1/27/16: COWBOYS AND BLM: ACTS OF COERCIVE INSURRECTION

COWBOYS AND BLM

ACTS OF COERCIVE INSURRECTION

Last night around 6:00 PM, I was notified via text I should look into what was happening at the Bundy standoff. I was in the middle of finishing up the production and writing for the show that was planned and figured the FBI was already there setting up a road block, keeping the occupation movement from going anywhere.

As the news unfolded, we were then made aware of the chilling details.

The roadblock was a trap – the reason is the stretch of canyon the road passes through has no cell phone reception for about an hour and it’s nearly impossible to turn around in.

The Bundy group, riding in two vehicles, was stopped by authorities.

Then, it got ugly.

It was unclear to the news organizations at the time just what happened after the caravan was stopped but the reports were that two of the members of Bundy’s group were shot; one of them, dead at the scene.

LaVoy Finicum, one of the leaders of the occupiers, got out of a vehicle and was shot to death by police. Ryan Bundy, brother of Ammon, was shot in the arm. The Bundys were arrested on charges of conspiracy to obstruct federal agents, along with Shawna Cox, Bryan Cavalier, and Ryan Payne.

Internet talk show host Pete Santilli was also arrested on charges of conspiracy to impede federal officers, which is a felony.

Santilli’s live stream had indicated that he was arrested. On a Facebook page associated with Santilli, his colleagues wrote that he was arrested at a road block.

On the Facebook page, they later updated their report stating: “Pete Santilli was arrested after pleading with the FBI to allow him to set up a convoy to save the women and children in the refuge.”

When it comes to sedition, or insurrection or even domestic terrorism the stand offs and the waiting for the first shot to fire has always been an exercise we have seen throughout history.

This type of activity seems to be an outgrowth of a paranoid cell within the country that sees a miscarriage of justice taking place and decides that using proper channels to remedy the problem have been exhausted.

Now I know many people are cheering on law enforcement for how they handled the situation but in the big picture, we may be seeing how this case will set a precedent for many other spiking events that aren’t just cowboys fighting the Bureau of Land Management and their agenda of swallowing up of he lands for resources.

Many people who see this case as just a group of gun toting terrorists taking over small town need to understand that land rights are a complex issue. The rules of just who governs public and private land are not all that black or white.

This is why there needs to be an effort to investigate and thoroughly go over them with land owners instead of showing up at their doorstep brandishing weapons and forcing farmers and ranchers out of their homes.

The truth is that the federal government owns a ridiculous amount of territory in the United States which could be put to use in order to benefit struggling ranchers.

This could have quite possibly helped in containing the noxious entitlement that has been seen going on for the last 25 days.

The dilemma is that while it is crucial to avoid a shoot-out, it is equally crucial to enforce the rule of law.

A common strategy adopted by government operated police states, is to create a broad tactic that hopefully attempts to deter citizens from civil upheaval, civil disobedience, insurrection, sedition and engaging in violent or threatening activity.

All too often we see the stratagem as under-developed and as negotiations and attempts to quell the situation fail, the response from law enforcement eventually becomes a violent reprisal directed at not only those who revolt but the populace itself.

These coercive insurrections provided by disenfranchised or radical citizens usually harden the resolve by those who actively support the police state. It gives the government a reason to open dialogue about such activities, inoculating the public with grandiose threat assessments and misguided wearing down of the laws provided by the Constitution.

Sadly, unless a rebellion is well-organized and is not just a show of solidarity for an occupation or takeover with no defined goals, it begins to unravel and the course of action by a well-organized police force will be swift and severe and in a few cases, disproportionate.

In the times we live in today, we have learned that when one particular group of combatants are contained – if any of them or caught or killed – the act of deterring more insurrections becomes difficult because it may actually encourage more potential rebels to become active.

Some will see these spiking points as cause for civil war.

The question is if anyone truly wants to go that far in proving their point. It is matter of using game theory and appropriate methods of diffusing a situation peacefully.

Nothing is guaranteed because any scenario can play out in these confrontations. However, in the case of the Ammon Bundy standoff, arrests were made but a man was shot and killed. It is being reported that Lavoy Finicum surrendered with his hands up and was still gunned down.

The question that should be asked is was this appropriate? Were the criteria for the rules of engagement met?

Does just being part of the insurgency make you a target for death even if you are unarmed?

Many Americans are well aware of what it takes to annihilate a foreign enemy. We have had many years of media coverage and various documentaries that show us how a foreign enemy can be disarmed, harassed and intimidated by the use of weapons and propaganda.

We do not flinch at the brutality demonstrated against countries that have sworn to bring us to our knees and many will agree that it is in the best interest of America to protect its citizens from potential terrorist activity.

However, for years we have not been paying attention to the open conspiracy of intimidation that is being waged against American citizens.

The chief reason this is happening is because of pundits and statists that encourage the enabling of officials to intimidate citizens because we are under the impression that government over-reach is needed in order to enforce unfair laws.

The idea of a never ending war being waged by our leaders against the enemy of the week has now become so normal for Americans that the predatory option for all people accused of any civil disobedience seems to be the default position by talk show hosts and other pundits who should know better.

While the Ammon Bundy standoff is a case of coercive protest, perhaps to the point of insurrection. It is interesting to see the majority of Americans see this standoff as an act of terrorism.

A key to understanding the political world lies in realizing that the words terrorism and terrorist are inherently political terms. This has been clear in international affairs, but we now see this in domestic matters, something that I need to point out was predicted by the Department of Homeland Security as being home grown and predominantly from the conservative patriot movement.

This type of precognitive profiling sounds more parapolitical than political, as what is happening now was foreshadowed and policies in the Department of Homeland Security were made in favor of shadow government tactics like increased surveillance, civil rights violations and the loss of due process of law.

Parapolitical observations would suggest there is a strange, powerful and structural relationship between state and the security apparatus that has declared a silent war against anyone who wishes to circumvent the processes of full spectrum control of resources by the government.

Any and all rebellion against unjust or unfair laws will be tranquilized by the newly empowered forces both national and international.

Recently, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Department of Justice are joining with the United Nations’ international law enforcement coalition for the claimed purpose of “strengthening community resilience against violent extremism.”

The United Nations’ solution is the Strong Cities Network – something that sounds like it is taken from the page of conspiracy 101, where it has always been feared that U.N. Troops would one day occupy our streets and fire on American citizens.

Lynch proclaimed for the United Nations Strong Cities Network launch the following:

“As we continue to counter a range of domestic and global terror threats, this innovative platform will enable cities to learn from one another, to develop best practices and to build social cohesion and community resilience here at home and around the world.”

You can bet the standoff in Oregon is being or will be used as one of the models seen as a road map in the continuing strategy to curtail civil disobedience and civil upheaval in cities all over the country.

The problem is that the Strong Cities Network will promote “foreign best practices” which conflate defenders of traditional values, and constitutional values with violent extremists.

This means we should caution ourselves to not overuse inherently political words like terrorist to describe extremists, or radicals — it has already been decided how the word should be used in the United Nations plan of law enforcement.

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, however, this is going to change quite rapidly in the future.

Conventional political topics that are raised in the network presidential debates do nothing to address these parapolitical issues that often promulgate the idea that there seems to be a growing willingness to accept there are limits to sovereignty and limits to constitutional law.

Our ragged intersection of different political ideologies do nothing to rectify the problem of police state criminality, disproportionate use of force, surveillance and the infiltration of international police forces to keep the peace through practices of intimidation.

Keep in mind that when government and its enforcers have big and effective hammers everything begins to look like a nail.

You see, an intimidated public is a cooperative public. At least that is what the methodology indicates, and when the mass media enforces an inoculating strategy of newspeak, there can be any number of words and phrases to describe what nail the hammer will come down on next.

CNN has been reporting that the occupiers in Oregon are terrorists.

Is this description fair?

Yes, some occupiers are armed, but now we see who shot first and that should sound a few alarms as to what we can expect in the future as we see the expansion of the police state.

It is now open the police in the United States have been militarized. 95 percent of all cities with a population of 50,000 or more now are required to have a paramilitary police unit.

The buildup of paramilitary police has also been seen in cities of less than 50,000 as well. Many of these paramilitary arms of law enforcement have in their possession an 18 ton Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle. MRAPS were designed to protect troops in Iraq and Afghanistan from insurgents’ homemade bombs, now they are being used by paramilitary police units in cities all across America.

This is being done to create an atmosphere of intimidation. We are no longer being protected by peace officers, but by warriors. This indicates there is a war going on in America. A war where the enemy is not clearly defined but present and will be eliminated by warriors under command of the state and in some cases, federal authorities.

With big guns exchanging gunfire in our cities, we will see terror take on a new meaning.

When the Bundy occupation began in Oregon, no one was terrorized but now the entire community is shut down and the rest of the occupiers are not backing down. In this case I have argued what constructive purpose is served by promiscuously throwing that inflammatory word terrorism around.

If it is a question of whose land is it anyway, we can circumvent all argument and say that it belongs to the Northern Paiute.

That of course, provides another argument that has been overlooked by both the government and the Bundys.

So what is the fight all about?

It seems the fight is unwittingly removing the American identity and American traditions and supplanting them with the philosophies of the globalist oligarchy, where we own nothing, are devoted to nothing, value nothing, worship nothing, and eventually wind up with nothing, because through intimidation, most frightened Americans will find nothing is worth fighting for.

Related Content

Comments