There is always an excuse for the establishment of totalitarian restrictions on the public. There is always a reason, and often these reasons are made to sound logical and practical at the time. In Germany after WWI and into the early 1930s Bolshevik activists and the German Communist Party (KPD) engaged in aggressive economic sabotage, street violence and even assassinations. This along with the Great Depression led to German middle-class support for the National Socialist Party and the Third Reich (fascism).
Much of history’s focus is on the horrors of the Nazis, but many people are unaware of the extreme threat of communist revolution in Europe during this era, a threat that was used by the Nazis as a perfect rationale for constructing a police state. Arguably, without the existence of hardline communism, the fascists never would have had the public support needed to rise to power.
In Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution, the Cheka secret police were established in the name of preventing “counter-revolution.” This is an interesting aspect common to communism in particular. They desperately cling to the narrative that they are still the revolutionaries, even when they have all the power. Thus, the “revolution” never ends because there are always people who disagree with communism. Anyone who refuses to comply with Marxist mandates becomes an “imperialist enemy” and bogeyman and is held up as an example of why the revolution must perpetually continue. The police state must exist forever.
During the 1918 Spanish Flu outbreak, a virus with a much higher death rate among younger Americans compared to today’s coronavirus, major U.S. cities such as New Orleans instituted martial law measures and lockdown on the economy; closing schools, churches, public transportation and places of leisure. Of course, claims in the wake of COVID, these measures did little to nothing to stop the spread of the virus and the public became frustrated with their inability to function in the day-to-day economy (sound familiar). The population began to rebel against restrictions that were leading to financial decay, and there was little governments could do about it.
I’ve noticed that the mainstream media has attempted to rewrite the history of the Spanish Flu as if martial law measures were a success, even though ultimately the flu ran its natural course in the majority of U.S. cities. Infections and deaths continued unabated until the virus burned itself out and disappeared (no working vaccine was ever produced though there were many failed attempts based on the assumption that the disease was bacterial rather than viral). Martial law actions failed miserably and only served to drag out the timeline of the virus.
One could argue that a hundred years ago governments did not have the same tools at their disposal as they do now. But are we really that much further ahead? Virologists have been working on an effective SARS vaccine for almost two decades with little success. The idea that they could come up with a working vaccine for COVID in the span of a year (as many governments are suggesting) seems absurd. History shows us that when vaccines are rushed into production by authorities very bad things happen.
Regardless of lockdown measures, infection rates continue to climb in many nations, thereby justifying even more lockdowns. This creates an endless cycle of economic instability that the public cannot endure, and many people are beginning to wonder what purpose of the pandemic restrictions serve? It’s obviously not to slow the virus and save lives as an effective vaccine is unlikely to be developed in time for the lockdowns to matter. But, if you wanted to quickly implement a totalitarian system, then using a global health threat as justification might be the ticket.
The problem for the establishment will be this: How can they keep the tyranny going once they have it? Ultimately, for a totalitarian system to work, it needs a large portion of the public to support it on principle. The public has to believe that the loss of their liberties is necessary to their survival for the long term.
What I find most interesting is the disparity in response to the two sides of the crisis. For example, the law enforcement response to the BLM and ANTIFA riots has been rather subdued and passive. I was in Pittsburgh for the G-20 event in 2009, and I can tell you from experience that the police response was vicious and highly coordinated, and this was against groups that were doing nothing more than chanting slogans in the street.
There was no rioting and minimal damage to private property, yet law enforcement deployed full force measures including Spartan formations, sound cannons, rubber bullets and armored vehicles. Watch video footage of the G-20 in Pittsburgh and then compare it to the riots in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, New York, etc. It should become clear to you that police are being ordered to hold back the majority of the time.
Another glaring issue is the media response to the riots. They refer to the protests as exclusively peaceful despite mass looting, destruction of private property and violence. They treat BLM as untouchable and act as an attack dog against anyone criticizing the actions of social justice organizations. The issue of social distancing and virus spread is dismissed or ignored when it comes to BLM.
By extension, examine the mainstream media response to the protests against coronavirus lockdown restrictions. No riots, no looting, no violence on the part of conservative and moderate protesters, yet the media demonizes them as if they are a threat to the very fabric of our society. Look at how quick authorities have been to arrest people who refuse to follow lockdown restrictions and consider how aggressive arrests have been in other countries like Australia or the U.K. for doing nothing more than posting messages on Facebook.
I think my point here is clear. The establishment supports the social justice violence and unrest and is cracking down hard on any resistance to medical tyranny. The hypocrisy is evident.
But this brings up some questions. Why are they so keen to allow the BLM riots to continue? As noted at the beginning of this article, I think the strategy is evident. It’s a two-pronged attempt, a bait and switch. If the Marxists are successful and meet little resistance from the public, they will tear down the current system, and the elitist institutions that fund them, like George Soros’s Open Society Foundation and the Ford Foundation, will use the opportunity to build an Orwellian collectivist society from the ashes.
On the other hand, as in Germany in the 1930s, the civil unrest caused by hard left groups could also convince the general public that martial law measures are an acceptable solution and that they are willing to sacrifice constitutional protections in order to rid themselves of the threat. There have been examples of this recently when federal agents initiated black bagging of a protester in Portland using unmarked vans; all I saw from most conservatives was cheering. This would undoubtedly lead to a long-term totalitarian structure that, once again, benefits the elites that inhabit every aspect of government including Trump’s White House.
In both cases, the power elites get what they want ??? a police state.
In terms of the pandemic response, a police state is already being established in many nations, and with most Western people’s predominantly disarmed, there is little chance they will be able to resist the crackdown that will ensue as they try to protest the restrictions. But what about in America?
This is why it does not surprise me that the BLM riots are being encouraged so openly in the U.S. Look at it this way… if the elites cannot get us to go along with medical tyranny for fear of sparking an armed uprising from conservatives with actual training and ability, they figure maybe they can trick us into supporting martial law in the name of defeating the political left.
The only solutions are to refuse to support either option. We must repel the establishment of medical tyranny and stand against any overstep of state and federal governments against the constitution when it comes to protests. Riots and looting can be dealt with and dealt with within the confines of the Bill of Rights. Also, once again, I would point out that in almost every place where armed citizens organize and take up security measures in their communities the protests remain peaceful or they don’t happen at all.
There is no legitimate excuse for a police state.
There is always another way.
Anyone that tells you different has an agenda of their own.
