All roads lead to Basel, Switzerland and the shadowy world of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS).  BIS is, by any standard, the center of the world’s banking system. BIS is an unelected and unaccountable central bank with complete immunity from taxation and national laws.  Ever wonder why Switzerland has never been invaded, even by Hitler?  Now you know.

Money runs the world, especially as it’s used to corrupt governments and fund terrorist groups. As the saying goes, “Just follow the money trail.”  Of course, it’s not even real money, but rather fiat currency. What a scam. If you need more money, you just print it.

Wars are created by the global elite to overthrow governments (regime change) and steal natural resources. The wars are financed by the world banking system and regardless of who wins, one side is destroyed and the other is virtually bankrupt. One such outcome was the Civil War. Drug running and human trafficking are also directly connected to the power structure. Afghanistan and Syria, for example, are as much about drugs and human trafficking as they are about geopolitics.

However, globalism is on the defensive around the world. People are waking up and voting for populistic governments. Further, the elite’s Western financial system is in a state of near-collapse. Many banks and governments are insolvent, although it is unlikely that you will ever hear about this.  Open public revolt/riots are occurring throughout the world. We are literally on the precipice staring down into the abyss.  However, the media won’t report on what’s really going on. It’s a dirty little secret that you’re not supposed to know about…but, of course, now you know.

Truth vs. Facts


Certain terms are thrown about by politicians very loosely so you need to filter everything that they say. Today’s headlines tell the story:

Headline: Biden Tells Crowd To Choose Truth Over Facts

Translation: Don’t confuse me with the facts.

Headline: Pelosi Dismisses McCarthy’s Impeachment Letter: We Hope Republicans Will Follow The Facts

Translation: We’re not going to follow the rules so I hope you don’t object.  As for Pelosi, herself, she will follow the truth rather than the facts.

Headline: Tliab: Democrats Exploring Ways To Arrest Trump Cabinet Members

Comment: This is how civil war looks. You impeach/arrest our guys and we’ll impeach/arrest your guys. Coming next: martial law.

Headline: Pelosi Says Trump Impeachment Necessary to Repair, Heal Country

Pelosi claims that Trump will do “irreparable damage” to the U.S. if reelected.

Translation: A Trump reelection would derail the world-wide globalist agenda.

Comments: Of course, national elections have local implications but, anymore, elections have even more important international implications because of the conflict between nationalism and globalism. The world has seen a recent wave of nationalist victories in elections, including Poland, Italy, Brazil, Austria, Bulgaria, England(Brexit) and Australia. However, the U.S. is the big prize so expect lots of fireworks before everything is said and done.

Headline: Anti-Trump Whistleblower Colluded With House Democrats Before Filing Complaint

Comment: Schiff will have a hard time explaining his personal involvement in this. Perhaps, he can do another “parody.”

In a recent article in the New York Times entitled “Joe Biden and the Party of Davos,” the Times gave their take on the upcoming 2020 presidential election and the chances of Joe Biden. The Times noted that, “Trump is … the face… of a revolution against the Party of Davos, the network of elites whose economic and cultural prescriptions came to be seen by myriad voters across the United States and Europe as camouflage for a self-serving heist….This revolution is not an American phenomenon. It is much wider. Its first clear-cut expression was not Trump’s victory but Britain’s Brexit vote…. It is political, economic and cultural, driven by a resurgence of those unhappy twins: fear and nationalism.”

What is happening in the U.S. is simply a reflection of the world-wide war between globalism and nationalism. This war has produced a chasm that has torn the country politically, a literal civil war.  The differences between the two factions are being played out on a playing field of economics, environmental matters and social issues, all under the guise of political correctness.

Yes, there are some ideological differences to be sure, but it’s mostly optics.  The overriding issue is control, and who gets to have it. That’s why nationalism/populism has become such a driving force in global politics.  It’s a clear rejection of the elite’s Party of Davos, and that’s why the Times says that Joe Biden’s campaign will inevitably have serious problems.  Of course, they forgot to mention the real dirt on Biden.  That is, the brewing Ukraine scandal or Biden’s  connections to the Russia-collusion narrative.  It’s funny how that was left out of the Mueller report.

Then there’s the whole #MeToo mess and the legacy of Al Franken.  When will the next woman come forward?  It’s inevitable, isn’t it? However, Biden apparently still has the support of the Party of Davos despite the fact that many on the left think that he is not electable because he is old, white and a man. However, this is simply a reflection of the fact that the far left has become so polarized that it basically now represents only the young, women and minorities.

Memories of past political failures do tend to be very short in Washington.  Have they already forgotten the debacles of George McGovern and Barry Goldwater? Don’t they realize that centrist presidential candidates are usually the only ones that are electable? In truth, that’s the only reason that Joe Biden may yet get the Democratic Party nomination.

An article by Kris Kobach in Breibart made this observation about the recent SOTU address. Kobach said, ”But the most revealing moment occurred after President Trump described the staggering failure of socialist policies in Venezuela, when he said, ‘Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.’” And none of the Democrats clapped. Of course, their action will be dissected from both sides but I wanted to give you the real answer why the Democrats didn’t clap.

Yes, many people are by now aware of a new socialist movement in the U.S. The poster children for this movement in the 2018 mid-term elections were Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Andrew Gillum and Beto O’Rourke. Ocasio-Cortez has proposed a socialist Green New Deal which has been embraced by a number of high-profile members of the Democratic party, like Kamala Harris who is a 2020 presidential candidate for the Democratic Party nomination. One could easily then make the leap from Democrats favoring Venezuela over Trump (i.e. by not clapping) to Democrats taking on the socialist mantle of the Green New Deal as their party’s new platform.

In a way, that is quite understandable when viewed through the lens of the Democratic Party’s loss in the 2016 presidential election.  That is, Hillary Clinton, a moderate Democrat, lost to Trump, who had previously been a Democrat himself.  Clinton lost because she didn’t oppose Trump’s campaign agenda. Instead, she ran on her record.  So, the new thinking in the Democratic Party is that they need a platform which will stand in stark contrast to Trump; thus socialism. Or could there be something else in play? After all, billionaire donors now finance the Democratic Party and he who has the gold rules, as they say.

In that regard, the larger context in which American politics can be viewed is the world-wide conflict between globalism and populism. In that context, the Green New Deal represents socialism/globalism and Trump represents capitalism/populism.  Here’s the tie-in. Christiana Figueres, who then headed up the United Nations global warming program said this at a news conference a couple of years ago:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

So, the United Nations goal is to destroy capitalism in the name of globalism.  If you need to know the history of the United Nations, it is instructive that the United Nations was really founded to govern the world under the banner of a one-world government and it is an agent for the globalist agenda.  If you don’t believe me, check out Agenda 21.

This dynamic of globalism vs. populism is playing out in every country of the industrialized world, including the U.S. It doesn’t matter that communism destroyed the Soviet Union; it doesn’t matter that communism destroyed Cuba; and it doesn’t matter that socialism has destroyed Venezuela and is bankrupting the European Union.  It doesn’t matter. It’s not about economic philosophy, only political ideology.  You see, the globalists perspective is that nation-states are expendable.

You need to realize that Barack Obama intended to hand the reins of the presidency over to Hillary Clinton. It was at the 2016 White House Correspondents’ Dinner that Obama said,“This time next year, someone else will be standing here in this very spot. And it’s anybody’s guess who she will be…You all look great. The end of the republic has never looked better.” However, the globalists’ plans to deep-six the Republic got derailed.  Hillary lost – and populism then started to sweep the world.

The reason that the Democrats didn’t clap is because they have embraced the socialist agenda and are the agents of globalism in this country.  This is why they insist on open borders and this is why they promote the Green New Deal. In short, they didn’t clap because they oppose the constitutional form of government of the United States of America.  Many wore white as a show of solidarity in opposing the President. Welcome to civil war in America.


“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.  Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill



What do Angela Merkel, The Vatican and Lucifer have in common? It may seem like a stretch to some, but the answer is total world domination.  That’s right…total world domination.

German chancellor Angela Merkel is leaving office soon, but she is not going quietly. In a recent address to the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin, she said that “Nation-states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty.” Pretty disturbing comment, I’d say. Of course, Merkel was speaking to a bunch of globalists and, as I’ve said before, globalism and nationalism are totally incompatible ideologies. Only one can survive and obviously Merkel intends for globalism to be the winner, at the expense of everyone else (including you and me).

Fast forward to the Vatican. Unbeknownst to many, The Vatican is also in the star-gazing business. That is, they take money from the poor in order to buy telescopes. Expensive ones, too.  Costing upwards of one billion dollars, the Vatican has a telescope on Mt. Graham in Arizona which is referred to as the “Large Binocular Telescope Near-infrared Utility with Camera and Integral Field Unit for Extragalactic Research,” and dubbed Lucifer, by some. One of their stated missions is to search for extraterrestrial life.  One of the key features of the Lucifer telescope is its ability to spot infrared objects in space.  Why infrared? Well, some objects in space which are approaching earth can only be seen in the infrared light spectrum.

The truth is that The Vatican is obsessed with astronomy because they are looking for, indeed are expecting, the arrival of an extraterrestrial antichrist. It’s a belief that is shared by almost all of the world’s elites. The link between Angela Merkel, The Vatican and Lucifer is a dirty little secret that you’re not suppose to know about…but, of course, now you know (sort of).



Then, there’s all of the sex scandals concerning priests in the Catholic Church, not to mention Kevin Spacey’s upcoming sex-crime trial involving a minor.  Just another piece of the Luciferian puzzle.  I’ll let you connect the dots. And you probably thought that the Catholic Church was all about Christianity.



To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas.”  – Brock Chisolm, former director of the United Nations World Health Organization

So, some people didn’t believe me when I said in my last post that globalism and populism cannot co-exist.  Enter Emmanuel Macron.

As world leaders gathered in Paris to pay homage to the heroes of World War I, Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, stepped front and center and turned the event into a political football game by saying, “Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism.”  What exactly did he mean by that anyway?

Well, first let’s check out the definitions of those two terms. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines patriotism as love for or devotion to one’s country and nationalism as loyalty and devotion to a nation.  So, the two definitions are virtually identical, although usage of the two words can be slightly different.  For example, Charles de Gaulle once said that,“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate of people other than your own comes first.”

Why the wordplay or is this just another example of political correctness?  Well, to know that you have to first understand the worldview of the speaker and the audience he is speaking to. The speaker, in this case, was Emmanuel Macron and his country had previously abdicated its sovereignty to the European Union, not unlike how the French abdicated to Nazi Germany during World War II. Of course, President Trump was also in the audience as well and Macron’s remarks were certainly a rebuke of Trump’s “America First” policies which have been undercutting France, and, for that matter, the entire European Union.

Aside: As Macron told his audience, mostly European leaders, they have a responsibility to defend the legacy of world peace. More wordplay, as he actually meant world order, as in their world order.

The backdrop behind Macron’s remarks is the rise in populism, especially in Europe, and it has been upsetting the established order as populist countries turn to protecting their own interests first before the interests of the European Union.  Now, that’s patriotism to me.  As for Macron, himself, he is losing in the French polls to the populists similar to what’s already happened in Hungary, Poland and Italy, to name a few.

Accordingly, nation-states have become the enemy of globalism, simply because they put their own country first.  They are rejecting Macron’s call for open borders and the mass immigration that would follow it and destroy them all.  While there are certainly other political differences between globalism and populism, open borders really illustrates why the two sides cannot co-exist. Simply put, nation-states cease to exist without borders. The globalists are hell-bent on getting open borders, both here and abroad as open borders spells the end of nation-states (that is, they would lose their sovereignty).

Now you know why nation-states are the enemy… at least as far as the globalists are concerned.



In any event, it appears that after the upcoming French elections Macron will be out of a job unless, of course, the globalists let him run the United Nations. Some people have even gone so far as to suggest that we can save the world by letting the United Nations be in charge. In that case, Macron would even run our country as well.  Maybe, then he would just invite in another 600 million immigrants or so.  It would be the humanitarian thing to do according to him.  Nancy Pelosi would love that, no doubt, and she could still be Speaker of the House (albeit for a country which no longer has any sovereignty).


“[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”  – Zbigniew Brzezinski







I was watching an interview with a political commentator recently and one of the topics was a possible future reconciliation/accommodation between the political left and the political right.  Not sure why this topic was terribly relevant just prior to the mid-term elections so maybe they just ran out of things to talk about.  Unlikely, right?

Putting aside the question of relevance, I’d like to talk about why and how there could ever be a reconciliation between the left and right.  Granted, most people are probably unhappy with the current state of affairs. Nevertheless, I would argue that getting the two sides to agree on anything would be like asking atheists and deists to agree as to whether or not God exists.

To begin with, liberals and conservatives have never liked each other, not even a little bit.  The difference in the past was at least they somewhat tolerated each other, with the party on the outs hoping all the while to get back in power.  Ever since the election of Trump, however, the two sides have been at each other’s throat. Putting aside for the moment how we got here, the question is how do we return to a saner environment?  Certainly, Hillary Clinton saying that civility can return only after the Democrats regain power did not help.  Nor did it help when Nancy Pelosi recently said that there would be collateral damage for those who did not agree with the Democratic Party agenda.

While liberals and conservatives have never been exactly bosom buddies, they have had, in the past, some important things in common.  For example, both sides were for the most part patriotic, with an appreciation of what made America great.  Both sides went off to fight (to presumably defend freedom) in two world wars with many giving up their lives for the cause.

However, somewhere along the line, patriotism became a dirty word, for some.  Somewhere along the line, free speech became only a right for those who could shout down opposing viewpoints.  Somewhere along the line, violence was rationalized as being okay if it were in “self-defense” of their own belief systems.  As irrational as those points of view are, at least to some, those same points of view are quite permissible to others.  How did we ever get to this point?

I have been a spectator standing on the political sidelines for most of my adult life.  Perhaps, that’s why I have what I think is a somewhat different perspective on what is happening.  In my opinion, what has been playing out on the stage of American politics can be seen more clearly against the backdrop of world politics (globalism vs. populism). More to the point, a wave of nationalism has in the last few years upset the monopoly of world governments by the elite. Countries like Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Italy, Austria and very recently Brazil now have populist governments.

The wave of populism may well have carried Donald Trump into power as well.  Trump promised exactly the same thing that Barack Obama did eight years earlier (hope and change). That formula obviously really sells politically.  However, Trump’s election was almost completely unexpected in all quarters. Prior to that, the Democrats had been in power for sixteen years and had already counted on another eight years under Hillary Clinton.  It was not to be, though, and the reaction to the election loss has led to the near civil war that we are experiencing today.

The tipping point, in what I refer to as the war between two worlds, is that the left was poised to move the country further left politically if Hillary had been elected. Much further left.  I believe that can be borne out by the extreme left-wing rhetoric, violence and protests which have characterized the last two years, all of which has culminated in the rise to prominence of a new type of Democractic political superstar; namely Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Andrew Gillum and Beto O’Rourke. Their brand of politics would create a nation without borders, a nation which would protect the interests of would-be immigrants over the interests of citizens (including previous immigrants). That brand of politics only fits the globalist model.

An article on Zero Hedge today also discussed a call for unity between the warring parties. They recommended that an uneasy co-existence of respectful disunity is the only way forward. I disagree. There is no way forward. Simply put: something has to give. As I’ve said before, globalism and populism are mutually exclusive political belief systems.  They can’t co-exist.  America can either become the new Sweden, with everything that implies, or it can try to return to its roots (both culturally and politically). It’s probably time to choose.

“Look at the tyranny of party — at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty — a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes — and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction….”  –  Mark Twain




















Just Like Germany


In sports, they used to say, “Just like Mike.” In politics it’s about to become, “Just like Germany.” That is, politically, America is about to go down the same road as Germany.  Recent elections in Germany reflect a growing disenchantment of the German people with their government, especially when it comes to the immigration issue.  Angela Merkel may soon have to give way to a new government, one which may have a mandate to address Germany’s ever-growing immigration issue.

Similarly, here in this country, one of the major issues for the mid-term elections is immigration, especially in light of the hype surrounding the migrant-caravan crisis. The stage has been set for a showdown on this issue.

However, the immigration issue goes beyond the polarization of politics as highlighted by the deepening chasm between left-wing and right-wing ideologies. Much more is at stake. The conflict is an extension of what is playing out in Germany and across the globe, a conflict between globalism and populism.

In this country, the conflict can best be described as between those espousing “open borders” and those who support the MAGA movement.  There are a number of arguments for and against “open borders”, but there is one argument that I think overrides all others and yet almost never gets mentioned. That is, “open borders” requires that we ultimately get rid of our nation-state.  It would be the end of the Republic as we know it.

If you want to know how other countries feel about “open borders” just go ask China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia.  They all have much stricter immigration policies than we do.  And why is that, exactly?  It’s simple.  Their nations would cease to exist without borders.


All Americans…are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.  The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants.  The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.  That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders….”  – President Bill Clinton


Political rhetoric has really gotten to the point where no one is listening anymore, if in fact they ever were.  Everyone seems to have an opinion about why things have deteriorated so much in just the last two years.  Some blame the activists while others blame the rich, white men.  Everybody blames somebody else (never themselves) and compromise is strictly a thing of the past.

Traditionally, the political groups were generally split into two camps, liberals and conservatives. Of course, some people were liberal, on say social issues, and conservative on economic issues.  Thus, the lines were often blurred. However, these labels have become increasingly meaningless in today’s political landscape.  What could have caused such a sea change?

In just the last two years, there has been a growing trend in the election of populist world leaders including Giuseppe Conte (Italy), Viktor Orban (Hungary) and Roumen Radev (Bulgaria).  In addition, there was the Brexit vote in England to leave the EU.

What has been playing out on the world stage is an awakening of the masses against being governed by unelected bureaucrats (globalists).  The result has been the election of populists (nationalists) who put their countries first. A version of that has taken place in this country with the election of Donald Trump (a nationalist) over Hillary Clinton (essentially, a globalist).

Over time, empires rise and fall and ideologies come and go. Elections do have consequences, after all.  However, the transition from one ideology to another is often chaotic.  In this case, populism and globalism are mutually exclusive ideas. That is, they cannot co-exist.  Hang on, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.


“If supranational forms of sovereignty are to be real, they can’t tolerate the ongoing existence of national sovereignty.” –  Dr. Samuel Gregg, author