Gerald Celente, founder of Trends Research, warns that the government is increasingly under the control of the military. He predicts that starting as early as first quarter of A.D. 2012, we will see “economic martial law” in this country.
Note that Mr. Celente predicts “economic martial law” rather than “martial law”. Perhaps he agrees with my contention that the US military doesn’t have enough assets to deploy tanks and military personnel across the US. Therefore, while we may see a more overt police state over the next several years, we won’t see US military one or streets except in isolated instances.
However, although Mr. Celente does not appear to anticipate an open application of true “martial law” in this country, he does predict “economic martial law”. He doesn’t define that term in this video, nor does he clearly describe what that term might mean. I can only imagine that “economic martial law” might mean increased control over bank accounts, ATMs, credit cards, debt cards, and in general, restricted access to currency or credit.
I question whether the term “economic martial law” is helpful. ”Martial law” specific meaning that implies very dangerous circumstances. To take the emotional import of “martial law” and attach it to “economic(s)” strikes me as unreasonable. ”Economics” can be annoying or troubling and may even ultimately precipitate “martial law”. But, no matter how bad something “economic” may be, that term still signifies a system of relationships that are still fundamentally “civil” and “consensual” in nature. ”Martial law” implicates a system governed by overt force without regard for civility or consent.
I won’t say that the concepts of “economic(s)” and “martial law” are so different that they don’t at least partially overlap. But I think that overlap is relatively small. A system can be operated predominately under principles of an “economy” or it can operate under “martial law”–but the idea of “economic martial law” strikes me as disturbing, exaggerated, and self-contradictory. How can you attach the force of “martial law” to the consensual nature of “economics”?
I get the feeling that since he lost “six figures” in his precious metals investment to MF Global, Mr. Celente has become prone to emotional exaggeration in his public statements. I don’t doubt that the substance of his trend predictions is still generally accurate. But I suspect that the style of his presentation of those predictions has has become more radical, more hyperbolic.
It’s important not to confuse style and substance–especially when that style includes a lot of hype. Sometimes a hyperbolic style is needed to convey the importance of the substance being presented. Sometimes not. If you listen to the Celente interview, look for the substance and then try to discern if the style is necessary or exaggerated.
video
00:08:14
Ummer
December 13, 2011 at 12:17 PM
Economic martial law? The reminder of Argentina’s one year experience with a total shut down of their banking system, comes to my mind. Though it might last a lot longer for the Americans.
Joseph S Haas
December 13, 2011 at 12:40 PM
The key words are in paragraph #4 of force and consent. The dictionary defines what the word militate is: the evidence of force. The EVIDENCE! So when somebody TRIES to present evidence in court of like to the non-filing by that 40USC255 to 3112 Federal agent to whatever State governmental unit he or she is to report to with #x-number of papers, if any, then and ONLY then to have jurisdictional authority to conduct business in THAT state! like to THEN be controllable over us N.H. Article 12 inhabitants http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html to these “other” laws. See: http://www.constitution.org/juris/fjur/1fj-ba.htm for this state by state list, (thanks to Attorney Lowell “Larry” Becraft, from Huntsville, Alabama) of like for example: of that “head” of Federal “agency”, like the GSA/ General Services Administration landlord for her* tenants of like the U.S. Marshal, U.S. Attorney and U.S. District Court; to in Florida file with the governor, in New Hampshire with the Secretary of State, and with nobody in Missouri: The “Show Me” State getting Carte Blanche BELIEVE IT OR NOT! * The her being: Martha Johnson in Washington, D.C. See also: U.S. Attorney Manual 664: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00664.htm back to that “Consent” word in 1-8-17 of the U.S. Constitution, and Art. VI, Section 2 in that the law reads of NOT pursuant to, as there are these CONDITIONAL agreements,BUT “in pursuance thereof” of HOW to put into effect. WHERE did Gerald Celente have his $100,000+ stolen from? What state? To see the video now. . . Joe P.S. See also 28 U.S.C.636(c)(1) for when “they” of these Federal goons do ORDER the local court clerks withIN the state to Remove any cases against them to Federal Court where they are conveniently Dismissed! Such is illegal as against their own statutes! as “consent” needs to be given by BOTH parties of: plaintiff AND defendant. A N.H. case of such being # 2005-C-033 in The Grafton County Superior Court, which retired judge is to be impeached and her Article 36 pension cancelled next year, 2012.
Tony
December 13, 2011 at 9:31 PM
inverse proportionality between knowledge of law and ability to write.
Christian Gains
April 22, 2012 at 4:41 PM
In the question of “ECONOMIC Martial Law”, (as poited out above), “militate” means “the evidence of force”.
So likely, economic Martial Law will be, the evidence of force in the commercial market place…or..in the economic activities of the system. Argentina’s year long SHUT DOWN of the BANKING SYSTEM is an example.
Neither the people, NOR the Banks were given a choice. And, (though nominal) force was applied. Such controls immediately impact the populace, (the soverreigns), by means of excluding them from acquiring their financial benefits or properties. (Of course, in Argentina’s case the people are NOT recognized as sovereigns, but have, for many years, been subjects).
Here, on the other hand, we still have the Constitution existent, [tho very weakly], so, economic Martial Law is a bit more difficult, (it will probably demand a MAJOR CATASTROPHIC economic event or sequences of events — default of our debt., devaluation of our currency, replacement of the Dollar as the Global Standard Unit, and major social upheaval due to these events).
I see no reason to doubt that these sorts of socially explosive events will take place.
Christian Gains
April 22, 2012 at 5:05 PM
Here’s something pertinent that you wrote in the ISRAEL section:
“…But there’s another factor in this equation: Our gov-co wants inflation to wipe out much of the current national debt. If inflation caused the fiat dollar to lose 50% of its current purchasing power, the existing national debt would be effectively reduced by 50%. (If we owed $14 trillion, we’d still repay $14 trillion, but they’d only have about $7 trillion in purchasing power. By means of inflation, the gov-co can rob its creditors.
Therefore, gov-co has a powerful interest in inflating the fiat dollar.
But gov-co also has a powerful interest in not being blamed for inflating the fiat dollar.
So, if circumstances could be contrived so that some “patsy” (say, Saudi Arabia) could be blamed for inflating the dollar, our gov-co might be secretly delighted.
The current issue over Palestinian statehood provides circumstances whereby the US could simultaneously support Israel (by vetoing Palestinian statehood) and perhaps cause the Saudi’s to not only withdraw their support for the fiat dollar but also to be blamed for resultant inflation.
Figuratively speaking, the US is currently facing a Saudi highwayman who’s effectively demanding “Your money or your Jews!”
Like Jack Benny, the US is hesitating, considering the situation and answering “I’m thinking; I’m thinking!”
I’m betting that the US will choose support Israel, veto Palestinian statehood, call the Saudi bluff, and risk inflating the fiat dollar.
But even if our gov-co’s choice does not cause significant inflation, the fact remains that that choice is there: support Israel or support the fiat dollar.
The mere existence of that choice should constitute a sobering reality for Israel because, sooner or later, the US will almost certainly choose to support the fiat dollar and sacrifice Israel…”