Fascism 2.0 – Globalism and the subjects of interest

This is Part 2 of Paul’s “Fascism 2.0” series, part one can be read HERE.

In this second article in a series of three, I’m going to set the developments we have seen regarding Social Media censorship in the context of globalist power structures and suggest there is growing evidence the narrative manipulation we information consumers have been witnessing is in service to a globalist cause.

It’s important, I think, when having this kind of a discussion, to avoid falling into the trap of talking about a conspiratorial nebulous “they” without adequately defining who “they” are because such thinking leads to imprecise and ill justified reasoning and can, quite rightly, lead to the accusation of conspiracy theory style thinking. So I will define exactly what I mean by globalism and globalists. Your own definition may differ, but this is what I mean.

Globalists possess extreme wealth, typically in the billions, and can live anywhere in the world they choose. They have diversified international business interests, often shared with other globalists, and frequently receive invitations to events like Davos from the WEF.

The people we are speaking of inhabit a rarified and incestuously small community. Additionally with the arrival of the Internet, Globalism has been transformed, with the opportunity for ad-hoc co-opting of the powerful greatly enhanced. As the world has shrunk, the most influential power brokers have drawn closer together, breaking down barriers of geography and physical location.

Globalists are in the enviable position that they, unlike the common citizen, are able to leverage tax and legislative competition between countries. So for example Ireland’s GDP leapt after Ireland in 2003 quite deliberately introduced the EUs most competitive corporation tax rate (12.5%). The influx of tech businesses to Dublin brought an immense boost to the Irish economy and boosted Irish GDP to enviable levels. Globalists can pick and choose where they do business.

Now we know who Globalists are, I’m going to provide a particular definition of Globalism distinct from the old-world brochure-wear version: The old version runs something like this: Globalism is the activity of engaging in Economic Integration, Cultural Exchange, Multilateral Cooperation, Migration and Mobility policy making and Technology and Information exchange. And it is true it does involve these things, but in my opinion, the more revealing way to view globalism is by looking at the subjects and policy areas in which Globalists show greatest interest. And those are:

• Environment: Man-Made Global warming
• Global Health Security (World Health)
• Banking and International Finance
• Central Banking Digital Currency and Digital Identity
• Regional economic development
• Defence (arms manufacture and supply)
• Population and migration

We know these interests because the WEF website and agenda over the years, has revealed them to us, over and over. Look carefully at this list. Do you notice a common thread?

One consequence of the pandemic period was that people began to wake-up to the fact government policy can be implemented at the drop of a hat that will hand billions trillions of dollars to corporations owned by those who are already the wealthiest in the world. Through pandemic policy, the extent of the handover was so fast, so brazen, so deeply affecting of our lives, it could hardly be missed.

According to a report by Oxfam, during the pandemic, the world’s wealthiest individuals saw their fortunes rise dramatically, with the ten richest men doubling their wealth from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion. This surge highlights a broader trend where the wealthiest 1% gained $1.4 trillion.

Meanwhile, the world’s poor and middle classes, including small and medium-sized businesses, collectively lost around $1.3 trillion due to economic disruptions.

Just consider the local shops people were no longer visiting during lockdown. Instead, of course, they were buying from Amazon.

And pharmaceutical firm revenues were also a part of the redistribution. The revenues, all mandated by government, were mind boggling (even where there were no government mandates and private healthcare, the vaccines were purchased with tax money). Pfizer alone saw revenues of over $150 billion through government vaccine and other mandated pharmaceuticals purchase. And now people are increasingly aware this was off the back of the products that were always unsafe, ineffective and rushed to market.

Text messages between EU Commission President, Ursula Von Der Leyen and Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, reveal in secret Von Der Leyen agreed to purchase 4.6 billion doses of the Pfizer, vaccine, or ten shots shots per man woman and child living in the EU. Ten!

To some it has become clear, at best, it can be said that for Pfizer, safety took a second seat to a money grab of epic scale. To others, they are corporate psychopaths of the highest order. And Pfizer, we should not forget, have been subject to the second largest corporate fine – $2.3 billion – for criminal malfeasance ever paid in the pharmaceutical industry. Further during Covid, together with the CDC, Pfizer attempted to use the courts, to hide the vaccine trial data for 75 years. Re-analysis of their own trial data (only possible because they failed in their attempt to hide it) has since shown the vaccines were never safe.

Through these recent events (and helpfully nudged along by podcasters like Joe Rogan and Russel Brand), many have begun to wake-up to how the globalist money-grab works and how it has been operating similarly, if less obviously, across a number of sectors for years.

The common thread in these globalist topics is that each represents a vast, policy-driven market worth billions or trillions.

In the brochure-ware version of the list, each of these subject areas involves moral imperatives. The moral imperatives dictate that the actions and policies implemented by governments around the world, are important to ease fulfilment of virtuous objectives (like preventing global warming).

In practice, like with the vaccines during the pandemic, the value of these policy endowments to global business is so vast that the likelihood of avarice and self-interest cannot be ignored – indeed, I would argue, it becomes inevitable.

The scale of these policy-driven markets is so vast, it’s difficult to fully grasp in a single article. The many ways in which they take money from you and me without the policies first having been produced through a clear democratic process are legion. When you start to break it down, the “scam” is so vast, it’s difficult to grasp it all. So I won’t try to do that in a single article.

Instead I will point to one company which also ties-up an important point I want to make about the nature of globalist finance. Globalists cross-invest. When people become that wealthy, though they usually made the bulk of their money from one sector, they quickly start to diversify.

Cash is for ad-hoc spending and is only ever a tiny fraction of asset value. Cash loses out on interest payments. Investment asset value in multi-billions is almost always represented by shares in business interests or funds, essentially less liquid financial instruments than cash.

So almost by definition when you have billions, you have investments in many things. And what you have invested in will overlap with the investments of other globalist billionaires. Through hedging, you end up owning a little bit of pretty much everything out there that is significantly profitable, and there will be a special focus on business in those preferred policy driven sectors I listed above because, as I have indicated, the revenues there can be assured; the playing field tilted.

The important point to understand is that as well as spreading the risk, the number of areas in which you have an interest is multiplied and, just as importantly, the number of globalist billionaires with whom you share an interest is also increased. The result is a highly diversified, ultra powerful financial unit (a cabal if you like) who hold in common to a massive degree, interest in lobbying for broadly the same policies and ensuring they are applied in the broadly the same policy-driven markets.

And if you want a good example of kind just how diverse these investments get, you only need to look at the worlds largest fund management company, Blackrock.

Fortunately for us, a Blackrock executive recently committed to video insight into how the system works. He didn’t mean to. It was a sting. But the video is fascinating. Additionally presidential candidate RFK Jr has also given some great video summary overviews of how the system works.

So first, let’s examine the video of Blackrock executive Serge Varlay.

In it we are informed, “Blackrock manages $20 trillion in asset value, it’s incomprehensible numbers. […] All of this is beyond an normal persons understanding.”

Well I have news for Mr Varlay. No it isn’t. For many of us it stands out like a flashing red-light. But I accept it may be the case that most people are not aware of what Varlay has to say.

“How do they run the world?” The undercover interviewer asks (who Serge seems to be under the impression is a date).

“You acquire stuff. You diversify. You acquire, you keep acquiring. You spend whatever you make in acquiring more. And at a certain point your risk level is super low. Imagine you’ve invested in 10 different industries from food to drinks to technology. If one of them fails it doesn’t matter, you have nine others to back you up. The risk money is inherently in just about everything.

You own a little bit of everything, and that little bit of everything gives you so much money on a yearly basis, that you can take this big f**k-ton of money, and then you can start to buy people.”

“It’s not the president,” he says, presumably referring to who they own, though on this point weather he is talking literally or illustratively on this point is unfortunately not made clear, “it’s who is controlling the wallet of the President.”

And on campaign financing we are told, “Yes you can buy your candidates. First there’s the Senators. These guys are f**king cheap. For $10 grand you can buy a Senator. I could give you [meaning a senator] like $500k right now, no questions asked. Are you gonna do what needs to be done?”

The interviewer asks “Does everybody do that? Does Blackrock do that?”

“Everybody does that. […] The hedge funds, Blackrock, the banks. These guys run the world.”

“It doesn’t matter who wins. They are in my pocket at this point.”

The (presumably hot) date then asks, “Do you have any thoughts on the Ukraine Russia War?”

“Ukraine is good for business. You know that right. I’ll give an example. Russia blows up Ukraine’s grain silos. The price of wheat is going to go mad up. The Ukrainian economy is tied very largely to the global Wheat market; price of bread, you know, literally everything, goes up and down. This is fantastic if you’re trading. The volatility creates opportunity to make profit. War is real f**king good for business.”

This last point, we should note, applies equally to all the wars waged by the West for the last 23 years (and more) and backs up the claims by presidential candidate RFK Jr that elements of the US establishment are incentivised to commit the West to a policy of assured “forever-wars” for financial gain. Remember the thread connecting the list of Globalist interests above. The revenues are policy driven. This is not a free market.

In another online video presidential candidate RFK Jr sums up how effectively Blackrock “launder” money.

These videos offer critical insights and are essential viewing for anyone seeking to understand the depth of globalist influence.

There is so much to talk about in relation to policy driven markets and we haven’t even begun to look at climate change and the 2030 agenda which involves yet more astronomical sums (just a little on that later), but I have presented enough to establish the principle these markets afford very substantial special forms of protected revenue – and those revenues are most usually at the expense of the taxpayers and middle classes.