Party Semantics

Having spent a good while marveling at the results of the recent elections of the European Parliament, I have come to a conclusion as to where all of this is going. In the past there were two distinct meanings of the English word “party”:

1 a social gathering of invited guests, typically involving eating, drinking, and entertainment;

2 a formally constituted political group, typically operating on a national basis, that contests elections and attempts to form or take part in a government.

In the past, political parties were based on an ideology that allowed them to formulate platforms and plans of action. All of these things were hashed out in the course of intra-party debates and inter-party polemics in the press. They were durable institutions, often bordering on stolid, and persisted over decades. Social parties, on the other hand, were light-hearted occasions where people would come together to try to impress each other with their wit, style, fashion sense and who-they-know, where heated political discussions were very much discouraged, and which only very rarely lasted any longer than a fortnight and mostly ended that very evening as the guests split up into twos and threes before retiring.

What these recent European elections have shown to me that these two meanings are becoming conflated. Half of the political parties which took part in these elections did not exist five years ago. A good number of them have changed direction based on which way the wind blows: Italia’s Lega Nord started out as separatist but now wants to play a part in pan-European populism. A good number of them have ideological orientations so confused as to seem schizophrenic: Hungary’s Fides is anti-communist/pro-socialist, against European centralization/for a united Europe, against equal treatment/for German financial discipline, and, of course, for more money for Brussels/for a stronger NATO. There seems just one thing that unites all of them, and that’s opposition to rational thought.

Lots of commentators have pointed out that the Euroskeptics have scored a major victory while traditional liberal and centrist parties have lost lots of seats. That’s true enough, but the real winners were all sorts of Green parties, which gained 69 seats—more than any of the three main Euroskeptic blocks. This may seem like a good thing for those who like the idea of saving the environment, but only until you look at the details.

The traditional liberal and centrist parties lost mostly because they have been lost all along, stuck in a whimsical land of flying ponies and rainbow-farting unicorns. They continued to think that the original conception of a united Europe was still just what was needed except maybe for a few tweaks. Their populace begged to differ and this very large difference of opinion was reflected in the polls. This is because the populace sees few flying ponies or unicorns but is forced to deal with migrant crime, falling living standards, rising prices and government disfunction. The Euroskeptic parties are opposed to all that rainbow-and-unicorn nonsense but are united in little else besides their opposition to it.

And then there are the Greens. The Green movement tends to gather freaks and misfits about as efficiently as a hairball gathers lint. It is mostly based on emotionalism, to the exclusion of most realistic concerns. Nevertheless, it provides a realistic alternative because it can actually propose actions. Some are positive, most are negative.

The Greens are in favor of solar panels and wind turbines. These are, of course, great. Solar panels are fantastic because they provide illumination when the sun is shining. Wind turbines are wonderful because although they don’t provide enough juice to run air conditioners they can power fans—but only on windy days.

The Greens are also against all sorts of things. The nuclear power plants have to be shut down because nuclear is scary. Never mind that the nuclear industry is responsible for a relatively tiny number of deaths per kilowatt-hour compared to the fossil fuel or the renewable energy industries; appreciating such facts would involve putting on your thinking cap, but that would be against the rules, which dictate going wherever your feelings take you. This is a necessity for a movement that has figureheads such as the world-renowned scientist Dr. Greta Thunberg, the world’s foremost authority on catastrophic climate change. According to her, anyone can make a positive contribution—for instance, by not showing up to school on Fridays.

More ominously, the Greens tend to think about the whole Earth—not just the little peninsula that juts out of Eurasia between the Baltic and the Mediterranean seas that is the limit of their legitimate purview. They also tend to think of humanity as a whole—and not just the little tribe they are being elected to represent. This makes it super-easy to manipulate them into acting as useful idiots for the globalists. So far they have been opposed to GMO technology, but let’s see how long that lasts. And they are in favor of unlimited migration—in favor of helping construct the European Caliphate, that is. Once that project is complete, the Greens will be able to retire together to some place cool—like Siberia, perhaps, if the Russians will let them.

Here is an electoral map of Europe. Can you see how this place can be governed on the basis of the preferences of the crazy mishmash of parties? Can you see anything particularly united about it, politically speaking? I certainly don’t. And this leads me to think that these are not political parties. They are social parties that never end. Once one election cycle it’s over, it’s time to party some more in preparation for the next one. If one party isn’t sufficiently joyful, why not leave it organize another one?

To see where Europe is going, we should look at the Ukraine. After all, the Ukrainian slogan is “The Ukraine is Europe” and in keeping with it they try to be more European than the Europeans themselves. In their most recent presidential election they have outdone themselves, having elected a comedian who plays president on television. If you think that, once inaugurated, he stopped being a comedian and started acting as the president of the second-largest European nation (after Russia) you would be wrong: he continues to play president on TV as a comedian. (Actually, something has changed: his screenwriters now follow orders, although it is unclear who is issuing them.) This, then is the wave of the future: the Ukraine is now “ruled” (ha-ha!) by a comedian named Zelensky.

His victory paves the way for others. In particular, the Ukrainian singer Olga Polyakova is now exploring her options in politics. Think of her as a much younger, much prettier Angela Merkel; in five years, it may be her turn to “rule” (ha-ha!) the Ukraine. Obviously, she wants to organize a party, because everyone likes to party! One possible name for her party is POPA, short for Polyakova Party, which also means ass in Russian. Indeed, her ass isn’t bad. If the Americans can spend a good part of a decade entranced by Kim Kardashian’s ass, why not Olga’s?

So, who actually runs the Ukraine? (Hint: it’s not Zelensky.) And who actually runs Europe? (Hint: it’s not the European Parliament). Perhaps some day you will discover this. In the meantime, go on and party ‘til you drop, because that’s what democracy is all about. To get your (political) party started, here’s Olga.

This entry was posted in Dmitry Orlov and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.