should we even bother to vote?

We’re having an election in Australia and I’m finding it pretty hard to care.

More and more it seems that voting is not merely futile but counter-productive. We all know that whichever way we vote it’s not going to make a difference. When we vote we’re like the gambler who knows the game is rigged but he plays anyway because it’s the only game in town. We know we can’t win but we can’t give up that illusion that maybe this time it will work. This time it will make a difference. This time we won’t get betrayed. But we get betrayed anyway.

The futility of voting is not the problem. We do lots of things that are futile. The problem with voting is that we’re not making a choice Party X and Party Y (which are both the same anyway). What we’re doing is casting a vote in favour of a corrupt system. What we’re doing is lending legitimacy to a system that has no actual legitimacy. It’s a system that was never intended to be anything other than an illusion, a way of making us think we had political power when in fact we don’t. When we vote we are in effect saying that we’re satisfied with the system. We’re happy to continue to live in a world of illusions.

We convince ourselves that by voting we can somehow change things for the better, even if only in an infinitesimally small way. But we are actually making things worse, no matter which way we vote.

Advertisements

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).

healthy and unhealthy democracies

I’ve had an amusing discussion elsewhere on the subject of healthy democracies. Someone tried to argue that the fact that Vladimir Putin got 76% of the vote in the Russian presidential election is a sign that Russia is not a healthy democracy. Apparently a healthy democracy is one in which there is “competition” – sort of like the free market.

I find this bizarre. The election indicates that the Russian president governs with the overwhelming consent of the Russian people. How could that possibly be unhealthy?

Compare this to Britain, where Theresa May is Prime Minister even though her party got only 42% of the vote in the most recent election, or the U.S. where Donald Trump got 46% of the vote. It seems blindingly obvious that a society in which more than three-quarters of the population thinks the government is pretty OK is going to be a lot healthier (and a lot happier) than a society in which more than half the voters think the government is most definitely not OK.

I am mystified by the idea that we need competition in politics. I’m not even convinced that competition is all that great in the economic sphere. The free market has always seemed to me to be an unworkable utopian pipe-dream. I certainly don’t think free market thinking has any place in politics.

Obviously it is impossible to have a society which makes everyone happy or a government of which everyone approves. On the other hand a society in which roughly half (in some cases more than half) the population disapproves of the current government surely has major problems.

That’s the problem with democracy – even if it worked in practice the way it’s supposed to work in theory (in other words even if there were actual differences between the major parties) it’s still a recipe for trouble and it’s still a guarantee that most people will be dissatisfied.

But if we must have democracy I think I’d prefer to have a democracy in which most people are at least reasonably satisfied. At this point in time Russian democracy looks a lot healthier than democracy in most of the West.

The Trump Effect and the French election

Looking at the catastrophic performance of Le Pen in the second round of the French election the thought occurs to me (as it did after the Dutch election) that Trump may have played a major role.
If there’s one thing Europeans enjoy it’s indulging in moral preening about their anti-fascist credentials and if there’s one thing they enjoy even more than that it’s sneering at the United States and congratulating themselves on their superior levels of culture, tolerance and all-round moral virtue. Europeans are so very civilised while Americans are barbaric, backward and crass.
This smug condescension on the part of western Europeans is actually quite hilarious. In 1914 western Europeans had a magnificent civilisation. In the century since then, through their own efforts, they have managed to flush it all down the toilet. You’d think this would teach them a bit of humility but in fact as Europe has become progressively more decadent, more corrupt, more cowardly and more depraved Europeans have become even more addicted to sneering at Americans.
Trump has kicked this tendency into overdrive. He represents everything about America that appalls western Europeans, and everything about America that frightens and upsets them.
The election provided the French with a wonderful opportunity to prove their civilisational superiority by electing the anti-Trump. And that is indeed what Macron is. Trump is masculine; Macron is emasculated. Trump is proud of his country; Macron is ashamed of his. Trump has demonstrated his commitment to the future by having children; Macron is childless. Trump likes being a political outsider; Macron is a creature of the establishment. Trump is confident; Macron is apologetic. Trump radiates strength; Macron radiates weakness. Trump likes ordinary people; Macron regards them with horror. Trump is a loose cannon; Macron is a good boy who will do what he is told.
To make the deal even sweeter, Trump is a fascist. The French know he is a fascist because that’s what the newspapers and TV tell them and in any case he’s a Republican and everyone knows that all American Republicans are fascists by definition. And Macron is not a fascist because Le Pen is a fascist and he’s against Le Pen so he can’t be a fascist.
So we have an election that was a splendid opportunity for both virtue-signaling and civilisation-signaling.
Given the fact that the second round was a landslide you might suggest that even if there was a Trump Effect it made no difference. Maybe. On the other hand the first round was quite tight and the Macron As Anti-Trump factor may have had some significance, possibly costing Fillon enough votes to keep him out of the second round. Macron was after all a ludicrous clown of a candidate and realistically he could have been in big trouble against Fillon in the second round.
It may well be that the Trump Effect has significantly damaged the chances of nationalist parties in all western European countries. Knee-jerk anti-Americanism is not far beneath the surface amongst most middle-class Europeans, and the irrational and morbid fear of being tarred with any association with fascism is an immense factor in western European politics. 
Of course I’m not suggesting it’s Trump’s fault. Trump is Trump and he can only be himself and his style works very well in US politics. Europeans need to grow up and they need to lose their attitude. If they don’t then they’re going to lose their civilisation.

it hasn’t happened in my street so it doesn’t matter

So there’s been another terror attack in Britain. And what will change as a result? Of course you know the answer – absolutely nothing. There will of course be candlelit vigils and people will sing Imagine and one or two news reporters might cry on screen. But absolutely nothing will change. 
The reason for this is of course the “it hasn’t happened in my street so it doesn’t matter” syndrome. People don’t care about bad stuff until it gets very close to them personally. They don’t care about crime until houses in their street get burgled. They don’t care about unemployment until it’s their kids who can’t find jobs. They don’t care about immigration until their suburb starts to get culturally enriched. They don’t care about terrorism until bombs start going off in their street.
Partly this is quite normal and healthy. We can only deal with so many worrying things and most of us have quite enough worries in our own personal lives. If we worried about everything, even things that don’t directly affect us, we’d all be in straitjackets in the local mental hospital.
Partly it reflects the fundamentally unnatural and unhealthy nature of modern life. We were not meant to live in huge cities and we were not meant to be constantly awash in a sea of mass media. We suffer from sensory overload, and more to the point we suffer from emotional overload. We cannot get upset by every single bad thing that happens anywhere in the world. So we have three choices – we can go mad, we can increase our dose of Prozac, or we can filter out stuff that isn’t relevant to us. Most normal people choose option three.
So it’s actually quite normal to take the “it hasn’t happened in my street so it doesn’t matter” approach. The problem is that it’s very important to distinguish between events that happen elsewhere that really are irrelevant to us and events that happen elsewhere that are actually likely to affect us in the not-too-distant future. It’s also important to distinguish between events that we might conceivably be able to do something about and things that we can do absolutely nothing about.
A rail disaster in Bolivia or an earthquake in Guatemala are both events that can quite reasonably be put into the category of things that are irrelevant to us and that we can’t do anything about.
On the other hand if crime has suddenly skyrocketed in a neighbouring town that should concern us since it could be an indication that we’re about to experience the same thing in our town. Unemployment should concern all of us because our jobs could be next on the chopping block. Immigration should worry us all because it could slowly but surely destroy our whole society. Terrorism should worry us. It could happen in my street. All of these things could happen in my street.
The real problem is that democracy is based on the idea that ordinary people can make these distinctions and can identify the things that they can and should be worried about. Even worse, democracy is based on the assumption that ordinary people can not only identify the important issues but also understand them, and understand what needs to be done, and send the right message to their elected representatives.
Unfortunately the things that really matter tend to be rather complicated. Do you have a clear and thorough understanding of which economic policies are best for the country? I have to confess that I don’t. Crime is complicated. It’s easy to assume that the best way to fight crime is to have more police but in fact the type of policing is more important than the quantity. Understanding terrorism might seem straightforward but there’s the difficulty that cynical and wrong-headed foreign policy decisions really have contributed to the problem, and foreign policy tends to be fiendishly complex.
There’s a further difficulty facing us today. Making the right judgment as to which party or candidate is likely to solve these problems is not easy when the correct decisions have been declared to be politically incorrect, wicked and forbidden even to think about. Solving problems such as immigration then becomes effectively impossible.
And of course if there’s one thing that ordinary people do understand very clearly indeed it is this – no matter which party you vote for they will betray you, they will break their promises, in many cases their actions will be the exact opposite of what they promised, and they will lie.
It is natural to take the “it hasn’t happened in my street so it doesn’t matter” view, but that view becomes even more attractive when the issues are complex and you know quite well that the politicians won’t listen to you anyway.
There is a solution and it’s an easy one – simply boycott the mainstream parties. There are and always have been alternatives if only people will take the final leap of logic – if you can’t trust the professional political class then vote for outsiders. They couldn’t do a worse job than the mainstream parties and at the very least it’s a way of putting the fear of God into the establishment politicians. But people won’t do it because none of these bad things have happened in their street yet.

the Dutch election and the Trump Factor

An interesting sidelight on the Dutch election is the Trump Factor. I’ve seen reports that support for Wilders’ PVV party started to plummet after he came out as a Trump supporter.
European intellectuals have for decades had an absolutely visceral hatred for Americans, and particularly for Americans like Trump who glory in their Americanness. That hatred has now permeated most of European society. Europeans like to imagine they are morally and intellectually superior to Americans. Which is pretty amusing when you consider the catastrophic course of European history in the past century.
It’s partly a matter of style. Trump’s style plays very well in the US. It antagonises European.
It’s also a matter of class. Trump obviously likes ordinary people, including working-class people. European intellectuals loathe and despise the working class, and intellectuals have real influence in Europe. 
The style and the class elements combined have caused a complete psychological meltdown among European intellectuals and the European media. The anti-Trump hysteria in the European media even surpasses that in the US media. The end result of this may be that moderates have been frightened off. Even people who agree with Wilders on immigration are afraid of being associated with someone who admires Trump. 
Europeans don’t seem to like outspoken charismatic leaders. They like bland managerial types, the more boring the better. They seem to think that strong charismatic leaders are automatically fascists. As a result they have had seventy years of weak treacherous leadership.
Never underestimate the European terror of being labeled fascist. Americans can pass such things off as jokes but Europeans (at least western Europeans) can’t. Western Europeans would rather die than be thought of as racists or fascists. The way things are going that’s probably the fate in store for them.
It might be advisable for Marine le Pen to do everything possible to distance herself from Trump.

the Geert Wilders disaster

I confess to having mixed feelings about the Dutch election result. It was obviously a disaster for Geert Wilders. How should a conservative traditionalist feel about this?
Let’s be quite honest. Geert Wilders is no friend to western civilisation. He is anti-immigration and that’s great. Unfortunately on other issues he’s a liberal. And not just a liberal, but a fairly extreme liberal. He is perfectly comfortable with the depravity and decadence of modern Europe. Nothing matters more to Geert Wilders than homosexual marriage.
The problem with people like Wilders is that they are not presenting a genuine alternative. They do not have a vision of a better society. And if western civilisation is to be saved we need genuine alternative visions. 
Single-issue parties like Wilders’ offer a deceptively simple solution. Stop immigration and everything will be fine. Stopping immigration is a good idea but it’s not going to make everything fine. To solve the real problems liberalism must be rooted out entirely. Society needs to be reconstructed. 
Unless this is done there is no point in worrying about immigration, because as long as liberalism remains our official ideology any victory on immigration will be temporary at best. Eventually liberals will open the flood-gates again. The only way to stop mass immigration permanently is to reject liberalism utterly. As long as liberals remain in power they will continue to work towards the destruction of our civilisation. Liberals like Geert Wilders are not the answer.