“Rebranding Liberty As Evil” As Globalists Prepare to Blame Populists for Everything

This article was written by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market.com and first published at PersonalLiberty.com.

Editor’s Comment: Taking Brandon’s point into account, what is happening now appears to be a mass hoax in that crowds from the “liberty” movement, the “truth” movement, the “conservative” movement, the “populist” movement and several other labels are being goaded into supporting an overreaching executive branch, a fresh rally for war in the middle east, and a brutal police state crackdown at home – a crackdown that appears to be developing in the effort to deport many illegal immigrants, ban migrants from middle east countries and beat back protesting and rioting liberal crowds.

There are so many fronts to this game, that many people have lost their identity and completely abandoned their principles in effort to cheer on ‘their candidate,’ whether that is Trump in the White House, Bernie or Hillary outside the White House or anyone else in between. As Brandon Smith has pointed out in many of his previous articles, there have been many short term gains against the globalists, and they can never true to defeat the liberty movement (in particular) if-and-only-if liberty-minded individuals maintain their principles – of freedom as an ideal, of protection for the Bill of Rights, of economic freedom for individuals and small businesses, etc.

If people only hold onto liberty and other high-minded ideals when they advocate candidates, movements or issues, we could hardly go wrong. On the other hand, if people look the other way to back a particular individual, their entire stance/movement/policies can be debunked and set aside, if it can be shown that people who originally advocated liberty/freedom have instead endorsed or participated in evil, in unconstitutional acts and, ultimately, defeated themselves.

For those who advocate personal freedom to the extreme point of self-reliance, off grid living, and readiness for any/all emergencies, those people can never be defeated as long as they live up to their principles. Somewhere in there is the hope for the future; the rest is dragging us back down into chaos and agonizing poverty and dependence.

The Globalist Long Game – Redefine Liberty Activism As Evil “Populism”

by Brandon Smith

One of the most favored propaganda tactics of establishment elites and the useful idiots they employ in Marxist and cultural-Marxist circles is to relabel or redefine an opponent before they can solidly define themselves.  In other words, elites and Marxists will seek to “brand” you (just as corporations use branding) in the minds of the masses so that they can take away your ability to define yourself as anything else.

Think of it this way: Say you want to launch an organization called “Movement Blue,” and you and others have gone through great struggle to grow this organization from the ground up.  However, just as your movement is about to achieve widespread recognition, someone else comes along, someone with extensive capital and media influence, and they saturate every outlet with the narrative that your movement is actually more like “Movement Red,” and that Movement Red is a terrible, no-good, bad idea.  They do such a good job, in fact, that millions and millions of people start calling you “Movement Red” without even knowing why, and they begin to believe all the negative associations that this label entails.

Through the art of negative branding, your enemy has stolen your most precious asset — the ability to present yourself to the public as you really are.

Negative branding is a form of psychological inoculation.  It is designed to close people’s minds to particular ideas before they actually hear those ideas presented by a true proponent of the ideas.  But beyond that, negative branding can also be used to trick groups and movements into abandoning their original identity.

For example, the concept of economic freedom for individuals –the freedom from overt government interference or government favoritism for certain people over others, the freedom to compete with ideas and ingenuity to build a better business and a better product, the freedom to retain the fruits of one’s labor — used to be widely referred to as “free markets”, as defined by Adam Smith.  The very basis of free market philosophy was to remove obstruction and economic oppression from the common man in order to inspire a renaissance in innovation and prosperity.  The problem is, you rarely hear anyone but libertarians talk about traditional “free markets” anymore.

Though Karl Marx did not coin the term “capitalism,” he and his followers (and editors) are indeed guilty of the pejorative version now used.  It has always been Marxist propagandists who have sought to redefine the idea of “free markets” in a negative way, and the use of the term capitalism is how they did it.  They have been so effective in their efforts that today even some free market proponents instead refer to themselves as “capitalists.”

While “free markets” denote freedom of the common man to pursue a better life through productivity and intelligence and merit, “capitalism” denotes a monstrous and blind pursuit of wealth and power without moral regard.  One gives the impression of fairness, the other gives the impression of tyranny.

Is there even such an animal as “capitalism?”  I can’t really say.  What I do know is that the system we have today, a hybrid mutation of corporatism and socialism, is certainly NOT a free market system if we are to follow the true definition and the original intent.  Yet, whenever cultural and economic Marxists attack the notion of economic freedom, they use the system we have now as an example of the failures of “free market capitalism.”

This is the magic of negative branding, and it is used in every facet of social life and geopolitics.

Now, before I get into the term “populist,” I recognize that people opposed to my position will immediately spring into a tirade about how liberty and sovereignty champions brand those against our ideals “in the exact same way.”  This is not quite true, though.

When we refer to “globalists” in a negative manner, we are taking a pre-existing label, something that they often call themselves, and pointing out that their philosophy is flawed and highly destructive based on historical evidence and verifiable facts.  We are not seeking to redefine them as anything other than what they already are.  We are merely exposing to the public what they OPENLY promote and believe and then offer our side and our evidence as to why their beliefs are wrong.

This is not what they do to us.  Instead, globalists and their cronies prefer that the public does not get to hear our views directly from us.  They rarely, if ever, actually use our publications as a source for their attacks on our principles.  They would much rather tell the public what we are and what we believe before they are ever exposed to us.  This is why you will often find that many participants in protest groups at events held by anti-globalists like Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos have never actually seen or heard a single speech by the men in question.  They have no idea what we really stand for.  In fact, they protest our speakers, groups and movements based on what they were told we stand for by other biased sources.

This brings us to “populism.”

There has been a deep and concerted propaganda campaign taking place against liberty activists, sovereignty champions, anti-globalists, anti-SJW groups, and conservatives in general.  I noticed this particular campaign accelerating at the beginning of 2016, and it was the primary reason why I chose to take a hard stance on my predictions for Brexit passage and a Trump election win.  The propaganda narrative could be summarized as follows:

Since early 2016 (according to globalists and the mainstream publications featuring their opinions), there has been a rising tide of nationalists and “populists” in western nations.  This sudden surge in “populism” is inexorably tied to the Brexit movement and the support for candidates like Donald Trump.  Populism will overrun the existing “stability” of globalism and cause severe economic crisis in numerous countries.  It finds its roots in the “less educated” portions of the population, as well as in older generations that think they have something to lose if globalism succeeds.  It is also driven by an “irrational fear” of economic change, global interdependence and multiculturalism.  Populists are predominantly naive and desperate for “strongmen” leaders to fight for them.  Some of them are motivated by self interest, while others are motivated by racism.

You can see these sentiments expressed bluntly in numerous mainstream media outlets.  The Guardian has no qualms about linking the Brexit to “racism” and populism, for example.  The Washington Post also has had no problem linking the Tea Party and Trump supporters to racism and populism as well.

Beyond the paper-thin accusations of racism, the general thrust of the negative branding is clear; if you are against globalism (or elitism) and its major tenets, then you are a “populist.”  This is reiterated in recent articles from Bloomberg and The Guardian.

But in such publications, the most egregious argument is the one that is not directly made.  The insinuation is that “populism” is not just defined by a fear of corruption through organized elitism, but that this fear is UNFOUNDED.  Meaning, anyone who argues against the mechanizations of globalists, for instance, is not only redefined as a “populist,” but he/she is also, essentially, ignorant or insane.  See how that works?

The populist label is often used to describe a political movement built on the cult of personality, a sycophantic love affair with a celebrity dictator that tends to have ulterior motives.  Thus, the philosophical underpinnings of that particular movement are further eroded because they don’t even know why they are doing what they are doing; they are only playing a foolish game of follow the leader.

So, to recap, according to the establishment and their “press,” conservatives and sovereignty activists are actually “populists.” Our concerns over uncontrolled immigration and open borders are not based on rationalism and historic evidence of social and economic instability as well as the highly evidenced threats of terrorism; they are based on “xenophobia.”

Our concerns over the increasing fiscal weakness generated by the economic interdependence of globalism and our lack of self reliance are not based on math and logic, but our “lack of understanding” on how interdependence makes everything better.

Our concerns over rampant organized elitism and the corruption this entails are not based on numerous concrete examples, not to mention exposed documentation and the words of elitists themselves; they are based on a “fantasy world” of “tinfoil hatters” who just make stuff up while consuming heaping helpings of “fake news”.

If this is the case, then I suppose I should fasten my own tinfoil hat tightly and note that this narrative is part of an ongoing long-game by globalists.  They are not attempting to achieve the demonization of conservatives and sovereignty advocates today or tomorrow.  This is about preparing the public for a near future, perhaps five to 10 years from now, after they have sufficiently sabotaged the global economy and scapegoated us for the crisis this will cause.

Not possible, you say?  By all means, read my article ‘The False Economic Recovery Narrative Will Die In 2017’ for further explanation.  If we are not careful, we will be redefined not just by establishment propaganda, but by a global calamity that will be gift wrapped with our name on it and tied around our collective necks.

In the meantime, how do we fight back against this disinformation campaign?

One factor that a “populist movement” generally does not have is the ability to remain self-critical.  Populism, at least according to the mainstream media, requires a mentality of mass blind faith in a cause that is misunderstood or a leader that is dishonest.  The liberty movement and conservative groups still have some members who are not afraid to point out when we are going astray in our logic or our actions.

We have not been silenced by our own peers, yet.  Given enough crisis, it is hard to say how people will react.  A major terrorist attack, an economic panic, a war; these kinds of rip-tides can inspire a lot of intolerance for contrary views.  We are not there at this point, and as long as members of our movement are able to retain a critical eye, we will never be “populists.”

Another method is to refrain from adopting the “branding” that the establishment tries to use against us.  Beware of anyone within our groups and organizations who begins referring to himself or us as “populists” as if this is a label of which we should be proud.

In the long run, people with ill intent will call us whatever they want to call us.  The real issue is, will those labels stick?  Will we help them to stick by losing our composure and acting the way the propagandists always said we would?

Negative branding is about burning a hole in the historical record, because memes last far longer than people.  In 100 years, how will we be remembered?  This is what the globalists value most — future impressions of today by generations not yet born.  Because wars are not just fought in one moment over one piece of ground or over one idea; they are fought in ALL moments, for days not yet passed, for the posterity of all ideas, even those not yet thought of.  If we do not fight back with this in mind, winning will be impossible.

This article was written by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market.com and first published at PersonalLiberty.com.

Head-Fake: The “Fake News” Attack Will Fuel, Not Stifle Alt Media… But There’s a Catch

This article was written by Brandon Smith and first published at PersonalLiberty.com.

Editor’s Comment: Reverse psychology at its finest. The clumsy “fake news” meme is being used to target the alternative media… but if Brandon Smith is right, covertly, it will really build up the “victim” outsiders and allow them new media powers, and “mainstream” levels of exposures. That primacy will come at a cost though – first, the principles of the liberty/truth/patriot movement will be severely watered down and misrepresented; and second, this crowd will be blamed for catastrophic failures that elite insiders have been waiting to dump in a new wave of economic destruction.

Nearly everyone has argued, rightly, that this collapse is inevitable, but Brandon adds the additional twist that there is an intent to demonize populism, nationalism and related groups in a way that would be scarring and lasting, to give a recurring lesson of the errors of our way for many years to come. In a future regime of tight establishment call, this era could be looked back upon as a ‘Hunger Games,’ a collective memory-punishment to breed out lasting rebellion and resentment.

What do you think? Will “fake news” shut down independent reporting and dissent online, or will it blowback on corporate media as free expression on the Internet proves unstoppable?

What is the real purpose behind the ‘fake news’ attack?

by Brandon Smith

Here is the first problem with modern political discourse — too many people want to “win” arguments instead of getting to the greater truth of the matter. Discussions become brinkmanship. Opponents launch into immediate attacks instead of simply asking valid questions. They assert immediately that their position is the only valid position without verification. When confronted with rational responses and ample evidence, they dismiss everything instead of pondering what you have handed them. After this line is crossed, there is no point in continuing the debate. It will go on forever.

This is one of the great tragedies of the Saul Alinsky method of political confrontation; it has bred entire generations of people who now believe that there is no objective truth. They think everything is relative. Because of this belief, they assume that there is no wrong or right side, no wrong or right goal. Instead, there are only goals that are more right than the goals of others. Everything boils down to a “lesser of two evils” mentality, and the ends therefore justify the means. Using dishonest measures to win the fight becomes acceptable.

In the end, ideological combat actually prevents people from learning rather than helping them get to the root of the issue. We live in a world where truth is superfluous to the overall narrative. The only thing that is important is destroying your rivals.

A classic strategy of dishonest debate and disinformation is to use every method possible to avoid confronting your ideological opponents legitimate arguments and to attack him personally. If you can’t beat him on fair ground using reason and evidence, then why not undermine his character so that the public will be influenced to avoid listening to him at all.  This is sometimes called “inoculation.”

At first glance, this is what the entire “fake news” meme supported by the mainstream media seems to be about.

The MSM has proven itself utterly ineffective against the rise of the alternative media. And as I have explained in recent articles, there is a very good and obvious reason for this. The alternative media is the closest thing to a “free market” of ideas that the world has had in a very long time.  Before web media, the public was strictly limited to a handful of corporate outlets that dictated information flow with an iron fist.  If you wanted to learn anything beyond the mainstream narrative, you had to data mine at the library in an infinitely slower fashion, or try to personally seek out people who represented sources and witnesses.

Today, data mining happens at light speed. Facts and evidence are uncovered in real time. Video interviews and transcripts can be achieved as quickly as a phone call. They can be examined and witnesses can be cited without traveling across the country. The prevalence of visual media also makes it difficult for witnesses to lie about their original claims later down the road.

Beyond this, the alternative media offers something the masses have rarely ever had — choice. People can now look at all sides of an issue and all available evidence and decide for themselves what conclusions make the most sense. The mainstream media has only ever offered one side, with highly regulated information and cherry-picked evidence.

The mainstream media’s purpose has never been to convey the unfettered “news.”  Rather, their purpose has always been to manipulate public opinion, and we saw this revealed undeniably during the 2016 election as Wikileaks exposed journalist after journalist using their position of public trust as a weapon to influence the election outcome.

Instead of admitting wrongdoing after this embarrassment, the MSM has decided to double down and escalate the accusation that the alternative media is “fake news.” Meaning, the MSM wants people to believe that we are liars and amateurs, that they are the “professionals,” and that the public should ignore everything the alternative media has to say from now on.  I have to point out, though, that the narrative of mainstream news versus “fake news” seems a little thin to me. Meaning, I believe there is more going on here than the MSM simply trying to save itself.

Call me a “conspiracy theorist,” but the elitist controlled mainstream media does little to help itself through this strategy. Think about it; the MSM is already clearly dying if one looks at the ever shrinking size of their audience and the loss of younger viewers and readers. They have been deteriorating for years, while the alternative media has been exploding in influence. The promotion of the fake news meme requires these mainstream media outlets to actually list which sources they believe represent fake news.  This is what the Washington Post did with their promotion of liberal professor Melissa Zimdar’s list.

So, forgive me if I am making too much of a leap here, but it seems that this tactic will only bring more web traffic to the sites listed, because the list does not really include any specific examples of “fake news” trespasses.  People who are curious will be compelled to then visit the alternative sites to see what all the fuss is about. Perhaps many of them will find something they like, rather than something they hate. To me, the entire set-up of the fake news meme hurts the mainstream news more than it helps them.

The next major story linked to fake news has been the assertion by some in government (including the CIA) that the alternative media is actually a front for Russian propaganda. I predicted this development two years ago in my article When War Erupts Patriots Will Be Accused Of  Aiding “The Enemy.”

In that article, I argued that a war is being engineered between Eastern and Western powers (Russia and China vs. the U.S. and parts of Europe), and that this war will likely be an economic war.  I also point out that such a conflict might be used by the elites in the West to rout out the alternative media as agents of Russian propaganda.  Here’s a quote:

“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.”

“…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.”

It would appear that everything I warned about two years ago is now happening.  That said, I would amend my original viewpoint to include a new dynamic. 

The coming economic war will be based on a false paradigm — the false East/West paradigm.  Over the years I have outlined in great detail the evidence that Eastern nations are just as controlled by banking elites and globalist interests as Western nations, including evidence that Vladimir Putin is an avid supporter of the International Monetary Fund’s push for a single global currency system using the Special Drawing Rights basket as a bridge. He is also now suddenly a supporter of the UN’s climate change and carbon taxation agenda.

I consistently warned analysts within the liberty movement to be careful about cheerleading too much for Russia and Putin, not only because he is controlled opposition, but because eventually we would be caught up in a media war that would label us as enemy conspirators.  Remaining (rightly) critical of Putin was the best way to avoid being labeled as a member of the “fake news,” or a purveyor of Russian propaganda.

It was my original belief that the elitist media would use the alternative media’s love affair with Putin as a means to undermine our credibility. However, today I would say that the opposite is taking place.

Confusing? Yes. But look at it this way; with the predominantly leftist mainstream media dying in an irreversible way, no amount of whining about “fake news” is going to save them. The rise of the “populists” is at hand, and as I have warned for the past year, this is by design.  Just as conservative anti-establishment movements are rising in geopolitical influence, so to is the anti-establishment media. We are sort of a package deal.

My belief is that conservative movements and the alternative media are being allowed into a position of cultural authority. The globalists are stepping out of the way (for now) as we grow in power. They are doing this in preparation for the final stage of an economic collapse they have been gestating since at least 2008. They are doing this because their goal is to set us up as scapegoats for a global disaster that will be remembered for centuries to come. I was able to predict the success of the Brexit Referendum and Donald Trump’s election win based on this theory and I believe it will continue to prove itself.

The globalists know that at this stage the fake news meme will only help us, rather than hurt us. That is to say, the elites are throwing the leftist media to the wolves and the Russian propaganda claims will only make the MSM look more ridiculous.  The globalists see the writing on the wall — in fact, with the level of web analytics at their disposal, they can read and predict shifts in social consciousness before almost anyone else is aware of them.

Instead of trying to obstruct us or fight us directly, I believe the elites plan to co-opt us or co-opt our image. That is to say, they will let us grow in apparent influence, trigger a crisis and either use certain alternative outlets as the new mainstream, or simply paint all of us as complicit in the failures of conservative governments and nationalism.

The end game here is to destroy the underlying principles of liberty movements; to make future generations reel in horror at the very mention of conservatives and national sovereignty.  The elites are playing a very complex strategy of fourth-generation warfare. Nothing you see is exactly what it seems. The fake news label is not meant to disrupt the alternative media. In fact it will help us rise to a position in which we can be blamed for negative global influence.

Many people will say I am reading too much into the situation, or that I am giving the elites “too much credit,” or attributing too much “omnipotence” to their position. They will probably reference the recent passage of the Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act and claim that this is clearly meant to take down the alternative media.

I would ask these people to consider a question, though — who will really have control over this legislation in the near future?  If I am right, and Trump enters the White House in January with a Republican majority in Congress and the Senate, will it not be Trump that most benefits from the legal framework? How then will it serve to undermine the alternative and conservative media?

I predict, in fact, that conservatives are being given enough rope to hang themselves with. I predict that Trump will utilize this legislation to go after the mainstream media, not the alternative media, and that many conservatives will support him even though questions of constitutionality will increase. I believe the fake news meme will backfire and that the MSM will die off as a result.

I believe that this is all part of a carefully crafted narrative in which the right wing gains unprecedented political sway, only to be met with economic and social disaster. I believe that the game is far from over in the fight between globalists and sovereignty activists. I believe they cannot defeat us directly, so they now hope to defeat us indirectly, or, trick us into defeating ourselves. In reality, the game is just beginning.

This article was written by Brandon Smith and first published at PersonalLiberty.com. Visit his site Alt-Market.com and support his work.