by Graham L. Strachan
In parallel with the programme of economic globalisation, euphemistically called â€˜economic reformâ€™, is an ambitious programme of social globalisation. While economic globalisation transfers ownership of the worldâ€™s economic assets and the control of a single integrated global economy into the hands of monopoly capitalists, the social programme delivers control of the worldâ€™s people, including their thoughts and actions, into the hands of global monopoly socialists. The aim of the social programme is to completely remake human society, indeed human nature, to make them conform to leftist ideology.
National governments undertake to implement this programme by signing various treaties and agreements at the United Nations. Representatives are then sent to regular UN conferences, from which they return with agendas for implementation at national level. For every treaty there is a UN agency which ensures, through regular inspections and assessments, that national governments implement the terms of the treaty. To understand the programme and how it all fits together, one must first understand socialist ideology.
An ideology is a kind of story, a fantasy about the world intended to justify political action. The story need not be true, in fact in the case of socialist ideology it isnâ€™t. Its purpose is not to explain the world in any objective sense (which distinguishes it from a genuine theory), but to motivate people to take political action. Itâ€™s like a faith, a political faith. If the believers are required to destroy an existing social order, as they are in this case, the ideology portrays that order as â€˜outmodedâ€™ or â€˜unnaturalâ€™. Similarly, if the purpose is to overthrow the position of certain classes in the society, those classes are portrayed as evil, accused of â€˜discriminationâ€™, â€˜wrongs of the pastâ€™, and so forth. The purpose of the ideology is to stir up hate for the existing order and the people that support it, and instill a belief in the true believers that they have been chosen by destiny to lead the human race to utopia.
If the ideology conflicts with history, the true believers ignore history, or try to re-write it. If it is contradicted by facts, they ignore the facts, and suppress them by curbing free speech, banning or burning books, or by trying to censor the Internet. If the ideology runs counter to scientific evidence, again that evidence will be ignored or suppressed, or alternative research faked which supports the ideology. In other words, facts do not bother the true believers. Their imaginary world is the real reality, the real world is only a temporary reality which is about to be changed. As Marx said, philosophers try to explain the world, the problem (for social scientists) is to change it.
The particular ideology of the globalist left is traceable initially to Friedrich Engels and his book â€˜The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the Stateâ€™ (1884), and it goes basically like this. Once upon a time man lived in a state of blissful communism where there was no hate, no crime, no violence or war, only universal love. This was possible because there was no private ownership of property. Everything was shared by all and allocated according to the principle â€˜from each according to their ability, to each according to their needâ€™. In fact nobody laid personal claim to anything, not even their own body. There were no moral rules or restrictions, everybody was bisexual and could have sex with anybody and everybody else regardless of age or sex. The society was a matriarchy, ruled by women, and there were no such things as nations or national borders which might cause wars or conflict. This was allegedly the human race in its original state, and because it was the original state (so the story goes) it must be the â€˜naturalâ€™ state, the way humans would still be, if it werenâ€™t for an awful thing that happened.
One day white men came along, and conspired together to invent private property. Then they invented the institution of marriage to enslave women. Then they invented nations and borders which caused wars, and they turned the society into a heterosexual patriarchy (the â€˜male dominated societyâ€™), and they invented laws and moral restrictions as a form of social control. Ever since then the world has been fraught with evil, guilt, crime, wars, conflict, and social injustice. What needs to be done is for an historically determined revolutionary class to overthrow the partiarchal system along with its private property, marriage, the family, moral rules, individualism, the rule of law, heterosexuality, nations and national borders, and let the human race revert to its natural communist, bi-sexual, matriarchal state. Then and only then will the people be â€˜freeâ€™ to â€˜explore choicesâ€™ and â€˜fully develop their human potentialâ€™. Only then will the complete human story have been told, and that will be the â€˜end of historyâ€™.
There is not a scrap of truth in any of it. It is pure fantasy. The primitive races Engels based the theory on (the Gentes) have since been shown to have had tribal ownership of land, private ownership of possessions, moral restrictions and laws [see Hans Kelson, â€˜The Communist Theory of Law â€™]. No society has ever been found without those things [see Margaret Mead and others]. Society is impossible without those things [see F.A.Hayek, â€˜Law, Legislation and Libertyâ€™]. But apart from that, even if such a society had ever existed, there is no ground for saying that â€˜thereforeâ€™ it is the natural or desirable state of man, justifying the destruction of existing civilisation so the human race can revert to it. The propositions (1) that the original state is the natural state, or (2) that the natural state is necessarily a good state, are two of the oldest logical fallacies in the book. But as with facts, if ideology conflicts with logic, ignore logic. Logic is dismissed as an artificial construct of the partiarchy. The true believers have â€˜special ways of knowingâ€™.
The programme of compulsion which forces this world view on the broader community has become known as â€˜political correctnessâ€™ (PC). The name â€˜political correctnessâ€™ originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and people tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, itâ€™s deadly serious. It has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. PC is not funny. It has been described as â€˜cultural Marxismâ€™.
The origins of political correctness are traceable to Germany, and the Institute for Social Research, established in 1923 by Felix Weil, Marxist son of a millionaire German trader, in association with Frankfurt University. The work of the Institute, which came to be called the Frankfurt School, was to translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms. Political Correctness as it is known today was created by that Institute. Essentially the task had been completed by the end of the 1930s.
Other key members of the Frankfurt School were Theodore Adorno, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduced the central sexual element into Political Correctness. The call for sexual liberation, which will supposedly lead to human sensual happiness, figures prominently in the work of the Institute. In a 1936 essay, â€˜Egoism and the Movement for Emancipationâ€™, Frankfurt School director Max Horkeimer discussed the â€œhostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.â€ He referred favourably to the Marquis de Sade for his â€œprotestâ€¦against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.â€ Marcuse called for a world of â€˜polymorphous perversityâ€™. Erich Fromm advanced the idea that masculinity and femininity are not reflections of biological differences, they are the result of social conditioning.
When the Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933 they closed down the Frankfurt School and its members, mostly Jews, fled to New York where the Institute was re-established with help from Columbia University. When the second World War began in 1939, some of them went to work for the American government. Herbert Marcuse became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), while others, including Horkheimer and Adorno, moved to Hollywood.
After the war, Marcuse wrote a key book, â€˜Eros and Civilizationâ€™, which virtually became the bible of the student movement during the 1960s. In it Marcuse argued that repression of the sexual instincts was the essence of the capitalist order, causing hang-ups and neuroses (an idea borrowed from Freud). The repressive order needs to be destroyed, so that eros, the libido, can be liberated. The human race can then look forward to a future of â€˜polymorphous perversityâ€™, in which everybody can â€˜do their own thingâ€™. â€˜If it feels good, do itâ€™. It was Marcuse who created the phrase, â€˜Make love, not warâ€™. He defined â€˜liberating toleranceâ€™ as intolerance for anything coming from the Right, and tolerance for anything coming from the Left.
The purpose of PC is to force people to think, speak and act in accordance with leftist ideology, even though that ideology conflicts with the facts of history, science, reality, logic, and social custom observed over the past (at least) 5000 years. The idea is to force people to live in a new reality â€˜legislatedâ€™ by the left under threat of ostracism, persecution, prosecution and even execution for failure to comply. The idea is that if enough people can be forced to think and act in accordance with a particular view of the world, that world view will become the reality. It is the ultimate rationalism, known as idealism: reality is all in the mind, in this case the collective mind of the populace. Get enough people to believe something, and that becomes real. The mind determines reality, not the reverse. As Hegel said (and the left believe it) â€˜the real is the rational, and the rational is the realâ€™. Dreams can come true if enough people can be forced to dream them.
The people inventing this stuff donâ€™t believe a word of it. But the ideology, by appealing to the superstition, basic instincts particularly sexual, and desire of many to see perceived injustices of the past avenged, is used to recruit what Lenin called â€˜useful idiotsâ€™. Those useful idiots are persuaded, particularly in the social science faculties of Western universities, that existing civilisation is unnatural, a deliberate construct of white heterosexual males to dominate the rest of society, including the natural environment. The ideology then instills in the useful idiots a sense of moral righteousness, a belief that they are the â€˜historically determinedâ€™ revolutionary class, and exhorts them to undermine and overthrow civilisation as it is now known. As the â€˜vanguardâ€™ of social change, their destiny is to â€˜liberate the human raceâ€™, and allow it to revert to its so-called â€˜naturalâ€™ state of primordial, pan-sexual, matriarchal communism.
In fact their efforts will bring about anarchy and social chaos, serving to â€˜proveâ€™ that the existing system is â€˜unworkableâ€™, and justifying the imposition of a global totalitarian state by a self-styled elite waiting in the wings: Platoâ€™s Republic on a global scale.
In the meantime, children are being pumped full of the ideology in schools by teachers encouraged in the social science faculties to regard themselves as â€˜change facilitatorsâ€™. The world is reduced to a child-like medieval morality play: women, blacks, homosexuals and children are defined as good by nature, the â€˜victimsâ€™ of white male aggression; white men, non-feminist women, old people, heterosexuals and Christians become evil by definition. The former are capable only of love, incapable of wrongdoing unless driven to it by heterosexual white men; the latter are capable only of hate, â€˜discriminationâ€™, various â€˜phobiasâ€™ and â€˜wrongs of the pastâ€™. The former come to be identified automatically as â€˜rightâ€™, and are justified in commandeering the power of the state and the law to secure their ends; the latter are evil and deserve to be vilified, mistreated, denied justice and democracy.
To intimidate and silence people who dare to challenge PC dogma, a whole range of nasty names have been invented. There are globophobes, xenophobes, homophobes, femophobes, male chauvinist pigs, sexists, rednecks, reactionaries, racists, populists, neanderthals, troglodytes, simplistic jingoistic anachronistic good olâ€™ boys, ageists against youth, baby-boomers, right-wing extremists, religious fundamentalists, anti-semites, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, scaremongers and conspiracy theorists. Because most leftist â€˜argumentâ€™ has to avoid confronting facts at all costs, it invariably boils down to senseless name-calling. That, plus the fact that leftist ideologues now dominate the media, academia and the treaching professions, explains much of the tragic decline in journalism, scholarship and public debate under the influence of PC.
Invoking Leninâ€™s injunction to â€˜call your enemies what you areâ€™, the globalist left, while continuing their hate-driven war on civilisation, answer their critics by calling them names and accusing them of â€˜spreading hateâ€™. It works. The masses still havenâ€™t woken up.