The Globalist Long Game - Redefine Liberty Activism As Evil "Populism"

Wednesday, 15 February 2017 03:14 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.

If you would like  to support the publishing of articles  like         the one you have just read,  visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.