Threats, lies, and disinformation.

How far would our leaders go in shaping a narrative of fear that supports their aims? If history is a guide, no lie is too deceptive, no truth safe from their abuse. Read more below ↴

Remember → All Anticitizen readers can now join Untaxable (and learn to pay 0% tax) on a trial at no risk. Join today.

📖 ESTIMATED READ TIME: 5 min 50 seconds

A threat over seas.

In the year 1534, England’s Tudor king Henry VIII enacted a shocking edict. He broke from Catholic Rome and severed ties with the Pope, a move that would grant him more control over England’s laws and its people.

England, however, was mostly Catholic. The Tudors, now newly Protestant monarchs, faced a realm rife with loyalty to Rome—nobles plotting, peasants restless, and a population still dedicated to the papacy. To unite this fractured kingdom, they created a fiction rooted in fear: the Catholic threat.

Under Henry’s daughter Elizabeth I, the narrative of a looming Catholic invasion into England gained momentum. The Tudors amplified this story through pamphlets and sermons designed to stoke fear among the commoners, that told tales of spies lurking in taverns, priests conducting clandestine masses, and plots hatched in shadowy corners. Such stories became staples of public imagination.

Even though actual Catholic conspiracies were rare and often inept, this inflated fear enabled Elizabeth’s advisors to justify harsher laws, and to strengthen their grip on an increasingly anxious populace.

The crown jewel of Elizabeth’s propaganda was its framing of Spain’s Catholic armada. A formidable threat to England to be sure, but one that was significantly amplified in the minds of the people, using narratives that that magnified its scale and might to underscore the stakes. This exaggeration served two purposes: it justified the mobilisation of resources and efforts for war, and it set the stage for any future victory to be celebrated as a miraculous triumph over a seemingly invincible foe.

Elizabeth’s government allowed apocalyptic visions of Spanish troops storming English villages to persist, keeping the people in a constant state of terror. The monarch's council knowingly distorted reality, leading ordinary Englishmen to believe their survival depended entirely on unwavering obedience to the Crown.

Such carefully constructed fear granted the queen unprecedented loyalty, allowing her to enact laws that would have otherwise incited rebellion, and to impose additional taxes that would drive her people further into poverty.

By the end of Elizabeth's reign, England was undeniably Protestant, not merely through religious conviction, but primarily through state-crafted anxiety. Fear had become the Crown’s most effective weapon, wielded to divide, control, and dictate every aspect of life.

All made possible because the Tudor dynasty understood an age-old truth: frightened subjects are compliant subjects.

It’s a duck.

In a modern reflection of the Tudors manipulating England to believe that Catholic Spain was a threat to their realm, we are being fed a story of a nearby threat ready to destroy our very existence: Russia.

In advance, this letter is not intended to defend Russia. It clearly violated the borders of a sovereign country in 2022, which is, and always should be, an unacceptable use of a nation’s ability to project its force.

But to quote Obama’s former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel:

“Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

At an emergency summit in Brussels on March 6th, the European Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen, approved a massive defence spending bill of up to €800 billion dollars over the next few years, with the primary aim of bolstering the EU’s military might.

Individual European nations are also strengthening their own individual armies. Germany is proposing to spend an additional €500 billion to bolster its armed forces, while Estonia is proposing tax hikes for military funding, including an additional 2% “war tax” on corporations to achieve this end.

This comes as the media fills our psyches with the rising fear of an ever-imminent Russian invasion.

A myriad of news sources suggest Europe couldn’t defend itself without NATO, and that Trump will leave the alliance at any moment. Zelenskyy has stated Russia “will wage war on NATO” if the USA withdraws its support, suggesting it may invade Europe from Belarus as early as next year. And Danish intelligence recently warned Russia could start a major war in Europe within five years.

In other words, Russia is a dire threat to Europe.

Or is it?

It’s a little-known fact, even amongst European citizens, that the EU doesn’t need NATO to coordinate defence if one member state is invaded. Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union (enacted in 2009) dictates if an EU member is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, other member states have an “obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power.”

In other words, EU nations are obliged to come together in collective defence, exactly like NATO.

I’m not suggesting NATO should be disbanded because of this, I’m simply pushing back on the narrative that without NATO, the EU is at risk of a Russian invasion.

Next, let’s look at some simple numbers.

(Story continues below…)

Get your 7-day trial of Untaxable, and learn how to legally pay zero tax. Untaxable is a service by Anticitizen, where we help you navigate our world’s infinitely complicated tax system, and get your tax rate to 0%—or at the very least, as close to that as possible. Start today with no risk.

Here is how Russia’s military might compares with that of the collective EU:

POPULATION
🇷🇺 144 million
🇪🇺 449 million (3x larger)

TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL (incl. reserves)
🇷🇺 2.38 million
🇪🇺 3.5 to 4 million (+47%)

COMBAT AIRCRAFT
🇷🇺 1,500
🇪🇺 1,800 to 2,000 (+20%)

NAVAL SHIPS
🇷🇺 600
🇪🇺 1,100 (+83%)

GDP
🇷🇺 €2 trillion
🇪🇺 €19-20 trillion (Approx 10x larger)

I could go on, but you get the picture.

Even without the support of non-EU NATO allies the USA, UK, Turkey, and Canada (which would result in an even further vast outnumbering of Russia’s forces) the EU’s combined military might and raw population described above would leave Russia in the dust if it invaded. This isn’t even taking into account the EU’s vastly more modern military equipment and home ground advantage.

With these basic figures in mind, let me ask you two simple questions:

1. Do you honestly believe Russia has a chance in an invasion of Europe, considering the stats above?

2. Do you think Putin is smart enough to know how deficient his forces are in comparison to those of the EU?

It’s not my place to make up your mind for you.

At the very least however, I’d like you to consider that just maybe, the EU is very aware that its combined armed forces have the upper hand against Russia—if an invasion was attempted, the Union would be more than capable of defending itself, even without the support of NATO.

If the EU knows that, why is it talking so much about the Russian threat?

Europe has been pushing for a centralised military force for decades now. The idea of a grand central army actually goes way back to 1952, when West Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy and the Netherlands signed the EDC treaty with the idea of creating a unified European army with a common budget, arms, and command structure.

Talks of creating a Europe-wide military force were stoked again in the late 90’s, which has again kicked into high gear since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Just this past week, Spanish president Pedro Sánchez once again called for the creation of such an army:

“It is time to create a European army, EU armed forces with troops from all 27 member countries, working under a single flag with the same objectives.”

Previously, an EU army has never received mass support of the people.

Politicians and citizens alike have argued that creating a centralised army would grant more control to Brussels, give away individual national sovereignty, and further plunge the EU into debt. A debt that today stands at nearly €13 trillion.

Herein lies the crux of my argument.

It’s difficult to sell the idea to your people that they should become poorer and give up more of their autonomy and freedoms to create an army that has no purpose.

However, it’s much easier to get them to accept the creation of said army, if you make them live in fear of a threat you know will never come.

Frightened subjects are compliant subjects.

At the very least, we should consider the possibility that like governments of ages past, the EU is quite possibly using propaganda to weaponise the opinions of its people to achieve the will of those in power.

To me, it stinks of manufactured consent.

Consent brought about by using fear: the greatest tool of control ever conceived, used by governments, emperors, and kings for thousands of years.

I can’t know for sure. But my gut always tells me we should probably use history as a guide.

In other words: if it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

Written by Leon Hill.
Founder, Anticitizen.

This newsletter is for educational purposes, and is not financial advice. Please do your own research, and consider risks involved with investing or purchasing any asset.