How Postmodern Universalism Is A Reinterpretation Of Marxist Internationalism

In the Christian dogma, universalism is the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved by God. With the Enlightenment philosophy spreading all over the West, God was defeated by reason. Thanks to a Manichean narrative (light vs. evil religious obscurantism), the necessary violence (e.g. Guillotine during the French Revolution) permitting the eradication of an old world embodied by the Catholic kings was harnessed.

The “human rights”, the bible of the bourgeoisie, replaced Catholicism, and the paradise on earth was promised to the masses by virtue of democracy, freedom, and equality i.e. a universal brotherhood. This dogma formed the basis of Western societies and was inscribed in the law (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

In theory, those rights should be applicable to every single individual the moment they are born in any part of the world regardless of nationality, ethnicity, gender, language, religion, etc. However, the concept of “cultural relativism”, the notion that values and morals are a product of culture, corresponds to historical development, resulting in the idea that their implantation should be “culturally relative”.

As such, human rights should take account of cultural differences. Beliefs, values, and practices of individuals should be considered in relation to their specific culture rather than being judged with the criteria of another. The traditions, rites, and laws of one civilization should not be viewed as superior to another.

Thereby, under the guise of cultural relativism, the apex egalitarianism of values, we should accept any culture regardless of its morals. For instance, according to the postmodern left, wearing the Islamic veil is a cultural norm in the Middle East and a freedom of choice in occidental societies, even if it represents the expression of masculine oppression in contradiction with Western values.

Wrong Speak Publishing’s First Book “Black Victim To Black Victor” Purchase Now from WSP’s Store or Amazon!

In order to reconcile those apparent oppositions, postmodern thinkers explained that the conception of universalism born from the Enlightenment philosophy was shaped by and for white men. Specifically in reason for colonialism, this false Western universalism held prejudices, in the service of European superiority, against the values of other ethnicities and cultures perceived as inferior. 

And so, in response, postmodern intellectuals proposed a universalism open to singularities, a diverse universalism, in which each cultural subgroup determines its own values, its own truth. Consequently, the affirmation of one identity does not go against the concept of universalism. 

There are just good and bad identities. Good is the so-called oppressed identities, united in intersectionality, in which traditions are never perceived as a system of value on their own but as residual folklore. The affirmation of those identities is understood as an emancipation, the resistance against the negation of their cultures by white supremacy, the reappropriation and integration of the universal historically dominated by a Western-centred vision of the world.

Bad is the Western (white) identity, deemed oppressive, the roots of all evils, of which particularisms and traditional culture must disappear to make room for a society composed of a mosaic of minority groups' customs, for multiculturalism and diversity.

Therefore, postmodern universalism is the union of the so-called oppressed against a common enemy. Thanks to a Manichean narrative (oppressed minorities vs. evil hegemonic oppressors), the necessary violence permitting the eradication of Western culture embodied by the white man is attempted to be harnessed.

Postmodern universalism is a reinterpretation of Marxist internationalism, but instead of the working class uniting across national boundaries to oppose capitalism, oppressed minorities would unite across national boundaries to oppose white supremacy.

It is a cosmopolitan enterprise in which individuals are emptied of cultural anchorage, the philosophy of the uprooted “citizen of the world”, the intellectual abstraction of a universal man, the negation of the particularisms, that every human is part of a civilization, a cultural singularity.

It is a call for the elimination of independent governments paving the way for the establishment of more centralized forms of control such as the World Economic Forum funded by the German engineer and economist Klaus Schwab in 1971. 

On paper, the forum supports the global cooperation between world leaders and companies to move toward more ecological and sustainable growth through the concept of stakeholder capitalism (business strategies that address the needs of all stakeholders: employees, media, and investors). 

However, the annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, also serves as a place to create business relationships and make personal contacts. As such, during exclusive and private gatherings called IGWEL (Informal Gathering of World Economic Leaders), according to Peter S. Goodman in his book “Davos Man How the Billionaires Devoured the World” (2022), “Heads of global banks and energy companies can personally beseech presidents of countries for preferential tax treatment and access to promising oil fields”.

Under the guise of philanthropy, the forum brings together the most powerful individuals in the world. The promotion of woke ideologies by politicians and CEOs present at the various meetings supports the advancement of the agenda of the organization. The World Economic Forum exemplified how the liberal elite has weaponized societal issues (global warming, gender equality, open borders, etc) so no one talks about the social issues created by the financial elite (deindustrialization, unemployment, and social dumping).

Furthermore, the organization ensures the proper implementation of such policies via partnerships with multinationals (Facebook, Pfizer, Google, Coca-cola, etc) and the ESG score, a social credit for companies of some sort allowing them to earn subsidies and attract investors.

Nonetheless, despite the World Economic Forum “Climate Governance Principles” for instance, and the presence of Swedish eco-warrior Greta Thunberg in Davos, the organization collaborated with four of the biggest plastic polluters in the world (Coca Cola, Pepsi, Nestlé and Unilever). And despite the ESG score, the investment management company BlackRock invested massively in China i.e. one of the most polluting countries in the world.

Still, the masses are blamed for the negative of the neoliberal capitalism. The financial right (free market and globalization) took control of the economy as long as the left-libertarians (liberals) retained the monopoly on the “societal”. They sacrificed the “social” (class relations) on the altar of their ideological union: the libertarian liberalism. 

In his essay “COVID-19: The Great Reset”, Klaus Schwab affirms that the younger generation, being at the forefront of social change (climate, BLM, LGBT rights, etc), will be a catalyst for the “great reset” i.e. rebuild the global economy by putting into practice the concept of corporate citizenship (the responsibilities of businesses toward society). 

Ultimately, according to Klaus Schwab, this will require the transition to the fourth industrial revolution, “merging the physical, digital and biological worlds”, a civilization controlled by Big Tech, the establishment of transhumanism (e.g. human microchip implant). 

The English (1688), American (1775–83), and French (1789–99) revolutions had replaced Christian universalism with human rights. The Russian Revolution (1917) attempted to spread Marxist internationalism all over Europe. With organizations such as the World Economic Forum, societal revolutions are put at the service of economic globalization.  

Thanks to the useful idiots, postmodern universalists dreaming of a utopic apex egalitarianism, globalists progressively assert their dominance on deconstructed individuals without historical culture and transcendent order (religion, nation, family, etc), Homo Consumericus Libertarian united in virtue of the consumption of standardized products and whose freedom has dwindled to the freedom of purchasing.