Trickle-Down Ecumenics

4,026 words

Election season in Weimerica is, by some margin, the greatest show on Earth. For the candidates it becomes a rostrum, pulpit, and therapist’s couch, while for the people it is an Orwellian bellwether for where the collective herd is headed. Only one party has active primaries this cycle, but already so much ground has been broken by the Democrats in their Wokelightenment that this election could rival its predecessor yet. If the first debate in Miami is anything to go by, then Detroit can expect a grandiose encore from Cirque du Sorry – only this time the performers can target each other less and instead genuflect to all the victims of Trump’s recent “racist” rhetoric.

The story of the Dems so far has been Joe Biden, the man competing with Bernie Sanders for pacemaker honors in the primaries, but it is Biden who is enduring attacks from Senators of Color for liaising with anti-busing segregationists forty years ago. Busing was abandoned long ago for being an utter failure, meaning Biden was actually on the “right side of history” – though the moral revisionists beg to differ. What’s happening to Biden has nothing to do with freshly-discovered skeletons in the closet, but rather the changing dynamics of power in America, and neither his ode to white dispossession or his hiring of aggressively-black advisor Symone Sanders can save him. After decades of penance-based politicking, Biden has been all but declared persona non pigmenta of a metamorphosing party, and not even Obama will provide him a passive endorsement.

For the white liberals watching at home, one wonders at what point the trajectory of identity politics on the Left will prompt consideration of their own long-term position, because clearly the radical change in policies have had little effect. Reparations for slavery is being touted, wiping all student debt floated, and universal basic income (“free money”) is garnering mainstream appeal. There is a very good reason why Democrats now endlessly extol “social justice” rather than “economic justice,” because in a remarkably short amount of time, liberals have gone from the Austrian School of economics to the Zimbabwean.

The reason white liberals remain attached to the Democratic Party clearly goes beyond conventional politics, and is the subject of a growing field in human biodiversity. The question is, at what point does the abstract psychology and nebulous self-identity no longer withstand the persecution of members of their moral community? There does not seem to be a reason, by liberal logic, to appease a pseudo-moralistic hierarchy in which they occupy a relatively low rank – especially if one of their betters, like high-ranking hack Biden, can be thrown under the bus for anachronistic transgressions. The trickle of 1.5% of whites defecting to the Republicans every general election indicates that there is a point at which masochists can “have too much.” But if the ratio of virtue-signalers to recipients in the liberal electorate has reached an unsustainable tipping point, the Democratic political class has yet to notice.

The level of pandering seen in Miami offered the kind of advanced maneuvers unprecedented in American politics. Thanks to another man with the same unsavory biometrics as Biden, voters were serenaded by Beto O’Rourke speaking Spanish – and racists weren’t even able to press 2 for English subtitles. The cringe of a six-foot-four white guy clamoring for the Latino vote has led mischievous gringos on the Internet to dub him a “whiteback,” but considering the financial motives for his presidential bid and his Irish heritage, perhaps “greenback” is a nicer slur.

Entering the fray with their own renditions of español were Cory Booker and Julian Castro (making the party-trick hardly unique), but what is remarkable about this is that it heralds a certain crossing of the diversity Rubicon: minority leaders now pander to other, more ascendant minorities. Recall that Senator Booker is no centrist; in fact he is pro-black and supports reparations for American slaves, which just goes to show that intersectional pandering is now an open and unstigmatized part of the democratic process. If only Elizabeth Warren can start communicating in smoke signals, the trend will be complete.

The worst form of pandering is when white politicians pander through explicitly anti-white positions, but that is what Elizabeth Warren has felt the need to pursue, ever since being caught “red-handed” fudging Cherokee ancestry for socioeconomic gain. She has gone so far as to promise to prosecute “white nationalism” if president, meaning everyone from Jared Taylor to Nick Fuentes could be scalps of a Warren administration. Though conservative and Republican until 1995, Warren’s bio reads like a lifetime of Lisa Simpson activism against corporate greed and economic crimes perpetrated on the middle class (while remaining a laissez faire fundamentalist and law professor). Her recent evolution thus shows a disturbing willingness to compromise on matters deemed less important in order to prioritize the pursuit of her marque issue, all the while thinking the purity-signaling is inexpensive and just going through the motions. Thick Lizzy has even been daft enough to support abolishing private health insurance, a position said to be electoral suicide.

Towing the party line is no new concept to the two-party system, but now the intramural variation is remarkably polarized, and there is considerably volatility beneath officially monolithic platforms. It just so happens that among the Democrats, the policy divisions straddle demographic ones in an obvious way. Unsurprisingly, white liberals are capitulating to the minority faction led by the squad. It should also be remembered that the DP is already headed by Latino Tom Perez. So we see Biden campaigning on free health care for illegals and Warren supporting the decriminalization all illegal immigration. If AIPAC is all about the Benjamins, then the Dems are all about the Joaquins.

To think, just a few years earlier Biden demonstrated some of that old school, red-blooded, righteous patriotism in relation to Jewish lobbying for Jonathan Pollard’s release, to the extent that he told a group of fifteen rabbis, “Over my dead body are we going to let him out before his time.” Biden survived his own ultimatum, since Pollard’s release in 2015 was a day early (the US legal system is Sabbath kosher), but like a bad Pentateuchal curse, his first-born son died that year.

By now, characterizations of liberalism as a mental disease or religious mania are somewhat stale and overworked, but you can grant figures like Tucker Carlson some leeway in his laborious task of waking up the millions of normievision watchers. His recent segment “Democratic Party as religious cult,” however, failed on a crucial point, as is often the case. The religious, cult-like behavior among Democrats is really just confined to white liberals, who fervently support policies that run counter to their interests – all because of a reflexive tendency perceive the gist of partisan politics through a morality prism. Carlson does not give enough credit to the powerplays being made by conscious ethnic activists who are eying up political assets and do not hesitate to milk the white guilt plantation in the meantime.

On the other hand, whites may not be so uniquely maladaptive to postmodern pressures as some argue. The guilt-based glue of a high-trust society still requires a structure of values to adhere to, and it is this moral and cultural fiber that is susceptible to social engineering and cultural insurrections. But the conditions engrossing the West have also been unique. Without an empirical control, we can only hypothesize, for instance, how ethnomasochistic and radical a portion of the Japanese population could learn to become – that is, if they were streamed profuse guilt propaganda from a young age; if key institutions had been taken over by a hostile group; if a large “guest worker” population had shifted the demographic and political balance; and if the media ceaselessly defamed Japanese identity and nationalist views through entertainment and news coverage of incidents real or staged.

Japan is somewhat of a historical irony and modern conundrum. It was an Axis superpower – perpetrating copious crimes in its imperial zeal before being defeated in catastrophic fashion. But you would not know it from observing the country today. In a time when decolonialization efforts in the West are scrubbing portraits, plaques, and statues, Japan proudly retains its leader, Emperor Naruhito, who was honored by the American President in May. Britain famously lost its empire as a result of the World Wars it helped win, but much worse than that, even its rump state has been thoroughly penetrated by large numbers of incompatibles. The British royal family have been reduced to being tabloid fodder and conduits of liberal propaganda: Prince Charles has the climate change issue, though he apparently cares little for the actions of his carbon-burning son. Meghan will not have more than two kids to save the climate, while Prince William recently demonstrated his LGBT compliance by telling a journalist that it would be okay if his child was gay.

You see, nowadays we all bleed red, especially those who not long ago identified as bluebloods. All layers of the mainstream now promptly brandish their moral pedigree at the slightest challenge, be it inappropriate questioning or examination of situational ethics. Those who harbor a modicum of skepticism or non-compliance are, in the words of Jussie Smollet, “fear mongrels” (sic).

One of the great banes of “Western values” is the simplistic, well-intentioned sentiment that seems to guide decent people through the appeal of a few clever mantras and taglines. For the majority of Americans whose sociopolitical cognizance travels most of its life on autopilot, it’s not reasonable to expect them to abstain from such a readily accessible and convenient indulgence. One doesn’t need to know anything concrete from current affairs, government statistics, or history textbooks if the same basic moral battery of love-tolerance-equality can be vaguely adapted to any humanitarian crisis or social issue.

Of the two main moral communities in the United States today – Christian America and liberals – it has come to pass that the latter is the more monolithic in liturgy and top-down in authority. Liberalism is a living, breathing religion with constant updates and unambiguous edicts on the agenda of the day. Prophets are heard in real time, while legions of acolytes (pundits, politicians, and celebrities) synchronize with each other as influential intermediaries of the moral ecumenism. Liberalism is as aggressive in proselytizing as it is in purifying its current ranks, but it remains such an alluring quasi-religion because of its worldly tangibility and its privileged status.

Christian America, by contrast, is a fairly decentralized moral community that comprises a myriad of sects. They derive moral authority from their distinct interpretation of ancient and arcane texts. Moreover, Christian doctrine intrinsically imbues distrust for authority rooted in power (the state) or wealth. Christians, and more generally conservatives, have for some time been the more tolerant and tempered of the moral communities, which is not inconsistent with the pragmatism, modesty, and culture of non-judgment seminal to Christianity.

Organized liberal sophistry, however, has managed to smear Trump supporters as suffering an “authoritarian complex.” This is not only untrue, but actually is the case for establishment-aligned partisans, who grow more vengeful and threatening by the day. The base that managed to get Trump elected has demonstrated healthy bursts of autonomous thinking and dissent over the last three years. For example, take Trump’s endorsement of Luther Strange in Alabama’s special election – summarily ignored by the base, which had settled on Roy Moore. Or the Syria strikes and Iran agitation for which Trump is slowly sipping the war Kool-Aid while the base refuses it. As for the MAGApede faithful who may well be vicariously enthused by strongman politics, nothing but sympathy can be extended to people who haven’t realized they are channeling little more than a high-energy version of Jeb Bush.

The true authoritarian mania is to be found on the Left, since liberalism has no attenuating influences. It is a jealous ideology incapable of power-sharing. The presence of religiosity on the Right actually bestows a certain balance of powers that is now absent on the Left. Since liberals demonstrate an overwhelming trust in the hierarchy of power and information above them, they often subordinate themselves to this authority with fervor, because at the same time they relish their role as authoritarians over their perceived moral inferiors on the Right. This can be anything from shaming, intimidation, boycott, and lawfare, up to and including violence. “Turn the other cheek” has become “turn a blind eye” to the rife victimization of Right-wingers who dare to push back, or even liberals like Julian Assange, who are a little too principled for the new greater good.

If whites truly do possess a high need for virtue-signaling as a kind of self-administered soma, then it becomes clear which of the moral communities is the better interim venue to host them in their dysphoria. Ann Coulter was never entirely glib when imploring liberals to “get a real religion.” And in a way, it would indeed drastically stem the chronic self-wounding of bleeding-heart liberals. We can clearly see the carnage of late term secularization in Western Europe, where the ethnomasochism is so advanced it’s bipartisan. The misnomered Christian-Democrat Angela Merkel still receives enough votes to remain in power – and why would she go back to being a nuclear physicist when she can atomize and ablate the German national fabric while earning Nobel Peace Prize nominations for it?

Missionary work was once the calling of far-flung religious eccentrics, but now it is in the portfolio of domestic politics. Not since Josef Mengele has Germany had such a widely known “doctor without borders,” and yet Merkel does it all from the comfort of the Bundestag – what Viktor Orbán called “moral imperialism.” There’s no time for peaceniks and tree-huggers now that the “refugee hugging” initiative is giving wood to asylum seekers instead; truly a reprehensible exploitation of youthful naïveté given that the German government knows full well how hazardous such contact is.

The influence of religion on American politics has been something of an exaggeration for many years, at least in the case of Christianity, because podium-pandering has seldom translated into policies that benefit America’s largest faith. And this virtue-signaling relationship continues on, because much of modern Christianity is mere tokenism and moral solidarity-bonding. But if siphoning off guilt on a Sunday enables congregants to live as more pragmatic, “based” Christians the rest of the time, then perhaps it is not such a bad tradeoff. As for the effort to frame Christians as hypocrites for not living up to WWJD ideals in politics, this is a ploy that Christians have learned to see through – perhaps habitual self-flagellators come to grow thicker skin for their troubles.

Evangelicals and other denominations who supported Trump’s candidacy shows that Christians have concrete interests and that these outweigh religious concerns at the voting booth. In fact, Trump was visibly the least Christian of all the candidates in 2016: an exalter of wealth, a serial monogamist, and someone who admitted he does not forgive. The last time Trump turned the other cheek, he was getting spanked by Stormy Daniels. And yet they had settled on Trump, perhaps conscious that “one of their own” would be at a distinct disadvantage in an impure sport like politics. Religious stiff Mike Pence embodies this sort of meekness; a natural follower, which is why he followed instructions at NASA’s recent PR event to announce that a woman will walk on the Moon by 2024. Perhaps by 2030, he’ll endorse a man and a woman having dinner together, even if they’re not married.

Trump, the natural-born leader and shredder of liberal norms, unfortunately pivoted toward his enemies not long after inauguration, but he does continue to provide mementoes of blasphemy against many of the established holy cows. At a recent White House gathering of twenty-seven persecuted religious minorities, Trump was subjected to a jukebox of sob stories, and was clearly unimpressed with the veracity and relevancy of the narratives presented to his office. Nobel Peace Prize laureate Nadia Murad was the star guest, but was met with unprecedented skepticism and flippancy from the President. She claims to have escaped ISIS rapists because they forgot to lock the doors of the house she was being held in, that she was “tortured” with cigarette burns, and that now she cannot return to her country because the regional Kurdish government and Iraqi government are squabbling over control of Yazidi territory:

“But ISIS is gone,” Trump told Murad, who wishes to remain stationed in Germany for her role as advocate against sexual violence in war. Trump continued: “And you had the Nobel Prize. That’s incredible. They gave it to you for what reason?”

Officially, the Nobel Committee awards the Peace Prize for actions and achievements rather than identity politics and being a victim, but recent trends indicate it’s all about the latter. Elevating victims into heroes and idols has the fingerprints of more guilt-based pseudo-religious and psychological manipulation, yet credulous Westerns can’t help but revere these icons of modesty who, in reality, are millionaires.

The Malala Yousafzai franchise is another example of all of these ingredients coming together for public consumption, while the backstory smells of implausible teen spirit. Malala won the Nobel Peace Prize at seventeen, largely because she had been thrust into the spotlight as an alleged victim of an assassination attempt by the Taliban. Unbeknown to most people is that Malala was already “woke” at the age of 11, when she began blogging for the BBC under the guidance of her father – who also worked for the BBC and operated for-profit schools in Pakistan. Jewish-American “journalist” and Council on Foreign Relations member Adam B. Ellick just happened to be filming a documentary on Malala before the attack occurred.

Interestingly, the propaganda has not worked on the Pakistanis, whose lack of Western-style sanctimonious fervor allows them to be much more critical about overnight heroines. Obama’s drone program was killing up to forty civilians for every terrorist at the time that the Malala shooting came along and managed to divert global sympathy back toward the “War on Terror.” In 2009, the President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, told an NBC interviewer that the Taliban was created by the CIA and ISI (Pakistani intelligence). This might explain why Malala’s shooters were released from prison not long after they were sentenced to twenty-five years in a secret trial on a military base, while two others who were convicted escaped to Afghanistan. Malala has not expressed much consternation about her assassins remaining at large; perhaps she is just happy to have survived being shot point-blank and healing like a salamander. Could the Nobel Prize for Medicine have been more appropriate?

There is no telling exactly how many of the keystone events relayed by the mass media over the years have had the helping hand of professional choreography and steady curation. But it is happening and is openly promoted by establishment think-tanks as a means of social engineering and “manufacturing consent.” This brings into question every major act of violence that was overpromoted (rather than quickly forgotten) by the media and politicians.

Even mainstream conservatives like Ann Coulter have come to ridicule the alleged Las Vegas shooting (fifty-nine killed, five hundred injured) as a sham, and sometimes even those who stand to gain sympathy from a tragedy express doubt over the narrative. The putative liquidation of fifty-one Muslims by a Christchurch “white supremacist” was a scenario that even the chairman of New Zealand’s largest mosque rejected: the Jewish Telegraph Agency reported Ahmed Bhamji as attributing the shooting to Mossad and “Zionist business houses.” For whatever reason, the trial of the Christchurch shooter is scheduled for May 2020, but actually every possible forensic detail regarding motivation and execution was delivered to the court of public opinion by the mass media within hours, right down to the shooter’s message: “Remember lads, subscribe to PewDiePie.” Within three days, gun control reforms were announced, social media restrictions planned, and the Prime Minister was wearing a hijab. Parliament proposed a bill on April 1, revised it on April 10, and it became law by April 12.

But the strangest development in social engineering came with the news that New Zealander “Philip Arps” was given a twenty-one-month prison sentence for sharing the shooter’s video online. Having viewed the video myself, I can say that all that is depicted is huddles of unidentified people who collapse at the sound of gunshots, filmed in RPG format. It’s not half as graphic as any Hollywood blockbuster. Why exactly the news media went from being obsessed with streaming trauma porn – including 9/11 and ISIS footage – to forbidding curious citizen-sleuths from doing their own examination of primary evidence is no minor mystery. The public is being threatened and intimidated into believing everything they are told, and to question nothing. The establishment laments its slide in credibility, since the “fake news” motif undermined mass media far more than the alternative media. Online citizen activism and alternative media are the bane of their near-hegemonic enterprise, and so if draconian laws and paralegal threats are being summoned to subdue this force, it beckons the question of what other clandestine means of defamation and psychological warfare they are employing.

In 2018, a certain tipping point was reached in how the mainstream related to news of high significance. The unwritten rule had always been that terrorism, war, and miscellaneous tragedies were stories beyond reproach. But the purported mail-bombing of top Democrats two weeks before the mid-terms changed all of that. Conservatives felt brave enough to use the term “false flag,” and they were joined by Alt Lite leaders like Rush Limbaugh, Dinesh D’Souza, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, James Woods, and Candace Owens. Of course, none of the above dared question what happened just a few days later in what may have swayed millions more votes for the Dems: the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting that reportedly killed eleven. So the standard seems to be that if no casualties are involved, commentators are brave enough to dissent; whereas any purported deaths make a story too sacred to question, and only antisocial irredeemables could do that.

The crosses are for the cameras, but the stones are for hurling at a certain Nazarene in the afterlife, or what a news anchor stammered to describe as “a sign of respect.”

Speaking with salient bitterness, Trump said at the time, “Republicans are doing so well in early voting, and at the polls, and now this ‘Bomb’ stuff happens . . . Very unfortunate, what is going on.” But beyond sardonic suggestion and edgy innuendo, Trump has yet to really detonate a political bombshell that would be the point of no return America needs. And that is the story of his presidency, a tease that radicalized the Left as much as it energized the Right. He is still ultimately a system player who has walked back or “clarified” almost every truly heretical remark he has said. He squandered the first part of his term goose-stepping with authority, only to end up a dithering lame duck with attitude. America needed red-pills and instead got thrown red meat.

Out of self-congratulatory delusion or just poor advice, Trump’s reelection campaign has relinquished the initiative, and is instead running on “Keep America Great.” It’s genius advice from the likes of Tom Brady stand-in Jared Kushner. After just two-and-a-half years of lowering black unemployment and moving America’s Israeli embassy, Trump believes he has solved the existential threat that he first identified on the campaign trail back in 2016: Namely, that it was the last chance to save America – and the candor made it clear he was not talking about the economy. But Trump is a master negotiator, and over his term he’s managed to haggle down the promises of Trump 2016 to just a fraction of their value.

The dynamic Dems appear to have the election only to lose – if they can’t find a moderate for electoral victory, then the demographics and voter fraud should suffice. Republicans aren’t really in the race, in the sense that their hand is already exposed – and it’s not a popular one. Some Democrats still believe Trump can be impeached or will resign before the election. Unlikely, but perhaps that is the late-term abortion that the Right should support.