"Standing armies consist of professional soldiers who owe their livelihood and income to the government. Unlike civilians who render periodic service in local militia, professional soldiers do not own property and therefore do not have any source of income other than the government’s military paymaster. Thus, they are more likely to serve the government’s interests, regardless of whether its leaders are dishonest and corrupt or not. In fact, standing armies may even promote rapacious foreign or domestic policies if such policies enrich the army. In contrast, arms bearing, property owning citizen militiamen have a stake in the health of the republic as a whole and can be trusted to act in the republic’s best interests, whether those interests call for action in support of or against the political leadership of the nation." ~ Anthony Dennis
The 'War on Terror' Scam
The greatest threat to our freedom today is not terrorism, but what governments are doing to counter this perceived terrorist threat. Let me say that again. Terrorism is not the real danger we face, it's what governments around the world are doing to make us "safe." It's a scam because it is based on two lies. Lie #1: You are seriously at risk of being killed by a terrorist. Now, while this is remotely possible, it's highly unlikely. Based on global statistics and what country you live in, you are much more likely to die of AIDS, malaria, while driving your car, by being murdered, by a tsunami or an earthquake, or by other natural and man-made causes. The point is this. You are going to die anyway - so your primary objective is to delay this biological eventuality to the best of your ability. Most of us accept natural death - as normal. On the other hand, we don't want to die early, by accident, of a fatal disease, or by having our lives snuffed out by someone else - or something else. But we can't lock ourselves in a bunker and hide from the rest of the world. We cannot let the fear of some premature death stop us from living now. So it comes down to assessing risk and acting accordingly. Governments have a vested interest in overstating the risk of you dying by a terrorist act. They have a vested interest in creating a state of fear in your mind. Any "self-respecting" politician will consider it his duty to protect you from this danger - and to do whatever is necessary to do this - including abolishing your personal freedoms. The state thrives on fear. If it's global warming, then the state has "plans" - which usually involve infringing on your freedoms. If it's a global pandemic, then once again your government has plans in place which would rob you of at least some of your freedoms. But it's all done to protect you of course! The number of people killed by terrorist acts is infinitesimal compared to the number of people killed in other ways. So why are we afraid of terrorists so much? One reason, of course, is that your government is always harping on about it - raising the terror alert colour level, or issuing warnings about impending, though vague, threats of one kind or another. But let's face it. The question you need to be asking yourself is this: "What exactly are the odds of my dying at the hands of a terrorist?" Life is not risk-free. You have to live your life in the face of constant risks. Your job is to assess these on a scale of probability, and act accordingly. You know that driving a car carries certain risks. But even then, you still drive your car. Why? Because the benefits outweigh the statistical risks. On the other hand, if everyone who drove a car was to die in an accident within one year - I guarantee you'd be walking from now on! As I write this, I'm spending a few weeks in Australia. The government here has just rushed through new "improved" anti- terror legislation. The effect of this is to reduce everyone's freedom - freedom of action, freedom of speech, freedom to not be wrongfully arrested and incarcerated. All this in the name of "protecting freedom." It's such a barefaced attack on individual freedom that even some judges are speaking out against it. Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, stands up with a straight face and says this is necessary to protect Australians - and that the first duty of any government is to protect its citizens. He didn't mention how the presence of Australian troops in Iraq, or of his country's willing, unthinking acceptance of that immoral war, is in fact putting Australians in danger. No, don't you know, terrorism has nothing to do with the war in Iraq! Lie #2: The government can protect you from terrorists. This is a downright lie. The UK government could not protect its citizens from the London train bombings. The Indonesian government could not prevent the Bali bombings. And, dare I say it, the US government was unable to prevent 9/11. Sheesh! The government cannot even protect you from burglars and muggers! The fact is, the very nature of terrorism - whether by the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, or any future new group - is to use non-standard methods of "warfare". Terrorists do not announce their intentions. They do not martial their forces en masse and do battle in open fields. They do not wear uniforms. They have no ships or tanks - or even buildings. They do not have a geographic location, or even a national identity. If someone wants to blow themselves up outside your house, who is going to stop them? The Americans, with all their thousands of troops in Iraq, cannot even stop the terrorism there, so what chance does your local policeman have of stopping a terrorist act in your neighbourhood? Next to zero. The government cannot protect you from terrorists. But this is precisely their justification for all the anti-freedom laws being passed - to ostensibly "protect" you. Just as in Orwell's 1984, words are being used to distort the truth. The "war on terror" is in fact the "war on freedom." I repeat: the war on terror IS the war on freedom. But it's worse than that. Governments are not only incapable of protecting us from terrorists, they are the very CAUSE of terrorism in the first place. Just think of all the historical examples of terrorism. In every case it was some group, fighting some government. Sure, they target civilians, but their real enemy is some government. And why is this? Because they claim to have been wronged by some some government. They have a grievance against some government. They want to secede from some government. Terrorists do not have a grievance against Microsoft, General Motors or KFC. They do not have a grievance against your local supermarket. They do not have a grievance against YOU or your family. They have a grievance against your government. The IRA had a grievance against the British government. They wanted the British out of Ireland. So they waged a terror "war" for ages until it became apparent they could not win by military means - so the two parties sat down to talk. People in the Middle East have a grievance against some governments in the west, not because they "hate our freedoms," but because they hate our governments interfering in their affairs. If they are in our back yard threatening us, it's precisely because our governments have been in their back yard for ages. Of course, not ALL the West is a target for terrorists, only those countries that have been actively intruding on the Middle East. That's why countries like Norway or Switzerland are not reporting any terrorist attacks. The reason is simple. The terrorists do not have a grievance against those governments. Political leaders like Bush, Blair and Howard have one thing in common. They are all convinced that we can win a war against terrorism - by military means. Well, it isn't going to happen. They are not even winning in Iraq, a third rate theatre of war if there ever was one. So what chance do they have against a global terrorist network? Just think about it: These mighty governments and their military forces are bogged down in Iraq by a virtual handful of terrorists - or insurgents, as they see themselves. If we cannot protect Iraqis from such violence, why on earth should we believe their ravings when they say they can protect us? They can't. End of story. Which means that all the draconian anti-terror legislation can only have one actual result - the destruction of the very freedoms we say we believe in and are "defending." I don't know about you, but I think it hugely ironic that our "fight" against the forces that "hate us because of our freedoms" means we must lose those very freedoms in the process of defending them. Who will have won this war then? No, the "war on terror" is a scam. It's a sham. It's a hoax. It's a clever ruse to use fear of the unknown to drive a totalitarian agenda through the legislative chambers of so-called democracies in the so-called free world. It's a pact with the devil. Freedom cannot be compromised. There is no "new reality" that has to be accounted for with "new" laws. There is no new situation which warrants the destruction of freedom. There is no justification for even the removal of ONE basic freedom in the quest for "security." Don't be fooled. Stand up for your rights. Oppose the war on freedom.