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.
Can you name any other Republican that would lay into the press like Trump does? It is priceless, and his point is so true, they make a criticism, then when that is shown to be false, they never go back and retract or correct it, they just leave the damaged impression in the minds of their readers. As far as they're concerned, they've achieved their goal of tarnishing Trump, and the truth can go hang.
American tribalism & chaos ; https://www.bitchute.com/video/UpraI1vAnv0V/
It is a wonder to see that the leftists can cheat and lie and then deny it. I think they actually believe that they are without sin. Do they really understand the kind of ideology that they support? It's like those that welcome and assist refugees, they do not connect in their minds the damage that these refugees do. All of the violence and crime is a result of their inviting these deplorables in. They, the left, are responsible for every immigrant crime that is committed.
Did they ever ask themselves why they hate Trump.
A sane person would see that the uncontrolled immigration is destroying stability, I can only conclude that those that will dismantle borders are stupid. Or deranged.
I sure hope that Trump gets elected again. And I am hoping that the press' lies will backfire on them and piss of enough americans to ensure victory. And that Biden fucks up entirely.
What a revelation! and what a sad statement of Trump's political naivity.