News & Analysis
The GOP Crisis as Directed History
Party Next Time ... As immigration turns red states blue, how can Republicans transform their platform? ... When historians look back on Mitt Romney's bid for the Presidency, one trend will be clear: no Republican candidate ever ran a similar campaign again. For four decades, from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan through the two Bush Presidencies, the Republican Party won the White House by amassing large margins among white voters ... Tuesday, Romney won three-fifths of the white vote, matching or exceeding what several winning Presidential candidates, including Reagan in 1980 and Bush in 1988, achieved, but it wasn't enough. The white share of the electorate, which was eighty-seven per cent in 1992, has steadily declined by about three points in every Presidential election since then. At the present rate, by 2016, whites will make up less than seventy per cent of voters. Romney's loss to Barack Obama brought an end not just to his eight-year quest for the Presidency but to the Republican Party's assumptions about the American electorate. – New Yorker
Dominant Social Theme: The GOP needs to woo Hispanics by promising them government goodies. It's the only way.
Free-Market Analysis: This New Yorker article provides us with a splendid power elite meme and sub-meme. The dominant social theme is clearly that a political party must "woo" a specific ethnic group by promising them a share of government largesse.
The subdominant social theme is that the GOP won't survive if it doesn't do this. The New Yorker used to be a bit more subtle about its overtly authoritarian arguments. Not anymore.
It's really a travesty of an argument. First of all, "Hispanics" is a made-up term. Anyway, there are plenty of so-called Hispanics in the US and they don't all speak alike. Second, many might be insulted if told their loyalty was for sale to whomever could extract the most government cash and services. Nonetheless, there is a third part to this that we will get to toward the end of this article.
First, another excerpt:
Like the G.O.P.'s contradictory language on immigration in its party platform, the two strategies for courting Hispanics co-exist uneasily. The debate in Texas is about to seize Washington. Obama has strongly indicated that he intends to see immigration reform—likely some version of the so-called dream Act, which would offer a path to citizenship for millions of unauthorized immigrants—passed in 2013. Before the election, Obama told the Des Moines Register that he was "confident" he could get it done, because "a big reason I will win a second term is because the Republican nominee and the Republican Party have so alienated the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, the Latino community." Kay Bailey Hutchinson, the Republican senator from Texas whom Cruz is replacing, told me after the election, "A compromise on the dream Act should be easy to get done now."
If Romney had won, his party would have been able to figure out this vexing issue from a position of strength. Instead, it will have to respond to the Democrats, who are certain to play the tensions within the G.O.P. One person who understands this is [Ted] Cruz [now the senator-elect from Texas]. When we arrived in Austin, at the end of our trip together, he revealed his simple recipe for success.
"I think every case in litigation and every argument in politics is about the fundamental narrative," he said. "If you can frame the narrative, you win. As Sun Tzu said, every battle is won before it is fought. And it is won by choosing the field of terrain on which the fight will be engaged." For now, the field belongs to Obama and the Democrats, and the storyline on immigration is theirs to lose.
You see? We are not alone in proposing that the modern narrative is one of directed history. It's the reason people want to be novelists and movie directors. If you can tell a story in a believable way you can accrue a lot of personal and professional power. You can even "change the world" in minor ways.
Those who can properly purvey a narrative are sought after and are in demand. We've tried to explain that the power elite realigns society in this way, via fear-based promotions.
The 'Net is so important – what we call the Internet Reformation – because it interferes with the globalist messaging. The story being told by the power elite about the inevitability of "one world" has been decimated by Internet information running counter to this theme.
This is actually the reason the elites are now evidently and obviously running so many false flags trying to confuse or discredit the larger message of truth and freedom that electronic technology has helped purvey.
The most powerful concept of all is one we call "directed history." First the elites in question figure out what they want to accomplish (a way to further globalism) and then they set out to accomplish it. In the case of the debate taking place now over the GOP's supposed future, the argument is actually aimed at a far broader goal of establishing a North American Union.
Now, it is true that many Hispanics are "conservative" culturally and don't seek a lot of government support. But that is not how the argument will be framed. The idea is that the GOP itself will be prevailed upon to offer up a variety of government-based inducements to Hispanics to curry favor and gain votes.
At the same time this is going on, federal legislation will be passed favoring Hispanics, especially Mexicans. None of this may be necessary, but this is how the narrative will be constructed. Finally, when the narrative is sufficiently energized, moves will be made to enact at least part of the North American Union.
It is politicians that will do the so-called heavy lifting. They will use previously prepared narratives to try to combine certain elements of the US and Mexico. This is already going on in Canada (the third element of the NAU) where a "constitution free" zone has been declared in a broad swath of land between the two countries.
Here both Canadian and US authorities operate in an effective no-man's land of authoritarian jurisprudence. A merger has been effectuated between the two countries though no one in the mainstream media seems to have noticed yet.
This, then, is how directed history works. It creates a narrative – not one that is necessarily true. It then elaborates on that narrative and makes it look logical by having certain actors respond in certain ways.
In this case, both political parties are being set up to promote various kinds of Hispanic legislative engagements. Eventually, the legislation will be used not just to justify (perhaps) a Republican comeback but also reciprocal legislative moves on behalf of Mexico.
Again, the initial narrative need not be accurate in any feature. But when it is established via the mainstream media it can be used to justify political action. At every step, the narrative is employed to justify larger legislative moves that bring us closer to the elites' desired goal of global governance.
The GOP does not need to provide government bribes to Hispanics. The GOP was actually on the way to electing libertarian conservative Ron Paul to run as its presidential candidate. But that emergent trend was snuffed out by violence and Draconian GOP rule changes. Now we are being told that the only way the GOP can prove attractive to voters is to grant them legislative beneficences.
We would offer up that freedom is the most precious resource of all, and what people really want. If the GOP recasts itself as a party of minimal government and maximum (anti-war) freedom, it would sweep the proverbial boards. But that reality isn't conducive to power elite internationalism.
Instead, another narrative is being invented ... and then another. Finally, the entire tottering mythos will be used to justify yet more government globalism in the shape of the NAU. This is how the elites achieve their goals, by structuring justifications for directed history that can be logically acted on.
Conclusion: The GOP does not have to "appeal" to Hispanic voters. If it simply stood for more freedom and less government interference, this would probably be enough to make it a most attractive political party, even to many Hispanics. But this is not the narrative the power elite wishes to purvey. So they won't. And neither will the New Yorker.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by dave jr on 11/12/12 10:23 PM
Bosco,
The reason we don't have a prominent libertarian party is because no one needs the power to have no power. It would be easier to convince people fedgov isn't needed at all. But people want to be empowered and falsely look to government to provide it.
Those who receive 'entitlements' look to government to protect their interests. Those mired in fear of terrorism, communism and all the isms want government to protect them. Even many who produce wealth look to government to protect their interests. So if there is little interest in the libertarian party, in reducing government, it is due the delusion that government is serving THEM and not a resignation to slavery. I think it is a stretch to say people want to be slaves. Who wants to be owned? Who wants forced labor?
And besides, government alone isn't smart enough to have enslaved us through progressive monetary manipulation, which slowly detaches us from our own economy, the foundation of liberty.
 |
Posted by jkluttz on 11/12/12 08:53 PM
"If the GOP recasts itself as a party of minimal government and maximum (anti-war) freedom, it would sweep the proverbial boards."
Are you talking about the USA? I've seen no evidence that would lead me to the same conclusion.
|
Posted by Bosco Hurn on 11/12/12 08:05 PM
@ dave jr
Good point but incorrect. Gary was imperfect. Government itself is imperfect and enslaving by its very nature. But Gary would have been way, way more liberating than Obama or Romney even if he was able to accomplish only a few of his promises.
And as I pointed out intitially, "... if freedom was what 'people really wanted', there would have been no need for a Libertarian Party in the first place since other parties would be guarding and promoting freedom."
Another consideration: The LP has been around since 1972. If people 'really wanted freedom' then the LP would not be such a small outfit, struggling for ballot access at every election. They would not even need to raise money for advertising since electing them would be a no-brainer. Instead, the people in the US continually elect those who dimish their own freedom.
My point remains. People are slaves because they choose to be.
|
Posted by dave jr on 11/12/12 06:44 PM
Sounds like Bosco would be a happy slave so long as Gary Johnson represented him. It is impossible to be free if one doesn't know what enslaves, no matter the percentile rank.
 |
Posted by philitarian on 11/12/12 06:25 PM
"It's the reason people want to be novelists and movie directors. If you can tell a story in a believable way you can accrue a lot of personal and professional power. You can even "change the world" in minor ways."
This is great and why the DB is great. This must be a fundamental building block of obtaining political power. There must be some sort of shared narrative amongst a group, perferably a controlled one, in order to box people in and to advance one's agenda over time. Otherwise people might come up with their own narratives, and thus, their own solutions, and a globalized power elite just can't have that.
Did not the Enlightenment/Reformation break the then State/Church's narrative?
Imagine for a moment educational and media instutions actually told people how the world really works, instead of pitting contrived viewpoint versus contrived viewpoint and playing lapdog to their Money Power benefactors. And imagine this hasn't been going on for generations, with old lies and false narratives stacked under fresher and more cunning lies. And yet imagine if people were free to make intelligent choices outside their carefully regulated and institutionalized cages, and free from a vast world-wide network of centralized Money Power.
If you're looking for proof of Enlightenment in election results I suggest searching elsewhere.
See as much I would throw mud at my peers/family or the '99%' for not getting it or being 'willful slaves', it is really not their fault. 'Unaware', 'ignorant', or maybe 'naive' would be my word choices. I find it really hard to blame the population at large for being lead astray for generations and being 'willful slaves' when they literally cannot think outside the blue and red coloured box. They're not even given the chance (until the Net). Most people's concerns are surviving, raising families, and living life to the best of their abilities.
And so as it should be! Mainstream dirty politics can be bad for your health, its only rational for people to go along with it or avoid it anywhere it appears. The best we can do now is teach, share information, and stand up for ourselves. May there be major postive turning points in our lifetmes, but little by little the corrupted system will crumble in time.
Reformation is a process, not an event.
Reply from The Daily Bell
"Did not the Enlightenment/Reformation break the then State/Church's narrative?"
Yes. There is some evidence though that Martin Luther worked for Money Power and was employed to break the power of the Catholic Church. Our argument would be that the Reformation rapidly spun out of control, though. And so it is with the Internet Reformation ...
|
Posted by dave jr on 11/12/12 06:01 PM
When the groomed canidate "wins" a presidential election it is just as important to explain why the other party didn't win, while supposedly the victory is the obvious will of the people.
Click to view link
|
Posted by Bosco Hurn on 11/12/12 05:23 PM
@DB:
Nobody came to "pick a fight" except possibly yourself since at the outset of this exchange you began with name calling. I said then that name calling was the province of those without an argument. As this exchange has progressed you have made it clear that I was right intially and that you do not have an argument. All your responses have been lame.
"Look, by adopting OWS rhetoric, even to make a different point, he's legitimizing "their" dialogue, at least in a sense ... "
Look yourself. "In a sense" is weaseling. Gary has not legitimized anything as I have already explained.
"Thomas Jefferson did pretty well with the pen and so did Thomas Paine. Depends on the timing ... and now is a pretty good time (for pens)."
Yes, they did a great job even though TJ turned out to be a hypocrite and it did not take the new country long to become worse than the one they got out from under. Must have been the "money power" that wanted nobody to be free and could not have had anything to do with the fact that people voluntarily gave up their freedom.
Regardless, pens still did nothing for the 100s of millions who were murdered. And they were not murdered by "the money power" or any other small group. The murdering was all slave-on-slave.
Now is a good time for pens? Oh right, just frigging optimal. Pens turned around the Patriot Act. Pens stopped the war in Iraq from happening. Pens stopped the war in Afghanistan. Pens stopped the US getting involved in Lybia. Pens brought all the troops home and ended the empire. Pens stopped the TSA. Pens made a huge diffence in the outcome of the recent US election. Obviously I could go on.
You have to believe in pens because you are a pen-man. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy reading many of the DB articles. But you are being a bit self-congratulatory if you think you are really having an effect.
The money power exists, no doubt, but it is the somnambular slaves who make the money power influence possible.
Repeat: People want to be slaves else they would not be. Just join the BOD of a home owners association. You'll see. Trying being a real activist instead of just a pen-man. Pick a few real issues, even local ones which should be easy. You'll see what you are up against, and it is not necessarily the money power. It is people who want to be slaves, people who enjoy their chains, people who do not want to be free.
Reply from The Daily Bell
We called you a cynic in a lighthearted way. Sorry you consider that name-calling. Anyway, we've reached a lot of people and created a awareness of a certain kind of manipulation. And it's come at a lot of personal costs. Sorry you think we're "self-congratulatory."
|
Posted by Bosco Hurn on 11/12/12 03:41 PM
DB says; "Great, so Gary Johnson adds legitimacy to the nonsensical OWS, meme by playing off of it ... Too bad."
That's the best you got? Lame. Gary has not "added legitmacy" at all. He has clarified who the real 1% are.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Look, by adopting OWS rhetoric, even to make a different point, he's legitimizing "their" dialogue, at least in a sense ...
"That's the best you got?" You came here to pick a fight?
|
Posted by Bosco Hurn on 11/12/12 03:37 PM
DB says: ""The pen is mightier than the sword ... " (Edward Bulwer-Lytton)"
A cute sentiment expressing some truth but tell it to the hundreds of millions of slave-on-slave murders committed by people 'who really want freedom' over the last century or so. I guess they just weren't "educated" or didn't have pens - LOL.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thomas Jefferson did pretty well with the pen and so did Thomas Paine. Depends on the timing ... and now is a pretty good time (for pens).
|
Posted by Bosco Hurn on 11/12/12 03:30 PM
DB says: "You are the one percent?. Doesn't exactly sound as if you're thinking for yourself. Why are you using the rhetoric of the Soros controlled Occupy Wall Street movement - as filtered through the socialist/power elite front magazine. Adbusters? ... ."
There's another 1%, spoken of by me, Gary Johnson and others after Gary got 1% of the recent vote.
We are the 1% who "get it". 99% do not. So good luck with the "reformation". You are in for one hell of a disappointment.
Reply from The Daily Bell
"There's another 1%, spoken of by me, Gary Johnson and others after Gary got 1% of the recent vote."
Great, so Gary Johnson adds legitimacy to the nonsensical OWS, meme by playing off of it ... Too bad.
|
Posted by Bosco Hurn on 11/12/12 03:27 PM
DB says: "Isn't it possible that some need more help than others? Not everyone is as brilliant and clear-headed as Bosco Hum!"
That's for sure.
You write articles about freedom but how much time have you spent being a real activist on real issues trying to wake up real people and real people in positions of power? Damn little if any I'll bet.
Try it some time. Try it for a lifetime. I'll bet you will come to the same conclusion I have -- People are slaves because they want to be. And I'll add that people are asleep and determined to stay that way.
Reply from The Daily Bell
You write articles about freedom but how much time have you spent being a real activist on real issues trying to wake up real people and real people in positions of power?
OK, Bosco Hum, that's is your opinion. And then there is this: "The pen is mightier than the sword ..." (Edward Bulwer-Lytton)
|
Posted by Bosco Hurn on 11/12/12 03:19 PM
@DarbyJie
Perhaps not. I am the 1% and have no desire to be a slave. Unfortunately I live with the 99% who do want to be slaves. While I can structure my life to be as free as possible, I am still stuck on the plantation created by the 99%.
Reply from The Daily Bell
"Perhaps not. I am the 1% and have no desire to be a slave ..."
You are the one percent?. Doesn't exactly sound as if you're thinking for yourself. Why are you using the rhetoric of the Soros controlled Occupy Wall Street movement - as filtered through the socialist/power elite front magazine. Adbusters? ....
 |
Posted by DarbyJie on 11/12/12 03:11 PM
@Bosco Hum:
"People want to be slaves. That's why they are."
Perhaps this should be qualified with the phrase, "I speak only for myself, of course."
|
Posted by Bosco Hurn on 11/12/12 03:08 PM
"You are a cynic, Bosco Hum. You think it is a matter of human nature. We believe it to be one of conditioning and education."
Name calling now? That's the province of those without an argument. Howabout I say you're a dope for not be realistic -- which is what I think I am being, not cynical.
Is it because they were not "educated". Hogwash. If they 'really wanted freedom' they'd have done what the rest of us (the 1%) did and educate themselves.
Even before the internet, liberation information was available but how many really wanted it? Maybe 1%.
Like I said, "People want to be slaves. That's why they are."
Reply from The Daily Bell
"How is it some of us (the 1%) threw off conditioning but the vast majority welcome it? "
Isn't it possible that some need more help than others? Not everyone is as brilliant and clear-headed as Bosco Hum!
|
Posted by Bosco Hurn on 11/12/12 02:39 PM
"We would offer up that freedom is the most precious resource of all, and what people really want."
The first part of your sentnce is true. The second part obviously not otherwise Gary Johnson would have won in a landslide. Or better yet, if freedom was what 'people really wanted', there would have been no need for a Libertarian Party in the first place since other parties would be guarding and promoting freedom.
People want to be slaves. That's why they are.
Reply from The Daily Bell
You are a cynic, Bosco Hum. You think it is a matter of human nature. We believe it to be one of conditioning and education.
 |
Posted by Adam on 11/12/12 12:53 PM
The abuse of government is a rationalization (psychological defense mechanism) of prior parental abuse, physical, verbal, and emotional.
I would like to see more so-called alternative media talking about that "meta narrative" as a counter to "directed history."
Reply from The Daily Bell
The abuse of government is a rationalization (psychological defense mechanism) of prior parental abuse, physical, verbal, and emotional.
Fascinating as usual, young Adam ...
|
Posted by RED on 11/12/12 12:40 PM
Great Piece!
I am in agreement with all of your conclusions.
Routing the "old guard" and reshaping the GOP is a delicous dream and a worthy goal. With sufficient "power", resouces and support it is possible.
In the meantime, I will keep supporting those "pesky" Tea Party small business Advocates... ... If for no other reason than to just to piss off the old guard!
I would also support A Tea party split off from the GOP.
The timing may be just right in a few years.
