H. R. 645Huh.
To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations. [More]
You don't think they'll make them "gun free zones," do you?
I wonder if going there will be compulsory if where we live is declared "off limits"?
I wonder if you try to leave if you'll be stopped? Even if disease breaks out, or there's not enough food, or...
Oh well, I'll bet they've learned a lot since Katrina. I'm sure they're doing this for our own good.
Right?
[Via Tom Z]
16 comments:
These are internment and re-education camps in the making. It is easy to imagine exchanging guns for food...
I hear that space at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base will be available soon.
Don't follow fleeing crowds. Don't let yourself be herded. Those two things usually turn out badly.
Shades of FDR and Manzanar (a Japanese-American concenntration camp of WWII vintage)! Not to mrention the really evil places, like Auschwitz! Our government is rapidly deteriorating into Communism.
The Tinfoil Beanie crowd was screaming about this all during the Bush administration by showing pictures of the Army's EPW training facilities. Now that there's a real Socialist in power, it's actually going to happen.
Thanks to all you nutjobs for crying wolf the last 8 years.
Konzentrationslager. Einfach. Vorrichten.
"4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security."
There's the trick. I agree that these are concentration camps, or will be. It isn't necessary to be paranoid to recognize preparations for totalitarian control of people who dare, I say dare, to be free or to even think they are.
'Tinfoil beanie'? The existence of plans for civilian internment is decades old and became a significant source of concern for many during the Clinton years. Freedom-loving 'nutjobs' have been raising a hue and cry about this for a very long time. REX84 and Garden Plot/Cable Splicer are real programs developed under Reagan. George W. Bush's augmentation of the national security structure has further reinforced and expanded this emergency doctrine. Sadly, the sensationalists and moonbats only harm genuine efforts to create awareness of the potential danger of these measures.
Armatus
"You don't think they'll make them 'gun free zones,' do you?" Funny.
"I wonder if going there will be compulsory if where we live is declared 'off limits'?" It's possible.
"I wonder if you try to leave if you'll be stopped?" That would likely depend on the nature and magnitude of the "emergency," as well as the disposition of the internees.
Regulations governing the operation of camps for Dislocated Civilians, Civilian Internees and Enemy Prisoners of War are set forth in Army Field Manual 41-10.
Armatus
A preference for CLOSED military installations. Already gotcher razor-wire fence enhancements in place. Remote, secure.
Tell me the militia movement of the '90s didn't call this one perfectly.
Of course they will have legitimate uses in actual emergencies. BUT grabbing people and TAKING them anywhere as in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina... I wouldn't attempt that. Trust me on that.
Tuesday (maybe monday?) was the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz exterminatin camp.
I wonder what lovely surprises will be announced on April 19th.
Suppose a bunch of people who won't fight are herded into camps: they stop producing taxes for the tyranny to spend, they stop informing on their neighbors, and they leave stuff behind to scavenge. How would it help a tyranny's cause to incarcerate the liberal soccer moms and the welfare parasites, and then attempt to raise taxes to feed them? It seems to me that the tyranny only wins if they can separate the 3%'ers into camps, but those are precisely the people who are hardest to capture.
You are missing the point entirely. There are vast segments of the population who have not come to the point where they begin to think about these things in terms of war or resistance fighting. The real cause for concern is the potential for arbitrary mass incarceration of Americans based on the whims of the powers that be and/or the national security infrastructure. By no means does one have to be a "three percenter" to be deemed worthy of internment. The actions taken by the federal, state and local governments in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the lack of resistance thereto are illustrative of possible future scenarios. And you damn well better believe "they" learned a lot from that experience. Unfortunately, however, the same cannot be said for the American people. There is absolutely no reason to believe that people won't be disarmed, "grabbed" and "taken anywhere." That is precisely what happened in New Orleans in 2005 and for the most part no one even batted an eye.
Armatus
Armatus writes: You are missing the point entirely.
Are you sure I'm missing the point? Suppose there are arbitrary mass incarcerations of Americans. Most to nearly all of the 3%'ers arrange to be uncaptured. Suppose those outside can't and/or won't pay enough taxes to feed the prisoners, who are then genocided by exposure, disease, and starvation like the native Americans were. The tyranny has lost its tax base; the 3%'ers have lost their less motivated but numerically superior parasites; those remaining outside are polarized. I consider this scenario as abhorrent as any other genocide, but it seems like the tyranny (and vast segments of the population) loses, while the 3%'ers win, relatively speaking.
I propose that any scenario that ends up with the tyranny losing is one that the tyranny won't pursue. Instead, I predict the tyranny boiling the frog some more with higher taxes wasted on junk, rationed healthcare, money and people tracking, more red tape on capitalism...anything that removes the means for 3%'ers to stay out of the camps, or makes their decision to fight harder to make.
Once again I believe you are missing the point. The likelihood of arbitrary incarceration of citizens occurring is highly likely, in the event of a "national security emergency" of some type, but will not entail the majority, or even a large percentage of the American population.
The scenario being considered in my remarks is not an apocalyptic one. Genocide does not figure into the equation for the forseeable future. That being said, it very well may someday. On that basis, I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. The matter at hand is far more immediate. In fact, a very rough, elementary version already played itself out three years ago in Louisiana. I am not prepared to attempt to forecast conditions as far ahead as you appear to be looking. It is impossible to know how things will play out with respect to the particulars of the conflict.
One thing is certain. The road to serfdom is being paved gradually. Precedents are being set and the water is being tested. Domestic military intervention and correlated programs of securing the population, including the use of detention facilities, is gaining a foothold. Like I said, there are vast segments of the population who have not come to the point where they begin to think about these things in terms of war or resistance fighting. Hence, we cannot know where they stand.
You are absolutely wrong in saying that "the tyranny only wins if they can separate the 3%'ers into camps." Tyranny prevails when any free born American is disarmed, "grabbed" and "taken anywhere," as another concerned citizen put it.
You are absolutely right in proposing that "any scenario that ends up with the tyranny losing is one that the tyranny won't pursue." Those who wish to see this country destroyed and totalitarian control established are proceeding incrementally. You are also dead on the mark in predicting that this will include "higher taxes wasted on junk, rationed healthcare, money and people tracking, more red tape on capitalism...anything that removes the means for 3%'ers to stay out of the camps, or makes their decision to fight harder to make." Again, the scenario I am basing my remarks upon is not one involving an omnipresent network of gulag-style detention facilities, but the very real immediate possibility that during a "national security emergency" American citizens may be arbitrarily disarmed, "grabbed" and "taken anywhere."
In light of your obvious concern for and apparent loyalty to the cause of Liberty, I wish you well.
Semper liberum,
Armatus
The likelihood of arbitrary incarceration of citizens occurring is highly likely, in the event of a "national security emergency" of some type, but will not entail the majority, or even a large percentage of the American population.
I'm trying to imagine some problem which fits the parameters you've set, which snares the 3% in the traps without warning them sufficiently beforehand to escape. How about, a town of population 100,000 is claimed to be the center of an epidemic of Magic Flu, for which the tyrannical public health response is to forcibly intern everyone into the local sports stadiums for a quarantine period, starting off with roadblocks and getting progressively more forceful. Let's say constant chopper patrols suppress open daytime travel in the streets. Let's say there is an outbreak of an actual non-Magic disease, putting 30 people in the hospital, which lends an air of reality to the magic disease threat.
I don't see it. In any herding of refugees type situation, the 3% go take a vacation at their retreats. The roadblocks are not going to stop 3,000 people who are willing to hike a few miles to avoid the auto travel bottlenecks. The Katrina Superdome interned people who had not made better plans despite wall-to-wall coverage of an impending huge disaster, and who chose to enter voluntarily. This is not the 3%.
to samenokami and all: good advice.
which was: Don't follow fleeing crowds, don't let yourself be herded.
Add to that: don't go to demonstrations and don't acquiesce
in lockdowns e.g. Tukwila Mall,
State Farm (the Columbus incident
where the GFW call put ppl in the
basement bc TPTB used a prerecorded
tornado warning. sat sap.
Post a Comment