The Western world finds itself caught in an ever-widening rift between the rich, who believe everything is going splendidly, and the poorer sections of society, who believe everything is going to hell. The first category consists of the privileged, the powerful, the establishment and the wealthy, who are oblivious to the tensions, or to the fact that food and energy prices have doubled in just a few years. They are so rich that nothing really affects them or their finances. The second category feels the effects very clearly, but the elite’s ‘experts’ insist that the problems are merely a figment of the imagination.
Norway, however, is an oil-rich country with a generous welfare system. It is difficult for Norwegians to understand what is happening in other EU countries that haven’t won the lottery. That is where the consequences of 40 years of globalism and ‘free movement’ are really beginning to bite. Furthermore, the passage of time also obscures these developments: to understand what is happening in the Western world, one must go back several decades. None of today’s 40-year-olds remember any of this, and they cannot relate to it. That is why they are also unable to grasp the full extent of what is happening.
To understand society, one must understand 40 years of history
In 1989, the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall fell. Centuries of sabre-rattling and enmity between empires vanished. This led Western leaders to believe that they had won the battle of history. When the American political scientist Francis Fukuyama announced ‘the end of ideological conflicts’, he believed that Western liberal democracy and the market economy represented the culmination of humanity’s socio-political evolution. This gave rise to the concept of ‘The End of History’ in 1989, and was later elaborated upon in the book «The End of History and the Last Man» (1992). It is this ideology that has guided developments in the Western world.
Fukuyama declared that the fall of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union also marked the end of ideological conflicts. Incredibly, this over-optimistic nonsense led an entire generation of European leaders to draw the same absurd conclusion: that war, conflict and divisions were a thing of the past. Nations and borders were now relative. Religions and cultures were all equal and in harmony, and it was possible to agree to create ‘a better world’. After all, we are all human beings on the same planet. ‘Why can’t we be friends?’
Through the belief that humanity was on the verge of entering a ‘higher level’, the UN was slowly transformed from an institution of diplomacy into a centre of power intended to lead humanity towards unity and peace. At the same time, the globalist elite accelerated the homogenisation of nations and societies: the Maastricht Treaty came into being in 1992. The euro was introduced. The deindustrialisation of the West, which began in the 1980s, gathered pace, because everything can be produced in China – and China shares the same culture, goals and direction as all other countries. Is that not the case? Why would they want anything else?
Fukuyama: The end of the ‘great ideological struggles’
Here it is important to take a closer look at Fukuyama’s mindset and arguments: he believed that the 20th century’s great struggles between competing systems of government were over. Liberal democracy had triumphed, and all people would see, understand and embrace it. Western (also known as liberal) democracy would become the whole of humanity’s ‘go-to’ system, provided they were given a little time and a little help. This became so firmly established as ‘truth’ that the US decided to ‘spread democracy’ through wars of invasion, military force and pallets of cash in the Middle East. Now things were going to be put in order! What was learnt from that fiasco? Nothing.
Fukuyama did not view history as a series of events (such as wars, elections or disasters), but rather as a ‘process’ towards the ideal society. (Without anyone wondering what on earth that might be.) This is originally a philosophical concept from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Fukuyama’s point was that humanity had reached the ‘final form of government’: there was no better system to evolve towards, and not only that: there were no legitimate alternatives!
He believed that although authoritarian states or dictatorships would continue to exist, they had lost their ideological appeal on a global scale. No one would any longer regard these systems as the answer for the future – and here he clearly overlooked Islamic religious fundamentalism as a social system. Liberal democracy remained the only universal model that, in the long term, could satisfy humanity’s fundamental needs for freedom, recognition and prosperity. End of story! This became the ‘truth’ amongst the Western elite, because they wanted it to be true. But it is not.
Samuel P. Huntington: The Clash of Civilisations
As early as 1993, Samuel P. Huntington recognised the danger of this self-deception and launched an attack on postmodernism and Fukuyama with his famous essay ‘The Clash of Civilisations?’. In 1996, he expanded and elaborated on this in book form with ‘The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order’, in which Fukuyama’s visions were portrayed as illusions divorced from human behavioural psychology, heritage, culture and religion.
Huntington argued that the fall of the Iron Curtain marked the end of the struggle between ideologies (such as capitalism versus communism), but that future conflicts would instead revolve around culture and civilisations. He divided the world into major civilisations, such as the Western, Islamic, Confucian/Chinese and Orthodox civilisations, and believed that in future people would not ask ‘which side are you on?’, but rather ‘who are you?’.
On this basis, he predicted that the military conflicts of the future would arise where two different civilisations meet geographically along cultural fault lines. A culture war! This was before Europe’s mass immigration of tribes, clans and subcultures from MENA countries really took off, so the example he cited was Ukraine: He described Ukraine as a “divided country” situated right on the border between two civilisations, and the cultural conflict was bound to come. But no one would listen to Huntington. The UN elite would rather have the Disneyland dream presented by Fukuyama. Even in the midst of the war in the Balkans.
At last, there would be ‘peace on earth’.
Jens Stoltenberg was a true child of postmodernism, the disarmament of Europe and Francis Fukuyama’s naïve zeitgeist. He was Minister of Trade and Energy from 1993 to 1996, Minister of Finance from 1996 to 1997, Prime Minister of Norway from 2000 to 2001 and from 2005 to 2013, and Secretary-General of NATO from 2014 to 2024. During a press conference held shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, he made the following statement, with a look of both concern and bewilderment in his eyes:
– Peace on our continent has been shattered. We now have war in Europe on a scale we thought belonged to history.
What made him believe something so naïve? Now, Stoltenberg is no intellectual; he has hardly read Fukuyama. And unfortunately, this statement received little attention: Stoltenberg’s reaction was, in fact, symptomatic of the entire globalist elite that has ruled the Western world for 40 years: Putin tore the whole lie of life and the perception of reality to shreds. A perception of reality so deeply ingrained in the UN elite that they seriously believe they can civilise the Taliban’s savages by flying them to Norway on a business jet for ‘talks’.
This aristocracy of world leaders believed in the dream of peace on earth. They believed in reconciliation and harmony through ‘dialogue’. They believed that 40 years of globalism had eliminated 300,000 years of wars and conflicts amongst Homo sapiens. That humanity had ascended to a ‘higher level’. It was not only naïve – it was also dangerous and destructive.
Globalism as a political steamroller
Ever since the 1990s, the UN elite and the EU aristocracy have steamrollered the people: the multicultural experiment was carried out without ever asking the people for their opinion. The elite signed us up to the EU through the EEA, despite a ‘no’ vote from the people. See also the 2005 referendum on the ‘European Constitution’ in the EU: following a clear ‘no’ vote, the elite ignored the will of the people and instead introduced the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009.
Or what about the influx of migrants after 2015? France is now sending African ‘invasion forces’ in rubber dinghies towards England, and no one can or will stop it by force. It is utterly mad. In Norway, the Syrian influx arrived by bicycle from Russia. Who allowed that? And then came the coronavirus lockdown, the power cut, soaring prices, skyrocketing interest rates and the fuel crisis, whilst climate hysteria is undermining our entire economy. Nobody asked for this, but no leaders wanted to stop it.
To reconcile and explain the vast differences between societies and people since the Stone Age, new explanatory models also had to be created – models which ensured that all races are equal, that DNA differences do not exist, that inbreeding is of no significance, that low culture is equivalent to high culture, that all social systems function equally well, that all people want the same things, that everyone is equal, and that everyone shares the same goals for society. All this is just as absurd as believing that men dressed in dresses are women, but this utopian policy was pushed through, and it became ‘immoral to doubt’.
This also created a problem with history: why was it white men who invented everything that makes up modern society? Why was the West so rich, successful, free and peaceful, whilst the rest of the world was a ‘shithole’? Since all people, cultures, religions and beliefs are equal and of equal value, there must be explanations other than biology, DNA and culture. If humanity were to become one, someone would have to be blamed for the vast differences and injustices amongst humankind, and so new explanatory models emerged that blamed the white man for everything.
All white people are racists
Now Western children are taught that their civilisation is to blame for everything that goes wrong in Africa and the rest of the world. This was the natural and only solution: Wealth is a zero-sum game, so if the West is rich and successful, we must be to blame for other countries not being so. People with high levels of melanin are better and more innocent than white people, and cannot do anything wrong. Their culture cannot be to blame. Thus, Western history became a source of shame; the colonial era invented slavery, and profit became a form of oppression. It also follows that order is an act of violence, that rebellion, looting and the use of force are a cry for justice, and that mathematics is racism. It just goes on and on.
This hatred of science, facts and documented history has spread from university campuses to infect the media, the civil service and large corporations with the ‘woke virus’, which manifests itself through DEI policies. And it is all based on mass moral hysteria – which shows just how susceptible people are to peer pressure, and how anti-intellectual most people and leaders unfortunately are.
We can see the results right before our eyes: A ruling class out of touch with reality, which delivers speeches in Davos but has absolutely no idea what life is like for people in Mosjøen on a day-to-day basis. An aristocracy that hates the democracy of Israel and hails the macho superstition of Islam and the terrorist group Hamas as liberation. The globalists create bloated state power structures that take everything, but protect nothing. They want to change and alter everything, and never preserve anything at all. Debt is skyrocketing, public services are creaking under the strain, and young immigrants are filming a firefighter as he burns, whilst they laugh their heads off. This is where the globalist project has brought us, and there are three possible outcomes:
The end result of globalism
The first possible outcome is ‘1984’: The system realises it is losing control and therefore tightens its grip. Compulsory digital identity, digital central bank money, online censorship in the fight against disinformation, and algorithmic surveillance of every interaction. The mafia state of China has realised this and introduced these measures long ago. No fundamental problems are being solved; we are simply banning any discussion of them. This is the path Brussels is already paving with the Digital Services Act. An order without freedom.
The other possible outcome is ‘Lebanonisation’ and ‘Balkanisation’: The system is no longer able to exercise control, because the social experiment of multiculturalism, on which immigration is based, is really just a euphemism for tribal society. And the result is that European societies are sinking into tribal warfare. (As you can see with your own eyes.) This means that the state relinquishes its monopoly on the use of force, and that ‘no-go zones’ emerge – because the state cannot use force against Black people, Muslims and other ‘vulnerable groups’. The state abandons democracy and allows alternative social systems to flourish: Islamism. Communism. Clan rule. Sharia law. Anarchy. It’s a free-for-all, because it’s ‘racist’ to stop it.
This is how neighbourhoods end up under different legal systems. And then the chaos spreads to entire cities, then regions, and eventually entire countries. The police stop turning up. Shops close. Local communities arm themselves and take the law into their own hands. Socialism has been a constant threat to freedom and individuals for 100 years. Islam for 1,400 years. It took only a few years of Islamism before Lebanon fell apart. The same thing happened in the Balkans, for Islam is a violence-based master-servant social system with a religious duty to expansion and subjugation. The threats to democracy are so numerous.
The third option is reconstruction: This requires the state to restore law and order without compromise, as Trump is attempting in the US. As Bukele has done in El Salvador and Milei in Argentina. The problem is that globalists will never abandon their life-long lie based on primitive moralism. They will never admit that they were terribly wrong, and worse still: Even if new, democratic forces take over through democratic means, it is by no means certain that law and order can be restored by democratic means. The situation may have gone too far. What do we do then?
A reckoning is needed
In any case, such a restoration will take time and cost us dearly, but not as dearly as it will cost to do nothing. The EU, which is heading towards becoming an undemocratic empire, will have to be dissolved in its current form. The UN, which has become a force for the world’s dictatorships, must be dismantled and rebuilt by democratic states. Europe’s nations must regain their sovereignty, and, not least, globalism – which has resulted in a pandemic wave of rapes, terrorist attacks, murders, riots, looting and insecurity – must be brought to account. A modern Nurembergtrial should also target the globalists, and Angela Merkel is an obvious candidate to top the list of defendants.
Destroying one’s own country is a crime. Working for foreign powers is treason. Undermining stability, security, freedom, peace and trust amongst the general public must be punished. Destroying industry, the economy and the energy system must have consequences. And stupidity, incompetence, grand visions, high moral standards and good intentions are no defence that exempts one from punishment. For 40 years, Europe has been ruled by visionary dreamers, or as Churchill is said to have remarked about his Labour opponent Clement Atlee: «An empty taxi pulled up in front of Parliament today, and out stepped Mr Atlee.»
Europe is governed by cardboard cut-outs with self-images as sun kings
The entire globalist establishment in Europe consists of people who know how to present themselves, but have no idea how to get things done or how to govern. They are always keen to «set about changing Norway», but never ask themselves whether anything should be preserved. This incompetence means they are constantly having to employ more communications experts and hire more consultants who can sell them to the public. And they have all turned Europe into their personal sandpit for political experiments and ‘grand visions’ that don’t work.
Angela Merkel, Stefan Löfven, Støre, Macron, Keir Starmer and Pedro Sánchez are all pure products of communication – empty shells created by words. If you strip away the pomp and circumstance, the advisers, the speeches and the staging, you are left with nothing. If you place these career politicians in front of a real problem that needs solving, they have no idea where to start. They don’t even understand what you’re on about.
When political scientists and sociologists talk about large structures such as ‘states’, ‘nations’ and ‘ethnic conflicts’, they are really just describing the cumulative effect of the psychological mechanisms of millions of individuals. And states, nations, cultures and a sense of belonging do not lie in citizenship or a passport. That is not how people and societies function. You will never be able to create ‘unity’ through the use of power and globalism’s multicultural hydraulic press. Everyone should have learnt that from Yugoslavia and the Balkans in the 1990s.
Europe has risen from the ashes several times before: after the fall of Rome, after the Black Death, after two world wars. Europeans are different from other peoples, and European culture is superior to other cultures, so all is not lost. But how bad must things get before Western people, their mindset, cultural identity and behaviour restore society based on reality, facts, science, logic, order and everything else that is fundamental to Western culture? Everything we have created that the whole world should thank us for? Look, we’ve still got a long way to go.
It will probably get worse before it gets better. People must first recognise the dangers threatening their everyday lives before they wake up from the moral slumber into which they have been lulled by ‘leaders’ who lack morals and accountability.
