The globalists have, at best, until the end of the decade before they’ve completed their self-destruction. By that time, the rest of the world will already be cutting up the pie.
If this supposition is correct, we shall see the leaders – Russia, China, India, Brazil, Iran and others come to the fore in new alliances. As before, much of the Third World countries will remain bit players, but under new masters.
In a previous article, Will Globalism Succeed, I described the likelihood of the success of the globalist plan to take over the world.
My take on the question is that the plan will fail.
But why should that be? Well let’s have a look at it.
First, we should recognize that, in any society, roughly 4% of all people are sociopathic and 1% are likely to be psychopathic. I won’t go into the definitions of these two terms, but the primary symptoms of both are as follows:
Lack of empathy for others.
Impulsive behavior.
Attempting to control others with threats or aggression.
Using intelligence, charm, or charisma to manipulate others.
Not learning from mistakes or punishment.
Lying for personal gain.
Showing a compulsion for physical violence
Sociopaths always rise to populate governments during periods when the people have become affluent, then complacent. This has been in play in the First World for quite a while, and its governments (the US, UK, EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand) are now infested with sociopaths. But in spite of the success in the First World by the globalists to create dominance over their minions, they’ve been rather unsuccessful at roping in other nations. The Third World nations have sought to benefit from First World goods and technologies, whilst otherwise seeking to be left alone. They fear the globalists but don’t wish to join them.
The Second World is a different matter. China and Russia, in particular, have been wooed by the globalists, but the seat at the table that they’ve been offered has been far too small to attract them to join as lesser partners.
Russia and China have instead joined together in an otherwise unlikely partnership and have expanded that partnership to increasingly include Third World countries.
It’s important to note that, at present, the world, as a whole, is largely sitting on the fence, fearful of the globalists, but sure in the knowledge that the West will soon self-destruct. Their collective goal is to avoid conflict as much as possible until this occurs.
If President Reagan’s “law” is correct—that “as government expands, liberty contracts”—then further expanding Big Military can’t help but lead to additional reductions in our freedoms.
Roger Zakheim, director of the Ronald Reagan Institute in Washington, DC, which promotes the former president’s legacy, argued in a recent Wall Street Journal column that the United States needs to increase its annual military spending by at least 30 percent—from approximately 3.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to between 5 and 6 percent.
Zakheim, who also serves on the board of the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), said the increase is needed to achieve a “margin of safety” for Americans against the growing threats from China and Russia.
In Zakheim’s telling, U.S. political leaders have made “common cause with the detente-pushing realists” while neglecting the investments necessary to modernize America’s armed forces. Unfortunately, this misses an important nuance. It is true that President Ronald Reagan was a proponent of strong defense, what he termed “peace through strength.” At the same time, he was a skeptic of big government and an opponent of top-down government planning.
The U.S. military sector—the same defense industrial complex the NDIA represents—is the poster child of both. It is a massive government enterprise grounded in top-down state planning by a small group of political elites. The Pentagon is the world’s largest employer. The military-industrial sector is characterized by entanglements between government and private firms, with the latter earning large profits from war preparation and war-making.
These entanglements are a hallmark of political capitalism—a system where political decision-making influences private decision-making and where private parties influence politics to further their interests, usually at the expense of taxpayers. The same you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours exists in other areas where the government is heavily involved as well, such as education and infrastructure, where private firms and other special interests spend millions of dollars attempting to influence policy for their own benefit in the name of some “common good.”
Prison time for heating your home? In the “free” world? How is it possible in 2022, when Switzerland and the rest of the political west have achieved the greatest economic success in history, that the European continent faces a winter like something out of the dark ages?
Sept. 12 – A Swiss billboard is making the rounds on social media depicting a young woman on the telephone. The caption reads, “Does the neighbor heat the apartment to over 19 degrees (66F)? Please inform us.” While the Swiss government has dismissed the poster as a fake, the penalties Swiss citizens face for daring to warm their homes are very real. According to the Swiss newspaper Blick, those who violate the 66 degree heating limit could face as many as three years in prison!
Prison time for heating your home? In the “free” world? How is it possible in 2022, when Switzerland and the rest of the political west have achieved the greatest economic success in history, that the European continent faces a winter like something out of the dark ages?
Sanctions.
While long promoted – often by those opposed to war – as a less destructive alternative to war, sanctions are in reality acts of war. And as we know with interventionism and war, the result is often unintended consequences and even blowback.
European sanctions against Russia over its invasion of Ukraine earlier this year will likely go down in history as a prime example of how sanctions can result in unintended consequences. While seeking to punish Russia by cutting off gas and oil imports, European Union politicians forgot that Europe is completely dependent on Russian energy supplies and that the only people to suffer if those imports are shut down are the Europeans themselves.
The Russians simply pivoted to the south and east and found plenty of new buyers in China, India, and elsewhere. In fact, Russia’s state-run Gazprom energy company has reported that its profits have increased by 100 percent in the first half of this year.
Russia is getting rich while Europeans are facing a freezing winter and economic collapse. All because of the false belief that sanctions are a cost-free way to force other countries to do what you want them to do.
What happens when the people see dumb government policies making energy bills skyrocket as the economy grounds to a halt? They become desperate and take to the streets in protest.
This weekend thousands of Austrians took to the streets in a “Freedom Rally” to demand an end to sanctions and the opening of Nord Stream II, the gas pipeline on the verge of opening earlier this year. Last week an estimated 100,000 Czechs took to the streets of Prague to protest NATO and EU policy. In France, the “Yellow Vests” are back in the streets protesting the destruction of their economy in the name of “defeating” Russia in Ukraine. In Germany, Serbia, and elsewhere, protests are gearing up.
Even the Washington Post was forced to admit that sanctions on Russia are not having the intended effect. In an article yesterday, the paper worries that sanctions are inflicting “collateral damage in Russia and beyond, potentially even hurting the very countries that impose them. Some even worried that the sanctions intended to deter and weaken Putin could end up emboldening and strengthening him.”
This is all predictable. Sanctions kill. Sometimes they kill innocents in the country targeted for destruction and sometimes they kill innocents in the country imposing them. The solution, as always, is non-intervention. No sanctions, no “color revolutions,” no meddling. It’s really that simple.
What started as a one-man “shame-on-you” protest against the Justice Department—launched by comedian-activist Randy Credico—has gone viral as “Buy-a-Billboard-for-Julian” Campaign supported by activists worldwide
Co-Founder of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, Ben Cohen, pledged: “I’ll Match Each and Every Donation to The Julian Assange Mobile Billboard Campaign”
Two weeks ago CovertAction Magazinereported on the 15-foot-wide satirical billboards mounted on trucks and driven all over the nation’s capital to publicly shame the Justice Department and Democratic Party leaders for their illegal and immoral persecution of Julian Assange.
Randy Credico addresses Assange Billboard Rally in front of Justice Department, August 17, 2022. [Source: Photo courtesy of Steve Brown]
Randy Credico never dreamed that his personal “poke-in-the-eye” campaign against the Justice Department would catch on the way it has. He had started with just one truck and one driver for a few hours a day—which was all he could afford. But suddenly, after CovertAction Magazine broke the story and posted photos of Credico’s billboards popping up all over Washington D.C., other news organizations started covering the story.
Then activist journalists like John Pilger, Max Blumenthal, John Kiriakou and many others began writing about the billboard campaign, praising it for the hope it inspired in so many who fervently campaigned and prayed for Assange’s release.
John Pilger—”When people ask, ‘What can I do?’, my response is to point to the billboard campaign created by the ever-imaginative direct action of one man, Randy Credico.”
Stefania Maurizi—”We need people taking to the streets to protest against the horrific treatment of Julian Assange. The Billboard project does a valuable work.”
Gabriel Shipton(Julian Assange’s brother) [Source: twitter.com]
And while the poster above may be fake, a DEF spokesperson told Blick that “if the infringement was reported and checked and could then be proven,” they may take action against violators.
Precisely, checks are not excluded, especially if one is denounced by a disgruntled neighbor or a neighborhood vigilante who is a little too zealous.
As Switzerland takes drastic measures to reduce its gas use this winter – including fines and up to three years in prisonfor citizens who violate new regulations, a viral poster circulating on Swiss social media telling citizens to rat out neighbors heating their homes above 19C (66.2F) has raised eyebrows.
“Does the neighbor heat the apartment to over 19 degrees? Please inform us,” reads the poster currently circulating on messaging services such as Signal and Telegram, according to Swiss media.
This poster is currently causing confusion and indignation among the population.
On his official website, the Prince launched the project saying “Today, through HRH’s Sustainable Markets Initiative and the World Economic Forum, The Prince of Wales launched a new global initiative, The Great Reset”.
Was there any doubt? The UK is now officially (more) screwed.
The new incoming King of England has taken on the worst traits and dispositions of oligarchism and probably won’t willfully make any positive changes.
“London Bridge is Down” were the code words delivered by the Queen’s Private Secretary Edward Young to high ranking officials upon the death of Queen Elisabeth II.
This code was selected as part of a larger protocol dubbed strangely enough “operation Unicorn” for reasons beyond the wildest imagination of this author and which sets into motion a set of actions culminating in the anointing of Prince Charles as the new King of Britain and the Commonwealth.
For Canadians who had thought they would no longer be forced to endure watching their Prime Minister slavishly declare his oaths of fealty (and oaths of secrecy) to an inbred monarch sitting on the other side of the ocean as had occurred in 2017 they will be very disappointed. Canada’s Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866 demands that both houses of Parliament are required to take pledges of allegiance after the deaths of all sitting monarchs. That’s right, every single member of the supposedly “elected and democratic” government of Canada must declare their oaths of fealty not to the people or non-existent constitution, but to some inbred family bloodline on the other side of the world.
Similar oaths will be read by elected officials across every other Commonwealth Five Eyes member state.
It is thus worth asking, is this institution of hereditary powers which Charles has inherited just a ceremonial gig with no real substance or influence behind it?
Although the majority of citizens including British subjects believe this to be the case, the facts point to a very different reality. And while I addressed this matter here, here and here, a few additional remarks must be added to this important matter below.
Prince Charles Just Became the World’s Largest Property Owner
This may surprise you, but the British Crown happens to be the world’s largest property owner clocking in possessions amounting to 6.6 billion acres across Australia, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Canada, Great Britain and the Falkland Islands.
On top of the “Crown Lands” and “Crown Corporations” which are legally owned by the monarch of Britain, an organization called ‘The Crown Estate’ is one of the world’s largest property groups. Describing the institution which sends 25% of its earnings directly into the Monarch’s purse every year, Die Welt Business had this to say:
“The Crown Estate owns property all across the UK, from castles and cottages to agricultural land and forests plus retail parks and shopping centers. It owns more than half the UK’s entire seashore, giving it hugely valuable auction rights for offshore commercial activity, such as wind farms.”
The Crown controls nearly the entire seabed (and half the seashore) around the UK with any business wishing to build offshore windmills as part of the Green New Deal forced to rent their sea beds from the Crown Estate. It was noted by Byline Times that the Crown will stand to become “the biggest beneficiary of UK’s Green Agenda” which recently unveiled a 10 point plan for a “green revolution” and full decarbonization by 2050. For anyone confused about the exploding prices of inefficient energy sources across England, they wouldn’t get far without appreciating the tax-payer subsidized boondoggle of windmill farms.
Being a politician is, of course, being a professional thief. A tax feeder. A central planner. A mandator.
Most people like freedom. But, the ones who contact the state for action are often making a push from the left or from the right. Those people often love me on certain topics and hate me on others. Why? Because I don’t want the state involved in the lives of anyone and I don’t have the full bandwagon of beliefs from either side. Let private property rights dictate outcomes. Ron Paul often says he wants to support all the freedoms, not just the ones promoted by one side or the other. What a good point.
Being a politician is, of course, being a professional thief. A tax feeder. A central planner. A mandator. Part of what Murray Rothbard described as a “GANG OF THIEVES.” There is no way to sugar coat it and keep any legitimacy. There is the voluntary economic method and the coercive political method. Being a sheriff is using the political method. It is not a thing created by the market via price signals. A state agency does not spring into existence, scale up or down in size, or go bankrupt and cease to exist based on market demand. Being a politician in the executive branch is brandishing the edge of the knife of statism. A legislator can vote no, opt out, or decry all the actions of the state. A politician in the executive branch in control of state gun wielders has more of a challenge.
On another side of opinion, the traditional side, there is the fact that the sheriff was the only law enforcement function at the inception of the U.S. It was a common-law tradition inherited from England. If historical precedent means anything, then the office of the sheriff is more legitimate than the Johnny-Come-Lately three-letter federal agencies that sprang into existence in the 20th century (think FBI, ATF, DEA) and the city “police departments” that were invented in the late 1800s. And, of course, sheriffs are the only law enforcement officials that are elected by the people as opposed to appointed—which suggests there may be some mechanism for accountability if they stomp on the people.
What have I learned in my first year as a voluntarist sheriff? Very little. You can’t be a central planner exercising unilateral force and expect it to work. About the best you can do is say, “no,” “no,” “no,” “no.” “No, the market can handle it.” “No, there is not a crisis needing a government solution.” “No, that is private property and the state has no business intervening.” Anything else is picking sides with no market signals to say who should prevail.
Reduced Focus on National Politics
One good trend that I have noticed as an elected sheriff in this era is that people have started to lose faith in national politics after the last two years. People are looking for local solutions. In a country of 330 million people living in wide-ranging geographic zones and linguistic communities, it is impossible for everyone to have the same time preferences, goals, abilities, cultural traits, economic advantages, and consumer preferences. A one-size-fits-all national policy mandated on dissimilar peoples makes no sense. The bluster of national level politicians is being increasingly ignored. The resultant local focus is good.
Hoppean Capital Preservation
I have also noted that, since an elected sheriff is usually not term-limited and has no boss within the state apparatus, he can, in the Hoppean sense, act more like a capital-preserving force in his local area. He can, in a fashion, have the mindset of a benevolent ruler as opposed to that of a ruler that is exploiting the people for his own benefit during his rotating tenancy in the position (as happens with term-limited governors, presidents, and politicians at all levels). In the case of a voluntarist sheriff, he can choose to implement control not so much over what things the state shall do, but over the things the state cannot do in his county.
Petty Tyrants
On the negative side, my first year as a voluntarist sheriff has caused me a lot of heartache and made me some enemies. The little petty bean-counting tyrants that were previously just a nuisance to me, now hate my guts. No, I won’t enforce your mandates. No, I won’t force Sheriff’s Office employees to get shots. No, I don’t want to militarize my county. Yes, I will violate your occupancy rules, curfews, and mask rules and speak to large crowds in indoor venues.
On the more cynical side, someone could ask what the point is of even being Sheriff if I don’t intend to use the power and endorse the graft and the lies that the state expects from me? If I am not going to insist on more DUI checkpoints, a bigger drug war, or more cops to push people around; or promote some other “public good” that the market supposedly can’t provide, why would I even fight in a six-candidate race, wear out shoes campaigning with my wife and children, and knock on thousands of doors for a year and a half and put myself in this position? The answer is pretty simple, but maybe it doesn’t make sense: I can at least be a place holder in my little corner of the world to keep a gun-grabbing, vaccine-pushing, private property disrespecting tyrant from occupying the spot. This benefits my family and my neighbors.
Change the Cops from the Inside?
Can I change the mindset of state employees from the inside of an agency? No, not in a significant way. This is one of the biggest misconceptions. I have received many communications from good people and organizations suggesting that I could be the one to end the tyrannical nature of state police forces starting with my agency.
What was the impact of Mikhail Gorbachev on U.S.-Russia relations? Join FFF president Jacob G. Hornberger and Citadel professor Richard M. Ebeling as they review the career of this influential Soviet leader.
Queen Elizabeth II passed away hours before Dr Jordan B Peterson would give a public lecture. At this event, he was asked, “how could the death of the Queen affect the boundaries between English communities around the world?” His answer was honest and thought-provoking. He explores the weight and grandeur of the monarchical system, the legacy of its longest-reigning Queen, and the great loss so many have to bear.
MCViewPoint 