Freedom's Phoenix "Uncovering the Secrets and Exposing the Lies"
 

Gold: $1286.00  Change: $5.60
Silver: $19.47  Change: $0.10
   
Current Bitcoin
Price:
$513.2

Provided by
BitPay.com
 
Contribute Bitcoin to
Freedom's Phoenix



Contribute Funding by
PayPal or Credit Card

 
Sign-up for FREE
Daily Newsletter
Log-In

See Complete Menu

Special Editions
Translate Page
RSS Feeds
 


Declare Your
Independence

with Ernest Hancock

 
Log-In
Front Page
Page Two
 
 

Freedom's Phoenix
Online Magazine

 
Freedom Forum
Letters to the Editor
Report The News
 

Anarchives:

 

 

Search by Keyword

    Contents by Subject
    Radio/TV Shows
    Feature Articles
    Opinion Columns
    News Stories
    Newsletters List
    Reference Links
 
 

Julia Tourianski - Brave The World - Videos
 
Quantum Vibe
 
Jim Bonham
 
Larken Rose

06-27-2009 

Larken Rose
Website: Larken Rose
More About: TERRORISM

Terrorism, Good and Bad


Ideally, we'd live in a world where no one would ever use violence, or the threat of violence, against anyone else. In reality, however, sometimes one person will inflict harm on another person (pain, injury, or even death), or use the threat of such harm, to influence that other person's behavior. Such tactics can be used to instill "terror," not just into the person specifically targeted, but into lots of other people who think they might be next. In other words, the goal is to instill fear in order to coerce people into changing their behavior in a certain way. Let's call that tactic "terrorism."
 
And it's always bad, right? It's always a crime, right? And we need government to protect us from it, right?
Wrong, wrong and wrong.

We're all aware of the nasty example of some Muslim extremist terrorist who indiscriminately kills men, women and children in order to make a point, or in order to try to coerce some population or government into changing its ways. But let's consider a few other examples.

A little old lady who lives alone in a rough neighborhood hears breaking glass, goes to investigate, and finds a couple thugs in her kitchen. She happens to have a firearm, and points it at the crooks. Her goal is obviously to instill fear in the minds of the intruders. She is perfectly justified in trying to evoke terror from them, in order to make them behave in a certain way (either leaving, or waiting for the police to come and arrest them).

So is the lady a terrorist? Well, yes and no. She is certainly using "terror" as a tool for controlling other people, but the term "terrorism" usually implies that the intimidation is being done for an "illegal" or immoral end. (Of note, when firearms are used by private individuals to deter crime, it is usually without a shot being fired, showing how effective the terror which brandishing a firearm instills can be.)

As another example, every year, the IRS and the Tax Division of the DOJ carefully decide who to prosecute for "tax crimes," with the stated goal of scaring all the other "taxpayers" into "compliance." They use force (harassment, armed invasions of private homes, confiscation of property, arrests and imprisonment, etc.) against a few, and then publicize those actions, for the purpose of instilling fear into millions of other people who might be thinking of not filing and paying. (The IRS is often surprisingly honest about that goal.)

So are the people who work at the IRS terrorists? Well, yes. They are. They are using violence against victims who haven't hurt anyone else, with the stated goal of intimidating lots of others into handing over lots of money to the government--a specifically political goal. In what way is that not terrorism?

The only reason anyone would fail to see this is if they fall for the notion that, if the terrorists arbitrarily declare their terrorism to be "legal," it suddenly ceases to be bad, and therefore ceases to be terrorism. In other words, because politicians enacted such terrorism via "legislation," and called the terrorism "taxation" and "law," and label those who do not comply as "law-breakers" and "tax cheats," they persuade most people that the perpetrators of what would otherwise obviously be terrorism are the good guys, and any who resist are the bad guys.

Consider another example. In any war, both sides will try to use intimidation to scare the other side into surrendering. Instilling fear and terror into "the enemy" is a tactic that dates back many thousands of years. And, by definition, any rebelling force that does so, since their actions are, by definition, "illegal," would fit into the common definition of "terrorists." For example, the Founding Fathers of this country were all terrorists. They were law-breaking tax cheats who challenged the authority of their king. The fact that they were eventually successful does not change the fact that what they were doing was, by definition, "illegal," not to mention treasonous. 

So are Jefferson, Madison and the rest now viewed as terrorists? No. We don't use that label for them because their cause is now viewed as having been just, even though it was obviously "illegal" in the eyes of the regime that ruled them up to that point. (It should also be mentioned that the term "terrorism" usually implies the targeting of innocent civilians, rather than targeting only soldiers.)

All "government" enforcers, from the individual beat cop to the huge federal agencies, use intimidation to control behavior. Just the presence of a police cruiser is supposed to strike fear into the hearts of would-be criminals, to scare them out of committing crimes. And one of the stated goals of catching, prosecuting and imprisoning criminals is to serve as a deterrent to others who might be considering committing similar crimes. And is that bad? Well, yes and no.

It depends upon what counts as "crime." Using fear to prevent people from committing robbery, assault or murder is perfectly justified (and therefore, we don't call it "terrorism"). But the word "crime," to most people, means anything that "government" has declared to be "illegal." So, for example, when the DEA uses openly brutal violence, including killing people, in order to deter people from possessing non-politician-approved substances ("narcotics"), they are viewed as merely enforcing "the law." But does that automatically mean that what they're doing is good?

Less than two centuries ago in this country, those calling themselves "government" said that slavery was "legal," and that trying to help slaves escape was a "crime." The "law enforcers" of that day would catch a runaway slave, and then the master would whip the runaway slave in front of all the other slaves, so they would be terrified of running away. It was all perfectly "legal" at the time. Did that make it right? No. And despite the fact that such torture was "legal," and was done with the assistance of those calling themselves "government," would we not now condemn such actions as being essentially the same thing as "terrorism"--the use of unjustified violence to coerce others to change their behavior?

Therefore, by what measure do we distinguish between "terrorism" and justified defensive force? Whether the force is "legal" can't be the determining factor, since what is "legal" is arbitrarily decided by whoever is claiming to be "government." As history shows all too clearly, it's quite easy to "legalize" evil. (Keep in mind, almost everything done under the Third Reich was "legal," and those who resisted were referred to as "terrorists" by Hitler and his thugs.)

There is only one rational way to distinguish between the sort of unjustified, violent intimidation that deserves to be called "terrorism," and the justifiable use of force or threats of force: Violence--or the threat of violence--is only justified when used against people who have initiated force or fraud. In any other situation, it's not. Now, that sounds so simple and so self-evident that almost anyone would instinctively agree with it. To put it another way, you shouldn't start a fight, and you should only use force to stop the guy who does.

The trouble is, people's belief in "government" and "authority" mangle what would otherwise be a perfectly simple and obvious non-aggression principle. Consider a few examples.

1) Are IRS employees "terrorists" when they use intimidation and fear to coerce millions into handing over money? Absolutely, but most people refuse to see it because the terrorism is "legal." (I have quite a bit of personal experience about this one. My book, "Kicking the Dragon," shows all too clearly the terrorist mindset of many IRS, DOJ and federal court employees.)

2) Are DEA and state narcotics agents "terrorists" when they use overt violence, and massive intimidation and fear to try to coerce people into not possessing non-government-approved substances? Absolutely, but most people refuse to see it because the terrorism is "legal."

3) Are ATF agents "terrorists" when they use overt violence and scare tactics to coerce people into not owning non-government-approved firearms? Absolutely, but even after mass atrocities such as the one which happened in Waco, most people still refuse to see it that way, because that terrorism is "legal."

4) Here's one that lots of people won't like to hear. When American soldiers randomly stop, detain, interrogate, search, and occasionally torture civilians, and otherwise use a show of force to scare, coerce and control people, is that terrorism? Yes. If you doubt it, imagine a foreign occupying army here, doing that to you. Then would you call it "terrorism"? I bet you would. So stop thinking from pack mentality and start thinking from principle.

5) Last but not least, can you name the worst terrorist attack in history? Hint: thousands of civilians were brutally and intentionally murdered, in order to try to coerce a government into changing its ways. No, not 9/11. That was child's play compared to the correct answer. The perpetrator of the top two worst terrorist acts of all time was a group calling itself "The United States Government," which was responsible for the premeditated murder of over fifty times as many civilians as died on 9/11, when that terrorist cult dropped nuclear bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And for all those statists who might read this, and then fume with indignation that I would characterize our noble "leaders," soldiers and "law enforcers" as terrorists, see if you can come up with some way to differentiate between what you call "terrorism," and what the U.S. "government" does on a daily basis. Or is "terrorism" just the word you use when people not on your side do it?


 

 

Join us on our
Social Networks

Share this page with your friends
on your favorite social network:

     
Additional related items you might find interesting:
News Link    TERRORISM
London Mayor's Stunning Proposal: "Terrorist Until Proven Innocent"
08-25-2014    zerohedge.com 
News Link    TERRORISM
Obama Chose Bergdahl Over Foley
08-22-2014    Next News Network 
News Link    TERRORISM
Questionable Foley Beheading Video Results in More Tyranny
08-24-2014    Prison Planet 

Comments in Response

Comment by: Peter Tor-kilsen (#044734)
   Entered on: 2011-12-29 17:00:20

 http://www.humanrights-denied.co.nz

Comment by: Peter Rosenholm (#023578)
   Entered on: 2009-09-02 10:36:41

 

#630a

 

   Larken I was hospitalized by MEDUSA with it's attack mode sound but in microwave of course so only I could hear it. I went to the hospital because I was shaking and pissing brown by the morning when a vehicle pulled away from the side of my home.The side without windows.

   I was then involuntarily committed tortured with the guy in the next bed in the room tortured as well. On mca..... and mindcontrolr..... groups on yahoo I put a scanned document to show that I had been hospitalized by police and my home was searched for bomb making materials. I got this from the mental health clinic's records.

    They also had me drugged unconscious for a day and altered the dates to hide this. I have documented proof of this as well. God know what they did with me for over a day unconscious.

    They played kill the terrorist with me and I have the documents and have seen them hurt others to get at me. I know very well what they do in the name of fighting terrorism, and they have done far more over the years.

 

                                                                                    Peter Rosenholm

Comment by: Sherwin Levy (#021434)
   Entered on: 2009-07-06 06:27:46

Just because your article about terrorism is most excellent, I suggest changing the sentence "And, by definition, any rebelling force that does so, ..." to

"And, by definition, any group which rebells, since their actions are, by definition, illegal, would fit into..."

Comment by: PureTrust (#010621)
   Entered on: 2009-06-28 16:22:10

Lot's of governmental areas. 

Child Protective Services taking a child from its parents because the parent spanked the child. The child thought it knew terror from the spanking. Now it really has terror. "For the children."

Generalized verbalized "hate crimes" hurt nobody. Government's true hate of people is what actively damages people for using non-violent freedom of speach, that government terms "hate crimes." Which terrorist did the hate crime damage here? The one using freedom of speach? Or Government arresting and prosecuting him?

REMEMBER, Government by itself harms nobody, does nothing. Everything Government does is really done by people.

Comment by: Lucky Red (#020562)
   Entered on: 2009-06-28 11:44:52

Bravo!  Brilliantly said! 

      Agorist Marketplace  
 
  Magazine / Newspaper
   Magazine Subscription Info
   Online Magazine List
   Newspaper Subscription Info
   Newspaper Issue List
 
RSS Feeds
   Articles RSS Feed
   Opinions RSS Feed
   Media RSS Feed
   Newsletter RSS Feed
   Smartphone Feed
   Podcast Feed
Radio / TV
   Declare Your Independence
      with Ernest Hancock

Anarchives
   Search by Keyword
   Contents Listed by Subject
   Radio / TV Show Archives
   Newsletter Archives
   News Links
   Feature Articles
   Opinion Columns
   Reference Links

 
Letters to the Editor
   List of Letters
   Write a Letter

 
Join Us
   Subscribe to Magazine
   Membership Sign-Up
   Be a Writer
   Be a Reporter
   Link to Us

 
Marketplace
   Buy Stuff Sell Stuff

   Store on CafePress.com
More News
   Page Two
   Current News
 
Discussions
   Freedom Forum
 
Advertise
   Intro to Advertising with Us
   Magazine Advertising Rates
   Radio Advertising Rates
   Website Advertising Rates
 
Funding Center
   Support or Promote a Project
About Freedom's Phoenix
   About Us
   Contact Us
   Terms of Use
   Privacy Policy
   Writers List

 
Tutorials Using This Site
   List of Tutorials
 
Media Resources
   News References
   Blog References
   Government References
 
  FreedomsPhoenix.com
The domain and name of this website are servicemarks of Ernest Hancock.
Website is Copyright 2014 by Ernest Hancock.  All rights reserved worldwide.
Feature articles, columns, illustrations, and photographs are copyrighted and may not be
reproduced without the expressed permission of the credited writer, artist, or photographer.
No portion of this website, text, images, or source code may be framed on another website,
copied, reproduced, or distributed, by any means, without the written permission of
Ernest Hancock, 4886 W Port Au Prince Ln, Glendale, AZ 85306 USA.
Website Designed by
USA Web
Advertising

Phoenix, Arizona
 
Time to display page: 0.085 Seconds -- Dynamic Page
Time to write PageViews: 0.0005 Seconds

Page Views:

free web stats

Stats by StatCounter