Posted on 09/24/2001 4:24:58 PM PDT by Rebeckie
Unfree Republic
by Jeff Elkins
Let the stench of Middle East flesh reach Paradise reassuring them that these filth have gone to hell permanently."
The quote above is representative of many posted on the FreeRepublic.com site in the wake of the WTC attack, and unfortunately its like is not uncommon elsewhere. Americans are angry, predictably and rightly so, but just as predictable are the side effects. As always, that righteous anger will be accepted as a beloved gift by the state and molded into tools of oppression.
It’s funny how that works. Every single state-sponsored war the US has become embroiled in has resulted in an inexorable increase in the power of the state.
It’s also funny that it’s always assumed that human behavior in the past has no relation to how we behave today. Why those people were old-fashioned, we’re modern, educated, etc.
The beginning of this repeating pattern has already become public with the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. It has an ominous sound, that name, almost Germanic. (I can’t wait to see the uniforms.)
On April 13, 1917, days after our entry into World War One, President Wilson created the Committee on Public Information to promote the war domestically while publicizing American war aims abroad. Bush has replicated that step, with this new cabinet-level department.
Under the leadership of journalistic muckraker George Creel, the CPI was a propaganda apparatus unparalleled at that point in world history. The CPI functioned as a de facto public censor, vetting nearly all published material about the war and helping to draft legislation such as the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. In the months prior to our entry into the war and especially after our entry when they were nearly criminal, antiwar viewpoints were rarely heard.
The same pattern emerges now: Penn. Gov. Tom Ridge will be President Bush’s George Creel, and just as in those dim days of yesteryear, he’ll have plenty of willing civilian accomplices. And after all, there’s so much more to censor -- Ridge will need all the help he can get. In seeking warriors for the front line of Internet censorship, Ridge needs look no farther than FreeRepublic.com. The atmosphere there is now poisonous.
Again, look back to Wilson's CPI. It encouraged businesses to spy on their employees, parents to spy on their children, children to spy on their parents, neighbors to spy on neighbors, and above all to report "disloyal," pro-German sentiments. State authorities banned the teaching of German in schools and changed German street names. As the madness mounted, those regarded as pro-German were hounded from their jobs, pressured to change their German names, beaten, and in a few cases lynched. Almost all cases of violence, while incited by the state, were carried out by "civilians" in the grip of war hysteria.
Along with this anti-German hysteria, Congress passed several measures designed to rigidly suppress criticism of the war. In particular, the Espionage Act, passed in June 1917, specified a fine of $10,000 or twenty years in prison for "whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag."
The Espionage Act was very popular in its day. It was cheered on by mindless lemmings under the influence of state propaganda. Their great grandchildren now inhabit FreeRepublic.com, viciously attacking anyone who questions the wisdom of the state.
Our Congress is considering similar measures under the rubric of "anti-terrorism," and as it was at the beginning of the 20th Century, the FreeRepublic lemmings of the 21st are cheering the morally corrupt politicians along.
It’s not just message posters on the site. The management of FreeRepublic has instituted a "loose lips sink ships" campaign, with new moderators patrolling the forum to delete posts that in their opinion are detrimental to the "war effort."
The FreeRepublic mission statement claims "We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America."
Sanctimonious hogwash. Everything old is new again – the keyboard warriors of FreeRepublic would be right at home in 1917 shilling for Wilson.
September 24, 2001
The creation of this domestic spy network is not just a terrible idea; it's a frightening attack on our right to privacy and the U.S. Constitution. Bush and his Brown Shirt henchman, John Ashcroft, are setting up the framework for a future police state in America.
Frankly, I am shocked by the fact that so many so-called freedom-loving Freepers would support such an outrageous assault on our civil liberties. If the same cabinet-level post had been created by a Democrat, they would be screaming to high heaven. But a Republican president gets a pass (and even compliments). Go figure.
Why? The nerve agents are effective in small amounts.
VERY well thought out remarks. I am with you.
I'm a little late to this thread but thought it worth comment.
I disagree with the premise on which Jeff Elkins based his article.
This is not 1917, G.W. Bush is certainly not the academic utopian Woodrow Wilson was and of course, Free Republic is open to many points of view, as the very posts on this thread attest, specifically those of 'Inspector Harry Callahan'. This is not new for FR. I've seen and joined threads where I did keyboard battles with atheists, Libertarians, liberal/DNC disruptors, McCain/Buchanan supporters and many, many Bush-haters. Each point of view was aired, sometimes it got nasty but no prior censorship was ever involved other than to enforce the well-known guidelines, and even those are often disregarded by members and yet the threads are allowed to stand.
I believe that poster Southern Federalist reflects my feelings on the war against terrorism and he/she said it best in his post #90 addressed to you so I won't bother trying to add to that message, except to agree with it.
I sympathize with your concern about the civilian Afghans who may be killed in any future bombing by the U.S., but that is the price of war and of their tolerance for the Taliban thugs who run the country. I believe the U.S. will use rebel Afghan troops (well-supplied by the U.S.) for the bulk of the fighting, and that we will be doing little 'carpet-bombing' so this may not be a real concern. 'Innocent' people will die on all sides of this fight, and terrorists will not think twice about using women and children to use as shields, so I'm sure there will be civilian casualities in any military action and it cannot be avoided, but, that is the nature of war....every war.
We didn't ask for this war, we took a lot of prior hits and did virtually nothing about the looming threat from terrorism and now, we're forced to become totally engaged. Debate will go on, some will continue to reject anything done by our government and some will find anything done by government to be beyond question. Like the majority of FR posters, I'll fall somewhere in the middle, but my only real guide is that we must win and come as close to eliminating terrorism as is humanly possible. I believe we can do that. We cannot do so without some death and destruction but I believe that military action will not be the major part of this fight, although some will be necessary. I accept that simple fact of war.
I cannot worry about every Afghan's safety and as our President is a Christian man, I do not believe he will accept mindless killing with no purpose. His very restraint now, as America thirsts for revenge, shows me that despite your personal, deep reservations about President Bush, he can be trusted to conduct this war in a rational manner and with his eye on the goal of breaking the back of terrorism and not watching the polls. I also believe, as a Christian, that our government has the obligation to defend it's citizens, so this war is certainly justified. I also believe it will conducted honorably.
I find it ironic that in a prior article you posted, the writer castigated President Bush for 'doing nothing' (actually, showing restraint) in the wake of the terrorist attack, and now some to fear that he will do too much. I think we all need to seek balance in our analysis and not let preconceived attitudes color our reactions, or it's going to be a long, long haul.
Thanks for your voicing your reasonable comments and concerns Beckie, and for considering mine.
I think we can find lot of common ground here.
If it seems so, it's because Rockwell's gang don't see the complexity and contingency of events. They are dogmatists and view everything through the same oversimplified formulas.
Firm adherence to principle is a good thing, but I'm not sure that continual reiteration of the same arguments is.
For Rockwellites the world is a static system that always works out for the best if it's left alone. But things are always changing, and for the rest of us, everything isn't always for the best, especially not in a world that has seen Hitler, Stalin and now Bin Laden. The idea that peaceful economic exchanges between individuals will always work out for the best may have some validity, but it doesn't apply to crime, war or terrorism.
The Rockwellites do an admirable job countering the liberal cry "We have to do something about this!" But they forget that in the real world, there are some things that we do have to do something about. We can't always just analyze away difficult situations and expect them to resolve themselves on their own. I have no doubt that there are those who would love to impose their power and their idea of order on the rest of us, but I also see that sometimes action now is necessary to prevent future losses. Rockwellites don't know or ignore this.
Rockheads love to debate, but there doesn't seem to be any internal debate in their ranks. None of the usual contributors to their website ever say that Lincoln may not have been a monster or a tyrant or that Pearl Harbor might not have been Roosevelt's fault. To give credit where it's due, they do post those who have attacked them on the website, but the hard core of Rockwellites is quite conformist, and never takes a step out of line.
A lot of crazy things get said and written in times like these, and the rigidity of Rockwell's crew may look comforting and reassuring. But others are trying to make sense of a world in which limits and bounds and definitions no longer seem to fit the old patterns. Maybe they'll succeed in doing so. The Rockwellites aren't even trying and simply attack those who develop views which differ from their own.
It's not that their principles are wrong or unworthy. It's just that they're too quick to assume that things are simpler than they are and that those who don't agree with them have some evil agenda. You have to spend at least a little time in the labyrinth of reality before you can show others the way out.
proposal = comments from DoJ
references this section of US code
references Homeland Defense (Notice the Date)
Bill to institute agency (Also notice date)
Revision and analysis from DoJ
The above links are from:
US Code Title 18 housed at Cornell University linked from FedLaw.gov;
Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org)
Library of Congress (thomas.loc.gov)
Hopefully everyone will be able to make effective use of these and see what the gov has up its sleeve for us. These are NOT the final versions to be voted on but will give a good indicator of the intent and direction of the gov't. As always, it is not pretty for the citizens.
For my part I would attribute that to the fact that neither of those assertions are true. But more seriously, that would hardly have a place on the site. Lincoln and Roosevelt have been so deified in the popular mind that a necessary balance is needed, it is the place of Rockwell's site to provide that balance, and to take less than an extreme opposite view would hardly serve the purpose. It has always been my practice, when prevalant views seem to me to be excessively one-sided, to take the extreme opposite view, rather than to try, rather than to try at all cost to take some moderate intermediate position. Too many of the people whom I know that do the latter do it more to play the role of the sweet reasonable condescending moderate, than out of genuine principle, and I find that repugnant. That is why I like the Rockwell site. I agree with most of the usual contributors most of the time. Most of the views expressed there are opposite to the unexamined majority view. That makes the site valuable. Particularly now, when people are being stampeded and we keep hearing that now is not the time to reflect or examine our opinions, but we should simply unite behind our leaders and except what they tell us we need to except if we are to be considered loyal citizens. I think LewRockwell.com offers a necessary antidote to that and for that reason it is valuable. And that is what I intended by my statement.
Sir, this parody thread says it all.
WHo is the brillaint and thoughful soul who combines such logic and wit?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.