I have been noticing increasing incidents of government overreach, government abuse of power and even witch-hunts through which the government goes after people for political reasons. In this podcast I touch on a few recent examples. Please comment or email me with more as you notice them. I’d like to make this a regular part of the show.
political_persecution
3 thoughts on “Does the Government Target People Because of Their Political Views and Actions? I Sure Hope Not!”
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Unfortunately, America has started down the road of creating a closed society. While the time it takes to accomplish this goal will take longer the methodology employed closely resembles the blue print utilized by the Nationalist Socialist party in Germany. There are many examples of your topic, however, I hope to illustrate that a majority of individuals miss subtle language cues that have littered our literature and our soundscape -or the landscape of sound ie radio, cassettes, cds, ect. In example, the creation of loaded terms (and phrases) including Islamism, political Islam, and Islamo-fascism. The common implied meaning is the notion that there is a portion, segment, or ideology of Islam that cannot be separated from various political leanings or concepts. These titles, supposedly created to distinguish differences between Islam and “radical Islam”-yet another loaded term- it does more to create a negative association of concepts. For example, we do not call Hitler a Christo-fascist, we do not talk about political Christianity, nor create a blanket term for Christian related terrorism called Christianism. What has been done has created the “other” something foreign, perceived to be hostile, and for the purposes of this rant, painted as distinctively political while permitting the adherents or an entire religion to be targeted as well. After all, can we prove someone’s religion or political leaning? With this in consideration, I wish to examine articles such as : http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/08/nypd_has_been_spying_on_muslims_even_when_no_crimes_involved.html
Please keep in mind that “The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities”. – Ayn Rand
I had not given much thought to your specific examples, though I am well aware of the impact controlling the language has on limiting thoughts. As an anarcho-capitalist, the bastardization of the words anarchy (it means no coercive state, not no law or order) and capitalism (it means forestalling consumption to increase production, not unbridled greed), regularly demonstrate to me the impact that stealing words has on free thought, and to your point, introducing loaded words undoubtedly has the same effect. If you want to explain this to my listeners, please call the show anytime, and thank you for the comment.
I first want to say thank you for taking the time out to consistently respond to my questions and thoughts. Also, my previous statement was intended to demonstrate that we can no longer afford to look at just one form of discrimination –in this case political- due to the fact that the establishment has linked the various segments within social environments. In my opinion this is done as a covert means of attacking all who are considered undesirable. A sort of new age spin on: “First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me” – Martin Niemöller. They have largely been able to accomplish by the use of loaded language as you have mentioned. That being said, I agree with you on may points, however, I may need a further explanation of your concept of Anarcho-capitalist. Based upon what you have listed above, it seems relevant to note that every state has the ability to coerce and has to in order to maintain order. The implementation of laws and various other rules are enforced by use of punishments. Punishments could be perceived as threats or force and so on. I am sure you can see where I am going with this. I suppose my question would be, how do you approach this thought process? In addition, you use the phrase forestalling consumption as a means of increasing production. Could you elaborate on this concept? At first glance I think of the creation of commodities-which reminds me of Mike Davis’s Late Victorian Holocausts- because would not the prevention of consumption lead to an increase in surplus and thus no need for production? Alternatively, if one were to anticipate consumption as a means to increase production, would it not eventually lead to an eventual decline or stagnation in production?