Progressive leftist/fascists seem to be pressing for armed-conflict by trashing the 2nd Amendment (and other atrocities), confident they own the military’s loyalty. They don’t, but that simple answer is worthless, and for a long list of scary reasons.
Dateline, March, 16, 2019, from the Olympic Peninsula, in the shadow of Califoregoshingtoncopyright © 2019, all rights reserved. Permission to repost hereby granted provided entire post with all links in tact, including this notice and byline, are included. Quote freely, links requested. Please comment any such repost or quote link to original posting.
Reading, you will learn:
- that a military or political coup in America has been attempted in the past;
- half the country thinks one is in works as you read;
- the possibility of success can be judged by comparing the present to the past;
- that analysis is important regardless of which side of politics you sit, and;
- it is scary to contemplate, because it points to blood being spilled.
An important question
The question I have posed in my books since before the turn of the Century was this: what would happen if there is an attempt to take over the government by some form of coup, or to subvert/destroy the Constitution, such as seizure of guns from citizens or abandoning of National Sovereignty to the North American Union and the New World Order? The simple answer is a civil war, or what I term Revolution 2.0. There is both a right and duty of revolution, which reveals this truth: when a Country makes laws which fly in the face of logic, natural law, Constitutional law, and the laws of your lawfully chosen faith… and endanger the nation’s future and safety, it’s time to overthrow that government. That answer itself leads to many more questions, such as, what does it take to start a revolution, and how close are we to having one? But the most important one to participants in any such civil unrest, and which this post attempts to answer, is this:
which side will the military back in such a revolution, and how real is the possibility that the military might choose wrongly?
This post is an in-depth analysis, and as result, is about a 30 minute read with some important, unexpected, and revealing content… surprising even me, in fact… and I’ve been writing (in warning) on this topic for nearly two decades. If you are the sort who prefers sound bite news, just skip to the last section (In Summary), so you can simply confirm your belief bias without gaining any actual knowledge, be it agreeing with me, or discounting my findings in your ignorance of the facts which lead to that conclusion. That is your choice, to make, and your responsibility to choose. The same will be true of Revolution 2.0, where wrong choice based on ignorance could have serious consequences for you, your family, your country, and the World.
In seeking an answer, it should be noted that fascist-minded megalomaniacs have existed within all Militaries since the dawn of the institution; such personalities are naturally drawn to military and Police, and tend to rise in the ranks to positions of command. Regardless of any outer political views they wear on their sleeves, they tend to be fascist/police-statists in their thinking. More so, in America, perhaps, since 1947, when the DOD and CIA were founded, and the Military Industrial (and Intelligence) Complex was ‘invented.’ I have since added the liberal media cabal to the complex, resulting in the nick-name, MIIM. Every generation has them; people who find fascism more useful to their rise to power than they see in guarding your freedom and rights. There are several important illustrations of this in our history, and they reveal that some among US military leadership are well capable of siding with the wrong side… perhaps even engineering a reason for a conflict which might enable or excuse a coup.
Some call it a ‘Deep State mentality.’ I call it New World Order thinking.
Note: while this post is made in an America where, at the moment, the greatest threat capable of forcing civil conflict comes from progressive leftists… and while that group embodies and employs elements of the Deep State, Fascism, and globalist New World Order agenda… the Deep State, Fascism, and the New World Order has allies on both the left and right, almost always in the extremest versions, thereof — in almost EVERY country on the planet. You can’t tell your players without a program, and while some players stick out visibly on both sides, no one is publishing a program. Trust no establishment politician, international corporation, or anyone promoting extreme liberalism, socialism, communism, or extreme conservativism or nationalism. Ferris Bueller was right: “A person shouldn’t believe in isms. They should believe in themselves.”
We know, for instance, that the Military has worried about a possible not-so ‘civil war’ between the branches, between units within a branch, or individual soldiers within a unit, for some time. The rank and file of the military is by and large duly patriotic, mindful that they are not to obey unlawful orders, and understand and honors their Oaths to uphold and protect the Constitution. Yet they are also trained to obey without question. No military in the World can do both well, simultaneously, in times of conflict. Unlawful orders transpire, and are obeyed by most, and to disobey can be seriously punished, with any such incidents typically swept under the carpet. No one wants to be a vanquished martyr for a silenced and unheard cause.
The proof of military’s concern over this paradoxical is in the form of a questionnaire since referred to as the ’Shoot Americans Questionnaire,’ which has been given to various sampled units in various branches over the years. The good news is, not too many soldiers indicated they would obey orders to fire on Americans who, for instance in just one of several scenario questions, “refused to turn in their guns.” Other questions about use of deadly force related to other causes or issues of some concern, here, such as if the soldier would be willing to swear allegiance to United Nations Commanders, in deference to US law (it did not mention US law).
That questionnaire arose out of our second evidence, the Revolution in Military Affairs. RMA is the notion that as modern technology and political realities evolve, the military needs to adapt its war fighting policies, tactics, and capabilities to maximize efficiency and reduce chances of failures. Nothing wrong with that; all militaries do it. However, in the 70s and 80s, it literally became a field of think-tank study within the military, and frequently a common topic of discussion the the U.S. Army’s War College publication, Parameters. Within its pages, according to an article which appeared in the now defunct Washington D.C. Newspaper, The Spotlight, was an RMA based article which defined the ‘new face’ of America’s next new war. In fact, as I recall, the piece was titled ‘America’s New War,’ which was, ironically, exactly the propagandist terms media used to describe the war to liberate Kuwait.
In the quotes from the Parameters pages, the next new kind of warfare which needed to be planned for would be with “former military, militia, patriots, constitutionalists, and the poor and disenfranchised.” Excuse me? Since when are such the enemy of the State? When did the military start thinking the government is so far afield from righteousness that the military must plan for waring with upset citizens? Why should any who so think be allowed the command of force of arms? But that is not all. RMA also established something called the “21st Century Politico-Military Force Matrix,” which is largely the marriage of local law enforcement and military actions in a matrix of options for dealing with unruly civilian populations. Then there is MOOTW, “Miltary Operations Other Than War,” which provides clear operating strategies for interactions with citizens as potential combatants, including use of force of arms. It has also been called “The People’s War” by the military… for dealing with a civilian uprising.
Finally, there is the dramatic increase in development of psychological warfare technologies (mind control) and non-lethal weaponry… for military application against civilian populations. This is sometimes referred to as the Forth Epoch War, and I’ve written whole books on that, and one of them, The Professional Paranoid Defensive Field Guide, lists nearly 500 technical terms which represent the sum total of such weaponry, methodologies, and strategies. Among them are terms representing the construction and use of whole fake communities which can in no way be taken for anything but American towns, where training exercises regularly take place in door-to-door searches, traffic blockade/check point vehicle searches, and storming of buildings in SWAT-like operations.
If that were not enough, there have been actual training exercises in a long list of major and lesser American cities (i.e., LA, Houston, Chicago, etc.), much to the alarm of citizens who were NOT informed of the operations until AFTER they are completed… event though in some cases direct citizen confrontation, detainment, and questioning had been involved… often by Psychological Warfare units. At times, civil rights had been violated or citizen’s safety put at risk. This has been going on for more than four decades, and it has been getting more blatant and frequent every four years or so (an interesting characteristic, given election cycles).
Finding clues within previous coup attempts
The answer as to which side the military would take in such a scenario, is the same as would seem to worry the Pentagon, based on the questionnaire and their significant focus on civilian confrontation in RMA. I have always believed, that the inescapable answer is BOTH — resulting in rebellions amid the military, itself, both within and between branches, and within units. There have been two well-played-out but failed attempts at a military coup in America which serve as models of any such scenario, and these deserve some scrutiny. The first one was real (the 1933/34 Business Plot to depose President Roosevelt and establish a Fascist government), and served as a model for the second, which is where we will start for reasons beneficial to context of any Revolution 2.0. The most recent was a fictional depiction written by Political writer/researcher (Fletcher Knebel) and a former Editor of a major newspaper (Charles W. Bailey II). I’ll start there.
Though their book, Seven Days in May, was indeed fiction, it was extremely well researched and quite factual in its underpinnings, and enjoys the modern context of the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff, which did not exist in 1933. The book was a best seller and makes excellent reading, but it was also made into a box office hit you can watch online, starting Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster. There are several reasons it makes a good model, despite its fictional nature; it was based on factual basis relevant to our time, then, and now.
The movie was produced in the shadow and conspiratorial clouds leading to the assassination of John Kennedy, of which many people wondered if that ugly scar in America’s history was a plot involving some sort of political coup. Indeed, many clues uncovered over time pointed to military involvement. One was that the usual way the local National Guard military participation in Presidential visits was ordered to stand down, not unlike what happened in the Clinton/Obama Benghazi debacle resulting in the deaths of Marines and Embassy Officials, there. Another was the intrigue and conflict between Kennedy and the Joint Chiefs over the war in Vietnam, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs Invasion; the war hawks thought him soft on Communism.
Moreover, Kennedy had turned down the Joint Chiefs plan to fake a series of false-flag ‘Cuban terrorism’ events to justify an full out invasion and ousting of Castro, called Operation Northwoods… which also happens to be the blueprint visibly in play in the terror events leading to 9-11 attacks and the series of Middle East oil wars predicted in my book set, Fatal Rebirth — which predicted both the WTC downing by false-flag jetliner terrorism and the resulting oil wars in 1999, nearly two years before the attack. The Knebel/Bailey book itself was also written as a kind of harbinger of possible things to come based on many of the above difficulties between Kennedy and the Chiefs, and, ironically, Kennedy himself was quite fond of the book, likely recognizing aspects of the plot line to his own mirrored reality.
Sadly, he did not give it enough due, or he might have been able to foresee the deadly future which lay ahead for him… and perhaps, even forestall the use of Northwoods in our more recent history. The name Northwoods itself, by the way, was based on WWII Nazi operations of like false-flag nature… and the name Northwoods references Germanic translation, ‘Wald Im Norden’ (woods in/of the north) which also describes the invasion of Poland, which began WWII… the German Army swarmed into Poland from the forests to it’s North as did the air Blitzkrieg which overflew it. The fascists would, thereby, engulf the World in flame for a second time.
Note: Should the reader doubt any prime point within this post, they should hold final opinion until watching Seven Days in May. It will be well worth your time on an entertainment basis, alone. It is absolutely critical to understand the relationship of the various branches of service, how troop movement, material (weapons, munitions, supplies) and funding are manipulated within the context of the Department of Defense, and Presidential/Congressional oversight. The education, alone, is also motivation enough to watch the movie… as is the fact that much of the dialog is quite unhappily the same you are hearing on TV from commentators and politicians today; treason is afoot, for real, and as in the film as well as in 1933. But the key point in common with both the film/book and partially true in the Business Plot (there was no Air Force in ’33), was the absolute need to include the Marines and Air Force in key roles on one side or the other… and a means to ‘exclude’ non participants in the plot from interference as the coup unfolded.
Fascism brings us back to the Business Plot, which was undertaken by fascist business leaders of the most famous kind, including Bush, Harriman, Singer, DuPont, Hearst, Heinz, Mellon, Morgan, and others. But it was deemed that the plot could not succeed without a (then retired) Marine, one General Smedley Butler, who was the most popular military figure in the country, at the time. Butler was approached and ‘recruited’ to lead an uprising of unhappy Veterans who were owed money by the Government and unable to collect because of the Great Depression, which was also the source of unhappy ire of the businessmen. Butler’s role, if undertaken as intended, was to lead some 500,000 Veterans in ‘revolt,’ to seize the Capitol and depose or destroy the President, and hold Congress hostage, pending satisfactory reformation of a new government model.
Such a plot could not dare being risked unless assured that the military would both be unable to respond quickly enough to prevent the coup, and once in place, would not dare confront Butler and his civilian army (called the Bonus Army), or their fascist backers. Clearly, the backers of the plot must have had some private assurances from at least the Army, if not the Navy, that there would be no objection. The Chief of Staff (highest ranking General in command of the Army) in 1933 was Douglas MacArthur, who clearly did not get along well with Roosevelt, and was thought to be a fascist at heart. His counterpart in the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, was Admiral William V. Pratt, who was very unhappy with the depression, as it had forced severe reduction of Naval forces, and threatened to merge the Coast Guard and the Navy, an idea which he opposed vehemently. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Ben Herbard Fuller, also a JCS equivalent, was similarly suffering retrenchment because of the depression, and deeply respected Butler and MacArthur. To be clear, neither Fuller or Pratt have ever been accused of fascist leanings, as had been MacArthur, but a change in power favoring the military would not have hurt their wishes for a stronger military to command.
Thankfully, Smedley was a patriot who refuse the recruitment, and he instead exposed and thwarted the plot before it could get off the ground… though there was also a failed assassination attempt involving an Italian immigrant of fascist viewpoints in 1933. And, in the TV series, City of Angels (a TV spin-off of the Movie Chinatown, staring Wayne Rogers), the greater plot line in a three-part season opener (The November Plan) featured a foiled attempt to assassinate Roosevelt in a trip to California. That ‘fictional’ plot line was based in factual realities (subject to Hollywood license, of course), and did involve Smedley Butler as well as soldiers in uniform intent on betraying Roosevelt. The screenplay was by well respected researcher and writer of crime/detective drama, Stephen J. Cannell.
Now let us similarly disect the 1963 example…
The other key player in Seven Days of May was an Air Force General. Modern troop and material movement requires the coordinated support of the US Air Force. It was, in fact, this critical role which was the underlying plot mechanism of Seven Days in May, and quite critical to our understanding of what it would take for a modern coup to succeed. Therefore, with respect to Revolution 2.0, and Deep State influence over possible military opposition against Constitutionalists, those seeking to destroy the Constitution will need to include support of the Air Force, as well. The Army is less a concern, because the bulk of the standing Army is in deployment, and because each State’s National Guard is available to the Governors of each State in case of ‘civil unrest,’ which is what they would call the matter, seeking to hide the truth from the public: that any revolution was to save and restore Constitutional law against traitors.
If the State was run by liberals, the National Guards could be activated by the Governor against the ‘rebels,’ as they might also be termed for political propaganda expediency. If the State was conservative, the DOD could order the Guard to stand down (so as not to aid the ‘rebels’) or be activated at the Federal level to oppose the patriots. That could be true only if the majority of Joint Chiefs were on board with the unconstitutional effort underway. Stateside regular Army could potentially be directed to fill in where National Guard units or their Governor refused to stand down or comply with Federal activation. That would be an example of ‘civil war’ between elements within a given branch of the Military, and it is expected that any such use of troops, regardless if acting on Federal or gubernatorial orders, would experience conflict within their ranks, seriously inhibiting their efficiency.
In like manner, the Navy is largely out of the picture; the bulk of it is also on station around the World, and it is not well poised to impact ground actions within the borders of the US, short of coastal regions. In Seven Days of May, the Navy simply stood down. The same should be true of the Coast Guard, perhaps more so. Amid all of this, there is an added problem which provides a logical reason to stand down. Specifically, in such a coup, the military still needs to insure unfriendly actors such as China, N. Korea, Iran, or even Russia… did not take advantage of an America engaged in civil war. They might, for instance, choose to wax adventurous against allies, or even against US forces. Ergo, the Navy and much of the strategic Air Force would need to devote their attention to World affairs; standing down from any major role in the revolution would be tactically wise. And, in the next section, we will see ample reason for concern over their ability handle two conflicts simultaneously, both at home and abroad.
Perhaps we ought take a close look at Obama’s JCS, still now in place, and see what’s going on with them, in like-comparison.
What about today’s Joint Chiefs?
We must compare the two historical examples against today’s potential for replay. Looking back to 1933 and 1963, what about 2023, or some other current time frame? How does today’s situation compare, to then? Politically, there were fascist undercurrents mainly in the business community in 1933, where in 1963, the fascists were additionally present in the military industrial (and intelligence community) complex. They still exist to some degree in both sectors, today… but there is more afoot. Today, we see socialist/communist/anarchists and progressives on the Left using fascist tactics, including members of Congress. They are pitching socialism, but acting like fascists.
Today’s environment, then, is not so different from the past, and is perhaps worse, in final analysis… so what about the key military players at the Pentagon? How do they, and their resources, compare to the 1933 and 1963 scenarios?
In 1933, there was no Air Force, but there was a retired Marine at least thought able to raise a civilian ‘Bonus Army’ army of veterans, and a presumed friendly Army Chief of Staff. Butler was a key military resource. In 1963, it was once more a Marine in the book/screen play (Kirk Douglas) who busted a coup attempt… a plot orchestrated by an Air Force General who was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and three JCS (Army, Air Force, Marines — Coast Guard did not have representation in 1964), while the Navy Joint Chief who was aware, wanted no part of it, but yet remained silent of it.
In 1933, Butler was retired, the most likely candidate to orchestrate such a coup. Today, the pro liberal/progressive/fascist forces would likely be stirred to replay 1933 with the likes of Retired Army General Tommy Franks, who was Clinton’s right-hand military man… the man who ordered the flame throwing tank and commanded at Waco. As such, he enjoys free access to anyone in the Pentagon on at least an informal basis, and still holds a security clearance. As a Deep State operative, he could become the organizing and communications agent in any such modern-day plot. He also has many friends and contacts within the military industrial (MIIM) complex. He meets the 1933 model, as a recruitment target/tool — one I feel unlikely to adopt Butler’s patriotic response.
And the plot in 1963 required at least the bulk of the Joint Chiefs to participate, or be cowered into silence. The Joint Chiefs today consist of one four-star General to represent each branch of service, including someone to represent the Coast Guard and the National Guard, plus a Chairman and vice Chairman, for a total of seven top-echelon decision makers. Today, thanks to Obama, the JCS consists of two Marines and three US Air Force Generals to form a ‘heavy weighting’ of representation to the same two branches deemed important in 1963. I say thanks to Obama, because he conducted a purge of some 266 top-ranking military officers, and oversaw a rapid series of promotions necessary to put his personally approved people into the JCS chairs.
One Marine, General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, owes his position to that purge with a series of four rapid-paced promotions and appointment to the post by Obama. He is the most powerful man in the military, the counterpart to the 1963 role played by Burt Lancaster in film, though a Marine, instead of Air Force. The Vice Chairman, however, is Air Force (Paul J. Selva), also appointed by Obama with six rapid promotions. The Joint Chief of the Marines, General Robert Neller, had three promotions under Obama to his post, making two Marines in total.
The Joint Chief of the Air Force, General David L. Goldfein, enjoyed five promotions under Obama, and Air Force General Joseph L. Lengyel (making the third Air Force General) is JCS representing the National Guard. He had five promotions under Obama, while Admiral John M Richardson, Navy’s JCS, had only one promotion under Obama… it perhaps being understood in the 1963 model that the Navy is a non-critical player in a coup. In like relationship, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Karl L Schultz, a de facto 8th JCS… appointed by President Trump, as was General Mark A Milley, the Army’s Joint Chief. Again, the Army is a conflicted player, both by virtue of deployments and National Guard complications, the one branch of the services most likely to be at war with itself in a coup-like or Revolution 2.0 scenario.
And, it would appear that Obama’s bevy of purge-replacement military officers have been quietly sabotaging the military in ways which make national defense abroad that much harder, perhaps shifting capabilities to a homeland conflict (I hate using that fascist term, ‘homeland’). In fact, difficult enough that the Air Force, by way of example, might not be able to provide any aid to patriots, or be a factor against them, at all, outside of material and troop transport. If today’s Air Force capabilities analysis is any clue, President Trump no longer has a full deck of military cards to play. A conflict at home and abroad would tax any Trump effort to support Constitutionalists, even were the DOD not under the control of Deep State plants.
Monkey wrench conspiracy theories
One tool the Air Force has which could prove extremely troublesome if aligned with treason, is Command Solo. There are 21 Command Solo aircraft, all based at Pennsylvania’s National Guard; specially modified C-130s capable of significant mind control capabilities via Political Control Technology (PCT). I find it troubling that such capabilities are National Guard, rather than Regular Army or Air Force, making it all that much easier to use against citizens. A single plane can impact a two-five State region, depending on State sizes. All of them fly regular training flights, unless in use overseas in a combat theater.
Impact? The Air Force has admitted that they were used in Bosnia to sway elections, and in Iraq to convince thousands of Iraqi crack troops to surrender to small drones which were essentially RC model airplanes with cameras. The chief weapon the plane has is the interception of local radio and television broadcasts, which it then embeds with hidden inaudible subliminal messages which the subconscious mind does absorb. Such messages can be of any desired simple but endlessly repeated phrases or key words (such as ‘surrender, turn in your guns, vote Democrat’) for rebroadcast at a stronger signal strength than the original. The secondary weapon is more insidious; EEG entrainment.
Human brainwaves for emotions operate at ultra low frequencies, and are roughly the same across population samples. If the desired emotional state of being is broadcast at signal strengths greater than that of the brain, the brain adopts them as its own (is entrained). By combining subliminals with emotional state manipulation, such as an abiding and overwhelming fear, Command Solo can impact tens or hundreds of thousands of people while in the air. In such use, it can fly 24/7 with required stops for refueling and crew changes, or in rotation with another Command Solo aircraft.
The training flights they fly involve preprogrammed mission tapes representing ‘harmless’ subliminals and EEG patterns to be used, but not even the operators on board, or their commanders, have any way of knowing what the content actually is (presumed to be ’empty’ of content.) So when they fly training missions, they could very well be telling Democrats to be outraged about everything, violent, etc., and no one would be the wiser, except the person who ordered the tapes to be made, and used, and the computer operator who created the tapes.
Watching your emotions and being alert for changes in that and any unexpected thought patterns which represent something contrary to your original belief structures, is your only clue the plane is being used. The average person won’t question. The strong-willed and alert, can detect, and can resist, if strong minded and inwardly alert. The other clue is seeing the aircraft in the air. A good spotting scope, rifle scope, or telephoto lens can easily recognize if a suspected plane is a C-130 with the Command Solo configuration. Command Solo, and other PCT are well covered in terms of detection and defense in my book, MC Realities.
Another wildcard conspiracy theory is “UN Intervention,” and I here draw upon the ten years of research documented in my book set, Fatal Rebirth. There have largely been two waves or versions of this theory, and both are based in demonstrable facts nonetheless consistently denied by both US military and the UN, itself. The first took hold back the 1990’s and a bit before, with origins earlier than that, tied to far-right thinkers and political forces, such as retired General and US Senator, Barry Goldwater, who foresaw the New World Order’s rise through the U.N. In the 90’s, large numbers of people were seeing and reporting long trainloads of flatbed cars loaded with white U.N. military vehicles, as well as similar on river barges and tractor-trailer units, sometimes in convoys on American highways. Other reports talked of holding areas with hundreds of units parked in neat rows, typically surrounded by military quality fencing and guard stations manned by ‘Men in unmarked black uniforms.’
This was also the same time frame when people hiking in select wilderness areas were encountering armed soldiers, also in unmarked black uniforms who were apparently conducting some kind of drill or operation. Invariably, they were said to have been speaking both English and a foreign language of some sort, and ordering civilians away at gunpoint, advising they had entered a military compound. Many of these reports of vehicles and soldiers made the newspapers in one form or another, sometimes with pictures, but the military and the UN denied any validity. Some of these events and UN vehicle stockpiles were indeed in ‘wilderness’ areas tied to the 43 United Nations Biospheres regions, which is its own Agenda 21 conspiracy topic.
The U.N., for instance, has officially insisted it has no men or vehicles in North America, and does not use the types of vehicles being spotted. Most were identifiable as American WWII era, or more modern US Army vehicles, and many more were of Soviet manufacture. And, at the time, large numbers of Soviet military equipment, including helicopters, trucks, tanks, rocket batteries, and even specialized units such as CBRN (Chemical Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) decontamination trucks were being brought into the country by someone, sighted variously in transit or storage in either original Soviet or UN colors… no unit or national markings lest it simply be ‘UN.’
Let’s take just one very interesting and well documented case (my 1990 research, plus the Spotlight in the same timeframe), to drive the point home. It involves Soviet ARS-14 biological/chemical warfare trucks shipped from West Germany through the firm Beesh Merkator to Gulfport, MS, then by barge to Scranton, Iowa to a company, Airmar Resources, Corp, operated by Lt. Col. A. R. Koval Sr., USAF, retired. Koval told the Spotlight that the units were purchased for Germany and destined for UN forces in Europe after refurbishing, contrary to UN statements it does not, by policy, use Soviet equipment of any kind.
The investigation continued, revealing that from Scranton, they were transited to various destinations in America through firms named Newway and Scranton Manufacturing. The later firm, contrary to Airmar Resources claims, said the trucks were being converted to ‘garbage trucks,’ but the EPA said it would be impossible for those vehicles to be made to meet vehicle standards. Scranton responded that they were destined for European markets, but one has to ask about the cost effectiveness of buying and shipping trucks from Europe to America for modifications, and then shipping them back to Europe. Scranton at the time indeed offered a line of new garbage trucks, but none were of Soviet origin. All were, like the Soviet units, painted white, of course. A nifty cover story that almost works, if you don’t look too closely.
And, as stated, the modified trucks were tracked to US destinations, not Europe. One, in fact, spotted in California on a flatbed truck, was leaking noxious smelling liquids which made the witness sweat profusely and ill to his stomach. Marked with a sign “Quarantined by US Department of Agriculture,” the fluid was being drained into a trench by men in protective clothing. Both Newway and Scranton Manufacturing are alternate names for a small but troubled firm associated with Bede Jet Corp, the maker of small fiberglass civilian jets (build-it-yourself kits) like the one James Bond (Roger Moore) used to attack Castro’s air base in the opening sequence of Octopussy. Newway, in fact, also made Bede-designed, Honda-powered, fully enclosed two-seat motorcycle-car kits, also of fiberglass.
The more recent wave of UN concerns is fare easier to demonstrate (the images above, for instance), and involves UN intervention officially in place. It comes from the Obama Administration’s invitation for the UN sponsored program referenced as the Strong Cities Network. Based on selling fear of terrorism, in particular, ‘home-grown extremists,’ the program calls for United Nations help to member Cities in the Network. The help goes directly to and influences the Police Departments within the network, as well as city management. On the surface, as sold to citizens in the fear mongering, it sounds like a way to gain some expertise in combating terrorism. But that is a deliberately false narrative.
Conspiracy theorists early-on tried to warn people it was a dreadful mistake and a trap. Now, even non theorists are proving the conspiracy is no theory, and far more serious than even early theorists, had thought. It turns out that the Strong City Network acts as its own Law Enforcement Agency, and is empowered to actually govern member cities. Cities which join the network essentially are subject to UN Rule of law, rather than the US Constitution. Currently, New York, Atlanta, Denver, and Minneapolis are members, and a push is underway for Boston, west-coast cities, and elsewhere, to follow suit. In the event of a civil war/revolution scenario, the framework and base structure for a UN interference will already be in place. All they need to do, is to make the announcement, and fly in their people and equipment to make it stick. Because it was blessed by Obama, it would be difficult for anyone to object, including the military — unless and until President Trump or some other President revokes the program and so orders, at least.
There is a final ‘conspiracy’ matter which counters the other two, in impact: a secret military within the military. When researching my book, Fatal Rebirth, I was contacted by an active Officer of high rank in the US Military who knew of my work through my appearance on Coast to Coast with George Noory. He advised that there was, within each branch of the service, a secret group of Officers of some importance, and positioned across the full spectrum of unit function (i.e., Intelligence, combat, support, communications, etc.) Their purpose was to be prepared for, on watch for, and to activate should there be any unlawful (unconstitutional) effort to effect a coup or military takeover. He in fact invited me to become a member, as they did have associations with civilian counterparts they deemed useful. Accepting, they said, I would then have access to information he assured me would be valuable to my book.
However, as the covert security aspects of membership were extremely hight, I did not feel I could manage them… and, I was unwilling to accept responsibility for receipt of classified military or governmental information, which would risk being charged with a crime, if caught. But I was pleased that such men were in place to help insure that unlawful orders against citizens would meet with both covert and overt resistance. I reference this covert patriot group as the ‘Turtle,’ (as in, Revenge of the Turtle, America’s first submarine war vessel used in the Revolutionary war. The Turtle is, and like the Turtle sub, is invisible and hard to find, until it bites.
We see then, that the makeup of the current JCS team engineered by Obama, almost exclusively, is quite weighted to Marine and Air Force, suspiciously Deep State tied, and more than mirrors the key aspects of both the 1933 and 1963 scenarios. We see that was an Obama (Democrat) arrangement through a purge, as part of setting up his Deep State. We see that Obama has set the stage for potential UN interference and further partnerships or concessions to authority from the next progressive President to take power. We see that the military and its MIIM Complex, the business sector, and the political spectrum is well laced with both fascist and liberal/progressive politics which border on fascism, and employ fascist tactics. We see that Deep State and establishment politicians collectively ‘hate Trump’ regardless of party affiliation, and in many cases, would rather see the country come to harm than to allow him to continue in office. We see now why the progressives think they own the military, which could in fact be poised for a last-ditch full-blown military coup take over if Trump wins, again.
The final conclusion is, all the pieces are in place, and while the leftists do own the military at the top, they do not, top-down. How then, can we say we are not ripe for a coup, or Revolution 2.0, should the progressives come to power, again — for they still believe they do own the military? Assuming the left does not reform itself into a more logical and viable political entity akin to the old Democratic party of the 1950’s and 60’s, if they cannot be kept from ever again obtaining power, armed conflict must indeed be our future. I foresee no other possible outcome.
Returning to the original question, then, the military is well poised at the command level (JCS) to participate against patriots, but not necessarily well positioned to do so without difficulties, rank and file. We see the Navy and Coast Guard are weak players in such a scenario. We see the Marines, despite any leadership which might be opposed to Patriots, are perhaps the most likely to themselves, at rank and file levels, join with patriots, and refuse unlawful orders. We also see the Turtle groups would do likewise. We see army has its own confusions and situational roadblocks to a unified and obedient command against patriots, tied to the complex relationship with National Guard units. And, we also see the Air force, along with Navy and to a degree, Marines, must be somewhat aloof to such conflict, in order to prevent third-actor States from taking advantage of an American military distracted at home.
I therefore do not see the relatively small numbers of US armed forces, if arrayed against the large number of 2nd Amendment defenders and others of the “former military, militia, patriots, constitutionalists, and the poor and disenfranchised,” being sufficiently strong enough to prevent a patriot victory. That, however, is based on additional assumptions not yet in evidence or proven true: a) that mind control technology will be used effectively; b) that progressives will prove to be better armed and organized than expected; c) that other groups might join in, such as illegal immigrants and Muslims seeing the conflict as a way to advance their own causes, or real or fake UN troops; d) that China (by this means/scenario) or Mexico, perhaps even Canada, might elect to enter into the fray; e) that some other totally unexpected plot element is afoot and impossible to evaluate.
Therefore, if when at bat with an unfriendly pitcher on the Mound, be ready to smack the ball as hard as you can… but also… “Watch out for in your ear,” with a deliberately wild and hurtful pitch (apologies for stealing Ray Liotta’s line).
If you agree… there is yet one more unanswered question: what will the rules of engagement be for patriots, when they will face and odd mix in the battlefield (cities and countryside)? It will be a strange mix of citizens + law enforcement + military on both sides, and in many cases, there will be times when it will not be known which side a combatant force is on. How should such a war be prosecuted? For the answer to that… and in foreseeing this time coming more than 20 years ago… I wrote the book set, Fatal Rebirth. The answers are there, and have been, all along.