The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Edward Dutton Archive
Parvini’s the POPULIST DELUSION: the Masses Can’t Overthrow Woke Multiculturalism—But That Doesn’t Mean It’s Safe
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

There are some people who cling to the belief that one day Leftist hegemony will collapse in the West simply because there is a negative association between fertility and liberalism. Such people seem to believe that the eventual result will be some kind of revolution from below, where the hungry Parisians will storm the modern-day Bastille and overthrow the new, Multiculturalist monarchy. The problem, as explained so convincingly in Neema Parvini’s new book The Populist Delusion, is that revolutions don’t work like this. Human beings are pack animals and they need to be led. But that doesn’t mean that the Multicultural Monarchs are safe.

For this reason, revolutions come from the top and, in this narrow sense, culture is downstream of political power. Major cultural change occurs, in significant part, because of a change in the nature of the opinion of the elites, who then manipulate the conformist masses round to their point of view. Parvini observes, for example, the way in which most Americans were implacably opposed to racial integration, or how most British people supported the ending of immigration. The elites supported integration and mass immigration, however, so they went ahead. Thus, according to Parvini, Multiculturalism is only likely to fall when a significant portion of elite people become opposed to it, and his book sets out in depth why this is the case.

Parvini may well be part of this growing anti-liberal elite himself. Raised in Wales with an Iranian father, he was educated at London and Oxford, has a doctorate in English Literature, is an expert on Shakespeare and was Senior Lecturer in English Literature at the University of Surrey, just outside London, before starting his own educational business, the Academic Agency, where he produces and sells his own courses. His previous works include Shakespeare’s Moral Compass and Shakespeare and Contemporary Theory. However, with his latest book we have a work which is of direct contemporary relevance.

Written in an engaging popular-academic style, The Populist Delusion takes us on a tour of the key thinkers who have explored the processes via which revolutions, and other significant social changes, take place. Italian political scientist Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941), for example, stressed the way in which people need to be led and in which they will always find themselves being led by an “organized minority.” The organized minority will always dominate the disorganized majority because its opponents will tend to be individuals, who can be easily picked off precisely because they are not organized. When this “organized minority” shrinks in size, then, ironically, it can become even more powerful, because the organization is easier to control and its internal dynamics will become stronger in order to defend against the rabble whom the elite wishes to control. Thus, serious political change will only occur when this “organized minority” is toppled by a different one—or realizes that it must adapt to maintain power.

In this way, Mosca comports with another Italian political thinker, Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), famous for the “Pareto Principle: that most consequences in politics derive from a very small number of causes. Pareto agreed with Mosca that politics will always tend towards oligarchy, simply by virtue of the high level of organization among the oligarchs. They will, thus, be able to drive through change even if it is opposed by the disorganized majority. To adopt Machiavelli’s terminology, as “lions” they can accomplish this through violence or as “foxes” they can achieve it through manipulation. As foxes, they will, of course, use their influence to change how the majority think and to render elections as meaningless as possible by ensuring that only candidates who broadly agree with them can realistically be elected.

That said, there will always be a “circulation of elites.” In “democratic” societies, for example, able people who are not born into the elite will be able to ascend into it and, sometimes, the elite will lose control. This occurred in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when the English nobility was displaced by the new industrialist class.

These kinds of changes can occur for many reasons: if the ruling elite is unable to properly adjust to or control a major new innovation; if a growing proportion of elite people reject the religion or set of ideas which sanctifies the ruling elite; if the elite does not assimilate a certain element of able but non-elite people; if its rule comes under question and it cannot justify it; if the societal “myth” which holds people together and is preached by this elite as central to its claims to legitimacy is rejected; or if the elite becomes loath to employ brute force, for whatever reason, which makes it seem weak. In these circumstances a rival elite can topple the ruling elite. This is what took place during the French Revolution, albeit aided by the furious and hungry mob.

Interestingly, according to Parvini, most of these causes of elite circulation are currently met: the ruling elite has been unable to adapt to the effects of the internet on controlling people; there is increasing rejection of Multiculturalism as evidenced in political polarization; Leftist policies are failing to assimilate elite conservatives and especially elite conservative white males, who are being discriminated against in favor of minorities; there is growing skepticism of democracy; increased questioning of elite ideas; and the current crime surge would seem to imply that the ruling elite is not especially willing to use violence.

Parvini looks at a number of other thinkers, such as Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) and Sam Francis (1947- 2005).

But, though there are nuanced differences between them all, they concur on a number of key points. Elites are held in power by an “Iron Law of Oligarchy.” They create an ideological super-structure to control people. All ideologies are ultimately reducible to means of obtaining and keeping power. They are there to control us and, as Sam Francis argues, if one religion is so thoroughly questioned that it collapses then the elite will have to develop another one, though there may be a period of elite circulation as this happens.

This new controlling religion is Multiculturalism and there was a rare, but predictable, period of intellectual freedom between the fall of Christianity and the rise of Multiculturalism.

Once in place, the ruling elite, with its New Religion, will manage the masses, and manufacture their consent. But if their religion—always subject to purity spiralling and becoming ever more fanatical—ends up in excluding too many elite people, in being too blatant or in forcing even generally compliant, cowardly people to do something that they really object to (such as giving up meat or their cars), then popular discontent will grow. The excluded elites will be able to capitalize on this.

According to Parvini’s insightful book, the scholarly literature on revolutions would seem to imply that this kind of change may now gradually be taking place.

Edward Dutton (email him | Tweet him) is Professor of Evolutionary Psychology at Asbiro University, Łódź, Poland. You can see him on his Jolly Heretic video channels on YouTube and Bitchute. His books are available on his home page here.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Political Correctness, Populism 
Hide 10 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Nobody is ever going to revolt to put into place a conservative hegemony where they make even less money than they do now, where there is no safety net and so begging and starving in the streets is their only alternative, and where they end up choking to death on pollution.

    Cheesis K. Rist.

    • Replies: @G. Poulin
  2. Sometimes I wonder if there is not some secret cabal plotting to take over, using the White man’s rage as a weapon against the current regime. A group of men no nicer than the ones in power now, but who recognize an opportunity to seize control for themselves. After all, what country would you rather rule, a mix of homos, feminists, Jews, Blacks and foreigners, or a block of racially aware productive Whites?

  3. Alrenous says: • Website

    Parvini observes, for example, the way in which most Americans were implacably opposed to racial integration, or how most British people supported the ending of immigration. The elites supported integration and mass immigration, however, so they went ahead.

    In a Democracy, consent is largely manufactured by fait accompli. The lords institute a policy, and therefore peasants decide the policy is basically okay. Most American voters now support immigration, integration/assimilation, compulsory schooling, and gay marriage. Why? Because it became law. Mandate of Heaven something something.

    You can see an argument that this is healthy. The peasant can’t do anything to the lord, so he might as well like what’s being done to him.

    [MORE]

    When this “organized minority” shrinks in size, then, ironically, it can become even more powerful

    Of course it’s not in fact ironic at all. Democracy is a scam. The masses do not and have never had power. You can outlaw the granting of titles, but that doesn’t mean lords stop being lords and peasants stop being peasants, it just means you’re not supposed to be consciously aware of the difference.

    Ref: Clark, Son Also Rises. Noble families remain noble and powerful, regardless of what you try to do to them.

    In “democratic” societies, for example, able people who are not born into the elite will be able to ascend into it

    Democracy is a scam. In fact this happens in all societies; the idea that it doesn’t is democratic propaganda. E.g. it was nearly always possible to simply buy a peerage.

    The main issue is that human brains are simpler than genetics. Solely because it’s too complicated, humans don’t like to think about the fact that nobles can be born to peasant families, or that peasants can be born to noble parents. It’s unusual, certainly, but it easily happens often enough to be significant.

    You can see Gnon punishes society harshly when it tries to put peasants in charge of noble responsibilities. In particular the king’s heir is sometimes a peasant, and if he gets on the throne, the country suffers.

    if the societal “myth” which holds people together and is preached by this elite as central to its claims to legitimacy is rejected

    As far as I can tell this only happens in a panem et circenses regime, and then only if there’s an interruption of the panem.

    Leftist policies are failing to assimilate elite conservatives and especially elite conservative white males

    1) There aren’t any conservatives, they’re all less-leftists, and 2) there aren’t any elite less-leftists, they all just take a more-leftist job. It’s not even a race problem, you can just move to the next office.

    and the current crime surge would seem to imply that the ruling elite is not especially willing to use violence.

    The crime is elite violence, by proxy.

    In this case, for caste reasons, the political formula in fact includes not using violence.
    It went like this: “Right of conquest.” All coercive formulae are perverse, so they started competing to see who could rule without (explicitly) using violence. Now it’s a bunch of limp-wristed scholar-caste members in charge. It’s exactly being willing to use violence – e.g. executing criminals – which puts you next on the list for doxxing and getting fired.

    The peasants follow along, as is their peasant way. If you suggest that actually it’s fine to just cap a criminal, because that means there’s one less criminal around, they will immediately deploy verbal violence against you. For the result, scroll down the sidebar to your right until you get to Paul Kersey.

    We can see this, too, might be healthy. Arming peasants is a dubious proposition. They’re likely to shoot themselves instead of criminals. If they do shoot at someone else, they’re likely to panic – scared of the gun in their own hand – and blow away someone who wasn’t even attacking. Their reasoning is inarticulate but the conclusion is sound. Let their betters handle the needful.

    Of course, political formulae are perverse. Relatively soon, an elite will arise who compete to get away with as much violence as possible. BLM is the first tremor foreshadowing this shift.

    In the mean time, “consent of the governed” means they compete to get away with causing as much dissent as possible.

    They create an ideological super-structure to control people.

    The American religion works very hard not to call itself a religion, of course, because Democracy is a Sophism regime. In particular it has that [separation of church and state] nonsense.

    there was a rare, but predictable, period of intellectual freedom between the fall of Christianity and the rise of Multiculturalism.

    Stuart Restoration => Royal Society.

    If you have a right-wing society you have intellectual freedom. Leftist politics are always totalitarian.

    Primarily because rightism is strong and leftism is weak. Rightists can afford to ignore what the peasants think. Secondarily they’re aware the peasants will think their masters are doing a good job, more or less regardless of what the masters do.

    By contrast the left constantly thinks it needs to meddle. Partially because meddling is leftism – it’s an end, not a means.

    ends up in excluding too many elite people, in being too blatant or in forcing even generally compliant

    It happens when a lord fraction sees an opportunity to seize more wealth and power by contradicting the party line instead of supporting it. The American Regime is good about paying these folk off instead; it has no scruples or limits of any kind when it comes to corruption.

    This is Rome 2.0. Like Rome, it will collapse when the parasitical cancer grows too large for the host to physically support. When there simply isn’t enough loot to go around anymore.

    This is largely what’s happening in Ukraine, by the way. If Russia takes Ukraine, that will permanently reduce the amount of looting area the GAE has. This is extremely alarming, given that excessive parasitism has already been shrinking the American economy since 2008 at the latest. With the pie already shrinking, they absolutely can’t allow an outsider to take a bite.

  4. G. Poulin says:
    @obwandiyag

    There are literally millions of beggars in the U.S. right now. You can see them at every major intersection and outside of many retail locations. All without a conservative hegemony in sight. Try living in the real world for a change. I know it’s hard, but try.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  5. Dutch Boy says:

    If the next ruling class is coming from today’s 20 somethings, the future is grim.

  6. @G. Poulin

    There is too a conservative hegemony.

    But, a fortiori, conservatives approve of beggars. It’s the free market.

    • Replies: @G. Poulin
  7. G. Poulin says:
    @obwandiyag

    It’s even harder than I thought, apparently.

  8. peterAUS says:

    EXCELLENT find in this online pub.

    Compliments to the pub’s management (and the owner, naturally with whom I disagree on almost everything) for posting the article here.

    The book is, IMHO, compulsory reading for anyone on the alternative.

    BTW, nice reviews on the Amazon.
    I’ll repost one:

    I found this book to be a useful distillation of modern elite theory, in the tradition of Burnam’s 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑀𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑠, and an essential read for any would-be agents of change who might be contemplating the best courses of action by which to challenge the power of global elites.

    In the process of outlining the basic tenets of the ugly, realpolitik truths of the Italian Elite Theory School (and its modern antecedents), many sacred political cows are gored, chief among them the myth of the “will of the people” in democratic governments having any real political power whatsoever. None of this will be new to anyone having read Burnam, but the arguments here are concisely and clearly articulated for mass consumption.

    The last two chapters prior to the conclusion, however, struck a nerve with me. I work in a small liberal arts college in the American Midwest, and the passages detailing the idea of political dissent being medicalized as a pathology to be “cured” by therapy rang hauntingly true to what I’ve observed in academic circles.

    While Parvini ends this bitter black pill with a modicum of hope in his conclusion, he does not offer much in the way of tactics or ultimate solutions to the problems he identifies. Rather, it would seem he is content here to draft a rigorous, well-researched warning about what WON’T work. That said, this book may become a useful tool in the hands of the “lions” who might be inclined to embrace their calling as righteous “men of action,” in that, having read this guide, they might not waste their vitality, strength and moral resolve on initiatives that are doomed from the start. Yes, a one-hundred-man minority unified and committed can easily sway a thousand, but how much more effective might they be if their efforts encouraged the adoption of a politically and pragmatically sound vision versus one merely designed to resurrect one of many failed paradigms of the past?

    I think this book is an important one, and I highly recommend it.

    NOTE: I would suggest that “lions” in the mold of “Don the Pleb” should read this book, since it is a mere 175 pp., but such “men of action” probably won’t for two reasons: they don’t care much for reading, and are probably convinced all the ideas set forth here are theirs anyway.

  9. My review of Edward Dutton’s latest show at


    Video Link

    The political left consists of two parts: the Ashkenazi leaders, and genetically psychopathic Gentile followers, where the Gentiles’ only goal is individual resource acquisition. Of course, followers of Professor MacDonald know what the Ashkenazi motivation is.

    The host again used the phrase “conspiracy theory” when the correct term is “conspiracy hypothesis.”

    The host then says that the scientists around the year 2010 AD were more honest because Hollywood Ashkenazim promoted a message of the importance of Christianity and being honest and following the Golden Rule. However, being altruistic as such is a matter of the innate behavioral neurons of Sympathy, Empathy, and Guilt. You can’t environmentally increase or decrease the potency of these neural systems. The host seems to rely heavily on the power of Cultural Marxism.

    Also, why would higher “social trust” be directly a biological consequence of higher intelligence? I would suspect the opposite – higher intelligent people can better uncover the deceptions of the elites and the psychopathic nature of R-Selected population groups. Plus, an innate predisposition towards trusting the random person in the world without prejudgement/intellectual analyzing would be a direct consequence of having high innate Altruism (Sympathy/Empathy/Guilt).

    Also, “conservatives” today are not genetically the same as the population that existed right before the Enlightenment which was a peak Group Selected state. Conservatives today are relatively Individually Selected, but to a lesser degree than contemporary European Liberals. The host keeps on confusing European populations of today with those right before the Enlightenment.

    The host keeps on coming up with poetic words for Psychopathology, such as “Narcissism,” Machiavellianism,” etc. The basic underlying biological trait for all these poetic descriptions is low Altruism (low Sympathy, Empathy, and Guilt), perhaps combined with low Industriousness to form the composite trait of Psychopathology.

    The host then talks about the hormone shifting hypothesis. Does he know if the results of this study has been replicated several times, and accurately without faulty methods or fraud? Also, why would this hypothesis be true for K-Selected humans? Simple animals might benefit from frequent hormone shifting to confuse other neurologically simple animals, but a highly K-Selected human group is very fine tuned to a harsh and predictable environment who would lose fitness if they kept on randomly shifting their hormones, no? Thus, if hormones are indeed shifting, then perhaps it has to do with environmentally induced effects.

    Also, are you all aware that Dr. Woodley of Menie has launched his own personal website and has already uploaded two new presentations on his new YouTube channel?

    I don’t read any of Pat Buchanan’s writings because he is dishonest by hiding the true motivation for all foreign policy: Ashkenazi ethnic interests.

    “Racist” is a meaningless word, so I believe it would be logical for the host to never use this word and simply state that he can’t discuss a specific issue unless an objective word is used, such as “Ethnocentrism.”

    When mobs come out to violently defend Cultural Marxist positions, my understanding is that these are actually professional mobs who don’t necessarily care either way about the positions in question, but are being paid by the Ashkenazim to carry out the violence. Such professional mobs would be companies such as ANTIFA and BLM. Perhaps even members of private militaries are being hired, such as the companies contracted by the Pentagon.

    What is a “negative” feeling? Is that the proper terminology to use? Does the host mean feelings that are typical of R-Selected people? Also, is “jealousy” a real emotion? Isn’t this just anger? You are angry at someone for having resources that you desire. Actually, jealousy could be a composite emotion consisting of both anger and low Altruism; if one is feeling jealous towards an individual who is Altruistic and has not sought to harm the jealous person, then the fact that the person is still feeling jealous would also indicate low Altruism.

    What actually is “introversion?” I am interested in the underlying neurological level factors. One possibility is that an “introvert” in question is actually an R-Selected person and thus low in Altruism and does not value the company of others. Or, it could be that a specific “introvert” in question is just actually high in socially induced Fear and this is the reason that he avoids people.

    What is “low impulse control?” What are the underlying neurological level behavioral traits? Low Industriousness? Low intelligence? Low fear? Depression? A very high sexual drive?

    Given the fact that most Europeans are now relatively Individually Selected, then if they are publicly showing support for Ukraine, then it would not be because they have sincere altruistic sentiments for Ukrainians, but rather because of reasons such as they are being paid to do so, or they are trying to launch a political career, or they are choosing a community service activity so they can put it on their college or job applications, and so forth.

    The host mentioned that he may write a scientific paper related to the death penalty in the Iberian Peninsula and then compare and contrast the evolutionary consequences with respect to the same situation in North-Western Europe. However, my understanding is that he will actually ask an actual scientist to carry out the scientific part of the paper which entails mathematical analysis, and then the host will just carry out the secretarial parts, such as searching for other scientific papers that can be useful for the scientist, writing up the paper formally, and paper submission.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Edward Dutton Comments via RSS