Replies

“American revolution and French revolution don’t even come close to describing it. Those revolutions were limited to individual nations.”

I am not sure I agree entirely. They are both seminal revolutions in thought, not merely on a national, physical scale.

One was a revolution for individual liberty under limited government which became an ideal people have sought to emulate the world over from that time (with varying degrees of understanding and success); the other spoke of liberty, but was ultimately a revolution for statism. The communist revolutions owe much to the latter, little or nothing to the former.

They ultimately define two conflicting world views which are fighting worldwide today. We probably ought to assess Islam as a third sort of revolution in the mix.

What I take you to mean by nationalist may fit with what I mean by a strong limited government allowing maximum individual liberty, but it is a loaded term, and can be easily turned into the exact opposite of that.

A better spectrum is that between anarchy and totalitarianism. There was an unfortunate Conservative Treehouse essay posted here the other day that equated anarchy with right wing and totalitarianism with left wing, which got me started on this train of thought, btw. Nice guys, I am sure...

Back to the discussion - both ends are injust. Our republic tried to balance the competing interests to preserve the inalienable rights of as many people as possible. Modern man has learned to tweak the system a good bit, mostly by de-educating us, to rob us of that liberty.

You are right in one aspect about the ballgame now: the contest between the nationalists and globalists could have the same results for the entire world as it did for Poland in 1939.

.........

On another tangent - perhaps another distinction for the direction that the concentration of power is taking is that of the corporation (an aspect of your globalism?) versus the nation state.
A lot of Sci-Fi from a while back posited that Corporations would be the entities that took man to space, and warred with one another, etc. Those authors probably put some thought into this.
In light of this thought - does it make sense to champion the idea of electing someone who is not beholden to the “corporate interests”* by choosing the head of a corporation?

But I am now four hours less sleep than I should have had. Have a good day.

*Ahh, how the mighty have fallen. Did we ever dream that “conservatives” would sit around arguing over “crony capitalism” and “corporate interests” or any of a slew of ivy league trustafarian terms, Ike and his military industrial complex notwithstanding...