Posted on 09/24/2001 4:24:58 PM PDT by Rebeckie
Unfree Republic
by Jeff Elkins
Let the stench of Middle East flesh reach Paradise reassuring them that these filth have gone to hell permanently."
The quote above is representative of many posted on the FreeRepublic.com site in the wake of the WTC attack, and unfortunately its like is not uncommon elsewhere. Americans are angry, predictably and rightly so, but just as predictable are the side effects. As always, that righteous anger will be accepted as a beloved gift by the state and molded into tools of oppression.
Its funny how that works. Every single state-sponsored war the US has become embroiled in has resulted in an inexorable increase in the power of the state.
Its also funny that its always assumed that human behavior in the past has no relation to how we behave today. Why those people were old-fashioned, were modern, educated, etc.
The beginning of this repeating pattern has already become public with the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. It has an ominous sound, that name, almost Germanic. (I cant wait to see the uniforms.)
On April 13, 1917, days after our entry into World War One, President Wilson created the Committee on Public Information to promote the war domestically while publicizing American war aims abroad. Bush has replicated that step, with this new cabinet-level department.
Under the leadership of journalistic muckraker George Creel, the CPI was a propaganda apparatus unparalleled at that point in world history. The CPI functioned as a de facto public censor, vetting nearly all published material about the war and helping to draft legislation such as the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. In the months prior to our entry into the war and especially after our entry when they were nearly criminal, antiwar viewpoints were rarely heard.
The same pattern emerges now: Penn. Gov. Tom Ridge will be President Bushs George Creel, and just as in those dim days of yesteryear, hell have plenty of willing civilian accomplices. And after all, theres so much more to censor -- Ridge will need all the help he can get. In seeking warriors for the front line of Internet censorship, Ridge needs look no farther than FreeRepublic.com. The atmosphere there is now poisonous.
Again, look back to Wilson's CPI. It encouraged businesses to spy on their employees, parents to spy on their children, children to spy on their parents, neighbors to spy on neighbors, and above all to report "disloyal," pro-German sentiments. State authorities banned the teaching of German in schools and changed German street names. As the madness mounted, those regarded as pro-German were hounded from their jobs, pressured to change their German names, beaten, and in a few cases lynched. Almost all cases of violence, while incited by the state, were carried out by "civilians" in the grip of war hysteria.
Along with this anti-German hysteria, Congress passed several measures designed to rigidly suppress criticism of the war. In particular, the Espionage Act, passed in June 1917, specified a fine of $10,000 or twenty years in prison for "whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag."
The Espionage Act was very popular in its day. It was cheered on by mindless lemmings under the influence of state propaganda. Their great grandchildren now inhabit FreeRepublic.com, viciously attacking anyone who questions the wisdom of the state.
Our Congress is considering similar measures under the rubric of "anti-terrorism," and as it was at the beginning of the 20th Century, the FreeRepublic lemmings of the 21st are cheering the morally corrupt politicians along.
Its not just message posters on the site. The management of FreeRepublic has instituted a "loose lips sink ships" campaign, with new moderators patrolling the forum to delete posts that in their opinion are detrimental to the "war effort."
The FreeRepublic mission statement claims "We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America."
Sanctimonious hogwash. Everything old is new again the keyboard warriors of FreeRepublic would be right at home in 1917 shilling for Wilson.
September 24, 2001
You could say much the same for taliban.com or revolutionarycommunistparty.org, if those sites existed.
Actually, I do see your point and agree that we shouldn't censor dissident opinions or be stampeded.
From a free speech point of view there's something to be said for lewrockwell.com. From a policy point of view, there's much less.
I had a taste for strong opinions and that attracted me to the site originally, but over a year or two, my opinion has changed.
First of all, each successive article is basically a repetition of what came before and doesn't add anything to what came before. That may be good for propaganda purposes, but it doesn't educate, illuminate or convince.
Secondly, the writers don't seriously consider opposing opinions. Again, this may be desirable from the point of view of ideological combat, but over time it makes the site dispensible if you want something more or different than that. I don't get a feeling that a conversation is going on in which conflicting facts are being sorted out and people could change their minds based on the evidence.
Strong views and convictions are necessary to change things, but the people I really trust are those who take conflicting opinions and stubborn, unavoidable facts into account. Otherwise, there could be problems when you try to apply your ideas directly to reality, if you assume that reality is simpler than it really is.
I've yet to see the Rockewellites deal with the question of what they would seriously do, if they were President in 1861, 1941 or 2001, coming into a situation not of their own making with limited options and with real committments to the people who elected them, the Constitution, the country and future generations. They never see the hard questions for what they really are, but retreat into critical sniping, "I told you so," and easy, superficial formulas.
I don't think either one of us will convince the other. What looks like staunch adherence to principle from the inside looks like blind rigidity from outside and vice versa. I do notice from some of the comments here, that, like me, a lot of people liked, enjoyed and agreed with lewrockwell.com when it first started and have grown disillusioned with it over time.
You obviously think dropping the bombs on Japan to end the war was wrong. Those were cities after all
It very likely saved 100,000+ American lives. If you want to be "disgusted" because I value our lives more than theirs so be it. This is war, our survival is at stake. There's no reward for 2nd place.
I totally agree.
Thanks for being with me Scholastic. I've been feelin' mighty loanly at this site lately.
Thanks for the Intense giggle, Pay now. I really needed it.
I don't like it when people put words or opinions in my mouth that I have never stated. Dropping the atomic bomb on those Japanese cities was the best thing that we could have done at that time. But I am not talking about that instance, the debate is here and what is happening now. I fully support going to war with Afganastan, but I just feel as if I need to stress that we need to do this as ethically as possible in regards to the civilians there, regardless of who you think is to blame. I have never said that I am not placing any blame on those civilians in Afganastan, what I was saying however, is that those people's children in this situation are not to blame for anything that is happening over there and because of them, we should try to fight this war as ethically as possible.
"Homeland Security" has taken a lot of forms over the years. From the National Guard to the FBI, it's nothing new. This federalizes that function, to be sure, and it is rife with potential for abuse. But so far, I've seen nothing but paranoid ravings about what "could" happen. Nothing HAS.
Should we be willing to kill the idea stillborn, out of fear that it may grow into a monster? This is anticipatory justice, pre-emptive prevention. Nothing has happened. But it COULD, so let's nip it in the bud. There is nothing that can't be abused. If this office falls victim to that trap, then let's shut it down. Better yet, let's limit its powers from the outset so that it fulfills its constitutional function and no more.
The FBI and the BATF were the perpetrators at Waco. Not because of design, but because of execution. Then, a second-rate president and his Justice Department lackeys refused to hold the blundering organizations accountable. THAT should never happen again, with this office or any other. But if they can help break up these clusters of madmen, let's give them a chance.
1. Picture recognition software placed on the streets of America. 2. Wiretaps have become easier and more readily used in the last few decades. 3. Does Carnivore ring a bell at all? 4. Waco, Ruby Ridge, and do you think that those people's rights were not infringed at all? Typically, there is usually a trial before anything such as a death penalty can be given. Look, this thread was put up as a warning and to encourage people to give extra thought to the idea of personal security. I believe everything in moderation even in regards to this subject and the Federal Government has not had a successful interpretation of the meaning of this value.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." --William Pitt
"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." --James Madison
My whole point was that the mere existence of a "Homeland Security" department is ominous, but not necessarily a priori evidence that the govt. is out to "get us."
Maybe you've got YOUR eyes open wide enough to see things that aren't even there.
If it is not in the Constitution, then it is a created right. In this case, it is a right invented by the Supreme Court. The Government giveth and the Government taketh away. If you believe the right to privacy originated in the government, then it can at least be qualified, if not eliminated entirely, by them.
You're not "giving them an inch." They're giving YOU one. At least, according to your theory.
Either you're a visionary or a paranoid shadow-chaser. I guess time will tell which. It will also tell whether I am a patriot or a dupe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.