Globalists Manipulate Leftist Movements for Social Control, By Chris Knight (Florida)
The article from Infowars delves into a complex argument concerning globalism, Leftist movements, and their role in triggering societal collapse.
The author posits that today's globalist agenda, championed by elites and Leftist ideologies, mirrors the historical rise of communism and fascism, suggesting that both movements were, at their core, manipulated by those in power to maintain control over the populace. The argument presented is provocative, blending historical analysis with contemporary political concerns, culminating in a call for a more radical approach to countering Left-wing policies.
The central claim of the article is that globalist elites intentionally use Leftist movements, like the "woke" culture and other progressive agendas, to destabilise societies. This destabilisation, the article argues, eventually leads to the populace seeking order, which can then be exploited to implement authoritarian systems. The author references the Bolshevik Revolution as an example, where the elite funded the Marxist takeover of Russia to further their geopolitical and financial interests.
The concern about the manipulation of political movements for broader control isn't new. Throughout history, there have been instances where powerful elites have funded or subtly supported movements that destabilised societies in order to eventually replace them with more controlled systems. The case of globalists supporting Left-wing movements today could be viewed as a modern example of this age-old strategy. In this regard, the argument draws from historical examples to illustrate a potentially ongoing tactic of manipulating societal change to maintain dominance over global politics.
The article argues that historical Leftist movements, particularly in Europe after WWI, set the stage for the rise of fascism. The assertion is that the aggressive actions of Marxists, such as strikes, sabotage, and violence, created a sense of societal chaos, which ultimately pushed people to seek authoritarian solutions like fascism. The implication is that the far-Left's radicalism directly contributed to the rise of fascist regimes in Europe.
While it's historically accurate that the economic instability and social unrest following WWI played a role in the rise of fascism, it's important to recognize that fascism itself was not a direct response to Left-wing radicalism but a distinct ideology with its own set of motivations, rooted in nationalism, militarism, and anti-communism. However, the theory that Leftist violence and instability made authoritarian solutions more appealing is grounded in historical precedent. In times of social and economic upheaval, people often turn to more extreme solutions when they feel that the current system is failing.
The article suggests that the cultural shifts initiated by Leftist ideologies, particularly in the realms of sexual politics and social morality, parallel the social disintegration seen in post-WWI Germany. The author equates the sexual liberation movements of the Weimar Republic to today's progressive social agenda, arguing that these radical cultural shifts can lead to social collapse, which in turn creates a fertile ground for authoritarian control.
The comparison between Weimar Germany and contemporary society is an effective rhetorical device to highlight concerns over societal decay and its potential consequences. In both cases, radical cultural shifts can generate discomfort and instability among the broader population, potentially leading them to seek out more authoritarian governance structures. However, it is also crucial to acknowledge that cultural shifts can be part of a broader societal evolution, and while some aspects of these shifts may lead to challenges, they don't inherently lead to collapse. The ability to adapt to changing cultural norms is often a strength, not a weakness, of societies.
The author invokes the Hegelian dialectic, the idea that conflict and opposition are inherent in the progression of history. According to the article, globalists create a dialectic between chaos (promoted by Leftist movements) and order (represented by authoritarian responses), using both sides to create a system where they maintain control. This "dialectic" process is presented as a deliberate strategy to control populations by alternately offering chaos and order as solutions to societal problems.
The concept of the Hegelian dialectic is a useful lens through which to view the interplay of chaos and order in political movements. The suggestion that globalists might intentionally create or manipulate such conflicts to maintain control has historical roots. After all, the consolidation of power often occurs in the wake of perceived crises, where populations are more likely to accept authoritarian measures in exchange for the promise of stability. The idea of using societal divisions as a means to push through agendas, aligns with historical practices of governance during times of crisis.
Finally, the author calls for radical action against globalist elites and Left-wing movements. The solution proposed is for ordinary citizens to organise independently and take matters into their own hands, bypassing government structures that may be too compromised or corrupt. This approach is framed as necessary to protect freedom, liberty, and morality without falling into the trap of further government overreach.
The call for grassroots action reflects a growing frustration among certain political groups with traditional institutions that they feel are failing them. In a time when globalism and Left-wing policies are increasingly seen as threats to national sovereignty and cultural integrity, the idea of taking direct action is becoming more appealing. However, this strategy raises concerns about the potential for extremism and the erosion of legal frameworks that protect individual rights. The challenge lies in finding a balance between combating perceived threats and maintaining democratic principles, as radical action often runs the risk of undermining the very freedoms it seeks to protect.
The article paints a provocative and alarmist picture of the current political landscape, framing it as a battle between globalist elites and populist resistance. While some of the historical comparisons are compelling, it is essential to critically assess the degree to which contemporary Left-wing movements are comparable to past revolutionary movements and whether the responses to them are proportionate or based on a clear understanding of historical context. The call for direct action and the rejection of government power suggests a more radical path forward, which, if not carefully considered, could lead to the very authoritarianism the article seeks to avoid.
"There is nothing more dangerous than an incomplete picture of history. A hundred years from now, if the powers-that-be have their way, the few children still allowed to be born (due to carbon controls) will be regaled with school lessons about the "Dark Ages of Nationalism" – When humanity was divided into warring states and divided societies that refused to embrace multiculturalism "to the detriment of all".
They will say that a "great movement" for globalism and wokeness arose and that the courageous revolutionaries fought evil conservative fascists using any means necessary. The political left will be painted as heroes fighting, not for freedom, but for equity and the "greater good". Western culture, Christianity, meritocracy, moral objectivity, personal liberty and appeals to reason will be demonized as relics of the old world – Monstrous constructs that prevented civilization from attaining true "oneness".
None of this will be true, of course. The majority of wars are triggered by globalist interests, not nationalists, and the political left is a gaggle of insane zealots hellbent on destroying the west. But, as they say, history is written by the victors.
Many conservatives and liberty advocates still don't understand that we are in the middle of a 4th Generation conflict. It's not a political or ideological disagreement, it's a war; a guerrilla war in which the enemy hides behind civilian status and the legal apparatus.
They use our moral code and our constitutional provisions against us. They find loopholes in the governmental structure and exploit those weaknesses. They turn our society into a living suicide bomb, all while claiming they hold a position of ethical superiority. It has happened before…
If you get the chance I highly recommend readers check out the in-depth investigative analysis of professor and economist Antony Sutton; specifically his book 'Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution'. In it he describes the historical timeline of how Trotsky and Lenin were funded and aided by the elites of the era. The key leaders of the Marxist takeover of Russia could not have done what they did without the help of American and European globalists.
The greater takeaway from Sutton's revelation is not so much what happened in the past, but what is happening NOW and how it is similar.
The reality of a hidden hand behind the Bolshevik Revolution might sound rather familiar – Today's DOGE audits have exposed massive bureaucratic manipulation schemes through agencies like USAID to instigate political and social change in America and in foreign nations. These schemes involve vast sums of taxpayer subsidies cycling through globalist controlled NGOs that then use the free cash to push multiculturalism, LGBT propaganda and color revolution.
The agenda to create a one world system and erase traditional western principles is ongoing, handed down from one generation of globalists to the next in a parasitic lineage. The people behind it are moral relativists and Luciferians (they worship themselves and desire to become godlike). They pursue their goals with the fervor of a religious cult. They believe in what they are doing utterly; with as much conviction as you or I hold in our fight for freedom and accountability.
In America the process is beginning to parallel the leftist movements that ended with Marxist terrorism in Europe and the eventual rise of fascism.
After WWI, leftists engaged in a hurricane of disruption tactics including industrial sabotage, mob intimidation, politically motivated worker strikes, terror attacks, bombings, assassinations, etc. Modern day academics try to paint these tactics as heroic, or at the very least they claim that the actions of Marxists had nothing to do with the European embrace of fascism. This is a lie.
It was, in fact, the constant psychological attacks, economic attacks and direct attacks by far-left groups that made fascism so appealing to common Europeans. Ernst Thalmann, the Stalin-backed leader of the far-left during the last days of Weimar Germany, came to the conclusion that the moderate left was a greater threat than the Nazis. The communists viewed centrist liberals as an impediment to their efforts, much like the woke leftist of today treat moderates as heretics instead of allies. They alienated everybody and made everyone want to work with the fascists. …
Antony Sutton outlines this dichotomy and how globalists helped the Nazis rise to power in his book 'Wall Street And The Rise Of The Third Reich'.
In other words, the globalists created a Marxist terror campaign across Europe and then used it to drive the public into the arms of another socialist empire in the form of The Third Reich.
In Germany, people supported fascism because they sought to drive out and eliminate the social rot created by Bolshevik relativism (very similar to the rot we see in America today). For instance, sexual degeneracy was rampant in Germany after WWI. The very first transgender clinic was founded in Berlin in 1919. The Marxists lobbied for the legalisation of abortion in order to garner more female support.
The rise of the "sexual reformation" was initiated and the 1920s equivalent of the "Gay Pride" movement was born. Pedophiles began to creep out of the woodwork – The concept of underage prostitution and "rent boys" was a notable problem in Berlin.
Questions of personal liberty are fair to argue. But without moderation, psycho-sexual obsessions embraced on a large scale can trigger social collapse. The true intent of any sexual reformation is to normalize cultural and psychological outliers. Weimar Germany in the 1920s was very much like America in the 2020s in this way.
Then there was hyperinflation, economic hardship and vying political factions that drove fear into common Germans. The fascists offered a clear vision, they offered economic prosperity, they offered domestic peace, they offered an end to the morally bankrupt madness of the left, and the public jumped at the chance. It was not a good choice, but it was better to them than allowing a communist takeover.
The globalists have a tendency to attack a target population from two sides, using chaos they control, and then order they control. Marxism plays the role of chaos, and fascism plays the role of order.
Most of us are familiar with the idea of the Hegelian Dialectic. However, I would argue that the situation is much more complex today than it has ever been. There is only one true option; order is the obvious choice. Leftists and globalists must be removed from power.
But how do we avoid doing what the Germans did? How do we remove the leftist threat without diving headfirst into our own brand of totalitarianism? It might not be possible.
As I warned in my article 'Terror Attacks Kick Off In 2025 – It's Only Going To Get Worse So Be Prepared', published in January, there is now a rising tide of leftist sabotage. Today, activists across the country are using property destruction for intimidation. It's not going to stop there. This is just the first phase.
There's the judicial overreach by activist judges to thwart any cuts to the bureaucracy, and the attempts to stop deportations of illegals. There's steady online threats of assassination and calls for alliances with foreign adversaries and terror groups. Just be ready for bombings, shootings and the rampaging mobs because that's all coming this summer, I have no doubt.
The risk of martial law being declared is very high if things go the way I suspect they will go, and a majority of the US public will applaud the idea. Donald Trump has taken measures to follow through on every one of his campaign promises so far and I believe that this has earned him the benefit of the doubt. However, if he did call for martial law under the circumstances I describe to expedite matters, conservatives would be falling into a classic government power trap.
Once that door is opened it will be hard to reverse matters, and there's no guarantee that the right wing will be in control of the machine as it shifts from checks and balances into a streamlined top down autocracy. We almost fell off that cliff under the Biden Administration during covid and it's a miracle the country is still in one piece.
The scary thing is, beyond the hypothetical risks involved, it's difficult to argue that martial law is unreasonable. The leftists are making it very hard for us to want to fight for their liberty, and frankly most conservatives would not care if they were shipped off to an isolated island somewhere to cannibalize each other. If you examine how these activists rationalize their violence on social media, one can only conclude that they need to be locked up or booted out of the country. They're not redeemable.
Their actions are designed to elicit a call of force from conservatives. Then the activists rush to the global stage and scream "You see! The right wingers really are the fascists we said they were!" The mere act of applying law and order becomes "tyranny" by the definition of the progressives.
In the meantime, a lot of libertarians are still out there in the wilderness searching for a perfect solution in which no one's rights are stepped on and all viewpoints are respected. I've accepted that this is not going to happen. There is no silver bullet, no magically pure society in which everyone leaves everyone else alone. In a war, someone's rights are going out the window.
It's a zero sum game for conservatives because the more we accommodate the political left and treat them like fellow citizens rather than an enemy insurgency, the more the US will degrade into chaos. If we respond to them as enemies, crushing them like the bugs they are, then we become the bad guys and potentially welcome in a level of government power that could hurt us all in the end.
My solution is an ugly one and it's something that most conservative commentators don't want to touch with a ten foot pole: Instead of relying on government power to stop the political left and the globalists, common Americans should organize and handle the problem independently. This removes the danger of government overreach and constitutional trespass.
The average American is not limited by the constitution, the government is. We don't have to respect the legal rights of NGOs. We don't have to give leeway to leftist rioters because we're afraid of political optics. We don't have to let globalists operate in the US with impunity and without fear. Keep in mind that the US was NOT founded as a libertine nation where anything goes.
The Founders believed in revolution against tyranny, not revolution against morality. They believed in freedom, as long as it's freedom WITH responsibility. They believed in rules and order, not anarchy. There's no way on Earth they would have tolerated leftist and globalist machinations. Neither should we.
When we do act, we have to make sure we don't create a governmental Golem that ultimately turns on us."
Comments