There is a need to tell our children their history timeline in a simple one-pager because, as my father used to say, “the world is one disaster upon another.”
A good place to start might be the American time-line 1900 – 2000, which is quite insightful because compared to previous centuries, so much more happened. What is remarkable is that it started happening in the days of my own Grandfather. Literally therefore, things changed from good-to-bad in the span of two lifetimes.
South Africa has a similar time-line where one remarkable event was the 1910 Union of South Africa, which marked the actual start of the country, meaning the country as it is known today, is only 116 years old. But the Australian time-line shows it is only ten years older than South Africa. In summary it becomes apparent that just looking at the last 100-odd years should provide any young western child with a lot of common sense insight.
The first half of the twentieth century history was mostly filled with European wars in the context of various prior dispensations. After the wars though, things changed (a lot). For example decolonization happened, as well as the formation of the United Nations in 1945. This intentionally coincided with the establishment of the World Bank which was intended to alleviate the condition of “the poor.” One could almost say a sort of pseudo world government was established to “help undeveloped countries” while coupled to a diplomacy platform for reducing risk of future world wars between developed countries.
Around 1965 immigration laws changed in America and Australia but economies in general pretty much grew at satisfactory rates until 1975. Incidentally, the Angola-Namibian War broke out the same time which, together with black unrest resulted in Government capitulation in 1994. However, on the world stage, America and the Soviet Union were having their own little “iron-curtain” pulled aside in 1989 when the Berlin Wall was dismantled. It is no coincidence that the fall of Communism and Apartheid happened in virtually the same year. Namibia gained independence in 1990; the Soviet Union dissolved the same time and then in 1991 things changed (a lot) again.
George H.W Bush declared the New World Order. This NWO would be based only on a liberal-democratic ideology where America would provide the money and the military to “assist” any country on earth. This NWO supersedes any authority individual political parties might have had since decision and actions are undertaken above the level of individual countries e.g. United Nations. This coincided apparently with the rise of Multinational Corporations (MNCs) which are still inhibiting Governments and sovereignty to this day i.e. tax havens.
However, serious challenges have been mounting against a unilaterally declared NWO. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is severely criticized while the recent formation of BRICS is pushing back against (mostly) the US in terms of trade (World Trade Organization), finances (Pre- and post-Bretton Woods) and “security” (which includes the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)). In addition, because the NWO marketed the idea of exporting universal humanity and climate, Middle-East citizens are in turn now flooding Western Countries in search of that “humanity.” This is a regulatory safety problem unfortunately, which can’t be solved in a military sense alone.
But a second challenge against the NWO has arisen from within Western Civilization through the disenfranchised political right. Despite gloating about human rights achievements, proponents of the uni-party NWO power-base have ensured implementation of socialist oriented policies that resulted in moving the Overton Window too far to the left, thereby ignoring the needs of a major part of the electorate. Since socialist type policies tend to focus on common lower class peoples, the more capable and influential were left without representation, not only electorally but also economically. It can be said that Western culture emanates not from tax-eaters, but from tax-payers or those that contribute and those that don’t.
It is therefore realistic to think that the productive “class” of society cannot simply by “brushed” over in some dark and underhanded way. This is amply demonstrated by the experience gained in liberating South Africa from Apartheid. This third-world country achieved “independence” at the same time Russia was “liberated” from Communism, with the full support of the NWO. It introduced liberal democracy as the perfect post-Apartheid ideological solution, praised to such an extent that Mandela and De Klerk received a joint Nobel Peace Prize. But after 20 years it became clear that a liberal-democratic dispensation cannot accommodate a middle-class, in fact, it will destroy any semblance of a (productive) middle-class by its very design. Basic reasons for this are that 40% of the population receive “social grants”, that poverty has not been reduced and that binary media language focus either on the “elite” or the “poor”, but never the boring middle-class. This binary language also ignores the basic culture and driving force of the “Nation” eventually stripping those protective “values” that enabled the hosting (compared to Greece’s Olympic Games) of massive events such as the 1995 Rugby World Cup and the 2010 Soccer World Cup.
Applying this proven historic background to the very similar American context, it is logical to say that the disenfranchised middle-class (left and right) will react against an intrinsically flawed liberal democratic regime (i.e. Brexit) by supporting the ideology of realism. Therefore, when combined with France, the Netherlands and Hungary, it is possible to motivate a cross-Atlantic, counter-NWO-culture, anti-globalist, nationalistic American President, such as a bottoms-up, common sense, negotiating Donald Trump. His apparent strategy is, precisely, to rekindle the fiery growth potential of the middle-class because any and all liberal-democratic attempts to “re-start” economic growth after the 2007 Great Recession disaster have failed.
To avoid more disaster, the future will require a different ideology or political belief system. Realism — which is non-binary in nature by dint of recognizing power as more important than morality — is showing a lot of promise. As my father used to say, referring I suppose to the cyclic structure of history, binary counting uses the 0 and 1 characters but using the 1, 3 and 9 characters might be more efficient.