A Politician's Promise


Suverans2's picture

Truth be told...

mjackso6's picture

"The sure sign of a halfwit is someone who believes a politician's promise."

You'd think that it was that simple, and yet I have friends who I ~know~ are bright, a couple of them who are probably almost 'geniuses' (however you want to define that), and yet they can't seem to get beyond the political paradigm.

Instead, you can lay out all of the rational arguments against government or even coercive control of any kind, and they'll bend over backwards to create equally 'logical' arguments to support the status quo.

Of course, now that I think about it, most of those same folks will acknowledge that there's no such thing as a 'good' or 'trustworthy' politician. They'll voice the same skepticism about said politician actually following through on any of their promises and if pressed will generally admit that the promise itself, even if kept, is unlikely to do anyone any good. But despite that, they'll still insist that 'The System' as a whole functions and is crucial, because without this lurching, wheezing leviathan everything will come crashing down and 'anarchy', which they equate with chaos, will reign.

The only reasons for this kind of flawed thinking in otherwise intelligent people that I've been able to come up with are some combination of indoctrination (public schools, anyone?) and then cognitive disonance when convincing arguments threaten what has essentially become faith-based thinking.

My point in all of this isn't to drum up sympathy for all of those poor schlubs who were nursed and weaned on the koolaide (though I do wish that I could get through to some of my friends and feel sorry that they're still stuck in this paradigm). It's to simply point out that one should never underestimate the opposition. Not everyone who 'buys the lie' is an idiot, and it's a ~dangerously~ arrogant notion to assume (when you assume, you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me') so.

Mike Jackson

Samarami's picture
    "...faith-based thinking..."

I think this phrase sums it up nicely, Mike.

I've often observed it smacks of Stockholm Syndrome, which I'm convinced was and is a phenomenon that was in place long before highly paid eggheads put a name to it after the episode in Sweden in 1973. When Sargon first began to ravage Asia over 4 millennia ago he apparently discovered the expediency of keeping some of the conquered alive and producing. He was one of the first emperors.

Prior to that the hordes might advance upon, encircle and besiege a city. Eventually they would breach the walls, rape the women, slaughter all the men, women and children, leaving their corpses to rot on the desert floor. They would ransack for food and valuables, and continue to the next conquest unencumbered by more than a few trustworthy slaves: scorched earth.

By the time Genghis Khan marched into Europe conquerors recognized that few of the conquered would resist. Most would lie down, eagerly spread their legs (literally) and accept the murderer Khan with all the reverence, pomp and ceremony bestowed upon the likes of Obama to this very day.

Sex, politics and religion are locked in an historical symbiosis. All are a form of ardor and worship.

To your observation of highly educated nerds in state worship, I suggest Gary North's article that dealt specifically with the Federal Reserve, but applies to all political action generally. In it Dr North expands on your quandary over why smart folks embrace "government"

The enormity of the truth is incredible.


Samarami's picture


    "...Sex, politics and religion are locked in an historical symbiosis. All are a form of ardor and worship..."

Had the wording wrong: Politics yoked with religion represent the symbiosis that permeates all recorded history, with sex (the gravest mystery many of us face in our lifetimes) as the adhesive. But I should clarify that even further, since "politics" and "religion" are abstracts: politicians and religiosos are the inseparable puppets of directed history.


Suverans2's picture

A "good read" in my opinion, mjackso6. http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=42137

mjackso6's picture

Something that I should add to my post above, on the same general topic, is that I constantly see both the military and the police underestimated, villified and dismissed by folks around here. ~Never~ underestimate your adversary; it only makes their job easier.

Most of the folks in the military, or the police for that matter, are normal joes like everyone else; they were bottle-fed the koolaide as kids, and truely believe in the 'validity' and 'morality' of the system and of their job. That's ten times worse than a bunch of mercenary bastards who are only out to line their own pockets or a bunch of jack-booted thugs who are only in it for the sick thrill.

People who believe that they're on the 'side of the angels' will risk far more for 'God and country' than a bunch of folks who are only out for thrill or profit. And contrary to popular belief, the military at least (I don't know all that much about civilian police departments) doesn't work on a strict 'Peter Principle' as most government jobs do.

Yes, the inept can rise to their highest level of ineptitude and, if that level is high enough, 'ride it out' until retirement, but most get weeded out before they ever approach those levels, and top performers tend to 'fast track', reaching those higher eschelons more quickly than the slackers. And of course, there's no conscription these days, so as soon as a Soldier decides that he/she 's had enough or can find a better opportunity on the outside, they're gone, so there's a continuous turnover of personnel just like in private industry.

What that means from a practical standpoint is that the standing military is, for the most part, made up of highly proficient personnel who not only believe in what they're doing, but believe what they're doing is morally right and in the best interrest of everyone. Add to that that military members are taught from day one that service to the nation and it's citizens is more important than their individual lives... well, I trust that it's obvious why underestimating these folks might be a bad idea.

To tell the truth, I hadn't really sat down and let all of these various aspects of military training and service 'gel' together in my mind before I started writing this. I knew that the overall picture was both scarry and depressing, even more so considering that most of those junior service members, the ones out on 'the line', are just kids in their late teens or twenties, but I'd never thought of it all this way before. I guess I can only count myself lucky that after 20 years of living that life, I was somehow able to 'shrug it all off'.

Samarami's picture


    "...What that means from a practical standpoint is that the standing military is, for the most part, made up of highly proficient personnel who not only believe in what they're doing, but believe what they're doing is morally right and in the best interrest of everyone. Add to that that military members are taught from day one that service to the nation and it's citizens is more important than their individual lives... well, I trust that it's obvious why underestimating these folks might be a bad idea..."

With the sacking of Posse Comitatus and the increased militarization of U.S. cities, I'm assuming you're inferring to what might these military types do if and when commanded to fire upon "resisters and non compliers" in the U.S. once the sword of Damocles falls and U.S. "citizens" are ordered rounded up and placed in "places" allegedly being constructed and some already in place.

As an old U.S. Army draftee (definitely not what you call "..highly proficient personnel..") I'd be interested to hear your take as to just how many of these individuals will blindly follow orders and fire upon ordinary folks on the street (and perhaps not-so-ordinary like me and perhaps thee). I'm a believer that many, when push comes to shove, will refuse -- they will turn away and say "...Hell No! I Won't Go..."

I've referred often to a fairly recent article I read on this actuality.


mjackso6's picture

I'm a pretty big believer myself that the majority of the troops would call 'bullshit' on an order to fire upon regular old citizens, at least as things stand now. What I'm more afraid of is a slow, slippery slope kind of thing over the next few years in which certain individuals, groups and movements (anarcho-capitalists? 'Preppers'?) are stigmatized and villified.

With a few occasional Columbine/Newtown type incidents to raise the 'vitriol' levels of both the troops and common citizens. a suspension of posse comitatus and increased tolerance for military presence and intrusiveness/force could woefully be not only accepted by the public, but actually welcomed (TSA anybody?). Under those circumstances, I'm afraid that at least some of the more hotheaded service members could get a little out of control.

It would be harder to get the average Joe to fire on random civilians, I think, but with the right combination of prior propoganda, lies, and false orders from above, it would probably be more than possible to convince Soldiers that they were engaging an actual enemy/threat to national security.

Of course, sadly, there are those Soldiers, mostly the not-so-bright ones, who will simply execute whatever order that's given to them without question. Those are the ones who end up standing before the Tribunals with the genuinely puzzled look on their faces saying, "But I was only following orders..."

Glock27's picture

I think Barret had a deadline to meet though he makes an enormous amont of sense. Given the wars our young people have been subjected to I seriously doubt they weill be willing to see the same or similar devistation occur on their own soil. They want to come back, get fixed, get a job and live at peace. i don't believe they have been indoctrinated to come back and take on the american population which in theory they were out there to defend in the first place. It does not perclued my idea from conveniently loosing my firearms or conveniently having them stollen. I am hoping to go out and purchase one of the Frankenstein weapons she wants banned and maybe around six magazines. Ammunition is going to be another problem.

Suverans2's picture

Just out of curiosity, (and assuming what you wrote to be true), Glock27, why would you advertise these kinds of things on the internet?

Glock27's picture

I guess because I don't believe the young ones returning from Afganastan and Iraq. and etc would fire on innocent civilians. And second I don't believe the gov has hired that many people to sit down and go through all the crap that flys out on the internet pages. That is giving them far too much credit. Besides, I can't imainge some one setting before a computer reading all this trivial s**t that flys around.
Currently I have not discovered an good resource nor a good place to securely procure my toys. Ultimately they will remain close at hand and ready for use. I am setting here with a .40 by my side, and a .380 on my desk and my Mossburge 930 semi-auto behind my chair not counting one knife in three pockets.
Senator Frankenstein has already made it nearly impossible to buy a black gun now. Every place I look, call or search on the internet they are sold out. Manufactures are cranking as hard as they can to get up to speed to get the weapons out before the stupid bill is passed. A decent black gun did run around $900 to $1500 for something halfway decent and accurate. The more you spend the better you get. Anyway like a question Paul B. put to jd this past week "What are you willing to live for and what are you willing to die for?" JD never answered.
I have had four episodes in my life no 5 that I have had to have a weapon and one was a cop at 3:30 a.m. hammering the hell outa my door. Three were after I obtained my ccw. I prep for emergencies whether social or natural. Sometimes naturals can be worse than society problems. The last reason Suverans is I am 69 years old and I simply don't give a S**t any more. I am ready to die because of the pain I deal with daily in my back specifically then my hips, knees, feet, shoulders, elbows and fingers. I have stopped taking some of my medications because they make me feel even worse. If things do turn more bitter for me I have preped a way out. Does that make sense?
Now someone like Samarami it seems as if he has a hell of a lot left in him

Paul's picture

I hear ya, Tom...

mjackso6's picture

I understand what you're saying; I'm fairly broken up myself and I'm only 42. If my kids were all grown, I doubt that I'd give a s#!t either, but I feel that if for no other reason, I have to keep going for them. It's a s#!tty world, getting s#!ttier by the day, and I don't want to turn them loose into it without knowing that they know how to take care of themselves.

Mike Jackson