The EU and the U.S. will collapse regardless of economic ‘contagion’

In order to understand what is really going on around the globe in terms of the collapsing economy, we must set aside false mainstream versions of reality. When it comes to the EU and its current fiscal turmoil, it is very important to ignore Greece entirely. That’s right; forget about all the supposed drama surrounding Greek debt obligations. Will they find a way to pay creditors? Will they default? Will they make a deal with Russia and the BRICS? Will there be last-minute concessions to save the system? It doesn’t matter. It’s all a soap opera, an elaborate Kabuki theater run by international financiers and globalists.

It’s most important to remember the fundamentals. Greece will default on its debts. Period. There is no way around it. Maybe Greece makes a deal today, maybe it makes a deal tomorrow; but eventually, the country’s ability to stretch out its resources in order to meet its exponential liabilities will end. It is inevitable, and no last-minute “deal” is going to change the math at the core of it all.

Why are so many economists so worried about a little country like Greece? It’s because of a great lie: a dishonest narrative being perpetuated by the establishment that if Greece falls, defaults or leaves the EU, that could trigger a domino effect of other nations hitting a debt wall and doing the same thing. The lie is the claim that Greece will cause a “contagion.” There is no contagion. Multiple countries within the EU developed their own debt problems in spite of Greece over the past couple of decades, not because of Greece. Each of these countries, from Italy, to Spain, to Portugal, etc. has its own sovereign debt disasters to deal with. The only reason for a so-called contagion is the fact that these countries have been forced into interdependency through the EU structure.

Never forget this: The EU is in trouble not because of Greece, but because of forced supranational interdependency. The EU by all rights should not exist, nor should any centralized supranational single currency system.

I would also point out that globalist institutions like the International Monetary Fund are highly motivated to initiate disaster in the EU, despite some people’s assumptions that the EU is some kind of representative model of globalization. It’s not. If this were the case, then the IMF would not be stiffing Greece on debt aid while continuing to help Ukraine despite Ukraine’s similar inability to pay.

Why would the globalists want a partial breakup of the EU? What would they gain from such an event? That’s easy; they gain crisis, chaos and an opportunity to present a false dialectic.

Europe is not at all representative of what globalists really want in terms of economic and political structure. It is a kind of facsimile, a half measure. When Europe hits the bottom of the financial abyss and the bewildered public begins asking what happened, the elites will be there with an immediate explanation. They will claim that it was not the EU’s interdependency that was the problem. Rather, they will assert that the EU was actually not centralized enough. They will claim that in order for a supranational economy and currency to work, we must also have supranational governance. In other words, the system failed because it needs to be stabilized by global government.

The Fabian socialists will argue that it was the barbaric and outdated institution of national sovereignty that caused the full-spectrum crisis. They will completely gloss over the negative effects of an interdependent economy and the fact that a lack of redundancy leaves cultures vulnerable and weak. We’re all one big human village after all, so we should accept the idea that we all succeed or fail together. Free markets and individual innovation apparently have nothing to do with a thriving economic structure. What we really need is a hive mind system that turns us all into easily replaceable parts in a massive rumbling lawnmower that chews up our heritage, history and principles for the sake of some arbitrary greater good. It might be hard to tell in print, but hopefully my sarcasm is coming through loud and clear.

The fall of the EU is a means to an end for globalists. There is almost no nation or institution they will not sacrifice if that sacrifice can be exploited to further their goal of total global political and economic dominance. They don’t just want a completely centralized system; they want all of us to beg them to put that system in place. They want the masses to think it was all our idea. This is the most pervasive and effective form of slavery, when the slaves are manipulated into demanding their own enslavement, when the slaves are fooled into believing their enslavement is something to be proud of — a badge of honor, if you will.

The fall of the U.S. will be no different in this regard. We do not have a supranational structure like the EU. So our narrative for collapse will be slightly different, and the engineered lesson we are meant to learn will be carefully crafted.

You see, Americans are meant to play the role of the spoiled imperialists who are finally getting what we deserve, an economic punch in our tender parts. We are the new Rome, bread and circuses and all. And when the U.S. comes crashing down like Europe, the Fabians will be there yet again to admonish the greed inherent in national sovereignty and the destructive aspirations of power that must be squelched by a more evenhanded global political system. I don’t really know how many people out there realize this, but we are meant to play the bad guys in the global theater being put on by the elites. Americans are the villains.

Our debt generation by far outmatches that of the whole of EU nations combined, a fact I outlined in “The magic of establishment economics.” But unlike Greece, the U.S. has the option to print fiat at will in order to prolong punishment for our massive debt spending. However, as we have seen with recent market reactions to the very notion of an interest rate hike by the Federal Reserve, such an event will trigger extensive outflows from stock markets and herald the end of the “new normal.” Again, why would the banksters do this? Why not keep interest rates at a constant near zero? Why is the Fed ignoring the hundreds of signals showing that the U.S. is in a recession and pushing ahead with discussion of interest rate hikes?

The Fed knows that the only things propping up American markets are free money and blind faith by the public that banks and government will act to stop any pain or economic suffering, should such a potential for crisis arise. When the free money is gone and that faith disappears, then we will have an epic catastrophe on our hands. The globalists within the Fed know this, and they want this. They want the fall of America because this will make way for the rise of what they often call the “great economic reset.”

This is not about contagion. There is no such thing. It is an excuse, a scapegoat designed to distract from the real problem. This is about a concerted effort over the past several decades by internationalists to maneuver Western cultures into a position of vulnerability. When people are weak and frightened, they become malleable. Social changes you would have never thought possible today become very possible tomorrow in the midst of a crisis. I believe we are now seeing the onset of the next great crisis, and the fundamentals of economy support my view. When the entire European system hangs by the thread of Greek debt and the entire U.S. system hangs by the thread of near zero interest rates and blind market faith, something is about to shatter. There is no going back from such a condition. There is only the path forward, and the path forward is not pleasant or comfortable and cannot be ignored.

We cannot forget that crisis is in itself a distraction as well. Whatever pain we do feel tomorrow, or the next day, or the next decade, remember who it was that caused it all: the international banks and their globalist political counterparts. No matter what happens, never be willing to accept a centralized system. No matter how reasonable or rational it might sound amid the terror of fiscal uncertainty, never give the beast what it wants. Refuse to conform to the dialectic. This is the only chance we have left to get back to true prosperity. Once we cross the line into the realm of worldwide institutionalized interdependency, we will never know prosperity or freedom again.

–Brandon Smith

To defeat globalism, we must change how we think

I was born just before the very onset of the digital era. I count myself lucky, in part, to be so deeply involved in the burgeoning of the information generation. I also count myself lucky to have seen the world without the free flow of media, because I know what to appreciate and what to be suspicious of. Many people 10 years younger than I really have no clue of the bottleneck that used to exist within our news system. Imagine if there were only three or four news websites you were able to visit daily, and all of these sites supported the same agenda. That is what life was like before the Web, and it was truly awful in many ways.

That said, the digital age has also brought with it an era of unwarranted expectations and unrealistic entitlements. As Americans, many of us grow accustomed to unlimited media stimulus, numerous social and financial safety nets, and an overall sense that our system will always be there to service our needs under any situation. Though we have vast pools of knowledge at our fingertips, we have become more complacent, less productive and less proactive. This is the opposite of what should be happening.

It may be conditioned laziness or fear of commitment to uncertain undertakings. Or maybe many people have just forgotten how to do things for themselves, much like humanity has forgotten how to make proper stone tools; the ability has simply died out with time. It’s hard to say, but there is something vital missing from the American dynamic today, a void that is slowly killing us.

With the advent of forced globalization and the philosophy of interdependency, it would seem that there has been a correlating attitude that entrepreneurship, self-reliance and innovation are mostly impractical. I don’t think this is a coincidence. Today, we learn to take the fish we are given, rather than learn how to fish ourselves. And this behavior is encouraged. Why? It’s because a man who can fish is independent, and an independent man is harder to control. Thus, an independent man is dangerous.

I don’t meet many folks lately who necessarily embrace the idea of interdependency and globalism, but they have learned to ignore it or to begrudgingly live with it. They may even know well that it affects them negatively, yet they do nothing because they have been told over and over again that globalism is inevitable (mostly by globalists). The solution to the problem is complex, but it begins with a simple decision: the decision to build for ourselves and think for ourselves, or the decision to do nothing.

The idea that a mass event of people chanting mantras and marching around is the be-all and end-all of social and political change has poisoned our sense of reality. These kinds of actions do not worry the establishment. What worries the establishment is self-determination and private action, people providing for themselves and removing the system as a crutch. This kind of solution does not require you to wait around for everyone else to “get it.” All it requires is that you take personal initiative and perhaps lead by example.

In order to defeat globalism, we ultimately have to construct a better alternative. Given the utter failure and disarray that seem to follow globalization everywhere, this should not be hard to do. When we enact methods of independence — or what I call “localism” — successfully, we force the power brokers to do one of two things:

  1. Admit that we have accomplished a better way of living and fade away as irrelevant.
  2. Try to use physical force to stop us from being independent.

In either case, we win. If the latter occurs, then we have forced the elites to reveal their true natures — not as benevolent caretakers, but as monsters with aspirations as slave owners. If the latter occurs, then we fight back; but we do so from a solid place on the moral high ground.

You can make this strategy tangible in your daily life. Become a producer. Provide necessities for yourself, your family and your community. Learn useful skill sets, as many as possible. Invent and create better ways and means of survival and sustained existence. Stop waiting for others to lead the way. You lead the way in your own areas of influence.

For many people, this might sound like a fantasy, given the rampant subservience we see in the public around us. “They are too far gone,” some people will say. “They are hopeless.” I’m not so sure. The average man often longs for a return to self-reliance. It is a part of our genetic code or our very spirit. He just has to be reminded how it is done. It is our job as aware people to re-teach others how to make their own way again. Perhaps I am a foolish optimist, but I believe there is still something within us and in American culture in general — something special that has not been quite extinguished.

I am not fighting for what our society is today; our society has psychologically derailed. But I am fighting for what I know our society can be: a self-generating and bold land of individuals, where voluntary action is the norm and is respected; where men measure themselves by their concrete accomplishments and mastery of their skills, rather than the status they attain through subservience to the collective; and where people achieve again, rather than laugh at those who make the attempt because doing nothing is easier and seemingly more profitable. I may not witness this in my lifetime. But with my efforts in this era, along with your efforts, future generation can look back at us feeling thankful rather than betrayed.

–Brandon Smith

Disinformation: How it works

(Due to illness, we are featuring a best of Brandon Smith article in which he explains that disinformation makes us vulnerable to fear, misunderstanding and doubt. We hope you enjoy it. Smith will return next week.)

 

There was a time, not too long ago (relatively speaking), that governments and the groups of elites that controlled them did not find it necessary to conscript themselves into wars of disinformation.

Propaganda was relatively straightforward. The lies were much simpler. The control of information flow was easily directed. Rules were enforced with the threat of property confiscation and execution for anyone who strayed from the rigid sociopolitical structure. Those who had theological, metaphysical or scientific information outside of the conventional and scripted collective worldview were tortured and slaughtered. The elites kept the information to themselves and removed its remnants from mainstream recognition, sometimes for centuries before it was rediscovered.

With the advent of anti-feudalism, and most importantly the success of the American Revolution, elitists were no longer able to dominate information with the edge of a blade or the barrel of a gun. The establishment of republics, with their philosophy of open government and rule by the people, compelled Aristocratic minorities to plot more subtle ways of obstructing the truth and, thus, maintain their hold over the world without exposing themselves to retribution from the masses. Thus, the complex art of disinformation was born.

The technique, the “magic” of the lie, was refined and perfected. The mechanics of the human mind and the human soul became an endless obsession for the establishment.

The goal was malicious, but socially radical; instead of expending the impossible energy needed to dictate the very form and existence of the truth, they would allow it to drift, obscured in a fog of contrived data. They would wrap the truth in a Gordian Knot of misdirection and fabrication so elaborate that they felt certain the majority of people would surrender, giving up long before they ever finished unraveling the deceit. The goal was not to destroy the truth, but to hide it in plain sight.

In modern times, and with carefully engineered methods, this goal has been accomplished for the most part. However, these methods also have inherent weaknesses. Lies are fragile. They require constant attentiveness to keep them alive. The exposure of a single truth can rip through an ocean of lies, evaporating it instantly.

In this article, we will examine the methods used to fertilize and promote the growth of disinformation, as well as how to identify the roots of disinformation and effectively cut them, starving out the entire system of fallacies once and for all.

Media disinformation methods

The mainstream media, once tasked with the job of investigating government corruption and keeping elitists in line, has now become nothing more than a public relations firm for corrupt officials and their globalist handlers. The days of the legitimate “investigative reporter” are long gone (if they ever existed at all), and journalism itself has deteriorated into a rancid pool of so called “TV editorialists” who treat their own baseless opinions as supported fact.

The elitist co-opting of news has been going on in one form or another since the invention of the printing press. However, the first methods of media disinformation truly came to fruition under the supervision of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, who believed the truth was “subjective” and open to his personal interpretation.

Some of the main tactics used by the mainstream media to mislead the masses are as follows:

  • Lie big, retract quietly: Mainstream media sources (especially newspapers) are notorious for reporting flagrantly dishonest and unsupported news stories on the front page, then quietly retracting those stories on the very back page when they are caught. In this case, the point is to railroad the lie into the collective consciousness. Once the lie is finally exposed, it is already too late; and a large portion of the population will not notice or care when the truth comes out.
  • Unconfirmed or controlled sources as fact: Cable news venues often cite information from “unnamed” sources, government sources that have an obvious bias or agenda, or “expert” sources without providing an alternative “expert” view. The information provided by these sources is usually backed by nothing more than blind faith.
  • Calculated omission: This is otherwise known as “cherry-picking” data. One simple piece of information or root item of truth can derail an entire disinformation news story; so instead of trying to gloss over it, they simply pretend it doesn’t exist. When the fact is omitted, the lie can appear entirely rational. This tactic is also used extensively when disinformation agents and crooked journalists engage in open debate.
  • Distraction and the manufacture of relevance: Sometimes, the truth wells up into the public awareness regardless of what the media does to bury it. When this occurs, their only recourse is to attempt to change the public’s focus and, thereby, distract them from the truth they were so close to grasping. The media accomplishes this by “over-reporting” on a subject that has nothing to do with the more important issues at hand. Ironically, the media can take an unimportant story and, by reporting on it ad nauseam, cause many Americans to assume that because the media won’t shut up about it, it must be important.
  • Dishonest debate tactics: Sometimes, men who actually are concerned with the average American’s pursuit of honesty and legitimate fact-driven information break through and appear on TV. However, rarely are they allowed to share their views or insights without having to fight through a wall of carefully crafted deceit and propaganda. Because the media know they will lose credibility if they do not allow guests with opposing viewpoints every once in a while, they set up and choreograph specialized TV debates in highly restrictive environments that put the guest on the defensive and make it difficult for them to clearly convey their ideas or facts.

TV pundits are often trained in what are commonly called “Alinsky tactics.” Saul Alinsky was a moral relativist and champion of the lie as a tool for the “greater good” — essentially, a modern-day Machiavelli. His “Rules for Radicals” were supposedly meant for grass-roots activists who opposed the establishment and emphasized the use of any means necessary to defeat one’s political opposition. But is it truly possible to defeat an establishment built on lies, by use of even more elaborate lies and by sacrificing one’s ethics? In reality, his strategies are the perfect format for corrupt institutions and governments to dissuade dissent from the masses. Today, Alinsky’s rules are used more often by the establishment than by its opposition.

Alinsky’s strategy: Win at any cost, even if you have to lie

Alinsky’s tactics have been adopted by governments and disinformation specialists across the world, but they are most visible in TV debate. While Alinsky sermonized about the need for confrontation in society, his debate tactics are actually designed to circumvent real and honest confrontation of opposing ideas with slippery tricks and diversions. Alinsky’s tactics, and their modern usage, can be summarized as follows:

  1. Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. We see this tactic in many forms — for example, projecting your own movement as mainstream and your opponent’s as fringe, convincing your opponent that his fight is a futile one. Your opposition may act differently, or even hesitate to act at all, based on his perception of your power. How often have we heard this line: “The government has predator drones. There is nothing the people can do now.” This is a projection of exaggerated invincibility designed to elicit apathy from the masses.
  2. Never go outside the experience of your people; and whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy. Don’t get drawn into a debate about a subject you do not know as well as or better than your opposition. If possible, draw them into such a situation instead. Go off on tangents. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty in your opposition. This is commonly used against unwitting interviewees on cable news shows whose positions are set up to be skewered. The target is blindsided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address. In television and radio, this also serves to waste broadcast time to prevent the target from expressing his own position.
  3. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. The objective is to target the opponent’s credibility and reputation by accusations of hypocrisy. If the tactician can catch his opponent in even the smallest misstep, it creates an opening for further attacks and distracts away from the broader moral question.
  4. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. “Ron Paul is a crackpot.” “Gold bugs are crazy.” “Constitutionalists are fringe extremists.” Baseless ridicule is almost impossible to counter because it is meant to be irrational. It infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. It also works as a pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
  5. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. The popularization of the term “Teabaggers” is a classic example; it caught on by itself because people seem to think it’s clever and enjoy saying it. Keeping your talking points simple and fun helps your side stay motivated and helps your tactics spread autonomously, without instruction or encouragement.
  6. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. See rule No. 5. Don’t become old news. If you keep your tactics fresh, it’s easier to keep your people active. Not all disinformation agents are paid. The “useful idiots” have to be motivated by other means. Mainstream disinformation often changes gear from one method to the next and then back again.
  7. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and use all events of the period for your purpose. Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. Never give the target a chance to rest, regroup, recover or re-strategize. Take advantage of current events and twist their implications to support your position. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
  8. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. This goes hand in hand with rule No. 1. Perception is reality. Allow your opposition to expend all of its energy in expectation of an insurmountable scenario. The dire possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.
  9. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. The objective of this pressure is to force the opposition to react and make the mistakes that are necessary for the ultimate success of the campaign.
  10. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counter side. As grass-roots activism tools, Alinsky tactics have historically been used (for example, by labor movements or covert operations specialists) to force the opposition to react with violence against activists, which leads to popular sympathy for the activists’ cause. Today, false (or co-opted) grass-roots movements and revolutions use this technique in debate as well as in planned street actions and rebellions (look at Syria for a recent example).
  11. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. Today, this is often used offensively against legitimate activists, such as the opponents of the Federal Reserve. Complain that your opponent is merely “pointing out the problems.” Demand that they offer not just “a solution,” but the solution. Obviously, no one person has “the” solution. When he fails to produce the miracle you requested, dismiss his entire argument and all the facts he has presented as pointless.
  12. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. The target’s supporters will expose themselves. Go after individual people, not organizations or institutions. People hurt faster than institutions.

The next time you view an MSM debate, watch the pundits carefully. You will likely see many, if not all, of the strategies above used on some unsuspecting individual attempting to tell the truth.

Internet disinformation methods

Internet trolls, also known as “paid posters” or “paid bloggers,” are increasingly and openly being employed by private corporations as well governments, often for marketing purposes and for “public relations” (Obama is notorious for this practice). Internet “trolling” is indeed a fast-growing industry.

Trolls use a wide variety of strategies, some of which are unique to the internet, here are just a few:

  • Make outrageous comments designed to distract or frustrate: This is an Alinsky tactic used to make people emotional, although it’s less effective because of the impersonal nature of the Web.
  • Pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement: We have seen this even on our own forums: Trolls pose as supporters of the liberty movement, then post long, incoherent diatribes so as to appear either racist or insane. The key to this tactic is to make references to common liberty movement arguments while at the same time babbling nonsense, so as to make those otherwise valid arguments seem ludicrous by association. In extreme cases, these “Trojan Horse trolls” have been known to make posts that incite violence — a technique obviously intended to solidify the false assertions of the think tank propagandists like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which purports that Constitutionalists should be feared as potential domestic terrorists.
  • Dominate discussions: Trolls often interject themselves into productive Web discussions in order to throw them off course and frustrate the people involved.
  • Prepared responses: Many trolls are supplied with a list or database with prepared talking points designed as generalized and deceptive responses to honest arguments. When they post, their words feel strangely plastic and well rehearsed.
  • False association: This works hand in hand with item No. 2, by invoking the stereotypes established by the Trojan Horse troll. Examples include calling those against the Federal Reserve “conspiracy theorists” or “lunatics,” deliberately associating anti-globalist movements with racists and homegrown terrorists because of the inherent negative connotations, and using false associations to provoke biases and dissuade people from examining the evidence objectively.
  • False moderation: Pretending to be the “voice of reason” in an argument with obvious and defined sides in an attempt to move people away from what is clearly true into a “gray area” where the truth becomes “relative.”
  • Straw man arguments: This is a very common technique. The troll will accuse his opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if he does not, and then attack that point of view. Or, the troll will put words in the mouth of his opposition and then rebut those specific words.

Sometimes, these strategies are used by average people with serious personality issues. However, if you see someone using these tactics often or using many of them at the same time, you may be dealing with a paid Internet troll.

Stopping disinformation

The best way to disarm disinformation agents is to know their methods inside and out. This gives us the ability to point out exactly what they are doing in detail the moment they try to do it. Immediately exposing a disinformation tactic as it is being used is highly destructive to the person using it. It makes them look foolish, dishonest and weak for even making the attempt. Internet trolls most especially do not know how to handle their methods being deconstructed right in front of their eyes and usually fold and run from debate when it occurs.

The truth is precious. It is sad that there are so many in our society who have lost respect for it, people who have traded in their conscience and their soul for temporary financial comfort while sacrificing the stability and balance of the rest of the country in the process.

The human psyche breathes on the air of truth. Without it, humanity cannot survive. Without it, the species will collapse, starving from lack of intellectual and emotional sustenance.

Disinformation does not only threaten our insight into the workings of our world; it makes us vulnerable to fear, misunderstanding and doubt: all things that lead to destruction. It can drive good people to commit terrible atrocities against others, or even against themselves. Without a concerted and organized effort to diffuse mass-produced lies, the future will look bleak indeed.

–Brandon Smith

Tyranny: It pisses me off

Tyranny is not a wholly definable condition. There are many forms of tyranny and many levels of control that exist in any one society at any given time. In fact, the most despicable forms of tyranny are often the most subtle; the kinds of tyranny in which the oppressed are deluded into thinking that because they have “choices”, that necessarily makes them “free”. Tyranny at it’s very core is not always the removal of choice, but the filtering of choice – the erasure of options leaving only choices most beneficial to the system and its controllers.

The choice may be between freedom and security, individual opinion and societal coherency, catastrophic war or disaster multiplied by complacency, terrorism or surveillance, economic manipulation or financial Armageddon. We are presented with these so called choices everyday and they are about to become even more of a bane in our regular lives. But these are often engineered options that do not represent reality. We are led to believe that only one path or the other can be taken; that there is no honorable way, only the lesser of two evils. I am done with false choices and the lesser of two evils. I prefer to create my own options.

Beyond method lies motivation; and tyranny begins where the best of intentions end. Most tyrants are not high level dictators, corrupt corporate CEOs, or politically obsessed wannabe-demigods with aspirations of empire. In fact, tyrants can be found all around you every day, in friends, family and millions of people you’ve never met or heard of in your life. While the elites at the top of the pyramid are the originators of most tyrannical shifts, it is the little minded mini-tyrants hovering around you like blood-gutted mosquitoes in the mall, at the bar, and at the office that make the designs of statists a possible reality.

They do not always participate directly in the construction of the cage. They just have a habit of doing nothing while it is being built around us. Some of them love the cage, and see it as some kind of affirmation of their own twisted ideals.

Tyranny is for the most part the forced imposition of contrary principles to the sacred space of the individual. That is to say, people create tyranny when they enact or support the invasion of their beliefs and desires onto those who only wish to be left alone. Tyranny is only minimally about physical control and far more about psychological control. Physical threats are merely keys to the doorway of the mind.

Real slavery is not possible unless the slave is made to accept or even love his servitude. The conditions of structure and restriction and permission and “license” are often ingrained into the minds of participating serfs until they cannot comprehend the world without such arbitrary things. Acting outside the established box isn’t even considered. The rules are simply the rules, even though most people have forgotten why or how.

Fantasy constructs of social organization are used to justify themselves as self evident. Statists love the argument of society for society’s sake. We are born into this system whether we like it or not, they say. We benefit from the system and therefore we owe the system, they claim. The system is mother and father. The system provides all because we all provide for the system. Without the system, we are nothing.

The clever trap of collectivism is that it makes participation of individuals a survival imperative for the group. A person is certainly not allowed to work against the advancement of the group, even if the group is morally reprehensible in their goals. However, totalitarian collectivism from socialism to fascism to communism does not even allow for people to refuse to participate. You are not allowed to walk away from the collective because if you do, you might hurt the overall performance of the collective. A gear in a machine cannot be allowed to simply up and leave that machine, or everything falls apart. See how that works…?

People fall into tyrannical behaviors through what Carl Jung referred to as the “personal shadow”; the uglier cravings of our unconscious that fester into morally relative philosophies. One fact of life that you can always count on is this: All people want things. The kinds of things and the level of the want determine their willingness to do wrong. I’m not just talking about money and wealth. Some people want unfettered or unrealistic safety, some people want fame, some people want adoration, some people want subservience, some people want to avoid all responsibility, some people want perpetual childhood, and some people are shameless glory hounds. People’s wants can be harnessed, manipulated and directed to disturbing ends, and the elites know very well how to do this.

The people who are harder to control are those who have discipline over their wants and thus control over their fears of not attaining those wants.

In my life I have met many people who cannot set aside their immediate desires even if their behavior is translating into eventual misery for themselves and everyone else. People who cannot balance the pursuit of wealth with a healthy level of charity. People who cannot participate in an endeavor without trying to co-opt or control that endeavor. People who marginalize the talents of others when they could be nurturing those talents. People who sneer or superficially criticize the valid accomplishments of others rather than cheering for them. People who see others as competition rather than allies in the greater task. It is weaknesses like these that cause smaller forms of tyranny, and such microcosms of despotism often culminate in wider enslavement. It is through the personal shadow that we fall victim to the collective shadow, the place where devils reside.

Tyranny is an environment in which the very worst in people is fed caffeine and cocaine and allowed to run wild while pretending to be a model of principled efficiency.

Frankly, I’m a little tired of those who consider themselves to be social advocates so overtly concerned with what we individuals are thinking or feeling or doing. We don’t owe them any explanations and we certainly never agreed to be a part of their ridiculous cults of academia and the mainstream. I have no patience for people who have the audacity to think they can mold the rest of us into abiding by their intrusive ideology. If you think that you can force me to adopt your collectivist philosophy because you are too ignorant or too sociopathic to compose an argument that convinces me to join voluntarily, then I’m afraid one day I’ll probably react by shooting you. Yes, in my opinion violence is the only answer for such tyrants. We have every right to be left alone, they have no right to their aggressive statism, and we have every right to defend ourselves.

I am tired of oppressive social constructs that undermine our greater potential. I am tired of assumptions. Assumptions and lies fuel every aspect our world today, and this will only end in utter calamity. I am tired of tolerance for oppressive behaviors; tolerance for corruption and criminality leads only to more of the same. I am tired of compromise. I am tired of being told that a discriminating attitude is a bad thing, and that total acceptance is somehow “enlightened.” I am tired of people thinking pleasantries are a better method for combating stupidity than a good slap upside the head. In other words, it’s time to slap some people upside the head; be they friends, family, neighbors, whoever. The days of diplomacy are over. Our world is changing. And from this point on, there will be people who do tangible and voluntary good (the people who count), and people who stand in the way of people who do tangible and voluntary good.

My advice? Don’t be a part of the latter group. We may be trying to undo the damages of tyranny, but that does not mean we will continue to be nice about it.

– Brandon Smith

Is martial law justified if ISIS attacks?

FILE/The Boston bombing response exemplifies militarization of a domestic region without it being called “martial law.”

A group of foreign militants infiltrates the U.S. using student visas, weak borders, bribery and cooperation with drug cartels. Secret cells integrate within metropolitan areas and blend with the populace. At the precise moment, they activate, unleashing small attacks across the country in coordinated blitzkrieg-style terror campaigns against everything from suburban neighborhoods to public schools to shopping malls, striking fear into the citizenry, which now believes no one is safe, even in the heartland. With normal law enforcement overwhelmed, the economy on the brink and the populace ready to riot, the military is deployed domestically; curfews, price controls and rationing are initiated; and special operations agents act as infiltrators in order to subdue the terrorist factions. The loss of common liberties is welcomed by most as safety and security become the paramount motivator.

A glimpse into the future? Well, perhaps. Actually, it’s the plot narrative to a Chuck Norris movie called “Invasion U.S.A.” The terrorists in that movie were communists from places like Cuba and Venezuela (hey, it was the 80s, and we had no idea that the communists were elitists that had already taken over from within), but the premise is strangely not far from what the government is trying to sell to us as a potential real-life scenario today.

As Americans, we have been bombarded with propaganda for decades, which conjures rationalizations for domestic military operations. This propaganda always presents us with an all-or-nothing option: relinquish liberty and beat the enemy, or “cling” to the “outdated” Constitution and fall as a society. There never seems to be a third option, an option that does not require the loss of freedoms and allows for security. In the film “Invasion U.S.A.,” I suppose we had Chuck Norris as a third option, which is not a bad third option in the world of cinema; but I’m sorry to say that Chuck alone cannot save us from what is coming in the real America.

I am highly suspicious of the rhetoric coming out of Washington lately in terms of the ISIS situation. ISIS has apparently secured the Iraqi city of Ramadi and put the government there on the defensive, meaning that despite the recent claims that ISIS leadership has been hit in Syria, the group continues to advance.

Rumors of potential ISIS attacks on U.S. soil continue to spread from sources like the FBI and the Transportation Security Administration.

“Former” CIA officials (is there such a thing?) are also getting in on the action, warning in mainstream media outlets that ISIS has the ability to direct at least small-scale attacks on the U.S. today.

However, the threat of ISIS does not frighten me. It concerns me, but what truly disturbs me is the likely government response if such predictions by alphabet agencies come to pass.

In my recent article “When the elites wage war on America, this is how they will do it,” I examined the tactics behind not only globalization, but also the most probable methods that will be used to secure globalization through the oppression of dissenting voices and groups. Part of that examination included my take on the Jade Helm 15 exercises running from summer into autumn and how they fit directly into the strategies for disrupting insurgencies (revolutions) discussed openly by internationalists in their own symposiums.

My conclusion given the clear evidence at hand? Jade Helm is definitely not meant to prepare troops for foreign operations. The program is admitted to be a primer for military response to “crisis scenarios,” denoting domestic operation. Special forces groups are training with domestic agencies like the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration. And they are training and infiltrating completely American environments, which they would not be doing unless they planned to operate in very similar environments. Special forces always train like they fight. Period.

With at least 45 percent of Americans concerned that open domestic military exercises are a precursor to greater federal control over states and more than 62 percent convinced that government power is suffocating individual liberty, it is only a matter of time before the government spin doctors create a semi-believable rationale for such endeavors as Jade Helm. I believe that ISIS could be their perfect rationale.

As public concern is amplified and evidence indicating that the Department of Defense is lying about the purpose of JH15 is more widely recognized, the DOD may very well admit that the operation is not for training in foreign theaters. Rather, they may argue that JH15 is in fact training designed to protect Americans on American soil from widespread terrorist threats. That is to say, the new spin will be that Jade Helm is meant to save us all from the psychopathic child killing cannibal monstrosity known as ISIS.

Look at it this way, what better excuse for covert military actions in domestic environments? What better way to justify lying to the American people about Jade Helm goals and directives? What better way to silence the critics and so-called “conspiracy theorists” than for the government to say: “Yes, we lied, but it was to keep the real purpose of JH15 secret, and to save the public from terrorism, now shut up naysayers and liberty activists, you are putting the whole nation at risk…!”

Maybe I am connecting dots that are not dots, but it seems to me that the timing of ISIS warnings, the re-ignition of economic downturn in 2014/2015, the global shift away from the dollar, and Jade Helm are not entirely coincidental. Martial Law is not a scenario that can be generated in a vacuum; it needs a primer, a trigger event.

If the trigger event is indeed intended to be a terror campaign on U.S. soil, then questions of the true purpose of Jade Helm will undoubtedly take a back seat to immediate solutions to what amounts to a foreign invasion (at least, that is how it will be painted), and none other than Jade Helm will be presented as that solution.

The debate over JH15 and programs like it will change. It will become a matter of the “greater good” against a foreign enemy, rather than a government overstep against the rights of the people. How can we possibly question the defense of American soil against terrorists? Isn’t that an undeniable directive of the military? And if we do question such a directive and its value to the American people, are we not “weakening” the resolve and effectiveness of the defense apparatus through negative public opinion? And by extension, would that not make us “domestic enemies” as well?

In fact, I can easily argue that there is absolutely no rationale for domestic military operations against ISIS, and here’s why.

ISIS is a fabrication

As I outlined in detail in my article “The time is ripe for a false flag attack on American soil,” the organization known as ISIS has long been a collaborative creation of the U.S. government and its allies. From funding and training in Libya and Jordan, to arming in Syria and Iraq, ISIS is nothing without the Western intelligence apparatus, just as al-Qaida was nothing more than a CIA Frankenstein monster.

So should Americans be forced to relinquish their freedoms in order to combat an enemy that our own government engineered out of thin air? And beyond that, who represents the greater enemy: ISIS or the lunatic elitists who gave ISIS the tools to commit atrocities?

Government is incapable of providing security

Some people may argue that the true origins of ISIS are a matter of historical debate that will not solve our immediate problem of rampant terror threats. How can we nitpick over where ISIS came from while ISIS is trying to massacre us? Fair enough.

My rebuttal would be that regardless of where ISIS found its organizational support, the U.S. government and the military apparatus under the direction of a corrupt DOD are incapable of protecting the American people anyway. If ISIS is able to unleash a campaign of attacks that give license to the idea of martial law, then the government has proven one of two things:

  1. It is too inept to prevent such events from occurring due to its refusal to secure our borders and despite full-spectrum surveillance of the American people by the NSA.
  2. It is so evil in its machinations that it has allowed terrorist infiltration in order to further an agenda of greater control.

Either the government is a bungling bureaucratic mess not capable of keeping anyone safe, or it is a cesspool of tyranny that has no intention of keeping anyone safe. In either case, why should the American people give such an entity even more power, when it can’t responsibly handle the considerable power it already has?

American civilians can provide their own security and do it better

Official martial law may never be declared, but it may nevertheless become a reality. I would present the response to the Boston bombing event as a direct example of militarization of a domestic region without it being called “martial law.” This was, of course, a “federalized” response, rather than a military one. But it was militarization in its nature all the same. The establishment will use all kinds of mislabeling and spin in order to entice the populace to submit to further encroachment of liberties in the name of security.

The fact is the best defense for the civilian population of America has always been the individual population itself. Terrorists are far more likely to be thwarted tactically and psychologically by a trained, armed, aware and free citizenry than any oppressive federal or military dragnet. And legally, it is a constitutional mandate that the American militias retain authority over domestic defense. And to be clear, the militia is every able-bodied American, not only a certain percentage of Americans the government deems acceptable.

This is the answer to the propaganda of militarization. We do not have to choose between liberty and security. We can have both, and we can provide it for ourselves as our own protectors. Sheepdogs be damned. Each citizen is his first and best line of defense.

Only when the American people take on the philosophy of self-defense rather than government reliance will we be free of fear from terrorism and free of fear from tyrannical government. It starts with each of you, in your homes, neighborhoods, towns and counties. Citizen organizations for mutual aid and security to counter any threat, regardless of the mask it wears, will be the catalyst for a legitimately free society. In the face of such organization, martial law is not only illegitimate, but entirely unnecessary. ISIS does not matter. It is what we ultimately do about ISIS that matters, and martial law is not the answer.

–Brandon Smith

Collectivists hate individuality, tribalism and ‘Fast And Furious 7′

Sometimes in the liberty movement — with discussions of potential collapse, war, revolution, social destabilization, etc. — it is easy to get so caught up in the peripheral conflict between the elites and the citizenry that we forget what the whole thing is really about. That is to say, we tend to overlook the very core of the conflict that is shaping our epoch.

Some would say that it is a simple matter of good versus evil. I don’t necessarily disagree, but good and evil are not defined methodologies; rather, they are inherent archetypes — facts born in the minds and hearts of all men. It’s a gift of comprehension from something greater than ourselves. They are felt, rather than defined, and attempts by institutions (religious, scientific, legal or otherwise) to force morality away from intuitive reason and into a realm of artificial hierarchical. And mathematical standards tend to lead only to even more imbalance, destruction, innocent deaths and general immorality.

There have been many nightmare regimes throughout history that have claimed to understand and obey moral “laws” and standards while at the same time having no personal or spiritual connection to those standards. In other words, some of the most heinous acts of immorality are often stamped with the approval of supposedly moral social and governmental institutions.

This is why a person who calls himself a moral Christian, a moral Muslim, a moral atheist, a moral legislator, a moral social justice warrior, etc. is not necessarily a person who ultimately acts with moral conviction. It is not enough for one to memorize and follow the code of a belief system or legal system blindly. One must also understand the tenets of inborn natural law and of the human soul that make those codes meaningful (if they have retained any meaning), or he will eventually fall prey to the vicious calamities of dogma and the collective shadow.

If I were to examine the core methodologies that are at odds in our society today, I would have to say that the whole fight comes down not only to good versus evil, but to collectivism versus individualism. The same demands of understanding also apply to this dichotomy.

Nearly all human beings naturally gravitate toward social structures. This is not under debate. The best of us seek to work with others for the betterment of our own position in terms of survival and success, but also the betterment of our species as a whole, if possible. Beyond this, people often find solace and a sense of epiphany when discovering connections to others; the act of recognition and shared experience is in itself a religious experience. This is what I would call “community,” as opposed to “collectivism.”

Collectivism is a bastardization and manipulation of the inherent desire most people have to build connections to those around them. It takes the concept of community to the extreme end of the spectrum, and in the process, removes all that was originally good about it. In a collectivist system, individualism becomes a threat and a detriment to the functionality of society. In a community, individualism is seen as a valuable resource that brings a diversity of ideas, skills and unique views, making the group stronger. Collectivism believes the hive mind is more efficient. Community believes voluntary action and individual achievement makes society healthier in the long run.

Our culture in general today is being bombarded with messages that aggrandize collectivism and stigmatize community and individualism. This is not by mere chance; it is in fact a program of indoctrination. I came across a rather strange and in some ways hilarious example of this while sifting through the propaganda platform known as Reuters.

As most liberty movement activists are well aware, Reuters is a longtime haven for Fabian socialists who despise honest reporting (to them media is a means of controlling the populace, not informing it) and who consistently inject concepts of collectivist (i.e., globalist) ideology into their articles.

The Reuters opinion piece linked here and written by Lynn Stuart Parramore presents itself as a kind of social examination of film and its reflection of the decline of American civilization. Rather oddly, the film chosen as a litmus test was “Fast And Furious 7.” Yes, that’s right. The “Fast and Furious” franchise apparently contains social commentary so disturbing to Reuters’ contributing “cultural theorists” that they felt compelled to write a short thesis on it.

First, I would like to point out that when I first read the article the original title was “‘Fast decline of postwar America & furious desire to cling to ‘family.’”

It appears that Reuters has since “amended” the title to stand out a little less as a collectivist expose. Just to be clear, I have no interest in discussing the content of the “Furious 7″ film. My commentary will focus not on the film but on Reuters’ commentary regarding the film.

So what about the newest Furious film has the collectivists so concerned? As the article states, “something alarming lurks at the heart of ‘Furious 7.'” The film’s depiction of America as an economically wounded nation in which good men cannot find a means to make an honest and adequate living doesn’t seem to bother them as much as the response of the main characters to such circumstances. The article almost revels in the postwar degradation of American living standards, outlining how fiscal decline has led to the disruption of the American family and posits that the golden era of the 1950’s economic boom is a relic, erased by the rise of a severe “haves and have-nots” division in the American class sphere. This is, of course, a decidedly simplistic view that appeals more to Marxists than to anyone with true knowledge of the breakdown of the U.S.

Reuters takes issue with “Furious 7″ because of what it refers to as the “1950’s fantasy” the narrative clings to, in which the heroes long for a return to the middle-class dream, turning away from the corrupt structure of the system and reverting to the “tribalism” of families and posses. The “myth of the posse,” they state, “ignores the interconnectedness of the broader society” and “the idea of a common culture of citizenship recedes into the background, as does faith in a society based on shared principles of justice.”

I find this conclusion rather fascinating in its collectivist bias. We are led to believe by Parramore’s article that it is the “Ayn Randian” code of contemporary economics and market efficiency that has led America astray. To put it simply, the free market did this to us.

This is the great lie promoted ad nauseam by collectivists today — collectivists who would like to divert blame for economic failure on more individualistic market ideals. The reality is that America has not supported free market methods for at least a century. The advent of parasitic central banking as an economic core in the Federal Reserve and constant government intervention and regulation that have only destroyed small business rather than kept large businesses in check has caused the very negative financial environment that Parramore at least recognizes as the source of our ills. Corporations themselves exist only because of government regulatory license, after all, but you won’t ever catch Reuters criticizing that.

It was collectivism and the rise of the statist model that bled America dry, not free-market methods that have not existed in this country for more than 100 years. The delusion that free markets are the problem was the same delusion that helped bring down Occupy Wall Street; the movement failed in part because its foundational philosophy was built on disinformation that rang false with otherwise sympathetic people.

So an action movie presents a competing model to collectivism, because collectivism has always been the problem, despite what Reuters has to say. That model is a return to classic human community in the form of family and “tribalism” where regular individuals matter, a point the Reuters article subtly mocks as a “fantasy.” But here we find the collectivists using the kind of rhetoric one would come to expect from social Marxists. The article continues:

When the personal posse replaces civic spirit, and the us-against-them mentality prevails, monsters can breed…

This is what is now happening in many corners of the world, where neglected groups have formed posses positively bloodthirsty in their quest to assert that they matter on the global stage to show they are not just victims of a rigged game…

I’m not exactly sure what “bloodthirsty groups” Parramore is referring to as “posses,” but I suspect this is a reference to the rise of ISIS, among others. And here we find the Fabian socialist-style propaganda at play.

You see, the Fabian ideology is the driving force behind globalization — the same globalization that triggered the vast downward slide in American prosperity; the same globalization that has generated anger and dissension among the downtrodden and poverty-stricken; the same globalization that has created artificial economic interdependency among nations and the domino effect of fiscal crisis around the globe; and the same globalization that has led to the predominance of covert agencies, covert agencies which have been funding “bloodthirsty posses” like ISIS for decades. And the source philosophy behind globalization has always been collectivism — the “interconnectedness of broader society” that Parramore proclaims as lost in the pages of the “Furious 7″ screenplay.

Parramore ends with a stark warning to us all:

… a return to tribal instincts and the letting go of the broader common bonds and the welfare of the greater human family has a dark side. It is ultimately a dangerous road to travel.

Those of us who support the idea of localized community (i.e., tribalism) and the value of the individual over the arbitrary collective are, supposedly, playing with fire; and we should be scared, very scared. We would not want to be labeled as “bloodthirsty monsters” hell-bent on disturbing the tranquility of the “greater human family.” Oh, boy.

When I read this kind of agenda-based garbage, I am reminded of the insanity of slightly more open social Marxists, such as feminists, who have through dishonorable tactics conjured an atmosphere of collective and legal pressure designed not to present a better argument, but to make all opposing arguments a sin against the group. That is to say, social Marxists do not have a better argument, so their only option is to make rational counterarguments socially taboo or even illegal.

If you want to know where social Marxism (collectivism) is headed, this is it: the labeling of individualistic philosophies as dangerous thought crimes and tribal communities as time bombs waiting to explode in the face of the wider global village. They desperately hope to conquer the world by dictating not only national boundaries and civil liberties, but the very moral code by which society and individuals function. They wish to bypass natural law with fear, fear that the collective will find you abhorrent and barbaric if you do not believe exactly as they believe. Individualism will one day be the new misogyny.

Think of it this way: If an undoubtedly forgettable movie like “Furious 7″ can’t even portray a fictional step away from the abyss of collectivist cultism without a prophecy of doom from Reuters, then is anyone really safe from these lunatics?

–Brandon Smith

When the elites wage war on America, this is how they will do it

In September 2009, more than 4,000 police and National Guard troops locked down Pittsburgh for the Group of 20 summit. Only one route was open for travel.

The consequences and patterns of war, whether by one nation against another or by a government against the citizenry, rarely change. However, the methods of war have evolved vastly in modern times. Wars by elites against populations are often so subtle that many people might not even recognize that they are under attack until it is too late. Whenever I examine the conceptions of “potential war” between individuals and oligarchy, invariably some hard-headed person cries out: “What do you mean ‘when?’ We are at war right now!” In this case, I am not talking about the subtle brand of war. I am not talking about the information war, the propaganda war, the economic war, the psychological war or the biological war. I am talking about outright warfare, and anyone who thinks we have already reached that point has no clue what real war looks like.

The recent exposure of the nationwide Jade Helm 15 exercise has made many people suspicious, and with good reason. Federal crisis exercises have a strange historical tendency to suddenly coincide with very real crisis events. We may know very little about Jade Helm beyond government admissions, claims and misdirections. But at the very least, we know what “JADE” is an acronym for: Joint Assistance for Deployment and Execution, a program designed to create action and deployment plans using computer models meant to speed up reaction times for military planners during a “crisis scenario.” It is linked with another program called ACOA (Adaptive Course of Action), the basis of which is essentially the use of past mission successes and computer models to plan future missions. Both are products of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

As far as I know, no one has presented any hard evidence as to what “HELM” really stands for, but the JADE portion of the exercise explicitly focuses on rapid force deployment planning in crisis situations, according to the government white paper linked above. This fact alone brings into question statements by the Department of Defense that Jade Helm is nothing more than a training program to prepare military units for “foreign deployment.” This is clearly a lie if Jade Helm revolves around crisis events (which denotes domestic threats), rather than foreign operations.

Of course, if you also consider the reality that special operations forces always train like they fight and train in environments similar to where they will fight, the entire notion of Jade Helm as a preparation for foreign theaters sounds absurd. If special operations forces are going to fight in Iraq, Iran or Syria, they go to training grounds in places like Kuwait. If they are training in places like Fort Lauderdale, Florida (including “infiltration training”), then there is no way around the fact that they are practicing to fight somewhere exactly like Fort Lauderdale with a similar culture and population.

So if Jade is a crisis-planning system for the military and the military is training for domestic operations, what is the crisis it is training to react to? It’s hard to say. I believe it will come down to an economic disaster, but our economic and social structures are so weak that almost any major event could trigger collapse. Terror attacks, cyberattacks, a stiff wind, you name it. The point is the government expects a crisis to occur. And with the advent of this crisis, the ultimate war on the American people will begin.

Why wait for a crisis situation? With the cover of a crisis event, opposition to power is more easily targeted. For my starting point on the elite war strategy, I would like to use the following presentation on guerrilla warfare by Max Boot, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow and military adviser, at the elitist World Affairs Council.

I would point out that Boot claims his work is merely a historical character study of interesting figures from the realm of insurgency and counterinsurgency and is not “polemical.” I’m afraid that I will have call horse hockey on that. Boot is direct adviser to the Department of Defense. His work and this presentation were obviously a study of guerrilla tactics from the perspective of counterinsurgency and an attempt to explore strategic methods for controlling and eradicating guerrillas and “terrorists.”

Any defense the American people might muster against elitist dismantling of constitutional liberties would inevitably turn to insurgency. So using CFR member Boot’s views on counterinsurgency as a guideline, here is how the elites will most likely wage war on those within the American population who have the will to fight back.

Control public opinion

Boot stresses the absolute necessity for the control of public opinion in defeating an insurgency. Most of his analysis is actually quite accurate in my view in terms of successes versus failures of guerrilla movements. However, his obsession with public opinion is, in part, ill-conceived. Boot uses the American Revolution as a prime example of public opinion working against the ruling powers, claiming that it was British public opinion that forced parliament and King George III to pull back from further operations in the colonies.

Now, it is important to note that elitists have a recurring tendency to marginalize the success of the American Revolution in particular as being a “fluke” in the historical record. Boot, of course, completely overlooks the fact that the war had progressed far longer than anyone had predicted and that the British leadership suffered under the weight of considerable debts. He also overlooks the fact that pro-independence colonials were far outnumbered by Tories loyal to the crown up to the very end of the war. The revolution was never in a majority position, and public opinion was not on the revolutionaries’ side.

The very idea of the American Revolution is a bit of a bruise on the collective ego of the elites, and their bias leads them to make inaccurate studies of the event. The reality is that most revolutions, even successful ones, remain in a minority for most, if not all, of their life spans.

Boot suggests that had the Founding Fathers faced the Roman Empire rather than the British Empire, they would have been crucified and the rebellion would have immediately floundered because the Romans had no concern for public opinion. This is where we get into the real mind of the elitist.

For now, the establishment chooses to sway public opinion with carefully crafted disinformation. But what is the best way to deal with public opinion when fighting a modern revolution? Remove public opinion as a factor entirely so that the power elite are free to act as viciously as they wish. Engineered crisis, and economic crisis in particular, creates a wash of other potential threats, including high crime, looting, riots, starvation, international conflict, etc. In such an environment, public opinion counts for very little, if people even pay attention at all to anything beyond their own desperation. Once this is achieved, the oligarchy has free reign to take morally questionable actions without fear of future blowback.

Control the public

Another main tenet Boot describes as essential in defeating insurgency is the control of the general population in order to prevent a revolution from recruiting new members and to prevent them from using the crowd as cover. He makes it clear that control of the public does not mean winning the “hearts and minds” in a diplomatic sense, but dominating through tactical and psychological means.

He first presents the example of the French counterinsurgency in Algeria, stating that the French strategy of widespread torture, while “morally reprehensible,” was indeed successful in seeking out and destroying the insurgent leadership. Where the French went wrong, however, was their inability to keep the torture campaign quiet. Boot once again uses the public opinion argument as the reason for the eventual loss of Algeria by the French.

What Boot seems to be suggesting is that systematic torture is viable, at least as a hypothetical strategy, as long as it remains undetected by the overall public. He also reiterates this indirectly in his final list of articles for insurgency and counterinsurgency when he states that “few counterinsurgencies (governments) have succeeded by inflicting mass terror, at least in foreign lands,” suggesting that mass terror may be an option against a domestic rebellion.

Boot then goes on to describe a more effective scenario, the British success against insurgents in Malaya. He attributes the British win against the rebellion to three factors:

  1. The British separated large portions of the population, entire villages, into concentration camps, surrounded by fences and armed guards. This kept the insurgents from recruiting from the more downtrodden or dissatisfied classes. And it isolated them into areas where they could be more easily engaged.
  2. The British used special operations forces to target specific rebel groups and leadership rather than attempting to maneuver through vast areas.
  3. The British made promises that appealed to the general public, including the promise of independence. This made the public more pliable and more willing to cooperate.

Now, I have no expectation whatsoever that the elites would offer the American public “independence” for their cooperation in battling a patriot insurgency, but I do think they would offer something perhaps more enticing: safety.

I believe the British/Malayan example given by Boot would be the main methodology for the elites and the federal government in the event that a rebellion arises in the U.S. against shifts away from constitutional republic or martial law instituted in the wake of a national emergency.

Isolate population centers

There is a reason why certain American cities are being buried in technologically sophisticated biometric surveillance networks, and I think the Malayan example holds the key. Certain cities (not all) could be turned into massive isolated camps, or “green zones.” They would be tightly controlled, and travel would be highly restricted. Food, shelter and safety would likely be offered, after a period of disaster has already been experienced. A couple months of famine and lack of medication to the medically dependent would no doubt kill millions of people. Unprepared survivors would flock to these areas in the hopes of receiving aid. Government forces would confiscate vital supplies in rural areas whenever possible in order to force even more people to concentrate into controlled regions.

I have seen the isolation strategy in action in part, during the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh. More than 4,000 police and National Guard troops locked down the city center, leaving only one route for travel. The first day, there were almost no protesters; most activists were so frightened by the shock-and-awe show of force that they would not leave their homes. I imagine this is the closest example I have personally experienced to a martial law cityscape.

Decapitate leadership

The liberty movement has always been a leaderless movement, which makes the “night of long knives” approach slightly less certain. I do not see any immediate advantage to the elites in kidnapping or killing prominent members of the movement, though that does not mean they will not try it anyway. Most well-known liberty proponents are teachers, not generals or political firebrands. Teachers leave their teachings behind, and no one needs generals or politicians. The movement would not necessarily be lost without us.

That said, there is a fear factor involved in such an event. The black-bagging of popular liberty voices could terrorize others into submission or inaction. This is why I constantly argue the need for individual leadership; every person must be able and willing to take individual action without direction in defense of his own freedoms, if the need arises. Groups should remain locally led, and national centralization of leadership should be avoided at all costs.

According to the very promoters of Jade Helm exercises, training will center on quick-reaction teams striking an area with helicopter support, then exfiltrating within 30 minutes or less. Almost every combat veteran I have spoken with concerning this style of training has said that it is used for “snatch and grab” — the capture or killing of high value targets, then exfiltration before the enemy can mount a response.

Fourth-generation warfare

The final method for war against the American people is one Boot does not discuss: the use of fourth-generation warfare. Some call this psychological warfare, but it is far more than that. Fourth-generation warfare is a strategy by which one section of a population you wish to control is turned against another section of the population you wish to control. It is warfare without the immediate use of armies. Rather, the elites turn the enemy population against itself and allow internal war to do most of their work for them. We can see this strategy developing already in the U.S. in the manipulation of race issues and the militarization of police.

The use of provocateurs during unrest in places like Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore suggests that a race war is part of the greater plan. I believe law enforcement officials have also been given a false sense of invincibility. With military toys and federal funding, but poor tactical philosophies and substandard training, LEOs are being set up as cannon fodder when the SHTF. Their inevitable failure will be used as a rationalization for more domestic military involvement; but in the meantime, Americans will be enticed to fight and kill each other while the elites sit back and watch the show.

Know thy enemy

I have outlined the above tactics not because I necessarily think they will succeed, but because it is important that we know exactly what we are dealing with. Such methods can be countered with community preparedness, the avoidance of central leadership, the application of random actions rather than predictable actions, etc. Most of all, liberty champions will have to provide a certain level of safety and security for the people around them if they want to disrupt establishment efforts to lure or force the population into controlled regions. Crisis is the best weapon the elites have at their disposal, and exercises like Jade Helm show that they may use it in the near term. The defense that defeats crisis is preparation — preparation not just for yourself, but for others around you. War is coming, and while we can’t know the exact timing, we can assume the worst and do our best to be ready for it as quickly as possible.

–Brandon Smith

Real solutions to the inevitable economic implosion

This is the sixth installment of a series. Read the first installment, “One last look at the real economy before it implodes,”  the second installment, The steady derailment of the U.S. financial system,” the third installment, “The magic of establishment economics,” the fourth, “The U.S. is being made economically irrelevant,” and the fifth, “The endgame has arrived.” 

All problems, all crises, have at least one solution, if not many solutions. There is no such thing as an unwinnable scenario. Some people may not be smart enough or courageous enough to see it, but the solution is always there, waiting to be discovered. The only fight that cannot be won is the fight in which the enemy makes all the rules and we foolishly abide by those rules. Life is not a game of chess, and a man can choose to be more than a pawn anytime he has the guts to do so.

In the past, I have likened the liberty movement to a rebellion against the game itself, a group of people willing to walk away from the chess board and make their own rules. I stand by that assertion. However, walking away is not enough by itself; we must also be willing to take actions that will destroy the game entirely.

In order to accomplish this task, any rebellion against corruption of power must be self-critical — more self-critical of its own weaknesses than opposing propagandists could ever be. Most of our problems as a society are being caused by a relatively small number of elitists, but we will never be able to undo these problems without understanding our weaknesses as much as the enemy’s weaknesses. In this final installment of my six-part series, I will talk about real solutions to the inevitable economic implosion in front of us, but I will also discuss the shortcomings of the liberty movement as an obstacle to any success.

As noted in the fifth installment of this series, segments of the liberty movement have fallen into a trap of biased assumption when it comes to their gullible embrace of the false East/West paradigm. I find it a little sad at times when I come across freedom activists who worship the footsteps of Henry Kissinger/International Monetary Fund puppet Vladimir Putin, or those who cheer for a globalist petri dish like China, all because they hate American imperialism so much they have decided to cheerlead for the “lesser of two evils.” There is no difference between those who buy into the false East/West paradigm and those who buy into the false left/right political paradigm. There is no “good guy” in the world of geopolitical maneuvering. East or West, it is all irrelevant because both sides serve the same international interests. Those who refuse to recognize this fact will be utterly incompetent in terms of presenting practical solutions because they will still be caught inside the elitist game.

Another issue within the liberty movement is an inability by some to consider where the endgame will actually lead. I know very well that there are 1,001 theories out there as to what the globalists actually want to achieve, which is why I look at the evidence at hand. The best evidence is to look at what the globalists say they plan to do, as they are apt to do in random fits of arrogance. It is important to understand that the elites often cannot help themselves and are desperate to boast of their activities before said activities are a forgone conclusion. Some analysts in recent history have presented undeniable admission by the elites, yet some activists still bicker about the enemy’s intent.

Whether it be the surprising words of insiders like Carroll Quigley, or the in-depth investigations of Antony Sutton, or the quotable quotes of frothing Fabian socialists, there is indeed a distinct strategy in play, namely the strategy of order out of chaos. And in terms of economics, there is a distinct goal, namely the integration of national currencies into a single global basket system (the special drawing rights, or SDR) controlled by the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements. I do not “believe” this is the goal; I know this is the goal because the elites have for decades openly admitted to it in articles like “Get Ready For The Phoenix” published by the Rothschild-owned The Economist in 1988, which stated that a global currency system will be established under the auspices of the SDR by 2018.

Further information on this plan can be found in my article “The economic endgame explained.”

As I have shown with ample evidence throughout this series, the U.S. is on the verge of fiscal collapse, the dollar is already in the process of losing its world reserve status, the East is just as subservient to the reset plan as the West, and all of this is in preparation for an engineered disaster that will anesthetize the masses and prepare them for a shift toward total centralization.

Solutions require us to first grasp the fundamental nature of the greater threat. The cold, hard truth is that we as a movement for freedom are alone in the fight against globalization. There are no nation states to fall back on. There is no safe region on the planet to run away to. No white knight is coming to our rescue, and any embrace of the East will end only in co-option and defeat for liberty activists.

Believe it or not, though, I am still an optimist.

Knowing the scale of the threat gives clarity to our response. The movement stands alone, therefore, we must act without naively waiting for outside aid. We must take on an attitude of self-reliance.

The gravity of our situation also reveals to us what solutions actually have merit and those that present false hopes. I have seen numerous attempts at silver-bullet solutions in the movement over the past decade, from useless and intangible crypto-currencies to pyramid schemes designed to generate enough revenue to “sue” the Federal Reserve to blind armed marches on Washington planned by tactically retarded spokesman to even more national election drives wasting even more money and more energy on candidates that may mean well but have no chance at defusing the economic time bomb already ticking away.

If the solution presented seems too easy, then it is probably nonsense. If someone is trying to sell you on the idea that no sacrifice, no struggle and no pain will be required to defeat globalism, then they are probably a con man trying to take something from you, whether it be your money or your common sense. Throughout history, the only real solutions to real problems — economic, social or political — require much pain and sacrifice. To change the world for the better, to fight for the truth, you must be willing to take risks up to an including risking your life, otherwise failure is guaranteed.

I do not believe in silver-bullet solutions. I do not believe there is a path of “least resistance.” The following methods are not academic. They are not philosophical. They will not appeal to egghead libertarians obsessed with theory rather than practice. And they will not appeal to self-proclaimed pacifists terrified of consequence and public perception. These are difficult actions, and I expect only the bravest people will implement them.

Localism

If you want to undermine a concerted campaign of globalization, you must generate an opposing system. The opposite of tyranny is voluntarism. The opposite of collectivism is individualism. The opposite of globalism is localism.

Localism is economic organization based upon the methodology of self-reliance. While globalism forces people, cities, states and countries to become interdependent and unable to survive or prosper without each other, localism brings internal economic stability and removes dependency. If all communities were based on localism and independent fiscal strength, such redundancy would make widespread financial collapse a thing of the past.

While globalism is a top down model in which all decisions and power bottleneck at the peak of the pyramid, localism is a bottom up grass-roots initiative in which no one has power over the lives of others. But in order for localism to become a reality, these things must be accomplished.

Real preparedness

Self-reliance requires preparedness. There is no way around it. There is no such thing as crisis for those who are prepared. This means placing oneself in a position to provide the necessities of life so that one does not become a slave to need. Desperation often leads to moral relativism, and tyrants thrive on the moral weakness of a population. The more prepared an individual is, the more likely he is to fight back against despotism. The more prepared a community is, the less that community will feel inclined to request aid from those who might leverage such aid to oppress that community.

Preparedness can also include commodity investment by individuals and networks of individuals. While beans, bullets and Band-Aids are a priority, no one can deny the trend of foreign central banks stockpiling precious metals. And this stockpiling is clearly being done as a parallel measure to de-dollarization. Metals are useful during windows of time just before collapse and after rebuilding has begun. They are a back-up. They are not a solution by themselves.

Real production

Americans, in particular, will have to become producers again. And by production I mean useful items, useful skills and useful ideas, rather than frivolous attempts to sustain our avarice and empty materialism. Do you have the skills to produce food, clean water, shelter, warmth or energy? Are you able to invent or reimagine useful tools? Can you repair useful items? Do you have any experience with hard labor whatsoever? If you have answered in the negative to these questions, then you have a lot of work ahead of you to learn what you can in the time we have left. If you were to approach a group of people today and try to convince them of your value as a producer, what would you tell them? If you were thrust into an economic system in which barter was the primary means of wealth circulation, what would you trade that people would actually want?

This is not necessarily a call for Americans to revert back to 18th century living; it is a call for Americans to reclaim their heritage of entrepreneurship and adaptability. Globalism is merely feudal mercantilism wearing a modernized mask. It is globalism that is taking us back to the Dark Ages. And only localism can bring us into a future where technical achievement works for the common man rather than against him.

Real community

At this stage in our society, collectivism has nearly decimated all vestiges of true community. Today, people have no clue who their neighbors are and most of them do not want to know. They have little to no interaction with their surroundings beyond superficial consumerism, and they see every other person around them as a competitor rather than an ally. Their idea of the “greater good” is a mentally deranged one. For them, the state is the root source of safety and communal coherency rather than the citizenry, and their neighbors are not to be trusted.

Collectivism isolates people from each other to the point that their only means of feeling a connection with their fellow man is to do so through support of the establishment control grid. Participation in the totalitarian framework becomes a shallow replacement for participation in the world around us. By paying taxes, blindly supporting a war, giving to international charities and voting once every two to four years, we fool ourselves into believing we are a part of a “team” and that our civic duty has been fulfilled.

This terrible cycle can be broken, but it takes the effort of individuals going out and actively building relationships with others of like mind. The liberty movement in particular should be forming groups and associations all over the country — not just to complain about the condition of the nation, but to take tangible actions. Mutual aid and barter groups, neighborhood watches and community preparedness teams, business ventures and engineering projects are all useful means of organization. These organizations will not form themselves. You must make them happen.

Real self-defense

As I discussed in my article “If you are not thinking tactically you are not a survivalist,” self-defense is an imperative that simply cannot be denied. This defense must include preparation for all enemies, foreign and domestic, and corrupt government is not excluded.

Economic collapse is very often followed by an increase in oppressive state power. And in the end, the establishment does not relinquish power over the citizenry unless it is forced to do so. All honorable people should endeavor to become dangerous people, the more dangerous the better.

Voices expressing nihilism and futility are rarely constructive and should be ignored. Frankly, I find such cowardice stomach churning. There may very well come a day in which you will have to decide between freedom or absolute slavery. The size, strength and technological advancement of the enemy should have no bearing whatsoever on the choice to fight for freedom. Again, there is no problem without a solution if you have the courage to seek it. I hope that my joint project with Oath Keepers on how to build a working thermal evasion suit, due to be released in the next few weeks, will provide a good example as to why a technologically advanced tyranny is still vulnerable to a resourceful citizenry.

Real grass-roots expansion

There has always been a lot of talk within the liberty movement of “nullification.” But ultimately, the philosophy of nullification is useless unless it comes from a position of strength. Federal overreach will not stop simply because a state happens to pass a bill denying the establishment full access. In Montana, medical marijuana legalization was crushed by the Feds despite state recognition. They simply marched in and arrested on drug charges anyone who dared open up shop, and the state did nothing to stop it. This is just one example of many in which nullification failed because people refused to accept that written law is meaningless unless it is backed by a vigilant public.

I suspect that as the overall economic implosion becomes more obvious to average people, there will be some counties and states that develop a desire for nullification on a grand scale. Americans will want resource implementation to provide wealth protection. And some states have more than enough resources to offset a national financial disaster, or at least stop that disaster at their borders. This would require the complete dissolution of numerous federal laws prohibiting resource development.

Such dissolution will not be successful unless counties and states have enough strong grass-roots communities in place to defend against federal intrusion — or at least make the idea so costly and prohibitive that they have second thoughts. Each smaller liberty group linking with other liberty groups can eventually create this kind of expansion. This is, of course, a best-case scenario. County and state organization should take a backseat to neighborhood and town organization until wider expansion becomes realistic.

The collapse itself could easily be prolonged through a series of smaller catastrophes; or it could happen in a matter of days, depending on the trigger. For now, it appears that the U.S. is to be worn down to nothing as the IMF works closely with the BRICS to promote the SDR basket system. All nations will be negatively affected by this shift, but some will be hurt far more than others. War is certainly a possibility and would make for great cover as the IMF’s global reset is enacted. I can’t speak much to this kind of event other than to say that regardless of what happens, the IMF and the BIS will remain neutral, waiting until the conflicts subside so that they can step in as “heroes” ready to rebuild the world.

The liberty movement must also be ready to rebuild, and our ideal must be fully formed if we are to compete with the globalists. The most difficult reality of all is the reality that economic implosion is the end of one era and the beginning of a new battle. Our fight will not only be against the machinations of elitists, but also to convince the world that the way of independence and freedom is more useful and preferable than the way of collectivist peasantry. Collapse is already upon us; now we must decide who will determine what happens next.

–Brandon Smith

The endgame has arrived

This is the fourth installment of a series. Read the first installment, “One last look at the real economy before it implodes,”  the second installment, The steady derailment of the U.S. financial system,” the third installment, “The magic of establishment economics,” and the fourth, “The U.S. is being made economically irrelevant.”

Since I began writing analysis for the liberty movement more than eight years ago, I have always said that we will know when the endgame of the globalists is upon us when the criminals come out into the light of day and admit to their crimes. At that moment, it will be because they no longer fear either the repercussions or their plans being obstructed.

As I plan to show in this installment of my series on the hidden fiscal collapse of America, the endgame has indeed arrived. At the very least, the international elites seem to think success is within their grasp, for they now openly expose their own criminality. But they do so in a way that attempts to divert blame or to rationalize their actions as being for the “greater good.”

In “The U.S. is being made economically irrelevant,” I discussed the reality of the false East/West paradigm and the fact that the “conflict” between Eastern and Western interests is nothing more than Kabuki theater constructed by globalists and designed to mesmerize the masses. You see, the problem with most people is that they tend to let their innate sense of tribalism drive them to take sides in war without understanding the fundamental root of that war. In most cases, they believe one side must be “good” and one side must be “bad.” Globalists understand this weakness of human collectivism, and they exploit it as often as possible. They create conflicts from out of the void, conflict in which both sides are controlled. Then, they let the masses fumble like idiots trying to set the noose around the other guy’s neck.

The East/West paradigm is just another in a long line of false confrontations engineered by the elites, but it is one that is most dangerous to the liberty movement itself. In our rage over the destruction of freedom and prosperity within our country, some of us have come to assume that the source of all that is unholy bubbles at the heart of U.S. corporate and government activity and that the East is in the midst of some kind of rebellion. This is simply nonsense.

Recently, a reader sent me a link that reminded me of comments made by Rep. Louis T. McFadden, chairman of the House Banking Committee, on May 4, 1933. In the wake of his battle against the Federal Reserve, he said: “… the treacherous signing away of American rights at the 7-power conference at London in July 1931 … put the Federal Reserve System under the control of the Bank of International Settlements.”

Even in 1933, there were some people who could see that the Federal Reserve was just an errand boy, an economic hit man for a more powerful entity. Sadly, McFadden died in 1936 from coronary thrombosis before he could make any headway in his crusade. The truth he stamped into the public record, though, lives on; and it is a truth that many people just don’t want to hear. It is easier to quantify the threat of the Federal Reserve. It is easier to believe that the Fed either controls the game or (for the more sheep-minded citizenry) that the Fed is a harmless “quasi-governmental body.” Many of us in the movement want to believe it is the gateway to the seventh circle of hell because if the Fed dies, then we win. And the Fed appears to be killable, most notably in light of certain actions on the part of the East. Unfortunately, the problem is far more complex.

As McFadden exposed, the Fed is merely a tentacle, one of many slithering at the behest of a larger vampire squid. The Bank for International Settlements appears to be the eye of the leviathan. I have been happy to see that the BIS is gaining more and more attention from the alternative media as a primary threat to the stability of the world. Zero Hedge published a very interesting article on the BIS banking cabal recently, excerpted from a book by Adam LeBor and titled “Meet The Secretive Group That Runs The World.”

Of course, this is not the first exposé on the BIS. Even Harper’s published a surprisingly honest (though only half the story) piece on the bank, titled “Ruling The World Of Money,” back in 1983. In it, the magazine claims that “…the unabashed purpose of its elite monthly meetings is to coordinate and, if possible, to control all monetary activities in the industrialized world.”

Any central bank that ends up on the membership roster of the BIS should be for all intents and purposes considered controlled by the BIS. This includes the central banks of Eastern nations supposedly in opposition to Western power. The very beginning history of the BIS is stained with blood, since it financially played both sides of World War II and aided the funding of the Nazi apparatus. Keep in mind that Germany, Japan and the Allies were all members of the BIS from 1931 on and remained members through the war. Bankers have been pitting countries against each other for a very long time, and they have no loyalties to any particular nation.

The BIS had to fade into the background for a time after its partnership with fascists was made public after the war. So the elites formed yet another monstrosity, the International Monetary Fund, to take its place in the public eye. However, the BIS continues to this day to pull the strings of the world’s central banks and, by extension, the world’s governments.

The strategy of engineered conflict has not changed. I have written numerous articles on the undeniable collusion between Russia and the IMF, including the avid Russian support for the IMF’s new global reserve currency, the Special Drawing Rights. You can read those articles here, here and here.

Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin have continued their love affair with the IMF since 2009, when they called for the SDR to become the world reserve currency.

Last year, Putin reasserted the goal of the BRICS to become more involved (enveloped) in the IMF system:

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.

I also have been covering the Chinese shift away from the dollar and into the arms of the IMF’s currency basket for years.

The great lie today is that China and Russia are anti-New World Order. Yet as I discussed in my last article, China (and Russia) have consistently called for a global conversion into the SDR basket system, and they want this system to be run by the IMF. The IMF, in turn, has consistently called for the end of the dollar as the world reserve currency and has openly embraced institutions like the new Asian regional bank, the AIIB, which is dominated by China, despite the fact that many people wrongly believe that the AIIB is somehow “competition” to the IMF or World Bank.

This excerpt comes from the International Business Times:

World Bank managing director Mulyani Indrawati told Xinhua in an interview.

“We will definitely open for cooperation with AIIB [sic]. Even now, we are working very closely in the beginning and looking at the setting, principle and framework of this institution.”

She also dismissed worries that the AIIB will compete against the World Bank or existing regional development banks and noted the global need for infrastructure is huge to accommodate multiple organisations.

Speaking at the opening of the China Development Forum in Beijing, IMF chief Christine Lagarde said the IMF would be “delighted” to co-operate with AIIB, and the institutions have “massive” room for cooperation.

More on the history of China and its partnership with the New World Order can be found in James Corbett’s excellent video analysis here.

At the level of international banking and monetary policy, there is absolutely no indication of any legitimate conflict between the East and the West. Again, such battles are only theater for the masses. But what purpose does this theater serve?

The fake economic war between East and West provides cover and rationale for the true goal of the internationalists: the destruction of the dollar as the world reserve currency and the ascendency of the SDR global monetary system. The endgame of the bankers is, of course, global government. It has been the longtime dream of the Fabian socialists permeating the central banking universe. A global currency system and centralized economic management are first-step psychological weapons against the public. If the world operates on a singular currency mechanism and a singular economic authority, why not have a singular governmental system as well?

The mistake many liberty movement analysts make is the assumption that the internationalists are somehow dedicated to U.S. interests. The idea that globalists have any loyalties to any sovereign government is a ridiculous notion. Fabians hate sovereign separations between nations (as much as they hate individual liberties), and they seek to ultimately destroy all boundaries for the sake of a singular global fiscal-political edifice.

But the elites cannot simply kill the dollar and replace it outright. They need a magic trick, a smoke-and-mirrors hologram, a sexy assistant in a sequined bathing suit and fireworks galore while they pull their global basket reserve out of a top hat. The false East/West paradigm is the perfect distraction. What better way to destroy the dollar and conjure a new world reserve than to pit one block of nations you dominate against the other block of nations you dominate and blame the resulting economic catastrophe on “sovereign nationalism,” which you also plan to erase in due course?

The elites are preparing for this event, and they are not content only to trigger it then sit back and watch it happen. They also hope to construct a new image for themselves as the prophets who tried to warn the world — the financial “sages” who would be our rescuers.

The criminals are coming into the light, and they are wearing the masks of saviors.

Alan Greenspan is now suddenly a staunch promoter of economic caution, warning that “something big … a significant market event …” is about to happen, and that gold is now a good investment as opposed to the dollar.

Janet Yellen has openly conceded that cash is not a convenient store of value.

Jamie Dimon is getting in on the prognosticator action, asserting that another financial crisis is coming.

The IMF now consistently warns of “shadow banking risks” bringing disaster to the economic environment.

The World Bank has been polite enough to warn the public that “now is the time to prepare for the next crisis.”

The BIS now produces statements on a regular basis predicting a possible “violent reversal of global markets,” just as it conveniently alerted the public to the possibility of credit collapse in 2007 right before the derivatives crisis.

Literally every elitist and his drunken uncle publicly discuss the danger of another market crash. That’s a rather stark reversal from a few years ago when recovery was a mainstream absolute, Bernanke was being called a hero and fiat stimulus was the fountain of youth. How would they know that such an event is coming? They built the conditions by which a collapse is inevitable, and now they want to purify themselves in the waters of Lake Minnetonka and absolve their institutions of all future ugliness.

I would like to point out, though, that banker warnings of volatility and crisis are generally given far too late for average people to act accordingly. I would also like to point out that the rising chorus of mainstream voices giving predictions of destabilization are also marginalizing and isolating the U.S. and the Federal Reserve as the root cause. The U.S. is nothing more than a storefront for elitist activities. And the Federal Reserve is a tentacle that can be sacrificed if it means achieving total centralization. All signs and evidence point to what the IMF calls the “great global economic reset.” The plans for this reset do not include U.S. prosperity or a thriving dollar.

–Brandon Smith

The U.S. is being made economically irrelevant

This is the fourth installment of a series. Read the first installment, “One last look at the real economy before it implodes,”  the second installment, The steady derailment of the U.S. financial system,” and the third installment, “The magic of establishment economics.”

In the first three installments of this series, we examined the realities behind supply and demand, unemployment and personal debt, and national debt. As has been proven in each consecutive article with ample evidence, mainstream establishment numbers are, for the most part, utter garbage. They are not legitimate. They are meaningless.

The figures and stats that do have some truth to them are so obscured from the public view and unreported by the media that they may as well be state secrets. The average person has no clue of their existence because his primary sources of information are establishment-dominated. Even MSM talking heads and economic “analysts” are so mesmerized by the false version of the economic world that they have no point of reference when suddenly confronted with singular facts. Some people call this catastrophic behavior a “positive feedback loop.” It is a mainstream echo chamber that has become a financial tomb.

Now that I have covered the lies within our economy that I can prove absolutely, it is time to move on to the lies that are more difficult to pin down. These lies often slip through our fingers because the hard data that could be used to expose them is simply not available to the general public. In fact, much of the data is not even available to government officials. I am, of course, talking about the hard data behind the activities of central banks across the globe — the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements and the Federal Reserve in particular. In this installment, we will explore the imminent destruction of our currency — by hook, by crook and by fiat.

In “The magic of establishment economics,” real U.S. liabilities were revealed to far exceed official stats given by the Treasury Department (upward of $200 trillion currently owed, not owed in some distant future where none of us will be alive to worry about it). The debt singularity most responsible for this problem has been created through entitlement programs, as well as a Social Security program that the government uses as its own personal slush fund, triggering a debt accumulation of more than $8 trillion per year.

How does our government (or any government with a central bank) continue to function monetarily if it is generating far more debt than it will ever be able to pay off in tax revenues? Well, our system does not “function.” It just refuses to fully die. And it does this through fiat money creation.

The quantitative easing programs, which allowed the Federal Reserve to conjure massive stores of fiat money out of thin air and purchase U.S. Treasury bonds (among other things), were a blatantly open admission by bureaucrats and central bankers alike that the government has not been capable of sustaining its own operations without fiat aid.

I’ll say it again: QE programs are in and of themselves hard evidence of government insolvency.

One might argue, though, that since the finalization of the taper and the end of QE3 and the bailout programs overall, our system must be amply flush with cash yet again. Why else would the taper have been instituted? I would argue and have argued in the past that the taper was instituted not in preparation for economic recovery, but in preparation for economic collapse. The bailouts have stopped because they no longer serve any purpose in propping up the false economy.

For instance, the inspector general for the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is now suggesting yet another bailout for socialist New Deal failures Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, after the Obama administration reserved the right to take all profits from the conservatorship beginning in 2012. Yes, all that money that Fannie and Freddie supposedly made and paid back didn’t make an ounce of difference, as the federal government now steals profits in order to pay off other debts. In the meantime, companies like Blackstone reap the benefits as they purchase and bid on hundreds of thousands of homes for pennies on the dollar, turn them into rentals and artificially support the illusion of a housing recovery in the United States. (I would also note that Blackstone has conveniently served as an “adviser” to the U.S. Treasury throughout the Fannie/Freddie bailouts.)

As referenced in “One last look at the real economy before it implodes,” stimulus measures have absolutely failed to inspire any semblance of recovery in consumer demand, and global demand for goods is imploding.

As referenced in “The steady derailment of the U.S. financial system,” real employment has not improved throughout the duration of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, quantitative easing and zero interest-rate policy. In fact, it only seems to have stalled unemployment at about 23 percent.

As referenced in “The magic of establishment economics,” stimulus actions have only served to create even more unmitigated debt while producing no tangible results other than a massive bubble in stock markets.

Poverty is at record levels. Welfare demand is at record levels. Average wages are falling, and prices on essential goods (except oil at this time) are rising. Global demand is visibly sliding into the same territory as in 2008. Housing markets have become a corporately boosted feudalistic farce. And unemployment continues at a depressing level; meanwhile, people aren’t even counted as unemployed anymore because they’ve been jobless for so long.

At this point, at the onset of spring 2015, I think it is safe to say that alternative economic analysts have been right all along in our assertions that central bank stimulus measures are completely useless. Though some of the slimier day traders like to argue that they “tripled their profits” during the stimulus period and our “doom and gloom” means nothing to them, in their naivety they would be missing the bigger picture. You don’t play the collapse. In the end, the collapse will play you.

Now, it would seem as though the Federal Reserve has failed in every aspect of its bailout quest. But what are the consequences of this debacle? It’s the displacement of U.S. economic standing. The U.S. is being made economically irrelevant.

China has surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest exporter/importer and has long been far superior to the U.S. in manufacturing capability, making China the most valuable economic partner in the world. According to the IMF, China is now superior to the U.S. and is the largest economy on the planet.

China has now launched its regional Asian Development Bank, a kind of Asian World Bank. And nearly 50 countries, including numerous European allies to the U.S., have rushed to sign on.

The talk is even growing within mainstream circles that China is about to decouple from the U.S. economy and, along with the BRICS nations, structure a new Asian-centric financial system that will “stick it” to the Western financial elites. This, however, is too simplistic a notion.

We are talking about the real economy in this series; and in the real economy, no nation with a central bank actually “breaks” from the New World Order. In fact, all conflicts between the East and West are only serving to further the cause of globalists and Fabian socialists.

China alone does not have the capacity to replace the U.S. as a primary driver for the global economy, nor does it have the capacity to replace the dollar as a world reserve currency. This is not China’s goal. It never has been China’s goal. China’s only purpose in its historic fiscal expansion has been to achieve inclusion in what the IMF calls the “global economic reset.” Part of this reset is the introduction of the IMF global currency basket system, or Special Drawing Rights (SDR), as a kind of centralized control mechanism for all currencies around the world. The IMF and China have continuously called for the SDR basket system to replace the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency.

Despite the hopes of some alternative writers that China will somehow break the chains of the central banking monopoly, every Chinese action since at least 2008 has been in preparation to become a full slave nation under the control of IMF policy. China has now officially submitted its currency (the Yuan) for inclusion as a reserve currency in the SDR basket.

The IMF conference on the SDR, which takes place every five years, is set to begin preliminaries in May and finish in October or November. It is widely expected that China’s currency will indeed be included in the SDR this year and that the U.S. will have little capacity to stop such a development. That’s because American veto power within the IMF is likely to be removed, due to a lack of approval on funding measures and policy changes put to Congress in 2010.

Avid enthusiasm for China’s new regional bank has put the U.S. on the defensive, as supposed allies are joining the chorus calling for China to join the SDR.

This would make the Yuan the first currency not fully convertible to join the SDR basket. Meaning, it is difficult to directly invest in Yuan compared to investing in dollars. But this is exactly what the IMF wants.

The Asian Times put it rather bluntly but honestly:

Currently, central banks can’t include yuan holdings in their foreign exchange reserves. However, via inclusion in the SDR basket, the currency will effectively enjoy a “back door” where convertibility is concerned. The upshot, according to Citibank, means increased yuan demand from central banks and further integration of the currency into global capital market flows.

Importantly, China has espoused an “internationalisation” of reserve currencies away from U.S. dollar hegemony and dependencies on local economic fluctuations on exchange rates and stability. The yuan inclusion in the basket would be a step towards a more multi-lateral currency world. While full convertibility may still be far away, China’s ability to have a global reserve currency may soon be upon us.

Yes, that’s right. The SDR is being pushed as a reserve alternative to the dollar, and the dollar is being marginalized. China’s inclusion in the SDR will help this process. And as China becomes a currency powerhouse in its role as the No. 1 economy in the world, the only way central banks around the planet can benefit or “invest” in the Yuan is by stockpiling SDRs. This is how a global currency cycle begins. The beneficiaries are the IMF and those elites who desperately want a totally centralized global economic system.

In the meantime, as the dollar loses its world reserve status, it loses the only pillar of support keeping its value somewhat stable. As the dollar falls, U.S. citizens will be reduced to Second World and Third World economic expectations. Employment and wages will continue to dissolve, while the margins between the “haves” and “have nots” will continue to grow. In the worst-case scenario, total chaos would result followed by international intervention to “save us” from ourselves. Our currency would likely be permanently pegged to the SDR basket, just as Argentina’s was pegged to our dollar after its collapse. And the IMF would own the U.S. rather than the U.S. owning the IMF, as is the common delusion.

As stated earlier, Federal Reserve stimulus actions “seem” to have failed miserably. Now our nation is facing a firestorm. But the Federal Reserve has not failed in its mission. The Fed’s purpose is not to defend the stability of the U.S. economy and the dollar; the Fed’s purpose is to destroy the stability of the U.S. economy and the dollar. Thus, the Fed has succeeded in its mission. And I believe a full audit of Fed policies and actions would prove this fact beyond a doubt.

I will continue to outline the endgame for globalization that is under way in the next installment of this series, including how central banks in foreign nations collude with each other and are managed by supranational entities like the IMF and the BIS. The implosion of America serves a very particular purpose. It is not a product of blind coincidence, fate, political stupidity or corporate greed. It is an engineered event meant to clear the way for an even more sinister economic environment designed to enslave us all.

–Brandon Smith

The magic of establishment economics

This is the third installment of a series. Read the first installment, “One last look at the real economy before it implodes,” and the second installment, The steady derailment of the U.S. financial system.”

In the previous installments of this series, we discussed the hidden and often unspoken crisis brewing within the employment market, as well as in personal debt. The primary consequence is a collapse in overall consumer demand, something which we are at this very moment witnessing in the macro-picture of the fiscal situation around the world. Lack of real production and lack of sustainable employment options result in a lack of savings, an over-dependency on debt and welfare, the destruction of grass-roots entrepreneurship, a conflated and disingenuous representation of gross domestic product, and ultimately an economic system devoid of structural integrity — a hollow shell of a system, vulnerable to even the slightest shocks.

This lack of structural integrity and stability is hidden from the general public quite deliberately by way of central bank fiat that enables government debt spending, which is counted toward GDP despite the fact that it is not true production (debt creation is a negation of true production and historically results in a degradation of the overall economy and monetary buying power rather than progress). Government debt spending also disguises the real state of poverty within a system through welfare and entitlements. The U.S. poverty level is at record highs, beating previous records set 50 years ago during Lyndon Johnson’s administration. The record-breaking rise in poverty has also occurred despite 50 years of the so called “war on poverty,” a shift toward American socialism that was a continuation of the policies launched by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.

The shift toward a welfare state is the exact reason why, despite record poverty and a 23 percent true unemployment rate (as discussed here), we do not see the kind of soup lines and rampant indigence witnessed during the Great Depression. Today, EBT cards and other welfare programs hide modern soup lines in plain sight. It should be noted that the record 20 percent of U.S. households now on food stamps are still contributing to GDP. That’s because government statistics make no distinction between normal grocery consumption and consumption created artificially through debt-generated welfare.

In this third installment of our economic series, we will examine the issue of government debt, including how true debt is disguised from the public and how this debt is a warning of a coming implosion in our overall structure.

First, it is important to debunk the mainstream lies surrounding what constitutes national debt.

“Official” national debt as of 2015 is currently reported at more than $18 trillion. That means that under Barack Obama and with the aid of the Federal Reserve, U.S. debt has nearly doubled since 2008 — quite an accomplishment in only seven years’ time. But this is not the whole picture.

Official GDP numbers published for mainstream consumption do not include annual liabilities generated by programs such as Social Security and Medicare. These liabilities are veiled through the efforts of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which reports on what it calls “debts” but not on the true fiscal gap. Through the efforts of economists like Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University, Alan J. Auerbach and Jagadeesh Gokhale, understanding of the fiscal gap (the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts) is slowly growing within more mainstream circles.

The debt created through the fiscal gap increases, for example, through the Social Security program, since government taxes the population for Social Security but uses that tax money to fund other programs or pay off other outstanding debts. In other words, the government collects taxes with the promise of paying them back in the future through Social Security, but it spends that money instead of saving it for the use it was supposedly intended.

The costs of such unfunded liabilities within programs like Social Security and Medicare accumulate as the government continues to kick the can down the road instead of changing policy to cover costs. This accumulation is reflected in the Alternative Financial Scenario analysis, which the CBO used to publish every year but for some reason stopped publishing in 2013. Here is a presentation on the AFS by the St. Louis branch of the Federal Reserve. Take note that the crowd laughs at the prospect of the government continuing to “can kick” economic policy changes in order to avoid handling current debt obligations, yet that is exactly what has happened over the past several years.

Using the AFS report, Kotlikoff and other more honest economists estimate real U.S. national debt to stand at about $205 trillion.

When the exposure of these numbers began to take hold in the mainstream, media pundits and establishment propagandists set in motion a campaign to spin public perception, claiming that the vast majority of this debt was actually “projected debt” to be paid over the course of 70 years or more and, thus, not important in terms of today’s debt concerns. While some estimates of national debt include future projections of unfunded liabilities in certain sectors this far ahead, the fundamental argument is in fact a disingenuous redirection of the facts.

According to the calculations of economists like Chris Cox and Bill Archer, unfunded liabilities are adding about $8 trillion in total debt annually. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion of this amount. That is $8 trillion dollars per year not accounted for in official national debt stats.

Kotlikoff’s analysis shows that this annual hidden debt accumulation has resulted in a current total of $205 trillion. This amount is not the unfunded liabilities added up in all future years. This is the present value of the unfunded liabilities, discounted to today.

How is the U.S. currently covering such massive obligations on top of the already counted existing budget costs? It’s not.

Taxes collected yearly in the range of $3.7 trillion are nowhere near enough to cover the amount, and no amount of future taxes would make a dent either. This is why the Grace Commission, established during the Ronald Reagan presidency, found that not a single penny of your taxes collected by the Internal Revenue Service is going toward the funding of actual government programs. In fact, all new taxes are being used to pay off the ever increasing interest on annual debts.

More than 102 million people are unemployed within the U.S. today. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Current Population Survey (CPS), 148 million are employed. And about 20 percent of them are considered part-time workers (about 30 million people). Only 43 percent of all U.S. households are considered “middle class,” the section of the public where most taxes are derived. In the best-case scenario, we have about 120 million people paying a majority of taxes toward U.S. debt obligations, while nearly as many are adding to those debt obligations through welfare programs or have the potential to add to those obligations in the near future if they do not find work due to the high and underreported unemployment rate.

Another dishonest argument given to discount concerns of national debt is the lie that Domestic Net Worth in the U.S. far outweighs our debts owed, and this somehow negates the issue. Domestic Net Worth is calculated using Gross Domestic Assets, public and private. Of course, just as with GDP, debt is counted as an asset. Debt Capital is the “capital” businesses and governments raise by taking out loans. This capital (debt) is then counted as an asset toward Domestic Net Worth.

Yes, that’s right, private and national debts are “assets.” And mainstream economists argue that these debts (errr… assets) offset our existing debts. This is the unicorn, Neverland, Care Bears magic of establishment economics, folks. It’s truly a magnificent thing to behold.

Ironically, debt capital, like the official national debt, does not include unfunded liabilities. If it did, mainstream talking heads could claim an even vaster array of “assets” (debts) that offset our liabilities.

This situation is clearly unsustainable. The only people who seem to argue that it is sustainable are disinformation agents with something to gain (government favors and pay) and government cronies with something to lose (public trust and their positions of petty authority).

With overall Treasury investments static for some foreign central banks and dwindling in others, the only other options are to print or default. For decades, the Federal Reserve has been printing in order to keep the game afloat, and the American public has little to no idea how much fiat and debt the private institution has conjured in the process. Certainly, the amount of debt we see just in annual unfunded liabilities helps to explain why the dollar has lost 97 percent of its purchasing power since the Fed was established. Covering that much debt in the short term requires a constant flow of fiat, digital and paper.

The small glimpse into Fed operations we received during the limited TARP audit was enough to warrant serious concern, as a full audit would likely result in the exposure of total debt fraud, the immediate abandonment of U.S. Treasury investment and the destruction of the dollar. Of course, all of that will eventually happen anyway.

I will discuss why this will take place sooner rather than later through the issues of Treasuries and the dollar in the fourth installment of this series. In the fifth installment, I will examine the many reasons why a deliberate program of destructive debt bubbles and currency devaluations actually benefits certain international financiers and elites with aspirations of complete globalization. And in the sixth and last installment, I will delve into practical solutions — and practical solutions only. In the meantime, I would like everyone to consider this: No society or culture has ever successfully survived by disengaging itself from its own financial responsibilities and dumping them on future generations without falling from historical grace. Not one. Does anyone with any sense really believe that the U.S. is somehow immune to this reality?

–Brandon Smith

The steady derailment of the U.S. financial system

This is the second installment of a series. Read the first installment, “One last look at the real economy before it implodes.”

Consumer spending in the U.S. accounts for approximately 70 percent of gross domestic product, though it is important to note that the manner in which “official” GDP is calculated is highly inaccurate. For example, all government money used within the Medicare coverage system to pay for “consumer health demands,” as well as the now flailing Obamacare socialized welfare program, are counted toward GDP, despite the fact that such capital is created from thin air by the Federal Reserve and also generates debt for the average taxpayer. Government debt creation does not beget successful domestic production. If that were the case, then all socialist and communist countries (same thing) would be wildly enriched today. This is simply not the case.

That said, the swift decline in manufacturing jobs in the U.S. over the past two decades, including a considerable 33 percent overall decline in manufacturing jobs from 2001 to 2010, leaves only the consumer and service sectors as the primary areas of employment and “production.” The service sector provides about three out of every four jobs available in America, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The reality is that America actually produces very little that is tangible beyond Big Macs, pharmaceuticals and the occasional overpriced fighter jet that doesn’t function correctly and is filled with Chinese parts. All three will kill you at varying degrees of speed.

In the first part of this article series, I discussed the true state of global demand, along with the unstable situation within numerous indicators from exports to retail. Swiftly falling global demand for raw materials as well as consumer goods is an undeniable reality. This is a distinct problem in terms of the U.S., which has been, up until recently, the primary consumption driver for much of the world. As I plan to show, U.S. demand is about to fall even further into the abyss as real unemployment and personal debt take their toll.

Now, it is probably important to address the lies presented in the mainstream and by the BLS in terms of unemployment statistics because even after years of alternative analysts debunking establishment stats and how they are calculated, we still end up hearing the same arguments parroted by disinformation agents and unwitting useful idiots.

Such people continue to parade around boasting about the latest BLS reports on job creation claiming that “all is well” because the unemployment rate has dropped to 5.5 percent and all other talk to the contrary is “doom and gloom.” So, once again, I must relate the fact that the current BLS numbers are an utter sham.

Official unemployment stats are arrived at through disingenuous methods of calculation that were introduced in the 1990s, just before the bursting of the dot com bubble; the introduction of artificially low interest rates, which created the derivatives crisis; and the steady derailment of the U.S. financial system, which has occurred ever since.

So who is actually counted as employed and who is not counted as employed by the BLS?

Out of all working-age Americans, 92 million are without jobs and are not counted by the BLS as unemployed. Of the 102 million working-age Americans without work today, only 8.7 million are counted by the BLS as unemployed. Why?

Well, if you ever read establishment-leaning propaganda websites like Factcheck or Poltifact, the argument is essentially that these 92 million Americans are not counted because they “refuse to participate,” not because they can’t find adequate employment and not because the government is misrepresenting the numbers. Yes, that’s right, 92 million Americans don’t count because they clearly must not want work.

So, first, I would ask how it is that the BLS comes to the conclusion that nearly one-third of the U.S. population does not want to work? Is it through its so called “household surveys?” Surveys, just like public polls, can be easily manipulated to affirm any particular bias merely by changing how questions are phrased. I would certainly love to see the raw data from such polls before the BLS adds its own spin.

Second, even if such claims were true and tens of millions of Americans did not want to work, why would this matter? Shouldn’t they still be counted as unemployed in order to draw the most accurate picture of our economic situation? Wouldn’t 92 million Americans apparently on a long-term labor and productivity strike have a severe negative effect on real GDP? And obviously they must be surviving somehow. Wouldn’t 92 million people eventually require government assistance through food stamps and welfare? Does none of this matter to the BLS in terms of the overall economic picture?

Third, if the assertion is that 92 million people do not want jobs, then by extension the BLS would have to show that those millions of people could in fact get a job if they simply tried. Where are these tens of millions of jobs that Americans are refusing to apply for and what do they pay?

Fourth, a common misrepresentation attached to the claim of “refusal to participate” is that many of these Americans are teens in school (16 to 18) and “retirees” (55 or older). The BLS and the mainstream media simply assumes these people do not want a job and should not be counted as unemployed. Of course, the BLS includes such people in its stats when they do have jobs. So, according to the BLS, if you are 16 or 55 or 65 and you have a job, then you count. If you are 16 or 55 or 65 and don’t have a job, then you don’t count. See how that works?

Fifth, millions of Americans are losing long-term unemployment benefits every quarter and are being removed from BLS statistics. Many of them are not teens or retirees. These are average-working-age adults who now no longer have any real launch pad to progress in their career or life, and who should be fully motivated to obtain work if jobs are so readily available. Again, where are these jobs that said prime-working-age people refuse to accept?

The BLS also invariably discounts the number of working-age Americans who enter the market as well when boasting of jobs created to the public. Job growth numbers do not weigh the number of new participants each month with the number of supposed jobs made available, thus creating a misconception about how many new jobs are actually needed to keep the economy functional.

Another important factor to observe in government labor statistics is the issue of part-time work. When the BLS releases its monthly stats on unemployment, it does not widely promote or discuss the fact that 18 percent to 20 percent of those labeled “employed” are considered “part-time employed.” The BLS defines “part-time employed” as anyone who works one to 34 hours per week. Yes, if you work one hour per week, you have helped to bring down the overall unemployment rate of the U.S. to a fantastic 5.5 percent, even though you likely have zero ability to support yourself financially, let alone a family.

What does the 5.5 percent unemployment number actually represent on a fundamental level where the real world actually matters rather than the world of hypothetical calculations? Not a damn thing. The number is absolutely and unequivocally meaningless.

If one were to calculate unemployment using pre-1990s methods, as websites like Shadowstats.com does, counting U-6 measurements as well as the underemployed, you would come up with a U.S. jobless percentage closer to 23 percent.

Many of those workers in the service sector on the higher end of the part-time and full-time spectrum still cannot support themselves adequately due to falling wages, rising prices and growing debt obligations, which brings me to the next problem at hand.

Beyond unemployment as a destroyer of consumer demand, there is also personal debt. Much of the focus within the mainstream and even alternative economics revolves around national debt (I will cover the many lies surrounding national debt in my next article). However, effects on fundamental demand are far clearer when one examines household liabilities. According to averages supplied through government stats (meaning the real numbers are likely far worse), the average American household suffers from between $10,000 to $15,000 in credit card debt, $155,000 in mortgage debt and $32,000 in student loan debt.

Americans owed nearly $12 trillion overall in 2014, an increase of 3.3 percent over 2013. Declines in some debts, including a decline in credit card debts since 2011, is attributed to numerous defaults rather than repayments.

What we have here is a deadly fiscal combination; namely the combination of real unemployment at permanently high levels and real personal debt at unsustainable levels. This is the core reason behind the collapse in global demand that was discussed in the first installation of this series. With U.S. consumers no longer able to support their historical consumption habits and with the inflexible skeleton of the U.S. economy in particular dependent on past consumer dynamics, the system has little financial plasma left circulating.

This is not necessarily a new trend; but 10 years ago, Americans were able to offset their dwindling buying power by taking on massive debts through easy Federal Reserve fiat fueling questionable bank loans. They no longer have this option; thus, consumption is going to degrade (and is degrading) to the point that the current financial structure, stuck in its rigid and fragile dynamic, will collapse. There is no way around it.

As stated in my last article, the numbers given here are in most cases establishment-generated statistics. A common argument among state apologists and propagandists is that we in the alternative economic field should be labeled “hypocritical” if we debunk some mainstream stats while using others as reference points. I would make clear yet again that it is the contradictions within the government’s own numbers and claims that alternative analysts are concerned with. My view is that when mainstream numbers actually reflect negative economic trends, they should be multiplied according to other prominent factors. That is to say, when the government bureaucrats and fantasy masters finally admit things are bad, they are actually much worse than indicated.

Some mainstream statistics are outright fraudulent; some are half true; others are factual yet hidden in plain site from the general public. In between the lines of all of this information, good and bad, alternative economists attempt to discern as much foundational truth as possible. As this series continues, I believe readers new to the liberty movement, as well as longtime activists, will come to view a wider and fuller picture of our fiscal situation and come to the same conclusion I have: that the manner in which we live today is about to drastically change, and that this coming change is being hidden from us deliberately by those who wish to use a tactic of financial shock and awe to their ultimate advantage.

–Brandon Smith

One last look at the real economy before it implodes

This is the first in a series.

We are only two months into 2015, and it has already proven to be the most volatile year for the economic environment since 2008-2009. We have seen oil markets collapsing by about 50 percent in the span of a few months (just as the Federal Reserve announced the end of QE3, indicating fiat money was used to hide falling demand), the Baltic Dry Index losing 30 percent since the beginning of the year, the Swiss currency surprise, the Greeks threatening EU exit (and now Greek citizens threatening violent protests with the new four-month can-kicking deal), and the effects of the nine-month-long West Coast port strike not yet quantified. This is not just a fleeting expression of a negative first quarter; it is a sign of things to come.

Stock markets are, of course, once again at all-time highs after a shaky start, despite nearly every single fundamental indicator flashing red. But as Zero Hedge recently pointed out in its article on artificial juicing of equities by corporations using massive stock buybacks, this is not going to last much longer, simply because the debt companies are generating is outpacing their ability to prop up the markets.

This conundrum is also visible in central bank stimulus measures. As I have related in past articles, the ability of central banks to goose the global financial system is faltering, as bailouts and low-interest-rate capital infusions now have little to no effect on overall economic performance. The fiat fuel is no longer enough; and when this becomes apparent in the mainstream, all hell will indeed break loose.

The argument that banks can prop up the system forever is now being debunked. In this series of articles, I will cover the core reasons why this is happening, starting with the basis of all economics: supply and demand.

The Baltic Dry Index has been a steadfast indicator of the real economy for many years. While most other indexes and measures of fiscal health are subject to direct or indirect manipulation, the BDI has no money flowing through it and, thus, offers a more honest reflection of the world around us. In the past two months, the index measuring shipping rates and international demand for raw goods has hit all-time historical lows, plummeting 57 percent over the course of the past 12 months and 30 percent for the year to date.

The dwindling lack of demand for shipping presents obvious challenges to mainstream talking heads who contend that the overall economic picture indicates recovery. That’s because if demand for raw goods has fallen so far as to produce a 57 percent rate drop over the past year, then surely demand for the consumer goods that those raw goods are used to produce must be collapsing as well. The establishment machine has used the same broken-record argument against this conclusion, despite being proven wrong over and over again: the lie that fleet size is the cause of falling shipping rates, rather than a lack of demand for ships. This is the same argument used by pundits to distract from the problems inherent in the severe drop in oil prices: that oversupply is the issue, and that demand is as good as it ever was. Forbes has even attempted to outright dismiss the 29-year low of the BDI and alternative economic analysts in the same lazily written article.

First, let’s address the issue of global demand for goods. Does the BDI represent this accurately? Well, as most of you know, the real picture on manufacturing and export numbers is nearly impossible to come by considering most, if not all indexes fail to account for monetary devaluation and inflation in costs of production. For instance, mainstream propagandists love to argue that manufacturing (like retail) generally posts at least small to modest gains every year. What they fail to mention or take into account is the added costs to the bottom line of said manufacturers and retailers, as well as the added costs to the end consumer. Such costs are often not addressed in the slightest when final numbers are tallied for the public.

In manufacturing, some numbers are outright falsified, as in the case of China, where officials are forcing plant managers to lie about output. 

In my view, any decline made visible in the false numbers of the mainstream should be multiplied by a wide margin in order to approximate what is going on in the real economy. China, the largest exporter and importer in the world, continues to suffer declines in manufacturing “expansion” as it’s PMI suggests orders remain steadily stagnant.

“Official” statistics show a 3.3 percent decline in Chinese exports in January from a year earlier, while imports slumped 19.9 percent. Exports slid 12 percent on a monthly basis while imports fell 21 percent according to the Customs Administration.

In Japan, despite the falling Yen which was expected to boost overseas demand, export growth declined for last year, certainly in terms of export volume. The recent “jump” in January does nothing to offset the steady erosion of Japanese exports over the past five years and the flat demand over the past two years.

Japan’s manufacturing expansion has slowed to the slowest pace in seven months.

In Germany, the EU’s strongest economic center, industrial output has declined to the lowest levels since 2009, and factory orders have also plunged to levels not seen since 2009.

Despite the assumptions in the mainstream media that lower oil prices would result in high retails sales, this fantasy refuses to materialize. Retail sales continue the dismal trend set during the Christmas season of 2014,with the largest decline in 11 months in December, and continued declines in January. 

Oil is certainly the most in-our-face undeniable indicator of imploding demand. Volatility has skyrocketed while pump prices have dropped by half in many places. One may be tempted to only see the immediate benefits of this deflation. But they would be overlooking the bigger picture of global demand. Oil is the primary driver of economic productivity. Dwindling demand for oil means dwindling productivity which means dwindling consumption which means a dwindling economy. Period.

OPEC reports announce downgraded global demand for oil above and beyond expectations. Oil demand has fallen to levels not seen since 2002.

Finally, global shipping giant Maersk Line now openly admits that the primary detriment to shipping rates, the reason the BDI is falling to historic lows, is because of falling demand in nearly every market; ship supply is secondary. 

A rather cynical person might point out that all of these stats come from the propaganda engine that is the mainstream, so why should they count? I would suggest such people consider the fact that the propaganda engine is constantly contradicting itself, and in-between the lines, we can find a certain amount of truth.

If manufacturing is in “expansion”, even minor expansion, then why are exports around the world in decline? If the Baltic Dry Index is dropping off the map because of a “supply glut of ships”, then why are other demand indicators across the board also falling, and why are major shipping agencies talking about lack of demand? You see, this is what alternative analysts mean by the “real economy”; we are talking about the disconnect within the mainstream’s own data, and we are attempting to discern what parts actually present a logical picture. The media would prefer that you look at the economy through a keyhole rather than through a pair of binoculars.

Beyond this lay the true beneficiaries; international corporate moguls, banking financiers, and political despots. Corporations and governments only do two things relatively well — lying and stealing. One always enables the other.

The establishment has done everything in its power to hide the most foundational of economic realities, namely the reality of dying demand. Why? Because the longer they can hide true demand, the more time they have to steal what little independent wealth remains within the system while positioning the populace for the next great con (the con of total globalization and centralization). I will cover the many advantages of an economic collapse for elites at the end of this series.

For now I will only say that the program of manipulation we have seen since 2008 is clearly changing. The fact of catastrophic demand loss is becoming apparent. Such a loss only ever precedes a wider fiscal event. The BDI does not implode without a larger malfunction under the surface of the financial system. Oil and exports and manufacturing do not crumble without the weight of a greater disaster bearing down. These things do not take place in a vacuum. They are the irradiated flash preceding the deadly fallout of a financial atom bomb.

-Brandon Smith

A moral code for the post-collapse world

Popular media today, including television and cinema, are rife with examples of what is often referred to as moral relativism — the use of false and fictional moral dilemmas designed to promote the rationalization of an “ends justify the means” narrative. We are also bombarded lately with entertainment depicting an endless array of “anti-heroes,” protagonists who have little to no moral code fighting antagonists who are even more evil, thus vindicating the otherwise disgusting actions of the heroes. From “24” to “Breaking Bad” to “The Walking Dead,” American minds are being saturated with propaganda selling the idea that crisis situations require a survivor to abandon conscience. In other words, in order to defeat monsters, you must become a monster.

This theme is not only unavoidable in film and TV, but also in military journals, politics, and even within liberty movement discussion.

What I see developing is an extremely dangerous philosophy that rests on the foundation that victory (or survival) is the paramount virtue and that it should be attained at any cost. Moral compass becomes a “luxury” that “true” apex survivors cannot afford, an obstacle that could eventually get one killed. I have heard some survivalists and liberty proponents in anger over the trespasses of the corrupt establishment suggest a strict adherence to the eye-for-an-eye ideology, up to and including torture, harming of the enemy’s families, and even harming the children of those who would harm us.

There is also a small but ingrained subculture within spheres of survivalism that embraces the strategy of the “prepper pirate,” essentially planning their subsistence around the idea of taking what they need from others as a form of evolutionary realism. They believe that the “survival of the fittest” is more important than the survival of the principled.

In mainstream yuppie culture, this attitude would be labeled insane. Yet urban and suburban television addicts often cheer the concept of the ends justifying the means in their favorite prime time shows and consistently argue for morality stretching policies within government (as long as their “team” is in control of the football in Washington, D.C.). I have little doubt they would adopt such thinking in the event that disaster does strike and they find themselves unprepared amid desperate conditions.

In “Understanding the fear of self-defense and revolution,” I discussed the inevitability of self-defense against criminal oligarchy and why common methods of pacifist activism are dangerously inadequate in the face of psychopathic tyranny. When self-defense or revolution is initiated, though, the movement does not necessarily fight only for its own benefit; nor does it fight simply to eliminate the threat. Our survival as individuals is not the primary concern; the survival of the principles and truths that drive us to fight is the ultimate goal. If there is such a thing as the “greater good,” truth and honor must be the apex of that vision.

If we cast aside our principles in the name of victory, then, ironically, we have still lost everything. Our war is fought on multiple levels, from the physical to the spiritual. Lose the spiritual war, lose sight of one’s conscience, and the physical war becomes meaningless.

I believe the formation of a liberty movement code, a kind of warrior’s code, is absolutely vital to our future. Without a new kind of oath, an oath not only to the Constitution but to our own internal values, the temptation to use our darker natures against the enemy during greater trials of the soul may be too much to bear. While conscience is an inborn gift, it sometimes requires a more outward affirmation in order to remain strong. Here are some elements I believe should make up the foundation of our code.

Defense of the innocent

We will do everything within our power whenever possible to ensure the safety of those people around us caught in the currents of collapse. Some might claim that the unprepared are not “innocent” because their lack of vigilance contributes to the decay of our society. I would say that while the ignorant are a danger to us and themselves, we would also be contributing to the decay of our society by refusing to help others when we have the ability to do so. Someone somewhere has to end the cycle. And if that requires us to sacrifice some of our energy and the satisfaction of saying “we told you so,” then this is what we must do.

I would also point out that the defense of the innocent does not begin when our economic and social structures end. We help them now, by offering them the knowledge to prepare and organize for mutual aid. We go to our town centers, to local churches, to our lecture halls; and we openly educate those who are willing to listen — not to preach politics or to indoctrinate, but to offer practical knowledge. We give them useful tools through neighborhood watch programs and Community Preparedness Teams. We teach them today how to defend themselves, their families and their property and how to invest in survival, so that tomorrow they will not feel compelled to become part of the problem, but part of the solution.

If we let our distaste for the unaware lead us into an attitude of “us versus them” against our own neighbors, then we will miss every chance to strengthen our communities. Our purpose is to bring others up, not to stand in pious judgment as they fall down.

We prepare to offer aid, even to those we think might not deserve it

Many survivalists and preppers may scoff at this idea, but they would not be looking at the bigger picture. Offering aid to your community serves not only to help them, but to help you in the long run. Look at it this way. When FEMA arrives in a disaster-struck city or county, its “authority” means little to the shell-shocked citizenry. What does matter to them is that FEMA brings food, water and sometimes shelter. FEMA does this in its own sweet time and often allows numerous people to die before the aid is given, but it still maintains its authority over a region simply because there is no other alternative.

You must offer that alternative.

Imagine what would have happened if during the nightmare of Hurricane Katrina, while FEMA was lounging around watching the carnage and even denying access to private institutions offering supplies, New Orleans residents were greeted with liberty movement teams defying government mandate? What if liberty advocates from across Louisiana and the nation marched right over the top of FEMA, escorted those trapped in the Superdome to a safe place, and gave them food and water? The movement raised millions of dollars for Ron Paul’s campaign (twice!), why couldn’t we do the same to save lives?

Imagine if we were to prove that FEMA is unnecessary and frivolous organization ready for the dustbin? Imagine if we were to prove that communities can provide their own security and aid without the state, as Oath Keepers did in Ferguson, Missouri?

Even at a local level, this methodology could mean the difference between freedom and tyranny. Stockpiles of grain bought directly from independent farms can be had for very little money and strategically placed for use in future calamities. Affordable water filtration could prevent disease and dehydration for thousands. A team of engineers could solve waste and grid-down dilemmas. A team of well-trained security personnel could prevent looting, rape and murder. Imagine if the catastrophe the elites wish to engineer was mitigated or thwarted by the very people the disaster was meant to target? Imagine how much satisfaction that would give you.

Our actions are inspired by conscience, not rage

To fight in self-defense is entirely moral, but there are lines that, if crossed, destroy our moral high ground. Without the moral high ground, we become no better than the elites we seek to remove from our lives. This means that we do not harm people unless they are attempting to harm us. We punish criminals, not their families and not their children. We do not torture, not only because it is a useless tactic with little concrete proof of effectiveness, but because it is a morally reprehensible psychopathic act designed to fulfill a sick desire for sadistic power. It is not who we are.

When we fight, we fight in the knowledge that we have first and foremost protected our moral foundation. We see those who promote moral ambiguity and moral relativism as an element destructive to the purpose of liberty. Winning means nothing and survival means nothing, unless we endeavor to deserve life.

We do not run unless we plan to return

In an asymmetric revolution, there is rarely such a thing as a “front line” or a piece of ground that must be defended at all costs. That said, successful asymmetric warfare requires that the enemy pay an overwhelming price for every attack he initiates. This means that said revolt must always be aggressive, never relenting, always striking and resting or retreating only to stage a more effective counter. Every time a totalitarian system advances without consequence, it generates political, social, psychological and tactical momentum. Without the courage to engage such advances, revolt is impossible. Fear leads to moral rationalizations. The fearful cannot adequately defend themselves, let alone defend others; and, once again, the moral high ground is lost.

Zero tolerance for piracy and criminality within

Prepper pirates and others on the very fringes of the survival movement who seek to thrive at the expense of others are not only criminal according to natural law, but they are also a blight on the reputation of the liberty movement itself. Our principles will require us to stamp out such people as a priority. Those who would viciously impose upon the innocent as a preplanned strategy are not redeemable. Even if they claim to hate the same elites we fight against, the enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend. Prepper pirates are rabid dogs who should be put down.

We are professionals, and guardians never satisfied with half measures

We carry ourselves as quiet professionals. We strive to represent the best potential of what the liberty movement has to offer. There is no problem we cannot solve and no opponent too large. We do not know the meaning of the word “impossible.” We operate best under pressure and during disaster. We move to disrupt crisis before it begins when possible, and we refuse to stand back as spectators when crisis does develop. We work diligently to master all knowledge and training that could be used to achieve our goal, which is a free, prosperous and independent citizenry. We do not seek leadership over others; we only wish to teach others how to lead themselves. We will not stop until this goal is accomplished or until we are no longer breathing. We are not mutable or flexible where tyranny is concerned. We are entirely uncompromising. We are stubborn bastards, here to drive oligarchs even crazier than they already are. We are here to undo them and their treacherous world. And in this mission, we find ultimate comfort and peace.

–Brandon Smith

Understanding the fear of self-defense and revolution

Our era is a strange one when considering how social attitudes have developed in such a contrary fashion to the rest of history. I think that our forefathers would look upon our current culture with bewilderment when confronted with the fact that our generation has all but abandoned the option of physical rebellion as a tool for social change. Even among the most enslaved of nations and peoples, the idea of revolution has been held in regard as an entirely moral and principled affair involving every individual, no matter their age or economic station. Today, however, that which we call “revolution” has been delegated mostly to college-age intellectuals and has been so watered down and whitewashed with politically correct restrictions that the concept is hardly recognizable.

I believe the civil rights movements in America and in India in the 20th century have in many ways warped the public view of how opposition to totalitarianism is actually accomplished. I find it interesting that movements led by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. enjoy so much adoration in mainstream media and in public schooling, while the American Revolution is often either misrepresented or not discussed at all. Gandhi’s movement was, in concrete terms, a failure until Indians had actually began organizing to physically fight the British, causing the Crown to attempt to defuse the movement by suddenly offering up a reformation of Indian governance (one that would continue to benefit them). When one examines the facts surrounding Cointelpro operations by the FBI and CIA during the civil rights movement in America, one realizes that half the efforts and actions were legitimate and the other half entirely manipulated.

Over the course of half a century, the philosophy of “anti-violence” has come to include a distinct distaste for self-defense. Self-defense is now consistently equated to “violence” (and is, thus, immoral), regardless of environmental circumstances.

Even in the liberty movement, there are people who disregard physical defense as either barbaric or “futile” and have adopted rather less-effective pacifist ideologies of more socialist activism. The problem with certain factions of libertarianism is that they tend to live within their own heads, reveling in a world of Ayn Randian and Rothbardian political and social theory, while abandoning the other side of concrete resistance. Some in the survival community call these people “egghead libertarians,” and I think the label fits.

They rejoice only in the intellectual; thus, they tend to see themselves only as “intellectual warriors.” For them, the war against tyranny by extension must be fought on an intellectual battlefield. Otherwise, as individuals, they have little to offer the resistance. They believe that if they merely present a better and more logical philosophy, they will win over the masses to their side or even change the souls of the rather soulless psychopaths creating tyranny in the first place. Like magic, they will have won the fight without ever truly fighting. It sounds like a strategy right out of the “Art Of War,” but really it is an intricate excuse designed to avoid risk.

They have almost no experience with and, therefore, no respect for the concept of self-defense and revolution. And they have no capacity to fathom what such an endeavor would entail. This unknown scenario inspires fear in them — a fear of struggle, a fear of failure and a fear of death.

While taking action from a position of love for one’s fellow man is indeed noble, it is sometimes not enough in the face of pure evil — the kind of evil inherent in the ranks of elitism and the globalist ideology. It is important to keep at least one foot on the ground when building a movement of dissent and realize that while maintaining the moral high ground is paramount, there are limitations to what peaceful resistance can accomplish, depending on the opponent. If you are not prepared to use both peaceful means and physical defense if necessary, your movement will ultimately fail against an enemy without conscience.

Never before in history have humans been so dismissive of the self-defense concept, and I attribute this to clever conditioning and to an ingrained and powerful fear. Here are some of the most commonly heard arguments against physical revolution and why they are either ill-conceived or outright disingenuous.

Revolution is morally wrong?

I find the attitude of moral superiority of the nonviolence crowd rather disconcerting at times and, in many ways, dishonest. It is very common to run into nonviolence proponents who are not satisfied with their own personal choice of pacifism alone. In many cases, they will attack or undermine other parts of the movement preparing for self-defense on the basis that even mere preparation is somehow akin to physical aggression. These people are never satisfied until everyone in the movement meets their “high standards” of activist purity.

In the end, I think their position is less about a regard for peace than it is about a regard for their own egos. People in general tend to support the formation of taboos (as opposed to honest principles) in order to gain what they see as the moral upper hand over others. They invent a condition of arbitrary piety around themselves in an act of self-elevation that does not constitute true morality.

Anyone who makes self-defense a taboo is not only living in a fantasy land outside the inherent structures of natural law, he is also likely doing so because he enjoys the sense of social superiority such a position affords. In this way many of the more irrational nonviolence activists are, in fact, no better that the raving acolytes of the cult of political correctness.

Physical self-defense against tyranny is not only necessary, but entirely honorable. When the violence of an individual is thwarted by defense, when a potential thief robs the wrong house, when a rape is prevented by an armed and prepared woman or when a potential murderer is shot dead by a citizen who refused to be a victim, our society cheers. But when someone suggests that the same measures be taken against a violent and corrupt government, people suddenly claim moral hazard.

There is no difference between the act of defending oneself against a common criminal and defending oneself against a criminal government. I would venture to say that self-defense is a moral imperative more vital to the survival of peace and freedom than any other.

Revolution is futile and the enemy is too strong?

When anti-defense initiates cannot effectively argue against the moral principles of physical revolution, they invariably change tactics, asserting instead that revolution is a useless endeavor that will end only in tragedy for the participants. I see this argument as a product of brainless nihilism rather than rationalism, and such a defeatist mindset invariably stems from cowardice rather than logic.

Nihilism is a powerful psychological force that destroys all hope and all positive pursuits. It is essentially the act of denying success before an endeavor is ever undertaken. Nihilists ensure their own failure because for them every scenario is a no-win scenario.

To them, I might seem like a blind optimist, while they see themselves as realists. In truth, pro-self-defense advocates are far more realistic. There is certainly a fundamental difference in the manner in which we look at the world. When I and those “optimists” like me see a problem, we look for a solution regardless of the scale of the threat; and if we cannot immediately find an obvious solution right away, we keep working until we do. There is no such thing as a no-win scenario for us. There is always a way to overcome an obstacle. The odds of success are not relevant where revolution against oligarchy is concerned.

I would also point out the reality that, at bottom, it does not matter what the odds are in a revolution for freedom. When all is said and done, you will probably be confronted with two choices in the face of tyranny: fight and possibly die; or surrender, become a slave and probably still die. Those who argue against self-defense are in most cases trying to avoid the inevitability of this choice by creating non-options and non-solutions out of thin air. This is the opposite of realism.

Physical revolution requires a methodology of adaptivity and courage. Fear has no place in the mind of a freedom fighter, and nihilism is just as foreign to him. The goal of liberty will be accomplished. Totalitarians will be defeated. The size of the movement is not a factor. We expect that we will be in the minority. There is no other outcome but victory because we will allow no other outcome. Period. If we are proven wrong, then we are proven wrong; but it will not be due to a lack of trying.

In our age, arguments of the technological superiority of the enemy are often brandished as clear evidence of the uselessness of physical resistance. I think one could also make the argument that technological superiority in media manipulation and other fields could make nonviolent resistance useless as well. I’m not really sure why nihilists cling to the notion that technology matters at all, except that it perhaps offers an easy and lazy avenue of debate. The enemy has predator drones; therefore, revolution is futile.

In conjunction with Oath Keepers, I will soon be producing a video that will show the liberty movement how to build their own working thermal-evasion suits. Perhaps this will quell the incessant proclamations that drones and tanks and Apache helicopters mean anything at all in the face of asymmetric warfare. If the enemy can’t see you, they can’t kill you; and for every high-tech enemy, there is a low tech solution. Of course, I doubt this will mean anything to the nihilists, who don’t have the will to fight for anything except their belief that fighting back is useless.

Revolutions are always co-opted?

I have heard it argued by multiple sources within the liberty movement over the years that revolution is a poor option in defeating tyranny because of the cyclical nature of political and social change. They claim that all we have to do is look back at history to see that even when a revolution is successful in removing oligarchy, the resulting republic is invariably co-opted years or decades down the road. I agree, to a point.

The problem is not that the concept of revolution is ineffective. What these skeptics of physical rebellion tend to overlook or deliberately ignore is that no revolution in the history of man has ever gone far enough. Each revolution has targeted the corrupt government of their day, but no revolution has ever actually removed the elitist cabal behind those regimes — the same cabal of elites that has bankrolled nearly every tyranny over the past several centuries.

This is due in part to the fact that knowledge of who these elites are was not widespread. Today, for the first time ever, mankind has full access to information on who the globalists are and what they want. In fact, the elites barely hide who they are or what their intentions are anymore. One can simply look up the roster of organization like Bilderberg, Tavistock, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements, etc. At least in the liberty movement, we know who the real enemy is.

Co-option is always a threat if you do not know who the enemy is. A revolution against the Obama administration alone, for example, would be useless because President Obama is nothing but a puppet, a mascot playing a role. Removing middlemen is a half-measure, and anyone who tries to lead you into revolution on the premise that Obama alone is the source of your troubles is probably an elitist leading you toward disaster. If you are not removing the root of the threat, then the threat will persist.

Co-option also occurs when people become obsessed with the idea of popular top-down leadership rather than bottom-up decentralized resistance. If you are out there looking for the next George Washington on a white horse to save you from tyranny, then you will eventually get him; but he may not be at all what he seems. Beware of generals and top brass suddenly in support of revolution. Beware of any notion of military coup. Beware of any revolution that uses political party divisions as a motivator. Beware of any government with a central bank that wishes to bankroll your revolution. Stay decentralized and refuse any push for top-down leadership. This is the only way to avoid co-option.

Revolution solves nothing because mankind is ‘predisposed’ to tyranny?

The great lie being injected into the movement over the past few years is that removal of the elites will solve nothing because the “real problem” is the corrupt nature of humanity in general and that if we remove one set of elites, they will simply be replaced with another set, as if society is fatally predisposed to develop an elitist class. This is the most vapid form of defeatist garbage ever regurgitated by nihilists.

First, we have no idea whatsoever what life would be like without the globalist network because we have never lived in a society in which they have been removed, even for a single generation. I think early America after the revolution is the only example I can find of a society free from most elitist controls, and the prosperity that developed in that environment leads me to believe that removal of the entire elitist framework would result in undeniable positive changes for the world. Why else would the globalists spend the past two centuries attempting to dismantle the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Second, if mankind is so “predisposed” to become naturally subservient to an elitist class, why do the elites feel so compelled to manipulate the masses with complex forms of propaganda and fear tactics? Why go through all the trouble of engineering economic disparity and war? What is the point if we are all dumb animals just waiting to be ruled? The argument is nonsense. The elites spend billions of dollars, if not trillions of dollars, in capital and go to such extremes because oligarchy is not a natural state of man. It is so unnatural that the elites are forced to expend constant energy trying to keep us from progressing away from the slave dynamic.

I believe a revolution is indeed necessary, a final revolution to remove the influence of the globalist cult once and for all — not only their puppet governments, puppet political parties and puppet despots, but the globalists themselves. Will bad men still exist in this world? Of course they will. But the kind of advanced and well-organized internationlist machine that exists today will no longer exist. To save a patient poisoned to the extreme, the patient must be purged until his body can recover on its own. The elites are a poison that must be physically removed from the human system.

–Brandon Smith

Organizing against tyranny

My work and my thoughts lately have turned toward a now constant focus on the concepts of organization, more in respect to underlying philosophy rather than hard, fast rules and structures. If you are one of the slithering acolytes of political theory elitist Saul Alinsky (and you haven’t felt the inclination to jump face first into the nearest punji pit), then the primary tool of organization for you is to lie, and to lie often. Tricking people into action using false premises, telling people what they want to hear rather than opening their eyes to reality, is perhaps the easiest way to build a movement. Of course, that movement will eventually destroy itself as the lies begin to inhibit progress rather than inspire it. But in most cases, by the time the organization self-destructs it has already been exploited for the nefarious purpose it was intended.

For the liberty movement, the movement against globalization and forced centralization of financial and political power, lies are simply not an option. The internationalists have already cornered the market on lies, so we must take a completely contrary approach. We must organize around the truth, no matter how painful it happens to be. This is a much more difficult prospect, one many people don’t understand or appreciate.

There are a lot of complaints in the movement about the lack of what they consider effective organization, and the frustration is in some ways beginning to evolve into fear. Here are some core problems I believe are at the heart of organizational problems within the liberty movement and what we can do to solve them.

Re-examining our concept of real organization

For multiple generations, Americans and most of the rest of the world have been conditioned to believe that organization is a top-down affair that requires a central leadership that hands orders across the ranks of a rigid structure. The people within the structure operate as parts of a greater machine, and the success of the machine is (supposedly) directly related to how close the smaller parts (people) work together and follow those orders. Unfortunately, many activists in the liberty movement also assume that this is what an organization is and how it works.

Surely, there is a need for people with a talent to inspire others to thought and to action. But these men and women are nothing unless they can motivate individuals to eventually take their own initiative without orders. A true leader is a teacher — nothing more. And if he really cares about the future prosperity of the people he is teaching, that teacher’s objective will be for his students to exceed his own capabilities and to become independent in their accomplishments.

For a movement driven by a desire for the preservation of freedom and sovereignty, organization requires structure, but not rigidity or centralized leadership. The collectivist model of the human machine or hive is a flawed model that oppresses individual contributions that could be revolutionary. The corporate model, for instance, is a perfect example of an organization built mostly on lies (just look at the inconsistencies of real debts versus real profits for most major companies) and that fuels itself on the integration of people as replaceable gears and bolts on a rusted, shuddering Ferris wheel ride. Corporations might appear to make money, but they never meet their ultimate potential as organizations because most of the people within them could not care less about the purpose or even health of the system as long as they continue to draw a paycheck. When an organization merely limps along on the thin thread of the survival principle, this is the opposite of success.

The liberty movement has to abandon outmoded and ill-conceived notions of mainstream organizational models and take more stock in decentralized activity. A lack of an arbitrarily designated pecking order or the pyramid scheme of top-down branching management is a good thing for our cause, not a disadvantage.

Legitimate structure and purpose

Just because a movement is decentralized does not mean it should lack a foundation, and that foundation should be composed of a primary purpose and a primary plan of action. This is where some liberty activists seem to become most nihilistic in their thinking.

They have been looking for top-down leadership, which doesn’t exist and shouldn’t exist. They have been looking for a set plan of attack, which no one can seem to agree on. And they moan relentlessly about what they see as the lack of a singular, universal vision of what the ultimate goal should be. I have heard the argument more than once that the liberty movement will fail because victory would require us to all agree on one ideological vision and a rather singular strategy. What they don’t appear to realize is that a vision and strategy already exist that most of us agree on.

Again, our society has been conditioned to see through only a very narrow window of what constitutes organization that demands we adhere to the top-down philosophy. However, most liberty activists already agree on the bottom-up goal of self-reliance and self-sufficiency in all things, from food and water to education, security and governance.

There will be no mass majority movement on Washington in a “V for Vendetta”-style march led by some heroic masked man. And even if there were, it would accomplish nothing unless the top of the globalist pyramid was toppled (Occupy Wall Street is a good example of how such theatrics fail). This goal of a mass awakening is a common fantasy and an impractical one; but self-sufficiency, mutual aid and mutual defense are realistic efforts, given the likely short amount of time we have left. The universal vision is right in front of our faces and always has been: to break away from the corrupt mainstream system, to remove our dependency, to provide our own necessities and, thus, to remove our consent.

Every liberty proponent in America should be able to pursue this goal without prompting from any centralized leadership, and it encompasses every aspect of the fight against tyranny. Make your family self-sufficient and secure without aid of government. Make your neighborhood self-sufficient and secure. Make your town or county self-sufficient and secure. If the elites try to stop you, fight back and from a position on the moral high ground. If enough communities defend themselves the prospect of martial law or totalitarian control becomes systemically impossible, politically and strategically. I rarely run into liberty advocates who disagree with this plan, yet they do nothing and refuse to even make the attempt because they are still waiting around for someone to give them a plan. Stop waiting around for the next Gandhi or George Washington and do what you already know needs to be done. It is truly as simple as that.

Changing our idea of leadership

As stated earlier, you do not need a man on a white horse to ride in and save you from the terrifying idea of self-responsibility. If you are waiting for someone to come down off the mountain with magical stone tablets and lead you to the promised land, you are going to find yourself rather disappointed. Despite popular belief, men do not organize other men; only ideas given focus organize men. Men rally around that which they love or that which they hate. Leadership is often incidental, or sadly, manipulative.

So, by extension, we can conclude that to develop a strong organization, the ideal must be honest and honorable, the plan must be decentralized and natural for individuals to implement, and those who coordinate the organizational efforts must do so with the realization that they are stewards of the principles of that movement and that those principles are more important than their glory. If activists plan to become followers of anything, it should be solid principles. Leaders are secondary.

Destructive egomania

In my time in the movement, I have seen relatively good men with sound ideals exhibit insane behavior and absurd motives when exposed to a mere 15 minutes of fame. Ego is truly the greatest Achilles’ heel of any activist organization. This is a fact that corrupt governments are highly aware of.

If you look into the history of the FBI’s subversive Cointelpro efforts from the 1950s onward, you will find a common tactic used to dismantle anti-establishment groups, which is to sow discord among organizers and coordinators by feeding egos and turning them against each other. Like the ring of power in the “Lord of The Rings” books, the desire for leadership can blind people to the greater cause. They develop delusions of grandeur, thinking they are the next guru, the next prophet, the next man to lead the charge to permanent historical stardom. Each person believes that if only he had the ring, if only he were the leader, he could resist the temptations of power and achieve what others could not. And so he refuses to work with others or to share the stage, or he even attempts to subvert or co-opt the legitimate accomplishments of more capable men.

The only solution is to cast off the ring forever, to care nothing for the supposed glories of leadership and to work only for the betterment of others.

I have also seen people within the movement fall victim to the admiration of their own fan base. Positive feedback from readers is certainly helpful, but I would be writing everything I write now even if every email I received were laced with vitriol (sometimes they are). The truth does not require fans; it functions fine without them. Liberty champions do, on occasion, receive letters of adoration — from being compared to Thomas Paine all the way to being labeled the next Jesus (the former being flattering and the latter being just plain weird). The problem is not public appreciation; it is the cult of celebrity that many Americans have grown too attached to, as well as the fact that some activists in more public positions have a hard time handling positive attention without their heads expanding 10 sizes too big.

The fact is I don’t matter, liberty leaders and personalities don’t matter, the limelight doesn’t matter, and the level of our fan base doesn’t matter. All that matters is how effectively and efficiently we can get the facts to the public. Organization suffers when the cult of celebrity takes over, whether in the minds of activists or in the minds of the people who represent them in the media.

Fear of risk leads to inaction

In my work with groups such as Oath Keepers and its Community Preparedness Team program, I have taken what some might consider sizable risks, and I have witnessed others who have gone even further. And in this risk I have seen the kinds of progress in organization I have never seen anywhere else. Without risk, there can be no organization against tyranny and, thus, no chance of success. If you are afraid to be put on the naughty list in the National Security Agency database, if you are afraid you might lose your job, if you are afraid you might be labeled an “extremist” or if you are afraid of uneducated public perception and this has prevented you from building mutual aid and defense groups where you live, then you have already lost everything. Fear leads to inaction, and inaction is death.

I have even witnessed members of organizations attempt to prevent others from taking positive measures like training for community defense because they are so fearful of what might happen due to their affiliation they will actually work against the better goals of the people around them. All I can say is that fear-driven people have to be removed from organizational environments, or they will poison the waters until the entire venture flatlines. Risk is inevitable. It is unavoidable. All anti-establishment, anti-tyranny movements depend on it. The more people willing to take risks, the more effectively “safe” that risk becomes. This includes the fear of defense and the fear of losing one’s life in the process. Every scenario, even the worst-case scenario, has to be considered and then set aside as irrelevant. Fear has no place in the minds or actions of liberty champions. Remove fear, and world-changing organization becomes possible.

–Brandon Smith

Community versus collectivism

Brandon Smith is under the weather, so we are running a “Best of Brandon Smith” article.

Tyranny thrives by feeding on human necessity. It examines what sustains us, what we hope for, what we desire and what we love, and it uses those needs as leverage against us.

If you want safety, tyrants will take it away and barter it back to you at a steep price. If you want to raise a family, then you must accept the state as a part-time parent. If you want independence, then you are simply labeled as a threat and done away with altogether. Autocratic rulers are first and foremost salesmen; they convince us that life itself has a cost, that we are born indebted and that all bills must be made payable to the establishment. First and foremost, we are sold on the idea that in all of this, we are ultimately alone.

It is within these manipulated concepts of cost and isolation that we discover the foundation of all totalitarian cultures: collectivism.

Collectivism is a psychological prison derived from a beneficial instinct as old as humanity itself: the instinct to connect with others, to share experiences and knowledge, to build and create together. It is an instinct as essential to our survival as breathing. Collectivism uses this instinct as a weapon. It is a corrupted and poisoned harnessing of our intuitive nature. It is an inadequate and cancerous substitute for something that normally invigorates and supports healthy culture: true community.

In this age, our ideas of what constitutes “community” have been tainted and confused with the propaganda of collectivists. Our instincts tell us that the world we have been presented is hollow, while our controlled environment tells us that the world is just as it should be (or the best we’re going to get, anyway). How then, are we to tell the difference between natural community and destabilizing and destructive collectivism?

Common aspects of collectivism

Looking back at the single-minded and highly dominating collectivist experiments of the past, it is easy to see the common threads between them. Certain methods are always present. Certain actions are always taken. Certain beliefs are always adopted. Here are just a few:

The blank slate: In order for the state to elevate itself in importance above the individual, it must first promote the idea that the individual does not exist, that your uniqueness or inherent character are only a byproduct of your environment. There are many methods to propagating this mindset. Junk science and establishment psychological theorists often treat the human mind as a mere bundle of chemicals and synapses.

Existentialism attacks individualism from the philosophical end, suggesting that all actions and reactions are random results of a purely chaotic universe, while at the same time peddling moral relativism and apathy.

Religious organizations that choose to abuse their positions of trust also feed collectivism by standing in the way of personal awareness, or even making it taboo to value the individual over the collective (though people tend to wrongly blame the concept of religion itself, rather than the corrupt men who sometimes misuse it).

Each one of these tactics is a tool in the arsenal of collectivists meant to degrade our social admiration for individual thought. Yet as desperate as elitists have been through the years to build an environment devoid of independent thought, they have met only with failure.

Centralization instead of cooperation: Cooperation in society is often spontaneous and dependent on a number of underlying factors working together at the right place and at the right time. It takes a noble endeavor and even more noble leadership to inspire the masses to step onto the same path toward the same direction. This is why legitimate, large-scale cooperation is so venerated in the annals of history; such events are truly rare and miraculous. Tyrants and elitists have no endeavors that rank as “noble.” They serve only their own interests. So, instead of trying to encourage cooperation they won’t receive, they centralize various systems by coercion. If you can’t convince the public to abandon their own paths for yours, then forcefully remove all paths until the people have only one choice left.

Economic centralization is very indicative of this maneuver. While we in the liberty movement see a whole spectrum of possible options for markets and trade, many other people see only what is right in front of them: the same crooked fiat money system controlled by the same gaggle of fraudulent central bankers. A large portion of our populace has been convinced that there is only one way to participate in the economy; thus, they act collectively and blindly.

Another obvious example is the false left/right political system. While there are as many political views as there are people, most people tend to affiliate themselves with one of two: Republican or Democrat. Even if you were to believe that the two major parties are honestly opposed, you have still allowed the establishment to narrow your choices down to two. Add the fact that both major parties actually support nearly the same exact policies and goals, and now your choices have been narrowed to one. Millions of people jump on this one bandwagon every four years, thinking that they are cooperating voluntarily, when they have instead been centralized, and collectivized.

Constant fear, constant threats: Fear and survival are powerful motivators. Without ample self-awareness and strength of character, these basic instincts can overwhelm rationality and conscience. Every collectivist feudalist system ever devised has used a “common enemy” or an iron hand to quell dissent in the citizenry and to forcefully unify them not under the auspices of an honest cause, but a terror so profound as to drive them to malleable despair. After a period of constant danger and distress, even fascism can feel comfortable for a while. Collectivist systems are always clashing with the bubbling tides of individual freedom. Because of this, they must continuously qualify their usefulness. There must always be an imminent threat over the horizon; otherwise, the strangling regulations of the state serve no purpose.

Individualism equated with selfishness: One of the inevitable conditions of collectivism is the demonization of free thought. In a collective, every person becomes a cog in a great machine. The majority begins to see itself not as a group of individuals acting together, but as a single unit with a single purpose. Any person who chooses to step outside of the box and point out a different view becomes a danger to the whole. A machine cannot function if all the parts are not working in harmony. Disagreement in a collectivist system is not considered a civic duty; it is considered a crime that places everyone else at risk. As a dissenter, you are not a person, but a malfunction that must be dealt with.

It is easy to tell when your nation is turning toward collectivism; you have to gauge only how often you are accused of “selfishness” every time you question the needs of the state over the needs of the individual.

Promises of a fantastic future: “Innovation” and “progress” are alluring dreams that can easily be realized in a free society made up of intelligent individuals thinking in ways that go against the norm. The more unique insights present in a culture, the more likely it is to surpass itself and succeed. Strangely, though, it always seems to be collectivists who throw around visions of high-tech trains, floating cities and sustainability as benefits to relinquishing certain freedoms. The insinuation is that if people set aside their individualism, their society becomes stronger and more productive, like worker bees who strive for only one thing: the perfect hive.

Common aspects of community

Now that we have explored the intricacies of collectivism, let’s take a look at what it is designed to destroy. What makes real community? What are its benefits and its weaknesses? How does it begin? How does it end? Why is it such a threat to collectivists?

Real purpose: Communities develop in light of meaningful exchange. Their purpose is natural and common. Their goals are not fixed, but evolve as the community progresses. The beneficiaries are the citizenry — sometimes even those who do not directly participate, rather than a select minority of elites. Communities work best when purpose and destiny are self-determined.

Voluntary participation: There is no need to force people to participate in a system that operates on honesty, conscience and individual will. In fact, many people today long for a system like this. When men and women apply their energies to something they believe in, instead of something they are manipulated into following, the results can be spectacular. Progress becomes second nature — an afterthought instead of an unhealthy obsession.

Legitimate respect: The purpose of a true community is not to keep tabs on the personal lives of its participants, nor to mold their notions. The rights of the individual are respected above all else. Again, the more varied the insights of a population, the stronger it becomes. For a community to attempt to stifle the viewpoints of its citizens would be to commit suicide. There is strength in numbers, but even greater strength in variety. Individualism takes effort, time and dedication. A society made up of people who have made this journey cannot help but esteem each other.

Flexibility leads to stability: A wise man adopts what works and throws out what fails. He does not dismiss methods out of hand, nor does he hang onto methods that disappoint simply because he cannot let go. He educates himself through experience. Adaptability, flexibility and agility in thought and in policy create solid ground for a society to build. Communities survive by being able to admit when a mistake has been made and by being open to new options. Rigid systems, like collectivist systems, cannot function unless the people conform to the establishment and its deficiencies. Communities function best when the establishment conforms to the people and the truth.

Mutual aid: Collectivist systems are notorious for promoting the idea that “we are all one.” However, they usually end up becoming the most antisocial and uncaring cultures to grace the planet. You cannot centralize or enforce charity because then it is no longer charity, but slavery. Citizens of communities, on the other hand, actually seek to help each other — not because they expect immediate returns or because it’s “good for the state,” but because they value an atmosphere of benevolence. The generosity of community helps individuals detach from dependence on government, or bureaucracy. The less dependence on centralized authority, the stronger and safer everyone becomes.

Mutual defense: While collectivism sacrifices its participants for some undefined “greater good,” communities defend one another, knowing that if the fate of one’s neighbor is ignored, the fate of oneself may also be ignored by others. No one is “expendable” in a community. Everyone is expendable in a collective.

Building community in a modern world

The task of constructing meaningful community today is daunting, but crucial. In an increasingly centralized and desensitized world, the only recourse of the honorable is to decentralize and to reintroduce the model of independence once again. This starts with self-sufficient communities and solid principles. It starts with unabashed and unwavering pride in the values of sovereignty and liberty. It starts with a relentless pursuit of balance and truth. It starts with an incredible amount of hard work.

The trappings of collectivism sometimes seem insurmountable. The mindless devotion of our friends and family to a system that harms them can cause us to lose hope and to lose focus. We must remember how collectivism operates: by removing the power of choice from the equation. If we return that power, then many people who we may have once deemed “lost causes” might awaken as well. By exposing the masses to another option, a better option, we undo years of lies and lengths of chain. If there was ever a perfect moment to begin this battle, now is the time. Americans are still searching for solutions, and they are not too fearful to pursue them once they are found.

–Brandon Smith

What will you do when tyranny and terrorism work hand in hand?

I was in the middle of working on an article covering real U.S. economic stats versus manipulated statistics when the Charlie Hebdo shootings took place. And though I knew the implications of the event would be far-reaching, I was originally undeterred from my financial subject matter. I had already covered in previous articles the inevitability of ISIS attacks on Europe and America, including the “warnings” of Saudi Arabia in August of last year that jihadists would target the EU within months and the U.S. a month later.

In September of last year, ISIS publicly urged attacks on French and U.S. citizens.

I have also published extensive analysis on the covert funding and training of ISIS by Saudi Arabia and Western intelligence agencies, including my article “The time is ripe for a false flag attack on American soil.”

The bottom line is the Paris attack was not surprising in the slightest. I have no doubt whatsoever that such attacks are going to increase in frequency, that the U.S. will be hit soon and that our government will do little to nothing to stop such tragedies. However, Reuters article titled “White House to hold global security summit Feb (sic) 18: U.S. official” caught my eye. And after reading it, I’m afraid I have to set aside my financial piece until next week and break down the insanity that is now taking place in the world of geopolitics.

It is clear by the language being used by the political elite that the “global summit” called in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks is about far more than radical Islamic terrorism. Set aside the fact that our government essentially created ISIS in order to destabilize Syria. Set aside the fact that globalist middlemen like John McCain and “former” CIA goons like Gen. Paul Vallely have met directly with groups like the Nusra Front that are providing support for ISIS. Set aside the fact that Saudi Arabia has been openly funneling cash and arms to Syrian terrorist factions tied to ISIS, and realize that the mere existence of ISIS, regardless of its origins, is being used as a rationale for the erasure of civil liberties and the establishment of martial law. Such federalized reactions cannot be allowed to continue, regardless of the threats each nation faces.

As far as the Reuters article is concerned, one does not need to read very far between the lines to see the true message being conveyed.

First, the focus of the summit is not indicated as “Islamic terrorism.” In fact, the word “terrorism” is barely mentioned. Now politicos are shifting their language to the term “extremism,” which is far broader in its implications. It should be noted that while the terrorist label has been bandied about rather liberally by both the Bush and Obama administrations, “extremism” offers greater cover for governments to persecute or attack political opponents. A terrorist is generally someone who initiates or at least plans a large-scale attack designed to illicit a fear response in a population. An extremist could literally be anyone who holds views or initiates activism outside acceptable forms of mainstream thought. Attorney General Eric Holder did not use the words “terrorism” or “jihadist” in his announcement of the global summit in February; he used the phrase “violent extremism”:

We will bring together all of our allies to discuss ways in which we can counteract this violent extremism that exists around the world…

Throughout history, “violence,” according to governments, is often attributed to ideas as well as actions. The point is the change in vocabulary over to the extremist label is not accidental or coincidental. The establishment is conditioning the public to think in broad terms and to identify numerous groups as the enemy, rather than focusing on radical Islam. Do not forget, constitutionalists are often referred to in the mainstream media and by totalitarian institutions like the Department of Homeland Security as “extremists.” How long before we are artificially linked as being suspect? How long before Charlie Hebdo-style attacks come to the U.S.? How long before the liberty minded are categorized as accessories to terrorism due to our anti-corrupt-government philosophies?

It is disturbing to witness the lack of conviction in principles in the average person. Self-proclaimed leftists railed against the degeneration of civil liberties and constitutional protections under George W. Bush, but rallied in support of the same weakening of freedoms under Barack Obama. Self-proclaimed conservatives today are shocked and infuriated by the trampling of the constitution through executive orders displayed by the Obama administration. Yet I suspect that many of them will willingly jump on the fascist bandwagon in the event of “Islamic” attacks on American soil. Neither side seems to grasp the reality that the disruptions of liberty we enact in the name of stopping jihadists today will eventually fall back on the rest of us tomorrow.

The EU is currently discussing the creation of a European Passenger Name Record database (national ID database), meaning officials hope to create a centralized database with a file on every single citizen. Think the no-fly list is a terrifying concept? Wait until all Web comments and Facebook and blog posts are added to an ongoing record that determines whether you are allowed to travel. Apparently, French officials are supportive of the idea. And given the proclamations of “unity” surrounding the upcoming summit, I suspect actions undertaken in Europe will eventually be exported to the United States. Reuters reported:

French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said after the meeting that European interior ministers had agreed to boost cooperation in an effort to thwart further jihadist attacks.

“We all agree that we need to put in place better control on certain passengers, on the basis of objective criteria and with respect for fundamental liberties and without disrupting cross-border travel,” he said.

He said Europe needed urgent progress in establishing a European Passenger Name Record database, which would facilitate the exchange of data about passengers between member states.

“We are convinced of the need for such a tool, to follow those who travel to terrorist operating theaters or who return from there,” he said, adding that this database would also be useful in the fight against other serious crimes.

Unfortunately, travel is the least of our concerns. Free speech is a primary target for the elites, and the Internet is clearly outlined as a threat by politicians claiming concern for public safety. This comes in the form of one of the oldest rationalizations for tyranny: the trade-off between freedom and security. The French argue that while free speech is important, some “exceptions” must be made in order to thwart extremist ideas, as Reuters reported:

Cazeneuve said the Internet needs to remain a space for free expression, but that Europe should fight against abusive use of the web (sic) to spread hate speech, anti-Semitic messages and the recruiting vulnerable young people for violence.

“We need to work more closely with Internet companies to guarantee the reporting and if possible removal of all content that amounts to an apology of terrorism or calls for violence and hatred,” he said.

Who gets to determine what speech amounts to an “apology of terrorism?” Who is the all-benevolent and wise sage who gets to decide what we can and cannot say? Will he be fair and just? Or will he use the power of censorship to attack any and all websites critical of the establishment? What do you think the most likely outcome of such legal precedence would be?

Again, how long before websites like the one you are reading now are vilified by the extremist label? How long before liberty-minded speech is categorized as violent speech or hate speech?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the White House are now kindly warning the public that “sleeper cells” have been activated and that some are present in the United States. On CNN, Feinstein said:

So I think this calls for vigilance. It calls for seeing that the national security organizations of our country, the intelligence community is funded fully, is directed ably, is cooperating with whether it be British intelligence, French intelligence, German intelligence, as we do.

And the French are good at it, and so are the British and the Germans. So, we can even be more active in terms of doing those things which enable us to find terrorists, to see who they’re communicating with in this country, and to track that.

She means mass Internet and phone surveillance, the same National Security Agency surveillance exposed by Edward Snowden, which now has a convenient justification in the form of an ever-present fear of terrorism.

Finally, it is only a matter of time before a militarized response is activated in the U.S., just as it has been in France. One shooting event has led to the fielding of over 10,000 French troops on French soil, as well as an extra 5,000 heavily armed police.

Frankly, this is where I — and many people like me — draw the line. Martial law is not acceptable under any circumstances. I suspect the loss of liberty, usurping of the constitution and the deployment of the military on U.S. soil would trigger revolution — a revolution I’m sure the establishment would attempt to marginalize as mere terrorism. Ultimately, though, there is no other option.

As I have been discussing constantly over the past several months, community preparation and organization comprise the only action plan worth the effort and energy at this time. The French are disarmed and utterly socialized. Millions of them march in Paris in a display of solidarity, but solidarity behind what solution? Even more government? Even more centralization? The globalization of totalitarian security policies? The French have dug their grave, and now they are going to have to lie down in it.

Americans do not have to follow the same path.

We do not need more government. We do not need more surveillance, more police militarization and troops on the streets. What we need is to take back responsibility for own defense. The French government could not or would not protect the staff of Charlie Hebdo, and the U.S. government will not protect you. That means you must train to protect yourself and those you care about. Whether we face a false flag attack or a legitimate terrorist action, the response is the same: Fight back. It is times like these that separate the courageous from the cowardly; those with principles and conscience versus the treacherous and self-serving. Make no mistake; as I wrote in my last article, many illusions are about to be shattered. You can be caught up in the storm as a helpless spectator and victim or you can become a barrier, a wall of defense against the dangerous riptides. These are your choices. Choose wisely.

–Brandon Smith

We are entering an era of shattered illusions

The structure of history is held together by two essential and distinct kinds of links, two moments in time to which no one is immune: moments of epiphany and moments of catastrophe. Sometimes, both elements intermingle at the birth of a singular epoch. Men often awaken to understanding in the midst of great crisis; and, invariably, great crises can erupt when men awaken. These are the moments when social gravity vanishes, when the kinetic glue of normalcy melts away, and we begin to see the true foundations of our world, if a foundation exists at all.

Catastrophe occurs when too many people refuse to accept that around us always are two universes at work. There is the cold, hard reality that underlies everything. And on the surface is a veil of deceit and compromise. The more humanity compromises vital truths in order to enjoy the comfort of illusions, the more mind-shattering it will be when those illusions fall away. These two worlds can coexist only for short periods of time, and they will always and eventually collide. There is no other possible outcome.

I think it could also be said that the more polarized our realities become, the more explosive and disastrous the reaction will be when the separation is removed. I feel it absolutely necessary to relate this danger because today humanity is living so historically far from the bedrock of reality, political reality, social reality and economic reality that the stage has been set for a kind of full spectrum destabilization that has never been seen before.

Though my analysis tends to lean toward the economic side of things, I am not only speaking of shattered illusions in the financial realm. In my next article, one last time I plan to go over nearly every mainstream economic statistic used today to misdirect the public (from national debt to unemployment to inflation to retail sales and corporate profits) and expose why they are false while giving you the real numbers. Most of my regular readers are familiar with much of this information, but I think it important to consolidate it all in a single article so that we can take stock of where our society sits fiscally as we enter 2015. For now, though, I want to discuss the core problem of self-deception, the problem that makes all the rest of our problems possible.

When the initial phase of the global collapse was triggered in 2007 and 2008, there was a massive explosion in interest and education in terms of liberty issues and alternative economic awareness. I remember back in 2006 when I had just begun writing for the movement that the ratio of people on any given Web forum or in any given public discussion was vastly opposed to alternative viewpoints and information — at least 50-1 by my observations. We were at the height of the real estate frenzy; everyone was buying houses with money they didn’t have and borrowing on their mortgages to purchase stuff they didn’t need. Life was good. The shock of the credit crisis came quickly and abruptly for most people, and there has been a considerable shift in the kinds of discussions many are willing to entertain about our future. Yet the idea that such things can happen despite a consensus of social and geopolitical health does not seemed to have soaked into the thick skulls of the average person.

Time, unfortunately, has a magical ability to erase vigilance. It’s not that the public has necessarily forgotten that danger can strike anytime anywhere (though some of them have). Many of them know full well that our culture is floating on a paper-thin ship in a turbulent sea. However, the disturbing trend today reveals that people have decided they do not care. “Taking the blue pill” is the rising rally cry from the so-called “new normal.” Yes, the economy is an illusion, the political system is an illusion and the various global conflicts our society participates in are mostly illusions. But we “can’t do anything about it,” so we might as well profit from these illusions while we can, right?

It was said during the economic collapse of the 1930s that the Great Depression was a depression only for the 30 percent of people that had lost everything. For the employed and the financially secure, the depression was much like any other time. This is the point at which we stand today. With nearly a third of the U.S. population kicked off the unemployment rolls and approximately half the country dependent on a government check of some kind for their survival, the current depression is only now beginning to feel like a depression for anyone. The soup lines have received a fresh candy coating of EBT cards and welfare payments. But the illusion is finally fading, and this should be of great concern to us all in 2015.

Even more frightening is our culture’s deluded sense of what a collapse actually looks like. For many, collapse is a cinematic and overnight affair, with zombies, nuclear bombs and mass panic. In real life, and throughout history, collapse is a process. Since at least 2008, the U.S. and the rest of the world have been experiencing that process. Everyone is waiting for equities to implode and for social unrest to erupt before they take the threat seriously, but these are not signals of collapse. These are the things that occur when a collapse has run its course. Collapse never occurs overnight. It takes years for the effects of social and fiscal breakdown to be visibly felt. And when they are felt, many people refuse to notice. Eighty years ago, America was halfway through the Great Depression, and mainstream economists were still claiming that recovery was right around the corner. Illusion and self-deception can be so powerful that the worst miseries can be normalized, at least for a little while.

And it isn’t only the general public that is stricken with crippling bias. There are those within the liberty movement who have bought into false paradigms for various reasons. There are those who still think that the “conflict” between Eastern and Western politicians and banking elites is somehow real. There are those who believe that Russia and China, despite their numerous and undeniable ties to the global banking syndicate (information I have covered in multiple articles over the years), are the good guys, while Western nations are the bad guys, rather than them all being mere subsidiaries and franchises of the same monstrous globalist machine.

They hold onto this illusion, I think, because it is much more frightening to accept the reality that we are alone, that the liberty movement is the first and last line of defense against centralization, that the responsibility for the future of independence and individual freedom rests on our shoulders. It is much easier to fantasize that there are others out there, nations and governments with armies and capital, that are on our side and will fight our battles for us. This illusion will be a painful one for many in the movement as they begin to realize that the East is actually working in tandem with international financiers instead of working against them.

There are also those in the liberty movement who cling to the notion that the fight against globalism will be won without physical conflict. They believe that if we simply protest long enough, play the political and legal game long enough, nullify long enough, refuse to participate long enough, that the elitist edifice, an edifice which has existed for centuries and has manipulated historical precedence for just as long, will suddenly disappear in a puff of fairy dust.

The first problem with this strategy is that it relies on the assumption of time. Sure, anything is possible given ample opportunity. Perhaps the movement could grind away at the New World Order over the course of several decades until the majority of the masses are awake and aware (which is exactly how long it would take). However, I think it infinitely foolish to presume that we have decades to accomplish such a task. If the past has shown us anything, it is that tyranny does not respect reason and, at a certain point, couldn’t care less about image. Tyranny respects only power. It does not respect the protestations of ants it can crush under foot, but it will make a wide path around a rattlesnake ready to strike. While there is utility in the pursuit of intellectual and philosophical combat, if you are not willing to be the rattlesnake as well, then you are not going to effect change against such an opponent. You will eventually be stepped on.

The refusal to accept responsibility for one’s own defense is yet another product of fear — fear that the enemy is too powerful, that all resistance is futile. But resistance is only assured failure if resistance is never undertaken. Sheeple defeat themselves within their own minds before they ever stand up, so they never stand. This is the only reason totalitarian elements ever achieve success. Again, many in the liberty movement are going to face a rude awakening when they realize they have relied too much on the notion of the system policing itself, instead of preparing for the worst-case scenario.

And finally, the globalists themselves suffer from a veritable fog of illusions to which I can speak only briefly.

We are stepping over the threshold of an age that will shatter the illusions of everyone, and the internationalists are no exception. The root pillar of elitist globalism itself is that some men are born to rule, while other men are born to serve. Some men are born kings, and other men are born slaves. The psychopathy of this belief system should be evident, but psychopathy also elicits blinding ego and hubris, which smothers any inherent questions of motive. I do not think the elites ever actually consider the validity of their own philosophies. I am relatively certain their manner of viewing the world is much like that of a cult, a religious sect driven by the brutality of zealotry rather than the empowering nature of understanding.

Such men cannot be reasoned with. In fact, zealots often revel in their ability to trample all other world views as they grasp for complete dominance of their ideology. The illusion of rightness is far more important to them than actual truth, and this is their greatest weakness. Hidden under all the posturing and power grabbing, deep in the recesses of their own assumed omnipotence, I sense an ever present terror within the globalist culture. I sense a terror that comes only from the seed of doubt.

The incredible array of propaganda leveled at the public, the constant war gaming and mind gaming against the citizenry, the endless hailstorm of legal maneuvering designed to erase our sense connection with our natural rights and liberties, the tidal wave of fearmongering, and all the manipulations and scapegoats and elaborate theatrical displays all reek of fear. For if the globalists were truly as omnipotent as they pretend to be — if they really were all-knowing philosopher kings born to rule — then they would already have their New World Order. They would not need lies. They would not need the threat of force. The undeniable power of their ideology would be enough if their ideology actually had any validity. Lies are designed to hide lack of validity and lack of strength. The globalists are, at bottom, a hollow shell desperately clamoring for substance.

The thoroughness of the elitist con exhibits a fundamental doubt of success. The globalists wish they could predict the future, but they cannot. So they are just as afraid as the rest. I believe we are entering an era in which they will feel the stark pain of shattered illusions and the destruction of their own fantasies, no less felt than the pain of the rest of the world.

Our mission as an opposing force to globalism is to come to terms with our own illusions and to overcome them, to stop compromising and to stop waiting for the final shoe to drop and to take positive action now rather than after the endgame develops. This means preparation and organization for the worst-case scenarios. This means making one’s family, neighborhood and community as self-reliant and secure as possible. The excuses have to stop. The distractions and intellectualized silver bullet solutions have to stop. Hard work and risk are all that are left, all that matters. If we do this, and if we do this now, then victory is possible. In any contest of strength and will, he who knows himself best and has shed all illusion will be the winner.

–Brandon Smith

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