This is your brain on propaganda

Today was “online insane”, all over that ridiculous sniper propaganda movie. It is turning brains to toxic sludge faster than any zombie virus ever dreamed of.

And, I don’t get it.

I realize there is a very large contingent who desperately want to give cops and “troops” a pass they are not willing to give other State tools. Why? I don’t know.

Fine.

I see it as blatant inconsistency, but you do whatever makes you happy and accept the consequences. I think truth is better, and that inconsistency shows you are wrong about something, but if you are comfortable with it…

Go ahead and go further. Insist that “taxation” can’t be theft because government employees are committing it as part of their job.

This is basically what I am running up against.

It is no different when you claim that a soldier in war- on the invading side- is not a murderer because it’s his job, and killing “the enemy” is what he is supposed to do. Mafia hitmen also have a job to do which includes killing people their boss tells them to kill, but I guess it is only “not murder” if you work for the biggest mafia..

Never mind that defending your neighbors from aggressive invaders is the right thing to do in every case, no matter where you live.

Never mind that owning and carrying weapons (“keep and bear arms”) is a universal human right, and targeting individuals doing so in their own land is wrong- especially when you are the trespasser.

But, go right ahead and call me names.

If you excuse the state in one thing, you are excusing it in everything.

Added- others agree with me: American Sniper, and the Murderers Hall of Infamy and AMERICAN SNIPER by Jacob G. Hornberger

.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “This is your brain on propaganda”

  1. Samuel Spade Says:

    (Part 1 of 2) An observation I made early on my journey into anarchy was exactly what the late Delmar England put into simple thoughts much later in “Insanity As the Social Norm” (once the article finally snuck up and bit me on the arse — about the time England died). The intro is what first caught my eye:

    “…Yet most anarchists fail to break free from the government-centered way of thinking with which we are indoctrinated from birth……The influence of the corrupted mind and in-the-box thinking on anarchist theory is the main target of analysis in this essay…”

    That sort of flew over my head at first. And then, as I delved into the essay, I recognized basic truths; but felt the syntax was hard to decipher and the paragraphs long and difficult.

    But I couldn't put it away. Not for long, I couldn't.

    Because every time I would log onto an anarchist or libertarian website and study some of the excellent articles being written by very good and sincere writers, I would get this eerie feeling that England had something important for me to assimilate if I was ever going to come to terms with why libertarian and anarchist thought seemed to fly off into cyber-land without “sticking”. Sticking to those obviously indoctrinated with statist thought processes (“governmentalism”, “statolatry“); but also not sticking to the Ron Paul types, who sincerely feel alienated from standard statist thinking, but who have not lost the “faith” that, if “we” can just get the right folks elected to state positions, everything might straighten out somehow.

  2. Samuel Spade Says:

    (Part 2 of 2) Anarchy is like a foreign concept to most — probably well over 90%. And that's not including those couch spuds who glue themselves to the tube and ingest only 6 o'clock “news”, spectator sports, Budweiser beer — and never even consider philosophical thought or why their “dollar” won't buy them much booze any more. I'm talking about “educated” (albeit government — “public” ha ha — schools, universities, and “private” schools complying with state mandates), who get onto forums and can write more than two sentences in a row on a single topic. Many of them aspiring to be “anarchists” — and also “libertarians” — but who just can't fully grasp the language, let alone the concept.

    War — and all its images, slogans, holiday practices, flags, buttons and bangles — is indeed the health of the state. “Patriotism” is war's little sister.

    To think of somebody like me as “anti-war” is such a gross understatement as to be silliness. That doesn't even scratch the surface. Yes, I'm against combat — but combat is what those psychopaths organized into that abstraction called “government” is all about. And not just “combat” in foreign lands against brown people — “drug wars”, “wars against poverty”, (even “the war on driving“) et al.

    Psychopaths who form “states” constantly need enemies to present the hoi polloi — to keep them dancing in the streets in support of war. It's in their blood. And the nerds gobble it up.

    Abstain from beans. Sam

  3. Kent McManigal Says:

    If I ever slip into that way of thinking, call me on it.

  4. Samuel Spade Says:

    You and I, my friend, are in the process of slipping OUT of that way of thinking. And what a
    slide it is! Ds,

  5. Anonymous Says:

    Have you watched “American Sniper”? I haven't yet and am wondering what all the fuss is about. What I do know is that Chris Kyle was a soldier who killed either enemy soldiers or terrorists who were attacking his fellow soldiers. I'm not aware of him killing any unarmed civilians going about their daily lives. You have every right to disagree with the Iraq War. In fact, I now have qualms about my former support of it. But you have to consider that most Iraqui citizens were being oppressed and murdered first by a brutal dictator whom they were unable to overthrow themselves, than by foreign terrorists who were wrongly called insurgents. You have spoken favorably about coming to the aid of a crime victim. Well, the civilian population of Iraq were millions of crime victims by their own government, then by foreign terrorists. The people Kyle killed were victimizing non-combatants who were unable to defend themselves when they weren't attacking American soldieres. Even if we had no business being there in the first place (you might be correct on that point), Chris Kyle didn't kill any innocents that I'm aware of. As far as I can tell, his victims lived by the sword and died by it.

  6. Kent McManigal Says:

    I won't watch the movie. For one thing, I don't like any movie which glorifies murderers or cruelty. Not freelance or “official”. So, even if this weren't about the military or government, I wouldn't be paying to see it. I don't like to financially reward people who act as my enemies. I also don't like to expose myself to too much propaganda- and this is apparently powerful propaganda. I overheard people talking about it again today, and I don't like what it does to their minds.

    Chris Kyle was a soldier who killed either enemy soldiers or terrorists who were attacking his fellow soldiers“- fellow soldiers who were trespassing and killing the inhabitants who were “keeping and bearing arms” in defense of themselves.

    As far as I can tell, his victims lived by the sword and died by it.” As did he.

    You also need to remember why those brutal dictators were able to gain power- they didn't do it on their own, but had help from the US government. Meddling doesn't often turn out well, or even how it was supposed to turn out. This is no exception.

    If people want to go to other countries- on their own dime, or with donated money raised for that specific purpose and given without coercion- and fight in defense of some of the local inhabitants, I have no issue with them doing it, as long as they initiate no force or violation of property. But, if money is stolen from me to finance their little “adventure”, and they make their targets believe they are doing it in my name, then, no, I don't want them there and I hope they are killed in self defense. And, anyone who acts offensively deserves to be killed, no matter what they call their act.

    Chris Kyle and all those in his gang are making me and my loved ones much less safe by their actions. “Blowback” and inspiring terrorists to kill Americans wherever they find them is inevitable. Their actions are the opposite of “fighting for freedom”. The only possible way for the military to “fight for freedom” today would be to surround DC where the real terrorists are based, and, if nothing else, keep them contained and keep them and their made up rules from harming the rest of us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: