[patriots] Re: FW: Cometh the Censor - Fred Reed On Everything
- From: "Rays1" <rayspost@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <judith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:25:15 -0000
Maybe this link to a proposed
Short Wave internet might be
the start of a solution?
I think the greater problem is
the control that they demand;
even if Short Wave internet
use was
developed, would'nt they just
license it out of existence -
or any other private system?
Are there any former Ham radio
enthusiasts that could give us
an idea of whether this is
possible, and importantly,
how bulky and how much would
the transmission equipment
cost?
Ray
http://www.zetatalk3.com/nonpr
oft/radio/l1intro.htm
From:
patriots-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:patriots-bounce@freeli
sts.org] On Behalf Of Judith
Longman
Sent: 18 February 2015 15:22
To: patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [patriots] Re: FW:
Cometh the Censor - Fred Reed
On Everything
Necessity is the mother of
invention and I know that we
shall find an alternative to
the present internet.
I believe in the creativity of
our people and that an
electronic curtain will not
come down rather it will be a
springboard
to create something better and
totally private.
Judith
On 18/02/15 14:13, Chris Pead
wrote:
From: Mathieu Steffelaar
Subject: Cometh the Censor -
Fred Reed On Everything
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015
03:33:07 -0600
Cometh the Censor
Birth of What Will Prove a
Short Siege
February 15, 2015
I see with no surprise that
Washington is stepping up its
campaign to censor the
internet. It had to come, and
will succeed. It will put
paid forever to America's
flirtation with freedom.
The country was never really a
democracy, meaning a polity in
which final power rested with
the people. The voters have
always been too remote from
the levers of power to have
much influence. Yet for a
brief window of time there
actually was freedom of a
sort. With the censorship of
the net-it will be called
"regulation"-the last hope of
retaining former liberty will
expire.
Over the years freedom has
declined in inverse proportion
to the reach of the central
government. (Robert E. Lee: "I
consider the constitutional
power of the General
Government as the chief source
of stability to our political
system, whereas the
consolidation of the states
into one vast republic, sure
to be aggressive abroad and
despotic at home, will be the
certain precursor of that ruin
which has overwhelmed all
those that have preceded it."
Yep.)
Through most of the country's
history, Washington lacked the
ability to meddle, control,
micromanage, and punish. In
1850, it had precious little
knowledge of events in lands
such as Wyoming, Tennessee, or
West Virginia, no capacity to
do much about them, and not a
great deal of interest. People
on remote farms and in small
towns governed themselves as
they chose, not always well
but without rule by distant
bureaucracies and moneyed
interests.
For a sunny few years, local
freedom rested substantially
on principle, a notion
inconceivable now. The Thomas
Jeffersons, George
Washingtons, and Robert E.
Lees genuinely believed in
freedom, and worried about the
coming of tyranny. Justices of
the Supreme Court often upheld
the tenets of the Bill of
Rights. As human affairs
go-poorly, as a rule-it was
impressive.
As time went by, however, it
became clear that incapacity,
not principle, was the only
reliable brake on the rise of
dictatorship. In 1950, the
government could put a mail
cover on anyone, quite
possibly illegally if the FBI
were involved, but steaming
envelopes open required time,
effort, and manpower. Mass
surveillance was impossible,
and so didn't happen. Without
surveillance, there can be no
control.
Fora long time it was due to
principle that freedom of the
press remained, no matter how
much the government hated it.
During the war in Vietnam,
"underground" papers, which of
course published openly, were
virulently critical of the
government. The mainstream
media of the time published
shocking photographs of the
war, much to the fury of the
Pentagon. The courts allowed
it.
Today, that has changed.
Washington has learned to
avoid dissent from its wars by
using a volunteer army of men
about whom no one of influence
cares. The use of "drones"
further reduces public
interest, and today the major
media, owned by corporations
aligned with arms
manufacturers and manned by
intimidated reporters, hide
the results on the
battlefield. For practical
purposes, today's press is an
arm of government.
The old checks and balances,
however modest in their
effects, have withered. The
Supreme Court is now a branch
office of Madame Tussaud's,
Congress a two-headed corpse,
the Constitution a scrap of
moldering parchment remembered
only by hopeless romantics,
and Washington a sandbox of
unaccountable hacks inbred to
the point of hemophilia. Obama
has discovered that he can do
almost anything, calling it an
executive order, and no one
will dare challenge him.
In its rare waking moments,
the Supreme Court has shown
little inclination to protect
the Bill of Rights, which
Washington regards as quaint
at best and, usually, an
annoyance to be overcome by
executive order and judicial
somnolence. The obvious
reality that having the
government read every email,
record every telephone
conversation, monitor every
financial transaction and so
on is a gross violation of the
Fourth Amendment bothers
neither the Supremes nor,
heaven knows, the President.
It is clearly
unconstitutional, but we do
not live in constitutional
times. Governments aggregate
power. They do not relinquish
it, short of revolution.
Today the internet is the only
free press we have, all that
stands against total control
of information. Consider how
relentlessly the media impose
political correctness, how the
slightest offense to the
protected groups-we all know
who they are-or to sacred
policies leads to firing of
reporters and groveling by
politicians. The wars are
buried and serious criticism
of Washington suppressed. That
leaves the net, only the net,
without which we would know
nothing.
Which is why it must be and
will be censored, sooner if
Washington can get away with
it and later if not. The
tactics are predictable.
First, "hate speech" will be
banned. The government will
tell us whom we can hate and
whom we cannot. "Hatred" will
be vaguely defined so that one
will never be sure when one is
engaging in it and, since it
will be prosecutable, one will
have to be very careful.
Disapproval of favored groups,
or of their behavior, will be
defined as hatred. National
security will be invoked,
silencing whistle-blowers or,
eventually, anything that
might make the public uneasy
with Washington's wars.
The next step probably will be
to block links to foreign
sites deemed to transgress.
China is good at this. The
most likely avenue will be
executive orders of
increasingly Draconian nature,
about which Congress and the
Dead-the Supreme Court, I
meant to say-will do nothing.
At that point, coming soon to
a theater near you, the United
States as it was intended to
be, and to an extent was, will
be over. Our increasingly
characterless young, raised to
ignorance and Appropriate
Thought by government schools,
will question nothing. They
will have no way of knowing
that there is anything to
question.
I suppose it can be debated
whether the current
enstupidation of the rising
generations is deliberate or
merely the consequence of a
return to peasantry
inescapable in a democracy.
The petulance and immaturity
running through so much of
society may be inevitable in a
spoiled people who have never
had to do anything and have
never been told "no."
Certainly things today
resemble the end games of
other once-dominant cultures.
Mental darkness facilitates
authoritarianism, and darkness
we have. Many college
graduates can barely read.
Their ignorance of history,
politics, and geography (and
practically everything else)
is profound, and they see no
reason why they should know
anything. They seem not to
suspect that there might be
things worth knowing.
I am hard pressed to think of
a society in such internal
decline that has turned itself
around, and I cannot imagine
how ours might do so. One sure
thing is that, once the
internet is gelded, there will
be no hope at all. And the
assault has begun.
Philip Francis Stanley and
Grotesque Ophthalmological
Malpractice
<http://fredoneverything.net/S
tanley-home1.shtml>
Other related posts:
