G7 Summit Ruled by EU Commission

The G7 Summit is taking place in Quebec under the tutelage of Trudeau.   The purpose of the Summit is to talk about global topics chosen this year by Trudeau to include:  ocean pollution, trade tariffs, and climate change.  The Summit was originally created in 1973 by George Schulz.  It was to be attended by the finance ministers of four countries;  West Germany, UK, US and France.  It has historically evolved to include Canada, Italy, Japan, and Russia, although Russia was expelled in 2014.  

The President’s of these countries basically get together, have some food, meander around the property, and talk.  The only spouse to accompany her husband was Macron’s.  After two days, they go home and nothing changes.  From the perspective of a businessman, it is a huge waste of time.  From the perspective of the various politicians attending it gives them airtime. For Macron, it gives him hug time.

For example, in February 2009, the group of finance ministers met in Rome and pledged to take all necessary steps to stem the financial crisis.  That was the sum total of the meeting.  Seems to me a phone call could have accomplished that at a considerable fraction of the cost.

But it has become a media hype and everyone wears their Sunday best.  Furthering division, the summit conspicuously omits other global countries; Ireland, India, Scotland, The Netherlands, China, Russia, Spain, Portugal, Brazil, etc.., etc…  Instead it is more of a good ol’ boy platform wherein tradition is the only rationale.

The end result of this meeting seems to be that Trump and the EU will talk about trade in two weeks. Macron thinks the US should be expelled from future summits.  And as representative for ALL EU countries, Merkel stated that they all agree Russia should remain expelled.  I wonder if the ‘other countries’ were notified of their agreement before or after her statement?

Apparently, the new PM of Italy, Giuseppe Conte, stated that he felt Russia should be reinvited. However, the EU Council President, Donald Tusk, speaking on behalf of Conte said that Italy would toe the line and be a follower, not a leader.  I wonder if Conte is royally miffed!

Why would the EU Commissioner and EU Council President be at the G7?  They are not countries. 

In 1977, the UK PM, James Callahan, made the unilateral decision to henceforth include the EU Council and EU Commission as a part of the summit.  Supposedly, Juncker and Tusk are there as a united front to represent the remaining EU countries that are not invited.  Why?   Why not let sovereign nations speak for themselves?   Because in reality they are not sovereign, their voice is censored.

If the G7 Summit is really about the EU, and given Canada is a parcel of the Queen of England, why would the US or Russia have any desire to participate?  Both Tusk and Juncker are representatives of ‘open society’ and globalization.   They have collectively taken over the Summit which was originated in the US.

After losing a re-election bid in Poland, Tusk became the EU Council President.   He has since been openly accusatory that the current President of Poland and his conservative party are puppets of Putin.  In addition, he claims that the EU values are quite polar opposite from the values of Poland under conservatism and nationalism. In 2017, Juncker initiated an investigation into the President and his Party claiming ‘judicial independence concerns’.  

The bottom line is the fact that according to the EU any country that is not governed by a Socialist Party towing the line of the EU ‘values’, is operating under a fascist government and sanctions will be levied including being stripped of voting rights.

Hungary is also facing potential sanctions by the EU for their stance on conservatism.   Hungary has come under attack for expelling Soros and refusing to bow to the EU demands for African immigrant quotas.

Slovakia is facing condemnation for similar stances.

BREXIT is meaningless as long as Theresa May continues to be a pawn of MI6 and the Merkel.  What is more relevant is the growing number of countries that are standing up to the Royal Arm of the EU Commission and Council who tend to act much like the Wizard of Oz – behind a red curtain.

Which country in the EU will be next?

ITALY’S COUP! A Political Takeover

In 2014, Prime Minister Renzi of Italy put forth various Constitutional Amendments that 1)  gave the senate significantly less power, and the President and PM significantly greater power,  and 2)  overhauled the voting system which they referred to as ‘proportional representation, ie redefining districts.

These same measures are the basis for Eric Holder’s and Barack Obama’s new venture, “The National Democratic Redistricting Committee” which they launched January 2017 in response to Trump’s Presidential victory.  It’s more commonly known as Gerrymandering, or manipulating districts so as to create new electoral, so as to sway an election to one party.

It is because of these reforms that despite Italy’s voting for a more right wing government, the Socialist President, Mattarela, interceded in the populist vote and ousted the nationalist pick, Paolo Savona, as Economy Minister because of his anti-EU stance. It is believed that Merkel directed Mattarela to nix the choice and instead replace Savona with her IMF favorite, Carlo Cotterelli because of his ‘friendly’ alignment with Germany and the EU.

As such, Italy is now facing exactly what Renzi and Mattarela created with their “Constitutional Reform”, a staunch dictatorship that is sure to see an internal revolt by The People.

Cotterelli’s wife Miria Pegato who is a manager at the World Bank Group which has received its fair share of criticism for corruption driven by NGO imperialism.

Both the IMF and The World Bank are well known toys of George Soros.   Developed as a part and parcel of the Bretton Woods System, both the IMF and World Bank were created to enhance Globalization and Trade Imbalances as a result of WWI and WWII.  In fact, what it accomplished was to immediately crash US trade as it shifted the balance overseas.  Somewhat like ‘income redistribution’.

In essence, Italy is now facing a coup as the non-elected Establishment, Socialists, undermine the elected Populists.  There is talk of holding ‘new elections’ while allowing Mattarela and Cotterelli to act as the governing authority and forcing out both the Five Star Movement and The League – the aligned populist/nationalist government that jointly won.

The Establishment doesn’t like who won, or their choice for Economy Minister, therefore, The Establishment is blocking the authority of the elected government and moving in of their own accord.  The New York Times says its all in the best interest of Italy given that the new elected government would probably have failed anyway given they were not ‘politicians’ but businessmen…

The irony of course, is the continued question, “Can Italy’s strange new government who know nothing, fix the mess that the Establishment created”, and by default, “Since Italy’s elected government has yet to form a coalition that The Establishment approves of, it makes sense to allow The Establishment to oust the elected government and rule by coup given they are well aware of the mess they have created”.

And The People said, “Ah.”

Worse, the media would have us believe that Italy’s government woes have caused the price of oil to tank… However, the two are not even remotely connected.  Oil dropped because Russia and Saudi Arabia stated they would increase production due to the Iran situation.  Period.

For the last ten years, Italy’s growth rate has been virtually stagnant.  Wage growth has dropped significantly.  And forecasts are relatively gloomy, which is why The Establishment was voted out!  Democratically.

Hillary continues to whine that she coulda/woulda won if the US had the same Constitutional Amendments that Italy instituted regarding redistricting, which would have paved the way for Constitutional reforms that could have given her a monarchial US.

With Merkel in charge of the EU, and Hillary at the helm of the US, the Masters Plan might have worked. But Trump altered that course – not just in the US, but he gave hope to EU countries as well, which is making a muck of the New World Plan of Action.  Not to be deterred, the age old warring of “Coup” apparently has just been instituted in Italy in an attempt to regain lost ground…

TRADE WAR: TTIP and The Global Agenda

Isolating the UK from trade with Russia and the US means they become a groveling dependent of the EU.

Obama openly declared in 2016 that there was absolutely no way that the US would open trade with the UK because the EU took precedence.

EU Council President, Donald Tusk, believes this is the perfect time to reintroduce TTIP claiming that it will solve all the tariff issues within the EU, UK and US…

TTIP is the largest ever trade initiative ever negotiated or proposed – and its contents are completely ‘classified’ we the public have no right to know what it involves, we are told how great it will be and how economically productive. What we do know comes from leaked documents which establish as a goal, universalism. This would mean that the US would effectively become an EU state subject to EU laws, regulations, banking and insurance restrictions at the discretion of a universal EU appointed Tribunal.

One of the more threatening aspects of TTIP is that it gives corporations power over nations. A corporation could sue a nation for failing to perform according to the corporate standards. As such, nations and their governments would be squeezed out and corporate CEO’s would become absolute powers.

In 1933, Musolini declared that he envisioned a corporatism world in which the state governments ‘serve the corporations’.   Renamed Globalization, the concept was later re-introduced by Democrat, George Ball, who claimed that nation states and sovereignty were obsolete. A founding member of the Bilderberg Group, Ball and Rockefeller have been active proponents of creating this new corporate sovereign rule.

TTIP fills this Communist agenda.

Most of the staid countries within the EU are aligned with the Socialist Party.   A shift by the Eastern Bloc toward a more nationalistic view has been infesting the landscape and disrupting the rule of order.   Alienating the UK from trade partners including Russia and the US would have the effect of hitting them where it most hurts in BREXIT and bringing them to their proverbial knees – once again.

Macron’s “En Marche” party was supposedly inspired by Obama, but that would mean that Obama was more than a puppet. In fact, the corporate elites have been behind Italy’s Five Star Movement as well as En Marche as they devised a methodology of moving from Socialism to Communism through Media propaganda.   Thus the New Centrist, is really Communism in disguise.

Before Macron was a “Centrist” he was a Socialist.   Before Merkel was a Democrat, she was a Socialist.   Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Norway, and Switzerland are entirely Socialist.   Giving way to the Rand philosophy of Corporatism is a natural evolution.

In the meantime, Soros has made a fervent call to the EU to regulate social media content, and censor dissenting views… although in his terms it is to “fight populism”.   But wait! The Definition of Populism is: A political philosophy to support the rights and power of the people in their struggle against privilege elite.  

And no one noticed. Censorship on a multinational level is in line with Communism.

BREXIT gave rise to multi-level problems with trade, communism, and the fight against sovereignty.   Trump aggravated the agenda.   Putin was already considered an enemy of the globalization movement when he issued an arrest warrant for Soros and banned all his NGO’s from Russia.

Reeling in each country meant isolating them from trade. Trade was the tool.

So, has Trump inadvertently leaped on the trade band wagon – or is he establishing his own negotiating tactics.

In the end, the script is rather well written.   And the players perfectly cloned. But there are a few good men… and I think I’ll place my trust in them.

The Green Climate Fund – A Soros Child

A funny thing happened on the way to the Forum, everyone cheered, but no one Changed… Germany has declared that it will not meet it’s Climate Change goals for 2020, China says it’s emissions will continue to rise through 2030, and France is mum, as in maybe no one in Paris will notice they have actually done – nothing. Six countries in the EU boast that they have met their goals as stipulated by the EU Commission; Hungary, Croatia, Greece, Bulgaria, Portugal and Romania. YEAH! Except they already complied as of 2014, because their goals were minimal and the economic crisis required ‘belt tightening’, so technically in order to meet goals they had to do – nothing.

So, despite the humbra of toxic words, toxic air hovers large and in charge.

Apparently, The Green Climate Fund is the body tasked with collecting and disbursing pledged funds from countries across the globe.   A quick overview: Japan has disbursed roughly 50% of pledges, Germany a third, The Netherlands a third, France roughly half, China -0-, UK about 2/3, and US 1/3, India -0-, and South America -0.

Of the $10 billion collected by The Green Climate Fund, roughly $45 million was spent on Administrative Expenses in 2017, and $35 million in 2016. Apparently, these hard working Board Members work on average – 10 days per month.   According to the 990 Tax Return dated 2014, it would appear that they raised about $88 million paid some salaries and operating costs and banked the balance. In 2017 they needed to create a investment fund management IT system to handle all the cash… Poor Babies.

Their latest project includes solving the Ethiopian drought problem thru an investment of $45 million to be developed over a five year period.   So far, they haven’t actually ‘done’ anything except draft a proposal – funding = $0.   They have pledged $38.5 million toward Columbia in order to improve the ecosystem.   This too is a proposal for which no actual work has been done and no money disbursed.   They have pledged $57 million to Argentina in the form of a “Loan”, $0 actually disbursed. There is an outstanding pledge grant of $31.4 million to Egypt for infrastructure rebuilding, nothing disbursed. A grant of $26.9 million to Nauru, the world’s smallest island, for the purpose of developing a climate resistant port. No dollars disbursed.

In fact, it would appear that the funds are primarily targeting ‘infrastructure and water shortages’. Both of these issues are certainly important, they just aren’t about changing the global warming trend that the fund stipulates to be their purpose.  So why are they funding these projects?

Who are the recipients? Namibia, Morocco, Senegal, Maldives, Ecuador, Mali, Gambia, Tualu, Armenia, Vietnam, El Salvador, Fiji, Peru, etc…

A Few Examples:

Malawi: USAID has been working with the government of Malawi for years to help mitigate agricultural shifts and provide drought security. USAID budget request for 2018 was $15.4 billion. So why is the Green Fund duplicating USAID?

Maldives: They have been battling a losing battle as the sea’s rise and the islands are swamped. Their 2008 government plant to abandon ship and relocate was dismissed and a $10 billion contract with the Saudi’s was initiated whereby they would secure their shipping route safety and develop the islands for tourism relocating thousands of local people. So is The Green Fund actually collaborating with the Saudi’s?

Ecuador:   Ecuador has been raising it’s fist to resolve water issues for years. The government has made some radical changes, particularly in energy investment and diversity. Partnering with the European Commission thru EUROCLIMA, they have spent $4.2 billion on energy projects.   They are currently funded by the REDD+ Program within the UN. So why is The Green Fund duplicating funding projects?

It would appear, that The Green Fund is simply a duplicate board tasked with billions of dollars in funding whose purpose may very well be to create a slush fund to give the appearance of battling Climate Change, aka, Global Warming, when in fact it is sustaining the infrastructure, agriculture and energy growth of third world countries. To what ultimate goal?  

Given it’s purported goal is to raise $100 billion per year, it should be noted that it’s Board of Directors is predominantly comprised of Arabs, Africans, and various representatives from the Netherlands, many of whom seem to be devoid of a background, with the exception of the Globalist, Leonardo Martinez-Diaz. He has written extensively on globalizing emerging and developing countries in order to create a Global Order. He is a Global Director at Sustainable Finance Center at the World Resources Institute.

World Resources Institute partners with the George Soros – Open Society Foundations.

And there you have it: The Green Climate Fund, which is demanding contributions in the range of $100 billion annually, is utilizing those funds to create a global network of developing countries so as to ultimately incorporate their governments into a unified One World Order. Climate Change/Global Warming are simply tag phrases to sucker the funds for – The Greater Good of the Order of George Soros.

UK Election – Socialism Rising

While the press is diligently trampling Trump and staging fake news sets, an election in the UK has been slighted. Theresa May’s lead against Socialist, Jeremy Corbyn, has narrowed precipitously over the last month. Why is this important? To put it into perspective, a Corbyn win would be like a Bernie Sanders win… a complete reversal of policies and the institution of communist/socialism.

Surprisingly, the press is quite silent.

Corbyn supports vacating BREXIT. He is anti-capitalism, pro-globalization, and pro-immigration, as in they are just misunderstood and angry – give them a hug…   A Corbyn election win would derail relations with the US, and give the Soros agenda quite a boost in having control over the EU with France, Germany and the UK aligned.

An interesting viewpoint from the off-Guardian, suggests that a Corbyn win is a CIA decision, reuniting the EU, thus making them a pawn of the US and easier to rule as a single unit. That may have been the case under an Obama empire or a Hillary queendom, but the rules and the game have changed, shifted. And a united EU is more aligned with a Soros agenda –    Upon further investigation, the article was written by a woman connected to “True Publica” which has been cited as a Green organization with a bent toward leftist anarchist views.  It is another propaganda machine created in 2002 with the intent of subliminally altering opinion.

AKA, Soros.

For the article, the off-Guardian presents a photo of Corbyn which is somewhat telling as he seems to take a Hail Caesar posture.   Praise is lavished upon his ideologies, and the same mechanics of media exploitation of Hillary comes to mind. The photo is reminiscent of those of Obama with a golden halo behind his head…

Security concerns and the ISIS attacks are named as the apparent drivers of the election schism.   David Cameron’s advisor is asking May to step down and relinquish her post. Sounds decidedly similar to the impeachment screams coming from Maxine Waters in her bid for Trump to ‘stand down’.

The US and UK media is decidedly anti-May and Pro-Corbyn, which also would suggest that the manipulation and propaganda are hard at work to tilt the election.

So, what if Corbyn is elected, how could that skew the global political personalities?

With the EU firmly tied to a Socialist agenda, and the support of greater immigration, they would in effect be creating their own internal destruction. The US and some of the Eastern European countries would be isolated and left to ‘choose sides’, not just politically, but economically as well. The alternate side being – Russia.

Asian countries would come under the mercy of China, the EU would become a defacto subdivision of the Middle East, and Canada, under Trudeau, would align with the EU. South America has been nearly completely destabilized and therefore has no position, and Africa remains a common ground of war. The point of the game is to create ever larger ‘units’ in order to ultimately align all units into the Globalization super power.

For the UK, bringing it to it’s knees was the back to back ISIS attacks…  Conveniently crafted during the one month before the election.

France’s election of Macron, the Rothschild poster boy, was a coup. But if Corbyn were to win the UK, the entire world map will shift.

And yet, the media is oddly silent. The stage is set, the actors are playing their parts, and we have entered into Act III without the audience ever having attended the play, the auditorium is empty.  

The election is in play, and nary a whisper…

Trump’s China Policy = Anti-Globalization

Like most economic thesis, there exists the definition on paper, and the dichotomy of real life. Globalization, on paper, has some real benefits that could advance world economies as a whole, however, when placed in the hands of man, this same model is brimming with corruption.

It is this distinction that perhaps explains why Trump favors Russia while opposing China.   Russia opposes globalization because it saw the ramifications imposed by the Soros cabal in its attempt to infiltrate Russia’s economy.

“Where the money goes, so goes the power”.

Globalization is in reality a form of colonization.

Africa is the most obvious victim of the reality of globalization. On paper, when the money moves in the concept is to bring the level of the people to a heightened level of economic wealth.   The tag lines include;   Infrastructure Development, Jobs, and Greater Food Supply!   However, when these models moved into the African Land Grabs, they evicted the locals, brought in labor from outside, and exported the crops.

The people were actually worse off than before. And the ownership of land shifted to a global elite who then held greater access of control over the nation, ie, it isn’t Sudan any longer, in reality it is Open Society Foundation, or China, or US or Norway, or UK, or Saudi Arabia.

China is desperate. Their resources are nearing extinction and globalization is their bread and butter. In contrast, Russia is wealthy in natural resources and has managed to keep foreign nationals from breaking down that wall.   Trump’s proposal to befriend Russia holds many benefits including the shared ideology of anti-globalization philosophies.

Globalization was supposed to allow for les expensive exchange of goods, but in order to compensate for the loss of labor and manufacturing, 161 countries created the VAT tax on imports which in many countries is over 21%.   And while the cost of consumer goods is lower, the loss of jobs grows steadily higher. Less jobs, less wealth, more social entitlement necessary, more divisive attitudes, more anger.

Liberal agenda’s supported this trade-off because it buoyed personal gain, the greed factor inherent in globalization. In addition, globalization was the precursor to corporate emigration from the US as lower wages translated into bigger paychecks for CEO’s and CFO’s. Average CEO compensation compared to average worker wage has increased dramatically during this globalization transition, rising from an eighteen multiple to over 400x multiple.

The rich get richer.

Controlling the money is the key to controlling the people. That was the whisper behind the creation of the Federal Reserve, another globalization gift to the US.

China’s view of globalization is preeminent. Undoubtedly, the advancement has earned them greater wealth and super power status in a few short years. Since 1978, China’s GDP has grown at a massive 9.8% annually, while the US average is a piddlin’ 2.8% average.  Our net exports with China are a growing embarrassing deficit, and the benefit of less expensive goods is obviously, of little consequence to the wealth of Americans.

So why is Trump pro-Russia and anti-China?

The downward spiral that real globalization has wreaked upon the US economy, as opposed to the fancy writings on worthless paper that hype a failed policy that has created massive income disparity and loss of wealth!

Globalization: Obama Passes Baton to Merkel

Standing alongside Obama, Merkel has stated that globalization is here to stay:

“Germans and Americans must take the opportunity to shape globalization according to our values and ideas.”

Of course the blaring question is ‘whose values and ideas’? Hers? Soros? Obamas? Hillarys? Because their version of it certainly doesn’t embrace my values or ideas, or any ones I know. It would seem that the values and ideas belong to the elitists who want to recreate our world.

In addition, she, they, announced that TTIP also embraces our values and ideas… TTIP was and is considered highly secretive. The exact draft is not public, the terms are not public, and in fact, it is so secretive it is kept in a vault. Protests against its directives have been massive throughout Europe. The People of the US have absolutely no idea what it is, what it embraces, or how it would impact us. The media has kept it quiet revealing – nothing. So how in the world can Merkel and Obama say it is: ‘our values and ideas’!

Unless of course they mean – theirs, as in Obama’s and Merkel’s version of ‘values’.

It is sad how far removed from The People Merkel has strayed during these past few years. Obama we knew who and what he represented, but Merkel used to be – different.

The values that Merkel refers to is the globalization of the world, which could be beneficial except that in its essence it places a value structure, political ideologies, laws, regulations, religions and social culture into one basket for everyone, governed by an elitist power.   Imagine trying to elect King of The World and every person on the planet has one vote! We can’t even elect a mayor of a city without vote rigging, corruption and fraud…

Practicalities are obvious: Sharia Law? Religion? Clothing? Taxes? Healthcare? Crime? Punishment? Education? Philosophy? Creativity?

Whatever globalization used to define, today the term has been taken hostage in order to create a Communist regime structure of control. Imagine living in a household where ALL decisions are made by an ‘Overlord’… it is incredibly stifling, suffocating and belittling. Imagine an entire world under such a Thumb. It can’t happen in a free world, it can only happen in a world of slavery.

Overlords, or Monarchs, were the governmental structure that caused the massive defection from Europe to the United States.   Monarchs still reign in the Sunni Middle East, and some Asian countries, but Queen Elizabeth has by far the largest territorial monarchy covering no less than 15 countries, perhaps some that didn’t even realize they were under her jurisdiction, including: New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Belize and Tuvalu (where the heck is that?)!   Europe still greedily embraces their monarchies from The Netherlands to Denmark, to Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg.

Globalization would end those monarchies and replace them with a singular universal power. Perhaps these last monarchs believe they will be anointed to be a part of the elitists. I think they may be a bit short sighted…

So why is Merkel important enough for the global elites to use her as a point to point critique? Because right now the EU is collapsing, but not in the direction Soros anticipated, the tree is falling to the left instead of right which means it could destroy the globalization perceived as the next ACT in the World Game of Tactics II. With the left decimated, freedom and independence rise up as a bastion of hope and identity.

While Obama and Merkel have been involved in very intimate and secretive discussions about ‘our values and ideas’, Obama demands the ABSOLUTE TRANSPARENCY OF BREXIT negotiations.

The hypocrisy does not go unnoticed, nor is it met with much approval. It simply mirrors the last eight years of Obama, his presidency, and ultimately his Legacy. And so the baton is being passed to Merkel to hold up the ideal while the countries all around her begin to peel away from the agenda.

While US relations with the alternate countries (Russia and China) is redesigned to include non-intervention, sovereign dignity, and mutual respect for each countries patriotism, social ideals, and internal growth, the media continues to make statements that simply aren’t true. Climate change? If China wants to tackle the problem internally, that is their inherent right. If the US pulls out of the summit and the associated costs – that is our right.

The point of non-globalization is to allow each country to represent their People according to their own ideals, and stop forcing agendas that we may not support or value.  It requires Trust. And right now – The People do not Trust the elitists.

Globalization – Agenda’s vs. Ideals

There are different definitions for Globalization. It depends if you are talking with an idealist or a realist. The idealist perceives a world of peace, of living in harmony, a world without borders, a world without poverty wherein resources are shared equitably. The idealist sees a single monetary unit, and either no religion or a united religion. They see the sharing of wealth and of ideas in a Utopian society.

Globalization is a theoretical model. The realist sees a system on paper that may or may not be perfect, but whose existence is managed by a flawed and imperfect humanity. While the concept may be logical, when subjected to the frailties of human greed, corruption and graft, it will fail. The human component destroys the value.

We have watched the marching army of globalization expand exponentially despite its historical failure. Why? Why do we continue to propel forward a failed philosophy?

Because the ‘we’ that propels is the same interest that is gaining financially. Proponents of globalization typically include the uber wealthy elite; Gates, Soros, Rockefeller, Rothschild, etc… who see the expansion of their wealth as a means for greater power. Power wields control. And control requires an agenda of Communism. Communism is the relinquishment of all property to the state, the state being those uber elite. It is a common man working when he can and being paid what he needs. But need is undefinable. Need for one person may mean five cars, and for another one.

The initial purpose of globalization was to reduce world poverty. So how has it faired? According to one study, poverty in the US since 1980 has expanded radically. And according to the OECD, most of the reduction of world poverty has been in China. According to the World Bank, despite economic growth in much of Africa, extreme poverty remains at 50%. Why? Because the economic growth is skewed to belong to a select few. Inequality still reins. In a 27 year span ending in 2008, poverty in Africa declined 4%. Whether this number is true or not is a part of the problem as governments of Africa, India and China have been charged with releasing corrupt data to lift their statistics. So if glob alization has done virtually nothing to eliminate poverty, what has it accomplished?

Globalization has created greater wealth for the few.

As I have said before, statistics are only so good as the agenda of the person using them. If we measure a countries progress simply by their GDP growth rate, we fail to dig into the entire picture. GDP is a measurement of the ‘flow of goods through the economy’. Globalization opened investments from the ubers, but that flow remained in the hands of the ubers instead of being distributed to the people. Thus, the wealth growth is a relative statement.

While economic globalization has been the trend, is it possible to separate economic policies from political, cultural and societal policies?

No. At least, not any longer. They are so completely interwoven that they can not exist as separate entities. But the gears have been in a forward propulsion for more than a decade, so how do you de-globalize? It’s much like trying to de-Obamacare. The train wreck is inevitable, all we can do is be ready with a box of band-aides. The train wreck for globalization would be the continued displacement of wealth to a select few, undermining even the middle class until the system is fully exponentiated and we have two classes – poor and wealthy.

As the cries are rising for some global boundaries, the ubers moved quickly to hedge their bets buying into agriculture, not land on paper, but land that you can touch and feel! Land and water will be the last vestige for control.

On a world level of economics, politics and culture, globalization requires total control. And it is this fear that drives greater skepticism. It requires leaving behind inherent cultural values. It requires a redirection toward a singular goal – money. It requires being put in a box that defines who and what you are much like the communist proletariat. This collectivism then squeezes out individuation, and the rebels rise.

On paper, Communism was a doctrine that was conceived on a belief that it was the right thing to do for the good of society. That it was ‘Wise’. It held to a Utopian theory. In its infancy, it was created to abolish poverty and to instil peace. But the cost was order and control. Absolute control discards freedom. It was the loss of freedom that brought down communism. Humans thrive on freedom, they die when trapped, confined, and controlled.

So, where we are going on our current trend can have catastrophic consequences if we don’t wake up and get our heads out of mainstream drivel. They feed our brains with baseless information and self pleasure until we no longer notice our loss of freedom – until it is too late.