Just as Government
supposedly exists to protect its subjects from "crime"
originating from within its own borders, another thing Government is said
to exist for is to protect its subjects from other Governments, i.e., from
invasion--which is really just a crime committed by yet another Government
on a massive scale. The resulting conflict we call war. Yet even here
Governments throughout history have made their own citizens much more
vulnerable to attacks from other Governments.
Again, the reason is because almost all Governments throughout history have disarmed their own populace to one extent or another. The reason all Governments like to do this is obvious, as the more helpless the populace is against its own Government's forces the less able it will be to resist the Government mulcting wealth from them, and the more disarmed and helpless people are against non-Governmental criminals the more willing they will be to empower Government to "protect" them from these same criminals which could not have existed in the first place were it not for the Government training their citizens to be helpless. Now this is great for these Governments in relation to their own citizens, but it causes problems if another Government, X, chooses to invade Government Z's territory. Since Government Z has already disarmed its citizens so that it may better mulct them, it must rely on its own forces against Government X's forces. Had the forces within Government Z's territory constituted almost the entire populace of that country, then Government X would never have bothered in the first place. The reason for this is, whereas it is not impossible for virtually the entire populace of a country to help defend their country (because they are already near their work and homes), it is quite impossible to mobilize an invading force which constitutes virtually the entire populace of a country (unless it happens to be a nomadic tribe), as in order to support that invading force many people will have to stay behind in order to do productive work--not to mention that it would leave nobody to protect their own home country if everyone left to invade another country. Thus, unless a much, much larger country (population-wise) is invading a much, much smaller country, an invading force will always be at a disadvantage against a defensive force in a truly free country.
Another important related issue which is ever so relevant today is the issue of Governments so-called "protecting" their subjects from "terrorism"--which is just another form of real crime, i.e., aggression against people's just property or their person, only its intent is to cause fear in the targeted populace in order to achieve a certain goal. But here again, Government doesn't actually protect their subjects from terrorists, indeed it is responsible for inciting the terrorists in the first place.
Take the September 11th terrorist attacks upon the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It appears that these were the actions of Islamic immigrants from Middle Eastern countries. We are told by many of the TV talking heads that the reason these terrorists did this is because they resent and hate the freedom allowed to citizens of the United States and because of the pop-culture of America that other countries import. Now this is obviously an idiotic explanation offered to divert attention for the real reason why Islamic foreigners might dislike the U.S. establishment enough to kill themselves lashing out at it. The citizens in the U.S. were far freer during the 1950s, but Islamists didn't seem too concerned about attacking the U.S. then--from the way the TV "analysts" tell it, you'd think that Islam is a new religion. As far as U.S. pop-culture, that's been massively imported by other countries since at least the 1960's, yet Islamic terrorists only became a major threat in the U.S. since the ‘90s. But beyond that, this ignores the fact that according to the Islamic religion, anyone who would make such a suicide attack on others for the above listed reasons would certainly be condemned to Hell by God. Thus, according to the Qur'an:
Sura 2:190 You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
Sura 2:193 You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.
Sura 2:194 During the Sacred Months, aggression may be met by an equivalent response. If they attack you, you may retaliate by inflicting an equitable retribution. You shall observe GOD and know that GOD is with the righteous.
Sura 5:87 O you who believe, do not prohibit good things that are made lawful by GOD, and do not aggress; GOD dislikes the aggressors.
Sura 8:39 You shall fight them to ward off oppression, and to practice your religion devoted to GOD alone. If they refrain from aggression, then GOD is fully Seer of everything they do.
Sura 17:33 You shall not kill any person--for GOD has made life sacred--except in the course of justice. If one is killed unjustly, then we give his heir authority to enforce justice. Thus, he shall not exceed the limits in avenging the murder; he will be helped.
Sura 42:42 The wrong ones are those who treat the people unjustly, and resort to aggression without provocation. These have incurred a painful retribution.
Sura 49:9 If two groups of believers fought with each other, you shall reconcile them. If one group aggresses against the other, you shall fight the aggressing group until they submit to GOD's command. Once they submit, you shall reconcile the two groups equitably. You shall maintain justice; GOD loves those who are just.
So what really has happened during the 1990s which would incite Islamic foreigners to lash out against the U.S. establishment? In a phrase: the Gulf War. Since the 1991 war and the United Nations economic sanctions and intermittent bombing by the U.S. and Britain that followed, as many as two million Iraqis--about half of them young children--have died from starvation and easily preventable disease. When Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked in 1996 whether the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children was an acceptable price for maintaining sanctions on Iraq, Albright's response was "we think the price is worth it." To Arab Islamists, this is their equivalent to the Holocaust--and from their viewpoint they would certainly be remiss not to take action against the country largely responsible for it. As well, it was during this war that the U.S. Government placed its military forces into many Islamic countries such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and continues to maintain them there -- this can only be considered for most Arabic Islamists as a continuing aggression by U.S. foreigners upon their holy lands. This combined with the U.S. Government's continuing support of the Israeli Government in light of that Government's ethnic cleansing and racist policies against, and brutal treatment of, the Palestinians, is bound to pique more than a few Islamic Arabs. Indeed, the above three items are what Osama bin Laden apparently cited as his main reasons for his jihad against the U.S. establishment (although it should be noted that he also denied involvement in the September 11th terrorist attacks, for whatever that might be worth).
So here we have the U.S. Government going out of its way to endanger U.S. citizens by stirring up hornet nests all over the world, when absolutely no interest of any common U.S. citizen is served by these military escapades that the U.S. Government is so fond of. Why should any average American care if one dictatorial Arab country takes over some other dictatorial Arab country wherein the penalty for being a Jew is death (i.e., Kuwait)? Our oil prices wouldn't have gone up for long, as I'm sure Saddam would have been more than happy to sell us all the oil we wanted. Once again, this is just another case of Government increasing its power over the world at the expense of the safety of its own citizens.
But moreover, Government doesn't even have an incentive to stop such terrorists from attacking its subjects. The incentive for Government is to let the terrorists attack its subjects and to disarm its subjects so that such terrorists can be successful in their attacks. That way the citizens who have been trained from birth to feel helpless will clamor for Government to "do something" to "protect" them and will be much more willing to empower Government to that end.
If you should happen to have the least bit of doubt about the truth of this then just consider that since the September 11th attacks on America, the U.S. Government has managed to create from it a new national police force (the Germanic sounding Office of Homeland Security) and increase its budget to 1.5 trillion for every five years, which is a tenfold (!) increase in the total budget for the domestic "security" services of the U.S. Government and one-fifth of the U.S. GDP (and folks, that's Gross Domestic Product, before taxes and other deductions)! Where in the world is there any incentive for Government to actually protect the commoners from terrorists? All the a priori and empirical evidence clearly shows that Government's incentive is to protect the terrorists FROM their potential victims!
All of the four airline hijackings could have been easily prevented if just one passenger (or pilot, or flight attendant) on each plane had been armed with a gun. About 18 bullets divided among four guns is all it would have taken to prevent the deaths of some 7,000 people and billions of dollars in property damage. Yet since the early 1950s the U.S. Government has seen to it that all of the commercial airline pilots are disarmed -- I assume this is because they're too clumsy, stupid and unstable to be able to safely operate something as complex as a handgun, even though most of the airline pilots are militarily trained.
But besides that, let's say Government does find out about some terrorist plot and is in a position to prevent it: why in the world should it? What's the incentive for it in doing that? As we've just seen, terrorism is the health of the State. Government qua Government would be terribly remiss not to let such an attack go forward, considering how much growth it undergoes due to it and how much more power it obtains. If it be replied that our Government rulers are not so evil as to allow such a thing it is here answered that of course they are: they consider the starving and easily preventable disease deaths of some one million Iraqi children to be "worth it" in order to increase their power -- surely some 7,000 adults can't compare.
|James Redford is a young born again Christian who was converted from atheism by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. He is a scientific rationalist who considers that the Omega Point (i.e., the physicists' technical term for God) is an unavoidable result of the known laws of physics. His personal website can be found here: http://geocities.com/vonchloride|
back to anti-state.com