Hiljaista Pohdintaa

Hiljaista Pohdintaa

keskiviikko 15. maaliskuuta 2017

What is Ideology?

Feudal societies in the middle age Europe were organized into a hierarchy of king, nobility, knights, clergy, tradesmen and peasants. Catholic church, and the rulings and advice of it's highest ranks influenced profoundly all classes. Feudal relationships included reciprocal exchanges of services, labor, produce, money / taxes, protection, counsel, etc. Societies were to a relatively large extent autarkical, except for some special and luxury items. Nobility was fairly independent and the feudal system was decentralized despite the central figure of king.

During middle ages, renaissance and approaching enlightenment period entrepreneurship and companies developed gradually, and entrepreneurs power increased. Relationships and transactions connected to power and economy became increasingly impersonal, changing, relatively short-term and monetary. Collecting taxes via nobility became inefficient vis-a-vis the growing private economy because collecting taxes was only one of the many tasks of nobility. Nobility had their own interests and wills which often differed from the kings interests and will, the tax collection of nobility was varying and non-systematic and it became increasingly obvious that there are alternative methods of tax collecting in which the monetary input-output profile is better. Hence kings established the first bureaucracies to collect more taxes to finance their growing professional and salaried armies.

When bureaucracies grew and developed, bureaucrats and people close or sympathetic to bureauacrats formed their own growing body of political thinking. What the kings had not understood was that they were similar vestiges of former ages than nobility, and in the end in the same way increasingly susceptible to replacement or overthrow. Bureaucratic thinkers started to question the purpose and usefulness of king. Their thinking progressed approximately along the following lines: "King is said to be the father of nation, to have the same kind of role, but real father of family knows every member of his family personally, he knows their personalities, life stories, activities, needs, propensities, interests, etc. Father of a family supervises his family members every day, and gives personal support, advice, encouragement, security and orders to them. Father is personally invested in the welfare, security and success of his family members. Father loves his family members concretely, not abstractly. If the king is the father of the nation, then he is blind, ignorant and indifferent father, or in other words he is not the father of nation at all. There is nobody who is the father of the nation, but if the governing body is named which most resembles such an entity, then it is bureaucracy. Bureaucrats know in relatively fine individual details and large mass aggregates about the life and actions of their subjects. They are personally and collectively invested in the welfare and success of their subjects and the nation. Bureaucrats govern and regulate their subjects rationally, systematically and efficiently, and they increase their knowledge and improve their methods constantly. Bureaucrats are educated to be specialized professionals in their respective fields. Together bureaucrats form a much more powerful and efficient governing body than a king. A king is not only useless to bureaucracy and rational governing, he is actively harmful or threatening to it. He creates an ignorant, irrational, capricious and dangerous element above the bureaucracy. King must be deposed or his power must be reduced significantly." These kinds of goals fused with the similar goals of rising entrepreneurs, disaffected working class, radicalized members of nobility, etc., although they had different reasons for their goals, and they envisioned different kinds of societies after revolution or other changes to the power structure.

These intellectual streams and the resulting revolutions and societal changes did not really kill the kings. Kings just went through Deleuzian transformation. The role of the king was purged from the person of the king, and replaced with socially constructed and "standardized" ideology, and the governing principles and political philosophies connected to it. Ideology was hoped to be the new rational, supposedly eternal, stable and predictable 'king', the suitable leader for the relatively new bureaucracies. Ideology is amenable to versatile uses of the powerful people and groups, but it still has a life of its own, which exerts often irresistible effects on society and people. When everybody have to follow the basic principles of ideology, and one, even a powerful person, talks or acts against them, then everybody is obliged in theory and to varying extent in practice to oppose him.

What are the general qualities and uses of ideology?

Ideology is simplified, pruned and adapted morality of traditional religious communities, a political morality. Some aspects of traditional morality are magnified, and others are made almost invisible, although power always uses them all in one form or another. Ideology focuses attention, thinking, choices and activity to certain directions, and reduces or prevents it from other directions. Ideology is an universal template, to which thousands and millions of different interests, thoughts, dreams, goals, motivations, emotions, etc. can attach, and this includes both people in power and the subjects. Ideology has to be incomplete "story" so that every subject can complete it by dreaming or imaging it to fulfill his special needs and goals. People in power attach to ideology their needs, goals and interests, and make it work for them. People in power are more likely to achieve their goals through ideology than subjects, and their goals are more grandiose to begin with. Ideology is used as organizing, encouraging, motivating and inciting tool in society in general and in politics in particular. Ideology and its offshoots are used to intimidate, persuade, extort, convert, inactivate, flatter and disparage opponents according to situations and needs. Ideologys basic function vis-a-vis opponents is to rationalize and emotionally persuade opponents compliance or submission for them.

Ideology forms a foundation for secular culture. Ideology is always tied to many existing laws and points the direction to many future laws. Ideology outlines implicitly or explicitly the distribution of priviledges, power, rewards and social positions. Ideology separates political ingroup from political outgroups. Ideology adumbrates implicitly or explicitly where legal and extra-legal punishments, shaming, expulsions, exclusions, violence, etc. are directed. Ideology separates future from history, and defines what is wrong or lacking in present time and what is needed in the future. Ideology at minimum hints how the public communication and representations of ingroup and outgroups will be distorted, magnified or prevented. People in power try to create national and international reality distortion fields according to their ideology. Ideology legitimates the governing group and its power. Ideology defines to varying extent what is good, true and beautiful. Science is often constructed around the ideological "truth". Science tries to expand ideology and its consequences to all societal areas, and tries to prove ideology is good, just, true and efficient. Education and governing organizations are constructed more or less from the foundation of ideology. Ideology defines the unattainable enticing ideals, visions and utopias, which are said to be attainable, and towards which society is said to strive.

Ideology has to be internally fairly logically coherent, but less in relation to the real world. However it must have important correspondences to real things, to important and selected social and political problems, conflicts and disagreements. Ideological philosophy must be complex and abstruse enough, so that it seems intelligent, challenging and meaningful enough to university students and intellectuals who are studying and developing it.

Some practical qualities, applications and consequences of liberal ideology

Liberal and conservative ideologies are different in more ways than what can be deduced directly from their public verbal interfaces. Conservatism is less of a political ideology and more a full spectrum morality of people and communities than liberalism, hence conservatism can cover a larger array of possibilities, freedom of actions, entities, social arrangements and moral relations in peoples lives. Eg. equality is central value in liberalism, but it lacks hierarchy and authority as values, whereas conservatism have all those values at its disposal, which can be used as necessary. When both political groups have many kinds of hierarchies and authorities, liberals have more discrepancy between their ideology and reality, so they have to distort and manipulate communication more than conservatives. This same difference applies in general to the level honesty and dishonesty of liberals and conservatives, ie. liberals have to lie more.

Conservatism is less suited than liberalism to equality oriented democratic politics; international politics which is based largely on flattery; national and international large complex organizations which would like to see their employees and clients as interchangeable units, and which mostly govern modern societies; unbridled global markets, where money and power are the deciding values; etc. Eg. the logic of large complex organizations (LCO) sees ethnic, racial, cultural, religious, etc differences as problems and complications in their personnel and in the populations they manage. LCOs need mostly certain standardized knowledge and skills from people, and if there are racial, religious, etc. differences among the personnel which matter, it can create conflicts, resentments, incompatibilities, barriers, non-cooperation, etc., which make the operations of LCOs more difficult and less efficient. Hence LCOs try to reduce or remove such differences, or make them such that they dont matter, like turning Christianity into a few personal liberalism resembling beliefs instead of being comprehensive social religion of congregations and communities, which affects ultimately all aspects of individual life, and social cooperation and interactions.

LCOs are information processing units. LCOs gather, select and process a lot of information about the surrounding society, organizations and population, but they know very little compared to the whole information contained in their operation environment. The processing task becomes more complex when analysing different units, and their endless relations and interactions. In other words LCOs are relatively stupid and inadequate vis-a-vis their human and non-human environments, and hence they have strong motive to simplify them. If racial, religious, cultural, etc. differences are removed from populations, it makes the tasks of LCOs easier and increase their efficiency. Lets say an international company is planning a global advertising campaing. If there would be no racial, cultural, language, religious, etc. differences, one universal ad would be enough. Now they may have to produce over hundred variations of the ad to conform to local differences. This consumes resources which are away from other things. The company is in profitability competition with other companies, and any reduction of costs and efforts is pursued intensely. Because of this the many CEOs of LCOs would like to see their global customers as homogenous units. Most of the CEOs of LCOs are likely to believe optimistically they could reduce the costs and increase the profits the most in that situation.

Race, ethnicity, culture and religion are potentially powerful organizing factors, which can be used in political and economical competition. LCOs dont want such competitors from outside their framework of power. As present threats are more important to LCOs than long term universal homogenity goals, they are ready to make the necessary political exceptions to equality, which was selective to begin with. Racial, ethnic, cultural and religious minorities are allowed, encouraged and supported to organize and advocate their group interests, while Whites are discouraged and prevented from such. Minorities are promoted above their qualities in education and job market, and Whites are vilified and discriminated against. These policies increase minority coalition's power and influence closer to the Whites comparable ones, leaving the deciding power in the political scale to the LCOs. LCOs support for the minorities should not be confused with "love" of minorities, they just further their interests that way. It is useful that minority coalition loses now and then, so that they are reminded they are dependent on LCOs, liberal media, liberal NGOs, etc. support. LCOs interests are secured whatever coalition wins, although LCOs support is more on the side of liberals than conservatives. These combined goals of LCOs are directly connected to liberal ideology, especially equality and diversity politics.

Restoration requires restoration of little inefficiencies, where good and important things thrive.

Because conservatives are politically more honest and open than liberals, they dont understand all the uses of liberal ideology. Conservatives know that liberals lie more than themselves, yes. But liberal ideology serves also as a psycho-political shield against negative things. A woman may be dependent on social security, and she would be ashamed if she would have to tell it publicly in real life or in internet forums. If she would advocate social security policies generally, people would likely guess that she receives social security money and is dependent on it. Because diversity is liberal coalition's common and most important rallying point, which tows all other liberal policies in its wake, the woman can advocate her interests by supporting liberal diversity and open immigration policies. Liberal medias have created a widespread mental image that almost all educated, morally good and well to do people support liberal diversity policies. By advocating them the woman seems to others to be higher status and more intelligent than she is, and hides her dependencies and true interests.

Many US tech companies replace large part of their more productive, creative and intelligent American workers with cheaper foreign workers, Indians, Chinese, Pakistanis, etc. But why do they support so open immigration policies, which includes the most problematic immigration, and the compulsory ideological worshipping and whitewashing of the most problematic immigrants? Why they dont support only more selective higher quality immigration which would cause less problems and political opposition? Selective immigration would be enough for them. We can deduce several reasons for this a) Liberals have made immigration as much as possible universally inviolable policy, so that opponents of immigration dont get any footholds in their policy fortress, dont get any political precedents, which could lead to expansive further victories. b) Supporters of immigration have formed reciprocal coalition, which is based on mutual silent deal, according to which nobody opposes anybody elses immigration goals, and everybody supports everybody elses immigration goals. The sum effect of this is mass immigration, from which large portion belong to the most harmful types. c) The most harmful immigration (criminals, terrorists, welfare dependent people, culturally and religiously incompatible people, etc.) is useful to eg. technology companies. Technology companies H-1B visa cheap labor immigration is relatively rarely noticed, when it is drowned out by the news and stories of the most harmful immigrants. Thus the true drivers of immigration policies achieve relative peace and invisibility under the veil of immigration catastrophes. When attention, emotions and thinking is directed elsewhere, opposition against the true drivers of immigration policies is harder to form. If effective opposition to immigration finally forms, it is more likely to be directed against the the most harmful immigration, leaving the true drivers of immigration policies largely intact. Hence the most harmful immigration and liberal ideology which enables and supports it, serve in many ways as a protective shield to tech companies and other companies utilizing cheap immigrant labor.

Capitalism is increasingly in the process of slowly developing crisis. Free market constantly erodes the high status markers it produces. Striving toward higher status is one of the main motivators of work in free markets. Eg. golf was once an almost exclusive hobby of upper classes. You had to be a member of an expensive golf club to be able to play, and certain upper class dressing, way of talking and manners were expected from members. As time passed, (fairly) free markets and to some extent the state and municipalities produce these kinds of services increasingly cheaply and to a wider customer base. Now even lower class people can afford to play golf, and they can dress and talk as they like while playing golf. Sailing was once an exclusively upper class pursuit with all the additional luxuries. Now even lower class people can rent sailing boats, and sail to most of the same harbors where upper class people anchor. The boats of lower class are smaller and plainer than upper class boats, they dont have Rolex Seamaster watches on their wrists, they dont wear expensive sailing clothes, use the costly sailing apparatus, etc., but they ruin the former exlusive achievement of upper classes all the same. Almost only the upper classes can afford the most expensive sports cars, but middle class people can relatively easily buy 220 kilowatt cheaper sports cars, which look quite similar to upper class sport cars. The speed limits on roads, increasing speed bumps and winter weather remove most of the exclusive advantages or experiences upper class sports cars could offer. Etc. In the same way classes that are underneath have tendency to "invade" everything that is higher, including the high culture. At the same time mass produced and marketed culture, services and products creates homogenizing pressures, which make the tastes and orientations of higher classes coarser and lower. Capitalism and free markets have strong proclivity to equalize everybody to the general mass consumer level. In response to this the middle and upper classes try to differentiate themselves from the classes under them in increasingly contrived ways. They may eg. go to modern art exhibition, where lower classes dont want to come, and then stare at presented bare urinal, pretending to find deeper meaning and enjoyment from it, trying to show to people around them how intellectually advanced they are in their understanding, but this kind of status differentiation is ultimately unsatisfying.

At the same time peoples traditional hard working culture, social morals and habits are deteriorating, life easing machines and services are colonizing every aspect of life, ubiquitous entertainment and unimportant information keeps us constanly distracted and drugged, mind numbing medications, which make the world around matter less, are used by large part of the population. People are becoming lazier, and more comfort seeking, hedonistic, self-centered, narcissistic, etc. These kinds of things often reduce the motivations of people from the high competitive levels global free market competition would require. We could say that free market produces constantly the destruction of its own foundations too.

Cheap labor immigration, and criminal and dysfunctional immigration introduces correcting and motivating factors to the problems of free markets. They create double threaths to motivate people, and they combine with the motivating incentives already present in the market. Threat of loss or damage is higher motivating force than the equal possibility of gain. If a person is presented with choices of a loss of one dollar and gain of one dollar, the loss of one dollar is two times higher motivating force. As the stakes become higher, the relative multiplier of motivation increases on the side of threats and problems. Motivation correction was not an important policy factor when the present long phase of open mass immigration started, but it has become increasingly important in proportion to the progression of liberal morality, mentality and life styles.

Cheap labor reduces immeadiately the costs of labor of companies, and impels natives to work harder and longer, bargain their salaries and work related benefits to a lower level, accept more temporary and part-time jobs, etc. If natives dont do this, they are displaced from work more. Cheap labor immigration threatens lower and middle classes, but relatively little the upper classes. As the price of any wanted good on the market, including labor, is decided mostly by scarcity, and only lower and middle class job markets are flooded with immigrant labor, the upper class jobs are relatively over-priced. We could easily import cheap labor bankers from China. It is hard to imagine how they could do worse than our "own" bankers, and they would do the jobs many times cheaper. Somehow we dont import cheap labor bankers, and so the bankers knowledge and skills are scarce and overpriced. Same applies to eg. CEOs of large corporations. From these kinds of things we see from which direction the most significant impetus for immigration policies comes. Anti-racist liberal ideology divides possible opposition to immigration on racial, cultural and religious grounds. Eg. Blacks have even more reasons to oppose immigration than Whites, but because the flattery, welfare payments, liberal black identity constructed mostly on opposing whites, and straw man demonization of whites ties them to all liberal policies, they mostly cannot oppose immigration together with Whites, on the contrary, they have to support unequivocally mass immigration.

The crisis of state and federal bureaucracies resembles to some extent the crisis of capitalism, but it is worse. Bureaucacies and the number of their dependents have grown considerably since 1960s, and they require increasing tax burdens. People have mostly relatively little or no motivation to pay taxes, but if they are forced to work harder by the surrounding worsening societal and job market situation, then they produce also the necessary increasing taxes for bureaucracies and their dependents. In free markets exchanges are based on voluntary choices from multiple options and to mutual benefit, but in bureaucratic "market" citizens and interest groups compete to gain maximum benefits with minimum effort and investment, at the expense of others. Bureuacratic "market" is based on compulsory exchanges, which are backed by punishments, mostly choiceless supply of services, and often unfitting and discouraging standardized benefits. Bureuacratic services and benefits hamper or prevent exchanges and work in free market. Most people in bureaucratic "market" end up unsatisfied about the taxes they pay, the services and benefits they receive, and the long term consequences of services and benefits.

Open mass immigration started in the United States in 1965, and from that time forward the relative incomes and wealth of the highest part of upper classes have increased rapidly, and and the relative incomes and wealth of lower and middle classes have declined.

The most harmful immigration, like criminals, religious fanatics, culturally incompatible people, dysfunctional people, loafers, etc., like problematic domestic minorities, are versatilely useful to liberal elites. They destroy or worsen the living areas and everyday life of lower and middle classes. They increase tax burdens, the number of bureaucratic clients, sizes of bureaucracies and the pool of leftist voters. In bad areas everything is often foul, the blocks of flats, streets, schools, shopping centers, recreational and sport areas, etc. Lower and middle classes have strong motive to work harder and longer with reduced salaries and benefits, because they want either to get out of bad area or away from near a bad area, or they fear that they and their children end up in such an area if they dont do everything possible to avoid it. Would there be eg. such excess demand for overpriced university education, preparing courses, special educative kindergardens, residential area selection because of best schools, etc., if there would be no threat that "My baby will end up in a slum area, if I dont do everything ..." This has contributed to the fact that too large part of intelligence bell curve distribution has gone through higher education. Many of them cant contribute to science, because they have too low IQs, and there is already oversupply of potential middle level managerial workers, and oversupply of bureaucracies in general. They end up in jobs that dont correspond to their nominal education, they are constantly unsatisfied, and their biggest contribution in life is often to agitate for more extreme liberal policies. They have increased the political insanity we see in universities. The most harmful immigration, other immigration and residential transfers of problematic domestic minorities also breaks up the social and political togetherness of Whites, helps to atomize them. This makes it harder for Whites to oppose anti-White liberal policies and liberal immigration.

Middle class Whites could eg. establish in some ways almost as good and in some ways better living areas than upper class have by forming all White living areas, where ingroup boundaries, cooperation standards, reciprocal voluntary work and help, etc. are explicitly upheld. This cooperation can be expanded to many important areas of life, eg. Mormon communities have cooperatively built very cheaply single family homes from ready elements in one day, exluding the foundations. Houses and apartments are one of the most important and time consuming reasons people have to run in liberal work and money hamster wheels. Mormon communities produce cooperatively also many other things. Community construction and production would reduce the dependency of people from liberal elites. Liberals try to prevent, minimize or destroy all other avenues to livelihood, family, good living, social acceptance, social status, goods, housing, etc. than money and power, and they want to govern, control and regulate all things related to money and power.

The increasing class, residential area, social, cultural, security, educational, etc. degradation, and the consequent social immobility which mass immigration and domestic problem minority transfers produce among lower and middle classes create hard to imitate and invade social status markers for upper classes, who can evade the negative consequences of diversity or ignore them. From the upper classes point of view those who oppose immigration are harmful if they reach political upper hand, but if they can be kept in subordinate position, they are useful, because they define, demarcate and proclaim publicly their lower distressed social position. This lifts upper classes relative social status without them having to do anything. When they say costless and untrue liberal banalities, like "I love everybody in the world", "Opposing immigration is racism and hatred", "All the people in the world are equal", "Saying that there are differences between people is fascism", "Mass immigration is our greatest strength" etc., they say something, which opponents of immigration cant say and lift their social status higher still. If white lower and middle classes espouse liberal immigration and anti-white ideology, and advocate it publicly, then they work against their own interests and subdue themselves to the will of upper classes. Hence from the perspective of upper classes ineffective or repressed opponents of immigration, and the White middle class liberals are lower than them, submissive to them and work for them, albeit in different ways.

Whats left of the togetherness of Whites after all sorts of mass immigration, liberal elites strive to eliminate with anti-White elements of liberal ideology and their practical manifestations, which are designed to inhibit or ruin fellow feeling; cooperation; race / ethnicity; political, group and personal self-defense; identity; self-esteem; self-confidence; traditions; and culture of Whites. Whites are the most capable and the greatest potential rival and threat to the liberal power. Cooperative and self-confident Whites could, among other things, fairly easily stop key liberal ideological manifestations like immigration, 'political correctness' and anti-White policies.

Liberal ideology have four main politico-moral parts, which are in hierarchical order from the most important to the least important; diversity, equality / justice, care and freedom of choice. Of these freedom of choice is limited mostly to personal choices, which might be vivid, and socially and culturally disruptive, but for liberal elites politically insignificant, except as neutralizing outlets for individuals pressures and desires, which are directed to harmless creations of personal spheres. Highly individualized, mutually incompatible and commercialized life styles serve also as obstacles to enduring social and political organization. People have some collective political and societal freedoms, but these are in many ways regulated and controlled by elites. If people are made to make choices between freedom and other important factors like health care, work and security, freedom have a propensity to lose, ie. freedom is more important to people in mental images and dreams, and as an inspiration than in real life situations. Care is important ideological bedrock of liberals. Liberal state and other liberal actors would like to take care of almost all the needs of all people. The more they take care of the needs of the people, the more indispensable and important they are to people. This increases liberals power and control over people. As liberals overextend their care and make it in many ways mandatory, their care is often of low quality, overconsumed, patronizing, choice limiting, oppressive, surreptitiously expensive and meddlesome.

Liberals concept of justice is heavily informed by equality. Liberals equality is intertwined with ethnicities/races, sex, sexual orientations, religious orientations, cultures, age, etc. and liberal policies and judgments are defended and explained on the grounds of equality. Liberals are rigid on things related to equality, because like justice it presents binary choices where there is little or no gray areas between justice / injustice, right / wrong, progressive / regressive, good / evil, caring / cold, understanding / ignorant, generous and altruistic / selfish and self-centered, socially acceptable / non-acceptable, etc. Liberals often throw their whole political power to further liberal equality goals. Liberals want court rulings in favor of their equality goals, so that they can bypass legislature, political balances of power, general opion, etc., and make their equality policies binding to all people in society from individual ordinary citizens to all kinds of organizations and the highest elites. Liberals political goals are often formed from the foundation of equality or equality is taken in one way or another to be part of their policy goals. Liberals dreams and utopias and cultural products are often infused with equality. Because of ingrained equality thinking and emotions, it is harder for liberals than to conservatives to recognize and react approriately to enemies, dangerous people and outsiders, because there are relatively large inequalities between our fighters and enemies, good people and criminals, and our people and distant foreigners. Conservatives accept hierarchy, so it is easier for them to make those differentiations and act accordingly. Although diversity cannot be wholly separated from equality, it has significant life of its own. Diversity is the most important moral value of liberals, because diversity forms the most important social, societal, political, organizational, economical and international frameworks and goals of liberals. Diversity as the highest value implies that liberal power can and must expand to cover the whole diversity of the world, or at least as much as possible. If diversity and equality are in contradiction, eg. Muslim mens treatment of women is not according to equality of the sexes, then equality mostly must step aside, and we should tolerate diversity according to the virtues of liberal diversity morals. Liberals celebrate diversity and to lesser extent equality, so it means that the most positive emotions, the most vigorous defense and the greatest attachments of liberals should be directed to them.

Liberal ideology has substantial real world consequences, and we can say that it is in some respects honest too, but as ideologies are reality distortion fields, we must ask what is the greatest reality distortion of liberal ideology? From this perspective liberal ideology is for liberal elites means to ends. Liberal elites underlying deep goals are money, power, social status and authority, and liberal ideology has been more efficient means in realizing, expanding and securing those goals than conservatism. What is the greatest danger to liberal elites money, power, social status and authority? Equality, or to be more specific equality, which strives to take the said entities away from liberal elites and redistribute them. Old leftism was too close to those targets, so it was relegated by liberal elites to marginal positions and replaced with liberal ideology. Economic equality was replaced with diversity equality. Psychologically you cannot generally oppose someone verbally, and make the opposing position to diminish or disappear, on the contrary, it has propensity to strenghten the more the opposing party defends its position and invests time, energy and emotions in it. Jewish Talmudic rabbis knew this already over 1500 years ago, and it has been confirmed by psychological studies. The best general way to weaken opposition is to direct its attention away from its target, to some secondary thing, which still consumes its attention, emotions and energy as fully as the original thing. Diversity, immigrants, immigration, sexual orientations, terrorism, minority criminals, etc. and the strifes connected to them direct attention and equalizing attention, energy and emotions away from the money, power and social status of liberal elites. Liberal elites created these problems and quarrels intentionally, and then incited and exacerbated them with anti-White policies and general vilification of Whites; by favoring and flattering ethnic, sexual, religious, etc. minorities; by political correctness and free speech suppression; by preventing organizing opposition; by purging dissidents out of large complex organizations, political power and important jobs in general, or preventing them from entering in the first place; by turning liberal medias into constant liars; by making education almost exclusively liberally biased; etc. To lower and middle classes the said problems are real and important, to liberal elites less so. These problems have enabled at the same time the great accumulation of wealth, power and social status to liberal elites, and secured them from approriation and challenges. Hence liberal elites really do love diversity because of these things, but less otherwise, like can be seen from eg. their gated and exclusive residential areas and schools.

When liberal ideology becomes increasingly extreme in its practical manifestations, how liberals maintain their attachment to it? Liberals tie their ideology to many incentives, punishments, dependencies and manipulation, and these lead to self-policing of thoughts, emotions and behavior, but people have to motivate themselves also endogenously. When eg. diversity industry and its demands and consequences become disturbing and oppressive in universities, academics can refer their thinking to those parts of liberal ideology, which are reasonable. Academics have to interact regularly with foreign academics, and there is diversity in their home countries too. They have to get along professionally with diversity, and they may feel that it is important that there is ideological support for this. Liberal ideology gives its own version of ideological get along -support. When academics see diversity industry causing problems, they may say to themselves, "We have to tolerate those people, because basically they promote get along -policies like myself, they cannot be so evil they seem to be, their motives must be good ... "They have become a little carried away, but I would probably be as agitated as they are if I would have the same experiences and history than they, I guess we need that energy, I hope they are our political allies, protectors of our get along -policies" ... Etc. In other words people explain away ideological problems, make bad things milder, better or non-existent in their minds, promote willful blindness, ie. use self-deception and manipulate themselves. Self-policing is more about suppressing those parts of the self that are contrary to the surrounding political climate, whereas self-deception is more about adjusting ones thoughts, emotions and behavior gradually to cohere with the surrounding political climate, also when that climate is turning to extremes. People who have adjusted them well to the extreme political climate, often feel that it is reasonable, moderate (at least in relation to the threats, risks and challenges the political group faces) and fair. Those who have anti-liberal impulses inside and suppress them, often feel guilt feelings. To atone the guilt they have propensity to attack people who have similar contrary thinking and emotions, and express them publicly, ie. they serve as self-appointed polices or 'mind guards' for the ideology. Hence people who have contrarian thoughts and feelings can be useful to the system, but they are to some extent a risk too. If the surrounding political constrains weaken, or are challenged or changed significantly, these contrarian people could give their inner impulses free reign and turn against the system.

There are no enduring, idealized and larger than life statesmen, heroes and role models connected to liberal ideology, let alone supreme idealized leaders like Hitler or Stalin. Their role models mostly come and go. Liberal role models are relatively small, connected to touching and personal little emotion regulation stories of refugees, achieving Blacks, family developments of Latinos, etc. Like all secular ideological groups, liberals worhip themselves, but their ideological view of themselves and their role models is not captivating and mesmerizing. Nationalists and communists worship themselves too, and their constant collective mobilization can last effectively about 20-30 years. Their self-worship requires regular imposing collective shows of force, parades, military style gatherings, synchronized artistic movements of masses, etc., and secular worshipped leader. All this is meant to create transcendent and larger than life collective feelings and motivations. But like the effect of pleasure giving drugs, the effect of collective shows of force wears away after some time. When in the beginning people melted into the force of collective mass, 20 - 30 years later they start to see people around them, "Yes, there is that funny Joe, who has been forced to participate in this collective parade like me, and there is my neighbor, carpenter Jack ..." It doesnt feel transcendent and almost divine like before. The rapture connected to the supreme leader wears off too. People start to compare the utopian visions, incendiary speeches and promises of the leader to their horrible, less than satisfactory or ordinary daily life. They notice that the leader is not a he-can-do-everything superman he was said to be. Liberals emotion regulation style -ideology is more enduring than the intense and quickly burning nationalist and communist ideologies, because it corresponds more to the ordinary lives of people, little smile and happiness here, little sadness there, nice suprise, little disappointment, little anger, little forgiveness, etc. But because liberal ideology lacks transcendent elements, it is ultimately empty, unsatisfying, unmotivating, boring and meaningless. We even have to deduce their official ultimate goals from where the arrows of their policies point, not from their stated visions.

But there are two transcendent and metaphysical things that are inextricably connected to liberal ideology, Hitler and Nazis. In liberal worldview, Hitler is evil superman, who never dies and whose power doesnt wane. No, it grows, or at least threatens to grow. To have meaning and purpose in their lives, to truly feel that they live, liberals need the thrilling 'supernatural' Nazis and Nazi witch hunts. And when they witch hunt non-existent Nazis, they become something like Nazis, and the forbidden fruit tastes so good. Nazis, or to be more precise, the mental images of Nazis are so much more powerful than the lame, emasculating and feminine liberalism. Liberals could be vitalist superhumans at last, but it has to be done together in bullying mobs to get truly something like that transcendent feeling when sea of nazis stand in endless straight rows and then de facto worship and idealize themselves. Almost anything can serve as a "nazi" prey, a little meme picture of Pepe, a drunken, badly written comment on a YouTube video, slightly ambiguously worded speech of politician interpreted through witch hunt -glasses, a researcher, who doesnt fully follow the latest constricted liberal speech codes, etc. Anger has a proclivity to increase the intensity with which person wants the object of his anger, his qualities or his belongings to himself. Anger is connected among other things to usurping thinking and behavior. Many liberals are angry at imaginary nazis, and many of them want nazi qualities to themselves without the name or the moral baggage liberals have heaped on them, the "good" sides without the downsides. The paradox of it all increases the intensity of their bigotry, and blindness about themselves and their actions. Conservatives tend to think that when liberals say some conservative or other person is a nazi that liberals are calling them names, but dont really believe in those epithets. In reality liberals believe much more in their nazi epithets.

Without sensible religion life becomes slowly unreasonable.

According to the studies of Linda Lai and other power researchers, if people are given power to influence or govern other peoples behavior, 70 - 80% either misuse power or use it otherwise suspiciously. The misuse is mostly relatively mild, because people have a tendency to see and want to see themselves as moral persons. People have propensity to balance the misuse of power with their moral self-image. Peoples emotionally hued rationalizations for the misuse often goes appromixately as follows, "I have had such difficulties in my life (thinks about some salient difficulties) that I deserve a little head start. Not much, just a little justified compensation. I dont want to abuse my power, I am a good person. I could really abuse these people badly, but I dont do it, because I am responsible, good and moral person. Just a little thing, nobody even notices, it is so tiny." The longer and the more times people use power, the greater their misuse of power tend to become. The more people have power, the greater tend to be the misuse of power.

In Western countries elites have great power. They compete for power intensely individually and in groups. People in the elites, like others, have limited lifetimes, and when they go from goal to goal, from deadline to deadline, from requirement to requirement, etc., in the fast paced power environment, they are often time pressured. Modern power has long accumulative history, more of it has again and again built on top of the former power. Those who strive for power, encounter an entrenched and complex power environment, and they have limited ability to change it. They have to mostly play by its accumulated rules, attitudes, practices, relationship networks, habits, etc. In a way power, eg. state, lives in eternal now, its redemption is always now. Even if state would have done things generally in a good way for the last 50 years, but today large number of people start to die because of incapability of the state, the power of the state becomes immediately questionable from many directions. Also in the middle of the crisis or some other compelling situation it is useless to explain to people and interest groups that you have good plans, which will likely materialize 10 - 20 years from now. Although elites and states have in principle the ability to plan ahead and be long term planners, the pressure of the eternal now have inclination to make power relatively shortsighted and its understanding more limited. Whats worse, in this setting realistic and well designed long term plans tend to become replaced with utopian visions, wishful thinking and unfounded optimism, leaving a gaping void between those and the eternal now. Etc.

These kinds of things and the concrete manifestations of liberal power point to the inadequacy of liberal elites. They are mostly not psychologically diffident or dont have low self-confidence, but they see society, pressures, politics, groups, economy, opponents, competitive demands, etc. too uncontrollable, complex, threatening and difficult, as things which exceed their capabilities and resources, so they have to try to control and govern them with excessive lies and manipulation, wishful thinking and unfounded optimism, extra-legal violence, life colonizing soft totalitarianism, ideological extremism, abuses of power, harmful or destructive policies, etc. Even the swollen selfishness, narcissism, greed, hatred and hunger for power are largely manifestations of inadequacy. "This society demands too much from me, so I am entitled to take too much money as a compensation for my services." "If I dont take everything I can lay my hands on, others will take it, and I lose the competition." "These oppressive laws will gradually break the back of our unruly opponents." "Lets smear our opponents face to so much diversity, that they lose control of the situation (like we have)." "We can implement these devil may care -immigration policies, because I believe, I wish so much that our liberal ideology and vision will take care of all problems. And we need new voters for our party. Now. Without them we lose election, with them we win far into the future, so far that we can finally realize our visions, which our opponents have prevented thus far." "We are so much more intelligent, so advanced, cutting edge pioneers, sophisticated. We are rich. We are good and caring. We are morally higher. Our opponents are stupid rubes, ignorant idiots with no skills. Nothing. Vile subhumans. Raggedy poor people. They dont really deserve to live, let alone to speak publicly. (Narcissistic boasting view of the self and own reference group, and slandering put-down of opponents, motivated by fear of shame, humiliation and loss; shame; fear; guilt; inner and outer demands of perfection, winning and success; and/or feelings of inadequacy. This is the only allowed or in matter of fact demanded "racism" for liberals.)" Etc.

There are not enough countervailing forces to these ideological consequences. Connections to traditions and undistorted history has been severed. People dont know that there are viable alternatives to the present system. Virtues are virtually unknown to people, and vain self-centeredness has replaced them. Ethnic loyalties are at too low level, and religious beliefs mostly resemble liberalism. There are few statesmen who are high above the rest. Establishment conservatives are backward liberals. When everything is done by the rules, conditions, knowledge and methods of liberal system, then opposition too mostly ends up just amplifying the liberal streams.

Is it then any wonder that liberal ideology is so inextricably intertwined with harmful policies, lies and manipulations?

5 kommenttia:

Anonyymi kirjoitti...

Mukana nähdä, että tämä blogi jatkaa edelleen. Valitettavasti tälle on edelleen tarvetta. Koetko, että asiat ovat jollain tavalla menossa parempaan päin?

Ideologioista puheen ollen. Uskotko, että eurooppalaisiin ja muihin kohdistuneet bolshevistien terrori-/massamurhat olisi voitu välttää, jos venäläiset ja eurooppalaiset olisivat kuuluneet tuollaisiin hyviin endogaamisiin yhteisöihin? Luin kerran yhden venäläisnaisen kirjoittamaa kirjaa. Kirjoittaja oli nuori yliopisto-opiskelija kommunistien tullessa valtaan, ja monet opiskelijat kannattivat kommunismia, koska he uskoivat sen tuovan oikeudenmukaisemman yhteiskunnan.

" They destroy or worsen the living areas and everyday life of lower and middle classes."

Entäpä sitten kun Toiseus lähtee liikkeelle paremman väen asuinalueille? Kirjoitit toisaalla, että maailmassa on ennenkin tehty vallankumouksia, joissa vallanpitäjiltä on viety kaikki fyysisestä koskemattomuudesta omaisuuteen. Viimeisimmästä Suomen lähialueilla ei ole kuin vajaa sata vuotta. Homma-foorumille kirjoittelee nimimerkki Valla Valla, joka on kuvaillut maahanmuuttajien riehuntaa Ruotsissa. Hän arvelee, että se tulee leviämään ajan myötä myös paremmille asuinalueille, koska Ruotsin poliisi ja establishment ovat todistaneet, että heistä ei ole vastusta. Ruotsalaista miestä pidetään aivan ämmänä ja halveksuttavana olentona.

Muuten, tuosta yläluokan eklusiivisuudesta tuli mieleen nimimerkki Törön kommentti Homma-foorumilla (vai oliko sen jonkun muun). Se meni suunnilleen näin:"Maahanmuuttajat eivät koe olevansa osa ruotsalaista yhteiskuntaa, ennen kuin kuningasperheessä on koraania opiskeleva Abdul Bernadotte. Tätä se integraatio oikeasti on. Muu on sanahelinää".


Valkea kirjoitti...

Tervehdys Kommentoija,

merkkejä paremmasta on näkyvissä. Trump, Brexit, Ranska ja koveneva oppositio ympäri Eurooppaa.

Jos venäläiset ja eurooppalaiset olisivat kuuluneet endogamisiin yhteisöihin, silloin vasemmistolaisten ideologioiden vaikutus ja houkutus olisi jäänyt paljon heikommaksi, sekä henkisellä, että oletetulla materiaalisella puolella.

Jonain päivänä eliitin suojaukset maahanmuuttajien suhteen pettävät monella tavalla, ja tietysti monenlaista voi tapahtua. Asuinalueiden eksklusiivisuus, liberaali poliittinen hegemonia, talouden liberaalit säännöt, liberaalien hyvä veli -verkostot, arvoliberalismi, jne. ovat tuhoutuvien listalla. Esimerkiksi Hollannissa on niin paljon maahanmuuttajia, että jos ja kun he perustavat oman puolueen ja äänestävät sitä, se jyrää perinteiset liberaalit puolueet.

Maahanmuuttajat integroivat ruotsalaista yhteiskuntaa osaksi omia yhteisöjään, ei toisinpäin.


Liberaali eliitti toivoo Uudesta-Seelannista ja Australiasta viimeisiä oljenkorsia, jos ja kun kaikki tuhoutuu tai menee pieleen länsimaissa, mutta Kiina ehtii todennäköisesti suurelta osin kolonialisoida ne itselleen ennen sitä, jolloin liberaalin eliitin toiveet turvapaikoista voivat romuttua.

"Kiina on alkanut kolonialisoida länsimaita, ja ostaa omistukseensa länsimaiden maaomaisuutta ja infrastruktuuria. Kiinalaiset ihmettelevät sitä kuinka helppoa ja halpaa länsimaisten liberaalien eliittien ostaminen on. Keskustelun aiheena on Uusi-Seelanti."




Valkea kirjoitti...


Anonyymi kirjoitti...

A-Talkissa toimittaja tenttasi Sari Essayahilta, että eikö näivettyville ja työttömyydestä kärsiville, muuttotappioisille kunnille kannattaisi tuoda ELINVOIMAA järjestämällä sinne turvapaikanhakijoita. Voi jestas! Työttömyydestä kärsiviin kuntiin lisää työttömiä ulkomailta! Essayah sanoi, että maahanmuuttajilla on kantasuomalaisten tapaan taipumus jättää edellä mainitut kunnat mahdollisimman pian.

Miksi ei voida vain hyväksyä sitä, että nuoret ihmiset lähtevät työn ja opiskelujen perässä muualle? Miksi jäädä kuntaan, josta ei löydä edes vaimoa/aviomiestä itselleen?

Pitäisi myöntää, että tämä ongelma ei ratkea nopeasti, eikä vapaamatkustajatalous, jota pyöritetään velanotolla ulkomailta, ole mikään vastaus ongelmaan. Se vain lisää ongelmia. Ranskassa ja Ruotsissa tätä "näivettymistä" on ratkottu tuomalla lisätyöttömiä ulkomailta, ja se on vain pahentanut asioita, ja tuonut uusia ongelmia kuten islamilainen radikalismi.

Ohjelmassa mainittiin myös matala syntyvyys (1.5-1.6). Sitä ei mainittu, että suomalaiset naiset haluaisivat keskimäärin 2.6 lasta (suomalaiset miehet vähemmän, vain kolmannes suomalaisista miehistä haluaa 3 lasta tai enemmän. Naisista taas 50 %. Ero halutun ja toteutuvan syntyvyyden välillä on valtava). Toimittaja mainitsi, että yksi suurimmista syistä lapsettomuuteen on kumppanin puute. (Mikä on totta).

Ohjelmassa ei keskusteltu niistä tekijöistä, jotka estävät naisten ja miesten kohtaamisen. (Miesten pornon kulutus, mikä tuo lukemattomille miehille päivittäin samanlaisen pikatyydytyksen kuin irtokarkkipussi insuliiniongelmaiselle läskille, ja jonka ansiosta miehillä ei ole niin kovaa tarvetta lähestyä todellisia naisia kuin vaikkapa 50-luvulla, ja joka muutenkin veltostuttaa miehiä, varsinkin ujoja ja epävarmoja miehiä; sosiaalisen statuksen, työssäolon ja taloudellisen tilanteen suuri merkitys sille, missä on varaa liikkua ja keihin tutustua, ja ylipäätänsä keihin tutustuu; vähävaraisten ja työttömien syrjäytyminen; individualismin/ihmisen oman tahdon korostaminen kulttuurissa, jonka takia ihmisten on vaikea joustaa toiveissaan muun muassa esim.avioliiton ajankohdan suhteen, etenkin miehllä on tapana vitkutella; seurustelun ja seksin näkeminen ensijaisesti itsensä toteuttamisen keinoina (mikä tulee hyvin esiin kaikkialla elokuvista musiikkivideoihin) ja nautinnon lähteinä sen sijaan, että elämän ykköstavoitteena olisi elämän uusintaminen mahdollisimman nuorena; jne.). Esimerkiksi Englannissa 25 % miehistä on niin vakava pornoriippuvuus, että käytännössä kaikki vapaa-aika menee tattia vatkatessa.

Suomalaiset intellektuellit, poliitikot ja toimittajat eivät suhtaudu syntyvyysasioihin ja Suomen kansalaisiin empaattisesti. He näkevät ihmiset vain vaihdettavina objekteina, jotka voi vaihtaa toisiin. He näkevät vain numerot, mutta eivät inhimillisiä tarinoita ja toiveita niiden numeroiden takana. Ja samat huonot "vaihtoehdot", jotka on todettu huonoiksi jo kaikkialla Länsi-Euroopassa.


Anonyymi kirjoitti...

Lisäisin vielä: Takkirauta on sanonut, että jokainen meistä on luoto, mutta yksikään meistä ei ole saari. Se mitä haluaa on usein jollain tavalla sidoksissa muihin ihmisiin ja heidän toiveisiinsa, ja vaatii neuvotteluja. Etenkin perheen perustaminen. Juuri tuon takia ääri-individualismi ja nautinnon asettaminen Jumalan asemaan on niin huono asia. Äärimmillään käy niin, että jokainen ihminen sinkoilee haluamaansa suuntaan, eikä lopulta kukaan saa mitään.

Jos ei pian tule järjestystä ja koheesiota, niin Lännen käy todella huonosti.

"Liberaali eliitti toivoo Uudesta-Seelannista ja Australiasta viimeisiä oljenkorsia, jos ja kun kaikki tuhoutuu tai menee pieleen länsimaissa, mutta Kiina ehtii todennäköisesti suurelta osin kolonialisoida ne itselleen ennen sitä, jolloin liberaalin eliitin toiveet turvapaikoista voivat romuttua."

Ensin antavat asioiden mennä aivan v.tulleen ja sitten pakenevat kuin raukat. Toivottavasti yksikään maa ei ota noita vastaan.


Sivun näyttöjä yhteensä