Monday, September 16, 2019

beyond good and evil - politics today

Religion is, among other things, concerned with good versus evil. In a post-religious age the struggle between good and evil is transferred to the field of politics. No matter how rational we like to think we are we see politics as a struggle between the White Hats and the Black Hats, the good guys and the bad guys.

The problem is that in politics today there are no good guys. Perhaps there never were. But there certainly aren’t any today. Modern politics is more like a struggle for power between rival organised crime gangs. The apparent ideological differences between political rivals are more like different approaches to organised crime. It’s like the gang war between the North Side Mob and Capone’s South Side Mob.

The bigger problem is that ordinary people have not yet realised this. They still think that at least some politicians are on the side of the little guy. They’re still looking for heroes.

Democracy these days at best offers us a choice of which mobsters we’re going to be exploited by.

Take Brexit. Starry-eyed Leavers thought that leaving the EU would mean a return to traditional Britain. The Britain of cricket matches on the village green, a pint of bitter at the local pub, cod and chips, plucky little Britain standing up to Hitler, decency and common sense.

In fact Brexit is a dispute between two rival gangs of globalists. You can call them the Brussels Mob and the Washington Mob. You can have a choice between the globalism of bureaucracy and the globalism of deregulation and law-of-the-jungle free markets. The globalism of Tony Blair and David Cameron or the globalism of rootless cosmopolitans like Boris Johnson. Some billionaires will be better off under one brand of globalism while other billionaires will find the other brand of globalism to be more congenial. Ordinary people will still get screwed either way.

There’s no good vs evil in modern politics. Just internal disputes among the bad guys. Just because Tony Blair was a Black Hat doesn’t make Boris Johnson a White Hat. They’re both Black Hats. Hillary Clinton was a Black Hat, but so is Donald Trump.

I’m not saying that there is no such thing as good and evil. I’m just saying that it’s naïve to see politics in those terms.

Saturday, September 14, 2019

why it’s almost impossible to sell nationalism

Back in 2016 there was much excitement on the dissident right at the supposed revival of nationalism. The Brexit referendum and the election of Trump, the increase in support for nationalist parties in several European countries and the apparent determination of eastern European countries like Hungary to defy the globalists on immigration seemed to promise a nationalist tide that would sweep across the West.

It hasn’t happened. The nationalist tide has receded. Very little, if anything, was achieved. Brexit remains in limbo. Trump’s only solid achievement has been tax cuts for the rich. The globalists have gone beyond a mere support for high immigration levels - they are now openly advocating complete open borders. A belief in the total abolition of national borders has now gone mainstream. The nationalist parties in western Europe remain politically irrelevant. Eastern Europe seems certain to succumb to the siren songs of globalism, consumerism and feel good liberalism.

The reason is that supporters of nationalism seriously underestimated the emotional appeal of internationalism. The alternative to internationalism is nationalism, and nationalism means Hitler. That's how a very very large number of people see it. It's a pure emotional response. And it's a very powerful very visceral emotional response.

Supporters of nationalism are motivated by a strong and genuine belief that nationalism is a good thing. A morally good thing. But supporters of internationalism are also motivated by a strong and sincere belief that nationalism is morally wrong and reprehensible and dangerous and will lead to disaster.

Of course the people pulling the strings behind the scenes are in most cases motivated by a cynical desire for gain and for power. But the foot soldiers on both sides are running on pure emotion. That's why so few people change their views on this issue. Rational debate with either side is futile.

Supporters of nationalism are also often blind to the unpleasant fact that nationalism has not always been in practice such a good thing (just as supporters of internationalism are unable to see that there are valid arguments in favour of nationalism). Neither side has any interest in listening to the arguments of the other side because both sides are equally blinded by emotion.

There is also of course a class element. Nationalism is seen as one of those wicked beliefs that working-class people hold and the working class today has zero political or cultural power. There is not a single significant political party in the West that represents working-class people.

On balance globalism is at this point in time a much more dangerous and existential threat to civilisation than nationalism. But the emotional appeal of globalism/internationalism is much stronger than the emotional appeal of nationalism. And nationalism has very little appeal to the young because it’s old-fashioned and must therefore be obsolete. It is an iron law that the young always believe that they are the first generation in history to be truly enlightened and virtuous. Selling nationalism is not going to be easy.

Friday, September 6, 2019

more musings on conspiracy theories

I probably need to elaborate a bit on my recent conspiracy theories post.

First off, I certainly don’t advocate deplatforming or persecuting people who believe in conspiracy theories. There are some conspiracy theories which seem to me to be completely nuts (like the Faked Moon Landing theory) but I’m not going to tell people they can’t believe something simply because I think it’s crazy.

I also do not disbelieve all conspiracy theories on principle. I just think that if you’re going to be sceptical of “official” versions of events then you need to apply the same scepticism to alternative versions. You need to approach all explanations of events in the same way. Is it plausible? Could such a conspiracy have been possible? Is there a sufficiently strong motive to explain why official agencies would take the risk of exposure in order to promote a false version of events? How many people would have needed to be involved?

Does the conspiracy theory actually explain the known facts? Does it do a better job of explaining them than the official version? Is there at least some evidence to suggest that the official story is dubious?

Some conspiracy theories clearly fail the plausibility test. The Moon Landings Were Faked theory is a great example. It would have required the involvement of thousands of people in a number of different countries (since the Apollo missions were tracked by tracking stations across the globe). It would have been insanely risky - there’s just no way such a conspiracy could have been kept secret. It involved events that took place much too publicly. The payoff for such a conspiracy would not have been worth the risks. The official story is a better explanation of the known facts. So it’s reasonable to conclude that  it’s probably nonsense. Pretty much the same arguments can be used in respect of the 9/11 Truther conspiracy theories - they’re ludicrously complicated and the chances of pulling off such a conspiracy successfully would have been too slim.

You also need to ask whether a conspiracy theory seems appealing because it fits your pre-existing prejudices. If it does then you need to exercise an even higher degree of healthy scepticism. If you already think the Russians are evil and that Vladimir Putin is literally Hitler then you’re vulnerable to seeing Putin’s hand behind just about everything. If you already think that the Freemasons or the Jews or the Communists are enemies of civilisation then you’re vulnerable to seeing almost everything as a Masonic, Jewish or communist plot.

I do agree that the conspiracy theory label can be, and is, used to discredit political opponents. That’s one of the reasons it’s a good idea to steer clear of the crazier conspiracy theories - there’s no point in making it easy for your enemies to discredit you. I’m intrigued by Ron Unz’s idea that it’s possible that the crazier conspiracy theories may be being pushed by the C.I.A. in order to discredit the plausible conspiracy theories. He may be on to something so that’s another reason for caution.

There’s no doubt that some conspiracy theories are true, or are highly likely to be true. There are quite a few things that I firmly believe that most mainstream opinion would consider to be conspiracy theories (feminism being a corporate plot to weaken unions, identity politics being a plot to destroy the Old Left).

You just have to be cautious and sceptical about both official versions and conspiracy theories.

Friday, August 30, 2019

how conspiracy theory minded are you?

You can now do an online test of your propensity for believing conspiracy theories. It doesn’t test belief in specific conspiracy theories but is intended to measure your overall tendency to see the world in conspiracy theory terms.

I’m told the average American college student scores 2.2. My score was 1.8 which apparently makes me less inclined towards conspiracy theories than the average set subject.

Mostly I have little time for these online psychological tests but this one is quite intriguing. We seem to live in a society in which people increasingly see the world as an interlocking network of conspiracy. It’s something I personally try to avoid.

Of course if the conspiracy theorists are right then this test itself is probably part of a vast CIA mind control experiment!

Here’s the link to the test. Enjoy.

Sunday, August 25, 2019

politics is religion

There is a theory that all political beliefs are in fact religious beliefs. Our political beliefs reflect our underlying beliefs about The Way God Meant Things To Be. In this case I’m not necessarily referring to people who believe in a personal God like the Christian God but also to people who hold vague pantheistic or similar beliefs, beliefs that there’s some underlying moral order to the universe. I suspect that most people, even those who consider themselves to be atheists, do have some such beliefs even if they’re not consciously aware of it.

We either believe that there’s a Way God Meant Things To Be, or that there’s a way that things are meant to be that is in tune with the Natural Order of Things, or is in tune with some vague intelligence that controls the universe. These beliefs may simply reflect our own personalities as formed by genetics or culture or upbringing. These underlying religious or quasi-religious beliefs then form our political beliefs.

People who believe in free markets do so not because they have a profound understanding of economic systems but because they think that free markets are virtuous and are in accord with The Way God (or the Natural Order) Meant Things To Be. People who believe in socialism do so not because they have a deep understanding of economics but because they think that socialism is virtuous and is in accord with The Way God (or the Natural Order) Meant Things To Be. People who believe in democracy do so for the same reasons. The same applies to people who believe in Open Borders, or Social Justice.

We hold certain political views because they are satisfying to us in both an emotional and a religious manner.

Which is why it’s just about impossible to change people’s political views by arguing with them. There are no political debates. There are merely individuals and groups proselytising for their own essentially religious beliefs.

Wednesday, August 21, 2019

The joys of hypocrisy

Hypocrisy has always been with us but it has really blossomed over the past few decades.

Some prime examples are the people who believe passionately that the government should be spending immense sums on mass transit but who have have never caught a bus or a train in their lives. There are people who are True Believers in the coming Climate Change apocalypse but they don’t seem to think that their beach houses in Malibu will be affected by rising sea levels. There are the passionate antiracists who live in towns that are 98% white.

There are libertarians who seem quite happy to enjoy the benefits of living in a society with a government rather than heading off into the wilderness to put their beliefs in rugged individualism into practice. There are American libertarians who are very happy to make use of America’s impressive national highway system, paid for by the taxpayer.

There are Zionist Jews who don’t want to give up their apartments in Manhattan to move to Tel Aviv. Liberals who think that intolerance is evil and believe that people who disagree with them should be sent to prison. People who think everybody should be free to love whomever they like but they’ll go berserk if their boyfriend decides to put that into practice by loving a younger hotter woman.

There are conservatives who claim to be horrified by the degeneracy of popular culture and particularly the degeneracy of Hollywood but they’ll still take the family to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster, oblivious to the fact that they’re funding the degeneracy of which they claim to disapprove. And they’ll still keep their cable TV connection, even as they complain about the anti-conservative propaganda on cable TV.

You can’t avoid a certain degree of hypocrisy. One man’s hypocrisy is another man’s flexibility. But it is healthy to at least be aware of one’s own hypocrisies.

Sunday, August 11, 2019

national goals

People need to have some sort of purpose to their lives. Nations need a sense of purpose as well. That sense of purpose can come from religion or from a political ideology. But it can come from something more straightforward.

I‘ll use Australia as an example. The Second World War, in an indirect way, provided Australia with a sense of national purpose. Australia found itself at war with Japan and Australians felt themselves to be in mortal danger. For a country with a small population the problems were particularly acute. It was not an actual lack of military manpower that was the problem. The problem was in providing the troops with the means to resist an enemy. Specifically the problem was modern weaponry like tanks and fighter aircraft which could not be obtained from allies like Britain and the U.S. because those countries were intent on building up their own strength. Australia was forced to design and build its own tanks and fighters. This was done but there were problems. Australia simply did not have aero engines suitable for modern fighters.

Australia drew certain lessons from this. If we were to be able to defend ourselves we needed a large modern industrial base. That would require a larger population, hence the aggressive drive to attract immigrants from Britain and southern Europe. A larger population would not however be enough. The government would have to take steps to ensure that the necessary industrial base was developed. The objective as to achieve a measure of self-sufficiency. Australia should have a manufacturing sector capable of producing the complex products needed in the modern world. This would include military aircraft (built under licence) but also consumer goods such as washing machines, refrigerators, cars and light aircraft. A manufacturing sector capable of producing such products would be the basis, in time of crisis, for the production of the weapons needed to defend the country.

On strictly economic grounds it made little sense. We could import all that stuff much more cheaply than we could manufacture it. If the only goal was to become rich it was probably not the best way to go about it. But becoming rich was not the only goal.

Of course there were other considerations. Manufacturing provided good well-paid jobs. Full employment was considered to be important. Even the conservative parties thought that full employment and decent wages were good things. Money was a fine thing and profits were a good thing but government was about more than money and profits.

Turning Australia into a modern relatively self-sufficient nation with a strong manufacturing sector and high-tech capabilities, rather than a nation dependent on exports of primary produce, became a national goal of sorts. It was at least something.

Then in the 70s and 80s we turned out back on such goals. We began to dismantle our manufacturing sector. We could get rich by digging stuff out of the ground and selling it, Self-sufficiency was old-fashioned. Greed was much more modern and up-to-date. Who needs national goals?

Maybe we did become rich. I’m not convinced. We’re supposedly a rich nation but in the 60s most Australians could afford to buy a house and today they can't. And maybe when you give up on having national goals you give up something that matters. And you’re not a real nation any longer.