Today, I had a discussion with a former judge that wanted to bend my ear about the recent shows I have been producing. He told me that what I was saying about impunity and lack of credibility is exactly why he was so glad he got out of the system and retired. He has now been an activist against things like jury tampering, outrageous amounts of money asked for bail and constitutional malfeasance. He said to me that he knew I was implying the country was starting the civil war that I had been talking about for months but he differed in opinion as to what was happening.

He told me what we are witnessing is insurgency and that a full on rebellion may happen this summer.

While he agreed that impunity is running rampant in the country and that accountability in the lower levels of enforcement is lacking, he told me that I neglected to talk about the militarization of the police forces and how that breeds intimidation and for some people, a challenge to revolt.

He explained that the government has pushed the envelope with regards to Posse Comitatus and rather than deploy the military, the US government has militarized the local police forces by providing military equipment and training. The outcome is the same: a violent uncontrolled armed force that terrorizes the people rather than serves them.

What is worse is that with the added militarization of the police, we are slowly being assimilated into the idea that police can use whatever weapons necessary to apprehend insurgents. This means things like autonomous drones, MRAP vehicles, electromagnetic wave emitters, active denial weapons, and robots can and will be used in battlefield operations on United States soil.

In the Dallas sniper case, negotiators had been talking for hours with the assumed killer of five police officers when the suspect suddenly resumed firing with an assault rifle.

Fearing additional casualties, the officers deployed a small, remote-controlled robot to carry an explosive device near the suspected shooter Micah Xavier Johnson, which they then detonated, killing him.

The Dallas Police Department’s unprecedented use of a robot armed with a bomb to kill an armed suspect ushers in a new phase in the militarization of U.S. police departments.

This type of tactic is used in a warzone and now the question is raised if this is ethical or at least safe to use in a civilian insurgence.

The police see the use of robots as a new opportunity for self-defense presented by advancing technologies and the transfer of second-hand military equipment to local police departments. However, we need to keep in mind that these robots were seen only in warzones and only used by the CIA and the military to take out terrorists.

The police in Dallas say they had no choice but to use the robot.

The question now is not whether or not the police were justified in using the robot, the question is whether or not robots will be over-used or even implemented routinely.

The truth is simple: Deadly confrontations with robots like the one in Dallas are increasingly likely thanks to federal programs that have moved billions of dollars worth of surplus military equipment into the hands of local police agencies.

The use of experimental weapons will likely turn insurgent uprisings at home into events similar to those in the Middle East.

There are many people who argue that the use of the robot in Dallas was not prudent and the shooter could have been taken out by snipers in helicopters.

Although it is an unusual tactic, police have used robots during armed standoffs before. In April 2011, police in Blountville, Tenn., chased a murder suspect to a double-wide trailer. During the ensuing confrontation, police rolled a bomb squad robot into the trailer and had it detonate a tear gas grenade, according to a police incident report released to the Bristol Herald Courier newspaper. The explosion started a fire and the suspect escaped before turning himself in two days later.

In November 2014, a SWAT team in Albuquerque, N.M., requested “robot assistance” to subdue an armed suspect barricaded inside a motel room. “The Bomb Squad robot was able to deploy chemical munitions into the subject’s motel room, which led to the subject’s surrender,” according to the Albuquerque Police Department’s description of the incident.

Another question is whether or not the people are ready to be subjected to mechanized death when warranted and are they comfortable with the idea that robots or drones seem to be very prone to “collateral damage.”

I have said on many occasions, the Robot War is not too far away and this should be an issue that is discussed by our potential leaders. I can tell you now with confidence that we will be seeing a greater and greater use of robotics in all sorts of roles, whether it is by the military, law enforcement, or just the rest of us in civilian life.

Before the Dallas shootings, when it came to arming robotic systems in a law enforcement role, most of the discussion had been only limited to robots using “less than lethal” weapons.

At a number of trade shows, robotic systems have been displayed that mount tasers and tear gas to China’s controversial Anbot, which is a police bot designed to operate autonomously and equipped with an electroshock device similar to a cattle prod.

These, of course, prompt great debate that brings together elements of the robotics argument with the question over whether “less than lethal” weapons actually lead to abuse.

Are we prepared for our police to use weapons meant for war? Are we ready to debate that the militarization of the police may be one of the chief reasons this country is in a state of insurgence?

After the Dallas use of a robot to stop an accuse killer, there are now many cheerleaders that believe this is a great move by the police. According to a report at antimedia.com, there are now more people who are demanding Martial Law in the United States and the use of military weapons along with assistance from international military units provided by the United Nations if necessary to squash what is now being called “The fourth stage” in what is termed the cycle of insurgency.

There are 5 cycles of insurgency that lead to full rebellion and civil war.

The first is spreading dissenting information through print and now, electronically.

Prior to the digital age, pamphlets were the main method of spreading dissent around the world. The pamphlets examined and questioned the authority of the contemporary governments and control systems. In the modern world, pamphlets have been replaced by blogs, memes, social media, and to a smaller degree, adversarial or independent journalists the mainstream media calls conspiracy theorists.

Reaction to the dissent is the second phase. Once the seed of descent is planted, people take to the streets in protest. The police are called in to diffuse any and all violent dissent.

When protests show to go unanswered by the government, the third phase is preemptive rioting by the people. This is where protest leads to destroying private property.

The fourth phase is when these riots and small incidents of resistance trigger a government reaction. The control systems of the country tighten their grip on the people and further curtail civil liberties and infringe on people’s rights. The government crackdown fuels the resistance movement as more people tire of government intrusion.

And finally if the insurgence grows or becomes out of control, at some point during the crackdown, an incident occurs that tosses a match into the powder keg of dissent. At this point, open rebellion occurs.

There are people now that see the powder keg of dissent has already been ignited and that the militarization of the police is the answer. They say that the use of a robot or even drones should be justified.

What this will do is not solve the problem; it will make the problem worse as insurgents will find way to upgrade their defenses. We will no longer have to only worry about mass shootings, because the next move would be for insurgents to get their hands on pipe bombs. The targets will no longer be police; the targets will be public places that will attract first responders.

Certain police departments may believe they are isolated from the violence because of their geographic location. They aren’t. Because of social media, events that historically would have only prompted violence within the immediate vicinity can prompt violence on the other side of the nation.

We are so close to an open insurrection in this country that it would be wise not to turn this nation into a battle ground, with experimental weapons. To those who want Martial Law in this country, it would not be wise to do this either because events where there are curfews and stripped civil liberties we could see a full rebellion.

Generally, the institution of Martial Law contemplates some use of military force and military weapons on insurgents. To a varying extent, depending on the Martial Law order, government military personnel have the authority to make and enforce civil and criminal laws. Certain civil liberties may be suspended, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of association, and freedom of movement.

Martial Law is normally used to try to restore and maintain peace during civil unrest. It does not always yield the desired results. Throughout history, it has been shown that using unbridled force against various insurgencies worldwide has merely delayed its progress it does not eliminate it.

If we look back into history, the closest we came to a full-blown open insurrection was during the civil rights movement in the 1960’s and back then, they didn’t use robots or any other military grade weapons to quite it down.

John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy avoided a full-blown insurgency be recognizing the problems and provided solutions which led to relief and a diffusing of the situation.

Today, our leaders don’t care to find solutions and eliminate impunity; their answer is to arrest detain and use military grade weapons to turn America into a battlefield. It is obvious to me there is no person in political office at the national level that has the foresight to remedy the situation. Their answer is to militarize the police, take away the right to bear arms, and to censor the internet.

Wouldn’t it be prudent to give the people what they want? Wouldn’t it be prudent to realize that the leadership in this country has to start listening to the people rather than fighting with them and creating tension strategies to divide them?

While many may be cheering the idea of open insurrection, most do not understand the casualties and hardships associated with an insurgency. To those who want Martial Law, you must realize that once it is implemented it won’t be going away any time soon.

The things that have led us to this point in history are obviously methodical. I have told you that this was happening last year, and began this year talking about an evolutionary war, which I concluded would be asymmetrical warfare on U.S. soil. The radical elements of all divisions in this country are now at odds. The sick Hegelian maneuver is to get the people to demand, U.N. troops, robots and drones, Martial Law and battlefield solutions.

Have everyone believe that the end justifies the means.

Fomenting opposition is the grand strategy of the state. They capitalize on the natural spirit of rebellion in all of us they exploited our good nature and have acted with impunity.

Through trauma provided by a series of false flag events the state has now made this an issue of black versus white. The people now believe the state.

It has always been the state versus us.

When the state wins, we all lose and some of us will die.

Unfortunately, the last words we will hear are, “Your move Creep!”

https://soundcloud.com/groundzeromedia/a2016-7-11

Written by Ron Patton