Dear Friends and Patriots,

The most oft asked question in recent days is “What do they want?” The answers we’ve heard postulated and elaborated upon in media have been rather unsatisfying. We’ve seen the Project Veritas videos and heard James O’Keefe state Antifa’s objectives are just what we see—to create maximum chaos and violence, to burn and to provide pathways for local thugs and wannabes to burn more and to loot. According to O’Keefe, Antifa is pretty much a bunch of anarchist purists whose only discernible objective is to topple the nation’s power structure through unremitting violence.

If you consider Black Lives Matter (BLM), you might hear of different objectives. You’re all witnessing the current clamor to defund and dis-establish police departments, and you’ve seen some cities committing to do just that. You might be inclined to believe that’s a real BLM objective, but is it? If it is, where did that come from?

My mind tends to start racing when I hear questions like “What do they want?” and listen to the endless prattle that passes for thoughtful response. I have my own way of deliberating on the question, and I come up with far different answers than I’ve heard posited, though I doubt very much I’m alone in the conclusions I draw.

I want to pause now to tell you what my next article is going to be about. This one you’re reading is only a prelude. It’s actually something of a micro-discussion. Next time, I want to go from this ground-level discussion all the way to the 50,000 foot level, and then walk it back. I want to get your mind focused, so I chose to start with today’s discussion before I leap up into the stratosphere. I’m afraid if I don’t I’ll miss an important thought and I may also lose you before you read the first sentence. So, understand today’s offering as preliminary. It’s just a warm-up for the main event. Know also that today’s article and the next one are shoving aside something that’s very fundamental to all discussions. I have a cake in the oven already, but have decided to turn the heat off while I do these two chores that I don’t actually consider more important, but do consider of more immediate need. So, there’s some head’s up for what you’ll see from me two articles hence.

Now, back to today’s points.

What do they want? That question evokes a whole series of “Why?” questions. I want to cut that short and offer you the idea that every incident since Trayvon Martin’s death that gained national attention and sparked demonstrations, riots, and debate has been for one end. Most of the incidents that provoked the ensuing chaos were not staged, though that can’t be conclusively stated in the Baltimore case involving Freddie Gray and can’t be with this one involving George Floyd. There are aspects of both those incidents that, when known, raise too many eyebrows of too many skeptical people. But, let’s leave that aside for now. I have a way of looking at these things that tells me the provocations are not nearly as important as most people want to think. In fact, their main importance may just be to divert us from the true objective, the real answer to “What do they want?” So, let’s also leave out the demonstrations, riots, and all the endless conversations going on in the country regarding those events. For this exercise, just consider all that to be nothing but giant diversions. They’re shows, intended to focus you on the micro so you can’t discern the macro. If you can’t re-focus and see the macro, you’ll never accurately deduce the answer to the main question being asked. You’ll never understand what they want or why they want it.

The problem in asking any important question is in determining who to ask. We’ve seen efforts to ask and elicit answers from Antifa and BLM, but are they the ones who should be asked? Do they even know? My personal opinion is they don’t have a clue. Who does? That’s one of those $64,000 questions. We don’t know. My umbrella heading answer is, the globalists—the cabal—those who are most vitally interested in seeing the culmination of all that’s related to the achievement of the goals of Agenda 2030. Yeah, those people. They’re the ones who are behind all this. Antifa and BLM are little more than their useful idiot army. They’re the bully-boys sent out to create mayhem in the streets to give the reporters and those with their handy cell-phones something exciting to look at and record. They feed the media narratives ever night and keep our attention diverted from their true purposes. As terrible as those scenes may be, that’s all they are—distractions and diversions.

Step back a few years and recall President Obama’s speech where he proposed a civilian army that would be as big as, as well trained as, and as well-equipped as the U.S. military forces. Remember that? Of course you do. Now contemplate the subsequent ammunition shortage that lasted almost two years. It seemed the shortage was caused by the U.S. government contracting with the manufacturers for such huge orders of various calibers of ammo that they managed to starve the consumer markets. There were all kinds of explanations offered, but none of them rang true. The government appeared to be making a concerted effort to do two things—accumulate huge stockpiles of ammo and starve out private gun owners. There were reports out at the time of the construction of new FEMA warehouses all around the country where the ammo was delivered. Yes, that was part of it.

Recall also the growth of badge-wearing, gun-toting federal police forces and Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. Understand the role of SWAT teams. They don’t do standard law enforcement. They don’t do investigations. They aren’t concerned with any aspect of justice. Their purposes are all tactical. When they’re involved, the focus of their efforts is to put crosshairs on targets and, if given a verbal okay, to put rounds into those targets to neutralize them in the fastest and surest way. Neutralize is a euphemism they use that often translates as “kill,” though SWAT teams can use non-lethal means to neutralize a target if the situation allows. Think of flash-bangs, tear gas, and bean-bag guns as among non-lethal tools at their disposal. The main point is SWAT teams aren’t concerned with any objective other than to eliminate a perceived threat.

Weren’t you curious about the Gibson Guitar Company raid when you found out a U.S. Customs tactical unit led the raid? It was pulled off in the dead of night by a cadre outfitted in full tactical combat gear. It became apparent later that many other government agencies had trained tactical forces. Why did they need them? What was their purpose? Why did the Bureau of Land Management (BLM*), a branch of the Interior Department, need a tactical law enforcement force? We saw that in operation during the incidents involving Cliven Bundy, which revolved around a dispute over the non-payment of grazing fees to BLM. In 2015, Congress got curious about the question of the proliferation of tactical teams (they never refer to them as SWAT teams, which is the original term used by local and state police agencies) and chartered a study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The report, number R44179, dated 3 September 2015 and titled “Federal Tactical Teams,” indicated that 65 of the 71 separate federal agencies have law enforcement arms. Only 13 of those 65 federal agencies responded to the CRS inquiry with declarations of the use of tactical teams. Just those 13 agencies accounted for the existence of 271 tactical teams. Of those, 93% of the teams were associated with various parts of the Department of Justice (DoJ) [213 teams] and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) [39 teams]. The CRS report made a recommendation that all such tactical teams be placed under a single federal bureau to ensure consistent use-of-force doctrine, training, and oversight. Do you see yet where this is going? [* Uh … that would be the “original” BLM]

Even those who grasp that our federal government has rapidly increased the numbers and lethality of its police agencies might not yet connect the dots to today’s events. Here’s a synopsis of what has been and is going on, in bullet form:

• Significant expansion of the numbers of federal police forces

• Increased lethality of the federal police forces by equipping them with

  military hardware and training them in military tactics of urban

  pacification

• Increased numbers and employment of special tactical teams

Okay, that’s just positioning. That’s expanding the breadth and capabilities of the feds with respect to policing. So what?

On a parallel track, we’ve seen police incidents that have sparked civil unrest. Those were almost always put to us framed as racial issues. In all cases, the victim was black and was killed by a white person or the police. In these scenarios, all who were on the side of the law who weren’t white were put into a different category. They were branded as stooges and sell-outs to the oppressor class. In other words, their blackness, their own racial identity, was denied to them. They were summarily excluded from the black community as a means to focus the conversation on the “real problems” which were presented in two ways—police brutality and systematic white racism. It’s become a standard script.

The incident in Minneapolis quickly devolved into protests and riots. Those protests and riots spread to over 30 cities within a week, and then we started hearing a new mantra – defund the police. That mantra was picked up everywhere and now it also is nationwide. Minneapolis appears to be on a path to defund and completely reimagine their police force. Los Angeles is pulling millions in funding from the LAPD. They’re making the same noise and the same moves in New York City and several other places, all with Democrat regimes. Yes, the new mantra is “defund the police” and you’ve all heard it. Do you think it’s nonsense? Think again. This is nonsense with a purpose. The immediate purpose is to nudge us toward a mindset of acceptance for the idea. Then, there’s that other purpose; the real one.

For several years, a few out in the blogosphere have speculated on the notion that the feds were trying to establish a national police force. The train of thought started during the Obama administration as a projection of logic when trying to rationalize the huge acquisition of ammo and the expansion of the tactical policing units, coupled with the massive transfer of military hardware to police and sheriff’s departments across the nation. But, it didn’t seem there was much to the concern. Even after the Ferguson and Baltimore riots there weren’t any visible moves toward a federal takeover of local policing. But, maybe we are now nearing the time when we will see it.

The “defund the police” effort seems to open doors, don’t you think? These seemingly naïve moves to severely diminish the role of police in large cities will almost certainly result in chaos and death as the criminals adjust to their “new normal.” We who have sense understand most criminals as sociopaths to some lesser or greater degree. Their natural response to less policing will be to step up the level of their own criminal behavior. These “experiments” in less-is-more policing that might involve an emphasis on attempts to socialize the criminal element is almost certainly doomed to fail. When large cities that are buying into the idiocy of demolishing their police forces begin to experience a boom in criminal activity they could react by asking for federal help. After all, most of those cities are in hock up to their eyeballs and it’s far quicker and easier to take something apart than it is to put it back together again. They won’t want to re-apply tax monies to their PDs instead of making badly needed improvements to playgrounds and buying their mayors’ new limousines. That wouldn’t sell to the taxpayers. No, they’ll ask the feds and the feds will respond by offering them deals. Those deals will be prompted by new legislation promoted by Democrats that will allow an increased federal presence as vital “assistance” to local communities. We know the Democrats are law-and-order advocates in their hearts, don’t we?

You all should understand by now the feds’ way of coping with the Tenth Amendment is to adopt Vampire Rules. One Vampire rule is “You wait until they ask you in. Then, you have their permission to take over.” That’s how the opening phase works. Another Vampire Rule is “Never suck them dry. Always leave them alive, but just barely. Now that you’re in, you don’t want your host to regain enough strength to tell you to leave.” You see, once they’re there, they’re there to stay.

So, we look at the facts on the ground and see the feds have the ability to field police teams in local cities, first to augment and later to subsume. Once they’re in place and the mayors realize their policing bill just got really, really cheap (after all, the deal is essentially a budget transfer that benefits the cash-strapped cities) they’ll make their own moves to allow the feds to take over almost all police work and hire their own cops away from them.

Even if it just happens in ten cities, it establishes the template and mindset necessary to expand it further. More and more cities and towns that want to use their budgets for other nice-to-have projects will sign on and before you know it American has a national police force that’s just as well funded as, just as well trained as, and just as well equipped as the U.S. military. Who said Democrats never keep their promises? It looks like they’re on the move to keep this one. Obama’s Army—coming to a city near you!

Now, I wonder what they’ll want to call their new national police? If they take the CRS report recommendation and put it all under a new bureau it’ll need a snappy name. I’m certain Ministry for State Security is available. In English, it might be called the MSS, but when the East Germans used the title it was called the Stasi. Doesn’t that make a thrill run up your leg?

In Liberty,

Steve A. Stone