On Populism Pt III

What Populism Most Definitely is Not

Apr 25, 2022

In Part I of this series, I discussed the failures of Progressivism to provide relief for the vast majority and provided evidence that the upper classes actually promote the movement to aid their efforts to centralize the means of production. Part II elucidated how the 19th-century Populist movement provides an example of what a real workers’ movement could look like. It also proposed that modern-day “conspiracy theory” could less pejoratively be depicted as a Populist revisionist history that utilizes the top/down approach to interpretations of historical trends and current events. This perspective conflates Populism with the traditional left/right paradigm definitive of Progressive ideology.

Given the evidence that the upper class prefers, and even promotes Progressivism, it is not surprising that elite-controlled media outlets have engaged in a long-standing misinformation campaign that, for decades, has painted Populism in extremely negative terms. No doubt, it makes sense that a political movement that truly speaks truth to power would come under attack by the powerful forces which profit unjustly from the status quo.

As argued, one of the reasons we should be suspicious of Progressivism is precisely because it is not disparaged by the mainstream. If Progressivism was truly a threat to the wealthy and powerful, wouldn’t they use that wealth and power to suppress it? Not only is Populism discarded as a “conspiracy theory”, but worse yet, it is often associated with clearly abhorrent belief systems such as white supremacy and national socialism.

Such opprobrium used to discredit a political philosophy founded on the notion that upper-class interests conspire with government to consolidate wealth and power in the hands of a few have become ubiquitous. Recently, governments and corporations have gone as far as to outright censor Populist opinions in an effort to stifle the growth of the movement. The mainstream has, for decades, sought to discredit news and information that acknowledges the many obvious ways elite power seeks to consolidate itself.

Populism is Most Definitely Not Misinformation

Freedom of speech is perhaps the most sacrosanct value characteristic of a Democratic society. Without it, there cannot be open and honest debate from which the citizenry, or their representatives, can make informed decisions and vote accordingly. While, of course, slander has real consequences, most liberal democracies have, in the past, enjoyed a large tolerance for a variety of perspectives, even if those perspectives were antagonistic to particular groups or ideologies. Though certain speech can incite violence, speech is in and of itself non-violent. As such, free societies have allowed certain latitude to alternative or fringe opinions in deference to the fundamental principles of democratic governance.

This began to change in the late 1980’s with the introduction of the concept of hate speech. Concerns about the proliferation of speech that may incite violence against certain groups or individuals culminated in 2018 when Inforwars host Alex Jones was banned for promoting Populist talking points. Eventually, even President Donald Trump was banned from Twitter as multiple social media outlets engaged in large purges of so called “conspiracy theorists”.

Initially, most of the controversy surrounding Alex Jones cited his assertions concerning the veracity of mainstream news reporting concerning the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Though he eventually backtracked on allegations that it was a false flag attack perpetrated by the government to promote anti-gun legislation, many accused him of inciting his followers into harassing the parents of victims of the shooting. As a result, his reporting was deemed hate speech which justified the censorship.

I am not here to make claims about Sandy Hook one way or another, but it is well known that governments, including the United States government, have engaged in false flag attacks in the past. In a free and Democratic society, should we censor independently funded journalists who question corporate media narratives and express concerns about potential false flags? Given the potential for upper-class interests to use their power to control mainstream messaging, is it acceptable to silence Populist voices who question that narrative?

Remember, for two hundred years Populism has been a proud political movement in favor of working-class interest against the corrupt influence of wealth consolidation within the political system. How is it that in the last decade, as Populism has regained a foothold in the political debate, it has suddenly transformed into a hate spewing mob?

More recently, those questioning the dominant corporate/government narrative due to concerns about upper-class influence have been accused of not only spreading hate, but also outright misinformation. With the election of Donald Trump, often described negatively as a Populist leader himself, also came accusations by corporate media that the electorate was unfairly swayed by a “Russian disinformation” campaign spreading “fake news”.

Progressive media pundit Rachel Maddow spent the better part of two years reporting matter of factly that Donald Trump clearly colluded with Russians, who helped spread “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories” in order to help him get elected. The Washington Post urged readers to visit the website www.propornot.com listing dozens of websites with apparent links to Russian disinformation. Propornot offers no evidence that these sites had any connection whatsoever to the Russian government. All of them criticized corporate/government narratives, however, while offering counter narratives from a Populist perspective.

Ultimately, these websites suffered shadowbanning on search engines and out right censorship from many social media platforms. Even though a congressional investigation vindicated all those who had rightly reported the inaccuracies in the Russia collusion story, those websites continue to suffer distribution challenges. Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow and the many others reporting actual misinformation from within the left/right context continue to distribute their work unfettered by the shackles of censorship.

Populism is Most Definitely Not Domestic Terrorism

Despite this vindication, those critical of the corporate narrative are now threatened with much more than censorship. The Department of Homeland Security recently issued an edict claiming that those engaged in the spread of “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation” represented an existential threat to the nation. It is suggested that those reporting from a top/down Populist perspective, such as the websites listed on propornot, are inciting some into acts of domestic terrorism.

This perspective has been fueled by mainstream media narratives since at least the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing when Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols ignited a fertilizer bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people. Many have questioned the mainstream narrative concerning the bombing, including an extensive documentary by James Corbett as well as the movie “A Nobel Lie”, directed by Chris Emory. The mainstream narrative, however, was quick to connect this act of domestic terrorism with right-wing groups influenced by conspiracy theories.

Since that time, there has been a concerted effort by mainstream pundits to conjoin such violent actions with “conspiracy theorists” and right-wing Populists. The FBI issued a report in 2019 connecting those who engage in domestic terrorism with “conspiracy theory”. The mainstream media narrative continues to couple impulses of extremism from Oklahoma City, to the Whitmer kidnapping plot to the January 6th “insurrection” with those who follow historical perspectives associated with Populist paradigms.

As with the documentaries cited above concerning the actions of Timothy McVeigh, so the mainstream narrative concerning these other examples of “domestic terrorism” must be questioned. While the potential kidnapping of Governor Whitmer of Michigan has been touted as a clear example of domestic terrorism, recent evidence presented at court hearings resulted in acquittal after the FBI was accused of entrapment. In other words, the entire affair would never have happened if not for the involvement of this federal agency.

The same appears to be true of the so-called “insurrection” on January 6th, 2020. A recent court case resulted in acquittal as a result of clear evidence that Capitol police were literally waving people in as they allowed protesters to enter the building. Clearly, security was lax during the pro-Trump rally at the Capitol that attracted hundreds of thousands of people. Despite having offered extra security, which was declined, the Trump administration was subsequently impeached for inciting violence.

These three examples of “domestic terrorism” are promoted by the mainstream as resulting from the proliferation of “conspiracy theories” and connected to Populist sentiments. Yet each of these events can be clearly connected to actions from within the government itself. In a healthy Democratic society, should we not openly debate these differing interpretations concerning the motivations behind those responsible? Instead, independent media providers offering interpretations counter to the mainstream are overtly censored or, worse yet, accused of being domestic terrorists themselves.

Populism is Most Defiantly Not White Supremacist

Those utilizing the Populist top/down paradigm openly discuss the distinct possibility that upper-class forces have corrupted both corporate and government narratives surrounding major political events. By using this alternative paradigm, these journalists are not only associated with misinformation and domestic terrorism, but also often accused of white supremacy as well.

Though white nationalist and white supremacist movements have been on the decline for over a century (the KKK now has less than 3,000 members), mainstream media narratives have many believing racial prejudice is at an all-time high. It is estimated that violence caused by politically motivated white supremacy averages around 28 deaths per year, less than half the fatality rate caused by bee and wasp stings. The most promoted “white supremacist” rally in living memory in Charlottesville, Virginia was only able to attract from 500-600 attendees. As the case with domestic terrorism, government agencies often resort to entrapment to foment racial strife, which make the problem appear larger than it actually is.

I am not going to argue that white supremacy doesn’t exist. Even one death from such an abhorrent ideology is too many. Nor will I argue that more subtle forms of racism, such as systemic racism, do not continue to be an issue for people of color within the United States. We can all, always, continue to improve our personal biases in ways that promote a more inclusive and tolerant society. When charges of racism are improperly attributed to a political movement questioning the motivations of powerful people, however, our suspicions should be aroused.

From my perception, the issue is not that a rise in “right-wing populism” has caused a large spike in supremacist ideologies, as is often reported. Rather, the introduction of identity politics into the mainstream political dialogue has driven the definition of “white supremacist” far into the political center. Even diehard believers in the message of Martin Luther King Jr. can now be considered radicalized white power activists in some circles.

Rather than espousing that people should “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”, as King famously implored, identity politics seeks to interpret political power from the perspective of cultural groupings. Politics, it argues, is centrally defined by power relationships between these groups.

Extended further, identity politics argues that because white people, and especially white men, have historically held positions of power, this group exists in opposition to other racial groups historically oppressed. Due to this penchant to interpret political power based on skin color, there is actually an argument that identity politics is racist in and of itself.

Those who simply disagree with the identity paradigm, however, are often accused of “white supremacy” by hardcore identity politics ideologues. Using the phrase “all lives matter” can be considered racist within this context. A poor white Trump supporter who takes offense at the idea of “white privilege” can now be considered a “white supremacist”. Someone upset about the prevalence of what is now known as cancel culture might be considered misogynist or an unconscious purveyor of racially supremacist motivations.

At what point does identity politics actually prevent mature, healthy conversation about racial issues? Listen to my interview with African American activist Niko House for just such a discussion.

Of course, the introduction of identity politics with attendant phrases such as “white guilt” and “white privilege” were going to cause a backlash. This does not mean that those opposing this particular lens through which to analyze racial issues are automatically white supremacists. Many simply feel it to be an overzealous attack against those with white skin, or even Western culture in general. Believing that racial issues can be more effectively addressed through other means does not automatically justify accusations of racism.

Because Populism tends to view politics from a top/down perspective, most Populists are not attracted to identity politics. Identity politics perceives political power as divided among cultural groups, whereas the Populist identifies an upper class as the root of the problem. For the Populist, all cultural groups have one common oppressor, an elite that wields both economic and political power to the detriment of all. By opposing the central thesis of identity politics, Populists become easy targets, accused of racism simply for not identifying race, but rather class, as the central paradigm through which oppression must be analyzed.

Conclusion

While Progressivism has been supported and promoted by upper class interests for over a century, with little to no impact on working-class conditions, Populism has been systematically ignored at best. More often, pejoratives such as “conspiracy theory” are applied to those historians and journalists utilizing narratives based on a paradigm that posits an elite class dominating political and economic movements that define cultural evolution.

Worse yet, over the past few decades, mainstream analysts from within the corporate cartel have been quick to associate those with Populist sentiments with misinformation, domestic terrorism and white supremacist ideologies. In and of themselves, these attacks should raise the distinct possibility that Populism, not Progressivism, provides the real threat to upper-class domination. If not, then why go to such lengths to prevent the dissemination of information supporting the notion that the wealthy do, in fact, conspire to accrue even more wealth and power?

Historically, Populism has always represented the real working-class movement that speaks truth to power. From its inception in Jacksonian Democracy, to its re-emergence as modern day “conspiracy theory”, the decentralization of financial markets and the dissolution of currency monopolies have been central tenets of its platform. Perhaps, as Populist thinkers posit, this control of finance comprises the wheel in the hub of a corporate cartel that uses capital markets to fund its imperialist ambitions. A fractional reserve system of money creation, lent at interest, also allows those in control to skim off the top of the entirety of the colonized Empire.

For this reason, upper-class interests have sought consistently to replace Populism with a Progressive movement now obsessed with identity politics at the expense of the realities and root causes of class conflict. Not only that, but consistent attacks on the Populist reputation through a false association with all manner of abhorrent ideologies continues to damage the potential for acceptability of the movement within the mind of the public.

If liberation from political and economic oppression is truly the goal, perhaps it is time for the Progressive to comprehend their complicity within the system that they profess to oppose. Only a movement that sees beyond the confines of the left/right paradigm will be capable of uniting the mass of humanity against the few who continue to consolidate power. Perhaps this modern-day movement could rally around the moniker of Populism that represents a proud, centuries long tradition seeking to do just that.

The Populist Papers

Discussion about this post