To study the history of the United States is to wrap one’s mind around a relentless drumbeat of the most stupefying contradictions.
As one of the most glaring examples, the United States features one of the strongest checks on the unrestrained power of government in the federal Constitution.
And yet, in complete defiance of all logic, many of the framers of this constitution claimed it was justified to hold against their will hundreds of human beings, to be used and traded as commodities on the market no less than timber or tea.
James Madison, one of the staunchest advocates for a weak and restrained federal government, championed the inclusion of the ninth amendment in the bill of rights, which established that human beings have rights beyond what is listed in the first eight amendments, and that the government “shall not” abridge them.
And yet, barely a generation later, Madison was wielding that same government apparatus to all but conscript the civilian population for the purpose of staging a land invasion of Canada that was a disaster from its inception. When a New England mayor negotiated an end to the war, Madison, against the near total objection of the domestic population, charged the mayor with treason. A jury unanimously nullified Madison’s charge.
Some fifty years later, a man that ostensibly claimed to want to uphold the rule of law and the United States Constitution, ended up waging all-out war against both the eleven states who chose to lawfully secede from the union, and against the remaining twenty states, as well. Abraham Lincoln censored the northern press, implemented an incredibly severe draft, and directed his generals to commit war crimes in the Confederacy. Lincoln himself admitted that the preservation of the union was his foremost aim:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
I would be remiss not to mention one of the gravest crimes of both the United States federal government and of state governments, in conjunction: the near-decimation of the population indigenous to North America, with several estimates that tens to hundreds of millions of indigenous were slaughtered through a combination of war, famine and disease.
Suffice to say that there are many further examples of these glaring contradictions in United States history, but I would like to fast-forward to perhaps the most glaring contradiction of them all.
Over the past twenty years, the United States has boasted to the world that it is a bastion of freedom, and that the United States would like nothing more than to bring true peace to this world.
And yet, perhaps the foremost terrorist organization in the world in the nearly twenty years since the World Trade Center towers fell on 9/11/2001, under suspicious circumstances to say the least, has been the United States federal government, which has waged all-out war against both the domestic and foreign populations.
Internationally, the United States has punished sovereign governments that have attempted to liberate themselves from the yoke of the petro/nuclear-backed dollar, by committing some of the most heinous war crimes the world has ever seen. From commandeering the U.S. military to murder at least a million Iraqi civilians following an effort led by Suddam Hussein to ditch the dollar for the Euro, to brutally murdering the head of state of Libya following his promises to help create an African currency (with the U.S. Secretary of State openly cackling about it on national television), to playing a pivotal role in an effort led by Saudi Arabia to starve millions of Yemenis in order to advance Saudi Arabian interests in the region, the U.S. government has enforced an empire abroad, maintaining more than a thousand (known) military bases in dozens, if not hundreds of countries.
Domestically, Americans have seen their civil liberties implode in the span of a single generation. The corporate press has been commandeered to promote the most destructive policies to human health that one could possibly imagine; freedom of travel, assembly, speech, and religion are on life support; and, the sphere of public discourse has been drastically curtailed to the point where mammoth corporations in Silicon Valley have developed a near-total stranglehold on said discourse.
Indeed, it is rarely discussed how dramatically civilian life in the United States has been attacked in the past twenty years. The American population by and large, but most notably the younger generations, have become incredibly addicted to technology and social media, and these devices have a stranglehold on the American mind that cannot be overstated.
The American civil discourse has been strangled, warped and manipulated to the point that many Americans were convinced that Donald Trump presented a grave and immediate threat to the survival of the American Republic, while direct proof that the 2016 Democratic Primary was rigged from the very beginning to install Hillary Clinton, an incredibly dangerous warmonger, as the Democratic candidate and, indeed, as the President of the United States, was conveniently ignored.
Over the past four years, corporate media outlets such as CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times have shamelessly and breathlessly parroted the line that the U.S. President is a puppet of a foreign power. They have done so without presenting a shred of evidence to indicate that this is the case; indeed, many of Trump’s actions in the oval office have had gone against the interests of Russia, such as Trump’s efforts to block the implementation of a Russian pipeline in Europe.
This campaign by a significant arm of the mainstream corporate media to effectively overthrow a democratically elected President, has not been without consequences. A rather large percentage of the United States electorate has been convinced that the U.S. is under siege by Vladimir Putin, and that, as such, nearly any action to “remove hostile influence” and “restore democracy” is considered justified, including staging one of the most blatant election coups in recent American history.
It has been rather shocking, to say the least, to witness a significant portion of the American electorate be willing to actually champion and enforce perhaps the most draconian and illogical policies in American history. That the government could effectively convince millions of people that a policy of requiring the entire population to wear a mask whenever they’re outside, and that a nationwide house arrest policy is going to have a positive impact on health, is a testament to the effectiveness and sophistication of the national brainwashing apparatus.
So effective has this brainwashing been that a percentage of Americans have taken to exercising while wearing face masks. In June of 2020, my sister, who lives in New York City, commented that she “nearly passed out” while doing so – and yet she does not seem to understand, or at least to vocalize, concern over policies that have wrecked devastation on the health of the national population.
My parents are full-throated supporters of this domestic terror regime. In a conversation I had with my mother in May of 2020, in which I expressed anger at the fact that Costco was claiming the authority to require customers to cover their face before entering, she was so appalled by my skepticism that she stated, “who did I raise?”.
I do not believe that deep down, my parents are terrible people, though I certainly experienced significant abuse in my twenty-some years living with them.
I believe they have been thoroughly brainwashed by a public-private complex including the likes of Silicon Valley, the corporate media, the government-run “education” system, and a federal bureaucracy, also known as “the swamp”, that is absolutely filled to the brim with actors hell-bent on world domination, and is willing to commit any level of crime against humanity and this planet to achieve that aim.
Thankfully, an also-significant portion of the United States population is savvy to the many lies, deceits and distortions promoted by government. The first amendment has come under intense assault and curtailment, but the “powers that be” have not been nearly as successful in curtailing the U.S. second amendment – the right of the people to keep and bear arms, “being necessary for the security of a free State”.
It is the opinion of this author that this bulwark of the American domestic population, that is ready and willing to wage war against the government for its all-out assault on civil liberties and on life itself, has prevented the United States from falling into complete and total Orwellian despotism; that the very group that is condemned by Silicon Valley, the corporate media, and the modern American liberal, has in fact been the most staunch defender of the liberty of all.
In 1991, former United States naval intelligence officer William Cooper published a book called “Behold a Pale Horse”. In the book, Cooper detailed the coming effort of the U.S. government to disarm the American population:
“The government encouraged the manufacture and importation of military firearms for the criminals to use. This is intended to foster a feeling of insecurity, which would lead the American people to voluntarily disarm themselves by passing laws against firearms. Using drugs and hypnosis on mental patients in a process called Orion, the CIA inculcated the desire in these people to open fire on schoolyards and thus enflame the antigun lobby. This plan is well underway, and so far is working perfectly. The middle class is begging the government to do away with the second amendment.”
It is little wonder that the United States government has worked so hard in this recent period to attempt to confiscate the guns of the American population. Recent world history is riddled with examples of despotic governments making gun confiscation their top priority. No less than Adolf Hitler stated as follows:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.”
In 1972, the first order of business for the newly despotic regime under Ferdinand Marcos was to confiscate weapons:
““NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ferdinand E. Marcos, Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and pursuant to Proclamation No.1081 dated September 21, 1972, do hereby order that henceforth and until otherwise ordered by me or by my duly designated representative, no person shall keep, possess or carry outside of his residence any firearm unless such person is duly authorized to keep, possess or carry any such firearm and any person violating this order shall forthwith be arrested and taken into custody and held for the duration of the emergency unless ordered released by me or by my duly designated representative.”
Over the course of the past few decades, many “western” governments have engaged in similar campaigns to the one described by Cooper in the United States, and those projects have been much more successful. The government in Great Britain all but led the way in the western world in passing extremely restrictive gun control policies in the 1960’s. In 2002, Australia followed suit with its own massive gun confiscation push. In 2019, the New Zealand government passed its own regulations for mandatory gun registration; Prime Minister Jecinda Ardern stated that “[o]wning a firearm is a privilege not a right”.
Though the United States has certainly experienced a massive advancement into full-blown Orwellian despotism in the past year and some months, the policies promoted in the above countries have by and large been even more draconian than what has been experienced in America.
I’d like to examine the kinds of policies that each of these governments has implemented in the past fifteen months. Let’s start with a brief examination of the policies promoted in the United States.
First, it’s extremely important to note that, in spite of the non-stop, full-throated warnings of the Democratic party, corporate press and Silicon Valley that a hostile regime has taken over the oval office, hell-bent on destroying the American system, the United States was one of the few countries in the world not to implement a national lockdown. It’s also important to consider how a Hillary Clinton Presidency would have operated in the same set of circumstances. This author imagines that a radically different set of policies would have been promoted, out of which it is uncertain that the United States, or the world, could have survived.
Because the federal government did not impose a national lockdown, it was left to the states to determine a course of action. That same unholy trinity mentioned above promoted Andrew Cuomo as the “savior of the country” and the model of Democratic Governors, while the Governor of my state of Ohio, “Republican” Mike DeWine, was championed as the “national guide to the crisis”.
“When Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine announced a ban on spectators at the Arnold Classic, a juggernaut of a sports festival that brings tens of millions in revenue, the move seemed radical. It was March 3, and the state, after all, had not even had a single confirmed case of the novel coronavirus.
But within days, large-capacity events were being canceled nationwide.
A week later, DeWine recommended that his state’s colleges suspend in-person classes. Across the country, they soon did. He then closed Ohio’s public schools. Other states followed.
And on Sunday, DeWine ordered all restaurants and bars be shuttered. By Monday, they were turning out the lights in New York, New Jersey and Maryland, too.
As a global pandemic each day transforms the unthinkable into America’s new reality, the path is being guided by an unlikely leader: the short and bespectacled 73-year-old Republican governor of America’s seventh-most-populous state.
DeWine might have helped set the national agenda for responding to the coronavirus again Monday, announcing a lawsuit against his state to delay in-person voting in the primary that had been slated for Tuesday. Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Richard A. Frye rejected DeWine’s lawsuit Monday night, throwing the primary into chaos. The plaintiffs planned to immediately appeal.
“We cannot conduct this election tomorrow,” DeWine declared at his regular afternoon news conference, which has become a must-watch event for residents across the state — and for anyone in the country who wants to know where the crisis is headed next.”
As is plainly seen, the Washington Post full-throatedly endorsed a Governor who has made a complete and total mockery of the state and federal constitutions, who was ready to scrap the electoral process, and, as of late August 2020, was ordering public colleges and universities to set aside space for “isolation facilities” for allegedly Covid-positive patients.
At the time DeWine implemented a statewide lockdown, there were 351 alleged cases, 83 alleged hospitalizations, and less than five alleged deaths, in a statewide population of over eleven million.
Not only has DeWine taken tens of thousands in donations from the pharmaceutical industry, he actually owns stock in Pfizer. It is little wonder that such a figure would take every action within, or much more frequently, beyond his authority, in order to effectively promote the highest vaccination rates that he possibly could.
While many Republican governors did impose draconian lockdown policies, it is clear to this author that the Democratic Party/Silicon Valley/corporate media alliance were the primary drivers of lockdown policies in the United States, as this conglomerate attempted to smear, defame, and attack any Governor that resisted the call to implement a lockdown policy.