NOW HARASS AS YOU DISEMBARK?
By: Frederick Meekins
It sounds like a ludicrous claim.
But the 80s cartoon G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero might just be the Rosetta
Stone to understanding early 21st century culture and politics.
In the series, the troops of the terrorist organization determined to take over the
world are referred to as vipers.
It seems those using that same name are on the verge of threatening human freedom here
in the real world. However, now it seems it might not be so easy to tell the
difference between those claiming to be good guys and the bad guys.
Americans have begrudgingly grown accustomed to TSA operatives in the name of airline
safety inflicting an assorted array of abuses upon travelers ranging from having to remove
shoes, to being forced to drink the breastmilk intended for their infants, the public
spilling of colostomy bags, and to hearing their toddlers scream at the top of their lungs
as the tots are molested by security apparatchiks placing their hands where anyone else
would be placed on an offender registry and forced to live their remaining days under a
Those endorsing such violations against personhood callously remind that those not
wanting to endure such indignities for the sake of the COMMUNITY are perfectly free to
avoid and forego air travel. However, if a pilot program underway in Houston
conducted by so-called Viper Teams gets off the ground and goes nationwide,
those less enthusiastic about law enforcement up in their faces and down their pants may
have to stay out of more than airports but rather perhaps all forms of public
According to Houston Free Thinker Phillip Levine, the scope of the national security
state has expanded beyond transcontinental and commuter rail stations to now include bus
routes. Not only will perverts in law enforcement be able to ascertain whether those
on the bus have taken Viagra with that pharmaceuticals allotted three hour
operational window but who exactly it is the patient is taking the medication for.
For as passengers disembarked from public transportation, multiple layers of law
enforcement from local police all the way up through federal agents asked passengers why
they were riding the bus and where they were going. Why else does one ride the bus
other than because either one does not have access to an automobile or because parking is
lousy at ones intended destination?
As to intended destination, the citizen responding a sleazy motel that charges hourly
rates with the wife of whomever asked the question deserves a Congressional medal of
honor. However, it is doubtful very few have the wherewithal to respond with
anything other than absolute honesty to such an informational request.
For with the exception of voting (one of the few instances when the presenting of an ID
would actually be justified in authenticating the validity of one being in the country),
Americans have pretty much been conditioned into handing over any bit of information
requested by someone flashing a badge or reciting a litany of letters as to what agency
they happen to be with.
In this particular incident, the law enforcement shakedown didn't prevent a single act
of terrorism as passengers were accosted after getting off the bus. Had their
intentions been mayhem and destruction, the act would have been perpetrated long before
Since these interventions were conducted at the end of their respective journeys,
another serious question must be raised. What if after passing through some kind of
mechanical surveillance system to get on board the bus, one is still not granted clearance
to actually enter the vehicle until police or what ever other government official might be
running things at some undetermined point down the timeline have determined one's grounds
for seeking the use of public transportation is justified? For example, want to go see the
newest Hunger Games movie? Sorry, your clearance only authorizes you to use public
transportation for occupational related purposes. You have not been categorized as
sufficiently valuable to the COMMUNITY to enjoy recreational privileges. Those conditioned
into embracing everything they have been told will respond that, if one does not want to
"freely" give an accounting to those administering the public transportation
system, then simply don't use public transportation. However, such advice is not as
simple to adhere to as it sounds.
Under the banner of any number of lofting sounding initiatives such as Agenda 21,
Sustainability, Live Where You Work, and Duel Use Zoning that make you want to hurl chunks
upon merely hearing them, the areas into which the remaining human beings granted
continued existence are to be herded will be redesigned in such a way as to at first
inconvenience those relying on private transportation but eventually outright forbidding
access to individual civilian vehicles whatsoever. This can be seen even today on
college campuses that force motorists to park in lots on the distance outskirts, to the
banishment of traffic from Times Square in New York, to police checkpoints in the Big
Apple that forbid entrance to automobiles carrying single passengers.
Some might think fine. If it takes cordoning oneself
off as much as possible to avoid harassment by security operatives and seldom leaving
ones property or wherever it is one will be permitted to reside as bureaucratic
regulations grow increasingly obtuse and the dictatorial impulse more pervasive, that is
what stalwart patriots would set their minds on the attempt at doing. However,
though logic would dictate that those conscientiously avoiding public forms of conveyance
and interaction should be left unaccosted by those insisting it is their obligation to
determine the legitimacy of the motives of those locomoting across communal causeways,
social engineers have often expressed an even greater desire to interfere in the lives of
those that quietly disentangle themselves from the tentacles of Leviathan.
For example, in the case of Wikard vs. Filburn, the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer
that grew his own crop for private consumption not directly participating in interstate
commerce was still subject to administrative oversight under that much abused clause of
the Constitution because whatever he produced for his own consumption would adversely
impact the interstate market. Thus, judges and bureaucrats with no scruples about
restricting the expansion of government power could apply this already warped precedent to
argue that those going out of their way to avoid not only public transportation but the
public altogether are not only undermining national security but rather social cohesion as
Those with limited imagination might find the above scenario too abstract or farfetched .
One doesn't have to project that far along possible timelines to make the point.
Already, steps are being taken to set the foundations for a milieu where those
trapped within wont be punished for actual crimes but rather for simply staying to
themselves or forced to interact with others against their will.
For example, to many suburbanites, the epitome of domestic tranquility is a sizeable
backyard surrounded by a privacy fence into which one can retreat with one's family
following a lengthy and grueling workday. However, under the rubric of a movement
some refer to as "New Urbanism", COMMUNTIY planners and sympathetic architects
would deny the homeowner this sliver of elusive seclusion.
Instead, each homeowner is to have thrust upon them a front porch. It is insisted
that this feature prompts interaction among residents not for the purposes of fostering
friendship but rather COMMUNITY.
Even a number of perspectives within Christianity have gotten onboard. Some still
believing in Heaven as the blissful destination in the Afterlife insist that, if you don't
want the neighbors up in your business now, you likely won't be one of those joining the
Saints in glory. Among the Emergent Church types downplaying the existence of
Heaven, your unwillingness to fanatically embrace the herd consensus likely means you have
no place in the this worldly "Kingdom of God", which sounds disturbingly like a
form of religious socialism.
Proponents insist that such environmental tinkering will supposedly bring out the best
in human nature, resulting in a new golden age. However, without regeneration in
Christ and even with that the individual is left with too much residue of the sin nature,
it is advisable to retain a respectable degree of distance apart from those outside the
immediate nuclear family and a few select friends. All such social manipulation will
accomplish will be to fester a variety of behavioral pathologies to the surface.
For example, one particular acquaintance resides in an area where most of the dimwits
have been duped into embracing the blather about the joys of gathering on front porches
for endless hours of self-denunciation and reeducation. Some years back, as my
acquaintance was restoring a classic automobile, the tranquility of the summer's evening
was shattered with, "WHAT THE F--K IS HE DOING WITH THAT CAR?"
You will note that the offense against the COMMUNITY was not that such language would
be utilized to inquire as to what a member of the collective was doing. Rather, the deed
to denigrate was that of an individual pursuing his own interests rather than
subordinating himself to the preferred activities of the group.
This would not be the last incident where the protections of communal support would be
denied to those not so much out to destroy the COMMUNITY but who would rather retain most
of their identity distinct and apart from that unit of social organization. Because
a relation of this particular person had expressed on a public forum a sentiment
countervailing the prevailing leftwing consensus within the disputed municipality, my
associate and his family had a car window smashed on more than one occasion.
When the neighbors assembled to gleefully gawk at the misfortune, my associate was
informed that people did not like his family anyway. At the heart of conservatism
and libertarianism, adherents of these related perspectives do not require that those
residing in close proximity to them respond with tidings of affection and
camaraderie. However, what is required is that they respect your property and
possessions whether they like you or not.
The vitality of liberty is a precarious thing. It is seldom lost overnight.
Rather, it slowly slips from our grasp as we often compromise with those assuring
that what they are snatching from us is really for our own welfare and protection.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com :
republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Frederick Meekins is a free lance writer and a regular columnist for Ether
Frederick Meekins can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org
the October 24, 2012 issue of
Copyright © 1997 - 2012 Ether Zone.
We invite your
comments on this article in our forum!