posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 09:57 AM
Regarding NDAA - How do you define “National Security” – as the welfare, potential and enrichment of the 99% citizenry and national
infrastructure, or the welfare, potential and enrichment of the 1% and their economic infrastructure?
This is a legitimate question because as much as one class hates the other they are not mutually exclusive. In fact for our society to function
properly both classes must exist symbiotically. Each provides certain societal and economic stimulation that enables our society to reach its full
potential. The problems arise when the 99% and the 1% are imbalanced in terms of power and influence. This is when the middle class disappears. A
strong middle class is a segway between classes and gives hope that one can ascend through prosperity into the other.
The 1% will always be slightly more powerful politically and perhaps that is good as too much democracy can be a source of indecision, mediocrity,
gridlock and stagnation.
However when the vast majority reaches a point where there are vast inequities in access to basic needs, vast unrest will ensue.
Our government is presumably tasked with the responsibility of maintaining or restoring the balance of power between the classes. When existence
becomes inequitable for one class or the other it results in an environment that threatens national security.
But what does one do when the government itself is influenced predominantly by one or the other class preventing the checks and balances that allow
Then the controlling bodies of government become a threat to national security until balance is restored. Balance is always restored.
To paraphrase one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite movies….
“Hell is coming to breakfast”