Martin Armstrong Warns Civil Unrest Is Rising Everywhere: "This Won't End Pretty"

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics,

Russell Brand

The greatest problem we have is misinformation. People simply do not comprehend why and how the economic policies of the post-war era are imploding. This whole agenda of socialism has sold a Utopian idea that the State is there for the people yet it is run by lawyers following their own self-interest. The pensions created for those in government drive the cost of government up exponentially with time. The political forces blame the rich and this merely creates a class warfare with no resolution for the future. Even confiscating all the wealth of the so-called rich will not sustain the system. Consequently, we just have to crash and burn and start all over again.

The Guardian reported that some 50,000 people marched in London to protest against austerity. They cried: “Who is really responsible for the mess this country is in? Is it the Polish fruit pickers or the Nigerian nurses? Or is it the bankers who plunged it into economic disaster – or the tax avoiders? It is selective anger.”

The exploitation by the bankers has been really a disaster. They have been their own worst enemy and in the end, they have become the symbol that inspires class warfare if not revolution. They are not the representatives of those who produce jobs. They are merely those who wanted to trade with other people’s money for free. When they win, it is their’s, but any losses are passed to the taxpayers. Bankers should be bankers – not hedge fund managers who keep 100% of the profits using other people’s savings.

Glass-Steagall Signing-Repeal

The repeal of Glass Steagall was the final straw that broke the back of the world economy. That was the single worst act that could have ever been done and we are now paying the price in spades. The collapse from 2007 has wiped out even the liquidity of the markets. The second worst act was the creation of the euro when the real goal was the federalization of Europe from the outset. That undermined the entire European banking system and has led to a serious undermining of the entire global economy.

The solutions from politics will always be the same – grab more power. We are in a downward spiral of liberty and how far we go down this path to the future will be determined by the people and if they at least wise up and see this is not class warfare, it is the people against government. This is why I say career politicians are dangerous for they can be bought way too easily as Clinton was to open the flood gates for the bankers.

This is not going to end pretty. The question is when does society wake up? Just how high will this price be that we have to pay? They will blame the rich and the idiots will cheer – get them. What will happen when there is no more wealth to hunt? We end up with a communist state by default – no wealth, just career politicians who blame everyone but themselves.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Frankie Carbone's picture

Will participate in unrest if all hell breaks loose. 

Will let the masses tear themselves and the machine apart if all hell breaks loose. 

tempo's picture

Pelosi on the border, then heads back 300 miles to a $100 million gated, guarder complex with drones ready to kill anyone who steps within 50 miles of her living space.

Which is worse - bankers or terrorists's picture

I can't help but wonder if that statue of Gavrilo Princip they are erecting this isn't large enough. The world is waiting for its next Tunisian fruit seller, or its next Gavrilo Princip.

Edward Boothe's picture

There are a lot of people who will die fighting before they let Barrack Hussein Obama make this coutry a Communist Dictatorship

ich1baN's picture

That's exactly what Che Guevara and his revolutionaries dreamed for, except they had numerous summary trial executions of their enemies and even innocents that were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Anarchy inevitably will always lead to whatever strongman and his cadres want to do to those who hold positions of authority.... it is not the answer to the problem we have. The best form of government is the Constitutional Republic, it is only when the political elites start to distort the true meanings of what our institutions stand for that we run into problems. It still is and will always be the truest and fairest form of justice. Save the constitution, embrace it, teach it, and you will have saved your future prospect. 

mic68's picture

Oh yes anarchy has always been synonyms with non violance. Occupy Much? 

ThirteenthFloor's picture

Most likely the (NWO, elite, Empire) will get upset and flip the tables when their little Westphalian Economy crashes, without a sot landing.   The flip of those tables will be pretty nasty. If you are fond of a caveman lifestyle, assuming you can survive radiation, and bio-weapons...then it may not be so bad.

A soft landing, what I think you are suggeting, i.e., a surgical removal of the elite is highly improbable, they have survived 2000 years pretty good.

I think in all probably they will move the US to the IMF, collect all tender and financial instruments (gold and silver), convert to SDR's, re-access your property and loans.  If you fight this you end up in a FEMA camp as slave labor.

All things end bad otherwise they wouldn't end.  Sorry for the dark picture, but I do not see anyone carrying a light here.

aardwolf's picture

CREATE DEBT FREE MONEY!!!

 

END HUMAN SLAVERY NOW!!!

Top Gear's picture

Money = Debt (even gold is just debt)

Time for you to read some real history and anthropology instead of libertarian comic books.

"...historically, credit money comes first..."

"There’s no fundamental difference in this respect between a silver dollar, a Susan B. Anthony dollar coin made of a copper-nickel alloy designed to look vaguely like gold, a green piece of paper with a picture of George Washington on it, or a digital blip on some bank’s computer. Conceptually, the idea that a piece of gold is really just an IOU is always rather difficult to wrap one’s head around, but something like this must be true, because even when gold and silver coins were in use, they almost never circulated at their bullion value."

David Graeber (2011) Debt: The First 5, 000 Years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

hobopants's picture

The cartalist view of money you're espousing here has been proven false time and time again, I suggest you read up on the catallactic perspective.

Top Gear's picture

Yeah, creationists say evolution has been disproven over and over again too. *yawn* But I like how persistent you are.

hobopants's picture

Ok so you've some how concluded that a debate on evolution is the same as a debate on monetary theory? "one of these things is not like the other" Try an argument, instead of nonsense.

Since you like quotes so much

"A false analogy is a rhetorical fallacy that uses an analogy (comparing objects or ideas with similar characteristics) to support an argument, but the conclusion made by it is not supported by the analogy due to the differences between the two objects.[1] Sometimes these differences are outright ignored by the person presenting the fallacy; other times, they may not be aware of the differences or that they apply. The fallacy occurs, and is common, because analogies are just that, analogies, and their parallels are always limited; the differences between things can often overpower their similarities. One thing people sometimes do for fun is extend a useful analogy or metaphor to the point of absurdity."

Calmyourself's picture

Its software stop wasting your time arguing with it..  No one types that fast with that level of reliance on quotes.

hobopants's picture

I think it's just a troll with a set of scripted arguments on a clipboard, but I'm bored and it's mildly amusing trying to get an actual debate out of him. 

Mr. Pickles's picture

Engaging a troll with reason and logic is a worthy effort. You will likely never change a troll's mind, but many people that are on the fence will see the exchange. They may hold some of the troll's opinions. A reasoned rebuttal will possibly reach these fence sitters. Maybe it plants a seed, or causes them to do more research. Trolls hate a reasoned response for this exact reason. A troll wins when the responder devolves to trolling back, as the fence sitter will see that as a win for the original troll, which reinforces the fence sitters original opinion. Trolls are an opportunity to reach others, but it all depends on how you engage the troll. Reasoning with a troll is like pouring hot coals upon their head.

pakled's picture

So funny. I'm cruising through the comments from bottom to top... but from reading this comment I knew exactly who was going to be near the top of this sub-thread.

Zoomorph's picture

I just want to point out that calling someone a troll is often just a great way to avoid having to take what they say seriously. Just because you find someone's argument outside your comfort zone or contrary to popular opinion does not make them a troll. If they are using fallacies, dodging the question, and seem more interested in getting a response out of you than debating the actual issue, then they'd qualify as a troll.

I'm occasionally accused of trolling when I'm just providing an honest rebuttal. I haven't read much from Top Gear before, but I'm not sure that he's a troll either. I have yet to see anyone actually rebut his seemingly-intelligent arguments or show where he's wrong, just a lot of downvoting and a general smug feeling of superiority in those who dislike him.

hobopants's picture

"If they are using fallacies, dodging the question, and seem more interested in getting a response out of you than debating the actual issue."

This is pretty much all he has done since he started posting here a week ago, see above for a list of fallacies I've pointed out, and some fine examples of him dodging the question or just bailing out when the argument doesn't go his way.

The guy has no interest in honest debate, he just tosses out the same series of out of context, inflammatory quotes, and then moves on to the next comment thread...

Frankie Carbone's picture

Not to mention the pure enjoyment of humiliating them and inducing emotional pain and suffering in the troll. 

knukles's picture

Darwin's evolution came from the swamp.
The evolutionists have yet to explain from whence the swamp came.

So whatchur point?

nmewn's picture

Don't you have a completely irrelevant quote to really drive that point home like Top Gear? ;-)

Blano's picture

Hey, at least his last sentence isn't so tiny I can barely read it even with glasses.  : )

Disclaimer: I love knucks

nmewn's picture

lol...me too.

Knukles is as sane as you or I, he just releases his inner chakra here, instead of clubbing his leftwing golf buddies to death on a public course.

See, he's really just a great humanitarian ;-)

RevRex's picture

And idiot dooshbags never imagine that evolution could have been created by God.....

Seer's picture

All is fine on the chalkboard.  When it is exposed to the REAL world things become a bit tarnished.  I don't care how great something is on the chalkboard, IF if is predicated on perpetual growth then it WILL fail: and this is no theory, it's mathematical FACT.

shovelhead's picture

It's true that gold is simply a transfer mechanism for present or future goods but the difference with gold and seashells is that mining new gold represents the labor and capital invested vs seashells that can be picked up at will.

Gold and silver have the historical advantage as being universally accepted as a cancellation of debt because it's value is transferable.

Much handier than carting clay tablets or a tally-stick.

Conceptually, the idea that a piece of gold is really just an IOU is always rather difficult to wrap one’s head around, but something like this must be true, because even when gold and silver coins were in use, they almost never circulated at their bullion value."

If gold and silver are just debt markers, than how can bullion have ANY value?

The only thing difficult about wrapping ones head around is his circular arguement.

 

rubiconsolutions's picture

@Top Gear - I double dog dare you to write a comment without quoting someone else. Not just one or two lines but a real honest to goodness comment of a couple of paragraphs of original thought. Let everyone see the real you as opposed to the guy who has perfected the art of cutting and pasting from Wikiquote or some other source then hitting those cute little bold, italic and underscore buttons. So, there you go. Your assignment, if you choose to accept it is to write a comment on a Zero Hedge topic of say...two hundred words of original Tog Gear thinking. Maybe you'll stop racking up so many down arrows.

Agstacker's picture

Gold is not debt you moron, it is money, always has been and always will be.  

disabledvet's picture

The euro was all about creating the feudalization of Europe...not "federalization."

To make the people beholden to a "debt regime" that "they" would have to repay. (money is the same for all of us...but not all debts are created equal. Some are written off, some are ignored, some expropriated, etc...etc.)

The "democracitizer" as it were is default...where the number is just so high it can only be repaid "with interest."

The mistake was in the securities business...not the banks. By "securitizing" the debt (in effect making the Government the explicit back stop of Lehman, Merrill, Bear/Stearn, Morgan Stanley, etc...etc..) Fannie and Freddie were knocking out the one private pillar that stood between "risk" and "reward"...namely the Banks.

Shove all the shit paper in the banks, insure it all by AIG...get a guarantee from your "bros" in Congress. "Best deal ever."

2008 was really simple. What isn't simple is "what is being socialized exactly?" In short "what Government Agencies are going to be obliterated so we can fire up the socialized risk bandwagon again?" The war effort? Check. The post office? Check. Department of Transportation? Check. Detroit? Check.

Israel? OH, NO...WAIT A MINUTE HERE YOU COMMIE!

Abitdodgie's picture

I am sorry to say but until we get rid of the root of all evil nothing will change , before you snear at this think about it it could work , we need to start a time of evolution where the human race gets rid of money and becomes responsible for humans and the planet , it would not happen over night but it could happen , the only thing is , is that we would have to have a major reset .

DaddyO's picture

Ah, I hate to splash water on your fire, but it is the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil.

Money in and of itself is inanimate and without the ability to be good or evil.

DaddyO

Top Gear's picture

Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

“Francisco’s Money Speech”
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/08/franciscos-money-speech/

Of course, Ayn Rand wasn't perfect. She thought war and money were something of opposites. They're not. War is the root of all money, as anthropologist David Graeber has shown.

So it's time to love war just as much. War is a Racket? Hell, yeah!  It's what we hairless great apes do best!

Who says evolution can't be profitable?

Human Hands Evolved for Fighting, Study Suggests
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-hands-evolved-for-fighting/

 

 

Seer's picture

You're close, but...

ALL WARS ARE ABOUT RESOURCES.  Period!

There are a couple "survival" issues in all of this.  That is, there are two things vying for survival:

1) Humans themselves;

2) Civilizations.

In the first case we're less talking "profit" than survival for one's/an individual's life.

In the second case we're talking about a "system."  And given that all such "systems" ultimately fail due to overshoot (growth) it's a matter of trying to perpetuate the system for as long as possible: those promoting the "system" will NEVER talk about the fact of its certain, eventual demise.  Such "systems" are usually most hotly contended by a small subset of its individuals who tend to live off of the collective labors of others: think of folks like Dick Cheney who froth for others to go and die when they themselves will do everything possible to avoid placing themselves in harms way.

Raging Debate's picture

Seer - They will never talk about its demise. What's this then?
"This sucker is going down." GW Bush. Hyperbole can make an astute mind seem ignorant. Try words based on Likert scale such as "few" then your comment would have been bang on.

Chuck Knoblauch's picture

Shove a Tally Stick up your ass!

teslaberry's picture

money is like squirrel nuts. in fact historically, stored grains salts and other long term stored edibles served as money. currently they are still 'warehoused' , and financed. the soybean trade uses soybean reserves in a warehouse to finance (i.e. CREATE MONEY) for other transactions. 

 

so really---food that does not quickly spoil is a GOOD THING. enduring non-spoiling ability to EAT is the basis for many species, not simply human beings, ability to eat. 

 

while squirrels stockpile their nuts---the NUT itself is a stored form of energy that lasts for quite a while without spoiling, enabling MANY species to eat them wherever they are found . 

 

the value of salt and spice was in part high for many uses, one of them being to STORE food by SALTING IT. thereby imparting value to MEATS that would otherwise have less value without the ability to store them for longer periods. 

smoking, salting and spicing . 

 

so why? why are these things the root of evil? when they are turned into --or traded for---paper notes or minted coins? or seashells? or baubels?

 

they are not evil, they are powerful tools with which to create energy, organizing human beings and allowing human beings to organize their own and others' affairs. 

 

without lasting value---we'd still be living like cave men. 

Top Gear's picture

money is like...

No.

Money is Debt. Always has been. Even gold.

And markets are a byproduct of the need to feed the military.

"...money and markets do not emerge spontaneously...if one simply hands out coins to the soldiers and then demands that every family in the kingdom was obliged to pay one of those coins back to you, one would, in one blow, turn one’s entire national economy into a vast machine for the provisioning of soldiers, since now every family, in order to get their hands on the coins, must find some way to contribute to the general effort to provide soldiers with things they want. Markets are brought into existence as a side effect."

David Graeber (2011) Debt: The First 5, 000 Years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

Anthropology trumps libertarian coloring books every day.

 

hobopants's picture

More Chartalist drivel, look at Grisham's law if you wanna see how that theory plays out in the real world, and Anthropology is a joke of a "science", nearly as bad as mainstream economics.

 

Agstacker's picture

You sure seem to love David Graeber, do you wipe his ass?

Ralph Spoilsport's picture

I think he was traumatized at an early age by Libertarian coloring books.

Zoomorph's picture

I hate to spash water on your fire, but "root of all evil" is such a childish concept, as is the idea of eliminating "evil".

Good and evil are two sides to the same coin. You eliminate one and you eliminate the other as well. It's a logical impossiblity. Now if you want to know what "evil" really means, try reading Nietzsche who wrote extensively on it.

Hint: it's not some physical object, it's a value judgement made by one type of person against another.

Adahy's picture

Money, in and of itself, is entirely a human construct like 'fair', and 'free'; and in reality, does not exist at all.

It's power over other people and greed (same thing?) that are the root of all evil.  That's what it is all really about if you pay close enough attention to the translations all the way back.  Money is just the representation of power and greed.

Rattling Bones's picture

Yeah, we could have a guilding philosophy, something like: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need', or something like that.

Top Gear's picture

The Bible, say you?

"...to each according to his ability." ~Matthew 25:15

"...and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." ~Acts 4:35

"...not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them." ~ Acts 4:32

"...the daily distribution." ~Acts 6:1

"...your liberal distribution..." 2 Corinthians 9:13

Redistribution.  It's Biblical.

rubiconsolutions's picture

@Top Gear - Man, you just never stop do you? Again, you can quote until the cows come home but often times it is way out of context. If you are going to bring Christendom into the argument then...okay, let's get it on. First of all there is a huge difference between "distribution" in a Christian context and "confiscation and re-distribution" in a government sense. Yes, Christians are encouraged to give a portion of their assets / wealth / income to those in need but nowhere, NOWHERE will you find Paul or anyone else advocating doing it by force. Salvation is a personal choice, an option if you will. We are all endowed with free will and can use it in a variety of ways. Christ never forced anyone to bend to His will or do anything. Instead He gave people choices - "do this or this will happen". There is a huge difference between Christians providing for one another or those in need out of love and compassion and government using the barrel of gun to force people to give to one another. Before you go pontificating by using bible verses way out of context why don't you actually study how Christianity was practiced in the first three centuries. Find an example in those writings of force being used to distribute wealth among Christians. I dare you to do so. 

RevRex's picture

Abitdodgie....'it is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt'

RaceToTheBottom's picture

Clinton might be more reviled for his Glass-Steagall mistake than his intern philandering.

greatbeard's picture

>> his Glass-Steagall mistake

No fan of Clinton, but the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act  was a Republican monster that was veto proof when it hit Clinton's desk.  I might have a shred of respect for Clinton (just kidding, couldn't happen) if he'd had the character to veto it and let the Congress overide his veto, but he didn't .

Seer's picture

Here's the (affirming) record:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/106-1999/s105

Sad, it was during Reagan's administration that the restraints on the financial sector started to be removed.  And the unfortunate fact is that during Reagan's administration govt bloat really took off (despite Reagan's talk of wanting less govt).  I'm not taking shots at Reagan here as I believe that it really matters little who is in office, that it was all predestined for collapse based on our premise of perpetual growth: the signal flare of the end of growth was during the Nixon administration (US effectively defaulted on its debts by making the USD total fiat); since that time it's just been smoke and mirrors, with the financials being able to serve as the great obfuscators of our situation (their books can be tweaked to hide our reality, for a while).