POLITICAL PATHOLOGY AND THE US ELECTION

by Colin Liddell

The Left has had a strong tendency to pathologize its opponents, which is ironic because Leftism itself has many of the characteristics of some of the worst diseases – parasitism, cancer, AIDs, you name it. Also, opposition to Leftism correlates extremely well with signs of health in any social entity – purging, quarantining, slimming down, improving fertility, etc.

The idea of pathologizing opponents does not naturally belong on the Left, but on the Right, the side of health rather than disease. Before the setbacks of the 20th century the Right was well ahead of the Left in applying disease and other biological metaphors to sociological and political studies, as seen in the work of Hobbes and Spengler. It was only by creating the now discredited pseudoscience of psychoanalysis that the Left was able to gain the upper hand in pathologizing its opponents. Terminology like "racist," "sexist," and "homophobe" is the hangover of this temporary ascendancy.

The Real Right – the Alt-Right – has a duty to reclaim the language of pathology and there is no better place to start than with the present US Presidential elections, where we see Americans (and some illegals) voting for a range of candidates whose policies will obviously impact upon the health of the US "body politic."

The first thing that should be said is that none of the candidates standing represent a healthy, balanced, organic position, as this would be impossible under present conditions. Even Trump represents an ideologically confused brand of civic nationalism, mixed in with mathematically illiterate populist promises and all manner of unresolved contradictions and potential conflicts. It is difficult to see how this, in its present form, would ensure the revival and survival of the American body politic, which in constitutional terms is set up to be perpetually schizophrenic, with one branch of government negating the other.

Ironically, the nearest thing we have to "healthy voting" in the present electoral cycle is that of certain ethnic minority groups voting for more "gibemedat" and influence by supporting one or the other of the Democrat candidates. But this is only because their relation to greater American society is essentially a pathological one of "parasitism" – in terms of benefits and behaviour subtracting from the common good. Needless to say, White voters voting for parties that empower such parasitism are voting entirely pathologically.

Parasitism broken down by race.

But "parasitical" groups seeking their best interests is not as straightforward as it sounds. There are one or two interesting twists that should be mentioned. Historically speaking, the Black community has done far better with less "empowerment" and freebies than it has with more. This is because under Jim Crow and Segregation it was forced to develop relatively disciplined patterns of behaviour that favoured its rise.

There is also the problem that any parasitical entity faces, of over-exploiting its host. An America in which its core group – the hard-working White majority – is reduced to an over-exploited, overtaxed, and passively aggressive minority, is hardly likely to be a healthy host for those minorities that subsist on its strength and vitality.

But minorities aside, viewing the election from the point of view of America's core White majority, the truth is that none of the political options on the table represent positive political health and the reversal of dysgenic trends. The best that can be said is that they represent lesser degrees of political pathology, with Trumpism being the least pathological, followed as we head towards the more pathological end of the spectrum by Cruzism, Sanderism, GOPism, and Clintonism.

But there are two ways to measure a phenomenon, either by its position – i.e. where it is – or by its trajectory – where it is heading. By the first metric, the position of none of the candidates equates with political health. By the second, Trumpism and possibly Cruzism can be viewed more positively, as attempts by voters to move away from the old two-party system and its globalist model towards something healthier. Sanderism, while extremely confused in terms of identity, could also be seen as sharing in this dynamic.

But while we can make the case that the trajectories of Trumpism, Cruzism, and even Sanderism are all healthy relative to the pre-existing political necrosis (represented by the likes of Obama, McCain, Romney, and the Clintons), we should never make the mistake of extrapolating a trend in a straight line. Unforeseen factors always intervene, and inherent contradictions can arise.

Trumpism can only be viewed as a healthy political tendency if it leads to a situation that ensures the fundamental health of the American political entity and its core population. As race is a key determinant of any society and its health, this issue inevitably has a racial dimension.

Harmonious multiculturalism?

So how could the Trump tendency be viewed as politically healthy? In two main ways, either by leading towards (1) a stable racial agglomeration, in which the various races that make up America maintain their distinct identities but develop a symbiotic system built around the dominance and demographic growth of America’s core White group; or (2) a state of racial separation, where the various groups maintain their identities and secede from one another, with Whites receiving the lion's share of land and resources, and also exercising a loose hegemony over the non-White splinter states.

In medical terms, the first option has vague similarities with Oriental or ancient systems of medicine, like Ayurveda, which seek a balance between the different organs, tendencies, or "humours" of the body – aligning the chakras, that sort of thing. While the second option has similarities with radical modern surgery. Think Ben Carson separating some unrelated Siamese Twins.

In the first case Trumpism would have to become race realist and identitarian, at least to the degree that the ethnically conglomerate former Hapsburg Empire once was. In the second case, it would have to be explicitly White nationalist – at least until the necessary separation and reorganization of the country took place, after which it would have to assert a positive identity of America as an essentially European entity in the same way that Israel defines itself as Jewish. Obviously there is an enormous distance to go before Trumpism could reach that point.

If we consider the difficulties, crises, and conflicts that would doubtlessly arise between the transition from Trumpism as it now exists to something a lot more racially aware, then we realize just how diseased the present-day American body politic is. Even with a Trump presidency, the national prognosis must be one of lingering ill health, leading to medical emergencies and drastic operations, rather than a process of gentle healing through mediation and thinking good thoughts.