I'm convinced now that high level freemasonry is the hidden thread that ties the global elites together, they simply use international institutions and democracy as a invisibility cloak.
Loving the article so far! But "American war machine" rings untrue. Was the post-911 war machine really an "American" thing, or some other thing wearing an "American" skin-suit, or something else?
Funny. As I did a reread this morning before posting, that was the one phrase that stuck in my craw, at bit. I was trying to come up with a phrasing that was both punchy and resonated with a U.S.-centric lens. It's still the best I can think of, but I do agree its rhetorical value comes at the cost of a superficial depiction. The U.S. military has indeed been coopted to the agenda of a more globalist elite formation.
Isn't it more likely that the US state functions as the political and military engine of an imperial project that operates on a planetary scale? The US works with, or is sometimes co-opted or suborned by, any number of political and economic actors based outside of the US but which are nonetheless fully integrated into the imperial project. Were the US to prioritise national concerns, it would risk crippling support from allies, client states and trading partners who support the US by buying Treasury bills.
Making a distinction between national and globalist forces is archaic, since the former have no serious role within the US system anymore. They might emerge, but this is a possibility. Nationalism appeals to many, but no actor with significant levels of power is nationalist. There are presently no stable mass constituencies that are formed by national bonds.
Reliable, consistent, cohesive with a degree of consciousness of themselves. There is certainly a degree of nationalist sentiment, a hunger for nationalist politics, but it appears very confused and the elements involved remain divided. IMO there is no coherent nationalist bloc, still less any great mass that will only vote for nationalists. It appears that many nationalist adjacent or potential nationalists still vote for Establishment candidates.
This is the best that I can to do clarify my thinking at this time. Happy to be corrected on any of this. Am confused about a lot of what is going on and need to do more analysis.
I'm convinced now that high level freemasonry is the hidden thread that ties the global elites together, they simply use international institutions and democracy as a invisibility cloak.
Such a great and realistically optimistic framing of our current situation!
Thanks, Grant.
Loving the article so far! But "American war machine" rings untrue. Was the post-911 war machine really an "American" thing, or some other thing wearing an "American" skin-suit, or something else?
Funny. As I did a reread this morning before posting, that was the one phrase that stuck in my craw, at bit. I was trying to come up with a phrasing that was both punchy and resonated with a U.S.-centric lens. It's still the best I can think of, but I do agree its rhetorical value comes at the cost of a superficial depiction. The U.S. military has indeed been coopted to the agenda of a more globalist elite formation.
As always, thanks for your contribution.
Isn't it more likely that the US state functions as the political and military engine of an imperial project that operates on a planetary scale? The US works with, or is sometimes co-opted or suborned by, any number of political and economic actors based outside of the US but which are nonetheless fully integrated into the imperial project. Were the US to prioritise national concerns, it would risk crippling support from allies, client states and trading partners who support the US by buying Treasury bills.
Making a distinction between national and globalist forces is archaic, since the former have no serious role within the US system anymore. They might emerge, but this is a possibility. Nationalism appeals to many, but no actor with significant levels of power is nationalist. There are presently no stable mass constituencies that are formed by national bonds.
I would largely agree with this, modified I suppose by what precisely is meant by the word "stable" in the phrase "stable mass constituencies."
Reliable, consistent, cohesive with a degree of consciousness of themselves. There is certainly a degree of nationalist sentiment, a hunger for nationalist politics, but it appears very confused and the elements involved remain divided. IMO there is no coherent nationalist bloc, still less any great mass that will only vote for nationalists. It appears that many nationalist adjacent or potential nationalists still vote for Establishment candidates.
This is the best that I can to do clarify my thinking at this time. Happy to be corrected on any of this. Am confused about a lot of what is going on and need to do more analysis.
I certainly agree: not coherent. My next post(s) might be of interest to you, along those lines. :)