by Brandon Smith
You can bet that whenever you find people analyzing the root of a
problem you will also find other people trying to derail those
efforts with dishonest arguments.
For reasons that we can
guess at but are rarely able to confirm, there are some folks out
there that get rather agitated at constructive discussion among
their fellow humans.
One of the most common
tactics for hijacking the discussion of a problem is to suggest that
it is "all pointless" unless those same people can offer a
solution to the problem.
The reality is that most problems can only be solved once at least a
portion of the public is made aware of them. Action can only take
place AFTER understanding is achieved, otherwise we find ourselves
swinging wildly at shadows.
With that said, many in the liberty movement have offered numerous
solutions to the threat of the globalists. The trouble is that the
most practical solutions are the hardest ones.
This is why so many
activists get caught up in non-solutions and frauds:
want to hear that there is a shortcut to victory
want to hear that there is a way to get rid of the
globalists without sacrifice, or without them having to
fight back directly
they want to hear
that someone is going to fight this war for them, or that
the globalist vampires can simply be de-fanged by an
intangible technological marvel
they are looking
for a genie in a bottle... a magical cure...
It's not going to be that
And so, the real solutions get buried by the hype trains...
We're supposed to put
all our hopes
in a 'president'
that had his fortune and his image saved
by the very banking elites he claims to
We're supposed to
believe he is supposedly going to round them up and arrest them
(any day now) in a fantastical Game of Thrones maneuver?
Despite the fact that
this would be rather difficult when half his cabinet is loaded with
the same banking ghouls.
We're supposed to bet
our future on the virtual world with cryptocurrency systems,
some of which are built upon an
NSA created hash and perfectly
match an NSA white paper written in 1996
on digital currencies?
We're supposed to
believe that the banking cabal is actually threatened by these
blockchain based products despite the fact that their value is
derived only from branding and not from any qualities that make
them especially unique from each other, as well as how much
capital the same
banking cabal is willing to invest
in them and the
infrastructure that perpetuates them?
We're supposed to believe that these currencies are anonymous
even thought they are consistently proven not to be?
We are supposed to
believe they are a decentralizing force even though they are
completely reliant on a
centrally dominated Internet?
We are supposed to
Central Banking system will be made obsolete by
them even though the globalists are
avidly promoting cryptocurrency
and blockchain tech as the next step
It's interesting that the
solutions to globalism most widely promoted end up being highly
beneficial to the globalist agenda.
No, these are not solutions.
distractions designed to keep people busy feeling like they are
accomplishing something when they are accomplishing
The people spreading
concrete information on the dangers of globalism are accomplishing
far more than those sitting around buying bitcoin or passing around
So, what are the real solutions?
Realize first that
there is no solution that is going to satisfy
For every solution
offered here, there will be a hundred excuses given by people who
claim it won't work, or is not worth trying.
But at least each idea
expressed here is one that the globalists are not avidly backing
financially from behind the curtain, unlike the "solutions"
So, to answer the people
that claim the liberty movement has no fix for the threat of
globalism, let's examine a few, shall we...
I've been talking about this since I began writing for the movement
in 2006 in my Neithercorp days, and it's probably the most
valid (and uncomfortable) answer to the globalist problem.
a shift towards less reliance on the existing system and more
reliance on one's self and one's local community.
This means people have to
become producers of their own necessities, and they have to
construct new economies out of LOCAL producers and buyers.
This could even extend to
decentralizing monetarily to commodity backed community currencies
People would have to start,
growing food for
themselves, and providing a useful service which would allow
them to trade for the things they need.
Beyond this, a commodity
backed currency on a state or national level could provide the
"universal exchange" mechanism needed to allow for wider trade of
Is this a step backwards into tribal times?
Yes, and that's not
necessarily a bad thing.
I'm not talking about
abandoning technology and advancement, I'm talking about
abandoning the systems of centralization that are clearly
destructive and are enslaving us.
Look at it this way:
If each individual is
a producer then it's harder to take away their livelihood.
If each community has
its own trade networks outside of corporate chains, then they
will be unaffected when those corporate chains go bust or
If each community has
trade mechanisms beyond the dollar that they can hold IN THEIR
HANDS, then they will be unaffected if
the dollar collapses.
By building local
economies with redundancies in place, they become immune to national
or global economic calamity.
This kind of strategy takes time and struggle, and frankly I've
learned that very few people are going to attempt it until they are
facing disaster anyway.
However, it is the first
and most important step to defeating
While I am a proponent of decentralization, I recognize that human
beings are social creatures and that community as well as law will
probably always be a part of our existence.
The best and most
meaningful laws are those that are universal and inherently
Meaning, they are
archetypal and inborn.
The majority of people
understand that stealing, cheating, killing, etc. are wrong and
given the chance to commit such crimes they will refuse.
If this were not true,
humanity would have annihilated itself centuries ago. We only endure
because we have a moral compass, perhaps gifted to us by some
greater natural force.
The problem is, not all people have this moral compass.
Around 1% to 5% of 'human' beings
are born with either latent or full blown narcissistic sociopathy,
also known as narcopathy.
They lack the vital
psychological components of empathy needed to prevent the extreme
abuse of their fellow man.
They are a different species:
subset, a hidden parasitic element that feeds off of and
destroys normal humans.
The globalists are a
perfect example of the reality of this threat.
They are a group that
has been shown to artificially and deliberately generate
economic crisis, geopolitical strife, war, poverty, and
They have used these
horrors to enrich themselves by siphoning tangible wealth and
property from the populace during times of fear and panic.
They have also been
exposed on occasion
as sexual deviants and pedophiles with an
occult secrecy surrounding these activities.
They have revealed a
complete lack of concern for the damage they do, and even revel
in it as if they are playing a game.
children that see the world as their toy.
Not only this, but they
are highly organized...
Laws and the governance
of those laws are necessary in order to deal with the people that
cannot abide by the non-aggression principle and seek to exploit and
Of course, as soon as we
put systems of governance in place to manage the law, the predatory
class invades them in order to more effectively exploit and destroy.
Career fields that
guarantee authority and protection from scrutiny are going to
automatically attract the worst elements of humanity.
The concept of elections and government by the people
is not entirely inadequate, but it is obviously not enough to
prevent evil people from gaining power and influence.
Beyond this, government
tends to seek
infinite growth, and the pursuit of such power opens
the door to the corruption of otherwise well meaning souls.
The only solution I can come up with is a simple one:
function as a randomly generated structure in which the people
involved are not celebrities but servants to the law, and the law
must exist only to protect the rights and freedoms of the
inhabitants of that society.
This is basically how
jury selection works, so,
government work the same way?
What if we had a two year term limit for every government
What if these people
were chosen every two years at random through an open source
No more career
politicians, no more lobbyists, no more elitist cabal
controlling policy decisions because buying people ahead of time
would be impossible.
The chances of one person
being picked for the same job over and over again would be slim. The
chances of them abusing their power would be reduced because they
wouldn't have the time.
Also, consider the implications for society as a whole:
Wouldn't this lottery
encourage people to become MORE aware and more educated on
political conditions, economics, the law, etc...?
Who would want to be
picked for a position in governance and find themselves
uneducated and bumbling...?
That said, there are two criticisms for this type of system:
One, jury duty is
not necessarily voluntary either, but there are extenuating
circumstances for not participating.
Should people be
able to opt-out of the lottery? Yes, but they should all be
given the opportunity. Also, incentives (such as a fair
salary) could be offered that would encourage people to
Two, honestly, I
would take a constantly rotating government of people, some
of whom might be incompetent, over a longstanding oligarchy
of entrenched psychopaths any day.
Influences by Force
The great weakness of the modern world is that people today have
been conditioned to believe that good and evil are relative
They think evil is all a
matter of "perception" and that the things one person sees as
could be seen as positive by someone else, therefore moral judgments
This culture of moral
relativism is no accident.
It has been encouraged in
popular media and in new age philosophy for the past several decades
in order to separate people from the idea of inherent conscience.
If you want to understand what evil is, you have to first have an
awareness of natural law and the voice of conscience.
Religions have their own guidelines
for what constitutes evil, and some of these are valuable, but as
religions become centralized and bureaucratic they
can be twisted to
serve evil purposes.
Ultimately, wise people
know evil when they see it because they listen to their inner
Evil seeks to violate
every tenet of natural law.
It seeks to turn
every function of human stability on its head in mockery.
It seeks to undermine
love, hope, family, safety, and especially freedom.
Evil seeks to corrupt
or destroy everything in its path.
It seeks to gain not
through industry and invention but through theft.
It seeks to take what
it should not have; not only this, but it takes a certain
detestable joy in subjugating or torturing the innocent.
To explain evil, and more
evil of globalists and elitism, in
the most simple but meaningful terms possible, here is my favorite
clip from the movie The Adventures of Mark Twain, called "The
In terms of a scientific method for rooting out evil, the character
traits of narcopaths can be identified through testing and
observation, but there is no tried and true standard for finding a
Narcissist-Sociopath Mix) in early life.
Those in the psychiatric
community that claim they can be identified through brain activity
scans are mostly charlatans with their own agendas. Some governments
would also like you to believe that through neuro-imaging they will
one day be able to identify future criminals and "dangerous people".
This is 'pre-crime
science' fiction fantasy, and it's dangerous...
The fact of the matter is,
psychopathy and narcopathy
are difficult to discover in a person without extensive questioning,
background checking or until they have actually committed terrible
It should be a core
standard of any society to ensure that these people never enter into
positions of power and influence.
And, if they do, they
must be removed, by force if necessary...
A common argument made by people trying to debunk the fight against
globalists is that we can remove those in power today, but tomorrow
they will just be replaced with another group of evil people.
This is a rather
nihilistic viewpoint, but it has some merit.
It is true that if
steps are not taken by humanity to identify the sources of evil,
and to decentralize the systems that evil people hide in, then
yes, they would come right back stronger than ever no matter
what we do.
But, if we accept that
evil is a reality, that it is psychologically quantifiable and can
be recognized through observation of certain character traits, and
if we remove the centralization that evil enjoys, then no one can
argue that the world will not be better off.
First, though, the
current organized evil must be dealt with. The globalists must
And beyond all the
more passive tactics for dealing with the catastrophes that they
create, this will likely require conflict.
It will require war, and
make no mistake, a war is being waged right now whether we want it
We have two choices:
or become slaves...
All other "solutions" are
a stop gap, or worse, a placebo...