My take on Transnational Progressivism By now most people know that Fonte's article on Transnational Progressivism (TP) has caused quite a stir in the blogosphere. Much of the commentary has revolved around the fact that Fonte has integrated a number of trends into a coherent whole. His work is valuable because it names the beast. I wish to suggest that in naming the beast, we know how to kill it. TP is the first true threat to liberal democracy in the 21st century. Its peers are the threats of the 20th century: Nazism and Communism. These failed ideologies of the 20th century were based on false axioms that can be summed up in one sentence:

Axiom of Nazism: "Aryans are the invincible Master Race." Axiom of Communism: "State ownership of all property will ensure a more equitable, efficient and harmonious system than one that allows private property." [ Ed.: Credit to Eric for this. ]

These beliefs were the ideological foundations from which all else followed, and it was the refutation of these axioms that caused the collapse of each movement. I believe that Transnational Progressivism falls into this category as well, and is similarly vulnerable. What, then, is the foundational axiom of the transnational progressivists? I believe it is:

Axiom of Trans-Progressivism: "Genetic differences between humans are of no importance and have no influence on behavior."

I have written about the consequences of this axiom (which I called the axiom of equality) in the past, but I want to show how the belief set of the TPs can be reduced to the consequences of this one axiom. Consider Fonte's list of the beliefs of the TP movement:

1. The ascribed group over the individual citizen. The key political unit is not the individual citizen, who forms voluntary associations and works with fellow citizens regardless of race, sex, or national origin, but the ascriptive group (racial, ethnic, or gender) into which one is born. A dichotomy of groups: Oppressor vs. victim groups, with immigrant groups designated as victims. Transnational ideologists have incorporated the essentially Hegelian Marxist "privileged vs. marginalized" dichotomy. 2. Group proportionalism as the goal of "fairness." Transnational progressivism assumes that "victim" groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population. If not, there is a problem of "underrepresentation." 3. The values of all dominant institutions to be changed to reflect the perspectives of the victim groups. Transnational progressives insist that it is not enough to have proportional representation of minorities in major institutions if these institutions continue to reflect the worldview of the "dominant" culture. Instead, the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented within these institutions. 4. The "demographic imperative." The demographic imperative tells us that major demographic changes are occurring in the U. S. as millions of new immigrants from non-Western cultures enter American life. The traditional paradigm based on the assimilation of immigrants into an existing American civic culture is obsolete and must be changed to a framework that promotes "diversity," defined as group proportionalism. 5. The redefinition of democracy and "democratic ideals." Transnational progressives have been altering the definition of "democracy" from that of a system of majority rule among equal citizens to one of power sharing among ethnic groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens. James Banks, one of American education's leading textbook writers, noted in 1994 that "to create an authentic democratic Unum with moral authority and perceived legitimacy, the pluribus (diverse peoples) must negotiate and share power." Hence, American democracy is not authentic; real democracy will come when the different "peoples" that live within America "share power" as groups. 6. Deconstruction of national narratives and national symbols of democratic nation-states in the West. In October 2000, a UK government report denounced the concept of "Britishness" and declared that British history needed to be "revised, rethought, or jettisoned." In the U.S., the proposed "National History Standards," recommended altering the traditional historical narrative. Instead of emphasizing the story of European settlers, American civilization would be redefined as a multicultural "convergence" of three civilizations-Amerindian, West African, and European. In Israel, a "post-Zionist" intelligentsia has proposed that Israel consider itself multicultural and deconstruct its identity as a Jewish state. Even Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres sounded the post-Zionist trumpet in his 1993 book , in which he deemphasized "sovereignty" and called for regional "elected central bodies," a type of Middle Eastern EU. 7. Promotion of the concept of postnational citizenship. In an important academic paper, Rutgers Law Professor Linda Bosniak asks hopefully "Can advocates of postnational citizenship ultimately succeed in decoupling the concept of citizenship from the nation-state in prevailing political thought?" 8. The idea of transnationalism as a major conceptual tool. Transnationalism is the next stage of multicultural ideology. Like multiculturalism, transnationalism is a concept that provides elites with both an empirical tool (a plausible analysis of what is) and an ideological framework (a vision of what should be). Transnational advocates argue that globalization requires some form of "global governance" because they believe that the nation-state and the idea of national citizenship are ill suited to deal with the global problems of the future.

It is clear that if you believe that people have no inborn differences, then inequality is prima facie evidence of discrimination. Thus follows proposition 2. Fighting this "unjust" inequality requires organization, which requires the strength of groups. If members of a group decide to strike out on their own, the united front is broken and "misery" is therefore less likely to be ameliorated. This causes the focus on group identity, and thus follows proposition 1. If those who shape dominant institutions do not look like a cross section of society, discrimination has occurred because people have no substantial genetic differences. Therefore the losers in the societal game have been victimized, and the just recompense is to allow them to influence the dominant institutions and share power. Thus follows propositions 3 and 5. The criticism of a non-Western culture is unacceptable because it casts aspersions on the genetic endowment of its adherents. As all people are equal, all cultures must be equal, and this requires the denigration of Western culture and the exaltation of non-Western culture. Thus follows propositions 4 and 6. As all humans are equal, all laws should be universally applicable. No nation is entitled to a claim of moral or cultural superiority, for such a claim necessarily casts aspersions on the equality of all human beings. The inherently parochial nation-state must be overcome on the route to shared international brotherhood. Such a route will be nonviolent, because all people will eventually see the benefit in giving up their sovereignty, as they will be ruled by people who are (of course) "equal" to them. Thus follows propositions 7 and 8. It seems then that the best way to kill Transnational Progressivism is to strike at its heart, as we did with Nazism and Communism. The refutation of the axiom of Nazism was military. The refutation of the axiom of Communism was economic. I believe that the refutation of the axiom of Transnational Progressivism will be scientific. We will have to show that nontrivial genetic differences exist between people, and that such differences mean that "winner" and "loser" are not always synonymous with "oppressor" and "victim". This is a difficult topic to bring up. As soon as the topic is broached, otherwise reasonable people will cry "racist!" in an attempt to end debate. Even "ultra rationalist" bloggers are not immune to this - it is the great taboo of our time. This taboo is not harmless. The supposition that all humans are equal is at the root of the TP's cause, and without it their movement crumbles. The TPs - like the Nazis and the Communists before them - fundamentally misunderstand human nature. The nature of their misunderstanding must be stated bluntly, and without beating around the bush. If feelings are hurt - so be it. It is worth it to defeat the TPs before they devour the West from within. So, if we are agreed that the "axiom of human equality" must be disproved, how best to go about it? It would be a mistake to try to do it with a book like the Bell Curve or a tract on human genetics. Science alone will not be enough. People can and will deny the validity of human genetics research until it becomes the basis for engineering. That is, until we can engineer human genetics in such a way as to affect IQ and behavior to produce people who are obviously brilliant, the TP establishment will continue to deny, deny, deny. The dawn of human genetic engineering is not very far off at all. Consider the following two publications: -Doogie Mouse Created at Princeton [link] -UCLA Twin Study Shows Genetic Influences on Brain Structure [link] In the first, scientists at Princeton made a *single gene change* in a mouse that improved the binding efficiency of a protein in the brain and made the mouse more intelligent. Note that mice are close enough to humans that we test medicines on them. In the second, scientists at UCLA demonstrated that the structure of the regions of the human brain associated with cognition are highly heritable. They controlled for the nature/nurture dispute by comparing the brains of monozygotic (identical) and dizygotic (fraternal) twins. Even the NY Times grudgingly acknowledged the importance of this research. Note the mandatory bit on motivation boosting intelligence. I'm sure the Times correspondent searched high and low for a Lysenkoist spin on the UCLA results. In any case, the point is that we are knocking on the door of being able to genetically influence human intelligence. Once this comes to pass, we will have definitively refuted the fundamental axiom of the TPs. We will have shown that genes do matter, and that people are not inherently equal. The death of the TP ideology will not be a panacea. In fact, the dawn of genetic engineering may introduce more problems than solutions. Nevertheless, I believe that the defeat of Transnational Progressivism is worth the possible consequences. An Addendum: Note that I'm not saying that all differences between people are genetically caused. What I am saying is that some of the differences between humans have genetic roots, and we need to apply the methods of science to determine what these differences can be attributed to. If genetics is immediately dismissed as a possible contributing factor, you get the skewed world of the TPs and the Communists. If genetics is embraced as the only determining factor, you get the world of the Nazis. I'm endorsing the world of the rationalists, in which the methods of science are used to determine whether differences in any particular case are attributable to genetics or (non-genetically caused) environment. Razib adds: This about a woman sentenced to stoning for extra-marital sex (she was divorced) in Nigeria makes TP a joke. I oppose the death penalty, but it seems that anti-death penalty crusaders (and our liberal European pals) can only point fingers at the hegemonic United States. Godless adds: Steve Sailer points out that I was too harsh on Nicholas Wade, who I dissed for including the ridiculous line about "motivation" as the cause of high intelligence. It's likely that the editors forced him to keep that in. Nick has written some great articles for the Times, and Sailer and I agree that he probably knows the score and is doing his best to get the message out. Still, it was a bit galling to see the Times refer to the "the roiled waters of human intelligence and its heritability"...without admitting that the Times did much to roil them.