Joined up thinking for the Irish Left
Time for an Honest Conversation Fri Feb 12, 2016 15:13 | Michael Taft
The Investment Deficit Fri Feb 12, 2016 12:42 | Michael Taft
In Praise of Ungovernability Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:23 | Laurence Cox
Book Launch: Margaretta D?Arcy?s Memoir, Ireland?s Guantanamo Granny Thu Feb 11, 2016 13:09 | Irish Left Review
A Costly Health Service? Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:51 | Michael Taft
Irish Left Review >>
Wailings about Left Unity Sat Feb 13, 2016 01:13 | James O'Brien
The Bern Manifesto: Why I am Voting for Bernie Sanders Wed Jan 27, 2016 23:59 | Jerome Nikolai Warren
Kautsky â€“ The crisis of capitalism and the shortening of working time Mon Nov 09, 2015 22:34 | James O'Brien
How to do better things with words Fri Oct 23, 2015 07:38 | modulus
Syriza and Israel: Syrizaâ€™s response Thu Aug 20, 2015 18:10 | yeksmesh
Spirit of Contradiction >>
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Editing letters to the Irish Times
Stephen Collins: An enemy of my country Anthony
Elaine Byrne: Suffering from chronic naivety Anthony
Free speech under state attack in Ireland Anthony
Denis O’Brien: Are the sharks moving in for the kill? Anthony
Public Inquiry >>
Farewell from NWL Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake
Happy 70th Birthday, Michael Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake
Of the Week? Sat May 18, 2013 00:02 | namawinelake
Noonan denies IBRC legal fees loan approval to Paddy McKillen was in breach of E... Fri May 17, 2013 14:23 | namawinelake
Gayle Killilea Dunne asks to be added as notice party in Sean Dunne?s bankruptcy Fri May 17, 2013 12:30 | namawinelake
NAMA Wine Lake >>
U.S. Liberal Agenda for More Gun Control Tied to a Totalitarian Agenda
history and heritage |
Friday March 22, 2013 21:01 by Case Carver
The political agenda regarding foreign policy,is to continue to spend American resources on what is still far too much for Israel’s objectives (such as war with Syria and Iran), ; as these goings-on continue to motivate more dismantlement of American Constitutional liberties here at home (in order to get away with their forms of betrayal (treason) to our founding fathers’ American Creed (which is not protecting the Holy Land) and to true interests of the American peoples. We now continue to live within a tyranny of corrupt betrayal. So to ban the personal right to own rapid-fire weapons here in the United States could happen within this significant context of an ever-evolving totalitarian reality that continues to wrap its dangerous tentacles around our quickly dying freedoms.
Liberal Agenda for More Gun Control Tied to a Totalitarian Agenda
By Case Carver
Newly appointed Secretary of State, John Kerry, made his first speech to a University of Virginia home-audience. It was full of polished platitudes and delusional assertions. His whole performance was couched within a blinding veneer of references to America’s greatness, America’s goodness, and of course, the entire world’s obvious need for more of America’s glorious and omnipresent quality leadership. (Read: “We are on the same path as before and the fact that I am now at the helm of State doesn’t mean a damn thing… because I’m just going to try to excel at what Obama does—giving heartfelt speeches, that is while I too work as a puppet for the Powers-That-Be”.)
Plenty students there at UV, despite that particular college was founded by a somewhat cynical, and yet enlightened Thomas Jefferson, would still be spellbound by their youthful naiveté to believe all the shit about how the United States’ main mission is to spread democracy abroad (even as it destroys more and more of it here at home). It was John Kerry, along with colleagues like Senator McCain who advocated for the illegal war with Iraq (“…every day Saddam Hussein gets more dangerous…blah, blah, blah”).
So one thing seems certain, and that is too many so-called leaders, along with their government bureaucrats and think tank coolies, within the D.C. beltway, still think they can pacify the American public from a podium of verbose grandiloquence, or a rhetorical style of laudatory self-congratulations (if not sanctimonious conceit). If John Kerry’s speech is any indication of his (and Obama’s) forthcoming foreign policy we Americans (and the rest of the world) are in for a lot of intestinal spilth and bloviating gas (that is while a seriously powerful police state continues to finalize its completion here at home, and more unwise and corrupt intentions are acted out abroad). How deep can it get?
Thus Kerry’s speech, as well as his appointment, both verify is that the political agenda regarding foreign policy (the main arena of corruption and crisis of our country and economy), as stenographed by the lamestream media, is to continue to spend American resources, such as time, energy, intelligence and money on what is still far too much for Israel’s objectives (such as war with Syria and Iran), and at more great costs to the American people and our tax revenues.
Yes certain industries and banker investors found such misadventures, as illegal wars, in the Middle East to be cash cows, equally parasitically bleeding America on the whole; as these goings-on continue to motivate more dismantlement of American Constitutional liberties here at home (in order that the criminals may continue to get away with their forms of betrayal (treason) to our founding fathers’ American Creed (which is not protecting the Holy Land) and to true interests of the American peoples.
Now newly appointed Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel argues America should “not” cut any of Israel’s aid (the largest recipient) as if Israeli is the “only” thing that is more important than all American priorities (all budgets were supposed to get an equal ax of sequestration)? Why then should AIPAC priorities have some absolutist rigidity over our own country’s economic interests and real national security (as Israel does not even operate as a true partner or real friend because both countries suffer from leadership and personality traits of extreme egocentricity—meaning neither the U.S. or Israel is capable of forming a mature sense of friendship or partnership as would be hypothesized by Aristotle)? The whole special relationship is a sham and fraud and the more elected leaders announce so much solidity the more the public feels betrayed by their own government.
We now continue to live within a tyranny of corrupt betrayal. So to ban the personal right to own rapid-fire weapons here in the United States could happen within this significant context of an ever-evolving totalitarian reality that continues to wrap its dangerous tentacles around our quickly dying freedoms (especially now that many people continue to question the truth about 9/11, and more importantly how the governments of both the United States and Israel, via the NeoCon agenda, have used 9/11 as a prime excuse to take away many political freedoms (and also continue to use it to inspire more illegal interventions and wars abroad—thus increasing expenditures of more wasted tax dollars, that ultimately continues to increase hatred of the
American society, because the world knows our citizens have been too tolerant of this government (irrespective of whether Democrats or Republicans are in the lead) that too often engages in unjust foreign enterprises and increases the likelihood of more enemies abroad).
Maybe John Kerry could have addressed why so many people around the world in so many countries think the United States government, and its relationship with Israel, is not only the biggest bully on the block but the most evil? Where was there even one iota of doubt in Kerry’s delusional speech? What real success story has American foreign policy had in a long time? Explain how recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or other illegal interventions have helped the American people (or any people—save those who profit from the Military Industrial Complex)?
When well-meaning do-gooders argue for more gun restrictions, due to recent mass shootings, as they claim their over-riding motive to protect innocent peoples’ lives, they do so in a strategic way that will actually help a corrupted and too much compromised U.S. government bureaucracy, such as Homeland Security, to stay in power, and so well-meaning do-gooders have a logic and position that is naive at best. No mature and sophisticated person could not take into account the radical reality of political context that clearly shows how much political conditions here have already changed for the worst—especially when they are essentially arguing for the radical policy of destroying the real meaning of the Second Amendment (to a status of the common man can own cap guns against a tyranny that owns billions of dollars of enormous and powerful armaments. Such a narrow outlook completely ignores extremely significant realities. The fact is that many foreigners think it is the United States that acts like terrorists while it pretends to be fighting terrorists. War and all black ops is more terrorism on a bigger budget.
Unfortunately too many Americans will not likely understand this kind of complexity until it is too late. Then they will learn that marketed goodness and political correctness of taking guns from law abiding citizens can, and will, come to a seriously dangerous opportunity for oppression here at home from our own lawless government (what else can you call this culture?) and its wealth establishment (and now being aided by none other than a naďve advocacy of liberals and brainwashed parents who presume themselves to be good guys in white hats as they demand for more gun controls).
It is within these shifting changes, for example mainstream media does not even bother to report on the recent secret military trials of Bradley Manning (as it focuses on some criminality of the U.S. Military). Our police state then, which seems to becoming pretty congealed, extends essentially to media censor control. This also relates to such realities as prisoners still held at Guantanamo (that include many cleared for release long ago). Meanwhile more and more attempts are being made to legislate for more spying on Americans communications (thus destroying the right to free assembly—or at least putting a huge chill on controversial discussions), which is what the definition of totalitarianism amounts to—essentially gaining control over the entire private being). They clearly tell you there is no such thing as privacy.
And more political dissidents are too easily being labeled as potential terrorists (and are likely being classified as such). Real media would have helped solve these critical issues long ago. Instead we got Obama who has proved himself another puppet for the powerful. All this while the left comes up with more excuses as to why it continues to support a corrupted Democratic Party?
A columnist for The Nation magazine (forgot who), a year or so ago, (once Obama was obviously realized to be feckless and a traitor to several of his campaign promises) wrote: “…well he is the best we could have actually got elected…” (paraphrased). Bullshit. Many leftist and liberal publications, and their like-minded advocates and related nonprofits, don’t dare reject their historical alliance with the Democratic Party, because that alliance is a major source for their revenues and donations (not to mention connections and friends) that come from democrat-minded sources. They sacrificed or culture’s integrity for their economical survival. They have compromised far too far.
Nevertheless more regular guys, who are not as political read, have been getting quite angry and worried about the corruption levels, covert wills, and sweeping changes like the establishment of a new Department of Homeland Security (we already had an FBI and military), etc., so this sleeping giant of concerned citizens, who have been getting a whiff that something smells rotten in Demark, are scaring the powers-that-be about possible rebellion or demands for real justice. And plenty people are now realizing it is exactly Congress, who have not been loyal to the people, that is our problem, while this compromised Congress tries to increase the dismantlement of our freedoms and liberties further—rather than to rebuild them.
Plenty within the loose knit of Tea Parties are aware their alternative seeking angst was high jacked by the Republican Party (whereas Congressman Ron Paul had his strong and legitimate standing stolen by the machinations of a Rove machine that wanted to support a less-than-mediocre person). Whereas the Occupy Movement was equally high-jacked by Democrats pushing for unionist and socialist issues, also be folded back into the two major power broker structure and allowing for no other alternative parties of any decisiveness. People are furious the status quo cannot be broken and know they are getting the bad end of really bad deal.
Therefore plenty officials within the cesspool of the D.C. beltway, who continue to carry out the Neo-Con agenda, are also highly interested in using the Sandy Hook killings as the means to take away the last vestige of real power from the common man—his right to defend himself against tyrannical governments (in this case namely his own). This right evolved from being able to protect Americans from the British.
This is the context that arguments about gun control must be purveyed (similar to how pre-WW2 Germany had civil rights destroyed as the Nazis came to power (systematically over some time dismantling them until people realized too late that they had nothing to protect themselves).
In truth (or “forsooth” as Shakespeare might have swore) there is far too little indication the United States Government, or its pretend pal Israel, or AIPAC, or the Neo-Cons, and especially many elected minions in Congress, deserve to be trusted at all (and instead there are plenty serious indications they need to be feared and distrusted—and this is the compelling point—federal government weapon power is already far more deadly and potentially pernicious than weapons left in the hands of individual citizens. Already there is little balance. States need to demand more power and “not” be controlled by centralized monopoly.
Yet these problems are compounded because too many deceitful liberals and conservatives (again from the two main parties) are not even discussing the most important issues about the Second Amendment’s real purpose—that is how corrupt a country can become to the point that its own citizens need protection, and how much of a police state has already grown here in America (and continues to realize itself in secrecy).
Instead we get people like Amy Goodman staff searching for news stories gathered across the entire country of 350 million people so as to cherry pick horrid stories about gun violence—never once mentioning the trade off of how not allowing law-abiding citizens the right to own rapid fire guns could create the kind of Police State that could concentrate “political” prisoners and kill thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people—like what readily happened in the 20th century. It is as if we are supposed to so naďve as to believe that Americans and our government is beyond serious evil or any redefinition of history—so exceptional as to transcend human nature? It is complete naiveté to what the founders were thinking.
Instead we get the red herrings that focus on arguments about the right to protect self from individual criminals (but not from potentially criminal governments). Which is worst—that is the question. This is the trade off that must to re-contemplated.
Arguments currently presented include to what amounts to a sophisticated form of emotional exploitation of pain and anguish stories from parents of children killed at Sandy Hook (yes very appropriate attitudes for those who lost loved ones and innocent friends and family, and all animals capable of empathy and sympathy, but not appropriate to news outlets that never address the most important issues and who cognitively refuse to contextualize these issues realistically—weighing proposed laws against other likely political outcomes).
This amounts to blatant political motives and censorship that amounts to ignore these more highly important issues. Doesn’t a tyrannical government’s capacity for mass killings into the tens of thousands have some bearing, so to appropriately measure against individual killing one, three or twenty or even seventy people? Why is it not considered murder when an American GI comes home after an “unnecessary” war (where millions of people suffered) and declares he no longer has respect for the naiveté of the American people, because they have no clue about how a military too much violates every ethic he was brought up to believe in (and then feels he has been so badly betrayed and has lost all faith in society and life that he feels he wants to commit suicide)? And what about all the other mass murder killings that go on in the world that are inspired by one form of political entity or another?
We Americans need to re-examine the cultural, economic and political contexts that existed before Stalin and Hitler came to power (both contexts had plenty of liberal socialists demanding for a perfect and humane society, and all the human rights one could hope for—and both ended up with right-wing brutality on a massive scale, still hard to contemplate, as they too had capacity for media/message sophistry to create bureaucratic and totalitarian control).
How Senatorial leaders evolve from being people as dumb and naďve as Diane Feinstein is not our most essential question. But one scenario of significance is to imagine that if real weapon power (and it is “weapon power” we are really discussing) were restricted (but of course not for the government that controls so much other power and prisons) and then some major crisis happened, and this causes people to go into uproars and riot (as a genuine crisis), who would you rather have possessing weapons—the more rationally fearful and politically aware (even if a bit paranoiac), that is a solid mass of a law-abiding middle class citizens, many who currently own guns, or a criminal elements who can always find ways to get guns (in a society that manages to sell them to drug cartels)?
The U.S. Government will always have whatever weapons and surveillance systems it wants. It takes them whether they are legal or not (or blithely changes the law). Surely we could have an economic meltdown that frustrates people go into some form of mob space. But who will eventually end up with Somalia gang amounts of weaponry? Who do you trust?
One suspects some from within our so-called intelligentsia of the U.S. (and it is fair to ask why does it seem plenty of Jewish Americans (even as many think they are Jewish even though they don’t believe in the Judaic religion—meaning they are not really Jewish irrespective of their ancestry or upbringing) are behind these gun restrictions?) as if they would rather not have the average American able to protect themselves or demand real justice—such as justice to have imprisoned people who lied us into war (that lately have been too much for Israel’s benefit). What over-riding national security issue do the American people have with Syria—please explain? And now some D.C. Beltway boys, and especially AIPAC want to use American resources to go to war with another Israeli enemy—namely Iran (as they have the Obama White House kowtowing to such objectives)?
Yes it seems true that anti-Semitism is on the rise, and this can and should be a legitimate concern for Jews everywhere, but why is it that we can’t have legitimate discussions on where America’s (as a whole) true interests lie and where they don’t? Why not focus on the issues that divide rather than labeling those hostile to AIPAC and NeoCon dominance of our foreign policy as people who are irrationally hate-mongering and anti-Semitic?
And why are nonprofits like the Southern Poverty Law Center, labeling practically every independent, patriotic group participant that is angry with our governments acted out priorities and obviously costly mistakes as hate-groups, and even espouse such affiliated individuals should be closely monitored (spied on)? SPLC is also run by supposed liberal American Jews (who share what seems as a cultural conceit that politically projects an image that it is primarily Jewish people such as Jewish men (differentiated from the greater sphere of the white male population) that really care at all about other minority peoples, and thus reinforces (so much is suggestion) a reverse racist notion that America’s gentile white males are far most prone to racism and sexism (save of course racism against Muslims that we white, often Christian, Americans are high-fived when we believe Zionist propaganda about how lowlife are Muslims and Arabs). Hell even the ADL doesn’t have a problem with racism and the stereotyping of Arab and Muslim peoples (as long as it is negative)?
Here again your typical liberal forces reinforce the real cultural war is all minorities and women are against white men (save white Jewish men). This divide and conquer strategy has worked quite well up to this point. After all don’t you just know that if you are of some minority (as defined by the rainbow coalition) then your outlook on life and social issues are naturally superior, morally, socially, and politically to the average gentile white male?
But this is the real resentment a lot of white men have against this kind of intellectual sophistry, because there are plenty of white men who are good people in many ways, and that is a Zionist agenda that instigates an enormous amount of propaganda to deliberately create prejudice in the minds of Americans against Israel’s enemies, and conditions us Americans to think that not only are Israel’s enemies our enemies but they are all terrorists to boot. Then we are motivated to go to war to kill, main and torture Arabs and Muslims (as the most blatant form of hate crimes you can imagine) and the people who scream about the increase of hate groups here in America, such as constantly reporting about violence against blacks or women, have nothing to say about conditioning hatred for Islamists or Arabs (as our country has done much of the dirty work—or actually acting out this form of dehumanization and hatred.
These kinds of arguments don’t get articulated much especially in the mainstream media or by leaders of political parties? Instead we wait for drunken explosions from the likes of Mel Gibson when his brain is drunk saying blatantly anti-Semitic things—and we scandalize it so as to prove “unfair” hatred or animosity. Instead of dealing with political issues we use ad hominem attacks completely ignoring the actual points of rational difference.
Should America give up their Constitutional right to own weapons because some liberals are paranoid (and yet, yes, the left should be the most paranoid of tyrannical governments because in totalitarian and fascist societies it is usually rightwing thugs who end up torturing and killing leftists, socialists, communists, anarchists, rebels of all flavor (and whatever other label, such as queer, that can work to congeal hatred). Why then are many leftists playing a game that pretends their awareness levels and motives are so much more thought out, or sincere or perfectly intentioned?
Several “alternative” websites have addressed the issue of psychiatric medication subscriptions that seem to have played a heavy part in recent mass shootings but few mainstream media outlets address this very critical issue? Rather they go for the throat of the NRA who is slotted as the Devil. And even plenty of liberal alternative outlets equally have censored addressing this critical issue of anti-depressants as related to suicide and violence (as especially related to recent mass killings)? How morally superior is that? It’s not as it lets the powerful pharmaceutical industry off the hook while it tries to de-fang the power of the average American.)
Especially we must insist why there is not more discussion of what the Second Amendment is really about? This political era strongly suggests Americans should be outstandingly alarmed to potential crises levels of our economy, and truly acknowledged levels of corporate corruption that even the mainstream media has marked, and other realties such as a ticking time bomb of too many people being born into this world, who will ultimately want their share of materialism, from what is actually becoming of limited resources (a world then of land mines where people expect much lifestyle (including the super-rich) as the 21st century could, and likely will, turn into more blood than a gladiatorial escapade.
When Hitler came to his power (about the time of the Reichstag parliament building burning) Nazis capitalized on this particular event to create opportunity for “sweeping” political changes of inexorable result that ultimately lead to totalitarian power as evil. A similar chain of events seems to be happening here in the United States, as some, with questionable motives, attempt to restrict Americans’ rights to own weapons for reasons that have nothing to do with caring about innocent children.
If Americans allow this government to restrict their right to own weapons, so as not to be able to protect themselves from a government’s potential tyranny (and the U.S has mega-capacity and thorough potential), we will be in grave peril—because too much hidden motive resides in hidden pockets of secretive powers here in the U.S.
And if you don’t think Americans are capable of the same evils that happened elsewhere it can only be because you are far too naďve to claim a thinking and active brain. Americans are capable of the worst of the worst (as humanity has always been). We have already shown this to be true.
President Barack Obama’s insistence a majority of the American citizenry wants more gun control (as if some indisputable fact) may be true as far as numbers go (yet any learned skeptic of America’s intellectual spirit could doubt this). Such a sales pitch, from a crisis that basically befell to him, requires answers because of political pressure.
Enough of America’s mass-media-mediated and mass-medicated society could abrogate to this usurpation of the Second Amendment from our Constitution (the real official document of power official swear to protect), and instead to play to a naďve, albeit politically correct Christian-like foolishness of taking away the one limited means of protecting self (family and community) from a mono-theocratic-authoritarian-like form of concentrated power (be it fascist or Marxist). Authoritarianism and totalitarianisms both are based on an old religious model of Monarchy as Executive Privilege (from what was once a Catholicized Rome).
Having the right to own a weapon is not simply some intellectual thought-game but a rightful realization of real citizen power (yes the capacity for violence—against all Stalinist types of extreme abnegation for regular people). The word violence evolved from words like virtue and virility—words that had some positive connotation—because on occasion there are no rational ways of dealing with aggressive peoples who engage criminal acts of violence (whether called terrorist or not). Violence has a legitimate place in human history—and that is for self-protection—even laws on war and the right to defend self recognize this.
In fact the Second Amendment should really be the First Amendment because it is that important of an essential right (in a Bill of Rights that lists several important civil rights that once flourished). The current First Amendment of free speech can mean little without the right of self-defense to protect the self’s assertion for the realization of integrity to all other rights.
Whereas the right to free speech has been more or less trashed—that is usurped by powerful institutions and sources of lucre, capable of creating huge forms of propaganda machine, that mitigate the power of the average citizen, and especially any unique voice to find much value in the very concept of free speech. Dominant media is owned and manipulated by special interests—and when they come to control the Internet total slavery will be possible.
While there are many legitimate voices that want to protect children from indiscriminate crime, we have a fledgling Department of Homeland Security that seems to have semblance to what began as the Bolshiviks’ bureaucracy of their Cheka—that is Stalin’s state security system. But then maybe we Americans should naively assume the DHS could only be about getting the bad guys and making sure the U.S. is not infiltrated by terrorists (so of course there is no reason to worry about any kind of special relationship interests from the likes of Lieberman/ Feinstein/ Harman and Chertoff (well positioned to work for Israel’s agenda such as spying on Israel’s enemies that are now defined as Amerca’s, that is as they sat on Congressional Intelligence Committees or worked with the DHS to protect our backs).
Every year we face more and more surveillance and Internet scrutiny. The question is why? Thus this gun debate is about issues far more involved than just making America safe. It is also about dubious and fearful motives to protect corrupt officials. It is about keeping the status quo. It very well could be about the eventual slaughter of America’s true patriots (if things get out of hand).
Wake up before it is too late. See the film Innocents Betrayed: The True Story of Gun Control Worldwide by Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (FPFO) on YouTube (an important video to counter the naiveté of some left-leaning Christians and Jews here in the United States).