Translate

Monday, May 30, 2016

The End Of History

Young people who weren't at the age of social awareness from 1989 to 1991 will never comprehend the triumphant zeitgeist that sprang up in the U.S. when the rusty old Soviet bloc, those countries to the east of Stalin's post-WW2 Iron Curtain, finally expired from its own internal contradictions. Poland was the first to shake off the slumber, with its Solidarnosc movement and clumsy, half-hearted reaction from the Soviet-run Polish military. Beginning in November 1989, the Berlin Wall started crumbling, a live-broadcast event I remember well. My law school roommate and I watched news footage of Germans wielding picks against that imposing edifice, and I said to him that the Soviet Union would be gone in five years. He said it would take ten years. It was all finished in less than two.

The defining conflict of the 20th century, the USSR and Karl Marx vs. the US and Adam Smith, was finally over, and we had won! A sea change took place over an entire hemisphere, and the old grey men like Romania's Nicolae Ceausescu were caught flatfooted when all the old mantras suddenly lost their potency.



Adapt or die, as they say.


And so, having seen Western liberal democracy vanquish fascism, Nazism, and Bolshevism in their turns, political philosopher Francis Fukuyama declared the End of History.
What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.
Giddy times, indeed. I remember reading about Fukuyama's "end of history" thesis in a Charles Krauthammer column from that period. He ended the column by essentially declaring further philosophical-political inquiry over. "Lights out," was the exact phrase he used. And thus it seemed, as President George H. W. Bush declared a New World Order, and the U.S. began using its uni-polar muscle to force liberal democracy down the throats of everybody on the planet.

And then, the planet struck back, as Wahabbist Muslims decided they didn't like this new, global Pax Americana.


I remember that day very clearly as well, getting breakfast at an office building cafe' and overhearing the cashier on her cell phone: "A plane hit the World Trade Center?" Upstairs, a group of us gathered around the TV in the break room and watched as a second plane slammed into the other tower. Eyes got big. Jaws dropped. Not a word was said. And that was all the work that got done that day.

Western Liberal Democracy went on the warpath. First, the PATRIOT Act had to be passed, an odious piece of comprehensive national security legislation. Then the regimes in Afghanistan and, inexplicably and fraudulently, Iraq, had to fall. Even more astounding, immigration was expanded as opposed to the rational policy choice of slamming the gates shut. And this bold new conservatism wasn't finished, as the money spigots necessary to President Lyndon Johnson's George W. Bush's "guns and butter" fueled an epic investment Bubble, the popping of which led to discovery by government and its central bankers of a strange new power in the Constitution: to print money and hand it out to Goldman Sachs, AIG, General Motors, and others. A threshold in U.S. economic policy was crossed: the rich would not be allowed to become poor. None of these policies have changed under President Peace Prize, by the way.

Speaking of the Constitution, is there anything it won't let government do? Fiat money? Only 435 Congressmen? Gay marriage? Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Housing & Urban Development, Transportation? Korea? Vietnam? Gulf non-Wars I and II?

As should be obvious from this brief retrospective, the relationship of the citizen to the government in America has been fundamentally altered, well beyond the titanic changes of 1865, 1918, 1939 and 1965. In fact, one might say that damn near all of U.S. history has been about the increasing power of the bureaucratic state over the lives of a supposedly free and self-governing people.

One of the more under-remarked changes has been the deliberate engineering, through immigration policy, of US demographics from an 85% Anglo-European super-majority to Anglo-European minority by 2040.


And so, as the US follows the course of all multi-national empires through history, devolving into an inter-tribal ethnic spoils fight, we see the awful truth revealed: Conservatism conserved nothing; the Constitution preserved nothing. As our good friend Porter observes, the rule of law does not exist; it's the Law of Rule, and always has been. In sum, the Age of Ideology is over. Anglo-Europeans will adopt the identity politics of their ethnic and cultural rivals or they will lose everything they have. Of what use are "conservative principles" to this man who is one thin, blue line away from being torn to pieces? He doesn't need principles; he needs a strong man who hates his enemies.


As I say on Twitter, if you want Reagan-era policies, you need Reagan-era demographics. We no longer have those, and so white ethnics, perforce, now begin to engage in the battle for collective self-interest like everyone else does.

Now one would think that, seeing the above laid out with such lucidity, the aging stalwarts of neo-conservatism would recognize how the ground has shifted under their feet. But like dogged old commie Ceausescu, they stick to the same old mantras: Tax Rates!, in a country where half the population doesn't pay taxes. Deficits!, in a country with a central bank that prints all the money it needs. Traditional Values!, in a country that has made this the Law of the Land:


To the contrary, this late awakening on the part of Anglo-European America has drawn a number of prominent detractors:

Bill Kristol
John Podhoretz
Max Boot
Mona Charen
Jonah Goldberg

In fairness, there are others of the not-so-Recent-Arrival-persuasion (some might call them "Useful Idiots") who also oppose Trump solely on the noblest, highest-minded, scrupulously ethical principles. Check the Twitter feeds of people like Charles C.W. Cooke, Ben Howe, Erick Erickson and others to see the bile spewed at Donald Trump, or the more dignified harrumphing from Ross Douthat and Rod Dreher. All from self-styled conservatives who have tsk-tsked and wagged their fingers through decades of public and private elites' culture-wrecking and explicit hatred of founding stock Americans. As the possibility (inevitability?) of a Trump presidency approaches, conservative sputtering increases, and their impotence to stop this tide becomes embarrassingly apparent.
What we may be witnessing is not just the end of Conservatism, or the passing of a particular period of post-Enlightenment idealism, but the end of history as such: that is, the non-linear steady state of mankind's ideological evolution and the universal realization of Who Gets To Live Where And Run Things as the final form of human government.
Lights out.

16 comments:

Robert Paxton said...

I remember that time. I was 17 when the wall came down. In the 90s I went to college and it did, indeed, seem like history had come to an end. No threats, America the sole superpower, employment was easy to find. Looking back, I see that a lot of those jobs were not really great and credit cards were being pumped out into regular society for the first time. They issued me a credit card when I was 21, in school and only occasionally employed. That kept us all fat, dumb and happy until the Autumn of 2001.

Faceberg Power User said...

180.

Colonel Blimp said...

Quite so; the delusions and psychoses of liberal modernity have been welling up under the skin of the body politic for decades. But the last 12 months seem to have brought it all to the surface as one hideous carbuncle. We are in an age of universal crisis, the extent of which can no longer be hidden or explained away. Incipient race wars, mass migration as a deliberate tool of social policy, sexual deviance lauded from the rooftops, the collapse of family life, rampant heroin and meth dependency. Not even the most basic assumptions about social life have any firm foundations any more. To that extent, liberalism, whether in its classical or progressive forms, is truly an ebola virus of the soul; all that is healthy and natural is finally dissolved into a poisonous mush.

And my goodness, has it not gathered pace! Much as I dislike Obama, I think he would have balked at sex-neutral toilets back in 2008. Now, his great chest-thumping crusade is to give genderbenders the freedom to pass solids in a john of their choice. Not the least frightening aspect of liberal orthodoxy is therefore its sheer caprice; in the blink of an eye, a deranged proposition can seize the minds of the elite who then feel an uncontrollable urge to force it down the throats of everyone else. When your government seeks to micromanage the sphincter muscles of sexual degenerates, there is clearly nothing it is unwilling to contemplate and no limit to its power that it can ever perceive.

Bob Wallace said...

"Not a word was said."

I watched it on a bank TV with a bunch of people and no one said a word the entire time.

Corvinus said...

Trump resonates with those individuals completely sickened by the stinking rot of the establishment. He speaks prolifically in Reaganesque terms about immigration and the plight of the blue-collar worker. His supporters LOVE his anti-PC rhetoric. But Trump is an elitist, who has a past with being part and parcel to the establishment, using women and business partners along the way to accumulate wealth. Nothing inherently wrong with his rise to fame and fortune, for it is the American way.

Trump, as we should know, is NOT a “true” conservative. In fact, the argument can be made he is a “cuck”—his changing positions from gun control to universal health care to abortion is mere posturing. He will say or do anything to garner the most attention at the moment. How is his gamesmanship any different than the current political class?

The upcoming election pits two unlikeable figures. Take your pick with the lesser of two evils. So those evangelicals who vote for him, those neo-reactionaries who support him, those “die-hard” conservatives who tout his two-fold agenda, they are prostituting themselves. Make no mistake about it.

“All from self-styled conservatives who have tsk-tsked and wagged their fingers through decades of public and private elites' culture-wrecking…”

Elites. An overused phrase that lacks any meaning. Trump is observably one of those “elites”. Regarding culture, it is ALWAYS changing. The non-Puritans complained about Massachusetts “blue laws”; nativists in the 1850’s opposed the drinking and carousing of German and Irish folks; jazz music of the 1920’s was considered “the spawn of the devil”. Every era has experienced a backlash regarding the content of television, movies, film, dress/attire, and sexual preferences/experimentation. Today. white people in general enjoy the various cultural aspects of America, as they have helped to create and shape it.

“and explicit hatred of founding stock Americans.”

Another overblown phrase. Yes, there is a certain radical element of liberalism that take that approach. But, anecdotally speaking, there was absolutely none of this bitterness toward our Founding Fathers this past Memorial Day in my neck of the words.

“Anglo-Europeans will adopt the identity politics of their ethnic and cultural rivals or they will lose everything they have.”

Regarding “white identity politics”, we shall see if the nation turns to blood in this coming race war. I will believe it when I see it occur in real time. More bluster and bravado than anything. The banksters and the lawyers and the showman—see Milo The Fag and Mike Cernovich—will be the FIRST ones to go by the wayside. Show me blood on your hands after shivving “vibrants” and that will prove you are deadly serious. Take one for the team.

“He doesn't need principles; he needs a strong man who hates his enemies.”

Yes, people must have principles and scruples to justify that enmity towards one ideological foes.

“Western Liberal Democracy went on the warpath…”

I thought victimhood was only a liberal characteristic. So, where were those die-hard, true blue conservatives when this mess unfolded? Were they speaking their mind on blogs rather than taking matters to the streets? Were they harping on the machinations Jews, SJW’s, non-whites and “anti-whites” (whatever the hell that term even means) and praying for the system to crash and burn, rather than actually challenging the status quo at the local, state, and national level in the same manner that the Founding Fathers put forth? Right, because being doxxed or outed truly matters in this war. That is not K-selected conduct. Run, rabbit, run.

Corvinus said...

“Speaking of the Constitution, is there anything it won't let government do.”

You are being obtuse. The people who interpret it, whether it be on liberal or conservative or “cucks”, they are responsible. Remember, its crafters debated whether or not the Constitution was malleable. That conversation is going on even today.


“In fact, one might say that damn near all of U.S. history has been about the increasing power of the bureaucratic state over the lives of a supposedly free and self-governing people.”

Indeed, throughout world history, as empires grow, so do rules, regulations, and laws. Some are burdensome and excessive. Some, however, are necessary, as determined by the citizens within a designated area based on past events. Americans are free and self-governing, contrary to your hissy fit. People’s personal liberty comes into direct conflict. People form groups to promote that personal liberty. With competition, there are “winners” and “losers”. Feel free to find like-minded people who believe in the same things you do and work within or outside the system.

“One of the more under-remarked changes has been the deliberate engineering, through immigration policy, of US demographics from an 85% Anglo-European super-majority to Anglo-European minority by 2040.”

There has not been any “deliberate engineering”. And its not “Anglo-European”, it’s simply European. Did not the English make the same complaint of the Dutch, French, and Spanish? Did not the “nativists” make the same complaint of the Germans and Irish? Did not the Germans and Irish make the same complaint of the Italians? Did not the Italians make the same complaint of the Vietnamese? Did not the Vietnamese make the same complaint of Zimbabwians? And on and on and on…

Now, if you want to get technical, only those Americans who have pure English blood, i.e. those who unequivocally have ancestral claim to the original Thirteen Colonies on BOTh the mother and father’s side, are considered “Anglos” and thus the “true” citizens of this country, one by which the posterity of this nation rests. The rest must immediately self-deport to their place of origin. You, first…

“we see the awful truth revealed: Conservatism conserved nothing; the Constitution preserved nothing.”

Great, more standard bullshit.

“In sum, the Age of Ideology is over.”

No, the Age Of Ideology is alive and kicking. The Rule Of Law? As if neo-reactionaries or “real” conservatives would keenly observe its intended meaning and scope over the long-term.

Anonymous said...

"...the more dignified harrumphing from Ross Douthat and Rod Dreher"

Reading between the lines, Douthat and Dreher basically agree with Trump supporters at least 95% on the issues that matter; they're preserving their status and employability as Respectable Commentators by making a extra-large stink out of Mr. Trump's glaring character flaws and the crassness of some of his more vocal supporters (the only real pretext they have on which to avoid endorsing him).

"And its not “Anglo-European”, it’s simply European. Did not the English make the same complaint of the Dutch, French, and Spanish? Did not the “nativists” make the same complaint of the Germans and Irish? Did not the Germans and Irish make the same complaint of the Italians?"

The genetic, historical, religious, cultural, and phenotypic distance between those populations are orders of magnitude lower than those between, say, Scotsmen and Zulus. Germany, the Netherlands, France, and Ireland have been closely tied to English history for over a thousand years, intermittently exchanging language, population, monarchs, nobles, churchmen, literature, and trade goods. (To take but one example, Dublin has been an English-speaking city since 1171 A.D.) Here's what Wikipedia calls "Northwestern Europe" consisting essentially of the British Isles and their closest geographic and cultural neighbors:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/North-western_Europe_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg

Of just under 200 million non-Hispanic whites in the US today, 150-170 million descend overwhelmingly from the green zone on that map- about 75-85%. The other 15% or so is mostly Italians and Slavs, who assimilated pretty thoroughly under the heavy-handed influence of Irish bishops.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Give it up Corvinus. You really are in over your head, and I don't want to move to moderated comments but will do so if you keep hanging around.

IA said...

I think Corvinus is a werewolf. Nice article.

Corvinus said...

Anonymous...

A.G....

"You really are in over your head..."

That's exactly what an SJW or a liberal would say when their worldview is being challenged.

"and I don't want to move to moderated comments but will do so if you keep hanging around."

Do what you need to do. You keep promoting this mantra that the "Age Of Ideology"is over, and then when someone wants to explore one's ideology, you want to close down the comment section. Because echo chamber.

Why would whites become tribal, or become a neoreactionary, when they must always think about the good of the tribe and not of themselves and what they believe is moral and just?

"The genetic, historical, religious, cultural, and phenotypic distance between those populations are orders of magnitude lower than those between, say, Scotsmen and Zulus."

Yet, Europeans historically were generally suspicious of, at best, or downright savage against, at worst, their brethren.

"Germany, the Netherlands, France, and Ireland have been closely tied to English history for over a thousand years, intermittently exchanging language, population, monarchs, nobles, churchmen, literature, and trade goods."

Let's break that down. Hostile tribal groups invaded and eventually intermingled with the native population. Trade was established to benefit each other's economy. Monarchs and nobles from England married monarchs and nobles from other than England in order to consolidate their power and authority. The peasant classes would find those arrangements "peculiar".

Marcus said...

"Did not the English make the same complaint of the Dutch, French, and Spanish? Did not the “nativists” make the same complaint of the Germans and Irish? Did not the Germans and Irish make the same complaint of the Italians? Did not the Italians make the same complaint of the Vietnamese? Did not the Vietnamese make the same complaint of Zimbabwians? And on and on and on…"
This is such a lazy argument that only a troll or a shitlib could be dumb enough to regurgitate it.

Twarog said...

Somewhere in that brain of his, Corvinus probably has legitimate, cogent criticisms of contemporary right-wing internet rhetoric, but his style of vague sniping makes it virtually impossible to discern his intended point. Every post seems to be a forceful-but-rambling argument with no thesis and no apparent conclusion. To anyone who is not stupid and is not arguing in bad faith, one always ought to offer a sincere and germane rebuttal. Though he seems neither stupid nor malicious, that's not an option with Corvinus, because it the proposition he wants to defend is always opaque. He has sometimes has interesting ideas, but there's no structure or organization to make sense out of them.

Porter said...

That final summation is going to land on many unsuspecting heads.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Corvinus - I will let you flounder around here, as it's probably one of the few places that doesn't delete your comments. But do read Twarog's comment and sharpen your dialectic. And remember, on this blog I am at least as concerned with the "is" as the "ought." If you want the "ought," I recommend the far-more-qualified Fr. Stephen's excellent blog.

Anonymous said...

I have thought for a long time that 'the land of the free' is an inaccurate, dated phrase.

Two hundred years ago, when the entirety of Europe were monarchies, 'the land of the free' made perfect sense. Even 70 years ago, with fascism in Europe, it was still plausible. But today, more and more of the world (Europe and outside of Europe-I said Europe earlier because America was an offshoot of Europe) is as 'free,' or within the ballpark of it, that America is no longer unique in that respect.

Ask yourself honestly: if you found the opportunity to take a job in Switzerland (or Norway, or Germany, or England, or Japan, and on and on), would you be thinking to yourself, 'well, it sounds good, but I will give up my American freedoms if I move there, so I don't know...'). You might be worried about language and culture barriers, you might not want to live in a more densely populated area, you might be worried about your kids' education in a foreign language, or making friends, or retirement in a foreign land. But 'freedom'? Come on.

So the 'Land of the Free' is just an obsolete catchphrase. America has the same (maybe a bit better, maybe a bit worse) bureaucratic oppression that any Western country does. Americans get to vote just like the rest of the civilized world. But really the entire modern world has achieved, broadly speaking, the same degree of 'freedom.'*

anonymousse

*The one exception may be the possession of guns. In America, you can buy a gun and put it in your basement. But if you actually USE the gun, you suffer the same bureaucratic and judicial fate that anyone else does.

Corvinus said...

"but his style of vague sniping makes it virtually impossible to discern his intended point."

I was employing rhetoric to address rhetoric. There's no need for dialectic in this specific case.

"...one always ought to offer a sincere and germane rebuttal."

When one is required, I will supply it.