It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Globalism really the end goal?

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 02:38 AM
link   
This is a thought bubble I've been hatching. I'm sure the history buffs will disprove it
I guess if you have anything constructive to add...you know what to do.

When you look at the decades throughout history it seems like the defining theme of one decade is counteracted in the next decade.

For instance the "roaring" 1920s were a time where many in the major cities celebrated excess. This was the decade that F. Scott Fitzgeralds "The Great Gatsby" was set in.



The 1920s were an age of dramatic social and political change. For the first time, more Americans lived in cities than on farms. The nation’s total wealth more than doubled between 1920 and 1929, and this economic growth swept many Americans into an affluent but unfamiliar “consumer society.” People from coast to coast bought the same goods (thanks to nationwide advertising and the spread of chain stores), listened to the same music, did the same dances and even used the same slang!


www.history.com...


Whereas the 1930s were the era of The Great Depression:




The Great Depression (1929-39) was the deepest and longest-lasting economic downturn in the history of the Western industrialized world. In the United States, the Great Depression began soon after the stock market crash of October 1929, which sent Wall Street into a panic and wiped out millions of investors. Over the next several years, consumer spending and investment dropped, causing steep declines in industrial output and rising levels of unemployment as failing companies laid off workers. By 1933, when the Great Depression reached its nadir, some 13 to 15 million Americans were unemployed and nearly half of the country’s banks had failed.


www.history.com...

Similarily, the 1950s were a period where the ripples of WWII was still felt by the post-war generation. The 1960s however were the first generation to live a carefree "free-love" existence as reflected in the playful, colourful clothing which often mimicked children's styles of big Peter Pan collars and playsuits. This was a decade of the Beatles and JFK. (The Vietnam War did put a dampner on this carefree lifestyle).

It seems the theme of current millennials is social activism, growing calls for socialist agendas in traditionally conservative-leaning Western countries such as increased spending on Climate Change initiatives and increased spending on international aid (Agenda 21), Social Justice Warriors fighting an online battleground against real and perceived instances of racism and sexism against faceless strangers.

To me it is getting to a point where any taboo topics such as the impact of mass immigration and the teachings of Islam etc are becoming such a 'no-no' topic that peoples rights to free speech are being quashed (in the US at least as Australia has no right to free speech). There are also growing numbers of millenials who shun work and dream of getting rich and famous from the internet. This is the generation of Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces and Snowflakes.

So my point is that if historical decades are like a pendulum where the extreme views of one decade are counteracted as the pendulum swings by peoples' push back to the other end of the scale. Then, logically the next generation may be more conservative in their views, value their right to free speech fiercely inspite of what they are told is right and wrong to debate, and idk work harder


What are your thoughts?




posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 02:54 AM
link   
I think globalism is the end goal, tptb are just finding different ways to keep us distracted personal excess of the 20's, fear of poverty in the 30's, wwII in the 40's, MAD in the 50's, space in the 60's, free love in the 70's etc etc for every decade there has been 1 main theme that can sum it up that attracts the attention of everyone....the more "connected" we are, the more we disconnect from what's really happening around us.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Kalixi



Then, logically the next generation may be more conservative in their views, value their right to free speech fiercely inspite of what they are told is right and wrong to debate, and idk work harder.


That's definitely what I am hoping for.

You should check out the book, The Angelo American Establishment by Carroll Quigley (a dude).

He was the historian for the Council on Foreign Relations and attended their round table meetings.

The CFR is basically globalism's primary institution.


edit on 10/7/2016 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Kalixi


Is Globalism really the end goal?


its the only goal...

unfortunately the current model doesn't work... but what government does?




posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 04:18 AM
link   
I think the U.S. wants globalism, and this is a good thing, as countries working together and not being at war is amazing. However, I think Russia and China have other plans and soon they will have a lot more power. I think we will see a split between superpowers - I don't think the U.S. and its allies will be calling all the shots anymore.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Globalism is not a good thing.

It's a humanitarian FRONT put up by the banksters.

Their end game is a one world nation and a one world currency.

Bad.




edit on 10/7/2016 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 05:30 AM
link   
I have given this topic thought before, good one. I think the goal for each nation and their states are the same. Depopulation. Especially in the US. I believe the goal is to trickle down as many cuts as possible, from feds to counties, to dismantle our small communities, starting with the the schools. Herd as many people as possible to cities, especially the young workers, then the poor, and disabled. Combine those groups with businesses, all money would be spent in a concentrated area. While the billionaires buy up the small community's infrastructure and public lands for mining and other exploits.
edit on 7-10-2016 by MOMof3 because: sp



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom
I can see the one world governance as bad but why is a one world currency bad? I think the sooner we have a one world currency the majority of ordinary folk can rest easier than when we had multiple currencies. Example. Now we have multiple currencies the powerful people (call them what you want, the banks, wealthy industrialists, the Illuminati) play us off against one another ie. but Yen sell Dollars, sell Yen buy Roubles. Have a really good run on selling say selling Dollars and watch as your country gets tipped into spiraling debt and poverty because some "clever" entrepreneur wants to make a few billion extra at the expense of your country.
Don't believe me? Look to the 1992 when George Soros brought the UK to it's knees. A single man ,through buying and selling currencies nearly bankrupted the UK. One man doing that to a country just by buying and selling different currencies.
So for me the sooner we have a one world currency the better.

edit on 7-10-2016 by crayzeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed


I can see the one world governance as bad but why is a one world currency bad?


It's funny I think you answered your own question later in your post.


Don't believe me? Look to the 1992 when George Soros brought the UK to it's knees. A single man ,through buying and selling currencies nearly bankrupted the UK. One man doing that to a country just by buying and selling different currencies.
So for me the sooner we have a one world currency the better.


George Soros is a member of the CFR (globalist institution). One could even go so far as to say that he manipulated currencies in the UK in order to benefit the European Union (globalist institution).

See the pattern?



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom




George Soros is a member of the CFR (globalist institution). One could even go so far as to say that he manipulated currencies in the UK in order to benefit the European Union (globalist institution).

you could say it, but you would look like an idiot.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I don't think globalization is the main goal.I believe it is a means to an end, a vehicle or platform, to thrust mankind into the solar system and beyond.

By mankind I mean the elite, the robber barons of the past are hoping to become the landlords of planets. They themselves won't get there( I don't believe the secret space program is advanced as others proclaim),but eventually they hope with willful intent that there progeny will.

Globalization is a tool in my opinion, its job is to facilitate technological growth, and make the resources for that to happen available.

All my own opinion of course,

Respectfully,
~meathead



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom That's a bit of backwards logic there. If there was a single world currency he couldn't have done it and no single person or entity could influence a country by artificially manipulating currencies.
To the ordinary man in the street it makes not the slightest bit of difference what his currencies called, what matters to him is what that said currency will buy him. It will never happen as one of the biggest countries in the world are against it and they fight tooth and nail to stop it. Guess what country that is?
You've got it, the good ole USA. Any move against the petro-Dollar and they crap their pants. Oh, they might want a one world currency but it's GOT to be the Dollar. But no chance of that as there are a couple of other big countries that want their currency to be the one and there's no prizes for guessing who they are.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Globalism is the outcome of industrial capitalism. The goal is continuous economic growth to ensure greater prosperity, but that won't happen because of limits to growth.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: darkbake

Globalism is not a good thing.

It's a humanitarian FRONT put up by the banksters.

Their end game is a one world nation and a one world currency.

Bad.





I agree, mostly. But would say the endgame is to have corporate 'states' replace nations.

Bad.




posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 05:52 AM
link   
hard to say where things are going. I just want to go live in the woods far removed from all humans.




top topics



 
6

log in

join