Moderate Centrist Politics
The infamous scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian about the factional fight between the Judean People’s Front and the People's Front of Judea is so funny because anyone who has ever engaged in politics knows how true it is. Essentially, it is the narcissism of small differences. Not coincidentally, if you’ve ever read Josephus' Jewish War, about the time period the film is satirizing, it happened exactly like that. Jerusalem was occupied by three factions of Jews that were constantly fighting each other and got steamrolled by Titus and the Roman legions.
One of Aimee Terese's most important insights about the Left is that despite the labels they use and despite the rhetoric they spout, they are all just loyal partisan Democrats. The Boomer Democrats call themselves "liberals," the Gen X Democrats call themselves "progressives," and the millennial Democrats call themselves "socialists." Especially for the "socialists," their ideology is not some principle that they hold to out of conviction, it is a Veblen Good:
The Democratic Socialists of America are not, in fact, socialist in any real sense. They do not want the means of production to be owned and controlled by the workers engaged in that production via those means. Instead, as Terese points out, the Democratic Socialists of America are a parasitic class that wants taxpayer funded white collar jobs, and a bit more welfare spending to pay for their heath care. They have an ideology that has absolutely zero to do with their praxis. Instead, their ideology is simply a form of mystification of their praxis, and a form of status signaling to distinguish themselves from older, less fashionable, Democrats. Progressive Democrats vs. Democratic Socialists is the same as the People's Front of Judea vs. the Judean People's Front, except at the end of the day, they are all simply partisan Democrats, and the only thing they agree on is they hate the white American working class with the passion of a thousand suns.
The White Nationalists call this "Finkel-think" after the notorious Jewish political operative Arthur J. Finkelstein, whose great political insight was the best way to win an election is to personally demonize your political opponent, to get people to vote against someone as opposed to for someone. The legendary Carroll Quigley made a related observation, that in a well functioning democracy, the people could "vote the bastards out" in every election without any meaningful change in policy. Back in the 2004 election, there was a slogan that the online Democrats would use to avoid infighting, "Anybody But Bush," a slogan so popular they even made a song.
For the Republicans, it works much the same way. Republicans didn't like either McCain nor Romney, they hated Obama. Trump was a little bit different, but talk to any Republican and you will find that they don't particularly like the Republican party nor most Republican politicians, they simply hate Democrats. The specter of Hillary Clinton motivated Republicans more than any policy did.
The point is, this is simply tribal politics, Carl Schmitt's Friend-Enemy Distinction. But more importantly, most people are not particularly political, at least, not invested in the "hate Republicans or Democrats" game. Most people are not glued to either FOX News nor NBC. The majority of eligible American citizens are not registered to vote, and the majority of those who are typically don't vote in any given election.
Which means we – and who "we" is will become apparent just a little bit later – can simply abandon this sort of right vs. left, Republican vs. Democrat, political game completely, as it simply doesn't matter, nor can "we" have much influence on that political dynamic any way. This is not to say we should pick up some other political ideology, which is similarly pointless. Instead, we can create a politics based not on ideology, and not on principles, but instead our material interests.
If a politician running for Congress told me, vote for me and if I win I will give you $200.00, I would vote for that politician, regardless of what his platform was, because of the $200.00. If his opponent offered me $300.00, I would immediately switch sides. It really is that simple. If a local alderman runs saying he will keep out new development, I'd vote for him, unless I was interested in selling, in which case I might vote for the candidate who would bring in new development which would allow me to sell higher.
"Jazzhands McFeels" of the Fash the Nation podcast pointed out that the Republican party has convinced their voters that "socialism" means "Social Justice Warriorism," which it is not, but comes from the same people, the people that Republican will never, ever name in public. In reality, "socialism" means that the workers control the means of production; the factory workers own the factory they work in, and own the products they create. This was the promise of many socialist movements and the promise of Communism. But of course it didn't work out that way, and instead "cultural Marxism" was invented, so the people behind Communism could take over America with a different appeal. "Cultural Marxism" was created by Jewish Communists to justify a genocide of Americans, its grandchild is now called "Critical Race Theory."
Please go to Banned Hipster to read the entire essay (highly recommended).
A Veblen good is a type of luxury good for which the demand for a good increases as the price increases, in apparent contradiction of the law of demand, resulting in an upward-sloping demand curve. The higher prices of Veblen goods may make them desirable as a status symbol in the practices of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure. A product may be a Veblen good because it is a positional good, something few others can own.I remember the first time I cringed when my father used the term "Oriental." I had somehow picked up that the term "Oriental" was now considered "offensive," not in the sense of offending an Oriental, instead knowing the preferred nomenclature is "Asian-American" is a type of Veblen good, simply a status marker. Before I went to university, I said "Oriental" which was considered the polite term at the time, but after university I learned it was now "Asian" and all of a sudden I was worried my father would be considered low status because he was still using the polite term from fifty years prior. During the wars, everyone would have said "japs" or "gooks" of course, just like in Iraq they used "haji" – and just like in Josephus' time, they used the term "mary" to mean, basically, any Jewish woman.
The Democratic Socialists of America are not, in fact, socialist in any real sense. They do not want the means of production to be owned and controlled by the workers engaged in that production via those means. Instead, as Terese points out, the Democratic Socialists of America are a parasitic class that wants taxpayer funded white collar jobs, and a bit more welfare spending to pay for their heath care. They have an ideology that has absolutely zero to do with their praxis. Instead, their ideology is simply a form of mystification of their praxis, and a form of status signaling to distinguish themselves from older, less fashionable, Democrats. Progressive Democrats vs. Democratic Socialists is the same as the People's Front of Judea vs. the Judean People's Front, except at the end of the day, they are all simply partisan Democrats, and the only thing they agree on is they hate the white American working class with the passion of a thousand suns.
The White Nationalists call this "Finkel-think" after the notorious Jewish political operative Arthur J. Finkelstein, whose great political insight was the best way to win an election is to personally demonize your political opponent, to get people to vote against someone as opposed to for someone. The legendary Carroll Quigley made a related observation, that in a well functioning democracy, the people could "vote the bastards out" in every election without any meaningful change in policy. Back in the 2004 election, there was a slogan that the online Democrats would use to avoid infighting, "Anybody But Bush," a slogan so popular they even made a song.
For the Republicans, it works much the same way. Republicans didn't like either McCain nor Romney, they hated Obama. Trump was a little bit different, but talk to any Republican and you will find that they don't particularly like the Republican party nor most Republican politicians, they simply hate Democrats. The specter of Hillary Clinton motivated Republicans more than any policy did.
The point is, this is simply tribal politics, Carl Schmitt's Friend-Enemy Distinction. But more importantly, most people are not particularly political, at least, not invested in the "hate Republicans or Democrats" game. Most people are not glued to either FOX News nor NBC. The majority of eligible American citizens are not registered to vote, and the majority of those who are typically don't vote in any given election.
Which means we – and who "we" is will become apparent just a little bit later – can simply abandon this sort of right vs. left, Republican vs. Democrat, political game completely, as it simply doesn't matter, nor can "we" have much influence on that political dynamic any way. This is not to say we should pick up some other political ideology, which is similarly pointless. Instead, we can create a politics based not on ideology, and not on principles, but instead our material interests.
If a politician running for Congress told me, vote for me and if I win I will give you $200.00, I would vote for that politician, regardless of what his platform was, because of the $200.00. If his opponent offered me $300.00, I would immediately switch sides. It really is that simple. If a local alderman runs saying he will keep out new development, I'd vote for him, unless I was interested in selling, in which case I might vote for the candidate who would bring in new development which would allow me to sell higher.
"Jazzhands McFeels" of the Fash the Nation podcast pointed out that the Republican party has convinced their voters that "socialism" means "Social Justice Warriorism," which it is not, but comes from the same people, the people that Republican will never, ever name in public. In reality, "socialism" means that the workers control the means of production; the factory workers own the factory they work in, and own the products they create. This was the promise of many socialist movements and the promise of Communism. But of course it didn't work out that way, and instead "cultural Marxism" was invented, so the people behind Communism could take over America with a different appeal. "Cultural Marxism" was created by Jewish Communists to justify a genocide of Americans, its grandchild is now called "Critical Race Theory."
Please go to Banned Hipster to read the entire essay (highly recommended).
________
And who fantasizes about murdering who exactly? Is that all these people think about? Can you define "death cult?"
And who fantasizes about murdering who exactly? Is that all these people think about? Can you define "death cult?"
Alright then, if that is what they feel about it here is a good start:
The complicit Bolsheviks in big tech running a war on Americans:
Related:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.