Equivalent of seventeen 9/11's reminder that control freaks' obsession with inflated fear of terrorism to implement police state a contrived fraud
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The deadly cyclone that has hit Burma could eventually claim around 50,000 lives - the equivalent of seventeen 9/11's - and yet in the face of such tragedies that befall the planet on an almost monthly basis, we are constantly lectured that the contrived fear of terrorism - a threat less dangerous to Americans than peanut allergies or accident-causing deer - is reason alone to let control freaks completely re-engineer society and change our way of life.
Listening to the steady drumbeat of government proclamations, you'd think that there were terrorists lurking around every street corner ready to slit our throats or detonate suicide bombs, yet in reality the only "terror attack" directed against westerners in the past near-three years was the comical 'dumb and dumber' "Glasgow airport attack," as it was billed by the corporate media, which consisted of two semi-retarded morons setting fire to a Jeep Cherokee, driving it into a window, and hurting only themselves in the process.
This has nothing to do with any success on the part of the Bush administration or the British government in "fighting terror" since 9/11, the same pattern can be observed throughout the latter half of the 20th century, when the notion of "terrorism" first began to take on its modern incarnation.
The truth is that we are a trillion times more likely to die from a heart attack, a road accident or even a freak weather event, yet we don't spend all day worrying about it or changing our way of life to accomodate for it, as the control freaks that use the contrived fear of terror demand we do to combat the hyped threat of Al-Qaeda.
The menace of global terrorism has been labeled the greatest threat to western civilization since communism and yet swimming pools, peanuts and lost deer kill more Americans every single year. Why are our governments facilitating the terrorist's agenda by hyping a peril that simply does not exist?
The number of Americans killed as a result of international terrorism since the 1960's gives us a benchmark from which we can correctly identify and target other dire dangers to our very way of life.
- Allergic reactions to peanuts
- Accident causing deer
- Lightning strikes
That's correct - all of the above have killed an equal number of Americans since 1960 as terrorism. One could even categorize M&M's, lost deer and the weather as an "axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the world," as George Bush famously once said.
Enemy Combatant: Fear the deer.
As Ohio State University's John Mueller concludes in a report entitled A False Sense Of Insecurity, "For all the attention it evokes, terrorism actually causes rather little damage and the likelihood that any individual will become a victim in most places is microscopic."
The much vaunted August 2006 transatlantic terror plot, a facade that has since collapsed under the weight of its own absurdity, led to ridiculous measures in airports banning any form of liquids in carry on luggage and mothers were forced to drink their own breast milk. Yet there has not been a bomb planted in a piece of checked luggage on an American carrier since the 1988 Lockerbie disaster, of which the culprits are still in question. Since that time Americans have been routinely interrogated millions of times about the contents of their luggage while cargo remains completely unchecked.
To equal the danger that Americans place themselves in every day by driving their car down the highway, there would have to be a September 11 every month. To reach the same level of risk that one undertakes in boarding an airline, you only have to travel eleven miles in a car.
The principle goal of terrorists is to terrify populations and governments into acquiescing to their political demands. The only way they can achieve this is by generating a substantial amount of fear and making people believe the lie that their life is significantly threatened by potential terrorism, when in reality the swimming pool in their backyard poses more of a danger.
As soon as we lose the fear, the terrorists lose their power over us to control our behavior. If western governments were really trying to win a war on terror as they claim then they would downplay and sideline acts of terror, pointing out that an individual has more chance of being struck by lightning than being killed in a terror attack.
And yet what do we see? George Bush and Dick Cheney frothing at the mouth predicting mushroom clouds over America, and Fox News telling us every day it's not a matter of if but when we're attacked again.
Mueller elaborates,
"What is needed, as one statistician suggests, is some sort of convincing, coherent, informed, and nuanced answer to a central question: “How worried should I be?” Instead, the message the nation has received so far is, as a Homeland Security official put (or caricatured) it, “Be scared; be very, very scared — but go on with your lives.” Such messages have led many people to develop what Leif Wenar of the University of Sheffield has aptly labeled “a false sense of insecurity.”
By making these statements and continually recycling the hysteria, these entities are facilitating the goals of terrorists, driving forward an agenda that could not be energized alone by relatively minor, rare and inconsequential attacks that take few human lives in comparison to the real dangers that we face every day - mundane things like car accidents, cancer and heart disease.
In that context, western governments are staffed at the very top by rhetorical terrorists who are openly espousing the creed and statecraft of terrorism.
Should we concerned about global terrorism? Undoubtedly. Should we let it be used by governments as a pretext to completely eviscerate our freedoms and alter our way of life? Certainly not - the notion that terror is a fundamental threat to the very foundation of our civilization, as some have claimed, is simply not supported by reality.
Only by coming to the understanding that terrorism is such a limited threat to our livelihoods and communicating that to others can we disarm the alarmist propaganda that governments utilize in order to enlist our obedience for the construction of the prison planet and the total control freak policies being imposed under the justification of the hyped terror threat.
The much vaunted August 2006 transatlantic terror plot, a facade that has since collapsed under the weight of its own absurdity, led to ridiculous measures in airports banning any form of liquids in carry on luggage and mothers were forced to drink their own breast milk. Yet there has not been a bomb planted in a piece of checked luggage on an American carrier since the 1988 Lockerbie disaster, of which the culprits are still in question. Since that time Americans have been routinely interrogated millions of times about the contents of their luggage while cargo remains completely unchecked.
To equal the danger that Americans place themselves in every day by driving their car down the highway, there would have to be a September 11 every month. To reach the same level of risk that one undertakes in boarding an airline, you only have to travel eleven miles in a car.
The principle goal of terrorists is to terrify populations and governments into acquiescing to their political demands. The only way they can achieve this is by generating a substantial amount of fear and making people believe the lie that their life is significantly threatened by potential terrorism, when in reality the swimming pool in their backyard poses more of a danger.
As soon as we lose the fear, the terrorists lose their power over us to control our behavior. If western governments were really trying to win a war on terror as they claim then they would downplay and sideline acts of terror, pointing out that an individual has more chance of being struck by lightning than being killed in a terror attack.
And yet what do we see? George Bush and Dick Cheney frothing at the mouth predicting mushroom clouds over America, and Fox News telling us every day it's not a matter of if but when we're attacked again.
Mueller elaborates,
"What is needed, as one statistician suggests, is some sort of convincing, coherent, informed, and nuanced answer to a central question: “How worried should I be?” Instead, the message the nation has received so far is, as a Homeland Security official put (or caricatured) it, “Be scared; be very, very scared — but go on with your lives.” Such messages have led many people to develop what Leif Wenar of the University of Sheffield has aptly labeled “a false sense of insecurity.”
By making these statements and continually recycling the hysteria, these entities are facilitating the goals of terrorists, driving forward an agenda that could not be energized alone by relatively minor, rare and inconsequential attacks that take few human lives in comparison to the real dangers that we face every day - mundane things like car accidents, cancer and heart disease.
In that context, western governments are staffed at the very top by rhetorical terrorists who are openly espousing the creed and statecraft of terrorism.
Should we concerned about global terrorism? Undoubtedly. Should we let it be used by governments as a pretext to completely eviscerate our freedoms and alter our way of life? Certainly not - the notion that terror is a fundamental threat to the very foundation of our civilization, as some have claimed, is simply not supported by reality.
Only by coming to the understanding that terrorism is such a limited threat to our livelihoods and communicating that to others can we disarm the alarmist propaganda that governments utilize in order to enlist our obedience for the construction of the prison planet and the total control freak policies being imposed under the justification of the hyped terror threat.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/quotes_special.gif)
1 comment:
Fox has been recently terrorizing their viewers with unfounded alarms of bioterrorism.
Post a Comment