Carpetbagger just opened a big can of worms when he wrote about how nutty Ron Paul is. And now all the nuts are coming out of the woodwork attacking all us ignorant folks for not supporting Ron Paul in his fight against one-world government and the evil Federal Reserve. Basically, the idea is that if you don't already agree with them then you just don't know what the hell you're talking about.
And so I came out with the idea that Ron Paul is an alien who wants to enslave us in order to benefit his alien race. I mean, it all makes sense. He's against a one-world government because he wants us to remain divided so we waste precious resources fighting each other, while being able to challenge their eventual attack. That's also why he's against gun control, taxation, and big goverment; so we keep killing each other and the government will be powerless. And he's against abortion because that kills off his precious slaves. It all makes perfect sense. He's setting us up to be captured! Possibly eaten alive!!
Needless to say, nobody has addressed this point yet and realize that I'm mocking them. But it's not just a petty knock against them. It skewers right to the heart of their argument. Because they have no proof that The Powers That Be are conspiring against them. It's all circumstantial stuff that only makes sense if you already agree with what they're saying. But if you don't already agree, then it's just a hodgepodge of random quotes.
Basically, because they can take an event or statement and tie it into their theory, that makes it true. But anyone can play that game. Hell, just try to prove that Ron Paul's not an alien. And even if he wasn't, his agenda clearly helps any would-be alien invaders. By their logic, that makes it all true and we should be destroying Ron Paul; not praising him.
Cronkite & Castro
One of the nuttier commenters at Carpetbagger's has this long timeline of all sorts of suspicious events and quotes. Like a book Walter Cronkite wrote in 1996 suggesting that a One World government was a good idea. How nefarious!
And then there are lots of quotes of people referring to a "new world order" which can obviously only refer to a one-world government takeover by the UN. Even when the limited context would indicate they weren't referring to anything specific, it's suddenly proof of the conspiracy. Like a quote from Castro in 1979 in which he was upset at American aggression and "demanded a 'new world order.'" Well, shit. If Castro's in on it, it must be a conspiracy.
But it's all stuff like that. Because something could indicate a conspiracy, it must be a conspiracy. And so based upon that reasoning, Ron Paul really is an evil alien. How can it be otherwise? The evidence fits. And any evidence that doesn't fit obviously should be ignored. And if you say otherwise, you're just ignorant. Life must be simple that way.
But truth doesn't really work that way. Sure, it's possible that they're correct. But that's the thing, lots of things are possible. But it's the same thing with any zealot, they only see what they want to see. If an unexplained event happens, then the explanation must be their pet issue. Weird lights in the sky are aliens. Weird lights in a house are ghosts. Somehow, ghosts don't go in the sky and aliens don't fly in houses; not even tiny ones. And the only way to be saved from peril is if God and/or your guardian angel intervenes. And you're just fooling yourself if you don't fit their theory into the paricular facts at hand.
The Most Perfect Slaves
One of the commenters quoted some dude mentioning some vague stuff that you couldn't disagree with. Here was the first quote:
“The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.”
And the thing is, I can't disagree with that at all. In fact, this actually makes the case against what these people say. If the Powerful People are already powerful and we're already working for them, why would they try to disrupt all this with some sort of New World Order, where they take our guns and openly enslave us?
I mean, we're already working for them. The International Corporations are already doing whatever the hell they want. I even agree with that to some extent, and these people think it's even worse than I think. Or perhaps it's not corporations, as many libertarians (including Ron Paul) actually want deregulation and want corporations to be more powerful than they already are.
But whoever is doing this, they're so powerful that they control all major media outlets and all major politicians in every major country. So why would they want to disrupt this? Why are they going to take everyone's guns, explictly remove our borders, and make us all aware of our enslavement? Doesn't that completely go against the quote from above? If we're already "the most perfect slaves", why would they try to change any of that?
UN v. the Peashooters
But that's the thing with all of their conspiracy stuff. They're so busy making the case that this stuff is true, they never really explain why it's a problem. There's always this implied idea that we'll be enslaved, but why? And how? I've always been of the opinion that if the shit came down and we needed to actually use our shotguns and pea shooters to fight against our military, it wouldn't be the shotguns that saved the day. It would simply be our military guys refusing to obey the orders.
And as far as a UN takeover, as one Carpetbagger poster mentioned, these guys have trouble with peacekeeping missions in tiny African nations. Now we're to imagine that they'll just conquer the United States? Right. Hell, a large segment of our military can't even subdue a second-world nation the size of California; yet we're to imagine that we'd be easily conquered by our military? I doubt they could even conquer California! Again, none of this is even mentioned. It's just on-and-on about how ignorant we are for ignoring the truth, when they can't even explain why the "truth" is important.
And why stop at a one-world government? These people don't even like a strong federal government, and would prefer a loose-knit federation of states instead. But why stop there? Why should I, as a citizen of liberal Austin Texas, be forced to obey laws instituted by Texans who I completely disagree with? And hell, my neighborhood is more liberal than most of Austin, why should I be bound by Austin's laws? And my family! Who died and made them kings? If I don't want to clean my dishes after supper, by god, my dishes won't be clean!
Perhaps we should just be hermits with shotguns; just waiting for some filthy mother to try to get what's ours, so we can blast them. But all this is dumb. It's obvious that the bigger your group is, the better. Tribes are more powerful than individuals. Cities are more powerful than tribes. States are more powerful than cities. And a one-world government would remove any need for fighting wars or wasting trillions of dollars on national defenses.
Locals v. The Feds
And sure, there's a balance with liberty and tailoring laws to particular communities, but no one said a one-world government couldn't do that. With these people, it's just assumed that a one-world government would also mean that we'd lose all rights and could no longer elect our leaders. For all the weak quotes they toss out on the subject, I've yet to see any explanation for this. After all, there are plenty of small towns who do a great job of stifiling liberties; particular small southern towns stifiling the rights of black people.
And who exactly has been the major force trying to put a stop to that? Why, I do believe it's the federal goverment. And for that matter, many of the people who complain about the federal government are actually complaining about this very thing. The rights they've had stolen from them is the right to steal other people's rights. But this isn't a surprise. It's actually much easier and more likely for a local official to screw with you than a national official. As we all know, you just can't fight city hall.
One commenter suggested that the European Union is a warning sign of what could happen to us. I fail to see how the EU wasn't a great idea that should have happened a long, long time ago. But I also fail to see why national boundaries are so important. The reason Europe was divided was just that nobody could maintain control over the leaders of these countries. But this wasn't for the benefit of the people. This was just powerful people acting out of their own quest for power; consistenly using the "people" as fodder in their games of conquest. So how was that such a good idea?
And I, for one, think a one-world government can be an excellent idea. Sure, it could be bad. But it could be great. It could be the end of war. It could make it easier to distribute resources and could be a boon to mankind. What the hell's the problem with it? Again, I've never seen this really explained.
In fact, my extensive reading of science fiction even has me worried that there perhaps are alien races watching us, and we're the laughing stock of the whole galaxy. I mean, why should they invite us into their galactic federation if we can't even get along with our fellow humans and refuse to form a common government on our puny little planet? Then again, these people would probably be against us joining a galactic federation too. Gene Roddenberry must be rolling in his grave.
But no, these people insist that any attempt to combine us together under one government would only mean they were trying to enslave us. Again, we're already slaves, and most of us are happy with it. Sure, I'd rather not work for a living, but I like having good stuff. I like having cable and electricty and cell phones and internet and cars. I'm a slave to this stuff, but I'll accept it because it's better than the alternative. And this all benefits the ultra-rich much more than it benefits me, but as long as I get good stuff out of it, I won't complain...much.
Nuts R Us
And a big problem with talking about this stuff is that every one of these guys have completely different ideas of what they're really talking about. I once talked to a guy who insisted that we would all be enslaved and turned into chattel, which he explained meant "human cattle" (no, I didn't just make that up). He insisted we'd all be picking cotton on plantations soon. I mean, why the hell would they do that? I'm a well-trained accountant, and they're going to have me doing work that is more easily done by machine?? Right.
But if you ever talk to these guys and can surpress your Nutball Alarm enough to get the details of what they're talking about, it never makes any sense. But it's not supposed to make sense. It's just the ramblings of people who feel powerless and want to find some justification for why their lives aren't better. And to feel superior to us "ignorant" folks who just aren't knowledgable about what's really going on.
That's all this is about. It's not about finding a sensible theory. I mean, many of these people will denounce international corporations in one breath, and then attack government regulations with the next. And you're like "HUH?!?" But it does no good. You can't talk sense into them, because again, they're not looking for that kind of sense. They just want to rationalize why their lives aren't better and in a way that puts the blame on some nefarious group they'll never be a part of.
And frankly, I don't think it's such a bad thing. No matter how great an idea is, it really is necessary to have a handful of people oppose it, to provide a sort of ballast to prevent us from going too far or too fast in any one direction. The world needs all kinds of people, including the crazy people. We just don't need them for president.