The choice

The Brussels bombings are the latest steps in the closing down of dissent. Ever since 9/11 provided the initial impetus to embark on illegal wars and the implementation of the police state, the descent into fear and control has progressed. As enthusiasm for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq waned, along with the credibility of the Bush and Blair regimes in the US and UK, a reminder was needed; it came in the form of the (intelligence services) choreographed attacks in London on 7/7 2005. There were other attacks/incidents in between but the 2013 Boston bombing was the next major application of the false flag "cattle prod" to keep the increasingly fearful in line. Now Europe has become the battle ground for grinding down dissent and raising the fear factor while the attacks on our psyches come thicker and faster; last year Paris was the focus for two shocks to the collective psyche, Charlie Hebdo in January and the November attacks. Now it is Brussels, the heart of the EU project; the more the system gets away with, the more confident and blatant the deception and lies become.

So we have a choice:

Do we allow ourselves become fearful to speak out and expose these incidents for what they are - the cynical manipulation of shock and fear to achieve compliance and total control? Are we just sheep, prepared to be quietly shepherded towards total submission, incarceration or death? It would appear that the public vilification and victimisation of those who put their heads above the parapet (Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, Ed Snowden etc. - irrespective of whether some are PSYOPS) and overt draconian surveillance are having the desired effect in persuading people to self-censor.

Under Surveillance: Examining Facebook’s Spiral of Silence Effects in the Wake of NSA Internet Monitoring by Elizabeth Stoycheff
Since Edward Snowden exposed the National Security Agency’s use of controversial online surveillance programs in 2013, there has been widespread speculation about the potentially deleterious effects of online government monitoring. This study explores how perceptions and justification of surveillance practices may create a chilling effect on democratic discourse by stifling the expression of minority political views. Using a spiral of silence theoretical framework, knowing one is subject to surveillance and accepting such surveillance as necessary act as moderating agents in the relationship between one’s perceived climate of opinion and willingness to voice opinions online. Theoretical and normative implications are discussed.

Or do we speak out and risk becoming targets ourselves?

There is no real choice. We have to speak out, all of us, continuously and loudly, within families, with our friends, with people we meet. Visible examination and expressed doubt are our only means of defence while greater numbers ensure our freedom. We are too many to lock up and so unite in truth rather than shrivel into isolation and compliance.

The panoply of "security" and the exponential increase in intelligence and surveillance spending has added to our fear and insecurity. The only way to recover our collective freedom and sanity is to refuse to play their game. Don't succumb to the fear.

Please register to post comments