The Populist Delusion by Neema Parvini Part 3

Do managers believe their own lies, and why do so many of their policies seem directed at the collapse of the economy and the end of the human race or Western civilization?[1]

From The Populist Delusion by Neema Parvini, AKA Academic Agent:

PopulistApparently, there is some dispute as to whether the elites really believe their own ideology or not. Samuel T. Francis was sure that managers cynically adopt whatever ideology will serve to increase their own power. Paul Gottfried, it seems, is more convinced that they are in fact true believers. Edward Dutton’s take on it is that smart people are capable of self-brainwashing, being high in openness and better able to control their instincts, impulses, and intuitions. Many people simply figure out what beliefs they need to have for their optimum career prospects and convince themselves of their truth. Thus, Dutton’s interpretation splits the difference. Yes, managers adopt ideas that serve their own interests, but they also genuinely believe them. Dutton suggests that the evidence is that many people will simply and happily adopt any new orthodoxy that comes down the line. The DEI true believers would just as soon adopt fascist principles if they needed to; they are seemingly soulless opportunists, not thinkers. If that seems farfetched, Facebook announced that pro-fascist statements are now permitted on their site if the pro-fascists are fighting the Russians as part of the Ukrainian military, specifically the Azov battalion.[2] We know that ideologues will simply ignore inconvenient truths. For instance, female happiness has declined with greater female participation in the workforce. This is described by feminists as a “paradox.”[3] Likewise, we know that men and women will make violently different occupational choices given maximal freedom and minimal social pressure. Only 23% of engineers are women in “free” Sweden, while 50% of Iranian or Indian engineers are female. This will seem odd only to an ideologue. Sane people call this sexual dimorphism. We know that women as a group are more attracted to people, not things, and when they do go into science, prefer life sciences. Women, being more agreeable than men, are extra specially capable of bending and reshaping themselves to follow where the political winds blow, going from being more conservative than men in the 1940s to being more liberal than they are now. This chameleon tendency is particularly useful for mating with conquerors and invading forces who kill all the men and take all the women to boost the men’s ability to reproduce. Genetic records show greater continuity with DNA passed on from women, than the genes contributed by men within particular regions. The female line remains intact more so than the male.

A well-functioning elite mops up promising talent. This has two benefits for them. One is that the elites continue to have a fresh infusion of people of high ability. The second, is that it stops a counter-elite from forming. Thanks to DEI, however, talented people are in fact being excluded.  They are either not hired due to irrelevant factors to do with skin color, etc., or if they make it through, they are fired for expressing ideas which do not conform to the managerial consensus. Their career plans are simply scuttled. This is good news for those of us hoping for a counter-elite to form to replace the current elite, preferably one with fewer pathological features than this one. This was the situation in the UK when, thanks to snobbery, being working class stopped someone from rising through the ranks, providing smart, motivated, articulate MPs for the non-middle class.

Parvini puts the number of those completely disaffected with the elite US vision at 30%. These people are actively hostile to the messaging from the managerial elite preventing them from being managed. It was Samuel T. Francis who emphasized the importance of ideology in managerial rule.

The policies of the elite are seemingly designed to lead to billions starving and complete social and economic collapse. If a conspiracy theory turned out to be true, that, for instance, the Chinese or aliens were controlling the elite in order to eliminate the West as their rivals for world dominance, it would not be at all surprising, at least in terms of the methods employed. Net zero carbon emissions, for instance, would end life on the planet as we know it. Simply exhaling adds to carbon dioxide levels. Joseph Biden has closed the Keystone Pipeline to stop oil coming from Canada, and stopped fracking on public land, and has surely made it harder on private land as well. The U.S. has gone from being energy independent under Trump to not being at all independent with rising natural gas and gasoline prices. Biden, or rather, the people managing him, actually like rising energy prices. It is a bonanza for big oil and is in keeping with the sentiments of the Green New Deal, as though the increase in costs of fossil fuels will somehow help the climate. But, Biden has presided over and caused this state of affairs, funding the Ukraine’s fight against Russia as well, while there are no reliable available replacement energy sources being promoted, such as nuclear power. Likewise, ramping up interracial hatreds, suspicions, and hostilities is a great way to ruin a multiracial society, not something the Han Chinese China has to worry about, except on the periphery, with the Uighurs being an obvious example. Open borders, so beloved by the managerial elite, promise to bring in cheap labor and new voters for the DNC, while placing new burdens on the welfare state. Economic refugees, if present in too large a number, threaten to reproduce the low social trust cultures that they are escaping from with their poor economic performance, slack adherence to the rule of law, and ubiquitous corruption. If open borders became universal policy, all first world countries would be reduced to third world status almost immediately. The national average IQ would drop precipitously and with it impulse control and prosocial personality traits associated with K life strategies – long term thinking connected to groups evolved in moderately harsh climates.

The commentator Charlemagne proposes that the elite want to impoverish the population to make sure all are dependent on state largess. As mentioned in Part 1, the attack on whites is an attack on those who do not depend on welfare, and the like, and can currently afford to reject the elite agenda. The attack on “whiteness” is aimed primarily at this group of whites. Private smaller businesses represent a possible source of resistance to the elite and they were ruthlessly suppressed during the lockdowns for no logical reason, with Amazon’s profits increasing by 220% as a consequence. Walmart with its grocery stores remained open, while mom and pop stores went under, most never to return.

We are virtue-signaling our way to death. Mostly white individuals use outgroups to bash the ingroup over the head in an attempt to signal their moral superiority and thus to rise in prestige. They want power because they are neurotic and insecure, and they are antisocial; filled with malicious envy, and Machiavellian cunning. They pretend to be filled with compassion for various outgroups, the more outgroup the better, but do not marry, or socialize with, or live next door to, members of those outgroups, and, when told that their proposed policies not only do not help, but hurt members of those outgroups, could not care less. They even side with the ultimate outgroup, all of nature excluding human beings, against all of humanity. This is the case with energy policies aimed at zero impact on the environment rather than what is best for human flourishing. If individuals virtue signal, presumably whole governments can do so. We, the state, have chosen to scapegoat this group, who we see as a threat to our power, and we do so with the full force of all the mechanisms of bureaucratic and, potentially, military power. While being completely self-serving, we will claim to be protecting everyone from malignant malefactors. We will, for instance, provide subsidies to black farmers, but not to white farmers, and this is supposed to signal our virtue, instead of our utter corruption and contravention of conventions of basic fairness and justice. We will call this “antiracism;” current discrimination to make up for past discrimination according to Ibram Kendi’s formulation. Ed Dutton sees government as a protection racket and economically independent whites are a threat to their business model.

An online commentator objects to Neema Parvini’s embrace of the notion of the elite and says this is an outmoded model based on monarchies and the like. The new elites are distributed and networked the commentator claims. There could be some truth to the network description, but it is not clear what difference this makes to the diagnosis of what is going on. Certainly, there are still certain individuals like the CEO of Blackrock, Larry Fink (his last name says it all) who manages 7.5 trillion dollars in assets who wield enormous power, enforcing ESG (environmental, social, governmental) rules for businesses. When he says that it is never more important for CEOs to have a consistent voice, this is a threat. Any CEO who becomes a dissident will be punished. In fact, they will be unpersoned. Carl Schmitt’s friend/enemy distinction means the enemy is considered non-human. This has been a common observation about what happens in war, but with the failure of the neoconservatives to “spread democracy,” the war has been turned inward at it is one’s fellow Americans who are deemed to be demons living outside the bounds of order. And then George Soros’ influence exists seemingly wherever goodness and decency have been overthrown or are in decline.

The managerial elite make a nonsense of the public/private distinction. They circulate from institution to institution and they are a kind of network united in common purpose. They could be compared to the invention of the internet which was designed to be impervious to nuclear attack, simply rerouting from server to server any messages that were blocked in one place, being shunted all the way around the world if necessary. My old boarding school, Christ’s College, an expensive elite high school in New Zealand, has gone fully woke and embraces DEI because they know that is what they need to do to continue to be the future movers and shakers of New Zealand and elsewhere. The fact that the elite are distributed and multinational just makes them harder to dislodge or attack or stop. When the Biden administration decided to put sanctions on Russia, the managerial elite decided to go whole hog and withdraw every technology service providing corporation they could think of. Any corporation who hesitated was subjected to, or threatened with, economic retaliation and being canceled by having their customers abandon them in protest. Of course, those customers would need to be propagandized to assert that pressure and if the DNC or CNN and New York Times told those customers not to, they would not.

Schmitt claims that politics pervades everything and that there are no, and can never be, neutral institutions who just engage in “science,” for instance. An engineer I know claimed that the top scientific journals are immune to politics. That is not remotely true as all practicing scientists will be finding out if they do not know already. At Gad Saad’s university in Canada, not only must a statement be made about how your research helps DEI, but every element of the research must draw on DEI in some way, making sure that “diverse ways of knowing” have been included as part of the methodology, such as One Spirit people’s traditional intuitive and religious modalities. The editor of the Lancet, England’s most prestigious medical journal and the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine both resigned some time ago for the same reason, that articles were being selected or eliminated purely on political grounds not scientific.

The Populist Delusion notes that managerial regime is totalizing. No remnant of the old order must remain, hence the rewriting of history, the discarding, in theory at least, of all older books in libraries, and the destruction of statues not consistent with their rule.

Samuel T. Francis states that equality becomes a political weapon used by the elites to set up new inequalities. Such circumstances are inevitable because “equality” as a goal involves a contradiction. If equality is ranked higher than inequality as being more valuable and desirable, then the egalitarians are in fact in favor of ranking. They rank not ranking as better than ranking. Bernard de Jouvenal sees equality as part of a political strategy where the high promise to liberate the low from “oppressors,” offering to transfer middle class advantages to them.

Part of the managerial vision can be traced to Edward Bernays, a nephew of Freud, writing in the 1920s and 1930s. Along with Walter Lippmann, he regarded regular people as NPCs. All people should be treated as being mechanically identical with mass psychology to be employed to manage public opinion. The latter was never to be followed by the elite. The elite must engineer consent[4] from the top down. Eliminate the fiction of democracy and let the elite manage.

It suited the managers to adopt a blank slate vision of human beings as the mindless product of their environments. Thus, they could determine the kind of people they wanted by social engineering. Elections could be allowed so long as real choice was denied, since God only knows people are stupid. (They probably had a point there.) Lippmann in The Phantom Public does make the interesting contention that if voters had a big choice concerning for whom they might vote this might result in life becoming intolerable for the vanquished. With a small choice, the losers are more likely to endure with good humor the policies for which they did not approve. So, democracy should be, and can only be, a rubber stamp of rule by the experts.

However, the internet has made the job of the managers harder, particularly managing public opinion. Parvini comments that historically, the lack of moral unity between the rulers and ruled has never lasted for long. Such divisions spell trouble.

In Chapter 9, it is noted that the managerial state has aimed to produce atomized consumers, rupturing man-to-man ties and sharing only their common bondage to the state. In this way, “the extremes of individualism and socialism meet.”[5] Other commentators have mentioned that the family offers the possibility of resistance to the top-down imposition of power and that the Chinese have also historically gone after the family for the same reason. Ken Wilber once commented that if someone wishes to deviate from the consensus his best bet is to find a “micro-community” which offers moral support for his deviant ideas. Of course, such ideas might be as wrong or reprehensible as those being promoted by the majority, but it is the only way to sustain long term nonconformity to mass unanimity.

In his book Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt, Paul Gottfried describes the elite using a combination28 of social justice and white guilt to manipulate. Minority groups neutralize the majority outgroup, and white guilt demoralizes that majority outgroup further in a perversion of Protestant morality that emphasizes our sinful nature. This unhealthy mixture resulted in the crusade against discrimination beginning in the 1960s then got exported to the rest of the world. The antiwhite Left focuses on the 1950s as the symbol of what they oppose, despite the 1950s being aberrant and nonrepresentative of anything much. The 1950s was the last gasp of the old religious, conservative, prosocial order with rather heavy-handed attempts to stomp out what ended up being the 1960s with its throwing off of the cloak of group conformity in favor of extreme individualism – although done en masse and entailing an extreme mimetic conformity of its own, bringing to mind “We are all individuals” chanted mindlessly and in unison from the movie The Life of Brian.

An interesting technique used by the managerial machine that Parvini identifies is the media pretending a consensus has been reached in order to mold public opinion. The example he gives is of a BBC show Question Time featuring four pro-immigrant people and one anti-immigrant person who happened to be part black,[6] with the studio audience booing when the anti-immigrant person spoke. Thus, viewers at home would be inclined to imagine that the anti-immigrant position was held only be a despised minority, when really between 1964 and 2017 65% of the British public opposed immigration.[7]

The playbook outlined by Gottfried is:

  1. Invent an imaginary consensus.
  2. Use the past, real or imaginary, as a club to generate white guilt.
  3. Depict unfashionable opinions as pathological and dissent as indicating mental illness.

Gottfried writes of psychiatrics who present their private political opinions as though they represented scientific truths. Many people will be familiar with the official book of mental illness used by the psychiatric profession in the US, the DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, being altered in such a way that homosexuality went from being a pathology to perfectly normal. Again, this conforms to Schmitt’s dictum concerning the pervasiveness of the political.

The diversity machine is state power disguised as therapy, hence, anti-bias training. The many are pathological. The few will cure us.

Gottfried notes that the fiction of consensus is unique to the functioning of the managerial elite. No other ruling elite has bothered pretending that all agreed with them, although it could be noted that both communists and fascists liked to pretend that they had been elected by popular vote and insert the word “democratic” somewhere prominent in their messaging.

To sum up, politics pervades everything. All societies are controlled by elites, providing they have not descended into complete lawlessness. Elites do not tolerate alternative centers of power which would simply cause conflict and warring. Democracy is mostly window dressing as most people have recognized, evident in the lack of real choice between political candidates and then the lack of interest politicians have in the public once elected. Yes, Donald Trump was a real threat to the managerial elite, at least in terms of messaging, and they went into overdrive to isolate him and to depict him as illegitimate. A family member in New Zealand was convinced that Trump was a Russian agent, getting his news from CNN and the New York Times. But, Trump was never sovereign. The sovereign is he who decides on the exception, who can declare emergency powers, and who will be unquestioningly obeyed by the courts. Any separation of powers will tend to collapse into a unity again.

There has been some discussion concerning setting up parallel institutions like The University of Austin populated by dissident academics resistant to the dictates of the current elite “dedicated to the fearless pursuit of truth.” This seems unlikely to succeed. Anyone associated with such a rejection of the elite consensus will immediately be persona non grata. He will never be able to leave, professors will be barred from publishing, they will not be invited to conferences, and if they are, other academics will boycott them, and so on. The state and the managerial elite simply have too many tools at their disposal to make prospective University of Austin professors’ lives a living hell. It seems most likely that the disaffected few, intelligent members of the 30% who reject the current dispensation, must, at some point, generate a replacement elite; one that is more congenial to those who reject the pathological direction taken by those currently in power. As Charlton points out, pathology and nihilism is inevitable once God has been rejected. Life is then seen as a product of chance, randomness, or determinism, and the very existence of man is seen as of questionable worth.

[1] Bruce Charlton has worthwhile things to say on this topic. and



[4]“The Engineering of Consent.” One can see where Chomsky got his book title, Manufacturing Consent, from.

[5] p. 125, Parvini.


[7] p. 131.

16 thoughts on “The Populist Delusion by Neema Parvini Part 3

  1. It isn’t mere virtue signalling against White European. It’s vicious racial and spiritual hatred of what has been an highly Christian Europe. No other people have earned Satanic hatred so much as much as faithful Jews in history. Who the idolators opposed.

    • Nearly all the hatred is coming from the descendants of those white European Christians who still constitute the bulk of the elite and the elite decide what messages get promoted and which disappeared via their henchmen.

      • When the demons come out of a man. The demon brings 7 demons with him to retake the apostate man.

        Hence by this parable our Lord predicted that apostate Christian Europe is 7 times more demon infested than it’s pagan forebears.

      • Yes. The pagans will have been ethnocentric defenders of family and tribe rather than ethnomasochistic madmen.

  2. I find the text extremely interesting. Yet this:

    “. Economic refugees, if present in too large a number, threaten to reproduce the low social trust cultures that they are escaping from with their poor economic performance, slack adherence to the rule of law, and ubiquitous corruption. If open borders became universal policy, all first world countries would be reduced to third world status almost immediately. The national average IQ would drop precipitously and with it impulse control and prosocial personality traits associated with K life strategies – long term thinking connected to groups evolved in moderately harsh climates.”

    Is rife with error.
    1) Ubiquitous corruption was never an exclusive hallmark of poor countries. We simply know this by reading encyclicals such as Libertas Praestantissimum or Syllabus of Errors, which condemn the Liberalism that has characterized protestant nations such as USA. Freemasonry, the most satanic and corrupt institution we know about was founded publicly in UK, and had the Illuminati from Baviera (Germany) as precursors.
    2) The collapse of the IQ among wealthy countries has been happening as a consequence of widespread sinfulness in their societies. The dissemination of contraception, fornication, drug use, and divorce began in countries such as Netherlands, USA, UK long before in poor countries. Argentina, my home country, had barely issues with weed use among teenagers before 1994. Only when the Hollywood industry started releasing PG13 movies where people used weed (which happened in the late nineties) drug use became widespread.
    3) The so-called K strategy from wealthy nations has led almost all wealthy nations in Europe in the verge of a demographic winter, and made them dependent on immigration to sustain the elderly in the next few decades.
    4) The financial elites that meet in the Davos forum (Switzerland, rich country) have several key players and investors who are from rich nations. Klaus Schwab is german. Bill Gates, who is clearly a satanist, is from a rich country.
    5) The outsourcing of industrial production from rich countries such as USA or Germany to China (with the subsequent destruction of jobs in their respective countries) was NOT done by third-world immigrants, it was done by greedy individuals from those countries.

    • I wouldn’t say you have identified any errors per se. Corruption is relative. I can live in three countries. New Zealand, USA, Serbia. I find NZ and the US oppressive as a dissident and I am worried about them descending into 3rd world hellishness. I won’t move to Serbia, however, because it already is 3rd maybe 2nd world. Montenegrin gangs run protection rackets on restaurants and government officials must be bribed to do their jobs. Bribing people just to do the job they are already paid for is the norm in every country other than the West and not something I want to have to live with.

      Argentina was once doing very well and around 1900 was considered basically a first world country filled with ethnic Europeans and a high standard of living. My understanding is that what I am warning about with open borders has already happened to Argentina which is now 3rd world with so many immigrants looking for economic betterment that it has lowered the average IQ in Argentina and social trust is now low, and the economy is crap.

      High social trust is associated with ethnic uniformity and high IQ. White bread Americans and New Zealanders can basically be relied on not to try to rip each other off. When eBay began it was feared that sellers would sell junk and buyers would send checks that bounced. They did not. Serbs, on the other hand, are as sweet as sweet can be to their relatives and immediate neighbors but treat moving around in public as an act of aggression and hostility. Good luck waiting for a car to stop for you on a crosswalk.

      I admire Russian cultural products, but would never want to live there for the same reason.

      The West has extreme pathologies at the moment which I am trying to identify with these posts. The fear is that civilization and the modern economy will simply cease and we will all be like Latin American countries or worse. Third world countries and the attendant standard of living is the thing to be avoided if possible.
      1) I would happily put up with the Freemasons not to live in, say, Ghana.
      2) The lowering IQ in wealthy countries is still significantly higher than in poor countries. It is the result of unhealthy stupid people not dying anymore in childhood and the rich and successful barely having children. I’m not particularly interested in marijuana as a thing and don’t blame it for most current troubles.
      3) R-strategy means not getting and staying married, not investing time, effort, or resources into your children, living for now and forgetting the future. Adopting that strategy would ensure 3rd world status. Educated, smart women are not having children. Importing immigrants to prevent cultural suicide is a self-canceling idea, like shooting yourself so you don’t have cancer anymore.
      4) The financial elites that meet in the Davos forum (Switzerland, rich country) are incredibly evil, but not what I have in mind in terms of day to day corruption to which all are exposed.
      5) The outsourcing of industrial production from rich countries gets foreign nationals to do your work without them actually living in your country.
      Certainly, it would be silly to blame all things wrong with the West on immigration.

  3. “I wouldn’t say you have identified any errors per se.”

    Ok, let’s see. First set of errors:

    “Economic refugees, if present in too large a number, threaten to reproduce the low social trust cultures that they are escaping from with their poor economic performance, slack adherence to the rule of law, and ubiquitous corruption. If open borders became universal policy, all first world countries would be reduced to third world status almost immediately”.

    This works on the assumption that poor countries have a higher rate of immorality and corruption than rich countries. Which is something similar to say that Bill Gates, due to being a millionaire, is more morally upright and more law-compliant than Mother Theresa. It assumes that economic wealth is a synonym of moral righteousness, and poverty is a synonym of corruption. Poor people are undeniable corrupt and jeopardize the status quo of wealthy nations that are undeniably morally upright. This does not resist the most simple logical scrutiny.

    It also works on the assumption that wealthy countries (who are supposedly more morally upright than poor countries) will be crushed by the entry of immigrants from poor countries. Which is like saying that 100 homosexuals invading suddenly a Trappist Monastery with 100 Monks will turn the place into an immediate massive orgy of 200 men. This is simply false. Granted, the 100 homosexuals may turn the place upside down, have orgies among themselves, and desecrate the place, but their capacity to corrupt the Trappist Monks will depend heavily on the virtue the Monks have built through their rule of life. There is a chance that the Trappist Monks may convert the Homosexuals and make them depart from their wicked ways. If homosexuals are violent and refuse conversion, the Trappist Monks may defend themselves and kick the homosexuals off. But for this to happen, the Trappist Monks need to have developed an extraordinary level of virtue. The problem with the West is that it looks like a Trappist Monastery in which the Monks have hanged the habits and switched from Eucharistic Adoration to watching TV and from celebrating daily Mass to having a daily Barbecue. When any group of individuals invade the Monastery, the Monks will be unable to do anything because they have not enough virtue to countermeasure the invaders due to their negligence.

    It also works on the assumption that the wealthy nations of the West have managed to develop wealth on their own means and without influencing the politics/economics of poor nations. Which is also false. One of the reasons why the United States has sowed so much hatred among many countries worldwide is due to its wretched foreign politics. Do you remember Operation “Iraqi Freedom”? “There were no nukes in Iraq, we are sorry” said Bush Jr. after destroying a whole nation. USA has a history of influencing politics in many centroamerican and latinamerican countries. In the 1920s Freemasonic lodges in the USA supported Plutarco Elias Calles’ presidential campaign (a freemason who is resposible for the persecution, martyrdom of priests and laymen and suppression of Catholicism in Mexico). UK has also a long story of exploitation and usury.

    This does not deny that poor countries have corrupt citizens who harvest what they sow. True, I have left my home country and moved to Belgium due to my “fellow” citizens. But I have seen as much corruption and rotten things here as I have in my home country.

    Second set of errors:

    “If open borders became universal policy, all first world countries would be reduced to third world status almost immediately.”

    Many so-called first world countries are already third world countries. The only reason why people in these countries have not realized it is because inflation has not reached double digits. United States is one of them. How many people in the USA have 0 debt? How many people in the USA can cover their cost of living by working ONLY 40 hours a week? How many people in the USA can take more than 3 weeks of holidays per year? How many people will be able to retire with a decent pension after reaching 70 years of age?

    Did you know that the Netherlands, a rich country, is becoming a narco-state? Did you know that the legalization of drugs and prostitution has not resulted as the media have propagandized? That is typical of a third world country. Not to mention the sever problem they have with pedophilia, which reaches waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up to the top of their government (search for info concerning “The Zandvoort file”). Do you know that elderly people in the Netherlands are choosing to be hospitalized in Germany due to fear of being “euthanized” without consent? But the problem are immigrants, right?

    Last set of errors:

    “The national average IQ would drop precipitously and with it impulse control and prosocial personality traits associated with K life strategies – long term thinking connected to groups evolved in moderately harsh climates.””

    The IQ does not need foreigners to drop. Do you know what is the most reliable and fastest way to know the IQ of a country? The proportion of atheists. Why? Because the existence of God is the most self-evident and knowable thing (I am quoting Aristotle here). We can argue if it is the God of the Muslims, the one of the Christians, or the one of Aristotle; but atheism is a sign of low IQ. No person with a minimum of common sense can sustain the idea that there is no God. And the increased secularization in wealthy countries is a sign of the IQ dropping down.

    • There is simply factually more day to day corruption in 3rd world countries than in the US or NZ. No one disputes that as far as I know. It has nothing to with them being richer. It’s just empirically true. New Zealand has been voted the least corrupt country on earth several times. Kenya, not so much. Rich countries are richer because less corrupt. Name-checking Bill Gates for the second time is redundant and irrelevant. We are talking about the total amount of corruption in these countries, not individuals.

      Your Trappist monastery fantasy is just bizarre.

      First world countries are in the process of becoming third world countries. That is what I am claiming. Thanks to Albanian and Muslim immigrants to Sweden they now enjoy levels of violence they have never seen before. There are monthly bombings as Muslim gangs fight with each other. A Somali man was found raping a dead woman. He was not sent back to Somalia. He claimed that she was dead when he found her, so I guess that’s all right then. Only 45% of London is now populated by white Englishmen. The Rotherham rape gangs involving 1400 teenage girls were victimized by Pakistani immigrants. And, there were many more cities. England now has women and others being stabbed to death. One had her head cut off. These murders which occurred this year were exclusively done by black immigrants to other black immigrants. Check out “History Debunked” on YouTube for some interesting discussion of this.

      But, the Neema Parvini articles I have written detail all the ways we in the West are in the process of self-destructing even without immigrants.

      The US has indeed been involved in evil foreign policies, but the old canard that rich countries are rich because poor countries are poor is simply not true. Read some Thomas Sowell. He’ll explain it to you. One theory is that rich countries get rich by taking natural resources from other countries. Natural resources do not make you rich. Russia has the most natural resources of any country on earth, and they are poor. Japan has none. They are rich. And so on.

      I am very sorry to hear that Belgium is as bad as Argentina. I have not heard that elsewhere.

      The Netherlands are going to hell in a hand basket too; some of it immigrants, some of it self-generated.

      Debts and pensions are not directly relevant to the topic of corruption.

      Edward Dutton has written a book about IQ and religious belief. Religion and Intelligence: an Evolutionary Analysis. Atheists are on average smarter than theists. It pained me to find that out because I am myself religious, but I will not have a high IQ either. My intelligence, such as it is, is very lop-sided. Literalists are the least intelligent and theists, and those who believe in something like “the God of the philosophers” are smarter. But, overall, liberals are smarter than conservatives. As Paul Gottfried comments, intelligence isn’t everything. Our high IQ elite are immoral bastards sending us all to hell – or at least, trying to.

      • “There is simply factually more day to day corruption in 3rd world countries than in the US or NZ. No one disputes that as far as I know. It has nothing to with them being richer. It’s just empirically true.”.

        You are assuming that corruption has to do exclusively with financial/economical immorality, which is simply false. The definition of corruption according to the Merriam-Webster diccionary:

        corruption: [noun] dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers) : depravity. inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery). a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct. decay, decomposition.

        As you can see, corruption involves depravity and/or a departure from what is pure or correct.

        Legalization of abortion (infanticide), euthanasia (homicide), drug use, divorce and remarriage (fornication), pornography, prostitution, are signs of corruption and moral depravity. So is infidelity in married couples.

        If you assess how widespread are these evils in both rich and poor countries, the difference may not be so significant.

        “. New Zealand has been voted the least corrupt country on earth several times.”.

        And? Truth is not defined by democratic vote. To assess if NZ is the least corrupt nation, the criteria should be the ten commandments and not financial/economic indicators or popular vote. Same goes for all countries in the world.

      • OK. It is clear we are talking at cross-purposes. Let’s quit. I have in mind merely how pro or anti social people are in the public sphere and most importantly the degree of basic honesty with which people treat other people they do not know, AKA high trust low trust. USA is tending downward to being low trust. All third world countries are low trust and strangers are fair game. The execrable movie Borat made fun of middle America’s basic decency and politeness when it should be praised.

        An acquaintance who visited Costa Rica locked himself in his hotel bathroom. He called the police for help. When they came they robbed him before releasing him. That kind of thing is routine in some countries and unheard of in others.

        Corruption as I am using the term, as in fact all people normally use it, refers to things like how common and necessary bribery is in any given society. South Africa went from there being no bribery to ubiquitous bribery with black rule. Older white South Africans can apparently all remember the first time they had to bribe a public official such as policemen. SA is further along the path of high trust to low trust than the US.

      • Lying may not be contagious, but low trust most certainly is. And a low-trust society is much less efficient, even without counting the lying and thieving that cause the low trust. Think of the opportunity costs that are lost to personal and home security, counting your change, reading the fine print, and finding independent confirmation of everything you are told. Think of the inefficiency of society in which half the population ignores public announcements because they presume public announcements are lies. I’m halfway to believing all public announcements are lies, but a great many Americans are way beyond me. A commenter on my latest post believes the FBI is behind the Uvalde shooting, and I seen in other places that this opinion is not singular, or even rare. Dishonesty and distrust clearly feed off of each other, since growth in dishonesty requires growth in distrust and a growth in distrust lowers the bar to consider one’s self a “reasonably honest person.”

        APC Carrier is also mistaken if he thinks that the poor exemplify Ten-Commandment morality. These are middle-class virtues and letting go of them may be the quickest way to fall out of the respectable lower-middle class. Murder, theft, adultery, covetousness, swearing, lying. These are predominantly, where they are not exclusively, vices of the poor.

    • Morality shapes conduct, so morality almost certainly has some effect on the distribution of material rewards in this world. There will be individual exceptions, which we call injustices, but the world must, on average, disproportionately reward either moral or immoral men. So the poor cannot be just as moral as the rich, on average. They must either be more or less moral.

      There is an ancient line of thinking, popular among poor people, that poor people are more moral than the rich people, and that riches are acquired by dirty dealing, dishonesty, and what the poor call greed. Marx made this line of thinking look respectable. The problem is that it is not supported by facts and is so obviously motivated by envy. Some poor people are good, to be sure, and we properly pity them for having to live among the many poor people who are not.

      There are two basic explanations for the poverty of a country. Either the land or the people must be relatively bad. As Richard observes, the quality of the people evidently counts for more since some peoples have prospered in niggardly lands and other peoples have failed (relatively) in lands that are richly endowed.

      A migrating people brings along whatever it was that made them prosper or fail in their homeland. If they are slightly less intelligent, they will make the host country slightly less intelligent. If they are slightly more crooked, they will make the host country slightly more crooked. This does not mean that they make the natives less intelligent or more crooked, just that they pull down the average. That’s why your monastery analogy fails. The original Trappists may remain pure but the percentage of buggers has gone up.

  4. There is an ancient line of thinking, popular among rich people, that rich people are more moral than the poor people, and that riches are acquired by intellectual superiority or some skill. Calvin made this line of thinking look respectable.

    Read my reply to Mr. Cocks from today. It has not been approved yet.

    Any person who believes the direct relationship between wealth and moral quality should simply look at abortion rates per country.

    Same sex marriage, abortion and euthanasia became widespread in rich countries earlier than in poor countries. There is your moral righteousness of rich countries.

    Far from adscribing to the idea than poor people are virtuous only for being poor, I remind you that the communist revolution in Russia was financed by Rockefeller, and by the Kuhn Loeb Bank in NY.

    Our Blessed Lord had quite harsh words to the rich of the world, something he said about needles, camels, and heaven.

    • The wealthy are not invariably or perfectly virtuous, but the acquisition of wealth almost always requires some real virtues. Failing to acquire wealth is, on the other hand, the easiest thing in the world. Calvinism certainly reinforced the virtues of hard work and honest dealing, and I will not fault Calvin for that. The possession of wealth has unique moral hazards, some of which Christ illustrated in his metaphor of camels and the needles eye, but it also affords unique opportunities. In fact failure to acquire wealth may be morally discreditable since a man without wealth is incapable of charity.


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

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

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter 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.