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.
Ginsengbull's picture

DIGnity sounds too much like dig.

 

We don't dig.

 

You dig.

falconflight's picture

And considering his/her telling user ID, he/she can mow and edge as well.

Polymarkos's picture

Kill yourself, Mexitrash. It's the right thing to do.

jacship's picture

wE   haven't seen nothing yet

wait for the EBT system failure

THE END

NuYawkFrankie's picture

Truly shocking news!

Thanks for the "heads up" Mr Armstrong!

Paracelsus's picture

ISIS is Sunni muslim.

The Saudi/Qatari money backing them is Sunni.

The Saudis know the USA is vulnerable through currency devaluation like never before.

The Saudis prop up the USA with the PetroDollar exchange mechanism.

The Israelis like the oil coming from the new Kurdish state now in development.It is unlikely they would allow this to end.

The Iranians are the only country to acknowledge Nuclear Weapons development. (Aside from the Israelis....).

The Turks once would start chewing the carpet when someone mentioned the future establishment of a Kurdish nation.

 

Something in the historical sense has been lost in the media these days.

When I think back to the cold war days,it struck me that the Powers U-2 flight was from Incirclik,Turkey

to Peshawar,Pakistan.This was the 1960's era. Here we go again.....

beaglebog's picture

Nope, I still can't see it.

 

Why do you need any fucking politicians?   Even a single one.

Ginsengbull's picture

If I can pay bills, buy and sell stocks, and do my banking online, I should be able to vote online.

 

Ooops, that "secret ballot" is the technicality they need to keep that from happening.

Moccasin's picture

It maybe the end of "representative democracy", maybe no more bribe-ocracy or kleptocracy but it is not necessarily the end of other forms of democracy. We may end up in a totalitarian state for a period of time, however, I am hopeful that Direct Democracy with a bill of rights that can protect minorities from a majority of tyranny will emerge. Yes, i am idealistic because I hate our dystopia. If all else fails give me Anarcho-Syndicalism or Anarchy as Bakunin envisioned it. If everything fails, 40 acres and a gun is just another dystopia that I will hate and live with because that is where I am at today. :)

Lea's picture

"I am hopeful that Direct Democracy with a bill of rights that can protect minorities from a majority of tyranny will emerge".

Personnally, I'd prefer a Direct Democracy that would do its job: protect the majority against the tyranny of a wealthy minority (the first and foremost reason democracy was instituted in the first place - to protect the weak against the whims of the powerful by giving a voice to everyone). The Founding Fathers (who were all slave-owners and feared the people), however, did a very good job at stifling every possibility of that ever happening in the USA. You can't bribe a whole population, but what about pressuring a tiny bunch of electors? Wouldn't that be a piece of cake?

That system guaranteed America was a plutocracy from day one.

flyonmywall's picture

Hah ! Democracy? You never had democracy, and neither did most of the world.

I know people in the Eastern Bloc who long for the days when the Iron Curtain was actually up. They call those the "good ol' days". You were fucked, but at least they used some lube and the commies actually gave everyone a job to do. At least you had something. Now they have nothing, not even real money or real food.

Similarly, people in the US call the 50's and 60's the good ol' days. Now, you have the USSA & Gestapo hybrid, all rolled into one, run by the Goebbles media.

We have gone full retard.

 

reader2010's picture

Democracy? What democracy? Every economic, political, Social, religious and cultural institution of this country is built with top-down control,  which means walls to exclude people from decision-making process. 

falconflight's picture

Wait a minute now, this is a democratically elected government, and most people are satisfied with their gov't bribes.  Just because there is a small cadre of committed aware people who are quite correct in their analysis and conclusion of our improving dystopia, it doesn't change the fact that our gov't is a reflection of the masses.  

Who was that masked man's picture

Democracy is tyranny.  Democracy and liberty are polar opposites.  Under Democracy, government grows, slowly at first, and then exponentially until it smothers all of us under a mountain of freedom-stifling laws, rules, regulations, taxes, and beaurocracy.   One of our Founding Fathers greatest fears was that our proud Constitutional Republic would someday deteriorate into corruption and Democracy.  Their worst fears have now been realized..

synsolve's picture

Right on!

Madison said:

Democracy is the most vile form of government; 

democracies have ever 

been spectacles of turbulence and contention: 

have ever been found 

incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: 

and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent 

in their deaths.

 

To which Franklin added: "That is why we gave you a Republic...if you can keep it."

 

 

 

q99x2's picture

Democracy in the western world doesn't exist. Things are controlled out of Brussels. When they decide to take away the facade the SHTF.

Boom, unless of course we get the individuals responsible in a head lock first.

migra's picture

We are not witnessing the fall of democracy. We are witnessing a bunch of self entitiled thugs getting their asses handed to them.

I Write Code's picture

In ancient Rome
There was a poem
About a dog
Who found two bones
He picked at one
He licked the other
He went in circles
He dropped dead

Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want

sleigher's picture

"people are just too stupid to know what is best for them"

Precisely why we had a republic.  Go ahead and be stupid all you want, just don't fuck with anyone else.  Exactly the way it should be.

 

1 over Infinity's picture

You are free to vote for whom ever  the media picks.

 

steelrules's picture

Your only a Republic if everyone knows what that even means, sadly for the US, not so much any more.

TomGa's picture

Watch for escalating attacks on private property rights. That's what progressives / communists always attack.

 

An except from Daniel Webster's "The Plymouth Oration", 1820:

"The nature and constitution of society and government in this country are interesting topics, to which I would devote what remains of the time allowed to this occasion. Of our system of government the first thing to be said is, that it is really and practically a free system. It originates entirely with the people and rests on no other foundation than their assent. To judge of its actual operation, it is not enough to look merely at the form of its construction. The practical character of government depends often on a variety of considerations, besides the abstract frame of its constitutional organization. Among these are the condition and tenure of property; the laws regulating its alienation and descent; the presence or absence of a military power; an armed or unarmed yeomanry; the spirit of the age, and the degree of general intelligence. In these respects it cannot be denied that the circumstances of this country are most favorable to the hope of maintaining a government of a great nation on principles entirely popular. In the absence of military power, the nature of government must essentially depend on the manner in which property is holden and distributed. There is a natural influence belonging to property, whether it exists in many hands or few; and it is on the rights of property that both despotism and unrestrained poppular violence ordinarily commence their attacks. Our ancestors began their system of government here under a condition of comparative equality in regard to wealth, and their early laws were of a nature to favor and continue this equality.

A republicon form of government rests not more on political constitutions, than on those laws which regulate the descent and transmission of property. Governments like ours could not have been maintained, where property was holden according to the principles of the feudal system; nor, on the other hand, could the feudal constitution possibly exist with us. Our New England ancestors brought hither no great capitals from Europe; and if they had, there was nothing productive in which they could have been invested."

synsolve's picture

 

Madison said of democracy:

Democracy is the most vile form of government... 

democracies have ever 

been spectacles of turbulence and contention, 

have ever been found 

incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; 

and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent 

in their deaths.

To which Franklin added: "That is why we gave you a Republic...if you can keep it."

 

 

Canucklehead's picture

The police are militarized because the general population is not responsible for their actions. Some do not like that the police are militarized, whereas others are glad they are.

This militarization is the result of the Balkanization of the US society.

numapepi's picture

That the elite would have to become ever more draconian in their punishments and surveillance is as predictable as the sunrise. Confucius said people follow their leaders into corruption or virtue. Since our leaders are so corrupt and we are following them, despotic government is the only way the can envision to keep us from following them further...

Read about the solution to the deficiencies of human government in my book, The Fourth Branch. The first 80% is free!

Here: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/277193

The Magus's picture

This article has no content.

messystateofaffairs's picture

Is democracy the right of a majority of sheeple to sell their own and other peoples freedom in exchange for confiscated and redistributed lucre? Or is it a set of immutable freedom principles that cannot be undone by any majority vote? Even if it were to be the latter freedom would not hold because sheeple just can't resist a free lunch and cunning slavers will always find a way to sneak them into the pen.

TrustbutVerify's picture

The citizens initiative and individualism is increasingly being bought off by government checks and promises of security with more assurance of government checks in the future.  But even the increasing number of those on the monetary and psychological dole sweat with worry about whether it can really work.  Ask yourself, can you ever trust the dope pusher?  In this case, the drug primarily being a monetary heroin an the age of burgeoning deficits, debt, a hollowed out economy, astoundingly excessive retirement promises, and falling education levels. 

You tell me.

Bunga Bunga's picture

Americans are easy to trick. In Ferguson they just put the same police guys in different uniforms the next day and the protestors behaved like sheeples. A dictator's wet dream.  

royal's picture

Good news, because a democracy is one of the worst forms of government you can have.

The Founders HATED Democracy, thus why they made the United States a REPUBLIC.

Now, if someone will just remind the politicians this...

Hohum's picture

Guys, don't worry, you'll get democracy one day.  You just won't have a car or travel in a plane.  Enjoy where you are.

Atomizer's picture

Good, we can restore the United States Republic. Democracy was a Global elite plan gone tit's up. Fuck off cunts! You will lose every fake USD dollar that you thought would broaden personal net worth. 

We will recoin the USD, you will absorb the derivatives obligations. Your signature is on the contract, not ours. 

We never signed the contract, again you did. We have no responsibility to fulfill the massive amount of debt you incurred without our consent. 

You're stuck with it, suck it up puppets. Coughs, you signed into a binding contract under your name only. Liability falls on your shoulders. 

I.e, if I get a parking ticket, do you pay for my fine? Nope, I do. Hence the above stated. 

Atomizer's picture

Simple UCC code. Without my signature, no debt obligations. Eat crow dumb fucks.

http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Uniform-Laws-Annot...

Ban KKiller's picture

The man hates it when you use the rules.

Skargit's picture

Call me naive, but I just don't get it...

I know this is my frist post here (long-time lurker) but there seems to be some serious cognitive dissonace going on at current time.

So we can agree that this Brown kid, if this video is true, is a thug. Fine. No issue with that statement.
We can agree that, if this video is true, comitted (albeit mimimal) aggressive robbery. Fine.

Here's the thing... I could give a shit about this kid. That's the honest truth. But what I do care about is seeing police officers armed like commados and behaving as if they were the brown-shirts. That's what I truly care about.

Whether the protests that came forth were right or wrong, whether they had validity in action is anathema to the point; a citizen, no matter what colour (or degree of understanding) has the right to self-expression... and what we witnessed here was the brutal onslaught of the jack-booted ruffians we allow to exist in today's Western culture.

The Bundy Ranch (again, agree or not with the principle of the thing) showed a populace (white 2nd ammendment-understanding patriots) defending a fellow citizen from a borderline totalitarian government-owned strike force. In Ferguson, we have poor, uneducated and under-equipped blacks standing up for what they believe (right or wrong <- and this doesn't matter).

All that matters is your RIGHT to have your voice heard.. your RIGHT to self-expression and your RIGHT to not be accosted by government-owned soliders on your native soil.

TL;DR?--- who care about some douche nozzle gangster? What really matters is the police response- black, white, yellow... who gives a fuck- it's just further divide and conquer tacts by TPTB

tinsmith's picture

Skargit, I tend to agree with most of what you wrote.

but there is a difference between the two incidents.  One is an example of citizens directly confronting the aggressors, while the other is an example of lawless destructive behavior being aimed in the wrong direction.  Looting a convenience store and destroying bus stops is not standing up to tyranny.  it is throwing a tantrum.  were the violence in Fergusson directed elsewhere then there might be a comparisson.

this is not to imply that there would not be risk to life and limb for those directly confronting the shock troops, and goodness knows i am not suggesting it would be a simple or easy decision to make.  but we can not equate the actions of two groups of protestors simply because the trigger is the same or because the incidents both contain elements of an overbearing militarized State.

Skargit's picture

I agree with you whole-heartidly on that- was drinking heavily and ticked off before actually posting in fight club; had some patriotic rage going.

That said, the acts of a few moronic free-loaders and shameful looters brought something to the forefront: how ridiculously well armed and callous the government's police forces now are...everywhere. I guess while I do agree that there is a degree of necessity to disperse such a rabble, when I look at the actions of the government at Bundy Ranch (which I'm more on the side of cause-wise) and compare it to the general thuggery in Ferguson (or the possible Boston psy-op), I'm seeing that no matter the incident, the police aren't there to serve and protect- they're present to indimidate.

verum quod lies's picture

"The year 1932 saw Mao come to power in China." WTF?

Sages wife's picture

Guys, if democracy were ever the goal of our illustrious public servants and their masters, we would have been voting online long ago.  And we are.  Unfortunately, they only use the results to construct policy to thwart us.  The results of our decisions must be immediately published, and indisputable.  The internet will be our saviour, but it's integrity must be in our hands, not theirs.

Farqued Up's picture

I'm worried that since the PTB can hit a key on the computer and create $5 trillion in fiat, that an adjacent key can magically elect a mulatto homo Kenyan-Indonesian-Hawaiian president of these once great United States.

I think we should get back to paper ballots hand delivered and certified through the various collation and tote points even if it takes a month to declare a winner. Of course, my first choice is anarchy since the cops and courts are now corrupt and are basically the enemy of an orderly fair society. Governments at all levels are irrelevant and counterproductive. Vigilantes can enforce contracts and punish violators of neighbors' rights. Vigilantism has been given a bad rap, because it competes with the powermongers' corrupt system.

 

 

barre-de-rire's picture

blaaaaaaa blaaaaaaa blaaaaaaaaaa....niggers go back home in ferguson, then what.... you gonna walk on D.C ?

 

same writters saying " i buy the dips i bla bla, you still use system you spitin on.... pathetic.

go EBT walmart & stfu,  world change not gonna happen from inside usa,

let's focus your wonderfuck job in europa, you are forcing others to fight  for yourself.

you never won a single war by yourself, face it.

ordering  kiev to shoot red cross humanitarian help, you just worst than nazis.

Juvenal laughs's picture

Mao coming to power in 1932??? Crap, how satisfied he must be. in retrospect. Whatever happened to 1949? And that's only a start in looking into the statements in this rubble.

tradewithdave's picture

You think democracy is bad (interrupted by the ring of an O-phone), wait till you see the democratization of money - one coin/one vote. It's like Citizens United v FEC blockchain version with free means testing included with each purchase and carbon footprint measuring 24/7.

If you agree that "tech will save us" (Thiel and Maidsafe's Irvine) and Rothschild's Economist magazine meme of "money as a technology" then you found your savior in Ricardian contracts and 3D accounting. Stick with Jesus and you won't end up on Thiel's floating libertarian prison or wearing the mark.

www.tradewithdave.com

Jack4952's picture

The fact is that the United States of America was NEVER intended to be a democracy. Rather, it was intended to be a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, with the central (federal) government having very few and limited powers; and the States having all other powers not delegated to the central government in the Constitution. Even Alexander Hamilton, arguing in the Federalist Papers that a "Bill of Rights" was NOT needed, wrote that the Federal Government could NEVER exercise any power or authority that was not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

Republic: A government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626   In a "republic" the minorities have RIGHTS guaranteed by a Constitution and these RIGHTS can NOT be infringed or limited by the majority. Even if everyone EXCEPT one man decided by majority vote to limit that man's RIGHTS (e.g., free speech), they could NOT lawfully do so.

Democracy: That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly, or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 388   In other words, in a "Democracy" the rule of the majority binds everyone. Minorities have NO RIGHTS in a democracy; only "privileges" temporarily granted to them and just as easily taken away whenever the majority changes its mind.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By the way, has anyone ever wondered what the word "FEDERAL" means, as in the term "the federal government"?

 

FEDERAL:    

Webster's Dictionary (1828)

1.) Pertaining to a league or contract derived from an agreement or covenant between two parties, particularly between two nations

Derived from or the result of a compact, contract, covenant, mutual agreement

 

2.) Consisting in a compact between parties , particularly and chiefly between states or nations?

THUS: FEDERAL means “contract” and the “federal government” means the contract (the Constitution as a contract among the various sovereign States; NOT among the People) by which the government was created.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

YOU, as one of the "people" ARE NOT MENTIONED HERE since YOU HAVE NO CONTRACT WITH A STATE OR A NATION regarding the Constitution. As stated by the judge in the Padleford case?

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he [the private person, the man] is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain."  Padleford case

Cited cases:

UNITED STATES v. KIMBELL FOODS, INC., ET AL. No. 771359
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 440 U.S. 715? 99 S. Ct. 1448? 1979 U.S. LEXIS 30? 59 L. Ed. 2d 711? 20 Collier Bankr. Cas. (MB) 1? 26 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (Callaghan) 1 and FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF FORT WORTH, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. No. 55583C, UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT 8 Cl. Ct. 774? 41 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (Callaghan) 1583, September 27, 1985.

 

 

 

 

 

Lanka's picture

It is good idea to compile and publish on the internet the names and addresses of members of the LEOs.  

spinone's picture

Martin Armstrong is a wierd dude

speconomist's picture

Why are some sentences cut in half compared to the original article?