It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rogue states like North Korea are necessary to make us appear "free" in comparison.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
What makes people in western democracies feel they are free? We have social militarization through blatant media lies, massive surveillance, data-mining through technology, limited rights on what to put in our bodies, as well as direct forms of censorship and strong-arm control, with growing populations in private prisons for victimless crimes. Oh well, at least we're not as bad as Russia was, or China or North Korea. That's the apologist argument. It's all for our own safety and good (but isn't that what they tell people in North Korea too?).
My argument is that current dictatorships are necessary and created by the NWO to give US the ILLUSION of freedom. Without the harrowing depictions of tyranical states in the MSM we wouldn't feel free at all.
So our "freedoms" are not self evident in themslves, they only appear as such as a dichotomy to rogue states.

(This thread is a widening of my interest in structuralism in conspiracy theories, and how we function in a system of opposed binaries or dichotomies, such as masculine/feminine, gay/straight, left politcal/right political and how each position only has meaning in "system of difference" to the other. This interest stems from Saussure's linguistics, semiotics and French structuralism and deconstruction, as also explained in a related thread www.abovetopsecret.com... although none of that is crucial to comment here.)

[edit on 31-3-2010 by halfoldman]




posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Dear halfoldman

Hear Hear, What a true statement.

However it is also said Freedom is another word for nothing left to lose.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Star and flag for an original idea (I think).

I agree with you entirely. On top of your points, I also feel like the reason we have never seen an "empire" stay at number one is because those who are considered below the top are continually trying to better themselves until they are on the golden throne. Once on it, they begin slacking and other countries once again catch up and pass the leader.

Ignorance is bliss.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by FritosBBQTwist
 

I suppose it's not entirely original. David Icke (in his more lucid moments) for example points out that left-wing radicals and right-wing radicals are both manipulated into similar spectacles of violence, and that there was little difference between Stalinist and Facist militarism. In fact the whole Cold War was arguably a construct with double agents swapping secret information on nuclear warfare in order to assure the ideological stand-off with similar arsenals.
There is little doubt that most rogue states since World War Two were founded by CIA interventionism. That is one interpretaion of accepted histiography by now, even if History 101 or below that is hardly taught in that way. Latin America for example is associated with corruption, right-wing coups, drug running and left-wing militias. We still believe that this corruption is somehow endemic to the Latin American character. But who initiated all those coups? Who started the drug running?
With Haiti in the news recently all kinds of religious and racist opinions varied on why the one "half" of the island (Haiti) was impoverished, and the Dominican Republic prospered. Once again there was no insight in the MSM on CIA interventionism, and the bloody dictators on both sides - no history or context was provided at all. So people who have examined this like Noam Chomsky have pointed out why these ruined countries are that way, and they come up with conclusions bordering on mine.
However, I don't think it's ever been put into structuralist binaries. I would argue that if North Korea didn't exist - the West would have to create it for ideological self-justification (well it does exist, and the West did create it).

PS. Just to add here, one can only hold the West directly responisble in a historic and limited sense. I just wanted to say that my thoughts on such states and regions are not wholly new or original. The reports of labor camps and other atrocities are harrowing. So what does this tell us about our own society? Why do we fear what we hear about those states? Is all that totally lacking in our democratic societies? Or is it just a matter of degree and directness?
How does NOT being as bad as North Korea placate us?


[edit on 1-4-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Not exactly original. 1984 touches on this with outside radicals created to make it look like the living is better than there.

This is why we see crappy looking "3rd world" countries on TV all the time when in fact the country isn't so bad off as portrayed.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBloodRed
 

True, fair enough. I guess to word it differently, it goes into a broad rooting of conspiracy theory semantics. However it is not so much a comparison between countries as a look at the system of difference it creates in an assumed commonality of issues. So the West will look for things familiar to their own history/present like "labor camps", or summary executions, disproportionate arms spending, mass brainwashing, breadline poverty - but why are these facets presented as the roots of the problem. Surely they are symptoms of rottenness in power, both in the West and rogue states.
Arguably, if these weren't issues in the West then we couldn't even recognize them elsewhere.




[edit on 1-4-2010 by halfoldman]



new topics

top topics
 
3

log in

join