The Wolf and the Sleeping Sheepdog
Wolves don’t attack the
strong in the flock; they foster panic and hysteria within the flock to single
out an easy target. In this way, a
pack of twenty or so can control a flock of hundreds.
Enter the sheepdog. He is
the hero of the flock. Sure the
sheep are a little scared of him, but he is on their side, so the flock will
coexist with him because he has earned their trust.
The wolf doesn’t like him at all because he is skilled, brave, and ever
vigilant, so the wolf rarely gets close enough to do any harm. But, if
the wolf can pass himself off as a sheepdog, he has it made—especially
if he convinces the flock that the real sheepdog is actually a wolf (after
all, the two are not so different from one another, genetically speaking).
It’s true that sheep are very gullible, but the only way the wolf would
have any chance at all to succeed in this scheme is if the sheepdog is asleep at
his post.
Human predators
(those
who seek to exploit the public for their own gain or to further their own
agenda) function in the same way. These
calculating pack hunters are very organized, and when they want an agenda
implemented (especially a morally dubious agenda),
they will similarly
psychomotor
the
public into a stampede with crisis after crisis in order to single out
the weakest response from which they may launch their attack.
Under the guise of responding to a crisis, they retain the appearance of
a protector of the flock rather than a predator.
They appear to be a sheepdog, if you will, who has devoted his existence
to the safety and well being of the flock.
When no one is looking, they invent another crisis to scare the wits out
of the sheep, and it begins all over again.
It’s an effective system
that has been growing for some time now. In
the last thirty years, the population of our country has risen about 14-15%, but
in that same time frame, the size of the Federal
Government has increased over 5000%!
And that was before the Office of Homeland Security!
How did it get so out of control? Simply
put, the sheepdogs fell asleep, and
when they woke up, they were surrounded by wolves.
The wolves couldn’t very well just rip the sheepdogs apart; they had to
first convince the sheep that it was an undercover wolf they were destroying.
But they eventually did, and now the wolves are running the flock.
How do they con the sheep
into abandoning the sheepdog? The
first weapon of choice is intolerance. No one wants to be thought of as bigoted, close-minded or
intolerant, so the wolves pin that stigma on the sheepdog, and then attack.
It doesn’t even matter if it is true or not.
Look what happened to Robert Bork,
the Supreme Court nominee who was the victim of a media slur campaign so
Machiavellian that no one with any aspirations for a future in politics would
get within fifty yards of him. Why
him? Robert Bork was the very
essence of a ‘sheepdog’ who was an expert at spotting and thwarting legal
attempts to curtail freedom, and that meant he was a threat
to wolves everywhere. Every
one of the media’s allegations and ‘interpretations’ of his viewpoints
were so far from the truth it was embarrassing.
I remember watching the news reports on him thinking, “Who is this
crazy bigot, and how did he get nominated?”
Then I saw C-SPAN, where I got the benefit of hearing from Robert Bork in
his own words. What the media said
was diametrically opposite
to what I was hearing him say, in his own words.
But not enough people watch C-SPAN, and his appointment was shot down. The press (another wolf posing as a
sheepdog) was very
pleased with the way they had shaped public opinion (rather than reporting
it),
and sent the message to other would be heroes that they had better toe the line
or they too would be ‘Borked’, as they put it.
They didn’t function as a sheepdog, warding off a wolf; they functioned
as a wolf assassinating a sheepdog. (Robert
Bork details the ‘sleeping sheepdog’ quite adeptly in his book, Slouching
to Gomorrah.)
Before we continue, let’s
define our terms. Merriam Webster
defines tolerance as ‘a
sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting
with one’s own.’
There
is no tolerance if everyone shares the same beliefs, so tolerance
implies disagreement. This is
why we have
The First Amendment The
general understanding was that everyone has a right to voice their opinion and
even to persuade others to their system of beliefs, so long as they use a little
common sense and good manners. The
same dictionary defines intolerant
as
‘unwilling
to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters’,
and ‘unwilling
to grant or share social, political, or professional rights.’
The wolves set themselves up
as sheepdogs and their ideology was passed off as a neutral
position; everything else was ‘extremist’ or
‘intolerant’. The
result was a philosophical witch-hunt, the likes of which have not been seen
since the Salem trials. (Remember,
the term ‘political correctness’ came from communist Russia in the height of
their oppression, and was applied in much the same way—to single out the
sheepdogs for removal.) 
The wolves have convinced the
public that to be tolerant they must abandon their conservative Judeo Christian
ethic, or at least leave their values at home.
Their
spiritual and philosophical views are central
to their activities, but if you are a Christian, your religion is not allowed a
seat at the table of public discourse because that is ‘a personal
matter’,
and no religious nut is going to force feed his religion on them.
In this ever-continuing semantic sleight of hand, ‘hate speech’ and
‘intolerance’ were defined as anyone that
disagreed with them.
How can
someone be called intolerant for disagreeing with someone else if tolerance
requires disagreement? By defining them out of the
discussion. They coined the
phrase; “It’s okay to be intolerant of the intolerant,”
which was
another way of saying “Do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do.”
It allowed them to deny equal freedom of expression, especially in religious matters, and
deny social, political and professional rights to any and all opponents of
their agenda.
Once the formula was proven,
it was used even in the highest echelons of our country.
President Clinton used the bombing of the Murrah office building in
Oklahoma City to do some political housecleaning.
Even though all the evidence pointed to an Iraqi connection (with the
description of John Doe #2, the Terry Nichols connection to the Abu Sayaf and
the fact that the materials for the bomb was purchased by members of the Iraqi
Republican Guard, all of which they knew within a month), President Clinton
instead decided to blame the ‘vast right wing conspiracy’ that included
‘hate radio’ (who were invariably
conservative), gun collectors and
(incredibly) even home-schoolers. The
Right was so busy scrambling to appear moderate that they allowed countless
liberal agendas to pass through, including Hilary’s Health Bill, a thinly
veiled plan for socialized medicine which had previously been shot down by
congress. It
was the classic “bait and switch” con, and they used it adroitly to insert
their values while excluding those of others and yet avoided being labeled as ‘intolerant’.
In the city where I live,
there was a sign in front of a middle school that read, “Education
is not about learning facts, it’s about learning values.”
That is interesting. My
values aren’t allowed in school, because they are based in a belief in God. If they are still teaching values, then they are favoring
their set of values over mine. That,
by definition, is discrimination. Given
the values they are teaching, just who is force feeding who? The flock ignored
the double standard, and conservatives chose to pick points of view that would
insulate them from being called intolerant, and as a result they censored
themselves.
There
is no such thing as a neutral view.
A
viewpoint is for
something and against
the opposite.
You can
be balanced,
but that is not
the same as being neutral.
Wolves
advocate a false tolerance that allows them their fun and holds you to a
standard they ignore.
As long as you’re in neutral, they can push you wherever they want.
Eventually, enough sheepdogs
got wise to the scam (and evaded assassination) to warrant a change in strategy,
a wolf of a different color,
so to speak. Enter the neo-cons.
These reddish wolves claimed to identify with the
‘religious right’,
and kept themselves distinct from the left leaning bluish
wolves; yet when push
comes to shove, they sponsor the same long term agendas.
Their method of hunting sheepdogs is different, however.
Instead of using intolerance, they use the term unpatriotic.
After some Al Qaeda ‘nut
jobs’ slammed some airplanes into the World Trade Center, any citizen who
didn’t support a ‘War on Terror’ (newest crisis) was considered
‘unpatriotic’,
never mind that there was no clearly defined enemy and no defined terms of
victory; just a vague, indefinite, pay-as-you-go war that seemed organized to
fail. (It took 600,000 troops to
expel Iraq from Kuwait, and yet it was perfectly reasonable to invade Iraq and
maintain a peacekeeping presence there through the regime change with less than
half of that, right?) This Red Wolf
administration is led by a man who claimed to share the Judeo Christian ethic,
who appointed another ‘religious’ man to head up the Thought Police…excuse
me, I mean the Department of Homeland Security. (It has a nice Nazi sound to it, doesn’t it?)
Anyone who opposes any policy of our government can be labeled an enemy
combatant and all Constitutional protections evaporate (Thanks to the
Patriot Act).
According to a training seminar given to law enforcement officers by the
FBI three signs that someone is a terrorist are: 1)
is a Christian who believes we are in the
‘End Times’; 2)
is upset about what our government is doing at home and
abroad; and 3)
talks about the Constitution a lot.
Amazing that people that want to hold their government accountable to the principles
of its governing document are now fanatical terrorists.
The FBI also produced a pamphlet for law
enforcement concerning domestic terrorists and how to identify them. (click
on thumbnail to enlarge)
The Patriot Act
(which was written by a combination of blue and
red
wolves) amounted to the most draconian attacks on freedom this country has ever
seen, but anyone who might object has been bullied into silence.
Those of us that have been
disillusioned by the two party system have chosen to support independent parties
like the Libertarians or Constitution party.
The wolves’ response is that if you vote independent, then you are
throwing your vote away, but if my choices are Hitler, Stalin, and Joe Blow who
has no chance of winning, but who stands for the things I hold sacred—(really
stands for them, not just pays them lip service) then I am voting for Joe Blow
every time. Maybe you think I’m
being a little harsh on Republicans and Democrats in comparing them to such
monsters, but just consider this: Hitler when elected was considered the hero of
Germany. It wasn’t until too late
that they discovered what he really was.
We have forgotten that we do not live in a monarchy; they work for us. Their careers lie in our hands. If we follow the advice of the wolves and stay neutral, then we will lose everything about our country that is great. In fact, most of it is gone right now. The rest of the world sees it, but we have been duped, like sheep. The sheepdogs are on the run, and we can’t wait for anyone else to do it for us—we need to train attack sheep. ‘Lambo’ to the rescue! It is time to throw the wolves out of the flock. It may be dangerous, but no more dangerous than allowing them to hunt unhindered in our midst.
"You
need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a
dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our
founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."--Charles
Austin Beard, historian
Darren
Turney
17 June 05