I recently read a quote that confirmed my suspicions that the powers-that-be may or do try to use our libertarian principles against us…given the recent Kaci Hickox psy-op, I thought this would be a good time to share it with you…
Samuel Huntington, whose credentials as a New World Order insider are too numerous to mention, wrote (you can skip to the bold part at the end for the punchline):
Lacking any concept of the state, lacking for most of its history both the centralized authority and the bureaucratic apparatus of the European state, the American polity has historically been a weak polity. It was designed to be so, and the traditional inheritance and social environment combined for years to support the framers’ intentions. In the twentieth century, foreign threats and domestic economic and social needs have generated pressures to develop stronger, more authoritative decision-making and decision-implementing institutions. Yet the continued presence of deeply felt moralistic sentiments among major groups in American society could continue to ensure weak and divided government, devoid of authority and unable to deal satisfactorily with the economic, social and foreign challenges confronting the nation. Intensification of this conflict between history and progress could give rise to increasing frustration and increasingly violent oscillations between moralism and cynicism. American moralism ensures that government will never be truly efficacious; the realities of power ensure that government will never be truly democratic. This situation could lead to a two-phase dialectic involving intensified efforts to reform government, followed by intensified frustration when those efforts produce not progress in a liberal-democratic direction, but obstacles to meeting perceived functional needs. The weakening of government in an effort to reform it could lead eventually to strong demands for the replacement of the weakened and ineffective institutions by more authoritarian structures more effectively designed to meet historical needs. Given the perversity of reform, moralistic extremism in the pursuit of liberal democracy could generate a strong tide toward authoritarian efficiency. (emphasis added)*
So if, say, some unreasonable extremist who has never balked at a DUI check-point all of a sudden refuses to take a blood test for Ebola after having direct exposure with Ebola patients, prevents the government from containing a pandemic, then the citizenry will demand more government and an end to the American Experiment? What if such a nutjob doesn’t actually exist? Might it be efficacious to create one? Could that be why this nutjob happens to be a CDC intelligence officer? Could that be why the CDC has intelligence officers to start out with?
*Excerpt from Barack Obama: The Unauthorized Biography, p. 54.
Monica,
Your diligence here is terrific! What is so sad is that folks with the average acumen necessary to look into all this do not explore beyond what the MSM news ‘presenters’ put before their eyes. I viewed the TV interviews of Kaci and the word ‘disingenuous’ immediately came to my mind. Her comments were so detached. She talked about her ‘community’, not her neighbors. Seems to me she would also be concerned if any of her actions would reflect on her employer…unless, of course, there was tacit approval by said employer (CDC, and potentially others), as has been suggested here. (and I agree!)
We are most certainly being gamed. And that task becomes easier as the American thinking citizens are replaced as noted in other posts/comments on this site.
Monica, we all miss your air time and your posts are so appreciated, as we await your next show! But please keep up your posts…they are most excellent! And thanks for that bio book link…I will read it!
Thanks for the encouragement, Hugh. A note on the book – the author thinks that Ron Paul is controlled opposition, which I reflected on and looked into a bit and don’t believe. Maybe he is sincere, maybe he is disinfo, I don’t know. Plus, he’s a “Platonic Collectivist” – a term I coined just for him and his mentor, Lyndon LaRouche. For these reasons, the book is full of ideology and invective that I could not relate to, however, it is also full of facts and references that were shocking and seemed legitimate. It’s quite a lot of reading to sift through for the gems, so I am going to write a review and summary of it so you don’t have to slog through it if you don’t want to. I don’t want to discourage anyone from buying the book – the man should be compensated for his efforts (unless he really is disinfo as many suspect), but reading it might not be absolutely necessary!