What contemporary "American" political parties support in practice:
Republican Party: cronyism, austerity, globalism, super militarism, super robber baronism, cultural Marxism
Democratic Party: cronyism, austerity, globalism, militarism, robber baronism, super cultural Marxism
Libertarian Party: cronyism, austerity, globalism, militarism, super robber baronism, cultural Marxism
Green Party: cronyism, globalism, welfarism, super militarism, super cultural Marxism
Constitution Party: cronyism, austerity, globalism, militarism, evangelicalism, super robber baronism, cultural Marxism
Justice Party: cronyism, globalism, welfarism, militarism, financial reformism, cultural Marxism
American Populist Party: cronyism, austerity, globalism, militarism, super robber baronism, cultural Marxism
Communist Party USA: cronyism, globalism, economic Marxism, super militarism, super cultural Marxism
Freedom Socialist Party: cronyism, globalism, economic Marxism, super militarism, super cultural Marxism
Reform Party: cronyism, super austerity, globalism, militarism, fair trade, robber baronism, cultural Marxism
Objectivist Party: cronyism, austerity, globalism, militarism, super robber baronism, cultural Marxism
On the plus side, the Justice Party claims to support financial reforms, the reform party fair trade. On the negative side, almost everything else.
Then there's Kevin MacDonald's American Freedom Party. The platform on its website looks better than almost all current political parties, but given the Occidental Observer's preoccupation with wrongs done by Jews rather than the platform, the party's commitment to the platform seems unlikely.
Some may object that I'm cynical. But the above is truth, and the truth matters more than any ad hominem tag thrown at me. The above practices are not short term fads. Most political parties have been doing those isms for decades. The ultimate cynicism lies within those casually rejecting well-reasoned evidence, replacing the search for evidence with group beliefs, feel good beliefs or belief in what gets repeated most often in the media.
Note that any party supporting legalized bribery also supports most of the atrocious things above, no matter the rhetoric. Legalized bribery overwhelms scruples in current politicians.
The major parties in other Western countries are variations on the same themes.
That's why it is crucial that we form separate organizations and communities.
Thousands of reforms should be done, and current political parties are rent seeking, not reformng.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Saturday, January 9, 2016
The Altruistic Punishment Error
Some nonmulticulturalists (Kevin MacDonald, for example) call punishment of fact facers by multiculturalists altruistic punishment.
Altruism consists of actions by yourself to benefit others, not yourself.
But most punishments doled out by multiculturalists simply cause mass harms to nonwealthy whites or benefit the multicultural punisher's own wealth and status (egoism). Multiculturalists want to throw fact facers in jail for thought crimes because doing so helps them get richer through divide-and-screw practices and gives them more status among their allies.
Ordinary nonwhites get little or no benefit from having fact facers punished. And if the genocide of whites completes itself, nonwhites will be stuck in societies without democracy, without freedom of speech, and also without new medical, agricultural and other innovations by whites. The full forces of divide-and-screw will be turned on them, as has happened in many in lands where colonialism by whites was abolished but not the more frequent colonialism and parasitism by nonwhites.
There will be no Pax Whatever. There will be the rules of the jungle.
Altruism consists of actions by yourself to benefit others, not yourself.
But most punishments doled out by multiculturalists simply cause mass harms to nonwealthy whites or benefit the multicultural punisher's own wealth and status (egoism). Multiculturalists want to throw fact facers in jail for thought crimes because doing so helps them get richer through divide-and-screw practices and gives them more status among their allies.
Ordinary nonwhites get little or no benefit from having fact facers punished. And if the genocide of whites completes itself, nonwhites will be stuck in societies without democracy, without freedom of speech, and also without new medical, agricultural and other innovations by whites. The full forces of divide-and-screw will be turned on them, as has happened in many in lands where colonialism by whites was abolished but not the more frequent colonialism and parasitism by nonwhites.
There will be no Pax Whatever. There will be the rules of the jungle.
Thursday, January 7, 2016
And on the One Hand
How one sided are the mass media?
Consider this: most people in the mass media don't even know what nonmulticulturalists call themselves. If you asked most multicultural celebrities what an Identitarian is, you'd get blank stares or wrong answers. Most of us have never seen anything in the mass media that referred to nonmulticulturalists as anything but abusive ad hominem attacks-- r*cist, b*got, Isl*mophobe, f*r right, white supr*mecist, right w*ng populist, and so on, including media outlets that supposedly ban their writers from using slurs. Media bans on slurs are merely bans on slurs directed at nonwhites.
Groupthink bubbles are pretty darn fanatical and despicable when you don't even know what your alleged opponents call themselves. Or what their actual beliefs might be.
For those who don't know, critics of multiculturalism call themselves: Race realists. Immigration patriots. Real conservatives. Counterjihadists. Pro Westerners. Identitarians, Paleoconservatives. Traditionalists. Pan Europeans. Fact Facers. They almost never call themselves abusive ad hominem terms.
Thus we are stuck with the contradictions of nonmulticultural intellectuals (JP Rushton, Thomas Jackson and so on) providing overwhelming evidence for their sides while the alleged paragons of tolerance and brilliance resort to barrages of ad hominem and straw person attacks, not to mention piles of other fallacious rhetoric.
But slurs do more than demonize well reasoned opposition. They create knee-jerk responses in adherents, causing adherents to automatically feel revulsion at well reasoned dissent. And if individuals go so far as to consider changing multicultural beliefs, they will feel anxiety, not cognitive dissonance anxiety, but anxiety from indoctrination and social pressure.
Oddly, poorly reasoned dissent gets lots of publicity. The Westboro Baptist Church and its rotten ideology, gets lots of publicity, serving as straw person fodder for establishment totalitarianisms. Almost everyone gets to feel superior to the Westboro Baptist Church. Just don't mention to the multiculturalists that the Westboro Baptist Church consists of fellow multiculturalists. The same goes for multitudes of similar groups.
The lesson: if you want publicity for your views, get out a tin foil hat or recite ruling group nostrums. Or both.
Consider this: most people in the mass media don't even know what nonmulticulturalists call themselves. If you asked most multicultural celebrities what an Identitarian is, you'd get blank stares or wrong answers. Most of us have never seen anything in the mass media that referred to nonmulticulturalists as anything but abusive ad hominem attacks-- r*cist, b*got, Isl*mophobe, f*r right, white supr*mecist, right w*ng populist, and so on, including media outlets that supposedly ban their writers from using slurs. Media bans on slurs are merely bans on slurs directed at nonwhites.
Groupthink bubbles are pretty darn fanatical and despicable when you don't even know what your alleged opponents call themselves. Or what their actual beliefs might be.
For those who don't know, critics of multiculturalism call themselves: Race realists. Immigration patriots. Real conservatives. Counterjihadists. Pro Westerners. Identitarians, Paleoconservatives. Traditionalists. Pan Europeans. Fact Facers. They almost never call themselves abusive ad hominem terms.
Thus we are stuck with the contradictions of nonmulticultural intellectuals (JP Rushton, Thomas Jackson and so on) providing overwhelming evidence for their sides while the alleged paragons of tolerance and brilliance resort to barrages of ad hominem and straw person attacks, not to mention piles of other fallacious rhetoric.
But slurs do more than demonize well reasoned opposition. They create knee-jerk responses in adherents, causing adherents to automatically feel revulsion at well reasoned dissent. And if individuals go so far as to consider changing multicultural beliefs, they will feel anxiety, not cognitive dissonance anxiety, but anxiety from indoctrination and social pressure.
Oddly, poorly reasoned dissent gets lots of publicity. The Westboro Baptist Church and its rotten ideology, gets lots of publicity, serving as straw person fodder for establishment totalitarianisms. Almost everyone gets to feel superior to the Westboro Baptist Church. Just don't mention to the multiculturalists that the Westboro Baptist Church consists of fellow multiculturalists. The same goes for multitudes of similar groups.
The lesson: if you want publicity for your views, get out a tin foil hat or recite ruling group nostrums. Or both.
Third Wayism
The evil brilliance of third wayism, the ideology of contemporary Democrats and similar parties in Europe, was figuring out that you don't need tax shifts to redistribute trillions of dollars to the top. You merely deregulate, support globalism, support austerity, support oligopolies, bail out the rich, provide tax entitlements, fail to enforce regulations, keep unemployment excessively high, and employ token punishments against crimes committed by the wealthy.
Third wayism indoctrinates the wealthy and upper middle classes to feel morally superior for believing in poorly reasoned biocultural Marxism. Thus, to be a respectable person, one supports wrecking the lives, jobs, families, schools, cultures, and neighborhoods of nonwealthy whites, while Third Wayers themselves stay safely away from nonwhites with harmful tendencies.
Third wayism pretends other arrangements are impossible or impractical or endlessly stymied by Republicans. But as we saw in 2009 and 2010, when Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, contemporary Democrats' commitments the people are far more word than deed. Bait-and-switch keeps fooling Democratic Party voters. Having lots of social junk science around also helps the third way cause.
Contemporary Republicans, Libertarians, and Constitution Partiers, of course, are even worse, supporting the above plus massive tax shifts away from the rich, onto nonwealthy individuals and future generations.
The ultimate paradigm case of third way gradual totalitarianism was Joe Lieberman, the former Senator from Wall Street, who hilariously pretended to be centrist and independent, grandstanding of minor issues while enriching the wealthy.
Third wayism indoctrinates the wealthy and upper middle classes to feel morally superior for believing in poorly reasoned biocultural Marxism. Thus, to be a respectable person, one supports wrecking the lives, jobs, families, schools, cultures, and neighborhoods of nonwealthy whites, while Third Wayers themselves stay safely away from nonwhites with harmful tendencies.
Third wayism pretends other arrangements are impossible or impractical or endlessly stymied by Republicans. But as we saw in 2009 and 2010, when Democrats controlled Congress and the White House, contemporary Democrats' commitments the people are far more word than deed. Bait-and-switch keeps fooling Democratic Party voters. Having lots of social junk science around also helps the third way cause.
Contemporary Republicans, Libertarians, and Constitution Partiers, of course, are even worse, supporting the above plus massive tax shifts away from the rich, onto nonwealthy individuals and future generations.
The ultimate paradigm case of third way gradual totalitarianism was Joe Lieberman, the former Senator from Wall Street, who hilariously pretended to be centrist and independent, grandstanding of minor issues while enriching the wealthy.
Monday, January 4, 2016
The Short Guide to Finding and Keeping a Wife and Family for Shy, Awkward, Ethical Men
Dear shy, ethical guys: you exist for good reasons. For generations, women and their parents in the Northern Hemisphere, chose guys like you because of your abilities to be faithful, work hard, provide resources for children, and feel anxieties when doing something wrong. Stop feeling inferior.
Unfortunately, in today's societies, devoted to egoism, hedonism, and Machiavellianismyour strengths become mating liabilities.
The game literature is little help. Game literature is unspecific, contradictory or unsupported by evidence, the sort of advice that leaves shy guys confused and under confident, exactly what you don't want to happen. Worse, the self described pick up artists slur more ethical men as betas. Fortunately, there is help in Sex Signals: The Biology of Love by Timothy Perper, an old, overlooked book.
Sex Signals shows the step by step flow of initial meetings. Look for Perper's book on Worldcat or an online bookstore.
Some other points to remember:
Unfortunately, in today's societies, devoted to egoism, hedonism, and Machiavellianismyour strengths become mating liabilities.
The game literature is little help. Game literature is unspecific, contradictory or unsupported by evidence, the sort of advice that leaves shy guys confused and under confident, exactly what you don't want to happen. Worse, the self described pick up artists slur more ethical men as betas. Fortunately, there is help in Sex Signals: The Biology of Love by Timothy Perper, an old, overlooked book.
Sex Signals shows the step by step flow of initial meetings. Look for Perper's book on Worldcat or an online bookstore.
Some other points to remember:
- Which is better? Asking one bad woman on a date, knowing she will say yes? Or asking 100 good women on dates but only one says yes? The second, of course. Those who ask women most get the best women. Some men use rejection therapy or make a sport of rejection, taking perverse pride in being rejected. Once you know enough about psychology and body language, you easily notice when women want to be asked out.
- When a woman backs off, you back off. Never become obsessed with any woman who rejects you or seems indifferent or reveals bad character. Thousands of other women exist. Desperation almost never works. Let it go and distract yourself with other activities.
- Walk with confidence, groom well, get in shape, work on your voice.
- If you have a hard time keeping conversations going around strangers, pull a George Costanza. Put conversation crib notes in your wallet.
- If you feel overwhelmed in a situation, laugh inside and imagine you are wearing the Fecal Vision glasses from the old Saturday Night Live skit. Or imagine you are talking to a puppy or a lost soul.
- Stick to your strengths. Focus on your ability as an earner, potential father, and ethical person. Women unable to appreciate those things are not worth your time anyway.
- Stay away from night clubs. You won't do well on the alpha's turf. The advice in Perper's book works just as well on casual dates as it does in night clubs. Go where women outnumber men: classes, churches, and stores popular with women.
- Remember that relationships always come with costs. A woman is unlikely to solve your other problems.
- Remember: the cool guys have feet of clay. Their shtick wears thin with most women because they have few moral pursuits and edifying interests. Even being a male friend of cool guys gets boring and odious. Whether conscious of it or not, the cool guys are using an evolutionary r strategy, as are most of the women interested in them. Neither group has much to offer you.
- Read John Gottman's advice on how to make a relationship work.
- Read up on body language. With some aspects of your personality and body language, fake it until you make it. For example, I once touched my face and neck in neurotic ways. Doing so was unconscious for me then. But after years of not doing those neurotic self-touches, I feel perfectly fine never doing them. (But with some aspects of personality, if it constantly feels too awkward, stop doing it.)
- Avoid self-deprecation. Women thought self-deprecation was humorous 25 years ago. They don't any more.
- Don't misrepresent your character. It's unethical and you probably wont be able to fake it for long anyway.
- Don't fall for nurture assumptions. Your parents' parenting styles didn't affect you and yours won't affect your children. Raise your children in larger environments with little Randism, militarism, cultural Marxism and other evils, then don't worry about the rest. Some kids turn out good, some turn out bad, not much you can do to directly mold them. Fortunately, more of your children will turn out decent than the children of r practitioners. Your children will be unlikely to turn your life into a living hell because they have your genes and you wisely—I hope!—engaged in assortative mating, choosing a spouse with similar ethical characteristics.
Friday, January 1, 2016
Posts of the Year
There are dozens of others, but I lack the time to post them. Congrats to the winners.
Income Gains for the wealthy versus the rest
Medical Error Became America's Third Largest Cause of Death, And What Can Be Done About It
New Prospects for Eugenics
Gradually and Then Suddenly
The more individuals perceive themselves as “citizens of the world,” the less likely they are to contribute to collective public goods and the more likely to hitch a “free ride” on the contributions of other citizens
They believe in redistribution: to themselves
Why I'm sceptical about the idea of genetically inherited trauma
Thus, participants demonstrated knowledge neglect, or the failure to rely on stored knowledge, in the face of fluent processing experiences
Questions About the Hegira to Germany
These findings arguably reflect the contribution of genetic diversity to the degree of fractionalization and polarization
Evolution revolutionized the natural sciences; the social sciences are due now
As romance gets swiped from the screen, some twentysomethings aren’t liking what they see
The opportunity cost of war (slightly updated)
One of their favorite tactics is to masquerade as defenders of the common folk while neatly arranging things behind the scenes so that they can continue to plunder unimpeded
Two leading ecologists say a rapid proliferation of roads across the planet is causing irreparable damage to nature, but properly planned roads could actually help the environment
Anyway, neither culture nor genetics gets much air time in commentary on the latest events
TPP would require all TPP countries to allow new financial products and services to enter their economies if permitted in any other TPP countries
Humans differ in paternal investment
Bloom and Bust by Phillip Longman
Polling on immigration often appears to be all over the place
The Atir-Rosenzweig-Dunning Effect: When Experts Claim to Know the Unknowable
Income Gains for the wealthy versus the rest
Medical Error Became America's Third Largest Cause of Death, And What Can Be Done About It
New Prospects for Eugenics
Gradually and Then Suddenly
They believe in redistribution: to themselves
Why I'm sceptical about the idea of genetically inherited trauma
Thus, participants demonstrated knowledge neglect, or the failure to rely on stored knowledge, in the face of fluent processing experiences
Questions About the Hegira to Germany
These findings arguably reflect the contribution of genetic diversity to the degree of fractionalization and polarization
Evolution revolutionized the natural sciences; the social sciences are due now
As romance gets swiped from the screen, some twentysomethings aren’t liking what they see
The opportunity cost of war (slightly updated)
One of their favorite tactics is to masquerade as defenders of the common folk while neatly arranging things behind the scenes so that they can continue to plunder unimpeded
Two leading ecologists say a rapid proliferation of roads across the planet is causing irreparable damage to nature, but properly planned roads could actually help the environment
Anyway, neither culture nor genetics gets much air time in commentary on the latest events
TPP would require all TPP countries to allow new financial products and services to enter their economies if permitted in any other TPP countries
Humans differ in paternal investment
Bloom and Bust by Phillip Longman
Polling on immigration often appears to be all over the place
The Atir-Rosenzweig-Dunning Effect: When Experts Claim to Know the Unknowable
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Junk Social Science Watch
This study claims racial prejudice is driving opposition to paying college athletes.
Using a bad definition, the study, apparently, defined prejudice as having a negative view, but prejudice is judging without evidence, not having a negative view.
Why?
If negative views were a good definition of prejudice, the study would be self-condemning because it expresses negative views toward whites. Also every negative view would be considered prejudice. But negative views on ruling group actions are usually beneficial because almost all public policies are wrong or at least grossly sub-optimal.
Pew polls indicate large percentages of Muslims believe infidels, apostates, accused blasphemers, and accused female adulterers should all be murdered. Whites have negative views of such murders. Does that make whites prejudiced?
The study claims it controls for a host of factors. Did it control for genes? Beliefs about neoclassical economics? The evidence? Dozens of other factors that typically get left out?
(Some whites do deserve criticism because they believe college coaching salaries are decided by imaginary free markets while denying that freedom to athletes.)
(For the record, I think organized sports at public funded schools should be eliminated. As a second best alternative, I support paying athletes at universities with profitable athletic departments. I support eliminating athletic departments at every school that uses taxpayer money or student fees for athletic departments. The unprofitable represent the overwhelming majority of athletic departments. I also support stricter academic standards, a $60,000 annual salary cap on athletic department salaries, stricter restrictions on time spent on sports, and severe restrictions on money spent for facilities.)
Using a bad definition, the study, apparently, defined prejudice as having a negative view, but prejudice is judging without evidence, not having a negative view.
Why?
If negative views were a good definition of prejudice, the study would be self-condemning because it expresses negative views toward whites. Also every negative view would be considered prejudice. But negative views on ruling group actions are usually beneficial because almost all public policies are wrong or at least grossly sub-optimal.
Pew polls indicate large percentages of Muslims believe infidels, apostates, accused blasphemers, and accused female adulterers should all be murdered. Whites have negative views of such murders. Does that make whites prejudiced?
The study claims it controls for a host of factors. Did it control for genes? Beliefs about neoclassical economics? The evidence? Dozens of other factors that typically get left out?
(Some whites do deserve criticism because they believe college coaching salaries are decided by imaginary free markets while denying that freedom to athletes.)
(For the record, I think organized sports at public funded schools should be eliminated. As a second best alternative, I support paying athletes at universities with profitable athletic departments. I support eliminating athletic departments at every school that uses taxpayer money or student fees for athletic departments. The unprofitable represent the overwhelming majority of athletic departments. I also support stricter academic standards, a $60,000 annual salary cap on athletic department salaries, stricter restrictions on time spent on sports, and severe restrictions on money spent for facilities.)
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
The D Word
Demagoguery is poorly reasoned, emotively strong political language, especially slurs. The word demagogue is a slur, so those calling others the D word contradict and condemn themselves.
When the name Huey Long pops up, so does the slur demagogue. The frequency of the correlation indicates that demonizing Long as a demagogue is part of the establishment narrative. We should be skeptical of ruling group narratives because ruling group narratives are almost always poorly reasoned, designed to make horrific ideas pass as "centrism."
I read Long's much reviled speech, a speech made with no teleprompters or focus groups. Long's speech contains only one slur, the mild ad hominem "financial barons." Long's speech does contain numerous fallacious claims. It is not my point here to pick on all of Long's bad ideas. But the speech barely consists of demagoguery.
Contrast that speech with today's ruling group opinion makers when they write on ethnoracial issues. Their writings are packed with multitudes of super slurs "racist," "far right," "Islamopbobe," "bigot," "libtard," "right wing." Yet the ruling classes imagine that they are ethical and tolerant, almost never get fired or even criticized for spewing antiwhite super slurs. I have never heard of our rulers calling each other the D word.
Their heads would probably explode before they could write 3000 slur free words on ethnoracial issues.
Outright supporters of Marxism, self-described activists, are treated as somewhat mainstream, as if it were some accident that millions died and billions suffer from Marxisms, including multiculturalism.
The D word is usually reserved for ethnoracial fact facers or those labeled as economic populists, those who support capitalism but not crooked capitalism. To put it bluntly, you a more likely to be labeled with the D word for telling the truth to the ruling groups than for fallacious claims.
When the name Huey Long pops up, so does the slur demagogue. The frequency of the correlation indicates that demonizing Long as a demagogue is part of the establishment narrative. We should be skeptical of ruling group narratives because ruling group narratives are almost always poorly reasoned, designed to make horrific ideas pass as "centrism."
I read Long's much reviled speech, a speech made with no teleprompters or focus groups. Long's speech contains only one slur, the mild ad hominem "financial barons." Long's speech does contain numerous fallacious claims. It is not my point here to pick on all of Long's bad ideas. But the speech barely consists of demagoguery.
Contrast that speech with today's ruling group opinion makers when they write on ethnoracial issues. Their writings are packed with multitudes of super slurs "racist," "far right," "Islamopbobe," "bigot," "libtard," "right wing." Yet the ruling classes imagine that they are ethical and tolerant, almost never get fired or even criticized for spewing antiwhite super slurs. I have never heard of our rulers calling each other the D word.
Their heads would probably explode before they could write 3000 slur free words on ethnoracial issues.
Outright supporters of Marxism, self-described activists, are treated as somewhat mainstream, as if it were some accident that millions died and billions suffer from Marxisms, including multiculturalism.
The D word is usually reserved for ethnoracial fact facers or those labeled as economic populists, those who support capitalism but not crooked capitalism. To put it bluntly, you a more likely to be labeled with the D word for telling the truth to the ruling groups than for fallacious claims.
Monday, December 28, 2015
Trump and Sanders
Neither Donald Trump nor Bernie Sanders would produce much good if elected. They'd be facing, in courts, Congress, and country clubs, thousands of individuals devoted to various combinations of Randism, militarism, and biocultural Marxism. Ruling groups would gang up on Trump or Sanders to stop policies dead.
Mass media, already vehemently opposed to beliefs from outside the ruling groups, will gleefully blame Trump or Sanders for the inability to get things done. The mass media would demand fake "centrism" and "compromise," code words for more establishment totalitarianisms. Reporters would be dispatched to get the breathless "inside story," interviewing Congress persons devoted to fanaticisms. Expect scenes like this: "We tried to reach out to the president. It's his own fault he's isolated. I invited him to dinner. The president never replied," knowing full well Congress wasn't going to budge their fanatical behaviors.
Powerful individuals, in their wealthy bubbles, consider their beliefs be the most perfect normalcy ever, their monstrous contradictions blissfully ignored. In them, evidence is no match for intuitions.
Trump and Sanders are largely self-driven movements. They have millions of supporters. But negligible support from powerful groups.
Sanders' mask would slip. Sanders would fill his administration with individuals devoted to excessive self-interest and antiwhite totalitarianism, younger variants of Eric Holder and Morris Dees and Tim Wise and Ibrahim Hooper. Sanders ranks among the most well-meaning self-described socialists, comparatively speaking, but where would Sanders find other well-meaning individuals? Not in the armies of progressives devoted to self-contradictions and antiwhite totalitarianism. Almost all contemporary politicians devote themselves to bait-and-switch, but those who follow Marxisms are the worst at it.
Trump's mask would do likewise. Trump tends to agree with Randism or third wayism on most nonimmigration issues. Trump's past behaviors reek of excessive self-interest. On immigration, Trump would rely on signing statements and executive orders. A coup attempt or impeachment over a minor scandal would not surprise.
That's why individuals need to organize and create their own groups and fiercely protect their groups from rent seeking and from being co-opted by establishment totalitarianisms. Those engaged in rent seeking must be expelled from ethical groups.
The likely best result from Trump or Sanders would be decreasing the foreign policy destruction caused by neoconservatism and third way militarism.
Trump and Sanders have shifted Overton windows of acceptable thought but mostly among nonwealthy individuals. Research from Gilens and Page, plus mountains of other evidence, indicates this country hasn't been a democracy in a
long, long time.
Power, repetition, and organization still rule.
Mass media, already vehemently opposed to beliefs from outside the ruling groups, will gleefully blame Trump or Sanders for the inability to get things done. The mass media would demand fake "centrism" and "compromise," code words for more establishment totalitarianisms. Reporters would be dispatched to get the breathless "inside story," interviewing Congress persons devoted to fanaticisms. Expect scenes like this: "We tried to reach out to the president. It's his own fault he's isolated. I invited him to dinner. The president never replied," knowing full well Congress wasn't going to budge their fanatical behaviors.
Powerful individuals, in their wealthy bubbles, consider their beliefs be the most perfect normalcy ever, their monstrous contradictions blissfully ignored. In them, evidence is no match for intuitions.
Trump and Sanders are largely self-driven movements. They have millions of supporters. But negligible support from powerful groups.
Sanders' mask would slip. Sanders would fill his administration with individuals devoted to excessive self-interest and antiwhite totalitarianism, younger variants of Eric Holder and Morris Dees and Tim Wise and Ibrahim Hooper. Sanders ranks among the most well-meaning self-described socialists, comparatively speaking, but where would Sanders find other well-meaning individuals? Not in the armies of progressives devoted to self-contradictions and antiwhite totalitarianism. Almost all contemporary politicians devote themselves to bait-and-switch, but those who follow Marxisms are the worst at it.
Trump's mask would do likewise. Trump tends to agree with Randism or third wayism on most nonimmigration issues. Trump's past behaviors reek of excessive self-interest. On immigration, Trump would rely on signing statements and executive orders. A coup attempt or impeachment over a minor scandal would not surprise.
That's why individuals need to organize and create their own groups and fiercely protect their groups from rent seeking and from being co-opted by establishment totalitarianisms. Those engaged in rent seeking must be expelled from ethical groups.
The likely best result from Trump or Sanders would be decreasing the foreign policy destruction caused by neoconservatism and third way militarism.
Trump and Sanders have shifted Overton windows of acceptable thought but mostly among nonwealthy individuals. Research from Gilens and Page, plus mountains of other evidence, indicates this country hasn't been a democracy in a
long, long time.
Power, repetition, and organization still rule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)