Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘ideology’

Leftists Hate Nationalism Even If You Are From A Protected Group

Sunday, November 19th, 2017

Very few understand the nature of Leftist hatred. While they are fond of accusing others of their own dysfunction, Leftists tend to use this preemptive counter-attack to disable their opposition. They want to hide how much of their thinking is propelled by a finely-refined hatred for anything which has standards of any kind.

You may recall that Leftism starts with a core philosophy, egalitarianism, and all of its other ideas are offshoots of that. Socialism, for example, is economic equality; feminism is sexual equality. Looking past the confusing surface, what equality does is to tell the individual that they cannot have their privileges reduced for having a lower quality of actions.

In the realm of equality, the different grades — good, bad, and mediocre — are made equal with a single category added for what we might call “ultra-bad,” which is crimes against the individual like murder, rape and denying egalitarianism. The latter explains why for the Left, doing the ultra-bad is fine as long as it is done to non-Leftists.

Through its basis in individualism, the quest for equality expands to include a desire to destroy all standards, because those set hard lines for what is good, and therefore, create situations where the individual can fail. Leftists are motivated by an impulse to destroy because they hate life for allowing them to fail in the first place, but they hate standards even more.

The Leftist crusade against standards begins with religion, which must perish because it has a clear idea of what is good other than “me first” plus token acts of altruism, as the Left enjoys. It then extends to culture and customs, revealing its initial goal of removing social rank like class or caste, and finally, aims to obliterate biological inequality like family, intelligence and race.

That latter category presents problems when confronting ethnic groups who wish to avoid self-destructing because such groups without exception will exclude others from their territories, which then creates a problem for the Left because this allows for culture, and culture is a set of values and standards. If Leftists fail to live up to those, they can find themselves becoming less equal.

Normally, the Left plays ethnic groups against one another. Whoever is in power must fall, because having someone in power means that we have an example of someone who is better than the rest of us, and not a smarmy sycophant like Obama or the Clintons, or even someone who acts out what the average Leftist only daydreams, like Stalin or Mao. The Left targets whatever group is in power.

In America and Europe, this explains the Leftist fetish and fixation on destroying people of European descent. They want immigration and open borders for this reason. They praise ethnic uniformity for minority groups while demanding the majority drop any hopes of the same. Once the majority is gone, they will demand the same for smaller groups.

We can see this through the Leftist polar reversal on the question of Israel. When the Holocaust was still a recent memory, it could be used against the European majority, but now the Left has an even more marginalized group — starving African Muslims — to use against Europe. Like the Soviets before them, the Left first accepted Jews but now has turned on them.

This reveals how fundamental principles clash. For the Left, nationalism must always be bad because it affirms culture, race and tribe, and through that, creates… standards. Since those are the enemy of the Left, nationalist must die even if it occurs within a protected group:

The Alt-right are also not instigating much of the conflict marring town squares and college campuses today. No, this is most often the work of progressive activists and groups, like the Antifa movement, who engage in confrontation and seek to suppress speech. And the epidemic of campus anti-Semitism is largely attributable to liberal BDS advocates, leftist faculty stooges, and Islamists – not neo-Nazis or white supremacists, who unlike progressives don’t have a symbiotic relationship with American academia.

…The acceptability of anti-Jewish bigotry was painfully obvious when party extremists burned Israeli flags outside the 2016 Democratic National Convention without censure from party leadership, which instead attempted to draw them back into the fold.

…And despite being labelled “Jewish,” the original Anti-Fascist Committee was largely a Soviet propaganda tool. It was not really established to fight fascism or save Jews from the Holocaust; and it was disbanded (and its chairman assassinated) when its members criticized Russian anti-Semitism and sought to aid Jewish refugees after the war.

Ideology exists outside of this world; it is an abstraction, argued for without proof of a working model, based on logic contorted to deliver what humans want to hear. We might see all of Leftism as merely advertising run amok, and be correct, because its appeal is a promise that it will abolish reality with one simple choice, instead of the many gradual acts of improvement required.

Consider a beer commercial from back when those were legal. Some average dudes are goofing around on the beach and suddenly all these girls, musicians and fascinating people show up, just because those average dudes bought the right brand of beer. Fantasy meets symbolism. To actually achieve that result, those average humans would have to hit the gym, learn how to be interesting, maybe play an instrument well, or something of that nature, but through the magic transformative power of a product, they are suddenly just as important as the people who can actually do those things.

Since ideology is a symbolic magical transformation floating on the horizon, chased forever by humans because futility is easier than self-discipline, it becomes like the white whale in Moby-Dick or the one ring in Lord of the Rings, an object of obsession that humans chase to their own self-destruction.

With ideology, everything else — the world and all that is in it, including other people — becomes a means to the end of realizing that ideology, even though it can never be realized because it will become a standard and then self-destruct, which history suggests is the consistent result of Leftists gaining power.

In that light, we can see how the Left will treat Jews and Israel. While they can be used as a weapon in the jihad for True Equality In Our Time, they are favored. Once that changes, the mood shifts toward their destruction. This is how the Left treats any group in its path, and current pet minorities of the Left should know to anticipate and fear that backlash.

The Stevens Rule

Friday, September 15th, 2017

Back in the 1990s, an influential book called The Selfish Gene emerged. Its basic premise was that we do not use our genes, but they use us, meaning that we exist to perpetuate the gene and not vice-versa. Naturally this was not literal because genes do not have agency, but it served as a powerful metaphor for Darwinism: ideas, not intentions, win out, and we are their vehicles.

This coincided with ideas advanced by William S. Burroughs and Tom Wolfe, namely that ideas use us in an analog to biological viruses. When an idea appeals to a large number of people, they exist to give it immortality, and they pass it along by force because of some need of their own that the idea purports to address. Whether it does or not is the question of history, which shows us that humanity has been racing from one idea to another, looking for stability, which is manifested in the absence of illusion, as they shuttle between extremes.

Idea-viruses can destroy whole societies. It is possible that certain Maya regional civilizations perished because when the droughts came, they chose sacrifice to the gods over rebuilding the irrigation system that took water from rivers to the north. Many of us would say that Athens tore itself apart internally in pursuit of the humanistic society, and that the Soviet Union did the same.

Every society understands the basic idea that it should be virtuous; however, that simple notion is then hijacked by narrower definitions which use that society in order to perpetuate themselves, much like viruses injecting their DNA into our cells, which then become little factories to replicate the virus, bursting and letting the toxic brood spill forth.

Our current society is crucifying itself on the cross of pacifism, which is our interpretation of virtue because an absence of pacifism means internal struggle and thus that the higher will remain above the lower, a condition which insults our bottom-heavy population. Pacifism for us is a mix of pluralism (“agree to disagree”), equality, and diversity. Each idea supports the others, which makes them a whole idea.

People love pacifism because it means that they can never be wrong, which is another way of saying “the rules do not apply to me.” That is, they can do whatever they want, and no one else can point out that they are transgressing against the flag, king, gods, morality or virtue. This is why they aggressively try to remove religion, culture, and other unique statements of values, because these are standards against which the equal individual can potentially transgress, and therefore risks to those who desire above all else to be equal.

Diversity is a crucial point of this strategy. It was always designed as genocide, or at least erasure of the majority culture, because majority culture provides a standard against which other people can fail, and that failure is exactly what equality was designed to avoid.

You can tell that the stated reasons for diversity are not the actual reasons because no one knows what those actual reasons are. Discussions about diversity are a shambles because people bleat out a Soviet-like “Diversity is our strength,” and when pushed further, start to break down into chaos.

This is why The Stevens Rule exists, which is:

In any discussion of diversity, over time the probability of mention of restaurants becomes one.

When discussing diversity, inevitably someone is going to start talking about restaurants and ethnic food, and the fact that it happens sooner rather than later means that people really have no idea why they “think” diversity is our strength, at all. They know that it is the right thing to say, socially speaking, but beyond that, their reasoning is as murky and chaotic as the East Bay.

This reveals the actual reason for diversity: there is no advantage to diversity, except that it enables white people to one-up another with pretense.

It is a type of revenge… life made me a loser? You got the BMW, and I got the Hyundai? Well, screw you, buddy, because although I am not wealthier, I am better. You have a BMW, but I have diversity. It’s just like kids in the 1930s listening to “race music” and thinking they were edgy and stuff, or the Bohemians of the 1870s who lived like gypsies. Nothing provides better revenge against your parents and people with more money or brains than you than saying, “I hate You and I embrace the Other, because I hate You most of all.”

Of course, these people make themselves neurotic because revenge is essentially a way of enslaving yourself to the person you want revenge upon. Your life is dictated by what you must do to respond to the world in order to get revenge on them, and so they, instead of virtue, have become your focus.

As a side note, this means that the diversitarians are in fact the most racist people on planet Earth, which would bother me if racism were actually a thing (“racism” is the Leftist term for the variety of “freedom” or “independence” that has non-neurotic people exclusively favoring living among people like them, not just by race but by ethnicity, caste, religion and general direction; for example, Your Author prefers to live among Caucasian, Western European, Kshatriya or Brahmin, Protestant or Deist, conservative realist people). Diversitarians are recognizing the importance of race toward producing an Other, and then using those other races as means of both revenge and caste-jumping among Caucasian people. No wonder they are all neurotic.

People are cowed and cordycepted by the idea-virus of diversity, which is what gives it power. It is the equivalent of the courtroom question: “Yes or not answers only, please; have you stopped beating your wife yet?” It’s a gotcha, and the Left loves gotchas because nuance, depth, and duration are anathema to their rather square-headed thinking.

When someone asks you if you support diversity, there are two answers: yes, I’m with the good people and I want to do virtuous things; or, no, I ride with Hitler and I want to gas six billion non-whites including your Bubbie. There is no middle ground because the question is a binary based on support of something arbitrary, so you either indulge in the illusion — the idea-virus — or you are free of it.

This is the power of the idea-virus; it eliminates the middle ground, which means that failure to agree is the same as disagreement or enmity, when in reality those are different things. If someone asks me what I think of Gefilte fish, I can answer that I have never had it, that I do not eat it, that I think it is an abomination or finally that I think it should not exist. These are different answers, but not to the idea-virus!

In the narrow cadre of Realists, one truth shines above all else. Everything — every object, idea, person, group — acts in self-interest. They do this because self-interest cannot be subverted in the same way altruism, compassion, friendship, love, peace, harmony and other seductive terms can be. Nature sticks to the bottom line.

When you see the world this way, you realize that altruism does not exist and that diversitarians are not pathological altruists; they are people using diversity as a weapon to beat your head in, get ahead of you and take your stuff, like the shopkeeper who figures out that he can claim his competitors put horse meat in the soup.

In addition, you realize that diversity itself is not the idea. The idea-virus is that of power, or that the individual can step beyond his role in the natural place of things to have pure, raw power… which is reflected through the obedience of others… which in turn is the only thing on Earth that can truly turn someone into a slave, that dependence on the opinion of others.

And so, like all things evil, we see that servitude presents itself as freedom, much as evil always presents itself as good and diversity presents itself as anti-racism. The idea-virus has won out by requiring one level of interpretation — thinking ahead to more than the next move in chess, more like several moves ahead — beyond what most Caucasians can understand.

The time of The Selfish Idea has ended, however, as Samuel Huntington pointed out, because with the rise of the “clash of civilizations” we have returned to organic or unequal and naturally-arising distinctions as opposed to ideological ones, which are based on the idea of a universal human truth which “should” be imposed upon reality. All ideology is humanism.

As these organic times return, people come not just to distrust a specific ideology — the toxic brew of Leftism, diversity, consumerism, and egalitarianism that the American neoconservatives and neo-liberals share as a means of uniting their governments — but the idea of ideology itself. Ideology requires that you believe that The Selfish Idea is not selfish at all, but altruistic, and therein is the root of the lie.

When we do not require the approval for other people for our self-esteem, we can rediscover virtue: it is made of doing what works, but choosing from within that set, the set of what works best, which means that which the finest minds among us recognize. We cannot separate realism from the pursuit of genius. But with virtue, we no longer “need” The Selfish Idea; we have realism, instead, which works better anyway.

We can make our own Mexican, Italian, Asian and Irish food. It’s not rocket science. We can farm our own crops, raise our own livestock, build our own gadgets, clean our own floors. “Freedom” may be nonsense, but the way of life that does not involve being beholden to others for our own survival is worthy of praise.

Paganism Cannot Unite Europe; Christianity Can, But That Will Be Our Doom For Reasons Unrelated To Christianity

Tuesday, May 30th, 2017

Über-Right-wing mastermind Varg Vikernes has been engaged in a video dialogue with Swedish trad-Right guru Marcus Follin, a.k.a. “The Golden One.” The topic of their discord appears to be Christianity, with Follin arguing that it can unite Europe and Vikernes arguing that it cannot.

In his recent interview with Amerika, Ramzpaul argues that “Paganism did not bind all of Europe, Christianity did.”

Who is correct?

Some analysis oriented toward logical fact will show us that they are all right, to varying degrees, but that the question may have become mangled by our modern orientation in thinking. To see this, we have to look at the nature of what it means to unite a nation or a continent.

There are many ways of uniting a nation and we might rank them from “strong” to “weak.” The weakest are things like ideology, economics and politics. These are unions of convenience and reflect no inner impulse by people to work together toward a certain ideal. Others are intermediate, like religion, which is still external, where the strongest are internal, like race and tribe.

We should also consider the degree of unity. It is not hard to get people to act together in self-interest, but this produces the side effect of people acting against unity because self-interest is stronger than what binds them together. If the unity of a group is based on a weak force, it will rapidly disintegrate and the group will devolve to the lowest common denominator.

So our question is not a binary — unites/does-not-unite — but a question of degree and specific topic areas, namely what is united and how long-lasting those bonds will be.

One cannot unite a nation or a continent by religion. Religion straddles the line between internal and external. It is internal because religion is understood through the intuition, but that applies to general religious feeling, and not a specific religion. As a result, we are left with only the external, which is what might be called a religious dogma, for lack of a better term.

Modernity specializes in using the external to control the internal. You see a symbol, decide to obey it, and that influences how you think about the world. You are controlled and shaped as part of a mass of people because everyone is equal, so numbers matter more than quality of person or the unique insights of that person.

Internal motivation however requires understanding and cannot be communicated through symbols. It can be sketched, outlined, silhouetted, hinted at and described, but the actual thing cannot be conveyed between one mind and another. The person must be able and ready to reach that stage on their own, no matter how much hinting and nudging goes on.

This means that by trying to force people to unite on religion, we are being very modern and forcing the use of external traits to shape internal ones. In this capacity, religion behaves like an ideology — comparable to Communism or egalitarianism — in which the mass shows obedience to the ideology, and for doing so, is accepted in the group.

At its core, this method fails because the idea of ideology is external manipulation, which means that the individual is acting for reward and to avoid threats. This means that they do not actually internalize the ideology, but obey it like a traffic cop, tax auditor, or meter enforcement. They obey because it is convenient, but the real principle taught is self-interest.

Paganism recognized that only culture can bind us. Culture is both external and internal, in that anyone from a specific area has at least a genetic affinity toward the values of that culture. Through culture, an interpretation of religion arises that fits the specific group and enables them to be effective in using it.

Culture however cannot stand alone. People do not spontaneously unite around culture because it is intangible. It consists of sentiments, aesthetics, “gut feelings,” intuition and other completely organic and non-symbolic components. Culture requires strong leadership formed by an aristocracy instead of the weak leadership — bound with weak forces — of authoritarian states.

Aristocracy is strong power because it has the right to be arbitrary. A king does not have to prove that there should not be a block of ugly apartments next to a cozy neighborhood; he just orders it, on the basis of his judgment and aesthetics being superior in terms of understanding natural order (i.e. more “divine”) than those of others. Usually the king is right; the herd is always wrong.

Now this causes us a problem, because we have one strong way of uniting a nation or continent (aristocracy/culture) and many weak ways. The problem with the weak ways is that they will work at first, and then fail catastrophically.

Consider the history of Christianity. It was adopted for practical reasons because unlike Paganism it was written down and could be understood by the average person. It united the continent. But then, clashes between kings and churches arose because they were competing for power. The singular power of the kings had been broken by a weak force.

Within a few hundred years, Christianity then began its death cycle, and today the only people found at churches are the old and sick. Was this a problem with Christianity?

As it turns out, no: it was a consequence of using a weak force where we need a strong force. Christianity can only thrive under aristocrats because they return it to its proper role, which is spiritual guidance, and it must like a wife defer to the husband for questions of leadership, safety, long-term planning and war.

If we unite under Christianity, it will become an ideology, and we will then have a false unity and a controlling force followed by its collapse and our reversion to the lowest principles of self-interest. Since a particular religion like Christianity is external, it controls by self-interest, and when it fades, only that principle remains, but all restraints on it are gone.

Ancient societies operated not through a single method, like ideology, but through many heterogeneous methods in service to a few strong principles. Aristocrats were those who got to the bottom of any question, and with this knowledge, then asked themselves what they could do to make the situation turn out for the best. Wisdom and nobility together were the requisite abilities.

Weak forces fail for the same reasons all human groups do. They become proxies for reality, and then people learn how to game the system by working the proxy, and forget how to achieve the results they want in reality. The letter of the law becomes more important than the spirit of the law or its goals, and the group collapses.

In other words, Follin and Ramzpaul are right: Christianity can unite Europe. But then, Varg is also correct: that weak unity will then destroy Europe, much as it proved problematic in the past.

This does not mean that Christianity is a bad thing per se, only that it is the wrong thing to use to unify Europe. Until we remove democracy and restore aristocracy, Europe will not unite except on weak forces, which will collapse into quasi-anarchy like ideology, economic systems as motivation, and politics have.

At the same time, we must consider what Europe should look toward in terms of religion. But that is a question for another post, perhaps tomorrow.

You May Be A Leftist And Not Know It

Saturday, May 27th, 2017

Patriotards, we used to call them. They were people who came just to the cusp of understanding the world outside the comfortable modern bubble, and then backed off. Instead, they went back into the safe space of ideology.

Ideology is comforting because it is so much simpler than the world itself. You think in categories like good or bad. There is a theory which gives an answer in every situation, and it is a theory based around humans like yourself that promises to gain you reward simply for being obedient to the theory.

People who come out of ideology are as stunned as those who get out of prison after fifty years. They are suddenly in a new world where none of the old routines and practices apply. They recognize many of the same things, but they have entirely different meanings now. It is like visiting a foreign land made to resemble home.

The sad thing about ideology is that it arises from a perpetual problem that got the upper hand at some point. People always want to be more important than they are, so they invent reasons why they are more important than the world as it is. These theories about how life “should” be, called ideologies, are mentally addictive because they explain life in simple ways.

Ideology corrupts people at the lowest level of their thinking. They start thinking in terms of what the ideology says they should do, instead of what they need to do by the demands of external reality. This is the oldest human mental failing ever, and it gets given names like “tunnel vision,” “cherry picking” and “inverted cognition.” Someone makes their mind up too early about what their goal is, and interprets all future data according to that image, instead of updating the image itself to reflect that the new data indicates a different situation than first estimated.

All human groups fail this way. In social groups, popularity or novelty become more important than finding bonds with each other. Power becomes more important than purpose and principle. And in nations, utilitarian substitutes for doing the right thing — patriotism, religion, success and popularity — actually replace that right thing because they are easier and less risky to achieve.

In this way, the tool shapes the user and changes the goal, instead of helping the user reach that goal. Ideology does this to everything, but the scary thing is that any idea can be restyled into an ideology. Many ideas tell us what we should do, but they do it on the basis of adaptation to reality or achieving our goals or principles. Ideology focuses instead on the individual, and suggests benefit to the individual for doing what will be socially approved of.

Your average conservative is a brain-dead robot zombie who waves the flag, supports the troops, thinks we all need to get closer to Jesus and wants us all to work even harder at our jobs because it is the right thing to do. He is in the grips of conservatism converted into an ideology, so that instead of focusing on the purpose of the activity, he just wants to look good to others because he has engaged in the accepted methods of dealing with it. This is how first-world societies have superstition, and it is more damaging than any primitive religion could ever be.

We are most likely in the midst of a massive evolutionary shift in humanity by which we learn to distrust tools that are not directly applicable to the situation at hand, and tend to shy away from people who cannot tell the difference. Tools must serve a goal or, like power, they become a goal in themselves, and by denial of the actual goal, the group fails.

Group evolution on this basis will likely weed out most of humanity since they like to engage in repetitive tasks without regard for their effectiveness. They just want a place in the social group and to go through the motions in order to get it. But, as the impending collapse of liberal democracy shows us, that is not enough, and it is also fatal to the group.

You may be a Leftist and not know it because your philosophy is an ideology and not a practical way of life. Conservatism, if not converted to an ideology, is something more like a folkway: a way to find a place within the group by doing the right thing. Ideology says everyone gets the same place and no one is forced to do the right thing. Conservatives are seduced by this easy answer all the time.

Most conservatives are secretly Leftists. They believe that all people are equal and should be treated equally in courts, society and school. They think we can indoctrinate people with the “right” answers and make idiots into the equivalent of geniuses. They wave the flag, slap the Bible, and carp on about hard work. But underneath the skin, they are the same enemy that we fight on the Left.

Why Christianity Is Dying

Saturday, May 27th, 2017

When Christians wonder why the pews are less full, the answer is simple: Christianity has, like Leftism, followed an individualistic path that glories the self and denies reality, including its metaphysical aspects.

For the most recent guffaw on this topic, witness the suicidal Christian desire to use invaders as pew-fillers:

Some say it is an act of demographic conquest. Others argue it is a product of a failed American foreign policy. But one of America’s best known apologists says the crisis for the Christian West could be a new opportunity to win converts to the faith.

Joel Richardson, New York Times bestselling author of “The Islamic Antichrist” and the new book “Mystery Babylon,” says missionaries should not overlook the unique opportunity they’ve been given with the current wave of Muslim immigrants.

“Throughout history, the Lord has always used catastrophes for His own redemptive purposes,” he told WND. “This is exactly what He is doing now with the current Syrian war and the global Muslim refugee crisis. Obviously mass Muslim immigration to the West has innumerable long-term problems. Any casual glimpse at Western Europe reveals this. European secularism, socialism and multiculturalism have failed to incorporate the Muslim immigrants.”

The above treats Christianity as an ideology, which is what all individualists tend to do. Their beliefs are designed for their protection as individuals, and they need a herd to enforce those beliefs, so they create a network of rules designed to force others to not do anything that interferes with the ability of the individual to be individualistic, a condition in which they externalize the cost of their own behavior to society at large and profit from the exchange.

Christians of this nature want to build an army of true believers and they do not particularly care who those people are so long as there are many of them. Quantity, not quality, as usual. The downside of this is that the newcomers always adapt Christianity to their own needs, as any culture does, and soon we are back at square one.

But in the meantime, this author will get his headlines. His books will sell because his congregation is desperate for anything which makes a threat seem like a non-threat, and therefore, justifies the standard conservative behavior of doing nothing and paying taxes to fund the large government they hate.

And through his success, that of Christianity and society at large will be diminished.

Leftism Polarizes Society And Gives Rise To Inevitable Totalitarianism

Sunday, May 21st, 2017

One way you can tell that our society is doomed is that people of the upper half of socioeconomic position are not conversant with the classics, such as Plato’s Republic. It is as if history has literally been deleted because no one is familiar with it, and who has time between work, television and shopping to read some musty old books?

But if the herd had read Plato, and understood it, which most are biologically limited from doing, they would have realized that Crowdism is the father of Leftism, and Crowdism takes on many faces in its mission to wreck civilization. Leftism is just one of those masks, albeit the one closest to the actual idea of Crowdism, which is a human social impulse more than anything else.

As a result, while our current political environment rewards those who point fingers at the obscure, the real developments of our time are entirely linear results of our original decision to “go egalitarian” during The Enlightenment™ and the French Revolution. This includes the rise of the managerial state:

The thesis of this essay is that the theory of the managerial elite explains the present transatlantic social and political crisis. Following World War II, the democracies of the United States and Europe, along with Japan—determined to avoid a return to depression and committed to undercutting communist anti-capitalist propaganda—adopted variants of cross-class settlements, brokered by national governments between national managerial elites and national labor. Following the Cold War, the global business revolution shattered these social compacts. Through the empowerment of multinational corporations and the creation of transnational supply chains, managerial elites disempowered national labor and national governments and transferred political power from national legislatures to executive agencies, transnational bureaucracies, and treaty organizations. Freed from older constraints, the managerial minorities of Western nations have predictably run amok, using their near-monopoly of power and influence in all sectors—private, public, and nonprofit—to enact policies that advantage their members to the detriment of their fellow citizens.

Currently the managerial revolt is de rigueur as a talking point for people who are looking for something to blame for our civilization collapse. Like “late stage capitalism” and other tropes, this is designed to cast the blame away from the real culprit, which is egalitarianism.

Consider the egalitarian society. Every institution must be made egalitarian, but as this happens, they fail. These mini-collapses occur from the outer periphery toward the core of society, much like circulation failing in a dying patient. As the outer institutions fail, the inner institutions — government, education, lobbyists and media — must become more powerful to pick up the slack.

Before the Great Depression, we could count on our markets to be relatively stable because investment was kept within an informal WASP aristocracy who managed to avoid reckless, trend-oriented investing. After the First World War, an America flush with wealth started bumping people from lower castes to higher classes through the magic of “new money.”

At the same time, the company man was born as unions and socialist thought changed the concept of labor itself. The goal was no longer to own your own business, but to have a job that paid the right amount of benefits, and then you were living the good life. It was a prole party! And then it all came crashing down, as it turns out that the new investors were more reckless than the old.

What does egalitarianism do, admit that its grand plans are not working out so well? Not at all — it doubles down — and so instead of blaming itself, it blames capitalism and offers its solution… more Leftism! Coincidentally, this requires stronger inner institutions, and so a whole layer of charities and independent businesses die out.

Good, think those who are in control. This means people have fewer options and so they will have to do what we want them to do. This is the essence of control; it is the ego trying to master the world, and since it has no positive goal but has a negative goal, namely not wanting to feel powerless, it pursues power for its own end.

The government of the 1930s worked well-ish up through the second world war, but then it became clear that wartime mobilization would be required to fight the Cold War, so the inner institutions agreed on a hybrid of classic American individualism with socialist individualism, and from this came the Frankfurt School, Cultural Marxism and all the other Communism lite variants we know today as “normal.”

When the Soviet Union fell, the inner organizations wanted a way to achieve even more power, so they created the administrative state, a time of unelected lawmaking, and expanded internationally as a means to create a world economic which would force everyone to obey. The “managerial” side of this is that instead of working through outer institutions, governments and their allies now worked directly through stronger central institutions.

At this point, to an observer entirely free of bias, the United States and Europe resemble a hybrid of the systems of the combatants of the last World War. They retain some of their original informal order, which relied on outer institutions including many entirely free of government influence, but they have adopted socialist subsidy systems and a soft totalitarian order.

They have gone down this path because of the wrecking ball of egalitarianism. First, it waged class warfare, and destroyed social order. Then it attacked the family, and later assaulted the notion of a national identity or ethnic component. After that it assaulted heritage and values. Each of these strengthened inner institutions like government and media at the expense of outer institutions.

What this process resembles is an infection more than anything else. The mental virus of ideology began as something to be tolerated, one option for a philosophy. Then it became a trend, where all the hip kids who were united in their dislike of society believed it. As it became popular, finally it became official dogma, and now anyone who deviates will be punished.

The more popular the mental virus has become, the more it has strengthened its hold over the population, and thus we have transitioned from a semi-libertarian state to one that is wholly ideological, with globalism, diversity, feminism, civil rights and social justice as natural extensions of the egalitarian idea to other races, sexes and social classes.

Ideology is a morality. It gains its power by seeming to be “universal,” or accessible to all people. This gives it its messianic character, in that if the ideology is the moral right, it must be spread through propaganda and social pressure to others, so that everyone is doing right.

Its origin in egalitarianism requires this. The original idea of egalitarianism was a seizure of power from the natural leaders of society and transferring it to the mob, a group composed of both the very poor and the fairly well-off who wanted fewer obstacles to their businesses (obstacles that, in retrospect, were a good idea).

The mental virus demands that everyone be brainwashed and mentally controlled by the ideology so that no competing ideals can exist. To those infected with ideology, it is the one right way, and anything but it is therefore evil and must be smashed so that the good ideology can persist. This leads to a raging mob drugged on moral superiority:

With the aid of the media and the Democratic Party, the institutions of the republic are crippled, the levers of power having been seized not by the elected but by the unelected bureaucratic state — from ideologues at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the partisans and paranoid who inhabit our intelligence community.

…This is not the words of a dutiful civil servant but of a partisan tyrant who would see his own view, his own agenda, and his own lens of politics dominate over that of the elected government of the United States. In their minds they are but a guardian of the people, albeit one that must stand up to and ultimately negate the will of that very same people.

…In all of this, the media has abandoned their role as watchdogs with a healthy dose of skepticism and become the propaganda arm of the unelected administrative state, complicit in and even cheering on the actions that have superseded the will of the people.

This is what ideological takeover looks like. We are dealing with a mental virus, not an “it” as a single actor. Government becomes the method of the mental virus just like peaceful protest was fifty years ago. For this virus, everything is a means to the end of the advancement of the virus and no logical consistency is needed.

Now we have a decentralized ideological state. Why have one Party in Moscow when you can have millions of unofficial KGB officers working at every level of society? They receive their orders from the media, then implement the fad or trend of the week, and they inform on those who do not go along.

This is the essence of Crowdism: whatever pleases the herd to believe must be enforced on everyone else, or it might seem weak. This creates a fanatical audience of zealots who derive meaning in life from advancing the justification for their failures in life. This means they must crush all dissent in order to feel good about themselves.

At the end point of such a virus, and we are at peak egalitarianism now, life in society becomes binary. You either go along with the herd and accept the mental virus, or you resist and become an outsider. People think that there are three options — mental virus, opposition to mental virus, and agnostic tolerance of both of those — but really, there is only compliance or apostasy:

Tron Guy took his concerns to the board of Penguicon and suggested adding conservative panels to balance out the left-wing ones. The board told him they did not want to add any panels that would draw controversy.

…When asked over the phone if he is alt right, Tron Guy laughed, describing his political views as “movement conservative with a hint of libertarianism.”

“I am specifically not alt right,” he said. “I don’t believe in white supremacy or the patriarchy. I have no problems with true equality of opportunity, but social justice is a code word for equality of outcome.”

Tron Guy takes a classic tolerance approach. He thinks that by endorsing acceptance of all views, he can avoid joining the mental virus and simultaneously not be its enemy. But that is not how a mental virus works. You are either in the gang, or you are its enemy. You either join the cult, or you are a heretic. You either pay union dues or you are a scab.

There is no way out of this death spiral. It is clear that in 1968 the mental virus took over, and in the 1990s it gained full power, and we are now seeing the results of that with the election of Barack Obama and the consequent emboldening of a new generation of zealots. We either reject the mental virus by rejecting the idea of equality, or it consumes us.

Populism Needs To Find A Platform

Tuesday, April 25th, 2017

The National Review has disgraced itself over the past decade, most notably by firing John Derbyshire and recently by endorsing Emmanuel Macron over Marine Le Pen, but sometimes it touches on interesting issues.

Peter Spiliakos explores the lack of an identifiable platform for populism and how this makes the Right weak and disunified:

It is a little different on the right. One economics, you have what might be called “degenerate Kempism.” It is a combination of tax cuts for high-earners, cuts to entitlements spending, and increased low-skill immigration. On the other side, you have people who think of themselves as being on the right but who reject some or all of that.

The great advantage of degenerate Kempism is that most of the political talent, social capital, and money is on the side of this agenda – the money being the least important of the three factors. It is the default of the GOP lobbyists, donors, and most of the center-right politicians who came up through business or the professions.

It is difficult to see the common ground between the more elite degenerate Kempists (and I’m not helping with the labeling) and the populists. The degenerate Kempists want what they want. They are willing to make temporary retreats but will push on any door to cut any tax on the job creators, to cut domestic spending, and to answer the call of the affluent for cheaper low-skill labor. The populists have only the vaguest idea of what they want, and some of that is contradictory.

The Right has always been a “big tent” that includes all of those who resist the creeping infiltration of Leftism into every area of our society. The most honest Right are the monarchists, who think equality is insane and modernity is a horror. But now the big tent is working against the Right.

Populism is best defined as defense of the organic nation — the people, the culture, the ideas, the religion — against the formalized structures of egalitarian, bureaucratic government and its collusion with industry.

This idea overlaps somewhat with the notion of ending entitlement spending and cutting taxes to shrink government, but is incompatible with one issue that the Kempists endorse: immigration. Populists realize that immigration is ethnic replacement of the founding population, a form of soft totalitarian genocide.

If the Right has a future, it is in giving the “fiscal conservatives” some of what they want through sabotaging the tax base and entitlement programs, but also recognizing that diversity has failed because diversity can never work. Paradoxical policies always collapse.

Even more, the Right has a new lease on life through its anti-Establishment position. People dislike incompetent and manipulative authority, and they are seeing that the Left prefers strong authority in order to gain complete control so that it can advance its ideology as the One Way for our future. The Old Establishment tried to resist that and was destroyed, and the New Establishment is far worse than they were.

We do not have to live as slaves to a runaway ideological death spiral. Instead, we can simply speak up and oppose it: Leftism does not work, and government inevitably drifts Leftward, so it is time to physically remove government as much as possible, and replace it with culture, charity, private industry and the good people among us who have always done the best thing without needing ideology to instruct them.

More Evidence That Syria Is Not About Syria

Wednesday, April 12th, 2017

As the theory develops on Amerika there are three basic approaches to politics:

  • Ideology. This is based on what we “should” do from the perspective of the individual human as formed into groups of scared people called crowds. This generally focuses on abstractions based on the assumption of a universal human morality, and presupposes that history is linear from a primitive past to an Enlightened™ future which is more like the world as humans wish it were, or intend it to be, than the world as it is at a functional level.
  • Pragmatism. Taking into account the powers that be, and the forces that act upon them, this outlook or attitude looks toward compromise and balance between different forces; Donald Trump refers to it as “deal-making” and it tends to consist of recognizing that any action requires trade-offs and will be made in trade for several something elses that other parties need or want.
  • Realism. An anti-human perspective, realism looks at events through their end results, especially over time, as measured to all other possible options, which creates a preference for qualitative excellence as over time it returns the best consequences. This ignores human intentions and the politics of getting a group to work together and focuses not on what “should” be done, but what constitutes the best adaptive strategy given the reality of the world outside of human intentions and politics.

The Alt Right is a firm realist movement meaning that, having given up on equality and thus democracy, it has no concern for pacifying the fears of others nor for human intentions and desires masquerading as policy. But to get to realism, we may first need to see commonsense, aggressive ideas be proven as a foundation. There are many steps to a goal.

Trump presents himself as a pragmatist but has converted social conservative morality into a form of realism; in his mind, certain behaviors produce better results, and so he champions them not from a religious basis but a pragmatism of the world outside of politics. For this reason, his realism-pragmatism hybrid is probably a mystery to most people.

Last week, he displayed this attitude by launching a missile strike on a Syrian airbase, and Amerika has taken the politically unpopular opinion that this strike is part of his “America first!” vision and has little to do with Syria, but everything to do with Russia and China, possibly as a method of securing Chinese non-intervention in American military activity against North Korea.

If the United States wishes to intervene in Korea, we need to avoid expansion of theater through Chinese entry, which happened the last time American forces were defeating the North Koreans, prompting the first combat between Chinese and American units. The problem there is both the human wave tactics of the Chinese and the fact that, should America prevail, it will be viewed correctly as a threat to the Chinese homeland, which will cause the war to accelerate out of control. Fears of this happening in Indochina hampered American strategy in Vietnam to the point of nearly crippling it, all while Chinese and Soviet weapons and advisers flowed into North Vietnam. This is the nature of a proxy war; it is horrible when fought in a host country, but really bad if the actual combatants manage to tangle it up and start WWIII.

We can see some of the American interest in North Korea confirmed in reports of how the Syria strike was used as a political meme:

Last week nearly five dozen Tomahawk​ missiles were well on their way from U.S. destroyers in the Mediterranean to targets on a Syrian airfield before Trump leaned over to inform his Mar-a-Lago dinner guest, China’s President Xi Jinping.

One of their other conversation topics was North Korea’s determination to develop nuclear weapons and ICBMs to deliver them, Kim Jung-un says, to the United States. Trump deems this a threat to national security and vows to prevent it, with or without China’s help. Both men agreed on the North Korean nuclear threat.

Imagine this from a business perspective. You are having dinner with the new prospective client and you casually inform him that you have just beaten the competition at their own game. China, who has allied with Russia for the past seventy years, would perceive this as a shift in the game; the congenial host has taken pains to illustrate the benefits of collaboration, and show he can take the initiative.

It could entirely be unrelated, but at a similar time, China switched coal supplier from North Korea to the United States, seriously hampering the already fragile North Korean economy:

Following repeated missile tests that drew international criticism, China banned all imports of North Korean coal on Feb. 26, cutting off the country’s most important export product.

To curb coal traffic between the two countries, China’s customs department issued an official order on April 7 telling trading companies to return their North Korean coal cargoes, said three trading sources with direct knowledge of the order.

U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping were discussing North Korea at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort on April 7.

The new Trump doctrine appears to be the best kind of intolerance: he recognizes that while America has desires for isolationism, and domestic problems at home, his presidency will be short if he allows unstable third world powers to gain access to weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems. North Korea threatens Japan, and Syria threatens Israel, both US allies and high-IQ countries.

Ideology bows down to pragmatism and a hint of realism here. On the plus side, if Trump crushes these problems, he builds momentum for his social reforms, including the possible budget reform that could downsize government and strip power from the Leftist welfare state, thus disempowering its base and forcing the “long march” into a retreat.

What is Ideology?

Monday, April 3rd, 2017


by Jack White

Ideology has destroyed our sense of what civilization can be. It does this by creating politics, or the science of optics and mass appearance, which forces people to negotiate between unrealistic and unyielding forces, essentially replacing the question of life itself with the question of how to manipulate others through symbols. In ideology, the symbol and the word become the masters of their creators, and until we learn how to make ideology serve us again, it will do nothing but erode our remaining social order.

A brief history of ideology.

Feudal societies in the middle age Europe were organized into a hierarchy of king, nobility, knights, clergy, tradesmen and peasants. The Catholic church, and the rulings and advice of its highest ranks, profoundly influenced all classes. Feudal relationships included reciprocal exchanges of services, labor, produce, money / taxes, protection, and counsel. Societies were to a relatively large extent autarkical, except for some special and luxury items. The nobility was fairly independent and the feudal system was decentralized despite the central figure of the king.

During the middle ages, Renaissance and approaching enlightenment period entrepreneurship and companies developed gradually, and entrepreneurs power increased. Relationships and transactions connected to power and the economy became increasingly impersonal, changing, relatively short-term and monetary. Collecting taxes via nobility became inefficient vis-a-vis the growing private economy because collecting taxes was only one of the many tasks of nobility.

The nobility had their own interests and wills which often differed from the objectives of the king, the tax collection of the nobility was idiosyncratic and non-systematic and it became increasingly obvious that there were alternative methods of tax collecting in which the monetary input-output profile is better. For this reason, and the ongoing rise of the middle class, kings established the first bureaucracies to collect more taxes to finance their growing professional and salaried armies.

When bureaucracies grew and developed, bureaucrats and people close or sympathetic to bureaucrats formed their own growing body of political thinking. What the kings had not understood was that under the post-Magna Carta order they were vestiges of former ages similar to nobility, and under a more democratic regime, in the same way increasingly susceptible to replacement or overthrow.

Bureaucratic thinkers started to question the purpose and usefulness of king. Their thinking progressed approximately along the following lines:

The king is said to be the father of the nation, to have the same kind of role, but real father of family knows every member of his family personally, he knows their personalities, life stories, activities, needs, propensities, interests, etc. A father of a family supervises his family members every day, and gives personal support, advice, encouragement, security and orders to them. Father is personally invested in the welfare, security and success of his family members. Father loves his family members concretely, not abstractly. If the king is the father of the nation, then he is blind, ignorant and indifferent father, or in other words he is not the father of nation at all.

Nobody is the father of the nation, but if the governing body is named which most resembles such an entity, then it is bureaucracy. Bureaucrats know in relatively fine details and large mass aggregates about the life and actions of their subjects. They are personally and collectively invested in the welfare and success of their subjects and the nation. Bureaucrats govern and regulate their subjects rationally, systematically and efficiently, and they increase their knowledge and improve their methods constantly.  Bureaucrats are educated to be specialized professionals in their respective fields. Together bureaucrats form a much more powerful and efficient governing body than a king.

A king is not only useless to bureaucracy and rational governing, he is actively harmful or threatening to it. He creates an irrational, capricious, unpredictable and dangerous element above the bureaucracy. King must be deposed or his power must be reduced significantly.

These kinds of goals fused with the similar goals of rising entrepreneurs, disaffected working class, and radicalized members of nobility, although they had different reasons for their goals, and they envisioned different kinds of societies after revolution or other changes to the power structure.

These intellectual streams and the resulting revolutions and societal changes did not really kill the kings. Kings just went through Deleuzian transformation. The role of the king was purged from the person of the king, and replaced with socially constructed and “standardized” ideology, and the governing principles and political philosophies connected to it. Ideology was hoped to be the new rational, supposedly eternal, stable and predictable automatic “king,” the suitable leader for the relatively new bureaucracies. Ideology is amenable to versatile uses of the powerful people and groups, but it still has a life of its own, which exerts often irresistible effects on society and people. When everybody have to follow the basic principles of ideology, and one, even a powerful person, talks or acts against them, then everybody is obliged in theory and to varying extent in practice to oppose him.

What are the general qualities and uses of ideology?

Ideology is a simplified, pruned and adapted morality of traditional religious communities, a political morality. Some aspects of traditional morality are magnified, and others are made almost invisible, although power always uses them all in one form or another. Ideology focuses attention, thinking, choices and activity to certain directions, and reduces or prevents it from other directions. Ideology is an universal template, to which thousands and millions of different interests, thoughts, dreams, goals, motivations, and emotions can attach, and this includes both people in power and the subjects. Ideology has to be an incomplete “story” so that every subject can complete it by dreaming or imaging it to fulfill his special needs and goals.

People in power attach to ideology their needs, goals and interests, and make it work for them. People in power are more likely to achieve their goals through ideology than subjects, and their goals are more grandiose to begin with. Ideology is used as organizing, encouraging, motivating and inciting tool in society in general and in politics in particular. Ideology and its offshoots are used to intimidate, persuade, extort, convert, inactivate, flatter and disparage opponents according to situations and needs. Ideology’s basic function vis-a-vis opponents is to rationalize and emotionally persuade opponents compliance or submission for them.

Ideology forms a foundation for secular culture. Ideology is always tied to many existing laws and points the direction to many future laws. Ideology outlines implicitly or explicitly the distribution of privileges, power, rewards and social positions. Ideology separates political ingroup from political outgroups. Ideology adumbrates implicitly or explicitly where legal and extra-legal punishments, shaming, expulsions, exclusions, and violence are directed. Ideology separates future from history, and defines what is wrong or lacking in present time and what is needed in the future. Ideology at minimum hints how the public communication and representations of ingroup and outgroups will be distorted, magnified or prevented.

People in power try to create national and international reality distortion fields according to their ideology. Ideology legitimates the governing group and its power. Ideology defines to varying extent what is good, true and beautiful. Science is often constructed around the ideological “truth.” Science tries to expand ideology and its consequences to all societal areas, and tries to prove ideology is good, just, true and efficient. Education and governing organizations are constructed more or less from the foundation of ideology. Ideology defines the unattainable enticing ideals, visions and utopias, which are said to be attainable, and towards which society is said to strive.

Ideology has to be internally fairly logically coherent, but less in relation to the real world. However it must have important correspondences to real things, to important and selected social and political problems, conflicts and disagreements. Ideological philosophy must be complex and abstruse enough, so that it seems intelligent, challenging and meaningful enough to university students and intellectuals who are studying and developing it.

Some practical qualities, applications and consequences of liberal ideology

Liberal and conservative ideologies are different in more ways than what can be deduced directly from their public verbal interfaces. Conservatism is less of a political ideology and more a full spectrum morality of people and communities than liberalism, hence conservatism can cover a larger array of possibilities, freedom of actions, entities, social arrangements and moral relations in people’s lives. Equality is the central value in liberalism, but it lacks hierarchy and authority as values, whereas conservatism has all those values at its disposal, which can be used as necessary. When both political groups have many kinds of hierarchies and authorities, liberals have more discrepancy between their ideology and reality, so they have to distort and manipulate communication more than conservatives. This same difference applies in general to the level honesty and dishonesty of liberals and conservatives, ie. liberals have to lie more.

Conservatism is less suited than liberalism to equality oriented democratic politics; international politics which is based largely on flattery; national and international large complex organizations which would like to see their employees and clients as interchangeable units, and which mostly govern modern societies; unbridled global markets, where money and power are the deciding values. The logic of large complex organizations (LCO) sees ethnic, racial, cultural, religious and caste differences as problems and complications in their personnel and in the populations they manage. LCOs need mostly certain standardized knowledge and skills from people, and if there are racial, religious or other fundamental differences among vital personnel, it can create conflicts, resentments, incompatibilities, barriers, non-cooperation, and resistance which make the operations of LCOs more difficult and less efficient. Hence LCOs try to reduce or remove such differences, or make them such that they do not matter, like turning Christianity into a few personal beliefs that resemble liberal ideology instead of being a comprehensive social religion of congregations and communities, which affects ultimately all aspects of individual life, and social cooperation and interactions.

LCOs are information processing units. LCOs gather, select and process a lot of information about the surrounding society, organizations and population, but they know very little compared to the whole information contained in their operation environment. The processing task becomes more complex when analyzing different units, and their endless relations and interactions. In other words LCOs are relatively stupid and inadequate vis-a-vis their human and non-human environments, and hence they have strong motive to simplify them. If racial, religious, cultural and caste differences are removed from populations, it makes the tasks of LCOs easier and increase their efficiency. For example an international company is planning a global advertising campaign. If there would be no racial, cultural, language, religious and caste differences, one universal advertisement would be enough. Now they may have to produce over hundred variations of the ad to conform to local differences. This consumes resources which are taken away from other goals. The company is in profitability competition with other companies, and any reduction of costs and efforts is pursued intensely. Because of this the many CEOs of LCOs would like to see their global customers as homogenous units. Most of the CEOs of LCOs are likely to believe optimistically they could reduce the costs and increase the profits the most in that situation.

Race, ethnicity, culture and religion are potentially powerful organizing factors, which can be used in political and economic competition. LCOs do not want such competitors from outside their framework of power. As present threats are more important to LCOs than long term universal homogeneity goals, they are ready to make the necessary political exceptions to equality, which was selective to begin with. Racial, ethnic, cultural and religious minorities are allowed, encouraged and supported to organize and advocate their group interests, while Whites are discouraged and prevented from such.

Minorities are promoted above their qualities in education and job market, and Whites are vilified and discriminated against. These policies increase minority coalition’s power and influence closer to the Whites comparable ones, leaving the deciding power in the political scale to the LCOs. LCOs support for the minorities should not be confused with “love” of minorities, but a pathology that furthers their interests by using compassionate treatment of minorities as symbols and demonstrations of altruism. It is useful that minority coalition loses now and then, so that they are reminded they are dependent on LCOs, liberal media, liberal NGOs, etc. support. LCOs interests are secured whatever coalition wins over, although LCOs support is more on the side of liberals than conservatives. These combined goals of LCOs are directly connected to liberal ideology, especially equality and diversity politics.

Restoration requires restoration of little inefficiencies, where good and important things thrive.

Because conservatives are politically more honest and open than liberals, they do not understand all the uses of liberal ideology. Conservatives know that liberals lie more than themselves, yes. But liberal ideology serves also as a psycho-political shield of negative things. A woman may be dependent on social security, and she would be ashamed to reveal that publicly. If she would advocate social security policies generally, people would likely guess that she receives social security money and is dependent on it. Because diversity is liberal coalition’s common and most important rallying point, which tows all other liberal policies in its wake, the woman can advocate her interests by supporting liberal diversity and open immigration policies, instead of mentioning directly what she wants in her own individual case. Liberal media has created a widespread mental image that almost all educated, morally good and well-to-do people support liberal diversity policies. By advocating them the woman seems to others to be higher status and more intelligent than she is, and hides her dependencies and true interests at the same time.

Many US tech companies replace large part of their more productive, creative and intelligent American workers with cheaper foreign workers. But why do they support so open immigration policies, which includes the most problematic immigration, and the compulsory ideological worshipping and whitewashing of the most problematic immigrants? Why not support only more selective immigration which would cause less problems and political opposition? Selective immigration would be enough for them. We can deduce several reasons for this: (a) liberals have made immigration as much as possible universally inviolable policy, so that opponents of immigration do not acquire any footholds in their policy fortress, do not get any political precedents, which could lead to expansive further victories; (b) supporters of immigration have formed reciprocal coalition, which is based on mutual silent deal, according to which nobody opposes anybody else’s immigration goals, and everybody supports everybody else’ s immigration goals — the sum effect of this is mass immigration, from which large portion belong to the most harmful types; (c) Paradoxically the most harmful immigration (criminals, terrorists, welfare dependent people, culturally and religiously incompatible people, etc.) is useful to declining industry, for example technology companies. Technology companies H-1B visa cheap labor immigration is relatively rarely noticed, when it is drowned out by the news and stories of the most harmful immigrants. Thus the true drivers of immigration policies achieve relative peace and invisibility under the veil of immigration catastrophes. When attention, emotions and thinking is directed elsewhere, opposition against the true drivers of immigration policies is harder to form. If effective opposition to immigration finally forms, it is more likely to be directed against the the most harmful immigration, leaving the true drivers of immigration policies largely intact. Hence the most harmful immigration and liberal ideology which enables and supports it, serve in many ways as a protective shield to tech companies and other companies utilizing cheap immigrant labor.

Capitalism is increasingly in the process of a slowly developing crisis in all other forms of social order. The free market constantly erodes the high status markers it produces, which drives a need for new status markers. Striving toward higher status is one of the main motivators of work in free markets. Golf was once an almost exclusive hobby of upper classes. You had to be a member of an expensive golf club to be able to play, and a certain upper class attire, vocabulary and manners were expected from members. As time passed, (fairly) free markets and to some extent the state and municipalities produce these kinds of services increasingly cheaply and to a wider customer base. Now even lower class people can afford to play golf, and they can dress and talk as they like while playing golf. Sailing was once an exclusively upper class pursuit with all the additional luxuries. Now even lower class people can rent sailing boats, and sail to most of the same harbors where upper class people anchor. The boats of lower class are smaller and plainer than upper class boats, they do not have Rolex Seamaster watches on their wrists, they lack expensive sailing clothes and top-notch gear, but they ruin the former exclusive achievement of upper classes all the same.

Almost only the upper classes can afford the most expensive luxury vehicles, but middle class people can relatively easily buy mid-priced sports cars, which looks quite similar to upper class vehicles but are designed more for regular road conditions. The speed limits on roads, increasing speed bumps and winter weather remove most of the exclusive advantages or experiences upper class sports cars could offer. In the same way classes that are underneath have tendency to “invade” everything that is higher, including the high culture. At the same time mass produced and marketed culture, services and products creates homogenizing pressures, which make the tastes and orientations of higher classes coarser and lower. Capitalism and free markets have strong proclivity to equalize everybody to the general mass consumer level. In response to this the middle and upper classes try to differentiate themselves from the classes under them in increasingly contrived ways. They may go to modern art exhibition, where lower classes do not desire to be, and then stare at presented bare urinal, pretending to find deeper meaning and enjoyment from it, trying to show to people around them how intellectually advanced they are in their understanding, but this kind of status differentiation is ultimately unsatisfying.

At the same time that traditional hard working culture, social morals and habits are deteriorating, life easing machines and services are colonizing every aspect of life, ubiquitous entertainment and unimportant information keeps us constantly distracted and drugged, mind numbing medications, which make the world around matter less, are used by large part of the population. People are becoming more lazier, and more comfort seeking, hedonistic, self-centered, and narcissistic. These kinds of things often reduce the motivations of people from the high competitive levels global free market competition would require. We could say that free market produces constantly the destruction of its own foundations too.

Cheap labor from immigration, and criminal and dysfunctional immigration introduces correcting and motivating factors to the problems of free markets. They create double threats to motivate people to escape the dysfunction which combine with the motivating incentives already present in the market. Threat of loss or damage is higher motivating force than the equal possibility of gain. If a person is presented with choices of a loss of one dollar and gain of one dollar, the loss of one dollar is two times higher motivating force. As the stakes become higher, the relative multiplier of motivation increases on the side of threats and problems. Motivation correction was not originally an important policy factor when the present long phase of open mass immigration started, but it has become increasingly important in proportion to the progression of liberal morality, mentality and life styles.

Cheap labor immediately reduces the costs of labor of companies and impels natives to work harder and longer, bargain their salaries and work related benefits to a lower level, and accept temporary or part-time jobs. If natives fail to do this, they are displaced from work and thus, social status. Cheap labor immigration threatens lower and middle classes, but relatively little the upper classes. As the price of any wanted good on the market, including labor, is decided mostly by scarcity, and only lower and middle class job markets are flooded with immigrant labor, the upper class jobs are relatively over-priced. We could easily import cheap labor bankers from China. It is hard to imagine how they could do worse than our “own” bankers, and they would do the jobs many times cheaper. Somehow we do not import cheap labor bankers, and so the bankers knowledge and skills are scarce and overpriced. The same applies to CEOs of large corporations. From these kinds of things we see from which direction the most significant impetus for immigration policies comes.

Anti-racist liberal ideology divides possible opposition to immigration on racial, cultural and religious grounds. For example, African-Americans have even more reasons to oppose immigration than Whites, but because the flattery, welfare payments, liberal black identity constructed mostly around opposing whites, and straw man demonization of whites ties them to all liberal policies, they mostly cannot oppose immigration together with Whites, on the contrary, they have to unequivocally support mass immigration to be logically consistent with their other positions.

The crisis of state and federal bureaucracies resembles to some extent the crisis of capitalism, but it is worse. Bureaucracies and the number of their dependents have grown considerably since the 1960s, and this requires increasing tax burdens. People have mostly relatively little or no motivation to pay taxes, but if they are forced to work harder by the surrounding worsening societal and job market situation, then they produce also the necessary increasing taxes for bureaucracies and their dependents. In free markets exchanges are based voluntary choices from multiple options and mutual benefit, but in bureaucratic “markets” citizens and interest groups compete to gain maximum benefits with minimum effort and investment, at the expense of others. Bureaucratic “markets” are based on compulsory exchanges, which are backed by punishments, mostly choiceless supply of services, and often unfitting and discouraging standardized benefits. Bureaucratic services and benefits hamper or prevent exchanges and work in free markets.  Most people in the bureaucratic “market” end up unsatisfied about the taxes they pay, the services and benefits they receive, and the long term consequences of services and benefits.

Open mass immigration started in the United States in 1965 with the Hart-Celler Act, and from that time forward the relative incomes and wealth of the highest part of upper classes have increased rapidly, and and the relative incomes and wealth of lower and middle classes have declined.

The most harmful immigration, like criminals, religious fanatics, culturally incompatible people, dysfunctional people, and loafers, in a method similar to that of problematic domestic minorities, are versatile implements of the liberal elites. These imports destroy or worsen the living areas and everyday life of lower and middle classes. They increase tax burdens, the number of bureaucratic clients, sizes of bureaucracies and the pool of leftist voters. In bad areas everything is often foul, the blocks of flats, streets, schools, shopping centers, recreational and sport areas. Lower and middle classes have strong motive to work harder and longer with reduced salaries and benefits, because they want either to get out of bad area or away from near a bad area, or they fear that they or their children end up in such an area if they do not do everything possible to avoid it. Would there be such excess demand for overpriced university education, preparing courses, special educative kindergartens, and competition for residential areas with the best schools if there would be no threat that “My baby will end up in a slum area, if I do not…”? As a consequence too large part of the intelligence bell curve distribution has gone through higher education. Many of them cannot contribute anything to science because of insufficient IQs, and there is already oversupply of potential middle level managerial workers, and oversupply of bureaucracies in general. The lesser candidates end up in jobs that do not correspond to their education and abilities, they are constantly unsatisfied, and their biggest contribution in life is often to agitate for more extreme liberal policies because of their discontent with their social status. This has contributed to the political insanity we see in universities. The most harmful immigration, other immigration and residential transfers of problematic domestic minorities also breaks up the social and political togetherness of whites, helps to atomize them. This makes it harder for Whites to oppose anti-White and immigration liberal policies.

Middle class whites could establish in some ways almost comparable and in some ways better living areas than those of the upper classes by forming all white living areas, where ingroup boundaries, cooperation standards, reciprocal voluntary work and help are explicitly upheld as a condition of membership. This cooperation can be expanded to many important areas of life, such as in Mormon communities that have cooperatively built relatively inexpensive single family homes from ready elements in one day, excluding the foundations. Houses and apartments are one of the most important and time consuming reasons people have to run in liberal work and money hamster wheels. Mormon communities also cooperatively produce many other benefits. Community construction and production would reduce the dependency of people from liberal elites. Liberals try to prevent, minimize or destroy all other avenues to livelihood, family, good living, social acceptance, social status, goods, and housing than money and power, and they want to govern, control and regulate all things related to money and power.

The increasing class, residential area, social, cultural, security, and educational degradation, and the consequent social immobility which mass immigration and domestic problem minority transfers produce among lower and middle classes creates exclusive social status markers for upper classes, who can evade the negative consequences of immigration or ignore them. From the upper class point of view those who oppose immigration are harmful if they reach the political upper hand, but if they can be kept in subordinate position, they are useful, because they define, demarcate and proclaim publicly their lower distressed social position. This lifts the upper class relative social status without them to have to do anything. When they say costless and untrue liberal banalities, like “I love everybody in the world,” “Opposing immigration is racism and hatred,” “All the people in the world are equal,” “Saying that there are differences between people is Fascism,” “Mass immigration is our greatest strength” and similar liberal platitudes, they are proclaiming status signaling that opponents of immigration cant say and lift their social status higher still. If white lower and middle classes espouse liberal immigration and anti-white ideology, and advocate it publicly, then they work against their own interests and subdue themselves to the will of upper classes. Hence from the perspective of upper classes ineffective or repressed opponents of immigration and the white middle class liberals are lower than them, submissive to them and work for them, albeit in different ways.

The remaining sense of togetherness of whites after all sorts of mass immigration, liberal elites strive to eliminate with anti-white elements of liberal ideology and their practical manifestations, which are designed to inhibit or ruin fellow feeling; cooperation; race / ethnicity; political, group and personal self-defense; identity; self-esteem; self-confidence; traditions; and culture of whites. Whites are the most capable and the greatest potential rival and threat to the liberal power. Cooperative and self-confident whites could, among other things, fairly easily stop key liberal ideological manifestations like immigration, “political correctness” and anti-white policies.

Liberal ideology has four main politico-moral parts, which are in hierarchical order, from the most important to the least important: diversity, equality / justice, care and freedom of choice. Of these freedom of choice is limited mostly to personal choices, which might be vivid, and socially and culturally disruptive, but for liberal elites politically insignificant, except as neutralizing outlets for individuals pressures and desires, which are directed to harmless creations of personal spheres. Highly individualized, mutually incompatible and commercialized life styles serve also as obstacles to enduring social and political organization. People have some collective political and societal freedoms, but these are in many ways regulated and controlled by elites. If people are made to make choices between freedom and other important factors like health care, work and security, freedom have a propensity to lose, i.e. freedom is more important to people in mental images and dreams, and as an inspiration than in real life situations. Care is important ideological bedrock of liberals. Liberal state and other liberal actors would like to take care of almost all the needs of all people. The more they take care of the needs of the people, the more indispensable and important they are to people. This increases liberal power and control over people. As liberals overextend their care and make it in many ways mandatory, their care is often of low quality, overconsumed, patronizing, choice limiting, oppressive, surreptitiously expensive and meddlesome.

The liberal concept of justice is heavily informed by equality. Liberal equality is intertwined with ethnicities/races, sex, sexual orientations, religious orientations, cultures, and age, and liberal policies and judgments are defended and explained on the grounds of equality. Liberals are rigid on things related to equality, because like justice it presents binary choices where there is little or no gray areas between, justice / injustice, right / wrong, progressive / regressive, good / evil, caring / cold, understanding / ignorant, generous and altruistic / selfish and self-centered, socially acceptable / non-acceptable, etc. Liberals often throw their whole political power to further liberal equality goals. Liberals want court rulings in favor of their equality goals, so that they can bypass legislature, political balances of power, and general opinion, and make their equality policies binding to all people in society from individual ordinary citizens to all kinds of organizations and the highest elites. Liberals political goals are often formed from the foundation of equality or equality is taken in one way or another to be part of their policy goals. Liberals dreams and utopias and cultural products are often infused with equality. Because of ingrained equality thinking and emotions, it is harder for liberals than to conservatives to recognize and react appropriately to enemies and dangerous people, because there is extreme inequality between our fighters and enemies, and good people and criminals.

Conservatives accept hierarchy, so it is easy for them to make those differentiations and act accordingly. Although diversity cannot be wholly separated from equality, it has significant life of its own. Diversity is the most important moral value of liberals, because diversity forms the most important social, societal, political, organizational, economical and international frameworks and goals of liberals. Diversity as the highest value implies that liberal power can and must expand to cover the whole diversity of the world, or at least as much as possible. If diversity and equality are in contradiction, e.g. Muslim treatment of women is not according to equality of the sexes, then equality mostly must step aside, and we should tolerate diversity according to the virtues of liberal diversity morals. Liberals celebrate diversity and to lesser extent equality, so it means that the most positive emotions, the most vigorous defense and the greatest attachments of liberals should be directed to them.

Liberal ideology has of course real and substantial real world consequences, and we can say that it is in many respects honest, but as ideologies are reality distortion fields, we must ask what is the greatest reality distortion of liberal ideology? From this perspective liberal ideology is for liberal elites means to ends. The underlying deep goals of liberal elites are money, power, social status and authority, and liberal ideology has been more efficient means in realizing, expanding and securing those goals than conservatism. What is the greatest danger to liberal elites money, power, social status and authority? Any actual competition which strives to take the said entities away from liberal elites and redistribute them presents the greatest threat, and while it is tempting to call this “meritocracy” or “equality,” it is in fact the opposite, namely a recognition of the unequal abilities of human individuals, which dethrones the liberal elites who are chosen for obedience to the system instead of natural abilities. Classical liberalism was too close to those targets, so it was relegated by liberal elites to marginal positions and replaced with liberal ideology; this always happens, which is why old Leftism is in fact the new Leftism, and all Leftism constitutes varying degrees of the same idea, egalitarianism, which increasing demands control and ideological enforcement because it is unstable. Economic equality was replaced with diversity equality.

Psychologically you cannot generally oppose someone verbally, and make the opposing position to diminish or disappear, on the contrary, it has propensity to strengthen the more the opposing party defends its position and invests time, energy and emotions in it. Jewish Talmudic rabbis knew this already over 1500 years ago, and it has been confirmed by psychological studies. The best general way to weaken opposition is to direct its attention away from its target, to some secondary thing, which still consumes its attention, emotions and energy as fully as the original thing. Diversity, immigrants, immigration, sexual orientations, terrorism, minority criminals and the strife connected to them direct equalizing attention, energy and emotions away from the money, power and social status of liberal elites. Liberal elites created these problems and quarrels intentionally, and then incited and exacerbated them with anti-white policies and general vilification of whites; by favoring and flattering ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities; by political correctness and free speech suppression; by preventing organizing opposition; by purging dissidents out of large complex organizations, political power and important jobs in general, or preventing them from entering in the first place; by turning liberal medias into constant liars; by making education almost exclusively liberally biased. To lower and middle classes the said problems are real and important, to liberal elites less so. These problems have enabled at the same time the great accumulation of wealth, power and social status to liberal elites, and secured them from appropriation and challenges. Hence liberal elites really do love diversity because of these things, but less otherwise, as can be seen from their attraction to gated and exclusive residential areas.

When liberal ideology becomes increasingly extreme in its practical manifestations, how do liberals maintain their attachment to it in light of their general opposition to authority? Liberals tie their ideology to many incentives, punishments, dependencies and manipulation, and these lead to self-policing of thoughts, emotions and behavior, but people have to motivate themselves also endogenously. When eg. diversity industry and its demands and consequences become disturbing and oppressive in universities, academics can refer their thinking to those parts of liberal ideology, which are reasonable. Academics have to interact regularly with foreign academics, and there is diversity in their home countries too. They have to get along professionally with diversity, and they may feel that it is important that there is ideological support for this. The liberal ideology creates its own version of ideological support. When academics see diversity industry causing problems, they may say to themselves, “We have to tolerate those people, because basically they promote get along -policies like myself, they cannot be so evil they seem to be, their motives must be good…” They have become a little carried away, but I would probably be as agitated as they are if I would have the same experiences and history than they, I guess we need that energy, I hope they are our political protectors, protectors of our welfare policies” and similar sentiments. In other words people explain away (or “rationalize”) ideological problems, make bad things milder, better or non-existent in their minds, promote willful blindness, which means they use self-deception and manipulate themselves through a process known as “self-policing.”

Self-policing is more about suppressing those parts of the self that are contrary to the surrounding political climate, whereas self-deception is more about adjusting ones thoughts, emotions and behavior gradually to cohere with the surrounding political climate, also when that climate is turning to extremes. People who have adjusted them well to the extreme political climate, often feel that it is reasonable, moderate (at least in relation to the threats, risks and challenges the political group faces) and fair. Those who have contrary impulses inside and suppress them, often feel guilt feelings. To atone the guilt they have propensity to attack people who have similar contrary thinking and emotions, and express them publicly, through which they serve as self-appointed polices or “mind guards” for the ideology. Hence people who have contrarian thoughts and feelings can be useful to the system, but they are to some extent a risk too. If the surrounding political constraints weaken, or are challenged or changed significantly, these contrarian people could give their inner impulses free reign and turn against the system.

There are no enduring, idealized and larger-than-life statesmen, heroes and role models connected to liberal ideology, let alone supreme idealized leaders like Hitler or Stalin. Their role models come and go. Liberals role models are transient and relatively small, connected to touching and personal little emotion regulation stories of refugees, achieving Blacks, family developments of Latinos, and other Leftist policies. Like all secular ideological groups, liberals worship themselves, but their ideological view of themselves and their role models is not captivating and mesmerizing. Nationalists and communists worship themselves too, and their constant collective mobilization can last effectively about 20-30 years. Their self-worship requires regular imposing collective shows of force, parades, military style gatherings, synchronized artistic movements of masses and secular semi-god leader. All this is meant to create transcendent and larger than life collective feelings and motivations. But like the effect of pleasure giving drugs, the effect of collective shows of force wears away after some time.

When in the beginning people melted into force of the collective mass, 20 – 30 years later they start to see people around them, “Yes, there is that always funny Joe, who has been forced to participate in this collective parade like me, and there is my neighbor, carpenter Jack …” It loses the feeling of being transcendent and almost divine like before. The rapture connected to the supreme leader wears off too. People start to compare the utopian visions, incendiary speeches and promises of the leader to their horrible, less than satisfactory or ordinary daily life. They notice that the leader is not a he-can-do-everything superman he was said to be. Liberals emotion regulation style -ideology is more enduring than the intense and quickly burning nationalist and communist ideologies, because it corresponds more to the ordinary lives of people, little smile and happiness here, little sadness there, nice surprise, little disappointment, little anger, little forgiveness. But because liberal ideology lacks transcendent elements, it is ultimately empty, unsatisfying, unmotivating, boring and meaningless. We even have to deduce their official ultimate goals from where the arrows of their policies point, not from their stated visions.

But there are two transcendent and metaphysical things that are inextricably connected to liberal ideology, Hitler and Nazis. In the liberal worldview, Hitler is evil superman, who never dies and whose power does not wane. No, it grows, or at least threatens to grow. To have meaning and purpose in their lives, to truly feel that they live, liberals need the thrilling “supernatural” Nazis and Nazi witch hunts. And when they witch hunt non-existent Nazis, they become something like Nazis, and the forbidden fruit tastes so good. Nazis, or to be more precise, the mental images of Nazis are so much more powerful than the lame, emasculating and feminine liberalism. Liberals could be vitalist superhumans at last, but it has to be done together in bullying mobs to get truly something like that transcendent feeling when sea of Nazis stand in endless straight rows and then de facto worship and idealize themselves. Almost anything can serve as a “Nazi” prey, a little meme picture of Pepe, a drunken, badly written comment on a YouTube video, slightly ambiguously worded speech of politician interpreted through witch hunt -glasses, a researcher who does not fully follow the latest constricted liberal speech codes. Anger has a proclivity to increase the intensity with which person wants the object of his anger, his qualities or his belongings to himself. Anger is connected among other things to usurping thinking and behavior.

Many liberals are angry at imaginary Nazis, and many of them want Nazi qualities to themselves without the name or the moral baggage liberals have heaped on Nazis, the “good” sides without the downsides. The paradox of it all increases the intensity of their bigotry, and blindness about themselves and their actions. Conservatives tend to think that when liberals say some conservative or other person is a Nazi, that liberals are name calling, but do not actually believe in those epithets. In reality liberals believe much more in their Nazi epithets.

Without sensible religion life becomes slowly unreasonable.

According to the studies of Linda Lai and other power researchers, if people are given power to influence or govern other people’s behavior, 70 – 80% either misuse power or use it otherwise suspiciously. The misuse is mostly relatively mild, because people have a tendency to see and want to see themselves as moral persons, and people have propensity to balance the misuse with their moral self-image. Human emotionally-hued rationalizations for the misuse often goes approximately as follows, “I have had such difficulties in my life (thinks about some salient difficulties) that I deserve a little head start. Not much, just a little justified compensation. I do not want to abuse my power, I am a good person. I could really abuse these people badly, but I avoid doing it, because I am responsible, good and moral person. Just a little thing, nobody even notices, it is so tiny.” The longer and the more times people use power, the greater their misuse of power tend to become. The more people have power, the greater tend to be the misuse of power.

In Western countries elites have great power. They compete for power intensely individually and in groups. People in the elites, like others, have limited lifetimes, and when they go from goal to goal, from deadline to deadline, from requirement to requirement in the fast paced power environment, they are time pressured. Modern power has long accumulative history, more of it has again and again built on top of the former power. Those who strive for power, encounter an entrenched and complex power environment, and they have limited ability to change it. They have to mostly play by its accumulated rules, attitudes, practices, relationship networks, and habits. In a way power, such as the state, lives in the eternal now; its redemption is always in the present tense.

Even if the state would exhibited general competence for the last 150 years, but today a large number of people suffered from its ineptitude of the state, the power of the state becomes immediately questionable from many directions. Also in the middle of the crisis or some other compelling situation it is useless to explain to people and interest groups that you have good plans which will likely materialize 10 – 20 years from now. Although elites and states have in principle the ability to plan ahead and be long termish, the pressure of the eternal now have inclination to make power relatively shortsighted and its understanding limited. Even worse, in this situation realistic and well designed long term plans tend to become replaced with utopian visions, wishful thinking and unfounded optimism, leaving a gaping void between those and the eternal now.

These kinds of things and the concrete manifestations of liberal power point to the inadequacy of liberal elites. They are mostly not psychologically diffident or have low self-confidence, but they see society, pressures, politics, groups, economy, opponents, and competitive demands as too uncontrollable, complex, threatening and difficult, as things which exceed their capabilities and resources, so they have to try control and govern them with excessive lies and manipulation, wishful thinking and unfounded optimism, extra-legal violence, every aspect of life colonizing soft totalitarianism, ideological extremism, abuses of power, and harmful or destructive policies. Even the swollen selfishness, narcissism, greed, hatred and hunger for power are largely manifestations of inadequacy. “This society demands too much from me, so I am entitled to take too much money as a compensation for my services.” “If I do not take everything I can lay my hands on, others will take it, and I lose the competition.” “These oppressive laws will gradually break the back of our unruly opponents.” “Let us smear our opponents face to so much diversity, that they lose control of the situation (like we have).” “We can implement these devil-may-care immigration policies, because I believe, I wish so much that our liberal ideology and vision will take care of all problems. And we need new voters for our party. Now. Without them we lose election, with them we win far into the future, so far that we can finally realize our visions, which our opponents have prevented thus far.” “We are so much more intelligent, so advanced, cutting edge pioneers, sophisticated. We are rich or well to do. We are good and caring. We are morally higher. Our opponents are stupid rubes, ignorant idiots with no skills. Nothing. Vile subhumans. Raggedy poor people. They do not really deserve to live, let alone to speak publicly.” These statements amount to a proactive defense of privilege conferred by ideology and a natural attempt at rationalization, which is conveyed through narcissistic boasting view of the self and own reference group, and slandering demonization and put-down of opponents, motivated by fear of shame, humiliation and loss; shame; fear; guilt; inner and outer demands of perfection, winning and success; and/or feelings of inadequacy. This is the only allowed or in de facto mandatory “racism” for liberals.

There are not enough countervailing forces to these ideological consequences. Connections to traditions and undistorted history have been severed. People are unaware that there are viable alternatives to the present system. Virtues are virtually unknown to people, and vain self-centeredness has replaced them. Ethnic loyalties are kept at a low level, and religious beliefs come to resemble liberalism. There are no statesmen that are high above the rest. Establishment conservatives are backward liberals. When everything is done by the rules, conditions, knowledge and methods of liberal system, then opposition too mostly ends up just amplifying the liberal streams.

Is it then any wonder that the liberal ideology is so inextricably intertwined with harmful policies, lies and manipulations?

Back To The 1840s

Monday, February 6th, 2017

“History repeats itself” and “history is cyclic” are nice ways of saying that the basics of adaptation are well-known, and humanity alternates between accepting reality and embarking on multi-century tantrums which end up making it weaker. In this sense, human survival is a struggle between the realist and the delusional, with the latter having much higher numbers.

If we look to an era that ours is repeating, we are tempted by many historical moments. The Left wants us to believe that we are in Weimar Germany, prepared for the rise of Adolf Hitler 2.0b. Many people think we might be somewhere in the last two centuries of Rome and Athens, but moving much faster. These may be true, but they will be filtered through a more proximate target.

The 1820s-1840s were a turbulent time for America. Having established itself, the new nation promptly re-created itself through the Constitution, and in rapid sequence lost its second revolution, then embarked on a disastrous plan of importing Southern/Irish Europeans to use as labor to shore up its wealthiest entities. The experts agreed this was good; the “common man” — who was really uncommon — revolted.

Brexit/Trumprise shows us the same phenomenon at work: in trouble, we are relying on immigration to keep our Ponzi economy and debt burden going. The experts all agree this is good because, well, their income and position depend on it. The uncommon men, or the small segment of those who have leadership capacity which comprises one-quarter of the one-fifth in our society who do 80% of everything, have united briefly on a cultural change: we no longer trust the ideology of the past.

These transitions have happened before:

Wilsonians, meanwhile, also believed that the creation of a global liberal order was a vital U.S. interest, but they conceived of it in terms of values rather than economics. Seeing corrupt and authoritarian regimes abroad as a leading cause of conflict and violence, Wilsonians sought peace through the promotion of human rights, democratic governance, and the rule of law. In the later stages of the Cold War, one branch of this camp, liberal institutionalists, focused on the promotion of international institutions and ever-closer global integration, while another branch, neoconservatives, believed that a liberal agenda could best be advanced through Washington’s unilateral efforts (or in voluntary conjunction with like-minded partners).

The disputes between and among these factions were intense and consequential, but they took place within a common commitment to a common project of global order. As that project came under increasing strain in recent decades, however, the unquestioned grip of the globalists on U.S. foreign policy thinking began to loosen. More nationalist, less globally minded voices began to be heard, and a public increasingly disenchanted with what it saw as the costly failures the global order-building project began to challenge what the foreign policy establishment was preaching.

…But Donald Trump sensed something that his political rivals failed to grasp: that the truly surging force in American politics wasn’t Jeffersonian minimalism. It was Jacksonian populist nationalism.

Even this article is wrong. Donald Trump has a Jacksonian approach, and is currently advocating “populist nationalism” in the way this article hopes to con you into using it, namely “civic nationalism,” but he and Steve Bannon are European-style nationalists: a nation is defined by its ethnic group, and that group unites itself through identity, culture, values, religion, customs and other organic institutions.

As usual, the voters go to sleep as soon as given an excuse to do so. Someone tells them pleasant lies, so they vote for them, and when everything turns out badly the monkeys split into bickering camps so that each person has someone to blame for his own poor decision-making. Instead of acknowledging this cycle, they pretend to “fix” it with increasing doses of dogma.

Once the voters have slept for some time, government unleashes the fact that it is a self-interested corporation, and that it makes profit by having the broadest possible mandate it can muster. Saving the poor? Good. Fostering equality between the classes? Better. Uniting all of the races into a single world based in consumerism and socialism? Best!

The powers-that-be-for-now do not understand that Trump is a rejection of politics itself and its replacement with strong leadership and social hierarchy:

Trump’s remarks suggest he is using the same tough and blunt talk with world leaders that he used to rally crowds on the campaign trail.

The people of the West have seen the face of ideology, finally, and they do not like it. As a result, a cultural wave has risen up against the experts in the city and their conjectural ideology. Instead of targeting the ideology directly, this wave targets the idea of ideology — altruism, equality, big government, the basic goodness of humankind — and subverts it with mockery and replaces it with minimalistic function.

In this way, it differs from the Jeffersonian desire for simplicity and replaces it with a Jacksonian functionalism. This is a realist revolution, much as Brexit is. The experts are simply wrong because they exist in an echo chamber and an ivory tower. It is time for those who work with their hands, whether metaphorically or not, to re-inherit the West and reform it away from an inertial path to certain suicide.

Recommended Reading