Building Control By Eliminating Everything Labeled As A Threat
At first glance, this next story might seem as though it borders on the edge of insanity, but I have come to suspect this is intentional. The appearance of irrationality serves to mask the motive behind the assertion:
“A World Trade Centre, a Mumbai hotel, a Boston marathon, a Nairobi shopping mall are all enticing to extremists. Defending them is near impossible. Better at least not to create them. A shopping mall not only wipes out shopping streets, it makes a perfect terrorist fortress, near impossible to assault,” he wrote (emphasis added).
On the surface, banning something because of what other people do with it or to it definitely meets the definition of irrational. Inanimate objects to not cause people to do things. And yet, more and more, this is exactly what we are being told these days. We are told “Guns kill people,” rather than people use guns to kill other people. Read the headlines and you’ll find stories about SUV’s running people down rather than someone driving and SUV running people down. Inevitably, the answer is never to address the hearts of those who seek to harm others, it is to do away with whatever object is blamed for the action. In our first two examples, we are told we must get rid of guns and SUV’s. Now, because terrorists see places where people congregate as prime targets, we are told we should get rid of shopping malls.
This is irrational because it does nothing to stop violence. But then, I no longer believe stopping violence is what this sort of argument is actually about. To be sure, many of those advancing these sort of arguments are irrational, but they are useful idiots. They are merely doing what they have been programmed to do: following their ‘group-think’ programming, if you will. But look at what it does. Gun violence brings about the disarmament of our society because we have to stop gun violence by taking away our guns. The environment, energy conservation or whatever supposed abuse connected to excess consumption as represented by the SUV can be combated by personifying those SUV’s and blaming them for whatever ill can be dreamed up and attached to their existence. And here, freedom, as exemplified by the free market – a decidedly American invention – is attacked by calling for the elimination of shopping malls – but not for the elimination of sports arenas, where even more people can be conveniently targeted.
So why not attack these sporting arenas? Because the goal is not to stop violence but to control people, and for that, you need to keep giving them bread and circuses. By taking away the market, people can be made more dependent on government for their daily bread, to be delivered by government bread lines. But the circuses are much tougher to maintain if the sporting arenas are eliminated. And then there is the violence all this elimination is supposed to stop. The reason the cause of violence is not directly addressed is because the threat of violence must be maintained, because it provides the reason for the confiscation and elimination in the first place. Thus, violence creates the crisis which is then exploited to gain more control over the people. However, if the violence were actually dealt with and contained, then there would be no more reason to eliminate things and people would start to demand their liberties again – and this would be counterproductive for those who seek control.
It’s about control: it is all, always about control.