So while it's true that Trump really didn't even want to do anything that outrageous, the reason the system spent five years squealing like it was dying was because even that much would have kneecapped it
Not ended it, not at all—but crippled it, yes
Look, to me, neoliberalism has two core modules: its economic module, and its social module
Leaving the latter aside, its economic module is globalism, there's no arguing that. And two of the core components of globalism are free movement of goods, and free movement of people
Trump ran against *both*. He wanted to restrict both. He was anti-immigration, both illegal *and* legal, and anti-free trade, both in terms of the deals themselves, and in stopping jobs from leaving America, and returning them to the nation
These are not minor issues, either. They are the bedrock of globalism, and in turn the bedrock of neoliberalism
Both are sold to as an unalloyed good. Muh GDP relies on free trade; America is a nation of immigrants; these are the system's core values
So as soon as you say "Hey, we need to reform this, and restrict this," you are saying, "No, these have serious drawbacks. They're hurting our people in real ways"
If these two key planks of globalism *aren't* unalloyed goods, the entire premise of globalism begins to unravel
The social module of neoliberalism, meanwhile, is basically civil rights liberation movements. All groups and identities are the same, so they all deserve the same rights, treatment, respect, *employment*, etc
Sounds nice. Only an asshole would disagree
Since all people are the same, this means all people are interchangeable
Which, huh, weird, dovetails perfectly with globalism's idea of the free movement of people, who are simply an interchangeable economic resource
So when you start plucking on the string of globalism, it eerily resonates in neoliberalism's other module as well... it turns out all these ideas are connected to and reliant on each other
If any start to fray, the others start to vibrate, people start to notice *them* as well
Suddenly you have a president wondering out loud why we don't take more immigrants from Norway instead of shitholes
Obama and Biden, meanwhile, stuff small-town Minnesota and Maine with these "refugees"
But they're all neoliberals, exactly the same! I can't tell them apart!
For these very reasons, trying to build a gigantic techno-medieval wall across the entire southern border would never enter a neoliberal's head. A neoliberal would register this act as something profane, a sacred violation
Hey, remember when that's exactly how they reacted?
Obama didn't deport more illegals than any other president. He juked the stats, he counted people turned away at the border as deportations, he lied *because* neolibs want, and believe, something very different than the citizens they rule
So this isn't just political Walmart vs Target, two outlets selling the same junk (all of it made in China)
These are two competing visions:
One that sees borders as a way to protect the people inside them, and one that sees them as unfair to all the other people outside them.
"Yes but the outcome was all the same, so for all these words, Trump was still in the end a neoliberal."
Again I disagree. For one thing, things *did* change. Not enough, but more than the neoliberals who always lie to you want you to know about, immigration numbers for instance
But more, this is exactly what I meant at the very beginning, that neoliberalism is a "complete package"
You don't get to pick and choose from it. You don't get to reform it, like Trump wanted. Reform would be good for the people, but it throws the system into utter panic, why?
For the very reason that all the parts of this machine rely so much on each other. Not because they're strong, but because they're fragile
So much so that if you try to *improve* a single one of them, all the rest start shaking, jiggling out of place
So much that if you go after a part of its real core—something truly important to the engine of neoliberalism, that would make a visible difference to your life, and those of its citizens—the entire machine will break down.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I don't really "believe" this. But as the traditional means of manipulating a population toward the desired goals become less and less effective, actual supervillainy is going to become more tempting—esp as you still own the means of propaganda. They'll defend whatever you do
Again, this is a logically consistent position for them to take. If differences in racial outcomes are widespread, persistent for generations, and resistant to all interventions, those differences have to be caused by *something*
This is the Gordion knot multicultural liberalism has made for itself, and why it's doomed. It has no escape hatch, it either has to admit that yes, society *is* oppressing marginalized groups... or yes, turns out there are significant genetic differences between groups. Whoops
It can attempt to buy itself a little time by saying the differences are "cultural," but progressivism will just reroute this into a form of oppression
What, are you saying your culture is *better* than ours? How can yours be "better" when it's marginalizing everyone else?
@chudsommeleir No I'm not a literal Nazi, I've just spent the last seven-odd years giving myself a Master's in Racist Studies
Lemme think for a minute about what I'd actually like to see tried. It would probably be something like "Singapore, but with a large rural hinterland"
@chudsommeleir Here's the thing (prepare for potential sperg-out, but you asked)
Dysgenics runs deeper than racial differences. It hits *all* races. So while denial of differences might reinforce the machine of dysgenics, it isn't the machine itself
@chudsommeleir The machine itself seems to be "liberation;" a skewed ratio of urbanites to ruralites; the cargo-cult of education; and probably mass migration too (more important than that they tend to be lower-IQ is that it almost certainly depresses native fertility too)
Mayb this is well-known but the main thing people seem to be grappling with is that capitalism is the process of increasing centralization while Darwinism requires decentralization
For instance the Marxist end-goal of capitalism is full centralization (i.e. homogenization), which is why Nietzsche describes it as anti-life, because at that point there is no more Darwin involved. You have reached an "end state" (and, directly related, end of states)
Look let's not kid ourselves, there's a flaw in the Matrix here, where capitalism inevitability pushes itself toward the gray-goo state of full centralized homogeneity
All post-banking/Industrial Revolution ideological systems are an attempt to grapple with this problem