I have been writing rather extensively about the ideology of globalism in recent months, primarily because the battle lines between sovereignty and global centralization have never been more defined than they are in 2016.  In the past, globalists have often hidden the true motives of their cult; namely the goal of erasing national borders and all remaining vestiges of self governance.  Normally, they would only pronounce the great advantages of globalization while dancing around the fact that millions of people will not accept it.  Today, however, the globalists have come out in direct confrontation with supporters of sovereignty.
After the Brexit referendum, a new tone appears to have been set.  The elites have now entered the mainstream media to state in essence that yes, they are globalists, they want total centralization and they are here to fight a philosophical and/or physical battle with those they call “populists” (also known as conservatives and sovereigns).
When they have discussed globalization in previous years, it has always been presented as some kind of natural progression of events.  The first secret of elitist propaganda is their constant assertion that globalism is “inevitable;” that it is foolish to fight against it because it is the unavoidable future of mankind.  The fact is that if globalism is so inevitable, the elites would not need to expend trillions in capital and decades of energy trying to fool the masses into accepting it.  If globalism is inevitable, couldn’t the elites simply lay back in their pool side cabanas, sip their dry martinis and just watch it all unfold on its own?
Instead, the elites have foisted globalism upon the shoulders of the public, and are by some indications preparing for outright war in order to force us “populists” into compliance.
The second secret of elitist propaganda is their strategy to disguise centralization as decentralization.  For instance, the new globalist claim is that a shift away from a system in which the dollar is the world reserve currency into a system in which a basket of currencies becomes the world reserve is a move towards a “multi-polar world.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.
In reality, the basket currency system the elites are pushing for falls under the umbrella of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights.  Meaning a switch away from the dollar into the SDR will result in even morecentralized power for the elites.  That is not a multi-polar world; it is a uni-polar one.
It is schemes like this that expose the great weakness of globalism as an ideal — the elites cannot accomplish it without using deception and force against innocents.  Such a philosophy is a failure by default.
The third secret of globalist propaganda is that they present globalism as if it is a “new” idea. This is yet another lie. Globalism is merely another expanded form of centralization (or collectivism), and centralization has been the prevailing tool of cultural control for ages.  If anything, the freely elected governments and voluntary tribalism of constitutional Republics is the newest and most advanced social concept in all of human history.  Such systems present the potential for lasting decentralization, as long as participants remain vigilant to co-option by globalists.
Sadly, the people of America and the rest of the West have not been vigilant for quite some time, and today our experiment in sovereignty is being  twisted, eroded and overrun.
Some seem to find new hope in the rise of conservative activism like the U.K.’s Brexit movement.  As I explained in my pre-referendum article Brexit — Global trigger event, fake out or something else?, these movements are a step in the right direction, but they have a tendency to underestimate the globalist strategy.
I suspect according to the evidence outlined in the article linked above, as well as the behavior of elites ever since the U.K. referendum passed, that a plan is underway to allow conservatives and sovereign activists marginal victories.  Ultimately, in order for the elites to achieve the long-game of total centralization, they need to fully demonize and destroy their philosophical opponents.  That is to say, they need to make conservatives and freedom fighters out to be historical monsters, and themselves out to be the heroes of the day.  The only way for the elites to win is to fool the masses into accepting and  even demanding globalization while casting out conservative principles as dangerous or evil.
But how would they make this possible?
It’s simple, really.  They have already set the stage for an international economic and political crisis of epic proportions.  Why not let conservatives and sovereigns take over as captains of an already sinking ship, then blame them when there aren’t enough lifeboats to save the passengers?
Following this line of thinking was how I was able to correctly predict the success of the Brexit vote, it is the reason why I have consistently argued that the Fed will raise interest rates once again in 2016 despite multiple signs of a recessionary downturn and why I believe Donald Trump will be the next president.
Once instability has run its course, the damage is done and the “populists” are blamed, the elites plan to swoop in with globalism as the fix-all.
The question then arises, if this is the strategy being implemented by the globalists, what can be done about it?
As with most conundrums, the problem is often the source identifier of the solution.  That is to say, if centralization and the elites behind it is the problem, then decentralization and the removal of those elites from power is the most effective solution. If forced globalization is leading to the ruination of man, then voluntary tribalism may be the cure.
The issue actually has more to do with individual psychology than geopolitics.
Human beings have two inherent psychological qualities that can work together, or conflict; the need for individual liberty, and the need for community.
We are social creatures.  We can accomplish great feats by working together, but the ideas for these feats are always born in the imaginations of individual minds.  Without the group, the success of the individual can be greatly hindered.  Without individual minds, the success of the group is impossible.
The elites would have us believe is that individual success and community success are mutually exclusive; that we cannot have both.  This is simply not true.
Globalists assert that if the individual focuses on his own success, then he cannot focus on the success of the group.  This “conceited” self interest, they claim, will sabotage society as a whole and lead to humanity’s destruction. Therefore, under globalism, the individual must sacrifice his freedom of choice and association; he must sacrifice his right to apply his labors how he wishes, so that the group can supposedly thrive.
I would assert the opposite.  Because all ideological groups are abstractions and not cultural facts, they are completely dependent on the success of the individual in order to thrive.  While the individual may need help from others, he must be allowed to choose who those people are.  He also must be able to choose how his ideas and efforts are realized.  Otherwise, the ideas have no steward.  Under globalism/collectivism, they immediately become the property of the group if they are even acknowledged at all, and the group does not think; the group is not capable of thinking.  The group only has merit as long as the individuals within it have merit.  The group is not real.  And so, under the control of a vaporous collective, good ideas usually die.
With globalism as the dominant ideology, individual accomplishment falls and thus, the system itself will eventually fall.
This does not mean that the solution is to end all group interaction or organization so that individuals can go off to to form their own one-man, mini-nation states.  If that is what an individual wishes to do then that is all well and good, but failure is just as likely in that scenario as it would be under globalism.  Instead, the answer may be a return to tribalism, of a voluntary variety.
Our inherent needs for individual freedom as well as community interaction can in fact work together.  The group does not need to supplant the individual to succeed, each member of the group just needs to share the same goals and understand the merits of those goals.
If a person does not understand or respect the goals of that group, then he can easily leave, or refuse to join.  As long as it is unacceptable for any group to use force to compel an individual to participate, then there can be no loss of individual liberty.  Under this model, we could see the rise of numerous tribes, and tribes within tribes. Of course certain universal truths would have to be respected.
The most common argument against tribalism, whether voluntary or not, is the argument that it will lead to so many conflicting interests that chaos and violence is inevitable.  Wars over resources and property will erupt, some claim, or society will falter into a dog-eat-dog survival of the strongest Mad Max scenario.
First, I would like to point out that globalization and centralization have not solved any of these problems.  Globalism only seems to lead to more efficient war and death, rather than less war and death, and the sides are less defined.  Under the global elites, people are constantly pitted against each other over false narratives and false flags.  We become pawns that are sacrificed to further their agenda.  I hardly see how this is a superior system.  The only wars ever worth fighting are against centralizing tyrants.
Second, while tribal conflict is surely possible due to philosophical differences, the promotion of individual freedom, rather than the collective, as the essential element of society makes violent opposition far less likely.
Freedom is a universal inborn psychological construct.  Almost all people have a sense of it and its usefulness.  In fact, most fundamental moral principles including freedom are shared by people regardless of their cultural backgrounds.  The only places in which freedom is not respected are places in which centralizing elites have propagandized and threatened the citizenry.  When those elites and their influence are removed for a time, there is usually a natural wellspring resurgence of respect for liberty within that society.
Men and women will organize and rally around freedom without being lied to or threatened.  There are not many ideologies that can make the same claim.  Globalism certainly can’t.
Third, the next objection from skeptics will be that a handful of controllers under globalism would be preferable to tens of thousands of tyrants lording over thousands of fiefdoms.  Again, these people just don’t seem to grasp the notion of voluntary community or the effectiveness of individual rebellion.
I would rather face a thousand minor tyrants with minor armies than a tiny cabal of tyrants with a global army.  The difference being that it is far easier to erase a tyrant with a hundred men in my way than it is to erase a global tyrant with hundreds-of-thousands of men and a massive surveillance apparatus in my way.  In a world where individual liberty is paramount and the people are armed, minor tyrants would be so terrified to pursue power they would likely be dissuaded altogether.  The minimal protection they might muster would never be enough to stop every single bullet flying in their direction.
The idea of voluntary community is so foreign to the public today that it would probably take a catastrophe for such a system to be adopted.  But, since the global elites have already taken it upon themselves to create the catalysts for an economic and political crisis, we might as well take advantage and rebuild from the ashes with voluntary community in mind.
This, of course, requires that the liberty minded not only survive the catastrophe, but also fight back and remove the elites from the picture.  There can be no voluntary tribes with the globalists in control of the mechanisms of power.  They are, in effect, a bastardization of a tribe that has been allowed through lack of vigilance to subversively and systematically destroy all other tribes.  They have convinced much of the world through chicanery that their tribe is the only tribe with merit.
The propaganda only works to a point, however.  During any breakdown in normal social order, people invariably create their own social order, and they usually do this by forming small tribes.  Families come together, neighborhoods come together, towns come together and so on, and they do this voluntarily, without being aggressively compelled by others.  The natural default of human beings is freedom, and tribalism, two things which do not necessarily have to conflict.  Our natural default has never been to pursue globalism or utter collectivism at the expense of the individual.
In the end, globalism is doomed to crash in a ball of flames, but not before the globalists attempt to take everyone else down with them.  It would behoove us to start constructing our tribes now, rather than after the situation has become grim in the absolute.  Through localized production, alternative trade models, local organization for mutual aid and defense, and the principles of liberty, America could become a network of tribes within a tribe; a self reliant system built around redundancy rather than interdependence.
The globalists?  Well, they will try to stop us.  But at least at that point the sides will be drawn more clearly.  I cannot think of a better war to fight than a war to stop the barbaric trespasses of the global elites.  And when it is all over, I look forward to a more complex and “chaotic” society where collectivist streamlining is abandoned for a wild west of voluntary associations.  A land where tribes roam free.
— Brandon Smith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk1jWSvI114