[cryptome] Ramifications of the Reign of Terror

  • From: Chien Fume <chien.fume@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:46:32 +0200


*French President François Hollande was quick to declare a state of
emergency in the wake of Friday's bloody terror attacks in Paris. But what
does the "etat d'urgence" mean for the country and its citizens as they go
about their daily lives? The state of emergency measures are set out in a
1955 law and are designed to be used in "cases of imminent danger resulting
from serious breaches of public order, or in case of events threatening, by
their nature and gravity, public disaster."* – France24.com -

...in the current era, top government officials are quick to argue that
"security" measures are more important to creating and sustaining civil
society than the actual marketplace products of society. In other words,
one arrives at Western-style civil society through the application of
military force. -

*...under the leadership Maximilien Robespierre
<http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/2674/>, the French
people got their protection. Robespierre passed the 'Law of Suspects',
allowing the government to essentially imprison anyone they wanted for any

*... People were required to carry special certificates indicating that
they were good and dutiful citizens. Those without would be imprisoned, and
potentially executed ... Then there was the Law of the Maximum, which
attempted to stabilize an ongoing financial crisis by fixing the prices of
goods and services in the country. The law also imposed the death penalty
on those who did not follow the rules.*

*They also passed the Law of 22 Prairial, which awarded the Committee even
more power to arrest, try, and execute anyone deemed to be suspicious or
disloyal. The law also prevented anyone accused of a crime from being able
to call witnesses or have defense counsel. Plus it required that ALL
citizens report potentially suspicious or disloyal neighbors to the
Committee. If you see something, say something.*

Black provides us the name of this French interregnum: It became known as
the Reign of Terror
<http://www.thedailybell.com/definitions/params/id/28347/> – from which we
get the word terrorist. He also points out that *in its first application,
the word "terrorist" was applied to government officials.*

Will France go this far today? One is tempted to say, "Of course not." The
lessons of history still apply and the French are aware of the tragic
excesses of the revolution. But one also ought to be aware of disturbing

When the US rounded up potential "terrorists" and imprisoned them in
Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, for instance, the process was certainly similar to
that of the Reign of Terror. Many were imprisoned for more than a decade
before being released and had no opportunity to address the "evidence" that
had imprisoned them in the first place, much of which was dismissed anyway.
Of course, many are still there and at least eight have died in prison or
after their release.

Thus we can see there are already modern precedents for what happened in
France, and unfortunately – though people don't like to acknowledge it – *it's
only a few steps from imprisoning foreign "terrorists" without due process
to doing the same thing to supposed domestic ones.*

This brings up a larger, unpleasant point, which is that for the most part
measures aimed at counteracting terrorism end up having a considerably
negative impact on domestic freedoms generally.

One can argue whether or not this is actually the purpose of such measures,
but even leaving aside theoretical analysis, the reality is one that should
give most people a sense of urgency when it comes to retaining their wealth
and securing their families.

The ramifications should be clear: The West is entering an era where civil
rights will likely be repressed and restrictions will be placed on numerous
freedoms we take for granted.

Moreover society is about to become much more hierarchical because of a new
sociopolitical paradigm now being implemented around the world. We call
this paradigm "technocracy"
and it creates a privileged class of corporate workers that will have legal
privileges not available to most citizens.
*Conclusion: *

There is, however, still time to generate similar privileges informally
before they become less available due to law and societal repression. We
talk about these solutions regularly and they are intended to counter the
challenges of modern times. Consider taking "human action" whenever
CF COMMENT: It's one of those "penetrating glimpses of the obvious" to say
that governments and the type of people who tend to be in charge of them
are natural-born "never waste a crisis" opportunists, fond of portraying
their excessive, often brutally expedient actions as "pragmatic".

Around the world, governments are responding to Islamic terror by reducing
civil liberties of the non-Muslim population. A foolish, counterproductive
move that, in fact, aids and abets the Muslim majority that longs for a
Global Caliphate. It's the "global" aspect that appeals to the corporate
interests of people like George Soros. The "one global market" that will,
of course, be overseen by the technological elite. So are the Muslims the
tools of the globalists, or is it the other way 'round? Does it really

The problem of Islamic intolerance and violence begins in the 7th Century,
with the rise of the movement itself, as bragged about in their own
accounts of Islam's history and conquests. What matters at the moment is
how the Western powers have created a problem that now threatens their very
existence... because they were "too clever by half".

Military leaders from Napoleon to Kaiser Wilhelm learned the usefulness of
having and using Muslim armies to accomplish their strategic goals. In
modern times, especially since the Reagan and Carter years (with the
encouragement of Zbigniew Brzezinski, and the intensification of support by
Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and now Barry Soetoro a.k.a. B.H. Obama), things
have only gotten worse for those who understand and appreciate genuine

America has spent decades encouraging (and in most cases creating,
training, and supplying) Islamic terror operations. However it has come
about, it's foolish to deny there's a very real push to make Islam the
dominant social and political system in what's left of the Western
(Classical Liberal) Republics.

The solution won't come by giving more power to the Security Services. The
solution is to acknowledge the ideological danger of Islam and to emulate
Charles Martel. "Moderate Islam" proves to be a dangerous myth... dangerous
because it keeps us from seeing things as they really are and projecting
our fantasies on a culture that has no interest in peaceful coexistence.


Other related posts:

  • » [cryptome] Ramifications of the Reign of Terror - Chien Fume