The Surveillance Society: Trading Freedom For The Illusion Of SafetyBy Giordano Bruno, Neithercorp Press
Governments, regardless of their political structure or historical background, have always striven to not only control information, but also to gather it from the people by covert means. Often, this secretive observation of the citizenry escalates into a completely open and full-fledged surveillance state. The U.S. in particular stands on a precarious edge: the line between abhorring invasion of privacy, and embracing invasion of privacy as necessary for the “greater good.” Many people assume that such a mindset is forced on the masses by the elite, that strength of arms is somehow required to make them accept the conditions of a police state, but this is not always so. It is very difficult for governments, despite any technological developments or resources they may have, to enforce and maintain a fascistic political construct. In order to retain control, they must build a “Surveillance Culture;” a society in which the people watch each other, and where individuals censor themselves instead of being censored by the authorities. In the end, a police state cannot exist without the help of the people it means to dominate. By spying on each other, we destroy ourselves.
But how does a nation reach such a point in its collective psyche? How are we driven to passive enslavement? In this article we will examine the methods used by governments and aristocratic minorities to manipulate the majority towards self imprisonment, as well as examples of how this process is burgeoning in the U.S. at this very moment…
Communist China: The Future Of America?
Many of us conjure images of Hitler’s Germany and hordes of Nazi stormtroopers when considering the idea of a police state, and this extreme example often blinds us to the tyranny slowly building in our own country.
“Well, there aren’t troops in the street committing mass murder” we say, “so obviously we are still free…” But this conclusion is based on only one style of tyranny and using it as our only point of reference makes our viewpoint narrow, and sometimes a bit ignorant.
There are forms of fascism that also wear a “friendly face,” and one need only look across the Pacific to find such a government.
China is a good example of the “modern police state,” and is in itself a construction of Western financial interests. Americans often wonder why we continue to deal with the Chinese Communist regime, even owing them tremendous debt, while they murder and oppress their own citizens. I remember the Tienanmen Square protests and subsequent massacre vividly. I also remember the U.S. government’s response to be muted, even flaccid. All the grandstanding by our politicians and the supposedly hard nosed George H.W. Bush on the horrors of communism suddenly disappeared. The truth was, Western governments who posed as democratic actually had no interest in supporting the Chinese people fighting for liberty. Westerners had made China a police state and they planned for it to remain that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt himself offered Stalin arms and supplies which were to be used to help the communists during the Chinese revolution, while at the same time supplying lesser arms to Chiang Kai-shek’s army who opposed them. Roosevelt even offered the Soviets control of strategic Chinese sea ports. All of these concessions he made without consulting the Chinese, the Congress, or the American people:
The Rockefeller Family later supported the heavy handed Chinese government with extensive investments, and with the UN, even helped them form their first one-child policy, which started out as “voluntary,” then over time became severely enforced law:
Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history. What this shows is that the Chinese form of tyranny is not so alien as the average American might think. In fact, China is a “testing ground” for policies that Western Globalists wish to implement all over the world, including here in the U.S.
-David Rockefeller, New York Times, August 10, 1973
But what are some of these policies?
Replacing Independence With Interdependence:
In China, as well as all over the world, programs are being instituted to acclimate people towards a more collectivist way of thinking. That is to say, we are being intellectually molded into believing that the group (an abstract concept with little basis in reality) is far more important than the individual, and therefore the individual must sacrifice his independence, or even his life, for the good of the whole. This is evident in social programs, political rhetoric, and even television and film.
A disturbing Chinese pop-culture example of such propaganda (flashy though it may be) can be seen in the Jet Li movie 'Hero’, in which freedom fighters battle a genocidal despot, only to come to the “enlightened” conclusion that his plan to unite the Chinese provinces under one centralized rule is necessary for the greater good. At the end of the film, they commit suicide for the sake of Chinese unity, even thought it is unity under tyranny:
This same philosophy of collectivism is being presented in the form of “community service,” which under the Obama administration, could become mandatory:
The birth of the Surveillance Society is not possible unless a collectivist mentality is first instilled in the populace. This is accomplished by a common cultural bond which is misused to manipulate the masses, such as a spiritual movement, or as in the case of China, a common enemy. The Chinese people’s general hatred of the previous feudal system of royals and landlords led them to revolution, but a revolution guided by international globalists. They ended up with a system just as bad if not more insidious than the former, and still without freedom to decide their own destines because they chose to be driven by collectivism, rather than individual liberty.
This is the ever present M.O. of the New World Order. Using a common enemy, or creating an enemy from thin air (terrorism), to frighten a particular society into conforming with collectivist ideologies. Once this way of thinking has taken root, personal freedoms can be negated more efficiently, and a surveillance grid can be instituted.
Instituting A National ID
In a Surveillance Society, the enemy used to cull the masses is often a phantom, or a minor threat to the government. The real enemy is the public itself, because they are the only force capable of ending the government’s control, thus, steps are normally taken to deal with them accordingly.
This usually begins with the streamlined tracking of the citizenry. One of the first actions utilized by the Nazis during their early rise to power was to institute a national identification card.
“By establishing a people's registration (Volkskartei - ID card) we will achieve complete supervision of the entire German people.” China has used National ID cards to control its citizens for decades, and have now moved into RFID computer chipped ID’s which can track every move of every person in the entire country using RFID readers installed in surveillance cameras:
-Herman Goring, 938, quoted in The Nazi Census
In 2009, the United Kingdom also unveiled a new Biometric ID Card for British citizens. The Card would include an RFID chip, fingerprint data, and possibly in the near future eye retina data:
Globalist think tanks and the Department Of Homeland Security have for years been pushing the U.S. to adopt a national ID card. In this country, they have opted to change the language they use in order to convince Americans that this is reasonable. Here is a document by the Progressive Policy Institute in 2002 laying the groundwork for talking points recently used to push the Real ID Act:
Some of the more pronounced arguments used for a Real ID Card in the U.S. are:
1) The Real ID is not a national ID card because it would be state issue, not Federal issue, just like a driver’s license.
Notice that they are trying to play on a technicality here. What they don’t mention is that the DMV of nearly every state would be required to make information available in a national database, which the DHS could access. Blurring the line between State and Federal does not make the Real ID any less of a National ID Card:
2) The Real ID would not be mandatory.
Almost all of the National ID cards used by fascist and communist regimes throughout history have started out as “voluntary,” and were slowly insinuated into the everyday life of the citizenry until finally they became required. Not to mention, it has become very difficult in the U.S. to do anything without an ID. The DHS has even suggested that Real ID’s be required for over the counter drug purchases:
3) A Real ID would protect you from identity theft.
There is no information on your normal driver’s license that a criminal could not get by other means, and even if he did, what could he use it for? The mainstream media has been flooding people’s brains with stories of identity theft and devious hackers, but rarely do these incidences have anything to do with state ID’s. A Real ID would protect us from absolutely nothing, save staving off our own paranoia.
4) State ID’s already have Biometric Data, therefore, adding a little more won’t hurt.
This is an absurd argument. Height, weight, and eye colour are a far cry from fingerprint and retina scanning, being that the latter can be used to track a person’s movements wherever they go. Not to mention, fingerprint and retina data is personal information, and as long as the Fourth Amendment exists, off limits to Federal or State authorities.
5) The Government already has most of your information anyway, so you’re not giving them anything they don’t already have.
This is a form of naive circular logic. While its true that State ID’s and Social Security Cards already represent a form of national ID, this does not mean we should simply give in and accept a totally streamlined and centralized ID card with a RFID tracking chip and our private biometric data. Perhaps we should not even accept a Social Security Card or the current form of State ID either. The rationale here is: we gave up some privacy, so we might as well give up all privacy. This is not logical in any way.
In the video below, a representative is pitching the conversion of the Social Security Card into a national ID with an RFID chip. Note how he quickly glazes over the chip. Also note the rather unintelligent woman who uses the “they know everything about us anyway, so it doesn’t matter…” argument:
While the Real ID act has been shelved due to the overall American distaste for Big Brother cataloguing, it simply remains on standby in the event that the government sees an opportunity to force it through. Decision on the act has been postponed until 2011; only one year away. Another successful terrorist attack (false flag attack) could be all that is needed to sway a majority of U.S. citizens towards a national ID.
Convert The Census Into A Surveillance Tool
Along with the national ID, census workers were the key in the compiling of data on citizens in Nazi Germany, and were closely tied to the Nazi apparatus. Interestingly, the census here in the U.S. has been operating the same exact way. During WWII, the census gave out the personal data of Japanese Americans to military and local law enforcement officials, which was then used to round them up and place them in concentration camps:
In 2004 during the presidency of George W. Bush, they were caught providing private data on Arab Americans to Homeland Security:
And, in February, 2009, Barack Obama placed the Census Bureau under the direct control of the White House:
The Census has even been authorized to create a GPS map marking every front door in America, and a new method of invasive questioning:
An inquisitive and concerned person may ask, what’s next…?
Make Privacy A Privilege, Instead Of A Right
In the U.S., the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifically protects American citizens from invasion of privacy by Government or State authorities. The protections outlined by this amendment are being carefully eroded away. I have often heard the argument that there is no need to have private information kept from the government.
“There’s nothing to worry about. If you haven’t done anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide…” is the common talking point.
This statement is extremely irrational for a couple of reasons. First, in the U.S., citizens are supposed to be treated as innocent until proven guilty regarding any crime or suspicion of crime. However, in a culture of surveillance, all people are treated with the suspicion of guilt. The act of constant surveillance creates an atmosphere in which the citizenry must consistently prove its innocence everyday of their lives to an authority which is constantly sitting in judgment. Who has such pure moral conviction as to be capable of overseeing and arbitrating the lives of every human being? The answer is: NO ONE DOES. Certainly not the government. Yet surveillance camera grids are allowed to go up in cities across the country despite any evidence that they deter crime:
And, both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have supported FISA legislation, which makes government spying on citizens legal:
This brings us to the second point: who decided the government was godlike? Governments are made of regular men, some of them unintelligent, some of them violent and vicious, some of them biased, some of them downright evil, and all of them fallible. Why certain subsections of people place them on a pedestal as the bastions of fairness and justice is beyond me. The assumption applied is that they should be allowed to watch over us because they are righteous, and therefore, are afforded the role of “parent” in the society. This is the exact opposite of what was intended when America fought for its independence. Governments should NEVER be given parental power over the masses, but the average American has been lately force-fed a diet of dependence. We have been sold on the idea that instead of providing for ourselves, we should be provided for, and this includes our personal safety.
Perhaps not surprisingly, most modern dictatorial regimes at first receive wide popular support, all on the false promise that the new and stricter government will provide strength and security.
Frankly, such impenetrable safety is an illusion. No one is entirely safe ever, even in a Surveillance Society. If someone wants to do something terrible to you, in the end, you are the only person that has the ability to stop it. This is the cold harsh reality of being human. It is the way life is. Massive government controls, cameras, and law enforcement will not change it. Neither will constant fear. We are responsible for our own lives, whether we like it or not.
If The Surveillance Society Succeeds, What Do We Have To Look Forward To?
Because it is the Globalist model for the future, again we must turn to China. China, while often being praised by many Western governments for its “progressiveness,” has become a living nightmare for those people who cannot or will not conform.
Dissenters in China, even if they are peaceful, are harshly punished with beatings, imprisonment, and even death. Some are simply “disappeared”:
Controlling the flow of information becomes a top priority. Many countries including China, the UK, and Australia, have attempted extensive internet censorship:
As the recent Chinese hacking of Google databases illustrates, the internet is seen as a surveillance device in itself. The west is not far behind. The UK is also compiling a database of all phone, internet, and email traffic for the entire country:
One of the more startling consequences of a Surveillance Society is the treatment of people as not only the enemy, but also as property. Citizens become units of consumption and production, preferably producing more than they consume.
Both the U.S. and the UK have flirted with the idea of mandatory service programs which would force people of all ages to enter government work plans for allotted time periods. Once again, this is part of the collectivist mentality which says the individual lives only to serve the needs of the group. While they have so far been unsuccessful, expect these programs to return with a vengeance in the event of any economic or political turmoil in Western countries.
In China, even those that are treated with racial disdain, like the Tibetans, are still considered property of the state. One would think that since the Chinese government considers the Tibetans a nuisance, they would gladly allow them to leave the country and immigrate to India. This is not the case. The Chinese have taken it upon themselves to begin executing in cold blood any Tibetans trying to flee what was once their home:
Such actions reveal a frightening obsession with control that is consistent with elitism. It is not enough for such governments to take people’s land, or free speech. They also endeavor to imprison them within the confines of the surveillance grid permanently, like chattel.
While we have not yet reached the point of casual executions on the border, the U.S. has composed a massive list of names, filed and computer catalogued for reference in real-time. It is currently labeled the “terrorist watch list,” or the “no fly list”:
People put on the watch list by intelligence and law enforcement agencies can be blocked from flying, stopped at borders or subjected to other scrutiny. The government claims the list contains mostly foreign names, however, in the past two years, 51,000 Americans have filed “redress” requests claiming they were wrongly included on the watch list.
State ownership of the people has been taken so far in countries like China, and even Israel, that they have morally devolved towards monstrous organ harvesting programs:
While the UK has stated its goal of creating a somewhat similar process of organ harvesting from the dead without consent:
There is a serious mental block in the average American mind that dictates to us that such things are not possible in this country. The facts show though that most of the criminal activities by governments described above have already occurred in the U.S. at one time or another. We must also understand that these are not Chinese policies, Israeli policies, or British policies; these are Globalist policies, and they are intended eventually for the entire world, including America.
The difference between us and other nations, the reason we are such a threat to Globalism, is that a greater percentage of us are informed, armed, and aware of the costs of freedom. Many cultures do not have the historical experience of self governance. Few have fought successfully for individual liberty. As Americans, we know intimately the price, the joys, and the pain of safeguarding our inborn right to determine our own destiny beyond the prying eyes of politicians and aristocrats. Of all the people in the world, we are the most capable of putting an end to globalism and centralization, if for no other reason than we know better than most exactly what a free society is, and what it is not. This puts us in a terrifying position, a position of responsibility beyond what any generation before us has dealt with. We are the last chance for emancipation from a planet-wide Surveillance Society. If we falter, if we relinquish our liberty in exchange for a pledge of security that can never be fulfilled, if the U.S. is allowed to fall into such despair, the rest of the world will likely follow.
- Let the Market Contain Ebola
- The State as a Royal Scam
- Glenn Greenwald TED Talk: Why Privacy Matters
- "Crush the Seed of Ishmael": A "Final Solution" to the "Muslim Problem"
- The State Has No Right To Do Anything
- Will the CDC Save Us From Ebola?
- Left and Right Agree: War Is Popular
- What the Feds and Bernie Madoff Have in Common
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.