On this day in 1963, three influential men died – John F. Kennedy, C.S. Lewis, and Aldous Huxley (author of “Brave New World”).
Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 portrays a world in which books are burned to keep people in line. The masses are swarmed with the noise of music and televisions, deepening their ignorance and prescriptions are given to deal with what little humanity remains in them. For those rebellious enough to think, have real conversations, or read books, the “firemen” were assigned – to burn their books and sweep them away into captivity.
Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World portrayed the people as being “conditioned” for their lot in life from the womb. They were taught that everyone belongs to everyone else, and that only the collective good of the State mattered. Any movement towards individuality or stepping out of the assigned, programmed social order was dealt with via exile. They were fed messages of obedience throughout “school” to the point where any thought to the contrary was impossible.
In 1984, George Orwell’s “Big Brother” managed, watched, restricted, and directed the lives of every citizen. The people were governed in every area and policed in every step. Most people simply grew accustomed to the practice and went along quietly to avoid becoming a target for the leviathan government.
Three dystopian novels written by three different men, between 1932 and 1950, each of them correct in their own right. Orwell addressed the dangers of encroaching Communism, Huxley confronted the horrors of social conditioning through education and medicines, and Bradbury attacking social conditions as a whole – human interactions, conversation, reading, ideas, and dependence upon technology. And, while they differed on specific focus, they agreed on where to place the blame – the State and its attempts to control the people through force, fear, and coercion.
The accuracy of these prophetic novels should be startling to every American, if only more Americans read and paid attention. It would seem the predictions are too accurate and too close for us to notice. Politicians babble on about how free we are while citizens smile and nod their heads in approval. They’ve been programmed and “pledged” into believing it. Meanwhile, “freedom” and “liberty” are getting a makeover, from the living room and the street corner, to the highways and the airport.
Even most completely oblivious Americans recognize what is happening at airports, though they too frequently bleat out a “they’re just trying to prevent another 9/11” as the TSA agents grope their genitals. Fewer are aware that the TSA has hit the highways as well. Tennessee has allowed the TSA to deploy agents at weigh stations and bus stations in the state.
This is frightening news to some of us, but one truck driver simply said, “Not only truck drivers, but cars, everybody should be aware of what’s going on, on the road.” The TSA is encouraging truck drivers “to say something if they see something.” The terrorists really should be easy to spot though. As Michael Tennant of The New American wrote, “the people terrorizing Americans on the interstate are not swarthy foreigners; they’re government agents.”
So, Americans are molested at the airport and can be searched on the highways. How’s that electric fence around the border looking now? At least we’re safe while walking down the street. Cue IntelliStreets.
Complete with speakers to make announcements and give alerts, a transceiver, pedestrian counter and proximity sensor, IntelliStreets has everything a paranoid tyrant could dream of.
But, they only plan to use such technology for our own good. In a response to concerns over privacy invasion and the abuses of “Big Brother,” IntelliStreets release a statement to calm our fears: “What the Intellistreets system is designed to do is simply make our streets safer, more energy efficient and smarter, while being informative and entertaining.”
The statement continued:
“In its fullest form, Intellistreets also includes the collection and reporting of information immediately and completely so that first responders (police, fire and EMS) can react very quickly in moments of danger for an individual or an entire community; and, in other cases, pedestrian and vehicular traffic can be safely routed away from danger in an orderly manner.
That’s why we proudly reached out to the Department of Homeland Security to share our technology. DHS needs American entrepreneurs to develop the technologies that can better keep our citizens safe. Importantly, DHS is intrigued by Intellistreets’ potential. They see the tremendous opportunity to add a level of safety and security into our public environments utilizing infrastructure that already exists. To date, no funding from the DHS has been either offered or accepted by us.”
Their attempt to comfort the public consists of, “Don’t worry. We only want to give this to the police and the Department of Homeland Security.” So much for being safe or maintaining privacy on the streets; but at least we have our own living rooms. Right?
In May of 2011, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that citizens “have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.” Even if an officer enters the home for no reason at all, the owner cannot do anything to “block the officer’s entry.”
Steven David, one of the justices, said, “We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”
Modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence? The Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
So, by “modern” Fourth Amendment the court means just the opposite of the original Fourth Amendment.
The American Police-State is growing by leaps and bounds and it is doing so with only a small whimper being offered up by the majority of Americans. UC-Davis students were recently pepper-sprayed by police during an Occupy protest while simply sitting in a line. One of the students was later treated for chemical burns. Just as the Fourth Amendment has taken on an opposite definition, so has “to protect and to serve.”
So, what are Americans to do in the face of such invasion of privacy, violation of rights, and brutality?
We must never forget the power of non-violence. The most amazing moment of the UC-Davis attacks was the reaction of the protestors at the end of the video. Even after the police pepper-sprayed the crowd, the students refuse to get aggressive or threaten them. Instead, they off them an “out” and tell them they may leave peacefully; the weapons and riot gear would not be needed. Non-violence worked and tensions did not escalate, at least in this case. As Martin Luther King, Jr. pointed out, “nonviolent resistance is not a method of cowardice. It does resist. It is not a method of stagnant passivity and deadening complacency. The nonviolent resister is just as opposed to the evil that he is standing against as the violent resister but he resists without violence. This method is nonaggressive physically but strongly aggressive spiritually.”
Further, use the TSA’s method against them (not the groping part) and speak up. If you see something, say something. The American Police-State is fueled by ignorance, with too many Americans having become numb to the overstepping of their rights. When people accept these things as a natural course of life, the tyranny grows without resistance. But, when people are aware and vocal, at least the State is unable to continue the infringement without a fight.