Earlier I had some pretty harsh words about the liberal establishment. This concerned both the big shots and all the toadies helping them run the show. (Indeed, it’s quite a clever scam. So many caring, idealistic people think they’re fighting for social justice, when they’re really helping corrupt globalist plutocrats consolidate their power.) For that matter, many of their revered “heroes” aren’t all that and a bag of chips.

So how does establishment conservatism fare? At best, they stand for slowing the decline—sort of like driving toward a cliff at 40 MPH rather than 60 MPH. At worst, they give false hopes to the public that they’ll do something effective. The government is supposed to work for the people, but the influence of big money is a major problem: deep-pockets donors, big business lobbyists, and foreign powers.

How conservatism changed

As early as 1968, George Wallace famously said, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats.” It wasn’t always like this. Many conservatives in times past—including Wallace—were a different breed from most of today’s variety. Some never compromised their principles. Pat Buchanan is still out there. Joseph Sobran and Sam Francis are gone but not forgotten. Ron Paul takes a different angle, but is honest and principled. The Republican leadership is certainly not interested in promoting anyone like them, no matter how much they resonate with the grassroots.

In the 1970s, the neoconservatives—former liberals (though not always very former)—came onto the scene. Although they were lightweights ideologically, they were welcomed into the Republican party. Eventually these entryists started calling the shots, taking it upon themselves to tell conservatives how to be conservative. By the 1990s, this effectively neutered conservatism. Neocons like globalism, and they like spit-in-your-eye wars (many are in bed with the military-industrial complex, and others with foreign powers who like our soldiers doing their fighting), but they’re not much help defending our civilization from cultural Marxism and population replacement policies. Today, we speak of RINOs—Republicans In Name Only. The unkind name is cuckservatives.

The Republican platform used to be approximately the following:

Opposition to Communism Traditional values and rejection of policies detrimental to the majority Economic policies

In the early 1990s, the first two broad planks disappeared. The only places Communism is taken very seriously any more are Cuba and many faculty departments. As for item 2, it became taboo to discuss many of these matters very openly. Cultural Marxism was still very much alive—basically a religion by then—bringing us political correctness. Conservatives failed to properly assert themselves then, which the neocon faction wasn’t interested in doing, and now opposition is needed more than ever. So all that’s left over is item 3. Middle America likes low taxes, but globalist policies favoring big business are uninspiring.

Since then, the Republican Party isn’t the answer; it’s just the lesser of two evils. If you want your country to remain basically the same as the one you grew up in, no mainstream Republican politician is going to do anything effective. The situation is absurd. Many rhinestone conservatives even sink to virtue signaling: for instance, “Why, no, I’m not an extremist, unlike this other guy to my right.” The only reason the Republican voter base puts up with these shenanigans is because they have nowhere else to turn.

The controlled opposition

Joe Sixpack might imagine, “Boy howdy, when my party comes into power, then they’re going to clean house and everything’s going to be okay.” When it comes to pass, things turn out to be business as usual. Still, the Blue Pill public keeps falling for the scam. The Republicans are basically a soothing salve, giving false hopes that they’ll reverse the decline and stop cultural Marxism.

Although conservatism is the opposition to liberalism, in practice they don’t really diverge too much. Politicians argue with each other quite a bit, but even when one party gets the Presidency and controls both houses of Congress, major policy changes are rare. When the Republicans are in power, they don’t do anything about immigration, welfare, abortion, or affirmative action and set-asides. Likewise, when the Democrats are in power, they don’t stop fighting spit-in-your-eye wars, much less go after the military-industrial complex. Today, the Democrats and Republicans are effectively the left and right wing of the globalist agenda.

The Democrats—formerly the working man’s party—support open borders. They’ve also supported globalist trade deals (such as NAFTA, GATT, most favored nation status for China, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership), They serve the ones who matter: wealthy interests holding their purse strings. Ironically, the Democrats appeal to the common people (the disadvantaged, as some put it) but their policies aren’t really doing much for the masses, other than promising more handouts. For example, they used to have a large voter bloc of organized labor. However, the Democratic leadership doesn’t have to worry about appealing to unionized factory workers any more, because most of them had their jobs shipped overseas, and now in their own country they have to compete with all the cheap labor imported from the Third World.

Loading...

The Republicans are basically the controlled opposition. They put on a good show for their voters, but aren’t allowed to veer too far away from the globalist agenda, as this would displease the masters holding their own purse strings. Their grassroots base is with middle Americans who value independence, smaller government, and traditional values, but the party isn’t looking out for them either.

Why things don’t change

In the USA, it’s extremely hard for a third party candidate or an independent to get elected even to a Congressional seat. As for the Presidency, it’s practically impossible. Ross Perot had a decent chance in 1992 until he made a series of missteps. Still, his 18.9% popular vote was the best return from a third party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt’s 1912 run under the Progressive Party ticket.

One reason for this is the Electoral College. The majority results for each state determines all the state’s electors, with the exception of Nebraska and Maine. That, and the nonexistence of runoff elections if nobody achieves 50%, is a very high bar to cross. Citizens often have to vote for the “lesser of two evils” rather than someone they really like.

Also, most voters are attached to one party or another; the real contest is for the much smaller fraction of uncommitted voters. If either party went too far from the center, it would appeal to the grassroots but turn off the uncommitted public. Half of the electorate doesn’t vote, either from apathy or cynicism, so they’re actually a huge, untapped reserve.

The final reason is the influence of big money from corporate interests, wealthy contributors, and foreign powers, as I’ve mentioned. The one who pays the piper, calls the tune. It’s effectively a legal form of bribery.

Effectively, the voters basically have a Coke versus Pepsi choice between the Stupid Party and the Evil Party. Many other countries have parliamentary systems with three viable parties, often two will work together to form a coalition. The differences are mostly superficial, and parties with real differences have a great deal of trouble gaining any traction.

Managed democracy

The citizens of democratic countries will pride themselves on their freedom and openness. Still, there are other factors beyond the nominal political system in determining how free the country really is. Whether or not the government truly represents the will of the people is a big one. (Media bias is another factor, and we’ve covered the presstitutes here before.) If a group of oligarchs happen to be heavyweight contributors to all major parties as well as having the media in their back pocket, that’s managed democracy.

In the USA, there are two major parties, and 90% of the media is owned by six mega-conglomerates, making things quite convenient for them. So you have two parties, and both are working for the oligarchs, not for you. What a choice! This makes the President—the “leader of the free world”—more or less a figurehead. The Democrats and Republicans do play to win. Still, they’re not working for their party grassroots, but rather those who fill their coffers. For both parties, these happen to be largely the same people.

Each party’s leadership certainly plays favorites. The leaked DNC emails show that they were in favor of Hillary, confirming what Sanders supporters suspected all along. As it happens, the Powers That Be don’t like people peering behind the curtain. Someone thought to be the source of those leaked DNC emails was murdered; make of it what you will.

One particularly telling gem was from one of the DNC emails, by Bill Ivey to John Podesta concerning the Trump phenomenon. Res ipse loquitur:

And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking—and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.

Just when you thought you’d heard it all, right? With this kind of attitude, our “kingmakers” might as well just drop their pants and moon the peasants on national TV. It amazes me that the public puts up with this kind of crap. Maybe it’s because they’re so unaware and compliant? This is the problem that demands serious thought on fixing.

The Trump factor

The Republican leadership was unable to contain their disfavored candidate, unlike the way they handled Pat Buchanan in earlier times. They’ve been going berserk about that, furiously trying to sabotage their own candidate. In Trump’s favor are two things: he’s rich enough so he can’t be bought off, and the people are behind him unlike the tepid cuckservatives who were running against him in the primary election. The slogan “lose with Cruz” would be a lot funnier if the future weren’t on the line.

Will Trump deliver? Time will tell, hopefully. At this point, I’ll be cautiously optimistic. I’ll take him over Hillary any day. The way I see it, if we’re going to be ruled by billionaires, it might as well be by a sensible one.

Read More: How The Cloward-Piven Strategy Is Driving The United States To Collapse