When globalists speak publicly about a “new world order” they are speaking about something very specific and rather sacred in their little cult of elitism. It is not simply the notion that civilization shifts or changes abruptly on its own; rather, it is their name for a directed and engineered vision — a world built according to their rules, not a world that evolved naturally according to necessity.
There are other names for this engineered vision, including the “global economic reset,” or the more general and innocuous term “globalism,” but the intention is the same. The ultimate goal of the new world order as an ideology is total centralization of economic and governmental power into the hands of a select and unaccountable bureaucracy made up of international financiers. This is governance according the the dictates of Plato’s Republic; a delusional fantasy world in which benevolent philosopher kings, supposedly smarter and more objective than the rest of us, rule from on high with scientific precision and wisdom. It is a world where administrators become gods.
Such precision and objectivity within human systems is not possible, of course. Human beings are far too susceptible to their own biases and personal desires to be given totalitarian power over others. The results will always be destruction and disaster. Then, add to this the fact that the kinds of people who often pursue such power are predominantly narcissistic sociopaths and psychopaths. If a governmental structure of high level centralization is allowed to form, it opens a door for these mentally and spiritually broken people to play out their twisted motives on a global stage.
It is important to remember that sociopaths are prone to fabricating all kinds of high minded ideals to provide cover for their actions. That is to say, they will adopt a host of seemingly noble causes to rationalize their scramble for power, but in the end these “humanitarians” only care about imposing their will on as many people as possible while feeding off them for as long as time allows.
There are many false promises, misrepresentations and fraudulent conceptions surrounding the narrative of globalism. Some of them are rather clever and subversive and are difficult to pick out in the deliberately created fog. The schemes involved in implementing globalism are designed to confuse the masses with crisis until they end up ASKING for more centralization and less freedom.
Let’s examine some of the most common propaganda methods and arguments behind the push for globalization and a “new world order”…
Con #1: Globalism Is About “Free Markets”
A common pro-globalism meme is the idea that globalization is not really centralization, but decentralization. This plays primarily to the economic side of global governance, which in my view is the most important because without economic centralization political centralization is not possible.
Free markets according to Adam Smith, a pioneer of the philosophy, are supposed to provide open paths for anyone with superior ideas and ingenuity to pursue those ideas without interference from government or government aided institutions. What we have today under globalism are NOT free markets. Instead, globalism has supplied unfettered power to international corporations which cannot exist without government charter and government financial aid.
The corporate model is completely counter to Adam Smith’s original premise of free market trade. Large corporations receive unfair legal protection under limited liability as well as outright legislative protection from civil consequences (Monsanto is a perfect example of this). They also receive immense taxpayer funded welfare through bailouts and other sources when they fail to manage their business responsibly. All this while small businesses and entrepreneurs are impeded at every turn by taxation and legal obstacles.
In terms of international trade being “free trade,” this is not really the case either. Only massive corporations supported by governments are able to exploit the advantages of international manufacturing and labor sources in a way that ensures long term success. Meanwhile economic models that promote true decentralization and localism become impractical because real competition is never allowed. The world has not enjoyed free markets in at least a century. What we have today is something entirely different.
Con #2: Globalism Is About A “Multipolar World”
This is a relatively new disinformation tactic that I attribute directly to the success of the liberty movement and alternative economists. As the public becomes more educated on the dangers of economic centralization and more specifically the dangers of central banks, the globalists are attempting to shift the narrative to muddy the waters.
For example, the liberty movement has railed against the existence of the Federal Reserve and fiat dollar hegemony to the point that our information campaign has been breaking into mainstream thought. The problem is that globalism is not about the dollar, U.S. hegemony or the so-called “deep state,” which in my view is a distraction from the bigger issue at hand.
The fact is, globalist institutions and central banks permeate almost every corner of the world. Nations like Russia and China are just as heavily tied to the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements and international financial centers like Goldman Sachs as any western government.
Part of the plan for the new world order, as has been openly admitted by globalists and globalist publications, is the decline of the U.S. and the dollar system to make way for one world financial governance through the IMF as well as the Special Drawing Rights basket as a mechanism for the world reserve currency. The globalists WANT a less dominant U.S. and a more involved East, while the East continues to call for more control of the global economy by the IMF. This concept unfortunately flies over the heads of most economists, even in the liberty movement.
So, the great lie being promoted now is that the fall of the U.S. and the dollar is a “good thing” because it will result in “decentralization,” a “multi-polar” world order and the “death” of globalism. However, what is really happening is that as the U.S. falls globalist edifices like the IMF and the BIS rise. We are moving from centralization to super-centralization. Globalists have pulled a bait and switch in order to trick the liberty movement into supporting the success of the East (which is actually also globalist controlled) and a philosophy which basically amounts to a re-branding of the new world order as some kind of decentralized paradise.
Con #3: Nationalism Is The Source Of War, And Globalism Will End It
If there’s one thing globalists have a love/hate relationship with, it’s humanity’s natural tribal instincts. On the one hand, they like tribalism because in some cases tribalism can be turned into zealotry, and zealots are easy to exploit and manipulate. Wars between nations (tribes) can be instigated if the tribal instinct is weighted with artificial fears and threats.
On the other hand, tribalism lends itself to natural decentralization of societies because tribalism in its best form is the development of many groups organized around a variety of ideas and principles and projects. This makes the establishment of a “one world ideology” very difficult, if not impossible. The first inclination of human beings is to discriminate against ideas and people they see as destructive and counter to their prosperity. Globalists therefore have to convince a majority of people that the very tribalism that has fueled our social evolution and some of the greatest ideas in history is actually the source of our eventual doom.
Nationalism served the globalists to a point, but now they need to get rid of it entirely. This requires considerable crisis blamed on nationalism and “populist” ideals. Engineered war, whether kinetic or economic, is the best method to scapegoat tribalism. Every tragedy from now on must eventually be attributed to ideas of separation and logical discrimination against negative ideologies. The solution of globalism will then be offered; a one world system in which all separation is deemed “evil.”
Con #4: Globalism Is Natural And Inevitable
As mentioned earlier, globalists cannot have their “new world order” unless they can convince the masses to ask for it. Trying to implement such a system by force alone would end in failure, because revolution is the natural end result of tyranny. Therefore, the new world order has to be introduced as if it had been formed by coincidence or by providence. Any hint that the public is being conned into accepting global centralization would trigger widespread resistance.
This is why globalism is always presented in the mainstream media as a natural extension of civilization’s higher achievement. Even though it was the dangerous interdependency of globalism that helped fuel the economic crisis of 2008 and continues to escalate that crisis to this day, more globalism is continually promoted as the solution to the problem. It is spoken of with reverence in mainstream economic publications and political discussions. It receives almost religious praise in the halls of academia. Globalism is socioeconomic ambrosia — the food of deities. It is the fountain of youth. It is a new Eden.
Obviously, this adoration for globalism is nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that globalism is a positive force for humanity, let alone a natural one. There is far more evidence that globalism is a poisonous ideology that can only ever gain a foothold through trickery and through false flags.
We live in an era that represents an ultimate crossroads for civilization; a time of great uncertainty. Will we seek truth in the trials we face, and thus the ability to create our own solutions? Or, will we take a seemingly easier road by embracing whatever solutions are handed to us by the establishment? Make no mistake — the globalists already have a solution prepackaged for us. They have been acclimating and conditioning the public to accept it for decades now. That solution will not bring what it promises. It will not bring peace, but eternal war. It will not bring togetherness, but isolation. It will not bring understanding, but ignorance.
When globalists eventually try to sell us on a full-blown new world order, they will pull out every conceivable image of heaven on Earth, but they will do this only after creating a tangible and ever present hell.
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
You can contact Brandon Smith at:
brandon@alt-market.com
Bookmark Hits: 5168
Comments (10)add comment
Brandon Smith …
written by Brandon Smith , April 25, 2018
written by lastrezort , April 25, 2018
Brandon, This may be your most understandable, compelling article yet. Thank you!
report abuse vote down vote up
Votes: +10
0 .
written by Anon55 , April 25, 2018
“Nationalism served the globalists to a point, but now they need to get rid of it entirely. This requires considerable crisis blamed on nationalism and “populist” ideals. Engineered war, whether kinetic or economic, is the best method to scapegoat tribalism. Every tragedy from now on must eventually be attributed to ideas of separation and logical discrimination against negative ideologies.”
Are you speaking about Trump’s trade war or are you suggesting we might soon get another Hitler or another Mussolini? because Trade Wars usually do not cause a considerable crisis even though they may contribute to the degree of a financial crisis. They have happened numerous times in the past and they’ve usually only been precursors to a larger war, like for example in 1890 and 1897 before World War I and in 1922 and 1930 before World War II.
“Trying to implement such a system by force alone would end in failure, because revolution is the natural end result of tyranny”
Revolution does not even require for something to be implemented with force. Any system whatsoever will encounter a revolution at some point in time, no matter how good it is in the eyes of its founders. This is a natural human cycle that occurs after people have become fed up with their current system and demand for something else. The general attitude of people right now is that they are fed up, which itself means we are either way heading towards a crisis period as society is unraveling and demanding for something else. Sometimes this leads to good consequences and sometimes worse, like in the Communist Revolutions in the early 20th century. As long as the globalists can’t read our thoughts there’s going to be an attempt at a revolution at some point and I’m sure they are aware of this as well. They’ve literally happened in every big government in existence.
report abuse vote down vote up
Votes: +0
Brandon Smith …
written by Brandon Smith , April 25, 2018
@Anon
1) This particular trade war is already being used as a scapegoat for crashing markets, and it’s barely been initiated yet. Also, you seem to be forgetting that this trade war is perfect cover the collapse of the US dollar. Just because there have been very few trade wars that led to crisis in the past does not mean such a thing is not possible today, especially given the number of powder kegs the globalists have set in place within our economy. You should try looking at the evidence at hand instead of jumping to poor assumptions based merely on comparing apples to oranges.
2) There is rarely ever a revolution within a decentralized system, because frankly, who would you revolt against? That said, name me one revolution within a non-tyranny that was working properly that wasn’t instigated by establishment globalists. The Bolshevik revolution, for example, was completely organized and funded by international financiers. It was not a natural revolution launched from the grassroots.
report abuse vote down vote up
Votes: +11
0 Re:
written by Anon55 , April 25, 2018
“This particular trade war is already being used as a scapegoat for crashing markets, and it’s barely been initiated yet. Also, you seem to be forgetting that this particular trade war is perfect cover the collapse of the US dollar.”
Yes, I am aware of this. But you know as well as I do that the financial crisis would happen with or without Trump’s Trade War. It is as you say, just a cover-up. I did say that they do contribute to a financial crisis, however.
“Just because there have been very few trade wars that led to crisis in the past does not mean such a thing is not possible today”
True, however one Trade War which may have even partially triggered an economic crisis was the one fought between 1927-1929. It started with the 1922 Tariff Act which was just as bad as the 1930 one. The actual retaliations didn’t for some reason come until 1927-1929, most between 1927 and 1928 however and from multiple countries as well. The 1922 Tariff isn’t even nearly as known as the 1930 one, maybe because the blame wanted to be put partly on Hoover who signed the 1930 Tariff?
“There is rarely ever a revolution within a decentralized system, because frankly, who would you revolt against?”
I was not so much referring to decentralized systems or potential future governments ruled by the principle of liberty rather than tyranny, but rather to governments and governance systems in the general sense.
“That said, name me one revolution within a non-tyranny that was working properly that wasn’t instigated by establishment globalists.”
I’d argue that revolutions do not happen because the system wasn’t working properly, I’d argue that they happen because people aren’t happy with the way their current system is and want it to rather work the way they want to or the way the globalists want to, if the revolution happens to be their idea. Since a group of people can’t usually form their own government they feel forced to try and change the one that they are inhabiting. Sometimes if the movement grows enough and is aggressive enough (communist movements usually always are aggressive) the whole government can be changed. There would of course be no reason for revolutions or rebellions if all groups of people could just form a government of their liking.
report abuse vote down vote up
Votes: +0
Brandon Smith …
written by Brandon Smith , April 25, 2018
@Anon
So then we essentially agree on almost everything except the revolution issue. I’m not exactly sure what you are arguing about.
On the trade war, I never said that the Trump’s actions alone would cause a crisis. I have said the opposite, in fact. Hoover’s tarrif’s were also part of a much larger scheme to collapse the US economy. You should read my article comparing Trump and Hoover for more information on this.
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3389-trump-trade-wars-a-perfect-smokescreen-for-a-market-crash
On revolutions, I suppose you can believe whatever you want to believe, but history does not support the view that all systems simply revert to revolution and violent breakdown naturally. Rather, revolutions within functioning systems are often engineered.
This idea stems from a globalist propaganda notion that chaos and crisis are actually normal functions of human social existence. If that were the case, then the globalists would not need to spend massive amounts of capital and utilize vast arrays of media propaganda in order to artificially create these revolutions. Again, you clearly can’t name a revolution that took place within a functioning system or a non-tyrannical system that has NOT been engineered through false flag, etc.
I would hash out the history on your theory before arguing it.
report abuse vote down vote up
Votes: +3
0 Re:
written by Anon55 , April 25, 2018
“So then we essentially agree on almost everything except the revolution issue. I’m not exactly sure what you are arguing about.”
Just answering to your counter-arguments. I think these kinds of conversations can be useful.
“This idea stems from a globalist propaganda notion that chaos and crisis are actually normal functions of human social existence. If that were the case, then the globalists would not need to spend massive amounts of capital and utilize vast arrays of media propaganda in order to artificially create these revolutions. Again, you clearly can’t name a revolution that took place within a functioning system or a non-tyrannical system that has NOT been engineered through false flag, etc.”
Well that’s a bit hard because there hasn’t been a completely functioning and non-tyrannical system within the modern history time period. However, since non-tyrannical governments wouldn’t stop people from forming their own governments, revolutions and rebellions probably would not happen. So in that sense, you are correct in saying the notion of chaos and crisis are not normal functions of human social existence, at least not regarding revolutions and rebellions, although I would rather say they do not have to be normal functions of human social existence, depending on whether there are any authoritarian governments nearby. The beginning of the United States is however definitely the closest we have come within the modern history period to a non-tyrannical system, but Alexander Hamilton who was likely a globalist stooge and one of Jeffersons’ leading opponents was one of the Founding Fathers and the founder of the Federalist Party, which like Alexander himself advocated for stronger central government and a central bank, both of which came into being during Alexander’s time. If this does not smell of globalist influence, I don’t know what does. This means the globalists likely had influence from early on in the United States. At least after Shay’s Rebellion. The Globalists didn’t, of course, just swallow the United States all at once but operated slowly and quietly. But it didn’t take the globalists more than just 20-30 years to change a lot of the original United States.
report abuse vote down vote up
Votes: +0
Brandon Smith …
written by Brandon Smith , April 25, 2018
@Anon
Not true. Numerous tribal systems have existed in history that were not centralized or tyrannical. Not all of them, but some of them (unless we’re going by Anarcho-capitalist standards, which are absurdly unrealistic at their core anyway). Also, we were speaking of REVOLUTIONS, and the American revolution was certainly against a tyrannical system. The enduring success of those revolutions was not the subject of the discussion.
But let’s be clear, the fact that the globalists have insinuated themselves into the American system and corrupted it (except for certain elements which they have been unable to control), does not mean future attempts at decentralized systems should not be pursued.
Also, NO revolution has ever been aimed directly at the globalists themselves. The next great revolution will be, and will probably decide centralization vs decentralization for the next few centuries to come.
report abuse vote down vote up
Votes: +1
0 It’s all about the source of money…
written by Gods Creation , April 26, 2018
“””without economic centralization political centralization is not possible.”””
That is what the people fail to realize. America was strong when the money was gold and silver (the peoples money) that could not be controlled. When control was unlawfully ceded to the banksters, America began it’s fall.
As a smaller form of proof that centralization is deadly, just look at the USA. It started with a decentralized group of small states determining their own needs. then it progressed to the US government, a foreign power, ASSUMING lawmaking power over the previously free and sovereign states.
The states no longer even exist in anything other than name. Why? Because a private bank creates their money, and it is supplied to them through a centralized system DC.
just imagine the damage to every corner of the earth, and every person, when everything is centralized. the “lawmakers” are bad enough if they are in DC making laws for the states. How bad will it get when “world government” is centralized into China and it “makes laws” for the world.
The good news is, I only have 15 years left if all goes well. I can try to help educate the young, but as the saying goes we all have to find out for ourselves that the stove is hot.
The world will survive long after I am gone. Hopefully, the idea of freedom and resentment for others trying to tell someone what to do will flourish as the globalist plans crumble. People tend to smarten up when their ignorance causes them great harm.
report abuse vote down vote up
Votes: +0
0 God’s Work
written by withoutwax , April 26, 2018
…so, they’re not doing God’s work, then?
I sincerely think they think they are!
report abuse vote down vote up
Votes: +0