What is a globalist?

[IDL]

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?

Creating money from nothing and lending to government gives them the alpha position in relation to politicians. It also provides a huge revenue stream which they can buy off politicians, buy up corporations such as media, etc. They could choose to ruin the economy if they wanted really, and then blame it on who ever they want.

When you extrapolate that power across the entire world by examining the global banking network as Quigley states you can see the ability to essentially control global policy.

There is a private central bank in each country, and the same mechanism is employed. They are all tied together and headed in Switzerland.

Funny, how Switzerland is always the neutral nation

 

[Jukai]

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.

All six heads of the media belong to Bilderberg? You wanna fact check that, buddy?

 

[Kevin Rudd]

All six heads of the media belong to Bilderberg? You wanna fact check that, buddy?

2 hour youtube video response incoming.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Creating money from nothing and lending to government gives them the alpha position in relation to politicians.

OK, so this doesn't answer my question at all. It's just a reassertion of your original vague claim. They have "power" but you don't say how or to do what. Further, that's not really a good description of what happens (at least in America--maybe *cough* you're more informed on other countries' operations). The Fed buys debt on the open market, rather than directly from the Treasury. Furthermore, owning debt doesn't give you any power over the debtor other than the power to demand contractually obligated payments.

It also provides a huge revenue stream which they can buy off politicians, buy up corporations such as media, etc. They could choose to ruin the economy if they wanted really, and then blame it on who ever they want.

No, that is not accurate. Though, yes, having a lot of money allows you to buy stuff, including influence. Do you support a policy agenda that reduces inequality? From what I've seen, your policy agenda would greatly increase it (and, ironically, specifically enrich bankers). Also, note that bankers don't, in fact, own the media, for the most part. That's a separate business. Furthermore, research shows that media bias reflects the views of the primary consumer population (local populations in the case of newspapers, old conservatives in the case of Fox, etc.) rather than the views of the owners.

When you extrapolate that power across the entire world by examining the global banking network as Quigley states you can see the ability to essentially control global policy.

So you're saying that I can see it. But what is it? That's what I'm asking. What are you referring to?

I can actually give an example--the extremely low inflation all over the developed world, along with high unemployment over the vast majority of it. It seems very obvious that central bankers have shown very excessive fear of inflation and insufficient concern for the plight of the unemployed. The reason for that, IMO, is that the rich--and bankers specifically--care a lot more about keeping inflation low than they do about keeping unemployment low. But the mechanism isn't some convoluted conspiracy to use monetary policy to force gov'ts to submit to their will. It's just that rich people's voices get heard more, and politicians associate more with rich people and tend to be rich, and they don't get exposed to other viewpoints as much, or don't take them as seriously. That type of thing is harmful, but all your proposed solutions would make it worse.

 

[Jukai]

2 hour youtube video response incoming.

This handy little chart explains everything:

 

[panamaican]

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.

There will never be a singular thread (at least, not a good one) on this subject.

That is because there is nothing concrete to base it on. Once you get the main idea of a hidden, nefarious oligarchy and start looking for who comprises this oligarchy plus examples of them in action, you realize that frighteningly little sustains this theory.

It's very easy for people to point to the natural evolution of the world and claim there's a hidden agenda but sooner or later, evidence becomes necessary. It's like me catching all the red lights on my way to work and then claiming some secret city cabal wants everyone to get to work late to justify some new policy agenda. Who's the cabal and what's the specific policy they're trying to justify?

This whole globalist thing is the same and IDL knows it. He can trot out the usual references but nothing with meat on it.

 

[Wolveswithkeys]

There will never be a singular thread (at least, not a good one) on this subject.

That is because there is nothing concrete to base it on. Once you get the main idea of a hidden, nefarious oligarchy and start looking for who comprises this oligarchy plus examples of them in action, you realize that frighteningly little sustains this theory.

It's very easy for people to point to the natural evolution of the world and claim there's a hidden agenda but sooner or later, evidence becomes necessary. It's like me catching all the red lights on my way to work and then claiming some secret city cabal wants everyone to get to work late to justify some new policy agenda. Who's the cabal and what's the specific policy they're trying to justify?

This whole globalist thing is the same and IDL knows it. He can trot out the usual references but nothing with meat on it.

I know I've had this debate with him numerous times. I'm just trying to get him to condense his ramblings all in one place.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There will never be a singular thread (at least, not a good one) on this subject.

That is because there is nothing concrete to base it on. Once you get the main idea of a hidden, nefarious oligarchy and start looking for who comprises this oligarchy plus examples of them in action, you realize that frighteningly little sustains this theory.

It's very easy for people to point to the natural evolution of the world and claim there's a hidden agenda but sooner or later, evidence becomes necessary. It's like me catching all the red lights on my way to work and then claiming some secret city cabal wants everyone to get to work late to justify some new policy agenda. Who's the cabal and what's the specific policy they're trying to justify?

This whole globalist thing is the same and IDL knows it. He can trot out the usual references but nothing with meat on it.

He likes to refer to 1984 and A Brave New World, but I think this is more in line with his thinking:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Adjustment_Team (It's pretty cool, actually, but not real).

 

[IDL]

OK, so this doesn't answer my question at all. It's just a reassertion of your original vague claim. They have "power" but you don't say how or to do what. Further, that's not really a good description of what happens (at least in America--maybe *cough* you're more informed on other countries' operations). The Fed buys debt on the open market, rather than directly from the Treasury. Furthermore, owning debt doesn't give you any power over the debtor other than the power to demand contractually obligated payments.



No, that is not accurate. Though, yes, having a lot of money allows you to buy stuff, including influence. Do you support a policy agenda that reduces inequality? From what I've seen, your policy agenda would greatly increase it (and, ironically, specifically enrich bankers). Also, note that bankers don't, in fact, own the media, for the most part. That's a separate business. Furthermore, research shows that media bias reflects the views of the primary consumer population (local populations in the case of newspapers, old conservatives in the case of Fox, etc.) rather than the views of the owners.



So you're saying that I can see it. But what is it? That's what I'm asking. What are you referring to?

I can actually give an example--the extremely low inflation all over the developed world, along with high unemployment over the vast majority of it. It seems very obvious that central bankers have shown very excessive fear of inflation and insufficient concern for the plight of the unemployed. The reason for that, IMO, is that the rich--and bankers specifically--care a lot more about keeping inflation low than they do about keeping unemployment low. But the mechanism isn't some convoluted conspiracy to use monetary policy to force gov'ts to submit to their will. It's just that rich people's voices get heard more, and politicians associate more with rich people and tend to be rich, and they don't get exposed to other viewpoints as much, or don't take them as seriously. That type of thing is harmful, but all your proposed solutions would make it worse.

ok, well perhaps some of these quotes will illustrate the concept. It is an interesting problem, of what sort of evidence will spark someones interest. Even if it is to just conceptualize the assertion.




"...they who control the credit of a nation, direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people. " Reginald McKenna, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, addressing the stockholders as Chairman of the Midland Bank, in January 1924. Source: Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, page 325 (SCREENSHOT) Purchase Tragedy and Hope Here

 

[IDL]

There will never be a singular thread (at least, not a good one) on this subject.

That is because there is nothing concrete to base it on. Once you get the main idea of a hidden, nefarious oligarchy and start looking for who comprises this oligarchy plus examples of them in action, you realize that frighteningly little sustains this theory.

It's very easy for people to point to the natural evolution of the world and claim there's a hidden agenda but sooner or later, evidence becomes necessary. It's like me catching all the red lights on my way to work and then claiming some secret city cabal wants everyone to get to work late to justify some new policy agenda. Who's the cabal and what's the specific policy they're trying to justify?

This whole globalist thing is the same and IDL knows it. He can trot out the usual references but nothing with meat on it.

Well let's see. IF there was such a network, what sort of evidence would you be interested in? Honest question, because it's a puzzle I wonder about sometimes.

I know what it is like being on the other side and the only reason I know about it was because I didn't really buy the main stream explanations for what is happening in the world, and was curious about it.

 

[Wingslaught]

Globalists are a group of international elites who think we should replace national governments with a world government. They attend conferences like Bilderberg and are members of organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations. David Rockefeller is a prominent example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller

On the world stage, influenced by the globalist perspective of his father, Rockefeller involved himself in a number of policy organizations focused on improving international relations. Rockefeller began a lifelong association with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) when he joined as a director in 1949, the youngest member appointed to that position yet. He would later become head of the nominating committee for future membership and after that the chairman of this foreign policy think-tank.

 

[IDL]

2 hour youtube video response incoming.

No videos or books does hamstring me a tad..

 

[Jukai]

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States…are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. –President Woodrow Wilson Source: in his book The New Freedom (SCREENSHOT) View The New Freedom Here

I don't recognize the rest of the quotes so I can't speak on them (I may look them up later if I get bored) but I recognize THIS quote. This is Wilson's quote against Big Corporate monopolies. It has nothing to do with banks or societies, this was a speech to back up monopoly laws.

Edit: Ugh, and 40% of the rest of the quotes are of course from Tragedy and Hope... a book that assess that in the 20th century, global policy was greatly influenced by a select group of people... and promptly broke after World War I.

A great quote from Tragedy and Hope:

"This radical Right fairy tale, which is now an accepted folk myth in many groups in America, pictured the recent history of the United States , in regard to domestic reform and foreign affairs, as a well-organized plot by extreme Left-wing elements,, operating form the White House itself controlling all chief avenues of publicity in the United States, to destroy the American way of life

This plot, if we are to believe the myth, worked through such avenues of publicity as The New York Times and the Herald Tribune,, the Christian Science Monitor and the Washington Post, the Atlantic Monthly and Harper's Magazine and had at its core the wild-eyed and bushy-haired theotricians of Socialist Harvard and the London School of Economics."

 

[Ruprecht]

I don't recognize the rest of the quotes so I can't speak on them (I may look them up later if I get bored) but I recognize THIS quote. This is Wilson's quote against Big Corporate monopolies. It has nothing to do with banks or societies, this was a speech to back up monopoly laws.

Edit: Ugh, and 40% of the rest of the quotes are of course from Tragedy and Hope... a book that assess that in the 20th century, global policy was greatly influenced by a select group of people... and promptly broke after World War I.

A great quote from Tragedy and Hope:

A bit strange to use quotes from Woodrow Wilson supposedly referring to a cabal of "globalists", when one of the main accusations levelled against globalists is their Wilsonianism.

 

[IDL]

I don't recognize the rest of the quotes so I can't speak on them (I may look them up later if I get bored) but I recognize THIS quote. This is Wilson's quote against Big Corporate monopolies. It has nothing to do with banks or societies, this was a speech to back up monopoly laws.

Edit: Ugh, and 40% of the rest of the quotes are of course from Tragedy and Hope... a book that assess that in the 20th century, global policy was greatly influenced by a select group of people... and promptly broke after World War I.

A great quote from Tragedy and Hope:

Oh it broke did it

It sure doesn't look like it today with more and more wealth being syphoned into fewer hands. Now that the media is consolidated to such a degree, I'd think it's home free for the club.

Either they broke and regrouped, or they didn't really break.

But let's assume for the sake of discussion that what Quigley was referring to got totally smashed to pieces. Would you agree that it shows that it is at least possible for such a network to exist?

 

[Heefer Madness]

in b4 IDL

Globalists are basically the network of oligarchs that set global policy and lie at the top of the global power structure.

They aren't nation centric like normal people are. They have much grander ambitions.

You can see a lot of the global direction for example the smart meter grid. I won't get into what the main purpose of that is, but countries all around are implementing it.

Most people don't realize its coordinated across multiple countries. This coordination is achieved by global directive. Who are the directors? The globalists of course.

There are many global entities, like the UN, the bank of international settlements, etc.

An example of a club globalist get together is the Bilderberg group. There are many such clubs though.

It's funny how these conspiracies survive and modify through time. If you go to Stormfront, they'll tell you a very similar picture of current affairs. The only difference is that the "globalist elite" gets replaced by the "Jewish globalist elite", who is trying to destroy the West by removing national sovereignty, pushing for multiculturalism, etc. Which is a slight modification of the "International Jewish conspiracy" that exists since early 20th century and was a central part of the official ideology of the Third Reich (see "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"). The Internet just seems to amplify all this bullshit to a whole new degree.

 

[Jukai]

Oh it broke did it

That is what the author of the book you are citing believes.
You are using half of his book as evidence that you are right, but you are saying that the other half of his book is wrong.
Do you see the problem with this?

As for the rest of your post, I think it is possible but not on the level you are talking about. I believe there are incredibly powerful groups, too powerful, that have too much pull. I do not believe there is one singular group. You'd have to do things like, I dunno, cherry pick your evidence.

 

[DhakaMMA]

Alex Jones happens to use the term repeatedly, but many people use the term. These include Mike Rivero, James Corbett, Luke Rudowski, Mark Dice, among others.

Globalism is any ideology that looks at the entire world as a single domain without sovereignty of the region, nation, locale, or individual. In other words, it is most commonly associated with anyone who believes in a one-world government, and/or people who believe in active interventionism abroad.

 

[DhakaMMA]

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.

There are many people who are against nationalism and/or borders without being a "globalist". James Corbett for example, is an anarchist and anti-globalist. One is against borders because he wants to bring people together, the other believes is against borders because it does not recognize any limits to its' power reach.

 

[Happiness]

Power and wealth concentrate and it's true that the majority of those interested in extreme accumulation tend to be of a certain personality type; a type that would pursue gain at the expense of the greater good, usually with no existential perspective. However, I find it difficult to believe those types of personalities are capable of forming oligarchies concentrated on a collective goal. History is rife with example of how those types of personalities react to others when they have great power and wealth: typically with paranoia, seclusion and an overriding urge to exert primacy.