Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Americans Must Never Compromise Their National Sovereignty

The American people are slowly being stripped of their sovereignty and prepped for submission to a world government. The process may take several generations, but there can be no doubt that this is the ineluctable outcome the statists in the government have pre-determined. The individual, in the fullest sense, must take a stand with his fellow patriots against the state if this grave threat to freedom is to be thrown back.

The lubrication for the integration of the United States into the machinery of the new internationalist world order is moral relativism, and by extension, cultural relativism, which hold that there are no appreciable differences between the moral systems of nations. Moral relativism at the individual-societal level is destructive of a man's ability to judge (or to use Evan Sayet's term to "discriminate") what values are conducive to his life and success. Cultural relativism attempts to suppress the resistance of peoples to the idea of unification in a supra-national world government.

The program for the internationalist vision is two-fold: first, the annihilation of "dogmatic" (meaning unyielding) religious and moral values; and second, reprogramming.

In the state-run education system, people are not taught true critical thinking skills; and those academic subjects conducive to developing them (specifically, mathematics and science) are limited to the most rudimentary and superficial of expositions. Furthermore, the core curriculum of reading and writing is grounded in the post-modernist, that is to say, subjectivist school of literary criticism, which is corrosive of traditional social norms; while the key aspect of writing is not communication to others and therefore a recognition of the external world (and thus the development of one's identity through the process of reflecting on one's external environment), but rather is a self-indulgent exercise in "expression" with little or no standards exercised upon the writer.

The effect of the educational program of the left (that is to say of the State and in turn of the internationalist elite - in a Trotskyist hierarchy of "fusion") is the fueling of a narcissism complex; the leftist program feeds a sense of alienation in individuals and subsequently makes them pliable towards "joinerism," or the willingness to join (triumphal or salvationist) mass movements to fill a barely perceptible void in their lives (one that they are not mentally equipped to critically analyze). Ironically, this has the additional effect of irrational self-confidence in one's cause, and no amount of reasoning or persuasion can deter the devout collectivist-altruist, ninety-nine times out of a hundred. (In contrast, conservative intellectuals cannot have the same charge of being "doctrinaire" levied against them, as they have to thoroughly know both sides of any argument.) The label of "narcissism" is further substantiated by the behavior of collectivist-altruists, which tends to be as "selfish" as any other person's, if not more so (because they tend to take that which does not belong to them, rather than offer goods and services in exchange for capital). The feel-goodism of the leftist is usually carried out at someone else's expense.

The leftist program of emptying the minds of individuals can be equated to reformatting the hard drives of computers (though this is an imperfect analogy because the reprogramming is done simultaneously with the reformatting). The goal of the left is to foster a worldview that holds that all judgment is by nature morally reprehensible, and the worst sin a person can commit is to "act in full" as an independent, self-actualized human being. (This is why Nietzsche is just as instructive a man of the left to study as Marx). Men that cannot be manipulated are the perpetual thorns in the side of the leftist; and they treat them as such, ostracizing them, ridiculing them, and belittling them as narrow-minded or "selfish" rubes every opportunity they get.

Reinforcing this program of "emptying" the culture is reprogramming using mass indoctrination and propaganda. This entails everything from historical revisionism to the reinforcement of leftist (non-) values in the media. It is important to realize that this program need not be a coordinated effort; the beauty of ideological subversion is that if one is oblivious to the power of philosophy to animate the mind and thus to provoke certain responses and actions, no "conspiracy" per se is needed.

The basically nihilistic, morally relativistic propaganda in the media is further reinforced by two other factors, one controlled by the left, the other not fully controlled. The first factor is a culture war that seeks to dishonor religion, to promote a culture of death, to decry and to defile the economic system, and to create as much perceived chaos as possible. This generally provokes a radical and by turns reactionary environment unless carefully managed. This is why Fabian socialism has been a much more successful means of subverting the United States than radical socialism (we can observe this with the current turn in public sentiment against the radical socialist-cum-pragmatist President Obama.) The second factor, which the left only partly controls (but one that it most certainly wants to dominate) is the means of mass communication. (President Obama's recent comment in China regarding his desire to control information so that he "doesn't have to listen to criticism" is not as much of a joke as he lets on.)

So are leftists insidious men and women looking to enslave their fellow human beings? No. They tend to be useful idiots for aspiring oligarchs, who are truly shrewd but obviously cannot control all the variables. So how are seemingly bright and otherwise ingenious men and women manipulated in such fashion? The answer lay in philosophy. First of all, academics in America tend to be "half-baked" intellectuals (as KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov intimates in one of his videos) who have a one-sided reading of history, economics, and politics. Secondly, social scientists have persuaded themselves that they are true "scientists," even as they abstract away all the biology and individuality of human beings and replace people with numbers or immerse them in collectivist organizing principles. The idea that mankind can be "managed" by a scientific-technocratic elite intrigues intellectuals, who nonetheless tend to hold to the mystical transcendental collectivist vision of marxists and neomarxists. The internationalist vision of marxism is remarkably robust and resilient, even emotionally nurturing to its adherents; this is the case even as marxists have ceased to convince themselves that it is "scientific."

The attraction of intellectuals to marxism is perhaps no better summarized that in Schumpeter's masterwork Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy:

"Thus the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, the American Civil War, the World War of 1914, the French Frondes, the great French Revolution, the revolutions of 1830 and 1848, English free trade, the labor movement as a whole as well as any of its particular manifestations, colonial expansion, institutional changes, the national and party politics of every time and country - all this enters the domain of Marxian economics which claims to find theoretical explanations in terms of class warfare, of attempts at and revolt against exploitation, of accumulation and of qualitative change in the capital structure, of changes in the rate of surplus value and in the rate of profit. No longer has the economist to be content with giving technical answers to technical questions; instead he teaches humanity the hidden meaning of its struggles...No - politics itself is being determined by the structure of the state of the economic process and becomes a conductor of effects as completely within the range of economic theory as any purchase or sale.

Once more, nothing is easier to understand than the fascination exerted by a synthesis which does for us just this. It is particularly understandable in the young and in those intellectual denizens of our newspaper world to whom the gods seem to have granted the gift of eternal youth. Panting with impatience to have their innings, longing to save the world from something or other, disgusted with textbooks of undescribable tedium, dissatisfied emotionally and intellectually, unable to achieve synthesis by their own effort, they find what they crave for in Marx. There it is, the key to all the most intimate secrets, the magic wand that marshals both great events and small." (HarperPerennial, 47)

It is clear to intellectuals themselves that pure Marxism (or to use the nouveau phrase - "vulgar" Marxism) has outlived its usefulness as a "scientific" theory of everything; yet the power of its vision is held aloft by neomarxist balloons in the sky, even as the foundation has crumbled. The left is willing to lie to everyone, including themselves, to perpetuate their fantasies; this is a phenomenon that men of learning and genuflection have seen before, and one that strikes any sober person as extremely dangerous.

The theoretical keystone to understanding how marxism is conducive to fostering an international oligarchy instead of worldwide liberation is two-fold. The first is the recognition that property is essentially command over the usage of land, labor, or resources (including "capital"; but one must be careful here to recognize that what we call "capital" can be fiat issued by governments to signify mutual debt - a very communistic notion in and of itself). The second is that every political system tends towards oligarchy; this is because every order requires leadership and organization. The control over the instrument of coercion that is government tends towards co-optation and manipulation for personal gain. Even spontaneous orders, like those found in nations that respect liberty, still require protection by a class of specialists. This is what is meant by the Jeffersonian phrase, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

How do we judge if a moral system is deleterious of liberty? The method and standard of judging the rightness or wrongness of any moral position is to ask how it affects the individual. Not society, not the transcendental "greater good," not even the nation. America exists as a nation to defend liberty, liberty does not exist to serve the nation.

The individualist has a very specific view of totalitarian or collectivist movements of any kind. It can rightly and steadfastly be held that there has been no nation in world history that has respected individual rights as America has that has also committed mass atrocities, enslaved foreign peoples, or has tolerated the slavery of its own people for any appreciable time on any appreciable scale compared to those of collectivist or authoritarian regimes. This is a truth that cannot be bludgeoned away by doctrinaire marxists for any man of historical vision. The tradition of individual rights and liberty should be preserved by the American people in the face of tyranny finally arriving to its shores; even if quietly and even if by cover of treason.


Reaganx said...

=The American people are slowly being stripped of their sovereignty and prepped for submission to a world government.=

I don't think it's the sovereignty that's the issue. If a "libertarian" world government arose (which is not impossible theoretically), I would gladly reject any national sovereignty, which is just a nationalist construct. But, if in a certain case national sovereignty is conducive to freedom (ONLY IN THAT CASE), it should be supported. Not as an end in itself but as a means to an end. There's nothing good in national sovereignty per se. ANYONE can introduce socialism - a national government or a world government. The level of government doesn't affect its nature, though in this particular case it could be argued that a "UN-run" US would be EVEN worse than an Obama-run one.

Reasonsjester said...

ReaganX, I agree with you on the conceptual level. I am not a nationalist, or a fan of any collectivism. But as a matter of the U.S. coincidentally having supported, to variable extents, Constitutionally limited government and individual rights, I favor the American people retaining "sovereignty" over their own government, rather than yielding decision-making authority to international marxists at the UN or at other world bodies, such as the IMF or World Bank.

Reasonsjester said...

By conceptual level, I only mean that a number of variables stand in the way of effecting the libertarian vision of a world without nationalities, and replacing it with universal recognition of the sovereignty of the individual. Currently, the U.S. is the bastion of the value of free market capitalism, as debauched a state as the country is currently is in. If any resistance to worldwide collectivist oppression (and there is no doubt that this is the plan of the international marxists) is to be mounted, then it better come from the United States and it better come fast and with the force of a true reckoning.