Such a buzz word globalism. It
sounds so modern, so now, so progressive ... but oh, so what? The
global financier and 'philanthropist' George Soros is omnipresent in the mad rush to
create a post-national world. But to what end? Now he has teamed up with Justin Trudeau and the UN in order to export the Canadian Liberal Party's model for unvetted immigration to the world;
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/private-refugee-sponsorship-soros-un-1.3769639.
They hope to encourage and help fund the progressive faithful to leap into a bright new
'global village' post-national reality where all mankind lives in harmony and Soros and his globalist cronies control the economy. Except people are not living in harmony, and economies are
not that easily predicted or controlled. Soros and his fellow globalists actually increase tensions
through their interventionism. Why, you may ask? Because their model for a
global village is based upon the erroneous belief that culture does not matter.
That secular humanism will replace faith based religions. That big government
can solve the world's ills. Except it hasn't.
Angela Merkel has finally admitted that her government has
lost control of Germany's migrant crisis; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3800544/Outrage-Angela-Merkel-s-migration-policy-blamed-rising-violence-Germany-government.html.
Once again we see right pitted against left in Europe. Brexit was a cry of
desperation from the British people who wish to take back control of their borders and their economy. The single market has failed to produce the economic
prosperity that it had promised for the very reason that it was created. It is
too controlling, too intrusive, too restrictive, too bureaucratic, and wealth
is not distributed effectively using the EU's model. It is administered by
powerful unelected oligarchs whose decisions cannot be vetoed by the European
Union's own parliament. It has become, in effect, the 4th Reich with Germany as
the strongest controlling voice in Brussels. But how did this happen? What are the ideological foundations for this nightmare? We must dare to ask the difficult
questions. Especially now in an age where even asking such questions is deemed
to be a radical act.
The answer is both frightening and damning. It was created
by NAZI officers under the influence of socialist think tanks such as the
Frankfurt School; http://www.eu-facts.org/en/background/dark_roots_europe_lecture.html, http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/470967/The-EU-was-HITLER-S-idea-and-it-proves-Germany-WON-the-Second-World-War-claims-new-book, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1179902/Revealed-The-secret-report-shows-Nazis-planned-Fourth-Reich--EU.html
Yes, the NAZI's, who were fascists, planned it all.
You cannot make stuff like this up. The entire 20th Century
in Europe has been a struggle, not for freedom, but rather for which version of
big government statist control would emerge the victor. The idea of
government limited by law, of fair play as opposed to raison d’état, and of the individual before the
collective is almost unknown in Europe. Fascism (the bundling of big government and
business, just as we have in the EU) permits private ownership of industry but the
government controls how, what, where and when goods and services will be
provided, which also includes influencing cost through levies and taxes. Under communism the
state runs everything. Either way, neither favours personal or economic
freedom. But how did Marxism get reworked into an ideology that people would
buy into since modern statism is a combination of radical socialism and fascism?
The Frankfurt School provided the framework. After the initial
failures of Marxism, pseudo intelligentsia from the Frankfurt School asserted the following in an
attempt to repackage communism; 'What differentiated the West from Russia,
Lukacs identified, was a Judeo-Christian cultural matrix which emphasized
exactly the uniqueness and sacredness of the individual which Lukacs abjured.
At its core, the dominant Western ideology maintained that the individual,
through the exercise of his or her reason, could discern the Divine Will in an
unmediated relationship. What was worse, from Lukacs' standpoint: this
reasonable relationship necessarily implied that the individual could and
should change the physical universe in pursuit of the Good; that Man should
have dominion over Nature, as stated in the Biblical injunction in Genesis. The
problem was, that as long as the individual had the belief—or even the hope of the belief—that his or her divine spark of
reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never
reach the state of hopelessness and alienation which Lukacs recognized as the
necessary prerequisite for socialist revolution.' In order for their ideology
to take hold they had to attack individualism and replace that with collective
idealism. The tool they identified as most effective in advancing this ideology was political correctness. In a politically correct society it would become impossible for anyone to assert the rights of the
individual over that of the perceived welfare of the collective.
As incredible as this sounds here in Canada, one of the freest
countries in the world, we have a Prime Minister who asserts these very things. Who
states openly and unashamedly that the nation he has been elected to lead has
no 'core identity' and that we now live in the first post-national country on
earth! If his belief that we lack 'core identity' as a nation doesn't result in Canadians feeling hopeless and alienated, then I don't know what could. Can you recall any former Prime Minister who had the sinister gall to make such an assertion? With these words Justin Trudeau has declared himself
in opposition to the Dominion and the very laws by which we were founded
under God. Trouble ahead? No, it is already upon us.
No comments:
Post a Comment