globalistdestruction

STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
‘Embattled’ Globalists Don’t Intend to Lose
By Daily Bell Staff - September 26, 2016

Besieged Globalists Ponder What Went Wrong … Until recently, you didn’t hear people being referred to as “globalist” very often. But in a time of rising nationalism, those who see the upside of globalism have become a distinct — and often embattled — tribe.  – New York Times

No. Untrue. Everything we understand about globalism leads us to believe that its “embattled” nature is by design.

Globalism is itself confrontational and ultimately tyrannical. It cannot be otherwise.

What The New York Times is providing us with here is a meme, propaganda designed to make us believe that globalism has come under unprecedented attack and that globalists are now “besieged.”

We’ve been following this meme for a while now as it proceeds on its inevitable way.

The formal meme – developed by the globalist propaganda machine itself – is globalism versus populism. We’ve been analyzing it for several months.

We’re supposed to believe that Brexit was a great victory for the anti-globalist rump. We’ll wait a while before continuing our celebration, however, as we notice Brexit has not yet come into effect.

Elite memes are part of a larger epochal strategy of directed history. Each meme is directed toward building global governance and making the world a smaller and more organized place.

This particular meme – globalism versus populism – focuses on portraying globalists as wise but misunderstand.

It will likely be going on for a while. Gradually it will build, providing opportunities for globalists to create more formal kinds of communication to counter “populism.”

More:

Last week, the globalists had a big family reunion in New York. The gathering was focused on the United Nations General Assembly, but a growing array of side conferences and summits and dinners also attracted concerned internationalists of every stripe: humanitarians, leaders of nongovernmental organizations, donors, investors, app peddlers, celebrities.

I asked Mr. Clinton after his conference about the challenge of balancing help for Kenya with care for Kentucky, in an age when Kentucky anger threatens to push the United States toward less engagement in foreign problems.

… He sought to deny the inevitability of tension between globalism and nationalism, pointing to the example of a program he recently visited that was building nanosatellites at Morehead State University in eastern Kentucky.

Kentucky benefits from the program, but so, he argued, might Kenya, where the satellites could, for instance, detect and help combat the trade in phony medicines.  “When opportunities are increased in one part of the world,” Mr. Clinton said, “there are often positive effects where you might least expect them.”

We need to watch this meme closely. What’s being suggested here is that there may be more efforts to create dual profit centers – at home and abroad – in order to make clear that globalism can be profitable domestically.

This is likely more propaganda however. The idea behind globalism in its current incarnation is to strip the West of what is left of its prosperity in order to create an international industrial economy. Africa is key to this latter stage of development and the West will subside further as “Africa rises.” The Middle East is being reconfigured as well, though more violently.

Many in the West are determined that good times will rise again and that people will be able to prosper according to their efforts and creativity. But the globalist scheme is all-too-real and surely does not call for the West to regain its former prosperity. In a homogenized world, developing countries will continue to rise while the West will stagnate in order to create true globalization.

The dollar itself is destined to fade away until it is no more powerful than the rest of the IMF’s SDR basket of world currencies. Once the dollar subsides as the world’s reserve currency, the US will not be able to print so much excess money. The wealth in the US will decline as a result.

The US prospered first because it was a free, unregulated country and then, after the Civil War, because it appropriated the world’s wealth via war and its dollar economy. Now in this third stage, the US will not lead the way by such a large margin.

The plan may be to let “populism” blow itself out, eventually, while globalism gradually expands. All of this will be controlled of course, though the debate will seem at least quasi-spontaneous.

Conclusion: The hoped-for result from the globalist perspective is that by letting the “debate” rage and making it seem as if globalism is “losing,” anger and energy can gradually be drained away. Of course it may take a major economic crash and subsequent further depression – plus even another world war – to complete the process. But the plan remains a fully internationalized world, and the globalists don’t intend to lose.

 

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • gringott

    “They” aren’t giving up, that much is sure.

  • Sven

    These globalists not only want their NWO but they want one global race, one language, one monetary system and one culture.

    Everything else will be swept away.

  • hobbyhorse1

    This writer makes some good points, but his analysis is flawed in its fundamental notion that ‘ the US prospered first because it was free, unregulated country…’ This is, of course nonsense. It was only free and unregulated before the white man moved in . The white man craved regulation .What does the writer think laws to protect private property are if not regulation ? Property stolen from the native Americans in the first place. I am sorry, but the history of America did not begin in 1492 .

    • James

      Yeah, pale face stole Disneyland from the Native Americans, before he stole it from the Mexicans, and then afterwards stole it from the Chinese.

      • hobbyhorse1

        Your knowledge of history is as lamentable as the writer’s and there I was thinking this was a site for serious people to debate serious issues. How wrong could I be .

        • James

          You must be pretty stupid if you think you can judge someone’s knowledge of history based on a sarcastic comment. It is you who should go away and leave Daily Bell for serious people.

          • hobbyhorse1

            You need to pay more attention James . His sarcasm was poor so I treated it with the contempt it deserved by replying with better sarcasm. Anyway that’s besides the point; the fact is laws to protect private property are a form of regulation. If you think they aren’t tell me what they are .

          • James

            It is clear that you have no respect for Natural Law. Private property is rooted in Nature. Birds have nests, foxes have holes, and human beings have private property. Laws were made recognizing that fact of Nature. Laws did not invent private property. The particular details might end up being arbitrary, such as making 17 years the length of time for a patent to be legally in force, but the idea of private property is not arbitrary. Nice try though, do spin again.

          • hobbyhorse1

            Birds don’t own their nests , foxes don’t own their holes and humans didn’t own property until laws ( that is regulations ) were passed by government to enable individuals to own land . In Europe this didn’t happen until the 17th Century . Before that land was held by the king or the church . I am sorry the facts don’t fit your ideology.

          • James

            You are truly and deeply and profoundly stupid if you think that a bird will not defend her nest, to the best of her ability, or that a fox will not defend her fox hole, or a lion will not attempt to stop the laughing hyenas from stealing her hard won prey. Private property goes back to prehistoric antiquity, you idiot. Why do you think that the commandment “Thou shalt not steal,” was so well understood, even while it has never been very scrupulously obeyed? Sheesh. Moses did not invent the idea of not stealing, nor did he invent the idea of stealing so that he could prohibit it. You liberals ought to be embarrassed about how dumb you look.

          • hobbyhorse1

            Ah the inevitable resort to insult when the facts don’t support your ideology. I am not a liberal and the Torah from which you quote was written law and what evidence do you have for the existence of private property in ‘ prehistoric antiquity ‘ . None of course because it’s ‘ prehistoric’ so neither you nor anybody else could make such a claim without it being false on its face. Dear dear the education system in the United Sates really has gone to pot.

          • James

            The Torah was written law but that doesn’t mean that the laws written therein originated with it or were invented out of whole cloth by the author of it. Obviously the evidence of things that occurred before writing is indirect; we know how it is with primitive pre-literate societies that exist today and who live the same way they did countless thousands of years ago, and they have “law.” It is you liberals who are saturated with “ideology,” not the normal people. Normal people disagree, but liberals deliberately obfuscate and obscure and blow smoke. I can have an intelligent and honest discussion and disagreement with anyone but never a liberal. Liberals like you have an axe to grind such as nobody else in the history or maybe even the pre-history of the world has ever had before. You aren’t even honest enough to admit that you’re a liberal. Nobody but a liberal would try to deny that the idea of “stealing” pre-dates the writing down of laws against it.

          • hobbyhorse1

            Why do insist on saying I am a liberal when I told you I am not ? So your argument has come full circle: the land that was once America – before the white man came – and ” owned ” by the original inhabitants was stolen from them by your own admission because it was their private property. Check mate I think.

          • James

            Check mate on you, liberal. In order to make the argument that the white man stole America, you have to admit that there is a “Natural Right” to property. The Native Americans never wrote it down, and never set up an Assessor’s Office where they filed their deeds documenting their title to the land, but they had ownership by possession, I agree. I would say that the fact that they never bothered to build the legal and social infrastructure of writing down titles to their land was the main reason they lost it. That and their lack of a modern up to day war machinery. If the Native Americans had had frigates and galleons and destroyers and cruisers and aircraft carriers, history would have been quite different. But, here’s a news flash for you, liberal: Life is not fair. Saying that there is a natural right to property does not mean that life and the world and the universe are fair.

          • Thanks James. Property is claimed and then defended. No “law” is needed.

          • James

            You’re welcome, Daily Bell. If I’d known I would attract your attention I would have tried to express my self with more erudition instead of the snide snarky tone to which I am prone.

          • hobbyhorse1

            I don’t think so . You agree the Native Americans had possession, but they didn’t construct laws to protect their ” ownership ” . And why do you think that was ? Because they didn’t need them . The white man needed laws to regulate his ” ownership ” i.e. it was his invention in this particular case so by so doing he ” stole ” the land from those who possessed it. An alternative would have been to have possessed without making laws to ” own ” the land, but that wouldn’t have suited his purpose which was to exploit and to do so he needed laws to protect what he wanted to exploit .That was his greater purpose and now in the 21st Century having exploited the greater part of the natural world he can only exploit by financial chicanery.

          • James

            They didn’t need to protect their ownership? Really? What the hell are you complaining about, then? So the Native Americans didn’t really want their land then, did they? They didn’t care how the cookie crumbled, or the mop flopped? I’m sorry, hobbyhorse, but you are manifestly an idiot who blithers meaningless gibberish. You want to make rhetorical points, but you are toofa king stupid to accomplish your goal. And you are clearly incapable of expressing meaningful logical statements, so, you got nothing.

          • hobbyhorse1

            A little more history for you. The Native Americans didn’t know of the existence of the white man any more than you know of the existence of men from Mars. Are you ready to protect your ownership from them James ?

          • James

            There have been numerous fictional depictions of invasions from Mars and other extraterrestrial locations. Sometimes the Earthlings lose, sometimes the Earthlings win. And, it seems the Native Americans knew about the white man since Leif Ericson tried to colonize the area around Nova Scotia, and perhaps even as far south as what later became known as Virginia. Europeans in the New World were sort of like the Barbarians who over-ran the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire decayed to the point that it could not hold off the savages, and so therefore they were forced to live under the boot heels of the savages. It’s called the real world. Of course it’s not fair, that’s why people try to alleviate the unfairness of the universe with laws and rules and morals and ethics and compassion and love and other abstractions which amount to religious principles and are the opposite of pragmatism.

  • It is surely increasingly obvious that the conclusion, …. The hoped-for result from the globalist perspective is that by letting the “debate” rage and making it seem as if globalism is “losing,” anger and energy can gradually be drained away. Of course it may take a major economic crash and subsequent further depression – plus even another world war – to complete the process. But the plan remains a fully internationalized world, and the globalists don’t intend to lose. …. is never going to win and succeed in times and places where greater intelligence and new information is easily immediately freely shared to start new vital and viral fronts of attack and assault/surprise and opportunity. Things are not at all like they used to be, and tomorrows’ presents will be nothing at all like yesterdays’ pasts. Times have a’changed fundamentally and extremely radically too.

    Dump the austere landscapes and warrior actions and present heavenly projects with bottomless pit benefaction/zero cost pricing.

    Keep things simple and use novel intelligence to create an alien world for new smarter humans/virtual machine habitation.

    Anything less is rapidly going to see a global witch hunt by all manner of weird and wonderful means/anonymous and deadly agents to permanently rid corrupt systems of their heads and leading head personnel. Further ruling and reigning remotely from the shadows for relative immunity and practical impunity of virtual action is no longer a free safe haven space place. It is a mass killing field.

    And the system knows that it is now so, and terrifies you in response to it being terrified of the consequences of its previously thought secret and never to be uncovered actions being widely understood and violently corrected if systems choose to remain deaf, dumb and blind to New Orderly World Order Programming and Advanced Internetworking Virtual Reality Projects/Greater IntelAIgent Games Plays?

    Yes, ….. it certainly is. I wonder what path they will choose?

    And such paths as be chosen will be, as they have always been, prime indicative of the presence, or otherwise, of a greater available intelligence which leads creatively or a retarded arrogant ignorance which destroys reactively.

    Spookily enough, it would be incredibly naive and most unimaginative to imagine that a greater intelligence shared would allow such a destructive state of affairs and system administrators to survive and prosper rather than accurately target the problem for eradication/termination with extreme prejudice.

  • johnmack

    sure i get all of that, a world with no borders….but why islam which is as non integrationist as possible. The guys who attend davos and bilderberg meetings arent muslims but likely rabid atheists so what is their plan as it relates to islam?

    • The guys who attend davos and bilderberg meetings arent muslims but likely rabid atheists so what is their plan as it relates to islam? …. johnmack

      That is easy to answer, johnmack, for surely it is ever more obvious that their master plan is a continuing play on that which they have been relying on since forever and whenever they realised how simple it is to play the ignorant off against the arrogant and vice versa. Use the world religions device against myriad supporters of divisive world religions and other strange cult following?

      It distracts/used to distract quite effectively from general discovery the fact that such a simple device be activated and in play to possess and obsess the masses.

      Such is the virtual state of that which y’all perceive of as reality. It is, and with IT and Media Command and Control Guarantee of Output and Outcome, a Great Game Play …… which is presently in great turmoil and flux because of the unforeseen and unprepared for advent of Virtual Machinery into Greater IntelAIgent Gaming of Systems for Remote Anonymous Administration and Product Placement of Futures and their Countless Derivative Options.

      And yes, they do have a “Houston, we have a problem” problem …… and it is in spades.

      How do you imagine they can resolve it, to save themselves from targeted extinction/system annihilation?

loading