IMF now ready to slam the door on the U.S. and the dollar

As I write this, the news is saturated with stories of a hostage situation possibly involving Islamic militants in Sydney, Australia. Like many, I am concerned about the shockwave such an event will create through our sociopolitical structures. However, while most of the world will be distracted by the outcome of this crisis (for good or bad) for at least the next two weeks, I find I must concern myself with a far more important and dangerous situation.

Up to 40 people may be held by supposed extremists in Sydney, but the entire world is currently being held hostage economically by international banks. This is the crisis no one in the mainstream is talking about, so alternative analysts must.

As I predicted last month in “We have just witnessed the last gasp of the global economy,” severe volatility is now returning to global markets after the pre-game 10 percent drop in equities in October hinted at what was to come.

We expected such destabilization after the wrap-up of the Fed taper, and the markets have not disappointed so far. My position has always been that the taper of QE3 made very little sense in terms of maintaining the illusion of economic health — unless, of course, the Federal Reserve was implementing the taper in preparation for a renewed financial catastrophe. That is to say, the central bankers have established the lie of American fiscal recovery and then separated themselves from blame for the implosion they know is coming. If the markets were to collapse while stimulus is officially active, the tragedy would be forever a millstone on the necks of the banksters. And we can’t have that now, can we?

This is not to say that individual central banks and even currencies are not expendable in the grand scheme of things. In fact, the long-term goal of globalists has been to consolidate all currency systems and central banks under the outward control of the International Monetary Fund and the Bank Of International Settlements, as I outlined in “The economic endgame explained.”

That particular article was only a summary of a dangerous trend I have been warning about for years, namely the strategy by international financiers to create a dollar-collapse scenario that will be blamed on prepositioned scapegoats. I have no idea what form these scapegoats will take: There are simply too many possible triggers for fiscal calamity. What I do know, though, is the goal of the endgame: to remove the dollar’s world reserve status and to pressure the American people into conforming or even begging for centralized administration of our economy by the IMF.

The delusion perpetuated in the mainstream is that the IMF is a U.S.-dominated institution. I have outlined on many occasions why this is false. The IMF like all central banks is dominated by the international corporate banking cartel. Central banks are merely front organizations for globalists, and I am often reminded of the following quote from elitist insider Carroll Quigley when I hear people suggest that central banks are somehow independent from one another or that the Federal Reserve is itself the singular “source” of the world’s economic ills:

It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down.

The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called “international” or “merchant” bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks.

No one can now argue against this reality after we have witnessed hard evidence of Goldman Sachs dictating Federal Reserve policy, as outlined here.

And, most recently, we now know that international bankers control political legislation as well, as Congress passed with little resistance a bill that negates the Frank-Dodd restrictions on derivatives and places the U.S. taxpayers and account holders on the hook for more than $303 trillion in toxic debt instruments. The bill is, for all intents and purposes, a “bail-in” measure in disguise. And it was pushed through with the direct influence of JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon.

The Federal Reserve, the U.S. government and the dollar are as expendable to the elites as any other economic or political appendage. And it can be replaced at will with yet another illusory structure if this furthers their goal of total centralization. This has been done for centuries, and I fail to see why anyone would assume that globalists would change their tactics now to preserve the dollar system. They call it the “New World Order,” but it is really the same old-world monetary order out of chaos that has always been exploited. Enter the IMF’s old/new world vision.

In articles over the past year, I have warned that the plan to dethrone the dollar and replace it with the special drawing rights basket currency system would be accelerated after it became clear that the U.S. Congress would refuse to pass the IMF reforms of 2010 proclaiming “inclusiveness” for developing economies, including the BRICS nations. The latest spending bill removed any mention of IMF reforms. The IMF, under Christine Lagarde, has insisted that if the U.S. did not approve its part of the reforms, the IMF would be forced to pursue a “Plan B” scenario. The details on this “plan B” have not been forthcoming, until now.

The Financial Times reported on the IMF shift away from the U.S. by asserting the authority to remove the veto power America has always enjoyed over the institution. This action is a stark reminder to mainstream talking heads and to those who believe the U.S. is the core economic danger to the world that the IMF is not an extension of American policy. If anything, the IMF and the U.S. are extensions of international banking policy, just as the BRICS are nothing more than puppets for the same self-serving financial oligarchy clamoring for the same IMF-controlled paradigm, as Vladimir Putin openly admitted:

In the BRICS case we see a whole set of coinciding strategic interests. First of all, this is the common intention to reform the international monetary and financial system. In the present form it is unjust to the BRICS countries and to new economies in general. We should take a more active part in the IMF and the World Bank’s decision-making system. The international monetary system itself depends a lot on the US dollar, or, to be precise, on the monetary and financial policy of the US authorities. The BRICS countries want to change this…

The IMF decision to eliminate U.S. veto power and, thus, influence over IMF decisions may come as early as the first quarter of next year. This is the great “economic reset” that Largarde has been promoting ad nauseam in multiple interviews and speeches over the past six months. All of these measures are culminating in what I believe will be a more official announcement of a dump of the U.S. dollar as world reserve currency.

Along with the imminent loss of veto power, I have also written on the concerns of the coming SDR conference in 2015. This conference is held only once every five years. My suspicion has been that the IMF plans to announce the inclusion of the Chinese yuan in the SDR basket and that this will coincide with a steady dollar dump around the globe. Multiple major economies have already dropped the dollar in bilateral trade with China, and engineered tensions between the U.S. and the East have exacerbated the issue.

The timing of the SDR conference has now been announced, and the meeting looks to be set for October of 2015. Interestingly, this linked article notes that China has a “real shot” at SDR inclusion and official “reserve status” next year, but warns that the U.S. “may use its veto power” to stop China’s membership. I have to laugh at the absurdity of it all, because there are many people in the world of economic study who still believe the developments of globalization and fiscal distress are all “random.” I suppose that if it is all random, then it is a rather convenient coincidence that the U.S. just happens to be on the verge of losing veto power in the IMF just before they are about to bring the BRICS into the SDR fold and supplant the dollar.

This is it, folks; this is the endgame right in front of our faces. The year of 2014 is the new 2007, with all the negative potential but 100 times more explosive going into 2015. Our nation has wallowed in slowly degrading financial conditions for years, hidden by fake economic statistics and manipulated stock prices. All of it has been a prelude to a much more frenetic and shocking event. I believe that we will see continued market chaos from now on, with a steep declining trend intermixed with brief but inadequate “dead cat” stock bounces. I expect a hailstorm of geopolitical crises over the next year to provide cover for the shift away from the dollar.

Ultimately, the death of the dollar will be hailed in the mainstream as a “good and necessary thing.” They will call it “karma.” They will call it “progress.” They will even call it “decentralization” and a success for the free market. But it will not feel like a positive development for the American public, who will suffer greatly as the dollar crumbles. Only those educated in the underpinnings of shadow banking will understand the whole thing is a charade designed to hide the complete centralization of sovereign economic governance into the hands of the globalists, using the IMF and BIS as “fiscal heroes,” saving the world from a state of economic destruction the elites themselves secretly created.

–Brandon Smith

The ‘thin blue line’ serves no purpose

Like many people, I grew up watching hundreds of television shows and mainstream movies depicting a world in which the common police officer stood as a sentinel of civilized society against a seething underbelly of violence and chaos just under the surface of the world around us. Through public schooling, we were indoctrinated to fear the drug culture as a breeding ground of gangland destruction and to worship law enforcement officials as the only barrier between us and a cocaine-frosted wasteland. We were led to believe that every day police were holding back a tide of crime and terrorism. The so-called “thin blue line” was an indispensable part of a safe and prosperous nation.

To criticize or present opposition to the institution of state and federally funded law enforcement is often considered tantamount to treason – or, at the very least, it is considered unpatriotic. After all, we have all been told every moment of our lives that a world without police would immediately turn into a frothing, frenzied orgy of mass insanity and that average human beings cannot be trusted to take responsibility for the day-to-day security of their neighborhoods and towns. Official doctrine today demands a designated warrior class, separate from the rest of us, to handle the protection and care of weakling citizens.

Now, it is important to note that there are in fact many good people working in the field of law enforcement. This is not under debate and not relevant to the point I am about to make. The problem is not necessarily with all the individuals who make up law enforcement; the problem is with the existence and mandate of the institution itself. I personally do not “hate” cops per se (though some of them deserve to be hated). But I do hate corrupt government structures, and law enforcement has become the grasping arm of the machine.

The downfall of any policing system arises when individuals are separated from the responsibility for their own security and society is delegated into classes of protectors, or sheepdogs and sheep. As I have outlined in many articles, government itself has become an entity foreign to the interests of the American people. Through the false left/right paradigm, elitists have taken away the ability of the public to participate in civic duties and to preserve our principles rather than sacrifice them in the name of the “greater good.” City and state police are not subject to the tides of political elections, even if elections actually mattered. They are part of an unaccountable bureaucratic monstrosity that shifts only according to the whims of the establishment.

The existence of a separate government-controlled warrior class has caused crisis and catastrophe all throughout human history. Invariably, this warrior class ends up exalting itself as superior to the functions and values of the citizenry, rather than maintaining a sense of duty to the citizenry. This is not to say that warriors do not exist. Some people develop the proper mindset, while others do not. However, becoming a warrior is a personal psychological and spiritual pursuit meant to overcome the detriments of fear and has nothing whatsoever to do with government recognition. The fact that many law enforcement officials often refer to non-LEOs (legally entitled to oppress) as “civilians” is a rather laughable example of the delusions of the government-paid warrior class in action.

In the early days of America, the common citizenry through the formation of the militia was the warrior class. Every last able-bodied person was a sentinel and defender of the peace. The sheriff, the only elected and constitutional form of law enforcement, often had a posse, which was, again, made up of regular citizens. There was no exalted Praetorian Guard — only friends, family and neighbors.

The militia system was slowly eroded over decades and replaced with centralized law enforcement under the direct influence of the political elite. Currently, using the Department of Homeland Security and the integration of “fusion centers,” the police are now an army under direct federal control, armed with military-grade technology through the 1033 program. When Barack Obama called for the creation of a “civilian national security force” just as powerful and well-funded as the military back in 2008, this is clearly what he was referring to. The results of police militarization are thoroughly negative.

In my recent article “The Ferguson conundrum solved by community security,” I discussed the complete lack of LEO protection against looting and arson during the Ferguson, Missouri, riots, which led the Oath Keepers to provide security for innocent business owners, filling the void left behind. Law enforcement officials were apparently too busy harassing peaceful protesters and journalists to deal with the threat of a burning city.

Whether one believes that the shooting of Michael Brown was justified or not, the police response after the fact only reinforced public expectations of corruption. Ferguson is only one example in a multitude of police abuses, and these abuses are not relegated to any one ethnicity. Leftists are not wrong when they point out the dangerous evolution of law enforcement into a government goon squad (the liberty movement was warning the world about it long before the left ever figured out what was going on). But in their half-sighted examinations, they make the mistake of believing police abuse is purely race-related. In reality, police abuse is universal — from Tamir Rice, the black 12-year-old in Cincinnati shot dead by police less than two seconds after their arrival for having a toy gun in his pants, to the murder of Kelly Thomas, a white homeless man shot with a stun gun in the face and beaten for 10 minutes straight in the street until dead by California police for the crime of “not sitting still as ordered.”

In nearly all of these cases of overt police force, even when video evidence clearly indicates wrongdoing, LEOs are acquitted by the system. The reason for this should be obvious: The establishment must keep the warrior class happy, secure and content; otherwise, it loses power. No corrupt system is going to punish its own unless utterly necessary to its survival because if it did, it would then have to admit that it is not entirely trustworthy, causing the people to question whether its existence is more dangerous than the villains it is supposed to protect us from. In this way, police become a kind of Mafia or cult with their own set of rules outside of the purview of the rest of society and immune to any form of justice.

What is truly disturbing are the lengths to which some Americans (and other law enforcement) will go to rationalize any and all actions taken by police, even if they result in the death of an innocent. The Stockholm syndrome certainly seems to be at work as portions of the public continue to worship LEOs as saviors who can do no wrong.

At bottom, police are not protectors of the public good, not even in a technical or legal sense. Law enforcement organizations have even argued in the Supreme Court that their job is not to prevent crime but to enforce the law after the fact, and they have won using this assertion. That is to say, a police officer is not legally required to protect a person from harm, only to institute state policy once a crime is committed.

What government law enforcement is admitting to in its argument is that it does not provide security, which is what we in the liberty movement have known all along. The only service police provide is to clean up the mess left over when the carnage has subsided. If law enforcement has any purpose at all, it is to keep the public in check and in line.

The communist Cheka, a security organization founded by Vladimir Lenin at the beginning of the Bolshevik takeover of Russia, was notorious for random arrests and killings of civilians in the name of peace and security. Many communist Russians, true believers in the Bolshevist cause, refused to accept that the Cheka were capable of criminal abuse. They assumed that those killed must have been enemies of the state, just as the government proclaimed. And when they themselves were arrested for no apparent reason, they wrote letters from the gulags to Stalin, naively believing that he would save them from what must have been a bureaucratic error.

In fact, the Cheka had been given orders directly from the state to fill a quota of arrests in order to justify the constant propaganda the state produced warning of agents of “capitalist evil” around every corner. The Cheka, the secret police, were given warrior-class status and free reign to assert their authority over anyone, at any time, for any reason. America is only a short step away from a similar nightmare.

The only way to avoid such a horror is to remove state-sanctioned law enforcement from the picture entirely. As we saw in Ferguson, LEOs are essentially useless to the public. In response, members of the Ferguson community welcomed the Oath Keepers and their Community Preparedness Team strategy. And, in time, Oath Keepers CPT will train locals to provide their own protection without need for any outside aid. When locals provide their own security, when every citizen is a member of the warrior class, abuse is far less likely because the watchmen have no motivation to abuse themselves.

Police misconduct has a cumulative effect on a culture. We do not forget all of the oversteps of the past; we merely file them away until we finally reach a breaking point. It is important for LEOs to understand that while they may have a relative immunity to legal reparations, they are not immune to the rage of the populace and will likely find their warrior personas rather inadequate when that day arrives. For the true constitutional police out there, it is time to take sides, either with good American people or with the corrupt establishment. It is impossible to serve both. The illusion of the “thin blue line” is quickly fading. The only question now is: What is going to replace it? The establishment would have you believe there are only two options: total chaos or martial law. But there has always been a third alternative they seek to suppress: the return of community defense, the resurgence of localized responsibility and the victory of personal liberty over false security.

–Brandon Smith

The Ferguson conundrum solved by community security

Many times in the past I have discussed the concept of what I call the “non-participation principle,” but often people misinterpret what “non-participation” really entails. Such a strategy does not mean an individual activist or group simply refuses to support the system by not using Federal Reserve notes, or not paying taxes, or not buying Monsanto-generated frankenfoods. That kind of thing is all well and good. But ultimately, non-participation means taking away power from the corrupt political and financial elite. Sometimes, this is done through force of arms — but not always in the way some might believe.

One-dimensional tactics are often more dangerous to the activist group fighting for freedom than they are for the power oligarchy, and I see them promoted all the time. How often have you heard some idiot (or paid provocateur) rambling about a march on Washington, D.C., to “arrest the criminals” (the criminals in D.C. are middlemen as replaceable as lawnmower parts, not that a blind march into the mouth of the beast would accomplish anything anyway). What about the insane option of military coup? What about random violence against random targets, forsaking the very principles by which our movement sustains itself? Even if a movement “wins” in such a way, it still loses after becoming the monster it sought to destroy.

How about the opposite end of the spectrum? People call on the liberty movement to buy useless, ethereal bitcoins or chant slogans on street corners in docility while being doused with pepper spray. Activists regurgitate the “reach, teach, and inspire” mantra without acknowledging that concrete action and legitimate risk are often the most inspiring paths that can be undertaken. What about those people who actually argue that we need to “reason” with the psychopaths running our infrastructure and show them the error of their ways (which is much like trying to debate with a shark on why you are not as tasty as you appear)?

All of these tactics culminate in a zero-point game of make-believe revolution. They not only accomplish nothing, they actually distract the movement from pursuing more tangible and effective methods.

The non-participation principle could be summed up as follows:

Provide for yourself and others the necessities that the corrupt system cannot or will not. Remove your consent for the system to provide necessities for you when it suits them. Eventually, the elites of the system will have only one of two options: admit that you no longer need them and leave you in peace or try to physically stop you from taking care of yourself. If the system tries to stop you, it must expose itself as inherently despotic in the process and lose public support. In either case, you win.

It is vital that movement activists understand that our nation and perhaps the world have become targets of fourth-generation warfare leading to artificial division, conflict and very real self-destruction. If we are to respond, it must be with fourth-generation revolution. The methodology of the non-participation principle has been applied with great success in certain parts of the world, but most recently in Ferguson, Missouri, by the constitutional organization Oath Keepers and its Community Preparedness Team (CPT) program.

With very little initial press going in, Oath Keepers has broken through the mainstream barrier once again by using its CPT strategy in Ferguson, sending trained veterans and former police officers who have sworn to uphold constitutional liberties to defend properties under threat of arson by looters, rioters and suspected federal provocateurs. All members were volunteers and were present at the behest of business owners.

While supporting the right of Americans to peacefully protest, it has become clear that elements outside of Ferguson are attempting to exploit the legitimate frustrations of the community there and wield the citizens as a weapon to further their own agendas. Ferguson has been used to promote false racial division and conflict, the deployment of militarized police to attack protesters while allowing looters to move unchecked, and the socialist concept that property is evil and that business owners (even small-business owners) are all contributors to state violence and are, thereby, culpable targets for reprisal.

A friend of mine recently fell into a debate with a man claiming that the Oath Keeper response was unacceptable because they are “all racist.” Of course, when one realizes that Oath Keepers was defending businesses owned by black and Chinese, as well as white, locals, the racism argument disintegrates. Ultimately, the critic relented, but ended his diatribe with these words: “Some things just need to burn.”

This appears to be a common theme among agitators in Ferguson, who desperately want “bloodshed” so that a chain of reactionary violence will erupt, as outlined in this Breitbart article.

And there you have it. Members of the socialist cult don’t hate Oath Keepers because they think the organization is a bastion of racism; they hate Oath Keepers because the highly trained group won’t let innocent people and their businesses burn to the ground. They hate Oath Keepers because they want chaos as cover to further their ideology, and Oath Keepers provided security where the police and federal government would not.

This, of course, not only angered socialist/communist provocateurs on the ground in Ferguson, but also elements of the government.

While many local police seem to be thankful for the Oath Keeper presence, government response teams had other ideas. Oath Keepers on site reported suspicious activity at a nearby residence in which a team of three men appeared to be setting up a sniper position after exiting a silver suburban. At the same time, state police units had set up on a nearby roof and were aiming sniper rifles in their direction. Luckily, the team leader, Sam Andrews, had worked with the local police department before and maintained a friendly relationship with them. His call to police had an immediate response, and whatever the teams of men were planning had been thwarted by the appearance of official witnesses.

Immediately following what I suspect to be a bungled false flag attempt, Andrews was approached by a county officer who told him that business owners had complained and wanted the defense group to leave. This was found to be a lie, and the officer admitted that his chief was being pressured by the feds to get Oath Keepers out of the area.

After failing on multiple occasions to run off Oath Keepers, the St. Louis County police chief is now attempting to use a statute requiring security personnel to be licensed by the state. The statute, however, clearly applies only to paid security personnel, not volunteers. So Oath Keepers is back again and refusing to comply with the order to disperse.

Other groups providing security, including a group of black volunteers defending a white-owned gas station out of respect for their former employer, have not been harassed by police.

Why are the state and federal governments so intent on getting rid of Oath Keeper volunteers whose only “crime” is to defend innocent people from harm? It’s probably because Oath Keepers is taking the concept of non-participation nationwide.

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes states:

They want to create a false paradigm… They are presenting a false choice between lawlessness, looting, arson, assault, murder on the one side, unrestrained or a hyper-militarized police state on the other… They are failing to do the intelligent thing and protect businesses without trampling on rights.

All four businesses protected by Oath Keepers remain untouched by fire, including Natalie’s Cakes and More, a beauty supply store, a dentist’s office and a Chinese restaurant, even though all of them had been directly threatened at the beginning of the riots. Natalie’s Cakes and More had not only received threats of arson, but had also been damaged by looters before the arrival of Oath Keepers. Now, her business stands intact.

Natalies-Cakes-More Oath KeeperMy regular readers are well aware that I have been involved in the formation and training of my local Montana CPT. I believe it is one of the best models of the non-participation principle in action today, combining elements of security and defense, emergency medical training, engineering for vital resources (farming, water, construction, etc.), as well as communication — everything that a community needs to protect itself or rebuild in the wake of disaster. The Ferguson event proves beyond a doubt that the CPT concept is effective and necessary.

The governor of Missouri, the federal government and some elements of the local police were either unable to come to the aid of citizens of Ferguson or they were unwilling. It is my belief that many buildings in Ferguson were simply allowed to burn in order to help perpetuate tensions and provide another rationale in the minds of Americans for militarization of law enforcement. If the system cannot or will not protect you, then you and your community will have to provide security for yourselves.

By extension, if the citizenry suffers extreme levels of conflict with city-, state- or federal-run law enforcement organizations, then they should be providing for the safety of their own community. If the police and the people cannot get along, then remove the police from the picture entirely and create your own neighborhood watches and mutual aid groups. No city-paid police officer is going to care more about the safety of a neighborhood than the residents who live there and the businesses that survive there. And no violent criminal is going to be able to function for long in a neighborhood that is trained and armed to defend itself.

The best option, the only option when faced with a conundrum like Ferguson, is for residents to kick government out of the picture completely. Whatever problems might be encountered during such a transition would be a happy trade over the constant crisis wrought by political “mismanagement” or manipulation. In the end, corrupt government will never go away unless we stop handing our responsibilities over to them — and this includes security. We must stop trying to change the system by following the rules that perpetually benefit the system. If we are ever going to get rid of elitist control, we have to step outside the false paradigm and play our own game by our own rules.

You can learn more about Oath Keepers here.

–Brandon Smith

The New World Order: Does it all just boil down to a battle for your soul?

From its very inception, the Leninist/Marxist ideology of the Soviet Union made it a central priority to dispel and subjugate religious and spiritual expression. The state was “god.” No other god could be allowed to flourish, for if the people were given license and freedom of belief in something beyond themselves and beyond the establishment, they would retain a sense of rebellion. The collectivist philosophy requires the utter destruction of all competitors; otherwise, it can never truly prevail.

Atheism became the cult of choice among the communists, for in an atheist world there is nothing beyond the veil. There is no greater goal and no inherent self. There is no true individualism, only the trappings of environmental circumstances and the constant substantiation of the greater good. By extension, there is no inborn moral compass or conscience, only the social fashions and mores of the moment. In such a world, tyrants reign supreme because atheism allows relativism to flourish; and any crime, no matter how heinous, can be rationalized.

The atheist position uses this same argument as a reason to remove religion and spirituality from our cultural influences. And in some respects, atheists are right. Religion is a tool that can be exploited to manipulate the masses. Any system of belief that is faith-based can be misinterpreted and abused in order to lure unwitting dupes and mindless followers into the fray of an engineered disaster. Atheists commonly argue that it is the encumbering nature of faith that causes mankind to destroy itself in the name of zealotry and self-righteous ignorance.

The difference, however, is that religious zealots are still required by the confines of their dogma to at least appear as though they follow a moral code. Therefore, they can be exposed as violators of this code and weakened over time. The atheist/collectivist system, though, thrives on the concept that there is no such thing as a moral code and that one is vindicated and heroic if he takes extreme action to prove that morality is a vice, rather than a virtue. Atheists in positions of power make no attempt to affirm their actions; rather, they demand that society abandon all conscience and sense of natural law. They do not ask for forgiveness; they order you to apologize for your moral compass.

What atheists don’t seem to grasp is that atheism is itself based on an act of faith: faith in the idea that there is nothing beyond our perceptions of existence. They have no more factual knowledge of what lay at the center of life than any of the religious acolytes they so fondly attack, yet their own hypocrisy is apparently lost on them.

I would not pretend to deny that religion creates a volatile atmosphere edging toward genocidal tendencies, but so does any belief system that assumes it is the paramount of knowledge denying all others. The intellectual intolerance of the socialist atheism of the 20th century spawned a death machine that claimed the lives of millions of people. So, clearly, atheists should be more concerned with the violent tendencies of their own ilk rather than the religious “fiends” they seem so obsessed with. Of course, this is a history modern atheists would rather ignore or rewrite.

I have always been concerned with the dilemma of the collectivist ideology, but even more so in recent months, as our world creeps closer toward global crisis. Crisis always provides circumstance and cover for dangerous philosophical totalitarianism.

Not long ago I came across the column “Some Atheists And Transhumanists Are Asking: Should It Be Illegal To Indoctrinate Kids With Religion?” on Huffington Post. It was written by Zoltan Istvan, a transhumanist and self-proclaimed “visionary and philosopher.”

Firstly, I have a hard time taking anything published by the Huffington Post seriously. Secondly, I have a hard time taking anyone using the name “Zoltan” seriously. Thirdly, I have a hard time taking anyone who labels himself a “visionary” seriously. That said, it is important to study the propaganda of the other side carefully. You never know what kinds of truths you might come across amid all the lies.

The article does not really define what it considers “indoctrination.” But I would assume transhumanists and atheists would argue that anything not scientifically proven could become indoctrination. Interestingly, Istvan starts his tirade against the handing down of religious beliefs by admitting that science has added very little to our overall knowledge of the universe. After all, human beings experience only a narrow spectrum of the world around us, and there is indeed much we do not know. For some reason, it does not dawn on atheists that perhaps our limited scientific observations of the universe do not necessarily outweigh or deny the existence of an intelligent design.

In order to distract from their fundamental lack of knowledge, modern collectivist governments and movements have always made the promise of technological utopia and endless abundance in order to lure and sway the populace into supporting establishment power. We will all work far less, or we will never have to work at all. Shelter, food and wealth will be provided for us. Our free time will be spent studying the nature of the cosmos and perpetuating the cult of academia, protected by a benevolent technocratic governing body straight out of an episode of “Star Trek.”

Not surprisingly, John Maynard Keynes himself predicted in 1930 that technological advancement and economic abundance would result in a three-hour workday and infinite time to amuse oneself by the year 2030 in his essay “The Economic Possibilities For Our Grandchildren.”

This was the same essay in which Keynes referred to the concerns of many at the onset of the Great Depression as “misinterpretations” and “pessimism.”

Transhumanism, a mainstay of global elitism and the New World Order, also uses fantastical images of scientifically created contentment to sell itself to starry-eyed rubes packed into the circus tent of the technocratic carnival. The very essence of the movement is the argument that one day all knowledge of the universe will be obtained by mankind and that through this knowledge, we (a select few anyway) will obtain godhood.

Again, as in the Huffington Post column, the claim is that science knows all or will eventually know all and that whatever has not been dissected and observed by science like the conceptions of religion must, therefore, be dubious myth.

Ironically, there is far more scientific evidence of God and spiritual life than there is evidence against. So by the very standards many atheists hold dear, it is they who are peddling indoctrination rather than truth.

In the world of mathematics, the good friend of Albert Einstein, Kurt Godel, is famous (but not as famous as he should be) for writing what would be called the “incompleteness proof.” In mathematics, a proof is a statement that is always true and can always be proven true. Godel’s proof shook the very foundations of the mathematical world, because it outlined the fact that all mathematical knowledge is limited by numerical paradox, and that humanity will never be able to define all things through mathematical means.

Global elites such as Bertrand Russell had spent years of effort attempting to prove that mathematics was the unbridled code of the universe and that the universe could be understood in its entirety through the use of numbers. Godel shattered this delusion with his incompleteness proof, establishing once and for all that math is limited, not infinite. The existence of mathematical paradox along with an undefinable “infinity” lends credence to the religious view that there are indeed some things man will never know, but at least he has the ability to prove that he can never know them.

In the world of quantum physics, the work of Werner Heisenberg, along with that of many other scientists, has shown that the very mechanics of the world around us are not at all what they seem and that traditional physics is only a hollow shell of knowledge limited by our ability to observe.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle dictates that the observer of a particular physical state always affects the object being observed, making it impossible to know all the data necessary at one time to predict the future of that object. If a person hoped to become a god, he would certainly need to be able to tell the future; and to tell the future, one would need the ability to observe and record every aspect of every particle interacting in the environment around him. Any unknown quantity could change the outcome of any particular event. Heisenberg found that particles act very differently depending on how they are observed. In some experiments, he even discovered that individual particles appeared to be in two places at the same time, thus making them wholly unpredictable.

This behavior in the building blocks of matter is confounding to many in the realm of physics. Add to it the fact that scientists remain fixed on an endless and apparently futile quest to find the base particle that makes up the universe, and once again we find that the dreams of the transhumanist atheists to attain godhood fall terribly short.

In the realm of psychology, Carl Gustav Jung discovered through decades of research the existence of inborn psychological contents. That is to say, from the moment of our birth, human beings contain elements of knowledge and identity, meaning we are not merely products of our particular environments. Jung called these pieces of inherent information “archetypes.”

The most important aspect of archetypes for our discussion is the existence of opposing views, or “dualities.” The concepts of good and evil, the concepts of conscience as well as guilt and regret, are not necessarily taught to us. Rather, we are born with such elements already within us. The fact that we are born with an at least unconscious understanding of good versus evil means we have the potential power of choice, a power beyond the realm of environment and beyond the reach of would-be tyrants and collectivists. If this does not constitute scientific evidence of a human “soul,” then I do not know what does. The fact of archetypes is undeniable. The question is: Since they do not come from environment, where do they come from?

Istvan’s column doesn’t mention or regard any of the scientific evidence for the existence of an intelligent design. He merely argues that science is the only definable known quantity, and only the known quantity is an acceptable form of belief. But what if the known quantity is so limited as to make a society dangerously ignorant?

The article goes on to promote (somewhat shamelessly) the author’s book, in which the hero, a transhumanist atheist, is given the power to reshape society into any form he wishes. The hero questions whether he should remove religion from the picture entirely, for if religion were erased, wouldn’t the world finally be at peace? Istvan himself questions whether religious expression should be banned in the case of children, so that they are given the chance to “choose” what they wish to believe later in life. This, of course, disregards the fact that children are already born with the prospect of choice, which is why many children who grow up Christian do not practice it later in life, and why many children from atheist homes end up joining religious movements. The idea that all children are permanently damaged by their parent’s unchecked beliefs is complete nonsense.

What the author reveals in his work of fiction is the greater threat of the atheist and transhumanist ideology — namely, the arrogant assumption that they know what is best for the world and the public based on their scientific observations, which are limited and often misinterpreted. This problem extends into the oligarchy of globalists, who adore the theories expressed in Plato’s “The Republic,” in which an elite cadre of “philosopher kings,” men who have achieved a heightened level of academic knowledge, are exalted as the most qualified leaders. However, leadership requires more than knowledge, even if that knowledge is profound. Leadership also requires compassion and informed consent, two things for which the elites have no regard.

The New World Order, an ideal often touted by globalists and defined by their own rhetoric as a scientific dictatorship in which collectivism is valued and individualism is criminalized, seems to me to be — in its ultimate form and intention — a battle for the human soul. They try to convince us that there is no such thing, that there is no inborn conscience, that there is a rationale for every action, that spiritualism is a frivolous and terroristic pursuit, and that cold logic and science, as defined by them, are the paths to prosperity and peace. They also seek to tempt the masses with imaginary stories of attainable godhood and artificial Eden, promises on which they can never deliver.

The reactionary responses to my criticisms of the elitist philosophy will likely involve endless renunciations of crimes committed in the name of religious fervor. I agree; religion has always been exploited, usually by the elites themselves, to enslave as well as to murder. Even today, I hear some so called Christians argue in favor of genocide using half-baked interpretations of biblical reference. But at bottom, I much prefer a world in which religious expression is free, rather than abolished in the name of an overarching zealotry in the form of mathematical morality. I prefer a world where the spiritual side of existence is allowed to add to observational experience. Logic alone is not wisdom, after all. Wisdom is the combination of reason, intuition and experience.

I refuse to live under any form of theocracy, whether religious or scientific. The idea that we must choose between one or the other is a farce — a controlled debate. The individual soul (or whatever you want to call it) is the only thing that matters. It is important that we never forget that when we fight against the NWO, we are not just fighting for liberty; we are also fighting for something profoundly and inherently spiritual. Though we might not be able to define it, we can feel it. And that is enough.

–Brandon Smith

The economic endgame explained

Throughout history, in most cases of economic collapse the societies in question believed they were financially invincible just before their disastrous fall. Rarely does anyone see the edge of the cliff or even the bottom of the abyss before it has swallowed a nation whole. This lack of foresight, however, is usually not the fault of the public. It is, rather, a consequence caused by the manipulation of the fundamental information available to the public by governments and social gatekeepers.

In the years leading up to the Great Depression, numerous mainstream “experts” and politicians were quick to discount the idea of economic collapse, and most people were more than ready to believe them. Equities markets were, of course, the primary tool used to falsely elicit popular optimism. When markets rose, even in spite of other very negative fiscal indicators, the masses were satisfied. In this way, stock markets have become a kind of dopamine switch financial elites can push at any given time to juice the citizenry and distract them from the greater perils of their economic future. During every upswing of stocks, the elites argued that the “corner had been turned,” when in reality the crisis had just begun. Nothing has changed since the crash of 1929. Just look at some of these quotes and decide if the rhetoric sounds familiar today:

  • John Maynard Keynes in 1927: “We will not have any more crashes in our time.”
  • H.H. Simmons, president of the New York Stock Exchange, Jan. 12, 1928: “I cannot help but raise a dissenting voice to statements that we are living in a fool’s paradise, and that prosperity in this country must necessarily diminish and recede in the near future.”
  • Irving Fisher, leading U.S. economist, The New York Times, Sept. 5, 1929: “There may be a recession in stock prices, but not anything in the nature of a crash.” And on 17, 1929: “Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months.”
  • W. McNeel, market analyst, as quoted in the New York Herald Tribune, Oct. 30, 1929: “This is the time to buy stocks. This is the time to recall the words of the late J. P. Morgan… that any man who is bearish on America will go broke. Within a few days there is likely to be a bear panic rather than a bull panic. Many of the low prices as a result of this hysterical selling are not likely to be reached again in many years.”
  • Harvard Economic Society, Nov. 10, 1929: “… a serious depression seems improbable; [we expect] recovery of business next spring, with further improvement in the fall.”

I hear nearly identical statements from pro-mainstream, pro-dollar skeptics all the time. And all of their assertions rest solely on the illusion of the Dow and the dollar index, not to mention statistics that are sourced from the very government that has much to gain by fooling the public into believing all is well.

In 2009, Paul Krugman, perhaps the worst and most famous economist of our age, lamented on the fact that no one in mainstream finance saw the derivatives and credit crash coming. Yet it is the same kinds of manipulative policies that Krugman champions that caused this collective ignorance in mainstream circles.

What history proves, time and time again, is that classically trained and educated economists are perhaps the most useless of all analysts. They are perpetually wrong. Only independent analysts have ever been able to predict anything of value as far as our economic future — not because they are psychic, but because they have the advantage of standing outside the propaganda of brainwashed financial academia.

It also proves that the appearance of prosperity means nothing if the fundamentals do not support the optimism. That is to say, a bullish stock market, a high dollar index and a low unemployment percentage mean nothing if such stats are generated by false methods and fiat.

I relate these points because the future I am about to suggest here might sound outlandish and insane to some, because it is so contrary to the “official” accounting of our current world. It is important to remember that the mainstream, the majority, is almost always wrong and that the truth is very rarely accepted broadly until calamity has already fallen.

I outlined the hard facts behind the reality of economic downturn in “We have just witnessed the last gasp of the global economy.”

The bottom line is that the stock market, the greatest false indicator of all time, is on the verge of implosion; and the banking elites are positioning themselves to avoid blame for this implosion while the rest of us are being sold on the most elaborate recovery con game ever conceived. But what is the purpose behind this con game? Lies are generally only told by those who hope to gain something through deception. What do the elites hope to gain by creating a facade of recovery?

They have openly admitted to the public on numerous occasions exactly what they want — namely, the institution of a truly global and centralized economic system revolving around a highly controlled world currency framework and dominated by a select cult of banking oligarchs. Anyone who claims that this is not the goal is either a liar or an uneducated fool.

I have written about this evidence many times in the past, but it would seem with the precarious nature of our world today that much needs repeating. In 1988, the financial magazine The Economist published an article titled “Get ready for a world currency by 2018,” in which it outlined the framework for a global currency system called the “Phoenix” (a hypothetical title), administered by the International Monetary Fund by the year 2018, which would erase all national economic sovereignty and require governments to borrow from the central banking authority, rather than print, in order to finance their infrastructure programs. This would mean total control by the IMF over member nations as they beg and plead for more capital under the global currency umbrella.

If this sounds familiar, it is because I have been warning about the IMF takeover of the global monetary system for at least six years. The Economist actually admits that the Phoenix system would start out in the format of the Special Drawing Rights basket currency:

The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power…

It is important to note that The Economist is not just any random financial publication; it is in large part owned by the Rothschild banking family and is based out of the London financial center, meaning, The Economist does not have to “guess” on the economic developments of the future; it has an inside track on exactly what is planned to occur.

You can see my more recent analysis on the IMF global currency scheme here.

A plan for global governance has also been touted by international elites over the years, the roots of which would supposedly begin around 2015. The Gorbechev Foundation, which boats many American elites as members, has long predicted the rise of a global governance. In 1995, the executive director of the foundation, Jim Garrison, had this to say to the San Francisco Weekly:

Over the next 20 to 30 years, we are going to end up with world government. … It’s inevitable. It will happen and become just as normal to have a relationship with the rest of the world as we now have, say, if you are a Californian and you go to Vermont.

The IMF has been openly discussing the ascension of the SDR to replace the dollar as the world reserve currency since at least 2011.

The catalyst to trigger the end of the dollar and the dominance of the IMF will be, I believe, the false East/West paradigm. I have seen an incredible array of analytic interpretations of the macro-economy by multiple mainstream and independent financial writers, but very few of them recognize that the conflict between the West and the eastern BRICS is nothing more than a farce. I have compiled a considerable profile of evidence on the reality that governments like Russia and China are actually complicit in the formation of a global currency and global government controlled by the IMF. You can see that evidence here, here and here.

Putin is not anti-establishment or anti-new world order, nor are the BRICS. Eastern opposition to the NWO is a lie. Period. In fact, the BRICS have argued only for greater inclusion in the IMF system and have no intention of developing a legitimate alternative to “Western” globalization. If you do not understand that the BRICS are part of the NWO, not opposed to it, then you do not understand a thing.

With the BRICS on board with the plan for global currency, what is likely to happen over the course of the next few years if the schedule for an economic reset is on track for 2018?

As I outlined in my last article, the U.S. in particular has been prepped like a sacrificial lamb, with the populace for the most part oblivious to the extent of the threat. Middle-class wealth is being driven into bonds and will be driven more so by market declines, which will take place in the next few months. This “herding” of capital into bonds is only in preparation for the death of the dollar’s world reserve status, thus erasing what little savings were left among the citizenry.

The ceremony initiating our nation’s fiscal destruction will likely take place in the near term. To achieve global centralization by 2018, the elites would need a serious crisis soon in order to provide the proper collective panic required to generate public consent for global economic governance in four years’ time.

The first, most important factor to consider is the fake conflict between the IMF and the U.S. Congress over the approval of IMF policy changes agreed upon in 2010. The U.S. has yet to officially sign off on the IMF policy measures that would bring more “inclusiveness” for developing nations like Russia and China, and this has led the IMF to assert that a move forward without the U.S. is necessary. IMF head Christine Lagarde is now demanding that Congress pass the reforms of 2010; but with the election of a predominantly Republican government, those reforms have little or no chance of being approved.

It is now highly likely that the IMF will set policy without the input of the U.S., as they have warned they would, crippling the assumptions by many that the IMF is somehow a “U.S.-owned institution.” It is actually the reverse; the IMF is setting the stage for ownership of the U.S. monetary structure, along with the Bank Of International Settlements, which appears to be the capstone of the NWO system.

The next IMF meeting on SDR inclusion is not set, but will probably take place in early 2015. It is expected that China and the Yuan will be officially added to the SDR basket. Gold should also be watched carefully. There is a reason why the BRICS have been accumulating thousands of tons of the precious metal. The IMF introduction of gold into the SDR basket is inevitable, and a new Bretton Woods style-agreement has already been called for by a number of elites.

With developing nations already asking for help from the IMF due to volatility caused by the Fed taper and the BRICS well into their own programs to remove the dollar as the world reserve, the only question left is: How will the banks be able to accomplish the currency reset without taking blame for the resulting catastrophe that will no doubt bury the majority of middle-class and poor people?

There is no way around it. The elites need a geopolitical disaster so overwhelming that all economic changes taking place in the background go completely unnoticed. They also need to set themselves up as the prognosticators and rescuing heroes in the midst of the coming chaos, as outlined in my last article.

I do not know what that disaster will specifically look like, because there are too many possibilities to consider. Think about this honestly, 10 years ago, would you or your friends and family have ever thought that the U.S. would be at war in Syria with a terrorist organization we created ourselves out of thin air? That we would be immersed in renewed tensions and the possibility of economic warfare with Russia? That our presidency would have attempted and failed the initiation of socialized healthcare? That our military would be tapped as a possible response force for domestic unrest? That an outbreak of Ebola would be suggested as a trigger for medical martial law?

How many conspiracies have been exposed in just the past few years? How many government crimes have hit the headlines and then disappeared? Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS targeting of activists, government-aided illegal immigration, etc. — a nonstop parade of corruption that few would have thought possible a decade ago. We are being boiled slowly, economically as well as politically. We are being conditioned to accept imminent crisis as a way of daily life, to become used to it and to blame these crises on hundreds of various scapegoats, but never the international banks.

And while the Titanic sinks, the band plays on, as mainstream pundits and dupes accuse independent analysts of “crying wolf.” The economic endgame is not about collapse alone. Collapse is nothing more than a process that ends abruptly only when public faith is finally lost. The endgame is about acceptance — the acceptance by the masses of a “new normal” in which financial and political terror become the foundation of daily life. The endgame is, first and foremost, about the psyche of mankind and its mutation into something unrecognizable. This kind of pervasive conditioning requires immeasurable fear. Our economic philosophy of sovereign trade and identity cannot be erased without it. The elites have already given us their timeline. The crash of 2008 was only the beginning of the program, and 2014-2015 looks to be the next stage. I have written hundreds of articles on how to prepare and diffuse the impending reset, but the most important issue of all is that people understand the threat is at their doorstep. It’s not a few years off or a decade away; it’s here now. Watch global developments carefully, as market volatility increases and international conflicts escalate. Time is up.

–Brandon Smith

Note from the Editor: America is on the brink of the biggest money grab in history! With $21 trillion in cumulative personal savings, Washington politicians think your hard-earned private retirement account is the answer to fixing the economy. They’re calling it a “Bail-in,” and it’s already spreading like wildfire. Click here to claim an urgent FREE report that shows you how to tell scheming politicians, “HANDS OFF MY MONEY!”

We have just witnessed the last gasp of the global economy

It is difficult to find the motivation to write about the state of the global economy these days, if only because there is not much left to say. I feel like I am composing multiple obituaries for the same long-dead corpse. Most of the liberty movement and, I suspect, a small portion of the mainstream market understand that there is no tangible or legitimate recovery, let alone a stable fiscal ladder to rest our feet upon. There is literally nothing left to the financial system but false promises and ever-expanding debt. In fact, the concept of debt creation is the only thing holding our facade of an economy together.

You and I probably find this rather strange. We come from a long-forgotten school of economics, in which demand and supply actually mean something in terms of our fiscal health. I have come across many mainstream economic acolytes and cultists in recent months who disregard all logic and reason, forsaking the realities of demand-based trade and immersing themselves in a grand delusion in which central bank-generated debt and inflation are the real source of “prosperity.” I feel sorry for them in a way because the truth is right in front of their faces, yet they won’t see it until they are buried alive in it.

Nothing makes this problem more apparent than the behavior of equities in the past month.

Stocks are, of course, a sham of the highest magnitude; but they do still say something about the greater truth behind our financial condition. The fact that market traders know that it’s all a farce and are actually banking and betting on the scam tells me exactly how close we are to the end of the line. The recent near 10 percent drop in the Dow Jones industrial average at the beginning of fall must have certainly been a shock for the day-trading community, as well as mainstream pundits. The assumption for the past few years has been that central bank stimulus guarantees a constantly growing bull market, and to experience a considerable decline in equities while quantitative easing was still in action was at least a noticeable wake up call.

I suspect that this decline in markets was not planned by the central banks and was a stumble in their scheme to keep stocks elevated until after the QE taper had settled. It was also a market shock I expected a little earlier, near the end of summer to be exact. Since the drop, central banks and the mainstream media have reacted forcefully to manipulate public perception as well as investor optimism.

In almost every instance of market decline, financial news group Reuters has injected false rumors of more stimulus from the European Central Bank. This was also the case in October as markets began to crash. These rumors were later dashed by Financial Times, but not before the mere mention of more fiat stimulus from any central bank sent stocks soaring yet again.

This also occurred when middle management Federal Reserve policymaker John Williams hinted in interviews of the possibility of QE4 if the economy began to show signs of regression. Williams, of course, has no say in the decision to reintroduce QE. But that didn’t matter to investors, who immediately latched onto the meaningless news like anxious children and threw their money back into stocks again.

Most recently, Japan’s central bank announced a sudden and surprising reignition of stimulus measures to the tune of 80 trillion yen a year. The announcement once again sent global stocks skyrocketing, even though it was a stark admission by Japan’s financial elite that all their inflationary printing efforts for the past several years have failed miserably.

Hopefully, we can all see the trend taking place here. With the end of the Federal Reserve taper now complete and with questions circling as to when interest rates will be raised, a market volatility not seen since 2008-2009 has returned. The only measure that has slowed the crash is the use of false news stories hinting at further stimulus, as well as futile efforts by other central banks to pick up where the Federal Reserve left off. This shows that the investment world is so thoroughly addicted to QE that even the mere mention of another small fix of their favorite drug is enough to get them out of bed and excited. They know that the entire system is rigged by central banks, and they don’t care. In fact, they revel in it. Their only goal is to profit on the scam for as long as humanly possible, even though the ultimate end of the scam will mean the utter destruction of their profits and the end of their way of life.

I hate to use a cinema analogy for a very real threat, but investors today remind me of Joe Pantoliano’s character in “The Matrix.” The guy is fully aware that the Matrix is an illusion but wants to experience the pleasure of the illusion all the same, so much so that he doesn’t mind being exploited like a slave by the system. He is willing to sacrifice all measure of truth and even the future just to get a taste of the fantasy again.

But what is the reality that the central banks are trying to hide and why are they trying to hide it? I have written about this in detail on literally hundreds of occasions, so I will cover only the very latest news briefly here.

Global exports and, thus, consumer demand are plunging. Germany, the only pillar left to prop up the failing European Union, has experienced a severe decline in exports not seen since 2009.

China, the largest exporter and importer in the world, and Chinese companies have been caught in a number of instances using fraudulent invoices to artificially inflate their own export numbers, in some cases reporting 50 percent more exported goods than had actually existed.

China’s manufacturing has also declined for the past five months, indicating a global slowdown.

The Baltic Dry Index — a measure of global shipping rates for raw goods and, thus, a measure of demand for shipping — continues to drag along near historic lows.

The U.S. consumer (the only economic asset the U.S. has besides the dollar’s world reserve status) has seen declines in spending as well as wages.

In the meantime, long-term jobless Americans continue to fall off welfare rolls by the millions, making unemployment numbers look good. But the overall future picture look terrible as participation rates dissolve into the ether of government statistics.

How is such poverty being hidden? Food stamps. Plain and simple. Nearly 50 million Americans now subsist on food stamp programs, and this number shows no signs of dropping. In states like Illinois, two people sign up for food assistance for every citizen who happens to find a job.

But this is all rudimentary. Most analysts in the liberty movement agree that our fiscal structure is on the verge of collapse; what they tend to bicker about are how and when the structure will collapse.

Guessing market declines is extremely difficult. My prediction of a 10 percent drop by the end of summer was off by three weeks. Because of the nature of QE stimulus manipulation of the Dow, my only guide has been the reality of the Fed taper and the fact that major banks have been relying on fed fiat to continually cycle capital into equities through the use of low-interest loans to corporations and the stock buyback scam. Company buybacks have given steady boosts to the markets at least since 2008, and many corporations are using up to 50 percent of their “profits” just to continue buying their own stocks.

This strategy, however, is reaching a point of diminishing returns as many companies are issuing too much debt in the process. IBM is a perfect example of a company that has hit the ceiling on stock buybacks.

With the taper finished and QE money drying up, it is important to ask a few questions. For example, how are companies going to continue to accumulate capital to dump into their own stocks if Fed money is becoming scarce and consumer spending is in decline? And if they can’t continue stock buybacks, how are equities markets going to stay afloat?

And what about government debt? As it stands now, foreign interest in U.S. Treasury bonds is waning. The vast majority of new bonds sold are short-term. Until now, the Fed has been the primary buyer of long-term debt, snapping up 10-year bonds from the market while other investors lose confidence in America’s ability to pay off liabilities in the future. Now that QE is over, who is going to buy the ever-expanding U.S. government debt? I aimed this question recently at a Fed cultist, and his response was: “Well, obviously somebody will buy it,” though he couldn’t specify. Investors are counting on an eventual QE4, but I think this might also be wishful thinking.

At the end of 2013, I predicted the Fed would indeed follow through with the taper of QE3 and that it would drastically reduce stimulus measures. I believe this is in preparation for a major implosion of U.S. markets in particular. The whole point of the taper is to support the illusion that the U.S. economy has recovered and that the Fed has accomplished its mission. When a crash does take place, I have no doubt it will be blamed on an outside force or act of fate. (The Ebola outbreak, which is doubling in cases every three weeks, is a perfect possible catalyst.)

Behind the background noise of the recovery party, international bankers are sending a very different message about economic health.

On the same day as the Federal Reserve announced the end of QE3, former chairman Alan Greenspan gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in which he lamented that the QE unwind would be painful, that stimulus measures had not achieved their goals in the past and that gold might be a good investment today.

The International Monetary Fund and the ECB also released statements warning that “accommodative stimulus policies” could contribute to economic volatility. That is to say, stimulus might be setting the stage for fiscal instability. The IMF claims that “bold action” is required to “reset” the global system.

And the ever-present overlords at the Bank of International Settlements have posted a stark warning about our financial future, predicting a “violent reversal” in markets. The last time the BIS made such a prediction was in the summer of 2007, just before the derivatives crash. But this is the M.O. of the central banks: to warn of coming calamity before the event, but not long enough before the event to make any difference. They present themselves as prognosticators of economic future. But in reality, they are the instigators of every disaster they predict.

I believe that the admissions of financial danger by internationalists, the sharp drop in stocks at the beginning of fall and the complete disconnect between mainstream investors and reality signal the last gasp of the global economy. I expect increasing market instability from this point on, as well as numerous geopolitical distractions that will be blamed for the fiscal chaos. I have left out my explanation of the final endgame so that I can cover it more fully in my next article. Needless to say, the coming storm is a deliberately engineered one, meant to achieve very specific goals, including a fearful and panicked populace, easy to manipulate as the system goes off the rails.

–Brandon Smith

I will not submit to medical martial law; here’s why

One of the most dangerous philosophical contentions, even among liberty movement activists, is the conundrum of government force and prevention during times of imminent pandemic. All of us at one time or another have had this debate. If a legitimate viral threat existed and threatened to infect and kill millions of Americans, is it then acceptable for the government to step in, remove civil liberties, enforce quarantines and stop people from spreading the disease? After all, during a viral event, the decisions of each individual can truly have a positive or negative effect on the rest of society, right? One out-of-control (or “lone wolf”) person could ignite a biological firestorm, so should we not turn to government and forgo certain freedoms in order to achieve the greater good for the greater number?

If the government in question were a proven and honorable institution, then I would say pro-medical martial law arguments might have a leg to stand on. However, this is not the case. In my view, medical martial law is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances, including Ebola, in light of the fact that our current government will be the predominant cause of viral outbreak. That is to say, you do not turn to the government for help when the government is the cause of the problem. Period.

The recent rise of global Ebola is slowly bringing the issue of medical martial law to the forefront of our culture. Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer recently argued in favor of possible restrictions on individual and Constitutional liberties in the face of a viral pandemic threat.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now argues that in the case of people who may be potential carriers, or even in the case of people who refuse to undergo screenings, it has the legal authority to dissolve all constitutional protections and essentially imprison (quarantine) an American citizen for as long as they see fit to do so.

The Obama Administration is now using militant terminology in reference to Ebola response, including the formation of Ebola “SWAT teams” for quick reaction to potential outbreak areas.

And finally, the Department of Defense has been tasked to create a military controlled “quick-strike team” to deal with Ebola within U.S. borders. This team will be under the command of none other than Northcom, apparently trampling the Posse Comitatus Act and setting the stage for the rationalized use of military personnel against U.S. citizens under the guise of pandemic prevention.

It should be clear to anyone with half a brain that medical martial law is being quietly prepared and that the threat of such measures is not a paranoid conspiracy, but a very real possibility. I discussed in great detail why Ebola works in favor of establishment elites in my article “An Ebola outbreak would be advantageous for globalists.”

Understand that bureaucrats will come to you with promises of offering a helping hand, hoping that you are afraid enough to accept; but their intentions will not be compassionate. Rather, their intent will be to assert as much dominance over the public as possible during the chaos and to erase any conception the people may have had in the past that they have inalienable rights.

But going beyond the hidden motives of tyrants, I think it is important to point out that the CDC and the federal government in general has already lost all credibility in dealing with Ebola. Therefore, the government has lost any authority it may have had in administrating a future response.

Ebola has been officially known to the CDC for more than 30 years. Why has the CDC refused for three decades to produce proper care guidelines for hospitals? Medical staff in the U.S. didn’t even receive guidelines when the outbreak in Western Africa was obviously progressing out of control.

Why did the CDC leave Thomas Eric Duncan, the very first U.S. Ebola case, in the hands of the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, without proper procedures in place to prevent further infection and without a CDC team present? The CDC has an annual budget of nearly $7 billion. Where is all of this money going if not to stamp out such threats as Ebola?

The argument presented by the White House, the CDC and even the World Bank has been that stopping direct or indirect travel from nations with an Ebola outbreak would be “impractical” and that such travel bans would somehow “make matters worse.” They have yet to produce a logical explanation as to how this makes sense. But let’s say we did not need to institute a travel ban. The CDC, with its massive budget, could easily establish quarantine measures in infected countries. Anyone wishing to travel outside of these nations would be welcome to do so, as long as they voluntarily participate in quarantine procedures for a set number of days. No quarantine, no plane ticket. Where has the CDC response been in Western Africa?

Why not use minor and measured travel restriction in Africa today, instead of using unprecedented martial law in America tomorrow? It makes no sense, unless, of course, the plan is to allow Ebola to spread.

Why has the White House nominated Ron Klain, a man who knows absolutely nothing about Ebola or medical emergency strategies, as the new Ebola czar?

Why has all discussion on Ebola prevention revolved around government measures rather than community measures?

The reality is that the government does not have any treatments for Ebola that are outside of the knowledge and capabilities of the average medically trained citizen, meaning the government and the CDC are not needed for a community to handle an Ebola outbreak if that community is given proper guidelines and strategies in advance. Treatment for Ebola, at least in First World nations, consists primarily of regimented transfusions. These transfusions are a mixture of isotonic saline, electrolytes and plasma, designed to keep the body supported until its immune system can build up a proper defense to the virus. Natural and homeopathic methods can also boost immune system functions, making the body resistant to the virus before it is ever contracted. The most effective of all treatments appears to be the transfusion of blood from a recovering patient with antibodies into a newly sick patient. This is likely the reason for quick recovery in infected doctors like Kent Brantly.

The CDC would never be able to coherently organize a large-scale program of transfusion initiatives, even if it wanted to. Most hospitals around the country have no isolation wards able to handle even a minor Ebola outbreak. The hospitals that do have facilities that are limited to less than a dozen beds. According to medical workers with whom I have spoken, most hospitals require a minimum of about 50 health professionals to deal with a single Ebola patient. In the event of an outbreak larger than a few people per state, the CDC and local hospitals are simply not equipped to react to the problem. This leaves individual communities to either prepare for the worst or die off while waiting for the government to save them.

The greatest danger to American citizens is not the Ebola virus, but the government reaction to the Ebola virus. Already, several medical outfits around the world are suddenly interested in producing an Ebola vaccination when no one seemed very interested before. This might sound like good news, until you learn the terrible history of vaccinations.

Pharmaceutical company Merck was caught red-handed faking vaccine efficacy data. Merck’s Gardisil was found to contain DNA fragments of human papillomavirus.

GlaxoSmithKline, a major vaccine producer, has been caught repeatedly attempting to bribe doctors and health professionals into promoting their product or outright lying about their effectiveness. GlaxoSmithKline was caught producing rotavirus vaccinations tainted with a swine virus in 2010. GlaxoSmithKline has been caught producing vaccines tainted with bacteria and endotoxins.

It is important to note that GlaxoSmithKline is also spearheading an Ebola vaccine initiative.

U.S.-based Baxter produced a flu vaccination in Austria tainted with both avian flu and swine flu. The mixture just happened to be randomly tested on a group of ferrets by a lab in the Czech Republic. All the test animals died. The exposure of this “mix up” was quietly swept under the rug by Baxter and the mainstream media. But reports indicate that if the vaccine had been used on the general population, a terrible pandemic would have erupted.

None of these companies can be trusted to produce a working vaccine that will not cause more infection and more death. If the CDC and the federal government trigger a medical martial law scenario, they will most likely include forced vaccinations of the population to maintain “herd immunity.” The bottom line? The use of such vaccines will be a death sentence for many, a death more certain than the contraction of Ebola.

I can think of no rationale for government involvement in the treatment of an Ebola outbreak. If it is not pure incompetence on their part that has exacerbated the threat, then, even worse, it is a deliberate program of genocide. In either case, no military or CDC “strike teams” should be allowed free reign in our neighborhoods, towns, counties or states. Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency Community Emergency Response Teams are also a no-go, given FEMA’s track record of dismal disaster response. They cannot be allowed to take control of our communities.

The only way for Americans to survive such an event is to cut out government entirely and establish their own medical strategies, as organizations like the Oath Keepers Community Preparedness Teams are doing.

If someone wants to voluntarily go to the CDC or FEMA for assistance, then they should be allowed to take that risk. However, medical martial law over all of us in the name of the “greater good” should not be tolerated. The government has proven beyond a doubt that it is not qualified to handle a viral crisis scenario, let alone determine what the “greater good” actually is. I can’t speak for the whole of the liberty movement. But if a group of hazmat-suited thugs decides to chase me down with a syringe, I am relatively certain none of them will live through the encounter.

Will I be accused of aiding the spread of Ebola because of my noncompliance? Of course. Do I care? Not so much. Each individual American will have to make his own decision on this matter in due course. Is it better to conform and risk annihilation at the hands of an ignorant and/or corrupt government or to fight back and be labeled a bioterrorist? With the clear lack of tangible government prevention of outbreak in the United States, you’ll probably get your chance soon enough.

–Brandon Smith

Note from the Editor: Round two of the financial meltdown is predicted to reach global proportions, already adversely affecting Greece, Spain and most of Europe. It appears less severe in the states because our banks are printing useless fiat currency. I’ve arranged for readers to get two free books—Surviving a Global financial Crisis and Currency Collapse, plus How to Survive the Collapse of Civilization—to help you prepare for the worst. Click here for your free copies.

An Ebola outbreak would be advantageous for globalists

Regional or widespread war, terrorism, cyber attacks, etc., are all useful vehicles to conjure mass confusion, and can also be used as scapegoats for the eventual downfall of our economy. That said, a viral pandemic truly surpasses them all in effectiveness. All other tragedies could easily be tied to the first “domino” or “linchpin” (as Rand Corporation calls it) of Ebola transmission, but the strategy goes deeper than this.

This is an incredibly useful strategy when used on the ignorant. And as I pointed out last week in my column, “U.S. government fails to stop yet another invasion,”  it’s a sad fact that most of the people you meet in this life are fundamentally and functionally ignorant.

So I believe the spread of Ebola may be desired by certain power brokers. Here’s why.

It’s the perfect cover event

I have been warning for quite some time that the banking establishment in particular is well aware that an economic collapse of incredible proportions is coming. In fact, they have done everything in their power to make one possible. This collapse, according to my research, is designed to clear the way through monetary carpet bombing for a new international Bretton Woods-style agreement which will plant the foundation of a truly global economic system centralized and controlled by a highly select few elites. Needless to say, the internationalists would prefer not to take the blame for such a calamity.

An act of nature

Even though most people are well aware of the fact that governments have been engineering biological weapons for decades, few people think political leadership would ever use them at all, let alone use them on the people they are tasked to protect. Even with the complacency and inaction of our government in terms of the response to Ebola, the general assumption by most of the American population will be that any viral outbreak is a product of nature, not of men.

Acts of nature are not things that the common man can easily rebel against. People rebel against governments and corrupt despots all the time, but not the plague. If a viral pandemic strikes, nearly everything a government does after the fact, no matter how corrupt or destructive, can be rationalized as necessary for the greater good of the greater number. If anyone does rebel, they will be labeled as pure evil, for they are now disrupting the government’s ability to stop the pandemic from spreading, and thus, are partly responsible for the mass deaths that follow.

During a viral outbreak, government becomes mother, father, nurse and protector. No matter how abusive they are, most people will still look to them for safety and guidance, primarily because they have no understanding of disease. What they do not understand, they will fear, and fear always drives the ignorant into the arms of tyrants.

Rationalized economic collapse

Who would question the event of an economic collapse in the wake of an Ebola-soaked nightmare? Who would want to buy or sell? Who would want to come in contact with strangers to generate a transaction? Who would even leave their house? Ebola treatment in First World nations has advantages of finance and a cleaner overall health environment, but what if economic downturn happens simultaneously? America could experience Third World status very quickly, and with it, all the unsanitary conditions that result in an exponential Ebola death rate.

The Treasury and Labor departments and private Federal Reserve have gone to vast lengths to skew statistics and rig markets with trillions in fiat dollars. Despite historic numbers of Americans falling off unemployment rolls and the U.S. teetering on the edge of global “de-dollarization,” a large portion of the citizenry has been led to believe that economic recovery is assured. What they do not understand is that fiscal implosion is unavoidable, and the whole bull market is a circus designed to distract.

Amidst even a moderate or controlled viral scenario, stocks and bonds will undoubtedly crash, a crash that was going to happen anyway. The international banks that created the mess get off blameless, while Ebola, an act of nature, becomes the ultimate scapegoat for every disaster that follows.

Rationalized travel restrictions

If you want to lock down the movement of a population to prevent the spread of dissenting groups or ideas, I can’t think of a better way than to claim it is to prevent the spread of a deadly virus. Our government and world health officials are approaching Ebola with an attitude of nonchalance right now, because prevention is not part of the plan. When Ebola strikes hard within our country, that is when the government will finally decide that strict measures are needed. Suddenly, those borders that could never be secured will become impassable for you and me. And traveling between states or perhaps even counties may be extraordinarily difficult. “Papers please…” will become the new mantra of petty authority.

Forced health measures

Do not be surprised if an Ebola vaccine of some kind suddenly appears on the market just as the situation begins to turn tragic. And, do not be surprised if said vaccine is a total sham that ends up making more people sick. Expect that forced vaccinations will take place, especially as a prerequisite for receiving treatment from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or Federal Emergency Management Agency hazmat facilities. Expect that these facilities will become nothing more than obscure prisons for the sick where people quietly die. Expect that every American will be required to be tested and screened, with biometric data carefully stored. The options are endless for abuse in terms of totalitarian health laws when the public thinks they could end up bleeding from every orifice and dying of liver failure.

Rationalized martial law

Imagine if some Americans decide they don’t like being poked, prodded, tagged and bagged by the establishment. Imagine they decide to fight back, Ebola be damned. An already uphill battle becomes an epic struggle when a large percentage of the population thinks you are a monster that wants to hasten the spread of Ebola. Not that the ignorant count for much in the grand scheme of history, but waking at least some of them up in the future to the bigger threat (the globalists) is hard to do when all they can see is devilish microbes. Those who plan to combat the rise of the internationalists, as I plan to, should accept now the likelihood that the only people we will have on our side tomorrow are the people we have been able to wake up today. Martial law will be welcomed by the rest.

International response

An international response is almost guaranteed during a major pandemic. Sovereignty will be tossed in the dirt. United Nations and World Health Organization teams, and perhaps even troops, could accompany an aid package to the U.S. Think of the glorious propaganda, as globalists tell stories of how they “saved humanity” by surpassing the barbaric practices of national and individual sovereignty, defeated the Ebola virus (after millions of deaths, of course), and out of the ashes, the “phoenix” of global governance was born. If they succeed, imagine what the history books will say for the next several centuries.

What do we do?

There are no silver bullet solutions. There never have been and there never will be. People looking for them will be sorely disappointed and ill prepared after wasting so much time searching for an easy out. The only answer is for communities of people to take their own survival into their own hands and become as self-sufficient as possible. This means that neighborhoods, towns and counties will have to take precautions now to steel themselves for a pandemic event, instead of simply sitting on their hands and expecting government officials to save them.

The treatments for Ebola in most cases involve nothing more than the steady replacement of vital fluids, electrolytes and plasma until the patient’s body can build up an immunity to the virus. Those with stronger immune systems before contraction are more likely to survive and beat back the disease. Government care, for the most part, is not going to save many people either way. That is to say, your survival will depend on you and your immune system, not them. Communities that make efforts to prevent contact and that strengthen individual immunity will have a better chance of survival than going into any government run hazmat facility. Government is not needed, and will often end up being more of a threat than the virus itself. Groups I work closely with and talk with, many with their own doctors and nurses, are already setting prevention guidelines in motion.

If you can prove you don’t need the system to save you, their rationale for attempting to control you is weakened. The ignorant will still try to demonize us for our efforts, but self-sufficiency is all we have in the face of this kind of storm. If we can lead by example with our own successful health standards while saving people where the establishment could not, perhaps we can turn the tide.

-Brandon Smith

Note from the Editor: Round two of the financial meltdown is predicted to reach global proportions, already adversely affecting Greece, Spain and most of Europe. It appears less severe in the states because our banks are printing useless fiat currency. I’ve arranged for readers to get two free books—Surviving a Global Financial Crisis and Currency Collapse, plus How to Survive the Collapse of Civilization—to help you prepare for the worst. Click here for your free copies.

U.S. government fails to stop yet another invasion

It’s sad to say with such finality, but a universal fact of existence is that most of the people you meet in this life are fundamentally and functionally ignorant — not necessarily stupid, but certainly ignorant.

Ignorance comes not from a lack of intelligence, but from a denial of knowledge and truth. That is to say, ignorance takes hold when people decide to act as though they know and understand a thing, even if they do not. Ignorance prevails when a society or nation chooses to value the appearance of expertise and the theater of overconfidence and to cheer for the bluster of morons rather than admit that they have unanswered question on subjects they do not yet grasp. Nothing is worse for the self-absorbed than to acknowledge that they do not know.

Entire nations have fallen throughout history because of this terrible weakness.

By extension, such ignorance is not just an inherent disease but also an easily exploitable disease. When we refuse to think critically and examine our surroundings thoroughly, we become like grazing gazelles oblivious to the predators encircling us in the tall grass. And just as there are predatory individuals who hide among us, there are also predatory oligarchs who camouflage themselves as benevolent politicos and financial professionals standing above us. Normal predators we fear; establishment predators we invite into our homes as protectors, saviors and partners.

The disease of ignorance leaves us vulnerable to many other plagues, including literal plagues like the Ebola virus. When we take the establishment at its word concerning the threat of an Ebola outbreak, we make ourselves vulnerable. When people assume that the worst could never happen to them, history shows us that it inevitably does.

The recent discovery of an Ebola-infected patient in Dallas has led to reasonable concern from the general population. But mainstream media efforts, along with spin from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and from the White House, have subdued any practical response by the citizenry. The constant, droning voice of the establishment claims there is nothing to be worried about, that even if there were an outbreak in the U.S., it would be quickly squashed by highly prepared medical response teams.

First and foremost, the existence of just one Ebola-infected person within America’s borders indicates a likelihood of others or the possibility of others in the near future unless policies and procedures are changed. As far as I can tell, the government has no intention of introducing rational fail-safes such as requiring mandatory quarantine for those seeking to re-enter the U.S. from known outbreak regions, shutting down unrestricted travel into the country from countries with Ebola, training hospitals properly in the identification of the disease or committing mass resources to quelling Ebola in hot zones before it reaches our shores.

Secondly, the establishment also has no intention of giving the general public accurate information as to the behavior and dangers of Ebola. Those I have spoken with in the medical field, including some who work in major-city hospitals, have related to me that the CDC has not been honest in its assessment of the probability of outbreak. For example, the CDC is consistently reminding the public that Ebola is not an airborne disease, and this is technically true as far as the science indicates. However, they forget to mention that it is indeed a droplet-borne disease, meaning it can travel through the air carried in an infected cough or sneeze. The tight quarters of an airplane make for a perfect petri dish, with droplets and particulates passing back and forth through the same space and oxygen for hours at a time. The spread of Ebola is nowhere near as containable as the CDC claims.

I have been told that most hospitals are completely unprepared to fend off an outbreak of a virus as destructive as Ebola. Little to no standardized training has taken place, and some facilities are only now putting together a list of emergency procedures. Human error within the chain of care also occurs often, as we saw in Dallas; and these errors can lead to greater infection in a hospital environment.

CDC and World Health Organization efforts in countries like Liberia have been so ineffective and halfhearted it leads one to question why their budgets are in the billions of dollars. Where are all their capital and their resources going if not to bring an unprecedented hammer down on a clearly dangerous outbreak of Ebola? Why is the virus being allowed to flourish rather than being destroyed right where it started? Where has the full force of the CDC been for the past several months while death gestates in Africa?

The one legitimate function of any government is to protect the right of the people to pursue their own life, liberty and happiness. I think stopping the invasion of mortal viruses would fall into this category. It’s the one job our government is mandated to do, and it refuses to do it. Why?

I have made the point many times in the past, and I’ll make it here again: When a catastrophe takes place or a crisis is imminent, ask yourself who ultimately benefits. I believe that the lack of strong prevention response from our government — an inadequacy that is obvious to all of the healthcare workers with whom I have talked and to anyone who has the sense to do his own research — could be absolutely deliberate.

–Brandon Smith

Neoconservative Infiltrators Seek To Co-Opt Liberty Movement

This is the second of a two-part series. Read Part 1, “The Resurrection Of The Neoconservative Lie.” 

The so-called “moderate” Free Syrian Army, a group entirely created by Western covert intelligence agencies, has been for some time interweaving with the Islamic State (aka ISIS or ISIL), which was also created by covert intelligence agencies. Meanwhile, neocons like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) argue that FSA members are the “good guys.”

Once again, I have to go back to the neoconservative ideology, which holds that unification requires the creation of enemies in order to galvanize peoples and nations around a centralized leadership. We have seen mounting evidence that ISIS is a fully fabricated monstrosity. We see fake Republicans like McCain involved from the very beginning of the process, admonishing President Obama for his participation while helping Obama with his mission. And now we see these same instigators coming to the American people with promises of utter terror if we do not rally around their governance.

But the charade doesn’t stop there.

The liberty movement also has infiltrators who, in my view, are seeking to co-opt our momentum and divert the efforts of constitutional proponents away from the true enemies of our republic (namely, internationalist financiers calling for total globalization) using the looming threat of an extremist Islamic caliphate.

One such example is Fox News contributor Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who has been skulking around my neck of the woods in Montana for some time, attempting to sell his version of the final liberty “solution” to the large community of patriots in the region. Vallely’s answer to the problem appears to be an extension of his Operation American Spring project, which he has been promoting every year for as long as I can remember and which has failed every year to produce the million-man armed march on Washington, D.C., that it calls for. The strategy has evolved into what essentially amounts to a military coup led by neoconservative brass.

Vallely’s suggestions are certainly enticing to some, and his rhetoric sounds rather similar to what many in organizations like Oath Keepers believe. However, there is a distinct difference. A military coup led by politicized generals who may very well be controlled by the same globalist interests as Obama is not an expression of constitutional revolution. It is, in fact, a warped and twisted facsimile of revolution. The idea is alluring because many Americans want to take direct action to remove corrupt government, but they do not want to risk their lives to do it.

Military coup takes the responsibility of constitutional revolution away from the people and places it the hands of a select few. What this means is that a military coup led by Washington-bred generals is actually advantageous to the elites because it allows them to undermine legitimate rebellion without directly confronting it at the risk of energizing it. Two birds are thus killed with one stone: The revolutionary momentum is derailed, and the establishment maintains control through military puppets who have more room to impose greater totalitarianism through overt force.

But what if those generals were rock-solid constitutionalists? We can only guess at the result, but I can say with certainty that pretenders like Vallely are not constitutionalists.

Before Vallely settled in Montana to become a “freedom fighter” he was most famous for co-authoring a Department of Defense white paper called “From Psyop To Mind War,” published in 1980.

The paper devises fourth-generation warfare methods to paralyze entire nations with complex propaganda, turning the population against itself and its own interests so that controllers do not have to expend vast military resources to defeat them conventionally. This strategy was deemed preferable, as it would reduce destruction of resources while still establishing dominance and/or destabilization. It is also a strategy that was recommended for use against the American people (not to mention the use of “ESP” as a weapon, but we don’t have time to get into that garbage). The Arab Spring, funded and directed by covert intelligence agencies, is a perfect example of mind war in action. And in light of this, I find it interesting that Vallely would champion a project labeled Operation American Spring, as if the joke on us is right out in the open.

The other author of “From Psyop To Mind War” is a man by the name of Michael Aquino, who has a foggy career history beyond his status as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. military and allegedly an employee of the NSA. What is not a mystery is Aquino’s religious orientation. The man is an open Satanist, a former member of the Church of Satan, and a current member of his own Temple of Set. (Aquino founded the Temple of Set five years before working with Vallely, meaning his darker theological leanings were well known to any of his peers.) Whether one has a Christian orientation, one is compelled to question the moral intentions of a man who curls his eyebrows to look like horns, worships either the myth or the actual embodiment of the prince of darkness and tries to present such activities as a mere expression of rationalism. One is also compelled to question the moral and mental compass of anyone who would willingly maintain a working relationship with such a person and then suddenly fight the good fight as a Christian patriot. I have not found a single instance in which Vallely has stood in public opposition to Aquino or “From Psyop to Mind War.” And to this day, Aquino thanks Vallely for his efforts on the white paper.

After retiring from the military, Vallely became a client of Benedor Associates, a neoconservative public relations firm. And he continues to ally closely with neoconservative political elites. It should come as no surprise then that just like McCain, Vallely also took a trip to Syria, on the same day as the infamous sarin gas attack — the same gas attack that was most likely perpetrated by Muslim extremist groups as a false flag against the Syrian government, and which almost led America into World War III. In response, Valley called for increased U.S. government support for the FSA insurgents.

So why is a retired neoconservative U.S. general who wrote a psychological warfare paper with a DoD Satanist supporting extremist insurgency in the Middle East while suggesting military coup in the United States? I can only suggest that the Hegelian dialectic is in full force. The elites conjure a frightening enemy in the form of ISIS, attacks occur that distract the masses away from the internationalists, and the chaos that follows — whether it results in revolution or military coup — is then sold to the world as a natural by-product of a crumbling Western world due to the misguided zealotry of “conservatives.” After the dust settles, the men who made the collapse possible move forward with the global centralization they always wanted, using America as a horror story to teach future generations in Common Core-style classrooms about the barbaric attachments to national sovereignty and individualism.

A fanciful conspiracy theory? Perhaps. Or perhaps it’s a very real possibility if the liberty movement and conservatives in general are suckered into the neocon fold once again.

–Brandon Smith

The Resurrection Of The Neoconservative Lie

This is the first of a two-part series.

There is nothing worse than a die-hard neoconservative. Of all the socialist horrors wrought against the American public by the Obama administration and its small, but insane, group of followers, the neoliberals are at least relatively open about their disdain for the Constitution as well as their intentions to reduce our country to a Third World communist enclave. Neoconservatives, on the other hand, have the audacity to pretend as if they adore the Bill of Rights, posing as freedom fighters and champions of liberty while working intently to administer the same exact despotic policies and socialist infrastructure.

As most readers are aware, the false left/right paradigm has been the primary control mechanism used against the American people for decades. The idea is that in order for establishment elites to maintain control of a population with a heritage of independence, a facade of choice must be created to placate the dim-witted masses while the system itself is dominated from behind the scenes. The people of a republic must be conned into participating in the process of their own enslavement, at least until the oligarchs are ready to unleash full-blown totalitarianism. The concept of free elections becomes a grand theatrical display when most candidates, regardless of party affiliation, are bought, bribed, blackmailed or philosophically allied with the elite. The actions of these candidates speak far louder than their rhetoric for those with the sense to pay attention. But for many people, the attachment to the sports team mentality of politics is just too much to resist. For them, the circus is reality.

The birth of neoconservatism is clouded by what some claim to be the “incidental” relationship between neocon adherents like Irving and William Kristol, Abram Shulsky, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush, among others, and a little-known political science professor by the name of Leo Strauss. Strauss’ work culminated in the University Of Chicago as many of his students and followers went on to engineer the rise of an insidious bureaucratic machine that gave us the Patriot Acts, the fake War on Terror, rationalized torture procedures and numerous other constitutional disgraces.

Strauss was at least publicly opposed to the formation of communism; but at the same time, he held a reverence for a pre-Weimar Germany brand of authoritarian oligarchy. To fight the rise of “liberalism,” Strauss maintained that the use of “noble lies” was preferable to surrender. That is to say, the left was so devilish that an “any means necessary” approach became acceptable. This approach, interpreted by Strauss’ students, was meant to include the creation of false unity in the face of a fabricated enemy.

Strauss himself argued that enemies were vital in the unification of man: “Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed. Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united — and they can only be united against other people.”

It is important to note that the “noble lie” concept was also a primary pillar in the philosophical methods of another political gatekeeper by the name of Saul Alinsky, a gatekeeper who just happened to become prominent during the same era as Strauss and who influenced the same generation, but on the left end of the spectrum, giving birth to what we now call neoliberalism. I do not believe it is simple coincidence that these gatekeepers would both go on to successfully galvanize two sides of American society against each other based on false premises while both of them were promoting nearly identical forms of moral relativism.

Both ideologies argue in speech for either “liberal values” or “conservative values.” But the tactics they use can end only one way, regardless of which side wins out: with tyranny being the ultimate result. The identical policy measures taken by the administrations of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama in terms of war, executive powers, personal privacy, torture, indefinite detention, assassination, etc., clearly illustrate that there is truly no discernible concrete difference between Republican leadership and Democratic leadership.

The brilliance of the false left/right paradigm is that it mesmerizes the public with two cosmetically separate but inherently identical political movements, and it distracts Americans away from the more plausible third option: namely, personal liberty and responsibility, also known as classical liberalism, practiced by the Founding Fathers. Neoconservatism in particular is highly destructive to constitutional heritage, because it poses as constitutionalism while seeking to erode liberty from within. The neoliberal side of the paradigm uses the stark viciousness of neocons to convince the public that socialization is a necessary measure to humanize government. The neoconservative side of the paradigm uses the foreign policy “weakness” of neoliberals to then argue for a return to greater militarization and force of law. Both methods result in a perpetually growing government.

I believe it is possible that we are about to see the left/right game switch gears once again.

The rise of ISIS and the increased threat of economic war with Russia have highlighted the old “weak liberal” talking points in conservative circles, while conveniently ignoring the fact that both of these problems were created by elites on both sides of the aisle.

While it is true that America has been made weaker with each passing year, both defensively and economically, it is important that we question what exactly our response should be. Is the solution to swing the pendulum right back to the neoconservative standards of centralized military-industrial might and trading freedom for security? Or how about a military coup to unseat Obama and put the country back on track? Would the removal of a middle-management puppet like Obama by a group of patriot-posers among the military brass really change anything in the long run? This idea is being floated everywhere, in some cases by neocon talking heads presenting themselves as liberty movement leaders.

There are always the old standby neocon peddlers like John McCain and Lindsay Graham, who are both avid supporters of greater executive power, including the defense of torture, indefinite detention and assassination of American citizens. But when such politicians use ISIS as a villainous prop to frighten the citizenry with visions of masked gunman and mushroom clouds, liberty proponents remember that ghouls like McCain were involved in the funding and training of the same extremists that now make up the core of the ISIS threat.

–Brandon Smith

Why Is Independence So Frightening To Some People?

In past articles I have examined the nature of power and division in our society and have always come to the same conclusion, that there are only two types of people: the people who want control over others and the people who just want to be left alone. However, there are also subgroups that swim within the boundaries of each end of the spectrum. Often, psychologists and self-help gurus attempt to promote the idea that the defining quality of the average person’s life is whether he is a follower or a leader. I have seen this spectrum applied to every political and social organization.

Ironically, I have heard so-called “leftists” argue that the nature of their ideology makes them more adept at leadership and that conservatives are more prone to become followers (ostensibly because conservatives tend to be more religious). I have heard the same argument from people on the so-called “right,” only in reverse. The problem is that very few people in our society understand anymore what it actually means to be a leader. Most Americans today are followers, whether they know it or not.

The concept of leadership has become ridiculously warped. Many people feel that to become a leader, one must clamor his way through the system — be it government or corporate — and achieve artificial status, which others are conditioned to recognize and worship. One cannot become a designated “doctor” without earning the correct accolades from the establishment, accolades that are essentially bought at the right price or given as a pat on the head to those who excel at parroting the mainstream consensus. The same goes for scientists, economists, political authorities, etc. This creates a professional class, a percentage of the population whose opinions are treated with immediate reverence simply because of their titles.

Others in our culture assume that leadership is measured by level of influence. Influence, however, can be stolen, rather than earned. The number of fans and followers a person retains is not a true measure of the real man or woman. Some people lie about who they are to gain popularity, while other people devour such lies because they are desperate for an icon to show them the path to an imaginary promised land. Celebrity — whether by aid of media, finance or bureaucracy — is almost always superficial.

Still other men and women believe that leadership requires empty gestures of cultural rebellion. Do our style preferences, body art, sexual orientations, musical tastes, obscure philosophical hobbies and elitist attitudes really make us different or unique? No, they do not. These things are an expression of our orientation to others, not an expression of our inner selves. One can live a life immersed in what we believe to be the wildly eccentric and still be an empty follower, devoid of originality and independence.

Carl Jung, one of the few psychologists in history I actually find useful, once said that all human beings are in search of a particular treasure, a psychological or spiritual treasure that is unique to them and makes them whole. Many people spend the entirety of their lives searching for this treasure in the world around them, rather than looking within, and they end their days feeling mostly miserable and thwarted. They look for it in politics. They look for it in religious representatives (without ever understanding their true relation to the religion). They look for it in wealth and stature. And they always come up short. This is the life of the follower, a life of endless transference in which complete happiness is always outside of oneself, somewhere over the horizon or in the hands of others.

One might ask what any of this has to do with independence and liberty? Consider the implications.

How many socialists and collectivists in the world think their happiness is dependent on your savings, your acceptance, your submission to their ideal society. How many collectivists seek to complete themselves by forcing others to participate in their philosophical fantasies? They do not look within; they look without. And if you happen to be standing in their field of vision, you might become a prop in their self-serving theater.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are many within the liberty movement who also suffer from the follower’s disease. They are the relentless crybabies on message boards screaming: “We keep talking about the problem but when are YOU going to give us a solution!?” Or they ask: “When is EVERYONE going to stand up and do something about this!?” Notice the inclusiveness of such statements. These people are always waiting around for someone else to take action, while never taking action on their own. They are followers by default of their own apathy.

What can be done to instill independence and true leadership in Americans once again? The conundrum is that such values cannot be instilled; they can only be encouraged. Each individual must make the decision on his or her own to stop looking for the world to fix itself, or them. Each individual must take the first step toward the long journey of becoming a self-reliant and self-owned human being. When faced with this conundrum, I can do nothing but make suggestions:

  • Find a useful skill, something that you love, and master it completely. Try to become the foremost expert on just one thing — not to impress others, but to challenge yourself. When people assert the incredible effort required to master a skill, they grow their sense of self-worth instead of measuring their worth by the guidelines of the collective.
  • Never look for traditional leaders. Always look for teachers. A real teacher is someone who seeks to make each individual his own leader through knowledge and empowerment. A real teacher has no desire to rule others, only to help others so that they do not feel the need to be ruled.
  • Independence comes from self-leadership. As long as you are reliant on the system or its participating oligarchs to decide your future for you, you will never be anything more than a follower, even if the system has given you a “place at the table” and a title to make you feel special.
  • If you see a problem in the world, stop asking permission to fix it! Stop waiting for the establishment to police itself. Stop concerning yourself with the actions of others and take your own actions, however small they might be. Revolutions are sparked in the minds of individuals and implemented by the hands of the courageous few. There will be no mass awakening and there will be no grand march to glory, so stop holding your breath. If there is an unrelenting evil in the world, then you must fight it if you expect anything to change. If you are the only person who recognizes it, then you may have to fight it alone.
  • If you are going to lead others, lead by example. Show people how to achieve something more by building something of your own. There are far too many Americans who seek to falsely elevate themselves by attacking the solutions and achievements of others from the anonymous comfort of their computers, rather than doing anything constructive on their own merit. There was a time when Americans were respected as people of action, rather than talk. When you do talk, do so from a position of strength. Talk as someone who has actually done something worth talking about.
  • Make a list of your dependencies. Do you have the skills to survive without a job? Without money? Without utilities? Without consistent aid from others? Can you live without modern comforts if you had to? Do you have the fortitude to endure great hardship? Have you ever endured great hardship, or have you avoided it your whole life? The more self-sufficient you are, the less you will need to look to the system or other people to make your decisions for you. You will become fearless, and fearless people cannot be ruled.

I believe independence terrifies some people because it requires a human being to challenge the unknown and take responsibility for the consequences if he fails. Followers trade in their mental and spiritual freedom to governments, oligarchs and gatekeepers so that they never have to face these difficulties. Sometimes, they are simply lazy. Sometimes, they lack confidence in their own abilities. Sometimes, they are just cowards. In any case, the result is the same: a life of relative ease riding the tides in a vast school of self-serving minnows but always prey to the ever circling sharks. I say don’t be a minnow; be a man.

–Brandon Smith

When ‘Anti-Government’ Violence Erupts, Who Is Really At Fault?

This past week, I have been examining a recently leaked document from the Department Of Homeland Security entitled “Domestic Violent Extremists Pose A Threat To Government Officials And Law Enforcement.” (It’s true; the title leaves nothing to the imagination.)

Generally, such documents are not classified. But it is internally accepted that they should not be shared with the public. Similar documents like the Missouri Information Analysis Center report titled “The Modern Militia Movement” and the Virginia Fusion Center’s Terrorism Threat Assessment are not designed to import in-depth knowledge to law enforcement. In fact, if you actually investigate these white papers thoroughly, you will find they read like a mentally challenged middle-school student’s last-minute book report on liberty groups in America.

Rather than convey the complexity of the conflict between federal bureaucracy and constitutionalists, the papers linked above are meant to indoctrinate law enforcement officials against even considering what we have to say or why we take the actions we take.

Often, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a shameless propaganda outlet known for its Saul Alinsky tactics, is tapped as the primary source of “data” for these reports. At no time have I ever seen a government report on “domestic extremism” that actually allows a subset of the liberty movement to personally describe our position.

Often, the DHS will claim to LEOs (legally entitled to oppress) that there is a “disparity in our beliefs that makes us unpredictable” or that they do not have a full understanding of our motivations during a particular event. The confrontation at Cliven Bundy’s ranch was the latest shock, after which federal officials acted as though the standoff attitude of armed liberty activists was incomprehensible.

The reality is that establishment cronies know all too well why activists are angered to the point of taking up arms.

In any piece of propaganda, including the leaked DHS report, the goal is to paint opposition to state power in the darkest manner possible, so that the useful idiots (unconstitutional LEOs and federal agents) can maintain the false sense that they hold the moral high ground. It is the information that such propaganda fails to mention that holds the key to unraveling the government position. For instance, the paper overtly mentions armed patriots at Bundy ranch as a brand of escalation, but does not mention the heavily armed Bureau of Land Management agents and contracted snipers that came first, seeking to terrify the Bundy family into compliance.

Nor does the paper mention the trampling of protester 1st amendment rights with the BLM’s absurdly inadequate, fenced-off “First Amendment Area.” In light of this, I ask: Who triggered the confrontation at Bundy ranch?

Is the federal government really all that surprised that liberty activists from all across the country came armed and ready to fight or even die? Some people believe the establishment is so ignorant or blinded by hubris that they can’t see the typhoon at their door, but I don’t think they are as dumb as they pretend.

Tragedies like Waco and Ruby Ridge do not have a shelf life. They accumulate in the minds of the people over time, and generations can pass without the anger ever fading. At Bundy ranch, the liberty movement resolved that we would not allow another such event to occur again without direct consequences – meaning nonsensical false-flag terrorism like the Oklahoma City bombing will never be our method, though the Feds would like you to assume as much. No, our method is to stand in between the aggressors, whoever they may be, and the victims, whoever they may be, and stop the tragedy before it happens.

At Bundy ranch, the BLM and its military contractors ran away, returning Bundy property as they went. Thus, the liberty movement removed the immediate threat and prevented another possible Waco. This is called “escalation” of violent extremism by the establishment. I call it de-escalation of violent government abuse by liberty activists.

The federal government would have you believe that the rise of “militias” and violent opposition is somehow taking place in a vacuum; that government officials can’t understand why such escalation is occurring now; that it must be a product of “racism” due to a black president; and that it’s all a chaotic, self-mutating mess of extremist insanity. This is ridiculous.

Why are people gearing up for revolution? I’ll break it down simply: If you try to take our freedom, our chance at prosperity or our lives, we are going to fight you until one side or both sides dies. Period.

I’m not sure how this could be difficult to comprehend, and I do not think the feds haven’t grasped it. I think if they are surprised at all, it is because they have been steamrolling over Americans for so long that they are not used to the idea of regular people stopping them cold. Powder kegs are revealing themselves all across the U.S., from Bundy ranch to Ferguson, Missouri, and all caused by authoritarian overreach by federal and state officials.

What is the solution? To stop the rise of anti-government violence, we must remove government intrusion into people’s lives, and the public must take community security into its own hands. In Ferguson, anger has developed into street activism, but also random looting. Michael Brown himself is not an endearing character, but that is not a rationalization for the outright execution of suspects by the police. If the citizens of Ferguson really want to erase this conundrum from their lives, they are going to have to establish neighborhood watches and even community “militias” (there’s the dreaded “M” word again) to bring peace to their town.

By refusing to take responsibility for their own security, Ferguson residents have invited city and state LEOs to do the job for them, and this has resulted in the possibility of unwarranted death-by-cop. Ferguson residents can and should remove LEO presence by establishing their own security. But this means they would have to stop the looting by petty thugs using protests as cover, and it also means they would have to prevent or intervene in criminal activities by men like Brown.

The Founding Fathers answered the question of “who watches the watchmen” by creating a system by which the people are the watchmen. This was the militia system, a system that the federal government now labels “domestic extremism” and violent escalation.

I have been saying it for years, and I’ll keep saying right up until the shooting starts: Americans must take responsibility for their own futures and their own defense. Whether or not the people of Ferguson accept this, I have no idea, but the crisis will never stop until they do. And this problem applies to all other communities across the nation as well.

Dupes and statists will argue that the only way to change the system is to play by the rules, build a majority, elect the politicians you want and fight unconstitutional laws in the courts. But what should the people do when our political structure is rigged by special interests representing only a handful of elites? What should the people do when independent parties are muscled out of the mainstream and the leaders of the major parties sabotage any internal movements to change the status quo? What do the people do when their protests and redress of grievances are bashed by the media, violently attacked by the authorities or outright denied by government-enforced curfew? What do the people do when the courts stall justice and drown dissent with legal red tape? What do people do when playing by the rules only makes the situation worse for us all?

Americans must realize an important fact: There is no power over us but that which we give away.

The original intent of our republic is that the people are the government — not a select few elitists handpicked by corporate bankers. Politicians are supposed to be our employees, not a ruling class that sits above the populace. The current growing conflict between the citizenry and the government is igniting exactly because our government does not represent the common man anymore. The government is not “by the people, for the people.” It is a separate entity, representing corrupt and hostile parties. It cannot be changed from within. The federal government is now foreign to us, a guarded enemy with malicious motives.

Americans can take back the power they have neglected by taking responsibility for themselves and their communities. The government can only do two things in reaction: accept that we are in charge of our own lives and walk away, or try to stop us with force and assert its dominance. If it chooses the latter, then all violence that follows after will be on its hands, not ours. Anti-government activities arise only because of destructive government attitudes. If the establishment really fears a wave of violence against it, then it should do exactly as it did in Bunkerville, Nevada — walk away and leave people in peace.

–Brandon Smith

Order Out Of Chaos: The Doctrine That Runs The World

In February 1920, Winston Churchill wrote an article that appeared in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, stating:

From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

The concept of conspiracy frightens some people, so much so that they are willing to overlook any and all evidence that world events are for the most part directed, rather than chaotic and coincidental. For those who are uneducated and unaware, explanations for the terrible tides of politics and war generally revolve around a false understanding of Occam’s razor. They argue that the theory states that the “simplest explanation” is usually the correct one for any particular problem or crisis. But Occam’s razor actually states that the simplest explanation according to the evidence at hand is usually the correct answer for any given problem. That is to say, the simplest explanation must conform to the evidence, or it is likely not correct.

Unfortunately, “skeptics” of directed conspiracy often turn a blind eye to evidence that is contrary to their simple explanations, while arguing that simplification is its own vindication. In other words, they don’t feel the need to defend their simplistic world view because, in their minds, simplicity stands on its own as self-evident. There was a time when men believed that the planets revolved around each other because they were tied together by long glass strings, and this was evident to them because it was the simplest explanation they could come up with. The thinking of skeptics of the New World Order and concerted globalization is much like this.

The most common argument they tend to exploit is that the world is far too “chaotic” and that if the elites are actually seeking a fully centralized one-world system, they are “failing miserably” because so many cultures are so clearly divided. For anyone who holds this argument as logical or practical, first I would suggest they look beyond the surface of the various conflicts at the similarities between these so called “enemies.”

For example, what about the United States versus Russia? These two nations have a long history of opposing ideologies and have come close to war time and time again. Certainly, average Americans see themselves as individualists and Russians as socialist or communist. Average Russians see Americans as capitalist imperialists and see themselves as humanists. But what about their respective governments? What about their respective financiers and oligarchs? Do they really see each other as enemies?

If that were so, then why did American Wall Street tycoons and the U.S. military aid the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917?

A false paradigm was created when internationalists supported the Bolshevik Revolution and allowed Russia to become a communist-held country. The eventual Cold War that resulted created the rationale used by the military-industrial complex to build a massive standing army (which is not part of the U.S. Constitution), an army which could then be sent around the world to subdue various nations and even possibly be used to oppress the American people.

Even today, the false East/West paradigm continues, with America painted as the bumbling villain and Russia painted as the stalwart and reasonable objector. Yet Russia’s top government officials and our top government officials work closely with and answer to the same international financiers and elites, like the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of International Settlements, as I outlined in great detail in False East/West Paradigm Hides The Rise Of Global Currency and Russia Is Dominated By Global Banks, Too.

Even closer to current events, the U.S. has now entered into military operations against ISIS insurgents moving rapidly through Iraq’s northern regions toward Baghdad. However, if ISIS is the enemy, why did the U.S. and our ally, Saudi Arabia, support and train ISIS agents in Syria as well as Iraq?

Is it just irony that our government helped birth ISIS and now the White House is at war with the group? Or is it possible that maybe, just maybe, a greater plan is afoot?

As the sinister Rahm Emanuel famously said: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

If a crisis of opportunity does not present itself in the time frame you need, why not engineer a crisis to fit your goals? This is a tactic that has been used by elites for generations, and it is called the Hegelian dialectic.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s work was the very foundation of the collectivist/socialist ideology, and it inspired Karl Marx during his writing of The Communist Manifesto. Hegel was an avid statist who believed that the collective must be ruled and directed by centralized governance and that all individualism should be sacrificed for the greater good.

Hegel wrote that the state “has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State… for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.”

In his dialectic theory, Hegel conjured a strategy by which the establishment elites could control the masses through deliberately created division. To define the Hegelian dialectic method simply, the ruling body must first trigger a problem or crisis that causes the citizenry to react with fear and demand a solution. The rulers then offer a solution, which they had already predetermined before they had started the crisis; this solution would usually entail more power for the elites and less freedom for the citizens.

The world appears divided and chaotic exactly because it has been made that way by a select few in the globalist establishment. In fact, if you were to name any war in the past 100 years, any competent alternative analyst would easily produce undeniable evidence of the involvement of international banks and think tanks pulling strings on both sides.

If you don’t understand the concept of “order out of chaos,” then you’ll never understand a thing.

Engineered chaos serves several purposes. It provides distraction and cover for the elites to implement other plans that they would rather not have noticed.

It also provides a scapegoat for the masses, who are now divided against each other. When violent changes are implemented that produce destructive consequences, the people must be placated with an easily identifiable villain. Certain changes globalists wish to make in the way the world functions require the careful exploitation of scapegoats.

For example, the globalists at the IMF have been discussing the establishment of a global basket currency for years to replace the U.S. dollar.

Russia and the East have also, conveniently, been calling for the IMF to replace the dollar with their Special Drawing Rights basket.

And finally, as well as conveniently, the elites in the U.S. government have launched a controlled coup in Ukraine and initiated direct economic confrontation with Russia, thereby giving the East the perfect excuse to dump the U.S. dollar as world reserve and replace it with a basket currency system under the IMF. Despite claims that Vladimir Putin is “anti-globalist,” the Russian is in fact an avid supporter of the IMF, and has stated his goal is to continue Russia’s IMF membership in a larger capacity:

In the BRICS case we see a whole set of coinciding strategic interests. First of all, this is the common intention to reform the international monetary and financial system. In the present form it is unjust to the BRICS countries and to new economies in general. We should take a more active part in the IMF and the World Bank’s decision-making system. The international monetary system itself depends a lot on the US dollar, or, to be precise, on the monetary and financial policy of the US authorities. The BRICS countries want to change this.

Yes, Vladimir, and so do the manipulative social engineers at the IMF.

Hopefully, you have the sense to see how this works: problem, reaction, solution. Economic or physical war is launched between East and West, while the dollar is killed in the process. The masses react by demanding a fair and balanced replacement for the dollar as world reserve so that economic stability can return. The Americans blame Russia and the East for their fiscal misfortune. The East blames the hubris of the West for its own downfall. Neither side blames the banksters, who started the whole calamity to begin with. And the elites swoop in as saviors with a new Bretton Woods-style agreement to appease all sides and cement their global currency system, the system they had always wanted. And with a global economic currency and authority in place, global governance is not far behind — order out of chaos.

This process is more psychological than political in its goals. One could argue that if the elites already have control of all central banks and governments, then why do they need a global government? The answer is that these men do not want secret global governance, they want open global governance. They want us to accept the idea as a fact of existence, for only when we agree to participate in the lie will they then have truly won.

The end result of World War I was the creation of the League of Nations and the argument that sovereignty leads to disunion and catastrophe. World War II led to the creation of the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. I believe that a third world war is nearly upon us, one that may involve weapons of monetary destruction more so than weapons of mass destruction. Each supposed disintegration of global unity has eventually led to greater centralization, and this is something the skeptics seem to forget. The progression of crises suggests that the next war will lead to total globalization under the dominance of a minority of elitists posing as wise men who only wish to bring peace and harmony to the masses. In the meantime, the skeptics will continue to mindlessly debate in the face of all reason that the whole thing was a fluke, an act of random mathematical chance, leading coincidentally to the one thing the establishment rulers crave: total global totalitarian micromanagement.

Note from the Editor:There are 10 investment mistakes you must avoid now more than ever! Because the Government is steering us head-on in to another crash, and if you’re not prepared—you’ll be the one to pay the penalty! My report, The Hyperinflation Survival Handbook, details steps you can take to protect your future and your wealth. Click here to get it for $4.95 today!

–Brandon Smith

Organized Community Defense Is America’s Last Hope

Not long ago, I felt compelled to address the idea of self defense as a moral imperative in an article titled “Violence In The Face Of Tyranny Is Often Necessary.” My intention was to perhaps undo some of the propaganda conditioning that Americans have suffered over the decades that has taught them that “all” forms of violent action are “immoral”, including the defense of one’s person, one’s property, and one’s freedom.

The recent uprising at Bundy Ranch in Bunkerville, Nev., confirmed my predictions that many Americans are tired of playing by rules chartered by the establishment and are ready to take measures outside of the boundaries set by the system. The reality is that change will never come without consequence and cost, and when faced with an entrenched tyranny, if the citizenry cannot present the threat of physical consequence to their oppressors, the oppressors have no motivation to relinquish power.

To use the schoolyard analogy yet again, it is a fact of life that the class bully will not leave a victim in peace because he is enthralled with the feeling of power over others. The bully will not stop because he has no incentive. Protesting only encourages him. Using the system as a shield only amuses him. Logic and reason only anger him. Punching the bully in the teeth is the only incentive he will respect. If you show that you can disrupt a tyrant’s abuse of power anytime you wish, if you show that you can hurt him back, only then will he take you seriously.

There is a rather insane notion within modern activist movements that self defense represents an abandonment of higher principle. They argue that to fight is to automatically lose, and to prepare for conflict is “extreme.” I would say that self defense is actually the HIGHEST principle one can value, for without the courage to physically resist tyranny, without the will required to put one’s life at risk to stand against the evils of the world, ALL other principles will be lost. Even Gandhi, the man often idolized by pacifists and “non-violent” activists, recognized this fact:

Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor…

When violence] is offered in self-defense or for the defense of the defenseless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission…

I believe that the idea that self defense is a morally unacceptable option for dissenting groups is a obnoxiously false one, promoted by the establishment itself and sold to easily brainwashed dupes to steer the public away from the only method that could in fact do harm to the elitist power structure. The holier-than-thou attitude of the pacifists is encouraged as the system plays to their exaggerated sense of righteousness. Good people want to remain seen as good people, and even though deep down most of them understand that fighting back against aggression is not wrong, the peer pressure of the sunshine patriots often convinces them to keep their mouths shut, or otherwise they might “hurt the cause.” I say that without self defense and the possibility of action, there is no cause.

As I write this, I am working during a brief trip to Alaska. I was invited by Stewart Rhodes, the head of Oath Keepers, to check out the progress of a project he has launched in an effort to counter the apathy and inability of the American populace today to present a meaningful defense against a host of threats the public faces in these increasingly chaotic times. Economic instability, poverty, civil unrest, open borders and Federal corruption are all factors that led to the creation of the Oath Keepers CPT (Community Preparedness Team) program.

The CPT program is a State-by-State program designed to reestablish the concept of localized community preparedness and self defense measures in case of regional or national crisis, including localized security, medical, food and water supply, as well as engineering and communications: everything a neighborhood, a town, a county, or state would need to rebuild in the advent of unexpected (or expected) catastrophe. The CPT mission is to train a group of people within as many communities as possible to a pinnacle of preparedness knowledge, and then send them out to train other citizens in other towns and counties, replicating their knowledge across the nation as they go until eventually every person has the ability to become self reliant and unafraid.

The establishment would have you wait for help in the wake of a disaster, begging a bureaucracy like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for aid that you may never receive, when you could be helping yourself and your neighbors without any need for Federal involvement. The establishment would also rather have you unorganized and helpless in the event that they choose to overstep their Constitutional mandate and deny you your inborn liberties.

They do not fear traditional protests and cardboard signs, as movements like Occupy Wall Street end up trampled, ineffective, and mostly forgotten. But they do fear citizens with resolve ready to fight to keep their freedoms, as we saw at Bundy Ranch with the outright retreat of the Bureau of Land Management. When in doubt, do exactly what the oligarchs fear.

I have myself joined a CPT group in my home county in Montana, and I have also seen excellent groups in training in Alaska. The people I have met through CPT come from all walks of life, a full spectrum of ages, and various career backgrounds. Many have military experience, from administrative to tactical. Each person brings to the table an impressive array of skill sets, from science and engineering to security to medical and beyond. All of them have been highly intelligent, effective, and unwavering in their principles, not to mention the finest collection of folks I’ve had the pleasure of working with. If America had to start again from scratch, I would suggest starting with the Bill Of Rights, and the kinds of citizens that make up the core of the Oath Keepers CPT.

The only negative responses I have seen in reference to the CPT concept have come from establishment mouthpieces like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and from activists with a rabid attachment to pacifism who for some reason feel threatened by the mere idea that other activists might train for the worst case scenario.

In my view, if a goal can be achieved through a purely peaceful redress of grievances, then it should be. However, it is foolish to expect that some evils can be defeated by reasonable speech and refusal of participation alone. In fact, these methods are nothing more than a stop-gap, a delaying tactic in the face of inevitable conflict between those people who desire to control others, and those people who only wish to be left alone.

I find that people who deny this reality tend to be people who have no previous legitimate experience with self defense and preparedness. In the world of non-threatening white-bread activism, they can play at being heroes, patting each other on the back for their poetic speeches and catchy slogans. But as the movement evolves towards real tangible organized defense and proactive preparation, they lose their status as heroes and fall behind the curve. The “intellectual warriors” then have to become true warriors, or otherwise be left in the dusts of history. For some, the change is upsetting.

I see great hope in the growth of the CPT program and Oath Keepers; perhaps the only hope this country has left. For if we do not organize with our neighbors to protect our communities from all enemies, foreign and domestic, then who will? I also see a welcome alternative to the long failing methodologies of “lone wolf” survivalists, as well as shamelessly recreational protestors.

When people ask me for solutions to the collapse of America, often they are looking for a predetermined top-down magic bullet response. There is no such thing, nor will there ever be. There is no scenario in which we will escape unscathed. There is no cartoon-land happy ending at the end of this story.

The “solution,” as it were, is ultimately something that many do not want to hear about; namely, hard work, sacrifice and a willingness to put everything on the line for the future. Our only advantage is that we still have some time, and any time is better than no time. What we have left must be used now to the greatest effect possible by organizing together for self reliance and security during collapse.

- Brandon Smith

The Reasons We Fight The New World Order

“Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it.” — H.G. Wells, The New World Order (1940)

Throughout our lives and throughout our culture, we are conditioned to rally around concepts of false division. We are led to believe that Democrats and Republicans are separate and opposing parties, yet they are actually two branches of the same political-control mechanism. We are led to believe that two nations such as the United States and Russia are geopolitical enemies, when, in fact, they are two puppet governments under the dominance of the same international financiers. Finally, we are told that the international bankers themselves are somehow separated by borders and philosophies, when the reality is all central banks answer to a singular authority: the Bank Of International Settlements (BIS).

We are regaled with stories of constant conflict and division. Yet the truth is there is only one battle that matters, only one battle that has ever mattered: the battle between those people who seek to control others and those people who simply wish to be left alone.

The “New World Order” is a concept created not in the minds of “conspiracy theorists” but in the minds of those who seek to control others. These are the self-appointed elite who fancy themselves grandly qualified to determine the destiny of every man, woman and child at the expense of individual freedom and self-determination. In this article, I would like to examine the nature of our war with the elite and why their theories on social engineering are illogical, inadequate and, in many cases, malicious and destructive.

The ‘Greater Good’

I have always found it fascinating that while elitists and NWO champions constantly proclaim that morality is relative and that conscience is not inherent, somehow they are the ones who possess the proper definition of the “greater good.” If “good” is in all cases relative, then wouldn’t the “greater good” also be entirely relative? This inconsistency in their reasoning does not seem to stop them from forcing the masses through propaganda or violence to accept their version of better judgment.

As many psychologists and anthropologists (including Carl Jung and Steven Pinker) have proven over decades of study, moral compass and conscience are not mere products of environment; they are inborn ideals outside of the realm of environmental influences. The greater good is inherently and intuitively felt by most people. Whether one listens to this voice of conscience is up to the individual.

It is no accident that NWO elites end up contradicting themselves by claiming morality to be meaningless while pronouncing their personal morality to be pure. In order to obtain power over others, they must first convince member of the public that they are empty vessels without meaning or direction. They must convince the masses to ignore their inner voice of conscience. Only then will the public sacrifice freedoms to purchase answers they don’t really need from elites who don’t really have them.

Collectivism

I don’t claim to know what ideology would make a perfect society, and I certainly don’t know the exact solutions needed to get there. What I do know, though, is that no one else knows either. Whenever anyone takes a stage to announce that only he has the answers to the world’s problems, I cannot help but be suspicious of his motives. Rarely, if ever, do I hear these people suggest that more liberty and more individualism will make a better future. Instead, their solution always entails less freedom, more control and more force in order to mold society towards their vision.

The utopia offered by the power elite invariably demands a collectivist mindset that the individual must give up his self-determination and independence so the group can survive and thrive. The problem is no society, culture or collective can exist without the efforts and contributions of individuals. Therefore, the liberty and prosperity of the individual is far more important than the safety or even existence of the group.

The elites understand this fact, which is why they do reserve some individuality (for their own tiny circle).

No matter the guise presented — whether it be socialism, communism, fascism or some amalgamation of each — the goal is always the same: collectivism and slavery for the masses and unrestrained gluttony for the oligarchs.

The Philosophy Of Force

If your idea of a better society is a good and rational one, you should not need to use force in order to get people to accept it. Only intrinsically destructive ideas require the use of force to frighten the public into compliance. The NWO is an idea that relies entirely on force.

Globalization has been consistently sold to us as part of the natural progression of mankind, yet this “natural progression” is always advanced through the use of lies, manipulation, fear and violence. The NWO concept is one of complete centralization, a centralization that cannot be achieved without the use of terror, for who would support the creation of a malicious global power authority unless he was terrorized into doing so?

The only morally acceptable use of force is the use of force to defend against attack. As the NWO relentlessly presses forward its attack on our freedoms, we, the defenders, are labeled “violent extremists” if we refuse to go along quietly. The NWO’s dependency on force to promote its values makes it an inherently flawed methodology derived from ignorance and psychopathy, rather than wisdom and truth.

Dishonesty As Policy

As with the use of violence, the use of lies to achieve success automatically poisons whatever good may have been had through one’s efforts. The elites commonly shrug off this logic by convincing each other that there is such a thing as a “noble lie” (both Saul Alinsky and Leo Strauss, the gatekeepers of the false left/right paradigm, promoted the use of “noble lies”) and that the masses need to be misled so that they can be fooled into doing what is best for themselves and the world. This is, of course, a sociopathic game of self-aggrandizement.

Lies are rarely, if ever, exploited by people who want to make the lives of other men better; lies are used by people who want to make their own lives better at the expense of others. Add to this the egomaniacal assertion that the elites are lying for “our own good” when they are actually only out to elevate their power, and what you get is a stereotypical abusive relationship on a global scale.

Methodologies that have legitimate benefits to mankind deliberately seek truth and do not need to hide behind a veil of misinformation and misdirection. If a methodology requires secrecy, occultism and deceit in order to establish itself in a culture, then it is most likely a negative influence on that culture, not a positive one.

The Hands Of The Few

Why does humanity need a select elite at all? What purpose does this oligarchy really serve? Is centralized power really as efficient and practical as it is painted to be? Or is it actually a hindrance to mankind and an obstacle in our quest to better ourselves? Champions of the NOW argue that global governance is inevitable and that sovereignty in any form is the cause of all our ills. However, I find when I look back at the finer points of history (the points they don’t teach you in college textbooks), the true cause of most of the world’s ills is obviously the existence of elitist groups.

The “efficiency” of centralization is useful only to those at the top of the pyramid, because it generally stands on a vast maze of impassable bureaucracy. It has to. No hyper-condensed authority structure can survive if the citizenry is not made dependent on it. Centralization makes life harder for everyone by removing our ability to provide our own essentials and make our own choices. That is to say, centralization removes all alternative options from the system, until the only easy path left is to bow down to the establishment.

I have never seen a solid example of centralization of power resulting in a better society or happier people. I have also never come across a select group of leaders intelligent enough and compassionate enough to oversee and micromanage the intricate workings of the whole of the Earth. There is no use for the elite, so one must ask why we keep them around.

The Opposite View

Arguing over what should be done about the state of the world is a fruitless endeavor until one considers what should be done about the state of his own life. As long as men are stricken by bias, selfish desire and lack of awareness, they will never be able to determine what is best for other people. The opposing philosophy to the NWO, the philosophy of the Liberty Movement, holds that no one has the right to impose his particular version of a perfect society on anyone else. As soon as someone does, he has committed a grievous attack against individual liberty — an attack that must be answered.

Our answer is simply that the people who want to control others be removed from positions of control and that the people who want to be left alone just be left alone. Association and participation should always be voluntary; otherwise, society loses value. This is not anarchy in the sense that consequence is removed. Rather, the rights of the individual become paramount; and the liberties of the one take precedence over the ever vaporous demands of some abstract group.

The only reason for any government to exist is to safeguard individual freedom. Period. The original intent of America’s Founding Fathers was to establish a Nation that fostered this ideal. When government or oligarchy steps outside the bounds of this mandate, it is no longer providing the service it was originally designed for; and it must be dismantled. Unfortunately, it is a universal rule that uncompromising tyranny must often be met with uncompromising revolution.

When a new system arises that cannibalizes the old, enslaves our future, uses aggression against us and mutilates our founding principles in the name of arbitrary progress, that new system must be defied and ultimately destroyed. The NWO ideology represents one of the most egregious crimes against humanity of all time, posing in drag as our greatest hope. It is based, fundamentally, on everything that makes life terrible for the common man and everything our inherent conscience fights against.

We would be far better served as a species if we were to turn our back on the NWO altogether and move swiftly in the opposite direction. Imagine what tomorrow would be like if there were no controllers, no statists, no despots and no philosopher kings. Imagine a tomorrow where people respect the natural-born rights of others. Imagine a tomorrow where people’s irrational fears are not allowed to inhibit other people’s freedoms. Imagine a tomorrow where interactions between citizens and government are rare or nonexistent. Imagine if we could live our days in peace, independently building our own destinies, in which our successes and failures are our own, rather than the property of the collective. It may not be a perfect world, or a utopia, but I suspect it would be a much better place than we live in today.

–Brandon Smith

Childish Fantasy Could Become Reality

This is the second half of a two-part commentary. The first part, Understanding The Globalist Strategy, was published July 1.

Phony Environmentalism And Resource ‘Depletion’

In their 1991 book The First Global Revolution, Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider wrote:

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common thread which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.

Is our environment under threat? Absolutely. But not in the ways we are often told through mainstream propaganda. The most pervasive swindle perpetrated against the masses today is the lie that the spread of humanity must be regulated due to “resource scarcity” as well as “carbon pollution.”

Globalists saw great opportunity in the rise of the environmentalist movement and have co-opted legitimate concerns with fraudulent puppet causes. When dealing with hundreds of global warming advocates over the years, I have always asked one question that none of them has been able to answer: Where is the source data to prove your theories are valid?

They never had an answer because major climate research organizations have always refused to release their source data to the public. Today, we now know that they wouldn’t release such data because all of their models were deliberately manipulated to show the Earth was warming, when in fact, it has actually been cooling for the past century.

Peak oil, yet another scam, has not produced a single piece of hard data proving that oil production is diminishing, that oil production is becoming more expensive due to more difficult drilling or that demand for oil anywhere in the world is not being met due to lack of supply. No source data means the entire argument for peak oil is based on faith in organizations like The Energy Trap, a peak oil propaganda machine funded by the New American Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation; both are globalist institutions.

The solution to these made-up environment and resource problems is, of course, to do what the globalists have always wanted to do: reduce world population, restrict resource usage, control the average citizen’s means of self-sustainment and force the remaining populace into tightly focused communities where energy, food and shelter are rationed.

Interdependency

In Between Two Ages, Zbigniew K. Brzezinski wrote:

… Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man’s universal vision. Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief…

Marxism and socialism are simply philosophical reworkings of the collectivist ideology. Collectivism places the “needs” of the group or society over the freedoms and prosperity of the individual. Globalists often proclaim a benevolent desire to “save humanity from itself” through the use of collectivist concepts such as interdependency. Interdependency is the process of removing the self-reliance of individual people, sovereign communities or sovereign nations and making them subservient to the machinations of a complex supply chain dominated by a central authority.

The argument is that through this centralized supply chain, “equality” can be achieved and suffering can be removed. But historic examples of centralization show this to be an absurd notion. Every fascist or communist regime, when selling itself to the public, has offered grand visions of floating cities in the clouds, where resources are infinite and no one will have to exert effort to gain success. A person’s success is “guaranteed” by the establishment, which has the “wisdom” to manage all resources in a magical way using the almighty power of technology. Obviously, no collectivist system has ever followed through on this promise, and I dare say no collectivist system ever will.

Globalists argue violently against the concept of the free market because a true free market is the antithesis to the collectivist con that centralization brings prosperity. If individuals can bring prosperity to themselves and others without the oligarchy, then why have an oligarchy at all?

When left to operate freely, supply and demand tend to gravitate toward the simplest and most efficient systems. However, we have not lived under a free market system for at least 100 years. Instead, we have existed under the encroachment of growing socialism and globalization, which have destroyed our Nation’s capacity for fiscal flexibility and redundancy.

Interdependency serves no practical purpose in the progress of mankind; its only logical purpose is to trap the masses in a manipulated supply and demand cycle which, in the end, creates a “zero growth” world. This is what globalists mean when they talk about “economic harmonization.” They are building an economic framework that prohibits progress and prosperity for the sake of some arbitrary equality, an equality that only serves their desire to micromanage the life of every human being.

The Scattergun Effect

In 2008, Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, commented on the economic downturn, telling a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

There is no single unwavering plan that globalists adhere to in pursuit of their new world order; there are only the unwavering goals. A primary goal is to induce chaos and then establish a form of order that most benefits them, but the forms of chaos used may vary. I call this the “scattergun effect.”

As the globalist establishment moves closer to its end game, it will invariably unleash a frenetic storm of distractions and catastrophes. In the past two years alone, events in the Mideast, Ukraine and the South Pacific have set the stage for any number of conflicts between the East and West; and this is completely by design. Some of these triggers will prove unsuccessful, and other will prove effective. I expect multiple “terrorist attacks” (false flag events) in the near term, along with plummeting economic conditions. The purpose is to bewilder the general public to the point that no rational insight can be attained, and fear sets in.

In other words, the citizenry must be adequately tenderized before seasoning.

From Villains To Heroes

In his 1940 book The New World Order, H.G. Wells wrote:

… when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people… will hate the new world order… and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to estimate its promise we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.

Recently, the Bank of International Settlements released a report citing “concerns” over the health of the global economy along with warnings that equities markets have become detached from fundamental realities. The report goes on to insinuate that the easy money policies of central banks have actually been contributing to a disjointed bubble economy, and the BIS warns that this could develop into volatile financial disruption (market crash).

Some in the liberty movement find it rather odd that the BIS, the central bank of central banks, would come out with a report containing warnings that we alternative analysts have been asserting for years. I’m not surprised at all. In fact, I have stated for quite some time that it will be the International Monetary Fund and the BIS that rise from the ashes of the coming collapse of the U.S. dollar and the chaos of a global system in peril to save the day. The BIS is setting the stage today as a prognosticator of a calamity it helped create, so that it can swoop in after the pyre to say: “We told you so, and now we have a plan for your future.”

In the meantime, mainstream media outlets like Reuters have begun publishing articles that warn that there is, in fact, the threat of a new world war between the East and the West, despite economic ties. That’s right; the same people who used to admonish us as “doom mongers” for suggesting that the East would ever oppose the West economically or militarily are now suddenly comparing our current geopolitical situation to the lead up of World War I.

And what has caused it all according to globalist mouthpiece Reuters? National sovereignty and resource division, of course.

The ending to this story is clearly written, at least in the eyes of the elite. Collapse and conflagration will result in a violent state of social misery, which the globalists will allow to swelter until they deem it timely to introduce themselves as saviors. Their solution, predictably, will include the end of self-governing nations, communities and individuals, along with the centralized administration of all vital resources in the name of the “greater good,” the definition of which they will have predetermined. Personal freedoms will fall by the wayside, as survivors of the Third World nightmare will be happy just to live meagerly on the scraps off the table of the oligarchs. It sounds like a childish fantasy, the ambition of a psychotic with visions of deification; however, as long as the common man refuses to accept that such psychotics have the fortitude to organize and conspire, this vision could indeed become a reality.

–Brandon Smith

Understanding The Globalist Strategy

In 1928, Edward L. Bernays, the “father of public relations,” wrote in his book, Propaganda:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …

[I]n almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons… who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind…

There is a trap in the mind of the average person, like a steel box or a great wall, which prevents him from rationally considering the premise of organized evil. For one reason or another, it is far easier for him to process the darker actions of men and governments as random consequence, as merely a symptom of wild greed, ignorance, stupidity, miscalculation, jealousy and confusion. Destructive tendencies and institutions are seen as nothing more than a chaotic afterthought of the self-centered human ego. Our ailing society is viewed as a victim of its own malicious nature, a self-deprecating edifice. In the minds of the unaware and uneducated, the world is a cannibalistic beast, rather than the crippled victim of a foreign parasite.

This mentality is a product not only of naivety, but of fear. If people fear anything more than death, it is the idea that the reality they have always known is just a thin veneer, a deceptively simple wallpaper covering something eternally complex and potentially horrifying. The common mind is not prepared to handle the unrecognizable. Normalcy bias becomes god, and blind assumption becomes truth.

It is in this vast fog of the unrecognizable that a cabal of power cultists thrive, a cabal that many people in our culture refuse to believe exists.

They feed on prejudice and bias. They are empowered by apathy and nihilism. They revel in the condescension of the academic. They are invigorated by the arrogance of the self-serving. They twist facts, manipulate world views, hold humanity back from its better potential and terrify or kill the defiant. They do this in concert. They do this as a choir. They see themselves as almighty engineers, as architects with a “pure insight,” as philosopher kings. They are often referred to as “globalists.” And their goal is, and has always been, a “New World Order.”

If you do not understand that this directed and organized effort exists, then you cannot possibly comprehend why global events happen the way they do. If you really believe all tragedy and so-called triumph is random, then you become nothing but debris in the wake of a massive tsunami of time and tide. For the most part, the overwhelming firestorms of history are nothing more than plot points in a carefully crafted screenplay. If you know how the writers of our global theater think, then it becomes much easier to predict how they intend our story to progress. Even the tales of “philosopher kings” become contrived as they attempt to force an obsessive narrative. These men (and women) are not necessarily ingenious. They don’t have to be. They are born into a world of stolen wealth and philosophical nepotism, and they are bound together by fear as much as zealotry. They are a hive of insects who believe themselves to be gods. And though deluded by their own hubris, such organized malevolence is still a terrible force to be reckoned with.

Here are just a few of the strategic methods they commonly use to survive, thrive and keep the masses in the dark.

The Illusion Of Separation

In Tragedy and Hope, Carroll Quigley, member of the Council on Foreign Relations and mentor to Bill Clinton, wrote:

It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called “international” or “merchant” bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks.

Labels and titles are often designed to deceive. The insidious lie that many people, including some in the liberty movement, have been led to believe is that a concrete separation exists among international bankers along the lines of nationality.

I find it fascinating that some otherwise insightful researchers still cannot grasp the fact that there is no distinction between different central banks or globalists acting within various governments. All central banks are front organizations for private international banks. All central banks act in concert with each other. All central banks are centrally tied to the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of International Settlements. This includes the central banks in countries like China and Russia. Any country infested with a central bank is dominated by that central bank and, thus, dominated by globalists.

If Vladimir Putin, for instance, were actually opposed to the corruption of international banking cartels (as he is often painted to be), then he would have abolished Russia central bank long ago and cut off ties with the IMF and BIS. Instead, Putin continues to promote centralization under the IMF and the use of the IMF’s world currency, the Special Drawing Rights (SDR).

The globalists are known by many names under many institutions. They hide behind such fronts in order to confuse and distract the curious, while conjuring false paradigm conflicts like that brewing between the East and West today.

False Nationalism

On July 20, 1992, Strobe Talbott, who was at the time a columnist for TIME and who went on to become President Bill Clinton’s deputy secretary of state, wrote:

I’ll bet that within the next hundred years (I’m giving the world time for setbacks and myself time to be out of the betting game, just in case I lose this one), nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. … perhaps national sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.

I cannot stress this point enough: Globalists do not possess a sense of loyalty to any one nation or culture. International bankers see countries and societies as tools with limited usefulness. The usefulness of the U.S. for instance, is now ending. That’s why a vast shift in the global economy is taking place, which will end the dollar’s reserve status and the American financial system in the process.

There are no “American” globalists or “Chinese” globalists. They are all members of the same banking establishment with the same goal: to end all sovereignty and construct world economy as well as world government. Globalists use national affiliations to create international wars and fiscal calamities that can be exploited to further centralize power under a single authority, which they hope the peoples of the world will accept without question.

War As Psychological Conditioning

In February 1920, Winston Churchill wrote an article that appeared in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, stating:

From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

Whether cold wars or hot wars, what we are told about the motivations behind international conflicts is almost always untrue.

Wars are not fought over resources. They are not fought over territories. They are not fought over assassinations, dictatorial conquests or human rights abuses. If you believe that Libya was about freedom, Iraq was about oil, Vietnam was about the spread of communism or that the Civil War was about slavery, then you have bought into the facade hook, line and sinker. There are hundreds of excuses for war. But in the end, all wars — save the ever so rare revolutions of common people — are triggered deliberately in order to achieve psychological transformation.

War and economic collapse are the two faster methods to achieve full spectrum change in a society’s principles and loyalties. War allows for the trampling of freedoms, the accumulation of wealth and political authority, the destabilization of the average person’s means of survival and the desperation of the population, leading to the centralization of control in the name of safety and security.

Governments do not wage wars against each other; they wage wars against their own citizens.

–Brandon Smith

Editor’s note: This is the first of a two-part article. Part 2 will be published July 8.

Energy Markets Are On The Brink Of Crisis

The multitudes of people, especially Americans, who view U.S. government activity in a negative light often make the mistake of attributing corruption with some covert battle for global oil fields. In fact, the average leftist seems to believe that everything the establishment does somehow revolves around oil. This is a very simplistic and naïve view.

Modern wars are rarely, if ever, fought over resources, despite what the mainstream might tell you. If a powerful nation wants oil, for instance, it lines the right pocketbooks, intimidates the right individuals, blackmails the right officials or swindles the right politicians. It has no need to go to war for such reasons. Modern wars are fought in order to affect psychological change within a particular country or population. Wars today are fought to cover up corrupt deals and create desperation. Oil is used as an all-encompassing excuse for war, but it is never the true cause of war.

In reality, oil demand has become static and is even falling in many parts of the world, while new oil-producing fields are discovered on a yearly basis. Petroleum is not a rare resource — at least, not at the present. And the propaganda surrounding the “peak oil” Armageddon scenario is pure nonsense. Oil prices rise and fall according to market tensions and, most importantly, the value and perceived safety of the U.S. dollar. Supply and demand have little to do with commodity values in our age of fiat manipulation and false investor perception.

However, certain political and regional events are currently in motion that could, in fact, change investor perception to the negative. While supply is more than ample, the expectation of continued supply can be jilted, shocking commodities markets into running for the hills or rushing into mass speculation, generally resulting in a sharp spike in prices.

A very real danger within energy markets is the undeniable threat that the U.S. dollar may soon lose its petrodollar status and, thus, Americans may lose the advantage of low gas prices they have come to expect.

In the span of only a few years, as the derivatives crisis took hold, petroleum costs have doubled. It wasn’t that long ago that someone could fill his tank with a $20 bill. Those days are long gone, and they are not coming back. The expectation has always been that prices would recede as the overall economy began to heal. Of course, our economy will not be healed until it is allowed to crash, as it naturally should crash. And as it crashes, the price of oil will continue to climb.

The petrodollar has always been seen as invincible — a common denominator, a mathematical constant. This is a delusion fed by a lack of knowledge and common sense.

As I have covered in great detail in numerous articles, the U.S. dollar’s world reserve status is nearing extinction. Multiple major economies now trade bilaterally without the use of the dollar; and with foreign conflicts on the rise, this trend is going to become the norm.

Russia’s historic oil and gas deal with China, just signed weeks ago, removes the dollar as the petroleum reserve currency.

Russia’s largest gas company, Gazprom, has all but excluded the dollar in all transactions with foreign nations. In fact, nine out of 10 of Gazprom’s foreign clients were more than happy to buy their products without using dollars.

This information cripples the arguments of dollar cheerleaders who have always claimed that even if Russia broke from the dollar, no one else would go along. China is currently striking oil deals not only with Russia but also with Iran. New oil deals are being struck even after a $2 billion agreement fell through this spring.

Despite common misconceptions, it was actually China that was reaping the greatest rewards through the reopening of Iraqi oil fields, not the U.S., all while U.S. military assets were essentially wasted in the region.

And now, any U.S. benefits are coming into question as Iraq disintegrates into chaos yet again. With the speed of the new Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) insurgency growing, it is unclear whether America will have any access to Iraqi oil in the near future, and it is unlikely that Iraqi oil will be traded for dollars. Unrest in Iraq has already caused substantial market spikes in oil prices, and I can say with considerable confidence that this trend is going to continue through the rest of the year.

Interestingly, new information suggests that Saudi Arabia has been a primary funding source for the ISIS movement. I would point out that the U.S. has been covertly supporting such extremist groups in the Mideast for many years, but this is not discussed in the mainstream narrative. The mainstream narrative is painting a picture of betrayal by the Saudis against the U.S. through subversive groups designed to break the foundations of nations opposed to its policy views.

This places the U.S. squarely in conflict with the Saudi government, our only remaining toehold in the global oil market. Without Saudi Arabia’s patronage of the dollar, the dollar will lose its petrodollar status. Period.

Now, my regular readers understand that this was going to happen eventually anyway. The Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing bonanza has destroyed dollar value and spread unknown trillions of dollars in fiat across the planet. The dollar’s death has been assured. It has been slated for execution. This is why half the world is positioning to dump the currency altogether. My regular readers also know that the destruction of the dollar is not an accident; it is part of a carefully engineered strategy leading to the centralization of all economic power under the umbrella of a new global currency basket system controlled by the International Monetary Fund.

I believe Saudi Arabia is the key to the next great shift in petroleum markets away from the dollar. Renewed U.S. involvement in Iraq, diplomatic tensions over ISIS and more lucrative offers from Eastern partners have been edging Saudi Arabia away from strict petrodollar ties. This shift is also not limited to Saudi Arabia.

“Abu Dhabi, the most influential member of the United Arab Emirates,” has suddenly ended its long-standing exclusive relationship with Western oil companies and has signed a historic deal with China’s state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC).

Russia has formed the new Eurasian Economic Union with Belarus and Kazakhstan, two countries with freshly discovered oil fields.

On the surface, it appears as though the world is repositioning itself around oil resources in an environment of East versus West conflicts. However, these changes are not as much about petroleum as they are about the petrodollar. The reality is the dollar’s reserve-status days are numbered.

What does this mean for us? It means much higher gas prices in the coming months and years. Is this $4 to $5 per gallon gasoline a burden on your pocketbook? Try $10 to $11 per gallon, perhaps more. Do you think the economy is straining as it is under the weight of current gas prices? Imagine the earthquake within our freight-based system when the cost of trucking shipments triples. And guess who will end up paying for the increased costs? That’s right: you, the consumer. High energy prices affect everything, including shelf prices of retail goods. This is just the beginning of what I believe will be ever expanding inflation in oil prices, leading to the end of the dollar’s petroleum reserve status and the introduction of a basket currency system that will ultimately benefit a select few global financiers while disrupting the quality of living for millions, if not billions, of people.

–Brandon Smith

A Second American Revolution Is Now Inevitable

Just a couple days ago, two armed assailants, a married couple purported by the mainstream media to be “white supremacists” and “conspiracy theorists,” ambushed two police officers at a CiCi’s Pizza in Las Vegas, killing the officers and one bystander after screaming, “This is a revolution!” The suspects then reportedly covered one officer’s body with a Gadsden Don’t Tread On Me flag and then fled to a Walmart, where they committed suicide. Yes, it reads like a Southern Poverty Law Center fantasy story; and in many ways, it is.

As I write this, the MSM has not officially blamed any particular scapegoat group or political organization. But I suspect that they will follow the pattern they have always followed, which is to equate the actions of one or two psychotics with the beliefs and principles of the liberty movement in general.

I remember when Jared Loughner fired into a crowd of people near Tucson, Ariz., killing numerous Federal and State employees; the immediate response by the media was to attempt to tie him to the liberty movement. In the end, he turned out to be a raving leftist. I remember the Boston Marathon bombing and the automatic reflex by the media to accuse “right-wing extremists” of the crime. So far, we have seen no hard evidence to implicate anyone specific in that atrocity, including the Tsarnaev brothers. Of all the violent crimes dumped in the lap of the liberty movement over the years, how many have actually been committed or endorsed by the liberty movement? I can’t think of any.

When an activist movement holds the moral high ground against a repressive establishment power structure, the establishment’s primary recourse is to target the character of its principles. The secondary recourse is direct confrontation. If a dissenting organization is not mindlessly vicious in its methods, then simply make it appear vicious. If it is not hateful in its rhetoric, then artificially tie it to people who are. And if a government really needs to kick-start a crackdown, it can engineer its own man-made calamities and blame the groups that most threaten its authority.

This was achieved to great effect in Europe from the 1950s until the 1990s by the CIA working in tandem with multiple European governments under a covert project called Operation Gladio.

Gladio was essentially a secret army of operatives and stooges, used to create false-flag terrorist shootings and bombings that were blamed on “left-wing extremists.” In reality, NATO alphabet agencies were behind the entire façade. The goal was to terrorize the citizenry through a nonstop campaign of indiscriminate death, blamed on a convenient scapegoat, so that individuals would hand over more freedom and more power to the central governments. The point is, whether real or staged, I believe such events are going to escalate within the U.S. today on an incredible scale and that, regardless of evidence, they will be blamed on “right-wing extremists.” In case you were wondering, that label will include you and me.

That said, I think an important truth needs to be stated here: Whether the beliefs of the attackers in Las Vegas were actually liberty movement-oriented is ultimately irrelevant. To shoot random police and civilians and then commit suicide is an act of pure insanity, and insanity trumps belief anytime.

I do not care what their beliefs were. Their actions do not represent the values I hold dear, nor do I think they represent the values most of us hold dear. The shooting is a tragedy. But in the grand scheme of things, it means nothing.

I relate the story because I do, in fact, agree with one thing: that a “revolution,” a second American Revolution, is inevitable. But I think I speak for the vast majority of the movement when I say that this revolution will not begin with the deaths of innocents or random government officials on our hands, and it certainly won’t begin at the doorstep of a CiCi’s Pizza.

The Bundy ranch incident, which occurred only a short drive from Las Vegas, has been a revelation for many people. Mistakes were made, provocateurs reared their ugly heads, and lessons were learned. But overall, America has been fundamentally changed, even if the average person does not realize it yet. The information war came within a razor’s edge of evolving into a shooting war, with the establishment in retreat, licking its wounds and planning how it can gain momentum back.

What frightens the establishment most, I think, is that the American people have become active participants in their own national environment once again. At Bundy ranch, they stopped asking for mercy, they stopped begging the system to police itself and they stopped relying on useless legal avenues to effect change. Rather, they took matters into their own hands and changed the situation on the ground on their own. For oligarchy, this development is unacceptable, for one success could lead to many.

Already, we are beginning to hear whispers of possible Federal retribution against those who participated in the confrontation.

This has been cemented within the efforts of a new task force against “domestic terrorism” organized by none other than Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder.

After the recent exposure of Barack Obama’s Department of Defense Directive 3025.18, we now know that since at least 2010, the White House has been setting the stage for the use of military force against “domestic threats.” That is to say, for at least the past four years our government has been quietly maneuvering toward martial law. It’s been for much longer if you count George W. Bush’s Presidential Decision Directive 51, which has yet to be fully declassified.

The exposure of Directive 3025.18 also came with information that the Obama Administration considered using it as a way to activate military forces and drones against the Bundy ranch. The burning question is, of course, why didn’t it? The Federal government is not known for its diplomacy in the face of a defiant citizenry. Waco and Ruby Ridge made that clear. I believe that it was not necessarily the people on the ground at Bunkerville, Nev., that they were most worried about. The terrain is admittedly a terrible place to mount a defense against a mechanized horde of jackboots.

No, what the White House feared was a larger response to such an attack. It feared the millions of patriots who would swarm down from all sides if it committed to a Ruby Ridge-style siege. It feared the fact that it didn’t have the moral high ground in the public eye and that a kinetic failure on its part would be met with cheers, rather than tears, from much of the populace.

So where does this leave us? The next program will likely include an unprecedented effort to demonize the liberty movement perhaps to the point of a Gladio-type false-flag campaign, leading to the eventual detention of activists as domestic security threats. It’s not going to end with shootings in pizzerias and slobbering hit pieces from the SPLC. Mark my words; it’s going to get much worse from here on.

And this is where I will add my warning. Before the Bundy ranch became a possible battleground, I stated in my article “Real Americans Are Ready To Snap” that the liberty movement was going to draw a line in the sand over Bureau of Land Management abuses in Bunkerville, and I was right.

It seems to me that time is growing short. As tyrants become more bold, so too must the citizenry; otherwise, we shrivel up and die.

The next family threatened, the next activist individual or group arrested or black-bagged without legitimate cause, the next false flag, the next use of military forces as civil law enforcement, the next unConstitutional misstep, and I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that a revolt will erupt. It’s not about making grand predictions; it’s about examining the logical odds, and the odds are high. The knowledge that the establishment is considering using the full force of its military apparatus against the people has not dissuaded anyone. Bundy ranch was a very near miss. I do not expect a peaceful resolution the next time around. I also do not expect the government as it exists now to stop clamoring for more control or less corruption. If recent events have proven anything, they have proven that a second American Revolution is inevitable; and all we can do is ready ourselves.

–Brandon Smith

Update: The Associated Press reported that Jerad and Amanda Miller, the husband and wife who shot two police officers and a bystander before killing themselves, had been kicked off the Bundy ranch because they were “very radical.” Ammon Bundy, the son of New Mexico rancher Cliven Bundy, told AP “by telephone that the Millers were at his father’s ranch for a few days this spring before they were asked to leave by militia members for unspecified ‘conduct’ problems. He called the couple ‘very radical’ and said they ‘did not align themselves’ with the beliefs of other protesters, who thwarted a roundup of Cliven Bundy’s cattle by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.”

Note from the Editor: Round two of the financial meltdown is predicted to reach global proportions, already adversely affecting Greece, Spain and most of Europe. It appears less severe in the states because our banks are printing useless fiat currency. I’ve arranged for readers to get two free books—Surviving a Global financial Crisis and Currency Collapse, plus How to Survive the Collapse of Civilization—to help you prepare for the worst. Click here for your free copies.

The New World Order And The Rise Of The East

“Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge, which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible…” – George Orwell, 1984

Nations, cultures and populations are best controlled through the use of false paradigms. This is a historically proven tactic exploited for centuries by oligarchs around the world. Under the Hegelian dialectic (the very foundation of the Marxist and collectivist ideology), one could summarize the trap of false paradigms as follows: If (A) my idea of freedom conflicts with (B) your idea of freedom, then (C) neither of us can be free until everyone agrees to be a slave.

In other words: problem, reaction, solution. Two sides are pitted against each other in an engineered contest. Each side is led to believe that its position is the good and right position. Neither side questions the legitimacy of the conflict, because each side fears this will lead to ideological weakness and disunity.

The two sides go to war, sometimes economically, sometimes militarily. Both governments demand that individuals relinquish freedom, independence and self-reliance, a sacrifice that “must be made” so that victory can be achieved. In the end, neither nation nor society has truly won. The only winners are the oligarchs, who sing words of loyalty to their respective camps, while acting in league from the very beginning. The oligarchs, who never intended to target each other in the first place. Their target, their only target, was the citizenry itself — the dumbfounded masses now mesmerized with shock, awe and terror.

The false paradigm method and the Hegelian dialectic are in full force today. Only a few years ago, Russia, China and the United States were considered close economic and political allies. Today, those alliances are being quickly scrapped in order to make room for conflict, a conflict useful only to a select international elite. As I have outlined in numerous articles, including Russia Is Dominated By Global Banks, Too and False East/West Paradigm Hides The Rise Of Global Currency, when one looks beyond all the theatrical rhetoric being thrown around between Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin, the ultimate reality is that the relationship of both governments to the global banking elite is the same.

During both of Obama’s Presidential terms, he has flooded his cabinet with current and former employees of Goldman Sachs.

And who is the primary economic adviser to Vladimir Putin and the Russian state? Why Goldman Sachs, of course!

U.S. and European elites have been calling for a centralization of economic power under the control of the International Monetary Fund, as a well as a new global currency.

Not surprisingly, Putin also wants a new global currency under the control of the IMF.

Obama is closely advised by globalists like Zbigniew Brzezinski, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and cofounder of the Trilateral Commission, who in his book Between Two Ages: America’s Role In The Technetronic Era states:

The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty …[F]urther progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position…

As long as he has been in power, Putin has been closely advised by Henry Kissinger, yet another member of the CFR and proponent of the Trilateral Commission, who has said:

In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonized in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units. A new Bretton Woods kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome…

Both Kissinger and Brzezinski refer to this new harmonized economic and political structure as the “New World Order.” The fact that the political leaders of Russia and the United States are clearly being directed by such men should not be taken lightly.

China, too, has called for a restructuring of the global monetary system into a centralized currency basket under the dominance of the IMF.

China’s ties to the banking elite of London are well documented.

The call on both sides for a new monetary system and the end of the dollar as world reserve appears to be growing along with the consolidation of economic and military ties between Eastern nations. While disinformation agents and media shills have attempted to downplay any danger to the strength of America and the dollar, Eastern governments have been swiftly establishing alliances.

The massive 30-year Russia/China gas deal has, of course, been finalized. This deal is already eating up market space and shifting the way in which the energy trade traditionally behaves.

China and Russia have also expanded on their bilateral agreements made in 2010, which remove the dollar as the reserve currency in transactions between the two nations. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101705303

China’s thirst for gold continues, while the country is now building its own gold exchange to rival the U.S. Comex.

Russia has recently established what Putin calls the “Eurasian Economic Union,” a deal which includes Kazakhstan and Belarus, two countries that hold large, freshly discovered oil fields.

In response to the engineered conflict over Ukraine, as well as the “Asian-Pacific Pivot” by the U.S., China has openly called for a new security pact with Russia and Iran.

Let’s also not forget that China is set to surpass the U.S. as the world’s largest economy by 2016, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

While the rise of the East is being painted in Western circles as a threat to U.S. and NATO dominance, the bigger picture is being hidden from view. Yes, indeed, the consolidation of the East is a considerable threat to the dollar and the U.S. economy — most importantly in the event that China refuses to accept dollars as payment on exports and debts. With the world’s largest exporter/importer refusing to take dollars as a reserve, most nations will inevitably follow their lead.

The argument against this development is, of course, that there is no rational trigger for such a violent fiscal attack. I would remind skeptics that there was no rational trigger for the current strengthened relations between Russia and China until the Ukraine crisis. Is anyone really stupid enough to bet against another direct or indirect conflict between NATO and the East? And is anyone really ignorant enough to assume that said event would not be used as an excuse to cut the legs out from under the dollar completely?

The New World Order players have positioned the East and West for just such a scenario. Why? In my article Who Is The New Secret Buyer Of U.S. Debt?, I give evidence suggesting that the Bank of International Settlements and the IMF are preparing the financial world for a new global monetary system, brought into existence by a second Bretton Woods conference. The debasement of the dollar and the rise of the East are extremely advantageous factors in this plan. There can be no global economic system without “harmonization” and the end of sovereign economic governance.

For those who doubt this scenario, read Paul Volcker’s latest statement, as reported by Zero Hedge.

Volcker, the same man who was directly involved in the destruction of the first Bretton Woods agreement and the final death rattle of the gold standard, is now promoting a new Bretton Woods-style agreement in which currencies are pegged to a controlled market system — in essence, a centralized international monetary system. Volcker also suggests that a single nation-based reserve currency like the dollar may be a danger to overall fiscal health.

Volcker is right. The dollar-dominated forex casino and fiat fraud is a danger to the world. Volcker helped make it that way! And what a surprise, the former Federal Reserve chairman has a solution on a silver platter for the American people — all we need is even more centralization and bureaucratic oversight.

The propaganda is being carefully planted within the mainstream. Christine Lagarde of the IMF now spends the whole of her media interviews inserting the phrase “global economic reset” without explaining exactly what that would entail, while central banking elites like Volcker suggest a Bretton Woods II conference leading to a global monetary authority. In the meantime, Russian government-funded media outlets like RT produce pieces accusing the U.S. of being a nuclear menace while we Americans get to watch Hollywood films like “Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit,” which depicts a Russian plot to collapse the U.S. economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvKucpTckjA

The best lies contain elements of truth. The truth here is that the East is forming alliances in opposition to the West, the West is involved in underhanded covert operations all over the planet, and both “sides” are in fact on the verge of a catastrophic battle for supremacy. The great lie is what has been left out of our little story. Both sides are merely puppet pieces in a grand game of global chess, and any conflict will ultimately benefit the small group of men standing over the board. They include the international financiers who have influenced the very policy fabric of each government toward a final crisis which they hope will finally give them the “New World Order” they have always dreamed of.

–Brandon Smith