Biology Destroys Neo-Liberalism By Brian Simpson

     Thinkers are already speculating about the effects of the second rounds of Covid-19, while of course, the Dissent Right is still divided as ever. There are even debates about the method of transmission, with some thinking it could be highly airborne, travelling on air pollution particles:

“Now, a team of researchers who have been studying air pollution levels in Italy's Bergamo Province have found more evidence that the virus can travel on air pollution particles, the Guardian reports, which might offer some insight into the issue. Leonardo Setti at the University of Bologna in Italy, who led the work, said it was important to investigate if the virus could be carried more widely by air pollution.  am a scientist and I am worried when I don’t know,” he said. “If we know, we can find a solution. But if we don’t know, we can only suffer the consequences." To be sure, while the scientists found evidence of viral genetic material on air particles, the research offers no insight on whether these particles can actually transmit the virus in a way that would allow it to infect other humans. Here's more from the Guardian: The Italian scientists used standard techniques to collect outdoor air pollution samples at one urban and one industrial site in Bergamo province and identified a gene highly specific to Covid-19 in multiple samples. The detection was confirmed by blind testing at an independent laboratory. […]

The potential role of air pollution particles is linked to the broader question of how the coronavirus is transmitted. Large virus-laden droplets from infected people’s coughs and sneezes fall to the ground within a metre or two. But much smaller droplets, less than 5 microns in diameter, can remain in the air for minutes to hours and travel further. Experts are not sure whether these tiny airborne droplets can cause coronavirus infections, though they know the 2003 Sars coronavirus was spread in the air and that the new virus can remain viable for hours in tiny droplets. But researchers say the importance of potential airborne transmission, and the possible boosting role of pollution particles, mean it must not be ruled out without evidence.”

     There is the position that the coronavirus death toll is much higher than reported, especially in China, but also the West:

     Well, the can’t quote from the above, but it carries on the same theme.

“The determined effort of media pundits and publishers to try to downplay the severity of the coronavirus pandemic will go down in history as one of the most bizarre and inexplicable chapters in the history of journalism. Over the last two months, mostly pro-Trump, conservative publishers have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to claim the coronavirus is no more deadly than the regular flu, even as coronavirus deaths have exceeded regular flu deaths by well over over 2000% on a day-to-day basis for the past two weeks. (See comparison chart below.) In just the last 17 days, for example, the coronavirus has killed more Americans than died across an entire year of the regular flu. And by next Tuesday, the coronavirus will have then killed more Americans in just two months than died in the entire Vietnam War which spanned multiple years. The coronavirus remains the No. 1 cause of death in America on a day-to-day basis, vastly outpacing deaths from cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, obesity, accidents, shootings and all violent crime combined. Nothing is killing more Americans right now, day to day, than the coronavirus. Clearly it isn’t “just the flu.”

     Be that as it may, conservatives are genetically programmed to respond to any attempt to limit freedom by a blanket rejection of the legitimacy of the alleged threats, which is, I suppose, a political survival mechanism. But, like everything, it has its limitations, and can be wrong in complicated situations. Whatever the results of that debate will be, neo-liberalism has a big problem on its hands, as commentators are saying. Here is Martin Sieff, characterising the ravages of neo-liberalism upon the West, leading us to the point of extinction:

“Open Borders and Free Trade induce national suicide slowly and gradually, without the victims waking up to what is going on until it is too late. But the coronavirus has brought home with global clarity that human societies need governments and regulated borders for their own survival. The bottom line is clear, societies that have had open borders to previous major centers of infection and transmission, like Iran and Italy which kept open strong flows of people to and from China in the early stages of pandemic, suffered exceptionally badly. Countries obsessed with maintaining liberal values and open borders like France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the U.S. also suffered disproportionately. Countries that have allowed their domestic industry to decay have found they cannot now produce the crucial equipment they need, from respirators to gas masks. Countries with strong manufacturing bases like China, or with a prudent nationalist sense of preparing ahead for emergencies like Russia, have done far better. The shortage of respirators in Britain has become more than a national scandal: It is a national shame. That is another inexorable consequence of the pernicious doctrine of Free Trade. I documented this history in some detail in my 2012 book “That Should Still Be Us.”

There, I showed how even the French Revolution of 1789 was in fact triggered by the catastrophic Free Trade Treaty that hapless King Louis XVI approved with England only three years before. It led immediately to the worst economic depression in French history which triggered revolution. In three years, liberal Free Trade succeeded in destroying a society that had flourished for a thousand years and the most powerful state Europe had known since the fall of the Roman Empire. In his classic television series and accompanying book “How the Universe Changed”, the great British broadcaster and historian James Burke showed how the discipline of statistics was responsible for discovering the way the cholera bacteria spread through contaminated water in 19th Century London, then the largest urban area ever experienced. Today, we see a similar pattern in the spread of the coronavirus: While half the counties in the United States remain so far virtually free of the virus, infections have soared in most major metropolitan areas, especially in so-called Sanctuary cities. Invariably these centers are ruled by liberal Democrats where illegal immigrants congregate. They are the places where the values and consequences of Free Trade and Open Borders most clearly flourish. And they ar ealso the places where the terrifying costs of those policies are most evident as well. The chickens have come home to roost.

Countries like Russia and China itself, which have reacted most quickly and decisively to shut down international and domestic travel, have been able to keep their numbers of infections and rates of spread down. In Europe, by contrast, the impact of the virus has been appalling, The European Union has been as useless as New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio,. Pro-EU liberal national leaders like President Emmanuel Macron in France and the venerable Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany (Berlin’s version of Nancy Pelosi) just sat back in bemused silence till it was too late. In Italy and Spain, the political splintering of societies has woefully added to the chaos. This is in fact a very old lesson indeed: The ruling elites of the world should not have had to relearn it. But for more than 225 years, the ruling elites of the West have mindlessly embraced Open Borders and Free Trade.Yet these have always been mere assertions of prejudice and mindless faith: They have never been proven to be true in any scientific manner. Instead, when we look at the factual evidence of economic history over the past two centuries, it has always been the case that developing industrial societies which protect their manufactures behind strong tariff barriers flourish with enormous foreign trade and balance of payments surpluses. Then the livign standards of their people soar.

In contrast, free market societies too powerless, or just too plain dumb to protect their economic borders get swamped by cheap manufactures and their domestic industries get decimated. This was the case with liberal free market Britain caught between the rising Protectionist powers of the United States, Japan and Germany for the next century. It has been true for the decline of American industry since the 1950s, the more the United States embraced global free trade, the more its own domestic manufactures and their dependent populations suffered. This never bothered the liberal intellectual elites of the East and West Coast at all. It still doesn’t. Having inflicted lasting ruin and despair on hundreds of millions of people for generations, they despise their victims as “deplorables”  for crying out in pain and seeking to end the disastrous policies. Russia suffered the full horrors of the merciless laissez-faire, unregulated Free Market policies of the liberal West in the 1990s. Boris Yeltsin never woke up to the catastrophe that Bill Clinton and Larry Summers were inflicting on his country. Over the past two decades, Russia’s recovery from that Abyss under President Vladimir Putin has been miraculous. National social responsibility has succeeded where the crazed, simplistic theories of Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Ayn Rand all palpably failed. The coronavirus pandemic therefore should serve as a wake up call to the peoples of the West, what Thomas Jefferson memorably called “A Fire Bell in the Night.” They need to start following Russia’s examples of self reliance, prudent preparation and maintaining strong borders.

     The same argument appears here:

“Related to the above, the true severity underpinning the coronavirus crisis is a direct result of the extreme uncertainty as to how or when it will end. This uncertainty in turn endows the virus with a potency much more immediately felt than, say, mass immigration or overpopulation, both of which take years for their effects to be realized by the mainstream. Generally speaking, risk can be quantified, in fact, there’s a whole science of risk quantification present within the field of project management devoted solely to the evaluation of risk. Uncertainty, however, isn’t quantifiable, and by its nature is completely unpredictable, and it is this unpredictability which imbues the Chinese virus with so much psychological stress. From this the question arises, how will European man, and ultimately European civilization react to the uncertainty of the Chinese scourge? Will this crisis be the springboard which propels European man towards real ontological, and by extension, civilizational transformation? Or will the retracting empire of European civilization drift closer to the precipice of total racial annihilation? Only time will tell what the future will bring, but some optimism is warranted.

Regardless of outcome, it’s obvious to even the dimmest among us that tangible civilizational change is necessary, at least if the European race is to persevere beyond the twenty-first century. At present, the Chinese scourge is doing a fantastic job of illuminating the real contagion infecting the atrophied West, that of neoliberalism. From atop their echo chambers, a number of mainstream pundits have parroted the statement that the Chinese virus is a global problem. The Chinese virus is a global issue, but presumably much to their chagrin, it is a problem directly caused by neoliberal ideology, and more specifically by its intrinsic preference for and reliance upon globalism. It is the global reach and totalitarian nature of liberalism that has endowed its ideology with such pernicious virulence. It’s probably more than safe to say that if the West wasn’t enthralled by the deranged ideology that is liberalism, that there would be no coronavirus ravaging our homelands and endangering the lives of our folk. Liberalism isn’t a precise ideology, unlike nationalism which is based on a simple, and fundamental truth, like the love for one’s nation, or an all-encompassing, consensual worldview, like National Socialism. Neoliberalism, unlike its more tolerant ancestor, is more akin to a Rabelaisian salmagundi of rigidly intolerant dogmas and precepts, which are slowly assuming all the accoutrements of a secularized mystery religion. For all practical purposes, liberalism is a loose-knit, ideology-cum-religion, premised upon an axiomatic dogma dedicated to fulfilling individual human wants and desires. Liberalism seeks to satiate these wants and desires, the so-called “happiness” of those under its sway, via the specious “freedoms” diffused by the market-economy.

Like all things en-vogue in contemporary in the West, there is a degree of utopian millenarianism present within neoliberal thought, which promises salvation from the cruel sufferings of this world via its fetish for free-market economics. Like all successful swindles, the unconscious pull of neoliberal thought comes from its ability to present and manipulate half-truths. The long and varied successes of the European race are derived from both the individualism and the competitive nature of our civilization, and it is this truth which neoliberalism insidiously exploits. To the neoliberal order, competition is the defining characteristic of human relations. However, competition is framed not as the conquest, or attainment of individual glory or achievement, but primarily as an economic process, of buying and selling, and thus of a hypertrophied free-market. Liberalism has apotheosized the free-market system by portraying it as the most effective, the most rational, and the most natural of social institutions, capable of producing the most “happiness,” and by extension arousing the most “freedoms” for the greatest number of people. These statements aren’t meant to say that free-market capitalism isn’t a profoundly powerful economic system, but rather to illustrate the point that as a concept, it is just a system of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, and not the totality of a civilization. As Alain de Benoist has correctly pointed out over the years, a society is not a market, and this notion has been twisted by liberalism for decades. Adding to and intensifying the already perplexing liberal ideological milieu is the establishment’s confusion over the very real differences that exist between a capitalist system and a free-market system. A capitalist system focuses on the creation of wealth and the ownership of capital. In the traditional capitalist system of America, the economy was an industrially oriented economy, as opposed to the so-called “knowledge-economy” of present times in which growth is seen as dependent on the quantity, quality, and accessibility of the information available, rather than the means of production. The industrial orientation of the American economy ensured that economic growth occurred largely in the sectors of farming, mining, construction and manufacturing. Moreover, it was during the industrial period of American economic history, and by extension European economic history, that the middle-class was ascendant, and the private ownership of capital (i.e., small businesses) was disbursed among a much larger percentage of the population.

The liberalization of trade, and the expansion of globalism as an ideology rather than just as a byproduct of technological advancement, acted to deindustrialize large swathes of America, resulting in the mass economic dislocation of workers, specifically within import-competing economic sectors. The decades long process of the deindustrialization of America resulted in an economic restructuring of the economy, which precipitated a shift of the locus of American economic output from the generative (e.g., manufacturing) to the parasitic (e.g., financialization). The resulting postindustrial, “knowledge-based” economies of both contemporary America and the West, are focused on the services, finance, and technology, and as such are parasitic in nature, focusing on the exchange of wealth, rather than its creation. Obviously, creation does occur in the knowledge economy—say, for example, a new technology, but the actual production of the new technology will likely end up going to low-wage countries. This outsourcing of manufacturing has resulted in what one might term the intangibleization of the economies of the West, which has in turn led to stagnant wages for the working class and increasing economic inequality. This ongoing economic process has transformed Western civilization, with the its ancestral European peoples being gradually turned into a postmodern servile class dominated by a globalist elite that recognizes no borders. To wit, the current incarnation of the parasitic, free-market economy is a system most vehemently embraced by a … “Western” elite, who profit off of the labor of others, and who have little in common with the new servile class that they now lord over.”

     Brett Stevens is shorter and sweeter, with the endgame of globalism being world war, in a battle of the titans:

“Globalism made a great deal of money for people, and so was popular until the coronavirus came around and revealed in short order that our system was more fragile than we think, we are held hostage by the opinions of “experts” we do not trust, and globalism is a bad way to get anything done right. We also saw that not every society is worth the same thing, in business terms. Organized, high social trust first-world societies with functional institutions fare better than chaotic third world anarchies or repressive tyrannies, and the latter lie about how an epidemic is afflicting them. In particular, we were finally able to identify the problem with China, which like Asiatic despots since the dawn of time, has created a society based on mass obedience and mobilization in pursuit of symbolic victory, in order to conceal the need for strong power to keep a highly individualistic society like China together and minimally functional. China makes no secret of the fact that it wants to take over the world and, since its economy began reversing its gains in 2009, badly needs some kind of war to conquer wealthier areas in order to keep itself afloat. When China started out, its population was mostly rural, accustomed to Communism, and excited to live in cinder block dwellings instead of bamboo huts. Thirty years later, many of them live in cities, drive BMWs and drink French wine, and they have no interest in working for $0.37/day anymore.

This means that what China had to sell — cheap bulk labor — has now been replaced by specialization, regulation, and massive internal complexity. Not only that, but the quality of Chinese products has taken on a mythical status of being similar to East German output, causing an exodus from China. The coronavirus merely sprayed frosting (at least we hope that is what it is) on the cake: China had a few crucial weeks to wake up, notice the crisis, and warn others, but instead engaged in typical Asiatic despot face-saving, passing on a localized crisis from Wuhan to the world. Things got worse when people noticed that all of their gear came from China, and China was either holding up the shipments or sending wholly dysfunctional stuff that they could not use. Then people finally noticed that Chinese gear is no longer as inexpensive as it is reputed to be. China had another chance here to make things right: it could ration out gear, since it needed some for itself, and it could admit mistakes and move on. Instead, it keeps expelling journalists, demanding that people not tell the true fact that the coronavirus came from Wuhan, and conspiring to manipulate the news and elections in the West. This shows us that globalism is not some new system by which we avoid war, but a parasitic system that siphons off our wealth in order to prepare for war with us, and because it makes us interdependent, continues the Cold War manipulations with a far greater risk of war now than before.

     Even given that Covid-19, may be more deadly than the flu, this has not stopped our masters from seizing the opportunity to push ahead with their totalitarian agendas anyway, and making the herded people jump will be good practice for what is to come just down the track:

“In all of these cases, both in the forced shuttering of thousands of “nonessential” businesses and in the sudden mass enforcement of house arrest of millions of law-abiding people, we see a certain cognitive dissonance being rendered manifest. Things have been determinedly and deliberately turned upside-down. Nonsense now parades about as common sense like a streetwalker gussied up in finery and expensive perfume. Not even language is safe. “Quarantine,” up until very recently, meant restricting the movement of the sick, in order to prevent a contagion from spreading. Now the term has been sinisterly repurposed to mean the act of isolating everyone from everyone else. In the “lockdown” paradigm, those “quarantined” are not the sick, but the well. Why are the healthy being forced into isolation? We are told that the only way to protect everyone is, as one news reader was heard to put it, “to act like you already have the virus.” So the healthy are automatically treated as if they were "already" sick. If there is truly a contagious virus about, one is indeed well-advised to take prudent and reasonable precautions. However, in the contemporary “lockdown” paradigm, prudency and reason are translated into their opposites; namely, panic-promotion, fear-mongering, and trauma-inducement. Radical, unprecedented and utterly un-Constitutional mandates, such as those which prevail under the “lockdown” paradigm, are sold as moderate and soberly-conceived notions by experts who assure the population, in soothing tones, that they certainly know what is best for us. 

Our leaders, moreover, recite, parrot and promulgate ominous jargon like “social distancing,” somberly instructing us always to stand six feet apart from one another (Why six feet, exactly? Isn’t it enough to keep a wide berth and avoid contact when necessary?) all while giving press conferences in which they stand cheek by jowl with one another on a narrow stage. Meanwhile, vast construction projects for major corporate organizations continue to be pursued (look out your car window sometime and you will likely see them taking shape in your town… a new Chase bank, another high-rise apartment complex,  an add-on to your local Walmart or McDonalds, etc.) with construction workers and builders standing in very close proximity to one another. Are these projects, invariably involving high-level corporations and influential and well-placed organizations, truly “essential”?

Such questions never seem to get asked. And the cognitive dissonance mounts. The wearing of masks is first discouraged, then encouraged, and finally in some places become mandatory, with no explanation given for the shift in policy.  And concerns about the economic well-being of those who live paycheck to paycheck (that is to say, most of the population) but who now must forgo receiving paychecks indefinitely, are haughtily dismissed as if they were a matter of no consequence. Lower-waged working people are sanctimoniously lectured to “Stay Home” and sit idle while their livelihoods dissipate, and if they complain about this perilous set of circumstances or protest for an end to the lockdown and a re-opening of the economy, they are attacked by the lapdog media as “virus deniers” or some such. News organs, ostensibly the “fourth estate,” who pride themselves on their supposed eagerness to “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted,” never seem actually to deign to advocate for the well-being of those who actually struggle (such as the people, spoken of above, who desperately seek economic relief); instead, they grotesquely fawn over the powerful. Paunchy ‘Billy Sixpack” holding up a sign at an anti-lockdown rally gets mocked, derided, and impugned, while profit-minded vaccine peddler, unrepentant child-maimer, unscrupulous tycoon … Bill Gates receives unending praise, laud, and plaudits.’

     These sorts of questions are simply not going to be given public expression, being the new banned thought, like “racism.”



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Saturday, 20 July 2024

Captcha Image