Part 2 of 3 (Part 1 here)
What are the political dimensions of globalism?
There are various possible implementations of globalism. A Rightist version would be straight up imperialism, but on a worldwide scale. Military conquest of the entire planet hasn’t been attempted, despite what you might’ve heard from certain feverish wartime propaganda that still keeps getting dredged up after eight decades.
From the far Left, Communism has some rather obvious globalist dimensions. There’s much emphasis on worldwide revolution as an ultimate outcome. For one thing, Leon “General Buttnaked” Trotsky had some far-reaching aspirations about that. In practice, the Soviet Union participated in imperialistic expansionism, as well as exporting revolution and forming alliances with friendly countries. Meanwhile, their Chinese Communist competitors were pursuing similar strategies. Despite efforts at containment, things were starting to look rather bleak for the non-Communist world by 1968, with massive rioting at home and the world map gradually turning red abroad with no end in sight.
As for the Western flavor of globalism, the early internationalists were playing footsie with Communists and welcoming them into the government, which even Quigley openly admitted. This didn’t change with the beginning of the Cold War, which means they were collaborating with the enemy by then. It wasn’t until Joseph McCarthy cleaned house that this sort of treason went out of style. (For example, Chairman Mao personally should’ve rewarded Dean Acheson with a massage and a “happy ending” for extraordinary services to the Revolution, but after being taken out to the woodshed, Acheson quit kissing up to the ChiComs, even though he remained a globalist toady.) For McCarthy’s thankless work, there’s a good case to be made that he was thrown under the bus for getting too close to the internationalist clique. Still, the effort wasn’t wasted; it seems to have been a turning point, and eventually the early Deep State began to realize that a Cold War was under way and they needed to figure out which side they were on.
In recent times, globalism is characterized by neoliberal economic policies, the major points of which are free trade and open borders. Members of the exploiter class often own enormous multinational corporations. Naturally, they’ll see tariffs as a barrier to maximizing their personal profits. They have no use for national governments, other than to further their businesses. They also may regard the existence of different currencies, languages, cultures, and tastes as hindrances to maximizing profits. Even so, they’ve done a pretty good job of spreading their chain stores to the four corners of the world, doing their part to make all big cities look the same.
They especially like packing up factory equipment and moving it to the very cheapest labor market available. Laws about factory safety, pollution limitation, minimum wage, collective bargaining, child labor, and so forth are a hindrance to raking in as much cash as possible. (We wouldn’t want to make these poor billionaires unhappy, now would we?) They also like importing cheap labor to undercut wages at home.
As for what it does to domestic labor markets, globalists don’t care since they have no loyalty to their own country. However, even if they care nothing for the country where their business first flourished and for the people who bought their products, they might be surprised one day by who is really expendable. Killing the goose that laid the golden egg is a bad idea. We can see these effects of globalization already, and they are much further along than the planned political integration expected in the New World Order.
As for social doctrine, the “woke capital” effect is a fairly new development: cultural Marxism at work. There are several suitable explanations for why this goes on. I’ll add a couple more. First of all, the traditional Left put a heavy emphasis on labor and the environment. (Occupy Wall Street seems to be the last major batch of Leftists who understood who their real enemies are.) It costs a sizeable amount of money to pay employees living wages and maintain safe factories with low pollution. Should the lavish executive pay be trimmed to make the numbers work? Perish the thought! That would be incompatible with buying more private jets, yachts, and enormous mansions.
On the other hand, virtue-signaling costs comparatively very little and distracts the Leftists who might otherwise become fierce critics of their appalling business practices. All that’s needed is to put on a corporate Gay Day, issue indignant statements whenever some non-white criminal earns a Darwin Award, show solidarity with the cause-du-jour (be it refugees, border jumpers, any other kind of little brown invaders, blue-haired feminists, trisexuals, transdoodles, furries, bronies, or obsessive nose-pickers), and so on. This is how a certain computer manufacturer has a reputation for being wonderfully enlightened and progressive, even though it manufactures its overpriced products in Chinese sweatshops where the underpaid employees are practically enslaved and some have been driven to suicide.
Finally, executives who are greedy pigs can wrap themselves in a cloak of this phony righteousness, imagining themselves to be progressive-minded humanitarians. This is so no matter how much they exploit, pollute, and pay starvation wages.
What does the exploiter class want?
These include some of the wealthiest people on the planet, the 0.001%ers. Their riches are the stuff of legend. Their number one priority is therefore getting more money. If these were just some rich people who wanted to add to their fortunes, it would be one thing. If they guided their countries wisely, then they’d be essentially like the ruling class in a decent monarchy. Unfortunately, the Deep State takes an increasingly hostile posture toward the public, and certainly isn’t ruling responsibly.
Some rich people are nice, even at that stratospheric income level. I should also add that some Deep State types are higher on the evolutionary scale than others. The problem is that the rest are sometimes pretty screwed up. There are those who want the world’s population reduced drastically, and quickly. (I trust that you can add up what that means . . . Rather oddly, some have the reputation of being “humanitarians.”) From that detail, it should come as little surprise that many feel mistrust, contempt, or both toward the public. Some even refer to us as “feeders.” They, and their proxies in government, are often morally compromised — rather typical for the abomination archetype. Some are controlled by their vices, which was the purpose of Jeffrey Epstein’s kompromat operation.
The latest twist is that some of them are into bizarre pursuits like transhumanism, after Silicon Valley’s limp noodles became the new kids on the block. This includes ideas like merging the mind with machines, the World Economic Forum’s excited babble about “hacking humans,” and immortality through life extension. In other words, they expect to live like gods.
Our intended role is to be their peasants. There are plenty of Third World countries that can already provide us examples of what might be expected. The way things are trending, the globalist future is a worldwide banana republic characterized by vast extremes of wealth, in which a tiny and degenerate “elite” rules over impoverished masses. The likely final outcome is that the common people would be in a state of utter dependency, ruled by brute force, and subjected to compulsory and highly intrusive mass surveillance modeled on the Chinese social credit system. We’ll be told it’s for our own protection, of course.
Also, there’s a strongly anti-Western agenda permeating certain aspects of present-day globalism, especially with population replacement migration, deindustrialization, and destroying the middle class. This is already well under way. Some globalists want to reduce our standard of living drastically to Third World levels, supposedly to prevent climate change. Race-mixing will be promoted, as it already is, to reengineer mankind into rootless consumer units bereft of particularistic loyalties, thus easier to control. That’s been discussed for a long time, but lately is mostly promoted among whites, for fairly obvious reasons. Unless we stop the globalists, the likely present trajectory of the New World Order is pretty much a transcontinental Brazilian favela. It could be worse, though. For example, one talking head crowed that future automation will mean that Americans with an income under $200,000 a year will be unemployable. “Let them eat cake,” is it?
Finally, globalists speak with a forked tongue; you can bet on that. When they tell us we have to reduce our carbon consumption, they’re not about to sell their private jets. When they say we’ll live in pods, they have no intention of giving up their 10,000-square-foot mansions or their vast land holdings. When we’re told we’ll have to eat bugs, weeds, and artificial protein, they’ll keep chowing down on their 20-ounce porterhouse steaks. When they promote gun control, they mean for the peasants, not for their private security guards. I’ll add that one particular Big Tech executive, one of the world’s wealthiest, supports gun control but has an antiaircraft battery on his private compound.
How does the Shadow Government work?
The United States has an Electoral College system, with a “winner take all” rule in all but two states. This practically guarantees a two-party system. This effect was unintended; the Founding Fathers didn’t anticipate partisan politics or welcome its arrival, but we’ve been stuck with powerful (and sometimes corrupt) political machines ever since. Suppose someone with unlimited resources wanted to gain control over a country in which there are only two viable parties. Obviously, the thing to do would be to grease the palms of the kingmakers in both parties. As Curtis B. Dall told it in Chapter 11 of Franklin Delano Roosevelt My Exploited Father-In-Law:
By 1914, Bernard Baruch had developed two unusual qualities. First, those of an able financier, a man with an alert, broad vision. Secondly, he was one who had gained the confidence of important world politicians and world money powers. This combination of talents caught the “eye” of world money and the “ear” of world political leaders, those who actually groom and select the candidates for President and Vice-President in advance, for both the Republican and Democratic Party slates.
Bernard Baruch was a tricky financier who later was quite attached to the Roosevelt administration as well. According to some accounts, he was one of Eleanor Roosevelt’s many paramours, though if true, it’s hardly the worst way he was screwing America. In 1946, as noted earlier, when the US had a nuclear monopoly, he wanted to set up an international agency and hand over our stockpile to them. If he’d gotten his way, then some unaccountable Non-Governmental Organization would control the Big Red Button and have the whip hand over the entire world. Great idea, Bernie!
So that’s how the shadow government got started. Perhaps you’ve observed that no matter who the public votes for, they get the same thing. Obviously there are lots of contentious wedge issues to stir up lively controversy. Still, some items always are on the Republicrat agenda, like mass migration (despite frequently broken promises) and free trade.
One party will align with the globalist interests of the Deep State. The other party in effect serves as the controlled opposition, presenting itself as an alternative but never deviating too far in practice, despite whatever promises they might make. You probably already have some ideas about which one is which! Although there’s an illusion of choice, this makes the two-party system about as genuine as professional wrestling. Note that any politician who knowingly helps maintain this farce is an oath-breaker who participates in subverting the Constitution.
What about Donald Trump?
In 2016, American voters had a meaningful free choice for the first time in a century. Trump’s rhetoric opposed mass migration and free trade. He was therefore tremendously popular with the grassroots, who were sick of RINOs and cuckservatives. On the other hand, the globalist-aligned Republican Party bosses opposed him every step of the way. As an extreme measure, normally they could sideline disfavored candidates by cutting the purse strings. (It takes two billion dollars to conduct a successful presidential campaign. Ain’t that precious?) But the problem for them was that Trump was wealthy enough that he didn’t need their money.
When a party’s bosses are trying to hamstring their most popular candidate by far, that’s a pretty good sign that something funny is afoot. Moreover, the unofficial slogan of the Never Trumpers — “lose with Cruz” — speaks for itself. On February 27, 2016, Mike Huckabee dropped a hint as to what was going on: “[Donald Trump] is running away with the nomination and it scares the daylights out of the insiders who have not only run the party, but they’ve run the country for a long time.” This is someone who had been a rival candidate a month before. That remark probably earned Huckabee many a hairy eyeball in DC ever since. The party bigshots kept trying to sabotage their top candidate, sometimes with blatantly unethical tactics.
Meanwhile, in the Democratic campaign, Bernie Sanders supporters suspected that their own party bosses were trying to hamstring their own candidate. It turns out that they were right. But they wouldn’t have known for sure that the fix was in if not for the unprecedented Democratic National Committee e-mail leaks revealing the behind-the-scenes sausage-making.
The mainstream media crowed that Trump only had a 1% chance of winning the election, in typical Leftist “make believe until it comes true” fashion. Despite that, he defeated Cupcake. But when he got into office, he wasn’t quite prepared for the headwinds he’d face. Trump Derangement Syndrome was of unprecedented magnitude, and that wasn’t even the worst of it. For one thing, the glowies sabotaged their boss by cooking up a phony “Russian collusion” narrative and running with it until they had to admit that there was no evidence behind it. It’s possible that President Trump never knew the entirety of what he was up against, but all that’s another story. He had promise, but to a certain degree his presidency was a lost opportunity.
What are the major globalist clubs?
There are some very exclusive institutions where high-level politicians and top businessmen rub elbows. You wouldn’t recognize everyone’s name, but you’d recognize the government bureaus, gigantic corporations, universities, and foundations that they represent. From the outside, globalist institutions often look like think tanks or even charities. They meet regularly, sometimes at annual summits. We’re well into the Internet age, but these big conferences haven’t gone out of style.
The “Big Three” are listed first. Presidential candidates for the Republicrats are often members. If not, they’re at least approved by them, and end up with a dyed-in-the-wool Deep State swamp critter for a Vice President. Other than that, these globalist clubs are effectively unofficial staffing agencies for Cabinet members.
The “Big Three” typically meet in secret. If these are just wealthy policy wonks, what’s with the lack of transparency? What happens in the proverbial “smoke-filled rooms” outside of the public eye? Do these politicos and billionaires assembling in private have something to hide? Nobody else knows for sure. Whether or not that’s something to be concerned about, feel free to draw your own conclusions. All that can be said with certainty is that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR): As far as America’s inside crowd goes, this one is the big banana, and that’s how it’s been for a century. The others are mostly spinoffs. It’s affiliated with the Rockefellers, but then again, which globalist club hasn’t been? Half of the 1,400 members reside in New York City, the others elsewhere in the US. Hillary Clinton practically admitted she takes orders from the CFR, one of Cupcake’s rare truthful moments.
The Bilderberg Group: Established in 1954, they’re notable for hosting annual meetings among the wealthy and powerful. They’re internationally focused, generally drawing their membership from Europe and the US. Strangely, arch-Leftists like George Soros and Dianne Feinstein were part of the same globalist club as the late William F. Buckley, whose shtick was defining himself as the non plus ultra of conservatism, which seems mighty chummy of them. In a leaked remark from a June 1991 Bilderberg meeting, David Rockefeller praised his mainstream media buddies for keeping the public in the dark about it; that’s journalism at its finest:
We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.
The Trilateral Commission: Three major globalist clubs seem rather redundant, but this was started by David Rockefeller in 1973 because he felt that the Bilderbergers were too slow in trying to toss East Asia into their duffel bag. What busy little beavers these Rockefellers are!
The World Economic Forum (WEF): Founded in 1971, nonetheless they’re the new kids on the block. These Bilderberger imitators in Switzerland host annual meetings in Davos. It’s run by Klaus Schwab, who tries to look regal but still resembles a cone-headed alien auditioning for a Bond villain role. If he pops a Viagra, he becomes rigid and doubles his height. To their credit, the WEF has more transparency than the globalist clubs above. Unfortunately, when we can observe out in the open of what these types really want ain’t pretty.
Scores of world leaders and billionaires and other major mucky-mucks fly in on their private jets to wring their hands about carbon consumption. That failed to sell the rubes on deindustrializing the West. The W6rld Ec6nomic F6rum’s next big kick was The Gr6at R6s6t, attempting to use the plandemic to scare the public into accepting their agendas. Although their propaganda is as slick as snot, the implications are so horribly tone-deaf that it seems like an unintentional parody — except that they really mean it. These are the people who want you to live in a pod, eat bugs, forage weeds, drink sewage, and otherwise own nothing and be happy.
Again, these globalist clubs are where top businessmen and top political figures mingle, often in private. According to some speculation, they may serve as nexuses of power, or steering committees. Of course, that interpretation assumes that the high and mighty aren’t meeting to tell knock-knock jokes or bet on ferret racing. The following organizations are somewhat different, but also serve the high and mighty.
What are some other significant groups?
The Bohemian Grove: This is an exclusive woodland retreat attended by some of the big players, which seems more about recreation than furthering business or political agendas. Alex Jones crashed their party and made a documentary, noting some spooky rituals. How much of a problem you consider all that to be will depend on your opinion of the Bohemian Grove’s neopagan-flavored mummery.
Open Society Foundations: Run by that sexy babe magnet George Soros, this organization brings so many wonderful things to the world that it’s impossible to list them all.
The Central Intelligence Agency: Here’s a special shout-out to the government bureau with the most Deep State influence, pozzed even back in the days they were calling it the OSS. Over the decades they’ve been guilty of lots of boneheaded blunders, using their muscle in service to big business and doing more to undermine colonial governments in Africa than Marxist “liberation movements” toting AK-47s. All this starts making much more sense if they’re regarded as more of a neoliberal globalist institution than an American agency. They’ve done massive research into psychological warfare (the highly illegal MKULTRA program and all that jazz), and lately they have taken a keen interest in election strategies. Other talents include running dope, wetwork, overthrowing legitimate governments, and (at least according to one deathbed confession) that grassy knoll thing in Dallas. The difference between them and the Mafia is that they have badges.
Other than all that, there are trickier institutes, front groups, “charitable foundations,” NGOs, think tanks, umbrella groups, and so forth than you can shake a stick at, both in existence and defunct. One thing that globalists are good at is spinning up organizations, funding them, and keeping them on message. A few examples are the Club of Rome, the Institute of International Education, the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, and the Institute of Pacific Relations. Often they’re set up for promoting a specific policy goal. Some have a dual purpose: for example, a Gilded Age charitable foundation that does benevolent things as intended, like funding museums or classical music orchestras, and also sinister things, like showering money on Leftist militants.
Back in the day, David “Mr. NWO” Rockefeller had his grubby fingers in so many of these pies that it’s a wonder he ever had time to brush his teeth between meetings and activities for all these cabals, in addition to his regular business activities. What’s the point of being extremely wealthy if they can’t just kick back, smell the roses, enjoy their lives, and let the rest of us enjoy ours?
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
Remembering Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: December 11, 1918–August 3, 2008
Heigh-ho the Merry-oh, Deporting We Will Go
The Fear of Writing
Jonathan Bowden’s The Cultured Thug
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 561: An All-Star Thanksgiving Weekend Special
Are We (Finally) Living in the World of Atlas Shrugged? Part 2
G. Gordon Liddy’s When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country, Part 2
We Told You So, Again