lead by example not by force

Opposition of the status quo and questioning authority along the way.

In the praxis o…

In the praxis of hegemony, the leader state (hegemon) formally establishes indirect imperial dominance (rule) by means of cultural imperialism, which dictates the internal politics and societal character of the sub-ordinate states that constitute the hegemonic sphere of influence. The imposition of the hegemon’s way of life — its language (as the imperial lingua franca) and bureaucracies (social, economic, educational, governing) — transforms the concrete imperialism of direct military domination into the abstract power of the status quo, indirect imperial domination. Referenced from Ross Hassig, Mexico and the Spanish Conquest (1994), pp. 23–24. In the event, rebellion (social, political, economic, armed) is eliminated either by co-optation of the rebels or by suppression (police and military), without direct intervention by the hegemon; the examples are the latter-stage Spanish and British empires, and the unified Germany. Referenced from Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (1984), pp. 137-138: “European coalitions were likely to arise to contain Germany’s Nazis growing, potentially dominant, power”; p.145: “Unified Germany was achieving the strength to dominate Europe all by itself — an occurrence which Great Britain had always resisted in the past when it came about by conquest”. http://www.facebook.com/notbyforce


Filed under: Uncategorized

Orwellian state control disguised as protection


The first week of March 2012 the current National Defense Authorization Act goes into effect under the pretense of funding ongoing military operations. It is being argued by its proponents that we need to allow this poorly written budgeting act in order to maintain our military spending to ensure “National Security”. This legislation looks like the new method for funding the Military Industrial War Complex as well as tying the topic of safety to how much money the Pentagon spends on that effort. It also looks as if we are bringing that war inside US borders in order to continue and obviously increase spending based on perceived threats? Some could even go as far to say that those threats are creations of our own Intelligence services. When did we allow fear to dictate our legislative policies and military budgets?  Benjamin Franklin stated it best Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Is that not what we are trading here?

This expansion of Executive authority to order the imprisonment by the military away from any battlefield and on US soil goes against all the protections of due process that is provided through Habeas Corpus. Our nation was founded on the rule of law to allow those suspected of committing crimes to be heard in court to determine the truth through the legal process. This sweeping detention power violates the constitution and degrades the rule of law that many before us have fought to preserve. Section[s] 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA does not even require allegations that the detained individual(s) cause any harm or threat of harm. This vague definition of hostilities can be interpreted by the executive branch in such a way that it could be anyone, anywhere that would potentially pose a risk to US interests or the US itself. We cannot allow our government to lock people up indefinitely based solely on suspicion or perhaps simple dissent to current policy.

I believe that protections of inalienable rights are much more important than any other issue we face as a free nation. I am more afraid of the current political control that our government is passing along to the military. Who will protect us from our military? 

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , ,