[Skybird]

I do not see it that much as a back-forth-back-forth swinging pendulum, but a linear movement at always one direction only. It's just that that single-direction movement goes at varying speeds. Nevertheless it always moves at the same direction.

I also would not agree that it is deconstruction on behalf of security concerns, always. It is deconstruction of freedom, but claiming security only when the opportune argument offers itself at certain points of time, after according historic events like 9/11 for example, or an external threat.

So instead a swinging pendulum that swings between freedom and security, you have a single-direction movement at variable pace. The speed differences get mistaken for a bi-directional pendulum-like movement. Security arguments obviosuly allow to argue to press the gas pedal a bit.

The exposition of the citizen to the state'S claim over him is the purpose of the excercise, and the intention to make him as defenceless in face of the state as possible, so that the state's power over him increases. This includes of course necessarily financial vulnerability, and declining possibilities to defend private property against the claim of the state. Any excuse hiding this real intention, is welcomed by the state. State needs weak citizens so that he can rob their property and redistrubute it, and to confiscate it to hide the snowball system of today's paper"money" system. Either redistribution at the cost of a declining group of victims and calling that "social justice", or expropriation of all and everybody, calling that "stabilising financial markets" - that's what it is about.

Both do lead to first socialist, finally communist conditions of state and society.