Global Research, Chossudovsky, Russia, Propaganda

[jakell]

Jeez, this is so predictable.

Shall we just cut to the chase, here?

AD's aim is to 'out' anyone who argues for a new system as virulent anti-semites. There are no other kind, apparantly.

To do this, globalists are to be equated with 'jews' and therefore anyone who believes in globalists is a sneaky, crypto anti-semite.

AD's claim to want change is utter, utter bullshit. It's the very last thing he wants. He assures this by constantly equating conspiracy theory that deals with power structures/politics/control with right wing nutjobs and nazis. Any other type of governance beyond what we already have is pilloried and conflated to ghastly alternatives.

He's the best goddam indicator at RI for anyone interested in the direction of deep state activities. And don't forget to take a look at the TIDS thread for the most mean-spirited pro-status quo / anti-alternative ways of thinking.

AD did sort of cut to the chase; his chase.
There were not 'several attempts' to describe globalism, there was only one and this was fairly terse.

Seems he could no longer contain himself and thought he'd pretend there were anyway, and out popped the ready prepared conclusion.
If anyone spots this, it can always be padded out with copypasta.

[American Dream]

AD's aim is to 'out' anyone who argues for a new system as virulent anti-semites. There are no other kind, apparantly.

To do this, globalists are to be equated with 'jews' and therefore anyone who believes in globalists is a sneaky, crypto anti-semite.

AD's claim to want change is utter, utter bullshit. It's the very last thing he wants. He assures this by constantly equating conspiracy theory that deals with power structures/politics/control with right wing nutjobs and nazis. Any other type of governance beyond what we already have is pilloried and conflated to ghastly alternatives.
.

Talk about filtering things through your own lens!

I surely am endorsing practical work towards social change, though a very different kind than that proposed by the various forces of the Right. I do think that some people use "globalists" as their codeword for Rothschild/Illuminati/Elders of Zion shit, which is indeed racist and deeply misguided. I don't think though that rational discussion works with those who are emotionally wedded to such ideas. They are already with the far Right and are unlikely to leave.

As to who "the globalists" even are, no clear and agreed upon set of criteria has appeared here for how we might really know who is and is not a member.

Since this phantom of "the Globalists" itself represents a crypto-mystical category, the whole house of cards comes crashing down...

I have a good general idea of where y'all are at- am honestly not impressed and that's where we're at. I'm ready now to move on to more compelling things in my own life.

[jakell]

Ah. It seems that 'globalists' is a codeword (for god knows what) that may be used by nefarious characters on here. I thought it was a fairly simple concept which Sounder did a good job of keeping simple

[Sounder]

So here we are after several attempts to explain "globalist" and it just seems murkier than ever!

Uhhhh.. exclamation point! This doesn’t seem murky to me:

And/or is there any other particular standard at all for sorting out who is from who isn't?

You are just fishing here. Let’s talk about the ‘standard’ already presented.

Generally speaking these types of folk, many well meaning (just drunk on western exceptionalism), feel that an ‘expert’ class is better suited to do the thinking for the ‘masses’ than are the people themselves. Trouble is with that sort of thinking, ‘the people’ have less incentive to improve their own thinking leading to more top down thinking and eventual societal breakdown.

They often have misplaced priorities. They spend time selling agendas whose implications they do not understand.

It’s a fair criteria, the ‘smart’ folk that live to maintain our dominant (coercion based) narrative, through designing proper expressions of being for the ‘unwashed masses’ because these folk are so much better positioned to do ‘proper thinking regarding complex matters’, form the core of globalist inclined thinking.

It sounds like it involves being a member of the ruling class but (also) one who is advocating the mythical "One World Government".

“Mythical’? Do you deny that transnational corporatism seeks to bolster a world governing administrative entity? (Please answer) From their POV, trade laws need to be harmonized and undermining nation states is essential to long term strategy. Plus all the cash received in return for the warmongering assures the continuation of the ‘project’.

Surely, neoliberalism, with all its talk of open borders (for Capitalism way more than grassroots people) is endorsing a sort of transnationalism but more for the owners/bosses than for the majority.

But more for the owners, yeah no shit. (Word salad buzzwords with no substance)

The World Federalist Society and the bugaboos about it does seem so 1950's- and the John Birch Society even worse- they themselves are the nexus point of a lot of heavy conspiring from the shadowy- and fanatical- side of the Right.

More bugaboos, so what. Also, the birchers were played by internationalist forces that easily twisted their brains into knots.

Should we/I endorse One World Government? No way!

One can say that, but if the implications of the rhetoric are supportive of it, then what is done becomes more telling than what it is that is said.

We need a lot more critique of the State as an institution, more than anything. Do we need therefore to free up the far Right would like to impose White Supremacy, Homophobia, Patriarchy and/or Feudalism on others? No fucking way!

I might wish I could unpack that, but admit to being lost. (Oh right, now I get it, If one does not seek to undermine the (nation) State then one is a white supremacist. Gotcha, now I'm catching on.)

Ultimately though the idea of "the Globalists" seems to be a crypto-mystical category- a Bogie Man that justifies anything and everything that the proponent wants to argue for but ultimately it seems to be based on a very murky explanation about what is wrong with the world and how we might set it right.

You wish.

Nation states are bad, so lets get rid of them and create an even larger 'State'. Hmmmm, let me think on that awhile.

[Searcher08]

Well I tried to reach out, you made you position very clear, fair enough. I had hoped a navigation out was possible - sadly not.

AD, you have left out the context (and Capitalisation) that I used the word in, which was in making very broad category references to what are some functions Rigorous Intuition forum acts as.

In the informal context I was making it, it was referring to people at RI who are supporters of George Soros and his many organisations and think tanks - and I was specifically including you in that as you have posted dozens of posts on Anton Shekhovtsov, who is a Soros wonk.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keywords=Anton+Shekhovtsov&author=American+Dream&start=15

You are using the same argumentation (pick a word which has many conceptual aspects then use that richness to promote ambiguity and use that ambiguity to start dividing the conversation).

I wondered where I had seen you do that before and it is here, during the thread I began on mapping Israel's drift to being a racist fascist state, which was an end result that you deeply disagreed with (Israel = fascist state).

Israel is a settler colonial state that systematically disenfranchises and oppresses most of the (non-jewish) indigenous population, as well as others. This ain't right, by any measure and should certainly be opposed. For the enfranchised, it is more of a liberal democracy albeit a deeply racist and oppressive one.

That said, using the "F word" (fascism) serves mostly to muddy the waters, and does not help any of us to rise above the kind of racism that condones holocaust revisionism, jewish banker theory, and other such (rightly) discredited ideas.
.

^^^^^
This is classic well-poisoning. by immediately associating "Israel is drifting towards fascism" with "holocaust revision".

This Was *Really* Curious

I couldn't understand then why there seemed to be such a massive escalated response to this discussion point.... It wasn't until a couple of months ago I started doing my research into the connections and history of Anton of Soros - and discovered an entire ecosystem of inter-linked think tanks , conferences, funding organisations, professorships, journals, counter intelligence connections, community outreach, defence consultants and TV pundits that I realised why.


There is one non-discussable in the ecosystem of anti-fascism research and praxis - and that, is
Israel and fascism.

One can have research and conferences about the drift to the fascist right in Europe, in the US, in South America and in Russia and in Asia but never EVER EVER talk about Israel and fascism.

So I would say that judging by
(a) your total absence of ANY personal critique whatsoever of Anton S,
(b) uncritically publishing literally *dozens* of posts about or by him and
(c) by following the Sorosian version of anti-fascist critique to a "T" (everything and all things may be fascist - except Israel - if THAT discussion is attempted, go nuclear),

you demonstrating that both your values and behaviour fit congruently with Anton and his Sorosian (=Globalist) anti-fascist ecosystem.

[DrEvil]

Fair post AD, so a response is called for.

I do have questions about one term you and others use, though: What exactly is a "globalist"?

A globalist is one who supports, whether by the implications of their actions or by their overt ideology, a supra-national corporatism, theorized by many to be presented in the form of ‘world government’.

How can we tell if a given individual is or is not one?

Generally speaking these types of folk, many well meaning (just drunk on western exceptionalism), feel that an ‘expert’ class is better suited to do the thinking for the ‘masses’ than are the people themselves. Trouble is with that sort of thinking, ‘the people’ have less incentive to improve their own thinking leading to more top down thinking and eventual societal breakdown.

They often have misplaced priorities. They spend time selling agendas whose implications they do not understand.

Is there a consensus about who would be in their ranks and who not?

Not at all, also most operators would deny it, I would think.

(excepting Dr. Evil)

I honestly can't remember saying that I support this, and I don't, for the record. If you have a link where I actually say this I would love to see it.

What I do support is a stronger UN with a reformed security council (no veto-power and more permanent members. I'm thinking US, Russia, China, Germany or the EU, Indonesia, South Africa or Nigeria and Brazil, or alternatively more regional representation: North America, South America, EU, African Union, etc.)

I also support the breaking up of all large states into smaller, more homogenous countries (Erase all the straight lines from the post-colonial era). A population of 5-15 million per country or thereabouts, with optional larger regional cooperation where it makes sense.

Plus: Agenda 21, strict gun laws, legalization of all drugs, higher taxes, stronger unions, guaranteed minimum income, free healthcare, the breaking up of large corporations, global disarmament, the colonization of space and trans-humanism (but not singularitarianism).
Oh, and marriage should be defined as a union between two or more consenting adults.

Anything else you want me to clarify?

[American Dream]

I really do have higher priority stuff to be doing and don't anticipate any earth shattering results from any of this, so will only engage a bit more with any of the current crew on this thread:

Generally speaking these types of folk, many well meaning (just drunk on western exceptionalism), feel that an ‘expert’ class is better suited to do the thinking for the ‘masses’ than are the people themselves. Trouble is with that sort of thinking, ‘the people’ have less incentive to improve their own thinking leading to more top down thinking and eventual societal breakdown.

They often have misplaced priorities. They spend time selling agendas whose implications they do not understand.

It’s a fair criteria, the ‘smart’ folk that live to maintain our dominant (coercion based) narrative, through designing proper expressions of being for the ‘unwashed masses’ because these folk are so much better positioned to do ‘proper thinking regarding complex matters’, form the core of globalist inclined thinking.

I do agree generally about the hegemonic power of certain intellectuals who are enshrined in the coordinator class and or as arbiters of public standards. Of course though, there are all kinds of intellectuals- from the insurgent and disenfranchised on through a continuum of position all the way to the hallowed halls of power. Surely this was similar in the Soviet Union and even in Mao's China, despite the anti-intellectual scapegoating that went on there. Even in the West, the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of a specialized class of revolutionary intellectuals leading the workers who must be too undeveloped to lead themselves, merits intense critique.

It sounds like it involves being a member of the ruling class but (also) one who is advocating the mythical "One World Government".

“Mythical’? Do you deny that transnational corporatism seeks to bolster a world governing administrative entity? (Please answer) From their POV, trade laws need to be harmonized and undermining nation states is essential to long term strategy. Plus all the cash received in return for the warmongering assures the continuation of the ‘project’.

Organizations such as the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF, as well as that traditional bugaboo, the U.N. do really exist- no doubt about that. I think however that you are imposing these categories of "globalists" and "One World Government", where it would be more useful and accurate (e.g. nuanced) to reference ideas around Neoliberalism and Hegemony, etc.

the birchers were played by internationalist forces that easily twisted their brains into knots.

The rot in the John Birch Society goes deep. Maybe we should start a thread about that?

We need a lot more critique of the State as an institution, more than anything. Do we need therefore to free up the far Right would like to impose White Supremacy, Homophobia, Patriarchy and/or Feudalism on others? No fucking way!

I might wish I could unpack that, but admit to being lost. (Oh right, now I get it, If one does not seek to undermine the (nation) State then one is a white supremacist. Gotcha, now I'm catching on.)

You're really not getting it. I am saying that the far Right does oppose the neoliberal State and some of its attendant doctrines (multiculturalism, etc.) that Left radicals might also oppose, but for very different reasons. The Revolutionary Right would like to overthrow the government but all too often to exalt Patriarchy, Homophobia, White Supremacy, etc. At the very best, most adherents of the far Right have poor thinking around these issues.

Ultimately though the idea of "the Globalists" seems to be a crypto-mystical category- a Bogie Man that justifies anything and everything that the proponent wants to argue for but ultimately it seems to be based on a very murky explanation about what is wrong with the world and how we might set it right.

You wish.

Nation states are bad, so lets get rid of them and create an even larger 'State'. Hmmmm, let me think on that awhile.

It's like you're not even reading what I'm saying.

[American Dream]

Searcher, I've always been clear that I am critical of George Soros. I do also find it a fundamental problem with your argument in your usage of the tag "globalist" to tar him and anyone else you choose with the same brush, based on some really, really smarmy criteria. Or maybe I am wrong and you can provide a more meaningful response to my previous questions from before?: What exactly is a "globalist"? How can we tell if a given individual is or is not one? Is there a consensus about who would be in their ranks and who not?

After all the input has been given from all the folks who weighed in on this, the best I can glean is: "A "globalist" is someone from the owning class- or a high-level coordinator aligned with that class- who does what most of the top owners and coordinators are doing: endorse neoliberalism, US global hegemony, regional hegemony for the EU states and Israel, that sort of thing. The label globalist is selectively applied using utterly arbitary criteria in order to tar a given individual as being part of some vaguely defined- but nefarious- conspiracy, without having to prove the existence of said conspiracy at all nor that particular individual's membership in it.

Is there something else you can add to clarify the meaning and usage of the category label "globalist"? Because it seems so slippery and weak of a concept as to be nothing more than a detriment...

[Sounder]

smarmy criteria…. You may call my criteria smarmy all you wish, but you then should do us the respect of expressing in what way it is that you consider this criteria, smarmy.

AD, I and many others show a kind of respect by addressing your words directly. You seem to seldom do this, rather tending toward dancing away from substance, while replacing potential dialogue with negative associational markers. That is dirty work that does not at all address the question; what is a globalist?

Deal with the following or just admit you don’t got the juice.

Uhhhh.. exclamation point! This doesn’t seem murky to me:

And/or is there any other particular standard at all for sorting out who is from who isn't?

You are just fishing here. Let’s talk about the ‘standard’ already presented.

Generally speaking these types of folk, many well meaning (just drunk on western exceptionalism), feel that an ‘expert’ class is better suited to do the thinking for the ‘masses’ than are the people themselves. Trouble is with that sort of thinking, ‘the people’ have less incentive to improve their own thinking leading to more top down thinking and eventual societal breakdown.

They often have misplaced priorities. They spend time selling agendas whose implications they do not understand.

It’s a fair criteria, the ‘smart’ folk that live to maintain our dominant (coercion based) narrative, through designing proper expressions of being for the ‘unwashed masses’, because these folk are so much better positioned to ‘proper thinking regarding complex matters’.

[Sounder]

coffin dodger wrote...

Shall we just cut to the chase, here?

AD is a labelist.

[DrEvil]

@Sounder: Like you labeled me a corporation-serving globalist? Some consistency in your arguments would be nice, if you're capable.

[American Dream]

Sounder-

I did directly respond to concerns about intellectual elitism. I wrote:

I do agree generally about the hegemonic power of certain intellectuals who are enshrined in the coordinator class and or as arbiters of public standards. Of course though, there are all kinds of intellectuals- from the insurgent and disenfranchised on through a continuum of position all the way to the hallowed halls of power. Surely this was similar in the Soviet Union and even in Mao's China, despite the anti-intellectual scapegoating that went on there. Even in the West, the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of a specialized class of revolutionary intellectuals leading the workers who must be too undeveloped to lead themselves, merits intense critique.

As to "smart" folk living in such a way as to maintain dominance over classes of people with less access to education, these folks are breaking the script and providing a better example:

Reading for Revolution Part 3: DIY Strategies for Study Groups

Posted on April 17, 2014 by mamos206

I recently published an article in the journal Perspectives on Anarchist Theory, sharing some suggestions for how to form revolutionary study groups. It is available for free download here: DIY study strategies. Feel free to distribute it if you find it useful. This is the third part of a series on revolution, education, and reading; the first two parts can be found here.

The full issue of the Perspectives journal focuses on anarchist strategizing, and can be purchased here, from the Institute for Anarchist Studies and AK Press.

In the article, I lay out some methods for learning from each other instead of treating the text or the facilitator as an authority. I also wrestle with how to navigate differences in literacy skills among study group participants, and suggest some practical and creative ways to make texts and discussions more accessible to folks who have varying degrees of access to formal education.

The article includes reflections on a study group the Black Orchid Collective did together last year, and the appendix includes step-by-step outlines of a particular group session, writing prompts, and graphic organizers for note taking that we’ve developed.

My hope is that other affinity groups, collectives, and learning commons projects will engage with this and provide critical feedback based on your own experiences learning together. I also hope you all will write up your own reflections on collective study so that we can share practical tips with each other for how to learn outside of the capitalist education system. Our enemies have their think tanks, schools, and universities. We have processes of freestyle thinking and learning that cannot be enclosed, and that can grow rhizomatically if we put in the effort to make it happen.

If folks are interested in continuing these conversations, I write semi-regularly for the blog Creativity Not Control. It’s a collaborative project I’ve been working on with several public school parents; we are also involved in organizing against the school to prison pipeline and other forms of inequality in the schools. We want learning for life, not for labor. If this resonates with you, we welcome guest posts and collaboration in Seattle and beyond.

[seemslikeadream]

No hay solución política
para nuestra problemática evolución
no tenemos fe en la constitución
no hay revolución sangrienta

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Everyone, please, lay off AD! Can't you see he has "higher priority stuff"?! Doing...something?

[Searcher08]

Everyone, please, lay off AD! Can't you see he has "higher priority stuff"?! Doing...something?

stillrobertpaulsen, I am finding your use of the word 'priority' problematic.
What exactly do you mean by it? How do we know someone has 'higher priorities' or not?
I find that this is just muddying the waters.

Priority has been used as a code word by Far Right groups in elitist tropes such as the alleged
Illuminati group in 'The Holy Blood and Holy Grail' called..... wait for it....
The Priority of Sion!!