The McWorldian Project – Whose Side Is Our Regime On?
Why do all political movements, wherever they lie on the overly revered compass, always claim to be counter cultural?
This is something I often wonder about. Actually, that’s not strictly true; to some extent, I already know why this is the case, and it’s completely obvious too. Basic psychology proves that you’re always more likely to root for the underdog, and combine this with the fact that throughout modern history, working and middleclass people have frequently felt disenfranchised with the status quo, you end up in a situation where whichever movement owns the elicit anti-establishment narrative being supressed by shadowy elites suddenly becomes very attractive to the masses.
Of course, this is all perfectly understandable. However, the reason I find the phenomenon strange is because it’s surely inherently self-defeating in the long run. I mean, if you’re heavily involved in a political movement, you probably hope that even if the narrative you promote can’t ever attain pre-eminency within the zeitgeist of your civilisation, then one day it will at least become incorporated into the official establishment approved narrative. But when the defining feature of your movement is that it’s being supressed by the regime, what happens if you get into power? I suppose this is why almost all revolutionary movements inevitably degenerate into fascism sooner or later, because once successful, the thing that supposedly legitimated the revolution in the first place disappears, and so the revolution (now just the regime itself), is forced to constantly invent more and more existential threats to defeat in a game of ideological whack a mole.
The present day is no different in this respect. In my last post, I referred to our current regime simply as McWorld, and in the west, every faction uniformly claims to be oppressed by its elite: the socialists do because the regime is capitalist, the capitalists do because the regime is socialist, the dissident right do because the regime’s controlled by Jews, the establishment right do because the regime’s gone woke, and the centrists, those smug, know-it-all centrists, they do because the regime is simply ‘too extreme’ and run by ‘partisans’, whatever that’s supposed to mean.
These claims can’t all simultaneously be true though. For a start, most of them are mutually contradictory, so someone’s got to have the wrong end of the stick somewhere along the line, and in this essay, I will aim to provide an answer as to whose side our regime is really on. Last week, I argued that McWorld’s endgame for humanity is fundamentally at odds with human nature, because the social structure it has created is centred around the idea that rationalism, and more specifically moral rationalism capital R, will eventually solve the political and thereby the human condition also. Today though, I want to make the inner workings of the regime a bit more concrete for you, dear reader, by spelling out exactly who it is that benefits from the successes of McWorld and the kind of society it’s aiming towards.
The short (and also long) answer to all of this is that the regime is on its own side, but this is not a very illuminating response, and indeed it’s basically tautological to assert. Every elite throughout history has always been on its own side, so this isn’t something unique to McWorld. This being granted, it’s probably still reasonable to conclude that our regime believes it is serving a higher purpose, striving for higher goals, than mere Machiavellianism though. After all, they must genuinely believe in the hyper-rationalist worldview it promotes to some extent at least, because I’d struggle to see how anyone could pretend to believe in such absurdity with complete cynicism. So there must be some group of people they believe their success will serve.
As someone who it is probably most fitting to describe as an ardent leftist, I can never fully escape the reflexive defensiveness and the immediate urge to chastise and ridicule that comes over me whenever a right winger brazenly asserts that my views and interests are those of the establishment. Maybe I’m just falling into the trap I pointed out in the introduction with this one, but I don’t really know. Either way, it doesn’t matter, because I have Ben Shapiro esq facts and logic that I can use to back myself up with here. For example, if someone of the dissident right, or even the mainstream right at this point, were to tell me that the regime is anti-white and that white people are treated as second-class citizens in the west, I could easily respond by giving them the historical reality of our civilisation; McWorld is a decaying social structure, which if not built solely upon white supremacist foundations, at the very least it had its construction pipeline dramatically accelerated by slavery and colonisation, and this is irrefutable.
At this point, my interlocuter might have something to pushback with. If they’re of the mainstream right, they’ll probably be eager to point out that affirmative action enables legal discrimination against white people, and if they’re a dissident, it’s possible they’ll even bring up the dreaded great replacement theory as proof that there’s a top-down orchestrated white genocide happening in the west. Okay, so which of these pictures is true? Is McWorld white supremacist, or is it anti-white? It can’t be both… Well, I could go on with my Ben Shapiro style rampage, and just continue blurting facts and stats at anyone who hadn’t got bored of the conversation yet. I could point out for example, that a quick google search proved that more than 88% of CEO’s at large companies were white as of 2022, or that in America, for every $100 held by white families, black families average only $15.
Eventually though, this just won’t cut it. It might help me keep my own peace of mind for a short while, but apart from that, it’s not going to do anything for me, much less convince my interlocuter. They probably have their own facts ready to go as well, and deep down, we both know we’re engaged in a stand off that neither of us will blink first in. On top of this, when I’m in a much more reflective state of mind and not in the middle of trying to win an argument, I’m forced to accept that neither of these schools of thought really get at the crux of who McWorld is serving. I have already acknowledged that our regime is the bastion of a universalist and abstracted worldview, so admittedly, if it were also ideologically bent on white supremacy, then this would be somewhat counterproductive to its goals.
Immediately, this train of thought summons to mind an article written by Michael Anton, in which he coined a term known as the ‘celebration parallax.’ Essentially, this refers to any scenario in which something being openly promoted and advocated for by the regime is either actually happening or a conspiracy theory depending on whether or not you like it. Naturally, Anton thinks the regime is run by a bunch of woke Marxists who are trying to achieve world communism or something, so all the examples he gives pertain to that idea, but let’s see what he has to say regarding the matter of racial demographics in the west;
The Left insists that concerns from certain quarters that immigration policy in America (and Europe) amounts to a “great replacement” is a “dangerous,” “evil,” “racist,” “false” “conspiracy theory.” But a leftist New York Times columnist can write an article entitled “We Can Replace Them” and … nothing. Same fundamental point, except she’s all for it and her targets aren’t. A U.S. Senator can exult that demographic change will doom Republicans. Joe Biden himself can refer to an “unrelenting stream of immigration.” Except they’re celebrating it and calling for it. Anyone on the Right who uses the exact same words will not merely be denounced; the very fact pattern that is affirmed when Biden says it will be denied when the Rightist repeats it.
Okay, so he really is openly talking about the great replacement here. This is our signal to run away as fast as we can, and yes, also accuse him of propagating a dangerous, evil, racist, false conspiracy theory. But let’s stay here just for a moment, and seriously consider what Anton’s saying. Basically, he’s noticing the demographic trends in the western world and thinking to himself, “Hey, white people are declining as a percentage of the population, this has to be something that is being deliberately orchestrated top-down by the regime, but because I don’t like that, they won’t let me notice that it’s happening while they openly celebrate it.”
This is getting into a pretty dangerous territory now though isn’t it, dear reader? Before I continue, it’s probably best for me to provide some reassurances here, so I don’t end up looking like I’m a part of Qanon. The great replacement theory is wrong, and certainly evil to propagate, but the phenomenon Anton is describing is a largely accurate representation of reality, even with respect to the issue of racial demographics. No, that doesn’t mean that there’s a conspiracy against white people in the west and that McWorld is systematically trying to genocide the white population or that we’re going to become the ‘oppressed minority in our own homes,’ or anything of that elk. The usual leftist response to such paranoid talking points is to accept the irrefutable fact of demographic change, but take issue with the claim that this is a deliberate conspiracy theory, and instead dismiss it as something that’s just sort of happening naturally, certainly without the backing of any elite cabal.
But c’mon, I’ll take one for the team and admit that’s flimsy. Everything is political after all, and even if you want to say that demographic change is simply a consequence of the modern world, then someone’s still driving the modern world and benefiting from it. It’s a group of decentralised mass organisations who are primarily benefiting from it in fact, collectively known as McWorld.
If you’re a leftist like myself, then presumably your response to demographic change is either positive, comfortable, or at the very least neutral. This is exactly where the problem lies though. Because people are inherently drawn to the idea that their views are anti-establishment, it becomes very hard to ever accept that something you like, or are even simply just okay with, is actively being pushed by the establishment itself. So is that problem solved then? Is McWorld on our side after all? To quote that one Mitchell sketch, ‘are we the baddies?’ No, not at all. But hang on; that doesn’t make any sense. If I’m now admitting that our interests really are aligned with the interests of the regime, then surely that means the regime is on our side ipso facto, doesn’t it?
To help make sense of this incongruous reality, I first need to answer three interrelated questions, which are as follows: 1. Why does the right broadly not want demographic change? 2. Why are we comfortable with demographic change? And 3. Why is McWorld comfortable with demographic change? The first two are easy enough. The right doesn’t want demographic change because it wants the west to stay majority white. Of course, they’ll hardly ever state their reasons in explicitly racial terms, especially the mainstream right, but this is what it really boils down to at the end of the day. On the other hand, if you’re like me, you’re comfortable with demographic change primarily because you don’t care about racial demographics at all. I couldn’t care less whether my country is 80%, 50% or 0% white, and presumably neither do you. There are of course other reasons for being on board with demographic change too. For example, there is certainly a compelling argument to be made that since a lot of the western world’s wealth was stolen from the lands it colonised, there is actually a duty to let the people who have suffered from this at least experience the civilisational fruits of such pillaging.
But what about McWorld? Well, the running theory on the right is that McWorld promotes demographic change either for the same reasons I’ve articulated or because it wants to systematically eradicate the white population, but I have already rejected the possibility of both. The reality of the situation is perhaps just as bleak though. The only reason McWorld has for allowing refuges and economic migrants into the west is because these people can be used for cheap labour to prop up our economies, and to help expand the reach of western hegemony in every corner of the globe. They don’t do this from the benevolent motive of promoting cultural diversity, or helping impoverished communities escape the grasp of despotic dictators, or anything like that. It’s literally just so the GDP can go up. That age old mantra of ‘economic migrants will do the jobs that no one else wants to do’ is basically all there is to it. McWorld uses these people who are used to slave-labour like working conditions in order to facilitate unbounded economic growth and to reduce them to consumers like the rest of us, for that’s all they are to the regime, fungible tools to keep the machine ticking. The regime might employ the language of ‘diversity’ and ‘social responsibility’ to get people like myself on side with their project, but it’s merely a trojan horse for mass undifferentiated consumerism.
When seen in this light, it becomes clear what’s going on here. The elites of McWorld aren’t anti-white, and this should be obvious. As I established earlier, the regime is made up almost entirely of white people anyway, whose families and friends are probably also almost entirely white, all of which probably live in almost entirely white neighbourhoods too. I’m sure that most elites would feel disgusted at the prospect of a refuge living on the same street as them, so in that respect, it might be fitting to call McWorld white supremacist after all. Check mate, conservatives! I have the antiestablishment narrative after all! But I guess the reason this is so tricky to parse is because the McWorldian framework requires the members of its elite to view everyone solely as potential consumers, as a cog in the profit machine, in spite of any Jihadist dispositions they may individually have, so you might say the regime exhibits an ideological dissonance with respect to its own goals.
The reason I’m hammering this point home with such a sensitive topic is because I think it’s critical to understand how McWorld co-opts dissent by making you feel like losses are wins. Conservatives look at how mass corporations across the globe are establishing well-funded DEI departments, flying the pride banner, and promoting the idea of the girl-boss, and they conclude that these things are all wins for the leftists, but are they really? The end this is gearing us up towards is the complete flattening of all individuation, so that the human race may become a singular homogenous block of consumers that will uniformly buy the same products and tolerate the same living standards without opposition, rather than any higher communist or humanitarian utopia.
If you really are a leftist dear reader, then I hope you don’t believe that it’s morally virtuous to use people as fungible tools to help prop up the economy’s GDP. But this is all there is to McWorld’s project – sure, it might be better to feel like we’re striving towards true equality every time a woman makes it into The World Billionaire’s Club, and in a certain sense, I suppose we are, but it’s only a spiritually impoverishing kind of equality, the natural conclusion of which can only be atomised individualism and the extinction of the common good as a concept. I vividly remember attending a Socialist Worker’s Party conference about gender and capitalism in my first year of undergraduate study, and at the end of one of the talks, the speaker concluded with the following remark;
“I don’t want to hear about the wonders of the girl-boss, because I don’t want bosses full stop.”
Staying true to the stereotypical revolutionary zeal of the socialist call to action, I found this line very funny, but also incredibly illuminating. It demonstrates perfectly how McWorld are willing to co-opt social struggles into increasing its bottom line, masterfully leading people into all sorts of blind alleys with respect to the real endgame as it does. Everyone believes they will get a slice of the intersectional pie which is being dangled in front of them, until at last it gets snatched away once it’s too late to do anything about. The regime views race, gender, and sexual orientation as mere barriers to be removed so that new customers can be brought into the suffocating grip of McWorld, and the young McWorldian is optimistic that one day they’ll see pride banners flying over high-rise office blocks and multi-story McDonald’s in Afghanistan.
I’ve still not answered the original question that prompted all this yet though, so whose side is our regime on really? Well, for a start, it’s on the side of anyone who believes in the morality of mass managerial capitalism, but the class of people this refers to is basically confined to those inside the regime itself. The elites themselves would probably say they’re on the side of humanity as a whole, and that their achievements are destined to elevate the general human condition to the level of the Übermensch.
While it’s easy to laugh at the megalomania on display here, I think that in actuality, the vast majority of people that make up the regime genuinely believe all of this. I know I set it up to make it look like McWorld is purely operating with some nefarious plan to subjugate us all, because functionally speaking, that is what’s happening, but this can’t be the full picture. I already conceded that the worldview McWorld propagates requires its elite to believe that it is always acting on the interests of the entire species, and such a mindset is enabled by their adherence to the foundational principles of rationalism.
The upshot of this is highly paradoxical. It appears that although McWorld exhibits many of the same characteristics which every elite throughout history has displayed, it is at the same time very unique, because it doesn’t even inwardly acknowledge that the values it propagates are inherently self-serving. This leads to a level of contempt for the common man and woman from members of the regime which has never been seen before; if the regime earnestly believes that its existence is serving the whole of humankind, then any ideological dissent is framed as heresy against humanity itself, and this is why all anti-McWorldian factions are branded in such hyperbolic terms as being ‘grave threats to the very foundations of our democracy’ or ‘against our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms’ by the regime. In a way, they’re right as well – the regime’s success comes from how masterfully it counter balances the psychological desperation it is causing through the therapeuticising nature of mass organisations. In McWorld, you can consume as much porn and junk food as you want, and eventually you probably won’t have to go to work ever again because your job will be replaced by machines or ai.
I imagine that if presented with this offer, most people would take it up without thinking twice. Marx was correct to observe that the alienation of workers from the fruits of their labour is perhaps the most demeaning aspect of capitalism, so it’s only natural that most people feel complete apathy towards their job now. Since People only work to make enough money to survive, McWorld is right that in some sense, it’s offer of a final escape from this cycle is inherently liberating. But human nature isn’t really that shallow by default, and in the long run, I don’t think anyone would actually find such an existence fulfilling.
So to answer my original question, every political movement claims to be antiestablishment because they all really are, apart from the McWorldian movement of course, it’s just that most don’t fully understand what ‘the establishment’ actually is because people are inclined to think that any view they don’t like is part of the establishment itself. The dissident right like the hierarchical nature of the society we live in, we like the abolition of prescriptive judgement about essentialist personality characteristics, but for the most part, we’re both wrong about the direction in which the regime is heading with these things, which is why we have to view each other as the regime. Unfortunately, this only means that the near universal discontent with McWorld goes largely unarticulated. I guess you could say that conservatives broadly are our mirror image dissidents.
I accept that I have probably made myself sound like somewhat of a conspiracy theorist nutcase throughout this essay, dear reader, and that you now probably expect me to tell you how the regime is trying to get us all to live in pods and own nothing and be happy as if I were Alex Jones. To be fair, that’s not exactly far from what’s happening either. The way of life that the honest social conservative wants to preserve truly is being eroded by the regime, which is why they lump our interests in with it. I suppose that for them, there’s merit to the idea that a system is nothing but what it does, because if they find the public visibility of trans people or gay marriage or abortion to be morally outrageous, then they’re not going to care what purpose McWorld has for allowing and even promoting these things.
When considering all of this, there’s a question which naturally presents itself, which is as follows; is it better to allow McWorld to complete its grand project, or the dissident right backlash that its acceleration is eventually bound to generate? The answer is obviously neither of these, because they’re both terrible, but what I mean is, which would be less harmful to our own goals, pragmatically speaking? In my next post, I will be covering a topic which should hopefully answer this question more thoroughly, but for now what I will say is that that in a way, it doesn’t really matter. I mean sure, a return to the 1800’s probably sounds infinitely worse than our current social structure, especially to the people who would be most adversely affected by it, but the truth is that realistically, this isn’t something we need to worry about. It’s not exactly a new observation to make, but mass managerial organisations aren’t going away without something as dramatic as a nuclear holocaust to purge them (although admittedly that’s not even inconceivable at the moment), and it is these organisations which serve as McWorld’s engine room.
The eternal conservative impulse to dismantle big government isn’t going to get them anywhere, but that’s not the only thing we should be concerned for though. The world we’re rapidly hurtling towards is oppressive enough, but it will be infinitely worse if our mirror-image dissidents manage to stage a palace coup of even a few of the regimes’ most critical institutions, as some of them are now starting to realise. The tower of babel isn’t going to collapse in a violent revolution, but it could be transformed into the tower of Mordor from within. What we really need is a way to capture a sizeable number of the interconnected managerial vertices of power which are dotted all over the world, and make them serve our interests instead of Mcworld’s.
As for how to do actually achieve this, well that’s the million-dollar question, isn’t it? Unfortunately, I don’t really have a grand strategy for how we can even begin approaching this problem to hand which amounts to anything more than a Jordan Peterson/Ben Shapiro wombo-combo of ‘tidy your room and pull yourself up by the bootstraps’ really. I know that isn’t very helpful advice, but there’s not really much more that I can offer at this point I’m afraid. A diagnosis of our societal condition can at least be helpful in dispelling the illusion that the Whig view of history is alive and well though. McWorld wants to abolish the very idea of the community in order to achieve a total atomisation and commodification of everyone and everything, and they’re happy to use anyone who doesn’t see what’s happening for what it really is in order to achieve this. The only effective way to resist McWorld is to beat it at its own game, something that isn’t going to materialise through mild reform or the actions of a few philanthropically-minded billionaires.
The bottom line is that our regime thinks it’s on everyone’s side, and in reality, almost everyone thinks they’re against it, but the outcomes will be very different depending on which anti-establishment narrative wins out in the long run, if indeed one ever manages to supplant the McWorldian one. Hopefully, this should already tell you everything you need to know about our regime, dear reader. Hey, don’t look at me like that – I never said this was all going to be sunshine and rainbows.