What Are Those Diabolical Globalists Up To?

My husband had me watch this from the 16:27 mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H8AShpZU9I

I don't see them ever letting Trump be president but I don't know.

 

Trump was only introduced to give Hilary a chance of winning.
Against anyone else, she wouldn't have a hope in hell!

 

I can't watch the video because I am at work. My feeling, however, is that Donald Trump is playing a role and is far from genuine. It seems most likely (to me) that Trump is running for his good friend Hillary, and will capitulate to a rigged vote count that will put Hillary in office. However, at the same time I could see the globalists letting Trump win, and he will turn his back on most of the things he said he will do during the campaign, instead forwarding the police state war agenda with a vengeance. The wave of righteous indignation fueling Trump's following is somewhat unsettling to me, and I could see that potentially being used by the controllers to forward an openly fascistic agenda to an extreme never seen before in this country. I guess only time will tell, but what I do know is that if Donald Trump were a real threat to the system, he would have been silenced long ago. Instead the media gives him endless publicity, which, good or bad, is still publicity, and it's publicity that feeds into the polarization of the public which the system wants and needs during these times. I think this notion of the establishment being against Trump is exactly what they want people to believe (at least those who are supporting him). In the end, Trump talks a good talk and says things that a fairly large percentage of the population wants to hear, but that's really as far as it goes. He simply would not be allowed to do anything that would go against what the globalists want without suffering mortal consequences. That is why I feel this election is akin to a mere circus or pro-wrestling type event. It is every election, but this time around it is more so than ever before. It's so easy for people to want to get behind one candidate because the other is so loathsome. Which of the two candidates a particular person finds more loathsome ultimately boils down to that person's pre-existing political bias.

 

Ok, I listened to what the guy had to say, and he's not really saying anything I have not heard already. It seems most people are ignoring the fact that Trump has been all over the place with his political views. In interviews from just a few years ago, he was saying he aligns himself with the Democrat Party and has most often voted Democrat. Just a few years ago he was staunchly "pro choice," now all of a sudden he's pro life. Just a few years ago he throwing glowing praise upon Hillary Clinton, and now she's the most evil woman on the planet. I am surprised how so many people are completely unaware of this. So yeah, more than anything Trump is an actor and is simply playing the role which he developed on The Apprentice years ago. He could say just about anything with the right amount of conviction and gullible people will believe it. The thing is I don't believe a word that comes out of the guy's mouth, and I don't see why anybody else would. If I felt that Trump actually believed many of the things he is saying, then perhaps I could see him being a threat to the globalists, but again, I don't believe that he believes much of anything that comes out of his mouth. He is merely saying what a segment of the population has been wanting to hear come out of a politician's mouth.

 

'The globalists'

Any names, or doesn't that really matter?

 

Globalist is the general name for the people who operate above so-called "elected officials," who set the agenda that politicians (like Obama) must adhere to if they want to maintain their power. So that would be international bankers, heads of multinational corporations, the various think tanks, intelligence agencies, the military-industrial complex, and the hordes of unelected bureaucrats that work closely with people such as the president and foreign leaders. These people operate globally and therefore are pushing a globalist agenda that seeks to weaken the power of nation-states with international laws and treaties that do more to benefit the globalist power structure than the people of said nations. Their overall goal is global governance. They have little regard for things like the Constitution and individual rights and liberties, and instead would like to abolish those things.

 

I appreciate the clarification, but there has to be some people who actually crafted such an agenda right. I mean, I am not denying that certain parts of the world aren't steering towards a more globalist society and power construct but to me it seems it is an effort of the people you named and is made in order to compete with other parts of the world or maintain the wealth and power they have acquired.
When people put it like these politicians, big corporations etc. etc. have to adhere to a higher (human btw, no worries ) agenda/authority/elite/group of influential people I am wondering what makes that so sure and who/what that group of people is...! Where does this agenda come from? Are you sure it is not just a bunch of international organisations (incl. goverments and corporations) trying to keep up with the actual situation in the world and merely planning to maintain or increase their own power/wealth/influence in the future? If you are sure, what makes it so certain?

 

Yes, there are definitely people who got the ball rolling, and it all goes back to the early part of the last century when the formation of organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and Royal Institute for International Affairs began. Out of these groups came the League of Nations (later the United Nations) and the European Union, both of which are major building blocks to the global governmental stucture the elite are looking to build. You can read books by people like Carroll Quigley, the Georgetown professor and Bill Clinton mentor who explained the whole agenda (which he was not at all opposed to) in his book 'Tragedy and Hope'.

 

Thanks I will look into that book/those authors anyway, but I'm just wondering atm do they explain who this elite you talk about is? And if not, can you? Is this elite hypothetical (which does not necessarily mean it is bogus at all) or is it based on something factual (like when people talk about certain families).
For the unconvinced person the United nations and EU could also came to be not primarily to work towards a global(ist) world and society but for the actual reasons they state themselves: in which globalism is merely a tool to either safety, convenience (uniform paying method, easier travelling etc.), economic benefits. Wether I agree with how they are functioning or not, I can't see any certainty which confirms they are primarily striving for globalism, and not primarily for the things they officially claim they are for.
I'm not saying with certainty that the offical reasons a thing like the United Nations came to be is all there is and there can't be any secret motive behind things. But is it stupid or sheepish to expect some proper and convincing explanation from the people who claim they know with certainty, and of course (if they can't) to consider the possibility that the official reasons are the real ones..?

Especially when people talk about past developments that shaped society 'for the better' as if they were planned to bring down said society in the end, I am wondering how that is certain. I'm talking about stuff like industry drawing people to the city, unions and worker rights, the dependance on such organisations and rights to have your primary needs fixed instead of just taking care of them yourself in the way our grandparents did in most cases (self providing). The decline of the traditional family setup. I saw it being hinted at its a conscious and planned effort by a certain elite. But isn't that just a hypothesis. Why in earth would a secret elite for instance first get a whole country educated and make them used to certain rights and then secretly aim to negate all that in favor of control and power? Didn't they had more chance on all that control before? How would the decline of traditional family life be a conscious effort to bring down/chance society as it is/was and not a coincidential conseqeuence of a society that has these set of rights and freedoms?
I can of course see the downside of an industrial modern society just as much as you, but I do find the concept that it was for a large part a conscious effort of a certain elite to gain ultimate control over most of the human population intriguing but far fetched. I want to be convinced when people claim it as most likely or even certain but they never come close.

^
When I read this I am still primarily wondering who you mean by 'the elite' and what makes you sound so sure (so far I sometimes have to conclude you sound certain because you are charging things or are bluffing Sorry, just my initial conclusion sometimes). As you put it there I am supposed to get certain answers from the book you recommend at the end of quoted part. I am sceptical but will check it out, as I really want to know where you are coming from with your points and convictions in this regard!

 

I tried reading that book ages ago, maybe when I was 21. It was quite complex. Is there anywhere, like a review site, that might do a good job breaking that book down? It is a mammoth book and quite confusing.

I mean, maybe at 31, 10 years later, I might be able to get it more. But still, wow, it is an intense read.

 

Read 'The Naked Capitalist' by Cleon Skousen. It is basically a synopsis of the book in around 100 pages.

 

You know, I think you did recommend that and I think I could not find it at the time. Maybe they have a pdf file of that.

I know they do for Quigley's book:

http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf

 

Here you have something that might be of interest (after a quick search):

http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Round%20Table%20Review.pdf

Including this quote:

"The "global planners" who are at the center of the Capitalist conspiracy are identified by Skousen as the "leaders of the world's secret center of international banking," the "super-rich," the "super capitalists." The "leaders of London and Wall Street" are chiefs of "the Anglo-American secret society" who are behind communism and everything else. Skousen puts bankers at the top of the list of conspirators: the Rothschilds, Barings, Lazards, Paul Warburg, J. P. Morgan. But also included are the following: John Foster and Alan Dulles, the Rockefellers, Cecil Rhodes, Arnold Toynbee, Walter Lippman, Albert Einstein, George F. Kennan, Douglas Dillon, Dean Acheson, Henry Kissinger, Henry Cabot Lodge, Arthur Burns, George Ball, Ellsworth Bunker, Paul Hoffman, McGeorge Bundy, the Kennedy family, Dwight Eisenhower, John Dewey, and many others. By any standards, this is quite a list."