"People have often been willing to give up personal identity and join into a collective. Historically, that propensity has usually been very bad news. Collectives tend to be mean, to designate official enemies, to be violent, and to discourage creative, rigorous thought. Fascists, communists, religious cults, criminal 'families' — there has been no end to the varieties of human collectives, but it seems to me that these examples have quite a lot in common. I wonder if some aspect of human nature evolved in the context of competing packs. We might be genetically wired to be vulnerable to the lure of the mob." ~ Jaron Lanier
Monday's Opinion Journal from The Wall Street Journal's editorial page contains an article by Judge Robert H. Bork. The title of Judge Bork's opinion piece is 'Civil Liberties After 9/11,' but what caught my eye was Judge Bork's subtitle, 'Alarmism puts Americans' safety at risk.' Immediately, I was curious how being alarmed at the administrative, congressional and judicial ineptness'if not acts of treason'performed by the federal government since 9-11-01 could possibly put Americans at any greater risk.
I should have known that Judge Bork, being dependent on the federal government for his very livelihood, would use the Hegelian dialectic suggesting good as evil and evil as good, in his opening paragraphs. Thus, Judge Bork opens his piece with: 'When a nation faces deadly attacks on its citizens at home and abroad, it is only reasonable to expect that its leaders will take appropriate measures to increase security. And since security inevitably means restrictions, it is likewise only reasonable to expect a public debate over the question of how much individual liberty should be sacrificed for how much individual and national safety.'
This all sounds reasonable enough, if one is willing to accept the concept of trading liberty for safety as a valid argument for maintaining a free society. There is an oxymoron in the last sentence somewhere. However, Judge Bork leaves no doubt of his intent to support the loss of individual liberty, and the accompanying individual freedoms, as necessary to a free society in his second paragraph. Therefore, Judge Bork declares: 'That, however, is not the way our national debate has shaped up. From the public outcry over the Bush administration's measures to combat terrorism, one might suppose that America is well on the way to becoming a police state.'
Well yes, one could suppose that the loss of individual freedom'government snooping into our private affairs, arrest without warrant, trial without jury, the discussion of the validity of police/military torture as a means of interrogation, imprisonment under an administrative order of martial law, war powers exercised without due process of law, illegal search and seizure, unconstitutional law enacted, and a host of other unconstitutional governmental irregularities'could be construed as the beginnings of a police state.
Even as disturbing as Bork's implied need for a police state during the time of war is, it is not the most disturbing thing encountered since 9-11-01 .
What is even more unsettling than the exchange of safety for freedom expressed by Judge Bork, is the acceptance of this flawed ideology by the general public. What is so appealing about these freedom destroying patterns that without so much as a question of their legality, morality, or future consequence, otherwise intelligent people adopt and support them to their own destruction? How can such autocratic blather, which results in mass acceptance of a police state, be sold to the general public with such ease?
The answer to the query is probably simpler than most people would suspect; in a word, people have been brainwashed. This brainwashing has occurred over time and is perfectly consistent with the ancient pagan Greek philosophies. More specifically, the process is called the dialectic process or the Hegelian dialectic, named after the nineteenth-century German philosopher who held that what was truly real in the world was mind or spirit, not material things.
Hegel argued that history showed a gradual unfolding of this mind or spirit. Karl Marx later treated history as a similar kind of unfolding, but maintained that matter, rather than mind, was truly real; Hegel, Marx said, had 'stood reality on its head.' Nevertheless, Hegel's philosophies have and are the foundation of all totalitarian doctrines today. So much so that Antony Sutton writes: '[T]hat both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of "left" and "right" presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical system: Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from Marxists and Nazis, but is well known to any student of political systems.'
This totalitarian form of mind control has been adopted in the educational systems of many countries under the UNESCO educational strategies, which train students to reject truth and conform to a pre-planned group consensus. Although there are variations on the theme, the diabolical mind control system consists of only three parts:
* Moral confusion'the use of any perverted means to shift people's ability to recognize reality or to be able to maintain traditional Christian moral values. Anything that will aid or further a total transformation in the way people think, believe and perceive reality.
* The consensus process'rejection of any idea, thought or concept that cannot be modified or made to keep the group in a condition of being in complete agreement or harmony. Thus anything that might be thought of as absolute truth must be rejected during all group activities. This would preclude any discussion of the law as originally intended by the Constitution of the United States , The Declaration of Independence, and any moral truths derived from Christianity. Berit Kjos points out that this process was '[f]irst tested in Soviet schools, this mind-changing process required students in the USSR , China and other communist nations to "confess" their thoughts and feelings in their respective groups. Day after day, trained facilitator-teachers would guide these groups toward a pre-planned consensus. Opposite opinions or ideas'"thesis" and "antithesis"'were blended into ever-evolving higher "truths.' Enter political correctness with its whip of social hysteria accompanied by the mantra of 'that is offensive to me.'
* Zero tolerance for fact and logic'those who disagree with the planned, agreed upon truth or whose ideas may be a threat to the group's harmony will face ridicule, intimidation, physical threats of harm, be labeled "terrorist,' 'extremist,' 'unpatriotic,' or in Judge Bork's word "alarmist," and the list goes on. Berit Kjos rightly states that many school students 'are assigned to more intense sensitivity training described by nice-sounding labels such as "conflict resolution" and 'anger management.' Like "critical thinking" and other educational euphemisms, these labels all point to the dialectic process that molds compliance and shows little tolerance for . . . truth.'
With the collective firmly in tow, the "truth" comes to mean anything that can be used to engender mass appeal. "Truth," today, means public opinion, or the polling numbers that are manipulated unscrupulously through the media and opinion polls into propaganda designed to support the aims of the government or its agencies. Contrived opinion polls are manufactured or manipulated to support and justify the results of preplanned events or policies by government lapdogs and feed to a willing population who never question the information or their policy makers.
'This wholesale manipulation of society is achieved through--more or less--the same dialectic process used in Outcome Based Education (OBE) classes to practice conflict resolution and crises management. It is a process used for making sham collective decisions, where everyone is steered into accepting one individual's ideas or opinion through a consensus-building technique, orchestrated by a facilitator. In industry and government circles, the process is known as "Total Quality Management"; in the military, it's called 'Total Quality Leadership,' writes Jann Flury in Reality Check.
So the line between vice and crime is blended to form a state, which in its all-knowing, all-seeing ability seeks to direct and define the actions of people through fear, under the guise of a sovereign.
In 1875, Lysander Spooner wrote an essay entitled Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty. Spooner's opening statements are more than relevant today.
'Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.'
'Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.'
'Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons.'
'In vices, the very essence of crime--that is, the design to injure the person or property of another--is wanting.'
'It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practices a vice with any such criminal intent. He practices his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others.'
'Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.'
'For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth.'
Indeed, government has falsified the very nature of things. In its absurdity, government has arrived at the point Hegel, Marx, and Lenin hoped it would as the Supreme State ; the place where the State is the greatest in power, authority, and rank; paramount and dominant over the rights of all subjects. The government wishes to become the absolute State, which is the ultimate and final authority in law and morality. Here rest the state's total claim to sovereignty.
However, Marx and Lenin had far greater aspirations for citizens of governments who had reached the state of sovereignty. Since the well being of a state is war, the citizens of each state must be willing to die for their sovereign. Indeed, the highest duty of citizenship has become service to the sovereign, and like the ancient Spartans, death in service the highest expression of honor. Thus, a once-free people will become the means of securing those who will be needed to supply 'the rivers of blood' and 'mountains of bodies' to achieve the ultimate political goals of the bloodthirsty sovereign state.
It should be no surprise, then, to read that Hegel wrote: 'In a time of war, however, the state comes into its own as force, as the unification of the divergent interests of civil society into the single directed activity of repelling and overcoming an external threat . . . . The sovereignty of the state is the rallying point for the common defense, which transcends all particular interests and all internal mechanisms of society, since in war the general good [!] is incontestable and unambiguous. The state's sovereignty in its external relations is only really manifested in war. And this 'outward' form of sovereignty is present not merely to a foreign state, but also to the populace of one's own state, during periods of war.'
So let us return to Judge Bork's original supposition: 'security inevitably means restrictions, it is likewise only reasonable to expect a public debate over the question of how much individual liberty should be sacrificed for how much individual and national safety.' Really, is this the question we want to debate? I suppose if we worship the State as one bows and worship a pagan god, then indeed, it is the debate we should be having.
On the other hand, if we wish to be free by retaining our individuality, holding to the morality of our founders, enjoying our property and living our lives under the wings of peace, then the debate is not how much liberty the people of America should sacrifice but how the people should proceed to stop the state from its continued treason.
However, I see no means of having the proper debate until people, in mass, come to the realization that the State is not an entity, being or individual, but a concern; an aberration, a human mutation 'in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.' It is a social organization staffed by those who wish to have others die for them so they will not have to face the enemy. It is an organization staffed by parasites whose livelihood is derived by the threat of force rather than production.
What is the state? 'The State . . . is the 'organization of the political means'; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory. For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively 'peaceful' the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society.'
In the late '70s Aleksandr L. Solzhenitsyn issued his Words of Warning to America. Solzhenitsyn wrote: 'We have a Russian proverb: 'Do not call a wolf to help you against the dogs.' If dogs are attacking and tearing at you, fight against the dogs, but do not call a wolf for help. Because when the wolves come, they will destroy the dogs, but they will also tear you apart.'
Now, in the 21st century, America has the wolves to deal with. Wake-up America ; the wolves are at your throat and Judge Bork is in the pack!