Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6nf37f-noble-cause-corruption-dark-enlightenment.html
Noble Cause Corruption is when law enforcement officers or other public officials engage in unethical or illegal behavior because they believe it serves a morally justified or greater good. Essentially, they justify wrongdoing by arguing that their actions help achieve justice.
For example, a police officer might plant evidence on a known criminal to ensure a conviction, believing that the suspect would otherwise escape justice. While the officer’s intent may be to protect society, their actions undermine due process, fairness, and the legal system’s integrity.
This type of corruption is dangerous because it can erode public trust in institutions and lead to systemic abuses of power. It often starts with small ethical compromises but can escalate over time, creating a culture where misconduct is normalized as long as it appears to serve a “noble” purpose.
In politics, Noble Cause Corruption refers to politicians or government officials engaging in unethical, illegal, or deceptive behavior under the justification that it serves a greater good, such as national security, economic stability, or social justice. This often involves manipulating facts, bypassing laws, or using morally questionable tactics to achieve what they believe is the “right” outcome for society.
Examples in Politics
Election Manipulation – A political leader justifies rigging an election because they believe their opponent would be disastrous for the country.
Misinformation or Propaganda – Spreading false or misleading information to gain public support for policies that might not otherwise be accepted.
Abuse of Power – Using government agencies or law enforcement to silence opposition, claiming it’s necessary to maintain stability or protect national interests.
Unlawful Surveillance – Justifying mass surveillance or data collection to prevent crime or terrorism, even if it infringes on citizens’ rights.
Why It’s a Problem
While the intent behind noble cause corruption may seem well-meaning, it ultimately weakens democracy, erodes trust in institutions, and can lead to authoritarian tendencies. It also creates a slippery slope where bending the rules becomes normalized, leading to larger abuses of power over time.
Here are some notable instances:
1. Warren G. Harding Administration (1921–1923): Teapot Dome Scandal
During President Harding’s tenure, the Teapot Dome scandal emerged as a significant case of corruption. Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall leased Navy petroleum reserves at Teapot Dome, Wyoming, to private oil companies without competitive bidding, accepting substantial bribes in return. Fall justified his actions as necessary to support the nation’s energy security, but the scandal severely damaged public trust in the government.
2. Richard Nixon Administration (1969–1974): Watergate Scandal
President Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate scandal is a prominent example of noble cause corruption. In an effort to secure re-election and maintain political stability, Nixon and his aides authorized illegal activities, including the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and subsequent cover-ups. They believed these actions were justified to protect the administration’s agenda, but the scandal led to Nixon’s resignation and a profound loss of faith in political institutions.
3. Ronald Reagan Administration (1981–1989): Iran-Contra Affair
The Iran-Contra affair under President Reagan involved secretly facilitating arms sales to Iran, which was under an arms embargo, with the intent to fund Nicaraguan Contras and secure the release of hostages. Officials believed these covert operations were essential to combat communism and terrorism. However, the actions violated U.S. law and led to significant controversy, undermining the administration’s credibility.
4. U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Rollback
In 2025, President Donald Trump directed the Department of Justice to cease enforcing the FCPA, arguing it hindered U.S. economic competitiveness and national security. This act, established in 1977 to combat corporate bribery abroad, was seen by the administration as a barrier to international business. While intended to bolster the U.S. economy, this decision effectively provided leeway for corrupt practices, undermining global anti-corruption efforts.
5. Xi Jinping’s Anti-Corruption Campaign
Since 2012, Chinese President Xi Jinping has led an extensive anti-corruption campaign, disciplining over six million officials. While aimed at strengthening the Communist Party’s integrity, the campaign has been criticized for targeting political adversaries and causing policy paralysis among bureaucrats. The pursuit of a “clean” government, though seemingly noble, has led to unintended consequences, including stifled economic efficiency and persistent corruption within the system.
6. “Cash for Honours” Scandal in the United Kingdom
In 1925, the UK enacted the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act to combat the sale of peerages and honors, following scandals where political figures sold titles for personal gain. Despite its noble intent to preserve the integrity of the honors system, enforcement has been inconsistent. Notably, in 2006, allegations surfaced that political donations were linked to nominations for peerages, leading to investigations but no prosecutions, highlighting challenges in upholding ethical standards in political appointments.
7. Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration (1933–1945): Japanese American Internment
During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment of over 100,000 Japanese Americans, citing national security concerns. This action was intended to prevent espionage and protect the nation; however, it involved the violation of civil liberties and was later recognized as a grave injustice.
8. Bill Clinton Administration (1993–2001): Tuskegee Syphilis Study Apology
In 1997, President Bill Clinton formally apologized for the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, a decades-long unethical study where African American men with syphilis were left untreated to study the disease’s progression. The study was initially justified as a means to understand and combat syphilis but resulted in significant harm to the participants and their families.
These are just a few examples that illustrate how actions taken under the belief of serving a “greater good” can lead to significant ethical violations and long-term negative consequences.
On February 18, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,” which centralizes the interpretation of U.S. law within the executive branch. The order stipulates that only the President and the Attorney General are authorized to provide definitive legal interpretations for all federal employees and agencies, including traditionally independent entities such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
This move aligns with the unitary executive theory, advocating for consolidated presidential control over the executive branch. Critics argue that this undermines the autonomy of independent regulatory agencies, which were designed to operate free from political influence to ensure unbiased oversight. Legal challenges are anticipated, as many scholars contend that the order violates the principle of separation of powers and the independence of agencies established by Congress.
Supporters within the administration, including Russ Vought, the appointed supervisory authority over these agencies, assert that the order enhances accountability and ensures a unified legal framework across the executive branch. However, this consolidation of power has raised concerns about the potential erosion of checks and balances fundamental to the U.S. democratic system.
The executive order has sparked a significant debate over the balance of power between the presidency and independent regulatory bodies, with potential implications for the functioning and impartiality of these agencies.
This could be considered an example of Noble Cause Corruption, depending on the intent behind the executive order.
If the justification for consolidating legal interpretation under the President and Attorney General is framed as ensuring “efficiency,” “accountability,” or “unifying the government under a single legal vision,” then it aligns with noble cause corruption. The argument would be that centralized control is necessary for the proper functioning of government, even if it weakens independent agencies and bypasses traditional checks and balances.
However, the problem with this justification is that it undermines democratic safeguards meant to prevent executive overreach. Independent agencies exist to enforce laws without political interference, and removing their ability to interpret legal statutes independently could lead to biased decision-making that serves the interests of the administration rather than the public.
This move would follow a historical pattern of leaders using “the greater good” to justify consolidating power, even when it weakens institutional norms. Whether supporters see it as necessary reform or opponents see it as a power grab, it certainly fits the noble cause corruption framework.
Meet Peter Thiel. Our noble cause corrupter.
Peter Thiel has taken on numerous roles throughout his career: tech entrepreneur in Silicon Valley, major donor to Donald Trump, advocate for cryptocurrency, and critic of democratic systems. However, a previously undisclosed aspect of Thiel’s life has recently come to light: his involvement as an FBI informant.
In the summer of 2021, Thiel began collaborating with the FBI as a “confidential human source” (CHS), providing information to Johnathan Buma, an FBI agent based in Los Angeles who specializes in political corruption and foreign influence operations. This relationship was reportedly facilitated by Charles Johnson, a longtime associate of Thiel and a controversial figure in far-right circles, which Thiel has financially supported for years. Johnson confirmed to Insider that he played a role in connecting Thiel with Buma.
A source familiar with Thiel’s involvement with the FBI, who requested anonymity, corroborated Johnson’s account, stating that Johnson acted as an intermediary between Thiel and Buma. Insider verified through an additional source that Thiel was officially registered as an FBI informant.
Another individual close to Thiel mentioned that while they could not confirm his status as a CHS, they acknowledged that Thiel had occasional conversations with Buma. This source suggested that any assistance Thiel provided to the FBI might reflect his gradual distancing from Trump and the broader MAGA movement, which has been highly critical of the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies.
The FBI relies on a vast network of informants to monitor organized crime, terrorism, extremist groups, and other threats. According to the bureau’s Confidential Human Source Policy Guide, these informants are not casual tipsters but individuals who enter into a formal relationship with the FBI. This relationship is highly regulated, requiring multiple levels of approval, and is reserved for those who can provide valuable information on a recurring basis.
As a CHS, Thiel was assigned a code name and an internal serial number to track his reports. The information he provided about foreign contacts and Silicon Valley activities was reviewed and cross-checked by FBI agents for accuracy.
Thiel did not respond to multiple requests for comment, and his spokesperson ceased communication after learning that Insider was investigating his ties to the FBI. The FBI’s national press office and Scott Horton, an attorney representing Buma, also declined to comment.
Thiel holds citizenship in Germany, the United States, and New Zealand, and as of last year, he was reportedly pursuing Maltese citizenship. In 2016, he donated $1.25 million to Trump’s campaign and publicly endorsed him at the Republican National Convention. After Trump’s victory, Thiel served on his transition team.
Johnson, who claims to have also been an informant for Buma, told Insider that Thiel’s reporting to the FBI primarily focused on foreign contacts and attempts by foreign governments to infiltrate Silicon Valley. Thiel has publicly urged the FBI to investigate Google’s ties to China. Johnson added that Thiel was instructed by the FBI not to report on his interactions with Trump or other U.S. political figures.
Many politicians supported by Thiel, including Trump, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, and former Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters, have publicly criticized the FBI. Vance, whose campaign received 15 million from Thiel, falsely claimed in 2022 that the FBI illegally wiretapped Trump’s phone. Masters, who received 20 million from Thiel, promoted the baseless conspiracy theory that FBI agents incited the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
Thiel reportedly plans to remain uninvolved in the 2024 election. Trump, Vance, and Masters did not respond to requests for comment.
Some of Thiel’s business ventures rely on government contracts. He retains a 10% stake in Palantir, a data analytics company that has secured over a billion dollars in contracts with federal agencies, including the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, and FBI. A recent $250 million contract with the U.S. Army further solidifies Palantir’s role as a government service provider.
Thiel also invested in Boldend, a spyware company positioning itself as a U.S. competitor to Israel’s NSO Group. NSO’s products have been tested by the FBI, and Boldend has reportedly developed tools for cyber warfare missions, including a capability to hack WhatsApp, which was later patched.
Johnson, who revealed Thiel’s FBI ties, is a tech investor and far-right activist with connections to both Thiel and Trump’s political network. He claims to have co-founded Clearview AI, a facial recognition company, and Traitwell, a genomics firm. Johnson also stated that he helped Thiel vet staff for Trump’s 2017 transition team.
Johnson alleged that he recruited Thiel as a CHS and introduced him to Buma. It remains unclear whether Thiel is still an active informant. Johnson believes the relationship has ended but provided no further details. Buma, in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he was ordered to cut ties with all his sources in late 2022.
Johnson’s claims are supported by two additional sources, with partial corroboration from a third source who confirmed that Thiel and Buma had occasional contact. Buma came forward as a whistleblower in August, alleging that the FBI under Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr hindered his investigation into whether Rudy Giuliani had been compromised by a Russian asset.
In a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Buma mentioned that the FBI had closed some of his most valuable sources, including one code-named “Genius,” who provided information on far-right figures involved in the January 6 Capitol attack. Johnson identified himself as “Genius,” a claim confirmed by two additional sources.
Johnson told Insider that he disclosed Thiel’s role as a CHS to support Buma’s whistleblower efforts and to push for reforms in how the FBI handles informants. He also expressed frustration that Thiel did not invest in his startups, which he expected in return for introducing him to Buma. Johnson described Thiel’s motivation for working with the FBI as a way to protect himself in an era where extreme wealth no longer guarantees safety.
Thiel’s recruitment as a CHS places him among the FBI’s most notable informants, but he is not the only right-wing figure to collaborate with the bureau. Trump himself offered to assist the FBI in fighting organized crime in the 1980s, and Truth Social, his social media platform, has reported users threatening violence to the FBI. Additionally, at least two January 6 rioters and Enrique Tarrio, the Proud Boys leader sentenced for seditious conspiracy, were also FBI informants.
In 2022, it was revealed that Thiel secretly funded Boldend, a cyber warfare startup that developed tools to hack WhatsApp. Boldend, which operates discreetly, has the U.S. government as its primary customer. Thiel’s investment in the company, through his Founders Fund, was not publicly disclosed until a presentation to defense contractor Raytheon mentioned it. This move is somewhat ironic, given Thiel’s history as a major investor in Facebook, which owns WhatsApp.
Thiel’s involvement with the FBI and his investments in companies like Boldend and Clearview AI highlight his complex relationship with law enforcement and national security. While he has publicly criticized big tech and government overreach, his actions suggest a pragmatic approach to navigating the intersection of technology, politics, and security.
Watch video
The Dark Enlightenment, also called the neo-reactionary movement (sometimes abbreviated to NRx), is an anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian, and reactionary philosophical and political movement. The term “Dark Enlightenment” is a reaction to the Age of Enlightenment and an apologia for the popular conception of the Dark Ages.
The ideology generally rejects Whig historiography, the concept that history shows an inevitable progression towards greater liberty and enlightenment, culminating in liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy, in favor of a return to traditional societal constructs and forms of government, including absolute monarchism and other older forms of leadership like cameralism.
Neo-reactionaries are an informal community of bloggers and political theorists who have been active since the 2000s. Steve Sailer is a contemporary forerunner of the ideology, which also draws influence from philosophers such as Thomas Carlyle and Julius Evola.
In 2007 and 2008, software engineer Curtis Yarvin, writing under the pen name Mencius Moldbug, articulated what would develop into Dark Enlightenment thinking. Yarvin’s theories were elaborated and expanded by philosopher Nick Land, who first coined the term Dark Enlightenment in his essay of the same name.
By mid-2017, NRx had moved to forums such as the Social Matter online forum, the Hestia Society, and Thermidor Magazine. In 2021, Yarvin appeared on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Today, where he discussed the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan and his concept of the “Cathedral”, which he claims to be the current aggregation of political power and influential institutions that is controlling the country.
Several prominent Silicon Valley investors and Republican politicians have expressed their influence from the philosophy, with venture capitalist Peter Thiel describing Yarvin as his “most important connection”. Political strategist Steve Bannon has read and admired his work. U.S. Vice President JD Vance has cited Yarvin as an influence. Michael Anton, the State Department Director of Policy Planning during Trump’s second presidency, has also discussed Yarvin’s ideas. In January 2025, Yarvin attended a Trump inaugural gala in Washington; Politico reported he was “an informal guest of honor” due to his “outsize influence over the Trumpian right.”
Central to Nick Land’s ideas is a belief in freedom’s incompatibility with democracy. Land drew inspiration from libertarians such as Peter Thiel, as indicated in his essay The Dark Enlightenment. The Dark Enlightenment has been described by journalists and commentators as alt-right and neo-fascist. A 2016 article in New York magazine notes that “Neoreaction has a number of different strains, but perhaps the most important is a form of post-libertarian futurism that, realizing that libertarians aren’t likely to win any elections, argues against democracy in favor of authoritarian forms of government.”
Andy Beckett stated that “NRx” supporters “believe in the replacement of modern nation-states, democracy and government bureaucracies by authoritarian city states, which on neoreaction blogs sound as much like idealised medieval kingdoms as they do modern enclaves such as Singapore.” The modern solution devised by Yarvin in “A Formalist Manifesto” advocates for a form of neocameralism in which small, authoritarian “gov-corps” coexist and compete with each other. He claims freedom under the system would be guaranteed by the ability to “vote with your feet”, whereby residents could leave for another gov-corp if they felt it would provide a higher quality of life, thus forcing competition. Nick Land reiterates this with the political idea “No Voice, Free Exit”:
“If gov-corp doesn’t deliver acceptable value for its taxes (sovereign rent), they can notify its customer service function, and if necessary take their custom elsewhere. Gov-corp would concentrate upon running an efficient, attractive, vital, clean, and secure country, of a kind that is able to draw customers.”
Ana Teixeira Pinto describes the political ideology of the gov-corp model as a form of classical libertarianism: “they do not want to limit the power of the state, they want to privatise it.”
According to criminal justice professor George Michael, neoreaction seeks to save its ideal of Western civilization through adoption of a monarchical, or CEO model of government to replace democracy. It also embraces “accelerationism”, by which the creation and promotion of societal crises is to hasten the adoption of the neoreactive state.
Some consider the Dark Enlightenment part of the alt-right, representing its theoretical branch. The Dark Enlightenment has been labelled by some as neo-fascist, and by University of Chichester professor Benjamin Noys as “an acceleration of capitalism to a fascist point”. Nick Land disputes the similarity between his ideas and fascism, claiming that “Fascism is a mass anti-capitalist movement,” whereas he prefers that “[capitalist] corporate power should become the organizing force in society.”
Journalist and pundit James Kirchick states that “although neo-reactionary thinkers disdain the masses and claim to despise populism and people more generally, what ties them to the rest of the alt-right is their unapologetically racist element, their shared misanthropy and their resentment of mismanagement by the ruling elites.”
Scholar Andrew Jones, in a 2019 article, postulated that the Dark Enlightenment (i.e. the NeoReactionary Movement) is “key to understanding the Alt-Right” political ideology. “The use of affect theory, postmodern critiques of modernity, and a fixation on critiquing regimes of truth”, Jones remarks, “are fundamental to NeoReaction (NRx) and what separates it from other Far-Right theory”. Moreover, Jones argues that Dark Enlightenment’s fixation on aesthetics, history, and philosophy, as opposed to the traditional empirical approach, distinguishes it from related far-right ideologies.
Historian Joe Mulhall, writing for The Guardian, described Nick Land as “propagating very far-right ideas.” Despite neoreaction’s limited online audience, Mulhall considers the ideology to have “acted as both a tributary into the alt-right and as a key constituent part [of the alt-right].”
Historians Angela Dimitrakaki and Harry Weeks tie Dark Enlightenment to neofascism via Nick Land’s “capitalist eschatology” which they describe as supported by the supremacist theories of fascism. Dimitrakaki and Weeks say of Land that his book Dark Enlightenment was “infusing theoretical jargon into Yarvin/Moldbug’s blog “Unqualified Reservations”.
Describing the impact of Dark Enlightenment theories upon the contemporary art world, art historian Sven Lütticken says that the popularity of Nick Land’s concepts have made certain art centers in New York and London hospitable to trendy fascism.
Journalist Andrew Sullivan argues that neoreaction’s pessimistic appraisal of democracy dismisses many advances that have been made and that global manufacturing patterns also limit the economic independence that sovereign states can have from one another.
In an article for The Sociological Review, after an examination of neoreaction’s core tenets, Roger Burrows deplores the ideology as “hyper-neoliberal, technologically deterministic, anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian, pro-eugenicist, racist and, likely, fascist”, and ridicules the entire accelerationist framework as a faulty attempt at “mainstreaming… misogynist, racist and fascist discourses.” He criticizes neoreaction’s racial principles and their brazen “disavowal of any discourses” advocating for socio-economic equality and, accordingly, considers it a “eugenic philosophy” in favor of what Nick Land deems “hyper-racism”.
Make no mistake, this is esoteric magic and not Christianity. In the book The Dark Enlightenment by, Nick Land, Neoreaction is not your grandfather’s conservatism, but the web 2.0 era marriage between modern engineering principles and classical anti-democratic thought. Its central tenet is that the Enlightenment was a mistake, and in The Dark Enlightenment, Nick Land burns progressivism to the ground, salts the earth around its ashes, and raises an altar to anti-humanism in its place.
Land explicates the main ideas of neoreaction-the Cathedral, neocameralism, formalism, etc.-always viewing democracy, liberalism, and politics in general through the lens of Darwinism. The result is something like Thomas Hobbes as ghostwritten by H. P. Lovecraft. Included in this volume is an unreleased essay by Land on the writing and impact of The Dark Enlightenment.
Absolutely none of this incendiary work has been proven wrong in the ten years since it was written. No doubt it will remain relevant for many years to come.
Nick Land’s “The Dark Enlightenment” is a collection of essays that critiques modernity, democracy, and what he identifies as the prevailing “Universalist” ideology. Land argues that the Enlightenment, often seen as a period of progress, has devolved into a “dark enlightenment” characterized by degeneration and social corruption. He suggests that democracy is not only doomed but is itself a form of doom, leading to the consolidation and exacerbation of private vices and resentments.
Land draws heavily on thinkers like Thomas Hobbes and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who question democratic solutions to the problem of sovereign power and its potential to devour society. He highlights Hoppe’s argument that democracy, unlike monarchy, leads to short-sighted exploitation and capital consumption because temporary caretakers are incentivized to plunder society rapidly. This exploitation, according to Land, is driven by the fact that anything not stolen by current political agents will likely be used against them by their successors.
A key theme in Land’s analysis is the concept of “time-preference,” where civilization is associated with diminishing time-preference, while democracy accentuates it to the point of a “convulsive feeding-frenzy”. He argues that democracy replaces forward-thinking habits with sterile consumerism and financial incontinence, as the long-term techno-economic improvements face the immediate threat of extinction. This leads to a situation where anything that cannot be directly appropriated or attributed to a partisan policy is considered sheer waste.
Land explores alternatives to democracy, such as Mencius Moldbug’s “neo-cameralism,” which proposes treating the state as a business owned by shareholders who elect a board to manage it. In this model, the state’s customers are its residents, and the state is incentivized to provide efficient and effective services to maximize long-term shareholder value. This approach aims to formalize political powers and eliminate the democratic myth that the state belongs to the citizenry.
The text identifies “Universalism” as the dominant modern ideology, a “mystery cult of power” that has supplanted traditional theistic traditions. Land associates Universalism with progressivism, multiculturalism, liberalism, and political correctness, arguing that it relies on the state to capture, retain, and direct its powers toward replicating Universalist ideals. This ideology, according to Land, promotes incoherent concepts such as humanity, progress, equality, and democracy, which absorb mental energy without producing rational thought.
Land critiques the expansion of positive “human rights,” which he sees as claims on the resources of others backed by coercive bureaucracies. He argues that the ideal of sound governance increasingly approximates the standards set by grievance studies departments, leading to a relentless expansion of state power and comprehensive thought control. This expansion is seen as a modern form of Puritanism, with the “Cathedral” substituting its gospel for traditional values.
The author discusses the diminishing credibility of radical democratization, suggesting that it resembles ultra-Protestant religious enthusiasm. He argues that industrialization supports progressive democratization rather than being derived from it, leading to a situation where democracy consumes progress. From the perspective of the dark enlightenment, the democratic phenomenon is best studied through general parasitology, where social solidarity becomes the parasite’s friend.
Land delves into the concept of “white flight” as a sub-political form of exit from social democracy, driven by civilizationally disabling terrors and animosities. He examines the reciprocal fear and perceived victimization between American whites and blacks, as manifested in urban development, school choice, and policing. The author suggests that the liberal and conservative positions on race are asymmetrical, with liberals dominating the dialectic and conservatism facing regular humiliation.
The text explores the idea of “cracks” in the system, suggesting that when things fall apart, it is acceptable, and there is no need to reach an agreement when it is possible to split. Land touches on the conjunction between libertarianism and neo-confederate themes, highlighting the odd marriage between radically individualistic doctrines and cultures of local attachment and traditional hierarchy. The author implies that liberty in the Anglophone world may only have a future outside the prospect of secession.
In conclusion, “The Dark Enlightenment” presents a pessimistic view of modernity and democracy, arguing that they lead to social degeneration and the erosion of liberty. Land advocates for alternatives that prioritize individual exit and secession, and he critiques the prevailing “Universalist” ideology as a form of secularized Puritanism. The work is characterized by its provocative and often controversial analysis of race, culture, and politics, challenging conventional understandings of progress and social justice.
It appears the tech giants took over America by using Christianity as their tool. Remember when I mentioned that Christianity will used inappropriately to cause a world war between Islam? This is the ticket. Whether the Black Nobility, Rothschild’s or the tech giants are in control of this movement is irrelevant. The stage is set and America is going to have a new ism. Universalism. I don’t think there is any way out of it, either.
Universalism in America can refer to the idea that the United States has a special destiny and a responsibility to be a model for the world. It can also refer to a religious belief that all people will be saved. It’s also “politics of universalism,” is best represented universal human rights and blind justice and recognition of everyone in their humanity. This type of liberalism affords each autonomous citizen equal access to the same schedule of rights in order to pursue their individual authenticity. This ideal has been applied unevenly, and judicial review has rectified such inequity by expanding legal rights and nullifying discriminatory statutes.
A new constitution could be drafted to adapt this new way of life in America. Since it still rules the world militarily, it will be a new beacon for other’s to follow. This could be the beginning of the 10 kings who adopt universalism to even out the world which is divided economically.
source