What Would It Take To Build A World Without Globalists?

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

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 grand solution to the problem. This is Alinsky-style disruption 101.

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; they desperately want to hear that there is a shortcut to victory. They desperately 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 easy.

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 stand against

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.

Or, 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 believe that central banking system will be made obsolete by them even though the globalists are avidly promoting cryptocurrency and blockchain tech as the next step in globalization.

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. These are distractions designed to keep people busy feeling like they are accomplishing something when they are accomplishing nothing. The people spreading concrete information on the dangers of globalism are accomplishing far more than those sitting around buying bitcoin or passing around Q-cult nonsense.

So what are the real solutions? Realize first that there is no solution that is going to satisfy everyone. 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” mentioned above. 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…

True Decentralization

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. Decentralization requires 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 or barter.

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 goods.

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 disappear. 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 the globalists.

Randomization Of Government

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 understood. 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; a predatory 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 genocide.  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.  They are psychopathic 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 destroy others. 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 – A lottery. Government should 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 why shouldn’t government work the same way?

What if we had a two year term limit for every government position? What if these people were chosen every two years at random through an open source lottery? 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, it is not voluntary. And two, what if we fill government randomly with incompetent people and the cause a disaster?

To answer, 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 participate.

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.

Remove Evil 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 concepts. They think evil is all a matter of “perception” and that the things one person sees as wrong could be seen as positive by someone else, therefore moral judgments become pointless. 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 warnings.

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 specifically the 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 Mysterious Stranger”:

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 narcopath 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 neuroimaging 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 acts. 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 be removed. 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 or not. We have two choices – fight back, or become slaves. All other “solutions” are a stop gap, or worse, a placebo.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

Plastic Apocalypse: Dangerous Microplastics Invade Alps To Artic, Found In Fresh Snow

A new study has revealed that high levels of microplastics have been detected in some of the most remote regions of the world.

The discovery, published in the journal Science Advances, is the first international study on microplastics in snow, conducted by the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany.

Melanie Bergmann, the lead scientist, and her team of researchers found microplastics from the Alps to the Arctic contained high levels of the plastic fragment, raises questions about the environmental and health implications of potential exposure to airborne plastics.

“I was really astonished concerning the high concentrations,” said co-author Gunnar Gerdts, a marine microbiologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute.

Bergmann explains that microplastics come from industrial economies where rubber and paints are used. The tiny fragments end up in the sea, where they’re broken down by waves and ultraviolet radiation, before absorbing into the atmosphere. From there, the plastic particles are captured from the air during cloud development, can drift across the Earth via jet streams. At some point, the particles act as a nucleus around supercooled droplets can condense, and travel to Earth as snow.

“Although there is a huge surge of research into the environmental impact of plastics, there is still so much that we do not know,” said Bergmann.

Bergmann noted how the scientific community was only in its infancy of examining the process of how microplastics get sucked up into the atmosphere then scattered around the world in some form of precipitation. She said, there’s an “urgent need for research on human and animal health effects focusing on airborne microplastics.”

“Once we have determined that large quantities of microplastic can also be transported by the air, it naturally raises the question as to whether and how much plastic we are inhaling,” she said, “raising the question of whether breathing in these particles might increase the risk of suffering respiratory and lung diseases.”

The study’s sampling sites were on icebergs in the Arctic between Greenland and Svalbard averaged 1,760 particles per liter of melted snow, with one approaching 14,600 particles per liter. The highest concentration of all, 154,000 particles per liter found in new snow from the Bavarian Alps.

Bergmann identified a wide range of different plastics in the samples, from varnishes and paints used to coat structures, ships, automobiles, and oil rigs; rubber particles from car tires; fibers from synthetic clothing; and mass-produced synthetics, such as polyethylene, PVC, polystyrene, and polycarbonate.

More research on the full environmental and health impacts of airborne microplastics still need to be done, but preliminary results suggest a silent plastic apocalypse has infected Earth.

It’s Not A Gun Problem, It’s A Culture Problem

Via AmmoLand.com,

Dear President Trump/Senators,

The latest mass shootings have brought several things to the fore. America doesn’t have a gun problem we have a people problem…a culture problem.

I’m going to put this discussion into two categories – demonizing by name-calling and gun control.

The core element of political correctness is killing free speech. The political correctness police view any speech they don’t agree with as hate speech and by the political correctness rules, such speech must be condemned first and then eliminated, even if by force. The college campuses of America have been the laboratory for this anti-American lunacy. Political correctness is censorship and a direct violation of the First Amendment. These censorship threats and name-calling are designed to compel the opposition to shut up.

The charge of “racist” has been the hammer used by the Left to shut off discussion of any issue that makes the Left uncomfortable. The President has been called racist by every liberal pundit on TV and in print and every Democrat leader and candidate for president. The President is not a racist. There is NO evidence that he is a racist. Additionally, the term racist has been applied to every supporter of the President.

The term racist has now lost its true edge because of its indiscriminate and wide-spread use.

The new cudgel to hammer the President and all of his supporters is as white supremacist or white nationalist. I’m very active in a lot of activities here in East Tennessee ranging from a 3000 member gun club, to a huge charity that raises money for veterans causes, to a 7000 member church, to a 300+ member car club. I’m 70 years old and I’ve never met a white supremacist or white nationalist. Whoever these people are, they are in the underbelly of America and are nothing more than gnats in the atmosphere. Calling the president these names is a despicable act and beyond reprehensible. Now we have the Speaker of the House and Democrat presidential candidates saying the white nationalists are an existential threat to the U.S. This is sheer lunacy. This is the type of mental illness that should exclude these people from having guns.

Sadly, few Republicans have stood up for our president. Republicans have no spine but what about human decency?

As a loyal and patriotic American how can you stand mute when our president is attacked in such a vile manner? How about debunking whole white nationalists as existential threat to the U.S.? But sadly, Republicans are mute.

Now to the issue of the siren call of gun control. The cause of these, and other mass shootings was NOT guns; it is our sick society. Most of the perpetrators legally obtained their guns. Laws against murder, illegal use of firearms, illegal discharge of firearms, assault with deadly weapons and in California transporting a firearm across state lines that is illegal in the Golden State; all of these laws, and no doubt many others, were violated. None of those statutes prevented these crimes, something nobody seems willing to discuss.

We have a society where violence is glorified. Go to a movie or even watch television and the violence is appalling. I refuse to believe that video games don’t contribute to the violence in our culture. There are many games where killing is the score by which you win. Denying this is putting your head in the sand. The same Hollywood that advocates for gun confiscation are the same Hollywood that glorifies guns and killing in their products.

The laws we currently have has not stopped the mass killings. The laws we have has not stopped the killings in Chicago, Baltimore, or Los Angeles. So, more laws are not the answer. We need a gut check on our culture.

Let’s address so-called “assault rifles.” What is an “assault rifle?” When anti-gun rights Sen. Diane Feinstein was writing the weapons ban bill, they needed to call this class of weapons something scary, so they called them “assault weapons.” This is a made-up term conjured solely for the purpose of scaring people. I spent 30 years in the Army as an infantryman. We didn’t have assault weapons. So the very term “assault weapons” is a product of the gun control crowd. As Feinstein and her staff were writing the “Assault Weapons Ban,” they had a gun catalog and went through the pages picking out pictures of scary-looking guns. Their ignorance of guns is just astounding.

Now we have gun banners talking about “weapons of war” and “killing machines” to add to the fear and apprehension created by “assault weapons” naming convention. The AR-15 is used by millions and millions of Americans for sport, hunting, and home defense.

It is NOT a weapon of war or a killing machine. As a professional soldier, I would never go to war with any gun I could buy commercially.

The Left has been able to define the language and then police violators of the language via political correctness. The gun control crowd has defined “assault weapons” as scary weapons, and scary weapons are weapons of war and killing machines and thus should not be in the hands of the citizenry. And Republicans are mute.

If Republicans want to lose the presidency and the Senate and the House, then pass universal background checks and “Red Flag” laws. If you want to cave, to surrender, to the insane mania of the media and the Left and pass these laws, then you will lose millions like me, law-abiding, freedom-loving, gun owners.

Let’s talk about “universal background checks” as the left dictates. They want the government to control all gun transactions. This is naked government control of the right to keep and bear arms. We have background checks!! The process works when it is applied correctly. There is nothing that can be done if some government agency doesn’t due their due diligence and put the required data into the system. This applies with the current background check system and any new system that the Left would dictate. By the way, there is NO gun show loophole. If someone at a gun show wants to sell a gun to a customer, they are required, by law, to run a background check. There is nothing that can be done to prevent someone from selling a gun illegally, now or with some “enhanced background check.” Additionally, the lie that is frequently told that “90% of Americans, even NRA members, support enhanced background checks” is a true fabrication. Let’s enforce the current laws, including the background check system.

It is worth time mentioning that the Constitution is a document written to preserve individual rights and liberty and to LIMIT the government oversight of those individual rights and liberty. The Founding Fathers felt so strongly about the God-given rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights that they listed them. These rights are a sign post that says, “government hands off.” The government is forbidden to get between these rights and the American citizens.

The government has already gotten between the citizen and the Second Amendment. It started with the National Firearms Act of 1934. These laws were serious infringements of the Second Amendment. Remember the words of the Constitution in the Second Amendment, “…shall not be infringed.” How many Republican presidents and Republican majorities in Congress have turned a blind eye to these egregious infringements on our right to keep and bear arms? If you don’t know about the histories of impacts of these laws, then you are derelict in your duties.

When “universal background checks” was explored by the Obama Administration it was defeated by the outcry of the citizenry. As envisioned by the Obama Administration, their “universal background checks” would control every transaction by a gun owner. If I wanted to sell a gun to a friend, I would have had to go to a licensed gun dealer, pay a fee, and then the buyer would have to undergo a background check. Obama’s own Justice Department produced a document that said the only way for “universal background checks” to work was to have a gun registry. My gun is my property, and as such, I have a right to sell it without asking permission from the government. A logical extension is a government requiring books to have serial numbers and controlling their distribution and sale.

So stay away from some form of “universal background checks.”

Now to “Red Flag laws.” Seventeen states have some form of these laws, but only a couple of them even mention mental health. None of us wants mentally imbalanced people or terrorists to have guns. But these laws are a slippery slope to another way for the government to get between a citizen and their right to keep and bear arms. The gun grabbers are salivating about this. They want the government determining who is eligible to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The Left wants some type of process like was in the movie Minority Report, where the government reads the minds of citizens and takes actions to arrest the citizen before they committed some crime. Of course, reading the minds is a bit of hyperbole, but these laws would have government people across the country determining that someone who tweeted, made a Facebook post, wrote an email is a danger to society and they raid that person’s home and take their weapons. This then becomes a Fourth Amendment violation. So we start with a government deciding that something said by a citizen is unacceptable, violating the First Amendment, the government then violates the Fourth Amendment and deprives a citizen of their Second Amendment right.

Another part of this slippery slope is who reports the “unstable” citizen and then who decides whether the accusation is valid? Maybe a neighbor doesn’t like my MAGA hat and believes the crazy rhetoric of the media, and thus, I’m a white nationalist and therefore a threat and call the Sheriff. The Sheriff then conducts a “no-knock” warrant and breaks in my door in the middle of the night. I think this is a real break-in and defend myself, and I am, or an officer is shot. Imaginary? Not so, this happened recently to some unlucky homeowner. Who’s to blame? Who will be held accountable? If you pass these types of laws, these scenarios will play out over the nation.

“Red Flag laws” are another intrusion/infringement of citizens’ rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

In summary:

American citizens, simply because of their American citizenship, hold God-given rights to defend self and family – and that includes the right to own and use firearms. That God-given right is enshrined in the Constitution, as the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment doesn’t allow for the government to determine whether some have rights to own firearms, versus others who don’t. Seriously: Do we really want government holding this power?

What about the path these “red flag” laws would take under a leftist administration, under Democratic control?

“Red flag” laws bring too many unknowns.

Millions of honest gun owners who didn’t use their firearms for mayhem have good reason to feel they are being penalized for crimes they did not commit. This is not an issue about guns; it’s about rights. These laws are repealing the Bill of Rights one chunk at a time.

When are Republicans going to stand up and defend the Bill of Rights? The President campaigned on and has emphasized his promise to defend the Second Amendment.