The Progressive Idea

The Progressive era started in 1913 with the establishment of a central bank in the US, and it probably came to an end in 2022. Peak pride, peak vaccine, peak climate hysteria, peak NATO, and an economy completely out of whack spelled the end of confidence in experts.

The planners

It started and ended with the idea that experts can handle things better than the free market. This idea was born during the Liberal era that started with the defeat of Napoleon in 1814. The progress made during the Liberal era was remarkable, and this was a mystery to many observers because the era was marked by a dramatic reduction in centralized planning. Gone was the all powerful aristocracy and clergy. Instead, we got merchants and industrialists, and they did a far better job at making life easier for people than any king or nobleman had ever achieved.

But how could something as chaotic as a free market be superior to an economy directed by experts? Many concluded that it wasn't in fact superior. All that had changed in 1814 was a move from incompetent experts to competent experts. The aristocracy had simply been replaced by a better aristocracy, namely the merchants and industrialists that had emerged.

In support of this idea, we had the observation that the most successful industrialists revealed themselves to be expert planners. They would streamline production. They would cut out middlemen. They would take charge of ever-larger chunks of the production process. This was seen as proof that it wasn't the free market that had caused the progress during the Liberal era. It was all due to better experts running things, and the ideal society should therefore be run and operated by such experts.

The experts

A society run by experts would run at an optimum. It would see more progress than any other form of organization, and an era in the spirit of this idea should therefore be called the progressive era. The term was not coined by sceptics but by the believers themselves who still proudly declare themselves as progressives.

As it turned out, people quickly discovered that there are two main strains of progressive thinking. One has the state apparatus and its bureaucracy as both the planner and executioner of policy. The other has the state as the planner, and privately held companies as the executioner. The first one is known as Socialism and the second one is popularly called Fascism. However, they are not opposite extremes as many will have it. They are two of a kind. Both hold unwavering faith in the superiority of experts over the chaos of a free market.

Conformity

Streamlining and conformity is the name of the Progressive game. There shouldn't be a marketplace full of competition. The focus should be on what's best, and the best minds in the world should gather around what's best in order to make it even better. Since this idea came from academia, it spread quickly through theoretical sciences. For instance, there can be no discussion outside of a very limited set of ideas within theoretical physics. There simply aren't any teaching positions to be had in higher education that fall outside accepted dogma.

Education is today completely set in Progressive thinking. No opposing views are allowed. The fundamentals cannot be discussed. The only area of discussion is what expert solution to choose. Stagnation rather than progress has been the end result of Progressive policies in education.

Health care has gone the same direction. We can choose between different vaccines, and we can choose between different types of pills, but there's no point in arguing for natural remedies. The experts are clear when it comes to what healthy living looks like, and it's not from nature. Man has conquered nature. The experts are now gods, and God is dead.

One world government

The ultimate goal of the Progressives is a single world wide governing body of experts that dictate all activities on the globe. This one world order was tested out for all to see during the virus scare, and it showed that the entire globe can in fact be directed by a handful of individuals. Decrees by experts were followed slavishly by every health institution in the world. However, the results were horrible. Every piece of advice turned out to be wrong.

It turns out that when we enable experts to reign freely, they quickly start thinking of themselves as infallible gods. Any idea that comes to their mind must be true, and from this idea springs pure madness. We get people thinking they can define themselves as anything they like. The mere thought of something makes it true. A man can be a woman. Wars can be won by unwavering belief. Money can be printed ad infinitum. Wind turbines can save the world from imagined threats.

The end station of Progressive policy making is pure madness, and that's what we've had for a few years now. The Progressives still think they can push their ideas further, but that looks increasingly doubtful. Now that most people have woken up to the mess created by the madmen in charge of the state bureaucracy, resistance to additional moves towards the Progressive utopia is on the increase.

The new era

We have entered a new era, much like the one we entered after 1814, and we can expect things to improve from this point forward. Now that the Progressive idea has been laid to rest for a few generations to come, we can look forward to an increasingly diverse world. The new era will be multipolar and full of opportunities for the creative and industrious.

A world of opportunities

Peak Pride

Pride month isn't being celebrated with the same vigour as last year. I take this as yet another indication that 2022 really was the year when the progressive era came to an end. The progressive era has exhausted itself. There's nowhere to go but back towards liberty and conservative family values.

This change is starting to dawn on a number of key players, and the reactions in the Pride community are especially amusing. There seems to be something of a mental meltdown going on. All sorts of insane nonsense is being spewed, ranging from calling boycotters of Target terrorist to threats of violence. The impression we get is that these people really are as mentally ill as they look.

Pride flag

By Gilbert Baker (Vector graphics by Fibonacci) - SVG based on this image, Public Domain, Link

One Dam, Two Stories

Someone blew a hole in a Russian controlled dam the other day. That's a war crime. That much is certain. However, who's to blame isn't equally clear, at least not to everyone. There are two narratives, one pinning the blame on Putin. The other pinning the blame on NATO supported Ukraine.

The narrative put forward by most western intellectuals is that the sabotage of the dam came in response to the recently launched counteroffensive by Ukrainian forces. The Russians blew a hole in their own dam in order to flood the frontline with water, while at the same time blaming their opponents for resorting to terrorism.

The narrative presented by the Russians is that western backed Ukrainian forces blew a hole in the dam out of desperation. Their much touted counteroffensive was a dud that had to be cancelled within hours of starting. Being bad losers, they decided to terrorise the Russians instead while putting the blame on Putin. An added bonus to the Ukrainians is the massive civilian emergency created which will slow down any counter-counteroffensives that the Russians may have planned.

These narratives may seem equally believable to the casual observer. However, there are a few points to this story that tilts the story towards the Russian viewpoint. The dam that was blown up provides water to Crimea, it provides cooling water to a nuclear reactor controlled by the Russians, and the flooding is primarily affecting ethnic Russians. Blowing it up is terrorism, plain and simple, and the victims are all ethnic Russians. Only if the Russians were about to be completely overwhelmed by Ukrainian forces would such a desperate act be taken by the man who sees himself as a father to all Russians.

It appears then that we have to look outside Russia in order to find the true terrorists.

Mark Esper with Jens Stoltenberg

By U.S. Secretary of Defense - 200212-D-AP390-6107, CC BY 2.0, Link

Democratic Mechanisms

Democracy is a word primarily associated with politics. Every so often we get to choose between two pre-selected candidates who get to rule over us for a term of years. However, this is far from the most effective democratic mechanism, and this is becoming clearer by the day.

People vote with their feet. When our rulers start ganging up on certain people, they leave. The reason I'm living in Portugal rather than Norway is that Portugal is a better place to live for people in my situation. My decision to move was based on a simple value proposition. It was clear that life in Portugal would be better for both me and my immediate family.

With political democracy in decline, voting with our feet is becoming increasingly popular. People all over the world are moving to places they find less oppressive and generally more pleasant than where they grew up. A large number of people are on the move for economic and political reasons.

But moving out is not an option for all. Most people would rather endure hardships hoisted upon them by bad policies than have to move. It's therefore good to know that there is another democratic option that requires nothing but a critical sense of value.

Every time we buy a product or service, we endorse the company or institution that produce this good. If we don't like the values the company or institution promotes, we can simply withhold our money. If you don't like Bud Light's values, don't buy it. If you don't think little boys should be told that they can be girls, don't buy stuff at Target.

This mechanism can be extended towards government institutions as well. I realized many years ago that taxes on cars and real-estate were big drains on my earnings. I therefore sought ways to avoid these taxes, and I saved myself a lot of money in the process.

A focus on value for money is key to a better society. Paying careful attention to the values supported by the institutions we support has the dual benefit of enhancing our own economic situation while at the same time starving those who don't support our values.

Politicians and corporate leaders don't like this, so they will try to fence us in and have us show our ID wherever we go. They will also seek to subsidize companies that suffer from consumer boycotts. Most of all, they want to get control of our consumer habits. Hence their drive towards centralized digital payment systems. However, none of this will work. They cannot in the end force us to endorse values that we don't support.

People voting with their feet

By the Providence Lithograph Company - http://thebiblerevival.com/clipart/1907/ex14.jpg, Public Domain, Link

Vacation Modus

The health and exercise routines that I've recently embarked on have put me in a vacation modus. With my focus now primarily on general wellbeing, there's less time to ponder the significance of things. Besides, most of my original thinking is probably behind me. I'm not likely to change my mind on anything. Thoughts that come to mind are mostly variations on things that I've already stated. Time has come to move on, and put out my thoughts further into practice.

In my case, taking maximum advantage of my situation means a further exploration into things that make me feel good about myself and life in general. To that effect, I helped organize a gathering of Norwegians to celebrate Norway's constitution day here in Porto. I've also made some suggestions regarding a possible cooperation between me and my film maker son. He may one day make a series of short lectures on my theory of physics. I'm planning to make more frequent calls to my children in Norway to keep in touch with how their adult lives are progressing.

The overall idea is to take it easy from here on out, but I'll probably still note things down in this blog from time to time, because there's always the odd observation or novel thought that deserves a note. However, I don't expect a flood of thoughts going forward. My focus will be more towards my wellbeing and the lives and interests of my closest friends and relatives.

Vacation modus

All States are Oligarchies

A study of the US political structure concluded back in 2014 that the US, far from being a republic and a bastion of freedom, is in fact an oligarchy. The average citizen has no real say in political matters, while the super rich have access directly into legislative bodies. When new laws are proposed, corporate interests are always considered; that of the average guy in the street, not so much.

This finding caused quite a stir, and the subject is still debated. However, it shouldn't be a surprise at all. The state is a parasitic entity in society, and is of obvious concern to any family with any ambition to better itself. Additionally, the state is an artificial construct, invented by man, while the family is a construct of nature, aka God. The family is therefore a far stronger political entity than the state. Families can band together to take control of the state. If they have assets to protect and material ambitions for themselves it would be folly to do otherwise.

No central coordination of the oligarchy is required because the families are united in their concern. They will therefore act in apparent coordination when the state apparatus for some reason becomes unhinged, as happened in Norway after World War 2. My great-grandfather didn't coordinate his moves with other wealthy heads of families. He did what made sense to him personally, and so did all the other heads of families that form the oligarchy that is the Norwegian state.

This process is natural and inevitable. It's therefore safe to say that all states are in fact oligarchies. States may at times become unhinged, and an established oligarchy can be ousted, or even rounded up and executed, as happened in Russia after the communist revolution of 1917. But a new oligarchy will immediately take its place. Every member of the new state is a member of some family, and every one of them has a natural, God given, loyalty to their family rather than the state. They will therefore seek to obtain power and wealth for themselves through their new connections.

Russia's current oligarchy is a legacy from 1917. Looking closer at it, I'm sure we'll find members that have roots going farther back in history. This is certainly the case in Norway, where the current oligarchy is dominated by families that have had privileged positions within the state apparatus going back centuries. My family can demonstrate 500 years of close ties with the state. I'm sure my family isn't unique, neither in Norway nor anywhere else.

The state will always be under the control of certain families, and it cannot really be any other way given the natural order of things. However, the state will never reveal this truth to anyone. It will instead seek to hide it, and the stronger the oligarchy behind it becomes, the more it will seek to demonize the family as an institution. This is because the state's power derives from people who give it higher loyalty than their own families. The more people relinquish their family ties in favour of the state, the more power and resources are given to the oligarchs.

The perfect arrangement, as far as the oligarchs are concerned, is a state that convinces everybody that their highest loyalty is to the state while at the same time hiding the fact that behind the façade of the state lives a large number of families in affluence and with no other loyalty than to themselves.

However, if people stopped giving the state any loyalty at all, and started acting in the exact same way as the oligarchs themselves, the state would be directly impacted, and the oligarchy would lose its power. It's therefore important for the state to constantly invent reasons for people to feel politically engaged. Everything has to be seen in the context of the state, and everyone must be given the impression that debates and votes matter. As long as people spend their energy debating, arguing, demonstrating and voting, the state remains intact, regardless of which solution is voted upon.

On the other hand, if we focus on our families and our friends, and we avoided the state as much as possible, we can create real changes for ourselves and our loved ones. The more we break away from the state, the less power is given to the oligarchs, and the more is retained for ourselves.

The social contract

William's Change in Attitude

The insanity unleashed during the virus scare was a real eye opener for many. Who would have thought that a majority of our fellow men would enthusiastically root for lockdowns, social distancing and mask mandates; that vaccine passports and concentration camps for the unvaccinated would become popular ideas; that liberty would be thrown away for the mere prospect of protection against what was evidently a fairly harmless virus?

The scare revealed that the vast majority of people are way more simpleminded than I and many with me had imagined, and we were all disheartened. Before the virus scare, we held some hope that the virtues of liberty and a free society would gain popularity, provided we put our case forward properly. After the scare, hardly any of my liberty minded friends hold any hope for a general awakening. People are set on collectivist ideas. They don't want liberty. They want feudalism.

While I remain confident that liberty will win over tyranny in the post-virus era, I don't think it will come about through political argument. Rather, it will come about through necessity and pragmatism. The liberty minded will act on their principles, and they will navigate pragmatically towards their desired goals. They will focus on family and friends, and they will let politics be politics. The political stage is not a place for the liberty minded. Nothing ever comes of it. It's a waste of time and energy.

A similar realization must have struck my great-grandfather, William, during the second world war, because he dramatically changed his attitude towards politics over the four years that the war was raging. He was a vocal libertarian, and even had a seat in parliament on a libertarian platform, before the war. After the war, he abandoned politics. His attention become focused on his family and business, and he forged many strong ties with the emerging welfare state in the process.

William must have realized during the war that very few of his fellow men were interested in liberty. The problem in the eyes of most Norwegian's wasn't so much with the politics put forward by the national socialists, but the fact that it was being put forward by Germans. Hardly anyone objected to the socialist agenda, complete with state provided welfare, education and pensions. The state was going to take care of people from cradle to grave, and this feudal idea was widely popular.

Socialist thing made a great leap forward during the war. So much so that the nationalization of private businesses was seriously considered by a large minority of political parties.

William who had risked much in his fight against the Nazis during the war must have been appalled by the fact that the very people he hoped to help were now plotting to steal all his wealth. However, he didn't mention this with a word. Instead, he did like the prince in The Leopard, he sided with the majority. He became a friend of the "moderate" socialists. He invited them over to his mansion for dinner. He gave them lucrative positions in his various enterprises.

William was in turn given lucrative positions in various state enterprises. He made many connections, and he promised to provide whatever the top bureaucrats in various departments were requesting. He forged solid ties with the department of education as well as the department of culture. Thirty-five years later, when his grandson navigated the business even further into feudal waters, the counter manoeuvre was complete. The last remaining restrictions on how the family business disposed of the various subsidies given to it by the welfare state were relinquished.

Thanks to this crafty bit of forward looking pragmatism, William secured for his descendants a place among the new nobility, namely the well connected families with strong ties to the welfare state. It's a supremely feudal system, but it's also widely popular, and having seen how dead set against liberty most people are, I no longer see any reason to actively change it. My anarchist views have grown stronger. What matters is not what everyone thinks, but how we navigate through the landscape as it is.

Constance and William

Av Gustav Borgen – Norsk Folkemuseum: image no. NFB.49970, via digitaltmuseum.no., Offentlig eiendom, Lenke