The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
How Democracy Made Us Dumb
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the riffs of outrage coming from the Democrats and their demos over “our democracy” betrayed, infiltrated even destroyed—you’d never know that a rich vein of thinking in opposition to democracy runs through Western intellectual thought, and that those familiar with it would be tempted to say “good riddance.”

Voicing opposition to democracy is just not done in politically polite circles, conservative and liberal alike.

For this reason, the Mises Institute’s Circle in Seattle, an annual gathering, represented a break from the pack.

The Mises Institute is the foremost think tank working to advance free-market economics from the perspective of the Austrian School of Economics. It is devoted to peace, prosperity, and private property, implicit in which is the demotion of raw democracy, the state, and its welfare-warfare machine.

This year, amid presentations that explained “Why American Democracy Fails,” it fell to me to speak to “How Democracy Made Us Dumb.” (Oh yes! Reality on the ground was not candy-coated.)

Some of the wide-ranging observations I made about the dumbing down inherent in democracy were drawn from the Founding Fathers and the ancients.

A tenet of the American democracy is to deify youth and diminish adults. To counter that, I’ll start with the ancients.

The Athenian philosophers disdained democracy. Deeply so. They held that democracy “distrusts ability and has a reverence for numbers over knowledge.” (Will Durant, “The Story of Philosophy,” New York, New York, 1961, p. 10.)

Certainly, among the ancients who mattered, there was a keen contempt for “a mob-led, passion-ridden democracy.” The complaint among Athenians who occupied themselves with thinking and debating was that “there would be chaos where there is no thought,” and that “it was a base superstition that numbers give wisdom. On the contrary, it is universally seen that men in crowds are more foolish, violent and cruel than men separate and alone.” (p. 11)

Underground already then, because so subversive—anti-democratic thinking was the aristocratic gospel in Athens. Socrates (born in 470 B.C.) was the intellectual leader against democracy and for the even-then hated aristocratic philosophy. Socrates’ acolytes, young and brilliant, questioned the “specious replacement of the old virtues by unsocial intelligence.”

The proof of the foolish, violent and cruel nature of the crowds is that the crowds, not the judges, insisted on making Socrates the first martyr of philosophy. He drank the poison at the behest of the people.

No wonder Plato, Socrates’ most gifted student, harbored such scorn for democracy and hatred for the mob—so extreme that it led this controversial genius to resolve that democracy must be destroyed, to be replaced by his planned society; “the rule of the wisest and the best, who would have to be discovered and enabled.”

Plato’s “Republic,” seconds the Economist, “is haunted by the fear that democracies eventually degenerate into tyrannies” (June 22, 2019). To libertarians, Plato of the planned society was wrong. However, the fear reverberating throughout his “Republic” is righteous.

A democratic utopia of freedom cannot come about because of the nature of man, thought Plato. Men “soon tire of what they have, pine for what they have not, and seldom desire anything unless it belongs to others. The result is the encroachment of one group upon the territory of another.” (“The Story of Philosophy,” p. 19.)

Plato agreed, that “the diversity of democracy’s characters … make it look very attractive.” However, “these citizens are so consumed by pleasure-seeking that they beggar the economy”; so hostile to authority that they ignore the advice of sages, and so solipsistic and libertine that they lose any common purpose.

Most agreeable to libertarian thinking was Aristotle, who ventured that democracy is based on a false assumption of equality. It arises out of the notion that “those who are equal in one respect (under the law) are equal in all respects. Because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal.” (P. 70)

Tocqueville, too, was not sold on the new American democracy. He conducted “his extensive investigation into American life, and was prepared to pronounce with authority [about what he termed the new democracy].” (Russell Kirk, “The Conservative Mind,” Washington D.C., 1985, 205-224)

The American elite, Tocqueville observed, does not form an aristocracy that cherishes individuality, but a bureaucratic elite which exacts rigid conformity, a monotonous equality, shared by the managers of society.” (p. 218) Remarking on “the standardization of character in America,” Tocqueville described it as “a sort of family likeness” that makes for monotony. (p. 210)

What menaces democratic society … [is] a tyranny of mediocrity, a standardization of mind and spirit and condition … The mass of people will not rest until the state is reorganized to furnish them with material gratification.”

“Pure democracy makes libertarian democracy impossible,” posited Tocqueville. (p. 213) “In America, the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within certain barriers, an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them … his political career is then over, since he has offended the only authority able to defend it. … Before making public his opinions, he thought he had sympathizers, now it seems to him he has none any more, since he revealed himself to everyone; then those who blame him criticize loudly, and those who think as he does keep quiet and move away without courage. He yields at length, overcome by the daily effort, which he has to make, and subsides into silence, as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth.” (p. 218)

Consider that Tocqueville was writing at a time so much smarter than our own.

Tocqueville in the 19th century, and Solzhenitsyn in the 20th, noted that conformity of thought is powerfully prevalent among Americans.

This column, now in its 20th year, can attest that writing in the Age of the Idiot is about striking the right balance of banality and mediocrity, both in style and thought, which invariably entails echoing one of two party lines and positions, poorly.

Let us not forget Friendrich Nietzsche (admired by H. L. Mencken, whose genius would have remained unrecognized had he been plying his craft in 2019).

ORDER IT NOW

Born 39 years after Tocqueville, Nietzsche saw nothing good in democracy. “It means the worship of mediocrity, and the hatred of excellence. … What is hated by the people, as a wolf by the dogs, is the free spirit, the enemy of all fetters, the not-adorer, the man who is not a regular party-member. … How can a nation become great when its greatest men lie unused, discouraged, perhaps unknown … Such a society loses character; imitation is horizontal instead of vertical—not the superior man but the majority man becomes the ideal and the model; everybody comes to resemble everybody else; even the sexes approximate—the men become women and the women become men.” (“The Story of Philosophy,” p. 324.)

For their part, America’s founders had attempted to forestall raw democracy by devising a republic.

In his magisterial “Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government,” constitutional scholar James McClellan noted that universal suffrage and mass democracy were alien to the Founders: “They believed that a democracy would tend toward mediocrity and tyranny of the majority.” Writing about the first state constitutions (penned between 1776-1783), McClellan attests that, “A complete democracy on a wide scale was widely regarded throughout the colonies as a threat to law and order.”

Why, Pennsylvania became the laughingstock in the colonies when it “abolished all property qualifications for voting and holding office. This confirmed the suspicions of many colonial leaders that an unrestrained democracy could drive good men out of public office and turn the affairs of state over to pettifoggers, bunglers, and demagogues.” A conga-line of those you witnessed at the CNN/New York Times Democratic debate, the other day.

“The Founders wanted representation of brains, not bodies,” observed McClellan, noting that, at least “for a number of years, the best minds in the country dominated American politics.” No more.

 

Watch ilana mercer’s entire address, “How Democracy Made Us Dumb,” on YouTube.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Democracy 
Hide 45 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Switzerland is more of a democracy than the US. Until it drank the multicultual Flavor Aid a few years back, (apparently they wanted a better World Cup team) one would hardly consider them mediocre in their economy or innovation.
    The problem, as I have seen in the US for over 50 years, is that there is no world outside the US, and if there is, it better be just like the US, or it is wrong. That is truly a one size fits none mindset. I can’t tell you how many times, in the early 70s while in Europe, I heard American university students not just state, but complain that “it’s not like at home”. Well, no shit, Sherlock, you ain’t at home. It didn’t matter if it was food, clothing, beds, haircuts, or toilets. It was all wrong.
    There is a tv program called House Hunter International. Normally, I wouldn’t watch it, but do from time to time just to watch the continuation of Americans, looking for rental housing, complain that an 19th century house in Belgium, for example, isn’t what they are used to at home.
    It’s not democracy that made Americans dumb, its their failing to understand that other civilizations actually exist. Even the ancient Greeks understood that.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    , @dfordoom
  2. Biff says:

    What do Americans get to vote for? Health care? War and Peace? SS\Retirement? Military? Taxes? Education? Anything worth a fuck? No…
    Americans get to vote for a personality…. Like a big show.. Stupid voters….

    • Agree: renfro
    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Miro23
  3. Biff says:

    Bud light product placement…

  4. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:

    that a rich vein of thinking in opposition to democracy runs through Western intellectual thought, and that those familiar with it would be tempted to say “good riddance.”

    It seems to me that psychological and anthropologic simplism runs strong in both the pro-democracy and anti-democracy camp, actually.
    I mean… are we dealing with words used to describe things, the descriptors (“democracy”, “non-democracy”, …) or the described realities?

    No-one decides if there is to be democracy in a polity, and what flavour and how much of it, except for the median nature of the policy’s populace.
    Therefore, what’s usually classed as heavy dictatorships is democratic, because it could not be in place if it didn’t align rather well with the median nature of the majority of the populace under it. And what’s usually classed as full, open democracies is far from being that, because the majority of every populace on earth is very removed from the day and time where it will be able to self-govern, or even be aware of political issues in their actual dimensions and colours (as opposed to the baby tales they are translated into when politicians, and the media, or schools, present them to the people).

    Basically, nature chooses oligarchy everywhere in human collectives, and that’s what is found in every country in the globe. Then the form, and the names, vary by time and place, the most useful and convenient being chosen and used.

    • Replies: @Kouros
    , @John Howard
  5. Paw says:

    One question to mister Nietzsche : how to find those greatest men and make sure they do not destroy everything.? We have some experiences with them. Wolf /any/, is and was ,never democrat. After all.
    Crimes of some , of all ,are immediately forgotten after they leave the scene. Untouchables .
    Where any democracy ends. To what ends ? Nazis ,with the greatest of them,/tens of millions dead,, reds,bolsheviks,with Lenin ,the greatest of them, more tens of millions dead, imperialists etc. Democrats, Lincoln, the greatest of them ,650 thousands of dead , when peaceful solution was available, Wars of growing numbers of bureaucrats ,with no ends ,, rule of chaos and corruption and the general world crisis on….With no end.
    Everyone sick of this democracy of kleptocracy. All crimes on increase. No solution.
    Waiting for the Higher Power to solve everything. Millions of victims.
    Swiss are untouchable , of course ,when full ,overflowing of the world elites treasures.
    Theory and practises..

  6. (((Mercer))), you must mention the role you and your rabbi father played in destroying the white South African democracy. You and your father gathered the wood for the cannibal’s pot.

    You are not a Western woman. You have no idea about democracy, Western history and philosophy. You are not qualified to speak about the West in the West.

    The Israeli Jewish IQ is only 93. You must move to Israel and help the country with its problems. You can talk about the West to Israelis.

    • Replies: @Miggle
  7. Democracy is very difficult. It’s always (or should be) a work in progress. It’s main virtue is that it gives an official recognition of the “people”. It mandates elections. However flimsy it can set some standards of public behaviour.
    It’s main fault? It’s taken for granted by the same people it should benefit.
    Out of that “insouciance” of the people (to use PCR’s favourite word) comes the undermining of democracy by “professionals”, that is oligarchs & their paid minions in law, lobbying, etc. Some of the people pay a bit of attention (if you’re lucky) at election time. And for what that attention is worth, it is manipulated by very clever people –professional influencers.
    Democracy is amateur & part time. Oligarchy is full time, professional. Wonder whose likely to win?
    Incidentally, many have criticized democracy because it apparently indulges the libertine instincts of the “mob”.
    Yer, sure. US citizens are “indulged” every day…. Face it, the average person can not even imagine the hedonism & crimes of their “betters”.
    I STILL can’t get my head around the whole Epstein thing. That guy makes Goering look pretty regular.

  8. Why is it necessary to cite from the evaluations of Durant, The Economist, Kirk, and McClellan in order to explain the ideas of the Athenian philosophers, Tocqueville, Nietzche, and the American founding fathers? Would it not be more accurate and credible to directly cite from the actual works of the original thinkers instead? Every cited idea in Mercer’s article is filtered thru second hand sources.

  9. Binyamin says:

    Indeed, a rich vein of thinking in opposition to democracy runs through Western intellectual thought. Actually to correct-several rich veins of thinking- these are communism, fascism and Nazism. All these ‘isms’ were developed in the West and it was the West which perfected the idea of the modern totalitarian state. If one looks at modern day Islamists- these are people who really believe democracy is dumb and when in power practically implement this doctrine through terror. Post war Islamists are admirers of both European Fascism and Communism and have copied methods of mass terror which were perfected in Europe. Even Ayatollah Khomeini, far from being the mad mullah of western caricature, copied the methods of French revolution when he unleashed his terror against Iranian royalists, democrats and communists.
    I think it was Winston Churchill who once said that democracy is a flawed system but it is the best system we have since the alternative to it is tyranny.
    For a democratic system to function properly some form to conformity is inevitable as long as contrarian opinions are tolerated and America has plenty of constitutional guarantees which allows contrarian opinion. Yet top institutions such as Harvard or Yale will instantly dismiss an academic who advocates racial eugenics or says the Holocaust did not happen. I see no contradiction. Surely it is dumb to believe in racial eugenics in 2019? Incidentally, Cambridge University in England recently fired an academic for showing sympathy for racial eugenicists. Yet England remains a democracy where plenty of contrarian opinion runs amok. In America if you are looking for conformity look no further than Fox News -bland, conformist and one sided. At Fox no one challenges the predictable ramblings of monomaniacs such as Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson. No contrarian opinion is allowed at Fox-they really do believe democracy is dumb and ironically, scores of dumb Americans of the ill educated variety tune into Fox News daily.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  10. Realist says:

    How Democracy Made Us Dumb

    I know of many deficiencies of democracy, making us dumber I had never thought of.

  11. Realist says:
    @Biff

    What do Americans get to vote for? Health care? War and Peace? SS\Retirement? Military? Taxes? Education? Anything worth a fuck? No…
    Americans get to vote for a personality…. Like a big show.. Stupid voters…

    Exactly. The Deep State doesn’t care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the ‘two parties’ as long as their important issues are maintained. As a matter of fact it strengthens the false perception that there is a choice when voting.

  12. Anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Binyamin

    “Yet top institutions such as Harvard or Yale will instantly dismiss an academic who advocates racial eugenics or says the Holocaust did not happen. I see no contradiction. Surely it is dumb to believe in racial eugenics in 2019? Incidentally, Cambridge University in England recently fired an academic for showing sympathy for racial eugenicists.”

    You see no contradiction because you see the world with a warped mind.

    There are examples of bad breeding everywhere but you refuse to see it because your liberal mind just doesn’t want to think there are such inequalities in the world.

    The breeding of mankind follows the same hereditary laws that governs every living thing and we breed better plants and cattle but we allow for the most flawed and degenerate humans to have the most offspring and support them with welfare. The fact that it’s 1819 or 2019 doesn’t alter the facts of nature because you and other liberals wish it were so.

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
    • Replies: @Corvinus
  13. Thanks to Ilana Mercer for her profound critique of democracy, complete with historic references that astound and delight.

  14. @Curmudgeon

    Well if white Americans had wanted houses that looked like Europe, they would have stayed there.

    As a third-generation German American who was around many immigrants my grandparents age growing up, I got the impression that what they loved about the US was new things. New radios. New buildings. New cars. They seemed to consciously choose to get away from the old and embrace the new.

    As for Americans being unaware that there is a world outside of America, that is nonsense. German-Americans besides Donald Trump usually are dispassionate about Germany-its a drab humorless country in the opinion of this German-American who spent a few summer holidays there with relatives-but Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans (In particular) are always going on and on about how great being Irish or Italian is.

    These days, the immigrants are all Hispanics or Asians or Indians or Jews with outside the US. In the old days, my grandparents would only visit Germany every few years. Nowadays Indians and Asians and Hispanics spend years away.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
  15. onebornfree says: • Website

    “Democracy is a sort of laughing gas. It will not cure anything, perhaps, but it unquestionably stops the pain.”H.L.Mencken

    “Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. ” H.L.Mencken

    “Democracy is the worship of jackals by jackasses.”H.L.Mencken

    “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” H.L.Mencken

    “If x is the population of the United States and y is the degree of imbecility of the average American, then democracy is the theory that x times y is less than y.” H.L.Mencken

    “All of democracy’s axioms “resolve themselves into thundering paradoxes, many amounting to downright contradictions in terms. The mob is competent to rule the rest of us – but it must be rigorously policed itself. There is a government, not of men, but laws – but men are set upon benches to decide finally what the law is and may be.”H.L.Mencken

    Regards, onebornfree

  16. A123 says:

    The problem seems to be that *unlimited* democracy has made us dumb. When the “Taking” class can vote to transfer funds from the “Making” class it is a powerful disincentive to risk taking and wealth creation.

    The original form of the U.S. Constitution limited the vote to landowners. And, at that time, making land productive was the backbone of the economy.

    In current times, land ownership and wealth creation are not tied. Thus, we cannot go back to that exact test.

    What new test could be imposed to limit voting to Makers instead of Takers?

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  17. Kouros says:
    @Anon

    Couldn’t agree more, mate. But there are differences between oligarchies. There is a group that considers that sharing more of the natural and labor resources/products with hoi poloi is appropriate, while there is another group that think this sharing should be minimal.
    The US hegemon for instance wants a cut from everyone’s resources/work. Biggest mob ever.

  18. Miggle says:
    @attilathehen

    You are not a Western woman. You have no idea about democracy, Western history and philosophy. You are not qualified to speak about the West in the West.

    I think this article by Mercer is excellent and your snide attack, bringing up a rabbi father, bringing up Israeli IQ, going OT for all that, is … a snide attack. Nasty.

    Think how much happier and richer the average American would be today if the USA had been under the autocratic rule of Gaddafi for the last generation or two. No police shootings, no homeless on the streets, no student debt, yet excellent medical care for all, high-speed rail, everyone taking free bus rides to work instead of slow travel along decaying roads jammed with commuter vehicles (only one person in each), no entanglement in endless wars, …

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  19. Corvinus says:

    “Why, Pennsylvania became the laughingstock in the colonies when it “abolished all property qualifications for voting and holding office.”

    According to Who/Whom?

    Ultimately, Mercer as an elitist is promoting a false premise. It is not democracy itself, but rather the people who implement it.

    Economic historian Charles Beard noted that the Founding Fathers sought to “curb the excesses” of an “unrestrained majority” for their “own benefit” in large part to ensure their own dominance in the political and financial realm.

    “The original form of the U.S. Constitution limited the vote to landowners”.

    The problem with that restriction is that the large landowners made it virtually impossible for those with a small farm or small shop to have a say in taxation matters. Hence, we saw the rivalry between the Tidewater elite and the Piedmont backcountry in the 1600’s, which resulted in Bacon’s Rebellion.

    • Replies: @A123
  20. Corvinus says:
    @Anonymous

    “There are examples of bad breeding everywhere…”

    You mean you of the opinion that there is bad breeding everywhere. Ultimately, it comes down to people having the liberty to make their own decisions about who and who not to have children with.

    “The breeding of mankind follows the same hereditary laws that governs every living thing”

    Exactly. We make choices as to what we believe will benefit ourselves.

    “and we breed better plants and cattle”

    Because animals serve human needs.

    “but we allow for the most flawed and degenerate humans to have the most offspring and support them with welfare.”

    Except that you are employing subjective criteria as to who is “flawed” and “degenerate”. Pray tell, how do you address your Christian faith into this biological equation?

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  21. A123 says:
    @Corvinus

    _____

    Confucius: “Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without.”
    _____

    “The original form of the U.S. Constitution limited the vote to landowners”.

    The problem with that restriction is that the large landowners made it virtually impossible for those with a small farm or small shop to have a say in taxation matters. Hence, we saw the rivalry between the Tidewater elite and the Piedmont backcountry in the 1600’s, which resulted in Bacon’s Rebellion.

    No one is saying land ownership is a perfect solution. However, it was used successfully (if imperfectly) in the past.

    If you do not like land ownership as a test, are you saying:
    — Unlimited vote is your #1 preferred solution?
    — If not, what are you proposing as a solution?

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    , @dfordoom
  22. @Miggle

    Miggle, are you (((Miggle)))???

    I bring up facts – her rabbi father and their anti-apartheid work in South Africa. They were kicked out of South Africa because of this.

    The average Israeli Jewish IQ is 93. That’s a fact. And, the IQ is falling because Jews have high intermarriage rates with blacks/Asians.

    Since you admire the autocratic rule of Gaddafi, if you live in America, move to Saudi Arabia. It is very similar to how Libya was once run. You will be in paradise.

    You’ve proven your dumbness.

    • Replies: @Miggle
  23. So the Mises Institute now has moved on to promoting the end of democracy. It makes perfect sense. The rich have all the power that money can buy, but why not have all the power, period? Capitalism is heaven, everyone agrees on that, and it can be improved from its present form by getting rid of that nasty little detail: the people’s opinion. Everything must be for sale: countries, the Earth, the whole Universe, why not?

  24. @Jeff Stryker

    “German-Americans, Italian-Americans, and Irish-Americans” are not Americans and they all have to go back. All immigration has been harmful to the posterity of the Founders.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  25. Corvinus says:
    @A123

    “No one is saying land ownership is a perfect solution. However, it was used successfully (if imperfectly) in the past.”

    Not as successfully as you believe. So, what constitutes “land ownership”? A farm? A domicile? Your own apartment that you pay rent on? How much land, i.e. square footage? How would you generate support for such a (now) racial approach? What are the potential negative implications? How would you address those concerns?

    “If you do not like land ownership as a test, are you saying:— Unlimited vote is your #1 preferred solution?”

    We don’t have “unlimited vote”. We have established criteria.

    “If not, what are you proposing as a solution?”

    Keep the current system in place. It’s not as bad as some people make it out to be.

    • Replies: @A123
  26. Corvinus says:
    @Chris Mallory

    ““German-Americans, Italian-Americans, and Irish-Americans” are not Americans and they all have to go back. All immigration has been harmful to the posterity of the Founders.”

    Clearly, you are anti-white. As a result, you have to go back.

  27. Miro23 says:
    @Biff

    What do Americans get to vote for? Health care? War and Peace? SS\Retirement? Military? Taxes? Education? Anything worth a fuck? No…
    Americans get to vote for a personality…. Like a big show.. Stupid voters….

    Issue based voting is the way to go.

    There are lots of benefits: 1) It takes power away from centre 2) it encourages the public to look at issues and the costs/benefits 3) it reduces the need to trust elected leaders – Under this system their role is more implementation than decision making.

  28. renfro says:

    to be replaced by his planned society; “the rule of the wisest and the best, who would have to be discovered and enabled.”

    Ah yes..and who would pick the wisest and the best to rule us?
    And who would pick the pickers of wisest and best.?
    And who would pick the pickers of the pickers who were picked to pick the best and wisest?

    Absent a benevolent and wise King or Queen……..you deal with what you have.
    Those not up to dealing with how to make a democracy work by destroying the corruption that makes it a failure……sure as hell aren’t up to creating anything better in its place……since they would fail to recognize or deal with the corruption (the human nature thing) that would come about in whatever they replaced democracy with.

    How can a nation become great when its greatest men lie unused, discouraged, perhaps unknown

    All ideologues whether libertarians , socialist, communist, fascist, global one worlders or just run of the mill malcontents…..think they or their belief group are the ‘great, unused’ who have the ‘solution’ if only they were in charge.

    They don’t….they just prattle on and on , mixing in quotes from this or that philosopher to buttress their rant….it all goes no where……just turns into noise.

    As for libertarians there are several countries where they could go live out their preference for very little government, no economic interference, freedom to get whatever they can get, limited policing, restrictions and all the rest….so for them the question is the same as for our Jews for Israel…why don’t they move to what their heart desires?

  29. A123 says:
    @Corvinus

    Keep the current system in place. It’s not as bad as some people make it out to be.

    The current ‘birthright’ voting qualification is destroying the country by rewarding illegal immigration. It is hard to think of anything worse.

    Not as successfully as you believe. So, what constitutes “land ownership”?

    I refer the gentleman to my post of some moments ago (#16).

    A single absolute value is clearly unworkable as lower cost areas of the country would be unfairly penalized.

    Provable income at >150% of local entry level wage would be one option. That would be about $25K in rural areas and $35K in suburban areas. This could have complications in ultra high wage urban settings such as Palo Alto, CA. The IRS already has this information from W-2’s for most U.S. Citizens.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  30. Corvinus says:
    @A123

    “The current ‘birthright’ voting qualification is destroying the country by rewarding illegal immigration. It is hard to think of anything worse.”

    Destroying the country? No. Putting our nation in harm’s way? Depends upon one’s definition. Regardless, I would have no problem if “birthright” citizenship was done away with.

    “A single absolute value is clearly unworkable as lower cost areas of the country would be unfairly penalized.”

    Why? To me, your proposal would reward our most capable citizens.

    “Provable income at >150% of local entry level wage would be one option. That would be about $25K in rural areas and $35K in suburban areas. This could have complications in ultra high wage urban settings such as Palo Alto, CA. The IRS already has this information from W-2’s for most U.S. Citizens.”

    What about those ages 18-22 who are in college, or in a trade, or taking time off from school and slinging hash? How about older folks who are on a fixed income and rely squarely on Social Security to get by? What is the overall number of people that you think would not have the franchise as a result of this option?

  31. Jason Liu says:

    The world needs freedom from democracy

  32. In very short.
    Democracy still can be fixed. Here I do want to point out that Desert fox is correct.
    But not only Fed, All banks must be owned by government. All investment capital must be in government hands. Government must be responsible for risks and harvest the profits.
    Citizens could have only personal accounts.
    That is the difficult task but the rest will be easy.

  33. @Anon

    I think you have just summarized what almost no one understands. No matter what sort of government is created or planned, the rich will buy that government and use it to further their own welfare. Name any government in history – it is, in outline, a small group of wealthy men running things for their own benefit. All the rhetorical differences do not change what it is at root: a small gang of parasites, surrounded by their enforcers, taxing and ruling everyone else.

    There is no hope for political sanity until a significant percentage of people become anarchists and refuse to accept the inequality implicit in a ruling elite. The American constitution is nothing but an elaborate plan to create a powerful ruling elite. It did not result in peace, freedom, or property rights. It resulted in extortion, counterfeiting, slavery, compulsory indoctrination, and information control. Power does not corrupt. It IS corruption.

    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
  34. @John Howard

    I am quite certain that “rich people” or “Ruling Elite” we may call now nobility, or maybe we can call the m Children of Damocles. Maybe in secret they are already singing “Gaudeamus igitur………”

    What can we say besides “History repeats itself” and the difference is only in time span.

  35. Miggle says:
    @attilathehen

    You’ve proven your dumbness by making out that there is a similarity between the rule of the Sauds and Libya under Gaddafi. Or, presumably, Syria under Assad.

    Totally different. My comment that Americans would be happier if their country was not a monetocracy, money-ruled, but an autocracy, stands.

    I’m ready with some very sharp criticisms of the Jews (really of Judaism), particularly their beastly actions in Palestine including the part of Palestine they call “Israel”. Israeli citizens who are not Jews, such as the Bedouin of the Negev, are fiendishly oppressed. And it’s not only in Palestine. They rule the USA because the USA is not a dictatorship.

    But your comment raving against an individual Jew who has done no wrong, just because she is a Jew, going OT bringing up Jewish IQ just because the author of this article is a Jewess … The silly bitch here is not Ilana Mercer, it’s you.

    Judaism is evil. Individual Jews, though, are, really, victims! Victims of the rabbis who rule them, who traditionally killed any Jew who didn’t accept their rule. It is a mad, vicious system in which even atheists still count as Jews, can only escape by adopting a religion, which in the modern age can’t be done. They are trapped. They are victims.

    Don’t blame Mercer for that.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  36. @Miggle

    Are you Jewish?

    You refuse to deal with what Mercer and her rabbi father did in South Africa.

    You’re upset about the fact of lower Israeli Jewish IQ.

    I’ve been to Israel. I have no interest in Muslim Palestinians or any type of Muslim. I do want the Middle East Christians to have an area where they can be safe. As long as Christian sites are safe in Israel, I support the Israeli state.

    Today’s Jews are not related to the Jews of the Old Testament or when Jesus lived. If this group wants to be “Jewish,” they must do it in Israel.

    I want Jews in the West stripped of their citizenship. This would bar them from settling in Western nations and holding political office.

    Mercer is not a Western woman. She speaks with a forked tongue.

  37. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Curmudgeon

    It’s not democracy that made Americans dumb, its their failing to understand that other civilizations actually exist.

    Or perhaps Americans do understand that other civilisations actually exist. And that makes them fearful and resentful. It’s as if the existence of other civilisations must be both an insult and a mortal threat to the US.

    Perhaps it’s just that Americans look at other societies that are functional, then look at their own dysfunctional society, and they want to smash those functional societies.

    Look at the rampant Sinophobia in modern America. How dare those Chinese build a society that looks like ending up both richer and fairer, more stable and a whole lot healthier than American society.

    • Replies: @attilathehen
  38. dfordoom says: • Website
    @A123

    The original form of the U.S. Constitution limited the vote to landowners.

    You already have a society in which the rich monopolise political power. Why do you think that increasing the political power of the rich even further would make things better?

    The destruction of western society over the past half century has been largely the result of a revolution – a revolution of the rich against the poor.

  39. dfordoom says: • Website
    @A123

    If you do not like land ownership as a test, are you saying:
    — Unlimited vote is your #1 preferred solution?
    — If not, what are you proposing as a solution?

    The Chinese seem to be doing OK. Better than the US anyway. Maybe they’ve found a better solution.

  40. @dfordoom

    Are you involved with Asians? China is building a better society than America? You’re just as stupid as Lance Welton.

    The Japanese are the only intelligent Asians. They have a rich, fair, stable and healthy society. China will never be like Japan or America. China is collapsing. They don’t have the IQ to be a first world country.

  41. @Corvinus

    “but we allow for the most flawed and degenerate humans to have the most offspring and support them with welfare.”

    Except that you are employing subjective criteria as to who is “flawed” and “degenerate”. Pray tell, how do you address your Christian faith into this biological equation?

    “Flawed” and “degenerate” are perhaps a tad excessive, but it is absolutely beyond question that welfare support that increases with the number of offspring, is dysgenic.[1]

    I’ve said it a thousand times (it doesn’t make it right that I said it, or how many times – but still)… there are only 2 things to keep in mind –
    ① you get more of what you subsidise;
    ② human husbandry does not have any characteristics that make it different to animal husbandry.

    Breed smart dogs with fast dogs, and you’ll get faster smart dogs and/or smarter fast dogs (on average). You won’t get smarter smart dogs, or faster fast dogs, except by chance.

    Likewise, breed a black person with a white person and you’re not going to get someone who looks Scandinavian (and you’re also not going to get someone who looks Masai).

    Subsidise reproduction of humans in the bottom IQ quintile, and you get more dullards – and their proportion of the population gradually grows. The distributional change would happen ceteris paribus, but it’s exacerbated by a clear stylised fact: wealthy smart women have better things to do with their time than squirt out offspring. So the fact that the subsidy ‘bites’ for people in the bottom couple of quintiles (where the marginal utility of money is highest), with their short-horizons and inabililty to do basic expected-value calculations.

    The West has had income-support for 3 generations that varies directly (but not linearly) with the number of offspring. (Well, I say “3 generations”, but that would be 3 ‘standard’ 25-year generations; it’s 5 generations of people who start to reproduce at 15 years of age).

    Subsidise soybeans, and you get more soybeans than you need (you can export them to China – so US taxpayers effectively subsidise Chinese tofu and soy sauce). Subsidise corn, and next thing everyone’s diet is full of HFCS.

    Subsidise reproduction of dummies, and malls become full of flabby, tattooed, pierced pramfaces.

    (inb4 “wouldn’t that be an expensive thing for governments to do? Absolutely not. Keeping an underclass is incredible cheap: you can pay for the upkeep of 3 or 4 welfare recipients for the cost of a single bureaucrat.)

    [1] I think a reasonable definition of ‘dysgenic‘ is ‘leading to a greater prevalence of traits that are ill-suited to success in the current environment‘ ‘Success’ is a kind of fraught term here: reproductively they’re unambiguously successful – they’re breeding like obese tattooed rabbits, and thanks to modern hygiene and health-care, very few of their kids die before they reach maturity.

  42. “but we allow for the most flawed and degenerate humans to have the most offspring and support them with welfare.”

    Except that you are employing subjective criteria as to who is “flawed” and “degenerate”. Pray tell, how do you address your Christian faith into this biological equation?

    “Flawed” and “degenerate” were perhaps a tad inflammatory, but it is absolutely beyond question that welfare support that increases with the number of offspring, is dysgenic.[1]

    I’ve said it a thousand times (it doesn’t make it right that I said it, or how many times – but still)… there are only 2 things to keep in mind – ① you get more of what you subsidise; ② human husbandry does not have any characteristics that make it different to animal husbandry.

    Breed smart dogs with fast dogs, and you’ll get faster smart dogs and/or smarter fast dogs (on average). You won’t get smarter smart dogs, or faster fast dogs, except by chance.

    Likewise, breed a black person with a white person and you’re not going to get someone who looks Scandinavian (and you’re also not going to get someone who looks Masai).

    Subsidise reproduction of humans in the bottom IQ quintile, and you get more dullards – and their proportion of the population gradually grows. The distributional change would happen ceteris paribus, but it’s exacerbated by a clear stylised fact: wealthy smart women have better things to do with their time than squirt out offspring. So the fact that the subsidy ‘bites’ for people in the bottom couple of quintiles (where the marginal utility of money is highest), with their short-horizons and inabililty to do basic expected-value calculations.

    The West has had income-support for 3 generations that varies directly (but not linearly) with the number of offspring. (Well, I say “3 generations”, but that would be 3 ‘standard’ 25-year generations; it’s 5 generations of people who start to reproduce at 15 years of age).

    Subsidise soybeans, and you get more soybeans than you need (you can export them to China – so US taxpayers effectively subsidise Chinese tofu and soy sauce). Subsidise corn, and next thing everyone’s diet is full of HFCS.

    Subsidise reproduction of dummies, and malls become full of flabby, tattooed, pierced pramfaces.

    (inb4 “wouldn’t that be an expensive thing for governments to do? Absolutely not. Keeping an underclass is incredible cheap: you can pay for the upkeep of 3 or 4 welfare recipients for the cost of a single bureaucrat.)

    [1] I think a reasonable definition of ‘dysgenic‘ is ‘leading to a greater prevalence of traits that are ill-suited to success in the current environment‘ ‘Success’ is a kind of fraught term here: reproductively they’re unambiguously successful – they’re breeding like obese tattooed rabbits, and thanks to modern hygiene and health-care, very few of their kids die before they reach maturity.

    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
  43. @Kratoklastes

    Low IQ kids of my youth.

    When I was a young, broke college kid I met all sorts of lower-class types.

    One was Scott, the off-campus pot dealer. Scott was 21 when I met him and already had a two year old kid. He’d never seen it. He took off fleeing child support from Detroit and was living with a college girl. He sold weed. His kid was forgotten. I don’t think Scott ever paid a dime. He ended up in jail at age 24 for stabbing someone at a party and was in prison for years.

    What I remember about Scott is that his mother happened to be visiting one day when I showed up to buy a bag of marijuana from him.

    “Careful” Scott warned. “My Mom is a pervert!” He was serious. His mother would often try to seduce his friends with him present.

    Then there was Michelle. She was a single mother of a six year old daughter. An older man had married her at 19 and then left her for a stripper, which whom he fathered another child, never to see his first daughter again.

    Michelle’s Dad, a redneck, was arrested for molesting one of his granddaughter’s friends at her sixth birthday. Michelle herself was a single mother. I met her because she managed to obtain a loan to attend college. Michelle explained to me that she was a “professional student” because it was the only way to support her daughter on college loans. But she dropped out shortly before getting her degree in social work (We had a class together and I was a study partner). And then, I assume, the weight of the world fell upon her. Student loans. A single mother.

    It occurred to me then how totally screwed this kids would be. They would both be in their mid-twenties now. What chance did they have in life?

    People have no idea the depravity of the lower classes. The molestation. The using of drugs in front of children. The general poverty.

    The biggest problem, however, is that poor people always have children young. The fundamental difference between poor and middle-class is that the poor have a kid at 18 and the middle class have a kid over 25 when they have a degree and earning power.

    Poor whites in America are always totally screwed. Nine times out of ten, their young parents divorce or were not even married to begin with. Usually they end up molested. They attend lousy violent public schools run by black or Hispanic juvenile crime syndicates. They are introduced to drugs extremely young (During my own stoned college years I was shocked at how young the poor are when they start doing drugs…it is not unusual for a poor redneck to be doing meth by age 14).

  44. @Jeff Stryker

    it’s terrible, and sad… but as I explained over 20 years ago to a very lovely young woman who was keen to be a social worker:

    Imagine that every day you’re confronted with a hundred people, all of whom need $500. Your budget is $1. That will be your life: unless you’re a psychopath, you will be driven to deep despair. And besides: the people in the waiting room have neither the will, nor the cognitive apparatus, to change their trajectory. They just think that you have the $500 they need.

    The thing that is lost on gentle folk, is that the people in the bottom decile (or 2) fully understand that their lives are fucked. Faced with some important bad decision (e.g., “do I start to use meth?”), the over-under is that their life goes from 78% fucked to 80% if they do, or stays at 78% if they don’t. They’re in a part of utility/information space where they might as well toss a coin.

    These people almost never get confronted with decisions that could get them to ‘50% fucked’. When you start from where they do, just getting to what we would consider ‘fucked’ is actually an achievement.

    This is why I have little time or patience with HBD types: anyone who has observed the doings of white trash, knows that they are at least as bad as the worst inner-urban blacks. And everybody in those demographics is being rational: there is no payoff to being a non-shitbag in their world.

  45. @Jeff Stryker

    You are proof of one of these low IQ youths.

    You fled to Asia and married a low IQ Asian female and now have even lower IQ Asian offspring.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS