Om detta är korrekt och mycket talar för det så måste vi ställa frågan vad vi kan göra åt det. Måste det bli totalt sammanbrott innan något nytt kan byggas upp? Eller finns en tredje väg?

Denna krönika bygger på två böcker. Dels den amerikanske författaren Auron MacIntyres bok från förra året, The Total State, med underrubriken ”Hur liberala demokratier blir tyrannier”, dels den franske filosofen Bertrand de Jouvenels On Power från 1948.

Varför tror svenskar och andra västliga folk att de lever i en tid av oöverträffad frihet och liberal demokrati? När staten växer och blir alltmer totalitär borde väl medborgarna se det. Varför är det inte uppenbart för alla? Mycket av förvirringen kommer från en missuppfattning om hur monarkin och andra av historiens regeringsformer fungerade. Vi har lärt oss att monarker var mer eller mindre allsmäktiga, att deras ord var lag och att de kunde beordra vad som helst som föll den in, men så var långt ifrån fallet.

Läs vidare på Swebbtv och se videon där eller här:

Hjälp Swebbtv att ta över TV4:s plats! Inte i marknätet (jo kanske) utan i folks medvetande som den alternativa nyhetskanalen med verklighetsförankring. Donera här:

Bara två klick! Du kan lätt ändra beloppet efter första klicket.

Jämför med ett citat från International Man: The Old Tablecloth Trick

And yet, in generation after generation, humankind is repeatedly suckered into a situation in which their government does exactly that.

The way it works is that the government first says, “It’s too troublesome for you to run your own lives; leave it to us and we’ll look after you. We’ll take care of all those pesky details of life that are nuisances for you now.”

First, they take control of “protection” in the form of a military, to protect the populace from threats from without and, later, create a police force to protect the populace from threats from within.

Then, clearly, the people need a central fire service. They also need roads and community buildings. And, of course, these all cost money, so taxes are implemented.

Then they are raised, as the costs of such services inevitably increase over time.

Then, an increasingly expansive list of other services is put forward – assistance for the poor, retirement funds, universal health benefits, etc. Soon, it becomes “necessary” to increase taxes to pay for the ever-expanding list of services the government controls.

Throughout this process, the populace nods as each new “benefit” is introduced. And, since the process is gradual, they almost invariably fail to worry that the tablecloth is in motion and that their fishbowl is closer to the edge of the table than it was before.

But, in the meantime, the political leaders are continuing to pull the tablecloth and are aware that the fishbowl is nearing the edge. At this point, if they were responsible people, they’d say, “Oh-oh, we’ve been a bit too greedy and we’ve put you folks in danger. But, at this point, it won’t do any good for us to tax you less and cut out the services that have been promised to you. At this point, we need to stop pulling entirely.”

And, of course, were they to do that, two things would occur. First, the populace would be up in arms at their entitlements being cut off.

Second, the political leaders would be out of a job.

With no more services to provide, taxation would cease to have validation. The political leaders would be in far greater danger from a cessation of movement than the people themselves.