modern politics and the new class

Post-World War 2 politics seems bewildering. The old political divisions such as left and right don’t really seem to explain any of it satisfactorily. Perhaps the answer is that we need to think sociologically rather than politically.

Of course sociology is a dirty word to most self-styled conservatives but it can offer us some useful insights.

Post-WW2 politics is quite different from the politics of the preceding century. It’s just as class-based but what has changed is the nature of the classes. For Marxists there was the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Class membership was based on power and wealth and was strongly hereditary. Most people were born into their class and remained there.

A new class took power after the Second World War. They were the spiritual descendants of the intellectuals who who worked so hard to destroy civilisation in the 18th and 19th century but with some crucial differences – they were now much more numerous and they were no longer obscure professors, penniless students or failed writers. They had gained access to power. They were now senior bureaucrats, influential journalists, lawyers and career politicians. Some sociologists refer to them as the new managerial class. They saw society as something that needed management, and if necessary micro-management. And not just economic management, but social management.

They were not like the old bourgeoisie. They were not necessarily rich. They did not necessarily own factories.

Importantly, they were not born into this new class. Membership was gained  by going to the right universities and doing the right sorts of degrees and by subscribing to the right kind of thinking.

These are people who, whether they were born in a mansion or a hovel, now see themselves as belonging to a superior class. The class markers now are not wealth or birth but membership of a class that sees itself as an intellectual elite. They believe they are set apart from the masses by superior intelligence, education and virtue. In fact they see themselves as an Elect, predestined to rule.

What is important in political terms is that for the past half century or so virtually every politician regardless of supposed party allegiance has come from this new managerial/intellectual class. We no longer have different parties representing different class interests We now have different parties that all represent the same class interest. Which explains why the policies of the major parties are more or less interchangeable. It explains why there is no discernible difference between Tony Blair and Theresa May, or between Bill Shorten and Scott Morrison. It explains why Americans keep electing different presidents but end up getting the same misgovernment.

The nature of this managerial/intellectual class has other consequences. These are people who believe they have a duty to manage other people’s lives. They also believe they have a duty to police public opinion. They are the superior people and they know what’s best for the rest of us. If we don’t agree then we must be made to agree. It’s for our own good.

Advertisements

hope, alternatives and Jeremy Corbyn

I’ve been spoken before about my theory that in order to have hope people need to believe that viable political alternatives exist, even if those alternatives are rather unattractive. During the Cold War people disgruntled by life under communism could console themselves that a viable alternative existed in the West. And people disgruntled by life under capitalism could console themselves that a viable alternative existed in the Soviet Union.

Brexit was largely motivated by Britons’ belief that a viable alternative to the EU was possible. That’s why the political establishment has worked so tirelessly to destroy Brexit – in order to teach the British voters that they are not ever going to be given an alternative. That’s why so much effort has been put into opposing Trump. The fact that Trump has achieved nothing doesn’t matter – what matters is that Americans must be taught the lesson that real democracy means you get to choose between two candidates approved by the Establishment, two candidates whose policies are in fact pretty much identical. Americans most learn that an alternative is not permitted.

Which brings us to the current well-funded campaign to destroy Jeremy Corbyn. Now I’m not suggesting that Corbynite Labour is a great alternative, or even a good alternative, but it does at least represent some alternative. Which is why powerful interests have decided that Corbyn must go. It is unthinkable that British voters should be offered anything resembling an actual alternative.

Once Corbyn is destroyed the Labour Party will return to Blairitism, which is of course in every way indistinguishable from modern Toryism. Once again Britain will be a genuine democracy with two absolutely identical parties alternating in power, and with the British people properly trained to vote the way they’re told to vote.

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).

prelude to war

In an interesting discussion on Anatoly Karlin’s blog at unz.com this comment was made in relation to the latest American sanctions against Russia:

“These demands on Russia are about as sincere and plausible as the ultimata given to Serbia after Sarajevo. They are not credible but meant only as a prelude to war.”

Unfortunately I think that’s an accurate assessment. The situation is also very similar to the   policy followed by Franklin Roosevelt in doing everything possibly to provoke war wth Japan.

The current American demands are such that no sovereign nation ever would or ever could accept them. The intention is clearly to provoke war or to create a situation in which the U.S. can initiate war.

It’s worth keeping in mind that “sanctions” are a concept with no actual existence. Economic sanctions are an act of war. The U.S. is already at war with Russia, a war in which the U.S. is clearly the aggressor. It’s not yet a shooting war. But obviously the Americans are moving in that direction. The Americans do not want Russia to back down. They hope that the Russians will refuse to do so, so that the U.S. will have an excuse for war. If the Russians do back down the Americans will simply increase their demands until they get what they want, which is war.

The problem is that U.S. foreign policy is in the hands of people who truly believe that the U.S. could win against Russia with minimal casualties. They truly believe it would be pretty much like America’s wars against Third World nations, little more than a triumphal progress. It would of course be a nuclear war war but they believe that would be no problem. And even if it doesn’t turn out to be quite so easy, even if it ends up costing tens of millions of lives, these clowns really don’t care. They see it as a small price to pay to establish America’s hegemony as permanent and absolute.

It’s highly likely that American public opinion will go along with this suicidal course. It will be relatively easy to paint this war as the final war between good and evil, the war that finally eliminates evilness from the world. The war that destroys America’s enemies for good. American’s enemies are of course anybody who questions American power but the American public laps up that sort of thing.

And surely it’s worth a few tens of millions of dead in order to make the homosexual lobby happy, and to make sure that all Russians have the right to use whichever bathroom they choose and whichever pronouns they choose, just like they do in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

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.

how the culture war could have been won

You can divide people into two categories, the civilisation-preservers and the civilisation-wreckers. The civilisation-wreckers have taken various forms but the most dangerous of all are the Social Justice Warriors with which we are too familiar today. The real question is – why have the civilisation-wreckers been so much more successful than the civilisation-preservers?

A major reason is that the civilisation-preservers are generally speaking fairly ordinary people. They have jobs. They’re married. They’re raising kids. They have only a limited amount of time to devote to politics.

The civilisation-wreckers on the other hand are usually unemployed. Or they work in academia, which is the same thing really (at least in most of the humanities departments). Even if they’re married they usually have one or even more commonly no kids. They have lots and lots of leisure time to devote to political activism. In practice ten civilisation-wreckers can achieve more than a hundred civilisation-preservers simply because they can devote their whole lives to the task.

The sad thing is that this situation, this massive over-supply of activists with time on their hands, is not natural. It has been manufactured. And it could have been stopped.

Anyone who has had to deal with an infestation of household pests such as ants knows that the only way to eradicate the problem is to find the nests. It’s the same with SJWs. Fortunately in the case of SJWs we know where the nests are. They’re in academia mostly, in the bureaucracy and in NGOs and the media (especially the government-owned media like the BBC and the ABC). And they’ve been breeding there for decades.

Over the past decades supposedly conservative governments in Britain, Australia and the U.S. have had ample opportunities to solve this problem. All they had to do was to cut off the supply of oxygen, in other words cut off the funding. Would-be SJWS would them have been forced to find real jobs in the real world. They would then not have had all that leisure time for political activism (some of them might even have abandoned their SJW beliefs after encountering the real world).

This would not have been a complete solution of course. Some of the nests in the media would certainly have survived and some of the useless university departments handing out Mickey Mouse degrees would have found alternative sources of funding. But it would still have achieved quite a lot. The supply of SJWs funded by the taxpayer with unlimited amounts of free time could have been reduced radically. The SJW menace might have been contained.

And those supposedly conservative governments in Britain, Australia and the U.S. have done nothing. They have allowed SJWs to continue to proliferate. The worthless NGOs still thrive, the Women’s Studies and Gender Studies and sociology departments continue to get funded to churn out unemployable misfits intent on destroying our society, the bureaucracy has not been reined in and the BBC and ABC still spend billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on civilisation-wrecking.

There is an obvious conclusion to be drawn from this. Those so-called conservative governments never did intend to win the culture war. They never even intended to fight it. Worse than that, they have been not merely passive spectators but in many cases have worked actively for the forces of darkness. Those conservative political parties need to die.

revolutions and democracy

Rebellions were not uncommon during the Middle Ages. There were quite a few. They all had one thing in common. They all failed. Peasants with pitch-forks don’t do very well against well-armed disciplined soldiers (and even medieval soldiers were well disciplined compared to a mob of peasants with pitch-forks).

The ruling class wasn’t too worried. There was no real threat to the social order. They made sure they always had those well-armed disciplined soldiers on their side.

Then things started to change. In the late 18th century a peasant’s revolt actually succeeded. OK, the French Revolution was much more complicated than just a peasant’s revolt but the important thing is that the social order really was overturned. The ruling classes started to get nervous.

From then until the mid-19th century (1848 being the celebrated Year of Revolutions) there were more revolutions. They met with mixed success but the fact that any of them enjoyed any success at all was enough to send a chill up the spines of the ruling classes.

Some way needed to be found to nip this revolution business in the bud. The answer was democracy. Parliaments and congresses already existed but they were not the slightest bit democratic. Now they would be made democratic. Now the peasants wouldn’t be tempted to resort to pitch-forks. They would have a say in the government.

Of course it goes without saying that the ruling classes did not have the slightest intention of allowing those nasty smelly peasants (or those nasty smelly and increasingly numerous workers) to have an actual say in the government. It was all a game of make believe. Representative democracy was in fact a system set up to ensure that the people would never actually be asked for their opinions. The people would be passive observers but they would think they were active participants. Instead of manning the barricades and cutting off aristocrats’ heads they would vote. Their votes would be meaningless. That was the whole point of the exercise.

It worked very well indeed in countries like the US, Britain and Australia. The masses became docile and compliant. They believed the lies about democracy. They kept away from pitch-forks.

This has turned out to be very unfortunate. Sometimes the only way to persuade the ruling class that the people are seriously angry and discontented is to man the barricades. But we now have a population so drugged by the illusion of democracy that they will never man those barricades, even when their ruling class has declared war on them and intends to destroy them. Instead they dutifully show up at the polling booths, filled with the touching belief that if only they can throw out that nasty Mr Tweedledee and his Liberal Conservative Party (or his Democratic Republican Party) and vote in that nice Mr Tweedledum and his Conservative Liberal Party (or his Republican Democrat Party) then everything will be fine.

In the latter part of the 20th century the ruling class really did declare war on us. And we did not take to the streets. We did not man the barricades. We voted. We are now paying the price for our naïvete.