The Masks Are Off: The Economist Says Globalism Requires a Hillary Victory and Trump Defeat

Why do we take note of this development? That is, why do we point out that The Economist is admitting that globalism versus nationalism is the new ideological struggle of our time, rather than following the usual path of dismissing the 'g' words globalism/globalists as crazy Alex Jones talk, as nearly all of the mainstream media did until recent weeks? Because we wish to emphasize, once again, that the globalists fear YOU, and fear whatever it is they cannot predict with their idiot savant socio-computational models and therefore control. Hence, now is not the time to despair but to be bolder than ever.

Before we get into what The Economist says about globalism and how preserving the system painstakingly constructed over the last seventy years since World War II (actually more accurately, the system developed to prop up fiat currencies since President Nixon took the U.S. off the gold standard nearly 45 years ago on August 15, 1971), we'd like to point out a few facts about the magazine itself.

First, to the question of whether The Economist and its notorious 'World in the Current Year' covers are indeed Rothschild family owned, we can answer the question with a hearty yes, at least in part if not the whole. Second, to any longtime Russia watcher, including many who despise Putin, The Economist's fanatically anti-Kremlin line under the leadership of longtime editor Edward Lucas is a known quantity. Here's a well known among (post)Western expats anecdote that illustrates how Lucas never appears to change his mind even when challenged regarding how many times his predictions regarding the collapse of the Russian State and economy have been proven wrong since 1998:

[Moscow-based fund manager Eric] Kraus has long savaged the international press for their blatant misreporting of the Russian story and in his piece he goes to town with some anecdotes that highlight just how mercenary some hugely influential correspondents have been.

Kraus relates a lunch meeting with the Economist’s Lucas during his first week on the job in the spring of 1998, just before the first big crisis, when the correspondent predicted: “Russian ruble would collapse to 10,000/$, the economy would contract by at least 25%, the Communist hordes would sweep through Moscow taking the Kremlin, as the Russian Federation - held together with string and sticky-tape - broke up into four nuclear-armed, mutually antagonistic sovereign mini-states”.

Of course none of that happened, and Putin was swept into power 18 months later and Russia boomed. Kraus met Lucas in 2000 when the economy had just turned in 10% growth - a record to this day - having contracted for the entire 1990s. Kraus relates the conversation as him saying, “‘Ed, the last time we met, you told me that Russia was dead in the water’ - before reeling off his list of imagined catastrophes. “To Lucas’ credit,” Kraus says, “he denied not one word of it, instead acknowledging that he had said it all - and had been proved wrong. “‘But now’,” Ed intoned, “‘you are going to see the real disaster’,” reeling off yet another doom-and-gloom scenario, even blacker than his previous one... and of course, no less self-assured!”

Russia then embarked on an eight-year boom that “transformed” the quality of life in the country, but Lucas returned to London to be made up to The Economist’s Eastern Europe editor despite the fact all his predictions were wrong. It had got so bad that Moscow’s leading investment banks sent a delegation to London to see his editor Xan Smiley to complain: Lucas was obviously wrong in tone and it was costing the banks a lot of money, as The Economist is so influential, [Business New Europe] bne’s banking sources say. Smiley ordered Lucas to write an upbeat story on the economy, but to Lucas’ credit he never wrote anything that he didn’t believe to be true. The problem was he chose exclusively to concentrate on negative things and ignored the positive. “Choose your story line and then find the facts to fit it,” he once told a bne correspondent.


When looking at the apocalyptic predictions the mainstream media pundits make about a Trump presidency -- "civil military crisis" (which neocons assume magically won't happen when not if, CINC Hillary! orders the U.S. military to attack Russian manned targets in Syria) even a [neocon supported] military coup -- it's worth noting that international affairs journalists nearly all read The Economist and take it seriously regarding Russia, despite Ed Lucas' track record of pernicious bias against not just the leadership but people of that country. And not just committing unforced errors of bad timing or making frivolous predictions, but pontificating important 'nevers' within their areas of expertise, such as "Russia not only won't do a damn thing [to stop a U.S. attack on Damascus] in Syria, it can't".

As we've pointed out here at RogueMoney, none of U.S. Naval War College Professor turned #NeverTrump troll Tom Nichols Twitter followers either know or care about his blog posts in August 2013 scoffing at any notion of the Russians getting in the way of toppling Syria's Assad. Which cuts to the heart of Prof. Nichols credibility or lack thereof when it comes to his assessments of modern Russia's (not the perestroika/Gorbachev era Soviet Union's) morale, will to fight, and now demonstrated combat capabilities. We're also confident 'cuckservative' talk radio host Hugh Hewitt didn't bring up these bogus predictions with his guest when Tom Nichols came on Hewitt's show this week:

Returning to the discredited to everyone but the Establishment Rothschild magazine The Economist, Vox Day quoted this portion of their paywalled editorial from July 28:

Countering the wall-builders will require stronger rhetoric, bolder policies and smarter tactics. First, the rhetoric. Defenders of the open world order need to make their case more forthrightly. They must remind voters why NATO matters for America, why the EU matters for Europe, how free trade and openness to foreigners enrich societies, and why fighting terrorism effectively demands co-operation. Too many friends of globalisation are retreating, mumbling about “responsible nationalism”. Only a handful of politicians—Justin Trudeau in Canada, Emmanuel Macron in France—are brave enough to stand up for openness. Those who believe in it must fight for it.

They must also acknowledge, however, where globalisation needs work. Trade creates many losers, and rapid immigration can disrupt communities. But the best way to address these problems is not to throw up barriers. It is to devise bold policies that preserve the benefits of openness while alleviating its side-effects. Let goods and investment flow freely, but strengthen the social safety-net to offer support and new opportunities for those whose jobs are destroyed. To manage immigration flows better, invest in public infrastructure, ensure that immigrants work and allow for rules that limit surges of people (just as global trade rules allow countries to limit surges in imports). But don’t equate managing globalisation with abandoning it.

As for tactics, the question for pro-open types, who are found on both sides of the traditional left-right party divide, is how to win. The best approach will differ by country. In the Netherlands and Sweden, centrist parties have banded together to keep out nationalists. A similar alliance defeated the National Front’s Jean-Marie Le Pen in the run-off for France’s presidency in 2002, and may be needed again to beat his daughter in 2017. Britain may yet need a new party of the centre.

In America, where most is at stake, the answer must come from within the existing party structure. Republicans who are serious about resisting the anti-globalists should hold their noses and support Mrs Clinton. And Mrs Clinton herself, now that she has won the nomination, must champion openness clearly, rather than equivocating. Her choice of Tim Kaine, a Spanish-speaking globalist, as her running-mate is a good sign. But the polls are worryingly close. The future of the liberal world order depends on whether she succeeds.


Got that? Not only is this the first time the Russia Analyst can recall The Economist openly referring to a politician as a 'globalist', but he entire future of "the free world" as we've known it depends on electing the most despised woman in America President of the United States. A woman whom multiple observers with medical and psychiatric training have concluded, is a pathological liar, and someone who avoids press conferences like the plague so aides can cover up her brain injury and stress induced 'breaks' featuring crazy eyes, inappropriate laughter, and fits of psychopathic rage.

If zero charisma #CrookedHillary really is the best the Atlanticist Pact promoting Establishment can hang their hat on, then they've grown more obviously depraved and incompetent than the 'New World Order' globalists of Nelson Rockefeller or George H.W. Bush's heyday ever thought of being. To paraphrase the Guerrilla Economist from his Mornings with V Youtube casts, 'what the hell happened to you guys since The Good Shepherd days? You Cocaine Import Agency folks used to be able to carry out coups lickety split from Iran, Iraq and Turkey to Latin America for decades. Now you Langley boys botch coups in Turkey, semi-successfully carry them out in Kiev but get caught doing so in leaked unsecured line phone calls that hardly require "impressive tradecraft", and get ex-CIA Deputy Directors on Hillary's payroll like Michael Morrell to endorse her while accusing Trump of being Putin's 'unwitting agent'. Instead of overthrowing banana republics with ease, the good ole' USA has become one!'

But wait, it gets even better! Not only does The Economist issue forth serious, Oxbridge style pronouncements written by anonymous late 20 and early 30somethings trying desperately to sound much older and wiser than they are so Ed Lucas can sit on stage and feel important at Bilderberg, Oslo or Davos. It also can offer some good old fashioned Red Scare hysterics minus the pugnacious or low class Sen. Joe McCarthy, and turn reality on its head by declaring that nationalism is the new Communism.

Apparently the scourge of Putinism was too specific to one country that simultaneously is a backwater hopelessly outmatched by 'the West' yet ready at a moment's notice to conquer Europe via a combination of 'little green men' and Russia Today programmed zombies. With George Soros being addressed by name as a menace to Europe and European civilization by the likes of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who also supports the (apparently no longer inoculated by Russophobia) Polish nationalist government in standing up to Bill Clinton and Brussels, a new broader term needed to be condemned.

Since in the minds of many 'progressive' or Whiggish globalist wannabe (read: cuckservative George W. Bush era leftover) Economist readers nationalism even among those who may share their historically based suspicions of Russia but who fear an Islamized Europe more like most but a hop and skip from National Socialism and ["Polish"] death camps. So, The Economist says nationalism is the new communism, while open borders globalism, trade deals negotiated in secret from parliamentarians, unions and voters of all ideological stripes, and transnational organizations like the EU and NATO which twist the arms of nation states into sacrificing their legitimate trade with Russia if not suppressing the Russophilic views of their populations (see Greece, Bulgaria) in service to Cold War 2.0 represent the free world. Left is Right, Up is Down, and Black is White. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia and Eastasia:

AS POLITICAL theatre, America’s party conventions have no parallel. Activists from right and left converge to choose their nominees and celebrate conservatism (Republicans) and progressivism (Democrats). But this year was different, and not just because Hillary Clinton became the first woman to be nominated for president by a major party. The conventions highlighted a new political faultline: not between left and right, but between open and closed (see article). Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, summed up one side of this divide with his usual pithiness. “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo,” he declared. His anti-trade tirades were echoed by the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.

America is not alone. Across Europe, the politicians with momentum are those who argue that the world is a nasty, threatening place, and that wise nations should build walls to keep it out. Such arguments have helped elect an ultranationalist government in Hungary and a Polish one that offers a Trumpian mix of xenophobia and disregard for constitutional norms. Populist, authoritarian European parties of the right or left now enjoy nearly twice as much support as they did in 2000, and are in government or in a ruling coalition in nine countries. So far, Britain’s decision to leave the European Union has been the anti-globalists’ biggest prize: the vote in June to abandon the world’s most successful free-trade club was won by cynically pandering to voters’ insular instincts, splitting mainstream parties down the middle.

News that strengthens the anti-globalisers’ appeal comes almost daily. On July 26th two men claiming allegiance to Islamic State slit the throat of an 85-year-old Catholic priest in a church near Rouen. It was the latest in a string of terrorist atrocities in France and Germany. The danger is that a rising sense of insecurity will lead to more electoral victories for closed-world types. This is the gravest risk to the free world since communism. Nothing matters more than countering it.


Once you go down the road of comparing nationalism in terms of a threat to humanity to early/mid-20th century Communism, you are implicitly justifying many if not all of the same measures that were used to fight the Red Menace. If you're not digging up Joe McCarthy God rest his soul (as there really were some actual Soviet agents among the too broad net he cast, which in reality included globalists), there's always the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover -- whose FBI spied and built secret files on thousands of innocent Americans. These steps would include surveillance of nationalist leaders who pose a threat to Atlanticist political control -- this is already happening in Germany thanks to Facebook shut downs for criticism of Muslim migrants and the Orwellian sounding Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. The Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV) goes far beyond monitoring genuinely violent Islamists or a handful of actual as opposed to paid provocateur neo-Nazis, while largely giving black clad/masked anarcho-Commie 'anti-fas' used to attack peaceful PEGIDA rallies a pass.

'New' old globalist measures would also include censorship, mostly of the 'soft' 'shadow-banning' variety on platforms run by Google, Facebook and Twitter, that allow the veneer of dissent to be maintained. Going further would involve harassment and temporary detainment of troublesome activists. But a favorite tool of the globalists is false flag operations, of the type NATO undertook through Operation Gladio. Back in the 1970s and 80s this involved blaming attacks on the Red Brigades which were actually the work of black ops teams, in order to keep pro-detente if not soft on the Soviets political parties at bay. The need for 'stay behind armies' to fight a Soviet occupation of western Europe that would've been extremely unlikely to occur without a nuclear exchange was merely the cover for a different agenda. Similarly, today's drooling 80 IQ radical jihadist patsies and 'white Reconquista' Azov Nazis alike are pawns on someone's chess board.

Just as when one compares Donald Trump to Hitler if not says that he is Hitler and his followers are 1930s Hitlerians reincarnated, one is giving either a radical Leftist or Establishment primatur to violence against The Donald or his voters (even if said signals remain implicit rather than explicit). Going too far and describing a military coup against Trump is apparently reserved for individuals like James Kirchick who enjoy the 'roof' or kryshe of Radio Free Europe/Liberty and certain neocon think tanks like the Foreign Policy Initiative aka PNAC in new clothes.

To twist the late Barry Goldwater's famous words from the 1964 election, extremism in defense of a crumbling Establishment is no vice, moderation in pursuit of an increasingly corporatist if not fascist status quo is no virtue. As in Ukraine, it's the right to violent insurrection for MY Establishment approved 'freedumb fighters' even if they overtly use Nazi/Banderite (Ukrainian WWII collaborators) symbols, but not for THEE Donbass peasant or right wing militia types with your 'triggering' Don't Tread On Me Gadsen flag.

There is however, some good news we wish to leave RogueMoney readers with this weekend. And that is this: while individuals may still be willing to kill and bomb other people for the almighty fiat buck, particularly in situations where they think they can get away with it, the globalists have a fundamental problem with matching real military power to their agenda. Oh we don't mean in terms of sending big carrier fleets through the South China Sea or sailing the USS Donald Cook as close as humanly possible to Russia without violating Moscow's territorial waters.

What we mean is in the willingness not merely to kill, but to actually bleed and die for their cause. Why do you think the globalists rely so heavily on their beloved jihadists in Syria, Libya and other places? Why do they coddle them so much, herding them along with occasional air strikes while tossing them the red meat of supplies and jihadi prestige as the awesome badass ninjas of ISIS, as one would toss bloody hunks of meat periodically at a pack of unruly jackals being funneled towards the appropriate prey? Because the jihadists can, and most importantly have the Satanically inspired willpower to commit the widespread atrocities that official militaries or even licensed private military contractors cannot. And the jihadis are also willing to bleed and die in places that if American troops were dying there in large numbers would lead to the kind of popular backlash we saw over the failed occupation of Iraq, if not the mega protest movement against the war in Vietnam.

The truth is, as Anatoly Karlin writes over at the always smart Unz Review, nationalists and Islamists are among the very few willing to bleed if not die for their cause in today's world. Which explains why the globalists seem so hellbent on using the former as shock troops against the latter in Europe, via their engineered immivasion/destabilization designed to Balkanize the Continent:

Very few people want to throw themselves in front of a tank for Team Blue, Khodorkovsky, and Soros – regardless of how hard they egg them on from the sidelines, or even better, from abroad.

To the extent that “people power” is anything more than an invention of ivory tower ideologues obsessed with social media, it is for the most part only the Nazis and the Islamists who can actually harness it by dint of their maxed out “will to power” stats.


Hardly anyone else least of all many of the wussified and depraved neocons who howl for more blood in Syria or Ukraine are willing to get shot at or shelled for what documentary filmmaker Robby Martin calls the "Very Heavy Agenda". The war in Ukraine and the humiliating defeats of the Ukrainian Army at the hands of highly motivated but outmanned and outgunned locals (despite the presence of several thousand hardcore nationalist if not neo-Nazi volunteer battalion members) proved this. So take heart friends: are not American patriots and civic nationalists of every color and part of this land more numerous than those who have already bloodied the noses of the globalists proxies, and beaten them back, mile after rubbled mile?