2023-07-02 09:00:00
We have lived and continue to live in the era of social engineering, conscious and reflective action to influence relationships, the structure and life of society from decision-making centers, particularly the State. The concept was born in the US during the 19th century and was developed in the following by Karl Popper with his monumental work The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), where he argues that there are two conflicting ideas of social engineering. The one that conceives it as an inherent attribute of the revolutionary elites to implant “the new civilization”, “to change humanity at the root”, “the march of history”, and other modest objectives, called holistic social engineering. Until the end of the 20th century, she allowed a large part of humanity to be ruled by totalitarian regimes that failed. That ideology had been established by Marx, and its result, the socialism-communism that he considered “inevitable”, gave the right to the revolutionaries “representing good and justice”, to take power by force, by arms, without consulting and destroy “the old society”. They did not need approval to eliminate the exploitative ways of life created over millennia: property, democracy, freedom, religion, parties, unions; and they stormed the sky to implant revolutionary education, the new morality, destroy the bourgeois family and establish tyrannies to “make the revolution” and create “the new man”.
The silver value of rhetoric can be seen in that following the Bolshevik triumph, a “constituent” is elected with the well-known Jacobin mystical preaching: the sacred people,” the popular will, the birth of a new nation; but since they lost ridiculously (25%), Lenin passed the “imprescriptible rights” through his mustache and dissolved that monument of sovereignty. At the antagonistic extreme is the fragmentary social engineering that uses partial reforms as an element for the maintenance of civilized society, in permanent dialogue with it. Law, the territorial political division of countries, sovereignty, institutions, public, fiscal and monetary policies, are the product of state decisions that shape modern society. Part of the presence of the State to create, maintain and improve coexistence in the combination of social democracy and political liberalism and someone said that the only way for the latter to be effective in real politics is social democracy. Liberals are chained to the existence of three independent public powers, unlike anarcholiberalism, libertarians, “right-wing” anarchists, utopians who aspire to a stateless society, an absolute nonsense that does not understand very well what it says.
Those who come to power are placed between government structures, and by supporters of broad democracy, freedom and the open economy that they are, exercising them, deregulating the economy, imposing competition and keeping everything running, it is possible by the action of the State even in a Hobbesian sense. The self-regulated society without government is a supra-utopia shared by classical Marxism, anarchists and anarcho-liberals. Today a soft and gradual totalitarianism emerges. Anyone who wants to take on a Sisyphus task, reading the 2030 Agenda, will face a text that is cold as a fish, bureaucratic, lifeless, from which the mind repeatedly wanders and flees. In the moments that the almost elusive concentration is achieved, the hand of a dead creature is taken, made up of 17 “objectives” that, due to their inexpressiveness, vacuity and childishness, would not even deserve to be discussed. Who might disagree with banishing hunger, “inequality”, “preserving nature”; with drinking water, sufficient and balanced food, comfortable housing, free and quality education for all, and that plants and animals grow as in the Garden of Eden? Or with humanity being a garden with rivers of milk and honey in abundance? .
Written by seasoned adults, the only raison d’être of such a text is to present it as a flock of sheepskins. That is why many governments and people believed they signed yet another anodyne declaration, like the Millennium Goals precursors, and no one, except their Machiavellian proponents, must have read it. But in its 169 goals, also written in such a way that reading it might lead an oyster to commit suicide out of despair, there are such a number of grotesques that they seem like the version written in a mental hospital from 1984, Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451. It is the Agenda to march towards dystopia, in pursuit of a slightly totalitarian world, and its slogan seems to emanate from the Orwellian older brother, “you will have nothing and you will be happy”. It proposes to change the world without violence, without threats, or provoking opposition, a text “that plays dead to catch a live vulture” and has achieved it masterfully so far. The impossibility, inanity, innocuousness, apparent of the Agenda are conceived so that the readers sign it between yawns. The postmodern bureaucracy of the United Nations obtains a letter of endorsement to appear in all corners of the world, such as in schools in the farmhouses of Cojedes state, where it posts billboards that favor pedophilia and inform regarding the advent of 43 “genres”.
More public would be impossible and it is not a conspiracy, but a well presented and conceived decision with political mastery. It is a new global constitution, above the national ones, that allows bureaucrats to regulate and administer freedom and democracy in the world, to get into people’s beds to tell them what is right and what is not, or that sex with children is fine if they consent. This supra constitution 2030 is gradually exercising the government in Europe and decides that strawberries from southern Spain should not be produced, nor various Dutch crops while they begin to banish livestock farming, destroy dams to restore forests, as well as produce “clean energy” and electric cars that might be more like Frankenstein (we’ll come back to this). The agenda tends to return to confessional societies, anathemas once morest heterodoxies, with issues that cannot be discussed, on pain of excommunication (formerly imprisonment or death) and civil death. This reveals that, despite technical scientific progress, the tendency to fanaticism and superstition remain unchanged in the human condition. This return from obscurantism calls cancellation and denial, the postmodern nickname for the ancient heresy.
All scientific knowledge is born controversial and Darwin wrote that “the only way to close a scientific debate is to keep it open” but the environment punishes the discussion on postmo canonical theses. Progressivism led us to believe that climatic phenomena, characteristic of all ages on the planet for millions of years, is the product of man’s action in industrial society, the “anthropogeny” of “global warming”, despite the fact that there is a wide contingent of scientists who deny this theory, whom the media call “deniers” and therefore eliminate from public debate. Mountains of studies on violence show that 80% of murder victims are men (it rises to 93% when wars are included), but the impression prevails that there is a mass killing of women; 74% of partner violence is between male homosexuals, 21% between hetero couples and barely 5% between lesbian couples, but the research that proves it is silenced by “gender violence denialism”. Despite the mountain of scientific evidence on the need to eat animal protein, which made possible the evolution of the brain from hominids to man, the 2030 Agenda seeks to atrophy the production and consumption of meat, to produce “artificial meat”, as well as they plan to produce proteins from insects, all translated into great free business.
The cancellation arises in the interlinings of the institutions to cripple the democratic life system. The incorrect or denialists deserve to undermine their expressions, chairs, thought, in the name of the democracy of fanatical lobbies: hypersexualists, animalists, environmentalists, pedophiles, usurpers of feminism. A merciless secular religion, with 17 commandments without forgiveness, for anyone who is not and has not been progressive, what a hunter of guilty. Cicero referred to damnatio memoriae, damaging memory, even on gravestones in cemeteries. A kind of revived Calvinism, a puritanism that comes to rescue from hetero perdition a society surrendered by Catholic tolerance. These neo-Calvinists make people laugh and amaze with their self-justifications to punish non-existent or residual evils, which come to life in their imagination: patriarchalism, misogyny, transphobia, plumophobia, homophobia, fatophobia and other imbecilities, an expression of serious emotional disorders in those who utter them. Higinio Marín, a Spanish theologian, shows that he knows the human condition when he says that “who governs what you must say, also governs what you must think, what you must desire and what you must feel; and he is modifying the human patterns of desire fixation ”. Seduction is already prohibited, and heterosexuality is almost criminal for lobbies. In Winston’s London in 1984, love was strictly prohibited and you might only have mechanical sex without that disturbing component.
@CarlosRaulHer
1688307723
#return #wizards
