Sunday, January 17, 2010

Transnational Progressivism

Hat tip: Blazing Cat Fur

Here's an excellent article called The Ideological War Within the West, the essence of which is reproduced below. It defines the progressive (i.e. liberal) agenda as anti-individualist, and therefore essentially undemocratic. Interesting reading, if you like this sort of thing like I do:

The ascribed group over the individual citizen. The key political unit is not the individual citizen, who forms voluntary associations and works with fellow citizens regardless of race, sex, or national origin, but the ascriptive group (racial, ethnic, or gender) into which one is born.

A dichotomy of groups: Oppressor vs. victim groups, with immigrant groups designated as victims. Transnational ideologists have incorporated the essentially Hegelian Marxist "privileged vs. marginalized" dichotomy.

Group proportionalism as the goal of "fairness." Transnational progressivism assumes that "victim" groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population. If not, there is a problem of "underrepresentation."

The values of all dominant institutions to be changed to reflect the perspectives of the victim groups. Transnational progressives insist that it is not enough to have proportional representation of minorities in major institutions if these institutions continue to reflect the worldview of the "dominant" culture. Instead, the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented within these institutions.

The "demographic imperative." The demographic imperative tells us that major demographic changes are occurring in the U. S. as millions of new immigrants from non-Western cultures enter American life. The traditional paradigm based on the assimilation of immigrants into an existing American civic culture is obsolete and must be changed to a framework that promotes "diversity," defined as group proportionalism.

The redefinition of democracy and "democratic ideals." Transnational progressives have been altering the definition of "democracy" from that of a system of majority rule among equal citizens to one of power sharing among ethnic groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens. James Banks, one of American education's leading textbook writers, noted in 1994 that "to create an authentic democratic Unum with moral authority and perceived legitimacy, the pluribus (diverse peoples) must negotiate and share power." Hence, American democracy is not authentic; real democracy will come when the different "peoples" that live within America "share power" as groups.

Deconstruction of national narratives and national symbols of democratic nation-states in the West. In October 2000, a UK government report denounced the concept of "Britishness" and declared that British history needed to be "revised, rethought, or jettisoned." In the U.S., the proposed "National History Standards," recommended altering the traditional historical narrative. Instead of emphasizing the story of European settlers, American civilization would be redefined as a multicultural "convergence" of three civilizations—Amerindian, West African, and European. In Israel, a "post-Zionist" intelligentsia has proposed that Israel consider itself multicultural and deconstruct its identity as a Jewish state. Even Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres sounded the post-Zionist trumpet in his 1993 book , in which he deemphasized "sovereignty" and called for regional "elected central bodies," a type of Middle Eastern EU.

Promotion of the concept of postnational citizenship. In an important academic paper, Rutgers Law Professor Linda Bosniak asks hopefully "Can advocates of postnational citizenship ultimately succeed in decoupling the concept of citizenship from the nation-state in prevailing political thought?"

The idea of transnationalism as a major conceptual tool. Transnationalism is the next stage of multicultural ideology. Like multiculturalism, transnationalism is a concept that provides elites with both an empirical tool (a plausible analysis of what is) and an ideological framework (a vision of what should be). Transnational advocates argue that globalization requires some form of "global governance" because they believe that the nation-state and the idea of national citizenship are ill suited to deal with the global problems of the future.

Read the whole article here.

5 Opinion(s):

Exzanian said...

Viking, there's a lot to digest in this article, and much beyond my ken, I'll be honest. But I do wonder about what they call the "changing zeitgeist" as a continual process leading to social cohesion...It's definitely happening. Who is pulling the strings? Is it just a social phenomenon? Or is there some malign group of people in control somehow? Is dissent (and let's face it, ILSA goes against the grain) a throwback? Are we just harking back to an earlier age, perhaps 40 or 50 years behind the "times?"
Just a thought...

Viking said...

They're taking over the world with big, incomprehensible made-up words!

there's a great skit in there somewhere...

Anonymous said...

@Viking - the old words aren't working anymore so they're changing them to confuse us. Obama loves to do this...."yes we can"(i.e change the USA to a socialist country)!

Viking said...


gotta love the NewSpeak.
I'm always hoping someone can translate for us mere mortals without sociology, cultural and gender studies PhDs ..

Anonymous said...

This is an excellent article and a very important post; congratulations and thank you.

It should be studied at length by anyone who wants to grasp the magnitude of the multiple coups d'etat which are now under way, and exactly who is responsible.

"Pulling the strings" is a group of very well funded people who are hiding behind impersonal forces ("global warming", "third world poverty","demographics","the international community", etc) to pull this off. Their goal is world government, controlled of course by themselves, and they are becoming increasingly ruthless in their methods. Countries like Israel, the USA, white Russia, the old UK and China stand in their way; the old South Africa and Rhodesia were also enemies which had to be, and were, destroyed. This emboldened them to go after Europe, which they are destroying by mass immigration (actually, colonization) and now they are gearing up to destroy the USA.

They pretend to love the third world but they don't care a toss about them, except as a tool to manipulate and destroy the West via guilt and demographic dilution.

The most interesting aspect of this is that the perpetrators have so far escaped being labeled, and this allows them a considerable amount of anonymity, and even to push the notion that they do not exist; anyone who calls their bluff will be conveniently labeled as paranoid.

Who are they? Stand by, and watch this space.