Big Brother & the Fear of Freedom
According to the UK's Telegraph, China is about to take their "Big Brother surveillance" to a whole new level. The Chinese government will use facial recognition CCTV systems as well as microchip-implanted personal ID cards. The government already has one of the world's most aggressive internet censorship programs with an "internet police task force" numbering more than 30,000 strong.
In the West, no country is more advanced in their surveillance society than the UK with "4.2 million CCTV cameras -- one for every 14 people in the country -- and 20 percent of all CCTV cameras globally." It is reported that "each person is caught on camera an average of 300 times daily." Ironically, within 200 yards of George Orwell's (author of 1984) actual apartment are 32 CCTV cameras.
It seems the United States is not too far behind. Although we have much greater land mass--and a much larger population--Big Brother is big business in the "land of the free(?) and home of the brave (or frightened)." Presently, video surveillance is the "fastest growing industry within the major categories of electronic security." The business profitability is expected to hit $21 billion by 2010. This doesn't include all the ancillary technologies to monitor internet usage, transportation, and the ever-controversial wire-tapping.
The incalculable profitability of a surveillance state for security corporations is a guarantee that constitutional consideration of civil liberties will be largely ignored. Much the same as the implications of war are vaguely considered by the powerful relationship between our standing defense department and it's business partners in the defense industry. This alliance is what President Eisenhower referred to as the "military-industrial complex" in his farewell speech in 1961:
But, Eisenhower warned of more than the military-industrial alliance. Much is made of that portion of his speech because of its prophetic fulfillment in the present War on Terror. However, Eisenhower did proffer a secondary warning linked to the threat of "misplaced power" in the military-industrial complex. He labeled it the "scientific-technological elite":
Here's what we can say. It is guaranteed that there will be no reversal in this slide to greater surveillance. In fact, it will grow exponentially. More legislation prohibiting civil liberties in the name of "national security" will be suggested by lawmakers whose constituencies are finding great job expansion due to the increased employment made available by security-oriented corporations. Again, Big Brother is big business, and the lure of filthy lucre is sure to limit any real concern for civil liberties. It's a win-win situation for everyone except those who pray for a constitutionally-controlled America.
Those days are gone. Americans voted their own liberties away in the hope of gaining security from the threat of terror. Benjamin Franklin argued that any people that were willing to trade their liberty for security deserve neither. What do you say to a nation of people that reward their government with more authority, money, and power after that government failed to stop a 9/11, completely missed it on WMDs in Iraq, fumbled miserably during Katrina, and is now "sure" that war with Iran is absolutely necessary? What else can you say but, "You made your own bed; now sleep in it!"
The Fear of Freedom
Finally, I must continue to offer my heartfelt rebuke to the leadership of the Religious Right and the millions of conservative Christians that have not offered any protest whatsoever to our slide into tyranny. If this isn't tyranny, then what is it? If China monitors it's citizens, it's because they are a dictatorial society. If America monitors it's citizens, it's because we're protecting our freedom. As I said before, we wouldn't know "freedom" if it bit us on our blessed assurance.
Terrorists allegedly attacked us, yet 300,000,000 Americans are now the suspects. They supposedly attacked us because of our "freedom"--do people still buy that?--yet we respond by the greatest clamp down on civil liberties in U.S. history. Honestly, do you feel more free? Will your freedom increase from this point on, or decrease with the increasing surveillance? For some reason, because this move towards a police state is wrapped in "Red, White, and Blue," it's right up there with "baseball, Cracker Jacks, and apple pie!" Remember to keep a smile on your face. You don't want to be one of those poor saps who gets pulled aside by Homeland Security because you have the wrong facial expression.
We are a nation of slaves because our basic slavery is a slavery to sin; and freedom requires faith and responsibility. But the state doesn't want you to have that concept. If you did, you would need Big Brother less. I'll conclude with Rushdoony's salient observation on the matter:
In the West, no country is more advanced in their surveillance society than the UK with "4.2 million CCTV cameras -- one for every 14 people in the country -- and 20 percent of all CCTV cameras globally." It is reported that "each person is caught on camera an average of 300 times daily." Ironically, within 200 yards of George Orwell's (author of 1984) actual apartment are 32 CCTV cameras.
It seems the United States is not too far behind. Although we have much greater land mass--and a much larger population--Big Brother is big business in the "land of the free(?) and home of the brave (or frightened)." Presently, video surveillance is the "fastest growing industry within the major categories of electronic security." The business profitability is expected to hit $21 billion by 2010. This doesn't include all the ancillary technologies to monitor internet usage, transportation, and the ever-controversial wire-tapping.
The incalculable profitability of a surveillance state for security corporations is a guarantee that constitutional consideration of civil liberties will be largely ignored. Much the same as the implications of war are vaguely considered by the powerful relationship between our standing defense department and it's business partners in the defense industry. This alliance is what President Eisenhower referred to as the "military-industrial complex" in his farewell speech in 1961:
But, Eisenhower warned of more than the military-industrial alliance. Much is made of that portion of his speech because of its prophetic fulfillment in the present War on Terror. However, Eisenhower did proffer a secondary warning linked to the threat of "misplaced power" in the military-industrial complex. He labeled it the "scientific-technological elite":
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades."Public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." How sad that this is quickly becoming our reality. The amounts of government money being spent on defense and security technologies is absorbing more than the lion's share of research funding. For George Orwell, such a scenario was intentional, since it enabled the rulers to consume the productivity of the middle class in creating materials that could not educate, feed, clothe, house, or heal, i.e., things that don't improve the quality of life. For lawmakers, such a suggestion is ludicrous--the surveillance society is good for deterring crime and thwarting terrorism.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Here's what we can say. It is guaranteed that there will be no reversal in this slide to greater surveillance. In fact, it will grow exponentially. More legislation prohibiting civil liberties in the name of "national security" will be suggested by lawmakers whose constituencies are finding great job expansion due to the increased employment made available by security-oriented corporations. Again, Big Brother is big business, and the lure of filthy lucre is sure to limit any real concern for civil liberties. It's a win-win situation for everyone except those who pray for a constitutionally-controlled America.
Those days are gone. Americans voted their own liberties away in the hope of gaining security from the threat of terror. Benjamin Franklin argued that any people that were willing to trade their liberty for security deserve neither. What do you say to a nation of people that reward their government with more authority, money, and power after that government failed to stop a 9/11, completely missed it on WMDs in Iraq, fumbled miserably during Katrina, and is now "sure" that war with Iran is absolutely necessary? What else can you say but, "You made your own bed; now sleep in it!"
The Fear of Freedom
Finally, I must continue to offer my heartfelt rebuke to the leadership of the Religious Right and the millions of conservative Christians that have not offered any protest whatsoever to our slide into tyranny. If this isn't tyranny, then what is it? If China monitors it's citizens, it's because they are a dictatorial society. If America monitors it's citizens, it's because we're protecting our freedom. As I said before, we wouldn't know "freedom" if it bit us on our blessed assurance.
Terrorists allegedly attacked us, yet 300,000,000 Americans are now the suspects. They supposedly attacked us because of our "freedom"--do people still buy that?--yet we respond by the greatest clamp down on civil liberties in U.S. history. Honestly, do you feel more free? Will your freedom increase from this point on, or decrease with the increasing surveillance? For some reason, because this move towards a police state is wrapped in "Red, White, and Blue," it's right up there with "baseball, Cracker Jacks, and apple pie!" Remember to keep a smile on your face. You don't want to be one of those poor saps who gets pulled aside by Homeland Security because you have the wrong facial expression.
We are a nation of slaves because our basic slavery is a slavery to sin; and freedom requires faith and responsibility. But the state doesn't want you to have that concept. If you did, you would need Big Brother less. I'll conclude with Rushdoony's salient observation on the matter:
Certainly, in our day most men pay lip service to freedom but in reality vote against it with their lives and their ballots. Our legislators assume that farmers and farm workers cannot be trusted with freedom, and capital and labor both assume that the less freedom for others, the better all will be.
Men do not like freedom because they themselves are not free by nature. The basic slavery, slavery to sin, is the nature of their being, and they show their slavery in every area of life.
Jesus declared, “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant [or slave] of sin … If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” (John 8:34, 36). The root of slavery is in the nature of man.
We are today surrounded by a slave people because they are by nature unregenerate. They are most at home in slavery, and most comfortable with it. They will vote for slavery because they are slaves. They dislike and fear freedom because they are at enmity with God. Give them freedom and they will vote it out of existence and work in every way to destroy it.
Men fear freedom, because it means life and responsibility under God. The appeal of slavery is that it offers a life free of responsibilities, and this is always the appeal of slavery. Some nations have in the past had as many as four-fifths living in actual slavery and content with it, because it took responsibility off their shoulders.
The flight from freedom is always first of all the flight from God, who created man to be responsible and to exercise dominion over the earth under Him. The choice is always God or slavery.
