Online users
???: Message   

(Cue Firesign) "If he says another word, GAG him." - "But..." - "GAG HIM!!!"
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

01/31/2019, 10:31:46

Author Profile Mail author Edit

Bob Livingston Alerts

Martial Law is unacceptable under any president

In the midst of the three-ring circus known as the false Left/Right paradigm, it is sometimes easy to forget that there is a motive behind the chaos; there is an intended end game. Part of that end game, I believe, is the eventual erasure of individual liberties and the implementation of martial law in the U.S. The establishment quest for government lockdown requires something very special in order to succeed, however they need at least half the population to support and defend it.

Governments rarely attempt outright martial law. The reason should be obvious; no military, no matter how advanced, has the capacity to suppress a unified citizenry. If the public is armed, the task becomes even more impossible. The laws of attrition alone would make the conflict bloody and costly.

Martial law is a mechanism that cannot be exploited in a vacuum. The-powers-that-be understand that it can only be used when a large percentage of the public is conned into supporting it. This is usually accomplished through the triggering of engineered crisis events, but there is also another method for getting the masses to back martial law, and that is to push both sides of the political spectrum to extreme zealotry until one side decides to use government as a weapon against the other.

Whether by disaster or political division, the public can be influenced to rationalize government dominance of every aspect of life.

The agenda to engineer crisis is evident. In past articles such as 'The Federal Reserve Is A Suicide Bomber With A Deeper Agenda', I have outlined the facts behind economic decline and how it is often utilized by central banks and their international banking partners to accumulate and centralize wealth while also manipulating society into accepting reduced living standards for generations to come. The banking elites also use the controlled demolition of the economy as a tool to create fear.

The Hegelian Dialectic of problem-reaction-solution is a powerful potion that mesmerizes the unaware population. Those who are dependent are easily frightened because they have no control over their own futures. They become reactive rather than proactive; they seek to be led rather than to lead. They will readily accept promises and solutions from anyone in apparent authority rather than maintaining their objectivity and reason. They become slaves to the social and political tides, always waiting for someone else to fix the problems around them.

This conundrum also transfers over to political conflict. In my article 'Order Out Of Chaos: The Defeat Of The Left Comes With A Cost', published just after the 2016 election, I explored the dangerous possibility that Trump supporters were being fooled into participating in the false Left/Right paradigm while believing that they had transcended it.

When we refer to the “false Left/Right paradigm” in the alternative media, we are referring to the fact that the political gatekeepers within government actually tend to share the same beliefs and agenda regardless of the “party” or ideology they claim to support. That is to say, Republican and Democratic leadership play roles and their battles are scripted, not legitimate. The Trump campaign was a rather different animal, in that Trump was a candidate without a longstanding political record. He was a relative unknown compared to Clinton, and this made him enticing to conservatives and liberty activists that had all but abandoned participation in U.S. elections.

It takes time to identify a political fake or controlled opposition. With Trump, we had no point of reference. Two years have changed this...

Trump's campaign was built upon two very important positions: First, Trump promised small government conservatives that he was going to “drain the swamp” in Washington of the kind of globalists and banking elites that Clinton was notorious for associating with. Trump's background already had at least one red flag in this regard — his empire was bailed out by the Rothschild banking family in the 1900s during his debt crisis and Taj Mahal casino failures. This alone was not enough to discount him, though. Many businessmen have at least some interactions with banking elites by necessity and the way the system is designed. Unfortunately, Trump's relationship with the bankers did not stop there.

Trump's cabinet picks were a perfect opportunity for him to establish his independence from globalists, bankers and their think tank partners. This did not happen. Trump brought in Wilber Ross in as Commerce Secretary, the same Rothschild agent who arranged his bailout in the 1900s. He brought in people like Steve Mnuchin, formerly of Goldman Sachs, Larry Kudlow, formerly of the NY Fed, and John Bolton from the Council On Foreign Relations. Trump was adding to the swamp, not draining it.

Second, Trump also argued for economic transparency during his campaign, which for many of us was a breath of fresh air. Trump pointed out the fallacy of the stock market and the fact that the Fed had been supporting a fabricated rally for years using artificially low interest rates and stimulus. Trump argued against false economic stats like unemployment numbers, which ignore the 95 million jobless people in the U.S. that are no longer counted by the BLS.

Yet, as soon as Trump entered office, all of this changed. Trump immediately started taking credit for the bull market rally in stocks as if it was his own rather than a product of Fed manipulations. He took credit for fraudulent jobs numbers too despite the tens of millions of people still listed as “non-participatory.” Trump has tied his administration to the performance of a fake economy sitting atop a massive deflating bubble.

I would also note that during Trump's campaign and in the two years since Trump has barely mentioned the word “Constitution.” This is rather odd to me. A liberty advocate should be defending constitutional protections regularly, driving home the need for the Bill of Rights to be protected and honored. Our very society depends upon the survival of such principles, after all.

It has become clear that Trump is not the “savior” that the liberty movement was hoping for, but many people will continue to defend him all the same because of a specific factor: The increasingly deranged political left.

Consider the endless absurdity of Russiagate; a conspiracy theory with absolutely no evidence to back it. It never seems to die despite all logic and reason, but the motives behind it are not what conservatives assume. Russiagate is a drug, a drug for leftists. They love it, they need it, it dulls the pain of their loss in 2016 and it confirms their biases. They didn't “fail” in 2016, the election was “stolen” from them by Trump and his Russian handlers. Therefore, they are now justified in any level of insanity they display in their activism and opposition. They believe they are righteous.

At the same time, conservatives are ever more bewildered by the cultism and zealotry of the left. Each new incident pokes at our ribs with a pointy knife. Trump is being “railroaded”, we think to ourselves. The left must be planning a coup. They won't let him build the border wall. They wont even let him give his State of The Union Address. They spew nonsensical drivel and froth at the mouth and scream and wail and act like overgrown toddlers. They are dangerous. Drastic measures might need to be taken...

And so we are confronted with a perilous choice; do we as conservatives becomes zealots ourselves in order to defeat the zealotry of leftists?

But this is a false choice. The left hand of the paradigm has reached full bore lunacy, but this is designed to push conservatives into our own brand of blindness. The goal? To get conservatives to champion actions that are completely contrary to our principles. The goal, I believe, is to condition us into cheering for greater government power and centralization in the name of stopping the leftist menace.

Three weeks from now the government shutdown fight is set to return. The mainstream media has been avidly reporting that the uncertainty is over, but this is a preposterous conclusion. What the nation faces now is even greater confusion with as the shutdown fight prepares to accelerate in February or a national emergency is declared, or both. My concern is that this is leading to conservative support for extreme measures.

What would a national emergency entail? Simply building a border wall? Building a border wall using the military? What about martial law on the border? Knowing what we now know about Trump's associations with banking elites, how can we trust that it will end there?

It seems to me that the fight between left and right is being driven beyond the information wars and beyond activism into a realm that could include actual civil war. If the current trend continues, I see no other outcome. But as always, we must ask who benefits the most from this?

While the left has gone off the deep end into cartoonland and must be stopped, the real threat to America is the banking cabal which Trump works with every day in the White House. Economic crisis is an inevitable catalyst for greater centralization and totalitarianism, and the left is being used as a cattle prod to ensure that the political right is infuriated enough to jump on the bandwagon.

The only right answer, the only solution is to refuse to support martial law under any circumstances or under any president, and to fight against it should it ever arise. I would remind liberty activists that by opening such a Pandora's box, there is no going back. Even if you truly believe Trump's motives to be honest, there are no guarantees that these measures will not be used by a future president with ill intent once Trump is gone. Some people might argue that my concerns are unwarranted; that it will never come to martial law. We shall see. The trend developing today is certainly not encouraging.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith 



LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE

Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.





Post Reply | Recommend | Alert View All   Previous | Next | Current page

Replies to this message