MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
This past weekend I had a lot to think about with regards to what is transpiring with the recent attacks in the Middle East and the problems we have here at home. I had previously mentioned that as I was ringing in the New Year, I glanced at the headlines on my iPhone to see how the New Year was brought into the world.
All I saw was the attack on the American embassy in Iraq.
I had mentioned on an earlier show that while many people would like to call the 2020’s the roaring 20’s I stated that maybe we should call them the warring 20’s.
Just before the New Year, I read that China, Russia, and Iran began a four-day joint military exercise in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Oman last Friday.
This was the same area where the “oil tanker” false flag attack took place. I was actually thinking that there was going to be some movement or action that would seem a bit curious, but of course, nothing came of it.
These things happen all the time and to jump the gun would be silly, so a hint or a clue I felt would suffice.
But of course, some things that you think are small details grow into bigger more important issues and it is best you pay attention to detail.
The joint military exercise hinted at war or some sort of confrontation – something was up but nothing was being carried out.
Hours before a US strike at Baghdad’s International Airport killed Iran’s top military leader, Qasem Soleimani, former Obama National Security Council (NSC) official Steven Simon posited in a New York Times Op-Ed that Soleimani could be assassinated using a hypersonic missile while visiting Baghdad.
My wife Janine had posted in her Face book feed Steven Simon’s article telling me to be prepared, as the power of suggestion is now in the New York Times regarding Hypersonic advanced weaponry and how they can be mistaken for UFO’s.
While UFOs were not being talked about in general she figured it would help me connect the dots between hypersonic Weapons and the speculation over why the Pentagon-backed off on its relationship with UFOs.
What it unwittingly gave me was a clue as to what was coming”
In the headlined article “Hypersonic Missiles Are a Game Changer” it reads:
“Hypersonics are a weaponized moral hazard for states with a taste for intervention because they erase barriers to picking fights. Is an adversary building something that might be a weapons factory? Is there an individual in an unfriendly country who cannot be apprehended? What if the former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Qassem Soleimani, visits Baghdad for a meeting and you know the address? The temptations to use hypersonic missiles will be many.”
I find it odd that he called Soleimani the former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards when no one at the time knew that he was dead or was targeted for death.
While US officials told Reuters that a drone – not a hypersonic weapon – took out Soleimani, it’s incredibly curious that Simon, Obama’s former senior director for the Middle East and North Africa on the National Security Council, wrote of his assassination literally hours before it happened.
Even though Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans, the response from the Left has been swift and of course, they are saying that Trump has edged us closer to World War III.
This is like a Tom Clancy novel or the story that is the basis for the video game, Battlefield 3.
As I said in my first show of the year, clever conditioning in the framing war will confuse us as to who the good guys and the bad guys are.
I stated in the show last week, 2020 Turn of the Omega Key, the truth is without conditioning by professional storytellers – it would never occur to us to try and find the “good guys” in the chaos of a military conflict.
The good guys and the bad guys are being framed in the narrative and depending on your political affiliation – the idea of good or bad will not matter.
The response to the attack has largely fallen along partisan lines.
Joe Biden tweeted:
“No American will mourn Qassem Soleimani’s passing. He deserved to be brought to justice for his crimes against American troops and thousands of innocents throughout the region. He supported terror and sowed chaos. None of that negates the fact that this is a hugely escalatory move in an already dangerous region. The Administration’s statement says that its goal is to deter future attacks by Iran, but this action almost certainly will have the opposite effect. President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox, and he owes the American people an explanation of the strategy and plan to keep safe our troops and embassy personnel, our people and our interests, both here at home and abroad, and our partners throughout the region and beyond.”
It used to be that wars against definable enemies were for the most part bi-partisan. Now hyper-partisan politics are making it unclear as to who the good guys and bad guys are.
We see that Trump takes out a bad guy and we are being told that even though the bad guy has been slain by the Commander in Chief, he is still the bad guy.
America is now the divided republic the framers of the Constitution feared.
John Adams worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.” And that’s exactly what has come to pass.
George Washington’s farewell address is often remembered for its warning against hyper-partisanship: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”
America has now become that dreaded divided republic. The existential menace that was foretold and it is breaking the system of government the Founders put in place with the Constitution.
Even when we have attacked and successfully taken out a notorious killer in the Middle East we are divided over whether or not it is a good thing or a bad thing.
The theory that guided Washington and Adams was simple and widespread at the time. If a consistent partisan majority ever united to take control of the government, it would use its power to oppress the minority.
The fragile consent of the governed would break down, and violence and authoritarianism would follow. This was how previous republics had fallen into civil wars, and the Framers were intent on learning from history, not repeating its mistakes.
The Framers thought they were using the most advanced political theory of the time to prevent parties from forming. By separating powers across competing institutions, they thought a majority party would never form. Combine the two insights—a large, diverse republic with a separation of powers—and the hyper-partisanship that felled earlier republics would be averted. Or so they believed.
However, political parties formed almost immediately because modern mass democracy requires them, and partisanship became a strong identity, jumping across institutions and eventually collapsing the republic’s diversity into just two camps.
Republican and Democrat.
But as we are entering an era where it is a case of the good guys against the bad guys, it is evident in the way we speak to one another that we see the person that does not agree with us as the bad guy.
From the mid-1960s through the mid-’90s, American politics had something more like a four-party system, with liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans alongside liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Conservative Mississippi Democrats and liberal New York Democrats might have disagreed more than they agreed in Congress, but they could still get elected on local brands. You could have once said the same thing about liberal Vermont Republicans and conservative Kansas Republicans. Depending on the issue, different coalitions were possible, which allowed for the kind of fluid bargaining the constitutional system requires.
But that was before American politics became fully nationalized, a phenomenon that happened over several decades, powered in large part by a slow-moving post-civil-rights realignment of the two parties.
The consequence is that today, America has a genuine two-party system with no overlap, the development the Framers feared most. And it shows no signs of resolving.
The two parties are fully sorted by geography and cultural values, and absent a major realignment, neither side has a chance of becoming the dominant party in the near future. But the elusive permanent majority promises so much power, neither side is willing to give up on it.
This fundamentally breaks the system of separation of powers and checks and balances that the Framers created. Under unified government, congressional co-partisans have no incentive to check the president; their electoral success is tied to his success and popularity. Under divided government, congressional opposition partisans have no incentive to work with the president; their electoral success is tied to his failure and unpopularity.
This is not a system of bargaining and compromise, but one of capitulation and stonewalling.
This is why many now are seeing that the people of the United States are ungovernable and with this, in mind, we become vulnerable to an outside take over.
All we need is an onslaught of trauma, a few selected targets hit by terrorists and the paranoia will set in where no American will trust their neighbor and no government official will trust their constituents.
We have now set ourselves up for this.
There is no telling what the response will be from the attack of and killing of Qassem Soleimani—but again we would wise to certainly fortify security at our borders and to be more vigilant with regard to Homeland security.
One thing is for sure – the political cultists who are being adversarial just because they see it as something that is a good practice, now need to wise up.
I think that it is naïve to pretend that political cultists can ever be completely sincere. I have accepted the fact that hypocrisy is a fact of politics, but I am not going to resign myself to it and I will not embrace it because it is a dangerous move.
Mostly because the political sector will be constantly trying to win you to their side no matter how abhorrent their positions may be.
The times of censorship, bullying, ostracizing, and political haranguing are now part of our social climate – political and religious sectarianism once a problem in Muslim nations is now an even bigger problem in the United States.
While we say that we do not shoot the messenger in this country, we certainly feel the need to censor the messenger, boycott any and all associations with the messenger, and make it a point to levy character assassination in order to silence the messenger.
Cancel culture is now becoming a bullying subgroup that will not stand in a wartime environment. Hyper-partisanship in a country that is under the gun form an outside influence can trigger enough anger for a sparking point.
People who understand history can cut through partisan dogma and controlled propaganda in order to see the ulterior motives of those who use politics to excuse their nefarious actions.
Part of the dilemma for anyone who truly wants to understand these actions and re-actions is that “nothing they do” within the circles of power and greed seems to make any logical sense.
Just before the 9/11 attacks, there were a few films released that seemed to be a form of cruel predictive programming about rounding up suspected enemies of the state. One particular film was called, The Siege. The film starred Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis and it confronted societal themes that predicted the rise of a police state, the freedom of the individual, round-the-clock surveillance, the corruption of government, totalitarianism, weaponization, groupthink, mass marketing, and the tendency of humankind to meekly accept their lot in life as a prisoner in a prison of their own making.
It also illustrated how Americans can become indifferent to the idea of jailing people in camps and cages without due process in times of crisis or perceived crisis.
At the time the film had some basic evidence that a slippery slope was in the making as at the time there was a revelation that prison camps were being created in the real world in order to jail American citizens during a possible time of declared martial law by the president.
There over 800 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty.
These camps are all part of the REX-84 program or the Ready Exercise program that was first proposed during the Reagan administration to round up undesirables if the country fell into a civil crisis.
This would include those who are suspected terrorists, illegal immigrants or anyone the state decides needs to be rounded up.
The Rex 84 program was established on the reasoning that if a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA.
The ugly truth is that converted detention facilities could start springing up everywhere under the current circumstances – or, it is better said, the ones that have been in reserve since the Reagan administration will have a reason to open.
The reason is simple—while we may need the camps to detain illegals and maybe even some terrorists—it appears that they may be used to round up Americans if state governments decide to disarm its citizens and they have to deal with those who oppose their unconstitutional laws.
In 2019 we reported about the Second Amendment sanctuary movement, which consists of municipalities and counties across the U.S. passing resolutions pledging not to enforce additional gun control measures infringing upon the right to bear arms.
The movement started gaining more attention over the past couple of months following the blistering momentum it found in Virginia after Democrats won the state legislature in November. As of this writing, 87 out of 97 counties have passed such resolutions and it’s important to note that virtually all of them were passed in the two months since the election. In other words, this is happening at a very rapid pace.
The people driving this movement aren’t petitioning Washington D.C. or even their statehouse, instead, they’re looking to their friends and neighbors and taking a unified stand at the local level. Simply put, they’re attempting to take matters into their own hands as opposed to begging distant authority figures.
This is in large part why their actions seem disorganized and unsophisticated; these are just regular people saying enough is enough, and in this case, the line in the sand happens to be firearms.
This is the people localizing against state government.
This is, of course, raising suspicion that a second amendment conflict could happen in Virginia as the Governor has threatened the people with using the National Guard going door to door to take guns from the people.
In response to that, at least one county has formed a militia and others are expected to spring up. The state’s Attorney General says that these sanctuaries carry no legal weight.
Despite the Attorney General’s opinion and threats from the state government, Virginians appear to have no plans to give up their guns or register them. Many members of law enforcement entities and the National Guard have said that they will not act on unconstitutional orders.
So if the National Guard will not act, then who will?
The answer is not all that surprising as in past shows we have told you about the U.N. Plan for enforcing the plan for “The Strong Cities Network.”
It was reported recently that the United Nations is now accepting job applications in New York City, New York for Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration Officers to “Contribute to security and stability in post-conflict environments.
The job listing was posted to the U.N. careers homepage on Dec. 26, and notes that “female candidates are strongly encouraged to apply for this position” because “the United Nations Secretariat is committed to achieving 50/50 gender balance in its staff.”
UN DDR forces operate under the intergovernmental organization’s Department of Peace Operations to “assist” the Member States, including the United States, in a “boots on the ground” capacity.
The job listing describes the UN’s core values as “Integrity, Professionalism, [and] Respect for Diversity.”
Applicants eager to conduct DDR “field missions” are required to have “seven years of relevant experience in disarmament affairs, political analysis or in national military or paramilitary service” and an “advanced university degree (Master’s degree or equivalent degree) in disarmament affairs, military studies, political affairs, economics, international relations, or a related field.”
The UN describes the Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration protocol as “a complex process, with political, military, security, humanitarian and socio-economic dimensions.”
Key components of DDR as defined by the UN include disarming the civilian population and “the development of responsible arms management program s” and the implementation of mass detainment camps.
You see, when the enemy is not defined, when the people are not governable and when no one can communicate due to hyper-division, there is no agreed-upon enemy or even an objective.
You just find yourself at the end of a gun being told to march into battle or the death camp it is not a choice but an obligation at gunpoint.
You may have heard the phrase “the fog of war.” It refers to how hard it is for opposing sides to know what’s going on in the heat of battle. It’s particularly difficult when they don’t talk to one another. When we see division such as what we are seeing at this time in history; both here and with the Iran conflict – this is what you get.
When battle lines are being drawn and there is confusion over who the good guys or the bad guys are, the only way to deduce the situation is to try and figure out who is out to destroy you and your way of life. You have to stop and ask what are you wrong about and what are your adversaries wrong about.
That rarely happens.
Without a clear answer, which interpretation wins out comes down to which media outlet and which platform frames the answer that resonates with your bias. At this point, it’s hard to be very precise about a hypothetical full-blown conflict.
In any war be it abroad or if it is a civil war it would be hard to keep up with the moves and the countermoves. We know wars are confusing – all that we can count on is the body count.
But unlike with the path to war, it’s less useful to offer a play-by-play of what could happen. It is up to us to decide what is best for our country – what is best for the people.
We are now seeing the plans that are in play and options if the U.N. Federal or State government wishes to use them.