AltMarket.com, August 26, 2020: All over the Western world ever since 9/11 there have been incremental steps towards what many liberty advocates would call a “police state”; a system in which governments are no longer restricted by the boundaries of civil liberties and are given the power to do just about anything they want in the name of public safety. The use of “the law” as a tool for injecting tyranny into a culture is the first tactic of all totalitarians.
The idea is that by simply writing government criminality into the law books, that criminality somehow becomes justified by virtue of legal recognition. It's all very circular. Whenever government abuse of the people is initiated, it's always initiated in the name of what's “best for society as a whole”. To save society, the individuals that make up a society must be sublimated or destroyed. This mentality is the complete opposite of what the Founding Fathers in America fought and died for, but as Thomas Jefferson once said:
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”In countries like Australia, which claim to value Western democratic principles of liberty and rule by the people, the perception is that civil rights are codified into the legal framework just as they are in the US. However, there are some glaring differences and issues; specifically, Australian citizens (like many European citizens) have absolutely no means to compel their government or the elites that influence their government to limit themselves. It is these nations, in which the populations have been mostly disarmed and pacified, that any agenda for tyranny will first be established. But we will get to that in a moment...
Make no mistake, there is a very OPEN and easily identifiable agenda on the part of globalists to establish a heavily centralized police state system in every country they are able. This is not “conspiracy theory”, this is conspiracy fact.
For many years now there have been numerous analysts, economists and geopolitical experts in the alternative media that have predicted and warned the public about the globalist strategy of “order out of chaos”. In other words, the ultra-wealthy power brokers that hold influence over most governments on Earth seek to “reshape” the existing social order through the creation of crisis and disaster. By engineering public desperation, they hope to lure us into accepting restrictions on our freedoms that we would have never considered otherwise.
The goal of a single global economy and government has been spoken of by elites time and time again, yet it is still to this day called “conspiracy theory” or “paranoid delusion”. I could quote these elites and their organizations all day long, but I'll cite a few choice statements to make my point.
As former Deputy Secretary of State under Clinton and Council on Foreign Relations member Strobe Talbot wrote in an article for Time Magazine in 1992 titled 'America Abroad: The Birth Of The Global Nation':
“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”As elitist and Fabian Socialist HG Wells outlines in his non-fiction treatise titled 'The New World Order':
"...When the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.”And how about one of my favorite revealing quotes from Trilateral Commission member Richard N. Gardner, former deputy assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations under Kennedy and Johnson? He wrote in the April, 1974 issue of the Council on Foreign Relation’s (CFR) journal Foreign Affairs (pg. 558) in an article titled 'The Hard Road To World Order':
“In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”Members of globalist foundations and think-tanks like the CFR have inhabited nearly every US government office and presidential cabinet for the past several decades. This includes the two dozen or so CFR members in Donald Trump's cabinet. Draining the swamp? Not going to happen.
As Harpers Magazine candidly revealed in a 1958 expose titled 'School For Statesmen':
“The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common, they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for “the purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all powerful one world government.”The easiest method for the globalists to get what they openly say they want is to either conjure a crisis or exploit an existing crisis in order to “erode sovereignty”. The current pandemic fits this plan perfectly, but before sovereignty can be eliminated on a national level they need to undermine sovereignty on an individual level first.
Actions within the US and nations allied to the US suggest an accelerated attack on personal liberties is at hand.
There are sister foundations to the CFR in many other countries. For example, in Australia they have the highly embedded and influential Strategic Policy Institute, which has been consistently advocating for complete centralization of government power in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Their stated plan is to concentrate policy administration in the hands of a new “commission” or “department” made up of the “brightest minds”. This commission would not be tasked with getting Australia back to normal, but convincing the public to ACCEPT the “new normal” beyond the pandemic.
The ASPI enthusiastically heralds the idea in an article titled 'Coronavirus Response A Chance To Reimagine Future For Australia':
“The agenda of such a department now is not about getting Australia back to normal after the pandemic. It’s about re-imagining what Australia can be and how we can thrive and prosper in our future beyond the coronavirus and in light of drought, bushfires and climate change. Think about the kind of new economy we can have after the forced, rapid adoption of dispersed home working and schooling through digital means. We can be the leading digital economy the prime minister desired before the pandemic, not by 2030 but much earlier.”This reminds me immediately of the post 9/11 push to rapidly remove constitutional protections while the public was blinded by fear and confusion. As US globalist Rahm Emanuel would say:
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”The ASPI reveals the true agenda, which is the complete federalization and unilateral implementation of law without public approval. The plan is to do this by exploiting the pandemic event to its full potential and then applying the rapid societal changes in government structure. This will then be carried on long after the coronavirus disappears in the name of the economy, welfare programs and so-called “global warming”. The pandemic response is just a means to an end, and the end game is total dominance of the population.
I focus on Australia and the surrounding regions in particular because this seems to be the place where globalists are enforcing technocratic policies first. Or at the very least, they are test-running their strategy and using Australians as guinea pigs. When the ASPI says they plan to keep the pandemic changes in place well after the virus is gone, they aren't just talking about shifting into a digital economy.
Right now, Australia and New Zealand are slamming citizens with perhaps the most draconian measures yet in the Western world. These are policies that the elites want to introduce everywhere, but they are going full bore in Australia, and it just keeps getting worse.
In various areas of Australia “Level 4” response measures have been enforced for at least the next six weeks, including curfews, strict mask policies including people being forced to wear masks OUTSIDE (contrary to everything science and virology has to say about low possibility of transmission in sunlight and open air), residents are not allowed to travel more than 3 miles from their homes and only one person from a household is allowed to leave at any given time. Citizens violating these rules are subject to $10,000 fines or arrest. And yes, people are being arrested simply for not wearing mask or being too far from home.
In New Zealand, the situation has become exceedingly grim and I think it should be treated as a warning to Americans specifically as to our potential future if we allow the narrative of “public health security” to be turned into a vehicle for tyranny.
While Australia has been using quarantine facilities to force people considered high risk to isolate, NZ quarantine camps are now fully under the control of the military, and ALL citizens that test positive or are suspected to have Covid can be separated from their families and placed in the camps, which are hotels converted into prisons.
It is the complete erasure of personal liberties all because of an increase in cases which has amounted to a mere 525 deaths in Australia and 22 deaths in New Zealand.
I believe the reason Australia and New Zealand have been targeted with this level of restrictions first is because they have been almost fully disarmed and have no means to defend themselves from government overstep. That said, I see signs that similar measures will be attempted in the US as well. In states like New York, there are low key programs to set up Covid checkpoints stopping and checking vehicles coming into the state. This is where heavier restrictions start.
First, checkpoints will be established in the name of keeping infected people out of a state or city. Then, those same checkpoints will be used to keep people from leaving a state or city. Then, checkpoints will be set up at random to test people for fever or symptoms of illness. If allowed to continue, the natural progression of checkpoints is to terrify the population into not traveling anywhere for any reason. Like in Australia and NZ, people will effectively be imprisoned in their homes. At this stage, bringing in laws or executive orders punishing people for leaving home will be easier; they will have already acclimated to being trapped at home anyway.
Furthermore, elites and globalists within the US are calling for hard lockdowns for at least six weeks, just like the Level 4 lockdowns in Australia. Federal Reserve member Neel Kashkari recently asserted that Americans are saving more, thus they should be subjected to hard lockdowns “because they can afford it”.
Virginia is planning mandatory Covid vaccinations, even though vaccines for SARS like viruses have proven impossible to develop in the past, and rushed vaccines have a history of harming or killing people rather than protecting them. Set aside the issue that giving government the power to force citizens to inject anything into their bodies is immoral.
What's next? Covid camps? Well, yes, unless Americans make a hard stand. Mainstream media outlets have been suggesting this strategy for months. The Washington Post applauded the use of forced isolation camps in other nations and asks why the US has not yet used them beyond ports for foreign travelers? The reason is this: Many Americans will not go along with such measures, and will use force in-kind against anyone trying to lock them up because of a virus that is a moderate threat at most to a small percentage of the population.
That said, don't assume that the establishment will not eventually try it here. They will. Be ready when they do so. Look to the actions in places like Australia and NZ and ask yourself, am I willing to go along with that? And if so, for how long? Because the globalists intend for these restrictions to become the “new normal”. They intend for this nightmare to last forever.
Related:
Web MD:
Off Guardian:
Global Research:
COVID-19: Trigger for a New World Order. Economic Stagnation and Social Destruction
Madness Hub:
More than 10,000 COVID conspiracy theorists gather in London: Huge crowd of anti-vaxxers led by David Icke gather to argue that virus is a lie spread in secret global plot organised by Bill Gates (29 Pics)
Off Guardian:
The COVID19 Scamdemic – Part 1
Global Research:
COVID-19: Trigger for a New World Order. Economic Stagnation and Social Destruction
COVID-19: Trigger for a New World Order. Economic Stagnation and Social Destruction
Madness Hub:
More than 10,000 COVID conspiracy theorists gather in London: Huge crowd of anti-vaxxers led by David Icke gather to argue that virus is a lie spread in secret global plot organised by Bill Gates (29 Pics)
Off Guardian:
The COVID19 Scamdemic – Part 1
Global Research:
COVID-19: Trigger for a New World Order. Economic Stagnation and Social Destruction
I agree with every word of this.
ReplyDeleteImagine, though, if the predictions for what's going to happen prove false.
It won't change THE FACT that there is already in place a level of global coordination mankind has never seen.
That didn't just happen accidentally or overnight. It was established painstakingly over most of the twentieth century.
And it is very well documented who did what, when, and through which organizations and institutions under what pretense and why.
The damned CFR. Just one thing I want to say about that: the Dulles brothers, their involvement in the organization, their role in shaping US foreign policy, their immersion in the OSS and later the CIA. Also, last but not least, their well-known dealings with the Nazis prior to WWII. The Nazis "couldn't have done it without them" and it was probably consequential to US history the brothers, as traitors, weren't hung by the neck until dead for their role. Obviously they weren't doing anything not in the wider interests of America's plutocrats, no matter what their dirty deeds.
I'm beginning to be willing to weigh in on China being part of the coordinated whole. There's no way they are outside. They practically anchor the arrangement.
ReplyDeleteWe were speaking about "Big Tech" totalitarianism and who runs the show-- the tech billionaires or their handlers in the intelligence community. (I reveal my bias on the question.)
Back in the 90's the Chinese were either stealing or being surreptitiously supplied with American technological innovations through the government and possibly through American intelligence agencies. This was harmful to specifically American "Big Tech" and there was some degree of objection and protest. It went nowhere and I don't feel satisfied these illegal transfers were given even cursory investigation.
We had the Bill and Monica show instead. It makes me sick.
"there was some degree of objection and protest."
DeleteClaims that Huawei hacked and destroyed Canada's Nortel Networks, which at one time accounted for one third of the value of the Toronto stock market, has never been investigated.
"The Washington Post applauded the use of forced isolation camps in other nations and asks why the US has not yet used them beyond ports for foreign travelers?"
ReplyDeleteThe Washington Post? You don't mean the Washington Post, do you? Second only to the NY Times? Owned by Jeff Bezos!
What's happening is out in the open, exposed for all to see.
The totalitarian juggernaut is in full swing.
The 60-Minutes clip with Mike Wallace is something else. That government farce-- a pandemic declared with no known substantiated or actual cases of the "new" influenza strain-- but thousands suffering serious neurological disorders or death as a result of the government's hyped vaccine-- a vaccine moreover untested-- is nearly forgotten.
ReplyDeleteI noted the linked video, posted in 2010, had a mere 1600 or so views. This serious government farce from 1976, and the general issue of vaccine safety, would be front and center in a democratic society or one where "informed consent" was given more than lip service.
The question that opponents of the NWO need to answer is how can sovereign nation states continue to exist in an age of nukes and biological weapons of mass destruction? Or if national sovereignty is incompatible with long-term human survival, what kind of NWO would be compatible with individual liberty and the rights of human groups to retain their identity, both cultural and racial?
ReplyDelete"how can sovereign nation states continue to exist in an age of nukes and biological weapons of mass destruction?"
ReplyDeleteActually, I discover this is above my pay grade. I offer this feeble attempt in humility.
I break this into two component and separate questions:
(1) Can nation states continue to exist?
(2) What are the primary threats to the continued existence of nation states? (Or its recreation out of what it is the nation state has devolved into?)
(1)
The first question, which I acknowledge as of utmost importance, reveals a way our orientations to these problems differs, even though we ultimately agree.
I think the nation state has already ceased to exist and we are in a nearly-completed state of unified and global government. The appearances, illusions, and delusions of nation state retain some kind of value for the core of elites who run the show, but that's all it is.
I think Baudrillard, in the early 1990's, already had it right when he declared the of the first Iraq war, "The Gulf War Didn’t Take Place.”
I don’t think the first Gulf War is the best example of what I am talking about, but it occurs to me now for some unknown reason.
I don’t think there’s any way the war could have been justified on the basis of sovereign nations. Did Kuwait have a right to break from Iraq and declare itself a sovereign nation or did the Kuwaiti plutocrats make the right kind of deal with Western plutocrats? What was Iraq as a nation state in the first place but some lines arbitrarily drawn on a map by the plutocrats of the British Empire? The nation state of the U.S. led the war, but the most important part in terms of the PR of the war was its use of the U.N. The pre-war mobilizations, the largest the world had seen since WWII, demonstrate enormous “nation-state” coordination having nothing to do with “nation-state” in the conventional sense—what “national” interests were served? It is clear to me the national interests of the U.S. have been sacrificed in both gulf wars.
The slaughter of 300,000 Iraqi soldiers on Basra Road – while in retreat! That isn’t justified by the concept of national sovereignty and it happened under the auspices of the U.N. The U.N. itself justified as a way to achieve world peace—not world government. The U.N. is a manifestation of world government, which is realized now, remarkably, through the actions of WHO.
(Note that China is presently on the U.N. Security Council. You can’t make this stuff up.)
(2)
I don’t think nukes and biological WMD are a primary threat to the foundations of national sovereignty.
The plutocrats understood well enough, from the very beginning, the meaning of MAD, mutually assured destruction. The plutocrats have their squabbles and conflicts but not the extent of destroying themselves. I also think something is true with biological WMD. These are known to have been dangerous to use because once released, they have unforseeable, uncontrollable consequences, exactly what the plutocrats most dislike. The plutocrats want total control for themselves, not wanton destruction. (They might go for what looks like wanton destruction to the rest of us, but they have the wanton destruction under control, from their perspective.)
The plutocrats are the primary threat to national sovereignty. The question is, after the sad political failures of democracy and socialism, how to deal with the plutocrats and check plutocratic control.
Very good!
DeleteHaving posed the question I have been at loss to even attempt an answer.
You make some good points, but I still worry about WMD's. Even if elites don't intend to use them, accidents can happen. Ellsberg's "Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" offers a hair-raising account of America's extraordinarily loose control of nuclear weapons in the early years of the Cold War.
And apparently the US nuclear deterrent still depends on 1970's technology with software residing on 8 inch floppy drives.
It seems to me, therefore, that to eliminate what, over the long term, is an intolerable risk there is a need for total elimination of WMD's and WMD research and an international regime with powerful teeth to undertake inspections and compel compliance with disarmament agreements.
And even that may not be enough to prevent catastrophe. The knowledge to create WMD's exists and the means to create them, particularly microbiological weapons, are readily available to both states and non-state entities.
But global governance of any degree is fundamentally antidemocratic. I'm not, here, naively suggesting that the people should rule themselves. Obviously, today, the people are clueless about most things and cannot rule themselves. But at least they can legitimately want to be ruled by people close to home: to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Trump's success, such as it is, clearly derives from that impulse. He talks the blue collar language to blue collar voters, speaks of their needs and anxieties, and even, to a degree, works in their interest. No UN President of the World from Sri Lanka or the Philippines, or Inner Mongolia is able to do that, and wouldn't want to, having his own particular interests to serve.
The question is, then, can national government, i.e., the present form of devolved government, or possibly a more devolved form of government --leading to the revival of the city state, co-exist with international governing bodies with the power to prevent World War III?
If nation states were capable of allowing an even more powerful international governing body to dictate a crucial aspect of their national defense, they'd be capable of negotiating durable disarmament treaties. They'd also be capable of voluntarily forgoing further research and development of WMD's. They aren't capable of either and therefore aren't capable of forming such an international governing body. (I'm pretty sure this is a valid modus tollens argument.)
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice if there were such a thing as international law. It always bothers me when this nonexistent thing is invoked, for example to call the U.S. or any other sovereign nation criminal. I also think the Nuremberg trials and the following, such as the Adolf Eichmann trial in Jerusalem were not only a joke, but deceiving people in a damaging way about the nature of justice. I also think they were an early warning about what Israel was going to become.
I don't subscribe to the contract theory of the origins of the state and "the rule of law." I don't even believe there is "rule of law." I like the Thomas Jefferson Brandon Smith quotes, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will." I agree the law is often but a tyrant's will, but how exactly "equal rights" is to be interpreted apparently escapes our greatest thinkers, to this day. I've come to think the concept of "equal rights" itself is, or has become, nothing but the tyrant's will.
(I personally agree with you the contemporary invoking of "equal rights" in the context of the riots and other civil disorders stinks of totalitarianism on the move and will come to destroy any good way I ever thought of "equal rights" or even "rights.")
I will put the book by Daniel Ellsberg on my reading list. The Pentagon Papers taught me so much about the way the world actually works. I simply never would have thought those things could or would be done by an American government.
I am not convinced that anything as complex as the development of international relations can be inferred in a strictly logical way. Nevertheless, i acknowledge that your contention that if the sovereign nations could've negotiated durable disarmament treaties they would've been capable, also, of forming a system of global governance is consistent with the empirical evidence of failed peace movements going back at least as far as the Napoleonic wars.
DeleteThe creation of the European Union might be taken to demonstrate an emerging international spirit among nations, but as Brexit confirms, accession to the Union does not extinguish national sovereignty.
It seems, therefore, that there exist only two paths to global governance. One is by domination of the world by a single nation, something sought after by the Mongols, Napoleonic France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, the US -- briefly the world's sole super-power bent on a New World Order, and now, it would seem, China.
But if the rest of the world sees off the threat of Chinese hegemonism, there would seem to remain only one route to global empire; namely, the treason of the elites.
In times past, corporate profits depended on the exercise of state power to impose protective tariffs, apply armed force to achieve access to both resources and markets abroad, and protect property at home. But as the great corporations have globalized, the obstruction to their operations (including the movement of goods, technology, people and profits across national lines) by national governments outweigh any advantage that support from a nominally home state may confer. Increasingly, therefore, corporate influence by way of lobbying, bribery, assassination, and the power to create or destroy jobs in particular jurisdictions, is used to transfer power from national governments to such international bodies as the WTO, the UN, the WHO, etc., who's leadership is readily subverted in the interests of the money power.
In due course, therefore, it would seem that we are destined to be ruled by corrupt and faceless heads of international agencies headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the Hague, Netherlands, etc.
Or is there some other avenue toward a global system, in particular, a bottom-up approach that would achieve a high degree of local autonomy and preserve the cultural and racial diversity of mankind?
Delete"But if the rest of the world sees off the threat of Chinese hegemonism, there would seem to remain only one route to global empire; namely, the treason of the elites."
ReplyDeleteI wish I didn't have to, but I agree. The elites are now moving quickly to establish their global governance. This is the way it is going to be.
The one thing I wonder about is whether China is not itself an instrument of the establishment of elite global governance. I have watched this for a long time, starting with Nixon's remarkable trip to China during his first term. I saw this as a brilliant move on his part, but in the background were the Rockefellers, then and now movers and shakers within a globalizing elite, furthering their interests in what Nixon was doing. (I see both Nixon and Kissinger as Rockefeller tools. I can explain this if you would like. It was interesting to me you mentioned Nixon was also associated with the Bush family-- what emerges, I think, is that the Bush family was also a tool of the elites at that time. I believe the Bush family may have succeeded in becoming a part of the elite in the meantime.) It is remarkable China was admitted to the UN prior to Nixon's visit, while Taiwan, with in many ways much more favorable credentials, was excluded, and this was more or less accepted by the U.S. (It is also remarkable to me Taiwan was for a while a hot button issue with American conservatives, including Ronald Reagan, and yet this was never corrected or reversed. I believe Reagan had an opportunity to do that, if he really wanted.)
And then later, China is admitted to the U.N. Security Council. These things wouldn't happen without the elite allowing them to happen.
"Or is there some other avenue toward a global system, in particular, a bottom-up approach that would achieve a high degree of local autonomy and preserve the cultural and racial diversity of mankind?"
We've all witnessed American exceptionalism in action. We've seen Americans take for granted the rights, advantages, and benefits of self governance, without ANY willingness to bear the burdens and responsibilities going along with it. They've had their chance. They have proven unworthy of self governance, and now it will be taken away. They are going to be ruled by others. It may not be terrible materially-- who know? (Part of the horror is if it is terrible materially there's not going to be much anyone will be able to do about it.) However that is, I do not see much, if anything, left of what a human heart and soul valued most, being allowed to remain.