Dead Life In A Political Prison

[midcan5]

I have been reading Derrick Jensen's "The Culture of Make Believe," the following should be make believe but it is not.

"Funny how life turns out. Not everyone in prison is a criminal, and not everyone walking free is honest."

At great risk to himself, Yassin Aref describes the interior of his federal cage


"Locking us down in this old leaky building and prohibiting us from hugging our children and calling them often on the phone will never bring peace to this country, and will never make this nation safer. But it is really putting the justice system in this country on trial.

Is it true that all humans are equal?

Is it true that everyone is free to choose his faith?

Are human rights really protected by law?

We hear this but we would like to see it!!"


http://www.albanyweblog.com/2007/10-Oct/10-14-07.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yup, you should hang out with EOTS some, he/she believes in fairy tales like this too. The follow quote leads off your supposed horrible wrong....

Imagine being accused of a terrible crime that you did not commit, and had no intention of ever committing.

Then imagine that a psychopathic cabal of corrupt politicians, creatures who had seized power by altering the results of elections, arbitrarily decide that they want you to serve as a public scapegoat.

Now imagine that these evil politicos, desperate to create a diversion to cover their own vast crimes, send a cadre of secret police to frame you for this imaginary crime. After an obviously crooked show trial filled with obvious lies by the prosecution, and presided over by a spineless, biased judge, you are sent a thousand miles away to a be locked away for a long time in a specially constructed torture chamber. You are now a political prisoner.

This sort of thing happens all the time in third world countries ruled by vicious strongmen, places where thugs dictate their own arbitrary law with bullets. It doesn’t happen in our America. Right?

I kept reading but the above is beyond ignorant. Yup you and EOTS would make a good pair.

ohh I forgot the link, wouldn't want Kath in here claiming I was spamming.

http://www.albanyweblog.com/2007/10-Oct/10-14-07.html

 

[midcan5]

RGS, so in your country it is Ok to lock people for no reason? Hope I never visit it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Obviously it was not for NO REASON. the first paragraph tells me all I need to know.

 

[Psychoblues]

Obviously you never knew much, rgs.

Obviously it was not for NO REASON. the first paragraph tells me all I need to know.

And you are happy right where you remain. Good Luck!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[eots]

Obviously it was not for NO REASON. the first paragraph tells me all I need to know.

Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know.
Aldous Huxley

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know.
Aldous Huxley

In your case it is delusional paranoia.

 

[Psychoblues]

That is called "denial and projection", rgs.

In your case it is delusional paranoia.

Have you anything more pitiful to excuse your position?

 

[eots]

In your case it is delusional paranoia.

AND IN YOUR CASE


Aldous Huxley

A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy.
Eventually, it will become obvious even to Americans that the 1984 approach is doomed. It is based on punishment, which creates criminals, who then must be punished, imprisoned, or re-educated, all at great expense. Even the most ardent supporter of the 1984 approach will finally realize that incarcerating the majority of the population incurs excessive costs to society while simultaneously draining the pool of available workers and taxpayers. A 1984 society is one of spies, informers, Big Brother, and constant surveillance, not to mention a distinct lack of happiness.

The Brave New World approach dispenses with all of that by replacing punishment with pleasure, but again the cost is high. It requires giving up art, science, literature, history, marriage, monogamy, religion, love, individuality, and freedom in return for soma, temporary happiness in a tablet.

Janadas Devan writing in The Straits Times goes even further. He contends that “1984 is past and Brave New World is here.”

Huxley's argument, in essence, was that it would be easier to control people by making them happy (cakes and circuses) instead of flogging and kicking them into submission (clubs and prison).

‘The nearly perfect control exercised by the government is achieved by systematic reinforcement of desirable behaviour, by many kinds of nearly non-violent manipulation, both physical and psychological, and by genetic standardisation.'

 

[Psychoblues]

Kudos, eots!!!!!!!

AND IN YOUR CASE


Aldous Huxley

A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly obedient bureaucracy.
Eventually, it will become obvious even to Americans that the 1984 approach is doomed. It is based on punishment, which creates criminals, who then must be punished, imprisoned, or re-educated, all at great expense. Even the most ardent supporter of the 1984 approach will finally realize that incarcerating the majority of the population incurs excessive costs to society while simultaneously draining the pool of available workers and taxpayers. A 1984 society is one of spies, informers, Big Brother, and constant surveillance, not to mention a distinct lack of happiness.

The Brave New World approach dispenses with all of that by replacing punishment with pleasure, but again the cost is high. It requires giving up art, science, literature, history, marriage, monogamy, religion, love, individuality, and freedom in return for soma, temporary happiness in a tablet.

Janadas Devan writing in The Straits Times goes even further. He contends that “1984 is past and Brave New World is here.”

Huxley's argument, in essence, was that it would be easier to control people by making them happy (cakes and circuses) instead of flogging and kicking them into submission (clubs and prison).

‘The nearly perfect control exercised by the government is achieved by systematic reinforcement of desirable behaviour, by many kinds of nearly non-violent manipulation, both physical and psychological, and by genetic standardisation.'

I suspect rgs to repond with his ordinary juvenile premonitions but not anything that you or I should worry about.

 

[musicman]

Huxley's argument, in essence, was that it would be easier to control people by making them happy (cakes and circuses) instead of flogging and kicking them into submission (clubs and prison).

Huxley appears, then, to have missed the point of 1984 altogether. Flogging and kicking were merely the means; the end was control, itself. In the glorious future envisioned - and being implemented - by the Party, such crudeness and gargantuan effort would be unnecessary. Through Newspeak and doublethink, the range of human thought would be reduced to the point where the idea of rebellion was literally impossible to formulate. Coercion would hardly be needed.

Perhaps Huxley was touting HIS warnings of the coming totalitarian nightmare - and thus, his books - over Orwell's. It would only be human nature.