American politics is often cast as a battle between wreckers and restorers, taking turns at the helm of state. The wreckers are the do-gooders on the Left, who push through a bunch of ill-considered, by well-intentioned reforms that end poorly. The restorers are the so-called conservatives on the Right, who come in to clean up the mess and restore things back to order. Political history is often described in these terms, even by the people on the Left, who focus on the good intentions.
It is, of course, another example of how both sides of the Progressive orthodoxy serve the interests of the whole. The Left side gets to fashion itself as the good-hearted reformers, but are in too much of hurry to save the world. Their colleagues on the Right, of course, get to play the daddy role, coming in after the mess was made to be the sober minded restorer of order. It’s the classic sit-com model of the funny, scatter- brained wife with the frustrated husband as the straight man.
The funny thing about this model is the base of both sides never accepts this dynamic, instead seeing themselves more as revolutionaries and romantics. The hard Left dreams of flattening the global order to build a new world order around Gaia worship or possibly a matriarchy. The popularity of Ocasio-Cortez is based in the assumption of her followers that she is anti-white and will therefore usher in a world without white people. They clearly seek a radically different world than the present.
On the Right, something similar is true. The base conservative is not looking to fix the mess made by the Left. They want to roll back the last fifty years of cultural revolution, getting back to an America that looks like the 1950’s. If you asked most of the so-called movement conservatives, they would say they want to roll the political order back to the 18th century, the way the Founders intended. These are romantics, not restorers. They want to go back to another age, not live in this one.
Pillow talk to their base, while playing both sides against one another, is how the American political class has functioned for the last three generations. The Democrats figure out how to get a majority and push through some reforms, which never work as intended or satisfy the base. The majority falls apart and the Republicans come in to preserve the real reforms, while cleaning up the collateral damage and telling their base they plan to roll all of it back. This never happens, of course.
The health care reform package passed under the reign of Obama is a pretty good example of how this works. The bill was supposed to fix the American health care system, by lowering everyone’s costs, giving free care to everyone, who needs it, while giving everyone on the supply side a raise. This was lunacy, but it passed and the wheels came off the cart quickly. The republicans promised to repeal it, which they never did, despite have two years under Trump to do it.
Again, it was all a charade from the jump. The original bill was about punishing Christian organizations, hated by certain elements of the Left, while taking care of the wealthy interest profiting from their health care monopolies. The so-called reforms by the conservatives stripped a few onerous provisions from Christians, but kept all the goodies for the monopolists. Health care reform tuned out to be a bipartisan scam on the public that profited the health care rackets.
The truth is, the American political system has evolved to prevent both the revolutionary and the romantic from ever getting power. The one thing these two types have in common is they are at war with the present. The former wants to race into a glorious future, disconnected from the present. The latter wants to go back to a glorious past, but a radically different past, one where they possess the foresight their ancestors lacked. It is a past with a better future.
This is precisely why the people reigning over the neo-liberal political order are in such a panic over the rise of dissident politics. The numbers may be small, but the dissident right legitimatizes the radical Left. Put another way, by marginalizing radicals and anathematizing an authentic Right, the political class saps both sides of legitimacy, therefore maintaining a monopoly on legitimacy and political power. An authentic Right results in an authentic Left and the end of the present orthodoxy.
This is, perhaps, why the interwar years in Europe hold such a fascination with modern political thinkers, despite the lack of relevance. After the cataclysm that was the Great War, the old order had lost its legitimacy. Into the void rushed Bolshevism, the radicals, and Fascism, the romantics. The commies wanted to build their glorious future on the ruins of the past. The Fascists wanted to wind back the clock, recapturing the glory of the past, but with the lessons that led to the horrible present.
Another way of viewing that period is as a battle between Bolshevism and Fascism for how best to rule the industrial West. The communist embraced extreme egalitarianism, in theory, while Fascism embraced extreme hierarchy, in practice. Liberal democracy was not an alternative to Bolshevism or the enemy of Fascism. It was a compromise between the two. In theory, liberal democracy combines the virtues of egalitarianism, the democracy, with those of hierarchy in the form of meritocracy.
What we are witnessing and to a small degree a part of, is the decline of the old democratic order, as both an alternative Left and an alternative Right emerge from the shadows of post-Cold War America. Just as Fascism and Bolshevism were a battle over how best to rule the industrial West, the coming fight will be about how best to manage the West in the demographic and technological era. The reformers and restorers will be sidelined, while the revolutionaries square off to decide the future.
For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!
“The wreckers are the do-gooders on the Left, who push through a bunch of ill-considered, by well-intentioned reforms that end poorly. ”
That’s giving the Left some serious benefit of the doubt to say that their reforms are “well-intentioned”. Sure – when everything about the supposed reform goes tits up, they will *claim* that it was well-intentioned but just didn’t work, but that’s not really why they do what they do. The destruction of rights, massive costs, and the governmental overreach that are the supposed “failure” are actually the designed goals of the “reform.”
the dissident right legitimatizes the radical Left.
I beg to differ. Maybe I just hate the rotten snakes too much but I beg to differ on that.
“Just as Fascism and Bolshevism were a battle over how best to rule the industrial West, the coming fight will be about how best to manage the West in the demographic and technological era. ”
So the question is what’s the compromise we’re gonna end up with?
Hillary had apparently fully gamed out the health care system during Bill’s reign but lacked the “charisma” to “sell” it.
I was born In Springfield Vt in 1948 and I used to go to the town meetings where democracy was supposed to be practiced but everyone knew the folks living on Cherry Hill always got their way.
Fast forward many years and that town is now a shit hole with a prison as a major source of income.
Strawberry Fields forever? No Cherry Hills forever
Interesting analysis to say the least.
In regards to the alternative Right, it seems to be in shambles, it has no platform, no agenda. Nothing really to recruit people to it’s side. HBD? Dictatorship? That’s not a selling point. Normies want solutions to really nasty issues. And right now the DR has squat to offer these folks.
If push comes to shove today or 5 years from now. The DR will lose badly. There is no there to the DR in terms of substance or organization. No goals, no nothing. It’s just a debating society at best. Definitely not a group that can go to the mat with the Left and win.
I’m not trying to blackpill folks, but damn the DR movement is sorely in need of men with organizational skills, along with talented writers who can put together pamphlets and booklets selling the DR to normies. Assuming that it’s leaders can come up with a platform and goals.
Rod, you see real leaders developing here, and this is a tiny example, quality repeated thousands (millions) of times.
More and more, I’m seeing young guys who lift, ride bikes, have skills, work overtime, and are fully HBD’d and Heartisted, because they live in the stew and have to be.
They remind me of us, and our dads, sh*tkickers all, but with a harder, meaner, smarter edge, more like our grandads.
They fill me with hope.
Let us old fogies debate, we have the time and experience, we give these young men their action words.
And the women? We can’t forget the most important part of life. Our damsels are hungry, desperate for some normal guys. They. Want. Babies. …and Men. A Home.
“More and more, I’m seeing young guys who lift, ride bikes, have skills, work overtime, and are fully HBD’d and Heartisted, because they live in the stew and have to be.”
Not as many as you think you see. If that was the case, these “warriors” would by now be at the front lines fighting, rather than waiting…and waiting…and waiting.
Your argument is premised on the assumption that we can actually talk and vote our way out of the mess we are in. What if the tipping point has already been passed and the eventual tyranny becomes the order of the day? Of what value is a good organization, great writers and orators, and token voting in a detention camp? Debating in hopes of persuasion is a debilitating distraction and won’t be of much help when the jackboots coma callin.
The Democrats figure out how to get a majority and push through some reforms, which never work as intended or satisfy the base.
They always work as intended: they create more poor people – more Democrat voters. Democrats fixing poverty would be like turkeys butchering themselves, reaching up their own asses and yanking out the guts, stuffing their carcasses and jumping into the oven.
Agreed, but not for the reason you state Felix. Dem’s fixing poverty is impossible, because poverty is a relative and therefore a moving target. If we compare the poor American’s in this country to the world’s population, they are richer in terms of economic goods/conditions than at least 2/3’s of the population. If we go back a few hundred years, they have more economic goods—and a longer life span—than the potentates of that time.
The poor in this country will always be poor in a comparative sense—at least until the Dem’s get absolute power and make everyone (equally) poor—as that is the only proven way currently known of to make everyone equal. However, that is not to say lives can’t be improved, but that as the Bible says. “…the poor will always be with us…”
Dem’s fixing poverty is impossible, because poverty is a relative and therefore a moving target.
Yes, good point. Rather, they create dependent people, both direct welfare recipients, but also a huge apparatus of government workers.
A few years ago, an Olympic shot-putter come parliamentarian, Joachim Olsen, made waves when he challenged anyone to produce a poor Dane.
This poc MP rises to the challenge and finds an unemployed single mom willing to whine to the tax payers about how poor she is. So DenMarx Radio – the public broadcaster – is there, cameras rolling, when Olsen takes one look at her household budget and notes that she has more money at her disposal than a full-time nurse.
And this was the example the Commie MP had picked herself! Nobody in DenMarx Radio or in the MP’s party had any idea what normal people’s budgets looked like.
Just to be clear here: when unemployed Danes complain about being poor, it’s about not being able to take your kids on a holiday abroad. And I’m not even joking. Such stories get pushback, but they’re still treated seriously by the MSM: “think of the children!”
Whitey gonna culturally appropriate my Air Jordans. Down with the white oppressor!
Knowing that most Republicans are controlled opposition gives a whole new perspective to the 2012 presidential debates.
Romney was warning us about the dangers of Russia, and Obama mocked this antiquated line of thought. Go forward to an alternate future where HRC wins and investigates Russian election interference. The phony opposition gets to say, “I told you so,” and the Democrats get to agree. The American public then supports a war with Russia. Damn, they must really hate Trump for derailing that plan alone.
This is all good and insightful but I have yet to hear or read of anyone coming up with a political/economic/moral philosophy that is not a rehashed mix of the schemes we have already seen in past decades/centuries and which, without exception, have failed at times, succeeded at times but never delivered uniform results.
Good kings are rarely written up much because their reigns are peaceful and prosperous and little of note happens beyond there being no great wars, rebellions or famines. The “great” kings are all over the history books because war, rebellion and calamity are invariably features of their reigns.
And God alone knows what kind of king it will be when he first takes his seat on the throne.
There are no systems that deliver a uniform results because every system ever devised relies on men to implement and preserve them. The Constitutional system in the USA is as good or better than any other I know of and we see what has happened to it when corrupt fools, lunatics and fanatics worm their way into power. At the present time not one of the branches of government shows any interest at all in performing its constitutionally mandated role because the people in these simply don’t want to as to do so puts limitations on their desires that they simply are not willing to tolerate.
Christianity holds the best answer to our dilemma but here, too, it is up to each person to choose to actually practice what is preached and never, except in small communities of believers, has any people managed to come close to this. To paraphrase Chesterton: Europe tried Christianity and did not find it wanting. Europe tried Christianity and found it hard.
I see no system having even a slim chance of working that is not built on the belief that the truth of the system has been handed down by some power or authority greater than Man’s. Without that you get competing passionately held opinions and history shows us clearly that death and destruction is the end product of this (not to mention the erosion of faith and loss of purpose that leads to apathy and despair and simply completes the ruin).
The answer lies in our history. There is no system that can be imposed that will deliver lasting positive results agreeable to all. There are many systems that deliver to some but not others and inevitably result in covert and eventually overt revolt. The only thing that has ever worked is a deep, sincere and abiding faith in a higher power and this works on an individual basis only for to try and impose such on all and sundry simply results in the same controversy, contention and conflict we have seen over and over.
I am a Christian and see no other answer. But as a Christian I understand that this world is not an end in itself and all attempts to turn it into one will sooner or later fail, usually with much suffering and destruction.
Christianity will have a future in any New Right movement, and more importantly, seems to have no future in any New Left movement. Stick with us, we have your backs, and unlike the other guys, very few of us are hostile to transcendent values.
Fellow Christian here. Bottom line is that we desperately need fellow travelers, and all too often they are NOT the people in the pulpits and pews of our churches. So we need to focus on coalitions of the like-minded when it comes to political/economic philosophy. Christians also need to unplug from apostate churches … clean up our own mess before getting into the public square’s mess.
When it comes to governmental philosophy I’m all for massive decentralization and rule by a natural elite of intelligent landholders, much as the Founders envisioned.. Rulers of 10s, 100s, and 1000s with laws of accountability based on “natural law,” which is essentially the last 6 of the 10 Commandments. Morality would ideally be legislated at the community level, about the same AOR as old European kingdoms, and for those who don’t agree with or break those laws lifetime banishment would be an acceptable option. Conform or leave … sounds like you belong in California – go there. In American history, the Constitution was a big mistake … the history books are full of critiques of the Articles of Confederation, but that would be the roadmap to return to if (when?) we get a chance to put Humpty together again.
Z’s talking in part about burying the Cold War mindset. A revolutionary mindset requires rethinking from basic principles.
What we know about human nature now is a quantum leap from the classical ideas of the Enlightenment. The philosophy of Locke et al predates modern evolutionary biology and sociology by almost two centuries.
For a revolution to accomplish more than re-arranging the deck chairs, Cold War Team Commie has to face the scientific fact that any macro-evolution to “Progressive Man’ is a project of centuries, not decades, and the historical fact that Communism won’t hold together that long. Cold War Team Liberty has to face the related facts that human beings are social animals with Dunbar Number limits, not atomized individuals, and that infinity-growth capitalism causes Current Species Man to stop breeding and amuse himself to death.
At the risk of sounding like a commie cult-Marxist, we need to deconsruct the Enlightenment project, with good faith, not with (((Marcusean))) malice, and replace it with a world-and-man-view which incorporates the Enlightenment-shattering truths of modernity.
I’ve always viscerally disliked the concept of “archaeofuturism,” more from my reaction to Moebius’ aesthetic depiction than Faye’s thinking and writing. That said, I will give the recently-deceased arch-hater his due, having just rendered his wrathful ghost some shekels for “Archaeofuturism 2.0” after re-listening to Z’s “fringe politics” pcast. I hope I’m doing Faye justice by pre-crime-thinking his work, but if what he’s saying is don’t reject what’s proven from the past simply because it’s past, there’s a seat for Romantics at his table. If what he’s saying is we have to obey the demands of the present and future in doing so, there are seats for Reformers and Revolutionaries as well.
The problem here is that you speak philosophically, not realistically. Provide concrete answers with a concrete, step-by-step plan and get back to us.
I’m not sure that a lot of center-right guys realize that only a hard right can defeat the hard left. People are fleeing the center, but the left is fleeing it faster. We need to speed it up. Right now, it’s left-wing wolves vs. right-wing sheep. We need it to be wolves vs. wolves to have a chance.
And there’s the problem of how the left keeps in touch much better with its radical wing, drawing energy, ideas, and personnel from it, while the so-called conservatives are eager to punch right and purge right.
In the long run, it’s either going to be right-wing authoritarianism or left-wing authoritarianism. Of course, right-wing authoritarianism would be better for /us/, because that is us. But I would also submit that it would be almost infinitely better for normies, too, because its understanding of human nature is much closer to reality.
“Conservatism is philosophically and intellectually unlike the moderate left, that has always looked to the far left for its energy, for its theory, for its radicalism. They repudiate bits they don’t like (particularly the harsher bits) but they’re, ‘Come in brother, come in comrade.’ They take it into themselves.
“Conservatives, there is a permafrost between them and the far right and radical right ideas. This means, theoretically and mentally, they’ve cut part of their own body off. Whatever their much more moderate political views are, they will not take the energy which exists to one side of them.”
–Jonathan Bowden, “Marxism & the Frankfurt School”
This is in Western Civilization Bites Back and also free from Counter Currents: https://www.counter-currents.com/2012/05/marxism-and-the-frankfurt-school/
First paragraph of The Second Coming by W. B. Yeats:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
I disagree with one of your insights – there is no left-wing authoritarianism, but there is left-wing totalitarianism. The State is everything and everything is the State. Totalitarians regard they’re citizens as concrete, to be shoveled around in order to create a new society.
Most people aren’t that interested in politics, so if the elite is reasonably competent, honest, civic-minded and not at war with the citizenry, a right-wing authoritarian society is tolerable.
Liberty. It was great while it lasted.
No, it’s going to be the Normies calling the shots, with representative democracy reigning supreme. You struck out, son.
“Representative democracy” may reign publicly, but it sure as Hell will not reign supreme.
The role of technology is something new to the reform, restore, revolt struggle.
I don’t think there has been a time when the population has totally and willingly submitted to their (tech) overlords so completely and thoroughly. If there has, we need to study that.
Our future is increasingly looking like it will go where the tech overlords decide it goes; where they reside on the spectrum of progress.
Women in my neighborhood can’t walk their dogs to shit on other peoples lawns without staring into their phones the entire time.
Single women can’t even be bothered to get easy sex from hot guys unless the whole interaction is curated by some algo app.
As for the males. Most are complying to the new order, taking a knee for the girls and pocs, plying their utility via this app or that. The minority that don’t are either cynics or in various trajectories of opt-out/minimalism.
Yeah we have access to more information and potential wisdom than ever before, but already nobody can remember last week’s news other than ‘white man bad’, let alone that our nation was founded by Christian white men well equipped for philosophy and violence alike.
The disconnect from nature and all its readily observable laws and order and cycles is going to be a problem.
For the revolution I prefer, a tightrope will need to be strung across this technological abyss.
We need to be anchored to truth, reality, and our physical world.
Yeah the old ‘net is great for dissident thinkchat chambers and organizing secret meetings, but if the (insert preface-) right is ever to become legitimate, technology will have to be brought to heel.
We need to be asking: is this (tech) good for our people, our community?
Instead it seems, the ‘debates’ are about whether or not our submission to technology and muh constitution can be merged in a way as to keep us all engaged.
Kicking the legs off the money changers’ table is one thing, but we now have two generations of humans addicted to a device run by people who only see them as chattel.
The dissident right does a fair job of this already but we need to be signaling more to people – especially young boys and men, that the path through this fallen world is not submission to the tech gods of dopamine, or escapism, but instead one of deep engagement in the natural world around them.
Which is why my concern is the ability and will of men to transition the ideas here into their physical domains.
The aspect of overcoming addiction en masse is critical.
Sorry. Bit long.
Great perspective, aligned with Huxley. Have you read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley? His view was looked further ahead than the tyranny Orwell wrote about, with greater long-term precision of the effects of technology on the human soul.
Quite. I prefer the Huxley approach as it aligns with the dangerous idea that our progress, as we accelerate toward this brave new world, somehow leapfrogs 200,000 years of adaptation to our physical environs; that technology somehow provides all this forebrain utility without so much as a tickle to the survival instincts of our hindbrain.
To the consumer its all just so convenient. But the utility we see and employ is the tip of the iceberg. The power of most technology is beneath the waterline. Ie harnessing our innate drive toward pleasure seeking, pain avoidance, and mating.
So in our era we have the confluence of the two Tyrannies. No, not trannies. Though thats part of it. So stubbing and Brave.But the tyranny of the powers that be and the tyranny of the self.
Feeding off of one another in an environment never before so abundant, safe, and comfortable.
We have a gov’t that is entirely focused on the gibs-consume model and a culture that fetishizes the cult of the self. So many navels.
So the pleasure-distraction-apathy of huxley’s world is upon us.
Overthrowing an evil king is nothing compared to casting off the yoke of ones own propensity toward good feelz.
The 1950’s are a start. Thats also happens to be when most of the industry/tech moved into everymans home.
But there is wisdom throughout the ages that addressed these challenges. I say, take your pick. Whatever works.
But we need actual earth, a plot of land and sunshine and water. Wisdom is not consumed. It must be cultivated, lived. IMO that requires a land and a carefully guarded culture that understands what lies beneath the waterline.
Tools that tie us to the virtual, the brave new, should be treated with great skepticism and used as if under the close control of the enemy.
The clowns can have Twitter and Tinder. I want to build something by the river with my people.
My hope is the wheels fall off the system and Joe Normie has to choose between us and the woke left. I feel good about our chances in that situation, but the Leviathan is quite resilient. How long have libertarians been predicting economic collapse?
I think that’s the most likely scenario to kick off the boogaloo but it seems like all ZOG has to do is print money to kick the can down the road. Maybe an ecological disaster or America stumbling into a catastrophic war would do it too. Sucks to have to root for any of the above.
Depends on what you mean by the wheels coming off. What if there’s even just an economic blip – a temporary collapse of the financial system. What happens to store shelves and gas pumps? What happens when truckers aren’t there to bring tomorrow’s food supply. What happens if the grid goes down, just for a couple days?
There is absolutely zero resiliency in our system of systems, and the engineers who know anything about it are crapping their pants when they war-game this stuff. Joe Normie may choose the dissident side when the wheels come off … the bigger question is whether he’ll know where to find food and water after the Dollar General is looted out.
We take it for granted that we live in a civilized country. But let the wheels come off and it won’t be long before every urban area looks like Port au Prince. Think New Orleans after Katrina, and extrapolate that to every urban area that doesn’t have food/water for 3 days.
All that to say … we are NOT ready for revolution.
What does “we” represent when you say we are not ready for a revolution? You cite Katrina, but my memory is that the smart part of the population did very well for themselves, evacuation—in place and out—while the minority population crammed into the Super Bowl and demonstrated how degenerate one can get.
I’m thinking we are better off without those type of people who will be the first to go—regardless of who they are.
I’ll be bold here … the “we” I’m referring to are the many self-describing dissidents (the people I know, not the people on this blog), which include many of my white, middle-income peers who talk of our need to “clean house” and “bring on CW2” … these are smart, professional people, who happen to have no callouses on their hands, nor any tools in their garage. As a vet who’s led a pretty soft life by global standards, I can tell you that the proverbial “we” are completely subservient to a very fragile infrastructure for water/food/power, and are manifestly NOT ready for catastrophe. I’m more ready than most (the big 3 are covered, with redundancies to the third level) but I”m nowhere near as hardened as my great-grandparents were for the Great Depression.
Sure, many people were smart enough to run away from Katrina, find a hotel room for a few days, and had some extra cash to eat at the restaurant. What I’m saying, though, is that if we extrapolate a Katrina-like event (e.g. economic default, EMP strike, widespread civil conflict, etc) that temporarily severs our infrastructure and impacts entire regions of urban/suburban, the vast majority of the “smart part of our population” will absolutely be up crap creek. Now that’s an assertion I’m making without scientific data, but I trust the empirical data (I.e. I people-watch when I visit suburbia, teach nicely tailored males how to change a tire or jump a battery, etc … Neil Young wrote a song about them – “Helpless.”)
Joe and Jill Normie do not want the wheels to fall of the system. They are not “rooting” for a cataclysmic event. IF and WHEN there is this monumental “boogaloo”, do NOT expect the Normies to side with you. Rather, why don’t YOU do something about the situation now?
“the coming fight will be about how best to manage the West in the demographic and technological era.”
Well, that’s the issue, isn’t it. The official Right remains mired in the Age of Ideas – small gov’t vs large, communism vs capitalism, etc. They can’t even think in terms of demographics and technology. This is why the talking points of the Right – including Trump – are so incredibly boring. They are utterly pointless in our current age.
To their credit, much of the Left has moved or is moving to think in terms of demographics though not so much technology. They very much understand the importance of tribe and numbers.
The truth is that Right is terrified to think in terms of demographics because the only conclusion is racial separation of some form. The Left will never allow that to happen peacefully, which means bloodshed. No one on the Right wants to go down that path for now. In time, as whites are bullied and financial bled dry, that will change.
The right today even has an non-racial excuse to call for severely restricting immigration: Automation. So far, among the right in the mainstream, I’ve only heard Tucker talk about automation in relation to immigration.
Does anyone ever explain why massive legal immigration is a good thing? We had a frontier that needed settling 150 years ago (sorry, American Indians), but why now? Is “my grandparents were immigrants” a good enough reason?
Even that ‘frontier that needed settling’ is largely imaginary – and it wasn’t settled by immigrants (the post 1840s Irish weren’t out there cutting the sod, and even the Germans generally stopped at the midwest). The largest inflow, prior to the post ’65 debacle, was from 1880-1920, long after the ‘frontier’ was settled. The reasoning behind massive legal immigration in the past was simple – more workers, lower wages. No, I’m not a socialist/communist, but please realize that literally everything you were taught about history is at best a distortion, if not an outright lie.
Nope, none at all. Trump and some radio figures like Tucker Carlson are making that very point. BTW, you make not like Trump’s talking points but he scored a major victory when the Supreme Court upheld that he could indefinitely deny asylum benefits to the hordes of Los Zetas on the southern border.
Now imagine if HRC or Jeb “act of love” Bush made 150 judicial appointments.
I’ve said this before here, but when I was a kid, around 12 years old, I suppose, I was familiar with the settling of America, where many immigrants came to live on the wide open frontier. I was shocked to learn that many immigrants were still coming. The country was settled, after all. Why do we need more? All these years later, it’s still a question I’ve never heard a satisfactory response to.
>>>Why do we need more?
It’s the old “economic growth” mantra. You can see the national economy expand by, say, 200% in a century versus seeing a comparable expansion in 20 years. Guess which one is preferred by the social stratum which owns the capital and writes the laws.
The right seems to have some kind of embedded coping mechanism in the brains to hide the reality from them.
Boomercon acquaintance: “I don’t care if my grand children are mixed race. What matter is that they believe in the same things I believe in: free market economics and personal responsibility. By being mixed with my line it will help assimilate the brown line into our ideological values”.
This is exactly what he said, I kid you not. Any discussion of genetics or HBD goes right over his head. He also said that since the Angles and the Saxons mixed 1000 years ago then it means race-mixing is a good thing.
It seems to me that the boomercon right is actually MORE dangerous than the center right or moderate left. The “White Suburban Woman” just vote AWR to be part of the herd, and with the hopes that they are spared in the future. They are in reality terrified. I believe many on the “left” are afraid now, I have seen it. All the old leftist Boomers have no clue why their country is now packed with resentful aliens. With a bit of D-right marketing, I believe these people could easily be reached. They just want security.
The truly dangerous people, I hate to say it, are those on “the right”. The colour-blind pastors (more black babies for Jesus!), the ideological right wingers like the Boomercon above… these are the true believers; the classical liberals. These are the ones who seem to be a huge threat to us. Their ignorance is astounding and their stubbornness is unparalleled.
How idiotic is the idea that America is an abstract proposition nation. Even more idiotic is that the third-worlders will believe in “free market economics and personal responsibility.” They don’t vote for it now.
Zman has raised this issue – seeing the world strictly through economic lenses. It’s a variation of Marxism on one end and libertarianism on the opposite.
America would be a different place culturally, politically and economically if we still had the demographics of 1790 – 98% Protestant, 80% White of northern and northwestern European stock. I’m not saying better or worse, just different.
Yes to all of this, and the new high-tech elites have come to believe that the future is a class of high-functioning technologists that rule over a manufactured base population that have been morphed into insect-like drone status. Drones do not complain (or riot). They are programmed to perform rote work most of the time and then repose to online video gaming in the evening for non-work entertainment and approved memetic indoctrination. And they actually think this can work.
Our role is to work, shop, and consume entertainment. And the entertainment better not be books, movies and youtube videos that contain “badthink,” although soon that won’t be a problem once those are completely banned. But consuming porn is okay, in fact even encouraged.
The porn epidemic is rooted in the failure of men to be men and women to be women in our current culture. Every time you turn around you see another national story about some sap getting legally screwed for the primal act of screwing what passes for a woman these days.
Silly observation – saw a photo of the Democrats at their most recent debate tonight Three women participating, all wearing pants. It would be more ladylike and dignified to wear a skirt suit. It’s not like they’re going to the supermarket to pick up groceries. The men all wore suits, of course.
Certainly our First Lady Melania Trump is very feminine in appearance, in marked contrast to the previous First Lady, Mike the Bouncer.
The revolutionaries on the surface square off over ideology. But at a much deeper level this is a biological conflict. There will be no compromises in this conflict because there can not be any compromises. Either whites win or the anti-whites win.
To the extent this is a biological conflict, the dissident right (otherwise identifiable as the white heterosexual male) has a huge biological advantage. The normal white male seems to have this gene that allows criticism to roll off his back. I call it the obliviousness gene. It’s like we are wired with it, and I do not buy the idea that our heritage culture created it. Nurtured it, maybe, but we are born with it, and we own it. Call me whatever you want, I don’t care. To extend that, do whatever you want to me, I won’t back down. It is likely why white soldiers have been so effective over time in winning wars (say what you will about WW1 and WW2, they demonstrated the white aptitude for going all out and in smart ways once the battle lines were drawn). Think also of the Irish troubles or the Finns standing up to everyone. Lethal and very hard to stop. All the old west memes and the shootouts at high noon. Duels at ten paces. The roots of football, wrestling, and boxing. Courting the hottest girl in the room, despite one’s own low SMV.
When the joke “hold my beer” or “watch this” is spoken, it is not about a gay guy, a woman, or a POC. It is about a white guy, because we have the obliviousness gene. We are oblivious to criticism, the likelihood of failure, the personal dangers we are taking, or how we appear in taking the actions that we do. It is the very definition of “white privilege”, because we. don’t. care. BFYTW.
We need to recognize, own, and roll with our obliviousness. It gives us a huge advantage in the coming troubles, and we need to work it. It is our HBD gift.
There’s nothing more satisfying than chuckling in someone’s face when they’re being deadly earnest with some Woke scolding for you. In one of the older pcasts, Z talked about cracking on a ghey who tried this at a party, basically just laughed in his face. True “liberty” is not giving a shit what someone who hates you says. I recommend making whatever lifestyle changes you need to enjoy this. It’s hugely red-pilling for those who witness it, and shitloads of fun besides.
As usual, the R(etard) Party shills give exactly the wrong response to this. Rather than getting offended about being “accused” of having white privilege, we need to just laugh and not even bother to respond.
I am genetically privileged. I am very lucky to have the skin and heritage that the entire world would die to have; or would exterminate in order to soothe their inferiority complexes.
I make NO apologies for ANYTHING.
Great post, Dutch. Let’s play to our strengths: laugh at their scolds and tell them we don’t give an EFF.
Well done.
Paul Gottfried is an excellent chronicler and analyst of the inter-war period. Also, a more literary psychopomp is Ernst von Salomon and his magnum opus, der Fragebogen.
“…while the revolutionaries square off to decide the future.”
I suppose we have to define the term “revolutionary,” as it seems more than a few dissidents throw the word around somewhat recklessly. A revolutionary is completely sold out for his cause; his passion trumps even that of the reformer or restorer. Further, a revolutionary for a good and righteous cause must be fiery about living out his ideals, for the phonies and hypocrites reside in the reformer/restorer camp. Thus, a revolutionary is prepared to make hard choices, overcome obstacles, suffer indignities, patiently subsist through the trials, and live with the consequences of his dissidence. And all of this assumes that the revolutionary – the dissident – is a thinker, someone who questions his previous conditioning while seeking to revolutionize his own life before thrusting revolution on the weak-minded.
Here’s my conundrum when making connections with like-minded dissidents … there are LOTS more people who talk dissidence rather than doing it. E.g. If you talk about how terrible government schooling is while your kid is getting on the school bus – newsflash – you’re no revolutionary. So you HOPE things will get better because of the new principal, the new superintendent, the new coach? Hope is where the restorers/reformers camp out, and their world is all about outsourcing responsibility. Revolutionaries take the tiller and steer to a defined destination by THINKING and ACTING, the mass-man floats with wind and current so he may SLEEP and HOPE.
As we observe the successful revolutions in history (and they are few), we need to be identifying the areas in our lives where we can remove ourselves from the interconnected systems bequeathed to us by the reformer/restorer elites. We have to be different right now … not when its convenient, comfortable, or acceptable . Read Solzhenitsyn. Christians should read Bonhoeffer. Consider Vaclav Havel. Or some of our very own Founders, who took actions that could have put them in the noose. Dissidents are first thoughtful, second courageous, and third action-oriented. But if our “revolution” is only cerebral, without the valor … well, that’s not a revolution at all. Men without chests need not apply.
IIRC, the American revolutionaries were 3% of the population? Not sure on the numbers for the French or Russian, but the point is that actual “revolutionaries” (regardless of their origin) tend to be a small and highly motivated group.
Hey Freddie
its been a long 11 years
but we’ll be free soon enough
signed
fannie
Z, any chance you will make an appearance at the Northwest Forum?
I’ll be looking for you BerndV
I’ll be there. I am taking Z’s advice regarding the utility of attending identitarian events.
I talked to a young AIM guy who assists with vetting attendees and was surprised to discover that he was unfamiliar with the Zman. Naturally, I gave a ringing endorsement. This will be my first time seeing Jared Taylor and Patrick Casey in person.
I was not invited, so no, I will not be there.
Z’s not quite cool enough
Ha. I don’t take these things personally. I get along just fine with Greg Johnson. In fact, I’ll probably see him in Europe this fall at various events.
Recently, someone accused me of wanting to take the country back to the fifties. “That’s right,” I said. “The 1650s.”
OK, no offense, but let’s play the 1950s game. How many men do you know who know how to set the points and plugs on an EMP-proof car? How many women know how to make a meal from raw ingredients? Shoot, how many people could survive 3-days without their 72-degree air-conditioned cocoon? Sure the demographics of 1950 look very friendly, but those guys living in Mayberry also had intact families and interdependent communities. I’m all for the 1950s once we get males acting like men, females acting ladies, and we have the common sense survival skills that our grandparents had as 12 yo kids.
As for time travel back to 1650, most Americans would die within 3-days of arrival.
“The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.”
I know quite a few of these guys
The ones that can’t learn and adapt ,the weak and useless will probably die back Such suffering sucks but nature is cruel
As an aside, I had a younger (28) year old gaming buddy who had very poor basic car skills and had to learn them fast.
One day his car broke down, he called his dad who reamed him a new one. After that he got tool wise and learned among other things to sodder , repair his car and many other things
of course it helps he was LDS but still anyone can learn
In the end the devout and traditional country boys who stay drug free have the best shot of making it anyway along with a smattering of “crafty” city guys, after all if you can brew mead you can learn to fix your car
Eugenics in action if you ask me.
Solder dear boy, solder.
Having a lush green yard gets you nowhere.
Doh, though the guys lawn is lush too.
Thanks.
So how do we avoid a situation where “radical Left gains power, all Whites genocided or enslaved.”
Because that seems the most likely outcome.
Well, certainly by the rhetoric we’re hearing that is the direction we’re headed in. You would think the trail of battered and dead coalburners would give whites pause about a future where blacks and browns are permanently in power.
Except most whites in the future in positions of power will be Generation Z. They know what is best for their own lives. Now, if you want to make wholesale changes, do something about it like running for office as a junior Trump. You would get the votes. Now do the work…
That like saying . . . how can we avoid devastation if a Class 5 hurricane strikes our city. The answer is that sometimes shit happens and the only defense is your intelligence, strength, and robustness. No guarantee you’ll survive, but then if you don’t, perhaps your genes don’t belong in the gene pool of the future.
“Likely” outcome? Newsflash : Whites are already enslaved, and on more than one axis. Also, Whites are already being genocided, in both active and passive modes. The machinery of this genocide shifts into higher gear with every passing season.
We are a defeated, occupied, conquered people. Our enemies and conquerors openly gloat about it in public.
Stop the presses! Oh, wait, you can’t… because our conquerors /own/ the presses.
Hyperbolic black pill overload. The fact that they’re gloating when we’re still 2/3 of the US population is a feature for us, not a bug. More frogs smell who’s cooking every day because globoshlomo can’t keep its yap shut. Pump your stomach and get back in the game, goy.
Well I get what you’re saying, but from my POV it’s called Exaggerating To Make A Point. If there’s a hole in the lifeboat, it makes no sense to shrug and say Keep Calm and Continue Rowing.
Here’s a little story. When I was a young man I went through an /extremely/ turbulent, troublesome period — as many young men do, but this was way, way worse. Jumping off the nearest bridge was not out of the question. A friend who was trying to be supportive gave me a relatively obscure record to listen to, to buck up my spirits. The record was not a big hit, but it had been very quietly produced, sort of under the table, by Very Famous Record Producer. It was compelling enough that it made me stop wanting to jump off a bridge.
About ten months later, due to some weird twists of fate, I found myself working side by side with the very same Famous Record Producer, in person. In our first face-to-face meeting, I bluntly confessed, “Mr. FRP, I have to tell you something. That little obscure record you made, it kept me from killing myself. I’m sort of here because of you, and I don’t know how to thank you.”
I’ll never forget his reply. He smiled, and said in a very charming, personable, light-hearted way, “Dude, forget it. Do you know what’s going on? We are artists: saving people’s lives, stopping people from killing themselves, that’s basically our line of work. That’s sort of what an artist DOES. Hell, you’ve probably saved fifteen people’s lives in the past two weeks, and you don’t even know it, and you’ll never find out, until judgement day.”
So don’t jump to too many conclusions: black-pilling is just another thing in the tool-kit.
A former coworker once told me that I had saved his life by an off-hand (but sincere) remark I had made. Life is funny like that.
I think/thought that they’d jumped the gun by about two election cycles but the Loss of the Clintonic was too much for them.
Seeing the degree of control they have over so many pivotal institutions is giving me pause for thought.
What Exile said. Stop spreading defeatism and despondency.
… our conquerors /own/ the presses.
Don’t you see the irony of your own statement? You’re literally communicating your words to, potentially, a billion people as we speak. It’s like a guy working for Gutenberg complaining that the Church has all the copyists.
For the first time in history, we, the people, can talk back to power. Guys with nothing but smart phones are running circles around the establishment lie factories.
I’ve always considered myself blessed to be born in the generation I am, but these days I’m starting to envy the kids. They’ll have a cause, they’ll have the tools and they’ll taste victory in their lifetimes.
We’re 2/3 of the US population – we’re nowhere near the threshold where we can be controlled, much less “neutralized,” if a critical mass of us stays awake. We build that mass by spreading these ideas, especially to younger generations to come. Make too much noise & leave too many footprints to be memory-holed. For all the loose talk about “muh cold dead fingers,” the fighting that matters is cultural and informational. We always need to stay physically anti-fragile to overt tyranny, but I don’t think we’re on a pessimistically-short timeline.
Truly not trying to overdose on black pills, Exile, but I feel compelled to correct your numbers. European-heritage Whites are about 57% of America and their average age is about 45. Every year the number of Whites who die exceeds those who are born. Add in the constant influx and uncontrolled fertility of the various blacks/browns/yellows. The ‘critical mass’ of awake Whites is what, perhaps 10% of that 57%?
All an assertive minority needs is about 25% to turn any social issue to their side. I’m already 5PT, I think we need to start decoupling from the Empire and have our separatist bases covered, including diasporas in Europe and the world’s hinterlands, but we’re not in an endgame scenario yet, and keeping a few irons in the fire inside the Empire is always a priority. As White numbers shrink and Shlomo gets louder, more people will radicalize. The short-to-mid-term solution is to have more White babies and red-pill as many people as fast as we can. Staring at the demographic doomsday clock in tears just guarantees we lose. Jews are <1% of the world's population and they're doing just fine. I'm not checking out while they're still swinging on us. Once we dethrone the opposing smart fraction, the numbers look a lot better overnight.
You don’t need the majority, you just need the smart people. Whites ruled South Africa when they were 20% of the population.
Yes, and convincing people to act in their own self interest isn’t that hard. I’ve found that alot of whites are detecting the anti-white malevolence emanating from our elite. You know, that certain rootless cosmopolitan class .
I have noticed a difference in the way the brown hordes act lately.
Prior to 2016 (and really 2018), most of the brown people (of all stripes) were alright in my experiences. The past year, though, they have totally changed their attitudes, almost as one. They now have an angry and resentful look on their faces at all times. They are certainly much colder towards me than they would have been 2 or 3 years ago. They all have a “black” person attitude now.
I can’t tell if this is due to:
a) I simply didn’t notice this before
b) their numbers have grown enough that they no longer feel the need to be nice, and they feel like they are taking over thus the arrogance.
c) The anti-white media has ramped up its rhetoric to a significant degree (it has) and the aliens believe what they are told.
These are 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants, too. In fact the children of immigrants are more anti-white than the FOBs.
Either way, for society this is bad. For our purposes, however, I cannot help but think this is a good thing. White people have been looking a little confused in my area lately – “Why are all these brown people angry and where did they come from?”
D-Right really needs to get involved to set the record straight with these people; most white Canadians know something is badly wrong but can’t, or won’t figure out what is going on. With a bit of our help it would click real fast, I believe.
If you’re in Soviet Canuckistan you’re a few years behind us. I noticed the Latinos growing a huge attitude in ‘07 or so when Jorge W. Boosh was pushing amnesty hard. They all went out with their Mexican flags, and a famous upside-down Murican flag, demanding citizenship. It totally backfired. Huwyte people melted the phone lines to DC and it failed.
These browns are low agency people. They’re pawns of the Jew World Order, like the Negroes. When (((they))) want something they activate their brown hordes. It hasn’t totally succeeded yet since there are still too many White people. And yes, you’re correct that later generations are worse. The first generation keep their heads down. The second get uppity.
If the radical left gains power and tries to enslave or genocide all whites, there is a reasonable chance they would fail to actually finish us off. And the survivors would probably have learned a few things, so there’d be opportunities for dissident politics.
Also, attempted genocide would damage their international legitimacy and present an opportunity for foreign powers.
The more troubling scenario is one where the uniparty keeps things under control and keeps Whites voting GOP out of FEAR of the democrats, while slowly and gradually finishing us off.
The best thing we could do would be to build an independent nationalist movement, which is culturally and politically active and influential, even if it can’t win national elections.
But if that’s impossible for some reason, then our chances are arguably better under the “radical left gains power” scenario.
Remember, Trump is ALREADY devoting state resources to hunting anti-Semites, defined as anyone who criticizes Israel (and especially the Israel lobby).
We’re way better off with Warren hunting white nationalists, which is a broader category at this point, and includes a lot of otherwise uncommitted people.
At this point We’re basically Francis Wayland Thurston from “The Call of Cthulhu.”
We know the truth and are powerless to do anything about it, and one by one the monster’s cult will pick us off.
Learn to organize and as needed use those millions of M4’s everyone bought . It’s not even necessary to have a huge group, small regional militias and networked tribes (H/T John Robb for the phrase) will suffice
When a system goes off the rails and is in the hands of people who can’t use it for good ends slavish adherence to democracy or republican values is the worst sort of cuckoldry.
Also its’ not like you have to turn the US into the eternal dictatorship to fix it, an interregnum with mass repatriation and careful , smart use of authority will suffice to fix nearly all our problems
While it is certainly not plausible to go all “Turner D. Century” and roll the US back to 1900 (yet anyway, time wounds all heels) making amoral system the law of the land and rolling the new much Whiter nation back to sanity is.
One of the biggest surprises to me when I radicalized is that, at times, I feel more in common with the revolutionaries than with the reformers because the revolutionaries understand the need to burn it all down and start over. My conservative temperament is troubled by this, because I became a conservative in college due to my disgust with the leftists, but accepts that the present country cannot be salvaged.
I know what you mean. I’ve always been a conservative, but I just can’t seem to muster up much enthusiasm about joining Team GOP when they seem to think everything will be fine if we can lower taxes just a bit, lock up Hillary, Comey, et al, make sure immigrants come in legally, and flex our muscles against Iran and Syria.
It’s worse than that. The GOP will never lock up Hillary and Comey, nor do they care about illegal immigration. Under Speaker Ryan, they could have repealed Obamacare, built a wall and implemented e-verify. But he turned out to be the worst traitor of them all.
Broken record here, but in the short-term we just need to “burn it all down and start over” with our own lives. I can’t fix the fiascos of federal and state health care, education, and immigration policies, but I CAN cultivate personal fitness, educate my own kids, and secure my family compound. Start there.
Eat fresh wholesome food, work out, and learn about treating yourself with diet/nutrition/herbs, throw in a small garden … BAM, 95% of your health care worries are gone, including most cancers.
Educate your kids and grandkids with books; my son is this very minute doing his Alg 2 homework that I assigned him, and all he does is read the lesson and go to work on solving problems … takes him 30 mins with no bus rides, no diverse peer groups, and no government brainwashing; in the afternoon he’s mine, working alongside his father.
Learn to be a rifleman without thousand-dollar optics – learn to reload – learn about fields of fire and small-team tactics.
This is the kind of revolution we need to be talking about. Revolutions are fought and won by resilient people who assume control over their own lives, with a bare minimum of outsourcing. As long as we’re enslaved to the system, then the elites SHALL be our masters, no matter how much we bitch/moan/complain.
When you implement the lifestyle changes, the rest gets easier. Push back a little bit in each aspect of your own life and over time the ideas and other macro-stuff start changing naturally – the visible hand that builds instead of the invisible one that “creatively” destroys.
Well said. Eat the elephant, don’t swallow it whole, but start eating it today. “Pushing back” is primarily a character issue of men … some men are born to it, many women don’t have one, and many a young boy is adrift without manly leadership. If 10% of men pushed back – hard – on the daily micro-stuff it would be a completely different macro-culture in one generation.
Man, at the gun range, there are some guys who I think might be on our “team”. In fact most of them are pretty redpilled, I think.
But holy crap, they are obese or at least fat! Like yeah, nice gun, but you ain’t gettin anywhere with that gut hanging out once SHTF. The Gun Club could be renamed The Boomer Heart Attack Club due to the obesity levels I see there, not to mention the guys who suck back a cigarette every target change. Then there’s the hot dogs, and the fat guys smoking while pounding back a hot dog… it’s really gross and sad.
When you see a fit guy at the range… then you know he’s really /ourguy/ and not just some Boomer poser with an Alex Jones shirt… sadly they are in the minority.
Get. In. Shape. And play my game I mentioned above.
Home-school if at all possible. Otherwise your kids will be weaponized against you.
Look up the Appleseed project. They teach rifle marksmanship with iron sights out to 500 yards.
95% of health are worries are gone? wrong. you improve chances of living longer, maybe. eventually something gets you. May just be setting yourself up for 20+ yrs of dementia. real conservatives realize that doom is most likely. You optimist pukes drive me crazy. But that said, staying some kind of shape makes sense.
I have a game that I play… I like to try and make the store lose as much money as possible every time I shop there. For instance, at the grocery store. Buy everything I need, price matched or when it’s on sale at the supermarket. That way, they are not making much.
I buy the staples: eggs, milk, promo meat, promo fish (usually frozen), bread, fruit and veggies (price matched), then basic dry goods (lentils, canned tuna, tomatoes, beans, pasta etc) – all while on sale. Spice and syrup can be expensive, but those are not frequent purchases.
Not only do I have a super healthy diet, but I take pleasure in knowing the globalist supermarket chain probably lost money on my purchase. The stores make their money selling toxic crap to fat prole people. Just take a look at the mounds of processed food in their carts next time.
Similarly, I do not eat out at fast food places, because they are staffed by Indian slave workers. I cook healthy food 7 days a week, and if I do eat out it will be at a nice local restaurant. I will give my money to white family businesses (local italian grocer) but that’s it.
Starve the system… if you gotta spend money anyways, drop a little extra to buy local and buy WHITE. Support our own people and let them know, too.
My hairdresser (a talented lady who is otherwise f-d up and heavily involved in ‘democratic socialist’ politics) was really surprised to find I agree with her re certain parts of current economics (dramatic income disparity and how much $ is enough for one person). Of course, she is intent on giving everyone their ‘fair share’ because not everyone starts out equal re parenting/families (we cannot talk genetics because she’s of almost pure Norwegian descent and her husband is either half or quarter Nigerian). Either way, as she glumly realized, despite our areas of agreement our ‘votes’ cancel one another out. I generally try to keep her talking about her family drama and praise her professional skills – much safer that way.
Get another hairdresser. Deracinated hairdressers are no good.
My thought exactly, Why give me money to known enemies?
“What we are witnessing and to a small degree a part of, is the decline of the old democratic order, as both an alternative Left and an alternative Right emerge from the shadows of post-Cold War America.”
Decline, yes. But not the end. It will, as is always the case historically, take a crisis.
Moderate Democrats will support the slow self-cannibalization of society so long as they are still employed (typically by the gov’t) and can engage in fashionable virtue signaling. Radical leftists won’t revolt or do anything that might cause them hardship, arrest, or risk mom and dad cutting off their tuition and allowance. Moderate Republicans won’t revolt so long as they believe their Social Security cheques and Medicare are forthcoming. Wealthy Republicans are happy so long as they have tax breaks and can pass the costs of the nanny state onto the working class.
Downvote the Booby all you want, but right-wing dissidents should get memberships to the Democratic Party and do everything possible to get AOC nominated and elected. The resulting Venezuela-like crisis would create fertile grounds for a revolution. Continually voting for party 1A and 1B achieves nothing, and can potentially continue on for countless decades into the future when it will be far too late. Just a thought experiment, but worth considering.
I have a twist on your thought experiment. Make the GOP the party of neocon endless wars, corporate tax cuts and black reparations. Turn the Democrat party back to Bull Conner and George Wallace. Let the liberals flock to the GOP and turn it back to the permanent minority party. The only reason the Dems embrace the brown flood is to gain power. They have no desire to actually live with them or help them. The Dems would build a wall 50 feet high once they are the only party that can win power.
Interesting idea.
But look how the progressives freaked out when Trump threatened to send all the illegals to the sanctuary cities. The Booby still maintains that an AOC nomination – let alone win – would give all those white Lexus Leftists their “Oh shit” moment.
AOC is too incompetent. You would need a cunning, evil SOB like Bill Ayers to make that plan work. His kind prefer to work in the shadows. At least at the moment.
Too incompetent?! The Booby’s counting on it!
Oh, no. You’ll need an Ayers to really inflict the kind of pain that normie will respond to. AOC can easily be handled by the Plutocracy.
Good point.
While “interesting” (e.g., lots more poz and anti-white stuff), I think the result of an AOC administration would fall short of your expectation. I could be wrong, of course, but my view is that the “Left v Right” paradigm is largely a stage show.
Trump nominally had both houses of Congress on his side, but that was an illusion. If the Demoplicans didn’t have the Senate filibuster to stop him, then the traitorous Republocrats would have done a public Brutus on him, as they did behind the scenes.
I’m convinced the same thing would happen to an AOC presidency, only from the opposite direction. The true ruling class are the mega donors, and they pull the strings on both sides. To borrow a line, the answer to all of your questions is money.
No, i think the empire collapses slowly for a while longer…and then at some later time all at once…
Fair enough. Let’s convert AOC into a metaphor for an actual Chevez/Allende type leader who will trigger an actual revolution or coup. The Booby agrees that AOC is a blabbering twit that no one would follow except suburban white women. Easy pickings for the deep state to manipulate.
I understand the flaw in wanting to return to the 1950s era. But everyone seems to editorialize about this as a wholly bad thing, at what point do you draw the line? Certainly, returning US manufacturing anywhere near the levels of the 1950s will be good for US society (jobs, wages, quality of life). Wouldn’t returning to the higher quality educational system of the 50s be good as well? How about returning to government policies that allowed for the ability of the nuclear family to exist? It’s one thing to make a blanket statement over and over that nostalgia for the past is bad, but at some point we should start identifying the specific things of bygone eras that are worthy of trying to restore.
And then there’s the biggest one of all: A return to the ’50s demographics. That would improve things quite a bit, I’d say.
We can recover the demographics of the fifties, but not the culture. Roy Rogers will not be coming back.
Shlomo Knows Best?
The Demographics were already against us by then and we were already in a strong leftward movement. A return to the 50s just leads to a rerun of the past 50 years. We were already experiencing major losses in the courts in the 1950s.
America was an experiment and the experiment failed. Now we’re just trying to universalize the failure and call it a draw. It’s a lot like the special Olympics. People who want to go back to the 1950’s just want a redo of the experiment, they think the current outcome was anomalous.
Actually, the experiment is experiencing a temporary hiccup.
If Romney and McCain had Reagan’s demographics, they both would have won landslides. Now, they would have governed the same as Obama, given the uniparty grift, but interesting nonetheless.
Off topic, but does anyone else think we’re better off that Obama won rather than McCain and Romney?
Obama did show us what happens when you elect a race baiting grievance monger who weaponized the federal bureaucracy to ensure his team perpetual control of government.
McCain or Romney would only have postponed that lesson to an even less favorable future time.
Absolutely. Seeing a PoC pulling (((tricks))) hits grugs in their monkey-brain. AOC even triggers big-brain Tucker. Trump’s Orange Soma by comparison. His rhetoric lulls them. I’m seriously worried about major (((shenanigans))) on guns and immigration if Trump gets a lame-duck second term. He’s already punch-drunk on the goofy idea that Princess-Abu-Titjob will be THOTUS someday and God only knows what “muh legacy” bullshit he’ll try for with nothing left to lose.
More childish rhetoric from the basement dwelling alt-whites. Can you morons even indulge in serious adult talk? Can you name one POTUS after Eisenhower who has been tougher than Trump on immigration and trade?
Worse, you offer no alternatives other than your pathetic RAHOWA wet dreams.
I agree with your overall sentiment about wanting to restore specific things, but education was already rotten by the 1950s. Woodrow Wilson’s quote about the purpose of the university to make men as little like their fathers as possible was from the 1890s.
The biggest factor in allowing for strong nuclear families isn’t just higher wages for men, but a higher level of security in those jobs. I don’t know what could be done right now to make a difference in job security. Even for workers who are doing well there is always an underlying feeling it could get pulled away from them with little to no notice.
My comment was to criticize those that keep claiming a return to the “good old days” is bad/harmful, unrealistic. It’s a macro/blanket statement that bothers me. You make good points and I’m not saying the 50s were the golden years for anything. Education was already on its road to ruins due to its subversive founding.
While job security is an admirable thing to want going forward, that’s one thing i don’t think we can happen, not at the same level it used to be. Modern technology and the speed of change is naturally opposed to something like that in many areas of the economy, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t go through the trouble of returning manufacturing jobs back to the US.
There are many factors needed to bring about a renaissance of the nuclear family, among them: abolish welfare/change the nature of unemployment benefits, squash the feminist movement, return to Christian values or at least a higher morality, and yes, completely change the education system from elementary school up through colleges (which means we also need to remove the cheap and easy money handed to them by the Federal Reserve, but i digress). Bringing back manufacturing goes a long way even without the job security of old. If done across many different industries, you might not get the same old job security, but at least job mobility between those industries can come back which might lessen the impact of losing a job in one area and having no viable alternatives to employment.
Heard while reminiscing in Akron:
“If you left your job on Tuesday, you had another one by Wednesday.”
The guilds, Barnard. The guilds.
“Pillow talk to their base”
Perfect description of the meaningless propaganda that flows forth from all politicians. Also why people like me are so deeply cynical about the whole thing now.
Agreed.
But… we are not blameless ourselves. The way We The People are leaving these messes for our leaders to clean up is like putting drunks in charge of the liquor store. Obama isn’t fit to shine shoes in a cat house, never mind leading a country. What did people THINK was going to happen when they elected him?
Would you vote for Trump if he militarized police agencies and started shipping Mexicans back by the freight train? Sure.
Would you take a 50% tax hike to finance that and begin cleaning up after Obama? What that black baboon did to the national debt makes his health care reformations look like a passionate kiss.
Would you pick up a rifle and help pacify the neighbourhood when the next Dindu Nuffin gets gunned down by a cop doing his job, and the vibrants chimp out in rage?
We can’t ask our politicians to do the things we won’t. At the end of the day the old nickel proves correct – a lot of this stuff is happening because good people like us are just sitting around and doing nothing in the midst of it.
Worrying about the national debt, and fiscal conservatism in general, is some of the baggage Z’s talking about ditching. We’re not shareholders in America, Inc. anymore (frankly never were). That money’s never, ever going to be repaid or even significantly paid down in any case. Taxes in the future will be determined by what they think they can get away with, not what they “need.” The balance sheet is kabuki.
See my post above about localism. What the Left fears most is – people actually caring about their communities.
So what is the “alt left”? I think normies see it as the POC / “Justice” left, whom they might call democratic socialists, or just socialists. But there is no “alt” there, in the sense of new thinking, it’s just Maoism for the modern age. (Though I suppose it’s “alt” in the sense they are against the old Democratic guard.) If there is an “alt left”, it is probably in the form of the Joe Rogan crowd and the remains of the anti-war left, and those leftists who push the Julian Assange cause.
The “alt” left replaces Marx’s economic arguments with an overt anti-white race war. On the face of things, this isn’t so new – the pivot has occurred slowly over decades. A confounding factor is the unappreciated distance between the SJW campus-crowd true believers and the corporatist neoliberal politicians that represent them. Think AOC/Tlaib/Omar versus Obama, Clinton (either), and Pelosi (who now appears moderate!) They all preach the same bullshit, the difference is the sincerity of belief.
The Marxist economic arguments actually merge quite nicely with the anti-white race war, since the browns have a lot less stuff than the whites.
Kill Whitey and take their stuff.
New version of Marxism as white proletariat firmly became a middle class. As white people on average are higher IQ they will always be richer thus they are new class enemy vs other races.
Same problems Jews are facing. Every left leaning movement always ends up becoming anti-semitic. Too bad American Jews don’t have a historic perspective to realize this. British Jews only now started leaving Labor party in mass. How long will it take for American Jews to wake up?
Its hatred of higher IQ which is a base of modern Marxism.
White Christians committed the unforgivable sin of standing up to Soviet Communism. Because they rejected the future, they must be destroyed.
Some White Christians stood up to Soviet communism. About half of them were enthusiastic participants and supporters of communist revolution. This half fought and won in a civil war ended in 1922. Millions of guards needed in Gulag and prisons were not imported. As of this day Stalin is a revered and most admired figure for majority of Russians.
It’s not clear that an authentic Alt-Left has emerged yet
However, to the extent that they aren’t controlled, you could look at someone like Rashida Tlaib or to a lesser extent Illhan Omar as representing a potential Alt-Left.
There is no reason to believe that an Alt-Left would be pro-white, Whites just aren’t that relevant in the existing political order.
An Alt-Left could potentially be “Alt” in the sense that it serves some other constituency, besides just Israel and the donor class.
I see “the squad”-type POC leftists and their white pets as not alt-anything; they are bog-standard identitarian socialists, as opposed to civnat social democrats which is the establishment. What I like about the “alt-right” (and I still like that phrase) is it rejected almost all establishment-right dogma. Alt-righters would never vote for a Mitt Romney type, even if the Democrat was worse. Leftists do not have an equivalent alt-side yet. It would need to be someone who was non-identitarian, ignored climate change, anti-war, a strong-borders civnat, and thoroughly anti-capititalist if not socialist. You have figures who have one or two of those qualities but nobody with most of them. Tulsi Gabbard just came out for border controls, though, so she may be a proto-alt-leftist.
I see your point.
But I am not sure I’d base it on policy, so much as the potential for independence from the establishment. Leftist policy is mostly just kill whitey at this point. And that’s always going to be a winning policy, so long as whitey keeps meekly handing over his lunch money.
Most identitarian socialists within the democratic party are pretty well controlled by the establishment though, even if they posture otherwise. AOC for example.
But there is the potential for an alternative left, which is more POC centric and less donor / Israel centric.
So you could have a conflict between an Alternative, POC-first left, and an establishment, Israel / donor first left.
That’s kind of similar to the conflict between the Alternative, pro-white right, vs the establishment, pro-Israel / donor right.
I’ve been thinking about monarchies and hereditary rule lately and I can see the benefit of the system. You end up with some terrible people of course but you also end up with some good ones where in a democratic system ultimately every single person in power is just a grifter who wants power.
Joe Sobran among others made the same observations. The revolt against the King was a mistake!
The first year of the revolt was an effort to get the King to recognize them as Englishmen and BE their King. Only after that failed did they move on with independence.
Most of the countries that entered the Great War in 1914 were monarchies. Several were cousins–just a good old family feud. Was there ever a good Russian czar? Going back to Old Testament times, Israel never had a king who followed the Lord. Even the kings in Judah, descendants of David, had few godly kings. Although our present system isn’t working, a monarchy does not seem to be the way out. Do we want Queen Ivanka and Prince Jared in a few years?
You spin the roulette wheel with kings, no doubt. But the fundamental struggle is central power versus local power, a dynamic that at least sometimes favors the locals. With democracy, there is no limiting factor: the game is always fixed.
A great many problems of modern America (and other nations) are simply due to concentration of power in Federal governments remote from any local control. The inherent foolishness of mass democracy is magnified by this. This is partly why you get ditzy young women living here in the lily white PNW voting to import more browns. They know most of them will end as someone else’s problem and then get the virtue high from voting for it. They are teenagers tossing beer bottles from a speeding car. It’s easy and fun, gets rid of that annoying empty bottle, and you’re still drunk.
I think some on the Left actually know this too. It’s why they went so apeshit a few years back when armed Arizonans started actually patrolling their border. It’s also the real reason they hate the Second Amendment so much. The citizen patrols were armed local normies demanding a return to normalcy. You get enough of that around the country and the Federal state is called into question.
Many people on this blog, including me, are frustrated because there seems to be no (constructive) way to move towards DR goals. I think perhaps we can start with the idea that localism can be revolutionary. There are lots of new technologies like 3D printing and open source manufacturing that could facilitate a more autarkic local economy that could help break the economic chains of the mass democratic society too.
The history of the U.S. can be viewed as the Founders setting up a small, remote, very limited Federal Government. Then, with very few exceptions, every President, member of Congress, and Justice since then has been smashing away at those limits.
Silent Cal wasn’t so bad.
Yes, they have. But that’s because they must: it’s how the system is designed to work.
John C. Calhoun was fairly decent.
Naturally, he is now a non-person.
There is a concept called “subsidiarity.” In other words, let local people deal with local needs and situations as much as possible and let them pay for it. Sure, it might be nice to get the state to pay for the new city hall, but the price of subsidy is control.
There’s a saying: You can’t fight city hall. No, actually you can and win. The next level is the county. You can fight the county, but it’s more difficult. The next level is the state and finally the Federal. The further up the ladder you go away from the people the more difficult the fight is.
The idea with absolute monarchs is that when you own the entire country and your children will inherit it, you are probably going to think longer term than someone who only has eight years at the trough. Worked wonders for Prussia.
Some journalist once asked an African why Africans kept re-electing corrupt leaders. He argued that the old guard already had stuffed their gullets; if they elected another leader, they’d have to start over, filling the new clique’s bank accounts.
Also, with a king, you can righteously chop off his head if he fucks up. You can’t do that with a president, because you elected him yourself.
“Also, with a king, you can righteously chop off his head if he fucks up. ”
Put another way, its more difficult for a king to pass the buck. Unlike a democracy where everybody blames the other party, in a monarchy its the king’s fault.
I hate to sound like a Larper, but in Mein Kampf Hitler has a pretty good criticism of Democracy and this is one of the central points. That there is no accountability.
Flair 1239 said: “…but in Mein Kampf Hitler has a pretty good criticism of Democracy and this is one of the central points.”
He was also a drug addict who pulled every bone headed stunt imaginable, and lost the most important war for White people in world history. So yah, f**k Hitler.
Hitler was defeated by white goyim in thrall to the “chosen” people.
And a fun fact: the first ruler to prohibit slave trade in 1792 – six years before Britain did – was the absolute monarch, Christian VII of Denmark. Christian also made Denmark the first country in the modern world to grant freedom of speech in 1770.
Granted, Christian was clinically insane, the laws were written by his wife’s German lover and merely countersigned by the king. And, granted, censorship was reinstituted after the crazy German dude was drawn and quartered in public, but there you have it: technically, an absolute monarch was the first in the world to ban both slave trade and censorship.
Don Jr. is the first-born, so he’s due to inherit the throne.
The idea is that a monarch “owns” a country, intends to remain on the throne as long as she lives (QE2 since 1952) and has a vested interest is increasing its value. She also wants to leave the throne and country itself to her heir. She thinks long-term while in a democracy the politicians only think about the next election. Hans Hermann Hoppe wrote about this.
In the middle east, the hereditary monarchs are typically sane, reasonable men.
How old are Middle East monarchies? No more than 100. They are still there only because oil money allows them to buy their people loyalty.
The only successful modern dynasties I can think of are Hasidic dynasties which are about 200 years in existence. Their secret probably is in choosing the smartest Rabbi originally who married a girl from a prominent religious family (smart by definition). Boys inherit intelligence from the mother’s side of the family. That and religious upbringing guarantees a quality of the heir to the dynasty. Rinse and repeat in the next generations. Hasidic subgroups and their obeyed and revered Rabbis are all conservative leaning in lifestyle and voting habits.
This formula never was followed by most of monarchies who married to build alliances or married a virgin from aristocratic family. Enter princess Diana whose son now wrecks royal family and destroy its prestige.
Russian Romanov dynasty (Nicholay II weak in character and IQ) is another strong example why Royal dynasties eventually collapse.
Romanov Dynasty:
(wall o’ text)
“In 1861 Tsar Alexander II (1855-81) abolished serfdom, which at that time affected 30% of the population. By 1914 very little land remained in the possession of the Russian estate owners, who were mainly the nobility. 80% of the arable land was in the hands of the peasants, which had been ceded to them for a very small sum. This land was held in trust by the village commune or mir. However, after the passing of the Stolypin Act in 1906, peasants could obtain individual title with hereditary rights. By 1913, two million families had availed themselves of this opportunity to ac1uire what became known as “Stolypin farms.” Nearly 19,000,000 acres (7,689,027 hectares) were alloted to these individual peasant proprietors by the land committees. The Peasants’ State Bank, which was described at that time as the “greatest and most socially beneficent institution of land credit in the world” granted loans at a low rate of interest, which was in effect a handling charge. Between 1901 and 1912 these loans increased from 222 million rubles to 1,168 billion rubles.
Agricultural production soared so that by 1913, Russia had become the world’s bread basket as the following table reveals. [Not included. The table shows that Russia produced 42 percent of the world’s barley, 67 percent of its rye, 31 percent of its wheat and 30 percent of its oats].
Russian agricultural production of cereals exceeded the combined production of Argentina, Canada and the United States by 25%. In 1913 Russia had 37.5 million horses – more than half of all those in the world. She also produced 80% of the world’s flax and provided more than 50% of the world’s egg imports. Mining and industrial output also expanded by huge margins. Between 1885 and 1913 coal production increased from 259.6 million poods (16.38 kg) to 2,159.8 million poods, cast iron production rose from 25 million poods in 1890 to 1,378 million poods in 1913 and petroleum production rose from 491.2 million poods in 1906 to 602.1 million poods in 1916. From 1870 to 1914 industrial output grew by 1% per annum in Great Britain, 2.75% per annum in the United States and 3.5% per annum in Russia. During the period from 1890 to 1913 industrial production quadrupled and Russian industries were able to satisfy 80% of internal demand for manufactured goods – a perfect example of autarky. Throughout the last 20 years of peacetime imperial rule (1895-1914) the increase in Gross Domestic Product averaged 10% per annum.
With the Russian State bank creating the people’s money out of nothing at almost zero interest; as opposed to the rest of the world where central banks allowed parasitic private banks to create their nation’s money supply at usurious rates of interest, it comes as no surprise to find that in 1912 Russia had the lowest levels of taxation in the world. These very low rates of taxation also attest to the efficiency of the Russian government. Furthermore throughout this period of state banking there was no inflation and no unemployment.
[Table not include. Total tax rate in Great Britain was 26.75 percent per inhabitant, compared to 2.66 percent per inhabitant Russia.]
An independent study by British lawyers concluded that the Russian Code of Laws and judiciary were “the most advanced and impartial in the world.”
Elementary education was obligatory and free right up to university level, where only nominal fees were charged. Between 1906 and 1914 10,000 schools were opened annually. Russian universities were renowned for their high academic standards.
In labor relations the Russians were pioneers. Child labor was abolished over 100 years before it was abolished in Great Britain in 1867. Russia was the first industrialized country to pass laws limiting the hours of work in factories and mines. Strikes, which were forbidden in the Soviet Union, were permitted and minimal in Tsarist times. Trade union rights were recognized in 1906, while an Inspectorate of Labor strictly controlled working conditions in factories. In 1912 social insurance was introduced. Labor laws were so advanced and humane that President William Taft of the United States was moved to say that “the Emperor of Russia has passed workers’ legislation which was nearer to perfection than that of any democratic country.”’
Just goes to show, its not they type of government that matters its the quality of the governors. Be they despots or electorate, bad governors begat bad government.
‘His Imperial majesty Tsar Nicholas II (1894-1917) and his state bank had created a workers’ paradise that was unrivaled in the history of mankind.”
All true about Russian economic development in the beginning of the Industrial age. But then it was all squandered by an unfortunate participation in World War 1, Tsarina’s desperate dependance on corrupt and widely despised Rasputin, Nikolay II’s inability to stand up to her, collapse of economy, hunger and mounting body count of the war, Provisional Government’s soft handling of rising communist movement (Republicans vs Dems comes to mind) and the rest is history.
Don’t start with the Jews please as they were 2% of the population only. Uneducated 2% for that matter as only 2% of them were allowed to be in high schools and universities.
Anna, you said of Russia at the time of the revolution: “Don’t start with the Jews please as they were 2% of the population only.”
That’s about the same as the Jewish percentage of the current U.S. population. As you may have heard, the Jews are fairly influential in the USA.
Anna, I’ve been ejected from 109 bars. Can I count on your sympathy?
I think that Russia had the 4th biggest economy in the world on the eve of WWI, after the US, Germany and the UK.
Was’nt the leadership of the Russian Revolution mostly non-Russian?
I posted a long excerpt, but its disappeared. Check this link:
https://www.thinkinghousewife.com/2016/01/russia-before-the-revolution/#more-88879
Incredible, RogerU. Trying to upvote, this deserves a 1000, thanks for the link.
Though do recall years ago having to deal with one of the “princelings” in KSA. Plural marriage leaves more royal family members than there are useful jobs—so the surplus end up running influence grifts touting their “connections”. Mostly bug hunts that result in transferring money to them and getting zippo in return.
QE2 has never thought long-term, she is an utter disgrace, the ruin of her realm.
On her watch, filthy hippies and malignant parasite Jews and Mohammedans took the moral and cultural high ground, and she allowed her entire realm to be flooded to the gills with Sh!t-colored rape-apes who rape and pimp the British children with impunity. On her watch, little White British schoolgirls are gang-raped by foreign Pakistani demons. Who can honestly pray for mercy on her soul? She held a sword, and used it not.
Judgment of course belongs to God, but most human polls say her place will be in the lake of fire.
Queen Elizabeth is purely symbolic.
She exists on a twirling coin on the back of a magician’s hand.
Her job is to remind Britishers of their background and history, while simultaneously giving “Hello!” magazine readers something monarchical to fill their bored lives with.
In fairness, the Queen did give Boris Johnson the okay to suspend parliament while he attempts to make Brexit happen.
Z’s touched on this with the idea of monarchs and aristocrats having an owner’s responsibilities while elected officeholders are guys who’ve only rented the car. I don’t think we should entirely scrap self-governance but it needs to be localized and limited in scope, kicking things like defense & macroeconomics upstairs to political “title-holders.”
One of many examples of normalcy bias is that so many on the d-right still cannot imagine even a future ethnostate or split-up America in any other model than that which exists. Even if they envision a 90% White micronation, they still assume this binary future of either the universal franchise and egalitarianism or hierarchy and autocracy. True “democracy” on a local scale (think small town) could be practical – but even then certain absolutes must be maintained by law backed by power or you’ll eventually have the deleterious mutations running and ruining the system yet again. Most people must be protected from themselves. Even as a Christian I recognize that most people are idiots (that’s why God loves them because I do not). The ‘wisdom of the common man’ or ‘the people’ is a chimera.
My concept of the franchise would be for local politics & limit it to patriarchal clan-heads, more restrictive than the Colonial era franchise in America. It’s a Machiavellian pressure-valve if you keep it to a limited scale, and it’s necessary to get some kind of “buy-in” by people who’re still saturated by pro-democracy culture.
Would you extend the franchise to a miscegenetic patriarchal clan-head?
We tend to think of kings as always being absolute tyrants along the lines of Henry VIII or something. Medieval Spain, for example, had a long history of the king being more or less elected by the nobles or resisted by the towns (who vigorously protected their rights). For a very long time, it wasn’t a sure thing that kings would have their sons take the job after them.
Our current system is a meritocracy of the smart and obsequious. Neither is a virtue.
The king is just one tyrant, democracy gives you a thousand petty tyrants
If hereditary monarchies are such a great idea and good working model, then why did they either collapse or degenerate into figurehead monarchies in western Europe? You end up with terrible people who cannot be removed from power short of a coup which leads to some destructive civil wars when otherwise they simply lead their nation to ruin.
Besides, how shall we select and who shall be our philosopher king?
Bad idea. More utopian nonsense.
I would suggest the our current system is run by terrible people who cannot be removed from power except through a coup. See, for example, the years 2017-present
Seems democracy/republics are a scaling problem. When the US started, if you were George Washington, going back to your plantation was far more lucrative than grifting in the Federal government. Now grifting offers far better rewards than going back to your profession. I almost prefer rich guys (monarch proxies) running things than some guy/gal who’s simply on the make. Here in NY, even Bloomberg, for all his lunatic social ideas was busily putting a stiff arm on the unions while also trying to plow surplus dollars in capital investments and shoring up neglected pension plans. Red Bill on the other hand just throws money around and is clueless about economics and meanwhile milks the job for every personal grift hje can find.
In the Indian subcontinent, a leader’s widow or child might inherit his party leadership and rise to the position of head of state.
John W. Campbell, who is now in disfavor in the woke Sci-Fi world, said that a benevolent dictatorship would be the best form of government. This was way back in the previous century and I have no idea what his reasoning was.
As I see it, a constitutional monarchy would be optimal.
The king would have sufficient real power to make him effective in his role, but not so much that he could singlehandedly wreck the nation. Something along the lines of being commander in chief and head of all three branches.
The king would appoint his own successor, who need not necessarily be his closest heir. The legislature would have the right to veto an appointment, but only once. They must use it wisely.
For those portions of the government that are elected, each household would get a vote, not people directly. Furthermore, the franchise would be limited solely to those households which are married and have produced children.