Originally posted by clivex@Oct 24 2006, 08:58 AM
5: He's been able to introduce punitive legislation that turns the USA into a quasi police state not so far removed from the Soviet Union
What absolute rubbish.
I was wondering who might pick up on this one?
Unfourtunately the United States of America is one of the most closely monitored and tightly regulated countries in the world. The disingenious propogation of this insidious myth of freedom that it pedals to its population, is much more masequerade then reality. Indeed it routinely pedals out this illusion in the name of 'right wing political correctness' and reaches the collective sub consciousness of its people almost subliminally. It's a mantra you often hear Americans repeat, when talking about "their freedom" as if they've got some sort of a monoploy on the concept. It's no conincidence that the WTC replacement is to be called the "Freedom Tower" or that when Congress decided to alter their menu (in recognition of a dissenting voice from an erstwhile ally) and do away with 'French Fries' they decided to call them "Freedom Fries".
Right Wing political correctness, through manipulation and popularisation of the language has been around much longer than the liberal application of it, which the phrase is most frequently associated with today. Indeed, it dates back to the 19th century press Barons, taken on by Lord Beaverbrook, and the Murdoch media empire in its modern day manifestation. Fox news (an oxymoron if ever there was, and much maligned on this forum) is no different to Pravda or Iskra before it. In the United States this has been propogated further by the numerous Jewish publishing houses, making the aquisiation of Pro-Palestinian literature near on impossible (Pathfinder will occasionally publish stuff). To think of some recent examples off the top of my head.
A Civil War in Northern Ireland is watered down and called "The Troubles" - (The tiff, the hoo ha, the minor squable)
The losers of democratic free elections in Angola are called "Unita Freedom Fighters" (the unapproved side won the elections!). Ironic that Jonah Savimbi used to go through the front door of 10 Downing Street at Thatcher's invitation to receive funding and weapons, when she simultaneously denounced Mandella as "A Terrorist"; another example?
A Poll Tax is called the "Community Charge"
Striking Miners are called "The enemy within"
These are of course UK examples, but the "Patriot Act" would be an American example. The association being of course that you're some how being unpatriotic and disloyal if you resist the intrusion into your civil liberties. A President who says that "Your either with us, or you're for the bad guys" (or words very clsoe to that effect?) is hardly fostering the idea of freedom of thought I'd suggest. Far from it, he's even invoking a veiled threat to anyone who he perceives as questioning him. The Patriot Act itself was of course rushed through Congress in the dead of night, and allows all kinds of intrusions in the name of "freedom". Only last month, Bush tried to rip up America's obligation to observe articles 3 and 4 of the Geneva conventions, although this was called "re-interpret" them.
Coming back to American freedom and more specifically its similarities with the Soviet Union. The end product is the same I believe, the methods are very different, which makes the American model of subversive monitoring more invisible from the people. Their approach is not to parade around overtly in military uniform, and enforce their will through the jack boot. There's is a less visible approach, and differs in some very subtle ways. Most notably their use of intrusive technologies, and their willingness to bring in the private sector as a partner in state sponsored monitoring, which in turns operates at numerous levels.
Their telephone system has 'key word' recognition software built into it, which allows certain trigger words to bring you to the attention of the authorities. I've found this out to my cost when staying in a 'Diplomatic' address and the stupid individual on the other line back in the UK used the name of a country rather than describing it, within hours the CIA were onto my host, demanding to know more about me, who I was, and what I was doing there. 24 Hours later I had a discreet and more low key meeting with a UK Counsellor on the same subject.
Their cities are littered with CCTV and various monitoring devices. The civilian monitoring and surveilance industry is a truly multi billion Dollar interest. You might care to put the words Inslaw into google and you'll quickly discover what lengths the state is prepared to go to ensure they control the software concerned. If you dig a bit deeper you might discover a particularly murky connection. The mobile phone is of course used as apersonal tracking device too. They routinely censure the internet, and can check on any page you chosse to visit.
The records they hold on their population are frightening, and frankly dwarf anything the Soviet Union were able to assemble. I remember vividly being given a demonstration a couple of years ago by a well known 'research company' begining with the letter E
h34r: The information they held on me, was stunning, bordering on the unbelievable, they could monitor my expenditure patterns, pyscho analyse my sympathies ideas and predict my likely behavioural patterns (ostensibly this was for retail purposes) but since the same company had predicted the outcome of a recent regional election to 100% accuracy on an exact seat by seat basis, they were clearly capable of extending their reach. They were even able to bring up on screen a plan of the house I was living in, and tell me which bedroom I slept in. They were right! Stalin would have been going green with envy at this level of accurate intrusion, and ability to not only monitor, but critically predict and henc einfluence, which is really what sets American state surveliance apart from its Soviet counterpart. The company incidentally is now the Civil Services partner of choice in the UK, so far as I can establish. They are indeed '
Experienced'.
Only last year, (again from personal experience) I undertook to help a friend find her American father, based on a name and DoB and a tenuous link to Winsconsin. This fella had gone absent in the 60's and was clearly making it difficult for anyone to find him, having left a trail of of false leads. Eventually I paid my $25 to a private company based in Georgia I think it was. Within 24 hours I had his address, telephone number, cell phone number, and for an additional payment I could have had his criminal record and financial status. They also supplied me details of the half brother and sister she didn't know about, one of whom was in the USMC. The Soviet Union differed in so far as they were reluctant to pass this kind of knowledge into the private sector, in much the same way as they wouldn't risk their science industries either. The result is that the Americans have made much greater advances, but have combined this with an invidious understanding of what it necessary to perpetuate the myth, and keep it from public interrogation.
Americans frequently point to their freedom of speech as evidence of their freedom etc Again they do this as if they're the sole custodians of the gift, and I wouldn't dispute the level to which they cherish this illusion. Freedom to speak on whose agenda? The subtle way that they programme their society means that its invariably a freedom to acquiesce rather than challenge. It's not quite state sponsored indoctrination, it's much more subtle, but it relies on powerful commercial mutual interests to set an agenda that is semi detached from the state and hence lend it credibility. Essentially, it involves manipulating the media and programming people along approved thought lines. If you think that sounds Orwellian and frankly fantastical, then just look what happens when its challenged?.
Freedom of expression is fine, so long as it conforms with what they want you to say. If however, you start expressing things they don't want you to say, then they have a problem? Broadly speaking they do one of a few things.
1: Allow you continue if they assess the threat to be negligible, as perversely this only reinforces the idea of that you are free etc
2: Discredit the dissention through mobilisation of the various state apparatus and private corporate mutal interests
3: Or finally, if they believe the threat to be credible and dangerous, then frankly 'freedom' is seen as the naked imposter that it is in the American way of life, and they either systematically suffocate it, or brutally remove it. I hear the ghost of Joe McCarthy applauding in his grave. <_<
This final point is actually quite interesting as it goes to the heart of American freedom. What I believe you actually have is the
freedom to go so far, and once that thought becomes a movement, or is perceived to be a danger than the American state will move against it. With the advanced monitoring and survielance they routinely employ on their population though, the chances of nipping stuff in the bud is much enhanced, hence they don't need to parade around presenting a visible enforcement deterent. They can do it much more subtly from a keyboard and various database manipulations, and this simultaneously allows them to pedal the idea that their population are free, and hence unlikely to challenge them thus.
By way of an anology, and even allegory of sorts, I'd actually compare it to "The Prisoner". When made in the late 60's the rise of Communist States and their oppression of the dissenting voice through shows of military ostentation and strength was well documented and etched on the collective pysche of the Western world. Now it could be that there were budgetary issue in filming, and assembling a cast of thousands in full wasn't possible but Patrick McGoohan however, chose to make his enforcer of law, a weather balloon!!! (curiously called Rover). This Rover always knew when someone was trying to escape, and always had a habit of turning up unannounced at the right place, at the right time. In short Rover always knew what was going on. Rover wasn't a violent enforcer though in the traditional sense. It lacked consistant static shape or form, and was totally devoid of distingusihable and identifiable features. It didn't present a omni-visible and stationary targets for dissention to channel its challenge on. It didn't communicate, threaten rant/ rave and storm over its opposition in bloody demonstrations of show case violence as had been the case throughout the 20th century, in more despotic regimes. It gently enveloped its victims until they couldn't communicate, and then quietly suffocated them to death, before moving off having accomplished its mission.
Finally, and I do apologise for the length of the post :lol: I've you're unlucky I might get around to responding to the others, but not tonight. I'd be very interested to know what the typical Iraqi's reaction would be today for being given a taste of American freedom?
They have to queue for hours to get over priced black market petrol despite the country being awash with oil. Electricity supply is intermitent, and similarly water is unreliable. They're struggling to find work, and many reluctants have to take their lives in their hands to queue outside police stations as the only possible employment avenue. Every time they go shopping or to prayer they know they might get caught in the cross blast of another attack, whilst all the time their country teeters on the brink of civil war, (or should I call it "troubles"?). Ah ha though, the Americans say, at least you've got freedom now
