ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, May 08, 2015

There is no democracy

It's time for the Men of the West to understand they do not live in democracies, or even democratic republics anymore. They live in oligarchies. The Ciceronian political cycle predicts aristocracy follows democracy, and that is precisely what we are seeing in the USA and in the UK. What Carroll Quigley described as the "Anglo-American Establishment" has turned its back on even the pretense of democracy known as "representative democracy".

Airball sent me the following tweet:
"UKIP got 5 million votes & 1 seat. The SNP got 1.5m votes & 30 seats. This is not democracy. Time for English people to speak up."
That's not only not democracy, it's not even representation. It's not "one man, one vote" either. People still complain that a black individual was counted as three-fifths of a person in the southern States of America, but in the UK in 2015, a UKIP voter is counted as one-one hundredth of an SNP voter.

And it should come as no surprise that the two parties that made the rules, the Conservative and Labor parties, just happen to be the two parties that most benefit in terms of their percentage of seats won exceeding their percentage of the popular vote.

In the information age, there is no longer any reason not to adopt direct democracy. The technology already exists to utilize it. And all the existing evidence from various referenda around the world proves that direct democracy is more sober and sane than the misnamed "representative democracy" it would replace. All the worst features of "mob rule" are present, and then some, in the corrupt version of "representative democracy" that presently dominates; it is considerably easier to buy or corrupt a few hundred "representatives" than hoodwink 50 percent of the population.

In any event, in light of the Tory victory, it should be interesting to see how long it takes David Cameron to start weaseling out of his pledge to hold a referendum on Britain leaving the EU.

Labels:

111 Comments:

Blogger ScuzzaMan May 08, 2015 5:28 AM  

Certain political elements tend to avoid direct admissions of the sort "well, yes, I said that but now I'm doing this". It just doesn't play too well to their target constituency, although that same constituency is quite accepting of indirect versions of the same thing.

I expect Cameron will either:

- go ahead with the referendum but come out strongly in the "Stay" camp, mouthing about democracy and giving people a choice, and he is just expressing his own personal opinion, while dog-whistling and fear-mongering for the blue-rinse grey vote, who are reliably stampeded in any desired direction.

- or, failing that, use some external conflict - another war or another widespread financial contagion - to "postpone it".

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 08, 2015 5:30 AM  

Democracy is the worst form of government. Aristotle says that only in an agrarian situation that democracy works because the farmers are busy at their farms most of the time. Democracy is the Rule of the General Will, not the Rule of Law.

"Democracy is the road to socialism." Karl Marx

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

"Modern Socialism is inseperable from political democracy." Elements of Socialism, pg 337.

"The view that democracy and Socialism are inwardly related spread far and wide in the decades which preceded the Bolshevist revolution. Many came to believe that democracy and Socialism meant the same thing, and that democracy without Socialism or Socialism without democracy would not be possible." Socialism, Ludwig von Mises, pg 67.

"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable." Adolf Hitler as a young man watching the Social Democracy marches in Vienna. (Mein Kampf, pg 78. Manheim translation, Mariner paperback)

Democracy is the vehicle for socialism. Social Justice is the culture of Socialism, much more like Marxism.

Aristotle said that all things are either in Authority or in Subjection. That is a Natural Law. There is always an elite. Either the elite is your warrior class or it will be the Academic SJWs. All societies exhibit a hierarchy of the ruling and the ruled. That is true in the family. The Natural Law of Righteousness also impedes the working of democracy. Not all people are fitted to rule. Nature only fits a few to rule. Western Man needs to return to Monarchy and Mixed Government, i.e. Classical Republicanism.

Anonymous Sensei May 08, 2015 5:34 AM  

It is indeed a pity the technology for direct democracy did not exist when the combination of philosophical and historical (and geographical) factors were present which allowed for the founding fathers to set up this experiment in self-rule.. the opportunity is not likely to come again.

Anonymous Ed May 08, 2015 5:35 AM  

The EU referendum, if it takes place will be key. A yes vote will likely lead to another Scottish referendum. If Scotland split then a huge chunk of left wing support goes.

I'd love and English referendum on Scottish independence.

Anyway, as a UKIP voter disappointed but not surprised. FPTP always favours the big two.

Blogger Shimshon May 08, 2015 5:35 AM  

At least Brits are willing to "waste" their vote. Everyone knows the UKIP has serious electoral backing. No one in the US takes the Libertarians seriously, and I am sure the "wasted vote" syndrome has a lot to do with it.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 08, 2015 5:40 AM  

The Founding Fathers of America hated democracy!!!!! They set up a supposedly "democratic republic" (which is an oxymoron). They restricted the vote. The Senate was NOT popularly voted in. There were numerous checks and balances such as the electoral college. They hated democracy.

English style government is Parlimentary democracy much different from the American form of democracy. Parlimentary democracy is very different.

Anonymous zen0 May 08, 2015 6:09 AM  

> Parlimentary democracy is very different.

for instance.

Labour was the closest to the Cons in popular votes and seats, but the calls have begun for their leader to resign.

UKIP is celebrating the fact that they got their first seat in parliament, even though shafted by the system.

Members don't have much power anyway. Everything is decided in the PMO (prime minister's office.

Blogger VD May 08, 2015 6:24 AM  

Wheeler, shut up already. We all know your feelings about democracy. You need to learn to stop posting the same damn thing all the time. People simply tune you out. And stop using exclamation points. You're not a teenage girl.

Anonymous Ed May 08, 2015 6:25 AM  

Shimshon - That is precisely what Cameron banked with his support on gay marriage. Those on the right would have nowhere to go anyway. That's where they lost my vote. If that meant Labour got in and things get worse so be it.

Blogger James Higham May 08, 2015 6:55 AM  

I am one of the UKIP activists over here. We are gutted, yes. But there were extreme dirty tricks going on the whole time with the Establishment and MSM.

Blogger James Higham May 08, 2015 7:04 AM  

Vox readers - this was from one of your citizens in Breitbart, our version:

UKIP faces the same challenges the Tea Party faces here in the States the real voices of the real American citizenry is up against the political power structure in Washington DC from the Republican / Democrat professional politician class.

Anonymous CarpeOro May 08, 2015 7:30 AM  

I haven't slipped out of the anger stage yet regarding the devolution of the political cycle, but I see no path forward that doesn't include massive suffering for all.

Blogger IM2L844 May 08, 2015 7:33 AM  

In the information age, there is no longer any reason not to adopt direct democracy.

There may have been a small window of opportunity at some point, but we missed it. Now, a simulation would be far too easy to pass off on an unsuspecting public. The power brokers will have their way.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 08, 2015 7:35 AM  

I cannot believe this. How do you reconcile the prediction that there's gonna be a backlash/war with the fact that UKIP only got 5 million voters? I expected them to get much more.

If people were sick and tired of immigration to the extent you guys claim, why would they vote for Labour and Tories in droves, like that?

Anonymous Steveo May 08, 2015 7:37 AM  

I wonder if a free country can spring up somewhere in the UK remnant?

Blogger Matt May 08, 2015 7:38 AM  

They all need to die. Not just enough of them to deterr the rest. All who have a record of acting againat the interests of the American people.

Blogger Nate May 08, 2015 7:42 AM  

Wheeler. Vox did not write that democracy is good. He wrote that it is better than what we currently have.... and you socialism bogeyman rings hollow. We are already socialist.

Blogger Noah B #120 May 08, 2015 7:45 AM  

"If people were sick and tired of immigration to the extent you guys claim, why would they vote for Labour and Tories in droves, like that?"

Stockholm syndrome

Blogger VD May 08, 2015 7:45 AM  

How do you reconcile the prediction that there's gonna be a backlash/war with the fact that UKIP only got 5 million voters?

UKIP wasn't promising to end immigration. Also, there is tremendous inertia to electoral politics. 10 percent of the vote in the face of it is huge.

Anonymous Dirtnapninja May 08, 2015 7:45 AM  

If I were the Tories I would be taking at the UKIP results very very seriously. In Canada it took the Reform Party several elections to break through in seats, despite winning a healthy percentage of the popular vote. Once that breakthrough finally came the Progressive Conservatives were destroyed.

Blogger Salt #0008 May 08, 2015 7:46 AM  

How much more in your face can it get?

Blogger icr May 08, 2015 7:50 AM  

Number of votes per seat:
SNP 26,444
CON 34,342
LAB 40,232
GRN 121,216
LD 289,262
UKIP 3,767,137"

Anonymous Joseph Dooley May 08, 2015 7:53 AM  

How do you reconcile the prediction that there's gonna be a backlash/war with the fact that UKIP only got 5 million voters?

It only takes a 15-20% presence of willing insurrectionists to provoke civil war.

Blogger Nate May 08, 2015 7:59 AM  

"It only takes a 15-20% presence of willing insurrectionists to provoke civil war."

Best estimates show that 20% or less than of the population of the 13 colonies supported the revolutionary war.

Blogger Nate May 08, 2015 8:00 AM  

regardless its not 5 million that provoke the war... its the response of those in power... the abuses of those 5 million that provoke the war. Changing them from 5 million to 20 million.

Blogger Mandos May 08, 2015 8:02 AM  

Shadow of Shadows, allow me to humbly draw a slightly different picture of the scrutiny.

Pundits and pollsters predicted a much better result for the very vocal Labour and its very PC-proof rants. They have been bitterly defeated.

In the meantime, the UKIP score while better than in 2010 is nowhere close to what it would be had it succeeded in its objective to incarnate the new alternative to the right.

What I read here is that regardless of their lassitude towards the very questionable track record of the Conservative party, right-leaning voters did go out and vote en masse, and they voted for the party that is able to actually exercise power.

And what I'm even more tempted to read here, in the light of the recurring difficulties of the right-wing parties across the Western world as of late, is that right-wing people increasingly seem to face two alternatives on the medium term, and two only - regardless of the post-democracy flavor they're being served: (re)take control of their grand parties, or face open dissidence.

(And greetings, by the way.)

Anonymous HatMan May 08, 2015 8:08 AM  

I don 't understand the problem here. The SNP can only be voted for in Scotland which has a much smaller population hence less votes are required to win seats. English towns and cities have higher populations hence more votes are required to win seats and the UKIP didn't get enough votes to win said seats.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 08, 2015 8:14 AM  

Nate in light of this statement: And all the existing evidence from various referenda around the world proves that direct democracy is more sober and sane than the misnamed "representative democracy" it would replace. All the worst features of "mob rule" are present, and then some, in the corrupt version of "representative democracy" that presently dominates; it is considerably easier to buy or corrupt a few hundred "representatives" than hoodwink 50 percent of the population. is what intimates that democracy is good. Democracy is never good.

I don't know why someone posted on revolution: It only takes a 15-20% presence of willing insurrectionists to provoke civil war. Nobody in England has the right to bear arms. What---England is going to have an insurrection with everybody carring shotguns?

The War/Culture was lost when you lost the culture. What sense of what form of government when you can't control one's culture. And when England's elite are immersed thoroughly in Masonic ideology, what difference would a form of government do?

Once you leave Truth, what does Scripture say? God lets you go deeper into deceivement. England is screwed. You can't resist because no one over there has arms.

England is not a representative democracy. Never was. Hardly any European government is. They are Parlimentary democracies built on a party system! It is the Party that rules and the parties make the rules that favor them. This is what Palimentary democracy is. It has never been about one man, one vote. It is Party Rule and those rules include coalitions amongst parties. Israel has a Palimentary system.

What Vox is advocating is Populism. Well, populism has the race card underneath that, and no one is going to allow that anywhere. Not going to happen and the English authorities are not going to allow populists to have guns outside of shotguns.

Anonymous Sensei May 08, 2015 8:15 AM  

I'm curious what the Libertarian or libertarian position is on what a desired state of government might look like in 2015, when a growing percentage of the population in the US (and the UK) can't even manage their own lives, let alone make intelligent decisions for the whole country.
(I'm guessing adjustments to suffrage play a large part?)

If the education system was miraculously invaded by the gods of the copy books future generations could be raised to do so, largely eliminating the problem over time, but for now we're stuck with millions of people who are totally dependent on the nanny state. (And "eh, cut off the support and let their numbers thin out" doesn't seem able to be reconciled with "love your neighbor as yourself")

Blogger Cail Corishev May 08, 2015 8:15 AM  

The current system has outlived whatever usefulness it ever had, so I don't think direct democracy could be any worse. But I wonder what would happen when all the money and effort that's currently spent on manipulating the legislators and the votes for them were turned to manipulating the direct referendums that would replace them. With their control over mainstream thinking via the media, I can see that making it easier for them, except that if there were a lot of votes going on, they might not be able to manipulate them all.

After some years of direct democracy, I could see a charismatic tyrant (in the classic sense of the word) rising up, but that might not be such a bad thing either.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 08, 2015 8:18 AM  

The scope of politics, not its form of rule, is the problem.

When every aspect of human existence is subject to political manipulation, the manner in which decisions are made is almost beside the point.

Politics is Bastiat's synonym for crime & theft. When it becomes the universal organizing principle of a society, who is too stupid to see what must follow?

Anonymous Samuel Scott May 08, 2015 8:22 AM  

Vox quoting this:

"UKIP got 5 million votes & 1 seat. The SNP got 1.5m votes & 30 seats. This is not democracy. Time for English people to speak up."

Vox, I think your complaint is illogical. Nationwide vote totals and percentages are meaningless in a system based on districts and first-past-the-post calculations. UKIP could get 10 million votes -- but if they were evenly-spread throughout the country so that they placed second in every district, they'd still get zero seats.

Blogger Noah B #120 May 08, 2015 8:27 AM  

"Nationwide vote totals and percentages are meaningless in a system based on districts and first-past-the-post calculations."

That is precisely the complaint. The political system is not democratic.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 08, 2015 8:28 AM  

Secession is the only "vote" that really matters.

I agree with those who believe the era of the nation-state is almost over; established to bring order, the state under Fabianism (which is the appropriate label for every Western nation) is the major contributor to chaos. It is time for the next phase, whatever it may be.

One essential characteristic of the next successful system of order will be smaller scale. Large, heterogeneous polities are clearly dysfunctional as systems of order.

Anonymous Samuel Scott May 08, 2015 8:32 AM  

That is precisely the complaint. The political system is not democratic.

All systems has their positive and negatives. Those in the US and UK are stable but tend to be dominated by two parties. The alternative is proportional representation -- which allows more voices to be heard but often leads to unstable systems.

I could just tell you about the horror show that is Israeli politics (we use proportional representation) -- it's almost as bad as Italy.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 08, 2015 8:34 AM  

"After some years of direct democracy, I could see a charismatic tyrant (in the classic sense of the word) rising up, but that might not be such a bad thing either."

Really? No Western country is undergoing democide....yet.

At least in the USA, a populace that has no organizing principles left, and is conditioned to Pavolvian obedience (watch people sit at a traffic signal for minutes while there is no cross-traffic for a mile in any direction) is a populace that only needs a plunge into hardship to generate a pogrom on the level of the great democides of the past 110 years.

I think a charismatic tyrant is only a couple decades away, and the results won't merit a shrug of the shoulders.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 08, 2015 8:43 AM  

One man, one "ignore, evade, and otherwise Go Galt."

There are no political solutions to the problems of politics.

As with the Tea Party and all other attempts to gradually reform political system, such are always either astroturf from the get-go or are co-opted by established interest groups within moments of being publicly noticed.

You know how essentially all "terror plots" in the US and UK are basically set-ups by their security services to justify big budgets and power-grabs (each and every "suspect" was "well known" to those services ahead of time), well, the same happens with any potential threat to established political interests.

If we woke up tomorrow and the D's & R's were discredited and gone, the same exact people would still be there wearing different buttons on their lapels. And any change in the elected government would leave in place the real, daily power in place....the 98% of "government" that is the Professional Bureaucracy.

Discussions about electoral politics today are akin to discussions in 1859 between Southern Plantation Owners in Alabama about which faction will dominate the state legislature in 1870.

Anonymous trev006 May 08, 2015 8:44 AM  

Has anyone else been following the coverage of UKIP in the British media? Even supposedly right-wing newspapers overwhelmingly backed the Tories, to the point that the debates were rigged against UKIP in the most comprehensive way. Yet not only did they get more votes than the SNP- more than the entire Scottish electorate, in fact- they got more votes than the Liberal Democrats and the Greens combined! James Higham can probably tell you all about it.

I'm a bit surprised that UKIP only won a single seat, and it looks like Farage is going to be out, but that's all right. The Reform Party in Canada didn't make it to the top with their original leader either. Farage is a decent man, but he has a touch of Preston Manning about him. Though the relatively small UKIP vote in the face of scandals like Rotherham is disheartening, if unsurprising.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 08, 2015 8:45 AM  

HatMan May 08, 2015 8:08 AM I don 't understand the problem here. The SNP can only be voted for in Scotland which has a much smaller population hence less votes are required to win seats. English towns and cities have higher populations hence more votes are required to win seats and the UKIP didn't get enough votes to win said seats.

And when the British electorate is mixed with Nigerians, Pakistanis, and Poles, which of these groups are going to vote UKIP? Western man is already too fragmented. His vote is going to be diminished just through demographics. Precisely, the British populist is never going to win majorities because he is not a majority anywhere.

-----------

And so today, the media is announcing the 70th anniversary day of VE day over Nazi Germany which England did its most to defeat---and today we are complaining about the useless voting of nationalists/populists in England? What kind of perverse world are we living in? And then Cail Corshev, who is Catholic, goes on with After some years of direct democracy, I could see a charismatic tyrant (in the classic sense of the word) rising up, but that might not be such a bad thing either.

Who was Hitler but a charasmatic leader of the volk! A tyrant rising up to fight the betraying elite of his country. Did not America and England work hard to defeat him? And then we today are praying for just this sort of man to lead us out of this mess. The Left hand doesn't know what the Right hand is doing? And then all the media celebrate the ending of Nazi Germany and screaming how evil it was, and they you want populism to flourish? After the whole population is inoculated, socially conditioned, to hate racism, nationalism and populism. That is just Great! Hitler was at the head of a populist movement. He was the democratic/party leader of Germany. And now we want to recreate that in England because it is being overrun with foreigners. Go figure. We are spinning in circles.

Blogger skiballa May 08, 2015 8:54 AM  

Good old Wheeler, I don't need to see the name to know his posts, and conversely, I don't need to read the post once I see his name.

Anonymous McOxford May 08, 2015 8:57 AM  

I fear a referendum too early. Cameron is firmly Pro EU and if he has nerve and a bit of savvy I believe he can win an in/out vote. Would that it were not so . . .

Anonymous Geoff May 08, 2015 9:07 AM  

Direct democracy based on the popular vote (instead of regional seats) would give certain geographical areas an advantage, namely big cities. Given that big cities tend to be liberal, I'm not sure this is a good idea.

Blogger bob k. mando May 08, 2015 9:19 AM  

Samuel Scott May 08, 2015 8:22 AM
Vox, I think your complaint is illogical. Nationwide vote totals and percentages are meaningless in a system based on districts and first-past-the-post calculations. UKIP could get 10 million votes -- but if they were evenly-spread throughout the country so that they placed second in every district, they'd still get zero seats.



Vox's complaint is logical so long as they continue in the pretense that this is 'democracy'.

when the electorate rules are written such that a single Scots vote is worth more than the votes of 100 Englishmen ... that's a fucking problem.

some of the animals are 'more equal' than others, indeed.

i wonder how much of the collapse in Labour / LibDem voting was due in part to the SNP bimbo bragging about how she would do anything necessary in order to create a coalition to oust a Tory majority?

Blogger Tommy Hass May 08, 2015 9:23 AM  

"That is precisely the complaint. The political system is not democratic."

It is. People just can't vote on the legislature, they vote in an individual MP. It's technically democratic in that sense, but the issues you can vote on are limited.

"Though the relatively small UKIP vote in the face of scandals like Rotherham is disheartening, if unsurprising."

They think along the lines of "I know shit tons of Pakistanis that don't do this, so UKIP are scum for slandering them". At least that's what I assume.

Blogger Nate May 08, 2015 9:27 AM  

"What Vox is advocating is Populism."

And its time to put away your theories old man and look at the empirical evidence in your face.

Even in liberal california gay marriage loses in popular referrendums. The libs have to cheat through the courts to over turn those popular votes.

That right there proves... right now today...that direct democracy is better than what we currently have... which is an abortive bastardization of lies and oligarchy.

Anonymous old coyote May 08, 2015 9:52 AM  

direct democracy? as in torches and pitchforks to throw dr. frankenstein from the castle? when can we start?

Anonymous Reziac (VFM #0159) May 08, 2015 9:59 AM  

Vox, I agree with you on a lot of points, but I'm going to take issue with this one:

The Founders restricted democracy (and before the change in how Senators were selected, it was even more restricted) because they understood very well that direct democracy is mob rule. As one famously said, "Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner."

Direct democracy works fine so long as the population is very small (perhaps no more than 5000 voters), approximately equal in their level of education and understanding, and largely similar in their beliefs and desires. Thus its last sane incarnation was... ancient Greece.

California, with its Ballot Proposition method of popular rule, is perhaps the closest example to direct democracy in the world today. And it has been a nearly unmitigated disaster. I say "nearly" because in the 28 years I lived and voted there, my firsthand observation was that out of the hundreds of ballot propositions submitted for the popular vote, only ONE made any sense, and that was Proposition 13, which restricted government's ability to raise property taxes. (And that is commonly decried as the cause of CA's schools' decline due to reduced funding -- nonsense. They are still among the most heavily funded in the country.)

Most recently, CA's voting public (98% of whom have no experience of how agriculture works, and were 99% ignorant of the fact that HSUS, which pushed Prop 2, was financially backed by egg producers in China) voted for Proposition 2, which put a halt to modern egg production in CA.

One that almost qualified for the ballot would have imposed a 50% "wealth tax" on both personal and real property over a certain value, and an "exit tax" on people leaving CA. (I was forcibly reminded that in the old Soviet Union, there was no law against leaving the country. However... there *was* a law against leaving the country without paying the hefty "exit tax", which I recall hearing was the equivalent of USD 1 million, and that was back in the 1950s/60s when that was still a LOT of money.)

And those are just the highlights that leap to mind Before Caffeine. With the sole exception of Prop 13 (which probably only passed because skyrocketing property values were causing taxes to rise beyond average people's ability to pay, and home ownership is high in CA), "giving the people what they want" has done nothing but restrict and destroy personal freedom and quality of life, because the average voter is not sufficiently educated on all the issues to realise both the intended and "unintended" consequences (which are often more significant than the intended ones). And the more voters you have, the more influence that uneducated segment gains.

A couple elections ago, CA's politicians had an abysmal 13% approval rating. Yet 100% of incumbents were re-elected. Does that sound intelligent to you??

Blogger bob k. mando May 08, 2015 9:59 AM  

Tommy Hass May 08, 2015 9:23 AM
It's technically democratic in that sense, but the issues you can vote on are limited.



technically democratic being the best kind of democratic.

Anonymous Ed May 08, 2015 10:01 AM  

James Higham - How did the council elections go? I've not seen any coverage. I would expect UKIP to do better there where there is not the worry of ushering in an SNP Labour govt by not voting conservative.

Anonymous Reziac (VFM #0159) May 08, 2015 10:02 AM  

To continue with where I was when blogspot decided I talk too much,

Here in Montana, if we don't like our politicians, we chuck 'em out. And tho we have the Ballot Proposition method of mob rule available under state law, it is seldom attempted and rarely successful. But MT has only 1/40th the population of CA (indeed, we still have counties with 4 digit populations), and a far higher average level of education. Even so, we're starting to see the SJW types gain influence as the population rises (especially as the non-ag segment becomes proportionally larger -- that seems to be the real tipping factor, when people lose sight of where their food comes from).

My observations across 60 years on this Earth have informed me that direct democracy is very much the SJW way of life -- it rewards ignorance and short-term feelgood no matter what the consequences may be. Remember that We The People elected those idiots in Washington -- they didn't just spontaneously grow there. Look around you, how many people do you see whom you trust with your life, property, and pursuit of happiness? Well, under direct democracy, they have more control than you do, because there's a whole lot more of 'em. And they've discovered that they can vote themselves largesse from the public coffers.... which are filled from your wallets.

"Democracy: that ultimate triumph of quantity over quality." -- Peter H. Peel

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do know that historically, feudalism has been the most stable form of human government, and has interfered the least in average people's lives.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 May 08, 2015 10:02 AM  

In any event, in light of the Tory victory, it should be interesting to see how long it takes David Cameron to start weaseling out of his pledge to hold a referendum on Britain leaving the EU.

You're about to see a demonstration of time travel wherein David Cameron NEVER made such a pledge. Perhaps Stickwick could publish a paper on the phenomenon.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 May 08, 2015 10:32 AM  


I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do know that historically, feudalism has been the most stable form of human government, and has interfered the least in average people's lives.

Lots of systems can be relatively stable, but if your goal is to maximize liberty within a stable nation, then dencentralization, diffusion of power, and governmental subdivisions that are small enough for the citizens to generally know each other and their leaders work best. Large numbers lead to relative anonymity and lack of accountability. The other factor that goes hand in hand with this is a fair degree of social mobility that permits worthy individuals to move up is status and allows the unworthy to move down or be removed from authority.

The feudal system had these factors to varying degrees. Common warriors could move up via meritorious service, intelligent commoners could advance via the priesthood, unworthy Earls could be removed or lose their lands, the Barons retained enough aggregate power to check the King's worst excesses, and individual fiefdoms were small enough that the people knew each other, their lords, etc. and retained a sense of common identity. It wasn't perfect but it certainly worked pretty well.

Anonymous AlteredFate (#92) May 08, 2015 10:47 AM  

One essential characteristic of the next successful system of order will be smaller scale.

When do we start? In all seriousness, when? It is becoming very apparent that if Western culture and Western people's are to survive and eventually prosper once again then a start needs to be made at concentrating those efforts, probably in one specific place. I am aware of other attempts to do such things, but too often it seems hampered by the stupidity of the leadership of such efforts.

Blogger Noah B #120 May 08, 2015 10:55 AM  

"People just can't vote on the legislature, they vote in an individual MP."

And some pigs are more equal than others.

Anonymous Elijah Rhodes May 08, 2015 10:57 AM  

Vox,

Can you explain why you feel that direct democracy would actually work in practice? How will it not morph into socialism once, as Alexander Tytler noted, "voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury"

Blogger dc.sunsets May 08, 2015 11:01 AM  

@AlteredFate, I am fond of inverting Victor Hugo's famous line: "Armies cannot compel an idea whose time has not yet come."

The world goes by itself, and any notion that the large swings are guided by volition is but collective-level anthropomorphism. Human social events are a river and we are bugs riding on a leaf. Paddle as we might, we don't alter the course of the river and we don't much alter our place on it.

Anonymous David-093 May 08, 2015 11:04 AM  

Apparently the Brits are okay with rape-gangs in all their cities and towns. And the traitors in power will continue their work of destruction.

They've made peaceful revolution impossible.

Blogger Da_Truth_Hurts May 08, 2015 11:29 AM  

Since voting can't reasonably be limited to landholding white males, the current representative systems have easily morphed into oligarchy.

So we should just go full retard and not only embrace direct democracy, we should adopt the American Idol system and let people vote as much as they want. Let us get this shit-show of a collapse underway.

Blogger Poor Guy May 08, 2015 11:36 AM  

it should be interesting to see how long it takes David Cameron to start weaseling out of his pledge to hold a referendum on Britain leaving the EU.

Which almost definitely will happen.

Anonymous EH May 08, 2015 11:36 AM  

Apologies for the long post, but there was an amusing skirmish on Charlie Stross' pre-election blog thread [ http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/05/the-scottish-political-singula-1.html#comments ], but it is buried among nearly 400 comments.

Galdruxian | May 2, 2015 06:46 | Reply
68:

Here's a naive question: If a person (say a UKIP scumbag) says: "I don't believe every human being on the planet has an equal right to live in lands that my ancestors have inhabited for centuries; for the preservation of our distict culture, security and peace of mind, there must be barriors to entry", is she a flaming xenophobe? How can you have distinct nations and not accept xenophobia as a necessary condition for the preservation of said nations? Or is the goal to abolish all nations and borders completely and create a total free-for-all?

*
Dave_the_Proc replied to this comment from Galdruxian | May 2, 2015 08:17 | Reply
69:

for the preservation of our distict culture, security and peace of mind, there must be barriors to entry

This is only true if you start from the premise that all immigrants are out to destroy the native culture, are potential criminals and terrorists, and want to steal your jobs and daughters. I think you have it back to front: These premises are not rationales for xenophobia; xenophobia gives rise to these conclusions.

*
Galdruxian replied to this comment from Dave_the_Proc | May 2, 2015 09:04 | Reply
71:

Right, you can call it whatever you want; you can diagnose it as a mental disorder if you like. I'm just saying these are some possible causes for the phenomenon denoted by the word "xenophobia".

But my guess is it's simpler than that; xenophobia is probably as old and instinctive in human beings as sexuality. Which is why trying to shame people over their xenophobic feelings is like trying to shame someone for their sexual urges -- and just as futile, if not counter-productive.

As I've said before, most political debates are reducible to debates over which psychological states and traits are acceptable in a civilized society. Treat xenophobia as a psychological issue rather than a political, quasi-religious or moral one, and you might begin to make some real progress.

*
Galdruxian replied to this comment from Trottelreiner [not worth repeating, though it had an interesting red herring about the nature of Christ] | May 2, 2015 09:17 | Reply
74:

So your argument is that if a nation already has more than one culture within its borders, it must admit all cultures from anywhere, no matter how wildly different they are from the ones that are already there? It seems a bit abstract and impractical to me.
[cont'd]

Anonymous EH May 08, 2015 11:37 AM  

[cont'd]
Galdruxian replied to this comment from El | May 2, 2015 11:24 | Reply
83:

I don't live in the UK, but just looking at the numbers, your island is surely overpopulated and doesn't need to be importing any more people.

It's fascinating to me how the UK, USA and a few other Western Capitalist countries still operate as global imperialist powers, but instead of just blatantly stealing resources from other countries, they siphon off their most ambitious people, while pitting them against their native populations and pocketing the profits. I suspect these elite capitalists have made a tactical alliance with many elite progressives and cultural Marxists, in order to vilify the natives who object as vile "xenophobes" and "racists". It's a diabolically brilliant scheme, and surely the work of some kind of inhuman lizard people!

*
Dirk Bruere | May 2, 2015 15:20 | Reply
95:

What's a good population level for England? I would say about 10 million. And after the Japanese demographic transition finally runs its course Japan is going to be a rather nice uncrowded place populated by ethnic Japanese. That is not something true of England.


Charlie Stross replied to this comment from Dirk Bruere | May 2, 2015 15:27 | Reply
96:

Ok, Dirk, YELLOW CARD. Reason: racism.

Go and stand in the corner.

*

Note what finally sets Charlie off: his tension from the preceding discussion has been building, but he lashes out at one of his long-time core commenters for mentioning a simple demographic fact. It seems that nothing is more guaranteed to get under the skin of the genetic SJW than a positive mention of Japanese ethnic homogeneity - I have seen this in other discussions. They /really/ don't like the idea of other cultures actually existing outside their control. The only tolerable cultures are powerless or agree with all their (im)moral presuppositions, (preferably both). The implication that a smaller, more united nation not only could be but actually is superior to a divided and crowded "proposition state" threatens their own parasitic place in their host's viscera.

Anonymous Joe May 08, 2015 12:01 PM  

Wheeler Poles are overwhelmingly Catholic. You should be happy they will at least fill the churches and maybe convert a few atheist Brits back. I know a friend of mine has and they now have a baptised son. The atheist/agnostic Brit now at least tries to go to church for her sake. Besides most Poles can't vote in British elections, unless we're speaking of those who were naturalised.

Blogger Corvinus May 08, 2015 12:17 PM  

Yet another great example of why winner-take-all electoral systems suck big brass donkey balls.

Minion #0333

Anonymous Jack Amok May 08, 2015 12:17 PM  

Can you explain why you feel that direct democracy would actually work in practice? How will it not morph into socialism once, as Alexander Tytler noted, "voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury"

It's not a very compelling argument to make against a new proposed system to say it might have one of the flaws of the existing system.

Blogger Corvinus May 08, 2015 12:19 PM  

Along similar lines, I've noticed France's Front National got similarly shafted in parliamentary representation, although I'm not clear on exactly why, since France does appear to have a better multi-party vote system.

Blogger rcocean May 08, 2015 12:20 PM  

These kind of threads show how stupid RIght wingers are. The Left - in the USA - has jammed through its agenda against a will of the majority thru control of the media, the SCOTUS, and a few elite institutions. Yet, the dumb Right still cranks on about how terrible Democracy is, and "Mob rule". How is the Right to stop the Left when the Elite in the USA are Leftists? The only possibility is populism - which the stupid Right rejects because they believe in Elite rule not Democracy. Idiocy.

Blogger rcocean May 08, 2015 12:22 PM  

Sometimes I wish I was a Leftist since they actually want to get Power and implement their views. I have no idea what your average Conservative wants to do. They seem mainly concerned with the keeping the Status Quo, debating trolls, and watching Football.

Anonymous BigGaySteve May 08, 2015 12:27 PM  

"If people were sick and tired of immigration to the extent you guys claim, why would they vote for Labour and Tories in droves, like that?"

Labour's promise of "an indigenous underage white British girl in every savage 3rd world moslems pot" certainly secured one sector of the vote for them. The left is very good at telling different people different things like when bath house Barry talked to black clergy a week before the 2012 election about opposing gay marriage.

Labour certainly didn't tell puffs "We got police to ignore the gang rapes of little white girls what do you think the cops will do when moslems attack you"

Blogger Cail Corishev May 08, 2015 12:35 PM  

It's not a very compelling argument to make against a new proposed system to say it might have one of the flaws of the existing system.

Exactly. "But if you did that, the people might vote for crazy levels of spending!" Oh no!

Besides, I don't see Vox saying direct democracy is ideal. I just see him saying that, if we're going to have democracy (which most Americans see as a moral imperative), then direct democracy would be better than oligarchy masquerading as democracy.

Blogger HalibetLector May 08, 2015 12:40 PM  

it is considerably easier to buy or corrupt a few hundred "representatives" than hoodwink 50 percent of the population.

I'm not sure it is easier. Representatives are what, a couple hundred grand to get one elected? The incumbency rate is over 95%, so once they're in, they're in for a while. Contrast that for the millions a media company costs, but for that millions you have instant sway over millions if not billions of individual people who believe what they see on TV. Not to mention a direct democracy has to rely on electronic communication, which is a bitch to secure.

Wheeler, shut up already. We all know your feelings about democracy. You need to learn to stop posting the same damn thing all the time. People simply tune you out.

Oddly enough, I've been lurking here long enough for 2 things to happen right now: 1) this is the first time I've read wheeler's views on democracy. 2) I'm absolutely shocked I agree with them[0]. Wheeler is one of the few commenters I tend to skim past and ignore. Which only proves your point: Wheeler should find a better way of communicating here.

Wheeler. ... and you socialism bogeyman rings hollow. We are already socialist.

That doesn't disprove Wheeler's point. If anything, that's supporting evidence.

[0]: Except for the obvious superiority of the classical republic. None of the classic republics lasted any longer than the American Democratic Republic did and they had smaller populations to boot.

Anonymous Cheddarman, vile faceless minion 0187 May 08, 2015 12:42 PM  

"The feudal system had these factors to varying degrees. Common warriors could move up via meritorious service, intelligent commoners could advance via the priesthood, unworthy Earls could be removed or lose their lands, the Barons retained enough aggregate power to check the King's worst excesses, and individual fiefdoms were small enough that the people knew each other, their lords, etc. and retained a sense of common identity. It wasn't perfect but it certainly worked pretty well." Stilicho 0066

And that is why we will probably see a turn in the Ciceronean cycle of history to the next form of government, aristocracy. as long as i can own guns, property, and gold. I would rather have a local leader that i would pledge my loyalty to, as long as he looked out for the best interests of his people. The american system is totally "f#$king corrupt and needs to go. I think many people realize the system is broken, but they cant visualize any alternative.
Minion # 0187 Cheddarman

Blogger Stilicho #0066 May 08, 2015 12:54 PM  

I think many people realize the system is broken, but they cant visualize any alternative.

Of course they can't. The only education most of them have is limited to the socialist pablum of the public schools and leftist universities.

Anonymous Too-Soon-ami May 08, 2015 12:58 PM  

The ballot box isn't working for them, but at least they have the cartridge box to fall back on if necessary oh wait...

Blogger HickoryHammer #0211 May 08, 2015 1:00 PM  

UKIP didn't get it's hands on the reigns of power this go around, but it does show some serious discontentment with the Eurozone status quo that they were third in terms of percentage. I wonder if the elites think this is going to go away or get worse for them in the future?

The left is very good at telling different people different things like when bath house Barry talked to black clergy a week before the 2012 election about opposing gay marriage.

It's one of their greater arts, but it only fools people who want to be fooled.

OpenID kbswift May 08, 2015 1:08 PM  

Vox, is a limited, decentralized government still your ideal government? If so, do you consider direct democracy a step in that direction?

Anonymous DanH May 08, 2015 1:27 PM  

It wasn't all bad. Miliband is out. The Brits were faced with an awful choice.

Miliband campaigned to make criticism of Islam illegal. This **after** all the national revelation of rape gangs all over England that operate under the protection of the likes of Miliband. It was revealed that the reason police and authorities did not do their job was fear of being attacked and bullied by people like Miliband.

Miliband is an extreme example of a Social Justice Warrior who is literally unable to the simplest of realities. His craven appeals to Muslim voters were ineffective since a large number of Muslims in the UK will not vote for him because he is Jewish. How could he not see that? Because, as Arthur Chu explained clearly, SJWs mindkill themselves on a regular basis.

Anonymous daft May 08, 2015 1:57 PM  

"...that a black individual was counted as three-fifths of a person in the southern States of America,"

Might want to amend that formulation, as it unintentionally suggests that the South itself sought the fraction. The opposite is of course true; it was the northerners who insisted on it. Blacks constantly miss this, we shoukd not.

Anonymous Elijah Rhodes May 08, 2015 2:00 PM  

"It's not a very compelling argument to make against a new proposed system to say it might have one of the flaws of the existing system."

Socialism creep is a flaw of democracy itself, not any particular flavor of it.

Vox is on record saying that he supports direct democracy. He made that assertion in the video interview the other day, and in this blog on a couple occasions. What I'm interested in hearing are his reasons.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 08, 2015 2:14 PM  

Aristotle expressly says that democracy is the Rule of the Poor.

What is Monarchy and Aristocracy? The Rule of people who are at least intelligent. Both Plato and Aristotle mention a very important fact, the ability to foresee with their minds. Nature created Monarchy and Aristocracy, i.e. the Warrior elite. These people are one's racial chauvinsit leaders. We are descending into chaos. What brought us here was the 400 years of modern republicanism, i.e. democracy. The Bavarian Monarchy lasted 800 years. Monarchy is long lasting and is civilizational.

The Parlimentary democratic system of Europe and the representational democracy of America is Bankrupt. It's time to go back to Monarchy, a proven system that even God employs. Forget about "Freedom", we need to Survive.

And by the way Ed Miliband, the head of the Labor Party, is of Jewish heritage.

Anonymous DanH May 08, 2015 2:18 PM  

A little Friday cheer, people.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/brendan-oneill/2015/05/the-biggest-loser-of-the-night-russell-brand/

Brits who are nostalgic for civilization should be glad that at least one barbarian was turned away.

Regarding direct democracy, I say yes with a **strong** clarification. Look at Switzerland. Direct democracy with power devolved to **small** areas. The more localized the better. Highly functional, highly successful. Contrast this with the California plebiscite.

Anonymous 11B May 08, 2015 2:31 PM  

Has anyone else been following the coverage of UKIP in the British media? Even supposedly right-wing newspapers overwhelmingly backed the Tories, to the point that the debates were rigged against UKIP in the most comprehensive way.

The MSM still posses an enormous power to influence elections by being the gatekeepers of who is and who is not acceptable. I'm surprised UKIP still got 10 percent of the popular vote given their depiction in the media. It's the same in the US. Anyone like Pat Buchanan who would run on an immigration restriction platform would have their character assassinated 24x7 until only the hardcore supporters would still consider
voting for him.

It's not hard to see the immigration restriction position gaining the upper hand if the media stopped running interference against it. If they actually decided to promote it, it would probably get 70% plus popular support. After all, if the MSM can change 2000 years of marital history in a little over two decades, making immigration restriction the issue of the day would be a piece of cake.

Anonymous JB May 08, 2015 2:37 PM  

Vox,

As much as I tend to agree with you, I think you're off on this one - unless you define "West" as "AngloSaxon countries". Most of Europe (as I'm sure you know) has some sort of a proportional representation system. It would be more precise to address this as US/UK two party problem.

That obviously does not preclude there being no democracy due to other reasons..

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler May 08, 2015 2:51 PM  

The pedigree of the SJW warrior elite:

Born in University College Hospital in Fitzrovia, London, Miliband is the younger son of immigrant parents.[3][4] His mother, Marion Kozak, a human rights campaigner and early CND member, is a Polish Jew who survived the Holocaust thanks to being protected by Poles.[5] His father, Ralph Miliband, was a Belgian-born Polish Jewish Marxist academic who fled with his father to England during World War II. From Wikipedia.

Instead of crying, we should send thank you letters to the English: Thanks for your stupidity; you've doomed us all.

Blogger Marissa May 08, 2015 3:06 PM  

^^^ No good deed goes unpunished.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper May 08, 2015 3:47 PM  

To remind folks , the UKIP got 12% of the vote which isn't small but is more than 1/3 of its nearest rivals. Its actually rather good since no one did very well . Its support is scattered though and in the system they use means the party gets few seats. I also suspect it was mostly male which is a huge thing. Women politically matter only for electoral reasons and if other methods are the order of the day? Not as much

Right now the Greens and I suspect several smaller parties are calling for changes in the system, they'll be hard to get but a lot of people are annoyed by the system as is.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32633718

Also though no one wants to think about the issue much, its really absurd to think elections are the solution to the existing problems. They aren't.

As for the cartridge box solution, the US will go down that route well before the UK does and while they are disarmed of personal arms , its a demand issue not a supply one . There are plenty of smugglers and Russia might be willing to sell too if it benefits them> heck Britons are crafty and could make arms and maybe ammo if needed.

However stiff upper lip and keeping calm and carrying and slow to hate Saxons are a huge part of the national character so patience and remember despair is the council of the enemy

Blogger Corvinus May 08, 2015 3:58 PM  

Right now the Greens and I suspect several smaller parties are calling for changes in the system, they'll be hard to get but a lot of people are annoyed by the system as is.

Again, it's the wretched winner-take-all setup, which guarantees a two-party system. New Zealand tossed winner-take-all back in the 1990s and noticed an instant improvement in the quality of voting. Vested interests, of course, want to keep winner-take-all at all costs.

Anonymous Porphyry May 08, 2015 4:14 PM  

@ Vox "In the information age, there is no longer any reason not to adopt direct democracy." can you clarify this statement?

Anonymous trev006 May 08, 2015 4:23 PM  

People on both sides of direct democracy cite the examples of Switzerland and California as the pro and con. A homogenous, patriotic, and wealthy population with the intelligence to make informed decisions is going to flourish under direct democracy. But they would arguably flourish anyways, just as a deeply poor population at war with itself and its government is going to collapse. Naturally, classical liberals of the educated upper class will favor the style of government that they would be most satisfied with, but is the United States or the UK currently capable of being ruled by a government like Switzerland's? Odds are low, I think.

Anonymous DavidKathome May 08, 2015 5:03 PM  

Most recently, CA's voting public (98% of whom have no experience of how agriculture works, and were 99% ignorant of the fact that HSUS, which pushed Prop 2, was financially backed by egg producers in China) voted for Proposition 2, which put a halt to modern egg production in CA.

I am going to challenge you on this one, but in doing so I acknowledge that I don't know everything about egg production. I did learn enough to decide eating modern processed eggs is a bad idea for my health. So for many years I go to a local farmers market and buy from an egg farmer whom I trust that sells organic eggs from free range chickens.

So yes California voters threw a wrench into modern day egg production by demanding chickens have more room. What they should have done is just stopped buying eggs from the mass-production sources and gone to farmers that allow free-range. If they had done that it still would have disrupted egg production as the market tried to respond to the demand. But I don't think that is a prime example of a bad or stupid vote. I am willing to consider arguments to the contrary.

Blogger Corvinus May 08, 2015 6:25 PM  

which pushed Prop 2, was financially backed by egg producers in China

It amazes me that China is both allowed to export food, and is even able to.

Anonymous Too-Soon-ami May 08, 2015 6:41 PM  

It isn't the prime example of a stupid vote, but I highly doubt more than 1% of the voters did due diligence in researching the issue of Chickens Rights; in particular, whether egg-laying chickens were actually being abused or mistreated or confined in shoe boxes.

The mere presence of such a Proposition on the ballot, asking "Should chickens be mistreated?" implies to the voter that chickens are currently being mistreated, and it is the voters' decision to end it or not. "Mister Johnson, do you still beat your wife's livestock?" I know a guy who loves fishing, and has his ear to the ground on every hunting or fishing regulation in Kalifornia; hates Ogamma; and this guy voted for Chickens RIghts without a thought. "Why shouldn't they give chickens more space?"


You want a prime example of a stupid vote? The morning after the 2008 election, some guys asked a coworker if he voted for Prop 8. "FUCK no! I didn't vote for those faggots!" he said. Laughs all around... You idiot, Yes was Against the fags, No was For them. "Oh, well, uh, um, No, I voted Yes." Yeah, sure you did.

MPAI is nearly becoming APAI. And they can all vote. The only thing we have now that barely stops the biggest idiots from voting, is inconvenience - the dreadful inconvenience of going to the polling station two streets over. If we ever get Universal Democracy ("because we have the technology, so why not"), we won't even have inconvenience to save us. Every 60-IQ fuckwit with opposable thumbs will be able to vote on every issue anyone else can think of, using their stolen iphone, xbox or bluray player.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper May 08, 2015 7:25 PM  

re: the prop 2 issue. I live in California. Its actually a decent ballot initiative. It has had no major impact on egg prices or availability and probably significantly reduced the risk of a mass cull from bird flu as just happened in the mid west and of salmonella as well.

Cheaper is not always better with food past a certain point.

Blogger SirHamster (#201) May 08, 2015 8:03 PM  

But I don't think that is a prime example of a bad or stupid vote. I am willing to consider arguments to the contrary.

From what I remember, the voting packet explained that the main effects of the vote would be that egg production shifts to out of state producers who do not have to follow Californian regulations.

In short, the main effect is to handicap Californian businesses, and then make things more expensive. That seems to be borne out by this article.

People in the egg industry say that this is one reason the egg industry in California has gone into a sharp decline. According to government statistics, the number of egg-laying chickens in California has fallen by 23 percent over the past two years.

California's consumers, though, will pay. "We can confirm that egg prices have gone up at least 35 percent. Some have reported going up 70 percent," Fong says.

Blogger SirHamster (#201) May 08, 2015 8:09 PM  

re: the prop 2 issue. I live in California. Its actually a decent ballot initiative. It has had no major impact on egg prices or availability and probably significantly reduced the risk of a mass cull from bird flu as just happened in the mid west and of salmonella as well.

I haven't done the grocery shopping in a year, but I do remember egg prices creeping up, and this article says the average went from $1.18 to $3.16.

Almost 200% increase in price is major.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 08, 2015 8:18 PM  

"
Miliband campaigned to make criticism of Islam illegal. This **after** all the national revelation of rape gangs all over England that operate under the protection of the likes of Miliband."

Well, it's not like it's very related.

If Islam is bad, it's bad independant from those acts.

In short: Islamic tenets can prove that Islam is bad, not muslims. Muslims raping people can prove that muslims are bad (or at least worse) not Islam.

I don't think it's nitpicking either.

Anonymous DavidKathome May 08, 2015 8:58 PM  

Thanks for everyone's feedback on Prop 2. My understanding is all eggs sold in CA have to follow the new rules, although I can see egg producers from places like China getting an advantage by cheating. I had forgotten the bad wording and yes, any experiment in direct democracy has to tackle this issue of misleading the voter with deceptive phrases. And I too have noticed a bump in egg prices although I was already paying far more than average for quality.

Anonymous The Kulak May 08, 2015 9:21 PM  

Like probably some who post here, I went through some fairly typical stages. During the Clinton years as I learned about politics I was a regular, kick all the Dems out and have GOP control of all three branches of gubm't and we can finally get things done Republican. The Bush years after the 2002 and especially 2004 elections and the invasion of Iraq and occupation of Afghanistan disabused me of those notions, along with the idea the U.S. could still be the force for good it was in imposing 'regime change' and our values on Germany and Japan.

After 2007-2008 I went conservatarian if not libertarian and got mugged by the banksters and bailouts that all became evident. Now I am a full on red pill married male in my early thirties and everything I read here about how little my fellow Americans are capable of governing themselves or holding our leaders accountable, and the same problems in a microcosm/accelerated in Britain, and it just depresses me. No wonder so many people either tune this sense out with alcohol, anti-depressants, lardass foods, or hedonism. Or they go full prepper/survivalist, but let's be honest very few people have either the means, the willingness to become more socially isolated save for the Internet, or the discipline to just walk away from it all Dmitry Orlov style and go live on a boat or really walk the prepper walk John Wesley Rawles style.

Anonymous The Kulak May 08, 2015 9:29 PM  

"[SJWs] They /really/ don't like the idea of other cultures actually existing outside their control. The only tolerable cultures are powerless or agree with all their (im)moral presuppositions, (preferably both)." Ahem, behold Russia. The great hated white whale that unites both the Left and Right wings of the American ruling class in shared, fully politically correct hatred. Such that those pissants at RFE/RL in the Prague palace are tweeting out how much Victory Day aerial spraying to prevent it from raining on the ICBMs and Armata tanks costs, $7 million. As if I as an American or anyone outside Russia should care about such a supposedly extravagant number that's less than what Obama spends on jet fuel and to run the White House in a day.

It was a mark of a more successful, self-confident nation that while we used to make fun of the Soviet military parades, or try to glean from them who was whom in the Kremlin pecking order (these people were called Kremlinologists, and as one ex-Soviet writer who emigrated to the West notes, were essentially highly trained conspiracy theorists with some valid expertise on Russian language and society)...we didn't feel the urge to piss on them and by extension equate the 25 million killed by the Nazis with those who died collaborating with them either. Slava Ukraina! And they say Ukrainian nationalism is more than just being an 'anti-Russia' or anti-anything related to the accursed Moskals...I still don't see it, nor how they wrap their heads around the doublethink of putting committed UPA Nazis next to photos of Ukrainians who tried to kill those people during WWII as members of the Red Army on the same poster. It would be like simultaneously showing Saving Private Ryan and saving that 'Steamboat Willie' Nazi guy the audience got to see get shot in the end of the movie (spoiler alert) after he killed the unit's Jewish soldier with an SS knife.

Blogger rcocean May 08, 2015 9:57 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger rcocean May 08, 2015 9:58 PM  

Once again the comments about Democracy are incredibly dumb or out there in cukoo land. This 2015 and in the USA the elite institutions are controlled by the Left. The only way to counter this is through Populism and direct democracy. Of course, if you're just a rich leftist like Soros, I can understand your hatred of Democracy. But if you're a Conservative - that position is idiotic. Assuming you actually want to change anything in real life - as opposed to putting on a powered wig and gassing about political theory

Blogger rcocean May 08, 2015 10:01 PM  

The astounding thing about the UK is they're still using the "first past the post" system, which has nothing to recommend it. Almost every other major Parliamentary democracy has PR or some other more representative form of voting. I suppose if the UKIP could somehow threaten to win a majority in Parliament without a majority of the vote, the stuck in the mud MP's might change the voting system, but I doubt it.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 08, 2015 11:58 PM  

"It would be like simultaneously showing Saving Private Ryan and saving that 'Steamboat Willie' Nazi guy the audience got to see get shot in the end of the movie (spoiler alert) after he killed the unit's Jewish soldier with an SS knife."

Jews should be legally banned from making movies about WW2 and I actually think that movie was excellent.

See he killed a Jew! It's practically another Shoah! It's only fair that he got shot for killing his enemy in war.

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't he some wehrmacht soldier they captured but released later on? that only means that the only good German is a dead German and that people who show mercy to them are suckers.

Their narcissism is incredible.

Anonymous Rick Johnsmeyer May 09, 2015 12:06 AM  

"UKIP faces the same challenges the Tea Party"

Well unfortunately, the Tea Party in the US appears to have committed suicide. Nowadays, self-described "Tea Party" groups work to get candidates like Sen. Tom Cotton (R-NSA) elected so that they can work toward invading more of the Mideast and erode more civil liberties in the name of "security."

If that's the nature of the modern-day Tea Party, then I have no interest in helping them out.

Blogger Nobody May 09, 2015 12:28 AM  

Direct democracy: Is voting what they said on the Tee-Vee.

Anonymous takin' a look May 09, 2015 4:04 AM  

"daft May 08, 2015 1:57 PM

"...that a black individual was counted as three-fifths of a person in the southern States of America,"

Might want to amend that formulation, as it unintentionally suggests that the South itself sought the fraction. The opposite is of course true; it was the northerners who insisted on it. Blacks constantly miss this, we shoukd not."

Don't go crowing over that yet, it was for census and political purposes, not for any direct benefit for the black slaves.

And I agree with the Northerners, why would you even count ANY slave in a census outside of perhaps a livestock survey? They are slaves, by definition, they have no rights. They are chattel, nothing more, nothing less.

Blogger Mark Citadel May 09, 2015 10:53 AM  

All the more reason to be in favor of overthrowing this polluted order and re-establishing divine monarchy.

Blogger Cuca Culpa May 10, 2015 4:07 AM  

Poles are overwhelmingly Catholic.

Watching Buffalo TV news when JPII was pope (and especially when he was shot) was almost like watching EWTN.

Discovering pockets of ethnicity is always interesting. For years I had no idea of the German culture in Texas, as another example.

Blogger Cuca Culpa May 10, 2015 4:13 AM  

telling different people different things

This used to happen a lot in Canada, at least up until recently. They would say one thing in French and another in English. Doesn't work too well now that there are too many bilinguals (comme moi).

Blogger Jordan179 May 10, 2015 3:14 PM  

Regarding the discrepancy between Scottish Nationalist and UKIP votes and representation:

Well yeah, but that's an artifact of relative voter geographic concentration in a district-based voting system. A minority party which is concentrated may win seats out of proportion to its numbers, while one which is widely distributed will rarely win any. That's the disadvantage: the advantage is a greater representation of local interests. Note the difference in America between the House and Senate.

Blogger Sine Metu May 16, 2015 1:05 PM  

I don't wish anybody a "more representative" system, one that will elect members of parliament that respond to their parties and not their constituencies. Just watch Argentina.

Blogger Sine Metu May 16, 2015 1:06 PM  

And just remember, a few months ago all Scotland voted NO. just give it some time.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts