|
We live in a global village. We are getting closer to each other day by day. Circumstances become transparent. We are visible, and especially for the government, which tends to remain invisible when the power question is raised. One of the most interesting aspects of psychology is the fact that once somebody fights his opponent a long time, both parties of the conflict become more similar to each other. The former commie bloc became a highly capitalist environment, with a bunch of former commies on top that would have delighted any 19th - century industrialist. On the other side of the former iron curtain,
the structures and mechanics of the commie secret police system became
one of the dominating elements in the western security apparatus,
still not the commie ideology in particular. It remains unclear what the
ideological driving force is....is it
In a world without privacy, or, better, in a world with a lack of efficient measures that preserve privacy the question is:
Who can get drawn into a scandal for being morally or sexually unfit ? Who may suffer from endless investigations, literally annihilating privacy and leaving a stone - age - type scenario behind ? In these good old times privacy was not existent, and everyone noticed others´ delights in the cave. Obviously the spying out of private lives is a political measure used to destroy one´s enemies. Who used it and uses it ? The commie secret police used this measure extensively. The Nazis used it. Expensive and long - lasting investigations to find something that could be used to produce a scandal were not really familiar within the ancient monarchy, strange enough. Once a scandal got coincidentally discovered consequences were taken, but the typical element of nowaday´s democrats is to look for something that can be used, and even spend enormous amounts on that. Nixon and friends do have a reputation related to privacy rights. This style of removal was in fact introduced by commie and fascist dictatorships, and could similarly be observed during the good old times of the holy inquisition in the 14th - 17 th century, when entire countries were emptied. It was not really typical for the Roman empire, not for the early middle ages, and certainly not in the later days of European monarchies ( especially the 18th century has a reputation for being very permissive, even by today´s " superfree and supertolerant standards "- maybe standards that funtion exlusively as a PR - measure ). Well, the present " western " security system is based on the fascist and commie secret police. What they are looking for is unpleasant ideas, and not subversive deeds. At least, producing ideologically doubtful ideas may cause trouble, while it is no longer possible to predict what Big Brother regards as subversive. We do face a security system unprecedented in history that does not have the ability to define where the enemy is located. Only choice: Keep your mouth shut and stay out of politics - something that happens on a broadscale level in so called democracies. Logically, the handling of sexual affairs in politics resembles that of former dictatorships quite a bit. Who may become a target ? Those politically harmful for the ruling class, or the establishment, or our postmodern aristocrats. Not those morally questionable. No, the worst piggy being politically acceptable may stay in power or elsewhere. A holy monk being politically incorrect can be removed for being a perverted crook, or plainly one with a functioning marriage removed because of his sexual malfunctions. Definition: Politically harmful for the establishment = morally inferior or perverted or insane. Measures: Complete loss of privacy ( this in itself is cruel, and in cases deadly enough ), constant leakage of private details to press organs ( integrated into the security system ). Definition of opponent politically undesirable as inferior in moral or sexual terms. The psycho - logic behind it: Those on the lowest part of the social ladder are people mentally or sexually deranged, worse than normal criminals. Say, the worst scum is not the criminal bandit coldly acting but the freak that gets crazy or a bit oversexed. And: For commies and fascists the opponent is by definition the worst scum ever created. And for quite a few of today´s superdemocrats influenced by them. So the political opponent - if dangerous enough - becomes some decrepit scum almost automatically. Moral standards are foggy, that is, and so are psychological standards. It became a matter of politics, not morals who can be defined as morally inferior. Be a pro - government activist, in easy words,
and f*(selfcensored ) around as you like, be an
Even Pentagon officials were not fired by Bush because of homosexual orientation, but Clinton, being relatively moderate, got problems for a few j*( selfcensored) sessions. Hoover´s peculiar activities were leaked long after the f*(selfcensored) died. If nothing is found, operations can be used to destroy relationships, f* up marriages, and produce neurotics that can be labeled as such in order to produce the desired defamatory effect - in the former commie bloc, and in western superdemocracies. Nixon´s way: Just grab what you can get and use it somehow seems to have become a commonly used strategy. The famous case of the priest swimming naked in an East German lake in the seventies, and GDR secret police putting a photograph of this on the church´s entrance he worked in was gladly copied by western sec. bureaucrats, or even vice versa.... Of course, destroying marriages and relationships by various measures is a standard instrument of today´s GDR heirs. This creates the desired piggy, the desired neurotic and so on, being the lowest shit imaginable. Make people more politically disciplined by using subtle castration threats is the logic behind it. Message behind the public removal of moral bandits: Keep yer mouth shut, be politically correct and screw around happily . Open your mouth, do something unpleasant for the establishment, and lose it, and find yourself on the front page of some newspaper. Well, the underlying threat for anyone in politics is close to a castration threat, because the loss of privacy as a form of punishment for being politically incorrect also means the loss of your sex life, totally or partly. Modern video surveillance equipment adds to the fun, enabling our freedom voyeurs to create their personal bedroom movies, in cases for personal or commercial use. The disadvantage of this castration threat measure is, funny enough, its effects on the establishment and its helpers and servants. The opponent is plainly terrorized, the establishment helper is disciplined and will not say a single word against his FÜHRER, and the rest scared without really knowing why - because in theory there is freedom of speech etc.. In reality you better watch out. But this causes paranoia in the true clinical sense in the heads of those disciplined, and murderous rage on the enemies´ side. The arranged setups, hassles & harassments are enforced by people that had to be traumatized in order to be able to run that sort of thing; these traumatized folks traumatize others, many of them plainly environmental activists, trade unionists, journalists, lawyers and lots of others who function as a commie substitute to keep jobs for the intelligence community. It creates a caste of destructive security weirdos also - running chaos operations, and everything into chaos - proved by history, thank you. And enemies that lose the slightest respect....treated as rats they may feel the need to slash back, and forget about moral & legal barriers. And a population totally uninterested in politics in terms of political action. Why is politics commonly defined as s* ? Well, wonder. Still: Facing the rests of the Berlin wall it can be questioned why the hell does the government broadly imitate methods of a decadent system that vanished ? And: The paranoid produces results that resemble his paranoia, putting it into reality. This becomes evident when fictitious enemies are created, real ones forgotten about, and operations end up with distressed congressmen trying to find some explanation for the amounts of money that disappeared. So ( commie ) GDR secret police became a capitalist new east German elite, very rich and proud of it. Workers, well, better not mention. Former western democracies are on their way to become cages. Who won the cold war ? Who paid for it ? Their fascist counterparts in the thirties certainly knew what castration threats are. Traditionally used to combat masturbation with no success, thereby creating a bunch of paranoid weirdos, its terrorizing effects were used in politics later. What lags behind Billieboy´s j* dilemma ? The disclosure of the " royal " family´s privacy and the ( intentional ? ) removal of Diana, the queen of hearts, not c*s, fits in the pattern. Was she happy with being - in her own words - the most expensive prostitute in the world ? It should be remembered that neither KGB or
allies did reach their goal, preserving the commie bloc. The decadence
is visible....where to put their western counterparts broadly acting on
the same level, remains a question.
ANNEX: Recommended links for further reading ( a few
reports produced for the European
Volume
5/5: "The perception of economic risks arising from the potential vulnerability
|