At the risk of stating the obvious, globalism will be a very important aspect of the Tribulation and of the antichrist during his reign over "every tribe, people, language and nation." (Revelation 13:7).
We are watching that evolution playing out right now, in real time.
The road to his world-wide tyranny is being paved at this very moment - making his job much easier once he arrives on the scene, which shouldn't be too much longer now:
The financial oligarchy which directs world events above and beyond mid-level strategists like Putin and sub-tactical pawns like Obama, appears to have begun setting the stage for the replacement of the US Dollar with the Chinese Yuan\Renminbi, a process long in the making,which in fact we predicted back in May 2012 in our report named European debt and the Anglosphere’s Chinese trap. It is a predictable consequence of the Hegelian dialectics employed by the powers-that-print to maintain themselves on top of the food chain, regardless of which particular Geopolitical empire is prominent in any given era (right now the Russian neo-Czarist empire seems to be advancing on all fronts,but Putin fanboys are probably in for a rude awakening if they think he’s not part of the globalist paradigm). At this point the process is one of turning the City of London and its Anglophile partner in Frankfurt, Germany to Renminbi hubs. We can assume this directed process will accelerate along the engineered collapse of the US.
The next part comes courtesy of the Daily Bell:
Directed History of the [London] City’s Alliance with China
Bank of England agrees Chinese London currency clearing hub … The deal is part of a plan to make London a key offshore Chinese currency clearing centre … The Bank of England has agreed a deal with the People’s Bank of China to make London a hub for Chinese currency dealing. The memorandum of understanding, to be signed on Monday, sets out settlement and clearing arrangements for the renminbi, or yuan, in London. – BBC -
Free-Market Analysis: At the very top of the globalist enterprise is a power elite that is more closely aligned with each other than with their countrymen. This is hard for people to grasp, though.
For instance, the European Union is part of a larger elite gambit to create political and economic regions that can then be further consolidated. This sort of effort is ongoing. There are “unions” being built in South America, Africa and even Asia. And, of course, there is the much denied North American Union.
Under Putin, Russia is advancing the idea of a union with various countries that used to be its “satellites.” This might seem confusing to some because the impression is that Putin and the West are at odds. But centralizing and consolidating near-Asia obviously makes sense to Putin.
That’s how it works. Even when the Anglosphere power elite is not directly influencing the sociopolitical and economic direction of a given country or region, the elites of that area – at the very top anyway – will make common cause with the West. And so it goes with China. Chinese officials are often portrayed at being at odds with the West and specifically with the US. It is superpower versus superpower in a battle for prestige, wealth and influence.
But is this really the case? Just the other day, we reported on a courageous young journalist who quit Bloomberg over an article the publisher would not post. The article explored the linkages between a very wealthy individual and top Chinese officials.
Thesis, antithesis … synthesis.
Note, please: China is still positioned as a great challenger to Western power and eventually, we are told, the Chinese system may permanently weaken the dollar. Even the City of London is rushing to be part of the coming Chinese century.
But what if this were simply a pretense? The dollar (the petrodollar) is surely being weakened via fracking, overspending and overprinting. But all of these evolutions are deliberate, in our view. The idea is to take the dollar down while gradually substituting other currencies preparatory to creating perhaps a single basket of currencies that will function as a worldwide money.
Don’t be fooled by these elaborate machinations of directed history. Keep your eye on the globalist trends and you will gradually begin to understand the entire paradigm – and even to predict its evolution …
Editor’s Note…
As detailed below,traditionally NATO’s top political job is held by a European while the top military post goes to an American.By appointing Stoltenberg early,NATO has ensured that the contest for the top alliance post is not tangled up with horse-trading for top jobs in the EU,including European Commission president and EU foreign policy chief,which fall vacant later this year.
Stoltenberg will function well as a civilian facade for the NATO war apparatus, given his track record of backing every globalist atrocity in his native country Norway where he was the socialist prime minister for 10 years,like pushing the Eco-Fascist agenda to the point of promoting international agreements with global taxes or quotas as the most effective means of ”reducing global warming”, advocating for having all the world’s children vaccinated (in tandem with the Gates foundation) and importing masses of 3rd world brutes to Norway – a process which resulted in exploding crime rates and gang rapes of native Norwegians. (His current successor, the conservative Erna Solberg, appears to have begun fixing some of that damage by deporting migrant criminals out of the country).
Stoltenberg has increased the defense budget during his term in office despite the lack of any immediate threats on the Norwegian mainland, and has worked to closely integrate the Norwegian military into the NATO apparatus. This payed of to the alliance when Stoltenberg contributed forces to NATO aggression in the Middle East (like the Libyan war in 2011). That did not prevent him from “criticizing” Israeli counter terrorist operations as “disproportionate use of force”, perhaps because of his history of inviting terrorists from the PFLP to his party’s socialist youth camp.
Such is the face of NATO bureaucracy in the last gasp of the “responsibility to protect” era.
NATO has appointed a leader from a country outside the European Union. But diplomats said that should not hinder Stoltenberg fostering cooperation between NATO and the EU, which has taken on a growing security role.
[The conclusion to this article appears first below]
The environmental movement is tenacious, fanatical and deceptive. Its creed is the undoing of all human progress.
There is money to be made from that, as there is in all revolutions, but beneath the inconveniences of living under an environmental regime, from dirty clothes to high taxes, while being forced to listen to the hypocrisies and false pieties of the Gorean clergy of environmentalist activists heating their mansions while the poor freeze in energy poverty, is the darker reality that environmentalism is an anti-human movement with a vicious hostility toward man and the civilization he has built.
Whatever he has built, it must destroy.
The gap between darkness and light is a profound symbol in every civilization. The light of knowledge pitted against the shadowy dark of ignorance. The light reveals, but the darkness hides.
Civilization and the moral code exist in the light of awareness, but the darkness is home to unthinking bestial things.
To call for a return to the darkness is a profound act of symbolism. A civilization that celebrates a return to the darkness for even a single hour is longing for a return to a deeper state of darkness.
A darkness of the soul.
The World’s Fair to Earth Hour marks the journey of a civilization across the sky from light into darkness. In our new post-civilizational time, we no longer celebrate human accomplishment by seeing a vision of the future, instead we turn off the bright lights of civilization and sit in the dark for an hour to atone for our electrical sins.
Earth Hour stigmatizes human accomplishment as the root of all evils and treats the lack of accomplishment as an accomplishment. For all the pretense of activism, environmentalism celebrates inaction.
Don’t build, don’t create and don’t do—are its mandates. Turn off the lights and feel good about how much you aren’t doing right now.
Environmentalism has degenerated from valuing how much the skies and the oceans, the butterfly and the beaver, the still lake and the blade of grass, enrich our humanity into a conviction that all human activity is destructive because the species of man is the greatest threat to the planet. Each death, each act of undoing and unmaking, each darkness that is brought about by the cessation of humanity becomes a profoundly environmentalist activity.
Kill yourself and save the planet. Put out the lights, tear down the city and let the earth revert to some imaginary primeval paradise free of all pollution; whether it is the carbon breath of men, dogs and cows or the light pollution of their cities.
Embrace the darkness.
While we take electric light for granted, being able to read and write after dark is a technological achievement that transformed our civilization. Animals are governed by day and night cycles. Artificial light made it possible for us to work independently of the day and night cycle. And that made our literature and our sciences, our civilization, possible.
Like all environmental gimmicks, Earth Hour is self-defeating as anything other than an assertion of identity and faith. Far more energy is consumed promoting it, than is saved by practicing it.
No amount of turning off the lights is enough. Eventually you come around to having to turn off the people.
Not only mankind must go, but all the animals that man has domesticated and bred—cows, dogs and cats. That is why PETA kills thousands of dogs and cats a year, promotes the euthanasia of wild cats and pet spaying and its staffers have even been known to kidnap animals and then kill them. It is why the Global Warming crowd has made cow emissions into their whipping bovine.
It’s not enough to kill man, tear down his cities and put out his lights. His cats and dogs and his cows and sheep must die along with him.
The Nazis were among the most enthusiastic environmentalists of their day, even the term ‘Ecology’ was coined by Ernst Haeckel, whose racial views served as precursors to Nazi eugenics. But while Nazi environmentalist believed that we were all animals, they insisted that some animals were better than others. Modern environmentalists believe that we are all worse than animals. In their view we are both natural and unnatural. Natural because we come from the ape and unnatural because we are intelligent. We live on the planet, but our intelligence excludes us from ever belonging to it.
Tools are our crime against nature. We make things. And we make things better. Earth Hour is our reminder to drop our tools and stop. Stop thinking. Stop doing. Just stop.
The incompatibility of productive man with the natural world is a fundamental tenet of the environmental movement. Everything we do is destructive because of what we are. We are tool builders, inventors and producers. And the environmentalist movement is aimed at convincing us to stop being these things. To turn off the lights, make do with less and march back to the caves with a few clever ad campaigns and a catchy tune.
Environmentalism is not motivated by a love for all creatures, but by the fanatical belief in the purification of the earth from all traces of human civilization. The political leftist romanticizes the noble savage over the civilized man and its environmentalist arm romanticizes the jungle over the thousand acre farm. It prefers the the swamp to the garden, the wolf to the dog, and the tiger to the house cat.
This preference is not scientific, it is emotional, rooted in an antipathy to industrialization and human development. It wraps itself in the cloak of science, but it is a reactionary longing for a romanticized nomadic past that never existed. A way back to the lost eden of noble savages free from morality and guilt.
[Of course - this is completely expected as we near the end of the age]
PM slams UN Human Rights Council for condemning Israel in five resolutions last week; Israeli official: European countries failed to show moral leadership.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Sunday slammed the United Nations Human Rights Council for “absurdly” condemning Israel in five resolutions last week while censuring Syria and Iran only once.
“This march of hypocrisy is continuing and we will continue to condemn it and expose it,” he told his cabinet at the start of its weekly meeting in Jerusalem.
“The UN Human Rights Council condemned Israel five times, this at a time when the slaughter in Syria is continuing, innocent people are being hung in the Middle East and human rights are being eroded.
“In many countries free media are being shut down and the UN Human Rights Council decides to condemn Israel for closing off a balcony. This is absurd,” said Netanyahu.
On Friday the UNHRC ended its 25th session by almost unanimously, voting 46-1, on four resolutions condemning Israeli treatment of Palestinians. It also condemned Israeli human rights abuses against Syrian citizens of Israel who live on the Golan Heights, voting 33 to 1, with 13 abstentions.
Out of the 42 resolutions adopted by the council on a wide range of human issues only 10 censured the actions of a specific country, out of which five of the condemnations were leveled against Israel.
After Israel missed the deadline Saturday to release the fourth and final batch of Palestinian prisoners, seemingly putting peace talks in danger of collapse, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Sunday that haggling on the issue could go on for "a number of days." Speaking at a meeting of Likud ministers, Netanyahu said that Israel would not make a deal to free the prisoners "without a clear benefit for Israel in return." He acknowledged that negotiations to come to an agreement could potentially "blow up."
The official, familiar with the negotiations, said “Israel wants to see the continuation of the peace talks with the Palestinians, and is willing to implement the fourth release of convicted terrorists. But the Palestinians are making that very difficult when they say that immediately following the release, they will end the talks."
Also see:
[Yes, these two concepts are mutually exclusive]
Most public discussion today, however, occurs within the moral paradigm established by our universal progressive indoctrination. Even principled people who wish to defend liberty often find themselves in muddled and unwinnable debates, having unwittingly accepted progressive moral premises.
The progressive paradigm is diffuse and sophisticated, but it may be summarized in one thought, namely that individuals exist for the State, rather than the State for individuals.
An intellectual tradition developed in earliest modernity framed our epoch's basic political question as, in effect, "Why do free men need a government?" Hence the famous "state of nature" theories, the vocabulary of "natural rights" and "social contracts," and the gradual establishment of the principles of limited government.
Today, progressivism, having fed mankind through its educational, artistic, and bureaucratic meat-grinder, has supplanted modernity's basic political question with a new one: "Why does a government need free men?"
How did civilization achieve this complete metaphysical and moral reversal, from the presumed priority of the concrete rational individual to the presumed priority of an abstraction, "society"?
It was the revolutionary German philosophers of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries -- Kant, Fichte, Hegel -- followed by their critics and intellectual heirs, from Schopenhauer to Marx, who developed the soul-obliterating theories that have eroded modernity. The moral ground of their corruptive influence was the view that self-interest, meaning nothing less than the pursuit of happiness, is intrinsically immoral and slavish, while true freedom entails the submission of one's life to the interests of the collective, i.e., to the State.
German academia's poisonous assault on individualism and the ethics of personal happiness (i.e., virtue) quickly infected every organ of modernity, from the spires of the ivory tower to the floorboards of the one-room schoolhouse. The moral tenets of German idealist and post-idealist philosophies -- from Kant and Fichte through Marx and Engels and on to the Frankfurt School -- have become the defining beliefs of the late modern world:
- The individual is merely an illusory facet of the collective.
- Self-interest, meaning concern with one's own well-being, is immoral.
- The pursuit of one's own happiness is petty and superficial.
- Submitting one's mind to the collective will is true morality.
- The future belongs to those who accept the trajectory of History, which is progressively dissolving all distinctions between nations, between men, between man and woman, adult and child, reason and feeling, as we flow together in History's current toward a kaleidoscopic dream of collective self-creation, guided by the unlimited State.
This side's function, from the point of view of the progressives who carefully cultivate it, is to reinforce the ethics of self-negation by entrenching the social rule of submission to the State, whereby anyone who resists his proper role as servant of the collective, i.e., of the government, must be ostracized as "selfish," and punished and/or re-educated.
Let's return to the only argument worthy of the subject: Individuals are metaphysically and morally prior to collectives. Happiness is our proper moral motivation. The free man does not have to justify himself to the State; the State has to justify itself to the free man. These are the premises we have inherited from our tradition and from our nature, though we now grope for them with difficulty through the smog of despotic philosophy that dominates our world.
Allow me to conclude with a breath of fresh moral air from beyond that smog:
Therefore the last and perfect happiness, which we await in the life to come, consists entirely in contemplation [of the divine essence]. [Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Treatise on the Last End, Question 3]
