Democracy represents a social contract: those who are being governed have some say in being governed, although on the utilitarian principle of the greatest number of warm bodies hitting button A over button B. People in a democracy for this reason have a duty to replace any government that does not represent them.
Much of that went out the window with diversity. Starting in the early 1800s, when the Irish vote was used to capture power in the cities, the powers that be could count on a steady contrarian vote that went against the founding concepts and people of America.
When the political machine rules, it does so through its perceived legitimacy, which it uses to conceal its real objective of tyranny, or rule for the sake of its own perpetuation. Good government rules for the organic nation; bad government divides the organic nation and manages it to guide it toward supporting tyranny.
Our political machine in the USA never went away. It just faded out during the wars then, like a persistent bladder infection, resumed its activities. It has always ruled based on the vote of the disaffected, particularly minorities and the coalition of misfits who feel left out or overlooked.
In the 1930s, FDR took over the machine by busting it and then replacing its officials with his own. Like most iterations of the machine, he ruled through perceived legitimacy based on his introduction of the welfare state, basically a bribe for voters.
Tammany Hall, the outgrowth of an 18th-century political society, had ruled New York’s Democratic Party (and the city itself) for over a century. In a time before public welfare, Tammany’s political bosses helped their hangers-on with everything from heating to health care, negotiating with landlords and sometimes paying in exchange for constituents’ votes. Party members provided strength in numbers, voting their candidates into office over and over again.
By the 1930s, Tammany had woven its way into every level of city politics—and it was controlled by the New York Mob. Graft and cronyism ruled many facets of city government, including the judicial system and police department. Elected officials handed out appointments to their friends, providing them with access to bribes and power, and most institutions prioritized helping Democrats who had shown their loyalty to Tammany instead of serving all constituents equally.
To make a long story short, Roosevelt as governor of New York implemented the forerunner of a RICO investigation, tracking the mafia-machine from its footsoldiers upward and then yanked out enough of the heads for it to lose its “bully power” or ability to intimidate by controlling enough of everything to retaliate against anyone. Then:
Tammany Democrats tried to obstruct Roosevelt’s run for the presidency. Once he was elected, he remembered both their corruption and their uncooperativeness. “With Tammany Hall’s record of seamy corruption and relentless defiance toward Roosevelt,” writes historian Sean J. Savage, “it is not surprising that the newly-inaugurated president did not feel obligated to funnel federal patronage to Tammany Democrats.”
FDR discovered the power of the federal purse. If you starve those who are not loyal to you of federal funds, they get replaced, coincidentally by people who support you. This allowed him to take the political machine from illegal status to legal status, and this formed the model by which Democrats have acted ever since.
He did this through making a legal form of the third world patronage system that had powered Tammany Hall back in the day:
Although its name was synonymous with corruption to many, Tammany Hall’s popularity and endurance resulted from its willingness to help the city’s poor and immigrant populations. Irish immigrants forced Tammany Hall to admit them as members in 1817, and the Irish thereafter never lost their tie with it. Because in the 1820s Tammany successfully fought to extend the franchise to all propertyless white males, it was popular with the working class. A close association with the Democratic party was also forged in the Jacksonian era.
This meant that the bureaucracy always needed a poor and hopeless underdog to champion so that it could steal tax funds and route them through the bureaucracy in order to buy votes from this group, which would then keep it in power in perpetuity. The Democrats found the final form of Late Stage Democracy.
Fast forward and the political machine still exists, now in a form that stays just on the technically acceptable side of the law, and gained new power with the Clintons, who were funded by China. They surged on the minority vote and not surprisingly, made diversity their top issue.
It is important to remember here that the machine is fundamentally a series of business transactions. You support a politician, and he grants a job to you or your relatives; the bureaucracy distributes funds through jobs, and consequently always grows as it hires armies of people to do a lot of nothing particularly useful.
This political system resembles the third world system where a few warlords own everything and trade favors for loyalty. You help the warlord, you get a job where you do nothing. China has run on this for most of its existence, but it also shows up in Africa, Central America, and Eastern Europe.
To translate this for the average person, when a first world society gets taken over by a political machine, it promptly eats up the extra wealth used to create the first world by running that society like a third world nation, funneling wealth into the hands of loyalists to the machine.
When Ronald Reagan talked about big government and Donald Trump talks about the “deep state,” they are referencing this unofficial dark organization within government that reverses what made our society prosperous by stealing that extra wealth for itself. This is the basis of all Leftism.
At this point, Americans have figured out that sometime after the 1980s they got hoodwinked with the replacement of the WASPs and that our society has come to resemble a third world shadow of itself since that time. This is why they supported the Tea Party and now support Trump.
What we are seeing now is a cultural civil war: the people who want us to be first world are opposing the third world people who want to take over with this political machine:
A MAGA bumper sticker often isn’t simply a statement of loyalty; it’s a cultural signifier of community much like the dancing bear bumper sticker is for a Grateful Dead fan.
Trump has long drawn a community of superfans called “Front Row Joes” who treat his events with the same regard that Deadheads used to treat a live show.
For all the efforts of his rivals to displace him from the lead, all the television ads devoted to touting their virtues, and the constant stream of court cases and legal documents outlining Trump’s failings, he has one advantage they just can’t touch.
Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley have partisans. Donald Trump has fans.
We now have a two-tier society: some people succeed in the meritocracy, which means memorizing lots of stuff in education, and get into top-notch jobs, end up wealthy, and then realize they are bored and their lives have no purpose, at which point they wring hands and clutch pearls over non-issues into neurosis drives them into Alzheimer’s.
The others get basic jobs, live on the edge of bankruptcy, and hate the system for giving them almost everything but never enough to fully relax. They tend to die of heart problems young because it is preferable to more repetition of the same without hope of sanity ever winning.
This latter group has tired of the meritocrats. Your average person now realizes to some degree that without the Keynesian circular Ponzi scheme (KcPs) to support our meritocratic elites and hopeless diversity underclass, normal people could afford normal lives and live with less tension.
The last time we had that was under the WASPs, who were overthrown in the 1960s, leading to a diversity regime which destroyed the American Dream by raising costs beyond the point where normal lives could produce good living.
Now you have a choice: get onboard the educational system, get the corporate job, pay the endless diversity taxes, and you can retire to a life of oblivion after wasting all of your time doing stuff that is mostly unrelated to any positive outcomes, which causes you to hate yourself in the process.
The meritocrats are the ultimate tyrants in that they detest themselves, recognize their bourgeois weakness, and yet keep ploughing forward with what they were taught because they are memory agents in the end calculus, not creative or analytical thinkers (the best thinkers combine the two, since creativity is a form of analysis).
We are seeing a backlash against the meritocracy. Nature chooses people by adaptation, which reflects creativity and analysis as well as research and application of that knowledge. Human societies turn into dark organizations because they choose people by their ability to apply known methods in a means-over-ends “safe” way.
Consequently, the war in which we find ourselves is both against a political system and those kept in power because of their success within it:
Quite disastrously, this new class has taken power in every major Western society and pushes everywhere the same radical values, albeit in different languages. Although this class has achieved dominance, attempts to see it as a continuation of the traditional bourgeoisie or, even less credibly, as an extension of some WASP old-boys network are ridiculously mistaken. Our present ruling class has taken over from older, now-displaced elites.
Equally wrong-headed are efforts to treat this struggle as a battle over “whiteness.” As I have pointed out ad nauseam, it is predominantly white people living in tony neighborhoods who are exercising power. They may stir up black racial resentments, but they are really acting to increase their own power and riches. Some black people may be foolish enough to yield to this organized demagoguery, while black politicians happily go along with the mostly white ruling class because they are allowed to line their pockets and rage against lower-class white people.
But it’s all a scam. Deluded black people gain no real advantage from trashing cities and pulling down the statues of long-dead American heroes, except for photo opportunities courtesy of our corporate leftist media. Those who incite mob violence or call for opening jails and letting out violent criminals do win points, however, for stoking righteous indignation. They also use the black underclass the way the czarist regime used Ukrainian peasants, whom the Russian political authorities aroused against Jewish shopkeepers to divert attention from their own misrule.
The WASPs are gone, but if you listen to your leaders, our society is engaged in a war of poor innocent angelic minorities versus evil White people who control all the money. Proles always invent this fiction because it is a scapegoat, like all cult approaches, paired with a Utopian unrealistic vision that makes them feel justified.
The Tea Party and MAGA Right are pushing back against dominance by the group that replaced the WASPs.
They are correctly blending the culture war into a war against Leftism, which they now realize will always try to destroy the majority. They realize that the same intellectuals recur in every society, and these people through their self-pity become egotists who attempt to obliterate reality by making humanity the highest good.
The WASPs were smarter than this group. They had ideals, but checked them with reality. The lesser people who have followed are neurotics, probably due to trace admixture or mutation, and they have no brakes. They go screaming full into the abyss of humanism and end up creating a horror state because of their reality-denial.
Realists recognize that not all humans are good or competent, so you set up a goal and a hierarchy and nature takes care of the rest. The self-pitying intellectuals fear their own deficits, so design systems intended to “correct” behavior so that no one gets left behind. They fear natural selection more than they care about good results.
Consequently, the anti-realists — neurotic intellectuals, peasants, diversity, low self-esteem people, single women — create a system where natural selection is impossible. Everyone is equal, everyone is subsidized, and everyone is babysat by the administrative-managerial state.
Conservatives used to fight a culture war for preserving Christianity, but with the removal of WASPs as leadership, it became clear that the real culture war was for the preservation of WASP culture against the hordes of Southern Europeans, Irish, Eastern Europeans, Irish, Mediterranean Europeans, and other races, not the atheists and “satanists.”
After several decades of play-acting conservatives who really just wanted to succeed at their careers and get along with their coworkers, the raving and insane Left, because anything was better than being called a “racist” like Jeff Davis or Dolf Hitler, did very little to arrest the decline.
The new breed of conservatives want to obliterate the decline by first erasing its sponsor, big government:
The particular frustrations Trump encountered when federal employees pushed back at his more lunkheaded notions loom large in Heritage’s assessment of the federal workforce, which the book’s editors describe as “largely underworked, overcompensated, and unaccountable.”
No matter what department or agency is under discussion in this volume, their officials’ and employees’ adherence to the president’s policies and piques should be their primary, if not only, task. When dealing with the State Department, the book advises, “the next Administration must take swift and decisive steps to reforge the department into a lean and functional diplomatic machine that serves the President.”
Since Reagan, conservatives have tried to make nice with the millions of employees and contractors of the bureaucracy. It turns out however that you cannot win the culture war with government supporting the Left, since only the Left offers more jobs for bureaucrats, and you cannot win the economic war for fiscal responsibility either.
Consequently, by the time the Tea Party came around, the post-war “Christian libertarian” conservatives had become closer to anarcho-capitalists who wanted the ability to have 1980s-style normal living in the midst of the chaos. As it turns out, they cannot have that without removing big government and diversity, but they are only slowly seeing this.
The West stumbled into this state innocently but is learning just like Jews are from seeing one hundred thousand strong crowds chanting “Free Palestine, Death to the Jews.” We fought a war against nationalism in WW2, but now people are seeing that anti-nationalism is an even bigger screwup:
In the United States, Jews have been both the subject of exclusionary immigration policies as well as the leaders to liberalize those laws.
In the 1920s, after decades of relatively loose immigration laws had enabled more than 2 million Eastern European Jews to settle in the U.S., Jews fought an effort to close the gates to the “goldene medina.” The Immigration Act of 1924, a bill advanced by a notoriously racist Republican congressman named Albert Johnson, enacted a quota system that would severely limit Jewish immigration and totally exclude immigrants from Asia.
Jewish leaders staunchly opposed the bill, with JTA reporting “militant action against” it. The United Hebrew Trades, an association of Jewish labor unions in New York, brought together 136 Jewish organizations in order to “wage a nationwide campaign to defeat” the bill.
Jews simply wanted to avoid another Holocaust or pogrom. This seems realistic to me. However, their method was to try to regulate the effect and not look at causes. When we see diversity worldwide, we see it as the cause of either genocide by outbreeding or genocide as a reflexive, emotional response to diversity problems.
Thus what the Jews have learned — Elon Musk riffed on this and was called “anti-Semitic” for his efforts, ridiculous considering he just had a child by a Jewish woman from Estonia — is what we are all learning, which is that instead of fighting nationalism, we have to accept nationalism in order to avoid a constant cycle of retaliation and bullying.
After all, what we see in Israel is that cycle. The Palestinians commit an atrocity, Israel responds with force, then any Palestinian casualties become holy martyrs and the cycle begins again. There is no escape from diversity; it simply destroys any society unwise enough to have adopted it.
The lines in the upcoming civil war have thus been drawn. The group that supports the bureaucracy and diversity stands on one side, believing that all must be saved, and on the other side we see nascent realists who want to save only the useful people and drive away the parasites.
Not surprisingly, the Left is still fighting the last war, and has started calling anyone who refuses to join the side of bureaucracy and diversity an old canard, far-Right:
Ireland’s President, Michael D Higgins, shared this insight into the political affiliations of each of the roughly 500 rioters. The stabbing, he suggests, was being ‘abused by groups with an agenda that attacks the principle of social inclusion’. It is remarkable that, while stab victims remain in a critical condition in hospital, and with flames barely extinguished on O’Connell Street, Ireland’s leaders have found the time to complete a comprehensive analysis into the political ideology driving the rioting mob. Or, at least, this would be remarkable if ‘far right’ hadn’t become a catch-all label, wheeled out repeatedly whenever our political and cultural elite want to express their contempt for a group of people while also shutting down any further discussion.
Remember the protesters at the cenotaph, unhappy that pro-Palestine marches had been allowed to take place on remembrance weekend? ‘Far right’, we were told. They were mindlessly acting out the words of the former home secretary, Suella Braverman, who is also, apparently, ‘far right’. Before that, it was Brexit voters, gender critical feminists, and anyone who questions high levels of migration or supports Israel’s right to self-defence. All ‘far right’. This labelling is simplistic but it serves a purpose. It demarcates the virtuous from the masses while simultaneously erecting a rhetorical ‘danger’ sign to ward off the curious.
By doing this, of course, they intend to style themselves as moderates, but what they have done by indicting everyone from the moderate Left through monarchists as “far-Right” is to point out that only one safe position remains, and that is on the far-Left. These people are neocommunists and the veil over that is slowly falling.
Like the worst leaders of humanity, the far-Left bases its assessment on taking civilization for granted, which translates to a belief that the conditions we have now will never really change despite whatever they do, so they can graft on Communism to this successful system and not end up equally poor like the Soviets.
This shows us the mental bubble in which these people live. They reason that with our wealth and technology, we cannot fail, and therefore they become explicitly anti-realistic or dedicated to political symbolism alone and hostile to mentions of where it does not line up with observable reality:
Ever since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, reality itself has come to seem up for grabs. Karl Rove, a diabolically competent political infighter but of no discernible intellectual weight, may have been prescient when he told us to forget our pedestrian notions of reality—real live reality. Empires create their own, he said, and we’re an empire now.
The Ukraine crisis reminds us that the pathology is not limited to the peculiar dreamers who made policy during the Bush II administration, whose idea of reality was idealist beyond all logic. It is a late-imperial phenomenon that extends across the board. “Unprecedented” is considered a dangerous word in journalism, but it may describe the Obama administration’s furious efforts to manufacture a Ukraine narrative and our media’s incessant reproduction of all its fallacies.
At this point it is only sensible to turn everything that is said or shown in our media upside down and consider it a second time. Who could want to live in a world this much like Orwell’s or Huxley’s—the one obliterating reality by destroying language, the other by making historical reference a transgression?
Karl Rove came to us from the post-Reagan “moderate” Right that turned out to be mostly the Left in disguise. In the name of compromise, bipartisanship, unity, and pluralism they squandered whatever goodwill conservatives had and plunged us into a series of wars for democracy while the administrative bureaucratic state grew unchecked.
Now we are at the beginning of a new battle. The sides are finally becoming more clearly defined. The Right want to restore civilization to previous levels. Leftists are the “eat the seed corn” people who take civilization for granted and want the warm feelings of political symbolism instead of reality.
Every empire goes through these gyrations in its old age. The empire that is dying now is America as it was created in 1866; when it falls, what will emerge is the America that existed before, and that America will not vilify the Confederates and Hitler except to say that it dislikes slavery and genocide.
For us to triumph in this fight, we must stop speaking in symbolic terms like morality, and instead speak of reality. Diversity does not work. Democracy only barely functions when limited as our founding fathers did. Equality is a fiction beyond the fact of birth. These are the old ways emerging as the new ones fail and melt away.