Posted originally on Sep 28, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |  

QUESTION: What do you think of Trump going after Soros and groups that are seeking to create violence? Is this connected to the Kirk assassination?

D

ANSWER: Look, the talk behind the curtain is that a lone shooter did not assassinate Kirk. Forensic experts suggest that he was struck from behind. Everything was wrapped up neatly very fast, and it is the same story, like Oswald was always a lone shooter. What Trump did was to respond to a deliberate effort to create civil unrest in the United States to essentially break up the country and surrender it to the one-world government theory.

If you think for one minute that the far-left has just laid down and surrendered to Trump, you are sadly wrong. This is a war, and they are not about to give up on the crazy WOKENESS theories. Obama is using Kirk to try to divide the country, claiming it is the RIFGHT, never the LEFT. Many are optimistic that the Supreme Court has agreed to take Trump vs Slaughter in December concerning the firing of a member of the Federal Trade Commission. But this is beyond the rule of law. They are not going to use the courts to win against Trump. This is about a deliberate assault to overthrow the Constitution to get the people to ask for that as the solution.

I do not believe that Kik was assassinated for anything he actually said. He was the symbol of the opposite of the LEFT agenda. Assassinating him would divide the country and create civil unrest, which is the real objective. Look, I have warned many times that REVOLUTION will always come from the LEFT, not the RIGHT, because they have fundamental differences in values. The LEFT always presents itself as the victims of the RIGHT, which is capitalism, etc., whereas the RIGHT are the traditional values and seek to maintain the status quo.

THE LEFT:

Left-wing ideologies (e.g., communism, socialism, anarchism) are fundamentally concerned with class struggle, economic equality, and the overthrow of existing capitalist or feudal hierarchies. This is why their ideologies have been outlawed even in the Ten Commandments. This goes back into ancient times. It was the LEFT agenda of Sparta that waged the Peloponnesian War to destroy the capitalists in Athens in 404BC. Sparta and Athens represented two completely different ways of life, and each viewed the other’s system as a threat to its own existence. Those struggles influence Marx.

Thus, they always insist that monetary inequality is an inherent failure of the capitalist system or exploitation by a ruling class (e.g., landowners, industrialists, or a monarch). Leftist movements will always mobilize the working class, peasants, and intellectuals around a vision of a revolutionary new order (e.g., a worker’s state, a classless society). The state always represents the interests of the propertied classes. They will crack down on strikes or protests. This confirms the left’s view that the state is an instrument of oppression and that revolution is the only path. Therefore, you will see that the left forms militias (often with international support from other socialist states) to fight the state’s police forces. The goal is revolution—to seize state power and radically transform the entire socioeconomic structure.

Historical Examples beyond Sparta vs Athens are numerous. Just a few examples are the Russian Civil War (1917-1923), the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), and the Chinese Civil War (1927-1949, with a pause during World War II).

The French Revolution turned bloody and attacked the Catholic Church, seizing all of their property and executing priests. This is why the French are in their 5th Republic, because it was a LEFTIST agenda and class warfare. Hence, France was unable to establish a stable Republic as unlike the United States, which was not based on a LEFTIST agenda but on separation from Britain.

THE RIGHT:

When we examine the RIGHT, the motivations are entirely different. Here, a perceived threat exists to the traditional social order, national identity, or private property. This threat is often seen as coming from LEFTIST movements, secularizing reforms, or ethnic/racial minorities gaining rights. Right-wing movements mobilize those who feel their status, wealth, or cultural identity is under attack (e.g., traditional elites, religious groups, nationalist segments of the population).

A left-wing electoral victory, a series of progressive reforms, or a revolution that begins to dismantle the old order is usually the trigger. The right, often with support from within the military, launches a counter-revolution or secessionist movement. The goal is to conserve or restore a traditional social hierarchy, frequently defined by race, religion, or class. This can also manifest as a war for ethnic supremacy or separation.

Most people have never heard of William Lloyd Garrison (1805-1879), but he was perhaps one of the strongest voices that stirred up hatred in the South with his newspaper, The Liberator, which he founded in 1831 and published in Boston. He was not just anti-slavery; they were radical leftists for their time. They called for a complete overhaul of a society they saw as fundamentally corrupt and built on the sin of slavery. Their methods—using moral suasion, civil disobedience, and demanding immediate, uncompensated emancipation—were deeply challenging to the economic and social order.

A historical example is the American Civil War (1861-1865), which was more than just slavery. The South was a core right-wing insofar as the Southern planter aristocracy’s desire to conserve the status quo. The LEFT (North) was morally against the institution of slavery, but it was deeper than that. They were against the traditional, agrarian way of life in the South. As these Patriotic Covers illustrate, they were seen as primitive and not keeping pace with the “new” way of doing things with the rise of the Industrial Revolution.

The North was embracing the Industrial Revolution. They saw the South as resisting that trend. The South seceded from the Union explicitly to protect what they saw as their way of life, “property,” and states’ rights from the threat posed by the increasingly LEFTIST anti-slavery Republican Party (which, in the 1860s, represented a more modern, industrial, and politically progressive vision).

The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), as mentioned above, was triggered by the RIGHT. The Nationalists, led by Franco, were a coalition of monarchists, fascists (Falange), traditionalists, and the Catholic Church reacting against the secularizing and reformist LEFT-WING Republic. Their goal was a counter-revolution to restore a centralized, Catholic, and authoritarian Spain.

Even in Africa, the Biafran War/Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970) was an ethnic secessionist war, but RIGHT-WING ideologies of ethnic nationalism and supremacy fueled it. The Igbo-led secession of Biafra was a reaction to pogroms and a fear of political and cultural domination by other ethnic groups within Nigeria.

---

Anyone who thinks that Trump won and that somehow killed the LEFT, you are wrong. They have a few billionaires who fund civil unrest and they fully understand that the way to defeat the RIGHT is through dividing the people, and that makes them susceptible to management and control, where they will willingly surrender all their rights for safety.

Fund the civil unrest, divide the people, and the establishment will crumble. This is the standard formula that has been used for centuries. The Peloponnesian War (431–404BC) saw simmering tensions explode into a 27-year war of LEFT vs RIGHT philosophies. This Great Divide appears to be inherent within human nature that has always existed and contributes to both CIVIL UNREST/REVOLUTION as well as INTERNATIONAL WAR (which in ancient times was among city-states),

It’s crucial to recognize the preconditions that make any society vulnerable to civil war, regardless of ideology. These include a weak central government, as in the Roman Empire, when the Persians captured Emperor Valerian in 260AD. That led to the Empire splitting into three empires.

The next critical tipping point is a widespread economic crisis, which can be a sudden economic shock (e.g., a depression, famine), as was the Great Depression worldwide. Another critical division is deep divisions along ethnic, religious, or class lines, which we are witnessing in the Balkans and right now in Ukraine, and their hatred of Russians. Just as in the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, the tipping point occurs when the military or police take sides instead of defending the state itself. In Russia, during 1991, when Yeltsin stood on the tank and told them not to fire on their fellow Russians, the coup collapsed.

Ideology (left or right) is the framework through which groups interpret these crises and justify their actions. Regardless of the culture we examine, we see the same divide over similar issues.

Long before the Progressive Era, there were distinct leftist movements of the Utopian Socialists in the United States during the 1820s-1840s, led by Robert Owen and Charles Fourier. They were Americans who established experimental communities, like the French Communes of their Revolution.

However, it was the Progressive Movement (1890s-1920s) with its Presidential candidate, Teddy Roosevelt, that became the Crucible of Modern Leftism.

Our Computer has been projecting the rise in civil unrest, which is a result of this Great Divide, and this trend is expected to become more aggressive in 2026, particularly from March 2026. I believe that Kirk’s assassination was not some random act. There may be a lot more behind this, and it may have been an intended spark to ignite this divide in 2026, with the attempt by the LEFT to resist the RIGHT and the rise of Trump.

Obama immediately came out and used Kirk’s assassination as a response to Trump’s White House. Obama, in defending the LEFT, blamed Trump for animosity in the country, calling him “the architect of modern political division in America.” Obama has been a major player in dividing the country. To defend the radical left, he blamed Trump. This illustrates what I am saying. The LEFT is always the victim, and the RIGHT is always the establishment seeking to retain traditional values, and this is the status quo. There is no resolution; this will lead to the dissolution of the United States as we head into 2032.

Posted originally on Sep 27, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |  

The last time legendary financial and geopolitical cycle analyst Martin Armstrong was on USAWatchdog, he was hopeful that Trump would keep America out of the coming NATO War with Russia.  Trump was talking about not sending troops to Ukraine for any peace deal, and before that, he said he backed a Russian plan to trade land for peace in Ukraine.  Fast forward a month, and now, Trumps says, “Ukraine can win back its territory,” Russia is a “paper tiger,” and NATO countries should shoot down Russia aircraft.  What a flip-flop on foreign policy!

To Trump’s credit, it is reported he did deny sending long range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, but he is still sending a fresh batch of arms to NATO paid for with seized Russian money.  What the heck is going on?  Armstrong says, “It’s a double edge sword here.  On one hand, he is being a bit sarcastic, and maybe if he says that somehow it will compel Putin to come to the table.  Sorry, this is not negotiating trade issues.  You are insulting the integrity of Russia saying it is a ‘paper tiger,’ etc.  Everything Trump has said is exactly what the neocons have been saying.  These EU leaders have been told that Russia is on the verge of collapse. . . .NATO has been telling them they have 3.4 million troops against Russia’s 1.5 million troops, and they can walk in and take Russia in a blink of an eye.  This is the nonsense that they are putting out.”

This brings us to Armstrong’s predictive computer program called Socrates.  Armstrong says, “I typed in here:  Socrates, what are the prospects for nuclear war after 2025?”  This is the first time Armstrong has let Socrates answer in an interview, and it says, “Marty, the prospects for nuclear war post 2025 appear to have risen to 100%.  This may be tactical nuclear.  All indicators show Ukraine remains the center point for Europe as a proxy war orchestrated by NATO.  Ukraine will not survive as a country, and the European Union is also not likely to survive beyond 2030.”

Could Trump be one of the greatest President’s in history if he sidesteps this European war with Russia?  Armstrong says, “Absolutely.  The EU is not salvageable.  I have been doing interviews in Europe, and three years ago, I was asked, ‘Do you really think the EU will break up?’  And now, I get, ‘When is it going to break up?’ . . .. These neocons will never accept any kind of a peace deal with Russia—period.”

I asked Armstrong if he were to have a short one-on-one call with President Trump, what would you tell him?  Armstrong says, “My computer says you are going to lose, and my computer has never been wrong.  You can check it, and the CIA even wanted it.  It’s got a 40-year track record you can document.”

What would Armstrong advise President Trump to do right now?  Armstrong says, “I would tell President Trump to get the hell out of Europe, and get out the hell of NATO.  I did pass a message to President Trump a few months ago with someone who is close to him.  I said NATO is going to try to do a false flag to invoke an Article Five to drag us into the war.  We have to get out of NATO ASAP.”

On gold and silver and their big price increases lately, Armstrong says, “It’s not a surprise.  They are going up because of war.”  Armstrong predicts future price gains for both metals will explode, and on some instances start doubling in price.  For example, on gold, Armstrong says, “When you cross $5,000 per ounce, and I am talking further out, these markets always jump exponentially to the next major psychological number.  So, when you cross $5,000, it will jump to $10,000.  That’s what everybody will be looking for then,”

One last thing, Armstrong says, “China is on record to not let Russia lose to NATO, because if that happens, they are next.”

There is much more in the 75-minute interview.