The Stoned Diary: New Politics

 I'm super baked right now, but let me rap with you for a minute...If we, you and I, were to look at libralism, progressivism, democracy as a concept in American politics, you would notice the meteoric rise of a certain Feelin'-the-Bern, Bernie Sanders. You'd also notice the hard core capitalists who are storming against the Olde Garde banner of Hilary McHills, the Clintonian, but cannot abide by the temeritous ideology that a human's survival cannot be disentangled from his economic output. The so-called Neo-Libertarians. I don't call them that, however. I see them as bretherin kin under the banner of "Democrat," even should they think themselves "Republican." I shall explain. There lies in the heart of the of society, archetypal memetic evolutions. A speciation of the culture, if you will. The various "Breeds" of culture are formed not of ethnic or historic origins, but as bodies of cultural ideologies. These "Breeds" subdivide down into topographical iterations, the "Tribes." Europe is the best place to see this in physical practice. We have the overarching body called the "European Union," which is a "Grande Council" that oversees the various subdivisions of culture on a secondary level. The highest "Grande Council" is the UN. This subdivides into "sides," or the major overearching cultural archetype. The "Russian system" are people who govern themselves based on classic Cold War Communistic ideology. They affiliate with Russia as their main trading partner, and the father of their institutional structure. Just as people in the "European System," or as we call it, the "EU," all share THEIR cultural ideology and institutiontal origins. That leaves us, the "American system" in the "Greater Caucasian World," aka not the "Hispanic World," the "Islamic World," the "African World," and the "Indigenous world," which is not specific to Indigenous people of the aforementioned worlds. This is specifically people of the North American Indian tribes that still survive, and includes the non-Native American equivalent, Aboriginals, the European equivalent, Travelers (slang/insult-term being "Gypsies,") the Bedouan of the Islamic world...you get the idea. Anyway, within the "American System," we have several ethnic nations, as discussed in that book, "11 American Nations." Now, the interesting thing to see here is that beyond Greater Caucasia, the people of white origin who can trace their evolutionary ancesters as having entered through the Caucus Mountain region, typically Greater Europe (Including Spain and arguably Turkey), and classical Prussian territory and the 11 "ethnic nations," the regions established during Colonial Time, of North America, also AKA, "the White World," the "American system" ALSO houses extremely large populations of other "Global Populations," and must cater to all of their individual ideologies. We also have EXTREME internal mobility, thanks to our massive network of Highways, incredibly cheap gasoline prices, advanced airplane network, and now, hopefully, the start of a neo-railway high-speed bullet-train and subway system, and our common language and internally-uniformed institutional system. So this makes the American system inherently torn between two sides, conservatism, aka "We should only cater to Ethnically Historic Americans," or libralism, "We should extend our system of institutions to all who enter the realm, regardless of their orignal World System or Ethnic World, by accomodating all cultural ideologies." In America, we are specifically divided into two political mindsets: Democratic, those who advocate for proletariate representation in decision-making, the "no taxation without representation" folks, aka "Tea Partiers" or "Populists," and then we have the Republican types, those who believe in "an elected official who represents the ideology of a cultural region,"aka the "Grand Old Party," or "Neo-Libertarians." Ah! Now we get to the meat. How could the "Neo-Libertarians," who typically Caucus with Republicans, the Democratic counterpoint, when it was just said that they are a "Republican" system? Well! That is because there has been a shift in what "Democratic" means in America as a political party. Democratic is now the catch-all for Liberalism, as Republicans are the catch-all for Conservatism. A "Republican" is specifically someone who believes in Representative Government. A Democrat is someone who believes in Elected Government. They, however, are NOT mutually exclusive. THEREIN lies the reason. The Neo-Libertarian movement derives its Populism in that they do no longer believe in the institutional system of governance, the one elected by the "Previous Generation." They, instead, believe in the world THEY created. With their dollars. They want a return to the gold system because they want the wealth to be finite, and therefore apportioned based on merit, and therefore representitive of who is the best and the worst. If you're richer, you're better, period. It doesn't matter HOW we got richer, it is survival of the fittest and that means "by any means necessary." We have an OBJECTIVE measure of quality: money. So, get on our level. If we have more, we're better. You can mock the "institutional" system all you want, but we exist outside that. We vote with our dollars. Our dollars control the world. You call it corruption, I call it "a voice."If I've got more money than you, I'm more important than you. Get on my level. Learn the system. Make more money. It transcends ethnic origins. It is a system of beliefs. It is Populism. Democratic. Neo-Libertarians affiliate with the CAPITALISTS. They are a blend of Republicanism and Democracy. "My money is my voice. I vote with my dollars. If we put you in power, each individually, by paying you, then you're doing something right." The Capitalists. A populistic voice electing representatives in a highly granular power structure. They belong under the "Democratic" banner, not the Republican, because they are NOT intitutional Conservatives. They believe that, if everyone is PAYING, then EVERYONE should have access to what they pay for. So, if our taxes are going into the system, EVERYONE should get what comes out. That's why they're against welfare systems. They pay in, but they get nothing in return. It's rigidly-enforced charity, and they want to choose their cheritable organizations, god damnit! You're playing OUTSIDE the rules. If I don't use health care, I shouldn't pay for it. I pay insurance, if YOU care about your health, YOU'LL pay insurance. If your COMPANY cares about your health, THEY'LL give you health care. If you work for a place that doesn't give you health care, they don't care about you, and you know it. So, don't hate them, YOU chose to work there. CHOICES. VOTING WITH THEIR DOLLARS. The government is not a sound investment. Look at your track record! It's terrible. Horrible. We can do it better in the "private" sector. People vote with their dollars. CUT THE RED TAPE! Then we could vote with our dollars. The government gets to call shots, not make rules. They arbitrate disputes and nothing more. That's what "Class Action" law suits are for. Power to the people! Capitalism. Judicial-branch-lovers. Counter-Liberals. They are Liberals. That is why we need to bring them into the Liberal fold. They need to caucus with what America calls "Democrats." That's where they belong, next to their counterparts. The Executive-branch-loving liberal Hilary Clinton. The Republican "Democrat." Elected representation to enact policy. The Monarch. She represents "the system," how it's been since America's inception. The the Patrician. The Elite. The upper-caste. Hilary is the Queen. She is the "Queen of the people," the Matriarch who fights for her PEOPLE! The King Richard figure. The benevolent dictator. She is the "Classical Liberal." The one who derives her power from a system that steadily evolved over centuries, and tries to extend that system to everyone. She is the Aristocrat. "Everyone is under MY rule. I am the First Person of the state. MY first duty is to ensure that everyone under MY RULE gets the access to institutions I promise them, and once we have that, equitable accomodations underneath those policies." Classical Liberals have a very close tie to Counter-Liberals, aka Neo-Libertarians, becuase they both believe in representitive government and an elected institution. The difference is that Classical Liberals believe in CULTRAL votes. They represent a cultural paradigm, and therefore it is up to the "Families" within to arbitrate the affairs. Those Families consist of an elected house of Nobels, the "Senators," and representatives of each district in the "House." Those are both informed by "Interest Groups" who "lobby" for favorable treatment by offering gifts of fealty and tribute to the representatives. In this system, status is derived from Wealth, which is often inherited, but it can also be earned. The "Democratized" elite, as it is. This is Classical Liberalism's interpretation of Capitalism, "Rule by wealth and status." Academics often flock to this system, as academia is a system of prestige by merit. Learn'ed men may not be rich, but they can have status. Conversely, status can be acquired by joining a prestigous role in society, acquired by intelligence, and rewarded with money. However, status has been denied the New Generation, regardless of their financial standing, because they lack "provenance." AKA what happens in all Nobel systems of a certain age: only people who have historic ties to the system are "electable." So you get dynasties. Like the Clinton Dynasty or the Kennedy Dynasty or the Bush Dynasty, or, if you want to be more figurative, the Reagan Dynasty. It is a CONSERVATIVE idea of LIBERALISM. "Classical," here, is a euphamism for "preserving the classical ways." People who are "Classically Liberal" are people who believe in the "Republic" side of Democractic Republic, but, instead of favoring the Capital system of votership, they prefer the Wealth system of voting, and often the Inhereted Wealth system of voting. All this sits in stark contrast to the "Neo-Liberal." "We must represent EVERY unique individual and their uniqueness before we have equitable distribution of services, because all I care about is the equality of everyone. However, unlike Counter-Liberals and Classical Liberals, the Neo-Liberal doesn't care about the system of institutions. They care strictly for numbers. The "studies." They want to to see equal representation, period. "Put up or shut up." No "it takes time." No "slow iterative process." "Change it. Now. When I was growing up under you guys, the only thing you told me was 'We need change, now! There's no time to lose!' and now we're old enough to say 'put up or shut up. We study everything you say. We bought into your system. We pay taxes now. We bought into BOTH systems, institutional AND capital. I have debt, I have status, I navigated the system, and now, instead of helping me out, the system is working AGAINST me to protect their own. The Classicals are working against us." The Neo-Liberal is someone who played the game right, but is now facing oppression. They are also a snarky and sarcastic people, so they fuck with the system. They mock it. They flout the system. They are betrayed by the system, so they rebel against it. Homosexuality is the best place to see it. Homosexuality is not a "choice." It's not a "culture," it's an ethnicity. There is a sort of sub-culture surrounding the formation of its ethnicity, it's tribal underpinnings, those compose the modern culture's expression. They wish to express their ethnic culture just as the African Americans do. African Americanism is not a race. It is not a choice. It is an Ethnicity. These are what the Neo-Liberal believes. They truely ARE post-racial. But, Post-Racial does not mean Post-Ethnic. There is still a TON of ethnic tension, but, there is also a HUGE amount of ethnic intermingling, now. The Post-Racial person is no longer about stereotyping on race. They stereotype based on cultural expression. The Neo-Liberal is not without its factions. "Black Twitter" is the voice of the Post-Racial African-American movement. It is the voice of its faction in the Neo-Liberal world. There are also Classical Liberal blacks. Obama is a great example. He is a Classical Liberal, he is a nobleman. He earned prestige and fame, and he won nobility in the "establishment." As such, they're represented by classical institutions. They make up the VAST MARORITY of the "Black Vote." That is their voice to the Classicals. Homosexuals have a voice in the Classical system as the "Gay Vote." The Neo-Liberal movement has their own Homosexual voice. The one who would say that by saying "Homosexual" is bad because it espouses a binary view of sex. And saying "Gay vote" doesn't account for lesbians and transgender people, and enforces patriarchy by using the masculine term as the representative gender. They do not believe in a unified front of compromise. They do not believe in provenence or evolution. They understand the "system" in terms of favoritism. "These people get played favorites. You told me that if I played along, my voice mattered. I played along. My voice matters." We hear them called "entitled," because to them, their participation in the system unflinchingly entitles them to the promises made to them for doing such a thing. "I bought all of these action figures as a kid. You OWE me a good Marvel movie, not some generic bland Michael Bay bullshit. I want intellectual engagement, I want you to wish-fulfill, I give you money, you listen to ME. YOU WORK FOR ME. It is a sort of cultural narcissism. They are the bane of the Counter-Liberal's and Classical Liberal's existence. They're seen as needy. They're seen as too individual, and not a team player. They're seen as moody and uninformed by history. They're seen as demanding and perfectionist. They're seen as critical and smug. Pretentious and elitist. And they might be. They want only the best, and nothing more. They put years of their lives, thousands of hours of effort into learning the system, as they themselves were taught BY the system, and when they received nothing, they rebelled. The Classicals will say "we give you clean water and a network of high ways, and electricity, and all of these things for the money you give us!" And they go "And? That is nothing impressive. That is just you 'doing your job.' That's like saying 'Give me praise because I did my homework!' You know, that thing you make fun of US for? Put up or shut up. I gave you money, WAY more than those 'basic services' you provide account for. $600 for a toilet seat? Put up or shut up. You have trillions of dollars and waste hundreds of billions of it on shit that doesn't serve any good. Here are the numbers. Here are the studies. Put up or shut up." They demand service for their money. They were raised by the Classicals but they listened a little too closely and learned a little too much. They're "Too smart for their own good," as the Classicals would say. The Counter-Liberals hate them too. They challenge their Capitalism. "Look at all this corruption. Look at all this wasted money. I buy all of the shit you advertise. ALL OF IT. I buy the Oreos. I go to the Marvel movies. I wear the Hollister and Kohl's. I shop at Wal-Mart. I eat at Chili's. I give you ALL of my money. I expect SERVICE. I expect quality. I expect efficiency. I expect craftsmanship. I expect safety. I expect my own individual personality to be catered to. I give you SO much. Put up or shut up. If you're going to charge me 1300$ for a TV, it better be good. There's a dude in Korea making that same TV for 1200$ and it's better. Why should I give you that extra 100$? You're not worth it. Put up or shut up. I'm voting with my dollars, aren't I? I want quality, durability, and transparency. I want you to maximize every dollar I spend. COMPETE for me." The Capitalists can't explain that they ARE. They are collecting all the numbers and catering to you specifically and individually. They are doing everything for you. And to which they say "Exactly. That's what I pay you for. Isn't that how this works? You're survival is tied to your economic livelyhood, right? Then No Quarter. If you're gonna link my livelihood to my economic output, and then balance the system against me and STILL not give me exactly what I want? You're doing the job I pay you for, just like I do the job you pay ME for, and YOU expect the best of me. You give me quarterly reviews and a report card every day of my childhood and adult life. Why can't I hold you to that same standard? Put up or shut up." The Neo-Liberal is moral. They are a warrior for justice in society. They hold you to a higher standard, just as their parents held them to a higher standard. No hypocricy. No lies. No secrets. No funny business. They hold their nation to the same standard they were held to. Are they blind of institutional limitations? Maybe. Are they undeservedly righteous? Arguably. But they are doing exactly what we taught them to do in every cartoon we made them watch, every advertisement we showed them, and every school assembly we made them sit through. Holding you to a higher standard. They are more progressive then you. They are always up on the latest trend of what is and isn't OK. They are Hip to the Know. You need to listen to THEM. THEY know all the new terms. They know all the new "triggers." They arbitrate what's fair and unfair. They should know, they're part the "people" everyone always refers to, right? So, they want their voice to be heard. They want their place at the table. They want justice. They want you to respect them and their unique individuality. They are the voice of Progress. They are the Neo-Liberal. It's the same on the Republican side. They have their same side. What would be considered the "Neo-Liberals on their side in the Republican World. They are, essentially, just the Demoratic version, however they tend to identify with a different System of "Values." They believe in keeping the services only to those who were in the system at the inception of the Nation. Only "True" Americans. They often draw the line on religious boundaries. They don't believe in "Progressive" beliefs. They want to conserve the old ways. The old lifestyle. They defend their tribes and fiefdoms from "outsiders." They are entitled to their services not by their humanity or participation, but by birthright. By being born an "American." They earn their place at the table by being our military. By developing our weapons. By protecting the Americans. They, too, pay into the system. Hugely, just as the Neo-Liberals. The only difference is that the Neo-Liberals feel entitled to it by participation, and they feel entitled to it by ethnic birthright. Where Neo-Liberals wish to evolve the system, they wish to revert it to how it used to be. They are the Neo-Conservatives, the NeoCons. Classical Conservative is much the same as it is in Classical Liberal. A Monarchy. They, however, just have a different heirarchy of Nobility, again, based on a different set of "values." They too are just trying to serve their "People." They are nobles and their generosity is Noblesse Oblige. The Reagan-style GOP. The "Wall Street Journal" Republicans against the "New York Times" Democrats. They sit in manors and fund patronize. They often draw lines based on religion, not science. They believe that charity is for the religious institutions, and as such, they donate huge sums of money to their churches. They believe they shouldn't have to pay for government welfare programs because of this. They believe in a separation of Church and State in only that the Church is just a separate branch of the state's governance. And lastly, you have the Counter-Conservatives. Just like Counter-Liberals, they are that same "Neo-Libertarian," only they pledge fealty to a differen capitalistic Oligargy. They buy Wal-Mart instead of Target. They shop at Kroger's, not Whole Foods. They shop in Malls, not at "Boutiques." They believe in "Jesus," not "Science." They are the TRUE "Independants. The Neo-Libertarian is the true "Third Party" of the government. They are the Counter-Government. That's why so many advocate for Anarchistic anti-establishmentarianism. They have their own internal divide, just as Democrats and Republicans do. They have the Neo-Liberal and the Neo-Conservative sides battling. The neo-wing and the Classical wing. "The Neo-Socialists and the Classical Libertarians" Both represent, however, the proletariate. They "untouchables"-class Classicals. They are the anti-patrician New-Wave Wealthy, the Bourgoise. Neo-Libertarianism is the "Liberal Democratic" party of the British. You've got Labor and you've the Conservative, but they have a neutral "Coalition Kingmaker," The Lib-Dems. In the American system, it's the Neo-Libertarians. They are part Democrat, Part Republican. Their candidates are Bernie and Trump. In Republicanism, at least, they WON. THE UNTOUCHABLES WON. Trump beat out the Neo-Con Ted Cruz, the populist "Tea Partiers" who are trying to take over the party and beat out the Jebs and Rubios of the Classical Conservatives nobility. O'Malley represented the Counter-Liberal. The populist wing was drown out, however, by the thundering of the Neo-Liberals. The Neo-Socialist party of the Neo-Libertarian, the "Libertarian" in the "Neo-Libertarianism" does not have any association with "Classical Libertarianism," the conservative wing within it. In this case, it is "People who believe in a new definition of 'Libertas,' the entitlements bestowed upon you by your humanity." The Neo-Socialists demand narcissistic attention as their entitlement. The Classical Libertarians expect the "Classical" definition of "Libertas" as invented by the Latins and Greeks from whom the idea of the "Republic" was named. The Classical Libertarians want Trump. They want Capitalism. In the Democratic Side, Bernie didn't make it. Classical Patrician politics won on the Democratic side. Bernie's message was heard, and hopefully they can leverage it to bend the ear of the Patricians. But at least for now, the conservative Classical Liberals have perservered. Interestingly enough, both candidates are so polar that they have their own "center-road" candidate as well. The "Traditional Libertarianism," aka one that does not hew to the classical definition, nor the new definition, but the elitist system within /IT, the academic heirarchy, the noble prestigious, Gary Johnson. He is the "blend" of the two. The traditional nobility of Libertarianism. The one with Provenance. The Executive Center who don't like Trump, and who condescendingly tolerate Bernie. I welcome the Neo-Libertarian party into the Democrats becuase I think they deserve a seat. I think they should have their own party, and that party should be the 3rd national party, and they should be the king-maker within each party. I think they are "Independents" and that they should have their own coalition., not just be classified under "other." I think there are FAR more of them than we realize exist and they should separate out of the 2-party system, while still staying blended between them. They should keep a voice in each party, and build coalition. They are the brokered center that each side barters for and tries to garner favor. Thin the parties out, generate a 3rd party, give them power. That is what this Trump election will do. That is what Bernie is doing. This is New Politics.