by Alex Birch
I earlier talked about Lydia McGrew's conjecture about Conservative parties, and how to win the cultural war against Western leftism. But why is it that Conservatives feel the need to either radicalize or water-down their beliefs? What is the mechanism behind McGrew's conjecture? The answer, I think, is simple, and can be described in one word: Opposition. Which brings me to...
Alex Birch maxim no. 1: All political groups without real power who identify themselves as an opposition to the established order will emphasize ideology over practicality and therefore radicalize their views.
The Far Right and Far Left best exemplify this category. They are not willing to compromise on ideology to help them achieve their goals, and in many cases use violent and militant opposition as means of getting their message across. They are very careful not to agree with any of the official policies of the establishment, and this is what perpetuates the process of radicalization, until they finally become extremists. This is the far end of McGrew's conjecture.
The other end is of course populism, which is what happens to most of these groups whenever they miraculously increase their public support and realize they have a chance of getting some of their policies through. At this point they will eventually get sucked up into the process of compromise and pragmatism that defines the established parties of Western democracies today. Liberals use Conservative policies, Conservatives borrow liberal policies etc. - all to enhance their power and popularity. Even once-radical parties will be willing to soften their image, loosen up on ideology, and compromise - or else they will lose the game.
That game is liberal democracy and this is the process by which it operates. Conservatives need to face it and try to avoid negative populism by softening their image instead of softening policies. If, in addition, they can avoid radicalization by emphasizing common ground with oppositional groups and stop viewing themselves as alienated from public discourse, we might see a Conservative revolution in the foreseeable future.
The ''Alex Birch maxim'' part made me laugh.
That is a well known fact you'll hear from an beginner course in political science.
Have fun pretending you're a thinker with important ideas.
Only the heaviest ideas can give intellectual life.
The whole ideal of ideology is to visualise all the possibilites in the world, of course they don't always come out that way, but quality literature will last for generations after we rot. By dumbing down on the ideology for half pop half extreme is just useless.
Recently your trying to use corrupt as a kind of bridge for stupid moderns to slowly walk across toward 'enlightenment' on some other place other than corrupt, which is pointless? corrupt should be where all the decent ideas are at.. The whole point of this was to give those who can actually think independently all the pure ideology and other crap we need to grow into super philosophers ready to unprogress the world back to getting it on track to sustaining itself AND achieving super futuristic feats of intellect.
Ditch mainstream 'balanced' politics, they are useless. You gotta give people raw extreme flavours, ideology is like art you have to give them the whole rainbow, a whole spectrum of different frequencies, make new ones up, hybrid a few here and there, just give it bluntly and humorously just as nature gives reality bluntly and doesn't give a damn about anything other than its own purpose. Mainstream politics are useless because they have no real direction they don't fluctuate and stagnate with the majority of slow moving passive chimps, only extreme ideology has a bloody direction, and the reason it isn't popular and is 'radical' is because the majority of people are lazy feckless retards who get alienated by any slight inequality. It's extreme because it takes alot to achieve, it's strong, it's fast, it gets things done when it's used.
Take the Sun for a good example, it is a chaotic destructive evil fire in the sky made of EXTREMIST ions, they are so extremely hot, smashing into each other, fusing and throwing out pure energy enlightening the dead sterile cosmos around it. This is extremism, oh my totally unacceptable because it is the source of all matter in our universe! Now think of an ideological sun, a pure ideology, you can be a cool dim sun that doesn't offer much potential for much interesting life, you can be a moderate sun like ours that offers a fairly stable potential for our ideas, or you can be a fucking huge supernova inducing blue giant and rip another blackhole in the modern ass.
The brightest suns in the ocean of stars are the ones that are the most extreme, they emit huge reservoirs of pure energy into what is a cold sterile environment, then after their short but essential time is up, they rip the whole universe like blinding truth, the ancient giant stars blasted out gamma rays and sterilised everything around them killing all the lower forms of life that might have originated at those times.
These super heavy weight stars then give out the only possible means of aquiring heavy elements, without the super suns these heavy elements that are so essential to life would never have existed. If all the suns were only red dwarfs, cool hipsters just chillin' out and living forever, then there would be no life because all the atoms (or ideas in our sense) would be the abundant hydrogen and helium (or popular ideas/common culture). It's like the ideological death of death, death is there for a reason, so new life can flourish.
Now our civilization is at a new stage of its life with its technology and all kinds of useless ideas ready for slaughtering, our imaginary universe has a twist of fate and has become clouded and uncertain, full of tiny red dwarf stars surrounded by a weak dead sterile vacuum around it. Many of the youthful super giant stars have died out years ago and their remnants evaporated. Now there are an awful lot of these intellectual lightweight dwarfs, not really interesting ideas that are so cold and weak, they never get old and they won't change themselves for an extremely long time. You need the big giant suns, the ideas that go out with a BANG and then live after death like pulsars cleaning the cosmos around it ready for new life to thrive instead of a boring puffy wimpy death of a light star saying 'oh um, sorry if i might offend you, but erm, bang? ohh sorry please don't be offended'. We need more of these ideological supernovas, to blow the shitty lightweights away and replace them with the essential heavy ideas, the ones with more energy in them, the ones that give meaning to ALL life.
I notice you never talk about social/caste systems (they're so important, make some up), the billions of possible futures we could have, space and what we'd do with it and other worlds, inventing new intellectual tools, rediscovering ancient lost civilizations, getting meta-physical with the universe, exercising complex ideas that offer much more potential to our species.. stuff like that.
You can only talk about those ideologically, i'm sure plato was called an extremist as well, but if he didn't stick to it then his ideas would have been a watered down weak democratically modified pieces of trash that never made it passed the collapse of the greek civilization.
All the staff can do so much better, you've done it before, do it again, but even better with new ideas everywhere, like the desert after rain.
I'll just quote you first
"it isn't popular and is 'radical'"
"you've done it before"
Personally, I think CORRUPT should find a joyful way to deal with both the mundane and the cosmic and connect the both.
Unfortunately, the world is a marketplace, not a symposium; CORRUPT must sell its ideas, but should not sell out. Honourable ideals like strong cultures and strong environments are inherently more unpopular than lazy crowd ideals like liberalism. As an effect, their advocates tend more often to be losers - losers as defined by the therefore prevailing social fashion, or losers because they can't or won't fit into the mainstream and seeking confirmation, they alienate themselves with a similarly sidelined loser clique that by definition attempts to separate itself from the whole (e.g. white nationalism, communism, anarchism). Their perhaps useful ideas become unpopularly packaged, and their wider influence is stymied. Ad infinitum.
They're just the tip of the iceberg.
Yeah it's true, those radical ideas are sometimes dumb (they are not always, but take these for example) : white supremacists who want to take over the world, as it does not occur to them that they will evolve black skin if they take over countries on the equator due to living there for any significant period of time. Communism is faulty too, it's like a terminal cancerous growth on its own and most anarchists because they have no way of getting themselves safetly out of civilization and they will end up in a blood bath with complete disregard of the benefits of civilization. These faults are easily pointed out by anyone with slight open mind, but they still have their uses and they are good at what they are doing. They just arn't as compassionate to other humans, it's a kind of in-group friendship, out-group hostility (even with leftists).
Lazy crowd ideals like liberalism are very boring presented as they are, what i mean to say is take these with the good parts of extreme ideas and like evolution create a thousand more diverse ideas that work whilst keeping the strength of more extreme ideas but with the flexibility and mass appeal of unextreme ones. That way it can give more ideas out, and then people can choose the best ones. At the moment the balance is more towards unextreme things, that's what alot of people are moaning about. It's like a parked car, the scenery may not change much.
I doubt you could ever sell out a decent idea, if anything the more knowledge of a certain idea would help alot, but maybe i'm being naive. As for the world being a marketplace, yeah if you think only in human terms with our business bureaucracy, but nature is not a marketplace, nature is a symposium and always evolves to fill every possible space with the best adaptation possible.
It's strange reading nowadays Corrupt
I know none of the columnists care, but the new Corrupt is simply turning its back on the prior goals and ideals it once had. I know this has been said countless times, and this post may not even be approved because of it, but Corrupt and has lost its goal and direction, which is why it has decayed into another nonsense political blog with some minor twists here and there.
Why do you think the original Corrupt readership has abandoned the site? Anyone notice how none of the old users post anymore? Hell, Highduke even left this hellhole to rot. You justify your certain change of direction by labeling your prior ambitions as "big abstractions," when they in fact were not - they were solid goals that rung true and inspired many people, including myself.
As you say yourself, Alex, when societies lose common goals and direction they fail, and that is what Corrupt is doing - it has lost its common direction and now is slowly rotting away. You have Regnen spewing a bunch of unnecessary garbage about music and random politics, you have this Islamic rambling about who the fuck knows what, you have Wells writing mildly interesting, yet utterly pointless satire, and then you finally have Azzurro talking about a child he hasn't even had yet. What the hell is this? It's not self-improvement, it's a warning sign that this place is degrading to a haven of shit.
Your writing seems blockaded and held back, as if you were afraid to offend anyone. You used to preach that society was sick, wrong, disgusting, and diseased, but now you preach that we must integrate with it and blend in with the crowd because we will get nowhere if we don't. I know you have not completely disregarded your old thoughts and prior ideologies, and that they are lurking in there somewhere, I just hope one day you will be honest with yourself and actually say what you truly believe.
Uhh...
"All political groups without real power who identify themselves as an opposition to the established order will emphasize ideology over practicality and therefore radicalize their views."
It sounds like you're describing 6 month ago Corrupt and ANUS.
Obviously that's exactly what
Obviously that's exactly what he's railing against. I just have no idea how he got so bitter about it all that he feels the need to bash the people who've followed corrupt from the start by putting them down as nerdy socially inept weirdo's and losers once a week (see nerdocracy and all the magnus mcwhateverthefuckitwas articles). Most of them obviously aren't.
What on earth are you talking about?
Most of them obviously are, that's why you only hear from them on the internet; they're bitter manchilds who shapes their worldview after trendy black metal lyrics rebelling against what ''the mainstream'' considers good, and thereby end up giving unrealistic solutions that's in polar opposite with the culture and system we have today. It's just inverted hippies who wished they lived in KrÄkstad in the early 90's.
Alexis, glad you've finally realized that liberal democracy is the game whether you like it or not, because more than often you seem to just complain at it and the humanist values it tends to foster as if an entire culture could just switch to the polar opposite side like nothing. It's one step forward towards growing out of your prolonged internet-reactionary rebellion and realize that modern technology, a globalized world and therefore a modern world is an inevitable outcome of humanity's hard-wired material desires, that it would be too late to revert to anything else now anyway since we've all become so materially interconnected and at this stage a cleansing of low-quality people would only hit back on *everyone* (even the elites) with all the conflicts it'd create and the scale of those conflicts we are be capable of creating.