Tuesday, July 2, 2019

The Counter Enlightenment: Internationalism (7)

This posting is part of a series on the ideological and political movements that -- since the Enlightenment -- have been working  towards the destruction of the values of the age of reason and Liberty.  In this installment, Internationalism. 

Glenn Beck explains the UN's diabolical "Agenda 21".

Internationalism is a political principle which advocates a greater political and economic cooperation among nations and peoples. The root can be reduced to teleological narratives in 18th Century Protestantism (chapters on Kant and Hegel), as well as well as Socialist and Left Liberal doctrines. Internationalists see humans not as individuals, but as a species in a one-world social construct. They don't distinguish between the metaphysical and the mad-made, since they deny the existence of free will. Internationalists do recognize universal human values, but these are not determined voluntarily by individuals, but collectively in the social environment. Internationalists believe humanity as a species has higher interests (like world peace) that transcend short term group interests. Strife is typically the result of group competition for power and control of resources. Internationalism is against Nationalism, patriotism and war, the result of group competition. Proponents are members of the 4 Socialist Internationals (source), and Liberal utilitarians. They are active in supranational institutions like the United Nations and the European Union, in non-governmental organizations, the World Economic Forum in Davos, the Bilderberg Conferences, and the World Federalist Movement (source), to name but a few.


In nineteenth century Britain there was a Liberal Internationalist strand of political thought epitomized by Richard Cobden (wiki) and John Bright (wiki). Cobden and Bright were against the protectionist Corn Laws (source) and in a speech at Covent Garden on September 28, 1843 Cobden outlined his Utopian brand of Internationalism:
Free Trade! What is it? Why, breaking down the barriers that separate nations; those barriers behind which nestle the feelings of pride, revenge, hatred and jealously, which every now and then burst their bounds and deluge whole countries with blood... 
Cobden believed free trade would bring peace through mutual dependency. The same doctrine is at the root of the EU. Liberal utilitarian Adam Smith also mentioned world peace through free trade as a social phenomenon in his work, "The Wealth of Nations".

Such conceptions of Internationalism were harshly criticized by Socialists and radicals at the time, who pointed out the links between global economic competition and Imperialism, and would identify this competition as the root cause of world conflict. 

The First International or the International Workingmen's Association (wiki) was founded in London in 1864 by Communist and Socialist activists like Karl Marx, dedicated to the advancement of working class political interests across national boundaries, and was in direct ideological opposition to strains of Liberal Internationalism which advocated free trade as means of achieving world peace and interdependence. 

World Peace

Other Internationalist organizations were the Inter-Parliamentary Union (wiki), founded in 1889 by Frenchman Frédéric Passy and Britain William Randal Cremer, and the League of Nations that was founded in the aftermath of the First World War, the precursor of the UN.

J.A. Hobson (wiki) in his book Imperialism (1902) foresaw the establishment of international tribunals in order to settle disputes between countries. The International Court of Justice in The Hague was founded in 1945 as a branch of the UN. (wiki)

Sir Norman Angell (wiki) in his work The Great Illusion (1910) claimed that the world was united by trade, finance, industry and communications and that therefore Nationalism was an anachronism and that war would not profit anyone involved but would only result in destruction.

Lord Lothian  (wiki) was an Internationalist and an Imperialist who in December 1914 looked forward to "the voluntary federation of the free civilized nations which will eventually exorcise the specter of competitive armaments and give lasting peace to mankind". (Source

Internationalism is based on the Socialist political doctrine that includes  the animistic connection between the world's working classes with a goal to eliminate Nationalism, war and Capitalism.

It is also connected to the Christian idea of the Brotherhood of Man and solidarity, which like free trade, is originally supposed to be an individual activity, but has erroneously been transposed to the collective level. At this point the views of Liberal and Socialist Internationalists parted company.

World Government

Internationalism is expressed in the appreciation for various cultures and in the idea that interdependence will lead to world peace. Followers do not think of themselves as citizens of their country, but as world citizens. They feel the duty to work for supportive causes and institutions like NGOs, the EU and the UN. Some Internationalists are striving for a world Government. But this postmodern notion is beyond classical Internationalism. Yet, it is its final consequence. 

Internationalism demands altruistic morality between states and is a reaction to that other collectivism, Nationalism. Yet, Internationalism implies the existence of sovereign states and the right to (ethnic) self determination. Tne aim is to promote multilateralism, not the leadership of a certain state or philosophy, not even the primacy of universal human rights. As such it is amoralistic and egalitarian.

Internationalism aims at promoting mutual interdependence, with limited supranational powers for international organizations, under the control of national Governments through the application of intergovernmental treaties and institutions.


To Internationalists, to compromise is a moral goal in itself, not a means to an end. This principle is insufficient for a comprehensive, universal world view. But many go one step further yet: global 'democratization' under a world Government. Others are rejecting this idea on the ground that such a body would accumulate too much centralized power. Or because they understand that this in effect constitutes world fascism. They prefer loose federations with power resting in national Governments.

To make intergovernmental and supranational organizations possible, nations and peoples must be made aware of common interests and goals; and  they must become convinced that problems are best solved through consensus, diplomacy, the sharing of resources and effective international cooperation. Unilateralism is rejected on moral grounds. The principle that national interests should be a guide to foreign policy, is considered evil.

Examples of international organizations and institutions: the UN, NGOs like George Soros' Open Society (article) (tweet) (article), Doctors Withour Borders, Amnesty International, Green Peace, the EU, institutions for international law like tribunals as the ICC and federalist organizaitons.


Because Individualism is an unknown principle in Internationalism, it reasons by default from the position of collectivist statism, or in economic terms, from corporatism (or crony Capitalism, or 'Neo Liberalism', Fascism, or Globalism) which is every bit as altruistic as Socialism. In that view, war is the result of economic competition between Capitalists and the Governments that represent their interests.

Classical Liberals support free trade and cooperation, but they do so from the position of Individualism, leading to very different conclusions in world view and pertaining to matters of war and peace. According to Socialists, world peace is only possible if economic competition and the interests of social classes are eliminated.

Group subjectivism and social determinism exclude objective morality. This is leading to the position that compromise and consensus is preferable at the expense of Liberty, Rights and the interests of countries that are promoting these values. The result is the false moral equivalency of free countries versus dictatorships and eventually to the rejection of the former at the benefit of the latter. It is no surprise that the UN is systematically condemning a free country like Israel, while Islamo-Fascist states are heading committees for Human Rights.

From the point of view of Internationalism man is not an individual being who chooses his own values, but a product of his social environment. The leading ethics program is altruism, which demands man to self sacrifice for the collective good. The solutions of this philosophy can only be collectivist.

The consequences of a power equilibrium, like peace is seen as a causeless abstraction, an outcome attainable only by the power of the will. Because the emphasis is on consensus and peace, there's the tendency to subjugate all values to these goals, which is ultimately leading to Nihilistic amoralism.

Just like other Utopians, Internationalsts view their ideals as moraly superior. They believe this gives them the right to act unilaterally -- if necessary extra-democratically -- to create accomplished facts on the ground. An instance of this mentality in which the aims justifies the means is seen today in the EU, where crises have the purpose to instate policies that would not have been possible under normal circumstances.

Another example is the current migrant crisis. As hundreds of thousands refugees are storming Western frontiers, populations as well as local authorities are presented with accomplished facts. Criticism is met with fascist means of the will. Protests are morally condemned. Who dares to resist is isolated, scapegoated, personally attacked and socially ostracized as a racist (or whatever demon-word happens to be applicable).

Trade between individuals (and their companies) leads to peace and understanding, which is something different from reasoning from the fallacy that countries trade with each other. It is also debatable, to say the least, if interdependence leads to peace. The various wars of independence throughout history lead us to believe otherwise. So what about the right to self determination?


The Counter Enlightenment has been influencing Western culture for over 250 years. Ideologically the philosophic-cultural-political movement can be reduced to the German Idealist philosophers, Kant and Hegel. It was a reaction to the great changes of the Enlightenment -- particularly the French Revolution -- that destroyed the old, feudal order. To this day new movements have been springing up sharing the same goals, even though they may not know it consciously. Many will never identify as such, their agenda is usually well hidden.

These movements are morally motivated by a number of self declared causes that include vague abstractions a 'world peace' and 'social justice', the use of authoritative, supranational institutions to regulate people's behavior and make society better, as well as well respected foundations and associations to improve the quality of man top down, either genetically, socially, psychologically, mentally or morally.

Counter Enlightenment movements reason from the idea of man as an animal species. They divide humanity into groups that vie each other for interests, power, resources or some other material profit motive. What drives these activists is world equality. The epistemology is based on feelings and emotion; metaphysics varying from mysticism to naturalism.

These movements are Utopian by nature and as such, share a claim on ethical superiority that propagates a mentality in which the aim justifies the means; they are strictly collectivist, anti individual, anti self interest and against Capitalism; humans are entirely socially determined. Reality and morality are group subjective.

The abortion cult and the right to die as values are typical standard points, that eventually lead to Nihilism. Despite all talk about humanity and ethics, on closer examination it transpires that humanity is seen as a plague, man as a predatory animal. Ecology is their new religion: the climate is used as a weapon for regulation and control.

Multiculturalism is where this movement is coming home. The average citizen is unaware of the true nature of this philosophy. Outside the intellectual realm this is never explained. Politicians imply that the meaning of Multiculturalism is, a country that is home to multiple cultures. But what it really means is, that all cultures are equally valid, which implies that there is no leading culture or universal philosophy to guide the world.

If you've been in this war for over 270 years, giving it up at this point is not very likely. In other words it is up to the followers of the Enlightenment to defend its values and achievements, so that humanity will not revert to the old, feudal, collective societies from before the emancipation.

Many feel instinctively that all is not well, though they can't precisely pinpoint the root cause. This is because the powers of the Counter Enlightenment are often working underground. But sometimes they are hiding in plain sight, for example in the key domains of education, information and communication.

As long as the economy is in good shape, the people put up with a lot. But when economies collapse, as is currently the case thanks to their machinations, dissatisfaction sets in. Labor parties have torn up the social contract unilaterally and made another pact with new protegés, whose culture and beliefs are alien and mutually exclusive to Western values.

To reduce Counter Enlightenment movements to the political Left, is too simplistic. The entire political establishment  is mentally affected, including the cadres, followers and front groups, of which the Left has numerous.

Counter Enlightenment thinkers can be found in the intellectual and upper middle classes. These filanthropic altruists suffer from severe guild complexes. Acting from the ethical program of altruism, material profit is not what drives them; on the contrary. These people are looking for absolution. A typical example would be Bill Gates.

Their operative units are humanity as a whole, and the entire planet. Counter Enlightenment movers and shakers happily sacrifice their brothers and sisters to their hand picked, ethically, superior causes. This being its own, built-in moral justification makes utopian Internationalism such a very dangerous world view.

Internationalism cannot work, because it disregards the individual. In a national democracy the individual voters choose their representatives and their Government. When we don't like them, they are replaced in fresh elections. But when these Governments have created a supranational power structure on top of the democratic national state, with powers reaching far into the national state but out of bounds for the voter, you have in fact created a super tyranny. This is what the EU presently is.


Internationalism is based on economics. But historically there have been far more sinister plans for European integration rooted in social engineering or eugenetics, which we today would call simply racism. Eugenetics rests on the idea that knowledge and morality are innate, and that man is determined by his ethnic group.

This Platonic notion has long been debunked philosophically as well as scientifically. But the idea that humanity consists of various breeds of cattle is still very wide spread. In the realm of conspiracy theories a number of plans are circulating. But it cannot be excluded that some Internationalists are still accepting these theories.

One particularly nasty theory is the Coudenhoven-Kalergi plan rooted in dysgenetics. Coudenhoven-Kalergi fallacies are twofold. The plan is based on a weak, genetically diverse bastard population ruled over by a strong, genetically pure elite. Very Hitlerite. Scientific fact is that inbreeding weakens a race physically, while genetic diversity makes a race physically stronger. Note that de author rejects the plan on moral grounds, but accepts the racist theory.

First posted on Nov. 8, 2015

Dutch: De Contra-Verlichting