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