By Javier Villamor*
(Opinion) The recently reported victory of Lula da Silva in Brazil closes a cycle of change in the region that seemed impossible: the unequivocal communist left of 30 years ago is now an indeterminate left that follows the current of recalcitrant globalism.
The American continent has turned red.
A few years ago, this seemed impossible, especially after Donald Trump’s 2016 victory as the head of the United States.
His candidacy for the White House triggered a series of changes among certain politicians in the rest of the continent and also in Europe.
Conservatism underwent a revival, always in the orbit of U.S. supremacy, and motivated certain parties to take up the political and cultural fight at a time when all seemed lost.
The triumph of the Swedish or Italian right in the last elections proves this (not to mention the British Tories).
Although all that shone seemed to be gold, over time, it became clear that many of these conservatives were not so good, and others were disappointed, more than most of them expected.
(Agenda 2030 is the initial 10-year plan of Agenda 21, as in Agenda for the 21st century)
Trump is one of them, even though he was confronted on all sides and eventually stabbed in the back by some of his associates, including former Vice President Mike Pence.
A special mention deserves Guillermo Lasso, a great dazzler who, shortly after coming to power, introduced LGBT laws that not even Correa had accepted under his mandate.
Ah, the economic right, which presents itself as an alternative to the left and does nothing but expands its ideological dominance!
Duque in Colombia, of course.
Another coward, unable to confront the narco-terrorist, left, as Uribe did in his time, with failures and successes, as is the case with every ruler.
Despite his good intentions and extraordinary education, Kast got lost in some statements during the campaign and eventually did not become president.
Macri is more of the same.
In Peru, the uneducated professor Pedro Castillo won the presidency in the face of a right that could not articulate itself to win.
And so it goes on, country by country until we reach Brazil, where Bolsonaro reportedly lost by a margin of only 1%.
The pattern of argumentation of the “socialists of the 21st century” has been the same in all campaigns: Liberalism leads to privatization; privatization leads to poverty and inequality; this leads to insecurity, and therefore more socialism must be introduced.
It has worked for them, and little is being done to understand things beyond the outdated and Manichean left vs. right analysis. Here are a few thoughts on this topic:
The Cold War dialectic between liberalism and communism is outdated and should be buried as soon as possible.
Liberals are often the Trojan horse of large multinational corporations, enabling the privatization of strategic enterprises in communications, energy, shipbuilding, etc.
France is a good example of how the state protects key sectors.
Spain is the opposite.
The communists in the West (who have nothing to do with the Asian left) initiated the general shift from Marxism to social democracy or Fabian socialism after the progressive Pinochet revolution of 1968.
Since then, even the so-called conservatives have been Fabian socialists, see the Popular Party.
This is the key to understanding why nothing changes in two-party systems except the headlines and little else.
To believe that conservative parties are still right-wing is a conceptual error that voters, much fewer politicians, must pay dearly to pact with.
Please, let’s stop calling communism what it is not.
As I always say, if only there were real communists, we could at least debate or fight in common objective terms: the table is the table, not what the table thinks it is.
I don’t know if I’ve made myself clear.
The post-communist orphan accepted the postulates of the welfare state after the fall of the Berlin Wall and was eventually swallowed up by the liberal capitalist system to regurgitate it against its enemies (those of the system, not the communists).
If this is hard to understand – or belief – read the American Jew Paul Edward Gottfried and his work The Strange Death of Marxism.
This strange metamorphosis explains why someone can wear a colorful scarf with the face of Che Guevara and nothing happens.
Anglo-Saxonism is the West’s most important political sculptor.
The dissolving ideologies that dominate us come from these countries, fed at the time by the France of Foucault and Co. (the French theory) and Kraus’s Germany.
These are all anti-Hispanic movements.
The fact that we have to live with them does not mean that we have to submit to them, at least intellectually speaking.
The definitive left (in the sense of Gustavo Bueno’s system of thought) does not exist in the West.
At least not in an articulated form capable of offering an alternative to the international meta-capitalist financial system.
Everything is still undetermined.
That is a left that pushes the most destructive individualism as far as the power system cannot go because of its limitations.
The explosion of identities, etc., can only be explained by the logic of the market, and it is the market that serves and feeds these identities with products to be consumed.
They are not centralized unitary powers. Quite the contrary.
The above point explains why there is this strange connection between globalists and newfangled socialists.
They understand each other and work together because they both have the same interests.
On the other hand, the meta-capitalists are the financiers of many of these parties, movements, foundations, associations, and NGOs that promote this change from the grassroots in favor of the political-financial elite.
Names like Soros, Gates, Rockefeller, etc., are already familiar to the general public and some of their investments are famous.
These meta-capitalists have appropriated the Western anti-system/anti-globalization movements of years past to advance their agenda.
The media’s promotion of LGBT activists, SJWs, BLM, indigenous movements, etc., is proof of this.
What has happened in America and parts of Europe are not anti-system. Quite the opposite.
It is strengthening them: LGBT policies, green policies against climate change, undermining the rule of law in the name of “democracy” while implementing friendly totalitarianism, lowering living standards in the name of planet Earth, and much more, all under the umbrella of Agenda 2030.
For some years now, there has been talk of a perhaps more accurate struggle: globalists versus patriots.
There is a left and a right in both, which is key to understanding some of the political theater we live in today, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t communicating vessels between the two.
The globalists include the undefined left, social democracy, some of the economic liberals, the economic right, and even some conservative right.
The patriots include the social or socialist right, the (minority) reactionary right, the defined left such as the Asian left, and blocs such as the Slavic, Islamic, and certain African forces.
This may sound strange to you, but that is precisely why I have nuanced the commonalities between the two groups.
Rejecting globalist policies (Agenda 2030) does not mean that a country does not benefit from promoting these ideas to its opponents to weaken them and ban them at home (as in the case of Russia, China, and Islamic or African countries).
Geopolitics is ‘realpolitik’, not idealistic politics and Alice’s thought.
Indeed, many adherents of Alice’s thought are those who vote for the new undefined left because they believe they are against the system.
Therefore, the various feminist collectives, LGTB, etc., think that they are making the revolution, even though they are slaves exploited by the very system they claim to want to attack.
On the other hand, politicians who implement the same thing under a different name (e.g., Lasso or the PP) are often presented as an alternative to this left.
Unfortunately, these are two sides of the same coin.
The Spanish continental platform (under the prism of the gustavobuenista) will be further weakened, whatever one decides.
Ibero-American societies are more traditional, and more religious, with a state that does not dominate every corner of the country, and with large, hierarchical families.
Agenda 2030 is conspicuous by its absence.
It’s over. Lula’s alleged victory closes the circle that began with the São Paulo Forum and ended with the Puebla Group.
The once-revolutionary communists are now at the service of globalism. Let us remember that they fulfill the function that others cannot fulfill, hence their importance.
These forces have failed to improve the lives of workers and those most in need – if they ever wanted to (“Outcasts of the earth, unite”).
With the dissolution of ideologies and the promotion of new identities, they are even less likely to do so.
It will be difficult to break out of this dynamic, and so far, there are no articulate anti-globalist forces in Ibero-America capable of breaking the mold that has so far suffocated the continent in a spiral.
It remains to be seen whether the changes in Europe will have an impact in the future, although there is not much hope given the overall attitude toward international events.
One thing is certain and must be understood immediately: Without money, money, and money (as Napoleon said, what it takes to fight a war), and without a media that at least knows how to compete on an equal footing, it is not possible to fight these forces.
There is still a long way to go to turn the tide.
* Double degree in Journalism and Audiovisual Communication. He has worked in various media, as well as in the communication sector. Currently, at 7NN Noticias. He collaborates as an analyst, consultant, and political advisor.