Monday, January 13, 2014
By Paul Martin
January 12, 2014

If you were surprised by the recent news that the FBI has surrepticiously changed it’s primary mission from “law enforcement” to “national security”, chances are you believe the official 9-11 fantasy about boxcutter-armed terrorists hijacking planes and getting NORAD to stand down while the Pentagon was being attacked. Oh, and demolishing a third WTC tower without actually touching it! No wonder you’re scared… if a rag-tag crew of liquor-swillin’, dancer-oogling Muslim misfits are capable of all that, imagine what the hardcore ones can do…. I would like to put your mind to rest about this because it’s an illusion, but unfortunately what lies behind it is even scarier than Bin Bogeyman and then some.

The FBI’s change in terms is not the passing fancy of some bored bureaucrat but the culmination of over a decade of mission creep towards the “national security” model, even though as the TechDirt piece linked above notes, many believed the “National Security Agency” was already covering that front, given its name and all. Guess it’s like the Federal Reserve, any relation between name and function is purely coincidental.

In any case, national security and law enforcement are two very different beasts and no amount of lipstick is going to make it otherwise. “Law enforcement” is the enforcement of the coded statutes that comprise the “rule of law” –our standard modern slave fare, so to speak– while “national security” is a codename for “full-blown police state”. National security requires the threat of insecurity to justify itself, like the old “pay for security or your store burns down in the middle of the night” racket but without all the sweet talk. And as any globalist elite scumbag will tell you: insecurity is good business when supply and demand are controlled from the same point.

Which brings us back to the terrorists. We are conditioned to consider certain types of violence as terrorism, but not others. A car bomb is considered terrorism but a double-tap drone strike is not, although for all practical purposes it is exactly that. This is because “terrorism” is official doublespeak (read black memecraft, see below) for “resistance against the state” and thus is applied only to nominally non-state actors. What the state does is fight a “war against terrorism” which is a misleading fallacy like the “war on drugs”, “war on poverty”, “war on man boobs” and all the other wars on “concepts” that obviate the fact that all wars are against people, always, no matter how they are packaged for sale.

The Rest…HERE

Comments are closed.

Join the revolution in 2018. Revolution Radio is 100% volunteer ran. Any contributions are greatly appreciated. God bless!

Follow us on Twitter