Introduction: Dr. Vieira holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For over thirty-six years he has been a practicing attorney, specializing in cases that raise issues of constitutional law. He has presented numerous cases of import before the Supreme Court and written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals. His latest scholarly works are Constitutional "Homeland Security" (2007), a proposal to begin the revitalization of the constitutional Militia of the several states; Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2d rev. ed. 2002), a comprehensive study of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective; and How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary (2004), an analysis of the problems of irresponsible "judicial supremacy", and how to deal with them. With well known libertarian trader Victor Sperandeo, he is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered "crash" of the Federal Reserve System, and the political revolution it causes. He is now working on an extensive project concerned with the constitutional "Militia of the Several States" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms."
Daily Bell: Thanks for sitting down with us again. We've interviewed you before and are always struck by your clarity and eloquence. In this interview we want to make some declarative statements, if you don't mind, and then have you respond. These are very "tough" questions by the way, and we don't mind at all if you disagree or do not wish to discuss them. Wouldn't be the first time and we wouldn't blame you a bit. Anyway, we'll start with a couple of basic questions … What's the single-most critical problem facing America right now? We think it's America's growing militarism and authoritarianism.
Edwin Vieira, Jr: I agree. The elaboration of a national para-military police state is the most dangerous development in recent times. The likelihood of a crash of the Federal Reserve System in hyperinflation is critical, too. But if that event occurs (as it probably will), the response of the power-structure will not be to correct the situation, but instead to impose the worst kind of third-world "austerity" on this country, in order to salvage the financial system at the expense of Mr. and Mrs. America. As most average Americans will not accept savage cuts in their standard of living gracefully, "austerity" will have to be rammed down their throats with police batons. Which, as far as I can tell, is the main, if not the only reason for the Department of Homeland Security.
Of course, I was predicting all this YEARS ago, to those who read my columns at www.newswithviews.com, so today I feel a bit like Cassandra must have. You know, the only reason we are aware of Cassandra is that (i) she was right in her predictions, and (ii) no one paid any attention to her! If the Trojans had harkened to her warning, they might have beaten the Greeks (or avoided the war altogether); and then credit would have gone to Priam, Hector, Paris, Aeneas, or some other "hero", rather than to the prophetess. That leaves me with something of a pessimistic outlook.
Daily Bell: What's going on in the Middle East? We've lost count of the wars and skirmishes in which the US is involved.
Edwin Vieira, Jr: What's going on in the Middle East is what has gone on there since the days of the Assyrians: naked imperialism, the struggle for resources, trade routes, military bases, and puppet local leaders and states to do the Empire's bidding (what used to be called "satraps" and "satrapies"). In ancient times, because the Middle East was largely "a world of its own", if an imperialistic state conquered the region it effectively ruled its world. Today, the Middle East is a point d'appui (as the military strategists say) for launching attacks on the whole globe, and a choke point for controlling the flow of vital resources. So, modern imperialists imagine, if they control the Middle East they can control the entire world.
Daily Bell: In the past six months our thinking has coalesced around the idea of what we now call "directed history" or conspiratorial history. We increasingly tend to believe, at least theoretically, that humanity's real history is a "directed" one. Make any sense to you? Are you a believer in the mainstream "great man" theory of history?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: No rational person believes that what happens in a social context is the product of purely individual action, by isolated people just (as was said of Lee Harvey Oswald) "acting alone ." Most of what happens in a social context, and certainly in an economic or a political context, is the result of concerted action by groups of people. Moreover, these people do not act for no reason, or for mutually contradictory reasons. As the Austrian Economists point out, "human action is purposeful behavior ." There is always a reason (although it may be a bad one or an incorrect one) on the basis of which the members of the group concert their activities. To call these actions "conspiracy" may or may not be correct, depending on whether the ends envisioned or the means employed are illegal or immoral. But to deny that they are concerted actions of particular people, intentionally directed to some specific goals believed by those people to be beneficial to themselves, and that they are usually more successful, because they are concerted, than similar actions by isolated individuals, is ridiculous.
Sometimes these groups attain so much economic, political, or military power or influence that, for a time, they "direct" (or seem to "direct") a society's course, or important aspects of it. The "paper-money oligarchy" is one such group. But we must remember that competition always develops among existing groups, causes some old groups to disappear, and stimulates the formation of new groups. So we might say that there is "sporadic direction", or "intermittent direction", and certainly "competition in direction", but not "permanent direction" by any one group.
For example, Tsardom was a huge apparatus of concerted action that "directed" "all the Russias" for several hundred years. Then it collapsed, and the Bolsheviks took its place – literally, with Stalin more of a "Tsar" than even Ivan the Terrible had been. But the whole Bolshevik enterprise imploded and then fragmented under Gorbachev. What are we to say? Sic transit gloria mundi. These supposedly "directing" powers apparently lacked the power necessary to "direct" their own survival. Tsardom may not have been a "conspiracy", but Bolshevism certainly was. (Lenin himself viewed and ran the Communist Party as such.) So even supremely powerful conspiracies can come apart at the seams.
As for "great men", surely there have been individuals who have stood out as "leaders", for good or ill, throughout history. But no Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, to cite the worst modern examples, could have succeeded without dozens of lieutenants, and tens if not hundreds of thousands of lower-level helpers and hangers-on who had to be just as bad as they were, because the lower-level operatives were the ones who actually performed the arrests, actually confined people in concentration camps (gulag, laogai), and actually pulled the triggers in the execution-cellars. I am not aware of any evidence that Hitler, Stalin, or Mao ever shot some political enemy in the back of the head; but hundreds of thousands of supposed "enemies" were shot by their lackeys. "Great men" of that stamp are apparently "great" because they can convince large numbers of "little men" to behave in the most bestial ways towards even larger numbers of their completely innocent and harmless fellow men. The questions that need answers, then, are: Why do the "lesser men" follow the Hitlers, Stalins, and Maos into the labyrinth of evil? And why do the masses allow themselves to be herded, and even slaughtered, by these thugs as so many sheep?
Daily Bell: Like you, we are far from endorsing the Great Man theory of history. In fact, we believe the forces behind this directed history over the past 500 years anyway are Anglo-American elites. These are basically banking families and their enablers based in Britain, Europe with military and intelligence arms (along with other such families) in Israel and the US. Your thoughts?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: There is no question that this "banking" (or, more descriptively, "financial racketeering") group has been, for a long time, the dominant economic, political, and social force in Western Civilization, and more recently in world civilization. But the cracks in its facade are already widening to a dangerous degree: Its paper-money and credit schemes are in the final stages of Ponzi self-destruction. Its militaristic imperialism has arrived at the point of "overstretch ." Its "social programs" to keep the masses content with "bread and circuses" are proving too expensive to maintain while funding the other major line-items of the imperialistic agenda. Its political and economic fronts of "democracy", "free elections", "two parties", "the rule of law", "freedom of speech", "free markets", "free trade" et cetera ad nauseum, are being exposed as frauds. So the game seems to be up.
Daily Bell: Again, we agree. But that has not stopped them so far. In fact, we believe these families use what we call dominant social themes or fear-based promotions along with military actions (wars, large and small) to reshape the world and set it increasingly on the path toward one world government … and continue to do so.
Edwin Vieira, Jr: Yes, agitation and propaganda focusing on fear and greed, fomenting of international and civil wars, artificially created and managed "booms and busts", cultural subversion … they are all aimed ultimately at a global police state. Whether this police state turns out to be predominately fascistic or socialistic in character depends upon which of the contending forces within the globalist movement proves more realistic, resilient, and ruthless: the governmental bureaucrats and the politicians and intelligentsia allied with them ("the Red Front"); or the supra-national corporations and the bureaucrats and politicians allied with them ("the Brown Front"). At this point in the United States, I should bet on the Brown Front, because of the tremendous power of the Military-Industrial Complex, and the recognition by the deep thinkers in the Pentagon that they need the things only the industrialists can supply far more than they need anything the pencil-pushers in the civilian bureaucracy can offer.
Daily Bell: We want to focus a little more on this idea of unified world control because you have been magnificent in calling attention to what is going on in America, but there is perhaps a larger WHY. We don't believe these US and NATO foreign wars are wars for resources. These are wars of neo-colonial control. Correct? Incorrect?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: Why would any materialist want to control some geographical territory and a troublesome hostile population, except for what can be gained in material terms from that control? There are valuable natural resources, and (to use the "planners'" favorite term) "human resources", too, in those far-away places. Also, denying resources of various kinds to opponents is part of a war for resources.
Of course, one cannot discount the involvement of psychopathological elements in all this. Psychopaths–with whom modern governments have been staffed to superfluity throughout the Twentieth Century and even unto this very day – do not usually think in strict economic terms of "cost versus benefit." Hitler, for example, wanted to exterminate the Slavic populations in the East, and resettle those lands with ethnic Germans (the "lebensraum" policy). Apparently, because of his racist aberrations, it never dawned on him (or he rejected the idea) that the Slavs could more easily and profitably have been reduced to "haulers of wood and drawers of water," and thus been made to pay their own way more or less in cooperation with the occupying forces. And his brutal policies against the indigenous populations significantly contributed to his losing the war against Stalin. Then, how many people did Stalin murder senselessly (or apparently senselessly, according to what we would consider a rational calculation) in pursuit of "collectivization of the land" or various "five year plans"? Or Mao, with "the Great Leap Forward" and "the Cultural Revolution"? There may have been some method behind these events; yet they all certainly reeked strongly of madness, too.
Daily Bell: Ok, point taken. But let's press you a little on that. In addition to seeking control – domination – over additional regions of the world, we believe that an entire global infrastructure has been built up over the past 60 years and that this is no accident. The UN, IMF, NATO, World Bank, BIS, ICC are all recent globalist inventions, not to mention globalist trade associations and other entities such as WHO. Seems the entire world is becoming subject to a kind of creeping world government. Coincidence?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: Hardly. The globalists know they cannot set up their world superstate in one fell swoop. So they are laying a few bricks here, and a few more there, that somewhere down the line will serve as the foundation, and then the walls, and then the roof of their projected building. Moreover, their plan is not just "creeping" along, any more than the construction of any complex edifice can be called "creeping" simply because it takes a long time to complete. They have their schedule. Unfortunately for them, quite a few people in the world oppose the project, albeit in somewhat chaotic fashion. So the schedule is set back now and again, in unpredictable ways. And some parts of the construction, such as military alliances (NATO, the various "coalitions" cobbled together for ad hoc aggression in the Middle East), will doubtlessly prove to be merely temporary expedients, just as a wooden frame into which concrete is poured for a foundation is discarded after the concrete hardens.
Daily Bell: We've noticed that military pressure plays a part in this globalization of the Western paradigm – one we call regulatory democracy. In Iraq and Afghanistan for instance, almost the first thing American officials did was start a central bank. The second thing would be to set up a public school system. Then tax collection, military police etc. Seems like neo-colonialism to us, even though you have stated that this occurs at least partially for purposes of a resource grab? So let us ask the question again. Is the ultimate purpose one of control – of culture and regions – or one of resources?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: Put it that way and these are the instruments of control, the means rather than the ends. If, as applied to foreign countries that the imperialists take over, in the aggregate they represent the mechanistic essentials of "neo-colonialism", what are they to be called in the imperialists' own countries (the United States and the United Kingdom, in particular)? Apparently, the US and the UK were "colonized" long ago by use of these various techniques, which were then perfected for export to unwilling customers worldwide. So then the question becomes, Who were (and still are) the original "colonizers"? Remember, human action is purposeful behavior by identifiable individuals, not disembodied "forces" or "trends ." We need to identify, as Captain Renault would have said, "the usual suspects."
Daily Bell: Excellent. This is absolutely true in our view. These strategies were worked out at home and applied abroad. It seems to us that the World War I extended Anglosphere control to Germany. World War II crushed Japan as an independent entity and the Vietnamese and Korean wars brought Asia into the Anglosphere fold. Now this is happening in the Middle East and Africa. In others words, almost every war on the past century has really been fought to advance globalism. Other rationales and mainstream history are actually a kind of smokescreen. Too cynical?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: As no war in recent memory has been waged in order to bring about, or even support, true national independence for any country (including the United States), one can presume that globalism was the purpose for them all. As Sherlock Holmes would say, once every other explanation for the crime has been eliminated, the one that remains is likely correct.
Daily Bell: Let's return to this issue of regions versus resources. We don't believe the US and Britain are playing the "great game." We think the countries in the Middle East and Africa are the only ones left that do not participate in the so-called unity of nations and that what is going on now in the Middle East and Africa is a kind of final push to subjugate the world. Any truth to this in your view? Just paranoia?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: Even paranoids sometimes have real enemies. I doubt, though, that all of the countries in the world other than those in the Middle East and Africa are playing the "unity of nations" game in the same way the US, the UK, and their client (or puppet) states are playing it. The Chinese and the Russians, certainly, do not intend to become "junior partners" of the Anglo-American cabal, if they can help it. And perhaps the Germans might recognize the benefit of their allying with the Russians and the Chinese in a sort of modern "Dreikaiserbund", as the Anglo-American funny-money apparatus explodes in hyperinflation. So there are many wild cards left to be played in this deck.
Daily Bell: It seems to us that regulatory democracy – which you could also call fascism – is the preferred form of government that the Western elites want to spread around the world. Yes? No?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: The fascistic model is the one that "works," after a fashion, because it retains a modicum of free-market direction of resources. Besides being proven by Mises and other economists to be unworkable in theory, the socialistic model of central bureaucratic planning has also been discredited in practice by its failure in the Soviet Union, Mao's China, and so on. The Western "elitists" may be knaves; but they are not entirely fools. So, given that their ascendancy cannot abide the free market and limited government, and that they cannot maintain that ascendancy economically through socialism, fascism would seem to be their only realistic choice.
Daily Bell: Can you expand on China's and Russia's relationship with the West?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: Russia is a semi-Western country; but its leadership class harbors significant resentments and jealousies against the Anglo-American Establishment. So I think it's being "on board" [with elite globalism] is problematical. As for the Chinese, they are an entirely different culture. They may lead the Anglo-Americans into believing that they are "on board"; but why they should actually be "on board" mystifies me, particularly in that they must recognize that the Western funny-money Ponzi banks and financial centers are in the final throes of self-destruction. If you knew the iceberg was waiting for you, would you sail on the Titanic?
Daily Bell: This globalist push seems to have started about ten years ago, right after 9/11. In fact, 9/11 seems to have been the galvanizing force behind the current leg of militaristic internationalism. Does this make you suspicious of the official story behind 9/11? We've joined voices with others calling for a new investigation, maybe an international one. Is this naïve? Does it matter anymore? As Bill Clinton would say, should we just move on?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: If Bill Clinton said it, we have good reason to be suspicious. We still don't know exactly what was going on in Mena, for Heaven's sake! The key event in 9/11 was the obvious controlled demolition of WTC-7. That and that alone should settle the question that the "official" 9/11 story is bunkum, through and through.
What the truth of the matter is, only a real investigation can determine. But the people behind the cover-up should realize that thousands of innocent individuals were murdered on 9/11; that there is NO statute of limitations on murder (and certainly not on mass-murder); and that whoever aids and abets the actual murderers by covering up the crime after the fact is equally guilty. So the perpetrators of this crime and their henchmen are playing with nano-thermite, as it were. If a real American patriot ever should become President, with control of the investigatory apparatus of the government in Washington, and as Commander in Chief of the Militia in every State, they are finished.
Daily Bell: The ramifications of the theory of directed history are sizeable. But let's stick to the present. Is Barack Obama a kind of elite puppet?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: He is certainly operating far "above his pay grade", as the expression goes. And it appears that he did not arrive there on the basis of outstanding personal merit, or decades of hard, effective work as a legislator or administrator. So what would Sherlock Holmes's conclusion be?
Daily Bell: Is central banking the engine that drives the elites' increasingly global governance?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: So far it has been. Which leads one to expect that, with the imminent collapse of the Federal Reserve System as the de facto world central bank, the "elitists" will now attempt to set up a de jure world central bank independent of every particular country's laws. [To watch a short video clip from FIAT EMPIRE with Dr. Vieira on the nature of Fractional Reserve Banking, click here.]
Daily Bell: Can you see in American history a pattern of increasing centralization of money and political authority – power drained from the states. Is this simply coincidence?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: It certainly was NOT "coincidence"! But as I wrote a book of some 1,700 pages on this subject, entitled PIECES OF EIGHT: THE MONETARY POWERS AND DISABILITIES OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (available from Amazon), I shall refer your readers there for the full story.
Daily Bell: We think the modern historical paradigm pits the truth-telling of the Internet Reformation against the fear-based promotions and militarism of the elites. Any credibility to this?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: The Internet is full of "fear-based promotions and militarism", too, because the Establishment is learning to "game" it. Also, it is overrun with drivel and nonsense, from every wavelength of the political spectrum, because anything can be posted by anyone at any time at very low cost. In addition, I find that people who habitually use the Internet, almost to the exclusion of reading books, tend to develop very short attention-spans. Confronted by more than one page of text, they impatiently click to some other link (usually with pictures). They come to demand–and to receive – very easily chewed "e-bites" of information, which, being so limited in substance, tend often to be as much mis-information as real information. That is, for most people the Internet is not Harvard University's Widener Library, but what amounts to a "Dick and Jane" primary-school reader.
There is also the problem of the incalculable mass of material floating through the ether. How does one discriminate? Of X thousand web sites and blogs, which ones are actually worth reviewing? Does someone utterly unknown to you have a basis for what he is publishing? On balance, though, the Internet has opened up many doors that the Establishment would prefer to see permanently closed. So, on the principle that "it takes a crooked stick to beat a mad dog," I'm all for it.
Daily Bell: We think in fact the modern Internet Reformation era is partially a replay of what happened when the Gutenberg press helped spark the Renaissance, Protestant Reformation, etc. – as well as a series of endless Peasant wars. Your thoughts?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: I'm glad that you observed that "the Gutenberg press" might have had untoward, as well as beneficial, consequences. I suppose the ultimate point is that information, by itself, is not enough. A bit of discrimination and prudence has to be added, or things will tend to get out of hand.
Daily Bell: Good point, though actually the Peasant Wars were started to distract people from the influence of the Press so far as we can tell. Anyway, if modern history IS directed by Anglo-American elites, is world government inevitable – as this seems to their goal?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: Nothing has ever proven to be "inevitable" in human affairs except death. Did we not just come through a century of destructive idiocy during which huge numbers of supposedly intelligent people professed to believe in "dialectical materialism", "scientific socialism", and "the dictatorship of the proletariat", all summed up in "the inevitability of communism"? But outside of American universities, anyone who stood up and proclaimed "the inevitability of communism" today would be viewed as a candidate for psychiatric intervention.
Practically speaking, the "elitists" do have their goals. But hundreds of millions of other people have other, contrary goals. And as those people outnumber the "elitists" by orders of magnitude, as "God is on the side of the heavier battalions," and as the "elitists'" goals are unworkable in any event, I wonder whose goals in the long run will prove to be "inevitable."
Daily Bell: Do you think these elites wish to reduce the world's population? What do you think of the Rosicrucian Georgia Guidestones?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: I harbor no doubt that psychopaths in positions of power would not shrink from murdering anyone who stood in their way – whether particular individuals, economic classes, races, and so on. Have they ever shrunk from mass murder?
Daily Bell: If one accepts modern directed history, it seems as if the effort to create global governance has taken a step back because of Pashtun/Taliban resistance. We see the British, in particular, having tried to crush the Pashtuns three times in the past 150 years. We don't think these were resource wars but were wars specifically aimed at erasing tribal resistance to create an easier path toward a one-world order. Any truth to this?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: Lenin and Stalin ruthlessly crushed the so-called "kulaks" and a large part of the ordinary Ukrainian and Russian peasantry as well. Tens of millions died. These events were part of the Bolsheviks' "resource wars", primarily for control of food, but with the ultimate aim of stabilizing and preserving the Bolshevik regime (the proposed "new world order" of its day). The Bolsheviks would not have murdered so many peasants, if the peasants had not engaged in a kind of "tribal resistance" to collectivization, expropriation, starvation, deportation to labor camps, and so on. So which is the chicken and which the egg?
As far as I can tell, the difference between the British and the Bolsheviks with respect to matters such as these consists in the letters that follow the "B", and not much more.
Daily Bell: We notice the current wars in the Middle East are for the most part tribal. The Yemenis and Somalis claim tribal kinship with each other, the Afghan Pashtun and Pakistani Punjabs are very ancient tribes; the Persians once dominated an empire. It seems as if rather than being a war on terror, the current wars breaking out are aimed at subjecting the oldest tribes of the world to the yolk of Western globalism. We think the war on terror simply disguises what is a war against the world's most ancient tribes. Any comments?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: Yes, these various tribes do stand in the way of "Western globalism", are made up of refractory people who have the temerity to want to live their own lives in their own traditional manners, and will not knuckle under to anything short of overwhelming force. Ergo, force is being applied to them at almost a genocidal level; but, unfortunately for the globalists, it is proving to be less than overwhelming.
On the other hand, the globalists would be following exactly the same policies if those areas were inhabited by refractory, armed people transplanted from Cleveland, Ohio (who, I understand, are pretty tough, too, or they never would have survived there).
These so-called "wars" (so-called because they are not constitutional) are not "wars ON terror", but "wars OF terror", of which not all the victims are among these foreign tribes. The American people are victims, too. The Middle Eastern tribes do not hate Americans' freedoms, with which they have had no experience whatsoever; rather, they hate America's leadership class, which is bombing, shooting, and otherwise trying to kill them on a daily basis. And if Americans want to preserve their freedoms, they should begin to look closely at this situation through those tribesmen's eyes.
Daily Bell: We worry that if the Middle East and Africa are overrun, there could be nothing standing in the way of the elite's quest for global domination. In such a situation, we think the elites would enlarge their authoritarian efforts domestically. Thus, while it is bad now, it will be worse in the future for citizens of the West if the elites consolidate their gains abroad. Just paranoia?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: No, you are probably correct, IF no resistance were forthcoming from Americans themselves. But we see that the "elitists'" present "authoritarian efforts" are generating a tidal wave of disgust, anger, and increasing "push back" from average Americans across the country. So the idea that apparent "elitist" victories in the Middle East and Africa will shore up their position at home is not well founded.
Daily Bell: Some less geopolitical questions. Is Barack Obama going to win re-election?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: If the Republicans persist in nominating any one of their present "front runners" for President, the Democrats could nominate a stuffed rhinoceros and expect to win.
Daily Bell: How about Ron Paul?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: The Republicans will never nominate him. He is as dangerous to them as he is to the Democrats. Perhaps more so.
I hope that, after the Republicans and their lap dogs in the big media perform their usual "hatchet job" on him, Dr. Paul will run on a "fusion ticket" of the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and whatever other third parties still desire their members to live in a free society. In that way, he might be able to find a place on the ballot in all or most of the States. If such a "fusion ticket" drew enough support, it would signal the impending death of the Republican Party. (And good riddance.)
Having decided not to run for re-election to Congress, Dr. Paul has nothing to lose, and can afford to go all out. And he could contribute nothing more valuable than to leave this country with a true "second" party. Then elections will become real contests between American patriots (the Whites, the traditional color of counterrevolution), and the fascist-socialist combine (the Browns and the Reds).
Daily Bell: If someone like Ron Paul were to win, would he be able to reverse the authoritarian tide in the US?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: Let me put it this way: Dr. Paul has far more practical experience in government than do I. But if I were elected President, within six months or so I should have the "elitists" running pell-mell for the exits, by applying the "Seven I's Policy": namely, illuminate, investigate, interrogate, implicate, indict, inculpate, and incarcerate. Remember 9/11, for example. How many would have to "take a fall" for that little episode? So, I suspect that if Dr. Paul were to become President, and were to appoint the right people to the right offices, he could do a very great deal "to reverse the authoritarian tide" in short order. After all, in history as on the beaches, the tides flow and the tides ebb.
Daily Bell: We've noticed the tribal areas that remain the freest – or at least unengaged from global government – are the ones where people are armed, like Yemen and Afghanistan. Is this coincidence?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: Hardly. As Mao Tse-tung wrote, "'[p]olitical power grows out the barrel of a gun'." Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-tung (Peking, China: Foreign Languages Press, First Edition, 1966), at 61. The Second Amendment makes the same point, albeit more idealistically: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Daily Bell: Are the elites worried about sparking a guerilla war in the West? Is this the reason for gun control?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: The reason for gun control is to deny common Americans the ability, and thereby the right, to live in "a free State", because the Second Amendment tells us that "the security of a free State" depends upon "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." You can't have the former without the latter. And you can't attack the latter without attacking the former.
Obviously, the "elitists" must be extremely concerned with the level of armament among average Americans, and how ill it bodes for their schemes. If they push too hard, too fast, and too openly, some hard-bitten Americans are likely to start asking their oppressors point-blank: "Is enforcing the latest bit of bureaucratic stupidity and insolence worth anyone's life?" And once the shooting starts, all bets are off. Indeed, a betting man would probably not give odds against 100 million or more angry Americans armed with 200 to 300 million firearms and who knows how much ammunition. (Especially if a sizeable part of the Armed Forces sided with the insurgents.) Thinking about that possibility must keep the "elitists" in a cold sweat at night. Of course, no rational person wants any shooting to start. And the "elitists," if they were rational, would want it less than everyone else. But how rational are they?
Daily Bell: Is it rational to believe that if martial law came to America, that the country could be easily subdued?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: Martial law" – which is not "law" at all, but simply military force applied without limit to the populace – will not "come to America" until the country has been subdued. A "declaration of martial law" is nothing but that, until it is enforced. That's where the admonition "the Devil is in the details" will be proven true in spades.
Daily Bell: Best case – where is the US and the world headed? Worst case? Are you hopeful? Do you foresee a freer civil society to hand your children?
Edwin Vieira, Jr: I foresee a great deal of trouble before this country and the world exit the dark tunnel into which the "elitists" have led us. Do you imagine that the Federal Reserve System's monetary Ponzi scheme and the U.S. Treasury's gargantuan burden of debt, utterly unpayable in real terms, will not be dealt with by, or lead inexorably to, hyperinflation in the near term? And do you imagine that hyperinflation will not result in economic collapse, political upheavals, and massive civil unrest?
Out of all this a free society may emerge. But, first, a lot of teeth will have to be pulled from the vampires now parasitizing this country and the world. And they will not sit still in the dentists' chairs for the operations, I warrant. So I hope that my children turn out to be as tough customers as the Finns were not so long ago. They fought Stalin to a standstill twice, and walked away still in control of their own country. That proves it can be done, if one wants it enough.
Daily Bell: Thank you for your time once again – and for answering the "tough" questions.
Dr. Edward Vieira Jr. is an example of a person who should be ensconced in the bosom of wealth and power-elite fame by now. He went to the right schools and is a person of substantive intellect. But instead of finding himself heading up a corporation or fronting for a big mainstream media outlet, he has chosen the path of mainstream obscurity.
He is, however, still very well known and even loved by those who understand his courage in speaking out across the spectrum of the "alternative press." He has surely given up a much better living (no matter how good it is), than he could have made by turning his talents toward promoting the elite new world order.
But he didn't. We would guess that he didn't because he wouldn't. The problem that Western elites (Pharisees, one could call them) have in recruiting people for their plans is that they are mostly second raters. People who are real intellects, like Dr. Vieira, won't compromise what they believe in because they cannot. They have put extraordinary time and effort into becoming what they are and have not taken short-cuts. Therefore, they cannot psychologically accept the possibility of reconfiguring their points of view – not even for fame or money.
Everyone trims his or her sails "a little" now and again … but what the power elite demands is seeming total intellectual subjugation. Anyone who is a thinking person in this day and age, and not a sociopath, must go through life haunted by the ramifications of what he or she is doing in helping to support the coming world order. They must know their children, and their children's children will regret it.
The point is that the new world order will end in the death of millions, even billions. Totalitarianism, once established, and without opposition, always does. Fortunately, there is the Internet Reformation, which is continually bollixing up the schemes of those who wish to impose global governance in the near term. From global warming to central banking to the phony war on terror, the most powerful, fear-based dominant social themes of the elite have come under attack.
The play-book is as old as time. It is a mafia-like one. Create outside threats and then demand taxes, draftees and other sacrifices from the middle and lower classes. The trouble is that the intelligentsia has to be co-opted as well. And that is far more difficult during a communications revolution.
Whatever history was before, it is now a struggle between dominating elites and those who are enlightened by communication technology. The first "modern" struggle was waged 500 years ago during the era of the Gutenberg Press. The current struggle is being waged in the era of the electronic communication – also known as the era of the Internet Reformation.
We believe that power elites do not win these modern struggles. They may not lose, but their plans are cyclically disrupted. Just as they were recovering from the damage done by the Gutenberg Press, along came the Internet. It must be frustrating.
What the Internet has done is reveal the vast panorama of control the elites established in the 20th century. For someone like Dr. Vieira, such a revelation (no matter when it occurred) is not personally tolerable. He cannot help it. He must speak out when others will not.
Let us also make clear that Dr. Vieira is a patriot of the most fundamental sort. He loves his country, friends and family. He loves the system on which these "united States" was founded; one of natural law, minimal government and untrammeled free markets that gave opportunity to all.
All great systems of commerce are fractured: It is their eventual cohesion that gives rise to empires. But the natural state of humankind is one of dissipated authority. It is from this that freedom arises, and freedom midwifes wealth. The Seven Hills of Rome, the City States of Greece and the Italian Renaissance … in each case, oppressed people had the ability to pick up and move to where they could still use their own language and continue their affairs without rupture. Thus governments did not have ability to grow to oppressive.
But now we are constantly told the world is "smaller" place and that governance must reflect this centralized reality. The system of sociopolitical disparate parts is the one the elites are continually undermining; not overly but covertly as people would not stand for an overt undermining of the freedom that created the world's greatest and most prosperous state in the modern world. They fund their depredations through central banking (printing money from nothing); now they have created a phony "war on terror" that they can direct as they wish, like a Hollywood producer moving "the action" wherever he chooses, or wherever freedom needs to be eradicated.
And yet … more and more begin to understand. Dreamtime gradually evaporates. This is the real trouble that the Anglo-American power elite faces in the 21st century. Post Internet it is a game of numbers. There are billions who would not want a new world order and a few who do. As prominent voices like Dr. Vieira's speak up, as they must, the odds of global governance (for the time being anyway) are perhaps diminished. There are not many like Dr. Vieira, but they are people who matter.