Americans are addicted to patting themselves on the back in the most precariously historic way. The US Capitol is touted as the hub for freedom and Democracy, yet is host to one of the most tyrannical systems in history. Built by slave labor, that was 100% legal at the time, the Capitol building is the symbolic forefront of the 'American condition' -- cognitive dissonance -- the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.
For example -- Being "pro-freedom" while at the same time advocating for, or carrying out the kidnapping, caging, and killing of others who make the "free choice" to use a substance deemed illegal by the state.
The irony of US symbolism would be quite laughable if it weren't so Orwellian -- or deadly.
The latest act of US Imperialism stroking its psychopathic ego is adding Harriet Tubman to the $20 bill. Does Harriet Tubman deserve notoriety for her incredible acts of heroism against the American system of slavery and oppression? Of Course! But, is putting Harriet Tubman's picture on a Federal Reserve note which symbolizes that very system, respect? Hell No!
Harriet Tubman deserves all the praise society can give to her, and we are certainly not claiming that she isn't worthy of the predilection to land her on the $20 bill. However, this woman was an enemy of the state, and it was for this reason that she was great.
Tubman didn't go around carrying an American flag chanting 'USA! USA!' as she freed the slaves. She risked life and limb, working with other activists and forming the underground railroad to free people from their 100% entirely legal bondage.
By putting a picture of this prodigious woman on a piece of paper, the US government acts as if they were the ones who created her and fomented her courageous acts -- when, in fact, it was the US government that Harriet Tubman was fighting against.
In quite the same fashion as the people of her time, most Americans today, do not know they are slaves. Of course, this notion sounds insane on the surface. However, try to keep 100% of the product of your labor and see if you do not get punished by the state. Of course, the masters of today don't use whips and chains to keep us oppressed; they use the law and the money.
In her years as an activist, Harriet Tubman risked her life to rescue around 70 people. These 70 people all had the same power to flee their captors as Harriet Tubman did. However, they needed her to incite the wildfire of liberty inside them before they realized they had the ability to resist and escape.
While she only freed 70 people, her actions led to the eventual abolition of slavery. Because of her work, Harriet crossed paths with Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglas, who pushed together to rid their land of the vile acceptance of slavery.
In the meantime, however, those who refused to go along with the freeing of the slaves, plotted in the background and as the world gradually became freer, they waited for their time to strike.
The wars of American history were not fought with sticks and stones. All wars cost money, and all governments borrow that money to fund them. The banks love this tendency of governments to wage war as it enriches them for decades to come.
Every few decades, the greedy politicians, working from buildings built by slaves, would propose plans to tax the income of the citizens. As their 'free' labor diminished and debts on the costs of war increased, their attempts become more overt and more frequent.
Recommended for You
In July 1861, the Congress passed a 3% tax on all net income above $600 a year, but no one paid it. Then, in 1864, for the first time, Americans had to swear to the veracity of their taxes, and government assessors could challenge that credibility -- the seeds of what would eventually become the IRS were spawning their wicked roots.
After the war had ended in 1865, income tax was increased to pay the government's gigantic war debt to the bankers, but the people resisted. As the people resisted, the penalties for non-payment grew.
In 1895, President Grover Cleveland opposed the income tax, but let the law pass without his signature, with faith that the Supreme Court would finally strike it down as unconstitutional -- and they did, in a 5-4 ruling, noting that the income tax's provisions amounted to a direct tax, which was prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.
Article I, Section 8 and 9 declares that direct taxes must be apportioned amongst the states according to the census.
But the bankers needed their debt payments on all the funds they lent to both sides during the civil war, and they weren't about to let a little piece of paper like the Constitution get in their way.
In 1910, Richard E. Byrd, speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, predicted the leviathan that was on the horizon, "a hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business. . . . Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the taxpayer. An army of Federal officials, spies and detectives will descend upon the state. . . ."
As Adam Young writes for the Mises Institute, the presidential election of 1912 was contested between three advocates of an income tax. The winner, Woodrow Wilson, after the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, called a special session of Congress in April 1913, which proceeded to pass an income tax of 1% on incomes above $3,000 and applied surcharges between 2% and 7% on income from $20,000 to $500,000. A few years later the Supreme Court kissed and blessed progressivity.The income tax returned as the product of an unholy combine between statist intellectuals with visions of state-sponsored utopias, envious demagogues and the desire by established, wealthy interests to prevent any competition to their place and to offload business costs to an expanding regulatory welfare state.
The income tax returned as the product of an unholy combine between statist intellectuals with visions of state-sponsored utopias, envious demagogues and the desire by established, wealthy interests to prevent any competition to their place and to offload business costs to an expanding regulatory welfare state.
At first, the revenue raised by the new income tax was disappointing: only $28 million in 1914. But then it accelerated. $41 million the next year, when the top rate was 7%, and nearly $68 million in 1916, when it was raised to 15%. Eventually, more than $1 billion would be pulled in by the income tax during the whole of World War I, when the rates were raised to 67% in 1917 and 77% in 1918, and make the hated tax the permanent feature it has become today.
Since 1913, all of this taxation and new modern slavery has been facilitated, largely by the group responsible for printing America's currency -- the infamous privately owned, Federal Reserve Bank.
So, when a monetary note that represents centuries of oppression, war, and debt, is graced with the face of this amazing women, by the very people responsible for spreading that very oppression, war, and debt -- the gesture rings hollow and is should be called out as an insult to her legacy.
[author title="" image="https://tftpstagingstg.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/magorist-e1456948757204.jpg"]Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Follow @MattAgorist[/author]