Invading the world, inviting the world – with ideas

Thanks to a more connected world, riots can now start in one country because people are downloading media that has been produced in another, as we have seen in the Arab world just recently.

As a result of anti-Moslem propaganda entering their countries, Moslems have begun calling for global censorship and there’s been the predictable response from the kind of kneejerk anti-Moslems you can’t expect to analyse the news in three dimensions, as though it was another case of Moslem immigrants protesting Mohammed cartoons. But of course they’re ignoring that foreign ideas are in this case ‘invading’ Islamic countries, and missing the point by talking about how Moslems alone want to force their values onto the rest of the world.

Where is the outcry about the absurd attempts by globalists to criminalise fictional depictions of the abuse of nonexistent children in Japan, under the guise of children’s rights? The principle here only is the same – the world has many different value systems that conflict, and globalism inevitably results in the exchange of ideas between societies.

What is the response of the people pushing for globalism when connectivity threatens their rules? Consider the above example – to prevent certain pornographic material reaching the west, the west targeted the source. Pushing to maintain a global monopoly over the production of media and information actually becomes defensive when global connectedness opens the door and lets all kinds of unwelcome media in as long as they’re produced at an outside source.

What is the difference between American and Islamic calls for global censorship? When people naturally object to certain foreign ideas or images entering their countries, they will feel they must force their own set of values on a connected, global world or they must disconnect from it.

I left a comment about this at American Renaissance.

Muslim Leaders Make Case for Global Blasphemy Ban at U.N.
Patrick Goodenough

“This is in fact an issue of globalism not of Islam.

The USA promoted one global internet in order to maintain a global monopoly over culture, infecting other societies with gangsta rap and barnyard porn – not to mention political messages – and bashed other countries for their internet firewalls. Yet at the same time the USA pushed for pointless moral legislation at the *global* level, the most obvious being laws against child pornography featuring nonexistent children (ie *drawings* such as Japanese manga).

Yea well, others can play at that game too – Moslems are just catching up with the interconnected, globalist age America wished for and forced upon everyone else.

“Invite the world, invade the world” applies to information as it does to wars and immigration.”

As left-leaning political scientist Paul Treanor has already perfectly examined the internet as a globalist ideology, I won’t bother rewording him. ‘One world’ surely requires one set of values, as long as global communications are imposed upon the world, is it really fair to blame the Moslems if they only want to globalise the censorship of hostile ideas in defence?

Internet as Hyper-Liberalism
Paul Treanor

“Liberalism, as an interaction-maximising ethic, has produced a number of structures, including the free market. Internet, as a ‘marketplace’ for ideas, shows the characteristics of liberal structures clearly, and intensifies them. However, it is still subject to linguistic and cultural barriers, rather than creating a global community. More fundamentally, liberal structures are contra-innovative, and in fact the structure of the Net shows a technological conservatism. The Internet is a political or ethical concept, rather than technological concept. It threatens to impose itself on the world. It is the Net itself which is wrong: freedom from censorship, or equality of access, cannot make it good. The conclusion is simple: the Net must be cut, and Europe is the place to start.”

“Net-ism is wrong because it is coercively expansionist. There is no inherent or inevitable technical or historical trend to a single communication network. On the contrary: never before in history, have so many separate networks been technically possible. Linking all networks together is a conscious choice by some people, a choice then imposed on others. The logic is identical to that of colonial governments, which forced peasants into the agricultural market, by imposing cash taxes. (To pay the tax, the peasants had to sell cash crops such as sugar). This logic says in effect: ‘no one is free to stay outside the free market’. Today, not just governments, but business, social movements, intellectuals and artists, all want to impose the Net. This broad movement is obviously more than profit-seeking (and a non-profit Net would also be wrong). It is an ideological movement seeking ideological imposition. That imposition itself, the universalism, the expansionism, their involuntary nature, the basic unfreedom to exit – that is what makes liberal structures wrong. That applies to the free market, and it applies inherently to the Internet.”

“It is useful at this point to summarise the characteristics and goals of liberalism: it seeks to (a) maximise interaction; (b) to maximise the number of those interacting; (c) to maximise the number affected by each transaction; and (d) to maximise the zone where interaction takes place. By creating chains of interactions, it transmits cause and effect – it collectivises action.”

“For cyber-ideology, however, the greatest advantage of Internet, is an advantage that is derived from liberal models. Liberals see ideas and opinions as objects of exchange: if a liberal has an opinion, he or she wants to ‘express it’ and exchange it with others. The priority of dialogue and communication, in neo-liberal theories (such as communicative ethics), parallels the priority of market exchange, in classic liberalism. (In this sense communicative ethics, and dialogue ethics, have already set the political-ethical framework for cyberspace).”

“The Net is a monopoly, unavoidable, a choice for the past – it is a historical veto. A group, elite, movement, or ideology, does not have the right to impose this veto on the world. It is therefore legitimate, in a political and ethical sense, to cut the Net. The greatest long-distance data flow is the place to make the first cut: a cut in Atlanticism.”

“Very probably, Net-ists in Europe would refuse this option, this scenario. It is not a very probable future anyway. The point is, that Net-ism is a universalist expansionist ideology, and the scenario puts it to the test. Net-ism does not want a choice: it wants the Net, one Net, one global Net, one Net everywhere, one universal cyberspace, and nothing less.”

About skadhitheraverner
I'm a young freelance writer from the UK, with an interest in anthropology, the outdoors and rightist politics.

6 Responses to Invading the world, inviting the world – with ideas

  1. Mister Aryan-Swiss says:

    The net is the new dominate culture of the global proletariat.

    A reactive (not proactive) subdivision of humanity (like Pavlov’s dogs) is being formed; a global underclass of workers who will know nothing about culture and reality outside of the electronic reality they receive from cradle to grave.

    If you negate hierarchy and demand ‘equality’ you destroy the circumstances by which individuals differentiate themselves and thus there is no threat to the liberal-commie-capitalist order.

    Amazing how clever our enemies are.

    • The net can be useful, the net can be fun, but the net’s mostly a wasted opportunity full of shit.

      All over the world people take up so much bandwidth, not with studies of science and art and architecture, but ogling porn downloading torrents full of trojans, swearing at one another over XBox Live, and watching idiots pretend to hurt themselves in fake YouTube videos.

      If you think about the legally dubious material those torrents contain, the capitalist system shot itself in the foot buying into pro-net ideology lol.

      The internet also demonstrates why democratisation means dumbing down, just imagine the potential of an alternative net just for those of us who realise that knowledge is power. Information sure ain’t the same thing as knowledge.

      • says:

        Exactly. That’s why hierarchy and right-wing politics is morally justified.

        Most in the West are well-fed and pampered.

        I’d personally rather be half starving and still have a meaning and justification to my life, rather than be inundated with celebrity gossip and porn.

      • SM: Yea celeb gossip is such pointless shit, you see these celeb gossip mags on supermarket shelves, god knows who buys ’em.

        As for porn, I don’t want to ban all porn but I don’t ‘get’ it. Most porn is somewhere between a badly acted soap opera and a biology lesson, it does nowt for me.

  2. Franklin Ryckaert says:

    The internet is not “invading” the world. Invasion is always against someone’s will and accompanied by violence. Nobody “forces” people to visit certain websites, or even surf the web at all. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.

    As for the low quality of much (or most) of the contents of the web, that is only a reflection of the already existing character of the masses. If you chose well you’ll find quality on the web and that in a quantity never realized before.

    One could equally deplore the invention of bookprinting, which sparked off a similar revolution. There are good books and bad books, there are good websites and bad ones.

    • The only revolution the web has caused is the removal of boundaries to the flow of information. (It was the printing press that made information widely available to the population starting with chapbooks.) Franklin, please read the Paul Treanor link which I posted, despite the author being a leftist, because it makes so much sense.

      In the absence of internet firewalls – which are damned as ‘censoring free speech’ if they exist for any reason at all – there’s nothing to stop unwelcome material coming into your country. The nature of the material is irrelevant, because I’m sure there’s something foreign you wouldn’t want in your country if you think hard enough.

      Unless the Moslems – or anyone else, and that includes us if we ran a government – wants to accept one set of censorship from you-know-who, whilst being denied the right to block unwelcome foreign content, then they have no choice but to take the same aggressive stance because its necessary to root the problems out at their source abroad.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: