Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 6, Part 2: Conclusion
Posted By Kenneth Vinther On In North American New Right | Comments Disabled
[1]2,418 words
Part 9 of 9 (Chapter 1 here [2], Chapter 6 Part 1 here [3])
In a representative “democracy,” “public opinion” is a fiction. The people have no voice. They are never consulted directly on policy matters, and they are not given any mechanism through which they can express their honest opinion. Instead, an illusion of public sentiment is artificially generated by a small minority of private actors controlling institutions with disproportionate power and influence that can circumvent organic social pressures and coerce people into conforming to their artificially-produced social norms. They do not need organic popular support for any policies; the news media, major corporations, academia, and the state can artificially manufacture a climate of public opinion and create the perception of hegemonic public support behind policies that don’t have any. The overwhelming noise generated by these institutions distorts reality. The messages promoted by these institutions are falsely interpreted as being reflective of public opinion, and then the population conforms to social norms based on an artificial simulacrum of popular sentiment. By using these tactics, the American elites were able to lie, coerce, and cajole the American population into the Second World War, despite approximately nine out of ten Americans opposing American involvement.
Public opinion does not matter because it does not exist. In the West, “public opinion” is an intangible fiction; a manufactured, artificial representation of an imaginary idea of “public sentiment” that does not correspond to reality.
Relying exclusively on the attitudes of the mass media and opinion polling prior to the 2016 election, one would begin to believe that the country was monolithically aligned with the elite liberal establishment’s ideology. But Americans were not entirely on board with the liberal internationalist establishment — rather, huge swathes of the country were simply systematically excluded from the political discourse and denied representation in the media and public institutions. It took the 2016 election to shatter this carefully-cultivated paradigm and reveal that there is actually massive and widespread support for ideas that the media and polling apparatus would have you believe are only held by an isolated and fringe minority.
This was Trump’s unforgiveable sin.
Before 2016, American political elites had an unspoken agreement that the sort of ideas advocated by Trump would never become part of American political discourse. The white constituency that supports these ideas was supposed to be given zero representation. Then, the bloviating narcissist Donald Trump and his team of unscrupulous and cynical political consultants and campaign managers incoherently bumbled into the White House by exploiting the anxieties of dispossessed white America. For a moment he became the voice of the voiceless silent majority, and gave institutional representation and legitimacy to their fears and anxieties — fears and anxieties that the institutions that ostensibly represent white Americans stubbornly refused to address, let alone acknowledge. Trump and his campaign consultants were willing to go to any lengths, violate any elite taboos, and say whatever it took to get elected, and in doing so they inadvertently politicized millions of white voters who were supposed to remain demoralized, isolated, and unrepresented.
Trump gave the nation what Eric Kaufman describes as “elite cues.” “Elite cues” are signals that establish the acceptable parameters of discourse in society and “are important in shaping public opinion on issues and according them importance.” Justifying his endorsement of Hillary Clinton, conservative author P. J. O’Rourke explained that “she’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters.” Conversely, the problem with Trump was that his explosive campaign rhetoric violated the acceptable parameters of the post-war liberal consensus. By endorsing nativist sentiments, Trump gave nationalism legitimacy as a valid part of the political discussion and punctured the carefully constructed liberal consensus which had dominated the American political discourse since the 1960s. Ever since, elites have been desperately trying to stitch some sort of liberal consensus back together. In doing so, Trump provoked liberal elites, and their contempt for the ordinary people who Trump represented, their values and their way of life, explains the widespread backlash in elite liberal discourse against the concept of populism and democracy.[1] [4]
Trump revealed that there is a massive disagreement between ordinary Americans and their elites. He also revealed that there is an enormous popular appetite for ideas that the political class, the media, and elite academic institutions had systematically marginalized beyond the peripheries of acceptable discourse. Further, Trump humanized the people who hold these views, which was anathema to liberal elites who found it “morally grotesque . . . [to] insist Trump’s backers are good people.” Trump not only amplified unacceptable ideas, but he gave them legitimacy from the office of the presidency itself, making the majority of Americans think for a brief moment that they had a right to express their views and be represented in the American political system. Trump’s unforgiveable sin was that he made white Americans think that they had permission to say what they were thinking.[2] [5]
Trump and the Republican Party will not save white America. But nevertheless, the Trump phenomenon has revealed much about the true nature of our liberal political system. This is an important learning experience, because it can illuminate the way forward for opponents of the liberal internationalist system.
The problem facing the West is not just Jewish power; it is also this particular liberal constitutional superstructure that produces this particular system of Jewish power. We know this because hundreds of Jewish intellectuals and institutional elites have spent the last eight years writing books and articles defending this system. This means parliamentary sovereignty, the independence of the judiciary, an open political system, the legitimacy of opposition groups, and a series of other liberal constitutional procedures which are, at their heart, designed to guarantee a weak, pluralistic, and dysfunctional state that frustrates majoritarian political action by keeping the majority fractured and divided, and that privileges private wealth and special interest groups. It is a state that does not represent a particular people, let alone a majority, but instead represents the interests of “civil society.” It is a state that is directed by policy produced in private negotiations between private interest groups and lobbyists, rather than through an authentic national and democratic political debate.
In his famous study on the Israel lobby, John Mearsheimer explained that the reason that the Zionist lobby controls the American government is because of the
wide-open nature of the American political system. The United States has a divided form of government, a well-established tradition of free speech, and a system in which elections are very expensive to run and where campaign contributions are weakly regulated. This environment gives different groups many different ways to gain access or influence policy.
“[T]he American political system is of necessity an open one,” elaborates Peter Dale Scott, “and thus increasingly susceptible to the growing influence of money and intelligence penetration from abroad.” The reason that Western governments and NGOs seek to impose liberal constitutional government — i.e., “democracy” — around the world is because it is a system of government that is highly susceptible to the influence and control of international Jewish finance, multinational corporations, and their army of lobbyists, foundations, and NGOs.[3] [6]
Contrary to popular myth, our system of government was not designed to fulfill the will of the people; liberal representative democracy was designed to frustrate majoritarian political action and elevate a plutocratic political class that is subservient to the interests of private market actors. All of the major problems in the West stem from the political crisis that has been produced by our liberal constitutional system of government. Our liberal, multiparty political system has fractured and divided the polity, handicapping whites as a political entity. No longer a unified polity capable of engaging in collective political action, the common good has been submerged beneath moronic partisan political squabbles. Whites in the West are effectively stateless people. They have no state to represent them, to protect them, or to advance their interests as a people. They have only a dysfunctional and shortsighted liberal state which has become overwhelmed by infinitely more powerful private special interest groups, and where public policy becomes the product of negotiations between the business world and its privately-funded policy organizations.
[7]You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Year America Died here. [8]
This political system is entirely unsuitable for popular political organization. Our policymakers govern with tremendous independence from public opinion. They are not meaningfully accountable to their constituents or the public in any fashion. Instead, their careers are entirely dependent on private finance and the media. Our political system is an entirely inorganic and plutocratic system of government that gives private organizations such as NGOs, the media, the business community, and international Jewish finance a stranglehold over the political discourse.
We do not have a democratic system of government. To say that we live in a democracy demonstrates a profound and fatal misunderstanding of the history and nature of our liberal system of government. The opponents of the liberal world order need to understand first and foremost that our liberal system of government is not democratic.
Western elites themselves explicitly identify popular opinion as an obstacle that they believe is fundamentally irreconcilable with their liberal internationalist agenda. They believe that if public opinion were allowed to direct and influence government action that it would jeopardize many of their class objectives and policies, and so they viciously attack democracy and insist that Western elites continue to ignore and oppose their voting constituents’ preferences. They openly admit that genuine and authentic mass democratic politics is the gravest threat facing liberalism at large.
Most people do not support mass immigration.
Most people do not support bailouts for investment banks, corporations, and economic elites.
Most people do not support gay marriage or the transsexual agenda.
Most people do not support Black Lives Matter, Black History Month, or vicious anti-white identity politics.
Most people do not support affirmative action or Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI).
Most people do not support foreign military adventurism in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
Most people do not support globalization and deindustrialization.
Most people do not support the political persecution of dissidents or restrictions on free speech.
Foreign military adventurism and American participation in both world wars, globalization, social liberalism, abortion, gay rights, and most importantly, mass replacement immigration — none of these policies would have succeeded if America had been an authentic democracy. Most people do not support these policies, but we get them anyways. The last century of American politics has been a “revolt of the elites” against ordinary Americans’ economic, social, and foreign policy preferences. The liberal world order succeeds not because of democracy, but in spite of it. This entire power structure rests on the ability of institutional authorities to ignore and silence organic popular sentiments while preserving an insulated institutional bubble for a minority of privileged and out-of-touch institutional gatekeepers to interpret and define the interests of the nation as they see fit. They have only succeeded insofar as institutional elites have been able to maintain a monopoly over the political discourse, circumvent popular opinion, silence organic expressions of public sentiment, systematically lie to the population, and keep the people impotent and ineffectual by dicing and dividing the population into incoherent and dysfunctional partisan political ideologies. The maintenance and continuity of this system depends entirely on the elite liberal minority systematically excluding ordinary people from political discourse, preventing them from expressing their true beliefs, and obstructing authentic mass political action.
In American Extremist [9], Josh Neal urges us not to adopt the system’s characterization of nationalists as a fringe collection of extremists and misanthropes, because nationalism is not a fringe and pathological ideology. This misconception is another product of system gaslighting. It is actually our opponents who are fringe and pathological extremists. Josh Neal explains that our enemies are pathocrats — a small, pathological minority of ruling elites — who “cannot function in a healthy society” and must “nudge people away from their deeply evolved instincts toward attitudes that favor the governing classes.” Unlike them, we do not need fear the masses or put constraints on the majority’s popular expressions.
Political dissidents cannot afford to make the mistake of conflating democracy with liberalism. They cannot afford to make the mistake of blaming the destruction of the West on democracy. Not only is this a profound misunderstanding of the nature of our liberal system of government, but it is also a tactical error that is causing political dissidents to neglect what is the most powerful ideological weapon available to nationalists for attacking liberalism.
The United States is a country where more than 62% of Americans admit in polls that they are afraid to express their beliefs in public. While most whites are not necessarily ideologically conscious one way or the other, their core instincts — i.e., to protect their children, to identify with their race, to be patriotic about their country — inevitably resonate with the Right. Nationalists do not have hundreds of billions of dollars to influence the political system; all that nationalists have is the instincts of the people and the truth. The power of the liberal apparatus revolves around its ability to suppress, misdirect, and ignore these instincts.[4] [10]
The major task facing nationalists today is therefore not to erect even more institutional barriers between the people and political power, or to install another out-of-touch and unaccountable political tyranny that will continue to disregard the preferences of its people; the mission is to tear these barriers down and give ordinary white Americans permission to express what they are really feeling. It is to replace this antiquated and dysfunctional system of liberal constitutionalism with a system of government that is tied directly to popular sentiment, one that has an organic connection between the nation and the state.
Within the context of a liberal constitutional so-called “democracy,” the people are not given a voice to articulate or express their preferences. The people have no mechanism or outlet to express their preferences, or to say what they are thinking. Our problem is that the people have no voice. The task for today’s revolutionaries is to give them one.
We need a system of government that can actually represent whites as a people and as a political entity.
We need a real democracy.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here [11].
Notes
[1] [12] Whiteshift. Scott Detrow, “Conservative Author P.J. O’Rourke Reluctantly Backs Clinton [13],” NPR, 2016.
[2] [14] Jamelle Bouie, “There’s No Such Thing as a Good Trump Voter [15],” Slate, 2016.
[3] [16] John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy (Penguin Adult: 2008), 140. Quoted in Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgement: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy (America First Books: 2006), 248.
[4] [17] Emily Ekins, “Poll: 62% of Americans Say They Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share [18],” CATO, 2020.