Excerpt from IgorFrankensteen:
In the case of Watergate, actual direct connections were found again and again, between the burglars and the President. In the case of the Kennedy assassination, no mechanical connections were ever found between all the creepy coincidental details, and Oswald.
So having satisfactorily resolved the Kennedy and Watergate issues and consigned them to the annals of history can you please provide the less informed amongst the group where we can find the information which will enable us to continue the present day battle for freedom and liberty and avoid the lies,fantasies, myths, and other false or misleading things about the problems.We don't all have the skills resources and time to do this research.But before you spend too much time on your mission,how do we know that you are not a perpetrator of said lies,myths and fantasies.Perhaps you too are from the "Department of Truth" Conrad is referring too.
The fact that you DON'T know whether I am a disinformant or not, is a good first step lesson for you to teach yourself.
I would suggest that you start by assuming as little as possible. However, that includes most specifically, that you should not assume NEFARIOUSNESS any more than you should assume honesty.
It is the LACK of supporting factual and structural information that you should always look for, whenever someone comes to you and wants you to react to what they tell you is a threat to your well being.
In this case, the suggestion that we are "already living in a police state," you should begin by looking into and understanding for yourself, exactly what a Police State actually IS.
Then, I would suggest as an exercise, that you try to play the part of each of the possible kinds of people who would be involved in such a threat.
I have observed (and I would suggest you look for yourself) that people who want us to worry about things, aren't all alike.
* Some are selling things. They want us to worry that if we fail to blindly buy their products, that our lives and loves will suffer.
* Some are buying things. Votes, in particular. Many politicians want us to fear something enough to give them power or money. real Police States have been set up using this technique. To deal with these people, you must examine each power they call for you to award them, and decide whether or not it makes MECHANICAL sense to you, that giving them that power will indeed solve the problem. Or if the problem itself, actually is as they describe it.
* Some are trying to get us to let our guard DOWN, and to make us fear police, so that we will voluntarily disassemble our own protections against their criminality. This happens on all levels. Thieves want us to do away with police monitoring, and tell us it's an invasion of our privacy, so that they can then steal from us with impunity. Some corporate greedos want us to do away with regulations that limit their ability to ignore our health and safety, so that they can make a lot more money, and avoid legal responsibility for their actions.
You don't so much need to "find information," as you need to sit down and teach yourself to reason more directly. And then demand that those who want you to be afraid, prove to YOU that the threat they claim, actually exists.
Have them be specific. Most people who want you to worry in order to promote their own selfish ends, want you to fear something that is relatively vague, as far as it relates directly to you. This "police state" fantasy is a perfect example of that. Calling it a "police state" because some police HAVE been found exceeding their authority, is actually a contradiction. If it were a "police state," then the fact that these incident happened would not be newsworthy.
If you fear that accepting misbehavior by authorities can lead to a "police state," then follow the stories, and lobby for the authorities in question to be prosecuted.
Read more history. Most "police states" that have come into being, were the direct result of the citizens being brought to FEAR the loss of their liberty, by those who offered to "free" them.
i really don't think he was expecting a detailed, self righteous and arrogant answer... if you really think we are "free", then you're deluded by your self proclaimed brilliance...
If you think that was, or was even remotely INTENDED to be arrogant, you have perception and reading comprehension problems.
It was detailed, because he asked a question directly to me which required a detailed answer.
Speaking of arrogant and deluded though...
