The Long Road

"The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions." - variously Samuel Johnson, Karl Marx and others.

In 1948 a land was divided so as to make home for a people without one for generations. Perhaps a good intention and a paving brick on that long road, but in that division the World got to see how two basic approaches to having a home were done.

One looked upon that first brick and realized that it should lay and rest and not be built around but built *away* from. They industriously set about claiming their land, setting up a government, raising a flag and properly arming a military and giving them uniforms and cause to protect their people.

The other measured that brick and then decided more should be added as no good intention should go unpunished. And once some few of those bricks were made, why one could start picking them up to throw at those building away from the started pathway. No need for government nor industry nor regular military, one could just assert that the land around the brick was truly *yours* and do nothing with it save to hate this other that was making something of it. Cry out 'we are victims' and then continually victimize yourself and make nothing of yourself to *prove* how cruel this other really is. And perhaps you could convince others in the neighborhood to make more bricks and then plead outwards on the injustice of your brick path that you were constructing and how the *others* were *forcing* you along that path by their very presence of not being upon it.

Thus this other people that builds nothing save bricks to hell complain that it is all they know how to make. And so they gain *sympathy* for being *oppressed* by making nothing of themselves. Indeed this is a *group* that is a victim, not just some agglomeration of people that have come together to make a home, but a victimized group that could not stand the fact that they would have to be in a NEIGHBORHOOD with others making homes next to them. They forget that together they and these other people *complained* about exterior occupation from a distant land... and once given freedom to make something *for* yourself they had no teaching on how to do so. Which is strange because the others learned how to do so, even as their people moved in to help from distant lands so that home could be secured.

Why did this other people make much of their being unable because they are unwilling?

Because it gained them stature with those that had bleeding hearts and weeping minds and intellect born of pearly heights and notions of Nations being a *problem*. They found that they could make common cause so that this people could gain further stature by getting intellectual backing and help tear at what makes individuals secure by creating group identity. From dreams of World Government headed by those who *knew* better, there came a realization that they could *prove* their wisdom by helping a people who were making themselves into a self-created victim. Support THAT and then their victimhood could be played upon forevermore and no slight against them ever forgotten to *prove* how they should get all that they see as theirs. In fact this *victimized* people could do no wrong....

Welcome to the world of Transnational Progressivism and its hideous offspring Transnational Terrorism. By the time 1965 rolled around and the PLO *finally* understood that being an armed and raging victim won the hearts and minds and sympathies of academics who would speak out *for* their atrocities and *apologize* for them, the world has seen a spreading of terrorism globally. Terrorism *did* exist before then, but it was a minor and National thing, rarely crossing borders and confined to localized ethnic, governmental, and social terms. Wilsonianism created an idea of a larger organizing body *over* governments, and this then weakened the primacy of the Nation State. In that weakening the bonds that kept Nation States in order, for all its faults and problems, were loosened and problems had to gain higher *international agreement*. But, many didn't like the idea that they would actually have to work out agreements and this soon became a coalescing point for those wishing to spread disagreement, suffering and dissolve the will of other peoples so that tyranny could spread.

These are the cornerstones of Transnational Progressivism:

Groups are the primary division amongst mankind - not Nations - and once born into a group you will live within that group, fairness is equality of result - not of opportunity - and only groups get results with individuals garnering only what the group gets because hard work for oneself is not rewarded,

Being a victim is politically significant and is the trump card against other groups and individuals, assimilation of culture is evil as it destroys group identity and allows allegiance to State ideals which are to be broken down by group identity and unimpeded migration,

Political power is apportioned via group percentages and thus does *not* require democracy,

National identity is the highest form of evil and patriotism is in, and of, itself the most toxic adherence that is promulgated within mankind.

And so in 1948 the adherence of a people to their group identity began, was pushed, flourished with nourishment from their common travelers and results in an odious spread of this conception that leads AWAY from individualism and TOWARDS the destruction of the Nation State. By actually FORMING a Nation State, the people of Israel were hated and still are, by the academics adhering to Transnational Progressivist ideals. If they only would have pitied themselves and made nothing of themselves... why, then they could be ADMINISTERED TO by the UN... just like the Palestinians and this idea of letting a common people form a Nation State could be put on the ash heap of history by *proving* that only victims should gain any adherence as groups and be elevated by the elite defining who they were.

Simple... to the point of simplistic.

All of the wonderful *intentions* to have 'cease-fires' and 'temporary agreements' to 'build to larger agreements' and have 'international conferences' and finally 'give peace to the Middle East' is mere verbiage for: give up being a Nation, give up your rights as individuals, plea for rescue by those *who know better*, and use any advantage you can to break the Nation State apart. Is it any wonder that Pan Arabism and Islamic Fundamentalism both find sustenance in these roots? Or that the dreams of Islamic Fundamentalists are given broad scope to a desired outcome?

There is a name for Transnational Progressivism that is, in actuality, much older than this current formation. Where groups are administered *to* and the highest formulation of democracy is in group ascendancy. Where the interaction between groups is moderated by an enlightened or endowed group over them. Where individual perserverence and success is looked down upon and one must take only what one gets in life by birth.

That is the Dream of Nobility.

That is the Dream of Empire.

The sponsoring of these conceptions is the road BACK to Imperialism, back to Anointed Leaders of Wisdom by Birth, back to serfdom, back to slavery, back to all things which have been worked AGAINST for centuries.

Intellectuals that rail against such things as Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and 'the occupation of Iraq' need to be held accountable for their absence in these very same problems that are happening on worse and deadlier scales in all of the non-democratic places on the planet that do not try to demonstrate that they adhere to *any* high ideals. So the media and intellectuals claim that in not meeting each and every high ideal and aspiration the West, and the United States in particular, is to *blame* for the world's problems, but those that have NO ideals and meet that lack are to be *praised* for their moral and ethical vacuum. By upholding the Western Traditions of the Sovereignty of a Nation State to protect its people, Israel is seen as the *destructive* force for REACTING to aggression. Those CAUSING killing and death get a *get out of moral defects for FREE* card and, in point of fact, get a sympathetic hearing from the media and intellectuals as these folks doing the killing are victims. And they never have to put that card BACK and can use it forevermore to kill, slaughter and act as barbarians.

And black is white. And right is wrong. Perhaps we should be asking the Big Brother of the Media and Intellectual communities just what the Imperial thought du jour is... which encourages barbarism and destruction and abdication of laws. These folks do not want the equality of the application of law, but equality of results. Thus *due process* gets you the same result no matter who is involved as their group identity precondemns individuals to guilt or innocence.

Perhaps we can go to this wonderful notion from Mrs. Clinton of it 'Taking a Village' to understand actions and work out what should be done, without, really, holding anyone responsible. She would like to see the entire world as The Village... where everyone is numbered and names are not allowed. Because names imply that there is something special about an individual, and you can't have *that* to get to equal results. And to hold someone *responsible*... well! Just not done! And perhaps we can all make up and sing some non-religious 'Kumbayah' and make it all *better*....

I do like villages, but the roots I look at are somewhat different from that of Mrs. Clinton and the Transnational Left and Terrorists. They would like to place a ruling order above mere villages and then administer TO them... While the villages I think of, out for the harsh lands of Scandinavia had a different view of Kings and Rulers... and the Thing of the Village gave Law to which even the Kings and Nobles were to adhere to. And that is the harsh recourse of democracy having its birth in the North and melding via cultures through Ireland, Scotland and then moving with them to a New World. The Law is supreme, not the Ruler, not the Church, not the Warlord, not the Emperor: all must adhere to the Law or offer something a damn sight better in its place and still ensure the equality of application of that replacement to EVERYONE and *includes* the Rulership.

Transnationalism is not only undemocratic and Imperial, but it promulgates no set Law, save that of the Group in power to do as they see *fit* to their underlings.

From this point I can only look to Winston Churchill for this road: "When marching through hell, don't stop."

To get to the other side of this self-imposed hell, we will have to give up this notion of Group supremacy and individual objectification. People are *not* objects. And they do not have rights as a Group, but only as Individuals... and the sole legitimate protector of those rights are Nation States.

And if you want to offer something ELSE, it had better damn well work for everyone and have equal application of the Law to all individuals. So we can judge a man by the content of his character and NOT the color of his skin.

Which will put us back with *just* the problems of Nation States where all of this began in 1914. At least we know WHY that failed. And now we know that larger international conceptions ALSO fail, putting us on a road back to Empires. Back to what works and see if we can't work it out from there....