I don't really have much to add to Oliver Thorn's inquiries here, other than to say that it's arguable the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States marked a turning point for the rise of...
I don't really have much to add to Oliver Thorn's inquiries here, other than to say that it's arguable the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States marked a turning point for the rise of authoritarianism globally.
The perpetual miasma of ill-defined threat, the defining of Muslims as "other", and the sense that only a regime of constant vigilance can protect us, were initiated in that event throughout the English-speaking world.
After 18 years of declining liberties and democratic norms, we should directly confront the question, whom are these ever-escalating security measures really intended to protect?
I was taking all that as given, but thank you for taking the time to elaborate for those who might not have the full context. I'd note though, that the authoritarian exploitation of September 11...
I was taking all that as given, but thank you for taking the time to elaborate for those who might not have the full context.
I'd note though, that the authoritarian exploitation of September 11 was opportunistic, not a planned "Reichstag fire" event. There wasn't a vast conspiracy, just a global petrodollar elite that saw an opening and used it to consolidate power.
The super-rich aren't entirely monolithic in their desires. The best we can hope for is that we can in turn exploit a fracture between the greener, open-society oligarchs and the greasy, feudal ones.
And when I say, "directly confront the question", I mean, what kinds of direct action might be effective, instead of just turning loose battalions of civil liberties lawyers to get drubbed in obscure court battles no one pays attention to.
I don't really have much to add to Oliver Thorn's inquiries here, other than to say that it's arguable the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States marked a turning point for the rise of authoritarianism globally.
The perpetual miasma of ill-defined threat, the defining of Muslims as "other", and the sense that only a regime of constant vigilance can protect us, were initiated in that event throughout the English-speaking world.
After 18 years of declining liberties and democratic norms, we should directly confront the question, whom are these ever-escalating security measures really intended to protect?
I was taking all that as given, but thank you for taking the time to elaborate for those who might not have the full context.
I'd note though, that the authoritarian exploitation of September 11 was opportunistic, not a planned "Reichstag fire" event. There wasn't a vast conspiracy, just a global petrodollar elite that saw an opening and used it to consolidate power.
The super-rich aren't entirely monolithic in their desires. The best we can hope for is that we can in turn exploit a fracture between the greener, open-society oligarchs and the greasy, feudal ones.
And when I say, "directly confront the question", I mean, what kinds of direct action might be effective, instead of just turning loose battalions of civil liberties lawyers to get drubbed in obscure court battles no one pays attention to.