Repost from American Thinker.
As a member of the U.S. government’s security apparatus, I have witnessed a level of groupthink that would shock even the most accredited academics associated with the leading internationalist think tanks. As the professional class of international relations thinkers and their elitist dopamine peddlers in mainstream media continue launching their crusade against the so-called threat of populism, the people are again being actively pushed out of foreign and domestic policy. The boogieman-version of populism that is being thrust upon cable news viewers is not entirely accurate. This misconstrued definition in the modern American lexicon purports that populism is synonymous with authoritarian strongmen who intend to push nativist policies inherently referred to as racist.
But at its core, populism is concerned with the people and attending to the ordinary citizens of a nation, regardless of race and ethnicity, by giving them a voice in their respective societies. The authoritarian context has been married to the term through a series of foreign demagogues who have utilized the façade of populist policies to gain momentum for their own political gains. There is no shortage of names on the list of offenders, and there is no real purpose to go through them but to highlight that this concept has been hijacked by the global internationalist class as a window to achieve their own personal gain. Most ironically, the left has decided to label modern conservatism as a breeding ground for populist ideas; and I believe this to be a badge of honor that conservatives must take up with pride. Clearly, leftist elitists still believe that their globalist-centered policies have created positive change by trying to remake the world in their own image. Let us take a brief moment to review the fruits of the left’s endeavors.
From the time of the United States’ unipolar moment in the 1990s until the present, the idea of globalization and U.S. economic and militaristic dominance became synonymous and interchangeable terms. The elitists hoped to create supply chain diversity and free markets which, in turn, forced societies to live more harmoniously as they were all interconnected. We can see that the only real positive change had eventually benefitted the corporate class who now had free reign in shaping the rules of the road and playing by their own rules. The common people were left behind, failing to adapt to the vertical integration of society that came with globalization. No longer were the Democrats concerned about projecting the idea that they were fighting on behalf of the working class. No longer were they concerned about First Amendment issues. In fact, the Democrats, who purported to be the party of anti-trust, had ultimately facilitated the growth of tech oligarchies into unimaginable monopolistic empires that censored First Amendment protected speech as a result of their incessant desires to obtain capital for their re-election campaigns. Again, the people were left out of these conversations entirely.