The Populist Delusion by Neema Parvini, Part 1

PopulistWhat the heck is going on with the seemingly insane notion that all white people are evil?

From The Populist Delusion by Neema Parvini:

“For example, in 2021, the US Federal Government – the public face of the aforementioned syndicalist nexus of finance, corporations, and NGOs – has declared that ‘white supremacists’ constitute the highest terrorist threat to the country; former President George W. Bush even argued that they belong in the same breath as ISIS and that, in a statement as Schmittian as any ever uttered, ‘bigotry and white supremacy are “blasphemy” against the American creed. The media daily propagandise against ‘white privilege,’ explains why white people are ‘the problem.’ But why would Power focus so heavily on this group, ‘white people?’ It is because it comprises people who are independent of the state, would-be aristocrats, subsidiaries in potential, and even a few truly independent institutions, and therefore represents the largest threat to its hegemony. This was embodied in the hated figure of Donald Trump, but since he was banished from the airwaves and social media, now it must take the form of a direct attack on the disobedient people themselves, especially if they have refused the vaccination against the pandemic which is a very convenient proxy marker of ‘friend’ or ‘enemy’ to Power. Jouvenal as a guide would tell us two things: first, one way or the other, the hour of decision will come; second, whatever order exists after this hour of decision will grant no more ‘liberty’ than what came before – the game stays the same, only the players change.”[1]

Parvini takes the reader through a survey of theorists of the elite. Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto, Robert Michels, Carl Schmitt, Bertrand de Jouvenel, James Burnham, Samuel T. Francis and Paul Gottfried. These seem to be the writers to read to understand how things function politically and what is going on now.

Because “whiteness” gets attacked, some misguided people think that black people are the problem. BLM and Antifa were sponsored by the elite and supported by the media and have now disappeared – though it can be predicted that they will be resurrected, brought out of the closet, whenever it suits the elite to threaten violence to those who deviate from the elite agenda.

The people organizing this lynch mob crusade against “white people” are themselves white. They are happy to bring people of color into the fold so long as they subscribe to and pledge allegiance to the elite. What king would object if a subject is only too happy to declare his loyalty? White people can use the outgroup to attack their own ingroup and gain status for themselves within the white people ingroup through virtue signaling. But, then you have this massive top down bureaucratic attack on white people en masse. The Biden administration have declared war on anyone not already fully under their control and come up with various derogatory names for them. Since being a “racist” is supposed to be the worst thing to be at the moment, all Trump supporters are “white supremacists” to be potentially investigated by the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and tightly controlled by social media, and the Disinformation Board (AKA Ministry of Truth) housed within Homeland Security, the latter being dropped for now. Anyone who deviates from DEI orthodoxy is an enemy of the state. They are really enemies of the elite who are the managerial class – the vampires occupying administrative positions at colleges, corporations, civil service, etc., who readily rotate between governmental positions to private enterprise and back again. The military general merely waits for his opportunity to cash in in some firm supplying the military. He scrupulously adopts the views and modes of speech of the elite and goes from public to private and back again. The distinction is irrelevant. It is the corporations who are the dominant force among the elite at this point, not the politicians.

Anti-white hysteria simply makes no sense when taken at face value. Especially when the people promoting it are mostly white.  But, when understood as the determination of the elite to have a complete monopoly on power and to suppress in advance the rise of any new elite, then it makes perfect sense.

The Populist Delusion accepts the above thinkers’ contention that all societies are ruled by an elite. The well-organized few, bound by a common agenda, can easily defeat the disorganized many and pick them off one by one should they resist. It is much easier to unite the few, than the many. Additionally, most of us have no interest at all in sitting in some back room in a committee doing what is required to actually rule. If you belong to a union, do you want to sit on the board of the union, worry about choosing the next leader, or, most especially roles like “treasurer,” etc. Most likely you do not even want to do whatever research might be necessary to vote for union functionaries with any idea who they are.

If the elite is to be displaced, there must be a replacement elite waiting in the wings with a plan to take over. The Bolsheviks were such an elite. Without that there would simply be chaos and a directionless rabble much as occurred at the supposed “insurrection” at the Capitol building.

Most people are NPCs (non-playable characters in video games) who adopt the views necessary to succeed in life and to be accepted by polite society. Perhaps, most of us just want to be left alone, only to find that the elites are strangely intrusive and want to monitor every Facebook post and YouTube video for signs that someone is not fully on board with their hegemony. This is a sign of insecurity. Some of the elite’s more bizarre fetishes, the love affair with the “transgendered” for instance, can seem like a test of loyalty, like the kind of woman who asks her husband or boyfriend to do arbitrary things just to see if he will obey. But, mostly, it is just this phenomenon of finding some new outgroup with which to hit your ingroup over the head.

Elites can be foxes or they can be lions. The foxes use cunning, propaganda, control the institutions to make sure there is a consistency of messaging, and so on. The lions use force. The current elite are getting more and more heavy handed, awakening the rest of us to their presence – reminiscent of the idea that the greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing us that he did not exist. There is some question as to whether they have the stomach for real force. We will find out.

It is only when one’s own views and dispositions, say in favor of order and tradition, conflict with the rule of the elite, that the mechanisms of power come into view. It would be as though one had a natural inclination to drive at 30mph in town, and 55 or 65 mph on the highway, on the right side of the road. If it were not for other people being pulled over, the existence and role of the police could start to seem apocryphal.

A lot of paint is sold under the pretext that it is self-priming. No primer necessary. This is not true. Do not believe the hype. Because I believed what I read, I have applied up to six coats of paint to certain rooms in my house precisely because I did not know that using real primer is a must. Likewise, I grew up in a “liberal democracy” and imagined that things were as they were advertised. My wife, on the other hand, grew up in a communist dictatorship and had a high school teacher who informed her that all societies are ruled by elites. She could see that for herself. On top of that, because Yugoslavia was “nonaligned,” she was exposed to “news” from both the East and the West and knew that they could not both be right. So, she has also known that journalists are not to be trusted.

Becoming aware that every single major institution is rigorously ruled and determined by the elite has come as quite a shock to me at an embarrassingly old age. How did it happen? Leftist hegemony is ubiquitous. It has always been thus, and will always be so. Politically, you are either a friend of the regime or an enemy, as Carl Schmitt noted. “They” can be in charge, in which case you will be suppressed and reviled. Or, “we” can be in charge, in which they will be suppressed and reviled. There is no “liberty” other than when a society is disintegrating. There is no freedom of speech. There is sanctioned speech and unsanctioned speech. One’s speech can seem free if it happens to conform, or at least stays within the bounds of the Overton window. When it does not, you will not know what hit you.

It is the existential situation of any monopolist, whether in business or politics, to see himself as threatened on every side. He has everything to lose and nothing to gain. Speaking once to a leftist professor (what other kind are there?) he expressed his dismay that there were a couple of think tanks right of center and a few non-liberal colleges. These exceptions that prove the rule he perceived as all hell about to be let loose and proof of just how far the Left had to go before they really had monopolistic control.

According to Parvini, my mistake was in thinking that it has ever been otherwise. There cannot be two centers of power in a moderately well-functioning society. The separation of powers is an illusion. They converge. Anything otherwise would be a denial of rule by the elite. The Supreme Court right at the moment seem to be attempting to overthrow Roe vs Wade, and thus going their own way. Protestors are using physical intimidation of the judges at their homes and the media support them. We cannot have a lynch mob determining court decisions; except we can and do. The elite are presumably overjoyed at having such a galvanizing issue to focus on when Biden and the economy are doing so badly. If they turned up at a liberal justice’s home, like Sotomayor, the gross violation of convention would immediately be noted and “separation of powers” would be appealed to. Judges and the congressmen and the leaders of corporations all attended the same “elite” universities and conformed to the elite’s whims enough to graduate. Every meeting of Congress or the judiciary is like some class reunion. The Republicans and the Democrats are members of the same club and everyone knows that the “choice” presented to the voters at election time is a Hobson’s choice. You can have a liberal supporter of gay marriage, or you can vote for the Democrat. The idea that Mitch McConnell is a big improvement over Nancy Pelosi is wrong. The politicians have themselves nominated by their friends, the party choose the candidates for their own purposes, the media play their role, and go through the pretense of democracy, subjecting themselves for a few days to popular sentiment, but once in office go back to ignoring the popular will. Parvini notes that “a recent empirical study showed that public opinion has a near-zero impact on law-making in the USA across 1,779 policy issues.”[2]

The naive idea is that “something has gone wrong.” The Republicans and Democrats have converged into an indistinguishable blob with no real choices available. It is called “rule by the elite.” Republicans simply lag a few years behind the innovations of their progressive brethren. Any conservative “movement” in the US has failed. There are no conservative elites ready to take over. They are not sufficiently organized or united in common purpose and have no idea what they even stand for except to slow down the progressive agenda. The elites need to get the people to go along with their plans and hegemony and use every means available to make this happen. Without this consensus, they need to resort to violence. An eighteen year old kid who appears to be mentally ill kills residents of Buffalo for racial reasons. This is proof that white supremacy is the biggest threat to the United States’ peace and prosperity, or whatever. What a gift to the elite narrative. A subway shooter in NYC shoots the same number of people, who all miraculously live, but his race (black) is strangely never mentioned. The New Yorker describes him as “a disturbed drifter named Frank James.” Not, “a crazed black antiwhite maniac.” A black psychopath in Waukesha runs down mostly little old ladies and children with his car at a Christmas parade and the story is quickly buried by the media and his race suppressed as much as possible, and his antiwhite motives denied.

Parvini, drawing from one his named writers, notes that it is he who gets to suspend the rules, who decides on the exceptions, who is sovereign. Donald Trump was never sovereign. Democrat and Republican politicians hated him, the media kept up a relentless barrage against him, the Russia Collusion hoax starting with Hillary Clinton’s sponsoring of the fake Steele dossier and extending into years of special council investigations and then impeachment proceedings, neutered him. Of even more importance, of course, was the Deep State’s determination not to implement any of his policies. The president can do what he likes, but if the bureaucrats will not carry out his orders he is useless. Trump never even got his wall built.

Trudeau in Canada, however, simply declared martial law, and the suspension of all usual judicial oversight when he had enough of the Ottawa trucker protest. Contrary to law, he got the banks to suspend the bank accounts of anyone who contributed to the trucker’s cause with no warning. Some people had made a donation only to find that their bank accounts were frozen having no foreknowledge that this was even a possibility. The courts just went along with Trudeau and backed everything he did. Trudeau is sovereign. He follows the laws until he decides not to. That ability determines who is really in charge. That is an arbitrary dictatorship. If I obey the speed limit and pay my taxes but nothing happens to me when I decide to do neither, I am a very powerful individual.

Again, the mistake is thinking that the neutering of Donald Trump, or the absolute domination of all institutions by a single elite, was a mistake of some kind. That “it shouldn’t have happened” in a liberal democracy and that “real choice” between political candidates is what ought to be in a well-functioning state. Those are all naïve illusions, promulgated, it is true by those in power, because it suits their purposes. Voters can vote for as many “red waves” as they like, but the current hegemony will not be threatened in the slightest, not when nearly every school teacher and college professor and every journalist, including Fox News, is onboard with the elite dispensation. Were Trump to get reelected he would still not be sovereign. It might serve to mollify the deplorables and rednecks into thinking, “Gosh, the system is not so bad after all,” but those who control the IRS, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, military industrial complex, hedge funds and investment bankers, media, and schools will continue with business as usual.

[1] pp. 86-87.

[2] p. 3.

24 thoughts on “The Populist Delusion by Neema Parvini, Part 1

  1. Like you, I was disillusioned fairly late in life. As I became more openly anti liberal in the modern American sense of that word, I was taught how little classical John-Stewart-Mill type liberalism there is in modern America. I suppose what this comes down to is that the monolithic nature of the elite is best seen from a distance. I’m right now reading Mosca’s The Ruling Class and find it excellent. I was never able to master Pareto’s lingo. I also like everything I’ve read by Burnham. Mosca’s chapter on the peril of social democracy and collectivism is outstanding, and he is prophetic when it comes to censorship. Here’s a sample:

    “In societies where choice among a number of religious and political currents has ceased to be possible because one such current has succeeded in gaining exclusive control, the isolated and original thinker has to be silent, and moral and intellectual monopoly is infallibly associated with political monopoly, to the advantage of a caste or of a very few social forces.” Gaetano Mosca, The Ruling Class, trans. Hannah D. Kahn (New York: McGraw Hill, 1939), pp. 196.

    I’m still getting used to the extreme anti-white rhetoric of the Biden administration. I had figured out the Democrats hated me years ago, but there is no longer any need to read between the lines. Watching this come out of the mouth of a ventriloquist’s dummy who could be my grandfather makes it even more appalling. It’s a mark of our submission that we leave it to someone called Neema Parvini write a book about it. Kudos to you for not submitting, and for writing this stirring and spirited post.

    • Parvini is half-Persian. You might want to think of that part as being sorta-kinda-at-a-remove half Aryan (i.e. modern Western European founding stock unless you insist on being an Anatolian Farmer revenant or something :P). The other half is Welsh from the valleys. He grew up on Blue Peter and Basil Brush and all that stuff.

      You’ll find him as the Academic Agent at his own website, and on YouTube. He posts as BertieBassett on Gab and Telegram and here on Substack:

      Has a bunch of interesting regulars and guests on his YouTube streams. Not likely to be to everyone’s tastes in all things, but he’s definitely interested in putting together the beginnings of the beginnings of a vanguard. Worth checking out.

      • Thanks for the details on Parvini. I’m just noticing how often whites now ask a BIPOC to advocate their interests and ratify their opinions. BIPOCs have freedoms of speech that we don’t and a proposition is more credible once a BIPOC signs off on it.

    • Thanks, JMSmith. That’s an excellent Mosca quotation. It seems like all the podcasts I listen to quote James Burnham liberally, so to speak!

  2. “Anti-white hysteria simply makes no sense when taken at face value. Especially when the people promoting it are mostly white.”

    First of all, I very much doubt that the likes of Merrick Garland and Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL regard themselves as “white.” Second, the hysteria isn’t simply anti-white: it’s anti-Christian. And Messrs Garland and Greenblatt are most certainly not fans of Christianity. So the hysteria makes perfect sense.

    • It’s anti anything that doesn’t fit the elite agenda and that offers up an alternative source of authority and possible push back to their power. Thomas Sowell pointed out that professors don’t like priests because they seem them as competing authority figures.

      • “Alternative source of authority” is a good way to put it. We might also say “independent power of organization.” As you say, the ruling elite is an organized minority standing over a disorganized majority. And when I say disorganized I mean organized by anything other than the elite agenda. One consolation of this is that we would not be under attack if the elite did not see us as more formidable than we see ourselves. In the last analysis, what they hate is independence–independence of thought, independence of means, independence of self-esteem. As you say, their ideal proletariat is composed of NPCs who live in fear of being fired, cancelled, and generally un-personed.

      • “It’s anti anything that doesn’t fit the elite agenda…”

        Yes. And what is the nature of the elite? Well, folk like Merrick Garland and Jonathan Greenblatt are very heavily over-represented there. They don’t regard themselves as white and they hate Christianity. So they’re anti-white and anti-Christian, which explains why they’re so much in favor of mass immigration by Muslims and other non-whites.

        The history of communism in Russia provides many insights into the nature of the current elite and into what they plan for the white and (traditionally) Christian peoples of the West. You may also want to look at this dedicated worker in the field of child-welfare:

        Rachel Simon, who conducts transgender “therapy” on children as young as 4, said that “sexuality education starts the minute you’re born” and encouraged teens to distrust their “bigoted, misinformed parents,” especially if they are “religious.”

    • The whole Is the Juice Worth the Squeeze Question is something that once seen that cannot be unseen. However, the amount of Pavlovian conditioning to *not see* is unsurmountable for John Q Normie. Never going to happen until what Parvini / Academic Agent calls the Boomer Truth Regime is smashed.

      Even then, Some of My Best Friends.. and all that. It’s true for all of us. Folks here can make the individual person / skew of a bell curve distinction. John Q Normie can’t. Being able to think in terms of populations, distributions, group dynamics is one of the Bridges of Asses that separates the herd from the shepherds.

      Regardless, we all know how the Elite Squeezed Beverages skew. They and the bits of the older elites still in place will need to be swept aside.

    • This is why Jews are “white” in America. Before the huge demographic changes after 1965 , America was effectively divided into 4 ethnic groups: Blacks, Protestants, Catholics, Jews (the numbers of Latinos, Asians, Muslims, etc. were insignificant until the post-Hart Cellar process was well underway: LA was a white Protestant city with a Black minority a tiny number of Mexicans). Via “the triple melting pot” process, different ethnic groups sharing the same religion would intermarry and join the same institutions, creating what were basically new ethnic groups based on the religious divide. Irish and Italians don’t like each other in 1920, in 1965 they are intermarried and ethno-neo-Catholics. Same thing happens with German Jews and Eastern Jews. Membership in one of the 3 “acceptable” non-Black groups had consequences for education, employment, and civil society, as the groups practiced favoritism and protectionism. It could be compared to modern Lebanon or the former Yugoslavia. Being a P, C, or J likely determined where you went to school, got a job, lived, and hung out after work. AFTER 1965 religious affiliation declined and old ethnic neighborhoods were broken up, and the old group favoritism started to die out, leading to intermixing among the 3 non-black groups–the “quadruple melting pot”. So Jews are a component in the mix that creates “whites” as a neo-ethnic group post 1965; unlike Blacks who failed to mix with the other 3, or any of the new groups that entered the US after 1965. Jews from Brooklyn have more in common with Italians from a few neighborhoods over or WASPs from Uptown than they do with off the boat 3rd world immigrants post-1965 or US Blacks. Significantly, Jews are “white” for the purposes of civil rights law, in contrast to Blacks and post-65ers. Putting down “Jewish” on a college or job application does not help you in a vacuum like putting down “Black” or “Latino” does. Jews get these positions in the same way wealthy gentiles do, by family connections, not civil rights law. The rare working-class Jew without connections gets shafted like any other working class white under this system.

      The more identarian/Zionist Jews are as a rule older for this reason. Bernie Marcus, Paul Singer, and Sheldy Aldenson grew up long before the post-60s “quadruple melting pot” kicked in, Bill Kristol is 70. If you haven’t noticed, America is still run by 80 year old late boomers, so institutions based on strong Jewish identity like the ADL remain relevant for the time being. But there is a time-delay that will caused their decline. It pointless to speak of 30 or even 40 year old “ethnic Jews” in America unless we are talking about Modern Orthodox Jews who strongly identify with the religion, going so far as to wear stupid hats in public and own multiple dishwashers, just like its stupid to talk about “ethnic Catholics” from that age range unless we are talking about the niche with high religious identity. Being half Polish and half Italian doesn’t make you a member of a meaningful Catholic subgroup in America in 2022 unless you actually go to mass regularly and insist on marrying and raising your kids in the church. In 1965, having this background would make you an “ethnic Catholic” by blood alone, regardless of your personal religiosity, and this would have significant social consequences determining where you could work, go to school, etc.. Now you are simply “white” and may or may not be religious affiliated on top of that. Indeed, your status as “white” will have far greater social or legal consequences than being Catholic or part-Polish and Italian. Same thing goes for Jews.

      The online right correctly notes a historical connection between Jews and left-wing causes (this is basically non-controversial even in mainstream discourse, although the mainstream will put a nicer spin on it) but then acts like Jews have the clannish group cohesion of Pasthun mountain tribesmen, not that of white collar professionals from New York in the late 20th century. Jewish group cohesion was an important historical force when Catholic and WASP group cohesion was similarly important, and the three decline at about the same time for the same reasons, with the Jews possibly holding out slightly longer. Garland and the ADL goes down as “whites” having “anti-white hysteria” in my book, albeit with several large asterisks. Please excuse the essay.

    • The defects of style, manner, profanity, irrelevant distracting haughtiness, and accent (Welsh?) means I cannot recommend this video. I don’t want this guy’s voice in my head. I pray I never meet this person.

      • When I was fishing around for background on Parvini, I pulled up a pdf of an earlier book he wrote on the politics of literature. In the acknowledgements he thanked his wife for her patience listening to him try to explain Marxist theory. I pictured the two of them at the kitchen table, he flourishing the salt and pepper shaker to illustrate the labor theory of value, she eyeing the jug wine on the far-away counter. Any man who explains Marxist theory is bad, but a man who explains it to his wife is a beast.

      • I’m afraid my wife gets to be a bit of sounding board for various topics. In fact, the main theme of my Parvini post. But, I am glad to say, never Marxist theory. As she is a former Yugoslav, that would be a coals to Newcastle situation anyway.

  3. RE “the elite”

    The first rule of truth telling is to use TRUTHFUL language.

    It means calling a spade a spade.

    In this article this rule is entirely violated… over and over again.

    As an example, the governing authorities or bureaucrats or ‘deep state’ players are not ‘the elite’ — they are “the scum of humans” because they are REALITY-VERIFIED PSYCHOPATHS … read “The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room” ….

    By failing to use TRUTHFUL language we are aiding in maintaining and promoting the destructive propaganda world instead of revealing the deepest most important reality and maintaining healthy authenticity.

    • Well. I see your point. They are the elite merely in the realpolitik sense of the word. I think I managed to convey my complete disgust with them, and my poor opinion of them, don’t you think?

      Both Nietzsche and Callicles in the Gorgias complain that weak have defeated the strong. That is a logical impossibility. The strong are the victors. They both even want us to feel sorry for the poor old strong. So, in this context, the elite are the ones who in fact dominate society and nearly every aspect of our lives. It says nothing about their moral standing, or intellectual virtue, that they do so. In fact, their striving and self-serving decisions point in the opposite direction.


    • You can always tell a sane interlocutor; he posts in all caps. It’s a sure thing. Whatever he says, you can rely upon it.

      What is the emoji for a straight face?

      • scottrobertharrington is a familiar character to me. Sarcasm is his preferred mode of commenting. He’s kidding around.

      • Apparently, you were right. I thought I remembered that scottharrington… was conservative.

  5. /s Little outdated and stale there like the crackers in my forgotten cabinet. Humor should be done well or not at all, disagreeing with a meme about a meme by one of my favorite posters on the DI forum, stating that all memes are intended to make someone laugh; that might be true but quite often i don’t want to identify with the idiots identifying themselves with banal single-level jokes. Now, if you were talking recurring and self-referential jokes, that change shape and form before returning home, like some of the best American Dad gags over a full episode, then sure.
    Yes, the epitome of modern comedy can be found in there, somewhere (before the last couple seasons, as usual).

    Oh shit after that statement i need to make a sane point of some kind.
    ‘Elites’ currently are neither Foxes or Lions, they are Spiders. They do not fulfill a useful role in nature except for the self-perceived one of ‘catching insects’. They weave webs and spin deceit, mimic the language of real conversation, but do not contribute, only extract. From the rarest sub-species we get silk, but the rest just take and take ad infinitum.

    • Yesterday I heard someone saying in my presence, surprised, that some people are against globalism. What is there to say to someone who would make that remark?

  6. Pingback: Sunday Morning Coffee 29/05/22 – A Mari Usque Ad Mare


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.