Written by Robert Bruce Baird

Inrepparttar words of a secret agent who has signedrepparttar 141300 Official Secrets Act in Britain we findrepparttar 141301 rationale for what government and supranational organizations have been involved in since Cleopatra, Christopher Marlowe and his own immediate predecessors Crowley and Ian Fleming. David Barrett tells us:

"Althoughrepparttar 141302 policies of 'need-to-know' and 'compartmentalized knowledge' can sometimes cause more trouble than they're worth, there are very sensible reasons for them; there are many things which do requirerepparttar 141303 highest levels of secrecy. If a careless word at an embassy cocktail party were to reveal how successful Britain was at intercepting and decrypting another country's communications, a simple change of cypher equipment or cypher key generator could throwaway years of painstaking work at GCHQ. Another careless word could causerepparttar 141304 life of a long-term, well-established British agent abroad to be threatened, or atrepparttar 141305 very to be bust open.

Lord George-Brown, a former Foreign Secretary (1966-68), raises a disturbing point about security, andrepparttar 141306 trustworthiness or otherwise of members ofrepparttar 141307 security services andrepparttar 141308 Diplomatic Service - and, by extension, MPs and Ministers of State. If someone is under suspicion, he writes,

‘Inevitably, much ofrepparttar 141309 evidence in such cases is hearsay or almost unprovable deduction, and one must reckon withrepparttar 141310 natural wish of colleagues to protect, as it were, a fellow-member ofrepparttar 141311 club, especially when they don't know, and can't really be told,repparttar 141312 full extent ofrepparttar 141313 matter. This clearly happened inrepparttar 141314 case of Burgess and Maclean. (60)

MPs themselves are a club; very senior civil servants - 'the Whitehall mandarins' - are a club, members of MI5 and MI6 are a club;repparttar 141315 British establishment, whether in public office or not, is a club. Most of these people also belong to various gentlemen's clubs; some belong to that huge but secretive club,repparttar 141316 Freemasons. Without casting any aspersions against any of these organizations, or their rules, regulations, restrictions, customs or obligations regarding 'mutual support' and 'members in need', it is not inrepparttar 141317 slightest surprising if individual members look out forrepparttar 141318 interests of each other, especially if they are friends and dinner and drinking companions. Overrepparttar 141319 years favours, large and small, are traded; when someone is potentially in trouble, fellow 'club' members are likely - rightly or wrongly - to help them out.

The sort of 'corruption' of which critics accuse Freemasonry is notrepparttar 141320 fault of Freemasonry any more than two members of any other club helping each other isrepparttar 141321 fault of that club. In most cases it's questionable whether it's even corruption. Really it's simply human nature, for good and for bad. But those who spend their lives looking for evil, will find it everywhere." (61)

Domestic Terrorism Versus National Militarism

Written by Punkerslut

Domestic Terrorism Versus National Militarism

By Punkerslut

When a person commits an act today that relies on force or violence, without being condoned by a government or established rule, itis commonly call a "terrorist act," committed by "terrorists" or "militants." When a person commits a forceful or violent act, though, underrepparttar rule and order of a government or established rule, condoned byrepparttar 140747 leaders of that government, it is called a "militaristic act." Prior torepparttar 140748 election ofrepparttar 140749 National Socialist Party in pre-Nazi Germany,repparttar 140750 few secluded violent acts committed by anti-semites were considered vulgar acts of injustice, committed by political and religious militants, or "terrorists." Oncerepparttar 140751 National Socialist Party occupiedrepparttar 140752 majority positions inrepparttar 140753 legislature and executive branches of German government, violence committed againstrepparttar 140754 Jews was no longer considered a "terroristic act," -- in fact, it was considered a "militaristic act," accepted, supported, even funded and led byrepparttar 140755 government. Oncerepparttar 140756 Nazi Party was in power, all acts that supportedrepparttar 140757 liberation and welfare ofrepparttar 140758 persecuted Jews was considered an act of terrorism; such people who do this being called "terrorists," "vandals," and even "traitors." Harriet Tubman was also considered a terrorist, whose acts of force were directed towards liberatingrepparttar 140759 enslaved black race. The government would change. Individuals now whose actions are towards murdering or harming blacks are considered "terrorists." To call Osama Bin Laden a terrorist is equally justified as calling Harriet Tubman a terrorist, as much as it may displease people and their cultural prejudice, sincerepparttar 140760 government and media has done all that it can to convince us that terrorism opposes liberty, when one ofrepparttar 140761 greatest terrorists was also oneofrepparttar 140762 greatest liberators. Perhapsrepparttar 140763 best example to illustraterepparttar 140764 point I am making is to describe Adolf Hitler in this way: "A terrorist, until he became accepted -- then just a ruler of a nation."

Understand here, that I am making no pardoning plea for Adolf Hitler and his ways. This is not a pardoning plea for Nazis; it is an indictment of government.

The initial response of anyone to these string of facts is thatrepparttar 140765 term "leader" versus "terrorist" is neither positive or negative, but completely neutral. The only thing these terms can indicate is that an individual does not use passive acts of resistance to accomplishrepparttar 140766 change they desire in society. The government's claims that Osama Bin Laden is a "terrorist" and not a "leader" is not different from stalin's regime callingrepparttar 140767 freedom fighters "terrorists" and not "leaders." Similarly,repparttar 140768 governments' claims that George Bush is a "nation leader" and not a "terrorist" are no different thankrepparttar 140769 claims that Mussolini is "just a military leader" and not a terrorist. The only differente betweenrepparttar 140770 terms is that one is popularly accepted whilerepparttar 140771 other is not.

The unfortunate fact ofrepparttar 140772 matter is that governments have committed just as horrible acts againstrepparttar 140773 innocent and peaceful as terrorists have, and even worse,repparttar 140774 reverse is true. Terrorists have liberated, freed millions, doing all in their power to breakrepparttar 140775 chains of bondage to everyone in any unjust slavery -- as some government's have. It quite simply is a meaningless term.

All of this being understood, we must consider modern acts of "terrorism." While any act committed byrepparttar 140776 popular group, using force, is known as a military act, any act committed by an unpopular, underground group, through force is known as a terroristic act (the underground French army that revolted against German Nazis, for example). So, by wwhat method is one group effectively established? The methods by which a government is chosen hav varied throughrepparttar 140777 ages and diversified throughrepparttar 140778 regions. There isrepparttar 140779 typical method of a leader gaining his support through military power, as a king, monarch, despot, or dictator. The other method of establishing power is through election, wheret he people choose their king, only he is called a president, chancellor, or prime minister. In some cases, these systems are combined, or diversified, or both. A house of representatives or two, may have two ways of being elected (such asrepparttar 140780 U.S. has a Congress and House of Representatives), butrepparttar 140781 central executive power may be a king.

In our civilization, I find it unfortunate that so much trust and loyalty would be placed with government. The reasons why people do so is because their media is draped inrepparttar 140782 cloak of government influence. The reason why anyone doubtsrepparttar 140783 government is also obvious, because some intelligent works slipped throughrepparttar 140784 barriers to willing and open-minded individuals. I can, in fact, throw out a great deal of hypothetical situations, but before I do, one must understand that I am not stretchingrepparttar 140785 rules of relaity or social organization. Harriet Tubman is a terrorist as much as Adolf Hitler was only a military ruler,repparttar 140786 first equalled to Osama Bin Laden andrepparttar 140787 second equaled to George Bush, as far asrepparttar 140788 their titles go.

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use