The Globalist Agenda - -

[Alexis Jacobi]

I live in Florida in the US. We get a lot of immigrants here too. I just want to live in peace with them. This thread does not contribute to that endeavor. I consider you one of my friends here on PN. I will always consider you a friend regardless of what you post or how you respond. However, I wish you'd calm down and fight the good fight with me and stop all this negativity.

I return to this because, rereading Gorgias recently, I am interested in this statement for its rhetorical content and strength.

If it is assumed that “immigration” is a bona fide (incontestable) good. Then what if (working from Iwannaplato’s complaint) what if the state (Florida in this case) were flooded with corporate persons who, because of their tremendously amplified power, overpowered the citizen-individual?

Would Gary then reasonably say: “I just want to live in peace with them”?

[Flannel Jesus]

Who are they supposed to be and what are their motives?

Do you really think there is no answer and that it is so opaque?

No, do you really think that if I'm asking a question, that means "there's no answer and it's so opaque".

If I ask a question, it's USUALLY because I want an answer.

[FlashDangerpants]

If we are going to talk about globalists, I think we should consider who the first globalists were.

All that you say is true, but it does not help in arriving at decisions about the goodness or badness of •globalism• as FishPie and his videos presenter attempts to paint it.

But the language coming from the video and that coming from fish pie are not the same, are they? The video is reasonable, although I do have a problem with this implied organised and powerful force, the Globalists, but fishy is just having a rant, with the intention of being inflammatory. The problem of immigration needs to be tackled calmly and sensibly, but if we let ourselves get all fired up by fishy, we will end up fighting on the streets.

The language coming from the video may appear superficially measured and temperate, but the contents are just that grand old conspiracy theory about a collective of financiers who owe loyalty to no state and who secretly direct public policy and seek to undermine the the ethnic cohesion of white Europe ... but this time without actually using the word "Jews", a word which about half these conspiracy nutters are trying to wean themselves off of.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The video is reasonable, although I do have a problem with this implied organised and powerful force, the Globalists, but fishy is just having a rant, with the intention of being inflammatory. The problem of immigration needs to be tackled calmly and sensibly, but if we let ourselves get all fired up by fishy, we will end up fighting on the streets.

Fishpie has persuaded himself of certain things. In my personal opinion his delivery of sound, rational, carefully prepared and delivered points, is not very successful.

And that, I think, is due to qualities of his personality. So (again reflecting on Gorgias, forgive me) he is a rhetor with an insufficiency in his rhetorical structure.

The argument against •reverse colonialism• by Islamic hordes is not one difficult to make.

The argument •in pro• of allowing reverse colonialism by Islamic hordes seems to me quite difficult to make successfully — unless one happed to be Muslim.

Fishpie has clearly stated his criteria of opposition are not •racist• or •racialist• but (basically ) religious and cultural.

Frankly, I’d say that his rhetorical posture is more emoted than reasoned.

We have not developed what this globalism is however, and why it should be opposed.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The language coming from the video may appear superficially measured and temperate, but the contents are just that grand old conspiracy theory about a collective of financiers who owe loyalty to no state and who secretly direct public policy and seek to undermine the the ethnic cohesion of white Europe ... but this time without actually using the word "Jews", a word which about half these conspiracy nutters are trying to wean themselves off of.

As per usual FDP resorts to •charged rhetoric• to persuade.

FDP, by resorting to accusations of “nuttery” and “conspiracy theories” has revealed his core, rhetorical tactic.

The upshot is: “You cannot have this conversation unless you are nuts” (etc). “The conversation is invalid.”

[Alexis Jacobi]

Who are they supposed to be and what are their motives?

Do you really think there is no answer and that it is so opaque?

No, do you really think that if I'm asking a question, that means "there's no answer and it's so opaque".

If I ask a question, it's USUALLY because I want an answer.

The answer then is fairly obvious, isn’t it?

The business community.

The construction of the global economy was touted heavily in the 1980’s wasn’t it? It was a continuation of America’s Grand Economic plan, wasn’t it? Rationalized through the concept of the 2000s as the beginning of another “American century”.

Is that description sufficient?

[Flannel Jesus]

Do you really think there is no answer and that it is so opaque?

No, do you really think that if I'm asking a question, that means "there's no answer and it's so opaque".

If I ask a question, it's USUALLY because I want an answer.

The answer then is fairly obvious, isn’t it?

not to me, that's why i'm asking

The business community.

The construction of the global economy was touted heavily in the 1980’s wasn’t it?

was it?

It was a continuation of America’s Grand Economic plan, wasn’t it?

was it?

Rationalized through the concept of the 2000s as the beginning of another “American century”.

Is that description sufficient?

No, it's a start.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Was it?

It was.

More or less it is “historical record” unless I’ve been exposed to the wrong histories.

[Flannel Jesus]

Was it?

It was.

More or less it is “historical record” unless I’ve been exposed to the wrong histories.

Why are you asking me 'wasn't it' over and over again? You can just tell me. I don't know. I clearly don't know, I don't know everything, there are many thigns I'm ignorant of. You can just tell me something's true, without adding a 'wasn't it?' at the end. Did you know that?

Almost as important as telling me what's true, is telling me why you believe it's true, and/or why I should believe it's true. Less "wasn't it" please, more "this is why I believe it, this is why you should believe it".

[Harbal]

All that you say is true, but it does not help in arriving at decisions about the goodness or badness of •globalism• as FishPie and his videos presenter attempts to paint it.

But the language coming from the video and that coming from fish pie are not the same, are they? The video is reasonable, although I do have a problem with this implied organised and powerful force, the Globalists, but fishy is just having a rant, with the intention of being inflammatory. The problem of immigration needs to be tackled calmly and sensibly, but if we let ourselves get all fired up by fishy, we will end up fighting on the streets.

The language coming from the video may appear superficially measured and temperate, but the contents are just that grand old conspiracy theory about a collective of financiers who owe loyalty to no state and who secretly direct public policy and seek to undermine the the ethnic cohesion of white Europe ... but this time without actually using the word "Jews", a word which about half these conspiracy nutters are trying to wean themselves off of.

I suspect the Globalists, like IC's Communists, are a fictitious scary monster. I dare say there are those with globalist leanings, just as there are actual communists, but I think it is those who try to propagate these myths that we should worry about.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Relax Flannel Jesus.

The question marks are a way to check in with you about if you agree or not.

In the 1980’s, in the US, the globalization project undertaken by an American élite was ‘sold’ to the American people. It was a massive PR campaign.

This outlines the thinking:

A trend to dismantle post-World War II restrictions to trade gained momentum in the 1980s and 1990s. U.S. corporations had performed well in the postwar era up to that point. Expanding access to the world’s population seemed like the next step for some of these corporations and was an impetus for reducing trade barriers. As a result, we saw the rise of global brands during that period.

[FlashDangerpants]

The language coming from the video may appear superficially measured and temperate, but the contents are just that grand old conspiracy theory about a collective of financiers who owe loyalty to no state and who secretly direct public policy and seek to undermine the the ethnic cohesion of white Europe ... but this time without actually using the word "Jews", a word which about half these conspiracy nutters are trying to wean themselves off of.

As per usual FDP resorts to •charged rhetoric• to persuade.

FDP, by resorting to accusations of “nuttery” and “conspiracy theories” has revealed his core, rhetorical tactic.

The upshot is: “You cannot have this conversation unless you are nuts” (etc). “The conversation is invalid.”

It is obviously perfectly fair to refer to a theory about a giant global conspiracy as a conspiracy theory. That's just the name for such conspiratorial theorisings.

[Alexis Jacobi]

like IC's Communists

His Communists, and the evils of historical Communism, are not debatable.

What is debatable is if the project of those who run the present system — whoever they are (I assume they would be the most powerful élites) — will result in similar outcomes.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It is obviously perfectly fair to refer to a theory about a giant global conspiracy as a conspiracy theory. That's just the name for such conspiratorial theorisings.

I do not think this assertion is correct.

You’d first have to establish if conspiratorial planning is a real thing and worthy of examination, or a false thing to be dismissed.

[Flannel Jesus]

Relax.

The question marks are a way to check in with you about if you agree or not.

In the 1980’s, in the US, the globalization project undertaken by an American élite was ‘sold’ to the American people. It was a massive PR campaign.

This outlines the thinking:

A trend to dismantle post-World War II restrictions to trade gained momentum in the 1980s and 1990s. U.S. corporations had performed well in the postwar era up to that point. Expanding access to the world’s population seemed like the next step for some of these corporations and was an impetus for reducing trade barriers. As a result, we saw the rise of global brands during that period.

That quote isn't at that link for me.