The Power of Ideas

Current debate about Islam based on false premises, has also been waging on Nazi Germany until decades after the event. And sadly, analysts have not taken the right message away from it. Their blaming ethnic nationalism for Nazism is like diagnosing one of the symptoms, leaving the disease itself untouched. It is sad, but it is also very dangerous.

For a long time we have been so racist to believe that only Germans could be capable of constructing a foul ideology like Nazism. But nothing could be further from the truth. According to the Objectivist philosopher Leonard Peikoff Nazi Germany could occur, due to a specific set of ideolocal circumstances. If these conditions can be transfered to another time and place, something like Nazism could happen again, pershaps differing only in form and intensity.

The first prerequisite for a totalitarian state to occur is collectivism. As Ayn Rand has cleverly pointed out, racism is nothing but a quite primitive form of exclusive collectivism. In a collective, the individuals of which it consists, are nothing but cogs, drones, existing solely for the purpose of the collective. The queen bee and her drones come to mind, as does "resistance is futile".

Ethnic nationalism, communism and socialism are all forms of collectivism. Christianity, if it ever was a collective, soon shed it with the first schism. It has since fallen apart in numerous denominations. The Ummah (the Muslim community) is also a collective, and is in its development closely related to the tribe, which is also a miniature totalitarian state.

Collectives can be exclusive: one must have a number of characteristics (racial, or a blood relationship, or a social class) in order to belong to it; or the collective may be inclusive; or both simultaneously. Inclusive collectives assimilate individuals into it, whether they want to or not. One needs only to recall the Iron Curtain or the Berlin Wall to visualize how that might work. Those who do not belong to it, can't get in and for those who do belong, there's no out.

Collectives, while offering safety in numbers for underdeveloped cultures, are in effect evil because they snuff out human creativity and smother the free will and with it, morality.

Instilled in collectives is altruism: the requirement that is demanded from the drone to exist solely for the sake of the hive or the queen. They must submit. Islam means, to submit. Soldiers are asked to do the ultimate form of altruism, to give up their lives for their country. One can see that in the defense of the realm or for the sake of universal values like liberty, this is a good and noble thing. But if for the sake of an aggressive, exclusive or inclusive collective, this form of altruism becomes an evil.

Philosophies produced by the so called German Idealists culturally strengthened the ethics of altruism. Deontology, taught by Immanual Kant for example, demands one does not lie ... not even to a murderer, even if that might save someone's life. It is obvious that in this extreme form of ethics, nobility comes full circle and starts reversing in on itself.

Suicide terrorists come to mind as a perverted form of altruism. Those who self-sacrifice in order to take out those they consider to be enemies. The Japanese kamikaze pilots in World War II performed similar deeds. Some collectives manage to rationalize sacrificing women and children, the so-called human shields.

Another ingredient required is pragmatism. The kind of pragmatism that makes you want to say: well, it may be evil and it may be dangerous, but we do it anyway. This is a form of expediency that comes to the fore when there's little or nothing left to lose. The Germans felt they had nothing to lose. World War I was lost, the German Revolution and the Weimar Republic produced cultural nihilism, and the Peace of Versailles had lumbered them with a heavy burden of reparations. Indeed, it was designed so that the aggressor might never recover to unleash another war again.

The power of victimhood cannot be underestimated. It's only justice that a victim is allowed to retaliate. It's a very strong incentive for war. Hitler told the German people they were the victims of Jewish greed and capitalism. A culture, a people or a country under pressure, with the incentive of victimhood, tends to expand by violent means. Ask the Palestinians. The Israelis are not even allowed to act in self defense, but the Palestinians, after years of prolonging and cultivating destitution and devastation, are allowed just about anything.

A real or perceived inside, or outside enemy not only helps in the cohesion of the collective itself by drawing it closer together, it also enhances the feeling of victimhood, of being in danger and under attack.

- Caption: Sioux Chief Running Antelope -

Another prerequite is relativism. This may surprise some who might expect here absolutism instead. The contrary is the case. Absolutism usually goes hand in hand with a healthy dose of self righteous tolerance, but relativism opposes universalism, enhances pragmatism and ends in polylogism. See here why present day polylogism - multiculturalism - produces sectarianism and is racist and evil.

So, aggression by a relativist, victimized collective is not inherent in Germans or in any human being, but is concocted in the cultural make-up of any given people by an ideological constellation, that given the circumstances, may be duplicated at another time and place.

Islam likes to guise itself in the robes of religion. Before the onset of political theory, the only ideological model known to man, was religion. Even Auguste Comte's philosophy of positivism as late as the 19th century took the form of a ridiculous pseudo religion. This confuses culturally relativist liberals who believe in freedom of religion and 'to each his own path to sainthood'. They are making the fatal mistake of equivocating Islam with other religions that do not share with Islam a number of ideological characterics: collectivism, relativism, pragmatism, existential angst, and a narrative based on slighted supremacy.

Home-grown terrorists like Jihad Jane are by now hardly unique. It provides proof positive that Islamic violence has nothing to do with race or is inherent in Arabs or Iranians, but has everything to do with Islam as an ideology. Apparently there is something in this set of ideas, that encourages hostile behavior, not just towards infidels, but also towards fellow religionists: most victims of islamofascism are Muslims. Watch the terror belt.

We end this post by repeating our findings of yesterday, "Easter Celebrations in a Storm of Postmodern Iconoclasm". While the older religions of Judeism and Christenity according to the Platonic mind/body dichotomy have separated the sacred from the secular, the younger religion of Islam permeates every aspect of life, including politics.

The test that liberal democracy has in store for Muslims will be if the Ummah will be able to break up its collective, and if it will manage subsequently to separate Mosque from State. That will be the sole hope of integration into Western culture, so as to avert the clash of civilizations that everyone fears so much.

Update

Following article by David Solway on Tariq Ramadan is highly recommended. Ramadan combines Islam with postmodern ideas: it doesn't come more insidious than that.

Pajamas: "Tariq Ramadan: A Viper in Our Midst (Thanks to Hillary Clinton)", door David Solway

Related

- Politeia: "Why Islam is an Ideology", by Dr Sam Holliday
- PJM: "Was Marco Polo an ‘Islamophobe’?", by Raymond Ibrahim
- Politeia: "Why Multiculturalism is Racist and Evil"
- Political Islam: "The Pseudo-Golden Rule or Do Unto Which Others", by Bill Warner

Related articles by Zemanta

• How Nazism shaped Islamist views (thejc.com)
• WWII And The Cold War (slideshare.net)

On Cultural Resistance, Child Abuse and Divided We Conquer

There's a new post up over on the cultural blog, The Lighthouse.

It deals with newly discovered cases of Youth-for-Obama child abuse, racism and how the Left divides societies, as a means to better rule.

Breitbart's The B-Cast discuss ABC's premiere of "V", the highest-rated 8 p.m. drama series debut since "Lost". It was seen by 14.3 million viewers and had a 5.2 rating among adults 18-49. And let's not get all politically correct now! This is not subliminally tapping into your subconscious: of course "V" really is "O".

2009: Reintroducing Class Justice

The blatant class justice and 'reverse' racism on display all over the Western hemisphere and how this is apparently the natural standard for entire cohorts of postmodernists, is reaching fever pitch!

Case in point: Sonio Sotomayor, Obama's pick for the US Supreme Court.

Bear with me, as we explore the concepts and definitions of objectivity and subjectivity in various fields.

Here's part preview of Chapter 2 of "The Dystopia of Paradise": Definitions

In philosophy subjectivism means that reality (the object) is dependent on human consciousness (the subject) for its existence. Man does not need to concern himself with the outside facts of reality to attain knowledge. The mind has the power to create reality in conformity with his wishes. Inner pathos, not reason, therefore is man's primary tool of cognition.

In subjectivism reality is not a collection of objective facts, but merely an illusion of a real world. Albert Einstein once asked a subjectivist, "do you really think the universe is not there when you aren't watching it?" A subjectivist might legitimately ask, "If I die overnight, will the sun rise tomorrow?" 

There are two kinds of subjectivism, depending on the view of who creates 'reality.' In modern times the notion was introduced by Immanuel Kant. He stopped just short of proposing the possibility of personal 'realities'. Instead he posited social subjectivism, the collectivist idea that social groups create their own realities. 

Followers carried the idea to further extremes: there is no reason why mankind should not consist of competing groups, each with their own type of consciousness, vying with others for the control of reality.  Postmodernists (Leftist and Rightist subjectivists) built on Marx's social version that consisted in a dialectic of oppressing versus oppressed classes. The Nazis, following in their footsteps, substituted social class with race.

Postmodernism (now mainstream) furnished ethnic groups with their own mental constitution, a racial or cultural version of subjective 'truth,' that may be invalid for others. This is what present day multiculturalists term 'the narrative'. More on the subject of polylogism in the post "Why Multiculturalism is Racist and Evil".

Socially the outcome of subjectivity is segregation; in postmodernism it is multiculturalism. A multicultural society is a socially subjective political system: an archipelago of distinct autononous cultural and racial islets (others would say, ghettos). Although politicians like to present the doctrine as synonymous with 'a society consisting of multiple cultures' this is emphatically not the case. On the contrary, it is legalized segregation and the diametrical opposite of 'melting pot.' 

As long as all groups abide by the principle that each and every culture is equally valid and autonomous in its own right, it is just the dissenters, apostates and outcasts who are thrown under the bus. But as soon as one tribe starts developing theories about its own supremacy, or becomes envious of more successful ones, or becomes predatory - to mention but a few wildly speculative possibilities - it's back to the drawing board of human civilization for the survivors (if any).

In a social or a political context subjectivism becomes best visible in socialist/liberal policies - such as corporatism (quotas set aside for certain groups), affirmative action programs, subsidies, grants and preferential treatment for minorities, actually empowering cultural and racial minorities by shifting capital, power and rights from the 'powerful' to 'powerless'.

All this is opposed by objectivity, which aims at applying one set of rules or standards to all, without regard for the person in question, or his social, racial or cultural identity.

On the philosophical level objectivism rests  on the view that reality exists independent of the human mind. The subject perceives the object to acquire knowledge of it. Instead of the introspection involved in subjectivism, the attention is directed outward, to facts outside consciousness.

In a social or political setting the objective approach seeks to apply equal rules and treatment for all concerned, without regard of the individual involved - baron or beggar - or his particular circumstances or background: murder is murder, no matter who committed it.

Objectivity has been the highest standard of moral judgment for a very long time. Laws and regulations may be codified with a view to objective application, but if judges apply justice with more empathy for Latina women than Caucasian men, the result is arbitrary whim, reverse class justice, racism.

Charles Krauthammer in a recent interview explains what the consequences are for all of us if Obama's 'sympathetic' notion of empathy is introduced into the justice system.

Question: do we seriously believe that President Obama - previously US Senator and attorney of Civil Rights Law, teacher of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School - introduces legal subjectivism just to be 'nice', do we?

And how hard can it be to explain to those who believe that racism does not exist in the 'oppressed', the injustice of reverse class justice?

- Filed on Articles in "The Pomo Presidency" -

Why Multiculturalism is Racist and Evil

What do the pictures in this post have in common, apart of human esthetics and artistic excellence?

All spring from the genius of Nazi propaganda artist Leni Riefenstahl. But the icons share other characteristics.

Polylogism (here defined, and here seen in postmodern action) is a form of collectivist subjectivism that also produced the National Socialist racial theories. A postmodern term for polylogism is multiculturalism.

A people, racial or cultural group is seen as having to follow its own particular destiny apart from the rest of humanity, a historical path culminating - according to a number of subjectivist philosophers (Kant and Hegel) - in teleological endgames, often a secularized version of the Second Coming.

The irrationality of multiple 'logics' apart, this form of self-determination negates universalism and is in fact racism, with apartheid as a direct consequence.

Universalism endows the human race as a whole with basic rights, as poetically summed up in the American Declaration of Independence: (...) that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In its result it makes no difference whether these inalienable rights are bestowed by God, are a result of Natural Law, or are seen as inherent in man's nature.

But it makes all the difference if such rights are relative, conditional and temporarily bestowed by society, or worse, by the state or a government - up for suspension at any time when the collective deems its own common causes of primary importance over the individual's as we have witnessed in Nazism, Communism and Fascism. See it succinctly explained in this animated video - the entire P1 series is heartily recommended, also as an educational tool).

Modern forms of collectivism are the inevitable consequences of a fatal mistake made by the thinkers of the so-called Radical Enlightenment, the first relativists of our time, skeptics, deists and atheists, notably Cartesian philosophers as Pierre Bayle and Baruch Spinoza: they 1o1 substituted absolute monarchy with the rule by the state. Diderot and Jean-Jacques Rousseau put the cherry on the evil edifice by fitting it out with an illusionary 'common will' of its own.

The erection of total states was not their intention, but it was the result of their oversight to safeguard individual rights against the ever expanding bodies of state. Whereas in universalism rights are absolute, either sacred, natural, or inherent and thus inalienable, collectivists derive their temporal, conditional and positive rights directly from the state or the government. These aren't servants and representatives of the people, but ends in themselves.

Universalism produces negative rights and liberty, limiting the powers of the state in favor of its individual citizens; on the racial level the result is 'melting pot' and given time, Dr Martin Luther King's 'color blindness'.

Polylogism or multiculturalism on the other hand produces subjects, drones, apartheid, gang morality, segregation, ghettos, no-go areas, balkanization, tribalism, and the oppression of dissidents of any particular group, whose rules they happened to have violated. These have nowhere to go since the multicultural prime directive - all groups being morally equal - is not to interfere in any other group's affairs.

Contrary to what the proponents tell us, the definition of a multicultural society is not a society comprising multiple cultures, but one consisting of segregated minorities, each following their own 'common will'. History learns that the result is oppression and a perpetual state of tribal warfare.

Given the fact that humanity can now look back on literally centuries of ill experience with collectives - each of course laying claim to its own version of Utopia - it's truly stupefying that we are still in the process of reproducing more of the same.

The analysis was never properly made, nor were the evils in essence ever exposed and addressed. As a result we're not looking ahead to a happy post-racial melting pot, but to the ultimate nightmare of a postmodern version of tribalism.

Eurozine recently published an exchange of polemics between proponents and opponents of multiculturalism. Note that the proponents defend their morally charged views on the basis of their good intentions, not on the logical consequences of their ideas. That particular strain of Kantian ethics is called deontology, or the perpetual get-out-of-jail-card for the good-intent-bad-result-never-mind brigades.

If anything stands out between the 17th century originals and the postmodern lot, it's that the former were rather keen on the absoluteness of the freedom of expression. But since the onset of the Counter Enlightenment that value has been subject of erosion, now temporarily culminating in the inexplicable wish to return to barbarism and obscurantism.

Need to have the matter explained the hard way? Watch (or listen to) "Tough Absolutes". (I can up that figure of 57 million: it's actually closer to 110 million over the last century alone.)

Related: "'Triumph of the Will', or Defeat of Delusion" (a full length Nazi propaganda film by Leni Riefenstahl)

- Filed on Articles in "The Dystopia of Paradise" -

The Western Press and Their False Consciousness

This post was first published on Modern Conservative on December 30, 2008

~~-:-~~

Last Sunday we heard the BBC's reporter on the ground in Israel, Jeremy Bowen, utter the momentous words: "Gazans have a strong ideology for resistance and martyrdom."

Let's analyze this assertion for a moment. Ideology - as in Islamism; resistance - as in insurgence against 'occupation'; martyrdom - as in suicide bombing. Isn't that the 'narrative' of the Gaza belt and those other places where the scions of peace hold sway?

Increasingly we hear evidence of Western reporters taking on - what is termed in their anti-philosophy - a 'false consciousness'. That needs clarification for those not versed in Critical Theory. With false consciousness Carl Marx meant the downtrodden thinking and talking within the reference frame of their oppressors. With some imagination you might also explain it, as living in another, subjective 'reality'.

Postmodernists have taken the notion a step further and believe quite literally in parallel existences of the various minority collectives, be they gays, blacks, women, Muslims, the masses, the Chinese ... whatever the inequal group, it has its own parallel reality in which the inhabitants have their own 'narrative'. (Here's the Wiki explaining polylogism somewhat further.)

The Western press show evidence of having voluntarily taken up an Islamist 'consciousness'. (Caution: do not try this at home without the proper medical attention: psychosis or split personality syndrome may ensue. This seems to be happening frequently to North Africans living in Europe, who fail to assimilate.)

As if taking on a 'false consciousness' is not enough, the MSM now rely for their reporting on locals on the ground in Gaza, emphasizing that "the IDF won't allow them to go there" themselves (as if this were Mugabe's Zimbabwe).

Despite the 2007 bloody Hamas coup in Gaza - an Islamofascist thuggocracy - on the phone we have a range of professionals making the impression Gaza is actually a normally functioning democracy: human rights activists, business consultants, university professors, and representatives of civic organizations are painting the reality on the ground in terms of flowery Arabic rhetoric, the narrative of the mother of all massacres, of holocausts on women and babies under the age of ten.

During the prolonged US Presidential campaign we saw the press entirely giving up the pretense of objectivity. Subsequently the combined SMS mutated into a fully fledged member of the Obama campaign team. In the reporting of operation "Cast Lead" we witness them unashamedly taking up the consciousness and 'narrative' of the party that consistently spouts anti Western hatred. Postmodern dialectic is communicated in an idiom of self-loathing, reverse morality, and false equation with the aim to alter perception.

As far as can be discerned from the comfort of the armchair, Western consumers are still paying for the advertisements that are the lifeblood of cable television? Or are we? Come to think of it, the overbearing AIG commercials haven't hit the screen now for some time. Whatever happened to the rallying statements emanating from the sub-prime bundler that used to be CNN's prime sponsor [sarc off]?

Footage comes to us increasingly in unfiltered, raw technicolor in the tradition of the Middle East - yet more evidence of a cultural shift. Whereas not so long ago a dead body was deemed too realistic for the after-dinner evening news, today we get the bits and pieces raw for breakfast, courtesy of Al Jazeera's Western competitors and their correspondents on-the-ground.

What's more, a brand new Postmodern 'rhetorical' technique has hit the media: pundits and commentators who rather specifically and emphatically self-identify as political moderates, or even claim to be politically agnostic or independent, then confessing they "really need to tell you the truth", followed by unabashed leftist or pro Islamist narrative.

A win-win situation is created. The pundit gets out the perception that even moderates think this (whatever the subject happens to be) is far beyond the pale; the media creates an impression of moderation and even-handedness. A more dishonest lot than the followers of subjectivism is yet to walk the earth.

At this stage it is as yet unsure where the culture war will take us next. One thing is for sure however: we are looking at a guerrilla-of-the-mind that is unprecedented in recorded history.

- Filed on Articles in "The Press from Hell" - Digg it!

Working on Utopia: the last world order

The author who coined the term Transnational Progressivism, John Fonte has come out with a new essay. It was published on Front Page Magazine on June 4. The understated title "Global Governance vs. the Liberal Democratic Nation-State" might alternatively have been, the neotot war on democracy.

Ever since the anti-philosophers of the Counter-Enlightenment put their vision of a Utopian world government to paper, the followers have been chasing and enacting the global phantom, which is the inevitable outcome of the questionable theory of progress. The West hasn't had the occasion yet, but if the course of history is seen over longer periods of time, cycles of rise and decline may be closer to reality.

Fonte follows the traditional political alignment, which doesn't recognize the reactionists as a movement to counter modernism. In that view the collectivist Left is a continuance of the Enlightenment proper, and leaves the Rightist Socialists (nationalists and National Socialists) out of the equation.

The following commentary puts the Fonte paper in the light of the political theory that on the contrary sees the departure from modernism as a counter movement directed against classical Liberalism: individualism, limited government, reason and capitalism.

Immanuel Kant, (1724-1804) sought ways to maintain order within states and peace among nations. Since he considered it necessary to have some way to repress lawless and immoral acts, he suggested a federation of states, leading ultimately to world governance, the result of progress through the dialectic of cooperation versus conflict. This brings man as a species to a more ethically evolved order. The process would culminate in a world government, an international and cosmopolitan federation of states, pending the coming of the Day of Judgment.

Unlike today's postmodernists Kant at least displayed an understanding of reality in fearing that this vision of global peace might turn out to be worse than the old, chaotic world order, indeed become "the most horrible despotism."

Kant is the spiritual father of (post)modern subjectivism: he held that the world as we see it is an illusion, the true world being an invisible universe which man cannot know. Instead 'reality' conforms to the mind: the anti-logic of subjectivism.

Kant's follower Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) built upon Kant's philosophies and his world vision of a global federation of states. Hegel's philosophy is a secular fantasy, loosely based on Judeo-Christian cosmology: God's projection, a spirit called the Absolute, represents creation which is seeking reunification with God. Its development by means of struggle and conflict through which it gets to know itself is the story of the history of the world. The story ends when the Absolute - reunited with God - achieves full self-consciousness.

Hegel is the father of (post)modern collectivism and personal subjectivism, the 'narrative.' His theme was the state, which he presented as a reflexion of the will of God. The state is the standard of good and evil, the 'ethical whole.'

Here we have the definition of the total state where individual man has abdicated his free will and has in effect transferred his morality to the collective: as a mere aspect of the state, ethical man has no self-will. It is his duty to submit to the state's needs, and worship it as the Supreme Being.

Karl Marx was a member of a branch called the Young, or Left Hegelians. The Right Hegelians fathered the subjective collectivism which we have come to know as National Socialism.

With that knowledge let us turn to Fonte's essay. He follows Francis Fukuyama's 1989 conclusion that liberal democracy has come up trumps as the best form of government for most people. Evidently this does not hold true for all, notably the postmodernist heirs of the Counter-Enlightenment movement. They are working in the post-democratic supra and transnational vacuum on the opposing end of the scale of democratic principles, the return to Kantian and Hegelian ideals.

The global strategy was summed up by Fonte as Transnational Progressivism, the basis of which is the out-phasing of the sovereign nation-state through systemic and relentless subversion and demoralization, resulting in a centralized secular authority with regional administrative sub-units. Critical theory has decades of study and experience behind its belt:

"Nation-states continue to exist but they are subordinate to transnational authority. This authority is exercised by new definitions (“evolving norms”) of international law (really transnational law); transnational courts such as the International Criminal Court; myriad UN conventions that establish new global norms, particularly in the area of human rights; supranational institutions like the European Union; and non-government organizations (NGOs) that act as “global civil society.”

Of course there is no people on earth who have voted this world order into power. The process is unfolding itself under our noses without anyone being the wiser. The flag covering it is pacifist Utopianism, world peace, international cooperation, sustainable development, multi-lateralism, global governance, and international law. The model governing it is multiculturalism: the postmodern, subjectivist, collective approach to societies in which relativist polylogism is key:

"First, the basis of political society ought not to be the individual citizen and voluntary associations, but the identity group, often ascribed, to which one belongs or claims as a primary identification (racial, ethnic, gender, religious if non-Western, sexual orientation, et cetera)": the collective.

"Second, these identity groups ought to be divided into two categories: the privileged (whites, males, Christians, heterosexuals, citizens) and the marginalized (non-whites, females, non-Christians, homosexuals, non-citizens)": subjectivism through the Marxist dialectic of 'oppressing' versus 'oppressed' groups.

"Third, the major inequities in society are “systemic” or “institutional,” built into the nature of the system. Thus, we have “systemic racism” or “institutional racism,” and “systemic sexism,” along with homophobia, Islamophobia, and xenophobia that are embedded in the nature of society. The repeated use of this type of rhetoric challenges the legitimacy of the liberal-democratic nation-state. If a political regime is engaged in systemic bias, it clearly is devoid of moral authority and is not really “legitimate”": subversion of the sovereign nation, political correctness, postmodern rhetoric.

- Caption: the UN General Assembly -

"Fourth, an important goal of society ought to be eliminating these identity group-based inequities. A just society means a group-based equality of condition": egalitarianism, socialism, equality of outcome.

"Fifth, the nation-state is an inadequate institution to achieve social justice and is ill-suited to the problems of the future. Therefore, national identity, and exclusive national citizenship are, by their nature, problematic": anti-modernism.

"Sixth, global migration from less developed countries to more developed countries will be a major characteristic of the twenty-first century. Instead of promoting the assimilation of immigrants into an existing national culture, “fairness” requires that we promote transnational citizenship, diaspora consciousness, and group-oriented multiculturalism": discourage national loyalties, delete the border.

- Caption: Nurnberg, from Geoff Walden's "Third Reich in Ruins," dedicated to his father, U.S. Army Air Forces Lt. Delbert R. Walden, who was stationed in Germany in 1945-46 -

Since the doctrine, is based on progress through strife and struggle, only the strictest pacifism separates it from the global cataclysm and tyranny that Kant foresaw: in the absence of objective standards, polylogism excludes understanding between different groups. This is exacerbated by policies of non-assimilation. Soft force is exerted by the use of the method we have come to know so well: self-censorship through political correctness, and increasingly less soft methods to quell free speech.

What is happening in this transnational theater is a snail-pace, velvet coup d'etat against anyone living in a liberal democracy: subversion of nation-states, spying, manipulation of public opinion, assaults on objective equality, treason against voters and elected governments, it is all not too vile to withhold the transies their futuristic dream:

"a publication of the Ford Foundation on NGO human rights activity in the US, discusses the need “to break the chokehold of domestic law.” Indeed, the publication states that, “every nation and all people need ultimate recourse to an alternative ethical and legal authority.” The Ford document approvingly declared that, “US human rights activists are trying to reshape US society according to a philosophy and framework of rights that most people either have not heard of or have been taught to think of as foreign.”"

Corporations and multinationals are co-opted with a vista of free trade in lieu of national branding. For citizens forfeiting political rights is the price for living in a free-market economy: China stands model:

"On China Cato insists that “trade policy should be de-coupled from [political] human rights”; all sanctions such as Jackson-Vanik should be repealed; and that nation should be afforded “unconditional” MFN (most favored nation) trading status. Even closer to the political mainstream and at the core of the governing center-right was the persona of the late editor of Wall Street Journal, Robert Bartley, who is reported to have told a Forbes journalist, “the nation-state is finished.”

- Filed on Articles in dossier "Transnational Progressivism" and "The Dystopia of Paradise" -