What We Are Really Up Against

Kunk Fu Zoby Kung Fu Zu12/17/15
Like many Americans, and most of the contributors to StubbornThings, I am continually trying to understand the nature and motivation of those who mis-rule us. To my mind, members of both parties as well as numerous so-called power-brokers belong to this cabal.

Imagine then my relief when I came across a paragraph which pulled away the mask, got to the root of and exposed what actually drives many, if not most, of those in power. The following is from Orwell’s novel, 1984. The setting is a discussion between O’Brien and Winston Smith. The quote is the moment O’Brien lays bare the true motivation of the “Party.”

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”

Does this sound familiar? This is what we are up against. The power-elite of this country adhere to the above as their guiding doctrine. It is their “Golden Rule.” Of course, they will never be so crass or honest as to say such a thing, but the underlying conceit is there.

It is the same for the power-elite in Europe and Asia. In the end, “ism” means little to any of them. They will use this or that “ism” to obtain and maintain their power. They will use any ruse to suit their purposes. For example, the phony Global warming hoax is simply a tool for them to expand their power.

The belief expressed by O’Brien is as old as humanity. Some will always seek power for itself. What is different today is the fact that technology is giving the power-elite the tools to maintain an eye on, and control over, technologically advanced societies. As a teenager, I feared the potential power computers would give the State, and I am seeing my fears come true.

By combining a huge proliferation of laws, which no one can fully know or follow, with the ability to track every aspect of people’s lives, the government does not have to resort to messy physical force in order to keep the people in line. Instead, it can decide to prosecute anyone at any time as just about everyone is in contravention of some federal law or other, knowingly or otherwise.  Furthermore, with its eavesdropping powers, the government can sanction political insiders who might pose a threat. Do not doubt that the NSA and FBI hold many secrets which could be used against those power-brokers who become too obstreperous. It would be a simple thing to discipline them in a very public manner in the view of millions (Think David Petreus). Few people are able to stand up to such pressure. And for those few, the government always has the option of violence.

History shows that, except in rare cases, those who reach the top are there because they crave power and are not overly scrupulous as to their means of obtaining it — not because they wish to help others. Our founders understood this and established a political system of governance which took this sad fact into consideration. They knew that all those who seek or are in power must be monitored and their power must be held in check. For most of our history, the people of the United States were able to fulfill this obligation. Unfortunately, “We the Ruled” have fallen down on the job, thus allowing too many scoundrels, thieves, and felonious types to rise to positions of great responsibility and expanding authority. We are far down the road to a government as envisioned in 1984 and if we want to avoid a lecture by our O’Brien, we had better start getting involved and take back power from the elites.


Kung Fu Zu is a conservative prognosticator who has traveled widely and lived outside the United States. • (2261 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to What We Are Really Up Against

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    I’ve been pointing this out for years. The difference between liberals and O’Brien is that the former lacks his sadism. The Republicans may not be as bad, but at best they lack the moral courage to stand up to the demands of IngSoc, and at worst they differ only in who gets to be Big Brother. Probably there are some of both.

  2. Anniel says:

    KFZ, Looking at the picture of Paul Ryan on the Drudge headline today left me nauseated. This is a man who has become drunken on his own sense of power. Seeing the crazed look in his eyes and the gloating sneer on his face should be an object lesson on what the destruction of a soul looks like. He assures us that the budget deal is a big plus and we’ll end Obamacare and defund Planned Parenthood “next year.” And we should all trust him. He doesn’t see his own peril, he just sees his own power. And does he really think the awful beard is a turn on to anybody?

    Now I remember why “1984” has creeped me out. But I do think everyone should read it, if only to be warned.

    • Rosalys says:

      I finally got around to reading “1984” for the first time, about two or three years ago. My thoughts while reading were, “Is this a piece of fiction?

      I’m thinking we should thank “representative” Ryan for making it really clear who and what he (and most of the rest of our public “servants”) represents – and it ain’t us and it ain’t our constitutional republic.

      I don’t even get outraged or go into a rant anymore. I am so use to this behavior, I expect it.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Annie,

      I read some comments from Ryan on the great thing they got from this omnibus bill. According to him, one great thing was the right to export US oil.

      This shows the scum bag Ryan is simply in the pocket of big business.

      At the present time, very little oil will be exported from the US, other than possibly Alaska. And even that is not very likely given the price of oil and the fact that the world is awash in the stuff now.

      So Ryan gave away the house today for a the export of oil, something which is not going to happen any time soon. Not only that, he virtually guaranteed costs for the American consumer will go up once oil is actually exported.

      I could go on, but this is indicative of why so many Americans are flocking to Donald Trump. They see a totally corrupt political system which works mainly for the rich and politically connected. And they want to blow the f*%king thing up.

      There is a saying in German, “rather a painful ending, than pain without ending”. I thing many of us are reaching the point where we would rather have a little uncertainty/chaos in the country rather the certainty that the power-elites are going to keep screwing everyone else and take the country down the tubes.

  3. SkepticalCynic SkepticalCynic says:

    I’ve said this before and anyone that doesn’t believe it is dumber than a brick. Americans aren’t free. They become more enslaved every day.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, we still have the freedom to speak and write against the authorities, even insulting the Traitor-in-Chief. In most countries through history, that freedom did not exist. The freedom to worship in a different church from that favored by the state was also frequently non-existent. We aren’t as free as we used to be, but we’re still freer than most people in the world today, and even more so compared to most of history.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        You point out a couple of freedoms we still have, but there is no doubt that our freedoms are shrinking.

        The right to worship as one wishes is clearly under attack.

        In the last 10 years or so, America’s ranking in the world as regards to economic freedoms has dropped pretty steeply.

        With the passage of “hate speech” laws the freedom of speech has been badly encroached on.

        Between the EPA and Kelso, property rights have been stomped on.

        The one area where our rights seem to have been solidified is in the area of the 2nd amendment. I find this interesting and wonder why. Perhaps it is because guns are simply neutral tools and people understand that to give them up would be to open themselves up to further tyranny from the government.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I did say our freedom was less than it used to be, and there also is no doubt that the Left wishes to take away all our Bill of Rights protections. (For all their faults, the GOP leaders still mostly don’t support this, though their opposition to leftist illiberalism is dangerously weak.)

          Note that “hate crimes” don’t — yet — restrict mere speech; they merely make some crimes punished more heavily than other identical crimes. (I can actually see a point to this if the target were random crimes, of which hate crimes are a subset.)

      • David Ray says:

        True, but not as much. Bill Clinton had a habit of siccing secret service on any who insulted him.

        Little Barry had Holder try to jail Dinesh D’sausa over a petgy & trite violation of a campaign finance law. (That’ll teach him to make documentaries about Obama.)

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Rush noted today (with surprise) that until he faced the Inquisition over a trivial campaign violation, he hadn’t realized just how totalitarian and vicious the Obamacrats are. I had certainly been aware for years that the Democrats used IngSoc as their model.

      • SkepticalCynic SkepticalCynic says:

        Mr. Tim, those are merely freedoms that have not been taken yet. I was not speaking in terms of absolute. Those in power are chipping away at our freedoms every day. I still feel that I can say things against our government to my friends but I don’t print what I think in books or newspapers and I wonder how long we will be able to write comments on the internet and not be punished. Eventually, we will be afraid to tell our friends lest they sic the authorities on us. It is so in a number of countries today

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Thomas Jefferson noted that it was the normal situation that freedom retreated before the power of the State. So it has largely been from the beginning even in America. Occasionally there may be a recovery of freedom (as happened after the Sedition Act was allowed to expire, and later after similar war-time repressions were eased back). But there also have been periods of much faster declines in freedom, and one of them (perhaps the worst) is happening today. Worse yet, we have a political party dedicated to the eventual elimination of those freedoms.

          But at present, we still have them, more or less. That’s all I was saying.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    What are we up against? Pogo said something like “We have met the enemy and they are us.” Read this article about the excesses of the liberal church and then note the last paragraph.

    One commenter noted:

    Well, duh, Mr. Cherry, where do you go from here? Look for a new church? Keep your church and lobby for a clergyman replacement? Do nothing but muse about it and show up next Sunday for another dose? You ended your writing with no reaction to the problem.

    Another commenter wrote:

    Ronald had his chance to be a leader but sadly failed to heed his conscience. All too common in our world of emasculated men who think that courtesy trumps courage.

    Speaking in terms of Orwell, far too many are ready and willing to say that “2 plus 2 equals 5” just to be polite….or, I should say “polite” functions as a cover for moral cowardice.

    Hey, when I said a while ago that I threw a European socialist out of my office, I wasn’t just bragging. You either stand up to these guys or you “polite” yourself to oblivion. “Polite” is suicide in the face of those who want only power….or are just espousing some screwball doctrine.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      You may recall that Rush Limbaugh reported in 2004 on an article in a liberal on-line journal (Slate or Salon) which wondered why the Democrats flocked to John Fresno Kerry even though no one really cared for him. The article noted the 1950s experiments that tested, in effect, self-confidence in one’s vision. A group of people would be asked which of 3 lines was longer. Most were actually part of the experiment and would say that one of the shorter lines was longer. A lot of people would decide to go along with the majority instead of standing up for what they could clearly see. Such people are natural liberals.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Sounds similar to an article I read (from a Leftist magazine) that was trying to explain why Bill Clinton was so popular with women (as least in terms of garnering their votes) even though he was abusive to women and a serial philanderer. The conclusion by this liberal source was that because Clinton was for opening the money spigots for “women’s health” issues (and other feminist issues), his personal behavior didn’t matter. They weren’t voting ethics but simple monetary self-interest.

        If you’re a union leader or member, it’s not too much of an exaggeration to say that you would vote for Hitler as long as he was pro-union. Or if you are a black, you would vote for a KKK clan leader as long as he professed fealty to ideas such as “black lives matter.”

        This clear self-interested amorality is wallpapered over by all the hand-wringing about “care” for the environment, baby seals, Palestinians, whatever. The Democrat Party is the party of the rabble. The Republican Party has conceits of being better than that but they are often just as bad, if for other reasons.

  5. Anniel says:

    I just read that Ryan’s attempt at a beard seems like a step towards “radicalization.” Do you suppose he’s become Muslim and wants to be a jihadist? Such an ugly beard does seem to need an explanation.

  6. NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

    Well done, KFZ. We Conservatives need to remember (and mushy middle-of-the roaders need to learn) that the Democratic Party is after one thing and one thing only – power, the kind of power the Nazis had and the communists still have today.

  7. Timothy Lane says:

    There was a nice article on Town Hall today about the budget deal. Though skeptical about it in many ways (all of them justified), it also pointed out that there were several provisions that (at least in theory) help protect free expression from the Fascist Messiah and those (such as the Fire Witch) who would continue his war on dissent. The link is:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/philkerpen/2015/12/24/the-free-speech-silver-lining-in-the-budget-cloud-n2096864

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    J.R. Dunn has a very sensible article about “transsexualism.”

    Second, that these people are by definition badly disturbed.  They are obsessed with something they cannot have, and insist that the rest of us share in their delusion that they can have it. A cause for pity, at most, but the left has chosen to put these people in the firing line.

    In order for radicals and revolutions to gain power, it is to their advantage to de-legitimize every sense of normalcy that currently exists. I’m not sure I buy J.R.’s line that this transexual incursion is because we don’t know enough about these mentally confused people. But certainly people have been unwilling to stick up for reality.

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I was reading a little of Chesterton’s “The Everlasting Man” last night. It’s interesting to note how much of evolution (straight-line and inevitable progress from one lesser point to another better one) has entered our way of thought…including my own. But he says it is not for sure that man has progressed from the savage to civilization. We have savages today and we had quite ancient civilizations…the earliest known ones being in Egypt and Babylon.

    His point was…well, in his own words. Here are two quotes:

    But it has appeared to a good many intelligent and well-informed people quite as probable that the experience of the savages has been that of a decline from civilisation. Most of those who criticise this view do not seem to have any very clear notion of what a decline from civilisation would be like. Heaven help them, it is likely enough that they will soon find out.

    And…

    If there is one fact we really can prove, from the history that we really do know, it is that despotism can be a development, often a late development and a very often indeed the end of societies that have been highly democratic.

    Many conservatives, including Mr. Kung and myself, see the Left as intentionally degrading civilization while implementing despotism. Can there be any doubt about this? For all their conceits about being “Progressive,” it really is the case that we are backward-sliding due to the Left’s anti-civilization inclinations. This is part of what we are really up against, for sure.

  10. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The following link is to an article I first heard about on Monday. What I heard was intriguing, but I did not search out the piece. I heard about the article again yesterday when Rush Limbaugh mentioned it on his program. So I decided to have a look for myself. I am glad I did as this is one of the best pieces I have read regarding what is happening in the country.

    To be informed is to be empowered!

    It is 17 pages long, but worth the time.

    http://spectator.org/articles/39326/americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution

  11. Timothy Lane says:

    There’s an article today on NRO about the controversy over Melissa Click and her abusive attitude toward dissent. It cites Missouri leftist Rob Rasmussen, who has not only come to the her defense, but called for political violence and spoke of how happy he would be if they guillotined the Koch brothers. It’s a good reminder of the thuggishness at the heart of the modern Left. One can hope (and I do) that someday he’s reminded that most of the Jacobin leaders died under their beloved guillotine (except for Marat, who was murdered in his bath by Charlotte Corday).

  12. Stuart Whitman Stuart Whitman says:

    Terrific commentary. Insightful, relevant, and needed. And it would seem the call in your final sentences has been taken up. But what now? Will the new boss be much different than the old boss?

    Sure the collectivists are about COMPLETE power because as Hayek wrote, you have to have the ability to correct thru fiction or force those parts of the economy that fail to respond to your central planning directives. But what about moneyed interests who have the resources to pursue private fortune at the expense of the public?

    I’ve come to understand it doesn’t matter who controls Washington DC as much as the fact that power resides there. Our founders knew this and crafted an unprecedented system to dilute it. But today most see this as a left versus right issue and a winner take all contest.

    The proper pendulum has liberty on one end and tyranny on the other. A historical election has taken place and advantage given to one party not seen in our lifetime. Surely new polices will be written which will restore our collective security and prosperity. But will they restore our liberty. And does anyone even care?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *