The Modern Civil War: This Isn’t the Flag You’re Looking For

I am sure many readers have heard about the South Carolina Church shooting. The perpetrating individual shot nine African American church members, after attending a group bible study with his victims. This has been presented (in his own words even) as an exceptionally unstable, young, fascist, white supremacist.

{PHOTOGRAPH} AP Photo/Stephen B. Morton

{PHOTOGRAPH} AP Photo/Stephen B. Morton

Which obviously he is, thus far it has been proven that this young 21 year old man has a personal vendetta with minorities. More specifically, the African American communities of the United States.  Jews, Hispanics and Asians are just a few of his most tolerated things; keeping in mind he believed they should be dehumanized to the fantasy like standards of what he believed was “acceptable”.

Recently the argument of removal of the Confederate Flag from use in South Carolina (in addition to other states such as Virginia, etc.) has been stirred. This modern icon of hatred and bigoted history should be shunned and thrown into a museum, according to the societal/cultural consensus and the age of technology.

Interestingly I have read several severely misconstrued interpretations as to where this flag came from and why. Keep in mind, this flag has blood ingrained into its seams. It has been declared the symbolism of the defeated South, those anti-abolitionists. Anti-establishment through and through.

{PHOTOGRAPH} This Confederate flag, which was captured at the Battle of Mine Creek, Kans., Oct. 24, 1864, sold at auction June 25, 2011, for $26,290. Heritage Auction Galleries (Dallas) sold the 35-by-50-inch wool flag accompanied by documentat…

{PHOTOGRAPH} This Confederate flag, which was captured at the Battle of Mine Creek, Kans., Oct. 24, 1864, sold at auction June 25, 2011, for $26,290. Heritage Auction Galleries (Dallas) sold the 35-by-50-inch wool flag accompanied by documentation and historical analysis. Photo courtesy Heritage Auction Galleries/ANTIQUE TRADER

It’s highly offensive to many because of its historical precedence. Many generations are educated to believe that ONLY the South had slaves and fought against the Union to preserve the horrific practice of slavery. This flag represents death, slavery and moral evils that only a Civil War could remedy.

Just as the Confederate flag has been painted as villainous, the American flag has been soaked in the blood of innumerable generations. There is always an ultimate reason for war; the wars of the greatest generation down to their parents/grandparent’s wars were considered admirable. We won, right?

When the Vietnam era came into fruition this flag saw the sense of anger and blood shed that didn’t even see the casualty numbers of the Great War’s (World War I: 320,710, not including MIA---Vietnam: 211,147). Arguably, the U.S. involvement in WWI only lasted two years, whereas with Vietnam it was from 1964 until 1975. The Vietnam War was a new form of war.

{illustrative} World War 1, PROPAGANDA Poster by James Montgomery Flagg, 1917.

{illustrative} World War 1, PROPAGANDA Poster by James Montgomery Flagg, 1917.

With the WWI, the process of soldier selection was on a volunteer basis. Men well into their 40s joined, which I found interesting. With Vietnam, a draft was instituted to gain the numbers necessary for the war. A war which would be seen as both a grave miscalculation by the U.S. and a travesty against the soldiers placed in harm’s way.

WWII causalities surpassed both WWI and Vietnam in causalities at 1,078,162. However, this war lasted from 1939 to 1945. The United States only became formally involved in WWII after the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. This led to a huge wave of Nationalism across the United States, thus drafting was unnecessary.

I believe with the loss of time, memory is often muddled. The glory of the “greatest generation” swept the country, thus when it was deemed necessary for the sons (and daughters) to defend the world against communism…we gladly accepted. Until it became clear this war would not be won, this wasn’t their parent’s war nor would it be a successful endeavor no matter how it is projected into a history book.

There was an already established campaign in Vietnam with the Soviet forces leading the way, China in tow.

“Fifty percent of all Soviet foreign aid went to North Vietnam between 1965 and 1968. Soviet anti-aircraft teams in North Vietnam brought down dozens of U.S. planes. According to former Soviet colonel Alexei Vinogradov, ‘The Americans knew only too well that Vietnamese planes of Soviet design were often flown by Soviet pilots.’”[1]

In addition, China was also heavily involved in North Vietnam.

“According to Beijing, between 1965 and 1973, there were 320,000 Chinese troops assigned to North Vietnam, with a maximum of 170,000 – roughly a third of the maximum number of U.S. forces – in the south at their peak.”[2]

This was a much weightier support system than the United States had full appreciated. But

{Photograph} The sun breaks through dense jungle foliage as South Vietnamese troops, joined by U.S. advisers, rest after a cold, damp and tense night of waiting in an ambush position for a Viet Cong attack that didn’t come, January 1965. (Horst…

{Photograph} The sun breaks through dense jungle foliage as South Vietnamese troops, joined by U.S. advisers, rest after a cold, damp and tense night of waiting in an ambush position for a Viet Cong attack that didn’t come, January 1965. (Horst Faas/AP).

Many young adults began to fight the system, angrily lashing out at a corrupted system. However, the outrage of being unheard by their government permitted a country to rebel on a much different level than it had ever done before.

The 60s were a time of great instability in the U.S. National consciousness. Our U.S. flag felt tainted and exploited by our own government who sent young, inexperienced men to die for the cause of stopping communism. Was this true? Doubtful that was EVER a reason. (See modern U.S. and China relations, modern U.S. and Russian Cold War)

When we focus on flags, we are basing it on a general consensus of opinion. Not necessarily on transparent history. A deepened sense of nationalism can be blinding and at best, politically manipulated.

Was Pearl Harbor an utterly surprise attack? NO.

Was 9/11 an utterly surprise attack? NO.

{illustrative} The cover of the 9/11 commission report

{illustrative} The cover of the 9/11 commission report

The bottom line is the sense of manipulation that cultivates itself within a fervid emotion of nationalism. People will kill, torture and justify all in the same breath. Thus history can portray it as necessary or even villainize those who question it.

What is the deal with the Civil War then?

So this argument is fundamentally layered in debatable content, none of which is worthy of this posting to begin with. But I feel it’s necessary to some extent. When you have one 21 year old piece of shit who deems himself the Messiah that can tear down a flag that so many men died under. It’s necessary in that meaning.

I'd like to make it clear, I'm not a Southern sympathizer. Both sides of my family tree fought for the Union and the Confederate (I would be interested to overhear those heavenly conversations).

Keep in mind that these same generations had previously fought in the Revolutionary war. Later these same surviving generations, fought in WWI, WWII, Korea and in some rare instances Vietnam. These men (and eventually fighting women) fought for our country. They had the right to fight to preserve it. Whether or not I agree with a war, I honor them for their service and courage to take on such a weight. Many were young men and women, doing what they believed was expected of them. Not necessarily always ethical nor moral. But it was expected of them under the duress of a sense of inescapable nationalism.

The Civil War casualties were staggering, this being the first step of introduction. “Roughly 2% of the population, an estimated 620,000 men, lost their lives in the line of duty.”[3]

The reason for the Civil War (North vs South) was actually regarding “state sovereignty and the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment (ratified in 1791)”. 

A summary of the Tenth Amendment, for reference, is as follows:

“The Tenth Amendment helps to define the concept of federalism, the relationship between Federal and state governments. As Federal activity has increased, so too has the problem of reconciling state and national interests as they apply to the Federal powers to tax, to police, and to regulations such as wage and hour laws, disclosure of personal information in recordkeeping systems, and laws related to strip-mining.”[4]

{Photograph} President abraham Lincoln visiting Antietam.

{Photograph} President abraham Lincoln visiting Antietam.

The South desired less federal government involvement in their state affairs.

“The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power. That distinction is not one of semantics: this question of local or federal control to permit or prohibit slavery as the country expanded west became increasingly acute in new states, eventually leading to that fateful artillery volley at Fort Sumter.”[5]

Now keep in mind, former President Abraham Lincoln had never had the intention of freeing slaves. We were well into the Civil War before it was even considered it (1862). After all, the North also had their slaves and forced indentured servants to consider.[6] But the overall argument of the Northern slave owners was of their humanitarian approach to how their slaves were treated versus that of the Southern states.

So basically their stance: Yes of course we are slave owners; he treat our slaves like bound family members. We eat dinner together after they were in the fields all day by our command! Therefore we are better people.

It’s still slavery; Human beings should be treated as human beings. In the end, slavery’s blood laid upon the hands of all slave holding white men. NO matter what part of the country they lived; North or South. NO matter their justifications; we are good people!

“It was not Abraham Lincoln who first pressed the US Congress to pass an amendment to the US Constitution outlawing slavery and involuntary servitude. It was abolitionists like the former slave Frederick Douglass and white feminists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who fought both for freedom for blacks and, as leaders of the women’s suffrage movement, fought for the right to vote for white women.

{photograph} Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, ca. 1870s Copyprint. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (112)

{photograph} Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, ca. 1870s Copyprint. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (112)

While Lincoln dithered and prevaricated, Stanton and Anthony sent women onto the streets of America to gather names for a petition to present to the Congress that would show that Americans wanted an amendment included in the Constitution ending slavery.

The petition read: ‘TO THE WOMEN OF THE REPUBLIC: We ask you to sign and circulate this petition for the ENTIRE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY… Go to the rich, the poor, the high, the low, the soldier, the civilian, the white, the black, gather up the names of all who hate slavery, all who love LIBERTY, and would have it the LAW of the land and lay them at the feet of Congress.’

Presented to Congress before the 13th amendment legislation was voted on, the petition played an important part in the law’s passing.”[7]

The critical piece to this puzzle is in Lincoln’s final issuance of the “Emancipation Proclamation”, which took effect on January 1, 1863.

Lincoln knew very well the South depended on the economic benefits of slavery, without slaves to their use, the confederacy would surely meet its demise.

In our school time textbooks the advantages of abolishing slavery would be summarized in this political correct order:

“First, there was the moral advantage. A proclamation would galvanize support for the war among Northern abolitionists.

The second advantage was economic.  The South’s economy was based on slavery. If enslaved people were freed and left their masters, it would deliver a severe blow to the South’s economy and ability to wage war.

{photograph} African American solider and family, circa 1863-65

{photograph} African American solider and family, circa 1863-65

Third, the freed slaves could be recruited into the Union army, to address the army’s need for more soldiers.[8]

This move by Lincoln was a political one and a strategic maneuver. As much as we adore Lincoln historically and the good he did by issuing this proclamation, the final call was purely to end the Civil War’s reign.

Now speeding up to 2015, we have an outcry to remove the Confederate flag from state capitals across the Southern states. This symbolism of racial hate and injustice. I understand their exceptional pain at viewing the flag as a symbol of malicious and villainous hate. Never mind the idiocy of white supremacy groups and uneducated fucks who believe this flag represents Nazi-like traits of fascism.

I wanted to personally thank these groups for stomping on the blood and souls of our own country’s men, women and children who died during the South’s darkest days. Your ignorance is not unexpected, it is just pathetic. For exploiting the blood of those lost in the greatest loss of human life on American soil, I hope you answer for it at some point in your emptied lives.

All of it disgusts me, beyond words. This flag WAS NOT created by the Klu Klux Klan. The Confederate flag was used as a navy jack at sea from 1863 onward during the Civil War.

 To be more specific:

“This flag was first used in battle in December 1861. Being a new flag, different from the United States flag, it gained widespread acceptance and allegiance among the Confederate soldiers, and population in general. The flag is referred to as the Confederate battle flag, and as the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.”[9]

{illustrative} Southern Lithograph Co., New York - the United States Library of Congress Prints and Photographs division,  digital ID cph.3a19879.

{illustrative} Southern Lithograph Co., New York - the United States Library of Congress Prints and Photographs division,  digital ID cph.3a19879.

There is an array of disinformation running rampant across social media and main stream as to the history of this historic flag. This being said, I wanted to point out the history for the reader.

A sense of nationalism has been the reasoning for most of our wars. The young men of the Civil war left many without heirs, fathers, sons and husbands. The blood of these fallen soldiers is still entrenched within the society, cultures and heritages of many Americans to this day.

I can honestly say I do support removing the Confederate flags from the capitals. I believe that the time has come to remove this flag from the statehouses; Now that society is moving onward into a new chapter, we need to "reset" the societal consciousness. 

Yet I am quite aware of how painful this could be for Southerners. Not because these individuals are racists, but because they see this as their personal and state history. Just as I feel it is my history, my family’s history and of the nation’s history. The fight for state’s rights began with the Civil War at a horrific price. But apart from the deadly losses of the war, the first legislation to eliminate a horrific sin against African Americans began within it's wrath. 

 Despite the time that has passed, removal of the flag will not remove racism from the country. You cannot erase history and you would be a fool to have such an expectation. Removing this flag will not deter it’s usage but it will make a statement among the states that the symbol of perceived hate has been eliminated and it will not be endorsed. This does not eliminate prejudice, hate or violence.

It will not stop shootings of unarmed minorities, senseless murders and/or monopolized caste systems within the United States.

It will not stop white supremacists from manipulating it to their advantage. This will change very little in the end.

To the 21 year old Charleston shooter, you have exploited, murdered and stomped upon the innocent. Innocent, unarmed church goers. In a childish and misconceived attempt to be a man of ill-conceived honor, you have proven nothing.

However what this shooting has done, is that it has proven that our country has misguided attempts at eliminating symbols of perceived hate rather than addressing the legitimate sources of hate -legislatively or directly. 

On an additional notation of consideration, the withdrawal of the Confederate flag from retailers (such as Amazon, Ebay, Walmart, etc) will do nothing. This has escalated from a position of common sense legislation to a position of corruptible stupidity.  The flag has been labeled a symbol of hate, there are Federal laws that then eliminate it from purchase.

As this situation continues, Civil War monuments have been defaced in addition to demonstrators (AKA Protesters) calling for the removal of Thomas Jefferson's memorial. Really? Because if we remove a memorial it will eradicate or change the brutal history of the United States?

How about we focus on cultivating our own historical precedence? Learn from the horrors, understand the history that accompanies it and blaze some new trails. Teach those who dwell in the darkness that we are bigger than their concepts of what education and influence is. Nope, we are going to go online and bitch about how unfair our country's history is. Go ahead! Share disinformation across social media. In turn we will blame each other's race, gender, ethnicity and culture. Comment debates thereafter will spring into life. Demand that someone else fixes it and makes the world better on our behalf. That's easier, right?

Meanwhile, the shootings of unarmed African Americans will continue. The passive aggressive prejudices will run rampant. The outcry from the communities will also continue. Then with a sparkle in their eye, the politicians will focus on the easy venues of societal resolution. Like a flag. It's so much easier to divide and conquer people when they hate each other.

Sometimes I really hate politics.

 


[1] Lind, Michael. "Why We Went to War in Vietnam." The American Legion. 2013. Accessed June 24, 2015. http://www.legion.org/magazine/213233/why-we-went-war-vietnam.
[2] Lind, Michael. "Why We Went to War in Vietnam." The American Legion. 2013. Accessed June 24, 2015. http://www.legion.org/magazine/213233/why-we-went-war-vietnam.
[3] "Civil War Casualties The Cost of War: Killed, Wounded, Captured, and Missing." Civil War Trust. 2014. Accessed June 22, 2015. http://www.civilwar.org/education/civil-war-casualties.html.
[4] "Tenth Amendment." Cornell University Law School. 2015. Accessed June 24, 2015. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment.
[5] Schweitzer, Jeff. "Slavery and the Civil War: Not What You Think." The Huffington Post. April 4, 2011. Accessed June 24, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html.
[6] Harper, Douglas. "Slavery Denial." Slavery in the North. 2003. Accessed June 24, 2015. http://slavenorth.com/denial.htm.
[7] Goffe, Leslie. "Diaspora: Lincoln Did Not Free the Slaves." New African Magazine. March 19, 2013. Accessed June 24, 2015. http://newafricanmagazine.com/diaspora-lincoln-did-not-free-the-slaves/.
[8] Applestein Esq., Donald. "Did Lincoln Free the Slaves?" Constitution Daily. The National Constitution Center. September 22, 2011. Accessed June 24, 2015. http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/09/did-lincoln-free-the-slaves/.
[9] "Confederate Flag." Son of the South. 2003-2014. Accessed June 24, 2015. http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Confederate_Flag.htm.

Reliving Rome: The Desire for Control


A functioning police state needs no police.”

- William S. Burroughs, from his novel Naked Lunch (1959)


 

Since the horrific events of September 11th, our lives have never been the same. The Patriot Act, The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) are two prime examples of what can happen with fear as a instigator. Fear can manipulate people into war, death and discrimination without much mind paid to the victims nor to the ramifications.

We have all heard of the horrors of the Patriot Act, the secret watch lists (No Fly Lists, wiretapping, etc.) by our own United States government or perhaps the detention and undue processing of potential terrorists (citizens or foreigners alike). Since the implementation and continuation of the Patriot Act and now the NDAA, the concerns of American citizens have been raised numerous times due to the speculative verbiage or generalized authorization these pieces of legislation have been granted.

The Patriot Act, one of the more publicly intrusive pieces of legislation instituted under the United States government, is pending expiration June 1, 2015.  Basically the NDAA, usually an unassuming piece of legislation, took what the Patriot Act yielded under the guise of safety and added further authorizations to silence the civil liberties groups/organizations and gather more control for their agenda.

Figure 1: Carlson, Stuart. "Editorial Cartoon." GoComics. June 7, 2013. 

Taking a walk through history, I will try to break it down in brief as to how we have arrived at our current destination.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) had been a commonly used bill prior by the presidency and administration for simple defense spending measures, nothing out of context. However, the NDAA we see today was a collaboration of legislation, sections of executive orders acts and even outdated authorizations...neatly tidied into the hybrid we view today.

 However, The NDAA arose from subtle yet suspicious times in the United States. The Cold War.
The first relic from our legislative journey is the National Security Act of 1947, signed by former President Harry Truman. With the air of Cold War fear briskly sweeping the country, the legislation was willingly accepted as necessity for protect American interests. “The National Security Act of 1947 mandated a major reorganization of the foreign policy and military establishments of the U.S. Government. The act created many of the institutions that Presidents found useful when formulating and implementing foreign policy, including the National Security Council (NSC).”

In 1950, The Internal Security Act "(Also known as the McCarran Act or the Subversive Activities Control Act)...strengthened laws against espionage, allowed investigation and deportation of immigrants who were suspected of subversive activities or of promoting communism or fascism, and allowed the limitation of free speech for national security reasons" . Congress passed this legislation despite the veto of President Harry Truman. President Truman opposed this legislation due to its infringement on the Bill of Rights.  Later in 1996, portions of the Internal Security Act were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Now fast forward a bit and we find ourselves in 1981, under the Presidency of Ronald Reagan.

{photograph} Doug Mills, The New York Times, October 26, 2001. 

{photograph} Doug Mills, The New York Times, October 26, 2001. 

On December 4, 1981 Ronald Reagan signed into existence Executive Order 12333 (EO 12333). This bill was the official introduction of the United States spying apparatus, it’s reach-immeasurable and the consequences unimaginable. “It established broad new surveillance authorities for the intelligence community, outside the scope of public law.”

Let’s break down the metamorphosis of Executive Order 12333 and the amendments, additions that followed.
December 4, 1981- Ronald Reagan signs EO 12333. 
 Executive Order 12333: United States Intelligence Activities, “…the executive order authorizes collection of the content of communications, not just metadata, even for U.S. persons. Such persons cannot be individually targeted under 12333 without a court order. However, if the contents of a U.S. person’s communications are “incidentally” collected (an NSA term of art) in the course of a lawful overseas foreign intelligence investigation, then Section 2.3(c) of the executive order explicitly authorizes their retention. It does not require that the affected U.S. persons be suspected of wrongdoing and places no limits on the volume of communications by U.S. persons that may be collected and retained.”

January 23, 2003- EO 12333 is amended via Executive Order 13284 by former President George H.W. Bush.
“…in Part 3.4(f) by:
(a) striking ``and'' at the end of subpart 3.4(f)(6);
(b) striking the period and inserting ``; and'' at the end of subpart 3.4(f)(7); and
(c) adding a new subpart 3.4(f)(8) to read as follows: ``(8) Those elements of the Department of Homeland Security that are supervised by the Department's Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection through the Department's Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis, with the exception of those functions that involve no analysis of foreign intelligence information.''

August 27, 2004- EO I2333 is amended via Executive Order 13355 by former President George H.W. Bush.

Amended to "Strengthened Management of the Intelligence Community",  this amendment "...reflected the fact that the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) now existed as the head of the intelligence community, rather than the CIA which had previously served as the titular head of the IC. EO 13555 partially supplemented and superseded EO 12333."

July 30, 2008- EO 12333 is amended via Executive Order 13470 by former President George H.W. Bush.

Amended to supplement and supersede "...EO 12333 to strengthen the role of the Director of National Intelligence.” And also issued the United States government, intelligence and security unprecedented power over foreign and biasedly focused-domestic surveillance. Working hand in hand with executive orders, the U.S. Patriot Act and National Security...it was just the beginning.

With the strengthening of the surveillance apparatus, there was hardly a need for the "U.S. Patriot Act". No warrants required, not even the illusion of such. However, with the collaboration of the previous legislative processes, the birth of the new found NDAA took these orders into a new horizon.

In 2012, the NDAA took an aggressive and more elaborate turn thus gaining the glaring attention of civil rights organizations and groups.

The wording of these additions matches closely to that of the Patriot Act, formal Cold War legislations and the tailored executive orders of the past.  NDAA will not only continue but will be updated accordingly to silence any of the potential government deemed undesirables, protesters, or domestic terrorists out there.

Examples from the NDAA are below:

Brings Indefinite Detention to the U.S. Itself: The bill now says that detainees may be brought to the United States for "detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force" (AUMF). In plain English, that means the policy of indefinite detention by the military, without charge or trial, could be carried out here at home. Right now, the number of people in the U.S. in military indefinite detention is zero. If the bill is enacted, that number could immediately jump to 100 or more.

Bolsters Claims of NDAA and AUMF Indefinite Detention Authority: The AUMF is the basis for the indefinite detention authority included in the NDAA that Congress passed nearly three years ago. Indefinite detention is wrong today and certainly cannot be sustained past the end of U.S. combat in the Afghan war. But passing a new Senate NDAA that relies on detention authority based on the AUMF, just as the U.S. combat role in the war is winding down, could be used by the government to bolster its claim that indefinite detention can just keep on going. Even when any actual U.S. combat is over.

Requires Report on Even More NDAA and AUMF Indefinite Detention Authority: As if the government didn't already have enough claims of indefinite detention authority, the Senate NDAA asks the administration to let Congress know what more indefinite detention authority it wants.

Tries to Strip Federal Courts of Ability to Decide Challenges to Harmful Conditions: In a stunning provision, the Senate NDAA tries to strip federal courts of their ability to "hear or consider" any challenge related to harmful treatment or conditions by detainees brought to the United States. This provision tries to gut our system of checks and balances by cutting out the courts.

Violates Supreme Court Decision by Stripping Habeas Rights from Detainees Left at Guantánamo: In a classic example of why it is never a good idea for a committee to legislate behind closed doors, the Senate NDAA includes language inadvertently stripping habeas rights from any Guantánamo detainee who is not moved to the United States. Habeas is the very fundamental protection of being able to have a judge decide whether it is legal or illegal to hold someone in prison. While this is almost certainly the product of sloppy drafting, the result squarely contradicts the Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene v. Bush, in which the Court said Guantanamo detainees have a constitutional right to habeas.

Blocks Most Cleared Detainees from Going Home: The Senate NDAA would block the transfer home of the vast majority of cleared detainees by imposing a blanket ban on transfers to Yemen, instead of continuing to allow the secretary of defense to make decisions on an individual basis. That would mean dozens of detainees cleared for transfer would remain trapped in limbo.”[1]

 

Figure 2: Anderson, Nick. "Nick Anderson's Editorial Cartoons." The Domestic Espionage Comics and Cartoons. May 14, 2006. Accessed April 17, 2015. http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/subject/The-Domestic Espionage-Comics-and-Cartoons.php

Figure 2: Anderson, Nick. "Nick Anderson's Editorial Cartoons." The Domestic Espionage Comics and Cartoons. May 14, 2006. Accessed April 17, 2015. http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/subject/The-Domestic Espionage-Comics-and-Cartoons.php

As we begin this journey into what a police state is and how is it that our beautiful country has fallen to the quickening of a plagued nation of fear, we will understand ourselves and that of our own future. It will upset people, it may even anger people. Often I hear the callous words of ill-informed people, cloaked in optimistic ignorance or perhaps it’s more of an embraced ignorance of living in fantasy.

“Well, if you aren't guilty you have nothing to worry about!”

“You’re just paranoid!”

These bills have allowed our government to override our constitutional rights, no trial and the assumption of guilt without need for any hearing. You can be incarnated without any due process, and you can be cut off from the world without any rights what so ever. And guess what, John Doe?

You don’t have to be a Middle Eastern evil do-er! You can be an American citizen, you can be an immigrant…you can be anyone and there would be nothing your lawyer could do for you.

There is so much disinformation out there on the internet, but a few years back I ran across a FEMA training video. Without much follow up as to the actual source I considered it alarming at the time but variable as to its legitimate source.

However recently more and more information has been leaked out through the media validating this footage (taken in 2001) but for now the evil is of course being used in the attacking of President Obama, this is an oversight and a political game. This bull has been going on slowly and progressively and it is not necessarily completely tied to ONE administration. In the above linked video, the comment of interest is regarding our founding fathers, in which the trainer empathizes that our founding fathers would be considered and are considered domestic terrorists. That comment really chills the blood. Never mind their ambitions, or why…they are a threat.

Now focusing on the training manual that continually is brought up in the media today:

{Illustration} Royalty free image

{Illustration} Royalty free image

“A Department of Defense training manual obtained by a conservative watchdog group pointed to the original American colonists as examples of an extremist movement, comments that have sparked fear of a broader crackdown on dissent in America. The training manual provides information that describes, among other things, ‘common themes in extremist ideologies.’

The first paragraph of the section entitled ‘Extremist Ideologies’ opens with a statement that has drawn heated criticism: “In US history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples.”[2]

With their definition of what a domestic terrorist is, it displays a truthful view on how patriots are portrayed in a manual. Those who resist government tyranny are the threat, and this was well before the events of September 11th.

Numerous whistle blowers have attempted to warn the American people of the abuse in power and of the exploitation of American civil liberties, all of which has fallen on deaf or manipulated ears. Snowden was simply the most criticized voice, there were many before him all of which have paid dearly for their sacrifices.

Imagine this: You could simply say something out of context online or over the phone and automatically you could be seen as a domestic terrorist. Calls tapped, internet monitored and flights delayed if not cancelled. The definition of such has been blurred by the media, the government and the state of tyrannical fear we allow ourselves to nourish on. 

It’s time to wake up, study and listen to one another. Few will listen, but at the very least it can be objectively discussed and researched by those willing and open enough to hear the voices of our past and present.

Reflecting back to the quote from Mr. William S. Burroughs, fore mentioned at the beginning of this article. “A functioning police state needs no police.” What does he mean? The disturbing truth is, with fear and forms of societal manipulation, there is no need for the police because the citizens begin to police one another. This is what a police states’ goal is, a society with no need for legitimate threats just the propaganda of fear and the formulated fuel of hatred. I am not the only person who has taken notice, just as recently Author Stephen King reflected, “Our world is starting to look like Orwell’s 1984”.

The audience remained unsettled, yet the band played on…



[1] "Blog of Rights: NDAA." American Civil Liberties Union. 2012. Accessed April 11, 2015. https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/ndaa.

[2] Bridge, Robert. "DoD Training Manual Suggests Founding Fathers Followed 'extremist Ideology'" RT USA. August 25, 2013. Accessed April 10, 2015. http://rt.com/usa/us-military-extremism-terrorism-right-963/.

Reliving Rome: The Societal Gambit


Divide and rule, the politician cries;
Unite and lead, is watchword of the wise
.”

- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), Gedichte (1886)


With the recent battle cries from African Americans for justice, it seemed more than appropriate to discuss the growing threat against all races, genders and ethnicities in the United States.  However, as a politician would desire: divide to rule.  Certainly prejudice is a living entity in the United States, and as long as there are humans ruling this planet we will forever cope with the ignorance of this plague.

{image} Video Footage of Officer Michael Slager planting evidence at the shooting of walter scott (2015)

{image} Video Footage of Officer Michael Slager planting evidence at the shooting of walter scott (2015)

First, to address my own opinions on the current turmoil across the country of unarmed black men being killed without conscious, this is a dangerous time of volatile actions. It serves no purpose in killing police officers in retribution for lives already tragically lost. Blood only leads to further blood and little can be mended thereafter. The lessons of the great American Civil War have been clearly lost in our educational systems and the only lingering memories of this Great War are found in the bitter hatred kept quietly in the slumbering American consciousness.

Just because African American slavery ended, woman got the right to vote or own property and Native Americans can open casinos and facilitate their own governing bodies; does not institute automatic societal tolerance. If only it worked that way, but for so many of the arrogant if it’s ignored it’s not an issue. Similar to public school textbooks on the subject of Vietnam, good luck finding transparency.

Secondly, I do not buy into either political party because they are both equally irresponsible in their words, actions and causes. Meaning I listen to individuals not groups or larger entities, there are simply too many flies in the political soup. Often we lump all these stooges together, where there may be a voice or two of reason. But I do not buy into the religion of politics, they can sell their backbiting elsewhere. The need the opposition is vital to the political machine, otherwise they wouldn’t hold so much influence over our country and lives as they have for so many decades.  Dividing us is valuable for many reasons.

Figure 1:  Pastis, Stephan. "Pearls Before Swine." GoComics. January 9, 2015. Accessed January 20, 2015. http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2015/01/09.

Moving forward let’s address the topic question, what is a police state exactly?

 Is it the images of heavily armored and armed local police, standing menacingly over unarmed civilians? Or is it perhaps the militarized police tanks or military grade weaponry? Not entirely, although it is a product of a deeper and more sinister agenda.

Reading from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary there are two running definitions of a police state. They are as follows:

Police State

: a country in which the activities of the people are strictly controlled by the government with the help of a police force

: a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures[1]

 The reach of a police state is far beyond simple men in armored vehicles or trained professional killers, it is in the laws and in the fine print of our governing bodies. The secret lists, suspicion of guilt without due process and the wiretapping of American citizen communications. It is in the sections of legislation that deny citizens the right to choose their paths, something as juvenile as attempting to ban extra-large cups of soda to the seriousness of safely parenting our children as we desire without state infringing upon us. How about a government who can step in and force your child, despite their age or personal wishes, into Chemotherapy for their health care?

These are only a few examples of what the power a government can yield when it becomes corrupted, given too much power. The fear is no longer of the people by the government but of the governing body by the people.

In the beginning the “…American constitutions and federal constitution of 1787 incorporated what elite Federalists such as John Adams and the authors of the Federalist Papers considered to be the features that gave the Roman constitution a stability missing from the faction-ridden city-states of ancient Greece and medieval Italy: a strong chief magistrate and a bicameral legislature with a powerful senate.”[2]

However, as time went on the constitution took on traits of the “Ancient Saxon Constitution” of England, such as limiting terms of men in office. With the oversight of populists and radicals of the time, the U.S. constitution took on a hybrid of traits soaked in the Roman views of senate and constitutional values. Borrowing from the Roman Empire’s earlier beginnings, prior to the transference to a democracy, the United States was then born as a republic. “The very name republic was a version of the Latin res publica.”[3] Other countries also borrowed from the Roman Empire, such as France focusing on similar aspects of the legendary fallen empire.

Figure 2: "Gold Aureus Commemorating the Consecration of the Emperor Hadrian. Rome, Italy. AD 138."[4]

The interesting part of this historical insight is also of Rome’s notorious police state they acquired over the course of their reign. During Emperor Publius Aelius Hadrianus (AD 76 - AD 138), the empire flourished for a short time. Hadrian was considered an enlightened leader, graciously forgiving national debt and temporarily halting the previous economic crisis brought forth by former leaders. However, things turned rapidly sour for the reign of Hadrian.

“Under Hadrian we also see the development of a system of secret police and informers. This system functioned in much the same way as the Gestapo and kept going until it was changed by Diocletian. The fact that an emperor as enlightened as Hadrian introduced this system speaks volumes about the state of the empire at this stage and the inevitability of the system coming about.”[5] The militarization of local police forces also established themselves under Hadrian’s reign and the growing control of the people took precedence over the Roman society. The further deteriorating empire had just begun to fall, and little could be done to stop it.

“The over-consumption and pampering of the Roman citizens during the imperial period also created other problems. It has often been suggested that the increasingly materialistic and greedy lifestyles that many Romans lead began to affect them ‘spiritually’ and intellectually. A sense of futility seemed to be permeating society. The Roman ‘spirit’ which had conquered the world was becoming increasingly lethargic. During the “pax romana” it seemed that peace, comfort and security took priority above political freedom and trying to solve the problems which were blighting their civilisation.”[6] 

 Closely it can be compared to our current state of mind here in the United States, of a sleeping giant awaiting the final straw to break. The continuing disillusionment of our people and the blind eye that has been turned to the recklessness of our government is both ignorant and dangerous. As we continue into this series regarding the growing police state in the United States, will review and study the warning signs of a dying civilization.

Whether or not it’s popular or leaves the reader with a warm and fuzzy feeling, neither matter. History is necessary: to know where we have been, where we are headed and where we desire to be.

 


[1] "Police State." Merriam-Webster. January 1, 2015. Accessed January 19, 2015. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/police state.

[2] Lind, Michael. "The Second Fall of Rome." The Wilson Quarterly 24, no. 1 (Winter, 2000): 46-59, http://search.proquest.com/docview/197237060?accountid=12085.

[3] Lind, Michael. "The Second Fall of Rome." The Wilson Quarterly 24, no. 1 (Winter, 2000): 50, http://search.proquest.com/docview/197237060?accountid=12085.

[4] "Gold Aureus Commemorating the Consecration of the Emperor Hadrian. Rome, Italy. AD 138." British Museum. 2015. Accessed January 20, 2015. http://www.britishmuseum.org/learning/schools_and_teachers/resources/all_resources/resource_roman_empire.aspx.

[5] Fenner, Julian. "To What Extent Were Economic Factors to Blame for the Deterioration of the Roman Empire in the Third Century A.D?" Economic Deterioration of Rome in the Third Century AD. 2015. Accessed January 20, 2015. http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-018.html.

[6] Fenner, Julian. "To What Extent Were Economic Factors to Blame for the Deterioration of the Roman Empire in the Third Century A.D?" Economic Deterioration of Rome in the Third Century AD. 2015. Accessed January 20, 2015. http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-018.html.