Liberalism — A Non-Ideology
LIBERALISM is not an issue for further elaboration in every day’s politics or policymaking. President Harry S. Truman initiated a period of normalization of International and domestic affairs. As the years go by the American lead, culturally and economically, is the new normal in the post-war years. Prosperity bloomed in the Western European countries in contrast to the countries in the East totally dominated by Soviet Russia. Thus the communists have an ideology while in the West normal, civilized governance prevailed. This is how liberals (social- and otherwise) see politics.
The Republican, Richard M. Nixon, was the first president who broke with the Bretton-Woods monetary system initiated in 1944 to prepare the new world order after the total defeat of the Iron-Axis powers Germany, Italy, and Imperial Japan. This abrupt presidential move in the early 1970s shocked the establishment with billionaire David Rockefeller in the lead. — As a conservative, Nixon felt the emerging global trade system was a disadvantage for the US workplaces and economic interests and left the gold-based international rule of conduct. The new financial reality has a lot to do with the new players on the world scene, the losers of Second World War, Western Germany, and Japan.
But the (unforgivingly condensed) history of modern-day liberalism cannot be told without mentioning The Trilateral Commission. This commission was founded in 1973 with the overall heading to manage the new upcoming global economy. It was international in intention as well as in deeds. The echelons of the select globalist elite were offered an exclusive meeting circle to influence the global economy. The foremost members were David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski President Jimmy Carter’s later security adviser.
This exclusive club expanded its aims along with the growing influence of mass movements on both sides of the Atlantic. To keep things under control the meeting circle was widened with members from minor Western states. Thus The Commission was truly a globalist liberal utopian elitists’ discussion forum. — Later the utopian aspect could be interpreted as the Western elitists’ vision of a zip-free world dominance based on the social-liberal worldview. The liberals were all over the place, and the chief of the World Bank, Robert McNamara had wide-scale meetings with representatives of the OPEC-states.
A circle was encompassed somehow; an informal and formal group of highly influential people in America, Europe, and the Arabian Peninsula laid out prospectives for a tighter cooperation in the globalist market (not the least in the field of oil supplies to the needy Western world). The new understanding between these diverse countries went under the bylines. At least between the European Common Market and the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC), a semi-stealth agreement on the transfer of an Arab surplus population to Europe sealed the continent’s fate; (see Bat Ye’or: “Eurabia”).
The Echelon network was headed all through the seventies by individuals such as Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter and David Rockefeller. It was the decade where The Commission’s 180 influential members sought an active cooperation with the European Union. At the same time, the EU floated towards left-wing ideas about societies fate.
The informal network of powerful and influential individuals was first and foremost an instrument to keep the American elite’s fingerprints on US foreign policy. Since the Second World War foreign policy was formulated by a comparatively secluded elite or a foreign policy establishment.
During the Cold War the question on how to handle the communist threat, vis-à-vis containment, was agreed upon by both parties. No major divergences prevailed. However, it didn’t last. Already at the beginning of the seventies, the common understanding of world affairs deteriorated. The peace movements dawned in the keel-water of the Vietnam war. A new potent opposition saw the light of day to the discontent of the aforementioned elite.
In the light of the shrinking influence of the elite due to mass organizations of leftist observance, the exclusive informal group took a broader perspective. As The Trilateral Commission’s most prominent member, Henry Kissinger uttered: “… the Elite or the foreign policy establishment shall no longer be content with the initiative of the public opinion — they ought to formulate it firstly.” — Thus The Commission was the tool to circumvent the public opinion by casting the bullets framing a diverse agenda so as to influence American and foreign policy. Parts of what I’ll call “Dark State” were very upset to the perspective of “downstairs” sources outside the secluded circle formulate a viable agenda.
Zbigniew Brzezinski said, that the new mass democracy took the lead and did war-making practically impossible; an option otherwise favorable to a superpower.
All that worries lead to greater assimilation between the two “parties,” the elitists and the popular movements, as time went by. The definition of the Darwinian “Survival of the Fittest” is, that it is those who can adjust to changed environments who survives. And the Elitists’ ethos is survival. So they changed. And survived to this day. As a network of the elite and the political establishment, The Trilateral Commission has since its founding been — in own opinion — in the middle of nowhere. That’s to say neither of the political fringes has been welcomed or represented. Nor communists or far rights have a say in this opinionated group. Even individuals against the European Union are not allowed access.
So here we are today. Along the route profile able editors, bankers, CEO’s of prominent businesses and worldwide chief representatives of conglomerates have all been let in in the armchair salon to discuss important business. Mind their own words, they have not an ideology. They propagate normally accepted governance based on sound reason. And therefore it’s without question the most accepted governing of the state. Without detailing it further the establishment — through its manifold agencies — conveys to the public that this is the policy of the Western civilization. Take it or leave it. But if you leave you are not a normal, healthy citizen.
As Julian Assange formulates the issue: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
The influence on The Commission by voices diverse from the originators is pregnant in today’s informal policy-making group. European-style Social Democrat worldview and globalist social-liberal thoughts play a significant role. Add the popular mass mobilization on the streets propagating still greater influx of migrants south of the border, and movements antagonizing the Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association.
Out of this seemingly diverse issues, today’s globalist liberal-left utopian elitists (GLUE) emerge.
They are against national borders, against limiting access to welfare, against military spending.
GLUE promotes global governance, cultural diverseness in Western countries, free entrance for everybody, especially from the underdeveloped world. And if a religion at all it preferably is Islam as a total system of human conduct; (see Michel Houellebecq: “Submission”).
The global outlook for an ideology — which is not an ideology — runs counter to national movements, of course. Zionism is seen as antagonistic to this globalist worldview. Again an example of Jewish stubbornness. Brussels is always keen on condemning Jerusalem’s steps — even the tentative — when it’s necessary to mark a red line. “In a globalist world why do the Jewish people need a homeland of their own — they could easily live among us” seems the un-ideologues to say. Well, unfortunately, we know better, I should say.
In order to promote the globalist utopian “non-ideological” worldview, they use normative tools such as what is politically correct to utter. Multi-billionaire George Soros cash in and Al Gore has his global warming project. The globalist elite clinch mass events to stir up opposition to classical, decent behavior. Thwarting gender differences along promotion of LGBT-Q lifestyle and deterioration of the nuclear family are all part of the quasi-fascist globalist ideology. It’s an upside down fascism but nevertheless totalitarian in nature.
This of course accentuated by the counter-globalist movement initiated by the appearance of a President new to the lobbying and policy-making of the corridors in Washington DC.
My personal view is that I’m interested in nothing less than a historical transformation of the very farthest reaching implications and significance, for the love of God and people, and nationhood
