Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
Brave New Freedom
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Judge Bean" data-source="post: 20058" data-attributes="member: 42"><p><strong>Re: Brave New Freedom</strong></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong>Today the guns were silent on Okinawa...</strong></span></span><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Some of you may remember the novel <em>1984</em>, by George Orwell, cited more often than read, in which history, also, is cited more often than read, or understood, and deliberately so, in order to rewrite it to justify whatever the government does, and justify it ahead of time. </span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">This is the present state of affairs with our government; we have become the future predicted in the novel, at least in this particular way. The rest I will leave to your imagination.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Modern history is currently being rewritten by the authorities and their jingoists on a daily basis. That is, what happened yesterday is being cooked and spun today, this morning, and dished back to you in the evening when you are too tired trying to make ends meet and fill your tank with $2.50 per gallon gas to question it. </span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">In a recent column justifying the new American policy of blind violence toward others, one writer compared the current filthy little war with the epic heroism of the Pacific War in 1945.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Once again, he restated the old chestnut about how the atomic bombs were necessary to save the loss of American lives (and Japanese) sure to come from an invasion of the home islands. We won?t go into that now, except to note that it, too, is a justification slapped on after the fact, and had very little to do with the actual White House decision to drop the bombs. </span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">The bombs were used to end the war, and the war was not winding down. It was likely to end in a blaze one way or another?a holocaust. We were able to choose the primary nationality of the victims. We used the bombs to scare the hell out of them, and terrorize them into treating for peace: exactly what happened.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">War is all hell. You don?t get to call it good after the fact if you started it, especially if you started it for one reason and changed your mind later. I detect among the propagandists now a suggestion that it may be OK to use nuclear weapons against our enemies, and this is the way it is insinuated, by reference to the sacred use of the Bomb in The Big One.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Don?t misunderstand: any American who puts himself or herself in harm?s way is patriotic and heroic. It does not necessarily follow from this, however much Mr. Bush and his champions wish, that to order these citizens into battle is patriotic and heroic, no more than a full assault on the Constitution becomes patriotic by calling the assault the ?Patriot Act.?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">War is wrong; it?s evil. It may be OK under the laws of nature, but it violates Natural Law, the purported basis of our vaunted Rule of Law under the Constitution. </span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">The difference is this: under the laws of nature, you are justified in waging war to acquire territory, or just out of pure cussedness or urge to kill; while under Natural Law, we try to restrain the base instincts, try to settle things amicably, and resort to violence for self defense or the defense of others, including the protection of the community?s freedom to govern itself. </span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">The current war in Iraq was called for a bogus purpose, and waged in order to gain Iraq.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">The early American colonies recognized in their provincial charters and constitutions a right to keep and bear arms, explicitly both for the purposes of self defense and defense of the state. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">War may be a necessary evil when the globe is overrun by military dictators, as it was in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, who waged campaigns of genocide against imaginary enemies of the state, often their own citizens. We always knew that we\'d be next, that Hitler would have landed on the coast after he was through with Europe. We knew that the Japanese would not have had too much trouble invading California, however difficult it would have been to hold onto it later.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">The tyrants had turned the whole world into a vicious bonfire, and we were not safe by any means. The men who landed on Okinawa ran willingly, toting full packs, directly into the maw of that inferno, and could attribute their sacrifice to a just cause. And they were ordered to do so, and duty is a just cause all its own, though you can see how it depends upon a trustworthy leader to be just.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">But the requirements of an elite gang of corporate profiteers does not constitute the moral necessity for war, and no amount of comparing us to the Great Generation will make it so. </span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">The Twin Towers were <em>like</em> Pearl Harbor; marketplace jihadist bombers can be <em>compared</em> to Kamikaze pilots; a war on tyranny can be <em>likened</em> to a struggle to rid society of terror, crime, drugs, or poverty; but to <em>equate</em> our situation by a series of propitious analogies is not only jingoism, it?s a formal fallacy.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">We are often compared to Rome by the new apologist revisionists. Rome had to enforce imperial rule by a state of constant war, so we should not shy from that sort of task. Rome had to guard against both the corruption of decadence within and the onslaught of barbarians (who "shared different values") from without; we ought to be mindful of the same things.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Here?s where the reasoning shows its faults: Rome also sustained itself on slave labor, severe restrictions on civil rights, constant military conquest for no reason other than looting, and, in the end, by discarding the last semblance of citizen rule. Should we not also do as the Romans did, and prepare civilization for centuries of ?the death of reason??</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">You often hear nowadays about justified war. In this view, the current war?invasion, conquest, and occupation of sovereign, independent foreign nations?is conducted for the purpose of establishing democracy. For one thing, we have no right to establish democracies or spread our ideas forcibly to others; for another, this is not why we started this war.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">If you can still hear it past the tin drums of the White House, you might agree that different reasons were given at the outset. Bush is greatly concerned that American will vacillate, or be perceived as irresolute in the face of danger, but he has compelled America to perform the most monumental flipflop in history. </span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">But if what we <em>say</em> to the world about what we <em>do</em> means so little that we can adapt it to what we end up doing, and put our hands in our pockets and whistle past the constable, hoping the lies will be forgotten, we are seen by the rest of the world as con-artists, flimflam men. </span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">You know, rainmakers; thimblerigs. </span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">What will our enemies think of us when we threaten to capture them ?dead or alive?? Oh, yeah, they always say stuff like that, especially when they get a guy wearing cowboy boots in the Oval Office.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">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. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">The reasons for the war cannot be changed to justify our purposes after the fact; this, too, is fallacious reasoning. A <em>reason</em>, an <em>intent</em>, a <em>purpose</em>, is a thing formed <em>before</em> the fact, <em>before</em> you act. </span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">If, in the case of a big war, its explanation is only later <em>understood</em> (as in the case of ?Lincoln?s War?), you do not pretend that the initial purpose never existed, or, as in the present case, that the lie was never told. That is dishonest, and, in the case of the government, illegal.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">I say <em>illegal</em> because the enormous violation of trust breaks the president?s oath of office to preserve the Constitution. He is not bound to save a piece of paper; he is bound by law to keep the system intact, a system which depends upon the will of an informed citizenry to live in a society ruled by law. </span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><em>Informed</em> means not lied to; <em>ruled by law</em> means governed by principles of peace and justice between individuals. This is why our soldiers offer to give up their safety, to preserve these values. They, too, take an oath. <em>They</em> usually stick to theirs, though.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style=\'font-family:Times New Roman\'>It would not be wise for the president?s apologists and revisionists to write our history while it is emerging in a form and manner embarrassing to the patriotic citizen.</span></p><p></p><p><strong>PJL</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Judge Bean, post: 20058, member: 42"] [b]Re: Brave New Freedom[/b] [font=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][b]Today the guns were silent on Okinawa...[/b][/SIZE][/font][SIZE=2]</span> Some of you may remember the novel [i]1984[/i], by George Orwell, cited more often than read, in which history, also, is cited more often than read, or understood, and deliberately so, in order to rewrite it to justify whatever the government does, and justify it ahead of time. This is the present state of affairs with our government; we have become the future predicted in the novel, at least in this particular way. The rest I will leave to your imagination. Modern history is currently being rewritten by the authorities and their jingoists on a daily basis. That is, what happened yesterday is being cooked and spun today, this morning, and dished back to you in the evening when you are too tired trying to make ends meet and fill your tank with $2.50 per gallon gas to question it. In a recent column justifying the new American policy of blind violence toward others, one writer compared the current filthy little war with the epic heroism of the Pacific War in 1945. Once again, he restated the old chestnut about how the atomic bombs were necessary to save the loss of American lives (and Japanese) sure to come from an invasion of the home islands. We won?t go into that now, except to note that it, too, is a justification slapped on after the fact, and had very little to do with the actual White House decision to drop the bombs. The bombs were used to end the war, and the war was not winding down. It was likely to end in a blaze one way or another?a holocaust. We were able to choose the primary nationality of the victims. We used the bombs to scare the hell out of them, and terrorize them into treating for peace: exactly what happened. War is all hell. You don?t get to call it good after the fact if you started it, especially if you started it for one reason and changed your mind later. I detect among the propagandists now a suggestion that it may be OK to use nuclear weapons against our enemies, and this is the way it is insinuated, by reference to the sacred use of the Bomb in The Big One. Don?t misunderstand: any American who puts himself or herself in harm?s way is patriotic and heroic. It does not necessarily follow from this, however much Mr. Bush and his champions wish, that to order these citizens into battle is patriotic and heroic, no more than a full assault on the Constitution becomes patriotic by calling the assault the ?Patriot Act.? War is wrong; it?s evil. It may be OK under the laws of nature, but it violates Natural Law, the purported basis of our vaunted Rule of Law under the Constitution. The difference is this: under the laws of nature, you are justified in waging war to acquire territory, or just out of pure cussedness or urge to kill; while under Natural Law, we try to restrain the base instincts, try to settle things amicably, and resort to violence for self defense or the defense of others, including the protection of the community?s freedom to govern itself. The current war in Iraq was called for a bogus purpose, and waged in order to gain Iraq. The early American colonies recognized in their provincial charters and constitutions a right to keep and bear arms, explicitly both for the purposes of self defense and defense of the state. War may be a necessary evil when the globe is overrun by military dictators, as it was in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, who waged campaigns of genocide against imaginary enemies of the state, often their own citizens. We always knew that we\'d be next, that Hitler would have landed on the coast after he was through with Europe. We knew that the Japanese would not have had too much trouble invading California, however difficult it would have been to hold onto it later. The tyrants had turned the whole world into a vicious bonfire, and we were not safe by any means. The men who landed on Okinawa ran willingly, toting full packs, directly into the maw of that inferno, and could attribute their sacrifice to a just cause. And they were ordered to do so, and duty is a just cause all its own, though you can see how it depends upon a trustworthy leader to be just. But the requirements of an elite gang of corporate profiteers does not constitute the moral necessity for war, and no amount of comparing us to the Great Generation will make it so. The Twin Towers were [i]like[/i] Pearl Harbor; marketplace jihadist bombers can be [i]compared[/i] to Kamikaze pilots; a war on tyranny can be [i]likened[/i] to a struggle to rid society of terror, crime, drugs, or poverty; but to [i]equate[/i] our situation by a series of propitious analogies is not only jingoism, it?s a formal fallacy. We are often compared to Rome by the new apologist revisionists. Rome had to enforce imperial rule by a state of constant war, so we should not shy from that sort of task. Rome had to guard against both the corruption of decadence within and the onslaught of barbarians (who "shared different values") from without; we ought to be mindful of the same things. Here?s where the reasoning shows its faults: Rome also sustained itself on slave labor, severe restrictions on civil rights, constant military conquest for no reason other than looting, and, in the end, by discarding the last semblance of citizen rule. Should we not also do as the Romans did, and prepare civilization for centuries of ?the death of reason?? You often hear nowadays about justified war. In this view, the current war?invasion, conquest, and occupation of sovereign, independent foreign nations?is conducted for the purpose of establishing democracy. For one thing, we have no right to establish democracies or spread our ideas forcibly to others; for another, this is not why we started this war. If you can still hear it past the tin drums of the White House, you might agree that different reasons were given at the outset. Bush is greatly concerned that American will vacillate, or be perceived as irresolute in the face of danger, but he has compelled America to perform the most monumental flipflop in history. But if what we [i]say[/i] to the world about what we [i]do[/i] means so little that we can adapt it to what we end up doing, and put our hands in our pockets and whistle past the constable, hoping the lies will be forgotten, we are seen by the rest of the world as con-artists, flimflam men. You know, rainmakers; thimblerigs. What will our enemies think of us when we threaten to capture them ?dead or alive?? Oh, yeah, they always say stuff like that, especially when they get a guy wearing cowboy boots in the Oval Office. 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. The reasons for the war cannot be changed to justify our purposes after the fact; this, too, is fallacious reasoning. A [i]reason[/i], an [i]intent[/i], a [i]purpose[/i], is a thing formed [i]before[/i] the fact, [i]before[/i] you act. If, in the case of a big war, its explanation is only later [i]understood[/i] (as in the case of ?Lincoln?s War?), you do not pretend that the initial purpose never existed, or, as in the present case, that the lie was never told. That is dishonest, and, in the case of the government, illegal. I say [i]illegal[/i] because the enormous violation of trust breaks the president?s oath of office to preserve the Constitution. He is not bound to save a piece of paper; he is bound by law to keep the system intact, a system which depends upon the will of an informed citizenry to live in a society ruled by law. [i]Informed[/i] means not lied to; [i]ruled by law[/i] means governed by principles of peace and justice between individuals. This is why our soldiers offer to give up their safety, to preserve these values. They, too, take an oath. [i]They[/i] usually stick to theirs, though. <span style=\'font-family:Times New Roman\'>It would not be wise for the president?s apologists and revisionists to write our history while it is emerging in a form and manner embarrassing to the patriotic citizen.[/SIZE] [b]PJL[/b] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
Brave New Freedom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top