Freedom, Tyranny and threats to rights...

J

Jack Malloy

New member
From time to time people in the firearms community are assailed by well meaning left wing types who consider us paranoid because we feel that too much big government is a threat to us; because we feel that the move towards globalist politics is a threat to our soveriegnty as a nation and that those of us who oppose these things are somehow irrational, paranoid or crazy.

Lets look at the facts of the matter.
Big Government IS a threat to your safety. Because the whole point and purpose of Big Government (PC Liberal style) is nothing but Marxism, where all power resides in the hands of the state, not the people. This makes a slave of you, reliant upon them for survival or protection.
It really is that simple. When people are promising you that all you need is a government big enough to care for you from the cradle to the grave if you would just give up your hard earned money in the form of taxes and your rights, what they are asking you to do is become a slave.

And the federal government has proven that it can be your biggest enemy. Do the words Waco and Ruby Ridge ring a bell? Remember, despite 24 hour a day seven day a week spying on him type coverage the FBI could not protect Martin Luther King, remember?
Look at what the globalist movement has done to our country and the world economy. Depsite claims to the contrary by Clinton and Gore, our country was devastated by these globalist "free trade' agreements like NAFTA and GATT.
And sadly the poor people in Mexico, Pakistan and India who got our old jobs are not being treated any better than before. If you saw the recent report on one of the cable news shows, you know that poor folks in garment manufacturing companies in India still work 14 hours a day for ten cents an hour. The only people coming out on top due to these global trade scams are folks like wealthy billionaire George Soros who funds the Moveon.org crap propaganda machine.
The less governments there are the easier it makes it for the "globalists" to control things for their own benefit. Welcome to the world of the Slave Labor Wage Plantation.
Remember, whether we want to admit it or not throughout most of the world the politicians rely on the wealthy for campaign contributions and do their bidding. So when you have this globalization movement what you are in effect doing is making it easier for the George Soros'es of the world to run everything through their puppet men in politics.
Around 50 years ago the Bilderberg group began this trend when some members realised that things like international disputes, wars, tarriffs and such cut into their profits. So they decided that to maximize their profits they would move towards a global economy and a global political effort (for the best summary of this, please refer to Jon Ronson's hilliarious book "Them".).
And the proof of the nature of the threat is, as they say, in the pudding.
Remember, for years the Clinton-Reno Justice Dept. refused to prosecute gun crimes committed by felons, as they continued to target civillian gun ownership. Why is that? Could it be they didn't care about repeat felony offenders with guns, as they wanted chaos on the streets?
Remmber, for many years the Clinton Justice Dept. avowed that gun owners, constitutionalists and White Christian Militiamen were this huge threat to our nation's security.
Evidently they missed all those times Osama attacked us (two different truck bombs to the WTC, the attack on the USS Cole and the Kobar towers incident) and apparently they overlooked the wave of drug related crimes that turned our streets into a war zone as well, as they were obsessed with redneck rod and gun club types running around in the woods on "manuevers."

The whole thing reeks of what CEOs have done for years. Run a company into the ground and let your secret boss take it over. Only now, it seems like its going to happen to world governments on an international scale. Run whole countries economies into the ground so the George Soros types can come in through their puppet men and run the world.
I am sorry folks, but I believe in Democracy. If George Soros wants to rule America let him run for office and win some votes.
And of course, the mainstream media ignores the whole topic. Were it not for the American Rifleman articles how many of us would know who Soros is? How many would be aware of the UN global gun ban project?
History shows us that those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
The fact is that the men who want to rule the world are sociopathic egotists. They don't care that other tyrants have tried it and failed before and caused misery for millions. They don't realize they are just the latest versions of Hitler, Stalin or Ceaser. They just figure that they can do a better job.
Our freedoms are the only things that can protect us from these Tyrant wannabes. It scares me to see politicians acting like their lap dogs and trying to disarm us and discredit us at the biddings of their ilk.
 
There's a real simple answer to all this you know? We need to be more self-sufficient and not as much a consumer as we are right now. Think about it--if we, as a society, stop consuming goods (buying sh!t left and right), what happens to big business? It fails or scales back. What happens to big government trying to sustain itself off those big businesses? It fails or scales back. I am not saying something as grand as this is going to be easy or even achievable but it would probably work.

Greg
 
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." -P.J. O'Rourke
 
Organizations and rules all evil?

You raise many points, some of which I can agree with, some not. I don't wish to write quite so long a response, so I'll just hit a few general themes:

- Dishonesty exists in both business and government - that's bad

- Dishonesty exists equally well at the level of the individual - just as bad

- Every organization, every company, is just made up of individuals

- I don't think "liberal" business tycoons like Soros are any more or less
evil than "conservative" business tycoons.

- Unless you want all business structures to be dissolved, all jobs lost,
and all production to cease, you're going to need companies

- Unless you want anarchy, you are going to need government

- I don't believe there is any global conspiracy being perpitrated by secret
operatives

- I am a little puzzled, as you seem to feel that there is excessive control,
and yet also that things are out of control -you seem to be arguing for
more control - along your particular lines of thought

- I think that using words like "tyranny" is a bit melodramatic - western
Europe, for example, has heavier regulation than the US. But if you've
spent much time there, or know a lot of people there - the sky isn't
falling. You can argue whether it's advantageous, fine, but to shout
about imminent catastrophe is just completely at odds with the evidence.

- I think that the moment that you have more than one person, you have
a "society" to consider. At that point, there is a healthy tension
in policymaking between considering the benefits for society and for the
individual. On the small scale, it's just like if you have a family - you
need to consider what's best for each person, and also what's best for
the family as a whole. Extremes at either end of the scale, are a
great mistake.
 
Simplistic

"Think about it--if we, as a society, stop consuming goods (buying sh!t left and right), what happens to big business? It fails or scales back. What happens to big government trying to sustain itself off those big businesses?"

Don't think so.

Think about THIS:

1. Was the Soviet economy EVER "consumer driven?"

2. Was the Chinese economy under Mao "consumer driven?"

Did either government EVER "scale back?"

No, I didn't think so.

While we're on the subject,

"Because the whole point and purpose of Big Government (PC Liberal style) is nothing but Marxism, where all power resides in the hands of the state, not the people."

Jack Molloy: Try actually learning some political science before lecturing to us about it.

Under fascism "all power resides in the hands of the state;" yet it is decidedly NOT Marxism. Note that any number of oligarchs, "strong men" and other thugs have held absolute power without "Marxism," whether it's goons like Mugabe and Amin, the czars, or any other emperor you can name. Feudalism held sway for centuries, supporting absolute monarchs long before Marx was even born.

If you actually knew anything about Marxism, you'd realize that there is NO Marxist state, has never been and cannot be. Marx held that the state would "wither away" as the workers controlled more and more of their destiny, until some magic, organic collective replaced government altogether. Hardly a condition in which "all power resides in the hands of the state."
 
Last edited:
Eliminate free trade would work?

On whether or not global trade is good... I don't think it's so clearcut. And I definitely don't think circling the wagons would be beneficial. I am a techie - we're the guys that are in the news a lot for being outsourced, and yes, I've been laid off before, so I know what that feels like.

My first comment is that global trade has actually gone on for millennia, not just for the last 10 or 20 years. With improvements in information and transportation infrastructure, it's gotten more economical and so more widespread. It's not the result of a conspiracy by some secret elite - it's just the result of many many individuals and organizations, optimizing their utility.

I am a bit troubled by a logical inconsistency - you are talking about the tyranny of all regulations, and yet, you seem to push hard for trade regulation - how do you square those two views in the same person?

At a practical level, I don't want to lose my job, nor do I want my fellow Americans to lose theirs. But, the problem is, you can't just stop global trade, except, at best you can eliminate global trade between the U.S. and other countries - would that work? Would that actually help? I think having imports and exports is probably beneficial, otherwise, we wouldn't be doing it - the market drives these things, not the government.

Ok, how about protectionist policies, taxing imports heavily? I think that would hurt more than help. Yes, it would decrease the attractiveness of imports for the American consumer market. But, it would artificially drive prices higher here. Not only would that mean that American consumers would pay more, it would mean that American exports, which often rely on foreign materials or labor by the way, would be less competitive.

These are all just consequences of competition and the free market. Trying to opt out of the free market and withdraw from competition would I think hurt more than help the economy.
 
I have been to Britain and one of my friends lived in Germany for 20 years. As he pointed out in those old school quasi socialist countries the working people actually GET something for their taxes. The services are there for everybody's benefit, not just the one segment of society that doesn't want to work.
Here, if you work, you don't get anything for your taxes. Try and get some help when the feces hits the fan from the DOHHR and you will see what I mean. People can stay on one form of public assistance or the other for their whole lives, but if you are a productive citizen you will be out of the loop should you get laid off, have your hours cut back or so forth.
Suddenly that automobile the bank owns and you owe three years worth of payments for is somehow your private property.
Help is for the ones who choose to be "helpless". Why is that? Could it be that its' an easy way for left wing politicians to buy votes legally?
Don't take my word for it. Go hang out with the public assistance crowd before an election and listen to them going on and on about how the evil Republicans are going to take their crazy check away and make them work.

The chaos and the whole economic collapse benefits those with the most, period. They want anarchy and chaos so they can get their puppets to pass more and more draconian laws to whittle your rights away to nothing "for your own good." Its about promoting unrest and dismay in the short term to get more control over all segments of society in the long term.
The bigger a government is, the more threat it is to your freedom.
Did Vicki Weaver really need to be shot down with a baby in her arms because she was an extremist nut? Some would say Louis Farrakan is a racist and an extremist, but I don;t think he deserves to be shot down with a baby in his arms either. Why didn't the Clinton govt. shoot down Terrorists like Osama or drug dealers instead of targeting the big bad white christian militia man types? I think the drug war shows that dealers are a bigger threat than any redneck rod and gun club. I think 911 showed that Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists are a bigger threat than Vicki Weaver. Her beleifs might have been distasteful to the majority of folks, but she never killed anybody that I know of.
Why is it that as soon as the left got to power in the seventies the first things they started doing was bending over backwards to move towards criminals rights, shorter sentancing, etc?
Part of it was left wing politics. Suddenly the bad guys were "victims of society". And I am convinced that another part of it is that some people benefit greatly from economic unrest and societal instability.
The facts are there for anybody who wants to observe the trends in life in North America over the past 40 years. We went from a country with great economy, self reliant economy and plenty of jobs and opportunity to a dog eat dog place where good jobs get outsourced overseas for cheaper labor and it takes two incomes to provide for a family.

Oh and by the way, I read all the works of Marx and the rest in college. The reality is that the collectivists sort of overlooked the simple human greed and lust for power factor. The theory of Communism and the reality of Communism differed greatly. Does anybody in their right mind believe that Stalin or Chairman Mao were anything but Tyrants?
The left wing of the modern American political spectrum's obession with Big Government is about recreating what they had (and got rid of) in the former Soviet Union. That benefits a lot of the multi national corporations who control politicians through campaign contributions.
Don't take my word for it, do some research. Read the chapter in Ronson's "Them" about the globalist and tell me that the statements don't make your blood run cold.

>> I am a little puzzled, as you seem to feel that there is excessive control,
and yet also that things are out of control -you seem to be arguing for
more control - along your particular lines of thought

- I think that using words like "tyranny" is a bit melodramatic - western
Europe, for example, has heavier regulation than the US. But if you've
spent much time there, or know a lot of people there - the sky isn't
falling. You can argue whether it's advantageous, fine, but to shout
about imminent catastrophe is just completely at odds with the evidence.
<<<
 
We (in general) are a corporation dependent society that DOES buy too much sh!t left and right.

I don't claim to have an answer for all of the problems in the world, but I'll tell you this...we DO consume too much! Most people have many things that are not in any way needed. Our society will not survive at the current rate of consumption...China and India are now becoming industrialized nations and are consuming lots of resources. Unless we start focusing on our very basic needs, our freedom will be lost eventually to our own greed.
 
The things we own sometimes wind up owning us.

Just think of how differentthe world is today compared to say 40 years ago.
Just about any civic club can tell you that membership is down and that it is hard to find people to do volunteer work for charities.
Why is that?
Because 21st Century Man works his hind end off so he can go home at the end of the day to his high tech cave with internet, sattellite television and home entertainment console and unwind. In the process of course, he has become unplugged from his whole sense of "community" .
And of course, this benefits the globalists. It causes us to act in competition with our fellow man out of greed so we can purchase more of this high tech junk. As soon as something gets spurted out to the masses, they come up with something else. We've gone from records to 8-tracks to cassettes to CDs now to MP3 players.
Are any of these really improvements? Its just music for crying out loud.
 
Yes, and then we have the "Segway". Who in their right mind would by one of those for serious transportation?

iseries.jpg
 
Jack: I agree with about 2/3 of what you say, but... who are the "globalists"? Please explain this group to me, identify who they are, how they operate, and what their strategic goals are.

As to changes in products occuring to keep people buying them - well of course, at least in business terms, that's virtually 100% of the rationale for changing a product, is to keep or increase sales. I agree that many product changes are not in fact significant or practical improvements.

I disagree completely that virtually all product changes are "style". In the case of the music technologies you question, you can both hear, and measure, significant improvements in the quality of music between 8 tracks or records vs CDs and MP3s.

In the case of firearms, for example, I'd say that introduction of new calibers has been for the most part, of little practical import or advantage, for perhaps a century now (I have another thread I started on exactly this topic). While I don't think there have been any revolutionary changes in bullet design either, I do think that tuning of design parameters, guided by new and better testing methods, has for example significantly improved self-defense ammunition performance in the same period.

Finally, I don't think that the lust to buy results from "Globalism"... you will explain to me who they are. I think it results naturally from Capitalism - maximization of profits is the goal there. That has many benefits, in terms of allowing consumer feedback (voting with wallet) to guide product development for example, but it also means that companies are going to focus on mazimizing the number of transactions that people are making... look at the introduction of branded products into TV story lines for example. It's not a conspiracy, so much as an effort by the people at Coke to maximize their bottom line and be good Capitalists.

Mazimization of profits is also what leads to jobs moving - first manufacturing jobs moved to southern states, for example, devastating the production and jobs in the north; agriculture moved midwest and west, devastating farming in the east (and believe me, the economic effects were profound). Now, more jobs are moving abroad, pushed by the same forces that first moved them within US borders.

Mazimization of profits is also a major factor in mass layoffs. If you want to resist these types of effects with trade regulations and worker job security protection regulations - are you asking for Socialism?

Capitalism, the Stock Market - these are basically a treadmill, that ask for perpetual expansion and improvement in financial indicators. They are also very fundamental structures and forces that guide our society (both for the better and worse as discussed a bit above). If you want to remove them, you are talking about very fundamental changes, and a very different America from what it's been (ever).
 
redhawk41: I am not saying that there haven't been increased movement of people, goods and information that have gone along with improvements in the infrastructure for these things. I say exactly that, in fact in another posting. That is what I think of when I think of globalization - it's a phenomenon, not a political party or a conspiracy.

I am also aware that there are some idealistic people who think, rather along the lines of John Lennon's musing in his song "Imagine" that increasing the exchange of people, goods, ideas, culture, and softening or eliminating the lines separating nations, religions, etc, would greatly reduce predjudice, conflict - because there wouldn't be any "us and them" anymore. That is entirely separate from the above phenomenon. Although I think it's idealistic and unacheivable, I too often dispare of the rather artificially drawn lines that divide people and pit them against one another - that's not just in the imagination, it's real life. When you cross those lines a lot, you see - hey! these people on the other side are just like us!

The thing that I reject completely, is the notion that there is some kind of secret organization that is plotting, working, and also succeeding at gaining "control of the world". Which is what I meant when I said, who are the globalists?
 
CarbineCaleb, i am sure there are lots of things in this universe that you don't believe in that are actually true.

unfortunately the answer you seek is far to expansive for any one person to elucidate on any one forum in any one post.

if you truly want the answer to your question, you must find it on your own.

here is a good place to start:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(political)
 
Last edited:
redhawk41: Thank you for the wikipedia URL... wikipedia articles are not always on target, but I think most are suprisingly good, and a tremendous resource, since so handy. I read over it, didn't really take issue with anything significant that was said there - kind of agreed with most everything, in fact. It's not at odds with what I have said. I am both curious and skeptical, so always interested to see what may be there - thanks.
 
redhawk41,

if you truly want the answer to your question, you must find it on your own.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, that statement is considered by most to be a textbook pointer to Conspiranoia.

The Conspiranoiac feels empowered by having "discovered" the signs of the conspiracy all around him and, when asked to point those signs out, demures and tells the questioner that he must discover them on his own...

In a chaotic world the thought of a Grand Design, even a malevolent one, is comforting to our pattern-seeking primate minds; the idea that the bus is being driven over the cliff is far more soothing than the stark fact that there is nobody at the wheel.

In fact, if half of what your average Conspiranoiac believed was true, then they should quit wasting time typing on the errornet and get busy digging a slit trench in the tomato patch. :eek:
 
Tamara, i can assure you that i have indeed been bitten by the bug of 'Conspiranoia'. i can also assure you that i neither let it rule my life, or make me believe that i know something that everyone else does not know.

i have found that when many folks look at the same cloud, some see an elephant, some see a face, and some just see a plain old cloud.

it's all in the eyes of the beholder. i cannot say what CarbineCaleb will see, only he can.
 
The fun of conspiracy theories is that they make sense of an often senseless world.

As for who the globalists are, please read the interview with one of them in Jon Ronson's book and tell me it doesn't make the little hairs on your neck stand on end, depsite Ronson's fervent beleif that these men are not so important or influential as they once were.
I can't help but wonder if George Soros did not financially benefit in a big way from these "free trade" schemes.
And for the record, just chasing the cheap labor is not necessarily the best business model for success. There is always a market for quality, as you the gun buying public should know.
Just as people will pay a premium for a BMW or Mercedes over say, a Yugo, they will also pay a premium for a Sig, Beretta or Colt over say, a Jennings, Hi Point or Raven.
One thing you have to keep in mind is that you the consumer seldom benefit from the slave labor wage race. The price of the product stays the same and the difference in profit generally goes to some unscrupulous CEO and seldom goes back into the product or the company for that matter. Check out a pre-propaganda meister Roger Moore flic called Roger and Me by the now poster boy for Political Correctness as for how this works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top