President Trump vs. NATO Atlanticism and the Globalist Carbon Cult

Trump is making all the right people mad, for all the right reasons

President Donald Trump received a slew of fantastic endorsements last week. I don’t mean his landmark victory at the Iowa Caucus. I’m referring to the verbal retching coming from the worst Davos devils swarming around the annual World Economic Forum. They were all vocal about the thought of a second Trump term striking fear in their hearts. It’s vitally important to understand exactly why that is.

Christine Lagarde

“This is obviously a threat.”

Christine Lagarde is the President of the European Central Bank and was previously the managing director of the International Monetary Fund from 2011-2019. On January 11, 2024, just ahead of the World Economic Forum at Davos, Lagarde was interviewed on the French news station L’Événement and spoke candidly about her fear of a second Trump term.

“This is obviously a threat,” she says, then lists off her three top reasons why she thinks Trump is a threat: “Just look at the trade tariffs, just look at the commitment to NATO service, just look at the fight against climate change.” What all of these items boil down to, is war, whether it’s military conflict with other nations or economic warfare on the average citizen via “climate change” austerity, Lagarde and the institutions she represents are hungry for war, and Trump refuses to play ball. 

Philipp Hildebrand

“Certainly from a European perspective, from a kind of globalist, Atlanticist perspective, it’s of course a great concern.”

During an interview at the WEF last week, Philipp Hildebrand, vice chairman of BlackRock and former head of the Swiss central bank, echoed Lagarde directly. “Christine Lagarde talked about it the other day,” he stated, “Certainly from a European perspective, from a kind of globalist, Atlanticist perspective, it’s of course a great concern.”

Hildebrand has now said a little more of the quiet part out loud. Like Lagarde, he disparages Trump, but he takes it a step further, stating that from the globalist, Atlanticist perspective, a second Trump term is “a great concern.”

I’ve certainly heard many people decry (for good reason) the globalist agenda, but what, more importantly, is an Atlanticist? On paper, Atlanticism advocates for a close alliance between nations in Northern America and in Europe. It sounds warm and fuzzy, but has manifested for the past 70 years as the North Atlantic Council and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

For those who are not aware, NATO is a Cold War creation. At the close of WW2, after the Axis was defeated by the Allies, the forces of evil that orchestrated the whole thing had to reorganize and drive the Allies, namely Russia and America apart. In fact, a British general and the first secretary general of NATO, Hastings Ismay, famously stated that the purpose of the organization was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

What’s even less known is that NATO was an employment program for former WW2 Nazis. The chart below shows eight examples of Wehrmacht top brass that transitioned to NATO top brass at the close of WW2.

Al Gore

“I don’t want to see him re-nominated and re-elected.”

Former Vice President and acclaimed environmental propagandist Al Gore is not happy, and even seems to be in a bit of denial about an inevitable Trump return. During his interview at Davos last week, while being asked his opinion on a second Trump term, Gore spewed a lot of cope. He referred to the four times he ran a national campaign and how finicky the process can be. 

During Gore’s 2000 campaign for President, some blamed third party candidate and fellow environmentalist Ralph Nader for syphoning votes away from Gore, leading to a Bush presidency. In fact, current presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. was not shy about publicly announcing his concern. In a 2000 New York Times op-ed Kennedy wrote:

“Ralph Nader is my friend and hero, but his Green Party candidacy for the presidency could torpedo efforts to address the nation’s most important environmental challenges. The threat, of course, is that Mr. Nader’s candidacy could siphon votes from Al Gore, the environment’s most visible champion since Theodore Roosevelt, and lead to the election of George W. Bush. 

… a vote for Mr. Nader is a vote for Mr. Bush, and environmentalists who join his personal crusade risk marginalizing the conservation movement.”

Nader wrote specifically about RFK Jr. in his book Crashing the Party, claiming that his New York Times Op-Ed was full of lies, making him an effective bulldog for the corrupt DNC.

On August 10 came a Times op-ed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who leaped into the fray with his “no difference” premise. He is a very forgiving person when it comes to Democrats. Anyone who has heard his earlier tough criticisms of Clinton-Gore on environmental matters has to believe that appraisal. But for his op-ed, Mr. Kennedy did not check his facts. He quoted an erroneous statement attributed to me that, if forced to choose, I would vote for Bush over Gore in order to cause a backlash in the environment’s favor. Again, had he phoned (he called me a friend and mentor in his own column), he might have gotten the record straight.

Democratic presidential hopeful US Vice President Al Gore (L) speaks as environmental activist and lawyer Robert Kennedy Jr.(R) listens during a speech to the Iowa Earth Year 2000 conference in Des Moines, Iowa 21 January, 2000. Gore is scheduled to stay in Iowa campaigning until the 24 January, 2000 Iowa Caucus. (ELECTRONIC IMAGE) AFP PHOTO Luke FRAZZA (Photo by LUKE FRAZZA / AFP) (Photo by LUKE FRAZZA/AFP via Getty Images)

It’s very interesting to contrast this with RFK Jr’s current independent run for President in the year 2024. Perhaps when Gore says that “something tells me this may be a year of significant surprises,” he is alluding to a scheme he and his cohorts have baked up. Maybe they are attempting to Crash the Party with their own third party candidate this time around.

Yuval Harari

“It is likely to be the deathblow to what remains of the global order.”

Lagarde and Hildebrand are full-throated Atlanticists who, like Gore, are adherents to the Carbon Cult Austerity agenda. This is why they do not like Trump. It’s very cut and dry. Yuval Harari, an Israeli public intellectual and mascot of the WEF, who thinks the return of Trump would be “the deathblow of the global order” gives us more to consider.

Harari offers a concept: that politicians present us with a false binary of having to choose between patriotism and globalism; loyalty to nation or loyalty to “some kind of global government.” What he says is close to the truth, which makes it an effective lie.

The truth is that we should be both patriots of our nations and responsible internationalist global citizens. These items are not in contradiction, in fact, they are mutual requirements. Being a good neighbor extends beyond our own backyards. We are an interconnected global community and we must recognize the sovereignty of other peoples and their respective nations. Atlanticism pretends to be this. Globalism pretends to be this. But all we get from NATO Atlanticism and the Globalist Carbon Cult is military conflict, economic warfare and genocide.

The rhetoric behind Globalists and Atlancists can be hard to parse because it sounds reasonable, but they leave subtle clues to axioms which hint at the theoretical rot below the surface. Harari says:

[Some people] imagine the world as a network of friendly fortresses, like each nation will be a fortress with very high walls. Taking care of its own interests, but living on relatively friendly terms with the neighboring fortresses and trading with them and whatever. Now, the main problem with this vision is that fortresses are almost never friendly. Each fortress always wants a bit more land, a bit more prosperity, a bit more security for itself at the expense of the neighbors. And this is the high road to conflict and to walk into war.

The idea that prosperity can only happen at the expense of your neighbors is not true on the local level, why would it be true on the global level?

The implication is that prosperity is a limited resource; that we live in a Darwinist zero-sum game of survival. Harari affirms the Malthusian concept of Limits to Growth. It makes sense that people who accept this flawed maxim, would promote the idea of a centralized global government to control separate and sovereign-in-name-only nations. Kind of like how a prison keeps prisoners separate, rationed and tightly controlled so they don’t kill each other.

Harari and his ilk are willfully ignoring that this simply is not how the laws of reality work, and that the BRICS international economic relations are proving this point in real time. National sovereignty, mutual respect and win-win economic cooperation works at every level, from your backyard all the way up to the international community.

We do not live in the jungle. We can, and have, exponentially compounded levels of prosperity of our species as a whole throughout our history. We are not bound to laws like “survival of the fittest” — a concept beloved by NATO’s predecessor organization.

Donald Trump strikes fear in the hearts of people who want to continue down a doomed path of war, famine and genocide. That makes me a pretty big fan of Donald Trump at the moment, and gives me a lot of hope that our country can return to greatness, not only domestically, but internationally, we can Make America a Great Neighbor Again. The path to this, for now, is clear. We must:

Reject NATO Atlanticism, embrace BRICS + MAGA Multipolarity.

Support us

Your support helps bring more critical analysis to light.


Leave a Reply

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