Thursday, 1 February 2018

Why Australia's 'Invasion Day' protests matter

What should we make of Australians protesting "Invasion Day"?

Let's stick with the basics: if you can't defend your property, you don't own it. The Australian Aboriginals were defeated in combat by Europeans so they lost control of their property. Simple as that. Only the victor gets to write the rules and only the victor has the naming rights. As Stalin said after learning the Pope disapproved of his policies: "How many divisions does the Pope have?"

Might makes right, as it always must.

So if victors get the naming rights, then what explains the renaming of things in Australia? I'm not saying the protesters are successful, but no one is shutting them down. Why? Where did these new victors come from? Was there a war I missed? 

Yes, there was a war: it was called the Long War of Democracy 1914-1991. It was largely fought in the Pacific and on the European landmass between three versions of democracy: German/Japanese fascism, American communism and Soviet communism. American communism (aka "progressivism") was ultimately victorious and made the biggest cartel in history.

What is often forgotten is that these versions of democracy were only able to fight because democracy as a constitutional structure had already defeated the previous structure. The French called it the "ancien régime," but the most important fact was that the old structure had built an enormously complex machine of statecraft and empire that extended in some cases (Spain, Britain, Germany, France, etc) globally.

This structure was based on civil service aristocracies with a formal monarch on top in most cases. It had its own nomenclature and ideals and spent its time building up this structure and expanding as far as the international law would permit. But it invented technologies that ballooned population sizes to the point where the old modes of social control were no longer suitable. The central question of government became: what should we do with all these people? That's why democracy is such an obvious tool of power today.

Monarchy and feudalism were no longer be appropriate and in the US, Britain and France a new form of government, the "republic," emerged as a competitor for control of the Western system. New forms of social control were developed, and power began to flow away from the old aristocratic stewards to the new democratic republican stewards with the fresh ideas. 

While they were more suitable for the new world, republics drew their legitimacy and power from the consent of the governed, which also meant that to rise to power a person must align himself with what a majority of people want. That can be dangerous. Public desires could be manipulated to a degree, but ultimately all governments based on democracy eventually dissolve into socialism. This is an inevitability.

The Long War wasn't fought between the old regime and the new republics. That battle was already completed because the former was outcompeted in ideas. The question that led to fighting was which version of democracy would organise Western government - not just of Europe, but for the globe.

The protesters in Australia are simply the long arm of the most successful version of democracy: American progressivism. Since 1991, it has been encouraging different parts of its captured global empire to scrub away any and all references to the old structure (nation-states, nationalism, Westphalia, etc) and introduce the progressive's new structure (global village, globalism, etc) to the world. We are living in the shift away from the nation-state to the market-state, and new frameworks being set up.

Alongside this scrubbing process, it is constantly watching for infiltration by the competing versions of democracy, which never really disappeared. American progressivism did a good job stamping out German and Japanese fascism, and Soviet communism was an American export anyway so it's less of a threat, but Washington can't afford to have ideological competitors drawing power away.

"Invasion Day" protests are not signs of degeneracy, destruction and an attack on "traditional values" necessarily. They are simply the natural consolidation of victory by a new constitutional power. There are only two kinds of countries according to the progressive imperialists: American-style democracies and soon-to-be American-style democracies. Australia is getting "the treatment."

American progressives, acting on ideas from Harvard, are busy going about reforming Australia in their image, as is the prerogative of any victorious power. When you own the world, you can do anything you want. Canberra knows Washington controls the world's oceans, and Australia relies on secure sea-lanes for its trade. So Australia owes the US, and the progressives are cashing in that debt. And there's a lot of debt, not just in the Lucky Country, but across the world.

Think about it in a counterfactual way. What would 2018 look like if the Soviets had been victorious in 1991? What if the fascists had won the Long War? There would still only be two kinds of countries: those harmonised with Moscow/Berlin and those moving towards harmonisation. In that universe, Australians would just be arguing about Soviet ideals or Nazi frameworks instead. There is nothing inherently "good" about American progressivism, just like there was nothing inherently "good" about German Fascism. It's just that Washington has all the guns.

The logic of the progressive empire is simple: tribalism (re: nationalism) is the root of all conflict, so the answer is to turn everyone into members of the same tribe. Ta-dah! World peace. Much of the world is already captured by the progressive ideal - look for gay-pride flags, "social enterprises" and lots of people jogging (I can explain) - but there are still many sections of society in need of proselytisation and conversion - even in America. Hence the protests.

What you're witnessing in Australia isn't deconstruction, it's just empire.

No comments: