Intellectual critics of the Tea Party movement most often attack it for its lack of ideas, especially new ideas — and these critics have a point. But the point they are making reveals as much about them as it does about the Tea Party. Behind the criticism lies the implicit assumption that comes quite naturally to American intellectuals: Namely, that a political movement ought be motivated by ideas and that a new political movement should provide new ideas. But the Tea Party movement is not about ideas. It is all about attitude, like the attitude expressed by the popular poster seen at all Tea Party rallies. Over the head of a hissing rattlesnake threatening to strike is inscribed the defiant slogan so popular among our revolutionary ancestors: “Don’t tread on me!” The old defiant motto is certainly not a new idea. In fact, it is not an idea at all. It is a warning. If you are an intellectual, you can debate an idea, but how do you debate a warning? No evidence can be adduced to refute it. No logic can be introduced to poke holes in it. All you can do with a warning is to heed it or disregard it. “Don’t tread on me!” is not the deliberate articulation of a well-thought-out political ideology, but rather the expression of an attitude — the attitude of pugnacious and even truculent defiance.The biggest threat of this upheaval is not so much to ‘the left’, but to the beltway ‘conservative leadership’ which has long misdirected the political actions of well-meaning and patriotic white Americans:
Anti-Tea Party intellectuals who are liberal have a luxury that their conservative brethren don’t have. Liberals can attack and deride the Tea Party without fear of alienating their traditional allies among ordinary voters. Indeed, their mockery of the Tea Party makes good sense to them politically. It is throwing red meat to their base. But conservative intellectuals are in a wholly different position. As the Tea Party gains in momentum, conservative intellectuals are faced with a dilemma: to join the party or denounce it. If they join, they risk losing their status as respectable public intellectuals. If they denounce the party, they risk losing influence over the traditional Republican base. There is something puzzling about the dilemma confronting conservative intellectuals. The Tea Partiers, after all, are emphatic in their insistence that they are true-blue conservatives. Shouldn’t conservative intellectuals be delighted at the rise of populist movement made up of conservatives like themselves? But that is just the problem: The Tea Partiers are not conservatives like themselves. Eminent conservatives, such as David Frum and David Brooks, have made this point by their serial put-downs of the Tea Party movement, largely on the grounds that it lacks intellectual respectability.‘Eminent conservatives’ David Frum and David Brooks are both jewish, of course.
For example, shortly after the Tea Party’s Nashville convention, Arianna Huffington warned that too much emphasis on the “ugly” aspect of the Tea Party movement should not blind us to “the fact that some of what’s fueling the movement is based on a completely legitimate anger directed at Washington and the political establishment of both parties. Think of the Tea Party movement as a boil alerting us to the infection lurking under the skin of the body politic.” Though Arianna Huffington is usually put in the liberal camp, she is here expressing the sentiments of many leading conservatives more sympathetic to the Tea Party movement than Brooks or Frum. According to this point of view, the anger and frustration expressed by the Tea Party movement is understandable. They are the ugly symptoms of a serious problem. But the remedies proposed by the Tea Party to deal with these problems are simplistic and often downright wacko. If this is the closest that our public intellectuals can get to empathizing with the Tea Party — by looking upon it as a “boil” on the body politic — then perhaps we should consider the possibility that America’s intellectual elite has become radically out of touch with the visceral sensibility of a large chunk of their nation’s population. This might not be a serious problem for liberal intellectuals, who, by and large, have long since ceased to have any interest in influencing the many Americans who have expressed sympathy with the Tea Party movement (according to various polls, as much as 40 percent of the population). But it poses a very grave problem for conservative intellectuals loyal to the Republican Party. Since the election of Nixon in 1968, the Republicans’ political successes have been predicated on winning over the bulk of those Americans who have come to look on “liberal” as a dirty word. Nixon called them “the silent majority.” Pundits after the 2000 election observed that they tended to live in the red states. Alienated by the causes championed by liberal intellectuals, they have reliably voted the Republican ticket, often simply because Republicans were not liberals. They may still vote Republican in the future, but only for those Republican candidates who are willing to join the party — the Tea Party, that is.This is what concerns the jews and other beltway/intellectual conservatives the most: the ‘controlled opposition’ may be about to turn into true, uncontrolled opposition. Attacks by the jewish ‘conservatives’ like Frum and Brooks no longer have any effect other than to alienate themselves from the whites they wish to influence: whites appear to be finally developing an immune system to jewish phony-‘conservatism’:
This puts conservative intellectuals in a terrible bind. If they hope to retain their influence on the Republican Party, they must either join the Tea Party, too, or else battle it out to the bitter end. The bitter end strategy is fraught with peril, however. When conservative intellectuals like Brooks and Frum attack the Tea Party, they win accolades from liberal intellectuals, but they make no dent on the Tea Partiers themselves. Instead, the Tea Partiers simply look on them with the same contempt they have long felt towards liberal intellectuals.
Whites appear less interested than ever in being what one pundit called “polite company conservatives,” which he defines as:
a conservative who yearns for the goodwill of the liberal elite in the media and in the Beltway — who wishes, always, to have their ear, to be at their dinner parties, to be comforted by a sense that liberal interlocutors believe that they are not like other conservatives, with their intolerance and boorishness, their shrillness and their talk radio. The pcc, in fact, distinguishes himself from other conservatives not so much ideologically — though there is an element of that — as aesthetically.
As Harris observes, this is not so much an intellectual rebuttal of Frum and Brooks but “an observation about the social psychology of polite company conservatives.” He opens up with this analysis:
The field of social psychology deals with how individuals are influenced by the circles in which they move. When the people we are around think a certain way about a particular issue, their judgment will invariably influence our own. Because most of us do not like to be in open conflict with the company we keep, there is natural tendency to align our opinions with those of our companions, especially when it is important to us to be looked upon favorably by them. A socialite moving up the social ladder will adopt the opinions favored by those on a higher rung, often without even noticing it.
This is how those who occupy the niches at the top of society are able to filter their ideology down through the power structures of society. This process is described in Niche Theory, Population Transfer and The origin of the Anti-Semitic Cycle. Although that essay emphasizes the effects of media control, the social pressures filtering down through the niches of society by the method Harris described may be even more powerful.
If the majority of European American Christians held the most lucrative niches in American society the media would be unable to depict us as a cruel and “intolerant” majority whose niches rightfully belong to the victims of “white hatred and oppression.”
The very fact that the media vilification of the European American Christian majority goes on apace is proof positive that people who identify with us and have a concern for our welfare are no longer in the ascendancy. There may be many more of us, it is true, but we no longer occupy the elite niches in which power is centralized. Even our ability to depict a positive image of ourselves to our own populations and to the peoples of the world has been wrested from us by the hands of powerful and persistent detractors.
This filtering-down process through the social strata of the ideas pushed by jews such as David Brooks, reinforced by jewish-run media organizations such as the New York Times, now appears to be losing its effect on a large portion of the population, as described by Harris. People are simply opting out of the system, disconnecting:
In the eyes of polite company conservatives, the Tea Partiers clearly represent “rude company” conservatism. David Brooks has strongly implied this by calling the Tea Partiers “the Wal-Mart hippies.” Wal-Mart, after all, is not the place where the polite company does its shopping. On the contrary, Wal-Mart is usually chock full of country bumpkins and blue collar types. But while Brooks’s put-down of the average Wal-Mart shopper might delight the sophisticated set that regularly reads the New York Times, it has close to zero effect on Wal-Mart’s customers. They are not bothered in the least that polite company conservatives like Brooks look down their noses at them. This is not because they fail to show adequate respect for David Brooks — it is because they have never heard of David Brooks.
There are advantages to everything, including ignorance. If you are too ignorant to know who the elite opinion makers are, you will be entirely indifferent to the opinions they hold. Since the people who shop at Wal-Mart do not normally attend the same dinner parties as David Brooks, they will be completely indifferent to the scornful comments made about them by those who do. Because they never read the New York Times, and certainly wouldn’t take it seriously if they did, they could care less about what its op-ed writers say about them. As a result of their ignorance of such matters, they do not judge ideas by whether they come up to the standards of intellectual respectability accepted by the elite. They judge them with their own common sense, caring little whether their conclusions will be shocking and scandalous to polite company. By doing so, they remain outside the influence of elite opinion makers.
Of course, there has historically been a large portion of society not interested in moving up the social strata, happy to define itself as ‘working class’ and ignore elite opinions. For this group of people, another tactic has been used: bread and circuses. However, as our nation has been looted by jews, and the non-white underclass has grown and become more unruly, the ability of the ruling elites to satisfy the working class with bread and circuses is imperiled:
Of course there is nothing new in the fact that plenty of ordinary working-class Americans are ignorant of, and indifferent to, the elite opinion makers. This has always been the case. But for most of our nation’s past, this approach to elite opinion had a negligible effect our way of politics. The reason for this was simple. Those who weren’t influenced by elite opinion usually had no political opinions of their own and so had nothing that could be influenced. They were apathetic and apolitical. They did not interest themselves in public affairs, usually because they didn’t find public affairs very interesting. They had better things to think about — their jobs, their families, their homes, their cars, their favorite sports team. If other people were willing to tackle the complicated and tedious problems associated with governing the nation and defending it against foreign foes more power to them. So long as the managerial elite was taking care of business, and ruffling no one’s feathers, ordinary Americans were content to stay on the sidelines. The silent majority would remain contentedly silent, provided that the elite in charge of things did nothing to offend or outrage them.
This is no longer the case. The shock of September 11, the protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the debacle following hurricane Katrina, the inability to control illegal immigration, the financial crisis, the massive bailout, the election of Barack Obama — all these events catastrophically undermined the implicit trust that the silent majority once placed in the competency of our national leadership.
Every one of these objectionable events is the result of jewish control and enforced multiculturalism. September 11th was caused by a combination of lax immigration policies, political correctness; which let slip through the cracks Muslim fundamentalists who were enraged over America’s pro-Israel policy. The protracted war in Iraq was launched solely to remove a threat to Israel. The ongoing debacle in Afghanistan a combination of politically correct elements who instruct us that Afghans should be able to recreate Vermont if only we remove the Taliban, and neo-conservative bleating about the vague dangers ‘Islamic extremism’. The Katrina debacle was a result of the black residents of New Orleans being too stupid to get out of the way of a hurricane, then taking advantage of the disruption to go on an orgy of looting and mayhem. The illegal alien problem is an invasion of our nation by a third word people which is supported by the elites, and the financial crisis and ensuing bailout was a massive transfer of wealth to predominantly jewish financiers.
For many it has become an article of faith that something has gone terribly wrong with our country. Meanwhile people who previously never bothered to take the trouble to form a strong opinion on political questions began to rally together, staging conventions, endorsing candidates, issuing platforms. Overnight, the apolitical have been transformed into the politically committed. Zeal has replaced apathy. Those who a generation earlier might have expected their leaders to do the right thing have now become convinced that their leaders will inevitably do the wrong thing. Suspicion and paranoia have replaced confidence and trust. The attitude of citizens towards those handling the nation is no longer more power to them, but rather, take away the powers they have stolen from us.
The nature of American politics has been dramatically revolutionized by the Tea Party’s ability to politicize people who were previously apolitical. Having never felt any deference for elite opinion makers in the first place, the newly politicized Tea Partiers find it easy to turn their backs on them. Having never been in the mainstream, they have no qualms getting out of it. Having never spent any time in polite company, they are indifferent to the opinions that circulate there. Instead of relying on elite pundits, the Tea Partiers prefer to get their opinions from flagrantly non-elite sources, such as right-wing blogs and talk radio, both of which are held in disdain by respectable mainstream intellectuals. Tea Partiers enthusiastically embrace what polite company regards as intolerance, boorishness, and shrillness. They wholeheartedly identify with the hissing rattlesnake on their posters and they feel no qualms in warning off intruders with their defiant “Don’t tread on me!” That is why any attempt to discredit the Tea Party movement by attacking its lack of intellectual respectability is certain to backfire. Such a strategy will simply confirm what the Tea Parties already know: that America is governed by an out of touch elite that is openly and relentlessly hostile to the values of ordinary men and women like themselves.
What sparked the Tea Party revolt is mounting dissatisfaction at living in a society in which a small group has increasingly solidified its monopoly over the manufacture and distribution of opinion, deciding which ideas and policies should be looked upon favorably and which political candidates will be sympathetically reported. Even more, the Tea Party rebels bitterly resent the rigid censorship exercised by this elite over the limits of acceptable public discourse. Those who have the power to rule an opinion “out of order” do not need to take the trouble to refute it, or even examine it. They can simply make it go away.
Naturally, this “small group” which has “increasingly solidified its monopoly over the manufacture and distribution of opinion” is the jewish elites, even though they are not identified as such. It doesn’t matter that they are not identified as jewish: what matters is that there is a significant number of people organizing outside the matrix they have created. The jews will reveal themselves in due time by bleating about ‘anti-semitism’.
Now, this article is not entirely correct to say that the Tea Party doesn’t know or care about elite opinions, as many of them have gone out of their way to object to the ‘racist’ label, and proudly show off the .0001% of their group which is nonwhite. However, unlike the beltway right, they have not ingrained this into their psyche in the process of moving up the social ladder in the process explained above. They sound more akin to a young man proudly proclaiming to his mother that he managed to show up at church for Easter than a true-believing zealot.
Eventually, they may well grow tired of their inability to prove themselves sufficiently ‘not racist’, and may also eventually notice that nonwhites tend to do a poor job of living up to white standards. One aspect that the left is correct on is that the ‘Tea Party’ ideology comes from an inherently white ethnocentric viewpoint. For example, Blacks aren’t much interested in the right to own firearms, and judging by their behavioral tendencies, gun rights for black people might not be such a good idea (even they seem to be aware of this). At any rate, few if any blacks are likely to show up for such a thing as a ‘second-amendment rally’. Many Tea-Party types already refer to low-class blacks who rely on welfare programs and government jobs as ‘Obama voters’. The problem of course is that they focus on the rare exceptions to the rule, but eventually they can’t help but take notice of the rule.
How did our nation get to such a point that nearly everyone feels the need to at least make a token superficial offering the multicult? This was outlined in a plan by Antonio Gramsci, a member of the Frankfurt School, which was a group of Marxist connivers who developed a plan to take over western culture by way of the educational system. Although the group was largely jewish, Gramsci himself was not. He was however Albanian, so he did not feel any kinship with western culture, and like the jews wanted to overthrow it in order to replace it with a world more comfortable for himself. Harris describes the ideas of the Frankfurt School and how they were put into effect:
A generation before Orwell devised the idea of Newspeak, the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci had developed a concept that in many ways foreshadowed it, but with one major and considerable difference. Before Gramsci discovered Marx, he had been a student of languages. Gramsci was especially fascinated by what happened when two languages collided. Throughout European history, conquerors had routinely moved into new territories where the inhabitants spoke a different language. In some cases, such as the Normans in France, it was the conquerors who picked up the language of the conquered, but more frequently, it was the other way around. What explained this fact? Why did a conquered people so often abandon their own language in order to learn the language of their conquerors?
Gramsci argued that what led people to discard their native language was the greater prestige of the conqueror’s language. The idea of prestige, which had never played a role in classical Marxism, became the key to Gramsci’s most famous concept, cultural hegemony. For Orwell, the cultural hegemony sought by the totalitarian state had to be imposed on the masses through diabolically cunning devices such as the telescreen, a reverse television system that permitted the Thought Police to watch and monitor the activities of citizens in the privacy of their own homes. People did not watch the telescreen. Instead they were watched by it, fully cognizant that if they did anything to displease Big Brother they could face the most ghastly consequences imaginable.
For Orwell the basis of cultural hegemony was terror. For Gramsci, on the other hand, it was prestige. Cultural hegemony, according to Gramsci, did not have to be imposed on the people through threats and intimidation. It didn’t need to be imposed at all. Conquered subjects sought to emulate the prestigious language of their conquerors, while they simultaneously came to look down on their own native tongue as gross, defective, and inferior. In modern liberal societies the same principle has been at work, but with different players. As education became the ticket to worldly success, it naturally became a source of prestige. Prestige no longer came from conquest by arms, but from earning a Ph.D. In modern secular societies, the eminence of the intellectual elite allowed it to unilaterally allocate prestige to select ideas, thinkers, and institutions. Objects imbued with the magical glow of prestige did not need to be pushed on people — on the contrary, people eagerly vied with each other to obtain these objects, often at great personal sacrifice. That is why prestigious institutions, such as major universities, well-endowed foundations, and posh clubs invariably have far more candidates for admission than can possibly be accommodated — a selectivity that makes them even more desirable and prestigious. That is the beauty of prestige: It doesn’t need to lift a finger. It can just sit back and relax, confident that people will flock to its feet, begging for the crumbs from its luxuriant table.
A governing elite that has a monopoly over the allocation of prestige has immense power over a culture. It can decide what ideas, thinkers, and movements merit attention, while it can also determine what ideas, thinkers, and movements should be dismissed with scorn and contempt — assuming that the elite even condescends to notice their existence.
As regards the language issue, this explains why there is such a push to use ‘politically correct’ terms such as ‘African-American’, ‘temporary guest worker’, and ‘developmentally disabled’ instead of terms such as ‘negro’, ‘illegal alien’, and ‘retard’. We can see the Gramsci plan commonly in attacks on race-realism: posting a link to a statistical study from American Renaissance will usually result in a caps-lock heavy post calling you an ‘ignerint redneck’ who ‘needs to get an edgacation’. Although some are attempting to fight within this Gramscian framework, the most successful movements have been those which recognize this racket for what it is and call shenanigans on the whole scheme. For whatever other faults it has, the primary virtue of the Tea Party is that it has not bought into this racket, and is now openly rebelling against it.
For better or for worse, the profound cultural changes in American life during the past half century are testament to the enormous influence exercised by our cultural guardians. Ideas, customs, and traditions that no longer find favor in the eyes of the cultural elite have been stigmatized as out-of-date and old-fashioned, while an array of progressive policies have received the imprimatur of elite prestige. In fact, about the only segment of the population that has remained resistant to these progressive policies are the crowds that assemble at Tea Party rallies, holding up their handmade posters. It is the Tea Partiers’ indifference to the whole idea of intellectual respectability that renders them immune to the prestige pressure that molds and shapes the ideas and opinions of those who do care about being intellectually respectable.
… the fact that the Tea Party movement does not give a damn about the current standards of intellectual respectability makes it problematic for the intellectual, who cannot take the same attitude. But it is also the characteristic that justifies the Tea Party’s claim to be revolutionary. To be sure, this is not the revolution envisioned by Marx, in which the working class overthrows the capitalist class. It is rather the revolt of common sense against privileged opinion makers, and, by its very nature, it can only be carried out by men and women who are not constrained by the standards of intellectual respectability current in polite company. Again, it is precisely their status as marginalized outsiders that allows them to defy the monopoly of prestige possessed by the cultural insiders. This fact may put them beyond the pale as far as the conservative intellectuals are concerned, but it is precisely what makes them a force capable of resisting the liberal elite’s efforts to achieve cultural hegemony — a resistance that conservative intellectuals had hoped to mount but which they have not mounted, which explains why the Tea Party movement has so little use for them as a whole.
As mentioned earlier, the Tea Party movement is not entirely without the urge to make odes to political correctness, but they seem to at least be moving in the right direction, towards pulling the plug entirely on the jewish cultural hegemony machine. Some white nationalists provide objections similar to those of the beltway right, that the ‘Tea Party’ is ‘lacking in comprehensive philosophy’. Others complain that it is not openly white nationalist, or even superficially ‘non-racist’, and whine about the personal peculiarities of Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck, none of which is relevant to the struggle at hand.
Identifying with those most like you is natural: racialism is natural, and is only kept out of our society by the artificial mechanism first proposed by Gramsci. Once this jewish cultural hegemony machine is neutralized, racialism will naturally return. As Kevin MacDonald observed regarding a recent study discovering that ‘Lethal intergroup aggression leads to territorial expansion in wild chimpanzees’, protecting one’s territory and resources for one’s own group is something that comes naturally to us. Unfortunately, due to the artificial mechanisms described above, these natural instincts are currently suppressed.
Xenophobia is an adaptive response, whether it’s for chimpanzees or for humans. But for the better part of a century, our intellectual elites have been telling us that xenophobia is a psychiatric disorder, little more than irrational hatred. This ideology has been spread throughout the school system and saturates the mainstream media. Those who disagree with it are subjected to economic penalties and social ostracism.
A big part of what is needed is to reverse this intellectual onslaught.
The best way to reverse this intellectual onslaught is to topple the cultural hegemony machine which pushes it, to delegitimize the premises which it is based upon. Shrug off the cultural-hegemony push-down from the intellectuals, encourage others to do likewise, and throw the ridicule right back at them. Build social groups which exist outside the social structure which is led by heavily jewish liberal intellectual elites, and encourage others to do likewise. Help educate the recently rebellious on what exactly is the nature of the beast they are rebelling against. Avoid any temptation to attack and denigrate them in similar terms to those which the heavily jewish liberal intellectual elites use against us. The structure is cracking, and it is our job to push on those cracks to make them larger.