Globalizing The Future: The Death of Nationalism

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Brokor, Mar 29, 2015.


?
  1. YES

  2. NO

  3. Maybe, but globalism is the future. Onward!

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Globalizing The Future

    Introduction
    When we mention freedom and liberty, I like to imagine we all think of not just the type of country the Founding Fathers envisioned, but also a modern, unified nation with sensible limited government and no entangling alliances. But, when we factor in the idea of corporations, all of this goes out the window. Why? The push for globalism continues and it is a reality we should all attempt to understand. I am beginning this topic to outline some major points of interest and to clearly define the concept of corporate control. I base these ideas on events and core principles which can be found cited throughout this post.

    Conspiracy To The Uninitiated, Par For Course To The Enlightened
    How much of history is actually repeated? If we look hard enough and have insight, the pattern of conquest for glory in the past is no different than modern warfare to achieve peace. Just as the Greek out lands were sometimes ravaged by barbarian hoards, granting a need for solidarity, an enemy of today's making may be branded "communist" or even "terrorist". Granted, the making of the individual and the belief systems they adhere may be wildly different, nonetheless, there are similarities in the response to its threat.

    The Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner, is comprised of three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis (#1). In simple terms, this has also been known to be described as --problem, reaction, and solution. We can witness this dialectic process in modern times by the known proliferation of an enemy, and sometimes even the creation of such, followed by the predicted response which would undoubtedly require the sort of attention only government can provide. The end result is often a declaration of war followed by profiteering in the arms industry, oil, energy and various technological fields to name a few. One factor which is always present, is the corporate cartel influence, especially in the areas of resource control and finance. (#2) The rise of the corporation, as we know today is not something which took decades to solidify, but much longer. The earliest corporation can be traced back to the 1300's, and most governments have chartered corporations. Historically, corporations were created by a charter granted by government (#3). After the Industrial Revolution had established firm roots, railroad and oil companies as well as banking companies began to thrive. When multiple corporations work together toward common interest, they form what is called a cartel. A cartel will often nullify competition, because the object of any business is to make profits. Today, corporations are usually registered with the state, province, or national government and regulated by the laws enacted by that government, but in the United States, they are no longer limited by charter and are not susceptible to being dissolved after the charter is nullified. A corporation is now a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

    Jekyll Island is a real island off the coast of Georgia, and it was back in 1910, the Federal Reserve banking system (United States) was originally conceived at a highly secret meeting that took place there. What was it these people wanted to hide? In 1910, Jekyll Island was privately owned by a small group of millionaires and they had an elaborate social club which still exists today. It all began in November, when Senator Nelson Aldrich sent for a rail car. The well-known men he asked to attend came in disguise so as they would not be noticed. They were told to use first names only, and two of the men used code names so the servants on the train would not leak their arrival to the press. Once at the island, the men got to work. For the next nine days, these men hammered out what would become the Federal Reserve System. Outwardly, the nation at the time was concerned with the banking industry, and some believed it was time for "banking reform", including the National Monetary Commission, despite the few who opposed it. Some were concerned with the aggregation of power in the hands of New York banks and their Wall Street allies. This powerful alliance is what was called the money trust, which was a very popular term in the newspapers at the time. Some politicians were even fast-tracked to office with promises to "break the money trust", including former President Wilson. The first person at the meeting was Nelson Aldrich. He was a business associate of J.P. Morgan, and the father-in-law to John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and grandfather to Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, the 41st Vice President of The United States. The second, Frank Vanderlip was also there. He was a banker, and Assistant Secretary to the Treasury as well as President of National City Bank, the largest and most powerful in the country. Several other J.P Morgan banking giants and others also attended: Henry Davison, Charles Norton, Benjamin Strong, and Paul Warburg. It is notable to also mention that Warburg was one of the most wealthy men in the world, and all the men together are estimated to have possessed 1/4 of all the wealth of the world at the time. Now, it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out why any of this happened, nor how the banking system we still have in place today, was conceived.

    (for more information -read: The Creature From Jekyll Island, by G. Edward Griffin)

    There is a primary reason for secrecy, but there is more to it than just who comprises the group I mentioned. Just like the people I mentioned above, the people who comprise the major corporations who are viewed as competitors, have industrial and economic power BECAUSE of the concept of cartel monopoly. It was in the period I briefly explained above when wealthy, independently owned businesses secured the first patent on the future. The government agency we believe to be the Federal Reserve, is in fact only Federal by name, and is in fact, a banking cartel. In fact, even the Internal Revenue Service is a privately owned corporation, headquartered in Puerto Rico under the guise of the FAA (Federal Alcohol Administration), which is defunct.

    #1: Hegelian Dialectic - #2: Seven Sisters - #3: Corporations - #4: Jekyll Island

    Global Policy
    Now, stop thinking about NATIONAL policy. Remember the major points I raised. It is time to recognize the same concepts on a global scale. From agriculture to water, natural resources to the creation and control of money --all of it is entirely controlled by corporations. And corporations form cartels to minimize competition. Some believe this is all just a sinister plan to conquer and enslave the people of the world, but is there possibly more to it than that?

    Free Trade has been a fundamental tenet of capitalism for close to 100 years. With the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), (which was manifested by the political bodies which are controlled by corporate cartels), a new door was opened with countries who needed trade to equalize them with our own economy. This has served the interests of multinational corporations by further consolidating foreign political ties as well as cementing a foundation for global policy in the future. The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) has proposed an agenda to support conditions for developing countries to improve their standing in the global economy. Economists have theories on how to combat the disadvantages faced by developing countries, but the advantaged countries continue to control the economic agenda. In order to rectify the social injustice dilemma, international economic institutions (such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund) give advice to developing countries. One solution often proposed, is to issue global rules that protect developing countries. It is still difficult for leaders of developing nations to influence these global rules, since the advantaged countries and the IMF control the stage.

    Waging war often drains the economies of those embroiled in warfare, and just like disadvantaged countries who have accepted financing from the World Bank and assistance from the IMF, once they are indebted, there's no way out again. Also, the restrictions and rules for trade imposed on a nation by the IMF can severely damage the economy. This is how you control the world in the New Age.


    Jamaica (a former territory of Britain) has been deeply indebted by the World Bank. What, your bananas you want to export for sale? Nope. We already have enough...besides, you would be cutting in on Dole profits. Request denied.

    The "Bilderberg Group" is an annual private conference of approximately 120–150 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media. About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; one third from politics and government and the rest from other fields (all are corporations). The original conference was held at the Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeek, Netherlands, from 29 to 31 May, 1954. The group really does not hold a known name or identity, but those who follow its secretive meetings, with help from inside sources, continue to label them "Bilderberg Group".

    Historically, attendee lists have been weighted towards bankers, politicians, and directors of large corporations. In 2001, Denis Healey, a Bilderberg group founder and, for 30 years, a steering committee member, said: "To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing."


    Perceptions Are Everything
    No matter your belief, the end of the road cannot be seen just yet. It is like we are attempting to look through a dirty piece of glass and trying to describe the face of a man a thousand feet away. There are certain "knowns", but not everything is known. We do know that corporations exist today well outside their original boundaries. The very same can be said about governments, not just our own. We know that these corporations and governments conspire in secret, but not always the reasons. We know that globalism and a World Order are certainly on the table, even though it was contested in the past, but openly discussed today. We know that corporations work toward establishing cartels to limit competition and maximize profits. We also know the global financial structure is a cartel of corporations and they set the policy for trade. We know banking and industry are intertwined to create global markets and maintain control in government. We know the vision and goal for some of the most powerful at the head of these organizations strive for a global economy. We also know that national sovereignty would disappear and be replaced with an identity suited for global membership. For a nation like ours, every aspect of our traditional authority and livelihood are at risk. It is therefore only natural for many to fear a transition into a global community. I leave it to you to decide if humanity is doomed or not.
     
  2. Mindgrinder

    Mindgrinder Karma Pirate Ninja Jedi Bipolar WINNING M.L.F.

    Do biofuel policies seek to cut emissions by cutting food? | EurekAlert! Science News

    All part of the plan....

    "
    A study published today in the journal Science found that government biofuel policies rely on reductions in food consumption to generate greenhouse gas savings.

    Shrinking the amount of food that people and livestock eat decreases the amount of carbon dioxide that they breathe out or excrete as waste. The reduction in food available for consumption, rather than any inherent fuel efficiency, drives the decline in carbon dioxide emissions in government models, the researchers found.

    "Without reduced food consumption, each of the models would estimate that biofuels generate more emissions than gasoline," said Timothy Searchinger, first author on the paper and a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy.

    Searchinger's co-authors were Robert Edwards and Declan Mulligan of the Joint Research Center at the European Commission; Ralph Heimlich of the consulting practice Agricultural Conservation Economics; and Richard Plevin of the University of California-Davis.

    The study looked at three models used by U.S. and European agencies, and found that all three estimate that some of the crops diverted from food to biofuels are not replaced by planting crops elsewhere. About 20 percent to 50 percent of the net calories diverted to make ethanol are not replaced through the planting of additional crops, the study found.

    The result is that less food is available, and, according to the study, these missing calories are not simply extras enjoyed in resource-rich countries. Instead, when less food is available, prices go up. "The impacts on food consumption result not from a tailored tax on excess consumption but from broad global price increases that will disproportionately affect some of the world's poor," Searchinger said.
    "
     
    Ganado likes this.
  3. Kingfish

    Kingfish Self Reliant

    Broker, nice job. You have done your homework. For me ? My course is clear. I will oppose the loss of sovereignty . I know it is for purposes gone already. I had a vision a few years back,more like a dream but in it Hillary Clinton introduced the world to the first World president. She said W e need to put all our trust and faith in this man. I think he is the AntiChrist . I think Globalism is the Beast mentioned in Revelations and it will have a leader. I think we will see this in our life time.
     
  4. D2wing

    D2wing Monkey

    Agreed. There is no doubt that a group of men, mostly bankers, control much of the World economy and also stage wars. And most of our political leaders are owned. Bama is owed by his long time boss George Soros. It just occurred to me that since Eisenhower, the only two Presidents that went against powerful interests were shot. Kennedy and Reagan.
     
    Georgia_Boy, Ganado and Sapper John like this.
  5. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

  6. ralfy

    ralfy Monkey

    Support for powerful interests started with Eisenhower, who warned of a military industrial complex. This went on with Kennedy and Cuba and onward, including the Carter Doctrine, Reagan and the Iran-Contra affair, and more.

    And if one considers control of money supply by a private consortium of commercial banks, even longer.
     
  7. Kingfish

    Kingfish Self Reliant

    Nationalism is another word for Sovereignty. Being true to ones nation. I believe in this wholeheartedly . We left England for independence from her controls. W e wanted sovereignty, freedom and our God Given rights. When Globalism first started to rear its ugly face I am sure there were world bankers at the core of the movement and as Broker stated using the Hegelian Dialectic to move it along. The Idea of one central control has always been around all the way back to before Christ. Conquests of entire continents etc. Hitler wanted it, Rome wanted it and so on. Managed conflicts are mentioned in records of past Trilateral commission recordings long since destroyed . Most of us Know that David Rockefeller is a Globalist and has been one of the leading forces in pushing for a one world order or government. His plan would have all nations reduce their military to skeleton size and replace that with U.N. peace keeping forces and in some ways this looks good to the average person. But what if a man like Hitler has"gains" control of this power? I cant fathom why we would willingly allow this to happen. My personal belief is that all nations should be free and independent to live the way they want no matter what the rest of the world thinks. It should only be when become aggressive against others that we should act in force to stop them. We dont need central world government to do this. All we need is a phone.
     
  8. Ganado

    Ganado Monkey+++

    Kingfish. Loved the bit about aggression and 'all we need is a phone' so true.

    While I applaud you views I have a bit of a different take on it.

    As long as one part of the world has resources that the other part of the world wants...eg oil, we have to have either trade or aggression. Unless a better solution is found we only have those two options. Also as long as we are on this earth we will have aggression. If you don't believe me think about when you were young and something made you mad. Did you not want to punch something?

    So instead of wishing for peace and hoping we can have it why not accept we have aggression and figure out how to channel all that energy.

    I think the control and one world order started with good intentions for trade for managed aggression etc.

    The problem that arises is they (the leaders and globalists) started believing they were gods. That they could do anything. When leaders get so use to spinning lies into public truth that they believe we can't see for ourselves what liars and cheats they are then they get that God complex that let's them think we people can be lead like sheep.

    We do this same thing on this forum. We act like no one around us is awake or aware, that most people are sheep and more of them are awake than ever before. So god complex and feeling superior to our fellow human being isn't unique to politicians.

    Back to one world order. It's not going to go away. There is a major fight behind the scenes for who is going to control the global economy. Well to be honest the argument isn't who the argument is where is the next power center of the world going to be located. To be honest I think China has already won and we are just waiting for a big move on their part.

    The only thing holding it back is the constitution and the bill of rights. If we can maintain those two documents China will not have all the power.

    There is so much to cover on this I tried to keep it to a bare minimum so I n apologize if it doesn't make sense. I had to dig and watch financial markets for years and follow the money to discover a lot of this
     
  9. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    There will always be a cry for a one world government as long as people disagree on how resources should be used.
    Like whales and sharks are being killed in high numbers by China, for oil and things like shark fin soup. Some folks want that to stop, or to make China follow rules that China ignores. Blood diamonds, and petroleum products, lead based paints, mercury content in sea food. Certain chemicals, and food additives like MSG. People want more control of things they do not really have control of, so they want to empower a overseer, or watchdog to protect themselves, and others.
     
    3M-TA3 likes this.
  10. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    People WANT what they will..... and they will ALWAYS demand, what they WANT.... but may NOT be willing to Personally, spend the Energy to go get what they WANT.... so they form a .Government, to go get what they WANT, for them.... and they allow Despots, Thugs, and Evil, to run those .Governments, so that they GET, what they WANT..... and as long as that doesn't dirty their Personal Hands... they support those Despots, Thugs, and Evil, to do just that...... NOW, That is how the World Works......
     
  11. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    The quest for a One World Order is really nothing new. In fact, the more we look into the history of our species, we will discover campaigns spanning hundreds of years in which militarily stronger societies have fought to conquer rivals to place them under one banner. Granted, the underlying intent may have varied from age to age, but the final outcome has usually been to become a single, unified people. In every case, there has always been a reservation for a single ruler -and this current campaign for global supremacy to cement a World Order ultimately may be no different. As it stands right now, there are several major corporate cartels involved with globalism, but behind the scenes, the primary movers have long been the banking collective headed by the primary share-holders, most notably, the British Crown and by extension, the Vatican.

    My how times have changed. Lots of people are beginning to learn these facts. Here's a video explaining some of the important details.
     
    Ganado likes this.
  12. Eisenhower had originally intended to warn Americans of the "Military-Industrial-Congressional" complex. The Republican bigwigs talked him out of it.

    William Warren
     
    Ganado likes this.
  1. Yard Dart
  2. Yard Dart
  3. Yard Dart
  4. Yard Dart
  5. Dont
  6. Yard Dart
  7. Garand69
  8. Legion489
  9. Kingfish
  10. GrayGhost
    Thread

    Question.....

    Do we have freedom of speech today?
    Thread by: GrayGhost, Jan 27, 2016, 43 replies, in forum: Freedom and Liberty
  11. Motomom34
  12. Legion489
  13. duane
  14. Yard Dart
  15. Yard Dart
  16. Katana Lee
  17. Motomom34
  18. DarkLight
  19. Brokor
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7