Government Sponsored Terrorism or Public safety?

This fact is basic psychology.

1. You see something new
2. You learn to trust it and accept it.
3. You speak about it, passing on the information you were given to others.
4, You act upon the information given.

In this case the public registry:
1. Public was told there was a need for the registry.
2. They accepted the false statistics perpetuated by political leaders, law enforcement, the media and vigilante groups.
3. The public began to spread the false information.
4. The public acted upon the false information by harassing, threatening, beating and on the extreme end, killing those in this newly created group.

Murder, Acceptable? Really?

Many people are calling these latest murders acceptable. Remember this is the United States, not some middle-eastern country where extremists rule the day. Or perhaps extremism does hold sway in the U.S. as well.

Dr. Peter T. Dickman and Dr. Andrea Bartoli, commenting on extremism noted; Ultimately, the core problem that extremism presents in situations of protracted conflict is less the severity of the activities (although violence, trauma, and escalation are obvious concerns) but more so the closed, fixed, and intolerant nature of extremist attitudes, and their subsequent imperviousness to change.

This describes the situation with current registry laws. True, extremism is usually a problem within small groups, while the mainstream is considered normal; when it comes to sex offender laws however, the extreme attitudes of people in general fits the definition of extremism, including its violence and escalation.

However, do current sex offender laws and specifically the public Sex Offender Registry rise to the definition of Terrorism?

The word, “Terrorism” comes from the French word terrorisme, and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the Reign of terror. The French word terrorisme in turn derives from the Latin verb terre meaning “I frighten”.

The public registry, sponsored by both States and the Federal Government has led to violence, trauma and murder of members of this newly created class known as Registered Sex Offenders and in many cases their innocent family members. According to the definition above, the registry rises to the standards required to meet state sponsored terrorism.

What is more, is that the public is permitted to, even encouraged to, harass, threaten, traumatize and inflict any kind of demeaning ‘punishment’ to those on the registry. This is proven true by reading comments posted on the articles about the two recent murders in Washington. The commenter’s have no fear of stating that killing all registered offenders is a good thing. If this same standard were applied to other groups, such as Blacks or Jews, these same people would be facing charges for racism and terroristic threats. The latter could bring them a prison term. However as long as the person being threatened, even with murder is a registrant, nothing will happen to the person spreading the hate speech or terroristic threats.
It is interesting that our government will pass hate crime legislation, but on the flip side will also sponsor legislation aimed at allowing and even encouraging hate.
The verdict then is conclusive, from the above definitions and the evidence, the Government, at both state and federal levels are sponsoring terrorism in the form of a public registry, a hit list, where rules of conduct do not apply. Where verbal threats are accepted as proper and never prosecuted. This leads to escalation, such as vandalism, beatings and murder. Online stalking of registrants or anyone who becomes involved in reform activism is state approved and is encouraged by federal authorities. Murders of registrants have escalated over the past ten years and at the same time federal and state governments are unable and unwilling to show that the registry has not saved even one child.

This article has only taken into account the terrorism of registrants. It does not go into detail about the terrorism directed to their spouses and children. But these situations do exist and the government is turning a blind eye to them because, after all, the Government is sponsoring the registry and in doing so encouraging the mistreatment of registrants and their families and their friends.

9 comments for “Government Sponsored Terrorism or Public safety?

  1. MARK S
    November 26, 2018 at 4:10 pm

    And the federal/state government sponsored “Hegelian dialectic” wouldn’t you say?

    • Will Bassler
      November 26, 2018 at 5:46 pm

      Hegelian dialectic

      Hegelian dialectic example

      • MARK S.
        November 27, 2018 at 10:57 am


  2. Tim
    November 27, 2018 at 12:52 pm

    The collateral implications for governmental USE of databases to perform electronic domestic surveillance. This was the real “need” of the deepstate. The sex offender and registration, were the scape goats for federal Surveillance Saints..

    • MARK S.
      November 27, 2018 at 5:31 pm

      Tip of the iceberg I say. But you are very correct………………..

      • Tim
        December 18, 2018 at 7:56 pm

        The collateral civil implications for already convicted persons was indeed an extension of punishment primarily retributive in nature. The indenture of humans to state machines had to begin somewhere. However there ate inherent problems with forcing man by law to the maintaining of properties ( machines). Isaac Asimov had something to say about that. When humans decided the following equation rational: MN>HN = Null, it foresake humanity and liberty each in favor of machine. It is hardly the first time big business has undertaken policy favoring K over k, but the Wetterling act was the very first time government “of, for & by the people” did. Suddenly it became about the database machines.

  3. Jon
    November 27, 2018 at 4:10 pm

    Very well stated, Will. I have found the police in my community to be quite re-active when something happens around my house….AFTER the fact, although, rather than a “We’re sorry this happened, Jon, but…well…you know…” And a handshake, not much is really accomplished. I have my best luck with my probation officer who jumps on top of it and immediately starts visiting known vigilantes. Even that, however, is after the fact, and if caught, misdemeanor vandalism?? Harassment is a civil charge, and my primary tormenter-in-cheif is on welfare, can’t sue a person with no money!! Unfortunately, RSOs are not a protected class of people, therefore, we can’t be hated.

  4. Scott
    November 29, 2018 at 12:59 am

    This topic was posted just at the right time. I am going through this as we speak in the early stages in which it involves vigilantes from where i work. I would like to see 2nd and 3rd party websites erased so the only place you can look somebody up is through the designated website via State or Federal. Your privacy rights are virtually altered or erased when someone can google your name and state in the search field and you are found out.

    harassment and hatred is on the rise both at political and general public levels. “No we are not a protected class.” I would dare say you cannot trust the police either. it doesn’t matter whether your crime happened 5 years ago or 20 years ago. Your sentence is never served or satisfied to many of those who spew hatred and vigilantism. People have the power to know your specific address and depending on the state, they may also know what type of vehicle you drive and where you work and now you cannot get food-stamps??

    I would like to know where do “Our” civil rights come in?? I was told we don’t have a leg to stand on by the local civil rights office.

    I keep telling people who criticize me or spew hate, If they can do what they do to me, they will eventually do the same thing to everyone else. Their cellphone should give them the first clue as it tracks everywhere and everything you do. Pros and Cons to that i guess??

  5. kayt
    November 29, 2018 at 9:42 am

    It’s just the same as it’s always been. It’s an Us and Them thing. The attitude of “if we can prove that they are bad, then we who are good must destroy the bad so we who are good will live freely.”

    The question becomes, who is really the bad guy?

Comments are closed.