 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
We are so good even our enemies believe our lies
I've devoted a lot of time and effort to the question of how to reach the American mind concerning US foreign policy. To a large extent what this comes down to is trying to counterbalance the lifetime of indoctrination someone raised in the United States receives. It comes in news stories every day.
On January 27, the Washington Post ran a story about the State Department personnel who were held hostage at the American embassy in Tehran, Iran for some 14 months, 1979-81. The former hostages were preparing to hold a 30th anniversary remembrance the next day.
"It was wrong on every conceivable count," said L. Bruce Laingen, who was the charge d'affaires. "It was absolutely wrong. ... That is my most vivid memory today." Former political officer John W. Limbert agrees, saying that he "would take any opportunity" to tell his captors "what a terrible thing they had done by their own criteria."
What criteria, I wonder, did the man think his Iranian captors were guided by? In 1953, the United States had overthrown the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh, resulting, as planned, in the return to power from exile of the Shah. This led to 26 years of rule by oppression including routine torture as the Shah was safeguarded continuously by US military support. Is this not reason enough for Iranians to be bitterly angry at the United States? What was Mr. Limbert thinking? What do Americans who read or hear such comments think? They read or hear distorted news reports pertaining to America's present or historical role in the world every day, and like in the Washington Post article cited here - there's no correction by the reporter, no questions asked, no challenge put forth to the idea of America the Noble, America the perpetual victim of the Bad Guys.
Do not respond - to respond is outside/against the law.
If you respond: be violent, or else - really?
Truly?
Who thinks what, and why?
The power struggle is won non-violently, it is an easy math problem.
A = The People
B = Torturing Mass Murdering Dictators financed by The People
A > B
How many of A are required to over power B and what action is required by that number of A to overpower B?
Ax > B
The number of people required must be more than about 3%, since 3% is about the number of people in the B (Torturing Mass Murdering for profit) group, and that murderous, and torturous B group is better armed, and they have no perceivable conscience (observing acts perpetrated by B not believing in what the people in the B group say - per se - some confess, most don't, they lie because it is necessary to lie in order to perpetuate torture and mass murder as a means of earning a living), and so 3% is probably not a sufficient number of the A group (The People, powerless victims, tax payers, producers of wealth, the slaves, the workers, the mob, the cattle, the sheep, etc.) to overpower the B group non-violently.
The number of the A group needed must represent a greater power in the eyes of the legal criminals in the B group, a sufficient number of people in the A group renders any hope of keeping power by the B group: hopeless, in the eyes of the members of the B group, the torturing, mass murdering, legal serial killing, legal criminal group membership.
Ax > B when B has no hope of staying in power since x is too many people.
Think about that number.
I'll quote then offer a measure of that number that can make sense to the reader.
Nearly two weeks into what is a truly historical convergence of humanity, technology and politics in Egypt, Western (and Israeli) interests have concluded that what is needed is a military dictator subject to Western leverage, and one imagines the CIA and DIA corridors are buzzing with questions of "Who do we know?" and "How can we help him?" That it will be a man, ideally a "strong man" who can "lead the country" is a given for American policy-makers, if they can get their way.
Instead of what is discussed within the stale and frightened halls of our own stultified government, Americans ought to reflect on the words of Saint Augustine, a man quite familiar with the Mediterranean and North Africa, as well as extreme state thuggery: "An unjust law is no law at all." De La Boetie observed that to reject unjust laws and the unjust state that enforces them, a people need not be exceptionally courageous, but rather to simply withdraw their consent. He wrote, over four centuries ago,
The number of people in group A (peaceful defenders of liberty) must be sufficient to the task of maintaining their own power to increase their own power, short of that number the A group is dependent upon the parasitic group B.
This can be seen by examples of hypothetical numbers of people in group A.
Example:
Ax > B when x is the entire number of people in group A; which is roughly 97% of the population.
In that example the entire group known as The People go to bed tonight, and early in the morning they entire group, from East Coast to West Coast, in a wave of sudden and irreversible wisdom, each person in each bed, wake up knowing that everyone in group A no longer supports, in any way, the torturing mass murdering serial killing group.
The only change, non-violent, is that the credit card used by Group B is cut in half, they have no more money from The People, to spend on torturing and mass murdering, or food, shelter, or anything else, and they then, the entire group B, has to find an actual paying job, where they actually have to do what the customer wants, and failing that they must either, the entire B group must either depend upon charity, or resort to unfunded crime - no more free lunch for them.
If there is violence, the violence will be members of group B fighting each other for control over what they have managed to horde in their own stores of power, wherever that may be, and violence perpetrated by the remaining B group criminals who continue their crime spree, victimizing more innocent victims, but no longer financed, in any way other than whatever those remaining criminals can take from their current victims, at that time, since the flow of power from The People via the fraudulent money monopoly pipe line will have been cut off by the rest of The People during that wave of sudden and irreversible wisdom passing each person from East to West as the Sun illuminates the globe on that new morning.
Now the reader has a scale to work with in each readers own estimate of the actual power struggle at play now, and always.
Ax < B when x is 3% or roughly the entire population of the B group
Ax > B when x is 97% or roughly the entire population of the A group
What is the tipping point number of x - as a percentage of the entire population of both A and B within a given area, such as Earth, or Egypt, or U.S.A. Inc. LLC, or America?
The quote:
...there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude.
Therefore a question begs for an answer as such:
What money will The People use to maintain their power to increase their power once they stop using the legal crime money, once they cut the credit card that finances legal torture, legal mass murder, at home and abroad?