Monday 15 November 2010

Will the politically correct ruling elite ever hand-over power voluntarily?


The answer is yes - PC is self-destroying, after all - but that isn't necessarily good news.


Clearly, the politically correct ruling elite - based mainly in politics, public administration, the media and education - are decadent.

They hate their own views, hate their jobs, hate themselves, are weary of responsibility.


They don't really like anyone - as evidence by the fact that they avoid-in-droves the people whom they supposedly support. 

Exempli gratia: the intellectual elite fail utterly to emigrate to 'Palestine' - which is (according to them) the most admirable and important place in the world for PC elites to support. Or to Cuba, or Venezuela.


The only thing holding-together the PC elite is hatred and fear of domestic conservatives and liberals.

This hatred and fear is indeed rational - as far as it goes - since the PC elites (being aware of their own ineffectiveness and uncreativity, their own corruption, their parasitism) fear a wholesale anti-intellectual back-lash which would consign the current intellectual elite to servile status.


At an existential level, the intellectual elite fear the loss of those lifestyle freedoms - especially sexual freedoms - which serve the PC elite as a substitute for religious hope.

For a PC intellectual to be deprived of his day-dreams is almost literal death.

The nihilist keeps going only by distraction, and distraction only remains effective with a wide range of changing choices;  since everyone has their own favoured distractions - what works for them - upon which they depend.

To threaten removal of these distractions (the ever-changing and expanding range of symbolic objects, virtual realities, dreams of holidays, escapes to the country, seductions, ecstasies, adulation, or simply peaceful self-delighted bliss - or of all of these) is to threaten existential death.

At present the PC elite hate and fear domestic conservatives and reactionaries even more than they hate themselves.

So it is fear that keeps things together. 

And fear keeps things going - but only on a day by day basis. Only very precariously.

Because at any time PC intellectuals might start to fear themselves, or fear their dependent clients, more than they fear domestic conservatives or reactionaries.

And at such a point there will be a rapid collapse of morale among the intellectual class, and the PC elite will become desperate to hand-over the reins of power - may indeed simply walk-away from power en masse.


But the immediate outcome of a collapse of PC morale is not necessarily likely to be good, because it may be unexpected and what replaces it entirely depends on who would take-over power.

At a national level there may be no suitable group to take-over administration, and the nation state would then collapse down to anarchy in most places with mere centres of organization dotted around the landscape.

The outcome would be very different in different places in the West, and within the US - compare Los Angeles with Salt Lake City; compare a unified national military government with and alternative of hundreds of gangs: where would you rather be if the national government collapsed?


When PC collapses, social order will become the priority (because without order nothing much can happen, and there is only personal-level power: Big men and their family-based gangs); and that which enables the largest and most complex social order over the longest period is likely to prevail.

This will differ locally. People tend always to think about the military as a focus of order.

But 'history tells us' that a society ruled purely by force will not be large or complex; and a society which is ruled by military and priests - a religious state - is therefore likely to prevail - in the long term.


This is why I keep returning to the choice after PC, after modernity: it boils down to a choice between religions.

At present, in the West, that religion seems unlikely to be Christianity. 

This is why I cannot feel optimistic about any socio-political future that displaces PC unless it was preceded by a sincere Christian revival among those likely to become the next generation of rulers.

Because if the future rulers are not Christians, then they will be something else.


[Note: I apologise that the above analysis is merely from a secular perspective, and indeed a hedonic evaluation of life;  ignoring the most important question of the truth of religions.]


a Finn said...

These could offer partial solutions on our way to a better society. The Harvard educated and ex-Wall Street insider Damon Vrabel has made new videos and offers Swarm Usa as a solution. Notice that Vrabel is a half liberal and interviewer Max Keiser is a odious liberal, so you have to filter the content as necessary. On the right hand side of the blog reads: "Spirituality, Psychology and Economics". It is good that he tries take these into account, as well as local communities, but his strong point is economics, not the others. Obviously he is a secular man who has started to feel the pull toward higher things, but he is still in the first tentative steps:

Vrabel: "hi Nikki, that’s sage advice from Tao. one of the reasons I’m taking people through these videos is to bring us to the sober truth and eliminate all the cheap hope out there people are putting in politicians, economic theories, and seemingly simple actions like “end the Fed.” cheap hope is deadly. it’s why we’re in this situation in the first place.

regarding AMI, a big step in the right direction, but I’m suspicious of 1) proposals for 100% reserve banking if they don’t have a long-term transition plan, 2) putting ALL control at the federal level. given 1 and 2 if the wrong people get in office or takeover the govt, there’s no better way to lock us into feudalism, which Michael Hudson correctly says we’re in danger of moving into. people don’t realize the impact of eliminating fractional credit. so I prefer economist Nathan Martin’s Freedom Vision which you can find at"

Another liberal, John Robb, who has started recently to understand better the advantages of strong relationships in communities, perhaps partly because of my influence (although still advocating flux relationship "communities", too), maps many aspects of the possible chaotic, anarchic and decentralized future, especially technologies:

A chart found from a recent post, perhaps anti-Christian, but otherwise trying to describe the general differences between systems. Notice the other photos in the series, too (Fat Tony, I presume, is a gangster):!/photo.php?fbid=469092998374&set=a.467743408374.246616.13012333374&pid=5537968&id=13012333374

I will write more tomorrow.

a Finn said...


SwarmUsa is a liberal organization, and although it correctly recognizes one of the central problems, it offers a liberal, likely a dangerous solution.

Finnish parliament and government are the most powerful, efficient and dangerous organized crime outfits in Finland. Not officially, of course. If we compare it's deeds to the second most powerful organized crime groups (according to the police, the most powerful) the Russian mafia, it seems benign and harmless, almost invisible. Mass immigration, race replacement and all the consequences; anti-white/anti-Finnish public space; subversion of normal legal procedures and discrimination against Finns in courts (e.g. hate laws); selective suppression of free speech; special privileges to non-Finns; "positive" discrimination, i.e. discrimination against Finns in education, work applications, housing, state and municipal support, etc.; pushing liberalism to every aspect of life through law, bureaucratic policies and unacknowledged policies; policies against everything that is deemed to be non-liberal or not sufficiently liberal; excessive taxation to finance these and other things; etc. In addition there is the general creep towards soft totalitarianism, total control, surveillance, bureaucratic planning and corruption.

These things seem to be worse in Britain and Usa. In Usa money creation could be given to the congress of Founding Fathers, but not to the present one. Ultimately liberalism flows in large part from the present arrangements of money creation. It is recommendable to take away money creation from both private banks AND central government.

My suggestion; critiques are welcomed. I use imagined Finland as an example, divided to states resembling the United States of America:

* Decentralize money creation to the states, allow small spreads around the size of the economy, on average almost no inflation (+-0) and make it competitive between the states.

* Allow respectable private mints to produce fairly standardized money from precious metals, where most of the value comes from the metals. Quality checks by several neutral parties. The relation between long term value of state paper money and private coins should be such that people normally change some paper money to the coins.

* If despite arrangements to prevent inflation, a state deliberately breaks the small value limits of paper money, starts inflation, and makes the public and other states to finance it's spending with hidden taxes, the public starts to buy more private coins, which preserve more value in the short, middle and/or long term, and other states demand more private coins in exchange of goods and services instead of increasingly less valuable colored paper. Thus the more the state inflates money, breaks the rules, and decreases trust, the more it de facto loses it's money creation ability to the private mints.

Continued ...

a Finn said...

Part 2.

There is fair competition between states and private mints.

* Private mints are the weaker and threatened party in relation to the states, so they need protections against the state. Private mints should not have rights given by the state (a power relation; what is given can be adjusted or taken away); the rights of the state should be precisely limited to certain tasks. The private mints thus use their natural freedoms, undisturbed by nobody. If state infringes the natural freedoms of private mints by preventing their work with any illegal pretext, the state leaders could be declared by the other states to be suspected criminal outfit, which must cease it's functions, tried in court and likely be replaced by legal new representatives. Ceasing of illegal work becomes compulsory to the workers of the suspected criminal state. Any further crimes by the state leaders will be added to their crime list, and then prosecuted after the situation is cleared. Less immediate methods include boycotts, legal actions, civil disobedience, political and economic sanctions etc., affecting any functions, flows or revenues of the state in non-lethal way to it's citizens.

The legal enforcement by other states would work in an ideal trustworthy world. This should be balanced or attenuated in such a way that the crises can't be used to strenghten the small central government of the United States of Finland, which might be greater threat than the infringements of freedom of private mints. It might be better to just gradually exclude the individual state from interaction and to let it degenerate to a low level. Contrasts are educating as a part of competition, and rogue state will eventually feel the need to return to normalcy.

* Transparency in the economic situation, finance, functions, policies, political situation etc. of the states. Neutral and other organizations observe these, and the tendencies and pressures connected to them, and publicize their findings. Most of the citizens are educated in private schools (financed by state vouchers, which can be freely invested in any school and by private money), and their curriculum makes the understanding of money as ubiquitous as understanding of weather reports. Money reports don't inform only about e.g. fluctuations in value of money, but all the deep backround knowledge, tendencies and pressures connected to it. Citizen network reporting in the internet is the foundation and back up of this. All the information is connected concretely as much as possible to the money in everybody's pockets, investments and savings.

* Because in the United States of Finland there is no or very little inflation, there is less pressure to consume excessively, and to invest in inflated stocks, funds, derivates or bonds, or to invest in special accounts. People save more and they need less loans, i.e. when they buy something, on average larger part of the price is paid by their savings.

a Finn said...


Notice: Paper money is equal to bits in computerized account.