

Inkblots, WAKE-UP. You are not making any sense.

Uh, Travlyr, do you have a book on logic or debating technique lying around? Crack it open and look up argumentum ad ignorantiam. You must have positive proof to make an assertion, you can't just say, "I want to believe this is true, so I will unless you disprove it." It is actually impossible to prove a negative under those circumstances.

[pcosmar]

Are you denying that there are free and fair elections in this country, pcosmar? ?

Absolutely. Neither Fair, Honest nor transparent. There were many that had issues with the election process, in local GOP races and offices.
Electronic manipulation has been proven in some cases (long after the fact) as well as a number of other political dirty tricks.
Media manipulation is an easily proven fact.
You are asserting otherwise without any facts to back you up. ;)

[pcosmar]

Uh, Travlyr, do you have a book on logic or debating technique lying around? Crack it open and look up argumentum ad ignorantiam. You must have positive proof to make an assertion, you can't just say, "I want to believe this is true, so I will unless you disprove it." It is actually impossible to prove a negative under those circumstances.

I don't think he is debating you. He is calling it as he sees it.

As for me . I think you are a troll. I have only engaged long enough to make it clear.
:(

[Inkblots]

Absolutely. Neither Fair, Honest nor transparent. There were many that had issues with the election process, in local GOP races and offices.
Electronic manipulation has been proven in some cases (long after the fact) as well as a number of other political dirty tricks.
Media manipulation is an easily proven fact.
You are asserting otherwise without any facts to back you up. ;)

pcosmar, I can only find one instance of proven vote manipulation using electronic voting machines. Please cite the sources that lead you to believe that the practice is widespread enough to call into question the integrity of US elections, bearing in mind that some low level of voter fraud and vote buying occurs even if you exclusively use paper ballots, and that this nowise occurs in significant enough numbers to put the integrity of anything but isolated, local elections into question.

Further, the fact that voting patterns nationwide have not changed in any significant or unexpected way since the widespread introduction of electronic voting is a powerful argument undermining your assertion that systematic manipulation has occurred. I personally favor paper ballots myself, but to believe that US elections are no longer 'free and fair' is a very serious charge bordering on the fantastic, and I challenge you to justify your position with reputable sources. I doubt you can.


As for me . I think you are a troll. I have only engaged long enough to make it clear.

Ah, I think I finally understand what you mean by 'troll': someone who challenges the narrative you've crafted for yourself.

[Anti Federalist]

Are you denying that there are free and fair elections in this country, pcosmar? And are you aware that asserting something is true because you have no evidence against it is a classic logical fallacy?

So am I.

The history of dirty elections in the country is long.

The gerrymandering of congressional districts alone is a form of "unfair" elections.

The long and sordid histories of the Chicago, NYC and Boston "machines" rigging elections for nearly a century.

The presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, especially in Ohio (people went to jail for that).

I saw the sloppy chain of custody and "questionable" activities surrounding the 2008 primary in NH with my own eyes, as part of the re-count team. Sadly, they didn't so much concern "our" man, but the democrat primary.

And as Pete already mentioned, there is the question of the massive government/media complex's non-stop propaganda machine, swaying and influencing opinion 24/7.

So, taking all that into consideration, along with the electronic voting, and yes, I would say without a doubt that there are no "free and open" elections in the US.

[pcosmar]

Ah, I think I finally understand what you mean by 'troll': someone who challenges the narrative you've crafted for yourself.


One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

For your other questions/Assertions please use the search function and educate yourself.

[Inkblots]

For your other questions/Assertions please use the search function and educate yourself.

I am aware of what most people mean by 'internet troll'; I was pointing out you seem to think it means something else entirely.

As to your points, Anti Federalist, while I myself admit that some low level of voter fraud and vote buying occurs in any free election, unless you really want to support the Real ID Act (and I hope you don't!). However, scholarly analysis suggests that in the modern age such concerns are overblown and that most Americans widely overestimate the level of fraud in our electoral system. Here's a summary paper from Demos on the subject, with lots of good further sources in its citations: http:// academic.regis.edu/ccc/CCC/COElectionsFellows/AnalysisofvoterfraudinDEMOS.pdf

On the issue of gerrymandering, it is unseemly, certainly, but it denies no one a vote - we still have the one man, one vote system. Constituents in a gerrymandered district can still express their displeasure with their representative by voting against him. I personally favor reforming the US House to remove the cap on the number of Congressmen at 435 to make Reps. have fewer constituents, but that's a different matter. The only way to eliminate gerrymandering altogether would be to take re-districting power away from the Statehouses and hand to to some sort of non-partisan quango, and I doubt you'd support that. I know I don't!

Finally, on the issue of the so-called 'controlled media'. All sorts of opinions are advocated in both the mainstream and fringe media. Opinion journalists differ in their ideologies between and within the major news organizations. We have access to blogs of all ideological stripes and colors, and even foreign media outlets (I, myself, get much of my news from the London Telegraph). And the free market is constantly churning up the media market and the blogosphere. If a news source seems untrustworthy, is unadmittedly biased, or engages in untruthful and propagandist news coverage, the market punishes it and readers desert it. If an important story is going uncovered or viewpoint is not being advanced, then a bright young go-getter with a blog can pick it up, become famous and successful, and punish those who ignored it by stealing their traffic and subscribers. So in what conceivable way is the American media 'controlled'?

[pcosmar]

I am aware of what most people mean by 'internet troll'; I was pointing out you seem to think it means something else entirely.

Snip>Phttt


Nope, I call it as I see it.
I suspected something when you started off glorifying the ADL

Confirmed. I'll not waste my time.
:(