We’ve all seen it before – the sharp yellow flag featuring a rattlesnake and the words “Don’t Tread On Me.” Chances are if you’re here, it’s because you got curious enough to Google the meaning of the flag, and want to know at least a little bit about its historical significance. Chances are you have also seen it quite a few times before Googling, maybe even used it yourself without knowing the full history, bought a T-shirt with the symbol on it, or seen someone walking around with one on.
The flag featuring the defiant rattlesnake and sharp yellow background, is actually called the Gadsden Flag, and it’s been around since Benjamin Franklin’s time. Franklin actually referred to the imagery of the flag when he suggested sending rattlesnakes to England as a method of repaying England for sending criminals to America way back in his day. But we’ll get into the flag’s historical significance more in a later section in this article.
Ever since it’s creation, the rattlesnake, the flag itself, and the message – “Don’t Tread on Me” have been a visible symbol of American individualism and assertiveness over the years. It’s a message that has lived on through the ages, and I feel will continue to represent strength in the years to come.
WHAT DOES “DON’T TREAD ON ME” MEAN? WHAT DOES THE RATTLESNAKE SYMBOLIZE
The Gadsden flag is often described as the American equivalent of the Spartan “molon labe” (“come and take [them]”) motto. The comparison is apt as they both represent responding with force to perceived threats, but I have always preferred the Gadsden flag as the perfect expression of subtle defiance and resistance. It’s not a declaration of war, but rather an implicit threat implying: “We won’t take shit from anyone.”
This is spelled out, not as a contrarian argument, but more as a fact – a plainly put statement of resistance, which makes it far more applicable to day-to-day life and thus far more frequently used and thus ubiquitous in terms of seeing it used regularly. In my mind, “Don’t Tread on Me” is very similar to the Roman, “Si vis pacem, para bellum” (If you want peace, prepare for war). It’s a fair warning for all would-be oppressors to back off. Regardless of where you’re from, I think this is a sentiment you can relate to on a human level.
THE HISTORY BEHIND THE GADSDEN FLAG
The Gadsden Flag was designed in 1775 during the American Revolution by the general and politician Christopher Gadsden. Originally, it was flown by the Continental Marines as a motto flag along with the Moultrie (Liberty Flag).
Its application in history is rooted in its imagery – the infamous snake has been used in the past by Benjamin Franklin’s “Join, or Die.” – which was actually the first political cartoon – and the rattlesnake as a symbol continued to be used throughout the years as the representation of the American people and their drive for self-determination.
If you’re wondering if it’s ever been used to promote racist agendas before, yes, it has. Indeed the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag has at times in the past been hijacked by less than savoury groups. Frankly, however, I wouldn’t put much weight on that. Why? That’s not at all what it was created to mean. It was never originally intended to be used this way, and if tomorrow, My Little Pony were randomly hijacked to represent something terrible, degrading, and racist, I’d like to think people wouldn’t put any fault on My Little Pony for that – it’s just plain not what the intended purpose of the original creation was.
It’s very easy for people to claim any symbol “as their own” and twist it for their own ends. Objectively speaking, we can find negative connotations attached to all symbols, so on that note; any mention of racist connotations regarding the Gadsden flag or the phrase “Don’t Tread On Me” demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of its history and seems to be pushed by a movement levelled by individuals who have an axe to grind against anything that didn’t spawn at a Starbucks. I find it thoroughly disappointing that so much of our relations with our fellow man have dwindled down to petty partisan bullshit, but here we are.
2017 folks. The fact that this is even being debated is tragic, but to settle the matter once and for all; From the New Yorker:
“The origins of ‘Don’t Tread On Me,’ “ Leepson summarizes, “were completely, one hundred percent anti-British, and pro-revolution.” Indeed, that E.E.O.C. directive agrees, “It is clear that the Gadsden Flag originated in the Revolutionary War in a non-racial context.”
[*] I am aware that as a Brit, it is extremely ironic that I am happy to use the Gadsden flag as a symbol of defiance. On that note, if you accept Her Majesty the Queen as your sovereign monarch I am sure all will be forgiven. I’ll await for your formal notice. 😉
With regards to the rattlesnake’s historical adoption as a symbol of the strength of American independence, Benjamin Franklin phrased it best in his essay published by the Pennsylvania Journal (quote pulled from this source);
I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids. She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance. She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage. As if anxious to prevent all pretensions of quarreling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenseless animal; and even when those weapons are shown and extended for her defense, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal. Conscious of this, she never wounds ’till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.
Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America?
All this to say, using the rattlesnake as a symbol of American independence and strength made perfect sense due to the predominance of the timber rattlesnake throughout the Thirteen Colonies and the perception of the rattlesnake as an animal that won’t attack until provoked, but will leave a nasty bite once it is.
As a side note, the original Gadsden flag shows the snake by itself. Modern versions from the 20th century onwards, sometimes have a grass bed below the rattlesnake. There can also be some debate over the use of an apostrophe over the “Don’t,” but early versions all (for the most part) use an apostrophe, so as far as I am concerned it is the standard. Similarly, the snake is usually facing left.
MODERN APPLICATIONS: HOW THE FLAG IS USED TODAY
The Gadsden flag has carried over as a symbol of defiance against the perception of tyranny. Its significance, I feel, transcends all nationalities and creeds.
In present day, the Gadsden Flag is iconic in its symbolism as a rallying cry for Libertarianism and individual liberty, as far as the modern mainstream political discourse will allow it to be.
I will say that common criminals masquerading as “anarchists” have in the past hijacked this flag, and it’s a damn shame that that’s happened to such a valuable historical symbol of strength, but broadly speaking the flag still is taken to represent freedom and, more importantly, the willingness to fight for this freedom.
To the best of my knowledge, no single group has ever “claimed” the flag, appropriating it completely for itself. Instead, the flag has been used time and time again as an iconic symbol of rebelliousness.
One example of the flag having been used in an attempt to show a rebellious spirit with no ill-intention meant: the heavy metal band Metallica using the outline of the rattlesnake on the cover of their Black Album back in 1991.
Walk around malls often enough and you’re likely to see the rattlesnake featured on band t-shirt reproductions of this popular cover art.
The perception from the media (broadly speaking) is that this flag is a right wing symbol. This is patently false. You also often get the perception, from the media, that this flag is somehow representative of anti-government ways of thought, which I feel is moderately true – only insofar as it’s often used to be representative of the oppression of government and the sacrifice of individual liberties.
The Gadsden flag cannot be considered anti-government from a historical perspective, especially considering how Benjamin Franklin used it in the past. Again it remains, in my opinion, a symbol of individual liberty and freedom, and strength in the face of potential oppressors of that liberty. 2nd amendment causes, individual liberty, pro constitution, and anti big government movements have rallied around this symbol, though this doesn’t fall out of line with the general message of the flag because they consider big government to be their potential oppressors.
PERSONAL MEANING: WHAT “DON’T TREAD ON ME” MEANS TO ME
As for me?
I take this flag to mean – I’ll mind my own business, if you mind yours. If you don’t, you will regret it.
This way of thinking is becoming a rarity in mainstream culture. We tiptoe around our individuality promoting this bizarre sense of forced collective cohesion, which I think is incredibly detrimental to society. We have forgotten that it is a-okay to dislike other people, and yet still respect them and their individual right to dislike you in turn.
People are different. That’s normal. That’s good. We should accept that fact and move on.
Resisting is not a bad word, nor should it be considered one. Why? Because being different is not bad, and it should be celebrated instead of condemned. Resisting other’s attempts at forcing you to do things you don’t want to do, resisting attempts at taking away your personal liberties – I feel this is an important message that the Gadsden flag still reinforces today. The Gadsden flag is a representation that consequences are on the table should respect not be reciprocal – there’s nothing in that sentiment that’s negative, in my opinion.
Personally, I don’t view the Gadsden flag as abrasive in nature, despite recent media frenzy over it. For me, the flag and the snake represent accountability. Every action has a reaction – a rattlesnake will hold you accountable for provoking it. Again, it doesn’t strike first, just reacts defensively to keep itself safe from harm from another entity. It’s a tacit acceptance that even with everything that is going on around us, all the rage, anger and accusations being thrown around the media, some of us will hold our ground; our rights are our own and will remain as such – because we will defend them to make it so.
Something to think about.
By Dr. Mercola
The Vaccine Reaction, published by the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), recently highlighted a really disturbing part of the 21st Century Cures Act that has largely escaped below the radar.
The 21st Century Cures Act, which was quickly pushed through Congress and became law back in December 2016, allows the waiving of the requirement of informed consent for participants in clinical trials if researchers believe an experimental medical device, drug or vaccine being tested poses no more than minimal risk to the patient’s health, or if the product being tested is deemed by researchers to be in the best interest of trial participants.
The Act also lowers FDA standards for the quality of evidence that drug companies have to provide to the FDA before drugs and vaccines are licensed and sold in the U.S.
In a nutshell, scientists testing pharmaceutical products like vaccines may now choose to experiment on human beings without obtaining informed consent first.
As noted in the featured video, this really boils down to slavery — you can be experimented on without fully understanding the potential risks of the product you are being given if you are a participant in a clinical trial, which means you do not have the opportunity to exercise informed consent and opt out.
21st Century Cures Act Waives Informed Consent for Low-Risk Medical Testing
Section 3024 of the 21st Century Cures Act refers to Informed Consent Waiver or Alteration for Clinical Investigations, amending some of the wording in section 520(g)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act.
As noted in the video, subparagraph D in this section received a minor update by removing the words “the investigator,” but the remainder still stands.
Section 3024(a), which covers “medical devices,” basically states that informed consent is required when researchers are testing medical devises in clinical trials “except where, subject to such conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of the human subject.”
Section 3024(b), which covers drugs, states informed consent is required “except where it is not feasible, it is contrary to the best interests of such human beings, or the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to such human beings and includes appropriate safeguards as prescribed to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of such human beings.”
How giving informed consent could ever be contrary to your best interest is a question worth pondering.
I cannot conceive of a situation where that could possibly be true but, apparently, people elected to govern on our behalf believe there are situations warranting suppression of the fact that you are participating in a scientific experiment that could harm you or your minor child.
Government Admits Vaccines Are ‘Unavoidably Unsafe’
Historically, vaccine trials have always been assumed to involve more than minimal risk. In fact, both the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court have concluded that government licensed vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.”1
This determination was one reason given by Congress for why vaccine manufacturers were given a civil liability shield from vaccine injury lawsuits in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
This “free pass” means that if a FDA licensed and state mandated vaccine ends up injuring or killing you or your child, the vaccine manufacturer or the doctor who administered the vaccine cannot be sued in civil court.
As a result of having zero liability for harm arising from the use of their products, drug companies are creating hundreds of new vaccines and plan to churn out and fast-track an ever-growing number of poorly tested vaccines with dubious benefits.
At the same time, there’s a concerted, nationwide lobbying effort by industry, medical trade groups and public health officials to eliminate the right of parents to make voluntary vaccine choices for their children by removing religious and conscience vaccine exemptions that have been included in state vaccine laws for the past half century.
To top it all off, the 21st Century Cures Act appears to provide a mile-wide loophole for pharmaceutical companies to test their products on human beings without informed consent and fast-track them to market using lowered licensing standards. I don’t know about you, but this strikes me as an absolute nightmare in the making.
While vaccine makers have been granted immunity against lawsuits for injuries and deaths caused by vaccines, children injured by vaccines are supposed to be able to receive swift and just compensation from the federally operated vaccine injury compensation program (VICP), created by Congress in 1986 under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
However, this program was gutted by the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice within years of the 1986 law’s enactment and has only gotten worse over the years, again protecting vaccine manufacturers’ interests more than anything else.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington DC handles contested vaccine injury and death cases in what has become known as “vaccine court.”2
VICP is a “no-fault” alternative to the traditional civil court lawsuit and was established in 1986 after a string of high-profile lawsuits by parents of vaccine injured children had hauled vaccine manufacturers into court to have their cases heard in front of juries.
At the time, parents were suing vaccine manufacturers after their children were brain injured or died following federally recommended and state mandated DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccines, or children were left paralyzed by live oral polio vaccinations (OPV).
Several DPT injury lawsuits against the vaccine makers in the 1970s and early 1980s resulted in multimillion-dollar jury verdicts.
At that point, vaccine manufacturers threatened to stop producing DPT, MMR and oral polio (the only childhood vaccines at the time) if civil litigation was allowed to continue.
Common sense would have dictated that such lawsuits were a sign that vaccine manufacturers needed to raise safety standards and produce less toxic vaccines.
Instead, Congress buckled to industry pressure and, declaring that the U.S. vaccine supply must be protected, passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, giving vaccine manufacturers the legal protection they demanded.
As a result, vaccine makers have no incentive to produce the safest vaccines possible, especially when many childhood vaccines are state mandated for school attendance and 2 out of 3 vaccine injured children are turned away from the VICP with no compensation.
Vaccine Court Is No Safeguard for Vaccine Injured Patients
Over the years, it has become quite clear that VICP doesn’t work as Congress intended or promised parents it would work. In a recent article published in The American Conservative, vaccine litigation lawyer Robert Moxley writes:3
“… [VICP] was modeled after workers’ compensation programs. It was to be a ‘no-fault’ program … As one of the earliest ‘vaccine attorneys’ … I know first-hand it didn’t work that way.
I practiced in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for more than 25 years after its inception in 1988, and have been personally involved in over 100 vaccine-injury cases. I represented an entire fragile population in omnibus proceedings … I have seen the injured and their families cruelly oppressed.
From the passing of the legislation in 1986, the process has been rigged … in favor of the vaccine-industrial complex. Policy makers nationwide are yearning, with financial support and lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry, for mandatory vaccination. Before further compulsory vaccination legislation passes … the failure of the VICP must be acknowledged and properly addressed.
The VICP creates a classic moral hazard, granting immunity from suit to the vaccine industry while providing insurance against any loss …The vaccine-industrial complex has become a thriving giant … Its lobbying money drives agency denial of the reality of vaccine injury, which in turn permeates policy decisions in a sinister fashion.”
VICP — A Bureaucratic Nightmare That Offers Little Protection
As noted by Moxley, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act states the entire compensation process should take 240 days at most, and since it’s a “no-fault” program, it was designed to compensate patients for “apparent” injuries, meaning injuries that “appear” to be related to a vaccine even if you cannot conclusively prove it.
Congress promised compensation would be awarded “quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity,” in order to instill public confidence in the childhood vaccination program. The reality is much different. In his article, Moxley highlights a number of serious problems with the VICP, including the following:
- Lawyers are few, as the program prohibits private attorney’s fees; many who suffer a vaccine injury cannot even meet the filing deadline due to inability to retain legal counsel
- The process is exceedingly slow, with the average case taking over five years to adjudicate — a far cry from the 240-day deadline originally set by Congress for all adjudication decisions; some cases remain pending a decade after they were filed
- Two-thirds of claims received are dismissed4
- Decisions cannot be used as precedents for other cases
- The Department of Health and Human Services has not publicized the program, which was and still is its statutory duty
VICP Protects Vaccine Makers’ Interests
Moreover, as noted by Moxley: “The ‘inquisitorial’ format, with none of the due process safeguards of the civil justice system, serves to protect the secrets of the vaccine industry. The record created in a proceeding is hidden from non-parties.”
Indeed, none of the information that would normally be disclosed during a court trial ever sees the light of day once brought before the VICP. Hence, safety concerns remain shrouded in secrecy.
“A state of symbiosis arose between the agency tribunal and the public health bureaucracy,” Moxley writes. “These sister agencies appeared to regard families of the injured as criminals, trying to steal the government’s money. The vaccine court quickly developed an institutional hostility toward doctors and scientists who dared to challenge the orthodoxy of vaccine medicine …
An unspoken premise is ever-present: [T]o acknowledge vaccine injury is to undermine public acceptance, and to threaten ‘herd immunity.’ The public health agenda is the tribunal agenda and the DOJ agenda as well …
The vaccine court is used by the vaccine program — ostensibly in service of the ‘public health’ — as a forum to prove that there is no such thing as a vaccine injury. ‘Confidence’ in the safety net has been subordinated to the promotion of false confidence in the vaccination effort itself.
The moral hazard of the vaccine program reflects failure of the traditional checks and balances … Most of all, the entire system embodies the way that the lack of accountability leads to increased risk. Today, the proponents of compulsory vaccination in state legislatures have the temerity to tell their colleagues that there is no such thing as a vaccine injury. This claim emboldens a potential assault on the American family, and against the right of medical choice and informed consent.
The ‘public health’ cannot be served to allow government officials to make the risk-benefit calculation for their most vulnerable constituents when those decisions are corrupted by the fiction that their decision has no potential for negative consequences.”
Who Pays for Vaccine Injuries?
VICP compensates vaccine victims from a federal trust fund that collects a 75-cent surcharge on every vaccine given. What this means is that not only are drug companies profiting from selling federally recommended and state mandated vaccines to government for administration in public health clinics and to private doctor’s offices, pharmacies and HMO providers, vaccine manufacturers are also held legally blameless for vaccine injuries and deaths — and they don’t have to pay a cent to those injured by their vaccines.
Adult patients and children being given vaccines take all the risk, and themselves pay for the damages awarded to those injured or killed by government licensed and mandated vaccines. Many Americans do not even realize this vaccine court exists because DHHS does not publicize the existence of a federal vaccine injury compensation program and few VICP claims are ever disclosed, let alone publicized. The desire for secrecy on the part of public health officials is understandable.
If Americans were routinely informed of the vaccine injury and death claims being processed through the VICP, concern about the safety of vaccines would undoubtedly rise exponentially. Even without publicity, VICP claims are rapidly rising. As noted by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson in December 2015:5
“Since January of 2014, the number of flu vaccine cases conceded by the government is more than double the previous eight years combined … Also on the rise is the number of vaccine injury cases the government has ‘conceded:’ up 55 percent in a little over one year.”
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act Should Be Repealed
Two years ago, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) called for the repeal of civil liability protection provided to drug companies under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act6 and a return to full product liability for vaccine manufacturers. At the time, NVIC co-founder and president Barbara Loe Fisher said:7
“The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act is a failed experiment in tort reform and should be repealed so vaccine manufacturers are accountable and liable in a civil court of law for product safety. The federal vaccine injury compensation program Congress created under that law has become a drug company stockholder’s dream and a parent’s worst nightmare.”
Nothing has changed in the two years since. The VICP remains irreparably broken. A vast majority of the injury compensation claims paid out by the vaccine court today are not even for children suffering lifelong injuries or death from childhood vaccines that they are mandated to get to attend daycare or school — they’re for adults (often health care workers) suffering serious side effects from the influenza vaccine.
On March 31, 2017, vaccine safety and choice advocates, including the NVIC, Moms Across America, Organic Consumers Association, Focus for Health, Vaccine Injury Awareness League and other grassroots consumer groups, who are protesting the too-cozy relationship between the pharmaceutical and chemical industries and government, gathered for a “Revolution for Truth” rally8 in Washington D.C.
The groups are urging President Trump to examine the VICP’s many problems, and create an independent agency to monitor and evaluate vaccine safety.
Forced Vaccinations Are Unethical and Dangerous
Last year, Gretchen DuBeau, executive and legal director for Alliance for Natural Health USA, wrote:9
“When health officials assure us that almost all children should receive the full schedule of vaccinations, you would think that rigorous safety testing has repeatedly proven vaccines, their ingredients, and the CDC schedule to be completely safe. The sobering truth is, however, that this safety testing has been conspicuously lacking and in many cases simply has not been done.
Until these extremely serious safety concerns are adequately addressed, it is unethical — and very possibly dangerous — to force children to be vaccinated.
Take aluminum, for example, which has been added to vaccines since the 1930s to help jolt the body’s immune system into action. Aluminum is a well-documented neurotoxin linked with Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, asthma, hyperactivity and Down’s syndrome. Despite these dangers, adequate clinical research proving aluminum adjuvants to be safe has never been done.”
Indeed, it is the lack of evidence of safety that concerns most parents who decide to delay or forgo one or more vaccinations for their children. Most of these parents have children who had serious reactions to vaccination or know someone who became chronically ill after vaccination. That experience prompted them to do independent research and not just get their children vaccinated without fully understanding the risks.
But rather than conducting the necessary methodologically sound scientific research to settle these uncertainties, the vaccine industry has chosen to join with medical trade associations funded by pharmaceutical companies and public health agencies and simply push for forced vaccination laws that eliminate vaccine exemptions instead. And why not? Forced vaccination guarantees maximum profits since there are no repercussions should their vaccines turn out to do more harm than good.
Aside from the lack of long-term safety studies of vaccines that take into account real-world usage parameters such as giving multiple vaccinations on the same day, there’s yet another safety issue that is routinely swept under the rug — that of vaccine recalls. In fact, vaccines have the highest number of recalls of any drug!
According to a 2012 report by business intelligence experts GBI Research,10 vaccines “fail to meet safety standards.” Between 2007 and 2010, 14 recalls for vaccines were made, for reasons such as:
- Serious adverse events
- Labeling errors
- Quality defects (reduced levels of potency, presence of contaminants, such as glass particles)
- Manufacturing defects
Coincidence Claims Falter as Vaccine Damage Becomes Commonplace
As time goes on and vaccine injuries multiply, claims of “coincidence” are getting increasingly more preposterous and harder to swallow. Today, vaccine injuries are becoming like cancer — the prevalence is so high, most people know someone who has suffered a serious side effect from a vaccine. Statistics revealing compelling parallels between vaccination rates and disease rates add to the mounting skepticism.
As noted in a January 2017 report by WJTV12 News,11 Mississippi has one of the highest vaccination rates in the U.S. It also has one of the highest autism rates. Coincidence? No one knows, but in the absence of firm proof either way, many parents are renewing their call for the legal right to make voluntary decisions about which vaccines their child should receive and if or when they should be given.
The same scenario is playing out in other states across the nation. The numbers of children suffering with chronic illness and disability, including autism spectrum disorders, are increasing. The numbers of children and adults who have experienced serious vaccine reactions are also increasing. As a result, first-hand experience with vaccine reactions now include many physicians, celebrities and politicians, as well.
Academy award-winning actor Robert De Niro, for example, has recently gone on the public record questioning vaccine safety and the reported link between vaccines and autism.
He has a child who developed autism following vaccination. Rick Rollens, former Secretary of the California State Senate, as well as retired U.S. Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) are two examples of individuals who worked for government and publicly shared their personal experiences of family members who had serious vaccine reactions and developed autism.
President Trump has also made public statements in which he questioned the potential connection between vaccination and autism and the safety of one-size-fits-all vaccine policies.
All of them have been strongly criticized for attempting to open up discussions about vaccine risk issues, which just goes to show that no one is above ridicule should they dare to question the safety of vaccines. The trend cannot hold forever, though. At a certain point, the coincidence theory collapses, and that’s what we’re starting to see now.
Unfortunately, many people don’t wake up and get involved until it’s personal and, in recent years, we’ve seen a growing number of influential people describe their personal experiences with vaccine reactions. The question is, how bad does it have to get before public concerns about vaccine safety get a fair hearing?
3 boggling facts in Hillary email cover-up/Dallas shooting
By Jon Rappoport
By Tenth Amendment Center – July 6, 2016
“Here’s the short version. Whatever power you give politicians and bureaucrats to use against other people will eventually be used by future politicians and bureaucrats against you.” – Michael Boldin, Tenth Amendment Center
Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter – @michaelboldin, on LinkedIn, and on Facebook.
by Jon Rappoport – June 26, 2016
The EU and its associated financial institutions were built on the premise that no one would escape. That’s the long and short of it.
But of course, nations could get out if they decided to.
Which is what just happened in Britain.
And now that it has, elites and their fear-mongering press outlets are moaning and shouting and whining: “You fools, do you have any idea what you’ve just done? You’ve thrown a wrench into the structure. Are you crazy?”
Translation: “We’re in charge. We’re the lords in the castles. You’re the peasants in the fields.”
Of course, all along, the cover story has been: the EU is a step toward paradise; it bestows grace and beauty on humanity; it erases ugly borders; it makes people One; it fosters share and care; it smooths out conflicts; it makes us brothers and sisters.
Sure it does. That’s what all huge faceless bureaucracies accomplish.
When they’re exposed, all that fake goodness suddenly goes away. They spew hate. And they scream in anguish.
What’s occurring at the moment is very much like an old horror movie, where the humanoid villain is backed up against the wall, and someone tears his face away and exposes…machinery. Nothing but little wheels and cogs and wires and tubes. The truth is out.
What a monstrous joke it is that the young, in Britain, voted to remain in the EU. The EU is a right arm of Globalist forces. The same young people yammer and protest against Globalism, but because they’re absolutely clueless, they want to stay in the EU. The young: turned into hypnotic products of the education system.
There was a day, not so long ago, when the phrase “decentralization of power” meant something. It’s not used anymore. The press has it on their no-fly list.
Governments, major media, large foundations have worked the phrase out of existence. Instead, they’ve helped create every kind of special interest group under the sun—they’ve taken people who might actually want decentralization and shoved them into various groups, according to gender, race, religion, needs, and so on…and promised them “equality” and special help…as long as they go along with big government…thereby strengthening Control Central.
(And they’ve taken people who already want decentralization and propagandized them as outliers, criminals, psychiatric patients, terrorists, and racists.)
That’s the psyop game.
“We’re talking to you helpless masses now. You might want to decentralize government power? No, no, no, no. You’re looking at things the wrong way. First of all, who are you? What’s your religion, race, gender, disability? We have the right group for you. You can achieve all your aims that way, because we help groups. You see? We’re on your side. We, the government, are rebels, too. But we need our power to make change happen. Revolutionary change. Don’t rebel against us. Don’t try to diminish our strength. Join us. Benefits are waiting for you. Lots and lots. Get it?”
For a moment in time, a lot of people in Britain didn’t get it. They went the other way. They peeled off one layer of centralized control over their lives.
This now sets up a classic dialectic situation. Two opposing forces in conflict. And not just in England. The same sort of reaction is peaking in other European countries who want to test the waters of defection from the EU; and of course, in the US, Trump vs. Hillary represents a “perfect polarization.” Whether or not these oppositions were covertly built in the first place behind the scenes, their existence now makes them ripe for overarching manipulation.
What shape would that manipulation take?
Among other maneuvers, such as “new reports” of increasing unemployment, trading-market chaos and downward trends, we would see an escalation of riots, protests, clashes.
And the “solution, for sake of the population,” would be “restoration of order.” Translation: even more centralized power.
However, plans don’t always work. Don’t imagine that control from above is always flawless and god-like.
Defection from centralized power can take many forms, exposing many cracks in the foundation. Pillars can fall.
Major media are already on oxygen life-support. The Vatican and other crusty mainstay institutions are also sucking some of that oxygen. Because of the Web, untold numbers of people are waking up, in ways too numerous and varied to catalog. Even a few minor whiffs of freedom have their own power, and individual freedom is contagious beyond any kind of political drug or vaccine developed to stop it.
The game is afoot.
Even the most cynical interpretation of Brexit—that it was set up from behind the curtain as a way to flush out rebellion, which would then be squashed—doesn’t fully explain what just happened in Britain.
People can decide they’ve had enough of tyranny. They can take their suspicion of their leaders to a level where palliatives don’t work anymore. They can see the shape of the future that is being created for them, and they can toughen their refusal. They can push away from the table loaded with goodies and freebies, feeling sick, feeling patronized, feeling diminished. They can turn off the talking heads that preach Official Messages. They can discover further ways their freedom is being stolen from them, and they can rebel more deeply.
Eventually, they can come to a place where they rediscover their own existence as individuals, inviolate, alive, absent of the need for a bloated super-structure of “support.”
As this rediscovery happens, you won’t see it reflected in charts of trending stories. Newly awakened individuals will be thinking and creating and muscling their way through the decaying anatomy of the Deep State, making futures that cut away the tissues of connections that formerly bound them.
But bind them no more.
The grotesque creatures who’ve made their living, for decades, promoting and hustling Globalism as the grand solution, have failed to answer the fatal question: who is supposed to be in charge of imposing utopia on the world? Who are the messiahs of management bringing us all good things for our own good? After all, if gods are descending from the mountaintop to install paradise, shouldn’t we have a look at them, at their faces, at their robes, at their bona fides?
If not, if they must remain invisible, something very much like Brexit is going to happen, as it just did. People are going to leave those messianic fronts, like the EU, in the dust, at the side of the road.
O great gods of Globalism, at the top of the food chain, show us your faces, tell us your stories, answer all our questions, submit yourselves to our extensive interrogation.
Otherwise, bye bye.
Your outpost in Europe, the EU, had its moment in the sun. It lied. That’s all it knew how to do.
Now it stands in a wasteland, winds blowing through its exposed skeleton.