let's talk martial law, october 1st
i've been doing some research lately on martial law and the signs that it could be coming, and i've gathered a few key points
- george soros is funding groups like black lives matter to cause anarchy and force martial law
- october 1st is the day martial law will be declared
- the us has had several martial law periods before, but not on the level people are talking about which is widespread and nazi-like.
- it's starting to feel like these articles are fear-mongery to get people to vote for a certain candidate
so, what do you think? are we ducked, or is this normal bullshit i've somehow missed until now? i tend to be late to everything.
(also, i just found that people were talking about the possibility of martial law on oct. 1 of 2013. so, i'm really starting to question this whole thing, especially with all the talk of planet x again.)
- george soros is funding groups like black lives matter to cause anarchy and force martial law
- october 1st is the day martial law will be declared
- the us has had several martial law periods before, but not on the level people are talking about which is widespread and nazi-like.
- it's starting to feel like these articles are fear-mongery to get people to vote for a certain candidate
so, what do you think? are we ducked, or is this normal bullshit i've somehow missed until now? i tend to be late to everything.
(also, i just found that people were talking about the possibility of martial law on oct. 1 of 2013. so, i'm really starting to question this whole thing, especially with all the talk of planet x again.)
I think the main thing that could trigger it at the moment would be Hillary declining in health to the point where she's forced to pull out of the presidential race. However I think there'd be a full-on civil war if such a thing were to happen.
i'm still going into articles and the more i see, the less i'm believing this shit.
this goes back as far as 2012. it seems that every so often, some groups, often crazy sounding, come up with sourceless claims that martial law is coming.
and somehow, planet x/nibiru/nemesis, a planet scientifically impossible to exist, has something to do with it.
this goes back as far as 2012. it seems that every so often, some groups, often crazy sounding, come up with sourceless claims that martial law is coming.
and somehow, planet x/nibiru/nemesis, a planet scientifically impossible to exist, has something to do with it.
here's an example of the same shit being speculated on the same date 3 years ago
what is it with oct 1 that is so spoopy that sites i've never heard of until now write articles about it being spoopy.
what is it with oct 1 that is so spoopy that sites i've never heard of until now write articles about it being spoopy.
It's probably a good way to sell more rifles though.
it's looking like a way to sell books to me. and if you're legit trying to inform the masses on something as huge as martial law, making money shouldn't mean shit. you're not going to do anything with that money in martial law. you're not travelling, you're not ordering anything, you're not doing anything.
and putting such crucial knowledge behind a paywall is like defeating yourself.
and putting such crucial knowledge behind a paywall is like defeating yourself.
Its ok if it all goes to hell and back rest assured you still have a Trump card up your sleeves...
You lucky lucky americans
You lucky lucky americans
I'd take Trump over John Key any day.
it does sound absurd the more you look into it, but there's still that soros duck out there trying to destroy the US. i mean literally, this shit has publicly stated that as a goal.
i'm just wondering if the riots soros's groups are causing will be enough to spark it. (if they're even soros's groups. i saw one bit of info saying that BLM was not created by soros)
really, i can't make sense of any of this shit. but there are riots and shit, and i'm not one to say when there's enough to shit out martial law.
i'm just wondering if the riots soros's groups are causing will be enough to spark it. (if they're even soros's groups. i saw one bit of info saying that BLM was not created by soros)
really, i can't make sense of any of this shit. but there are riots and shit, and i'm not one to say when there's enough to shit out martial law.
there's still that soros duck out there trying to destroy the US.
He's not trying to destroy anything. He's a rich guy and just like the Koch brothers, he buys politicians, because the US has allowed him to do that and it gives a great return on investment. And just like other rich people, destroying the country like that would hurt his profits a lot, so he'd never want that.
Black lives matter is a response to police all over the country shooting and killing (mainly) black people for no reason. Then those police officers go unpunished. The black people concluded that their lives apparently don't matter to the people in power, and they are understandably unhappy about that. So they protest. They have been more peaceful than most groups would have been given the reason for their protest; I'm amazed at how little violence they have used. It's exactly how they should protest, of course. But right wing propaganda outlets like Fox "news" don't care: they want to discredit black people, so they'll just pretend that they're really violent all the time, and that they're telling people to go kill the police. Who cares about facts if you work at Fox?
Oh, and I haven't heard before that Soros has anything to do with BLM, nor do I see why he would care.
if the riots [...] will be enough to spark it.
There aren't many riots; if one or two would lead to the state of emergency, that would be just in the region where the riots are, not the entire country. I think with "martial law" you mean a nationwide state of emergency for a long time. That wouldn't happen unless the problems would be everywhere, and there is a serious risk of a civil war.
I think the main thing that could trigger it at the moment would be Hillary declining in health to the point where she's forced to pull out of the presidential race.
If she would drop out of the race, the party must decide who they put on the ballot instead. While it seems obvious to everyone that that must be Bernie Sanders, the party appears to disagree, and wile choose someone like Joe Biden or Time Kaine. If they do that, I agree that a revolution might be the result. But I don't think Hillary will give up as long as she is alive, and I'm pretty sure she will be until the election. So I don't think you need to worry that that would lead to the state of emergency.
However I think there'd be a full-on civil war if such a thing were to happen.
I don't think so, but if it would, that would indeed be a reason to call a national state of emergency.
He's not trying to destroy anything. He's a rich guy and just like the Koch brothers, he buys politicians, because the US has allowed him to do that and it gives a great return on investment. And just like other rich people, destroying the country like that would hurt his profits a lot, so he'd never want that.
Black lives matter is a response to police all over the country shooting and killing (mainly) black people for no reason. Then those police officers go unpunished. The black people concluded that their lives apparently don't matter to the people in power, and they are understandably unhappy about that. So they protest. They have been more peaceful than most groups would have been given the reason for their protest; I'm amazed at how little violence they have used. It's exactly how they should protest, of course. But right wing propaganda outlets like Fox "news" don't care: they want to discredit black people, so they'll just pretend that they're really violent all the time, and that they're telling people to go kill the police. Who cares about facts if you work at Fox?
Oh, and I haven't heard before that Soros has anything to do with BLM, nor do I see why he would care.
if the riots [...] will be enough to spark it.
There aren't many riots; if one or two would lead to the state of emergency, that would be just in the region where the riots are, not the entire country. I think with "martial law" you mean a nationwide state of emergency for a long time. That wouldn't happen unless the problems would be everywhere, and there is a serious risk of a civil war.
I think the main thing that could trigger it at the moment would be Hillary declining in health to the point where she's forced to pull out of the presidential race.
If she would drop out of the race, the party must decide who they put on the ballot instead. While it seems obvious to everyone that that must be Bernie Sanders, the party appears to disagree, and wile choose someone like Joe Biden or Time Kaine. If they do that, I agree that a revolution might be the result. But I don't think Hillary will give up as long as she is alive, and I'm pretty sure she will be until the election. So I don't think you need to worry that that would lead to the state of emergency.
However I think there'd be a full-on civil war if such a thing were to happen.
I don't think so, but if it would, that would indeed be a reason to call a national state of emergency.
He's not trying to destroy anything. He's a rich guy and just like the Koch brothers, he buys politicians, because the US has allowed him to do that and it gives a great return on investment. And just like other rich people, destroying the country like that would hurt his profits a lot, so he'd never want that.
i've read both sides of that topic. one side, the largest, says george soros funded black lives matter so that they will force martial law through all the rioting and chaos. that way, the US is destroyed and the New World Order can begin. soros said that, apparently. now obviously, destroying one of the biggest countries the world has ever known would be a detriment to your plan, IF you were planning on using the dollar at all. sounds like to me, the NWO is meant to be a reset of sorts. but of course, there's no evidence the NWO is anything more than insane ramblings of old rich dinks.
Black lives matter is a response to police all over the country shooting and killing (mainly) black people for no reason.
from what i can tell from BLM riots and shit, there's two main sides. there's the side pissed at the police, righteously. then there's the side screaming about killing all white people and they're very clearly hateful. i have seen a video of them screaming about "beating up every white person" or some shit. so, basically the activists and extremists thing a lot of things have. but, i have also heard soros didn't fund those. but that was one article out of many.
There aren't many riots; if one or two would lead to the state of emergency, that would be just in the region where the riots are, not the entire country
that is the logical course. the US has had many times where a region or city was locked down for a bit. it happened in response to Pearl Harbor, New Orleans, and many other things. but, the promise of absolute power is tempting and while extremely risky and stupid, i can imagine politicians and corps taking whatever they can get as a reason to destroy all rights nationwide.
problem there is that there are millions of hunters. millions of gun owners that will refuse to give up their weapons. no army even comes close to how many gun owners are in this country. on top of that, the military has a single digit approval rating for obama. they hate obama. that's why i've heard that obama has geared up police and gov agencies. and we're apparently gonna have 20,000 or so UN soldiers. still pretty small numbers, but i heard that, so.
Time Kaine
what a strange/kinda badass name. that's two time's i know of now, the other being time winters which is even cooler.
I don't think so, but if it would, that would indeed be a reason to call a national state of emergency.
now on top of what i said before about the amount of gun owners, how is it even remotely possible to occupy every bit of civilized land in the country with various soldiers? you'd need hundreds of millions, or maybe half the population wearing meaningless badges and shit to control everything all at once. when hitler did it, it was slowly. they hunted jews and took control of places one at a time. with the knowledge of that firmly in everyone's mind that hitler did these exact things, i don't think we're in much danger of having that repeat so easily so soon. and again, loads of armed citizens.
so it's weird.
i've read both sides of that topic. one side, the largest, says george soros funded black lives matter so that they will force martial law through all the rioting and chaos. that way, the US is destroyed and the New World Order can begin. soros said that, apparently. now obviously, destroying one of the biggest countries the world has ever known would be a detriment to your plan, IF you were planning on using the dollar at all. sounds like to me, the NWO is meant to be a reset of sorts. but of course, there's no evidence the NWO is anything more than insane ramblings of old rich dinks.
Black lives matter is a response to police all over the country shooting and killing (mainly) black people for no reason.
from what i can tell from BLM riots and shit, there's two main sides. there's the side pissed at the police, righteously. then there's the side screaming about killing all white people and they're very clearly hateful. i have seen a video of them screaming about "beating up every white person" or some shit. so, basically the activists and extremists thing a lot of things have. but, i have also heard soros didn't fund those. but that was one article out of many.
There aren't many riots; if one or two would lead to the state of emergency, that would be just in the region where the riots are, not the entire country
that is the logical course. the US has had many times where a region or city was locked down for a bit. it happened in response to Pearl Harbor, New Orleans, and many other things. but, the promise of absolute power is tempting and while extremely risky and stupid, i can imagine politicians and corps taking whatever they can get as a reason to destroy all rights nationwide.
problem there is that there are millions of hunters. millions of gun owners that will refuse to give up their weapons. no army even comes close to how many gun owners are in this country. on top of that, the military has a single digit approval rating for obama. they hate obama. that's why i've heard that obama has geared up police and gov agencies. and we're apparently gonna have 20,000 or so UN soldiers. still pretty small numbers, but i heard that, so.
Time Kaine
what a strange/kinda badass name. that's two time's i know of now, the other being time winters which is even cooler.
I don't think so, but if it would, that would indeed be a reason to call a national state of emergency.
now on top of what i said before about the amount of gun owners, how is it even remotely possible to occupy every bit of civilized land in the country with various soldiers? you'd need hundreds of millions, or maybe half the population wearing meaningless badges and shit to control everything all at once. when hitler did it, it was slowly. they hunted jews and took control of places one at a time. with the knowledge of that firmly in everyone's mind that hitler did these exact things, i don't think we're in much danger of having that repeat so easily so soon. and again, loads of armed citizens.
so it's weird.
Skurn, did you happen to grow up under a large set of powerlines?
Most of what you're saying is completely new to me, which is surprising because I try to follow the US news a bit. So I looked it up. I'll give you my take on what I found:
George Soros funds BLM. This quotes in the article sound reasonable. He has a charitable organization that tries to make the world better. Funding a protest movement that fights against social injustice is exactly what I would expect such an organization to do. The comments around the quotes are ridiculous. His group OSF clearly states they want to encourage peaceful protests to make society more fair, and the page pretends that they state that OSF wants violent riots. They also do not give links to any of that violence. It does surprise me that Soros claimed he didn't support them, if that is true. Given his quoted response, the question was probably not "do you support BLM?", but "do you support killing police?" or something like that. Looking for BLM and violence I did find this nice explanation from BLM itself, which explains that they neither advocate nor condone violence.
The page mentions that the protesters chant "pigs in a blanket" all the time. I had heard about this once
there's the side screaming about killing all white people and they're very clearly hateful.
While I'm sure there are some hateful people, and obviously there have been police officers killed recently, I did not find any source that gave proof that these were connected with BLM. I've not seen anything about people who want to kill all white people. That seems to be made up by scared white people. Anyway, the police killers probably supported BLM, but as BLM's statement makes clear: having a few crazy supporters doesn't make you an evil organization. BLM is strongly against violence and even included de-escalation of conflicts as part of organizing protests.
I find the young turks a reliable news source; they are obviously liberals, but they clearly state what the facts are and support those with proof, and then give their liberal comments on it. That method feels much more trustworthy than simply claiming things without evidence. Here's a video from them on this issue.
the promise of absolute power is tempting (for corporations)
They don't take power in such an obviously abusive way; as you say, people would start a revolution. Instead, they make "trade deals" which force the country to follow their orders. In particular, the trans pacific partnership (TPP) includes a clause that lets companies sue the country if a new law is bad for their profits. For example, if the government wants to require that employers protect their workers to be protected from fires with a sprinkler installation, companies can sue (and win) to make sure that law is not passed. The companies have bought all the politicians, so they already have near absolute power. With a treaty like the TPP it only gets worse. (The TPP is about the west coast; on the east coast there is TTIP, which is pretty much the same, but luckily Europe is against it so that probably won't be passed.) Here's a video explaining the TPP.
no army even comes close to how many gun owners are in this country.
Not in number of soldiers, but the US army can easily wipe out any dissidents in the country, should they want to. You think you stand a chance when they come with drones and tanks to your house?
But rest assured; they gain nothing from fighting their own population. They want you to work long days for little money, so they can have more profits. A civil war is bad for everyone involved, so they don't want that.
we're apparently gonna have 20,000 or so UN soldiers.
I think you may be referring to this. I wouldn't worry about it.
what a strange/kinda badass name.
Oops, that should have been "Tim", Hillary's vice presidential candidate. So instead of a badass name, it's one of the most common names there is.
how is it even remotely possible to occupy every bit of civilized land in the country with various soldiers?
And what is the purpose? It's not a board game, where you win by occupying land with soldiers. They currently have the land occupied with civilians, which is cheaper and works just as well for making sure other countries don't steal it. (Actually, in a game like civilization it works that way as well: you need to protect your border with soldiers, the land inside you can use for getting work done and making money.)
with the knowledge of that firmly in everyone's mind that hitler did these exact things, i don't think we're in much danger of having that repeat so easily so soon.
I'm afraid I disagree with you on that one. There is a real threat of Hitler-like things happening in the government, but it isn't coming from the black people that get shot and killed. Instead, it comes from the possible future president, Trump. His statements about Muslims have been very similar to Hitler's statements about Jews before he started the war. Now (if I would be allowed to vote) I would personally never vote for Clinton, because I refuse to vote for someone who I believe to be worse than having no president. But I completely understand people who do out of fear for Trump. Because he is very scary.
and again, loads of armed citizens.
Yeah, they're the problem, not the solution. As you may have noticed in the rest of the world, democratic governments in rich countries don't use their military on their own people, so there is no need to prevent that from happening. At the same time, the amount of guns in the US leads to many more killings than for example terrorism (islamic or otherwise). So while terrorism is something to work on, getting rid of the guns should be a much higher priority if you care about people's lives. (Also note that several of the terrorist attacks would not have been as effective if they hadn't had such easy access to guns, so getting rid of guns would be a good idea even if you only care about terrorism.)
George Soros funds BLM. This quotes in the article sound reasonable. He has a charitable organization that tries to make the world better. Funding a protest movement that fights against social injustice is exactly what I would expect such an organization to do. The comments around the quotes are ridiculous. His group OSF clearly states they want to encourage peaceful protests to make society more fair, and the page pretends that they state that OSF wants violent riots. They also do not give links to any of that violence. It does surprise me that Soros claimed he didn't support them, if that is true. Given his quoted response, the question was probably not "do you support BLM?", but "do you support killing police?" or something like that. Looking for BLM and violence I did find this nice explanation from BLM itself, which explains that they neither advocate nor condone violence.
The page mentions that the protesters chant "pigs in a blanket" all the time. I had heard about this once
there's the side screaming about killing all white people and they're very clearly hateful.
While I'm sure there are some hateful people, and obviously there have been police officers killed recently, I did not find any source that gave proof that these were connected with BLM. I've not seen anything about people who want to kill all white people. That seems to be made up by scared white people. Anyway, the police killers probably supported BLM, but as BLM's statement makes clear: having a few crazy supporters doesn't make you an evil organization. BLM is strongly against violence and even included de-escalation of conflicts as part of organizing protests.
I find the young turks a reliable news source; they are obviously liberals, but they clearly state what the facts are and support those with proof, and then give their liberal comments on it. That method feels much more trustworthy than simply claiming things without evidence. Here's a video from them on this issue.
the promise of absolute power is tempting (for corporations)
They don't take power in such an obviously abusive way; as you say, people would start a revolution. Instead, they make "trade deals" which force the country to follow their orders. In particular, the trans pacific partnership (TPP) includes a clause that lets companies sue the country if a new law is bad for their profits. For example, if the government wants to require that employers protect their workers to be protected from fires with a sprinkler installation, companies can sue (and win) to make sure that law is not passed. The companies have bought all the politicians, so they already have near absolute power. With a treaty like the TPP it only gets worse. (The TPP is about the west coast; on the east coast there is TTIP, which is pretty much the same, but luckily Europe is against it so that probably won't be passed.) Here's a video explaining the TPP.
no army even comes close to how many gun owners are in this country.
Not in number of soldiers, but the US army can easily wipe out any dissidents in the country, should they want to. You think you stand a chance when they come with drones and tanks to your house?
But rest assured; they gain nothing from fighting their own population. They want you to work long days for little money, so they can have more profits. A civil war is bad for everyone involved, so they don't want that.
we're apparently gonna have 20,000 or so UN soldiers.
I think you may be referring to this. I wouldn't worry about it.
what a strange/kinda badass name.
Oops, that should have been "Tim", Hillary's vice presidential candidate. So instead of a badass name, it's one of the most common names there is.
how is it even remotely possible to occupy every bit of civilized land in the country with various soldiers?
And what is the purpose? It's not a board game, where you win by occupying land with soldiers. They currently have the land occupied with civilians, which is cheaper and works just as well for making sure other countries don't steal it. (Actually, in a game like civilization it works that way as well: you need to protect your border with soldiers, the land inside you can use for getting work done and making money.)
with the knowledge of that firmly in everyone's mind that hitler did these exact things, i don't think we're in much danger of having that repeat so easily so soon.
I'm afraid I disagree with you on that one. There is a real threat of Hitler-like things happening in the government, but it isn't coming from the black people that get shot and killed. Instead, it comes from the possible future president, Trump. His statements about Muslims have been very similar to Hitler's statements about Jews before he started the war. Now (if I would be allowed to vote) I would personally never vote for Clinton, because I refuse to vote for someone who I believe to be worse than having no president. But I completely understand people who do out of fear for Trump. Because he is very scary.
and again, loads of armed citizens.
Yeah, they're the problem, not the solution. As you may have noticed in the rest of the world, democratic governments in rich countries don't use their military on their own people, so there is no need to prevent that from happening. At the same time, the amount of guns in the US leads to many more killings than for example terrorism (islamic or otherwise). So while terrorism is something to work on, getting rid of the guns should be a much higher priority if you care about people's lives. (Also note that several of the terrorist attacks would not have been as effective if they hadn't had such easy access to guns, so getting rid of guns would be a good idea even if you only care about terrorism.)
This quotes in the article sound reasonable. He has a charitable organization that tries to make the world better.
first i've ever heard of that.
His group OSF clearly states they want to encourage peaceful protests to make society more fair, and the page pretends that they state that OSF wants violent riots. They also do not give links to any of that violence.
see, that's the thing. the organization can say whatever they want to put the blame somewhere else and the US citizens will believe it. by staying in the shadows, soros can act as a puppet master without people realizing what's going on. they may not have links, but i'll go find the video i saw where BLM were chanting about hunting down all white people or whatever - BLM chanting and shit
now, with that new info, it gets even more complex. but the article did say this was the intent of soros's donations and soros's words on "destroying the west to bring about the NWO" fits in as well. there are obviously peaceful protesters, but the police don't care about that. i have seen plenty of footage of police brutality. if this was a response to violence against the police, why are the police stomping on and gang banging citizens who are not fighting back, struggling, and have screamed for help?
Not in number of soldiers, but the US army can easily wipe out any dissidents in the country, should they want to. You think you stand a chance when they come with drones and tanks to your house?
i have heard that our army has lost to farmers with shotguns before or something along those lines. it may be advanced and overpowered, but that's only because the ones making it so are afraid because they know the world is pretty much against them. the absurd money such as the money poured into a 3 trillion dollar fighter jet reflects how they are cowards making dumb choices to cling to the power they unjustly claimed. from what i've noticed about people talking and shit, the army's primary strategy is "BLOW SHIT UP!" but out of the millions and millions of people with guns, there's bound to be a suitable strategy to counter that if it comes to it. plus, the army wouldn't be fighting against the people anyways unless they've been brainwashed enough/get paid enough.
Oops, that should have been "Tim", Hillary's vice presidential candidate. So instead of a badass name, it's one of the most common names there is.
oh, the association with hillary makes that even less cool.
I'm afraid I disagree with you on that one. There is a real threat of Hitler-like things happening in the government, but it isn't coming from the black people that get shot and killed. Instead, it comes from the possible future president, Trump.
while these are true, trump wouldn't be able to organize such a thing as the nazis did. i've gathered that trump is more of an entertainer who has no clue how to run anything except real estate. something as big as a nazi rule is far out of reach. hillary, on the other hand, has ordered assassinations, covered up emails i don't remember the contents of, and is only running for a world record despite being ready to die sometime soon. plus, soros has donated hugely to the clinton foundation. they're close partners in crime.
they're both shitty candidates and this is by far the worst election so far, but trump may be the lesser of the two evils. not by a whole lot, but enough that we might be safer. maybe. (not voting, because votes don't count)
first i've ever heard of that.
His group OSF clearly states they want to encourage peaceful protests to make society more fair, and the page pretends that they state that OSF wants violent riots. They also do not give links to any of that violence.
see, that's the thing. the organization can say whatever they want to put the blame somewhere else and the US citizens will believe it. by staying in the shadows, soros can act as a puppet master without people realizing what's going on. they may not have links, but i'll go find the video i saw where BLM were chanting about hunting down all white people or whatever - BLM chanting and shit
now, with that new info, it gets even more complex. but the article did say this was the intent of soros's donations and soros's words on "destroying the west to bring about the NWO" fits in as well. there are obviously peaceful protesters, but the police don't care about that. i have seen plenty of footage of police brutality. if this was a response to violence against the police, why are the police stomping on and gang banging citizens who are not fighting back, struggling, and have screamed for help?
Not in number of soldiers, but the US army can easily wipe out any dissidents in the country, should they want to. You think you stand a chance when they come with drones and tanks to your house?
i have heard that our army has lost to farmers with shotguns before or something along those lines. it may be advanced and overpowered, but that's only because the ones making it so are afraid because they know the world is pretty much against them. the absurd money such as the money poured into a 3 trillion dollar fighter jet reflects how they are cowards making dumb choices to cling to the power they unjustly claimed. from what i've noticed about people talking and shit, the army's primary strategy is "BLOW SHIT UP!" but out of the millions and millions of people with guns, there's bound to be a suitable strategy to counter that if it comes to it. plus, the army wouldn't be fighting against the people anyways unless they've been brainwashed enough/get paid enough.
Oops, that should have been "Tim", Hillary's vice presidential candidate. So instead of a badass name, it's one of the most common names there is.
oh, the association with hillary makes that even less cool.
I'm afraid I disagree with you on that one. There is a real threat of Hitler-like things happening in the government, but it isn't coming from the black people that get shot and killed. Instead, it comes from the possible future president, Trump.
while these are true, trump wouldn't be able to organize such a thing as the nazis did. i've gathered that trump is more of an entertainer who has no clue how to run anything except real estate. something as big as a nazi rule is far out of reach. hillary, on the other hand, has ordered assassinations, covered up emails i don't remember the contents of, and is only running for a world record despite being ready to die sometime soon. plus, soros has donated hugely to the clinton foundation. they're close partners in crime.
they're both shitty candidates and this is by far the worst election so far, but trump may be the lesser of the two evils. not by a whole lot, but enough that we might be safer. maybe. (not voting, because votes don't count)
the organization can say whatever they want
Sure. But if they say "we want to fund peaceful protests" and they give money to an organization that clearly does peaceful protests, how can that possibly lead to the conclusion that they want riots?
Some supporters of BLM turned violent. (Thanks for reminding about the Milwaukee riots; I had forgotten about them.) But while the sources you cite like to pretend that the violence came from nowhere, remember that those protesters and their friends and family are getting harassed, jailed (for no good reason) and killed by police all the time; the police is obviously the source of the violence, the black people are just responding.
I agree that you shouldn't respond to violence with violence, but it is hypocritical to ignore the violence done to them by the police, even to blame them for inciting violence by pointing out that it happens, and when some of them punch back it's all their fault. Sure, telling your community about being mistreated by the police might lead to some of them becoming violent. But is that a reason to keep quiet? Not if it's true! It should instead be a reason for the police to reform.
I saw an interview with the brother of the guy that was killed by police that triggered those riots. He was asked when the riots would stop. His answer was exactly right: "We aren't killing us; they are killing us. We're not the ones that need to stop. They need to stop."
To make this even more clear, here's an analogy: Suppose that some person, let's name hir "Time", sets your house on fire three times a week. Every time zi does that, you get the fire hose and put out the fire. Sometimes you're really annoyed and you hit your neighbor with the water as well. Imagine that bystanders are completely ignoring that Time is setting your house on fire all the time, and are outraged that you hit your neighbor with the fire hose. Wouldn't your response be: "Let's focus at the real problem, which is Time setting my house on fire!"?
But to get back to BLM and Soros: note that BLM did not organize the violence in Milwaukee. So from what I can tell, they are a peaceful group, but some of their supporters can be violent sometimes (which I find completely understandable, even if it would be better if they wouldn't). Does that make them a bad organization? Does it make Soros a bad guy for supporting them? I don't think so.
the article did say this was the intent of soros's donations and soros's words on "destroying the west to bring about the NWO" fits in as well.
I'm sure he never said that. If you look at his web page, you see it is about "peace, justice and human rights". Their mission includes: We seek to strengthen the rule of law; respect for human rights, minorities, and a diversity of opinions; democratically elected governments; and a civil society that helps keep government power in check. Obviously violence and "destroying the west" are not part of the path the get there.
Can he be lying? Sure he can. But why would he say publicly that he wants to destroy the west, but then lie about it somewhere else? Also, where does he say that he wants to destroy the west? I think they just made that up. The video I linked above about the UN is the reason I don't trust sources like infowars or Fox "news". They make stuff up all the time. And based on their fantasies they always predict that something horrible is about to happen, and every single one of those predictions have been false.
if this was a response to violence against the police, why are the police stomping on and gang banging citizens who are not fighting back, struggling, and have screamed for help?
Excellent question! There are two options: either the blacks are lying about it and have been for hundreds of years, they are just violent and the police needs to keep them down. Or the police is lying about it and are just violent against blacks for no apparent reason.
Given that we can see the massive violence by police, and we see top people in police unions get outraged when people ask for justice (Think about that for a moment... The police is against justice... What was their job again?) Given all that, which side do you think is lying when they say "I'm just reacting, they started it"?
i have heard that our army has lost to farmers with shotguns before or something along those lines.
You must be talking about Cliven Bundy. The problem here wasn't that the government didn't have the firepower; it was that they let him get away with it. He and his friends pointed guns at the police, and they said "sure, sorry we bothered you, we'll leave you alone". In fact, that shows that they don't want to attack their own citizens. Which is a good thing, but it's remarkable how with black citizens they don't seem to have a problem with it.
But there is a semi-positive ending here: his son took over a building with some armed friends and they were eventually arrested (and the father, too).
the absurd money
Ah yes, the corruption. Here's how it works: the companies that build the weapons donate some money to politicians (a few hundred million dollars, I think). Then the politicians buy lots of expensive equipment from them (trillions of taxpayer money). The people would get angry if those weapons would just be stored all the time, so they have to find a way to use them. So they invade Iraq, for example. And they give weapons to Saudi Arabia and Israel and rebels in Syria and Iraq and Libya and the list goes on. They do this while claiming to try to help, but they are really doing two things: make sure they get rid of the weapons, so they can buy new ones, and keeping conflicts alive, so they can keep sending weapons there.
Using the weapons inside the US to attack civilians would work for getting rid of them, but it would also cause mass protests and they don't want that. So instead they kill civilians in the middle east. The mass protest that that causes is called Isis (well, it's more complicated than that, but it's a part of it) and Americans have no sympathy for them, so they can keep doing this.
trump wouldn't be able to organize such a thing as the nazis did.
I agree, and that's why I believe that he is actually the lesser of the two evils. He wants to do more evil, but he won't get anything done.
But that's a giant gamble to take; if other evil people organize a system around him that does get things done, the world is in big trouble with president Trump.
not voting, because votes don't count
Actually, they do. That's exactly what they do. Always vote. If you like neither Trump nor Clinton (you are not alone!), there are more people you can vote for. Jill Stein is a liberal who wants many of the same things as Bernie Sanders, and Gary Johnson is a libertarian who I think is an idiot, but maybe you like him. Voting for those people also makes a difference; even if they don't win, the major candidates will adopt some of their positions if they see those are very popular.
So yes, you are obviously interested in politics, so get informed about the candidates (all four of them) and vote. But don't get me wrong: If you want to change society, voting is not your main weapon. You should vote, but also get involved with activism. Personally, I think the corruption is the main problem in the US, and nothing can get done until that is fixed. And of course, there are groups that try to do that. Wolf-Pac is trying to get a constitutional amendment to fix the corruption. You may want to consider joining them.
I would vote in the presidential election if I could, but I'm not a US citizen (and now I don't even live there anymore), so I can't.
Sure. But if they say "we want to fund peaceful protests" and they give money to an organization that clearly does peaceful protests, how can that possibly lead to the conclusion that they want riots?
Some supporters of BLM turned violent. (Thanks for reminding about the Milwaukee riots; I had forgotten about them.) But while the sources you cite like to pretend that the violence came from nowhere, remember that those protesters and their friends and family are getting harassed, jailed (for no good reason) and killed by police all the time; the police is obviously the source of the violence, the black people are just responding.
I agree that you shouldn't respond to violence with violence, but it is hypocritical to ignore the violence done to them by the police, even to blame them for inciting violence by pointing out that it happens, and when some of them punch back it's all their fault. Sure, telling your community about being mistreated by the police might lead to some of them becoming violent. But is that a reason to keep quiet? Not if it's true! It should instead be a reason for the police to reform.
I saw an interview with the brother of the guy that was killed by police that triggered those riots. He was asked when the riots would stop. His answer was exactly right: "We aren't killing us; they are killing us. We're not the ones that need to stop. They need to stop."
To make this even more clear, here's an analogy: Suppose that some person, let's name hir "Time", sets your house on fire three times a week. Every time zi does that, you get the fire hose and put out the fire. Sometimes you're really annoyed and you hit your neighbor with the water as well. Imagine that bystanders are completely ignoring that Time is setting your house on fire all the time, and are outraged that you hit your neighbor with the fire hose. Wouldn't your response be: "Let's focus at the real problem, which is Time setting my house on fire!"?
But to get back to BLM and Soros: note that BLM did not organize the violence in Milwaukee. So from what I can tell, they are a peaceful group, but some of their supporters can be violent sometimes (which I find completely understandable, even if it would be better if they wouldn't). Does that make them a bad organization? Does it make Soros a bad guy for supporting them? I don't think so.
the article did say this was the intent of soros's donations and soros's words on "destroying the west to bring about the NWO" fits in as well.
I'm sure he never said that. If you look at his web page, you see it is about "peace, justice and human rights". Their mission includes: We seek to strengthen the rule of law; respect for human rights, minorities, and a diversity of opinions; democratically elected governments; and a civil society that helps keep government power in check. Obviously violence and "destroying the west" are not part of the path the get there.
Can he be lying? Sure he can. But why would he say publicly that he wants to destroy the west, but then lie about it somewhere else? Also, where does he say that he wants to destroy the west? I think they just made that up. The video I linked above about the UN is the reason I don't trust sources like infowars or Fox "news". They make stuff up all the time. And based on their fantasies they always predict that something horrible is about to happen, and every single one of those predictions have been false.
if this was a response to violence against the police, why are the police stomping on and gang banging citizens who are not fighting back, struggling, and have screamed for help?
Excellent question! There are two options: either the blacks are lying about it and have been for hundreds of years, they are just violent and the police needs to keep them down. Or the police is lying about it and are just violent against blacks for no apparent reason.
Given that we can see the massive violence by police, and we see top people in police unions get outraged when people ask for justice (Think about that for a moment... The police is against justice... What was their job again?) Given all that, which side do you think is lying when they say "I'm just reacting, they started it"?
i have heard that our army has lost to farmers with shotguns before or something along those lines.
You must be talking about Cliven Bundy. The problem here wasn't that the government didn't have the firepower; it was that they let him get away with it. He and his friends pointed guns at the police, and they said "sure, sorry we bothered you, we'll leave you alone". In fact, that shows that they don't want to attack their own citizens. Which is a good thing, but it's remarkable how with black citizens they don't seem to have a problem with it.
But there is a semi-positive ending here: his son took over a building with some armed friends and they were eventually arrested (and the father, too).
the absurd money
Ah yes, the corruption. Here's how it works: the companies that build the weapons donate some money to politicians (a few hundred million dollars, I think). Then the politicians buy lots of expensive equipment from them (trillions of taxpayer money). The people would get angry if those weapons would just be stored all the time, so they have to find a way to use them. So they invade Iraq, for example. And they give weapons to Saudi Arabia and Israel and rebels in Syria and Iraq and Libya and the list goes on. They do this while claiming to try to help, but they are really doing two things: make sure they get rid of the weapons, so they can buy new ones, and keeping conflicts alive, so they can keep sending weapons there.
Using the weapons inside the US to attack civilians would work for getting rid of them, but it would also cause mass protests and they don't want that. So instead they kill civilians in the middle east. The mass protest that that causes is called Isis (well, it's more complicated than that, but it's a part of it) and Americans have no sympathy for them, so they can keep doing this.
trump wouldn't be able to organize such a thing as the nazis did.
I agree, and that's why I believe that he is actually the lesser of the two evils. He wants to do more evil, but he won't get anything done.
But that's a giant gamble to take; if other evil people organize a system around him that does get things done, the world is in big trouble with president Trump.
not voting, because votes don't count
Actually, they do. That's exactly what they do. Always vote. If you like neither Trump nor Clinton (you are not alone!), there are more people you can vote for. Jill Stein is a liberal who wants many of the same things as Bernie Sanders, and Gary Johnson is a libertarian who I think is an idiot, but maybe you like him.
Voting for those people also makes a difference; even if they don't win, the major candidates will adopt some of their positions if they see those are very popular.So yes, you are obviously interested in politics, so get informed about the candidates (all four of them) and vote. But don't get me wrong: If you want to change society, voting is not your main weapon. You should vote, but also get involved with activism. Personally, I think the corruption is the main problem in the US, and nothing can get done until that is fixed. And of course, there are groups that try to do that. Wolf-Pac is trying to get a constitutional amendment to fix the corruption. You may want to consider joining them.
I would vote in the presidential election if I could, but I'm not a US citizen (and now I don't even live there anymore), so I can't.
