7 min 4 sec

New Australian Bulletin is officially an anti-Semitic site now that we’ve confirmed using the term “globalist” is deemed “anti-Semitic.” We couldn’t (or rather won’t) count how often we’ve employed the term in the course of our work, but it’s lots.

For every instance that we’ve opted to use that word in our copy, the soul of one of the dead 16 million Holocaust victims writhes in spiritual turmoil and an AJC spy jots it down for mention on the day of reckoning. Are we ashamed? No, as it’s another headscratcher in an unending onslaught of mind-buggering attacks on our language by “globalist” forces in the endless culture wars.

The word describes a person who ‘advocates the interpretation of planning of economic and foreign policy about events and developments throughout the world.’ To the Jews, it reasonably follows that this is a Semitic perspective on the world. And, funnily enough, it does, but is that just a coincidence?

But it’s never been a shorthand slur for a Jew, such as Kike, Yid, Christ-killer, Heebie, Hooknose, Sheeny, (((Skype))), Red Sea Pedestrian, Nazi-Coal, Mengler Meat, SS Soap, Shylock, Buckenwald’s Burden, Hymie, Human Lampshade, Money Changer, Shekel Spinner, Bagel Biter, etc.

— OK, so we made up some of those; it’s easy when your juices are flowing. However, the point is, how do “globalists” become anti-Semitic unless the whole concept of globalism is, indeed, reminiscent of the Kalergi plan? That’s like an own goal on their part since it was never immediately assumed that globalists were integrally a Zionist phenomenon so much as the logical extent of corporate hegemony and rampant Western liberalism that has gone awry. But now we’ll have to take their word for it because they just pre-emptively protested the point.

In actuality, it is a cynical attempt to once again manipulate words into political tools. By stigmatizing the word, globalists have acknowledged it’s now a pejorative. By rote, this demonstrates that a sufficient number of those attempting to engage in an international cultural dialogue adjudge globalism to be harmful to the interests of individual global units. The goals of globalism are being disparaged so by restricting the word’s use the conversation pivots and stumbles as a signifier.

Once upon a time, the word was spouted proudly by the advocates of this Neoconservative doctrine. Right there is the giveaway since the idea of a globalised world is based inherently on capitalist market principles and, lately, on disinheriting (White) countries to facilitate their deculturization and takeover.

The American Jewish Committee (AJC) very much considers globalism to be an anti-Semitic slur. On its website they write:

“Much like dual loyalty, Globalist is used to promote the antisemitic conspiracy that Jewish people do not have allegiance to their countries of origin, like the United States, but some worldwide order—like a global economy or international political system—that will enhance their control over the world’s banks, governments and media.”

To be honest, that sounds like a perfectly accurate description of Jews. Take Australia, for instance: rather than humbly assimilating to dispel this type of criticism, they’re at the forefront of promoting multi-racialism and doubling down on already existent anti-discrimination laws to penalise critics of both them and Israel. If they don’t like the swastika, they lobby to have it banned (and they have, so that’s a fact, at least in NSW and Vic).

A Jew [and a Liberal at that] was pivotal to the creation of Australian multiculturalism. The “Father of Australian Multiculturalism” is cited as Polish-born Jerzy Zubrzycki, a forceful proponent of Jews and multiculturalism in Australia. Along with his cohort Walter Lippmann, these two Jewish men are the architects of the Babylonian nation that Australia is today.

From the 1950s onwards there were those plotting to multi-racialize Australia. All these elements drifted together by varying degrees. Ironically, the party that harboured those most open to the concept were the Liberals. Zubrzycki contrived the pet projects of ‘humanitarians,’ like the Aboriginal advocate William Wentworth. Forming a society to usefully attach itself to the Liberals, Zubrzycki and others from the boiling pot of Eastern European communities coalesced around anti-communism. To all of these people, the idea of a White Australia was abhorrent, which is why the far-right diverged into disparate factions.

But the AJC goes on:

“The idea of a Jewish Globalist was embedded in the core ideology of Nazism. Hitler often portrayed Jews as “international elements” who “conduct their business everywhere,” posing a threat to all people who are “bounded to their soil, to the Fatherland.”

Again, that’s generally speaking accurate, although we’re not suggesting that being Jewish automatically makes a person genetically wired to such conduct; it’s just that the representative numbers bolster the contention that Jews are well represented among those who do so. Academic inquiry into this phenomenon is impossible due to the stifling taboo around investigating anything related to Jews in any way likely to be conceived as critical.

“Today, Globalist is a coded word for Jews who are seen as international elites conspiring to weaken or dismantle “Western” society using their international connections and control over big corporations—all echoing the destructive theories that Jews hold greed and tribe above country.”

In other words, you can’t criticise globalism—or at any rate, refer to ‘globalists’—as this is a hate crime. That’s nicely played, but it won’t wash. Because whether or not the ideas behind globalism were generated by Jews is beside the point. It’s become international Western policy and Hitler’s words ring true; those “bounded to their soil, to their fatherland” are in the crosshairs of the establishment in all the elite-controlled Western nations. Our culture and heritage are being systematically torn down in the name of inclusivity, and outspoken Jews crow about it in the media.

Globalism, whether it’s Jewish or not, is becoming the hated enemy. If Jews wish to tie themselves to the tag with such an imprecise strategy, then let them do it, since it serves as a confession. ■