Recently there has been significant talk by Roosh, and this forum on the globalist elite. The top 1% that pull the strings of government leaders…

What I haven't seen however, is a discussion on their antagonists, our allies. As we all know, the world exists through a series of cheques and balances. With that in mind, it stands to reason that while there is most certainly a top 1% of globalists, there must also be a top 1% elite who juxtapose the globalist ideals…

Obviously these antagonists are losing the battle, but right now there seems to be no discussion about who they actually are. Trump may be one them, and at this stage I believe he is, but is he apart of a bigger global elite, a 1% in stark opposition to the globalists?

We discuss our enemies, and yet I have seen no discussion of our allies.

Trump.

Quote:Quote:

With that in mind, it stands to reason that while there is most certainly a top 1% of globalists, there must also be a top 1% elite who juxtapose the globalist ideals…

Not necessarily. Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't really seen evidence of a balancing nationalist elite class in the West. A few individuals like Trump do not constitute a class. Trump is a league of his own. Some suggested that the royal family and some nobilities in England are nationalist, but I doubt they hold real power.

There is one theory saying that there are two kinds of globalists, at least here in the US. The first are liberal egalitarians who just want a borderless world for everyone, kind of like Lennon's Imagine. Soros is one of them. The second are zionist neocons who also want a borderless world but ruled by Israel or Jewish elites. Netanyahu is one of them. It explains why liberals criticize Israel.

However the recent FBIAnon AMA revealed that Soros is close collaborator with Netanyahu, so that theory is in doubt.

My take is that the current elite class is overwhelmingly globalists. If it's not a largely unified dominance, if there is some sort of balanced tug-of-war, it's probably between different kinds/factions of globalists. They may be motivated by ideology, or by profit, and have conflict of interest and ideas.

The reason the whole is so screwed up is exactly because there isn't any group of people opposing them. With their trillions of combined dollars of net worth and political power they rule us.

Those who practice asceticism, who do not consume, do not feed the system in any way. Suffis, Yogis, hermits, Bahai', Fakirs, Jains,...

When everyone would live as they do, the system would collapse and the global elite with it.

If you mean within the New World Order, I don't think there is any serious opposition. There are a few factions within the ruling elites but no fundamental philosophical differences among them. They won the game before anyone realized who they were. They won the money game by the 19th century, running the finances of empires.

I think it was Aldous Huxley--whose brother Julian worked for the globalists--who called the reason:

Quote:Quote:

My own belief is that the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power, and these ways will resemble those which I described in Brave New World.

The New World Order was the first Empire where control was established and maintained primarily through psychological means rather than by brute force. As a result, there was practically no resistance to it, and they won. It also helps that it was well-funded, by winning the global finance game.

They have rules regarding whom they recruit. Ever since Stalin they avoid alpha males. It seems odd that none have taken them on--but maybe it has taken this long before anyone caught up to their game.

Even to this day you have weird "color revolutions" and swarming techniques used to back up coups that have swept away one government and replaced it with another with astonishing results. There have been a few failures--like the ill-fated Green Revolution in Iran--but successes like the Ukraine.

Outside of the New World Order, in the few remaining autonomous countries outside their grasp, yes.

1. China
2. Russia
3. Iran

Smith & Wesson

The globalist elites obviously hate Christianity, which may explain why they are importing Islam into the West. We all know that liberal Christianity is a joke, but traditional Christianity can produce people who have incredible strength.

Quote: (07-08-2016 09:08 PM)Kalkin Wrote:  

If you mean within the New World Order, I don't think there is any serious opposition. There are a few factions within the ruling elites but no fundamental philosophical differences among them. They won the game before anyone realized who they were. They won the money game by the 19th century, running the finances of empires.

Thanks for the info.

Is Soros the current kingpin or is he subordinate to the Rothschilds? If there is some sort of hierarchy among them, who currently stand at the top?

Quote: (07-08-2016 09:12 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

The globalist elites obviously hate Christianity, which may explain why they are importing Islam into the West. We all know that liberal Christianity is a joke, but traditional Christianity can produce people who have incredible strength.

I think they hate everything that isn't their own special flavor of Judaism, and recognize Christianity and Islam as the worlds two greatest conquering religions, so they are essentially forcing a collision between the two.

If there's an elite class that opposes and has the power to repel its own complete consumption by the globalist agenda like we're seeing in the US and EU, its those in out of the way second and third world countries.

Quote:Quote:

Is Soros the current kingpin or is he subordinate to the Rothschilds? If there is some sort of hierarchy among them, who currently stand at the top?

They don't publish their meeting notes so this is a guess:

Mr. Soros is their visible agent. Yes, there is a hierarchy among them, and the higher-ranking ones maintain very low profiles and hide their assets. There are actually a number of old banking families. As for the Rothschilds, the British and French lines are the dominant ones. Jacob might be the big kahuna, and his son Nat who lives in Switzerland will probably inherit the throne.

There's also a bit of power hanging around other sections of the Bilderberger superclass. You could say that the old money are the senior members and the new money the junior members. So while some of the old money dies out and is replaced with new money, policies and institutions tend to be maintained.

Quote: (07-08-2016 08:57 PM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

With that in mind, it stands to reason that while there is most certainly a top 1% of globalists, there must also be a top 1% elite who juxtapose the globalist ideals…

Not necessarily. Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't really seen evidence of a balancing nationalist elite class in the West. A few individuals like Trump do not constitute a class. Trump is a league of his own. Some suggested that the royal family and some nobilities in England are nationalist, but I doubt they hold real power.

There is one theory saying that there are two kinds of globalists, at least here in the US. The first are liberal egalitarians who just want a borderless world for everyone, kind of like Lennon's Imagine. Soros is one of them. The second are zionist neocons who also want a borderless world but ruled by Israel or Jewish elites. Netanyahu is one of them. It explains why liberals criticize Israel.

However the recent FBIAnon AMA revealed that Soros is close collaborator with Netanyahu, so that theory is in doubt.

My take is that the current elite class is overwhelmingly globalists. If it's not a largely unified dominance, if there is some sort of balanced tug-of-war, it's probably between different kinds/factions of globalists. They may be motivated by ideology, or by profit, and have conflict of interest and ideas.

It certainly seems like a losing battle. In much the same way that politics will always be slowly drifting left, globalism appears to be something that will keep chugging along regardless…

That being said, the end game is what I am most curious about… If we are constantly moving closer to one global society [And more or less powerless to stop it], there has to be some form of end game once we get there…

Quote:Quote:

It certainly seems like a losing battle. In much the same way that politics will always be slowly drifting left, globalism appears to be something that will keep chugging along regardless…

That being said, the end game is what I am most curious about… If we are constantly moving closer to one global society [And more or less powerless to stop it], there has to be some form of end game once we get there…

Chaos is the principle that small changes in initial conditions lead to huge changes downstream. Sometimes known as the "Butterfly Effect" (the flapping of the butterfly's wings spawns a hurricane).

I suggest putting all your effort into surviving system crash. Who survives gets to have a lot more influence on system reboot than who doesn't.

What is their end game? That's an excellent question. I may not be as knowledgeable about this stuff as some, but it seems to me the global elite are truly playing with fire by getting in bed with Islam. They're setting everyone (including themselves) up for an eventual Islamic takeover...is that their plan? Surely, they can't think they'll be able to control those savages once they've flooded all of Europe and the United States, can they?

I understand the elite's wealth keeps them location independent, but where will they run once the forces of Islam invade and are primarily concerned with lopping the heads off of nonbelievers wherever they might find them? What good will all their money be then? Islam will not submit to their One World Government unless they are that government.

Quote:Quote:

However the recent FBIAnon AMA revealed that Soros is close collaborator with Netanyahu, so that theory is in doubt.

That statement does not make any sense. For example:



1. Why did he fund (through NIF and various other non profits) the 2011 protests (originally aimed at the unreasonable costs of living in Israel, but which later became anti government)?

2. Why did he (through Obama) bring his men (and spend a lot of $$$ in the process) in the 2015 elections (Google V15, you will see what I am talking about) in order to help Lapid (who was running against Bibi) win?


The One Whose Name I am not Going to Write Due to Sheer Amounts of Disgust is, without a doubt, someone who hates the West. But keep in mind that he (and plenty of other liberal Jews) hate their own nation probably even more.

They only care about their money, and their ideology. That's it.

Quote: (07-08-2016 11:09 PM)Kalkin Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

It certainly seems like a losing battle. In much the same way that politics will always be slowly drifting left, globalism appears to be something that will keep chugging along regardless…

That being said, the end game is what I am most curious about… If we are constantly moving closer to one global society [And more or less powerless to stop it], there has to be some form of end game once we get there…

Chaos is the principle that small changes in initial conditions lead to huge changes downstream. Sometimes known as the "Butterfly Effect" (the flapping of the butterfly's wings spawns a hurricane).

I suggest putting all your effort into surviving system crash. Who survives gets to have a lot more influence on system reboot than who doesn't.

One of the key theories about all this is that the elite has made itself resilient to economic and social collapse, and likely is actually trying to cause it. As the saying goes, don't let a good crisis go to waste.

Any collapse is going to be regional, or at least there will always be regions that continue to be safe and prosperous even during a widespread collapse. Collapse will not be total as some preppers think. It will be like the collapse of the Soviet Union or the collapse of the Argentinian monetary system in 2001. It will be a period of significant hardship for many, but the global super elite will continue in complete safety, and will use any collapse as an opportunity to consolidate power even more.

The only way there will be a system reboot is if nationalist movements gain so much strength that they actually become the dominate way of thinking in global culture. If this happens, then the elites will actually adopt nationalist thinking and seek to strengthen their own nations again. I don't expect this to happen, so really, there will be no system reboot.

In the face of this reality, our best option as men is to maintain control of our own lives. Form communities and social circles and families of like minded people. Form our own businesses so we don't have to work as direct employees of the system. Create circles of order and strength around ourselves, and make ourselves anti-fragile, to protect against a degenerate world.

In every degenerate age, there is always a remnant that holds to truth, strength, and virtue. We need to be that remnant.

Quote: (07-08-2016 09:06 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  

Those who practice asceticism, who do not consume, do not feed the system in any way. Suffis, Yogis, hermits, Bahai', Fakirs, Jains,...

When everyone would live as they do, the system would collapse and the global elite with it.

That would be tough though:

Quote: (07-09-2016 12:10 AM)LeoneVolpe Wrote:  

They're setting everyone (including themselves) up for an eventual Islamic takeover...is that their plan?

Takeover, no. Replacement of their existing livestock, yes. They've been wanting one or more different breeds of livestock, than the ones they currently have, for a long time now. Look what they did in the soviet union during WW2. European men to the fronts. Replaced in the fields and factories by Central Asians.

Quote:Quote:

Surely, they can't think they'll be able to control those savages once they've flooded all of Europe and the United States, can they?

Why not? They have rather more control over the rest of us, and most people's sense of "reality", than perhaps you quite realize yet. The current state of herd manipulation is quite advanced.

To understand just how much the elites are able to manipulate other people's sense of reality, you need to understand what really happened on 9-11.






If they can pull that off, in front of the eyes of hundreds of millions of people, and those who protest regarding what they can see with their own eyes are relugated to the tinfoil hat brigade...what else do you suppose they can pull off? A great deal of what people think is consensual reality is in fact imposed from above.

Quote:Quote:

I understand the elite's wealth keeps them location independent, but where will they run once the forces of Islam invade and are primarily concerned with lopping the heads off of nonbelievers wherever they might find them? What good will all their money be then? Islam will not submit to their One World Government unless they are that government.

"Islam" is an abstraction, not a person. It doesn't submit, or not, although ironically, it is taken to mean "submission to the will of Allah''. Islam is a totalitarian belief system. From the point of a plutocrat, THAT'S A GOOD THING.

The question is who gets to play Allah. THE MUSLIMS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MANIPULATED FOR YEARS.

Who do you think really holds the leash of ISIS/DaEsh?






By the way...one reason all of this might be counterintuitive...bear in mind that their standard operating procedure is to organize BOTH SIDES of a conflict...ALWAYS...they always set up their own controlled opposition. That's standard practice for them.

It's a trick to create the illusion of choice and free action, that always resolves in a direction that is acceptable to them.

So for example, some nationalist parties in Europe are manipulated by them. That useful idiot Anders Breivik was terribly useful to them in furthering their agenda. First he helpfully massacred a group of blond-haired, blue-eyed Norwegian kids. And in doing so, triggered the pro-immigration, socialist backlash that furthers their agenda even more. Read his manifesto and look at the names of people who influenced him.

So be careful about jumping on other people's bandwagons, because both the pro and the con work for the same puppet-master behind the scenes. It's one of their many tricks to script history.

Quote: (07-09-2016 10:57 AM)EDantes Wrote:  

Quote: (07-08-2016 09:06 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  

Those who practice asceticism, who do not consume, do not feed the system in any way. Suffis, Yogis, hermits, Bahai', Fakirs, Jains,...

When everyone would live as they do, the system would collapse and the global elite with it.

That would be tough though:

Yeah I know, but I thought it was an interesting angle. Fascinating people those who practice stuff like that (maybe something for a future post), I think there are things to be learned from them and when I looked at Linux' post about travelling with no base as a life plan it made me think of them and look some stuff up.

There is no opposition to globalism within the 1%, outside of rare exceptions like Trump. Globalism can only be good for them - lower costs and higher profits. End game is likely population reduction and a return to feudalism, where they own everything and everyone else is a serf.

I don't buy the whole Rothschild conspiracy. They were once powerful, and now they're merely well-off. The reins have been taken over by Soros, Dimon & co.

Quote: (07-09-2016 01:40 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  

End game is likely population reduction and a return to feudalism, where they own everything and everyone else is a serf.

Right. NeoFeudalism is an old goal. The New World was intended to be plantation slave states like the Caribbean islands. Fat, sassy Europeans living in relative freedom at the higher latitudes in Canada, USA, and Argentina was an unintended consequence of using the higher latitudes as dumping grounds for dissidents and surplus population, and having made an exception of their usual preferences, to tolerate the existence of people who are assumed to be capable of building industrial infrastructure almost from scratch. Once the infrastructure was built, they wanted other hands on the gears and buttons.

Population reduction is a relatively new goal, and motivated by having hit resource constraints on the size of the global economy. In particular, peak oil. They don't seem to have any particularly brilliant ideas regarding how to handle that; they're simply grabbing up what is left, and planning for a culling of the herd by natural and unnatural processes. They seem to have in mind automation, which means that their policy of importing huge numbers of unskilled immigrants and putting them on welfare is economically counter-productive.

Quote:Quote:

I don't buy the whole Rothschild conspiracy. They were once powerful, and now they're merely well-off. The reins have been taken over by Soros, Dimon & co.

Certainly things change and evolve, even for them. I would just add that there is a rule of thumb that says that you never leave the real power in a visible position; you keep front-men (and nowadays, women) in visible positions, and hide power and wealth away from covetous eyes. So great wealth and great power are usually hidden. If your agent is attacked, bankrupted, replaced, assassinated, turns too unpopular to be effective, bribed, starts playing his own game, or otherwise compromised, you simply pull the supports out from under him and replace him with another one.

Stalin was a notorious upstart. He usurped power from Leon Bronstein alias "Trotsky" and played his own game while still kowtowing to his masters who lost confidence in their ability to control him--resulting in the "Cold War". They're still smarting from that one. That's one reason so many of their current political front-men and front-women are weak, effete, ineffectual, blackmailable, etc.

They recruit more capable hands for positions in private industry.

Quote: (07-09-2016 03:16 PM)Kalkin Wrote:  

Certainly things change and evolve, even for them. I would just add that there is a rule of thumb that says that you never leave the real power in a visible position; you keep front-men (and nowadays, women) in visible positions, and hide power and wealth away from covetous eyes. So great wealth and great power are usually hidden. If your agent is attacked, bankrupted, replaced, assassinated, turns too unpopular to be effective, bribed, starts playing his own game, or otherwise compromised, you simply pull the supports out from under him and replace him with another one.

It isn't at all hidden...the factions that influence politicians are quite well known, and the wealth of leading politicians is quite well known as well. No one is surprised by the notion that money influences politics.

That being the case, there's no need for arcane theories and hear-say, all one needs to do is pay a bit of attention to the advisers who surround a leader, the backers who fund that leader and the media that trumpet that leader. In other words, politics.

Quote:Quote:

Stalin was a notorious upstart. He usurped power from Leon Bronstein alias "Trotsky" and played his own game while still kowtowing to his masters who lost confidence in their ability to control him--resulting in the "Cold War". They're still smarting from that one. That's one reason so many of their current political front-men and front-women are weak, effete, ineffectual, blackmailable, etc.

This isn't really an accurate assessment of what happened. Trotsky never had outright power in the Soviet leadership, and was himself a very late addition to the Bolsheviks (joining in 1917). When Lenin died it was split which way things would go, and even after Trotsky was exiled power wasn't truly centralized with Stalin until the death of Kirov in 1934. None of them had hidden "masters" controlling them.

What I wanna know is why.

These elites seemingly have everything going for them money-wise. Got bank accounts set up all over the world. Many of them are old (i'm guessing). Why not just enjoy the golden years playing with your grandkids, reading some books, hanging out on the beach or even getting stroked by a Filipinna maid? Are these people really so hell-bent on world domination and subversion that they can't stop and smell the roses for one minute?

Quote: (07-09-2016 05:32 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Are these people really so hell-bent on world domination and subversion that they can't stop and smell the roses for one minute?

I understand your sentiment. But what works for me and you didn't work for Sargon of Akkad in the 23rd century BC/BCE, and it's not going to work for ambitious people of today. From the dawn of civilization to the present day, history has largely been the story of conquest, starting with huge numbers of autonomous tribes, and it would make sense for it to continue until we're down to one global empire, whether it is openly acknowledged as such, or we maintain the fiction of different colors on the map but political and economic policies that are "harmonized", and open (in some respects) borders.

And the means of conquest evolves. It probably started with massacres, displacement, and slave-subjugation. See Deuteronomy 20, and de-bowdlerize it (it's about massacres, and enslaving conquered subjects; they're not "servants"), but now it often involves something as simple as a coup.

Similarly the means of control also evolves. Now a lot of it is voluntary, through the use of products that manipulate us.

I suspect it will turn bloody again for a while...due to hitting an inflection point...

A few questions:

Quote: (07-08-2016 09:08 PM)Kalkin Wrote:  

There are a few factions within the ruling elites but no fundamental philosophical differences among them.

Quote:Quote:

NeoFeudalism is an old goal.

Quote:Quote:

From the dawn of civilization to the present day, history has largely been the story of conquest, starting with huge numbers of autonomous tribes, and it would make sense for it to continue until we're down to one global empire, whether it is openly acknowledged as such, or we maintain the fiction of different colors on the map but political and economic policies that are "harmonized", and open (in some respects) borders.

What is the relation between their end game/goal and Judaism/Zionism/Jewish exceptionalism? Are they simply power-hungry? Are they more like Stalin (self-interest motive) or Hitler (racial-ideological motive)?

Quote:Quote:

Outside of the New World Order, in the few remaining autonomous countries outside their grasp, yes.
3. Iran

How much of the Muslim world is in their control?