• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Last Liberal

Desertphile

Banned
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
203
There are two kinds of tyranny in the world: power over other people's minds, and power over other people's bodies. The first type always precedes the second type: using fear and hatred, the tyrant coerces the citizenry into believing the horrors they inflict upon their enemies are justified, godly, morally mandated. Thus history has shown us that when Charles Louis Napoleon Bonaparte and his armies swept across Europe, he did so in a campaign of "liberation:" his failed invasion of Ireland, for example, was marketed to his subjects as an invasion of "liberty," to wrest the oppressed Irish from the oppressor British Empire. Thus history has told us that when Adolf "Der Führer" Hitler invaded Poland and Austria, he did so to "liberate" those countries from the dreaded hands of the people who lived there. Thus history has given us George W Bush, who "liberated" Iraq (and its oil fields) away from the Iraqi citizens.

This tyranny of the mind, inflicted by a tyrant upon his own people, works much better when the enemy is imaginary, and when the people being coerced and betrayed are not actually in danger from any external power or threat. For example, Hitler invented fraudulent reasons for invading Czechoslovakia, going so far as to plan the murder of the German ambassador to Czechoslovakia and blaming it on the "Czechoslovakia mob"; Hitler also ordered the burning down of the Reich's government building to make the German people believe they were being attacked. If Saudi Arabians had not attacked targets within the United States on September Eleventh 2001, few Americans would even know George Bush was in the Oval Office: Bush owes his entire presidential career "success" to that villainous crime.

In the name of "homeland security," tyrants throughout human history have inflicted infamy and abuse upon their subjects (and then went abroad to inflict terror and death upon others): civil liberty was and is assassinated; human rights were and are ignored with the feign excuse of pending danger if those rights and liberties are recognized.

I consider it self-evident that "security" at the price of liberty is not worth having. It is self-evident, and obvious to any rational being, that taking refuge in a dungeon all one's life may indeed make one "secure," but such a life is not worth living. Ten thousand times, I do gladly face the tiny probability of being killed or injured by America's "enemies," than face just once the certainty of having my civil and human rights violated to prevent such unlikely danger. The currency of liberty never devalues; the rights and freedoms of the citizenry is, and must always be, sacrosanct, even at the expense of (usually completely unjustified) anxiety and insecurity among the citizenry.

The American citizenry appears to accept the current state of government abuse complacently, trusting that the future will eventually restore their liberties; they appear to believe that if they just clamp their teeth together and endure the staggering expense of Bush's despotism in money, lives, and abuse of civil and human rights; it they just vote the butcher out of office, all will be made whole again. This ignores the fact that the Treasury has been emptied and the National Debt (which every citizen must pay off) has been immensely increased; that hundreds of American citizens have been killed in Iraq unnecessarily and without valid justification; that tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens have been butchered like sheep for no reason other than greed and vanity; that Bush's Gestapo ("Office of homeland security") will continue to inflict abuse upon the citizenry long after Bush is gone from the world.

If American politics included liberal politicians, this ugly, insane, costly mentality would be, if not abrogated, at least mitigated. The citizenry would at least stand a fighting chance at throwing off the manacles Bush and his ilk have clasped to their minds and their liberties. When liberals ceased to be a political force in the United States (within the 1970s), opposition to political mental, emotional, and physical tyranny in America all but ceased.

I wish to see liberal people return to American politics. This will not happen until the American citizenry first throws off its mental shackles built of lies, hatred, and fear. To do that, they must first be asked to think instead of emote; to see the fact that they are not in any danger from any external threat; to understand that what they have been grudgingly willing to give up in the name of "security" was vastly more precious. Only liberal politicians and community leaders can help the American citizenry pause long enough to see these things.

In the current political world in the United States, the word "liberal" is used offensively, derogatory, as a traducement. This, regardless of the fact that the word means the highest, loftiest of human idealism and nobility. Sixty years ago American politicians learned that an imaginary internal threat is just as good as an imaginary external threat, when their object is gaining power over the citizenry and the government. I have created this web site because I wish to show the American citizenry what a real liberal is: to show the people that what their Tory masters claim to be "liberals" are utterly imaginary, false, and non-existent; to show that actual liberals are not a danger, not a threat. The professional haters in American politics have slandered, libeled, and defamed the word, applying it to imaginary political adversaries and enemies. I intend to show within this web site the glory, the grandeur of liberal thought and behavior, historically and contemporarily.

The future health, happiness, and well-being of the United States rests within the hands of liberal citizens. We have seen, via Bush and his criminal accomplices, what happens when sanity, reason, and compassion is removed from government and politics.
 
Desertphile,

You make some good points along with some ridiculous assertions.

I consider it self-evident that "security" at the price of liberty is not worth having. It is self-evident, and obvious to any rational being, that taking refuge in a dungeon all one's life may indeed make one "secure," but such a life is not worth living. Ten thousand times, I do gladly face the tiny probability of being killed or injured by America's "enemies," than face just once the certainty of having my civil and human rights violated to prevent such unlikely danger. The currency of liberty never devalues; the rights and freedoms of the citizenry is, and must always be, sacrosanct, even at the expense of (usually completely unjustified) anxiety and insecurity among the citizenry.
This is an extremely well thought out and written paragraph. It is one of the best arguments against the abrogation of our rights that I have read.

Other good statements include:
This tyranny of the mind, inflicted by a tyrant upon his own people, works much better when the enemy is imaginary, and when the people being coerced and betrayed are not actually in danger from any external power or threat.
...
In the current political world in the United States, the word "liberal" is used offensively, derogatory, as a traducement. This, regardless of the fact that the word means the highest, loftiest of human idealism and nobility.
These are interesting and accurate statements.

Just for clarity, what exactly do you mean by "liberal?" Are you talking about leftists (e.g. socialist or social democrat) or what Americans call Libertarians (both social and economic freedom)?

Most of your absurd points are what Sharansky calls "lack of moral clarity." You accurately see Bush's (and others) weaknesses and then exagerate them to absurdity. I hate Bush. I think he probably is the worst president since Nixon. However, all these statements are absurd:
Thus history has given us George W Bush, who "liberated" Iraq (and its oil fields) away from the Iraqi citizens.
They were liberated from Saddam who was a tyrant. They held a reasonably free election.
Bush's Gestapo
The fact that you can say that shows the absurdity of your statement.

Comparing Bush to Hitler is absurd and it makes it too easy for other people to discredit you. When you imply that Iraqis were free under Saddam, you are simply wrong. Saddam was an evil tyrant. Bush is an authoritarian democrat.

If you want to change people minds, I suggest you tone your rhetoric. Having absurdity mixed in with intelligent statements make it very difficult to take you seriously. It also makes it too easy to dismiss you as a crank. Even calling Bush a criminal (which I believe is accurate) is probably stepping too far. Stick to less inflamatory words.

Another thing you should not do is to post three very long thread in a few minutes. One at time and shorter posts would facilitate debate. I chose this one because it was the shortest. Maybe later, I will look at the others. Or you could condense them for easier perusal.

CBL

CBL
 
I put this in the dang blasted wrong forum, but I do not see any way to delete it. Argh!

I do not consider butchering wee tots in the streets "liberating" them.
 
Send a message to a moderator asking him/her to move the message(s) that belong elsewhere.
 
I sent an e-mail to Darat.

Welcome to the forums, Desertphile. I'm sure you will be the source of many interesting conversations in the future, I hope you stay for a long time.
 

Back
Top Bottom