reSee.it - Related Video Feed

To reduce the federal bureaucracy, we must recognize that many regulations are illegitimate. The executive branch has created numerous rules unlawfully, and acknowledging this is key to shrinking its size. This approach could effectively curb the bureaucracy's illegal actions and ultimately save the country. The growth of the federal government is relentless, as institutions inherently aim to protect and expand themselves. It's rare to hear suggestions about significantly reducing its size, but even a modest cut could transform foreign policy, the economy, and culture. There is potential for meaningful change.

Government workers discuss the actions and decisions within their control. They emphasize the power of noncooperation and leaking information to journalists and activists. They also mention the importance of creating parallel structures and being in touch with civic and grassroots groups. Slowing down bureaucratic processes through cost-benefit analysis and leaking documents is highlighted as an effective tactic. The conversation touches on the risks and consequences of these actions, including the potential loss of jobs or legal implications.

They have power because you allow it. Fear gives them power. Say no to take it away. Just like school bullies, stand up and say no. They'll move on to someone else. Governments are bullies, say no to them too.

Everyone, stop complying with government laws and regulations. Mass noncompliance is the key to winning against power-hungry elites. Be fearless like Bosnia during 2020, where defiance led to government powerlessness. Assert your sovereignty as a human being and refuse to follow unjust mandates. Remember, your compliance gives them power. Take a stand and resist.

To understand how the American government operates, consider Richard Nixon, the most popular president, who was forced to resign without a vote, replaced by Gerald Ford, the only unelected president. Nixon believed federal agencies were undermining the government. In 1972, he suggested to CIA Director Richard Helms that the CIA was involved in JFK's assassination. Shortly after, the Watergate scandal emerged, led by Bob Woodward, a former naval officer with ties to intelligence agencies. The FBI's Mark Felt was Woodward's main source, and the agencies aimed to discredit Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew, who resigned. Ford, tied to the Warren Commission, became president. This illustrates how unelected officials influence politics, undermining democracy. A similar fate befell General Michael Flynn in the Trump administration, showing the system's flaws. Ultimately, the public deserves a true democracy, not control by those who are unelected.

A member of Congress is allegedly using tactics promoted by a Harvard Ash Center partner and calling on supporters to be "strike ready," promising violent protests. This partner is the nonviolent action lab, and its leader, Erica Chenoweth, uses they/them pronouns and has ties to USAID, the State Department, and the United States Institute of Peace. Chenoweth has lectured at USAID and authored reports on nonviolent resistance, focusing on how to topple dictatorial regimes. Their research analyzes revolutions, concluding that nonviolent resistance is the most effective tactic, not due to moral objections to violence, but because it's empirically superior. Chenoweth has written extensively on topics like how to topple a dictator, the role of violence in nonviolent resistance, and terrorism. The Ash Center, despite deleting its donor list, is reportedly funded by USAID and the State Department. Chenoweth has also lectured at and consulted for the United States Institute of Peace, receiving grants to promote regime change, not just peaceful protest.

The term "unelected" used by Democrats is misleading. Donald Trump was elected in a landslide, and his staff, including the national security adviser and chief of staff, serve at his pleasure. They are implementing the agenda chosen by the American people. The real unelected power lies within the bureaucracy, such as USAID, the FBI, and the CIA, which have acted against Trump. President Trump is working to restore democracy by asserting control over the federal bureaucracy. He is the only individual elected by the entire nation to carry out the agenda that reflects the voters' wishes, while other officials are elected at local or state levels. Ultimately, the president is in charge of the federal executive branch.

The speaker argues that to understand how the American government actually works at the highest levels, you must know that Richard Nixon was historically the most popular president, elected with a massive margin in 1972, yet he was forced to resign and was replaced by Gerald Ford, an unelected president. The speaker asserts this demonstrates that the federal agencies undermine the American system, a point Nixon allegedly warned about and was right about. Key events and connections highlighted include: - Nixon’s meeting with CIA director Richard Helms on June 23, 1972, during which Nixon allegedly implied knowledge of who killed John F. Kennedy and suggested CIA involvement in Kennedy’s assassination; Helms reportedly remained silent. - Four days earlier, the Washington Post published the first Watergate break-in story; the speaker notes that four of the five burglars worked for the CIA and that Bob Woodward, the reporter, had a background in the classified realm and worked with intelligence agencies; Woodward’s main source was Mark Felt, deputy director of the FBI, who allegedly ran COINTELPRO to discredit Nixon and other political targets. - The FBI’s COINTELPRO program is cited as a mechanism used to take down Nixon’s vice president, Spiro Agnew, who was indicted for tax evasion in 1973 and forced to resign; Ford, a Warren Commission member, replaced Agnew, with the claim that Ford’s qualifications were tied to his involvement with the Commission’s conclusion that the CIA bore no responsibility for Kennedy’s assassination. - The speaker alleges that Nixon was strong-armed into accepting Gerald Ford as president by Democrats in Congress, with the claim that Ford’s rise demonstrated a systemic pattern in which the presidency could be controlled by federal agencies and political elites rather than by elected representatives or voters. The narrative then shifts to the Trump era, stating that Michael Flynn—an Army intelligence veteran who had led the Defense Intelligence Agency—was targeted by the FBI shortly after Trump’s inauguration, lured into a meeting without legal counsel, and pressured to resign based on fabricated crimes; this is presented as evidence of how the system operates against national-security-minded figures who seek to push back. The speaker contrasts this with Joe Biden, claiming he was similarly harmed by the justice system and portraying Biden as deserving neither sympathy nor special treatment, while contending that the broader electorate deserves a genuine democracy in which people who are not elected to lead do not run everything. The overarching claim is that “democracy becomes a joke” when unelected actors wield real power.

Don't comply with government laws, be independent. Refuse to follow orders, like in Bosnia where people resisted lockdowns and fake passports were made. Mass noncompliance weakens the government's power. Stand up for your rights, don't be afraid. Stop complying with unjust rules and take back control.

The American people will not accept an unelected group controlling the executive branch. Innovation is important, but public institutions like Social Security, Medicare, and national defense serve the well-being of the citizens. The public deserves a voice in these matters. Elections reflect the will of the people, and just because one viewpoint wins does not mean we abandon democracy. We cannot replace centuries of democratic practice with a small group that believes it knows better than the collective wisdom of the American populace.

Researchers at Princeton University conducted a study to determine if the government truly represents the people. They analyzed over 20 years of data and found that public support for an idea has little to no impact on whether it becomes a law. Even if an idea is extremely popular or completely unpopular, there is still only a 30% chance of it becoming federal law. This means that the preferences of the average American have a negligible influence on public policy. However, this analysis only applies to the bottom 90% of income earners. Economic elites, such as business interests with lobbyists, have a much greater influence on government decisions, regardless of public support.

Speaker 0 explains that Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia in the late 90s served as an authoritarian ruler, and presents Milosevic as a model for Americans to study. He notes that an unlikely alliance of students, unions, coal miners, police, public housing residents, businesspeople, and others used all the mechanisms of power to undermine Milosevic, achieving this with almost no violence. He mentions the documentary Bringing Down a Dictator as a resource that illustrates this process; he hasn’t watched it but plans to. The film is on YouTube, about 55 minutes long, and focuses on a group called ATPORE, a student-run organization that galvanized the country and pressured various unlikely partners to act. The documentary is narrated by Martin Sheen and includes a march on the Capitol Building to keep an election going, which creates some confusion but is described as inspiring. Speaker 1 adds that the revolution consultants follow a specific strategy developed by the Serbian organization Otpor. Otpor mobilized millions of people to bring about Milosevic’s downfall, and their strategy became a blueprint for others.

It's great to see such a massive turnout here today! Everyone in the labor movement, and those who value public service, recognize that enough is enough. An injury to one is an injury to all. They're counting on us giving up, but we can't. I know many of you have family, friends, and colleagues in the federal system who are scared. If you can, stand up. If you are able, decline to enforce illegal instructions. If the facts support it, use the whistleblower portals that the Senate Democrats have set up. We may be out of power, but we are not powerless. We're going to win.

To understand how the American government operates, consider the case of Richard Nixon, the most popular president in U.S. history, who was forced to resign without a single vote against him. Nixon believed federal agencies were undermining democracy. His downfall began with the Watergate scandal, which was reported by Bob Woodward, a former naval officer with ties to intelligence agencies. The investigation was fueled by Mark Felt, the FBI's deputy director, who was involved in discrediting Nixon. Following Nixon's resignation, Gerald Ford, who had served on the Warren Commission, became president. This illustrates how unelected officials can control the political system, undermining democracy. The targeting of figures like General Michael Flynn shows the ongoing struggle against this entrenched power. Ultimately, when unvoted individuals hold power, true democracy is compromised.

First speaker: Has America ever engaged in a general strike? Like, that’s enough. We’re not showing up to work tomorrow? Second speaker: We’ve never had a general strike. But this Friday on January twenty-third, there is an ice out of Minnesota, day of action. It’s a shutdown day where people will be staying home from work, refusing to participate in economic activities. So a power and they’re calling on Americans across the country to show solidarity. First speaker: One of the problems with Minnesota right now is you have people like Kristi Noem or the people who are heading up ICE saying that it’s not nonviolent resistance. They’re saying someone like Renee Good was actually a threat to those people or that filming an ICE agent—or documenting, which is perfectly legal—is a form of threat, and therefore they justify using violence in return to the threat of violence from these people. What do you do when what your nonviolent action is perceived as violence by the people who can use violence against you? Second speaker: Declaring peaceful protesters violent or domestic terrorists or outside agitators is what autocrats all around the world do. That is their playbook, is to make people fearful and to try to undermine the legitimacy of protesters. So what are we seeing in Minneapolis right now? What have we seen in our history in this country? Think about the civil rights movement, profound state violence used against protesters. They prepared, they trained, they role played, they organized all to make that political violence backfire. Think of Selma, the peaceful march. So when peaceful disciplined protesters confronted the dogs, the hoses, the response—It revealed the cruelty when the disciplined protesters were faced with this form of violence. And so that’s how disciplined nonviolent resistance can make state violence repression backfire.

It's not just blackmail or bribery that makes people obey, but also the threat of violence. Every US president has been threatened with violence implicitly because of the murder of John F. Kennedy. Presidents understand the outlines of what happened, but no one has released all the files. The message is clear: if you get too far outside the boundaries, you could wind up like JFK. The forces that murdered the sitting president in 1963 probably placed those boundaries.

The speaker argues that security forces are responsible for executing policies and getting things done, wielding coercive power. These pillars, together with their social, political, and economic power, ultimately prop up regimes. When they crack and power within them shifts, the entire edifice can crumble. The speaker then notes, “And so the next slide, please.”

Without a strong feedback loop between the people and their government, democracy loses its meaning. Bureaucratic rule undermines the power of elected officials—the president, the Senate, and the House—to represent the will of the people. If unelected bureaucrats make the decisions, we don't have a democracy; we have a bureaucracy. It's crucial to repair this feedback loop so that our elected representatives, not unelected bureaucrats, determine our nation's course. The public's chosen leaders in the presidency, House, and Senate must be the ultimate decision-makers.

Improving government is incredibly difficult. The most difficult challenge is overcoming entropy, a battle physics tells us is impossible to win. The second most difficult is overcoming bureaucracy. It's a monumental struggle; bureaucracy is the penultimate battle in the fight for better government.

If there isn't a solid feedback loop connecting the people to the government, and the bureaucracy is in charge, what does democracy even mean? If the people can't vote and have their will enacted by their elected officials like the president, senate, and house, then we're not in a democracy, we're in a bureaucracy. It's crucial to fix this feedback loop so that the public's elected representatives decide what happens, not a large, unelected bureaucracy. There are good people in the federal bureaucracy, but it can't be autonomous. It must be responsive to the people; that's the whole point of a democracy.

We are controlled by the existing power structure, primarily through our dependence on corporations. Quitting a job isn't as simple as it seems; it can lead to significant negative changes in our lives. This dependence can be likened to slavery, as our economic interactions are dictated by others. Governments have the power to print money, control interest rates, and influence inflation and deflation. They can also monitor purchases, restricting what we can buy and from whom. For instance, buying from certain countries can be nearly impossible. The aspiration for true economic freedom remains a powerful and elusive dream.

Power is dispersed in society and concentrated in pillars of support, which are organizations and institutions that provide the necessary resources for those in power to stay in power. These pillars consist of ordinary people who contribute expertise, labor, and buying power. If people in these pillars withhold their cooperation and engage in nonviolent tactics like protests and strikes, rulers cannot maintain power, as seen in cases like the Philippines, Serbia, Ukraine, and Sudan. The loyalty of individuals within these pillars varies, with those closer to the center being more obedient. The goal of effective people power is to shift loyalties and bring people from the center to the outside. Bureaucracy is a powerful pillar, with federal workers having knowledge and influence over policies.

A member of Congress is allegedly using tactics promoted by a partner of Harvard's Ash Center's nonviolent action lab. This partner is led by Erica Chenoweth, who uses they/them pronouns and has ties to USAID, the State Department, and the United States Institute of Peace. Chenoweth has lectured at USAID and authored reports for them on topics like LGBTQ participation in nonviolent action. Their work focuses on analyzing effective tools for toppling dictatorial regimes, concluding that nonviolent resistance is the most effective tactic. Chenoweth has written extensively on topics such as how to topple a dictator, the role of violence in nonviolent resistance, and terrorism. The speaker claims Chenoweth's work suggests a strategic, rather than moral, reason for disavowing terrorism. The Ash Center, despite deleting information about its funding, is allegedly primarily funded by USAID and the State Department. Chenoweth has also lectured at and consulted for the United States Institute of Peace, receiving grants to promote regime change.

Protests, even those involving violence, can make an issue more salient and pressure elected officials. Political science research indicates that protests matter, and destruction of buildings or violence by either police or protesters can lead to a greater response from elected officials. Sustained efforts, like a ten-day protest, increase the pressure on officials. Elected officials respond to pressure when they feel their electoral prospects are threatened. Nominating candidates and placing extraordinary pressure on officials can also be highly successful strategies.

Momentum, and momentum is key to success. The third attribute of successful campaigns is they featured defections and loyalty shifts within key institutional pillars. Workers restricted their labor. Faith communities refused to allow their religion to be a tool of authoritarianism. Civil servants refused to carry out illegal orders. Businesses applied financial pressure. Security forces refused to obey orders to repress protesters. We're gonna talk through a lot of that tonight. Finally, successful movements have