Thursday, August 23, 2012
Brandon Raub: That Crazy Free Speech...
Dees Illustration |
Activist Post
On February 2, 2009 the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) released its now infamous report entitled “The Modern Militia Movement.” This report, commonly referred to as “The MIAC Report”, attempted to demonize a wide range of ordinary Americans as being potential “terrorist threats”.
Suddenly, the word terrorist was being redefined right before our eyes. Under the new definitions, law enforcement was supposed to be on the lookout for “conspiracy theorists”, “right wing extremists”, “militias”, gun owners, “constitutionalists”, people who fear economic collapse, Christians, “anti-abortionists”, “tax resisters”, “Libertarians”, supporters of third party candidates, or even people who cite the Constitution.
As the police began learning the new “warning signs”, the mainstream media began educating the public that the real threat in America was gun owners, returning veterans, and people who question the government. The term “radical Islam” was completely replaced in the mainstream media by the term “right wing extremist” seemingly overnight. It was a constant drum beat of fear and misinformation—propaganda at its finest.
And the propaganda hasn’t stopped. Since that time we’ve been virtually bombarded with an endless stream of similar publications. Now the TSA is molesting our children, Janet Napolitano is trying to convince us all to spy and tattle on each other, and it’s even considered “suspicious” if you pay for something in cash, try to use your cell phone privately, or wear blue jeans. (Source)
But why?
I learned the answer to that question in 2010. After using the scary word “revolution” on Facebook (in context of a revolution of political thought toward Libertarianism), and having two “anti-government” bumper stickers on his car (an anarchy symbol and a Ron Paul sticker), a friend of mine was essentially fired from a civil service job based on nothing but “concern” over his mental status.
He was lucky, though. The NDAA hadn’t been written into law yet and he was able to take his case to arbitration. After a long court battle (which lasted well over a year) he was reinstated to his job only after it was revealed through testimony that his employer paid a psychologist to write a fraudulent report, the psychologist failed to test positive for any mental illnesses (and still deemed him unable to work), and the psychologist testified that the sole basis for releasing him was his “political beliefs.”
Brandon Raub hasn’t been so lucky. Just in case you haven’t heard of Brandon Raub, let me give you a quick rundown of his situation. Last Thursday, police accompanied by the FBI and secret service showed up at Raub’s house and took him into custody against his will—not because he broke any laws, but because he posted some controversial opinions on Facebook. Raub, a former marine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, was not lawfully arrested and taken to jail. Instead, he was unlawfully kidnapped and placed in a mental institution where he remains today.
Many people respond to news like this with the same reaction. They immediately and instinctively ask, “well, what did Brandon Raub’s Facebook posts say?” Although I will answer this question, and do recognize that Raub’s Facebook posts are relevant, I want to point something out to you. If your very first instinct was to question the content of Raub’s posts instead of questioning the government’s actions, what does that say about you? How effective has MIAC-style propaganda been in shaping your perception? To instantaneously question what Raub said is to instantaneously question his right to say it—an unconscious declaration that you blindly and instinctively trust the government and that their actions must be justified. A far better reaction would be “why was the government reading Raub’s Facebook posts in the first place?” Faark yeah.. read on
Many people respond to news like this with the same reaction. They immediately and instinctively ask, “well, what did Brandon Raub’s Facebook posts say?” Although I will answer this question, and do recognize that Raub’s Facebook posts are relevant, I want to point something out to you. If your very first instinct was to question the content of Raub’s posts instead of questioning the government’s actions, what does that say about you? How effective has MIAC-style propaganda been in shaping your perception? To instantaneously question what Raub said is to instantaneously question his right to say it—an unconscious declaration that you blindly and instinctively trust the government and that their actions must be justified. A far better reaction would be “why was the government reading Raub’s Facebook posts in the first place?” Faark yeah.. read on
No comments:
Post a Comment