The Globalist Agenda - -

[attofishpi]

Are you finally nutting up enough to say what you really mean?

..all that's missing is\are the motive(s)..

That might be of interest to you, but for sane people one conspiracy theory is much like any other.

So.

According to you I am a:
- Homophobic
- Transphobic
- Islamaphobic
..insane racist

..but you think Labour has not been conspiring and still is for increasing Muslim votes to gain and hold onto power with more Islamists free to venture upon that little beautiful land (the British Isles)...an evil conspiracy indeed.

Mmm...who cares about the British people less than their quest for power? Answer: SIR Keir Starmer.


Again..Christopher Hitchens warning us ..V..Starmer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc4K1pFH-8s

[FlashDangerpants]

..all that's missing is\are the motive(s)..

That might be of interest to you, but for sane people one conspiracy theory is much like any other.

So.

According to you I am a:
- Homophobic
- Transphobic
- Islamaphobic
..insane racist

Why bother to put the the there when you are about to prove that you are those things with something like...

..but you think Labour has not been conspiring and still is for increasing Muslim votes to gain and hold onto power with more Islamists free to venture upon that little beautiful land (the British Isles)...an evil conspiracy indeed.

Why pretend not to be a conspiracy theorist when it is so obvious that you are one?




Incidentally, what I actually think is that you are mentally unwell and easily led down the rabbit hole by cynical abusers. You are weak and easy to take advantage of. You've been doing the Great White Replacement conspiracy theory but you might actually be too shit to notice that you are doing it. You are being encouraged by lame videos to ponder questions about the "Globalist Agenda" but you are too stupid to notice that the video doesn't answer the question it poses, it is softening you up for what you will be finding out when you are further down the rabbit hole...

... spoiler alert, it always comes back round to the Jews in the end with these guys. And they will tell you that you couldn't be told sooner because all the Jews control the media. And by then, after a few months of persuading you that you are special and wise and party to secret knowledge, you are going to lap it up like the weak willed manipulable little drunkard that you are.

Now is the time when you should totally prove this wrong by telling me how many of your best friends are Jews and that half your family suports The Tottingham Hottenspurs!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Surely "globalism" is a very broad and nebulous concept. Why is it my fault that I reference it in broad terms?

Broad yes, but nebulous no, I do not think so. It has already been presented how the present globalism developed in the late 70s and 80s.

It is a fault that you do not seem to be capable of examining the claims and positions of those who present a critical posture toward the present trends in globalism. It is also a fault that you pepper all your posts with hot and derisive rhetorical terms.

As I have noted many times: conversations devolve here into partisan battles, and once the partisan battle has been polarized productive conversation is rendered impossible.

The observation remains correct that if you find a way to explain what "globalism" is, and if you do so in terms that permit discussion of it having an agenda of its own or of it being the work of somebody who is using it to forward some other "agenda", you are, by definition attaching a conspiracy to it that would not attach if you were defining it merely as some broad historical trend that simply reflected late 20th century economics with long supply chains and maximised profitability via specialisation.

This is a loaded, rhetorically-driven statement. Globalism does not require my or anyone's explanation since it exists and is real.

It can be discussed for what it is, and certainly its *agenda* can also be discussed without resorting to extravagances. The *agenda* of the business and corporate community can easily be known. Your issue is with how those who have oppositional position toward its negative aspects -- both on the Left and now on the Dissident Right -- go about presenting their case. For example the man in the video heading up this thread.

In respect to that video we can say and we should know that the view presented has reductive elements. It is part of a discourse the purpose of which is to persuade the listener to see and appreciate those critical elements.

you are, by definition attaching a conspiracy to it that would not attach if you were defining it merely as some broad historical trend that simply reflected late 20th century economics with long supply chains and maximised profitability via specialisation.

It is precisely in respect to the agenda and the reasoning of those interests which you outlined here that a critical posture has become possible and its articulation necessary -- that is among those who take up the postures. In reference for example to GRECE there is no clear demarcation between traditionally understood Left postures and traditional Right postures.

A 'broad historical trend' can be and I think is being challenged by those who see in it elements that work against what they see as their interests and their values. That is precisely the point of critical positions.

By choosing to handle the thing as an agenda driven process, you are making the choice that comes with the tinfoil hat, not having it thrust upon you.

Here, you do again what you do regularly: attach a hot rhetorical term intended to contaminate the prospect of a balanced examination of the questions. One must examine and understand your purpose. I will not say that your purpose is simple. As I have often said I believe we have to examine not only structures of ideas but elements of *personal psychology* to understand why it is that such intense polarities exist and play out with such intense fervor in our present.

Your tactic is common: the demonization of your *enemies* through assigning the worst interpretations to their motives.

Et voilà:

Incidentally, what I actually think is that you are mentally unwell and easily led down the rabbit hole by cynical abusers. You are weak and easy to take advantage of. You've been doing the Great White Replacement conspiracy theory but you might actually be too shit to notice that you are doing it. You are being encouraged by lame videos to ponder questions about the "Globalist Agenda" but you are too stupid to notice that the video doesn't answer the question it poses, it is softening you up for what you will be finding out when you are further down the rabbit hole...

... spoiler alert, it always comes back round to the Jews in the end with these guys. And they will tell you that you couldn't be told sooner because all the Jews control the media. And by then, after a few months of persuading you that you are special and wise and party to secret knowledge, you are going to lap it up like the weak willed manipulable little drunkard that you are.

Now is the time when you should totally prove this wrong by telling me how many of your best friends are Jews and that half your family suports The Tottingham Hottenspurs!

[FlashDangerpants]

Surely "globalism" is a very broad and nebulous concept. Why is it my fault that I reference it in broad terms?

Broad yes, but nebulous no, I do not think so. It has already been presented how the present globalism developed in the late 70s and 80s.

Cool. If it isn't nebulous then you should be able to define Globalism in a non-nebulous way. That will enable everyone to know what is and what is not "globalism".

When we have this non-nebulous definition, we can easily deal with any question of what sort of entity it is. Then we may simply and efficiently compare that with the sort of entity has purposes, wants, desires and by extention can hold that which goes with such things.... "an agenda".

[Alexis Jacobi]

My position in all this is to try to get along with the new neighbors. Complaining about it and taking to the streets is not going to solve anything. Besides, my country has been going through this sort of thing since it was "founded". We're all 'mutts' and half breeds here.

Your so-called *position* is really no position at all. What I mean is that there are actually two distinct poles: one is that all immigration, and indeed *open borders* should be the political policy. That it does not matter who comes, or from where, and that all are welcome. There is an ideological platform that supports this view. It is an *ideology* with roots, supportive discourse, etc.

On the other side of that is a very different view. That a country and a community is a unique creation and, for different reasons, deserves to be respected and protected. That is, if there is an immigration policy it should be selective and it should be capable of having genuine concern for the existing communities into which immigrants are brought. And the policies regarding how immigrants are tested for their understanding of the political philosophy of the country they are assimilated into is also, and had traditionally been, an important part of immigration policy.

I would compare you to a woman who is a classical *push-over*. I am drawing a comparison between the political body and our own physical body. I have said this many times and in different ways but you come across to me as feminine. I recognize that this comes across as insulting, and perhaps another term or metaphor would be better, but in my view the first position I described above is not grounded sufficiently in strong, structured ideas. It is based in idealistic postures and sentimental postures.

Someone comes along who demands access to you. You have no argument to oppose giving yourself over. I am destined to produce *mutts* you say and then you open your legs. I assume you get some pleasure out of it. You call this *getting along*. But in reality you do not, and perhaps you cannot, consider what the metaphor implies: you are going to have to raise that child and those children who are the product of your many liaisons. And then your *children* will dominate your home and your community and, democratically, will determine the future you have sacrificed to your feelings and sentiments.

I recognize that as I say this I can hardly conceal my sheer contempt for *what you are*. I am aware that, like FDP, I am inclined to insert hot and means terms into my description. However, I think this can be controlled. I still opt to remain within the limits of fair discourse.

The thing is, Gary, there is a rising tide among people (in the US, in Europe and elsewhere) who have been victims and pushovers like you. And they begin to see what the consequences are of being pushovers, and when that happens they have to root around for defensive positions. That is, for platforms in ideas upon which they can construct a protective policy. It is very hard for them. Because at every juncture they are accused of the most horrible moral failings.

In this thread I have spoken of Gorgias which deals on rhetoric and the rhetorical art, such as it is. What I say is that if one can puncture the rhetoric and see how 'false ideas' presented through underhanded rhetoric can be taken down, then there is the possibility of getting to the core of genuine views and ideas. But at every juncture -- here I refer to FDP and his tactics -- we are blocked in this endeavor and mired in such a way that the clarifying ideas never quite crystallize.

That is the function of dirty rhetoric.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Cool. If it isn't nebulous then you should be able to define Globalism in a non-nebulous way. That will enable everyone to know what is and what is not "globalism".

How tricky you are.

It is your assertion, not mine, that the definitions offered so far (and which are available to anyone who can read the critical work of either the dissident left or the dissident right) are "nebulous". But I never agreed to that view. And it is not my view.

And I assume that all those who read here have some sense at the least of what is referred to by the word globalism. It is a question of whether they have a positive view or one that is critical -- or some admixture.

Again, your contaminated rhetoric, once it is seen, is not hard to work through. It would be an attainment on your part were you to see what you do, and then to explain why you do it.

I do not think you will because there is too much that is gained by the use of underhanded techniques of persuasion.

[FlashDangerpants]

Cool. If it isn't nebulous then you should be able to define Globalism in a non-nebulous way. That will enable everyone to know what is and what is not "globalism".

How tricky you are.

It is your assertion, not mine, that the definitions offered so far (and which are available to anyone who can read the critical work of either the dissident left or the dissident right) are "nebulous". But I never agreed to that view. And it is not my view.

If we Google "define nebulous" we get in response: adjective. hazy, vague, indistinct, or confused: a nebulous recollection of the meeting; a nebulous distinction between pride and conceit. cloudy or cloudlike.

If I ask you to define Globalism, will I get a distinct answer, or something vague, hazy and indistinct?

Right. So it is nebulous by definition unless you have a non-nebulous definition.

[Alexis Jacobi]

To arrive at the definition of globalism you and all who read here will have to do their own work. That is part-and-parcel of engaging in conversation here.

For my own part I have made efforts to read the policy position of those both on the Left (e.g. Chomsky) and on the Right (e.g. De Benoist). I have referred to both. And offered some quoted material and links.

As often occurs on this forum, and is a common tactic, you say *Present me with a definition and then I might be convinced!" (Or "convince me!")

But you have no intention of being convinced. In truth you are not interested in participating fairly in the conversation about the topic. Your interest? Subverting the possibility of a fair, even-headed and productive conversation from occurring.

And this is what goes on around us today: factions with stances like yours use poisonous rhetoric to derail genuine conversation.

If I ask you to define Globalism, will I get a distinct answer, or something vague, hazy and indistinct?

You are really telling me that you have determined, by force of your will, what you intend to get.

There are alternatives and it is you who must pursue them.

[FlashDangerpants]

If I ask you to define Globalism, will I get a distinct answer, or something vague, hazy and indistinct?

You are really telling me that you have determined, by force of your will, what you intend to get.

What a nebulous way of admitting you have only a hazy and indistinct notion yourself.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nice try, FDP. You double-down on a corrupt position. I am done with my rebuttal of your “position”, such as it is.

[FlashDangerpants]

Nice try, FDP. You double-down on a corrupt position. I am done with my rebuttal of your “position”, such as it is.

As you have granted me the last word on the matter, here it is:

The observation remains correct that if you find a way to explain what "globalism" is, and if you do so in terms that permit discussion of it having an agenda of its own or of it being the work of somebody who is using it to forward some other "agenda", you are, by definition attaching a conspiracy to it that would not attach if you were defining it merely as some broad historical trend that simply reflected late 20th century economics with long supply chains and maximised profitability via specialisation.

Sorry if it looks familiar, but it obviously doesn't need amendment.

[Impenitent]

...

Now is the time when you should totally prove this wrong by telling me how many of your best friends are Jews and that half your family suports The Tottingham Hottenspurs!

they don't even wear boots let alone spurs...

that might add an exciting element to a bunch of guys kicking a ball...

-Imp

[Alexis Jacobi]

My suggestion, Flash, is different and excludes “last words”. The suggestion I make is to you and for you.

Examine and isolate the points made in the initial video. Not a bad place to start but there are others. Then, trace the various points and their ideas back to their intellectual origin point. Examine them if possible by attempting to understand the reasoning or the feeling behind the various assertions. And here is the key to carrying out the operation successfully: put to the side your a priori conclusions (in your case these seem always present but unstated)(?)

(I recommend this process even in respect to the most knotty and difficult issues. In fact to every topic even the forbidden ones).

[FlashDangerpants]

My suggestion, Flash, is different and excludes “last words”. The suggestion I make is to you and for you.

Examine and isolate the points made in the initial video. Not a bad place to start but there are others. Then, trace the various points and their ideas back to their intellectual origin point. Examine them if possible by attempting to understand the reasoning or the feeling behind the various assertions. And here is the key to carrying out the operation successfully: put to the side your a priori conclusions (in your case these seem always present but unstated)(?)

(I recommend this process even in respect to the most knotty and difficult issues. In fact to every topic even the forbidden ones).

No need it's right wing populist drivel about a nebulous notion of "globalism" and an insinuated shadowy agenda that lies behind it. Paranoid nonsense for the paranoia inclined.

Unless you chumps are able to define glbalism in less nebulous terms, all you will ever have to offer is cheap insinuation, which is what you are dealing in now. But for you that's expected, you aren't able to write what you really mean because you would get insta-banned. The question is really whether you can lure Atto into your little nazi-lite web of jew-blaming. I reckon you have a greater than 50:50 chance, he seems to be well on his way.

[Alexis Jacobi]

OK, so we have determined -- you have made it plain -- by your response that there is no way to proceed here -- unless one agree to the interpretation you have established. Is that right?

The entire presentation of the man in his video, and all the points or critiques that he brings up, have no validity whatever, they are all "drivel".

But for you that's expected, you aren't able to write what you really mean because you would get insta-banned.

What you are saying is that, here on PN and in general in all places (?), there are somethings that one might think but that one cannot ever say?

Do you regard that as the extreme of suppression of *free-speech* and as necessary (legitimate)?

If I understand correctly then, your entire rhetorical presentation is essentially an insinuation that behind all critiques of globalism, and I make specific reference to the man whose video heads up this thread, that in reality it is all a covert conspiratorial attack on *Jews*?

Is that true as well for Noam Chomsky's (and the former Left's) critique of globalism as well?

Unless you chumps are able to define globalism in less nebulous terms, all you will ever have to offer is cheap insinuation, which is what you are dealing in now. But for you that's expected, you aren't able to write what you really mean because you would get insta-banned. The question is really whether you can lure Atto into your little nazi-lite web of jew-blaming. I reckon you have a greater than 50:50 chance, he seems to be well on his way.

All of this, from top to bottom, is shot through with devious rhetorical assertions. In fine, your entire presentation of ideas is tinged, contaminated, with this.

I see no other way except to determine that this is what you are about. I am opposed to your *project* -- obviously.