You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘globalism’ tag.

There’s time only for a short post today.

Here is a powerful, must-see video that is only just over a minute long:

Who said, ‘Ordinary people are too small minded to govern their own affairs’?

It was not George Soros, from whom we get a short soundbite at the beginning of the video. He cannily said that global governance might or could happen, acting as if he did not know one way or the other.

The next person to appear is Obama. It was he who said:

Ordinary people are too small minded to govern their own affairs.

In fact, he says it not once, but twice.

He says that ‘order and progress’ (his words) will come only when:

individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign.

But the real kicker comes in starting at the 45-second point with a man reading from a Communist book outlining how to discredit opposition: build up verbal attacks, then label person(s) ‘fascist’ or ‘anti-Semitic’, followed by open discreditation by leftist organisations. That part of the video was filmed in the 1950s or 1960s. The book from which he read was published in the United States.

Please circulate the tweet.

On Monday, February 12, 2018, Q posted on what he/they term The Inner Circle (message 740):

Q !UW.yye1fxo   No.87

The Inner Circle.
Mika Brzezinski.
McLean, Virginia.
The age of tech has hurt their ability to hide/control.
Majority today were ‘born in’ to the circle.
Investigate those in front of the camera who scream the loudest.
These people are really stupid.
End is near.
The media cleanse/JFK.

This is what Mika’s dad, Zbigniew, wanted to see happen to the United States (image courtesy of CBTS_Stream):

The late Zbiegniew Brzezinski was an advisor to Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter. He was very much a globalist and elitist. Look at the title: ‘Tactician for the Establishment’.

Reading past the first highlighted section, notice how he leaves ordinary people out of the equation:

“some of the recent upheavals have been led by people who increasingly will have no role to play in the new technocratic society”, the unrest being a mere reaction to becoming “historically obsolete” … “merely the death rattle of the historical irrelevants.”

The next highlighted bit discusses ‘the requisite “new international system”.

The next paragraph begins with Zbig saying that a problem arises in ‘generating the political will necessary’ to implement a change in the way people live, socially and politically. Even worse, he calls on the nation to ‘sacrifice’ (what they are used to)!

He says that a national sacrifice (of a prosperous way of life):

would contribute a great deal to the restoration of optimism, for sacrifice generates optimism. Indulgent, miasmic and passive behavior stimulate pessimism.

What a load of old hogwash. I don’t remember people being unhappy in the West in 1977. We were all hopeful for the future, one that never came.

Yet, it seems as if this has been happening not only in the United States but in other Western — ‘advanced’ societies.

Enter Donald Trump, who becomes the leader of the Free World, who campaigned against what he terms:

the false song of globalism.

He is upsetting the cynical plan of the elites — and the stupid — who want him out of office.

Zbig’s daughter Mika — currently the co-presenter of MSNBC’s Morning Joe — has been in television news for the length of her career. She has had every material blessing in life. I remember hearing her say that she really enjoyed seeing the world with her dad, who would take the family with him on his official trips.

Mika used to like Donald Trump. There was a YouTube compilation, now deleted, of Donald Trump’s appearances on her shows. She used to fawn over him as if she were a little girl.

Then she changed during the 2016 campaign. So did her Morning Joe co-presenter Joe Scarborough.

In 2017, the two started pushing the narrative that President Donald Trump is mentally ill. Rush Limbaugh’s transcript of June 29, 2017 has more. Excerpts follow (emphases mine):

… from “Morning Joe cohost: Trump May Be Mentally Ill — MSNBC Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said Thursday President Trump is ‘not well,’ and even possibly ‘mentally ill.’”

So this June 8th, roughly three weeks ago. Brzezinski said, “I think he’s such a narcissist, it’s possible that he is mentally ill in a way. He’s not well. At the very least he’s not well.”

“Brzezinski explained that Trump may be narcissistic because ‘he does not believe the rules apply to him,’ adding that this belief likely led to a sort of ‘ignorance’ and applied it to the 2005 Access Hollywood tape recording in which Trump made lewd comments about women.”

Mika Brzezinski three weeks ago said, “And he’s so narcissistic he does not believe the rules apply to him. That’s where the ignorance label may apply because this is a man who says he can grab women anywhere because he’s famous. The point is, he feels he can say or do things different from the norm because he’s famous, because he’s a celebrity, because he has power.”

Brzezinski’s comments come the same day former FBI Director James Comey is set to testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee about his investigation into Russia.” I don’t know if you know this or not, that when Brzezinski and Scarborough announced their engagement — and that was fairly recently — that Trump offered to officiate, and Brzezinski said (raspberry) no. (imitating Mika) “I mean, if Jimmy Carter were in the White House like when my dad was there, but no. No. No way.”

Last summer during the presidential campaign and even during 2015, Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough were salivating all over Donald Trump. Trump appeared regularly on PMSNBC in the morning, and they loved him and they were sucking up like you can’t believe, and it was like three great friends. Everybody was mad at Mika and Joe for not being objective and acting like they were best buds sucking up to Trump. So something has gone wrong in paradise.

Rush doesn’t know what happened. That said, read the whole transcript, because it is an insider look at not only Mika and Joe but also President Trump. Fascinating.

However, going back further to nearly a year ago — February 22, 2017 — Mika got into a Twitterstorm with people accusing her of telling Americans what to think. She hotly denied it.

RealClearPolitics has the story, along with tweets and a transcript. Mika was angry that the American president was expressing his opinions, which half the nation deeply appreciates:

The hosts of MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe’ comment on President Trump’s efforts to “undermine the media.”

Co-host Mika Brzezinski commented Wednesday morning that she is upset to see President Trump has moved in on the media’s turf when it comes to the area of mind control.

“He is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts,” she said about Trump. “And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think.”

And that, that is our job,” she noted, referring to the media.

Never forget that. I’ve been wanting to write about her for a year but couldn’t quite figure out what context to put it in to make a standalone post.

Q’s now given me that context.

Think about what Mika said. She denied it — but it’s there in the transcript!

Recently, the following graphic has been trending about how the American media empire fits underneath powerful global socio-political organisations:

Click on the Swiss Propaganda Research link included in Assange’s tweet to see the full image.


We think that Big Media are trustworthy. Big Media get told what narratives to push. Anything that goes against the grain of globalism — e.g. anti-globalist President Donald Trump — must be hammered.

Look at the fifth column from the right. For those who think that Disney has our interests at heart, think again. Marvel, a subsidiary, is in that column. Notice how the characters and narratives in comic books have changed over the past few years? That’s why.

Eric Schmidt

Equally important is the social media column on the far right.

Eric Schmidt, although recently resigned from Google’s parent company, Alphabet …

… hit a trifecta by participating in Bilderberg, the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.

Schmidt’s announcement makes it look as if he is going to pretty much leave the organisation, however, ZeroHedge tells us more (emphases in the original):

He will become a technical adviser to Google parent Alphabet, while continuing to serve on the board …

The question is – is Schmidt getting ready for 2020?

The rest of the article is damning. Please read it.

Two more excerpts follow.

The first tells us more about Schmidt:

On the Wikipedia link you can read more about Mr. Schmidt, one of the richest person on earth, an advocate of net neutrality, a corporate manager and owner of a lot, a collector of modern art, etc. And you can read about his heavy involvement with Hillary Clinton’s recent campaign and the Obama administration and about Schmidt’s involvement with Pentagon, too.

Eric Emerson Schmidt’s name is associated with the world’s largest and most systematic data collecting search engine, Google, that millions upon millions use. School children, teachers, parents, media people, politicians and you and I all daily “google” what we need to know.

While we do that, Google tracks everything about us and if you are searching for a thing to buy, say a camera, be sure that camera ads will shortly after turn up on your screen. And they know everything we are interested in through our “googling” including political interests and hobbies.

He also travelled to North Korea in 2013, no doubt with the blessing of the United States, to plug their government elite into the Web (photo):

The second discusses the implications of Google’s algorithms to de-rank certain online pages to censor unwanted views. The broader context in the ZeroHedge article is that Schmidt wants to wreck aspects of Russian media as seen in a video:

This very powerful corporate leader with a open political orientation has decided – as will be seen 58 seconds into the video – that the Internet and his hugely dominating search engine a) shall cave in to political pressure, b) de-rank at least these two Russian media organizations because c) he knows they are “propaganda outlets” (it isn’t discussed at all or compared with US or other countries’ media) and d) in the name of political correctness it is OK to limit the freedom of opinion-formation.

That said, Schmidt’s strategy applies to everyday users as well (purple highlight mine):

Mr Schmidt, you are blatantly and clearly interfering in the rights of millions, if not billions, to know. To seek information. To shape their opinions.

With your few words you abuse your almost unlimited digital, political, economic and ‘defence’ power – much much worse than if you had sexually abused just one woman for which older men today are fired or choose to resign.

This has to be stated irrespective of whether we like or dislike Russia and its media. That is not the issue here. This has to be fought against because it is slippery slope, Mr Schmidt.

You ought to stand up and use your powers with principles and vision: To protect the Internet against every and each reduction of freedom. Freedom for all, also the fake news-makers however we define them. Yes, there is another solution for that problem and it is not your paternalism.

It just cannot be for you to decide what is good for others and collect data about us all which is only good for you.

How many of us still use Google? Too many. Why not try Duck Duck Go and Start Page first?

Question media’s motives

The media overview and a tranche of it should make us question their motives, via both traditional and online means.

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 the French will be electing a new president whose term will run for five years.

It is almost certain that Emmanuel Macron (En Marche!) will win.

Marine Le Pen (Front National) is likely to pick up more votes than her father Jean-Marie has in past elections, but there is too much historical baggage attached to the FN to make her a winning proposition nationwide.

May 3 – debate

On Wednesday, May 3, TF1 hosted a televised debate of the two candidates, which was also shown on several other channels.

One of my favourite socio-political commentators, journalist, author and essayist Natacha Polony, appeared on RMC (talk radio) the next morning to say that the debate revealed one candidate who doesn’t understand the issues and one who is a perfect Énarque (graduate of the École Nationale d’Administration, where the top politicians come from). Macron is also a graduate of Sciences-Po, also very important to political life.

Polony says that the debates told the French public very little about how they would resolve current problems in their nation. A few ‘hollow’ soundbites and ‘vulgarity’, she says, do not constitute a policy position.

France24 reported similarly. The debate was:

loud, fast, personal, riven with inaccuracies and thin on substance …

The media and viewers thought that Macron won the debate hands down.

SkyNews has a good recap of the highlights:

In angry exchanges, Ms Le Pen played up Mr Macron’s background as a former banker and economy minister in the outgoing Socialist government.

Portraying him as Francois Hollande’s lapdog, she said he was the “candidate of globalisation gone wild”.

He tore into her flagship policy of abandoning the euro and accused her of failing to offer solutions to France’s economic problems such as high unemployment.

The attacks were often personal with Mr Macron calling Ms Le Pen a “parasite” and a liar.


Ms Le Pen accused Mr Macron of having no plan on security but being indulgent with Islamic extremism.

He told her that radicals would love her to become president because she would stoke conflict.

Alternative media’s Paul Joseph Watson, a frequent traveller to France, reacted from London:

For the FN, the debate was of historical importance:

The TV appearance was the first time a National Front candidate has appeared in a run-off debate – an indication of how far Le Pen has brought her party by softening its image and trying to separate it from past xenophobic associations.

Macron win baked in from the start

Emmanuel Macron was meant to win from late 2016.

The media are doing their job in carrying water for him. This week’s French magazine stand is incredible:

Macron, who served as François Hollande’s economics minister for two years, was his pet in many ways. His campaign was designed to beat that of the conservative François Fillon (LR) and the socialist former education minister Benoît Hamon (PS).

Manuel Valls

Valls Schaefer Munich Economic Summit 2015 (cropped).JPGThose who know that former prime minister Manuel Valls was tipped to be the next PS candidate years ago might wonder what happened. This, too, was part of the plan.

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A PS party leader warned Valls not to run and do something ‘irreversible’.

Shortly afterwards, Hollande told Valls in a one-on-one meeting in December that eventually his time would come.

Hollande, incidentally, kept Valls in the dark as to whether he would run for a second term. He didn’t.

Valls did not understand the message from his party. It was not Valls’s turn for a reason. The PS supported Macron, even though Macron created his own political movement.

Valls went ahead and ran for the PS primary earlier this year. He was a long-time favourite. Yet, the weak Benoît Hamon beat him. Behind the scenes, the PS machine made sure Valls did not win. Nothing personal, just politics.

Valls put his support behind Macron rather than Hamon before the first round of voting on Sunday, April 23. That was understandable as Hamon was polling only in the single digits and received only slightly over 6% of the vote that day.

François Fillon

François Fillon 2010.jpgFrançois Fillon of Les Républicains, or LR, was my candidate. He served as prime minister under Nicolas Sarkozy between 2007 and 2012.

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Fillon has always been measured, reserved and statesman-like.

There was never a hint of scandal about him.

He won the LR primary decisively on November 27, 2016 with two-thirds of the vote. The turnout — non-LR members could pay €3 for a ballot — was immense. Many polling stations had long queues all day. Some ran out of ballots. Officials were surprised, to say the least.

The result took everyone aback. No one had written much about Fillon in the run-up to the primary. In fact, one newsweekly, Marianne, called him ‘Mr Nobody’.

In December, with a sound political manifesto, he was seen as the man to beat.

In the third week of January, two of Marianne‘s readers wrote letters to the editor, expressing fear about Fillon. In the magazine’s 20 – 26 January 2017, edition, one reader wrote about the disaster 2017 would turn out to be with ‘the arrival of Fillon at the Elysée’ (p. 50). The other reader’s letter bore the title ‘SOS Fillon’. It said what an ‘inhuman’ cruelty from an environmental perspective it would be for him to be ‘at the Elysée’ (p. 52).

The polls showed Fillon as the top candidate at that time.

On January 25, everything changed.

Mysterious charges came out of the blue, with an address book and a dossier given to Le Canard enchaîné. Allegations purported that Fillon’s Welsh wife Penelope had engaged in fictitious employment and had been paid hundreds of thousands of euros for work she had never done both for a literary magazine and as Fillon’s parliamentary assistant. This was strange, because the allegations stretched back to things that supposedly took place in the late 1990s, yet, they had never seen the light of day until now. Recall that Fillon — ‘Mr Nobody’ — was prime minister between 2007 and 2012.

A preliminary hearing began immediately, something that is unheard of in similar situations in France. It normally takes weeks, if not months, for the authorities to investigate.

Nearly every day for two months, either Le Canard enchaîné was receiving new information about other Fillon scandals or the authorities were questioning the couple and searching their properties.

As Eric Ciotti, the LR president of the council of Alpes-Maritimes, told RMC the other week, the last day Fillon had a proper campaign was on January 24.

Fillon had to be cleared out of the way for Macron. Believe me, Macron never would have stood a chance under normal circumstances.

Despite all of this, on April 23, Fillon received a respectable 20.0% of the votes in the first round. He came third, behind Le Pen. Le Pen garnered 21.3% and Macron 24.0%. Jean-Luc Mélenchon came fourth with 19.5%. Benoît Hamon, the PS candidate, got just over 6%.

Now that Fillon is out of the way, so is the drip-drip-drip of scandal.

You can read more about Valls and Fillon in an article I wrote recently for Orphans of Liberty, ‘Pauvre Fillon’. (Pauvre means ‘poor’, ‘pitiable’).

The Big Media narrative

Big Media have been busy for months saying that Macron is a centrist, anti-establishment and antisystème candidate.

If he espoused the latter two characteristics, Big Media would never have endorsed him. Big Media are part of the establishment and le système.

Marianne noted that all of these media outlets have made a big deal about everything Macron except his political platform (13 – 19 January 2017 issue, p. 11).

They have given Macron the celebrity treatment in the same way that the world media gave Obama in 2008. Marianne pointed out that l’Obs (Le Nouvel Observateur) put Macron on their cover six times in 2016 (p. 17).

At that stage, Marianne only had Macron on their cover twice: that particular January issue and in November 2015. Interestingly, the 2015 issue has ‘Moi, Président‘ next to his photo.

This week, Marianne fell in line with every other magazine and put him on the cover. Sad. The magazine that prides itself on independent (albeit left-wing) thinking howled about media intox — hype — then fell into the same trap.

Establishment help

Macron has benefited from Socialist help at home and abroad.

In France, Marianne says that Hollande’s ex-partner and mother of his children, Ségolène Royal — former minister of the environment — has been discreetly advising him behind the scenes since December (13 – 19 January 2017 issue, p. 12). Royal has long admired Macron. She appeared with him on the hustings this week.

In the United States, Obama — also a socialist — gave Macron a fulsome endorsement to the French electorate. Can you imagine the outcry if Trump had done something similar?

My guess is that he was in Tahiti for this very reason. If he had rung Macron from the US, the American intelligence community could have tracked his phone calls. Ironically, Obama put such an arrangement in place himself, whereby Americans corresponding with or talking to people overseas may become of interest to US intelligence.

Like Obama, Macron is another Manchurian Candidate. The two must have much in common.

This tweet bridges the discussion from Obama to the next two men mentioned below:

Besides socialists, there are the globalist economics experts and policy wonks around Macron, including Alain Minc and Jacques Attali.

I saw Alain Minc several years ago on a late-night French talk show, On n’est pas couché (‘We Haven’t Gone to Bed’). The subject was the disconnect between a candidate’s promises and the reality that follows an election. Minc told Natasha Polony, who was a regular panellist at the time, that even she had no place in voicing an opinion about policy-making. Minc said:

You get your say at the polls. At that point, your role ends. Afterwards, we take over.

Her jaw dropped.

In other words, leave it to the experts. The great unwashed have no voice. This guy is advising Macron. He also attended the same grandes écoles as the future French president.

Their already heated debate continued a little longer. Then, Minc dismissed her as being silly and told her to be quiet. If I remember rightly, the talk show host stepped in and changed the subject.

Jacques Attali, who is richer than Croesus, said in a print interview a couple of years ago that, even though he is in his 70s, he still works every day. He said he could not help but look down on retired people who wanted to relax and enjoy life. As a graduate of the same schools as Macron and Minc, Attali has never had to toil day after day in a manufacturing plant or drive a lorry or work in a slaughterhouse. If he had busied himself at any of those occupations for decades, he, too, would want to put his feet up.

Policy positions

Macron’s team have been busy this week tweeting, sometimes posting several every few minutes: a lot of empty words — or bla bla, as the French say — style over substance.

He doesn’t want people to know what he’s actually going to do.

Keebler AC reposted the following tweet on a thread at The Conservative Treehouse:

What follows are a few illustrated highlights from the debate that give you an idea of what Macron is about:

I’ll translate the dialogue below:

Juncker (?, on the left): The barbarians are at the gates. How can we guarantee a French victory?

Macron (lower right): Open wide the gates. There is no such thing as French culture.

Hollande (upper right): I told you so! The little one’s a genius!

All of this causes confusion. On March 31, an RMC panellist, a barrister, asked how Macron could be Hollande’s successor:

It’s inconceivable. He’s surrounded by people from the Right.

However, others do understand. Someone replied to that comment with this helpful illustration:

The influential imam from the Grande Mosque de Paris, Dalil Boubakeur, called on all French Muslims to vote for Macron in the second round.

And Les Républicains (LR), in order to continue to distance themselves from the FN, also urged their members and supporters to vote for Macron. Career politician Jean-François Copé rightly criticised Macron for his heavily publicised victory party after the first round, while Marine Le Pen left her supporters to party and made a quick exit after the results were announced.

Here’s Macron’s party at La Rotonde brasserie in Paris’s Montparnasse district. Copé said he was stunned:

Note that Copé also commented above that, as far as ensuring French security is concerned, Macron is ‘very weak’. As far as economic policies go, Macron is in ‘permanent flux’.

That said, Copé announced on the show:

With death in my soul, I said I will vote Macron.

Globalists v Nationalists

Ultimately, the battle for the Elysée is about globalists (Macron) versus nationalists (Le Pen).

This revolves around changes in those who embrace Marxism.

S. Armaticus, who authors the Catholic site, The Deus Ex Machina Blog, wrote an excellent analysis in the comments on The Conservative Treehouse‘s pre-election post:

The “Globalists” -read cultural Marxists in the US are endorsing the “globalists” – read cultural Marxists in France. Now the cultural Marxist’s enemy is the former economic Marxists- read post-Soviet countries. The reason that the cultural Marxists hate the former economic Marxists is that the later dumped their Marxism. The reason they dumped their Marxism is because it didn’t work. It left their countries ruined. So these former Marxists are trying to implement something that works to get them out of the mess that Marxism left. While the cultural Marxists never experienced Marxism first hand. So they are trying to implement Marxism.

And that is why us normal people like you, me and The POTUS, are caught up in this fratricidal war between the neo-Marxists (Obama/Macron/Trudeau) and the ex-Marxists (Putin).

We should know the results on Sunday night. Unfortunately, because the French don’t really have enough of an online presence to fight globalism.

As Marine Le Pen said, a woman will be leading France: either her or Angela Merkel.

No guesses as to who will be in charge come Monday morning.

Next week I will discuss Macron’s private life.

On January 27, 2017 I wrote about the Deep State, which included an abridged description of it from former Congressional staffer and author Mike Lofgren.

On Wednesday, February 22, Alex ‘Infowars’ Jones gave an AMA — Ask Me Anything — interview to Reddit’s The_Donald. Questions and the transcript are here. Below is the full YouTube AMA, which was the highlight of a special Infowars broadcast:

The AMA starts at the beginning of the video and lasts for nearly three hours, ending at 2:54:00.

I don’t recommend many videos, but this one is particularly good as a) an explanation of how globalism works and b) a call to believe in Christ our Lord.

Even though I know most of the information Jones discusses, I found the 1:00:00 to 2:33:00 segment really worthwhile.

I’m going to summarise the high points of what Jones talked about, but will take them out of order, as the Q & A went back and forth on certain topics.

How globalism and the Deep State came about

Jones said that a global plan to control mankind came about in the 19th century. He mentioned Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein as a good example of the knowledge among a small group of people about what the future would bring. It was a very early time to bring electricity into a book, when most towns and cities would not have an electricity grid until decades later.

When the Fabians were established, they were interested in controlling mankind through eugenics and other means. They, other well-placed Europeans and America’s corporate elite got together to engineer these plans. The overriding theme was control over others — specifically the people they perceived as the lower orders.

Jones said that, in the early 20th century, the idea of machines controlling man intrigued this group of people. Thomas Watson — IBM’s founder — spent several years in Germany. He and his corporation became big players for the Third Reich. (I saw where someone online laughed at this the other night. However, it’s true. A number of well respected newspapers carried the story in the 1980s — pre-Internet. It was common knowledge for anyone who cared to read about it.) IBM was not the only corporation and Watson not the only wealthy man to aid, abet and make money off helping the Germans during that time and into the Second World War.

How the Deep State works today

Jones explained that people are bought off all the time. Many of the titans of technology have been compromised — receiving large sums of money — to do the Deep State’s bidding. The most recent examples of this have been the censorship and bans exercised by Facebook and Twitter.

Jones said that when he had a cable access television programme in the 1990s, critical of the Clinton administration in Washington, he was offered a trip to DC to meet then-president Bill Clinton — and $100m — if he would stop criticising Bill on air. Jones refused.

This leads him to believe that some of the biggest players aren’t making money off their genius and foresight alone. They are bought off by the Deep State (political, intelligence communities) and globalists to serve common elite interests.

Jones also mentioned that Bill Gates’s father was the chairman — not public president — of Planned Parenthood. Therefore, Bill had an ‘in’ to entrepreneurship via Dad’s connections. He was far from an ordinary guy writing computer programs in the family garage.

Jones tells his father’s story

Jones said that his father was a teenage engineering genius and had his own radio show in Texas during his adolescence.

Such brilliance brought him into contact with powerful people, who took him on private tours of various research facilities. They promised him the world if he would get a university degree. He could work for them and make a lot of money. They added, ‘But, you understand, you’ll also have to do some bad things.’

Jones’s father thought about the offer, what it entailed in the long run and politely refused. He pursued dentistry instead and became a dental surgeon.

How Jones got involved in investigative journalism

Those who regularly watch The Alex Jones Show know that he was a precocious teenager. At the age of 16, he was going to parties thrown by university students in a town in Texas, which he left unidentified (probably Rockwall, near Dallas).

He said that, at one of these, the mother of the student hosting the party was openly snorting cocaine. A sheriff’s car pulled up to the house. Jones was certain the house would be raided. But, no. The sheriff’s men brought in bags of cocaine and other drugs to sell, as if it were nothing. They had already established an arrangement with the woman.

He said that a week or so later, the same law enforcement officers spoke at a local anti-drug meeting, warning about the dangers of narcotics. When it came time for the public to ask questions, Jones — age 16 — got up and told them they were the same officers who sold drugs at the party he had recently attended.

Jones said that, afterwards, the officers pulled him aside and got him to a private room where they roughed him up. They told him to be quiet, otherwise, they would make sure he was gang raped by violent men whom they had already lined up. They told him to meet them again, but Jones did not go. Meanwhile, Jones’s father, a dental surgeon, had connections in town and managed to smooth things over. Nonetheless, those connections told him to move himself and his family out of town as soon as possible for their own safety.

The Jones family moved to Austin. Jones’s mother is from there originally and still has family there. That is why he remains there today with his own family.

How people get drawn into the Deep State

Jones said that players in the Deep State lure others in through the promise of influence, power and money.

Drawing new people in is easy when they find themselves in compromising situations through parties, perhaps involving paedophilia. The Deep State then has that person under their control. If that person wants to maintain his notional propriety — e.g. in public office — he must do as the Deep State dictates.

Jones said that it is better for intelligent or otherwise gifted people to resist friendly overtures from the Deep State at the outset. Be polite, say thank you, then walk away.

He said that once someone gets involved with the Deep State — even if they try not to become victims of blackmail — it is very difficult to walk away. He is quite certain, based on what insiders have told him, that Steve Jobs was murdered. He thinks that Jobs wanted out. However, because of what Jobs knew, he would have to be removed the picture entirely. Otherwise, he might have revealed what is really going on behind the scenes.

Jones also said that people in the highest echelons come across as very courteous and cordial. This is how innocent people get drawn into their web.

He made it clear that colluding with the Deep State was ‘selling a birthright’ and ‘selling your soul’. Never take money, favours or a position of influence from people allying with the powers of darkness, which is what the upper echelons are involved with.

Why globalists and the Deep State hate Trump

President Donald Trump wants everyone to have the same opportunity that he did to get ahead and make a good life for themselves and their families, Jones said. The globalists and Deep State, on the other hand, want everyone’s standard of living gradually lowered so that people have no more individual power over themselves, their families or their assets.

Jones said that Trump has always wanted what is right for people. Although, in some respects Trump has not been an angel, overall, he embraces a life-affirming philosophy. Jones said that the brutal  presidential campaign humbled Trump and made him realise that there was no one he could rely on completely. Jones said Trump could only put himself in the hands of Almighty God, from whom all good things come.

Jones pointed out that Trump is continuing to undergo the same ordeals in the White House. Once again, he knows he can rely only on God.

The upper echelons trying to destroy humanity through Marxism, Communism, the family and sexuality see that Trump is a good man. Jones called him an ‘innocent’. He explained that Trump, whilst far from being naive, does not understand how evil people can work against their fellow human beings and oppose life-affirming policies and measures that will help the American people.

The spiritual battle

Time and time again, Jones emphasised the spiritual battle that America is going through right now.

He explained that he decided to do the AMA because he wanted to make it clear to those Americans ‘who are not worldly’ — meaning God-fearing — that there is real evil going on today and that they need to be aware of it.

He said that the evil is now out in the open. The Left, Big Media and others:

aren’t even trying to hide it any more, that’s how bad it is.

George Soros

Someone from The_Donald asked if things would improve once George Soros passes away.

Jones replied that George Soros was one of only several at the top determined to destroy goodness in the world. He said that Soros has his own acolytes prepared to continue the fight. They have a battle plan and know what to do. Even worse, Jones asserted that Soros himself is controlled. He’s not the man in charge. There are people above him exerting their influence.

Jones also downplayed Soros’s influence by saying that although the man lives and breathes, he is spiritually dead, inferring that he really has no meaningful life anyway, so there is no need to worry about him.

Jones calls people to Christ

Jones gave two or three sermonettes on the importance of faith in Jesus Christ.

He was emotional — in his usual way at such points in his monologues — emphasising that the only way anyone can defeat the powers of darkness is through faith in Jesus Christ, God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Jones is not the biggest churchgoer and, perhaps rightly, finds that Satan lurks in most churches. So he stays away. That said, he does know his Bible and gave an interesting, modern update on what King David faced by way of sin and temptation. He pointed out that when David repented, God filled him with abundant grace and great courage.

Jones said we could learn from King David’s experience; the devil is the one who gets people to doubt whether God will forgive them. Jones said to ignore those doubts. They come from Satan. God forgives.

Therefore, pray regularly and ask for faith.

Jones would have made an excellent preacher. I wish we had thousands of clergymen like him. He spoke the truth. He spoke from the heart. He pulled no punches on explaining the darkness in world today. He explained that Jesus Christ — the Light of the World — is our only means of hope and salvation.

What people can do

Jones said that good people must speak up and tell unworldly people about the dark forces in our society.

He said to first believe in Christ, because without Him we can accomplish nothing. From that, we were to infer that secular humanism will not get the job done.

God-fearing people should start blogs, websites and/or video channels. We all have our own special talents that, with divine grace, we can use to reveal the vagaries of the Left, the globalists and the Deep State.

We must not remain silent. We must speak out. We must resist.

Above, all, if we want to defeat evil, we must be faithful Christians.

This week’s posts concern the failure of globalism.

Sunday’s entry showed how globalism was failing as early as the year 2000. Monday’s confirmed that more people in 2005 were getting progressively poorer and that what counts for trade actually isn’t according to the classic definition. Tuesday’s examined the failure of globalism to raise the prospects of the poor in the developing world in 2009. Yesterday’s had a go at a 2014 article from The Economist, globalism’s No. 1 cheerleader.

No matter what lovely gloss The Economist likes to apply to globalism, all of the aforementioned failures continue today, 16+ years later.

This final entry looks at the state of play in 2016, notably in the United States. The whole world is aware a social, political and economic earthquake could take place. Some people are horrified. Most, however, are hopeful.

The National Interest has an article from May 4 which well and truly nails the upcoming presidential election: nationalism versus globalism. Above the first line of the article are these words:

This election’s real political fault line.

And how.

A summary of and excerpts from ‘Trump vs. Hillary Is Nationalism vs. Globalism, 2016’ follow, emphases mine.

Whilst everyone commenting in the media on these candidates sees the battle as one about identity politics, it’s not really about that at all.

For years:

Globalists captured much of American society long ago by capturing the bulk of the nation’s elite institutions—the media, academia, big corporations, big finance, Hollywood, think tanks, NGOs, charitable foundations. So powerful are these institutions—in themselves and, even more so, collectively—that the elites running them thought that their political victories were complete and final. That’s why we have witnessed in recent years a quantum expansion of social and political arrogance on the part of these high-flyers.  

Then along comes Donald Trump and upends the whole thing. Just about every major issue that this super-rich political neophyte has thrown at the elites turns out to be anti-globalist and pro-nationalist. And that is the single most significant factor in his unprecedented and totally unanticipated rise.

Here is why the average American thinks globalists are wrong about:

Immigration: … Globalists don’t care about borders. They believe the nation-state is obsolete, a relic of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which codified the recognition of co-existing nation states. Globalists reject Westphalia in favor of an integrated world with information, money, goods and people traversing the globe at accelerating speeds without much regard to traditional concepts of nationhood or borders. 

Foreign Policy: Globalists are motivated by humanitarian impulses. For them, the rights and well-being of the world’s people supersede the rights and well-being of the American populace … Globalists, in advocating foreign policy adventurism, are quick to conflate events in the Baltics, say, or Georgia or Ukraine with U.S. national interest, but it’s really about the globalist impulse of dominating world events.

Trade: … a powerful new wave of protectionism washed over the body politic, leaving globalist elites running to get out of the way. Globalists were too focused on global trade and commerce to notice the horrendous plight of America’s internal refugees from the industrial nation of old.   

Political Correctness: Given that globalists dominate the nation’s elite institutions and often exploit their position of power to ridicule and marginalize the so-called “Middle America” of ordinary citizens, who also happen to be nationalists, these people often feel on the defensive politically and culturally … Globalists don’t care much about this phenomenon because it is employed largely in behalf of their views and philosophical outlook, including their globalist sensibilities. But nationalists care about it a lot. They send their kids to college in pursuit of betterment, and discover that political correctness is hammering away at the views and values they tried to teach their children as they were growing up. And their views and values aren’t allowed to compete in any free marketplace of ideas on campus but instead are declared inappropriate and intolerable before they are even uttered.  

Cultural Heritage: Nationalists care about their national heritage … Globalists, not so much. Nationalists seethe at the assault under way against so many giants of our heritage, flawed though they were (as are we today). Globalists are the ones leading the assault.  

The globalists thought they’d long been home and dry, until Trump announced his candidacy. He has a perspective on each of those five points which rings familiar bells with his millions of voters and fans. He won’t have been the first candidate to do so, even in living memory. However, put together, what he says resonates deeply with the American public.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, is a classic globalist, even though she is dialling back on her husband’s big project, NAFTA:

totally in sync with the underlying sensibilities of political correctness, a practitioner of identity politics, which lies at the heart of the assault on the national heritage. Nothing reflects this Clinton identity more starkly than the Clinton Foundation, a brilliant program to chase masses of money from across borders to fund the underpinnings of an ongoing political machine.  

This conflict between globalism and nationalism is why Trump has received such continued push-back during his campaign, including his own party.

Be that as it may:

win or lose, he has shaken up the political system, introduced powerful new rhetoric and opened up a new political fault line between nationalism and globalism that isn’t going away anytime soon. For the globalist elites of America, it’s an entirely new era.  

It will be interesting to see what happens with Britain’s EU Referendum. A Brexit wins could further boost Trump’s support. The British people had their say, then, it will be up to the Americans.

All of the above posts are on my Marxism / Communism page under Globalism isn’t working.

End of series

This week’s posts concern the failure of globalism.

Sunday’s entry showed how globalism was failing as early as the year 2000. Monday’s confirmed that more people in 2005 were getting progressively poorer and that what counts for trade actually isn’t according to the classic definition. Yesterday’s examined the failure of globalism to raise the prospects of the poor in the developing world in 2009.

All of these failures continue today.

Today’s post looks at The Economist‘s continuing cheerleading of globalism. The Daily Bell takes the magazine apart nicely, focussing on the article ‘Signs of life’ from November 13, 2014. You probably won’t be able to access it as it is behind a paywall, but The Daily Bell has it in full.

As I said on Monday, I was a faithful subscriber to The Economist for at least 20 years. I stopped when I no longer believed their rhetoric on globalism. It just wasn’t true for the average person.

Excerpts from The Daily Bell‘s analysis of the magazine follow, emphases mine. Enjoy.

Such articles as the one excerpted above on globalization seem dishonest to us. The article deems globalization an unmitigated good but makes no distinction between the globalization of governance and the globalization of the marketplace.

Nothing wrong with marketplace globalization. But how can globalized regulation, globalized taxation and globalized monopoly central banking be part of a positive trend?

Yet internationalism remains a powerful elite theme, perhaps the strongest of them all.

That is what eventually set off my internal alarm bells.

The Economist, as The Daily Bell notes, can be rather absolutist about globalism and internationalism. They put forward the argument, most eloquently, that both foster trade and peace. Therefore, they discuss opposition to it — protectionism and populism — in a shrill tone. Readers know where they stand with the magazine:

Another unfortunate trend that The Economist sees positively: The trend of trade negotiators to build “coalitions of the willing rather than waiting for a global consensus.” Such an approach means smaller, often regional rather than global trade pacts, but progress on less ambitious deals is easier to arrive at.

The article concludes by warning that the legacy of the Crisis of 2008 is populism and anti-globalism. “Political pressure to retreat from the world builds slowly but is also slow to dissipate. That seems to be the case this time too, in many European countries at least, where populist parties are still growing in strength, even though the local economy has stabilized.”

Not so fast. From where we stand, such populism is to be welcomed because what The Economist calls “globalism” is basically the most dysfunctional kind of regulatory capitalism. What good is global trade when it advances the repressive elements of modernity?

The last paragraph echoes what activist Jerry Mander, who has two degrees in Economics, said in 2000 (excerpted on Sunday). It’s not capitalism. It’s not free trade. It’s not socialism. It’s a combination of all of these and more, which combine to produce what he calls a ‘centrally controlled economy’.

As I’ve been saying this week, corporations and politicians unite on globalism, which makes it all the worse. The Daily Bell points out:

If the private sector were driving globalism, there wouldn’t be much to complain about from a free-market perspective. But inevitably, it is government and politicians that write trade treaties (and generally create market policies) and they tend to afford some economic elements far more advantages than others.

We’ve seen this in NAFTA, TPP and now in the ongoing negotiations for TTIP, or TAFTA. NAFTA has had a very negative effect on American jobs, which explains Donald Trump’s rising popularity. TPP has also been roundly criticised by Americans. TTIP, fortunately, continues to fail in ongoing negotiations. That will be the subject of a separate post.

There’s more:

Another term we could use in referring to the modern globalist trend is “technocratic.” Globalization is increasingly supported by endless official forums in which the bureaucrats of 20, 50 even 100 or more countries get together to lubricate commerce via government stratagems.

Treaties, cross-border trade and other elements of international capitalism recognize and enshrine a mercantilist status quo. As stated, they recognize and expand monopoly central banking, regulatory oversight and increasingly repressive fiscal policies. This is no way to build a freer or more robust business infrastructure.

I agree with The Daily Bell that removing technocratic government from the picture would help. It is unclear what was wrong with the centuries of trading that the world’s nations and continents accomplished before globalism.

Globalism hasn’t helped. In fact, it has hindered and impoverished many. This is why people in the West are depressed, suicidal and frustrated. There seems to be no way out of this elitist mess, a march towards mercantilism, something we thought had been consigned to the dustbin of history. Alas, it’s with us once again.

Tomorrow: Globalism in 2016

This week’s posts concern the failure of globalism.

Sunday’s entry showed how globalism was failing as early as the year 2000. Yesterday’s confirmed that more people are getting progressively poorer and that what counts for trade actually isn’t according to the classic definition.

In 2009, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the International Labor Organisation (ILO) published a joint study, ‘Globalization and Informal Jobs in Developing Countries’. In These Times had a concise article on the study.

One wonders if it came as a surprise to the WTO to find that workers in the developing world have not benefited from globalisation. Remember how our betters presented globalisation as the tide that was going to lift all boats, not just those of Westerners?

A few brief excerpts from the article follow about the effect of globalisation on the developing world:

… many are still poor and lack job security and social safety nets.

… the number of workers in the informal economy—defined as unregistered businesses not subject to law or regulations— has increased or remained constant.

“Informal” work has accounted for 60 percent of new jobs in developing economies. The incidences range anywhere from 30 percent in Latin American to as much as 80 percent in sub-Saharan and South Asian countries.

The following are direct quotes from the summary of the study (emphases mine):

Our study shows that the earlier hope, that the effects of growth and international integration would trickle down and automatically eliminate informal employment, is not warranted. Instead, certain types of informal employment arise in reaction to a failure on the part of public authorities to provide proper social security and to bring taxes down to levels compatible with strong work incentives and formal job creation.

It was hoped that this would result in an increase in wages for low-skilled labour or improved working conditions, including by means of an increase in the number of formal sector jobs for low-skilled workers. Evidence suggests, however, that the skill premium has increased both in developed and in emerging economies, making low-skilled workers (relatively) worse off,” the report says. The ever shifting dynamic of globalization has caused demand for more highly skilled workers, leaving laborers in poverty or stuck in informal workplaces.

That’s a surprise? Really? It’s hard to know what to say. The words ‘naive’ and ‘stupid’ come to mind.

Furthermore, those countries have a lot of corruption at all levels. Cheap labour must be had in order to maximise profit. It’s also a form of servitude; these businessmen and contractors know that. To them, poorly paid workers are less than human.

The ever hopeful conclusion — that the ‘formal’ sector should be offering more jobs to the poor — is one with which I agree but, given the nature of employment and social conditions in these countries, is unlikely to be attained for the foreseeable future.

Yet again, here’s another huge failure for globalism.

Tomorrow: Globalism as seen in 2014

This week’s posts concern the failure of globalism.

Yesterday’s entry showed how globalism was failing as early as the year 2000.

Today’s looks at the year 2005 with excerpts from a Mother Jones interview with John Ralston Saul, ‘The Collapse of Globalism’.

John Ralston Saul is a Canadian polymath. He helped to establish the national oil company Petro-Canada in 1976. He then travelled the world and got to know many types of people, from guerillas to native tribes, about whom he wrote in both non-fiction works and novels. He has written four philosophical books. He wrote a doctoral thesis titled “The Evolution of Civil-Military Relations in France after the Algerian War” and later wrote a novel about General Charles de Gaulle. He also served for several years as the president of PEN International.

In 2005, Saul published The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World which explores how and why globalism failed.

Excerpts from the Mother Jones interview follow, emphases in the text mine.

MJ: What about economic equality among and within nations? Is that another sign that something’s amiss?

JRS: Yes, and the statistics show this pretty much everywhere. And the interesting thing is, even that disparity between rich and poor doesn’t total up to a big increase in wealth; it’s just that a small group of people are getting richer and a much larger group of people are getting poorer. So getting more of the pie today, for the poor, still wouldn’t represent a success for the system. This suggests that the system, as designed by the globalists, simply isn’t delivering what it said it would deliver.

MJ: Why not?

JRS: One of the reasons is that a great deal of what’s counted as trade isn’t in fact trade

We count as trade what is moved around inside a transnational corporation, where no real profits are being made at each level. In fact, transnationals are very carefully organized so that they actually make losses at most levels. I give an example in the book of 30-60 corporations operating in Britain. The Financial Times discovered that most of them, despite massive turnover, were making losses, and therefore weren’t paying taxes. More important, they weren’t investing in each place. Suppose the supply chain were 10 separate companies. Well, in some way the companies would be investing in its area—building houses, building schools, paying taxes, in a sense being a real part of the local economy. You’d be getting growth; today you’re not. It’s all designed to prevent the creation of real wealth.

MJ: So are you arguing that deregulated global trade hasn’t delievered any benefits?

JRS: Globalization did some small things; but the previous period brought improvements that gave us levels of comfort and education that were unprecedented. What nobody wants discuss is whether or not the black-and-white argument about trade— you’re either a free trader or you’re a protectionist—is the right one. It’s the old 19th century argument. Why don’t we ask, ‘Is this trade?’ ‘What is trade?’ ‘What does trade actually do?’ ‘What is a proper balance between deregulated and regulated?’ ‘Does it make sense to deregulate some things and regulate others?’ At this very moment the practitioners of free trade are in confusion over what to do, and we’re seeing only the first act of the confusion.

MJ: And the argument is that economic forces are inevitable and ultimately beneficent.

JRS: There are warning signals of [ideological thinking]—of ideas as religion—and one of them is this idea of inevitability. As soon as you hear somebody saying ‘This is inevitable,’ you basically know they have a weak case and are true believers in an ideology. Globalization has been immersed in just such an argument.

MJ: If globalism has collapsed, it’s in part because developing countries weren’t seeing the promised gains, right?

MJ: Yes. The obvious sign that this system wasn’t going to last was the Asian meltdown in 1997/98. You had these very successful smaller countries—Thailand, Malaysia, and so on—collapsing, really because we’d stuffed a massive amount of money in there—money they basically didn’t need, because they had a very high savings rate—and then when we’d overheated their economy we withdrew the money, all over about a 12-month period. So you then had this international theory of globalist economics applied to them with a vengeance, what I call “crucifixion economics,” you know, you get put on gruel and are forced to wear hair shirts and to self-flagellate, and they’re supposed to come out of it cleansed, reborn. And after a year of this the prime minister of Malaysia, Mohamed Matahir, said, ‘We’re not going to do that. We’re going to raise tariffs, and freeze our currency, and block capital flight.’ And everybody looked away in horror—and then a year later they were doing better than anyone else. Four years later Matahir was invited to make the opening speech at Davos during which he lacerated globalization—and they gave him a standing ovation!

What Mohamed Matahir did sounds a lot like what Donald Trump wants to do in terms of raising tariffs and blocking capital flight (i.e. corporations moving overseas). Intriguing.

At the end of the interview Saul said:

I’m saying that since 1995 we’ve been in an interregnum, a vacuum where the picture is confused, and our elites are in denial because they’re inheritors of the system. They don’t have the capacity to stand back and say, ‘We’ve got some real problems here. Let’s think about what we can do about them. If we got some things wrong, let’s do something else.’

We’re still in that space. Things are getting much worse economically. We the people are crying out. The elites are still enjoying privileged lives. Our politicians, part of this group, are pitting citizens against each other with identity politics policies.

There are also the unemployed, classified in various governments’ official figures, and those no longer looking for work who are not part of these statistics. That started around 2005, at least in Britain. I read recently that the United States now uses the same reporting basis. In every case, it is used to make the employment picture look better than it actually is.

Life isn’t better for many middle and working class people, despite what our media tell us.

Tomorrow: Globalism as seen in 2009

From the 1980s to 2005, I subscribed to The Economist, which I read weekly, spending at least an hour on every issue.

I was encouraged by all they had to say 25 years ago about the coming global economy. Other British periodicals spoke of communitarianism, especially once Tony Blair became the Labour Party leader. The two together seemed to be pointing the world in the right direction, globally and locally.

A friend of mine told me in the mid-1990s that communitarianism didn’t mean harmonious streets and neighbourhoods. Rather, it fostered identity politics. He said it was a divide and conquer strategy. Lo, he was right.

As for globalism, I saw more and more people being made redundant with even office jobs moving overseas via outsourcing. Senior managers and CEOs loved it and encouraged us to embrace it. We middle- to lower-ranking types in the office said nothing but smiled sweetly. We knew it meant they could pay someone in an emerging country, whether in Europe or Asia, less than a Briton. The same held true in the United States.

By 2005, I saw that globalism wasn’t working the way we were told it would. So I cancelled my subscription to The Economist and lived happily ever after.

Globalism was supposed to be the rising tide that lifted all boats, not just in the West but around the world. The next few posts chart globalism as it happened in the early 21st century.

Excerpts from several articles follow over the next few days, emphases in the text mine.

Today’s post addresses globalism as seen in the year 2000.

Jerry Mander is the founder of the International Forum on Globalization. He holds two degrees in Economics and worked in advertising before working on campaigns for the Sierra Club. He has also written several books opposing globalisation.

In 2000, Scott London, an author, researcher and consultant who has worked for several American think tanks, interviewed Mander. ‘The Perils of Globalization’ is a thought-provoking article which explains precisely where globalism went off the rails. Mander also makes a case for localism as a solution.

London began by presenting the case for globalism most of us understand. He and Mander took it from there.

Scott London: The case, as it’s usually presented, is that the globalized economy is a good thing that will secure jobs, allow us to remain competitive, and promote democracy abroad. Isn’t there some truth to that?

Jerry Mander: The people who are making that case are the people who are promoting globalization — corporations and banks and governments. They are saying that globalization can solve the world’s problems, that it’s going to give people something to eat and so on. They are redesigning an economy that they say works. But it doesn’t work.

We’ve had globalization for quite a while, it’s just being accelerated right now. Wherever the rules of free trade and economic globalization are followed, you have economic and ecological disasters immediately thereafter. You’ve got the complete destruction of small, traditional farming in Africa and elsewhere; you’ve got the complete devastation of nature all around the world; you’ve got people shoved off their lands to make way for giant dams and agri-business and so on, who then become part of the millions and millions of people roaming the land and going into cities looking for impossible-to-find jobs, all in competition with each other, and violent and angry. And then people are angry with them, because who needs more people around? So you’ve set in to motion a global disarray and nonfunctionalism that would not have been achieved — certainly not at the same level and with the same speed — without this emphasis on global development.

However poorly people lived in terms of material wealth in traditional societies, there was much that they retained. They retained a fair amount of local control. They retained some degree of traditional culture. Even in societies that had already been impacted, like India, you had a lot of cultural identity and a history of relationships to scale that were really different. It was an economy of small-scale institutions. That has been wiped out by economic globalization with the invasion of franchises and giant institutions that have taken over the land.

London: I remember a full-page ad in the New York Times during the height of the NAFTA debate a few years ago. A long list of Nobel laureates in economics and the various sciences expressed their support for the free-trade agreement. How is it that so many “experts” could speak out in favor of something that has such damaging effects?

Mander:I don’t know what Nobel laureates have thought about this subject very much. I don’t know how many of them could talk about structural adjustment programs, for example. Very damn few of them would even know what it means. They just think that it’s a good thing to unify the world. They think the idea of all the cultures getting together and merging into one big happy culture is how to save the world. It’s kind of a left-over of communism, on the one hand, and the new federalism on the other. And, on the third hand, it’s a funny distortion of pluralistic democratic ideas.

But they’re wrong. Globalization doesn’t work. There is lots of evidence of that. We’re on the verge of an ecological catastrophe of stupendous proportions. There is a terrible degree of alienation at large in the world. There is a tremendous amount of violence. Everybody is at each other’s throats. How could they possibly think that this has been good? This whole process has been terrible, and the process of globalization only makes it much worse. It’s preposterous to think that anything good is going to come from this.

London: Some people feel that now that communism has collapsed, free-market capitalism may be next. After all, the economy can’t continue to grow forever — at some point, an exponential curve has to either level off or crash.

Mander: I think that if I say “Yes, we have to rethink capitalism,” then it gets reduced to, “Oh, he’s anti-capitalist.” It’s not capitalism in particular that has to be rethought, it’s the whole economic structure. The global economy is not capitalism. I have a master’s degree in economics, and I know this is not capitalism. What we have now is a centrally controlled economy. The only capitalism that takes place is among the people who have no part in the real benefits of the system — you know, t he people at the lower rungs have some capitalism going with small stores and so on. But, basically, the great part of the system doesn’t function in a capitalist manner. It’s not a socialist manner either. It’s some kind of hodge-podge of connections that have been put together for greasing the skids of advanced development and growth and corporate benefit.

Free trade? Free market? We don’t have either of those either. We have some kind of combination. What we have is a corporate take-over of the rules and a lot of corporate authority.

London: Corporatism?

Mander: Yes, a corporate economy — an economy that is good for corporations. It’s not capitalism exactly, and it’s not socialism exactly, and it’s not anarchy either. It’s a different of system of organization in which corporations exercise the control and reap the benefits.

London: How do we respond to the forces of globalization?

Mander: Well, if the car is about to go off the cliff, the first thing you do is stop the car. We’re about to go off the cliff and we’ve got to stop the car. That’s number one. Then we have to find a road map — where to go next. A lot of people are already looking for this road map.

The question that is most interesting to me, and the only that seems to make sense is: if globalization doesn’t work, what about localization? I think relocalization is absolutely inevitable. It’s going to happen one way or another because the global economy will break down, even if we don’t organize a mass movement about it. It simply doesn’t work. It can’t sustain itself. It’s going to fall apart and disintegrate — I hope sooner rather than later — so a certain degree of relocalization is going to take place automatically. I’m a little worried that it might also entail the growth of fascism here and there, as local powers gain real control. But I don’t think that’s an argument against relocalization, just against the wrong kind of localization.

What’s necessary is that real power and real economic control be reduced very far down so that people have real control of their lives, and so that the technologies and forms of organization that they use don’t assist the process of globalization.

This is a long and fascinating interview well worth reading in full.

The last two paragraphs are particularly prescient in 2016. American voters, participating in a general election in November, are worried about the loss of jobs overseas. British voters will be voting in a few weeks’ time on recovering national sovereignty or staying in the expanding European Union.

Speaking of Europe, The Guardian published an article on May 25 about the rise of populist and nationalist leaders across the Continent. There are more than most people think. The paper posits that it is because people no longer trust mainstream political parties.

We also perceive conventional politicians as being in globalists’ pockets to some extent. One needs the other in order to push their projects forward.

Tomorrow: Globalism as seen in 2005

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,533 other followers


Calendar of posts

October 2021
31 - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,660,661 hits