Brandon Smith
Alt Market
May 15, 2013
The debate over what actions actually constitute “terrorism,” I
believe, will become one of the defining ideological battles of our era.
Terrorism is not a word often used by common people to describe
aberrant behaviors or dastardly deeds; however, it is used by
governments around the world to label and marginalize political enemies.
That is to say, it is the government that normally decides who is a
“terrorist” and who is a mere “criminal,” the assertion being that one
is clearly far worse than the other.
The terrorist label elicits emotional firestorms and fearful
brain-quakes in the minds of the masses. It causes the ignorant and
unaware to abandon principles they would normally apply to any other
malicious enterprise. They begin to reason that a criminal should be
afforded justice, while a terrorist should be afforded only vengeance,
even though the act of branding a person a “terrorist” is often
completely arbitrary. This vengeance is usually pursued by any means.
Thus, the terrorist moniker becomes a rationalization for every vicious
and inhuman policy of the establishment, as well as for the citizenry.
Dishonorable and foolish people claim the existence of terrorism
essentially gives license for the rest of us to become criminal,
willfully trampling on individuals’ rights to privacy, property, free
speech, due process, civic participation, etc. Mass criminality against
the individual in the name of social safety is the glue that holds
together all tyrannical systems, triggering a catastrophic cycle of
moral relativism that eventually bleeds a culture dry.
Historically, the expanded use of the terrorist label by governments
tends to coincide with the rising tides of despotism. A government that
quietly seeks to dominate the people will inevitably begin to treat the
people as if they are the enemy. Those citizens who present the greatest
philosophical or physical threat to the centralization of power are
usually the first to suffer. I do not think it is unfair to say that any
system of authority that suddenly claims to see terrorists under every
rock and behind every tree is probably about to rain full-on fascism
down upon the population.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is the legal extension
of this process, with a vaporous gray language that allows the
government to interpret it in any manner it deems useful, which
conveniently allows it to interpret a wide range of “offenses” as acts
of war against the state.
The Department of Homeland Security’s “If You See Something Say
Something” campaign is the social extension of the process, by which it
creates the framework for a paranoid self-censored surveillance culture.
The fusion center network is the enforcement extension designed to
surround local and State police with an atmosphere of indoctrination and
federalized dogma, teaching common cops to profile according to a
template that is so ambiguous that literally any activity could be
considered suspicious or terroristic.
Read More
