The reasons why the globalists are destined to lose

quiblepenglobalismThis is quite interesting. I’m not sure if I completely follow his reasoning (I think I do in the main). His supposition comes down to the old one that there is something innate in human beings to seek after liberty, which is I think, beyond rational debate. So, read carefully, it is a bit dense at places; and enjoy. I surely did.

Under the surface of almost every sociopolitical and economic event in the world there burns an ever-raging, but often unseen, war. This war, for now, is fought with fiction and with truth, with journalistic combat and with quiet individual deeds. It is defined by two sides which could not be more philosophically or spiritually separate.

On one side is a pervasive network of corporate moguls and elites, banking entities, international financial consortiums, think tanks and political puppets. They work tirelessly to reshape public psychology and society as a whole into something they sometimes call the “New World Order;” a completely and scientifically centralized planet in which they control every aspect of government, trade, life and even moral compass. I often refer to them simply as the “Globalists,” which is how they at times refer to themselves.

On the other side is a movement that has developed organically and instinctively, growing without direct top-down “leadership,” but still guided through example by various teachers and activists, driven by a concrete set of principles based in natural law. It is composed of the religious, the agnostic and even some atheists.  It is soldiered by people of all ethnic and financial backgrounds. These groups are tied together by a singular and resounding belief in the one vital thing they can all agree upon — the inherent and inborn rights of freedom. I call them the “Liberty Movement.”

There are those who think they do not have a dog in this fight, those who ignore it and those who are completely oblivious to it. However,everyone can and will be affected by it, no exceptions. This war is for the future of the human race. Its consequences will determine if the next generation will choose the conditions of their environment and maintain the ability to reach their true potential as individuals or if every aspect of their lives will be micromanaged for them by a faceless, soulless bureaucracy that probably does not have their best interests at heart.

As you can probably tell, I am not unbiased in my examination of these two sides. While some of the more “academically minded” cynics out there do attempt to marginalize the entire conflict by accusing both sides of simply trying to impose “their ideology” on the rest of humanity, I would say that such people are generally ignorant of what is at stake.

There is in fact an elemental force behind this war. I would even call it a conflagration between good and evil. For a more in-depth analysis on the evil behind globalism, read my article “Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood.”

Some people don’t adhere to such absolutes or they think good and evil are fantasies created by religion to keep society in check. I have no intention of trying to convince them otherwise. All I can say is, I have seen and experienced these absolutes first hand and, therefore, I have no choice but to remain a believer.

I would also point out that the general experience of most men and women is that the act of organized and legitimate oppression is inherently evil and such actions in the name of satisfying delusional elitist narcissism are even more evil. While these experiences are subjective, they are also universal, regardless of the culture, place or time in history. Most of us feel the same horror and the same defiance when facing rising tyranny. We can’t necessarily explain why, but we all know.

While I am firmly on the side of liberty and am willing to fight and trade my life to stop the “New World Order” the globalists are so obsessed with, I will not turn this examination of their tactics into a blind or one sided farce. I will point out where the elites are effective just as I will point out where they are ineffective. It would do more harm than good to portray the globalists as “stupid” or bumbling in their efforts. They are not stupid. They are actually astonishingly clever and should not be underestimated.

They are indeed conniving and industrious, but they are not wise. For if they were wise, they would be able to see the ultimate futility of their goal and the world would be saved decades of tragedy and loss. Their cultism has dulled their senses to reality and they have abandoned truth in the name of control. Here are some of the primary strategies that the globalists are using to gain power and work towards total centralization and why their own mindset has doomed them to failure.

Globalism vs. “populism”

via The reasons why the globalists are destined to lose – Personal Liberty®

One thing I would caution the globalists amongst us about is this. Almost everybody harboring these type of dreams, sees themselves as in control, they won’t be, in probably 99% of the cases, the will simply be given enough power to do what they are told to do, without any authority at all to think. Strikes me as a very sterile existence.

The US government was expressly designed to guard against this type of thing, and that is why ‘Job 1’ for these types is to subvert “Rule through and under the law”, always remember that, you don’t have to believe the conspiracy (I too think it is mostly ephemeral, not explicit) to see the dangerous results.

And a word of caution, not everyone who makes noises like they belong to what the author calls ‘the Liberty Movement’ does, many are simply mouthing the words for their own gain. You (and I) need to make our own choices about who really wants freedom. Many are simply contesting who is in charge. And be assured, the media is most assuredly not on the side of freedom.

St Mary’s Appoints New Pro Vice-Chancellor, and a Friend of Ours

johncharmleyOne of the nice things about having a blog, and some very good friends it can make you, is that you get to recognize those friends when something really good happens to or for them such it is here. Professor John Charmley, as regular readers will know, is a very old (no not that way, he’s younger than I am) friend of this blog, and a very close friend of both Jessica and I. I’ve personally found John to be simply a “Man for All Seasons”.

Since this is effectively a press release, I’m simply going to republish the whole thing.

St Mary’s University, Twickenham is pleased to announce that Prof John Charmley is to join the institution as Pro Vice-Chancellor for Academic Strategy in September 2016.

Prof Charmley is currently Head of the Interdisciplinary Institute for the Humanities, Associate Dean for Enterprise and Academic Director for Employability at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.

His role at St Mary’s is a senior leadership position and will be particularly focussed on developing, communicating and delivering the University’s strategy for teaching, learning and the wider student experience.

Educated at Pembroke College, Oxford, he obtained a first class degree in History in 1977 and was awarded his DPhil in 1983. He is the author of eight books on modern British politics, including the acclaimed Churchill: The End of Glorypublished in 1993.

Prof Charmley said, “I am looking forward to joining St Mary’s in September, meeting new colleagues and helping Britain’s premier Catholic University to build on its proud reputation for teaching excellence and student experience”

Vice-Chancellor Francis Campbell said, “I am delighted that Prof Charmley will be joining our senior team. He brings a wealth of experience from his roles at University of East Anglia and I am confident that he will make a significant contribution to our academic community.”

For those that don’t know (mostly American, I suspect) this is a very senior post at a very good Catholic University in the UK

Mike Rowe “Don’t follow your Passion, Live it”

There are only a few guys or girls that you see on TV that I really like. Leading that group is Mike Rowe. Why? because he tells us all the common sense things that many of us know. But there is a difference when I say it or Mike does. I suspect a fair number of you have seen this video from Prager University, but let’s watch it again together.


He’s right you know, the world doesn’t really need another gender studies major, but we do need people to keep the lights on and the toilets working, and you know, they get paid pretty damned well, if they’re good at it. I’m a fair example, I think, when I was in school, I had a pair of passions, first to fly Air Force bombers, and secondly to be an engineer. Well, I had hay fever and the Air Force (with good cause, once I understood it) didn’t want me anywhere near the cockpit of a B-52. You’ll understand if you’ve ever flown with a head cold. As for the engineering, well my brother in law was dead on when he said, he can do the work, but he’ll never make it through school. Maybe if I’d had better math teachers, but well, I didn’t.

But you know, I got my journeyman card as a power lineman on my 18th birthday, and by the time I was twenty-five, I was a master electrician. As an aside, it worked out for the best, I would’ve gone crazy stuck in an office when I was in my twenties, even my thirties. And I’ve made a pretty good living all these years, some better and some worse, of course. And I’ve turned into a near engineer as well. I’m one of those guys that can figure out how to do almost anything.

But Mike also did an interview lately that doesn’t have the 300K + views that the video above does. In it, he tells how he got to where he is today. I think it, although a bit longer, is even more powerful. Here it is. See if you don’t agree

And you know, that’s important. Look at everything around you in our civilized world, and think about this, most of what you (and I) take for granted, every day, was beyond the dreams of King George III, or Thomas Jefferson, or even the Pope. We have it because people, mostly without degrees, figured out how to do each and every step to get us here. I’d call that a pretty damned noble calling, especially when at oh dark thirty in the middle of a Nebraska blizzard, I don’t have to use a whale oil lantern to find the outhouse.

But somebody has to keep all this stuff working, and they get paid (usually well) to do it. Do you have what it takes to make it in my world?

Not many do.

The Lost Tools of Learning


Yesterday in our post on what college is for, our newest subscriber, and paradoxically, an old, although very young, friend of Jessica and mine, Faith Williams, linked to an essay by Dorothy Sayers, presented at Oxford in 1947. It is far too good, and appropriate to remain buried in comments here.

Ms. Sayers takes as her subject The Trivium, the medieval equivalent of primary and secondary education. The source link provides this background on it.

Paul M. Bechtel writes that Dorothy Leigh Sayers (1893-1957) briefly entered on a teaching career after graduating from Oxford. She published a long and popular series of detective novels, translated the “Divine Comedy,” wrote a series of radio plays, and a defense of Christian belief.

During World War II, she lived in Oxford, and was a member of the group that included C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, J.R.R. Tolkien, and Owen Barfield. By nature and preference, she was a scholar and an expert on the Middle Ages.

In this essay, Miss Sayers suggests that we presently teach our children everything but how to learn. She proposes that we adopt a suitably modified version of the medieval scholastic curriculum for methodological reasons.

Get yourself a large mug of coffee or tea, this is a quite long essay, but there is not a spare word in it. You will learn much about what we have lost, and how we are eating our seed corn, and have been from the time of the Renaissance. Do enjoy it, but even more add it and its arguments to your arsenal in the continuing fight to improve education.

That I, whose experience of teaching is extremely limited, should presume to discuss education is a matter, surely, that calls for no apology. It is a kind of behavior to which the present climate of opinion is wholly favorable. Bishops air their opinions about economics; biologists, about metaphysics; inorganic chemists, about theology; the most irrelevant people are appointed to highly technical ministries; and plain, blunt men write to the papers to say that Epstein and Picasso do not know how to draw. Up to a certain point, and provided the criticisms are made with a reasonable modesty, these activities are commendable. Too much specialization is not a good thing. There is also one excellent reason why the veriest amateur may feel entitled to have an opinion about education. For if we are not all professional teachers, we have all, at some time or another, been taught. Even if we learnt nothing–perhaps in particular if we learnt nothing–our contribution to the discussion may have a potential value.

However, it is in the highest degree improbable that the reforms I propose will ever be carried into effect. Neither the parents, nor the training colleges, nor the examination boards, nor the boards of governors, nor the ministries of education, would countenance them for a moment. For they amount to this: that if we are to produce a society of educated people, fitted to preserve their intellectual freedom amid the complex pressures of our modern society, we must turn back the wheel of progress some four or five hundred years, to the point at which education began to lose sight of its true object, towards the end of the Middle Ages.

Before you dismiss me with the appropriate phrase–reactionary, romantic, mediaevalist, laudator temporis acti (praiser of times past), or whatever tag comes first to hand–I will ask you to consider one or two miscellaneous questions that hang about at the back, perhaps, of all our minds, and occasionally pop out to worry us.

via The Lost Tools of Learning

If you are, as I am, a proponent of the classical methods of instruction, and even more if, as I have, you have found that being able to learn, is an universal skill, not reserved for individual ‘subjects’, here then, is your armory, from whence issued, those phenomena of the late medieval and early modern age, the peripatetic man of knowledge.

Most of you know, I am an electrician, and a very technical one, if you’ve read here long, you also know that I love history, which sounds paradoxical, but it isn’t, I long ago learned that anything I learned about pretty much anything helps me in my work, and my professional work, helps me to understand almost everything else better. As I have often said, when I was young it was widely recognized that music and mathematics were closely related, and you may not know but a proper design of anything is defined in engineering as elegant. That goes to the heart of this discussion, in my opinion.

Arm yourself, for the lists, for there are many in our world, who stand to lose from a properly educated citizenry, and only that citizenry who will gain.

Thank you, again, Faith.

Sorry, Vice-Chancellor. We need more historians of the sixth century.

quote-historians-ought-to-be-precise-faithful-and-unprejudiced-and-neither-interest-nor-fear-hatred-miguel-de-cervantes-362344Just a quick note, in the UK, the Vice-Chancellor of a university is what we call the President, just a difference in terms. This is a quite interesting article.

Yesterday, the Belfast Telegraph published an interview with the Vice-Chancellor of Queen’s University Belfast, Patrick Johnston. Most of the interview was about the things one expects VCs to talk about these days – global competitiveness, knowledge transfer, government funding, a defence of a large salary – but buried among the anodyne was this astonishing comment:
Society doesn’t need a 21-year-old who is a sixth century historian.

Why? Because, explains Johnston, what ‘society’ needs is ‘a 21-year-old who really understands how to analyse things, understands the tenets of leadership and contributing to society, who is a thinker and someone who has the potential to help society drive forward’.

So extraordinary is this statement, coming from the leader of a major UK university, that my first instinct is to assume that the journalist must have misheard or reworked Johnston’s comments in some way. After all, surely the VC of a university can hardly not know that history as it is taught at universities is essentially all about analysis. That is why it is so highly valued by employers, who know that history graduates, whether they specialise in the sixth or the 16th century, are indeed thinkers, people with intellectual initiative who may well have the ‘potential to help society drive forward’ (whatever Johnston means by that). To think otherwise is to profoundly misunderstand the skills that are honed in the course of a history degree.

via Sorry, Vice-Chancellor. We need more historians of the sixth century. | History Today

In theoretical terms, he’s right of course. History at it’s best teaches one to analyze, to investigate, to think for oneself, indeed to be a very valuable person to any organization.

But while I don’t know about the UK, and the historians I know there are indeed all that he says, that is not what I see coming out of American Universities. What I see here are almost completely a group of whiners, not competent to organize a two-car funeral, whose idea of research is Wikipedia (yes, I use it too, for a quick check, but for anything that can be spun, it is not reliable), if not YouTube, and who can barely defend themselves in written English.

In the last analysis the market is never really wrong, if history was really a good major for businesses, somebody would have given it a shot, and made a lot of money as a result. But they haven’t, and so maybe historians should think about how to put the rigor back into the program. And a pro-tip, working to an agenda is not the way. Especially one that says that everything western civilization has ever done is both racist and wrong.

What I so often see are people who can’t defend their opinion (even if they do call them theses), and who run crying to their safe-spaces if anyone dares criticize them, and who follow fads and fashion rather than do research. Undoubtedly, I’m using too broad a brush here, but so is he. The amount of pure bullcrap put out in jargon form by historians and other social science professionals beggars the imagination. It also overwhelms one with the turgid, obfuscating language used to conceal the lack of thought of many of the authors. So, maybe the VC does have a point after all.

The ‘Melting Pot’: Some Lessons

melting_potFirst off, when Jess says she’s been doing some spring cleaning, believe her, she wields quite a broom! But let’s take what she said yesterday, and detail it out a bit.

My background is very similar to hers, except being in the US instead of the UK. But I’ve spent some time in cities, although not really living in any of them, as she is now. But when you study American history, well immigration and how we became Americans is a lot of the story.

She’s decidedly right, no matter how multi-cultural, and multi-racial a society is, most people like to live and work with people that are a good bit like themselves. That becomes somewhat less true as income and education levels increase, but it’s always true. The old WASP acronym NOKD (not our kind, dear) is more about human nature than it is specifically about what we used to call ‘Preppies’. That doesn’t preclude mixing things up, especially in pursuit of a higher goal. Theodore Roosevelt found that cowboys and Yalies got along pretty well, at least in Cuba in the 1st US Volunteer Cavalry (the Rough Riders). Another interesting thing about that unit was that the Lieutenant Colonel was a guy called John Pershing, his nickname was ‘Blackjack’ because he had commanded a troop of the 10th Cavalry, one of the black regiments, the Buffalo Soldiers.

In fact the American military has always had a lot to do, especially in wartime, with bringing our disparate groups together.

But those are exceptional. More common was the Irish migration in the 1840s and 50s. They knew all about discrimination, and that had much to do with why they stuck with their own people. They only began to be accepted during the civil war, and units such as the storied Irish Brigade, from New York, and the Confederate one, from Texas, had much to do with it. They were also overrepresented in the Army during the Indian Wars and provided the bulk of the labor force that built the western railroads.

And if I look back at my own family, they migrated from Norway in the 1880s and 90s, to entire communities of Norwegians, and continued to be Norwegian outposts in mostly Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa, speaking Norwegian until the First World War. None of that implies that any of those settlers, Irish or Norwegian, or any other, had any real loyalty to anything but the United States, they all gave up almost everything they knew and loved, including most of their families, to come here, but it was hard.

That’s the thing, acculturation is hard, even if you’re fairly similar, like an Irishman in New York, where the laws are even fairly similar, and it simply takes a long time. Is America good at it? Yep, we are, but we’ve never made it easy on anybody, from John Winthrop on down. The melting post is a crockpot (slow cooker) essentially. But you know, Lutefisk is improved by Colman’s mustard and a taste of Jalapeno peppers. It takes generations to acculturate people, usually it starts with the children in school, and often churches have helped. We have found that being a bit hard is good, for instance, a common language is nearly essential, and a common dream is very useful. But expecting somebody to get off the boat and be a fully formed and functioning American (or Christian, for that matter) is quite simply a pipe dream.

We can help, probably more than we ever have, with English as a second language programs, citizenship programs and such. I imagine there are similar things in evangelization, they are a good idea, but we are not going to take a Mexican, or a Syrian, and make them into an instant American, or Scotsman. Can it be done? Not instantly. But, I’m not sure the UK doesn’t have some of those answers itself. It seems to me, as the Empire shrank, and the UK let so many former colonials in, they found that they had indeed, become pretty much Englishmen, even if they looked a good bit different. Like our immigrants, they became what they wanted to be, and they were prepared to do the work necessary to make it so.

And that may be the main lesson: If the immigrants don’t want to acculturate, they won’t, and if they don’t, they weaken the society, not strengthen it. Vetting is essential, especially for permanent residents.

%d bloggers like this: