A Dangerous Game

GlobalDominationby Mr. Lesser (GHG)4/1/16
The left is playing a dangerous game. The objective is domination. The rules are there are no rules. The term “left” generally refers to liberal or socialist socio-economic philosophy and governance.

But I think that definition is not adequate today because it connotes local rather than global. It is my contention that the left’s objective is no longer governmental domination of individual countries, but global domination. This is not a change of philosophy, it’s always had a global scope, but the conditions for achieving that objective are changing more rapidly and getting closer to the point where they can get away with the end-game moves. Perhaps a better term would be “Globalist,” and in fact I would include the corporatists who have traditionally be categorized on the right side of the political spectrum.

The strategy of erasing borders and sovereignty, stripping liberties and stifling dissent, and weakening the military capabilities of Western democracies is well on its way to subjugating its citizenry. One of the last flies in the ointment for the Globalist is the armed citizenry of the U.S. There are too many armed Americans who won’t go quietly. Hence the “chaos strategy” employed by the Globalists with movements like Black Lives Matter and the painting of the police as the bad guys. The open borders and immigration policies that almost ensure more chaos and less safety for the American people. The economic and trade policies that ensure a lower standard of living for Americans. The problems with Obamacare that too many attribute to poor planning is anything but – it was never designed to provide better and more affordable health care – it was designed to make things worse so Americans would become more dependent on the government for their health care.[pullquote]The strategy of erasing borders and sovereignty, stripping liberties and stifling dissent, and weakening the military capabilities of Western democracies is well on its way to subjugating its citizenry.[/pullquote]

Those and other acts designed to make life in America more dangerous and chaotic are working toward their objective. At some point, the government will “step in” to quell the violence and restore order. Some form of Marshall Law will be imposed, our 2nd amendment rights will be stripped and guns confiscated. At that point, “the people” will have no recourse as the voting booth will have already been rendered useless and a disarmed citizenry has no chance for a successful rebellion.

But what about the Islamists? Where do they fit into this picture? Right now, the Globalists see the Islamists as an asset as their terror attacks help create the chaotic condition necessary to implement the police state required to subjugate the people. But at some point, the Globalists are going to have to subjugate or eliminate the Islamists too. The other global players like China and Russia haven’t invaded Western countries the way the Islamists have and therefore don’t pose an immediate threat to the Globalists. They may even turn out to be partners because their philosophy is the same, only their local sovereignty may be an issue. Not so with the Islamists whose beliefs are more anathema to the secular Globalists than the Christians and Jews the Globalists have been castigating for decades.

The Globalists are playing a dangerous game. They think they can achieve their objective and then dispense with the Islamists when they’re no longer serving their purpose. Meanwhile, the Islamists are charging ahead with their own objective to establish a global caliphate. The Globalists have to play the game and not take out the Islamists until they have their police state in place. The danger is how well entrenched will the Islamists be by the time the Globalists can shed their benevolent pretense and show their real face, and will they be able to effectively eliminate them at that time.

This is truly a heads they win and tails we lose proposition for the rest of us. I don’t even know who to root for.


GHG (Mr. Lesser to his friends) is an infrequent public speaker and budding freelance writer. • (707 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to A Dangerous Game

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    You’re quite correct about the ill intentions of modern liberalism; indeed, I commented in 2012 that the greatest delusion in America was the belief that Obama means well. The ultimate leftist goal is some combination of Brave New World and 1984; their tactics are especially reminiscent of the latter.

  2. Rosalys says:

    One of the drawbacks of living in Realville, is being able to have a good idea what’s on the road up ahead and having little or no power to do much about it. Sometimes I think it might be nice to stick my head in the sand and join the Oblivion – but I just can’t. Instead I pray.

    The left aren’t very smart, but because of their rejection of Christ, they have no morals and are willing to do anything necessary to bring about Utopia. They are bullies, and the way to deal with a bully is, and always has been, to stand up to them. The same with Islam. Those people are really very stupid, but they are also vicious; and in war, savagery will beat out dialogue every time. I don’t suppose I will live to see it, but it would be interesting to watch, between the left and Islam, who gets to turn around and bite the other in the rear end first.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Savagery will beat mere bullying, so Islamism has the advantage over liberalism. Indeed, we already see that happening in Europe. The key is that for liberals, race trumps “gender” on the identity politics hierarchy. So when Muslims commit gang rapes, liberals side with them to varying degrees (as happened in Rotherham and Cologne). Note that Pim Fortuyn, who opposed Muslim immigration because he saw what it meant to the Dutch tolerance of deviant behavior, was called a “rightist”.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I don’t suppose I will live to see it, but it would be interesting to watch, between the left and Islam, who gets to turn around and bite the other in the rear end first.

      You must never discount the arrogance of the Left. These people truly believe they are smarter than everyone else.

      They presently see themselves in a temporary alliance with Islam against the West which means against Christianity.

      I have personally come across Leftists, who gleefully celebrate the influx of Muslims into the West as a way to finally bring down the West and capitalism.

      When asked what the are going to do when the Muslims start attacking them, they say it will not happen. They then point out the success they have had undermining Christianity and capitalism since WWII and claim they will have the same success with Muslims.

      These stupid people give themselves too much credit. They don’t seem to realize that the assault on Christianity and the West has been ongoing for almost three hundred years. The success they have had after WWII is nothing to be terribly proud of, as Europe has lost all will to fight.

      The situation in Islam and Muslim countries is quite different. Although the idiot Left doesn’t seem to have noticed it, Muslims are very happy to fight and kill those with whom they disagree.

      In the coming battle between the Left and Muslims, I would not give the Left more than a 50/50 chance of success.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I wouldn’t give them anywhere near 50%. Muslims can and will fight to kill; liberals haven’t shown that they can go that far. They rely on the force of social pressure from their ability to dominate the culture. Muslims won’t care about that. No safe space will protect liberals from Islamism.

        • Rosalys says:

          I, too, will be placing my bets on the Muzzies. But one thing liberals are good at is pitting one group against another and getting them to do their dirty work for them; assuming that there is any underground resistance left, they may come to the rescue. But then the resistance will just have to remember that it was the left that got us all into this mess in the first place and treat them accordingly.

  3. GHG says:

    The situation has changed for me, or maybe it’s better said that it’s come to the point where I can’t deny it any longer. The situation I speak of is “my political party”, the Republican Party, is no longer doing my bidding. It’s been apparent for quite some time that they have been ineffective at conservative governance and more recently they’ve even given up the pretense of espousing conservative beliefs. But now it has gone from bad to worse, or maybe it’s just I’m finally aware of it.

    The Republican Party is now ruled by corporatists who have no more trepidation trampling our Constitution than the socialists in the other party. They have betrayed their American birthright for a position at the Globalist table. For them, they have crossed the Rubicon, there is no coming back. There may still be some traditional conservatives in Congress but they have no power to make a difference. The game on the right side of the aisle is as rigged as it has been on the left side for a long time.

    The hope that someone would come along and upset the apple cart seemed to be happening when Trump showed up and started hitting populists notes like playing a Stradivarius. But then he lets intellectual lightweight Chris Matthews trap him into saying he would send women to prison for having an abortion … gee, do you think Hillary’s propaganda machine might have that playing on 24 hour loop if Trump ends up being the GOP nominee?

    I’m left with only helplessly watching from the sideline, and crying, and praying.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      The hope that someone would come along and upset the apple cart seemed to be happening when Trump showed up and started hitting populists notes like playing a Stradivarius. But then he lets intellectual lightweight Chris Matthews trap him into saying he would send women to prison for having an abortion

      The Matthews episode is just the most grating of Trump’s faux pas. As I said before, the man is a walking “stream-of-consciousness” machine with little intellectual discipline or policy depth. This failing would not be so glaring had he any manners. With minimal manners he would avoid many of the inane things he says.

      I am becoming very pessimistic as to the outcome of the November election. The man is destroying what chance the Republicans had. His lack of discipline and loose mouth are pushing up his negatives everyday. So should he finally become the nominee, he will have lost the female vote by an enormous percentage, to say little of the others he offends. Should he lose to Ted Cruz, many of the Trumpkins will take their footballs and go home. Reconciliation between his and Cruz’s followers will be very difficult due to the vicious personal attacks Trump made against Cruz and his wife, which many Trumpkins love to repeat and expand on.

      Even though I have always supported Cruz, at the beginning of Trump’s run, I thought he had the potential to shake up the political system for the better.

      But having followed his campaign closely, I am beginning to believe the change he is bringing is disastrous.

      The reason is that Trump’s personal growth has not kept pace with the growth of his campaign. He has not been able to adapt and mature as he gained strength. For some reason his growth is stunted. He has simply remained the same obnoxious New York City big mouth. He has fractured things, not united. Governance is not reality TV.

      • GHG says:

        I’ve become a fatalist and I don’t like it.

        I think the GOP nomination circus is nothing but rearranging the deck chairs before the ship of state finally goes under. I thought the only chance we had was to let the bull (aka Trump) into the China Shop with the hope he breaks the glass and shreds the PC veil to reveal the truth to the American people. But it is becoming more clear by the day that the bull, for all his testicular machismo, can’t stop chasing the red flag put before him and will inevitably meet a bloody end (rhetorically speaking hopefully).

        Where Trump would never allow himself to be marginalized, Cruz will be should he become the nominee. Even if by a miracle Cruz wins in November, I have zero hope he will make a difference with all of Washington arrayed against him. Cruz would be like the conservative movement getting a toe inside the palace door. The palace guards will simply chop it off before the door can be opened wider (again rhetorically speaking hopefully).

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Where Trump would never allow himself to be marginalized, Cruz will be should he become the nominee.

          I am not so sure of this. I have followed Cruz since he was at something like 2% in the Texas Senate race back in 2010 or 2011. Through intelligence, planning and work, he finally won, defeating the Texas Establishment’s choice, the Lieutenant Governor. This man was worth about $250 million made in the oil business.

          Nobody would have predicted Ted Cruz would be in the running for the Republican candidate for president five years ago, except maybe Cruz himself.

          If he were to become president, I am convinced he has a plan and would be able to institute a fair amount of it. At the very least, he would appoint constitutionalists as Supreme Court justices. That alone would be of tremendous service to the country.

          • GHG says:

            I hope you’re right. I pray you’re right. But Texas is a state and on balance is a conservative state. Cruz was able to beat the GOP establishment, but Washington is a whole other thing. He will not only have the GOP establishment against him, he will have the Dems and even more importantly the entire MSM with the exception of talk radio and some true conservative websites. I don’t think there is a chance he’ll be given a fair shake to inform and convince the American people that his policies are best for them – they’ll hear nothing but propaganda coming from all sides.

            You may be correct that he would appoint constitutionalists to the Supreme Court but I’m afraid the Bork strategy will be dragged back out and it will not go as wonderfully as we would hope.

            I will still vote for the nominee with the “R” next to his name, even though my state (Illinois) will be securely in the “D” column. I will express my constitutional rights so long as they’re still mine to express, even though I’m less and less optimistic that it matters any more.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I understand your pessimism, but as long as we can vote for an alternative, I won’t give up hope completely. Cruz probably is on the right side, and is very skillful. Let’s at least give him a chance. He certainly won’t be as bad as any of the alternatives — and far better than any Demagogue. If that only means we can delay the Deluge for a few years, that may be enough at my age, though naturally I’d prefer to do even better.

          • Rosalys says:

            I’ll admit that being part of the senior crowd has its benefits – like the possibility of perhaps checking out before the s__t hit the fan. On the other hand, I am in reasonable good health, and there is a lot of longevity in my family tree – and I have the uneasy feeling that it’s going to happen sooner rather than later. Add to that the fact that their are children and grandchildren to be concerned about and Rosalys hasn’t been a happy camper for some time now.

  4. NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

    Good work by GHG to begin exploring the relationship and probable future conflict between the “normal” Left and the Islamists. I have called them the Secular Left and the Islamic Left to distinguish them, but nobody has so far accepted my nomenclature. (All collectivist movements should be designated as “Left”). The alliance between them is, as KFZ mentions, against the (Christian) West, and as Tim noted, when eventually they turn against one another, the advantage will be with the Islamic Left because of its greater savagery.

    Now obviously our modern (past century) Left is capable of killing millions of people, but they have done so after destroying the liberal (in the classical sense) opposition – the “Conservatives” of the place and time, although they may have been called something else. In other words, they’re fine at killing when they have all the guns and their victims are completely defenseless (hence the emphasis on gun control). To be more precise, they give the orders to the ones they allow to possess guns, being generally incompetent at anything approaching the martial virtues. (The few exceptions are the psychopathic killers among them like Che Guevara).

    But the moment the liberal forces (us) are defeated this time (should that happen), the Secular Left will find out that the Islamic Left doesn’t tolerate rivals once the main enemy has been defeated, and the war between them will be on. There may well be a horrible period of three-way civil war before then, as our side finally becomes desperate enough to get organized and starts to use the millions of weapons we possess. In Europe this is already a foregone conclusion since the Muslim population has been allowed to grow to such dangerous levels they are now strong enough to strike the host countries (e.g. by means of the escalating terrorist attacks we’ve been witnessing the past few years). Here in the U.S., should we somehow prevail in elections and shut off the immigration spigot, the fighting might be avoided. I’m inclined to doubt it, however, and I think the most likely outcomes here are either our side submitting to Progressive rule (and subsequent destruction) or the partition of the country into Free and Progressive parts.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I have called them the Secular Left and the Islamic Left to distinguish them, but nobody has so far accepted my nomenclature. (All collectivist movements should be designated as “Left”)

      I like that nomenclature. And all collectivist movements have in common the urge to subordinate the individual to totalitarianism.

      The foolish secular Left functions under incredible delusions in that they claim their goal is the end of government on earth, i.e. the individual will be liberated by giving way to the collective.

      The Islamic Left operates under no such delusion. They see the individual as completely under the control of the government, which is based on Sharia Law.

      I believe Mussolini comes closest to their philosophy,

      “All within the state,
      nothing outside the state,
      nothing against the state.”

      Think of the choices that leaves people.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      however, and I think the most likely outcomes here are either our side submitting to Progressive rule (and subsequent destruction) or the partition of the country into Free and Progressive parts.

      Either way the Left wins. If they can completely control the United States, they would rather see it broken up and its power massively reduced.

      They may prefer the first, but at least with the second, the USA will no longer be able to effectively project its evil intentions around the world. America has delayed the onset of the Leftist Utopia which all right thinking people know will be just around the corner once America is gone.

  5. GHG says:

    I think the most likely outcomes here are either our side submitting to Progressive rule (and subsequent destruction) or the partition of the country into Free and Progressive parts.

    Secession of certain states or regions from the union is more unworkable now than it was in 1860 because the founding principle of federalism is all but gone. Washington has for all intents and purposes usurped state autonomy. Also, in 1860 there were clearer lines of separation, in both the geography and the attitude of the people within each geographic region. It’s not so today.

    It’s a nice thought, given the alternatives to current/future circumstances, but if there are ever “conservative regions” I think it more likely they will be containment camps set up by benevolent rulers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *