War, Revolution, and Ambition

There are several wars happening in the world at present – those in the Middle East, the one in Ukraine, and recently the renewed war in Syria. Anyone who has kept track of the connections between these and the encompassing attempt, by a bunch of globalists, to bring about a totalitarian world government, will know that these wars are an integral part of this global putsch. Could it be, however, that the outcomes of these wars (which are by no means a foregone conclusion) could perhaps promote the interests of the worldwide Resistance against the globalist cabal? 

Hannah Arendt, writing in the early 1960s, seems to have been prescient about what would be happening from 2022 onwards, and it is worthwhile taking note of her insights in this regard. In her book, On Revolution, she writes (Penguin Books, 1990, p. 11): 

Wars and revolutions…have thus far determined the physiognomy of the twentieth century. And as distinguished from the nineteenth-century ideologies – such as nationalism and internationalism, capitalism and imperialism, socialism and communism, which, though still invoked by many as justifying causes, have lost contact with the major realities of our world – war and revolution still constitute its two central political issues. They have outlived all their ideological justifications. In a constellation that poses the threat of total annihilation through war against the hope for the emancipation of all mankind through revolution – leading one people after the other in swift succession ‘to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them’ – no cause is left but the most ancient of all, the one, in fact, that from the beginning of our history has determined the very existence of politics, the cause of freedom versus tyranny.

One might think that her reference to ‘the threat of total annihilation through war,’ which reflects the danger, around the time of the Cuban missile crisis, of nuclear conflict, would invalidate her earlier claim, that at the time ‘war and revolution still constitute[d] its two central political issues,’ and leave only (nuclear) war as the decisive political issue. This would be erroneous, however, considering that the passage concludes with the claim that the only remaining cause, and the oldest one, is ‘the cause of freedom versus tyranny,’ which unambiguously brings revolution back into the picture. 

Why? Because at present, when the threat of nuclear conflict has been resurrected, we face the biggest threat to our freedom that has ever existed. Think about it: all the struggles for freedom in the past have either been restricted to certain countries – such as during the American and French revolutions – or, on the largest scale before now, during the two World Wars of the 20th century, when several countries were directly involved in the conflicts, although arguably the rest of the world was also implicated. But now it is different. 

The ambition of the billionaire class is nothing less than total domination; that is, total control of everyone (and everything) on the planet. In other words, the only thing that could stop them is a global revolution, but to accomplish that, it appears that the wars that are raging at present need to be won by those who oppose the globalists, or alternatively defused through peaceful negotiations (which is not likely regarding the Ukraine war), to stop the tyrants in their tracks. Or is it more complicated than that?

While it may be difficult to name the anti-globalist parties in the Middle East, the one in Ukraine is easy to identify. It is Russia. I know that many people would disagree with me because they have fallen for the demonisation of President Vladimir Putin by the West’s mainstream media, but there is overwhelming evidence that Putin and Russia are on the side of the people, as I have argued before. 

Perhaps the best evidence for this claim is the apparent determination of NATO – the attack dog of the neo-fascists – to trigger a ‘hot’ world war in Ukraine, regardless of its demonstrable potential to escalate to a nuclear level, which would cause incalculable death and destruction globally. If Russia did not stand in the way of their megalomaniacal quest, there would be no reason to continue the war indefinitely. There would have been no reason to send Boris Johnson to torpedo the Istanbul peace talks in 2022. No – as far as the cabal is concerned, the macabre ‘show’ must go on because – apart from their end goal of dystopian rule – the longer it continues, the more people (mainly Ukrainians) die in the service of what I believe to be their depopulation agenda. 

The kind of revolution required today, to gain freedom from oppression on an unimaginable scale, is nothing less than a global revolution. Kees Van der Pijl understands this clearly when he writes (in States of Emergency, Clarity Press, 2022, p. 8-9):

Society as we know it—global capitalism with its home base in the West —has entered a revolutionary crisis. After years of preparation, the ruling oligarchy, which today exercises power across the globe, has seized on the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the respiratory disease attributed to it, Covid-19, to declare a global state of emergency in early 2020. This seizure of power is intended to prevent the Information Technology revolution…the impact of which can be compared to that of the coming of the printing press at the end of the Middle Ages, from ushering in a democratic transformation…

Although he does not mention this here, the information technology revolution – which is precisely what has enabled ‘digital warriors’ in the (not yet co-opted) alternative media such as Brownstone, Real Left, and FRONTNIEUWS, to fight back through the internet (to the chagrin of WEF-puppet John Kerry) – cannot carry the revolution by itself, although it comprises an indispensable component of its infrastructure. Military-type resistance is unavoidably required too, as the war in Ukraine demonstrates; without it, NATO as the servant of the globalist cabal cannot be defeated. The war in the Middle East may even escalate to that level, although I sincerely hope it doesn’t. 

Hannah Arendt reminds one that freedom has not always been seen as the ultimate aim of revolution (1990: 11-12):

Under the concerted assault of the modern debunking ‘sciences,’ psychology and sociology, nothing indeed has seemed to be more safely buried than the concept of freedom. Even the revolutionists, whom one might have assumed to be safely and even inexorably anchored in a tradition that could hardly be told, let alone made sense of, without the notion of freedom, would much rather degrade freedom to the rank of a lower-middle-class prejudice than admit that the aim of revolution was, and always has been, freedom. Yet if it was amazing to see how the very word freedom could disappear from the revolutionary vocabulary, it has perhaps been no less astounding to watch how in recent years the idea of freedom has intruded itself into the centre of the gravest of all present political debates, the discussion of war and of a justifiable use of violence.

If this was the case in the early 1960s, when the spectre of nuclear conflagration raised its ugly head, how much more isn’t this assessment justified today, when that unsightly prospect seems to be much more probable, not least because reason has evidently been abandoned in most quarters – from the US State Department through NATO to the EU Parliament, all of which seem, incomprehensible as it may be, to be eager for the war in Ukraine to escalate to the level of a ‘hot’ world war, if not a nuclear confrontation. In all of this, the only two leaders who have so far maintained a rational approach to the irrational fanning of war flames appear to be Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, both of whom have repeatedly indicated their preference for peace negotiations. 

Moreover, just as ‘freedom,’ according to Arendt (1990, p. 14), was introduced into the debate on war around the 1960s ‘like a deus ex machina to justify what on rational grounds has become unjustifiable’ – given that the technical means of destruction in the guise of nuclear Armageddon could no longer justify their use rationally (civilians and soldiers could no longer be separated regarding probable death, that is) today we find a repetition of this dilemma, but with a twist. 

This concerns the spurious claim, with regard to the war in Ukraine, that America and NATO have to ‘stop Russian aggression’ by arming Ukraine and funding its war effort with unheard-of largesse, to secure the ‘democracy’ (which includes freedom, of course) that Ukrainians are (supposedly) entitled to. The mainstream media would never furnish one with the requisite information to corroborate this claim, being in the service of the ‘ruling elites,’ as it were; for this purpose, one has to avail oneself of as-yet uncaptured alternative media. Recent indications have been that the globalists, NATO, and the US would even be willing to risk World War III (and the possibility of a nuclear conflict) to guarantee Ukrainian ‘freedom.’ 

Arendt’s elaboration on ‘deterrence’ (1990, p. 15-17) is equally relevant today, insofar as its focus on the (nuclear) arms race during the Cold War – where, paradoxically, weapons capable of the complete annihilation of life on Earth in the event of war, were developed at frantic pace with the express purpose of preventing such a war – similarly applies to the conflict in Ukraine, but again with important differences and specifications.

The first is that, compared to the Cold War, the restraint that was exercised by the hostile parties at the time – paradigmatically during the Cuban missile crisis – is clearly not evident today. Secondly, a novel element was introduced by Russia recently, with the ‘test firing’ of its new Oreshnik (Hazelnut) hypersonic missile which, while capable of delivering nuclear warheads, reportedly bears sufficient destructive capacity, even with conventional warheads, to inflict comparable damage, but without the radioactive fallout. 

Again, it is as if Arendt anticipated such an event where she writes about ‘…the threat of total annihilation, which conceivably could be eliminated by new technical discoveries such as a ‘clean’ bomb or an anti-missile missile’ (1990, p. 14), where the ‘clean’ bomb resonates with Russia’s hypersonic missile, the Oreshnik. By contrast, her observation (in the light of deterrence via nuclear arms development), ‘that a possible serious substitution of ‘cold’ wars for ‘hot’ wars becomes clearly perceptible at the horizon of international politics’ (1990, p. 16), appears to be inverted by current developments in Ukraine, where we witness the increasing likelihood that an openly hot war may replace a putative cold war between NATO and Russia. Unless, of course, Russia’s production of the Oreshnik missile should serve the (preferable) cause of maintaining a cold war. 

Today one may therefore even perceive similarities with Arendt’s hypothetical remark (1990, p. 16), that: ‘It is as though the nuclear armament race has turned into some sort of tentative warfare in which the opponents demonstrate to each other the destructiveness of the weapons in their possession,’ something which, she admitted, could ‘suddenly turn into the real thing.’ In light of the globalist cabal’s involvement in the conflict, chances are that activating the ‘real thing’ assumes the greater probability, simply because they would do everything in their power to precipitate the hot war, or even a nuclear war, regardless of its potential for demonstrable total mutual destruction; without it, the ultimate aim of this evil coterie, to achieve world domination, may remain a mere pipe dream. When they emerge from their (no doubt well-stocked) nuclear bunkers after a decade or more, they may find that there is not much left in the world to preside over, however.

What does all of this have to do with the connection between war and revolution? Here I shall quote Arendt at length, given the pertinence of her insights for the fraught present (Arendt 1990, p. 17-18):

There is finally, and in our context most importantly, the fact that the interrelationship of war and revolution, their reciprocation and mutual dependence, has steadily grown, and that the emphasis in the relationship has shifted more and more from war to revolution. To be sure, the interrelatedness of wars and revolutions as such is not a novel phenomenon; it is as old as the revolutions themselves, which either were preceded and accompanied by a war of liberation like the American Revolution, or led into wars of defence and aggression like the French Revolution. But in our own century there has arisen, in addition to such instances, an altogether different type of event in which it is as though even the fury of war was merely the prelude, a preparatory stage to the violence unleashed by revolution (such clearly was Pasternak’s understanding of war and revolution in Russia in Doctor Zhivago), or where, on the contrary, a world war appears like the consequences of revolution, a kind of civil war raging all over the earth as even the Second World War was considered by a sizeable portion of public opinion and with considerable justification. Twenty years later, it has become almost a matter of course that the end of war is revolution, and that the only cause which possibly could justify it is the revolutionary cause of freedom. Hence, whatever the outcome of our present predicaments may be, if we don’t perish altogether, it seems more than likely that revolution, in distinction to war, will stay with us into the foreseeable future.

A perceptive reader would immediately notice the almost uncanny manner in which Arendt’s words apply to the current struggle in the world, on a global scale, which has culminated in ‘hot’ wars in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Syria, but which arguably started manifesting itself with the event of 9/11, in 2001, and again with the financial crisis of 2008. More definitively, it reared its ugly torso with the engineered ‘pandemic’ of 2020, since which time this struggle between the forces of evil – a term I use advisedly – and the forces of good has become too conspicuous to ignore. In Freudian terms, it is the struggle between Eros (love, constructive force) and Thanatos (death, destructive force), and it shows no signs of abating; on the contrary. 

More specifically, where do we stand regarding the sequential relationship between war and revolution, described as three alternatives by Arendt, above? Does the present war (or wars) precede, and promise, a revolution to follow (keeping in mind that the latter could similarly be marked by violence, as Arendt suggests), or the other way around, or do they go hand in hand, as with the American revolution? Considering what I wrote in the previous paragraph, it would appear that it is more complex than the alternatives she notes, because two kinds of revolution are at stake today.

First, there is the ‘malign revolution’ launched by the globalist cabal, probably decades ago if one includes its planning stages, and which aims at replacing a constellation of sovereign nation-states with a one-world totalitarian government. Then there is the ‘benign revolution’ (or should it be ‘benign counter-revolution’?) driven by ‘We the people’ or the Resistance, which was provoked by the cabal’s attempt to kick-start their intended ‘total revolution,’ which has since stagnated somewhat, although they are tenaciously clinging to every means at their disposal, including war, to ram it through. 

Will war ever disappear, as Immanuel Kant hoped in the 18^th century? Probably not, given Freud’s observation, that the tension between Eros and Thanatos (see above) can never be conclusively removed. And Arendt’s chilling comment, below, is not exactly reassuring either; in fact, it articulates exactly what the neo-fascists would love to see, and to use without any scruples (Arendt 1990, p. 17):     

Seventeen years after Hiroshima, our technical mastery of the means of destruction is fast approaching the point where all non-technical factors in warfare, such as troop morale, strategy, general competence, and even sheer chance, are completely eliminated so that results can be calculated with perfect precision in advance.

My hunch is that these sociopaths would rely on AI for such cold-hearted calculations. It is too early to say with certainty who will triumph, but I tend to agree with Van der Pijl (2022, p. 9) that the totalitarian cabal is bound to lose (provided, of course, that they don’t trigger a nuclear conflagration): ‘…the entire effort at suppression is doomed to end in failure.’ Whatever happens, however, Arendt’s remark, above, that: ‘Twenty years later, it has become almost a matter of course that the end [note the ambiguity of this term: ‘end’ as conclusion or goal; B.O.] of war is revolution, and that the only cause which possibly could justify it is the revolutionary cause of freedom,’ remains in force, but with an important qualification; namely, that this statement is articulated from the perspective of the Resistance.

This implies that the technocratic globalists could claim the same thing, minus the words, ‘the revolutionary cause of freedom,’ which they would replace with something like ‘the neo-fascist cause of total control.’ It is up to us, the Resistance, to make sure that human freedom prevails, because that (with all it entails) is all that is worth fighting for, whether as soldiers in a hot war or as digital warriors.