Tag Archives: Populism

The Worst Literal Hitler Ever, by CJ Hopkins

Donald Trump doesn’t bear much resemblance to any of history’s dictators, but that is to whom he is being likened. From CJ Hopkins at consentfactory.org:

So, the GloboCap-Resistance Minneapolis Putsch appears to have not gone exactly to plan. Once again, Trump failed to go full-Hitler, despite their best efforts to goad him into doing so. They gave it quite a good shot, however. It was more or less a textbook regime-change op, or “color revolution,” or whatever you call it. All the essential pieces were in place. All they needed Trump to do was declare himself dictator and impose martial law, so the generals could step in and remove him from office.

Unfortunately for the Resistance, Trump didn’t do that. Instead, he did what he usually does, which is make a total ass of himself on international television. Which … OK, was cringeworthy, but didn’t quite provide the GloboCap gang with the pretext they needed to perp-walk him out of the Oval Office. Which, needless to say, was incredibly frustrating. After four long years of propaganda foreplay, there we were, finally at the moment of truth, and Adolf goes and loses his erection.

This guy is the worst literal Hitler ever.

Still, as far as regime-change ops go, and given that this one was a domestic operation, so trickier than the usual foreign version, I’d give the Resistance a B+ for effort.

Now, before my “conspiracy theorist” readers get too excited about where I’m going with this column … no, this was not a “fake” uprising. There was an authentic uprising at the center of it. There’s always an authentic uprising at the center of every regime-change op, or at least the type that GloboCap has been carrying out and attempting recently. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, the Ukraine, Bolivia, Venezuela; these things go pretty much by the numbers.

Here’s a quick breakdown of how that works.

 

History Was Supposed to End. What Happened? by Jeffrey Tucker

Is liberty the next stop in human political evolution? Let’s hope so. From Jeffrey Tucker at aier.org:

Anyone paying close attention at the turn of the 21st century could foresee the impending failure of the social-democratic consensus throughout the developed world.

The exalted experts who rose to power in the postwar period built gigantic state-based systems of social management and control and took over vast swaths of private society, imposing planning schemes across many sectors of economic life. They imagined themselves to be permanent fixtures of the socio-economic system. After all, this approach won the war (so they said), so why couldn’t it win the peace?

But there was a problem: over time nothing worked as it was supposed to. There were massive internal contradictions within the model, as Amity Shlaes shows in her new book on the Great Society. The new systems relied on bureaucratic command, not market signals. There was another problem: they were hugely imposing on people’s lives and property, and people don’t like that. Or rather: they will put up with it so long as they perceive that the benefits exceed or at least match the costs.

Building that apparatus – the efforts really began about a century ago, extended through the New Deal, but became a full model of social control in the postwar period – depended fundamentally on its successful sales pitch: these were programs built by workers for the sake of social justice, for the poor, for the marginalized, against plutocratic elites.

Continue reading

Globalists Have Set Operation ‘Blame The Populists’ In Motion, by Brandon Smith

Updates on familiar themes from Brandon Smith. The long-predicted crash that will bring down the global economy has become. He may be right. From Smith at alt-market.com:

This past week’s events have sent the economic world into a tailspin. Mainstream analysts were so sure of themselves heading into the July Federal Reserve meeting – The Fed was going to cut rates by a respectable margin, or they were going to cut incrementally and promise the markets through thinly veiled language that QE4 was well on the way. This was supposed to be a certainty.

They did not get what they were hoping for, but I don’t think many people understand why the Fed did what they did.

I have long held that the Fed has no intention of kicking the can on the economic crash that is currently underway, and that the Fed’s tightening cycle was a way to restrict liquidity into economic weakness in order to trigger the collapse of the “Everything Bubble”. I predicted over the past two years that the Fed would keep liquidity conditions tight until right before or right after an accelerated crash in fundamentals and markets. The crash in fundamentals has already begun in 2018 and 2019. A return to incremental crash conditions in stock markets has also now likely started.

While I believed the central bank would hold rates steady in July, Jerome Powell’s public statements after the Fed announcement of a minor .25 bps rate cut were even worse for market investors to hear and only support my original position. Powell’s assertion that the cut was merely a mid-year “adjustment” and not the beginning of an easing cycle horrified the investment world. Powell was telling markets quite bluntly that the punch bowl was not coming back anytime soon.  On top of this, St. Louis Fed president James Bullard refused to commit to any further interest rate adjustments this year, citing a “wait and see” approach, which could take many months.  Once again, Fed officials are making it clear that expectations for a stimulus bonanza are naive.

The consensus seems to be that the Fed has offered “too little too late”, and I would say that this is a completely deliberate action. Frankly, there was nothing holding the Fed back from a cut of .50 bps and lavishing the financial media with images of QE heaven. Trump says he wants it, the daytrading world is begging for it, and central bankers rarely shy away from more money printing. Unless, of course, the banking elites WANT a crash to happen in the near term, that is.

Continue reading

What next for the populist revolt? by Frank Furedi

The populist revolts we’ve seen so far—Brexit, Trump, the Yellow Vests—are nothing compared to what’s coming. From Frank Furedi at spiked-online.com:

People have rattled the elites – now they need to go further.

In the West in 2018, we witnessed the intensification of a new conflict – that between anti-populist political elites and a growing grassroots movement that is hostile to these elites.

Many commentators have interpreted this conflict in classical economic language. This is fundamentally a struggle over the distribution of resources, they claim. Even an astute commentator like Fareed Zakaria, who recognises that the ‘yellow vest’ protestsin France are underpinned by profound cultural tensions, especially between rural and urban France, is nevertheless drawn towards a narrowly economic explanation. ‘It’s part class, part culture, but there is a large element of economics to it as well’, he says.

Zakaria’s commentary – titled ‘The new dividing line in Western politics’ – is a good illustration of today’s widespread reluctance to face up to new cultural and political tensions, to recognise that people are moved to protest these days by concerns that do not fit into the 20th-century model of socio-economic class struggle.

Continue reading

Democracy Is Sacred – Except When It Isn’t, by Justin Raimondo

The nationalism tide keeps rising in Europe. From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:

On both sides of the Atlantic the regnant elites have launched a furious regime change campaign not all that different from the ones they started in the former Soviet republics. The formula seems to go like this: hold an election in which the full resources of the EU states and their upper classes are brought to bear on one side of the question. Vilify dissenters as more than likely agents of Vladimir Putin.

On the British side the government of Prime Minister Theresa May, which has been all along pretending to be in favor the people’s decision to leave the EU, has effectively sabotaged the process with so many exceptions, amendments, other concessions to Brussels that they might as well have stayed in.

Shocked by their defeat, the Remainers have been scheming and plotting and demand a new election – and are presumably willing to keep voting until they get the “right” result.

But events are overtaking them: the right-wing populist upsurge that threatens the very existence of the EU is not quite through making waves. The French “yellow vests” have arisen from the rural and poorer sections of the countryside. These are France’s forgotten as Macron raises the petroleum price by 15% – one third of that in the name of stopping global warming.

Continue reading

Hillary Clinton: Conservatives Were Right on Mass Migration, by Hillary Clinton

Next thing you know, she’ll be saying minimum wage laws increase youth and minority unemployment, and gun control laws don’t reduce crime. Maybe not; Rome wasn’t built in a day. From James Pinkerton at theamericanconservative.com:

Progressives melt down after the Democratic doyenne denounces open borders here and in Europe.

Amidst the hurly-burly of politics these days, it can be hard to notice when your side has won a victory. Yet that’s what’s just happened for conservatives on immigration: they’ve won. Okay, it’s not a final victory, nor even a crushing victory, but, even so, it’s a win.

We know this because Hillary Clinton, arguably still the biggest name in Democratic politics, has just said that conservatives were right. She has conceded the essence of the rightist—and, by the way, centrist—critique of the open-borders approach to immigration.

On November 22, Clinton said in an interview with The Guardian, “I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame.” Continuing in that vein, she damned German Chancellor Angela Merkel with faint praise: “I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message—‘we are not going to be able to continue provide refuge and support’—because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic.” In other words, when Merkel opened the German border in 2015, she was being nice, but misguided. Of course, Clinton is no doubt aware that the global backlash against Merkelism was felt in America, too, contributing to her own defeat in 2016.

Continue reading

Canada: Shielded From the Populist Wave No Longer, by Benjamin L. Woodfinden

Justin Trudea, dashing progressive hero, may end up a goat if Canada’s seething populist discontent explodes. From Benjamin L. Woodfinded at The American Conservative via theburningplatform.com:

In the aftermath of the 2016 election and the rapid spread of populism around the globe, one country seemed immune: Canada. Justin Trudeau, the charismatic, dashing, and woke prime minister, sees himself as progressive liberalism’s leading light. But Canada is ripe for a populist revolt, and Trudeau may end up being its perfect catalyst.

Contrary to its mild-mannered international image, Canada has a long history of populism. Its upper crust are sometimes referred to as the “Laurentian elite.” Concentrated in downtown Toronto, Montréal, and Ottawa, these are Canada’s equivalent of East Coast elites. They dominate their country’s political, academic, cultural, media, and business institutions, and are ideologically homogeneous.

Continue reading

The Real Contagion Threat is Political, by Tom Luongo

Sweden is now another data point on the growing strength of populist and nationalist movements. From Tom Luongo at tomluongo.me:

The real danger to the current institutional order was just demonstrated in Sweden. While I’ve talked at length about the potential financial contagion stemming from the implosion of multiple emerging market currencies it is the growing political crisis in Europe that will shape our future.

Sweden is The Land where Socialism Works, or so I keep getting told by ignorant leftists who cling to the power fantasy that central planning is the only way to make the trains run on time.

Central planning does do that, but only to deliver people into the nightmare of social disorder brought on by the disruption of the natural flow of capital.

Venezuela, South Africa, Soviet Union, post WWII Britain … you get the idea.

But, the effects of the collectivist mindset are far more pernicious than those extreme examples.  And it is important we understand how little policies grow into big problems over time due to shaping people’s decisions through government edicts. Continue reading

The Beginning of the End of the Bilderberg Era, by Alasdair Crooke

The One-Worlders are losing. From Alasdair Crooke at strategic-culture.org:

The beginning of the end of the Bilderberg/Soros vision is in sight. The Old Order will cling on, even to the last of its fingernails. The Bilderberg vision is the notion of multi-cultural, international cosmopolitanism that surpasses old-time nationalism; heralding the end of frontiers; and leading toward a US-led, ‘technocratic’, global economic and political governance. Its roots lie with figures such as James Burnham, an anti-Stalin, former Trotskyite, who, writing as early as 1941, advocated for the levers of financial and economic power being placedin the hands of a management class: an élite – which alone would be capable of running the contemporary state – thanks to this élite’s market and financial technical nous. It was, bluntly, a call for an expert, technocratic oligarchy.

Burnham renounced his allegiance to Trotsky and Marxism, in all its forms in 1940, but he would take the tactics and strategies for infiltration and subversion, (learned as a member of Leon Trotsky’s inner circle) with him, and would elevate the Trotskyist management of ‘identity politics’ to become the fragmentation ‘device’ primed to explode national culture onto a new stage, in the Western sphere. His 1941 book, The Managerial Revolution,” caught the attention of Frank Wisner, subsequently, a legendary CIA figure, who saw in the works of Burnham and his colleague a fellow Trotskyite, Sidney Hook, the prospect of mounting an effective alliance of former Trotskyites against Stalinism.

But, additionally, Wisner perceived its merits as the blueprint for a CIA-led, pseudo-liberal, US-led global order. (‘Pseudo’, because, as Burnham articulated clearly, in The Machiavellians, Defenders of Freedom, his version of freedom meant anything but intellectual freedom or those freedoms defined by America’s Constitution. “What it really meant was conformity and submission”).

In short, (as Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould have noted), “by 1947, James Burnham’s transformation from Communist radical, to New World Order American conservative was complete. His Struggle for the World, [converted into a memo for the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS, the forerunner of CIA)], had done a ‘French Turn’ on Trotsky’s permanent Communist revolution, and turned it into a permanent battle plan for a global American empire. All that was needed to complete Burnham’s dialectic was a permanent enemy, and that would require a sophisticated psychological campaign to keep the hatred of Russia alive, “for generations”.

What has this to do with us today? A ‘Burnham Landscape’ of apparently, ‘centrist’ European political parties, apparently independent think-tanks, institutions, and NATO structures, was seeded by CIA – in the post war era of anti-Sovietism – across Europe, and the Middle East – as part of Burnham’s ‘battle plan’ for a US-led, global ‘order’. It is precisely this élite: i.e. Burnham’s oligarchic technocracy, that is facing political push-back today to the point at which the Liberal Order feels that it is struggling for its very survival against the enemy in the White House, as the editor of Spiegel Online has termed President Trump.

To continue reading: The Beginning of the End of the Bilderberg Era

The Death Of The Liberal World Order, by Leonard Savin

The “Liberal World Order” is code for a world run by the US, and it is indeed dying. From Leonard Savin at orientalreview.org:

A few days ago the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, published an article, titled “Liberal World Order, R.I.P.” In it, he states that the current threat to the liberal world order is coming not from rogue states, totalitarian regimes, religious fanatics, or obscurantist governments (special terms used by liberals when referring to other nations and countries that have not pursued the Western capitalist path of development), but from its primary architect — the United States of America.

Haass writes: “Liberalism is in retreat. Democracies are feeling the effects of growing populism. Parties of the political extremes have gained ground in Europe. The vote in the United Kingdom in favor of leaving the EU attested to the loss of elite influence. Even the US is experiencing unprecedented attacks from its own president on the country’s media, courts, and law-enforcement institutions. Authoritarian systems, including China, Russia, and Turkey, have become even more top-heavy. Countries such as Hungary and Poland seem uninterested in the fate of their young democracies…

“We are seeing the emergence of regional orders. Attempts to build global frameworks are failing.”

Richard Haas
Richard Haas

Haas has previously made alarmist statements, but this time he is employing his rhetoric to point to the global nature of this phenomenon. Although between the lines one can easily read, first of all, a certain degree of arrogance — the idea that only we liberals and globalists really know how to administer foreign policy — and second, the motifs of conspiracy.

“Today’s other major powers, including the EU, Russia, China, India, and Japan, could be criticized for what they are doing, not doing, or both.”

Probably this list could be expanded by adding a number of Latin American countries, plus Egypt, which signs arms deals with North Korea while denying any violation of UN sanctions, and the burgeoning Shiite axis of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.

But Haas is crestfallen over the fact that it is Washington itself that is changing the rules of the game and seems completely uninterested in what its allies, partners, and clients in various corners of the world will do.

“America’s decision to abandon the role it has played for more than seven decades thus marks a turning point. The liberal world order cannot survive on its own, because others lack either the interest or the means to sustain it. The result will be a world that is less free, less prosperous, and less peaceful, for Americans and others alike.”

To continue reading: The Death Of The Liberal World Order