Civilization Takedown: “Populism”
“Populism” is a term that has always made me bristle due to its anti-yeomanry connotation. The frequency of the term in books began exponentiating in the late 1950s (having first appeared upon the closing of the American frontier to homesteading):
A book originally published in 1962 titled “The Populist response to industrial America: midwestern Populist thought” by Norman Pollack speaks to this bristling midwestern yeoman’s “discontent” through this illuminating passage concerning the term itself:
Ignoring what came before, proponents of this framework adopt the following line of reasoning: Populism did not adjust to industrialism; hence, the movement occupied an untenable historical position. And because it looked backward, its long-range solutions were, by definition, unrealistic. This meant that by not comprehending the basis for its discontent, Populism was forced to search for simplistic explanations and, ultimately, scapegoats. The result is a cumulatively deteriorating position; as protest becomes more emotinal, it bears less resemblance to reality. The final image is that of a movement of opportunists, crackpots, and anti-Semites, whose perception of the world conforms to the dictates of a conspiracy theory of history. The over-all consequence of this image is that Populism has been denied its traditional place as a democratic social force. Rather, its significance for American history is altered so greatly that it has come to stand as the source for later proto-fascist groups, McCarthyism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, and anti-intellectualism. One senses the proportions of this denigration process when it is seen that the very term “populistic” has passed into the working vocabulary of many intellectuals as an epithet, signifying the traits just enumerated.
I lived through the corporatizaton (in truth the consequence of “industrialization”) of the last of the family farms in Iowa—my family among them—and can attest to the vicious role “intellectuals” played by failing to think deeply enough about the roots of our “discontent”—roots drawing from the agrarian foundations of civilization itself—on the one hand, and the offering up of corporatization as a kind of “inevitablism”, on the other.
UPDATE: Extending the date of publication forward to the present, it is apparent that the demented screaming about “populism” peaked at about the same time that the potential fertility of white females was declining most rapidly due to the entry of baby boomer females into menopause. If so, this would continue the trend in other such correlations, such as the peak in mortgage interest rates at the same time that boomer females were graduating from college and choosing between committing to being mothers and committing to a money-making career. This bracketing of female boomer fertility makes sense if one’s goal is to first destroy the white population via its females and then contain the backlash as those females (about to be “downsized” out of their careers as corporate concubines) realized they had betrayed themselves, their ancestors and their racial interests. With their power of youthful female fertility removed and their financial power removed as they were “downsized” out of their careers, their transition from useful idiots to the trash-heap of history would be complete without incident.
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:52 | #
It is interesting how “in-sync” the anti-population “intellectuals” were with Jewish television producers such as Fred Silverman as evidenced by the Occidental Observer cite of this Wikipedia article: