March 20, 2013 – Schisms and battle lines are appearing today, just as they did prior to the first civil war.
By The Cerebral Aesthetic Vagabond
I had an epiphany in the middle of the night, when I should have been sleeping. Suppose the confiscation of guns in America had been planned years ago, and the vehicle by which it would be accomplished would be a future international treaty, perhaps the one we know today as the “U.N. Small Arms Treaty.”
Now, the powers-that-be, knowing that Americans would resist such confiscation and that American soldiers would likely not support such confiscation, begin quietly importing foreign soldiers, housing them on military bases scattered around the U.S., where they bide their time, collect intel on the local population and, like sleeper agents, wait to be called into action.
Fast forward a few years, to today. The U.N. Small Arms Treaty is being “debated,” although the debate looks more like theater for public consumption regarding a matter that has already been decided. All the gun control malarkey going on right now, the false flag attacks, the numerous, sometimes draconian gun control bills, is just noise meant to distract the populace from the more serious threat – the looming international treaty – as well as to bring the gun control debate to the forefront of peoples’ consciousness and perhaps irritate the schism between people over the subject of gun rights. Today’s robust sales of guns and ammunition provide a last laugh for the powers-that-be who are profiting from such sales, all the while knowing that soon those guns and ammunition will be confiscated right back without compensation.
There is little doubt that the “president” of this country would sign such a treaty, so let’s assume the United States does become a signatory to the treaty and thus becomes obliged to confiscate guns from its citizens.
Fast forward a couple more years. The “Mister Nice Guy” approach of allowing the citizens to voluntarily comply with the confiscation directive has been a failure because few people turned in their guns. So it’s time to replace the carrot with a stick, take off the gloves, or whatever other metaphor one wishes to use to describe a brutal oppression of the populace.
So the DHS, armed with its 1.6 billion bullets, or whatever the figure is tomorrow, and its 2,700 armored vehicles, and backed up by several hundred thousand foreign troops who are activated under a U.N. umbrella, begin confiscating guns by literally going door to door, shooting anyone on sight who offers even the slightest resistance, even if merely verbal in nature. Meanwhile, the regular military, which has been methodically disenfranchised, sits on the sidelines, uncertain how to react.
Eventually it becomes clear to everyone, including the military, that the government has launched a civil war against the citizens, and the military joins the fight on the side of the patriotic resistance movement and the war blossoms into a full blown civil war, perhaps dwarfing the first one because of the larger population, more advanced weaponry and the involvement of foreign soldiers. For instance, how would a foreign power react if its soldiers were being killed in an American civil war? Would they withdraw their remaining forces or implement some sort of a “surge,” just as the U.S. did in Iraq?
I believe such a scenario is quite plausible, especially since I think the primary causes of the first civil war and the hypothetical second one would be similar, namely, a difference of opinion over the interpretation of the Constitution. One of the causes of the first civil was the Constitutional question of whether states can exit the union. The Constitution merely states, “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union,” but doesn’t explain the procedures for admission, nor any procedures for exiting the union. So one can imagine that prior to the first civil war people held strong views on the subject, with some adamant that states could exit and others equally adamant that they could not. When the Confederacy pursued a sensible option of exiting a union that no longer served its interests and forming its own country, this tense question of whether states could or could not exit the union came to the fore.
Should the U.N. Small Arms Treaty be signed into law by our “president,” an equally tense and ambiguous question will arise, which is, which has precedence, the Constitution or a treaty. Once again, the Constitution fails to adequately answer this question, stating only, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” One could interpret that sentence to mean that the Constitution and treaties are on an equal footing. Or one could interpret it to mean that the Constitution, because it is listed first, takes precedence. Or one could interpret it to mean that new treaties supersede the Constitution. I could imagine people taking firm stands on both sides of the issue, with some arguing that the U.N. Small Arms Treaty supersedes the Second Amendment, while others argue with equal vigor that the Second Amendment takes precedence over the treaty. Just like in the first civil war, this tense question will cut through the populace like a hot knife.
And just as with the first civil war, there are today a host of other factors that divide the populace, chiefly the schism between what I call the “makers” and the “takers.” The makers are obviously the productive members of society, whereas the takers are those who subsist off the efforts of the productive members. Today the ratio is about 50-50, with half the population productive and the other half living off the productive ones.
The makers are comprised of business owners who start and nurture their businesses and provide jobs for people; the makers are also the hard working laborers in factories, on farms and in mines, everyone who contributes to the formation of real wealth.
The takers are comprised of government workers, people receiving benefits from the government, and financial wizards who add nothing to the nation’s wealth, but merely game the system for their benefit and especially abuse the power of government to serve their interests. Not surprisingly, the takers generally favor big government and are opposed to the Second Amendment, which makes such people natural allies of the DHS and its foreign soldiers when they begin confiscating peoples’ guns. The makers generally favor small government, personal responsibility and especially individual liberty. Of course, these other issues have no less capacity to inflame people than the Constitutional question of which takes precedence, the Constitution or a treaty. The sum of these controversial issues could well become the battle line that severs the nation and along which allegiances are formed, with roughly half the population lining up on each side of the battle line.
One might wonder, would the government risk starting a civil war? My reply is, what if the government wanted to start a civil war? We know that the government has been working steadily for years to create a locked-down totalitarian state; pretty much all the requirements for such a state are in place now and about the only thing that remains to be done is to commit, that is, “throw the switch.” A civil war, which the government would undoubtedly claim was started by the “other side,” would be an expedient excuse for throwing the switch and activating its totalitarian nightmare right here in the U.S.
The government may also be driven by a sense of urgency, owing to the ongoing financial collapse, to do something sooner than later. In a world of total financial collapse, how will the government, which currently depends on money spewed forth from its printing press, survive? The only way is to commandeer all the nation’s resources, including the labor of the citizens, and numerous executive orders already exist for precisely that purpose. In other words, the government will seek to survive by resorting to a centrally planned, slave labor system (think FEMA camps), not all that different from that of the old Soviet Union and its gulags, in spite of the eventual failure of that system. It’s not coincidental that such a system might be sought by a presidential administration so heavily laden with people who favor Marxist ideology.
Obviously, a Soviet-style system would not be welcome in a country with a heritage of “freedom” and a residual semblance of order, but such a scheme could be imposed during a semi-permanent state of martial law, invoked in response to a civil war. In other words, if the government sits around and waits for the financial collapse to hit bottom, it may well be too late for the government to take control of the system and it may be forced to undertake the sensible response of scaling back its size. However, if the government takes control before the financial collapse hits bottom, it will still have the resources to “save” itself, albeit at the expense of the citizens, and probably only temporarily. Thus, the eruption of a civil war, and sooner rather than later, would create a convenient justification for the government to take control before it’s too late.
The establishment of a totalitarian state in the U.S. is a prerequisite for the establishment of the same on a global scale, which is why it has become so urgent of late to destabilize the U.S., even at the risk of starting a new civil war, or even a new world war.
I just ran across an informative essay that asks, Do Treaties Trump the Constitution? Although I’m glad that in theory treaties cannot supersede the Constitution or even state constitutions, as the essay claims, given the unmistakable willingness of the government to trample every other provision of the Constitution, I have no doubt that it will assert that the U.N. Small Arms Treaty does, indeed, supersede the Constitution. As I anticipated, the “debate” over the treaty in Congress was mere theater, for the “president” has vowed to sign it, probably after some horrific engineered “incident” softens up public sentiment. In theory, without Senate approval the treaty is not ratified, but that won’t stop the “president” from effectively implementing it through the use of executive orders.