4 ms·

My conclusion about all of this is that the government wants people to be afraid. These are not real attempts to detect threats to flights. If anything, they're

My conclusion about all of this is that the government wants people to be afraid. These are not real attempts to detect threats to flights. If anything, they're most interested in finding drugs and smuggled valuables. And this is not 'security theater'. The intent is to get everyone used to invasive, police-state style behavior.

nazgulnarsil 16y ago
I am forced to adjust my beliefs in the direction of "crazy conspiracy theorists" more every year.
- kirubakaran 16y ago
  Devolution into police(ish) state may be just an emergent phenomenon of the political+social set up. No conspiracy necessary. No wonder the founding fathers viewed this as something to be actively fought against.
  - lucifer 16y ago
    In the general sense, you are correct regarding the possibility bottom up order. But the bottom falls out from the argument given that the 'context' in question e.g. "political+social set up" is (conceptually) very much the principle object of the conspiracy.
  - nazgulnarsil 16y ago
    well that is what I believe, democracy or any populist system is too easily run on the immediate carrot and stick. What i meant is that each year the hypotheses of conspiracy wackos seem to make better predictions than the last, even if they dont have the cause right.
rickmode 16y ago
It's not that governments want people scared, rather there's no incentive to avoid scaring the public. And so officials go ahead with their politically expedient security theater. The officials get the benefit of appearing to "do something" while the resulting inconvenience and "scare" never wash back on them.
- barrkel 16y ago
  You missed out on the other incentive - there's plenty of opportunities to sell "security" (ie comfort blankets) to scared people. Huge numbers of exDHS (and indeed ex generals) end up paid by security / military companies selling expensive stuff to the government. This is an active incentive to scare people.
  - gnosis 16y ago
    Don't forget that even when not directly paid by defense contractors and the like, many government officials simply own stock in these and other corporations that stand to benefit for an increased need for security.
michaelbuckbee 16y ago
I don't think it's so much that the government wants people to be afraid as it is CYA for the people in charge. Politicians want to claim that they've made things safer and none of them are brave enough to say: "Lets take things down a notch because they're ineffective." It's similar to the state of "tough on crime" policies like 3 strikes and mandatory minimum sentences - even when proven ineffective no one wants to reverse the statutes for fear of being seen as weak on crime.
- jdp23 16y ago
  There certainly are people and organizations inside and outside the government who want people to be afraid. Martha Stout's "The Paranoia Switch"* looks at politicians who exploit this reaction and how the media contributed to the environment after 9/11. And the "surveillance-industrial" complex makes their money (and keeps their power) based on fear. * good summary/review at http://www.sott.net/articles/show/142725-Limbic-Warfare-and-Martha-Stout-s-Paranoia-Switch- http://www.sott.net/articles/show/142725-Limbic-Warfare-and-...
- callmeed 16y ago
  Not to mention the jobs issue. 9/11 resulted in an entirely new govt. agency being created. I doubt many politicians want to axe jobs given the current state of the economy.
Estragon 16y ago
My take on it is that there is a large class of people who like to be afraid. It seems to give them a sense of purpose to have an implacable enemy to worry about. I wish they would worry about something more practical, though, like cancer.
billmcneale 16y ago
Please, enough with the fear mongering and 1984 predictions of doom. What is happening is not even remotely close to what a police state is (please read up on some history of Eastern Europe) and saying that the "government wants us to be afraid" is right there with the worst unfounded conspiracy theories. Let's give a hard time to the TSA and try to fix it, but let's not give into easy paranoia in the process.

nazgulnarsil 16y ago

I am forced to adjust my beliefs in the direction of "crazy conspiracy theorists" more every year.

kirubakaran 16y ago
Devolution into police(ish) state may be just an emergent phenomenon of the political+social set up. No conspiracy necessary. No wonder the founding fathers viewed this as something to be actively fought against.
- lucifer 16y ago
  In the general sense, you are correct regarding the possibility bottom up order. But the bottom falls out from the argument given that the 'context' in question e.g. "political+social set up" is (conceptually) very much the principle object of the conspiracy.
- nazgulnarsil 16y ago
  well that is what I believe, democracy or any populist system is too easily run on the immediate carrot and stick. What i meant is that each year the hypotheses of conspiracy wackos seem to make better predictions than the last, even if they dont have the cause right.

rickmode 16y ago

It's not that governments want people scared, rather there's no incentive to avoid scaring the public. And so officials go ahead with their politically expedient security theater. The officials get the benefit of appearing to "do something" while the resulting inconvenience and "scare" never wash back on them.

barrkel 16y ago
You missed out on the other incentive - there's plenty of opportunities to sell "security" (ie comfort blankets) to scared people. Huge numbers of exDHS (and indeed ex generals) end up paid by security / military companies selling expensive stuff to the government. This is an active incentive to scare people.
- gnosis 16y ago
  Don't forget that even when not directly paid by defense contractors and the like, many government officials simply own stock in these and other corporations that stand to benefit for an increased need for security.

michaelbuckbee 16y ago

I don't think it's so much that the government wants people to be afraid as it is CYA for the people in charge. Politicians want to claim that they've made things safer and none of them are brave enough to say: "Lets take things down a notch because they're ineffective." It's similar to the state of "tough on crime" policies like 3 strikes and mandatory minimum sentences - even when proven ineffective no one wants to reverse the statutes for fear of being seen as weak on crime.

jdp23 16y ago
There certainly are people and organizations inside and outside the government who want people to be afraid. Martha Stout's "The Paranoia Switch"* looks at politicians who exploit this reaction and how the media contributed to the environment after 9/11. And the "surveillance-industrial" complex makes their money (and keeps their power) based on fear. * good summary/review at http://www.sott.net/articles/show/142725-Limbic-Warfare-and-Martha-Stout-s-Paranoia-Switch- http://www.sott.net/articles/show/142725-Limbic-Warfare-and-...
callmeed 16y ago
Not to mention the jobs issue. 9/11 resulted in an entirely new govt. agency being created. I doubt many politicians want to axe jobs given the current state of the economy.

Estragon 16y ago

My take on it is that there is a large class of people who like to be afraid. It seems to give them a sense of purpose to have an implacable enemy to worry about. I wish they would worry about something more practical, though, like cancer.

billmcneale 16y ago

Please, enough with the fear mongering and 1984 predictions of doom. What is happening is not even remotely close to what a police state is (please read up on some history of Eastern Europe) and saying that the "government wants us to be afraid" is right there with the worst unfounded conspiracy theories. Let's give a hard time to the TSA and try to fix it, but let's not give into easy paranoia in the process.