In an article on De Daily Standard by Sid Lukkassen in which he explains why he, as a philosopher, joined the Forum for Democracy and ran for the city council of Arnhem, but was unfortunately not elected.
“For example, when I worked at Radboud University, I noticed that as an academic you cannot survive if you do not conform to the radical left-wing ideology. For this reason I have been committed to a socio-economic counter-system from the grassroots all along: for an own 'ecosystem' or a New Pillar. Today it is clear that FvD embraces this aspiration most clearly and openly.”
I have been following Sid Lukkassen on Telegram and on his own website for quite some time, he publishes interesting articles and he is also very open about his own intellectual evolution and tells about the moments when he experiences an intellectual breakthrough and what this means for him and what these intellectual breakthroughs taught or enlightened him.
Why I have placed the above quote is that Sid Lukkassen follows an incorrect line of thinking, with which I do not reject his entire way of thinking, but the starting point of his thinking. This same thing has happened to myself so many times because I also made the same mistake and followed ingrained paths that led me and, I believe, us astray.
This is because it concerns the terms political left or right and their derivatives radical left or radical right, as Sid Lukkassen also describes in his article.
What is political left or right?
First of all, let's take a look at what all these terms mean and categorize them in their proper position.
During the break here on Commonsensetv I came across a very nice article about this and suddenly I had a clear picture for myself, what I want to share with you and maybe that you will also get a clearer picture with me how to be able to think objectively about these political movements and form an opinion about them.
The following is an article by André Wiering on Quora.
The question posed here is wrong, but symptomatic of part of Dutch historiography and the vast majority of Dutch history education. The real political spectrum does not run from communist to fascist/Nazi, but from totalitarian to anarchist:
The supporters of national socialism, fascism and communism are therefore on the same side of the political spectrum!
The name the National Socialists have given themselves not only sounds very socialist, but their positions, including anti-Semitism, were also socialist. And not only were the Nazis' views socialist, but it was also all traditionally socialist areas in Germany where the population massively voted for Adolf Hitler:
The fact that disproportionately many socialists voted for Adolf Hitler is not surprising. Marcel Roele analyzes all of Adolf Hitler's points of view and comes to the following conclusion completely:Hitler was not just a leftist; he was even green-left.” See the article: Was Hitler leftist? - More liberty
And when we talk about fascism, the less extreme brother of German national socialism: fascism is also left, not right! Prager University has made a very educational video about this with a number of facts that many Dutch history teachers prefer to keep silent from their class:
Here is another very readable article by Karel Beckman about the party program of a very old political party, the Socialist Nature Movement (SNB). It is a very idealistic party program that most contemporary socialists lick their fingers at. At the end of the article, Mr. Beckman admits that he was mistaken about the name of the party:
About the program of a very old political party. - More liberty
Here is an excellent article by Ton Nijhof with the conclusion that Adolf Hitler was really left: Adolf Hitler was left - De Nieuwe Zuil
I once wrote a website on the same subject with many more links and research results: socialism
I once had a rather left-wing history teacher in high school. Unfortunately, a large majority of all history teachers are leftists. So my (left-wing) history teacher told another truth in the course of the discussion: “If you're in a concentration camp and the inmates die en masse from starvation and other misery, you don't really care anymore whether the camp executioner calls himself a Nazi or a communist or a fascist or whatever.”
If we can clearly divide Dutch politics into where the parties are located in this way.
If a Dutch political party pursues the illusions of the WEF, the WHO, the UN and the New World Order, then they strive for a totalitarian form of government.
If a Dutch political party strives for Dutch self-determination and freedom for the inhabitants, such a party tends to be seen as anarchist by the political parties that strive for a totalitarian form of government.
With this knowledge in mind, it is interesting to watch this broadcast of blckbx.tv to see (again) in which the professor of cultural economics Paul Buitink explains why political Europe is doomed to failure and European unity can only be enforced by a totalitarian form of government.
Whatever the administrators here in Europe will do, they will remain dependent on America for a while, but America will also have to go along with it if the West would decide to adopt a totalitarian form of government.
You have seen in the short video on YouTube that the American constitution is close to anarchy and is far from a totalitarian form of government. They themselves have secretly proclaimed the Continuity of Government through Devolution, which is almost certain when you read the final chapters of Patel Patriot in which not only he, but many other political scientists agree with him. But it is 'secret'.
(It is a miracle that one man alone, in a back room, Patel Patriot, can produce such an in-depth study with such evidence and results. Or will he be a mouthpiece for some department? To communicate with them through new media. who can and want to understand?)
The WEF in this.
The following link below is almost a dissertation, on the origin of the WEF and the objectives of the WEF.
In short, the WEF is a CIA operation and can be seen as a 'Deep-State' operation. A quote from the study.
*Under a section titled “Special Educational Needs of Decision Makers” states the article: “The desirability of explicitly trained decision-makers, so that they are in fact better able to plan the fate of the nation, or the plans formulated through a more democratic process, should be considered very seriously. One facet of this procedure would be the creation of a shared set of concepts, shared language, shared analogies, shared references…” Europe – at least for its comprehensive leadership group – could be helpful in many ways.”
If you study the aforementioned rhetoric and decipher what it means, Herman Kahn proposes in this paper to undermine democracy by educating only a certain group in society as potential leaders, those preselected few who are prepared for power, can define what our shared values as a society should be. Perhaps Herman Kahn would agree Young Global Leader Scheme of the World Economic Forum, which is the exact manifestation of its original suggestion.
*Under a section titled “Special Educational Needs of Decision-Makers”, the paper states: “The desirability of explicitly educated decision-makers so that they are better able, in effect, to plan the destiny of the nation, or to carry out the plans formulated through a more democratic process, should be very seriously considered. One facet of this procedure would be the creation of a shared set of concepts, shared language, shared analogies, shared references…” He goes on to state in the same section that: “Universal re-teaching in the spirit of the humanistic tradition of Europe – at least for its comprehensive leadership group – might be useful in many ways.”
When you study the previously mentioned rhetoric and decipher what it means, in this document Herman Kahn suggests subverting democracy by training only a certain group in society as potential leaders, with those pre-selected few who are groomed for power being able to define what our shared values as a society should be. Maybe Herman Kahn would agree with the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leader scheme, which is the exact manifestation of his original suggestion.
The article continues with;
*Henry Kissinger's vision of the future, however, was not of a free and fair society evolving together into a "brave new world", but rather Kissinger intended to create a view of the world distorted by his own CFR-driven establishment perspective. Though he would try to rename himself a true statesman, Kissinger would not only continue to undermine foreign democratic processes, but also undermine the American system in favor of a globalist agenda. When Schwab was first recognized by Kissinger as a potential future globalist leader, the relatively young German would soon become acquainted with Galbraith and Kahn.
*However, Henry Kissinger's vision of the future was not of a free and fair society advancing into a “brave new world” together, but rather, Kissinger intended to create an image of the world which had been skewed by his own CFR-driven Establishment perspective. Although he would attempt to rebrand himself as a true statesman, Kissinger would continue to subvert not only foreign democratic processes, but also to undermine the American system for the eventual benefit of a globalist agenda. When Schwab was first recognized by Kissinger as a potential future globalist leader, the relatively young German would soon be introduced to Galbraith and Kahn.
—Here is the crux of the problem in forming a New World Order. Undermining the American system by forcing Americans to give up their constitution to have this New World Order take its place.——
*As Schwab nears the end of his life, he seems desperate for a radical futuristic agenda with the obvious potential for global disaster. I believe the World Economic Forum will reach its maximum expansion before it inevitably collapses, for in the end, the people who love their own national identity will stand up to the immediate threat to their particular cultures and fight back against globalist rule. Quite simply, you cannot make everyone a globalist, no matter how much brainwashing is applied. There is a natural contradiction between national freedom and globalist rule, which makes the two completely incompatible.
*As Schwab reaches the end of his life, he appears to be desperate to push forward a radical futurist agenda with the obvious potential for global disaster. I believe that the World Economic Forum is reaching its maximum level of expansion before its inevitable collapse, because eventually those people who love their own national identities will stand up against the immediate threat to their specific cultures and they will fight back against the globalist rule. Quite simply, you cannot make everyone a globalist, no matter how much brainwashing is applied. There is a natural contradiction between national freedom and globalist rule, which make the two completely incompatible.
Now that we have seen how and why the WEF came into existence and with what ideas the WEF came into being and what the objectives of the WEF are, it also becomes clear what disaster took place for the WEF, the CIA and the Deep-State when President Trump won the election.
Anyone who thinks that President Trump is a loner who just happened to win the election and then get kicked out is, in my opinion, a mistake. President Trump is the face of a very large group of people who have taken power in America with the aim of saving the American constitution and thereby safeguarding the very existence of America itself. In conjunction with this, WEF Globalism will also come to an end.
—— Trust The Plan.——
Since I do not have any address details for André Wieringa and I have therefore not been able to ask him for permission whether he agrees that I was allowed to copy his very enlightening text, I would like to ask him that if he objects that I may publish his texts here. posted he contacts CommonSenseTV. Then I'll remove his lyrics and edit this piece.