4 ms·

In America, it's been a persistent psyop campaign under the guise of fighting terrorism for the last 20 years. Trading freedom for security. People are more and

In America, it's been a persistent psyop campaign under the guise of fighting terrorism for the last 20 years. Trading freedom for security. People are more and more conditioned that control and authority in their lives is there to keep them safe. Whether or not they consciously believe it, subconsciously these ideas still permeate our everyday lives and now we just sort of accept it. Governments and powerful people have, and always will, push these boundaries, since it's essentially the quest for power (control). I don't know what the solution is, because more or less I feel everyone is so divided (and in that sense, conquered). There's an undercurrent of distrust (albeit mostly aimed in the wrong directions) but it hasn't really boiled over enough yet. More and more I think this is just an inevitable outcome to where we are as a society. I'm not trying to doom and gloom but it feels like the writing is on the wall. These things have happened before. Seems to be human nature in that we tend to repeat the same mistakes and it looks like we're currently doing that now.

mostertoaster 5y ago
Ironically it is the “right wing” who was all for this war on terror that traded security for freedom, and now they are reaping what they’ve sown, and desperately screaming how dare they make me wear a mask, and get vaccinated. The other wing of that same shit bird, was opposed before, and now embraces more government power. Two wings, one bird.
- nekt 5y ago
  This is hyper partisan bullshit. The democrats have 100% always been in total support of trading security for freedom. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_... Republicans have only recently woken up from this due to the absolute madness coming out of the left. I was a democrat who voted for Biden and has only donated to democrats though I likely never will again.
  - zeruch 5y ago
    Nah.
    - satronaut 5y ago
      what's nah? did the democrats vote yes for different reasons than the republicans? What were their reasons then? Otherwise, why the nah?
      - zeruch 5y ago
        Nah is a blanket response to the parent post of hyperbole and faux-objectivity. His whole post was ridiculous; the GOP has always been just as, if not moreso ready to trade ANYTHING for "security" (security theater mostly), usually if there is a correlating premise of ensuring electoral results in their favor, which they usually beat the Dems over the head with as the "national security" party. With the last half decade of debacles under Trump, the "national security" moniker is arguably up for grabs, but the Dems are half-assed and flailing and the GOP is a viscous joke looking for a punchline (hence why I left the latter to go independent, since the former is a lousy home, even if they aren't a traitorous one).
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    Count me in too. I can't stand erosion of society through identity politics and woke'ism. It's on the coverpage of the Economist this week (I am what they refer to as classical liberal): https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2021-09-04 https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2021-09-04
- Ambolia 5y ago
  Not really, Alex Jones got famous by opposing the Iraq War.
  - BTCOG 5y ago
    Alex Jones was never right wing, but has continually been tarred with being so by anxious liberal mobs. He was really anti Bush, and across partisan lines has always been against anything that could be construed as authoritarian.
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    You've cherry picked an outlier. How many non-crazy conservative pundits or politicians can you name who opposed the Patriot Act, or the formation of Homeland Security, or the expanded powers given to cops and federal agencies? How many prominent conservatives spoke out in defense of Edward Snowden? Was it conservatives or liberals in the media who risked their lives and careers to organize and document the information he released? During the Bush era, the opposition to the authoritarian trajectory of the war on terror was largely from liberals, although it was often strictly partisan. Conservative media completely fell in line with the Bush administration. I thought this would change when Obama was elected, but it didn't, and authoritarianism remained a driving force in conservative politics and media throughout Trump's presidency. COVID-19 has brought some more conservatives onto the anti-authoritarian side for sure. But I'm not confident this is a durable change.
  - zeruch 5y ago
    No, he was long famous for being generally quite a conspiratorial, often fabulist, and perpetually furious radio personality for years prior.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      Banning him was so unnecessary. The overwhelming majority though he is basically a nutjob and made fun of him for selling his man pills. Attempts to silence him almost made him a martyr. Everyone arguing he was or is a security threat should think about therapy and has now people against them that are concerned with the larger picture. And the panic will continue because of that. More people will get banned. It isn't a fallacy to believe these things escalate.
- satronaut 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act I can't find hard numbers on how many republicans/dems votes yes or no on it, but it passed 98-1 in the senate, and only 66 no votes in the house. Yes a lot of republicans in congress (probably all of them at the time) voted yes on it, but most democrats voted yes on it too.
- jeremysalwen 5y ago
  Not sure why sibling comments are repeatedly posting that they "can't find who opposed the PATRIOT act". The information is easily accessible online: 65 members of the house voted no, 62 of them were Democrats: https://justfacts.votesmart.org/bill/votes/8289 https://justfacts.votesmart.org/bill/votes/8289 The only Senator to vote no was Russ Feingold(D): https://justfacts.votesmart.org/bill/3112/7877/55463/usa-patriot-act-of-2001#7877 https://justfacts.votesmart.org/bill/3112/7877/55463/usa-pat...
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  Almost all the "left wing" continued on with the war on terror and upped the anty in some cases. Obama essentially doubled down on what Bush did and Biden sure didn't oppose it. It might do you some good to go back and look at who supported all of it in the beginning. It certainly was not some right wing only endeavor. There were very few politicians opposed to any of it.

mostertoaster 5y ago

Ironically it is the “right wing” who was all for this war on terror that traded security for freedom, and now they are reaping what they’ve sown, and desperately screaming how dare they make me wear a mask, and get vaccinated. The other wing of that same shit bird, was opposed before, and now embraces more government power. Two wings, one bird.

nekt 5y ago
This is hyper partisan bullshit. The democrats have 100% always been in total support of trading security for freedom. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313 https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_... Republicans have only recently woken up from this due to the absolute madness coming out of the left. I was a democrat who voted for Biden and has only donated to democrats though I likely never will again.
- zeruch 5y ago
  Nah.
  - satronaut 5y ago
    what's nah? did the democrats vote yes for different reasons than the republicans? What were their reasons then? Otherwise, why the nah?
    - zeruch 5y ago
      Nah is a blanket response to the parent post of hyperbole and faux-objectivity. His whole post was ridiculous; the GOP has always been just as, if not moreso ready to trade ANYTHING for "security" (security theater mostly), usually if there is a correlating premise of ensuring electoral results in their favor, which they usually beat the Dems over the head with as the "national security" party. With the last half decade of debacles under Trump, the "national security" moniker is arguably up for grabs, but the Dems are half-assed and flailing and the GOP is a viscous joke looking for a punchline (hence why I left the latter to go independent, since the former is a lousy home, even if they aren't a traitorous one).
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Count me in too. I can't stand erosion of society through identity politics and woke'ism. It's on the coverpage of the Economist this week (I am what they refer to as classical liberal): https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2021-09-04 https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2021-09-04
Ambolia 5y ago
Not really, Alex Jones got famous by opposing the Iraq War.
- BTCOG 5y ago
  Alex Jones was never right wing, but has continually been tarred with being so by anxious liberal mobs. He was really anti Bush, and across partisan lines has always been against anything that could be construed as authoritarian.
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  You've cherry picked an outlier. How many non-crazy conservative pundits or politicians can you name who opposed the Patriot Act, or the formation of Homeland Security, or the expanded powers given to cops and federal agencies? How many prominent conservatives spoke out in defense of Edward Snowden? Was it conservatives or liberals in the media who risked their lives and careers to organize and document the information he released? During the Bush era, the opposition to the authoritarian trajectory of the war on terror was largely from liberals, although it was often strictly partisan. Conservative media completely fell in line with the Bush administration. I thought this would change when Obama was elected, but it didn't, and authoritarianism remained a driving force in conservative politics and media throughout Trump's presidency. COVID-19 has brought some more conservatives onto the anti-authoritarian side for sure. But I'm not confident this is a durable change.
- zeruch 5y ago
  No, he was long famous for being generally quite a conspiratorial, often fabulist, and perpetually furious radio personality for years prior.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Banning him was so unnecessary. The overwhelming majority though he is basically a nutjob and made fun of him for selling his man pills. Attempts to silence him almost made him a martyr. Everyone arguing he was or is a security threat should think about therapy and has now people against them that are concerned with the larger picture. And the panic will continue because of that. More people will get banned. It isn't a fallacy to believe these things escalate.
satronaut 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act I can't find hard numbers on how many republicans/dems votes yes or no on it, but it passed 98-1 in the senate, and only 66 no votes in the house. Yes a lot of republicans in congress (probably all of them at the time) voted yes on it, but most democrats voted yes on it too.
jeremysalwen 5y ago
Not sure why sibling comments are repeatedly posting that they "can't find who opposed the PATRIOT act". The information is easily accessible online: 65 members of the house voted no, 62 of them were Democrats: https://justfacts.votesmart.org/bill/votes/8289 https://justfacts.votesmart.org/bill/votes/8289 The only Senator to vote no was Russ Feingold(D): https://justfacts.votesmart.org/bill/3112/7877/55463/usa-patriot-act-of-2001#7877 https://justfacts.votesmart.org/bill/3112/7877/55463/usa-pat...
CountDrewku 5y ago
Almost all the "left wing" continued on with the war on terror and upped the anty in some cases. Obama essentially doubled down on what Bush did and Biden sure didn't oppose it. It might do you some good to go back and look at who supported all of it in the beginning. It certainly was not some right wing only endeavor. There were very few politicians opposed to any of it.