What is populism?

Today we most often hear about populism in the pejorative sense. But is it an insult? Why do the powers that be view it as such? Firstly, populism does not necessarily assert political affiliation. That's the first thing we need to be aware of regarding the populist movement.

The second characteristic of the populist movement I have drawn from Wikipedia: “Populism is a political doctrine that proposes that the common people are exploited by a privileged elite, and which seeks to resolve this. The underlying ideology of populists can be left, right, or center. Its goal is uniting the uncorrupt and the unsophisticated "little man" against the corrupt dominant elites (usually the established politicians) and their camp of followers (usually the rich and the intellectuals). It is guided by the belief that political and social goals are best achieved by the direct actions of the masses. Although it comes into being where mainstream political institutions fail to deliver, there is no identifiable economic or social set of conditions that give rise to it, and it is not confined to any particular social class.”

The third characteristic of populism is that it is fundamentally a negative reaction to an external, unknown and indefinable post-national identity being foisted upon us by supranational globalists in an attempt to replace our natural birth identities with their ideological identity. Here in Canada this post-national identity is most commonly referred to as 'multiculturalism'. Multiculturalism results in the migrants’ cultures taking precedence over the currently existing one(s). This includes more than a healthy dose of ‘white man’s guilt’. The migrant's culture is viewed by the political elite as having value while the value of our own is negated. In other words, they are attempting to impose a post-national and post-ethnic identity on us, unless of course you are a newly arrived migrant. If that is the case then the migrant is more than welcome to keep their cultural identity and religion intact, even if it poses an existential threat to our western way of life. As a result we are witnessing throughout the western world our cultures (most commonly Anglophone and European but to a lesser extent Francophone) being supplanted in favour of that of more recent migrants. The excuse used by the supranational social progressives to justify this is that somehow we should feel guilty for our ‘white privilege’ and surrender our identities to some new and undefined post-national identity proposed by them even though they are unable to define what such an identity might be.

I will make my fourth point. The complete rejection among Canadian populists, in fact among populists all throughout the western world, of the notion that our governments have the right to define what it is to be a Canadian, a Norwegian, a Dutchman, or a German, etc. and surrender our identity and sovereignty to globalism. Why? Because globalism's desire to impose its supranational identity on us lacks the validity of our own natural birth identity. Also because globalists have no right to interfere with our sovereignty. Populism is first and foremost a repudiation and rejection of such collectivist ideologies. For the populist, gloablist ideology not only doesn't make sense, it is insidious and an assault on our free and democratic right to govern ourselves. Remember Prime Minister Trudeau stating that we have no core cultural identity as Canadians? After which he further asserted Canada is the first post-national state? http://www.torontosun.com/2016/09/14/trudeau-says-canada-has-no-core-identity Well, he can go pound salt! The man is dangerous and his government poses an existential threat to Canada and our identity as Canadians!

The coopting of liberalism by social progressives

“Historically, Canada has had two liberal phases. Prior to the 1960s, Canadian politics were classically liberal, i.e., there was a focus on individual liberty, representative government, and free markets. This brand of liberalism can be traced to the arrival in Canada of the United Empire Loyalists and the enactment of the Constitutional Act of 1791. The Constitutional Act established representative government through the elected assemblies of Upper and Lower Canada. While the Loyalists were faithful to British institutions and opposed to American republicanism, they were committed to North American ideals of individual liberty and representative government. This brand of liberalism was prominent though the Liberal government of Wilfrid Laurier, which advocated such policies as free trade with the United States, and beyond.

The second liberalism began, roughly, in the 1960s with the election of Lester B. Pearson as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and can be traced through the politics of Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chrétien, and Paul Martin. This liberalism is what is properly called in a global context social liberalism, or what contemporary North American use of the word signifies as liberalism: liberal democracy, social justice, social progressivism, Third Way, multiculturalism, diplomacy in foreign policy, and a regulated free market economy (during the Trudeau era the Liberals arguably supported a mixed economy). In this second sense, the Liberal Party of Canada is presently one of the more liberal political parties in the Americas. By contrast, prior to the 1960s, the Liberal Party was one of the most liberal parties in the world in the first sense.

There is argued to be a third phase of liberalism emerging that is centred on a more sustainable form of politics. The argument is that action is needed to ensure that the environment, economy, and social elements of society will function not only in the short term, but long term as well. If action is not taken on all of these pressing issues then it can cause a direct threat to our freedoms. This emerging new liberalism is centred on an ideal of 'timeless freedom' which seeks to preserve the freedom of future generations through proactive action today. This would extend both positive and negative rights and responsibilities to future generations.” - from Wikipedia

The second phase of liberalism defined above has led to its complete coopting under the third phase of post-nationalism, otherwise known as globalism. Justin Trudeau has openly stated that Canada is the first “post-national” state. Liberal Parties throughout Canada have completely repudiated their own Classical Liberal roots by selling out to extra-national interests, multi-national conglomerates and the big banks. Provincial and national interests have been replaced by globalism. Since progressive liberals no longer place Canadian interests in the fore, they now answer to extra-national interests such as those posed by George Soros. Progressive liberals openly disavow the importance of protecting our borders, recognizing our cultural identities as Canadians and these most Canadian of all values: “Law above government, the individual before the collective and fair play as opposed to raison d’état”. The current situation under their fiscal and social mismanagement has therefore become intolerable. They have utterly reneged on dealing with indigenous issues which remain a national crisis of conscience. We must put an end to our current reserve system which is effectively a system of apartheid. We encourage you to work with those who, like me, are dedicated to restoring true Classical Liberalism. Together we can renew a parliamentary focus on individual liberty, representative government, and free markets in Canada. While remembering the 150^th year since our Confederation, and in defence of true Canadian ethics, we invite you to join us in restoring Classical Liberal values to the Dominion!

Collectivism Revealed: Why victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan

This instalment of my ‘I shall reveal unto a mystery’ series will address why collectivism impedes discretionary efforts. From Aubrey Daniels International:

“Discretionary effort is the level of effort people could give if they wanted to, but above and beyond the minimum required. Many organizations manage performance in such a way that motivates employees to do only enough to get by and avoid getting in trouble (negative reinforcement). Typically, these organizations manage by exception, providing consequences for worker’s performance only when it falls below the standard or minimum required. This approach gets immediate results, but just enough behavior to stop the threats and the potential for other negative consequences in the near future. It suppresses discretionary effort because there’s nothing in it for people to do more than the minimum required.”

In a system which eschews individuality discretionary efforts will be limited in direct proportion to the measure of conformity to the status quo promoted within this system. I know of one senior bureaucratic adviser who was asked to write an in depth report which would examine the efficiency of critical processes in the system on which this person advised. She assembled a team of international experts to advise her throughout this complex process. The ensuing report took an entire year to complete at great expense and discretionary effort. Here is the thing, when the report was completed and some of her colleagues had read it this person was warned about ‘sector loyalty’. The basic message was ‘How dare you suggest improvements that would return greater value to the end user and the taxpayers? The current status quo serves this bureaucracy very well indeed!’ This person was ostracized and had her salary reduced after the report was completed. So, I ask you, what motivation is there for someone to wish to excel at their work in such a broken system? The clear message is, ‘Do nothing more than absolutely necessary.’ If fact, she was advised by a family member to do just that. However doing such is extremely difficult if a person of integrity is intrinsically motivated. Nevertheless, for many such a system will drive out all intrinsic motivation. This is indeed why collectivism does not and cannot sustain success nor pursue excellence.

I would like to cite another example from another situation with which I am familiar. A mentor of mine was seconded to Lansing MI to manage a project on behalf of his firm. I was working as a consultant in Grand Rapids at the time and on occasion would visit him on returning to my condo in Kentwood. My friend took a great deal of care while exercising discretionary effort managing the project in Lansing. I saw him go to great lengths to ensure his project's success as he dealt with its needs while also encountering managers who resisted his efforts. Sometime afterwards he overheard a conversation back at his own facility in Ontario. Someone who had not been involved with Lansing was claiming credit for things it was not possible for him to have accomplished since he hadn’t been on site in Lansing. My mentor approached him and inquired in front of other colleagues as to how these claims could possibly be accurate. After embarrassed giggling from those who were present while my mentor called this fellow out for his prevarication the crowd melted away and the false father of success was left more than a little humiliated. Ah yes, success has a hundred fathers and failure is an orphan.

Both scenarios share this in common: collectivism. The inability to stand on one’s own two feet accompanied by the need to hide in some collective group. In a 'collective' successes will be shared by the group while failures will be blamed on whoever dared to buck the status quo. And so, I return to the definitive tome on the subject, "Manipulism and the Weapon of Guilt" written by Mikkel Clair Nissen which is available free of cost to you at this link: http://manipulism.com/ I quote from Mikkel’s forward:

“This exposure (of collectivism), based almost entirely on social science, is so controversial and comprehensively detailed that Denmark’s perceived right-wing newspaper—ironically the same newspaper that caused the Muhammad cartoons controversy in 2005 in the name of freedom of speech—will not review my book. This explicative psychological index (e.g., collectivist traits, indoctrination methods, intimidation techniques, and ways of passive coercion) is meant as a gift from me to the reader for self-empowerment through social observations, as well as a subconscious journey for the readers themselves. Please share this knowledge with friends and support my effort to alert the world.

The intimidations (threats, lies, and deceptions) in attempt to discredit me and deny this book’s honesty and preciseness are all worth my while. Regardless, this book will raise questions and effect societal changes, and the outcome will speak for itself. Wars should be fought with words—the right words—and never through coercion or terror. Welcome to my words of revolution.”

“The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.”  —Albert Einstein

Mikkel’s book is a game changer and a must read. His main assertions are directed toward socialism, however any form of collective thought which impedes discretionary effort certainly applies as well. We live in the age where the alleged rights of groups have replaced individual liberty under law. We need now, more than ever, to be reminded of why it is critical to be deemed equal under the law. No group has more rights than any other. No matter how many social justice warriors hit the streets in pussy hats! We need to be reminded why individuals and their individual discretionary efforts count. The needs of the many do not trump the rights of the individual. Every society and every nation which has gone down that collectivist path to Hades ended up with tyranny accompanied with shared failure characterized by an adoration of the status quo.

Freedom isn’t lost overnight. It’s about trends.

Here is another instalment in my ‘I shall reveal unto you a mystery’ series. Allow me to begin by stating that freedom isn’t lost overnight. Its loss is about trends. Trends driven by our commonly held beliefs, our world view, our cultural mojo. These trends emerge over time and have an origin in some specific philosophy which requires examination. But before we do so, let’s examine the symptoms of societal decline. Society will become arbitrary where subjective thought will replace objective reality. This, more than anything else, is the main symptom of social and governmental decay. Society and the way it chooses to govern itself can be compared to steering a great ship. It requires a known, predetermined course. To set such a course one must know true north, longitude, the ship’s position in relationship to them and its destination. If all things are viewed as purely subjective rather then objective, then such determinations become impossible. When empiricism is replaced with ‘feelings’, then no objective determination regarding a course can be made.

Societies and their respective governments will become ever more arbitrary under such circumstances. People will lose the ability to understand such simple things as their inherent rights. Laws will become ever more poorly understood. Governments will pass new laws which contradict previous laws, especially when the new laws ignore the very foundation for law in the Anglo-sphere, namely Magna Carta and Common Law. Government will gradually emerge as a law unto itself. Checks and balances intended to limit government will fail. The inherent rights of the individual will be replaced with rights awarded to special interest groups. Individuals in such societies will be categorized and lumped into collective entities. Woe betide the person whom the bureaucrats and collectivists cannot easily place into a predetermined group that suits their feelings about what people should be like and how they should behave. Cultural conformity will become mandatory.

Of course, such societies will always have people within them who will develop cognitive dissonance under these circumstances and thus begin to warn their fellows that their ship is about to hit the shoals. In such a system, this person will be viewed as ‘difficult’ since they dare to contradict the collective group in which they have been placed. As a person who has been an entertainer, I have experienced this very thing. My love of liberty is viewed by my fellow musicians as completely unconscionable. Waste and bureaucratic control will grow immensely in order to administer the government’s grip over the people. Government sponsored arts and sports will emerge as a means of controlling thought. The reason for such is simple, feelings will become legislated. Anything that assaults the emerging collective will be attacked by the collective. More so if there is some measure of cognitive dissonance among some of the persons who are responsible for misdirecting the ship. Empiricism will be mocked. Any call for the use of reason will be labelled as a threat to the very existence of this emerging dysfunctional system. We see this very example with Islamophobia being condemned by the Canadian government. Since a phobia is a feeling, it is certainly not up to the government to tell its citizens how they should ‘feel’. But they have.

'Feelings, nothing more than feelings'. And if you feel your government is trouncing on your rights, you’re wrong! And now as to the philosophy behind this which requires our examination, from Wikipedia http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism :

“Cultural Marxism places great emphasis on analyzing, controlling, and changing the popular culture, the popular discourse, the mass media, and the language itself. Seeing culture as often having more or less subconscious influences on people which create and sustain inequalities, Cultural Marxists themselves often try to remove these inequalities by more or less subtle manipulation and censorship of culture.

A term describing such censorship is political correctness where all views on equality that disagree with the Cultural Marxist view are avoided, censored, and punished.

Related to Cultural Marxism are various forms of relativism/subjectivism and denial of the existence of objective knowledge.

The phrase "The long march through the institutions of power" refers to Cultural Marxists slowly taking over key positions in the institutions controlling culture in order to create a new culture. In effect this will create revolutionary changes without having to resort to political violence. It also reflects a worldview where Cultural Marxists view themselves as infiltrators and subversives. (The phrase is often attributed to Antonio Gramsci but was instead coined by another Cultural Marxist (Rudi Dutschke) who was influenced by Gramsci's ideas.)

The Frankfurt School and critical theory:

The idea that a culture may be problematic is not new but Cultural Marxism in its current form originates in the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School is a neo-Marxist school which originated around 1923 at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany.

The Frankfurt School developed critical theory in order to analyze and explain how culture creates inequalities. It has been extremely influential and today has branches in numerous fields such as critical race theory, critical whiteness studies, critical gender studies, critical criminology, critical legal studies, etc.

Freudian psychoanalysis was an important influence on critical theory. One example is the influential book The Authoritarian Personality where psychoanalytic ideas are used to pathologize Western love and pride of Christianity, the family, and the nation.

The tendency to pathologize opponents as being irrationally sick has continued with, for example, labels such as homophobia and Islamophobia.”

So, now you know, yet another mystery has been revealed unto you. I wish you and yours, liberty and self-determination and to hell with cultural Marxism because that is where it originated.