Elder Oaks talk

I've seen a number of liberals point to Elder Oaks' talk as "blasting" "right-wing extremists." And as being completely unprecedented as a political, American talk. Both are completely nonsense.

Of course, the way that they're attempting to link it as blasting "right wing extremists" is largely based around the "mob attack on the Capitol" hoax. Given that the media and the federal government has doubled down on promoting the hoax, I can't exactly fault them for believing that, I suppose. Five years after the popularization of the term "fake news" plenty of people still get their "news" from... the news, I suppose. Otherwise, as I've pointed out before, video clearly showing the "mob" being waved in by the police, walking peacefully through the velvet ropes, etc. shows that of course it wasn't a "mob" at all... with the exception of a few bad actors. Many of whom have been identified as left wing agitators known from Black Lives Matter mob action.

See, that's a mob. When we endured the better part of a year straight of left wing extremist mob action and a few liberals are breathlessly heading for the fainting couches over a hoax mob of right wing extremists, I think Trump supporters can confidently assert that Elder Oaks' talk doesn't apply to them. Even if Elder Oaks himself believes the right wing extremist hoax himself. His advice is universal, however—it applies to whatever specific situation is on the ground. 

It is ironic, however, that the actual supporters of mob violence are trying to utilize his talk as a cudgel... against people who only wanted to support the Constitution itself. Although from what I know of the Left, that can hardly be surprising. There's a reason why every prophet for a hundred years warned us in General Conference about Leftism, usually under the labels of socialism or communism, up through Ezra Taft Benson at least, although quotes of a similar nature can be found by Gordon B. Hinkley and Thomas S. Monson as well. I think a lot of liberals try to sweep that under the rug and pretend that it didn't happen, and that Ezra Taft Benson was some kind of political anomaly in the Church who must not have been speaking prophetically when he lambasted Leftism, but that requires accepting that same paradigm for Elders Joseph F. Smith, David O. McKay, Harold B. Lee and Heber J. Grant as well, who spoke just as pointedly about politics. For that matter, nothing that they said is inconsistent with remarks made by Brigham Young, and even Joseph Smith, and for that matter, all of the prophets, when they've expounded principles that are opposed to Leftism, albeit without the specific label. 

Similarly, Elder Oaks' talk is not some kind of fluke. Almost all of the prophets have made similar remarks about the Constitution. President Benson gave a similar talk in 1986. Elder Oaks himself gave a talk that in many respects was nearly identical to the one he gave recently back in 1992. This isn't the first time I've noticed that a General Authority has dusted off an older talk and reworked it somewhat to give it again when they felt that it was relevent to do so, but I particularly noted this one, because I was given that talk specificially by my Bishopric a few years ago to use as source material for a talk that they asked me to give for the Independence Day Sunday. 

Race relationships

 I couple of pertinent comments from the Z-man in his "Theatrocracy" post:

"Religion in a liberal democracy is a funny thing, in that most everyone is sure they understand what it is, but few people recognize it all around them. The people who think of themselves as religious in the conventional sense think they live in a fallen world where most have abandoned their faith. On the other hand, those who are sure they have advanced beyond the primitive need for religion are sure society is full of religious fanatics, except in their social circles of course.

"The reality is religion in liberal democracy is nothing like this. The people in charge of society are closer to fanatics on the belief scale, while the people embracing traditional religion are somewhere in the middle of the scale. Christianity no longer draws the fanatic like it used to. Instead, the fanatics are drawn to the secular faiths like the various forms of environmentalism or biological denialism. As a result, the managerial class functions more like a theocracy than a bureaucracy.

"You see this in the Megan Markle – Prince Harry drama that has been foisted on us by the media -entertainment complex this week. There is no reason for Americans to care much about this story. Markle is an American, so the tabloids have a reason to cover her, as the Cinderella story still sells to women, especially feminist women. On the other hand, she is boring, and her prince is the booby prize of the family. There was never a lot to sell here on the fairytale front with Megan Merkle.

"That was until she played the religion card. Megan Markle is an octoroon, apparently, so she gets to carry on as an oppressed woman of color, despite coming from a rich family and marrying into the British royal family. In the new American religion, all blacks, no matter how fortunate, are noble oppressed people. The big interview that set this drama in motion was conducted by Oprah Winfrey, a woman worth over a billion dollars, who regularly claims to be the victim of racism.

"The absurdity of the premise should be enough to get the story laughed off the stage, but in our modern theatrocracy, facts are not important. What matter is how much the story stimulates the moral outrage of the true believers in the audience. Because the heroine ticks the right boxes and her nemesis ticks all of the right boxes, this story is To Kill A Mockingbird for our true believers. The audience is divided into those who support Markle, the good people, and those who doubt her."

In my experience, which is just anecdotal, obviously, but at the same time fairly extensive—and data does back this experience up and suggest that it is the pattern that we normally see—you can rarely find examples of actual racism, even if you're looking for it full time. Oh, sure—you hear accusations of racism routinely, but what almost always happens when you dig into the details, is that you find out that the white people in question actually went out of their way bending over backwards to not be racist. Racism is blamed as the culprit for all kinds of failings, most of which have to do with something in the behavior, character, or sometimes just bad luck, of the non-white person. Unable or unwilling to properly face the real cause of this failure, racism is trotted out as a convenient "get of responsibility free" card; something that even Monopoly managed to avoid.

Anyone who examines the concept of systemic racism with an unbiased eye for what the data actually says will usually find that it backs up their own experiences as well: racism is a hoax. It's a profitable hoax for many, so it's unlikely to go away anytime soon, until people start rejecting it. And even for those who don't make financial profit off of it, many find emotional gratificiation in perpetuating the con, making it an important part of their identity. Both black and white. 

Anyway, I'll let the Z-man's summary stand on it's own without further comment from me other than to ask; in your actual personal experience, what is a more pressing problem facing America and the rest of Christendom on earth right now; systemic racism, or systemic envy, greed and covetousness?:

"The English speaking world has now descended to the point where the managerial class is animated by the worship of nonwhites, in the same way primitives would deify a shaman. The mere presence of well-behaved blacks is enough to cause orgiastic paroxysms among the beautiful people and those who emulate them in the lower classes.

"American blacks, of course, are an ideal god for these people. No matter how wonderful the life of a black person, they are always complaining. American blacks are the most bitter and ungrateful people to ever walk the planet. Megan Markle is the full expression of that ungratefulness. She has lived the very definition of the charmed life, but she is a vinegar drinking shrew, living to make those around her miserable. She is the ideal black goddess for a people riddled with self-loathing."

Vox Day has some other interesting commentary on the Markle debacle, which is making all of Western Civilization look ridiculous, to be honest. 

"It's rather amusing how the British press is having such a hard time figuring out why she hates the British Royal Family so much.

"Meghan hates Princess Kate for the same reason every moderately attractive girl with ambitions of being the popular hot girl hates the beautiful head cheerleader. It's nothing more than raw, unmitigated envy. Meghan can't compete with Kate's position, class, style, or popularity, and her genetics prevent her from ever being considered 'an English Rose', so naturally she hates the other woman with the passion of ten thousand burning hells."

Modern day Babelism

Just in case you weren't clued in already to the spiritual dimension of our modern politico-social landscape, the EU headquarters is literally modeled on the Tower of Babel (architecturally and spiritually.) And now the newly announced Amazon headquarters in DC is to be as well.

https://www.israel365news.com/186976/amazon-reveals-plan-to-build-tower-of-babel-opposite-us-capital/

Of course, it also looks like a shiny poop emoji...

Virtue-signaling

While this post that I'm quoting isn't related to the Church at all, nor is the author probably all that aware of the Church of its culture, it should be applied internally by members of the Church. I've been quite disappointed in recent years at the vacuous virtue-signaling that comes from members of the Church. When there's a story about the systemic abuse or gang rape of American girls (or even boys), do members of the Church vacuously signal support for unmoderated immigration of people who are culturally incompatible with us? If so, they are guilty of virtue-signaling. Possibly much worse, as their actions are the legal equivalent of criminal negligence at best and aiding and abetting rape at worst. But that's just one example, among many. Anyway, I present for your introspection, the following, edited very slightly by me:

Back in 2009, I authored an article on this platform titled The Narcissism and Grandiosity of Celebrities.  Continuing this tradition, this past week on my social media platforms, I critiqued the virtue signalling that members of the privileged classes engage in. Here is what I wrote: 

"Let me explain yet again the source for all of the platitudinous virtue signalling. The truly privileged elites know that deep down they are frauds. They suffer from existential guilt. Hence, one of the ways by which they assuage the guilt albatross around their necks is to demonstrate to the world that they are truly compassionate, truly loving, truly caring, truly profound. Hence, they love all 'undocumented' immigrants. They love Mother Earth. They love the ozone layer. They love BLM. They love socialism. They love inner cities. They hate the gentrification of neighbourhoods. They love mentors of color. They cherish diversity. They love LGBTQ movies. They adore queer architecture. They are better than you. More caring, more cultured, more empathetic. This permits them to sleep better at night. See, I'm not a fraud. I may be a gargantuan parasitic hedge fund [liar] but I really care. I may be an overpaid BS actor but I fight for solar panels. Those fly over rubes deserve their lot in life. They are racists who bed their siblings. We are science supporters who fight against Mother Earth rapists whilst flying in our private jets. It is a classic ego defensive strategy that permits the ruling class to exist within their fractured selves. Save this thread. Memorize it. I'm offering you a deep psychological explanation of our times."

Seth Rogen who had been tagged on Twitter regarding the latter, retorted as follows:

"I actually watched your video and it’s so stupid. Why was I a left wing socialist when I was broke and unemployed according to your brilliant theory?"

To which I replied:

"Thanks for watching. Many young people are socialists when they are driven by immature impulses of utopia. They then grow up. You are a grown man with tons of money. Your current stances are rooted in vacuous empty signalling rooted in a desire to belong in Hollywood. It takes zero courage to hold your stances within the entertainment ecosystem. You espouse [dishonest] rhetoric that wins you points at the cool kids' parties but you are otherwise as ignorant as my out-of-order toaster. I'd be happy to chat with you on my show as you have a very large platform and as such you have the opportunity to actually make a difference. Stop succumbing to the herd mindset. Learn how to think critically. Learn the meaning and implications of socialism vs. capitalism. You are among the MOST privileged people in the history of humanity. And yet you walk around as though you are a Che Guevara revolutionary. You are the product of capitalism. If you are such a socialist, send me some of your money. I'm trying to build an interdisciplinary research institute. Live out your convictions. If you are a socialist, you have no business being the beneficiary of the most capitalist industry in the most capitalist country in the history of humanity. Don't be a hypocritical fraud. Cheers amigo."

In my recently released bestselling book The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense, I discuss the differences between virtue signalling and honest signalling. Here are two relevant excerpts from a section titled "Do Not Virtue-Signal": 

"Each time that a terrorist attack takes place in some Western city, nauseating hordes of cowards do one of two things: 1) Change their social media handles to the flag of the country that was attacked; 2) Share a hashtag on Twitter to signal their solidarity with a given cause (#JeSuisCharlie following the terror killings at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris; #BringBackOurGirls, made famous by Michelle Obama, in support of the Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram). Politicians seek to outdo one another in offering vacuous “heartfelt” condolences while in many cases continuing to enact policies that are directly responsible for the terror attacks in question. In the great majority of instances, these are utterly useless endeavors meant to do nothing but advertise one’s supposed virtue to the world (hence the term virtue-signaling). It is a form of cheap and costless self-aggrandizing that feeds one’s ego. I must be a good person who truly cares, as evidenced by my progressive hashtag. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who engage in such platitudinous signaling are cowardly and meek." (p. 178)

Later I added the following (pp. 180-181):

"During a highly publicized 2017 event held in Toronto, Oren Amitay, Jordan Peterson, and I were asked to identify our respective freedom of speech heroes. I responded that the ultimate heroes are those who risk their lives to defend such freedoms. I pointed to individuals from the Middle East (some of whom have been guests on my show) who are willing to defend these ideals knowing full well that they may pay the ultimate price. This is what having skin in the game looks like. This is costly virtue, not virtue-signaling. Over the past year or so, I have become good friends with Ensaf Haidar, the wife of jailed Saudi blogger Raif Badawi, and I had the pleasure of meeting her three lovely children at a dinner organized by the actor Mark Pellegrino and his wife. Raif is serving a ten-year prison sentence and was scheduled to receive one thousand lashes ('only' fifty of which have thus far been administered) for having the temerity to question, in a rather tepid manner, various religious and cultural realities in the region. Retweeting #JeSuisCharlie is impotent virtue-signaling; critiquing the Saudi regime from within Saudi Arabia is courage in action."

Bottom line: In order for a signal to be an honest one, it must be handicapping; it must be costly to the one who emits the signal. Raif Badawi lived out his convictions. He engaged in costly signalling. Seth Rogen and other champagne socialists do not live out their convictions. They are vacuous parasitic virtue signallers who wear Che Guevara t-shirts from the luxury of their Malibu homes. Be the former and reject the latter.

Those who can't be lived with

While this Buddhist nationalist from Burma says this about the Moslems, it doesn't just apply to them. It also applies to multiple other groups; not all of them nations. Although many of them are. The African-Americans are a separate nation unto themselves, for all intents and purposes, and they offer little but hostility to the host nation among whom they live, as long as they live among us. They see disparate outcomes and blame systemic racism—even though nobody really ever sees any racism; you only ever see people bending over backwards to not be racist. No, the real causes of their disparate outcome are largely confined to having an average IQ a standard deviation lower than white Americans, and a genetic predisposition towards violent and impulsive behavior. Diversity means actual difference and if we can accept that different breeds of dogs can have very different physiological and psychological differences to other breeds, and yet be as completely dogs as some other breed, then why not people too? Jews are also not Americans, and like blacks, strongly resist integrating into American society, becoming American, and letting go of their identity, which is largely based on the exploitation of other peoples. Ron Unz has done tons of good work on documenting this phenomena (in spite of being a Jew himself) in his American Pravda collection.

To the extent that full-blown communist/socialist Leftists, whether they accept that label or not, aren't Jews (and you'd be surprised how foreign and alien that ideology is to actual Americans. Only the subversion of our society through feminism has allowed it to gain a meaningful hold on us, a people who by nature are not prone to that kind of thing at all) they can't be lived with either, because their whole identity is wrapped up in exploiting normal people and refusing to leave them alone. In this sense, the comments by this monk which he uses for Moslems applies equally well to all three of the other groups I've largely mentioned, because their behavior in foreign countries where they are seriously ungracious guests causes them to become like locusts who destroy the host societies in which they live.

Sadly, we've seen this many times before. The Lamanites ultimately proved to be a people who couldn't be lived with as well, as did those who accepted the secret combinations among the Nephites and the Jaredites.

Who is Ephraim?

With regards to this older post of mine, I've recently come into a new idea that I think is an interesting compliment to it.

https://flippingfetchingfiddledeedee.blogspot.com/2016/05/ephraim-and-judah-part-i.html

Anyway, the idea comes from FrankN's comments here:

https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2018/07/schnursprecher-glockensprecher.html

FrankN is a guest blogger at adnaera, a link I have on the side of my hobby blog, although it hasn't had a post in over a year now. (sad face) He's also a frequent poster at Eurogenes in the comments (another link I have on the side of my hobby blog) and, as seen above, he posts at Bell Beaker Blogger sometimes too (which, yes, I also have on the side of my hobby blog.) He gives support to Theo Vennemann's theory of a Semitic superstrate or adstrate in Germanic. Blodgett, in my first link above, assumes that to be Hebrew, FrankN assumes it to be Punic and related to the tin trade during the Bronze Age. The time depth is interesting; FrankN says that it has to be have happened before 500 BC; the Lost Tribes were carried away captive in 725 BC, and went "lost" in the year after that. That gives them a good ~200 years to have made their way "to the north country" which is usually defined as up near the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates in the Taurus Mountains, or somewhere else geographically close to that; i.e., the Caucasus region or thereabouts. From there, they would have had to make their way to the Nordic Bronze Age somehow, but with ~200 years to do so, that's hardly impossible. The Nordic Bronze Age people had clear trade links already with the Mediterranean world anyway, and links between them and the Bronze Age Mycenean Greeks have already been established, as well as links between them and their related Bronze Age steppe people much further to the east, like the Andronovo/Sintashta people. The Trundholm chariot and the Nebra Sky Disk are best explained with eastern written sources, after all. So routes and links from the Pontic steppes to the homeland of the Nordic Bronze Age were already probably in place for the Lost Tribes to putatively follow.

Another interesting aside; Eurogenes and others have pointed out that there is a strong line of evidence to suggest that the Nordic Bronze Age was bigger than traditionally defined, and probably included more territory along the Baltic, northern Germany, Pomerania and Estonia within its sphere. FrankN, in the comments linked above, also posits that linguistically he expects that proto-Germanic, defined as having undergone the sound shifts that create proto-Germanic, probably happened in the Iron Age during the Jastorf culture, but that that was a truncated picture of what was earlier a broader range of pre-proto-Germanic, or Germanic Parent Language, spoken much more widely; maybe even leftover from the Bell Beaker expansion, and it would have spread possibly as far as Britain in the West, Scandia in the North and the Danube in the east. It was the late expansion of Hallstatt an La Tene Celtic that curtailed its development and brought Celtic (and possibly some para-Celtic) to places that were earlier Germanic Parent language and may have developed into para-Germanic if it weren't for the Celtic expansion. 

This is in contrast to the Celtic from the West theory, which I also quite like, but FrankN's proposal would mean that the maritime beakers didn't give rise to Celtic and para-Celtic directly but rather to Germanic and para-Germanic, and the more traditional Halstatt expansion of Celtic is true after all. They're mutually exclusive.

From an emotional perspective, not that this matters at all to the truth, I don't really have a horse in that race. While I consider my culture to be Anglo-Saxon, and of course, I'm a native English speaker, my ancestry has a lot of Scottish, and the British identity (which is the parent group for the Heritage American identity, which I claim) has always had a deep and pervasive Brythonic Celtic substrate associated with it anyway, and the whole King Arthur tradition is Celtic in origin. I consider my identity to be as much Celtic as Germanic, and I'm happy with either one of them being spread across much of prehistoric Europe to have been replaced (linguistically, at any rate) with the other, maybe even twice in recursive form, without that being a blow to my pride in any way.

Trump's lessons

Today is supposed to be the Biden inauguration. There's a lot of weirdness in DC and elsewhere, and I don't know what it means. Some people believe that Trump has set a massive trap for everyone who stole the election, and will spring it later today. Some believe that the secret combination that stole our country is setting up a massive false flag operation, Joe Biden will be assassinated, and "white supremacists" will be blamed which will conclude the final stage of the "Color Revolution" and we'll be fully enslaved to a globalist secret combination. I make no predictions about anything. The only thing that I can say for certainty is that whatever the "official" narrative is, it's certainly false. But what exactly about it is false is up for debate. And of course, maybe there's just a no drama inauguration today, and nothing happens at all, and all of the weirdness was just weirdness. Although we'll still be enslaved to a globalist secret combination if that happens, of course. 

I've quoted the Z-man before several times on this blog. I like his stuff, because he has a real good breezy conversational style that manages to succinctly describe things in a way that is much more articulate and easy to digest than I can do. However, he's not always right, and his biggest failing is that he has no hope and no faith. This colors much of what he writes, and ultimately has made him less compelling to me than he used to be as I now see echoes of that strain of black-pill in much of his observations. That said, he still has plenty to say that's helpful, and I think that this observation about "The Trump Phenomena" is on point, regardless of what happens later today, or in the coming weeks, months and even years.

There are three lessons here. One is that Trump could never have existed without the realty of the masses that supported him. He was just a front runner, a guy who jumped to the head of a wave of people coming to terms with the fact that we are entering a new era of politics. With or without Trump, those people exist and will continue to exist with the same grievances and concerns. Just because the dull knight vanquished their champion, does not mean they cease to exist.

Another lesson is there is no way to reform this system. The sort of person who can win an election is either a careerist sellout like every member of the GOP or an outlandish outsider with no ability to govern. The only way forward for dissidents is to focus on building outside the system. A third of all adults and close to half of white people no longer think the system is legitimate. Every day the people in charge convert more people to this view with their authoritarian actions.

The final lesson here is that the old political labels are no longer relevant. That is what the Trump era demonstrated. It is no longer about conservative versus liberal or red team versus blue team. It is not socialism versus capitalism. It is about those who live in the lie of liberal democracy and those who live in the truth. If you live in the truth, you not only oppose the people running the system, but you also oppose the system that allows these criminal aliens to rule over us.

There's a lot to parse there, especially in the second and third paragraphs. Let's start with the second:

First off, his observations about Trump are often banal. He's not an outlandish caricature in real life, that's just the Z-man's perspective on him. Trump was perfectly capable of governing normal people, but the Deep State secret combination was ungovernable through traditional means. There are only two things that they recognize: 1) their own Mafia-like heirarchy, and 2) being put down by force the way that the Lamanites or the Gadianton robbers were put down at times when the Nephites were still relatively righteous but their enemies had grown to a position of strength too. Sadly, I'm not sure that the American nation, and the various others who live in America with the Americans, even those who are more or less righteous themselves, are righteous enough to match that of the Nephites during Captain Moroni's time, or Lachoneus' time.

Then again, many members of the Church share similarly banal and ridiculous notions about Trump. Curiously, given the date, these same members of the Church who recoil from Trump because... because what; he's been divorced and remarried a couple of times and his personal conversation isn't as dignified as they'd like, I think, just got done worshipping the false idol of Martin Luther King, Jr.—and presumably they accept all of the propaganda used to dismiss the rock-solid evidence of the FBI that he was a wife abuser, swinging adulturer and full-on communist.

As for the nihilistic black-pill in the third paragraph; he's right, to a point. Liberal democracy has failed spectacularly, and it's been allowed to fester and rot to the point that it can't be easily reformed. But the failing was one that the Founding Fathers themselves noted and predicted, and there is a solution to it. John Adams famously said that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." See, that's where America went wrong. Not in the adoption of liberal democracy, but in the fact that we are no longer a moral and religious people. To exacerbate that problem, we have allowed predatory (or perhaps parasitic) peoples to come here in large numbers and seek out rentier roles within our society who do not share the same moral and religious traditions we do, and have therefore corrupted our institutions to the point where they are not just ungovernable, but outright hostile to the American people.

Sadly, that's not a problem that's as easily solved as a simple policy change or social program. The Z-man is correct in that right vs left is less important, red vs blue is supremely unimportant (in fact, given the blatant fact that blue will steal elections regardless of who actually won them, voting at all seems superfluous going forward). But the Z-man is missing the mark on what is true and what isn't. It's about those who follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ and those who reject it for a variety of false idols. Liberalism, prior to the Progressive era, helped to usher people towards the Gospel. It was part of the long-running foundation that God allowed to take place among the Gentiles in preparation for their receiving the Restoration. Without liberalism of that variety, there wouldn't be any restored truth to cling to. But liberalism since the progressive era is just one of many faces of the great and abominable church. He's correct to note it's falsehood, but incorrect in the alternative that he offers up in its place.

(I'll note that his next post about the Trump Lessons is considerably better. I'll quote portions of that too.)

The installation of Joe Biden as president marks the end of the old civic nationalist America and the beginning of the new managerial state. Competitive elections and open debate of the old era have been swept away in favor of ceremonial elections and speech codes. The managerial class has formally seized control of the country.

No one can look at what is going on in the country and think any of it is normal or that returning to normal is possible. Even if Washington wanted to return to normalcy, the last few months cannot be unseen. Joe Biden will take the oath of office behind layers of razor wire, guarded more than a full army division. The imperial capital looks like it is under occupation and it very well may remain this way. The new regime is extremely paranoid, convulsed by increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories.

This is the big lesson of the Trump years. The nature and psychology of the managerial class began to transform after the end of the Cold War. Little by little it was becoming a closed and insulated culture sitting atop of the general culture. The system looked the same from the outside, two parties competing for votes and the right to dispense the benefits of power, but inside it was changing. It was becoming a distinct culture and the people in that culture were becoming class aware.

Viewed in this context, the 2016 election of Donald Trump was the catalyst for the final phase of this process, the end of which is unfolding now.  The political system in America is now a closed shop, like a sports league. Just as you cannot buy a sports team without first being approved by the other owners, you can no longer win a federal election without first being vetted by the managerial class. The razor wire barriers are the manifestation of this closing of the managerial elite.

It is not just the political marketplace that has been closed off. America is no longer a market economy. This is another thing that has accelerated into plain sight during the Trump years. The shuttering of the social media site Parler is a great example of how the marketplace no longer exists in a conventional sense. All of its vendors gave up their business with the company, because the people running those firms are loyal to their class, not the abstract principles of the marketplace.

This will become increasingly clear as the new regime takes control. The big economic players like the banks or the tech giants are no longer subject to the marketplace in any meaningful way. For example, if angry consumers swore off Amazon, not much would change for Amazon as they control the logistics for the companies those angry consumers would use in place of Amazon. Mastercard can back list anyone because they are a part of a cartel that has no competition.

This will be the hardest lesson for people to accept. Every generation of Americans walking the earth right now has been conditioned to believe the marketplace is the final arbiter of all disputes. Despite all that has gone on, most people cannot accept that there is no marketplace in large swaths of the economy. They still respond to the bogeyman of socialism, despite the fact America has been a socialist country for close to a century now. We are now a command-and-control economy.

Of course, all of this is coming with something even more ominous. For example, the tech giants volunteered to work with the FBI to get the protestors they have now labeled insurrectionists, which is an important change in tone. This public-private partnership comes naturally, as the people involved see one another as members of the same class, at war with the same enemy. Silicon Valley is officially the signal intelligence arm of the surveillance state.

This year the regime will roll out the Covid passports, which will be required to get on public transport. Soon, they will be required to do anything. This is the beginning of the social credit system, where your internal passport is essentially a report card that is constantly updated based on your behavior. It starts with public health but will quickly moves to public safety. Surveillance capitalism will come into full bloom tarted up with the language of public safety and defending democracy.

In total, what the Trump phenomenon has revealed is the America most people thought was their country is gone. Politically, economically, demographically, and culturally, the old American has been replaced with this new society. The great reset, as the new regime bills it, is a dictatorship of the managerial class. That class is now largely closed off to the rest of us. Just as the nomenklatura had the house on the embankment, the managerial class has the walled institutions.

This is why the new regime is willing to bust up many of the institutions that had been instrumental in creating. Public distrust of the media is no longer important, as the new class is no longer subject to the voters. The media companies no longer worry about the audience, because what are you going to do, start your own Amazon? Create your own Hollywood? Mitch McConnell supports another impeachment, because he knows the party system is a farce. His loyalty to his class is what matters.