It takes a nation to protect the nation
Donald Trump: Disruptive Technology for the U.S. Political System
At the recent gathering, we had some discussion of the meaning of the Trump phenomenon. Related to this in the Autumn 2015 Crossbow magazine (page 25), Ed West discusses "the blob, or the Cathedral, or new establishment, but whatever we call it, it is understood this new church is all-powerful and institutionally hostile to conservatism". I think these two discussions are connected.
The Cathedral and the MIASM
The Cathedral is a concept described and explained at great length by Mencius Moldbug, and it is remiss to degrade the term by calling it "the blob". The Cathedral is said to consist of the main stream media, the social media with its SJW (Social Justice Warriors), and the Power Elite, which would be the key movers and shakers of society, those with great financial and political power. It is easier to distinguish this Power Elite in the U.S., because only those with sufficient financial means or backers, are able to throw their hat into the political ring. For the rest, it's a waste of time. This model is complex and difficult to describe precisely. I prefer to call the media subset of the cathedral, the Mainstream Including All Social Media, as the MIASM, which is indicative of the illness it can spread.
Sometimes a well supported political actor like Obama the senator, can implant concepts into the MIASM, as he did with 'Yes we can' and drive the narrative. Other times the MIASM will promote a concept so powerfully that Obama the president is driven to adopt that narrative as well, as happened with the "Hands up don't shoot" lie. So you cannot say what is the central driver of this process, sometimes it's the political leaders, sometimes it's the mainstream media, sometimes it's the social media. Noam Chomsky’s term term for this in his enemies is ‘a conspiracy of common interest’, such that a group moves together with no co-ercion or direction being visible - but we can use that term too. The end result of this MIASM is the same for all conservatives: it will produce a narrative designed to constantly pull conservatives to the left and destroy them.
Trump is the classic anti-progressive (like Margaret Thatcher). He appeals to a conventional or traditional set of values, which the Left loathes, partly because of its 'irrational' appeal to inherited values, but mostly for the values themselves. Thus anti-progressives in the line of Edmund Burke may also be called conservatives or traditionalists, since they wish to be more cautious about the rate of change and introduction of new and untested models. Alternatively they can be called nationalists, since nationalism identifies with a set of values unique to that place and time, and hence it wishes to preserve them against change. But all these terms have been tainted by the narrative of the Cathedral to have negative connotations. A Conservative is painted as a posh speaking twerp from a public school. A traditionalist is someone who just can't get with the times, and would certainly be lost on Strictly Come Dancing. Finally, the Nationalist is the worst of all, since he is a 'far right' xenophobe, who is prejudiced against people of other nations and cultures.
So I suggest a better term for an anti-progressive is a Preservationist: someone who wishes to preserve something we currently have that is of value and under threat, as we do with Wildlife reserves and archaeological museums. This Preservationist term attacks the fundamental fallacy and trick of the term Progressivism: its suggestion that all progress is beneficial and an improvement. A moments thought shows that this clearly cannot be the case.
Firstly, all movement forward involves giving something up, so when you build a railway to Tibet, it loses its isolation. Is that all good? Not if the latter is an instrument for population replacement.
Secondly, even if the things you are giving up are not considered of value, the 'progressives' must at some point, climb up the front side of the hill of obstacles, and achieve the Utopian goal they demanded at the beginning of their social crusade, of an equal meritocratic society, for example. So what does 'progressivism', or movement forward, mean, when you've attained the defined goal, i.e. reached the peak of the hill? Well, it has to mean that you move forward, away from the peak, down the other side of the hill, and 'progressivism' becomes 'regressivism', movement away from the defined peak.
Thus we see the movement in the US, away from an egalitarian, meritocratic society, to one that once again discriminates against people based on their ethnicity or culture, under the guise of positive discrimination. Thus Chinese and Korean students must obtain higher grades than the others, in order to obtain entry to the top universities, in order to satisfy the latter's quota systems. To escape from this seeming contradiction, the MIASM now re-casts the original meritocratic goal of 'Equality of opportunity' with a new Marxist one of 'Equality of result'. Discrimination on the grounds of race or culture is once again seen as normal, even going as far as demands for the racial segregation of 'Safe Spaces'. Martin Luther King, who asked that people be judged according to the quality of their character not the colour of their skin, must be turning in his grave. That is how progressivism, applied over decades, ultimately takes you to a place unthinkable at the beginning. It's also why I believe one of the most important guiding principles of the conservative position is a warning on the law of unintended consequences,
The Post Dialogue World
The field of argument on these topics has now been so messed up by the Alinskyite dirty tricks of the progressives, that it is no longer possible for a normal, untrained person, to argue against their agenda, in an attempt to protect and preserve his current world and its values. Because the dialogue is messed up, many normal citizens feel that the current narrative, as hammered into them by the MIASM, is grossly unfair to them, but they are unable to argue against it. That is now a job for a few hardened professionals. Thus we have entered the post-dialogue world.
What Trump is doing is tapping into the doubt and alienation created by the MIASM. Trump is not doing this deliberately. Trump supporters are relieved that finally a Preservationist has appeared to stand up for them, vindicate their beliefs, and protect their lifestyles, since they feel they are right, even though they do not have the technical equipment to prove that they are right.
In fact, I don't think even Trump has the equipment to make that proof, either. But he just doesn't care. As the Leftist media spin their classic deceit and trickery around him, trying to trap him in a web of self-contradiction or ambiguity, he just says "Whatever" and walks through, leaving threads of spider silk trailing in the wind. Indeed, why should he care? The MIASM has given a free pass on self-contradiction and ambiguity to everyone from Islam to Obama for the past 40 years, so I think we are immured to it by now. We've listened as learned Imams trample all over the law of non-contradiction, with barely a flutter of our post-Hellenic eyelids. Aristotle also, must be turning in his grave.
So that is the source of Trumps power, and it is the reason for the MIASM's uniform bafflement at his rise. They can't understand how some of their 'demos' can reject the authorised narrative. Even worse, they can't understand why their classic weapons have not worked against him.
If Trump gains the Republican nomination but loses the presidency, it will not be because he hasn't touched a nerve and connected with a core of the American people. It will be because he was outgunned by Hilary's money, outplayed by a media largely supporting her, outnumbered by voters imported through the Southern border, and outsmarted by the devious trickery of those for whom politics, has been a decades long metier.
But that will be yet another sad step in the loss of a functioning democracy in the US, and a step further towards the one-party, single-media, biased-judiciary, partisan-executive - state. Bizarrely, we tend to hate those most who contain some aspect of ourselves. Perhaps that's why Russia's totalitarianism really gets Hilary Clinton going.
I wrote this in February this year, but never posted it. Well, it seems even more true now.
There are very few countries that can be called free and democratic. There are just over 190 countries in the world, half are not democracies and only around 20 are full democracies.
In my opinion only countries that have proportional representation are real democracies. America and Britain do not qualify.
In developed countries organized religions are in decline and being replaced by other systems of belief or atheism. Political systems of belief, such as socialism, are for the feeble minded that have lost their belief in a higher power something else to believe in.
Simple slogans can hold great power; axis of evil, first black president, first woman president, man on the moon, black lives matter, peace in our time, first muslim prime minister, first black james bond, change, etc. They just have to correspond to a latent force in the population or its minorities.
King, kin and Country just doesn’t cut it anymore.
As you point out Alan, affirmative action results in discrimination of the majority and the talented; resulting in ethnic tension and a lowering of standards and competence. Well meant but harmful.
The rational approach would be to ensure equal opportunity for all regardless of ethnicity and then reward effort and ability. In schools guided by the principles of absolute equality most of the help goes to those that disrupt or that have less academic ability and the real victims are the talented and intelligent that want to study and achieve.
“Because the dialogue is messed up, many normal citizens feel that the current narrative, as hammered into them by the MIASM, is grossly unfair to them, but they are unable to argue against it. “
All we are left with is resentment, the angry white men that are so despised, ignored and discriminated against. The boot is on the other foot sure, but the objective was equality not a new racism.
Perhaps democracy is not such a good idea after-all. Perhaps we need a dictator now and then to clean things up and keep control. I know I would.
Recently, I saw an interview with a young white woman who had recently been part of the "white flight" from St Louis, staying there was pointless and dangerous, she had one female black schoolfriend who was continually spat at and insulted and called an "orio" by other black "pupils" for the crime of working hard and getting good grades, and just started avoiding other blacks... complete no - hope wasters and thugs for whom the white man will have to pay for housing & benefits, and who will vote for Hillary to keep getting the free loot. This is just "negative evolution", if they want the law of the jungle, they should just be put on a boat and dropped off in Zimbabwe.
Though of course there are African-Americans that I respect and that do want to be normal contributing citizens, I do not have a high opinion of blacks in general. Based on their behaviour, and in the case of -black racism against white people (and ambitious blacks)-, these black racists are stupid and just as evil as any whites have ever been. The point is that everyone should stop being racist, not that some should start to be racist. (Or, were they racist all along, just that it was not recognised as such?).
The media keep asking how it was that Trump got elected. Well, there are many reasons, but here's another:
Just look at the deals this guy has pulled off, can what great assetts he's acquired - with very little. He obviously does know how to make a deal, and obviously does know how to do business. That's more than can be said of 99% of all the other politicians, so now we can understand why normal Americans warmed to him.
There is a war of words and ideologies going on. And just like Islam the Socialists are absolutely ruthless.
The die-hard idealists are in place in various agencies and feel duty bound to cause damage to the Trump administration, the enemy.
The left has felt for decades that they have been making progress towards their final objective of universal socialism and fraternity and equality, (no freedom to choose). They just cannot believe that things are going wrong, and all of their hard work and effort will have been wasted. And they are incapable of changing their way of thinking, their beliefs. Islam and Socialism are totalitarian ideologies. Our concept of freedom and choice is alien to them. Actually we are not right-wing at all, we are conservative freedom loving individuals.
Also in common with Islam there is no central organisation. The guidelines of the ideology are enough to enable groups and individuals to enact independently with the common and easily comprehanded goal in mind. Universal Islam or universal Socialism. The ideology is the message. I too am working towards an idea of how I define that things should be and perceive like-minded individuals to be allies.
If Russia did interfere in the election I doubt if Trump was involved directly, he likes Putin and well you expect help from your friends. The Obama administration and Democrats were definitely trying to interfere, it's called politics. Anyway, the free world is benefited by friendly relations between Russia and the USA. I do not see anything wrong with "open" conversations between Russians and Americans. An innocent discussion about politics is not treason.
Fighting to protect our lives and property.