Martin Armstrong Warns "We Are Witnessing The Collapse Of Democracy"

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via Armstrong Economics blog,

Part of the war cycle is just the general feeling or attitude shifts due to economics. We seem to be headed for such a fateful turn.

The police domestically have turned militaristic.

This is a very serious issue far beyond what most people would even guess. It tends to show the changing attitudes within society.

Couple this with Obama who seems to think he was elected to start a war. We are approaching a serious turning point that may reshape the world as did 1932 following the economic trend of the Great Depression.

The year 1932 saw Mao come to power in China. In Germany, Hitler came to power. FDR came to power in the United States. Even in Japan, the seeds of war were planted with the May 15 Incident, in which Prime Minister Tsuyoshi Inukai was assassinated by young military officers in an attempted coup. The killing spread fear among Japan’s liberal politicians and strengthened the militarists, who eventually led the country into the catastrophic Pacific War.

1932, which was also the low in the markets from 1929. The year 2007 began the changing process and we should be looking ahead now [for] the war cycle will turn upward.

We are witnessing the collapse of democracy or to put it in the proper perspective – the right of the people to vote even in a republic. Europe is hell-bent on removing any democratic process because Brussels believes they know best and the people are just too stupid to know what is best for them.

So 2007 marked the beginning of shift in attitude.

Comment viewing options

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

They count your votes but your votes don't count.

Rainman's picture

American democracy was created by the prosperous with the support of the slightly prosperous who were used as buffers against the Indians, the blacks and the very poor whites. Patriotism is about keeping control with a minimum of coercion....since 1776.

Rainman's picture

+ 1 . ....." people have so many different notions of what a Marxist is " !

undercover brother's picture

1. From bondage to spiritual faith,
2. From spiritual faith to great courage,
3. From courage to liberty,
4. From liberty to abundance,
5. From abundance to complacency,
6. From complacency to apathy,
7. From apathy to dependence,
8. From dependence back into bondage.

Where are we now folks?

Raymond K Hessel's picture

Awesome. Who said that first, John Adams?  Brilliant!

Raging Debate's picture

Hessel - That would be a Scottish, late 18th century historian that studied governments named Alexander Tytler.

photonsoflight's picture

$17,000,000,000,000.00+ in government bonds and $,000.00+ in unfunded liabilitys = bondage on a scale never dreampt before. The ancient pharaohs have nothing on the federal government. Maybe that is why there is a pyramid on the dollar?

Accounting101's picture

Oh Christ! Bonds and unfunded liabilities. You are a walking tool that represents exactly what Armstrong is writing about.

Bill of Rights's picture

Good and take political correctness with it.

smcapmachine's picture

dear lord people.   If you don't like the US, then move.

Bill of Rights's picture

US? Since when.. The states are not calling the shots the federal government is IE: " you didn't create that business "

Peter Pan's picture

I guess that's why Snowden moved.

danpos's picture

dear lord people, if ya don't like the US, then join ISIS.  yeehaw!

atthelake's picture

Most of us love America. It's the murderously, corrupt politicians we can't stand.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


dear lord people.   If you don't like the US, then move.

How about we get rid of the problem by evicting the US from America instead?

falconflight's picture

Me thinks your comment isn't genuine, just throwing a bomb.

Farqued Up's picture

Some people are forced to pay more tax in a single year than the average citizen of the USA will EARN in a lifetime. Who do you think should leave?

viedoklis_lv's picture

US police is trained in Israel.

There they are tought to look at people as terorists.

Because for Israel all palestinians are terorists.

So now, when you look in TV and thought that - ou my poor palestinians, just what they have to suffer under Israel occupation. Well, you let that injustes go on that side of the world and not it knocks at your door.

messystateofaffairs's picture

And thats how America will get payback for being Jew lapdogs (goyim in Jewish) and helping them foist their tyranny on the Palestinians and the world.

Perimetr's picture

I am shocked, shocked to learn we are witnessing the collapse of demcracy!!!

Gee, the next thing you know, we will be a police state!

nobodysfool's picture
"We Are Witnessing The Collapse Of Democracy"... Nah it's just a bump in the road. Move along nothing to see here...I'm playing golf tomorrow at 9:00 am.
I am on to you's picture

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important  element in" democratic society!

King of spin,1928,Edward,, Torch of freedom,American Fruits and so forth ,,Bernays.

There aint ,nor ever was,democracy,just plain hipocracy.


yogibear's picture

It was understood that a democracy fails, it why you pledged to a republic.


"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Farqued Up's picture

I will not pledge allegiance to any flag made in China, and only to the Constitutional Republic, which has been diluted out of existence, almost. "In a deterioating situation, only the undesirable remain". That's a dressed up version of the old engineering and construction adage, "when the shit hits the fan only the shit stays". It will either somehow correct itself or it will approach critical mass and vacate the premises. Flip a coin, it can go either way, it hasn't been decided, only trending badly. 

yogibear's picture

Don't know what Barry pledges to.

stutes33's picture  Period.  

GaryTheSnail's picture

Dude this ain't Freshmen college writing.  You're not going for "page count" here.  This could have been summarized in roughly two to three sentences.  Making it go on that long just makes you sound like Charles Manson.

JuliaS's picture

Democracy demands compliance with the will of the majority, real or perceived. In a direct democracy there's at least some degree of connection between those passing rules and those being affected. In a representative democracy you trust a representative to relay the information back and forth regarding what the majority is and what it wants. The whole idea behind lobbyists is to take wealthy minorities and present them as large groups worthy of priviledge.

Well, if you value individual rights, like I do, then no form of democracy is favorable, when a Republic (which we were supposed to be all along) offers a much better alternative.

A republic is similar to democracy, as it allows voting, but it defines things that cannot be voted on. It recognizes all rights as being derived from property, main of which being: life (human body) and land.

Without being able to own yourself or the land you stand on, you cannot own anything else. Every other form of ownership becomes an illusion - a set of temporary permissions revokable at any time.

In a democracy anything can be voted on. A life can be voted away, every possession eliminated or transferred. In a democracy if someone comes up to you and says: "I'm with the people", you're supposed to comply. That's the democratic principle - compliance with the will.

In a constitutional republic, if your rights come first and if you see someone attempting to limit yours, you have the full right to (quoting Carlin), shoot the fuck and walk away.

I love the Bill of Rights and The Constitution. I think they are as valid as ever - every syllable.

Sure, rules are human constructs. Rights aren't god given, since there is no god. It is all bullshit. Rights are convenient ideas invented at certain stages in human evolution. That, however, doesn't make them any less valid in the current situtation. Rights work, so they should be protected.

Democracy masquerades as a Republic and it is similar, but different in areas where it matters the most.

Only problem with restoration of the Republic, if it does take place, is that no property is currenly in possession of original owners. Everything's stolen many times over. To take direct possession would mean to violate the very principle of the foundation. How do you take things back? Do you burn everything to the ground and start over? Do you host a lottery? How do you get property and land back in the hands of the people without doing exactly what the current system does?

To that I do not have an answer.

LawsofPhysics's picture

Are you fucking kidding me.  It's in the public record, we know who the "arsonists" were that "destroyed the financial system" and rule of law.  I can look around my community and tell you who the good stewards of land and property are.  Moreover, there is no reward (restoration of a republic or rule of law) without sacrifice.  Nature and the laws of physics have been very clear on this point for billions of years.

personally, I think everyone would be satisfied in simply seeing some real fucking consequences for bad behavior for a change.

rwe2late's picture


You do not have an answer because you began

with a faulty premise that "property rights" must be inviolable,

and that current notions of "property" are readily and properly applicable to land, water, other species, etc.

(And perhaps also with a bias that all property must/may be privatized, individually owned)


Currently defined "property rights" must be violated, and must be redefined.

Notions about "property" are over generalized, and "property rights" misapplied.

All "property" is not the same.  Not everything in this world can or should be deemed "property". 

"Property rights" have to do with privilege, access and use. There can be individual or private

property. But there can also be public  or common property and public rights.


falconflight's picture

All private property rights are under siege and subject to conversion by gov't in various ways for the 'greater good.'  It is a given that private and public interests are competing factions.  

JuliaS's picture

They may not respect our rights, but their rigths are paramount. They want a double set of rules and there lies the whole problem. No matter how imperfect and flawed laws are, half the justice is making sure they apply equally to everyone. When they don't - it's lawlessness, it's anarchy. Ferguson is anarchy top down.

Not bottom up. Top down!

falconflight's picture

Any nation whose various governments actually pass tens of thousands of laws per annum is an authoritarian state, not a liberty-individual rights based Republic.

beaglebog's picture

Government simply cannot exist without there being "two sets of rules".


If you must have a government, the very best you can hope for is that it is benign.



JuliaS's picture

Good point. It got me thinking what was different about the times of the Founders compared to ours. I say the rules were written for the times and falsely assume the all still apply, when in reality the don't actually.

The Founders were faced with an almost unlimited abundance of newly discovered and untamed resources - more land than could be put to immediate use by any inhabitant. To them "America" was a new planet, in comparison to fully divided and distributed land of Western Europe from which American settlers originated. They were a contrast to the colonial Britain and their laws were a way of saying: "This is how this place is different. What works for you does not work for us."

Simply due to population density being different today, the rights, perhaps, need to be re-examned and their validity questioned.

Property does sound convenient. It is a foundation of a system in which the Founders lived, but today, when land is actually in short supply, overexhausted through modernized cultivation methods... when water is no longer plentiful, when clean air is no longer a nature's guarantee, maybe the rights are outdated.

Maybe "access priviledge" is as good as it gets in the modern society - as close to rights as we can have it without inconveniencing others.

Maybe the modern republic is a blend of the original and this semi-democracy. Maybe an increasing number of inconveniences is unavoidable and should be encorporated into the norm.

That's even more questions than I started with, but still I gravitate towards the notion that our system should resemble the original system a lot more than it does. We can and should be more of a Constitutional Republic envisioned and less of a Democracy thrown upon us without our permission. Don't know about you, but I haven't agreed to this democracy. Most rules that originate under the current system do not benefit me... and don't even benefit the majority democracy supposedly protects. We call it a democracy, but in reality it's not even that. It is much much worse.

Let's agree at least on one thing.

What we have is broken beyond repair and has to change. Not all lessons of the past are writeoffs. It's worth borrowing from the past in order to build a better future. The constitution did work and it will work again. If corrections are needed - that's what the Ammendment mechanism is for. Free speech, right to bear arms - they're ammendments. Those work fine.

... now the 16th - don't even get me started on that one.

putaipan's picture

to the beat of 'exodus' bob marley ....

" bring us another Henry George !" .....

falconflight's picture

The revolutionary nature of the Bill of Rights is premised upon the concept of natural rights...God given, inalienable rights...that can neither be given nor taken by a gov't of men.  

Take God out of it, and you are right back to men can give and take on a whim.  

Disclosure:  Atheist.  I would trust a devoted biblically-based Christian before a human secularist.  Of course, trust no one to protect what in the end is our own responsibility to protect individually and within voluntary associations.

putaipan's picture

athiest schmathiest......

just don't go corporatizing by being and offering it as a bond under maritme law issued by the crown to the vatican!




viedoklis_lv's picture

"Rights aren't god given, since there is no god"

I think various people have different definition of this word and meaning to it.

JuliaS's picture

Well, my meaning is that rights are invented by men - here and now, to suit the times in which we're living. Regardless of what meaning is given to the word "god", I disagree with all of them. The origin of rights is the desire to co-exist productively. If we all had our individual planets... or to paraphrase Asimov - if we lived in an apartment where every tennant had his own bathroom, there'd be no need for "rights" or "priviledges". They're an idea coming out co-habitation in relative, but not absolute resource abundance.

Rights are man-made and like the men themselves, are temporary ideas. They, however were good for the time they were invented and they are still good today.

Rights - not given, not received, not born with, not entitled with... simply agreed upon, recognized and respected.

As Carlin observed, if rights were "god-given" deriving from a higher authority or some universal principle, then every country would've had the same set of rights. Every bill of rights would've looked the same, yet it never does. Why? Because rights are just man-made ideas. Hence the whole dilemma with restoration of Constitutional Republic. It does involve a huge portion of hypocricy at least during the transition period...

... much like the establishment of this very country on an already inhabited continent centuries ago.

To "own" land we first had to steal it from people who lived under a different set of rules and values, where the idea of "ownership" was quite alien to begin with - where "individualism" had an entirely different meaning.

This whole legal and metaphisical lattice of concepts is quite a mess, regardless of many attempts to put it all writing and solidify in the form of documents such as "The Bill of Rights" and "The Constitution".

Rebel Ape's picture

Mao took power in 1949, not 1932. 

Burticus's picture

"Remember, democracy never lasts long.  It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.  There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." - John Adams

This is the reason the framers of the U.S. constitution did not mention the word "democracy" in any of our founding documents.  They chose the rule of law under a republic..."if (as Ben Franklin said) you can keep it." 

Armstrong should know the difference.

midtowng's picture

Mao didn't come to power until 1948. FDR and Hitler took poweer in 1933.

How sloppy can you get

TomGa's picture

Yeah, so Martin,  the U.S. is not a "democracy" and never has been one, so how can our so-called "democracy" be collapsing?  Our republic, however,  collapsed a long time ago. At this stage, the U.S. is basically an oligarchy.

Farqued Up's picture

I think to be consistent with the -cracy suffix we should call it a PLUTOCRACY. Oligarchy definitely fits the definition ticket as well.

HeavydutyMexicanOfTheNorthernKingdom's picture

I wish all you hill billies would go out with some dignity.  All this crying and bitching is so embarrasing to watch.

Ginsengbull's picture

DIGnity sounds too much like dig.


We don't dig.


You dig.