Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘samuel p. huntington’

Trump Presages Huntingtonian Shift Away From Ideology

Saturday, September 23rd, 2017

If you are quiet and observant, every few generations you may be lucky enough to witness a shifting of the tides which reveals that the world as we conceptualized it yesterday is obsolete today and toxic tomorrow:

An NBC/WSJ poll released Thursday reveals that more Republican voters consider themselves a “supporter of Donald Trump” rather than a “supporter of the Republican Party.”

A whopping 58 percent of respondents indicated they considered themselves Trump supporters, while only 38 percent indicated they considered themselves supporters of the Republican party. 2 percent see themselves as both, while 1 percent said they were neither.

This demonstrates the shift described by Samuel Huntington, who saw humanity becoming disenchanted with abstract identity and preferring the organic identity of “culture” instead of varying political, social and economic ideological systems.

In the new order, arguments based on the self-referential needs of our system, such as interest rates and maintaining influence or even spreading democracy, are less persuasive than any notions based in the idea of our people. After several centuries of trying to make ideology — itself a replacement for culture, which requires natural hierarchy, which is what the caste revolt opposed — function, people have thrown in the towel and are returning to the steps before we went down the path of ideology, resuming our search for our future there.

People are less likely to be convinced by arguments that involve concepts detached from real-world function. We see all of the paper and symbolic instruments of our time as oppressive, not in the sense of oppression, but in the notion that they distract us from life and make us alienated, thoughtless and selfish.

When we think of the age of ideology — brought on by the Enlightenment, peaking in the French Revolution, and entering its final phase with the end of WW2 — we will visualize a vast sea of graves. Many lives and good things were sacrificed to try to discover a functional social order which was dedicated to ideology. All failed, with the last being the US Constitution, falling during the Obama years.

Now we know that this entire genre of thought, based not on things as they are but the human project to remake the world in our image, is an infectious and fatal path. Any step down that path leads inevitably toward failure. We have tried every permutation, tweaked it and trying to civilize it, but ideology is a chain reaction that destroys us.

People are rejecting the Republican party for Trump not only because they believe in what he has done, but because they no longer believe in the idea of symbolic manipulators leading us to a good place. They want a realist, and anyone who is not on board with that, namely all Leftists and mainstream conservatives, have made themselves obsolete in the wake of the Huntingtonian shift.

Flat Earth Theory

Monday, September 4th, 2017

Knowing that the internet has reached the point where sincerity is indistinguishable from trolling, simply because we allowed The Masses to access it, one takes new trends with a grain of salt, and so when a Flat Earth Theory starts making the rounds, the response is to shrug and figure that it is 50% trolls and 50% morons who cancel out your vote in every election.

But the thing about the Flat Earth Theory is that it works as a metaphor. Its appeal is that very few of us have seen enough of the world to claim that it is round, and we do not trust our “official” sources of information. In this sense, the Flat Earth Theory becomes a mental virus, a symbol representing our distrust of the human world around us.

We cannot be unaware of this human world, because it is broadcast to us from televisions, the internet, books, schools, movies, music and the conversation of others. But sometimes, the narrative cracks and we see that it was wrong all along:

Researchers have found 5.7 million-year-old, human-like footprints in Crete, complicating the story of human evolution.

A significant body of paleontological evidence suggests early humans diverged from their ape ancestors in Africa. A set of footprints found in Tanzania suggest hominins, the earliest human relatives, were walking upright some 3.7 million years ago.

…Until recently, no hominin fossils older than 1.8 million years had been discovered outside of Africa.

Modernity is being proven wrong across the board. We are told that humans evolved a certain way; it turns out that this is wrong. We are told that racial differences are not genetic, and then that too is disproven. We are told that educated people support only a certain political view, and then that, too fails.

All of not just Leftist ideas, but Leftist policies, are failing at once. The “fast money” doctrine of the Clinton years has brought us increasingly speculative industry and ever-larger bubbles, while diversity has ended in a terror of political correctness and rape gangs, and globalist policies have reduced our economies to dependents on a worldwide market that swings wildly out of control.

Emboldened by years of weak authority under Obama, crazy leaders and groups are rising worldwide. Climate change didn’t happen, but the ecocidal effects of a population swollen with immigration in the name of “diversity” has made life miserable. Adapting our cultures to accept every culture, and thus to be non-cultures, has made our lands alien places populated with angry foreigners.

The result is nothing short of a sea change in how people view our future, which means that we are rejecting old theories and seizing upon time-proven alternatives instead:

When Francis Fukuyama published his “End of History” thesis in 1989, around the time the Berlin Wall fell, we could see through his simplifications on behalf of a kind of capitalism we were weary of. No one among my cohort actually expected history to end, but it did fit into the tenor of the times, when thinkers reached for the universal. We were proud inheritors of the Enlightenment: That was the intellectual legacy we had to improve on, it was to be our perpetual lodestar, if we were not to be trapped in particularistic thought that could have no good results for anyone. True, Allan Bloom had rung the alarm bells not long ago over the new conformity, but we felt sure that intellectual prowess would reign supreme in the end.

When, a little later, the Bosnian slaughter occurred, we framed it not as Muslims versus the rest, but as a direct attack on the human rights principles we had tried to hold on to in the midst of late Cold War paranoia, which was often ridiculously transparent. Around the same time in the early 1990s, Samuel Huntington came out with his “Clash of Civilizations” thesis, a direct riposte to Fukuyama, a template for a re-energized worldwide conflict of irresoluble identities that has only grown in intensity with each passing year.

I go over this material because I realize that those who are in their 20s and 30s today have not known any other ideological order. Identity politics — the brand of communalism it flows from, i.e., multiculturalism, and the brand of expression it leads to, i.e., political correctness — is existentially unassailable for the young. They know no other means of self-understanding, artistic expression or personal solidarity. They can only be organized around this principle. They see the world strictly through this framework, not through some Enlightenment perspective of universal human rights irrespective of one’s biological identity.

If you read outside the carefully-constructed verbiage, you see that what this author is bemoaning is the rise of particularism or the idea that universalism — the notion that all people are the same, e.g. equal, and can be treated as a fungible commodity — is in fact wrong, and that there is no “we are all one,” but instead a world of many parallels, where each is as tribe that has to find its own path to what works for it, and the two are not comparable.

The difference between these two ideas, particularism and universalism, is night and day. Universalism might be referred to as the philosophy of robots, since it focuses on the minimums of what makes people human, and assumes that these are the most important things. Particularism is essentially localism and nationalism wrapped into one, where people say, “I dunno about this universal human robot you guys are designing, but I can tell you what works in this valley for my people, because here’s our history of what we tried and how well it worked out each time.”

We are transitioning from a millennium of universalism to a new era of particularism. Universalism is seductive because it makes everyone feel important just for being human, and by protecting them from criticism by arguing that they have a “right” to be however they want to be, it is inherently against culture, morality, heritage, values and any other standard which can make a person appear to fall short of what is desired.

The great power of universalism is its simplicity, which makes it seductive: you do whatever you want, and I do whatever I want, and the only cost is that we agree to support this system of mutual anarchy. By ignoring all larger issues of civilization, it reduces the question of society to socializing, and to the not-that-bright average human, seems like a complete solution in one easy idea!

What none of them realize is that they have been fooled, because universalism exists for one purpose, which is to force the sharing of wealth and power. Instead of realizing that wealth and power are not like toys in kindergarten, and should be entrusted only to those who can wield them well, more like Excalibur than the One True Ring, universalists demand that those who produce give to those who do not.

The nature of ideology is that it promises “a better way” through some means other than self-discipline. Individualism, or the notion that the individual is fine just the way they are and should be equally respected even if not a net producer, demands that people be excused from the need for self-discipline, especially adaptation to reality and social standards.

Ironically, this individualism replaces the individuality of a person by forcing them to engage in a cult-like behavior which replaces their inner traits — personality, abilities, moral character — with obedience to dogma:

“People don’t really understand how strong ideology can be,” she says. “I think sometimes of that group and that feminism as being close to a cult. I feel I had to de-programme myself in order to have independent thought. It’s been an ongoing struggle. When you have a cult, you have a cult leader who demands a certain conformity . . . And when you have a celebrity who has cultural-icon status, economic power beyond what you can imagine, you can’t resist that person — if you want to stay in their realm. Because once you start challenging them, they kick you out.”

Cults are based on people adopting an optional or arbitrary idea which they then rely on as part of their personality construct, which in turn allows the cult to control them. Those who do not exhibit enough of the ideal of the cult are excluded, and this creates competition to demonstrate the greatest obedience.

This replaces the identity of the individual with that of the cult, and makes their self-confidence and sense of well-being contingent upon being approved by the cult, much like an abusive social group or family. Those who do not do what the cult wants become the enemy. Total control is achieved by making people desire to be obedient.

A good cult is inconsistent and vindictive, which forces people to be even more aggressive in demonstrating their allegiance by widening the window of forbidden behavior and crowding people into the narrower space remaining. The most successful cults make people believe they have achieved freedom or another Utopian ideal, and they then preemptively retaliate against anyone with a different ideal, which enables them to spread rapidly by demanding that everyone around them be either part of the cult, or an enemy. Once they gain critical mass, everyone within their reach quickly converts or flees.

Egalitarianism may be the most successful cult of all time. People instinctively want to believe that they are equal, so that they do not feel an obligation to use self-discipline to meet any kind of social standard. Instead, they choose to believe that they need to do nothing to understand and adapt to reality, and the freedom from that Darwinian standard makes them feel safe and valuable.

What is most interesting about cults is that they are self-destructive. As if a metaphorical analogue to a cyst, the cult traps the weak in society and bundles them together into a group that destroys them. This happens because a cult at some point either realizes its ambitions, and they fall short, or commits itself to permanent warfare against those it presumes are its opposition, at which point the scapegoat becomes the master and the cult dedicates itself to understanding this contrary view and is absorbed by it.

Modernity has been one giant cult. Since the Renaissance/Enlightenment (PBUH) adoption of individualism as the new and now old form of the West, people have been indoctrinated into defending equality before all else. Equality however requires universalism, which took political form in globalism, and as this reveals itself to be unstable, minds turn elsewhere for archetypes of the future.

Huntington Triumphant: Tribalism Rising As Ideology Dies

Thursday, July 13th, 2017

Samuel P. Huntington might be seen as the prophet of the Alt Right. In the 1990s, he wrote a paper entitled “The Clash of Civilizations” (later developed into a book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order) which posited that ideology had lost its ability to hold societies together, and as a result, liberal democracy was collapsing while tribalism was rising.

He was engaged in an indirect debate with scholar Francis Fukuyama, who had argued that liberal democracy was the endpoint of human history, a conclusion he seemed to dislike but accepted as rational. Fukuyama argued for a permanent era; Huntington saw this era as ending.

In a broader sense, the two men were each arguing for a different type of civilization. Fukuyama believed in one unified by ideology and organized through rules and laws; Huntington saw civilizations as being united by physical, moral, religious and intellectual similarity, and predicted a future that relied more on gut instinct and identity than rules.

We can see this conflict playing out in the “populist” (really: upper half of middle class) wave that has propelled Brexit and Trump to the tops of the political heap by acknowledging that Huntington was right:

The central remark in Mr Trump’s Warsaw speech was this: “The fundamental question of our time is whether the west has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilisation in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”

Interestingly, the Financial Times included the following image with the article:

To the author of the article, it represents a reason to be afraid of “America first” actions, in that those might alienate and cut out those rising markets. But another way to see it is that it represents a declining first world with others taking up the slack. At that point, other nations rise to fill the gap, and the first world recedes into a rationalizing mindset which allows them to praise “the information economy” and “the service economy.”

Voters can be counted on to be oblivious as a group, but individual people start to snap out of their stupor when they realize that the thread is not some far-fetched prediction, but a certainty. Liberal democracy has chosen to self-destruct through thirdworlding and low reproduction rates which fit within its endgame, which is to destroy everything so that a few government employees can escape to enclaves for the rich and corrupt. This will come about through a consumer economy which will gut itself as the fake value it has generated collapses.

As this system hits rock bottom and it becomes clear that not only will it be a sure path to doom unless interrupted, but also that it was always a fake design just like the fake news, fake food, fake architecture, fake nationhood, fake love and fake friendship of modernity, the era of ideology will end and be replaced by real things which are innate to the human experience and not projections of the human ego. This will fortunate as unless we escape the modern lifestyle, we will likely die out from low reproduction rates.

Between its economic failures, the existential misery of its citizens leading to low investment in family and children, and the instability of the societies it has administered, liberal democracy no longer looks like a better option than strong authority and nationalism:

With global growth continuing at roughly 4 percent a year, the link between income and democracy isn’t actually so strong these days.

…It is again time for the West to learn from China. The emotional force of nationalism is stronger than we had thought, stability is not guaranteed, and the Western democratic status quo ex ante is less of a strong attractor than many of us had believed or at least hoped for.

If you asked the average person what was more important, order or freedom, and no one else was listen to virtue police them, you will probably see someone struggling with the fact that what they crave now is order. The great quest to make everything equal turned society into a wasteland and, while this was survivable for some time, it eventually became a great burden. Now they want the bottom line: make stuff work, and leave people alone who are productive and healthy.

The age of tolerance is over. The average American middle class European-descended person has finally gotten it through their skulls that diversity itself is the problem, so it cannot be fixed with more education, law enforcement or welfare. Diversity causes us to hate each other. They are “over it” and want to see it go away. If the Right-wing “populist” wave continues, by 2030 the average American voter will be interested in repatriation with reparations and other schemes for a soft landing for the disaster that diversity built.

Much like people have simply come to view ideology itself, like all of our news which seems to be fake, as a deceptive and threatening thing. If anyone who imbibes even a little ideology ends up in the Full Soviet state to which the EU and US have sunk, then the path of ideology is completely fatal and needs to be avoided. In their gut instinct, people know this.

Even more, it has sunk in that the great war against inequality has simply ended up making other people wealthy who are not as competent as the original group, so most people have stopped caring, unless they are personally having trouble making a decent living. This is why people care less about equality than social order, despite what they claim in social situations when asked about politics:

Researchers found that 77% of participants were willing to redistribute income from rich to poor—so long as it didn’t make person A poorer than person B. Just 45% accepted the redistribution when it changed the hierarchy. The results showed people are both interested in equality and preserving the status quo, but if these two inclinations clashed, most participants would maintain the inequality.

…Researchers could only speculate as to why people are reluctant to upend the status quo. They suggest that it might come down to survival: We may want to maintain hierarchies for fear of sparking anarchy. Researchers note, “Evolutionary theory suggests that groups with stable hierarchies have a fitness advantage.”

As liberal democracy lowers itself into collapse by its own ineptitude, people are turning to what is innate and what works. Heritage, gut instinct, making the trains run on time, and keeping happy families together have become more important than any words on paper or abstract ideological concepts. This represents a human return to sanity so that it can move upward, instead of “forward” to a dead Utopia.

Huntington Won The Battle Of Ideas, And Defined Our Future

Saturday, April 8th, 2017

Back in the 1990s, there was debate over our future as a species. One writer, Francis Fukuyama, opined that since all other systems had failed, liberal democracy would be the pattern of human dwelling from that point onward. Another, Samuel Huntington, wrote that humans were motivated by existential need more than compromise, and so our future would be one of clashing tribalism.

Naturally, there was nuance. Fukuyama is perceptive, and basing his argument in Nietzsche’s concept of “the end of history,” he immediately revealed his reluctance to embrace this future as wholly positive. Huntington, for his part, suggested that each tribe would find a political system which matched its cultural needs. And so the complexity deepens.

Almost everyone paying attention realizes that we are right now in the midst of a massive shift of history. The old way has fallen apart; the new way has not yet become clear, but the many failures of the old path suggest that we need to go in an entirely different direction. This resurrects the debate over which of these writers was more correct.

Fukuyama gives us an insight into human decision-making that endures, even if liberal democracy does not:

But whether Fukuyama’s neo-Hegelianism is plausible is not the most interesting aspect of his thesis. For throughout his analysis, Fukuyama insisted on the centrality of thymos (the Greek for ‘spiritedness’), or recognition, to human psychology: what Thomas Hobbes called pride, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau labelled amour propre. This denotes the need to be liked and respected by other people, and to have that recognition outwardly affirmed – if necessary, extracting it by force. Some human beings, Fukuyama thought, are always going to be inherently competitive and greedy for recognition. Some will therefore always vie to be thought of as the best – and others will resent them for that, and vie back. This has the potential to cause a lot of trouble. Human beings demand respect, and if they don’t feel that they are getting it, they break things – and people – in response.

It was this psychological feature of people, Fukuyama claimed, that guaranteed that although we might have reached the end of History, there was nothing to be triumphalist about. Just because humans could do no better than liberal capitalist democracy – could progress to no form of society that contained fewer inherent conflicts and contradictions – it didn’t mean that the unruly and competitive populations of such societies would sit still and be content with that. Late capitalist modernity might be the highest civilisational point we could achieve, because it contained the fewest contradictions. But there was strong reason to suspect that we’d slide off the top, back into History, down into something worse.

In other words, Fukuyama rejected the Hegelian notion of dialectical materialism that saw the zigs and zags of history as converging on an ideal, and instead saw a pattern of reduction to compromise, by which we retained that which was least likely to cause chaos. In this view, the indecisiveness of liberal democracy is its saving grace.

What hovers in the wings is the idea, common to all conservatives, that history is cyclic or composed of repeating patterns which have an apex, then deviation, and finally a return to order. Any theory of golden ages and dark ages bears out this concept, which is that we stumble into bad times by denying what we know of the good, and then must fight to recover that lost wisdom.

This presents an interesting dilemma, which is that by the cyclic view of history, “compromise” is an artifact of the death cycle and not the resurrection of life (think of winter turning to spring). Compromise is what one does when losing and trying to minimize further loss. Fukuyama’s skepticism is well-merited in that context.

On the other hand, Huntington argued that a spiritual and cultural revolution based in the need for meaning would drive humanity to a new dark age leading to the resurrection of classical orders of civilization:

The political scientist Samuel Huntington predicted that the post-Cold War world would be dominated by a “clash of civilizations,” and even the most sanguine observer will admit that recent years have seen more than a few chaotic civilizational clashes. The shifting and fragile alliances between the scores of nations and organizations active in the Middle East, for example, show chaos at its “best” (or worst). War has brought its own chaos and, by displacing millions, has brought the chaos of a refugee crisis to even the most comfortable and complacent nations of the West. Nor is the rest of world immune from international chaos, which seems to constantly take on new forms and create new problems.

…Confucianism and Taoism represent two opposite paradigms of responses to personal and social chaos. Confucius saw chaos and tried to approach it, to master and control it, to tame and pacify it. Laozi (the founder of Taoism) saw chaos and tried to avoid it, to flee from and ignore it, and even sometimes to surrender to its inevitability. Psychologists and physiologists who have studied behavioral responses to threats would identify the well-known “fight or flight” reactions embodied in these philosophical traditions. Confucianism is the philosophy of fighting chaos, and Taoism is the philosophy of flight from chaos.

In these two extremes we see echoes of Nietzsche’s analysis of the Apollonian and Dionysian approaches. Apollo strives for order; Dionysius revels in chaos and indefinable impulses like hedonism and aesthetics. What seems lost is the recognition that chaos is a part of order.

When one desires an effect, it is necessary to look through history to discover its cause, which often does not resemble the effect at all. In Huntington, the desire to escape rigid human order and assert the need for meaning — a property of the individual in interaction with civilization and world, not of the individual alone — shows us chaos leading to order, guided only by logical analysis which realizes that what humans consider “order” is most often a cause of chaos.

In this view, liberal democracy is the last effort of a dying trend to replace what makes human life meaningful with laws guided by our intentions and the presumption of equality. We want good effects, but cannot look into the causes for them, such as tribalism or natural selection. This leads to us creating the chaos of the death cycle, but at some point, that chaos reverses.

The human spirit bounces back, once enough of us see the decay, to want to thrive again instead of merely trying to hold back the ruin. We admit that failure happened, that we have hit rock bottom, and recognize that we have to rebuild. At that point, we start working to overthrow the “order” that has oppressed us, leading to revolution.

Some would say that civil war is upon us but this misses the broader context that Huntington illustrates:

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

…Our system of government was designed to allow different groups to negotiate their differences. But those differences were supposed to be based around finding shared interests. The most profound of these shared interests was that of a common country based around certain civilizational values. The left has replaced these Founding ideas with radically different notions and principles. It has rejected the primary importance of the country. As a result it shares little in the way of interests or values.

In the Huntingtonian view, therein lies the problem: we are trying to make different groups equal. They cannot be; they desire different types of societies. Those on the Left desire a third-world style anarchy, and those on the Right want a civilization that thrives and moves qualitatively toward greatness. Those views are incompatible.

Human intentions lead us to try to force life to produce good outcomes on the level of effect, but because we deny causes because they are beyond the level of intention, we then create enduring conflict. Leftists and Rightists cannot coexist in the same society. We have been doing so because the Right has been in retreat because Leftism is always more popular, until it collapses.

Now as the collapse begins to filter in through many different angles, we see that coexistence cannot occur. There is no equality, least of all between those who want civilization and those who want subsistence living. The two must separate. And in doing so, we will restart the cycle at a point shortly before its golden age.

In this new history, those who want civilization will separate from the rest and send those others to dwell among those of like mind in the third world. Tribal groupings will reform, and the old alliances will be restored such that related groups act together for mutual benefit. Caste, hierarchy and strong cultural rule instead of the police state will return.

To the modern mind, this will be a new dark age born of chaos because there will not be rules reflecting human intent such as equality, pluralism, tolerance, socializing and individualism in this new age. Instead there will be only realism, stark and yet providing the best results because it understands reality instead of denying it, and an impulse toward goodness that defines the start of a cycle.

White People Are Their Own Worst Enemy

Thursday, March 16th, 2017

As usual, white people demonstrate that cleverness is the enemy of intelligence just as “good enough” is the enemy of lasting good.

In The Netherlands, which by any sane estimation is one of the loveliest places on planet earth, the voters decided to avoid electing Geert Wilders and to choose an Establishment candidate instead. This is typical of voters: avoid risk by sticking with what fails slowly and inevitably, basically postponing the issue until it gets worse.

Wilders may not have been perfect but he offered a hope for avoiding the fate of Germany and Sweden for the Dutch, who may consider themselves so unique and special that the problems which repeat elsewhere do not apply to them. This is also a typical human failure of reasoning by which people assume that the rules do not apply to them because they intend for other results than usually happen.

Glitches in his platform were few but vital. Among other things, Wilders took an approach recommended against on Amerika: he targeted a specific group instead of pointing out that diversity will erase the national population and, as a form of suicide, is psychologically destructive.

In addition, he could have broached the broader topic that diversity does not work because every group possesses its own direction of self-interest, including strong identity, and these cannot avoid conflicting when the groups are put together. Nationalism, or separating each group into its own nation, works, but diversity guarantees perpetual conflict followed by erasure through outbreeding.

White people however are too clever to accept that. For them, voting and politics are questions of what makes them look cool to their friends. People who deny obvious problems are cool. So white people pose and posture, swimming in pretense and denial, and project their intention onto the world to obscure the cause-effect relationships that are scary.

Through this process, inversion occurs. The sane becomes the insane, and the formerly insane becomes the norm. Every word comes to mean the opposite of what it once did, and every institution acts against its goals. As a result, society becomes pathological and dedicated to its own destruction. People either rationalize that to feel good and succeed, or fight it and are marginalized.

In this way, the very process of socializing destroys human societies. In the name of “getting along with others,” truth is destroyed, and yet this is the most common human event. When having everyone feel good is more important than getting to the truth, every meaning gets inverted and all goals become suicidal, just at a slow enough level for each individual to profit and look cool.

Wilders and others are fighting upstream against the tendency of humans to go straight into denial. The United States got a break because Barack Obama, by creating his program of wealth transfer to Baby Boomers and illegal Amerind aliens known as Obamacare, crashed the economy so soundly that people actually snapped to attention from their pretense for a few moments and voted against him.

If the West wants to survive, as it looks toward its future, it will realize that the decision-making of humans in large groups is not just poor but suicidal, and so democracy must go:

Americans use the word “democracy” as a shorthand to define their system. Yet democracy as Americans know it only functions when an independent judiciary monitors the executive and legislative branches. The relationship among the branches certainly changes over time, but an open attack by the executive upon the judiciary is something new – at least in the contemporary US.

The president’s tweet recalls how authoritarianism has triumphed in other places. Modern tyrants grasp that their real target are rival institutions and legality, not voting as such. They often attack the judiciary first, assuming that the legislature will go along.

Anyone sane will agree on abolishing democracy, but not on tyranny, which is a word referring to any rule where the rulers prioritize their own interests over those of the citizens. We have tyranny right now through the permanent Establishment which has figured out that the voters are pretentious and how to manipulate them so that this “Cathedral” stays in power indefinitely.

Instead of tyranny, we need leadership not by the people — people in groups quickly revert to pretense and mob rule — but for the people, by the best among us. We need the best to oppress the rest, because our current condition of the rest oppressing the best has led to collapse from within.

Wilders, Le Pen, Orban, Farage and Trump are part of the movement against the inevitable entropy of democracy. They have stood up for difficult truths and framed them in such a way that the remaining functional people can grasp the simple core of the issue, which is that any civilization must assert its self-interest through identity or become dedicated to self destruction.

In the meantime, it is time for binary thinking: whatever the herd likes is wrong, and whatever the herd fears is where we can find actual realistic assessments of our situation. Otherwise, as if by gravity or the passage of time, the Establishment always chooses suicidal policies and the herd, afraid to look uncool, support them:

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party proposed using the €6.2 billion surplus to pay off debts, while the Social Democrats (SPD) wanted to spend it on digital infrastructure projects. As a compromise the money has gone solely to migrant projects instead, Der Spiegel reports.

The present funds allocated toward migrant programmes is already €12 billion, which is thought to be more than enough to handle the needs of the over one million migrants in Germany. The budget surplus would take the money up to over 18 billion – far more than required.

Any time there is a “surplus,” it means money is taken away from vital long-term needs and dedicated to short-term needs that make the headlines. This allows people a chance to virtue signal and pose and otherwise demonstrate how cool they are for ignoring real problems and focusing on symbolic problems instead.

Despite the Wilders loss, the writing is on the wall: liberal democracy, once given enough power, becomes the same kind of insanity that the Soviet Union was. The Left blames this on “capitalism,” but in reality, it was bad leadership through the tendency of people — especially white people — to make cleverly stupid decisions.

For those of us on the Right, the necessary agenda of our future is to push back against the tide of liberalization that has swept the West since The Enlightenment.™ We must recognize that Samuel Huntington was right, and that the liberal democratic age has ended, replaced by one in which tribalism is again the norm, as it is outside of the W.E.I.R.D. countries today.

For this, we must go further than what Wilders did. Our problem is not Islam, nor is it illegal Amerind aliens. It is diversity itself and, since accepting diversity requires reality-denial, the reality-denying system of democracy that allows our people to demonstrate how clever they are by adopting stupid viewpoints. Until we rip out this evil by the roots, it will continue to destroy us.

Recommended Reading