It sounds like a ludicrous claim. But the 80’s 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 bridge.
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 transportation.
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 pharmaceutical’s 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 one’s 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 that point.
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 one’s 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 well.
Those with limited imagination might find the above scenario too abstract or farfetched . Fine.
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 won’t 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.
by Frederick Meekins