JULY 30, 2020 | KAREN HARDIN, IFA CONTRIBUTING WRITER
A coup d’état is a “game of uncertainty where people tend to choose the side they believe most other actors support.” According to author Naunihal Singh, in his book, Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups, it becomes a game of “numbers” to create the illusion that all power and support is on the side of the attempted takeover. As they work to create that illusion, they are simultaneously working to remove all opposition to their plan. This is where we are today.
1. Manipulate Information (Take over the media)
In a coup attempt, this is called the “Coordination Theory,” in which it “is mandatory for the rebels to take over the main TV and radio stations, in order to create a fait [accompli] (The feeling that something has already been accomplished and cannot be changed.)”
We see this strategy in play by liberals who insist that Biden is leading in the polls in numerous battleground states, despite the fact that he hasn’t been out campaigning, he can’t put together a cohesive sentence, and he could barely get a few hundred people to show up to his rallies when he did campaign. Yet we are told daily that polls show Biden winning—via the coup accomplices—the media.
But according to Singh, it’s not enough to take over the media. It is the content of the information delivered which is of paramount importance: “The conspirators do not need to waste time rumbling about their righteousness. Instead, they have to hammer home the idea that they have already won, and that most important actors have already pledged their support for the coup (p.29).”
Joseph Goebbels, the Propaganda Minister under Hitler in Germany from 1933-1945 (yes that was his job title) stated, “It would not have been possible for us to take power or to use it in the ways we have without the radio.”
Step 2. Defund the police
Police are always targeted for removal in a coup attempt to remove opposition. This was done in Hitler’s day by his military leader, Hermann Goering, who helped pave the way for Hitler’s success. In 1933, Goering quickly rose through the ranks and set up concentration camps for political opponents to crush any resistance. (Just as we see happening in China today.)
Named Prussian Minister of the Interior and Commander-in-Chief of the Prussian police, he was then able to remove hundreds of officers and thousands of ordinary policemen, replacing them with Sturmabteilung (literally Storm Detachment, the Nazi Party’s original paramilitary wing) and SS, who took over the policing of Berlin.
So why have multiple “news sources,” including Reuters and Politifact, gone on record claiming this is false although it is completely true? They don’t want us to notice the comparison.
Instead, we are told defunding the police is needed for “reform,” tying the action to the politically correct Black Lives Matter and social justice movement. But I believe it has absolutely nothing to do with reforming the police. It has to do with taking them out.
Step 3. De-arm the citizens
Our freedom and right to bear arms have been under attack for years. If citizens have no guns, then resistance to a takeover is gone. While the Democrats work to convince Americans that our society would be “safer” if citizens were forced to hand over their guns, history proves otherwise.
Charles Van Wyk, author of “Shooting Back,” has spoken out to warn others of what he witnessed personally in his country of South Africa as citizens were de-armed and strict gun control measures implemented. Now, 26 years later, South Africa’s crime statistics reveal over 20,000 people murdered last year alone–the highest number the country has ever recorded.
“Gun control precedes genocide,” Wyk stated, and history proves his statement true. According to case studies of major twentieth-century genocide, once gun control became law, minority groups were targeted and murdered by the governments that implemented the laws.
Once “gun-free zones” are in place, they are then able to dominate and control citizens, who have been stripped of their guns and ability to protect themselves:
Step 4. The Removal of Statues and History
Hitler understood the importance of removing statues and with them the history connected to them. In the book Hitler at Home (Yale University Press, 2015), author Despina Stratigakost explains how Hitler ordered the eradication of war memorials in newly occupied Belgian and French towns, which “suggests that the Nazis understood the influence of even modest monuments once they become embedded in a community’s everyday life.”
It is unknown how many WWI memorials were removed or destroyed in Belgium and France through Hitler’s orders, in his effort to recast Germany as the victor of the war.
Fast forward to America, where in the last few months, over 30 statues have been torn down in our nation and even more defaced in an effort to remove history under the guise of racism.
Last month, Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered portraits of four speakers, Robert M.T. Hunter of Virginia, Howell Cobb of Georgia, James L. Orr of South Carolina and Charles F. Crisp of Georgia, to be removed from the Capitol in what The New York Times referred to as “the latest in a wave of efforts across the country to purge public spaces of historic symbols associated with racism and oppression.”
The media tried to make us see one thing—that all four men were part of the Confederacy. But what they hid from readers was the more important fact that all four of these men were DEMOCRATS.
Another country in which statues were toppled is Venezuela. Formerly one of the most prosperous democracies in Latin America, it is now a poverty-stricken wasteland. Venezuelan political activist Elizabeth Rogliani has warned Americans that we should be concerned about the toppling of statues and attempted erasure of American history.
According to Rogliani, “Founding Fathers are going to be attacked. Religious symbols are going to be attacked. And next, probably, museums. I mean, anything can be attacked if you just let it happen. If you just let the first ones come down, then [there are] no limits to what’s next.”
“It’s an attempt to change the identity of the country. That’s my opinion. And, that’s what they did to us,” she said. “Of course, it was different. At that point, they already had taken the government. But, at this point, they’re trying to change the national identity and they’re trying to destroy the system. And, if they get to the government, they’ll do it. They certainly will do it.”