Understanding The Tactics Of Subversive Globalism
Brandon Smith
Alt-Market.com
Wednesday, 12 September 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 Rest…HERE
