Or so I think. I've been trying to figure this out for sometime, what causes the political changes, and how to use that to figure out where we'll be in the future. I've stated in the past that it might go along with extremes, with extremes ruling, then getting defeated and then living out a more moderate existence. Something along the lines of Progressvism in the US reaching a climax in the 1900's, but losing to Conservatism in the 1920's, and then becoming liberalism. But that didn't work out, because it didn't explain things like Eisenhower's presidency, which was more libertarian, when it should have been liberal. So then I thought something more along the lines of trends, and how powerful they are. Think of it like pushing a boat off from a dock. The harder you push, the further you'll go. The problem is, what happens when you stop moving, and figuring out how hard you pushed. The same push factors, also don't go for everywhere. For instance, Enlightenment touched all countries, but the US and France in the 18th century actually revolted on those principles. But socialism would not affect the US, as it did France. (Note, there were republics out there, and of course Great Britain's Glorious Revolution more or less granted what would become Enlightenment ideas) Another question is, what actually starts it. The Jacobins took power sure, but what gave them their ideology when every other Enlightenment thinker was a Physiocrat? What I noticed is that the US is for the most part, between 1775-1900, we are a very classical liberal country. Our Proggressivism, isn't Socialism, it's actually further right then you would expect. But Europeans for the latter half of the 1800's, were more left leaning. (Think Paris Commune, Bismarck trying to deal with the Socialists in Prussia/Germany, the emergence of the Labor party in Great Britain) I figure because of the conservative reactionary to liberalism, socialism, etc... it lead to the emergence of them uniting together, to form modern liberalism. But the US, with the Second Great Awakening, did not have that unity until the 1900's. The problem is the reforms socialists and the protestant sects wanted could have gone together. My question is why? So here's what I need and I'm hoping a lot of people will respond. I need to know more about European liberalism, preferably something from the continent version. I need to know what country specifically this is coming from, just for geopolitical reasons. If I see what I think I'm going to see, then it should explain a lot.
If things are not in absolute chaos and global warming is actually a hoax, there will be one global government enslaving each country and exploiting their skills to propagate the elite.
the mistake is in thinking that anyone is anything. Despite the claims of many here I am no "liberal." I do tend to be "progressive" on a great number of things and rather conservative on others. If one removes the political prisms it is easy to see that Barrack Obama is much closer on most issues to John Boehner than he is to Nancy Pelosi. We will become more "socialistic" because that is the nature of things. As companies grow it becomes more cost efficient to centralize things like It support, HR, Accounting. This is no different than with societies and nations. As they grow it becomes more efficient to deliver some services through the government to best serve the greatest number of people.
A one world government, I could see it. We're starting to develop a stronger tradition of working together on a larger scale. - - - Updated - - - The idea that political ideologies differ from place to place? I know that. But when you start to look at the trends in history, you find that it steadily goes from one side to the other. Figuring out that cycle is the key.
I doubt this should be taken as a comfort to most people. John Boehner isn't high on anyone's list of ideal politicians and is hated and despised by many.
You first have to understand what or who have caused/masterminded/invented politics, the political system and all the political terminology (the deception), who has control over the entire system (an establishment aka elite) Because via the branches in system, via politics and media (propaganda) they can cause all kinds of changes. It's very simple, history was and is about rulers vs the masses/people, this is a time this is repeating once again (again the people cannot see what is going on, like always, that's how they could create their empires - 'socialistic society' means empire/utopia, not the society you want to see, Babylon, Egypt, Roman empire, NS Germany, etc, many examples, the big warnings of history, but people don't know how they could create them, and how created) The problem with politics is that labels (terms and party abbriviations) are used more and more over the past hundred fifty years. By labeling (voter's minds) they are able to organize large groups (this is the whole purpose of politics, to organize the masses, line them up) Millions have stuck a label to their mind (socialists, libertarians, greens, etc etc) All labels are deception, you cannot figure out any logic (they have just manipulated word to terms, social became socialism and socialist (it's a trick with language) Political terminology is deception. Politics and propaganda via mass media are the two biggest problems peope have in this part of history. Because we don't understand history we can't see who was causing history over the centuries (mainly the empires and kingdoms, empires/kingdoms did not just occur, were created all by design/masterminded and caused by using via submission, rulers create a new hierarchy, and take over a nation) The future can become 'socialistic', it means that we all can end up in another empire (a utopic system) How they do this is by using politics (deception), and even more important is instilling fear and causing fight and resistance in the masses (since 2000 this process is going on) All problems and changes cause one fundamental thing, that millions start to resist / fight these problems and changes, and all that fight can cause a revolt and organisation of millions of people (television and cinema were the greatest greatest inventions of last century, but today misused as mass propaganda tools, politics is using it too massively) The changes are caused via the financial and political systems. Persons in top of power (hierarchy) have control over the banks (the total financial system), and this over most branches of the system (they have monopolies in all kinds of branches, oil, houses, gold, stock markets, natural resources, political parties, etc etc) And they have their lobbyists in politics (spindoctors, advisors, informants) They have completely control over every politician and almost any media outlet (just listen/watch the media, you only hear politics and problems, never solutions and progress, you can clearly see what they are doing, they work very hard to modernize communication, but not on modern cars or airplanes or boats, lots have become new but is not modernized)
Actually, I see the exact opposite. If you look at the last 50 years, even most Continental and Regional pacts have dissolved or have serious cracks in them. The EU is constantly under threat of members leaving the pact. The Arab League can barely agree to do anything, and largely sits back and watches brutal dictators and genocides with barely a shrug. If anything, I see even more fracturing then ever before as our "Global World" allows countries to have more in common with other countries half a world away then with their own neighbors.
Modern European liberalism is worst than (*)(*)(*)(*) and the liberals are bankster's lapdogs . Liberals are lacking to ability to see that their policies are a failure , for example immigrants are making our societies more conservative , "the markets" are raping continent's workforce and political correctness is limiting the communities from evolving by removing alternative ways of approaching issues . Socialist direct democracy with the dissolution of national states will probably be our future but this requires revolts and much blood to be spilled . Thankfully Europeans do not have huge egos to blind them nor they are stubborn to keep on doing the same mistakes so yeah whatever it takes Americans will have to get over their "Murka" complex and i do not see this happening soon .
The problem is that history isn't just 50 years ago. You look 100 years ago, there was no United Nations, no continent-spreading organizations. The EU, yes has its problems with members over austerity, but can you imagine a trade war between any of its members? In the late 1800's trade wars were common, such as the Pig Wars between Serbia and Austria. Or you can think of it on a global scale. Take from 1492 onwards. It's a trend towards empire building, everywhere in the world. The revolutions of the late 1700's and 1800's in the Americas are a step back, but are made up by the paritions of Poland and the empire building in Asia and Africa. You can't also forget that as the Europeans left South and Latin America, the US has become the dominant power there.
Actually, just 94 years ago we had the League of Nations. And we all know how that all turned out. And today trade wars are still common, they simply involve less gunfire then they did in the past. The EU by itself really can't have "Trade Wars", because of the common currency and trade agreements. But that does not stop them from having Trade Wars. Just look at how they are handling CHina now to see what I mean there.
Yes, and before that we had the Concert of Europe, the unwritten agreement that there will be a balance of power and peace as a result. And trade wars, they're on the decline, and like you said less gunfire. That's a sign. 100 years ago, trade wars was a cause of WWI. Now, it seems silly to go to war over a tariffs. I'm not denying they exist, its just on the decline.
