Democracy Without Borders

Steve Sailer is fond of characterizing the Democrats as the “party of fringes” as they make their primary appeal to minority groups. When they run short of minorities, they create them by finding a way to slice off some portion of the majority, declaring it an oppressed minority. The result is we have one party that is the default for the white majority and another party that is for blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, depressed single women and sexual deviants. It’s the circus acts attacking the audience members.

This is an amusing way of putting it, but it misses a larger phenomenon that is a consequence of democracy. That is, democracies must always seek to expand the electorate. This is an easily observed pattern. In the 19th century, as the West began to experiment with limited democracy, the franchise was sharply limited. The vote was limited to men, usually over the age of 25, and limited to property holders. In the early years of political liberalism, less than 10% of the adult population could vote.

The franchise slowly expanded, even in places where monarchy was still the form of government. The German Empire had universal male suffrage by 1871. Italy expanded the franchise to all men over 30 by 1912 and then lowered the age to 21 in 1918. The British followed a similar pattern. Universal male suffrage became the norm and then it was the call for female suffrage. Unsurprisingly, women voting got going first in Germany, the birth place of every bad idea in human history, and then spread around the West.

In the United States, the presence of a large black population, as well as a sizable indigenous population, added another wrinkle to the process. The urban immigrant population of the early 20th was another group exuded from voting. Eventually, these groups were handed a ballot. Immigrants became a powerful political force, pushing aside the heritage population in major cities. Of course, blacks have become a key part of the Democratic constituency, once granted full voting rights in the 60’s.

The history of liberal democracy since the late 18th century has been a steady expansion of the voting base. At each turn, various arguments have been put forth in support of expanding the franchise, but the one thing that has always been true is there is never a move to narrow it. After every reform effort, every crisis and every war, the arguments are always in favor of expansion of the franchise. Today, the debate is over handing a ballot to children, the retarded and foreigners. San Francisco has now granted the vote to illegals.

As much as some people wish to believe that open borders is motivated by greed, the real reason is something more systemic. An official open borders policy for labor is actually bad for employers looking to game the rules. That’s the whole point of hiring non-citizens over citizens. The non-citizen, especially the illegal, is less likely to fight back at exploitative employers. Open the borders and it becomes possible to organize those migrants. They become a part of the normalized labor force available to everyone.

The real motivation behind open borders is systemic. In a democracy, all fights within the ruling class take place within the bounds of democracy. One side, let’s call them the reformers, wants to change things. The other side, presumably benefiting from the rules, resists these changes. Selling the status quo to existing beneficiaries is easy, because over time, democracy creates a prevailing consensus. This leaves the reformers at a disadvantage. They simply cannot make the math work to democratically enact reform.

The solution is to expand the voter base. Political reformers of the 19th century, looking to reform the legal and economic arrangements, could appeal to disenfranchised men, offering them access in exchange for a vote, if they could get he vote. Social reformers of the 19th and 20 century could appeal to the female vote, if they could get women the franchise. The last 50 years in America has been about creating a new class of voters, expanding the franchise by expanding race consciousness among non-white voters.

The fight over open borders today is actually a battle to expand the franchise by those seeking to push through a post-national agenda. Since the Cold War, the White House has been held by two Progressives and a neocon, which is just a hyper-violent variant of Progressivism. Despite a near total dominance of politics, the political center has not moved that much since the end of the Cold War. The consensus has the advantage of numbers, so the solution is to import millions of new voters to support the radicals.

The expansion of the electorate is a consequence of democracy. In the age of kings, the ruling class was narrow, closed and well defined. The interests of the king are the interest of the property classes. Disputes are narrow, as the ruling class is hierarchical, with the king having the final word. The ruling class of a monarchy or principality has a motivation to keep the numbers within the ruling elite small. Expansion of their class must necessarily dilute their power within the ruling class. No one wants to add new princes to the mix.

In a democracy, no one owns the state, so factionalism is the the inevitable result of disputes over the proceeds of government. By the logic of democracy, the fights between the factions are adjudicated by the public through elections. Eventually, a consensus forms and the major factions find an equilibrium. The minor factions and the losers of previous fights, have no other recourse than to undermine the consensus and alter the make up the voting public, hoping for a better result in the next elections.

It is axiomatic that democracy must be short-term oriented. This is not due to greedy voter, as much as the nature of democracy. The people holding office are temporary office holders with not investment in their position. Therefore, their goal is to squeeze every drop from their position as quickly as possible, Hillary Clinton is the ideal politicians in a democracy, because she wants to auction off every asset of the office she holds, as quickly as possible. This shortsightedness makes expanding the franchise attractive.

When seen in the light of democracy’s inevitable expansion of the franchise, open borders makes perfect sense as the next logical step in Western democracy. It is why the open borders advocates are endlessly chanting about “our democracy” requiring the free flow of people. Democracy becomes a gaping maw, into which everything that defines a people is thrown, in order to keep democracy growing. What starts as a system for the people to chart their own path becomes a system that eliminates the very concept of a people.

69 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tamaqua
Tamaqua
1 year ago

Of course, all this screeching about democracy from the political class fails to understand that this country was founded as a republic, which is a different thing entirely. The last thing the founders of this country wanted was “democracy”- which they predicted, correctly, would degenerate into mob rule and demagoguery. However, since 1865, that republic is dead, so whatever we do to take back power, we’re not going back to Washington or Jefferson’s virtuous yeomen electorate if we win. I see us lurching from crisis to crisis as the left radicalizes itself further and becomes explicitly revolutionary, and the forces… Read more »

calsdad
calsdad
Reply to  Tamaqua
1 year ago

It’s not just the political class – but a pretty good majority of people at the bottom who will constantly scream the words : “but we’re a democracy!!” . In my experience this includes quite a few people who align themselves as conservatives. It’s gotten to the point where I feel like a broken record to myself because I constantly have to bring up the exact point you’re making: The founders of this country recognized that democracy would degenerate. But – I also wonder if some more study of the subject is not needed. Because it seems the Swiss have… Read more »

Lance_E
Member
Reply to  Tamaqua
1 year ago

A republic is *not* a “different thing entirely” from a universal-suffrage democracy. It can be shown logically that the former must necessarily lead to the latter, which essentially was the whole point of Z’s post today.

Cloudbuster
Member
Reply to  Lance_E
1 year ago

I’ll accept “usually does,” but I don’t know if you can prove “must.” I’m open to the possibility that there’s a way to protect the limited franchise or at least extend it, but we just haven’t thought of that. If that’s not possible, then we just have to accept the sad fact that republics have a limited lifetime and that periods of despotism or revolution are inevitable. If we look are some really long-lived governments, we have Imperial China and Egypt. I think we’re unlikely to go back to an imperial dynasty and I’m even more sure I wouldn’t want… Read more »

CAPT S
CAPT S
1 year ago

Great post. I can see where open borders greatly accelerates the political successes of cultural Marxism … it’s all about getting power NOW in order to pillage the majority while the getting is good. As Rhodesia & South Africa prove, there’s no wealth to redistribute once the productive folk are disenfranchised. The U.S. is entering the final couple of generations where there’s enough plunder to maintain a semblance of peace. When productive whites figure out they’re better off going John Galt, the Marxists will get their revolution. This is going to end the way all democracies end … it’s gonna… Read more »

Whiskey
Reply to  CAPT S
1 year ago

The natural solution is to enslave every White man they can. Because patriarchy or something. It would generate enough money for a bit.

A.B. Prosper
A.B. Prosper
Reply to  Whiskey
1 year ago

White men have most of the guns, the high tech weapons and are becoming radicalized in enough members to make this a non starter. In any case enslavement through taxes which is more likely won’t raise revenue .Leftists never get this but coerced compliance is not going create wealth. Maybe best case scenario you have low quality food on the table The reason someone might peruse a progressive tax as policy like in the 1950’s is not revenue, it doesn’t work. Its to prevent huge wealth disparity. If personal wealth is limited,the gap between rich and poor is necessarily smaller… Read more »

Whiskey
Reply to  A.B. Prosper
1 year ago

Jeremy Cornyn is already talking about seizing middle class homes and housing the Grenfell Towers survivors there. Read it in the FT.

A.B. Prosper
A.B. Prosper
Reply to  Whiskey
1 year ago

The UK is not the US. if they are too weak to resist they get what is coming to them as contra to opinion the people of the UK can get guns if they want them. Thinking that the Left will just go away is rubbish. In the end its going to be an authoritarian Right Wing state or the Left wins, Its not a pleasant notion but the only way the Left has ever been dealt with is by removing them from power. That aside if the Right continues to embrace Neo Liberal economics they guarantee a Leftist victory.… Read more »

Drake
Drake
1 year ago

“When they run short of minorities, they create them by finding a way to slice off some portion of the majority…”

Or, they quickly import a new victim group. I’m convinced that was at least part of the motivation of the Western European political class who decided to open the flood gates to third world Muslims.

Epaminondas
Member
1 year ago

The centrifugal force of nationalism is tugging at the opposite force of democracy. I’m putting my money on DNA.

Teapartydoc
Member
1 year ago

This expansion of democracy business goes back to ancient Greece where there was competition between Athens and Sparta over getting other poleis to have oligarchies or democracies, and Athens was actually forcing democracies onto people. The instrument of expansion, as I see it , is that once given the vote, people come to see it as a piece of property that they own and can pass on to their children. It is a legacy that even the poorest man can own. The only thing that I can see as a counterweight to this is where a regime that is not… Read more »

TomA
TomA
1 year ago

I think time is the core issue. Trying to yak our way to a remedy is slow and uncertain, whereas open borders (and demographics) leads quickly to the inevitable collapse. The wealthy elites are hoping that the base population can be converted into controllable hive drones, thereby maintaining the status quo order and hierarchy. When that fails, then they typically opt for genocide. There are better alternatives than just sitting in the pot with temperature rising slowly.

A.B. Prosper
A.B. Prosper
Reply to  TomA
1 year ago

After Trump its going to require dealing in lead for a real fix. Are you ready ?

I don’t think the Right is ready period as they are way too individualistic and even voluntary cooperation is hard for them

Learn to be in a group, operate as a group, sacrifice for that group or die

DWEEZIL THE WEASEL
DWEEZIL THE WEASEL
1 year ago

Correct me if I am wrong. I believe it was a college professor in Scotland who made the observation about “Democracies”. He said they cannot sustain themselves once the people figure out they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. We see that every day here in the FUSSA. It is only a question of when the collapse will happen, not if.

Dutch
Dutch
Reply to  thezman
1 year ago

I can understand why ambitious poor people would “abandon their brothers” to aspire to something better, and support the middle class ethos. What I cannot fathom is why middle class people would abandon their peers, to support policies and people that would dump them penniless in the streets, given half a chance.

calsdad
calsdad
Reply to  thezman
1 year ago

The voting public absolutely BELIEVES they have voted themselves ” a raise ” . I used to have a coworker who had moved here from the Phillipines. He was a citizen. One day around the lunch table we somehow got onto the topic of schools. One of my other buddies was bitching about property tax increases because his town wanted to build a new school. He had no kids and was nearing retirement. The Filipino guy said ” In my town schools are free”. We responded with ” what are you talking about ” – and made some comments about… Read more »

Member
Reply to  calsdad
1 year ago

The God-Emperor’s words and deeds indicate that he would be with the City of Waltham given that he is such an outspoken supporter of eminent domain.

Of course, crony-capitalist types tend to be for eminent domain.

Dutch
Dutch
Reply to  calsdad
1 year ago

I believe the support for the “democratic socialism” game is based on the idea that what wealth finds its way to people comes from some mysterious public-private consortium. Much of it comes directly from the government cheese factory, and also things like education pay and non-profit pay, all of which has this socialistic feel. As these have been the areas of maximum paycheck growth in the last ten years or so, there must exist a “magic money tree” that is paying for it all. So let’s all of us tap into that “magic money tree” and peel a few bills… Read more »

Member
Reply to  Dutch
1 year ago

The Clintons have been masters of the grifting game.

Glen Filthie
Glen Filthie
Member
1 year ago

Seen another way, the strategy of the liberals has been ‘divide and conquer’. The problem with that is that you reach a point of diminishing returns where you become so divided you can’t function anymore.

JPW
JPW
1 year ago

And then it all goes to Pol Pot and the Visigoth Holiday runs out of beer….

Kentucky Headhunter
1 year ago

What I really want to know is how you get from:
“In the early years of political liberalism, less than 10% of the adult population could vote.” to the next step in franchise expansion. What argument was used to convince the 10% to act against their own interests and water-down the value of their own votes?

Kentucky Headhunter
Reply to  thezman
1 year ago

“The voters are never consulted on such matters. The female vote is a good example. You have an element of the ruling class encouraging women to make the demand. …”

I’ve been anti-19th Amendment since I started paying attention to “WTF is going on?!?!”. I just can’t accept that the men (generally speaking) of the time gave women the right to vote. It just seems insane to me now, and I would think even more so to the “man on the street” of the time. Elites engineering that outcome makes much more sense.

DLS
DLS
Reply to  Kentucky Headhunter
1 year ago

I doubt the men at that time realized women would vote in a much more socialistic way. Especially given how much smaller the federal government was back then.

Kentucky Headhunter
Reply to  DLS
1 year ago

I just can’t believe the majority of men at that time thought women should have the vote, period. Women were inferior to men. Average Joe would have laughed, “Yeah, let my horse vote instead; he’s got more sense.”

Cloudbuster
Member
Reply to  Kentucky Headhunter
1 year ago

That’s funny, but it’s an obvious exaggeration. Lots of men saw their wives doing a good, sensible job raising their kids, managing the house, putting on church socials and whatnot, and it just didn’t occur to them that things could go so wrong. If I judged by my wife and oldest daughter, I’d say “Sure, them voting sounds OK.” Hindsight is 20/20.

james wilson
james wilson
Reply to  Kentucky Headhunter
1 year ago

Not really. Women were greatly more wise and solid before they got the franchise. It was the franchise which gave reign to their worst characteristics. In Tocqueville’s travels thought America he was astounded at the high quality of the women. This was a completely new experience for him.

BestGuest
BestGuest
Reply to  DLS
1 year ago

Was there a relationship between the mass immigration that started in the late 19th century and the granting of the franchise to women? I’ve always wondered If Calvin Coolidge–whose wife and mother were both educated women–supported the franchise as a bulwark against the kind of wholesale corruption that James Michael Curley introduced to Boston?

Ursula
Ursula
Reply to  Kentucky Headhunter
1 year ago

As Z Man expressed, there were political goals that required expanding the voter pool in order to achieve: “In a territory where men outnumbered women by a 6-to-1 ratio, some hoped the publicity from the measure might attract single women to Wyoming to rectify the gender imbalance as well as to help it achieve the population threshold required to apply for statehood. Politics also played a role as some Democratic legislators hoped the bill would put the Republican governor in a tough spot. If Campbell, whose party championed African-American voting rights, vetoed the measure, he would look hypocritical. If it… Read more »

Kentucky Headhunter
Reply to  thezman
1 year ago

Also, thanks for the reply.

The podcast has become a part of my regular Friday routine during my workday. I usually listen to it twice back to back as I’m cleaning up my misc issues folder for the week.

LFMayor
LFMayor
Reply to  Kentucky Headhunter
1 year ago

Jackson sided with the frontiersmen, and smashed the elite bankers. The difference is that those frontiersmen that were prohibited from voting were actually top notch, valuable citizens. They were carving a civilization from wilderness while fighting off savages and were not franchise send because of bureaucratic minutia surrounding land ownership, statehood, ad infinitum. Today, our “disenfranchised” are the goddamn dregs of society, who would probably suffocate if we could only convince them that respiration is work. Instead of picking up an axe and clearing a patch to build a cabin and a farm they’d die and go back (righteously so)… Read more »

LFMayor
LFMayor
Reply to  Kentucky Headhunter
1 year ago

Sorry, didn’t finish that out. Jackson convinced the ten percent because he was Andrew Jackson and would have probably beaten them all to death if they had not folded.

Cloudbuster
Member
Reply to  Kentucky Headhunter
1 year ago

One reason in our own system is that the franchise requirements weren’t encoded at the federal level. Each state was allowed to make its own franchise rules. Ohio was the first state to allow the franchise to all men. It did so in the desire to attract more settlers. Much later, Wyoming was the first state to allow women the vote. Wyoming needed more wimminz and they thought that would be a good way to attract them.

There was never much thought given to the consequences, I’d wager.

Issac
Issac
1 year ago

A direct vote on the issues of immigration and demographics at any point in the last century of your history would have resulted in the opposite of Hart-Cellar. You are not wrong about the flaws of democracy in theory, but you do echo libertarian myopia when to suggest democracy is the problem per se, particularly when it comes to electing a new people. The ruling class decides to expand the franchise in order to cement their positon as patrons of the new man. Democracy is the language by which they justify their actions which, to the native observer, look an… Read more »

Teapartydoc
Member
Reply to  thezman
1 year ago

Athens and Rome did a lot of franchise expansion, too. When it took place it took place rapidly. Usually as a result from some kind of conflict or crisis, and usually in favor of people who were already present in the political situation. You could even say that when the citizenship in the later Roman Empire was made universal it was people who were within the borders. This may be a new phenomenon for us, but it isn’t new.

Dtbb
Dtbb
Reply to  Issac
1 year ago

With all of our technology how about ditect democracy?

Spud Boy
Spud Boy
1 year ago

You should receive voting shares in proportion to the taxes you pay. If married and filing jointly, you get joint votes for the family. Those on social security, welfare, etc. have no skin in the game and should not vote. Government employees should also not vote as they have an inherent conflict of interest.

Duke Benson
Duke Benson
1 year ago

Or maybe they just take a strong stand against bigotry and hate and know that white men will fight tooth and nail to stop good government

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kMswKahYug

Trevor was born in S Africa but he’s the REAL face of America, whites will be the minority by 2050! (Census) People of Color are the real present and future leaders!

Din C. Nuffin
Din C. Nuffin
Reply to  Duke Benson
1 year ago

Remind me again of the countries the people of color have led so well?

LineInTheSand
LineInTheSand
Reply to  Duke Benson
1 year ago

Thank you for placing in stark relief the irreconcilable differences between whites and “People of Color.” Let’s separate.

A.B. Prosper
A.B. Prosper
Reply to  Duke Benson
1 year ago

Oh hey duck. Just as note, minority fertility rates are low, dropping faster than White rates. Hispanic rates are just a tiny bit above White rates now. The POZ gets the POC’s too Worse for you Latin American fertility is in considerable decline and while regional instability is creating some migration issues, there simply isn’t as large a base for replacement migrants to draw from On top of that bringing in Africans is not welcome or tolerated by most groups will end up in ethnic cleansing. Its already practice in some parts of the So-Cal for Hispanics to forcefully remove… Read more »

Lance_E
Member
1 year ago

Sounds like someone’s been reading Hoppe. Or Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Good on ya – the first step to fixing a broken system is realizing that it’s broken. And for anyone else thinking about sounding off about MUH REPUBLIC, you have to understand that the early days of the American republic were not merely a limited franchise but a highly-intelligent and highly-respected aristocratic class. That’s how broken the system had to be in order to get us to where we are now. It took some of the best statesmen the world had ever seen, forced them into competing factions and inexorably led us… Read more »

Lance_E
Member
Reply to  thezman
1 year ago

For sure, Hoppe is not perfect; his argumentation ethics smuggle in libertarian premises despite his valiant efforts to construct a philosophy from first principles, and he makes the common libertarian error of anti-statism based on a false notion of man’s “natural” state. But being the first effective libertarian critic of democracy makes him a treasure; he’s rescued countless lolbertarians from eternal spergitude.

I believe the impulse you speak of is Lockean ethics, or Whiggery. Molyneux is infected with it too. Only a powerful 20,000cc dose of Filmer and Froude can cure it.

Yancey_Ward
Member
1 year ago

ZMan, you are on a roll the last week

Dtbb
Dtbb
Reply to  Yancey_Ward
1 year ago

Hear! Hear!

UKer
UKer
1 year ago

The problem with democracy is that eventually it must shoot itself in the foot. The more you believe in democracy the more you see it is failing on the very principles it supposedly stands for. In the UK we had the classic statement of democracy, and seen it trampled on within days. We had what was a straightforward yes or no vote on membership of the EU, though it was framed as Remain or Leave. It wasn’t hard to see that Leave meant ‘No’ to the EU’s power over these damp islands. In any event, the question could hardly have… Read more »

Teapartydoc
Member
Reply to  UKer
1 year ago

Remember the French vote on the EU Constitution? It was even written mostly by a Frenchman, and the French voted overwhelmingly against it. It was pretty clear right then that there was little or no popular sentiment for the EU, but that was ignored. The surprising thing is that there wasn’t an overt political movement in opposition to it earlier. It is as if people were happy with rule by elites as long as they weren’t confronted with it directly.

AntiDem
Member
1 year ago

Die Lösung (The Solution)
by Bertolt Brecht

After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

AntiDem
Member
1 year ago

>”Germany, the birth place of every bad idea in human history”

Oh, I don’t know – I think France gives it a run for its money.

Dutch
Dutch
Reply to  AntiDem
1 year ago

But the Germans meant well, every time, so it’s all OK…it’s the good intentions that matter, right?

bartholomew
bartholomew
1 year ago

“Germany, the birth place of every bad idea in human history…” Perhaps a post on Germany would be fun, no? Let us be treated to your critique of the ideas birthed in the Fatherland. The comments section should be a hoot, too.

Moran ya Simba
Moran ya Simba
Reply to  bartholomew
1 year ago

When Germans play at thinking they gave us Marxism, the welfare state, gina voting, Nazism, chemical warfare and the latest, open border for ‘refugees’, w preference for muzzies…. it’s surprisingly true, the quote. Maybe Germans should stick to engineering and not try anything outside of that.

Arch Stanton
Arch Stanton
Reply to  Moran ya Simba
1 year ago

Well, one German did give Christianity the Protestant Reformation. That’s a pretty big idea that’s shaped the western world for about 500 years.

Member
Reply to  Arch Stanton
1 year ago

I’m pretty sure the Z Man thinks the Protestant Reformation was maybe the worst idea coming out of Germany. He did get a Jesuit education, and Roman Catholicism is sort of like malaria. It can be treated but never fully cured.

Member
1 year ago

When seen in the light of democracy’s inevitable expansion of the franchise, open borders makes perfect sense as the next logical step in Western democracy. Yes. What do you think is the endpoint of this progression? I’ll tell you what I think: immigration ceases only when the conditions for potential immigrants are not significantly better in the democracy than in their originating shitholes. Once they have nothing to gain from moving, they won’t. But of course, that means that the democracy must have been reduced to a shithole itself. I.e.: no jobs, bad economy, political oppression. America’s future is Brazil.… Read more »

Altlander
Altlander
1 year ago

You must create your Mannerbunds, you must create them now, you must take whatever small group of likeminded men you know and create a group. No individual ever conquered a nation, no individual ever fought tyranny.
You understand why we went from cooperation and groups to individualism? Think about it.
Then go out and form your group, you will need them.
Trajectory is everything, and this country’s trajectory is heading south.

Moran ya Simba
Moran ya Simba
1 year ago

“Unsurprisingly, women voting got going first in Germany, the birth place of every bad idea in human history…”

That’s a good quote lol I first thought ‘a little unfair’ but seriously. Marxism, welfare, Nazism, nihilistic atheism, even chemical warfare and the latest whopper, open border for muzzies….yeah, most profoundly bad ideas do seem to be Made in Germany.

And I increasingly agree that the female franchise belongs on the list. Didn’t know voting ginas was a kraut idea though

Bit of a Jerk
Bit of a Jerk
Reply to  Moran ya Simba
1 year ago

You say “Nazism” like it’s a bad thing. Sure they lost, but sometimes the good guys lose.

Northgunner
Northgunner
Reply to  Bit of a Jerk
1 year ago

Watch “The Greatest Story Never Told”.

Northgunner
Northgunner
Reply to  Northgunner
1 year ago

Or failing that, episodes of Murdoch Murdoch (especially their latest video, “Race Jam”, very funny send up of Jordan Peterson where Dr. William Pierce comes out of retirement to coach the team…all they neglected was having George Lincoln Rockwell act as the Ref).

Northgunner
Northgunner
Reply to  Moran ya Simba
1 year ago

You do know that marx’s daughter, eleanor, was the “mother of socialist feminism” and a suffragette, right?

Not at all surprising that the (((tribe))) was pushing for this all along…..

MikeW
MikeW
1 year ago

“It’s the circus acts attacking the audience members.”

Z Man – i love it!

Northgunner
Northgunner
1 year ago

For an idea of how far supposedly rational people like Larken Rose goes completely off the tracks on the topic of ‘open borders’ watch this: Lauren Southern vs Larken Rose – Open Borders https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCv1glJx5b4 As a fellow anarchist/voluntarist he was diverging radically from reality and I found it necessary to virtually take Larken to the woodshed on it! As for voting, remember what stalin said, “it’s not who casts the votes that count, it’s who counts them that’s important. Yes the ‘ruling class’ is ephemeral; those that sit normally out of sight of the normies however are long term players… Read more »