Has the NRA Announcement Given NWO Possible Checkmate.

Okay, I think I finally get it. First off, I've posted once or twice before on questioning why TPTB would even bother creating a police state or New World Order when they already live better than any kings, popes or oligarchs in the history of humankind. I've figured that part out (and it's something more complex than simple sociopathy and simpler than serving their demonic/alien overlords), but more on that later. But I now clearly see that we are being moved into position for the creation of a very different society, and those of you whining about the possible onslaught of communism are going to WISH we were dealing with communists.

So here it is, the NRA announced this week that the best and most logical reaction to the Sandy Hook shooting is to station a contingent of armed police and/or military personnel at all schools. They have, in essence, requested the implementation of a police state. Now I know that a ridiculously large number of people think that a police state is impossible as long as people are allowed to keep their guns. This is a notion that They have spent years forging in your minds. That is why the entire so-called "gun culture" has been so meticulously crafted to portray the simple ownership of a fire arm as the key to personal freedom and the a surefire last resort to guarantee justice. This notion is completely wrong and TPTB know it.

It will work this way: With the gun lobby coming out stating that the appropriate reaction to a mass killing is the establishment of increased armed government presence and control, countless gun owners across this country who have been conditioned to think of gun ownership as the best barometer of freedom will not bother to focus on the actual loss of freedom. Every time there is a mass killing, there will be bad noise about taking the guns away, followed by the removal of some other right or ceding of a little bit of control to the growing police state. The guns will stay, but the freedom will slowly vanish.

Now in order to get the gun lobby to support this position, a deal probably needed to be made. I've notice that a lot of the pro-firearms noise on line has been in the form of pointing out that massacres do not require firearms. I would not be the least bit surprised to see the next attack take a gun-free form (think some loon with a bomb, poison gas or some other such method).

Instead, what we are going to see established is the notion that there should be no soft targets in America. With each attack, each life lost, the call for greater "security" will grow louder. Now with the complicity of the gun lobby so long as their members can continue to pay for the goods of their corporate benefactors.

This is how they are going to disarm the population. Not by taking away the weapons, but by negating the desire and logical ability to take them up against oppression. Every time they take away real freedom, they will pretend to threaten the right to bear arms. Every checkpoint they erect will be accompanied by a "failed" attempt to curtail access to weapons. You can have all the guns you want because they will never take any single action that would reasonably warrant their use.

And, as I mentioned earlier, I finally recognize the why of this thing. Why would they want to create this elaborate apparatus why they already live like demi-gods? Because they refuse to implement a technocratic utopia that would benefit all with little to no impact on their own quality of life. We have reached a point in our technological development where it is not logistically necessary, desirable, or even possible for every single working age person in this country to work a full time job. The simple fact of the matter is that we can do and create more right now with less manpower than has ever been necessary at a time when we have more potential manpower than ever before.

If you look at the old futurists like Fuller and Toffler, they all charted a range between the early seventies and the early to mid-eighties during which they projected that improvements in productivity would lead to reduced work weeks and increased leisure time. This, they projected, would improve the overall quality of life while speeding innovation even further as hobbyists and amateurs would have the time and emotional/intellectual capacity to contribute in ways as meaningful as the work that has traditionally come out of universities and corporate research departments.

That world never materialized. However, if you look in that same timeframe, you WILL see that there was a tremendous upsurge in productivity that dramatically increased corporate profits and yet did not trickle down to the workers. And so the gap between rich and poor started to rip ever wider. We live in a world that is entirely defined by artificial scarcity. Just look into the complete mathematical absurdity of milk subsidies and you'll see what I mean. The naive futurists believed that we would be able to embrace the new abundance and that those who pull the strings would be able to see that actions that would benefit all would, indeed, benefit ALL. But what the overlords instead saw was that that which benefitted all did not benefit them to the disproportionate degree that they had grown accustomed.

But technology and innovation kept on marching. A lot of the jobs out there are redundant and useless. There are more jobs than are necessary to maintain society at a very high level and yet there are not enough jobs for everyone based on the current 40 hour a week for money to spend on goods and services model. There is going to come a time in the next 25 years or so when the term "working class" is going to have new meaning. It will be the relatively small class of people that are allowed to continue in the current antiquated employment model in order to keep the world running for the people who most enjoy they fruits of that labor. Then there will be the millions of expendables, those who for whatever reason do not fit the profile to be allowed to "work".

Those with jobs and money will not rebel. The ruling class will not rebel. Something will need to be done about all those expendables, and the NRA has just thrown its support behind the apparatus to do so.

At least, that's my $.02

Nice read OP. If I may, I do not believe this is "the" checkmate moment for the so called elites. The takeover will be very slow and incremental. These people are very, very patient. We should never, ever underestimate how brilliant, sophisticated, powerful and psychotic the elites are. Every member of Skull and Bones is given a grandfather clock upon graduation. That clock is always wound and kept 5 minutes ahead of real time to symbolize always being one step ahead of everyone else.

There will be more attacks, more staged shootings, more events used to create and spread a wave of fear and panic. With each passing event, each passing attack, they are getting more reckless, more arrogant and more insane than ever before. At the same time, there is also a massive global awakening happening. They know this and they fear it. If we think we are afraid of them, these people are terrified of us. At the top of it, there are just a few thousand people controlling everything, even deeper just a few hundred to a couple dozen passing down orders. We are a populace of 7 billion people worldwide. Once everyone realizes this, the game is up.

Wikilieaks leaked some documents that had some stuff about global governance in 2025. I truly feel there isn't a whole lot of time left. The next 10-15 years are going to be big, who knows what they are going to pull. I think they would rather destroy everything and burn this place to the ground than allow it to be taken over by the people and see a global awakening. It is only up to each of us what we do to put an end to the madness of this world. Let it be known, these people aren't just going to give their power up, they aren't ever going to free humanity. They and their families and ruled for millennia and beyond. We have to free ourselves.

Nice work S&F

Something I always found ironic and even moronic is the opinion the TPTB want to take away your guns.
Arent they the same people who make them and make a fortune selling them?

According to gun statistics its something like 74% of gun victim are criminals, the same people who dont follow the laws or bow down to authority.
Maybe guns being readily available is a way of weeding out those who would be most likely to resist any real push for a NWO. (Pure speculation)

I do find it odd that Americans only seem to get worked up about gun laws and not things like the patriot act which in my opinion seem a much worse violation of rights than wanting to restrict guns in some form.

As long as people have the illusion of safety that owning a gun brings they wont do much about all other rights being slowly stripped away it seems

If the NRA announcement is furthering the "NWO" agenda, how is it a checkmate to the "NWO"?

Or did you mean the "NWO" has issued a checkmate through the NRA announcement?

I agree, OP. The police state will have as much gun ownership as people want, as long as people are Veri-chipped.

www.examiner.com...

As more information about Friday's horrific shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School emerge, the question we've heard on multiple talk radio shows has been this: why isn't there some sort of electronic device that can prevent anyone but the gun's owner from using a gun?

[...]

Could some sort of smart gun technology have prevented this? To be honest, perhaps not entirely, but it could have prevented Lanza from using his mother's guns.

Technology hasn't reached the point, though, where a fingerprint can be used to unlock a smart gun. There is technology from Verichip, though, that will prevent a gun from firing unless a chip -- implanted in a person -- matches with a scanning device inside a handgun.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


Police yes. Military NO.

The school district in my city has ISD cops at every single school in the city and I personally dont have a problem with it (I figured this was the case everywhere)
I dont want to see the military guarding anything unless its on a military base.

Good point but still they are providing an alternative to gun bans. If they allow gun ownership to remain then they will further restrict ownership (perhaps a more thorough exam of those applying via the NICS system).

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


well tought out and lots of sence put into it.i beleive you are correct.like a magic trick,they keep your eyes in one direction wile making the moves else were.after all,guns in the streets is no real treath to tptb.its like in a movie,the kid pointing the gun at the criminal ,yet,he has not the guts to shoot him and the criminal recaptures him.and the rest i believe to be correct as well.stratergy is key to every move.if it doesnt seem logic,what tptb are doing,you have not arrived at the answers. just my opinion. the gun issue is of no major concern to them but that of use to further their ideals.like playing with a little ant.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Personally, I would have no objections to firearms being regulated to approximately the same extent as cars. I don't think it's unreasonable to require a basic proficiency test to be able to own one. I know that will seem wildly invasive to a lot of people, but it's the kind of no-brainer regulation that would have absolutely zero impact on all the gun owners out there who know how to handle a firearm while giving a little bit of peace of mind to the rather clueless non-carrying public.

reply to post by Juggernog


So far, the call has been for police, but I've already heard "armed personnel" creeping in to the conversation. Also, a lot of internet chatter, about what a great job it would be for retiring or non-active duty military personnel.

My concern is the normalizing of the police state. Teaching kids early that an armed government authority figure should be supervising your environment. Next steps: Armed checkpoints (already in place in some inner city schools), ID validation, continuous tracking and monitoring.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt

GUN OWNERSHIP is a right but requires responsibility as all guns are dangerous. Proper training in their use and safety; proper secure storage (away from children and all else who should not be near guns) and some shared responsibility if the owners guns are not secured, reported as stolen (if applicable) and used in the commission of crimes.

Far reaching mass media is their strongest weapon in my opinion.
Anything to rattle someone little bubble is all they need.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt

about what a great job it would be for retiring or non-active duty military personnel

Im not for that in any way.
Do you want these "war veterans" most of whom have PTSD and are on tons psychotropic medications armed at an elementary school?
I dont think so
A cop (real cop) would be fine. I come down on cops a lot on here but all of them arent like the few videos we see of them abusing authority.

I live in a midsized city and every interaction Ive had with the cops here has been
positive.

Originally posted by RobertAntonWeishaupt
reply to post by Juggernog

 

So far, the call has been for police, but I've already heard "armed personnel" creeping in to the conversation. Also, a lot of internet chatter, about what a great job it would be for retiring or non-active duty military personnel.

My concern is the normalizing of the police state. Teaching kids early that an armed government authority figure should be supervising your environment. Next steps: Armed checkpoints (already in place in some inner city schools), ID validation, continuous tracking and monitoring.

Yeh. I hear the TSA has been looking for ways to expand and normalize their presence. We could even ARM them! YAY!!

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


Applause

I'm not sure this is just one faction at work called "TPB"...
I think there are multiple and even between them there is differences in how this should be managed.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt

The point is certainly valid as it is a slippery slope towards a police state and ironically it could begin with the best intentions (children's safety). It could start with one armed cop or security guard then end up being a swat squad in para military gear. It could also result in a greater physical school lockdown requiring biometrics (even ultimately rfid chips) to enter the school. The police presence could then expand to all public areas (shopping malls, movie theatres, etc) and then roadblocks and even potential home inspections. But if the demand is for something to be done now ("something has to be done!") then at this point I would err on the side of an armed presence for schools over trying to negate the rights of citizens - but it has to be balanced and tempered or other rights would fall by the wayside (ie 4A).

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt

Interesting....as those who would be most likely to speak up are silenced due to the quid pro quo nature of the trade off between keeping their guns and giving up some other freedoms (for the collective safety, of course). Then once the "control grid" is in place (ie, full police state)...it will be too late and then they will come for your guns.

There's that Ben Franklin quote we all know and love about liberty and safety that applies here.

Armed guards to "protect" in schools could just be the growing infringement of liberties and its enforcement, look at the 60-70s. Would much of the "peace" movements had started if students had armed guards everywhere on college campus's?

Liberty and Freedom are not easy things to live with, they are a responsibility that every citizen shoulders. It means that we have to deal with their cost, that we have to deal with the Irresponsibility of those who would abuse those rights.

Do we take the easy path and give up the liberties we just find too costly? Or do we find ways to mitigate the damage the insane and irresponsible represent?

It is a complex issue, one that many like to present knee jerk responses to, be it an assault rife ban or armed guards in schools.

Im still not even sure if the actions of a few crazy people should be dictating policy for the rest of the country, seems to me the debate should be on Mental health care and public options for it rather than gun control.

reply to post by benrl

Armed guards to "protect" in schools could just be the growing infringement of liberties and its enforcement, look at the 60-70s. Would much of the "peace" movements had started if students had armed guards everywhere on college campus's?

Liberty and Freedom are not easy things to live with, they are a responsibility that every citizen shoulders. It means that we have to deal with their cost, that we have to deal with the Irresponsibility of those who would abuse those rights.

These are excellent points I hadn't considered before. The Civil Rights Movement had a grass-roots support in schools and where would the west be without it? Racial segregation would surely have gone under the bus, but maybe much later on. The same could be said for international student protests too. They're flies in the ointment of the status quo and society need them to keep changing and moving forward.

Looking at this link here we can see that the US has 98,817 public schools. Let's say each school had a minimum of two armed guards? That's nearly 200 000 jobs created and no bad thing for the economy. On the other hand, isn't it overkill to go to those lengths for the sake of preventing events that occur at a rate of less than 1 in millions of chances?

180 school days per year multiplied by 98 817 = 17 787 060

We could multiply the ~17.8 million school days by number of pupils and get a figure in the billions of days per year of pupils attending school.

If these figures are accurate the overall number of school-associated deaths is small.

Alongside your points about limiting grass-roots political movements, it certainly appears to be the case that an armed presence in schools would be an excessive response to a minuscule risk.