Timeline: the Original “Ukraine Crisis”

As Russia actually do launch an invasion or “special operation” in Ukraine, I thought now was a good time to recap on how we got here.

The historical, political and ethnic divisions in Ukraine go back decades, if not centuries, but we don’t have the space for that kind of deep-dive. For now, I’ll be keeping it to three simple parts: The fall of Viktor Yanukovych, the Crimean referendum, and the ensuing civil war which puts the region in a direct path to the events of today.

This piece is intended as a quick reference guide to help get friends and family up to speed on the recent history of Ukraine, a handy index of contemporary sources, or a refresher course for those who’ve forgotten the details.

Anyway, here we go.

1990

Following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany, multiple Western leaders give both written and spoken assurances to then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, that NATO does not plan to increase its territory eastwards.

To quote US Secretary of State James Baker:

not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”

1997

The Charter on a Distinctive Partnership is signed by representatives of both NATO and Ukraine. This document is a long-term agreement that Ukraine will move gradually into cooperation with NATO and eventually become a member. This is in direct violation of the assurances given above.

2002

NATO publishes their NATO-Ukraine Action Plan, re-affirming their commitment to “closer ties” with Ukraine, and outlining a long term plan for “reforms” in Ukraine that will make it suitable for “full Euro-Atlantic integration”.

2008

US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko sign the US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership, the charter “emphasizes the continued commitment of the United States to support enhanced engagement between NATO and Ukraine”.

Condoleeza Rice,Volodymyr Ohryzko

February

Viktor Yanukovych, leader of Ukraine’s Party of Regions, wins the presidential election and is named Ukraine’s fourth President. Yanukovych is the former governor of Donetsk, the region of his birth, and wins office with a huge percentage of the vote from ethnically Russian east Ukraine.

May

As one of his first acts as President, Yanukovych signs an agreement with Russia, extending their lease on the Black Sea naval base in Crimea until at least 2042. This extension is met with consternation and rebuke in the Western press, with one paper asking:

The End of Ukraine’s EU Integration?”

Writing in the Guardian, Luke Harding called it:

the most concrete sign yet that Ukraine is now back under Russia’s influence following Yanukovych’s victory in February’s presidential elections.

Also noting that “the lease extension is likely to increase opposition to Yanukovych in Ukraine’s western provinces.”

A PEW poll finds the majority of Ukrainians opposed to joining NATO.

June

Ukraine’s parliament votes through a new bill barring the country from joining any military bloc. This, as the BBC noted at the time, effectively ends any prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, killing a plan that the West had worked on for 13 years.

2012

Yanukovych’s Party of the Regions secures victory in the parliamentary elections, increasing its number of seats and seeing its biggest rival, Arseniy Yatsenyuk‘s Batkivshchyna (Fatherland) party lose 55 seats.

However, the elections also mark the first time Ukraine elected a far-right MP to its parliament, with Oleh Tyahnybok’s Svoboda party winning 37 seats and over 10% of the vote (entirely from the ethnically Ukrainian west of the country).

Contemporary press reports, as well as think-tanks such as OpenDemocracy, note the “concerning” rise of “far-right politics” in Ukraine.

September

The Ukrainian cabinet unanimously approves the draft of the long-awaited Ukraine-EU Association Agreement. Yanokuych is expected to officially sign the agreement at the EU’s “Eastern Partnership Summit” in Vilnius on November 28th and 29th.

Russia – Ukraine’s major creditor and biggest trade partner – warns that this treaty would “cause chaos”, break the terms of an existing treaty between Ukraine and Russia, and lead to Ukraine’s economy collapsing. As a counteroffer, they suggest Ukraine sign a new deal with the Eurasian Economic Union.

November

The Ukrainian government issues a decree suspending preparations for the association agreement (AA). Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Boyko warns the current terms of the agreement would “seriously damage the economy”.

“Pro European” demonstrations begin in Maidan square within days of the decree being issued. A poll run by the Kyiv Post finds an even split on joining the EU vs the Eurasian customs union: 39% for, 37% against.

Yanukovych attends the Eastern Partnership Summit on the 28th, but does not sign the Association Agreement, instead suggesting a new tri-lateral agreement between Ukraine, Russia and the EU. Russia is open to negotiating such a deal, but EU rejects this offer completely.

Despite not signing the AA, Yanukovych tells the press that Ukraine still intends to work for closer ties with the EU: “an alternative for reforms in Ukraine and an alternative for European integration do not exist…We are walking along this path and are not changing direction”.

Prime Minister Mykola Azarov echoed this: “I affirm with full authority that the negotiating process over the Association Agreement is continuing, and the work on moving our country closer to European standards is not stopping for a single day”.

Nevertheless, this is ubiquitously covered in the Western media as Yanukoych “refusing to sign the association agreement in favour of closer ties with Russia”.

The Battle for Ukraine

Thousands more gather in Maidan Square and others begin occupying Kiev City Hall. Protests intensify as opposition politicians speak of Yanukovych “committing treason”, they call for a re-run of the Presidential election, despite new elections being only 18 months away.

On November 29th the protesters make their first “official” demands, including the immediate resignation of Viktor Yanukovych.

December

1/12/2013 – Thousands of protesters chanting “revolution” storm the metal barriers erected by riot police. Protesters throw Molotov cocktails:

The police withdraw from the square. Over 200 people are injured, including over 100 police officers.

2/12/2013 – Protesters erect barricades around the Maidan, block access to government buildings and attempt to storm the Presidential administration. Even the Guardian notes that the police withdrew.

In a press conference, far-right MP Oleh Tyanybohk officially calls it a “revolution”, and asks that police and members of the military defect to their side.

3/12/2013 – Writing in the New RepublicJulia Ioffe praises the Maidan protesters, citing specifically the throwing of Molotovs at police:

When the police came, unlike the Muscovites, they didn’t leave. They swung chains and threw Molotov cocktails and built barricades in the streets. They took over municipal buildings. They nearly toppled the city’s main statue of Lenin. They sang the national anthem and chanted “Revolution!”

8/12/2013 – Protesters topple a statue of Lenin. Grafitti reading “Yanukovych you’re next” is scrawled on walls. An effigy of Gadaffi’s severed head is carried around the square to chants of “Yanukovych the game is over!”. Kyiv Post reports preparation of Molotov cocktails.

10/12/2013 – Berkut riot police attempt to break down the barricades and clear the square. Tear gas is deployed. They are beaten back.

11/12/2013 – US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt visit the protests and talk to opposition leaders. They are photographed shaking hands and distributing food:

That same day Foreign Affairs, the official publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, runs an article headlined“Yanukovych Must Go”

Also that same day, former President Leonid Kravchuk hosts a “roundtable” political discussion with members of all parties and all of Ukraine’s past presidents, the aim is to diffuse the crisis. The talks have Yanukovych’s blessing, the opposition refuses to attend.

13/12/2013 – US Senator John McCain visits Kiev where he gives a speech telling the crowd “We are here to support your just cause”.

Later he is photographed shaking hands with Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the far-right Svoboda party:

The UK’s Channel 4 news reported [emphasis added]: “Far-right group at heart of Ukraine protests meet US senator”.

2014

January

14/1/2014 – Protest activity resurges after a lull over the Christmas/New Year period.

15/1/2014 – At a meeting of the US Senate’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Melia admits that the US State Department has spent 5 billion dollars “assisting Ukraine”.

This includes 180 million dollars on “development programs” for “judges, members of parliament [and] political parties”.

16/1/2014 – After weeks of stalemate, the Ukrainian parliament passes ten new bills into law. Known collectively as the “Anti Protest Laws”, these laws allow a strict crackdown on protest activity, including removal of parliamentary immunity from MPs promoting violence and stripping of drivers license from those that used vehicles to obstruct public roads.

19/1/2014 – Clashes between riot police and protesters on Hrushevskoho Street, many of the protesters are from far-right groups such as Svoboda and Right Sector, and are seen wearing neo-nazi symbols and slogans.

25/1/2014 – President Yanukovych reaches out to opposition leaders, offering them a power-sharing agreement that would install Yatseniyuk as Prime Minister and Vitaliy Klitschko as his deputy. The opposition refuses the offer.

28/1/2014 – In a gesture of compromise, the parliament repeals 9 of the ten protest laws, passing a new law granting amnesty to all those involved in the protests, providing they cease occupying government buildings. The oppostion refuses these terms.

February

7/2/2014 – A recorded phone call between Nuland and Pyatt is leaked to the press, famously dubbed the “fuck the EU” call.

In the conversation, dated January 28th, Nuland and Pyatt discuss at length the structure of the Ukrainian cabinet once Yanukovych is gone. This is still 25 days before Yanukovych was removed from power

poll published that same day by the Kyiv Post found more Ukrainians opposed the Maidan protests than supported them.

16/2/2014 – In yet another attempt at compromise, the government releases all prisoners arrested during the protests, this time the opposition responds, lifting their 3-month long occupation of Kiev City Hall.

19/2/2014 – President Yanukovych declares a “truce” in a joint statement signed by the three main opposition leaders. The statement committed to negotiation for a lasting peace.

20/2/2014 – Snipers open fire on the crowd in Maidan Square, resulting in at least sixty deaths. Both protesters and police officers are killed in the gunfire. EuroNews reports that the “truce is shattered” mere hours after it was signed.

21/2/2014 – Despite the bloodshed, negotiations continue, resulting in the “Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine”, signed by all parties plus the foreign minsiters of Germany and Poland.

The agreement required the creation of a temporary “National Unity Government”, to be replaced following new Presidential Elections by the end of 2014. It also called for a full investigation into the shootings on the Maidan the previous day.

Yanukovych pledged that the government would not declare a state of emergency or call in the military, and would pull all police back from the site of the protests, in return for protesters surrendering all public buildings and illegal weapons.

Leaders of the militant protesters – including Dmitryo Yarosh of the neo-Nazi Right Sector – rejected the agreement, and threatened to storm the Parliament and Presidental Residence if Yanukoyvch did not resign immediately.

22/2/2014 – Rather than abiding by the terms of the agreement, once the police pulled back the protesters stormed government buildings and seized control of Kiev. Yanukovych flees to the city of Kharkiv in eastern Ukraine.

A contemporary Time article reported:

Ukraine’s beleaguered President Viktor Yanukovych fled Kiev Saturday as protestors took full control of Ukraine’s capital, signaling a dramatic turn in the three-month crisis just hours after the signing of an European Union-sponsored peace deal […] As police abandoned their posts across the capital, the opposition established control over key intersections and captured the presidential palace, setting up a perimeter around Yanukovych’s former residence

Within hours of the storming of the city, the Ukrainian parliament votes to strip Yanukovych of his office by 328 votes to 0, with over 120 MPs absent from the vote. This vote was unconstitional and not a legally binding form of impeachment, in any way.

From the eastern city of Kharkiv, Yanukovych gives a televised speech, declaring he was still the “legitimate elected President of Ukraine“, and that he had no intention of fleeing the country.

24/2/2014 – Parliament removes 1/3 of Ukraines Constitutional Court from office, issues an arrest warrant for President Yanukovych.

25/2/2014 – Yanukovych’s own Party of the Regions disavows him in parliament, and he flies to Russia, claiming his life is in danger.

27/2/2014 – Arseniy Yatsenyuk is sworn in as Ukraine’s interim Prime Minister, a post he would hold onto following elections in May 2014.

Vitaly Klitschko is relegated to the somewhat lower office of Mayor of Kiev, and Oleh Tyahnybok resumed his office as a simple MP.

Ukraine’s new government takes shape exactly as predicted by Nuland in her phone call of January 28th.

The same day Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Secretary General of NATO, tells the press that “the door is still open” for Ukraine to join the military bloc.

28/2/2014 – UK current events show Newsnight runs this segment, titled “The Neo-Nazi Threat in New Ukraine”:

March

Evidence emerges that the snipers shooting at the crowds were not employed by the Ukrainian government, but were shooting at both sides in an effort to stoke chaos.

This evidence is presented to the EU’s Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton by Estonia Foreign Minister Urmas Paet in a phone call that is later leaked to the press, and confirmed to be genuine by the Estonian government.

Neither the EU, nor the new government of Ukraine, makes any effort to investigate this evidence or bring the killers to justice.

On the 21st of March the interim government of Ukraine officialy signs the controversial European Union Association Agreement into law.

October

Following the 2014 parliamentary elections, the 5-party coalition government officially makes joining NATO a “national priority”.

So, there it is, a timeline of the key events leading to the fall of Viktor Yanukovych. Genuine grassroots revolution, or NATO backed coup? You decide.

Mismanagement Of The COVID-19 Crisis And The Collapse Of The 2020’s

Mismanagement of the COVID-19 crisis has initiated a socioeconomic chain reaction that has only begun to play out. Nevertheless, this story has a silver lining: the chance to make the world a better place.

But it has to start with an honest assessment of how we got here, and point to a positive course of action…

mismanagement of the covid 19 crisis and the collapse of the 2020s

Imagine ten years ago if someone described to you what the world would look like as we entered the 2020’s. Would you have believed them?

Interesting times eh? It’s about to get a lot more interesting.

History will remember this decade as a critical turning point. The end of an era.

2020 was the year that ideas like this went mainstream. Headlines that used to be relegated to the lunatic fringe were now being promoted by the corporate media.

Credible economists warning that a banking crisisa sovereign debt crisis and ultimately a monetary crisis were on the horizon. Prominent researchers projecting more riots and unrest and potentially a civil war.

The U.N. calling for urgent action to avert a global food emergency.

And world leaders warning that military conflict between the United States and China “was no longer inconceivable”.

Then of course we had the COVID-19 debacle. Though the ‘authorities’ would blame the disease itself, it was their ill-conceived response that actually served as the catalyst.

Their short sighted policies initiated a chain reaction. Some consequences of this chain reaction are inevitable (like a bullet that has left the barrel of a gun). Others hang in the balance. There will not, however, be any going back to normal.

This story has a silver lining; a chance to make the world a better place. But it has to start with an honest assessment of how we got here, and point to a positive course of action.

In the winter of 2020 as COVID-19 went exponential a panic was spreading even faster.

Borders around the globe slammed shut in rapid succession and the vast majority of the world’s population was placed under some form of curfew or stay at home order.

Businesses deemed non-essential were shuttered.

Events cancelled.

Gatherings banned.

In some countries people weren’t even allowed outside to exercise.

The public accepted these policies at first because they were led to believe they would only last a few weeks.

But as weeks became months, and infections soared in spite of summer temperatures it became clear that the lockdowns were never going to eradicate this virus.

At best they would slow or delay the spread. And at what cost?

Those who hatched this plan had made no provision for a pandemic that would linger on for months or years. They didn’t even account for the socioeconomic chain reaction that the first round of lock downs would set in motion.

With businesses shuttered and movement highly restricted, millions were left unemployed virtually overnight. The scale and speed of these job losses broke all previous records. Even the great depression didn’t come close.

By the summer of 2020 flash points of violence and social unrest were flaring up in cities around the world. Pent up frustrations were building, for obvious reasons. Billions of people had just spent months locked in their houses.

Millions had been thrown into extreme poverty.

Most stress relieving activities had been banned: social gatherings, sports, time with friends at restaurants or bars… even places of worship were restricted. This was a powder keg waiting for a match.

Politicians obviously saw the danger in this equation. When millions of people are suddenly left hungry and homeless that’s a recipe for revolution. Something had to be done, and quickly. So they did something. Boy did they do something.

When all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail, and the governments around the world were looking at a very, very large nail. The fiscal stimulus programs of 2020 were epic; absolutely off the charts. By June over 18 trillion had been disbursed globally.

Some of this stimulus came in the form of checks sent directly to every single taxpayer. In the U.S. these checks shipped with a autograph of Donald J. Trump… so you would know who to thank.

Unemployment benefits were also expanded in many countries. In the United States for example unemployed workers were given an extra 600 dollars a week. This meant that many were earning more staying home than they had been on the job. In fact personal income in the United States soared by 10.5 percent in April; the largest monthly increase ever recorded.

Then there were the forgivable loans – via the paycheck protection program and similar schemes around the world – which were supposed to help prop up small businesses. Some of these loans ended up being extended to some rather strange small businesses.

For example,

the Church of Scientology got a check, as did the Catholic Church which landed a nifty 1.4 billion (some of which was distributed directly to dioceses which were facing bankruptcy due to clergy sex abuse settlements).

In the U.K. their version of the program approved a loan of 340,000 pounds to a company that hosts sex parties for the rich and famous. Seriously…

You can’t make this shit up.

These policies were obviously going to send national debts parabolic, but the reckoning would be delayed. At least for a little while.

Central banks played a critical role in this delayed reckoning.

As the historic stock market crash of February 2020 was unfolding, the Federal Reserve and their counterparts abroad were swinging their hammers in new and creative ways; injecting liquidity (aka money) into the system via asset markets.

If you’ve never heard of Quantitative Easing (or QE) you might want to look that up. The short version is that when central banks purchase assets new money is created.

The money that is transferred to the asset holders account is literally typed into existence. These asset holders typically reinvest this new money, causing asset prices (including the stocks) to rise. Poor people don’t typically own these kinds of assets so it’s basically welfare for the rich.

And while it’s wonderful that we can provide a such a nice safety net for the upper crust of society it does have one little side effect: inflating markets with liquidity creates asset bubbles. It’s like filling up a water balloon more and more… till its so big you can see through it. Sooner or later it always pops.

It also has the effect of increasing wealth inequality… but that’s a feature not a bug.

The first round of QE started in 2009 after the housing bubble collapsed. Cutting interest rates to zero just wasn’t enough. 2020 brought us round four (affectionately referred to by some as QE Infinity).

In this round the Fed would take their liquidity experiment to a whole new level; buying financial assets never touched during QE1, 2, or 3 including corporate debt and etfs.

In one month they purchased more assets than they had during the entire first year following the 2009 crisis.

By the end of May,

they had over 7 trillion dollars worth sitting on their books.

This new money fueled the most powerful stock rally in history.

Retail investors piled in.

Even the stocks of companies that had declared bankruptcy were flying high.

What could possibly go wrong?

With unemployment numbers still hovering at great depression levels and hopes of a quick, V-shaped recovery evaporating, all eyes were on governments and central banks. The question was not if there would be more stimulus and money printing, the real question was how big it would be this time.

Would it be enough? No one seemed to be asking what would happen if they went too far.

Our fearless leaders had painted themselves into a corner at this point. If unemployment benefits, mortgage forbearance and eviction moratoriums weren’t extended, those in power would soon be facing millions of homelesshungry and angry people.

With violence and unrest already smoldering in many major cities, this would be like throwing gasoline on a fire. Extending these protections however, would not be without a price.

Eviction moratoriums and mortgage forbearance programs had temporarily prevented millions from being suddenly made homeless. But with no rent coming in, landlords would soon be defaulting on mortgages en masse, as would many homeowners and businesses.

This tsunami of defaults and bankruptcies would shake the foundations of the banking system, which would of course prompt further interventions.

But as governments and central banks reached for bigger and bigger bailout hammers a monetary reckoning was rapidly approaching. And the Dollar’s world reserve currency status was in play.

For decades the dollar’s world reserve currency status had enabled Washington to run up its national debt at everyone else’s expense, and punish any nation that didn’t tow the line with unilateral sanctions (they even sanctioned the ICC for investigating war crimes committed by the U.S. military).

This era of exorbitant privilege, however, was coming to an end.

A growing hub of powerful countries had organizing behind the scenes for years; the groundwork for a currency insurrection was already laid.

Russia and China were the driving forces of this insurrection.

For years,

both countries had aggressively increased gold reserves and offloaded U.S. debt in a gradual process of de-dollarization, however in 2018 they crossed the rubicon.

Russia by launching an alternative to the SWIFT payment system which allowed countries to bypass U.S. sanctions and China by introducing the PetroYuanwhich would compete directly with the petrodollar.

China was also in the process developing a digital currency (aka the e-Yuan) that bypassed the need for banks all together. Transfers relied only on an app on your phone.

By July of 2020 China was already testing this new currency at scale.

It was only a matter of time before the digital yuan would be competing with the U.S. dollar globally.

It was this emerging threat to the dollar that motivated Washington to lash out in a series of desperate and ill conceived provocations. For example the Hong Kong Autonomy act, which the U.S. congress passed with a veto proof margin and was signed by Trump on July 14th, represented a serious escalation.

By imposing sanctions on any individual, company or bank which did business with Chinese officials enforcing the new security law, this legislation set the stage for Washington to cut China’s access to the dollar; a move which would ultimately divide the world into Yuan and Dollar based currency blocs.

Spoiler alert: it doesn’t end well for Uncle Sam.

These economic provocations were accompanied by multiple rounds of good old fashion saber rattling.

On July 13th, of 2020 when the Trump administration announced that the U.S. had decided to reject nearly all of China’s claims in the South China Sea, what this really meant was that the U.S. was going to intentionally violate airspace and waters around the artificial islands China had built up in the disputed zone, essentially daring the Chinese to do something.

It’s worth noting that by this time these islands were fully militarized and operational; complete with ports, runways and other facilities that gave the Chinese a clear strategic advantage.

At this stage the rest of the world was beginning to suspect that Uncle Sam was experiencing some form of cognitive decline. He wasn’t playing four dimensional chess here. He didn’t even seem to be playing with a full deck.

This was like a drunk guy poking a tiger with a stick (probably not going to end well).

The provocations would continue on multiple fronts: embassies ordered to close, Chinese companies sanctioned or banned from operating in the U.S. Anything and everything connected to China was open game.

China condemned each of these provocations but they didn’t take the bait. Their response would come when was in their strategic interests. They would choose their own timing. If direct conflict could be averted long enough, the U.S. was likely to collapse on its own. The war could be won without firing a shot.

Thucydides Trap:

The high probability of war when an emerging power threatens the dominance of an international hegemon.

As often happens when a declining empire is faced with a ascending rival, the United States was rushing headlong into Thucydides trap.

Those in power tend to try to stay in power by any and all means.

When all else fails pick a fight.

Would it be China?

Iran?

Some country on Russia’s border?

Eeny, meeny, miny, mo…

Meanwhile back in the U.S. of A. the violence and mayhem in the streets was intensifying. Businesses, government buildings and vehicles had been burning virtually every night for months on end. Protesters and counter protesters were now bringing semiautomatic weapons to the scene.

By September there were multiple fatalities on each side.

Perception of these events was increasingly polarized. The left and the right were no long behaving like political factions of a nation. They had devolved into hostile tribes fighting for control of a territory.

A radicalized strain of thought that directly endorsed violence as a political tool was metastasizing among a new generation of activists. A growing contingent had convinced themselves that they could win in an armed conflict. This was a serious miscalculation.

(If you try to outgun the police and the military you’re going to have a bad time).

Here humanity approached a crossroad. Probabilities were coalescing as the crisis progressed.

Those who saw the stakes would feel an urgency. With every moment of inaction the likelihood of a tragic ending increased. Something had to be done.

But what?

What could an ordinary individual do to improve the outcome? Could the trajectory of history really be altered?

Some questions are best answered with a riddle.

Rather than predicting what comes next, let’s tell a story. This story has multiple endings and you get to choose.

Story Time

It’s been said that every nation is three meals away from a revolution.

Never before had this principle been tested in so many countries simultaneously as it was in the 2020’s.

At first many held onto the hope that everything would soon go back to normal, but as the long term realities of the decade set in, more and more people would come to the same startling conclusion: the ‘authorities’ were out of their depth.

There was no exit strategy. The situation was not ‘under control’…

In the early stages of the crisis, when the first few governments were collapsing, very few realized how the conflux of economic, geopolitical and social variables were coalescing in a perfect storm.

But when G20 nations started dropping like flies the phenomenon it became impossible to ignore. Like dominoes falling, the collapse of one major economy destabilized every country connected to it. In the age of globalization very few would be spared.

What began as a trickle suddenly accelerated as the downfall of the U.S. dollar precipitated an unprecedented shock to global supply chains.

Imports ground to a halt all around the world. In countries dependent on outsourced food production and manufacturing this translated into widespread shortages and social unrest. In this environment extremist movements of all stripes flourished.

A small handful of nations would weather this storm peacefully. Rather than tearing themselves apart from within or transforming into totalitarian dictatorships, they would unify and adapt.

As economic and monetary shocks disrupted global supply chains and trade, these countries would quickly reorganize their economies to replace imports with local production – starting with food and essentials. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels was an important element of this transition.

To accomplish this feat every aspect of modern life was re-imagined.

Lawns were replaced by gardens; golf courses converted to orchards. Waste streams were recuperated to minimize losses. It wasn’t easy, but these countries pulled through, and before the decade was over, they were building regional trade networks that hadn’t existed before the crisis.

A lot of wealthy countries didn’t do so well in the second phase of the crisis; the part where real hardship kicked in. Populations accustomed to easy living and constant entertainment had a very short fuse.

As shortages and rationing became the new normal and homeless encampments grew, protests would morph into riots, armed uprisings and civil wars.

Governments that were ill prepared for these challenges crumbled quickly; some into the hands of populist movements, others to military juntas. In most cases the replacement was more brutal and repressive that the old system.

The underlying paradigm was rarely questioned at all.

Many regimes would extend their lifespan by totalitarian means. Emergency powers established under lockdown would prove invaluable here.

Policies previously justified by public health would now be implemented in the name of national security; control mechanisms adapted and repurposed to crack down on dissidents.

It was every petty dictator’s wet dream: granular control over every aspect of human behavior and interaction. No one allowed to gather in public without permission. Every contact tracked and traced. If you’re outside you better be prepared to show your papers.

This approach was most effective when the latent fears and hatreds of the population could be rallied against an enemy.

Convince a people that they are under attack and it’s easy to unify them under a flag.

Rather than rioting in the streets, impoverished youth can be conscripted into the military.

Their identities shattered and remolded; conditioned to obey; trained to kill on command.

Send them abroad to steal land and resources.

Use them at home to crush dissent.

War is – after all – the health of the state.

Regardless of which axis prevailed in these conflicts the result would be the same.

A new totalitarian order was the universal prescription; the only cure for the chaos.

The world’s first truly global currency would replace the dollar. This currency would be completely digital; coins and bank notes phased out. Every single transaction conducted using this currency would be recorded on a block blockchain.

Unlike the original cryptocurrencies this blockchain was controlled by a central authority and monitored with AI. Economic privacy a thing of the past.

It was the holy grail of ruling elite, the precursor for global governance with teeth, but before they even had time to properly congratulate themselves, their house of cards was already catching wind.

As living conditions deteriorate, and fear and uncertainty prevail, certain psychological forces are always unleashed. These forces are like the incoming waves of a tsunami.

Once they gather momentum there can be no stopping them.

Throughout history there have been individuals and movements who rode these waves; channeling the tides of human sentiment towards a course of action. Though the science of crowd psychology is complex and nuanced, the application of its principles is mind bogglingly simple.

So simple in fact, that intellectuals typically recoil from them, while bonafide idiots wield them easily (and to great effect).

Like riding a tsunami on a surfboard, attempting to redirect the momentum of a society is highly dangerous.

The crowd can lift a leader to great heights, but one mistake can leave them hanging from a lamp post. Those who manage to navigate these forces usually guard the formula carefully. Failure to do so would threaten the foundations of their power.

This time around however, humanity flipped the script.

In the age of the internet the science of crowd psychology and color revolutions had been available to the public for some time now, but very few saw the utility in studying it.

However as the 2020’s progressed, and it became more and it became more clear that that those in power were pushing civilization toward a dystopian nightmare, a contingent of activists would reverse engineer the tools being used against them.

The work of Gustave Le Bon and Edward Bernays would be modernized and tempered with a cultural code:

the positive application of human instinct.

The instinctual psychology of species can be harnessed for good or for evil. In the modern era it has been weaponized by the military industrial complex for regime change, and by corporations for marketing and public relations.

The same principles however can applied to create rather than destroy. Visions and values can spread like viruses from mind to mind, and from place to place.

The contagion of a single idea can inspire generations towards a new paradigm.

To topple a government is surprisingly easy when conditions are right. Silver spoon politicians who’ve never served or worked a day in their life can easily lose the respect and obedience of military and law enforcement. When that happens, it’s game over.

The question that always comes up in such events (usually as an afterthought) is what will you replace the old system with?

There is nothing more dangerous than armed men with utopian dreams. Sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease.

History provides many cautionary tales. To avoid the trap of oppressed rising up to become the oppressor the paradigm that facilitates this dynamic has to be questioned.

The vast majority of modern governments, businesses and organizations utilize a social structure called vertical collectivism. Vertical collectivism is top down system of organizing human groups which amplifies power by stacking layers of authority in pyramids.

The result is a highly stratified society where those on the bottom have little or no say, and are left to fight over scraps from above.

Vertical collectivism is apolitical. Capitalists companies and Communist regimes both use it without contradiction, as do republics that call themselves democracies.

The vertical model was born of military strategy. A general or warlord alone can only control a small army, but by using subordinate officers in layers of rank, a single individual, or a small ruling class can dominate millions of people and vast territories.

This is why a state is often defined as the monopoly on violence within a region.

Vertical collectivism didn’t spread to every corner of the globe because it improved peoples lives.

In fact modern anthropologists acknowledge that the transition to this way of life was associated with reduced life expectancy and a decline in virtually all measures in health (up until very recently).

Vertical collectivism spread like a cancer because it is brutally effective in the in the context of war.

Every culture that it encountered was either crushed on the battlefield or forced to copy the model to survive. The dawn of civilization – as many euphemistically refer to it – is a story of conquest and colonialization that began approximately 10,000 years ago and continues to this day.

This was not however, the beginning of the human story.

For over 300,000 years – long before the first empires of Asia and Europe began to absorb surrounding tribes – humans organized themselves using a very different model.

Rather than building top down, stratified societies that concentrated wealth and power in the hands of an upper class, these cultures organized horizontally.

Organizing horizontally didn’t mean that there were no leaders.

The authority and instincts are far older than humanity.

Like all social animals, our species is hardwired to follow those who demonstrate courage and intelligence.

However in horizontal societies disparities of wealth and power were significantly smaller.

The leaders and councils responsible for group decisions were not insulated by armies and law enforcement conditioned to obey without question.

Defense and order were maintained by an armed citizenry, bound by a code of conduct. This dynamic forced leaders to be directly accountable to the population.

Their power was rooted in their ability to communicate with the people, build consensus and chart a course of action to the benefit of all.

The fact that horizontal societies required leaders to work with the public in such a personal way had one obvious disadvantage: it limited the size of the group. After all, why would someone voluntarily follow someone far away that they never met?

There is however, a way around this limitation. By forming federations horizontal societies can expand their sphere influence significantly.

An example of this adaptation can be found in the Iroquois confederacy which unified 5 tribes for hundreds of years in the region that came to be called New York.

Each member tribe in the confederacy had their own culture and and internal governance, but a set of shared values enabled them to cooperate economically and militarily. If one tribe was attacked they quickly mounted a common defense.

Many historians believe that United States federal system was based on the Iroquois model. One significant difference however, was that the Iroquois had no central government. There was a central council comprised of representatives from each tribe, but this council had no power to enforce its will.

Each representative was tasked with building a consensus that would resonate with their people.

A modernized adaptation of this Iroquois model gained traction in the mid 2020s as the gears of globalization ground to a halt. While governments proved incapable of solving the most basic problems, decentralized networks were replacing the system from the ground up.

They would start by organizing local food production in their communities and gradually expand cooperation to other sectors.

Their revolution was driven by an idea worth spreading. Not only was it possible to live on this planet without destroying it, this way of life was more abundant and fulfilling than the alternative. There was no need to wait for governments to act. Humans are perfectly capable of organizing themselves.

Those that succeeded became epicenters of a new renaissance; attracting skilled workers and artists from all around the world.

Some of these travelers would put down permanent roots.

Others would return to their homeland to plant seeds of their own.

From the fragments of fallen empires new nations would be born.

From the ashes of dying cultures new cultures would rise.

The great collapse of the 2020’s was not the end of the world.

It was the end of an era, and the dawn of a new one…

Time To Flip The Script

Remember how we said this story has multiple endings?

We’re going take one of them to a literal extreme; and we’re going to do it in the real world.

Now if you’re living in a crowded city center, maybe pushing the boundaries starts by planting a garden in your front yard, organizing a community compost, or speaking out against a war.

However it’s important to understand that in the era we have entered the stakes are rising, and the trajectory we’re on needs to be altered significantly.

This implies fundamental changes in the way we livRemember how we said this story has multiple endings? We’re going take one of them to a literal extreme; and we’re going to do it in the real world.

(Those who piece together the clues, get through the filters, and pass quarantine will at some point find themselves standing here. GPS COORDINATES FLASH)

Now if you’re living in a crowded city center, maybe pushing the boundaries starts by planting a garden in your front yard, organizing a community compost, or speaking out against a war.

However it’s important to understand that in the era we have entered the stakes are rising, and the trajectory we’re on needs to be altered significantly. This implies fundamental changes in the way we live, not just gestures in right direction.

You have to decide what kind of story you and your family want to be a part of. In some cases this might involve immigrating to another country. Others will be more inclined to stay, and fight to change the outcome at home. One way or the other you’ll want to be in a place where you can grow food, and you’ll want to be set up to do this without agrochemical inputs or fossil fuels.

You also don’t want to be reliant on the grid. Utilities can and will go down. Some will be shocked by how long they can stay down.

These aren’t the kind of lifestyle changes you want to make at the last moment, or put off until you can do something large scale. Far better to start transitioning to a new way of life right now. Do what you can with what you have. Join forces with others to amplify.

The learning curve for this kind of transition can be steep. There are a lot of practical skills that we should be taught in school but aren’t. Most kids when they graduate… don’t know how to build a house, or grow a garden, or even how to make bread.

The best way to learn this stuff isn’t really in a classroom anyway. People learn best by example, anchored with hands on experience.

That’s why we built this place. You could think of it as an experiential learning center / maker space. This whole landscape is a laboratory.

Here we can put ideas to an extreme test.

Rather that just reading about this stuff or watching a presentation, volunteers and travelers from all over the world come here to do it themselves. They get their hands dirty in the field: planting plants, working with animals, building crazy structures like these.

They also get to experience first hand what it takes to self organize and live in a different way.

The experience is extreme, because the challenges we face are real. We’re completely off-grid here. Our electricity comes from the sun. We have running water by pumping from the spring up to a tank on the hill.

It’s also up to us to us to maintain the road and drainage. Up here when there’s a problem we have to put our heads together and find a way to solve it.

To put this in perspective, our first long term volunteer was here when we sustained a direct hit from hurricane Maria. He also assisted in the recovery and became part of the story.

Talk is cheap. If you really want to change the world you have to be able to show people how.

We’re doing this here in the Commonwealth of Dominica cause these people are moving in the right direction, and their culture holds some of the keys to the solution.

But where ever you decide to make your stand now is the time to get serious about food security.

Our challenge in the next phase is to grow more and develop local production systems to replace imports.

Some will have a chance to collaborate onsite.

Others will integrate this information and use it creatively; writing themselves into the story in unpredictable ways.

Those who pay close attention and pause often will discover easter eggs; clues with consequences in the real world.

If you agree with the message, it’s up to you to make it spread…

Killing General Robert E Lee

Picture
Crowds cheered as the 21-foot statue of the Confederate general was lifted off its pedestal in the state’s capital.

SEPTEMBER 20, 2021

NY Times: Virginia Removes Robert E. Lee Statue From State Capital

The Confederate memorial was erected in 1890.

Whether you’re an American or not, this ugly event down in Lee’s rapidly “diversifying” Virginia  offers us a good “teachable moment” for remembering (and honoring) the memory of the real General Lee.

Picture
A great general — and a good man.
Picture
As recently as 1995, the US postal service was still honoring Lee with postage stamps.
Picture
An ignoble end. Marxist rabble scum had long been vandalizing the pedestal of the statue with state-protected impunity. But tear down a Rainbow Fag Flag and they’ll charge you with a “hate crime.”

Robert E Lee graduated as the 2nd highest ranked student in his class from the West Point Military Academy in 1829 — where his focus was on studying engineering. He further distinguished himself by not incurring a single “demerit” during his four years of study — a distinction shared by only 45 other cadets during the academy’s 220 year history.

Year later, as a staff officer, Lee earned his name as a tactician during in the Mexican–American War (1846–1848). His reconnaissance was instrumental in several American victories by mapping out attack routes which the Mexicans left undefended because they had assumed that the terrain was impassable.

Lee, though himself having owned a small number of slaves, described slavery as a “moral and political evil” which would pass in due time. Ironically, much like the newly-elected U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Lee was as opposed to southern secession as he was to the dangerous idea of radically abolishing slavery all at at once (because it would trigger a war). Indeed, it was those extreme forces — promulgated by agents linked to Europe (Rothschild) and warned about by Andrew Jackson a few decades earlier —  which slowly but surely inched the United States toward the coming disaster. When the U.S. Civil War between North and South finally broke out in 1861, Lee was offered the position of Major General in the Union Army by Lincoln’s advisor, Francis Blair. Lee replied:

“Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state?”

With heavy heart, Lee, and in spite of his disappointment with pro-slavery southern secessionists, Lee chose to fight for the South — commanding the Confederate States Army and personally leading the Army of Northern Virginia. He became a legend, respected on both sides, by establishing himself as an inspiring leader and brilliant tactician in the face of the superior Union numbers and resources that would ultimately prevail and lead to Lee’s surrender to General Ulysses S. Grant in 1865.

Picture
A record of accomplishment at West Point matched by very few over a 220 year history.
Picture
Lee at Gettysburg — which proved to be his downfall.
Picture
Lee surrenders to Grant at Appomattox Courthouse in Virginia. The Union men had the utmost respect for the honorable Virginia general.

Yes, Lee was a brilliant man and a great general — but so was Genghis Monster. There is much more to the man that ought to remembered, and honored. To get a proper sense of who Lee was and what made him so special, let’s go to “original source history” — the best form of analysis — and familiarize ourselves with some of his own words and inner thoughts.

*****

(Lee’s advice to a new mother) Teach your child to deny himself.

* Duty then is the sublimest word in the English language. You should do your duty in all things. You can never do more, you should never wish to do less. 

If a friend asks a favor, you should grant it if it is reasonable; if not, tell him plainly why you cannot: You will wrong him and wrong yourself by equivocation of any kind.

* Get correct views of life, and learn to see the world in its true light. It will enable you to live pleasantly, to do good, and, when summoned away, to leave without regret.

In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution is a moral & political evil in any country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages.

We should live, act, and say nothing to the injury of anyone. It is not only best as a matter of principle, but it is the path to peace and honor.

* If you have any fault to find with anyone, tell him, not others, of what you complain; there is no more dangerous experiment than that of undertaking to be one thing before a man’s face and another behind his back

In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength.

Never do a wrong thing to make a friend–or to keep one.

* I cannot trust a man to control others who cannot control himself. 

* In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. 

Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will.  

What a cruel thing is war; to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world! 

My heart bleeds at the death of every one of our gallant men. 

So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained. 

The idea that the Southern people are hostile to the negroes and would oppress them, if it were in their power to do so, is entirely unfounded. They have grown up in our midst, and we have been accustomed from childhood to look upon them with kindness.

*

A strong “straight arrow” Christian moral character and unshakable senses of duty, honor and courage were the true pillars of Lee’s enduring legend. In short, General Lee represented everything that today’s corrupt “powers that be” (cough cough) hate and fear in a man. And THAT, boys and girls, is why the Marxist scum (under guidance from forces above) have defaced and removed his statue.

The Sad Truth About “Memorial Day”

As we all know, Memorial Day is a federal holiday in the United States for remembering the men (and many women now too!) who died while serving in America’s armed forces. The holiday, which is observed on the last Monday of May, originated after the U.S. Civil War, in 1868 as Decoration Day.

Families of the Northern dead would decorate the graves of their kinfolk with flags and flowers. By 1900, competing Union and Confederate holiday traditions, celebrated on different days, had merged into a single Memorial Day, which was eventually extended to honor all Americans who died in military service. Since World War II, the stupid cliche of “thank our veterans for our freedom” was unofficially attached to the day. Of course, Americans haven’t died in defense of freedom since the War of 1812.

So, this Memorial Day, with all due respect to the veterans who died under false pretenses, let us dispense with all this “thank you for our freedom” bullshit and declare a more historically accurate “gratitude” to the deserving parties.

Picture
Picture
1 & 2. Sorry to rain on your Memorial Day Parade, pops — but with all respect and affection, you and your buddies got played for chumps.
Picture
The last American battle truly fought for the cause of freedom and independence was  The Battle of New Orleans, won  by General Andrew Jackson in 1815.

1898: Thank you Globalists for the gift of the Spanish-American War in which 2,450 Americans were killed so that the New World Order gang could establish a presence in the Asian Pacific (Philippines & Guam).

1898-1913: Thank you Globalists for the gift of the Philippines War in which 4,200 American were killed so that the Filipinos, to whom you promised independence in exchange for rising up against Spain, could be kept under control.

1900-1901: Thank you Globalists for the Boxer Rebellion in which 131 Americans were killed so that the Chinese could be kept in line.

1917-1918: Thank you Globalists and Zionists for World War I in which 120,000 Americans were killed so that the first steps of world government could be taken in Europe (League of Nations) and Palestine could be stolen from the Turks and their Arab subjects.

Picture
Spanish-American War 
Picture
Philippines War 
Picture
World War I

1941-1945: Thank you Globalists and Zionists for World War II in which 410,000 Americans were killed so that Germany and Japan could be enslaved to the New World Order, and Britain eventually forced to turn over most of Palestine to the Jews.

1950-1953: Thank you Globalists for the Korean War in which 36,000 Americans were killed in a rigged no-win war designed to maintain a permanent trip-wire between the two Koreas.

1965-1975: Thank you Globalists for the Vietnam War in which 58,000 Americans were killed in another rigged no-win war designed to drain and destabilize America.

Picture
World War II 
Picture
Korean War 
Picture
Vietnam War

1982-1984: Thank you Globalists and Zionists for the Beirut Deployment in which 266 Americans were killed in a false-flag attack staged by Israel and blamed on “terrorists.”

1990-1991: Thank you Globalists and Zionists for the Gulf War in which 300 Americans were killed so that the rising power of politically independent Iraq could be weakened.

2001-2011: Thank you Globalists and Zionists for the War on Terror in which 7000 Americans were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a multi-trillion dollar farce kicked-off after the false-flag terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

Picture
Beirut 
Picture
 Iraq
Picture
Afghanistan

“They died to keep us free,” really?

Heavily indebted & abusively overtaxed Americans enjoying their mandatory “freedom” (from germs) during the lock-down of the Stupid-19 scamdemic.

Picture
Picture
Picture
Mandatory masks — 6-feet long “social distancing” pool noodles attached to hats — Arrested for surfing during Stupid-19 “crisis.
Picture
Picture
Picture
More mandatory “freedom” (from  make-believe “terrorists”) at the airport. — TSA airport goons get to harass us and steal from our luggage — with total impunity and immunity!
Picture
Picture
We can best honor our dead veterans by exposing the “who” and the “why” behind both their tragic and premature deaths — and our actual enslavement imposed under the guise of “security.”

Left Threatens Post Election Violence

Trip gabriel

NY Times: This Is Democrats’ Doomsday Scenario for Election Night By Trip Gabriel

What if early results in swing states on Nov. 3 show President Trump ahead, and he declares victory before heavily Democratic mail-in votes, which he has falsely linked with fraud, are fully counted?

Rosa Brooks

Washington Post: What’s the Worse that Could Happen? The Election will Likely Spark Violence and a Constitutional Crisis By Rosa Brooks

In every scenario except a Biden landslide, our simulation ended catastrophically

David Freedman

Newsweek: How Trump Could Turn the Most Challenging Election Since the Civil War into an Unprecedented Disaster By David H. Freedman

Early on in the 1972 classic film, The Godfather, there was a scene in which Tom Hagen, the “consigliere” (counselor) of the Corleone Family, demonstrated the art of openly threatening someone without actually saying so directly. Consigliere Hagen (played by Robert Duvall) threatened a movie producer named Woltz in a manner so subtle that even many Godfather aficionados miss it.

From the script:

WOLTZ 

All right, start talking.

TOM

Uh, I was sent by a friend of Johnny Fontane’s — His friend is my client, who’d give his undying friendship to Mr. Woltz, if Mr. Woltz would grant us a small — favor.

WOLTZ

Woltz is listening.

TOM

Give Johnny the part in that new war film you’re starting next week.

WOLTZ (laughs, then)

And ah, what favor would ah your friend ah grant Mr. Woltz?

TOM

You’re gonna have some union problems; my client could make them disappear.

WOLTZ

Are you trying to muscle me?

TOM

Absolutely not.

WOLTZ

Now listen to me, you smooth-talking son-of-a-bitch! Let me lay it on the line for you and your boss, whoever he is. Johnny Fontane will never get that movie! I don’t care how many – dago guinea WOP greaseball gumbahs come out of the woodwork!

What Hagen actually did in that scene was, under the guise of “looking out for Woltz,” threatened the producer with a labor strike! Woltz was no fool; which explains why he became so angry. He understood that the real message was: “Do what we say or we will go to war with you.” Woltz, at first, refused to comply. A bloody horse’s head placed in his bed soon changed his tune.

“Mr. Woltz — I have not threatened you.”

Now, turning our attention to the Globalist / Jewish Mafia, we can better interpret some of the similarly thuggish threats and “warnings” that have been emanating from prominent Demonrats such as Big Mike Obongo: (here) — Creepy Pedo Joe Biden: (here) — Whore Harris: (here) — and now — as evidenced by the ominously provocative headlines about a “doomsday scenario” & “violence” & “disaster” & “catastrophe” & “a constitutional crisis” referenced above —  those notorious flagship vessels of Judea’s Piranha Press — the New York Slimes and Washington Compost, and also Newsweek. The “color revolution” message is clear. Get rid of Donald Trump on November 3rd or there will be hell to pay!

These barely veiled threats, we believe, tie back nicely to several “crumbs” which the Trump / Q Anon team posted between October 31 – November 2 of 2017. The meaning of those Q posts wasn’t exactly clear back then, but as Q has often said since: “Future proves past” — which means that certain early scenes in this “movie” (aka “the plan”) are really part of the middle or ending of the story. Let’s explore some of these mysterious 2017 posts and see how the de-codes make sense today.

1. Big Mike (or an impostor, or a “deep fake” video): “If you think things cannot possibly get worse, trust me, they can; and they will if we don’t make a change in this election. If we have any hope of ending this chaos, we have got to vote for Joe Biden like our lives depend on it.” // 2. Creepy Redo Biden: “Does anyone believe there will be less violence in America if Donald Trump is re-elected?”  // 3. Whore Harris (or an impostor, or a “deep fake” video): “But they (the protests) are not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop. They’re not – this is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not gonna stop….. and everyone beware, because they’re not gonna stop. They’re not gonna stop before election day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after election day. And that should be – everyone should take note of that.” 

Post 22  October 31, 2017: Who controls the NG? Why was the NG recently activated in select cities within the US? Can the NG work in coordination w/ the marines?

Analysis: NG = National Guard – which, when activated during a national emergency, can be controlled by Trump and could indeed coordinate with the marines.

Post 24  November 1, 2017: Any person making statements they will not be seeking re-election was put in submission. For the betterment of the country not all will be prosecuted and all will do as told. You will see more of this occur (not normal yet disregarded) and even on the D side.

Analysis: After this prediction was made, an astonishing number — “record numbers” according to all media accounts — of Republican Congressmen (including House Speaker Paul Ryan) resigned in advance of both the 2018 mid-term elections and the upcoming 2020 elections (2018 here) and (2020 here). Most of them were anti-Trumpers. On the “D side” – similar “submissions” would explain why the Demonrats appear to be comically self-destructing. Is the self-destruction of the D’s a deliberate “plea deal” consequence of this submission to Sheriff Trump? I believe so.

Post 24 (continued): Do conditions need to be satisfied to authorize? (NG) What former President used the military to save the republic and what occurred exactly?

Analysis: A national emergency has to be declared – which is what Trump did in response to Stupid-19.

Post 24 (continued)

The masses tend to panic in such situations. No war. No civil unrest. Clean and swift.

Analysis: When the hammer drops, it will be clean and swift. Many now believe that many Deep Staters have already been arrested.

Post 26  November 1, 2017: Think about it logically. The only way is the military. Fully controlled. Save & spread (once 11.3 verifies as 1st marker).

Analysis: 11.3 is a very important sign. Did it really stand for the letters K.C. – after indicted Deep State lawyer, Kevin Cline Smith? Or does it refer to November 3rd, 2020 – the “marker” to kick-off the military action?

Post 34  November 1, 2017: My fellow Americans, over the course of the next several days you will undoubtedly realize that we are taking back our great country (the land of the free) from the evil tyrants that wish to do us harm and destroy the last remaining refuge of shining light. On POTUS’ order, we have initiated certain fail-safes that shall safeguard the public from the primary fallout which is slated to occur 11.3 upon the arrest announcement of Mr. Podesta (actionable 11.4). Confirmation (to the public) of what is occurring will then be revealed and will not be openly accepted. Public riots are being organized in serious numbers in an effort to prevent the arrest and capture of more senior public officials.

Analysis: There goes that date of 11.3 again – accompanied by a prediction of some unrest related to “fallout.”

Post 34 (continued): On POTUS’ order, a state of temporary military control will be actioned and special ops carried out.

Analysis: This fits in with the Left’s current threats to trigger violence immediately after Election Day (11.3)

1. Paul the Rat Ryan did everything he could to obstruct and undermine Donald Trump. Q Anon & Friends have since forced him to resign. When Trump took office in January 2017, there were 241 Republicans in the House. Since then, 115 of them (48%) have been “whacked” by Trump — having either retired, resigned, been defeated, or are retiring after 2020. // 2. Under cover of Stupid-19 — a Globalist scamdemic which Trump and the Patriots knew was coming in advance — emergency presidential powers over the National Guard and military have already been granted to Trump. Q Anon foresaw the need for this power-grab three years ago.

Post 34 (continued): Rest assured, the safety and well-being of every man, woman, and child of this country is being exhausted in full. However, the atmosphere within the country will unfortunately be divided as so many have fallen for the corrupt and evil narrative that has long been broadcast.

Analysis: It will get ugly, but the patriots are in control.

Post 34 (continued: We will be initiating the Emergency Broadcast System during this time in an effort to provide a direct message (avoiding the fake news) to all citizens.

Analysis: This is the only way to totally bypass Fake News and speak to ALL Americans. The Globalist press has already expressed concern about Trump’s control over the Emergency Broadcast System (here) – which includes TV, radio, and I Phones — and reported that the system was tested on cellphones for the very first time in 2018. (here)

Post 34 (continued): Organizations and/or people that wish to do us harm during this time will be met with swift fury – certain laws have been pre-lifted to provide our great military the necessary authority to handle and conduct these operations (at home and abroad).

Analysis: These laws were not “pre-lifted” in 2017, when this post was issued – but during the fog of Stupid-19 – which the patriots already knew was coming.

Post 36 November 1, 2017: If Trump failed, if we failed, and HRC assumed control, we as Patriots were prepared to do the unthinkable (this was leaked internally and kept the delegate recount scam and BO from declaring fraud). Dig deeper – missing critical points to paint the full picture. There is simply no other way than to use the military. It’s that corrupt and dirty.

Analysis: This leaked threat of direct military intervention –“the unthinkable” –explains why Killary meekly backed-down from demanding a “recount” that some had been urging her to pursue (here) as well as why the post-election delegate tampering effort (here) also fizzled out. Wow! The generals and admirals really do have our backs!

Post 44 November 2, 2017: Before POTUS departs on Friday he will be sending an important message via Twitter.

Analysis: The trigger-tweet from Trump has been mentioned several times over the years, and is an important article-of-faith among A followers

Post 55 November 2, 2017: Look to Twitter: Exactly this: “My fellow Americans, the Storm is upon us…….”

Analysis: The post election code-word from Trump – to be tweeted after the Communists explode in red rage (as the Slimes and Compost now confirm) — as the activated NG and Marines make their “clean and swift” move while Trump activates the Emergency System. Notice how the 2017 dates for these posts — though from three years ago –precisely precede 11.3 — another known Q Anon tactic.

To you weakened Deep State Reds in the suites and in the Military Intelligence-infiltrated streets — Go ahead and follow through on your implied stated threats to stir up mayhem on 11.3 and usher in a violent “constitutional crisis.”  Do your worst! Trump’s trap was set for you a long time ago.

11.3

?

1. According to Q Anon posts from 2017, when the time comes, the president will bypass the media with Emergency Alert Systems (which Trump later tested in 2018) // 2. Does 11.3 mean that the “storm” events will kick off on Election Day (November 3)??? // 3. “The calm before THE STORM.”

Q Anon posted an image of Q fans posing in front of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station — which contains a prison camp that Trump has spent a lot of money building up for some reason (here)

THE MYTH OF THE TRAIL OF TEARS

We’ve all heard that sad story about “The Trail of Tears” – the one about how mean old “racist” President Andrew Jackson (terms: 1829-1837) rounded up the Indians of the Southeast (mainly Cherokees from Georgia-Tennessee-Carolinas) and force-marched them off to Oklahoma. The various treks, ranging between 700-1000 miles, are said to have caused the deaths of 4,000 Indians / Native Americans (quietly downgraded to 3,000) who were buried in unmarked graves along “The Trail Where They Cried.”

There is just one little problem with this unchallenged narrative — it is not totally false, but it has been grossly edited and wildly embellished, mainly for the purpose of besmirching the great name of the heroic American figure who paid off the National Debt down to zero and “killed the bank” (America’s Central Bank). Let us examine some of the problems with this attack against “the White Man” in general — and Jackson in particular — and set the record straight about “The Trail of Tears” once and for all.

1. Andrew Jackson slays the multi-headed monster of the 2nd Bank of the United States in 1833.  // 2. Jackson survives an assassination attempt. The Rothschild Globalists have always hated Jackson for paying off the National Debt and killing the Central Bank — which was finally reborn as the “The Federal Reserve” in 1913. //

3. The false propaganda tale of “The Trail of Tears” is just another manifestation of that hatred towards Jackson.

10 PROBLEMS WITH THE OFFICIAL STORY

1. Judging historical figures out of the context of their times can be misleading.

We do not believe that right and wrong are “relative” concepts, of course. However, we should tread very carefully when pulling any historical personage out of the context of his day and condemning him according to some of the arguably more enlightened attitudes of contemporary times. After all, back in the day, many good and noble men saw nothing wrong with owning slaves, provided they were well-cared for. Does that mean that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson himself and even the estimated 3,700 Black slaveholders (here) were all “evil?” We don’t believe so.

Similarly, let’s not childishly tag all men from the past with the stupid term “racist” so easily just because they foresaw potential problems arising from different races living within close proximity of each other — a sad historical reality of human existence which has afflicted mankind ever since the Cro Magnons knocked off the Neanderthals. It was simply the way of the world back then.

2. Not all Indians were exactly angels.

What modern day libtards refer to as “toxic masculinity” is not unique to White males. Many innocent White people as well as some of the more docile Indian tribes were persecuted and slaughtered by some of the more violent Indian elements. So let’s dispense with all this “evil White Man” talk. Over the course of the centuries of interaction in the Americas, atrocities were committed by both sides. Notwithstanding the many cases of Indians and Whites getting along nicely, the proximity to each other was often problematic in some areas, for both races.

3. The Indian Removal Act was approved by Congress and the Senate.

Jackson was not a dictator issuing Executive Orders to relocate the Indians. In 1830, the US Senate passed the Indian Removal Act by a vote of 28 to 19; and the House of Representatives passed it by a vote of 101 to 97. The Act granted the president authority to negotiate treaties that swapped Indian lands east of the Mississippi River for reservations in the West, and said nothing about removal by force.

This policy of using money and land instead of force was later continued by President Martin Van Buren, after Jackson left office in 1837.

1. Black slave-owner Nicolas Augustin Metoyer of Louisiana and his other family members owned 200 slaves. Was he “evil” too? 2. Not all Indians were peaceful. There were many cases of White women and children being slaughtered. 3. Senate and House majorities also supported Indian relocation in exchange for western reservations.

The slaughter of Jane McCrea in 1777. These types of incidents and counter attacks by settlers were still occurring in the 1830’s.

4. Jackson was more of a realist than a “racist.”

Many northerners opposed the plan. Jackson regarded these northern critics as hypocrites because Indian tribes had become nearly extinct / assimilated in the North — where Indian hunting grounds gave way to family farms as state law replaced tribal law. If the Indians of the south and their culture were to survive, it could only be done in separation, not integration. The wise words of America’s greatest President made perfect sense for that time:

“Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country and philanthropy has long been busily employed in devising means to avert it, but its progress has never for a moment been arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes disappeared from the earth.

But true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does to the extinction of one generation to make room for another.… Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?”

5. Jackson (and later Van Buren) had the best interests of the Indians at heart.

According to historian H. W. Brands, Jackson sincerely believed that his population transfer was a “wise and humane policy” that would save the Indians from “utter annihilation.” Brands writes that, given the “racist realities of the time, Jackson was almost certainly correct in contending that for the Cherokees to remain in Georgia risked their extinction.” Jackson believed that his paternalism and federal support were generous acts of mercy.

In his autobiography, Van Buren praised Jackson’s vision of Indian removal and thus, preservation.

“No man ever entered upon the execution of an official duty with purer motives, firmer purpose or better qualifications for its performance. We were perhaps in the beginning unjustifiable aggressors (toward the Indians) but we have become the guardians and, as we hope, the benefactors.”

1. Jackson (Image 1) and Van Buren’s (Image 2) attitudes towards the Indians were paternalistic and benevolent, not cruel or tyrannical. 3. Cherokee leader John Ross (half White) — negotiated the transfer deal with the US Federal government, and profited from it. He never spoke nor wrote about any mass deaths.

6. The Indians were well-paid to relocate and received lots of new land.

Unlike, say, the dispossessed and terrorized Palestinians of 1948 and beyond, the Cherokees of the 1830’s actually negotiated the terms of their relocation with Washington DC. The Cherokees, though under pressure, were actually well-paid with removal costs running at about $3 million and another $3 million by 1849. In today’s money, $3 million would represent as much as $90-100 million. In essence, the Indian relocation was an eminent domain deal, not unlike the transactions which clear out the residents of city blocks in order to make way for bridges, tunnels, skyscrapers etc.

Jackson outlined his policy in his Second Annual Message to Congress, in which he said nothing about the use of force. Rather, his comments on Indian removal began with the words:

“It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.”

Further contradicting the misconception of a mass forced roundup at bayonet point is the historical fact that some Cherokees insisted on staying in North Carolina and had a Federal reservation set aside for them there in later years (here).

THIS IS WHAT A REAL “TRAIL OF TEARS” LOOKS LIKE!

1. 1948: 700,000 uncompensated Palestinians flee their homes and farms in terror as Jewish gangs commit massacres. 2. 1967: 300,000 more uncompensated Palestinians are forced out of their lands by the Israeli military. 3. Jewish-run PBS is big on pushing the lie of the Cherokee “Trail of Tears” — but totally silent when it comes to exposing the real, more recent and still ongoing Palestinian Trail of Tears.

7. Only 12,783 Indians were relocated.

Most products of the American “education” system remain under the mistaken impression that mass numbers of Indians from the Southeast United States was herded out to Oklahoma. Texas historian / writer William R. Higginbotham claimed to have spent 20 years researching original archival data from that era. In a 1988 essay published in The Oklahoman newspaper, he informs us:

“In the Cherokee nation’s own files, now on deposit in the Gilcrease Institute in Tulsa, the number of Indians departing the East in 13 main parties is recorded at 12,623, the arrivals West at 12,783. Some stragglers joined on the way. American military counts are almost the same. The Cherokees were being paid per Indian moved.”

Even establishment historians do not dispute the relatively low number of the relocated, though their “official” number is 16,000. (here)

8. The sovereign Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma still exists and is thriving.

From PowWows.com — sourced from Cherokee.org:

“Citizens of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma reside within 14 counties in Northeastern Oklahoma, the tribe composes of descendants of those that were forced removed from lands in Southeastern United States during 1838-1839 time period. In addition to those descendants the tribe also comprises of descendants of ‘Old Settlers’ which were those that had moved from lands in the east prior to 1833 and are subject to the 1828 and 1833 treaties. Over 70,000 Cherokee reside within a 7,000 square mile geographical area, which was never a reservation but rather a federally-recognized, truly sovereign nation covering most of northeast Oklahoma.

Today its jurisdictional service area encompasses eight entire counties along with portions of six others. As one of only three such federally-recognized Cherokee tribes, the Cherokee Nation has both the sovereign right and the responsibility to exercise control and development over tribal assets, including more than 66,000 acres of land and 96 miles of the Arkansas Riverbed. Tribal citizenship is granted if a lineal descendant from the Final Roll of the Dawes Commission 1907 of the applicant can be proven through birth and death records.” (here)

Andrew Jackson: the benefactor of Cherokee culture? Believe it! Whereas northern tribes have long since gone extinct / blended out (as Jackson had said), the racial Cherokees of Oklahoma still exist as a sovereign nation in an area almost as large as the stolen nation of Israel — with a population many times greater than in 1830!

Cherokee Stand Watie moved out west on “The Trail of Tears.” Years later, he became the leader of the Cherokee Nation and attained a general’s rank in the Confederate Army during the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865). Watie commanded the Confederate Indian cavalry of the Army of the Trans-Mississippi — made up of Cherokee, Muskogee and Seminole. He was the last Confederate general in the field to cease fighting at the end of the war. — And oh, by the way, Waite owned at least 800 Black slaves. (here)

9. The “Trail of Tears” term was actually coined decades later.

Higginbotham:

“The phrase “Trail of Tears” entered the story much later. In 1958, Gaston Litton, former archivist at the University of Oklahoma, attributed it to a remark by a Choctaw Indian to a Baptist preacher about an Indian Territory road. It reached print for the first time in 1908, 70 years after the exodus, when all the participants were dead.

From then on it spread like an advertising slogan, as if it came from the mouths of the 1830-40 Cherokee Indians who had never heard or used it.”

Noted Oklahoma scholar Gaston Litton — author of “Cherokee Cavaliers” — traced the first use of the propaganda term “Trail of Tears” to 1908 — 70 years after the event!

10. The death toll was grossly exaggerated.

The commonly accepted and endlessly repeated figure of “4000 dead” represents a quintessential case of a hearsay bit of data embedding itself in the public mind to such a depth that none dare question it (sort of the like the “6,000,000” dead Jews of Holohoax fame, or the phony “350,000” from the mythical “Rape of Nanking”). Such a death toll would mean that 33% of the trekkers died (Higginbotham’s numbers), or 25% (if you believe official numbers of 16,000 relocated). Either case is impossible! How could that many people have died on treks undertaken on established trails, in the generally warm / mild-weathered south, with horse-drawn wagons packed with provisions, on journeys that should have lasted only 2-3 months? Where are the “4,000” bodies? What documentation is there to support such a high death total?

Higginbotham:

“The act caused a spate of articles about how the Cherokees lost 4,000 or more dead on a terrible trek, described as a “forced” march, presumably indicating they were prodded by bullet and bayonet as they moved during the hard winter of 1837-38.

Voluminous records, including those of the Cherokee nation itself, show no loss approaching 4,000….

T. Hartley Crawford, head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, reported on Aug. 6, 1840, in a private communication to the secretary of war that the death toll among the 13 groups was 447

Other deaths, raising the total to more than 800, took place in parties outside the main groups and were carefully reported to the U.S. government.”

Cherokee removal was investigated by Congress to an extent that can be believed only by reading the Congressional Record. Some reports run to hundreds of pages. The written military record exists in detail in U.S. archives. Nothing like an extravagant death toll among the Cherokees exists. Butler’s (hearsay) is the sole source for such a conclusion. No historian mentions that.

(Cherokee leader) John Ross never made unusual claims for deaths, although he returned to Washington repeatedly after 1838 seeking more money. Not only do the lower aforementioned death totals (447, or 800 if other groups and separate events are counted) seem much more realistic, but when you consider the fact that during those times, about 25 people out of 1,000 would die naturally each year anyway, (here) the “Trail of Tears” doesn’t seem to have been so treacherous after all!

The piece which William Higginbotham (no image available) wrote for the Oklahoman (here) sums up most of the scam, but fails to identify the main motive. He wrote: “It (The Trail of Tears) is too good a story as it stands and too well-fixed to disturb. That makes it all the more dishonest.”

*** CONCLUSION ***

So you see, dear reader, this bullshit about “The Trail of Tears” is nothing more than a romanticized lie, concocted by “the usual suspects” for the devious purpose of attacking the “evil” White Man and tearing down the reputation of Andrew the Great at the same time. For Jackson, like Hitler, shut down the operations of the International Jewish-Marxist banking Mafia which controls our money and our minds to this very day. That’s the truth, and no amount of Fake History can alter it.

Trail of Tears? Ha! Trail of Smears is more like it.

1. The “critically acclaimed” ™ Broadway Show “Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson” was a historical musical that went out of its way to slander Andrew Jackson over the “Trail of Tears.” ™ 2. In 2016, the Obama administration decreed that Jackson would be removed from the $20 bill in the Year 2020, and replaced with an image of the negro Union spy Harriet Tubman. President Trump later rescinded that order. Jackson’s place is safe, for now.

How The Russian Navy Saved The Union In The Civil War

In case you didn’t know…

 

extremesMED-438x205

“God bless the Russians.” —US Navy Secretary Gideon Welles, on the topic of Russian naval assistance

A little-known alliance between the US and Tsarist Russia led to the Russian fleet showing up in force in New York and San Francisco. It arrived at a crucial time in 1863 when Britain and France were on the verge of intervening in the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. An actual world war was on the horizon that would “wrap the world in flames” as Secretary of State William Seward put it. The mighty Russian presence deterred the Anglo-French from invading, and the Union was saved.

civil-war-031-768x560

In 1863, New Yorkers flocked to the waterfront to see a startling sight — Russian war ships in New York Harbor.

In the summer of 1863, the year of the battles at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, came the latest crisis to plague the relationship between the US and Britain during the American Civil War. Two powerful ironclads called the Laird rams, intended for the Confederacy and capable of breaking the Union blockade of the Southern ports, were under construction in Britain. US ambassador Charles Francis Adams warned British Foreign Secretary Lord Russell that if the warships were ever delivered to the rebels, “It would be superfluous in me to point out to your Lordship that this is war.”

The tangled diplomacy between the US and Britain had one major war scare before. In late 1861–62, two Confederate envoys, Mason and Slidell, were taken off the British ship Trent by the US Navy as they were on their way to London and Paris to seek European intervention. War hysteria gripped Britain, and Prime Minister Lord Palmerston ordered troop deployment to Canada in anticipation of conflict. In any case, the British strategy hinged on their overwhelming naval force. Provoking the secession of Maine was also discussed, as well as plans to bombard and burn Boston and New York. The latter was considered by the Admiralty “the true heart of US commerce . . . to strike her would be to paralyze all the limbs.” Tensions were eased, but not eliminated, when Mason and Slidell were released.

The private secretary to Ambassador Adams, his son Henry, had the impression that Lord Russell was determined to break up the Union. The British ruling class actually sympathized with the North’s intention of freeing the slaves. But President Abraham Lincoln initially shelved that idea to keep the border states in the Union. He thus lost support of the aristocracy. All the while, Britain felt that a divided US was in the British interest, making her North American possessions more secure. She was officially neutral, but it was a neutrality that masked an unmistakable hostility.

 05382v

A group of Russian soldiers, taken October 1863, courtesy Library of Congress

In October 1862, an ultimatum was issued to North and South to end the war or face “more resolute action” from the British. Whether that meant military action is unclear, but the implication was the ultimate survival of the Confederacy as a sovereign nation. France, meanwhile, was mirroring Britain’s hostile neutrality. Napoleon III had designs on Mexico, and a weak US would give her a free hand in America.

Union morale was therefore at its lowest ebb in 1863, despite the victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg. In the midst of the Laird rams crisis, rescue came from an unlikely source—Tsarist Russia.

At this time, Russia was also facing its own insurrection from her subject Poles, who were supported by Britain and France. Facing the same hostile coalition brought the governments of Lincoln and Tsar Alexander II together. Alexander had also freed the Russian serfs and thus sympathized with the Union cause. On September 1863, the Russian Baltic Fleet arrived in New York and the Far East Fleet in San Francisco.

The real reason Russia sent her fleet to the US might be self-serving: She didn’t want it bottled up in case the threatened war with Britain over Poland erupted. But its presence was nonetheless salvation for the Union in its hour of desperation. “God bless the Russians!” exulted Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles. After the war, Oliver Wendell Holmes hailed Alexander “who was our friend when the world was our foe.” The Russians showed themselves willing to fight for the US. When the Confederate cruiser Shenandoah prepared to attack San Francisco, the Russian admiral gave orders to defend the city in the absence of Union warships.

The British realized that with Russia on the US side, the cost of military intervention would be too high. Besides, the Union victories of 1863 signaled that the Confederacy was a losing cause. Had the British attacked, it might have meant a world war in which the US and Russia, allied perhaps with Prussia and Italy, would face Britain and France supported by Spain or Austria. The First World War exploding in the 1860s was a distinct possibility.

Fortunately, Britain and France backed down before the Russian presence. The Laird rams never made it into Confederate hands, and the Union was saved.

“U.S. Civil War: The US-Russian Alliance that Saved the Union,” by Webster G. Tarpley
“The Bilateral Effect of the Visit of the Russian Fleet in 1863,” by Tom Delahaye
“The US/Russian Alliance during the Civil War,” by Craig L. Barry
The History Buff’s Guide to the Civil War, by Thomas R. Flagel