Do the limits of Mathematics prove that the Globalists will fail?

Do the limits of Mathematics prove that the Globalists will fail? by Werner Ende

Kurt Gödel, one of the most important mathematicians of the 20th century proved with his two Incompleteness  Theorems of mathematical logic the inherent limitations of every formal axiomatic system containing basic arithmetic.
In „The Anti-Globalist Cookbook: Elite Strategies & Why They’ll Fail“ Chris Campbell claims the transferability of these theorems to the politics of the Power Elite.

He proved that the globalist aspirations of godhood would never be realized. There are limits to the knowledge of man, and limits to what he can control.This is not something globalists can ever accept, for if they did, every effort they have made for decades if not centuries would be pointless.

I do not think that logics, mathematics or proofs of their limitations can show that the Power Elites will never ever achieve world domination.

From the times of Plato until today the ups and downs of history showed the advancement and fall of empires and superstates. The mighty were never able to gain total global control.

Brandon Smith discusses both, the mathematical-philosophical and the historical aspects in  Globalism vs. “Populism”


Globalists Eyes limeted by Mathematics?

The Anti-Globalist Cookbook: Elite Strategies & Why They’ll Fail

--“Under the surface of almost every sociopolitical and economic event in the world,” Brandon Smith writes on the Alt-Market blog, “there burns an ever-raging, but often unseen, war. This war, for now, is fought with fiction and with truth, with journalistic combat and with quiet individual deeds.

“It is defined by two sides which could not be more philosophically or spiritually separate.”

In one corner of the ring, says Smith, “is a pervasive network of corporate moguls and elites, banking entities, international financial consortiums, think tanks and political puppets.”

These people are, control freaks who believe Plato penned The Republic about them. They are the smarter, better, faster, stronger “philosopher kings,” who hold an inherent right to lord over the inferior. They believe they hold unfettered access to do as they wish, when they wish, to whom they wish to do it too, free of consequence.

We will refer to them henceforth as, simply, the “globalists.”

“On the other side,” Smith writes, “is a movement that has developed organically and instinctively, growing without direct top-down ‘leadership,’ but still guided through example by various teachers and activists, driven by a concrete set of principles based in natural law. It is composed of the religious, the agnostic and even some atheists. It is soldiered by people of all ethnic and financial backgrounds. These groups are tied together by a singular and resounding belief in the one vital thing they can all agree upon — the inherent and inborn rights of freedom. I call them the ‘Liberty Movement.’”

Word of warning: We’re going to show a little bit of our tinfoil today.

We do so because this is a topic which suffers from a lack of discussion, even in the liberty-sphere. Because, it seems, the same people who decry the Deep State, the Police State, and the overwhelming trend of centralization of power too often deny that there could be a relatively small consortium of people at the top — tightly knit or loosely connected, it’s all the same — pulling the strings. (Is it that unbelievable… really?)

Many will simply chalk up the vast abuse and centralization of power to “natural” (and unavoidable) hierarchies of human relations. Or they blame corporations. Or, more dumbfounded, they play it off as a series of unfortunate mismanagement.

(Which is why, of course, so many believe that as long as we vote harder, everything will be OK.)

It’s one thing, these days, to accept that an (often shadowy) group of elites used to control major historical events, play both sides of wars, destroy economies for personal benefit, and turn other human beings into slaves.

That’s history. Duh.

But today, of course, in the land of unicorn governance, gun-free zones, and safe spaces, even humoring such “fantasies” is akin to scribbling nonsense on the walls of the loony bin. (Which is how, we reckon, those in the past who pointed out such agendas were treated as well.)

Maybe I’m paranoid, but I tend to see things a bit differently. But that’s not to say I’m casting everyone off as victims to some modern elitist agenda.

The devil is always knocking. But that doesn’t mean we have to open the door and invite him in.

“Globalists,”  Smith writes, “are not the only source of our social pain. We bear some responsibility. When we are not vigilant, when we deny our own ignorance and refuse to learn, when we lie to ourselves and when we cater to personal superficial desires rather than taking the future into account, we open the door for the devil. Evil, like conscience, resides in us all.”

This battle between those who want to control and those who want freedom and prosperity for all, just like many things in this world, is certainly not the fault of those who find themselves leaning toward the latter. But it has become, by nature of the gift we have been given — that of life on this planet — our responsibility to push back. And we do so most effectively through acts of defiance for those who have all the power and through acts of kindness for those who have none of it.

Because, as long as we do so, there is still hope that… one day… this world will be ruled by the living and not the walking dead. As long as we stay vigilant, mass control by those who believe micromanaging your life is their birth right, is doomed to fail.

But, of course, not for lack of intelligence or effort on the part of those who think otherwise.

“They are indeed conniving and industrious,” Smith says, “but, they are not wise. For if they were wise, they would be able to see the ultimate futility of their goal and the world would be saved decades of tragedy and loss. Their cultism has dulled their senses to reality and they have abandoned truth in the name of control.

Here are some of the primary strategies that the globalists are using to gain power and work towards total centralization and why their own mindset has doomed them to failure.”

Read on.

The Anti-Globalist Cookbook: Elite Strategies & Why They’ll Fail

Brandon Smith

Globalism vs. “Populism”

The globalists have used the method of false dichotomies for centuries to divide nations and people against each other in order to derive opportunity from chaos. That said, the above dichotomy is about as close to real as they have ever promoted. As I explained in my article, “Globalists Are Now Openly Demanding New World Order Centralization,” the recent passage of the Brexit referendum in the U.K. has triggered a surge of new propaganda from establishment media outlets.

The thrust of this propaganda is the notion that “populists” are behind the fight against globalization and these populists are going to foster the ruin of nations and the global economy.  That is to say — globalism good, populism bad.

There is a real fight between globalists and those who desire a free, decentralized and voluntary society. They have just changed some of the labels and the language. We have yet to see how effective this strategy will be for the elites, but it is very useful for them in certain respects.

The wielding of the term “populist” is about as sterilized and distant from “freedom and liberty” as you can get. It denotes not just “nationalism,” but selfish nationalism. And the association people are supposed to make in their minds is that selfish nationalism leads to destructive fascism (i.e. Nazis).  Therefore, when you hear the term “populist,” the globalists hope you will think “Nazi.”

Also, keep in mind that the narrative of the rise of populism coincides with grave warnings from the elites that such movements will cause global economic collapse if they continue to grow. Of course, the elites have been fermenting an economic collapse for years. We have experienced many of the effects of it for some time. In a brilliant maneuver, the elites have attempted to re-label the liberty movement as “populist” (Nazis), and use liberty activists as a scapegoat for the fiscal time bomb THEY created.

Will the masses buy it?  I don’t know.  I think that depends on how effectively we expose the strategy before the breakdown becomes too entrenched. The economic collapse itself has been handled masterfully by the elites, though. There is simply no solution that can prevent it from continuing. Even if every criminal globalist was hanging from a lamp-post tomorrow and honest leadership was restored to the government, the math cannot be changed and decades of struggle will be required before national economies can be made prosperous again.

Communism vs. Fascism

This is a classic ploy by the globalists to divide a culture against itself and initiate a calamity that can be used as leverage for greater centralization down the road.  If you have any doubts about fascism and communism being engineered, I highly suggest you look into the very well documented analysis of Antony Sutton. I do not have space here to do his investigations justice.

Today, we see elites like George Soros funding and aiding the latest incarnation of the communist hordes — namely social justice groups like Black Lives Matter.  The collectivist psychosis and Orwellian behavior exhibited by race junkies like BLM and third-wave feminists is thoroughly pissing off conservatives who are tired of being told what to think and how to act every second of every day. And this is the point…

If you want to get a picture of America in 2016, look back at Europe during the 1930’s. Communist provocateurs, some real and some fabricated by the establishment itself, ran rampant in Europe creating labor disintegration and fiscal turmoil. The elites then funded and elevated fascism as the “solution” to communism. Normally even-handed conservatives were so enraged by the communist spitting and ankle biting that they became something just as evil in response.

The U.S. may be on the same path if we are not careful. The latest shootings in Texas will make hay for the globalists. Think about this for a moment — on one side you have Obama telling the liberals that the answer to police brutality is to federalize law enforcement even more that it already is. On the other side, you have some Republicans arguing that a more militarized police presence will help prevent groups like BLM from causing more trouble. Notice that the only solution we are being offered here is more federal presence on our streets?

I do see, though, a rather large weakness in the plan to ignite a communist vs. fascist meltdown in the U.S., and that weakness is the existence of the Liberty Movement itself.  The movement has grown rather sophisticated in its media presence and prevalent in influence. It does have enough sway now to diffuse some aspects of a rise to fascism in the political Right. The only option the elites have is to find a way to co-opt us. If they can manipulate the liberty movement into supporting a fascist system, then they would be very close to winning the entire fight. This would be highly unlikely given the stubbornness of liberty proponents when adhering to their principles.

The elites might be able to get a large part of the public to take sides in their false paradigm, but if they can’t con the millions that make up the liberty movement into the fold, then their job becomes much harder.

Moral Compass vs. Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is perhaps the pinnacle goal of the globalists. Why? Because if you can convince an entire society that their inherent conscience should be ignored and that their inborn feelings of morality are “open to interpretation,” then eventually ANY evil action can be rationalized. When evil becomes “good,” and good becomes evil, evil men will reign supreme.

The problem is, conscience is an inborn psychological product, a result of inherent archetypal dualities universal to almost all people. It is ingrained in our DNA, or our very souls if you believe in such a thing. It cannot be erased easily.

Moral relativism requires a person to treat every scenario as a “gray area.” This is not practical. Conscience dictates that we treat every situation as potentially unique and act according to what we feel in our hearts is right given the circumstances. This does not mean, though, that there is no black and white; or that there are no concrete rules. There is almost always a black and white side to any situation dealing with right and wrong. Moral “dilemmas” are exceedingly rare. In fact, I don’t think I have ever encountered a real moral dilemma in history or in personal experience. The only time I ever see moral dilemmas is in movies and television.

Only in television fantasy is moral relativism ever the “only way” to solve a problem. And despite the preponderance of moral relativism in our popular culture, the ideology is still having trouble taking hold. If it was so easy to undermine conscience, then the NWO would have already achieved complete pacification. We are still far from pacification. Whoever hard-wired our conscience should be applauded.

Collectivism vs. Individualism

The very core of globalism and the NWO is the position that sovereignty and individualism must be sacrificed for the “good of the group”; in other words, they promote collectivism.  Of course, groups by their very nature are abstractions; they only exist as long as the individuals within them recognize them as viable.  Unfortunately, collectivists do not accept this fact because it would mean that the group, not matter how utopian, is not the pinnacle of human existence – rather, the individual is and always will be the pinnacle of human existence.

The elites MUST convince people that individualism is dangerous and that collectivism is the only way to prevent the tragedies wrought by those who wish to be separate. Of course, most of the tragedies we experience on a national or global scale are actually engineered by the elites, not by wild individuals or sovereign nations looking for trouble.  They then blame the very concept of sovereignty as a barbaric ritual from the past that must be abolished for the sake of all.

In order for the globalists to reinforce the need for collectivism, though, they must engage people on an individual psychological level.  Most human beings have an inherent desire to interact with their fellow-man, but they also have an inherent identity and drive to pursue their own development without interference. We like to be a part of a group as long as our participation is healthy and voluntary and our associations are a matter of choice.

Human beings are instinctively tribal, but we have psychological and biological limits to the size of the tribe we prefer to be a part of. Robin Dunbar, a professor of evolutionary psychology prevalent in the 1990’s, found that there is a cognitive limit to the number of individuals any one person can maintain stable relationships with.  Dunbar found this number to be between 100 – 200 people. A limitation also extends to the size of effective groups versus ineffective groups.  He found that effective tribes and communities tend to remain between 500 – 2500 people.

The human mind does not adapt well to vast tribal groups, and recoils from the idea of a “global tribe”. The truth is, human beings function far better in smaller groups and they do not like to be forced into participating in any group, let alone larger groups. This may account for the feeling of isolation that is common among people who live in metropolitan areas. They are surrounded by millions of neighbors and perhaps hundreds of associates yet they still feel alone because they do not have a functioning tribe of acceptable size.

Vast numbers of people can be tied together by an ideal that resonates with them, which is the only purpose for nations to form (to protect that ideal), but that is as far as the voluntary association goes.  Globalist collectivism is simply unnatural.People know it unconsciously, they know it is an act of force and oppression, and will invariably move to sabotage its false tribalism as they begin to see its true colors.

Total Control vs. Reality

This is where the globalists philosophy really begins to break down. The elitist pursuit of total information awareness and total social control is truly perverse and insane, and insanity breeds delusion and weakness. The fact is, they will NEVER complete the goal of complete micro-control. It is mathematically and psychologically impossible.

First, in any system, and in complex systems most of all, there are always elements that cannot be quantified or predicted. To understand this issue, I recommend studying the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. To summarize, the uncertainty principle dictates that anyone observing a system in action, even from a distance, can still affect the behavior of that system indirectly or unconsciously in ways they could never predict.  They are also limited by their ability to objectively perceive all available elements of what they observe. Unknown quantities result, predictability goes out the window and total control of that system becomes unattainable.

This principle also applies to human psychology, as numerous psychoanalysts have discovered when treating patients. The doctor, or the observer, is never able to observe their patient without indirectly affecting the behavior of their patient in unpredictable ways. Therefore, a completely objective analysis of that patient can never be obtained.

What the elites seek is a system by which they can observe and influence all of us in minute detail without triggering a reaction that they wouldn’t expect.  The laws of physics and psychology derail this level of control. There will always be unknown quantities, free radicals, wild cards, etc. Even a seemingly perfect utopia can be brought down by a single unknown.

To break this down even further to the level of pure mathematics, I recommend study into Kurt Gödel and his Incompleteness Proof. This, I believe is the ultimate example of the elites struggling against the fact of unknown quantities and failing.

Gödel’s work revolved around either proving or disproving the idea that mathematicians could define “infinity” in mathematical terms. For, if infinity can be defined, then it can be understood in base mathematical axioms, and if infinity can be understood, then the universe in its entirety can be understood. Godel discovered the opposite — his incompleteness proof established once and for all that infinity is a self inclusive paradox that CANNOT be defined through mathematics. Keep in mind that a proof is a set of mathematical laws that can never be broken. Two plus two will always equal four; it will never equal anything else.

Well known globalist Bertrand Russell worked tirelessly to show that the entirety of the universe could be broken down into numbers, writing a three-volume monstrosity called the Principia Mathematica.  Russell’s efforts were fruitless and Godel’s proof later crushed his theory. Russell railed against Godel’s proof, but to no avail.

Now, why was an elitist like Russell who openly championed scientific dictatorship so concerned by Gödel? Well, because Gödel, in mathematical terms, destroyed the very core of the globalist ideology. He proved that the globalist aspirations of godhood would never be realized. There are limits to the knowledge of man, and limits to what he can control.This is not something globalists can ever accept, for if they did, every effort they have made for decades if not centuries would be pointless.

[Ed. note: This article is adapted from an original which first appeared at Alt-Market at this link.]


Brandon Smith