Note: This is alarming. No doubt, the American Government and its various satrapies are doing their best to shut down debate on the New World Order. However, though I don’t claim to be any kind of expert on the technologies involved, I will make the following comments:
1. Oppression on any scale is never for its own sake. It requires an ideology of legitimation. There are many names for the current ideology – PC, totalitarian humanism, GranscoFabiaNazism, etc. Whatever name you prefer, it is a feeble thing compared with, say, Marxism. In thirty years, it has gone from revolutionary flood to sclerotic ancien regime. Its promises of a better world have all been falsified. When it descends to factual claims – “Global Warming is real,” “Diversity is strength,” “We can bring democracy and human rights to [fill in the blank]” – these too have become jokes. It has succeeded in spreading a miasma of guilt among its enemy groups, but has also gone too far in demonising too many inherently powerful groups. Men, Christians, white people, heterosexuals, traditionalists, libertarians – these can only be depressed for so long.
2. Outside the corporate-bureaucratic-police state core, the dominant ideology has little support. The only other authoritarian system with which I am personally familiar is Communist Czechoslovakia. The government there provided free healthcare and education, and work for all. Ordinary people would have been better off without Communism. But they were better off by 1960 than they had been in 1938. They were much better off again by 1980. The police state inconvenienced a small minority. In practice, intellectual dissent was quietly tolerated, so long as it didn’t come to outside attention. Few people were imprisoned. Hardly any were murdered. And the ideology was flexible enough to accommodate all but the more extravagant varieties of religious belief and ethnic nationalism. Until the system collapsed under the weight of its own inefficiency, it faced no internal opposition, and could rely on at least the passive support of the majority.
The client groups of our own dominant ideology are more fragmented and conflicted. Homosexuals are generally white men. As such, they belong to two of the demonised groups. Or they tend to apolitical hedonism. Half of the Blacks are men, and tend to be hostile in practice to both female equality and gay liberation. Most women want to have babies with men who look after them and make all decisions outside the home. The Moslems, in addition, regard the dominant ideology simply as a convenient ally in their vague wish to impose a dominant ideology of their own. Undoubtedly, Jewish intellectuals laid the ideological foundations of the current order of things. But Jews as a whole have no reason to be grateful. They are as conflicted as the homosexuals, and at least as much disliked by the non-whites. Their main common denominator is support for Israel, and Zionism is deeply unfashionable among the new elites. A great underclass has been created by indiscriminate welfare. But, in political terms, its members range between the unreliable and the hostile. There are few grateful beneficiaries.
3. Censorship in a reasonably free society can work when it is narrowly focussed – eg, on porn only, or on defined heresy. Or it can work as part of a system that kills anyone who steps out of line. What we currently have is an attempt at general censorship in societies where people cannot be dragged from their homes into concentration camps. The examples made do have a chilling effect, but are not decisive. For twenty years now, we have had unlimited porn and free music, and the growing ability to look behind the headlines. These are not delights that can easily be taken away. People won’t riot, or even shout loudly. What they will do is continue quietly to choose technologies that frustrate efforts at control. For example, I remember a big push, c1995, to get us to store our data on-line. Instead, most of us opted for bigger hard disks. So far as I can tell, modern cloud storage has its uses – the various websites that I control are backed up in the Cloud – but only fools trust their personal data outside their own control.
4. Above all, our rulers are increasingly demoralised. They know they are hated. They know they have little support. They suspect they are wrong. They are themselves conflicted. They will smear and destroy individual opponents like Nick Griffin and Abu Hamza. They dare not take ruthless and decisive action at the general level. Another example. In 2009, rumours emerged that New Labour was looking at a postponement of the next general election. Though we knew they were useless, the NuLab people feared the Tories were what we’d like them to be. I am told that, after extensive consultation, Gordon Brown et al. discovered they couldn’t rely on the administrative machine to go along with seriously unconstitutional action.
5. Grant the right kind of emergency – pandemic, asteroid impact, severance of trade with Asia or the Middle East, and so forth – and the ruling class will act despotically for a while. But that would probably get the general support any government could demand. Grant that things will carry on much as they do now, and I doubt that the more dystopian fantasies of control are more than fantasies. Much like puritanism and prohibitionism and state socialism, this too will pass away. SIG