Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,
In 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution gained general victory against the empire’s sovereign, Czar Nicholas Romanov II, a monarchal ruler widely considered despotic and inhumane in his treatment of the Russian citizenry. After the dethroned Romanov family was summarily executed by former members of the military, the Bolshevik rampage continued against the remnants of the “White Russians”, culminating in a bloody civil war. In the minds of the common populace, the communist propaganda was legitimate. The people had been terribly oppressed, and the world war in Europe was draining any hope of prosperity they had left. The Russians were ready for an abrupt and even violent change in their political leadership.
However, unbeknownst to them, a great upheaval was about to be supplied for them. Their anger and rage, their revolutionary spirit, was about to be exploited to produce vast gains for international interests and create a massive experiment in collectivist tyranny that would span decades and claim millions of innocent lives.
That’s right, in case you’ve never read a real history book with concrete facts, the Russian revolution was an almost entirely fabricated event. International financial interests, known today as “globalists” with no patriotic ties to any particular nation, supplied the funding, the philosophy, and even the leadership of the Bolshevik uprising against Nicholas II:
Now, does this mean I support the tyranny of czarism? No. Does this mean I support the despotic actions of the Romanov dynasty? No. My point is that an immoral government was used by globalists to rally the downtrodden people around an even more immoral and destructive government which the money men had full control over. The elitists gauge the revolutionary fervor of a particular society, and, when they believe the time is ripe, they co-opt that revolution by installing their own leadership and creating their own events.
In my view, the American Revolution was a startling wake up call for the globalists. The concept of centralized monarchy and godlike rulers was dead. Common people were ready to fight for the right to participate in their own political systems, and as the American patriots proved, they could win. The elites responded, cleverly, with events like the French Revolution. They tested the waters for public discontent, then, manhandled revolutions into being when the moment was right. If a revolt was about to occur, fine; as long as the globalists controlled the outcome, revolution could serve their interests.
This strategy is used even today. One merely need examine the escalation of the so-called “Arab Spring” to see that globalists manipulate legitimate social anger over legitimate oppression in order to create a rebellion that they can dictate. The destabilization of Syria being perhaps the most blatant act of fabricated insurgency by international financiers in history.
Though brutal and bloody, revolution is actually a very natural human act of balance which counters the unnatural and engineered functions of centralization. Human beings are not meant to be “ruled”. The spirit of individualism, inherent in every person from the moment of birth, strikes hard against the visible construction of any cage. We are designed to rebel. It is a fact of our existence.
Only an oblivious fool would try to deny that America is on the verge of revolution today. Public discontent politically, socially, and economically, is at an apex not seen in decades. The White House under the presidency of Barack Obama is in a shambles, sweltering in a sweaty sauna of corruption and scandal. The revelation of Nixon’s Watergate is a joke compared to the Benghazi conspiracy of covertly funded Syrian insurgency and false flag treason against a U.S. diplomat, the IRS persecution of conservative opposition, the wiretapping and privacy invasion of mainstream journalists, the admission of assassination initiatives against American citizens, etc, etc. Truly, whether you consider yourself on the “right”, or the “left”, if you have any sense of conscience or honor, Barack Obama is a monster of epic proportions.
That said, I challenge you to question whether or not Obama is the real danger, or just a boogeyman being used to control YOUR sense of rebellion?
The American citizenry is ready to snap. I can feel it, and I think many others out there can feel it too. A fight is inevitable. The question is, what will be the form of that fight, and who will ultimately determine the outcome? There is a lot of talk in the Liberty Movement today concerning “solutions” which I believe, according to historical reference, are perfect examples of controlled opposition. After several years working in the movement, I’ve heard it all…
The idea of military coup against the Obama Administration is alluring for several reasons. For one, it comforts those people who fear personal sacrifice or direct conflict. There are many out there, even in the Liberty Movement, who are desperate to avoid confrontation. They don’t want to lose their property, they don’t want to lose their job security, they don’t want to enter into combat, and they certainly don’t want to lose their lives in the process. These fears are understandable, but ultimately irrelevant.
The military coup concept feeds into the apprehensions of the common activist by giving them a false “way out”. If “patriotic” generals within the military rise up against the Obama regime and wrest power from its clutches, then average citizens will be spared the heartbreak and terror of fighting for themselves. They will not have to devise their own strategies, their own structures, or their own end solutions. They merely have to sit back, allow military factions to defeat the “evil usurper”, and then enjoy whatever government the leaders of the coup devise. Surely, anything would be better than to continue under the rule of a communist thug…
I would point out, however, that this is NOT what the Founding Fathers did, which is one of the reasons why they were so successful. Revolutionary leadership was maintained by citizens, not a cadre of military elites, and the aftermath of victory was managed by those chosen by the people to lead, not those chosen by generals. The war was fought by regular men, living regular lives, in support of beloved families. It was exactly because those men had everything to lose that they were driven so completely to succeed. They were fighting for their homes, and their principles. Not for political power.
I would also point out that most military brass hold views consistent with Neo-Conservative or even Neo-Liberal ideologies, both of which are slightly different versions of the same globalist religion. They may preach to us about their grand designs for freedom, but in reality, many of them are seeking to co-opt our resolve and use it to foment a controlled and homogenized uprising that will end in the same tyranny that we originally hoped to defeat.
A military coup is not a silver bullet solution to our problems. It may appear to be easier, but there will never be true freedom for any of us without tangible sacrifice. This battle is ours. Beware of anyone who strolls out of nowhere and offers to fight it for you.
March On Washington D.C.
Our problems will not be solved by military coup exactly because Barack Obama is not the primary source of our problems. He is a middle-man, a mascot, a salesman for the collectivist dictatorship, and nothing more. Getting rid of him in the wrong way will only exacerbate our dilemma.
Because our fight is with a globalist element that uses government as a tool, rather than a seat of power, removing one abusive president will change nothing. This is why the “March on Washington” idea is strategic idiocy at its most dangerous and cliché. I can’t tell you how many times over the years I have heard chest beating activists wail in anger, wondering “why, oh why!” we don’t all simply “take up arms” and march to the capital. Well, here are few good reasons…
First, how many successful revolutions began with a march on a government center? I can’t think of any. But, I can think of a few military campaigns that were thwarted by dumb marches led by thoughtless leaders. What about the battles of Lexington and Concord, in which Lt. Colonel Francis Smith of the British Army under the direction of General Thomas Gage led 700 regulars into a wasp’s nest of colonials who proceeded to wipe them out and fully launch the revolution with the American people clearly established in the eyes of the world as the defenders, and the British as the aggressors?
What about the ill conceived Confederate march on Fort Sumter which painted them as dangerous aggressors against the North, haunting the southern campaigns throughout the Civil War, and has even been partly attributed as a reason for their eventual defeat?
What about the hubris driven march of George Armstrong Custer, right into the mouth of enemy territory, on ground which the enemy was vastly more familiar, and against a force of far greater strength? That didn’t end so well either…
No one with any legitimate combat sense would ever suggest that a REVERSE Lexington is a good idea for the Liberty Movement today, and, no one with any understanding of asymmetric warfare would condescend to lead thousands of patriots into D.C., into what amounts to an elongated kill box, or an immediate surrender. The message sent during such a campaign would be “hey, we’re gullible, please kill us”, or, “hey, we’re pansies, please take our weapons and lock us away without a fight”. In either case, we lose, and all in the name of an ill conceived attack on a bunch of paid cronies and a puppet president, rather than the men behind the curtain. Dumb. Very dumb…
Rely On Opposing Party Leadership
The Republican Party is an embarrassment to many conservatives, but not for the reasons that should be most embarrassing. Sadly, many Americans only care about belonging to the “winning side”, rather than the right side. Currently, Republican excuses for consistent losses revolve around the fantasy of “changing demographics” and “a disconnection from the more moderate and liberal public”. These scapegoats have nothing to do with the disintegration of the Republican Party.
In truth, the Republican establishment continues to degrade not because it does not appeal to some imaginary growing faction of budding American socialists, but because it no longer appeals to conservatives and constitutionalists. The Neo-Con leadership of the backwards party continuously supports nearly identical legislative actions to the hated Obama paradigm. Unfortunately, there are still some naïve people out there who hope against hope that the GOP will rise up and defeat the Democratic stronghold, all while the GOP openly energizes Democratic policies.
Consider that both Republicans and Democrats strong armed the American public into massive banker bailouts which have so far produced no real jobs, and no tangible recovery, but have created perhaps the largest stock bubble the world has ever seen.
Consider the “Safe Act” legislation of New York, which imposes draconian restrictions on the 2nd Amendment; long held as a Republican line in the sand. Yet, 11 Republicans voted YES in line with Democrats to pass the bill.
Consider that many Neo-Con Republicans attacked the filibuster against anti-gun rights legislation in the Senate as if the move was “outlandish”.
Consider that the wire tapping of the Obama Administration is merely an extension of the wire tapping used by the Bush Administration under FISA and the Patriot Act.
Consider the expansion of executive assassination and rendition powers under the NDAA, which are widely supported by both Republicans and Democrats.
Consider that the AUMF, the resolution which is often used to justify the further passage of NDAA provisions for treatment of U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants”, was established under George W. Bush, and is defended to this day by many Republicans despite the abuses of Barack Obama.
Consider that provisions within the latest immigration legislation that call for biometric ID’s as well as tracking of U.S. citizens are supported by both Democrats and Republicans.
Consider that John McCain, often labeled a “die-hard Republican” and hero to islamophobes everywhere, has now personally visited with Syrian insurgents openly working with Al Qaeda to overthrow the Assad government. These are the same insurgents that have been accused of false flag chemical weapons attacks which were then blamed on Assad, and the same insurgents that have a penchant for severing the heads and eating the raw hearts of their prisoners in front of video cameras. For all the talk of Obama being secretly supportive of Islamic terrorism, the Republicans seem to be just as friendly.
I could go on and on, but I think my point is clear; there is no light at the end of the election tunnel in the Republican Party. The Neo-Cons and the Neo-Libs have the same objective, total centralization and the dissolution of U.S. sovereignty. Both parties are merely continuing the perpetual game of good-cop vs. bad-cop, switching roles every decade or so to keep the public confused and dependent on the system rather than enforcing their own solutions. Barack Obama is nothing more than a fulcrum point - a useful piece of leverage meant to push Americans from one fake initiative to the next, or to divide us completely. Our fight is not with Obama, it is with ALL globalists who obstruct our liberty, regardless of what party they are affiliated with. If we allow the debate, and the battle, to be framed around the superficial Obama presidency, then we have allowed ourselves to be co-opted, and any revolutionary action we take afterwards will end exactly like the fabricated Bolshevik rebellion; it won’t mean a damn thing.