globalism Archives • Outliers Academy

Bank

The Origins of the Deep State in North America PART II

By Guest Post May 16, 2019

by Matthew Ehret

Prologue

Canada’s history has remained clouded in misinformation and outright lies for over 200 years, while basic truths which were once well understood by leading statesmen a century past are now treated as little more than myth or “conspiracy theory”. Yet as the above quote written by the pen of Lord Alfred Milner indicates, the crafting of the Canadian identity has been bought for the price of a national soul. The greatest obstacle to Canadian sovereignty today is found in the fact that Canada’s synthetic identity has been constructed over the past decades with the intention of obstructing the establishment upon this earth of a world of sovereign republics, which was and still is the outgrowth of the success of the American Revolution in 1783. To do so, we must investigate how the Anglo Dutch oligarchy has played through such institutions as the Rhodes Trust, Fabian Society, and Round Table Movement. These structures have played a key role in mis-shaping every key standard of economic, political, cultural and scientific behaviour which has perverted western institutions to this very day and have come to be identified since the election of Donald Trump as “the Deep State”.

Part one of our story focused upon the creation of these institutions and their methods of penetrating their networks throughout influential institutions of Canada from 1865 to 1943, and the evolution of the Round Table into the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA) in 1919. American branches were created in 1920 with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Institute of Pacific Relations, while a Canadian branch was established in 1928 with the Canadian Institute for International Affairs (CIIA). Key Canadian patriots resistant to the RIIA’s plans were also introduced in the form of “Laurier Liberals” O.D. Skelton and Ernest Lapointe, both of whom aided in influencing the highly malleable Prime Minister William Mackenzie King towards the Canadian nationalist cause, greater cooperation with American Patriots such as Franklin Roosevelt and away from the RIIA’s plans for world government under the League of Nations. With the mysterious deaths of Skelton and Lapointe in 1941, all such resistance melted away and Canadian foreign policy become fully infected by Rhodes Trust/ Fabian agents of the CIIA.

This second segment will address the important 1943-1972 destruction of humanist potential leading up to the reforms implemented by CIIA-assets Lester B. Pearson and Pierre Elliot Trudeau in their role in advancing Milner’s program for a new synthetic nationalism.

The Attack on Post-War Potential Begins 1945-1951

By the end of the war, Canada’s productive capacity had risen to unimaginable heights and the vision of unbounded progress free of imperial monetarism was not far off from realization. The relationship between Canada and the United States was at an all-time high, with exploding trade, and purchasing power that had multiplied threefold from 1939 to 1956. The authority and power won by C.D. Howe was continued into the following 12 years of Canadian progress first, as Minister of Reconstruction (1944-1948) then as Minister of Trade and Commerce (1948-1957). When Howe realized that his resistance to Canada’s participation in the unjust Korean war of 1950 would not work, he changed gears, and took advantage of the situation by renewing his broad war powers, once again allowing himself to lead Canada’s economy top down, resulting in the great projects with America such as the St Lawrence Seaway, the Avro Arrow CF-105 supersonic interceptor, the TransCanada-U.S. natural gas pipeline and especially the civilian use of nuclear power shaped by Canada’s unique CANDU technology. [2]

The secret to Canada’s progress during and after the war continued to be the National Research Council (NRC), re-organized and rehabilitated after years of incompetence under its former President General Andrew McNaughton. The NRC was a flexible top down organization run by one of Howe’s brightest engineering students C.J. Mackenzie who went on to become the first President of Atomic Energy Canada Ltd (AECL).

With similar mission-oriented organizational structures having organically formed in the USA during war, the NRC was celebrated and studied as a model for countries the world over. The leaders of this institution fought not only to advance nuclear power in Canada in order to escape the limits of fossil fuels and accelerate the next breakthrough to thermonuclear fusion, but also led the fight to provide their technology to underdeveloped countries such as India and Pakistan which were yearning to break free of their British colonial masters [3]. The NRC also successfully led breakthroughs in radio astronomy, oceanography and industry. Its basic objective can be summarized in the following model:

(1) Maximize the density of discoveries within a cross country system of self-financed and self-organized intramural NRC laboratories.

(2) Translate those discoveries into new technological applications and machine tools.

(3) Apply these technologies as efficiently as possible into the industrial productive system to increase the productive powers of labour.

(4) Force university curricula and behaviour to adapt by such creative upshifts as quickly as possible ensuring that no fixed/formulaic patterns of thought could encrust themselves upon the minds of students or professors.

Dexter White and Wallace

The Cultural/Economic/Scientific factors of Canada’s post-war dynamic were on a new trajectory of true independence, founded on a commitment to progress which the British Empire now mobilized all of its energy to destroy. The great fear of Lord Milner laid out in 1909 of “union with the United States” guided by unbounded scientific and technological progress was now underway, peaking with a 1948 call for a North American customs union advocated by Howe and leading FDR statesmen in the United States that had not yet been purged by the Cold War witch hunt led by Senator McCarthy. Sadly, now under the vast influence of the British Empire’s mind control, one of Mackenzie King’s last acts in office was the destruction of this proposition. After King’s 1950 death, C.D. Howe continued on as Minister of Trade and Commerce under King’s successor Louis St. Laurent (1948-1957) [4].

Having ensured that FDR’s postwar vision for a world of sovereign nation states would not come to fruition after his untimely death in April 1945, the first of a series of ideological barrages was hammered into Canadian and U.S. policy beginning with the installation of Wall Street tool Harry Truman as President, and with him the advent of the “Truman Doctrine” centering on the Rhodes-Milner agenda of Anglo-American Empire guided by Churchill’s design of “British brains and American brawn”. While FDR was still alive, his allies led by Harry Dexter White and Henry Wallace were capable of fending off John Maynard Keynes’ attempts to structure the Bretton Woods agreements according to his own twisted logic of a one world currency steered by the Nazi affiliated Bank for International Settlements and Bank of England (of which Keynes was a Director). However, after FDR’s death, the last major beachhead of resistance to British recolonization melted.

The Anglo-American “special relationship” was quickly established by Truman bringing American foreign policy quickly under the control of the RIIA networks beginning with Truman’s unnecessary utilization of two of America’s only three nuclear bombs on the already defeated Japan which set the foundations for the Korean War [5]. This policy was ushered in by Sir Winston Churchill’s 1946 “Iron Curtain” speech in Fulton, Missouri which officially opened the age of the Cold War, setting a fear based dynamic of tension that resulted in a purging of FDR allies from positions of influence, and an influx of British operatives into high prominence the world over.

The Chicago Tribune’s Cassandra Sounds the Alarm

In 1951, the enormously influential Massey-Lévesque Royal Commission attempted to first launch an attack upon the “American invasion” of media (print, radio, television and cinema) which was taking over the Canadian psyche. One of the primary demands of the 1951 report called for an emergency ban on U.S. media to keep “dangerous” American cultural influences from contaminating Canada’s British traditions with the following words:

Few Canadians realize the extent of this dependence… our lazy, even abject imitation of them [American institutions] has caused an uncritical acceptance of ideas and assumptions which are alien to our tradition.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

Cosmocrats

Nationalism Is Not Our Biggest Threat, Technocracy Is

By Guest Post May 7, 2019

by James Poulos

Nationalism is back as a burning issue not because of modern demagoguery or ancient hatreds but because of the triumph of digital technology over everyday life.

Is nationalism right for America? With President Trump, an avowed nationalist, leading the Republican Party, it’s not surprising that the best commentary on nationalism—and the sharpest debate—is now found on the political right.

For proof, one need only have sat in on the National Review Institute’s recent Ideas Summit, where the grand debate saw Rich Lowry, National Review’s editor-in-chief, take the side of nationalism against Jonah Goldberg, the founder of National Review Online.

But why is nationalism such a hot topic today at all? While the president’s rhetoric is influential, and the ferment on the right has an attentive audience, something much more substantial accounts for the rise in nationalist sentiment at home and abroad.

Americans must realize that the solution to the puzzle is hiding in plain sight. Nationalism is back as a burning issue not because of modern demagoguery or ancient hatreds but because of the triumph of digital technology over everyday life.

Dehumanization Versus Self-Rule

In the United States and around the world, the digital age is forcing a new choice between two types of governance—one nationalist, the other imperial. While both carry risks, only one is compatible with constitutional government and the central claims of the Declaration of Independence.

Americans shouldn’t fear that digital life is going to bring back the inhuman old days of twentieth-century-style nationalist extremism. The proper thing to fear is a dehumanizing new form of digital despotism.

The preeminent threat to American life is not the resurgence of the beasts within us, but the mastery of the bots above us. This is why the right’s new nationalists should command our attention.

The debate on the right frames the issue in exactly the right way. One side asserts that nationalism contains the paramount threat of the new age. These critics warn that all will be lost if we fail to head off a primitive backlash against the globalizing forces accelerated by the technocratic elite. They fear the beast within.

The other side warns that the West’s globalist technocrats have embraced a new imperial vision, one that promises uniform unfreedom on all, their worship of “diversity” notwithstanding. Their plan is increasingly out in the open.

In “The Big Nine,” New York University professor Amy Webb argues that artificial intelligence must be put not under American control but under that of a new international organization—a global diversity and inclusion agency. Otherwise, she warns, our robots will have white privilege—or even become white supremacists.

Is Society the Problem Or Are Individuals?

So long as we learn to code our machines with the right secular religion, our imperialists believe, their robotic creations can and should order our lives better than we humans can order them ourselves. This is why today’s nationalists rightly conclude the bots above us, not the beasts within, are the proper object of our political fear.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

Cosmocrats

We’ll Be So Much Better Without Them

By Guest Post April 14, 2019

By Paul Rosenberg

There are millions of people – a majority in many places – who believe in a liberty philosophy: That the golden rule is the right way for humans to interact, that centralization is a problem, that leaving markets alone is better than rigging them, and so on. But there is a problem: Rather than pushing forward into action, most of these well-intentioned people limp along in uncertainty.

There are many explanations for this, of course, but the root is probably a fear that rulers have some kind of magic. We fear that without them we’d crash and burn. After all, we’ve been trained in precisely that for a hundred generations. Rationally we know it isn’t true, but emotionally we’re not entirely convinced.

So today I’d like to make an important point: That we’ll be better off – massively better off – without them. The nagging fear that we’re missing something is simply false. The better we get away from rulership, the better off we’ll be.

The Numbers

I like crunching the numbers on these things because the failure of rulership is hidden in plain sight, little recognized. Digging into numbers the rulers themselves publish can help break through the blockage.

And so…

In the US, the social safety net costs at least 2.5 trillion dollars per year. If you add up the federal programs ($717 billion back in 2010 and more now), the state programs ($210 billion in 2010), Medicare and Social Security ($1.3 trillion) and perhaps a few smaller items, it comes to that.

Now, here’s what you should know: That annual spending equates to 7 million new houses, plus feeding 100 million families, plus providing health care for 100 million families. The second year we could build another 7 million houses as well as feeding and doctoring almost everyone in the country… again.

If you have a nagging feeling that these numbers can’t be right, please find them and run them for yourself, it’s not that hard to do and it’s likely to help you a great deal.

Now, let’s look at the “keep us safe” expenses.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

Evil

Luciferianism: A Secular Look At A Destructive Globalist Belief System

By Guest Post February 14, 2019

by Brandon Smith for Alt-Market.com

Over many years of investigating the mechanics of global events and the people behind them I have become perhaps a little obsessed with one particular subject – the source and motivations of evil. This fascination does not stem from a simple morbid curiosity, but a strategic need to understand an enemy. Much like an exterminator needs to understand the behavior of cockroaches to be effective, I seek to understand the behavior and nature of organized evil.

One very important fact that must first be made clear in people’s minds is that evil does indeed exist. Establishment propaganda has spent immense time, effort and capital attempting to condition society into believing that evil is nothing more than a social construct – an opinion. Evil is supposedly in the eye of the beholder; a product of religious conditioning. This is a falsehood. Just like concepts of beauty, concepts of evil are actually inherent in our psyches from birth. The “eye of the beholder” is irrelevant.

Two particular areas of human psychology support this fact:

First, as the work of Carl Jung (and by extension anthropologists like Joseph Campbell) exposed, all human beings no matter where in the world they are born, from the most isolated tribe in the Amazon to the largest metropolis in America, carry the same archetypal symbols in their psyche. That is to say, we ALL have the same psychological elements in our minds regardless of environment.

This fact alone is so overwhelming to modern man that some people refuse to even acknowledge it as a possibility. We have been trained like lab rats to see only one path through the maze; we have been told over and over again that everything is “relative”; that each person is entirely a product of environment and that we all start out empty as “blank slates”.

The vicious attacks on Carl Jung by the establishment (including lies that he cooperated with the Nazis) tell me that Jung was very close to the mark. He had stumbled upon something very dangerous to the establishment; something that could derail their conditioning of the public.

Second, the undeniable existence of the human conscience suggests that we are born with an understanding of duality. Meaning, just as Jung discovered, our psyches contain inherent concepts of good and evil that influence our decisions and reactions. Jung referred to evil, or psychologically destructive impulses, as the ‘personal shadow’ and the ‘collective shadow’.

The vast majority of people have an intuitive relationship with good and evil. They feel anxiety when confronted with evil actions or thoughts, and they feel personal guilt when they know they have done something evil to other people. Some might call this a “moral compass”. I would refer to it as part of the soul or spirit.

In any case, there is a contingent of people in the world that do not have it – a small percentage of the population that is born without conscience, or that finds it easy to ignore conscience. We’ll get to those people in a moment, but first, we should probably define what evil is.

Evil is first and foremost any action that seeks to destroy, exploit or enslave in the name of personal gain or gratification. Unfortunately, evil actions are often misrepresented as advantageous for the group, thereby making them morally acceptable. The needs of the many supposedly outweigh the needs of the few, and thus evil is rationalized as a means to a “positive end” for the “greater good”.

In most cases, however, destructive actions do not end up serving the interests of the majority, and only end up giving more wealth and power to an elitist minority. This is not a coincidence.

Evil begins with the denial of the existence of conscience, or the denial of the existence of choice. Each person is born with a capacity or freedom to choose. We can listen to conscience, or we can ignore it. We can do good, or we can do evil. Evil tells us the choice is relative and that morality is relative; that there is no difference between a good choice and a bad choice, or, that the evil choice is the only choice.

Beyond ignoring conscience, we must also define the motivation that drives evil. Psychology would suggest that destructive self serving actions stem from an obsessive desire to obtain or control things we cannot or should not have. Interestingly, this is also what some religions teach us, but let’s stick to a secular examination.

As mentioned earlier, there is a group of people in the world who do not see good and evil the way most of us do. Their psyche functions in a completely different way, without the filter of conscience. These people exhibit the traits of narcissistic sociopaths. Full blown high level narcissistic sociopaths represent around 1% to 5% of the total human population, and most of them are born, not made by their environment. Also, 5% to 10% of people hold latent traits of either narcissism or sociopathy that generally only rise to the surface in an unstable crisis environment.

I have written extensively on narcissistic sociopaths and the globalist establishment in numerous articles. I have also outlined how such people, contrary to popular belief, are not isolated from one another. They do in fact organize into groups for mutual gain.

There is an ideology or system of belief that argues for the exact opposite of what conscience tells us is “good”, and that system is Luciferianism. In fact, luciferianism appears to be the source influence for most existing destructive “isms” in our society today (including socialism and globalism). It is my theory that luciferianism is a religion or cult designed by sociopathic narcissists for the benefit of sociopathic narcissists.

It is sometimes difficult to identify the true “sacraments” behind luciferianism because, for one, luciferians refuse to admit that the system is a religion at all. They prefer to call it a philosophy or methodology, at least in public. The system also seems to encourage active disinformation in order to dissuade or mislead non-adherents. The historic term for this religious secrecy is “occultism”. I would call it “elitism”.

There are some foundational beliefs that luciferians do openly admit to. First and foremost, the goal of luciferianism is to attain godhood. That is to say, they believe that SOME human beings have the capacity to become gods through the accumulation of knowledge.

I have written about the insanity of the goal of godhood in the past, outlining how quantum physics and Kurt Godel’s Incompleteness Proof make total scientific and mathematical observation and understanding of the universe impossible. But mathematical reality does not stop luciferian circles from destructively chasing that which they cannot have. By extension, scientific knowledge not tempered by discipline, wisdom and a moral compass can lead to catastrophe. Material knowledge is invariably abused by those seeking godlike power.

The notion of self-worship is a core trait of sociopathic narcissists; Luciferianism just codifies it as if it is a virtue. Another problem with the idea of becoming a god is that one inevitably develops a desire for followers and worshipers. What is a savior, after all, without a flock? But how does a human being gain a flock and become more a god? Through force or through trickery?

Second, luciferians claim they seek to elevate the power of the individual in general. In the minds of many people this doesn’t sound like a negative at all. Even I have argued for the importance of individualism in the midst of societal controls. That said, any ideology can be taken to extremes.

The pursuit of individual gratification can be pushed too far, to the point that the people around us begin to suffer. Because of the elitist nature of luciferianism, they are not necessarily seeking the elevation of ALL individuals, just certain “deserving” individuals. There is a tendency to view non-adherents as “inferior”; stupid people that should be sheared like sheep by those who are chasing a superior dream of personal godhood.

This attitude can also be seen in the common actions of narcissistic sociopaths, who have no qualms about conning or exploiting people around them as resources, feeding off others like parasites.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

Accounting

Why Marx Loved Central Banks

By Guest Post February 12, 2019

by Thorsten Polleit for Mises.org

In his “Manifesto of the Communist Party” (1848), published together with Frederick Engels, Karl Marx calls for “measures” — by which he means “despotic inroads on the rights of property” –, which would be “unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production,” that is, bringing about socialism-communism. Marx’s measure number five reads: “Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.” This is a rather perspicacious postulation, especially as at the time when Marx formulated it, precious metals — gold and silver in particular — served as money.

As is well known, the quantity of gold and silver cannot be increased at will. As a result, the quantity of credit (in terms of lending and borrowing money balances) cannot easily be expanded according to political expediency. However, Marx might have fantasized already, what would be possible once the state is put in a position where it can create money through credit expansion; where it has usurped and monopolized the production of money. Long before Marx, the English churchman and historian Thomas Fuller had elaborately expressed the power of money: “Money is the sinew of love as well as war.”

The Origins of Modern Central Banking

The idea of central banking has a long history. For instance, the Swedish central bank, the Sveriges Riksbank, was founded in 1668, and the English central bank, the Bank of England, was formed in 1694. The fraudulent operations of such institutions came to light soon, at the latest with the writing of the British economist David Ricardo. In his 1809 essay “The High Price of Bullion” he pointed out that it was the increase in the quantity of money — in the form of banknotes not backed by gold — that caused a general rise in prices, an effect we know as (price) inflation.

Unfortunately, however, the political-economic insight that central banks holding the money production monopoly would misuse their power time and again, engage in cronyism, and cause an anti-social debasement of the currency has not — to this very day — sufficed to discredit the monstrous idea of central banking. It seems that as far as monetary affairs are concerned, Marx’s concept of Dialectical Materialism has made quite an impression: What is appears to form peoples’ consciousness (not vice versa). This has certainly helped in creating central bank Marxism on a world-wide scale.

Cutting the Last Ties with Commodity Money

On 15 August 1971 Marx’s vision became true: The US administration single-handedly terminated the redeemability of the US dollar into physical gold – and so gold, the currency of the civilized world, was officially demonetized. Through this coup de main, in the United States of America, as well as all other countries in this world, an unbacked paper money — or fiat money system was established. Since then, all currencies around the globe represent fiat currencies: representing money creation by circulation credit expansion, not backed by real savings or deposits, monopolized by central banks.

The fiat money system, the creation of money through circulation credit expansion, has brought about a new kind of debt slavery on a grand scale. Consumers, corporations and, of course, governments, too, have become highly dependent on central banks continuously churning out ever greater amounts of credit and money, provided at ever lower interest rates. In numerous countries, central banks have de facto become the real centers of power: Their monetary policy decisions effectively determine the weal and woe of economies and whole societies.

By issuing fiat currencies, created out of thin air, a rather small clique of central bankers, together with their staffers, causes — to borrow from Friedrich Nietzsche — a “revaluation of values.” Chronic monetary inflation, for instance, discourages savings; running into ever greater amounts of debt gets cultivated; by central banks’ downward manipulation of the interest rate, the future needs get debased compared to present needs; the favoring of a sort of monetary “Deep State” comes at the expense of demolishing civil and entrepreneurial liberties.

A Supranational Central Bank

In Europe, central bank Marxism has accomplished a rather astounding feat: 19 nation states with a total of around 337 million people have given up their right to self-determination in monetary affairs, submitting to the monetary policy dictate of a supra-national central bank entirely beyond effective Parliamentary control that issues a single fiat currency, the euro. While central bank Marxism has been reasonably successful in Europe, however, its true spearhead has always been the US central bank: The Federal Reserve (Fed).

Today’s world depends on the fiat US dollar issued by the Fed more than ever. Effectively all other major currencies are built upon the Greenback, and it is the Fed that determines the credit and liquidity conditions in international financial markets. It effectively presides over a world central bank cartel which, if it is allowed to continue unimpededly, will eventually steer and control the world economy through its unassailable money production monopoly, effectively removing one of the most critical roadblocks against unrestricted state tyranny.

Ideas Have Consequences

So those favoring a free society can only hope that something will get in the way of central bank Marxism. This is by no means impossible. Socialism-communism is not the inevitable destiny of social life and historical evolution, as Marxists would like to make us believe. What truly matters are ideas or theories, if you will, as ideas — whatever their specific content, wherever they come from, whether they are right or wrong — underlie and drive human action.1Ludwig von Mises was acutely aware of this indisputable insight:

Human society is an issue of the mind. Social co-operation must first be conceived, then willed, then realized in action. It is ideas that make history, not the “material productive forces”, those nebulous and mystical schemata of the materialist conception of history. If we could overcome the idea of Socialism, if humanity could be brought to recognize the social necessity of private ownership of the means of production, then Socialism would have to leave the stage. That is the only thing that counts.2

Against the backdrop of Mises’s words one may add: Once people understand that Marxism (and all its particular forms of socialism) does not guarantee a higher living standard and that it does make a better or more just and reasonable world, it would usher in the end of central banking and fiat money. In other words: whether or not central bank Marxism and fiat money will prevail or be thrown out of the window (or flushed down the drain) will be determined by the outcome of the “battle of ideas.” So there remains reason for hope!

1. For a detailed explanation see Mises, L. v. (1957), Theory and History, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, US Alabama, Part Two, esp. Chapter 7, pp. 102 – 158.
2. Mises, L. v. (1981), Socialism. An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, p. 461.

Check out the Amazing Mises Institute

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!