By John Whitehead
WITH COMMENTS BY JEFFERSON’S VOICE AT THE BOTTOM
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”—John F. Kennedy
Those tempted to write off the standoff at the Bundy Ranch as little more than a show of force by militia-minded citizens would do well to reconsider their easy dismissal of this brewing rebellion. This goes far beyond concerns about grazing rights or the tension between the state and the federal government. Few conflicts are ever black and white, and the Bundy situation, with its abundance of gray areas, is no exception. Yet the question is not whether Cliven Bundy and his supporters are domestic terrorists, as Harry Reid claims, or patriots, or something in between. Nor is it a question of whether the Nevada rancher is illegally grazing his cattle on federal land or whether that land should rightfully belong to the government. Nor is it even a question of who’s winning the showdown— the government with its arsenal of SWAT teams, firepower and assault vehicles, or Bundy’s militia supporters with their assortment of weapons—because if such altercations end in bloodshed, everyone loses. What we’re really faced with, and what we’ll see more of before long, is a growing dissatisfaction with the government and its heavy-handed tactics by people who are tired of being used and abused and are ready to say “enough is enough.” And it won’t matter what the issue is—whether it’s a rancher standing his ground over grazing rights, a minister jailed for holding a Bible study in his own home, or a community outraged over police shootings of unarmed citizens—these are the building blocks of a political powder keg. Now all that remains is a spark, and it need not be a very big one, to set the whole powder keg aflame. As I show in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, there’s a subtext to this incident that must not be ignored, and it is simply this: America is a pressure cooker with no steam valve, and things are about to blow. This is what happens when a parasitical government muzzles the citizenry, fences them in, herds them, brands them, whips them into submission, forces them to ante up the sweat of their brows while giving them little in return, and then provides them with little to no outlet for voicing their discontent. The government has been anticipating and preparing for such an uprising for years. For example, in 2008, a U.S. Army War College report warned that the military must be prepared for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,” which could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse,” “purposeful domestic resistance,” “pervasive public health emergencies” or “loss of functioning political and legal order”—all related to dissent and protests over America’s economic and political disarray. Consequently, predicted the report, the “widespread civil violence would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.” One year later, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security under President Obama issued its infamous reports on Rightwing and Leftwing “Extremism.” According to these reports, an extremist is defined as anyone who subscribes to a particular political viewpoint. Rightwing extremists, for example, are broadly defined in the report as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.” Despite “no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,” the DHS listed a number of scenarios that could arise as a result of so-called rightwing extremists playing on the public’s fears and discontent over various issues, including the economic downturn, real estate foreclosures and unemployment. Equally disconcerting, the reports use the words “terrorist” and “extremist” interchangeably. In other words, voicing what the government would consider to be extremist viewpoints is tantamount to being a terrorist. Under such a definition, I could very well be considered a terrorist. So too could John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr., Roger Baldwin (founder of the ACLU), Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams—all of these men protested and passionately spoke out against government practices with which they disagreed and would be prime targets under this document. The document also took pains to describe the political views of those who would qualify as being a rightwing extremist. For example, you are labeled a rightwing extremist if you voice concerns about a myriad of issues including: policy changes under President Obama; the economic downturn and home foreclosures; the loss of U.S. jobs in manufacturing and construction sectors; and social issues such as abortion, interracial crimes and immigration. DHS also issued a red-flag warning against anyone who promotes “conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps.” Fast forward five years, with all that has transpired, from the Occupy Protests and the targeting of military veterans to domestic surveillance, especially of activist-oriented groups and now, most recently, the Bundy Ranch showdown, and it would seem clear that the government has not veered one iota from its original playbook. Indeed, the government’s full-blown campaign of surveillance of Americans’ internet activity, phone calls, etc., makes complete sense in hindsight. All that we have been subjected to in recent years—living under the shadow of NSA spying; motorists strip searched and anally probed on the side of the road; innocent Americans spied upon while going about their daily business in schools and stores; homeowners having their doors kicked in by militarized SWAT teams serving routine warrants—illustrates how the government deals with people it views as potential “extremists”: with heavy-handed tactics designed to intimidate the populace into submission and discourage anyone from stepping out of line or challenging the status quo. It’s not just the Cliven Bundys of the world who are being dealt with in this manner. Don Miller, a 91-year-old antiques collector, recently had his Indiana home raided by the FBI, ostensibly because it might be in the nation’s best interest if the rare and valuable antiques and artifacts Miller had collected over the course of 80 years were cared for by the government. Such tactics carried out by anyone other than the government would be considered grand larceny, and yet the government gets a free pass. In the same way, the government insists it can carry out all manner of surveillance on us—listen in on our phone calls, read our emails and text messages, track our movements, photograph our license plates, even enter our biometric information into DNA databases—but those who dare to return the favor, even a little, by filming potential police misconduct, get roughed up by the police, arrested, charged with violating various and sundry crimes. When law enforcement officials—not just the police, but every agent of the government entrusted with enforcing laws, from the president on down—are allowed to discard the law when convenient, and the only ones having to obey the law are the citizenry and not the enforcers, then the law becomes only a tool to punish us, rather than binding and controlling the government, as it was intended. This phenomenon is what philosopher Abraham Kaplan referred to as the law of the instrument, which essentially says that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In the scenario that has been playing out in recent years, we the citizenry have become the nails to be hammered by the government’s henchmen, a.k.a. its guns for hire, a.k.a. its standing army, a.k.a. the nation’s law enforcement agencies. Indeed, there can no longer be any doubt that militarized police officers, the end product of the government—federal, local and state—and law enforcement agencies having merged, have become a “standing” or permanent army, composed of full-time professional soldiers who do not disband. Yet these permanent armies are exactly what those who drafted the U.S. Constitution feared as tools used by despotic governments to wage war against its citizens. That is exactly what we are witnessing today: a war against the American citizenry. Is it any wonder then that Americans are starting to resist? More and more, Americans are tired, frustrated, anxious, and worried about the state of their country. They are afraid of an increasingly violent and oppressive federal government, and they are worried about the economic insecurity which still grips the nation. And they’re growing increasingly sick of being treated like suspects and criminals. As former law professor John Baker, who has studied the growing problem of overcriminalization, noted, “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime. That is not an exaggeration.” To make matters worse, a recent scientific study by Princeton researchers confirms that the United States of America is not the democracy that is purports to be, but rather an oligarchy, in which “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy.” As PolicyMic explains, “An oligarchy is a system where power is effectively wielded by a small number of individuals defined by their status called oligarchs. Members of the oligarchy are the rich, the well connected and the politically powerful, as well as particularly well placed individuals in institutions like banking and finance or the military… In other words, their statistics say your opinion literally does not matter.” So if average Americans, having largely lost all of the conventional markers of influencing government, whether through elections, petition, or protest, have no way to impact their government, no way to be heard, no assurance that their concerns are truly being represented and their government is one “by the people, of the people, and for the people,” as opposed to being engineered expressly for the benefit of the wealthy elite, then where does that leave them? To some, the choice is clear. As psychologist Erich Fromm recognized in his insightful book, On Disobedience: “If a man can only obey and not disobey, he is a slave; if he can only disobey and not obey, he is a rebel (not a revolutionary). He acts out of anger, disappointment, resentment, yet not in the name of a conviction or a principle.” Unfortunately, the intrepid, revolutionary American spirit that stood up to the British, blazed paths to the western territories, and prevailed despite a civil war, multiple world wars, and various economic depressions has taken quite a beating in recent years. Nevertheless, the time is coming when each American will have to decide: will you be a slave, rebel or revolutionary?
REPUBLISHED WITH COMMENTS
By Jefferson’s Voice
Great article, however, did you notice Mr. Whitehead was careful to NOT mention Agenda 21 and global governance? Americans and the rest of the world need to know that the growing tyranny is part of a clearly defined SYSTEM being constructed to control us in every sphere of our lives on a continuous basis and the takeaway lesson from the Bundy ranch situation is it epitomizes Agenda 21, a very big piece of the puzzle.
John Whitehead could greatly magnify the impact of his excellent commentaries if he expanded upon the bigger picture, no holding back. Recall Brandon Raub was the young soldier who was hauled off on the order of federal authorities and put into a psychiatric facility for his Facebook comments. As Raub’s legal representative, Whitehead said he believed Raub has the right to his opinion that 9/11 was an inside job and there was a cabal controlling the US, but he did not agree with this viewpoint.
Clearly, Whitehead limits how far he will call out our elite overlords, walking a careful line to say only what is generally known without exposing the deeper issues. That’s where we all need to pick up the baton and fully educate others so they can connect more dots! There truly is a good teaching moment at hand. Did you also notice the prominent mention of an oligarchy? This point by Whitehead is not incidental or a random observation. A friend of mine sent me a recent Bill Moyers interview of NY Times Establishment shill economist Paul Krugman about a “seminal” new book by a French economist who “conclusively shows” that the US is shifting away from being a democratic nation to becoming an oligarchy. Remarkably, Moyers claimed this news was an “epiphany” for him, and Krugman seemed equally “shocked” (it would seem Krugman also didn’t anticipate the housing bubble implosion and banking crisis despite critical warning signs).
The globalist slam dunk came near the end of the program as Moyers and Krugman led gullible viewers to believe that the solution to this dangerous oligarchy trend is a global tax. I was asked to deconstruct the 24 minute video clip to analyze the limited hangout and explain what wasn’t said that should have been. (My response is below.) After watching the Moyers interview, I realized this oligarchy narrative is being used, in part, to proffer a Hegelian style “solution” of a global tax, under the guise of taxing the wealthy for “redistribution” to the poor when the reality it is the same Trojan horse the global carbon tax was.
The oligarchy or plutocracy that pulls the strings of people like Moyers and Krugman has no interest in taxing itself into oblivion to help the struggling masses soon to be trapped in a global police state and major economic contraction pincer-like movement. It’s another meme to torpedo, and in the process expose the entire system of control. Do you see how sneaky the presentation of new elite memes and psychological operations (psy ops) can be? I’m including the youtube link for the Moyers interview in case you’re curious. It’s about 24 minutes long. You probably don’t need to watch it to get the points I made. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzQYA9Qjsi0
Yes, my friend, this is big limited hangout. Moyers gets the ball rolling by stating the massive shift in wealth started in 1977, when, over the course of the next three decades, “60% of national income went to the 1% richest Americans”. Guess what supra-national body of elite policy makers got started in 1977 dominating the entire Carter administration? The Trilateralists! Not surprisingly, there is no mention of this by Moyers or Krugman. Some other glaring omissions in the interview include: >Long established ruling banking oligarchy completely ignored. >For decades it has been known that contrary to the image of a US meritocracy system, upward mobility is highly limited being the exception rather than the rule.
So the notion that it is “surprising” most wealth is inherited wealth is largely disingenuous. >Are they also surprised about the effects of lowering capital gains taxes to a mere 15% for the benefit of the “investment class”? >Monetary inflation implemented by the federal reserve is designed to create bubbles, especially stock market related bubbles (even the housing bubble was part of a stock bubble situation due to the tie to derivatives and the housing bubble driving spending). So it’s not surprising those earning their living with a job as their only income getting a 2 or 3 percent raise in an environment where general inflation is around 10% are going to see a widening gap with the investment class that is earning an average of 15% on their returns (and more for those with higher connections*) and paying less in income tax due to the “capital gains” loophole. >*Moyers and Krugman don’t know about insider investment “tips”?
An investment banker I am acquainted with was married to a SEC lawyer and he told me there are a lot of prominent people (including members of Congress) who have been caught doing insider trading and the SEC simply tells them to stop, they don’t even get fined. Can you imagine how routine this kind of thing is and how long it has been going on? Look at Neil Bush and the savings and loans scandal, McCain and the Keating Five deal, recently Reid’s son and the BLM trying to push out that last remaining rancher for the Chinese solar company Reid’s son represents, , , , ad infinitum. It’s a racket, or as George Carlin said a rigged game / casino.
>When I took a sociology class in college the instructor told us how much wealth was centralized in the US. It was clear in the 1970s and 1980s, probably earlier, we were already in a state of near oligarchy simply by measures of percentage of US capital ownership. >Remember I told you about the Iron Law of Politics, the historical trend in a large increasingly centralized society for oligarchs to seize power and fully dominate the political process? Think about the paradigm of Technocracy in policy practice coming from the Trilateralists to centralize economic and political power. And we are to believe this plan or concept wasn’t taken to its logical conclusion by any establishment academics?
>What about the often cited quote from Rockefeller about a world government run by international bankers and media complicity to hide this plan?**. Didn’t Moyers and others of his ilk ever wonder what plan Rockefeller was referring to?? The implementation of this plan requires an oligarchical / plutocrat “elite” power structure. Note that Rockefeller thanks the NY Times and other publications for their “discretion” obfuscating the plan to install a world government, and, coming around full circle, Krugman is a prominent NY Times columnist.
>Moyers statement: “Conservatives say inequality doesn’t matter”. Straw man argument! Sure, some neoconservatives will publicly say that (very different political animal from what is now more commonly termed “paleo conservatives”), but they are ideologically following the same path as the neoliberals who are also pushing for IMF dominance around the world and austerity, not wealth confiscation of the super rich oligarchy as left gatekeepers would have you believe.
>”Redistribution” in Krugman’s elite world is not taxing the crap out of the super rich, rather it is Technocratic centralization and rationing. >>>Think about a system that deliberately and methodically pumps most of the capital to a tiny elite and their minions by shifting that capital away from the working and middle classes using their control over the monetary system. At some point the bottom 50% are struggling so much that the “solution” is to further centralize the system by taxing a portion of the elites’ wealth (“redistribution”) and through a government run series of programs the public has to provide all their personal data to enroll in and qualify to use these programs for basic survival and these “services” will be tightly rationed. That’s the blueprint for Technocracy! It’s also a problem / reaction / solution strategy, right?
>Moyers brings up “global tax”! That was the intention of the Trojan horse of global carbon tax which didn’t get the desired traction, hence, the-powers-that-be (TPTB) are floating a new global tax “frame” of redistribution to the poor. >More consideration of the global tax. It is a centralizing tax, correct? Again, recall that centralization of economic power is at the heart of the Iron Law of Politics whereby an oligarchy eventually seizes control. The answer to globalist tyranny and oppression is a global tax? Absurd reasoning, right?
>Krugman “I don’t think we gave up hope on these things..” (violin music) What does he KNOW about global Technocratic governance? >Have you ever considered why is it that an establishment left gatekeeper economist like Krugman never suggests elimination or drastic reduction of taxes for the working poor and struggling lower ends of the middle classes? Yes, this unfair taxing of the poor working stiff is anticipated on the program so Moyers throws us a tiny bone lamenting tax loopholes to rich donors and deftly moves on. The system is far more concerned about control than the dignity of self-support for the bottom earners (can’t have that!). The only reason neoliberals are pushing hard for an increase in the minimum wage is TPTB have to deal with a growing deflation pressure variable coming from the lowest paid workers that is hampering their monetary inflation paradigm. Moyers and Krugman don’t appear to be very penetrating! What can they do now? For over 10 years, the alternative media has been pounding on the concept of an oligarchy / plutocracy / international banker pyramid of power / deliberate transfer of wealth / etc.
The meme is already widely accepted in the general public. Moyers and other media lapdogs of the global elite are desperately trying to look relevant and for some Americans who only follow the mainstream media they probably think this is cutting edge reporting!
** We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto-determination practiced in past centuries.–David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991
The Bundy Paradigm Will You Be a Rebel Revolutionary or a Slave?