6,062 words. Reading Time ~28 minutes (if no out-links clicked).
In today’s shriek-o-meter, ‘fake-book’ environment, Outsourcing qualifies as one of those habitually misapplied terms, which when used without qualification confuses or misleads more than it enlightens. The basic concept for which emerged from the American Glossary ‘outside resourcing’, back in circa 1981.
As an interesting dot-joining exercise, realize that 1981-82 corresponds with the approximate beginning of the West’s great embrace of “Financialization”; a transformation that finally blossomed with the City of London’s “Big Bang”: a “game changing” financial event that was officially launched (brought onstream) during October 1986.
Outsourcing is an ambivalent verb with very disruptive implications. The first essential clarification is that Outsourcing does not mean or necessarily imply Offshoring. These are two very different practices. For example, any company (big or small) could outsource a task to an individual (a specialist) or to a privately owned company, located just a short taxi ride away, or even in an adjacent building. Whereas Offshoring represents just one (significant) expression of how Outsourcing can be organized in accordance with a Globalist’s doctrine; one that necessarily involves resource reallocation, international trade, and foreign exchanges.
While we can rightly describe the relocation of manufacturing capacity from the USA and Europe to China as “offshoring”, this author would still prefer to use more descriptive labels. One suggestion is simply “technological transfer”, while another is “capacity relocation”. A third, and more cynical label would be “labor arbitrage”. I concede that many could be tempted to describe these less ‘catchy’ labels as pedantic.
Certainly it would be more meaningful to limit the use of the term “Offshoring” to when Outsourcing contracts are actually awarded to international (i.e., foreign) as opposed to domestic bidders, although this author acknowledges such a distinction could be easily circumvented. For example, some of India’s more significant outsourcing companies are already planning to open facilities on North American soil in response to 2016-17 MAGA Policy rumblings from the Trump Administration.
Certain building blocks had to be laid down well before outsourcing (followed by offshoring) could become a reality. Both practices have gained massive traction since the late 1990s: thanks in part to the pseudo-scare surrounding the rogue and mythical “Y2K Bug”, which was handled mostly by Indian (“with a Dot”) ‘techies’.
Whenever highly disruptive practices gain rapid acceptance, the “Golden Rule” says we must search for some advocate’s or participant’s profit motive. There is no question that both outsourcing and offshoring have excessively profited a relatively small number of individuals and organizations, while turning many more others (or even entire geographical regions) into de facto destitutes.
In short, this Blog Article overviews the development and evolution of outsourcing (as a basic concept). Along the way outsourcing’s philosophical and political justifications will also be examined. Resulting trade and job-skill distortions will also be addressed (although not adequately enough) by specific parts of this already lengthy Blog post. Thoughtful Reader Comments are welcome, as these could help flesh out WriterFX’s original analysis significantly.
A Slow Gestation
Outsourcing would be conceptually impossible without the work of Dr. Peter Drucker (DOB 19 November 1909). Dubbed the “father of modern management”, the Austrian-born (i.e., Jewish) Drucker rose to prominence during the 1980s and 1990s. Helped by the Wall Street Journal, and enthusiastic publishing houses, his widely dispersed writings probably did most to conjure up some philosophical and practical foundations for the modern business corporation; which by definition is actually an abstract entity whose only authentic liability is to its shareholders.
The foundations for Peter Drucker’a many business management ideas were laid down through those writings published from 1954 to 1967. His 1954 title, The Practice of Management was the first book to analyze and describe the entirety of management. This first of its kind book has been attributed with creating the discipline of modern management practice. It remains to this day a recognized ‘classic’ and educational reference.
Drucker then spent the next 35 years clarifying his thoughts and expanding his scope as (Anglo-American) corporate business ‘matured’ around those (his) early ideas. They were tweaked as their dissemination grew, and as businesses (corporations especially) increasingly experimented with them. We have all heard of Indian Gurus and their dedicated followings; it would appear Peter Drucker achieved a similar Guru-like status among both senior business ‘leaders’ (I used this word with hesitation) and academics alike.
Drucker did not ‘invent’ outsourcing, but he most certainly laid the intellectual foundations for its acceptance and establishment. He repeatedly intoned that companies should focus on their “core competences”. Drucker’s futuristic-sounding mantra was “do what you do best while outsourcing the rest”. A now internationally recognized business tagline first popularized during the 1990s.
Prior to the 1980s, any and every company of significant size maintained special in-house training programs (e.g., Apprenticeships, Internments, etc.) in order to build a skills pool from scratch using fresh school-leavers or college graduates. That was the career path motivating young Europeans and North Americans to study for and take tough academic training and examinations. But since the advent of “financialization” and monetarism during the 1980s, the new normal has been for companies registered with the NYSE, NASDAQ, LSE, and TSE/TYO to shop for skills in an ever more globalized marketplace. And to hell with the inevitable societal consequences in all afflicted Western nations.
As I illustrate in my book Outsourced World: Seducing Goddess Durga During the Clinton Era, the training and employment model that the World Trade Organization quietly introduced to replace the social compact of the previous 100 years, gets interpreted very differently, in accordance with the geographic location (or racial identity) of those being ‘sourced’.
In other words globalization is inherently “racist”, no matter what your average Liberal or Socialist activist will attempt to claim otherwise. Useful idiots all. But globalism’s racism flows in the polar-opposite direction to the one (still being) aggressively attributed to Germany’s Third Reich: a natural Germanic inclination that some have succeeded in criminalizing for numerous and specific instances.
There are no level playing fields. Candidates from the so-called “Third World” being recruited for assignments in Western nations are nearly always offered generous migrant or naturalization benefits in addition to gainful employment and relatively secure career paths: including subsidized or even free training. I have seen this with my own eyes so I have no need to quote any media analysis or academic surveys here.
In stark contrast, any candidates from the West that have been sourced to fill assignments in the so-called economic ‘south’ or ‘east’ are given fixed term contracts, zero training, and no rights of abode. The small print on these contracts nearly always demands speedy repatriation just as soon as the work assignment is complete or their position terminated (often for the flimsiest of reasons). And for all Westerners assigned overseas, penalties for overstaying on foreign soil following a bone fide employment contract can be very severe, with little or no right of appeal. Again, this lies in stark contrast to the many pseudo-legal protections routinely offered most persons entering the West from the so-called “Third World” … with or without employment.
Furthermore, invisible small print on the same contract can also demand — it certainly did during the 1990 to 2008 period, as I found to my cost — that the Westerner teach or train someone (i.e., person or persons) from the “Third World” without any guarantees of his or her own future employment, and without any additional compensation.
In fact this cruel and cynical practice was being used by Saudi Arabia’s ARAMCO as long ago as the 1980s when competent British secretaries and nurses were being ‘forced’ to train their future replacements from the Philippines. I know about this because I was working for ARAMCO at the time, and had a Filipina girlfriend. If you read my book you will get a more complete picture.
Published in 1967, Drucker’s “The Effective Executive” describes how business structures within the [corporate] organization would have to be optimized in order to assist the expanding capacity of computers to analyze massive amounts of data, and then reflect the results of that analysis, subsequent their departmental or process reorganization.
What we now know as “outsourcing” derives from Drucker’s use (and popularization) of “front room” and “back room” business processes. Whereupon a “business process” is a repetitive series of activities with a distinctive start and ending, occurring within the confines of a specific company, and which leads to a specific or predictable result. A “result” could be a physical component, another processed subset of data, or perhaps an inspection (QA/QC) of some other process.
In several different ways Drucker argued that company’s seeking success should only engage in “front room” activities: meaning those that are critical to supporting or satisfying its core business, its core products, its own brand identity. Meanwhile, the less ‘sexy’ “back room” activities should (according to Drucker’s thesis) be assigned to other (third party) entities set up by entrepreneurs to specifically specialize in and provide those activities on an “as needed”, paid-for service basis.
And if such back room activities proved to be common to many different businesses, then the entity set up to contractually provide them could eventually benefit from offering the same supporting (or back-office) service to many different clients.
The takeaway is a simple one. That without Drucker’s theoretical and philosophical influence, followed by the fad of Business Process Reengineering (BPR), the Outsourcing bandwagon would never have even gotten on the runway, let alone off the ground.
Nicholas Veloso Lima, from Sao Paolo, Brazil, who likes to contribute answers to questions posed on Quora, wrote … and I paraphrase slightly:
Drucker’s ideas [have become] so intertwined in all schools of management since the 1950’s that sometimes it is easier to look for those contributions to management that could not be [linked] to him in any way or form.
One can approximate the changes absorbed by Western businesses over a three-decade period by simply digesting the timeline of the release of Peter Drucker’s ubiquitous books (his bibliography). He managed to extend his peak output to three decades: the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. His pathfinding inspired many others, such that other business management gurus began to sprout like weeds in a fallow field. But the mainstream press and New York City’s major publishing houses ensured it was Drucker who remained the dominant influence. He was also helped by having tribal friends in high places. Crucially, in 1971 he began a 20-year tenure as a monthly columnist for The Wall Street Journal (when it was still print only). The perfect soap-box for any management guru or trendy ‘economist’.
Especially since 2008, most of those blessed with an IQ above body temperature instinctively respond with great skepticism and cynicism to all proclamations by any so-called economic guru or ‘expert’ … of which there has been an irritating over-abundance since the 1980s when Milton Friedman preached to his adoring flock. In his 2017 book Twilight of the Money Gods: Economics as a Religion and How it all Went Wrong [published by Simon & Schuster] John Rapley writes:
The hubris in economics came not from a moral failing among economists, but from a false conviction: the belief that theirs was a science. It neither is nor can be one, and has always operated more like a church. You just have to look at its history to realise that.
Despite having an awful writing style Drucker’s books were always well received, and those gushing reviews in turn ensured they sold well. Most managers are certainly not leaders. Since the 1950s the bulk of Western corporations have been ‘led’ by people who would typically respond to a new Drucker pronouncement as if they were Israelites prostrating before Moses, just down from the Mount. I dare say those of my readers blessed with commonsense and “independence of thought” will quickly join several disparate dots with just that small nugget of highly opinionated commentary!
Business Process Infatuation
All significant companies (in the West) soon found themselves enrolled (by default) in the “Org Chart” mania, because drawing up Organization Charts is one of the simplest and most effective ways of separating out and defining a Business Process (BP). And like fat women wearing tight corsets, a modest proficiency in Org Chart production convinces any junior manager they are far more attractive than reality would suggest otherwise.
Let’s be clear; the proper identification of a business process is not rocket science. The procedure is all very straightforward, despite the huge ramifications stemming from the implementation of this activity from the business analysis cookbook.
“Front room” activities are now called Operational Processes. It is these that constitute the core business, and which create the primary value stream. Examples might be taking customer orders, managing public relations, formulating product strategies, and financial planning.
In contrast “back room” activities, now called Supporting Processes, exist to support the core (or operational) business processes. The most common examples being things like Health & Safety, accounting, recruitment, call centers, and even technical support.
Ever wondered why the “Mission Statement” came into such prominence? It’s all part of delineating the boundaries of any given business process. Why? Because every well-defined business process revolves around a mission. They start out with a mission objective (an intention or goal) and they each end with the successful achievement of that business objective (meeting the specified results).
Just as soon as corporations got into the swing of identifying, delineating, and specifying all their various internal processes (both operational and supporting) the next natural step (for many, if not most) was to decide what could be “outsourced”.
The offshoring of outsourced functions was brought about, less by Corporate Executives, and far more by the combined and coordinated advocacy of:
- the Financial Media (Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Forbes, New York Times, etc.);
- by transnational think-tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Washington DC’s Brookings Institute;
- and by arch-globalist/elitist shindigs such as the regular Bilderberg meetings, and the strident activities of the Trilateral Commission (David Rockefeller’s brainchild).
The outsourcing wave began tentatively because this new managerial fad or fashion naturally had some inertia to overcome. The lives of many people were about to be affected, and not necessarily for the better.
Also, this new way of organizing business operations (both large and small) emerged slightly ahead of the then available computer technology. Stand-alone mainframe computers were already powerful but their reason for existence was to centralize data analysis, and not disperse and share it widely via data links to other distant systems. During the 1980s there were very few WANs (Wide Area Networks) that would allow dispersed communication of commercial data. And of course, during this ‘prehistoric’ era, the Internet was still in its infancy.
So until the emergence and establishment of other necessary catalysts, outsourcing remained a slipstreamed vehicle hampered by a vastly undersized engine and bad suspension. Also, there were too few destinations to point this vehicle at, because even the highway / motorway / autobahn system (call it what you will) on which it was supposed to ride far distances was still under construction (i.e., the Internet’s submarine fibre-optic, global network was still in its infancy).
Oddly, everything then seemed to emerge and converge at roughly the same time, and also in tight synchronicity with the establishment of the World Trade Organization, which formally came into existence on 1st January 1995 following several years of laboured GATT negotiations under something called the Uruguay Round (1986-94).
So what do I mean by ‘everything’? I mean the spread of both the necessary technology, and the legal frameworks that today’s outsourcing industry both depends upon, and probably now takes for granted. I have identified four basic streams (catalysts) whose roughly parallel confluence led to the birth of ‘modern’ Outsourcing linking to mostly Offshore locations. These are, and in no particular order:
(1) Business Process Reengineering (BPR)
Throughout the 1991-97 period, all business magazines and financial journals became engrossed with the exaggerated virtues of Business Process Reengineering (BPR).
Notice how the word ‘engineering’ gets abused, time and again by these managerial and financial types whose entire career path is constructed mostly around hyperbole and buzzwords having scant or misapplied meaning(s). If others could get away with (for example) “engineering” a cake for a guaranteed higher price, then I am sure cooks would soon adopt the same term in unison.
At the time, BPR was being hungrily and perhaps desperately adopted by most US Corporations, seemingly as the latest silver bullet. They had just gotten over the fear “geographically insignificant” Japan was going to buy them out. Oh what a close shave the late 1980s were for all those Wall Streeters!
It is in America’s nature to brood when hurt, and then to seek revenge using both passive and active aggression. So it was sincerely believed by many that BPR was going to quickly restore the competitiveness Corporate America had allegedly lost to Japan and the Asian Tigers throughout the 1980s and early 1990s.
(2) Spread Of Internet
The ease with which we can now connect to any point on the globe using easily carried devices such as laptops, tablets, or smartphones is a technological miracle we can too easily take for granted. And one that is quite vulnerable to abuse. But not so long ago, trying to send an email to a far-distant country was often a hit-and-miss affair. Hey! I can still recall being impressed by the telegram system and by fax machines. Indeed, fax machines remained “high-status” through until about 2005.
As early as 1991-92, established universities in the West were already routinely exploiting the Internet. Elsewhere, most “third world” populations remained disconnected from the World Wide Web until the 1996-98 period. I do explain this situation in some detail in Book-1 of my title: Outsourced World: Seducing Goddess Durga During the Clinton Era, because I had first-hand exposure to the Internet’s slow arrival in both the UAE and Malaysia at that time. And also because it helps describe understand my own predicament when overseas, hunting for work during the mid-1990s. I can recall my first visit to this brand new fad called an “Internet Cafe” (in Abu Dhabi) and my struggles with very early versions of the Netscape browser.
In almost every case, governments were the first to obtain inaugural Internet connectivity. So in the case of India, and perhaps ominously, the Internet arrived during the very same year the World Trade Organization became the corner-stone of international trade law: 1995. The formal date was 15th August 1995. This was when VSNL — Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited, a leading global communications solutions company, which is a subsidiary of the $ 29 billion Tata Group — launched the Gateway Internet Access Service designed to provide for public Internet access in India. Inevitably, due to those strategic implications that should be obvious to you, the Delhi Government and the major Universities took up most of that early bandwidth capacity.
By the end of 1998, and after three years of government monopoly, there were barely 150,000 Internet connections in India (all dial-up types). But during the next 2 years, dozens of small-to-large Internet Service Providers (ISPs) became established, which soon triggered a price war and a race for connectivity quality. By year Y2K, there were over 2 million Internet connections shared ad-hoc among the larger Indian cities. During the following decade the rate of Internet connectivity growth reach exponential levels.
A very similar story played out in many other non-Western nations. Malaysia under the astute leadership of Mahathir Mohamad already had their new 2020 Vision policy driving the construction of a new capital. Their quick adoption of broad band technologies only accelerated its impetus.
According to the Wikipedia page “Internet in India” (current as of May 2014) the bulk of Internet traffic is now being delivered to India via 9 different undersea fibres, including SEA-ME-WE 3, Bay of Bengal Gateway, and Europe India Gateway. To service those, five different landing points around India’s coastline have been established.
Consider that as early as 1973 the more visionary “Powers That Be” members were (probably) already fully aware of the growing potential for linking nations together via digital cable (fibre-optic) links. Do I have evidence?
Consider that an historic ‘special’ meeting was convened of the International Network Working Group (INWG), which had been set up at a conference held at Sussex University in September 1973. American Internet pioneers attended, and the information shared spurred deeper and accelerated (trans-Atlantic) cooperation. It was either side of the dates of this Sussex (UK) meeting when the TCP/IP protocol actually got thrashed out and formalized.
(3) WTO Starts To Bite
Clues that lead one to truth and reality can be right in front of you, yet still remain undetected. For example, the so-called Uruguay Round of the WTO negotiations (still under GATT auspices) commenced as far back as 1986 (on the cusp of London and Tokyo’s Big Bang) then dragged on until 1993. Was that extended duration finagled to allow nascent Internet technology to catch up with the Globalist’s geopolitical timetable?
The final round, dubbed the Marrakesh Round, lasted less than a year. Then by early 1995 Geneva became the new home of the ratified WTO. Note that China did not join the WTO until December of 2001, a decade or more after some American corporations had shifted their manufacturing capacity from the USA to the Middle Kingdom.
In broad terms, the World Trade Organization was established to officially promote and assist “better” trade relations between all its participating nations. The crucial Marrakesh Agreement includes various rules and regulations that had long been stipulated under the GATT. But added to those time-tested clauses were many additional regulations and stipulations that include agreements related to trade barriers, and issues with trade related services.
All signatories are made aware that they are agreeing to the document as a whole, and not simply to parts or sections of it.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the WTO was established to supervise and liberalize world trade, and is the direct successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) that was created in 1947.
The original plan was to quickly replace GATT with a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN), to be called the International Trade Organization (ITO). But the US Congress rejected the ITO in 1948, leaving GATT as the only international trade body.
History’s sequence of events suggest the entire Globalist (One World) agenda must have been specified either just before, or during, World War Two. And further research will soon show that this is indeed the case. The “Atlantic Charter” is one item of documentary evidence. The so-called West allying themselves with the brutal and genocidal USSR in order to obliterate the heart of Europe, is another. And perhaps the 1930s and 1940s Communist infiltration of Hollywood could be held up as yet another.
(4) 1990’s Spells ‘Globalization’
It was difficult (perhaps impossible) to see at the time, but with the arrival of the first Clinton Administration there was a deliberate and determined move to fashion a new political ideology; one that appeared to be independent of the old left-right paradigm.
In a pre-NAFTA and pre-Maastricht Treaty world, the primary goal of this new ethos was quite simple. To adapt and then coordinate the various national policies of as many Western governments as possible, such that the outsourcing potentials derived from a long period of Business Process Reengineering, plus the Globalizing potential of the rapidly developing Internet, plus the legal framework constructed by the Uruguay Round of the WTO negotiations, could all be integrated and synchronized so they could be cohesively applied. The meta-purpose of this devious but clever manipulation was to advance via stealth, the already announced “New World Order” (Ref: speeches given by POTUS G.H.W. Bush during 1991).
The so-called “Third Way” was conceived and introduced (in the United States) by political scientist Stephen Skowronek, of Yale University. Although its roots lie in America’s infamous “Progressive Era”. It was later advocated by the Democratic Leadership Council’s journal, The New Democrat, as: “The worldwide brand name for progressive politics for the Information Age.”
In the U.K. this new and synthetic ideology was demoniacally ‘popularized’ (if that is the right term) by Anthony Giddens of the London School of Economics (LSE). Coinciding with Tony Blair’s messianic political arrival, Giddens published (on November 9, 1998) his now famous manifesto, The Third Way. Sold for an amazingly high price, Giddens needed only 176 pages (inclusive of front & end matter) to announce a new political faith to the entire world.
I first studied Giddens’ political influence several years ago, and concluded then he could be rightly considered either eccentric, or bordering on the insane. So thoroughly obsessed was he with eulogizing this “Third Way” nonsense. Giddens published no less than 34 books on “The Third Way”, which were then translated into 29 languages: a publication rate higher than one book per year. This degree of hyper activity is comparable with those dogmas spread by Trotsky, Lenin, and Chaiman Mao.
By the start of the New Millennium, the Humanities and Social Science faculties of all Britain’s thriving Universities had been transformed. Universities elsewhere would have doubtless followed suit, to varying degrees. Political Science courses now expounded Third Way doctrine in unison. In 2007, Giddens was listed as the fifth most-referenced author of books in the Humanities.
Revealingly, Britain’s New Labour was only established AFTER a delegation of senior Labour politicians had first flown to the USA to consult with Bill Clinton’s political advisors. Over the next several years, this pseudo-ideology was then widely disseminated to other G7 nations + Greece.
The most prominent Third Way advocates have been: Tony Blair (UK), Gerhard Schröder (Germany), Kostas Simitis (Greece), Romano Prodi (Italy), Wim Kok (Netherlands), Jean Chrétien (Canada), Kevin Rudd (Australia). Several other personalities from lesser nations were also enrolled in the “Third Way” program.
The irony is that what started out as a prescription for political success (i.e., gaining and holding power) authored by certain members of Bill Clinton’s initial Democrat team, was then sold back to the USA about 12 years later (and for profit) via the writings and utterances of Anthony Giddens. According to Christopher J. Richter, writing for Communication Theory Book Review, he was repeatedly … “interviewed, cited as an ‘expert’, and his ideas variously praised and panned in a wide variety of non-academic, even mainstream media.”
Giddens’ cleverness lies in his ability to construct something having the appearance of cohesiveness and cogency … out of the ad hoc, fuzzy, disjointed hyperbole that had pranced and preened as a new political ideology prior to 1998. The most appropriate label I can find to attach to “Third Way” politics is Neo-Liberalism. Decent summaries of which can be read here and here.
Note en passant that Bill Clinton’s real name is William Jefferson Blythe III … changed to Clinton following the death of his father and subsequent remarriage of his mother (Virginia Dell Cassidy).
Those who have studied psychology will be forgiven for seeing the potential for mental illness (emotional trauma) driving Bill Clinton’s over-sized ego. There exist sober and astute political observers who would happily describe the Clinton era as (probably) America’s most odious Presidency.
There can be no doubt. Bill Clinton (and his team) were assigned the role of pushing through a widespread acceptance of Globalization. Despite his obvious lack of authentic manhood, this boy-president nevertheless had sufficient charisma and cravings for public attention to be the giant planet around which other Western political ‘leaders’ could orbit like moons. The largest moon was of course Britain’s Tony Blair. This embarrassing arrangement offers us yet another subtle clue for the existence of some higher authority; the same one that has long dictated all social and economic policy to each and every Western (G7) ‘leader’, and to most of the G20 puppet ‘leaders’.
Several paragraphs earlier I made a point of showing you Drucker’s 1995 title: Managing in a Time of Great Change. Between 1990 and 1996 other books with very similar titles vied for attention in every airport book store. I remember browsing several, before purchasing the one that soon became a best-seller. Throughout the surprisingly optimistic 1990s Bill Clinton’s core mantra was all about change … change, change, and yet more change. Effectively, the urge to embrace ‘change’ was given quasi-religious status.
Of course, the desire for change comes naturally to those of the “Far Left” (the Progressive Creed) as it enables them to demonstrate their delusional mastery over nature, not to mention the dumb voter. As early as 1993 (when GATT’s Uruguay Round was still far from settled) Clinton gave a speech about “free trade”, in which he emphasized: “Change is upon us. We can do nothing about that.” But what did he know? Clinton was just a kid in a grown man’s body. In 2017 he will celebrate his 71st birthday. And his chronic immaturity is still visible; still a key part of his demeanor.
In all modern “Democracies” the primary purpose of Presidents and Prime Ministers is to present a layer of reassurance to voters; that their ballot box and their vote matters. Meanwhile, all policy is being formulated, decided, and prioritized by various groups and associations (all with different roles, or different jurisdictions) whose members meet sometimes privately, and sometimes publicly. The largest common-denominator is Freemasonry. And then you have the Banking elites who already have plenty of reasons to meet in secret.
Realize that the change these elites (artificially) conjure up is always presented to the public as a fait accompli, whereby the latter are expected (via conditioning or contract) to simply submit to its dominion, like all good Sheeple do.
In reality, Clinton was coached so that he could convincingly present this long prepared for change (globalization) by selling it as a “the economic equivalent of a force of nature, like wind or water”. It was as if he had recently climbed Mount Sinai himself to consult with ‘God’ … because he surely descended with new commandments in hand, and with the cadences needed to sound like a prophet:
A new global economy of constant innovation and instant communication is cutting through our world like a new river, providing both power and disruption to the people and nations who live along its course.
The only thing we absolutely do need to remember about Bill Clinton’s two administrations is that they:
- deregulated derivatives,
- deregulated telecom,
- and erased America’s once strong banking laws.
Now that is how you create change! And the easiest way to create plenty of that is to simply undermine or destroy what was good or necessary from the past. Even the dumb and unimaginative can destroy, and they can do it at a fast clip too. If ‘modern’ art, which reliably looks a mess because it is, can be considered creativity, and then attract high price tags, then how can we expect our political class to be genuinely creative? After all, their “mess making” certainly keeps the mass media busy and well-paid.
Better still, enroll some of your campaign sponsors. Simply give carte blanche to Wall Street’s criminals. After all, from their Manhattan Fortress they can always be relied upon to act as if they are invincible.
So what followed? The collapse of the Dot-Com Bubble in 2000, followed by the Banking collapse of 2008, followed by the Economic Depression in which we are currently mired. That’s what followed.
Third Way Politics — a spurious concept devoid of genuine or lasting content — could only have been sold by charlatans. And the 1990s brought us a surfeit of those. The mind-numbing gibberish, self-delusion, and make-believe concocted to hold the entire Third Way monolith together, so that political manifestos could be concocted, and then sold to a predictably naive public, did not escape the attention of everyone. To those with their eyes still open, the King was indeed riding around “bollock-naked” on his horse.
William K. Black — an American lawyer, academic, author, former bank regulator, and expert in white-collar crime — has described the Third Way as:
… this group that pretends sometimes to be center-left but is actually completely a creation of Wall Street — it’s run by Wall Street for Wall Street with this false flag operation as if it were a center-left group. It’s nothing of the sort.
Meanwhile on t’other side of the Atlantic ‘pond’, the BBC’s Social Affairs Editor Niall Dickson managed to comment similarly, even though his politics are likely very different to those of Mr. Black’s:
One observer described it [Third Way Politics] as the Loch Ness Monster of British politics — everyone’s heard of it, there are occasional sightings but no-one is sure the beast really exists.” [BBC Dickson]
Hindsight empowers us to recognize the calculated hoax that was once sold as the “final political solution”. Yet 20 to 30 years ago, the American people managed to vote for two-terms of this “Third Way” nonsense. As the new millennium approached, the British people prepped to go one step further, before eventually landing belly-up. That most feminized of nations voted for three consecutive “Third Way” administrations.
Too Many Anomalies Equals Covert Plan?
So what might be a consequence of three Third Way administrations? Consider that by the 2011 Census, 36.7% of London’s population (the nation’s capital, financial hub, and cultural centre) was found to be foreign. As of this writing, six years later, London’s foreigner to native ratio will have doubtless grown more foreign. If you care to examine the so-called Western world properly, then you will soon discover many of its major cities are already displaying population displacement trends similar to that of London. The most recent being Frankfurt, Germany.
Others of note are: Marseilles in southern France, and the French capital Paris, Brussels in Belgium, Rotterdam in the Netherlands, and Malmo in Sweden. The Republic of Ireland (Eire) is another significant entity undergoing a dangerous transition, with its Celtic capital Dublin already home to a large population of Central and West Africans (mostly males). The question is why? What for?
Meanwhile, tens of thousands of White South African Farmers have been brutally murdered in their homes since 1994. Oftentimes, entire families get wiped out in a single evening in ways far more depraved than the most explicit horror movie. For reasons not yet explained, the world’s mass media have completely ignored this gruesome murder spree that has been loudly advocated by firebrands in the ANC.
We are now living through unprecedented times, and our understanding and subsequent responses need to be far more holistic and wisely targeted than they have been hitherto.
Since the start of the new millennium, the real and future prospects for so many ethno-European people (especially young males) irrespective of whether they reside on British, European, North American, or South African soil has become acute. Actually, their collective situation was already looking grim during the 1990s.
On the one hand, millions of moderate-to-high paying jobs have been outsourced or offshored to India, China, Indonesia, and the Philippines. While on the other hand, their ancient lands are simultaneously violated and occupied by a never-ending stream of mass-immigration (with millions more migrants queuing).
This pincer movement is not just about Globalization, of which Outsourcing is a key component. Put all those ‘pieces’ from the 1991-96 period together … and the ominous picture that emerges bears a striking resemblance to the calculated launch of a slow, deliberate, yet orderly form of genocide.
BOILING FROG SYNDROME: The failure to accept, acknowledge, or act against a problematic situation that will gradually increase in severity until it reaches calamitous proportions. It is a metaphor taken from an anecdotal parable about boiling a frog, in which a frog placed in boiling water will immediately try to save itself, but one placed in cool water that is gradually brought to a boil will not notice the heat until it is boiled to death.
Clearly, someone (or some tight-knit cabal) having vast wealth, direct access to political power, and immense (demonic) influence over most institutions, wants it this way.
Perhaps the concept of universal franchise (suffrage) really does need to be jettisoned? For if “votes for all” was truly capable of solving major problems then surely we would have had two or three peaceful revolutions (transformations) since 1970, as well as the scrapping of our current (perverse) financial system!
“I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire … the man that controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply” — Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild, 1838