why we need more instability

We are used to the idea of political stability being a good thing, but perhaps there are times when it is highly undesirable.

At this point in time the globalist-liberals have society moving in the direction that suits them. All they need to do is to keep the momentum going and in fact to a large extent they don’t even need to do that. Their agenda will keep rolling steadily forward under its own momentum.

So naturally what the globalist-liberals want is political stability. They do not want anything that will threaten the stability of the current situation since the current situation suits them perfectly.

What this means is that if you are an opponent of the current regime then logically what you want is political instability. You want to undermine the foundations of the present regime, just as every revolutionary movement has sought to do. The objective has to be not a change of government but regime change. The overthrowing of the existing political settlement.

In the past revolutionary movements sometimes aimed at regime change by force. For various reasons this is not an option for western dissidents today, and for various reasons it would be very undesirable even if it were possible. But revolutionaries can be perfectly bloodless. The social revolution of the 60s and 70s was non-violent but it succeeded in overthrowing every accepted social value.

We need our own social revolution. And to get it we will need to destabilise things.

Which means that when we vote we need to keep this in mind. There’s no point in voting for the person you think will make the best prime minister or the best president. Democratic and parliamentary systems are designed to ensure that there is no possibility of someone reaching the top who actually has the ability to be a good and effective leader.

So whichever way you vote you’re going to be get a lousy prime minister. My feeling is that therefore it is best to vote for the candidate or party most likely to create instability in the system. In Britain today that probably means Jeremy Corbyn. He might well be a terrible prime minister, but he might help to create the kind of political chaos that is needed to bring down a rotten system. In fact one could argue that Theresa May is doing a terrific job right now in laying the foundations for anarchy in the U.K. – with any luck she might deal the system a fatal blow.

I’m adopting here the view attributed (probably wrongly) to Lenin, the famous “the worse, the better” argument that holds that the worse things get the better from the point of view of bringing down the system.

In Australia the best hope of destabilisation is certainly Pauline Hanson. Her recent attempt to get the Senate to pass a motion saying that it’s OK to be white was the kind of masterstroke that is needed. He not only knew the motion would fail, she was counting on it. By voting down the motion the Senate has made it clear to ordinary Australians that as far as the system is concerned they are the enemy. It was a brilliant way of undermining public faith in the political system.

When there’s no realistic hope of reforming the system all you can do is to try to weaken it as much as you can. In such a situation the most attractive candidates to vote for are the most massively incompetent ones (like Corbyn) or the ones who know they are outsiders and are prepared to act accordingly (like Hanson).

Advertisements

possible near-future crises

I’ve mentioned in several recent posts my belief that it will take a crisis of major proportions to destabilise the regime of the elites.

One interesting possibility is a complete political meltdown in the U.S. after the next presidential election. The meltdown could happen whether Trump wins or loses.

If Trump wins I think we can take it as a certainty that certain forces within the U.S. will simply not accept such a result. A second term for Trump might well push some of these groups over the edge and into attempts at direct action. An actual military coup might not be very likely but it is likely that there will be hysterical liberals openly calling for a coup. In fact some liberals have already made noises that suggest that they think a coup would be a fabulous idea. In Trump wins in 2020 the push for a coup could gain real momentum and even if the military doesn’t act it could precipitate a full-blown political crisis. A government really cannot allow people to be running around openly making plans to overthrow it without taking some action.

It might not be a likely scenario but since the 2016 election the mood among liberals has become steadily more irrational. There has to be a definite chance that another Trump victory would push some liberals into a stance perilously close to outright treason. Things could get interesting.

If Trump loses there’s also the potential for things to get very very crazy. Liberals are consoling themselves at the moment with revenge fantasies. The trouble is that a very significant number of them will expect those fantasies to be made into reality. They will expect Trump supporters to be punished. They will expect the punishments to be severe. They will also expect a newly elected Democrat president to take action to remove the threat of any future unfavourable election results. The backlash that liberals are planning is going to be the most savage repression ever enacted in an allegedly democratic country.

What could this backlash lead to? Probably nothing. Probably Americans will tamely submit to giving up most of their freedoms. But they might not.

And what will the Republicans do? Almost certainly they will welcome the new repressive measures. The chances that the Republican Party will put up a fight are somewhere between zero and none. Of course this might actually cause Republican voters at long last to realise that the Republican Party is not on their side. Which could have interesting results.

We’re seeing something similar in Britain with the elites being increasingly contemptuous of democracy after the British electorate wickedly voted for Brexit. And we’re likely to see similar reactions from European elites if they suffer embarrassing electoral setbacks. The European elites have had just about enough of democracy. They’re increasingly moving towards abandoning even the pretence that democracy still exists.

While it’s certain that the elites in the U.S. and other western countries will move more and more towards open repression the crucial question is whether they will go far enough to be safe. There’s nothing more dangerous than half-hearted repression. That’s what brought about the downfall of the Tsar in Russia in 1917. If the Tsarist regime had been as repressive as its popular image would lead us to believe the regime would have survived. But in fact the regime tried to be moderately repressive. Always a fatal mistake. It will be interesting to see if our modern elites have learnt the lesson of 1917.

the unpredictable future and its possibilities

One thing that predictions about the future have in common is that they’re always wrong. That’s because we know nothing at all about the future but we know a lot about the present. Therefore we assume the future will be just like the present, only more so.

The problem is that sometimes the future turns out to be nothing at all like the present. That’s because unexpected spectacular events occur that change everything. A good example is the First World War. It’s not that the war itself was unexpected. What was not anticipated was that this would be a new type of war and that its political, economic, social and psychological results would be unprecedented. European civilisation as it has existed up to 1914 ceased to exist and a new civilisation took its place. And all the rules had changed.

The Bolshevik Revolution had a similar effect. There had been successful revolutions before. The idea of a socialist revolution had been around for many years. But the cataclysmic nature of the Bolshevik Revolution was not anticipated.

The combination of these two events ushered in a world that nobody in 1913 could possibly have anticipated.

The thing about unexpected events is that we call them unexpected events because they’re unexpected. By their very nature they cannot be predicted.

This has relevance to the situation in which our society finds itself today, and it has enormous relevance for anyone who believes that the way things have been going for a half century or so simply cannot continue, that some kind of drastic change is inevitable and necessary.

If we view the future as something that will be just like the present, only more so, then our options for effecting change are extremely limited. In fact our only real option is to try to work within the existing “democratic” framework and given that our enemies have an absolute stranglehold on the media (both the old media and social media) and on the education system the odds are very much stacked against us. And our only viable strategy would appear to be to try to slow down the pace of social destruction – fighting defensive battles that so far have invariably ended in retreats which quickly become full-scale routs. And it has to be said that if the future really is going to be pretty much like the present then our chances of success are very very poor.

But as we’ve seen the future is often entirely different from what we were expecting. And this is not something rare. Game-changing events on the scale of the First World War are not very frequent but less spectacular examples occur quite frequently. Such events are often unpleasant. When history springs a surprise on us it’s not very often a pleasant surprise. But such events are always opportunities. They can create entirely new possibilities. Fascism did not even exist before 1914 but the First World and the Bolshevik Revolution created the possibility for such a movement and Mussolini grabbed the opportunity with both hands and gained control of Italy in a bloodless revolution. In 1914 the Bolsheviks were irrelevant and Lenin seemed destined to die in exile, just another forgotten failed revolutionary. The First World War changed the game and by 1917, under the new rules, Lenin had won the game.

So defensive strategies, just trying to hold the line against the tidal wave of the Poz, are futile. If even if tomorrow is going to be pretty much like today those strategies don’t work anyway. And if the future holds unexpected surprises and opportunities then such defeatist strategies are nothing but a hindrance. It’s better to aim at achieving something real and worthwhile, a genuine restoration of sanity and normality. At least it’s inspiring to have such objectives and if and when an opportunity does arise, if the rules of the game do get changed, it’s a good idea to be prepared to take full advantage of the opportunity.

climate change, lies and changing beliefs

We get lied to constantly and to a large extent it’s what we expect these days. Some of these lies are just so transparently obvious that it’s difficult to imagine a reasonably bright five-year-old being taken in by them. What’s worrying though is that no matter how obvious the lies most people seem to swallow them.

The most spectacular example has to be climate change. It is clearly not happening. Coastal cities are not being inundated. Coastal communities have not been swept away by the oceans. Any change is sea levels has been microscopic. The super-gigantic killer hurricanes have not eventuated.

The climate has not changed. But most people still believe the climate change lies.

There are several possible explanations. One explanation is that most people are so dumb that they believe what they’re told even when the evidence clearly indicates the opposite.

A second explanation would be that people don’t actually believe these lies at all but they’re so desperate to conform and so afraid of attracting the attention of the Thought Police that they will pretend to believe absolutely anything. If true that would actually be in some ways a hopeful explanation, because it would mean that those who are currently obediently chanting social justice slogans would, in the event of regime change, abandon those slogans overnight and start chanting a whole new set of slogans.

I’m inclined to think the second explanation is the correct one. While I would never underestimate the power of human stupidity I think the power of conformism is much stronger. The urge to conform is the most powerful of all human instincts, much more powerful than hunger or sex.

The problem is that if the majority is prepared to go along even with lies as obvious as climate change then bringing about regime change is going to be exceedingly difficult. We can’t rely on ordinary people suddenly deciding one day that they’ve had enough and they’re not prepared to be lied to any more. There isn’t going to be a grass-roots revolt. If people are willing to say that the climate is changing when it obviously isn’t then there is effectively no limit to the lies that they can be persuaded to accept.

That’s the thing about regime change which tends to justify both pessimism and optimism. Regime change is incredibly difficult to bring about but once it’s achieved it’s pretty much guaranteed to be permanent. If liberalism ever falls then the overwhelming majority of the population will abandon their liberal beliefs overnight.