Alba Gu Bràth!, by Chuck Baldwin, September 18, 2014

In the colossal movie, “Braveheart” (1995), Mel Gibson’s character, Scottish freedom-fighter, William Wallace, gave, without a doubt, the greatest war speech in movie history. The men of Scotland were facing a vastly superior number of English troops before the Battle of Stirling Bridge; and many of them had already begun retreating in fear. Here is the exchange:

William Wallace: And if this is your army, why does it go?

Veteran: We didn't come here to fight for them!

Young Soldier: Home! The English are too many!

William Wallace: Sons of Scotland! I am William Wallace.

Young Soldier: William Wallace is seven feet tall!

William Wallace: Yes, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds. And if HE were here, he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse.

[Scottish army laughs]

William Wallace: I *am* William Wallace! And I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You've come to fight as free men...and free men you are. What will you do with that freedom? Will you fight?

Veteran: Fight? Against that? No! We will run. And we will live.

William Wallace: Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live...at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take...OUR FREEDOM!

[Scottish army cheers]

William Wallace: Alba gu bràth!

Army: ALBA GU BRÀTH! ALBA GU BRÀTH! ALBA GU BRÀTH!

(Source: IMDb.com)

Watch the movie clip here:

Braveheart (1995) They Will Never Take Our Freedom

Alba gu bràth (pronounced al-op-pa goo bra) is a Scottish Gaelic phrase that translates to English as, “Scotland forever.”

In the real Battle of Stirling Bridge (which took place on September 11, 1297 in the First War of Scottish Independence), William Wallace and his band of 2,300 Scots went up against some 13,000 seasoned English troops, including 3,000 cavalrymen. When the battle was over, more than 5,000 English troops lay dead, and the Scots had achieved a crushing victory. Of course, England went on to defeat the Scots in subsequent battles, and William Wallace was betrayed, seized, disemboweled, and beheaded. And, sadly, Scotland never totally gained its independence. It is still a subject of the British Crown today--but maybe not tomorrow!

Even as I write this column, Scotland is voting on secession from Great Britain. By the time some of you read this column, the issue may have been settled. It’s impossible to predict the outcome. They say the vote is too close to call.

Pat Buchanan wrote a great piece on the impending vote:

“No matter how the vote turns out on Thursday in Scotland, either for independence or continued union with Britain, the disintegration of the Old Continent appears almost inevitable.
Already the British government has conceded that, even if the Scots vote for union, Edinburgh will receive greater powers to rule itself.

“Cheering for the breakup of the U.K. are Catalans and Basques, Bretons and Corsicans, Tyroleans, Venetians, Flemish, all dreaming of nations of their own carved out of Spain, France, Italy and Belgium.

“Europe’s secessionists have waxed ever stronger since the last decade of the 20th century when the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia splintered into 22 nations and Czechoslovakia broke in two. Abkhazians and Ossetians then broke from Georgia as Transnistria fought free of Moldova. Chechnya went to war twice to escape from Russia. Secessionists now battle Russia in Ingushetsia and Dagestan.

“The decomposition of the nations of Old Europe is the triumph of tribalism over transnationalism. The heart has reasons that the mind knows not, said Pascal. And the wild heart is winning.”

Buchanan continues: “Here is Niall Ferguson in the New York Times wondering how these crazy Scots could think of seceding from England.

“‘The economic risks are so glaring that even Paul Krugman and I agree it’s a terrible idea. What currency will Scotland use? The pound? The euro? No one knows. What share of North Sea oil revenues will go to Edinburgh? What about Scotland’s share of Britain’s enormous national debt?’

“A Scottish vote for independence, Ferguson wails, ‘would have grave economic consequences, and not just for Scotland. Investment has already stalled. Big companies based in Scotland, notably the pensions giant Standard Life, have warned of relocating to England. Jobs would definitely be lost. The recent steep decline in the pound shows that the financial world hates the whole idea.’

“Niall Ferguson is not the kind of fellow who would have been out there at midnight dumping the King’s tea into Boston harbor in 1773.

“And he would surely have admonished those stupid farmers on the Concord Bridge that if they didn’t put those muskets down, they could wind up ruining the colonies’ trade with the Mother Country.

“‘What currency will we use?’ Ferguson would have demanded of Jefferson in Independence Hall in 1776.

“Yet it is not only in Scotland where peoples are deciding that what separates them is more important than what unites them.

“Secessionism is ablaze all over the world.”

See Pat Buchanan’s column here:

What Would Braveheart Do?

Bravo, Pat!

Right now, there are strong separatist movements in England, France, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Greece, Italy, and Germany. Even Russia and China are dealing with strong secession movements: Russia in Crimea and China in Tibet. With the Middle East descending into chaos, the African continent is predicted to quadruple in size over the next 35 years. No doubt, tribal conflicts will drastically change the map of “The Dark Continent” during that time.

And then there is Texas!

A Reuters News report states, “The upcoming vote to decide whether Scotland should be independent of the United Kingdom has bolstered those campaigning to split the state of Texas from the United States.

“Texas Nationalist Movement president Daniel Miller, who wants the state's legislature to put the secession question on a statewide ballot, said Scotland's Sept. 18 referendum is a good sign for his movement.

“‘If Scotland can do it, so can Texas,’ Miller said.

“The top U.S. cattle-and oil-producing state would be the 12th largest economy in the world, larger than Mexico or Spain, said Miller, whose organization has campaigned for secession since the late 1990s.

“Miller said Scotland's referendum has increased interest in the Texas movement and the fact that a free Texas would lose big federal institutions like NASA and multiple military bases was of no concern to him.

“‘Win or lose, the Scottish referendum is both serving as a source of inspiration and information about what's happening here in Texas,’ Miller said.”

See the report at:

Scottish Independence Vote Cheers Supporters Of Texas Secession

No matter which way the Scottish vote goes, there is nothing that can ultimately stop the global tidal wave of secession that is now beginning to sweep the world. And I say this is a good thing. Why? Because, the larger the country is, the larger the government is; and the larger the government is, the smaller freedom is. Just look at the most populous states and cities within the United States. What do you see? A mushrooming Police State, that’s what you see. Where are the battle lines for liberty being drawn today? In the more sparsely populated and rural states, that’s where.

Let’s face a cold, stark reality: the U. S. government is TOO BIG to accommodate liberty. At some point, some sort of secession will come to America. It is inevitable. It may or may not happen in my lifetime; but it is inevitable.

As the federal government in Washington, D.C., continues to swell (and it will continue to swell, no matter which major party controls Congress and the White House), the freedoms and liberties of the citizenry will continue to shrink. And at some point, secession will be the only answer for the William Wallaces of this country. Again, it is inevitable.

And for those conservatives and Christians out there who claim to love freedom and, yet, somehow want to hold on to the delusion that we can miraculously recapture the liberties we enjoyed in pre-World War II America by changing Washington, D.C., all I can say is, these good folks are living in a fantasy world. The America that we Baby Boomers grew up in is gone forever. Washington, D.C., is NEVER going to let us go back to that ancient world. NEVER!

The one caveat to what I just said would be if we could see a large number of America’s pastors restore the patriot pulpit and liberty fever to their churches. Even a sizeable minority of liberty churches could change the course of the country. But, again, Washington, D.C., will not relinquish its tyrannical chokehold on the states without a fight. But pastors and churches still hold the power to help lead the nation to a revival of liberty. No doubt about it.

I’m trying to do what I can to be part of this revival with my Liberty Church Project. Please go to the website at:

Liberty Church Project
Remember what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed. That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”


Do you see that, folks? “Any form of Government.” There is nothing sacred about our form of government. Yes, it served us well for some 170 years or so; but it’s not the form of government that is sacred; it is LIBERTY that is sacred. The form only exists to protect liberty. When the form no longer protects liberty, it is time to “institute new Government.” And that always requires SECESSION. Would the models of 1787 and 1791 serve us well again? You bet they would--along with “new guards” to further protect our liberties from the kind of encroachments we have witnessed for the last almost seventy years.

The myth that Abraham Lincoln saved the Union is just that: a myth. Lincoln did not save the Union; he enslaved the Union. A forced union is not a union. Every problem we are having with Washington, D.C., today has its roots in Abraham Lincoln. EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM!

The southern states had as much right to separate from the Union in 1861 as any battered woman has to separate from an abusive husband. The right of separation is a divine right. If Jehovah God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He most certainly does) what makes you think that states (which are mere creatures of--and inferior to--the families created by God) do NOT have the same right? Absurd!

The slavery issue was (and is) a mere smokescreen to obfuscate the truth of what southern independence was truly about. And the pro-unionists today can use any issue they want to try and justify a forced union, but the fact still remains that liberty-minded people maintain the right to “alter or abolish” “any form” of government that no longer secures the rights of the people as much today as they did in 1776.

It is not necessary that the Union be preserved; but it is fundamentally necessary that LIBERTY be preserved. And if, at some point, secession is the vehicle that must be used to preserve liberty, I am 100% for it.

If Scotland leaves Great Britain, the tidal wave of separation will have begun in earnest. Even if the vote for independence fails, the movement has already begun. And for you folks who believe Lincoln was right when he forced the southern states into submission, do you now believe that, should Scotland declare its independence, the British Crown should send troops to Scotland and subdue it by force? And if not, why not? What makes it right for Abraham Lincoln in 1861 and not right for David Cameron in 2014? Furthermore, how can you celebrate America’s Independence Day, because that is exactly what King George III tried to do with our forebears, and we celebrate the day that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and the boys SEPARATED from the Union Flag?

Furthermore, if Scotland does secede, and secede PEACEFULLY, that tells us that it is very possible for secession to take place without violence. In fact, most of the separations that have taken place in Europe recently have been peaceful. If done lawfully, separating states can be fully recognized as independent, sovereign nations and fully integrated into interstate trade and commerce--and can also enjoy the military alliances of neighboring states in much the same way that the U.S. and Canada do now. I doubt that the mood of the American people would tolerate another tyrant like Abraham Lincoln who was willing to sacrifice over 600,000 American lives to force people to stay in a political marriage that they wanted out of. I don’t think that would fly today.

And, while I’m on the topic, I’ll say this: if somehow Texas should declare its independence, it would start a chain reaction in this country that would be unstoppable. Personally, I would be willing to vote for a new “Republic of Columbia” that would encompass the Rocky Mountain states--along with Alaska, and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. And, no, we wouldn’t have to worry about the liberals in Seattle and Portland; they would all run to Mother Kalifornia.

What William Wallace started in 1297 is being played out in 2014. For me, I shout with Braveheart: Alba Gu Bràth!

© Chuck Baldwin

When War Erupts Patriots Will Be Accused Of Aiding "The Enemy"

When War Erupts Patriots Will Be Accused Of Aiding "The Enemy"
Wednesday, 17 September 2014 03:31 Brandon Smith

In modern times, war is never what it seems. Mainstream historians preach endlessly about grand conflicts over territory, resources, political impasse, and revenge, but the cold hard reality is that all of these “motivations” are actually secondary, if they are relevant at all. As I and many analysts have covered in great detail in the past, most wars are engineered wars. International elites have long seen advantages in pitting two seemingly opposed societies or ideologies against each other while playing both sides of the chessboard to direct events towards a predetermined and desired outcome. This is undeniable historical fact. If you really want to understand the past, or the intricacies of war, you will be lost unless you accept that most conflicts are designed; they are not random or natural.
They are not extensions of man's mere greed or ignorance. They are not products of resource scarcity (a common and overly simplistic misconception used to mislead activists). They are not inevitable developments of “overcomplexity” according to the Rand Corporation's “linchpin theory” propaganda. They are not the product of too much national sovereignty or individual liberty. No; traditional war is a tool for the organized ruling class. It always has been and always will be. This tool is used to turn the world into a vast petri dish, a bubbling beaker in a laboratory where social engineers hope to destroy the “old” to create something “new”.

At its most paramount of purposes, the despair and terror of war is intended to change the fundamental collective unconscious of nations and populations. It is meant to change our beliefs, our morals, our principles. It is meant to mutate us into something else, something malleable and terrible, something we would not normally recognize.

As we continue into the latter quarter of 2014, exactly 100 years after the first world war, I see much evidence to suggest we are headed for yet another engineered conflagration. It may be a war of terrorism and attrition between the U.S. and ISIS (an insurgency funded and trained by Western covert agencies). It may be a war of economic escalation between the West and the East (even though Russia is just as much a pawn of international banks like Goldman Sachs as any country in the West). Or, we may see all out global holocaust depending on the level of desperation and insecurity amongst the elites. What each liberty movement proponent, constitutionalist, and freedom fighter around the world needs to understand is that while we will be told that the enemy is Muslim extremism, or Russian aggression, or eastern economic subversion, the real target will be YOU.

The advantages of war at this time would be immense to the globalist establishment, but the primary function will be the ability to co-opt, demonize, and/or wipe out legitimate opposition during the fog and confusion. If you have ever noticed that each consecutive presidential administration seems progressively more hell-bent than the last to sabotage our infrastructure and push us towards endless confrontation, you might want to ponder the possibility that the New World Order does not end with the fall of the American empire - it BEGINS with the fall of the American empire.

Imagine a war in which a tangible and immediate threat is presented against the U.S. Not a CNN covered carpet bombing campaign in some poverty stricken hole on the other side of the world, but a real war right on our very own doorstep. Now, consider how this would psychologically affect the general public, and twist the principles of the average person. Imagine the kinds of morally relative impasses people would be willing to accept when they are truly afraid. Imagine what they would sacrifice to quell that fear. Imagine who they would sacrifice.

In such an environment, the concepts of free speech and personal dissent are rarely respected.

In war, dissent is often labeled treason, and free speech is labeled a peacetime privilege. The truth becomes a nuisance, or even a threat to the endurance of the state and by extension the collective. The same argument always arises – the argument that the survival of the group outweighs any disagreement the individual may have with the objectives of the group's leadership. In turn, calls for “unification” reach a religious fervor, regardless of whose benefit this unification ultimately serves.

In the meantime, those who were tolerated as activists now become enemies of the state simply for doing what they have always done. The propaganda is already being put in place to assure the liberty movement is caught in the crossfire between the East and West.

For years I have been warning readers about the false East/West paradigm and the directed build up to conflict with Russia and China with the goal of creating a rational historical narrative by which the dollar could be supplanted as the world reserve currency to make way for a long planned basket currency system under the control of the IMF and the Bank of International Settlements. During the crisis, Americans blame the East for the implosion of the dollar system rather than international and central bankers (the true culprits), and chaos ensues as the masses turn on each other while the elites sit back in relative comfort, letting us destroy each other.

Another aspect of this plan, I believe, involves the hijacking of the image of the liberty movement. The liberty movement is essentially the most dangerous unknown element on the elite's global chessboard. In fact, because we understand that international financiers and central bankers are the real enemy, we have the ability to leave the chessboard entirely and play by our own rules. Widespread economic or military conflict provides an opportunity to neutralize liberty activists who might turn revolutionary.

Recently, I came across an article from 'The Atlantic' titled 'Russia And The Menace Of Unreality'. Now, some alternative analysts would read this article and immediately shrug it off as yet another attempt by the Western media machine to propagandize against Russia. Though their motivations are genuine, these analysts would be cementing the delusion that Russia is the “good guy” and the U.S. is the ever present “bad guy”. The Atlantic piece is a far more intricate manipulation than they would be giving credit for.

In the past I have pointed out that Russian government funded media outlet RT in particular is in fact an ingenious psy-op, not only run by the Russian government as The Atlantic asserts, but influenced by the globalist establishment. It is effective mainly because most of what it reports is absolutely true. What it does NOT report is where we must focus. This might be confusing unless you grasp how false paradigms work. The conflict dynamic between the U.S. and Russia is no more real than the conflict dynamic between Democrats and Republicans. If you understand that this time around, America is scripted to lose its pro-wrestling match with Russia, everything else comes into focus. As far as RT is concerned, here's the problem:

1) First, RT is relentless in its coverage of corruption within Western governments, but rarely if ever reports anything negative on the Russian establishment. I'm sorry, but Russia's economic policy is dominated by central bankers who are advised directly by Goldman Sachs and who are avid members of the IMF and the BIS. The RDIF (Russian Direct Investment Fund), manages billions in investments in Russia, works closely with Goldman Sachs, and the managing director of this institution is former IMF head and SDR advocate Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

Vladimir Putin has openly called for the IMF's Special Drawing Rights basket currency to replace the dollar, demanded that Ukraine take loans from the IMF denominated in SDR's, and has a long time friendship with Mr. NWO himself, Henry Kissinger. The only “conflict” Russia has expressed with the globalists at the IMF is that it wishes to be more fully included in the SDR basket system, which has been the planned intention of the IMF anyway. All of this, and RT doesn't have any hard questions about the loyalties of its own government?

2) Second, the fact based reporting of RT, at least when it comes to the Western side of the globalist establishment, mimics the alternative journalism growing in popularity in the the U.S. At bottom, RT is a newcomer to the world of independent news analysis, but it is ultimately NOT independent, and most of what they do amounts to little more than regurgitated content from more original and insightful Western independent media sources. The Atlantic article above, very cleverly, makes it sound as if it is we witless writers in America who are getting all our info and inspiration from RT. And this is where we begin to see the true nature of the psy-op...

3) Third, because RT mimics our independent media so well, it appeals greatly to a large percentage of liberty movement activists, who tend to forget or are simply unaware that Russia is as much a part of the problem as our own government. There are many liberty proponents who will angrily defend Russia and RT without question simply because RT “speaks their language”, so Russia must be on their side.

This was not as pressing an issue two years ago, when conflict with Russia was a ridiculous notion for many people. But today, conflict with Russia, at the very least on an economic scale, is an inevitability. If you read in full the linked Atlantic article, the narrative that is being constructed is clear – the establishment hopes to rewrite the history and image of the liberty movement by painting us as dupes radicalized by Russian propaganda, rather than being the originators of our own grassroots movement with our own philosophy and methodology. Through this, they take away our ownership of our own cause.

Also, by blindly supporting Russia or the Russian government without considering their participation in the globalist run crisis, liberty activists help reinforce the soon-to-be manufactured lie that we are nothing but puppets of the Putin regime. If we publicly question the intentions of the Russian government as much as we question our own government, we can help to defuse this lie before it can take hold.

How the mainstream views us or portrays us is not as important as how we view and present ourselves. If we become starry-eyed cheerleaders for Russia, we will lose our sovereign identity as a self motivated counter-movement to the NWO. If you believe like I do that a second American revolution is coming, identity means everything, and it should not be cast aside lightly. Mark my words, one day our activism will be deemed treason, and our rebellion will be marginalized as a servant satellite astro-turf movement organized by Russian interests.

We can't prevent how they will label us, but we can make it clear now that we work for NO government, by refusing to disregard the trespasses of any government, even those who appear to support our position.

Tied closely to the Russian issue, the liberty movement also has the return of the “White Al-Qaeda” meme to look forward to. I have seen a tidal wave of mainstream news stories lately preaching the horrors of a white middle-class America secretly swarming to the Syrian border to join ISIS. The narrative is setting the stage for false flag terrorism, to be sure, but it is also injecting the theme that anyone who is anti-establishment could be a terrorist. Not an American bred “terrorist” with his own American-centric ideology fighting against what he sees as a despotic government, but a mercenary extremist desperate for any cause, latching onto the concept of Muslim caliphate because he is bewildered, angry, or insane.

In this way, the elites hope to kidnap the liberty culture's identity, rewriting us into their theater not even as “misguided” freedom fighters, but rather, as pawns of a foreign cabal. Many people could be convinced to join a fight by Americans for Americans, no matter how the mainstream portrays our character. But, no one wants to join a group of traitors and sellouts fighting for theocratic Muslim monsters, or covert Russian agencies after the East is blamed for the collapse of the dollar. The complete erasing and rewriting of a movement's identity through false association is advanced 4th generation warfare, and it can only be accomplished in the midst of overwhelming catastrophe. The masses have to be so afraid they begin to lose memory of what life was like before, let alone who stood for what cause.

The public is already quite familiar with the idea that governments buy revolutionaries and create rebellions, just as our government has done in Syria. Why wouldn't they believe that the Liberty Movement's rebellion is also actually bought and paid for by some outside enemy, rather than real Americans battling for real freedom?

This examination is not meant to undermine the positive accomplishments made so far by liberty advocates. We have come a long way. However, if we underestimate or oversimplify the task we have ahead of us, or the well calculated strategies of the internationalists, then we are destined to fall into the trap of becoming yet another element of another false paradigm ourselves, and we will lose. This is a war on all fronts; informational, emotional, intellectual, psychological, spiritual, and physical. It goes well beyond any war ever fought in generations past. If individuals and the activist movement at large do not have the insight and courage to commit fully to combat on every level, they should throw in their bug-out bags and give up now. If they do have the courage, then it is surely time to begin...

CHARACTER TRAITS OF TRULY EVIL PEOPLE

By Lauren Lane
February 26, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

FORWARD FROM LAUREN LANE

Once again, I discovered one of those amazing articles circulating that just makes you stop and go ‘wow’. My commitment to NWV is to ensure our readers have an opportunity to embrace some truly great content. This was one of those rare stories I stumbled across, that reached out and grabbed me. I always want to believe the best in people, but sometimes we have to be willing to see the worst. Then the question is what will you do to keep it from spreading. I hope that each and everyone of you get a chance to read this insightful article.


The first dangerous mistake the average person makes is the assumption that “evil” is a kind of subjective concept. We would love to believe that all destructive and malicious behavior is merely a product of bad environment, bad upbringing or mental psychosis. Deviance in the name of “profit” or “status” is often more acceptable to the public, as long as there is a reason we can easily understand and grasp.

What frightens the average American today is not the abhorrent action of criminality; rather, it is criminality without rationality. What frightens thecommon citizen is the possibility that some people hurt others not because their mommy and daddy “mistreated” them or because they have a psychological deficiency, but because they fully and consciously enjoy doing what they do.

Our society is desperate to make excuses for the monsters of our era, perhaps because we would rather not entertain the possibility that there is a dark side to humanity that, if allowed, could take control in a deliberate and calculated way.

This is why the greatest crimes of our time often go ignored by the public. The idea, for instance, that international financiers and political elites would purposely create economic disparity, social chaos and global war out of a desire for centralized power and a disturbed sense of superiority is simply too much for many to handle. Surely, these terrible events throughout our modern history are merely the result of random coincidence and human error, right?

Unfortunately, this is not the case. In fact, most catastrophic cultural policies and tragedies can be traced back directly to a subset of people who use their positions of influence for ill purpose and who knowingly engineer calamity not just for personal gain, but also for the gain of their social class.

In the liberty movement, we often refer to members of this group as “globalists” or “elitists.” They permeate the upper echelons of our Nation, and they do indeed have a culture that is entirely separate and disparate from our own. If one studies their literature, initiatives and motives, he would discover another world, driven by outlandish goals and an even more outlandish brand of religious fervor. Here are some of the character traits and beliefs that make these people easy to identify.

Xenofascism

Global elitists tend to see themselves as a separate breed of human being, a superior class with superior faculties, born to rule over the rest of us. In their writings they often espouse the teachings of The Republic by Plato and the concept of the philosopher kings. They believe that some men and women are endowed with a genetic predisposition to leadership and that the average person does not have the intelligence to determine his own destiny. They see the rest of humanity as a blank canvas and themselves as the artists. We are to be molded, and our social dichotomies are to be manipulated.

In reality, they are no smarter than the rest of us. Rather, they inherit positions of wealth and influence, and they automatically assume this makes them superior. Their ability to mold society is derived entirely from their extensive capital and their complete lack of morality. If they were not in the top .1 percent of the world’s rich, they would be treated like common criminals for their behavior. But sadly, in our day and age, money often buys undue respect. Imagine a group of John Wayne Gacys or Charles Mansons, except with 80 percent of the world’s wealth at their disposal and the means to purchase good publicity and legal immunity. That is essentially what we are dealing with.

Zero Conscience

Elitists believe that conscience is a hindrance to success, instead of a worthwhile virtue. They knowingly and deliberately abandon their moral compass because they see it as an unnatural restriction, an obstacle that makes getting what they want more difficult. Conscience, however, never quite disappears in anyone. In order to reconcile their wretched mindset with that distant nagging sensation of guilt, they claim that their actions are “for the greater good of the greater number.” They desperately want to believe that they are serving the future of mankind and that we should appreciate their guiding hand, even though the things they do seem far more hateful than helpful. They would call this “tough love.”


They further attempt to avoid the fact of their own dysfunction by trying to elicit criminality in others. If they can convince the masses that morality is relative and that right and wrong are subject to interpretation, if they can convince us to ignore our own inner voices which are inborn, then their monstrosity could be considered normal — even preferable. In a world of moral relativists, the man with a conscience becomes the criminal, the outcast; and the elites become the heroes they always wanted to believe themselves to be.

Promote Collectivism

Top globalists are not necessarily collectivists themselves. In fact, they often swing far to the other end of the spectrum into an aberrant form of individualism. As discussed above, they even see conscience as a restriction on their personal freedom and rebel against it as if rebelling against enslavement. What they do not grasp is that the inherent nature of conscience is a gift, one which has, so far, kept humanity away from the brink of total self-destruction, at least to this point. It is not a prison. Rather, it is protection from ourselves.

The elitist’s insane ideal of pure individualism without self-discipline is a private matter they rarely discuss. In public, they constantly promote the collectivist lifestyle and admonish individualism in common people. If people can be convinced that they are devoid of inherent qualities and characteristics and that their environment is the totality of their existence, then they will hand over all power to anyone who promises them the best possible surroundings. That is to say, when we have no faith in our own individualism and self-responsibility, we will automatically seek protection, usually from a nanny government or dictatorship.

People often confuse “collectivism” with “community.” This is caused by a lack of understanding as well as a lack of experience. Community is a voluntary gathering of individuals for the purpose of mutual aid. Collectivism is the gathering of people by threat of force or loss, for the purpose of consolidating power into the hands of a few. It is the act of destroying individualism in the name of protecting the group. In America today, we have disappearing sense of community, while the “advantages” of collectivism are being sung to the rooftops by global elites.

The Noble Lie

Elitists are very adamant about the idea of the noble lie, the use of a lie to attain a positive goal. In their view, average citizens lack the capacity to understand the bigger political and social picture; so we must be lied to in order to make us do what is best for ourselves. Of course, their version of what is best for our culture always seems to include first and foremost what is best for them.

The noble lie is a logical fallacy of epic proportions, and I often wonder if global elitists secretly doubt its legitimacy. If you need to lie to people in order to get them to accept your ideas, then there must be something terribly wrong with your ideas. Ideas with vitality and honesty do not need to be “sold” to the public through chicanery; the truth takes on a life of its own. Only destructive philosophies need a foundation of lies in order to take root.

Population Reduction

One of the centerpieces of the globalist religion is the concept of population reduction. They not only see themselves as a separate species with superior genetic makeup and a propensity for rulership, they also see the rest of us as cockroaches and “useless eaters,” a herd that needs to be culled. The funny thing about population reductionists is that they always want other people to die in order to save the planet. They never offer their own life as a sacrifice for the greater good. This is because they assume they are too important (ostensibly because they think they are intelligent), while many of us are expendable.

Of course, overpopulation today is an oversold myth that has been disproven in many scientific circles. Population expansion is also not necessarily a bad thing. Greater population means more minds working on more problems. It drives technological advancement and forces us through the survival imperative to invent more efficient methods of production. There are advantages to growth.

In the end, though, global elites do not care about the Earth. They do not believe in population reduction because they want to reduce pollution or the so-called “carbon footprint,” save the poor animals, or even protect finite resources. They want population reduction because first, they are eugenicists who see some people as genetically inferior to others, and second, because a culled population is easier to dominate. Again, fewer minds working means fewer problems solved and fewer individuals to rock the boat when the state abuses its power.


The Source Of Our Pain

Globalists are not the only source of our social pain. We bear some responsibility. When we are not vigilant, when we deny our own ignorance and refuse to learn, when we lie to ourselves and when we cater to personal superficial desires rather than taking the future into account, we open the door for the devil. Evil, like conscience, resides in us all.


[Courtesy of: –Brandon Smith, alt-market.com]That said, global elites are not just randomly terrible people. They have constructed an entire culture of deviance. They are organized evil, and this is a problem we must deal with soon. Good men are defined not only by their adherence to the inner voice of truth, but also by their willingness to act when the truth is threatened. We must educate others and, when the time comes, put ourselves in harm’s way to remove the globalist ilk before they destroy everything in a raging elitist fervor.

I hope to hear from you soon. We love to know your thoughts.

Please write to me at: LaurenLaneUSA@gmail.com