Wednesday, 14 January 2015 02:44 Brandon Smith
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.