L&T Publisher Earl Watt
In 1973, four people were held hostage in a bank in Stockholm, Sweden during a robbery attempt. After six days, the failed robbery ended, but the four hostages would not testify against the bank robbers. Instead, they went out to raise funds for the robbers’ defense.
This behavior became known as Stockholm Syndrome, where those who are captive to others become sympathetic, forgetting their own captivity and supporting those who are abusing them.
This has been seen in women who live in abusive relationships but refuse to leave or file charges against their abusers.
There comes a time when a nation as a whole must consider whether or not is suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, when it starts to forget its own individual rights and supports the abusive government holding the people hostage.
While some may disagree with the outcome of some recent elections, for the moment let’s assume they are all 100 percent legitimate.
Why would people vote for those who believe the nation is inherently racist, that criminals should have more rights than their victims, that punish kids who succeed in school by withholding awards and scholarships, and who increase the cost of living by pushing policies that cause prices of goods and services to escalate beyond the ability to pay for them?
The only possible reason — Stockholm Syndrome.
The fear we should be having in America is whether or not we believe we have rights that cannot be taken away, or whether we have resigned ourselves to be prisoners of the state and only have rights the state determines for us.
When more than half are comfortable with excessive government control, a nation conceived in liberty is lost.
The beauty of our republic has been rooted in the limitations of government, and yet the government has expanded well beyond the constraints designed by the founders.
And it always seems to happen when we face a crisis.
During the Great Depression in the 1930s, the federal government sought to take over the entire economy by claiming it had regulatory authority over commerce, even if it happens within one state, if it could affect the price of a product in another state.
The case arose from a farmer who was limited by federal law on how much grain he could grow, and he grew that amount plus enough to feed his own family. The government argued that if every farmer in the nation did that, it could affect the price of all grains. At the same time, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his Democratic majority in Congress was threatening to pack the Supreme Court if they did not get a favorable ruling. So the court capitulated and sided with the government, and the individual rights of feeding a farmer’s family became regulated by the federal government, as did virtually every economic transaction.
From that moment forward, government has consistently chipped away at individual rights, and we, the people have slowly adjusted to life with a little less individual responsibility and freedom and more and more government regulation.
This cannot take place without the consent of the governed, or at least it is not supposed to take place without it. But in many cases, it can be said that the American people have consented.
Take the recent pandemic. While we now know that the elderly were more susceptible to COVID, and we now know that the vaccines do not prevent anyone from contracting the illness, we all gave away our freedom to gather, to work, to enter the public square unless we were masked and vaccinated.
People are now having serious issues with the “vaccine,” and the Center for Disease Control is investigating if one of the vaccines is leading to strokes in the elderly. There are also questions of heart conditions in younger people.
And yet, we didn’t hold the government accountable for these excessive policies that led to severe economic damage, academic harm to our children and health risks to those who took an experimental drug.
Have we ever considered that we view ourselves as captives of an overreaching government? Many of us defend the actions of the oppressors rather than stand up for our freedom.
We believe, falsely, that the government is the absolute authority over our lives, and their actions in some way must be in our best interest, much like the mother who is afraid she won’t be able to feed and care for her children if she should leave her abusive husband. He is, after all, providing something they need, and that masks the abuse.
It’s much easier to just accept the situation rather than fight back.
This is the condition of most in oppressive regimes. Why won’t the Chinese people revolt? Why do the Iranians suffer under a brutal theocracy? Why does Mexico allow the drug cartels and corrupt socialist politicians to brutalize the people?
We are no better. We blame guns for violence rather than the criminals using guns. We blame the police for arresting criminals rather than the criminals for breaking the law. We blame climate change for those who illegally cross our border. We allow children to be chemically castrated in the name of nonbinary diversity.
We stand by and watch as one by one our rights are curtailed by oppressors in society who limit our speech, cancel our culture and use government as a weapon against political foes.
We even vote for the very people imprisoning us.
Some parents are deprogramming their children from these dangerous abuses they’ve been taught in schools and colleges. They are unshackling their children from becoming slaves to the state.
In the 1960s, what became known as the Hippy Generation countered the government at every turn. Now those same people embrace the chains forged by government control.
It’s time for America to wake up from this long national nightmare of being pawns of the government agencies.
We are a free people, and it’s time to turn on those who seek to be our masters. Do we have the courage to end the abuse?