Police State
POLICE STATE USA? - photos
.
POLICE STATE USA? - photos
A police state unquestionably exists when:
http://www.hermes-press.com/police_state.htm
POLICE STATE USA? - photos
A police state unquestionably exists when:
http://www.hermes-press.com/police_state.htm
Last edited by Tomas on Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
Don't run to your death
Police State - see imagery
.
Police State - see imagery
When the head of the secret police took charge,
the people of the fair land looked the other way.
http://www.batr.org/911/policestate.html
Police State - see imagery
When the head of the secret police took charge,
the people of the fair land looked the other way.
http://www.batr.org/911/policestate.html
Don't run to your death
Re: Police State
I don't see what the fuss is about. Most people want a police state. Most don't mind surveillance. Most value safety above all.
Re: Police State
If that's what you think Carl, why did you act so surprised when I "argued in favor of a police state"? You said you had never heard someone do that.
Re: Police State
I hadn't heard anyone vocalize it to me so directly.
Re: Police State
Then how do you know that most people want a police state, if nobody has told you they do?
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: Police State
I think I know what he means, Shah. Not very many people will come out and say it. It's a lot like when you often hear people say that looks are not important. You rarely hear people claim that looks are important, but you know that's what most people really think.Shahrazad wrote:Then how do you know that most people want a police state, if nobody has told you they do?
Re: Police State
Off-hand comments, things I've read, and my observations of people's nature.Shahrazad wrote:Then how do you know that most people want a police state, if nobody has told you they do?
Re: Police State
Or maybe your desire to feel superior. Maybe you just need to believe that most people wish for a police state so that you can feel like a freedom-lover, standing out of the crowd in your intellectual and moral superiority.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
Re: Police State
broken,
I'm good at coming out and saying things that nobody else will come out and say. I just hate hypocrisy.I think I know what he means, Shah. Not very many people will come out and say it.
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: Police State
FWIW, Victor, I think Carl has a point. I doubt your average citizen - I will stick to US citizens, since they are the only ones with whom I can claim a familiarity - has thought about police states, or whether he lives in one or not. He rather likely believes the police are there to protect him and his property, including his loved ones, since the average citizen considers his loved ones his property. While the average citizen might not wish for police activities to become more overt and ubiquitous, he probably feels a [perhaps misplaced] measure of security when he sees a uniform or two on a subway car otherwise occupied by glowering minority males eying his Rolex and his briefcase.vicdan wrote:Or maybe your desire to feel superior. Maybe you just need to believe that most people wish for a police state so that you can feel like a freedom-lover, standing out of the crowd in your intellectual and moral superiority.
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: Police State
Yes, I think I have noticed that about you. I have also noticed that, to your credit, you do not say things that other people will not come out in say, just for the sake of saying them. I admire that, since few things are more tiring than someone who is contrary just to be contrary without putting any thought into ideas before expressing them.Shahrazad wrote:broken,
I'm good at coming out and saying things that nobody else will come out and say. I just hate hypocrisy.I think I know what he means, Shah. Not very many people will come out and say it.
Re: Police State
Thank you, Broken.
It does fascinate me how easily I can get in trouble for saying something everybody secretly thinks. The whole of society is based on deceiving people, including yourself (general you, not broken). Also, people will condemn others for doing something they themselves do all the time. For example, most people lie all the time, but they won't vote for a candidate who has been caught in a lie. [This is currently happening to two candidates running for mayor in my city.]
It does fascinate me how easily I can get in trouble for saying something everybody secretly thinks. The whole of society is based on deceiving people, including yourself (general you, not broken). Also, people will condemn others for doing something they themselves do all the time. For example, most people lie all the time, but they won't vote for a candidate who has been caught in a lie. [This is currently happening to two candidates running for mayor in my city.]
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: Police State
It is the easiest and quickest way to get into trouble, I find. In the real world, sometimes the wisest thing to do is to keep the secret.Shahrazad wrote:It does fascinate me how easily I can get in trouble for saying something everybody secretly thinks.
Re: Police State
How shall we define Police State?
Wiki says:
Wiki says:
The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.
The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic
Re: Police State
That's pretty harsh.vicdan wrote:Or maybe your desire to feel superior. Maybe you just need to believe that most people wish for a police state so that you can feel like a freedom-lover, standing out of the crowd in your intellectual and moral superiority.
Carl is really just drawing attention to what is pretty damn self evident. It so obvious even Foucault noticed it.
Re: Police State
And the fact that Foucault believed that, makes his views true -- how?
I myself am inclined to the "give me liberty or give me death" perspective. I communicate with regular people all the time. I see precious few among them who think that it's desirable to give up liberty to gain security.
All of these throngs of sheeple you see discussed in these contexts, they do not exist. They are the invention of those who wish to feel superior to the crowd. The funny thing, though, is that this very concern about distinguishing yourself from the crowd is what makes such people crowd members (just of a different crowd). It's like in "Life of Brian":
By dint of positioning yourself as the freedom-loving thinker in contrast to all those sheep, you have already chosen security over liberty: security of crowd identity over liberty of thought.
You can't win if you play the game. Whenever you see someone bemoaning the sheep-nature of the common man, you see before you a sheep.
I myself am inclined to the "give me liberty or give me death" perspective. I communicate with regular people all the time. I see precious few among them who think that it's desirable to give up liberty to gain security.
All of these throngs of sheeple you see discussed in these contexts, they do not exist. They are the invention of those who wish to feel superior to the crowd. The funny thing, though, is that this very concern about distinguishing yourself from the crowd is what makes such people crowd members (just of a different crowd). It's like in "Life of Brian":
In this game, if you play, you lose. Whether you see yourself as conformist or non-conformist, either way you are conforming already, either way you are one of the people seeking the pseudo-security of delusion -- of membership in the crowd or of superiority to the crowd (i.e. of membership in the 'better' crowd), it makes no difference.Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!
Man in Crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Shhh!
By dint of positioning yourself as the freedom-loving thinker in contrast to all those sheep, you have already chosen security over liberty: security of crowd identity over liberty of thought.
You can't win if you play the game. Whenever you see someone bemoaning the sheep-nature of the common man, you see before you a sheep.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: Police State
Hear that, Sue? What's that you say? Ba-a-a-a humbug?vicdan wrote:You can't win if you play the game. Whenever you see someone bemoaning the sheep-nature of the common man, you see before you a sheep.
Re: Police State
Most of them already have given up liberty for security. If you don't see it, then you are one of them.vicdan wrote: I communicate with regular people all the time. I see precious few among them who think that it's desirable to give up liberty to gain security.
All of these throngs of sheeple you see discussed in these contexts, they do not exist.
This is false. They do exist.
This sounds like wishful thinking on the part of a sheep.They are the invention of those who wish to feel superior to the crowd.
If allegiance to truth gives one "concern about distinguishing yourself from the crowd" then c'est la vie.The funny thing, though, is that this very concern about distinguishing yourself from the crowd is what makes such people crowd members (just of a different crowd).
This gobbledygook has nothing to do with the issue. It's the semantics and sour grapes of sheeptalk.It's like in "Life of Brian":In this game, if you play, you lose. Whether you see yourself as conformist or non-conformist, either way you are conforming already, either way you are one of the people seeking the pseudo-security of delusion -- of membership in the crowd or of superiority to the crowd (i.e. of membership in the 'better' crowd), it makes no difference.Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!
Man in Crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Shhh!
Being a non-sheep is not positioning oneself. It is being a non-sheep.By dint of positioning yourself as the freedom-loving thinker
Only a sheep would find a way to identify a non-sheep as a sheep.in contrast to all those sheep, you have already chosen security over liberty: security of crowd identity over liberty of thought.
Well, okay, ultimately we're all sheep. Determinism over all. The Lord is my shepherd.Whenever you see someone bemoaning the sheep-nature of the common man, you see before you a sheep.
Good Citizen Carl
Re: Police State
I used Foucault--even thought I think him a dud myself-- because he is fairly representative of current social/cultural/philsophical thinking. All my liberal arts lecturers worship him. If even he can see it, anyone should be able to.vicdan wrote:And the fact that Foucault believed that, makes his views true -- how?
It depends how you are measuring it.I see precious few among them who think that it's desirable to give up liberty to gain security.
Mate, just listen to talkback radio for a few hours--I don't mean the Pat Buchanon-type stations -- I mean just regular people who ring up mainstream radio stations. To a person they'll be demanding that the government should do this, the government should do that for them. They are just begging to be lead by the nose at every opportunity.
It is incessant. Ubiquitous. It is why newsmedia is so popular. People are keen to know where they are being lead next.
That is the sort of double-think that George Orwell would be impressed with. "By separating from the herd you join the herd"By dint of positioning yourself as the freedom-loving thinker in contrast to all those sheep, you have already chosen security over liberty: security of crowd identity over liberty of thought.
Just because I happen to agree with, say Carl, on one particular matter hardly makes us joint members of some club, or that either us have sought to join with the other (for safety, or otherwise).
Were FBI agents at 'TEA parties'? (see photo)
.
Were FBI agents at 'TEA parties'?
An intelligence expert says an FBI source tells him that the Bureau spied on
Americans who took part in "TEA party" rallies last week. (see photo)
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Defa ... ?id=499422
Were FBI agents at 'TEA parties'?
An intelligence expert says an FBI source tells him that the Bureau spied on
Americans who took part in "TEA party" rallies last week. (see photo)
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Defa ... ?id=499422
Don't run to your death
Re: Police State
Right. In today's world (USA), seems it going their way.Carl G wrote:I don't see what the fuss is about. Most people want a police state. Most don't mind surveillance. Most value safety above all.
Don't run to your death
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5740
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Police State
My definition of a police state:
James Randi Speaks: Charles Lynch
Charlie Lynch is a California resident who owned and operated a medical marijuana dispensary that was fully legal under a Golden State law.
In 2007, federal agents and San Luis Obispo sheriffs raided his home and dispensary and in 2008 he was found guilty in federal court of five counts of distributing drugs.
Because he was tried in a federal court, Lynch's defense team was not allowed to argue that its client was fully complying with state law.
On Thursday, April 23, 2009, Lynch is scheduled to be sentenced. He faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years and, despite some positive statements from the Obama administration's Justice Department about respecting state laws regarding medical marijuana, Lynch's future is darker than midnight. Indeed, the simple letter of the law dictates he go to prison.
http://reason.com/blog/show/133010.html
James Randi Speaks: Charles Lynch
Charlie Lynch is a California resident who owned and operated a medical marijuana dispensary that was fully legal under a Golden State law.
In 2007, federal agents and San Luis Obispo sheriffs raided his home and dispensary and in 2008 he was found guilty in federal court of five counts of distributing drugs.
Because he was tried in a federal court, Lynch's defense team was not allowed to argue that its client was fully complying with state law.
On Thursday, April 23, 2009, Lynch is scheduled to be sentenced. He faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years and, despite some positive statements from the Obama administration's Justice Department about respecting state laws regarding medical marijuana, Lynch's future is darker than midnight. Indeed, the simple letter of the law dictates he go to prison.
http://reason.com/blog/show/133010.html
Re: Police State
My, my. How closely are you familiar with liberty and security? Ever been under rocket bombardment? i have. Ever publicly dissented against a totalitarian regime? I have. Ever lived on $30/week? i have.Carl G wrote:Most of them already have given up liberty for security. If you don't see it, then you are one of them.
You are cute, in a pathetic sort of way.
Erm, kiddo, i see you are missing the point... Yes, dear, you are all individauls. just like all the other non-conformist non-sheep. :DOnly a sheep would find a way to identify a non-sheep as a sheep.in contrast to all those sheep, you have already chosen security over liberty: security of crowd identity over liberty of thought.
If you play this identity game, you already lost. Someday you will understand.
Forethought Venus Wednesday
Re: Police State
When you make a point of specifically setting yourself up as being non-herd -- yes, that's exactly what you do.Ataraxia wrote:That is the sort of double-think that George Orwell would be impressed with. "By separating from the herd you join the herd"
The way out of this trap, this inescapable duality, is to unask the question. MU. You think you have a choice, to join A or B, but by the very act of seeking to make this choice, you already gave up a more important choice -- a choice of whether this plane of coordinates matters at all.
Stop fucking worrying over whether you are a sheep or non-sheep, and just fucking be. The very fact of obsessing over which side of the divide you are on is what traps you within that frame. Both self-proclaimed conformists and self-proclaimed non-conformists are in fact conformists. The only ones who can avoid conforming (but also non-conforming, which is just a different sort of conformity) are the ones who ignore the conformity question itself altogether.
Don't worry about whether you are a sheep or non-sheep. Simply make your decisions in each case. Sometimes they will match majority's decisions, sometimes they won't, why the hell should you care? Stop playing intellectual keeping-up-with-the-Joneses, stop peeking over the fence and worrying about who is more sheepish, who prefers security and who prefers freedom (everyone prefers security in some cases and freedom in others BTW).
Just live your life, mmm-kay?
Forethought Venus Wednesday