Saturday, March 2, 2013

Imperial Police State Marches On


The Sacred Second Absolutists continue to be in complete denial about the extinction of the Republic as it used to be. Those who claim to be ready and able to defend to the death the rights of Americans as enshrined in the Constitution are completely oblivious to the fact that those "rights" are mere figments these days, and soon enough they will be little more than historical relics, whether or not the gunners are allowed to keep their arsenals.

By now, it should be perfectly clear to Americans -- as it is around the world -- that private arsenals do not and cannot prevent the "imposition of tyranny." In fact, they enable that imposition.

Perhaps the most glaring example in recent times is Iraq under the Ba'athists and that Old Devil Saddam. It wasn't all that long ago, you know. Everyone was ordered to be armed to the teeth under Saddam, and all those armaments in civilian hands did nothing -- nothing -- to prevent the imposition of Saddamite tyranny, in fact, civilian arms helped maintain it. Duh. It was only through massive intervention from outside that the Ba'athists were at first contained and then driven out of power.

Far from being the fantasized "protectors of Liberty" they imagine themselves to be, heavily armed civilian populations typically function as tools of tyranny. After all, the origin of the Sacred Second is found in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the purpose of which was the arming of Protestants and the disarming of Catholics so as to ensure the perpetuation of Protestant authority and rule over the Realm. That's what the English Civil Wars were about, and that's what the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688 was about. It was nothing less than a fight over which religious faction would have authority -- tyrannical authority -- over the whole.

There was no thought of "liberty" for the common people at all, and there was certainly no thought of universal "liberty." The idea was absurd.

The American experience was not that much different. From the beginning of British settlement right up to today, the notion of universal "liberty" somehow preserved, protected and defended by a heavily armed civilian population is patently absurd. Civilian arsenals enable no "liberty" for the masses whatsoever; instead, they enable endless individual gun deaths and periodic mass murder that keep the People in a state of fear and near panic, which enables... tyrannical rule. Surprise, surprise.

That's the point.

And one of the principles of Sacred Second Absolutists is no different than that of the English version of 1689: while some civilians are allowed essentially unlimited access to weaponry, other segments will be disarmed by law and custom.

This enables those with armaments to more effectively rule over those who are disarmed. For example, in the early days of the Republic, armed white militias were utilized against disarmed slaves and Indians -- and from time to time, domestic rebels. Later, they would be utilized against supposedly free blacks and workers who dared to question the authority of and exploitation by their bosses and the corporations they served.  The definition of the "liberty" being protected was the freedom to exploit an underclass without hindrance.

It's not all that different today, though the gun rights issue is once again leading straight to a civil war.

Absolutists, for example, insist on their right to defend themselves against marauding Negroes and other swarthy-brown-black Criminals. The occasional innocent slaughtered in the struggle is just "the price you have to pay" they say, for the "liberty" to assert your dominance over the marauders. Or anyone who looks like them. Or might be one. Or has an attitude. Or who makes you scared. Or...

In the meantime, an Imperial Police State is imposed from Above while the gunners and absolutists are oblivious -- when they are not actively encouraging it. After all, so long as the Police State ostensibly only applies to Designated Out Groups and Swarthy Others, why should the gunners and absolutists care?

In my view, the only way to solve this untenable situation on behalf of the People is through Civil Disarmament -- in other words, essentially eliminating civilian arsenals, and strictly limiting civilian access to guns and ammunition. By "civilian arsenals" I mean those of the police too.

As many Americans know all too well, the police have become part of the problem of gun violence in this country. Reducing their access to and utilization of armaments will go a long way toward reducing the overall level of gun violence in these United States.

Gunner Absolutists have long been in the business of supplying weapons to factions within impoverished American communities, on the premise that armed competitors (gangs as it were) will wipe each other out in the by and bye. While they are engaged in their continuous armed struggle, non-combatants will live in perpetual fear -- which will make them much easier to control than they otherwise might be.

What works so well in impoverished communities has its application to better off communities through the periodic means of apparently random mass shootings at sites otherwise considered "safe": schools, malls, movies, churches and so on. Each time there is another of these mass shootings, people panic and tremble in fear. It's a good thing in the eyes of those who wish control over the masses.

On the other hand, calls for even modest gun control get nowhere, in part because the weapons industry is so profitable and so generous to officials, and in part because the gruesome level of gun violence and mass murder in this country is useful to those in power. So long as they are not the targets -- and they only rarely are -- what's to worry?

If gunners and absolutists really had any interest in thwarting tyranny they would have long ago applied their arguments (ahem) against the abrogation of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, but this they -- tellingly -- do not do, not on a bet and not on a prayer. In fact, they feign utter obliviousness to any imposition by the Imperial Police State so long as there is no interference with the domestic (let alone international) weapons trade.

It's Just Business, see?

Certain Libertarian factions like to "stand up to tyranny" by video recording their resistance to and encounters with TSA and Border Control. Occasionally, they'll take on the day to day harassment and abuse of the public by local police forces. Some media figures have made entire careers out of it. The problem is that the tyrannies they are so manfully standing up to are usually the smallest ones, the relatively minor irritations and harassments that come with the territory. We face a situation in this country which is the result of collapsed and imploded institutions -- including much of government -- being replaced by ever-more authoritarian, draconian, and even totalitarian policies and procedures, often -- as in the case of the DHS -- imposed by entirely new departments and agencies acting with apparently impunity.

Don't blame it on '9/11'; essentially all of what is being imposed was pre-programmed well prior to those attacks.

It is always in the nature of government to seek means to expand its authority, something that is in-built into the institution itself.

None of the tyrannical incidents cited in this post -- and there are many hundreds more available -- require or utilize civilian weapons arsenals to counter or thwart the imposition of tyranny, nor would the employment of these arsenals be of any use in thwarting these tyrannies. In other words, the purported reason for maintaining civilian arsenals -- the thwarting of tyranny -- is bogus. In fact, in the incidents cited, deft argument on the scene or in court following the incident generally suffices to... erm... thwart the immediate imposition of tyranny.

Much the same could be said about out of control, violent, and too frequently deadly policing.

Ergo, time to engage in civil disarmament.

No comments:

Post a Comment