It is an unfortunate but true fact that in order to best understand villains, you have to place yourself in their frame of mind.
Along those lines, if you were to imagine the best ways to control and exploit a group of people without them realizing it and fighting back, you'd - interestingly enough - find just about every method applied on a regular basis in the United States.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 02 May 2013
What are the real purposes of power structures?
Do the police exist to protect you, or do they exist to keep you in line?
Do politicians exist to represent you, or do they exist to delude you into believing you're part of the process?
Does the military exist to defend your life and happiness, or does it exist to destroy others'?
Do the intelligence and national security apparatuses exist to uproot enemies before they get to you, or do they exist to create enemies and utilize the fear of those enemies to better control you?
Does the media exist to inform you, or does it exist to misinform you, control the dialogue, and keep you thinking the Right Thoughts?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Do the police exist to protect you, or do they exist to keep you in line?
Do politicians exist to represent you, or do they exist to delude you into believing you're part of the process?
Does the military exist to defend your life and happiness, or does it exist to destroy others'?
Do the intelligence and national security apparatuses exist to uproot enemies before they get to you, or do they exist to create enemies and utilize the fear of those enemies to better control you?
Does the media exist to inform you, or does it exist to misinform you, control the dialogue, and keep you thinking the Right Thoughts?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 01 May 2013
We may rightfully be disturbed and upset when any citizen uses the bulk of their income to spy on others, disrupt their lives in any way possible, and even order their deaths. But when a government does it? Well, then it's just normal, necessary behavior.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 30 Apr 2013
How often do people say "don't be so political" when they agree with what you're saying?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 29 Apr 2013
At some point it seems that the CIA decided it was too troublesome being a criminal enterprise financed by the state, and so, as a remedy, turned to paying for its most unsavory activities with cleaner money - that taken from drug trafficking and the like.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 28 Apr 2013
Enemies will continue to exist as long as there is an incentive for people in positions of power to create them.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 27 Apr 2013
Given the willingness to lie to go to war, and the sheer military power backing those lies, who could the United States not have attacked after September 11, 2001?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 26 Apr 2013
The most troublesome part of any reactionary dismissal of 'within reason' conspiracy theories (those that are political or regarding events pertaining strictly to humanity) is the insinuation that certain groups of people would not be willing to go to such lengths to deceive others for their own gain.
A proper reading of history reveals thousands of such instances, happening at occurrences so regular that any lack of conspiracy involved in a particular event must be considered an outlier. And yet, knowing only what they were told at the time, the better part of every generation thought their leaders above it.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
A proper reading of history reveals thousands of such instances, happening at occurrences so regular that any lack of conspiracy involved in a particular event must be considered an outlier. And yet, knowing only what they were told at the time, the better part of every generation thought their leaders above it.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 25 Apr 2013
How exactly can you be for enlarging the middle class while against the redistribution of wealth?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 24 Apr 2013
So you mean to tell me that "follow the money" is a valid tactic to decipher criminal motivation in police/detective work, but somehow becomes void in the sphere of politics and foreign policy, where everyone is miraculously concerned about the well-being of others?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 23 Apr 2013
If we can agree that inequality is a serious problem which must be dealt with in order to forge a better society, should our primary focus not be combating the greatest of inequalities - that where some are given a chance to live (not always with the same level of opportunity, but a chance nonetheless), while others are killed in cold blood?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 22 Apr 2013
Why is it when a business provides a service that is cheaper for itself to maintain, yet more costly for the public to access, it is seen as a positive development? Should it not cause more outrage when the costs of doing business are shifted onto the consumer, who in reality has little to no recourse?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 21 Apr 2013
Group A presents evidence showing the United States and its entire political system as anathema to the interests of the greater part of humanity, and comes to the conclusion that, because it is beyond repair, steps must be taken outside of the system in order to enact meaningful change.
Meanwhile, group B offers similar (or even the same) evidence, and amazingly comes to the opposite conclusion - that we can still work within the system, and everything could be salvaged if only we were to vote the right people into office.
Now, who exactly are the radicals, the crazies - those who espouse opinions that no reasonable person could ever accept?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Meanwhile, group B offers similar (or even the same) evidence, and amazingly comes to the opposite conclusion - that we can still work within the system, and everything could be salvaged if only we were to vote the right people into office.
Now, who exactly are the radicals, the crazies - those who espouse opinions that no reasonable person could ever accept?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 20 Apr 2013
If we recognize a competitive spirit as part of the greater part of human nature, should we not divert that spirit into healthy endeavors, rather than ones that harm both the better part of humanity and the planet itself?
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Thoughtcrime - 19 Apr 2013
Is the corporate world - in either theory or reality - in favor of social programs and general equality?
In theory, they're completely against both. Social programs are seen as encroaching on their moneymaking ability, as sectors of the economy not open for exploitation. Equality, on the other hand, completely voids the entire hierarchical structure of capitalism, where the 'good' (ideas, people, etc) rise to the top, and the 'bad' suffer and die out.
In reality, the situation is a bit more complex. The activism of the 1960s and onward has punctured the corporate world, not only filling some of its ranks with more sympathetic members of the human race, but also keeping public relations managers on guard against anything which might spark public outcry. The end result is one where a few well-meaning individuals on the inside offer token gestures in the way of reform, at the same time the company itself heavily lobbies against any such programs in Washington.
That is, it's similar to most of the products they force down our throats - at face value, a boon to humanity, but in actuality a gigantic waste of resources, only made to line the pockets of the already incredibly wealthy.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
In theory, they're completely against both. Social programs are seen as encroaching on their moneymaking ability, as sectors of the economy not open for exploitation. Equality, on the other hand, completely voids the entire hierarchical structure of capitalism, where the 'good' (ideas, people, etc) rise to the top, and the 'bad' suffer and die out.
In reality, the situation is a bit more complex. The activism of the 1960s and onward has punctured the corporate world, not only filling some of its ranks with more sympathetic members of the human race, but also keeping public relations managers on guard against anything which might spark public outcry. The end result is one where a few well-meaning individuals on the inside offer token gestures in the way of reform, at the same time the company itself heavily lobbies against any such programs in Washington.
That is, it's similar to most of the products they force down our throats - at face value, a boon to humanity, but in actuality a gigantic waste of resources, only made to line the pockets of the already incredibly wealthy.
Previous Thoughtcrime Next Thoughtcrime
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)