FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY FROM JAHWEH BY GUN BARREL

FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY FROM JAHWEH BY GUN BARREL.
By Peter Fredson

At present this nation is as divided as it can get without actually recurring to civil war, political assassinations, or having military law with soldiers patrolling every street with heavy weapons at the ready. While we are still a long way from our troops spreading democracy and liberty in the U.S., as in Iraq, with cruise missiles, helicopter gun ships, night vision goggles, heavy armor, cannon and weaponry, our country is being engulfed in the deadly grip of Dominionist Neo-Con and Corporate fascism.  And we do have jack-booted police, with clubs, gas, shields and heavy weapons preventing any demonstration that might embarrass the administration. There are plenty of demonstrations against the Bush regime, but the chances of any newspaper covering them are mighty slim.

The long history of our democracy and the yearning for civil peace has so far stifled any general call to arms or a coup-de-etat for regime change. There is a general complacency, or hope, that everything will turn out all right in the end. Most Americans are optimistic about the future, dimly seen. But the relentless quest of the True Believers for dominion, for total control, and the quest of the great corporate powers for monopoly, hegemony, and endless profits may soon develop active resistance.

The French Revolution was spawned by similar circumstances.  The American Revolution and the Mexican Revolution put church and state back into equilibrium after the merciless combination of King and Church exploited humanity for centuries. We are today witnessing a resurgence of clerical and political tyranny similar to that imposed before the American Revolution.  Perhaps History is repeating itself?

We are daily watching the executive branch give orders to Congress and to the Justice system, largely because the president believes he was chosen by God and therefore can do no wrong.  We know that the entire Republican Party was captured by True Believers. Can anyone think of any legislation proposed by George II that Republicans did not approve overwhelmingly? Did any Republican senators warn George II that they would vote against him on any topic? On the contrary, George II was advised by legal wizards that he is above the law. Only the most avid supporters of Bush do not believe that the abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib were initiated by the Bush executives.

He awards his most extreme sycophants with top appointments, and chastises his critics by relegating them to limbo.  He is so unsure of his own merit that his sycophants have to introduce fake reporters to ask him easy questions that he can answer without his usual stammer, smirk, and deviousness. He has an imperial attitude toward secrecy that overwhelms anyone trying to get specific information on his programs.

He does not trust the American people and has imposed a reign of legal terror upon them in which he can arrest anyone at will, hold them without warrant, and abuse and torture them to obtain his ends. He can listen in on any private conversation, read any mail, look at any computer files, check out what books people have read. He has not hesitated to intrude his religious beliefs upon our legal system. He hypocritically declares that he wants no activist judges, but only those who will vote the way he wants them to vote. He does not hesitate to disrupt the legal process any time it varies from his beliefs and had his senate pass special legislation to by-pass normal judicial routes to accommodate hysterical True Believers who knew better than doctors how to treat vegetative states.  His brother thought seriously of kidnapping a dying woman in order to accommodate True Believers.

Every time George II finds that administering the country is too “hard” he distracts people from his poor performance with some emotional issue, of personal choice, and exploits it for every dime and vote, wringing it out endlessly.  His hold on people seems so precarious that he even had people sign oaths that they would be faithful to him, and his police would eject any critic of any kind without even a “by your leave.”  He wanted the churches to give him lists of worshippers so he could use them as political cannon-fodder. He has subverted the media to the point where otherwise-decent reporters can no longer be objective.

This shows a desperate man, voracious for power, intolerant of any opinion than his own, having the compassion of an alligator. His political machination is a power-grab that masquerades as religion, and unites most superstitious True Believers behind him, in the belief that he may be a kind of messiah, because “He talks to God.” No reporter ever asks him what God answers, or if God ever answers, but that is beside the point when grabbing for power by exploiting religion.

He loves to consider himself a War-Time President, as it gives him more power, while his followers disregard the fact that the invasion and war of Iraq was achieved by misdirection and lies about non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction that offered “imminent danger to the U.S.” with unceasing rhetoric about “regime change” and “EVIL.”

To justify keeping the U.S. at war, he combined “peace” with “freedom” and “security” as in a commencement address to Concordia University students by saying, “America works for peace and freedom….For the sake of peace, for the sake of security, we stand for freedom.” In his inaugural address for his second term in 2005 he used the terms “Liberty” and “Freedom” until he wore them out.

Everyone disregarded that fact that his “Liberty, Freedom, and Democracy” meant having 160,000 troops destroying buildings in Iraq, shooting civilians at will, imposing puppets on a sovereign nation, and installing a permanent tyranny of airbases and embassies.

His spin doctors made it seem that people in Iraq, heroically fighting to get the Yankees out of their sovereign country, were all terrorists. The word “patriot” became “insurgent.”, sometimes even “Thug” or “Outlaw.”

But I imagine that King George during the American Revolution used somewhat the same language for the American rebels. The present George II does not even bother to count the civilian dead of Iraq, as they are simply heretical trash that are to be eradicated eventually by missionizing and crusading followers. The imperial will of George II is not to be contested. He and his corporate buddies intend to rule the world. After all, his finger IS near a button which if pushed can unleash all the horrors of civilization gone mad, and this is a mighty weapon with which to menace the entire world.  Indeed this can make any old draft-dodger feel like Julius Caesar.

His followers are singularly devoted to him, giving all their effort, money and votes to achieve either their Apocalypse, or world domination.  Nothing he does seems to evoke much criticism from True Believers. Certainly all of the thousands of evangelists are exulting with his attack on church and state and thanking him for letting them impose their beliefs on the entire nation in the form of pledges, commandments, icons, dogma and symbols.  They have taken over much of the media and control the flow of information.

Fox News is a prime example of a TV propaganda station that is owned by a True Believer and his “newscasters” know that any deviation from the True Believer line will immediately cost them their jobs. Christian music and bookstores have taken over many distribution outlets. Prayer is daily advocated as the prime remedy for any ailment. Science is excoriated, while Bible quotations are offered as solutions to any problem. Education is dumbed-down to accommodate True Believers. Angels are seen everywhere, while images of Jesus and the Virgin Mary abound on fence-posts and even on tortillas. Con-artist faith-healers abound with no interference from government regulations. True Believers weep, blubber and chant over a “sacred” monument erected by an Alabama judge who wants everyone to acknowledge “his” God. 

Democrats seem dazed and have mounted no effective attack against Right Wing tyranny, or they might be thought of as “anti-Jesus” and that would be political suicide in present day America. Few senators speak out against the growing fascist tendency, with Senator Robert Byrd an honorable exception. Even a Supreme Court judge remarked that the separation of Church and State was a bad metaphor and should be discarded.

What will happen when all the Supreme Court Judges have been appointed by George II? Can this country remain a democracy, or will it drift into theocracy with a fascist flavor? If we have no independent Congress or Supreme Court, but everything is commanded by the Executive Office, then why not go directly to Imperial rule?

After all, the Romans were efficient, even if they had to behave rudely with non-Romans. Imperialism might be a good solution to environmental problems today, where lions and tigers are disappearing, for lack of room and food, to revive the good old Roman Coliseum practice of feeding the animals with non-conformists.

Perhaps atheists, secularists, agnostics, humanists and their ilk could be given copies of Darwin and put naked in the arena against True Believers armed with crosses, heavy Bibles, and Ten Commandment Tablets, singing “Onward Christian Soldiers.” That’ll teach ‘em!’

14 thoughts on “FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY FROM JAHWEH BY GUN BARREL

  1. English 101

    Peter I just don’t get it.  You are using lots of big words and fancy writing that ends up just losing me as a reader.  I am sorry but I can’t buy into your argument.  I am a Freshman in college and this post would never fly in my English class.  A requirement for a good argument is to back up your main points using examples and facts backed up by verifiable sources.  With the way you are writing you seem to be asking the reader to just agree with you.  A truly critical reader (even if the reader was in agreement with you) could never accept this on the grounds that is a poor argument lacking the above mentioned elements.  I personally find nothing thought provoking and in fact I am shut off by what I see as a rant that you are force feeding me with.  Give me something to bite on.  I get lost in the sheer number of points you are attempting to make.  Cut down the number of statements so that you can create a more palatable structured argument.  Try working in a thesis, points to back up that thesis, and a recognizable conclusion.  Until I can see some kind of coherent structure I will just pass right by your posts.  I am not certainly not someone who is in a position to advise other people how to write.  In my opinion the reader, just like the customer, is always right, and I wanted to let you know that I get lost in your writing.  On the other hand I guess you can’t please everyone.

  2. John: I usually discuss issues with adults and use appropriate language. When you grow up you might antidisestablishmentarianize the eucharistic dominionism of tyrannical obfuscation mediating medievalist outlooks.

    You might ask your English teacher to look at your sentence: “With the way you are writing you seem to be asking the reader to just agree with you.

    As far as giving you something to bite on, here, bite on THIS.

  3. Ultimately, John, few if any of these posts are intended to be scientific in their processes. Neither, I’ll mind you, are most of the college essays I’ve ever read, especially in English. It’s up to you whether or not you want to take my word as a soothe-sayer, but it’s easy to weave together half-evidenced ideas to create an elaborate load of BS, even while following the classical structures you’ve mentioned. You seem to be at a bit of a divide as to whether you’re criticising the style or the content of the essay more. Care to fill me in?

  4. Peter, calm down a bit. If truth be told, I’ve had many of the exact same thoughts John expressed. Your writing could only get better if you consider some of his points.

    I like that you are compelled to communicate your feelings but many of your entries contain the same complaints over and over again. I keep hoping you’ll provide sources to support your statements so that people who don’t presently feel as you do will have information worthy of consideration.

    Length doesn’t make a piece but brevity doesn’t seem to be your style. I’m for you dude and am determined to read everything written on this site yet there’s no harm meant in asking you to try to provide quality over quantity and frequency.

    I think you have the ability to be an interesting and engaging writer so I’m giving you my impressions because I feel you could benefit from some feedback.

  5. Brock: Tell me if any of these statements need more evidence than your own eyes and experience?

    1. At present this nation is as divided as it can get.

    2. Our country is being engulfed in the deadly grip of Dominionist Neo-Con and Corporate fascism

    3. And we do have jack-booted police, with clubs, gas, shields and heavy weapons preventing any demonstration that might embarrass the administration. There are plenty of demonstrations against the Bush regime, but the chances of any newspaper covering them are mighty slim.

    4. But the relentless quest of the True Believers for dominion, for total control, and the quest of the great corporate powers for monopoly, hegemony, and endless profit

    5. We are daily watching the executive branch give orders to Congress and to the Justice system, largely because the president believes he was chosen by God and therefore can do no wrong. 

    6. We know that the entire Republican Party was captured by True Believers.

    7. Can anyone think of any legislation proposed by George II that Republicans did not approve overwhelmingly?

    8. Did any Republican senators warn George II that they would vote against him on any topic?
    9. On the contrary, George II was advised by legal wizards that he is above the law. Only the most avid supporters of Bush do not believe that the abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib were initiated by the Bush executives.

    10. He awards his most extreme sycophants with top appointments, and chastises his critics by relegating them to limbo.

    11. He is so unsure of his own merit that his sycophants have to introduce fake reporters to ask him easy questions that he can answer without his usual stammer, smirk, and deviousness.

    12. He has an imperial attitude toward secrecy that overwhelms anyone trying to get specific information on his programs

    I could number the other sentences of my essay. But can you point out any of those I listed that have not been verified daily by reputable sources? I know that you can point out many that you do not AGREE with, because you may think that George II is a wonderful godly Messiah, and wouldn’t hurt a fly, that Iraq had us at its mercy with WMDs, and that no oil was ever involved, or the idea of killing Muslims for the Glory of God, etc. I don’t really know what you think.  But I think he is one of the most dangerous demagogues to democracy since Adolph Hitler started his own Homeland Security.

    Do you think I make charges blindly, without evidence? You might Google for Rapture Index and see what lunacy really looks like.

  6. Peter I think the issue of agreement with your essay is irrelevant in this discussion.  I enjoy a good essay regardless of my belief on the topic and the argument being made by the author.  I would not be a critical (intelligent) reader if I were to simply believe you when you say something like “Our country is being engulfed in the deadly grip of Dominionist Neo-Con and Corporate fascism” without backing up that statement.  If you were to tell me why you think this way in a well structured logical argument then I may not be able to say you are wrong, I would just disagree (or agree.)  That statement could be an essay in itself, yet you continue on with one statement after another.  None of these arguments are compelling or thought provoking because you are not building a case for each statement.  I could certainly go out and do my own research, but that is the job of the author.  I will not be able to dig up the same information as an expert (or well informed individual) on the subject.  That is why I read, I like to get an expert point of view.  I do not mean to be a troll here but you make very bold statements with no firepower to back them up.

  7. Peter, it might not be a bad thing to consider their criticism constructively. The style of commentary that John is advocating is the sort that I try to provide which is part of why I’m not as prolific as some other bloggers out there. I end up spending most of my time during the writing process seeking out links and references which back up the point I’m trying to make.

    I agree with many of the points you raise, but that’s largely because I’ve done the research myself already so in my case you’re preaching to the choir. Truth be told I don’t tend to read your entries, other than the satires, at this point beyond scanning them to see what categories they might best fall under. Not because I disagree or they aren’t well written, but because there’s not much for me to ponder in them. It’s a lot of sizzle, but not much steak. You can get a little shrill at times as well and that makes me cringe when it happens.

    I hope you’ll take this in the constructive manner it was meant. You’ve definitely got your fans among the SEB regulars and I appreciate the time and effort you take in submitting your entries. I think what you write is good, but I think it could be better with a little more steak in the pan.

  8. JOhn: You say: ” I would not be a critical (intelligent) reader if I were to simply believe you when you say something like “Our country is being engulfed in the deadly grip of Dominionist Neo-Con and Corporate fascism

  9. Peter said: Brock: Tell me if any of these statements need more evidence than your own eyes and experience?…

    Peter, if you’ve read this site very long you’ve seen that I’m no fan of BushCo. I could rag them enough to leave YOU blushing. The point isn’t that you’re wrong but how you present the information. If someone walks away from your post feeling like they’ve been lectured, even though they agree with your conclusions, something is wrong. I’ve felt that way several times after reading your posts and I’d be amazed if I were the only one.

    I’m always hoping for incriminating evidence concerning the politically and religiously insane and I want to wake others up to their unethical activities just as much as you do, so it isn’t that I’m offended by the subject matter. I simply want you to succeed in educating others.

    Another thing, and this may sound rude to compare you two, but Les is my hero. I can’t be the voice of cogent thought like he is to me but I usually read and learn something from him. If you’re going to be as prevalent a presence on this site as he is (and lately you have been), I want you to be as interesting and convincing as he is.

    Leave it to me to post the banal, off-color stuff. I’ll always do that better than you anyway.

  10. Let’s forget about content and focus on structure.  A persuasive essay is essentially an argument.  An argument is defined as a series of coherent statements leading from a premise to a conclusion.  Furthermore these statements should be backed up by facts and examples pulled from cited sources.  When you make a statement I want to jump into your head a bit.  I want to know about the thought processes that lead you to this statement.  Even if I agree with your statement from my own research there may be different reasons by which I arrived to that agreement.  I would very much like to hear your reasons.  For this reason both a well informed individual and someone new to the issue could have something to learn from your unique perspective.

    SEB seems to be all about independent thinking.  If you give me a statement which is not backed up by a sound logical argument then I would not be an independent thinker.  Take a look at Michael Moore as an example.  He took considerable effort to back up all of his points.  He did not move on to another point until he was able to produce a compelling argument.

    Certainly it is boring to to follow a rigid structure, but this is where the art of writing comes into play.  A good author can blend the elements of this structure so the reader never notices. 

    Consider us peer advisors.  A good author should have no problem handing his work to another person to give feedback.  Sometimes we need this to step away from ourselves.  Something that may be crystal clear in your mind may be quite muddy to someone else.  The only way you may know about this is to have someone give you constructive criticism.

  11. Les:

    You don’t know how much I’m enjoying Peter.  Unlike you, he lacks a sense of humor, lacks facts, fails to make cogent arguments in his pieces and exhibits the same rigidity of the True Believers to constructive criticism.  He is your (fill in the blank with the name of a “wingnut”). Thank you for the gimme. snake

  12. Relax Peter, we are all bastards here.  I was hoping we could have some good discourse but that would require the ability to reason.  In fact I am wondering if you are really a human and not just some clever bot designed by Les to aggregrate random statements from Bush haters around the web and construct them into blog posts to fool us.  I can see I am getting nowhere here as your replies are nothing more than an extension of the same rigmarole of your original post.

  13. John, my sympathies.  You’ve just been subjected to Peterism 101.  When confronted by any type of criticism on his writing, tone, or style, his first line of defense is to attack the reader-critic as immature and uneducated.  When the reader attempts to further explain and reason with him, Peter then goes to base insults, and accuses said reader of being part of the conspiracy, or being a bible-loving religious nut.

    As you can see from the below link, I have some experience with this.
    Peterism in Action

    A mature individual takes responsibility for his own actions, and can deal with constructive criticism.  A responsible writer or journalist, who seeks to inform, behaves as you described.  He creates a cogent argument and negotiates the reader through that argument to a conclusion.

    In my opinion, Peter is not here to inform anyone.  He places the burden of proof and research on the reader, not on the author.  Example 1A:

    Peter Said: Yes, I knew I was preaching to the choir, which is why I chose your site to be near people that understand what I am saying.

    He doesn’t want to inform or educate, he wants to be patted on the back by what he perceives are like-minded individuals. 

    He liketh to see himself in web-print;
    He loveth the sound of his own voice.
    Yay, though Pete walk through the valley of the shadow of reason, he shall fear no criticism.
    His barb and his taunt do comfort him.

    I’ll give him this, however: that fucking hound sure knows how to gnaw on a bone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.