We’ve been hearing a lot of talk recently about reparations, the idea that certain demographic groups in Western countries (but especially the USA) “owe” other demographic groups because of past injustices, whether real or imagined. Typically this talk is cast in racial tones – whites owe racial minorities for oppression, despite whites taking the historically unprecedented steps of abolishing formal slavery, granting minorities “civil rights,” and allowing minorities the opportunity to participate fully in their societies – something that virtually no other group of people in history have done. There has been a low level of background noise along this line for decades in academia. However, other groups in the intersectionality alliance are also trying to get in on the action as well. Gays demand that they be given redress for past intolerance of their perversions. Immigrants demand that western societies atone for the past “sins” of colonisation, in many cases where this colonisation was extremely beneficial to them, and even in cases where this colonisation never actually occurred. Pretty much everybody with a perceived axe to grind is trying to hop on board this gravy train.
Now, some internet wags might presume that decades of crime, welfare abuse, and massive amounts of immigrant labour undercutting Americans workers would be enough “reparation” to last us for centuries. However, this argument, even if made in jest, rather misses the actual point of what reparations are really all about. The fundamental assumption here is that reparations are about money, and that if enough money was transferred (this one last time!) from straight, white Americans to the various malcontents, then the issues would be resolved and everyone could quiet down about the whole thing. But that’s not what is at issue at all.
Actually, reparations are about the acquisition and use of power – more specifically, power to be exercised by Blue Cathedral against Red Cathedral. When understood in this sense reparations, far from being nonsensical, are actually quite explicable within the framework of demographic-structural theory because we can understand them as a form of intraelite competition that occurs within secular cycles as complex societies begin the downward portion of a cycle.
If you’ve been around dissident Right circles for any length of time, you’re probably seen the term “clown world” used to describe the modern Western world. If you’ve paid any attention at all to the state of the world around us, you know just how apt of a description that term really is. Modernity as it is expressed today transcends the types of degeneracy and corruption that have been seen in previous decadent periods and has plumbed to nadirs of human depravity that previous generations would have literally found unspeakable because they would not have had the vocabulary to even describe them. To any rational adult observer of any previous age, no matter how dissolute, today’s western social, political, and moral situation would seem completely clownish and unserious.
That this would be the case is practically inevitable given the type of people involved within the plethora of left-wing causes and intersectionality factions. As a general rule, the political and cultural Left are very childish, not just in their behaviour, but also in their worldview, demeanor, and mindset. Any normal person who has ever dealt with them on social media (or the real world, if you’ve had the misfortune) can abundantly testify to this. Now, I’m not really talking about the “boss lefties,” the people who really run the show concerning left-wing activism. Rather, I’m describing the rank-and-file lefties who fill out the echelons of “ground level” activism – ranging from the antifa street drek to the college students whining about microaggressions to the HR representatives in multinational corporations.
I sincerely believe that to understand the psychology of those on the Left, one must approach the issue from the standpoint of juvenile behaviourism. Observing how and why children – as in actual children – act as they do will shed light on why those on the Left are the way they are. I want to emphasise that what I’m saying here isn’t meant to be the usual derogation that people on opposite sides of the political divide routinely throw at each other. I am literally saying that, for whatever reason, the stunting of the emotional and rational growth of the minds of those who are drawn to the hard core of the Left results in similarities in psyche and behaviour between the two groups.
The graphic above was recently posted onto Twitter, billed as a hierarchy for argumentation that would allow us to learn how better to constructively and rationally disagree with each other so as to arrive at a common understanding. Certainly, most all of us can agree that rational disagreement and common understanding are better than sullen or violent disagreement leading to strife at every level from the personal to the international. This is especially the case for our modern Western nations where we see public discourse increasingly riven with a seemingly impassable gulf between two broad ideological groups. Can’t we all just learn to get along?
It’s certainly wonderful to think that “all we need to do is find ways to constructively disagree with each other,” and think that this would solve most, if not all, of our problems. But there’s a tremendous difficulty with applying this to the modern ideological divide between Right and Left, the “reactionary” (true or otherwise) and the progressive. The difficulties lie in that this line of thinking implies that there are two sides which actually want rational discussion and a settling of differences rationally. Yet, there are not.
Many readers have probably observed something odd (but not entirely unexpected) about two recent high profile cases where the Left tried to game the narrative, it blew up in their faces, and there now seems to be the possibility that the bad actors in question might possibly face real consequences for their actions. These are the Jussie Smollett fake hate crime and the Covington kids fake racism hoaxes. In the one, Smollett is now facing felony charges (including, possibly, federal charges). In the other, several of those who libeled the Covington Kids, such as Nathan Phillips and the Washington Post, face hefty lawsuits.
One thing many have probably noticed, as well, is how absolutely freaked out many progressives have been because of this. It seems odd to us that they would be disturbed by people receiving the just reward for their bad behaviour. This is because we on the broad Right naturally tend to assume that if someone does something bad, they’ll eventually have to face the music. That’s the way the Right’s sense of justice assumes it should work.
Yet, anyone who pays attention knows that this is nearly always NOT how it works. How many left-wing hate crime hoaxes have gone unpunished? How many times have lefties gotten to destroy someone’s life or reputation with no repercussions? The Left is allowed to behave horribly with basically no accountability. Why is this?
For the past few years, we have been seeing a tremendous increase in a phenomenon which I refer to as “social prosecution.” This has taken place as the Left finds itself in a position of increasing power over the culture and the means of cultural discourse (e.g. social media, flow of information on the internet, etc.). Yet, the Left has not been able to establish more than a relative parity with the nominal Right in the formal political arena. As a result, the Left has had to seek alternative means for punishing its enemies since they don’t have much ability to do so formally yet.
Before I proceed to the main discussion about social prosecution, I’d like to lay a little groundwork first. It’s often said that politics is downstream from culture. In other words, as trends, assumptions, mores, and whatnot within a society’s cultural milieu begin to change, these values will begin to be reflected in the political realm after a bit of lag time. However, an equally salient fact is that culture, in turn, is downstream from power – which is not to be confused with politics.
Power is the ability to shape or change your circumstances in a real way, one that is actually effective. As a result of the Left’s long march through the institutions, they have gained significant (and in some cases total) control over most areas of information control and influence – the academy, entertainment, social media, journalism, and much more. This allows them to alter the direction in which western cultures evolve, which then translates into political change on down the road. That is an exercise of real power, no matter how silly we may be tempted to think Clown World is. But, it’s necessarily a slow process.
Regular readers of this blog have probably observed that I am not a fan of democracy or democratic institutions at all. One of the points that I’ve made elsewhere is that democratic governments often are (and almost invariably end up being) more intrusive, overbearing, expansive, and tyrannical than do aristocratic monarchies and similar traditional forms of government.
Obviously, this seems counterintuitive to those who have been raised in modern democracies and who experienced the full brunt of democratic propagandising from society and the educational establishment. Democracy, as it is portrayed, is all sweetness and light, the last, best hope for mankind, while aristocrats and monarchs are at best weird and idiosyncratic, at worst they are genocidal evils.
So why do I feel comfortable making the arguments that I do, knowing that they will be so alien to the programming received by the vast majority of observers? It’s because history shows that the propaganda is just that – an ideologically motivated pretense that is not borne out by the facts nor by mankind’s long experience attempting to govern himself.
Practically everybody says they want good government. Aside from a few anarcho-[fill in the blank] types, most folks seek for effective government that provides stability and protection for the people. Yet, such a state of affairs is extremely rare in the world today. Why is that? What is it that we lack today that our ancestors had which gave them generally more stable and dependable government?
The answer, of course, is unitary government centered about the authority and legitimacy of monarchic rulers acting for their nations as whole units.
One of the greatest impediments to effective government, in any age, is the division of power into multiple, contradictory, and competing poles of influence. This is typically the result of democratisation, a process which has been accelerating since its inception (in its most recent incarnation) in the Enlightenment of the mid-18th century.
It’s not uncommon these days to hear left-leaning public figures declare that they want to “have an honest discussion about” some current day, hot-button issue. Usually, the topic of interest has to do with guns, race, or sexuality, since these seem to be the most emotionally-charged controversies we face in the Current Year. It’s likely an artifact of democratic mass mobilisation, but the language being used suggests that they’re trying to incite a nationwide dialogue, one in which we all can rationally achieve a mutual consensus, a General Will if you please, that will satisfy everyone and allow us to move on to other things.
Of course, most of us out here in flyover country jolly well know that when a progressive says this, the last thing xe or xhe actually wants is a truly and genuinely honest discussion about the issue. In fact, you can be guaranteed that what they really want is the exact opposite, and that they’re merely looking for an opportunity to bloviate through a series of propagandistic talking points. Having an authentically honest discussion about issues is not at all what progressives desire, which is shown by the fact that they have been assiduously seeking to shut down open discussion on every outlet on which they can get their grubby hands. By bringing up a hot-button issue, progressives are simply signalling to each other the next target for their army of “change agents,” rather than trying to perform the public service of providing for an open and informed citizenry.
Over the past few years, the censorship and control over the flow of information on the internet has been increasing at an accelerating rate. In many parts of the world (e.g. China and the Middle East), governments have stepped in and asserted control over some or all of the information which is made available to their people. In theory, at least, this is not an option for governments in most of Europe and the Anglosphere, due to their professed valuation of free speech. Within the modern first world, the right to freely express yourself, to bring your intellectual goods (such as they may be) to the “marketplace of ideas” is thought to be well-nigh sacrosanct by the man on the street. The United States even formally enshrines it in the Constitution via the First Amendment. The government suppressing the speech of one or a group of people which it finds offensive or unpleasant is simply against the rules!
But of course, if there’s one thing we know about people, it’s that they’re tremendously good at getting around rules they don’t like.
Many of us are familiar with the metaphor of the “cargo cult.” The term itself was coined by the famous physicist Richard Feynman (who, ironically, didn’t actually use the term the way he had described it) in a speech he gave about transparency and integrity in science. Briefly, the phenomenon of the cargo cult was observed in the South Pacific during World War II. Pacific Islanders would observe the Americans building runways and control towers, and soon after airplanes full of supplies would land and disgorge their contents of goodies. The islanders would build their own bamboo mockups – runways, towers, even bamboo headsets for the “controllers” – expecting that planes full of food and medicines would come to them as well. Of course, none ever did.
Ultimately, cargo cults rested on a form of magical thinking, on the failure to understand the fundamental reasons for why a phenomenon was taking place. This led to a miscomprehension about how one could obtained the desired benefits. It’s essentially a crude form of philosophical nominalism, where the form and appearance exist without grasping any of the underlying fundamental reality.