‘Populism Vs. Globalism’ – a Meme That Doesn’t Exist in Reality


Source: TheDailyBell.com
December 7, 2016

A Dark Age for European Democracy? … How the Political Center Will Fare in 2017 … On November 17, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.S. President Barack Obama published an article in the German magazine WirtschaftsWoche, outlining their countries’ shared commitments to the values of individual freedom, democracy, and the rule of law; collective defense through the NATO alliance; and international cooperation on issues from refugee policy to climate change mitigation. –Foreign Affairs

The  “populism versus globalism” meme continues to provide eerily scripted analyses of the West’s sociopolitical perspectives. It is playing its part in justifying the removal of freedom around the world.

When we first analyzed this meme in mid-summer, here, we expected it to become a dominant one and it has. Everything has fallen into place almost flawlessly.

Brexit, Trump, Renzi – the political developments represented by these names can be seen as credible … as “blowback” against globalism.

And yet … one can, as well, argue that we are simply spectators watching an elaborately produced cinematic event, the very predictability of which raises doubts.

As does the predictable media coverage.

As such, Foreign Affairs magazine – the preeminent globalist magazine in the US – mourns what is taking place. Thus, the article’s title, “A Dark Age for European Democracy.”


Their essay served as a reminder of the values that have been at the heart of the transatlantic alliance of liberal democracies for decades.  In recent months, nationalists and populists have challenged those values on both sides of the Atlantic.

In June, the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union gave populists their first major win of the year. Then, last month, the election of Donald J. Trump to the U.S. presidency placed a candidate who had demonstrated disdain for democratic values such as the freedom of the press, the independence of the judiciary, and the rule of law into the world’s most powerful office.

In Europe, far-right politicians and autocrats from Budapest to Moscow cheered Trump’s victory; establishment leaders reacted with shock. Western liberal democracy, seemingly ascendant at the end of the Cold War, now seems threatened on all sides. These are particularly dark days for European democracy.

This is actually an astounding analysis when you examine it closely. People in England who wanted freedom from European rule are called “populists.” Donald Trump is said to have disdain for “freedom of the press,” but anyone who watched the US election is well-aware that  the mainstream media pilloried Trump on a regular basis – often with false accusations.

As for Western “rule of law,” many would question how it has survived in France (currently under martial law). How about the US where some high-ranking officials are sent to jail for leading classified documents while others like Hillary are excused despite leaking thousands because she didn’t intend to do so?

The Foreign Affairs article is fascinating because it bears witness to how directed history is built. First the argument is made. Then powerful forces act on it, whether or not it is true.

Not only has the argument been developed in the mainstream media and in academia; additionally, it has conformed to Hegelian dialectic that is utilized in these instances.

The unrolling of this meme is buttressed by continuing revelations about the election itself. The New York Times recently posted an article entitled, “CNN’s Coverage of Trump Was Biased, Presidential Candidates’ Aides Say.”

An excerpt:

Jeffrey A. Zucker, CNN’s president, is accustomed to complaints about his network going easy on Donald J. Trump: providing extensive coverage of his rallies, letting him phone in for interviews and hiring his former campaign manager as an analyst.

Rarely, however, does Mr. Zucker — or any television news executive, for that matter — face the kind of A-list revolt that brewed here Wednesday evening.

In extraordinary exchanges, aides to Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush openly accused Mr. Zucker of enabling Mr. Trump and undermining their candidates in the Republican primary, heckling from their seats as Mr. Zucker spoke on a panel in a hotel ballroom.

“You showed hours upon hours of unfiltered, unscrutinized coverage of Trump!” shouted Todd Harris, a top adviser for Mr. Rubio. A Washington Post reporter, Karen Tumulty, prompted applause when she pressed Mr. Zucker on why he allowed Trump surrogates to spread falsehoods on his network.

This “visceral airing of grievances” is most unusual because it shows that despite negative reports, Trump benefited mightily from coverage that others didn’t receive.

The media generally has consolidated over the past century and in the US and the West generally is said to be owned by a handful of individuals and groups. There is likely no doubt that such a consolidated media can achieve almost any goal demanded of it.

As we watch Trump’s administration consolidate, we are struck by the number of military men he is selecting despite his own lack of service. What is being set up by Trump is a kind of para-military nationalism that can easily (and unfavorably) be contrasted to technocratic – civilian-oriented – globalism.

The speculation here, then, is one of directed history. If Trump’s administration is now caught up in larger military and economic crises and receives the blame for them, then the scenario is complete.

Directed history will show us clearly that populism is negative force and (one way or another) that globalism is a positive one.

We remain unconvinced that populism has “swept” the West and that the forces of globalism are being eradicated from meaningful power. We wish it were so but at the very least we don’t think it is nearly so simple as it is being portrayed. Additionally, many of these portrayals are being provided by the mainstream media and that makes us suspicious too.

Conclusion: People should not ease their vigilance about what is going on in this world, nor should they be overly optimistic about a Trump administration. Let experience rather than optimism guide your behavior and actions you take to protect yourself, your loved ones and your wealth.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

Financial Times Fumbles Trump’s Central Banking Criticism

Source: TheDailyBell.com
November 2, 2016

Populists stick to tradition of central bank-bashing … If anyone still doubts the affinity between support for Trump in the US and for Brexit in the UK, they should look no further than the two movements’ attitude to monetary policy. –Financial Times

The “populism vs. globalism” meme is increasingly evident in the mainstream media just as we predicted, and analyzing it can generate considerable insight into elite plans and societal positioning.

This Financial Times article provides us further information in a short editorial. Interestingly, it is not by any means persuasive propaganda. It would have been far more effective in the 20th century than today when so many more people are beginning to be educated about free-market economics.


Donald Trump has accused the Federal Reserve of keeping interest rates too low for what is healthy for the economy in order to make the Obama administration, and by extension Hillary Clinton, look good. Theresa May, more elegantly but no more justifiably, used her party Conservative party conference speech to attack the Bank of England’s policy of quantitative easing.

In both cases, the technocrats at central banks are accused of making policy that helps rich elites and hurts the more deserving common people, be they small savers or hardworking families.

So far so good. But toward the end of the article we are – unfortunately for the argument – provided with more specifics. This is where the article’s logic weakens and then disintegrates.

A cursory search of “populism” or “populism vs. globalism” will reveal a tremendous amount of commentary in a short period of time. In fact,  this particular dominant social theme seems to be a foundational feature of upcoming arguments in favor of globalism.

But it is fatally flawed – as this article offers in a few sentences that are meant to be damning but instead reveal the basic bankruptcy of this rhetorical approach:

Traditionally, populists have berated central banks for their obsession with “sound money”: tight monetary policy, high interest rates and the gold standard. ¨

In about 25 words, the article seems to sabotage its entire argument and by extension the larger meme.

Is this the best that can be done? Probably so. It provides terrible testimony as to the state of elite memes generally.

For one thing, central bank criticism in the past few decades has not focused on central bank “obsession with sound money.”

On the contrary, most modern criticism regarding central banking focuses on the endless debasement of the fiat currency monetary facilities spew relentlessly.

Additionally, critics of central banking in the past decade or more have been sounding the alarm regularly about too-low interest rates. Rates so low, in fact, that they have now gone into negative territory.

Finally, in addition to mischaracterizing modern central bank criticism, the article doesn’t even attempt to grapple with cogent criticisms of central banking that are common on the Internet today.

These criticisms are rooted in the free-market economics of the Austrian School, which is in many ways the basis of all modern economics.

Marginal utility shows us clearly that markets create valid prices. Yet central banks “fix” the value and volume of money via interest rates and in other ways.

This cognitive dissonance is at the heart of the disaster of modern central banking.

Ask a central banker if he believes in price fixing, and you should receive a credible, necessary response: Price fixing destroys prosperity by substituting dictates for market competition. And yet … price-fixing is central banking’s significant – sole – methodology.

In the Internet era, memes have to be convincing and logical to have an impact with the intelligentsia that elites have traditionally sought to propagandize – as they are thought leaders. But here we have one of the most important dominant social themes – populism vs. globalism – being presented in a major financial newspaper in a most unpersuasive way.

This is probably why the fallback position when it comes to reasserting a necessary matrix of elite propaganda increasingly focuses on censorship.

The kind of comprehensive effort necessary to reestablish the once-commonly accepted disinformation of the 20th century is probably beyond the scope of even the most authoritarian propagandizing short of genocide.

Conclusion: Bur wait, is that a potential world war staining the horizon? …

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

The Reasons Why The Globalists Are Destined To Lose

globalists lose
Source: ActivistPost.com
Brandon Smith
July 14, 2016

Under the surface of almost every sociopolitical and economic event in the world there burns an ever-raging, but often unseen, war. This war, for now, is fought with fiction and with truth, with journalistic combat and with quiet individual deeds. It is defined by two sides which could not be more philosophically or spiritually separate.

On one side is a pervasive network of corporate moguls and elites, banking entities, international financial consortiums, think tanks and political puppets. They work tirelessly to reshape public psychology and society as a whole into something they sometimes call the “New World Order;” a completely and scientifically centralized planet in which they control every aspect of government, trade, life and even moral compass. I often refer to them simply as the “Globalists,” which is how they at times refer to themselves.

On the other side is a movement that has developed organically and instinctively, growing without direct top-down “leadership,” but still guided through example by various teachers and activists, driven by a concrete set of principles based in natural law. It is composed of the religious, the agnostic and even some atheists.  It is soldiered by people of all ethnic and financial backgrounds. These groups are tied together by a singular and resounding belief in the one vital thing they can all agree upon — the inherent and inborn rights of freedom. I call them the “Liberty Movement.”

There are those who think they do not have a dog in this fight, those who ignore it and those who are completely oblivious to it. However, EVERYONE can and will be affected by it, no exceptions. This war is for the future of the human race. Its consequences will determine if the next generation will choose the conditions of their environment and maintain the ability to reach their true potential as individuals or if every aspect of their lives will be micromanaged for them by a faceless, soulless bureaucracy that does not have their best interests at heart.

As you can probably tell, I am not unbiased in my examination of these two sides. While some of the more “academically minded” cynics out there do attempt to marginalize the entire conflict by accusing both sides of simply trying to impose “their ideology” on the rest of humanity, I would say that such people are generally ignorant of what is at stake.

There is in fact an elemental force behind this war. I would even call it a conflagration between good and evil. For a more in-depth analysis on the evil behind globalism, read my article “Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood?

Some people don’t adhere to such absolutes or they think good and evil are fantasies created by religion to keep society in check. I have no intention of trying to convince them otherwise. All I can say is, I have seen and experienced these absolutes first hand and, therefore, I have no choice but to remain a believer.

I would also point out that the general experience of most men and women is that the act of organized and legitimate oppression is inherently evil and such actions in the name of satisfying delusional elitist narcissism are even more evil. While these experiences are subjective, they are also universal, regardless of the culture, place or time in history. Most of us feel the same horror and the same defiance when presented with rising tyranny. We can’t necessarily explain why, but we all know.

While I am firmly on the side of liberty and am willing to fight and trade my life to stop the “New World Order” the globalists are so obsessed with, I will not turn this examination of their tactics into a blind or one-sided farce. I will point out where the elites are effective just as I will point out where they are ineffective. It would do more harm than good to portray the globalists as “stupid” or bumbling in their efforts. They are not stupid. They are actually astonishingly clever and should not be underestimated.

They are indeed conniving and industrious, but they are not wise. For if they were wise, they would be able to see the ultimate futility of their goal and the world would be saved decades of tragedy and loss. Their cultism has dulled their senses to reality and they have abandoned truth in the name of control. Here are some of the primary strategies that the globalists are using to gain power and work towards total centralization and why their own mindset has doomed them to failure.

Globalism vs. “Populism”

The globalists have used the method of false dichotomies for centuries to divide nations and peoples against each other in order to derive opportunity from chaos. That said, the above dichotomy is about as close to real as they have ever promoted. As I explained in my article, “Globalists Are Now Openly Demanding New World Order Centralization,” the recent passage of the Brexit referendum in the U.K. has triggered a surge of new propaganda from establishment media outlets.  The thrust of this propaganda is the notion that “populists” are behind the fight against globalization and these populists are going to foster the ruin of nations and the global economy.  That is to say — globalism good, populism bad.

There is a real fight between globalists and those who desire a free, decentralized and voluntary society.  They have just changed some of the labels and the language. We have yet to see how effective this strategy will be for the elites, but it is very useful for them in certain respects.

Continue Reading At: ActivistPost.com