Posted on 09/24/2001 3:10:00 AM PDT by Ada Coddington
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.
It’s 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.
It’s also funny that it’s always assumed that human behavior in the past has no relation to how we behave today. Why those people were old-fashioned, we’re 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 can’t 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 Bush’s George Creel, and just as in those dim days of yesteryear, he’ll have plenty of willing civilian accomplices. And after all, there’s 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.
It’s 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
Jeff Elkins is a freelance consultant and writer living in North Central Florida. His personal website is located at www.elkins.org.
Oh really, Storm Orphan? Would you care to document that? Or are such unsubstantiated assertions part of your modus operandi?
I cannot recall ever exchanging words with you, so I have no idea what sort of problem you have with me. Tell you what, SO. OWK is perhaps the best-known libertarian on FR. Why don't you drop him a freepmail, and ask if he has any problems with me.
First, let me say I consider myself a patriotic American who is appalled by the dastardly acts perpetrated against our people. The question of who the terrorists are and who is funding them and why is valid. Blaming the simplistic "radical muslims" is salable, but is it entirely accurate? It may be. Is it really plausible that our intelligence had no knowledge or ability to prevent this? Do we have terrorists in our own government? Does the tragedy and the panic provide a cover to further erode our individual rights? Are there unstated objectives by our government or other powerful groups using our government as a smoke screen? I value being able to examine what others on this forum have to contribute in finding the answers to these questions.
This forum provides not only a powerful central meeting place to come together during this time of great national crisis, but an opportunity to understand and arrive at our individual conclusions through questions and comments and articles. I sincerely appreciate being able to do this.
Translation: Jeff Elkins is unemployed.
I completely understand the difference. You read demidog's comment: "I actually have stated that I think that it might be wiser to abolish child-porn laws." Do you agree or disagree with his position? I think that his stance is extreme, and is not accepted by most libertarians, who would view the marketing of child porn as an exploitation of and violation of the rights of minors. Surely you do not believe that a six year old can give consent?
Now, tell me more about my "modus operandi", or withdraw the insinuation. I think you must have me confused with someone else.
In context of his other remarks and given the rhetorical nature, yes I agree. He is saying it would be
wiser to abolish the laws than to continue the wily-nily, illogical prosecution of them that do nothing
to prevent abuse.
Now, tell me more about my "modus operandi", or withdraw the insinuation. I think you must have me confused with someone else.
I did, and I do. Sincere apologies.
It was Free Republic that put your site on the map... gave it all that exposure...
For what its worth, I don't think that demidog's take on libertarianism was representative of libertarians as a whole. He had what was IMO some extreme positions, but I never had a problem with him. If he's no longer a freeper, that is unfortunate. But he said what he said. Your denying it doesn't change reality.
Thank you, Storm Orphan, for your very gracious retraction.
Hey Jethro, you had better replenish the supply of MRE's and Spam you stocked your bunker with for Y2K, you're gonna need them now! {;~)
I think you have it the other way around. Nobody's advocating tearing up the Constitution. Allanybody is really saying here is just don't discuss troop movements. No, this ain't a liberal website, this is a conservative website. We just have to be careful what we say in terms of stuff like this.Actually, there have been numerous calls by freepers that "this is a war, you're going to have to accept some limits," even though Congress has made no declaration of war and the limits being proposed aren't "for the duration," contain no sunset provision, and will have to be accepted "from now on."
Further, what should and shouldn't be discussed has been expanded by some to be much more than just troop movenments. On the thread "National Security - War Footing - We've Got a Secret(s)!" one freeper was suggesting a whole laundry list of things that shouldn't be discussed on FreeRepublic.com. The list concluded with this statement:
Anything the public needs to know will be desiminated by the government through the media. Probably too much will be desiminated by the media, but we don't need to help the enemy get the word.
I agree that we shouldn't be discussing information that we personally know about troops and movements of United States assets. However, anything that's been reported in the press should be fair game for discussion here, no matter what the topic.
I'm also very disappointed at the number of people who are supporting positions and proposals from the Bush administration that they would never have accepted from the previous administration. The "rally around our president no matter what" crowd was bad for our freedoms and our constitutional republic during the last administration. That same attitude will be bad for our freedoms and our constitutional republic during this administration. However, there are many on this forum who don't understand that because now their guy is in charge.
I can't speak for others, but here's my take. Right here in the Detroit area last week, a couple was arrested for collecting "donations" for WTC victims - when they were actually pocketing the money. I keep hearing and reading cautionary warnings about these sort of scams all the time.
Now, did this pond scum "stage" the terrorist attacks to make a few bucks? I don't think so.
Were they callous, self-serving, opportunistic and just plain evil enough to take advantage of the suffering of their countrymen in order to get what they wanted? In a heartbeat.
I see many of our politicians exactly the same way. All the intrusive, constitution shredding, draconian legislation that members of this forum have poured blood, sweat and tears into fighting for years, is being proposed all over again! Why?
Because they "staged" the attacks? No.
Because they are morally bankrupt enough to use such a tragedy to score some mileage on the very same agenda they have been advancing for years? You betcha.
Do they percieve a general population so maleable with the emotions of grief and horror and outrage that they will accept measures which would have gotten these same politicians dragged from their offices by their earlobes a few weeks ago? Oh yeah.
Let's put it this way. I am a 5'1" small framed woman. My Congress-creep is the not-so-estimable David Bonior. Up until 8:45 am on September 11, 2001, I would never have trusted that collectivist, socialist S.O.B. half as far as I could drop kick his arse. Same for other nearby representatives such as John Conyers and Sander Levin. Now, for some reason I should trust that they suddenly have the best interests of our nation (instead of their own interests) at heart? That they are now competent enough to participate in crucial decision making that will affect my life and country forever? (Hell, I don't even think Conyers can read at a sixth grade level.)
Does this make me eligible for a tin foil hat? Does it make me un-American? I don't think so. It means two things:
1. I continue, as always, to be a patriotic, vigilant, and responsible citizen. I have not, and will not ever permit the emotional aftermath of any tragedy to compromise that.
2. I have not bumped my head recently.
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.