The only likely change in behaviour amongst the British public is a greater feeling of dread when they see someone who looks “a bit foreign.” This fearmongering serves the state’s agenda of control and power by applying the timeless formula of uniting the population against “the enemy within.” It fits seamlessly into the narrative of xenophobia peddled by successive governments, so successfully that around three quarters of people in Britain are now anti-immigration. In the absence of any sort of protective value, Theresa May’s much-publicised announcement can be viewed as a further attempt to galvanise support for the next election. This support is built on the practice of blaming anyone and everyone but politicians for the country’s economic and social difficulties.

Feed 44:

• http://www.c4ss.org/
• http://www.youtube.com/user/c4ssvideos
• https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/c4ss-media/id872405202?mt=2
• http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/smash-walls-radio/c4ss-media?refid=stpr
• https://twitter.com/C4SSmedia

Bitcoin tips welcome:

• 1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB

Ovviamente, il mio amico non ha cambiato i suoi programmi. Quasi nessuno lo fa. È probabile che l’unico cambiamento nel comportamento delle persone consista in un maggiore senso di paura quando vedono qualcuno dall’aspetto “vagamente straniero”. Seminare paura serve al governo, che ha tutto l’interesse a controllare e dominare la popolazione usando lo stratagemma di sempre: compattare la popolazione contro “il nemico tra noi”. Si adatta perfettamente alla definizione di xenofobia, spacciato dal governo con un tale successo che circa tre quarti della popolazione britannica oggi è contro l’immigrazione. In assenza di qualunque genere di valore protettivo, il tanto pubblicizzato annuncio di Theresa May si può considerare un tentativo di galvanizzare il supporto in vista delle prossime elezioni. A tenere in piedi questo supporto c’è la pratica di scaricare le colpe dei problemi economici e sociali del paese su tutti tranne i politici.

Chi ha scelto di non prendere sul serio l’innalzamento del livello di allerta ha risposto britannicamente con la presa in giro, con numerose parodie di #ThreatLevel che fanno il giro di Twitter. Quando la probabilità di morire annegato in una vasca da bagno è quattordici volte quella di essere vittima di un attacco terroristico, questa incuranza per i livelli di allerta del governo è comprensibile. Gli attacchi terroristici sono orribili, nessuno lo nega. Ma che voi (o qualche vostra conoscenza) possiate diventare vittima di un attacco terroristico è incredibilmente improbabile.

È vero che c’è qualche britannico che combatte per l’Isis in Iraq e Siria. Ma è anche vero che tutto questo strombazzare l’innalzamento del livello di allerta non potrebbe nulla se dovessero decidere di compiere un attacco terroristico. Forse se i politici sostituissero queste pose inutili con un esame del fallimento della politica estera, darebbero un vero contributo alla sicurezza dei britannici. Finché questo non avviene, non ci rimane che l’ironia cupa: gli “allarmi terroristici” del governo britannico non aiutano nessuno e, se presi seriamente, servono solo a creare altro terrore.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

My friend did not change his plans, of course. Few — if any — do. The only likely change in behaviour amongst the British public is a greater feeling of dread when they see someone who looks “a bit foreign.” This fearmongering serves the state’s agenda of control and power by applying the timeless formula of uniting the population against “the enemy within.” It fits seamlessly into the narrative of xenophobia peddled by successive governments, so successfully that around three quarters of people in Britain are now anti-immigration. In the absence of any sort of protective value, Theresa May’s much-publicised announcement can be viewed as a further attempt to galvanise support for the next election. This support is built on the practice of blaming anyone and everyone but politicians for the country’s economic and social difficulties.

Those who chose not to take the raised alert level seriously displayed the typically British response of taking the piss, with numerous “#ThreatLevel” parodies doing the rounds on Twitter. When you’re nearly fourteen times more likely to die drowning in a bathtub than as the victim of a terrorist attack, such disregard for government threat levels is understandable. Terror attacks are horrific, and no reasonable person would say otherwise. But you (or indeed someone you know) being a victim of an attack is stupendously improbable.

It’s true to say that a small number of Brits are fighting for ISIS in Iraq and Syria. It’s also true to say that making a huge song-and-dance about raising the terror threat level will do absolutely nothing to prevent them from staging a terrorist attack. Maybe if politicians replaced such needless posturing with an examination of the failures of interventionist foreign policy, they might make a real contribution to the safety of Brits. Until then, we are left with a grim irony; the British government’s “terror alerts” help nobody and — if taken at all seriously — only succeed in creating terror.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, Livello di Allerta: Insensato.

But is gun control opposed by only a minority of people? It’s not so clear. According to Gallup poll from late 2013 49% of people agree that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict. 13% support less strict laws. 37% support keeping things the same and 1% have no opinion. Contra Clinton the subject of gun control is practically a 50/50 split.

Clinton continued, “I was disappointed that the Congress did not pass universal background checks after the horrors of the shootings at Sandy Hook.”

While Americans are divided on gun control more generally, if we are talking about universal background checks, the statistics change dramatically. 79% favor universal background checks for gun buyers, including those purchasing weapons at gun shows and from private sellers, with 13% opposed.

But background checks have little to no effect on  criminals acquiring guns because most criminals acquire their guns through theft, black market transactions or personal acquaintances. A mere 1.7 percent obtain firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.

It’s naive to believe more laws would have an effect on criminals. After all, by definition criminals rarely follow. Rather than preventing guns from getting into the hands of criminals, universal background checks simply terrorize law-abiding gun owners and potential gun owners. Furthermore, background checks have historically been used to disarm marginalized and oppressed groups, especially minorities.

The fact is that Hillary Clinton is not for gun control. She is for gun centralization. She wants to limit possession of guns to the government and people the government approves of. To enforce this policy of gun centralization, she is perfectly willing to resort to violence of her own.

After all, how do gun “control” supporters plan to prevent certain people from getting guns? Those laws will be enforced by police with their own guns.

The only minority terrorizing the majority is the government. Governments were responsible for more deaths than all private individuals combined in the 20^th century, with killing approximately 260,000,000 people. This is the type of organization Hillary wants to put in charge of who does or doesn’t get guns? A proper plan for reducing gun violence would be to take guns away from the government. But that doesn’t fly with the supporters of gun centralization, like Hillary.

Terrorism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal. Hillary obviously has a political goal in mind: Gun centralization. That is, keeping guns in the hands of the government and those the government deems worthy. Her means? Limiting who can or can’t own guns using the threat of police violence.

Gun control opponents are not terrorizing anyone. On the contrary, politicians who support gun control are the terrorists. And we cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.