The Paradox Of Democracy

The great paradox of democracy is that the system is supposed to break the chains that bind the citizen to the state, but instead it immerses the citizen in the state. If you go back 200 years in any country in the West, you would find that the people had very few dealings with the national government. They had dealings with local government, but even that was minimal. Politics, even in Britain and America where popular government was established, played a minor role in the lives of citizens.

Today, in supposedly free countries, no one can be free of politics. Everywhere you go, politics plays a part in your life. Political correctness governs the workplace and the academy. If you fall behind in the latest trends in pronouns, you could end up in a struggle session with the human resource people. Entertainment is saturated with multiculturalism and the lectures that come with it. It is nearly impossible to live in a modern western democracy without politics.

One reason for this is the natural logic of democracy. The proper way to run society, according to democracy, is for the people to express their will through a plebiscite or an elected body like a parliament. The good citizen takes an interest in his society and makes his opinion known though his vote or through participation in public and private debates about the issues. The system is intended to encourage the people to get involved and participate in the political process.

Therefore, someone who does not wish to participate in the democratic process is, in effect, opposed to democracy. If being a good citizen means keeping up with politics and participating in the process, not doing those things means you are something less than a good citizen, maybe even a bad citizen. This logic not only works on the laggards, but it encourages everyone to be a scold. The person trying to avoid politics will be a target by the champions of democracy.

Of course, one goal of democracy is to get people to cooperate with one another in order to set public policy and shape society. Rather than one guy dictating the rules or a group of powerful people making law, the people come together and find some compromise that suits the most amount of people. A point of democracy is to allow the losers to accept defeat, as they get something in the compromise and they have a chance to win the next time. Democracy is about compromise.

Compromise has an important meaning in democracy. It is not a grudging compromise or simply a truce to the fight. The point of the compromise is to reach a consensus on the issue at hand. This general agreement comes about by the parties working together to find a solution to which they can all agree. Compromise in a democracy is not a hostile agreement, like that between warring parties, but a friendly agreement struck between partners. Compromise is cooperation in a democracy.

This naturally leads to the conclusion that those who are not participating in politics are possibly excluded in some way. Simply eliminating the explicit rules against participation like limits on the franchise are just a start. Until everyone participates fully, it is assumed something is excluding them. This is the source of things like “voter suppression efforts” and “exclusionary practices” in the workplace. If anyone is not fully engaged and represented, then something is preventing them.

This is the root of speech and behavior laws. Speech that mocks or minimizes some group makes them feel unwelcome. This could lead they to avoid participation or encourage others to block their way. Similarly, rules or customs that exclude people must only exist to exclude and are therefore anti-democratic. It’s why any humor based on observing human behavior is forbidden. It is why noticing difference in people is now the worse crime. To differentiate is to exclude.

Inevitably, it means the system does not just pick the low hanging fruit of exclusion like laws that discriminate or banning exclusionary speech. Unless and until everyone is participating and getting along with everyone else, the cause of discord and exclusion must be sought out by the system itself. What we see today is democracy has become an endless struggle session for society. We collectively hunt for anything that offends or discourages cooperation among citizens.

This leads to another strange paradox. Once the hunt for the cause of less than perfect social cohesion starts, it must invade every aspect of life. The speech laws lead to theories about the thoughts behind the forbidden speech. Private association must expose itself to endless examination in order to make sure it is not excluding anyone or creating tensions between groups. In short order, as we see in America since the Cold War, the citizen exists only as a thoroughly political animal.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the spirit of democracy is why social media companies hunt down dissenters. These people posting mean things on-line cannot be ignored, because there very existence, according to the logic of democracy, is to crate conflict and undermine cooperation. In a way, the platform becomes a metaphor for society as a whole. The army of volunteer speech monitors are fully actualizing their freedom in the democratic system by driving out the anti-democratic elements.

This immersion of citizens in a political environment eliminates the private institutions and associations that were supposed to be the bedrock of democracy. If private association is exclusionary, then private institutions are as well. Since anything that obstructs perfect cooperation is anti-democratic, democracy means the elimination of the very institutions that are supposed to make it possible. Democracy now looks a lot like Soviet communism, where the party was everything.

Another paradox is that democracy is supposed to rely on the independent citizen being able to assess his own interests. By eliminating private associations and institutions, the citizen naturally becomes dependent on the state. If you cannot belong to a club or an organic group, your only option for social support is family, but that too is under endless assault by democracy. Feminism, after all, is the elimination of womanhood as an independent role. As feminism grows, family formation falls.

With communism, the goal upfront is a society without social conflict. The communist seeks to flatten the natural hierarchy of society. By destroying class and the distinctions among citizens, all citizens are equal. Equality of existence means an equality of purpose, so everyone naturally cooperates. The ideology itself is shot through with the understanding that the communist is a purely political animal, as he is defined by the fact that he is a communist man in a communist society.

In democracy, the declaration is the opposite. Democracy is supposed to make men free to enjoy their lives as they see fit, exercise their liberty and pursue the ends that bring them happiness. In theory, citizens are free to participate in the system or they can choose to opt out of the system. In reality, it is impossible to exist in a democratic system without also being a citizen. To be a citizen, you have to fully participate in the process and that means fully cooperate will all fellow citizens.

That’s the great paradox of democracy. A system advertised to offer maximum liberty turns out to be a system that offers no freedom. The logic of democracy requires all members to cooperate with one another. That inevitably requires constraints on speech, behavior and association. Every word and deed must foster cooperation or it is anti-democratic and therefore forbidden. The full range of action by citizens is constrained to the point where the democratic man is a prisoner.

Note: I’m still working on the comment system issue. It should be resolved shortly.

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!

213 thoughts on “The Paradox Of Democracy

  1. which is why democracy is historically temporary. this half-popularly elected oligarchy will turn to unelected rule soon in the name of law and order and safety and inclusion. we will soon become like the peasants backing their champions among the nobles in the internecine wars for control of the system. what else can we do – maybe a mass disengagement like AmRen proposes, but even then, the lack of unifying vision, and specially of leadership, makes mass organization impossible as of now. or who knows, maybe enough flames will burn this long hot summer.

  2. Democracy was real freedom in certain ages. Exemples : USA from 1776 to 1860 ; France from 1848 to 1934 ; England from circa 1880 to 1997. (those ages are not to be put as exemple of perfection, but from exemple of ages by far more free than our dark ages)

    Neverthless, we are in land of totalitarianism, now. The question is : what system can bring us freedom ? (without being again doomed in the “good old times” of Dickens, with 14 hours of work, 6/7, ridiculous wages and no holidays)

  3. I want no part of democracy or rule by mob/majority. That is the definition of tyranny. Furthermore I really don’t consent to others having the right to rule me either.

    • Someone is going to rule. Always. That’s biology. And that’s why the notion of “anarchy” as an organizing option is silly. How about having a restricted subset of citizens choose leaders through voting? What subset? Who should be allowed to vote? Use a de-selection process: It’s easier to specify who should not be allowed to vote than vice versa.

  4. Z Man sais: “One reason for this is the natural logic of democracy. The proper way to run society, according to democracy, is for the people to express their will through a plebiscite or an elected body like a parliament.”

    Representative Democracy gives cattle the right to pick their own butcher.

    -Official Bologna Tester

    There’s not enough hours in a lifetime to read all the books, essays and articals, detailing all the reasons why Democracy is just a transitional period between one state bondage to another. I’m not a big fan of Ayn Rand. But when she said that mass movements where a serieously bad idea, I have to agree. You know, barring unforeseen catastraphies tribal life can last indefinitely. 21st Century global civilization on the other hand simply can’t stay in one piece for very long. Sorry folks, doom is baked into the cake. If humans still exist 500 years from now, their going to be living way simpler lives than we do now.

  5. It’s interesting if you try to take the middle ground with politics. In today’s world that just simply doesn’t work for people. Sooner or later you’re going to get labeled either left or right based on your occupation, skin color, geographical location, etc.

    Our overlords have made sure to pit us against one another so we’re too busy fighting to see what little freedoms we have left slip away. The founding fathers had a grand vision. A republic where the government works for the people.

    Sadly history has taught us every Empire has a due date. Looks like ours is about to expire.

    P,S. The darker fonts are much better. New site looks to be shaping up nicely.

  6. ZMan – What do you think will come next after democracy? The NRx guys tried to devise some hyper complicated government system based on a joint stock corporation. I don’t think monarchy will ever come back. Maybe a restoration of a real Republic?

  7. Got my 1k check in the mail today. Must say it was a weird experience. Guess the end times have arrived.

  8. A “democracy” if you can keep it?

    I don’t remember any other post with such semantic salad, but the problem is very prevalent and deep.

    Technically there is no “compromise” except to get to a plurality or 50.00001% majority. There is little difference in having to accept the outcome in such an election, or the war between the states.

    Then there’s wrong votes like CA that voted against both illegal aliens getting any public aid, and against gay marriage, (huge margins!,) but were overridden by kritarchs.

    The “democratic process” which is highlighted, is probably the best feature as you must convince people, but there are always efforts to change the people into those that can be convinced by things other than reason and logic, or are corrupt. Jefferson was correct that you need an educated populace, and Adams even more that it must be moral, or at least virtuous enough. It was hard enough when we were (to some extent) one nation under God. Now we are secular and multi-culti.

    How is voting working in Iraq and Afghanistan? Now that they have purple fingers, can we leave?

    It is the ancient problem of authority and its legitimacy. Who voted for the climate crazies? You might laugh but part of the left’s magical thinking is they can vote a reality change, perhaps the most obvious is gun control. A democratic component is to give it some legitimacy in that you need to corrupt 51% in the exact same way (too low a bar) for it to be effective, but monarchs and kritarchs have proven worse. For every Aurelius there are dozens of Diocletians, Neros, Caligulas or worse – the not merely broken greedy but the “I will fix the world for the good”.

  9. “I’m still working on the comment system issue. It should be resolved shortly.”

    This is OT for the main argument of your post, but since you did mention the comment system … why are there no line spaces between paragraphs? Jamming them together creates a “busy” impression and reduces readability.

      • I was trying to edit this and messed up, sorry. Yes, I was shooting from the hip, the commenter can separate paragraphs <i>as published</i> by adding a line space in the field for writing comments. But that makes a huge gap between paragraphs in the space for writing, which apparently looks “wrong” to many people so they don’t add the extra line space.

        I hope that clarifies what I meant.

        • Point taken, and kudos for you engaging, Gravity. As for me, I really like the new comment section functionality. FWIW, I think it’s a clear improvement.

  10. I was wondering what happened to the fraternal benefit societies and organic groupings that used to pop up like dandelions. Any recognised “group” we have today seems a possible front or fraud.

    I rather like this way of looking at social organization. It’s a mature examination of incentives, of inherent “design” without conscious planning.

    Blaming this or that group of schemers or dupes is stunted because no one has the capacity to design or direct the actual flow that results.

    All are carried along by the river.

    Even the river itself has no plan.

  11. Democracy is the Ouboros, the snake that devours itself. There is a reason why the snake is a symbol of evil and chaos. As an earth-hugging creature it is an expression of pure horizontality. Potentially venomous and prone to striking man from concealment, it fosters atavistic fear and loathing. But real life is universally experienced as heirarchical, a striving for pure verticality that is utterly opposed to being brought low or, in other words, a drive for liberation from being earthbound. That is why Democracy ultimately destroys the transcendental values of truth, goodness and beauty. The quest for equality must necessarily drag everyone to eat dirt and wallow in mud. Democracy is government of the filth, by the filth, for the filth.

  12. This is a very fine post in that it highlights the problems of democracy, at least modern democracy, very well in a short posting. The very idea of egalitarianism is a revolt against human nature as one famous man pointed out.

    The country at first was “libertarian” because the very word was coined to be an easier way to say “classical liberal” of the style of the founders.

    Classical libertarianism or republicanism or all the other isms always lead leftward towards communism as the goal of “the perfection of man” is what all are looking to accomplish just as Z makes clear in his missive.

    Sooner or later people try to imagine how they wish people would act and choose to ignore human nature. I see it even here at times. And yes, I see it in myself at times.

    In the end, some of us believe that giving one group (the State) a monopoly on law, defense, and the legal use of force is always going to end in tyranny sooner or later. Perhaps there is no answer to a big powerful government in a modern technological society; but if that is true then man is destined to live in a tyranny — hopefully a soft one.

    I am not hopeful. A tribe can have more than one “leader”. If not, then the King is the only answer.

    Has anyone here read “Democracy: The God that Failed”?

  13. Old joke: After the Soviet Union and Communism collapsed it was said you could only find Communism in American universities Which sadly turned out to be true.,

    One aspect not dealt with is the influence of Marxism upon our intellectual and ruling class since the 1920’s and in particular during the Great Depression, it was so great they were ready to adopt Communism whole hog.

    This love affair with Communism never ended among our educated/professional class but instead grew after WWII and infiltrated what we now call the MSM, academia, Hollywood and the democratic party. It’s to the point today where academicians openly work for the CPP and our politicians think nothing of getting into bed with the CCP.

    In the end the Communists did win. Not because we had Democracy as a political system but due to the fact our higher IQ types just love being totalitarian fuckwads and lord over the rest of us. We see it now every day with the Covoid-19 hysteria.

  14. The problem with democracy is that, like all leftism, it has no limiting principle. If some equality is good, why isn’t more equality better? If some liberty is good, why isn’t more liberty better? If some charity is good, why isn’t more charity better? If some participation is good, why isn’t more participation better? Well the answer is because too much of each of these things turns, respectively, into Harrison Bergeron, licentiousness, a dismal welfare state, and exactly the problem that Zman lays out here. They expand to their logical conclusion, and then to their illogical conclusion, until their initial raison d’etre is lost in the perpetual revolution of pushing these ideas as far as they can be pushed, just for their own sake.

    Washington was fond of quoting the Book of Micah in saying that in his new republic, “every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid”. In short, that if you live in peace, you’ll be left alone – not only by marauders and tyrants, but by endless armies of busybody world-savers. That’s not how it worked out, of course. But what would one expect of a revolution run by bourgeois Dunning-Kruger cases like him, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, and Madison?

  15. Enjoyed your essay. Your criticisms of our governing system are always on the money. I suspect there is no political system that will satisfy everyone.

  16. If compromise is the soul of democracy, what does it mean when roughly 20 percent of adult citizens’ beliefs are not shared by the Deep State’s uniparty, and that segment, therefore, cannot be party to the compromise?

  17. Another fascinating piece by Z, but I disagree with his theory somewhat. To a certain degree democracy does contain inbuilt elements of its own degradation, but I also firmly believe the advent of the New Left in the sixties, a phenomenon extrinsic to democracy, dramatically hastened the transmogrification of democracy into something that is borderline insufferable to perhaps 20 percent of the population. Note that the New Left coined the phrase, “The personal is political.” What that means is that there is no safe haven from politics. Everything one does is subject to scrutiny, and if it fails by the standards of the New Left, punishment. Teleological theories of democracy should not absolve the New Left of warping it into something verging on evil.

    • Ostei;

      You are right about the new left in the ’60s. But having been there at the time, my recollection is that the phrase ‘the personal is political’ was mainly the work of *feminists* (i.e. privileged white women) demanding to have their daddy issues taken seriously as part of the upcoming revolution. No better example than Hillary.

      As a result of their triumph, we are now ruled by unsupervised kindergarten teachers run amok.

      • There is doubtless much truth in what you say. However, we can see how that phrase now applies to everything, not just the Karens and their neuroses.

        • Ostei;

          Right you are about today. The question I have re today’s discussion is whether it was democracy all by itself, that put psycho Karens in charge of everything today. FWIW, the male Marxists of that day considered themselves serious men dealing with serious political issues. These most definitely did not include Karen and her feelzz. One of the infamous Chicago 7 radical New Left leaders was asked, in about 1967, “What is a woman’s place in the revolution_?” His answer: “On her back”.

          Yet Hillary and her harpies had won out by the ’90s. How did that that happen_?

          I’d say it was elite effeminacy and corruption, quite likely aided by divorce law-fare. As in: It seemed cheaper to Mr Cloud to allow Karen to salami-slice him to shut her up at every turn of the ratchet. Soon enough she was in charge.

          • Yeah, the guy who said that is Stokely Carmichael who now, thankfully, lives in Africa where he belongs. Thing is, the ideological mainsprings of New Leftism are the Frankfurt School and postmodernism, which are less concerned with economics and class conflict per se, and are much more focused on culture, including “female culture.” As such, it was much more amenable to feminism. And it is no coincidence that feminism bloomed in the 70s, the first full decade after the advent of the New Left.

    • Seems enough of a contrast. I may eliminate pics until the sizing issue can be resolved.

      • When time permits, you should also institute automatic paragraph spacing. Currently, I need to hit enter twice to place a space between paragraphs.

        Thank you for all you do, Z.

      • Two points re: the latest iteration of the new scheme: 1. Cannot typye until selecting (then deselecting) a format icon — a minor annoyance. 2. Cannot reposition cursor to edit earlier text. Only recourse is to back space delete and retype — a major hassle.

  18. The central belief of our time is that no man is born to rule over another. This is the biggest fallacy of all. Hereditary monarchy became fragile as the mix of genes of a man who creates a dynasty is diluted with the genes of submissive concubines, or whatever hot pieces of ass become his bride. But some men are born to rule. Putin is an example of someone who was born to rule. If you start out in a Soviet housing complex, and end up as ruler of your country with billions stashed in Swiss banks, you’re supposed to be there. Russia is a democracy in name only. Real democracy precludes anyone like that. All a democratic leader needs is a a good jaw bone. To be the smoothest liar. To have the most people believe you. After awhile they all start believing their own lies. “Don’t worry about the debt, we owe it to ourselves.” Eventually a Putin, hidden somewhere in the woodwork emerges. Democracy becomes in name only, and those people disappear. This naturally happens and will happen here as well. Democracy is incredibly durable when flush with cash, and incredibly fragile when the cash is gone.

  19. Some see how the country is fucked up and see The Jew . I see how the Episcopalians put kick me signs to the back of their pants, The catholic church is bringing half of mexico to USA and the Lutheran synod has a special committee for transporting Somaliland to America. I also remember John Vliet Lindsday the last Wasp mayor of new york city ,He opened NY to crime and welfare. And the famous power couple from Arkansas,– Wiliam Jefferson Clinton and Hilary Rodham Clinton –what fine Wasp names they say that Jews are cheap but how cheap you have to be to rent Lincoln bedroom when you are a President and a millionare?.But I understand, ((( my people))) invented the concept of a goat that would carry somebody else’s sins.

    • (((Who))) do you think whispered in Slick Willy’s ear that he should rent out the Lincoln bedroom?

      We see the surnames operating against us on all fronts over the past 50 years. More often than not, they are jewish names.

      You are guilty as charged and not mere scapegoats.

  20. I would feel a lot better about us not getting anything if I felt our views were fairly represented in public dialog and we were not being punished for it and we simply lost. But that is not the case. From the beginnings of the progressive project people like us have been physically attacked, fired from jobs, kept out of any places that could lead to elite opinion agreeing with us. The citizen only ever hears one side of the arguments.

    <i>”We collectively hunt for anything that offends or discourages cooperation among citizens.”</I>

    If only this were true. We only collectively hunt for people interfering with leftist’s ability to propagandize the demos. They actively “exclude” anyone who disagrees with them. Like everything else in this area, they are nakedly dishonest about it.

  21. Zman… Why do most all the media and blog sites refer to our system of government as a democracy? We are a Republic. We have Three coequal branches that keep checks on each other and an Electoral College that keeps New York from being more important than Krum,Texas in a national election. Where democracies have been tried,they all tilted or sprinted toward authoritarian rule and anarchy.Where am I wrong?

    • While you are technically right, the US has been running as fast as it can from its republican roots since the ink dried on the constitution.

    • Toss your tricorn hat away, these arguments are really not useful. We haven’t been an actual Republic (like Venice, Rome, or Novgorod) pretty much ever, and even if we were, so what? The Left (and much of the right) have no interest in the concept. And the ‘coequal branches’ + ‘electoral college’ concepts have about as much in common with Rome as the Smartphone has in common with semaphores. The founders tried something new. It didn’t work out. Okay, let’s figure something else out.

      • The Electoral College concept/complaint is way overblown. This is due to the apportionment of Congress based on population. Yes, pissant States get two electoral votes (based on Senators) and one for the House member, but is that really a significant factor is any elections as compared to 435 votes from the population apportionment? It’s not like we have 100 Electoral votes (Senator share) going Dem or Rep at any time.

        Not that I’d change anything, I just don’t get too worked up about it. I’d rather get the Senators back to appointment by the State legislatures, not direct election by people of the States.

        • Oh I would change quite a bit but that’s because what we have now is driving us deeper into the pit…

    • You still believe in muh magic constitution and muh laws. Mere pieces of paper without the people and the power and will to enforce them as written. The ‘law’ today is whatever the authorities and their badge gang say it is.

  22. OT: I love, love love when ‘Karen’ realizes she is not at the top of the victim pyramid anymore. It will be so awesome when these white women are finally ground under the bootheel like men have been for decades and it is starting to happen more & more these days. You voted for this, you enabled it, and weaponized it. Now enjoy it Karen!

    • I posted about the same incident above. I have a somewhat different take on it.

      I note that the immediate description the media assigns to it is “racially charged” or “racist,” but was it?

      That narrative is falling prey to the left’s ban on noticing. She may have been wrong to call the cops — we only have the bird watcher’s side of the story and we don’t know what happened before the video started, but “African American” is the most obvious general physical description of the man. It’s not racist to notice that or to report it.

      • If Amy Cooper actually felt threatened then why did she approach Christian Cooper, the videographer, and shrilly demand that he cease capturing video of her violating the city ordinance, displayed on local signage, several times? Amy Cooper weaponized Christian Cooper’s blackness against him because she had run out of thoughts about how to stop unfavorable video capture.

        I can appreciate that we race realists and soon-to-be minority in our own country are supposed to support whites against other demographics under most circumstances, in part, because that’s what all the other groups do against us. However, those of our women who behave as Amy Cooper did the other day are a much greater threat to our objectives and thus they need to be put on the leash or destroyed outright.

        So with this event I will not help defend Amy Cooper and I will let Christian Cooper and his forces have their way with Amy Cooper. They can kill her for all I care.

        I observe “Cooper” is a common surname within a certain (((demographic))). I personally know at least three unrelated people who are unrelated (((Coopers))). Amy Cooper behaved exactly as I would expect a JAP to behave when caught out.

          • Farther rightward than you are.

            Watch the video. It’s exactly what Amy Cooper did. She ran out of thoughts how to stop video recording and escalated to swatting Christian Cooper based solely on one aspect: he’s black. Christian Cooper is large and muscular. He is bald and if he scowled at you probably intimidating. Amy Cooper never mentioned those aspects. So, yes, Amy Cooper weaponized Christian Cooper’s blackness against him.

            Watch the video yourself. Listen to her words.

          • I’ve seen the video, and we have no idea what happened before it started. The only account we have of the story is the Black man’s. I know better than to credulously believe one-sided accounts on the internet.

            See my previous post older than this thread. Christian Cooper is the kind of privileged Black with a chip on his shoulder who goes around looking for reasons to be offended.

            The most I’ll concede is that both he and her were being assholes. It probably never should have gone to either the cops or a life-destroying internet campaign.

            ETA: “Farther right than you are.” With a handle created specifically for this particular incident, I very much doubt that.

            ETA 2: Ben Tillman over at Steve Sailer’s blog gets it:

            White woman tells blacks barbecuing is not allowed in public park. Blacks claim racism.

            National media >>>>>>>>>> White woman is racist.

            Black man tells white woman leash-free dog is not allowed in public park. White woman claims physical threat.

            International media >>>>>>>>>>> White woman is racist.

          • Note, the negro initiated the encounter.

            Blacks can play the role of the busy-body do-gooder as this bird-loving brute did.

            How about Franklin-Templeton and its zeal to signal its virtue?

          • I would shitcan that harpie in a second if she had worked for me. “Investigation” would be mere formality.

            I am presently initiating encounters just like Christian Cooper did. People in my neighborhood do not pick up their dog crap from the sidewalks. Kids romp right through the poo and track it through our homes.

            So I confront these dog owners while recording them on my gopro. Once I find out who they are, if they persist, I send the recordings to their entire business and social circles with signed notes asking, e.g., “are your business practices this dirty” or “does your friend poop on your rug?” A copy goes to the city and county police and officials together with a formal complaint.

            And it works. Christian Cooper did nothing different.

          • You sound nice. Mrs. Kravits for the 21st century.

            Let me clarify. It isn’t that you object to people not picking up their dog crap, that’s fine. It’s that you have no sense of proportionality. No sense of the limits of retribution.

            Out where I live, we tend to deal with issues between neighbors … between neighbors. And when it happens, it tends to be more than a pile of dog crap, it’s horses or cattle roaming loose.

            Would I try to get one of my neighbors fired because her horse kept getting in my field (has happened)? No way. I worked with her to solve the problem.

          • Awesome Vinnie! So let’s not ever witness you condescend about the human shite on the sidewalks of San Fran, LA or Columbus again. You have pretty pony! I look forward to reading about your dealing with the homeless in those places and convincing them not to poop on the sidewalks. I’m sure they’ll listen up and take heed. Because pony.

          • I also own a couple dozen urban rental houses in Columbus, so don’t go making assumptions about me.

            I deal with all the rental neighbors on a person-to-person basis and as generously as I can as much as I can, because the neighbors for my rental properties are assets: if I treat them right, they often help me look out for the properties.

            I also employ a lot of people, mostly on a contract basis: farm hands, heavy equipment operators, hauling, roofing, HVAC, electrical, plumbing, carpentry, handymen, etc. Some we’ve built up a relationship over many years.

            If someone tried what you describe, sent me a video trying to get me to stop using them because of some dispute over dog crap or leash laws, I’d tell the sender to go eff themselves. All I care about my guys is that they show up, they do good work and they don’t steal from me or my tenants.

            Look what living in a low-trust environment has done to you. You’re part of the problem.

            Is your repetitive reference to pony supposed to be some kind of insult? Because I don’t get it. Try harder.

            Also, don’t think I didn’t notice how you keep sneaking an extra step with each post. The original incident was about someone ignoring a leash law, then it was people not picking up their dog poop, then it was about homeless humans pooping in the streets. Not all problems deserve the same treatment, but it’s a sign of the dishonest arguer to keep upping the ante beyond what the original topic entailed, insinuating: “What? You won’t destroy some woman’s life for ignoring a leash law? You must want homeless people pooping all over the streets!” You’re full of something.

          • Sad isn’t it Vizzini I think that’s what city life does to you it makes you just a cog in the machine and you become petty and spiteful to your fellow human beings…It also doesn’t help that most of your neighbors aren’t like you and probably hate you for being you just as much as you can’t stand them…The joys of diversity is Making Hate Great Again…

    • This is more about sex than race. She would not have called the cops on a black woman.

      • Didn’t you get into a lot of trouble for saying the wrong thing to a Black man?

        Yes, I was rendered nearly unemployable due to convictions, could have been killed by the Stasi that decided to kidnap me at 3 am, and nearly did some serious jail time.

        That is exactly my point actually. Don’t go to bat for this bitch, she is 100% part of the problem because AFWL vote for this over & over. It is only when they feel the blowback of their own poor decision making giving minos a ‘free pass’ will this have any chance of changing.

        This chick is a typical entitled NYC c-nt and probably (((special))) to boot. This is not the one you want to defend. They are both assholes in different ways, there is no ‘winner’ in this scenario.

  23. Old business from a few days ago.

    My Idaho friend LineInTheSand asked why I referred to Covid-19 as the MacGuffin Virus. Here’s why. 

    At least two now-revealed-as MacGuffins have been used to try to get rid of Trump: Ukraine collusion and Russian election/transition interference. In both of these, there was no there there. Bogeymen were invented and then acted upon. Previous/ongoing MacGuffins employed as the basis of government expansion and population control include global warming, second-hand smoke, white privilege, toxic masculinity, ad nauseum. 

    Covid-19 is something real that is being used as an pretext for governments worldwide to stretch their muscles and increase their power. It is further being used in the USA to try to get rid of Trump. Isn’t that amazing, the very week impeachment failed and they needed a next excuse to continue jihad, there was this virus that they’d been assiduously ignoring to that point. 

    The case fatality rate for Covid has been going down steadily as testing increases. Makes sense: we are starting to see the bulk of the iceberg and the tip doesn’t look so imposing. By early May there were reports that case fatality was less than 1%. I’ve seen as low as 0.26 now. This will probably go lower with more testing, increasing the denominator as sub-clinical cases are found. 

    The flu has a case fatality rate of around 0.1%. Those who catch Covid stand twice the chance of dying as those who get the flu. Put that in context with our reaction to it. Is this twice what we do to avoid the flu? I submit this is at least a googol times what we do to avoid the flu, which is that one-third to one-half of people in the US bother to get a flu shot each year. 

    This is not to deny that Covid is more contagious than the flu. More people have probably had this than have had the flu this year. We wouldn’t really know: anyone who has died of the flu this year has been counted as a Covid death. That’s because the flu, in years past, gets credit for all of the excess deaths, excess to those expected actuarially. Covid has dibs on all of those now, plus all respiratory deaths in general. 

    Governments are setting themselves up to maintain the high level of authoritarianism by insisting they must do so until there is a vaccine or a treatment. 

    Don’t hold your breath. These are conditions that may well never be met. More MacGuffinism.

    SARS had a case fatality rate of around 10%. Numerous countries and companies have been working on a vaccine for it since 2003. SARS is Covid’s first name (SARS-CoV-2): they are of the same family. Thus there should be some overlap in antigens that can be targeted. 

    Look up how much money Bill Gates has spent on a malaria vaccine. Different germ entirely, but that’s my point: it seems to be hit or miss which organisms lend themselves to control by vaccination. At the other end from malaria is yellow fever. This is a virus for which there is a vaccine that conveys lifelong immunity with a single dose to the vast majority of recipients. Covid can fall anywhere on that spectrum. 

    Our long experience with coronaviruses, which include everything from the plebeian common cold to MERS with its case fatality rate of about one-third (akin to plague in fourteenth-century Europe), is that they don’t lend themselves to control by vaccination. (Influenza is not in this family.)

    As to treatment – I refer you to the preceding paragraph. We can’t effectively treat any of these maladies.

    The MacGuffin Virus: brought to you by those who really need it to be able to do what they’ve always wanted to do. It is an excuse for an ever-thickening plot to decrease freedom for the masses by expanding governments. 

    Otherwise, 2020 would ‘just’ be a bad year for nursing home residents, as seems to happen about every ten years, and the lives of those reading this would hardly have been affected.

    • Glad to see you back, Right Doctor. There seems to have been an observable growth in the number of people who think we should have treated this no differently than any other viral infection and just let it run its course, with the exception of taking extra precautions with the elderly. Alas, the number of people taking this tack is still insignificant.

    • As has been noted, at a certain point, the death rate from this disease will be shown to be less than the imposed death rate from the “cure”. And that’s only speaking in terms of deaths—which seems to be the coin of the realm for this thing.

  24. If I had to sum up the left-wing “democracy project” in one word, I’d say that its purpose is to dissolve society. They’re well on the way already.

    I’d also like to point out that in the dissolved society, manners toward people become much like those of businessmen towards customers–you have to be sort of blandly polite towards everybody. You can’t literally or figuratively kick anybody out of your store.

    And since there’s no cohesion, people rat on each other, which is also much like a customer making an anonymous complaint about a worker to the boss.

    Instead of being a fully realized personality among a group that shares nuanced understandings, you become a sort of cautious merchant of yourself, a bland travelling salesman of yourself–and in the long run that will change your self.

    • +100. Excellent point. It goes hand in hand with the concept of the financialization of all social capital.

    • I disagree. You can keep anyone out of your store <i>if</i> they don’t conform to the consensus (masks, nice to people of color, etc.). I was stopped by a Walmart greeter the other day (some sort of subcon) and I wondered what rule I had fallen afoul of. He kept insisting “Good morning” and I refused to respond. Not the first time I’ve had an issue with that. So merely refusing to speak is, in itself, a crime against equality and democracy.

    • I definitely feel this pressure. At work, I have to keep my opinions to myself about their diversity and inclusion training. In public conversation I censor myself (which feels pretty normal around strangers.) At church I keep my political views and theological views to myself so as not to upset everyone.

      Only at home, to my wife and sons, do I sometimes speak candidly. Of course they are a captive audience, so I try not to go on too much. And I have to respect their positions.

      There is almost no one that I can just be open and honest with. It makes me feel tired, and a little lonely.

      • Which is why I’ve always advocated for Community Brother where our voices are not only heard they are considered wise council and heeded…

  25. Grats on the Cov-19 skepticism, Zman, CDC reveals death rate extremely low for those not in nursing homes, virtually zero for those under age-50…..But social media censoring those who point this out…

  26. I was reading David Thompson’s Typepad blog and came across this great example of the politicization of everything.

    A dog walker and a bird watcher collide.

    The initial instinct is to blame the dog walker, and that’s what happened when the video went viral. She was, after all letting the dog off-leash in an area where that’s not allowed and making what appear to be hysterical claims. But is that really all there is to the story?

    The man apparently plans for and forces these encounters. He lured her dog over with dog treats he carries “just for such intransigence.” He acts like he’s the official leash patrol.

    His dad was a civil rights activist and he and his sister seem to be the type who are constantly looking to be offended by White people. He’s a Harvard grad, one of the most privileged people in the country. The woman, too, is wealthy and privileged.

    She is now on leave from her job, while the incident is being “investigated” by her employers. Why the hell is it any of their business what happens to her on her own time while she’s walking her dog?

    Her dog has been taken away from her: “As of this evening, the owner has voluntarily surrendered the dog in question to our rescue while this matter is being addressed. Our mission remains the health and safety of our rescued dogs. The dog is now in our rescue’s care and he is safe and in good health. We will not be responding to any further inquiries about the situation, either publicly or privately. Thank you for your understanding.”


    What this is, is the politicization of everything. It can’t just be two people arguing about a dog being off its leash.

    A few decades ago, before cell phones and ubiquitous video, Twitter and the internet, they both would have gone their own way, each thinking, “Christ, what an asshole.” And that would have been the end of it, as it should have been.

    Does the man have any shame about tearing the woman’s life apart over such a minor incident? Not at all (and neither does her company or the dog rescue agency). Couldn’t the woman have just put her dog on the leash, since she knew she was violating the rules? Was there actually a reason to call the police? Sometimes people are jerks to each other. We didn’t used to ruin each others’ lives over it.

    • The evil is seeping into all aspects of life so pretty soon there will be hell on earth…Wonder when people will wake out of there slumber if at all…

      • You use that “hell on earth” concept metaphorically, but I think there might be something literal to it given how things are going.

    • I saw that video. Reverse the races (White woman complaining black doesn’t observe the rules) and she’s your classic ‘Karen’ scold. When it’s black reporting a White, it immediately changes the frame, because the social hierarchy means black/brown/yellow>White. This is what people still don’t get. You won’t merely lose your job, but your dog, and (see numerous cases in Europe) your children. You will be hounded to hell in the name of democracy and equality.

    • An insightful observation from the comments on David Thompson’s blog. Man, I’ve been in this position before:

      The more of these things that I see, the more I remember how we learn the tactics employed by these self-regarding “videographers.” I learned them as a child on long car trips sitting in the back seat with my brother. One of us–invariably the one who hit the wall of boredom first–would start poking and pinching the other until finally the put-upon party would lose it and visibly (at least from the rear view mirror) fight back. Of course, from the front seat it looked like the put-upon party was guilty and was attacking his poor brother for no apparent reason.

      The same thing happens today only the camera doesn’t get turned on until the victim snaps and looks a complete fool. I’ve become increasingly leary of videos that start in the middle of an altercation. Unfortunately you can’t drive the car if you’re constantly looking in the rear view mirror.

      I moved around a lot as a kid and experience this with bullies. I’ve seen it happen to a couple of my kids, too. Bullies are often expert at manipulating the system and pushing you until you snap, then making it look like you are the one who was causing trouble.

  27. Dream of feudal society where I rely on protection and brotherhood from the Shitposters Guild.

    • If the Shitposters’ Guild is anything like Gene Wolfe’s Order of Seekers for Truth and Penitence, then from your lips to God’s ear. A shitposter is nothing less that a reality-based minister of truth. I would happily apprentice in such a brotherhood.

  28. “As feminism grows, family formation falls.” This is definitely bad. How does this square with Z’s statement 2 days ago that children without marriage is okay with him?

    • I took it more as it beats the alternative of not having kids at all (which is more and more becoming the norm) than approving of illegitimacy. If I recall, what was said was something like “I don’t know of anyone ever regretting having kids, but I know many people who regret not having them”.

      • It’s to the point where about 3/4 of women I know under age 25 don’t want kids. Women of Colour are just as likely to not want kids, which is good. This age cohort is just starting to put a dent in fertility rates. It will plummet soon.

        Alot of them *could* probably be twisted into having a kid or two if they had an alpha husband who pushed for it. I convinced some ex-gfs to have theoretical kids with me if we married. As soon as we break up they go back to hating kids.

        Childfree will become the norm very shortly (in about 5-10 years).

    • I am a christian and believe children are a blessing from god . Some situations are better than others to recieve them , but its a matter of degrees. the first words god said to “adam were go forth , be fruitful and multiply. ” for the atheist among the group , what is more important for your evlolutionary sucess than children? nothing

      • Yes, in the Bible the authority to take a wife is given to the man, not to the state. Marriage is a public declaration of that fact, witnessed by the community. The children of that marriage belong to the father and are legitimate.

      • Being fruitful and multiplying is indeed what God said. But for a society to function and flourish it must be within marriage for the good of the children and for men and women.

        • Yea but does it have to be a marriage sanctified by the state or just sanctified by God and their Community…

          • When the Church was co-equal with the state, the Church’s recognition of the marriage was enough. Once the secular authorities took over post-Reformation, a license from the state in Protestant and Catholic countries was enough to recognize marriage vis-à-vis the state, but not enough for those who were bound by the laws of the Church and required a sacramental marriage. Nowadays, the latter must get both a license from the state and a marriage in the Church. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter to me as long as the state and the Church promote the sexual morality that is healthy for society: man and woman get married, have children, stay married, no-fault divorce outlawed.

          • Lol wasn’t really asking for a history lesson was more just wondering what your stance was since you had a strong opinion on marriage…I myself don’t think the state should be involved at all in marriage, raising a family, education and a whole host of other things…

          • Didn’t realize Libertarians were still allowed on here LOL. The family is the basic building block of our society. The state should recognize and promote that. If it did, everything else would fall into place.

          • Lol I do have some of those tendencies but only to promote a more local white community…

          • Salient point. Wherever Napoleon conquered he instituted a system of state/civil marriage and records of births, marriages, and deaths. Prior to that there were church records only. No one regarded those marriages as invalid because state authorities weren’t involved. We need to return to that mindset.

    • Marriage as the vehicle of family formation has had different forms in the West. In Ancient Rome, for example, marriage was an informal affair, and there was no state involvement, except for some details regarding how the dowry was handled. Children were the “property” of the male, and nurses raised them. This was the custom among the elite. Divorce was common. In our time, the tradition of state sponsored marriage for the ostensible reason of rearing children has been weakened enough through divorce laws, government sponsored welfare moms and homosexual marriage legalization that it has lost much or most of its moral reason to be. State sponsored marriage, much like public education, is becoming a risky proposition, enriching the system (divorce process) but providing little benefit. The notion that the state can any longer confer legitimacy for children is nonsense. So, I agree with Zman on the marriage question. Commitment is a moral choice, and the state is amoral and should really have nothing to do with it….Feminism?? Well, I wouldn’t put it at the top of the list of risks to the family. Maybe a factor, but not a cause.

      • cec;

        State sponsored marriage came to dominate because the state supplanted the church as the validator of any particular marriage. I’m so old that I can remember that the now quaint phrase for shacking up was ‘living together without benefit of clergy’.

      • Well said, but I might add that the State has more at stake in marriage than perpetuating people to maintain the State. We know that children born in two parent households with both father (male) and mother (female) are on the whole better citizens wrt temperament, education, role models and so forth. On that alone, the State might promote such morality.

        • Fair enough, and I agree. This is why children without marriage is a dead end for any healthy society and why no self-respected dissident right-winger should ever say that children without marriage is okay.

      • The model for our society should be the one that allowed total degeneracy of the type you describe to run rampant and foreigners to take over? No: our people should be front and center saying that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is the source of our degeneracy and the family, made up of man, wife, and many children, is the bedrock of any stable and healthy society and the model to be followed. Our movement is dead in the water if any other standard is suggested, recommended, or implied.

  29. We on the dissident side have seen clearly that our democracy is destroying freedom of association and private opinion.

    So Joe Six Pack decided to party it out at the Lake of the Ozarks this past weekend and now the national media wants him quarantined for not cooperating with the madness.

    If only Joe Six pack sees what we see?

    A few more loons ruling him and expecting him to participate in the American democratic project and stay six feet apart with masks on but all he wants to do is relax at the Lake might do the trick?

    Maybe. Maybe not.

  30. The logic of democracy requires all members to cooperate with one another. That inevitably requires constraints on speech, behavior and association.”

    The larger and more diverse the country, the more this is a problem. Democracy works better (still very imperfectly) in a smaller, more homogenous setting.

  31. “Compromise has an important meaning in democracy. It is not a grudging compromise or simply a truce to the fight. The point of the compromise is to reach a consensus on the issue at hand.”

    You can probably write multiple posts about how this arrangement leads not to consensus but to never ending battles over political issues. See gun rights as example #1, if I could trade magazine restrictions on semiautomatic firearms and in exchange to never have another restriction put in place or debate over the issue I’d hop on it in a heartbeat.

    Instead I’m forced to “debate” with people who want to ban all private possession of firearms entirely. Who will claim to only want “reasonable restrictions” over and over again to no end.

    Combine democracy’s insistence on debate with the progressive “right side of history” and you’ve guaranteed that your children will be debating over the right of 12 year olds to have sex, and your grandchildren will debate the merits of a 1 child policy for Europeans only.

    • That’s the problem with compromise. We are not talking about painting a house in white or primary colors and then settling on pastels. We have—through “dieversity”—reaches a point where compromise means to give up the fundamentals that give meaning to what it is to be a self actuating human being. In short, at a point to compromise is impossible. It’s them or us.

    • Correct, and that’s why you have to break out of the paradigm.

      There is no point debating with people who hate you and want you dead. Focus on preparing, networking, and bringing moderates / asleep white people over to our side.

  32. Ticks and tapeworms are parasites. Government at every level is a tick. Participation trophy acquiescence. The buy in. A man chooses. A slave obeys. Obey.

  33. So, at the end, the conservative movement could never wind up being anything but decoration, a Potemkin opposition. A dissident movement seeks to break free of this.

  34. Democracy, like every other institution, wants to expand and dominate. As Z has written, democracy can’t allow competitors such as religions and private organizations (based on free association) to just run free. They are a threat.

  35. This is why I joke that I’m the only guy I know who <i>really</i> believes in evolution. We’re just monkeys, right? [insert as many “why do you hate science?” virtue signals as you need until they agree]. Well, ok: Monkeys are brutally hierarchical. Chimps in the wild are vicious and violent in the establishment and maintenance of their troop pecking order; challengers are sometimes eaten. Any political theory which doesn’t take that into account is false,and bound to fail. Democracy, like communism, is simply antithetical to human nature.

    • Which is why Washington & Co. only allowed white male citizens with property to vote. Unless a citizen had real skin in the game, they knew representational government would become a farce.

      • Even then, it didn’t take long for that intention to fall by the wayside. The Whiskey Rebellion is today remembered, if at all, as a bunch of drunken backwoods rednecks, rather than serious people with serious grievances that were ignored by the elites.

        • And Washington’s use of troops was the first real nail in the coffin of the Constitution. When Jefferson bought land from the French, it was about done.

          • I have no problem with the Louisiana Purchase, since it removed the French from the Continental board, and also prevented the British from taking it as spoils of war as they did Canada in 1763. I case you haven’t been paying attention, Congress is usually made up of dickheads. That was also the case in the 19th century.

      • I wonder if that is not still the case, Epiminondas?

        if you consider our elected leaders as nothing more than paid actors, as most of them undoubtedly are… I’d be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that their paymasters in the moneyed class… are almost all white males… with a smattering of eeeeeevil joos.

        • Yeah sure Ari, they are almost all “white”. With just a tiny smattering of this totally innocuous and for all intents and purposes other than a few holidays they barely even observe anyway, are also white, and see themselves as such. Pretty much just a big ol good ol boys club of WASPs aint they Levi? That’s right. It must be, they always are portrayed as such on the screens after all. Rich snooty staid waspy stiffnecked old white men, so loathsome and elitist. Whenever I see one in the movies I know right away, “dats da bad guy!”

    • True. And none of them are the least bit confused as to the proper role of males and females. And, as far as I know, that’s true of all mammals. If there are exceptions among mammals, other than many current humans (I’m thinking soy boys and feminists), I’d love to hear about it.

      • Monkey and Dolphin males generally will penetrate anything that they can. So I hear from our esteemed hard-working biologists.

  36. It seems to me that most of the problems described herein could be mitigated or eliminated through common sense limits of the franchise.

    i say this with an understanding of how totally unrealistic such a proposal is.

    Side note: can’t type in the comments box without first selecting one of the accent options at the bottom.

  37. Most people should not be involved in politics, unless to throw out a government that has grown intolerable.

    But today, state aparatus is such that there’s too much money at stake for potential recipients (or payers) to resist throwing their hat into the ring.

    Who gets the sugar this year? Pharma or Military Industrial? Immigrants or welfare queens? Farmers or uncompetitive manufacturing? Got to be in it to win it!

    • I dunno if I would say ‘most’… but there are some people that seriously need to be excluded from the political process. And I am beginning to think women are the first that need to be kicked out.

      • John….there are some of us gals waking up to the truth of your statement. I’m disappointed squared and horrified how wahmyn pols quickly become tyrants. They won’t admit they run fear particularly during emergencies and won’t develop step-by-step protocols, as viewed as patriarchal, nor do they consult well with other wahmyn. They go right to tyranny and whack people into submission. It’s all emotion…either anger or weepy.

        Recently had an old Morman gal over, we talked in agreement about the Chicom flu, not voting for Romney and the women pols of Salt Lake corridor. I told her if I could talk away the ability for women to vote…I would! She stared at me with big googly eyes and said she hoped I didn’t mean it. I said I absolutely do as we certainly don’t think with the brain part of us. Planting seeds. And we accuse men of thinking with other than their brain. Bah!

        In the future, I’ll probably be dragged off to some “camp” run by one of Romney’s children.

        • The fact that more than half of young Brit women are tattooed should not be happening, since asymmetrical mutilation and skin defacement are evolutionarily objectively repellent, and young women are (hypothetically) supposed to be focused on attracting long-term (marriage) partners. –Bruce Charlton

        • It is no contradiction to think highly of women and poorly of democracy. To admire them both is to misunderstand one or the other, perhaps both.

          The American experiment was organized around a principle of Adam Smith, that the vices of men were more brilliant than their virtues and might be organized in such a way to benefit society. In Madison’s words stepping back from the old ways of trying to determine good vs bad, which had always failed, (“the defect of better motives”) in favor of “supplying opposite and rival interest” was on with the new republic. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition in both public and private affairs”.

          This scheme is unnatural to the female mind. They are evolved to debarbarize young people, to conciliate differences in groups, to make life pleasant. A scheme which seeks to take advantage of the defects of the male character is poisoned by the best features of females, and finally poisons the females no less.

          Democracy is not and never was sugar and spice and everything nice. Universal suffrage for males was a great mistake. Female suffrage is insufferable.

        • Very late, so safe to post from the lunatic fringe.

          Look in a woman’s hand.

          You’ll the a line from the bottom of the big line around the thumb (the spine, “Life” line)– that line goes straight towards the pinkie finger, “perception”.

          Women do think with their *ahem*

      • Of course, any constitution that expressly forbids women from voting would be a non-starter. However, there are certain oblique conditions that could be imposed which would have much the same effect. Much as an IQ requirement would reduce the black vote to a near nullity.

        • I would go even further Brother and say anything that would benefit our people is a non starter and the only way would see any change is after a reset…To many people are wasting time and energy in trying to change the beast instead of building something new and letting the old beast die because no one is feeding it anymore…

          • Yep. I’m referring, however, to a constitution in some future white ethnostate. Even there, I doubt women will readily suffer the blatant denial of voting rights.

          • Any future White ethnostate that is not authoritarian in nature (and authoritarian enough to specifically forbid women the franchise) is doomed to failure.

          • Oh, I don’t know that it has to be exactly authoritarian, but it may have to be quasi-aristocratic, and its constitution will have to be considerably more rigid and expressly exclusionary than the US Constitution.

          • After going through the horrors of a reset they will be more than happy not to have a vote they will be just be happy that they made it through…

        • No doubt. In a democracy given a choice between suffering or suffering the loss of their opinion being counted, there is little question which women would chose, the exceptions all commenting here. One contributed a viable alternative.

          This reminds me. Tocqueville described American women as the best in the world, the single greatest cause of American greatness. They didn’t have the vote. They didn’t have their “rights”. They were not distracted by such things in the need to properly influence men, but that was exactly what they did.

      • Women are far too soft hearted to be given the responsibility to decide if and when uncomfortable but necessary measures must be taken in order to protect the tribe. Humans understood this truth implicitly for thousands of years up until the last century. Now look where we are. Sadly, what makes them most endearing is also what makes them unfit for leadership roles. Unchecked empathy leads a society to ruin. Add to that all the media brainwashing and you get a completely untenable situation. I’m tired of cringing everytime I hear a news story out of sweden.

        RIP Tommie Lind.

  38. Democracy is broken because the citizenry which underlies it is broken. And the citizenry is broken because we have lived too long in society of extreme affluence in which real hardship has become extinct. The herd is no longer being culled and the mean is declining. Our political representatives suck (hello Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters) and we vote then back habitually. Yes, creeping nannyism is a problem, but the coming tyranny will be far far worse.

    • Tom, very good distillation of how I see it. The majority of voters in this country should not be voting, for all the reasons all of us already know. As long as they are voting, though, it pretty much renders moot any one or all of our votes.

    • Once again, missing the entire point of the essay (everyone is). Yes, improve the polity, limit it to White men, etc., but eventually it will break down in precisely the same way. The very <i>concept</i> of democracy is antithetical to human nature. Equality does not exist anywhere in nature and hierarchy is good and natural. Hierarchy does not automatically equate to monarchy, but it does mean not everyone can participate at everything, particularly voting or governing.

  39. Substitute radical egalitarianism for democracy and you have our situation perfectly described. I was on to this scam in the seventies and withdrew my consent by not participating. What was the point? I would vote now and then, but by the time Bush the Elder had sucked the remaining life out of conservatism, I simply wandered off in search of a life of meaning that did not include the follies of politics. Evil Party or Stupid Party, it was all the same to me. I merely arranged my life to stay far away from the PC crazies. We’ve already gone deeply into the weeds of cultural Marxism. It is just a fight now to see if TPTB can keep control of economic policy.

  40. This immersion of citizens in a political environment eliminates the private institutions and associations…

    Absolutely. This is the root of the problem. If it becomes the measure of all it eventually takes over the function and moral demands of all other aspects of a civilization. Political competition spoonfed to all for their every act and thought corrals almost everyone while giving good citizens the illusion that differences within this small space are manifestations of true independence and freedom.

    This makes the oligarch’s position easier to orchestrate from within its shadows.

    • Is it possible to have representative government that allows for the right of association or does the “natural logic of democracy” necessarily militate against this?

      • That’s the entire line between representative government versus democracy. They are most definitely not the same. There were numerous limits in place when our representative government was founded. They were all removed over time in the name of democracy. Once again, the entire point of the essay. Both the word and the concept of democracy lead to clownworld, and need to become synonymous with evil in the DR mind.

        • They were all removed over time in the name of democracy

          To play on a phrase from our youth:

          To save democracy we must destroy the demos.

      • Line, maybe at the group level (between Estates/Castes). Give-and-take. Reciprocity for an advantage sought from one group to another. Each Estate would have political representation but at the individual level natural associations would be too easily broken and compromised, especially by flim-flam artists.

        That doesn’t mean people are locked in. There are other ways of developing talent that shows promise. Apprenticeships, educational opportunities for those qualified, military careers, religious institutions, expansion of a family or caste specialty into new areas or into new developments…

        Freedom from some natural restrictions can often stifle the freedom to develop innate talents. Look at the damage done to women and to so many men who through a false freedom indebted themselves to pursue a career they don’t really want so they can buy a lot of junk they don’t really need…to live surrounded by people they don’t really know. Fellowship is so badly fragmented that very few have any other choice. Most are oblivious to the notion that things were once organized differently.

        A group republic based on group reciprocity – yes. Democracy meaning individual suffrage – no.

  41. The one group thus discussion truly pertains to are normal, hetero whites. We’re the one group who pretty much isn’t allowed to live as we please, say what we think and associate with whom we please w/o getting bashed over the head about it six ways from Sunday.

  42. Great column.

    The system is intended to encourage the people to get involved and participate in the political process.

    In other words, it encourages people to divide themselves into camps and fight each other…

    Until everyone participates fully, it is assumed something is excluding them.

    …and if you say “nah! I’d rather not do that”, there’s something wrong with you – you need to give them a power of attorney to take your money and give them to their friends.

    I’m very much in favor of paying poc to go home. Not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because the tax payers must be PUNISHED for voting for traitors or they learn nothing. Accountability runs both ways in a democracy: you must be held accountable for your actions in the ballot booth, even when your guy don’t win, because voting doesn’t only count when he does.

    Personally, I don’t vote. I’ve calculated that the influence it nets me, does not justify the calories frivolously spent on hauling my ass to the polling station. On election day, I phone in a bomb threat instead – much better value for money.

    • I’d say the system does not encourage people to divide themselves into camps at all. In fact, the system aggressively prevents that. Instead, it creates artificial camps into which people are herded in an effort to thwart organic camp building. Identity politics in a democracy is an artificial construct to achieve the destruction of free association.

      • Off topic, but if your new site format is still in development, I’d be very interested in seeing upvotes and downvotes separately tallied.

      • The idea is for society to look like a giant college campus. Profs will point out the vast, indeed bewildering, amount of “freedom,” as measured by all the different classes you can take, subjects you can major in, etc. That all the classes have the exact same underlying premise, and that you can get an A in all of them by filling in the Social Justice Mad Lib, is a feature not a bug. You can be as dedicated as you want to your major; you can make fun of all the other majors. The only thing you can’t do is drop out… or refuse to go in the first place.

      • People will always group themselves by ethnicity. Whether or not the various groups come to blows depends on the degree to which they are forced together.

      • Hence the massive effort of the left to talk about the XYZ “Community” and ignore actual, real organic Community.

      • The New Left encourages division into to camps–anti-white racists and proud whites. It then encourages the former to annihilate the latter.

    • I still vote although my DR friends tease me about it. I tell them that after Derbyshire became an atheist he still attended church for many years.

      For what it’s worth, I emailed all candidates in my state primaries about their position on accepting refugees. One wrote me back and said he wants lower numbers. Maybe he’s lying or will flip. I will still vote for him.

      • Yikes! I think it’s time to disable images until they format right. This one and the one below it are WAY outta wack off the right side of the page.

        You actually could post images before it just wasn’t an easy button click away and required a very basic level of skill. Anytime you have the image button it always concerns me the place is going to turn into 4chan/pol/ in short order. I hope I’m wrong.

        I did images before sparingly even though I knew how to get them to work. This is not a personal shot at OP or anyone else more of a general observation about the way things can go once the genie is out of the bottle.

        • I linked that image, wasn’t aware of a button. Anyway, masks seem to me to be a very pointless issue to focus on. Yeah sure, they look retarded and I don’t wear one if I don’t have to, but there’s much worse things to worry about than having to wear a mask for 10 mins when you have to go to the store or wherever. Whites becoming a minority in our own country bothers me far more than having to wear a face diaper occasionally. I guess that it shows what giant cowards most people are these days is worth noting.

          • Precisely. To go along to get along equals compliance with authority and obeisance to the crowd. The slippery slope is real, dammit.

          • I don’t disagree, I just am bothered far more by other things. Having to wear a mask would probably be near no. 567 on my list of things I find abhorrent about what America has become. Having to wear a mask occasionally for a few months does not greatly imperil the futures of my progeny. But living in a degenerate Wiemar style culture with a dismal demographic future definitely does.

          • Those of us with congestive heart failure can not breath with a mask on. So, there are many places I am not allowed to go.

            How does that fit into your ‘masks are no big deal’ philosophy?

          • Brother you can go in anywhere all you have to say is you have a disability that prevents you from wearing a mask…They are prevented from asking you anything else and if they do make sure you get it on video and you will own the store…

          • The mask makes me think of Dalrymple’s quote about communist society. Accepting the mask is an example of accepting the humiliation of the propaganda.

          • Everytime I have to hold my tongue so as to not violate some globohomo taboo is far more humiliating to me than wearing a mask. Knowing that tranny storytime exists and little white children are forced to go to schools where they are subjected to the animalistic behavior of africans is also more humiliating by several orders of magnitude than having to wear a mask.

          • That’s the point. You can’t, all by yourself, take on tranny story hour or fix all the schools. But you can defy Globohomo in one little way by happily going maskless, giving a little encouragement to others who might follow that example. It’s not world changing, in itself, but all those little unheralded acts of defiance, by all of us in our everyday lives, mean something. And that’s how movements start.

    • That’s precisely the example I thought of while reading Zman’s essay today. To merely call the present entity an oligarchy entirely misses this aspect of society. That’s the entire point of the essay – the assumption that citizen participation equals democracy eventually leads to inclusion, intrusion, and mandatory participation (with exclusion and mandatory penalties for those who favor any limits to anything). In Soviet Russia, voting was mandatory, as was youth group participation. Those who chose to opt out as they got older also effectively opted out of the best jobs or routes to a better life. Parallels to weimerica once again. Any future society must, therefore, avoid the entire pitfall of language or imagery evoking ‘democracy.’ But don’t tell the sheep just yet, because the hackles go up as soon as one raises the mere concepts of differing abilities and a natural social hierarchy.

  43. I don’t regard the USA as a democracy. It’s in actuality much more of an oligarchy. A democracy requires an active, informed and empowered polity. What we have is a apathetic, ignorant, powerless herd of sheep being fed propaganda through the real levers of power, media and academia. You vote for a wall, you get increased H1B’s. You vote for universal healthcare, you get a fake and gay bill that does almost nothing. The only people who get what they want from politicians in this country are the donor class, which consists primarily of jews. And since it consists primarily of jews, and since jews harbor a historical animosity towards whites, the white voters always get the shortest end of the stick. We don’t live in a real democracy, we live in an effective oligarchy headed by an alien clan that hates us.

    • All political systems are oligarchies. Some are hidden, others pretty much out in the open. Trump ripped the cover off the oligarchic disguise, so now we see it in operation. The Media Class was really exposed. At the top, this group possesses awesome power and wealth. They are the power behind much of today’s politics. Oligarchy, indeed.

      • Ep, what do you think of a society that taxes all wealth at 100% above a certain level? In spite of my libertarian inclinations, I think that allowing individuals to become massively wealthy is like allowing one individual to have nuclear weapons. A few billionaires can buy the entire Senate and House.

        Pick some dollar amount, say 100 million, ideally some multiple of what it costs to run a campaign for office. If you earn more than that, it is basically confiscated. If you feel oppressed by that, then we are probably better off without you.

        • What about multi-national corporations and funds? Foreign billionaires? Families, say, each member plus a trust for their dogs controlling 100m combining forces? Foreign governments? NGOs? Combinations of synagogues?

          We already have laws on the books against insider trading. US legislators recently (and routinely) traded on inside information and nothing will happen to them, not even a letter of reprimand.

          It’s a fact that unless you limit the amassment of wealth by every unit of organization in the US including individual billionaires that politicians will continue to be bought and sold by replacement entities. It’s a fact that unless you actually enforce these limitations instead of ignoring the laws for certain “elite” folks that nothing would change.

          Your proposal sounds great on paper but it surely leads to communism.

          • The demise of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth through the purchase of voting nobles by foreign interests is no longer taught, but this is exactly what happens with any system that involves power being given to folks via *voting*. Heck, you see it in local government too!

        • Ah, but by what means do most of these billionaires become so rich? Isn’t it because they use the law to benefit themselves at the expense of others?

          For example, Bill Gates got rich by using IP laws. The state was happy to grant to him the right to prevent other people from using his operating system code without paying him money. The claim is that the code was his property. But a string of dots and dashes cannot possibly be property.

          Property is a method of allocating scarce resources. If I’m the first to get the idea of a boat, and then use my own wood to build one and go sailing, the boat is my property. If you take it from me you are a thief. You have committed a crime, because having stolen my boat, I no longer have the boat. But if you copy my idea of a boat, and you take your own wood and build one for yourself, you haven’t stolen anything because I still have my boat. In other words, I still have my scarce resource.

          Likewise, Bill’s series of dots and dashes can be copied a nearly infinite number of times without Bill having lost anything. In order for Bill’s code to be stolen, the idea of that code would have to have been deleted from Bill’s brain.

          Eliminate IP laws and you drastically reduce the number of billionaires.

          • I think what you’ll find is that IP laws are useful. There’s a good argument that patents/copyrights, for *short terms* (5-10 years max) could be useful. The problem we have is not IP in general, but *perpetual* IP forever.

          • Trademarks should be perpetual so long as the associated business remains in business. This prevents public confusion as to source. Visit some countries and you’ll see knock-offs located next door to the original business and you’ll ask yourself which one is authentic and which one is fake and if it is fake then what else are they faking? Your food?

            Trade secrets should be perpetual so long as the secret information is of non-public origin and has legitimate economic value to the owner if kept secret. Not all business information is of a secret nature or can be maintained in secrecy, thus, this type of IP right is automatically self-limiting.

            Utility patents expire twenty years after their filing date, subject to modest adjustment for events like USPTO delays. The owner needs to pay laddered maintenance fees every 3.5 years during term or the patent lapses into the public domain. A twenty-year term is appropriate for most inventions because it enables the patent owner to recoup R&D investment and innovate subsequent inventions. However, patent reform is necessary because too many patents are held by parasitical patent trolls and asserted merely to collect extortion fees. We should borrow from the French and impose a working requirement so that any invention that is not being made, used and sold lapses into the public domain.

            Gebrauchsmuster-type patents should be implemented in the US for certain patentable-copyrightable subject matter such as computer software and gene sequences. These would be easier to obtain but persist only a very few years, say three, and be easier to attack in a low-cost proceeding. The owner of a gebrauchsmuster would only be entitled to injunctive relief, no money damages except in extraordinary cases (willfulness). Software and gene sequences should be removed from subject matter eligible for utility patent protection — neither formerly was held to be eligible in the US.

            Copyrights ought to persist for about fifteen years but I can see an argument made for ten depending on the recording medium. Industry lobbying for essentially perpetual copyrights and the consequent intimidation by cease & desist has improperly eliminated much competition long after the copyright owners have been appropriately compensated for their creative efforts. Copyrights were recognized to incentivize the creation of new works; instead, with perpetual copyright asserted by some industry, creation has been trampled under boot.

            My take as a practitioner and leader of patent reform.

          • Useful for whom? Seems to me that a shorter term only reduces the amount of wealth that the oligarchs can accumulate on the basis of a non-existent right to intellectual property. The point is that intellectual property does not exist. It’s a fiction. It is impossible to own an idea. Copying is not stealing. You can copy an idea from the originator of the idea, and the originator doesn’t loose his idea. He still has it. So it isn’t property. An idea is not a scarce resource, therefor it is not property.

          • IP rights predate the founding of this country. They are recognized by law in more than 100 separate countries and in all of the economically-successful ones. Businesses small and large invest many billions of dollars in developing and protecting IP. Universities and non-profit organizations safeguard their IP despite the absence of profit motive.

            So you’re terribly mistaken, perhaps obstinately so, but fortunately the mindset you express is dying out as Americans witness the wholesale theft of US IP by a hostile China.

            Copying without permission is no less theft than what China has been doing. If I borrow $1.00 by which I invest to develop something new, useful and nonobvious, and you acquire the invention and reverse engineer it for $0.01, then I cannot compete. I will be unable to recoup my R&D investment because I must absorb the $0.99 cost of development and you only spent $0.01. (The spread in margins is even greater with many new technologies.)

            Then I will go out of business since I cannot pay off the $1.00 loan and interest with you underselling me. Consequently, I cannot use profits to invest in developing a new or improved invention. Meanwhile you steal another business’ invention, copy it without the R&D investment, undercut the inventor in your sales, and drive him out of business.

            You are rewarded for being a mere predator, I am crushed although I could have developed even more advanced technology.

            Perhaps an imbecile or a return-to-Eden type would accept living in such a framework. Or a libertarian, but then I repeat myself.

          • Correct with right to first sale. It should be EITHER copyright or licensing.

            “Property” is a misnomer but convenient. The problem is economic – you will have more authors and/or inventors if you give a monopoly for a time then let it go public domain (before the devil mouse) than if not. That was to reduce NDAs and guilds and licensing. Those also create monopoly, but under worse terms.

          • Especially when not joining the guild meant you were visited by members of the Thug Local 231.

        • This question has been debated since the 6th century B.C. Since then many remedies have been proposed and implemented…none satisfactorily. I do not have a clue.

  44. You wrote, “A system advertised to offer maximum liberty turns out to be a system that offers no freedom.”

    And that’s why some people are libertarians.

    • True, as far as it goes: But libertarianism, properly understood, is merely a way station on the road to the Dissident Right. AmIright?

        • I dumped libertarianism for 3 reasons: (1) It is contrary to human nature (aka biology), which is why the LP has never won a statewide or national election; (2) Waaay too many libertarians are political idiots, prancing around barking about “freedom” while often doing real damage to the resistance; and (3) Libertarianism has always proclaimed that “anything goes in our movement,” thus attracting a large percentage of socially and politically maladroit morons, misfits, weirdos, pedos, homos, femos and other groups that can be described by words with an “o” at the end. Pilling into the DR—not “piling,” pilling—made it all come together for me.

          • You’re conflating libertarian with that abomination calling itself the Libertarian Party. Same mistake Mr. Z makes. Bill Weld is a libertarian? Really?

          • You show the internal contradiction. With no structure, there is no order, and although the market can organize a few things, it can only do so with an antecedent set of property and contract rights.

            Even more deliciously ironically just, the SJWs have converged the LP to turn it into something odious and bizarre – “If this is liberty, give me tyranny”, as the biological male enters the ladies’ room.

            Even worse, 3% are enough to change things, if they are willing to do what is necessary, but while they complain the Constitution is a “parchment barrier” – which it is, like your car’s owner’s manual, do you change the oil? – instead of a revolution they write 100k pages of scholarly articles and years of podcasts on how to privatize tyranny.

            (yes, privatize tyranny, see Molyneux FDR 3255 podcast only 50 minutes in where he expains it is not coercive if you don’t voluntarily buy insurance, but the arb/sec/insurance co.s lay seige to you, cut off your water and power, prevent you from leaving until you starve, and does so with a straight face – AnCap is more like the seige of the branch davidians at Waco).

      • Libertarianism is what you get when you unlearn “what just ain’t so”. Then discover that you can’t live in a pile of toxic rubble, you need to remove it and carefully build a cathederal on the site of the Aztec Pyramid of the heart (oh, cut it out!).

    • Libertarianism will never exist as a ruling majority. It was the basis of our founding. which involved an exceptional confluence of circumstances that has been subverted, and is unlikely to ever exist again. The problem with libertarianism is the old 80/20 rule. A small minority produce most of the innovations, and then are plundered by the lowest 51% that can pull together to vote themselves access to the resulting wealth creation without earning it.

      • That’s why Thomas Jefferson said that we needed a good revolution from time to time.

        • He did indeed. Which is why libertarians will fail to square the circle. You cannot subscribe to the NAP and also advocate watering the tree of liberty with sanguinary refreshment. That is the Libertarian paradox.

          • “That is the Libertarian paradox.”

            Is it?

            If a satrap, under the color of law, orders your business shuttered, forbidding you to ply your trade, while committing you to house arrest, I submit you would be operating well within the NAP if you were to provide the satrap’s lawn with some sanguinary refreshment.

          • There is no libertarian paradox. It’s not the NVP, it’s the NAP. Violence can be aggression or it can be in defense. NAP is “Non Aggression Principle”. So when Big Brother is stepping on your throat, it’s perfectly consistent with the NAP to shoot him in the crotch.

          • Who determines what Aggression is and who decides the punishment that fits the aggression…Is it left up to each individual to decide that…Take for example taxes is that not an aggressive action some would say it is and some would say that it’s our duty…That’s a problem I’ve always had with NAP because it doesn’t work without a set of rules which defeats what a libertarian wants…And to the people who invariably say that they don’t mind rules they just don’t want rulers I always say rules without enforcement by rulers aren’t rules they are just suggestions which are always not followed unless they benefit those who have power…

          • And the libertarians either don’t own a gun or would not shoot it at the statist raping them or their spouse or child.

            That is my 3% remark supra. If Libertarians shot statists in the act of statism we might have less of it. But it would require Libertarians to sacrifice.

            Freedom is NOT free. That is lost on libertarians. That is my “change the oil” commentary that they object about the constitution in the same way they would complain about their car failing because they didn’t bother to change the oil even once.

            They will quote Jefferson about watering the tree of liberty but are not willing to spill the blood of either the patriots or tyrants to do so.

          • If you subscribe the NAP, it requires you to wait until you are attacked before responding. But, by then, it is often too late.

          • Untrue. You do need a reasonable threat. If the bullet doesn’t fire you can still fire back. If they point a gun, or make a credible threat, you can defend yourself (or go public so if there is anyone who can actually shoot, have them note and provide defense).

        • The problem is we are more likely to have a bad revolution. They had one in France and how’d that turn out?

          Requiring that the President and SCOTUS members lack offspring and will be executed after their terms (very long for SCOTUS) would fix most of the problems.

      • I agree that libertarian instincts were present at the founding but social conservative, anti-libertarian feelings were just as strong. Many states had laws that were explicitly Christian, or at least theist.

        • There is no conflict between social conservatives and libertarians. When I went to the antiwar march in Washington DC in January 1991 I was thoroughly repulsed by the homosexuals who seemed to be everywhere, prancing around like fools. And the usual bolshevik trash made up the rest of the crowd, much to my dismay. The sign I carried, condemning the Warfare/Welfare state was not well received. So while I’m dead set against wars to make the world safe for the Emir of Kuwait, I won’t make the mistake of joining any marches with the “anti-war” crowd again.

    • it is a category error. The Subsidiarity scale – I am a total ancap on one world government, a sub-constitutional minarchist with regard to the Federal Government, a libertarian with regards to my state, a small government cooperative conservative for my county, total socialist for my family, and total totalitarian for myself as an individual.

      He who sins is a slave to sin. Do not try to build any structure with GummiBricks. Personal virtue is upstream of civic virtue, and the more of the former, the less government needed at the higher levels, and often it is mere convenience – I see no monopoly on violence. I have a gun. I will use it responsibly. The locals might need to insure it was really a burglar when I call 911. The (province/)state shouldn’t bother about it.

Comments are closed.