STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Fred Reed: Government Can't Protect Us From Terrorism
By Daily Bell Staff - December 04, 2015

A few cheering thoughts on terrorism … Terrorism by Moslems in America and Europe cannot be stopped. If attacks do not occur, it will be because nobody tried very hard. Stopping them would require excluding Moslems, deporting them, or controlling them by totalitarian methods. Or, improbably, minding our own business in the Middle East. What you think of the foregoing approaches doesn't matter, since none of them will be used. In France the result would be a civil war. America is too divided to do anything about anything. The notion that the government can prevent terrorism suggests studied inattention to the obvious. – LewRockwell.com

Dominant Social Theme: Fortunately, the West's massive intelligence apparatus will keep us safe from the most destructive elements of the War on Terror.

Free-Market Analysis: Over at LewRockwell.com, Fred Reed has posted an insightful article on government responses to terrorism. Written from a libertarian standpoint, its main thesis is simple but often overlooked: Government cannot protect us from the consequences of its "long wars."

Of course, we know government cannot protect us because there is ample evidence that elements of Western government are actually involved in fostering the vey dangers that government purports to combat. We've written about this "false flag" approach in numerous articles recently. Reed's point is more circumspect: From a hypothetical standpoint, the idea that government is a force for stability and safety is illogical.

Even libertarian types will grant that the one feasible job that government has is "protection." But modern Western governance doesn't do what is right, which would be to organize the voluntary sinews of society into a mass of defensive muscle. Modern Western governance is all about lying to young people to entangle them in a military-industrial complex that then uses them for fodder to feed a much grander scheme of global control.

Modern (Western) governance is incapable of protecting society even hypothetically because its goals are quite divergent from what is suggested for public relations purposes and because it recruits via subterfuge and wages wars that actually inflame and expand the enemy.

Modern militaries are in thrall to Western intelligence agencies that create the circumstances that give rise to the battlefields on which today's Western soldiers must fight. And these intelligence agencies have obvious mandates that have little or nothing to do with publicly stated sociopolitical and economic goals.

That's something almost nobody usually mentions because it gets into issues of how modern societies really work and who holds the actual power. The same groups that control intelligence agencies also seem to control the modern mainstream media so the chances of having this sort of conversation are, well … nil. Fred Reed is circumspect about the larger picture but his points are well taken, nonetheless. Here's more:

To begin, the intelligence agencies have proved useless. NSA did not prevent the first attack on the Twin Towers in 1993, nor the successful one. French intelligence did not prevent the recant attacks in Paris, nor Russian intelligence the downing of the airliner over Syria. On and on.

The idea that terrorism can be prevented must include the idea that a package containing ten pounds of C4 (or Semtex, or RDX, or….) and a blasting cap can be kept out of a country with long and almost open borders.

Much libertarian analysis (of a certain type) tends to get tangled up in the "whodunit" question and Reed is clearing out the rhetorical underbrush by explaining that modern governance is not organized for purposes of legitimate civil protection.

Almost all of what government has mustered as "protection" is what Fred Reed calls "security theatre." Airport security, SWAT teams, elaborate after-the-fact press conferences – the point here is to create a reality that doesn't exist except in Hollywood movies.

He doesn't elaborate on this significant point, so we will. The animating memes of modern society more and more resemble an actual Hollywood movie – one of the big action blockbusters. Fred Reed does imply this on a more general level. He writes:

"It is interesting to remember that terrorism is not bad for everybody. For the Pentagon, Nine-Eleven was a windfall, providing wars and new drones; for NSA, a massive expansion in its powers; for Israel and AIPAC, the destruction of Israel's arch-enemy, Iraq; for the arms manufacturers, hundreds of billions; for the federal government in general, near-dictatorship and, for jihadists, the involvement of the US in crippling and endless wars. Which is what they wanted.

Reed doesn't explain who "they" are, but he is obviously referring to monetary powerbrokers that operate behind the scenes in Western society and make the big decisions that intelligence agencies then implement as a matter of policy.

We often focus on the subterfuge of the modern elite that leads the Western world from the shadows. It is important to peel back the layers of phony leadership in the 21st century until you arrive at the hard core of real power. Only then will you be in a position to begin to analyze the modern miasma of sociopolitical and economic memes enveloping us.

Here at The Daily Bell we see this as our deepest mission, to analyze the memes disseminated by the powerful for purposes of misinformation and confusion. But sometimes it is good to be reminded that on a very basic level the reality simply doesn't make sense. Modern Western governments are growing massively and justifying this growth by claiming it is necessary to "protect us." But they can't and they won't.

After Thoughts

As Fred Reed reminds us, "they" don't want to anyway.

Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • lulu

    In other words, the government is the terrorist.

  • natural human

    Another excellent article from the newly reconstituted DB. Thank you.

  • Bolt Upright

    None of us are getting outa here a live…..Donning my tin foil hat. It could be NWO is culling the planetary herd?

  • The reality only makes proper sense when a complete understanding is in place. Undoing belief in the integrity of ‘the state’ is fundamental. While there remains any misplaced confidence that the prime function of ‘the state’ is benign and trustworthy it is not possible to make sense of reality – reality is viewed from a corrupted paradigm.

    It is not a matter of just seeing certain events are fabricated, wars caused, financial stress deliberate, markets manipulated, power corrupted and so much more avoidable too. Clearly that all needs to be studied and understood but then the paradigm shift has also to take place.

    The people who actually comprise ‘the state’, politicians, civil-servants, intelligence, police, secret service, journalists, military, scientists, academics, teachers, tax-collectors and all can learn too that the truth is different to the portrayal, the narrative. The same information is in their midst as is accessible to all others. But for them, even if they are not simply ideological collectivists, there are additional incentives for them to avoid acknowledgement of, or close their minds to, the truth. It is not in their self-interest and, if they start to breakthrough, they see fighting for truth, at all levels, as being an imposable task. The people who comprise ‘the state’ are not going sort this out for us.

    So the paradigm shift is not understanding the facts of events, the reasons and interests served, the harm and outcomes caused. The further necessary understanding is: ‘the state’ cannot protect us from this system of manufactured chaos because ‘the state’ is fundamental to its production and perpetuation. It is the power of ‘the state’ that is primarily being manipulated and this will always be so whilst it remains believed to be a good embodiment of the power of rule.

  • robt

    Actually, Reed does describe who ‘they’ are. He lists all those who derived ‘windfall’ (i.e. unexpected or unintended) benefit in the paragraph, but because the wish of the jihadists for the US to be involved in ‘crippling and endless wars’ is listed last, special emphasis is placed on them and their intent. To claim that ‘obviously’ monetary powerbrokers are implied to be behind all this is a deliberate misinterpretation of the words written, when no such claim or implication is made.
    The thrust of the article is that everything cannot be known, or detected, or recognized, or prevented, because of all the events that take place in the nation at every moment virtually none of them are sinister, and even the events that ultimately prove to have been sinister do not appear so at the time, but are simply normal benign everyday events that attract no special attention. To design protection methods against these events is futile and impossible, e.g. the investigation of everyone carrying an object of any kind in public places, and I suppose, by extension, the making of a law intended to prevent people from carrying objects in any place other than their home.
    Ultimately, the only protection against terrorism is lack of intent of a small number of individuals who potentially may wish to implement it – in other words the goodwill of your fellow members of the public. But there will always be some few, a very few, of evil intent, whether they be anarchists of a hundred years ago, or other political revolutionaries, or religious fanatics, or just mentally unbalanced individuals.
    Just the fact that in the past, the consideration that the terrorist or just plain mass murderer had to escape to safety was a consideration in the prevention of these events, and probably in many cases the abandonment of the intended action by the perpetrator. When the suicide element entered the equation, no deterrent remained.

  • alaska3636

    I made a comment to the same effect as Fred the other day. If policies keep bumbling in the direction of war and totalitarianism then we either have incredibly inept public servants or it is not, in fact, bumbling at all. All the same, glad to see Fred’s views on the DB.

  • Jim Johnson

    By golly, Fred’s made the DB. Bueno, Amigo.

  • Samarami

    Concomitant question: Can wolves protect chickens from foxes??? Sam

    • Praetor

      Yes! If the fox is just the appetizer, to stimulate the appetite for chicken. Their are those who are never satisfied with just enough!!!

  • richo345

    I have been reading Fred Reed at his blog for years. If you go to the linked Lewrockwell site to read the whole article, at the very bottom there is a link to Fred’s blog. I highly recommend people sign up to get his articles. They are short and only come out a few times per month.

    Once people accept his basic premise, that cops can not protect you, there is a logical conclusion that follows. People must re-take responsibility for protecting themselves.

    For most of recorded history, there was no such thing as a quickly available 911 police force. People needed to, and did, provide for their own defense, sometimes in very lawless circumstances. In most of the historical era, that meant carrying, and knowing how to use, knives and swords.

    In our modern era, bringing a knife to a gun fight is probably not a good idea. It has been shown in many books, articles and studies, that those parts of the country that have liberal gun carry laws have the least amount of mass shootings.

    The people themselves are headed in this direction. After every incident, the amount of gun purchases skyrockets. I think that once about ten percent of people in any community research the concealed carry laws, purchase weapons, get good tactical shooter training, and start packing, you will see a marked decrease in mass shootings. Once word gets out that in any group of ten or more people, there will likely be someone who is trained and packing, the bad guys will tend to go elsewhere.

    An armed society is a polite society.

  • dc.sunsets

    The notion that “none of this (restricting certain classes, races, creeds, etc.) will happen is predicated on the assumption that the Theocratic dogma that underlies “We Are All The Same Regardless of Race, Creed or Culture” universalism is permanent. As with Copernicus, modern genetic science is making that central tenet more untenable by the day.

    While it’s roots go back 365 years, this Pilgrims on Plymouth Rock doctrine has a vast contingent of closeted heretics. When Donald Trump reframes crime (racial blasphemy), immigration (cultural blasphemy) or Muslims (religious blasphemy) his popularity is a direct measure of how many people silently rage under the totalitarian eye of today’s successors to those who punished heliocentric cosmologists.

    365 years ago the royalists lost to the Parliamentarians and the former disappeared from the field of battle. This left the religious collectivists intent on establishing the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth free to use the state to crush anyone who strayed from the Universalist Dogma. It looks like the royalists (or realists) are finally returning to the fight.

  • Praetor

    Individual human action of a free and liberated people is the only form of protection a civil society needs. When individuals can protect themselves in any circumstance anywhere at anytime, that would be a very bad place for another individual or group wishing to do harm, to initiate an act of violence against other individuals or group of individuals willing and able to protect themselves. It only makes sense. Its time for the citizens to protect themselves against those who would take their freedom and liberty. Be ready, protect and preserve, LIFE!!!

  • Gil G

    A few points against it:

    * Terrorists attacks are few and far between hence “they” can’t be out to get us or not be particularly good at it.

    * Making a bomb is hard or else the death toll would be much higher. If making/getting explosives were so easy then there would be constant attacks and the death toll would be in thousands each time.

    * Why go straight to the terrorists side and assume they’re of the innocent side who must use guerrilla tactics against an evil, overwhelming empire? It’s as if to say instead the U.S. entering the War after the attack on Pearl Harbor the U.S. should have withdrawn all interests in Asia and apologised profusely. It’s as if to say the U.S. after Sept. 11 should withdrawn all interests from the Middle East and apologised for minding other peoples’ business.

    • Regarding Pearl Harbor and Sept 11, you are ignoring a mountain of evidence (and still growing) that points to the direct involvement of the USA government.

      The proper questions to ask are Why?” and “Who benefits?”. It might be useful to seriously consider “What if the USA had NOT entered into those foreign wars?”–a course that was advised by George Washington.

  • Danny B

    Making a bomb is NOT hard.

    Iodine & ammonia,,, highway flares & aluminum… zinc & sulphur,,,,fertilizer and diesel fuel,,,,black and / or smokeless rifle powder. The list goes on and on. It is only self-restraint that prevents us from blowing things up. If we feel that we are a part of society and that it is worth preserving, we refrain. If we feel that the State and / or society is against us, maybe we lash out. Explosives are more dramatic but, arson serves very well.

    In 2005, 2010, 2015, there were muslim riots in France. They burned all kinds of things and complained that the youth couldn’t get jobs. They do not want to be part of French society so, they attack it. It is economic security and restraint that holds society together.

loading