January 20, 2016
“In the dialectical view of history, you have a force that gives rise to its opposite. The two forces then compete, thus creating a third new force—which gives rise to its opposite and competes with it, giving birth to yet a new force, and so forth, on and on, as the process continues. You could visualize it as a series of triangles piled on top of each other. This dialectical analysis has merit, either as a picture of how history operates, or as a portrait of how history is intentionally manipulated by elites. However, it is incomplete. It doesn’t tell the whole story. It’s a kind of shorthand. What it leaves out is the most important thing of all.”
Globalism fully intends to create one integrated planet under a top-down, locked-down political and economic management system, backed up by coercion.
In order to achieve this goal, as I’ve written before, the notion of separate nations must be eradicated.
The primary goal of the provoked chaos in the Middle East and parts of Africa is: redraw that whole territory and push waves of immigrants into the West, primarily Europe.
Re-work the population-demographics of Europe so no nation looks as it once did. Flood the continent with immigrants. Drown traditional cultures and ethnic identities. Eventually, make it easy to have a nationless Europe, broken from its past.
Consider this Globalist operation a dialectical force. What it gives rise to—its opposite—is a reborn resistance of groups formed around national and ethnic identities, traditional and even ancient cultures. You can see this happening in Europe now.
Whether you like it or don’t like it, it’s taking place. This is the coming struggle of two forces. What they will give rise to—the new force—is open to analysis and speculation.
But for many centuries, something else has been happening in Europe. Something vitally important. Its progress has not been even. There have been severe setbacks. The “upward trend” has been anything but smooth. You can trace part of it by studying the declining power of kings and the rise of “rights of the people.” This movement has not been a church. It hasn’t been a single unified group at all. It flared up in England, France, Germany, and other countries, died down, and was resuscitated again, in stronger forms.
It eventually took on clearer features.
Its substance and goal was the emancipation of the individual.
Freedom, liberty, choice, power—at the level of the single human being, not the group.
And along with that freedom was the tacit and necessary conclusion that the individual could create his own future and existence, apart not only from a ruling force, but also apart from any tradition he did not choose to adhere to.
This was heady material, to say the least. It was revolutionary on every level. And it wasn’t popular with any government, or any group that looked to the past for its identity.
Nevertheless, the “movement” advanced. In many cases, artists paved the way. So did certain philosophers.