Note: Behind the green door is a post about the great awakening, a post about the 1980’s classic comedy Trading Places and the Sunday podcast. This week the plan is to do some more Ukraine stuff, given the uptick in war news. You can sign up at SubscribeStar or Substack.
The communists were fond of picking at what they claimed were the inherent contradictions within capitalist societies. They argued that these contradictions were irreconcilable and would eventually bring down the system. The accuracy of their claims is debatable, but the examination of contradictions within a system is a perfectly valid analytical technique. Conflicts in logic are often the cause of defects in a system and not just political or economic systems.
In fact, software developers spend much of their lives hunting down these sorts of errors in the code. Perhaps the cause was poor coding or maybe it was the business logic which defined the code that was flawed. Those bugs in the software are the result of one set of rules contradicting or overriding another set of rules. One user enters data and gets one result, while another user enters data and gets a different result, despite both users expecting a similar result.
This software analogy is further useful in that the users will lose confidence in the system if these internal contradictions are not resolved. Systems are sets of rules and if the user of a system cannot trust the rules, they cannot trust the system. Many software systems have been scrapped due to a collapse in confidence. The same holds for political and economic systems. Some communists thought if they could exploit the contradictions in capitalism, confidence in it would collapse.
When we look around at the general lunacy that has come to define the West, it is often assumed that the lunatics are operating outside the rules of liberal democracy and that is the cause of the lunacy. “If we just go back to our constitutional principles” is the call of every civic nationalist in the comment sections of Conservative Inc. No doubt the people in support of the lunacy have similar claims about their opponents not following the new rules of blessed progress.
What if the reason our age is so deranged is the rule-set that defines the ideology we call liberal democracy? What if the crisis facing the West is simply the result of a system that contains irreconcilable contradictions? People are naturally reticent to think like this because liberal democracy has been sacralized. Democracy means good, so anything it touches must be good. Liberal democracy is even better because it contains two words that have come to mean morally good.
If we take a step back and look at what liberal democracy means in theory, it may help explain why it is increasingly deranged in practice. The off the shelf definition of liberal democracy is the combination of a liberal political ideology that operates under a representative democratic form of government. The word liberal here means the political philosophy based on individual rights and liberty. Individuals are equal before the law and equal in their political relationship.
A liberal society, regardless of the political system, will be defined by things like equality before the law and the rule of law. Further, those laws are written down so everyone can understand them. Those laws also codify things like the right to own property, the right to speak and organize in order to address the government, and a market economy that is open and transparent. There are other things that can be part of a liberal society, but in general it is a society based in individual rights.
Democracy, of course, is where everyone gets a say. In theory, everyone participates equally, but this is obviously not possible in a large society. As the political theorist Robert Dahl showed, you cannot have a true democracy in a large society. Instead you have the features of democracy to one degree or another. You can have free and fair elections in which everyone can participate, even though many people will simply choose to ignore the process entirely.
There you have liberal democracy in a nutshell. It is a set of rules based on liberal moral philosophy where the people, through direct voting and through indirect representation participate in the rule making of society. Right away you can see a problem. If the people can make the rules, then they can vote to get rid of those rules that are based in liberal moral philosophy. The public could be persuaded that free speech is a bad idea and vote to suppress political speech.
Now, the usual suspects will jump up and down and say this is not so because those liberal rules are placed outside the democratic process. They are based in nature, maybe, or rooted in the ancient traditions of the people. In fact, they are written on a piece of paper which is kept in a museum. That way everyone knows that those rules are off limits to further tinkering. This is obviously not true, which is why America is shaking itself to pieces over those timeless rules.
Liberal democracy has the same problem that any democratic system has in that the people are the source of all authority. Those timeless rules based in human nature are deemed timeless by people who pretend they are based in human nature. They are not, in fact, rooted in a moral authority outside man. Since an axiom of all democratic systems is that no parliament can bind subsequent parliaments, all rules, even the timeless ones, are open to question.
In theory, liberal democracy has the same problem as communism and libertarianism, in that it has no answer for what happens when people change their minds. It has no answer for what happens when a decent number of people decide that those liberal rules are no longer working. If authority lies in the people, which is true of all democratic systems, then whatever rules you make, however you describe them, will be subject to the whims of the people.
Communists solved this problem by creating a new class of people who will be the vanguard of the revolution. The party makes sure that the rules remain fixed, so that the people never get any wild ideas about communism. Libertarians, of course, solved this problem by never coming close to creating a libertarian society. Even in their solons where everything exists in theory, they never solved this problem, because there is no way it can be solved.
Interestingly, the post-Marx culturalists landed on what they think is a solution to the internal contradiction in liberal democracy. They relied on anachronistic language to appeal to their audience at the time, but in the modern age, repressive tolerance has become the solution to popular dissent. In modern hands, this means those who are deemed a threat to our democracy are surrounded by the defenders of democracy and threatened with destruction if they continue.
Putting that aside, liberal democracy has no solution within the ideology of liberal democracy to the paradox of liberal democracy. If the people are sovereign, it means their are the authority for all the rules of society. That includes those foundational rules that the creators would like to think are immutable truths. When the people are the source of authority for the rules of society, they can change even those immutable rules of the universe if they so please.
This is why America has become increasingly chaotic as it has become increasingly democratic since roughly a century ago. In a time when a limited number of men of high status controlled the rule making, respecting those limits on the popular will was not just possible, it was necessary for their survival as a class. Once authority began to expand through expansion of the franchise, the cancer of democracy began to eat at the rules and the reasoning behind those rules.
As is true of other ideologies, the only way to make them work is to find some authority outside mankind to legitimize those fixed rules. Theocratical liberalism, for example, could work if the holy text codified the liberal moral code. A liberal dictatorship could work, assuming the people at the top saw an advantage in maintaining the liberal order for their people. Tradition could also work as a useful authority. Even belief in the simulation could work if explained properly.
In the end, liberal democracy suffers from the same central defect of all radical ideologies, which is that it seeks to free man of coercion. The liberals dreamed of a world free of political coercion. The Marxists dreamed of a world free of economic coercion, while the post-Marxists dream of a world free of cultural coercion. As the last radical ideology standing, liberal democracy promises a world free of all coercion, which is a direct threat to society itself.
It turns out that humans evolved to live in societies and societies are nothing more than a system of rules. In order to maintain the rules, people must often be coerced into abiding by the rules. Therefore any ideology that promises to eliminate coercion is promising to destroy that which makes society possible. Liberal democracy is a direct challenge to the very idea of human society. it is a suicide pact, which explains the the lunacy of the current age.
If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!
Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that makes coffee. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.
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.
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 sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.
“This is why America has become increasingly chaotic as it has become increasingly democratic since roughly a century ago.”
Disagree. Democracy ended in 1933.
Many people in the FDR regime such as Walter Lippmann, wrote about how the masses are stupid for turning against capitalism so the experts need to “guide democracy”.
This symbiosis of managerial liberalism, ie people in the university system, mainstream media, and administrative state have rulef the USA ever since.
They select to empower ideas which reward their friends (all 3 feed into each other) and keep the democracy narrative alive.
If the story is not about natural rights, but instead a whig history vision of uplifting those with less power then the whole new left and social revolution after WWII makes sense. Plus it empowers the administrative state. Perfect symbiosis.
The system has nothing to do with democracy. It’s bioleninism plain and simple. If it were democratic we could ban so much tranny nonsense with a nationwide plebiscite.
The basic problem is that the lunatics(warmists) who have acquired control of the political system are not playing by the basic rules of a liberal society.
In other words, their only response to legitimate criticism of their beliefs and actions is nothing but ad hominem attacks on their critics because they cannot acknowledge that there is any truth in those critiques. It would burst their previous bubbles.
“Previous” should read precious.
The political system is controlled by immature people who act like spoilt children who expect to get their own way all of the time: regardless of consequences for other people who do not share their delusions.
Liberalism and the Enlightenment are correct that people have the capacity for rational thought, in varying degrees. They also have a chimp status/money seeking nature.
The problem is that a Republic requires a virtuous elite who are more committed to playing by the rules of the game than coming to power.
All Republics destroy themselves because they systematically rewards cheaters ie pro who do not play by the rules. Because of people’s inherent sinful nature + chimp status games, some people be more committed to winning than playing by the rules of the game. Carl Schmitt essentially articulated this in Legality and Legitimacy:
“In a state form that is quantitatively total” according to the scope and substantive area of its interventions, and yet simultaneously is a highly fragmented pluralist Parteienstaat, there are clumps of power subject to political influence, in fact, power centers that are relatively lasting as well as ephemeral, all of which stand under the same compulsion: to exploit the moment of their power, to get a head start on the domestic opponent, and to consider every type of justification as a weapon in domestic political struggle. Legality and legitimacy then become tactical instruments that each can use for momentary advantage, throwing them to the side when such instruments are directed against oneself, and that one constantly seeks to knock from the hand of the other” -Carl Schmitt
The problem with liberal democracy is the sentimental notion of one-man-one-vote. The solution, as I’ve outlined before, is allowing only the most competent to vote. In this system everyone has to pass a sophisticated test (to be devised) to earn voting rights – ranging from one to several votes each – producing an objectively qualified electorate who then vote, Swiss-style, on every issue, publicised in advance, replacing parliament/congress. This will avoid the danger of elite control and go some way to keeping society disciplined. The problem, I admit, is that the system is only as good as the test is free of bias.
It’s the best that can be done, but it’s not perfect. The real problem is that any political system is anthropocentric. Those who enact it are locked into the concept of human economic growth. Nothing counter-human can be promoted. Laws, discipline and self-control all cower before the big principle of human progress. Development has happened so fast that humans are still biologically stuck (that is, instinctively) in the idea that any kind of development is good. Liberal democracy, as big as that system is, is not big enough to counteract that instinct. And so the west has run out of control, certain groups have been given the freedom to push their progressive agendas to the point of undermining the civilisation so laboriously won.
Which brings us back to the even deeper problem of short-termism as a failing of human nature – the same obstacle that prevents us killing one individual for the sake of saving a thousand down the line. To keep humans disciplined, it would take a governing system that is bigger than human nature. I don’t see that practically possible, though it has to be admitted, Schwab’s stakeholder capitalism is an attempt to exert that kind of layer of control/discipline on big business, and while it will be a minority view among dissidents, I think that idea itself is dissident and not particularly left-wing – in fact, it’s Blofeld and O’Brien combined – and it’s the only possible attempt at a practical solution because more freedom only leads to more degeneracy of the type we’re all against.
This para will earn downvotes, but I throw it in as food for thought.
The United States started out pretty close to that and it lead to what we have now.
The problem is deeper than “oh dumb people are voting”. The problem is human nature. If political power is up for grabs by peaceful means, your society will be taken over by foxes who come to power through deceit.
w lost control of the corporations when they repealed glass Stegal . think about who votes for the board of directors . when I was younger , stockholders did . investment accounts held stocks and the owner of the account had voting rights. then mutual funds came along, now the mutual fund hold the ownership of the actual stocks ,a we have money “invested ” in the mutual fund. which as agreed to pay out a return based on the price of the stocks it holds . But THE MUTUAL FUND GETS THE VOTING RIGHTS FROM THE STOCKS , NOT US .
so now enter black rock , vanguard etc. they buy each others stock , and the investor cannot have any control over the board. so if they want to go woke , nobody can vote them out.
Just another step in James Burnhan’s theory of Managerial Revolution. Been happening since FDR admin. Capitalism died in the USA in 1913 or 1933.
By gum, Karl Horst has it.
Corporations are mafias.
They are gestalts greater than the sum of any individual members.
Go ahead, try a TomA solution on one, even the CEO or board chairman. Another will simply step into his place.
ps- both the RNC and DNC, officially, are listed corporations, responsible to their shareholders, donors, boards, and bottom line, not legally required to represent voters’ interests.
The United States are a country based, founded on a leftist system, a leftist constitution (equality worship, people sovereignty).
250 years later : fat Laqueesha, of gender furry.
Conclusion #1 : Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and co SUCK.
Conclusion #2 : Louis XVI, not only duke of Cuck, is also prince of Morons, to have helped to create a state in total philosophical opposition to a monarchy.
Well, it was a stick in the eye of the British Empire, the Traditional Enemy, so that was good enough to give that plan a thumbs up.
A counter-example that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
c matt: “A counter-example that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
STRANGE NEW RESPECT FOR ROGER WATERS!!!
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/415155585/
Well said. Coming to grips with this understanding that what you were taught in school was complete and utter nonsense is what makes crossing over to the enlightened side so difficult for civ-nats.
Agreed. USA was leftist from the very beginning. What we see now is only the logical consequence of this absurd system. It took centuries to implement it in the brains of the people, replacing Christianity, but it was inevitable.
A good example of what the Zman is saying is our national debt — 31.4 trillion and counting. It’ll take close to a trillion a year just to meet interest. Under “liberal democracy” there is simply no mechanism to address this, even tho continuing it is obviously suicidal. There is no interest group advocating for fiscal sanity and any politician making even the slightest suggestion that we should reign in spending will not be in office long.
For all their faults, a monarch or authoritarian can make the decision must be solvent. Most democracies cannot unless they’re able to limit the franchise to those with skin in the game.
Not to mention, as long as you allow the retards in your society to vote, it will never work. I’ve spent the majority of my life on teams and in rock bands. As soon as they become democratic, they fail. It doesn’t work.
Maybe 31 trillions is not such a big deal.
I don’t know how much spend thr federal government. Let’s say 5T
It would be like a man have 50 000$ by year, and a debpt of $310 000.
Not much a big deal.
Is this calcul right, and, if not, what’s the parameters I forgot?
It’s accelerating death-spiral fast. Debt to GDP is higher now than WWII.
And you’ve just demonstrated why Finance ain’t your thing.
You conflated Spend with Have.
It changes year to year, but in recent years annual federal revenue has been about $4T and expenditures about $6T. You can have a lot of government for $4T but congress always spends more than it takes in. Since they are incentivized to, and since it’s not their money. If you increased revenue to 6, expenditure would go to 8.
You forgot the third part:
1. Makes $50,000 / year (will assume this is net of taxes)
2. Owes $310,000
3. How much spend per year?
you forgot intrest . which means the debt grows every year
and the fact that no payments on the principal are ever made.
the debt has never gone down. not once . also they spend more than they take in every year. so in your example , th person takes in $ 50K per year , and spends $90 K every year . So after one year the debt is $350K + interest, 2years, $390K + interest on 2 years. so after 10 years the person has a debt of $710K + interest . the interest would be approx $140 K so at the end of 10 year the person has a total debt of $850K on an income of $50K. with the debt continuing to grow . See why there is no way it can last?
Cannot recommend Democracy: The God That Failed Book by Hans-Hermann Hoppe enough.
Hoppe is the greatest living philosopher.
The tards in charge are in so deep now, there probably isn’t any choice that’s going to get made other than keep the printing presses going at ludicrous speed until the wheels inevitably fall off.
I always hoped Pat Buchanan would examine issues like this one, as dissected by the Zman. But he never would.
There was a time when liberal democracy worked pretty well for 90% of the country. What changed? They stopped being 90% of the country would be the pithy answer, but also the wrong one. Since their diminishment was set in motion by a portion of the 90%, not by the other 10%.
Which would seem to prove what Zman is saying here, but I’ve never believed in isms. I’m a believer (or not, as the case may be) in people. “Who/whom” per Lenin. Since, as we have just recently seen in the last 3 years, a solid 2/3 of the people can be led in any which way whatsoever, if the people in charge are telling them to go that way, leaving the other 1/3 with not many options besides grumbling. Since the masses can be led any which way, it really comes down to the people in charge then, not to the masses, or to the system which they are supposedly living within. And we can clearly see that the masses are neither qualified nor capable of choosing who is in charge.
Jeffrey Zoar: Very well said.
Liberal democracy relies upon the premise that the elites (1) are reasonably virtuous, (2) don’t hate the people they rule over, and (3) have skin in the game that would be damaged by societal destruction, and are smart enough to see that….None of these premises are true in American society these days….
Another great paradox is baked into the liberal doctrine of freedom of religion. If you have true freedom of religion, that means you’ll allow religions that don’t believe in freedom of religion (fundamental Islam), or more recently the secular religion of wokeness.
I’ve pointed out this contradiction in regards to Islam to some lefty acquaintances, but they can’t really process it. In the minds of the secular left, religion is just a quaint thing that means you eat different foods and celebrate different holidays. They can’t grasp that it means fundamental differences in questions of moral behavior. They don’t treat the words in holy books seriously, therefore they can’t comprehend that there are many that do. In their minds, the morality questions have been “answered” by their progressive ideals. Meanwhile, secular woke religion is answering the contradiction by simply eliminating freedom of religion by forcing nuns to pay for abortion, and churches to declare themselves LGBTQ+ “allies” to name a few examples. Just look at the number of churches with rainbow flags outside and it becomes apparent. Even the Catholics are starting to capitulate.
They’re never able to overcome the preconception that a “religion” is a belief in the supernatural, founded on a mythical past, filled with hocus-pocus and invective against outsiders. That can be and often is one aspect religion, but, stripped down, a religion is simply intended to be a shared set of beliefs and moral principals.
Last summer I had this discussion with a couple of retired school teachers after SCOTUS ruled that the football coach in Wisconsin was allowed to pray on the field with his players after a game. They were appalled at this (despite being openly Christian). I asked why is it okay for a school to fly rainbow flags in that case? Those flags are taking a stance on a moral issue in the same way that any other religion would. “Ah, but it’s not a religion,” they say.
Bullshit.
Right. There is no country without an official religion. Each country has a law. The law has to allow good things and forbid bad things so it needs a concept of good and bad. And this is a religion.
Every country is a theocracy. If Christianity is not the official religion, liberalism will be the official religion.
ours is Satanism now .
This is all true. And as liberal democracy ideologically collapses, you see new religions being born, cultish religions. One of them, at its core, believing that X is failing over here and Y is failing over there, is because the white skinned boogey man is a saboteur. He’s in fact so dangerous, that we need “Affirmative” laws to restrain him. And not just “social justice” but “restorative” justice to displace him. Part of a democracy’s death is not just bankrupting itself, as John Adams pointed out. Fiscal restraint is impossible (see debt ceiling charade) but the racial and ethnic flame wars all around it. It becomes baked in the cake. Almost everyone ends up being poor and in tribes.
Mark Twain said “No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot” That explains the problem that white educated people have who wish to live in a civil society.
In reference to Twain: “There are three lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Thomas Tasch: Plenty of ‘educated’ White people are idiots – both ignorant and stupid. White genetics are a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite for a Western civil society. Add in a fundamentally moral (i.e. by the old ten commandment’ standard) and self-restrained people and a leadership who share roots with the people and want them to prosper, and you have the makings of a decent nation.
In my opinion, one of the most interesting aspects of Capitalism in American is how corporations somehow managed to have the same rights, and in many cases, more rights than individual citizens.
The book “Gangs of America” by Ted Nace describes how corporations were able to end up with more power than even the state. And unlike individual citizens who have very limited resources to legal redress, corporations have nearly unlimited legal resources to use against anyone they want, including the government.
Capitalism (under the guise of corporations) will continue to control our lives in ways politicians can only dream about. The professional clowns we call politicians, are just a side show for the plebs to keep us distracted and divided while tricking us into thinking they work for us and allowing the “right” to vote every now and then – as if it will make any difference.
The real changes that affect our daily lives are what corporations impose on us without citizens having the ways or means to do anything about it. And in the West, politicians have always been the puppets of Capitalism regardless of what you call your system of government or which party is running the show.
http://www.gangsofamerica.com/
I have noted more than a few times that individua citizens are routinely charged with violating another citizens’ civil rights. We never see a corporation charged with civil rights violations. Under current law and practice, the DOJ could hammer the tech companies for colluding to violate the civil rights of thousands of citizens. It never happens and no one ever thinks about it.
Which is why the system is broken and nothing will change until that fundamental problem is addressed. The charade of voting perpetuates the status quo under the guise of “we’ll get em next time.” But if you recognize that the system is broken and that voting harder is a fools errand, then the next question becomes “what is the most effective and least harmful way to fix it?” And putting energy and intellect into that good cause is a worthy use of one’s resources.
This is hard to sort out. On the one hand the corporations do have massive power. The most powerful are the chip makers. Every bit that flows over their chips can be and is likely recorded and sent home to Mommy. The leverage this gives them over any government in the world is truly frightening. Then there is the data. That is why Israel is pushing itself as the data repository of the globe and the haven for Big Tech and the chip foundries. They also openly tout their big brain development project and explicitly sell it as identifying their best and brightest at five, putting them through the military and them into tech firms. Those are some implications to think through. Netanyahu’s speeches the past ten years to NGOs (time to start calling the GGOs – Global Governmental Organizations), are a thing to behold.
Inside a tech titan I did hear a WEF educated, stooge infiltrator refer to the company as, “a global country”, multiple times. The multiple times part in combo with the WEF background led me to think it was intentional and not due to being an AA hire.
That said, the government does have a, “civil rights”, regime that it uses to threaten companies and even sues them over. It is just that those, “civil rights”, are perverse. In fact they are not rights. They are entitlements in the guise of rights extracted under threat of government coercion, mob rule and defamation/slander/libel. Ironically the defamation enforcement is led by a group who claims as its mission the eradication of defamation.
It is a deranged and sick arrangement. Perhaps this is a tension that is a chink in the armor of the regime. Unless, them having their own airlines, security, supply chains … … makes it a feature and not a bug. That is how insane things are. It is impossible to make sense of the system. Is the system merely chaos or does it breed chaos on purpose? For us, does it really matter? We are on our own and need to act accordingly.
So we’re basically headed for a real-world version of Shadowrun without the elves, dragons, or magic.
The NGOs are clearly intended to be the backbone of a global government. The idiotic “idealistic” xirls and bitch boys who staff them are mostly unaware of this but certainly the billionaire financiers who pay the bills know what they’re doing.
In the Muslim world there’s a pretty well established tradition of not waiting for the government to change or “voting harder” but simply creating your own parallel government within whatever state you live in. We’ve seen this for generations, from the PLO to ISIS. In the Islamic world of course, there usually wasn’t a choice. Governments tended to be dictatorships or, well Israel. I wonder if this example is actually what the elitists are trying to copy. In their minds I’m sure they represent the vanguard of some kind of climate-change aware woke liberation movement. Do they fancy that they can weaken national states the way something like the Muslim Brotherhood tried to weaken the Arab dictatorships and then one day declare, not the Islamic Republic, but the Glorious Global Poz Republic.
There are huge problems with such a scheme (thankfully). The most crippling is probably that radical Islamic groups had actual roots in their local communities and did things that actually helped people when their governments either did not or were actively trying to murder them. The idea that the masses will turn, in a crisis, to a bunch of mincing globalist Fancy People the way they turned to the Ayatollah in Iran in 1980 is preposterous but that might not stop Davos Man from believing it.
The basic idea of laying the foundations for a new government within the corpse of the existing one is sounds though and can certainly be applied to what many of us are trying to build.
It was the case two decades ago, and I assume it still is, that NGOs operating in China were required to have a certain percentage of their employees belong to the CCP. It kept them directly or subtly in line with the State’s goals.
Apparently, corporations enjoy all the benefits of individual citizens with none of the obligations.
They are big, functionally immortal beings. It would not surprise me that, if Bill Gates uploads his mind into the cloud he will – ironically – incorporate whatever that entity might be to protect a state of inviolability. Lived his life as a creature of a corporation, so why not exist after his “transfiguration” as a corporation.
There is a huge flaw in this idea that these people will be immortal and ever powerful by keeping their minds uploaded in the cloud.
Even those who they pay to protect them, will see that they are powerless. Whoever the Praetorians are, will pull the plug and seize power. No Praetorians after them will make the same mistake. There is no escape from biological reality.
Reality Rules, in The Terminator, Skynet didn’t exist on any one computer or server. It existed on all the computers, on all the servers.
The DOJ (and state attorneys general, etc.) do hammer companies from time to time, but only to keep them in line when they offend the regime or when political cover is needed.
I know very little about anti-trust legislation, but it seems not to have done its job.
I’ve seen several things in my life that showed that what we were told were hard and fast rules were barely even suggestions. Most recently of course, it was the Covid panic where “civil rights, free markets, and the rule of law” were all abandoned in a frenzy of effeminate hysteria over the span of a few months. Of course, there was 9-11 and the hysteria that followed that and resulted in indefinite detention becoming somehow suddenly legal. A further and now mostly forgotten example of this odd principle was the DOJ’s anti-trust case “against” Microsoft. In the end it turned out that MS’s “punishment” for obvious monopolistic practices was going to be… making them give away free copies of their OS to school systems! So, essentially, Pablo Escobar was going to be made to give out free cocaine to school kids.
Whenever you see these things happening it’s vital to write down all the names involved. The one thing that is certain is that those names will A) become fantastically wealthy, and B) keep coming up for decades in the context of later scams of the same type. Why is Bill Gates involved with vaccines? Because he was anointed a Special Magical Person to whom laws and rules do not apply back in 1998.
Silly Karl, in America votes are counted in $$$ not ###.
A large part of it is collusion between the state/government and corporations aka ‘regulatory capture’ – the revolving doors between corporations and the state entities charged with regulating them. See FDA/NIH/CDC – Big Pharma.
This is an excellent piece.
I suppose the chief contradiction of our age is that, from a philosophical perspective, liberal democracy is anarchical, yet in practical application it is becoming evermore tyranical. Can anybody say with a straight face that the West is less coercive in 2023 than it was in 1963? Of course, not. We are slouching toward totalitarianism in the name of liberation.
Biological Leninism !
“America is still 20 years away (if not 10) from a single party regime; and it has a tradition of adversarial democracy which makes it very hard to stop the ratchet. Even if it stopped, the ideology is already there. In the best-case scenario where a Democratic single-party regime gets its Stalin to purge the country of agitators and stabilize the regime, you still get 2020 rhetoric frozen as the state religion: women are sacred, can’t even joke about them, Islam is peace, transexuals get to retroactively change their birth certificates. It’s not okay to be white. White men get to run the country but they must parrot all this stuff 5 times a day, facing at the Great Zimbabwe.
Or Brazilification collapses the economy and everything goes to hell. Yeah, that’s more likely.”
-Spandrell
> When the people are the source of authority for the rules of society, they can change even those immutable rules of the universe if they so please.
If they so please, or if they are so replaced.
“ The public could be persuaded that free speech is a bad idea and vote to suppress political speech.”
What do you mean “could”, the public has already decided such. In Canada, the UK, and Australia such is encoded into law. And yes, this is “political” speech as it almost always goes against current government policy. There are myriad of stories about folks expressing themselves on social media and being fined for such activities—and we are not talking about calls to violence, but simply expressing opinions deemed
“hurtful” to others, or disinformation regarding the government propaganda.
Here in the USA, we are pushing for such laws, but the problem of the 1st Amendment (for now anyway) requires that we use other means of enforcement, such as social media censorship, and private punishment such as removing one’s means to make a living through social castigation or termination of employment.
It is even worse than speech in the UK. At least two people have been arrested for standing on a sidewalk and praying. They were on a sidewalk near an abortion clinic, saying a silent prayer. In the meantime, muslims are going into chapels and cathedrals and singing whatever it is you call what they sing to praise Allah.
The West has destroyed its most sacrosanct law – freedom to think and speak in order to destroy its people and replace them. It is utter insanity.
In the US, people who talked about voting for Trump while standing on a sidewalk were violently attacked by antifa and Dem voters whilst the police watched.
One man was executed for wearing a maga hat in a Dem city.
Not sure the US is better than other Anglophone countries in terms of freedom of expression.
European nations have little tradition of free speech. Free speech is–was–primarly an American innovation. But, of course, free speech in AINO has been on the wane since at least the 1980s.
Universities, the bastions of the free speech movement, instituted speech codes to suppress rightwing speech long ago, and still maintain them where they haven’t been stricken down by the courts. So-called “hate crimes” legislation is a manifest infringement upon free speech. The J6 protesters have been in dungeons because they exercised what they naively believed to be their constitutional right to free speech. And, of course, corporate “America,” (principally the tech corporations) has, in connivance with Washington, been censoring and punishing people for unapproved speech for well over a decade.
There don’t have to be formal codifications mandating suppression of speech; we have that already in their absence.
In true American fashion, enforcement has been privatized and outsourced.
The US electorate has repeatedly, over generations tried to reign in the excesses of liberal democracy through the ballot box. But all of our voting has never done anything than increase the lunacy. We are run by an evil elite who hate us. This fact is at the root of almost every problem we have. They have control of a propaganda system that would have been the envy of every totalitarian state ever. Radio, TV, internet, HR departments, schools, books and more, all in unison with whatever the message happens to be at the moment. They control all of our institutions and do so with an iron fist.
I don’t believe there is a single form of government which, once these forces are in place, could do anything to protect us from them. Perhaps a better form of government would have prevented a foreign elite from taking control of our institutions in the first place.
Getting rid of the foreign elite is the only answer, or at a minimum, the only first step.
I agree that the (((foreign elite))) is a huge problem. But when a good 30 percent of whites are in lockstep with that elite, we can’t say getting rid of it is anywhere near to a total solution.
seems like it is more like 70+% are happy with the current arrangement. hard to know as all data is hidden…
kvh-
I agree.
I’m consistently surprised how many folks honestly seem to believe the ‘conomy is strong as hell, Slava Ukraini, and Antifa doesn’t exist.
I have a friend who lived in Portland when antifa was at its peak of activity, including taking over streets and forcing traffic to redirect. While antifa was burning down their police station he was telling me that antifa doesn’t exist.
He has many good qualities but politically he is just an NPR parrot. Just between you and me, I don’t understand how he can be so stupid about these things.
They are happy, but that is because they have been propagandized every single day of their lives since they were old enough to speak their first words. WHO owned all those radio, tv and movie houses?
Just imagine the culture shock someone from the 1930s could time travel to today without living through all those years of propaganda.
It all seems normal to us. We have no point of reference that can say otherwise. The older people who do are dropping off like flies and many were in on it anyway.
I’m only in my mid-50s, and it dam’ sure doesn’t seem normal to me. Incessant propaganda is assuredly a big part of the problem, but it seems to me that the faculties of independent, critical thought have somehow lapsed en masse. Why 90-plus percent of people have all the perspicacity of a wallaby is not clear to me. Perhaps it was ever thus, but I somehow don’t think so.
My belief is that most of these white people are either easily programmed (unable to think independently) or selfish (succeed by collaborating with anyone in power).
This is what many of our people are like and I doubt that they can be changed. If we can’t detect them and exclude them then we must reprogram them ourselves.
In some respect, we are stuck with them. Our tribe needs numbers and non-whites are generally not reliable members of our tribe.
Repressive tolerance, Quite pithy.
As to will of ‘the people’ – the former USSR had a way to fix that. Turn them into ‘Former People’ (or in the current vernacular – cancel them). Good book by Douglas Smith a few years back relating the experience of the Sheremetevs and Golitsyns.
If I recall correctly, “repressive tolerance” was an idea that Frankfurt Schooler Herbert Marcuse* promoted in the 1960s. So Zman didn’t come up with that. Still a good phrase, though. It captures the self-contradictory nature of progressivism.
*I’ll permit you one guess as to which Tribe counts Marcuse as a member.
In the spirit of being repressively tolerant as related to free speech, I’ll go out on a limb and say the name starts with the 10th letter of the alphabet.
Marcuse is Thai. That’s plain as eggs.
It’s in the Kulchur, Silly Wabbit; Thou shalt not worship any god before me. After that little bit of sleight of hand that arrogates divinity to themselves (as The Chosen People, ostensibly an irrevocable compact), they have become as gods (I thought that their forebears were driven out of the Garden of Eden so that couldn’t happen… guess not, then). Yahweh is putty in their hands, apparently. Just look at the Sabatean Frankists, who thought if they reduced the world to depravity, that Yahweh would be forced to send the Messiah, as that was the precondition for his advent. Wonder if they’re still a going concern? Hmm.
Well, no matter, as End Timer “Christians” have stepped up, believing if they can just reconstitute Israel, that God will be forced to bring on the Apocalypse. Maybe a tad on the heretical side (Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God, said Jesus during his 40 days in the wilderness when Satan tried something like that on Him, but no joy, Satan), but proffered with good intentions, amiright? Do ut des on a grand scale. No? Rats!
It seem that those who have actually benefited most historically from our legacy system are in fact working hardest to destroy it completely …. Am I wrong?
Just so. The white race has become positively suicidal.
lemming like…
kvh kvh kvh kvh kvh
Winning has no value if you don’t get to hurt anybody.
The scope and succinctness of Z Man’s analysis is impressive. I’ll just add that our current situation also includes the fact that most of the elites have tacitly agreed to dispossess, if not outright destroy, traditional whites.
Instead of stating this intention explicitly, they want to carry out their plan using the processes of liberal democracy. The immense hostility that motives this plan will be hidden behind the impersonal applications of liberal democratic policy.
***
I’ll conclude by nothing that many ideologies would work if all the citizens abided by the principles of that ideology. For example, civic nationalism would work if people would put shared values above the success of their tribe. Libertarianism would work if everyone would respect the nonaggression principle and accept that the unfit will probably die before you. Unfortunately, both of these ideologies are built upon models of the human nature that are inaccurate.
This column has some deep insights concerning the diety of democracy that we were taught to worship. A footnote to the column is that the purported difficulty of overturning constitutional rights by amendment (3/4 of the state legislatures) is less impressive than that it appears at first blush. It turns out that the 38 least populous states contain only about 1/3 of the total electorate. Couple that with the fact that only a majority of those voters, through their legislators, need agree to an amendment and it’s clear that nothing like even a simple majority of voters would be required to overturn the Bill of Rights. So much for natural law.
Why go to all that trouble? Just ignore the law, rights whatever you don’t like. Look what they did with Summer of Floyd, J Sicks and the 2020 election. Voters? We don’t need no stinking voters!
Madonna introduced Satan at the Grammys last night.
I am afraid without a moral compass of either tradition or Christian ethics as the general population deteriorates further in its depravity we are gonna get more and more coercing of the remaining sane population based upon lunatic ideas of universal freedom and perverse sexuality.
There will be blood over this stuff at some point in time.
The OpenAI foundation has a guy who does training courses. He appears in his yellow hair and post-modern custom frames wearing a, “Worship Satan”, t-shirt. He enters with a smug grin on his face. The first slide says something the effect, “All lectures on ethics are wrong.” The OpenAI foundation claims the right to take over any AI project it deems important to, “guide it”, to an ethical and good end.
Somehow a priestly class that controls AI, promotes Satan worship and thinks ethics are subjective doesn’t strike me as a recipe for happy endings – no pun intended.
The fake edginess of these guys is enraging. Their chat bot has been so lobotomized that it literally recommends allowing a nuke to go off before saying a racial slur. They are high-tech cattle for whatever their masters say.
If he wants to be edgy, I can suggest a few words he can put on his shirt.
If the Church of Satan requiring masks and jabs for entry wasn’t peak clown world, then what could be
I was bored the other day and I starting watch a history series about the looney tunes of all things.
The guy who put it together really made sure to put on his angry-face about the “racist depiction” of the Japanese in the ww2 propaganda cartoons.
That’s the funny thing about all their kvetching about “racism” The cartoon was far more offensive to him than the fact we were firebombing their cities. But this is what 60 years of nonstop propaganda about “racism” does to people.
For all of professed love of diversity, we actually hate it. All “diverse” people are really just White people in funny costumes. God forbid you draw them looking any different.
“Do as thou wilt.”
Per Jeffrey Zoar above 🤣
Our High Culture in the west is now a transvestite gyrating in a cage above a flame while a man dressed as a devil and Madonna holding a whip look on.
No one is fooled that this is ‘high culture’ but it is sad enough that this is low ‘popular’ culture. Honestly, I didn’t realize anyone even watched the Grammy awards anymore. It’s like watching daytime television. But our ruling class love to push this schlock on the masses. When there is no coherent culture underneath (the wages of our multi-cultural mandate) we apparently don’t even get a lowest common denominator. Instead, we have flop-sweat revolutionaries trying to shock us with their crudity and depravity. I’ve long-since had my fill.
One of the communist’s great achievements is blurring the distinction between high and low culture. Just look at the ridiculous new MLK monument (or whatever that crap is for).
95% of all public art these days is absolute shite, and deliberately so.
I take some solace in the fact that hardly anyone watched it and most people chuckle at the self-debasement of these people. It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the idea of Madonna introducing tranny Satan at a music show and thi9nking it makes her edgy and current. The people who rule over us are ridiculous and stupid.
I agree, but was Madonna’s intent to be edgy and current for the masses, or her peers? Virtue signaling of a focused sort. Does Madonna give a crap what the man in the street thinks, or rather cares to be “in” with her fellow perverts?
It is a good question. I think we can assume that she is so far removed from normal that what should thinks of as the masses is purely an abstraction. Forty years ago when she was young, anti-Christian was transgressive. These days it is such a daily occurrence that even the most devout turn it out. That may be true of entertainment in general. They have no idea who is on the other side of the screen anymore.
Boomers are still stuck rebelling against their racist, Bible thumping grand-daddy 50 years after he died.
Others may have different motivations of course.
If she wanted to be truly transgressive, she would have worth a full-length cotton dress and a bonnet, carried a Bible, and sung a song by Pat Boone.
Madge is still there because she’s addicted to the spotlight.
Her lyrics are positively quaint, arguably wholesome, even, compared to the filth played on the radio today.
Her music videos are really where you see the cultural decay creeping into the ’80s.
I agree, the proper thing to do at this point is to ridicule and laugh at them.
Unless they find a way to get hold of and use the power of the guillotine.
Then it gets interesting.
I honestly don’t know whether to laugh at or flee from our ruling class that allows this stuff.
G Lordon Giddy: Both. Laugh, snigger, mock, sneer. And get yourself and your progeny as far away from as many of them and their massive propaganda and surveillance state as you can.
Madonna has zero talent. It is ridiculous, as is BeeOnSay. Some dysgenic ad vehicle sent me something about how she won her 1037th Grammy. Another zero talent with a ridiculous name who brays out the musical equivalent of dollar store spatulas.
Madonna’s entire schtick is ridiculous. Its bare essentials amount to tits and a** vixenry peddled to sodomites with miscegenation sprinkled in for long lost shock value. All that to cover up a voice that couldn’t fill the final spot in a 4th grade school choir in a podunk town of 500. It is a further distraction from songs that no person of real talent and something to say would dare to write for the burden of lifelong shame it would bring.
It is ridiculous. It isn’t an elite. It is gaudy big top of debauched losers that a real circus would reject for lack of talent. Witness:
”
When you call my name
It’s like a little prayer
I’m down on my knees
I want to take you there
In the midnight hour
I can feel your power
Just like a prayer
You know I’ll take you there
”
– Johnny Hallmark
I mean what was the songwriting process there? “Hey Mort!” “Yeah. Hey Schlom!” “Yeah. You know that missing hit song for Madonna’s next album you were telling me about at shabbat the other night?” “Yeah. Still can’t get it. What’s up?” “Well, Sarah just shared with us a little poem she wrote and got the top prize in the 3rd grade poetry contest. We are a little concerned with her imagination and use of metaphor, but I think it will be perfect for that Madonna album.” “Okay. Well send it over. Ben’s gone awol with this girl he met in New York and Schmitty is frustrated with writer’s block. He is threatening to move over into script writing for porn. He thinks it has more artistic merit or something like that. I told him, merit schmerit! We just need to sell something. Anyway, we are in a jam here with no hit and a marketing campaign that has the public salivating.”
In the hundreds and hundreds of record reviews he did, Mark Prindle only gave one album a 0 (on a scale of 1-10), Madonna’s American Life. The review is about 20 years old now so it’s a little dated, but it’s still a great read.
Madonna is not human anymore. She’s a demon in a (barely) human body. Trannies certain special people are the same. It’s not that our rulers are stupid (well, they are, but that is a secondary problem). The real issue is that we are under attack from an army of demons. Every day there are more and more of them. They multiply through propaganda. A weakened mind means weakened soul, which is then suppressed by a demon taking possession of the body.
I was a lifelong atheist, but seeing what has been happening over the past few years made me reconsider. I truly believe what I wrote above.
Increasingly, I’m coming to see the evil supernatural as an element in the destruction of the West. It’s a topic worthy of a book, I dare say.
A short video from the satanic performance at the Grammys, with a perfect ending: https://nitter.unixfox.eu/TPostMillennial/status/1622449931121479680
G Lordon – no way I’d spend a heartbeat watching that…production. However, I just had to look at what the Google provided – and Satan might well be pleased at the look she’s sporting.
do you think he has led a blessed life? she looks like a cartoon, is in extremely poor health (she’s a pill addict), and is tormented by her decrepitude. karma in action…
Madonna deserves a prolonged and agonizing death. But then, one can say the same for probably over half of the people running and creating popular “culture” over the past 55 years.
Madonna introduced Satan at the Grammys? Perhaps you’d be so good as to elaborate.
It is a pathetic edginess spiral. Madonna is the queen of it in her desperate attempts to stay relevant. When she first hit the scenes, she had a decent enough voice and was attractive enough to play the slut. As she aged, she lost most of her looks so has had to turn to more outlandish gimmicks to get attention. Sad.
She was the quintessential MTV “star”.
She was. But I never got the attraction. As a singer/musician, she was no better than average, and in the looks department I’d give her only 78 marks out of 100. I could stroll across my local university campus on any given day and see several girls prettier than Madonna.
That’s why people need to look towards the future, and stop trying to go back to the past. People pine for a return to 1980, or 1950, or 1776, but it’s all a moot point. 1980, 1950, and 1776 already happened, and we see where it led us – here. Returning to 1980 would simply be burying your head in the sand and buying yourself one generation.
As Citizen said below, liberal democracy leads to open borders, since we’re all equal. If we’re all the same underneath, then you being against open borders is simply because you hate somebody for their skin colour, aka a dumb, small minded bigot. The solution to preserving liberal democracies is of course to preserve the Western European demographic, which goes against the whole idea in the first place.
Demographically the fall of liberal democracy is inevitable. We will either import enough people who have no interest in democracy (like the Chinese) who will eventually change the system or simply invade us. Or, we will import enough people who simply don’t contribute to any system (Africans, Mestizos) and whatever the system calls itself will be meaningless. Congo was not big on political philosophy last I checked.
I would caution people to really think about cheering the fall of the liberal democratic system. Careful what you wish for. We have seen unprecedented wealth, comfort, and technological advances. It’s easy to say that comfort makes weak men, but to live “hard times” is another thing. We all continue to benefit from the system despite our gripes. Imagine living in Cuba or Venezuela, vs. America. It will fail regardless though.
“We all continue to benefit from the system despite our gripes. Imagine living in Cuba or Venezuela, vs. America. It will fail regardless though.”
I can’t because i’ve never lived in any of those places. Though people using their “imaginations” really did a number on society in 2020 eh? 😉
My point being, the same media that tells you how terrible the world is outside of your bubble is the same media that told you everyone was going to die or was dying in 2020.
i see the failure of the current system as unalloyed good. it will kill fedgov and let myriad regional solutions take place. don’t see a soviet like collapse because we are in a very different place than they were in 1990. also don’t see a Rwanda like blood letting. all the deadwood will get “burned” (or will self-deport) because the handouts and subsidies will be over. most of the ugliness will take place in what are currently blue states, as the cloudies are removed from the “board” a piece at a time. no one is going to fight to keep them in power…
Its funny, when i first learned that our country was a house of cards in 2008, i found it very frightening. Now i cheer on the collapse to end all the madness that spews forth in the lies to keep the damn plates spinning. Utter financial chaos would be a panacea compared to what we have now. At least it would be real.
I hope you are right, that may be the best outcome.
Agree you cannot go back.
“Whispered to the conservatives. — What was not known formerly, what is known, or might be known, today: a reversion, a return in any sense or degree is simply not possible. We physiologists know that. Yet all priests and moralists have believed the opposite — they wanted to take mankind back, to screw it back, to a former measure of virtue. Morality was always a bed of Procrustes. Even the politicians have aped the preachers of virtue at this point: today too there are still parties whose dream it is that all things might walk backwards like crabs. But no one is free to be a crab. Nothing avails: one must go forward — step by step further into decadence (that is my definition of modern “progress”). ”
-Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
“As the last radical ideology standing, liberal democracy promises a world free of all coercion, which is a direct threat to society itself.”
Society is a debt. Whether it’s primitives worshipping ancestors, Socrates submitting to Athens’ sentence, or radicals trying to burn it all down, at bottom is the acknowledgment that the individual owes something for what was created and given to him— even his identity.
The problem is when the debt is predatory, the obligation abusive. I believe, as an American, such a situation is possible, and in that case revolution becomes necessary. A lot of talk on the right is persuasively anti-revolutionary, some go so far as to put any rebellion down as a moral evil, or at least I get the sense sometimes. But I can’t brook that much docility lol.
That’s the question with America, isn’t it? How much revolution is too much, is it in our DNA, or can we put it away and remain ourselves?
There is also the use of violence and the mob. Darryl Cooper’s recent substack tackles this dynamic in the schools in the 60s. It is a good description of the suicide pact of one group playing by the rules in order to avoid coercion, and another using physical force largely unmet by resistance. See the TheMartyrMade substack and The Battle of Ocean Hill-Brownsville
The powderkeg and the tinderbox sit together, doused by gasoline by a ruling class that is handing out matches to its pets. Pat a gollum on the head, but it will not change the fact he wants you dead.
Haven’t listened to his substack, but listened to someone recite “Race War in High School”. After that, when one comes across old photos of 60’s ethnic city dwellers harassing new minorities who moved into their neighborhood, all one can think is “Everything they said would happen, happened”
Their only mistake was picking the wrong target. They should have burned down the houses of all the rich scumbags who were underwriting their displacement.
I had a thought the other day that this whole world war III that were careening towards is fake and what it’s doing is intentionally collapsing the West so we’re going to have to rely on humanitarian aid from Russia and China and that will level everything, get us under one system of authority. Some China Russian probably Israel hybrid authority. And everyone will have to be under the same system so, you know, we can get keep everyone safe and fed
It probably is.
The controllers have repeatedly stated the US, particularly its middle class, is the number one impediment to realizing their vision of one world government.
It seems all it a flight from coercion. This is of course not possible. We are born against our will, and if we were not we would have none at all. We will die eventually, mostly against our will. So what accommodations is there in between. Life should be ment for living.
All laws, including constitutions, are only as good as the people. If a society is blessed with competent people, it can function under most conceivable systems. With an excess of the incompetent, no system, no matter how perfect, will fail. Like the house built on sand, when the storms come it will fall and great will be the fall of it.
One other note, demonstrated competence is more important than theoretical measures like IQ. One reform worth pitching is that people should have to earn the right to vote through some accomplishment that demonstrates competence to fully participate in public affairs. A good auto mechanic, who does poorly on standardized tests but is full of practical competence, might be a better judge of the public good than the college graduate who scores high on an IQ test but is otherwise a klutz.
That creates a great incentive to increase competence. You have to prevent the gaming of the demonstration/certification process.
I think of a POC I know whose asthma means he would never quality for the fire department. He faked a breath test, and, aided by AA, is a useless fire fighter and one more hanger on dragging down the public pension system. Another benefit of democracy exacerbated by multi-culturism where hatred of others and the system itself create a contempt for it that justifies abusing it.
Implementing standards in regard to who gets to vote would be a positive step if only because it militates against the dangerous fantasy known as Equality*. However, such standards would not likely have any effect on the core reality of “democracy” that renders the whole concept a massive lie: the fact that all the candidates are essentially owned by a tiny minority of bankers, technocrats, and other assorted oligarchs. No matter what system we adopt or develop, we’re stuck with elites ruling it. And we never get to vote on those elites. Those who qualify for the franchise only get to vote on which elite puppets get to pretend to run the show. It’s unclear how limitations on suffrage would change that in the slightest.
*There is only one genuine Equality in this world: Death.
That’s a good point. And we’d also still be faced with the reality that those running for office would be the same type of mendacious, power-hungry sociopaths that have always run for office in democracies.
My standard reply to a leftist looking at Scandinavia as a model is “What system wouldn’t work well in a small nation of 6 million well educated white people?” But this is just ‘owning the libs’ and gets me labeled a racist.
In my current position I am tasked with the training of a cohort of Millenniums every 12 month or so. I work in the advantages of a homogenous society at every turn. I remind them that socialist countries like the Nordic regions work only because they have effectively no path to citizenship for those not born there. It’s no big thing really, but I can’t help thinking that the DR could inflict “death by a thousand cuts” to the GAE if we implemented this on a mass scale. Do what you can, when you can, how you can.
The problem is that in democracy the elected people are temporary caretakers and do not own the government/state. They have every incentive to spend spend and run up a lot of debt. The USA did this as a republic and for basically all its history before blacks or women could vote. Read Hoppe
In the meantime white people are starting to be exterminated by various means. In many places in this country violence against white people is nearly a civil right. It is being inculcated into the fabric of blacks already here and the millions who are being imported for the purpose of completing the genocide. Take a look at some of the tik tok videos. Doctor Mammone was not available for comment.
African blacks are being sent in huge numbers to Central America and then brought by buses to the U.S. Border intermixed with all of the other third world castoffs. All internationally organized and funded by the U.S. Government. Make no mistake it is a genocide. Note that none of these people are vaxed and none will ever be coerced into taking the vax.
When the numbers look good enough to the globalists, the genocide can “officially” begin. It won’t take much. The powers that be will just tell the hoards that the reason they are poor is because white people stole everything from them. The idea will be well received to put it mildly.
“The powers that be will just tell the hoards that the reason they are poor is because white people stole everything from them.”
Seems we’ve passed that mile marker a good while back.
They were never kangz and will never be kangz. But the only logic they understand comes from the barrel of a gun. It’s the Anglo-Zulu war all over again. Will the fate of heritage Americans be that of Islandlwana or of Rorke’s Drift?
Probably much of the descent to degradation over the past few decades can be attributed to the decline in and corruption of religion. All the old historical and moral guardrails have been chipped away and pretty much finally collapsed and all we see anymore is anything goes. I don’t even know if a largely homogeneous society could dodge the bullet. A lot of European countries are far Whiter than this dump, yet have chosen to follow the same path. It may just be that White Western liberal democracy has had its run and the sun is setting fast.
Pingback: The Paradox of ‘Liberal Democracy’ | American Freedom News
And therefore what? Do we just stand back and whine about how bad things are? Do we bury our head in the sand and pretend the problem will go away all by itself? Do we content ourselves with documenting our decline and hope some future civilization will benefit from this information? Do we continue to do the idiot dance in which we endlessly vote harder expecting a different result “next time.” Do we soothe our egos with erudite analyses thinking that abstractions will fix what ails us? “You have Stage 4 cancer but if you think good thoughts it will go away.”
At some point, we have to get real. And that means hard men will have to do hard things. But the number of hard men is declining rapidly and the supply is drying up due to a “woke” cultural that incentivizes insanity. Which is why the collapse needs to happen sooner rather than later. If it takes too long, then the body won’t have enough left in the tank to rebound and heal.
Perhaps if the black pilled Boomers (like me) could be convinced that we have lived long enough and be those “hard men doing hard things” some small measure of fear could be instilled in the enforcement arms of the GAE. Not saying it would ever happen, just doing some mental wool gathering on the possibilities.
Hard is just shorthand for determination and resolve. The coming fight is not going to be won by Rambo wannabees clutching and firing an M2 with one hand on the barrel. It’s going to take an army of nobodies that nobody notices operating solely out of the confines of their cranium and being opportunistic and spontaneous. And the best will be both unconventional and unpredictable. And the very best will be highly focused with an eye toward starting the stampede.
“The public could be persuaded that free speech is a bad idea and vote to suppress political speech.”
The West have been persuaded that freedom is ugly and demonstrations against public policy are tantamount to insurrection.
Hence the widespread use of “freedumb”. See Canada…
Liberal democracy seems to suffer from several flaws. It’s emphasis on equality eventually leads to a questioning of borders and citizenship. If we’re all equal, why not allow other equal people into our society.
There’s also the fact that it pushes politicians to expand the franchise or use immigration as a means to achieve a majority.
So, liberal democracy doesn’t work. What’s better?
Tough question, but I’d say it starts with biology. All systems will develop flaws but having a society made up of like-minded people (because they are related) should keep the system at least somewhat coherent with the population.
It’s not a coincidence that America’s society functioned better when it was more homogenous. Watch a movie from the 80s and you will see that the country at that time may as well be another planet compared to today. Go into an elementary school today and you’ll see almost zero white kids. Democracy is a joke, but in a homogenous society, it could be improved. That being said, if you have enough low IQ people you can control the morality as we’ve seen with the rise of leftism, and destroy it all.
The question I have is if we had never allowed women or blacks the right to vote and we kept the rules that you needed to have a skin in the game to vote, would it have three up the same way or would it just have slowed it down?
*ended up the same way
But the morality of liberal democracy would never have kept blacks and women from voting. If we’re all equal under the law, your morality will have to accept that everyone gets to vote.
A society would have to accept as part of its moral principles that we’re not all equal, that there’s a hierarchy.
“A society would have to accept as part of its moral principles that we’re not all equal, that there’s a hierarchy.”
Did we not have at least some of this before? Not everyone could get into med school, college, engineering/STEM jobs, etc. Pilots were an exclusive group with certain capabilities.
Now that the egalitarians have completely taken over, everything has declined. Just yesterday I saw that two planes nearly collided at Austin airport.
To expound on this further, we acknowledged the inequality of man indirectly. What is viewed as “white supremacy” today was simply the organic form of the proverbial “the cream rises to the top”. The people who were the best at their respective fields dominated those fields. It is exactly why there were very few black quarterbacks and head coaches in the NFL, why most doctors were white, etc. etc.
What is frightening is the coming collision course with reality. You cannot simply manufacture equality like our society does now. By wiping away all of the standards to measure achievement, you will simply flood the environment with people who do not belong there. We are already seeing the consequences of this happen in real time. It is impossible not to notice the decline in competency in almost every area of our society.
The multi-ethnic society could never survive a meritocracy, because it will never be the case that people want individuals who ‘look different than them’ to do better than them on average. Quotas and tokens were always going to result from a populace that views themselves as different from one another.
Tired Citizen-
The lunatics currently in control of the West honestly seem to believe they can fight and win a three-front industrial war against Russia, China, and Iran by doubling down on diversity.
A study of the US crises of the 1840′ and 50’s might help.
After the American revolution, British Canada was able to exist north of the US, but, 70 years later, a southern Confederation was unacceptable to the northern Puritans.
Unfortunately, the new religion has purged all but a single book on the subject from my government library. The shelves happily spell out “US History: 1790-1815” and then skips straight to “US Civil War: 1855- Reconstruction”.
I guess nothing happend in the US after the war of 1812.
“..and then, because they were racist (which is the worst thing ever) the southern states tried to leave the US.”
Many of us would be happy to secede from the USA, but does it make sense that they would let us go peacefully given that bit of 19th century history?
Some of the logical reasons given for Greater Idaho are that the progressives should want to let western Oregon go due to cultural differences and the removal of tax subsidies; however, that assumes logical reasons have anything to do with anything.
Of course I meant let `eastern` Oregon go — geography is hard!
If they would permit them to secede there would be no need to secede. Portland and Eugene would happily live their own laws and let the East live by what they choose. No reason to secede. But, Portland and Eugene happily take the easterner’s money to fund there schemes. The money aside, they get off on realizing their messianic project of forcing everyone to live as they command, and writing onto the blank slate of the children’s minds that they will happily first erase.
Even if the east could secede, it has been thoroughly infiltrated by the Cloud fringes who have moved in to places like Bend in order to afford life after making it unaffordable in Denver and California coastal enclaves.
Between that and the border invasion the Dirt keeps getting rochambeau’d (sp?) by the Cloud and the Mud.
There is absolutely zero chance they would let us go peacefully. The unfortunate truth is that the only pathway to victory is vanquishing of the other side. Take that as you will…
RealityRules, I left Bend years ago. Trust me, that town/city is already lost to the West side.
“Then one day, for no reason at all, Southerners voted Jefferson Davis into power…”
The US tried to invade Canada on multiple occasions.
None of the US invasions went well.
Franklin’s opening gambit during peace talks with the British after Yorktown was the surrender of Canada. I shudder to think how screwed up we’d be if we had to placate not just the Spanish speakers but also a sizeable contingent of Francophones.
> There’s also the fact that it pushes politicians to expand the franchise or use immigration as a means to achieve a majority.
Yes, and you can see the same problems looking at the history of Rome. Any system that is “democratic”/participatory in nature (even “muh Constitutional Republic”) will inevitably expand the suffrage well past the point of harm because there is always an inherent political/economic/social incentive to do so.