Freedom As A Symbol And Freedom As A Reality

Jon Rappoport  August 8 2013

“Either you think—or else others have to think for you and take power from you, pervert and discipline your natural tastes, civilize and sterilize you.” ~ F. Scott Fitzgerald, Tender is the Night (1934)

Remember the old saying, the map is not the territory? The map is especially not the territory when its directions and locations are symbols that refer to false paths.

In that case, using the map takes you to the wrong place. It keeps you moving toward an imitation of the destination. And when you arrive, you may think you’ve found the treasure, but you’ve actually discovered a trap.

And you’re in it. You can believe, even while in the trap, that you’ve found the gold. Because you did the right thing. You followed the symbols. You agreed to their meanings. But you ended up with an illusion of wealth.

Worse, you buy the illusion and now believe that what you originally sought was just a fantasy

In this democracy, freedom is a symbol that refers to a specific set of permissions the government grants to individuals.

And even then, the actual list of permissions is shrinking—which means the government is arbitrarily redefining what was originally granted.

Freedom is situated in the hands of those who rule from Washington.

Arguing about how much freedom the government should allow is like arguing about the degree to which you are a property owned by government. 43%? 78%?

It’s also like calling you a time-share. Should government decide it can spend two weeks a year in your mind and body? A month? Eleven months?

The symbol of freedom, for those who love big government, is malleable, depending on the latest official (vague) description of “greatest good for the greatest number,” which automatically trumps all individual rights.

“Hi. I’m a time-share named Joe. Today, I found out that the federal government can move in to my body & mind 24 days a month. That’s a new decision. I fully support it, because government is calculating greatest good for the greatest number.”

Continue reading

The Rich Are Not Like The Rest Of Us

Jonathan Turley March 2 2013

Cold WarOne of America’s greatest novels in my opinion is “The Great Gatsby” and I think many literary critics feel the same. If you’re not familiar with it, the short synopsis is that it is the tale of Jay Gatsby, a mysterious figure of self made wealth who arrives on Long Island’s North Shore, known as the “Gold Coast”, back in the “Roaring Twenties”. His life intertwines with Tom and Daisy Buchanan, a “golden” young couple with inherited wealth and the best social pedigrees. The interplay between these three leads to ultimate tragedy for Gatsby and more than a few other characters swept into the social vortex surrounding the Buchanan’s. On the last page of this magnificently crafted book, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, the narrator Nick runs into Tom and Daisy who are gaily embarking on a trip to Europe after some cataclysmic events of their causing and he says of them:

“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”

Now lest you think I’m about to deliver a polemic about all wealthy people let me disabuse you of that notion. I know and have known many wealthy people who were also exemplary human beings and have my respect and affection. “The Rich” I refer to are people like the Koch Brothers who were born into great wealth and somehow believe they are among the anointed of the world. So strong is that belief that they are willing to do just about anything to maintain their power in this world and their anger at those who oppose them is the “righteous” anger of the permanently entitled. These groups of people generally have fortunes beginning in the hundreds of millions of dollars, Mitt Romney perhaps, and are far removed from the merely wealthy. The see themselves as Aristocrats of the world and in reality they would like to return us to the time of feudalism. In some respects we have returned, when we think of our Justice Department refusing to criminally prosecute banks like HSBC, which has admitted to partaking in clearly illegal activities. The germ for this guest blog came from a link supplied by one of our most prolific commenters. What it shows, I think with great effectiveness, is how the Rich are not like the rest of us and why they need to be stopped before they will destroy us and our country with it.

Continue reading