Defeating the globalists will not be easy, but its possible. From Brandon Smith at alt-market.com:
In my last two articles, ‘How Globalists Predict Your Behavior‘ and ‘How To Predict The Behavior Of Globalists‘, I explained the base fundamentals behind a concept with which most people are unfamiliar. They are so unfamiliar with it, in fact, that I didn’t bother to name it. In this article I hope to explain it, but I highly recommend people read the previous articles in this series before moving forward.
What I outlined, essentially, was a beginners course on 4th Generation Warfare. This methodology is difficult to summarize, but here I will list what I believe are some of its core tenets.
Fourth Gen warfare is based on a primary lesson within Sun Tzu’s The Art Of War. Sun Tzu argues in the classical military tome that the greatest strategists win wars by NOT fighting, or at least, by not fighting their opponents openly and directly. That is to say, they win by convincing their opponents that fighting back is futile and that surrender is preferable, or, they convince their opponents to destroy themselves through internal conflict and psychological sabotage. Sun Tzu felt this method was far superior to engaging in direct combat in a real world battle space.
While this might sound bizarre to some, it is becoming more and more apparent (in my view) that 4th Gen warfare is now the go-to weapon for globalists. Defeating the system established by the globalists, a system prevalent for decades, is an impossible task unless 4th Gen warfare is understood.
To continue reading: How To Defeat The Globalist System
Bob:
I always enjoy reading Brandon, whether or not I agree with him. In this article he engages in which a seemingly increasing number of sharp minds seem prone to engage.
They substitute the idea of some powerful, conniving, clever and influential intellect(s) planning on a massive scale, the subjugation of entire populations of people, for their nefarious ends, for what is more consequently explained using reason.
I find such things absurd. I do so because of mans’s nature. Specifically, man will respond to facts as he discovers them. Most among us discovering them when they become inescapable. Only a small number of us seem to concern ourselves with “long-term” reflection and planning – and then we do so only with respect to that which we directly control.
I am not saying that there are not those among us who, using faulty premises and the logic from which such premises flow, seem as if to have “planned” that which they have fostered.
Rand incessantly remarked, “check your premises” for a reason. The reason was that “reason” is always at work work in a mind, but when it begins from a faulty premise, the result can be so absurd or horrific, that the innocent rational mind will utter, “how could this have happened?”
They then will, using their reason, “explain” that such an outcome, as in this article, could only have occurred through sinister planning.
In any case, such a subject and theory might be the basis for a book.
Dave
Dave,
The question I always have about the various rule-the-world conspiracies, especially the ones that supposedly stretch back for centuries, is why would plotters spend the time and go to the trouble necessary when their efforts will almost certainly only pay off after they’re dead? I believe the flawed premises of statism are quite adequate to explain the deterioration and horror we see in the world today. I believe that deterioration and horror will only get worse, until something we all will recognize as a collapse occurs. At that point, I think some of Smith’s recommendations, and his general outlook, have value. Devolution will be the order of the day, not some centralized police state. If there is an attempted police state, I don’t see how the same group that’s botched a long string of foreign interventions, that’s inflicted chaos in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, is going to maintain order in the US and Europe. Resistance will be fierce; guerrilla warfare, especially in the well-armed US, unlike anything the world has ever seen. There won’t be, as Smith notes, some leader on a white horse, but there will be, as Smith recommends, thousands of localized cells of resistance. If we think guerrilla warfare in places like Vietnam and the Middle East is bad, imagine the resistance military veterans, computer hackers, preppers, and out and out bad ass Americans can wage.
For further thoughts on this matter, see my article “Bring It On.”
Bob
It will actually “physically unravel,” when the economic consequences of the century-long folly reach the point where elements of what you (and he) describe reach “hopelessness” for significant numbers among us. I do not know what “significant” might be, but we are getting close. If Trump’s attempt at “draining the swamp” triggers capital sequestration and/or flight, then that will certainly impact “significant.”
However, that must be weighed with the question, “where will said capital flee?”
Always enjoy your perspective and what you and your cite bring to my attentioin!
Dave
Thanks.