What Do Both Parties Use To Control The People?

Posted by Jason | Posted in Miscellaneous | Posted on 17-04-2010


Ron Paul nails it in his post at LewRockwell.com. Whether it’s fear of the boogieman with Republicans or fear of being responsible for yourself with the Democrats, they both want everyone clamoring for them to do more. They’ve done enough. It’s time to undo things they’ve been doing for and to us.

While fear itself is not always the product of irrationality, once experienced it tends to lead away from reason, especially if the experience is extreme in duration or intensity. When people are fearful they tend to be willing to irrationally surrender their rights.

Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.

As Washington moves towards its summer legislative recess, indications of fear are apparent. Things seem similar to the days before the war in Iraq. Prior to the beginning of the war, several government officials began using phrases like “we don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” and they spoke of drone airplanes being sent to our country to do us great harm.

It is hard to overstate the damage this approach does psychologically, especially to younger people. Of course, we now know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, let alone any capacity to put them to successful use.

To calm fears, Americans accepted the Patriot Act and the doctrine of pre-emptive war. We tolerated new laws that allow the government to snoop on us, listen to our phone calls, track our financial dealings, make us strip down at airports and even limited the rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury. Like some dysfunctional episode of the twilight zone, we allowed the summit of our imagination to be linked up with the pit of our fears.

Paranoia can be treated, but the loss of liberty resulting from the social psychology to which we continue to subject ourselves is not easily reversed. People who would have previously battled against encroachments on civil liberties now explain the “necessity” of those “temporary security measures” Franklin is said to have railed against.Americans must reflect on their irrational fears if we are to turn the tide against the steady erosion of our freedoms. Fear is the enemy. The logically confusing admonition to “fear only fear” does not help; instead, we must battle against irrational fear and the fear-mongers who promote it.
It is incumbent on a great nation to remain confident, if it wishes to remain free. We need not be ignorant to real threats to our safety, against which we must remain vigilant. We need only to banish to the ash heap of history the notion that we ought to be ruled by our fears and those who use them to enhance their own power.

via The Fear Factor by Ron Paul.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Comments (4)

Not to rain too hard on Dr. Paul’s parade, but his statement about WMD’s in Iraq, while technically accurate, leaves out some key details. (google yellow cake canada or read this story http://www.bloggernews.net/116579). My uncle has done 2 tours in Iraq and he ran logistics for one of those operations and saw them loading the stuff onto cargo planes.

That aside, Dr. Paul does sum up the problem pretty succinctly. Hopefully 2012 is finally the year he is taken seriously in a bid for Pres. I’ve heard rumblings of a Romney/Palin ticket and that scares the crap out of me. Romney is a joke, and while I don’t have an issue with Palin, I think she’s still too polarizing.

VA:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)


The whole WMD thing has been a mess since day one. Believe me I used to argue the side of Bush and Cheney. I think Paul is looking at foreign policy from a larger scale, that being much of the problems we have are self created.

Even if Saddam had WMD, does that really constitute us invading? I used to think it did, but I no longer do. Many countries have WMD, and many pursue them to have something to defend against us, like North Korea and now Iran. It seems the only way you get the US to back off is by acquiring a nuke. Look how we treat N. Korea now. We would never invade N. Korea, nor should we.

None of these countries are real threats, because we’d literally erase them from the map if we had to. In my opinion much of it has become a shell game used to grow the government and to rake in billions for defense contractors, bankers, etc.

What really sucks is to think how many troops really question what the hell they are doing over there still. My cousin did a tour in Iraq and just went back for his second. This one will be shorter, because he’s leaving there and heading straight to Afghanistan. He basically said this is never going to end. Every time we have collateral damage, we’re creating new enemies. I can’t imagine having to go and do what he has to do, while thinking those thoughts. I think this type of stuff is why Ron Paul was so huge with the military.

Agreed on Romney. Romney is no better than Obama. I used to really like Palin, but I have since lost all enthusiasm for her. Her interviews even on Fox have been embarrassing. Hopefully, by the time 2012 gets here the tea parties will be all about cutting government and promoting liberty and we’ll have a Paul or someone like him.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

I wasn’t making an argument RE:yellow cake to validate the Iraq invasion, though practically all our issues are self made. IIRC, we trained Saddam years back (Iran/Contra?), we trained Bin Laden, and probably a host of other guys who stuck it to us. Frankly I had difficulty buying an Iraq invastion at the time but didn’t gripe too much. Looking back, while we might have “won”, the issue becomes “at what cost?”. Billions of dollars and many lives and years later we’re in no position to leave. We will be tied at the hip of Iraq for the foreseeable future, and that’s sad.

I still wrestle with the whole isolationist defense thought process because of the notion of allies. If a friend of yours is getting invaded or attacked, do you back them up and support them? I guess in theory you do, but then that goes against the limited “national defense” notion of the Constitution. Not that Iraq or Afghanistan fit this scenario, but while a nuke holder certainly wouldn’t attack us (unless they had a death wish), they could threaten and/or attack allies who were much smaller. Maybe they still wouldn’t because of the chance that we’d retaliate. I don’t know, it’s just something I’ve been debating about with myself. I still haven’t come to a conclusion I can support with strength.

I wouldn’t mind seeing a Paul/Schiff combo. Paul Ryan is another guy worth looking at – a younger gunslinger who could really give Obama a run for his money in a debate. But please, no Romney.

VA:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

John, as a recovering neocon, I still wrestle with it too. I also still battle with my inclinations to always want to back the GOP right or wrong.

I agree with the allies thing, and I think there is a time and place. Unfortunately, defending allies as we did during WWII has not been the reason for most of our military interventions since. The reason Paul’s philosophy, and the founders philosophy works is just like all government actions there are unintended consequences which are usually worse than what would have happened if we didn’t intervene.

I still don’t buy into we could have avoided WWII, but their is a case to be made from that side. There are a lot of things we all just assume about history because of public schools, like Lincoln was right with the Civil War, but that if you really read the opposing side, you see he was not. Slavery was ended everywhere else peacefully. In the US, it wasn’t really slaver, but more of a Federal power grab. I guess I’m getting off track here, haha.

Anyway, that Paul/Schiff ticket sounds like one hell of a ticket. I didn’t even think of it, but Schiff would crush people at debates. Man, that would be the funnest election I’ve been a part of.

VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Write a comment