Brandon Smith’s hypothesis is that Donald Trump will win the election so the globalists can discredit conservatives and the liberty movement when things collapse. A corrallary of that hypothesis is that the liberty movement itself could be coopted, and thus discredited. This is a hypothesis that SLL does not reject, although it remains to be seen how things play out. From Smith at alt-markets.com:
Most of my readers are well aware of my position on U.S. elections in general – they are an eternal farce meant to give false hope to the masses. They are designed to make the public feel as if we are participating in our own governance, when in reality, we are only ever allowed to choose from a list of candidates that the elites pre-select. This does not mean that all politicians are corrupted or controlled, but according to the evidence I have seen, the majority of government represents the desires of a select few, and not the majority of the citizenry.
There is absolutely no chance of retaking our current government by working within the system. To be blunt, the system is now structured to protect itself and nothing else. To think that it can be influenced through “elections” is an absurd notion.
For the past decade, though, I have seen a powerful shift in the public psyche towards a realization that our government is built upon a fraudulent paradigm; the false left versus the false right. I also understand that if I can see this shift, so can the numerous think tanks funded by the elites. The elites do not always try to obstruct changes in public awareness; this would be an unrealistic and fruitless effort. Instead, they often work to co-opt these changes and exploit them to the benefit of the establishment.
Consider, for instance, the aggressive takeover of the Tea Party movement by the neoconservative guard. I joined activist efforts in 2007 when the Tea Party was small but growing and organized primarily around the goal of auditing and/or shutting down the Federal Reserve. Many people are not even aware that the Tea Party was launched by Ron Paul among other libertarian voices.
As the movement began to grow exponentially, there were some attempts to stifle it. Accusations of “homegrown terrorism” were thrown around, not necessarily by Democrats, but by the Republican Party. When the strategy of demonization failed, the same Fox News supported neocons that called for our heads suddenly began hijacking our bandwagon. I’ll never forget the day I saw a supposed Tea Party event featuring main speakers like Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee; it was then that I knew there was no more Tea Party.
Of course, the elites were able to pirate the name (or the “brand”) and pirate some of the events, but they were never able to steal away the idea and the principles behind the movement. This seemed to confound the establishment. No matter what tactics they used, the movement, which I and many others have always called the “Liberty Movement,” just simply would not go away.
What the elites did not seem to grasp at that time was that the movement was not rooted in a single organization, or a single candidate, or even a group of “leaders.” Instead, the liberty movement was and still is rooted in a set of principles. Normal co-option tactics could not possibly work. They could take over the Tea Party, but true liberty activists could simply walk away and start another group or groups. We are adaptable, and because we do not have a traditional centralized leadership, we are difficult to pin down and control.
To continue reading: Clinton Versus Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement