The Illusion of Cooperative Globalism By James Reed

     Thanks to Lou for emailing me this little item to keep my already exploding blood pressure high. The globalists are dead worried about a fall in global growth and all that. But, why worry, since they already have infinite wealth created at the gentle stoke of computer keys through the magic of credit creation, so they will always have plenty of baked beans in the cupboard, to flavour the smoked salmon and caviar.
  https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/imf-forecasts-global-growth-at-decade-low/news-story/1594642ff4b03b5b54656cfd9eaf1a73

     Here is the global foundation, pondering how bright the future for globalism will be:
  http://globalfoundation.org.au/co-operative-globalisation-conversations-with-two-of-australias-finest/

“Scepticism about the influence of open markets is prevalent across the Western world, at least, on both the left and right of politics.  Business and finance, which should be a leader, is now often seen as a villain.
Economies are ‘ok’ but not as good as people expect.  Recovery is slow, hesitant, faltering. The last decade was abnormal – uniquely prosperous, stable but with fragile foundations.  Monetary policy may have reached the point of exhaustion.  At the same time, many nations are also close to their fiscal limits. It is hard to see how it ends well. Standard tools have been deployed to their limit, yet what are the new tools that may need to be invented and deployed? Retreat from globalisation? There is real danger of a retreat from globalisation, which would be damaging and dangerous – hundreds of millions of people have been given access to markets and have improved their living standards as a result. This would constitute a tragedy of epochal proportions if ‘turned off’. Political processes (in much of the Western world, at least) have changed. There is no longer a broad consensus, within and between nations. Inequality is, in some instances, at record levels and community trust is weak. At the same time, much debate about economics is superficial, characterised by ‘faux outrage’ about so-called ‘unfairness’. Yet, if economic circumstances worsen, then very tough discussions and decisions will have to follow.

Large, underlying issues fail to be adequately addressed. What are we going to do for work, in the near future? Will we live more modular existences, rather than being occupied and remunerated for usual and enduring employment?   Emotional intelligence is a vital skill, alongside more technical capabilities. How will this be encouraged? At the same time, the role of traditional media as an interlocutor between those who govern and the governed is under threat, with content creation and knowledge gathering suffering at the hands of new media aggregators and distributors of information. How are issues being seriously communicated and considered?
Limits to role of G20, beyond talk. Official inter-governmental fora are now less effective, almost to the point of irrelevance. How will agreement otherwise be reached, if not led by governments? The need to encourage new forms of interaction, not limited to or necessarily led by governments, was emphasised, as was the need to fully embrace newly emerged and emerging nations in this re-design. In framing the issue of how would China move, or be allowed to move, to a status equal with that of the United States, one view was that ‘China will define itself partly by how others see it.’ On the other hand, China’s international actions in lesser developed nations were producing forms of resentment.

Ethics and restraint
We need a form of dialect and dialogue, language that works and that ‘meets the moment’. How do we address multiple and complex issues such as digitisation, secularisation, the era of post-mass materialism, and the rise of nationalism and hostility? The centrality of values was common to both discussions, as was the need to re-introduce ethics and restraint.

The Foundation and its global convening role – the Rome Roundtable #2
The notion of encouraging honest dialogue, at the Foundation’s annual Rome Roundtable, which enables the intersection of multiple perspectives – of community, business, faiths, governments – was warmly welcomed and encouraged. Our Foundation intention, of being a genuine market-place of ideas, of searching for common language, around fuzzy concepts such as ‘moving from the liquid to the social economy’, was seen as ‘hopeful and virtuous, as distinct from those who distribute latent dissatisfaction’. The importance was emphasised, of remaining grounded in seeking to encourage multiple ‘bottom-up’ solutions, not only in imposing ‘top-down’ outcomes in a world awash in a tsunami of often conflicting ideas.”

     It is all alien-speak, super-capitalist stuff that exists in a dimension untouched by the misery that globalism has created for us deplorables, the little people. That is why, in the US, people voted for Trump, wanting to send a message to these elites. On a non-economic note, but still bashing globalism, it seems shown now that Chris Columbus’ men must have been busy in South America, since syphilis, previously unknown in Europe, reared its ugly head once his band of merry, but maybe not gay, men got back to Europe from “discovering” South America, which is starting to look a bit like a sex tour.
  https://www.livescience.com/17643-columbus-introduced-syphilis-europe.html?fbclid=IwAR0AC2YeKvILSY3tDC1uSC_Imuw8jKz7OcF_4Yhs2G8H3WHLbs9ChDVvZ5U

“The fact that syphilis is a stigmatized sexually transmitted disease has added to the controversy over its origins. People often seem to want to blame some other country for it, said researcher Kristin Harper, an evolutionary biologist at Emory. [Top 10 Stigmatized Health Disorders] Armelagos originally doubted the so-called Columbian theory for syphilis when he first heard about it decades ago. "I laughed at the idea that a small group of sailors brought back this disease that caused this major European epidemic," he recalled. Critics of the Columbian theory have proposed that syphilis had always bedeviled the Old World but simply had not been set apart from other rotting diseases such as leprosy until 1500 or so. However, upon further investigation, Armelagos and his colleagues got a shock — all of the available evidence they found supported the Columbian theory, findings they published in 1988. "It was a paradigm shift," Armelagos says. Then in 2008, genetic analysis by Armelagos and his collaborators of syphilis's family of bacteria lent further support to the theory. Still, there have been reports of 50 skeletons from Europe dating back from before Columbus set sail that apparently showed the lesions of chronic syphilis. These seemed to be evidence that syphilis originated in the Old World and that Columbus was not to blame.

Armelagos and his colleagues took a closer look at all the data from these prior reports. They found most of the skeletal material didn't actually meet at least one of the standard diagnostic criteria for chronic syphilis, such as pitting on the skull, known as caries sicca, and pitting and swelling of the long bones. "There's no really good evidence of a syphilis case before 1492 in Europe," Armelagos told LiveScience. In the seafood? The 16 reports that did meet the criteria for syphilis came from coastal regions where seafood was a large part of the diet. This seafood contains "old carbon" from deep, upwelling ocean waters. As such, they might fall prey to the so-called "marine reservoir effect" that can throw off radiocarbon dating of a skeleton by hundreds or even thousands of years. To adjust for this effect, the researchers figured out the amount of seafood these individuals ate when alive. Since our bodies constantly break down and rebuild our bones, measurements of bone-collagen protein can provide a record of diet. "Once we adjusted for the marine signature, all of the skeletons that showed definite signs of treponemal disease appeared to be dated to after Columbus returned to Europe," Harper said, findings detailed in the current Yearbook of Physical Anthropology.

"What it really shows to me is that globalization of disease is not a modern condition," Armelagos said. "In 1492, you had the transmission of a number of diseases from Europe that decimated Native Americans, and you also had disease from Native Americans to Europe." "The lesson we can learn for today from history is that these epidemics are the result of unrest," Armelagos added. "With syphilis, wars were going on in Europe at the time, and all the turmoil set the stage for the disease. Nowadays, a lot of diseases jump the species barrier due to environmental unrest."”    

     The globalisation of disease is but one of the many negative faces of a global world, and one that today threatens to destroy millions, when, not if, the next pandemic erupts, bringing down the fragile money order that the men in the slimy grey suits have created.
  https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/19/20872366/global-pandemic-prevention-who-world-bank-report

““There is a very real threat of a rapidly moving, highly lethal pandemic of a respiratory pathogen killing 50 to 80 million people.” That’s from the opening paragraph of a major new report on our current state of pandemic preparedness. It doesn’t get much more optimistic from there. This is the first annual report authored by the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, an independent panel of experts convened by the World Bank and the World Health Organization “to provide the most frank assessments and recommendations possible.” They very frankly warn that the risk of a global pandemic is growing. The next big one to hit us could be naturally occurring, deliberately created, or accidentally released. Although we’ve got new vaccines and drugs that previous generations didn’t have access to, we’ve also got new developments working against us. Scientific advances have made it possible for disease-causing microorganisms to be engineered or recreated in labs, or to escape labs when explosions and other accidents occur. Our robust transportation infrastructure makes it easy for travelers to pick up a disease in one country, fly across an ocean, and spread the disease to another country within hours. Increased urbanization and population growth also exacerbate the spread of disease. And then there’s climate change, which causes natural disasters that strain national health systems, weakening their ability to efficiently respond to outbreaks.

Global warming is also expanding mosquito habitats, which means we’ll likely be seeing more mosquito-borne illnesses like Zika, dengue, and yellow fever — including in the US and Europe. The convergence of these trends is making us all more susceptible to what the report calls “global catastrophic biological risks.” We’re not prepared to handle them. To change that, the report states, we need to act decisively now. But there’s a lack of political will to do that. We need leaders to care about pandemics. That means we need to care, too. National leaders tend to respond to health crises only when the public expresses enough panic. Unfortunately, we’ve got a habit of paying attention to pandemics only when they’re actually upon us. “For too long, we have allowed a cycle of panic and neglect when it comes to pandemics: we ramp up efforts when there is a serious threat, then quickly forget about them when the threat subsides,” the report says. Our current approach is like waiting to fix a giant hole in your roof until a storm cloud actually breaks and rain starts pouring in. But in 2019, we really can’t afford to do that: The world is so interconnected that storm clouds are coming at us from all directions.”

     But the point remains that there is very little that can be done with open borders, as pandemic disease will strike and kill before the health authorities have finished their morning soy milk.