We read incessantly how the U.S. is more divided and polarized than at any time in our lifetimes. Articles saying this are too numerous to cite individually. It’s obvious in any event: leftists despise conservatives, and are despised by them in return. I’ve argued elsewhere: there are basically two cultures in the U.S.: that of the “blue culture” of the crowded urban areas which embrace “progressive” values, and that of the “red culture” of rural states which reject them. Increasingly, neither side sees the other as legitimate or worth talking to.
The racial dimension here is obvious: blacks hate whites like never before, to the point of calls for violence. Whites are almost as fed up with blacks. Even those who supported the civil rights movement of the 1960s are fed up. There are exceptions, of course, but the general stance of the two races toward one another is increasing hostility. A point often made in why-people-voted-for-Trump commentary is that Donald Trump’s support didn’t come just from the white working class. Many middle class and even upper-class whites voted for him. They are tired of affirmative action and other preferences, black-on-white crime which mainstream media won’t report, anti-white racism, and political correctness.
Into this fray walked Trump. He was the only candidate many of them had ever seen who openly said things like, “We can no longer afford to be politically correct!”
Some of the images cultural leftists have foisted on the public in retaliation suggest derangement, as when the hopelessly untalented Kathy Griffin draws attention to herself holding a ketchup-covered mannequin’s severed head made to look like Trump’s.
How sick does someone have to be to come up with something like that?
The other side of the coin, though, is that the woman is practically in hiding because of death threats. Her career as a pampered, fawned-over celebrity is probably over.
This is a product of conservative pushback. The grassroots has had enough!
Colleges and universities are in trouble, most of it of their own making. Again I cannot count the number of disruptions of conservative speakers by leftists — many of the latter bussed in from off-campus, George Soros their sugar daddy. Violent leftists did millions of dollars worth of damage at Berkeley back in January.
Last month at Evergreen State College, a white professor had to hold classes off campus because of threats following his criticism of a leftist-proposed day-without-whites at his school.
This past week as I write, a black sociology professor at Trinity College wrote approvingly on his Facebook page of a vile article on Medium (one of the worst places on the Internet for this sort of thing, and no I won’t link to it) recommending, “let whites f****** die.” Point of departure: the potentially deadly assault by a Bernie supporter on several Republican Congressmen in Alexandria, Va., which put Steve Scalise, majority whip in the House, in critical condition.
The sociology professor went on to calls whites “inhuman a**holes.”
It’s no secret that leftists have grown increasingly vile and violent since the Age of Trump began. Their grip on the national narrative has slipped, and they’ve upped the ante. Conservatives tend not to respond in kind, which is fortunate for leftists since conservatives (especially in rural regions) don’t share most leftists’ fear of guns. But everyone has his breaking point. As with the Griffin woman, the sociology professor in the above case has reported death threats. His home address and phone numbers were posted in a comments section.
Trump supporters have struck back in places like Berkeley. There is now blood between “red” and “blue” types. This may be just the start. I have a distinct impression that violence between, e.g., a Black Lives Matter campus group and conservative whites who decide they’ve had enough could erupt at any time. The former will have been on one of their usual rampages against “white supremacy,” bullying white students minding their own business. The latter may decide they’ve gone too far into debt via student loans to continue putting up with more of BLM’s crap. Having received no support from cowardly administrators, they may threaten to take matters into their own hands, next go round. In this way, a campus becomes a powder-keg.
Globalists are surely enjoying the unfolding spectacle — because they’ve fomented and orchestrated it. Soros has bankrolled BLM from the start, just like he’s financed other left-wing groups from MoveOn.org to Occupy Wall Street. His goal has been to destroy traditional American culture, since it’s been a longstanding bulwark against the sort of world he and his minions want.
What do they want? Economically, they see the world as a borderless marketplace where everything and everyone is for sale for the right price, where they can get richer by financial manipulation at others’ expense without consequence. Politically, they have been working toward a single global-governance structure, or world government, that answers to their leviathan corporations. They wish to set up a global currency that can be monitored, which entails ending cash transactions and destroying the dollar. Multiculturalism is a weapon against “WASP” culture. It breeds division and distrust. Globalists have no sincere interest in indigenous cultures, as should be clear if we survey the history of how their corporations have destroyed indigenous peoples on every continent except Antarctica.
I’ve used the term technofeudalism for the kind of political economy towards which globalists have been taking the world. Think socialism for the elites and those favored by them, and cutthroat “capitalism with the gloves off” for everyone else.
At the moment, I think globalists want conservatives to believe they scored a major triumph with the Trump presidency, and a few additional victories with local special elections that have favored Republicans such as the one in Georgia last week. Globalists are willing to sacrifice Democrats, since they are willing to sacrifice anyone if it helps them achieve their goals. It is useful to remember, their only loyalties are to themselves and to money and power.
Globalists view their strategy as akin to that of a chess master. Chess masters do not see just the board in front of them. They are always thinking several moves ahead. Globalists are master strategists. I envision them studying every economic boom and bust, every downturn and recovery, especially the financial crisis that actually began with the subprime lending fiasco in 2007 and its aftermath, learning all they could from it and how to become even better manipulators of world and national events. Underestimating them would be a huge mistake.
Do globalists in my sense, directing history, really exist?
Back in 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote (Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, pp. 56-62):
The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state….
A global human conscience is for the first time beginning to manifest itself…. Today we are … witnessing the emergence of transnational elites … 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 … 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 new global consciousness, however, is only beginning to become an influential force. It still lacks identity, cohesion, and focus. Much of humanity—indeed, the majority of humanity—still neither shares nor is prepared to support it. Science and technology are still used to buttress ideological claims, to fortify national aspirations, and to reward narrowly national interests…. The new global unity has yet to find its own structure, consensus, and harmony.…
David Rockefeller Sr. read this, especially the third paragraph, and the result was the globalist Trilateral Commission (TC), intended to internationalize the globalism of the American-only Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Rockefeller and Brzezinski both went to meet their Maker earlier this year, but their progeny is still around.
How does Trump fit into all this? Is he truly the “populist” rebel his supporters voted for, or are matters (shall we say) a bit more complicated? Among the things bothering me is that Trump filled his cabinet with more CFR members than Barack Obama had, including denizens of the swamp he was elected to drain. Last year a friend drew my attention to a briefing Trump held with arch-globalist and former CFR president Richard N. Haass, of whom Donald spoke approvingly. What was up with this? she wanted to know. Trump has also met with the third TC founding kingpin Henry Kissinger, over China. Unlike Trump’s tweets, none of these meetings received mainstream press coverage.
I have encountered authors who believe Trump was the candidate globalists wanted in the White House all along. Their reasoning is not hard to fathom in retrospect.
First, globalists knew there was opposition to their goals, and if they couldn’t gain control over it, it would grow until it stymied them. Creating a controlled opposition is a common strategy of theirs. Second, we know another economic calamity is coming. The question is not if, but when. Who will be blamed for it? Globalists may have decided they prefer someone highly visible and disruptive, a self-described foe, who openly defends unpopular stances like economic nationalism and keeps a few such folks like Steve Bannon around, to take the fall when the Dow loses at least two thirds of its value and things go to pieces.
Third, it is unlikely that any candidate would rise to the top and get nominated for national office on a major party in the largest economy in the world without the silent approval of those with real power. I recall pondering last year whether obvious efforts to derail Trump’s candidacy would materialize. They didn’t.
Globalists both own and control major media, via six well-known corporate leviathans. They could have shut Trump down. They could have mandated a blackout on his rallies, as they did those of Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012. They did not. Yes, Trump was ratings. But we are talking about billionaires many times over. It isn’t as if they or their corporations needed the dough. The bottom line: they were not forced to give Donald Trump 24/7 wall-to-wall coverage.
But they did. They obsessed over his every move, every public statement, every tweet. They talked his debate performances to death. They didn’t need to cover the fact that his supporters were relishing every minute, that his level of support went up every time he said something politically incorrect. Nor did they need to cover the physical attacks on Trump supporters by unhinged leftists.
They could count on alternative media to do that.
I think Brandon Smith, the most visible defender of the globalists-wanted-Trump-to-win theory, might be right.
Smith believes that the official conspiracy theory of members of the Trump campaign colluding with Russian agents, or Russian hackers compromising the DNC and influencing the outcome of the election, or both, is serving a purpose: this being to give leftists in government, who are less unhinged and less likely to attack a Trump supporter with a bike lock something concrete to focus on: the idea, now also promoted relentlessly in all major media outlets, that someone they despise passionately may have stolen a national election with help from agents of a hostile foreign power. Such a narrative would delegitimize Trump’s presidency and make his removal from office an acceptable option. Never mind that there is zilch evidence that the conspiracy theory is true. Not even James Comey’s two and a half hours of testimony produced anything new: not a single concrete “smoking gun” or line of evidence. Do Comey’s “memos” even exist? Has anyone outside the corridors of government and media power seen them?
So poor is the case that the Russians hacked the election that an actual Russian hacker was offered a bribe to confess!
In other words, the Russia conspiracy theory is a psy-op aimed primarily at the slightly less foaming-at-the-mouth left, from whom the nation expects at least some leadership.
Smith believes that if this morphs into an open effort to impeach the president and remove him from office, the effort will fail. The most visible reason it will fail is that the GOP-controlled Congress will not disrupt the nation with a vote to remove one of their own even if they dislike him personally.
A less visible reason is that the globalists want The Donald right where he is.
The failure of an impeachment effort will enflame the rabid left even more. These people, driven by emotion and not being very bright, are easy to manipulate. The second psy-op, therefore, will target conservatives.
Go back to those campuses, which were closed temporarily due to safety considerations. Scenarios such as I envisioned above could happen. The fallout could quickly spread elsewhere via social media, just as BLM itself spread nationwide (given the generosity of its globalist sugar daddy).
Anything of this sort could provoke a dangerously authoritarian reaction from the Trump administration, one which would have loud support from conservatives nationwide who are fed up with black and leftist militancy and would applaud an iron-fisted, baton-wielding, police-state response. Conservatives, moreover, are already positioned to blame the left if Trump’s stated agenda for the country, to reverse globalism and create jobs for Americans, is derailed. If efforts to secure the borders against ISIS-sponsored terror come to naught, conservatives will say — rightly — that leftists in government and corporate media distracted him with the Russia conspiracy theory, while leftists both in and out of government fought his every other effort tooth and nail.
“Leftists,” Smith writes, “will be labeled economic and political saboteurs, and this accusation will work to a point, because it is partly true.”
All these efforts are in motion. including the globalist-caused economic decline outside point-zero-one-percenter enclaves and the leftist-caused cultural decline of the U.S. If Smith is right, the globalists in their banking/financial/media corporations will have deflected blame for decline onto others. But if decline, via an Age of Decadence (which I discuss beginning here) is the fate of empires which are inherently unsustainable, then reversing America’s decline is beyond Trump’s or anyone else’s abilities regardless of who is blamed.
Author’s Note: if you believe this article and others like it were worth your time, please consider making a $5/mo. pledge on my Patreon site. If the first 100 people who read this all donate, my goal of just $500/mo. would be reached in no time! And if we’re honest about it, we all waste that much money each day.
Telling the truth can have negative consequences. Around this time last year my computer was hacked — it wasn’t the Russians, either! Repeated attempted repairs of the OS failed, and the device gradually became unusable — a reason I haven’t been around much lately — and I’ve had to replace it off-budget.
This is also an attempt to raise money to publish and promote a novel, Reality 101 (a globalist speaks in a voice filled with irony and dripping with cynicism). Promoting a book means, in my case, the necessity of international travel which is not cheap.
I do not write for an audience of one. I write for you, readers of this site. If you believe this work makes a worthwhile contribution, please consider supporting it financially. I am not a wealthy person, and unlike the leftist groups I criticize, I do not have a George Soros funneling a bottomless well of cash my way.
If I reach the above goal of $500/mo., I may be able to speak at an event in your area (contact info below). On the other hand, if this effort fails, I am considering taking an indefinite “leave of absence” beginning later this year to pursue other goals. To sum up, these are your articles (and books). I don’t write to please myself. No one is forcing me to do it, as sometimes it brings me grief instead of satisfaction. So if others do not value the results enough to support them, I might as well go into retirement while I am still able to enjoy it.
E-Mail Steven Yates:
© 2017 Steven Yeates – All Rights Reserved
