The Triumph of History: The Death Of Globalism

Over the past two years, a new genre of nonfiction has emerged, published by earnest and deeply panicked individuals, who feel that they need to sound the alarm.

What about? The dire consequences if globalism is allowed to flicker out. For ease of reference, we can call it, “Panic Lit.”

Fear is juddering through globalist intellectuals like Francis Fukuyama, Moritz Schularick, Christian Welzel, Nouriel Roubini, Jeffrey Sachs, William Easterly, Paul Collier, Carmen Reinhart, and others. All of them are busy writing papers and books deploring the rise of nationalism, which they know will kill their brand of globalism.

Of course, their globalism has nothing to do with people living together in peace and harmony – their globalism is about technocratic elites that siphon off the wealth of nations and into the hands of the few.

Austerity has been the lie that they have fed us all, while they sit in their high palaces, enjoying the fruit of our labors.

But they are now finally understanding that people are staring to wake up to their tactics, and the gravy boat will soon run dry.

Panic Lit has one theme in common – if globalism is allowed to end, there will be utter bestiality – people will instantly be transformed into hate-filled, narrow-minded, warmongers, shouting (oh, the horror) for patriotism, free market, less government, and secure borders.

Nothing makes elitist globalists cringe more than the call for a strong nation-state.

For a very long time, this kleptocracy has busily been nurturing and inculcating the great One World Order.

Their minions have been preaching about it forever – via the tiresome pontificating spurted by the Media-Hollywood-Education-Publishing-Sports behemoth.

The message is unchanging – how happy the world shall be when we only serve the very few post-national overlords.

And yet, despite the billions squandered in brainwashing tactics, the common people still want nationalism?!

Cue the shrieks of horror, and then the usual rending of cloth and gnashing of teeth.

But, of course, a book will solve the problem! Writing as therapy, along with some coloring books and hugs. The book as a consolation prize does have its uses, it would seem.

The mindless misguided just need to be shown what awaits them in the great yonder that is the free world, and they shall come scampering back to the gilded cage, frightened and helpless. Redemption is still at hand – all you have to do is believe in globalism, and all will be forgiven. Yes, a book will shore up the crumbling walls of Utopia.

Of course, these elites now well realize that their Erewhon, their Shangri-La is a place no one wants to inhabit.

Only the stunted imaginations of university “intellectuals” can seek to transform the entire planet into one massive prison-system, where nothing but the State matters, whose will all must obey.

What these ivory-tower thinkers did not realize, despite all their conniving mechanisms (aka, propaganda), is something crucial – politics and politicians, Hollywood and universities (there’s no real difference between the two now), publishers and the media – can only exist, let alone function, if the lowly commoners actually go along with it all.

If that cooperation vanishes, all institutions, all mechanisms of control, all machinery of producing consent, all means of indoctrination – no matter how finely crafted, no matter how sophisticated – comes to a grinding halt.

Finally, and at long last, this cooperation is evaporating, and humans are engaged in a new revolution – one in which there is no room for the globalist elite whose destiny now is to embody that terrible judgment passed by another misguided revolutionary (Leon Trotsky) – that these elite now belong in the dustbin of history.

The time has come at last for the renaissance of the strong nation-state, where loudly is heard the thrilling cry – “Long live free humanity!”

But what is this nation-state? A country that not only determines its own economic sovereignty, but more importantly one that defines itself by its unique moral character.

The problem with these various globalist thinkers has been that they worked from a faulty assumption – that life is all about the money. Keep flashing the dough, and people will follow mindlessly along.

But people do not live solely for money. They live by, with, for their moral principles. And they are willing to sacrifice a lot for these principles. “Man does not live by bread alone.”

Hence Panic Lit, to which another already-effete volume has just been added, penned by Stephen D. King, entitled, Grave New World: The End of Globalization, the Return of History.

The title is important – and rather telling.

Of course, it’s a play on Aldoux Huxley’s book, Brave New World, which laid out the grim program of globalism. But for King, the Utopia of the “Brave New Globalized World” has become a dystopia of a “Grave New World.”

For him, a world without his globalism is grim and grave. This is reminiscent of Dr. Josef Goebbels who happily killed all his six children because he could not imagine how they might live in a world without Hitler.

Likewise, King cannot imagine a world without globalism, and he fears what will come next, now that the cooperation of the common folk is disappearing fast, whose cry is age-old: “There are more of us than there are of you!”

Babylon has fallen, and great shall be its fall.

The title of King’s book also points to a concept happily embraced by all globalists of his ilk, namely, the “end of history.”

This term was popularized by Francis Fukuyama, but he also misrepresented it. In fact, it was first coined by the French philosopher, Antoine Cournot, and then fully developed by the German philosopher Martin Heidegger and his disciple, Gianni Vattimo.

In effect, the end of history does not mean that events will stop happening, or that the world will end.

Rather, the end of history means that future life will be lived without certainties, without truth, and therefore it will be forever predictable and forever knowable.

In other words, people will no longer have the sense that they are moving forward towards knowledge, but will exist forever in the right-now, as if caught in an unchanging web of nebulous associations.

Think of being trapped in an Eternal Now without any hope of getting out – a rather frightening prospect for humanity, and that unending present is called, “progress,” where the perfect state of existence has been reached, and nothing more can, o should, change, because all change has already happened, and all we need to do is sit back and enjoy the fruits produced by the machine of a well-organized state.

The very idea is revolting because such stasis means the end humanity – only a machine can exist in an Eternal Now, the same forever (hence the globalists’ love of technocracy).

The end of history only makes sense for the machine, which needs neither a past, nor a future – it just wants to get plugged in and hum along smoothly forever.

The State is the plug, which exists to keep machine-humans running and therefore being eternally useful to the elite.

Such is the horror of technocracy, where a human being is a nothing more than a mechanical bio-mass. Therefore, all globalists are technocrats, intent on zapping their version of Frankenstein into some sort of animation, which may be mistaken for “real” human existence.

Imagine a life bound purely to the senses, and you have the end of history – when you have only feelings and sensations, events have no significance, no meaning, because there is no truth to strive for. Things happen, but they are not worthy of being noticed – because to notice is to give events meaning. And there can be no meaning in the Eternal Now.

Meaning needs thoughts and ideas – but what good are ideas to a machine?

Thus in a globalist state, thoughts and ideas are dangerous, because they upset the grand paradigm of a mechanical life. This is why ideas must first be controlled so they can then be destroyed.

Individualism is dangerous, and collectivism is good, and this is why we now see a resurgence of communism. How often do we hear the opinion – “Real communism has never been tried.” Why has this become a talking-point?

To make a human being into a machine requires not only a grand strategy, but also a relentless will, which the globalists have demonstrated they have plenty of. Couple that with communism, and you have the perfect strategy of control – collectivization.

Thus, also the creation of the mechanized humanoids – sexless, sterile and fully controlled. It is the globalists’ dream – the end of humanity and the rise of “humanoidity.” A new type of life that can exist forever, because mechanical parts are easily replaced.

But not all may enter into this mechanized Elysium – only the few. Thus, the cant of “too many people on the planet,” “save the planet from humans,” the wilful worship of earth as mother, as Gaia, who shall consume her own young.

Hence, also the strong link of all “progessive” ideas with antenatalism – feminism, homosexuality, gender identity. Babies are the ultimate evil for progress.

This is all, of course, Neronian, in a way – that is, Nero burned down Rome so he could build himself a vast palace, called the Golden House.

The globalists have been wanting to undertake a similar burning away of excess humanity, in order to transform the planet into a Golden House of their own, where only a few humanoids will exist eternally, as robotic slaves.

Such is the grim world of the automaton. This is what is meant by “the end of history,” and that is why it is the chief goal of globalism – the end of natural human beings, and the rise of mechanical human beings.

This makes globalism, then, the fully ripened form of nihilism.

Thus, when King’s book links the demise of globalism with the rise of history – unwittingly he is saying that humanity has risen up and is refusing to be annihilated.

History is intensely human, because history is intensely moral. When we piece together events of the past, we are really constructing a moral memory-palace – what happened and how things happened lead to the question that people are far more interested in – why did it happen in the first place?

This is why progressivism hates history (the recent tearing of statues in the US).

Whenever we ask, “Why?” we are being moral, because we are seeking the truth which alone can satisfy our moral curiosity, which in turn is our search for a greater, ultimate truth, namely, God.

King’s book is nothing but a list of dire events (versions of economic collapse) that will come about if globalism is abandoned by the West. There is even the warning that without globalism democracy itself will fall apart.

Then, he issues the call for governments to “at least attempt to challenge the inconsistencies of those who seek to pursue policies of disintegration.” Such is the final whimper, “at least try” to stop humanity from wanting to be human, wanting a future (in which to create history).

“Disintegration” means the final collapse of globalism. King clearly recognizes this – and he has no clue what to do about it, which is telling. The machine cannot think. It can only follow predetermined patterns.

In the face of morality, globalism is empty nihilism. What man or woman wants to fall into a bottomless pit?

Rather, people want to be both mortal and moral. They want history. The human soul, the true moral compass of life, will always deny the machine, because it is far stronger.

Globalism is dead. Truth, morality and hope will always win, because all three make humans intensely human. It is this intensity of humanity that globalism cannot comprehend, let alone overpower, or even control.

Be strong my friends – the hour of our freedom is at hand! Strike down tyranny and live free! And don’t buy Panic Lit!

 

The photo shows, “Hip-Hip-Hurrah!” by Peder Severin Krøyer, painted in 1888.

Why Multiculturalism?

Why multiculturalism? What has obligated western democracies to adopt this idea wholesale? The siren-song seems compelling enough: tolerance, inclusiveness, acceptance, and the cant of difference leading to social strength.

What can be wrong with an idea that promotes all these supposed worthy things? But in the myths of old, it was said the Siren-song was sweet in order to lure ships into treacherous waters, where they floundered and were lost. Is multiculturalism such a Siren-song? Is it luring the west to ultimate destruction?

For some reason the issue of multiculturalism is fraught with passions. Why should immigrants give up their culture? Why should they change? Why should they adopt to the ways of their new home? What about freedom?

And on the other side, if things were perfect back home, why not go back? Why leave your own country, come to the west, with all its opportunity, and then start demanding that the west become just like the country you could not wait to get out of?

The western world lives in prosperity, comfort and relative individual liberty. But our cultural consciousness has become entirely fragmented – we have convinced ourselves that we do indeed live in a global village, in which everybody wants more or less the same things that we do; that we should never presume to correct the failures and follies of other nations; that all religions are about peace and love at their very core; that the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness are biologically ingrained in each human being throughout the world.

Such are our myths, or perhaps, our values, which we think are shared by all and sundry.

And the finest expression of this unfounded laissez-faire attitude is multiculturalism. Of course, this is nothing but eager naivety, since the world is full of good and bad, right and wrong, beauty and ugliness. We need to recoup the courage to make judgments so we do not sink into the morass of relativism.

We need to rediscover, or build up, the courage to say, the west is the best, and all other cultures are abysmal failures.

We need to recover the muscular, masculine quality of western culture (what has made it the best), by dismantling the incessant feminization that now smothers the west.

But what exactly is multiculturalism? Why is it seen as the savior of the western world? What makes the entire west despise or toss away its own traditions, its own history – in order to espouse all the cultures that immigrants bring?

Is this reverse colonialism, or a form of social management? And do we really mean multiracialism when we say multiculturalism? These questions are vexing because they remain unanswered – and unaddressed – despite the fact that most western democracies have eagerly jumped on the multiculturalism bandwagon.

It is always far easier to fall back into the usual explanations – of oppressors and the oppressed.

The idea of many people existing cheek-by-jowl within the borders of one nation – and indeed coming to define the very nature of that nation – is nothing new in history.

The Roman Empire was multicultural, as was the Empire of Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, and more recently the British Empire.

There is little to be gained in the false and purely disingenuous excoriations that are cast upon the concept of “empire” and “colonialism” – it is an easy crutch used by nations that cannot solve the problems that they find themselves in – problems that have very little to do with the “evils of colonialism” and everything to do with greed and the usual appropriation of wealth and resources by the elite.

Therefore, multiculturalism, as such, is nothing new. People have always lived together, intermarried and been content and happy. But in doing so, these same people adhered to one culture – not many. And it was always the culture that provided the best results for everybody which everyone wanted.

People never clung to many cultures within one geographical location. Plurality is a euphemism for social chaos – because it destroys social cohesion.

No nation has ever exited that despised or destroyed its own culture and adopted everyone else’s – until now, that is, where the west is doing precisely that – destroying itself by promoting all the failed cultures of the world – failed, because none of them have contributed anything to modernity.

Why does the west cherish marginality, praise it, worship it? Marginality now defines our academic culture to such an extent that to critique it is to have burning coals heaped upon your head.

Critique of multiculturalism is the greatest heresy which must be destroyed by all means available. Multiculturalism is the state’s religion, to which every knee must bend, and to which every knee must not bend.

Such plurality is the very “bread-and-butter” of our education system, our culture, our politics – it is now the very defining character of the west. Why?

Multiculturalism is enshrined, advocated and defended as the perfect expression of an illumined mind, of liberal attitudes, of economic progress – with catch phrases such as, “We must learn to live together in order to survive.”

But is it not strange that multiculturalism exists only in the west – and nowhere else – nor will it ever exist anywhere else.

In order to establish multiculturalism as the “culture of the west,” we have had to negate and then eradicate history, by rewriting it.

What academic worth his/her salt not make a good living excoriating the west in lectures, articles, and books? Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

West-bashing is a thriving industry. But who funds it? And why is it so well funded?

We have had to expunge our values. We have had to destroy the very cohesion of our culture – and in the process we have actively taught people we consider to be oppressed the value of victimhood, thus training them to wax haughty, so we can admire and praise them when they yell and scream about how wretched we are, and how noble they are.

What is this penance for? For the loss of God?

Why is such blatant hatred being promoted? Why it is being tolerated by all of us?

What is the endgame here? Why has the west come to espouse guilt so completely that it is willing to kill itself over it?

Perhaps this is nothing other than naïve antinomianism – a misplaced rebellion against authority, a misguided view that our history is forever wrong and therefore must be nullified.

Most troubling is the fact that multiculturalism is actively promoted by governments – it is state sanctioned culture, which is a generous way of saying, multiculturalism is socialist tyranny.

But multiculturalism is also state-motherhood, in a western culture that largely abhors real motherhood as patriarchal oppression. This is where feminism has led us – sterility and moral bankruptcy. Think about it – there is no interest in the family. Why?

What has the west gained by adopting and promoting multiculturalism? In a word, nothing.

Although the west has economic clout, it has squandered its intellectual and spiritual capital by investing it in multiculturalism.

The west has stripped itself of all that it once had, and it now wanders about, soullessly, trying on different cultural postures, to see in which one it can best feel at home. We have entered a new Dark Ages – entirely naked.

But there are voices crying out in the wilderness. Time has come to recover the values of western democracy – which are rooted in Judeo-Christian humanism, namely, the marriage of faith and reason.

If we fail in this endeavor, we are truly lost.

We must abandon feminism, we must abandon the nanny state and its tyrannical nurturing, we must destroy the culture of sterility and moral bankruptcy being imposed upon us so relentlessly by our political class.

We must rise up at last, before we are all destroyed and made into atomized slaves to bloated elites who live in their mansions and preach “morality” to us all from on high.

When shall we finally reach moralizing-fatigue?

If we do nothing, there will be no second chance for a very, very long time, because the west will disappear. And remember, none of the cultures that are being promoted as replacements to the west have a good track record when it comes to creating a brilliant civilization.

For the sake of all our humanity, we must fight to win back our freedom. We truly have nothing to lose but our chains. (Marx did offer a few good lines).

 

The photo shows an updated version of Thomas Couture’s famous painting, “Romans During the Decadence,” which was painted in 1847.

Nationalism, Patriotism, Populism: The Return of Reason

Why are populism, nationalism and patriotism despised? Why are they vilified by the establishment elite (namely, the media, the entertainment industries, the universities, the so-called intellectuals, and the scoffing punditry)?

Why are populism, nationalism and patriotism readily equated with “fascism,” “Nazism,” “racism,” “xenophobia,” “the right-wing?” Of course, these are trigger-words purposely deployed to elicit the highest emotional response from the public, in order to build and then solidify consensus. This is classic demagoguery.

Such rabble-rousing is on full display in the recent issue of Academic Matters, a Canadian journal that seeks to delve into things “of relevance to higher education,” and which is used by university professors to preach to the choir.

The topic at hand is labeled, “the populist challenge” which, in typical fashion, is described as, “The disconnect between the expertise of the academy and the common sense of broader society.”

For these experts, “common sense” is defined as, “celebrity-induced ignorance,” which is the true enemy, and which needs to be destroyed: “That is why it is so disturbing to see politicians take the position that experts are irrelevant, answers are obvious, and that questioning common sense assertions of the populist right is akin to sacrilege.”

{For the naïve, “politicians” is code for President Trump, and Trumpism).

The various experts called upon to guide each other along in tackling “the populist challenge” on campus and therefore in society all write like enthusiastic revolutionaries, issuing the call to action.

Of course, there is the usual alarmism: International students will stop coming, and that cash-cow will run dry. Nationalism will destroy the free circulation of knowledge.

Then come the solutions, which are predictable and unimaginative (but what else would you expect from privileged “experts,” who cannot understand a very basic fact – that it’s the populists who pay their high-powered salaries).

The breathless, but suitably vague “remedies” to fight the grand threat of populism include:

  • Better working conditions for everyone
  • More opportunity and benefits for everyone
  • More empowerment of citizens to work through their differences
  • More access to higher education
  • All campuses must be made into even better safe spaces for everyone

With such myopic solutions, can victory be far?

Time for a bit of common sense – if you want something done right, don’t ask professors.

Here is a sample of the expertise that we are asked to blindly imbibe:

“Right-wing populism threatens the future of higher education, but remaining passive and retreating to a disinterested vision of the university will actually strengthen the attacks, Faculty have a responsibility to work in solidarity to fight back against these threats.”

“The danger is not so much that we will all be drowned in a tsunami of alt-right populism, but that otherwise sensible politicians (and leaders, including university presidents) may be spooked by this great illusion and do the populists’ work for them.”

“…the academy must counter the pseudo-populist narrative with an even more compelling narrative.”

“We watched with wry humour as the UK exited the European Union and we sat in stunned terror as the US elected Donald Trump.”

“The surge in racism on university campuses is part of a broader right-wing awakening across the country. University administrators must counter these developments, or the credibility of their institutions will suffer.”

“The last twelve months have seen a great shift in the North Atlantic political landscape, with only Canada immune (so far). Nobody in universities saw it coming….There has been a surge of support for ethno-nationalism of the blood-and-soil kind, fearful of global openness and resentful of globally connected persons, whether migrants, traders, or cross-border professors and students…Donald Trump is bristling with threats to wage war on a long list of internal and external enemies; he is trying to turn those threats into policy.”

“A positive political alternative to the rise of demagogic populism will require a vibrant vision of democratic society and the empowerment of individuals to work through these differences. Universities should not be just observers, but engaged participants.”

By their own words, they condemn themselves, such is the betrayal of the “intellectuals” that Benda wrote about many years back. The tone of each article is defiance, a self-important, self-assured declamatory stance, hurling bravado from high up in the moated Ivory Tower.

Perhaps they should stop indoctrinating and return to the grand-old tradition of education, which has long fallen by the way side.

There is also a sense that things are not going their way any longer:

“But, friends, we are losing. We are losing when it comes to reason and critical intelligence and civility. We are losing when it comes to the basic justification of what we do. We are losing on defending universities as forces for good.”

Is this palpable fear?

These experts know that the jig is up, and the people have cottoned on to their self-serving pronouncements. They also know that fear is wondrous snake-oil to unite the misguided (aka, students).

A bit more common sense: Do not bite the hand that feeds you.

These remarks of “experts” may hold fragile undergraduates in utter thrall, but for the rest of us, they simply come across as hysteria from members of the establishment who know that no one is listening to their self-serving exclamations, uttered to safeguard their franchise.

They also know that so bankrupt are their inducements that they have no power to make people return to the poverty and enslavement to elites promised by their version of globalist indoctrination.

In fact, such professorial whiffle, such “coughing in ink,” only confirms a harsher truth – these experts belong to a past that has no purchase in the future of humanity.

Perhaps they should try to explain why they teach the subjects that they do, and how they sleep at night knowing their drivel puts thousands upon thousands of young people into immense student debt.

Here are some facts that these experts will always fail to understand (since their paycheck depends on not comprehending):

  • Nationalism, populism, patriotism have nothing to do with fascism, xenophobia, and all the rest. It is the people’s demand (at long last!) for a better form of government, namely, a re-energized nation-state.
  • If you fear populism, you have abandoned your own humanity.
  • If you fear nationalism, you have destroyed your own soul.
  • If you fear patriotism, you have no home to call your own.
  • If you fear “blood-and-soil,” you fear love itself, because to love another, you must first love yourself – unselfishly and purely.

“Blood” is not racism; It is the acknowledgement of our common bond as humanity, which is expressed as community.

“Soil” is the sanctity of place, without which strangers cannot be made welcome.

Both these terms are used to conjure up the ghost of Nazism (Godwin’s Law), but such necromancy is just shallow thinking.

To confuse nationalism with fascism is to admit utter ignorance of history:

  • Nationalism is the true root of liberal democracy, for it clearly defines self-determination, and declares power to be the privilege of the people. Fascism denies both, and in this way it is more akin to the leftism of the universities, than to liberal democracy.
  • Populism is the true root of liberal democracy, for it asserts that people have the right to choose who will rule over them. This choice often means many different political parties. Populism is also the right to question those in power. Fascism is a monolith, which needs conformity on all levels – thought, deed, and personal behavior, which is what universities now teach.
  • Patriotism is the true root of liberal democracy, for it defies dictatorships of all kind, by defending the right of the independent nation-state to exist and enjoy its freedoms.

One has only to look to Pericles’ famous Funeral Oration to understand the spirit of generosity that flows from patriotism, nationalism and populism. Fascism abhors all three, because devotion should not be to “blood-and-soil,” but to the glorious and fearless Fuehrer.

The establishment elite are quick to equate nationalism with “xenophobia,” and “racism.” This too shows an unfamiliarity with the history of ideas.

Nationalism, which is always grounded in a strong nation-state, cannot exist if it practices xenophobia or racism, because nationalism promotes other people to create their own nation-states. This is true tolerance, where all of humanity exists as equals, free to pursue self-determination in their own nation-states.

The charge of xenophobia and racism becomes perverse when we realize that those that utter it advocate a political system that is full bondage to the whims of unelected, globalist governing bodies, such as, the UN, and those that oversee the various supranational trade agreements.

The establishment elite are the true xenophobes and racists because they collapse economies, nurture poverty, traffic in children, fund discontent, destroy nations and kill millions – all in the name of ideology, all in the name of building a grand world order, in which they shall be kings.

Did not these professors and so-called thinkers celebrate the Arab Spring, which unleashed untold suffering in that part of the world? They should rightly fear populism – because they have been justifying with their pronouncements the annihilation of entire populations.

The world these experts advocate – multinational companies, unlimited free trade, no borders, massive population replacements – has no provable benefits for anybody (other than themselves). Everybody suffers the same.

Remember what globalism has done already:

  • It has destroyed most of Africa and the Middle East.
  • It has created itinerant populations (known as refugees) who wander about seeking economic benefit.
  • It has lashed together unequal partners into a European Union that is ultimately unsustainable because it is utterly dysfunctional.
  • It has created and let loose the scourge of Islamofascism.
  • It actively promotes race-baiting by making people live as strangers in lands they once called their own.

Nationalism, patriotism, and populism – these are the way forward for the world.

The worldwide experiment of a socialist utopia, under globalism, has bitten the dust at last, leaving behind in its wake misery and devastation and the lamentation of the innocent.

Only nation-states embody both love and the law. Within both of these lies true justice.

Therefore, patriotism and nationalism and populism become extensions of the family, where both love and the law are first expressed and experienced. This is why a country is not a spot on the map, but it is home, it is fatherland, it is motherland.

Because nationalism understands both love and the law by way of the family, globalism will always fail against it, for it can offer nothing in its place.

No one wants to be a vagabond. Everyone needs a home. To conclude, some words of G.K. Chesterton:

From all that terror teaches,
From lies of tongue and pen,
From all the easy speeches
That comfort cruel men,
From sale and profanation
Deliver us, Good Lord!

 

The photo shows, “The Reply Of The Zaporozhian Cossacks,” 1878-1891, by Ilya Repin.