The shell game

Democracy is not a cause in itself but a symptom. Its advocates try to tell us that democracy and equality are goals in themselves, but it’s more accurate from a historical view to say that democracy and equality are what come about when any sense of direction has been lost.

When a society agrees on its values, it doesn’t need elections. It only needs to pick from its leaders those that exemplify those values the best, and to push them forward. Decaying societies are decaying because they have lost a sense of those values and thus are torn apart by internal disagreement. The right-wing is generally the party of eliminating internal disagreement, while the left-wing is the party of celebrating it because when society is weak, the individual is strong.

Currently the industrialized West is in its Late era. This is not a prophecy of doom; at any moment, if the will is found, the West can pull out of this tailspin. However, in the meantime there are wolves at the door who wish to dominate us, consume what we have, and then destroy us so that we no longer challenge their absolute control over their territory and those surrounding it.

In this we can see how RealPolitik on the international scale is a lot like prison ethics. If anyone near you is strong enough to fight you, they will. As long as you are average, you are unlikely to be fought. If you rise above, you are both a threat and a challenge, since others will rise above by beating you. If you fail to be a threat, you become a liability in that having to be obedient to you and your needs, in turn, holds others back. Thus to be more than average is to be forever vigilant.

While pax Americana has had its problems, almost all of these can be attributed to the fickle, individualistic and thus self-serving nature of democracies. When American democracy was in the hands of a few enlightened land-owning wealthy white men, it was an aggressive and intelligent creature. Once they handed the vote to anyone over age 18 who could demonstrate a pulse, politics went from being a serious matter to being a popularity contest in which people clamor for freebies and bennies and deny the consequences will ever come home to roost. It’s fair to say that early American “democracy” was more of a thinly-spread oligarchy than democracy in the Athenian sense.

The Americans face a number of people who want them dead. The Canadians are at the top of this list, but are ineffectual militarily. Mexico might also want in but is similarly unlikely. The real threats come from China and its long-time ally, Russia. China has in fact been maneuvering to find new allies, such as Pakistan, so that it can counter American power worldwide. China’s goal is to be the top dog in the prison yard, and it will only have that status when America is destroyed. Russia would like to see America destroyed as well, because then the only obstacle to Russian occupation of Europe is removed. While Russia profits from commerce with Europe, it might profit more from owning it, and would be able to remove those who historically have challenged Russian power and Russia itself.

China however is taking a page from Japan’s book. After their military defeat in WWII, the Japanese took another strategy: economic dominance. While they ultimately fell short of dominion, they achieved status as being a necessary trading partner and ally. China wants to hybridize this strategy to neutralize America by dividing its people against each other through the power of commerce. China’s recent purchases of media firms, vast tracts of land and leading members of traditionally strong American industries speak to this goal. When Chinese ownership is commonplace, few people will want to speak out against those they perceive as giving them jobs and paychecks. This leverages the weakness of democracy, which is that it can be bought because the individual citizen can be bought. This wasn’t a problem when land-owning men over 30 ran the nation, but it is when everyone over 18 has an equal vote.

When MGM decided a few years ago to remake “Red Dawn,” a 1984 Cold War drama about a bunch of American farm kids repelling a Soviet invasion, the studio needed new villains, since the U.S.S.R. had collapsed in 1991. The producers substituted Chinese aggressors for the Soviets and filmed the movie in Michigan in 2009.

But potential distributors are nervous about becoming associated with the finished film, concerned that doing so would harm their ability to do business with the rising Asian superpower, one of the fastest-growing and potentially most lucrative markets for American movies, not to mention other U.S. products.

As a result, the filmmakers now are digitally erasing Chinese flags and military symbols from “Red Dawn,” substituting dialogue and altering the film to depict much of the invading force as being from North Korea, an isolated country where American media companies have no dollars at stake. – “Reel China: Hollywood tries to stay on China’s good side,” by Ben Fritz and John Horn, L.A. Times

In theory, the claim is that we are avoiding offending the Chinese market. But like many things, this is a reflection more of Chinese power here in our country. We are afraid to challenge China on much of anything these days. We impotently issue reports about how China leads the world in economic espionage, ignore the “flood” of fake US military parts coming from China, and censor our reports of China’s rising military strength. We have given China direct access to our currency, of which they are the biggest creditor. Seemingly we tacitly approve their spying and infiltration of industry. This is because when they own so many job-producing industries, it will soon be politically infeasible to strike back against them at all.

That changes when the first shots are fired, but the Chinese are not stupid. They will delay that event as long as possible. In the meantime, like all great Seducers, they will play a willing economic partner and friend, always advancing their needs at the expense of ours. It’s a political shell game. The original shell game involves two clam shells and a pea. The game leader puts the pea under one and shuffles the two, attempting to fool observers. A good leader achieves this by making one shell attractive to the attention, while quietly moving the other one into position. China is doing the same by directing our attention at our paychecks while they destroy the foundation beneath us.

Part of the distraction involves a replacement of our productive industry with non-productive industry. They want us looking at the shell of media and social networking, while behind the scenes Chinese firms buy up essential industries or use their own manufacturing power to push those industries out of business. At that point, we will be sitting on a mound of currency that is nearly worthless, because instead of being backed by industrial and agricultural power, it is backed by technology that doesn’t do anything new except keep people in make-work jobs and on welfare busy goofing off. While we watch the shell of the Facebook IPO, who owns our heavy steel, power production, chip fabs, and factories?

The great fallacy of dying societies is that everything is free. If your job requires an hour of real work a week, then all that time is “free.” All the benefits are free. All the services are free. It never gets paid off, but what it does do is blow away the value of your currency, since currency is like stock a share in its parent entity, which in the case of nations is the collective worth of their industries. Instead of a vast productive nation of intelligent people, we’ll have a sea of entitled welfare queens, lazy bureaucrats, nearly useless make-work serfs, and so on. It’s in China’s interest to encourage this decline.

With America out of they way, there is nothing stopping China and its Eurasian allies from invading Western Europe and taking over. The Western Europeans are simply outnumbered and after two disastrous wars, have lost the will to fight. China and Russia will roll over them and leave the kind of disaster that was East Berlin or is North Korea in the wake of a once-prosperous, industrial, free Western Europe.

As said above, this decline can be reversed quickly. It requires we sacrifice our national myth that any use of one’s time is equal to any other. It’s not. End results are more important than feelings, sensations, social activity or even popularity. Production and the ability to do things matters. Right now, the people who think that the decline of this empire is their meal ticket are going to tell you that attitude is old fashioned. But these people simply don’t care about the future. It’s up to those who do to steer the West in a better direction.


  1. 1349 says:

    While Russia profits from commerce with Europe, it might profit more from owning it

    No territory, no resources; only additional access to the sea.

    China and Russia will roll over them and leave the kind of disaster that was East Berlin or is North Korea in the wake of a…

    So, again, what profit will Russia get from the conquered and ruined Western Europe?

    Your words: “…As this process intensifies, more will see the yawning abyss and break away. They will go to northern lands and establish societies which will be predominantly rural, insular and violent toward outsiders. These will be the seed of the next generation of humanity, and will resemble the best of our past.”
    Western liberal propaganda will call such a regime a disaster as well.

    once-prosperous, industrial, free Western Europe.

    You left out some epithets: liberal & oblivious to reality.
    Societies like those end up disasters with or without the bloody Russia.

    1. Western Europe faces internal threats in additional to external ones. That’s an important point that we should not lose sight of. However, two threats are still two threats.

      Liberalism reigned from 1789-2009. As our policies fall apart, and our citizens bicker over what should be obvious, it has become clear that democracy has nowhere to go. Technology has accelerated this vision. We either return to leadership by the best (limited democracy, aristocracy) or we amuse ourselves to death.

      Russia would love to conquer Europe for (1) military reasons, in that it’s an unprotected flank; (2) economic reasons, in that these are prosperous lands; (3) resource reasons, including the mineral wealth of some parts of Europe and the ability to have productive farmland, which traditionally has been Russia’s weak spot as its population rises.

      1. Robert says:

        Why do you always blame the French Revolution? Don’t you realize that the American Revolution came before the French one? The inhabitants of the thirteen colonies broke free from their people, the British to start a new on new land. America was founded on democracy which probably heavily influenced the French.

        During the French Revolution, the lower-class French rebelled against the elites because they were starving due to dying crops and costs of goods going up.

        If you’re going to blame the French Revolution, blame the American one as well.

        1. I see the French revolution as the origin of modern democracy, where the American revolution was more confused. In the American revolution, there was a breakaway from England for practical reasons (taxes, governance, national identity) and to justify that, a people’s revolution. The French revolution was pure People’s Revolution against an established and excellent monarchy that was being blamed for the peasants rutting like wild boars and overpopulating the countryside, perpetrating a mini-ecocide in the process and culminating in political instability. For that reason, I pick the French revolution because it’s a better example of liberalism in its purest form, and the historical archetype of all liberal revolutions.

          The American revolution was a difficult decision and probably a mistake. I would prefer to be ruled by the British crown, possibly with the participation of estate-owning males over age 30, and definitely in a Western European nationalist (“American nativist”) context. On a practical level, however, the English were bungling foreign rule at the time of the American revolution, and in the face of such incompetence it’s not surprising a revolt happened. Unfortunately, it also created a schism between rural states and the rising cities, which became tools that owned the master and eventually created the Northeastern liberal voting bloc that rules much of America today.

          During the French Revolution, the lower-class French rebelled against the elites because they were starving due to dying crops and costs of goods going up.

          Only because the lower-class French had reproduced recklessly and beyond the carrying capacity of the land. An early “Tragedy of the Commons.”

          But to answer your question, I do blame the American revolution — but it’s not as good of an example, nor as simple and direct as the French revolution.

      2. 1349 says:

        Liberalism reigned from 1789-2009.

        So by saying “…once-prosperous, industrial, free Western Europe” you meant the hypothetical period between 2009 and the future Russian conquest? =)))
        What happened in 2009, by the way?

        (2) economic reasons, in that these are prosperous lands… … the ability to have productive farmland

        So what will there be in Europe when Russia comes?
        “Prosperous lands/productive farmland” or “the kind of disaster that was East Berlin or is North Korea”? Or both? Or neither? Or first the former, then the latter?

        the ability to have productive farmland, which traditionally has been Russia’s weak spot as its population rises.

        You repeat this continually. But where did you get this information?
        Have you studied russian demography and its connection to the state of agriculture? As far as i know, Russia 1) has always had low population density, 2) has never lacked land, 3) had about 90% of population involved in agriculture up to 1917, 4) suffered famines caused by droughts and lack of inter-regional coordination, or wars, or, after 1917, administrative idiocy of bolsheviks/trots, 5) suffered famines when its population was small as well as when it was large.
        Moreover, Western Europe has starved, too.
        With the possibilities of management provided by today’s technology Russia is unlikely to starve any more. (If there’s no war, of course.) Does she really need more land?

  2. Jim says:

    The US is dead, not only politically but culturally. The lowered reading comprehension levels now being instituted merely to employ people is indicative of great decline. Once education is used to indoctrinate rather that educate, and where you are wrong is we are not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic, then it’s done. There’s a reason why landowners and those who pay into the system should only vote. Hell, the left puts up a fight over voter ID and you think it can be saved? It’s too late, the nation is an Idiocracy.

    1. Jim says:

      The Constitution was written at a 17th grade reading level. The average congressman or woman now orates at the 8th. The average worker at the 6th. Think long and hard about that. When a nation cannot comprehend its founding documents, why on Earth would anyone assume it can save itself?

      1. Measuring by literacy assumes that all people are equal. The brutal fact is that most people lack the ability to comprehend what they read, so even if you teach them to read at a 17th grade level, they’ll still misinterpret or outright fabricate to fill the void of understanding. Everything I’ve read suggests that 90% of most societies fall into this zone, meaning that “the bell curve” is fairly accurate — it’s only a very few in the top 20% who have a chance of understanding much of anything.

        You’re correct to note that the USA thrived when it restricted voting to those who could read and understand at a post-collegiate reading level. Naturally, that’s not democratic enough for the masses, who are per Dunning-Kruger defiantly certain that everyone is equal and their judgment is as good as a post-collegian’s.

        I think America faces many problems, including this mass democracy, but the fact is that the core of people who keep this country thriving are still here — we’ve just added a lot of others to the mix. It’s time to break away from those other groups and repatriate or isolate where appropriate, and return to a middle-class Western European America.

        Europe will need to do the same thing, if it wishes to survive.

        1. Jim says:

          Agree. I do not associate with liberals or progressives. They are not my countryman, they are the enemy of my liberty and that of this nation.

          1. They are infuriating, aren’t they? Liberalism (progressivism, leftism, Communism, anarchism: all questions of degree) is a mental disease based on denial of reality in deference to human thoughts. Some may be able to be rehabilitated because they’re simply going along with the crowd, but others are die-hards who really need their own country somewhere to screw up as thoroughly as only fanatics can.

        2. Richard says:


          “Everything I’ve read suggests *that 90% of most societies fall into this zone,* meaning that “the bell curve” is fairly accurate — it’s only a very few in the top 20% who have a chance of understanding much of anything.”

          What sources of information are you basing that 90% figure on?


  3. Ryan says:

    do you suppose that the chinese may also stagnate too, like th nips did in the 90′s? (due to ecomonic collapse in its main markets)
    also they were very nearly at war with russia (were for a brief period) and have not been good pals since kissinger et all tied the knot in the 70s-80s.

    1. They are stagnating, but that makes them more unstable, not less.

  4. Thomas says:

    What is with this blog and banging on about cold war fears? I don’t know if you all have noticed, but who has been doing the invading as of late? Who has been behind the scenes every time a “colour” revolution has destablized a country? Who is acting as a proxy for internationalist corporate interests? “Internationalist”…guess what we used to call them?

    T.C.Moffatt VLS

    1. Ryan says:

      here, here this is true i agree, did curtis LeMay take over at Amerika?

      1. Our occult division has been trying to re-animate Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

    2. First actor does not mean aggressor.

      It’s not even sure that the first actor acted first.

      For example, if a foreign power meddles in a third party, and I then stage a color revolution to throw them off their game, who is the aggressor? Both powers were intervening.

      But even more importantly, the point of the article is that while America/NATO are under poor democratic influences right now, they are worthy institutions unlike their adversaries, who will always be unstable.

      1. Thomas says:

        You realize that because NATO was not disbanded when its mission was complete in 1991, it is now going to lead to a new ‘cold war’. Its called the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, and it most likely would not be happening if NATO had not decided to stick around well past its due date. Hope you enjoyed that 20 years…….

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.688 seconds