Have you heard the phrase, ‘Never let a serious crisis go to waste?’ If not, here is a perfect example of the idea being publicly and seriously asserted by people at the highest levels of our government:
Now, let me explain to those who do not already understand that the things Rahm Emanuel is saying in this video do not necessarily mean what they appear to mean. By this, I am saying that Emanuel is speaking in a code language, and you have to know and understand the thinking behind that code to properly decipher his message. Make no mistake about it, this code language is real, and the majority of people in the audience here in this video, as well as those to whom this message is aimed understand this language. What I am going to try to do is explain the thinking behind it so you can start to understand what he is actually saying.
In 1906, a man named William James wrote a paper titled, “The Moral Equivalent of War.” In short, he was looking for a substitute to war: something which people could rally around and channel their energies into in the same way they do during war time, but without the death and destruction (again, this is a simplified explanation, but it is generally accurate). After WWW I, this search for a ‘moral equivalent to war’ took on even greater importance, but world leaders noticed something else connected to the idea of war — the public acceptance of sacrifice!
What leaders realized is, if they could find something that was as dangerous a threat to the nation as a war, but which was not as destructive, they could convince the people to ‘sacrifice’ for the greater good without the devastation that usually accompanies a war. This ‘sacrifice’ is almost always connected to giving up the way of life to which the people were accustomed. They would put up with less food, fewer consumer goods, lesser quality of necessities, fewer services and greatly restricted or even the total confiscation of their Natural Rights. In short, they would surrender to dictatorship in the name of ‘saving the nation.’
Well, the people who realized they could use such threats to gain greater power did not just let this idea go away. They have been using it ever since they realized they could use ‘crisis’ to manipulate and control the people. You just have to know that this idea exists, and that the people who developed it are serious about implementing it whenever, wherever and as often as they can. Once you know and accept that this is the truth, you will start to see how it works. For example, there is Jimmy Carter’s speech:
In this speech, then President, Jimmy Carter, used the idea of the gas crisis of the 1970’s as being ‘morally equivalent to war.’ What did he mean? He meant that the ‘crisis’ should have been treated by the people as the same degree of threat to the nation as an attack on the nation by a foreign power. In short, Carter argued that the threat of the gas shortage was as dangerous as an invasion. Rahm Emanuel directly addresses this crisis and, indirectly, Carter’s speech in the above video. The reasoning was intended to convince the American people to make whatever sacrifice was necessary to ‘solve’ the crisis. But here is the catch: the solution is always and can only be the one that the people who seek control offer.
Notice how we have never been allowed to seek energy independence by producing more fuel until President Trump lifted the government-imposed restrictions on our oil industry. Once that happened, our oil industry made this nation energy independent for the first time since the start of the oil boom. But this does not require sacrifice, and it does not include the plan that the people seeking ‘the moral equivalent of war’ want to force on us. Therefore, those people reject the result and insist that the nation must do things their way or we will ruin the planet for the whole future of mankind.
Essentially, ‘the moral equivalent of war’ is terrorism. It uses artificially constructed fear to bully the People into accepting draconian solutions to the ‘crisis’ that always include the restriction of goods, services and — above all — individual rights and liberties. This is all about convincing people to willingly surrender control to a minority that otherwise could not take control by force. These people are too few in number to conqueror us, so the only way they can takeover is if we can be convinced to surrender. This is exactly what the idea of ‘the moral equivalent of war’ was designed to do: to trick a nation into surrendering to tyrants to save themselves from a perceived threat that does not actually exist.
You must know the history here, because it is part of the modern American Liberal/Progressive movement. The same movement to which Hillary Clinton pledged her allegiance in the 2016 Democrat Part Presidential Primary campaign debates. The American Left has never abandoned the goals or the tactics of the Progressive movement. On the contrary: they have improved upon them, and they are using them to wild success. Mostly because Americans do not know about these goals and tactics, and do not know the language used to discuss them. But, once you learn the goals and tactics, and the language they use, you will see that they openly boast about everything they are doing. There is no ‘conspiracy’ here, my friend. All of this is being done out in the open. You just have to educate yourself before you can see and understand it. Once you do that, you will see it everywhere.