Renegade Third Worlder

Dissuading the West from joining our lowly club of nations

Tag: Populism

Liberal confusion, populism edition

Over at Amerika, Brett Stevens, commenting on an article on populism in Foreign Affairs, articulates a neat, crystal clear definition of the term:

…populism recognizes the nature of power, which is to use institutions to limit the organic nation and parasitize it for the benefit of international elites and home-grown toadies.

It is “populist” only in that it is meta-democracy, or a popular sentiment created outside the controlled confines of courts, voting and public discourse. It is a cultural wave pushing back against how politics frames the narrative and artificially limits choices based on the pretense of people in groups.

Where conservatives think we can import people from the third world, “educate” them in our ways and have them live among us, the Alt Right realizes that diversity as a whole fails. Where Nazis single out African-Americans and Jews, the Alt Right points out that every group acts in its own self-interest alone, and in the Machiavellian realpolitik and so ideas like “we are all one” and diversity can never work no matter what groups are involved.

Populists also recognize the nation as an organic entity, or a people. This means that it only lasts so long as its founding group remains unmixed and with its traditions intact. To a populist, social standards must be enforced by culture, and having government step in the way makes government into a parasitic and corrupting force.

Since the adoption of liberalism in the West, a process that took over a thousand years, we have become materialistic or focused on material goals instead of doing what is right. That includes deference to institutions like law and politics, a facilitative society that aims at empowering individual choice over commonality of purpose, and the mentality that whatever is profitable, popular or socially trending is more important that doing what is good, beautiful and true according to the order of nature.

The pushback began once it became clear that Leftists had buried our society in so many rules and precedents that any action except moar Leftism was demonized, ostracized and made politically incorrect…

It is important to define the term as precisely as possible, because its use and abuse is one of the liberal elite’s favorite rhetorical weapons in the culture wars.

The most Orwellian version of this exercise claims that populism necessarily leads to Latin-American-style authoritarianism.

A few recent examples:

How to be a poulist,” by Moises Naim for The Atlantic

Insult, provoke, repeat: how Donald Trump became America’s Hugo Chávez,” by Rory Carroll for The Guardian.

Populism: The new enemy of democracy,” by Nobel Laureate Mario Vargas Llosa for El Pais.

What Trump has in common with Hugo Chavez,” by Andres Oppenheimer for The Miami Herald.

Donald Trump is no Hugo Chavez. He is more like Nicolas Maduro,” by Francisco Toro for The Washington Post.

Don’t cry for me, America: Forget the wall. Donald Trump’s appeal is textbook Latin American populism,” by Enrique Krauze for Slate.

Beware, liberal bien-pensants say, of leaders who appeal to the deepest, gut-level political instincts of the common folk, pitting them against an oppressive, corrupt, establishment-entrenched elite: that’s exactly what the likes of Hugo Chávez did in Venezuela… and look how their common folk ended up!

The outrageous fallacy, of course, resides in the fact that the deepest, gut-level political instincts of a people are as good as a people’s culture. Which in turn is an emergent, path-dependent property of those people’s idiosyncratic matrix of predispositions, beliefs, behaviors, temperaments and aptitudes with which they are endowed by their genes.

As much as Marxist class-warfare demagoguery as championed by the likes of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez use populist discourse to pit the common guy against the establishment, its inherent leftism can only resonate in the hearts and minds of mestizos that not only never really assimilated into Western culture in any significant sense, but also lost touch with their ancestral, native American heritage.

Mestizo culture, if it can be called that, is an incoherent melange. A confusing patchwork born of the delusional attempt to embrace “diversity as strength” at the core of Latin American national projects. Most of them, to add insult to injury, suffused with the feverish dream of a supranational Patria Grande.

This essential lack of cultural substance of the Latin American mestizo is, of course, the main reason why most of them, even in 21st-century Latin America, live in a state that cannot be characterized as anything but plain savagery.

Actually, perhaps it wouldn’t be inaccurate to say that in some respects, life in the barrios and favelas of Latin American megalopolises is today more savage than it was for their jungle-dwelling ancestors.

Can anyone in their right minds expect anything else than leftism, the anti-civilizational ideology par-excellence, to become hegemonic among a fundamentally savage people?

Can anyone in their right minds even insinuate that the deepest, gut-level political instincts of working class Americans and Europeans are in any way as susceptible to leftism as the mostly mestizo common folk in Latin America are?

Also, as Stevens points out elsewhere:

[Rightist] societies are neither individualist nor collectivist, but organic. They are people cooperating at a level of such maturity that each person finds a role they can serve and stays there. If that’s king, great; if it’s peasant, ditto.

Crass attempts to impose the notion of individual autonomy at the core of classical liberalism on uncultured peoples like those of Latin America, inevitably result in full-blown collectivist regimes that appeal to the savage impulses of the mestizo.

Given the actual state of affairs in the first world, the liberal notion of individual autonomy has seemingly proven to also exert a corroding influence on the spiritual values of Western culture that gave birth to it in the first place.

This led to the exacerbated, atomized, materialist individualism that Stevens describes. And ultimately, this seems to also be devolving into full-blown collectivism, albeit in form more akin to A Brave New World than 1984.

But if first-world liberals have their way and their open-border policies prevail, they will ultimately face a rude awakening.

When pervasive price controls and rampant nationalization of industry become the norm, the soma will run out, just like Venezuelans ran out of toilet paper, and they will realize they are living under the more 1984-ish version of collectivism that prevails in Latin America.

And it will be too late to do anything about it.

Human Rights Watch’s José Miguel Vivanco’s utter cluelessness about Trump’s travel ban

José Miguel Vivanco, director of Human Rights Watch’s America division, is outraged at President Donald Trump’s reaction to U.S. District Judge James Robart’s blocking his executive order temporarily halting travel from seven terrorist-mass-producing countries:

Obviously, like most liberal pundits and wonks as of late, Vivanco fails to grasp that the one recklessly exceeding his lawful duties is Judge Robart.

As Joseph Klein makes clear at FrontPage magazine:

President Trump acted well within his constitutional and statutory authority to issue his executive order. “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty,” the Supreme Court concluded in a 1950 case. “The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. When Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.”

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

Furthermore, in 1952, Congress enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), clearly reaffirming the president’s power to exclude aliens that he might consider detrimental to the national interest:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)).”

Nevertheless, Robart simply decided to substitute his judgement for Trump’s.

Specifically, during oral argument, Robart said to the Department of Justice attorney,

“You’re here arguing on behalf of someone who says we have to protect the US from these individuals coming from these countries, and there’s no support for that.”

Irrational assesment

Of course, Robart is simply not in a position to make a rational assessment of the threat these individuals might represent.

He simply lacks access to the kind of classified information on threats to national security that the president of the United States has at his disposal.

Robart also overlooked the fact that the countries were selected based on a list of “countries of concern” compiled by the Obama administration.

These countries have been proven unable to control both terrorism within their border and/or the export of terrorism.

Preposterous claims

Robart’s decision was based on preposterous claims by the states of Washington and Minnesota, according to which the temporary suspension of aliens from the seven countries considered in the Executive Order “adversely affects” their own “States’ residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel.”

This overlooks the fact that the individuals affected by the executive order are obviously not residents of these states, and therefore not entitled to the states’ protection.

Robart also stated that the executive order somehow would inflict damage on the states’ operations, tax base and public education system.

Under this theory, individual states would have the right to challenge any federal policy decision on the basis of virtually any claim of possible harm to their states’ more parochial interests. The result would be to upend the relationship between the federal and state governments under our constitutional system.

So instead of going off on a knee-jerk reaction, freaking out on Trump’s harsh words about a federal judge’s decision, Vivanco should have at least done his research and looked hard into the facts of the matter.

Checks and balances cut both ways

Perhaps he would have then realized that in a clear case of judicial overreach, the president’s remarks are not out of place at all.

Like Dinesh D’Souza recently pointed out, in a world of runaway judges, “check and balances” cut both ways:

“Typical Latin American authoritarian language”

The clearest evidence that Vivanco is completely out of touch with the reality of this case comes from his characterization of Trump’s tweet as typical Latin American politicking.

Because a quick Google search shows that, in any case, Robart is the only one to blame for Latin-Americanish behavior.

Last year, while presiding over a case regarding the implementation of new police practices in Seattle, Robart became the first federal judge to officially support the vile race-baiting activist group Black Lives Matter from the bench:

Statistical fallacies galore

As if Robart hadn’t made his anti-police bias clear enough, he proceeded to regurgitate one of the American left’s favorite fallacies:

Black people are being shot at disproportionate numbers compared to the rest of the population. Ergo, cops are racist.

Of course, when the situation is seen in its appropriate context, it’s easy to realize black people are more likely to get shot by police simply because they are more likely to try killing a cop.

Actually, a recent Harvard study shows that police officers are less likely to shoot a black suspect than a white suspect when the context of the shooting is prperly factored in.

Overlooking a key feature of looney, lefty Latin American politics

Vivanco should know better, but anti-police bias is one of the very defining features of looney, lefty Latin American politics.

As usual, Venezuela is perhaps the clearest example of this.

A key element contributing to the country’s becoming one of the most violent places on Earth, was Hugo Chávez’s systematic demonization of police as a tool of capitalist oppression.

As criminologist Roberto Briceno-Leon, director of the Venezuelan Observatory on Violence, told a Los Angeles Times reporter in 2012,

“Chavez has promoted the idea that violence forms part of the class struggle against the rich and the landowners, and so it’s not so bad,” Briceno-Leon said. “He has always rationalized high crime by saying the problem exists on every country on Earth, and that it’s the fault of poverty and capitalism. He won’t hire more police because he sees it as a right-wing policy.”

“The moral force that police should have in a society has been lost in Venezuela. It wasn’t so great before Chavez arrived, but it’s gotten worse. Chavez himself has referred to police as mafiosi. His interior minister has said police are responsible for 20% of the crimes in Venezuela,” Briceno-Leon said.

Bolivarian Circles, US edition

Vivanco should also be aware that today, people in Venezuela are not only at the mercy of common criminals.

They are also systematically terrorized by the nefarious Bolivarian Circles, a network of armed, far-left chavista groups that operate as a paramilitary arm of the government.

The Bolivarian Circles are a clear example of how easily far-left activist groups turn to violence, especially when empowered by government.

Is it so hard for Vivanco to see what Black Lives Matter might end up turning into? Especially when lefty presidential candidates, government officials, and judges like Robart pander to them?

Their divisive, toxic rhetoric has already had clear murderous consequences.

THey even have openly expressed their admiration for Hugo Chávez and his Bolivarian Revolution.

Despite all this, the sad truth is one shouldn’t be surprised at Vivanco’s blind spot.

After all, it’s impossible for him to see anything Latin-Americanish in Robart’s behavior if he doesn’t see the big-picture implications of the judge’s decision.

If he doesn’t see how massive third-world immigration could turn the US into just another Latin American hellhole.