by Brandon Smith
Most people today have been conditioned
to perceive events from a misinterpreted standpoint of "Occam's
Razor" - they wrongly assume that the simplest
explanation is probably the right one.
It has been well known and documented for decades that the push for globalism is a deliberate and focused effort on the part of a select "elite":
They often openly admit their goals for total globalization in their own publications, perhaps believing that the uneducated commoners would never read them anyway.
The people behind the effort to enforce globalism are tied together by a particular ideology, perhaps even a cult-like religion, in which they envision a world order as described in Plato's Republic.
They believe that they are "chosen" either by fate, destiny or genetics to rule as philosopher kings over the rest of us.
They believe that they are the wisest
and most capable that humanity has to offer, and that through
evolutionary means, they can create chaos and order out of thin air
and mold society at will.
The end game for central banks is, I
believe, the triggering of historic financial crisis, which can then
be used by the elites as leverage to promote complete global
centralization as the only viable solution.
Instead, it is directed by even more
central global institutions like the
International Monetary Fund and the Bank for
International Settlements, as outlined in revealing
mainstream articles like Ruling The World Of Money published
by Harpers Magazine.
I could quote globalists all day long, but I think you get the general idea.
While some people see globalism as a "natural offshoot" of free markets or the inevitable outcome of economic progress, the reality is that the simplest explanation (given the evidence at hand) is that globalism is an outright war waged against the ideal of sovereign peoples and nations.
It is a guerrilla war, or fourth
generation warfare, waged by a small group of elites against the
rest of us.
Instead, borders when applied correctly
represent principles; or at least, that is supposed to be their
That said, human beings also have a
natural tendency to value individual freedom and the right to
voluntary association. We do not like to be forced to associate with
people or groups that do not hold similar values.
People also have a right to discriminate against anyone who does not
share their core values; or, in other words, we have the right to
refuse association with other groups and ideologies that are
destructive to our own.
See how that works...?
There is also nothing wrong with isolating a prosperous economic model from unsuccessful economic models.
Forcing a decentralized free market economy to adopt feudal administration through central banking and government will eventually destroy that model. Forcing a free market economy into fiscal interdependency with socialist economies will also most likely undermine that culture.
Just as importing millions
of people with differing values to feed on a nation after it has had
socialism thrust upon it is a recipe for collapse.
You can only eliminate one culture to make room for the other in a border-less world. This is what globalists seek to achieve. It is the greater purpose behind open border policies and globalization - to annihilate ideological competition so that humanity thinks it has no other option but the elitist religion.
The ultimate end game of globalists is
not to control governments (governments are nothing more than a
tool). Rather, their end game is to obtain total psychological
influence and eventually consent from the masses.
The elites assert that their concept of a single world culture is the pinnacle principle of mankind, and that there is no longer any need for borders because no other principle is superior to theirs.
As long as borders as a concept continue
to exist there is always the chance of separate and different ideals
rising to compete with the globalist philosophy. This is
unacceptable to the elites.
Today, with the rising tide of anti-globalist movements, the argument in the mainstream is that "populists" (conservatives) are of a lower and uneducated class and are a dangerous element set to topple the "peace and prosperity" afforded by globalist hands. In other words, we are treated like children scrawling with our finger paints across a finely crafted Mona Lisa.
Once again, Carroll Quigley promotes (or predicts) this propaganda decades in advance when he discusses the need for "working within the system" for change instead of fighting against it:
The problem is that these people refuse to confront the fruits of globalization that can be observed so far.
Globalists have had free reign over most of the world's governments for at least a century, if not longer.
As a consequence of their influences, we have had,
The globalists have long been in power, yet, the existence of borders is blamed for the storm of crises we have endured for the past hundred years?
Liberty champions are called
"deplorable" populists and fascists while globalists dodge blame
like slimy slithering eels?
So, the globalists will now argue that
the world is actually not centralized ENOUGH. That's right; they
will claim we need more globalization, not less, to solve the
Otherwise, the globalists will never be
able to successfully establish a global system without borders.
Imagine a world in which
sovereignty and conservatism are held up to the next generation as
the new "original sins;" dangerous ideas that almost brought about
the extinction of man.
We can break free, but this would require a complete reversal of the way in which we participate in society. Meaning, we need a rebellion of voluntary associations. A push for decentralization instead of globalization. Thousands upon thousands of voluntary groups focusing on localization, self reliance and true production.
We must act to build a system that is based on redundancy instead of fragile interdependency.
We need to go back to an age of many
borders, not less borders, until every individual is himself free to
participate in whatever social group or endeavor he believes is best
for him, as well as free to defend against people that seek to
sabotage him; a voluntary tribal society devoid of forced
To suggest otherwise would be a lie. I can't possibly convince anyone that a potential future based on a hypothetical model is worth that sacrifice. I have no idea whether it is or is not. I can only point out that the globalist dominated world we live in today is clearly doomed.
We can argue about what comes next after
we have removed our heads from the guillotine.