by Brandon Smith | Zero Hedge | January 15, 2015
Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter152Share on Google+5Email this to someonePrint this page
Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter152Share on Google+5Email this to someonePrint this page
I was in the middle of working on an article
covering real U.S. economic stats versus manipulated statistics when the
Charlie Hebdo shootings took place.
And though I knew the implications of the event
would be far-reaching, I was originally undeterred from my financial
subject matter. I had already covered in previous articles the
inevitability of ISIS attacks on Europe and America, including the
“warnings” of Saudi Arabia in August of last year that jihadists would
target the EU within months and the U.S. a month later.
In September of last year, ISIS publicly urged attacks on French and U.S. citizens.
I have also published extensive analysis on the
covert funding and training of ISIS militants by Saudi Arabia and
Western intelligence agencies, including my article “The Time Is Ripe
For A False Flag Attack On American Soil.”
The bottom line is the Paris attack was not
surprising in the slightest. I have no doubt whatsoever that such
attacks are going to increase in frequency, that the U.S. will be hit
soon, and that our government will do little to nothing to stop such
tragedies. However, a Reuters article titled “White House to hold global
security summit Feb (sic) 18: U.S. official” caught my eye. And after reading
it, I’m afraid I have to set aside my financial piece until next week
and break down the insanity that is now taking place in the world of
geopolitics.
It is clear by the language being used by the
political elite that the “global summit” called in the wake of the
Charlie Hebdo attacks is about far more than radical Islamic terrorism.
Set aside the fact that our government essentially created ISIS in order
to destabilize Syria. Set aside the fact that globalist middlemen like
John McCain and “former” covert ops goons like Gen. Paul Vallely have
met directly with groups like the Nusra Front that are providing support
for ISIS. Set aside the fact that Saudi Arabia has been openly
funneling cash and arms to Syrian terrorist factions tied to ISIS, and
realize that the mere existence of ISIS, regardless of its origins, is
being used as a rationale for the erasure of civil liberties and the
establishment of martial law on both sides of the Atlantic. Such
federalized reactions CANNOT be allowed to continue, regardless of the
threats each nation faces.
As far as the Reuters article is concerned, one
does not need to read very far between the lines to see the true message
being conveyed.
First, the focus of the summit is not
necessarily indicated as “Islamic terrorism.” In fact, the word
“terrorism” is barely mentioned. Now politicos are shifting their
language to the term “extremism,” which is far broader in its
implications. It should be noted that while the terrorist label has been
bandied about rather liberally by both the Bush and Obama
administrations, “extremism” offers greater cover for governments to
persecute or attack political opponents. A terrorist is generally
someone who initiates or at least plans a large-scale attack designed to
illicit a fear response in a
population. An extremist, on the other hand, could literally be anyone
who holds views or initiates activism outside acceptable forms of
mainstream thought. Attorney General Eric Holder did not use the words
“terrorism” or “jihadist” in his announcement of the global summit in
February; he used the phrase “violent extremism”:
We will bring together all of our allies to
discuss ways in which we can counteract this violent extremism that
exists around the world…
Throughout history, “violence,” according to
governments, is often attributed to ideas as well as actions. The point
is the change in vocabulary over to the extremist label is not
accidental or coincidental. The establishment is conditioning the public
to think in broad terms and to identify numerous groups as the enemy,
rather than focusing on radical Islam. As I have said for years, Islamic
terror is nothing but an advantageous excuse for governments to make
war on all of us. Do not forget, constitutionalists are often referred
to in the mainstream media and by Orwellian institutions like the
Department of Homeland Security as “extremists.” How long before we are artificially linked as being suspect? How long before Charlie Hebdo-style attacks come to the U.S.? How long before the liberty minded are categorized as accessories to terrorism due to our anti-corrupt-government philosophies?
It is disturbing to witness the lack of
conviction in principles in the average person. Self-proclaimed leftists
railed against the degeneration of civil liberties and constitutional
protections under George W. Bush, but rallied in support of the same
weakening of freedoms under Barack Obama. Self-proclaimed conservatives
today are shocked and infuriated by the trampling of the constitution
through executive orders displayed by the Obama administration. Yet, I
suspect that many of them will willingly jump on the fascist bandwagon
in the event of “Islamic” attacks on American soil. Neither side seems
to grasp the reality that the disruptions of liberty we enact in the
name of stopping jihadists today will eventually fall back on the rest
of us tomorrow.
The lockdown of the populace is already ramping
up. The EU is currently discussing the creation of a European Passenger
Name Record database (national ID database), meaning officials hope to
create a centralized database with a file on every single citizen. Think
the no-fly list is a terrifying concept? Wait until it becomes publicly
accepted for all web comments, Facebook posts, and blog posts to be
added to an ongoing record that determines whether you are allowed to
travel. Wait until it becomes a mainstream notion that every travel
destination you visit is tracked, recorded on permanent record, and
scrutinized by some pencil necked bureaucrat who then determines whether
or not you are suspect. Apparently, French officials are supportive of
the idea. And given the proclamations of “unity” surrounding the
upcoming summit, I suspect actions undertaken in Europe will eventually
be exported to the United States. Reuters reports:
French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said
after the meeting that European interior ministers had agreed to boost
cooperation in an effort to thwart further jihadist attacks.
“We all agree that we need to put in place
better control on certain passengers, on the basis of objective criteria
and with respect for fundamental liberties and without disrupting
cross-border travel,” he said.
He said Europe needed urgent progress in
establishing a European Passenger Name Record database, which would
facilitate the exchange of data about passengers between member states.
“We are convinced of the need for such a tool,
to follow those who travel to terrorist operating theaters or who return
from there,” he said, adding that this database would also be useful in
the fight against other serious crimes.
Unfortunately, travel is the least of our
concerns. Free speech is a primary target for the elites, and the
Internet is clearly outlined as a threat by politicians claiming concern
for public safety. This comes in the form of one of the oldest
rationalizations for tyranny – the trade-off between freedom and
security. The French argue that while free speech is important, some
“exceptions” must be made in order to thwart extremist ideas:
Cazeneuve said the Internet needs to remain a
space for free expression, but that Europe should fight against abusive
use of the web (sic) to spread hate speech, anti-Semitic messages and
the recruiting vulnerable young people for violence.
“We need to work more closely with Internet
companies to guarantee the reporting and if possible removal of all
content that amounts to an apology of terrorism or calls for violence
and hatred,” he said.
Who gets to determine what speech amounts to an
“apology of terrorism?” Who is the all-benevolent and wise sage who gets
to decide what we can and cannot say? Will he be fair and just? Or will
he use the power of censorship to attack any and all websites critical
of the establishment? What do you think the most likely outcome of such
legal precedence would be?
Again, how long before websites like the one you
are reading now are vilified by the extremist label? How long before
liberty-minded speech is categorized as violent speech or hate speech?
Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the White House are
now kindly warning the public that terrorist “sleeper cells” have been
activated and that some are present in the United States. On CNN,
Feinstein said:
So I think this calls for vigilance. It calls
for seeing that the national security organizations of our country, the
intelligence community is funded fully, is directed ably, is cooperating
with whether it be British intelligence, French intelligence, German
intelligence, as we do.
And the French are good at it, and so are the
British and the Germans. So, we can even be more active in terms of
doing those things which enable us to find terrorists, to see who
they’re communicating with in this country, and to track that.
She means mass Internet and phone surveillance,
the same National Security Agency surveillance exposed by Edward
Snowden, which now has a convenient justification in the form of an
ever-present fear of terrorism.
Finally, it is only a matter of time before a
militarized response is activated in the U.S., just as it has been in
France. One shooting event has led to the fielding of over 10,000 French
troops on French soil, as well as an extra 5,000 heavily armed police.
Frankly, this is where I — and many people like
me — draw the line. Martial law is not acceptable under any
circumstances. I don’t care if we one day see a mushroom cloud over an
American city, there is no measure of government security (false
security) that is worth the degradation of essential liberties. I
suspect the loss of liberty, usurping of the constitution and the
deployment of the military on U.S. soil would trigger revolution — a
revolution I’m sure the establishment would attempt to marginalize as
mere terrorism. Ultimately, though, there is no other option.
As I have been discussing constantly over the
past several months, community preparation and organization comprise the
only action plan worth the effort and energy at this time. The French
are disarmed and utterly socialized. Millions of them march in Paris in a
display of solidarity, but solidarity behind what solution? Even more
government; the same government that created the problem in the first
place? Even more centralization? The globalization of despotic security
policies? The French have dug their grave, and now they are going to
have to lie down in it.
Americans do not have to follow the same path.
We do not need more government. We do not need
more surveillance, more police militarization or more troops on the
streets. What we need is to take back responsibility for own defense.
The French government could not or would not protect the staff of
Charlie Hebdo, and the U.S. government will not protect you. That means
you must train to protect yourself and those you care about. Whether we
face a false flag attack or a legitimate terrorist action, the response
is the same: Fight back. It is times like these that separate the
courageous from the cowardly; those with principles and conscience
versus the treacherous and self-serving. Make no mistake; as I wrote in
my last article, many illusions are about to be shattered. You can be
caught up in the storm as a helpless spectator and victim or you can
become a barrier, a wall of defense against the dangerous riptides.
These are your choices. Choose wisely.
No comments:
Post a Comment