The unholy war
In the beginnings of the structure of society, people were subjected to brutal and blind but openly applied force; nowadays - to ‘law‘ which is the same force, only disguised. In popular parlance a policeman - a bully and an oppressor is presented as ‘the law‘ !
Above certain level all of them are ‘homo brutanicus‘.
The alleged necessity of ‘law‘ and authority is so firmly planted in the average mind that living without
'government‘, is almost unthinkable to most people. The same people, on the other hand, will admit that rules, regulations, taxes, officiousness and abuse of power are irritating to say the least.
These things are usually thought to be worth suffering in silence because the alternative -
no ‘authority', everybody doing what they pleased would be horrible.
It would be anarchy !
It starts with compulsory schooling. The idea is not to educate, but to indoctrinate using various means including religion which helps maintaining the pretences of ‘lawfulness‘ encouraging to act as ‘a good boy‘ (‘ Christian‘) so if they want to hit you again and again offer the other cheek allowing them to have fun hurting you.
As the result, most people, put on themselves muzzles and even walk around barking gibberish as something supposedly 'politically correct' ?!
By pretending that there can be success by peaceful demonstrations, creating committees and organisations that can be easily monitored, infiltrated and manipulated they diffuse real opposition and do not give them a slightest chance of winning.
So often ‘red herrings‘ are thrown in - to engage people in discussions to confuse them, divide them, manipulate them, corrupt them, create doubt, keep them busy, entertained or arguing with each other.
The general rule is that there is a profit in confusion; the more confusion, the more profit.
The struggle against an entrenched ‘system‘ (supported by a large mass of the population who have submitted to its deceptive, illusory techniques) is extremely difficult without cumulative support of other people.There is a great deal of fear to overcome, deliberately instigated confusion, and a lack of ALTERNATIVES that are practical, effective and are convincing to a population now under the rule of the ‘New World Order‘ as they call themselves.
The system is oppressive, and often brutal, but that is no problem as long as others are the victims. The persecution and intimidation takes place within the legal system when the powers, which decide to label you as the enemy, use all their wicked and immoral means to silence anyone who would change the conditions under which they thrive.
In Australia during early colonial days people belonging to so called ‘authority‘ = ‘homo brutanicus‘ had good reasons to feel like semi gods.
External control ( mother England) was far, far away. Even symbolic internal control did not exist, any dissent ended up in hanging. That tradition did not die out – the arrogance, bullying, intimidation and lawlessness remain prevailing features of todays generation of ‘homo brutanicus‘.
On the bottom level the policeman (the ‘law‘) remains an element of the wider scenery of the clique in legal industry where all parts (police, lawyers, magistrates/judges) collaborate to maintain the legend that ‘you cannot win‘ so you better resign, submit and stop dreaming about ‘justice‘.
Such assertion belongs to a world we had left behind long time ago - the Dark Ages!
Under current conditions neither an open rebellion nor a revolution can succeed.
If submitance to the unhuman law is not the option – pride and honour demands finding an effective way of dealing with the situation.
From A History of Freedom of Thought
By John Bagnell Bury
In the most civilized countries, freedom of speech is taken as a matter of course and seems a perfectly simple thing. We are so accustomed to it that we look on it as a natural right. But this right has been acquired only in quite recent times, and the way to its attainment has lain through lakes of blood.
It has taken centuries to persuade the most enlightened peoples that liberty to publish one's opinions and to discuss all questions is a good and not a bad thing.
Human societies (there are some brilliant exceptions) have been generally opposed to freedom of thought, or, in other words, to new ideas, and it is easy to see why.
The average brain is naturally lazy and tends to take the line of least resistance. The mental world of the ordinary man consists of beliefs which he has accepted without questioning and to which he is firmly attached; he is instinctively hostile to anything which would upset the established order of this familiar world.
A new idea, inconsistent with some of the beliefs which he holds, means the necessity of rearranging his mind; and this process is laborious, requiring a painful expenditure of brain−energy. To him and his fellows, who form the vast majority, new ideas, and opinions which cast doubt on established beliefs and institutions, seem evil because they are disagreeable.
The repugnance due to mere mental laziness is increased by a positive feeling of fear.
The conservative instinct hardens into the conservative doctrine that the foundations of society are endangered by any alterations in the structure. It is only recently that men have been abandoning the belief that the welfare of a state depends on rigid stability and on the preservation of its traditions and institutions unchanged. Wherever that belief prevails, novel opinions are felt to be dangerous as well as annoying, and any one who asks inconvenient questions about the why and the wherefore of accepted principles is considered a pestilent person.
The conservative instinct, and the conservative doctrine which is its consequence, are strengthened by superstition. If the social structure, including the whole body of customs and opinions, is associated intimately with religious belief and is supposed to be under divine patronage, criticism of the social order savours of impiety, while criticism of the religious belief is a direct challenge to the wrath of supernatural powers.
The psychological motives which produce a conservative spirit hostile to new ideas are reinforced by the active opposition of certain powerful sections of the community, such as a class, a caste, or a priesthood, whose interests are bound up with the maintenance of the established order and the ideas on which it rests.
Let us suppose, for instance, that a people believes that solar eclipses are signs employed by their Deity for the special purpose of communicating useful information to them, and that a clever man discovers the true cause of eclipses. His compatriots in the first place dislike his discovery because they find it very difficult to reconcile with their other ideas; in the second place, it disturbs them, because it upsets an arrangement which they consider highly advantageous to their community; finally, it frightens them, as an offence to their Divinity. The priests, one of whose functions is to interpret the divine signs, are alarmed and enraged at a doctrine which menaces their power.
In prehistoric days, these motives, operating strongly, must have made change slow in communities which progressed, and hindered some communities from progressing at all. But they have continued to operate more or less throughout history, obstructing knowledge and progress. We can observe them at work to−day even in the most advanced societies, where they have no longer the power to arrest development or repress the publication of revolutionary opinions. We still meet people who consider a new idea an annoyance and probably a danger.