In a book about "the Partisan", the great German jurist, Carl Schmitt, reaffirms the thesis that politics is about "friends and foes" - in other words, that there is no transition from the truculent Hobbesian state of nature to that of civil society: civil society is the state of nature because the state of nature never existed.
In the piece below, Bret Stephens agrees with our contention that the West lives under the humanistic delusion that conflict can be eradicated through the pursuit of "human rights" - forgetting that the only rights that matter are those enforced by a strong state. - Which is why autocrats can create their own henchmen followings and adoring fanatics.
What Stephens neglects to mention, however, is the core of our contention: - that the absurd 'progressivism' of the West is at least partially responsible for the staunch 'reaction' from traditional societies threatened by what they rightly perceive to be its destructive degeneracy, its dysfunctional anarchical centrifugal tendencies, its dissolute dissolution of all social bonds, its 'disgregation'. Hobbes believed that only the Sovereign Leviathan could enforce social peace; Schmitt knew that the inability to recognise and confront the ubiquity of partisanship would entail the tearing asunder of any civil society. In the end, the salus publica, the unity of the State, will prevail and crush all velleities toward (individual, atomistic, selfish) hebetic "universal human rights".