Breaking Silence About the Malheur Wildlife Refuge Situation
In my last post I wrote that I would forego posting my own insights regarding the situation at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge at Burns, Oregon. I didn’t want to prejudice anyone against the people who had gone to Burns to protest and who were (and still are) in a precarious position. I didn’t think it could end well for them, and I didn’t want to add to their troubles. Even though not everyone is out, I think the time has come for me to speak, as my words are weighing heavily on my heart.
For some time, I have been concerned about the direction in which I see the Liberty Movement headed. I have actually debated writing an article outlining my concerns for about a year, but I didn’t know if I could make myself understood or if anyone would listen.
First of all, I have been concerned for a long time that something like the Malheur Wildlife Refuge situation would take place. This was not too difficult to foresee, but the dynamics leading up to this unfortunate event were more challenging to unravel. Let me just say that I believe that movers and shakers among the globalists were hoping that something like the takeover at Burns would happen, and the more violent the incident, the better for their purposes.
My first intimation that something like the ranchers’ protest at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge had been foreseen, and was hoped for, was an article about a study conducted by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism under the Department of Homeland Security. This study showed a couple of places in North Idaho as being the site of a terrorist attack.
I was astonished at this warning, as I have never known a single domestic terrorist in the almost forty years since I first came to Northern Idaho and Northwest Montana. I couldn’t imagine what made people think we were at risk for domestic terrorism. In my experience, the vast majority of Idahoans are law-abiding, conventional people who believe in their 2nd Amendment rights, like to hunt, are patriotic, easygoing, love the outdoors, and, if anything, have been a bit too complacent about national politics. I thought maybe the authors of the study must be thinking about the Aryan Nations at Hayden, Idaho who were not liked by anyone I knew. But there at the top of Idaho was a little dot in Boundary County. There was a larger dot in the Coeur d’ Alene area.
The study looked at domestic terrorism across the political spectrum including the extreme right-wing. The report held that rural areas were not exempt from domestic terrorism. Since I didn’t know too many leftists here, and since sociologists believe rural areas the world over are more conservative than urban areas, I was especially interested in seeing what the study had to say about the profile of extreme right-wing potential terrorists. Their definition follows:
Extreme Right-Wing: groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.
Anatomy of a Terrorist: That’s Me?
I found this definition to be both disturbing and puzzling. I have to say that I value my personal liberty and independence greatly, and since I was part of the back-to-the land movement in the seventies, you might say I’m a survivalist in a certain sense, though I had never considered myself to be one. I never thought we could survive completely apart from civilized society, and why should we? After all, why spend all one’s time surviving when one could practice a profession or the arts? When I finished my bachelors degree and teaching certificate, I couldn’t wait to get back to the old-fashioned skills I practiced before I had to leave to get an education. I couldn’t wait to get back to the land again. I wanted to practice herbalism, have bees and a garden. Mostly because it is a way of life I loved as a young woman and I wanted to preserve the knowledge for the next generation. But as the economy has become unstable, I believe that, yes, Americans need to return to these skills to survive hard times. Also, since 9/11, I have believed that American citizens should be prepared to defend their homeland, which to me is a sensible, traditional and reasonable outlook. Committing an act of terrorism is abhorrent to me and to everyone I know. It never occurred to me that anyone could consider this outlook to be indicative of a terrorist.
I was also puzzled about what could be meant by references to people being “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal or international in orientation)” “anti-global” believing in “conspiracy theories that involve grave threats to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.” And what on earth could they mean by beliefs that our personal or national “way of life” is under attack? People here have lived much the same way for decades. How could anything change that?
Then I learned about Agenda 21, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade treaty and the push for global governance and, little by little, it all became frighteningly clear. And yes, just like the ranchers protesting at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, I began to see that the BLM, the Forest Service and the U.S. Wildlife Service were engaged with corporatists, radical environmentalists and globalists in making it all but impossible to live as we had lived before.
I also saw that this study report was set up to portray us as potential domestic terrorists should we dare to speak out and resist. I have watched this false narrative move forward with an almost mesmerizing predictability. I posted some of my research and concerns last year in the article Tools of Social Control? The Southern Poverty Law Center Watch Lists. As I researched, I continued to explore our options.
What Not to do
I’m not the only one. Michael Coffman, one of the true leaders of the Liberty Movement warns us, in his book, Rescuing a Broken America, that
As people wake up and get fired-up they will want to know what they can do to stop this behemoth from taking total control of their lives. Violence of any form is not the answer. Violence only plays into the hands of a corrupt government because it provides them the public excuse to clamp down on all opposition….Evidence suggests that Americans are waking up and realizing they are being deliberately deceived. There is also a growing concern that it is only a matter of time before leftists extremists will use provocateurs within otherwise peaceful tea party protests to provoke a violent confrontation to discredit all opposition and invite repression of all dissent.
Coffman then shares his views on why an armed revolt has no chance of success in this day and age:
Violence is not the answer. A military revolution is even worse, to the point of being idiotic. In the 1700s, the British army and the colonists both were armed with the same weapons. While it is true that many militias have assault rifles and automatic weapons, they are no match to the sophisticated weapons that the police and military forces have today. A careful review of what happened in 2001 to the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan and the Republican Guard in Iraq in 2003 should clearly illustrate that the use of force cannot take back the United States.
Coffman has a firm grasp of reality. Yes, I am aware that the Declaration of Independence grants Americans the right of revolution, and I do not dispute the fact. We also have the right to take a flying leap off a pier, but would any rational person undertake an ocean voyage by doing so?
Since reading Coffman’s informative book, a new development has come to pass—that is–a move toward using a global army to fight extremism in the United States. See the article, Obama/UN Announce Global Police Force to Fight Extremism in U.S at Technocracy News.
It is certainly true that I have seen a significant number of people in Idaho wake up to what is happening to us since I first started speaking out and writing about Agenda 21 and some other issues. I have, however, noted some troubling trends in the directions I see some of those newly awakened people taking.
Warnings from the Past that Should have been Made Known to Protesters at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge
Before getting into my particular concerns, I am going to share something I read while going through archived editions of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) by the LaRouche team. Now I will tell you at the outset that LaRouche is controversial. He served roughly three years in prison and has been alternately dubbed a fascist and a Marxist, as well as a political extremist. You can investigate LaRouche for yourself: his side of the story can be found here. You might want to begin by watching the video, “The Man in the Iron Mask.”
After reading about how the media has been influenced by the CIA and the FBI for decades, I read everybody’s work and sort it all out later. I compare how a writer’s work jibes with what is said by other sources, how well their ideas describe the observable world and how well they predict or logically presage the future. I have to say that I don’t agree with LaRouche on everything, but claims that the man is an extremist right-winger are dubious. He did serve in the Reagan administration, but he was also a staunch supporter of Bill Clinton (none of us is perfect) and ran for President as a Democrat seven times. In addition, he detested George Bush. Charges that LaRouche is a fascist are questionable when we find that many of his early works charge the global cabal, including the Club of Rome, with being, themselves, fascists who were inflicting genocide on Africans using the pretext of dealing with overpopulation In many ways, LaRouche defies categorization.
But having laid this foundation I want to get to LaRouche’s views on the militias, especially in the rural context. LaRouche is no friend of militias. He is genteel and committed to high culture in art and music. He does not appear to be familiar with the people of the rural West, or to understand their ways. That being said, it behooves us to read warnings regarding the manipulation and co-option of the militias in his magazine, EIR June 2, 1995 Vol. 22 No. 23.
The LaRouche team considered the Oklahoma City Bombing to be an act of international terrorism and named agents of the British Club of Isles, allied with the British Royal House of Windsor, as propagandists responsible for setting up a climate designed to use the American militias as patsies. Here is a quote:
By no later than December 1994, one of the two leading British propagandists directing the assault on the U.S. Presidency [Clinton], had begun regularly featuring the rise of the populist militias as a theme in his Clinton-bashing propaganda. The second of the two, has been overseeing an effort to spread anti-U.S. government paranoia among American populists and self-styled militiamen since no later than early March 1995.
These two figures, Lord William Rees-Mogg and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, fraudulently built up the militias as a ‘major’ political phenomenon. Then following the April 19 attack [on the Oklahoma City Building], they set up the militias to ‘take the fall’ for a bombing that they had neither the capability nor the motive to carry out.
Scott Thompson describes how Lord William Rees-Mogg had insinuated his way into the American right in order to promulgate anti-government propaganda while being cheered on, at the same time, by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. The article also cites the involvement of right-wing spokespeople such as the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh and others.
Rees-Mogg’s colleague, Evans-Pritchard, is described as a second-generation British Secret Service asset who then worked in the Washington D.C. bureau of the Sunday Telegraph. Playing both sides in a conflict was evidently nothing new to Evans-Pritchard, as, during the mid-1980’s Nicaraguan covert war, he “maintained close links to both the Sandinista regime and the U.S.-sponsored Contra rebels.”
This edition of EIR describes how Lord William Rees-Mogg went about spreading fear, paranoia and anti-government sentiment among the militias by writing publications warning of government takeovers, internment camps and imminent raids, while on the other hand, his colleague, Evans-Pritchard, and the Anti-Defamation League alarmed the general American public with warnings of a vast, well-equipped army of militias being raised to launch the next American Revolution.
According to EIR writers, these two propagandists did all of this to further what is known as a “strategy of tension” noting that this pattern imitates an Italian and European strategy that involves the sudden killing and maiming of innocent civilians without warning by groups on the extreme left or the extreme right, and which also involves attempted assassinations of public figures. The object of this strategy is to destabilize a country.
In 1995, Evans-Pritchard paticularly named Idaho as “the state to watch,” saying a peasants revolt was in the making due to a reaction to federal interference in people’s ability to earn a living, and the loss of constitutional liberties. Evans-Pritchard cites Samuel Sherrwood, then head of the U.S. Militia Association in Blackfoot, Idaho as saying that half of 44 counties had organized militias that wanted a bloodless revolution but were prepared to use force if Congress did not restore the Constitution.
EIR writer, Jeffrey Steinberg, chides the militias for allowing themselves to be played as fools:
The susceptibility of the populist militias to manipulation by British agents and fellow-travelers, as well as Bush-league ‘asteroid’ American intelligence networks often allied with London, over the period since January 1993, has set the populist militias up as the prime suspects in the Oklahoma bombing.
Now I don’t have any strong opinions as to who did the Oklahoma City bombing, but the EIR writers’ naming of the two British propagandists, along with their affiliations and activities, suggests to me that both the political right and the left are implicated in psychological warfare operations. This impression is backed up by Kelleigh Nelson’s series of articles warning of controlled opposition: Enemies on the Left, False Friends on the Right. These articles suggest to me that this is an ongoing dialectic with both the right and the left ensnaring Americans in false perceptions, Idaho citizens not excepted.
Concerns with What I see Happening in Idaho
Now I will briefly list some issues I have with the current direction of the Patriot Movement in Idaho:
• I believe there is controlled opposition at work here in North Idaho that has infiltrated the Tea Party and other groups. I believe they are busy misdirecting our actions and perceptions.
• I am concerned when people with ties to Yale and Harvard come to the West and advocate starting militias in every little town, and do so in an open-air park with people walking around who don’t know Idahoans from Adam. When individuals tell Idahoans in a public meeting that “You are the militia!” over and over, it raises an eyebrow to say the least.
• It disturbs me when Idahoans run after the above supposed leaders without reservation. Edward G. Griffen, who wrote about the Federal Reserve scam, notes that the first thing that gets done to oppose liberty is to send out people (agents) to take over the leadership of groups and to control those people who are struggling to form a political resistance. Look to see who has commandeered local groups and consider what their real motives might be.
• It alarms me when I go to a peaceful protest and strangers try to pull me into a head-on conflict with federal authorities. I am also nonplussed when people try to emotionally manipulate me by calling my patriotism into question when I refuse.
• My suspicions are further raised when someone, supposedly in leadership, calls for open-carry at a public rally, but then they, themselves never do show up with arms.
• And I don’t like it when public officials have themselves photographed in front of the Confederate flag, as if the Liberty Movement is about the South rising again. This does nothing but play into the hands of those who wish to change the subject. I will go into this issue more extensively at another time.
Heading into the Future
This article is likely to raise the ire on all sides. Please know that I don’t write this to malign anyone in particular. I understand that Patriots are endeavoring to correct problems while struggling in uncharted waters, however our actions have sometimes earned us an A for zeal, but a D for knowledge. We must take the time to understand the issues clearly and not go off half-cocked. Don’t make rash public statements or let people lead you around by the nose. If someone tries to stampede you into a conflict, they are either crazy or treacherous. You don’t have a patriotic duty to let somebody pull you into a head-on collision. Know your enemy and know yourself. Read more history and political theory. We cannot act like parodies of ourselves. All this does is give the impression that we are cartoon characters who can’t be taken seriously. Please let cooler heads prevail.
Though I have fallen short in the past, I am trying to retain an element of human compassion. We need to realize that both sides in any debate are probably suffering under the kind of polarizing influences I describe above. Verify everything and have patience. Have respect for everyone involved in our communities. Local employees of land use management agencies are often doing their best and are our neighbors. If any of us falls short, it’s because we are all subject to human frailty.
Making Hay While the Sun Shines on the Malheur Wildlife Refuge
And above all, remember that our real opposition wants nothing more than an excuse to crush the awakening of America while it is yet budding. Violence, rash actions and the uncritical following of bad actors, such as took place at Burns, Oregon, give our opposition that chance.
Of course it may not be the Patriots or the militias who are entirely guilty of those mistakes at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. Some individuals claim that that much rash and violent talk was done by operatives to make the Patriots look like terrorists and to draw those that wanted a war into the conflict. There are eyewitnesses who tell us that there was no (zero, zilch) violence on the part of the authentic protesters. I do think however that their naiveté was dangerous to themselves and to the Liberty Movement
Nevertheless, whoever was responsible, the opposition is losing no time in furthering their plans. Not only did President Obama start an aggressive push for gun control the minute the Burns, Oregon situation got national headlines, but the globalists, as predicted by Dr. Michael Coffman, are pushing forward with new efforts to shut down dissent while the incident is fresh in the minds of American citizens. Read US Seeks To Redefine Terrorism Rules To Include Anti-Government Protesters. What took place at Burns helps give the globalists more excuse in the eyes of the world for using their global/United Nations army. In fact some people are saying that global forces are already on the ground in the area around Burns, Oregon. See There’s Something Strange Happening Here in Burns, Oregon.
That’s what they’ve been looking for.
In part 2 of this series, I will share some more history and insights on the revolution conundrum. Until then, peace be unto you.