Globalist Big Brothers

We are left wondering what profound motive it was that the "Des Gilets Jaunes" (the Yellow Vests) were moved to raise destructive hell in France the past few weeks. Was it just a protest against the new price of diesel gas? No. It was also a protest against taxes. And it was also a protest against Emmanuel Macron’s policies. One of which might have been his gratuitous immigration policy. It’s hard to decide what caused thousands of Frenchmen to run riot. There have been over a dozen explanations for the turmoil. Business Insider had one summary explanation:

The Yellow Vests mobilized over rising gas prices mainly caused by a new tax on diesel fuel which has jacked up prices 16% in 2018.

Diesel went from an average €1.24 ($1.41) per litre to €1.48 ($1.69,) according to UFIP, France's oil industry federation, cited by CNN.

Macron's government said this is to be more environmental and to go green, but in rural areas which don't have public transport or car sharing services, driving is the main option. Macron said these taxes are necessary to help make the country a low-emission economy.

President Emmanuel Macron's leadership is central to this anger and they say he and his government don't care about ordinary people.

Here is another clarification of the anger against the new diesel gas prices, from Americans In France:

In France 70%+ of cars run on diesel (gazole). Why is this? In short the tax on diesel is less than on gasoline (essence). In the price of a liter of diesel about 55% goes to taxes. In gasoline it's about 65%. It's largely this difference in taxes that explains why the French drive diesel powered cars. [And also because they’re used cars] The specific taxes is the TIPP - Taxe Intérieure de consommation sur les Produits Pétroliers. The TIPP for diesel is €.42 per liter and for gasoline it's €.59 per liter.

Because diesel is cheaper than gasoline, cars running on diesel tend to be driven more and therefore need more maintenance. Diesel motors are noisier and emit more fine particles into the air.

Macon’s not-so-secret motive behind the rise in diesel gas prices was to compel people to become “greener” and more environmentally “conscious.” They must be forced to be model environmentalists, through their pocket books, if necessary.

As we now know, that “high-minded” tax, imposed from on high on the homme ordinaire, and later withdrawn lest it bring the water to the boiling point, was an elitist’s action to twist Frenchmen into becoming “low emission” slaves. 

Victor Davis Hanson has a broad explanation about the French uprising that cuts to the chase of why Frenchmen do what they do. In American Greatness, on December 16, in his article, “The Globalist Mindset: They Hate You,” he wrote:

Against what or whom is the contemporary Western public pushing back?

The French non-Parisians against new green taxes on already unaffordable gasoline?

Broke southern European Union nations against the financial demands of German bankers?

The Eastern Europeans against French and German open-border mandates?

The British masses against both the EU and their own government that either cannot or will not follow the will of the people and implement Brexit?

The American populists against outsourcing, offshoring, and illegal immigration?

The common target of all these populist pushbacks is an administrative and cultural elite that shares a set of transnational and globalist values and harbors mostly contempt for the majority of their own Neanderthal citizens who are deemed hopelessly unwoken to environmental, racial, gender, and cultural inevitabilities.

In a word, the Ivy League, Oxbridge, and the Sorbonne masters, of the universe, assume that the world is on a predetermined trajectory. We are to follow an arc of history bending toward state-managed social justice if you will—to end up as a sort of global Menlo Park, Malibu, Upper West Side, Saint-Germain-des-Prés, Schwabing, or Kensington. No wonder, it is their ethical duty of transnationals to goad the fated, but sometimes stalled, process along.

America has its own coterie of transnationals or globalists:

The globalist elite is certainly transnational and is sickened by localism, traditionalism, and autonomy. Monsieur Macron shares much more in common with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Justin Trudeau than he does with rural Frenchmen. It is almost as if in 2019 our elites are emulating the interlocking aristocratic families of late 19th-century Europe, but instead of being common descendants of Queen Victoria they are the godchildren of Menlo Park, Brussels, Strasburg, Davos, and Wall Street.

And they wish to perpetuate their transnational club of privilege and power.

Globalism is both an ideology and a culture of behavior. The creed is that the Western world, given its colonial and imperialist past, has a duty both to make amends to the former third world through magnanimously lending the global community elite Western expertise—whether through Kyoto- or Paris-like climate accords, foreign interventions guided by Western humanitarian principles, asymmetrical trade agreements, open borders, or U.N. mandates.

Hanson touches on what is a delicate point that goes far to explain the globalists’ urge to combat nationalism and sovereignty: the alleged guilt of Western countries for their colonial and “imperialist” pasts. They seek to force nations to “atone” for such histories by abolishing national borders and subjecting indigenous populations to the primitive and savage “cultures” invited and permitted to invade countries. 

He writes:

Globalist penance for past sins is accomplished in a variety of ways. Non-Westerns are not to be held to symmetrical value systems. Islamic countries can destroy churches, Western nations consider mosques sacrosanct. Illegal immigration force feeds diversity onto a tired and exhausted Western public in dire need of having its horizons expanded by the other. Dumping, patent and copyright theft, and technological appropriation are sins only for wayward Westerners.

Bruce Thorton and Niram Ferretti published an interesting discussion on the origins and consequences of this Westerrn “guilt” in their article, “The Muslim Immigrant: The Icon of Oppressed Humanity” in an Italian magazine, Foglio Quotidiano.  

Ferretti: Professor Thornton, in 1984, French philosopher Pascal Bruckner wrote Le sanglot de l’homme blanc, his essay in which he showed how the West, from the Sixties onwards, has been engulfed in an apotheosis of self-guilt. The bottom line is that Western civilization is nothing more than a tale full of sound and fury, while the Third World is the innocent victim of its rapacity and evil.  What are the reasons, according to you, of this cultural landscape?

Thornton: There are three developments behind what we can call Third Worldism.  First, increasing contact with the undeveloped world through colonialism exposed Europeans to exotic peoples whom they idealized as superior to their own more developed and repressed lives. Next, Marxism, having been rejected by the European proletariat, turned to the anticolonial revolutionary movements in the Third World to find a substitute revolutionary vanguard. Now the revolution would be spearheaded by Third World peoples rather than the workers. And it made the Third World into a useful club for attacking liberal democratic and capitalist countries. Finally, Romanticism and the cult of sentimentalism in the West, aided by globalized communication media, found the Third World an object of “compassion” and guilt, which mass media turned into a commodity of suffering that Westerners could consume and vicariously enjoy those feelings without any efforts to ameliorate it. The result is cheap sentiment and guilt serving the Marxist ideology of undermining Western culture.

Thornton: We have institutionalized Lenin’s slogan “Who, whom” ––who is the oppressor, who is the victim. This dynamic underlies political correctness, multiculturalism, and identity politics, all of which work to leverage political power from a group’s status as an historically oppressed victim. The battle is lost, for now. These assumptions and attitudes have shaped three generations, and become mental reflexes beyond critical examination. We see it, e.g., in the Republican Party establishment, which alienated the voters who put Donald Trump in office by Republicans’ bad habit of accepting the progressive views on race, sex, homosexuality, etc…..

Ferretti: Recently French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, stated that, “Anti-racism is the Communism of the XXI century, do you agree?

Thornton: Absolutely. Marxism has always been a melodrama pitting absolute good against absolute evil. Identity politics, which is predicated on grievances responding to historical crimes, had to inflate racism into the arch crime even though historical change has reduced to a fringe the legal infrastructure of segregation and the brutal violence and petty daily humiliation with which most blacks lived in America before the Sixties. Anti-racism fosters resentment and grievance that provide energy for political action and political leverage for extracting power from the government. So it must be melodramatic: no complexity or nuance, just pure evil continuing to brutalized the noble, righteous oppressed––the anti-racist. Finally, as do Marxists, the nobility and righteousness of the anti-racist justify “any means necessary,” including censorship, assaults on rights like free speech, and violence.

What the globalists want to erase

Back to Victor Hanson’s essay:

Globalism ultimately is an offspring of elite progressive universities, think tanks, foundations, government institutions, and borderless corporatism. All the old progressive boilerplate—anti-trust legislation, prohibitions on monopolies, product liability—ceases when vast multibillion-dollar tech fortunes put their money into progressive causes, and thereby remind us that sometimes noble ends justify unethical means of obtaining them.

Facebook, Google, and Twitter have a perfect right to monopolize, to warp political expression, and to censor free speech if they devote their billions to enacting global climate, political, or social justice change, in the manner that here at home the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and NSA—at times in conjunction with their foreign counterparts—justifiably had to monitor, use informants, and spread libelous smears on reckless Cro-Magnons like Donald J. Trump, who would harken us back to an embarrassing nationalist and sovereign past. Illegality has its uses.

So, there you are absorbing all the information about the poisonous saturation of Western civilization by globalism, when you encounter a headline such as this one:

“UCLA Professor: Too Many White Male Firefighters Out There.” It’s a globalist complaint, of course, and it goes on to whine about there not being enough gays, transgenders, and Muslims asked to risk their lives putting out raging forest fires. Its’a patriarchy that favors white men. The patriarchy must be eliminated for world social justice.