“ Once a government is committed to the rule of silencing the voice of opposition, it has just one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive procedures, until it becomes a source associated with terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. ” — Leader Harry S. Truman
Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Spice up spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests . Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics . Intimidation tactics. Brutality. Lockdowns.
This is simply not the language of freedom. This is not even the language of law and order.
This is the language of power.
This is how the federal government at all levels— federal, state and local— now reacts to those who speak out there against government corruption, wrong doings and abuse.
These overreaching, heavy-handed lessons in how to rule by power have become standard operating process of a government that communicates with its citizenry primarily with the language of brutality, intimidation and fear.
We didn’t know it after that, but what happened five in years past in Charlottesville, Va., was obviously a foretaste of what was in the future.
At the time, Charlottesville was at the center of the growing struggle over methods to reconcile the right to think and speak freely, especially regarding controversial ideas, with the press to sanitize the environment associated with anything— words and images— that might cause criminal offense . That fear of criminal offense prompted the Charlottesville Town Council to get rid of a statue of Confederate Common Robert E. Lee that had graced one of its public parks regarding 82 years.
In attempting to err on the side of political correctness by placating one group whilst muzzling critics of the city’s actions, Charlottesville attracted the particular unwanted attention of the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and the alt-Right, all of whom originated on the little college town with the intention of working out their First Amendment right to be disagreeable, to assemble, and to protest.
Which is when everything went haywire.
When put to the test, Charlottesville did not deal with things well at all.
On August twelve, 2017, government officials took what should have been a legitimate exercise in constitutional principles (free speech, assembly plus protest) and turned this into a lesson in authoritarianism by manipulating warring factions and engineering events in such a way as to foment unrest, lockdown the city, and justify additional power grabs.
On the day of scheduled protests, police deliberately engineered a scenario in which two opposing camps of protesters would confront each other, tensions would bubble over, and things would turn just violent sufficient to justify allowing the government to shut everything down.
Despite the fact that 1, 000 very first responders (including 300 state police troopers and users of the National Guard) — many of whom have been preparing for the downtown move for months— had been known as on to work the event, and police in riot equipment surrounded Emancipation Park upon three sides, police failed to do their jobs.
In fact , as the Washington Post reports, police “ seemed to watch as groups beat each other with stays and bludgeoned one another with shields… At one stage, police appeared to retreat and then watch the beatings prior to eventually moving in to end the free-for-all, make arrests plus tend to the injured. ”
“ Police Stood By Because Mayhem Mounted in Charlottesville , ” reported ProPublica .
Incredibly, when the first signs of open violence broke away, the police chief allegedly instructed his staff to “ let them fight, it is going to make it easier to declare a good unlawful assembly . ”
In this way, police who were supposed to uphold legislation and prevent violence failed to perform either.
Certainly, a 220-page post-mortem of the protests and the Charlottesville government’s reaction by former U. T. attorney Timothy J. Heaphy concluded that “ the City of Charlottesville protected none free expression nor open public safety . ”
In other words, the government did not uphold its constitutional requires.
The police did not carry out their duties because peace officers.
And the citizens found by themselves unable to trust either the police or the government to do the job in respecting their particular rights and ensuring their own safety.
This is not much different from what is happening to the present-day national scene.
Indeed, there’s a pattern emerging if you pay near enough attention.
Civil discontent leads to city unrest, which leads to protests and counterprotests. Tensions rise, violence escalates, police remain down, and federal soldires move in. Meanwhile, despite the protests and the outrage, the government’s abuses continue unabated.
It’s all component of an elaborate setup by the designers of the police state. The federal government wants a reason to crack down and lock down and bring in its greatest guns.
They desire us divided. They want all of us to turn on one another.
They want us helpless in the face of their artillery and armed forces.
They want us silent, servile and compliant.
They actually do not want us to keep in mind that we have rights, let alone attempting to exercise those rights peaceably and lawfully, whether it’s protesting politically correct efforts in order to whitewash the past, challenging COVID-19 mandates, questioning election final results, or listening to alternate viewpoints— even conspiratorial ones— to be able to form our own opinions concerning the true nature of authorities.
And they definitely do not want all of us to engage in First Change activities that challenge the government’s power, reveal the government’s corruption, expose the particular government’s lies, and encourage the citizenry to test their limits against the government’s many injustices.
Why otherwise do you think Wikileaks founder Julian Assange continues to molder in prison for daring to blow the whistle about the U. S i9000. government’s war crimes, while government officials who rape, plunder and kill walk away with little more than a punch on the wrist?
This is how it begins.
We are moving fast down that slippery slope to an authoritarian society where the only opinions, ideas plus speech expressed are the types permitted by the government and its corporate cohorts.
In the wake of the January. 6 riots at the Capitol, “ domestic terrorism” has become the new poster child just for expanding the government’s powers at the expense of city liberties.
Naturally , “ domestic terrorist” is just the latest bull’s eye term, to be used interchangeably with “ anti-government, ” “ extremist” and “ terrorist, ” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very wide spectrum of viewpoints that might be considered “ dangerous. ”
This unilateral power to muzzle free presentation represents a far greater danger than any so-called right- or left-wing extremist might create. The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American an extremist in term, deed, thought or simply by association.
Watch and see: we are all about to turn out to be enemies of the state.
As I make clear in my book Battleground America: The War around the American People and in its fictional counterpart The particular Erik Blair Diaries , anytime you have a federal government that operates in the dark areas, speaks in a language associated with force, and rules simply by fiat, you’d better beware.
So what’s the answer?
For starters, we need to remember that we’ve most of got rights, and we need to exercise them.
Most of all, we need to protect the rights of the people to talk truth to power, no matter what that truth might be. Possibly “ we the people” believe in free speech or we don’t.
Fifty years ago, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas asked:
“ Since when have got we Americans been expected to bow submissively to expert and speak with awe plus reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional concept is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal government officials only our realtors. We who have the final word can speak softly or even angrily. We can seek in order to challenge and annoy, once we need not stay docile plus quiet… [A]big t the constitutional level, presentation need not be a sedative; it could be disruptive… [A] function of free speech below our system of government would be to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a disorder of unrest, creates discontentment with conditions as they are usually, or even stirs people to rage. ”
In other words, the Constitution will not require Americans to be servile or even civil to government officials. Neither does the particular Constitution require obedience (although it does insist on nonviolence).
Somehow, the government keeps overlooking this important element in the equation.