How To REALLY Defeat Globalism

04/11/20158 Comments

In this week's subscriber newsletter we examine the phoney nationalism/globalism paradigm and how it was cultivated in the population through the school system. Recommended reading and listening include killer robots for military uses, Tocqueville's America, Jeffrey Tucker on P2P and more.

To access this week's edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber, please sign in and continue reading below.

Not a Corbett Report member yet? Sign up to BECOME A MEMBER of the website and read the full newsletter or CLICK HERE to access a free version of this editorial (scroll down the page for the article).

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register here.

Existing Users Log In

Filed in: Newsletter
Tagged with:

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. dave says:

    The other alternative to nationalist and globalist constructs is local community action. The emphasis on individual freedom is certainly valid, but unfortunately individual action can be defeated too easily by a focused opponent. A community can draw strength from its united members. Community action is what successfully brought reforms in the 19th century, like the 8-hour work day. The prevention of public demonstrations, like at political party conventions, is simply a tactic to suppress such community actions. Your recent podcasts on peer-to-peer economics also point out success can be had on a much smaller scale than many suspect. Focusing on the individual rather than on the community is too limited for a solution to today’s problems, given our social nature where a team can accomplish what an individual cannot. Individual freedom is critical on a personal level but community action will be more effective than individual action.

    • Anciana says:

      Wow, “The Public School Nightmare” — thank you for the link to a great article. Thank you for it, and for all your work.

  2. lincolnlea says:

    You need to be a bit careful w hen it comes to using that concept “community” I think dave. Personally, I’ve come to loathe it. It seems to refer to everyone but me, and mostly looking at the users, I’m relieved.

    If you don’t watch it, and stray too far from the meme of the independent individual interacting freely with other such, you end up with this

    I honestly didn’t think there was anyone around who thought like this anymore. But see … I was wrong.

    I’m not a devoted follower of Rand, but she was sort of like the little girl with the girl. When she’s right, she’s very right but when she’s wrong, she’s .. Oh god Horrid.

    And she had this guy and his community pegged to a tee.

    • dave says:

      I did not mean to take that narrow view of a community. The effort to end the 7-day 14+-hour-day work weeks required many communities to publicly demonstrate. I am only pointing out that individual actions are like single pokes against the system whereas those individuals when working together, whether as a community or as a team, can bring enough attention to force a reaction and hopefully productive change.

      • lincolnlea says:

        Great – sorry if I misinterpreted. It’s just that words do carry implied, generally accepted, meanings as well as defined ones, and “community” really does carry that meaning for most people.

        Your proposal of a group of individuals working together as a team makes sense though – even then, just as individuals make little difference unless they are “doing a Ghandi”, (and thus becoming huge) also small groups often make little to no difference. It’s just that doing nothing seems to imply acceptance, and fighting a just battle, even if you know you have little chance of success, is a better option.
        I believe strongly, having studied lots of historical events, that more things that are life changing come from something unseen before the wave of change breaks, and even maybe unseeable. Who would have foreseen the sweeping change to the world the home computer coupled with the internet would have brought. Who, back in the 70’s even, could have foreseen these things happening?? It’s the law of unintended consequences.
        So — I’ve had a growing conviction which gets stronger all the time, that something no-one foresaw coming will bring down these insane murderous maniacs. But I like James’ encouragement of groups of like minded people just setting up their own working interactions and ignoring the powers that be. It might be small to begin with, and it might not, on it’s own, bring down the insane oligarchs, but it’s a better way to live your life if nothing else. And it gives you a flying start on surviving any sort of meltdown post devastation that might ensue.

        Mostly I am beginning to see some hope in a small but beginning movement – entirely spontaneous – brought to light by “Fred” in this last:

        The one thing the ruling oligarchy of America never really thought about is that, at heart, America is not a unified nation. It’s a hodge-podge collection of multiples of peoples from many difference sources and with differing loyalties. Russia, although it has accepted many different peoples, seems to find a way to get them all to become “Russian”. I suspect because it has a greater sense of “community” and family ties. China, Japan, Korea, are largely very unified, single culture / race nations. It’s easier to get unity of purpose, which is more directed and stronger in such an environment.

        I’m hopeful that this last might, at the end, bring down the Western Oligarchs. What it might do to free us from the others – that would be the next issue I guess.

  3. PJ says:

    Interesting article. I’ve been thinking about this topic a lot lately, sparked by recent episodes of CR. Could anyone answer for me this question: What are in the present day the main purpose(s) legitimizing any centralized power structures? Say, in the US for example, what functions or services are provided by the federal government that couldn’t be provided for otherwise? I realize bringing things down to the state level leads us to another centralized power unit and the same question would yet again apply, but let’s just take the Fed at this point. Not sure if that makes sense, but I’m asking the question because I really don’t know the answer.

    Anyway, this article reminded me of this somewhat related lecture excerpt. Good stuff —

  4. PJ says:

    “So there’s a great problem here in our society. Now why is there this problem? There’s always a very inconsiderable minority of these non-joiners or people who check out of the game. But you will find that insecure societies are the most intolerant of those who are non-joiners. They are so unsure of the validity of their game rules that they say everyone must play. Now that’s a double-bind. You can’t say to a person you must play because what you’re saying is – you are required todo something which will be acceptable only if you do it voluntarily.So everyone must play is the rule in the United States. And it’s the rule in almost allRepublican governments; I mean republican in the sense of democratic. They are very uneasy because everybody’s responsible. You may try not to be and avoid it,and say oh let the senators take care of it or the president. But theoretically everyone is responsible; now that’s terrifying. See its more like when you know what’s right, there is an aristocracy, the clergy, and they know what’s to be done and they are used to ruling. But now it’s in your hands, and you say well what are we going to do? Well I think this way and he thinks that way, and so we’re all unsettled. And therefore we become more and more conformist. Individualism,rugged individualism always leads to conformism, because people get scared. And so they herd together, then compound it with industrial society – mass production,etc. They all wear the same clothes, and they are sensible clothes that don’t show the dirt too much and we get dollar and drabber.

    So the reason for this in a way is because Democracy as we have tried it – started out on the wrong foot. You see in the scripture, the Christian scriptures, it says everybody is equal in the sight of god. Now that’s a mystical utterance. That means that from the standpoint of God, all people are divine, and are playing their true function. And that is something that is true on a certain plane of consciousness. But come down a step and try to apply the mystical insight in the practical affairs of everyday life and what do you get? You get a parody of mysticism. You get the idea not that everybody is equal in the sight of god, but that all people are equally inferior. That’s why all bureaucracies are rude; why the police are rude, and why you are made to wait in lines, and all that sort of person. Because everybody’s a crook, everybody’s equally inferior; you see that becomes the parody of democracy. And that kind of society – watch out for it. It turns in a quick click into fascism, because of its terror of the outsider…”

  5. Robert Smith says:

    I’ve already known that Nationalism & Globalism are both two sides of the same rotten totalitarian coin. I’m also curious about what Adolph Hitler’s New World Order plans were like as in his second secret book

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top