Montesquieu observed that different political systems have different internal motivations, an engine that drives the people in it. He used the term principle as the thing that gave the system energy. In aristocratic systems it was the desire for honor that drove people to act. In a republic it was virtue. Instead of serving a man who was the manifestation of the state, the republican man served the institutions. He respected the office, not necessarily the office holder.
The principle of liberal democracy appears to be morality. The language of this age is drenched in moral claims. The mantra of the age is diversity, inclusion and equity, which is shot through with sentiment. How much diversity is a good thing? There is no limit, of course, as diversity is a good in itself. Equity is a purely subjective term as it means distributing resources based on the needs of the recipients. The people who make that decision are those who are at the top of the moral hierarchy.
In addition to echoing and updating sentiments from the beginning of western racialism (liberté, égalité, fraternité), the point of these sorts of slogans is to communicate civic piety between the speaker and listener. Alone they are just echolalic babbling, but when spoken or written for an audience, the speaker feels virtuous, as she assumes the listener, upon hearing these code words, will see that the speaker is pious. These terms are about signaling and confirming piety.
The problem with this is morality needs authority. In a theocracy, like in Iran, this problem is solved with Islam. The mullahs are the defenders and chief promotors of their form of Islam, so they sit atop the moral hierarchy. They provide the limits on democracy and a scale against which to measure piety. Similarly, Puritanism provided the moral authority for the early settlers in what is now New England. They had democratic societies, bound by Scripture.
Liberal democracy does not have or tolerate a belief outside the fingertips of man, so it cannot rely on established religion for moral authority. Instead, it relies upon the marketplace to provide that authority. The will of the people is formalized in elections and the marketplace. This is why the most powerful people work to make sure their opinions seem to reflect popular will. Rigging an election or faking a public opinion poll makes perfect sense when placed in the framework of liberal democracy.
The god of the marketplace has always had one very serious flaw. If Herodotus is to be trusted, the Persians were the first to notice this. They saw the Greek marketplace as nothing more than brothers lying to brothers. The seller misrepresented his products in the hope of fooling the customer. The customer misrepresented his interest in the hope of bargaining down the price. The spirit of the agora was deception, which makes the god of the market a fickle liar.
We are seeing this playout with the Covid vaccine. A mass vaccination campaign requires public trust. After all, letting someone put something in your body that you do not understand is a leap of faith. In a high trust society where the people believe the rulers have their best interest in mind, this is not difficult. In a low trust society, the rulers must search for external sources of authority. In the case of Covid, they have paraded out hundreds of experts from medicine and science.
The problem is those experts are products of the marketplace. They work for pharmaceutical companies, the political system, research outfits supported by the Chinese communist party and so on. These experts are fully democratic men in that they are products of the marketplace. They represent the interests of whoever is paying their salary at the moment, not the interest of the people. We can no more trust them that we can trust the salesman at a used car lot.
Because we are now fully democratized people, we are conditioned to assume that everyone is a product of the marketplace. Their interest in the truth is meaningless as the truth is what the market says at the moment. They are either making the market or following the trends of the market. In the case of Covid, everyone looks at the experts and wonders whose interests they are representing. The moral authority of liberal democracy turns out to be a cynicism without limit.
Something Montesquieu never mentioned, but that is relevant to this age, is the relationship between the principle of the system and its durability. John Adams famously said in a letter to John Taylor, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself”. A republic, it seems, does not do much better. The one Adams helped found was quickly dashed to pieces by his descendants. Monarchy seems to be the most durable, having been with us since the start.
The reason for this is democracy has no room for religion, while republicanism tries to contain religion within the civic institutions. Aristocratic systems, even without religion, reflect the reality of the human condition. They begin with the assumption that there is always someone one charge. The question is how that is decided and blood turns out to be the most predictable. There is no debating lineage. It is far from perfect, but it seems to be the most stable of mankind’s political systems.
Of course, just about any political system can work in a high trust, competent society, which means a homogeneous society. Both of those qualities are inversely proportional to diversity. Liberal democracy, as we see, places diversity as its highest goal, which is why it eventually murders itself. It burns the social capital built up by the preceding system until that fuel is exhausted. It turns out that liberal democracy is the sign that a people are finished and are ready to shuffle off into the history books.
A new year brings new changes. The same is true for this site as we adjust to the reality of managerial authoritarianism. That means embracing crypto for when the inevitable happens and the traditional outlets are closed. Now more than ever it is important to support the voices that support you. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you prefer other ways of donating, look at the donate page. Thank you.
Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start. If you use this link you get 15% off of your purchase.
The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a ten percent discount to readers of this site. You just click on the this link and they take care of the rest. About a year ago they sent me some of their stuff. Up until that point, I had never heard of chaga, but I gave a try and it is very good. It is a tea, but it has a mild flavor. It’s autumn here in Lagos, so it is my daily beverage now.
Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at
sa***@mi*********************.com
.
“Almost any political system will work in a competent, high trust society.”
And perhaps the corollary to that is: “And no political system will work when competence and trust fall below a certain threshold.”
Diversity is like salt on your food: a little bit improves it; but it doesn’t take that much more to completely ruin it.
It was from the writings of C.S. Lewis that I first heard the rationale for how a monarchy could be legitimate: if the king and the rulers really are the best men in the society— not just the smartest and best educated and most capable, but also the wisest and most thoughtful and most compassionate; if the nobles really are noble, ruling for the good of the people, and not just to make themselves wealthy and powerful; if their rulers really are the kind of men the common people can look up to and admire— then you can see how it could be a workable system.
Lewis alluded to the possibility that that’s how it actually was in ancient times; and that the faint memory of those days— when the system was actually working— has come down to us through the centuries, and still informs the British people’s reverence for the royals, and the code of conduct which they (the royals) are supposed to adhere to: of doing service, and setting a good example for everyone else.
Which brings us full circle, back to the realization that no system can work when the competence and integrity of the people— both the rulers and the ruled— falls below a certain threshold.
Prince Harry bringing home a narcissistic, entitled, demanding and domineering octaroon bride, might serve as a microcosm of the running after a misbegotten diversity which may already have ruined Britain. It takes a certain quality of people, both on the top and the bottom, for a society to flourish. Fall below that level, and nothing you’re going to do can bring back whatever goodness you once had.
We in America have gone from a society which gave us rulers like Jefferson and Madison, to one which gives us the choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. It may well be that the daily-increasing woke anarcho-tyrannical madness we see all around us, is only the beginning of our fall from grace; into something that will make us yearn with all our hearts for how things used to be….
.
I’ve taken to asking normiecons:
is it possible that America became great despite democracy (or muh constitution) and not because of democracy?
Maybe humanities salvation lies in AI? Our human/animalistic nature prevents us from flourishing or living together peacefully for very long. A “government” guided by AI systems would advantage positive human attributes like ambition, curiosity, intelligence and compassion and remove negative ones like greed, dullness, and violence. Can humanity hang on long enough to try such an experiment before we exterminate ourselves?
The upside of a monarchy is that good man can reign for a long time and lay foundations for society that can last for a very long time (Theodoric, Alfred the Great, David, and Charlemagne being the preeminent examples of this). Couple this with a strong devotion to tradition, and you can have a pretty stable society because the scions of the visionary are expected to either build on their antecedent’s vision, or at least not ruin it. Democracy is geared towards finding novel solutions to problems that are best solved by waiting, so there’s often a tendency to veer from policy to policy without building anything of lasting value. The other upside of monarchy is that everyone knows where the buck stops, and who to kill if they’re upset about a policy.
Democracy, morality displays, and Covid: all three are gone global, so will next winter’s flu season be the death throes of all three?
I refer to a segment on Tucker: a doctor explained that those who have previously been infected should not get vaccinated, because- surprise surprise- many of the casualties after getting the mRNA shots are due to ADE, antibody dependent enhancement.
When exposed to the ‘wild’ virus, the body’s immune response overreacts, sometimes wildly, and for some, fatally.
Of course, this leak or hint on Fox was allowed in order to pre-stage next winter’s Great Pandemic Surge, which will necessitate a true Planet Lockdown.
Many won’t die, indeed most may not, but the vaccinated will be stricken.
So is this the new Disability economy?
Instead of making things- we gave that away, as Wild Geese said- will the Reset’s GDP depend on spending all that helicopter money on sickcare?
What will the moral pose be on this? People double down on their beliefs in crisis, so will we be hearing CNN platitudes like:
“We took one for the team”
“Sterile girls save the planet”
“Get sick to boost the economy?
The SARS vaccine was aborted in 2011 for that very reason. In animal studies it had great results but when they were re exposed to the virus they had 50% mortality rate.
“Liberal democracy, as we see, places diversity as its highest goal, which is why it eventually murders itself. It burns the social capital built up by the preceding system until that fuel is exhausted. It turns out that liberal democracy is the sign that a people are finished and are ready to shuffle off into the history”.
Is diversity something that ever got voted on by the public? This whole framing is BS..
I think the Christian religious roots of most liberal democracies have played a role in their ultimate failure.
Liberal democracies have developed perverse interpretations of Christianity, through the example of the Good Samaritan and Christ himself, that have led to the formation of suicidal impulses in liberal democratic societies and their historic peoples.
In America, it’s been a toxic brew of Puritan Christianity and atheism. The Christian scolds lost faith in Jesus , but held onto all their other religious beliefs, mores and habits. They came to elevate “science” or “the people” to godhood to replace Jesus.
I suspect that the progressive insanity in other democracies is a result of PURITAN-Yankee cultural imperialism. Especially since it’s not a feature in a lot of democracies.
Libertarian Bed Time
https://babylonbee.com/news/am-i-being-detained-shouts-libertarian-toddler-as-hes-carried-off-to-bed
“Audit the Fed, or I don’t go to bed!” 😂
I wonder what snack time looks like? Why can’t he just go into the Roberts’ house next door and exchange his apple slices for their Oreo’s!? Who the hell do his parents think they are restricting such behavior!
I think the Babylon Bee is a gate-keeping operation..
There’s a humorous list of “Construction Terms” floating around the internet. One of the terms is “Engineer’s Estimate,” defined as “The cost of construction in Heaven.” The idea of a high trust, moral society is pretty much the same thing.
All project managers are taught the 90:90 rule of construction estimating early on. The first 90% percent of the project costs 90% of the estimate, and the last 10% percent of the project costs the other 90% of the estimate. This principle has been shown to have greater certitude than the Laws of Physics.
Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » The Spring of Society
“Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves; sand to sand, peasant shoes to peasant shoes, from the stables to the stars and back again in three generations:” why should the ouroborian nature of life not be reflected in things political? The transformation of hyper-capitalist countries into dictatorships[ per Oswald Spengler’s schema] is just those old saws writ large. As a fictional character once intoned, “all it takes is Time, Time and pressure.” Our professed hyper-democratic masters worship at the altar of the global god of Economy; Herman-Hoppe has it right when he says that democracy is the God that failed.
When our Parthenon crumbles, one hopes that technology now used to subvert and repress, will be turned to reimagining the past, creating small, autonomous political arrangements, something hearkening back to the ancient or medieval organizations.
NB: Hope is a good thing….and no good thing ever truly dies
Many years ago I read a Sci-Fi story about a society where the leader had a device implanted in his skull upon assuming his office. The election process was ongoing with every enfranchised person having a computer interface where they could vote “yes” or “no” on the leader’s performance. They could change their votes at any time. If the “no” vote exceeded a certain threshold the device in his skull would detonate and a new leader selected (I don’t clearly recall how this was done as no one actually wanted to hold the office – I think it was by lot within a group that met certain minimum IQ and education standards).
Anyone else being sent to moderation for innocuous comments?
Yes. Heaven forbid that someone would post a thought that made racial references, spoke ill of the curent regime, or Jews 😀
That’s the thing, the comment that got moderated didn’t even have any of that. My suspicion is that it was because I used italic html tags. The moderation system seems to be on overdrive lately.
Can confirm that I have had many comments held up, and they did indeed have the ‘i’ and ‘strong’ HTML tags in them.
If that was the case Z would be in one of Xiden’s Googlelags about now.
Hope this doesn’t get held up in moderation purgatory. Upvote, kudos for ‘googlelags’.
It is far from perfect, but it seems to be the most stable of mankind’s political systems.
Every time I am tempted to get warm feelings about Monarchy, I think of Prince Hunter or Princess Ivanka.
Problem is those royal bloodlines go bad fast. You have the founder that is really sharp, his son and successor is okay but by the time you get to #3 the bloodline is shot and then you get civil war as new men make claims for the throne.
And don’t forget about the social and economic stratification that goes along with dictatorships. If you’re a farmer your grandchildren will be farmers.
The DR wont make many allies selling whites on the notion that a dictatorship will fix all their ills.
Yes the American trajectory is much better. Where if you’re a hard working farmer, your grand kids will be welfare bums and never have to work hard .
God was declared dead and his world was a mechanical system left to itself. Newtonian physics was fractured by Einsteinian Relativity which was then obliterated by Quantum Mechanics. We now inhabit a world of infinite universes (infinite “all there is’s”); a complex system with no clear rules, and no one at the helm. Now everything is relative. “Now” is nothing now because now it can be anything and thus now is everything…
Unlike physical structures, social systems are best built from the top down. Each level must cohere and flow from the level above it. Your metaphysical level must cohere with your market system, which must cohere with your monetary system, your labor system, your legal systems, etc. The levels and the whole are contingent.
If our current nation was mercantile or if our nation was an autarky, would our present moral code make any sense? Would we need to partake in mass human trafficking/ import foreign labor as if it was a commodity? Would we then need to peddle “equality” and “tolerance” to the plebeians and hold these as the highest virtue in our moral and legal systems? Could peoples and individuals be treated like interchangeable widgets, just the same thing measured against itself?
Your comments on Newton and Einstein deserve comment. i learnt the following in undergrad “philosophy of science”: Newton’s theory, is technically “wrong.” In the sense that it was amended by Einstein’s theories. (I won’t comment on Quantum Mechanics, but the same may apply.) But even four centuries after its invention, Newtonian mechanics is a model that’s good enough that it’s widely used to this day, including to calculate trajectories for interplanetary spacecraft and countless other mundane uses. That’s the point: is the model good enough? Einstein comes in handy when you start dealing with enormous distances, speeds, or times. This observation can be generalized. No model is perfect; all knowedge we have, at any given time, is by definition incomplete. The acid test is, “Does the model work?”
I don’t know how many universes exst, but I assert we will live our lives in the current one. We can (and do) imagine many alternative existences. To the extent these don’t mesh with our current reality, it creates much unhappiness.
“The acid test is, “Does the model work?”
This is why the flat-earth conspiracy is such a fascinating thought experiment for me. You can say what you want about Flat-Earthers, but they ARE trying like mad to create a workable model that can answer to and compete with current models.
I took a philosophy of science course too. All I remember from it is Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shifts (which includes a “case study” of the shift from a Newtonian to Einsteinian model), and the under-determination theory of the Duehm-Quine Thesis. I wrote my final paper on the latter (maybe just Quine), but I can’t remember what the hell it was about. It was my last final of the spring semester, my thesis was too difficult and I ran out of steam.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-science/Underdetermination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism
Reynard, some of your remarks warrant additional comment:
“Now everything is relative.”
Except that Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism is not relative in the way that casual use of the phrase implies. (More on this important turn in physics in a moment.) Nor is it true that “everything is relative” is relative. If it were so, it would count as false in some way, and anyone who would deny this falsity has abandoned the thesis. Being charitable, however, I’ll assume for a moment that you don’t believe it yourself.
“Einsteinian Relativity which was then obliterated by Quantum Mechanics”
Not true. Richard Feynman received his Nobel Prize in physics, jointly with Julian Schwinger and Shin’ichirō Tomonaga, for his work on Quantum Electrodynamics. QED is “the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics”. Paul A.M. Dirac did very important work in the area a little earlier, as did others, of course.
“We now inhabit a world….a complex system with no clear rules…”
Seriously? Did you write that with a straight face?? Maybe you are just paraphrasing what right-wingers imagine that secular science nerds believe. Anyhow, the big story of physics during the last 325 years has been the retreat of arbitrariness and the elucidation of rules according to which matter and energy interact. Going back a little farther, we find the rejection of Aristotelian notions about the relationship between force and velocity. Aristotle thought that velocity is proportional to force, but Galileo said no, acceleration is proportional to force and things in motion or not tend to stay in motion, or not, all by theirselves. In fact, I’ve read that Newton attributed his first law to Galileo.
“…and no one at the helm”
Suppose that there were a helmsman. We’ll call him God and let him be skipper, too. Now, how could his will be converted into action on the wheel or tiller without some rule(s) of existence to govern how willpower works? And how could the rule(s) of willpower be something declared by the Skipper? If there were no such rules, the Skipper would be powerless to declare them, and if they do exist, it’s not because of any choice made by the Skipper.
“Unlike physical structures, social systems are best built from the top down. ”
There is a germ of truth in this, for social systems require clearthinking master minds (which I find to be in very short suppy among any people who call theirselves right wing, DR, etc). Still, we need to qualify your authoritarianism by noting that all social systems are worldly systems of living beings subject to rules of existence governing space, time, energy, and matter. Since much of the interactions between living beings, including humans, are electromagnetic in nature, Maxwell’s rules of electromagnatism apply. For example, if a Secret Service agent punches a (((neocon))) on the nose, the interaction between fist and nose involves nose electrons resisting advancing fist electrons. If the Secret Service agent were to say to Joe Biden, “You and your VP are about to be arrested for war crimes, including premeditation of aggressive war and illicit conversion of public goods to your own use”, Joe will hear that because of electromagnetic interactions of molecules of air and the molecules of his inner ears, and because of electrochemical signals in his central nervous system.
Fyi, Einstein’s work on the electrodynamics of moving bodies a can be traced back to James Clerk Maxwell in electromagnetism (which I assume you believe in given the continued functioning of your computer). It was found that the speed of electromagnetic radiation must be the same for all observers whatever their relative motion. Galilean relativity fails at high speeds relative to the speed of EM propagation.
c: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Propagation_of_light
It was men such as Woldemar Voigt and Hendrik Lorentz who helped to set up Einstein for his imporant paper in 1905 about the electrodynamics of moving bodies by discovering equations for linear transformations from one reference frame to another. About ten years later, David Hilbert was the first discover the field equations for gravitation, though he had been in discussion with Einstein and conceded priority.
Is there any single argument presented within this word-vomit of a comment? This response is either the awkward workings of A.I. or the tone-deaf, lost in the minutiae, totally missed the point ramblings of a severe autist. You misread the tone of my comment, which was generalizing for the sake of my original systems based argument.
No I’m not getting into the minutiae with you, mainly because you seem to have trouble clearly expressing anything resembling an argument. You mainly just spat names, theories and horrid analogies (some of which seemed to be grasping at humor?)
Do you seriously expect me to respond to any of this? I mean honestly am I missing your attempt at humor here? And answer me truthfully baby, do you suffer autism and/or did you just shove 5 adderalls up your own anus?
Monarchy corrodes and decays like any other form of government. Louis the 16th was wholly incapable of the office he held, but that’s because he had “16th” next to his name. This happens in business as well. The Getty family, the Hearst family, the Ford family, etc. The empire builder contains the genes and the discipline to create, while the last in his like is usually a fag…literally a fag, who is still rich enough to buy a child (see Anderson Cooper). The problem is not just with our democracy, but creepy. detached old money, squandering it away, as they do, without building anything while using the law and tax code to trounce any new competition. And the Federal Reserve keeps them from being flushed out by propping up this entire market, at first a little, and now an entire complex backstop. So all of society becomes old money falling for hucksters and con artists (see Elon Musk).
This is undoubtedly true but it brings to mind something Milton Friedman brought up, which is that truly capable men strive for success in order to secure the world for their progeny. He brought this up in the libertarian sense, arguing against punitive estate taxes because without the ability to leave material wealth to one’s offspring the creative incentive is null, but the point also holds true when it comes to matters of culture, law, and civilization. We want to leave a better world than the one we inherited.
I don’t know where the middle ground lies. I don’t think there’s any doubt that biologically we’re (whites, at least) evolved to prioritize the next generation. Knee capping someone because their parents or grandparents had their act together doesn’t seem compatible with our culture.
Regression to the mean (in genetics) is a real bitch. Royal or noble lineages, or their modern equivalent, the super-rich, rarely last more than a few generations. You could breed the two most brilliant partners in the world and their children, while likely to be a bit brighter than their race’s mean, will still cluster around that average. You think it’s bad for the white elite? Just pity (a little bit at least) when two Afro-American successes breed. Indifferent gambler that is genetics is more likely to gift them with a set of dumb offspring. Even two generations of super success is rare (e.g. the Gettys). More typcial is the scions end up in comfortable pretend prestige jobs, or at the least, they have cushy trust funds. Exceptions to this rule are extremely rare.
Royal lines typically persist far longer than a few generations. In Russia’s case, the Riurikids lasted over seven centuries and the Romanovs approximately three centuries before the Bolsheviks exterminated them. I know less about England and France, but I gather their royal houses also lasted for centuries rather than generations.
“It turns out that liberal democracy is the sign that a people are finished and are ready to shuffle off into the history book”.
Man oh man did Fukuyama ever get it wrong.
Francis Fuckayupa
When you wake up in the morning (today) and find a classic case of insider trading involving the husband of the Speaker of the House buying calls in Microsoft before a government contract is announced, what does that tell you about “the law” in a liberal democracy? The law, as it stands today, is merely a weapon that those with power wield against their foes. All government is oligarchy in some form, even kingdoms. The only difference is the abuse that the people tolerate, culturally and otherwise, and the price at which they can be bought.
The Venetian Republic lasted quite a long time. One reason is that the franchise was kept narrow. At no time did the losers of society get a voice in government, but another important reason was that the Doges couldn’t accept so much as a potted plant from foreigners in any way. They were well compensated for sure, but the Venetians knew that leaders and their Hunted Biden sons could be bought, and cheaply, without stiff laws.
How cheaply they are bought is amazing. A few million dollars from the CCP or Israel, and the foreign policy of 330 million people turns on a dime.
I forgot to mention that the Venetians taxed the Jews. They considered them a separate nation within their state, and the taxes were the price of their lack of loyalty to the system. Now that’s pragmatism.
Native americans sold their land for glass beads and fire water. Western white leaders sold their civilization for a few million in paper money, and some mediocre yellow p*say.
Tech stocks are the new wampum.
Why you no wan’ make Bang Bang with Fang Fang?
Never let a woman named “Fang Fang” go down on you.
Not to mention the rack in the Doge’s Palace in which “dissidents” (and Casonova) would be strung up till they “saw the light.” Take the Secreti Itinerati to see the torture chamber next time you’re on San Marco.
Exactly. Authortarians like the z-man or ramzpaul (who ironically complains about losing his freedoms all the time while claiming that the true right-wing isn’t about freedom anyway), want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A lot of their complaints about ‘liberal democracy’ (whatever they even mean exactly, by that term), could be solved with strict voting requirements.
I’ll take a system similar to what this country started out with-updated to reflect modern technological advancements and again-with strict voting requirements, over any other system any day.
I’d be happy to debate anyone, anytime on the issue.
Personally I am not an authoritarian far-right person, although I agree with them on many important issues. I’ll go as far as to say that at this point it’s too late for anything other than a far-right reactionary regime-for now and the forseeable future. But sometime in the future if a-let’s call it a ‘Patriotic State of Natives of the Original America’ of forms I will be the enemy of the authoritarians I align with now.
I am a freedom-lover, as much as is practical. I am not interested in living in an authoritarian state with it’s forced religious beliefs and force arbritrary morals based on the whims of the ruling regime with no recourse.
That’s a hill worth dying on for me.
Democracy with a stringently circumscribed franchise looks like the best thing going to me. And I favor voting qualifications that would disenfranchise the riff-raff, meaning the vast majority of AWRs.
Yes.
Philosopher King.
Term Limits.
Income Limits.
Circumscribed enfanchise.
You got it Pilgrim.
Phoenix: The voting limits come later. First one needs to start with a homogeneous people. If we presume a future White ethnostate, we are going to have to assume a certain % of normies and even of hidden leftists who will have survived whatever conflict occurs before said ethnostate can be established. And even those of us on the dissident right have experienced enough of today’s depravity that we each have some areas of weakness to the culture we were raised in.
There absolutely must be a quarantine period, with strict government controls on all media and entertainment. You don’t get back to a ‘virtuous people’ merely by wishcasting. Women must be forbidden the poison of social media, and teens forbidden exposure to all sorts of online filth and depravity, both sexual and cultural.
Consider it as something similar to the fabled 40 years in the desert that the old testament mentions. The generation accustomed to any degree of feminism or multiculturalism will have to die off, and a new one be raised as proud and disciplined Whites, before any consideration needs to be given to voting rights.
After we have our own nation, stable families, solid education, and a virtuous culture, then we can discuss and disagree about all the other details, but your emphasis on personal freedom as a first thing seems to me misplaced, at best, and too close to ‘Enlightenment’ fancies for my comfort.
Dude, re-read this, we are 100% in agreement here.
“Personally I am not an authoritarian far-right person, although I agree with them on many important issues. I’ll go as far as to say that at this point it’s too late for Anything Other than a far-right reactionary regime-for now and the forseeable future. But sometime in the future if a-let’s call it a ‘Patriotic State of Natives of the Original America’ of forms I will be the enemy of the authoritarians I align with now”.
How do you not get where I’m coming from here?
You have a problem with understanding nuance..
Phoenix – My apologies. I got hung up on your first paragraph and only skimmed the rest of the comment.
Yep at one time our Republic could have been saved by reformed voting laws and restricting it to property owners and keeping anyone who is a ward of the state or works for the government from voting.
As a native Californian I got to watch how the teachers, police and prison guards unions along with others were able to flip CA from Red to Blue. by literally using their money and clout.
That said, promoting dictatorships as a solution is no solution at all given how rare a Pinochet is. We are more likely to end up with a Nagan or Chevez.
What role did unions play in flipping CA blue vs ‘others’-like massive 3rd world immigration.
Democracy is a crappy system at anything beyond the level of a village.
Among the reasons are that:
Elections are just popularity contests. It’d be nice if the popularity was driven by real ability. But that’s just a fantasy.
An unsolvable agent-principle problem exists between the voters and those they elect. There’s no higher sovereign power to enforce fiduciary responsibilities on the elected.
Elections are highly constricted choices. In no other area of life would you tolerate having to choose between two options and then having to live with the results for two or four or six years.
The people that go into politics are seriously flawed in specific ways. Either they’re doing it for the graft, or they are power trippers with an axe to grind. In both cases they also crave adulation and attention. Such people do not make good loyal friends, partners or neighbors. But they become our rulers.
Liberal democracy may always lead to morality as the highest virtue, but what is moral and what is immoral depends upon the specifics of the people of the liberal democracy. After all, would it be so bad if our society held up actual morality as its highest goal? Our society is forever pushing anti-morality as morality. They have hijacked our desire to be decent people by hijacking and redefining what is moral and what is immoral. Not supporting pedos is now immoral. If you’re white, supporting your own people is immoral.
The problem is not that liberal democracy selects for virtue through morality, it’s that the people at the top have redefined morality and made the wicked moral and the good immoral.
Even as one who often argues that systems of morality are arbitrary, I have to agree. Even my current phiosophical idol, who spent his life attacking religion and morality, said essentially, “I would be a fool to deny that moral actions are what generally results in good ends, and immorality is what generally results in bad ends.” Our nation’s problem can be viewed as the loss of, or the lack of, a dominant, prevailing morality generally agreed-upon.
So the current moral code was subverted. What about it? It will be subverted again tomorrow. We can have “the right” people in place for a while, but things will change, because they must change in this system.
Liberal (“free market”) democracy *requires* a fluid, inconsistent “moral” system. There is no monolithic morality now either in our market system or in culture. There is only the “flow” of the market, and thus the “flow” of ethical trends, the shifting of moral codes. This IS the moral system of liberal democracy (fluid, relative, ephemeral).
So if there is no standard which governs a single market or moral system, then how do you determine what is and is not moral at any time? A completely free market liberal democracy has no coherent standard, no respected hierarchy. Again, its all about the “free flow” of goods and systems. Like the Persians noted “brothers lying to brothers” is the name of the game. There is no “honor”, and thus no consistency, no loyalty, no individual accountability. Everyone is out for their own self-benefit.
“Ethics” is merely the whims of whatever benefits the market (and the market is often influenced by those who most benefit from the current market).
Relativity, deception, post hoc rationalizations are not just axiomatic to the system, but baked into our daily interactions on the plebian level. No one is held accountable for this. Again, if there is no honor, no hierarchy, there can be no standard, no moral system.
I’m just not so sure Liberal Democracy is the most beneficial moral system, either to myself as an individual, my people, my own society, or nation. It may be the most beneficial to a global system and those who most profit from it, however–it being so malleable, and movable, like the people who profit from it most.
Honestly, this is so full of strawmen and other types of distorted thinking that I wouldn’t know where to begin to respond.
I will say though that the idea of throwing out democracy (whatever people even mean exactly by the term), because it is flawed-or even failing at the current time is illogical because Every system is flawed and has failed.
It would be one thing if the system in this country was so obviously flawed from the start that it failed quickly for obvious reasons. But it didn’t did it. I absolutely believe this was the greatest nation ever built-in the overall sense. And it still is relatively speaking, because the rest of the world is falling too..
So the idea of throwing this system out and going backwards into some monarchy just because it’s not working at the current time is like take a long-time reliable vehicle to the junk yard because it is having mechanical problems-and then getting an older vehicle with a less reliable history.
Makes zero sense.
Some people just have an authoritarian personality and they just simply think they would feel more comfortable in an authoritarian system. I don’t think they would like it as much as they think they would but that’s another rant. Point is some people simply Want an authoritarian system just for the sake of it but they don’t like admitting it.
Phoenix: Even if I agreed with you that old America was ‘the greatest nation ever built’ (I don’t), it was established with a homogeneous and morally virtuous people. Even your sainted founders recognized this as an absolute requirement for any sort of representative government. We don’t have that sort of people any longer and we cannot get that sort of people with unrestricted freedom.
3g4me
Well you are entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong..
The rest of your statement is a combination of building staw-men and stating the obvious, to the point of being insulting. I mean really? You honsetly don’t think I am well aware of those things?
This country as a whole is gone it’s dead. The original American nation is gone and No system will save it-as a whole.
The only question now is how to establish something new out of components of the wreckage. I thought this whole discussion was taking place on this understanding?
“So the idea of throwing this system out and going backwards into some monarchy just because it’s not working at the current time is like take a long-time reliable vehicle to the junk yard because it is having mechanical problems-and then getting an older vehicle with a less reliable history.
Makes zero sense.”
Wait who is attacking strawmen right now? This is just a false analogy. It is possible to get brand new car of an old design that is more durable, better engineered, more easily accessible than anything currently provided. I can also build one up from scratch. Or create a new car alltogether.
That’s beside the point, I never said we need to completely abandon every aspect of our modern system and completely adopt an older system. My comments today have been musings about the the structure of ideological systems. I’m comparing and contrasting them to eachother making the point that they must be internally consistent.
A few commentors seemed to have pegged me for an “evil authoritarian” and thus combat me from that presupposition.
Also, with all this talk of “authoritarian personalities” would I be wrong in my assumption that you have read Adorno’s “The Authoritarian Personality”?
I don’t do strawmen. I was making a generalized statement to people who want to through the whole system out. And a monarchy is a step back.
Phoenix, I’ve responded several times, but my comments seem to be getting lost in moderation. I also don’t get notified for comments anymore (my Disqus account doesn’t seem to work), and I couldn’t be arsed to go back into old threads to check up on late responses (I start early and comment in the morning, I’m usually done checking the site by 2 or 3pm).
I think you actually strawmanned me and made some false assumptions and presuppositional arguments. I’d like to clarify, but I’m tired and this will probably be lost in moderation. So be it.
Feel free to @ me in future threads, I’m sure we agree on most things.
This isn’t nessesarily directed at you but there are more butt-hurt people on this blog than on any other place I frequent on the interwebs. It’s something I’ve noticed for quite sometime.
Too many people do not understand nuance either..
I will say though that the idea of throwing out democracy (whatever people even mean exactly by the term), because it is flawed-or even failing at the current time is illogical because Every system is flawed and has failed
One way to look at government, any form of government, is that it’s a system of management for a state. Lots of different management systems can work, especially initially. But over time people figure out how to game the rules of every system for their own benefit. There’s also a tendency for any human organization to grow in size and complexity over time. The net effect of those factors is that every system will become less effective over time and also become more difficult to reform. To the point that it’s purpose become the opposite of what was originally intended, and perhaps achieved. Systems get to a point where they need to be discarded and replaced.
IMO American style democracy reached that point a generation ago. It was readily apparent, at least to me, at the time. But becomes ever clearer with each passing year as the insanity escalates.
Yes the system has been corrupted and isn’t working. But EVERY SYSTEM EVER MADE has done the same thing-by your own admission.
Ok so every system has failed because of human nature.
So now what?
You propose ditching the American style system (which was very successful for a long time).
What system do you want to replace it with and exactly how is that system going to be better?
My idea (at some point in the future NOT ANYTIME SOON because at this point some kind of right-wing reactionary movement appears to be the only choice) would be to look at the original system this country started with, ascertain what went wrong and why.
In my opinion, the system this country started with has the most potential as a basic platform.
I think it needs to be pointed out that people (as in people in general, no one in particular) need to do some self examination to see where they stand in regards to freedom vs authoritarianism. Because how one stands on that question will go a long way to explaining their preference for whatever system they advocate for. Let’s be honest with ourselves.
Personally I lean towards freedom so that is a bias that is obviously going to affect my preference in regards to what systems I support/oppose.
That’s the principle of totalitarianism — the attempt to invest the State with moral authority, because it’s the State. (I’m told Hegel wrote a zillion words on this, but who knows? Hegel is word salad). That’s why totalitarian societies always end up with secret police. The Gestapo, the NKVD, they weren’t out there hunting down foreign enemies; there were other bureaucracies for that. The secret police are the citizens’ guarantee that shopkeepers etc. are following the true principles of National Socialism, Communism, whatever. Which made them basically the morals police — for every “wrecker” or “saboteur” the secret police uncovered, they found ten “antisocials” or “work shy” (the Gestapo terms d’art).
This being “America,” we’ve decided to crowdsource the secret police. And that, too, has worked — it took the Soviets two or three generations before everyone degenerated into a shameless curmudgeon who lies about everything, to everyone, as natural as breathing, but we managed to do it in a decade or so.
Totalitarian systems only end when enough people realize that it’s only power — raw, naked power — and inertia holding society together. Then they realize that no matter how powerful the powerful are, there just aren’t that many of them…
Severian: “Totalitarian systems only end when enough people realize that it’s only power — raw, naked power — and inertia holding society together. Then they realize that no matter how powerful the powerful are, there just aren’t that many of them…”
I don’t think it’s quite that simple. The people of Hungary certainly tried to uproot their powerful (((communist))) leaders in 1956, but were beaten back with military power. The people of Myanmar have recently protested the military takeover (and I side with the military against Aung San Kyi) but that military proved more than willing to shoot the people.
Counter examples – the reunification of Germany. People had been fleeing since the country divided after WWII, and the East Germans proved willing to shoot quite a few – a history of those murdered trying to cross the wall in Berlin is sobering. For various reasons, in 1989 the powerful decided not to use that power – whether they felt the army would no longer do their bidding, or they were just tired, is open to interpretation. Same thing in the former Soviet Union, although there you didn’t have masses of people demanding government change.
I’ve often fantasized about how one could effect substantial change in America with the carefully determined elimination of a certain number of people – would 5,000 be sufficient, or perhaps 50,000? There’s an enjoyable fiction series that discusses Americans individually deciding to target all employees/enforcers of the regime, and winning (Thomas Watson, “The Bonner Incident” 2 book series). If I could come back as a world-class sniper, I might be of some utility. But for now, at least, it appears those who have the training and ability to remove some of the powerful are still inclined to follow orders, so this all remains the realm of “what if?”.
3G,
I, too, wonder what comes next.
It was a mistake for the cabal to take out Trump. They actually had him under control. We are now set up for something different to kick in. I don’t know what.
When you take away the soap box, the jury box, the ballot box, and, soon, the cartridge box — what develops?
Latin America has a long history of clandestine squads ‘dissappearing’ unwanted regime members & troublemakers.
When everything else is taken away, is that the natural outcome?
We live in interesting times, for sure
Undoubtedly. Trump would have become little more than the Prodigal Son of the ruling class had they simply opened their arms to him. I suppose these mistakes happen when you forsake owner’s manual of your culture.
What happened to the Fabian Socialist model of slowly chipping away at the foundation of society? It seems that it has worked quite well for over a century. TPTB only needed to lay low for a while and let the Trump populist movement burn itself out. Instead, they decided to set the World on fire.
Yea it seems at this point, some kind of watered down Turner Diaries scenario of some sort could materialize..
Actually, this problem has been, and continues to be, studied in detail using computer-based simulation models. They’ve existed since the early 80s, but started get quite sophisticated in the 90s, and made huge leaps in validation testing during the 00s. Current variants are outputing predictions at both the micro and macro scale that have shown to be both prescient and disturbingly accurate (is macro human nature really that predicable?). But to answer your question directty, the number is quite small. When even a few of the invincibles fall in series, what most often follows is an surprising exodus and a gaping void. In times past, a new strongman typically stepped into this void, which is almost always problematic. And the models deduce an optimum solution to this problem as well.
TomA
Very interesting. Does it appear that TBTB are reacting to the predictions of the simulations?
Almost all the major intelligence services are all using them for threat assessment and contingency planning. Google also has an entire department doing this for “business development purposes,” but that’s a canard used to hide its covert predatory agenda. And of course, a lot of the nuts & bolts actually is being done at dozens of Universities in the US and Europe, plus Russia, China, & India have a lot of R&D funding their programs too. If we had a real news media, more of this would be known to the public.
We could start with 535 – many of the rest would finally see the light and get with the program. If not, as I said 535 to start…
“Totalitarian systems only end when enough people realize that it’s only power — raw, naked power — and inertia holding society together. Then they realize that no matter how powerful the powerful are, there just aren’t that many of them…”
Sometimes guys named Patton and Zhukov help.
The Christian God, the god of creation, of nature.
Satan, the father of lies, the god of this world, who tempted Eve with the knowledge of good and evil.
Eve, who tricked Adam. Both became ashamed of their nakedness— were civilized.
We civilized people, born of sin, condemned to joy and suffering in this world.
Satan rebelled against God’s authority. Satan, the great democrat?
Yes, we are witnessing “the fall of man” currently.
Eve was tempted with this lie: “Eat of the fruit and ye shall be as gods.”
Today women and minorities are tempted via feminism and neo-marxist ideology: “Accept our system, and ye shall all be equal!”
Both of these temptations are lies. They promise utopia, a breaking of limitations, and a rejection of our own human nature. We will never be equal. Grasping for that apple will only bring us to damnation because it is unreachable. It is illusory. All evil today springs from this temptation, this absolute lie of “Equality.”
“We chew the apple, yet still are unequal! We were promised equality! We were lied to, we are being cheated! We must attack and destroy those who keep us from equality!”
Of course instead of attacking the tempter, they attack those who “make” them unequal, those who are “higher up” or “better” or “more privileged” for this or that reason.
True story!
(Adding this so my comment isn’t too short to post 🙂 )
PS I’m not anti-civilization. It’s inevitable so what would be the point? We’re sinners living in a fallen world, and that’s the human condition. Still, I think it’s important to be realistic about what the thing is.
PPS Democracy seems the most civilized form of government. There’s no prince in whom the law is embodied, or a god from whom authority devolves. Rather, an ethic which is beaten into us one way or another, so that we enforce it on ourselves until we go mad.
Absolutely. Good point, even god sis not above us, or Satan below, we each have a share
Yep. Created in God’s image but born of sin.
I agree a monarchy is the best form of human government.
But I pause when I think of King Henry the II in England or Louis XVI in France or Charles II in England.
No form of government protects us completely from dip shits.
I like the idea of a form of Christianity that eliminates the universalism which accepts the mixing of nations on earth as a God given goal of the Christian faith.
It was not.
Combine some form of non lunatic Christianity with a homogeneous people and it’s probably the best we might get on earth in my view.
Christ runs a monarch with a decent caring King in charge that cares for His people and we do not have to worry about corrupt descendants
Too bad it’s not on this side of the material world
Assuming one is a believer
It’s a bit rich for a people that have Biden as president (who succeeded Trump) to be criticizing Louis XVI. There’s no dipshit-proof system, as should be obvious to any student of political history. However, there’s vastly more stability and social trust in a monarchy than democracy. Better still, there are no political ads running ad nauseum every four years.
What if Biden was the monarch?
Louis the XVI was infinitely preferable to Robespierre.
People extolling democracy and criticizing monarchy somehow never link the two.
I’ll take one dipshit over 535. As C.S. Lewis said: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
That CS Lewis quote just never gets old, or stale.
And this is women. When women got a share, a franchise and were, wrongly, seen as equal to man in authority, then we get a feminizes world of busy bodies
And that could be corrected with extensive, knowledge based voting requirements. No need to give unltimate control over to one person who can kill you on a whim..
And one dipshit is theoretically easier to get rid of than 535.
You can have the one dipshit and if he gets pissy one day and orders you snuffed out then that’s it.
With a group in control, maybe there’s a chance that a level head somewhere can keep people from being killed or destroyed on a whim of one man..
To be fair to the monarchy idea.
Monarchists in history usually ruled with nobles or some type of ruling council also being delegated power.
Some kind of limited monarch such as we had after the Magna Carta might be the best idea. I royalty with some power and balls but still needing to parlay vs a royalty sucking balls and no power as we have today with Harry and Megan in the house of Windsor.
There has never been a political system devised that is immune from takeover by evil people. Not a one. Some last longer than others, but all eventually are usurped by that fraction of humanity that is purely evil. It’s irresistible to them.
This also leads eventually to the evil ones heads on pikes, and a general reset. How long this takes to happen also is highly variable: it can be in the span of one particular tyrant, or take generations. Where we are on the wheel here in America is unclear, though given American penchant for doing everything fast I predict a speedy demise in the near future.
I recommend For Good And Evil by Charles Adams. He does a nice job describing the pattern, and linking it to oppressive taxation.
No relation I assume to cartoonist of same name who created the Adams family?
So a Republic, similar the theoretical Libertardian Utopia, can only exist in a population of 120 IQ white guys but with enough 160 IQ white guys to run things.
I’m sold.
You’ve probably never met anyone with a 160 IQ. The few that exist are rarely running anything.
That’s certainly not what it takes to run a republic.
Bbbb…bbbbbuuuut…. VoxDay has a website so we’ve ‘met him’ if only virtually and his 160 IQ runs circles around us, you mid-wit gamma… 🙂
Perfect 160’s will be no more. Not in the USA. However, the fat tail will exist elsewhere, and our progeny will lose out to them.
I’ve been watching the Ted Kaczynski documentary series on Netflix. The man has a 167 IQ, and isn’t fit to run a July 4th barbecue.
As a Christian I note that God does not value the mind of man as much as He does his will. Some have amazing IQs and most are, by definition, average. But even the lowliest of men can exercise a will in submission to God, and will someday be called “good and faithful servants.”
That being said, my vintage 1983 SAT score only indicates a 115 IQ. Nothing to write home about, and it only gets me the dreaded “midwit” label from Pox Day. But I am certainly thankful for the 115; life in this world is even more difficult for stupid men.
Sorry; my last sentence looks a bit snarky to me. I guess I’m just smart enough to know how stupid I can be.
Yes, this iq thing is silly, ultimately.
There is more human worth/ability than IQ—simple intelligence, or “g”. There are inherited emotional/social/behavioral proclivities, which are perhaps equally important. Certainly we’ve heard of any number of serial killers said to be highly intelligent—but I would not want to be ruled over by one of these “gifted” folk.
Wisdom, defined Biblically, is never a function of IQ. Only obedience and humility. Gives me hope!
To obey is better than sacrifice
Kaczynski was right – try reading his manifesto.
Name one libertarian country that’s been as successful as this republic. Name one libertarian country period, for that matter…
Also, not everyone in society needs to have a high IQ as long as the ones Voting do.
Just keep anyone who gets government assistance from voting and those who are employed by local, state and federal government and we’d be doing pretty good.
And take away corporate personhood. That has been a disaster from day one. Plus vigorously enforce anti-trust laws. One of the things in our society that really messed us up was allowing corporations to grow to unlimited size via mergers. This is how we got Musk being better at launching rockets than the big two in aerospace who can’t even produce a safe airliner or put a rocket into orbit.
Exactly, basic common sense things like you suggest would make a massive difference. They would change the entire game.
I’m still rooting for another try at a republic, A true ‘great reset’ built on a sustainable territory carved out and populated with enough demographic homogeneity to be stable and successful. I don’t have a lot of ideas on how to make that happen aside from deliberately picking a region and moving ‘enough’ of us there to take over the local then county then state political infrastructure (much as the Mormons have in Utah, parts of Idaho and Nevada.) I did come up with a name though which I humbly submit for consideration, The Republic Svyatolia. Anticipating an objection on grounds of not allowing yourself to be defined in terms of your opposition to an enemy I acknowledge that is excellent advice but I point out that such a name would be intended to inspire and serve as a permanent call to vigilance which will be needed. It will be the job of the leaders of the new republic to cultivate institutions that inculcate values and practices that provide a foundation of meaning in the citizens lives.
Just send blacks, browns, and ((())) on their merry way and I’d willing to try pretty much any political system
That the key. It’s all about who the people of the nation are. Icelandics and Norwegians can get away with crappy Democratic Socialist systems because they are homogenous and conscientious enough to play by the rules.
Pretty much any system can work as long as it is executed fairly and consensually with the population.
I like the starship trooper “modified” republic model. It has a limited franchise. A division between citizens and residents. Residents get all the privileges of citizen except the right to vote. To become citizen one must serve four years military service.
A guy on Gab is always on about how “democracy” is big on rights, but not responsibilities/duties. It does make sense in the fact that only those with a vested interest in society should have a say in how it’s run, but keeping the voting franchise limited is a discipline no one has quite nailed down.
(As an FYI most plans I’ve seen pitched, such as with your own, would eliminate my right to vote, but it’s all good because my vote doesn’t count for anything now anyway).
The criteria for full citizenship could be different. A hard citizenship test proving the ability to read and write at the 7th grade level. Point is anything would be better than what we have.
Sorry, Sid. Requiring an ability to read before getting the franchise is rayciss (aka: the worst thing ever).
Despite that, totalitarian regimes all have very high literacy rates.
Make it 10th grade reading and writing and show that you can balance your home budget. This would exclude 95% of Blacks and Hispanics.
Yes, and all the earnest try-hard white guys (and gals) get eaten by giant bugs on some God-forsaken planet out there. Meanwhile, the (((residents))) seemed to be getting on real well.
But I’ll admit it was a fun film, and very thought provoking.
Personally I’d would vote no on the military service requirement simply on the grounds that I would want to have independent minding people on the voting rolls and the military service requirement might keep them off. Unless the military could accomidate those types without trying to turn them into robots-which would keep them from signing up in the first place..
Phoenix: The military has its place in society, although in a White ethnostate it would be purely defensive (protecting said state’s borders and repelling invaders), but it does not automatically select for the less independent. And what will you when your ‘independent minded’ voters decide to expand the franchise, or that fairness demands that nice, hard-working ‘x’ family be allowed to join? How will you respond when those independents decide to retry all the failed ideas of the past, because every teenager ever born will just know that they’re smarter than all their ancestors were? You envision a lolbertarian paradise larping as a republic, and it’s sheer lunacy.
Right back at you, what do you do when you run off all of the independent thinkers and are left with a herd of sheep that follow whatever cockamany schemes TPTB dream up?
And I am talking about independent thinkers here and you are equating that with leftism-which is assinine on it’s face.
An independent is someone who doesn’t blindly follow idologies at all-you know because they are Independent.
Your last sentence shows a couple things.
1st, my highly evolved nuanced (but seemingly obvious to me) political views are above your level of understanding.
2nd, you have a serious problem with black and white thinking. You actually believe that because I’m not a far right authoritarian, I must be a libertarian. That’s just embarrassing on your part. I mean honestly..
I believe that libertarianism is probably the stupidest ‘ism’ that gets discussed in polite company.
How you could be that far off shows just how out of your depth you are here..
Hot damn!
“Protecting states borders and repelling invaders”.
Careful there, you may be on to something.
Imagine if our military was used in that way!
A boy can dream….
The high point of irony during my workday is the repeated mantra that since we are a democracy, all decisions and policy stances have the veneer of legitimacy. I believe it was Scalia who commented that the Supreme Court is basically our modern version of ancient counsels of elders.
This distorted logic is applied to troop numbers in Germany, provocations in the Black Sea, or the amount of foreign aid spent. Constitutional concerns are cast aside in favor of whatever current direction political winds are blowing.
Is it good for my nation and my people? That question has not been pondered by our ruling class in a long time.
Of course it has. The ruling strata in the west is just not referring to the same people you are.
Arthur Thurman: Just had a knock at the front door; a White guy asking me to vote for a Han for mayor. I told him I don’t vote anymore, and then asked how I should expect a Han to represent ‘my’ interests when she’s not my people. He started with the ‘she’s a magic immigrant who hates commies” line and I said I don’t care, all I care about is my people. He then asked if I’d vote for someone named Menendez, and I asked if they were my people. He said “Am I your people?” I responded “I don’t know. You need to figure out who your people are.” He said “I’m Portuguese!” and I gave up and shut the door.
First things first.
You break it right down to what should be the onbvious first building block in regardd to choosing candidates for leadership.
Is the person white?
If yes, inquire..
If no, move on..
No Candice Ownes’ no Larry Elders, etc. They are not going to represent us as white people and they have nothing to offer that isn’t already offered by other white people.
“Montesquieu observed that different political systems have different internal motivations, In aristocratic systems it was the desire for honor that drove people to act. In a republic it was virtue.”
The elites of a society are also its paragons, their standards should be higher. Aristocrats and their private armies ought to be warriors, which goes hand in hand with honor. Virtue is better suited for the commonfolk, they’re more down to earth and have to do the dirty work.
Morality on the other hand is a blight upon humanity, especially the white part of humanity. Love and pacifism leads to a bunch of people getting exploited.
Also, I love the media narrative claiming we are unreasonably distrustful of our governments and the international organizations. They speak as if we live in a high trust society ruled by honorable people. “You see, honor and virtue don’t matter. What matters is science! You must obey scientists paid by shady financial groups!”
The same corrupt people who ruined western civilization suddenly became caring and interested in our well-being and wanna vaccinate the white world, including pregnant women and kids, cause they love them so much. That’s why they promote abortions, it’s cause they’re so worried for the children they can’t sleep at night. Such gentle souls.”
sentry: And all those people who’ve been screaming for face diapers and ‘social distancing’ and lockdowns FOREVER if it ‘saves even one life,’ now find those who die from the magic scientific vaccines mere collateral damage and an acceptable cost for the ‘safety’ of others. F*&k ‘the people.’ The ‘people’ are pozzed. Women ruin everything. Democracy and equality are unnatural lies.
Any system where the rulers don’t have a stake in the long-term success of a country is doomed to fail. With all their faults (and they are myriad), monarchy and aristocracy solved this problem. The rulers assume that their children and grandchildren will rule over this land, so they work to improve the land and improve stability.
Democracy almost demands short-term thinking and rewards those clever enough to steal the most.
The problem is that a modern economy doesn’t work with monarchy and aristocracy. It was the rise of the middle class, which itself was related to the various phases of the industrial revolution, which ushered in democracy and pushed out monarchy/aristocracy.
Monarchy/aristocracy fits a feudal, land-based system pretty well, but not an industrial and later technology-driven society. Business and finance are too fluid for a slow-moving, permanent aristocracy.
However, none of that changes the truth to what Z wrote. Democracies eventually destroy themselves. The industrial revolution – with its finance, contracts, corporations, etc. – couldn’t have existed without the high-trust foundation of the earlier period.
That social capital is running low and will soon be gone. Without, neither democracy nor a modern economy can function.
I dunno, there seems to be plenty of examples of monarchs basically saying “f’ it” and running their nation into the ground for nothing more than giggles. OTOH, when those institutions get replaced by some democratically elected government the new elected leaders pick right up where the previous potentate left off.
There is no perfect system. What matters is keeping your people together.
China has had endless ups and downs with all kinds of good and unimaginably horrible types of governments, but it’s still the Han Chinese. Same with Japan.
As long as your people stay intact, you can recover.
Well said! And we’re not keeping our people “intact” any longer with identity politics to the max & allowing the invasion @ the southern border.
Tucker Carlson nailed last night in his opening monologue.
I’ll admit I don’t watch Carlson (nor any TV at all). Still, I read about him here and elsewhere in the media. He must be draw exceptional ratings. He would have been cancelled long ago otherwise. Based on his current “fame,” I suspect his is a relatively short life expectancy just the same. Still, well done Tucker!
I agree that in 100 years, China will still be full of Chinese, but OTH the occasional Mao has no problem murdering 100 million of them.
I only give them 50/50 odds. The Chinese have a bit of a 19th century white-person view of themselves: “We’re great and there’s so many of us, no need to worry about anything!”. That and their latent “universalism” leaves them vulnerable to the great jogger invasion bound to happen in the back half of the 21st century (Europe only has so many gibs).
Prior to Mao and the destruction brought about by the Great Leap Forward, there was the destruction wrought by opium. I can’t say I am a student of Chinese history, but there have been some pretty serious ‘downs’ in just the past +/- 150 yrs.
That said, the Han abides.
There sure have been. They have long memories too. You can see it in the threat they perceive in Christianity making inroads again. The Taiping Rebellion was a calamity perhaps rivaling the great leap forward. Nor was the lesson of Poland lost on them with regard to allowing an independent center of power within the empire. I believe the lesson of Poland also was a contributing factor in the eye of sauron turning its withering rays on the Church in the US. Statistically, the Church never had a higher rate of sexual deviants than other Christian denominations or in the population of Rabbis for that matter. But it got the full court press treatment for delegitimization and alienation shortly after events in Poland. The saw the moral support of the Church for the independence movement helped precipitate the Soviet Collapse.
This is that absolute key right here. Saving the nation of people.
The problem with our people though is all they want to do is in-fight about everuthing But saving our people.
I don’t mind being ruled by my betters but I do require they be better than me in some way, and I don’t mean possessing better social connections but actual domain knowledge coupled with Platonic virtues—courage, moderation, prudence, and justice.
I’d just like them to at least be my people.
There’s a reason nation-states have been the default since the beginning of time.
Just imagine a King Obama lording over us.
Lawd Lawd and shiver me timbers.
A New Tomorrow (cont)
Yes, trust matters.
If you are the lone wacko that just committed a heinous crime, there’s a good chance that LEOs will track you down & make you pay. This is a case where asymmetry favors the State. And this system works fairly well in a civil society in which most citizens are law-abiding and crime is relatively rare. And for this to continue to work, social trust must be high and honest citizens must be comfortable cooperating with LEOs in the common cause of social stability. But that calculus changes dramatically when government becomes tyrannous. When the State becomes the Bad Guy, the asymmetry flips 180 degrees. Now its tens of millions against thousands, and when the LEOs are on the wrong side of the fence, all they hear is crickets. A disenfranchised citizenry can become a fog that blinds the tyrant, and that is no trivial thing. Be the fog.
As stated in the movie Gandhi:
“100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350,000,000 Indians if those Indians refuse to cooperate. And that is what we intend to achieve: peaceful, nonviolent, non-cooperation — till you, yourselves, see the wisdom of leaving.”
Ex-Pralite Monk: Leaving aside the fact that Gandhi was far from the saint he’s portrayed as by the media, 100,000 British DID control however million Indians for quite some time. And they managed to run and modernize the place rather better than the natives have. If the British hadn’t been constrained by America and 20th century ‘values’ of tolerance and equality that we pushed, plus the lingering costs of the disastrous and unnecessary first world war, they could have continued to run India by eliminating – by whatever means – those Indians like Gandhi who refused to cooperate. But the British had become too civilized to kill off the social agitators, just as America was too domestically liberal in the 1960s. Now the powers that be support and finance the social agitators, and that’s another dimension altogether.
Never in human history has an occupying army outnumbered the society it occupies. Not once. Not even close. It has never needed to and is not going to need to next week.
On the brighter side of things, it turns out that scientists’ obsession with matter and becoming has led them back to the idea that being is primary. No, this is not an advertisement for pantheism, panentheism, or process theology. Nor has anyone discovered a good reason to believe in the God hypothesis of Abrahamic religion. Rather, science indicates that we need to cast aside the assumption that the cosmos is an evolving, 3D thing with a single, present moment. Instead, past and future are the subjective designations of conscious beings who neglect the unity of all moments—past, present, and future.
The scientists’ materialism, too, has lost its luster, but there are millions and millions of sensualists (including most Protestants) who aren’t ready to hear the painful truth about existence. Maybe this explains shrill demands to trust the Science™. They know that science has falsified the crudest form of materialism.
Anyhow, here is a summary of four ontological positions which I think can be defended coherently:
God? False.
Materialism? Probably false.
Presentism? False.
A Single Law of Existence Subject To No Willpower? True
And contrary to the nihilism of science nerds and other materialists, the cosmos can never not be. The Big Bang was not its moment of birth but only a chaotic boundary in the past, and there will be no cold, dark death of the whole.
The collapse of trust should be viewed positively, no? The current system does not deserve trust and has not merited such for a very long time. Until recently, people and conservatives in particular had a misplaced trust in a system hostile to them. Distrust came much too late, but better late than never.
You wrote yesterday the elite vacillates between sociopathology and fear. The second prong only materialized after trust collapsed. Our focus must be to exploit that distrust and make the elite at a minimum uncomfortable and, preferably, live in abject terror.
Despite my pessimism, it has become obvious the elite grossly overplayed their hand with BLM/Antifa terrorism. There are likely to be scores of state-sanctioned black and white communist deaths, finally, this summer. While welcome, this is hardly sufficient. Those who manipulated the mentally I’ll and low IQ cretins also must feel fear, and it looks like that could happen at least around the margins. As insignificant as it is, the backlash against the NCCA’s trannyism and its J@w parasites shows the states have limits. The Camp of the Saints option has devastated the Biden Regency. There is a strong chance corporations may feel previously unimagined reprisals, both legal and extrajudicial. The Covid fraud, particularly if deaths increase from the vaccine, may accomplish what most of us assumed would happen only with an economic collapse or humiliating military loss, both of which are possible.
This isn’t to make the case for optimism but an acknowledgment oppression has limits. Things will get much worse, but the limits of state tyranny have come into view.
NCAA: “Outlaw trannies and we’ll pull jogger-ball out of your state!”
Me: “Whoa, talk about win-win!”
That’s a bit naïve though as I know Big Whites cannot resist anything that has the logo of their alma mater plastered on it.
It seems that white people’s collectivist tendencies have all been funneled into sportsball..
Don’t forget: every single bad side effect from the jab will be Cheeto Hitlers fault.
“Trump only cared about the election!”
“It was rushed!”
“SCIENCE! ™ never tested it!”
“If you or a loved one suffered chronic, debilitating side-effects from a COVID vaccine, you may be entitled to compensation!”
I understand the Feds have granted a form of immunity to Big Pharma on this one, but don’t tell me that there isn’t a gaggle of Shylocks pondering ways to wring money out of this. Perhaps they go after the state governments that have pushed the jab and set up clinics to facilitate its ubiquity. Ideally, they’ll try an angle where businesses that instill a vax passport system get it hard, right in their fart chimney.
If you’ve been following the Johns Hopkins SPARS scenario, the plan to handle people complaining of vaxxes ruining their health is to offer them hush money and if/when that stops working, set up a nonfunctional government commission as a tar baby then wait for the plaintiffs to finish dying.
Moe Noname: Yeah, but Trump recently derided Biden for halting the vaccines because of side effects/deaths. He’s just another egotist who wants to score political popularity points. I am so over Trump and magatards.
I used the term magatards on Gab recently and someone went OFF. Biggly. Sensetive bunch they are..
> Something Montesquieu never mentioned, but that is relevant to this age, is the relationship between the principle of the system and its durability. John Adams famously said in a letter to John Taylor, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself”. A republic, it seems, does not do much better. The one Adams helped found was quickly dashed to pieces by his descendants. Monarchy seems to be the most durable, having been with us since the start.
An interesting thought experiment is to imagine the American Republic decided to be a monarchy instead, with a King in charge of the country and Dukes/Barons in charge of their respective states with an aristocratic House of Lords in charge of representing the general population.
We would have likely been less free in the classic enlightenment sense, but we would probably have not gone off the crazy train nearly as often in our history.
Didn’t stop England from heading down our same path.
Good point, the West has devolved into Mob Democracy everywhere, regardless of where they started.
I was going to say the same. In fact it could be argued that England is further down the crapper than we are, particularly with respect to the covidian nonsense .
England is still 90% white & 85 native. 👍
They got a late start but are trying their best to catch up. Same with Canada, which might go minority White sooner than the United States, which is astonishing and shows a commitment to suicide that even the wokest American White couldn’t dream of achieving.
Btw, births in England are now around 30% non-White and 10% Muslim. England is at best a generation behind the states, except instead of importing Mexicans and Asians, it’s brining in Indians, Muslims and Africans.
Believe me, I truly wish that England stayed 90% Whites – if only as a possible escape hatch – but its heading downhill faster than the US.
87% white (not english) as of the 2011 census… The (delayed) 2020 census still hasn’t even been conducted. What’s it’s going to show?
New births in the uk were something like 75% white, 65% british in 2018.
Anyways, doesn’t matter. 52%, 65%, doesn’t make a difference over 100 years. They will keep importing more and more non whites into all these countries as a measure of genocide.
Bingo.
Whether England is a decade or two behind the United States doesn’t matter. It’s on the path.
As I mentioned above, your Canada likely takes the cake for suicidal Whites. Canadians have always had a bit of a chip on their shoulder about Americans, so it’s as though they said, “We’ll show them. We can commit suicide way faster than those big, dumb Americans!”
Canada likely will be minority White in ~15 years, which, like I said, could beat the United States. That’s stunning, given the lead that we had. Immigration to Canada equals around 1% of the population – every year. But remember, those are young people immigrating, so immigration is ~3% of the young population. Every fucking year.
No shit Canada will be majority non-White.
At least Canada is smart enough to generally import skilled immigrants. So, congrats, instead of importing an underclass, your importing an overclass. I’m not sure which is better, low-IQ Mexicans who make part of my area crappy or high-IQ but safe Indians and Chinese becoming my boss.
Seriously, it’s hard to figure out who is more stupid, Canadian or American Whites. Let’s just call it a tie.
Sher Singh: But you and yours will are busy at work dropping those numbers. Go home.
Then that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of the White race these days.
I find that hard to believe given the numbers of intake from Enoch Powell’s day. The cities are probably close to minority majority.
The UK’s monarchy and [ahem] nobility are wedded to a false sado-masochist religion, and that personality cult demands that the masses worship a rabbling rousing Semitic supremacist. How could this situation be conducive to a coherent, high trust society once the religion has been exposed as a fraud?
Politics is downstream of biology. The industrial warfare of the War of Northern Aggression, The Great War, and The First World Race War fundamentally altered the genetics of western countries and their constituent nations. The results of that worldwide disgenic culling are being felt now, and will continue to be felt for at least the next 1/2 generation or so.
Excellent point! Why did I not this, it’s so obvious once pointed out..
Doesn’t pretty much BTFO the monarchy as savior theory?
We could petition Mother country to take us back, but they are a buggered lot too 😃
We’re so divided that the principles they say they hold as the highest—“diversity, inclusion, equity,” are actually what most of us consider among the most damaging to society. The same with institutions. I’ve noticed among family and friends, the CNN viewers are all enthusiastic about getting the “vaccine.” They completely trust CNN (“the most trusted name in news!), while the opinion here and even among most normie-cons is that they’re the enemy of the people. The middle ground is disappearing quickly.
I live in a latte town filled with white bourgeois liberals. It must be 90%+ white, but is quickly becoming more “diverse.” In a nearby Port-town there is an old rustic stone wall at the foot of a grand Catholic church. Some of the local kids have gratified “Black Lives Matter” in large black letters. Not far away is the phrase “Unity In Diversity”. Now there is a slogan fit for Big Brother’s Ministry of Truth!
Repeat after me: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength… Unity in Diversity.”
Most people in our demographic have it so well, they seem more susceptible to this type of propaganda. These are luxury beliefs, “boutique” opinions I think Zman termed it. They will be the first to get the jab, the first to open the gates to the invaders.
> Some of the local kids have gratified “Black Lives Matter” in large black letters.
Someone quipped that when someone says Black Lives Matter, what they mean is “I matter”. A lot of the boutique opinions one sees spouted off is a result of having no proud familial/social/religious identity. They are a people with no history.
“when someone says Black Lives Matter, what they mean is “I matter”
I’m definitely stealing this, spot on!
Liberal democracy seems to destroy all of those things: family, social and religious bonds. Since we have no power at the political level nor control the Media/propaganda, we need to slowly reverse engineer this thing from the cultural level.
We are currently a feminine society which worships Equality and Justice. We are degenerate and undisciplined. We need to form our own cultures and cultivate masculine virtues based on Hierarchy and Honor. This will instill trust based systems and will naturally bring back respect for family/society/nation/ race, and religious traditions.
Reminds me of a great C.S. Lewis quote I read recently:
“The old dealt with its pupils as grown birds deal with young birds when they teach them to fly; the new deals with them them more as the poultry keeper deals with young birds- making then thus or thus for purposes of which the birds know nothing. In a word, the old was a kind of propagation- men transmitting manhood to men; the new is merely propaganda.”
-From The Abolition of Man
Melissa, I agree, great quote! We are now living in the society of “men without chests.”
C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton are two catholic writers I need to return to. I have yet to read The Screwtape Letters. I bought it a few years ago, but its just collecting dust.
Lewis never converted to Catholicism. He was Anglican. Born into a Protestant family in Ulster, N. Ireland. Inborn suspicion of papists I would suspect.
Someone quipped that when someone says Black Lives Matter, what they mean is “I matter”.
Turning this back on them will be ineffective because their response will be, “Yes, that’s true. I’m marginalized in the face of white, male supremacy and I’m trying to make myself heard!”
They’ve been told their entire lives that to “matter” — i.e. self-esteem — is the most important aspect of their existence.
Someone quipped that when someone says Black Lives Matter, what they mean is “I matter”.
I’ve always taken it to mean: “you don’t matter – whitey”.
I find graffiti most ungratifying. I jest. Good comment.
Let’s put anti-white in the slogans. Inclusion, diversity, equity, anti-white supremacy (IDEAS).
The progs will use it cause it’s against white supremacy but many of our people will be awakened to the anti-white portion.
John W. Campbell, the long-time editor of “Astounding Science Fiction”, later, “Analog” said that the best form of government was a benevolent dictatorship. I’m sure a lot of words were written around this but it was long ago and I’m pretty old.
How do you make sure you get the benevolent part?
How to keep get the benevolent part?
A philosopher king without the wealth. Limit his income. Give him a “comfortable income”, but no more. No investments, multi-million dollar book deals, speaking fees, loans, gifts. Money turns benevolence into malevolence.
How to keep the benevolent part…sorry. (Real JW would never apologize)
Ya done good, pilgrim.
How do you limit the wealth of he who controls the army?
Term limits? No system is incorruptible. All we can do is try our best. Wealth limits and term limits.
“How do you make sure you get the benevolent part?”
There is no sure answer but the best approximation is racial, cultural, and religious homogeneity.
I want a white republic whose explicit, highest value is the flourishing of white families. The principles that all the states must observe is no non-white immigration, no ownership of property by anyone outside the state, and outsourcing only for products that cannot be produced within the republic. Within the republic, there will be Christian and non-Christian states.
I know that I am dreaming.
Clone Marcus Aurelius?