The Use of the Word “Globalist”

Posted by Dobrien 7 months ago to History
16 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

The Satanic Luciferian Genocidal Globalist Peedo Cabal

I’ve been told the word ‘globalist’ doesn’t really mean anything, that it is devoid of any real content and so I should stop using it.

Here’s my reply to that request:

When we use the word 'globalists' to describe the people in US federal, state and local governments who are literally looting our own country and shipping all our wealth and resources overseas, its not some stupid catchphrase that doesn't mean anything.

We're telling you something important when we use it:

This government bureaucratic 'elite' class does not see itself as American citizens first. They will tell you they are 'citizens of the world'.

Why have they worked so hard to make the words "America First" or 'MAGA' into dirty words, like some kind of slur?

Its to give themselves rhetorical cover while they literally work Americans to death to steal our resources and wealth so they can use it for evil and vile globalist agendas.

Yeah, I know. 7 years ago this would've SOUNDED like a wild hairy assed conspiracy theory told at the family reunion by the crazy uncle that everybody ignores.

Who probably kinda looks like Ron Paul...


All Comments

  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 months ago
    YES, Globalist is a valuable term. No allegiance to anyone but themselves and or cause.
    We should use the term DELETE in conjunction, instead of elite, it's more accurate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Amen, bro, amen. And the Soviet courts he's being dragged through will surely find him guilty of SOMETHING... just because "they" can't have him running in an election. Can someone say, "Election interference?" - oh my, the commies would NEVER do THAT!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think he has 94 charges against him and is inundated with Lawfare. Yet he continues to fight the scumbags.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, the "City of London" description is interesting and worth the read.

    "...looting our own country and shipping all our wealth and resources overseas..." reminds me of some passages in Atlas Shrugged. Where's Ragnar when we need him?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by mshupe 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In that context, I agree, and the WEF is the criminal gang. My point is that many pundits use the term interchangeably with trade. Their slogans are trade deficits, American jobs, snd buy local. It's not the same as global government, yet both require the use of force or intimidation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That’s good Nan Fred is a Godsend for you.
    I married a woman whose last name was Fredell ,her father Was Fred D Fredell Jr.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Globalists , like the World economic forum under the guise of economic benefits is only interested in power and controll. A one world Autocratic government. Globalists actions have been horrific for the people but not for the Aristocracy. See City of London https://prussiagate.substack.com/p/1871
    When we use the word 'globalists' to describe the people in US federal, state and local governments who are literally looting our own country and shipping all our wealth and resources overseas, its not some stupid catchphrase that doesn't mean anything.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by mshupe 7 months ago
    I think there's some merit to the 'globalist' term being too vague to be of much use. Think of the term 'inflation' used as both monetary debasement and rising prices. They are not the same thing, and most people don't know what they're talking about in either case. In Objectivist thinking, economic globalism is a good thing (private businesses engaged in free trade among themselves regardless of borders) and political globalism is a bad thing (political power replacing oil with sand in the machinery that moves capital, commodities, and value-added goods).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yeah, a long time ago I thought one-world government wouldn't be bad if it was a republic with a decent constitution and the leader was like Washington or Jefferson, but now being a student of history we'd likely get stuck with a Stalin or Mao or that truly creepy guy Klaus Schwab. Better to keep America sovereign!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Aeronca 7 months ago
    There will always be people trying to conquer the Earth. No one plays Risk anymore!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh, FYI...I reported to you all that Fred got zapped by a Tarantula. After 4 trips to veterinarians, I gave up and Fred handled the problem himself. He licked it and chewed on it! nb
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 7 months ago
    Hey Dan, I just refer to them as 'loonies'.If they are so insecure they have to lean back on something, I don't think they are going to be as successful as they are in their own minds. nb
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ BobCat 7 months ago
    As I was growing up, over a half century ago, the term used then was 'One Worlder'.
    To me, Globalist and One Worlder are the same - they all want to destroy our Individual liberties and form a One World government.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mhubb 7 months ago
    there was a time when the goal was to spread American values to the rest of the world
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo