Social How can the Secular Left be stopped?

[mrbaapt]

Secular left? You mean these guys?

All slaveholders by the way.

 

[hillelslovak87]

All slaveholders by the way.

At least a couple of them are slave fuckers as well. Franklin, though, he was a French bathtub hag kind of guy.

 

[Sketch]

you are so unbelievably ignorant

This is a very ironic post considering you don’t understand the distinct difference in a corporation and a globalist.

 

[hillelslovak87]

This is a very ironic post considering you don’t understand the distinct difference in a corporation and a globalist.

You fuckers can't even describe what one is........

 

[ValidArmani]

You're a dumb cunt. That's all the response a dumb cunt like you deserves.

Such venom, to conclude that I'm a "dumb cunt" without even addressing my reasonable concerns about blossoming totalitarianism within leftist ranks is disheartening.

 

[Wingslaught]

You fuckers can't even describe what one is........

Yes, we can. I laid out a perfectly good description yesterday. A good example of someone who believed in and advocated for globalism was David Rockefeller Jr.

For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents ... to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

Another is Zbigniew Brzezinski who writes about globalism and it's grip on the world here:

Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites, but now they are composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional men, and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries, their perspectives are not confined by national traditions, and their interests are more functional than national. These global communities are gaining in strength and as was true in the Middle Ages, it is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook. The creation of the global information grid, facilitating almost continuous intellectual interaction and the pooling of knowledge, will further enhance the present trend toward international professional elites and toward the emergence of a common scientific language (in effect, the functional equivalent of Latin). This, how- ever, could create a dangerous gap between them and the politically activated masses, whose "nativism" —exploited by more nationalist political leaders — could work against the "cosmopolitan" elites.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Yes, we can. I laid out a perfectly good description yesterday. A good example of someone who believed in and advocated for globalism was David Rockefeller Jr.



Another is Zbigniew Brzezinski who writes about globalism and it's grip on the world here:

So, two guys.............

 

[djacobox372]

All slaveholders by the way.

Wrong, Sam Adams, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine and others did not own any slaves.

Regardless, what's your point? Issues change, but the underlying philosophy of conservatism and liberalism just informs how one stands on CURRENT ISSUES.

You should consider reading more. History is interesting.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Yes, we can. I laid out a perfectly good description yesterday. A good example of someone who believed in and advocated for globalism was David Rockefeller Jr.



Another is Zbigniew Brzezinski who writes about globalism and it's grip on the world here:

The thing is that globalism is the fruit of American foreign policy over the last ~75 years. The so called globalist institutions, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, all these were established and/or heavily supported by the West, the US in particular, to further their own ends. Namely to counter the attempt at globalism by the Soviet Union but in many cases also to advance US interests in this or that region of the world.

I am not saying that necessarily makes it right, a lot of serious ills are associated with these institutions. I think the IMF and World Bank offer counter-productive economic policies to the third world and the UN unfairly protects diplomatically well connected countries like Israel.

But the point is that more globalism tends to mean more global influence for Western countries, especially the United States. If you prefer a US that has less global influence but focuses on domestic prosperity that is fine but traditionally the two have been seen as directly correlated and not without reason(e.g. banana republics).

 

[Joe265]

So the secular left has full control of silicon valley, our highest institutions of learning, Hollywood, helms globalism, and has control of all of our major news media except parts of fox news (for now).

Popular figures like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Steven crowder, and other anti marxist anti leftist advocates are being targeted by leftist big tech and their corrupt media allies for extermination off social media platforms with no debate.

The term "Hate Speech" is being used by the elite left in such an Orwellian way that it almost boggles the mind.

Only our leftist silicon valley overlords seem to truly know what "hate speech" means and uses it to cut the tongues of people who criticize the righteous utopian narrative of the left......conservatives.

But nothing is new here, far left marxists have always placed their constant and bloody quest for utopia on earth over individualism and freedom. They've been at it since the French revolution.

If the left isn't stopped, eventually all society will be put under their totalitarian thumb. The marxist state will control literally everything. The Orwellian end goal.

Secular refers to things without spiritual basis. If you are a spiritual person then you should realize the universe doesn’t depend on you, you aren’t it’s savior, so it’s not your job to rescue anything but your own soul. When you’re focused on other people you sabotage you own progression.

People that think it’s their job to stop other people just continue the downward cycle.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Edit

 

[7437]

At this point, I'm not sure it can be stopped, but it may implode. Every single empire in history's dust bin went through what we are seeing unfold before our very eyes today in the West. Decadence, depravity, lack of morality, lack of empathy for your fellow man, etc etc...
It seems cyclical in nature.

Thankfully the president doesnt believe in decadence, isnt depraved, is extremely moral, and very empathetic towards fellow humans.

 

[mixcontactsport]

The thing is that globalism is the fruit of American foreign policy over the last ~75 years. The so called globalist institutions, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, all these were established and/or heavily supported by the West, the US in particular, to further their own ends. Namely to counter the attempt at globalism by the Soviet Union but in many cases also to advance US interests in this or that region of the world.

I am not saying that necessarily makes it right, a lot of serious ills are associated with these institutions. I think the IMF and World Bank offer counter-productive economic policies to the third world and the UN unfairly protects diplomatically well connected countries like Israel.

But the point is that more globalism tends to mean more global influence for Western countries, especially the United States. If you prefer a US that has less global influence but focuses on domestic prosperity that is fine but traditionally the two have been seen as directly correlated and not without reason(e.g. banana republics).

does that mean America is trying to take over the World?