Guest opinion piece by David Archibald,
To recap briefly, most of the communist countries collapsed by 1991 and the Western democratic tradition was seen as the winner of an existential battle that had waged since the Russian Revolution of 1917. Historian Francis Fukuyama called it “the end of history” because only good things would happen thereafter. Mankind’s ideological evolution had ended and Western liberal democracy would be the final form of government.
In response to that wishful thinking, Harvard historian Samuel Huntington wrote a paper, and subsequently a book, entitled The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order in which he predicted that with the end of ideological conflict the world would revert to a normal state of affairs characterized by cultural conflict. In particular, Professor Huntington predicted an attack by Islamists on the United States. That attack duly happened five years later. Huntington had identified China and Islam as “challenger civilizations.”
But there is a third force attacking civilization that hasn’t been officially recognized until recently, when President Trump named it in his speech to the United Nations on September 24. That speech began by deploring Chinese aggression:
It is the divide between those whose thirst for control deludes them into thinking they are destined to rule over others and those people and nations who want only to rule themselves.
Then continued on to its main thrust with this line:
The future does not belong to globalists.
So who are the globalists and what do they want? The globalists date back to Cecil Rhodes in the late 19th century. He thought the elite of the English-speaking world should run the whole planet. The early history of the globalist effort was recorded by Carroll Quigley in his book Tragedy and Hope, first published in 1966. Carroll Quigley was then a professor of history at Georgetown University and a mentor of then-Georgetown undergraduate Bill Clinton.
Globalist central is the Council on Foreign Relations, founded in 1921. Its main propaganda outlet is the magazine Foreign Policy. The purpose of Foreign Policy is to bathe its readers in the preferred narrative, rewriting history as necessary. For example Foreign Policy had been blindly pro-China until it was decided that China’s recidivism was threatening to thwart the globalist vision. So now Foreign Policy is publishing anti-China articles in which the villains are Republicans.
The globalist agenda can only be imposed on a static world in which people feel comfortable and secure. If China started a war that resulted in the deaths of millions, with its attendant destruction and starvation, that would make globalism a hard sell.
The globalist vision is one world government in which misery is shared equally. The globalists plan ahead and see the threat of starvation which will hit individual nations in sequence (Paul Ehrlich’s timetable was vitiated by the 200% increase in wheat and corn yields originating from the work of Norman Borlaug). Once starvation hits, globalism would have zero traction. Thus, global warming was created as the excuse to bring in one world government with the talk about fighting global warming by giving up meat in our diet. And eating insects instead to get protein. Normally such a loony notion wouldn’t be given the time of day, but it is coming from the United Nations.
The China threat explains why global warming hysteria has ratcheted up this year, with Extinction Rebellion and Germany trying to avoid a climate catastrophe that is only in their mind. It is a race to get the globalist solution to a non-problem imposed before China’s war of choice upsets the applecart.
In his speech to the United Nations, President Trump described how the globalists operated:
A permanent political class is openly disdainful, dismissive, and defiant of the will of the people. A faceless bureaucracy operates in secret and weakens democratic rule. Media and academic institutions push flat-out assaults on our histories, traditions, and values.
President Trump’s antidote to globalism is correct in part but not the whole solution needed:
…each nation represented in this hall has a cherished history, culture, and heritage that is worth defending and celebrating, and which gives us our singular potential and strength; and
Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first; and
Cherish your culture. Honor your histories. Treasure your citizens.
In the election campaign in 2016 Trump was all for pulling out of Afghanistan and once elected he made a half-hearted effort to that end. When the United States became involved in 2001, Afghanistan’s population was 21 million. It is now 35.5 million, an increase of more than 14 million. In 1998, Afghanistan imported 42,000 tons of wheat. Twenty years later Afghanistan imported 3.7 million tonnes of wheat. A ton of wheat will keep four adults fed for a year. So the whole increase in Afghanistan’s population has been paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
When the U.S. finally withdraws from that wretched country and it returns to being run by war lords, drug lords and religious fanatics, the U.S. taxpayer will be disinclined to keep sending wheat there and half the country could starve to death. This would be a big disturbance in the globalist narrative, so the U.S. is still in Afghanistan. Nobody has put forward a story for Afghanistan that has as different ending.
David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare
via Watts Up With That?
October 27, 2019 at 04:04AM