Why do globalists want this?
Most of us have seen the tent cities of the homeless in supposedly wealthy cities and areas in the supposedly wealthy West. Go on YouTube and enter the right search parameters and within seconds you can access images of parts of California that look like a still active war zone. The ubiquity of camera devices and the ease with which people can film things on a phone these days has ensured that countless videos of ruined areas and broken lives are easily accessible.
There is perhaps no starker indication of a failed political system than seeing crack addicts stumbling along a street lined with row after row of filthy tents, or howling lunatics fighting invisible foes against a backdrop of mountains of rubbish and endless scrawls of graffiti. The same applies to equally accessible images of migrants defecating in the street.
Last year, even globalist legacy news outlets started to report this situation, perhaps forced into some degree of honesty by the widespread existence of those stark images filmed by ordinary people and citizen journalists. Incidents like a major fire under an interstate bridge coincided with embarrassing reports regarding the huge amount of spending that California has devoted to homelessness, with zero impact on it.
In mid 2023, according to official reports and responses, we discovered for example that California had at that point spent 17 billion dollars on homelessness….only it had never had any system in place for checking where the money went and whether it was spent effectively. They essentially threw 17 billion dollars in the air, hoping it would clear the streets and make what was filthy and squalid pristine again. No doubt a lot of Vorruption was involved in that apparent ‘error’, and much of the spending went into private pockets known to those authorising the spending.
In various other places, cherished Democrat and globalist policies have of course encouraged the conditions that lead to tent cities, mass homelessness, grotesque squalor and dangerous crime. Conservatives could be forgiven for looking on with a wry smirk as bastions of globalist sanctimony, places where every migrant is a noble dreamer and opposing mass immigration is a social crime, suddenly discovered thanks to the Biden era mass invasion that they don’t like it all so much when it reaches their turf. To see Democrat politicians in New York talking about a migrant wave, about an invasion of people that their local services can’t cope with, can provoke a bitter mirth amongst those of us those people labelled racist for knowing this would happen.
Astonishingly, it turns out that people without skills or resources do not magically become much needed brain surgeons by stepping illegally over a border. Even more amazingly, all of these people need to settle somewhere, such as under bridges or along the sides of roads. And in a further twist that nobody could possibly have seen coming, some of these millions of people will have severe mental health issues, some will be hardened criminals, some will be from cultures and backgrounds that have very different value systems-perhaps ones that consider violence and sexual assault a normal condition of existence.
But it doesn’t end there-when you invite millions of strangers in all at once, it puts a strain on all your public services and all your infrastructure. It turns out that many of these people, if you are to provide them with food, shelter and some degree of assistance, are net drains on your system, rather than brilliant contributors to it.
If only somebody could have predicted all that, right, without being shouted down as a racist?
Similarly, and again in ways that obviously nobody could have seen coming, it turns out that if you start mass releasing people or not arresting people who commit crimes due to your overwhelming sympathy for their skin colour, those established criminals go out and commit even more crimes, perhaps with a big smile regarding your idiocy. If, for example, you go around saying that the very word ‘looting’ is racist and that running through stores smashing everything up and grabbing whatever you want to steal is actually a rather noble endeavour of sophisticated protest, it turns out that you get more people running through stores smashing everything up and grabbing whatever they like to steal.
If you change local statutes and laws because you think telling people not to shit in the streets or steal things or set things on fire is white supremacism, and if you celebrate rioters and looters as brave bold activists whose efforts are improving society, you get streets full of shit, stores burned down, and other stores deciding never to place a store in that location again.
All of this cause and effect somehow mysteriously escapes the globalist mind.
Only, there comes a point where describing this mysterious inability to recognise how one thing causes another itself requires a bit of deeper analysis. There comes a point where these policies and attitudes have become so obtuse, so damaging, so obviously destructive, that the people still supporting mass immigration or bizarre encouragement of crime due to a racial lens that magically turns a burning building into the kind of thing that built this nation, must be considered more malign than erroneous.
After a time, when the evidence is undeniable but the policies continue, we must accept that this is what the people enacting those policies actually do want. We must accept that we are not looking at idealistic, well-intentioned error, and we are not even anymore looking at incompetence. We are looking at people who know where these policies lead, and want them to lead there. We must conclude that violence, crime, shitting on the streets, the burning down of stores, the destruction of whole neighbourhoods, the growth of giant encampments, the waste of billions to no resolution of the issues being ‘tackled’, the turning of once ordered and peaceful places into violent and dangerous ones, is a thing that the architects and funders of such policies intend.
Of course, for a normal, non ideological, well adjusted citizen, the idea of wanting destruction, entropy, filth and death is appalling. The idea that anyone in a position of power would aim to create such conditions is bewildering. So it takes us a very long time to move away from describing those doing this as somehow not fully responsible for what we see following on from their policies. Once it is obvious how destructive these policies are, and we see them still following them, we tend to spend a very long time talking about how crazy and stupid these people must be. In a strange way by doing so we are almost forgiving them, absolving them of true responsibility, and backing away somewhat from a moral response to what they have chosen to do.
We do this because it is simply very hard for a normal person to understand a sociopathic design or a sociopathic lack of concern for the effects of a policy on ordinary people. It’s even harder to understand that those in authority might actually hate us enough to want to see us harmed.
For a globalist, though, the normal citizens they rule are not people they have any alignment or sympathy with, and are not people they are supposed to be representing, helping or responsible to and for in any sympathetic manner imaginable. Not at all. For the globalist, the average majority citizen of the nations they now control is many things, and none of them are things that they like. The average majority is an impediment and an inconvenience. The average majority is an embarrassment and a burden. The average majority is a set of ‘prejudices’ to be eliminated and a set of ‘outdated’ attitudes to change.
Everything that we think is valuable and worth protecting, including our lawfulness and our social cohesion, including the things that prevent us from deciding to shit in the street or burn down a store, are for the globalist the things that are most wrong about us. They are things that tell the globalist that we aren’t entirely dependent on him, either financially or morally. They are signs that the stuff of our souls is formed and shaped by a smith greater than him. To a globalist who wants to shape and control everything himself, our virtues are our imperfections, those little bubbles and flaws and specks of another material in the iron he hammers into the shape he prefers.
For the globalist, caring about the individual or the collective of the average citizen, is like caring about the flaws in a cherished plan, or the obstacles to a desired journey. And hammering down on the average citizen, reducing him or her, battering that person with all manner of real and psychological blows, is the whole point of being a globalist in the first place, just like no blacksmith would hesitate to hit a piece of metal he wants to make into something else, into a nail or a sword. Hitting you is just part of the process of reshaping you.
You have to go through that stage to get to the stage where you are truly fitted to the use assigned to you.
In the UK the processes of globalist malignancy are less obvious. The US globalist is less practised in disguising his malignancy than the UK globalist. This is partly why the things done by globalists in the US have been more shocking (like very obviously stealing an election and very obviously persecuting Trump through corrupt courts) but also why resistance is more developed and widespread (the policies enacted in Florida, for example, or the existence of the MAGA movement and Trump himself). The US always ‘goes large’ so both the sins and virtues are more obvious, both the evil and the good are easier to perceive. In the UK our opening of the borders came earlier, but has been spread over a longer period, allowing it to seem like less of a crisis. We don’t have vast tent cities, although we do see increasing homelessness. But it’s more subtle. It’s more like seeing a town worsen over ten years or twenty years, than within a single year.
But of course each year of this globalist process of designed destruction, of hammering the ordinary citizen with increased immigration, crime, antisocial behaviour, encouraged perversion, violence and disorder, makes that subtlety harder to preserve. Their very success begins to unravel its own disguises, as it has for example with the obviousness of the dinghy invasions or the deeply unpopular policy of putting illegal aliens in expensive hotels.
In my personal life I’ve encountered some of what it feels like to be the ‘beneficiary’ of long term globalist rule. A British version of the Uniparty system has of course flourished at the expense of its own citizens, just as the US equivalent has, by continuously increasing spending and debt under either main party while distributing those resulting government contracts to friends and allies, all while addressing none of the globalist created problems that ordinary people want to see addressed.
The town where I live is about 35 miles distant from London. It takes a little over half an hour to get into central London by train. It’s a ‘new town’, one of the places that was largely built between the 1950s and the 1970s. In Essex, the county I live in, that period saw lots of ‘white flight’ movement of working class white families out of London and into these new build towns plonked down in the countryside (often based on a rapid build from the core of a very small existing hamlet or village). Back then, these towns were sold as an escape from squalor and urban conditions, as places where the moderately poor could obtain cheaper but better housing and fresh opportunities. My town had a car factory for these workers to find employment with, for example. One of the big selling points of these new towns was their modernity, but that was something of a poisoned chalice. Most of them were built according to 1950s and 1960s architectural design, which saw Britain enthusiastically embracing a ‘modern look’ which happened to be the same spectacularly ugly brutalism favoured by Communist regimes.
The town I live in became famous for its concrete ugliness, but it probably looked much nicer in the design drawings, which no doubt included lots of green spaces and not a hint of rubbish in the alleyways.
When I lived here as a child it was probably a 98 or 99% white demographic, and almost all of those would have been English descended rather than from newer immigrant arrivals. Today the school my children attend, which is quite a good school they seem happy at, nevertheless reflects massive demographic change. Only about a third of the pupils seem White British (our census and official designations rarely acknowledge English as an ethnic category). Another third are Eastern Europeans, usually from Poland or Romania. The final third are either Black British of 2nd or third generation here, black immigrants from places like Nigeria, or non white Muslims of Pakistani or other origin.
In the block of flats we live in, most of the occupants are not White British. The vast majority seem to be first or second generation immigrants, with a fairly even mix between Eastern Europeans, non white Muslims, Indians, and black people who are first or second generation immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean. I should say that all seem generally amicable when met in the lifts, although conversation and connection are rare. A few smiles and words with Indian families, and a few longer exchanges with an older white South African couple, represent the peak of neighbourliness and ‘community’ in the place where we have lived for nearly a decade.
In recent years the local council decided to accept payments from London councils in return for taking large numbers of relocated London residents, many of whom are either recent arrivals or identified long-term troublemakers. We have received an overspill of London’s permanent welfare receivers and London’s criminals, just as London receives the overspill of the entire globe. We have especially seen a large number of young black people with existing criminal records moved into our town. The effect has been as obvious as the policy.
Yesterday, I witnessed my first ever black gang attack. A group of about fifteen black youths chased and attacked a fleeing black youth. All of them were wearing the same black hoodies almost as a uniform. Several had weapons and I saw a large baton or metal pole being used in the assault. It was the middle of the day and I had my two young children and my wife with me. It’s common now to see large gangs of black and white youths up to no good, and several times I have witnessed such groups running and laughing after destroying some property, stealing something, or no doubt hurting someone else. This was the first attack I’ve witnessed fairly close, but it probably won’t be the last.
In my flats, which sell for a large amount of money, we have had youths repeatedly breaking in. Our concierge received death threats from two different sources, one a gypsie armed robbery gang who were using two of the flats as a base, one a group of kids who enjoyed breaking into the building and playing games like letting off all the extinguishers and damaging peoples cars or stealing their bikes. The kid who pulled a knife on our concierge was known to the police and received the offer, as punishment, of voluntary anger management classes, whilst the concierge was sternly reprimanded for grabbing the collar of and pushing away one of the gang of youths threatening to kill him. People pissing in the stairwells, the stench of pot, and the exchanges between obvious drug dealers and their clients are now pretty commonplace.
Walk through the town centre at any time and you will now spot homeless people. We don’t have a tent city, but we are talking about a place that it was once very rare to see rubbish on the streets or tramps in the doorways. A significant proportion of the white population seem to be addicts or alcoholics, and a significant proportion of the youth of all races exhibit gang and criminal behaviour. Rubbish is collected less frequently, and more frequently seen scattered around. In my building people dump all sorts of stuff, although this runs alongside the council issuing ever more severe ‘green’ instructions to council tax payers. Where my in laws live there are streets with many occupants who are on long term welfare, both native white residents and recent immigrants, some of whom have obvious mental health problems. Several of these will dump car parts, broken furniture, soiled bed mattresses and similar junk in the street with the expectation that someone else will deal with it, so that drifting bite of rubbish or very large items of rotting junk are a frequent sight.
And this isn’t a particularly bad town. It was a town that had a joking reputation as a bit of a dump, but it wasn’t severely deprived and it wasn’t extremely dangerous. It wasn’t East LA and we don’t hear gun battles out the window. But we do get rapes in the local park, and gangs of kids beating the shit out of another kid for no apparent reason. And it is getting worse.
Just the way the globalists want it.
The question, of course, then becomes why they want it. Why is everywhere that globalists rule becoming like this, becoming more like the worst parts of inner cities? I don’t think it is just because they want open borders for cheap foreign labour. Many of the people they invite in will never, ever work in a non criminal sense. It’s not purely that they hate us and want to worsen our lives, although I think we underestimate how much this is a genuine factor.
It is that beating us into shape, or rather beating the world into a shape where the First World and the Third World are indistinguishable, where they exist on an economic and cultural parity which eases globalist rule over both and the initiation of an overarching authority defined by transnational bodies and corporatist interests. The welcomed crisis will create the conditions of accepting any solution, including ultimately the shedding of any inherited hesitation in giving globalist authority the complete power they crave.
It helps that they hate us, it certainly ensures that they never hesitate in encouraging crime, squalor and decline, but the intent behind the malignancy is for greater and ineradicable power. As with Covid, so with any other crisis, including crime. It necessitates, according to them, ever greater control.
Daniel Jupp is a populist writer from Essex, England. His latest book is “Gates of Hell: Why Bill Gates is the Most Dangerous Man in the World.” Daniel’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.