A Look at Politics – Particularly in America
God establishes rulers,
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” (Romans 13:1)
Who are the Fascists, really?
Donald Trump has been accused of being a Fascist. Those who voted for Brexit have been described as being ignorant and UKIP as extreme right wing (racist and perhaps even Fascist).
But I propose that the behaviour of those against Trump, Brexit and UKIP are behaving like ousted dictators. So, who are the Fascists… really?
Britain and America have voted for change. Sovereignty in Britain and Conservatism in America seem to be preferred, but by a narrow margin. As other more right-wing contenders are on the rise across Europe, what can be agreed is that voters across the democratic West are divided over whether to maintain the liberal progressive status quo or to shift back to tradition.
It seems ironic that the established “status quo” is liberal: pro-choice on the abortion issue, pro-gay rights within society’s structure have helped to define the overall perspective of the current left. Over a number of decades, Western society has gradually swung away from Judeo-Christian values, which was once the established tradition and norm. Recently, the long-silenced voices of these traditionalists have begun to speak again; the American election heralded a swing back to more conservative values, for example. Their opponents however, are zealous in their attacks through the media and protest, and hope to maintain their influence.
By small percentages, Brits and Americans have voted to return to tradition. But the losing side: made up of the establishment, the media and some voters are reeling at the prospect of change. Some have been hysterical in their attacks against Brexit and against Trump.
What is really going on?
From Genesis 11:4-9 comes the following,
“And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.” But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.”
Over decades, powerful people have set up a number of systems to control the masses. Then they’ve used the media to manipulate and sway the public to their view. Business, pharmacy, medicine, science, politics are all under the control of a wealthy elite, who remain nameless and faceless. These elite have constructed their Towers of Babel and want to remain at the top of them. That’s my belief. I can’t prove it.
As an onlooker (I did vote in the British referendum, but I live in Spain which gives me some degree of distance; as a Canadian I grew up close to but separate from American politics and development), I think the establishment feels under threat, and are attacking their opponents using any means available to them in order to hang on to control. They are using fear tactics and propaganda to twist words and facts, disturbing the peace of mind of the ordinary voter. They even imply that a shift away from them is akin to inviting a fascist takeover.
But to my mind, their use of propaganda, accusation and fear mongering indicates a dictator’s strategies much more than anything their opponents have said or done.
What does the establishment want? Money? Power? Perhaps they are altruists, seeking to protect society, and are guarding against collapse and chaos. Whether their motives are for personal gain or to protect society, the red flag for me is their lack of respect toward the result of the democratic process.
Who is The Establishment?
I see the establishment as,
- those who have been in elected office
- those who want government to continue to operate as it has done for decades, and wield their money and influence to ensure it
- international non-governmental bodies with their own hidden agendas
I’ve discussed those in elected office, those of influence and those in the media. There are also non-governing bodies which wield huge influence and power.
Towers of Babel, whether for good or for evil, are manmade constructs. They are built and run by people. Global, non-governmental institutions such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund, also part of the Tower Stucture, have their agendas. Individual nations are not democratically electing the leaders of these organisations, yet they seem to wield the greatest power. The governments have so far kept in step. Now, with Trump and May as leaders, there is a shift. Institutions and those who support them are vehemently resisting the shift, however.
Donald Trump says he is representing those in support of a shift back to what is the traditional in America. Theresa May, PM of UK, is standing up for the Brits who voted for sovereignty and against EU membership. These two and other opposition leaders in Europe are anti-establishment and pro-democratic. I don’t think they are fascist and I don’t think they are dictators. (However it’s another irony that wealthy billionaire Trump has made his empire by building what? Towers!)
What is going on? People have voted for a change in political leadership and methodology, and those who didn’t get their vote are uncomfortable.
Personally, I don’t see a shift from liberalism to conservatism as equivalent to a shift from freedom to fascism. In fact, I don’t see either side as fascist, but I do see an undercurrent of control being exposed that doesn’t want to be exposed.
Let’s look at two perspectives: from those who won and those who lost in the elections.
The Conservative Perspective against a Liberal Agenda
If we are to believe conservative strands of the non-mainstream media, there is a secretly-controlled mechanism that rules the common man by stealth. Non-democratic organisations stand above the accountability of the free will of the people. Governments and politicians support and uphold these institutions and the elite are straining to ensure the powers of the UN, EU, the IMP are upheld.
International organisations such as these wield tremendous power, influence and money. They coerce ordinary people and governments under the guise of interventionist “help” by attaching specific conditions to their Aid; these conditions are very liberal and socialist. While on the surface, they have a mandate to keep peace, maintain international unity and ensure financial stability, they manipulate governments who seek assistance. The governments in need will receive Aid subject to specific social conditions and moral expectations being met. The terms are liberal, which suggests the institutions offering the Aid know right from wrong better than the people or nations themselves.
For example, some conservative circles suggest that the IMF will not contribute financial help to nations unless they subscribe to planned parenthood, including abortion. The IMF then has a bias toward pro-choice. There are several strands of a liberal agenda within the institutional structure of non-democratic global organisations that hold influence over nations and peoples. This is a particularly sensitive area, yet only one of many weighty social/moral areas of contention.
Pressure to conform to a particular world view is usually hidden. The masses in both the nations offering the aid and the nations receiving it are meant to accept a new norm of Liberalism and Humanism. But this is a world view which is opposite to the Judeo-Christian principles on which Western nations — and many colonies as well — were built. The conservative perspective tends to prefer the old principles rather than the new Liberal Humanist agenda.
The Liberal Perspective* distrusts Christianity
On the other hand, there are those in support of the global organisations and even in globalisation itself. They recognise the limitations of people and wish to ensure the protection of humanity against war, famine, disease and over population.
A liberal view holds more trust and acceptance toward the institutions than is its conservative counterpart. My interpretation of it I describe thus:
What seems good in the eyes of the institution is good, because it has a greater insight into the global situation than does the ordinary voter. Peace is desirable, and it is attainable under certain conditions; poverty can be overcome with man’s efforts to do so. Unity within our society is the best way to ensure peace. Globalisation, with national borders being less important than universal harmony, is desirable. Man can make this planet work if we all row together to make it happen. Moral standards are determined by what is right in our enlightened times; while tragically, some people don’t see this as the right way forward, if they could see things as we do, then they’d understand. The institutions, governments, and authorities must protect us against ourselves, because we are incapable of seeing clearly. Ordinary folk aren’t really able to understand fully, so institutions only need to share what we absolutely need to know. Judeo-Christian traditions are intolerant and oppose our views of right and wrong, so to limit those voices facilitates the achievement to our cause.
Well, if these are the two sides, and there has been a democratic vote, why is the established, more liberal side having such a hard time, this time, to let go?
Is it because of a lust for power? Or are they scared of the consequences of a structural collapse? Perhaps we are in danger of our own “Arab Spring” in the West.
I think they are balking because up until now the democratic sides have essentially agreed to co-operate, and the power base for the institutions and the elite have always remained in tact. But now, the Brexit folk and the Donald Trump team are refusing to cooperate; the institutions have lost their ultimate power, and they know it.
The end does not justify the means
I don’t think it matters the reason for the rejection of the democratic result. The reaction is hypocritical, and therefore earns no respect, in my view. The establishment has made accusations and excuses for their rejection of the democratic vote, has insulted the voter, and has manipulated the mainstream news.
I don’t believe the end ever justifies the means. Hiding the truth or attempting to indoctrinate by the use of propaganda (of which I include political correctness as one key tool) just to keep control is, in my opinion, cheating. It’s undemocratic. One either believes in democracy and the equal right of all citizens to make an informed decision and exercise the right to vote, or one does not.
As to the issue of supplying Aid: to suppress free thought or to bribe another entity, be it a country or an individual in order to get them to act as you wish them to act, tempts them and attempts to coerce them away from true freedom of conscience and thought.
I find it ironic that the conservatives, who tend naturally to represent the establishment are the group that seem to be the anti-establishment. That’s because in the West, we seem to have swung so far away from traditional values that what was once seen as righteous is no longer accepted. As scripture predicted, ‘right has become wrong and wrong right.’
Arab spring occurred in an atmosphere of oppression in the Middle East. Though it began in Tunisia, it spread like wild fire, and as a direct result we have the situation in Syria, where the established government is clinging to power, forcing citizens who do not like the ruler to flee or to be killed.
We don’t want that in the West. But could we in danger of heading in that direction? If the result of a democratic vote is not accepted by a vocal, demonstrative part of the population, and they are being fueled by the losing side and the media, maybe that is where we are heading.
Perhaps, by accusing the winner, Donald Trump, of Fascism, we may end up creating the dictatorship we seem to fear. But not because Donald Trump is the maniac, but because some others who refuse to accept the democratic result, are.
And if the two sides within our democratic societies don’t learn to stand together, they may both fall under a far bigger threat…
Stay tuned for “Exposing the Towers of Babel: Part 2” next time
* I admit I’m less familiar or sympathetic to this view, so please correct me if I’m wrong…