Civil War and the Coming New World Order

Civil War and the Coming New World Order - Pete Garcia - http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=8344

 

This is quite a difficult and sensitive topic being discussed here today. But I feel that it is warranted, given what we are seeing play out before us. I don't have any particular scriptural basis for it, other than it being more of an observation of the times.  If anything, I would liken it to the condition Jesus laid out for His disciples when asked what the signs of the end would be when He said...

 

Nation (ethnos) would rise against nation (ethnos), kingdom (political power) against kingdom        (political power) ...and the love of many will wax cold... (Matt. 24:7, 12)

 

There is a storm brewing in our land, and has been for some time.  Those dark, foreboding clouds have always been on the horizon, but now they are overhead and our grumbling like a Kansas thunderstorm laden with the potential for torrential rains, lightening, and tornados. While history is not everyone's favorite subject, it should be something we reconcile frequently. Studying history helps illuminate the challenges and similarities that our ancestors faced and may help us recognize the challenges we face in our own day and of days yet to come. The reason for this is because although the times change and the technology changes--the human condition never does. We tend to make the same mistakes over and over because we are a fallen race riddled with sin...and given enough time, history tends to repeat itself without fail.

 

On November the 9th, 2016, quite possibly the largest political earthquake ever felt in the United States occurred in the wee hours of the morning with Republican Donald Trump's victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton. So stunning was the loss for Clinton and the Democrats that the media, the glitterati, the newspapers, print journals, pundits, and comedians all had assumed that her victory was so certain, that the election itself was just a formality. But since that day, the stammering and speechlessness has turned increasingly vitriolic and toxic as the reality that Donald Trump really will be the next President of the United States.

 

Since then, we've been witness to an increasing number of "spontaneous" anti-Trump demonstrations along with a rash of growing anti-police violence. These protests are "spontaneous" in the same sense that Benghazi was a result of an 'anti-Islamic' video on YouTube. In all actuality, these protests are part of a greater concerted effort by uber-leftist/globalist groups like George Soros Incorporated and MoveOn.org, who are attempting to upend the system in the wake of their stunning political defeat.  So if they can't win politically despite the rampant fraud and voter machine rigging, they will attempt it by funding and fomenting violence.

 

The attempt now by the media to link the 'rise in white power groups' to Trump's victory, is another attempt to get him to backpedal. Their rise (neo Nazi's and the like) are not a result of Trump's election, but a reaction to the Black Lives Matter movement that have sprung up across the nation and have hijacked the narrative on race.

 

Along those same sentiments is a growing call for secession from the Union from more traditionally liberal states like California and Oregon as a more formal protest against a Trump presidency. In the past, conservative states like Texas have threatened secession due to President Obama's federal overreach but it seemed more bark than bite. At the very least, things could get to the point where California itself divides between the liberal south and central, and the more conservative north. But one thing to watch here is the momentum of the movement at the state level and to what degree Governor Jerry 'Moonbeam' Brown supports it as an act of defiance over the 'sanctuary city' status they will maintain despite federal threats of financial penalties.

 

But in watching the 'useful-idiot' movement (and media) attempting to justify their actions of blocking traffic, destroying private property, killing cops, threatening to kill cops, and provoking random violence, it reminded me of the events leading up to the American Civil War. Let us recap:

 

1820: The Missouri Compromise-Allowed Missouri to be a slave state, but added Maine as a free state to balance out Congress. Also divided the slave territories along the 36 by 30 parallel.

 

1831: Nat Turner's Rebellion-slave uprising killing 60 whites. Quelled after two days, 55 slaves, including Nat Turner, were executed, along with 200 more who were lynched.

 

1846-1850: Wilmot Proviso would have (it failed) outlawed slavery from expanding into the newly acquired territories at the end of the Mexican-American war, which gained the US much of the southwest including California.

 

1850: The Compromise of 1850-New western territories in the would be slave states, but compelled the northerners to abide by the Fugitive Slave Act, which required them to return fugitive slaves back to the South.

 

1852: Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin" popular book on slavery conditions in the south, considered by the north shocking and horrifying, but disparaging to Southerners who viewed this as gross mischaracterization.

 

1854-1861: 'Bleeding Kansas' The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 overturned parts of the Missouri Compromise, by allowing these states to determine whether or not to be free or slave. The both went free after a bloody, five year struggle.

 

1857: The Dred Scott Case-The Supreme Court ruled that slaves were property, further complicating the North's opposition to slavery.

 

1859: John Brown's Raid-White Southerners and freed black slaves raided ammunition arsenal and began arming other groups to rise up. Was captured and executed becoming a martyr to the Abolitionist movement.

 

1860: Election of Abraham Lincoln-The election of the Republican A. Lincoln was overwhelming, considering he was not even on the ballot in many southern states. His election was followed by the secession of South Carolina some 30 days after. Six more states would secede by the spring of 1861.

 

1861: Battle of Ft. Sumter-Following S. Carolina's secession, Ft. Sumter suddenly found itself on foreign land. Lincoln decided to send supplies and was met with a Southern blockade. This sparked the start of the actual Civil War.

 

(Reference: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/triggerevents.html)

 

Assessment

 

As you can see, the Civil War didn't start because Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected as President. Lincoln's election was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. There were decades of unchecked grievances and emotions leading up to the election of 1860. Former President Thomas Jefferson made this forewarning upon hearing of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 on slavery. In it he...

 

"Considered it at once as the (death) knell of the Union. It is hushed indeed for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, oral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper."

 

Thomas Jefferson saw slavery as an issue that would not simply go away by appeasement and compromise. It would continue to fester in the hearts and minds of Americans (both for and against), until it resolved itself in the bloodiest war ever waged by Americans. In regards to this concept of unchecked grievances, I would like to draw a parallel to the issues of our day. The battle over the hearts and minds of Americans has been over a century in the making, and is so ingrained into our culture that we no more think about our eroding liberties than a frog thinks about the water he is in warming up.

 

There would be no need to work for liberty were liberties not being lost. Most Americans are unaware of a decline in individual liberty, and the reason is obvious: the decline rarely takes the form of sudden personal deprivations but, instead, takes the form of unnoticed erosion, and thus we come, as do the Russians, to regard whatever state we are in as a normal condition."    Leonard E. Reed, (1965)

 

The outrage by normal Americans over the past eight years has resulted in the loss of some 900 Democrat seats of power, the rise of the Tea Party movement, and culminated with the election of Donald Trump primarily because of Obama's overreach. He didn't do anything different than any other president before him, which was to create more bureaucracy, more overreach, and add to our burgeoning national deficit. Obama simply got too greedy, too fast. His federal abuse was too obvious and it awoken the silent majority much in the same way that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor awoke a largely isolationist-minded American public in the 1940s.

 

Understand that there has already been a soft coup in this nation going back a hundred years or more. This coup began with the varying ideological theories from people like: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Charles Darwin, Herbert Spencer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Margaret Sanger, John Dewey, and many others who at their foundation, espouse a rabid anti-Christian, anti-American, and anti-Constitutionalist ideas. Although the aforementioned specialize in different areas (economics, science, eugenics, psychology, and education), they all feed off of each other and use each other as stepping stones to validate their own agendas.

 

Their goal, largely accomplished today, was to spread this infectious ideology first through European seminaries, universities, and then on to the rest of the world via public education and governance. This then would be reinforced through the relentless "consensus-mantra" beatings by media and pop culture on the average citizenry. Now those most indoctrinated by socialism (in its varying forms) are firmly embedded in most of the western governments. Their goal is a one-world system. But first they need to 'divide and conquer' which is why we see the parties (even within themselves) so divided over fiscal, social, and political issues we face today.

 

Although the swing left was greatly exacerbated during the Clinton and Obama administrations, Hillary's third term was meant to be the icing on the cake. It was meant to usher in an avalanche of demographic change via massive, unchecked immigration that would change the electoral make up of this country forever, so that no Republican could ever win again. This is why this Trump win is such a stinging defeat. They (media, politicians, "experts") were so sure it would happen that Clinton never even thought to write her concession speech. Such was the power of the media to distort the facts on the ground. Even now, you can see now how the media is already trying to shape what President Trump's agenda should be. This is the same media that completely got the election wrong. They keep trying to shape the argument that what real American's are angry about, is their talking points.

 

To set the record straight about the average American:

 

We aren't angry over "climate change."

 

We aren't angry because men can't use women's restrooms.

 

We aren't angry because we hate immigrants.

 

We are angry because the progressive-left has hijacked the Constitution and is trying to redefine it into something it was never intended to be-- a license for lawlessness leading to a global government.

 

We are angry about unchecked immigration, sanctuary cities, overwhelming national debt, global trade deals that would crush the US economy, and an overburdened, and under resourced military.

 

We are angry at the lawlessness and corruption permeating every facet of our society.

 

We are angry that the America we got the privilege to grow up in, will not exist for our children at the current rate.

 

Conclusion

 

Slavery is a system of both commerce and thought, and has been around as long as man has. It always seeks to put one class above the other. One works while the other reaps the benefit of that work. In the past centuries, the workers and reapers were determined by race and ethnicity. But as the west came to abandon the actual practice of slave holding, the concept remained. In the 20th-21st centuries, the class division wasn't so much about race as it was political and religious ideology.

 

While slavery was the issue of the day back in the 1850's and was rightly rejected by the Republican Party, the issue of slavery still holds sway over the world today. This new form of oppression in the west is more akin to the proletariat versus bourgeoisie of the communist revolutions that swept through places like Russia, China, Cuba, and Vietnam in the 20th century. This new form of oppression is between the haves and have nots, the elite and the 'unwashed' masses, between the enlightened and the 'deplorables', and between the media and the alternative watchdogs. The Democrat party never abandoned the idea of slavery, they just redefined it.

 

Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" wasn't based on truly helping poor, minority communities, but enslaving them into systemic poverty and guaranteeing party loyalty for decades to come. Even the leftist Snopes 'fact checking website' has a very difficult time walking back his vehemently racist comments. But here is the greater proof, if the Democrat party truly had the best interest of minorities in mind, democratic strongholds like Detroit, Chicago, and Washington D.C. would be beacons of peace and prosperity. But those cities, like so many others, are markedly divided between the 'go and no go' zones of the rich and affluent and the poor and desperate.

 

But to the left, even racism and slavery are only means to an end, not the end itself. It is even somewhat disingenuous to claim on the left want globalism, because there are many so called Republicans who are also in the tank for a one-world system. Racism, sexism, 'homophobia', 'islamophobia', etc., are tools they use via Cultural Marxism to create 'identity politics' as a means to divide and conquer a nation. To this end, the left will never concede of their own volition to constitutional governance because they've already spent the last 100 years corrupting the system and have come too far. For them, the Constitution is only useful in how they can use it to destroy the entire system. Put in another way, they (globalist-left and right) want us to commit constitutional suicide. Since they will never yield, we are really only left with one option if we are to preserve our way of life (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), and that is by making them bend to our will, not the other way around.

 

We should also accept the reality that mainstream media has become irrelevant. Their agenda, is not the American agenda. The Democrat party is in massive decline and implosion and in the process, have lost around 900 seats (governorships, congress, senate, etc.) since 2010. We can make a rather sobering assessment that the Democrat party itself will die, and out of the ashes will rise something between a mix of outright communism and Sharia Law.

 

They want an international system of socialism because in their heart of hearts, they truly believe that this is the only way in which man can solve all of his problems. That is why they are intent on destroying the very system that affords them the ability to even have thoughts of destroying it. And just as the Civil War didn't start in 1820 with the Missouri Compromise, nor did it begin with Lincoln's election, rather, it was a long series of steps that led straight to the battlefields of Antietam and Gettysburg, in which brother killed brother, and neighbor killed neighbor. We would be smart to remember the old axiom that Mark Twain once said...although history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.