War on dissent

With the war on terror rapidly being revealed as a misconceived concept, doomed to failure, perhaps it is time to be looking more closely at some of the underlying agenda.

What really concerns me is that the ‘war on terror’ is taking a massive toll on a way of life it was reputed to protect and defend.

Most sub-cultures have inbuilt mechanisms which prohibit internal dissent. The prohibition is largely a defence mechanism against pressures from wider society. Fewer dominant cultures are so restricted, although there are some notable exceptions.

The US, for example, for all the proud talk of freedoms, of speech, of the press, of enterprise and on and on; has a handy, all encompassing damper to freedom. It is called patriotism, an odd and even redundant notion too many other cultures. But patriotism acts like whipped cream, and cover any number of blemishes in the underlying dish.

Another version of whipped cream more common between nations is notions of decency. The moral police are ever ready and willing to restrict freedoms for the sake of narrow perceptions of decency and morality.

These things are all about power of course, or notions of power. But think about notions of power. Rape is about power and control far more than it is about sex, ditto for that hideous peadophilia and the many other manifestation of what are, on the surface, sex crimes.

Psychopaths, the serial killers and others devoid of normal conscience are said to be driven by a lust for power and control; not over themselves but over society represented by their victims.

It has been long recognized that anyone who can fight their way to the very top of the political tree has, perforce, a seriously divergent mentality. To gain those positions they must be able to, sometimes literally, do so across dead bodies.

The real problem for the rest of us, the ones who have no great craving for power for its own sake, is that there will always be those willing to fill the vacuum we leave.

To do so they will invariably call upon notions of decency and morality to defend their claims, even indefensible claims.

I could conjure names like Hitler and Stalin, most do. But to take that route ignores our very own leaders who consistently commit the most heinous acts on their citizenry, claiming those acts to be for the betterment of the citizens the harm.

Many of these acts are so frightening that wider society is dulled to silent acceptance rather than admit such things are possible.

It is one thing, for our well honed senses of decency and morality, to accept the ‘necessary’ barbarous treatment of foreigners in the name of self protection.

To turn a blind eye to attacks on our own citizens from our own governments must surely defeat that purpose.

I am not discussing invasion of privacy here either; privacy is a dubious concept at best. However that attack privacy has a far more serious element and that is an attack and prohibition on the freedom to dissent, an obvious and essential element of democracy.

Now, post 9/11 if not before, dissent is voiced with an ever present shadow of a looming government shadow, ready to pounce.

Most of our democratic governments now have draconian laws in place, ostensibly to net ‘terrorists’ but more often to stifle dissent.

To speak out against incursions on democratic rights and freedoms is now to become an enemy of the state.

If I am to be seen as ‘an enemy of the state’ then so be it. But as such I would see it as equally important to indentify my enemies.

Oddly I put terrorists up there, along with our democratic leaders. Their collective game is not in the interests of the majority on this planet. They are, to my mind, psychopaths all.

Again, oddly, I think it would be wrong to cast George W Bush as the king pin, even though he is titular head of the ‘free’ world. Bush, from observation, simply does not have the wit or drive to fill such a roll. He is merely a puppet, an acceptable face for an unacceptable program. He is a stooge for far more sinister forces.

The Christian Right has now been well and truly discredited for their cynical manipulation moral and decency issues. True they hold some sway still, but history will march over their hypocrisy, as it always has.

Even if they were true to their stated beliefs, morality cannot be legislated, and reality always ends to come back with a vengeance. Pandering to their nonsense is to simply use them to gain other agendas.

To my mind, without getting into conspiracy theories, big money pulls the strings, as it always has. We have been talking about economics and its central importance to the way our societies function.

Historically, it is only the loss of an economic toehold in society, the loss of a dream of a better tomorrow which wakes electorates to threats we are facing. Even then few see beyond that imperative, few see the damage that is being done to our ever fragile democratic rights.

We can, and probably will keep sharing reports on unfolding events. Without putting those into some context the exercise is little more than an ineffective spectator sport.

As it is our individual reach, as bloggers, might be limited, but I do believe ideas spread and influence through this medium. We might not, individually or collectively, have the answers, but it is vital that we keep asking the questions and seed the doubts.