I
see with no surprise that Washington is stepping up its campaign to
censor the internet. It had to come, and will succeed. It will put paid
forever to America’s flirtation with freedom.
The country was never really a democracy,
meaning a polity in which final power rested with the people. The voters
have always been too remote from the levers of power to have much
influence. Yet for a brief window of time there actually was freedom of a
sort. With the censorship of the net—it will be called “regulation”—the
last hope of retaining former liberty will expire.
Over the years freedom has declined in inverse
proportion to the reach of the central government. (Robert E. Lee: “I
consider the constitutional power of the General Government as the chief
source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation
of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and
despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has
overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.” Yep.)
Through most of the country’s history,
Washington lacked the ability to meddle, control, micromanage, and
punish. In 1850, it had precious little knowledge of events in lands
such as Wyoming, Tennessee, or West Virginia, no capacity to do much
about them, and not a great deal of interest. People on remote farms and
in small towns governed themselves as they chose, not always well but
without rule by distant bureaucracies and moneyed interests.
For a sunny few years, local freedom rested
substantially on principle, a notion inconceivable now. The Thomas
Jeffersons, George Washingtons, and Robert E. Lees genuinely believed in
freedom, and worried about the coming of tyranny. Justices of the
Supreme Court often upheld the tenets of the Bill of Rights. As human
affairs go—poorly, as a rule—it was impressive.
As time went by, however, it became clear that
incapacity, not principle, was the only reliable brake on the rise of
dictatorship. In 1950, the government could put a mail cover on anyone,
quite possibly illegally if the FBI were involved, but steaming
envelopes open required time, effort, and manpower. Mass surveillance
was impossible, and so didn’t happen. Without surveillance, there can be
no control.
Fora long time it was due to principle that
freedom of the press remained, no matter how much the government hated
it. During the war in Vietnam, “underground” papers, which of course
published openly, were virulently critical of the government. The
mainstream media of the time published shocking photographs of the war,
much to the fury of the Pentagon. The courts allowed it.
Today, that has changed. Washington has learned
to avoid dissent from its wars by using a volunteer army of men about
whom no one of influence cares. The use of “drones” further reduces
public interest, and today the major media, owned by corporations
aligned with arms manufacturers and manned by intimidated reporters,
hide the results on the battlefield. For practical purposes, today’s
press is an arm of government.
The old checks and balances, however modest in
their effects, have withered. The Supreme Court is now a branch office
of Madame Tussaud’s, Congress a two-headed corpse, the Constitution a
scrap of moldering parchment remembered only by hopeless romantics, and
Washington a sandbox of unaccountable hacks inbred to the point of
hemophilia. Obama has discovered that he can do almost anything, calling
it an executive order, and no one will dare challenge him.
In its rare waking moments, the Supreme Court
has shown little inclination to protect the Bill of Rights, which
Washington regards as quaint at best and, usually, an annoyance to be
overcome by executive order and judicial somnolence. The obvious reality
that having the government read every email, record every telephone
conversation, monitor every financial transaction
and so on is a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment bothers neither
the Supremes nor, heaven knows, the President. It is clearly
unconstitutional, but we do not live in constitutional times.
Governments aggregate power. They do not relinquish it, short of
revolution.
Today the internet is the only free press we
have, all that stands against total control of information. Consider how
relentlessly the media impose political correctness, how the slightest
offense to the protected groups—we all know who they are—or to sacred
policies leads to firing of reporters and groveling by politicians. The
wars are buried and serious criticism of Washington suppressed. That
leaves the net, only the net, without which we would know nothing.
Which is why it must be and will be censored,
sooner if Washington can get away with it and later if not. The tactics
are predictable. First, “hate speech” will be banned. The government
will tell us whom we can hate and whom we cannot. “Hatred” will be
vaguely defined so that one will never be sure when one is engaging in
it and, since it will be prosecutable, one will have to be very careful.
Disapproval of favored groups, or of their behavior, will be defined as
hatred. National security will be invoked, silencing whistle-blowers
or, eventually, anything that might make the public uneasy with
Washington’s wars.
The next step probably will be to block links to
foreign sites deemed to transgress. China is good at this. The most
likely avenue will be executive orders of increasingly Draconian nature,
about which Congress and the Dead—the Supreme Court, I meant to
say—will do nothing.
At that point, coming soon to a theater near
you, the United States as it was intended to be, and to an extent was,
will be over. Our increasingly characterless young, raised to ignorance
and Appropriate Thought by government schools, will question nothing.
They will have no way of knowing that there is anything to question.
I suppose it can be debated whether the current
enstupidation of the rising generations is deliberate or merely the
consequence of a return to peasantry inescapable in a democracy. The
petulance and immaturity running through so much of society may be
inevitable in a spoiled people who have never had to do anything and
have never been told “no.” Certainly things today resemble the end games
of other once-dominant cultures.
Mental darkness facilitates authoritarianism,
and darkness we have. Many college graduates can barely read. Their
ignorance of history, politics, and geography (and practically
everything else) is profound, and they see no reason why they should
know anything. They seem not to suspect that there might be things worth
knowing.
I am hard pressed to think of a society in such
internal decline that has turned itself around, and I cannot imagine how
ours might do so. One sure thing is that, once the internet is gelded,
there will be no hope at all. And the assault has begun.
Fred On Everything-- http://fredoneverything.net/Internet.shtml
1 comment:
Gloomy, but accurate! Wake up! ohh sleepers!!
Post a Comment