trulib:
Thanks for all the links!
I disagree that the state has grown without public support, and Griffin would as well, I think
In this passage from part 2 of The Future is Calling, Griffin describes how state power has grown without public support:
THE QUIGLEY FORMULA
The CFR embraces members of both major American political parties. It is not a partisan organization. Voters are led to believe that, by choosing between the Democrat and Republican parties, they have a choice. They think they are participating in their own political destiny, but that is an illusion. To a collectivist like Professor Quigley, it is a necessary illusion to prevent the voters from meddling into the important affairs of state. If you have ever wondered why the two American parties appear so different at election time but so similar afterward, listen carefully to Quigley’s approving overview of American politics:
“The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War). … The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. … Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”
What are those basic policies? They are anything that advances the network’s longrange goal. Quigley says that candidates and parties can and should differ on many things so long as they mutually advance world government based on the model of collectivism. While campaigning, they should appear to be fierce opponents; but when the elections are over, they must work in harmony for the main objective. Everything else is showmanship. Let us examine a few examples.
In the Carter Administration, the U.S. electorate was overwhelmingly opposed to giving away the Panama Canal, yet the leadership of both parties voted to do so, led on both sides of the isle by members of the CFR.
Republicans call for war in the Middle East and advocate that we give more power to the UN. Democrats call for peace and advocate that we give more power to the UN. The voters don’t want that, but it is a goal of CFR. Neither party objects to the fact that a UN resolution was the legal basis for war rather than the U.S. Constitution.
Republicans promote legislation to restrict personal rights in the name of antiterrorism. Democrats give speeches of concern and then vote for those laws. The voters don’t want that, but it is the goal of the CFR. The legislation was written by members of the CFR even before 9/11.
Republicans give speeches about the danger of illegal immigration. Democrats give speeches about compassion to immigrants. Both parties unite in merging the U.S. with Mexico and Canada so that national borders soon will be meaningless. The voters don’t want that, but it is the goal of CFR.
Republican leaders steal elections with rigged voting machines. Democrat leaders accept their fate with no serious challenge. That’s because rigging elections by preprogrammed voting machines is merely the latest and perhaps ultimate implementation of the Quigley Formula. It’s the end of the line for honest elections and representative government.
The leaders of both political parties are like TV wrestlers. They put on a great show in the ring. They slam each other onto the mat. They jump on each other, pummel each other with apparently bone-breaking blows. They throw each other out of the ring; but it is not a real contest. They have agreed in advance who is going to win, and they are content to wait their turn to be the winner next time. They are professionals, and it’s good for business.
Likewise, politicians today are professionals. They also know what is good for their business, and they play the game well. Meanwhile, voters are like tennis balls, smashed back and forth across the net of politics. The tennis players win half the time, but the tennis ball never wins. And so the game goes on, as our nation and freedom fade into history.
Sorry that was so long, but I think it’s important.
after all, his whole point is that the root of evil is about the ideology. In short: there are collectivists in power because most people are collectivists.
Actually, I think Griffin would argue that most people would be individualists had they not been brainwashed by a small group of collectivist leaders. Collectivism is the ideology of a small group of elites who think they must lead society toward a greater good, whatever the cost to individual liberty. Collectivists are in power because they seek power, and will resort to lies and deception to get it. People support them because they have been brainwashed, not because they have consciously come to the intellectual decision that collectivism is a good ideology.
Though its not as dynamic as the market at responding to consumer desires (an understatement!), the government is, ultimately, responsive to individuals’ desires. This is the point made by Boetie, Mises and Rothbard when they say all government ultimately rests on public opinion. Ideas shape institutions.
Yes, government is responsive to individual desires, but to the individual desires of the people who control the government, not the public. The ideas that shape institutions are those held by the collectivist elites controlling the institutions, not the public’s ideas. I agree that the passive support of the public is a foundation of tyranny, but that is different than saying that public opinion created tyranny in the first place. Many anarchists argue that given the right conditions, an anarcho-capitalist society will spring forth naturally. If it is in man’s nature to acquire property and exchange peacefully, then why do we accept tyrannical rule? It is because we have been brainwashed by the collectivist minority.
The media, as an opinion-moulding force, is obviously very important. But with the internet, we are seeing the decline of the controlled media, and the emergence of a new, free media. There is no need to try to take over the positions of power in the controlled mainstream media. To give a slight twist to Griffin’s slogan: why fight city hall, when you can bypass city hall?
Unfortuately, the rise of free speech over the internet means that it has become a target of regulation and control. I hope we can count on it remaining a tool to disseminate the ideology of liberty. But even with the internet, I’m not sure we can achieve widespread change in public opinion as long as the MSM is controlled. Even though we can bypass city hall through the internet, there is no way to bypass city hall in general. City hall in one form or another has everyone in its grip, and most attempts to bypass it will land you in jail.
