Understanding The Tactics Of Subversive Globalism

[Firewall99]

[I don't know if anybody is still here, but I closed my F*ckbook account, so is this all that's left?]

I read this on Lew Rockwell and just have to share.  Sorry it's so long, but it is cogent and right on the money, especially the quotes by famous Fabians.


Understanding The Tactics Of Subversive Globalism

By Brandon Smith
Alt-Market.com (From a post on LewRockwell.com)

September 15, 2018

When the ideology of globalism is discussed in liberty movement circles there are often misunderstandings as to the source of the threat and what it truly represents. This may in some cases be by design. In the latest era of supposed "populism" led by figures like Donald Trump, an entirely new and very green generation of liberty activists find themselves hyper focused on the political left in general, but they seem to be obsessed with attacking the symptoms of globalism rather than the source. I attribute this to a clever propaganda campaign by globalist institutions.

For example, when globalism is brought up in terms of its conspiratorial influences, the name of George Soros is usually mentioned. Soros is an obvious bogeyman for liberty activists because his money can be found flowing to numerous Cultural Marxist (social justice) organizations and his influence is easily grasped and digested in that way. Conservatives like placing emphasis on Soros because he appears decidedly leftist and thus globalism becomes synonymous with leftist movements. But what about all the globalists within the political right?

Globalism has its gatekeepers in both political camps; people that manipulate or outright control political leaders and political messages on the right just as they do on the left. While someone like George Soros acts as a gatekeeper for the left, we also have people like Henry Kissinger, a globalist gatekeeper for the right. Kissinger's close relations with the Trump administration or his long time friendship with Russia's Vladimir Putin are brought up far less in the liberty movement these days. Why? Because this does not fit with the false narrative that the globalists are "targeting" Trump or Putin. When you examine these leaders and their ties to a vast array of globalist proponents, this claim becomes absurd.

In 2016, months before the presidential election, the globalist media outlet Bloomberg published an article which salivated over the possibility that Trump would swallow up and assimilate what they called the "Tea Party," ultimately destroying it. At that time the media used the term "Tea Party" as code for any sovereignty or constitutional group, just as the media tried to wrap us all up in the term "alt-right" after Trump's election.

There was a reason why Bloomberg found particular glee in the notion that Trump would absorb the liberty movement. The movement was becoming a decentralized threat to the globalist agenda, a threat that could not be easily quantified or dominated because it had no identifiable leadership. We were a movement based on knowledge and individual action. Our best "leaders" have been teachers, not politicians, and these were people that led by personal example, not by mandate or rhetoric.

The liberty movement was winning ground in every conceivable arena, from the dismantling of the mainstream media through alternative platforms, to the great push back against social justice cultism. Something had to be done.

Enter Trump, a brash pop culture icon with a flare for sensationalism. He was no statesman like Ron Paul explaining the intricacies of America's problems in a measured way. No, Trump was like a wrecking ball, a loud and blatant message to the left that we were tired of being on the defensive and we were coming for them. But the reality was that Trump was not a necessary element of the fight. He never was. Anti-globalism and anti-social justice were already hitting the mainstream. The left was already on the run. Trump didn't create that wave, the liberty movement did that for him, he just rode it into the White House. You're welcome, Donald.

The problem was that Trump was not what he seemed to be to many people. With all his rhetoric against the banking elites which he referred to as creatures of the "swamp" choking Washington, Trump then proceeded to load up his presidential cabinet with elitists and globalists as soon as he was elected. These very same cabinet members and advisers went on to attend globalist meetings like the secretive Bilderberg Group AFTER Trump had been elected. People like Rothschild banking agent and Commerce Secretary Wilber Ross who officially attended in 2017, or adviser Peter Thiel who officially attended in 2018.

This was not at all surprising to me. I predicted this would be the likely outcome (along with a Trump presidency) in my article "Clinton Versus Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement," published in September 2016.

The point is, simply picking the side of the political right is not enough to protect activists from globalist subversion. By rallying around controlled politicians and bottle-necking our actions the liberty movement makes itself vulnerable and decidedly impotent.

So, the question arises — how do we continue to fight against the 4th Generation warfare being levied against us? Part of the solution continues to rest in our own understanding of the enemy.

I still hold to the idea that the best way to understand globalism is to study and expose the efforts of a group called the "Fabian Society," otherwise known as Fabian Socialists. The society was founded in England in 1884 and was an extension of the "Round Table" groups being established by global elitists in the West at the time. The Fabians have been at the forefront of almost every pro-socialist and pro-globalist movement of the past century, and while they do not get as much attention as institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations or even the Bilderberg Group, their open discussions on their own motivations and goals make them a prime source of data on the psychology of our opponents.

The Fabian Society has multiple mascots which hint at the nature of globalism. One symbol of the group is an angry turtle with the slogan "When I strike I strike hard," indicating the slow and deliberate nature of globalism and its methodical spread into every aspect of our daily lives. Another mascot they have used in the past is a wolf dressed up as a sheep, a symbol which I think is self explanatory, but to clarify – a person that appears to be anti-globalist in rhetoric or who is criticized by people like the Fabians may still be a Fabian in disguise.  Their relationships with elitists will expose their true nature as a Trojan Horse.

I think that the best representation of these people and their thinking resides in their own words, however. Here are some choice quotes from past members:

...The Open Conspiracy will appear first, I believe as a conscious organization of intelligent, and in some cases wealthy men, as a movement having distinct social and political aims, confessedly ignoring most of the existing apparatus of political control, or using it only as an incidental implement in the stages, a mere movement of a number of people in a certain direction, who will presently discover, with a sort of a surprise, the common object toward which they are all moving. In all sorts of ways, they will be influencing and controlling the ostensible government." — H.G. Wells: The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution, 1928

"I also made it quite clear that socialism means equality of income or nothing, and that under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well." — George Bernard Shaw, The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928

"I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's." — Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1953

"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. ... Various results will soon be arrived at: that the influence of home is obstructive... although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen ... Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion; the other is nationalism. ... A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government." — Bertrand Russell: The Impact of Science on Society, 1953

"And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing ... a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods." — Aldous Huxley, "The Ultimate Revolution" March 20, 1962 Berkeley Language Center

Today, the Fabian Society still exists and operates as a think tank much like any other globalist think tank. Their articles and essays push the latest globalist propaganda from the erasure of national sovereignty to the promotion of gender politics and gender "fluidity." But what can we draw from these writings and the statements of past members?

First, globalists use guerrilla-like tactics to achieve their goals and they often act slowly and quietly over the course of years or decades. The Fabian Society was named after the Roman General Quintus Fabius Maximus who famously used tactics of attrition and delay to defeat his enemies. Liberty activists need to start thinking in terms of the long game, much like a chess player does, in order to grasp the globalist agenda. The events triggered today may have intended effects which are not necessarily obvious to us now unless we consider how they relate to the greater scheme.

This is especially true in terms of economics.  Globalists stage fiscal bubbles many years in advance, and use economic crisis as a catalyst for social change on a grand scale.  Usually this results in ever increasing centralization of wealth and power.  However, the shift of financial dominance is subtle to those who do not pay particular attention to the details.  A market bubble might take a decade to develop before it is deliberately popped.  In the meantime all the fundamentals are screaming that something is very wrong, but the majority of the public remains oblivious until it is too late.

Second, control of governments and political leaders is paramount to the success of globalism. The notion that ANY major political leader comes to power without globalist influence is utterly naive. Trump and his swamp creature appointed cabinet are perfect examples of this. Rhetoric is meaningless, and while such leaders may throw their base a bone now and then, in the end their actions only push the ball forward for the globalists. This may even include sabotaging their own presidency to make way for a globalist "solution."

Third, mass psychology is a globalist obsession. All power stems from perception. Figureheads and ideological groups sometimes offer the promise of social advantage to the public without much effort on their part. The temptation of this offer can lead people to hand over their free will in exchange. But not all "progress" is actually advantageous for the masses and misery usually follows such Faustian deals with the elites. Escape is difficult.

Therefore, globalists must control the narrative at all costs. The public has to be divided as much as possible in order to keep them distracted from the guiding hand of the cabal itself. And, any group that opposes them directly has to be co-opted or destroyed. The more people focus on globalists and their organizations as the core source of social instability, the more uncomfortable they become.

Fourth, most globalist actions today rely on 4th Generation warfare; meaning, few things are exactly as they seem, ever. I suspect the success of liberty activists has forced them into more elaborate forms of theater. Nothing they do is ever simple unless you have studied the motivations and mindset of the globalists, then they become rather predictable, unoriginal and bizarrely robotic in their behavior. They appear brilliant in the execution of their agendas only because they have centuries of experience implementing the same con games over and over. They are sociopathic grifters; they are clever and without remorse, but not geniuses in any sense of the word.

For now, educating the general liberty movement and the people around us on these issues remains the best method for throwing a monkey wrench into the globalist machine. Countering their psyops should be our pinnacle task, and falling into the narrative traps they create must be avoided. They have spent a considerable amount of thought and energy trying to co-opt our efforts, and that should give everyone pause. For if we were not a true threat, why would they bother with us?

Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.com.

Hail Murray.

[Russell Kanning]

a couple of us

[Jim Johnson]

'It's vague, it's grand and it's out to get you. It's going to take many generations but you're going to be forced to live comfortably until you die.'

I can't see people with power and money getting behind such a thing.

[Free libertarian]

I'm still thinking a sloth is a much better mascot than an angry turtle.   They are slower and even more deliberate.  Take THAT George Soros !

[Firewall99]

'It's vague, it's grand and it's out to get you. It's going to take many generations but you're going to be forced to live comfortably until you die.'

I can't see people with power and money getting behind such a thing.

This is a good example of a straw man argument - throw up a quote from somewhere else that has nothing to do with what is being discussed and attack it, instead of dealing with what actually has been said.

In order to put your head in the sand, you must be on your knees.

[Firewall99]

a couple of us

I'm still thinking a sloth is a much better mascot than an angry turtle.   They are slower and even more deliberate.  Take THAT George Soros !

It is sad to see what's left of this site:  nonsensical vagueness and cynicism.  It's like officer Bar-brady from South Park  when he says, "Nothing to see here.  Move along."

I guess I see now why there is no cogent discussion here any more.  Russel, Jim, Free libertarian, and Tom have ruined it.  Good work, boys.  Why don't you go over to Antifa and do a number on them?

[Jim Johnson]

'It's vague, it's grand and it's out to get you. It's going to take many generations but you're going to be forced to live comfortably until you die.'

I can't see people with power and money getting behind such a thing.

This is a good example of a straw man argument - throw up a quote from somewhere else that has nothing to do with what is being discussed and attack it, instead of dealing with what actually has been said.

In order to put your head in the sand, you must be on your knees.

Those aren't quotation marks, they're there to paraphrase the original post.

It's not a good example of a straw man argument.

You've attacked the only post that actually addressed the original post.

.....and you should provide an example of a cogent discussion that happened here.

[Free libertarian]

a couple of us

I'm still thinking a sloth is a much better mascot than an angry turtle.   They are slower and even more deliberate.  Take THAT George Soros !

It is sad to see what's left of this site:  nonsensical vagueness and cynicism.  It's like officer Bar-brady from South Park  when he says, "Nothing to see here.  Move along."

I guess I see now why there is no cogent discussion here any more.  Russel, Jim, Free libertarian, and Tom have ruined it.  Good work, boys.  Why don't you go over to Antifa and do a number on them?

I'm sorry,  somewhere along the line I got all cogented out.  I'll consider reading your post and making an attempt at more reasonable commentary. 

I don't agree that me and the fellas have ruined it though, so I'm gonna plead nolo contendre to that one. 
 

[Russell Kanning]

and I got micro-aggressed against with the racist use of the term
Russel

[Becky Thatcher]

a couple of us

I'm still thinking a sloth is a much better mascot than an angry turtle.   They are slower and even more deliberate.  Take THAT George Soros !

It is sad to see what's left of this site:  nonsensical vagueness and cynicism.  It's like officer Bar-brady from South Park  when he says, "Nothing to see here.  Move along."

I guess I see now why there is no cogent discussion here any more.  Russel, Jim, Free libertarian, and Tom have ruined it.  Good work, boys.  Why don't you go over to Antifa and do a number on them?

Wow.  So you show up here with a lengthy post (written by someone else) after not posting for a long time and then get all snippy when you don't like the banter that follows.  I'll bet you're fun at parties.

I don't know you, but I do know Russell, Jim, Free Libertarian, and Tom.  Far from ruining this forum, they are the reason it still exists at all.  I think they are hilarious and clever and I eagerly look forward to any non-cogent discussions they may enter into.

[Tom Sawyer]

Hey John,

Thanks for participating in the forum.

We have been keeping this line of communication going. We actually know each other and participate in each other's lives. We've built houses for porcupines, supported each other in court, gone up against the feds and the state authorities together.

My family doesn't do the Facebook thing and thus have lost a lot of contact with the wider Free Stater community. Although we do get to catch up with folks by working for them or seeing them at events we become aware of.

As a disclosure I've received money from organizations that were getting funding from both Soros and Koch... I worked for and was owned by the fed gooberment... I also support Free Libertarian's push to make our mascot the Sloth!

[Tom Sawyer]

On another note do you still keep in contact with Jerry? I see you used to do the Apple Seed shooting events with him. He is dealing with health issues and can't keep up with his Curmudgeon position that he took over from Lloyd. Free Libertarian tried to fill those shoes, but alas he is much too light hearted to really meet the criteria. Perhaps you can be our new Curmudgeon... Although Lloyd would be a pretty tough act to follow.

We miss Lloyd... just remembering him and seeing William from 6 years ago is kind of bittersweet. Jerry and the rest of the Grafton crew put on a nice gig at John's church, miss him too dang it.
Check out...
Tour de Shire, Exploring the Free State, New Hampshire, Grafton Apple Festival 2012
https://youtu.be/EfdrTaRpYog

[Russell Kanning]

so true we don't have a good grouch around here anymore

[Becky Thatcher]

We have lots of grouches, just not that one who can sustain the curmudgeon-ness for longer periods of time. 

[Russell Kanning]

so true