The Liberal Apocalypse

The Liberal Apocalypse

Ideologies can be roughly divided into the moral and the economic. Moral ideologies seek to guide people in their individual behavior as they seek resources. Economic ideologies are concerned with collective control over how resources are gained and employed. Revolutionary movements are often linked with economic ideologies because resource redistribution is a primary motivator for political upheavals.

The left is both a revolutionary movement and an economic ideology, using the pretext of inequities to seize power in order to engage in economic redistribution. However the modern left’s actual agenda goes well beyond only seizing and redistributing material goods and financial holdings. Its goal is to completely control all human interactions in every form through political, cultural, social and economic tools.

The modern left seeks to seize control of all the competitive forces at the root of all human interactions. Since competition is at the root of human status and achievement, from the economic to the social, from the political to the sexual, to capture and control the competitive forces that drive human beings– is to control humanity. The left promises a “fairer” world in which competition is somehow also made fair. But who defines fair and just what does fair mean? As with all ideologies, it means a system that caters to the leaders of the ideology and their supporters. The ideological propaganda justifies this hijacking as the “fair” thing to do, creating the circular hypocrisy typical of those who steal in their own name.

Since human beings compete for most resources, the ability to capture and control those competitive forces is the ability to rig the game and to control all resources, not only the material ones, but nearly everything that people value in life. Since economic ideologies exist in order to compete for resources, this is the ultimate power play. It is power rendered absolute. Complete control over competition is also complete resource hegemony, which gives them hydraulic despotism, a “water empire” which grants the people who control the tap, ultimate power over all those who need what flows from the tap.

Anyone who is allowed to control competition in order to make resource redistribution “fairer” will eventually openly engage in resource redistribution, unless there is a compelling system of oversight governing his behavior. Since most such systems are either bureaucratic or become so, and since bureaucracies are undemocratic and will expand to the limits of the resources available to them, they are wholly and completely corruptible. Those who redistribute a resource are bound to become corrupted by that resource. The more valuable the resource, the more pervasive the corruption. Because corruption emanates from sources of power. Those who control power become corrupted by it. And those whose power comes from resource redistribution, are corrupted by that very resource.

Resource redistribution however does more than just take “a cut off the top”. While initially it only introduces a middleman into the equation, which raises costs and drives more exchanges into the extralegal “Shadow Economy”, such grander schemes as the left’s are not merely designed to take their cut, but to alter the ground rules under which such exchanges may take place. They aim not merely to profit from the exchange, not only to define the nature of a permissible exchange, which all governments do to some extent, but to control every aspect of a transaction and the relative positions of those engaged in a transaction. The left’s economic ideology demands complete and total control.

An economy has a light and a shadow side. The light side of an economy consists of legal transactions. The shadow side consists of illegal transactions. The more rules are imposed on a transaction, the more likely it is to move from the light to the shadow side of the economy in order to avoid those rules. A system that imposes total control over all transactions will see a dramatic expansion of the shadow side of the economy, until most transactions take place in the shadow side of the economy which transforms that country into a total den of criminality. That phenomenon took place in the USSR under Communism. It is common under Third World dictatorships. Because as free enterprise is suppressed, it flees the light for the darkness. And the Shadow Economy grows.

This has disastrous economic consequences. Because the more rules a system has, the likelier it is to have a larger government. Since larger governments require more resources, they also depend on a larger tax base. The more governments impose taxes and regulations however, the more resource transactions move from the light side and into the Shadow Economy, making it more difficult for governments to take their cut, without themselves becoming involved in the black market. As increased taxation and regulation shrinks the revenue base, governments begin squeezing the shrinking businesses and citizens even harder. This further inflates the Shadow Economy. As those governments attempt to crack down on and control the Shadow Economy, they only make it more profitable, and those profits are used to entangle and corrupt the government officials who are supposed to regulate them. As a result, free enterprise is destroyed and replaced by the black market. The light side of the economy dies and an entire country becomes a Shadow Economy.

The left has ridden this same economic bomb down into the crater many times already. It has never actually learned from those mistakes, because it is unable to concede the destructive consequences of its monopolization of power, the individual choices that will inevitably forestall any of its central planning schemes and its own corruptibility. Worst of all it is unable to realize that it is the problem. That it is the worm in the apple, not the thorn on the rose. That over and over again it destroys everything it touches, that the revolution fails, and the cycle repeats itself again.

Leftist political movements pretend to be symbiotic, but in fact they are parasitic/predatory. They transition from the parasitic (taking a cut) to the predatory (control of all resources) stage by convincing those they prey upon that they are actually symbiotic, that their oversight and regulation will benefit them. Predators and parasites both exist within a self-regulating ecosystem. If they overhunt their prey, they will experience a Dieback.

Imagine that we have a dozen wolves preying on a hundred sheep. As the number of sheep keeps dropping, the number of wolves keeps increasing. If the wolves don’t control their numbers, they will overhunt the sheep. And the wolves will starve to death. Eventually the numbers of the sheep will be restored, unless the wolves wipe them out, in which case both wolves and sheep will die out. This form of resource competition on the animal level, is reflected in resource competitions among human societies as well.

In the human economic ecosystem, a government cannot outgrow the resources it feeds off. If it does, eventually there will be a Dieback, and the government will discover that it does not have enough sheep to feed off. If it continues feeding anyway, it will be destroyed and it will destroy the country it rules over. However this form of recognition requires adaptability. And there are two aspects of liberal rule that are incompatible with adaptability. Bureaucracy and ideology.

Liberals function as ideological aristocrats, exchanging natural human institutions for unnatural ideological institutions as part of their revolutionary reconstruction. Such institutions routinely devolve into bureaucracies as bureaucracy covers up for the failure of their policies, and their own corruptibility and hypocrisy under the guise of objective procedures. And bureaucrats are notoriously resistant to change.

Bureaucracies are both inefficient and endlessly greedy, consuming as many resources as possible. Think of wolves with the brains of sheep. And they cannot be removed democratically. Ideology meanwhile blinds people to the destructive consequences of their own actions, as the central article of faith for nearly every ideology is that nothing bad can come of following its ideas. Combine the two, and you have the formula for armageddon, as ideology reinforces bureaucracy, leading to the end of democracy and the beginning of tyranny.

An ideological bureaucracy is invulnerable to change, except through confrontation. And the ideological component helps fortify it against even democratic attempts at political change. Bureaucracies fulfill the organizational imperative of maximizing power while minimizing accountability by constantly expanding in order to increase the scope of their power, while decentralizing their individual accountability. The result is a giant maw consuming everything in its path, all the while piously certain of its rightness in doing so.

Even as it ushers in an economic armageddon. But the situation is even worse than that.

As I have already stated. leftist political movements within a democratic transition from the parasitic to the predatory through a false symbiosis. Mimicking symbiosis requires giving the populace something that resembles mutual benefits. However in reality, what the left does is addict the populace to entitlements. Using these entitlements as bait, the left seizes control of competitive forces within a society. These entitlements are then redistributed, creating a further appetite for more of the same.

Once in power, the left replaces authentic competition with its own rigged game. Since controlling competition means that it also controls the resources that are being competed for, it has an unlimited ability to draw on those resources for its own needs– without itself being subject to competitive forces. This is the equivalent of a blank check drawn on the entire economy. Now since support for its rule depends on maintaining entitlements, and since it has only been corrupted by that “blank check”, and since it perceives resources from an ideological rather than an objective economic perspective– given a chance the left will squander resources at an uncontrollable and unlimited pace.

In the meantime, it has redefined the economic understanding of a society to view competition as a political, rather than economic activity. Such a society is still able to compete, but it no longer competes for achievement, but for entitlements. It can no longer work for a living, but has come to think purely in terms of cheating or entitlements. And it thinks of cheating and entitlements as legitimate, and hard work as illegitimate. Because its values of competition have been redefined, and it views the intercession of authority as the defining variable that separates legitimate competition, from illegitimate competition. And cheating is the Shadow Economy, the glue that fills in what the entitlements leave out, and is considered legitimate because “it’s coming to me anyway”.

A people who reach this miserable state are thoroughly ruined. They worship authority and live in misery. They cannot work, only look for shortcuts. Any economy they will have can only be built on fraud and government intervention. They are addicts. They have become addicted to entitlements. And those entitlements have thoroughly corrupted both those who distribute the resources and those who receive them. As healthy competition invigorates a society, entitlements corrupt society from the top on down.

The mechanism of addiction requires two things from the pusher. That he never sample his product and that he always find new customers. The left has had trouble with the former, because their own resource redistributions corrupts them from the start. And as to the latter, the left is constantly knocking on every global door, looking for new customers to replace the ones they have already destroyed. Like a perverse Diogenes, they go from country to country, seeking an honest economy, only so they can destroy it.

The left promises fair competition, what it really offers is the tyranny of addiction. And like all addictions, it destroys both the user and the pusher in the long run. Its economic model corrupts the competitive instinct of a society, even as it bankrupts its economy and destroys its democracy. Its false symbiosis quickly reveals as predation, and it sets into place bureaucratic structures to maintain that predation through total control. When it is done, the sun sets on a Free Economy, replacing it with a Shadow Economy. And in the place of a free people, are a nation of slaves looking for a handout or something to steal.


The Rise of the Post-American Empires

When the Utopians of the left talk about a Post-American world, they mean a great borderless globe ruled over by international law, where there are no more citizens or nations, just people who happen to enjoy working and living in New York, Shanghai or Islamabad. This digital jet setting globocratic version of John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’ is their envisioned outcome of globalization. No more governments. Only one single world girdling government.

But what the Utopians have never realized is that this vision is not universal, it springs from a Western liberal messianism that is big on faith in progressive government, and disdains national and tribal identities. And that means it is a vision that most of the globe does not share. And is never likely to share. The Utopians want an end to national power and cultural imperialism, but their globalist vision is cultural imperialism backed by national power.

The United Nations is a potemkin village backed up by the armies of the United States and Europe. If the United States should fall, then its nemesis ensconced in a modernist skyscraper on Turtle Bay will fall with it. The United Nations has built itself around gathering a consensus of support for American policy or gathering an opposing consensus to restrain it. But either way it turns in response to a world power. It has no potency of its own.

The Utopians visualize a world administered through international law. Numberless UN covenants on human rights have been signed on to by the worst offenders, without any internal changes taking place. And why would they. The “international community” has only two major enforcement mechanisms, trade sanctions and armed invasion. The former leverages Western economic power, the latter Western military power. Subtract the West and even these limited enforcement mechanisms fall away.

It’s not that Pakistan, China and Russia couldn’t agree on a set of sanctions or send in their own troops in blue UN helmets. But their goal wouldn’t be peacekeeping, it would be colonization. Subtract the West and the current facade of international law would be reduced to Lebensraum campaigns traded back and forth by world powers in conference rooms. A new era of colonialism would take place under the blue flag of the UN and with the sanction of international law. Its security council would become a loose alliance of rival hegemonies, Chinese, Russian, Islamic, Bolivarian, trading territory to each other’s “peacekeeping” troops. The UN would finally become a global Hitler-Stalin pact. And everyone else would be Poland.

That is the face of the Post-American world. Either empire building or a new dark age. Or both. Take your pick.

The Utopians are too enamored of their vision of progressive government to be able to view it as anything other than inevitable. Barring some massive natural disaster, asteroid or nuclear war, they see the entire world getting more and more liberal, casting off their mores, identities and beliefs to join in one great rainbow flavored dance number. They see the triumph of their way as inevitable. Which is a natural fallacy for those who see ‘their way’ as the inevitable outcome of social and economic development, rather than a philosophical quirk of 19th century unemployed intellectuals and hack writers.

The intellectuals who were wrong about an inevitable collision between labor and owners, are equally wrong about the dissolution of states into a vast body of world government. The states are indeed dissolving, but in the old Roman way. Empires and nations are decaying and falling apart because they lack any reason to go on. They have become giant bankrupt cradles overseen by men and women who no longer believe in nations or anything but the manifest destiny of a cradle globe run by themselves.

What those men and women don’t understand is that they derive their power from the states, rather than from any growing awareness that their way is right. Submerge the nations of Europe in the EU. Submerge the US in the UN, and they are left in control of nothing at all except the paperwork in their own offices. The streets outside turn Third Worldian and the men and women who presume to dictate the fates of nations have to be driven in armored limousines through the chaos outside. This is how empires fall. This is how they are falling right now.

Empires derive from people, rather than people deriving from empires. The West built trading empires because its rising middle class were merchants. Now the Western middle class is increasing made up of government bureaucrats and so it is busy building them a bureaucratic world-state. The Western trading empires turned their attention to real world commodities and territories. The bureaucratic empires of the new West are obsessed with regulations and treat money as an imaginary number. That is how a degenerating empire behaves.

China isn’t a rising empire because its mothers are abusive or because their science education is better, or any of the sillier notions advanced in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. It is a rising empire because it is a trade empire. Its rulers understand that their power lies in trade, not in laws. They do everything possible to build their manufacturing, take hold of mining resources and set the rules of international trade on their own terms. That is something which American leaders understood as a given until two world wars convinced them that their power lay in making rules for everyone else to follow. So far that hasn’t worked out too well. And in a Post-American world, those rules will become weapons to be wielded by savage armies and new colonial empires carving up Africa for its natural resources.

While the Utopians dream up global air castles, the rest of the world is planning to grab a chunk of the post-American empire. China and the Muslim world are the most blatantly ambitious of the bunch, but there are others too. And as the collapse of the West becomes more obvious, even nations like Japan which were able to embrace the leisure of pacifism under an American umbrella, will have to go and learn war again.

Obama was the globalist messiah of the Utopians, the Post-American Third Culture president who was meant to bridge the old America with the new global order. And his failure speaks volumes about the hopelessness of the globalist vision. Not only did Obama fail to gain influence with enemies, but he won the disdain of old allies. And now the world power that he rules over stands alone with little to no influence. Obama and the globalists scramble to take credit for the ‘Arab Spring’, as if another set of civil wars between feuding factions in the Middle East were anything new, or signified the rise of a better world.

America is still a world power thanks to its population, its economy and its military. But no thanks to its leaders who are enthusiastic about giving up all that power in the service of a global hegemony. Even its conservatives see international law as a means of bringing human rights to all the globe. But they forget that American human rights don’t exist because of international laws, but because colonial intellectuals championed a populist revolt against onerous taxation and centralized government, and prosperity and economic opportunity expanded the middle class and its legal rights along with it.

You can’t export a revolution based on the rights of the individual, to cultures that don’t believe in the supremacy of the individual over the system. China’s Confucianism and Islam’s theocratic fascism have their own definition of law, and they don’t derive from the rights of the individual. While Americans rapturously praise democracy, they don’t see the point. One man, one vote, is nothing special to cultures that don’t believe one man counts for anything unless he dies gloriously in battle or shoveling manure on a collective farm.

In these cultures, the individual attains worth only by sacrificing for the group. A democratic vote there is a vote against the selfish individual, and for the collective identity of the group. Identity, not welfare. Collective groups are ruled over by oligarchies and the voting booth affirms their power in defense of the group identity. The individual only matters when he is part of that group. If he is not, then he is quickly stamped on and tossed aside. And the group rejoices in the sense of power that gives them. Whether they’re stepping over the battered bodies of women or burning churches, the cruelty of the mob is the closest that the average individual comes to empowerment.

To the Westerner the image of a lone protester facing down a tank in Tiananmen Square is a show of moral courage by an individual. To the ambitious Chinese citizen it is a despicable act of crazed selfishness being properly suppressed by a patient and loving state which has reached its limits. We see ourselves in the protester. They see themselves in the tank. Similarly to the Westerner, the Muslim girl beaten bloody for sneaking off with a boy is a horrible indictment of the culture. To a Muslim, it is a horrible indictment of her.

Cultures such as these will not pass laws of equality. Instead their highest values are laws that perpetuate inequality in the name of morality.

The Arab Spring is not an awakening against repression. It is a call for representative repression. For the most part the protests are not driven by an opposition to dictatorship, but only to dictatorships that don’t reflect their values and tribal affiliations. The philosophical European ideas about natural rights and the virtue of self-government have not made it over there. Nor will they take root in these desert sands. Not when the dominant model of belief rejects the imperfect individual for the perfection of Mohammedan law.

The Muslim world would like to use the UN to impose that perfection of Mohammedan law on the world. The progressives have their scripture and faith, and the Muslims have theirs. The vacuum of a Post-American world order means that 1 billion plus Muslims will be better positioned to impose their laws that stone women to death and treat non-Muslims as second-class citizens on the world. As Europe falls to the representative repression of migration demographics, its cathedrals will become mosques and its women will become second-class citizens.

Muslims understand what the West has forgotten, that nations are defined by their citizens. Fill up any European country with men who believe that the laws of the Koran are absolute and binding on all, and no matter how forward thinking it might have been, it will shortly be as hopelessly backward as the places that its new citizens came from.

There will be brief periods when it will seem as if the tide can be turned. The new citizens will learn the lingua franca, cheer for the local sports teams and pick up PhD’s at local universities. They will appear on panel shows to explain how well they balance their two identities, and why the country could do with a few ten million more of them. And the elite riding back and forth in their armored limousines will be very impressed. At least until their granddaughters don the burka and announce that their new names are Fatma and Aisha, and that their favorite eyeshadow is black and blue. And all of it will take place under the auspices of organizations with lofty names involving civil and human rights.

If this is happening in the West, what hope is there for a world state of international law to be anything but what it has been all along, a rubber stamp for tyranny and oppression, but without the hope of relief for its victims.

The rise of Western democracy was the rise of the Middle Class protecting its rights and its interests. Now the Middle Class is dying, it is being replaced by a class of professional government workers subsidized by the slowly dying industries that once powered the commerce of a mighty nation. It cannot be exported by NGO’s or replicated by global covenants. Not when the same progressives vowing to export democracy and human rights are hard at work crushing them at home.

The progressive ideal is a tragic misunderstanding ending in national catastrophe. The idealization of government is not only the second best possible route to tyranny, but also the death of the institutions that generate a nation’s vitality. Reformers champion change, but their worship of government leads to static systems that make change and reform impossible. Their final vision of world government is an idealized failure from the start. Their failure to understand the nature of power and the extent to which their own ideals are cultural, rather than universal, dooms their inevitable world order to be not only not inevitable, but impossible.

Socialism’s Army of Occupation

The most pervasive myth of the welfare state is the altruism of the public sector. In this mythology, the private sector is run by a bunch of greedy businessmen who get rich by making money off people’s misery. While the public sector is run by altruists who want nothing except to help those left behind by the private sector. Capitalists meet the Anti-Capitalists.

But actually it’s the public sector that does a much better job of making money off people’s misery. Some parts of the private sector do deliberately seek out ways to feed off poverty and keep their victims poor, most notably in the lending and financial services industry, but for the most part the private sector makes money off willing customers. How do you sell products and services to people who can’t afford them? Unless you trap them into a cycle of obligation, you can’t. And such cycles are finite. Eventually the people you’re feeding off have nothing more to give you. That’s not an ideal business model for corporations who generally look for ways to build life-long relationships. To make money selling products and services, you need repeat customers who can afford what you’re offering.

For the private sector to succeed, it needs a prosperous customer base. The public sector doesn’t. It just needs a collective ‘Them’ to pay the bills. The public sector makes its money from failure. Human suffering creates more demand for its services. The more people are out of work, can’t pay their bills and need help– the more the public sector grows.

The PayDay loan industry and Fannie Mae both preyed on minorities and the poor. But the latter’s business model was completely unsustainable and its greed was completely irresponsible. Yet all this was concealed under the veneer of altruism.

The public sector altruism myth is just that, a myth. It’s a destructive myth because of the basic conflict between its inner and outer goals.

The outer goal of a car company might be to sell more cars. Its inner goal is to sell enough cars that it can hire more workers and its executives can go to the Bahamas next month. There’s no major conflict between these two goals. Not unless everyone there decides to make bad cars and misrepresent them, and then use the money to expand the assembly line and go to the Bahamas anyway. There are businesses that work that way, but they don’t have much of a future. Sell people bad cars and you’ll lose customers. And then the only way you can stay in business is if the public sector begins subsidizing your company. A bad company is either a rolling scam that depends on luring in gullible new customers or a public sector charity case.

The outer goal of a welfare program might be to help its clients. But its inner goal is to get more funding so as to add jobs and so whoever is at the top can go to the Bahamas next month for a conference on global poverty. If a client stops needing its services, then the program loses funding. The welfare state needs more ‘clients’ signing up for more services so that they can get more funding. The best clients are the neediest. A client who is upwardly mobile is a bad risk, because losing their name on the rolls means a net loss for the program which endangers its funding. People in a state of failure make the best clients. Welfare programs maintain outer goals of helping their clients be more independent, these conflict with their inner goals, which is to maintain their client lists.

The myth of public sector altruism rarely takes stock of the conflict between inner and outer goals. Even when teachers’ and nurses’ unions hold angry protests over benefits during an economic depression, this conflict rarely gets addressed. The myth that they are public servants who want nothing more than what’s best for their charges lives on. But like everyone else they are human beings. Their interests are their own. Some are idealistic enough to make sacrifices or to want what is best for the people under their care, even when it’s to their own detriment. But this is not the case for the majority in any field. Moments of heroism aside.

The public sector’s inner goal is to bring in more funding and create more jobs. Not out of any altruistic impulse, but because it expands the power and wealth of its own administrators and bosses, whether in an agency or a union. A bigger agency has more sway in funding battles. Its incestuous relationships with unions and clients means that it is better positioned to demand more money and hold off any cuts. The agencies and unions boast their own private armies which bring in money. The money is given by politicians in exchange for support and used as currency to expand the ranks of that army. The army is there to support the politicians during elections. And to combat any attempts to cut the money coming into its coffers.

The Public Sector has become an army of occupation. The battles in Wisconsin, the crisis in California and the ObamaCare clashes with SEIU goons are a wake up call to what that army really is. It’s not armed, but it doesn’t need to be. It’s the vanguard of an alternative economy that depends on extracting as much public money as possible. And that alternative economy is in a basic conflict with the people paying for it. When the economy is good, the army can skim off the cream without anyone noticing. But in a bad economy, a conflict explodes over limited resources.

The occupation means that huge amounts of money are being funneled into a public sector to provide services. But these services are not the goal of that sector.

The Postal Service doesn’t exist to deliver mail. 80 percent of its budget goes to the salaries and benefits of its 500,000+ union members. It is a union employment plan subsidized by the public through a stream of pension and benefits bailouts. Its business model is based on delivering junk mail. Not on providing useful public services. The Postal Service does not exist so you can buy stamps and mail letters. It exists so some of the country’s largest unions can retire at 55.

Public schools don’t exist to teach kids, they exist to create jobs for teacher’s unions, positions for administrators, contractors for school construction programs, and a thousand ways to get federal, state and local funding. That’s why we spend more money on education than most of the world, with less to show for it. The spending is not pupil driven. The children are mostly irrelevant except as mannequins for new educational gimmicks.

Keeping students below average turns them into a ‘profit center’ for new solutions. If we actually had a successful education system, a huge chunk of the consultants and other feeder fish would be out of business. The educational bureaucracy does not profit from teaching kids. It profits from kids who are not learning. Who need special education, more programs and a crisis mode of new approaches. “Are our kids learning?” No?” “That’s because we aren’t spending enough money.” “Why do we pay our schoolteachers less than NBA players?” “Why does the military get more money than the educational bureaucracy?”

It’s all the same down the line. Hospitals don’t add nurses to treat patients. They add nurses because union regulations require them to. Mortgages are approved that can’t be paid off, because that way the agency can boast how many new minority home buyers it has created. And when foreclosure comes, then another agency takes over providing for them. Job training is given for jobs that don’t exist. Then job creation programs for those jobs are funded– and still the jobs don’t exist. And then the cycle begins all over again. Nothing in this cynical trillion dollar farce has anything to do with helping people. If any people get helped, it’s an unintentional side effect of a system that exists to feed on human misery..

The public sector thrives on anxiety. It feeds on failure. The public sector is in freefall, but the private sector is adding jobs like crazy.

The crazy quilt marriage of political machines, radical unions and liberal sociologists has created an unstoppable monster intent on devouring everything. Some inside the beast understand that this is the goal. They want private enterprise to vanish and the state to be the provider of all services. Most however don’t realize this. They have just been taught to protect their privileges.

The public sector is ruthlessly competitive in its own way. Not on merit, but on position. Maintaining your position in the system is crucial. Doing your job well is absolutely meaningless. In some cases it’s even dangerous. Staying in line is what counts. Having the right background and the right opinions. Inertia through seniority is the biggest signifier of success. And inter-departmental and inter-agency rivalries are routine. It’s a Darwinian economic ecosystem and everyone is trying to grab funding for your programs. Exploiting a crisis, knowing the right political buzzwords and being able to summon a mob of clients or union members to agitate for your program are the keys to success.

Such a system does not encourage the long view. Nothing exists except your program, your crisis and your department. The ability to recite “Without funding for ____________ we all are doomed” on cue is the only thing that matters. Your real assets are your benefits. To protect them, you have to protect your programs. And lash out at anything that threatens funding for them, whether it’s charter schools or the taxpayers running out of money. Reform is dangerous. Protect the status quo at all costs. Violent tunnel vision is the only kind the system breeds. The few visionaries are left wing radicals who think that everything would work if only they had complete control of the economy. And to make that happen, they have to destroy the conventional economy first.

Here’s where we are now. Trapped funding the ever-expanding fiefdoms of the public sector, its office warrens, its ghettos and housing projects, its consultations and studies and research projects, its tidal flood of gimmicks and appropriations.

All the money being spent vanishes into the recesses of those fiefdoms. It doesn’t remotely provide value per dollar spent, because most of that dollar doesn’t go to providing services. It goes to the vast infrastructure of employees, office buildings, consultants and overseers of the entire mess. The services are a side project of a vast bureaucracy which is concerned with its own power and prestige.

The welfare state can’t solve any of the problems that those liberal sociologists thought it could. But the political machines who authorized the spending never wanted the problems solved. It wanted them perpetuated. It wanted plantation voters with no hopes or dreams beyond the next state lottery ticket, who would vote for them to protect their benefits. And that’s what they got. The unions can’t see beyond their next paycheck. And don’t want to. The money has to keep coming because it’s theirs. The details don’t matter. They often despise the members of the public they interact with. And why shouldn’t they. Most of the people they interact with don’t want to be where they are. It’s a mutually hostile relationship. And that mutually hostile relationship is the paradigm for the larger one they have with the taxpayer.

As the economy declines and the public sector grows, an inevitable showdown is coming. A public sector that grows faster than the private sector is unsustainable. But that just means the public sector will start tossing their clients overboard faster. Classroom sizes will double along with education spending. Welfare rolls will be cut, and more workers will be hired to oversee them. Doctors will get paid less and patients will wait longer to see doctors, but there will be more nurses hired on. Death panels will come disguised in patient friendly language. There will be less of everything, but more public sector employees for all of it.

These measures will make the system seem more sustainable. But all they will really do is maintain the position of socialism’s occupying army. And as the public sector begins cannibalizing the people it claims to be serving, we will have a choice between continuing down the same disastrous road as Europe or taking a stand to reclaim the economy from the public sector.


Failed State Colonization – The Greatest Threat of Our Time

Let’s compare two countries side by side. Country A has a sizable middle class and economy, social welfare benefits and a low birth rate. Country B is a failed state where thugs run amok in the street, a few families control the economy and the birth rate is off the charts.

Country A’s citizens are taught that nationalism is evil and that everyone should get along. Country B’s citizens are taught that they are the greatest people that ever lived and would be running the world if not for Country A. But despite all this, Country B’s citizens all want to move to Country A. And Country A wants to let them. Because Country A needs new workers to subsidize its welfare state and voters who will vote for pro-social welfare parties.

Since Country B’s workers want the social welfare benefits, they move to Country A. Country A ends up with a huge failed state population and dramatically increases its social welfare spending for them. Bankruptcy threatens, but change is almost impossible because the pro-social welfare benefits party has become very hard to beat. The pro-reform parties no longer tackle immigration, but try to get the immigrant vote. Their reforms turn into band aids. Country A slides toward the abyss. Country B continues shipping more immigrants every year who remain loyal to its culture and religion.

Country B is a failed state. But Country A is also turning into a failed state as it imports Country B’s surplus population, along with its criminality, its political culture and its ignorance across the border.

Look at a map of the world, and what you see are successful states and failed states. This is a map that transcends ethnicity and race. It is not dependent on resources or the starting level of technology. It’s not even dependent on wealth, or its level of distribution, Gulf petro-states with small populations can have rich subsidized per capita incomes, but they are still failed states dependent on a single resource and a vast army of foreign workers.

It was thought once that success would spread from the successful states to the failed states. That it was only a matter of passing along certain techniques, educating their leaders in modern universities and starting them off with some World Bank loans. But instead the reverse has happened. Rather than failed states becoming successful under the influence of successful states, successful states are failing under the influence of failed states.

Migration from failed states to successful states is leading the way to utter ruin. The Pakistanization of Europe and the Mexicanization of America are two examples of the phenomenon. But there are others. Cote d’Ivorie, one of the more prosperous African countries, has been taken over by Muslim migrant workers, with the armed backing of the UN. What happened resembled events in South Africa, but this time both sides were black. The difference was not racial, but religious. It is another example of an ongoing phenomenon. Failed State Colonization.

Failed State Colonization is the greatest threat of our time. It marks a major shift from the old era of colonization where successful states colonized unsuccessful ones. Now failed states are colonizing successful ones. Failed states have become a global plague through their population migrations, which spread terrorism, crime and bankrupt the social systems of successful states. And as the migration wave continues FSC is turning formerly successful states into failed states.

Failed states have higher birth rates and stronger group loyalties. That combination weaponizes their migrations into successful states with lower birth rates and weak group loyalties into a takeover. Failed State Colonization uses the disunity, tolerance and democracy of successful states to destroy them from the inside. It’s not always a conscious act, but that doesn’t make it any less destructive.

The grey squirrels didn’t intend to wipe out the red squirrels in the forests of England. But the populations are incompatible and though the red squirrels may be a nobler breed, those very qualities that make them admirable, also make them less able to resist an incursion by a rougher breed. The high ground moralizing of successful states may also be admirable, but it is equally doomed in the face of an incursion by cultures whose only morality is the success of their own group.

Liberal immigration advocates cheer the destruction of our worthless culture as they look forward to a world state without borders. But there will be no world state without borders because the only people who believe in such a thing are wiping themselves out by importing migratory populations that don’t think nationalism and patriotism are evils. Muslim and Mexican immigrants are not ashamed of their history. They don’t think borders are a bad idea, so long as they’re the ones who control where those borders are set. The left is destroying the West, but it is only the West that ever believed in a world without borders.

Conservative immigration advocates insist on a cultural exceptionalism that will absorb immigrants because of our innate superiority. And that can work in the proper ratios. Done correctly the host society ends up with some new ethnic foods, a few immigrant communities and some more loanwords. Done incorrectly, entire cities become no go zones and go bankrupt providing social welfare for all.

The difference isn’t just in the numbers, though those are important, but selectivity. Immigration will almost always spike crime rates, but those go down as absorption takes hold. (So long as productive absorption is possible.) What you never do is import mass populations who think of your country as their own and want to take it over. In such a scenario the absorption will go the other way and then you end up with the likes of Taliban Terry, a former altar boy who goes around Dublin, with son Osama in tow.

The Western left has committed itself to multiculturalism, the Western right has committed itself to free enterprise– and both positions make it hard to choke off the flow of migrants. The social welfare left and the anything for a buck right need more immigrants because there are jobs that the natives just won’t do, like work without under the table without benefits while putting eight kids and two wives on the welfare rolls. The irresponsibility of corporations and social welfare lobbies inflates budgets and increases crime, while the blame gets passed around. And then you end up with cities that are No Go Zones, Imams preaching Jihad and Mexican flags waving at protests– all because companies wanted cheap labor and left wing politicians wanted to build a constituency.

Failed State Colonization isn’t an invasion by armed force. But then colonization by successful states often wasn’t either. The natives lacked the will and unity to mount an active resistance, they didn’t see the scale of what was happening until it was too late, the invaders took advantage of native hospitality and many of the natives collaborated with the colonists to gain some personal advantage. All three of these factors exist in Failed State Colonization. The West has failed to learn the lessons of its own conquests. And now it is falling victim to many of those same tactics.

The West is divided, the migrants are united. The scale of what is happening can only be seen on the ground or in a few mostly hidden statistics, but neither show the full scope of the phenomenon, and even if they did, most natives are conditioned to think of their countries as nearly invulnerable. When they learn otherwise, the shock is too much and they default to appeasement and collaboration. That’s something the Incas could tell you about. Hospitality is lavishly extended to the migrants, but it’s repaid with treachery and violence. Again something the Incas could tell us about. If their civilization was still around.

The difference between the successful state and the failed state is cultural. Successful states are successful to to the extent that they are democratic in that the agenda of the government mirrors that of the people. Failed states are successful only to the extent that their tyrants are competent, and even such competence has to be filtered through the culture of a failed state.

The successful state is dynamic, the failed state is static. The successful state is always getting things done, the failed state is just struggling not to fall apart. Where the successful state uses its resources and wealth to advance, the failed state locks them up or uses them to bribe its people. And when that fails it guns them down in the street. The successful state believes that hard work will give it a better future. The failed state believes that a turn of the wheel will put it on top of the world. The successful state blames itself for its failures. The failed state blames wicked conspirators who undermine it at every turn.

The greatest error of immigration advocates is the failure to understand that immigration does not just import a population raw for the mixing, but entire cultures with their own political culture. The migrating population of a dominant state imports its culture. The very element that made it into a failed state.

The people of a failed state may work hard, but they don’t believe that hard work will move them forward because the system is corrupt and rigged against them. Instead they either work mechanically or look for ways to beat the system. The black market is ubiquitous. Everyone cheats everyone else. Political leaders are not representatives, but patrons, linking the people at the bottom to the top, who can provide favors and make things happen. You don’t vote for a politican to reform a system, but to get in on the good side of his party and his family, who may then help out when you have to deal with the tangle of bureaucracy. Nothing works without a bribe. Not even the simplest things.

The people love and hate their country at the same time. They go from wanting to tear their leaders to pieces with their bare hands, to proclaiming them as gods in the space of a day. They distrust all leaders and yet they worship them. They fear the secret police and are its eagerest informants. The only injustice they protest against is personal injustice. They don’t mind when the regime puts a thousand people to the wall, so long as one of them isn’t their relative. They talk amongst themselves of whom the regime should really be shooting instead. “Ah, if only I were in charge. I would line them all up against the wall.” That is the flavor of their democracy.

As successful states take on the political culture of failed states, their ability to reform their way out of the situation declines. Their welfare states might function if they could hold a steady native birth rate in a population that was steadily employed. But the companies of a post-modern country in a global economy feel no loyalty to remain and give up the profits they could make by outsourcing production. And a population for whom life begins after getting their second degree and where two family incomes are the norm is not going to have the birth rate necessary to sustain the next generation of the whole setup. Pouring a migrant population into the mix is like trying to fix a structural defect by setting the building on fire.

The more the ruling party responsible for the mess alienates the working class population it depended on, the more it needs immigrants to replace them as a voting base. The liberal parties become foreign parties. The conservative parties abandon their constituencies and chase after the immigrant vote. After all who are the natives going to vote for, the feckless leftist atheists or the good traditional conservatives who are busy observing Ramadan and learning to deliver speeches in Spanish.

As the system breaks down, the leftist parties pretend that nothing is wrong and the rightist parties go for slash and burn reforms that ignore the root of the problem. Scrap the military, nuke Medicare, cut funding to this office and that office. As if the root of the problem is the amount of money being spent, rather than the way it’s being spent. Failing companies often try to cut expenses, but ignore that the underlying problem is not in the budget, but in its culture. The company isn’t going under because it’s spending too much money, that is a symptom of its fecklessness. It’s going under because it has lost all sense of mission, it has lost touch with its old program and its new program is a dead end, and no one at the top can think of a reason for it to exist, except to keep them employed.

Take an honest look at Western governments and that’s what you come away with. Massive bureaucracies that exist to provide compulsory services run by people who can’t honestly provide a reason for the continuing existence of these countries except as an interim phase until the EU or the UN comes to take over for them. They mouth the rhetoric of exceptionalism, but they don’t really believe it. They have more in common with their counterparts in other countries, than they do with the people whose lives they mismanage. Like most collapsing companies, the executives are obsessed with the minutiae of bureaucracy, enforcing rigid control in between attending lavish cocktail parties. They fiddle, Rome burns.

Failed State Colonization would not be a threat, if the successful states had not locked themselves into this mess. As the successful states fail, they lack the two elements that would repel the invaders. A high birth rate and a nationalist leadership. Those are elements the failed states do have. And so the showdown is an uneven one. The disparity is not of force, but of a willingness to use it.

Successful states attempt to avert the catastrophe by trying to police failed states, sending planes to bomb Libya to keep the migrants out, trying to shore up the Mexican government with aid and advisers. But those are all dead ends that lead to further entanglement and migration. American efforts in Somalia, Iraq and Yugoslavia have accomplished one indisputable thing. They have increased the numbers of Muslim immigrants coming from those countries. Practicing Nation Building on failed states won’t stop them from colonizing us. It only accelerates the process.

Failed State Colonization is the greatest threat of our time, but it too is a symptom of the intellectual failures of the successful states. As failed states continue their prolonged collapse, they send out migrant populations which accelerate the collapse of the formerly successful states. This colonization means there will be no gradual decline. That we will not sink into the sunset like Japan, instead we will be brutally overrun. There will be no decline, but a fall.

Perpetual Victimization for Perpetual War

There’s nothing more self-centered and dehumanizing than the insistence of Western liberals on atoning for their forebears’ desire for cheap coffee and tea by conceptually transforming billions of people into automatons whose every thought and deed is a direct consequence of Western imperialism.

Perpetual victimization is the worst thing that can be done to someone. It means conceptually depriving them of their free will and treating their every action as a reaction. Yet perpetual victimization is at the heart of Western liberalism, it is the very same premise that once promoted eugenics against the poor and throughout the 20th century has promoted and sought to keep minorities helpless and victimized, rather than self-empowered. Perpetual victimization is the ugliest side of the liberal nanny state in all its awful glory, tucking adults into their oversized cribs and graves, soothing them with socialized lullabies and nurturing their frustrations and grudges with passive aggressive appeasements that only create greater helplessness and feed a deeper level of bitterness.

But the worst part of perpetual victimization is that it transforms even the vilest villainy into virtue.

This is the path that the Jihad has followed into the West over a red carpet of Western bleeding hearts. By painting a portrait of the Jihadist as victim of Western imperialism, the suicide bomber and the head chopper have joined the rogue’s gallery of the victims of the Patriarchy, never mind that they actually are the real Patriarchy.

If Western liberals wish to pretend that Islamic terrorists are not actors but mere reactors, the terrorists are happy enough to play the game. The Muslim world already lives in a state of irresponsibility, half that of the adolescent certain that he could conquer the world if it wasn’t for mommy and daddy keeping him down and half that of the senile pensioner who remembers things being so much better some time around 1300 CE than they are today.

In the disturbing co-dependent relationship between Western liberals and Islamic terrorists, both sides agree that the West is to blame for the crimes of the terrorists while treating the terrorists as outraged protesters against Western oppression.

“I have no choice but to kill you,” shrieks the Jihadist. “You have no choice but to kill us,” shrieks the Anti-war Protester and should any well intentioned police officer who might interfere, the Jihadist will shriek, “Infidel” and the Anti-war Protester will shriek, “Fascist.” And they will both mean the same thing.

Perpetual victimization not only deprives people of choice, it deprives them of even the possibility of choice, of their free will. It insists to them and to anyone who will listen that they are helpless to do anything to improve their lot. Perpetual victimization breeds perpetual entitlement which when combined with a sense of impotence, breeds perpetual war. “Your money or your life” isn’t simply the cry of a mugger or a government official anymore, it’s the clarion call of entitlement, bred and fed by perpetual victimization.

The Nanny state, both the familiar domestic one and the slowly emerging global one, depends on fostering the myth of individual and even national helplessness. And if that helplessness fosters rage and violence, so much the better they think, as violence clears the ground and demonstrates a clear demand for centralization.

Yet the final outcome is something quite different, for in the end the rage of the perpetually victimized can only be sated when they finally climb the walls and throw down those men and women who cast shadows of accomplishment across the plateau of their own failure and ignorance– and when the barbarians have stormed the city and stand on the burning walls they will feel a terrible quaking terror at their own power and the choices it lays before them and they will bow their heads to a tyrant of their own to reclaim their most valued possession. Their sense of helplessness which Western liberals helped bestow upon them.

Concessions Can Never Appease an Inferiority Complex

The latest news is that Muslim Scientists, a living paradox if there ever was one akin to Atheist Priests or Peaceful Warriors, want time to be centered on Mecca. Shall the world truly tell its time by the global symbol for backwardness where savages toss stones at a pillar symbolizing Satan. Shall the arrogant House of Saud, who dispense oil and terrorism in equal measure, under whose auspices hundreds of thousands of Muslims from around the world gather only to return radicalized and filled with hate to their native countries?

Yet no doubt the day will come when our responsible leaders will decide to do the responsible thing and let Mecca stop all the clocks in the name of appeasement. Appeasement after all has become acknowledged across the civilized world as the responsible thing to do when threatened by homicidal savages.

Civilization was built by those who understood that when savages come to your front door with their grievances and their knives, you man the ramparts and dissuade them of their demands. Civilization is being torn down by those who welcome them in, serve them tea, dole out billions, honor them, crown them and finally bow down to them– all in the name of responsibility.

But as it usually happens, the responsible thing to do is also the irresponsible one and utterly futile in the face of Muslim rage to boot.

Muslim rage is brewed in an ugly kettle that is only stoked by appeasement and filled with the foul odor of an inferiority complex. An inferiority complex cannot be appeased through appeasement, after all appeasement is what the better offers to the lesser. Appeasement to an inferiority complex is a patronizing condescending provocation.

Every time the West begins appeasing Muslims by giving in to their demands, the Muslim world brews with even more suppressed fury, like a small child with indulgent parents whose behavior only grows worse with every indulgence– because what he wants is not the indulgence, but to rebel and become his own person.

An inferiority complex can only be appeased through independence and yet the Muslim world lives a parasitic life, dependent on the West for its industry, its technology and the bulk of its culture. And so Islamism has set out to craft an independent uniquely Muslim identity, one that will swallow and consume the West.

Meanwhile our responsible leaders continue to engage in the same unprofitable idiot dialogue, indicating their willingness to do anything to relieve Muslim grievances, when it is precisely that reminder of their own inferiority which drives Muslims bananas. By assigning themselves responsibility for Muslim grievances, Western leaders take away what is most precious to an angry Muslim, his grievances.

The more Western leaders strive to appease Muslims, the worse the grievances grow as Muslim grievances and Western appeasement run a Red Queen’s race. The more Western leaders appease, the more grievances Muslims must develop to stay ahead. This insane dynamic is the sort of thing psychologists usually see in abusive relationships, among alcoholics, drug addicts and badly behaved children and it is a form of pathological behavior that we are continually enabling.

The Muslim need for self-worth can only be met from within and yet Muslims have chosen Islam, a way of life least fitted to meeting that need. Yet it is a way of life that deliberately stands in complete opposition to all the values and virtues of the West.

Science, technology, literacy, learning– who needs it. Like the Soviets who assigned the Western inventions they stole to random Russian frauds, peasants and lunatics like Polzunov, Artamonov and Tsiolokovsky — Muslims are happy enough to create a fraudulent history filled with enough borrowed and imaginary cultural and scientific achievements to warm themselves with through the long dark regression into the degenerate glories of their splendid backward past.

Islamism encompasses both the embrace and the reconciliation of the Muslim inferiority complex through the destruction of the West on the one hand the absolute submission of its followers on the other. Only by becoming slaves and divesting themselves of their individuality, can Muslims redeem their inferiority complexes in a bloody tide of wretched murder against anyone who has committed the wanton outrage of achieving more than they have.

And so Muslims trot out their demands, cast themselves as victims with one side of their mouths while uttering threats and imprecations with the other. Keep the Saudi flag off the soccer balls, no pork or drinks in our taxis, set the world’s clocks to Mecca, surrender Spain, Israel, Thailand, Kosovo and any other piece of land we set our eyes on at once. The madness never ends and it can never end.

Appeasement is not the cure for their inferiority complex, it is the oil tossed on the burning fire of Muslim outrage. It feeds an appetite with diplomatic junk food thereby creating a hunger that cannot be sated.

It is not appeasement that an inferiority complex demands but limits, like a persnickety child, what the Muslim world needs most is to be forced to make the choice between responsibility and self-destruction, to overcome the challenges from within or perish.

Limits though is the one thing our responsible leaders cannot embrace, instead they dig around for some means of enabling and appeasing Muslim grievances, thereby creating the very Muslim anger they seek to put away.

Shhhh Quiet, Censorship in Progress (The Coming of the Indoctrimemes)

How do you keep nearly a billion people quiet while everything they value about their countries and their civilization is torn apart, sold off and gradually destroyed?

The traditional method involves the old carrot and stick routine. The carrot provides you with incentives to ignore what is going on. The stick is there for anyone too stubborn to take the carrot and keep his mouth shut.

The carrot comes in the form of the manifold benefits of the nanny state that promises to feed, clothe, educate, heal and otherwise take care of everyone from cradle to grave. To get these things you of course have to accept the rise of an increasingly authoritarian social and political system and despite swallowing the bulk of your income, the nanny state has trouble delivering decent results and its bureaucratic arrogance inevitably makes life unpleasant– but the carrot offers benefits in exchange for compliance and complacency.

The stick is censorship.

The first tier of censorship is self-censorship, in which a person censors himself and is careful to avoid saying or even thinking what is ‘outside the lines’.

The second tier of censorship is indoctrinational censorship which covers the range of institutions from school to university to the media to the government’s press agencies which set the tone for “acceptable” and “unacceptable ideas. This indoctrination usually involves repeating and promoting a simple concept or idea.

For example the following Indoctrimeme has been broadcast at full volume since 9/11 by every one of the above mentioned institutions;

“Islam is a religion of peace. Terrorism is practiced by a small number of extremists.”

Modern indoctrinational methodology is extremely sophisticated and diverse, the same message can be repackaged and delivered in any number of ways, from documentary to comedy to leaflet to blog to press conference to history textbook to op ed page. In successful indoctrinational censorship, every single possible format and outlet is exploited to promote a message. The “Islam is Peace” Indoctrimeme can be found across the full spectrum media from music to sitcoms to movies to books to newspaper articles to sermons to billboards. Thus elements as diverse as Aliens in America, the evening news, a Spider-Man comic book and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s sermon combine to broadcast the same idea.

Indoctrinational censorship so successfully blankets every medium with a single message that there is no longer any room for opposing points of view. Any opposing point of view that does get through must compromise itself to acclimate to the Indoctrimeme. Indoctrinational censorship is seemingly passive but it sets the stage for the third tier of censorship.

The third tier of censorship is social censorship, the goal of indoctrinational censorship is to create and enforce the social consensus of what the acceptable view is. When indoctrinational censorship is successful, social censorship crystallizes by making it impossible to say certain things out loud.

After the indoctrimeme that Islam is a religion of peace and terrorism is only practiced by a small number of extremists has reached critical mass, expressing the view that Islam itself is the cause of terrorism becomes a view that most people have coded and modeled as “false”, “ignorant”, “objectionable” and so on and so forth.

The popular entertainment subset of the indoctrinational phase teaches this modeling and coding by in our example

1. Identifying people who hold a “Wrong’ view and aligning them with a negative stereotype, e.g. Rednecks, Flag Waving Patriots, Ignorant

2. Teaching people to model ‘Right” behavior by rejecting their views as bigoted and ignorant using a fuzzy rote response that has no real meaning

Wrong Thinker: “I think the roots of terrorism may be inside Islam.”

Right Thinker: “It’s wrong to hate billions of people for what only a few extremists did.”

The goal of social censorship is to create a high barrier to expressing unacceptable ideas.

The fourth tier of censorship is police censorship. Despite social censorship, some people will have contrary opinions. The approach to managing unacceptable opinions is the steel behind the velvet glove, the stick itself, censorship by law enforcement and legal action. Currently British blogger Lionheart has been targeted but he is merely part of a larger situation.

In times of crisis and chaos, both the carrots of the nanny state and the velvet glove of social censorship will begin to prove insufficient without real fear behind them. The response of the authorities is to actively intimidate and terrorize dissenters using police and the courts.

In Israel boys and girls as young as 13 and 14 have been indefinitely detained for participating in peaceful protests against the government surrender to terrorism and the ethnic cleansing of Jewish populations. Across Europe the laws are tightening on dissenters on everything from home schooling (resistance to the second tier of censorship) to a grab bag of laws against inciting hatred that are never used against Muslims but only against their critics. In America, far more non-Muslims were jailed after 9/11 than Muslims for expressing various forms of outrage against Islam, little was heard about those cases except backpatting by public officials at their success in restraining the backlash.

It is axiomatic that the worse the failures of government become, the more ruthless the abuses of judicial and police censorship become in order to silence any public outcry against them. That in part is why Europe and Israel are the scenes of a much harsher crackdown on opposition to the Jihad. If the Jihad bears down more severely on the US, expect America to go the same route.

Finally we come full circle to the fifth and the first tier of censorship, self-censorship. The end result of this Orwellian tangle of indoctrinational, social and legal censorship is to induce self-censorship, to keep people from not only speaking out but to prevent them from even thinking about those things. To create an atmosphere of fear and guilt at the very thought of dissent itself.

The greatest victory of evil is in the silencing of the truth. Keep speaking out.


The Democracy Fallacy

It was the end of the 18th century and soon would come the beginning of the 19th. A new age that it was believed would usher in a world of transformation. The old tyrannical monarchies would fall and the success of the American revolution would be replicated across Europe.

First in line was France. The French revolution was heralded by America’s revolutionary Francophiles such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Support for the French revolution was identified with support for a broader revolution for mankind against tyranny and oppression. Much as the liberals of the 20th century would inflexibly commit themselves to supporting the great evil that was Communism, in the name of human progress- American liberals of the 18th would do for the French revolution.

Democracy was the goal. Freedom for all men. A new age.

At first the prospects seemed good. The American Revolution’s chief propagandist, Thomas Paine, joined the National Assembly (even though he barely spoke a word of French.) George Washington wrote letters of advice to the hero of two revolutions, Lafayette, his surrogate son.

If the attitude is reminiscent of anything, it can be reminiscent of American troops entering Baghdad, coming to rebuild Iraq and idealistically bringing democracy to an oppressed people. Or liberals rejoicing in the Russian people overthrowing the Czar and creating a government of the workers. And then as now, idealism gave way to baffled horror, as the killing began.

The tide of blood began. Talk of liberty and freedom went on and so did the blades of the gullioutine. The revolution had begun to devour its own children. Many Americans looked away horrified, incapable of comprehending what had happened. After all the American experiment had encountered its share of troubles yes, the Whiskey Rebellion, Aaron Burr and the Federalist debates were notable early highlights, but nothing like this.

What Americans then and what Americans now had failed to understand that democracy is a tool. A means not an end. Used correctly democracy can create a republic of free men invested with rights and responsibilities. Used incorrectly democracy can lead to political bloodbaths, anarchy or a genocidal madman.

As in the 18th century, Americans continue to view democracy as a messianic ideal that will transform humanity. It may. In time. The reality though is democracy is simply a method of achieving political consensus. It is the fairest method we know and the least likely to be abused. But every method of government is also inherently unfair and abusive. It is the nature of the citizenry and the political class that determines whether its outcome is good or evil.

The fundamental error then and now in messianically embracing democracy as an ultimate good, is that we contrast it with tyranny as the ultimate evil. We falsely assume that tyranny is evil because it is undemocratic. While that is one aspect of tyranny’s evil, the overall evils of tyranny come from abuses, atrocities and oppression. Democracy is not a perfect cure for those things. To the extent that its leadership is corrupt or void of empathy or committed to political philosophies that harm some in their society, the democracy they run reflects that.

Democracy and freedom are not the same thing. Just ask a Southern slave. Democracy and equality are not the same thing, just ask a white college student applying to college.

Democracy as we apply it is an outgrowth of ideals and ideas within Western culture and European history. Transplanted into another society, the effects are unpredictable. But beyond all the idealistic rhetoric, boiled down simply, democracy says that you don’t have to kill in order to be treated fairly. You don’t have to kill to survive, if your beliefs are different from the people running things. You don’t have to kill to have your rights protected. You don’t have to kill to have a voice in the way government is run. You can vote. You can lobby. You can protest without being shot down in the street.

This is not always the case even in democracies. That has not and is not always the case in America. But it is the case overall and that has been enough to keep things going. It combined with hefty doses of government welfare and a growing respect for human life has been enough to keep things going. It and the general exhaustion in the West for any more wars and killing has been enough to keep things going.

That is the reality. The myth of democracy as a near-religious icon has been what has blinded Americans time and time again when democracy was offered to other nations and peoples and those peoples shrugged and said “Who needs it” and went on killing anyway.

Democracy only works in a culture where different sides can agree to vote it out, instead of fight it out. Democracy only works in a culture that values human life enough to pull back from the brink and settle things by slandering each other in the press. Democracy only works in a culture where each other side believes the other side is wrong, but not so wrong they have to be wiped out and kept from any role in the country’s future.

Where those conditions do not obtain, THERE WILL BE NO DEMOCRACY. It does not matter how many troops you send in. Not unless you are prepared to use those troops to slaughter every faction that is not prepared to lay down arms and accept the results of the voting booth, not caring what devastation we produce in the process. We are not prepared to do that and until we are discussing bringing democracy to Iraq or any Muslim country is a dead end.

Democracy will not produce Muslim countries that will respect human rights. Democracy is a truce. In a Muslim country it’s an armed truce while both sides prepare to kill each other. Don’t believe me? Look at Democracy in Lebanon or Gaza? That’s what democracy looks like in a country where both sides care more about winning than about their own people.

Want a best case scenario of what democracy looks like in an unstable society? Take a look at Latin America. Want a worst case one, look at Russia.

Russia abandoned its brief flirtation with democracy in favor of a new dictatorship. Russia is never going to be a democratic country, simply because Russia has always been run by powerful cliques inserted into a rotten bureaucracy. Russia’s democracy was simply more of the same. So was Communism. So were the Czars. So is Putin.

It’s the same government with a different name, because it’s the same society and culture. Governments don’t define a society and a culture. A society and a culture define the government.

Colonial America had many of the same characteristics as Post-Colonial America. The Revolution simply gave Americans legal independence, a national government and the ability to set our cultural norms into law.

European democracy set the cultural norms of Europe into law. Namely a massive state bureaucracy, a static culture and tolerance of most things so long as they don’t interfere with business as usual.

Iraqi democracy set Arabs norms into practice. Be loyal to your tribe and faction. Kill your enemies before they kill you. Attack anyone who shows weakness. Lie about all of the above until you believe it yourself.

Iraq or any Arab country will change when enough of its citizens desire it. Not until then, unless we’re prepared to engage in the kind of force it takes to break their society down and rebuild it in our own image. It’s possible but we won’t do it, because we are who we are and they are who they are.

Our democracy is a great and wonderful thing. But it is not the cure for the world. It is who we are. It is a part and parcel of our Americaness. We cannot give it to another people unless they want it and are willing to accept it. And most will not, until they learn for themselves there is a better way.

Too often in our history we have chosen to believe that democracy is the innate condition of mankind when tyranny is removed. We believed that removing Louis or Saddam or Nikolai, would usher in democracy, freedom and human rights. But tyranny is the innate condition of mankind. Thousands of years of history indisputably back it up. Democracy is an ideal to be reached up for. Not something that emerges when the ground is cleared of tyranny.

Societal virtues cannot be given as a gift. They must be acquired by dedicated striving. When a people is ready to reach for self-improvement, they may have what we have. But until that day if we are to hold on to what we have, we must be prepared to defend ourselves against them and put our trust in destroying their threat potential through arms, not in rebuilding them into a virtuous society.


Civilization at War with Itself

If there is one guiding motto for modern liberalism, it is Pogo’s, “We have met the enemy… and he is us”. That core paradigm usually rendered in more poetic and radically charged prose traveled from radical salons to become embedded in the educational system and popular culture. And its message is very simple, our values, our way of living, our traditions, our nation and our civilization are responsible for most of what is wrong with the world. We are the enemy and we must defeat our values, our nation and our civilization for the sake of the world and the future.

What has followed since then has taken place on the grim battlefield of a civilization at war with itself, at war with itself in college campuses, on editorial pages, on movie screens and books, and everywhere that the “We are the enemy” meme of liberalism has penetrated. And the bad news is that in the name of tolerance, the environment, the moral high ground and a thousand other liberal pieties, we are being defeated. Civilization is losing the war.

The tide of car burnings, gang rapes and bombings flowing across the streets of Oslo and Sydney, Jerusalem, Paris and London, do not mark the victory of barbarism over civilization, but rather a poisoned distorted version of civilization over itself. The celebration of the savage, the mad bomber and the rapist, the bearded dole taker who preaches the virtues of Jihad and his smooth Oxford educated colleague who does the same in far subtler consonants, is civilization dancing around the fading bonfire it has made of itself. Throw on the canon, toss on every ancient value and virtue, pile on technology and achievement, then step back and dance madly to the wailing strains of the music of some invisible Nero while it all burns.

This is no random madness, no Mansonesque sickness of the spirit, no deranged chemical flows along the gaps in the nerves of the brain. This is a carefully cultivated ideological madness, supplemented with drugs and the self-consciously nihilistic imagery of a culture that has fallen in love with its own self-destruction, that sees no frontiers remaining to it, but the final one of its own annihilation. The death of a civilization. The dark undiscovered country that follows when all that has been built is finally torn down.

Like a willful cancer with arms and legs it attacks every element that can keep civilization alive with furiously self-righteous malignancy. If your national security offends you, cut it off. Throw open the borders as wide as you can, and make sure that those you bring in are the very dregs that no sane country would take. Shout on behalf of terrorists, beat the drum for cop killers and rend your clothes for serial killers scheduled for execution. If the schools teach any useful skills, put an end to it. If there is truth to be found anywhere, mock it until it goes away.

And when you have finally bankrupted your country to its very utmost range of debt, when you have finally made it impossible for anyone to earn a living without the intervention of the government, when you have made it illegal for anyone to have a stray unconventional thought, then you will have finally brought the edifice of civilization to the point at which there is nothing left to do but to bring it all crashing down under its own weight.

And what is behind this ideological madness? What is behind a crisis in which the best and brightest are doing their very best to bring down their own civilization, swinging their hardest against the very beams that keep them from crashing to the ground? But it is easier to ask why lemmings rush forth off cliffs into the sea.

The instincts of lemmings drive them to their death, and the cultural instincts of generations of the left, shaped in part by the Soviet Union whose genuine wish was to bring down Western civilization and anything allied to it, drive them to destroy their own roots. The hatred of the left for the countries in which they live and the moist civilizations in which they thrive is not some fad that began when George W. Bush won Florida or Richard Nixon whomped McGovern. It did not happen 20 years ago or 40 years ago or even a 100 years ago. It is far older than that.

It is a sickness that has been crawling up the bowels of Western civilization, a mad parasite ranting about revolutions and utopias that somehow inevitably lead to bureaucratic tyrannies, gulags and guillotines. Either its most extreme incarnation is given a chance to set up a totalitarian state to implement its maddest revolutionary credos, or it will devour and destroy everything in its path seeing it all as the enemy. And in the process it has come to embrace and celebrate its own destructiveness and bloodlust, just like the people’s mobs brandishing severed heads in Paris, the Moscow trials and the hysterical frenzies of anti-war rallies.

The politics of the left is a car that always swerves further and further left. And to go left means to always denounce your own, to condemn your country and your society as examples of all that is wrong with the world and must be destroyed. The radical left’s reading of history is a series of atrocities and horrors committed by human greed, nationalism and capitalism. Citizenship is nothing more than entitlement and values are nothing more than privilege. And the further left the car swerves, the more extreme the hatred becomes.

One can no longer “steal the thunder” of the left for long, as conservative governments once did to radical socialists by passing just enough of their programs to cut off their base of support. The left has long ago passed from protesting against actual injustices, to creating its own injustices to protest against, and creating entire narratives of injustices, in which the ultimate injustice is the continuing survival of the country and civilization associated with the narrative. And to steal their thunder, is to swerve left, only to find that the left is already ahead of you.

The ideological madness of the left, flowing into the educational system and the culture, turning up on musical shores, in novels and plays, shining forth on the movie screen and in every circle and classroom, is the distillation of their poisonous hatred for a civilization that can never go left enough to satisfy them. That hatred has now become a whip, a goad, and moderates and conservatives alike run before it in the futile hope of avoiding its barbed blows.

What it all adds up to is a great echoing thanatos pulse, a death call that tells civilization to die, that tells its inhabitants that their lives are worse than worthless, but an actual malignancy, a crime against the environment, the third world and the oppressed. That pulse echoes now in the streets of every city in the civilized world. It flows along fiber optic cables, hums on radio waves and bellows on the floor of a hundred legislatures. It is a mad cry of an ideology gone mad with death. It is the insanity of liberalism rebounding against its own structures, progressing not to a better world, but to the destruction of everything that keeps us alive.

Yet this is not theoretical, it is very real. It is the wellspring of the contamination of our political and intellectual systems. When police club protesters against Islamism or the Settlement Freeze, when politicians denounce as criminals anyone who speaks out against their destructive policies, when the public is told by the press that their greatest enemies are those who would save them– you can hear the death cry of civilization.

A postscript.

The award for the strangest Israeli Supreme Court case goes to an Israeli named Shlomo Avni, who petitioned the high court for the right to be eaten by wild animals after his death, saying he was only repaying a debt to nature as a lifetime consumer in the food chain. In their 772-word decision, three Supreme Court judges wished the 80-year-old plaintiff a long life and unanimously rejected Avni’s petition. The justices quoted Jeremiah 9:21 and the prophet’s warning of dreadful times when “carcasses of men fall as dung upon the open field.” Avni said he’d take his case to the international court at The Hague.


One thought on “The Liberal Apocalypse

  1. Hi, these are my articles and I’m not too crazy about them being fully reprinted under the headline By Erich Gleibe, who isn’t the author of these pieces.

    More limited excerpts would be better and they should be credited to the proper author.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s