There is an interesting disconnect with some people when discussing the concept of global centralization. Naturally, the mind reels in horror at the very idea, because many of us know, deep down at our core, that centralization is the root of tyranny. We know that when absolute power is granted into the hands of an elite few over the lives of the masses, very bad things happen. No small group of people has ever shown itself trustworthy, rational, empathic or wise enough to handle such a responsibility. They always screw it up, or, they deliberately take advantage of their extreme position of influence to force a particular ideology on everyone else.
This leads to resistance, resistance leads to sociopolitical crackdown and then great numbers of people are imprisoned, enslaved or even murdered. This leads to even more resistance until one of two possible outcomes emerges — chaos and revolution or complete totalitarianism and micro-managed collectivism.
There is no way around this eventual conflict. As long as the centralists continue to pursue total power, men and women will gather to fight them and the situation will escalate. The only conceivable way that this fight could be defused is if the elites stop doing what they do. If they suddenly become enlightened and realize the error of their ways, then perhaps we could escape the troubles unscathed. Or, if those same elites all happen to meet an abrupt end and their influence is neutralized, then the world might have a chance to adjust and adapt in a more organic fashion.
Unfortunately, there are people who refuse to believe that a fight is unavoidable. They desperately want to believe there is another way, and they will engage in an amazing display of mental gymnastics in order to justify this belief.
First, I think it is important to note that I have always argued that the globalists will eventually fail in their pursuit. I find that some folks out there misinterpret my position when I outline the strategies of globalists and they assume I am presenting global centralization as a “sine qua non.” I do not argue that the elites will win the fight, I only argue that there is no way to avoid the fight.
Those that want to know my views on why globalist defeat is a certainty can read my article The Reasons Why The Globalists Are Destined To Lose.
The rhetorical question always arises: “How could the globalists ever hope to secure dominance over the entire world; isn’t that an impossible task?”
I believe according to my knowledge of history and human psychology that it is an impossible task, but that is not going to stop the globalists from trying.
This is what the cynics just don’t seem to grasp; we are dealing with a group of narcissistic psychopaths organized around a cult ideology and with nearly unlimited resources at their fingertips. These people think they are rising man-gods, like the Egyptian pharaohs of old. They cannot be persuaded through superior logic or emotional appeal. They will not be deterred by mass activism or peaceful redress. They only understand one thing — the force of arms and the usefulness of lies.
Such people are notorious throughout history for taking entire civilizations down with them rather than ceding their thrones. It is foolish to plan a response to them on the assumption that a fight can be avoided. When I say that the globalists are “destined to lose,” this is predicated on my understanding that a certain percentage of human beings will always have an inherent capacity for resistance to tyranny. The globalists will be defeated because there is no way to quantify every single threat to their utopian framework. As long as people continue to fight them, physically and with information, regardless of the personal cost, their weaknesses will be found and they will fall.
This will not be accomplished, however, without considerable sacrifice.
I have outlined in numerous articles the reality that an ongoing destabilization of large portions of the global economic framework will be used by the elites as leverage to convince the public that greater centralization is necessary, including global economic management through the IMF and BIS, a global currency using the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights as a bridge and global governance through the United Nations or a similar body not yet developed. This plan is becoming more and more openly discussed by globalists within the mainstream media. It’s hardly a secret anymore.
Many people will undoubtedly support this centralization out of fear of instability. That said, many people will also refuse to support it.
Here is how I believe, according to historical precedence and the globalist’s own writings, that they will attempt to assert global centralization post-collapse and enforce compliance.
Resource management and distribution
As I point out in many of my articles on the necessity for localism, without ample food, water and shelter self-maintained by groups of like minded citizens, no resistance can be mounted against a centralizing force. If you cannot supply your own logistics, then you must resort to stealing them from the enemy. Obviously, it is less risky to supply yourself if possible.
Post-collapse, when rule of law has broken down and resources can no longer be transferred safely from region to region, the name of the game will be control of necessities and the producers of necessities. This is also used by totalitarians when the danger of unrest is present. A prime example of this method in action was the Stalinist consolidation of the Soviet Union.
The fact is, successful rebellions in occupied nations tend to grow in rural surroundings. Cities are often strongholds for totalitarians because they offer more means of surveillance and a more passive population and, once taken over, they are easier to secure and defend. I call this the “green zone doctrine;” the use of locked down cities as pivot points to launch attacks on rural people.
Stalin used this very model, sending troops from controlled cities to plunder resources from outlying farming communities. He then stored these supplies for “redistribution;” the people deemed most useful to the regime were fed, the people deemed not useful or potential threats were not fed. In the end, Stalin killed off many possible rebels simply by denying them food production or access.
The elites do not need to own every inch of ground in order to launch an effective campaign of martial law. All they need to do is own key cities through surveillance technology and troop presence, then use these cities as staging grounds to confiscate resources from surrounding areas from people they do not like. If you think the government would not pursue that kind of tactic in the U.S., I highly suggest you look into Executive Order 13603, signed by Barack Obama in 2012. This order gives the president authority during a “national emergency” to take any private property or resources if it is deemed “necessary to national defense.”
It should be noted that starvation as a weapon has been extremely useful for the elites in the past.
The Malaysian model of control
If the elites are anything, they are rather predictable. This is because they have a habit of consistently using strategies that have worked for them before. In my article When The Elites Wage War On America, This Is How They Will Do It, I examine the writings of Council On Foreign Relations member Max Boot on methods for quelling insurgencies. In the U.S., insurgency is a given post-collapse. The only question is whether it will be a large insurgency or a small one.
I do not hold out much hope for most of the rest of the world in terms of generating a useful rebellion. Most citizens in Europe and Asia are unarmed and untrained. Any resistance in these regions will be very small and cell structured if it is going to survive.
The methods Max Boot describes tend toward larger threats to the establishment. Boot mentions specifically the great success by the British in Malaysia from 1948-1960 against highly effective communist guerillas and terrorists. This success can be attributed to several factors:
1) The British used large-scale concentration camps to separate production centers from rebel influence. These were massive camps surrounded by barbed wire fences and guard towers, primarily used to house farmers and other workers and their families. This stopped the guerillas from hiding among the working class and recruiting from them. This follows the “green zone doctrine” I described above.
2) The British implemented a sophisticated identification system for all Malayan citizens including fingerprinting. They then set up numerous checkpoints across the country at which citizens had to produce their paperwork. Anyone who did not have their papers was held on suspicion of being an insurgent. The rebels in Malaya attempted to counter this by forcefully taking over buildings and buses, then burning everyone’s IDs. This would not be a very effective tactic in a digitized world where identification is accomplished through advanced biometrics.
3) Instead of fielding massive lumbering military brigades in a useless effort to cover large stretches of ground, the British used spies and informants to locate rebel strongholds, then sent special forces units in to neutralize them. Again, they did not need to control every inch of ground; they used military assets wherever the rebels were, then left. Their goal was not to control a lot of ground, but to kill rebels.
4) The political elites in Britain fought the psychological war by offering promises of peace and prosperity to the Malayan people if they supported the effort against the insurgency. They did not necessarily need to follow through on these promises, all they needed to do was create a few examples of reward for cooperation, and sell this to the public in a convincing manner. Once enough of the population was in the hands of the British, the insurgency lost supply resources and also had to worry about informants.
Technology grid for tyranny
Malaysia was an example of a competent strategy to uproot insurgents, but there were also many failures and pitfalls. The elites are trying to mitigate any future unknown quantities through the use of new technologies.
The green zone doctrine could only be successful today with the use of biometric surveillance. Restriction of movement could be accomplished, but only in cities with extensive surveillance grids. The insurgents of a post-collapse future would be hard pressed to infiltrate or exfiltrate from a green zone with currently available facial recognition, gait and walk recognition, retina and thumbprint scanning, etc. Facial recognition has even gone into the realm of thermal imaging; cameras can use the unique heat signature from blood vessels within the human face to identify a person from a relative distance. Make-up and prosthetics would not counter this. Thermal masking would be the only solution.
Beyond that, an insurgency would have to be technologically savvy. Cyber warfare would have to be integral to their methodology. This is not something any other rebellion in history has had to deal with.
An uneducated and bumbling insurgency
The globalist’s strategy to trigger economic and social chaos, then lock down certain regions and offer centralization as a solution to the population, is far easier to accomplish when the opposition they face lacks insight, patience, planning and initiative.
The British were partially successful in Malaysia because the guerillas were ignorant of public perception. While they were effective and ruthless fighters, their viciousness resulted in lack of public support. Though wide public support is not needed for victory, it certainly helps.
Multiple revolutions against Stalin’s power, some of them very large, were put down because of poor planning. Rebels massed sizable forces in tight areas, such as a single mountains or mountain ranges. Stalin simply dropped poisonous gasses on insurgents that had put all their eggs in one basket and forgot to stockpile gas masks. It is vital to recognize that in a post-collapse world governments and elites may no longer be subject to public scrutiny, and are thus free to act as maliciously as they want. All contingencies have to be considered.
Rebels in the Soviet Union also had a bad habit of ignoring logistics. Many were armed with mismatched rifles and a rainbow selection of ammunition instead of arming all their men with the same rifle and the same ammo for redundancy. Rebellions have been lost in the past merely because the fighters armed with too wide an array of weapons ran out of enough ammo to feed any of them.
Insurgents have also historically suffered from an inability to strike the leadership centers of the empires they fought. Primarily because they did not know who the real leadership was. Only in our modern era do we have the information available to identify the elites and their organizations. This is why the elites seek to make the next insurgency the last insurgency. Never before have they been so vulnerable.
I believe the globalists will use their standard strategy of disinformation and division first to acquire centralization, but eventually they will turn to a Stalin/Malayan model for control on the ground. I will have to save the specific counter-strategies to these tactics for another article. Some of them I probably cannot legally discuss at all. The most important thing to remember, though, is that the globalists’ job is harder than our job. They have to control people, property, resources, and mass psychology. They have thousands of variables to take into account, and thousands of situations that could go wrong.
All we have to worry about is our own organization, our own moral compass, our own survival and removing the globalists from the picture.