Month: March 2017

Via Jim Goad of Taki's Magazine blog,

As far as I can tell, globalism is a scheme concocted by the rich to destroy the working and middle classes through worldwide financial imperialism.

I have a strong hunch that globalism is also a plot hatched to obliterate indigenous cultures and real human differences under the deceptive ruses of “multiculturalism” and “diversity.”

This is why I’m confused whenever I hear someone say they hate “the rich,” oppose “imperialism,” and support “the working class” while being an unquestioning cheerleader for open borders and global government.

Like Marxism’s pipe dreams about an eventual and irreversible dictatorship of the proletariat, the most seductive hook about globalism is the idea that it’s inevitable. Technology has made us an increasingly interconnected planet, and therefore the only logical and moral thing to do is establish a benevolent global governmental authority with the power to tax and imprison and torture and abuse.

But communism proved to be far from inevitable. After peaking last century, it has retreated from much of the globe. I’d like to think the same is true about the one-world-government schemes that underpin what is cheerily referred to as “globalism.”

I suppose that if you fetishize some dimwitted internationalist abstraction of the global “working class,” globalism may suit your emotional needs and your complicated bourgeois psychological issues regarding “wealth guilt” just fine. But if you support the American working class—and more importantly, if you happen to be a member of the American working class—you’d realize that globalism is your sworn enemy.

Those who’ve lived most of their lives with a sad and simple choice between working and starving can feel the disdain that the sneering global elites have not only for them personally, but for their culture and their humanity and their very existence.

Whatever jobs these wealth-crazed control freaks couldn’t pack into wooden crates and send overseas, they are more than happy to undercut wages here by importing “migrants” both legal and illegal who have nothing in common with you culturally and are trained to deride you as an evolutionary throwback if you dare to complain that the elites are laughing in your face as they pull the rug out from under you.

Globalism replaces First World workers with Third World workers and calls them “racists”—the modern equivalent of “niggers”—if they dare to make a peep about it. While it may be a boon for transnational financiers and manual laborers in Malaysia, for workers throughout the West, globalism has been a trapdoor through which they are likely to hang swinging at any moment. For the Western working class, globalism has meant retreat and defeat and dislocation.

After November’s election, White House chief strategist Steve Bannon described what had happened:

The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get fucked over.

But as many of us are learning, the mere act of realizing you’re being fucked over—much less trying to stop it from happening—automatically makes you a Nazi and an anti-Semite and a white supremacist and a toothless, low-information rube who needs to be replaced on the assembly line by someone with more melanin and less money.

As the world’s financial elites grow more rootless and international, they no longer even pretend to find a common bond with the peasants and the pissants in the countries who host them. Instead, they openly deride them.

But to the horror and dismay of the ultra-arrogant cosmopolites, the rural rubes in flyover country are waking up to the fact that at the very best, they are viewed as obstacles to progress. At the very worst, they sense that the global planners would have no problem bulldozing straight over their corpses in order to pave the way for such “progress.”

Those who constantly slam “the rich” while naively embracing globalism and every attendant butterfly-chasing PC delusion fail to realize that almost without exception, global finance, global media, and global corporate culture are solidly behind this daffy, one-world movement of free trade, open borders, and PC thought-policing. The charitable foundations and the think tanks and the NGOs have all signed up for this mission that purportedly will uplift the masses and bring the rich to heel, yet very few people seem to find this even remotely suspicious. “The rich” are backing a movement that superficially demonizes “the rich” yet only makes them richer, but if you say anything about it, you’re a Nazi.

But beyond the galloping economic hypocrisy, the most loathsome thing about unbridled globalism is the toxic contempt its peddlers have for indigenous cultures, specifically European ones. For all the lip service they pay to the alleged “rights” of men who think they’re women to take a dump in the ladies’ room, they are blithely unconcerned with the fact that their unhindered financial and cultural predations are wiping out whole cultures across the globe in the service of creating one bland, deracinated, medicated, propaganda-addled, compliant consumer culture.

But in their blind quest for uniformity, they will never eradicate conflict. Globalism will only replace wars between nations with wars within former nations. It takes battles that formerly took place on borders and spreads them from street to street. It’s possible that rather than global harmony, endless and irrevocable conflict is globalism’s true end game.

Whether by accident or design, a sick irony about globalism is that it often poses as a humane antidote and a form of ongoing karmic retribution for European colonialism. As the argument goes, the fact that France unfairly colonized parts of Northern Africa means that the righteous thing is for Northern Africans to culturally and demographically colonize France. Apparently these dreamers’ parents never taught them that two wrongs don’t make a right and will likely lead to more conflict and bloodshed.

As an anti-collectivist by nature, I find something nightmarish about the specter of a global government with unelected officials overriding my will—and very often the raging majority’s will—at every turn. I don’t care to have every particle of my life micromanaged by people 5,000 miles away whom I wouldn’t trust to pick my nose.

John Lennon can be fairly viewed as the first pop-star globalist, and his naïve 1971 hit “Imagine” is venerated as a globalist anthem. He imagined a world with no countries, no private property, no murder, and universal cooperation. While he was imagining all this, a crazed fan pulled out a gun and blew Lennon’s brains out. Lennon sang that all we needed was love. What he needed that night was a gun.

via http://ift.tt/2llRIRQ Tyler Durden

Just over a month ago we wrote about the Obama administration’s parting middle finger to the Chicago police force after the Department of Justice, led by then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, released what appeared to us to be a politically motivated report accusing the CPD of a “pattern of racial discrimination” and “unconstitutional use of force.”  And while the DOJ’s 164-page report was heavy on accusations and innuendo, it was mysteriously lacking on scientific facts to support their highly controversial claims.  Here’s how we summarized the DOJ’s findings:

With one week left in office, Obama’s Department of Justice has released a report effectively labeling the Chicago police department as nothing more than a bunch of racist, hate-mongering bullies who routinely resort to the use of “deadly force” in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

Justice Department Finds a Pattern of Civil Rights Violations by the Chicago Police Department ? https://t.co/600C0xV3yX

— Justice Department (@TheJusticeDept) January 13, 2017

 

And while our characterization is probably somewhat more colorful than Attorney General Leretta Lynch would like, that Chicago Police are “racist” and “brutal” will nonetheless undoubtedly be the key takeaways from the press release and supporting documents posted earlier to the DOJ website.

That said, Trump’s new Attorney General Jeff Sessions wasted precious little time dismissing the Obama administration’s crusade against law enforcement departments across the country saying the DOJ’s findings in Chicago were “pretty anecdotal and not so scientifically based.”  Per The Hill:

Sessions said the findings in the report were “pretty anecdotal and not so scientifically based,” though he also said that he had read summaries rather than the full documents.

 

“You have 800,000 police in America. Imagine a city of 800,000 people,” Sessions said. “There’s going to be some crime in it, some people are going to make errors.”

 

Sessions, who has enjoyed broad support from the police community and is widely viewed as a law-and-order style attorney general, said that, rather spending time and money suing police departments around the country, his Department of Justice would focus on how best to work with local police forces to combat the recent surge in violent crime in cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Milwaukee and Memphis.  Per The Hill:

However, Sessions warned that there are clear warning signs — “like the first gusts of wind before a summer storm” — that the nation is at a tipping point and that the trend is about to reverse.

 

The attorney general said those trends continued into the first half of 2016, with the number of violent crimes up more than 5 percent year-over-year and the murder rates in 27 of the nation’s 35 larges cities — Chicago, Baltimore, Milwaukee and Memphis among — skyrocketing.

 

“These numbers should trouble all of us,” Sessions said. “My worry is that this is not a ‘blip’ or an anomaly, but the start of a dangerous new trend that could reverse the hard-won gains of the past four decades — gains that made America a safer and more prosperous place.”

 

“While we can hope for the best, those of us charged with protecting public safety can’t afford to be complacent or take for granted the achievements of recent years, because when crime rates move in the wrong direction, they can move quickly,” he continued. “So we need to act decisively at all levels – federal, state and local — to reverse this rise in violent crime and keep our citizens safe. This will be a top priority of the Department of Justice during my time as Attorney General.”

Meanwhile, Sessions blasted Eric Holder for creating an environment where police as a whole were targeted and “maligned” for the inappropriate behavior of a “few bad actors” resulting in a reluctance of officers to actually do their jobs for fear of being the next victim of a viral video.

“They tell us that in this age of viral videos and targeted killings of police, many of our men and women in law enforcement are becoming more cautious,” Sessions said.  “They’re more reluctant to get out of their squad cars and do the hard but necessary work of up-close policing that builds trust and prevents violent crime.”

 

The attorney general said that, under former attorney general Eric Holder’s Justice Department, “law enforcement as a whole has been unfairly maligned and blamed for the unacceptable deeds of a few bad actors.”

 

“Our officers, deputies and troopers believe the political leadership of this country abandoned them,” Sessions said. “Their morale has suffered.  And last year, amid this intense public scrutiny and criticism, the number of police officers killed in the line of duty increased 10 percent over the year before.”

 

Sessions vowed to work more closely with local law enforcement groups so they would know “they have our steadfast support.”

 

“For the federal government, that means this: rather than dictating to local police how to do their jobs – or spending scarce federal resources to sue them in court – we should use our money, research and expertise to help them figure out what is happening and determine the best ways to fight crime,” Sessions said. “We should strengthen partnerships between federal and state and local officers.  And we should encourage proactive policing that ensures our police and citizens are communicating and working well together.”

Looks like Chicago’s violent gangs just got their first “shot across the bow” from America’s new attorney general.

via http://ift.tt/2llNeL6 Tyler Durden

Via Jeff Thomas of InternationalMan.com,

The image above is of the 18th-century home of friends in Colonia, Uruguay. Today, sitting on their back patio on the Rio de la Plata, I looked out at a small yellow buoy in the harbour that marks the final resting place of the Lord Clive, a large, 60-gun British warship from the 18th century.

In 1763, we British, already at war with Spain, decided to expand the venture to the New World. The Lord Clive arrived in Colonia, Uruguay, and began firing into the tiny town. With her heavy contingent of cannon, her captain was confident that he could do enough damage to make the Spanish inhabitants surrender. After extensive bombardment, the Spanish had still not raised the white flag; however, the crew of the Lord Clive had managed to set fire to their own ship. The crew abandoned ship.

Local accounts of the event have it that, swimming ashore, the English crew apologized for bombarding the town and asked for mercy. Not surprisingly, the Spanish killed them.

Of course, this is not the outcome that’s described in English history books. Although the defeat of the British on that day is acknowledged, the folly is not. Although historians will generally acknowledge a defeat, they’re often reluctant to mention any idiocy on the part of their own military. And so any English-language version of the story tells a different tale from the account above.

This is a great pity, as much can be learned from historical idiocy. Since it’s rarely taught, military leaders often make the same idiotic mistakes that their predecessors made.

As an example, we can look at the adventures of the US today and observe their serial invasions over the last fifteen years in the Middle East and elsewhere. These adventures are being pursued ostensibly “to make the world safe for democracy.” However, whenever the US takes over a foreign country, it puts in place a puppet government—not exactly the textbook definition of “democracy.”

And, of course, warfare is very costly. Choosing to invade multiple countries at the same time, as the US has been doing over the last fifteen years, is even more costly.

And the US government never misses an opportunity to portray the Russians as evil aggressors—an appellation far more suited to the US. On one occasion after another, Russia has sought to tone down the level of aggression, whilst the US has been conducting a shoving match with the Russians, goading them into conflicts.

This is extraordinarily foolish, as it would take very little to light the fuse of direct warfare between the US and Russia. Over the centuries, quite a few countries have challenged Russia, but Russia has always proven to be a very hard country to defeat. Although American films about World War II tend to portray the US as having won the war against the Germans, it was the Russians who did the lion’s share of the job. Even when poorly armed and poorly prepared, Russia simply throws another ten or twenty million men at the problem and ultimately wears out any attacker. Russians don’t necessarily like war any more than any other people, but they do have astonishing staying power. They’ll grimly see a war through, long after their opponents have lost heart.

In addition, China and others have stated their support for Russia, should the US get carried away with its aggression in the Middle East. Both China and Russia have stated that, should the US move on Iran, they will join the fray on Iran’s side.

It would be foolhardy in the extreme for the US government to assume that it could take these powers on and come out of the fight victorious.

But what does this have to do with the burning of the Lord Clive?

Well, as stated above, the captain of the Lord Clive had a massive warship capable of doing a great deal of damage as he bombarded houses, including the one pictured above. But the crew became so caught up in their zeal for destruction that they failed to extinguish a fire on board the ship and had to dive overboard, surrendering to the Spanish, who by that time were understandably not feeling particularly merciful.

The US is in a similar situation. It’s not exactly in the best shape at home. The economy is on the ropes, and a financial collapse may be imminent. The government is rapidly becoming more autocratic, and a police state is likely to be instituted in the near future. It will be needed as funds for entitlements dry up and those who now praise the nanny state find that they’ve been lied to all this time. Pension funds also are beginning to fail, and people in both the private and public sectors will be more than a bit peevish when they discover that this rug, too, has been pulled out from under them.

If we were to imagine the worst possible future for the US, it might go something like this:

• The US invades Iran or directly attacks Russian forces in Syria or another country.

• Russia retaliates and the world takes up sides as World War III begins.

• For the first time in their history, the American people are angrier at their own government than they are at the trumped-up enemy their government has chosen to oppose.

• The US government finds that it must fight a full-blown foreign war at a time when it’s fighting a second one at home.

• All of the above takes place at a time when the US is broke and is economically unable to sustain a fight on either front.

• The world turns against the US for causing this fiasco, and, for the first time, there’s no one standing on the same side as the US.

• The US effort collapses and, like the crew of the Lord Clive, the US, in effect, abandons ship and asks for forgiveness from those it has invaded.

In the above scenario, we can imagine that the US would have created a situation that would maximize enmity from the rest of the world. (In 1919, Europe forced the Treaty of Versailles on Germany, not out of necessity, but out of vengeance. It served to cripple the German people for decades thereafter—both socially and economically.)

A final thought: Every night on American television news programmes, pundits, politicians, and retired generals perform their sabre rattling, stating that the world at large had better cooperate with the US or else. Whilst this bravado may appeal to a segment of the American population, the programming is also available to the rest of the world. We who aren’t American and don’t reside in the US listen to the threatening rhetoric and find it decidedly unsettling. More to the point, the world’s leaders are also observing these programmes. They have a similar tone to the Nazi buildup in the 1930s. To those outside the US, US leaders are becoming increasingly dangerous.

If this does play out along the lines of the sinking of the Lord Clive, it will be the American people who will pay the price for their leaders’ reckless behaviour.

*  *  *

An unpopular foreign war, an unwinnable fight with Russia, friendly nations turning on the US, economic collapse at home… Given the current political climate, it’s not hard to see how this “worst possible future” could quickly and easily become reality. In fact, New York Times bestselling author Doug Casey thinks it’s just a matter of time before the next crisis hits the US. Doug thinks the situation is so critical that he put together this groundbreaking video. Click here to watch it now.

via http://ift.tt/2mqlFoI Tyler Durden