Post: #1

Introduction

When looking at the state of the world that we live in today, it is sobering to think that not so long ago, many people thought that it would take a vastly different course. The beginning of the 21st century was supposed to herald the coming of a new dawn for humanity. The United States, having just managed to defeat the Soviet bloc in the Cold War, was the sole remaining superpower left on the planet. It had at its fingertips a level of geopolitical, financial/economic, and cultural power unparallelled in modern history. The spirit of the 1990's can perhaps best be typified by Francis Fukuyama's 1992 book The End of History and the Last Man, where he argued that humanity had reached an end-state of ideological development, and that socially liberal, economically capitalist democracy would become the final form of human civilization. Multilateral organizations were supposed to guarantee global cooperation and harmony between citizens, supplanting the provincialist thinking of the nation-state concept and creating the concept of a global citizenry.

How times have changed.

In the fifteen years since the turn of the millennium, we have seen this thesis turned completely on its head. The fallout from the events of 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the global financial crisis of 2008 have severely battered the Western democracies in general and the United States in particular. America is widely perceived as an imperial power in decline, seemingly powerless to stop the ascendancy of newly-rising powers such as Russia or China. The idea of a global citizenry has been completely vitiated, replaced with the rise of nationalist and exclusionist sentiment across much of the Western world - as typified best by the twin rise of Donald Trump and the simultaneous success of the Brexit movement. The European Union, a supranational organization that was supposed to become a world power in its own right to rival the other great powers, instead lies on the verge of complete disintegration. And the tremors of potential disintegration are starting to rattle a weakened America riven by racial division, gender division, cultural division, and a wealth inequality that surpasses the worst years of the Great Depression.

What is causing this?

Ultimately, many in the middle classes of the Western world are starting to come to the realization that the structures that govern the Western democracies are not working in their benefit. They are starting to realize that things like free trade or multiculturalism do mean economic growth - but not for them. Or that the announcement that the United States and its NATO partners are starting a bombing campaign in yet another impoverished Third-World nation does mean political security - but not for them. As many begin to realize that corporate control of the Western political process has rendered distinctions between left and right increasingly irrelevant, the growing awareness of the globalism-nationalism divide is shining light upon the structures that govern us.

What these structures are, and how they operate, is the topic of this datasheet. This thread is inspired in large part by my synthesis of ideas generated from two seemingly disparate books. The first is Roosh's Free Speech Isn't Free, where he outlines his understanding of Globalist ideology in the course of conducting his State of Man speech whilst dealing with attempts by the Degenerate Left to shut down his work. The second is a book by a former Republican congressional staffer by the name of Mike Lofgren, entitled The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government. This book details the organization of the modern American national security state, and how this structure, which integrates the major organs of America's military-industrial complex, its intelligence community, and its financial and corporate institutions, has essentially created a parallel government that decides the conduct of the United States' foreign, military and economic policy with little, if any, input or consent by the American people. I cannot recommend this book enough to everyone on the forum if you wish to truly understand how globalism works.

So with that - let's begin.

The Origins of Globalism and the Deep State



The ideology of Globalism and the structures of the Deep State, in their modern forms, were birthed out of the crucible of the United States' involvement in World War II. Americans have lived with the modern national security state and seemingly permanent peacetime military mobilization for so long that it is jarring to remember that prior to the Second World War, America had a smaller standing peacetime army than Sweden, and virtually no intelligence apparatus to speak of. Isolationist sentiment and the idea of avoiding entangling foreign alliances - a sentiment virtually unthinkable today - were common political opinions deeply rooted in the vision that the Founding Fathers held for the United States.

World War II changed all that. The United States found itself thrust into the global struggle to defeat the fascist nations of Germany, Italy, and Japan. By the end of the war, it had created the single greatest military machine in the history of human warfare, able to project military power virtually anywhere on the planet, and backed by a seemingly limitless industrial and financial capacity. It ended the war as the foremost military and economic superpower on the planet. Every other great power had suffered the complete devastation of their economic industry, bar the United States, which now represented close to one-third of global GDP.

In the years that followed 1945, the thinking of the American ruling class would shift dramatically due to three distinct yet interrelated ideas. Firstly, that the Second World War had happened in large part because of the weakness of the international institutions that existed (primarily the League of Nations) to regulate the conduct of the great powers in affairs of foreign and defence policy. Secondly, that America's now dominant position amongst the Western powers necessitated the permanent assumption by the United States of a position of global leadership in order to prevent another such war - and the existential threat to humanity that would entail. Finally, that Soviet Communism was an aggressive and expansionist ideology that could easily overrun the weakened Western European states, leaving the United States as the sole bastion of freedom in a Communist-dominated world - and that an interlocking series of military and economic alliances and institutions were necessary to ward off the threat of Communism. It was from these ideas that the modern structures and institutions of Globalism and the Deep State were created.

The creation of the Deep State itself can be traced to two events. Firstly, there was the Manhattan Project - the massive effort by the United States to develop the atomic bomb before the Axis Powers. It was the largest industrial project the United States had ever undertaken up to that point, and was the first example of what would become the hallmarks of the Deep State: a penchant for intense secrecy, coordination of the military and major industrial corporations (Kellex and DuPont were vital in developing the required methods for uranium and plutonium extraction, respectively), the close yet subordinate contributions of American allies like Canada and the United Kingdom, and a virtually limitless budget outlay.

The second event was the passage of a single piece of legislation, the National Security Act of 1947. This act would unify the Departments of the Army, Navy, and newly created Air Force into a single structure that would eventually (in 1949) become the Department of Defence. It also created the Central Intelligence Agency, which would become the preeminent institution in the growing American intelligence structure, as well as the National Security Council, the primary instrument by which the White House would coordinate the arms of the newly-developed permanent national security state.

Yet the institutions that would be created in the years following WWII would not be limited to internal reorganizations of the United States government. These years would see the creation of such organizations as; the Bretton Woods system of international monetary coordination, as well as the World Bank (both formed in July 1944 as a result of the Bretton Woods conference), the United Nations (formed in June 1945), the International Monetary Fund (formed in December 1945), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (formed in October 1947, which would later become the World Trade Organization in January 1995), and NATO (formed in April 1949). Each of these institutions operated in a separate sphere of economic, military, or diplomatic influence, but all with a common goal - to administer and stabilize a global military and economic order that placed the United States, and thus the ruling American political class, as the permanent primus inter pares of a system designed to ensure permanent American hegemony.

What can we determine from all of this?

Firstly, and most importantly, that Globalism is the bipartisan governing ideology of the United States. While it may have global influence, and adherence amongst the ruling classes of many countries, it is a specifically American ideology that is created, designed, and sustained to maintain the hegemonic status of the United States, or, rather, the permanent ruling class of America. For all of the supposed differences between the Republican and Democratic parties on any number of topics, both of their party establishments (at least, up until the rise of Donald Trump) pay fealty to this ideology.

Its precepts are simple:
- The maintenance of world peace and global prosperity requires that as much of the world as possible be permanently integrated into an American-operated economic, geopolitical and cultural order.
- In the economic sphere, the countries of the world are to adhere to the neoliberal precepts of the Washington Consensus: free trade, deregulation, wide-ranging privatization, economic financialization, and privately-controlled "independent" central banks.
- In the military sphere, the permanent superiority of the United States over all over potential adversaries is to be maintained with gargantuan yearly outlays in military and intelligence spending, coupled with a constellation of over 800 separate military installations in 70 countries that gives the American military a global reach, at an astronomical cost.
- In the cultural sphere, libertine, anything-goes egalitarianism is the universal standard/ideal with which all countries are to be judged. Local cultures and mores are to be systematically dismantled and replaced with individualism, societal atomization, and the destruction of traditional values and their replacement with the cultural Marxist ideals of feminism, homosexual advocacy, and multiculturalism/'diversity.'

Secondly, that the American Deep State constitutes the primary mechanism by which the ideology of American Globalism both administers its worldwide hegemony, seeks new countries to re-align under its control, and further integrates those countries already in its grip. With little to no public recourse amongst the citizenry of the United States (in whose service it supposedly toils), and operating as a parallel government to the rapidly ossifying yet "legitimate" institutions of the American Republic, it administers the American Hegemony and maintains the global dominance of the American political elite over the rest of the planet.

The Security Deep State



While the Globalist Deep State has multiple axes by which it sustains American Hegemony over the planet, its centrally important tools are the institutional arms of the permanent American national security state. We can identify the core institutions of the Security Deep State as the following:

- The National Security Council, as the bureaucratic co-ordinator of the Deep State
- The Department of Defence
- The Department of State
- The Department of Homeland Security
- The agencies that make up the US Intelligence Community, within which the two most important agencies are:

• the Central Intelligence Agency, responsible for foreign HUMINT and paramilitary operations,
• and the National Security Agency, responsible for cryptanalysis, signals intelligence, and (increasingly) cyberwarfare
  

- The Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Certain federal courts tasked with handling sensitive cases involving national security, including

• the Southern District of New York,
• the Eastern District of Virginia,
• and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
  

- Large defence contractors, including companies like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, as well as intelligence contractors such as Booz Allen Hamilton (the company that employed NSA leaker Edward Snowden)
- A kind of mini-Congress, consisting of

• the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate,
• the Majority and Minority Leaders of the House and Senate
• and the Chairman and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees.
  

All well and good, you might say. But how exactly, and by what mechanisms, are these institutions able to operate virtually as a shadow government? How are they able to exist in parallel to, and in many cases more powerful than, the constitutional structures of the American Republic?

There are two simple answers to this: money and expertise.

The first is the most obvious one. Money is the lubricant that keeps the machinery of the Deep State running. It permeates every facet of its operations in any of a multitude of ways. For example - if a defence contractor desires that Congress should mandate that the armed services buy X number of a high-tech yet high-maintenance and seriously overpriced weapons platform, why would it work to cut the cost and improve the efficiency of its items when instead, it can just offer campaign contributions to strategically-selected members of Congress, who in turn can assert that said platform is what is needed to maintain America's military dominance for the next 50 years? This is how the American armed forces can be saddled with a purchase like the F-35, which at a looming program cost of over $1.5 trillion dollars for all the roughly 2,500 units that the US armed forces will buy, will be the most expensive weapon platform in American history - despite the fact that it is considered by many to be under-powered, under-armed, and with a stealth capability that will likely soon be rendered obsolete by rapid advancements in radar computing technology.

Given the cost-plus structure of many governmental defence contracts, where the companies will be reimbursed for their costs as well as being guaranteed a certain profit percentage, defence contractors have no incentive to reduce costs - and in many cases have every incentive to wildly inflate them. One can also observe the extremely disturbing tendency of defence contractors to offer campaign contributions to members of Congress who are willing to push for foreign and defence policies that help enrich the bottom lines of those companies. A classic example occurred in the wake of the Russian annexation of Crimea, when the debate raging in Washington was whether or not the United States should offer lethal military equipment to the newly-installed Ukrainian forces. Mike Lofgren recounts how:

Quote:at a fundraiser for Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the atmosphere among contractors in the room was "borderline euphoric." By coincidence (or not) the following Sunday, Congressman Rogers, appearing on Meet the Press, became one of the first major political figures to advocate arming Ukraine.

Needless to say, corporate control of American foreign and defence policy for profit is something that is, at the very least, extremely disturbing, and at worst an outright subversion of Constitutional government.

We can also look at the dynamic of expertise. The Deep State hews to an ideology that (as described above) is neither really Republican or Democratic, but attempts to present itself as both non-partisan and bi-partisan, above the mud of traditional party politics. The operatives of the Deep State, rather, attempt to present themselves as the politically neutral technocrat, merely offering their "expert opinion and advice" to those elected to office. Yet such advice carries with it a huge institutional weight, and it is rare indeed for any elected politician to be seen rejecting such advice - especially in a country where military members, especially senior generals, are often regarded with something akin to superhero status.

A perfect example in this regard can be shown by the debate about the War in Afghanistan that took place in 2010-2011. Generals David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal, who had recently been selected by President Obama to right the sinking American war effort against the Taliban, offered the institutional plan for success in Afghanistan - a massive surge of over 40,000 US troops. When Obama offered resistance to the idea that the only acceptable option was more ground troops, anonymous leaks began to appear in the Washington press from "senior government sources" suggesting that Obama's reluctance was threatening the success of the mission. Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress pilloried Obama for not "supporting the generals", and he would eventually accede to the institutional pressure, authorizing the deployment of a further 30,000 troops. Another excellent demonstration of this power can be seen in another quote from Lofgren:

Quote:Perhaps the most telling example of the relationship between President Obama and the Deep State comes from a March 2015 interview of John Brennan, his frequently embattled CIA director. Obama has shown Brennan great loyalty through two presidential terms. How did Brennan repay that loyalty - with a humble demonstration of gratitude and respect, perhaps? Obama, he said, did not "have an appreciation" of national security when he came into office, but with tutelage by himself and other experts "he has gone to school and understands the complexities." The tone of headmasterly condescension is unmistakeable, giving the listener ample grounds to wonder who is really in charge, the president or his national security complex.

A presidential candidate having little to no experience in national security affairs is not something that the Deep State fears - quite the contrary; that is something that they prefer, for a president without any such experience can offer little in the way of resistance to the experts offering whatever ideologies and ideas they render as 'reasoned advice.' That is how President Obama, a candidate who was originally elected on ending wars in the Middle East and mass surveillance at home, has now become a President governing over a Deep State waging an even-greater number of wars abroad and conducting even more warrantless surveillance. Incidentally, it is why many within the former and current senior leadership of the Deep State have come out so strongly against the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. It is not because he is uniquely unqualified - then Senator Obama had exactly as much experience as Trump does now - but because his non-interventionist, "America First" ideals represent the single greatest internal threat to the Globalist ideology of American Hegemony that the Deep State requires to maintain its veneer of legitimacy to rule. In contrast, Hillary Clinton is one of the foremost operatives of Globalism today. Her presidency would represent the final victory of American Hegemony over the constitutional American Republic.

The Economic Deep State



Second only to the Security Deep State in its importance, the Economic Deep State is the structure dedicated to protecting America's economic pre-eminence in, and control of, the levers of the global economy. Yet as we have witnessed previously, America's leading position in the global economy has not served to benefit its population, by and large. Income and wealth inequality have exploded upwards in the years since the 1970s - to the point where the United States has a greater relative degree of wealth/income disparity than it did in the years leading up to the Great Depression. Today, the 400 richest Americans own more in wealth and income than the bottom 150 million Americans. For the first time in nearly a half-century, the American middle class has been so squeezed that it now represents a minority of American citizens - the upper and lower economic classes now make up over 51% of the country. It is increasingly clear that the Economic Deep State has been deliberately engineered as a form of economic parasite - to strip-mine the wealth of the American middle class and suck it upwards, in ever increasing numbers, towards the 1% and the 0.1%.

How has it done so? And by what mechanisms does the Economic Deep State create its wealth for the American political and economic elite?

The first, and most important mechanism of American economic hegemony, is the petrodollar. Widely discussed though often misunderstood, it is the tool that allows the United States dollar to retain its status as the global reserve currency. Its history stretches back to the 1970s, when Richard Nixon unilaterally ended the convertibility of the US dollar to gold, ending the fixed exchange-rate era of the Bretton Woods system. In order to maintain the status of the US dollar as the global reserve currency (since the US was running massive current account and trade deficits for spending on welfare and the Vietnam War) the US government struck a deal with the Gulf oil-producing states, whose monarchies at the time were responsible for well over half of all global oil production.

The method itself can be relatively simplified to the following system:

• The United States prints US dollars, which make their way into the global marketplace to be snatched up by other states.
• Those states then buy oil - denominated in US dollars - from the Gulf oil-producing states, who have a prior agreement with the United States to only accept payment for their oil in US dollars.
• The Gulf oil producing states, holding more US dollars than they can reasonably invest in their own economies, reinvest their dollar holdings into the United States, generally in the form of stock and real estate purchases, US Treasury bonds, and multi-billion dollar weapons purchases from American defence contractors.
  

This system is what allows the United States to run massive trade and current account deficits yet still retain the primacy of the US dollar as the global reserve currency. It allows the United States to set a fiscal policy that is predicated on massive military and welfare spending coupled with budget-busting tax cuts without ever having to worry about hyperinflation from printing so many dollars. For any other nation on the planet, in order to obtain $100 USD, they must generate enough economic goods and services to obtain $100 USD. The United States government, on the other hand, need merely print a $100 USD bill.

There also exists other mechanisms by which the Economic Deep State enriches the American ruling class, such as deregulation, mass immigration, outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, and the growing financialization and de-industrialization of the American economy. However, these all can be tied back to the ability of the 1% to essentially buy its politics - to flood the American political system with such gargantuan amounts of money in the form of campaign contributions that it drowns out the voices of the less well-off, and turns American politics into an enrichment game for the already super-rich. In exchange for voting for legislation that enriches large corporations and wealthy donors at the expense of the American middle class, American politicians can expect to find well-paid careers waiting for them at the end of their service, in the form of any number of chairmanship positions or consulting firms.

A prime example to demonstrate the above is the case of Robert Rubin, who was plucked from a co-chairmanship at Goldman Sachs to serve as Secretary of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton. In his time as Treasury Secretary, Rubin managed to win two massive victories for Wall Street - the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which mandated the separation of commercial and investment banking, and the passing of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which banned the regulation of most forms of financial derivatives. For his loyal service to Wall Street, Rubin was rewarded upon his retirement from "public service" with the chairmanship of Citigroup - a bank that was only able to be formed because of his work in pushing for the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Both the above legislative acts would prove key contributors to the Global Financial Crisis of 2008.

The Cultural Deep State



Culture is the third major arm of the Globalist Deep State, and though it may represent a form of 'softer' power to the 'hard' power of geopolitics or global economics, it is no less important than either of the preceding in sustaining Globalist ideology. I do not think it is necessary to point out here the methods by which degeneracies like feminism, normalization of homosexuality/transsexuality, and multiculturalism have been utilized by the Globalist Deep State to further enrich itself in money and power - far more capable writers than myself have done so at length.

Admittedly, I have had problems before reconciling the relationship between SJWs and Globalists. Most SJWs would proclaim themselves resolutely opposed to many of the actions of the Globalist Deep State, such as its financialization of the American economy and its propensity for engaging in useless wars abroad. I think that the past few years have demonstrated, however, that the Globalists are more than willing to tolerate SJW activism when it is directed in ways that do not threaten their interests. An excellent example in this regard is the differences in treatment between the Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street.

Black Lives Matter is a movement that has received an insane amount of coddling and support from globalist-supporting institutions. It has coverage in corporate media that is favourable to the point of outright deception; it has been allowed by government and police forces to wreak riots and havoc across multiple American cities, seemingly without consequence; and it has been funded to the tune of millions of dollars by super-wealthy supporters seemingly interested in social justice for some reason - including everyone's globalist you love to hate, George Soros. This is because globalists have an interest in the continual division of society between black and white Americans - they have created a narrative that is indisputably and provably false by mere reference to crime data, and have used it to incite a low-level race war across America for the purposes of pushing for federalization of policing, and ever-greater control by the federal government.

In contrast, the treatment of the Occupy Wall Street movement - a movement that at its zenith could have posed little threat to the institutional power of Wall Street - was markedly different. There exist redacted FBI documents released under FOIA request showing that multiple US intelligence and law enforcement agencies coordinated with major financial firms and banks to infiltrate, monitor and eventually subvert OWS - to the point where an FBI counterterrorism data fusion centre in Virginia was utilizing intelligence gathered by the private security arm of the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank. Here again, we see the virtual fusion of governmental agencies and corporate interests to protect the Globalist Deep State.

Another arm of the Cultural Deep State - one that often does not receive much in the way of mention - is the key importance of non-governmental organizations in pushing Globalist ideals onto other states. These organizations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy, receive millions of dollars from globalist-backed sources, usually either the United States Government, the governments of its allies, or wealthy philanthropists, to spread globalist ideals and ideology into other states in order to create a 'civil society' amenable to financial, economic and cultural penetration by the US-led international order. Here the example that we can use is that of Russia, and its legislative acts requiring foreign-funded NGOs to register as foreign agents, as well as requiring the disbanding of NGOs that threaten the constitutional order of the Russian Federation. The passage of such legislation, as well as legislation that prevented homosexual advocacy to youth in order to preserve traditional family values, inspired outrage in many Western nations and has led to an international effort to demonize Russia for its stand for traditionalist Christian patriarchal culture. Here again, we see the hand of George Soros and his foundation, the Open Society Initiative - a NGO that ended up being banned from operating in Russia under its Law on Undesirable Organizations.

Conclusion - A Look to the Future

In the years since 9/11 and the 2008 GFC, we have seen an unprecedented weakening in the global power and influence of the American Hegemony. Nationalist movements across both Europe and the United States have been able to overcome institutional pressure and score victories against the Globalist ideology. The American Deep State itself has been battered by the growing dysfunction of the constitutional structures of the American Republic - whereas before it was often able to smoothly operate without fear of disorder, it has had to deal recently with congressional gridlock, budget mayhem, and repeated crises with both the Congressional debt limit saga as well as governmental shutdowns. The Globalist Deep State has been unable to prevent the winning success of the Brexit movement, as well as the rise of Donald Trump. The rise of Trump, in particular, represents the single greatest threat that the Globalist Deep State has ever faced in its 70-year existence.

What is the future of globalism, and of the Globalist Deep State? Regardless of whether or not it is able to defeat Donald Trump, and coronate Hillary Clinton, one of its foremost operatives, to the Presidency, it will still have to deal with the seemingly terminal decline of the American Republic. For all of its corporate parasitism, the Globalist Deep State, and Globalist ideology as a whole, still requires its host - the United States of America - to survive. And as time goes on, it is becoming increasingly clear that the United States is coming apart at the seams, as all multinational empires eventually do.

Signed,
- A low-level dissident insider of the Globalist Deep State.

Post: #2

I guess it can be shortened to this:
The Anglo-Zionist Empire, the Axis Washington-Wall-Street-Hollywood-The City-Tel Aviv is crumbling. Unipolar World Order is no longer viable. Now, the elite faces two options:
1. To go to WWIII with Russia and China to create a new totalitarian order out of chaos; or
2. To negotiate with China and Russia a New Tripolar World Order in which the three military-economic-geoestrategic powers could share and negotiate their interests and responsabilities.

The front man for option 1 is Hillary. The front man for option 2 is Trump.
Such an agreement is possible? I'd say hell yes!
Russia wants securities on its borders, that is, it wants NATO out of Eastern Europe and doesn't want to have radical Islamic movements sponsored by the US, the UK and Israel in its Southern borders. Is it too much to ask? No.
China wants a mutually benefical deal with the US. Chinese are very happy with their new and sudden prosperity, which basically came from the moment the Banksters realized that they needed to relocate the West industrial infraestructure to China in order to inflate the financial bubble ad infinitum, but without creating inflation in Western economies and so, avoid internal political rift in those countries. However, China would be required to recycle the sudden fantastic richness it would get by buying bonds in the markets, so the Banksters would continue creating bubbles. Pretty much the same deal Old Henry Kissinger stuck with the Gulf monarchies in 1973. China accepted the deal and the rest is history. Now, China doesn't want the Yuan to replace the dollar -they are witnessing everyday what is happening to the US dollar, but it certainly wants the same vote the US has in financial issues, even if that means financing the soft landing of the US dollar for a long period of time until the waters get the right level. Is it too much to ask? I don't think so.

So, neither Russia nor China wants a war. Of course if fuck with them enough (in Syrya, Ukraine, South China Sea, etc.) they will not be afraid of confronting the US Army.

Post: #3

It's interesting to present the US Deep State as the primary source of globalism. Even if it started that way, it has appeared to me that the current goal of the globalist elite is to undermine the US nation state, by weakening it's cultural cohesion and weakening its families, so it's no longer a nation with a unified culture, and instead is just a population of people with fucked up lives.

It appears to me that the current global elite consists of the Bilderberg crowd, or the types that go to the World Economic Forum in Davos. These people do not want strong nation states as actors in the world. WWII consisted of nation states like this in a knock down, drag out fight. All the players in WWII had populations that shared strong cultural cohesiveness, with strong governing states, that could do whatever they wanted. These governments could harness the whole economic output of their nations, along with most of the young men, and throw these resources into monstrous military conflicts around the world.

I think the goal of many liberal thinkers of the post WWII era and the decades since has been to hobble the nation states to prevent this happening again, and further, to undermine the nation states by destroying their citizens' virtue, and undermining their cultural cohesiveness.

I think it was clearly Obama's goal to undermine and eliminate the US ability to act as this kind of nation state on the world state, and he was highly successful. I think this is Hillary's goal too, and if she gets in, she'll finish the job Obama started. There is an extensive body of liberal thinking towards this goal, and Obama and Hillary both are steeped in this kind of thinking. They both speak the language of ensuring America's strength and security, but this is purely misdirection. If you recognize their true goals and evaluate their actions, you can see what they have really been trying to accomplish.

So, if the globalist order was initially designed to ensure US hegemony, at some point it definitely changed. I think it is clear that the globalist order is now designed to destroy US hegemony, and create a world in which only banks and other international institutions hold real power. I suspect the deep state is now riddled with people that support these goals, and all of its activities are effectively focused on this goal as well.

Post: #4

(10-08-2016 06:02 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  It's interesting to present the US Deep State as the primary source of globalism. Even if it started that way, it has appeared to me that the current goal of the with people that support these goals, and all of its activities are effectively focused on this goal as well.

The first house of Globalism was Holland then moved to the UK, and since 1944 is the USA. But now they want to take it back to the UK, to the City of London. Now, we are talking about global power: You need a powerful global army -NATO lead by the US. An uncontested financial center -The City. A propaganda machine -Hollywood. An spiritual center - The Vatican. And an Apocalyptic mystical site -Jerusalem. But of course, if you want a global effective government you need to crush any powerful state as itself -The USA as a whole; and their possible succesors -Russia and China.

Post: #5

of text.

I'm still reading.

G

Post: #6

(10-08-2016 06:02 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  It's interesting to present the US Deep State as the primary source of globalism. Even if it started that way, it has appeared to me that the current goal of the globalist elite is to undermine the US nation state, by weakening it's cultural cohesion and weakening its families, so it's no longer a nation with a unified culture, and instead is just a population of people with fucked up lives.

It appears to me that the current global elite consists of the Bilderberg crowd, or the types that go to the World Economic Forum in Davos. These people do not want strong nation states as actors in the world. WWII consisted of nation states like this in a knock down, drag out fight. All the players in WWII had populations that shared strong cultural cohesiveness, with strong governing states, that could do whatever they wanted. These governments could harness the whole economic output of their nations, along with most of the young men, and throw these resources into monstrous military conflicts around the world.

I think the goal of many liberal thinkers of the post WWII era and the decades since has been to hobble the nation states to prevent this happening again, and further, to undermine the nation states by destroying their citizens' virtue, and undermining their cultural cohesiveness.

I think it was clearly Obama's goal to undermine and eliminate the US ability to act as this kind of nation state on the world state, and he was highly successful. I think this is Hillary's goal too, and if she gets in, she'll finish the job Obama started. There is an extensive body of liberal thinking towards this goal, and Obama and Hillary both are steeped in this kind of thinking. They both speak the language of ensuring America's strength and security, but this is purely misdirection. If you recognize their true goals and evaluate their actions, you can see what they have really been trying to accomplish.

So, if the globalist order was initially designed to ensure US hegemony, at some point it definitely changed. I think it is clear that the globalist order is now designed to destroy US hegemony, and create a world in which only banks and other international institutions hold real power. I suspect the deep state is now riddled with people that support these goals, and all of its activities are effectively focused on this goal as well.

You're partly correct and partly incorrect in your argument here.

You are absolutely correct in saying that Obama and all the globalists want to destroy the nation-state. They only hold any regard for the constitutional structures of the American Republic insofar as they can be used to sustain the structure and existence of American Hegemony.

But to say that the goal of the globalists is to destroy US hegemony is completely wrong. American hegemony and hegemony of the international banks and institutions - what you suggest is the new goal of the globalists - is the same thing. They exist in a structure created by the United States to support American Hegemony and the US-led world order. They are functionally indistinguishable.

Post: #7

I'm bumping this thread in order to comment on Roosh's latest article The Future of the USA, Russia and the New World Order, which touches upon much of the subject interest of this datasheet, and offer my commentary as someone with a significant understanding of the topic. It might be better for the moderators to move this thread to the Deep Forum or Politics subforum.

I feel that Carvalho is incorrect insofar as he states that the main objective of the Globalist elite is the destruction of the United States. Rather, I believe that the documentation provided above is conclusive in demonstrating that Globalism regards the United States, and American Hegemony as a whole, as its primary foundation for ensuring its dominance over the international system. He may be correct insofar as the structures of the constitutional American Republic have been significantly degraded by the wages of Empire, but to say they seek outright destruction is, I feel, simply incorrect.

I also disagree with the contention that the United States and Russia (with China as an ally) represent two sides of some super-Hegelian dialectic, with the Globalist elite in charge of both sides behind the scenes. I believe that, rather, Russia and China both desire to restore the pre-WWI international system of realpolitik, where the primary international actor was the nation-state - as opposed to the international system designed and sustained by the United States, where nation-states subsume their sovereignty into the all-encompassing hegemony that we know today as Globalism.

Anyone wishing to offer comments, by all means feel free.

Post: #8

(10-08-2016 06:02 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  So, if the globalist order was initially designed to ensure US hegemony, at some point it definitely changed. I think it is clear that the globalist order is now designed to destroy US hegemony, and create a world in which only banks and other international institutions hold real power. I suspect the deep state is now riddled with people that support these goals, and all of its activities are effectively focused on this goal as well.

It's interesting that nationalism is considered a bad word (frequently substituted by "white nationalism" in liberal globalist rhetoric). If you look at the big historical picture, and think about how things looked with elites, peasants, and political organization in the days before modern nation states and nationalism, I've often wondered if that is the goal. Instead of nationalism (including national loyalty and an assumption that leaders were obligated to their nations) there used to be elite wealthy powerful families, and peasants who didn't really care and assumed their lot would never improve no matter who ruled over them. In ancient times peasants supposedly didn't even care if a new ruler conquered the territory where they lived, since they were basically kept at a subsistence level and treated as chattel by all rulers. There was no "middle class". There was no nationalism. In the middle ages, great noble families ruled kingdoms, and could inherit an entire kingdom based on arranged marriages. Though the peasants might have some loyalty to one king or another, in the end they were mostly pawns.
I tend to think the end game of globalist elites is to get back to that type of world, where all real power is in their hands and there is no need to cater to any concerns of the peasants whatsoever. They want to break down nationalism, break down families, break down cultures, essentially put it all through a blender and destroy any center of power or support that isn't directly controlled by them.

Post: #9

(10-09-2016 05:07 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  But to say that the goal of the globalists is to destroy US hegemony is completely wrong. American hegemony and hegemony of the international banks and institutions - what you suggest is the new goal of the globalists - is the same thing. They exist in a structure created by the United States to support American Hegemony and the US-led world order. They are functionally indistinguishable.

I recall hearing a couple of times during the campaign that the United States is "an idea, not a place" and it's an idea that we want to share with the world. (I think it came from either Obama or Clinton or maybe both, but I didn't quickly find the quote.) I interpret that as (aside from the obvious implication that open borders and movement of people is good) they really want to kind of meld the US government into the world government, without ever being too explicit about what they are doing. They have been working on taking the inherited wealth and power of the US away from the citizens of the US, kind of like pickpocketing someone's firearm ... slowly, carefully ... until you have it away from them, then the game is up.

Post: #10

This is depressing, but VERY informative. I'm going to re-read it again later and break it down a bit.

I really hate the term "New World Order" because the term is ridden by negative connotations and conspiracy theories, but this is what the Deep State is. While American hegemony is imperative to the success of global elites, eventually these elites will want to meld the rest of the world into their preferred shape.

This is why while we hear the buzzword of diversity, elites prefer for cultures that slowly meld together and become interchangeable. The less identity, family loyalty, and deeply held worldview that a person has, the easier they are to control and to placate through both a welfare state and materialism.

Post: #11

It appears that one of the main contentions I made above - that the Deep State would use its institutional power to attempt to delegitimize the Trump presidency from Day One - is already being borne out as truth, as we can see with the CIA openly accusing Russia of trying to install Trump as President. This sets up what may become the defining struggle of the Trump Presidency - whether or not he will be capable of dismantling the Deep State, or resisting its efforts to subvert his administration.

JFK, before he was assassinated, famously swore that he would "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces." We may live to see Trump attempt to carry that threat out.

Post: #12

Fascinating. I'll stay tuned.

Post: #13

The original quote I think gets much wrong. Things go back to Rockefeller and big oil creating monopoly and massive wealth corrupting doctors creating big pharma and now big ag and bankers creating the Fed. Germany was financed by by the US(Henry Ford got the highest civilian medal from Hitler). Elites love war..its an excuse to raise taxes take away rights and sell overpriced arms. Picture them as the bookies taking bets on a boxing match..either way they win and they want the fight and to promote the fight and dont really care if one or the other dies.

Post: #14

The datasheet has been posted (with light editing) as an article on Return of Kings.

Post: #15

[quote='HighSpeed_LowDrag' pid='1407554' dateline='1475943636']


Globalism goes even farther back. The elites have always wanted to control the masses and domesticate them any way possible. Take a look at brave new world, and reasearch Huxleys ties to the elites. You can see him say in a youtube video that he thinks its important for the government to tell the people whats in its mind. One of the sad things mentioned in brave new world is that we can't make people who can mature as fast as other animals and with just enough intelligence to do their work and not fight the system. In fact we want to breed a race to which revolution is literally unimagineable. Seems they've come a long way in all this time. No surprise the fluroide and mercury they attack us with since youth are nuerotoxins.