It Started with World Peace

 

I’ve decided to start writing in hopes to take a journey of understanding to delve into why progressives hate conservatives and, evidently, the idea of America. I don’t have all the answers yet, but I hope some on this site with take the journey with me.

When I was a kid in the ‘80s, I often heard the prayer, the hope, and the goal of “World Peace” repeated. I believe that most, if not all of the progressive efforts of the last century and a quarter are aimed at achieving this goal. If we can understand the underlying reasons for this, we can better understand what progressives hope to accomplish and why they hate us.

Why?

Its roots probably start with Pax Romana or even before, but the modern desire probably traces back to the wars of imperial expansion that marked the 18th and 19th centuries. This led Immanuel Kant to write Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch late in the 18th century. Others began to embrace the idea, such as Theodore Roosevelt, and various thought leaders in Europe got behind the idea of banding governments together to fight bad actors.

After the Great War that would end all wars, the desire increased and led to the formation of the League of Nations, discussed later. When the second world war ravaged Europe, Asia, and Africa, progressives knew that peace must be achieved and that the means were not terribly important.

How?

Globalism or One World Government is the best way progressives can imagine ushering world peace. The 20th century is an epic account of various efforts at a global government. The League of Nations made an early and failed attempt, but it led eventually to the United Nations. The European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the rise of expansionist Communism were all efforts to address an end to war through the defeat of nation-states.

All the other “isms” that come from the left can trace their roots back to the desire for world peace. Ask yourself any question about motivation and you can track the answer back to this central desire. The main one is, what about Socialism and the injustice movement? Socialism is a means to achieve globalism by seducing the majority of the population that things will be better if the government is given control. Global government needs a lot of control. What else? Overpopulation? It’s hard to control a lot of people. Corporatism? It’s easier to govern a few big companies than millions of small ones. Immigration? If populations mix all over the world, national identity is watered down.

So, what about America? Why is it so bad? The answer is that America is the main thing that stands in the way of global government. Why do progressives hate Reagan still? His approach was pretty solidly vindicated. Saving America and keeping it great ruined the rise of Socialism across the globe. Guns? Americans will never submit to a global government if they can rise up and defend themselves. The concept of American exceptionalism is counter to the very idea of a one-world government.

One begins to understand why progressives seem to hate America while also claiming to love it. America is the main obstacle to a global government, so whatever can bring it down is deemed good.

So, how’s it working out?

You can see the issues with the European Union. If it were all about a single currency and providing for the common defense, it might have worked, but big governments can’t help but flex their muscles. They ask for more control and do their best to further the globalist goals.

Free markets keep working out better than anyone ever expects, and so state-enforced socialism never stood a chance.

Where do we go from here?

I don’t have an easy answer. As I said, I am starting a study on this subject and I’ll write about what I’m learning. However, I will say this: the goals of the peace movement are similar to many of our own. None of us wants war. We just think it is sometimes necessary. Would we like global prosperity? Yes, but it’s not something a government can mandate or legislate. I think we ought to focus on what the problems are that progressives hope to solve and agree that we see them as problems too. It may still irk them that we don’t go about solving problems the way they want (like our reduction in greenhouse gases), but we may be able to get back to disagreement and away from hatred.

Published in History
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 80 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Spin (View Comment):
    He’ll likely quit Ricochet.

    You haven’t. And look at everything we’ve done to you. Making you dress in the grass skirt and dance on the tables was the best part.

    • #61
  2. Dan Wilson Coolidge
    Dan Wilson
    @danimal_47

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    Discussions of World Peace always remind me of this scene:

    Oh me too–for sure. They decided to stop praying and start “taking action” though.

    • #62
  3. Dan Wilson Coolidge
    Dan Wilson
    @danimal_47

    Spin (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    aardo vozz (View Comment):
    If so, in order for a non-Kant can-canner to can-can, they can’t follow Kant. This would also imply that if Kant can can-can, a non-Kant can-canner can’t can-can, Kant they?

    You see, @danimal_47, it always gets to this point sooner or later. Wouldn’t miss it, myself. How about you?

    You guys have destroyed the man’s post. He’ll likely quit Ricochet.

    …well, it’ll be a long time before I reference Kant again. ;)

    • #63
  4. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Dan Wilson (View Comment):
    …well, it’ll be a long time before I reference Kant again.

    Did we grace this thread with “The Philosophers Song?” Or was that another recent thread?

    • #64
  5. aardo vozz Member
    aardo vozz
    @aardovozz

    Dan Wilson (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    aardo vozz (View Comment):
    If so, in order for a non-Kant can-canner to can-can, they can’t follow Kant. This would also imply that if Kant can can-can, a non-Kant can-canner can’t can-can, Kant they?

    You see, @danimal_47, it always gets to this point sooner or later. Wouldn’t miss it, myself. How about you?

    You guys have destroyed the man’s post. He’ll likely quit Ricochet.

    …well, it’ll be a long time before I reference Kant again. ;)

    You Kant mean that.🙂

    • #65
  6. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Spin (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    aardo vozz (View Comment):
    If so, in order for a non-Kant can-canner to can-can, they can’t follow Kant. This would also imply that if Kant can can-can, a non-Kant can-canner can’t can-can, Kant they?

    You see, @danimal_47, it always gets to this point sooner or later. Wouldn’t miss it, myself. How about you?

    You guys have destroyed the man’s post. He’ll likely quit Ricochet.

    Aardo made me do it.

    • #66
  7. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    Dan Wilson (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    aardo vozz (View Comment):
    If so, in order for a non-Kant can-canner to can-can, they can’t follow Kant. This would also imply that if Kant can can-can, a non-Kant can-canner can’t can-can, Kant they?

    You see, @danimal_47, it always gets to this point sooner or later. Wouldn’t miss it, myself. How about you?

    You guys have destroyed the man’s post. He’ll likely quit Ricochet.

    …well, it’ll be a long time before I reference Kant again. ;)

    Just wait until you write a post that mentions cheese.  There will be puns by the dozens.  Welcome to Ricochet, Dan.

    • #67
  8. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Dan Wilson (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    aardo vozz (View Comment):
    If so, in order for a non-Kant can-canner to can-can, they can’t follow Kant. This would also imply that if Kant can can-can, a non-Kant can-canner can’t can-can, Kant they?

    You see, @danimal_47, it always gets to this point sooner or later. Wouldn’t miss it, myself. How about you?

    You guys have destroyed the man’s post. He’ll likely quit Ricochet.

    …well, it’ll be a long time before I reference Kant again. ;)

    Just wait until you write a post that mentions cheese. There will be puns by the dozens. Welcome to Ricochet, Dan.

    Whey oh whey did you have to mention cheese, Randy?

    • #68
  9. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Percival (View Comment):
    Whey oh whey did you have to mention cheese, Randy?

    Do the Kurds like cheese?

    • #69
  10. Bill Nelson Inactive
    Bill Nelson
    @BillNelson

    aardo vozz (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    I’d love to debate you on Kant, but I’m insufficiently familiar with that text. Also, I’m bogged down in another debate on Kant, and it’s already quite enough.

    You mean you can handle one Kant, but you can’t handle two Kants?

    He’ll just have to deal with two Kants as only Kant can.

    If anyone can debate about Kant, I want to watch. I got to page 20 of the Critique of Pure Reason and gave up because I hadn’t understood a single word. Not many can.

     

    • #70
  11. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):
    If anyone can debate about Kant, I want to watch. I got to page 20 of the Critique of Pure Reason and gave up because I hadn’t understood a single word. Not many can.

    It’s much easier in the original German.

    • #71
  12. Bill Nelson Inactive
    Bill Nelson
    @BillNelson

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):
    If anyone can debate about Kant, I want to watch. I got to page 20 of the Critique of Pure Reason and gave up because I hadn’t understood a single word. Not many can.

    It’s much easier in the original German.

    I also failed at that for 2 years.

    • #72
  13. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    Whey oh whey did you have to mention cheese, Randy?

    Do the Kurds like cheese?

    I’ll be Edamed if I know.

    • #73
  14. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Percival (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    Whey oh whey did you have to mention cheese, Randy?

    Do the Kurds like cheese?

    I’ll be Edamed if I know.

    You’d cheddar find out in kaese we need to know.

    • #74
  15. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    Whey oh whey did you have to mention cheese, Randy?

    Do the Kurds like cheese?

    I’ll be Edamed if I know.

    You’d cheddar find out in kaese we need to know.

    Cantal you see what Arahant is doing here?

    • #75
  16. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    It’s probably too late to go back to Kant.

    • #76
  17. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    It’s probably too late to go back to Kant.

    There is no Heidegger from the puns.

    • #77
  18. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):

    If anyone can debate about Kant, I want to watch. I got to page 20 of the Critique of Pure Reason and gave up because I hadn’t understood a single word. Not many can.

    If you’re entirely serious, let me know. I might have something for you.

    • #78
  19. aardo vozz Member
    aardo vozz
    @aardovozz

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    It’s probably too late to go back to Kant.

    That would be putting Descartes before the Boursin 

    • #79
  20. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    It’s probably too late to go back to Kant.

    There is no Heidegger from the puns.

    OK, OK! That did it. I’m not talking any more philosophy. I’d even rather watch soccer.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #80
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.