Amerika

Once you understand that democracy is dominated by optics, and therefore that it always favors distractions and deflections over hard issues, it becomes clear why the news is a constant stream of trends and panics. They want you to avoid looking at the hard issues.

The hard issues, by the way, are things like how we deal with overpopulation and its heat island effects, resource depletion, ecocide, and pollution consequences. Or the ongoing question of how we rule ourselves, our genetic health and breeding, and whether consequences or methods determine morality. Perhaps even what our goal actually is.

All of these real things terrify the Regime currently in power, the Reich of the Shopkeepers, because its power is based on the preference of the working and middle classes and not a realistic approach. No one expects this to work; they simply want it because it makes them feel powerful; it makes us all dishonest manipulators as a result.

In fact, we all know it is suicide. Every society starts out with a goal, then loses that goal, and falls into bureaucratic management of people via control, or means-over-ends thinking, because this way it can regulate what they think and enforce a false unity.

If we were honest, this society would separate into many groups, most of which would be doomed in a generation. The usual communes, theocracies, lifestyles, and ideologies would make groups that in categorical theory have something in common but in reality have no organic relationship, so they would self-destruct.

In the meantime, invading Mongols, Muslims, or other miscegenated groups would simply take over the disunified society.

This means that to some degree we need each other, and our “plans” for having separate societies are like all ideology and symbolism the opposite of reality.

No one has yet figured out how to fix the human being so that it can stop destroying civilization mainly because the fix is simple: have a goal and be ends-over-means about that goal, which means losing people. Instead of trying to repair the broken, send them away because they are a threat to (a) the rest of your people and (b) the fragile social order.

We know what works; we have simply been running away from it for centuries. To accept what works — social hierarchy, culture, purpose — requires we give up on the idea that we are all kings, and recognize that social order and natural order, including our history as a tribe, is more important than our individual whims and fears.

The West grew great on the old system, cruising on its remnants until the end of the second world war, and still benefits from what our ancestors under the kings established. The momentum of the past, in fact, is just about all that carries us onward since most are subtly miserable in this time.

Currently the struggle between the individualists (shopkeepers, workers) and qualitarians (natural leaders) consumes most of our struggle. The individualists want their personal whims, emotions, and fears to be more important than reality, while the qualitarians want a realistic, non-emotional outlook which maximizes quality of experience.

These two can find no common ground because they do not exist in the same worlds. Individualists see only their experience as mirrored in others, and are blind to issues of civilization, social order, and morality other than that which concerns the individual.

In this way the individualists are the ultimate product people, fit to be shopkeepers or workers but not leaders since they are unaware of anything outside the bourgeois concern for personal career, prestige, and popularity.

In democracy, nothing gets done until the situation is dire. At this point, no one understands the rise of populism because we have not yet come to terms with how and why democracy has failed:

“While there’s no consensus definition of populism, it seems to be an ideology that divides society into a fight between ‘the people’ and ‘the elites,'” says Kubik. “Claiming to express the will of the people, populist politicians downplay checks and balances. Right-wing populists also denigrate ‘others’ based on nationality, religion, race, sexual orientations or gender identity.”

“There is no democracy that is not a liberal democracy. A fundamental component is the protection of the rights of minorities. We typically don’t see this with populist governments,” says Kubik.

In other words, populism reflects the rise of an organic culture against the system, which tends to pair elites (protectors) with a minority underclass (the protected). Populism recognizes that the overdramatized suffering of minorities is being used as an excuse to take over our nations.

More broadly, populism might be seen as a revolution against the idea of ideology itself. Organic systems arise from how things have worked through history and come about unsystematically through daily use; ideologies, on the other hand, are human constructions based on assumptions and precedent.

For example, all of modernity comes from the conjecture advanced as fact during The Enlightenment™ (a delayed response to the Peasant Revolts of 1328 in the midst of the Mongol invasions) that states that the individual is more important than social order and convention, therefore all must be equal individuals.

Leftism descends almost entirely from that. They ally with the enemy in order to destroy social order, culture, family, and individuality so that everyone can be “equal,” a symbol of goodness that does not translate to reality therefore can never be really and truly realized because it fails whenever applied.

Populism therefore is a revolution against the revolution, since the Leftist revolutions produced our current system. Not surprisingly, this leads to a revolt against modernity:

In the after-parties and corridors of the National Conservatism conference held in Orlando last October, reporter James Pogue discovered a subterranean network of “podcasters, bro-ish anonymous Twitter posters, online philosophers, artists, and amorphous scenesters.” Attracted to the right but far from conservative, these dissidents dream of overthrowing some of the basic premises of 21st-century American life. Where others might see a threatened but legitimate constitutional order or a struggling yet still functional economy, they perceive a tyrannical yet incompetent “regime” collapsing under its own weight.

In universities, media, and many big companies, there’s nothing controversial about saying that white people are an essentially malign portion of the human race, that gender is independent of biological sex, or that people who voted for former President Donald Trump are an existential threat to democracy. If you aim to provoke, you’d better reject these claims, loudly and often. On social media, this countercultural quality is known as being “based.”

In that respect, the new right can be viewed as a negative image of the woke left. Both movements invoke a favored cohort of the truly disadvantaged. In practice, they’re more attentive to the anxieties of what George Orwell called the “lower-upper-middle class” — in updated terms, the journalists, academics, and other “knowledge workers” whose expectations outstrip their income. On the left, that encourages a fixation on symbolic diversity, student debt, radical police reform, and other issues that are distant from the actual concerns of the poor and racial minorities.

Modernity is the time when Leftism has reigned dominant; as you may recall, we fought one world war for democracy and another to smash the remaining anti-democratic forces, invoked civil rights, and now insist that the entire world follow our liberalizing formula of tolerance and pluralism, echoing our WW2-era propaganda.

The European New Right who emerged in the 1960s and 1970s aimed for something similar: reject modernity entirely because modernity is based in equality and individualism, which lead to liberalizing of standards, mores, aesthetics, and morals in order to erase culture and replace it with bureaucracy.

Like the nationalist powers in WW2, these new Rights seek to go back to where civilization made a wrong turn, reverse course, and start over. We see that wrong turn as a steady line from the rise of the middle class a thousand years ago to the Peasant Revolts, Enlightenment,™ and French Revolution.

That line is Leftism, which is another way of saying egalitarianism, which is the political system of individualism. An individual who wants his personal self-expression to come before social needs cannot say that directly, but if he grants the same power to everyone else, he seems a selfless reformer instead of selfish civilization-wrecker.

The process of Crowdism occurs when a group inside of a civilization decides that it would rather form a little clique, gang, cult, and mafia that enforces individualism for all than it would try to make civilization work. It is a fatalistic, egotistic explosion of the worst in humanity.

Governments can either fight this directly or try to control it through systems like socialism, which offer free stuff to citizens in exchange for the vote. As both Plato and Aristotle noted, governments use diversity to create a permanent base of support, the minorities for which they become protectors.

In response to this, the topic of this week for Leftoids fixated on the news is Christian Nationalism, apparently the genteel form of this revolt against the modern world:

The insurrection marked the first time many Americans realized the US is facing a burgeoning White Christian nationalist movement. This movement uses Christian language to cloak sexism and hostility to Black people and non-White immigrants in its quest to create a White Christian America.

These beliefs are growing among Christians, according to a survey last year by the Barna Group, a company that conducts surveys about faith and culture for communities of faith and nonprofits. The group found that an “increasing number of American Christians believe strongly” that the US is a Christian nation, has not oppressed minorities, and has been chosen by God to lead the world.

This article has its comedic aspects, which we should get out of the way:

The Constitution also says nothing about God, the Bible or the Ten Commandments, Gorski says. And saying the US was founded as a Christian nation ignores the fact that much of its initial wealth was derived from slave labor and land stolen from Native Americans, he says.

For evidence that the United States was founded as a secular nation, look no further than the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, an agreement the US negotiated with a country in present-day Libya to end the practice of pirates attacking American ships.

Let us look at The Declaration of Independence, the document that inspired our War of Independence (the Revolution came later with the Civil War):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

…We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions…

Who is this “Creator” and “Supreme Judge of the World”? We can argue that not all of the Founders were Christian, since many were atheists, deists, and agnostics, but they were not opposed to the notion of God whether secular (pure symbol for nature) or metaphysical (actual deity).

Moving along, we can acknowledge that separation of church and state referred to the absence of a Church of England as our founders had experienced in the country of their origin, and that the religious freedom spoken of in the Constitution was designed to allow people to pursue some sects or no sects of the Christian religion.

When making a treaty with Muslims, of course they affirmed that the United States was a secular nation; it had no state church, nor did they intend for there to be one, but they saw it as a religious nation, as is evident by the language chosen in the Declaration.

We can see the proof of this intention in Article VI of the Constitution, which clarifies the idea of no state religion being imposed on those involved in government:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

In other words, the new government separated religion and politics in order to avoid a national religion, so that it could avoid the instability of religious wars that had roiled Europe for centuries at that point.

Back to the core of “Christian Nationalism,” we should recall that the three traits mentioned were: White, Christian, and Nationalist, which in its proper meaning refers to those who believe that one ethnic group alone should comprise the population of a country.

In other words, Christian Nationalism is an anti-diversity movement using religion as its mode of expression of a demand for culture, nationalism, and a lack of guilt from the ever-grifting sexual, religious, ethnic, racial, and cultural minorities demanding subsidies and obedience from the White majority.

Christian Nationalists, like the nostalgia for the 1980s that currently runs through much of our media, simply want America before diversity took over in the 1990s during the Clinton regime. They want to go back to the White world that made a thriving country instead of the unrecognizable third world disaster that America has become.

As it turns out, even some of the addled Leftists have noticed that Christian Nationalism is just White Nationalism without the neo-Nazi overtones:

There’s also a racial component: Researchers often use the term “white Christian nationalism” to describe a movement as an “expression of Christianity that is shaped by White conservative, nativist understandings of what it means to be an American,” the sociologist Samuel L. Perry said in an April interview with Religion Unplugged. One survey in 2021 found that support for the racist “great replacement theory” correlates strongly with Christian nationalist views.

To be a Leftist, you must hate and work against your society; it must be wrong so that you personally may be right, because only that justifies the individualism that you surely know will tear society into as many directions as it has members.

Consequently, Leftists always attack culture, religion, family, chastity, social hierarchy, and any other sources of strength, sanity, balance, and productivity. They want to ruin their society so that they can hide among the wreckage and not be noticed for their relative incompetence and their usually-twisted personal desires.

Christian Nationalists want back what the Leftists attacked, including religion and not just White but WASP America. They know that America under the WASPs ran better than our post-1960s civil rights regime, and that some type of religion is integral to that, since the Left seem to be egotistic atheists.

Those, in other terms, are people who deny God/gods simply so that the ego can be more important. They also reject culture because it imposes standards upon them, and want the family and even individual genetics destroyed so that everyone is finally “equal.”

That egoism forms the center of liberalization and the Leftism that came out of it, namely an attitude that the individual is more important than all else, including culture and social hierarchy. The Christian Nationalists think this is ridiculous and want a society based around a purpose again.

In the long term, Christian Nationalism will fail because it uses religion as a proxy instead of stating what it wants: WASP America, since all forms of diversity have failed, based on conservative morality and a higher order than the material, both cultural and religious.

Under this vision, instead of manipulating each other like shopkeepers and tyrants by using incentives and punishments, we would actually have a goal and reward those who were successful in partially achieving it. This method is closer to natural selection than forced obedience and civil rights.

Religion of the dualistic nature, where there is a perfect Heaven and an imperfect Earth, is after all too close to ideology to avoid crossing over. It wants to force the bad to behave as they were good and sacrifice our success in reality for a symbolic success in another world.

As democracy fades, we are going to look into its roots and find symbolism that concealed egoism. Those who want to be little kings first want to remove reality, but by doing so, they set up societies for failure. The Christian Nationalists simply want a more realistic society back, and it is why the Left fears them.

Tags: alt-right, christian nationalism, nationalism, populism