John Stossel - Pipe down, NSA is stopping terrorists from hurting us.

[Anti Federalist]

The Machinery of Oppression

Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on June 14, 2013 06:08 PM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/139635.html

Whether it's the Gallup or Pew poll of Americans on surveillance, there is not a rock hard super-majority that is against the surveillance state.

Americans haven't experienced the possible downsides of a state that can go back years to hear and read their most private communications.

They are blissfully unaware of the workings of police states and the role played by the state's possession of files on everyone. They do not understand that when the blackness of the human heart is combined with the control of such vast information sources, the most horrible oppression results.

They cannot imagine the horrible workings of suspicion, greed, envy, snitches, and hatred, or the workings of the reformers, the religious, the utopians, the social planners, the intellectuals, the power-hungry and the idealists when they gain such power.

They do not understand that when the machinery of oppression and dominance is rolled into place, and this includes access to private information on anyone and everyone, that all it takes is a pull of the switch -- a crisis, real or manufactured -- for Congress to pass a law that turns on the police state.

They do not understand that once it is turned on, the nation must go through the wringer to get it turned off, and that could take generations.

Dismantle the machinery of oppression now! It is much easier to do it now, than later, and it is already very hard to do this even now.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Simple as that. If you're uncomfortable with Google's privacy policies, just use a different search. But there is no way you can opt out of NSA surveilance program.

Ironically, John Stossel told you exactly how to "opt out":

2. My electronic privacy has already been utterly shredded by Google, Amazon, YouTube and so on.

He could add AT&T, Comcast/XFinity, Yahoo, Verizon, Sprint, and all the others. Any data you give to them or have them transmit unencrypted can and will be given to the NSA and others.

Cease your business with these entities, and the NSA's job becomes a LOT harder.

The reason why private companies collect data is to make their services better.

This is where it is good to be a classically trained Objectivist. The motivation for corporate action is profit. This doesn't make the action good or bad, I'm just throwing some fucking reality in your face. They'd make the service worse if they see more profit in it (by some metric, short or long term).

I may disagree with Stossel but he ought to be commended for having the balls to stand against group think. Some people here care more about civil liberties/war on drugs and other more about the Federal Reserve/foreign wars.

Stossel has a point largely missed by pro-corporate types. You will not improve the situation by trusting Google/Facebook/et cetera. I'm not suggesting you regulate them, but that you cease your business with them as they will shred your privacy. Now we know a little more about the extent to which they will shred it (or, rather, have confirmation of what has been suspected for years). BFD. If his panties aren't twisted in a knot, maybe he saw this coming.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

In all honesty, for years now we have all assumed they're recording/monitoring all phone calls and e-mails. Haven't we? I have. This isn't really a new revelation for us libertarian types. It's just great to have proof that's getting all this mainstream attention. That exposure is what's wonderful about what Mr. Snowden did.

 

[DamianTV]

NSA is stopping terrorists? Theyre probably the very same ones that piss off the terrorists to begin with! The NSA would most likely be the group responsible for fixing foreign elections which ends up putting people the NSA chooses in power that pisses off the terrorists to begin with.

PROBLEM

REACTION

SOLUTION

---

The Better Mousetrap Fallacy

Too many people think that INVENTIONS require someone to come up with a SOLUTION first. Better mouse trap. The Better Mouse Trap fallacy supposes that the problems are natural and have always existed. Terrorism is the exact opposite of what we would call a Naturally Existing Problem. Terrorism is Artificial. Im not saying it is Fake; just saying that it is a choice by people to commit such atrocities. The way the NSA thinks is to not invent SOLUTIONS first, but to invent PROBLEMS to which only they will have the SOLUTION. If the NSA wanted to say for example, start a war with Canada, their SOLUTION would be war with Canada. Thats their "Invention". Then, they'd do everything in their power to provoke Canadians as much as possible so that Canada would attack us first. The Americans would follow the Problem of having been attacked by Canadian Terrorists, which would be our Reaction to the Problem, and the solution, of course, war on Canada. Actually, that is probably a poor example because there would be two sets of Problems Reactions and Solutions. Pissing off Canada would be the Problem for them. They would have a Reaction to our actions, and conclude Terrorism on the US is the Solution. This creates the chain. We would be attacked. Problem. We'd React and conclude attack Canada as the Solution. Same thing with Banks. Same thing with Gun Control. Destablize a person to shoot someone else, then try to make Guns illegal. Same thing with Drugs and Alcohol. Paint them as the Problem to which their solution (that benefits them) is to imprison drug and alcohol users. Same thing with "dumb people". Solution: Govt Education. Same thing pretty much everywhere. Invent a better mouse (more invasive, breeds quicker, aggressive, and easily recognized as a problem), then people will go for what ever mouse traps are available, regardless of how shitty of a mousetrap it is or who buying the solution benefits.

Summary: NSA doesnt invent Solutions. It invents Problems that only it can provide Solutions.

 

[Anti Federalist]

////

 

[Anti Federalist]

///

 

[DamianTV]

Hey Stossel, define Terrorist

Do you mean Lone Wolf, or do you mean Goldman Sachs Market Manipulators and Economy Crashers?

 

[Root]

John Stossel went full retard. You never go full retard.

John Stossel
about an hour ago
People now call me a “traitor to Libertarian ideals” and “disgusting” because I’m “not that worked up” (http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/terror-and-safety.html) about NSA spying.


Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t totally dismiss the government’s claim that data-mining is constitutional and may stop terrorism. This debate has two sides. There are at least 100 things government does that do make me furious:

 

[kahless]

How I felt when I first saw this thread.

 

[EBounding]

My respect for Stossel has vanished.

 

[trey4sports]

Not a "total phony," just wrong on this issue.

 

[anaconda]

My respect for Stossel has vanished.

Seriously, check this out:

Catherine Austin Fitts specifically pointed out Stossel as controlled opposition in an interview. She gives a very good example of this at 38:30 in the following video. I suggest watching at least 37:20 to 39:16 for context, although this entire video is one of my all time favorites. She mentions Stossel again between 41:10 - 41:33 in conjunction with the disinfo strategy "modified hang out."

 

[Occam's Banana]

John "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Trust Big Brother" Stossel: "I just absolutely HATE things like the 'PROMOTING MORAL HAZARD' & 'EPA STEPPING ON PEOPLE' & 'DRUG WAR' & 'ARROGANT PROSECUTORIAL ABUSE' & 'IRS FEEDING INFO TO LIBERAL GROUPS' & 'SPYING ON JAMES ROSEN AND HIS PARENTS'. But a super-secret, all-encompassing, warrantless-surveillance, government-database program? One which could very easily be used to just as secretly & warrantlessly "enhance," extend and exacerbate many of those other things I hate so much? NO PROBLEM!!!"

Mr. Stossel, meet the forest. The forest, this is Mr. Stossel. Perhaps, forest, you could explain to Mr. Stossel the meaning and nature of the concept of "MORAL HAZARD." (Poor fellow! Mr. Stossel has been staring at individual trees for so long, he appears to have gone somewhat cross-eyed. He can't seem to see you at all, forest ...)

Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t totally dismiss the government’s claim that data-mining is constitutional and may stop terrorism. This debate has two sides. There are at least 100 things government does that do make me furious:

 

[kahless]

Seriously, check this out:

Catherine Austin Fitts specifically pointed out Stossel as controlled opposition in an interview. She gives a very good example of this at 38:30 in the following video. I suggest watching at least 37:20 to 39:16 for context, although this entire video is one of my all time favorites. She mentions Stossel again between 41:10 - 41:33 in conjunction with the disinfo strategy "modified hang out."

I would not be surprised. Come to think of if it when his show first came out I was skeptical of him and really had a tough time believing his new found beliefs were real.

Over time you forget these things but I suppose if you are controlled opposition that is part of the plan.

 

[anaconda]

I would not be surprised.

The example she gives in the video (post #132 just above) is superb (and it's less than two minutes of viewing time).

 

[kahless]

The example she gives in the video (post #132 just above) is superb (and it's less than two minutes of viewing time).

I did watch those 2 minutes when you posted it were she uses him as an example of that. I would like to have heard her back it up a bit more but then again have not listened to the entire 56 minutes.

 

[HigherVision]

That sucks that Stossel's a sellout. But it's better that we know so we can not have anything to do with him any more.

 

[jtstellar]

luckily most readers at reason magazine site seem to disagree last time i checked there for responses to this article

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

This really comes as no surprise to me, as I have always thought Stossel is somewhat milquetoast. He does a terrible job of defending the libertarian foreign policy position in his interviews with O'Reilly, as someone else in this topic has mentioned, and even his own show doesn't really offer any compelling arguments in support of libertarian positions. His presentations usually just come off as wishy-washy to me. I suppose that may be part of the reason why Stossel gets to keep his show on FOX, while the judge is now relegated to supporting appearances. I don't know Stossel's exact viewership stats, but I really can't imagine many people watch his show. I don't even know if it's still on the air, to be honest. Maybe on FBN?

 

[jllundqu]

The next time Stossel carries on about some libertarian bruhaha... someone please repost this thread. He's another Beck ferchrissake