September 3, 2023
Visit first: On Civil War — Part 1
The most recent coup successfully deprived Trump of his second term. But the conspirators failed to follow Emerson’s dictum: When you strike at a king, you must kill him. Impeachments, indictments, and an ersatz insurrection on January 6, none of these accomplished their intended effect and only increased Trump’s popular support.
Whether violence breaks out between now and the 2024 election now resides entirely in the hands of Trump’s opposition. Consider the conspirators’ situation. Trump’s economic and diplomatic policies pose an existential threat to their profitable rackets. If he returns to power many of them may be prosecuted. But their practical options are limited. Having tried widespread rioting in 2020, lockdowns, and a concerted propaganda campaign, they have only dug themselves deeper. The ongoing Biden, Inc. House investigations and bogus Trump indictments serve to inflame public sentiment against the plotters. In normal times, this combination of factors would induce hesitancy in the opposition. But these are not normal times.
The enduring lesson from the Business Plot of 90 years ago [see Part 1] is that when the lights are turned on, the cockroaches scatter. The problem facing the plotters is that they can not return to the well too many times. JFK, RFK, and MLK: such “solutions” become counterproductive in the Internet era. Especially when the sitting president is Exhibit A for transparent corruption. Only extensive coverups of the 1960s assassinations prevented social unrest. Such coverups become nearly impossible in the Internet era. Hence the regime’s ongoing focus on identifying and eradicating “misinformation.” But the free press genie is now out of the bottle, never to be returned. If sufficient Internet tyranny were imposed to eradicate all dissenting voices, the regime would be forced to drop what remains of its mask. This would not be accepted by the populace.
As the economy perpetually weakens in the months leading to the election, the public mood will only sour further. In a period of economic fragility, the possibility of a market shock is a high probability. The question is when, not if. The extent to which market factors drive political events can not be overstated. In the lead up to the 2008 election, financial market turmoil played a substantial role in Obama’s election. We can debate whether that market shock occurred organically or was engineered. The point is it occurred, and had a profound impact on the electoral outcome.
October Surprise: From the start of September, to its October low, the stock market lost 34% in value. Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy on September 15, the largest in U.S. history. The first presidential debate was scheduled for September 26. On September 24, John McCain announced he was suspending campaigning because he wanted to delay the first debate until the two senators could return to Washington to take action on the Bush administration’s financial rescue plan. Thus removing any doubt that he was a reckless idiot. Obama did not take the bait: “This is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days, will be responsible for dealing with this mess.” Upon awakening on the morning of the debate, McCain reversed course and claimed there had been sufficient progress in the financial rescue plan, announcing his intent to participate. He apparently forgot to tell his congressional colleagues, because three days later the House of Representatives defeated the bailout package.
READ MORE: Pew Research Center — How the Lehman Brothers crisis impacted the 2008 presidential race.
Economic conditions played a significant role in the 2008 election, and will do so again 16 years later. We learned in 1987 that it is possible for the stock market to lose almost a quarter of its value in a single day. If the history of financial market panics tells us one thing, it is that such black swan events can and will periodically occur. No one knows what the financial landscape will be like a year from now. What no one is taking into consideration is that the oligarchs are staring into a financial abyss. After 11 decades of hyperinflation engineered by their Federal Reserve System, the value of their assets is at risk. In many ways, we are now all in the same boat.
In many ways, this election could reprise the 1980 one. The decision to reign in inflation had been made prior to the election. Clearly, if 20% interest rates were allowed to persist at such levels, economic activity would come to a standstill. Now, as then, the bankers may decide to throw in the towel regarding Trump. They could be willing to accept his good points (in their eyes, e.g., his affinity for tax cuts to revive the economy ) and overlook his negatives (e.g., reining in their China racket). Many forget that the 2017 Trump individual tax cuts, slashing capital gains rates, expire in 2025. (Corporate rates were cut permanently.) China is toast anyway. Burnt toast. Carbonized toast. It is facing total economic and demographic collapse. Chinese leaders' overwhelming focus will soon shift to retaining power. Globalists’ planned vast Chinese economic playground is about to vanish.
Regardless of what the bankers will or will not desire, the intelligence community is a distinct, separate power nexus, hostile to Trump. Before he was killed, JFK planned to housebreak the CIA. Trump certainly has major reforms planned for the intelligence community in a second term. He has gone on record regretting not doing so in his first term, and promises to release the remaining JFK CIA documents, an act which will inevitably lead to major long-overdue reforms. The CIA historically emerged from the Ivy League/Wall Street environment, and as revealed above by General Butler’s military career, did not emerge into a vacuum. Its covert action arm merely represented a continuation of policies covertly in place for decades previously. Truman thought he was creating an agency to supply intelligence to the president. But what he also got was a covert action entity. The point is the bankers are superior to the spooks, directing covert work to meet their objectives. The intelligence community is not a renegade, independent entity. It operates in the service of the oligarchs.