(originally launched into cyberspace on 10/21/2007)
It seems that almost everyone in the country has one eye closed.
Half the country has their left eye closed, and the other half has
their right eye closed. Conservatives who bashed Clinton as being a
corrupt, dishonest, war-mongering socialist (which he was) seem
unable to see all the same qualities in THEIR chosen tyrant du
jour, George W. Bush. They don't even notice that in most cases,
their own complaints about Clinton could be used, word for word, to
justifiably criticize THEIR megalomaniac of choice.
And it goes the other way, as well. The following is a link to a
video of a talk given by Naomi Wolf, regarding the end of America.
She gets a lot right, regarding the historical pattern of how
countries turn into fascist dictatorships. But what struck me most
about her talk, though it was very subtle, was the fact that she
SUPPORTS the American left-wing tyrants, and even fails to notice
that they are the SAME THING as what she now paints as Hitlers-
waiting-to-happen. Here is the link to her speech:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc
She is a Democrat, and talks about "restoring liberty." When has
the Democratic party ever been about individual liberty? When it
tried to confiscate more from everyone? When it tried to
nationalize/socialize health care? When it tried to disarm all its
victims? (I found it very odd that disarming the populace was NOT
one of the ten points Ms. Wolf discusses, since it is such an
obvious one.) BOTH parties--or both faces of the one ruling class--
are ALWAYS expanding their power in any way they can. And yet Ms.
Wolf spoke of having a resolution signed by all the Democrat
tyrants in Congress as something to prevent a police state. Good
grief. (That's like saying a letter signed by all the Cryps,
denigrating the Bloods, will reduce gang violence.)
Does she not remember Waco, where the jackbooted thugs of a
DEMOCRAT administration murdered nearly a hundred men, women and
children? How about Ruby Ridge? How about the Clinton regime using
the IRS to harass its political opponents--plainly a symptom of an
out-of-control, lawless police state? How about the dozens of
"mysterious" deaths in Arkansas, when King Clinton reigned there?
Oddly, people are so accustomed to the "two party" view of the
world, that when I bash THEIR party's tyrant, they assume I like
the OTHER party's tyrant. I bash Bush, and Republicans assume I'm a
Democrat. I bash Clinton, and the Democrats assume I'm a
Republican. Apparently the only political question most people are
capable of considering is WHICH tyrant should oppress us all,
rather than asking WHETHER we should be oppressed by anyone. And
now, I will quote myself (from my "Tyrant" book):
- ---------< from "How To Be a Successful Tyrant" >-----------
Choosing Their Own Tyrant
These days the most popular illusion of "peasant power" is the
voting both. Open resistance has been averted numerous times by
offering the peasants a choice between Tyrant A and Tyrant B.
"A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new
master once in a term of years." [Lysander Spooner]
No matter how many times the people are stomped on, harassed, and
oppressed by "elected" tyrants (usually taking turns, as one tyrant
is replaced by another), the vast majority of the peasants will
continue to fall for the idea (pushed by you, of course), that
another "election" is their only civilized recourse to any
government-imposed injustice they see.
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into
complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand
that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure
freedom." [F. A. Hayek]
People would think it insane to have an election to choose a
carjacker or bank-robber for their town. The only difference
between that and choosing a "ruler" comes from the now deeply
ingrained assumption that having a ruler is necessary and essential
to society (a delusion you should reinforce constantly). The
question must always be which person or group of people should have
the power to rule everyone else; the question must never be whether
anyone should have such power.
"We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two
bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between
Tweedledum and Tweedledee." [Helen Keller]
If the peasants accept the assertion that someone must rule them,
their thoughts and efforts will revolve, not around preserving
their own freedom, but around deciding whom they should surrender
their freedom to.
- -------------< end of quote >---------------
I don't know how people like Naomi Wolf can be so perceptive and so
completely oblivious at the same time. And the "selective
blindness" afflicts all statists, Democrats and Republicans alike.
And when some fringe wacko suggests that NO ONE should be
oppressing us, BOTH groups of pro-tyrant folk can be counted on to
lash out against him as the biggest threat in the world. Go figure.