by E. Jeffrey Ludwig
How then to get these groups working in greater unity? The answer is to promote an abridgement of liberty for the sake of unity.
One world government is an agenda to supersede the nation-state concept that is perceived by its backers as fundamentally selfish, and as having misguided assumptions about life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The United Nations made it very clear that it intends to supervise a program that will change every aspect of life on our planet by 2030 by issuing its statement “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
In this writer’s view, one world government is built around four basic assumptions about human nature and the purpose of government. These basic assumptions comprise the acronym MUCK. The first is Magnanimity (M) as needed towards the masses of humans on the planet. The idea of a world divided into Developed Countries, Developing Countries (DC’s), and Less Developed Developing countries (LDDC’s) – standard since the end of WWII -- is perceived by many of the neo-Marxist, secular humanist, needs-oriented, dogmatic globalists as itself a form of stratification.
The above tripartite distinction was embraced by the left in the 1960’s. The idea was to lend a helping hand up to our poorer brothers. Walt Rostow, a Harvard economics professor, had such a model in mind for development. The better off developed countries would pour assistance into the poorer and poorest countries through the IMF and World Bank – along with the UN, these financial institutions were created at the end of WWII -- until those countries reached an economic place Rostow called the “takeoff stage.” At that point they would be generating enough surplus capital to invest in their own growth. However, the takeoff stages Prof. Rostow envisioned never took place on a grand scale.
Liberal dogma began to modify. Instead of thinking of three levels of economic development, the more unifying idea of environmental needs began to take hold. All societies have an environment, and the environment of even the poorest society may impact even the richest societies, and vice-versa. Thus, all economies could be unified around a common concern, that is, taking care of and even “fixing” our planet’s environment.
So there gradually was a shift from reaching a hand down to help the downtrodden, to joining hands in global unity to deal with problems that impact rich and poor alike. This type of thinking has led to the elevation of striving for Unity (U) as the key to the need for world government. U is the second letter of our acronym.
According to a more classical liberal outlook, such as obtained at the end of WWII, there are too many have nots, and the haves are themselves divided between the have-too-much, the normal haves or the “prosperous people,” and the marginal haves who are in danger of becoming have nots. How then to get these groups working in greater unity? The answer is to promote an abridgement of liberty for the sake of unity. Working on a common, seemingly scientific goal of environmentalism allows the abridging of liberty for a common good that would be acknowledged by poor and rich alike. Hence, an abridgement of liberty for the sake of unity is likely to produce a peacefulness that thoughts of liberty and pursuit of happiness, with the implied multi-strata of classes, can never hope to produce.
Thus, Unity is wedded to the idea of Collectivity (C). The difference between unity and collectivity is this: Unity is a concept that could still emphasize individuality. There could be a unity in the sense of a team as in sports. The team is composed of highly skilled, competent individuals who unify around the team concept, namely all for one and one for all. However, to the Marxists and the neo-Marxists of identity politics, this is a bourgeois unity. Instead, the motto of the collective mind would be a simplified “all for all.” The individual is identified with the collective from beginning to end. No integration of the self-concept with the collective concept needs to be attained. Thus, Marx’s slogan “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is somewhat misleading by using the words “each” or the singular, possessive pronoun “his.”
In the evolved Marxist dogma, the thinking driving the citizen mindset is that he or she is a proletarian, not an “I” or “me” to be integrated in the “greater good.” Karl Marx was not like John Stuart Mill, who believed in the greatest good for the greatest number, and gave the nod to the need for an educated vision of what that “greatest good” consisted in. Rather, the greater good for Marxists and neo-Marxists is more like Rousseau’s General Will. It is an insight into the good of all that the intellectual vanguard of the revolution will be able to project and which Workers’ Councils will be able to implement. Marxism thus is not merely a hyper-utilitarianism.
The last term in our acronym is Knowledge (K). Here, a form of scientism or objective knowledge of society is seen as the proper alternative to bourgeois subjectivism. Liberty, enjoyment of our possessions, and the pursuit of happiness are grim reminders of the inequalities of our world, and of our ever-present dissatisfaction with living in society with our fellow humans. They must be discarded. The idea that man’s reach should exceed his grasp is so much bourgeois claptrap. The liberty ideal leads to alienation, uncertainty, and unhappiness, the very condition it purports to uphold. Under the claimed holism of a Marxist or neo-Marxist society, uncertainty will be eliminated as our basic needs are provided for, and special interests will not control the everyday lives of the citizens.
The horizon line of perfect equality will be satisfied by the momentum and accompanying satisfaction of driving our production forward. Like the stakhanovites in the Russian revolution, we will be willing to work impossibly long hours with unremitting enthusiasm, sometimes without pay, because we have caught the vision of the revolution. As the wealthier countries see their own standard of living, employment, and bourgeois satisfactions diminish, these losses will not appear as suffering, but as joyful self-sacrifice to a better vision of life.
The idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat, of course, is a term that repels the wealthy Western countries, so instead the scions of the New World Order will talk about establishing new, more democratic institutions. However, an elite will be needed to transition into this new phase of “greater democracy.” At this point, the leftist elitists make room for their dictatorial takeover in the name of a newly structured, more equal, worldwide democracy. However, so far, all we really see are vast bureaucracies of pre-world government organizations like the World Trade Organization, the United Nations, and the European Union producing millions of pages of rules and regulations, and endless conferences and meetings as the servant classes carry around trays of martinis and hors d’oeuvres.
Thus, the world leftist establishment is moving ahead towards the conceptualization and implementation of world government. Their basic commitments can be summed up by the acronym MUCK. Their goal is to MUCK up the whole world based on assumptions completely at odds with personal autonomy, individual liberty, the enjoyment of private property, and the political rights of man. Our job as free men and women in a constitutional republic is to resist their efforts in ways both large and small.
In this writer’s view, one world government is built around four basic assumptions about human nature and the purpose of government. These basic assumptions comprise the acronym MUCK. The first is Magnanimity (M) as needed towards the masses of humans on the planet. The idea of a world divided into Developed Countries, Developing Countries (DC’s), and Less Developed Developing countries (LDDC’s) – standard since the end of WWII -- is perceived by many of the neo-Marxist, secular humanist, needs-oriented, dogmatic globalists as itself a form of stratification. The above tripartite distinction was embraced by the left in the 1960’s. The idea was to lend a helping hand up to our poorer brothers. Walt Rostow, a Harvard economics professor, had such a model in mind for development. The better off developed countries would pour assistance into the poorer and poorest countries through the IMF and World Bank – along with the UN, these financial institutions were created at the end of WWII -- until those countries reached an economic place Rostow called the “takeoff stage.” At that point they would be generating enough surplus capital to invest in their own growth. However, the takeoff stages Prof. Rostow envisioned never took place on a grand scale.
Liberal dogma began to modify. Instead of thinking of three levels of economic development, the more unifying idea of environmental needs began to take hold. All societies have an environment, and the environment of even the poorest society may impact even the richest societies, and vice-versa. Thus, all economies could be unified around a common concern, that is, taking care of and even “fixing” our planet’s environment.
So there gradually was a shift from reaching a hand down to help the downtrodden, to joining hands in global unity to deal with problems that impact rich and poor alike. This type of thinking has led to the elevation of striving for Unity (U) as the key to the need for world government. U is the second letter of our acronym.
According to a more classical liberal outlook, such as obtained at the end of WWII, there are too many have nots, and the haves are themselves divided between the have-too-much, the normal haves or the “prosperous people,” and the marginal haves who are in danger of becoming have nots. How then to get these groups working in greater unity? The answer is to promote an abridgement of liberty for the sake of unity. Working on a common, seemingly scientific goal of environmentalism allows the abridging of liberty for a common good that would be acknowledged by poor and rich alike. Hence, an abridgement of liberty for the sake of unity is likely to produce a peacefulness that thoughts of liberty and pursuit of happiness, with the implied multi-strata of classes, can never hope to produce.
Thus, Unity is wedded to the idea of Collectivity (C). The difference between unity and collectivity is this: Unity is a concept that could still emphasize individuality. There could be a unity in the sense of a team as in sports. The team is composed of highly skilled, competent individuals who unify around the team concept, namely all for one and one for all. However, to the Marxists and the neo-Marxists of identity politics, this is a bourgeois unity. Instead, the motto of the collective mind would be a simplified “all for all.” The individual is identified with the collective from beginning to end. No integration of the self-concept with the collective concept needs to be attained. Thus, Marx’s slogan “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is somewhat misleading by using the words “each” or the singular, possessive pronoun “his.”
In the evolved Marxist dogma, the thinking driving the citizen mindset is that he or she is a proletarian, not an “I” or “me” to be integrated in the “greater good.” Karl Marx was not like John Stuart Mill, who believed in the greatest good for the greatest number, and gave the nod to the need for an educated vision of what that “greatest good” consisted in. Rather, the greater good for Marxists and neo-Marxists is more like Rousseau’s General Will. It is an insight into the good of all that the intellectual vanguard of the revolution will be able to project and which Workers’ Councils will be able to implement. Marxism thus is not merely a hyper-utilitarianism.
The last term in our acronym is Knowledge (K). Here, a form of scientism or objective knowledge of society is seen as the proper alternative to bourgeois subjectivism. Liberty, enjoyment of our possessions, and the pursuit of happiness are grim reminders of the inequalities of our world, and of our ever-present dissatisfaction with living in society with our fellow humans. They must be discarded. The idea that man’s reach should exceed his grasp is so much bourgeois claptrap. The liberty ideal leads to alienation, uncertainty, and unhappiness, the very condition it purports to uphold. Under the claimed holism of a Marxist or neo-Marxist society, uncertainty will be eliminated as our basic needs are provided for, and special interests will not control the everyday lives of the citizens.
The horizon line of perfect equality will be satisfied by the momentum and accompanying satisfaction of driving our production forward. Like the stakhanovites in the Russian revolution, we will be willing to work impossibly long hours with unremitting enthusiasm, sometimes without pay, because we have caught the vision of the revolution. As the wealthier countries see their own standard of living, employment, and bourgeois satisfactions diminish, these losses will not appear as suffering, but as joyful self-sacrifice to a better vision of life.
The idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat, of course, is a term that repels the wealthy Western countries, so instead the scions of the New World Order will talk about establishing new, more democratic institutions. However, an elite will be needed to transition into this new phase of “greater democracy.” At this point, the leftist elitists make room for their dictatorial takeover in the name of a newly structured, more equal, worldwide democracy. However, so far, all we really see are vast bureaucracies of pre-world government organizations like the World Trade Organization, the United Nations, and the European Union producing millions of pages of rules and regulations, and endless conferences and meetings as the servant classes carry around trays of martinis and hors d’oeuvres.
Thus, the world leftist establishment is moving ahead towards the conceptualization and implementation of world government. Their basic commitments can be summed up by the acronym MUCK. Their goal is to MUCK up the whole world based on assumptions completely at odds with personal autonomy, individual liberty, the enjoyment of private property, and the political rights of man. Our job as free men and women in a constitutional republic is to resist their efforts in ways both large and small.
E. Jeffrey Ludwig
Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/world_government_advocates_want_to_muck_up_our_world.html
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment