Brave New Freedom

[PhantomLord]

Re: Brave New Freedom

I feel like I'm lucky. I got out of school just before all those social reforms were put in place where they ended social promotion and just generally didnt care about the kids mental state.

But I have to wonder if all this crap is really necessary. I mean most of the kids who end up snapping and killing half their class were put on prozact or some other drug to begin with because acting like a normal kid means your over active and you need a drug to settle you down.

Hell my brother is on ridilin (or some drug like it) and when he's off it he's a moody little bitch who snaps for the littlest things.

So yeah I can see this forced mental care thing working out in the long run 'oh:

 

[CaryP]

Re: Brave New Freedom

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Zoomerz\")</div>

heh, it was just my way of saying Paul said it all! Maybe I need lessons in humor! I was joking about closing the thread!

Z-[/b]

Sorry Zoomz Man. My dumbass. Maybe I need that lesson is "getting it" LOL It's cool my brother.

Cary

 

[Judge Bean]

Re: Brave New Freedom

"We are liars; the government has lied in our name, but not on our behalf. Either way, we are still responsible for the lies. The soldiers in combat are paying for them?they pay the highest price. They are sacrificing themselves for us, right now as we speak."


There is another kind of lie: a threat, especially in response to a threat. Let me explain my thoughts on this.

The political climate favored by this government (called by Bush "my government") is one of fear, which finds its emotional correlation in risk. The mechanical and economic apparatus of society is being actively converted to militarism, which both fuels and feeds off of a culture of risk and threat.

Popular art begins to indulge in images of official violence and outlawry, reflecting the general atmosphere. In this way, the authorities who seek to benefit from a propagandized public can exploit images and narratives already thriving in the culture and sanction them as semi-official.

Some clothes worn by young men nowadays cannot clearly be identified as civilian; and so with their recreational activities, such as arcade games.

And so with the vehicles all over the freeways: there is an semiofficial endorsement of the Hummer by the Governor of California (a living "action figure" whose movie career glorified a character who is neither completely civilian nor military), and the Hummer is apparently the primary infantry vehicle in Iraq.

To maintain the climate of risk and threat, the government must continually issue warnings. These warnings have as a pretext the safety of the public, but the safety of the American public is, as stated, in a constant state of risk, and the actual meaning of the warnings is a warning to the enemy-- in fact, a counterthreat meant to sustain the effect of the original, alien threat.

The counterthreat can be wheeled out at any time at the convenience of the authorities to reawaken the terror.

Yet, as you may see, it is a lie. The danger remains at the same level as before 9/11, and Americans continue under the same potential risk of danger from terrorist attack as they did on September 10, 2001.

In fact, the argument might be made that the danger is now greater, since the authentic nature of the enemy, his location, and his capabilities have all been obscured by heavy electioneering propaganda and deliberately fudged "intelligence."

You can keep the American people in a state of fear by lying to them, and using the lies to undermine their way of life and expectations of lawful rules and process.

Other countries can be terrorized by starvation, genocide, invasion, "benign neglect," and "economic sanctions," but the best way to scare Americans is to challenge their native rights. When you go after their rights, you're telling them that there is a threat to America so serious that the government has had to compromise their freedom to preserve their freedom.

Under a few very restricted circumstances, we will acquiesce in the contradiction, such as when every other house on the block upwind is in flames.

But you may see that a threat is a lie for other reasons, too: in many cases, the threat stands in for the job of an actual injury or attack, and may be more effective. That's how terrorism got its name.

Another lie: If "America is safer now," according to Bush, then why do we need to continue the Patriot Act?

Why do we need to continue to threaten other countries to do what we tell them to do or else?

Why do we need to threaten judges and Senators to do what Bush wants them to?

Why do we need to threaten Iraq not to have "political turbulence," as Rumsfeld just now did?

A definition of democracy: Political Turbulence.

A definition of tyranny: Rule by Fear.

 

[CaryP]

Re: Brave New Freedom

Very well said Paul, as ususal. I think you got the bastards just right. Keep the general populace in fear, convincing them that their "rights" need to be given up to keep them safe. Rule by fear.

Cary

 

[CaryP]

Re: Brave New Freedom

Hey kids. Just got an email from "What We Now Know." Check it out. Kinda says what we been saying. Yeah, it's a little bit of a read, but how rigorous are you? LOL

Cary

Commonly, we associate the term \\"government propaganda\\" with dictators in remote ?third-world countries or rogue regimes of the past, the most notorious being ?Nazi Germany. \\"It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation ?of public opinion,\\" said Hitler\'s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels. By now, ?you\'ve probably heard, it is increasingly clear that it has.

Within the last year, several unsettling stories have come to light about the ?U.S. government\'s covert attempts to influence public opinion. Remember fake ?journalist \'Karen Ryan\' who praised Bush\'s Medicare prescription drug proposal ?during the 2004 presidential campaign. Or \'Jeff Gannon\' a/k/a James Guckert, a ?male escort, who was handsomely paid to pose as a GOP-loyal reporter at the ?White House\'s daily press briefings for over two years. And if you believe that ?your TV news is still coming from \\"fair and balanced\\" sources, think again. ?

In March, an investigative article by the New York Times revealed that every ?year hundreds of so-called \\"video news releases\\" (VNRs) produced by government ?agencies flood the national air waves--disguised as traditional news reports ?from CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX and almost never credited to their true makers. ?Needless to say that all of them present the efforts and achievements of our ?dear leaders in a glowing light.

No mention of hundreds of coffins arriving at U.S. ports, no listing of dead ?soldiers\' names and faces on TV. Instead, we\'re being treated by the Army and ?Air Force Hometown News Service to the touching scene of soldiers in Iraq ?writing happy holiday cards to their loved ones. ?

VNRs depict a world where life is good and everything gets better all the time. ?

One TSA video news release, for example, applauded \\"another success\\" in the ?government\'s \\"drive to strengthen aviation security... one of the most ?remarkable campaigns in aviation history.\\" Never mind the latest, alarming ?report by the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations (CAPA), which points out ?security gaps so wide you could drive a herd of elephants through them. ?

We learn about the wonders democratization has brought to Afghanistan, ?especially for women. Never mind that independent news sources tell a very ?different story. (For a more sober view of the U.S. \'success\' in Afghanistan, ?watch the 2003 UK documentary, ?\\"<a href=\'http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pilger_breaking_the_silence_35mb.htm\' target=\'_blank\'>Breaking the Silence</a>.\\")

We see Americans busily distributing food and water to the people of southern ?Iraq, with the narrator proudly commenting that, \\"After living for decades in ?fear, they are now receiving assistance--and building trust--with their ?coalition liberators.\\" Never mind last week\'s UN report stating that the number ?of Iraqi children suffering from malnutrition has doubled since the fall of ?Saddam. (Of course, one should always be skeptical of reports out of the UN as ?well... but the point still stands.)

In the last four years, more than 20 federal agencies, including the Defense ?Department and the Census Bureau, have spent over 245 million (taxpayer) dollars ?to produce and distribute fake news, slanted to present a favorable image of the ?administration\'s plans and policies. And they keep them coming. ?

The chain of distribution is so long--from State Department to international ?news organizations like Reuters and AP to the major U.S. networks to their local ?affiliates--that even the news stations sometimes don\'t know where a particular ?news bit originated from; although officials swear that all VNRs are clearly ?labeled when they leave the State Department. Questioned by the New York Times, ?\\"Associated Press Television News acknowledged that they might have distributed ?at least one segment about Afghanistan to the major United States networks ?without identifying it as the product of the State Department.\\"

However, the news stations are not entirely blameless; many edit out narrators\' ?finishing lines, such as \\"I am Ed Miller, reporting for the Department of ?Agriculture\\", or replace them with their own. Some, due to a shortage of ?journalistic staff, find it tempting to use the prepackaged news segments so ?readily available to them. ?

\\"Local affiliates are spared the expense of digging up original material. Public ?relations firms secure government contracts worth millions of dollars. The major ?networks, which help distribute the releases, collect fees from the government ?agencies that produce segments and the affiliates that show them. The ?administration, meanwhile, gets out an unfiltered message, delivered in the ?guise of traditional reporting.\\" It\'s a win-win deal for everyone, says the New ?York Times. Except for the viewer, of course.

But covert manipulation of the public\'s opinion is not limited to news reports. ?Popular TV shows such as JAG and the top-rating 24 effortlessly manage to ?justify \\"unpleasant necessities\\" like murder and torture.

In 24, Jack Bauer, CTU (Counter Terrorist Unit) agent and experienced terrorist ?hunter, slashes, burns, electrocutes, and otherwise tortures his way through the ?series; all in pursuit of sinister Islamists planning to wreak havoc on U.S. ?soil... and he only has 24 hours to catch them. Who could disagree that under ?such circumstances the end justifies any means?

\\"There is a seamless connection between what happens in American society, the ?way society is represented by Hollywood, and the torture meted out by US ?soldiers abroad,\\" writes Ziauddin Sardar, co-author of <a href=\'http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=httpwwwcaseyc-20&path=ASIN/0971394253/qid=1113310548/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1\' target=\'_blank\'> Why Do People Hate America?</a>, in a recent article on ?newstatesman.com, citing scenes from 24 and ?the movie Man on Fire as examples. \\"The relationship between American society ?and Hollywood is like a feedback loop. The extremity of one reinforces the ?other.\\"

JAG (short for Judge Advocate General), a show about the U.S. military judicial ?system, also tends to deliver its own version of reality. A recent JAG episode, ?based on the true story of the videotaped shooting and killing of an unarmed, ?wounded Iraqi by a Marine, turned same soldier into a war hero by revealing that ?the injured Muslim--while apparently pleading for his life--had tried to reach ?for a bundle of explosives hidden under the floor boards of the mosque. ?

Never mind that the real mosque event went like this: A Marine unit enters the ?mosque. Dead and wounded Iraqis are lying on the floor.
AMERICAN JOURNALIST: These are the guys from yesterday. These are the wounded ?that they never picked up.
U.S. MARINE 1: (shouts) He\'s f***n\' fakin\' he\'s dead!
U.S. MARINE 2: Yeah! He\'s breathing!
U.S. MARINE 1: He\'s fakin\' he\'s f***n\' dead!
U.S. MARINE 3 points his gun at the man and shoots him in the head.
U.S. MARINE 3 (evenly): He\'s dead now.

As far as administrative involvement in the government-friendly Hollywood-fabrications goes, shows like JAG--which reflects the pro-military stance of ?producer and former Marine staff sergeant Donald Bellisario--often closely ?cooperate with the Pentagon, to get the facts straight and to be allowed to film ?on military sites. \\"n the wake of Sept. 11, the military sees what television ?analysts call \'militainment\' as one of the most effective ways to get its ?message across, free of filters of a critical press corps,\\" comments a 2002 New ?York Times article. Even though the Pentagon insists that it has no editorial ?control over the episodes, an unnamed official talking to the NY Times indicated ?that the DOD might be \'less inclined to support\' the film crew if the producers ?refused its editorial \\"assistance.\\"

Sometimes truth is not only stranger but also much less pleasant than fiction. ?And if we hadn\'t turned into a nation of brain-dead TV junkies yet, we might ?have enough of our wits left to recognize it.
?

 

[Judge Bean]

Re: Brave New Freedom

[/b][/quote][/b]


Just what I meant! Thanks for posting this, Cary.

Now, back to watching another movie in which a rogue, renegade cop breaks all the rules in order to do what he thinks is right.

 

[CaryP]

Re: Brave New Freedom

Glad I was able to contribute something my friend. I just trying to hold up the fringes while you maintain the primary structure. In that movie, is Bruce Willis or Arnold Schwarzenegger playing the cop? LOL They both have that role down.

Cary

 

[Zoomerz]

Re: Brave New Freedom

Gotta be Aahnode the homeboy....

Z-

 

[Judge Bean]

Re: Brave New Freedom

Clint.

 

[StarLord]

Re: Brave New Freedom

Oh the BS outside is aweful

But the TV is everso frightfull

And since They've no place left to show

Wag The Dog! Wag The Dog! Wag The Dog!