The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Darkness Destroys Democracy
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

WaPo’s motto:

Democracy Dies in Darkness.

From R-I, the percentages of respondents who say they are either “not very confident” or “not at all confident” about elections in the US being “accurate and legitimate”:

Credit where credit is due!

Not unrelatedly:

The contemporary US is an empire. It is not a republic and it is certainly not a nation:

United by descent? Nope.

United by history? Nope.

United by culture? Nope.

United by language? Nope.

Empires fall. Nations emerge from the rubble. The question is not of “if” but of “when” and of “how” the American empire will collapse. Amicably and orderly, one hopes, though that becomes less and less likely by the day.

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
Hide 20 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. It's not just America, it's the entire Western world which is collapsing. I don't think that the collapse will result in political dissolution, though, since there are weapons too powerful and economic interests too entrenched to allow this to happen.

    What I find much more likely will be a social stratification of rich countries, with a small minority of elite rich people living in gated, isolated communities guarded more and more frequently by high-tech security while the rest of society grasps with widespread but small-scale violence, social degradation, decay and instability, with the exception of some isolated, self-sufficient communities.

    The US will likely look more and more like Brasil, with a white minority still calling the shots in the economy and living isolated from a mestizo majority which largely lives in favelas, and black people carry on in ghettoes like they do now. I suspect that the US government will get MORE authoritarian, not less so, in order to control the tides.

    The Democrats will no doubt use the electoral majority to come into power and embark on large-scale graft and corruption, just like in Brasil. The resulting instability will lead people to sacrifice more and more freedom in exchange for safety, and to eventually leave the country even MORE in the hands of the military-corporate elite, with only the superficial trappings of a republic.

    Expect strong military leaders to eventually put unruly American cities or rebellious isolated "nativist" communities under martial law. Expect the role of politics to be more and more marginalized as big corporations will mostly use law enforcement and even the military to protect themselves and their interests not only abroad, but at home as well. Expect no Big Wall but thousands and thousands of smaller walls. Expect American military vehicles firing onto American citizens who are deemed "disruptive" and "unruly" for one reason or another, while fewer and fewer people care.

  2. I'm glad you posted that definition of nation. Let's compare it to Merriam-Webster's (
    b) "a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government"
    c) "a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status"

    When I was a kid in America (1980s) nation was the Oxford definition you posted. The Pledge of Allegiance only makes sense under the definition you provided. "… one Nation under God, indivisible …"

    You get similar critical differences in meaning when comparing various dictionary definitions of 'racism' to that of Wikipedia which includes "prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity". Inclusion of "ethnicity" is a big modifier.

  3. I think everyone knows that there is only a thin veneer of the perception of democracy in America. However once the veneer is gone, there's no realistic option to restore it. As we saw with the midterms, dozens of seats were stolen by Democrats who were determined to generate a blue wave, even if they couldn't get it legitimately. The veneer is just about off and once it really sinks in that the ballot box is no longer an option, we could be experiencing some interesting times. The left has been telling themselves this since November 9, where a sizable portion of the base thinks Trump won because of Russian paper ballot hacking. Just priming the pump for the moment when a Democrat wins the presidency and doesn't intend on stepping down when he/she/xhe loses the election or hits term limits. Hillary was such a person and I don't see Shaniqua Harris doing anything differently. The next Democrat likely will expect to be President for more than eight years.

  4. "Amicably and orderly"?


    Diversity and multiculturalism would never tolerate that. A reasonable alternative then is to strive for cleansing and restoration.

  5. Oracle,

    The quickest way to achieve "demographic reset" is another Depression. People would stop coming, and many would return to the Old Country. A small version of this was witnessed in 2008, when something like a million Mexicans went back.

    A "pensions bust" is certain by the 2040s barring a "kick the can" enabled by prospective "AI wealth". The small scale Illinois pension crisis has seen out-migration.

    On a macro-level, the Great Divergence is coming to an end, and China/India are resuming their pre-1600 share of the global economy. This trend demands significant humility from Westerners, but also offers the chance of someone else taking up the White Man's Burden. Becoming inward-looking is the best route for a revival of the Traditional West, focusing on small communities.

  6. Anonymous[] • Disclaimer says:

    I'd say the first commenter is correct, though I think he missed the fact that foreign powers are going to be getting in on the action too. Expect the Arabs, Chinese, and various other ethnic power players to exert increasing influence over a distracted and fractured Amerika. The West Coast at least will be turned into a Chinese colony.

    Ultimately I've given up hope on America, as well as England, France, and most of Western Europe. I think the best thing that could possibly happen right now would be a large-scale economic collapse, followed by at least one of these countries going under in ethnic warfare. The best that can be done is to provide an extreme negative example to what remains of Western Europe about the perils of diversity. Maybe that will wake them up.

  7. "Democracy Dies in Darkness"
    "Blasey Ford"

  8. 1999 to 2016 The "We Are the World" period of peak social mood optimism.
    2016 to 201? transition period.
    202? to 21?? "Do I know you? No? Bang! Bang-bang-bang!"

    500 years of rising social trust (and Utopianism) are peaking after the mania of all manias. The "correction" of this trend will be neither brief no peaceful. I'm on record as expecting (in North America) a resumption of the English Civil War where simply holding the wrong viewpoint on a particular (pertinent) question will get someone killed on the spot. Getting "outgrouped" geographically will be fatal.

    In a place as large and geographically differentiated as the USA, such conditions may be cooler or hotter, but once the Common Man no longer has the incentive to knuckle-under to the larger polity, all bets are off. People desire order above all. We can't even imagine what that means on a local level when the corrective period is in play.

    I think that what happens in Washington DC will eventually be completely irrelevant to most people's lives, just as it was 100 or more years ago. What is near will be far more relevant to safety and survival.

    One thing is certain; today's self-described freaks (Look at MEEEE, I'm different for the sake of being different!!!) will have the life expectancy of a may fly.

  9. Most Asians (East and Dot), MENAs, and 1st/2nd gen migrants from Mestizoland will leave once tolerance for enabling their presence evaporates. People who self-identify with anywhere else will "go home" simply because no matter how hard they try, in the USA they'll be strangers in a strange land (same as if I tried to move to Bejing, Mexico City or Auckland.) Home base is always safest.

    I'm here because there's nowhere else. Me and mine fail here, we fail completely. There's no Dunkirk Evacuation for us.

    That's motivation.

  10. The tweet to which you linked from Joe Norman…

    If he's an "applied complexity scientist" I'm a ham sandwich.

    What a clueless clown. Thinks the "alt-right" is evil and marginalized, that the muddy middle (civic nationalism) is good, strong and will win out. Doesn't seem to notice that CN is the grease on which the Left slides the USA toward oblivion.

    I loathe those who complain about the trend of the last 40-60 years but lack the cognitive horsepower to recognize in themselves that which consented to it at each and every pause, but who then have the balls to imply that they're "highly intelligent."

    I fucking hate supposedly high-IQ people who are so self-deluded.

  11. i'm surprised whites tend to not believe in voter fraud as much as blacks and other nonwhites. In 40 years, it'll probably be different.

    Right now its a collision course between demography and geography. The dems have an advantage based on sheer demographics and the gop will almost always lose in a national straight up-down election.

    The Rs have an advantage in geography with the EC, the senate and by extension the ussc that could theoretically protect those institutions.

    It almost feels like a dam is breaking in this country and the more the dam is taped together – the worst the eventual dambreak is going to be.

  12. AE,

    Do you know what is going on with the unz site and Sailer's blog?

  13. IF you don't like the new diverse America then you can LEAVE

    ALL PEOPLE OF COLOR get along great and are working toward justice and peace.

    Only white males are holding the country back

    You need to read Leonard Pitts

  14. Anonymous[] • Disclaimer says:

    A lot in this post-I thought I'd address the first graph (faith in elections). I'm probably not unique, and certainly not prescient, but I too have come to the realization (not just the last election-probably over the last three or so) that our democracy is fundamentally corrupt, and probably has been since its founding. It is clear that voter fraud is deeply pervasive in our elections: the abstract memories from the Kennedy election (the dead voting in Chicago) aren't really abstract-they express fundamental truths about elections in the United States that nobody seems to want to address.
    Why would the United States not require voter ID? How is it possible (in a statistical sense) that so many elections recently are decided by a handful (0.2% of the vote, for instance) of votes? Obviously going back to Bush-Gore: the likelihood that the two parties are so split in their popularity that close elections are going to be within a tenth of a percent or less is absurd. The fact that it keeps happening in important districts suggests obvious fraud. As Scott Adams suggested: the fact that elections are easy to steal, and extremely valuable to steal, indicates that they are in fact being stolen. The fact that recounts are the current method to steal them (recounts that inevitably benefit one party rather than the other) also suggest it.

    In short, with just a little thought, it appears obvious that elections are being stolen. And when we read our history books (again, with the indifference of a hundred years or more of distance), and read about offering drinks at the polls, bussing in (wagonning in?) voters, bribing voters, dead voters, and so on: it seems pretty clear that election corruption is fundamentally built into the American system.


  15. OracleOne,

    The Brazilifaction–or, more accessibly for an American audience, the Californication–of the country also seems to me the default outcome if, in Jared Taylor's words, "we do nothing".


    Right. The definition of words change over time. "Nation" in increasingly indistinguishable from "polity".

    Random Dude,

    The next Democrat likely will expect to be President for more than eight years.

    Think it will be that blatant, that fast? I like a bold prediction, though I wonder if it won't be something like what happened in Russia with Medved and Putin. A distinction without a difference, I guess.


    In the shorter run, it'd mean a ton of political power in either the new broken off bluestatistan or in the remaining US following a red state exit.


    The small scale Illinois pension crisis has seen out-migration.

    A sign of what is to come in the future, with emigrants from Illinois being states from the union. That the Fed will try to monetize the debt–because they have no other choice–won't change anything.


    Agree. There may be something similar to eastern Europe in parts of the US.

    Dome Beers,

    Ha, indeed!

    Deter Naturalist,

    People desire order above all.

    LOLbertarians wept.

    I saw that tweet on my feed from someone else. I don't know anything about the guy. He may as well be an NPC, but the sentiment he was reflecting was worth remarking on.


    Lines of code are rotting in the cubicles!


    LOLbertarians cheered!

  16. "Why would the United States not require voter ID? How is it possible (in a statistical sense) that so many elections recently are decided by a handful (0.2% of the vote, for instance) of votes? Obviously going back to Bush-Gore: the likelihood that the two parties are so split in their popularity that close elections are going to be within a tenth of a percent or less is absurd. The fact that it keeps happening in important districts suggests obvious fraud. As Scott Adams suggested: the fact that elections are easy to steal, and extremely valuable to steal, indicates that they are in fact being stolen. The fact that recounts are the current method to steal them (recounts that inevitably benefit one party rather than the other) also suggest it."

    Just stop it, already. Popular candidates (or parties) win easily; uncertainty and sourness over both candidates/parties yields tight elections.

    Since the 2000 election, I've become so sick and tired of whining about "electoral fraud". Wanna win an election? Tell people what they want to hear. And don't be associated with the party that people are tired of, or actively distrust.

    Parties tend to get 8 years in the White house, 12 years if they are very lucky. But eventually people get nervous about letting the same party occupy the white house for too much time, so then the other party gets a shot.

    Nixon won in '68 because of LBJ's over-reach. Carter was elected in 1976 because of Watergate. Reagan was elected in 1980 and '84 because American's were becoming disenchanted with New Dealism and cultural liberalism. This mood was strong enough in '88 to get Bush elected; then the early 90's recession hit, and Bush was dumb enough to think that doing the fiscally responsible thing (raising taxes) outweighed the political cost of breaking a public promise. So we were done with the GOP for a while, and then gave the Clinton and the Dems the White House for 8 years. By 2000, we'd found Clintonism to be a bit stale, but at the same time were not that impressed by Bush 2. So the election was pretty tight, but Gore ultimately found the Southern, Plains, and interior Western states to be impenetrable (these states formed the backbone of the Reaganite agenda), while Bush won most of the swing states.

    Flash to 2008, and Bush 2 was perhaps the most widely ridiculed president in American history. Even if the GOP had totally distanced itself from Bush (which it didn't), there's no chance that any Republican, much less John McCain, could've won. McCain aced the Reagan right angle (Georgia+South Carolina at one end, Wyoming and Idaho at the other, and Texas in the middle), and was trounced almost everywhere else (he even lost in Indiana!). In 2016, people were fed up with Obama's failure to reform Wall Street and the Pentagon, yet they also still didn't care for the GOP that much. So Trump won by campaigning as a non-Republican who happened to be the official GOP candidate. But the GOP's quickly fading relevance, abetted by their continuous inability to recognize the shrinking electoral importance of the Reaganite platform, caused Trump to lose massively on the West Coast and in much of the Northeast (remember, Bush won many of these states in '88). That's the kind of baggage that the GOP has collected over the last 30 years.

  17. It's not hard to win an election. Just tell people what they want to hear. And in the 2010's, they want economic populism. Ignore the 50 and 60 year old partisan naysayers who still watch cable news, as well as the young SJWs who preach to a loud but small audience. We need people who talk about how we need to start looking out for each other by shaming and punishing the out of control interest groups that have corrupted both parties.. We can't comfort the Me Generation anymore by telling them that it's ok for each party to cater to a dwindling niche of status strivers and ideological nutcases. Perot and Nader already showed how to do a populist platform, but they just weren't right for the time.

    Outlook for 2020? Trump wins again, if the economy hasn't gone belly up, he doesn't stir up any new and major conflicts, and the Dems run a SJW moron (who won't win the Reaganite states or even most of the purple states) or a Hilary 2.0 aging hack who kept falling upward inexplicably. Amusingly, Hilary owned the latter status at the outset, and then tried to appeal to the SJW morons, too. The worst of both worlds. The GOP is so retarded, and is so toothless outside of the Reagan right angle, however, that they still lost the popular vote. For this I can't blame Trump; however, I can blame Trump for being the first president to explicitly criticize entire nationalities since….Well, who, exactly? I suppose Cold war era presidents talked about the red menace, but that was directed at an ideology, not an ethnic group. Trump's comments mortified cosmopolitan voters, and he lost votes accordingly.

    Scott Adams? He's a sucker for the Trump personality cult. But Trump won by offering economic populism. Personality and charisma make hardly no difference to most normies. The cloud people make a big deal about how cool Obama is, Main Street doesn't care. Main Street didn't care that Bernie Sanders is a nerd; they instead focused on his anger at corruption and the possibility of finally seeking a widely shared goal of reform intended to benefit lower class people. Not "reforms" intended to help rich people line their pockets, and insure lucrative employment for the mid-higher tier management of various greedy and arrogant sectors (and I'd focus in particular on the "health care" industry, the banks, and the Pentagon).

    One thing that stands out about the last couple years is that as each progressive populist part of Trump was chipped away at, his supporters had to resort to memes about how cool Trump is, while also squalling autistically about racial demographics and the like (news flash: lily-white 1980's America set us down the path that we are on, not Mexicans or Nigerians).

  18. "The question is not of "if" but of "when" and of "how" the American empire will collapse."

    Keep telling yourself that, AE. The devil is in the details.

    "Amicably and orderly, one hopes, though that becomes less and less likely by the day."

    Nope. IF this event occurs, I pray it is a bloodbath. Let there be a clear cut winner. Then we will find out whether the Alt Right armchair warriors will be at the front or back of the line.


    "Outlook for 2020? Trump wins again"

    LOL. No.

    "if the economy hasn't gone belly up"

    A possibility.

    "he doesn't stir up any new and major conflicts"

    He can't help himself.

    "and the Dems run a SJW moron"

    Maybe, Then again, perhaps not.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS