Humanity as a species is slowly going through the rejection of universal authorities, more in the sense of experts than politicians. It was once believed that science would lead us to universal truths, values, and communications but now we see these as more likely manipulations or inevitably becoming manipulated.
We might call this a rejection of “decentralized centralization.” In direct centralization, a strong authority tells everyone what to do; in decentralized centralization, mass belief in illusions causes people to pursue trends and amplify them as a means of succeeding in social situations.
If this phenomenon has a mascot, it is the “influencer,” or a person who hops onto current trends and takes them farther than others for the amusement of the audience. For many decades, humans have been following influencers who claim science, statistics, or expertise informs their opinions and makes them universal and absolute.
The last few years have showed us extra-hard that the people in positions of influence are simply telling us what is convenient to them for us to believe because it increases their power, status, and wealth. We made centralized power systems, and then the sociopaths took over those.
As a result people are moving toward populism, which broadly defined is a rejection of numerical democracy in favor of a “spirit of a people” as exhibited in its best candidates. This falls short of authoritarians, but gets farther from anarchy, committee, bureaucracy, pluralism, pacifism, and utilitarian consensus-based thinking.
Apparently it disturbs the Left that people are abandoning decentralized centralization for populism, which does not rely on experts, meritocracy, or education but proven ability to lead:
“If you asked me 10 or 20 years ago, I would probably have said that the main problems facing freedom of expression emanate from religious extremism,” Rushdie said.
“I think now we’re facing another old enemy, which is authoritarianism. I think there’s a real rise in authoritarian movements around the world, populist authoritarian demagoguery.
“Coupled with that, [there is] a willingness amongst at least some part of the population to cease to value the democratic values enshrined in the first amendment. So I think the problem is, I would now say, political more than primarily religious.”
No one bothers to think in terms of cause and effect. If authoritarian movements are rising, there must be a reason, such as the failure of democracy. Additionally, what people who move in rarified circles like Mr Rushdie see is biased hard to the left with democracy; to them, anything but more democracy seems authoritarian.
In the meantime, populism is recognizing that conformity is a type of centralization, too. When everyone in society repeats the same things in order to get ahead in the meritocratic education system, some ideas become considered so universal that people cannot see any alternatives.
And when those ideas fail? The people who made their careers by preaching them double down on them, terrified that they might be shown to be disloyal to the consensus, when in fact the only people who are getting ahead in the long term are wildcatter realists like Trump
What drove the failure of these ideas was the collapse of diversity, which serves no purpose other than erasing organic culture so government and commerce can take over:
The “melting pot” metaphor is used to describe how immigrants who come to America eventually become assimilated into American culture, thus creating multiple cultures that have blended into one.
Then, as we got older, we entered the debate of determining if America is a “melting pot” or a “salad bowl.” The “salad bowl” metaphor is a different view describing that immigrants who come to America combine their cultures with others, but still retain their own cultural identity. Basically, America is one big integration of unique, distinct cultures.
In reality, the metaphor of a “melting pot” is no longer useful. Instead, America is more closely a “salad bowl.” We are all together, as one, but we also all have distinct cultures. Chinese-American citizens still celebrate the Chinese New Year. Indian-Americans still celebrate Diwali. And Mexican-Americans still celebrate The Day of the Dead. The list could go on and on. So, yes, they are American, but they still celebrate and practice their own culture.
These are two stages of the same notion: at first, it is assumed that immigrants will “integrate” or “assimilate,” but this means giving up both their culture and their genetics, since culture arises from genetic inclinations, aesthetic tendencies, and abilities.
Later, when assimilation has died a well-deserved death, people switch to the “salad bowl” concept commonly called multiculturalism in the past to distinguish it from regular polyethnicism or “diversity.” In this concept, we all have ethnic enclaves and associate with our own groups.
Naturally neither does anything to stop the displacement of the founding group, since diverse groups can either be conquered or attempt to conquer. This means that diversity brings only internal conflict and dissolution and can never be an implement for bringing the nation together.
In addition, diversity skews the vote. People vote like they play the lottery, hoping for a winner so they can brag to their friends. As diverse populations near or exceed a fifth of the voting constituency, the diversity becomes a swing vote and so democracy panders to it.
Populism hopes to rediscover the spirit of the nation and overcome the division that diversity creates, but this requires replacing our new goal of diversity with a more eternal goal of the nation according to its founders. Naturally this terrifies the Left, since they depend on diversity for their political strength.
Humanity lives in Gaza everywhere now. Wherever there is diversity, there is conflict, with the less-powerful groups fighting back with crime, corruption, sabotage, parasitism, riots, and eventually open racial warfare. It has become clear to most people now that we cannot survive diversity.
As a result, relocation of diversity groups is back on the menu, starting with those who commit crimes:
Although prison systems based on punishments existed since antiquity, through the 17th century “Prison tended to be a place where people were held before their trial or while awaiting punishment. It was very rarely used as a punishment in its own right.” Should we then look for alternatives to incarceration in prison to hold criminals accountable?
Whether referred to as banishment, ostracism or exile, this form of punishment has been imposed since before history, in antiquity, and in the 20th century. The Bible tells us that Adam and Eve were “banished” from the Garden of Eden. Ostracism was used by Ancient Greece, where any citizen could be expelled for 10 years.
Eventually this will extend to the idea of removing those who are simply not a fit with their host societies, and if done sanely, will involve reparations-with-repatriation instead of strong pressure alone. Now that we no longer trust the herd, we can reject its taboos and scapegoats and see diversity for what it always has been.