Kort Explores conundrums of the human condition

Fear, and its corollary terror, have always been the primary tools of despots. Both fear of within and without are useful. Fear from within keeps the citizens obedient and compliant, while fear of without increases their motivation and makes them tolerant of sacrifices.

In order to be truly effective, there has to be a focusing event - something that shocks the public into the desired alignment. Sometimes outside influences provide the necessary event. Sometimes the event must be manufactured.

One of the critical events in Hitler's rise to power was the burning of the Reichstag (German Parliament Building). History shows that the Nazis actually did the deed themselves, but at the time Hitler accused his enemies of committing the crime, and demanded broad powers to "combat" the threat and "protect" the German people. Hitler then used his new powers to destroy the remaining democratic rights of the entire population, and send the remaining opposition to his dictatorial rule to concentration camps. In the hysteria created and nurtured by the Nazis, a whole nation of otherwise reasonable citizens found doing the unthinkable an irresistible progression. For Hitler, the destruction of the Reichstag was an acceptable price to pay for the power he gained.

No one could deny the personally abhorrent reality of the bombing. Dead children, shattered and torn bodies, dazed and bloodied survivors staggering out of the smoke and debris, not to mention the indescribable stench. The rescue workers are truly extraordinary people motivated by their own internal strength and virtue. People wouldn't work in those conditions day after day for the money. Even the search dogs were showing signs of depression after days of digging up body parts with no signs of life.

But we must separate the human reality of the disaster from the increasingly aggressive political manipulation of the event. Without any supporting evidence, the accusations started flying. Totally ignoring the fact that the bombing was the act of one or more individuals who are solely responsible for their actions, Clinton and the liberal media have attempted to implicate all of their political enemies regardless of how tenuous or absurd the implied connection. Even before the dust had settled, Washington was considering what further restrictions on the rights of citizens could be justified on the grounds of "preventing similar events in the future". There's a rush to reverse the restrictions on the FBI and other agencies imposed after the abuses of the Nixon era.

Rather than calming the public, the government has attempted to amplify both the scope and level of fear. Contrary to the government sponsored hysteria about a wave of terror gripping the nation, this was not a random act of violence aimed at causing mass civilian casualties. The same bomb at any number of public places would have caused far more carnage, with casualties in the thousands instead of hundreds. The same bomb leveraged against something particularly nasty like a chemical plant, nuclear facility or radioactive waste shipment could kill hundreds of thousands. But the bombers obviously picked their target for specific reasons other than creating terror in the general public.

Nor were children the primary targets. It's quite likely the bombers were unaware of the day care center in the building. This bomb was obviously targeted at the Federal agencies in the building, most likely the BATF, DEA, and FBI. Who would think that the Feds, so aggressively involved in imposing a totally child safe world on the rest of us, would be so negligent as to place their own children in a building frequented by known criminals and sundry unsavory types. (Regardless of opinions as to the status of the federal employees, the BATF, DEA, and FBI by definition deal directly with criminal elements who must occasionally frequent their offices.) The children and other civilians killed in the blast were just unlucky to be in the target area, or were placed in harms way by their parents.

In terms of the total number of fatalities, the Oklahoma City bombing killed fewer people than have a number of terrorist airplane bombings. The Federals themselves murdered 80 people in Waco and saw nothing wrong with their body count. And yet, solely because the victims this time were Federals, this tragedy is getting far more attention and demands for "action" than those that only cost "ordinary" citizens their lives. Where was the official reaction when terrorists killed citizens? The Federals would have us believe that there is a difference between killing them and the rest of us. Why should we care more about the lives of Federals than about our own? Perhaps more to the point, why should we care more about Federals than they care about us?

Even more reprehensible, Clinton and others have been adding to the fears of children by implying that this was a bombing aimed at children. Statements by Clinton and his administration have implied that schools and day care centers across the nation are in danger of attack. His message has been that only he can protect them from the bombers. Of course, in addition to lying about the primary target of the bombers, he also fails to mention that it was arguably his policies and appointees who put Federals and their dependents in danger in the first place.

This isn't the first time Clinton has cynically attempted to manipulate the natural concerns of all reasonable people for the welfare of children to serve his own political purposes. Falsely implying that his adversaries are cold hearted child abusers has been Clinton's standard tactic in every political issue.

Every political group has tried to interpret the bombing to suit their own agenda. From the cold and clinical perspective, one could say that in the nation of the people, by the people, and for the people, at least a few of the people don't feel a proper sense of ownership towards the Federal Government. It would seem obvious that those who blew up the building had a low expectation of a satisfactory response when dealing with their government through normal channels. These dissatisfied individuals felt obliged to make an intentional effort to communicate their dissatisfaction in a way that couldn't be ignored. We might find fault with their perspective or conclusions, but these people did demonstrate the strength of their convictions.

I think we can all agree that it is not in the general public's best interest for this form of communication to be repeated. Someone will eventually be convicted of this bombing - the political pressure to identify the bombers is too great. Hopefully those convicted will actually be the ones who did the deed.

However, the potential of a repeat performance may be at least partly independent of the fates of the individual Oklahoma bombers. Right or wrong, the bombers undoubtedly had some reason or purpose for their actions. The actual validity of their motives in the larger picture is immaterial. All that matters for the moment is what they believed they were doing.

It's possible to construct a variety of motivations for the bombing, from personal grievances to extremists attacking enemies that only exist in their own fevered imaginations. With most of these motivations the threat stops with the arrest of the individuals directly involved.

The self image that I think rates fairly high on the probability scale is something along the lines of Hollywood freedom fighters attacking Gestapo headquarters in a WWII movie. Those who fought in the resistance (on the winning side) during the various wars are lauded as heroes today. The bombers expect that after their anticipated general uprising, they will similarly be seen as heros leading the struggle.

If the Oklahoma bombers view themselves as freedom fighters battling an oppressive regime - or perhaps more importantly if that view is shared by others - the likelihood of a recurrence increases dramatically. Since most of these individuals and groups see themselves as highly patriotic and fighting for their definition of the "American way", a broad assault on dissent by the government will appear to confirm their worst fears - and further increase the potential of additional attacks on Federal facilities.

It seems unlikely to me at this point that Clinton will try to declare martial law as some fringe groups claim. But it's reasonable to assume that such an event would convince all such groups and individuals to do what ever they were capable of doing. Not a pleasant prospect for either side - or for those of us just trying to stay out of the blast zones and lines of fire.

To be callously objective about the actual current danger to citizens, only Federals and those dealing with them were at risk in this or any subsequent bombings. Stay away from Federal facilities and you don't have anything to worry about. The wider the defensive perimeter the Federals erect, the farther you should stay away. To avoid any undesirable personal involvement in the current "terror", do all your business with the government by phone or mail, and avoid driving on streets that pass government buildings. The real wave of terror the government appears to be preparing will likely be far harder to avoid.

What is probably most disturbing to the Federals about the bombing is that it "pierced the veil" of non-responsibility that is the very foundation of how our government works. Most of the complex structure of the bureaucracy is solely there to shield individuals from responsibility for their actions. Just as the individuals in a mob feel empowered to do things they would never dare by themselves, a nameless faceless bureaucracy is capable of doing things that as individuals would be unthinkable. One way to dissipate a mob is to eliminate the anonymity of the mob - to make the participants individually concerned for their own personal safety and well being. The bomb cut through the bureaucracy's veil of protection and made it personal. Any one of them could end up paying the ultimate price for the actions of the whole. Makes the game a lot less fun.

Obviously, the Federals would prefer not to see themselves as the targeted population. They especially don't want the rest of us to realize that we're not. The Federal response is to demand we surrender more of our rights so they can more effectively protect themselves from us. No amount of power will give the Federals any real safety from a hostile citizenry. It seems obvious to me that the only real defense for the Federals is to become once again the servants and employees of the citizenry not its enemies. Only by becoming one with the citizenry as originally intended in the Constitution and Bill of Rights can the Federals lose their identity as a targetable minority population.

Perhaps one of the most disturbing observations reported shortly after the blast was the statement by survivors that the offices of the BATF and other enforcement agencies were strangely empty of agents and high level staff the morning of the bombing. "It was as quiet as a tomb in there - nobody seems to have come to work this morning", was the statement I heard on the early news. The fact that no BATF, DEA, or FBI agents or high level staff are to be found on the final casualty list does seem to add credibility to the report. Not surprising, this line of inquiry has not been followed up by the main stream propaganda mill. Conspiracy buffs are going to have a field day.

Clinton's response to the bombing is his "antiterrorist" legislation. As a key part of his proposed legislation, Clinton is demanding power to use the military as a domestic antiterrorist police force.

Our Founding Fathers understood the danger of using the military to control the citizens. It is a basic premise of our political structure that the government must yield to the will of the citizens, and must never be granted the power to impose its will upon the citizens by force. But then, the current power structure has forgotten or reinterpreted every other basic principle on which our nation was founded, so why should they treat this one any different.

Let's see now...

Clinton has proven he will do anything to gain political power, is already under investigation for various crimes, has almost no chance of being re-elected, and is percieved by some to be a threat to our remaining civil, economic, and human rights.

While we have had presidents in the past who left office in disgrace, Clinton is the first President who was already under investigation when he took office. Even the Nixon administration didn't have as many cabinet officers under investigation as the thieves, scoundrels, and mass murders on Clinton's team.

Once out of power, Clinton will be unable to further delay and frustrate the various investigations of himself, his wife, and at least half of his cabinet. It isn't too far a stretch to say that if Clinton and the people around him lose power, they stand a good chance of going from the White House to the jail house. Quite a come down.

Clinton and his supporters have already demonstrated in Waco their willingness to use military style force to kill citizens who refuse to surrender their arms and lives to the government forces that had previously violated their rights and physically attacked them.

We didn't trust Washington, Jefferson, Madison, or Adams with the power to use the military to suppress domestic dissent to their policies. Does anyone really think that Clinton measures up in any category with these great statesmen of the past?

Clinton, a lame duck president with serious ethics, morals and honesty problems, wants us to believe that in order to protect us from "terrorists" opposed to the out of control government he represents, he must be granted power we have denied every other president. Clinton has proven through his past actions that he is far more interested in maintaining and expanding his power than protecting the rights of the citizens and well being of the nation. Is it such a monumental intellectual leap to see that Clinton will be unable to resist trying to use the military to keep himself the most powerful man in the world?

I'm not saying Clinton is even contemplating misusing the power he is demanding at this point. But just look at the man. Washington understood that there are higher principles than self interest, and was able to walk away when offered the Emperorship of America. Somehow it's hard to imagine Clinton turning down the crown just to face his growing legal and financial problems as a private citizen. Based on his past history of overriding self interest, just how far do you think he would go to preserve his situation if he was truly desperate? Can we reasonably expect a man who as Governor saw nothing wrong with using the State Police to procure women for his sexual pleasure, to be able to forgo abusing the power he is now demanding to keep himself in power?

Clinton has already tried to imply a connection between terrorism and talk radio, the NRA, the Republican party, etc. Clinton has already stated that criticizing the government is unpatriotic and contributes to the "wave of terror sweeping the nation". The obvious intent is to suppress the opposition that has so effectively blocked his political agenda.

Considering how free Clinton has already been at redefining the term, it isn't much of a step to see how anyone the government sees as a problem will soon become a "terrorist". On the other hand, some or all of you may welcome the shift in the tone and content in Port of Call towards more benign topics that will likely occur once it becomes dangerous to publish anything critical of the government. Or maybe we'll just have to concentrate on Canadian politics...

Clinton has already tried to redefine "terrorist" as anyone who opposes him and the discredited old guard power structure. Does this all sound alarmingly familiar? Have the political revisionists who teach history in our schools so completely discarded the hard earned knowledge of how other despots gained power?

Worst of all, Clinton's ego far outstrips his substance - he's too much of a Machiavellian light weight to pull off the power grab for which he is so ably preparing the foundation. If history is any guide, it's far more likely that once he's got the process started, someone much worse than Clinton will push him aside and take control.

The media would have us believe that the current conflict in American politics is between the liberal Democrats and a right wing Republican party dominated by the rich and the religious extremists. What the media and the bureaucracy want to conceal is that the "Contract With America" has far more to do with libertarian policies than old line Republican dogma.

In the past, changes in which political party was "in power" were largely meaningless to the bureaucracy, which continued to grow and expand in power regardless. But now the bureaucracy is rightly feeling threatened because the push is toward reducing the size and power of government as a whole.

If Clinton proves inadequate at protecting the bureaucracy from the libertarian assault, the bureaucracy will replace him with a stronger champion - one who's sole allegiance is to the bureaucracy regardless of the cost to the nation and citizenry.

The Romans gave up their republic in return for the Emperor's empty promises of bread, circuses, and protection from the barbarians. Have we declined so far in spirit, understanding, and self respect that we will repeat their mistake?