What is a globalist?

[IDL]

Why don't you make your own thread on your theory? You do a lot of talking in other threads and I think that contributes to the disjointedness of it all. Put the time in to start your own thread with a well thought out OP that contains links and evidence to prove everything you always talk about.

I may do that at some point. Problem is it requires a lot of time to go through all the works and evidence. It's an entire body of knowledge.

any single piece of the puzzle can fit with a number of possible explanations. Only when the pieces come together it is proof.

It's a classic problem of how to present a complex picture. That's why people write books or create documentaries. There are countless of those already in circulation.

So, we are left to discuss which I like doing.

We can see the consolidation of power happening, we can see the wealth disparity, we can see the global institutions, we can see the creation of a trading block in the EU, we can see the mass immigration policies, we can see the private banks creating money, we can see China rising as a result of trade policies, we can see the economic interdependencies increasing, etc etc.

the globalists are up there making it all happen.

Most people would rather talk about someone saying something racist though

 

[Wolveswithkeys]

So, we are left to discuss which I like doing.

You're very close to reaching a point where no one wants to discuss with you anymore because of your lack of a cohesive argument. Hence why I suggest you bring it all together in one thread. I'm sure it'll be a lengthy OP but honestly I'd prefer that over discussing different areas of your theory in many different threads all at once. Put it all in one place. That's the only way you'll ever actually get your point across.

 

[UpaLoompa]

So do you actually read Foreign Affairs IDL?

I've only read a handful of articles and, without a doubt, they've all been quite useful.

 

[IDL]

You're very close to reaching a point where no one wants to discuss with you anymore because of your lack of a cohesive argument. Hence why I suggest you bring it all together in one thread. I'm sure it'll be a lengthy OP but honestly I'd prefer that over discussing different areas of your theory in many different threads all at once. Put it all in one place. That's the only way you'll ever actually get your point across.

I get what you are saying but don't call it 'your theory'. People have been writing about this for a very long time and it's fully developed and verifiable.

The ruling class has always tried to keep information from the common class all throughout history. It's no different today and this is just one of many subjects that falls into that category.

I will think about that thread, but in the mean time this thread is about globalists

 

[Ruprecht]

When I think of the term "globalist" I compare it to a "nationalist". Whereas the nationalist puts his country, or ethnic group ahead of the rest of the world, the globalist does the opposite.

I am a globalist in that I dislike the country-first way our world works, and believe it holds us back and will eventually have to go away in order for us to progress into a multi-planet species and/or deal with the inevitable interaction with alien species.

I think that when (mostly right-wing) cranks use the term, they are using it as opposed to isolationist.
How else can the CFR be accused by Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and the like of being Globalist, when it's membership and policy making includes the like of William Kristol, Robert Kagan and Eliot A Cohen.
Co-founders of the Project for a New American Century.

How else can there be "Zionist Globalists"?

 

[Wolveswithkeys]

I get what you are saying but don't call it 'your theory'. People have been writing about this for a very long time and it's fully developed and verifiable.

the ruling class has always kept information from the common class all throughout history. It's no different today.

I will think about that thread, but in the mean time this thread is about globalists

I didn't mean "your theory" like you're the only one that has it. And I hope you decide to verify it with a thread that has supporting evidence.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I've only read a handful of articles and, without a doubt, they've all been quite useful.

The thing is, the way "they" (there's actually a lot of disagreement among them) carry out their "globalist" agenda is by convincing people that is desirable. That's the only power they have. Facts and arguments. So there's no way they can do it secretly (and note that IDL is either claiming to be some kind of genius or that an ordinary person with no special access to information can figure it all out without even reading anything they do).

 

[UpaLoompa]

I think that when (mostly right-wing) cranks use the term, they are using it as opposed to isolationist.
How else can the CFR be accused by Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and the like of being Globalist, when it's membership and policy making includes the like of William Kristol, Robert Kagan and Eliot A Cohen.
Co-founders of the Project for a New American Century.

How else can there be "Zionist Globalists"?

The issue is that you're trying to impose logical consistency and a semblance of coherence to the topic.

IDL's positions (along with Paul's, for that matter) fully exist within a realm where the idea that "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"*. There's no need for any sort of logic, reason or consistency. You just haven't researched enough. And, dear me, certainly don't bring up any sort of concern for parsimony. The most convoluted answer is always the best answer.

*misquoting that here is appropriate

 

[Ruprecht]

I've only read a handful of articles and, without a doubt, they've all been quite useful.

Obviously I disagree with a lot of the policy, but when it comes to being informed on what American Foreign Policy actually is (and has been historically), as well as the ideology and information it's based on, it's hard to beat.
The contributors are certainly open for all sorts of criticism, but the articles are always informed and intelligent.

 

[UpaLoompa]

The contributors are certainly open for all sorts of criticism, but the articles are always informed and intelligent.

Indeed.

 

[ncordless]

I think that when (mostly right-wing) cranks use the term, they are using it as opposed to isolationist.
How else can the CFR be accused by Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and the like of being Globalist, when it's membership and policy making includes the like of William Kristol, Robert Kagan and Eliot A Cohen.
Co-founders of the Project for a New American Century.

How else can there be "Zionist Globalists"?

Could well be. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a bit of a distortion as to what globalist means.

An isolationist is a nationalist in that they just really don't give a fuck about the rest of the world and believe problems can be avoided by ostriching.

 

[Ruprecht]

The issue is that you're trying to impose logical consistency and a semblance of coherence to the topic.

IDL's positions (along with Paul's, for that matter) fully exist within a realm where the idea that "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"*. There's no need for any sort of logic, reason or consistency. You just haven't researched enough. And, dear me, certainly don't bring up any sort of concern for parsimony. The most convoluted answer is always the best answer.

*misquoting that here is appropriate

Yeah, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.
The other option is as you say, it's just cranks cranking.

 

[IDL]

The thing is, the way "they" (there's actually a lot of disagreement among them) carry out their "globalist" agenda is by convincing people that is desirable. That's the only power they have. Facts and arguments. So there's no way they can do it secretly (and note that IDL is either claiming to be some kind of genius or that an ordinary person with no special access to information can figure it all out without even reading anything they do).

The CFR and peoples research on it is a tiny fraction of the overall picture. You could study the CFR in a bubble and never see the agenda.

Most of the power is derived through the global banking system. The CFR is just one think tank that comes up with global strategies.

You don't need to be a genius to figure it out, you just need to ask the right questions and find the right pieces.

 

[IDL]

The issue is that you're trying to impose logical consistency and a semblance of coherence to the topic.

IDL's positions (along with Paul's, for that matter) fully exist within a realm where the idea that "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"*. There's no need for any sort of logic, reason or consistency. You just haven't researched enough. And, dear me, certainly don't bring up any sort of concern for parsimony. The most convoluted answer is always the best answer.

*misquoting that here is appropriate

You are making huge assumptions here in an effort to discredit my thought process which you are not privy to. Truth is found by ironing out inconsistencies and examining as many possibilities as you can think of. You are assuming I have not done that.

You may see inconsistencies based on your understanding or perception of the subject matter on the surface, but two people can look at the same thing in many different ways and apply very different understandings of the underlying dynamics and factors involved.

I can think of numerous explanations for any given thing as well. It's only when you apply it all together that the other explanations are ruled out.

 

[Ruprecht]

You shouldn't let yourself be tied down in specifics like that.

 

[IDL]

Interesting. Paul Warburg was a founder of both the Federal Reserve and the CFR.

When you get right down to it, the banking elite really do get their fingers in a lot of pies.

 

[Jukai]

I have found, through much experience, that for this subject the MSM is largely useless. It just is.

No offense man, but I just stopped reading here, haha...

 

[HIMBOB]

I take it to mean people more concerned for the good of world than the good of their particular corner of it.

 

[IDL]

No offense man, but I just stopped reading here, haha...

Well, there are a handful of corporations that own the vast majority of media and the media heads go to the globalist closed door meetings such as Bilderberg.

They use the media to keep people away from the truth and employ all the propaganda tactics that have been developed throughout history.

Seriously, it's prole food.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The CFR and peoples research on it is a tiny fraction of the overall picture. You could study the CFR in a bubble and never see the agenda.

Most of the power is derived through the global banking system. The CFR is just one think tank that comes up with global strategies.

You don't need to be a genius to figure it out, you just need to ask the right questions and find the right pieces.

I gather the question, "what, exactly, are you talking about?" isn't one of the right ones, given your refusal to answer it. Banking is big business, and big banks are huge business, so there's a lot of money there and a lot of power as a result. But that applies to all big businesses. When you talk about the "power" derived through the global banking system, what do you mean, exactly?