annatar1914 wrote:To be quite blunt, I don't expect liberalism in either it's classical or modern 21st century iterations, the American or W. European type political spectrum post-WWII, to exist anywhere for much longer. It'll be Fascists, National Civic Populists and Reactionaries versus Communists versus Islamists for a while.
I don't know that I completely agree with that. My absolutist prognostications are more often wrong than right, so I tend to eschew them. Yet, I think the multicultural globalist establishment certainly has its back up against the wall. They could preserve themselves by relenting as they did during America's Great Depression. For example, the reason Mark Zuckerberg dresses like any other Gen-X/Millennial engineer has its roots in the Great Depression when people of great wealth stopped wearing top hats, frock coats, and being driven in limousines more ostentatious than a Lincoln Town Car. You wouldn't be able to pick Mark Zuckerberg out in a crowd, because he looks just like any other douche bag his age. Yet, he spends $25M a year on his security detail. Beyond advertising dating sites to singles on his Facebook, he has real reasons to believe there are people out there with legitimate grievances to hate his guts. You don't need to spend $25M a year to stop standard kidnap and ransom. Stopping snipers or IED attacks is much more challenging, and expensive
. I'll be interested to see what happens in the European elections tomorrow. It should make for some interesting weekend reads. What is very evident, however, is that the globalist establishment has lost favor everywhere, and the infiltration of multiple seemingly opposing parties and the media has lost its pull too. The New Right Is Beating the New Left. Everywhere.
annatar1914 wrote:I suspect then that the ''Elite'' reasons for Globalism are just as they are themselves, a technocratic screen behind which others call the shots. This is a real political ideology openly in some places like Latin America, ironically enough, called Synarchism.
Yea. I could go with that. The fragile aspect of that philosophy is unlike companies domiciled in totalitarian states, much of the West's companies are domiciled under democracies, and it is more than clear now that corporations are doing their level best to undermine the will of voters. I think the big difference now is that voters know it and understand it in a way they didn't ten years ago.
That's why--love him or hate him--Donald Trump is an historical figure now. Imagine the sheer danger of a politician listening to the desires of the masses!
annatar1914 wrote:The Globalists can always change the avowed reasons for Globalism to suit popular unrest, or even jettison Globalism as a thing once they've got all that they can wring out of it.
Well, they hit that point around WWII when the empires started collapsing. People from India can certainly appreciate why working class Britons don't want so many of them driving wages down as they certainly didn't appreciate the British ruling class running their country for 100 years either directly or via the British East India Company. Now, they are hitting the reverse of it trying to import Asia and Africa into Europe and South America into North America. The electorate is nauseous of this now.
annatar1914 wrote:Cut their loses and build their universal dominance around one political regime out there in the world.
That's an interesting thought, but I don't think they really want to leave the United States yet. Their biggest trade opportunity is selling China and buying South Asia right now. That transition would give blue collar Americans some breathing room. Maintaining mass illegal immigration is likely to lead to political consequences they don't want to stomach. In my view, Donald Trump is just the beginning of that process. The establishment's push for Joe Biden--a multi-time loser for the White House, just like Hillary Clinton--is their primary hope now.
annatar1914 wrote:Maybe the problem with the first time they tried that, is that they did not seek the approval of the Anglo-American establishment in the first place, as they had in 1904 initially.
I don't know that they can be blamed for betting on Germany as the rising star. That did in fact materialize and exists to this day with a lot of the Anglo-American establishment in the mix there. Both Hitler and Tojo saw the handwriting on the wall for the British Empire, and WWII effectively took the piss out of them. The UK was the ultimate loser of WWII. Although, even India's Independence didn't make that clear. The Suez Crisis is what made them realize they were no longer the top dog--a bitter pill to be sure, but not as bitter as it was for the French.