The celebratory banter concerning the perceived retreat of globalism in the face of rising nationalism has reached a slow boil in certain corners of the internet over the past few months. An increasing number of commentators and bloggers seem convinced the tide of globalism has crested and that the global elite are on their back foot. Some commentators and bloggers assign this development to the gradual awakening of the masses who are beginning to see through globalism's sham; others, to witty and courageous nationalist politicians who are outwitting the global elite at every turn. Whatever the case, quite a few thinkers appear assured that globalism is in decline and that a new world of glorious, free, and independent nation states awaits us in the future. I am sympathetic to these notions, and I desire them to be real and true; nevertheless, I can't help but feel the jubilation might be a bit premature and more than a little ill-considered.
Sure, anti-globalist forces have notched a number of apparent political victories onto their belts over the past few years, but what these victories will signify in the long-run remains an open question, at least for me. One mild criticism I would like to level at the euphoric nationalist cheerleaders is this: Are these victories you're seeing really victories or might they be merely feigned retreats?
Globalists have worked incredibly hard to institute their System over the past century; a System that aims for and intends to eliminate the nation state in the West in favor of a one-world totalitarian government. Even with my limited understanding of these things, I can assess that the System the global elite have erected is incredibly intricate and complex; one that permeates practically all institutions in the West including, but not limited to, government, education, media, finance, science, and yes, even religion.
Is it realistic to assume the global elite would simply allow this sophisticated and labyrinthine operation to be dismantled or rendered obsolete by the outcome of a referendum vote or a superficial change in ruling parties within one of their cherished democracies? Even if the global elite did turn away with a shrug or throw their hands up in surrender, would these actions not precipitate immediate and drastic disruptions - initially in the financial sector, but eventually in nearly every aspect of our civilization?
Call me a pessimist, but I cannot imagine the global elite surrendering anything willingly or diplomatically. As painful as it is to accept, the global elite have amassed vast amounts of power and control over the past century. Their influence is evident nearly everywhere, and it is inconceivable to believe that they would relinquish this power, control, and influence without some kind of retaliation or rearguard action.
Many feared such a retaliation or rearguard action would occur during the Brexit process, but as of yet, the stock markets haven't plummeted, currencies haven't hyper-inflated, democratic governments have not been overthrown, civil wars have not broken out, and economies haven't crashed. Simply put, with a few minor trivial exceptions, Brexit and other recent nationalist victories appear to be all gain with no pain. Is this a sign that nationalism has effectively neutralized globalist forces? It's a possibility, but I reckon it a slim one.
I don't believe the global elite are infallible. Nor are they omnipotent. Having said that, they are probably not as bumbling, short-sighted, and incompetent as many bloggers and thinkers would have us believe. Over the past few weeks I have pondered the possibility that the recent nationalist victories against globalism, these apparently massive gains acquired with little in the way of pain, might amount to nothing more than the one step back in the old 'two steps forward, one step back' dance, which is summarized below:
Those resisting evil feel as if they have won some sort of victory, as if they have forced evil into some kind of compromise. There exists the illusion of regained territory, but nothing has been gained at all because the territory evil won in step one remains firmly within its control. In other words, it has advanced while its opponents have been pushed back.
The process described above could be applied to Brexit and other recent, apparent nationalist victories, at least at the speculative level. Have nationalists really won anything? Or have globalists merely allowing them to believe they have won something?
As I thought about this, I stumbled upon an interesting analysis of Brexit written by blogger Steven Guinness, who focuses primarily on geopolitical and economic matters. Mr. Guinness offers the following observations about Brexit specifically and nationalism in general (notes and bold added by me):
With Britain in the process of leaving the European Union, you could argue that one of the main planks of the Commission’s (The Trilateral Commission) agenda has failed. If the global elite want the integration of European nations, and for the majority of those nations to be controlled through a centralised behemoth like the EU, surely seeing the UK become independent from the union goes against everything they believe in? Not necessarily.
[. . . ]
From a UK standpoint, the country’s departure from the EU may appear on the surface to be rallying against the tide of globalism. But my concern is that globalists will successfully manage to position Brexit and the spectre of a global trade conflict as causes for an economic collapse, when in fact it is monetary policy over the last twelve years which will be the primary culprit.
Rather than heavy handedly marching into western nations and claiming their sovereignty, I would be concerned that the global elite will allow nationalist movements to fall on their own sword, and for the onset of a series of crises to consume geopolitics throughout the next decade. The job then would be to implement a whole raft of reforms and to educate the next generation on the perils of self determination.
The realisation of a ‘new world order‘ means tearing down existing structures, or at the very least jeopardising them to the point of collapse, to facilitate the new. Out of resurgent nationalism may come a swathe of centralised directives that make today’s level of globalisation seem tame by comparison.
Whether this is is happening or might happen is open to debate, but the possibility is definitely one we should not dismiss callously. At the very least, it would help explain why the global elite have not triggered chaos in reaction to the opposition against their agenda - yet.
Thus far, I have focused exclusively on the political and economic in this post, which is primarily what most nationalistically-inclined bloggers and thinkers focus on when addressing the current tug-of-war between nationalism and globalism. But we must remember that what occurs at the political and economic levels are firmly grounded in the spiritual level. And it is at the spiritual level, and only at the spiritual level, that the war against the global elite and their demonic agenda can be won.
For the sake of argument, let's imagine Mr. Guinness's speculation proves true - the globalists allow nationalism to sprout in the West for a few years, all without any perceptible disadvantages or consequences. People buy into nationalism again. Embrace it. Even opponents of autonomy and sovereignty begin to admit they may have been wrong. Then, out of nowhere, the global elite begin pulling the plug through the machinations of their System into which most nations will still be firmly assimilated via trade, economy, finance, etc. How will people in the West react to the sudden discomfort and suffering such a pulled plug will undoubtedly cause?
How will Western people react when the world goes from all gain no pain to, seemingly, all pain no gain?
Will Western people be able to withstand economic disruptions, extended periods of unemployment, a possible increase in civic violence, and a meaningful decline in the overall comfort and quality of their material lives in the short term for the promise of something better, greater, and freer in the long-term?
Will Western people gratefully sacrifice comfort and pleasure and welcome material pain in order to align their societies with Reality for spiritual gain? Or will Western people buckle under the physical disruptions and material deprivations the global elite unleash and, consequently, willingly surrender to the global agenda in an effort to regain the comforts and the pleasures they have lost?
As with anything else, the answer to this question lies in the spiritual, which I will probably explore in another post concerning perceived nationalist victories on the global stage.
Sure, anti-globalist forces have notched a number of apparent political victories onto their belts over the past few years, but what these victories will signify in the long-run remains an open question, at least for me. One mild criticism I would like to level at the euphoric nationalist cheerleaders is this: Are these victories you're seeing really victories or might they be merely feigned retreats?
Globalists have worked incredibly hard to institute their System over the past century; a System that aims for and intends to eliminate the nation state in the West in favor of a one-world totalitarian government. Even with my limited understanding of these things, I can assess that the System the global elite have erected is incredibly intricate and complex; one that permeates practically all institutions in the West including, but not limited to, government, education, media, finance, science, and yes, even religion.
Is it realistic to assume the global elite would simply allow this sophisticated and labyrinthine operation to be dismantled or rendered obsolete by the outcome of a referendum vote or a superficial change in ruling parties within one of their cherished democracies? Even if the global elite did turn away with a shrug or throw their hands up in surrender, would these actions not precipitate immediate and drastic disruptions - initially in the financial sector, but eventually in nearly every aspect of our civilization?
Call me a pessimist, but I cannot imagine the global elite surrendering anything willingly or diplomatically. As painful as it is to accept, the global elite have amassed vast amounts of power and control over the past century. Their influence is evident nearly everywhere, and it is inconceivable to believe that they would relinquish this power, control, and influence without some kind of retaliation or rearguard action.
Many feared such a retaliation or rearguard action would occur during the Brexit process, but as of yet, the stock markets haven't plummeted, currencies haven't hyper-inflated, democratic governments have not been overthrown, civil wars have not broken out, and economies haven't crashed. Simply put, with a few minor trivial exceptions, Brexit and other recent nationalist victories appear to be all gain with no pain. Is this a sign that nationalism has effectively neutralized globalist forces? It's a possibility, but I reckon it a slim one.
I don't believe the global elite are infallible. Nor are they omnipotent. Having said that, they are probably not as bumbling, short-sighted, and incompetent as many bloggers and thinkers would have us believe. Over the past few weeks I have pondered the possibility that the recent nationalist victories against globalism, these apparently massive gains acquired with little in the way of pain, might amount to nothing more than the one step back in the old 'two steps forward, one step back' dance, which is summarized below:
Those resisting evil feel as if they have won some sort of victory, as if they have forced evil into some kind of compromise. There exists the illusion of regained territory, but nothing has been gained at all because the territory evil won in step one remains firmly within its control. In other words, it has advanced while its opponents have been pushed back.
The process described above could be applied to Brexit and other recent, apparent nationalist victories, at least at the speculative level. Have nationalists really won anything? Or have globalists merely allowing them to believe they have won something?
As I thought about this, I stumbled upon an interesting analysis of Brexit written by blogger Steven Guinness, who focuses primarily on geopolitical and economic matters. Mr. Guinness offers the following observations about Brexit specifically and nationalism in general (notes and bold added by me):
With Britain in the process of leaving the European Union, you could argue that one of the main planks of the Commission’s (The Trilateral Commission) agenda has failed. If the global elite want the integration of European nations, and for the majority of those nations to be controlled through a centralised behemoth like the EU, surely seeing the UK become independent from the union goes against everything they believe in? Not necessarily.
[. . . ]
From a UK standpoint, the country’s departure from the EU may appear on the surface to be rallying against the tide of globalism. But my concern is that globalists will successfully manage to position Brexit and the spectre of a global trade conflict as causes for an economic collapse, when in fact it is monetary policy over the last twelve years which will be the primary culprit.
Rather than heavy handedly marching into western nations and claiming their sovereignty, I would be concerned that the global elite will allow nationalist movements to fall on their own sword, and for the onset of a series of crises to consume geopolitics throughout the next decade. The job then would be to implement a whole raft of reforms and to educate the next generation on the perils of self determination.
The realisation of a ‘new world order‘ means tearing down existing structures, or at the very least jeopardising them to the point of collapse, to facilitate the new. Out of resurgent nationalism may come a swathe of centralised directives that make today’s level of globalisation seem tame by comparison.
Whether this is is happening or might happen is open to debate, but the possibility is definitely one we should not dismiss callously. At the very least, it would help explain why the global elite have not triggered chaos in reaction to the opposition against their agenda - yet.
Thus far, I have focused exclusively on the political and economic in this post, which is primarily what most nationalistically-inclined bloggers and thinkers focus on when addressing the current tug-of-war between nationalism and globalism. But we must remember that what occurs at the political and economic levels are firmly grounded in the spiritual level. And it is at the spiritual level, and only at the spiritual level, that the war against the global elite and their demonic agenda can be won.
For the sake of argument, let's imagine Mr. Guinness's speculation proves true - the globalists allow nationalism to sprout in the West for a few years, all without any perceptible disadvantages or consequences. People buy into nationalism again. Embrace it. Even opponents of autonomy and sovereignty begin to admit they may have been wrong. Then, out of nowhere, the global elite begin pulling the plug through the machinations of their System into which most nations will still be firmly assimilated via trade, economy, finance, etc. How will people in the West react to the sudden discomfort and suffering such a pulled plug will undoubtedly cause?
How will Western people react when the world goes from all gain no pain to, seemingly, all pain no gain?
Will Western people be able to withstand economic disruptions, extended periods of unemployment, a possible increase in civic violence, and a meaningful decline in the overall comfort and quality of their material lives in the short term for the promise of something better, greater, and freer in the long-term?
Will Western people gratefully sacrifice comfort and pleasure and welcome material pain in order to align their societies with Reality for spiritual gain? Or will Western people buckle under the physical disruptions and material deprivations the global elite unleash and, consequently, willingly surrender to the global agenda in an effort to regain the comforts and the pleasures they have lost?
As with anything else, the answer to this question lies in the spiritual, which I will probably explore in another post concerning perceived nationalist victories on the global stage.
RSS Feed
