In Motivations, we briefly discussed how public policy can produce desired results. E.g., if a welfare state requires youthful labor to fund pensions, policymakers can choose to cause the population to breed new citizens, or can choose to import replacement citizens. This kind of behavior, when understood, produces the common first-world debates of Terra 2016. Clinton and Merkel nominally want to import replacement labor, while Trump and Wilders nominally want to breed new labor, ergo stated policies for the importers are to effect anti-life policies among the unwanted group--unsexy things like taxes, regulation, and other forms of disempowerment--while producing pro-life policies among the wanted group--sexy things like free housing, free food, and legislative/police coverups for the rape of white women. The effect is predictable, as are the opposite effects from doing things like localizing/physicalizing interaction through tariffs or outright barriers on foreign products, be they forcible sperm or cheap gadgets.
A disappointing result of the past X years of this kind of crap has been the elevation of farming techniques--marketing, psychology, political science, et cetera--to a popularly-respected art form. Karl Rove, Scott Adams, and all of the other "learn how to invest for success" or "learn how to get pussy" malignancies have taken the realism of "lots of people are idiots" and concluded, "the world stops there, it is the duty of enlightened manipulators to trick the herd in the proper direction."
This development is no coincidence, though it is irony; this expression, currently being presented through a conservative lens, should be recognizable to today's daring anti-systemites as the Rousseauian argument of the social contract, which has wreaked so much predictable havoc upon the traditional nations that today's petty internet revolutionaries are trying to protect. Bastiat was an ignorant clown, and a pawn in his own way, but his most elegant philosophizing went beyond the economy, suggesting that true freedom for the leaders, as well as the led, would only come by permitting people to make the best decisions for themselves as they saw it. (This is the opposition between federalism/Monsanto and home-rule/homegrown, or similar.) Where Rousseau and the other 1790 world-destroyers advocated crowd-management as the ideal of the future, Burke and Bastiat would have had instead freedom, in which the crowd wasn't a managed series of soylent-gobbling idiots on FaceBook all day, but self-activating and -actualizing individuals. Such entities, whether possessed of free dollars or free votes or free guns, are the traditional bane of tyrants. On a stellar scale, individual rigor is the best safeguard against cascading system failures, not to mention counterrevolutionary activity. The Talmudic/rabbinical method of adherence to charisma or status is vulnerable without intrinsically destructive levels of in-grouping.
Rousseau's history begins, of course, with the same infestation as always: call it Jenome, Yahweh, or the desert death-gods, what we here and now call "Judaism" is the lineage of the Rousseauian, Straussian, Stalinist philosophy that people are too dumb to make up their minds, therefore they should be managed through a centralized government economy overseen by Hillary-esque elites, who throw tantrums and have fits when you make other idols or contemplate other gods. The destruction of the expandingly cyclical religions of the rest of the world--the Indo-Aryan bloomings across Asia and Europe, with or without representational paganisms--by using edited Torah-derived Christianity, was one of Jenome's first great successes, setting the stage for the expanding complexity of our resultant dystopias. Traces of prior individualisms remained after the conquest, of course, but weakening, growing gradually more ready to submit to a returning Yahweh-emblem.
The "muh freedom" ideology of Bastiat has its own flaws, for neglecting the necessary impositions the individual has already made upon his society, and the problem of libertardianism remains a problem. Yet the nightmare of the Rousseauian panopticon is worse; a cure by killing, an iatrogenic death. We discuss the irony, the hypocrisy, of today's would-be traditionalist in employing not merely the methods of, but the fundamental worldview of, their would-be archenemy, by seeking to manage a herd of animals too dumb to be free; yet, this seeming irony is, in truth, not so, for it is the nature of our attempted stasis that we employ the methods of the enemy against the enemy, and therefore against ourselves, keeping us trapped on the hamster wheel.
The Rousseauian ideal, for example, necessarily produces the hypocripolitically correct (sic) corporate bureaucratic state--the Neo Huxleyan, rather than Neo Orwellian, dystopia, which is like a police state except control is not exerted primarily by the boot but by the soma; by the futility of it all. Imagine the defeated futility not of feeling your bruises heal while staring out of the bars of the Blacksite Prison, but instead, the defeated futility of looking through the bars at the Department of Paperwork, too pre-defeated to act upon your desires to impose bruises. Yes, Room 101 still exists in some of our futures, but the commoner's daily experience, even inside the thug-run architecture of the literal prison, is more about regulatory inanity and arbitrarily parceled privileges than it is about the struggle for the fittest.
We've regularly covered here the ways in which rebellions have been staged; managed; preplanned, throughout the cyclical trap of pop history, and just as Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, Tea Party, and Black Lives Matter have been staged, so too have the new nationalisms and alt-rights. The marketing parasites who have attached themselves to Trump, like Dilbert and the PUA Hasbara operatives, are another set of Rousseauians, who see the future as one in which--yet again, after so many versions of it--Neo Platonist elites please Strauss' ghost by managing a bunch of presumed idiots, albeit for nationalist, rather than globalist, interests.
Bronze idiots are bronze idiots, of course. Even in very short retrospective, we can see how cunning it all was. Israel was threatened from the left by the risk that an antiwar left--the same anti-racist, anti-conservative, degree-grabbing, indigenous-worshiping whites who were so useful in feminizing and sterilizing--might unite with Palestine and the Arabs, and crush both the nominal Jewish homeland, and the bankers' truest home in the City of London/IMF/Wall Street complex. "Tea Party," even though it didn't know it, had the same objectives: ending the bankers' exploitation of commoners, albeit of European Americans rather than "indigenous peoples." The artificial "right" and "left" wanted to take it all down, even though it didn't know it, and they were successfully split, through the formal expression of their respective movements, into looking like racially-antagonistic groups, rather than as peons united against bankers. Some of the peons had petty-millionaire parents and worthless PhDs, while others had trailer-parents and worthless GEDs, but from the penthouse, it all looked the same.
Formal Black Lives Matter demands tribute, but intrinsic Black Lives Matter was primarily asking for racial separation, in the sense of begging Judaically-guided Europeans from trying to impose European standards on African communities. Gibs will always play a part, but in the absence of banker mediation, it would've been possible to negotiate the return to voluntary association, the establishment of unpoliced zones, and the eventual obviousness of going home. Deep down, that's what so many of us exhaustedly want, anyway, after this horrid charade. Again, again, again, our introduction was accomplished by the slavers, and things could be entirely different via another medium, including unmediated face to face. Arab Spring, too--what a reasonable demand the now-refugees had, in the form of, "Fuck off," or more politely, "Stop crushing our nationalism." And yet, by arming them and aiming them in a particular direction--a direction that, in large part, deserved it for centuries of complicity with the banker/slavers--it's become yet another justification for the growing European nationalist reaction to adopt Rousseauian methods of managing people like farm animals. Europeans who don't recognize the danger seem like ample candidates for benevolent trickery; that's what Strauss and Ayers would suggest, at least.
And so, while accusing Obama of Taqiyya (e.g., the lesserized Talmud for the cousin-goyim), we get legions of rebels running around, discussing the wise way to manipulate crowds. What a pity! What high time-preference! The only way we'll break this cycle is by not fighting fire with fire; by not torturing captives because the enemy does so; by not making ourselves the image of what we fight. That's why it has gone on for so long, despite the best of intentions time and again--because compromising with Obama (because McCain) gets you Romneycare, not NHS, and then Hillary, not [the thing you thought you saw when you saw Sanders]. Lesser evils prove themselves greater evils. The antiwar left is dead, proving that it hated rich white people more than it hated murdering millions of dark Others; it's willing to "obliterate" Iran with Hillary, or to succumb to Jill Stein's green police state, rather than condescend to Trump. And all the little hopes of the anti-globalist right will pass on, in the same way, if they turn to turds like Pickup McHasbara or Dilbert Adams, and begin worshiping the "psychology" of marketing ideas. The long, hard, failure-fraught work of educating (or rebelling) ourselves, is more difficult and enduring, contra the heady seizing the reins of memetic power, producing a top-heavy, adviser-dependent system, which is easily stolen by the next iteration of the bankers. That's why the Jenomic (modern "Rousseauian") ideal is interwoven in all of these carefully guided rebellions: because even total success is failure, merely rebooting the system. For example, if you think that 23andme-style tests will identify future subjects for euthanasia, sterilization, or export, you're wrong, because the Enemy will be able to rewrite genomes in its own desired way long before purges come. Castles, cannons, firewalls, hackers, genetics, and crypsis: sporadic victories and ultimate failures, without a much higher percentage of quality, character, and understanding in each group member.