[354 / 66]
4MiB, 400x225, 5ZyonP.gif
View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Trace

Kind-of Insider Here

ID:/r+m+bgD No.103152204 View ViewReplyOriginalReport
I've written white papers for the United Nations, the Trilaterial Commission, and for the cosmetics industry on replacement migration and population integration.

First, the idea that "the global agenda" is leftist or communist or somehow related to the neo-Marxism of the Frankfurt school is misguided. The organizations I've worked for over the years see the number one priority as the maintenance of global economic integration and open markets.

In collaborating with the intelligence community, I've found their goals to be extremely anti-left and very concerned with maintaining global commercial institutions.This is the reason the CIA worked so far to defeat communism; it was a threat to a unified global market.

What many of you have picked up on is the New Left elements of the global agenda. But this is a misunderstanding. The system apparatus from 1945-1980 was the Keynesian welfare state, which successfully integrated potential opposition from the left and right into the system. The New Left (born out of the Frankfurt school) strongly opposed the welfare state, which they correctly saw as a method of ensuring the working class did not succumb to revolutionary tendencies, and mobilized identity activism against it (Women's Liberation, Black Power, etc.).

The solution to this threat was the co-optation of identity politics, and the movement of economic administration to supranational institutions (WTO, IMF, World Bank, EU). That way this new mobilization would not threaten the global economy but could be allowed to manifest without state repression (as Nixon tried from 69-73).