May 12, 2016
Reading our own Fay Voshell's excellent discussion I was struck by this passage:
"This brings us to the other important component essential to the success of the one-worlders – namely, the elimination of distinct identities among humans. Ultimately, their goal is to see that men and women (pardon the politically incorrect terminology) are without a country and without identity, including any differentiation between the sexes."
This got me to thinking about historical precedents, of which there are indeed any number, and if the dreams of a "new Man" dreamt by the internationalists would actually work.
First, let us discuss statelessness. If you seek to eliminate nations you seek to create a permanent state of statelessness among the population. What does that mean?
Well, we have had any number of historical examples of stateless people throughout history. Pirates, for example, were generally stateless, and they were vicious little Chihuahuas, their hands against all others. Granted, pirates were stateless by choice, having eschewed the constraints of their home nations to further their own ends, but it is pretty clear that statelessness and monstrous criminality can indeed go hand-in-hand.
Consider some other stateless peoples; the Bedouin, migrants who were never members of the Middle Eastern kingdoms around them, were notorious for thievery, enslaving passers-by, and general bad behavior. The same is true of the Romani (Gypsies) or Irish Travelers, peoples who may live in certain countries but do not consider themselves to be members of that state. Consider, too, the early days of the Mafia in the United States, where there was greater allegiance to The Family than to the adoptive country. The result? Murder, mayhem, theft, all manner of terrible and evil acts.
Think about the Russian Cossacks; these were men who fled Tsarist Russia, as well as local natives and the remains of the old Golden Horde. Cossacks were stateless people, and the terror of decent Russian citizens.
This is true even where peoples have lost their nations. Often groups like Native Americans have turned to guerilla warfare after being defeated in battle, and the end result is a sort of barbarism that any civilized person would recoil from when it is evinced. Another example would be the Turkmen in central Asia, who routinely kidnapped and held in sexual slavery young Russian girls.
In short, statelessness seems to lead to barbarism and anarchy, and to GREATER bloodshed rather than peace.
The reasons are simple enough; without the connections formed by a healthy community individuals and groups no longer have any reason to work together, and they become natural competitors. This isn't so bad in a society sharing certain moral and religious values (especially in Christendom and Judaism where strict commands are given believers to love their neighbors) but in a purely materialistic world (as the internationalist envision) there is no reason not to screw over your neighbor; he's your rival, not your friendly competitor.
Which brings us to the way society has handled this in bygone days. There are essentially two ways to do it - either through enculturation into a state or through conquest and force of arms.
History is replete with examples of enculturation. The Vikings settled all over Europe, and when they first came they were blood-thirsty barbarians. Later they would become erudite, upstanding members of society - after settlement they saw the value of adopting the ways of the state they had invaded. The Germanic invaders of Rome were described as pretty much dirt bags by the Roman Tacitus:
"Whenever they are not fighting, they pass much of their time in the chase, and still more in idleness, giving themselves up to sleep and to feasting, the bravest and the most warlike doing nothing, and surrendering the management of the household, of the home, and of the land, to the women, the old men, and all the weakest members of the family. They themselves lie buried in sloth, a strange combination in their nature that the same men should be so fond of idleness, so averse to peace. It is the custom of the states to bestow by voluntary and individual contribution on the chiefs a present of cattle or of grain, which, while accepted as a compliment, supplies their wants. They are particularly delighted by gifts from neighboring tribes, which are sent not only by individuals but also by the state, such as choice steeds, heavy armour, trappings, and neck-chains. We have now taught them to accept money also. "
And it was this close connection formed with Rome that gave us the highly civilized Germans who would later appear. We would not have so many aspects of high culture - classical music, for example, without them. Why? They had moved into Roman territory, become Roman (to a degree) and even had taken the Empire over with the coronation of Odoacer as Emperor in 476.
There are many other examples; Kublai Khan was described as a polished, erudite emperor of China by Marco Polo, yet his grandfather lived in a tent and murdered tens of thousands of people. The Mongols were absorbed by the Chinese state, even while they conquered it.
But that only works when you have a state that is largely intact.
What is the other option? Conquest and empire.
That is, in fact, how all of human history, the blood and iron, the cruelty and hardness of the ancient world, dealt with stateless peoples. They built empires, centralized, organized, militarized, and they simply forced the stateless to join them or die. Empires were generally not stable and rarely lasted more than a generation or two, because they were not forced as a result of a consent of the People but rather through the subjugation. The people sometimes cooperated out of hatred for the suzerain, but more often they hated each-other just as much but did nothing lest they bring the wraith of the imperium on them. Empires always were multicultural, with disparate groups living in close proximity often - a proximity that was generally fostered by the overlords to keep the conquered peoples from rising. It is, by the way, the same thing our overlords in Washington are doing with open borders and this mad scheme by Julian Castro to forcibly integrate upper class communities via a resettlement program for poor blacks (whom they have made poor and prevented enculturation to act as a wedge). Divide and conquer, the old saying goes. This is precisely what Washington is doing - and what was done by the ancient empires.
Multiculturalism is a recipe for disaster. Look at the multicultural parts of the world - Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, Central Asia, India, etc. All suffer from warfare, strife, endless fighting and misery. They do so because people with nothing in common have fought to grab their slice of the pie, and screw their neighbors. We are busily balkanizing our own nation, and indeed the whole world. Ferguson Mo. is a classic example, a place where upper middle class people enjoyed a gentrified life next door to the institutional poor, who rose up in fury when Mike Brown was shot and burned the city down. We can look forward to more of that as time goes by. It should be pointed out that the institutional poor often have little love for the society at large (even though they owe their very existence to the beneficence of that society). In a way the ghetto is a stateless place, and it is held in check solely by the exercise of power.
Which is what empires do; they hold the violence in check through power, not consent.
That is why what John Kerry and Barack Obama advocate is madness; a stateless world with an imperial international government. This is nothing but a return to Pax Romana, only on a world level. They are taking Rome, which never worked all that well outside of the projection of force, and metastasizing it.
The creation of the Nation-State was a huge leap forward for Mankind; the Middle Ages saw what happens when you have a stateless condition. There was constant warfare and plunder, rape and pillage during the Middle Ages, and that was because there were no states, just a bunch of strong men who could project power over certain territory. It was the creation of the Nation-State that brought about a measure of peace and prosperity. Yes, the nations of Europe fought, but primarily that was a result of their reverting to empire status after the discovery of the new World. The empirization of Europe brought back the bad old days. But warfare in Europe, though nearly constant, was quite civilized in manner throughout the 17th century and into the 18th, with established rules for warfare, with limited bloodshed, with protections for non-combatants. It was only with the dawn of the 19th century that war became the bloody thing it had been in the past. The French Revolution, and especially Napoleon, destroyed the rules of warfare.
The Progressives want to return to that. In fact, they are going to double down with the destruction of individual identities.
This current "transgenderism" and the near worship of homosexuality is, as Fay argues, a tool to break down individuality, which oddly enough is a tool to break down nations. Nations are, after all, aggregates of individuals, and the individual is a repository of the values of the nation. Break one and you break the other. But will this bring peace? Well, Ted Kozcynski, the Unibomber, participated in a mind control experiment while he was at Harvard, and they tried to break his personality. The result? Mass murder. People who have their identities broken tend to be angry, because they are powerless, twisting in the progressive winds. Look at the results of efforts by the U.S. government to break the native American cultures; the reservations became places of utter despair, with rampant alcoholism, with promiscuity, with sloth and poverty. Ditto the black ghetto, where the legacy of slavery and the later imposition of a government institutional life has given us an angry, drug addled, crime riddled underclass. The black community had identity issues already and then the depersonalization of the welfare state pushed it over the edge.
And sexual identity goes to the heart of a person. People raised as the wrong sex suffer from enormous emotional scars. Take Ernest Hemmingway; he was raised as a girl in his childhood, and spent the rest of his life proving his masculinity to himself and the world. Hemmingway killed himself. He is hardly the lone example of this, and in fact LGBT teens are five times more likely to commit suicide. Why? The Progressives argue it is solely because of societal pressure and that the solution is to double down on the problem. They will never consider that perhaps it is because these young people were made male and female and are acting in opposition to what God and Nature prescribed. In fact, many gay people adopt their homosexuality as their primary identity, something that leads to radical activism and aggression. It's a shame, because their real identity should be deeper than that. But that is part of the breaking process, the plan pushed by the Progressives to get rid of the Old Man and create the new. Sadly, by going after sexual decency and morality they intend to push people into what they know to be wrong so as to ultimately drive a chasm between themselves, between each-other, and with God.
The Mau-Mau used to make their recruits commit every sin in every religion; the idea was to separate them from all others so they would not be able to leave their new identities. This whole Transgender business is a Mau-Mau induction. Interestingly enough, Barack Hussein Obama is the grandson of a Mau-Mau.
He also had some quite inappropriate relations with his "pop". See his homoerotic poem here.
Obama - multiracial child of no particular culture, a stateless person who was whisked around the world and who never put down roots - is a prime example of what is wrong with this plan. Obama is petulant, small, petty, childish, full of anger and bile. He is busily destroying America because he can. He has the makings of a tyrant, using the power of his position to ram down the throats of Americans all manner of indigestible things without consent. He clearly believes he is better than everyone. He does this because he has no self identity, no sense of who he is. He is a blind soul twisting in the wind. That is why he has said he knows more about any issue than any of his advisors; such hubris is a necessary part of a person who is without a soul, because he has to fill the vacancy somehow. He fills it with himself, deifies himself because he is all he has to cling to. If Obama seems childish it is because he is; he suffers from the same problem that young children have, namely, he doesn't have a people, a culture, ingrained in him. Children are forming their personalities through experience but have yet to attain maturity because they have not learned who they are as a people. Obama never had a people, moving around the world and then existing in a cocoon of Hawaiian Marxism. Obama is a child, someone who never formed a mature personality. Everything was handed to him because he was biracial, and he never developed character or a sense of self. HE is who the internationalist want to make our children.
They are monstrously, monumentally wrong. Their way will lead to a dark age that will last for a long, long time. Who knows what things will look like if they succeed?
Posted by: freddy at May 27, 2019 03:57 AM (rHvmW)
Posted by: Mark at July 22, 2019 02:56 AM (zv3uq)
37 queries taking 0.2075 seconds, 105 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.