Början på ett mediakrig om mångkulturen?

It’s the beginning of the end of the Bilderberg era

The beginning of the end of the Bilderberg/Soros vision is in sight. The Old Order will cling on, even to the last of its fingernails. The Bilderberg vision is the notion of multi-cultural, international cosmopolitanism that surpasses old-time nationalism; heralding the end of frontiers; and leading toward a US-led, ‘technocratic’, global economic and political governance. Its roots lie with figures such as James Burnham, an anti-Stalin, former Trotskyite, who, writing as early as 1941, advocated for the levers of financial and economic power being placedin the hands of a management class: an élite – which alone would be capable of running the contemporary state – thanks to this élite’s market and financial technical nous. It was, bluntly, a call for an expert, technocratic oligarchy.

Burnham renounced his allegiance to Trotsky and Marxism, in all its forms in 1940, but he would take the tactics and strategies for infiltration and subversion, (learned as a member of Leon Trotsky’s inner circle) with him, and would elevate the Trotskyist management of ‘identity politics’ to become the fragmentation ‘device’ primed to explode national culture onto a new stage, in the Western sphere. His 1941 book, “The Managerial Revolution,” caught the attention of Frank Wisner, subsequently, a legendary CIA figure, who saw in the works of Burnham and his colleague a fellow Trotskyite, Sidney Hook, the prospect of mounting an effective alliance of former Trotskyites against Stalinism.

But, additionally, Wisner perceived its merits as the blueprint for a CIA-led, pseudo-liberal, US-led global order. (‘Pseudo’, because, as Burnham articulated clearly, in The Machiavellians, Defenders of Freedom, his version of freedom meant anything but intellectual freedom or those freedoms defined by America’s Constitution. “What it really meant was conformity and submission”).

In short, (as Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould have noted), “by 1947, James Burnham’s transformation from Communist radical, to New World Order American conservative was complete. His Struggle for the World, [converted into a memo for the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS, the forerunner of CIA)], had done a ‘French Turn’ on Trotsky’s permanent Communist revolution, and turned it into a permanent battle plan for a global American empire. All that was needed to complete Burnham’s dialectic was a permanent enemy, and that would require a sophisticated psychological campaign to keep the hatred of Russia alive, “for generations”.

What has this to do with us today? A ‘Burnham Landscape’ of apparently, ‘centrist’ European political parties, apparently independent think-tanks, institutions, and NATO structures, was seeded by CIA – in the post war era of anti-Sovietism – across Europe, and the Middle East – as part of Burnham’s ‘battle plan’ for a US-led, global ‘order’. It is precisely this élite: i.e. Burnham’s oligarchic technocracy, that is facing political push-back today to the point at which the Liberal Order feels that it is struggling for its very survival against “the enemy in the White House”, as the editor of Spiegel Online has termed President Trump.

What has caused this? Well, like him or hate him, President Trump has played a major part, if only by saying the unsayable. The rationality or not inherent in these Eckhart-style ‘unsayings’, or apophasis, is beside the point: Trump’s intuitive ‘discourse of saying the unsayable’ has taken most of the bolts out of the former Burnham-type, ideological structure.

But in Europe, two main flaws to the Burnham blueprint have contributed, possibly fatally, to the blueprint crisis: Firstly, the policy of populating Europe with immigrants, as a remedy for Europe’s adverse demographics (and to dilute to the point of erasure, its national cultures): “Far from leading to fusion”, writes British historian, Niall Ferguson, “Europe’s migration crisis is leading to fission. The play might be called The Meltdown Pot … Increasingly … the issue of migration will be seen by future historians as the fatal solvent of the EU. In their accounts Brexit will appear as merely an early symptom of the crisis”. And secondly, the bi-furcation of the economy into two unrelated, and dis-equal economies, as a result of the élite’s mismanagement of the global economy, (i.e. the obvious the absence of ‘prosperity for all’).

Trump evidently has heard the two key messages from his constituency: that they neither accept to have (white) American culture, and its way-of-life, diluted through immigration; and, neither do they wish – stoically – to accommodate to America’s eclipse by China.

[...]

America will leverage its dominance of the financial system to the limit to strangle Iran, and China and Russia will do what is necessary financially, and in terms of trade, to see that Iran does not implode economically – and remains a pillar of the multipolar alternative world order.

And it is here that the paradigm shifts in Europe come into play. It is not, I repeat not because Europe can be expected to show leadership or to ‘do’ much, but rather because the apophatic discourse of ‘saying the unsayable’ is spreading to Europe. It has not, so far, changed the paradigm of power, but may soon (i.e. with Merkel’s possible political demise). Germany may be more staid in its politics than Italy, but the voice of Italy’s new Interior Minister, Matteo Salvini, saying ‘no’ to the ‘Burnham’ proxies in Berlin is echoing across Europe, and beyond. It acts like a slap in the face.

Western Decadence from an Eastern Perspective

The one thing President Xi Jinping cannot do is get his child into Peking University unless that child scores high on his exams. Here in America, you can buy your way into Harvard. You can’t do that in China.”

Western Decadence from an Eastern Perspective

Early May saw the latest skirmish in the ongoing culture wars. The inevitable result of an endlessly documented and commentated-upon world, these battles seem always to occur in the Anglosphere, probably because the English-speaking world is ground-zero for the madness of ideas like microaggressions, cultural appropriation and ‘healthy at every size’. Consider the furor surrounding a London Underground advert for protein shakes in 2015 which featured a bikini-clad woman sultrily exhorting the viewer to get ‘beach body ready’. Looking svelte and fit, the model didn’t appear remotely anorexic, and the usual protestations about ultra-thin models encouraging eating disorders in young women didn’t hold up. Instead, the ad’s sin would transmogrify into the ‘body-shaming’ of women.

Body-shaming is an interestingly worded phrase because it explicitly acknowledges the wrongdoing of the person who feels it. If a man is falsely accused of a crime he will probably feel self-pity. He will likely be furious with his accusers. But one thing he won’t feel is ashamed; you cannot shame an innocent person. An extremely overweight person feels contrite at being defined by three of the seven deadly sins—greed, gluttony and sloth. This shame can be so overwhelming that the mere suggestion of a change to their lifestyle feels like an assault, and so their response is to agitate for the removal of that which disgraces them. Ultimately the protein shake advertisement ended up banned in the UK, and in May 2018 a ‘plus-size’ fashion brand launched an aesthetically similar ad campaign featuring three morbidly obese women claiming to be ‘beach body ready’. The objectively healthy woman was banned and the objectively unhealthy women were celebrated. Nothing illustrates the utter madness of the modern left better than that.

[...]

Modern leftists claim that white people cannot experience racism because they hold institutional power, but this reflects the worldview only of Americans who’ve never lived abroad. As a foreigner in Thailand I am forbidden from ever owning land, it is next to impossible for me to be granted Thai citizenship and I have to report to immigration every 90 days to let the authorities know where I live. It goes without question that if the roles were reversed, and it were a Thai who had to live under such laws, the western government would be accused of racism and fascism. Witness the hysteria that surrounds the innocuous practice of referring to people illegally in the United States as ‘illegal immigrants’. Leftwing activists claim that ‘no human being is illegal,’ in an attempt to shape reality, but as George Orwell pointed out in 1984, the whole aim of Newspeak was to narrow the range of thought. Thai and Asian newspapers routinely discuss the problem of illegal immigration, and of illegal immigrants. Indeed, without the appropriate qualifications and paperwork I would become an illegal immigrant overnight. That status would be undeniable to me or to anyone who values linguistic clarity. But how can a person break immigration law and how can borders even exist if crossing them is not only not illegal, but encouraged?

Theodore Dalrymple, writing about communist propaganda, said that its purpose is to humiliate: ‘When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is...in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to’.

From the East one can observe a western civilisation that has become so decadent it denies reality in favour of postmodern relativism. Its universities increasingly treat education as an opportunity for political advocacy above all else. Scientific American reported recently that support for educational programmes for gifted children has declined as the focus has ‘moved more towards inclusion’. England scrapped its National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth in 2010. By contrast, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore screen children for intellectual giftedness, and the Chinese guide their best students into STEM. The West so desires the blank slate to be real it lowers the bar to allow the less capable to enter its universities. In Asia, China ruthlessly pursues meritocracy. The American economist David P. Goldman has written about this phenomenon:

”If you’re in the Chinese leadership you made it there by scoring high on a long series of exams, starting at age twelve—which means you haven’t met a stupid person since you were in junior high school. The fact that democracies can frequently advance stupid people—we are entitled to do that if we wish—doesn’t make sense to the Chinese. The one thing President Xi Jinping cannot do is get his child into Peking University unless that child scores high on his exams. Here in America, you can buy your way into Harvard. You can’t do that in China.”