February 2021 - Anglo-American Nationalist

The Religion of the Left

Those who demand we ‘govern with science’ understand neither science nor governance. Science is not some magical oracle that craps out solutions you blindly follow like some retarded lemming. Rather, it’s the process one follows in pursuit of information about the world that can then be used to craft solutions. Importantly, it’s a process that requires QUESTIONING EVERYTHING – not blindly deferring to the consensus opinion.

Unfortunately for some, the scientific method involves more than blindly doing whatever this man says.

Furthermore, the information it does provide isn’t some revelation given on Mt. Sinai in final, perfect form. It comes in the form of data that can be misinterpreted by idiots, as proven on a near-daily basis by journalists. Even for those of us with a brain, it’s often difficult to make sense of. It’s not uncommon (or unreasonable) for experts to disagree* on how to interpret a given study’s results. There’s not always a consensus on what’s right and what’s wrong, but even where there is, that’s only step one.

From Science to Solutions

Pretend, for the sake of argument, that we actually have an issue like climate change where there’s broad scientific agreement as to the basic facts. All this tells us is the world is getting warmer due to CO₂ emissions – it says nothing about what to do to solve it. Identifying a problem doesn’t necessarily offer solutions. After we have the science, we have to decide how to use it to craft policy solutions to the problem in question.

So, should we just, “Ask the experts”? Hell no. Experts are, by definition and design, very limited in their purview. They are people who know a whole lot about very little. Unfortunately, you can’t govern in siloes. Policies just don’t impact the area in question; rather, their impacts are spread across a variety of fields. Governing is about balancing interests – we’ve seen this in the past year as we’ve prioritized disease control at the expense of economics and education. Listening to an expert in one field often means ignoring experts in another.

The Politics Problem

Let’s pretend you have an issue where there’s consensus on the science and the solution – for example, that reducing carbon emissions is the best way to combat global warming**. You still face a couple of problems – notably, the fact that environmental regulations have an economic impact. Politics requires finding a balance between economic sacrifice and environmental protection. How, precisely, you strike this balance and what policies you use to do so are the questions politics is meant to solve. They don’t have answers that can be taken verbatim from some scientific tome.

Furthermore, you need to get everyone on board and compliant. It doesn’t do the US any good to cut carbon emissions if China turns around and increases theirs by an equal amount. The issue presents a ‘free rider’ problem in which every nation has an economic incentive to continue polluting while allowing other nations to bear the brunt of carbon reduction. This problem doesn’t go away by screaming “SCIENCE” repeatedly at the top of your lungs. Even if the science on any given issue is clear, you can always count on politics to screw the solution up.

A Word on Experts

It’s also important to note that these experts don’t come to their conclusions in a vacuum. Most of them work in academic environments – not exactly the most ideologically tolerant environments. Experts are people first and foremost – people who want to be accepted by their peers and thought of as experts. Their primary incentive is to preserve their status as an “expert” which usually means supporting the policies and opinions of the powers that be. Furthermore, once an “Alpha-expert” has spoken, any dissenting opinion will be met with ridicule – and possibly demands for the heretic’s job.

Where they aren’t maintaining their status, they’re expanding it. Take Dr. Fauci. A year ago, very few in the country had heard of the man. Since then, he’s become a household name and one of the most influential people in the nation. Do you think he doesn’t like that power, that control? At some point, you have to ask how much of an expert’s advice is designed to increase their own importance, power, and profile as opposed to straightforward advice intended to guide policymakers.

Pictured – a possible confounding factor influencing Dr. Fauci’s advice.

Finally, experts often have direct conflicts. Experts are experts because they work in a certain field – they often have built-in interests. Most military experts come from the military. Environmental experts become environmental experts because they care disproportionately about environmental issues. Hell, teacher’s unions can be considered education experts if you want. The point is not that experts are bad. Rather, it’s that expert advice should be one of a number of factors going into policy decisions rather than something we blindly follow.

Disclaimer

None of this is intended to dismiss science’s critical role in the policy-making process or to insult experts (well, maybe some of them). Rather, it’s to put expert advice – often portrayed in the media as edicts sent from above – into perspective. It’s also to argue that ‘govern with science’ essentially means ‘obey without question’ and is used to avoid debate in favor of bullying, insults, and mockery.

*And all this is assuming the study was designed properly and that data has been confirmed through replication – both of which are major issues worthy of their own article

**For the record, population control and reduction is the BEST solution and also demonstrates this political problem – despite its merits, it’s impossible to achieve without massive human rights violations

Biden Prioritizes Ideology to Alliances

Like President Obama, the early indications are that the Biden Administration will prioritize its globalist ideology over American national interests. Despite his big talk about renewing America’s commitments to her allies, Biden still hasn’t called one of our closest allies, Israel. With growing anti-Israel sentiment within the Democratic party, his foreign policy appears to be aimed at placating ideologues rather than preserving American interests. This goes doubly since – though he refuses to talk to Israel – he’s chomping at the bits to talk to Iran.

A less reliable ally than the Ayatollah according to the Biden foreign policy

The Death of Sovereignty in the Democratic World?

This also displays a disturbing trend for Western leaders to use their power to pressure voters in other countries. Though the Democrat’s anti-Israel sentiment runs beyond Bibi, I have to believe* that Benny Gantz would have gotten a call. Given the proximity of the next Israeli elections, the message from Biden to Israeli voters seems clear: vote for who I want, or suffer the consequences.

Though we expect anti-democratic nations like Russia and China to put their fingers on the scale in other countries, democracies used to be better than that. Though the right of self-determination dictates that the PEOPLE of each nation ought to decide their nation’s direction, this concept seems to be rejected by globalist leaders. From Obama threatening Brexit voters to Macron blocking Brazil’s OECD entry, globalist leaders are increasingly willing to tell voters in other countries what to do. At this point, polarization and partisanship cross borders.

The “Defenders of Democracy”

For better or worse, politics is now international and can be divided (generally) into three lanes – right, center, and left. The right is what it’s always been – nationalists bent on preserving their nation’s sovereignty and security, albeit with varying degrees of authoritarianism. The left is primarily** represented by the Chinese Communist Party and its various puppets and consists of those who organize around a central ideology and use totalitarian means to enforce it. The center consists of our great ‘defenders of democracy’ – globalists looking to centralize power in bureaucratic institutions.

The problem with the center is epitomized by Time’s “cabal” – they only defend democracy when it produces the results they want. Unfortunately, true democracy means following the will of the people, not manipulating or bullying the people into doing what the elites want. Behind the window-dressing of “defending democracy” lies an entrenched elite that behaves like the nobles of old – enveloping us peons in red tape, controlling information and what we’re allowed to say, and stopping at nothing to preserve their stranglehold on power.

COVID and Control

Nowhere is this desire to institutionalize and control the population more clearly seen than in the establishment’s response to COVID. What started as “flatten the curve” and “fifteen days to stop the spread” has been extended indefinitely as people in power realized the control they could exercise on everyday citizens. Increasingly, these petty neo-nobles rushed to outdo one another, with each bureaucrat and elected official focused primarily on establishing dominance within their fiefdom through micro-regulations which they didn’t hesitate to flaunt.

It’s no small point that, once we were locked up, these same elites had almost total control of our access to information. Through the election, the center demanded more and more stringent lockdowns; at the same time, Twitter and Facebook became more and more aggressive in shutting down information that didn’t gel with the worldviews of their progressive employees while ignoring excesses and abuses from their own side.

This double standard goes against the very core of the democratic principles they purport to defend. Indeed, it reveals the true goal of the globalists – to create, through regulations, institutionalism, and censorship – a new nobility that preserves their power against the will of the people and the possibility the voters might not do what they want. In the end, it isn’t democracy Time’s “cabal” was defending – it’s oligarchy.

*To be fair, with no evidence but my gut

**American progressives also fall notably in this lane