A Global Power Struggle

A couple of weeks back I drew attention to a chilling tweet by ex-CIA director John Brennan in which he described Trump as “a temporary aberration”. And yesterday, unsurprisingly, Trump revoked Brennan’s security clearance. This brought another tweet from Brennan:

In fact it seems to be the friends of Trump who are having their freedom of speech suppressed. Over the past two weeks, Alex Jones’ Infowars has been banned from Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms. It’s not just Infowars. It seems that all conservative websites are getting squeezed. For example WND:

In the meantime, let me remind you that sites like WND are operating on borrowed time. Google and Facebook and the rest of the cartel are having their way with us. They’re killing us – softly but not slowly. Without direct financial support from people who recognize the unique service we provide in the ALT-NEWS category, we would be goners.

In the continuing power struggle that’s going on in the USA, Trump may have the Presidency, but the friends of John Brennan have got the mainstream media and the hi-tech companies in Silicon Valley. Who’s going to win?

In fact it’s more of a global power struggle than simply a US internal power struggle. The same sort of power struggles are going on inside the UK, and inside Europe, and most likely everywhere else as well.

And it’s a power struggle between Globalists and Populists. The Globalists are the world’s political elites, who meet up in at Bilderberg conferences and the UN and the EU, and make global plans for everyone. Worldwide smoking bans are a part of a comprehensive globalist project. And the abolition of national borders and the induction of large numbers of immigrants are another part of the top-down globalist project. These globalists are engaged in a revolutionary project to entirely remake the whole world.

The globalists seem to have been in complete control until recently. But, largely as a consequence of their clumsy measures, they’ve triggered a worldwide populist revolt. It’s a revolt that has seen the Brexit vote to leave the EU, and Americans vote to elect Donald Trump, and is likely to produce more shocks yet. Meanwhile the Globalists are trying to regain control, cancel Brexit, and remove Trump from office. Who’s going to win?

I see the whole thing from the perspective of an English smoker who was exiled to the outdoors over 10 years ago by one of the many globalist-driven smoking bans which have been enacted all over the world. I think these bans have been an example of overreach by the globalist political elites. I think they were a politically crass measure which guaranteed that angry smokers like me would become sworn enemies of the globalists. They’re treating ordinary people everywhere rather like, well,… the way George III treated his American Colonies: inconsiderately and high-handedly.   Or the way Louis XVI treated the French people. There seems to regularly come a point where the ruling political aristocracy loses touch with the common people, and they become opposed to each other. And that’s what’s happening again today.

And my guess is that the global populist revolt against globalism in Europe and the USA is only going to strengthen. Too many people have been trampled upon in too many ways. I expect to see more and more populist governments being elected (as recently happened in Italy) by the increasingly angry peoples of Europe, who have no wish to see their nations and cultures dismantled. I can see a time coming when most of the nations of Europe will have elected populist governments, and their former globalist political aristocracies will have been ousted.

And because I see smoking bans as part of a globalist project, it seems to me that the collapse of the globalist project is likely to see the repeal of smoking bans in the newly populist-controlled nations. And the smoking bans which rolled in a tidal wave all around the world will start being revoked one by one, first in one country, then in another. Which will be the first EU member state to repeal its smoking ban? Italy? France? Once the tidal wave of smoking bans starts to roll back, one country after another will be falling over each other to revoke them, just like they fell over themselves to impose them in the first place.

The only real puzzle for me is that smoking bans, which are perhaps the prime example of high-handed, top-down control by a globalist political elite, are never identified – even by populists – as one of the innumerable things they’re all revolting against. Donald Trump doesn’t mention them. Nigel Farage doesn’t mention them. Marine Le Pen  doesn’t mention them. Alex Jones doesn’t mention them. Michael Savage doesn’t mention them.  And Jordan Peterson doesn’t mention them. They’ll talk at great length about borders and language and culture, and more or less anything else. But never smoking. Yet as far as I’m concerned, it’s the elephant in the room: for me it’s the only thing that matters. It’s very strange, this silence of theirs.

Perhaps it will change. People tend to all talk about the same thing at the same time. And they can suddenly start talking about something else. So maybe one day I’ll wake up and find that everyone’s talking about smoking bans just like they all started talking about global warming or transgender bathrooms or Islam, which were all things they never talked about before.

Anyway, for now, they’re talking about other things. And everything is shaking and shuddering as a global power struggle takes place, with no clear winner yet to emerge.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to A Global Power Struggle

  1. Joe L. says:

    A bit off-topic: Today, the quango known as the American Cancer Society (ACS) publicized results of a new study claiming that secondhand smoke is correlated with heart disease, stroke and COPD (ironically, however, apparently not with their namesake, cancer, as it conspicuously receives no mention whatsoever here):

    Childhood exposure to secondhand smoke may increase risk of adult lung disease death

    Those who reported having lived with a daily smoker throughout their childhood had 31% higher mortality from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease compared to those who did not live with a smoker. In a calculation done for this release, Diver says the increase in COPD mortality corresponds to about 7 additional deaths per year per 100,000 never-smoking study participants. Although the study counted only deaths, the increase in fatal COPD implies that living with a smoker during childhood could also increase risk of non-fatal COPD.

    In addition, secondhand smoke exposure (10 or more hours/week) as an adult was associated with a 9% higher risk of all-cause mortality, a 27% higher risk of death from ischemic heart disease, a 23% higher risk of death from stroke, and a 42% higher risk of death from COPD.

    For those keeping score, this amounts to relative risk (RR) figures of 1.31, 1.09, 1.27, 1.23 and 1.42 for those exposed to SHS. All of these values are under 2.00, and thus are considered by the field epidemiology to be statistically insignificant (mind you, some epidemiologists consider any RR under 3.00 to be statistically insignificant). Thus, like pretty much every SHS study that came before it, this study also failed to present a statistically-significant positive correlation between SHS and disease. However, this didn’t stop the ACS from peddling these results to the media as if they are somehow meaningful.

    Deceitfulness aside, one has to ask why the American Cancer Society is wasting money to fund studies which look into the relationship between smoking and a number of diseases except cancer? I believe the answer is clear: the American Cancer Society has become nothing more than an Antismoking lobby group, more concerned with eridicating the world of smoking than eradicating the world of cancer.

    • Rose says:

      For the past three days I have had a very stiff and painful muscle on the right side of my back, which got so bad I started walking crabwise , but it wasn’t due to the fact that I’d been chipping cemented bricks apart with a lump hammer and very large chisel for the four days before that, no, it’s clearly because I was wearing big boots at the time.

      Correlation is now causation it seems.

    • waltc says:

      Slight amendment: something can be statistically significant at, say, 1.27 (if the confidence level is 95%–as opposed to the 1992 EPA’s 90%) but anything under 2.0 or, better, 3.0 and some say 4.0 is considered to be–in the words of one epidemiologist– mere “statistical static,” likely to be the result of confounding and nothing that merits that label of “causal.”

      On topic: Even if the “populists” take over the government by democratic vote, the political elites would still have the media and academia and entrenched buteaucracies (aka, the swamp) on tneir side, using all the tools of propaganda and demagoguery to browbeat the people and every trick of law to try to depose the new elected leaders and populist ideas. Look what’s happened with Brexit, what’s happening with Trump, which includes efforts by federal law enforcement to indict him, talk of impeaching him, talk of eradicating the Electoral College, and the rousing of rabble to riot, often violently, in the streets.

      And not btw, the constitution guarantees the right to “peaceably assemble” but the local governments pretend it allows for smashing windows, burning cars, baseball-bat carrying by masked thugs, blocking traffic, and setting up long term squalid camps. Hardly praceable.

      • Joe L. says:

        From a purely mathematical standpoint, even a RR of 1.09 with a CI of 95% would be considered statistically significant, because the null value lies outside the CI. As you mentioned, however, the world of epidemiology generally regards all RRs < 2.0 (or 3.0 or even 4.0, depending on who you ask) as statistically insignificant due to the typical amount of statistical "noise" they encounter from confounding variables in their field. Therefore, the definition of "statistical significance" differs between the fields of mathematics and epidemiology.

  2. Smoking Lamp says:

    On COPD: “The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.” and “The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and morbidity in persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.”
    From: The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Office on Smoking and Health (US). Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US); 2006.

  3. smokingscot says:

    I agree it’s very likely that we’ll see a greater willingness by voters to give their “populist” (or alternative) parties a shot at government.

    I believe the Italians were so sick fed up with the same people bobbing up like some parody of musical chairs that they gave 5 Star a mandate that allowed them to help form their current coalition. And this awful scandal with the bridge collapse as well as the state of something like another 20 of the things has shown they made the correct choice.

    You may not have picked up on the recent survey where Vienna overtook Melbourne as the most pleasant place to live in.


    Now ain’t that a kick in the gonads to all those terribly upset people who claim it’s now the ashtray of Europe because they refused to force business and property owners to ban smoking in their premises.

    On the other hand I believe the Greeks thought Syriza might be able to navigate a way to end all their financial and social woes. It’s a hard left party but there was a twist:


    “While SYRIZA won a plurality, it lacked the parliamentary majority necessary to form a government. Its solution was to ally with the far-right ANEL, forming an unusual left-right coalition government united in its populist sentiment. (It was as if Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders decided to govern together.) The time had come to turn promises into policy.”

    Yes they head the coalition, but it’s no marriage made in heaven and the social effects are absolutely horrid with abject poverty, colossal youth unemployment and a brain drain that’ll take several decades to sort out.

    Okay, so Greeks don’t much care for their smoking ban and it’s only being reasonably well enforced in the tourist areas of the country (and even then only in high season), but Syriza hasn’t repealed their smoking ban, all they’ve done is not enforced it very rigorously.

    But what the heck, the underlying thrust of your post is what it’s all about and IMO us lot, the pissed off smoker, will almost certainly be up there when it comes to booting out the old order For sure their alternates may not always be able able to deliver (we tried that ourselves when we managed to get two BNP people elected to represent us in the EU. They were inept bigots and we’ve dumped the party), but that goes with the territory: just get the old order out.

    With Trump I go on what the bookies say – and it seems 58% of all bets so far are in favour of Trump getting a second term in office.


    Reason is if so many people stand to win if he gets a second term, then they’ll jolly well vote to make it happen!

  4. jaxthefirst says:

    Just as an aside, as a FORMER director of the CIA, how come Brennan still had his security clearance. Surely, the moment he was no longer director, he should no longer have had the same access as when he was in the job?

    • Mark Jarratt, Canberra, Australia says:

      True Jaxthefirst – although in practice the INT community of insiders operate a revolving door, often going straight to lucrative government consulting contracts. The ‘devil you know’ former high level clearance holders can retain the clearance if needed for contract and project work, which can continue for years. I am reliably informed that being a ‘spook’ is like staying at the Hotel California, you can check out any time you want, but you can never leave.

      That said, for a President of the U.S. to personally revoke an individual security clearance is at the least highly questionable interference in a relatively routine lower order personnel security management issue, which should never need to go within a bull’s roar of a head of state and government. It is a truism that seniority and length of service are no bar to poor, negligent or deliberately destructive security attitudes and conduct, to paraphrase Justice Robert Hope (Royal Commission into Australian National Security, 1974 – little has changed). Doctors bury their mistakes, politicians claim national security. 🗣

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.