Primary Sources: DOJ Memos to CIA

The most accepted candid accounts given in regards to this and the real state of our union are apparently given by our comedians?the account that least most clearly comes to mind is the one given by Colbert on Comedy Central?I just watched it on the ACLU website and it is excellent.

But still? ?

?It is true that humor aids in dealing with perversion?we laugh because it still remains at a distance, one far enough to where it still feels safe enough to laugh, but where the distance is moving uncomfortably closer. I am sure that even the Nazis laughed with great chuckles until suddenly the insanity above their heads started to turn on themselves and not merely non-Nazis. Because as the paranoia at the top increased so did the need for ever more oppressive techniques of rule?because the image that "all was well" demanded that someone take responsibility for the ever increasing number of blunders (they started to lose the war) and since no one dared blame the leaders themselves for their perverted methods of rule (because obedience to authority was complete?they'd not fully realized the Orwellian concept that some Nazis were more Nazi than others), fear became the rule of law and yet it was a kind of fear where each was turned against the other and in the end, as the entire government and nation lay in burning ruins, only madness remained as the leaders tenderly tucked in their children with loving glasses of milk laced with poison so as to let them sleep for all eternity and then they killed themselves. Is this funny?

Or consider the book, Mephisto by Klaus Mann (a book that makes you laugh until its too late and then it leaves you choking in an eerie state of shock), a true masterpiece in the insanity that took the entire German people in a form of perverted possession and where the idea of Nazi Patriotism extended so deep in its interpretation that when the main character of the book, Hendrik Hoefgen a star of the Nazi stage for his ability to play Mephisto from Goethe's Faust with such mesmerizing vibrato that he was the "darling" of the Nazi elite until he was finally given permission to play Hamlet (he'd become possessed himself by desiring to increase the realm of the allowable in terms of "art" that he forgot the limits that "politically correct" patriotism allowed and he'd permitted his own act of pleasing his admirers (a necessity for survival was to properly please his Nazi patrons) to cloud his judgment?a fatal sin in a rigid hierarchy steeped so thick in propaganda that to stray but a little was punished with certain death and that was Hendrik's fate as he finds himself ostracized and then surrounded in spotlights, I image so as to make him "center stage" for a tragic end (Hamlet is after all an "English" tragedy) and as he shouts, "But I am only an actor", he is gunned down like a rabid dog, carted off like a sack of excrement and where the entire emotion among the elite was as though he never existed. And that was how it was when someone simply vanished without a trace. When it was your number that came up, perhaps you were so bold as to sneeze in the presence of your superiors and you vanished into the dungeons and torture chambers and it was as though you never were. Should we say that this was "good government" and applaud with laughter? Or should we stop the insane path we are on now before it actually goes that far? We have already set the stage for this and opened Pandora's box?it is to prevent this sort of insanity that we have "rights", it supposed to be here that authority puts down its foot and where the design of law is to ensure and protect these rights. It is this concept of being endowed with rights in light of the fact that we "exist" as human beings that defines "freedom" as well as our sense of being human?hence the term "human rights". The question then arises?what do we call it when these rights are thrown aside, stolen by an abusive "Executive" authority? Because we must answer this if we are to look into the meaning of our enemy?that against which we are said to be at war with, The War on Terror. Because "terror", "terrorism", "terrorists" and so on must be defined so that we actually know who and what it is we are at war with!

The most accepted candid accounts given in regards to this and the real state of our union are apparently given by our comedians—the account that least most clearly comes to mind is the one given by Colbert on Comedy Central—I just watched it on the ACLU website and it is excellent.

But still… …

…It is true that humor aids in dealing with perversion—we laugh because it still remains at a distance, one far enough to where it still feels safe enough to laugh, but where the distance is moving uncomfortably closer. I am sure that even the Nazis laughed with great chuckles until suddenly the insanity above their heads started to turn on themselves and not merely non-Nazis. Because as the paranoia at the top increased so did the need for ever more oppressive techniques of rule—because the image that "all was well" demanded that someone take responsibility for the ever increasing number of blunders (they started to lose the war) and since no one dared blame the leaders themselves for their perverted methods of rule (because obedience to authority was complete—they'd not fully realized the Orwellian concept that some Nazis were more Nazi than others), fear became the rule of law and yet it was a kind of fear where each was turned against the other and in the end, as the entire government and nation lay in burning ruins, only madness remained as the leaders tenderly tucked in their children with loving glasses of milk laced with poison so as to let them sleep for all eternity and then they killed themselves. Is this funny?

Or consider the book, Mephisto by Klaus Mann (a book that makes you laugh until its too late and then it leaves you choking in an eerie state of shock), a true masterpiece in the insanity that took the entire German people in a form of perverted possession and where the idea of Nazi Patriotism extended so deep in its interpretation that when the main character of the book, Hendrik Hoefgen a star of the Nazi stage for his ability to play Mephisto from Goethe's Faust with such mesmerizing vibrato that he was the "darling" of the Nazi elite until he was finally given permission to play Hamlet (he'd become possessed himself by desiring to increase the realm of the allowable in terms of "art" that he forgot the limits that "politically correct" patriotism allowed and he'd permitted his own act of pleasing his admirers (a necessity for survival was to properly please his Nazi patrons) to cloud his judgment—a fatal sin in a rigid hierarchy steeped so thick in propaganda that to stray but a little was punished with certain death and that was Hendrik's fate as he finds himself ostracized and then surrounded in spotlights, I image so as to make him "center stage" for a tragic end (Hamlet is after all an "English" tragedy) and as he shouts, "But I am only an actor", he is gunned down like a rabid dog, carted off like a sack of excrement and where the entire emotion among the elite was as though he never existed. And that was how it was when someone simply vanished without a trace. When it was your number that came up, perhaps you were so bold as to sneeze in the presence of your superiors and you vanished into the dungeons and torture chambers and it was as though you never were. Should we say that this was "good government" and applaud with laughter? Or should we stop the insane path we are on now before it actually goes that far? We have already set the stage for this and opened Pandora's box—it is to prevent this sort of insanity that we have "rights", it supposed to be here that authority puts down its foot and where the design of law is to ensure and protect these rights. It is this concept of being endowed with rights in light of the fact that we "exist" as human beings that defines "freedom" as well as our sense of being human—hence the term "human rights". The question then arises—what do we call it when these rights are thrown aside, stolen by an abusive "Executive" authority? Because we must answer this if we are to look into the meaning of our enemy—that against which we are said to be at war with, The War on Terror. Because "terror", "terrorism", "terrorists" and so on must be defined so that we actually know who and what it is we are at war with!

Thanks for the great post Admin ;)