Showdown in Oregon: How to - and How Not to Fight TyrannyBy Tony Cartalucci Wall Street and Washington have left the country itself in socioeconomic shambles. Abroad, these collective special interests are subverting nations politically and economically from Venezuela to Southeast Asia, waging war throughout North Africa and the Middle East, while propping up criminal client regimes in nations like Ukraine. A handful of armed ranchers with a few boxes of supplies, who live within and are completely dependent on a system controlled by the very special interests they are standing up against, will do little to change the military, economic, political, and social factors that add up to the above-described global equation. The ranchers supply cache looks like it was picked up from one of Americas many mega-retailers, the literal consumerist feeding troughs that keep the American people perpetually in servile dependence, and the Fortune 500 deeply entrenched amid the unwarranted power and influence it has enjoyed for decades and is able to wield at home and abroad with virtual impunity. It is not unlike a group of American G.I.s trying to fight the Germans during WW2, while buying German rations, from the Germans, all while leaving German supply lines completely intact. They would not only be preserving their enemys source of strength to fight, but paying into it. The harder they fought the more supplies they would need, and the stronger their enemy would become. The ranchers standoff, from a purely strategic point-of-view, is already a failure. No matter who is really behind it, and no matter how it plays out, the actions of the ranchers at best will cause the government to back down on this one particular issue, and only for this particular case. At worst, it will only further justify the growing police state evolving within Americas borders. Regardless, it will do absolutely nothing to change the balance of power enabling Wall Street and Washington at home or abroad. A growing tyranny is not entirely unlike an insurgency. The terms insurgency and counterinsurgency can quickly become confusing in a politically motivated context. However, generally speaking, an insurgency seeks to overthrow an established institution or political order, while a counterinsurgency seeks to maintain that order. In the United States, and around much of the world where the nation-state still prevails, the established order is one of national sovereignty based on constitutions and charters produced by each respective nation, with an infrastructure built and improved upon over generations by each nations respective cultures, economic activities, and innovations. From a nations national courts and military, all the way down to the individual family, these are the established institutions of ones nation. Image: The problem goes beyond the various government agencies that torment us, be it land departments perceived to be harassing ranchers, or police perceived to be harassing African-Americans, and stems from the unwarranted power and influence the government wields due to the corporate-financier interests that have commandeered it to serve its own interests. A few guns and a box of supplies bought at Walmart will not solve a problem that, ironically, includes Walmart. There is an insurgency to subvert all of this. A globalcorporate-financier insurgency, or simply a corporate-insurgency. The corporate-insurgency seeks to subvert our institutions, starting with the family, extending to our schools, universities, churches, temples and mosques, our local sheriffs, and even reaching into our national governments, rewriting or eradicating altogether our national constitutions and charters. It has, to a great extent, already subverted our independent local infrastructure, while implementing laws and regulations to prevent us from restoring it. We have the very tactics described in a vast library of government and military counterinsurgency documents being employed against us, where ever we are and to a profound effect. Insurgency is the organized use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify or challenge political control of a region. As such, it is primarily a political struggle, in which both sides use armed force to create space for their political, economic and influence activities to be effective. Insurgency is not always conducted by a single group with a centralized, military-style command structure, but may involve a complex matrix of different actors with various aims, loosely connected in dynamic and non-hierarchical networks. To be successful, insurgencies require charismatic leadership, supporters, recruits, supplies, safe havens and funding (often from illicit activities). They only need the active support of a few enabling individuals, but the passive acquiescence of a large proportion of the contested population will give a higher probability of success. This is best achieved when the political cause of the insurgency has strong appeal, manipulating religious, tribal or local identity to exploit common societal grievances or needs. Insurgents seek to gain control of populations through a combination of persuasion, subversion and coercion while using guerrilla tactics to offset the strengths of government security forces. Their intent is usually to protract the struggle, exhaust the government and win sufficient popular support to force capitulation or political accommodation. Consequently, insurgencies evolve through a series of stages, though the progression and outcome will be different in almost every case. page 7 U.S. Government Counterinsurgency Guide, 2009(emphasis added) While this above quote is a most accurate description of an insurgency, as one reads the US Government Counterinsurgency Guide (2009), they will realize that the opposing methods of counterinsurgency itself involve all of these same factors, simply mirrored and reflecting the interests of the US versus the interests of targeted insurgencies. Image: The cover of theUS Government Counterinsurgency Guide (2009)features the signatures representing the trifecta of modern-day empire, covert operations (USAID), military force (Department of Defense), and system administration (the State Department). COIN describes the methods by which empire is implemented at a grassroots level. As a matter of fact, what is described by the 2009 counterinsurgency (COIN) guide, is an accurate description of how political control has been achieved and maintained by all governments throughout the entirety of human history it also forms the foundation of modern empire. Understanding this is key to finding solutions when one finds themselves under the subjugation of an unfavorable political ideology or system. The tactics the guide describes can, and often are, used by either side in any political struggle, not necessarily only in an armed insurgency. COIN is a socioeconomic-tactical synthesis, an interdisciplinary strategy based on an understanding of how a society functions, how to organize human resources to multiple force, and what needs and desires motivate individuals, as well as how these can be manipulated and controlled to collectively motivate a society. These more technical concepts are generally absent from everyday political discourse, and equally absent or incomplete in regards to finding solutions for a failing or unfavorable system. While the US Government COIN guide gives us a clear picture over the governmental-military interdisciplinary aspects of COIN, the Marine Corps Field Manual 3-24 (FM 3-24) provides us with a complete picture of the actual components of an insurgency and all the relating factors that affect it. This includes an enumerated list of services, institutions, organizations, and processes that must be controlled in order to establish political, tactical, and economic primacy. Without these, counterinsurgency fails. Without these, any political movement seeking to assert itself over a flawed or failing system, fails. While FM 3-24 deals with an armed insurgency, presumably in a foreign country, the basic concepts can and are applied to the relatively peaceful execution of real political power throughout the world as well. The reason why so many well-intentioned political solutions fall short, is because they are tailored without understanding these basic concepts. When attempting to establish political primacy essential services, basic infrastructure, economic development and administration must all be controlled by the counterinsurgency. It is upon these basic aspects of modern society that people depend, and from which popular support is sustainably derived. Strength in arms alone will fail utterly unless these aspects are secured, controlled, and developed properly. Upon page 117, the manual discusses the establishment or restoration of essential services. It states specifically (emphasis added): Essential services address the life support needs of the HN [host-nation] population. The U.S. militarys primary task is normally to provide a safe and secure environment. HN or interagency organizations can then develop the services or infrastructure needed. In an unstable environment, the military may initially have the leading role. Other agencies may not be present or might not have enough capability or capacity to meet HN needs. Therefore, COIN military planning includes preparing to perform these tasks for an extended period. Any goal, no matter how well-planned, noble, or progressive, cannot be achieved before these basic services are established and capable of being sustainably maintained. The military is a highly trained, disciplined, well organized institution capable of developing, maintaining, as well as protecting these services. In our local communities around the world, we have to ask ourselves how we can similarly develop and maintain these services sustainably. Community gardens, farmers markets, alternative energy and energy cooperatives, and many other local initiatives shift the power and influence centralized governments and corporate-financier special interests enjoy, away from their monopolies and toward our local communities. Communities that no longer dependent on these special interests are less likely to support them and more likely to defend vigorously infrastructure they are directly invested in. Image: Local energy cooperatives maybe not as exciting as a shootout with the Feds, but definitely more constructive and unlike a shootout with the Feds, will actually leave the balance of power tipped slightly greater in the peoples favor The task is not entirely as daunting as it may seem. Local communities around the world accomplish this through a combination of traditional and newly created local institutions. Most local communities around the world operate with the added advantage that the corporate-insurgency they face is low-intensity and generally not armed. For prospective activists, auditing what their communities already possess, and how to develop it to be more organized and effective would be a good first step. Some other initial priorities identified by the manual include the following taken from page 122: Many communities already possess the ability to do these activities on their own. Points such as building an indigenous local security force might translate into efforts to empower local sheriff offices to negate intrusive, unconstitutional federal government control. It might also include the establishment of professional neighborhood watches and shooting clubs where responsible gun ownership is taught not only to gun enthusiasts, but inclusively to community demographics not traditionally associated with firearm ownership. Building and improving schools might translate into expanding and improving local home schooling networks, leveraging freely available open-courseware online, and opening after-school tutoring centers giving remedial classes or teaching trades and skills not taught at existing educational institutions. Image: Growing food organically, locally, undermines big-ag and big-retail. It also redistributes wealth not through government programs that breed dependency amongst the population, but through local entrepreneurship where people directly participate in and benefit from productive economic activity. Ultimately, most communities are not faced with absolute destitution. For the most part, basic services exist. The problem really is that these services are carried out in some cases by corporate-insurgents and play an essential role in building legitimacy and a support base dependent on the corporate-insurgency for these services. Therefore, the goal should be to take ownership over the execution of these basic services which can be done as a community effort or as a local, small business. The precept of boycott and replace is the equivalent of the take, hold, and rebuild doctrine in military nation-building and counterinsurgency. On page 119 of the report, it states the importance of expanding on basic services and supporting economic development. It states specifically: The short-term aspect concerns immediate problems, such as large-scale unemployment and reestablishing an economy at all levels. The long-term aspect involves stimulating indigenous, robust, and broad economic activity. The stability a nation enjoys is often related to its peoples economic situation and its adherence to the rule of law. However, a nations economic health also depends on its governments ability to continuously secure its population. Planning economic development requires understanding the society, culture, and operational environment. For example, in a rural society, land ownership and the availability of agricultural equipment, feed, and fertilizer may be the chief parts of any economic development plan. In an urban, diversified society, the availability of jobs and the infrastructure to support commercial activities may be more important. Except for completely socialist economies, governments do not create jobs other than in the public bureaucracy. However, the micro economy can be positively stimulated by encouraging small businesses development. Jump-starting small businesses requires micro finance in the form of some sort of banking activities [now easily done via crowd funding]. So then, supporting economic development requires attention to both the macro economy and themicro economy. Without a viable economy and employment opportunities, the public is likely to pursue false promises offered by insurgents. Sometimes insurgents foster the conditions keeping the economy stagnant. Insurgencies attempt to exploit a lack of employment or job opportunities to gain active and passive support for their cause and ultimately undermine the governments legitimacy. Unemployed males of military age may join the insurgency to provide for their families. Hiring these people for public works projects or a local civil defense corps can remove the economic incentive to join the insurgency. The report then goes on to list the major categories of economic activity that it implies are essential for the counterinsurgency to control: Clearly all of these industries are dominated by corporate-financier special interests and their corporate-insurgency. One need not stretch their imagination here to see how the economic crisis created by corporate-financier interests across the West and spreading around the world is comparable to the sort of economic challenges facing a post-war nation fighting an armed insurgency. Image: Through crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter, local communities can jump-start local businesses and their local economies without banking monopolies being involved or possessing leverage over the community long after loans are granted. The description and redresses described on page 119 are particularly relevant, and if we consider the corporate-financier interests who have overtaken our government and institutions as the insurgency, we must see it within ourselves and our communities to search for the energy and initiative to begin local economic development. And again, where the military possesses the ability and the resources to do this on their own, or with other government institutions assisting local communities must develop their own institutions to accomplish these same goals themselves. Hackerspaces and farmers markets represent two organized efforts to develop economic opportunities locally, and present viable models that can be expanded into other industries. An entire section of the counterinsurgency field manual is dedicated to logistics. The importance of managing logistical lines not only enable an army to conduct counterinsurgency operations efficiently, but deny the insurgency supplies to conduct their operations. As it is pointed out, throughout history, insurgencies many times supply themselves off of carelessly protected counterinsurgency supply lines. The report states on page 169 (emphasis added): Insurgents have a long history of exploiting their enemies lines of communications as sources of supply. During the Revolutionary War, American forces significantly provisioned themselves from the British Armys overindulgent and carelessly defended logistic tail. In the 1930s, Mao Zedong codified a doctrine for insurgency logistics during the fight against the Japanese occupation of China. Without exaggerating, Mao stated, We have a claim on the output of the arsenals of [our enemies],and, what is more, it is delivered to us by the enemys transport corps. This is the sober truth, it is not a jest. For Maos forces, his enemys supply trains provided a valuable source of supply. Mao believed the enemys rear was the guerrillas front; the guerrillas advantage was that they had no discernible logistic rear For these reasons, forces conducting counterinsurgency operations must protect all potential supplies. Forces must also vigorously protect their lines of communications, scrupulously collect and positively control dud munitions and access to other convertible materiel, and actively seek ways to separate insurgents from black market activities. The corporate-insurgencys logistical lines are particularly easily to compromise that is because we the people are their logistical lines. Corporate-financier special interests and the government they have constructed to serve them, sustains itself from the collective patronage of communities around the world failing to develop local institutions, services, and economies, and instead pay into centralized, monopolizing multinational corporations. By boycotting and replacing these multinational corporations, we cut the corporate-insurgency off entirely from its logistical lines, starving it into submission. But just as the USMC COIN manual implores counterinsurgency planners to secure their logistical lines from pilfering insurgents, the corporate-insurgency uses laws and regulations to protect their lines. Image: The Oregon ranchers supply lines appear to lead right to Walmarts front door. Resistance against Wall Street that pays into Wall Street to sustain itself is doomed to fail before it even begins. Laws and regulations are designed to prevent independent local institutions, services, and economies from springing up and competing directly with the corporate-insurgency. Farmers in America have been fighting laws seeking to disrupt and regulate out of business, local farmers markets. Similar laws in regards to intellectual property rights seek to stifle the emergence of independent technological innovation and personal manufacturing. Understanding the greater implications of these laws should provide us a greater impetus to organize and find the means of circumventing them. For local communities organizing against the corporate-insurgency, our supplies consist of our food and water, our electricity, our means of communication, and many others. To secure these, we must assume ownership over them, maintaining them as a collective common or a small, local business. To organize against the corporate-insurgency when we are still dependent on them for even simple things like food and water, is a recipe for instant and repeated failure. In a very literal sense, a local communitys communications include telephone networks, the Internet, and radio. Like many other aspects of fighting the corporate-insurgency, the low-intensity nature of it affords us the ability to piecemeal boycott and replace various aspects of its power structure without disrupting the lives of people in our local community. Often times, alternatives are more appealing than existing, monopolized options, and enhance rather than disrupt the lives of ordinary people. In terms of communication infrastructure, ad hoc wireless networks could be constructed to connect a local Internet. This is already being done by the US State Department to infiltrate and overthrow sovereign nation-states they already recognize it as an essential strategy of the corporate-insurgency. In The New York Times article, U.S. Underwrites Internet Detour Around Censors, it states: The Obama administration is leading a global effort to deploy shadow Internet and mobile phone systems that dissidents can use to undermine repressive governments that seek to silence them by censoring or shutting down telecommunications networks. The effort includes secretive projects to create independent cellphone networks inside foreign countries, as well as one operation out of a spy novel in a fifth-floor shop on L Street in Washington, where a group of young entrepreneurs who look as if they could be in a garage band are fitting deceptively innocent-looking hardware into a prototype Internet in a suitcase. With a well developed community Hackerspace, a similar network can be created for a local community to simply circumvent and replace corporate-financier monopolies, providing custom tailored services for a community its creators already know, and spreading the profits of communication monopolies across local communities worldwide a redistribution of wealth done not through socialist handouts, but through innovative local entrepreneurship. A larger international Internet could be made by simply providing links between communities. Image: Hackerspaces sometimes called makerspaces are local institutions that pool together both technological and human resources to prototype and manufacture local technology and solutions. They serve as the perfect nexus for solving everything from agricultural problems to creating local communication solutions, and even bringing manufacturing down to a personal level. The alternative media is a perfect example of a new decentralized institution leveraging communication to successfully counter the corporate-insurgency, and it does so by leveraging technology that allows us to do as individuals what was once only possible with large, capital intensive organizations. The alternative media also reflects some of the tactical considerations expressed by the USMC COIN field manual in regards to logistics. By using large corporate-owned, free services like Blogger, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and others to spread a constructive message aimed at developing our local communities, and against the corporate-insurgency, we are essentially exploiting their own logistical lines for our own cause. It must be understood that while, without taking these basic aspects into consideration a political movement is sure to fail, this does not by any means negate the work of activists focused in other areas. A synergy must be created between all efforts aimed at unwarranted corporate-financier influence but these fundamentals must be understood by all involved. It must also be understood that not everyone employed or involved in a large corporate-financier, multinational corporation is a bad person. In fact, many people who work for corporations like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Halliburton, Exxon, and even Monsanto or Cargill are hardworking and incredibly talented. Like many military who leave the service and join the cause of humanity, these people can become some of our most valued allies if and when they realize the greater implications of what they are involved in and what, for their own best interests and those of humanity, they must next do. For our part, we must work hard to develop our local communities, to create tangible solutions to the problems we face, superior local alternatives to replace the dependency that empowers special interests, and produce a viable model that is self-evidently a system people will want to join and help build. Of all the aspects discussed in the voluminous collection of counterinsurgency manuals the US government has produced, possessing a morally superior cause and instilling a sense of legitimacy within a population ranks toward the top in importance. Building a local community with the peoples best interests addressed by the peoples own two hands themselves, exhibits just such a cause, featuring just such legitimacy. It would be a movement very difficult for the corporate-insurgency to prevail against, and is the key reason why their doctrine has failed them overseas in pursuit of their empire where nations and peoples have successfully accomplished this. For the Oregon ranchers, their ill-conceived strategy fits nowhere within the above-outlined necessities for taking back our communities and institutions. A well-organized and well-armed citizenry if led and used properly, would deter confrontations before they even unfolded. A group finding itself in multiple armed standoffs before it has even built the necessary sociopolitical and technical underpinning necessary to sustain any kind of struggle, has failed to understand even the most elementary aspects of strategic doctrine and has doomed itself before it even began. The best advice for those either joined with these ranchers, or supporting them, is to step back from the Hollywood narrative apparently being woven, see how our attention has been distracted away from real solutions and real local empowerment, and directed toward an expanding confrontation Wall Street and Washington are well prepared to easily win. Tony Cartaluccis articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at Land Destroyer Report, Alternative Thai News Network and LocalOrg. The Showdown in Burns Oregon seems like just another stepping stone in the Obama plan to remove privately owned guns from the people because Obama knows that he will not survive his attempt at remaining in office after January 20th 2017 unless he takes all the guns from the people. The Showdown in Burns Oregon seems like just another stepping stone in You are manipulated by he establishment trolls You should now the facts and the real situation on the groundIts not about Hammond family only.I applaud those real patriots. Can the author of the article state what under circumstances are the real solutions ? The group in Oregon had exhausted all the means to address they grievancesThey were completely ignored by the establishment Picking a fight you have no chance of winning is plain stupid and worse than utopian. Besides, you apparently didnt read the article if you are calling these solutions utopian. They are tactics used by empires and rebels for thousands of years. Peoples ignorance is the problem here, and why the government has had such an easy time corralling them. A significant consciousness shift would have to take place prior to a major localism movement, otherwise, we fall into the waiting trap of Sustainability (techno utopian localism) by and for the same powers that shouldnt be who engineered the hyperconsumption paradigm. The best thing about the Bundy dust up was it became a great teaching moment, opening more eyes to the Agenda 21 can of worms. That said, youre correct, protesters need to be smart and realistic. How does one achieve a significant consciousness shift and what metrics are employed to determine that? I dont understand how the government can possibly have such an easy time corralling us when there are literally millions of people such as yourself that apparently know everything. I hear that all the time. Everyone is an expert, and yet we are doing so miserable with a nation of Einsteins. Something doesnt fit. The government wants to steal these peoples land. (And the government will.) Im sure the protesters realize their protest is symbolic. But what other option did they have besides quiet submission? If they do not back down, the feds will kill them or at least some of them. I think some of them at least know this. I guess like the first shot at concord, does not matter which side fires first, has to be fired. Once the feds kill some of these people, they are not going to believe the hornets nest they have kicked in the western states. Many in the west are tired of ranchers destroying protected land with their herds of grazing cattle and working with the BLM to send wild horses to slaughter (which is against federal law). These ranchers are a joke. This land is not theirs, its everyones. Protected land? These ranchers know more about protecting the environment than a Chicago chock-full of city slickers like you. You say many, but it is all hyperbole and is more accurate to say a few in the west namely in the big city centers where people wouldnt know the difference between a horses turd and a roadside retread tire. Ranchers protecting the land? Now I know you dont know what youre talking about. Unless you mean destroying sensitive ecosystems and working with the BLM to remove herds of wild horses. They are second only to oil gas in enjoying cheap leases on the land to destroy it for their own profits. I live in cattle country, so sorry, youre wrong. There are many here who actually respect nature and wildlife. So now the ranchers arent getting their way so they throw a hissy fit and grab their guns to occupy a bird sanctuary. Their fight against tyranny couldnt be more ridiculous. Youre just a demoralized communist, in full support of the corrupt govt. Youve allowed your liberal news media to form your opinions. You have no idea what I believe. Quite the contrary, I am no fan of the federal government. Once you have to start name calling, youve lost all credibility to your argument. I do not watch the national news at all. I actually live in the west, among ranchers, and in this culture. They are not modern day revolutionaries, though I know that is the fantasy people are clinging to. I have seen how closely they work with the BLM, their current enemy. The BLM, by the way, is an agency I have spoken and written against with regards to their policy toward working WITH ranchers to exterminate the wolf population and round up wild horses for slaughter, among other campaigns of destroying our nature. There are actually people in this country that value our wilderness, ranchers not among them, nor you I can tell. They only care about nature in so far as how much of it they can use for grazing their herds. Also, if you think it actually matters if someone is liberal or conservative, or who they vote for to the powers that be, you are so deep in the matrix, that there is little hope that you would recognize the truth and where we are being led as a nation if you saw it. Its public land that belongs to all Americans. The government doesnt even recognize that the land I hold deed to and pay taxes on belongs to me. How do I know this? I was specifically told, by government, that I am free to camp on my property only two weeks per year. Then by your own argument, the ranchers have no moral or legal right to destroy the land with their cattle grazing. Lets be honest, they are doing this because they are not getting their way and able to do what they want with the protected land, which is destroy the ecosystem and wildlife for their own profit. This may shock you, but there are vast numbers of people here in the west who actually want our natural environment protected and are tired of the ranching cartel. Have you done the land patten process? Not exactly familiar with that. Got 50 acres that is a combination of 10 mining claims which were platted all around 1900. The county combined them and allowed 1 building permit. So how do these guys exit stage left without ending up behind bars? John 12:24 The founding fathers and their supporters were seen as rebels/trouble makers because the majority of people still considered themselves SUBJECTS of the king. We have come full circle were the herd now censors itself. As far as Im concerned he is controlled opposition and I think it would be in the interest of any people who wish to become free of tyrannical control to do it in any fashion possible, otherwise you will be accepting some crazy concept such as FREE SPEECH ZONES. Get out of the internet and start organizing among yourselves. The so called alternative internet is no more. Did you really think the control freaks and criminals that have stolen power are going to let you have your own communication and news outlet? True, the founders were 18th century RADICALS and today the ruling elite portray those holding the founders principles as being 21st century REACTIONARIES, i.e. right wing extremism espousing inalienable rights for individuals and sovereignty. Thats why labels depend on the context and are largely BS, used for neurolinguistic programming designed to illicit knee-jerk reactions in those who have lost the ability to think critically and outside the indoctrination frameworks. To answer your question on how to wake up enough people, IMO, those of us who are awake need to shake off the political correctness leashes and work together so, yep, network as you suggest outside the squawking internet echo chambers. Thats what its coming to anyway with increasing censorship and deeper infowar infiltration. If TPTB also give the public a series of sharp painful economic pokes that would force some more eyes open, that and some kind of Mother Nature blow back that results in more people sickened by the deadly brew of GMOs, toxins, vaccines, and geoengineering. They have to connect the dots, though. History has proven that 10-12% of the population is all that is needed to start a meaningful movement. If you cant find it in yourself to stop paying into the very system you oppose, why bother opposing it in the first place? You DO have a choice and the article above spells it out as clear as it can possibly be, and even gives you examples of people NOT paying into the system. This is the problem. The entire solution can be dropped into peoples laps and they are STILL too lazy, too selfish, too absorbed in their personal ideology to make any use of it. So maybe you dont deserve freedom, because you think it is like everything else, a commodity to be given to you and consumed The worst thing the good can do against evil is nothing. Using the corrupt courts does not work. Protesting peacefully is laughed at. Actually, we did achieve revolution through mostly peaceful means. The colonies were becoming independent economically, socially, politically, and through the possession of their own means of production, banking, etc. It was only when this independence became real that the idea of armed resistance was possible. And it was only because of this real independence that armed resistance worked. Stop looking at history and reality like a 12 year old boy, do the research and look at what really happened. The feds cannot legally own state property- this is where it all begins. And the feds have no jurisdiction on this property. Read the law of the constitution. Be quiet. It is a CIA rebellion. The New World Order is here. Ammon Bundy is of the Beast. Which is why the FBI is not doing anything, same as 9/11. If it doesnt pass the smell test, it is probably NWO. This is futile. The government is going to kill 90% of Americans in WW3. The day of the next false flag using a nuke and blamed on Iran, America will be nuked and invaded by Russia, China and the SCO. This is the war of Armageddon and you can know it is now because of Planet X and the toxic chemtrails that hide it every day globally. Planet X will end the war when it goes around the sun and reworks the earth. Yes I agree with everything you say about the BLM destroying our natural resources and using the land as business, and selling it off to the highest bidder. I am not a fan of the BLM. In fact, I have been involved in trying to stop them from exterminating the native wolf populations, rounding up wild horses for slaughter, etc., all at the demand of the ranchers! These two groups work very closely together to destroy the land. These people are not revolutionaries, nor are they good stewards of the land. They want the land to use as they see fit for their grazing herds, which destroys the ecosystem and wildlife just as the lumber industry or gas oil or any other business. There are no good guys here. I will read the links, Lewie, thanks. I am not a fan of the BLM or the feds and know full well how they are destroying our land and selling it off. I have been involved in trying to stop this where I live. I am, however, no fan of how the ranchers destroy the land either. They are anything but good stewards. I really dont have much of an opinion on this. Except to say I hope no one engages in violence to further their agenda. I was taught to mind my own business and this is definitely none of my business. I do find it interesting that so many are calling for a violent solution to a problem that has not yet turned violent. Does make me wonder how many citizens were on-board for the burning of the Branch Davidians. I agree with you here, Lewie. The calls on the progressive websites for a violent suppression of the non-violent occupation are chilling. No more chilling than Red Team sites calling for military operations in the Middle East. Violence and bloodlust every political direction. MYOB is the only acronym needed: I wish both parties would find it and like matter hitting antimatter theyd both cease to exist as political parties. If its too late, why even bother pecking away at your computer to disparage other peoples ideas, suggestions, and proposals? Sounds more like YOU are part of the problem. Supporting people trying to take on a trillion dollar/million man army who have no plan and nothing behind them to sustain what appears otherwise a psyop instead of getting up and building alternatives seems to be precisely the sort of trap the Feds would lay out for restless people. The reason we are in this situation is because Americans including you have the minds of 12 year old boys. You have no clue how the powers that be TOOK this power, and you have no clue on how to take it back. You think you can just run around going pew pew pew and all the bad guys will disappear. This aint Hollywood! The article above is citing MANUALS YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT IS USING AGAINST YOU. Your plan is to just go out and shoot people? That sounds like what the Feds would love for everyone to do, because they are READY for that! What they arent ready for is people coming up with a coherent, incremental plan that will take power back while denying them an opportunity to capitalize on their strengths. Like a typical American, you want results now. No patience or vision for the future, just instant satisfaction today. Again, exactly what the corporations and the Feds would love for you to think. 