In America, we hear this term “national security” again and again, which, for the uninitiated and those who prefer not to question authority, seems to be a good thing, for most everyone wants to be “secure” in their possessions and to be safe from that which would threaten their overall security. So then, to be pro-national security seems to be a sign of someone who is a true patriot. Still, the thing is, in actuality, national security has far less to do with us personally being secured, and of our unalienable rights definitely being secured, but rather has far more to do with the status quo, or those that are empowered, securing what they have, and if there is a conflict between those that are empowered to put forth the agenda of what they have earmarked as national security as contrasted to our interpretation of such, our viewpoint doesn’t matter. In other words, national security pretty much has everything to do with those in the catbird seat wanting to continue to hold onto or even to augment theirs, along with those that help to make that happen as being their interpretation of such, and the rest of us, are pretty much irrelevant in their pursuit of what is really their personal security, under the guise of it being national security.
We find that way too often, when the people are told that they need to sacrifice some of their unalienable rights, but just temporarily because of some enemies or disturbances that must be dealt with, we find that rights once sacrificed seldom come back to the robustness that they once represented, but instead are often a shell of their former selves. Additionally, when it comes to what the general public is required or urged to do on behalf of national security, it seems that the people are often the ones who are on the front line of risk to secure such, whereas the true beneficiaries of this push to strengthen national security, are themselves, totally secure, for they have us as their minions to be risking life and limb on behalf of them.
No doubt, when it comes to freedom and liberty, there needs to be some sort of give and take regarding security, but that give and take should not only be out in the open, debated and discussed, but in the end, it should be the people that decide how much security that they really desire, and what they are willing to sacrifice, if anything to secure such, in addition to where the red lines are drawn when it comes to that security. Further to the point, the people need to know what it is that they benefit from, when it comes to prioritizing national security, because for a certainty, those that want to be secure are going to have to sacrifice something, and may be sacrificing something of real value, so then they ought to know what it is, so that they can make an informed decision, because as it stands, national security seems to be one of those nebulous things which means whatever the powers that be wants it to mean, and in actuality mainly implemented to manipulate and to control the population for their own personal aggrandizement.