Tag: globalism

The Unifying Principle: Here’s Why the Political Divisions in the US Today Cannot Be Mended

Recently I was watching a short documentary about the history of political discourse and division in the US and it got me thinking about how the internal conflicts of the past might relate to the rampant social battles Americans are dealing with today. From early disagreements between various Founding Fathers on hot button issues like the Sedition Act, central banking and standing armies, to epic and disastrous conflagrations like the Civil War, America has never been “of one mind” on everything.

Overall, though, the longstanding assumption is that even when we slip and fall into disarray Americans will find common ground and move on towards the future together.  It’s a nice sentiment, but what if this ideal no longer applies?

There are some people that argue there was never a golden era for the US; that we’ve always been destructive, or exploitative or “imperialist.” Of course, it’s very easy to examine any given time period through the lens of modern sensibilities and pass judgment. How we would do things today is not necessarily how we would do things yesterday. We can’t easily condemn the men and women of the past without at least recognizing that we will probably never see the issues of their day from their perspective.

The political left is the most egregious violator of this principle. They have a bad habit of trying to rewrite history according to their current ideological cultism and applying their taboos to time periods when civilization had very different views on how to function. The progressive philosophy is partially rooted in “futurism”; the idea that all old ideas and ways of doing things must be abandoned to make way for new methods. In other words, they think everything “new” is better and must be embraced.

Frankly, this theory has never proven correct. Not every old idea should be left behind and not every new method is better. In fact, most ideas that leftists think are new are actually very old. There’s nothing ground breaking about DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion), it’s just another form of Marxism based on personal identity rather than the traditional class politics.

Do you want to know what DEI really is? It’s a vehicle for forced association.

Forced association is used to leverage populations into a homogeneous soup, a hive mind with no individual thought or right to discriminate against destructive groups and ideologies.  But if America is experiencing an agenda of forced association today then we have to ask – What is there to be gained?  Why pressure people who fundamentally disagree with each other on every level to coexist within a society? Why do the people in power want this so badly?

Well, for the central planners (usually socialists/globalists), tribalism is a big no-no. People going their own way is unacceptable. If the populace thinks they can divide and separate and live differently from each other, then how can the establishment continue to exist? For a one-world government to be achieved ALL divisions must be erased and everyone has to either love or fear the purveyors of “unity.”

Keep reading

A World State Through the Back Door?

What is going on with the World Health Organisation? In December 2021 it began to talk about a global pandemic treaty. And now an International Treaty on Pandemic Preparedness, Prevention and Response will be presented to the 77th World Health Assembly between May 27th and June 1st: that is, next week. In the Daily Sceptic David Bell has done good work in going through the articles of the draft treaty, and also noting that we should read the amendments to the International Health Regulations too. But I want to ask a broader question. Is this a world state through the back door?

No one spoke about a world state much — except dismissively — until the early 20th century. H.G. Wells was fond of the idea. It was a modish subject at around the time of the formation of the League of Nations and again around the time of the formation of the United Nations, though, interestingly, it was usually dismissed. In the last 30 years the question of a world state has returned, though the answer is usually still negative.

However, one of the fundamental laws of politics is, and has been ever since Thucydides — or Augustus — that a thing can be one thing and yet can be called another thing. Politics is, as everyone has known since before Socrates, a rhetorical art: and the art of rhetoric involves all manner of minimisations, exaggerations, substitutions, reversals, redescriptions.

So what has happened in the last 30 years is not that we have become enthusiasts for something called a world state, but that we have become enthusiasts for something that we by and large do not want to call a world state while hoping — consciously, unconsciously — that it will be a world state.

Consciously: here I refer to the hypocrites, who want a world state but know they should not say so.

Keep reading

Mexican President Calls for EU-style North American Union

The United States, Mexico, and Canada should be united under a European Union-style transnational government, declared far-left Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador last month in barely noticed comments. The controversial remarks come as regional governments modeled on the EU proliferate and absorb once-sovereign nations around the world.  

Speaking during an event marking the 110th anniversary of the U.S. military’s occupation of the coastal city of Veracruz, “AMLO,” as the Mexican president is known, called for the creation of a North American “community” with its northern neighbors. “Blessed Mexico, so close to God and not so far from the United States,” began López Obrador.

“The important thing here is how to strengthen that integration and commitment that is helpful for the two nations, benefiting the United States and Mexico to strengthen North America and subsequently strengthen the entire American continent, just as in the beginning the European community was created that later became the European Union,” continued the controversial Mexican leader.

Understanding Mexico’s body politic and the population’s historical concerns about possible American domination, AMLO offered obligatory lip service to preserving Mexican sovereignty and independence. However, his remarks and his touting of the EU as a role model made clear to those in the know that his vision would severely infringe on sovereignty, independence, and self-government across the continent.

Keep reading

Digital IDs Simultaneously Implemented By Multiple Nations At Globalist Command

Infowars and others have warned for decades about the globalist agenda to create a digital database that tracks citizens and gives the ruling class more control.

Now, the digital identification phase of this Orwellian scheme is being rolled out in almost every nation that has signed on with the corrupt anti-human elite.

Groups like the World Economic Forum, World Health Organization, United Nations, European Union and others have all planned on introducing this technology for many years, and the COVID-19 pandemic was instrumental in setting the precedent for the IDs.

The Australian Parliament passed digital ID laws on Thursday, the American Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) added digital IDs to its list of acceptable forms of identification two weeks ago, and the latest EU digital ID rules will begin being enforced on Monday.

Keep reading

The Trouble With World Government

A court in Australia has told the government’s own eSafety Commission that Elon Musk is correct: One country cannot impose censorship on the world. The company X, formerly known as Twitter, must obey national law but not global law.

Mr. Musk seems to have won a very similar fight in Brazil, where a judge demanded not just a national but global takedown. X refused and won. For now.

This really does raise a serious issue: How big of a threat are these global government institutions?

Dreamy, dopey, and often scary intellectuals have dreamed of global government for centuries. If you are rich enough and smart enough, the idea seems to be the perennial temptation. The list of advocates includes people who otherwise have made notable contributions: Albert Einstein, Isaac Asimov, Walter Cronkite, Buckminster Fuller, and many others.

Often the dream comes alive following huge upheavals such as war and depression. Or a pandemic period such as the one we’ve just gone through. The use of “disinformation” as a cross-border test case of global government power is designed to deploy a new strategy of governance in general, one that disregards national control in favor of global control.

That has always been the dream. In history, for example, following the Great War, we saw the creation of the League of Nations, which was a forerunner to the United Nations, at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson. Both were seen by the intellectual class as necessary building blocks for what they really wanted, which was a binding world state.

This is not a conspiracy theory. It’s what they said and what they wanted.

In 1919, H.G. Wells, inspired by the League, became so excited about the idea that he wrote a sweeping reinterpretation of world history that extended from the ninth century B.C. until that present moment. It was called “The Outline of History.”

The goal of the book was to turn on its head the popular Whig theory from the previous century, which saw history as the story of ever more freedom for individuals and away from powerful states. Wells told a story of tribes turning to nations and then to regions, with ever less power to the people and ever more to dictators and planners. His purpose was to chronicle and defend exactly this.

It was a huge bestseller at a time when the appetite for books was voracious because they were becoming affordable and there was a burning passion in the population for universal education. The thesis of his book, however valuable in some historical respects, was genuinely bizarre. He imagined a future world state ruled by a tiny elite of the smartest people who would plan all economies, information flows, migration patterns, and governance systems while crushing national ambitions, free enterprise, traditions, and constitutions.

Keep reading

European Parliament Approves Controversial Migration Pact; Furious Nationalists Vow To Bring It Down After EU Elections

The European Parliament has approved the controversial EU Asylum and Migration Pact, which will see countries forced to accept their fair share of new arrivals into the bloc or pay a fine for every migrant they reject.

The new asylum and migration package was passed largely with votes from lawmakers affiliated with the European People’s Party, the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), and Renew Europe, with MEPs being urged to swallow their criticisms of the scheme and vote for the compromise legislation.

“History made,” tweeted European Parliament President Roberta Metsola as she praised what she described as a “robust legislative framework on how to deal with migration and asylum,” noting it had been “10 years in the making” but the EU had kept its word.

Some MEPs on both the left and the center-right revealed they voted through the pact despite its many flaws.

“The new legislation is not perfect but we can only make migration manageable and humane with one European solution,” said Hilde Vautmans, foreign affairs coordinator for Renew Europe.

Nationalist politicians across Europe expressed their anger at the passing of the pact, which they claim cedes sovereignty to an ever-centralized European Union.

“The Migration Pact organizes the tutelage and control of nations, the legal impunity of NGOs complicit with smugglers,” tweeted Marine Le Pen of France’s National Rally.

She further vowed to “put an end to the accelerated pursuit of policies to encourage and organize mass immigration,” on June 9 at the EU elections in which her party is expected to win the most French seats.

Keep reading

Globalist World Economic Forum calls for governments to impose AUTHORITARIAN MEASURES against critics

The globalist World Economic Forum (WEF) has issued a call for governments worldwide, alongside technology giants, to impose authoritarian measures against its critics.

According to the unelected WEF, its call for Big Tech and Big Government to collaborate against skeptics only strives to address what it calls “disinformation.” In reality, however, the globalist group ultimately seeks to eradicate dissenting opinions.

In a statement, the group founded by German globalist Klaus Schwab warned that disinformation poses a threat to the world’s ecosystem. It urged “experts” to elucidate to world leaders and bureaucrats how to restrain opposition to the globalist agenda. The WEF ultimately asserted that global governments, media outlets, tech giants, and civil society must intensify their endeavors in the so-called “anti-disinformation” crusade.

According to the WEF, the purported “disinfo” surge can be attributed to digital technology and a “fragmented media ecosystem.” This “disinformation,” it added, is solely responsible for the public’s declining trust in corporate media, governments, Big Tech and globalist institutions. Fearmongering about artificial intelligence (AI) features prominently in the WEF’s narrative on its website to advance its agenda.

To combat this perceived issue and restore trust in corporate media, the WEF is advocating for a society-wide “war on misinformation.” The WEF calls for powerful forces in society to unite and establish “a multi-layered defense against the spread of disinformation.”

Keep reading

Is The West Headed For A Planned Cataclysm?

It’s clear enough that the collective West is headed for a real bruising. Over the past few days I’ve seen a number of articles that suggest that the Globalist ruling class has been planning a cataclysm with the aim of asserting total control on a global scale. This isn’t necessarily a new idea. There are quite a few people who argue that this is exactly what Covid was intended to trigger. It’s a vast topic, so I’ll confine my remarks here to these most recent article.

The first article appeared as a guest essay at Larry Johnson’s blog. The idea behind the article is precisely in line with what we just suggested—that the otherwise inexplicable economic related actions of the ruling class in Europe are intended to precipitate a severe crisis and crush the subject population—while claiming that only a centralization of societal control can save Europe. We can certainly see signs of this in France and Poland, where the attempt to foment a crisis seems to be part of the plan.

But there appears to be increasing pushback across Europe—not least in France and Poland. In Germany there’s a strong rise of the “right” party AfD. The Italian government has stated that France and Poland don’t speak for Europe. Politics in the UK are in a muddle, but a counter cultural measure took me by surprise—the use of puberty blockers on children has been halted. Since the transgressionist model of trans-humanism—including what amounts to an abolition of women—is a key part of the Globalist push, that must be seen as significant. The same goes for the overwhelming rejection by Irish voters of a measure that would have redefined not only marriage but women. In Portugal, too, after years of supine acceptance, voters have reacted strongly against the directives coming from the EU.

Keep reading

Technocracy: The Operating System For The New International Rules-Based Order

In this article, we will explore the true nature of the international rules-based order (IRBO) and examine the forces that shape it. We will consider if the narratives we are commonly fed stack up. 

It is widely accepted that the IRBO is undergoing disruptive change. That transformation is often reported as an eastward shift in the balance of power between nation states. 

It is said that this new, emerging international order will be founded upon a global multipolar system of sovereign states and international law. This new system allegedly stands in opposition to the fading, western “rules-based” model. 

This time, rather than relying upon western imperialism, the new international law-based system will emphasise multipolar cooperation, trade and respect for national sovereignty. It will instead be led by a Eurasian economic and technological power-block.

The apparent, ongoing antagonism of geopolitics looks likely to maintain the East-West divide we are familiar with. However, what is now being framed as the multipolar order is, in reality, the multistakeholder order. 

As we shall discover, nation states are not the driving force behind the current restructuring of global governance. The geopolitical narratives we are given are frequently superficial. 

Those leading the transformation have no allegiance to any nation state, only to their own globalist network and collective aspirations. In their hands, international law is no more of an impediment to their ambitions than a vague commitment to “rules.”

National governments are partners within this network formed of both state and non-state actors. Despite professed animosities, they have collaborated for decades to fashion the global governance complex that is now emerging.  

No matter who is said to lead it, the IRBO is set to continue in a new form. As the post WWII system recedes, the framework being imposed to take its place is completely alien to the people who live in the former western, liberal democracies.

Thus, we too must be transformed if we are to accept the realignment. We are being conditioned to believe in the promise of the new IRBO and the global technocracy it is built upon.

Keep reading

Davos Globalist Demands Worldwide ‘Coordinated System of Carbon Taxes’ at WEF Summit

The climate change agenda can only be fully if international carbon taxes are implemented on the global population, Saudi Arabian Finance Minister Mohammed Al-Jadaan proclaimed at the World Economic Forum meeting this week.

During a panel discussion on the “Global Economic Outlook” on Friday during the annual WEF meeting in the Swiss ski resort town of Davos, Al-Jadaan argued that in order to solve the supposed climate crisis, a global carbon tax will be required.

“There is no realistic solution to the climate transition that does not involve a globally coordinated system of carbon taxes,” the Saudi politician said.

Al-Jadaan rejected the notion that such a system would hit the poor and developing nations the hardest, by hindering industrial growth and spurring inflation, arguing that such countries will face even worse outcomes if climate change is not prevented by international intervention.

“There’s a perception that it’s unjust, it’s unfair, it will lead to inflation. In fact, quite the contrary. If we don’t do this, the countries that will suffer most ultimately are the developing countries. They’re going to be the worst affected by climate change,” he said.

“What we need is a system of carbon taxes coupled with subsidies for developing households and a stream of funding for the developing world, to allow them to engage in investments and mitigations and adaption that allows them to keep growing. And that’s a real opportunity,” Al-Jadaan continued.

“It’s a fair solution and it’s the only realistic solution, and we can’t keep ducking it,” he concluded.

Keep reading