Welcome to the Soviet States of America

Dear Editor -

This is an eye opener article by Mark Gibbs. Thanks. However, it has pointed out the key pitfalls under the assumption that a) it is inadvertently constructed, and b) that the FBI, the state, the EU, and the US, are moronic and are making and upholding these legislation without comprehending in the least the technological and social pitfalls in their single-minded pursuit of all things 'terrorists' post 911 under whose catchall rubric, all sorts of crimes, and non-crimes, are now being re-classified as 'terrorist'.

IMHO, what this excellent article has outlined accurately is but one mechanism being employed to hunt down the new 'terrorists'. The overarching intent however has to do, judging purely empirically, without conjectures and hyperbolic, with the ushering in of a global police state of the New World Order. The laws on the books, and their piece meal enactment, enforcement, and incremental move toward full spectrum application in all the many different facets of life are designed primarily for both the incremental public conditioning of the existing Western populations to the acceptance of authority, as well as for the creation of the know-nothing-better newer generations that will be growing up within its ambiance and take such oppressive intrusions of big brother in one's life for granted and normal. It only appears mind bogglingly absurd to us today because we have known what it's like to enjoy the Western freedoms that most of us had come to take for granted in the bi-polar world of yesterday.

And furthermore, the FBI, the cops, the lower order operators and executers of the state, too are ordinary human beings (mind altering television and mental conditioning not withstanding). They too have kids and families, and jobs and bills to pay - and like the rest of us, are equal victims of, and complicit in, the 'banality of evil'. I doubt that an ordinary FBI agent breaking down the doors to handcuff the 'link-clickers' himself (or herself) has a clue of the 'pawnish' role that he or she is playing in this game of the New World Order. I am sure they think they are capturing all the bad 'link-clicker' terrorists!

Thus the systemic cause, the DNA, far transcends its many manifestations, only one of which 'boils on its face' is disclosed in this article.

The efficacious solution, commonsensically, would be to primarily address the systemic disease itself. And that addressing, has unfortunately, also been very shrewdly co-opted by the masterminds constructing the New World Order.

Thus most of us merely fill up the pages with ink describing the 'leaves', or anemically protesting in the streets, has lost all its potency – for dissent, which once was quite potent in its out-of-band-ishness, has now acquired zero efficacy by remaining outside the “systems of power and their incantations.”

It appears that if one wants things different, one must join the system to change it – for nothing short of a revolution otherwise can change it.

Such revolutions however were cleverly phased out by the systematic dumbing-down of the Western populations over the pat 60 years.

Thus the best bet?

Become part of the institutional systems of power but with the loftier motivation of check-mating the hectoring hegemons in their own spaces rather than becoming their henchmen and executers!

Easier said then done of course. But an example is there – Ron Paul. Why are there not many more Ron Pauls in the system? A thousand of them?

Why aren't there AEI and JINSA and Daily Standard and Hudson and Rand et. al. equivalent for fairness, equity, and the old wholesome persona of the American-way? As many hundreds of them?

Why aren't there well-funded lobby groups for 'truth and justice' in Washington to compensate for the power of war-mongers?

What has systematically taken years of imperial construction through institutional frameworks cannot be deconstructed by concentrating on its various leaves! And the biggest imperial construction is law-making. Indeed, it wasn't for nothing that George H. W. Bush stated the following on the eve of Gulf War 1:

“A New World Order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations”.

And you literally see those very laws being enacted – followed by the application of the 'rule of law' in the New World Order. Since all will agree that 'rule of law' is good, then the only rational solution-space becomes obvious: Impact the construction of these laws.

IMHO.

Thank you.

Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
http://humanbeingsfirst.org

I can spell police state. Can you?

We have given up huge portions (maybe all) of our privacy to the federal government. Not even sure why.

In the 80's the excuse was "narco-terrorists"
In the 90's the excuse was "pedophiles"
In the 00's the excuse is "global war on terrorism"

The constitution has well-tested provisions for personal privacy, but the current conservatives have eliminated many of these critical laws. I can't figure it out - conservatives has historically been wary of the unchecked power of central government. Now they have given us the "Unitary Presidency", which means an all-powerful monarch in my book.

I don't have an answer on this, but I suspect many, many people would join me in fearing unlimited power by the feds.

Oh, BTW, a subtext in your article was "Vosburgh WAS a history professor". Sounds like he was forced to resign prior to proving guilt. Cool! Gutless private companies (universities) doing what the the law should (or does) prohibit.

Sounds similar to the push for Telecom wire tap immunity. We will probably never know what data was gathered and on who, and what it was used for.

I could go on in depth.

Keep up the good work, dude!

As Henry Bowman, in _Unintended Consequences_ by John Ross asks [as part of a term paper he writes in the 'story line']... "The Great Question is... at what point does it *become* reasonable to resist?" He does not answer the question [in writing]. It is the main thing that makes John's book so good: you have to answer it for yourself. I know what the answer is for me... do you?

Corporate-wise, I would have to think that minimizing corporate risk is job number one. Establishing an acceptable use policy and educating employees on the law should minimize the risk. Enforcement is also a key factor. We just started to use Websense to aid in the enforcement effort.

At home is my biggest worry. My children range in age from 16 to 5. All know how to use a computer and browse the internet. I have found my 9 year old going to sex sites. I set up separate user accounts for each person in the house so I can at least look at each user's cache. I guess I better start practicing what I preach at work with the kids.

Your article that the FBI can break into someone's house or business and destroy their life, without knowing for sure if they actually went intentionally to a child porn site, or what if some kiddie-hackers with nothing better to do on a boring summer day decide to redirect a websites URL to this particular FBI trigger site thinking it's a kiddie porn site and wanting to shock some old librarian???

We all know the FBI never apologizes (learned that from the Atlanta Olympic bombing case) and poof one life interminably ruined.

MAKES YA THINK AND STAY UP NIGHTS DON'T IT?