The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Pat Buchanan ArchiveBlogview
Is Democracy in a Death Spiral?
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

“You all start with the premise that democracy is some good. I don’t think it’s worth a damn. Churchill is right. The only thing to be said for democracy is that there is nothing else that’s any better. …

“People say, ‘If the Congress were more representative of the people it would be better.’ I say Congress is too damn representative. It’s just as stupid as the people are, just as uneducated, just as dumb, just as selfish.”

This dismissal of democracy, cited by historian H. W. Brands in “The General vs. the President: MacArthur and Truman at the Brink of Nuclear War,” is attributed to that great populist Secretary of State Dean Acheson.

Few would air such views today, as democracy has been divinized.

Indeed, for allegedly hacking the Clinton campaign and attacking “our democracy,” Vladimir Putin has been condemned to the ninth circle of hell. Dick Cheney and John McCain have equated Moscow’s mucking around in our sacred democratic rituals to an “act of war.”

Yet democracy seems everywhere to be losing its luster.

Among its idealized features is the New England town meeting. There, citizens argued, debated, decided questions of common concern.

Town hall meetings today recall a time when folks came out to mock miscreants locked in stocks in the village square. Congressmen returning to their districts in Holy Week were shouted down as a spectator sport. A Trump rally in Berkeley was busted up by a mob. The university there has now canceled an appearance by Ann Coulter.

Charles Murray, whose books challenge conventional wisdom about the equality of civilizations, and Heather Mac Donald, who has documented the case that hostility to cops is rooted in statistical ignorance, have both had their speeches violently disrupted on elite campuses.

In Washington, our two-party system is in gridlock. Comity and collegiality are vanishing. Across Europe, centrist parties shrink as splinter parties arise and “illiberal democracies” take power.

Russia and China, which have embraced autocratic capitalism, have attracted admirers and emulators by the seeming success of their strongman rule.

President Trump, seeing the way the world is going, welcomes to the White House Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah al-Sissi, whose army dumped over the elected government and jailed thousands.

Following a disputed referendum that granted President Recep Tayyip Erdogan near-dictatorial powers, Trump phoned his congratulations to the Turkish autocrat. It was Erdogan who described democracy as a bus you get off when it reaches your stop.

Why is liberal democracy, once hailed as the future of mankind, in a deepening bear market? First, Acheson was not all wrong.

When George W. Bush declared that the peoples of the Middle East should decide their future in democratic elections, Lebanon chose Hezbollah, the Palestinians chose Hamas, the Egyptians the Muslim Brotherhood. The first two are U.S.-designated terrorist groups, as members of Congress wish to designate the third. Not an auspicious beginning for Arab democracy.

In Sunday’s election in France, a Communist-backed admirer of Hugo Chavez, Jean-Luc Melenchon, and the National Front’s Marine Le Pen could emerge as the finalists on May 7.

Democracy is increasingly seen as a means to an end, not an end in itself. If democracy doesn’t deliver, dispense with it.

Democracy’s reputation also suffers from the corruption and incompetence of some of its celebrated champions.

The South African regime of Jacob Zuma, of Nelson Mandela’s ANC, faces a clamor for his resignation. Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff was impeached in August. South Korean President Park Geun-hye has been removed and jailed for corruption. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez was elected president four times.

In Federalist No. 2, John Jay called us a “band of brethren” and “one united people” who shared the same ancestors, language, religion, principles, manners, customs.

Seventy years later, the brethren went to war with one another, though they seem to have had more in common in 1861 than we do today.

Forty percent of Americans now trace their ancestral roots to Latin America, Asia and Africa. The Christian component of the nation shrinks, as the numbers of Muslims, Hindu, atheists, agnostics grow. We have two major languages now. Scores of other languages are taught in schools.

Not only do we disagree on God, gays and guns, but on politics and ideology, morality and faith, right and wrong. One-half of America sees the other as “a basket of deplorables. … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … bigots.”

How, outside an external attack that unites us, like 9/11, do we find unity among people who dislike each other so much and regard each other’s ideas and ideals as hateful and repellent?

Democracy requires common ground on which all can stand, but that ground is sinking beneath our feet, and democracy may be going down the sinkhole with it.

Where liberals see as an ever-more splendid diversity of colors, creeds, ethnicities, ideologies, beliefs and lifestyles, the Right sees the disintegration of a country, a nation, a people, and its replacement with a Tower of Babel.

Visions in conflict that democracy cannot reconcile.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, out in May, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Democracy, Donald Trump 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Democracy works best with nationalism and homogeneity.

    Nationalism means national independence and sovereignty. Homogeneity means a people united in blood, history, and land despite differences in ideas.

    So, why is democracy failing?

    In Latin American nations, diversity undercuts democracy. Too many contrasting identities and interests. Too much strife and instability.

    Middle East and African nations are imperialist constructs. They have too much ethnic diversity, too much distrust. Democracy there leads to division along sectarian or ethnic lines, like with Iraqi and Afghan elections.

    EU is diversifying, and that will make democracy more problematic. But even in homogeneous Poland and other less diverse European nations, democracy doesn’t work well since national sovereignty is iffy. They are under EU domination, and EU is under US domination, and US is under the control of the GLOB, a consortium of cynical oligarchs around the world.

    Japan, South Korea, and Taiwanese have worthless democracies since the most they can do is elect puppets of the US. Whoever wins must take orders from the US. Their leaders are little more than collaborators.
    They have elections and relative homogeneity, BUT no national sovereignty. (Japan may be better off because it has defacto one-party rule by conservatives who maintain some degree of consistency. In contrast, South Korea and Taiwan have powerful ‘progressive’ parties that take cues from PC of West.)

    Also, democracy is a political system. It is a political tool. A method. It is not the very stuff of culture, civilization, and people. For a nation to be solid and sturdy, it has to value and uphold things that are deeper and more substantive than mere political systems. Democracy is like hammer and nails. They must serve to build home on the land. Hammer and nails are tools for making a home. In and of themselves, they are useless. They serve the home on land.

    Democracy is a good, but it is not the highest good. If a Russian is given a choice:

    (1) keep Russian ethnos, territory, and culture BUT lose democracy and
    (2) keep democracy BUT lose Russian ethnos, territory, and culture…

    …he would have to choose (1) over (2) if he is a true patriot. A civilization can survive without democracy. But a democracy without the core stuff of civilization has no value.
    To a Zionist, Israel is no less valuable as an autocracy than as a democracy. He may prefer democracy over autocracy, but the true worth of Israel is its foundation as homeland for Jewish ethnos, history, heritage, identity, etc. Those have greater value than any political system.

    If one cares MOST about democracy and ‘liberal values’, then one can have it in US, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Taiwan, etc. One would be a deracinated, de-narratived, and deculturalized libertarian.
    Civilization is much deeper than some political ideology.

    The current crisis if democracy is that the foundations are wrong for democracy in many nations.

    Some have too much diversity due to the fact that those nations are imperial constructs. Or they allowed too much immigration/invasion(like Canada is doing now).

    Some have homogeneity but no sovereignty. This is why governments are so weak in Germany, France, Italy, UK, Japan, Taiwan, etc. They are all cuck vassals of the US.
    And US democracy is going down the tube because of rising diversity and loss of national sovereignty. US is no longer ruled by American elites. It is ruled by the GLOB.

    So, to have healthy democracy, we need to allow overly diverse nations to split apart into more homogeneous ones.
    Also, we need to end mass immigration that diversifies demographics.
    Also, we need to boost national sovereignty. The problem is the GLOB opposes national sovereignty since its power derives from penetrating and taking over all nations.

    Also, we need to refute ideology-centrism.
    Ideologies are systems of thoughts, and they can be useful.
    But when radicalized, ideologies fixate on one theme/interest/entity and tries to make everything revolve around it when a healthy system is one where various components work together in sync. It’s like the human body. It would make no sense to come up with heart-centric ideology or lung-centric ideology or eye-centric ideology and etc.
    Heart is crucial, but so are lungs, liver, stomach, intestines, and etc. The body works well by each organ doing its part. Organ-supremacism would be stupid, as if one organ is the center of all. To be sure, some organs are more crucial than others. If you lose a finger, you will live. If you lose your heart, forget it. Still, all parts of the body are crucial in their own ways and should be appreciated and given their due.
    On the other hand, organ-egalitarianism would also be stupid. Each organ has its own particular function. It cannot do everything. Lungs cannot act like the heart, and heart cannot act like ears and ears cannot act like stomach.

    Neo-fascism understands this, and it tries to find a way to make the various components of society work together in coordination.
    In contrast, leftist ideologies tended to favor one idea or one group over all others. So, Marxism favored the working class over all others. Instead of seeing the value of both the business class and working class and trying to make them work together better, communism sought to totally destroy the business class.
    As for Freudianism, everything was about the pud and poon. It was all sex. Sure, sexuality is important, but they are part of something bigger. Freud’s monomania led to radicalism in therapy.
    As for feminism, it posits the crazy idea that women constitute a separate group like a race. In fact, the female is the other half of the male who is the other half of the female. It is unity of female and male that make for life and culture.

    Neo-fascism seeks the useful balance between man and woman based on their differences and commonalities. Feminism pits women against men like Marxism pit proles against bourgeoisie. Stupid. It’s be like pitting the liver against the heart instead of acknowledging that they must work together. Puds and Poons are supposed to unite and work together, not war on each other.
    Leftism sees everything in terms of conflict. Neo-fascism sees things in terms of cooperation.

    Neo-fascism is also about autonomy and particularism. After all, it is the differences that make peoples and cultures interesting. Take two individuals. If we focus mainly on what they have in common, neither is interesting. They both have eyes, ears, nose. They both wake up and eat breakfast. They both read books and watch TV. If we focus on what people have in common, it’d make for a boring biography. What makes biographies interesting is that each person has a story that is unique and special to his own self. His own special childhood memories, his own experiences, his own lessons, and etc. Though these experiences may resemble those of others, each experience is still special and different. How each kid experienced Christmas is unique with different parents and gifts and etc.

    Same goes for cultures. Sure, there are common themes among all cultures. But stressing such commonness makes them boring. If we say every religion believes in deities, that’s true enough, but it doesn’t say much. What makes each religion special is it has its own vision and interpretation of God or gods and its own narrative of the people’s experience with God or gods.
    Each culture has its own unique history and meanings. And this is what what makes it interesting and valuable and irreplaceable.
    This is why reading about French history is different from reading about Mexican history, Japanese history, Turkish history, Hungarian history. If we were to focus only on what all histories have in common, we could say, “they all had wars, they all had kings, they all had governments, they all had merchants, they all had artists, etc” Sure, but that’s just generic bland description. It’s boring.
    What makes a nation interesting is not what it has in common with all others but what makes it different and unique from others.
    But globalism tries to turn the whole world into the McWorld that only cares about Rap, Hollywood, videogames, homoworship, and etc.

    PS. We seem to be living in a post-ideological age. We have idol-ogy instead.
    Ideology is a system of thought, and like them or not, at the very least, socialism-communism, anarchism, libertarianism, and etc offered something like a coherent thought system.

    Today, we have mantras that are supposed to stifle the intellect and just make us chant along as if under hypnosis. “Diversity is a strength”, “Inclusion”, “Love Trumps Hate”, “Black Lives Matter”, “Marriage Equality” offer no system of thought. No philosophy. They are just supposed to be swallowed whole without chewing for edibility.
    Consider how the utterly ludicrous homomania gained great success via hype, spectacles, hysteria, entertainment, celebrity worship, etc. Teletubby Land.

    Read More
    • Replies: @cricket
    Yes. except perhaps we would need a more digestible name for a new political system than "neo-fascism." There is some baggage there.

    The best part of the "American Idea", or theory, or how we like to think of ourselves rather than what we have become is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In modern terms we would call this "peace, freedom, and prosperity," all of which are in decline. Nowhere is democracy mentioned there. It is as you said; the above are cultural values, and democracy is a political tool. I would give up my chance to vote every 4 years for either Douchebag A or Asshat B in exchange for peace, prosperity, and freedom any day without hesitation.

    And by the way, have you noticed that the verbage "peace, prosperity, and freedom" has all but disappeared from the rhetoric of mainstream politicians? It has been replaced by "democracy, our democratic institutions, and our democratic values" in reference to 'Merican 'Ceptionalism. Never mind that its bullshit, but I feel like we are being psychologically prepped. "Well, we lost the First Amendment but fortunately were able to save democratic institutions like the CIA."

    , @Corvinus
    Priss, why don't you run for office? Or become a highly visible individual who promotes these ideas on You Tube, rather than lament over and over again. If you truly love this nation, and are so concerned about leftists and Jews, why not actually do something about it. Show some courage and guts.

    Now...Mr. Buchanan is up and arms because “civilized discourse” in America resembles a bar room brawl on a cheesy late night Golan-Globus produced film on HBO. You do realize that your side, the conservatives, are part and parcel to this discord, right? Or do you truly believe this WWE mentality falls squarely on the shoulders of leftists?

    

“Democracy is increasingly seen as a means to an end, not an end in itself. If democracy doesn’t deliver, dispense with it. Democracy’s reputation also suffers from the corruption and incompetence of some of its celebrated champions.”

    

It’s not democracy as a form of government that in and of itself is corrupt, it is its actors and participants that make it corrupt.

    “In Federalist No. 2, John Jay called us a “band of brethren” and “one united people” who shared the same ancestors, language, religion, principles, manners, customs.”

    

Consisting of English, Irish, Germanic, Flemish, African, and Native American stock, who each maintained their traditions, yet were bond by the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—universal human traits. The Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, enabled future generations through Congressional acts to develop and change the criteria as to who is eligible for citizenship. As Asians, Assyrians, and the Hmong entered our nation by way of immigration, they maintained their ways of life similar to the aforementioned group, yet melded into our multiracial and multiethnic society.

    “Forty percent of Americans now trace their ancestral roots to Latin America, Asia and Africa. The Christian component of the nation shrinks, as the numbers of Muslims, Hindu, atheists, agnostics grow. We have two major languages now. Scores of other languages are taught in schools.”



    Demographics is destiny. Most white Americans find it strange that “civic nationalists” and the Alt Right lament about these changes. Like it or lump it.

    “Not only do we disagree on God, gays and guns, but on politics and ideology, morality and faith, right and wrong.”

    Which Americans have been arguing about, sans the gays conversation, ever since the birth of our nation. There is observably nothing different here.

    “One-half of America sees the other as “a basket of deplorables. … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … bigots.”

And the other half of America sees the other as a “bunch of spoiled middle-class college p—— LARP-ing as communist insurgents [with] poor impulse control and laziness, a hand-flapping puddle of mush.”—(Thanks Iron Mike via Vox Day)

    EXCEPT…these characterizations are overblown generalizations.

    “Where liberals see as an ever-more splendid diversity of colors, creeds, ethnicities, ideologies, beliefs and lifestyles, the Right sees the disintegration of a country, a nation, a people, and its replacement with a Tower of Babel.”

    Great meme, except it doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.
    , @Sam J.
    "...Japan, South Korea, and Taiwanese have worthless democracies since the most they can do is elect puppets of the US..."

    This is not true as they have their own system. If they were vassals of the US they wouldn't have such large trade deficits with us.

    The US doesn't have a Democracy. It's an Oligarchy with some fixed votes and some not fixed. I'm not sure anyone knows the extent except the fixers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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 once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/is-democracy-in-a-death-spiral/#comment-1844231
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. “When George W. Bush declared that the peoples of the Middle East should decide their future in democratic elections, Lebanon chose Hezbollah, the Palestinians chose Hamas, the Egyptians the Muslim Brotherhood. The first two are U.S.-designated terrorist groups,…Not an auspicious beginning for Arab democracy.”

    Are you a serious thinker at all? You reach for your sal volatile and fall so daintily upon your fainting couch upon relating that Hezbollah and Hamas are “U.S.-designated terrorist groups”!

    Why, Dear Sir, with all your knowledge and experience, having written many worthy history books, do you presume to imagine that your readers could think that a U.S. Government designation as a “terrorist group” is anything but inside-the-Beltway spin? Why is Hezbollah, which valiantly fought Israel, which now valiantly fights ISIS and supports the democratically-elected Assad, designated “terrorist”? Why is Hamas, which against all odds fights the most unequal war since the Spartans fought the Persians, designated “terrorist”? Has either Hezbollah or Hamas ever set off a bomb in Paris, Stockholm, or anywhere else in Europe? The answers to these deep and perplexing questions can be found at

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room

    If the Shia of Lebanon or the Palestinians had not voted for Hezbollah and Hamas, it would have made your point about the decline of democracy.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Why, Dear Sir, with all your knowledge and experience, having written many worthy history books, do you presume to imagine that your readers could think that a U.S. Government designation as a “terrorist group” is anything but inside-the-Beltway spin?"

    Dear idiot, did it ever occur to you that Buchanan may share your cynicism of the beltway elites?
    , @Rurik


    The first two are U.S.-designated terrorist groups,…Not an auspicious beginning for Arab democracy.”
     
    Are you a serious thinker at all?
     
    I don't think you give Mr. Buchanan enough credit.

    He knows, (trust me), that these US designations are ignoble acts of a sniveling congress wriggling on their bellies to lick the feet of their Zionist master$. If you read between his lines, you'll notice that he followed up that quip by mentioning Le Pen in France. - Because as we all damn well know, if they could, they'd declare The National Front a terrorist organization, just as they declare rightist parties in Germany and elsewhere illegal.

    The salient thing I suspect about "democracy" today is how well it's working out in the world's most celebrated democracy since ancient Athens...

    ~ it isn't

    we (Americans) vote for one thing, and we always get another

    we vote for peace, and we get war

    Consider just that. Forget how unpopular things like mass-immigration are and other treasons. And just look at the this most egregious of issues; contrived wars for fun and profit. [and Jewish Global supremacism]

    The American people are appalled by these endless wars. In every case, from WWI to WWII to Vietnam all the way to our current Eternal WarsⓊ, we always reliably vote against the evil, villainous wars, and in every case, we have them imposed on us. And then looking back, we're able to always see what a horrible mistake they were and how we were lied into them, but we're always forced into more of them by deepstate, back-door room corruption. (I won't mention here the Jewish owned banks and Jewish owned media ; )

    And so it is today, when we've all voted for an overtly anti-war candidate, (as opposed to the cackling war sow) and what do we get?

    *Exactly* - more wars for Zion.

    So this whole charade of "democracy" is only a pathetic farce to give the veneer of respectability to these illegal and immoral and treasonous (and yes, evil) wars of aggression that are used to destroy anyone who looks at Israel cross-eyed. Including entire nations in this new, nascent century that ((they)) want to be even more bloody and horrific than the last one. (which is saying a lot!)

    So I suspect Mr Buchanan is simply trying to point out the absurdity of the idea of democracy, not because Arabs vote for the wrong people, but rather because, just like all of us in the West, the second they vote for someone for whom Rothschild disapproves, it is the will of Rothschild and the Zionsts that always prevail ..

    no

    matter

    what.

    So why pretend anymore, and allow them to claim America voted for these cowards and traitors and murderous scum, so that Americans too are guilty of all their crimes. No! It is the criminals that are guilty. It is Tony Blair and George Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Trump that are guilty. And we need to stop letting them hide behind the sham of "democracy".

    We have no democracy. We are ruled by oligarchs and scoundrels who're unaccountable, and they simply use their corporate (CIA) controlled media to write the script and enforce the pretense.

    In the ZUSA, democracy is ruse and has been for a century now. Perhaps longer.

    let's stop pretending

  3. Russia and China, which have embraced autocratic capitalism

    According to my observations, Russia is not any more ‘autocratic’ (‘oligarchical’ would be a better word) than the US.

    The difference is not ‘democratic’ vs ‘autocratic’, but that the US oligarchical establishment has existed for over 200 years and it is now (relatively) well-oiled and tuned-up, while Russia is a very young country where internal conflicts are still bubbling, requiring a more observable form of arbitration.

    In regards to pluralism of opinions, however, Russia is far ahead of the US (probably for the same reason). Much wider spectrum of opinions (from communist to monarchist) is openly represented there, without inviting official condemnation, intellectual excommunication, and public sunning. So, there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Klokman
    Russia has been infested with internal conflicts since the fall of the Khazarian Empire.
  4. “Is Democracy in a Death Spiral?”

    Yes, as all Democracies eventually are.

    Read More
  5. It is not clear whether we live in a democracy. The media have gotten too skilled at manipulating the common people, the politicians renege on their campaign promises the day after they are sworn in, and last but not least, we are kept in the dark as to the dealings between lobbyists and legislators.

    Read More
  6. Federalist 10: Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention
    “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths -Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

    The founders were not fans of democracy. The U.S. was founded as a republic – not as a one biped, one vote, everyone’s equal but some are more equal than others democracy such as we have now.

    In Federalist No. 2, John Jay called us a “band of brethren” and “one united people” who shared the same ancestors, language, religion, principles, manners, customs.

    That sure doesn’t sound like a clarion call to multiculturalism and the “anybody can be an American” bilge that’s crammed down the throats of impressionable white kids from birth.

    It’s time for a divorce and partition of America. If the ZOG refuses to allow this (since it would be bad for Israel and diaspora Jew control freaks) then there will eventually be oceans of blood. Of course, it makes most Jews gleeful when non-Jews slaughter each other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    The U.S. was founded as a republic ...
     
    That's what we keep hearing, but was it?

    I don't think it ever was a "thing of the public"; it always was a res oligarcharum.
    , @Realist
    There is no out come difference between a Democracy and a Republic.
    A Republic is just a Democracy with a few tweeks...and they always fail.
  7. …as democracy has been divinized.

    I could be wrong, but despite that statement, Mr. B seems to be mourning the demise of the divination of “democracy” in the US.

    Here’s a quote from a much better article regarding the topic.

    Hoppe:…Up until the 20th century there was hardly an important political thinker who didn’t speak disparagingly about democracy. The key word was: “mob rule.”

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/04/hans-hermann-hoppe/state-run-megalomaniacs/

    Read More
  8. DC is not two-party (both “parties” both work for the same people). And it’s not in gridlock because the people they work for are very well served.

    Read More
  9. @KenH
    Federalist 10: Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention
    “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths -Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

    The founders were not fans of democracy. The U.S. was founded as a republic - not as a one biped, one vote, everyone's equal but some are more equal than others democracy such as we have now.


    In Federalist No. 2, John Jay called us a “band of brethren” and “one united people” who shared the same ancestors, language, religion, principles, manners, customs.

     

    That sure doesn't sound like a clarion call to multiculturalism and the "anybody can be an American" bilge that's crammed down the throats of impressionable white kids from birth.

    It's time for a divorce and partition of America. If the ZOG refuses to allow this (since it would be bad for Israel and diaspora Jew control freaks) then there will eventually be oceans of blood. Of course, it makes most Jews gleeful when non-Jews slaughter each other.

    The U.S. was founded as a republic …

    That’s what we keep hearing, but was it?

    I don’t think it ever was a “thing of the public”; it always was a res oligarcharum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    Without a doubt since suffrage was restricted to white, property owning males and they elected representatives to pass laws. In a democracy citizens bypass a legislature and vote directly on things and there's little to no separation of powers.

    One could argue it was somewhat of an elitist system but generally the best citizens were running the government unlike today where Congressman and Senators use government service as a ticket to riches and stardom as do the unelected bureaucrats.

    The federal government was also much smaller and with far less power than the Soviet type of centralism and authoritarianism we have in America today.

  10. I could write 10,000 words deconstructing ‘democracy’ ( with much humour) but it is all been written before in fits and starts. However, if the system is to be maintained, I offer several constructive adjustments that may in fact regenerate what is known as the ‘sacred’ democratic process.

    1) Assign varying strength to the individual vote. Mandate potential voters to take a relatively simple 50 question test. It would cover knowledge of the host nation (Capitol, founding father etc..), world geography, current events etc. The amount of correct answers dictates the strength of the vote. 50 correct = 50 votes. If some moron gets a goose egg, he still gets one vote so as to not remove his franchise for legal reasons.

    2) Implement a referendum and recall process such as the Swiss System. This would pertain to campaign promises. If a representative reneges on on a promise while campaigning he loses his seat through referendum and a by-election is held.

    3) Most importantly strengthen and elucidate all the scenarios that make High Treason a capital offense. Sell secrets to China, start wars on false pretenses and you will end your days swinging on a rope (possibly televised).
    No pleading and no mitigation, the law will be the law strictly enforced.

    These things are all doable.

    Cheers-

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Timur,

    I really like your ideas. Expanding on them; I think learning from the Swiss in important in that they kept control far more concentrated in their local rather than central government. I also like weighting a person's vote and I would include other factors like the age and experience of an individual; a guy who fought in Vietnam and is in his sixties and has seen society change and knows how the government can betray people should not have his vote count the same as an 18 year old high school cheer leader - it's just insane.

    And yes, people need to feel the consequences of these decisions - I'm pretty sick and tired of seeing these guys retire to a nice life of getting feted and travelling and giving speeches for tens of thousands of dollars per stint.

    Peace.
    , @Randal

    However, if the system is to be maintained, I offer several constructive adjustments that may in fact regenerate what is known as the ‘sacred’ democratic process.

    1) Assign varying strength to the individual vote. Mandate potential voters to take a relatively simple 50 question test. It would cover knowledge of the host nation (Capitol, founding father etc..), world geography, current events etc. The amount of correct answers dictates the strength of the vote. 50 correct = 50 votes. If some moron gets a goose egg, he still gets one vote so as to not remove his franchise for legal reasons.
     
    The problem with this kind of suggestion is always the issue of how it would work out in practice. In the real world, if there were to be standards set to vary the weights given to individuals' votes, they would be set to suit the elite's agenda, not any other. It's more likely that they would impose antiracism awareness and gender consciousness as conditions for having higher voting weight, rather than anything that objectively tested for intelligence or experience of the world.

    Probably simpler to impose a reasonably high minimum age for voting, and a higher one for standing for office. That might be doable (though not necessarily - there are always politicians willing to pander for votes) and would probably ameliorate some of the problems.
    , @KenH

    1) Assign varying strength to the individual vote. Mandate potential voters to take a relatively simple 50 question test
     
    I especially like no. 2. But regarding no.1, what two non-white racial groups will moan and complain that the test is "culturally biased" when most of them start failing it, thus disenfranchising themselves? We'll hear all sorts of wailing about white privilege even though some Asian groups will pass at approximately the same rate.

    Then it will go to the SCOTUS who will rule the test creates a "disparate impact" and must be dumbed down so more of them can pass. Or, president Julian Castro or Kamala Harris will issue an EO invalidating the test or granting blacks and Latinos an automatic 30 votes each for their historical sufferings at the hands of the dastardly white race.

    What happens when non-whites become the majority and change the rules in their favor? The JOG will figure out a way around any new system.

    We need our own nation. That's the only solution.
    , @Thales the Milesian
    Agree!


    Add to these the institution of the office of Tribunus Populi of the Roman Republic.
  11. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    "When George W. Bush declared that the peoples of the Middle East should decide their future in democratic elections, Lebanon chose Hezbollah, the Palestinians chose Hamas, the Egyptians the Muslim Brotherhood. The first two are U.S.-designated terrorist groups,...Not an auspicious beginning for Arab democracy."

    Are you a serious thinker at all? You reach for your sal volatile and fall so daintily upon your fainting couch upon relating that Hezbollah and Hamas are "U.S.-designated terrorist groups"!

    Why, Dear Sir, with all your knowledge and experience, having written many worthy history books, do you presume to imagine that your readers could think that a U.S. Government designation as a "terrorist group" is anything but inside-the-Beltway spin? Why is Hezbollah, which valiantly fought Israel, which now valiantly fights ISIS and supports the democratically-elected Assad, designated "terrorist"? Why is Hamas, which against all odds fights the most unequal war since the Spartans fought the Persians, designated "terrorist"? Has either Hezbollah or Hamas ever set off a bomb in Paris, Stockholm, or anywhere else in Europe? The answers to these deep and perplexing questions can be found at

    www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room

    If the Shia of Lebanon or the Palestinians had not voted for Hezbollah and Hamas, it would have made your point about the decline of democracy.

    “Why, Dear Sir, with all your knowledge and experience, having written many worthy history books, do you presume to imagine that your readers could think that a U.S. Government designation as a “terrorist group” is anything but inside-the-Beltway spin?”

    Dear idiot, did it ever occur to you that Buchanan may share your cynicism of the beltway elites?

    Read More
  12. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    "When George W. Bush declared that the peoples of the Middle East should decide their future in democratic elections, Lebanon chose Hezbollah, the Palestinians chose Hamas, the Egyptians the Muslim Brotherhood. The first two are U.S.-designated terrorist groups,...Not an auspicious beginning for Arab democracy."

    Are you a serious thinker at all? You reach for your sal volatile and fall so daintily upon your fainting couch upon relating that Hezbollah and Hamas are "U.S.-designated terrorist groups"!

    Why, Dear Sir, with all your knowledge and experience, having written many worthy history books, do you presume to imagine that your readers could think that a U.S. Government designation as a "terrorist group" is anything but inside-the-Beltway spin? Why is Hezbollah, which valiantly fought Israel, which now valiantly fights ISIS and supports the democratically-elected Assad, designated "terrorist"? Why is Hamas, which against all odds fights the most unequal war since the Spartans fought the Persians, designated "terrorist"? Has either Hezbollah or Hamas ever set off a bomb in Paris, Stockholm, or anywhere else in Europe? The answers to these deep and perplexing questions can be found at

    www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room

    If the Shia of Lebanon or the Palestinians had not voted for Hezbollah and Hamas, it would have made your point about the decline of democracy.

    The first two are U.S.-designated terrorist groups,…Not an auspicious beginning for Arab democracy.”

    Are you a serious thinker at all?

    I don’t think you give Mr. Buchanan enough credit.

    He knows, (trust me), that these US designations are ignoble acts of a sniveling congress wriggling on their bellies to lick the feet of their Zionist master$. If you read between his lines, you’ll notice that he followed up that quip by mentioning Le Pen in France. – Because as we all damn well know, if they could, they’d declare The National Front a terrorist organization, just as they declare rightist parties in Germany and elsewhere illegal.

    The salient thing I suspect about “democracy” today is how well it’s working out in the world’s most celebrated democracy since ancient Athens…

    ~ it isn’t

    we (Americans) vote for one thing, and we always get another

    we vote for peace, and we get war

    Consider just that. Forget how unpopular things like mass-immigration are and other treasons. And just look at the this most egregious of issues; contrived wars for fun and profit. [and Jewish Global supremacism]

    The American people are appalled by these endless wars. In every case, from WWI to WWII to Vietnam all the way to our current Eternal WarsⓊ, we always reliably vote against the evil, villainous wars, and in every case, we have them imposed on us. And then looking back, we’re able to always see what a horrible mistake they were and how we were lied into them, but we’re always forced into more of them by deepstate, back-door room corruption. (I won’t mention here the Jewish owned banks and Jewish owned media ; )

    And so it is today, when we’ve all voted for an overtly anti-war candidate, (as opposed to the cackling war sow) and what do we get?

    *Exactly* – more wars for Zion.

    So this whole charade of “democracy” is only a pathetic farce to give the veneer of respectability to these illegal and immoral and treasonous (and yes, evil) wars of aggression that are used to destroy anyone who looks at Israel cross-eyed. Including entire nations in this new, nascent century that ((they)) want to be even more bloody and horrific than the last one. (which is saying a lot!)

    So I suspect Mr Buchanan is simply trying to point out the absurdity of the idea of democracy, not because Arabs vote for the wrong people, but rather because, just like all of us in the West, the second they vote for someone for whom Rothschild disapproves, it is the will of Rothschild and the Zionsts that always prevail ..

    no

    matter

    what.

    So why pretend anymore, and allow them to claim America voted for these cowards and traitors and murderous scum, so that Americans too are guilty of all their crimes. No! It is the criminals that are guilty. It is Tony Blair and George Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Trump that are guilty. And we need to stop letting them hide behind the sham of “democracy”.

    We have no democracy. We are ruled by oligarchs and scoundrels who’re unaccountable, and they simply use their corporate (CIA) controlled media to write the script and enforce the pretense.

    In the ZUSA, democracy is ruse and has been for a century now. Perhaps longer.

    let’s stop pretending

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @FLgeezer
    Great post as usual Rurik. Thank you!
    , @Talha
    Hey Rurik,

    we vote for peace, and we get war
     
    Bro, now, I'm not going to say; I told you so... ;)

    Just one addition - you forgot to call out the FED by name. That bad boy has to go down before things can be rectified - none of this is done without the ability to manipulate fiat money.

    I know I've said this before - I still can't believe my fellow Americans missed the boat on Dr. Paul - TWICE!!!

    Peace.
  13. @Priss Factor
    Democracy works best with nationalism and homogeneity.

    Nationalism means national independence and sovereignty. Homogeneity means a people united in blood, history, and land despite differences in ideas.

    So, why is democracy failing?

    In Latin American nations, diversity undercuts democracy. Too many contrasting identities and interests. Too much strife and instability.

    Middle East and African nations are imperialist constructs. They have too much ethnic diversity, too much distrust. Democracy there leads to division along sectarian or ethnic lines, like with Iraqi and Afghan elections.

    EU is diversifying, and that will make democracy more problematic. But even in homogeneous Poland and other less diverse European nations, democracy doesn't work well since national sovereignty is iffy. They are under EU domination, and EU is under US domination, and US is under the control of the GLOB, a consortium of cynical oligarchs around the world.

    Japan, South Korea, and Taiwanese have worthless democracies since the most they can do is elect puppets of the US. Whoever wins must take orders from the US. Their leaders are little more than collaborators.
    They have elections and relative homogeneity, BUT no national sovereignty. (Japan may be better off because it has defacto one-party rule by conservatives who maintain some degree of consistency. In contrast, South Korea and Taiwan have powerful 'progressive' parties that take cues from PC of West.)

    Also, democracy is a political system. It is a political tool. A method. It is not the very stuff of culture, civilization, and people. For a nation to be solid and sturdy, it has to value and uphold things that are deeper and more substantive than mere political systems. Democracy is like hammer and nails. They must serve to build home on the land. Hammer and nails are tools for making a home. In and of themselves, they are useless. They serve the home on land.

    Democracy is a good, but it is not the highest good. If a Russian is given a choice:

    (1) keep Russian ethnos, territory, and culture BUT lose democracy and
    (2) keep democracy BUT lose Russian ethnos, territory, and culture...

    ...he would have to choose (1) over (2) if he is a true patriot. A civilization can survive without democracy. But a democracy without the core stuff of civilization has no value.
    To a Zionist, Israel is no less valuable as an autocracy than as a democracy. He may prefer democracy over autocracy, but the true worth of Israel is its foundation as homeland for Jewish ethnos, history, heritage, identity, etc. Those have greater value than any political system.

    If one cares MOST about democracy and 'liberal values', then one can have it in US, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Taiwan, etc. One would be a deracinated, de-narratived, and deculturalized libertarian.
    Civilization is much deeper than some political ideology.

    The current crisis if democracy is that the foundations are wrong for democracy in many nations.

    Some have too much diversity due to the fact that those nations are imperial constructs. Or they allowed too much immigration/invasion(like Canada is doing now).

    Some have homogeneity but no sovereignty. This is why governments are so weak in Germany, France, Italy, UK, Japan, Taiwan, etc. They are all cuck vassals of the US.
    And US democracy is going down the tube because of rising diversity and loss of national sovereignty. US is no longer ruled by American elites. It is ruled by the GLOB.

    So, to have healthy democracy, we need to allow overly diverse nations to split apart into more homogeneous ones.
    Also, we need to end mass immigration that diversifies demographics.
    Also, we need to boost national sovereignty. The problem is the GLOB opposes national sovereignty since its power derives from penetrating and taking over all nations.

    Also, we need to refute ideology-centrism.
    Ideologies are systems of thoughts, and they can be useful.
    But when radicalized, ideologies fixate on one theme/interest/entity and tries to make everything revolve around it when a healthy system is one where various components work together in sync. It's like the human body. It would make no sense to come up with heart-centric ideology or lung-centric ideology or eye-centric ideology and etc.
    Heart is crucial, but so are lungs, liver, stomach, intestines, and etc. The body works well by each organ doing its part. Organ-supremacism would be stupid, as if one organ is the center of all. To be sure, some organs are more crucial than others. If you lose a finger, you will live. If you lose your heart, forget it. Still, all parts of the body are crucial in their own ways and should be appreciated and given their due.
    On the other hand, organ-egalitarianism would also be stupid. Each organ has its own particular function. It cannot do everything. Lungs cannot act like the heart, and heart cannot act like ears and ears cannot act like stomach.

    Neo-fascism understands this, and it tries to find a way to make the various components of society work together in coordination.
    In contrast, leftist ideologies tended to favor one idea or one group over all others. So, Marxism favored the working class over all others. Instead of seeing the value of both the business class and working class and trying to make them work together better, communism sought to totally destroy the business class.
    As for Freudianism, everything was about the pud and poon. It was all sex. Sure, sexuality is important, but they are part of something bigger. Freud's monomania led to radicalism in therapy.
    As for feminism, it posits the crazy idea that women constitute a separate group like a race. In fact, the female is the other half of the male who is the other half of the female. It is unity of female and male that make for life and culture.

    Neo-fascism seeks the useful balance between man and woman based on their differences and commonalities. Feminism pits women against men like Marxism pit proles against bourgeoisie. Stupid. It's be like pitting the liver against the heart instead of acknowledging that they must work together. Puds and Poons are supposed to unite and work together, not war on each other.
    Leftism sees everything in terms of conflict. Neo-fascism sees things in terms of cooperation.

    Neo-fascism is also about autonomy and particularism. After all, it is the differences that make peoples and cultures interesting. Take two individuals. If we focus mainly on what they have in common, neither is interesting. They both have eyes, ears, nose. They both wake up and eat breakfast. They both read books and watch TV. If we focus on what people have in common, it'd make for a boring biography. What makes biographies interesting is that each person has a story that is unique and special to his own self. His own special childhood memories, his own experiences, his own lessons, and etc. Though these experiences may resemble those of others, each experience is still special and different. How each kid experienced Christmas is unique with different parents and gifts and etc.

    Same goes for cultures. Sure, there are common themes among all cultures. But stressing such commonness makes them boring. If we say every religion believes in deities, that's true enough, but it doesn't say much. What makes each religion special is it has its own vision and interpretation of God or gods and its own narrative of the people's experience with God or gods.
    Each culture has its own unique history and meanings. And this is what what makes it interesting and valuable and irreplaceable.
    This is why reading about French history is different from reading about Mexican history, Japanese history, Turkish history, Hungarian history. If we were to focus only on what all histories have in common, we could say, "they all had wars, they all had kings, they all had governments, they all had merchants, they all had artists, etc" Sure, but that's just generic bland description. It's boring.
    What makes a nation interesting is not what it has in common with all others but what makes it different and unique from others.
    But globalism tries to turn the whole world into the McWorld that only cares about Rap, Hollywood, videogames, homoworship, and etc.

    PS. We seem to be living in a post-ideological age. We have idol-ogy instead.
    Ideology is a system of thought, and like them or not, at the very least, socialism-communism, anarchism, libertarianism, and etc offered something like a coherent thought system.

    Today, we have mantras that are supposed to stifle the intellect and just make us chant along as if under hypnosis. "Diversity is a strength", "Inclusion", "Love Trumps Hate", "Black Lives Matter", "Marriage Equality" offer no system of thought. No philosophy. They are just supposed to be swallowed whole without chewing for edibility.
    Consider how the utterly ludicrous homomania gained great success via hype, spectacles, hysteria, entertainment, celebrity worship, etc. Teletubby Land.

    Yes. except perhaps we would need a more digestible name for a new political system than “neo-fascism.” There is some baggage there.

    The best part of the “American Idea”, or theory, or how we like to think of ourselves rather than what we have become is “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In modern terms we would call this “peace, freedom, and prosperity,” all of which are in decline. Nowhere is democracy mentioned there. It is as you said; the above are cultural values, and democracy is a political tool. I would give up my chance to vote every 4 years for either Douchebag A or Asshat B in exchange for peace, prosperity, and freedom any day without hesitation.

    And by the way, have you noticed that the verbage “peace, prosperity, and freedom” has all but disappeared from the rhetoric of mainstream politicians? It has been replaced by “democracy, our democratic institutions, and our democratic values” in reference to ‘Merican ‘Ceptionalism. Never mind that its bullshit, but I feel like we are being psychologically prepped. “Well, we lost the First Amendment but fortunately were able to save democratic institutions like the CIA.”

    Read More
  14. @Rurik


    The first two are U.S.-designated terrorist groups,…Not an auspicious beginning for Arab democracy.”
     
    Are you a serious thinker at all?
     
    I don't think you give Mr. Buchanan enough credit.

    He knows, (trust me), that these US designations are ignoble acts of a sniveling congress wriggling on their bellies to lick the feet of their Zionist master$. If you read between his lines, you'll notice that he followed up that quip by mentioning Le Pen in France. - Because as we all damn well know, if they could, they'd declare The National Front a terrorist organization, just as they declare rightist parties in Germany and elsewhere illegal.

    The salient thing I suspect about "democracy" today is how well it's working out in the world's most celebrated democracy since ancient Athens...

    ~ it isn't

    we (Americans) vote for one thing, and we always get another

    we vote for peace, and we get war

    Consider just that. Forget how unpopular things like mass-immigration are and other treasons. And just look at the this most egregious of issues; contrived wars for fun and profit. [and Jewish Global supremacism]

    The American people are appalled by these endless wars. In every case, from WWI to WWII to Vietnam all the way to our current Eternal WarsⓊ, we always reliably vote against the evil, villainous wars, and in every case, we have them imposed on us. And then looking back, we're able to always see what a horrible mistake they were and how we were lied into them, but we're always forced into more of them by deepstate, back-door room corruption. (I won't mention here the Jewish owned banks and Jewish owned media ; )

    And so it is today, when we've all voted for an overtly anti-war candidate, (as opposed to the cackling war sow) and what do we get?

    *Exactly* - more wars for Zion.

    So this whole charade of "democracy" is only a pathetic farce to give the veneer of respectability to these illegal and immoral and treasonous (and yes, evil) wars of aggression that are used to destroy anyone who looks at Israel cross-eyed. Including entire nations in this new, nascent century that ((they)) want to be even more bloody and horrific than the last one. (which is saying a lot!)

    So I suspect Mr Buchanan is simply trying to point out the absurdity of the idea of democracy, not because Arabs vote for the wrong people, but rather because, just like all of us in the West, the second they vote for someone for whom Rothschild disapproves, it is the will of Rothschild and the Zionsts that always prevail ..

    no

    matter

    what.

    So why pretend anymore, and allow them to claim America voted for these cowards and traitors and murderous scum, so that Americans too are guilty of all their crimes. No! It is the criminals that are guilty. It is Tony Blair and George Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Trump that are guilty. And we need to stop letting them hide behind the sham of "democracy".

    We have no democracy. We are ruled by oligarchs and scoundrels who're unaccountable, and they simply use their corporate (CIA) controlled media to write the script and enforce the pretense.

    In the ZUSA, democracy is ruse and has been for a century now. Perhaps longer.

    let's stop pretending

    Great post as usual Rurik. Thank you!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    thanks FLgeezer

    I try to callz em as I seez em ;)
  15. The GLOB plays the long game and is beating democracy with its own stick… or maybe schtick as the first task was to define us and our history, using entertainment to open a front on what is now called ‘whiteness’. Hate the white people, hate their culture (but appropriate to suit). It’s kind of a neutron bomb that wipes out whitey but leaves everything he built to be enjoyed by more deserving folks.

    We went from toleration of to supremacy of minorities. The white majority had to be convinced its culture was a debt owed to others and not something inherently valuable. How brainwashed are we to believe that white children should bear this debt, this tax on whiteness, to compensate for racial original sin committed before they were born.

    All cultures have centrifugal and centripetal forces. Diversity is not a strength when it tears your culture apart. As white culture dies, this attempt by ordinary people to control power over them goes with it. We get hung up on words like democracy and socialism, but it really was about the extraordinary chance ordinary people had to have a piece of the world for their own, to keep the value of their own labor, and to be free from overlords. The ‘isms don’t quite capture the difficulties in that, and to the degree that it worked, it only worked because white culture strived for it.

    White nations are being destroyed by the GLOB, which never has to say why we should prefer it. It wages war on our wealth by destroying accumulated values of labor. It wages war on our cohesiveness through deliberate cultural obliteration. It has corrupted our institutions and hijacked national defense.

    And always they shield themselves with media control. So we must call an invasion ‘immigration’ and our destruction ‘diversity’. Europe cannot return fire against ISIS, but must extend to them their former rights, tolerating self destruction. America must accept its own invasion of culture and minority superiority, destroy ourselves to create prosperity for others at our posterity’s expense.

    When whiteness has been dealt the final blow, then what? How self-serving for the Rainbow Coalition to say their rule will be peace and prosperity. And how likely is it that subjugated whites will be treated kindly? Maybe the white-not whites in Israel, but certainly not the Gentile masses in America and Europe.

    And as many will say this is white nationalism and that’s Hitler, I will add this: to say that white culture must be preserved is not the same as saying all others must be annihilated in the name of racial purity, only that a living nation must be at balance between the forces of conservation and change. Currently ours isn’t. Every one and every nation has a right to advocate for their own welfare and self preservation, even if they’re white.

    Besides, why isn’t the GLOB’s diversity army more interested in making Africa, the ME and South America great instead of destroying North America and Europe? These places have tremendous resources, the GLOB has unlimited money and, best of all, there’s no (well, less) white privilege! Utopia awaits.

    Read More
  16. “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”

    The US is 20 TRILLION dollars in debt.

    Read More
  17. democracy has been divinized

    Mistake numero uno. God does not take kindly to rivals; if you do not want something to crash and burn, don’t make it an idol.

    I’ve seen people prop up democracy like I’ve seen them prop up science – both are tools to be used for the benefit of human beings – “not an end in itself”.

    Not to worry, this has just been the most recent attempt by human beings to arrive at a system of government that meets their needs – neither is it absolute, nor was it meant to last – anymore than feudalism.

    Generations of human beings blip in and out of existence, only experiencing a relatively short window into the march of human history – we just happened upon ours, the question is, what lessons have we learned by what’s being shown to us?

    Peace.

    Note: On democratic forms, it is worth reviewing a non-European form that was developed by the Oromo people going back (at least) around 5 centuries. It is patriarchal, but very participatory from a young age. The boys then teenagers then adults then elders each move up a stage in the society until they reach the capability to run the society and are entrusted with the responsibility. Could this be scaled? Could parts of this be adopted? A huge part of the failure in democracy is that nobody knows who to trust.

    http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/RL/gada-system-an-indigenous-democratic-socio-political-system-of-the-oromo-01164

    Read More
  18. @Rurik


    The first two are U.S.-designated terrorist groups,…Not an auspicious beginning for Arab democracy.”
     
    Are you a serious thinker at all?
     
    I don't think you give Mr. Buchanan enough credit.

    He knows, (trust me), that these US designations are ignoble acts of a sniveling congress wriggling on their bellies to lick the feet of their Zionist master$. If you read between his lines, you'll notice that he followed up that quip by mentioning Le Pen in France. - Because as we all damn well know, if they could, they'd declare The National Front a terrorist organization, just as they declare rightist parties in Germany and elsewhere illegal.

    The salient thing I suspect about "democracy" today is how well it's working out in the world's most celebrated democracy since ancient Athens...

    ~ it isn't

    we (Americans) vote for one thing, and we always get another

    we vote for peace, and we get war

    Consider just that. Forget how unpopular things like mass-immigration are and other treasons. And just look at the this most egregious of issues; contrived wars for fun and profit. [and Jewish Global supremacism]

    The American people are appalled by these endless wars. In every case, from WWI to WWII to Vietnam all the way to our current Eternal WarsⓊ, we always reliably vote against the evil, villainous wars, and in every case, we have them imposed on us. And then looking back, we're able to always see what a horrible mistake they were and how we were lied into them, but we're always forced into more of them by deepstate, back-door room corruption. (I won't mention here the Jewish owned banks and Jewish owned media ; )

    And so it is today, when we've all voted for an overtly anti-war candidate, (as opposed to the cackling war sow) and what do we get?

    *Exactly* - more wars for Zion.

    So this whole charade of "democracy" is only a pathetic farce to give the veneer of respectability to these illegal and immoral and treasonous (and yes, evil) wars of aggression that are used to destroy anyone who looks at Israel cross-eyed. Including entire nations in this new, nascent century that ((they)) want to be even more bloody and horrific than the last one. (which is saying a lot!)

    So I suspect Mr Buchanan is simply trying to point out the absurdity of the idea of democracy, not because Arabs vote for the wrong people, but rather because, just like all of us in the West, the second they vote for someone for whom Rothschild disapproves, it is the will of Rothschild and the Zionsts that always prevail ..

    no

    matter

    what.

    So why pretend anymore, and allow them to claim America voted for these cowards and traitors and murderous scum, so that Americans too are guilty of all their crimes. No! It is the criminals that are guilty. It is Tony Blair and George Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Trump that are guilty. And we need to stop letting them hide behind the sham of "democracy".

    We have no democracy. We are ruled by oligarchs and scoundrels who're unaccountable, and they simply use their corporate (CIA) controlled media to write the script and enforce the pretense.

    In the ZUSA, democracy is ruse and has been for a century now. Perhaps longer.

    let's stop pretending

    Hey Rurik,

    we vote for peace, and we get war

    Bro, now, I’m not going to say; I told you so… ;)

    Just one addition – you forgot to call out the FED by name. That bad boy has to go down before things can be rectified – none of this is done without the ability to manipulate fiat money.

    I know I’ve said this before – I still can’t believe my fellow Americans missed the boat on Dr. Paul – TWICE!!!

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Hey Talha my friend,

    I’m not going to say; I told you so… ;)
     
    well, yes

    all of you who said Trump was a ruse, it seems were less Pollyanna than I allowed myself to be.

    but I will say this- we had no choice

    Surly Trump is not so bad as the war sow would have been.

    We still don't have a 'no fly zone' in Syria and we're not yet in a hot war with Russia or Iran. So there's that.


    I still can’t believe my fellow Americans missed the boat on Dr. Paul – TWICE!!!
     
    we came close enough that they had to lie and cheat to ban him from any chance, it was that close. So I'll take our "victories", such as they are.

    And the fat lady has not yet sung on his tenure, I suppose. I know, that's small consolation to the people Trump has slaughtered in Syria or elsewhere, but I hold out a tiny, teeny hope that this will not all end in WWIII. And you're absolutely right about the Fed. It is the center of all of this Old Testament, Orwellian horror show on acid. That demonic institution is the Mordor's eye of war and strife and death and misery, and if we humans of good will could fine the wherewithal to end it, we could possibly avert their planned dystopian hell on earth.

    End the Fed!


    Peace bro

  19. @Timur The Lame
    I could write 10,000 words deconstructing 'democracy' ( with much humour) but it is all been written before in fits and starts. However, if the system is to be maintained, I offer several constructive adjustments that may in fact regenerate what is known as the 'sacred' democratic process.

    1) Assign varying strength to the individual vote. Mandate potential voters to take a relatively simple 50 question test. It would cover knowledge of the host nation (Capitol, founding father etc..), world geography, current events etc. The amount of correct answers dictates the strength of the vote. 50 correct = 50 votes. If some moron gets a goose egg, he still gets one vote so as to not remove his franchise for legal reasons.

    2) Implement a referendum and recall process such as the Swiss System. This would pertain to campaign promises. If a representative reneges on on a promise while campaigning he loses his seat through referendum and a by-election is held.

    3) Most importantly strengthen and elucidate all the scenarios that make High Treason a capital offense. Sell secrets to China, start wars on false pretenses and you will end your days swinging on a rope (possibly televised).
    No pleading and no mitigation, the law will be the law strictly enforced.

    These things are all doable.

    Cheers-

    Hey Timur,

    I really like your ideas. Expanding on them; I think learning from the Swiss in important in that they kept control far more concentrated in their local rather than central government. I also like weighting a person’s vote and I would include other factors like the age and experience of an individual; a guy who fought in Vietnam and is in his sixties and has seen society change and knows how the government can betray people should not have his vote count the same as an 18 year old high school cheer leader – it’s just insane.

    And yes, people need to feel the consequences of these decisions – I’m pretty sick and tired of seeing these guys retire to a nice life of getting feted and travelling and giving speeches for tens of thousands of dollars per stint.

    Peace.

    Read More
  20. When George W. Bush declared that the peoples of the Middle East should decide their future in democratic elections, Lebanon chose Hezbollah, the Palestinians chose Hamas, the Egyptians the Muslim Brotherhood. The first two are U.S.-designated terrorist groups, as members of Congress wish to designate the third. Not an auspicious beginning for Arab democracy.

    On the contrary – not an auspicious signal for the probity of the US government and Congress.

    American opinion (both elite and popular) in general is delusional regarding most ME matters, and it’s deluded because various interest groups have spent colossal amounts of money ensuring that it became so, and remains so. Attitudes to Iran, to Hezbollah, to Hamas and to Syria are the most negatively distorted.

    Read More
  21. Few would air such views today, as democracy has been divinized.

    I would, and have, but I’m not a politician and so have nothing to lose by stating unwelcome truths.

    Democracy is a mechanism or tool of governance to be employed when appropriate, and to the degree appropriate, to the particular nation and circumstances thereof. Increasingly it’s becoming clear that democracy, certainly in its modern liberal form, has been slowly disastrous for the nations of the US sphere.

    Democracy is increasingly seen as a means to an end, not an end in itself. If democracy doesn’t deliver, dispense with it.

    This is the rational view of it, in contrast to the idolisation that Buchanan earlier correctly identified as its status in the nations of the modern US sphere.

    In its current idealised form, as “liberal democracy”, it is the core of the destabilising universalist ideology that justifies the elites in the aforementioned nations in their opinion that they and they alone are entitled to interfere in the affairs of every other nation on Earth, and that no mere law or inconvenient agreement can ever be allowed to stand in their way. It is the C21st version of the similar universalist ideology that caused so much trouble in the C20th: state socialism and communism.

    Read More
  22. @Timur The Lame
    I could write 10,000 words deconstructing 'democracy' ( with much humour) but it is all been written before in fits and starts. However, if the system is to be maintained, I offer several constructive adjustments that may in fact regenerate what is known as the 'sacred' democratic process.

    1) Assign varying strength to the individual vote. Mandate potential voters to take a relatively simple 50 question test. It would cover knowledge of the host nation (Capitol, founding father etc..), world geography, current events etc. The amount of correct answers dictates the strength of the vote. 50 correct = 50 votes. If some moron gets a goose egg, he still gets one vote so as to not remove his franchise for legal reasons.

    2) Implement a referendum and recall process such as the Swiss System. This would pertain to campaign promises. If a representative reneges on on a promise while campaigning he loses his seat through referendum and a by-election is held.

    3) Most importantly strengthen and elucidate all the scenarios that make High Treason a capital offense. Sell secrets to China, start wars on false pretenses and you will end your days swinging on a rope (possibly televised).
    No pleading and no mitigation, the law will be the law strictly enforced.

    These things are all doable.

    Cheers-

    However, if the system is to be maintained, I offer several constructive adjustments that may in fact regenerate what is known as the ‘sacred’ democratic process.

    1) Assign varying strength to the individual vote. Mandate potential voters to take a relatively simple 50 question test. It would cover knowledge of the host nation (Capitol, founding father etc..), world geography, current events etc. The amount of correct answers dictates the strength of the vote. 50 correct = 50 votes. If some moron gets a goose egg, he still gets one vote so as to not remove his franchise for legal reasons.

    The problem with this kind of suggestion is always the issue of how it would work out in practice. In the real world, if there were to be standards set to vary the weights given to individuals’ votes, they would be set to suit the elite’s agenda, not any other. It’s more likely that they would impose antiracism awareness and gender consciousness as conditions for having higher voting weight, rather than anything that objectively tested for intelligence or experience of the world.

    Probably simpler to impose a reasonably high minimum age for voting, and a higher one for standing for office. That might be doable (though not necessarily – there are always politicians willing to pander for votes) and would probably ameliorate some of the problems.

    Read More
  23. Democracy is dying. Good riddance. It held within itself the seeds of its own destruction.

    Read More
  24. @Priss Factor
    Democracy works best with nationalism and homogeneity.

    Nationalism means national independence and sovereignty. Homogeneity means a people united in blood, history, and land despite differences in ideas.

    So, why is democracy failing?

    In Latin American nations, diversity undercuts democracy. Too many contrasting identities and interests. Too much strife and instability.

    Middle East and African nations are imperialist constructs. They have too much ethnic diversity, too much distrust. Democracy there leads to division along sectarian or ethnic lines, like with Iraqi and Afghan elections.

    EU is diversifying, and that will make democracy more problematic. But even in homogeneous Poland and other less diverse European nations, democracy doesn't work well since national sovereignty is iffy. They are under EU domination, and EU is under US domination, and US is under the control of the GLOB, a consortium of cynical oligarchs around the world.

    Japan, South Korea, and Taiwanese have worthless democracies since the most they can do is elect puppets of the US. Whoever wins must take orders from the US. Their leaders are little more than collaborators.
    They have elections and relative homogeneity, BUT no national sovereignty. (Japan may be better off because it has defacto one-party rule by conservatives who maintain some degree of consistency. In contrast, South Korea and Taiwan have powerful 'progressive' parties that take cues from PC of West.)

    Also, democracy is a political system. It is a political tool. A method. It is not the very stuff of culture, civilization, and people. For a nation to be solid and sturdy, it has to value and uphold things that are deeper and more substantive than mere political systems. Democracy is like hammer and nails. They must serve to build home on the land. Hammer and nails are tools for making a home. In and of themselves, they are useless. They serve the home on land.

    Democracy is a good, but it is not the highest good. If a Russian is given a choice:

    (1) keep Russian ethnos, territory, and culture BUT lose democracy and
    (2) keep democracy BUT lose Russian ethnos, territory, and culture...

    ...he would have to choose (1) over (2) if he is a true patriot. A civilization can survive without democracy. But a democracy without the core stuff of civilization has no value.
    To a Zionist, Israel is no less valuable as an autocracy than as a democracy. He may prefer democracy over autocracy, but the true worth of Israel is its foundation as homeland for Jewish ethnos, history, heritage, identity, etc. Those have greater value than any political system.

    If one cares MOST about democracy and 'liberal values', then one can have it in US, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Taiwan, etc. One would be a deracinated, de-narratived, and deculturalized libertarian.
    Civilization is much deeper than some political ideology.

    The current crisis if democracy is that the foundations are wrong for democracy in many nations.

    Some have too much diversity due to the fact that those nations are imperial constructs. Or they allowed too much immigration/invasion(like Canada is doing now).

    Some have homogeneity but no sovereignty. This is why governments are so weak in Germany, France, Italy, UK, Japan, Taiwan, etc. They are all cuck vassals of the US.
    And US democracy is going down the tube because of rising diversity and loss of national sovereignty. US is no longer ruled by American elites. It is ruled by the GLOB.

    So, to have healthy democracy, we need to allow overly diverse nations to split apart into more homogeneous ones.
    Also, we need to end mass immigration that diversifies demographics.
    Also, we need to boost national sovereignty. The problem is the GLOB opposes national sovereignty since its power derives from penetrating and taking over all nations.

    Also, we need to refute ideology-centrism.
    Ideologies are systems of thoughts, and they can be useful.
    But when radicalized, ideologies fixate on one theme/interest/entity and tries to make everything revolve around it when a healthy system is one where various components work together in sync. It's like the human body. It would make no sense to come up with heart-centric ideology or lung-centric ideology or eye-centric ideology and etc.
    Heart is crucial, but so are lungs, liver, stomach, intestines, and etc. The body works well by each organ doing its part. Organ-supremacism would be stupid, as if one organ is the center of all. To be sure, some organs are more crucial than others. If you lose a finger, you will live. If you lose your heart, forget it. Still, all parts of the body are crucial in their own ways and should be appreciated and given their due.
    On the other hand, organ-egalitarianism would also be stupid. Each organ has its own particular function. It cannot do everything. Lungs cannot act like the heart, and heart cannot act like ears and ears cannot act like stomach.

    Neo-fascism understands this, and it tries to find a way to make the various components of society work together in coordination.
    In contrast, leftist ideologies tended to favor one idea or one group over all others. So, Marxism favored the working class over all others. Instead of seeing the value of both the business class and working class and trying to make them work together better, communism sought to totally destroy the business class.
    As for Freudianism, everything was about the pud and poon. It was all sex. Sure, sexuality is important, but they are part of something bigger. Freud's monomania led to radicalism in therapy.
    As for feminism, it posits the crazy idea that women constitute a separate group like a race. In fact, the female is the other half of the male who is the other half of the female. It is unity of female and male that make for life and culture.

    Neo-fascism seeks the useful balance between man and woman based on their differences and commonalities. Feminism pits women against men like Marxism pit proles against bourgeoisie. Stupid. It's be like pitting the liver against the heart instead of acknowledging that they must work together. Puds and Poons are supposed to unite and work together, not war on each other.
    Leftism sees everything in terms of conflict. Neo-fascism sees things in terms of cooperation.

    Neo-fascism is also about autonomy and particularism. After all, it is the differences that make peoples and cultures interesting. Take two individuals. If we focus mainly on what they have in common, neither is interesting. They both have eyes, ears, nose. They both wake up and eat breakfast. They both read books and watch TV. If we focus on what people have in common, it'd make for a boring biography. What makes biographies interesting is that each person has a story that is unique and special to his own self. His own special childhood memories, his own experiences, his own lessons, and etc. Though these experiences may resemble those of others, each experience is still special and different. How each kid experienced Christmas is unique with different parents and gifts and etc.

    Same goes for cultures. Sure, there are common themes among all cultures. But stressing such commonness makes them boring. If we say every religion believes in deities, that's true enough, but it doesn't say much. What makes each religion special is it has its own vision and interpretation of God or gods and its own narrative of the people's experience with God or gods.
    Each culture has its own unique history and meanings. And this is what what makes it interesting and valuable and irreplaceable.
    This is why reading about French history is different from reading about Mexican history, Japanese history, Turkish history, Hungarian history. If we were to focus only on what all histories have in common, we could say, "they all had wars, they all had kings, they all had governments, they all had merchants, they all had artists, etc" Sure, but that's just generic bland description. It's boring.
    What makes a nation interesting is not what it has in common with all others but what makes it different and unique from others.
    But globalism tries to turn the whole world into the McWorld that only cares about Rap, Hollywood, videogames, homoworship, and etc.

    PS. We seem to be living in a post-ideological age. We have idol-ogy instead.
    Ideology is a system of thought, and like them or not, at the very least, socialism-communism, anarchism, libertarianism, and etc offered something like a coherent thought system.

    Today, we have mantras that are supposed to stifle the intellect and just make us chant along as if under hypnosis. "Diversity is a strength", "Inclusion", "Love Trumps Hate", "Black Lives Matter", "Marriage Equality" offer no system of thought. No philosophy. They are just supposed to be swallowed whole without chewing for edibility.
    Consider how the utterly ludicrous homomania gained great success via hype, spectacles, hysteria, entertainment, celebrity worship, etc. Teletubby Land.

    Priss, why don’t you run for office? Or become a highly visible individual who promotes these ideas on You Tube, rather than lament over and over again. If you truly love this nation, and are so concerned about leftists and Jews, why not actually do something about it. Show some courage and guts.

    Now…Mr. Buchanan is up and arms because “civilized discourse” in America resembles a bar room brawl on a cheesy late night Golan-Globus produced film on HBO. You do realize that your side, the conservatives, are part and parcel to this discord, right? Or do you truly believe this WWE mentality falls squarely on the shoulders of leftists?

    

“Democracy is increasingly seen as a means to an end, not an end in itself. If democracy doesn’t deliver, dispense with it. Democracy’s reputation also suffers from the corruption and incompetence of some of its celebrated champions.”

    

It’s not democracy as a form of government that in and of itself is corrupt, it is its actors and participants that make it corrupt.

    “In Federalist No. 2, John Jay called us a “band of brethren” and “one united people” who shared the same ancestors, language, religion, principles, manners, customs.”

    

Consisting of English, Irish, Germanic, Flemish, African, and Native American stock, who each maintained their traditions, yet were bond by the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—universal human traits. The Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, enabled future generations through Congressional acts to develop and change the criteria as to who is eligible for citizenship. As Asians, Assyrians, and the Hmong entered our nation by way of immigration, they maintained their ways of life similar to the aforementioned group, yet melded into our multiracial and multiethnic society.

    “Forty percent of Americans now trace their ancestral roots to Latin America, Asia and Africa. The Christian component of the nation shrinks, as the numbers of Muslims, Hindu, atheists, agnostics grow. We have two major languages now. Scores of other languages are taught in schools.”



    Demographics is destiny. Most white Americans find it strange that “civic nationalists” and the Alt Right lament about these changes. Like it or lump it.

    “Not only do we disagree on God, gays and guns, but on politics and ideology, morality and faith, right and wrong.”

    Which Americans have been arguing about, sans the gays conversation, ever since the birth of our nation. There is observably nothing different here.

    “One-half of America sees the other as “a basket of deplorables. … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … bigots.”

And the other half of America sees the other as a “bunch of spoiled middle-class college p—— LARP-ing as communist insurgents [with] poor impulse control and laziness, a hand-flapping puddle of mush.”—(Thanks Iron Mike via Vox Day)

    EXCEPT…these characterizations are overblown generalizations.

    “Where liberals see as an ever-more splendid diversity of colors, creeds, ethnicities, ideologies, beliefs and lifestyles, the Right sees the disintegration of a country, a nation, a people, and its replacement with a Tower of Babel.”

    Great meme, except it doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Corvey,

    “civilized discourse” in America resembles a bar room brawl on a cheesy late night Golan-Globus produced film on HBO.
     
    LOL! That was awesome man!!! Love it!

    You mean a little like this?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJM0OGv56JU

    Peace.

    , @cricket
    I can't believe my life has been reduced to engaging in this sort of banter, but what the hell.

    I both agree and disagree with both you Corvinus and Priss. The US system of Democracy has failed. It has not failed because of diversity of color, religion, culture, ethnicity, or sexuality, but a lack of diversity of ideas and options. The Left has co-opted "diversity" to create identity politics, which fueled a backlash from the Right. None of this is conducive to productive, positive change. Neither is voting in our current system, as no real change ever occurs. Our Ruling Class, Imperial Elites if you will, do what they want regardless and use these Red Herring "wedge issues" to keep the populace divided. Taking our eye off the ball, the real target, which is THEM.

    Ironically, a good way to not be racist is to stop bombing brown people in impoverished countries. That is a nice start. It also prevents an influx of refugees fleeing from said brown, impoverished countries, leaving the US more "white." I am confident in my logic here. Therefore, the conclusion I have come to is that we all, left, right, and wackos like myself, have all been subject to intense propaganda fueling a conflict between ourselves that doesn't really exist in order to perpetuate the dominance of the Ruling Class.

    In all seriousness, what the fuck difference does it make in my life if a couple of consenting adult gay dudes have butt sex? It doesn't. Or a Mexican mows my next door neighbor's lawn? Because it took such an easy, lucrative job from a white guy? Who cares.

    My bottom line is this: the US is waging immoral, costly wars in our name against people who will only desire to do us harm if we keep waging war against them, and the "democratic process" has done NOTHING to stop this. I find it repulsive. In order to break the Ruling Class, the Elites, the AngloZionist Empire, or whatever you choose to call them, and reinstitute peace, freedom, and prosperity back to the American people (whatever color they are) we need a massive overhaul to the entire system. That being, either a benevolent Strongman or de-centralization. I prefer the latter because it helps to hedge against the prospect of tyranny.
  25. Stalin apparently once said that it doesn’t matter who does the voting, but who does the counting. The US took it one step further, it doesn’t even matter who does the counting as long as both candidates are from the same party (deep state).

    Read More
  26. @Corvinus
    Priss, why don't you run for office? Or become a highly visible individual who promotes these ideas on You Tube, rather than lament over and over again. If you truly love this nation, and are so concerned about leftists and Jews, why not actually do something about it. Show some courage and guts.

    Now...Mr. Buchanan is up and arms because “civilized discourse” in America resembles a bar room brawl on a cheesy late night Golan-Globus produced film on HBO. You do realize that your side, the conservatives, are part and parcel to this discord, right? Or do you truly believe this WWE mentality falls squarely on the shoulders of leftists?

    

“Democracy is increasingly seen as a means to an end, not an end in itself. If democracy doesn’t deliver, dispense with it. Democracy’s reputation also suffers from the corruption and incompetence of some of its celebrated champions.”

    

It’s not democracy as a form of government that in and of itself is corrupt, it is its actors and participants that make it corrupt.

    “In Federalist No. 2, John Jay called us a “band of brethren” and “one united people” who shared the same ancestors, language, religion, principles, manners, customs.”

    

Consisting of English, Irish, Germanic, Flemish, African, and Native American stock, who each maintained their traditions, yet were bond by the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—universal human traits. The Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, enabled future generations through Congressional acts to develop and change the criteria as to who is eligible for citizenship. As Asians, Assyrians, and the Hmong entered our nation by way of immigration, they maintained their ways of life similar to the aforementioned group, yet melded into our multiracial and multiethnic society.

    “Forty percent of Americans now trace their ancestral roots to Latin America, Asia and Africa. The Christian component of the nation shrinks, as the numbers of Muslims, Hindu, atheists, agnostics grow. We have two major languages now. Scores of other languages are taught in schools.”



    Demographics is destiny. Most white Americans find it strange that “civic nationalists” and the Alt Right lament about these changes. Like it or lump it.

    “Not only do we disagree on God, gays and guns, but on politics and ideology, morality and faith, right and wrong.”

    Which Americans have been arguing about, sans the gays conversation, ever since the birth of our nation. There is observably nothing different here.

    “One-half of America sees the other as “a basket of deplorables. … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … bigots.”

And the other half of America sees the other as a “bunch of spoiled middle-class college p—— LARP-ing as communist insurgents [with] poor impulse control and laziness, a hand-flapping puddle of mush.”—(Thanks Iron Mike via Vox Day)

    EXCEPT…these characterizations are overblown generalizations.

    “Where liberals see as an ever-more splendid diversity of colors, creeds, ethnicities, ideologies, beliefs and lifestyles, the Right sees the disintegration of a country, a nation, a people, and its replacement with a Tower of Babel.”

    Great meme, except it doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.

    Hey Corvey,

    “civilized discourse” in America resembles a bar room brawl on a cheesy late night Golan-Globus produced film on HBO.

    LOL! That was awesome man!!! Love it!

    You mean a little like this?

    Peace.

    Read More
  27. @Timur The Lame
    I could write 10,000 words deconstructing 'democracy' ( with much humour) but it is all been written before in fits and starts. However, if the system is to be maintained, I offer several constructive adjustments that may in fact regenerate what is known as the 'sacred' democratic process.

    1) Assign varying strength to the individual vote. Mandate potential voters to take a relatively simple 50 question test. It would cover knowledge of the host nation (Capitol, founding father etc..), world geography, current events etc. The amount of correct answers dictates the strength of the vote. 50 correct = 50 votes. If some moron gets a goose egg, he still gets one vote so as to not remove his franchise for legal reasons.

    2) Implement a referendum and recall process such as the Swiss System. This would pertain to campaign promises. If a representative reneges on on a promise while campaigning he loses his seat through referendum and a by-election is held.

    3) Most importantly strengthen and elucidate all the scenarios that make High Treason a capital offense. Sell secrets to China, start wars on false pretenses and you will end your days swinging on a rope (possibly televised).
    No pleading and no mitigation, the law will be the law strictly enforced.

    These things are all doable.

    Cheers-

    1) Assign varying strength to the individual vote. Mandate potential voters to take a relatively simple 50 question test

    I especially like no. 2. But regarding no.1, what two non-white racial groups will moan and complain that the test is “culturally biased” when most of them start failing it, thus disenfranchising themselves? We’ll hear all sorts of wailing about white privilege even though some Asian groups will pass at approximately the same rate.

    Then it will go to the SCOTUS who will rule the test creates a “disparate impact” and must be dumbed down so more of them can pass. Or, president Julian Castro or Kamala Harris will issue an EO invalidating the test or granting blacks and Latinos an automatic 30 votes each for their historical sufferings at the hands of the dastardly white race.

    What happens when non-whites become the majority and change the rules in their favor? The JOG will figure out a way around any new system.

    We need our own nation. That’s the only solution.

    Read More
  28. @jacques sheete

    The U.S. was founded as a republic ...
     
    That's what we keep hearing, but was it?

    I don't think it ever was a "thing of the public"; it always was a res oligarcharum.

    Without a doubt since suffrage was restricted to white, property owning males and they elected representatives to pass laws. In a democracy citizens bypass a legislature and vote directly on things and there’s little to no separation of powers.

    One could argue it was somewhat of an elitist system but generally the best citizens were running the government unlike today where Congressman and Senators use government service as a ticket to riches and stardom as do the unelected bureaucrats.

    The federal government was also much smaller and with far less power than the Soviet type of centralism and authoritarianism we have in America today.

    Read More
  29. @Corvinus
    Priss, why don't you run for office? Or become a highly visible individual who promotes these ideas on You Tube, rather than lament over and over again. If you truly love this nation, and are so concerned about leftists and Jews, why not actually do something about it. Show some courage and guts.

    Now...Mr. Buchanan is up and arms because “civilized discourse” in America resembles a bar room brawl on a cheesy late night Golan-Globus produced film on HBO. You do realize that your side, the conservatives, are part and parcel to this discord, right? Or do you truly believe this WWE mentality falls squarely on the shoulders of leftists?

    

“Democracy is increasingly seen as a means to an end, not an end in itself. If democracy doesn’t deliver, dispense with it. Democracy’s reputation also suffers from the corruption and incompetence of some of its celebrated champions.”

    

It’s not democracy as a form of government that in and of itself is corrupt, it is its actors and participants that make it corrupt.

    “In Federalist No. 2, John Jay called us a “band of brethren” and “one united people” who shared the same ancestors, language, religion, principles, manners, customs.”

    

Consisting of English, Irish, Germanic, Flemish, African, and Native American stock, who each maintained their traditions, yet were bond by the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—universal human traits. The Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, enabled future generations through Congressional acts to develop and change the criteria as to who is eligible for citizenship. As Asians, Assyrians, and the Hmong entered our nation by way of immigration, they maintained their ways of life similar to the aforementioned group, yet melded into our multiracial and multiethnic society.

    “Forty percent of Americans now trace their ancestral roots to Latin America, Asia and Africa. The Christian component of the nation shrinks, as the numbers of Muslims, Hindu, atheists, agnostics grow. We have two major languages now. Scores of other languages are taught in schools.”



    Demographics is destiny. Most white Americans find it strange that “civic nationalists” and the Alt Right lament about these changes. Like it or lump it.

    “Not only do we disagree on God, gays and guns, but on politics and ideology, morality and faith, right and wrong.”

    Which Americans have been arguing about, sans the gays conversation, ever since the birth of our nation. There is observably nothing different here.

    “One-half of America sees the other as “a basket of deplorables. … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … bigots.”

And the other half of America sees the other as a “bunch of spoiled middle-class college p—— LARP-ing as communist insurgents [with] poor impulse control and laziness, a hand-flapping puddle of mush.”—(Thanks Iron Mike via Vox Day)

    EXCEPT…these characterizations are overblown generalizations.

    “Where liberals see as an ever-more splendid diversity of colors, creeds, ethnicities, ideologies, beliefs and lifestyles, the Right sees the disintegration of a country, a nation, a people, and its replacement with a Tower of Babel.”

    Great meme, except it doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.

    I can’t believe my life has been reduced to engaging in this sort of banter, but what the hell.

    I both agree and disagree with both you Corvinus and Priss. The US system of Democracy has failed. It has not failed because of diversity of color, religion, culture, ethnicity, or sexuality, but a lack of diversity of ideas and options. The Left has co-opted “diversity” to create identity politics, which fueled a backlash from the Right. None of this is conducive to productive, positive change. Neither is voting in our current system, as no real change ever occurs. Our Ruling Class, Imperial Elites if you will, do what they want regardless and use these Red Herring “wedge issues” to keep the populace divided. Taking our eye off the ball, the real target, which is THEM.

    Ironically, a good way to not be racist is to stop bombing brown people in impoverished countries. That is a nice start. It also prevents an influx of refugees fleeing from said brown, impoverished countries, leaving the US more “white.” I am confident in my logic here. Therefore, the conclusion I have come to is that we all, left, right, and wackos like myself, have all been subject to intense propaganda fueling a conflict between ourselves that doesn’t really exist in order to perpetuate the dominance of the Ruling Class.

    In all seriousness, what the fuck difference does it make in my life if a couple of consenting adult gay dudes have butt sex? It doesn’t. Or a Mexican mows my next door neighbor’s lawn? Because it took such an easy, lucrative job from a white guy? Who cares.

    My bottom line is this: the US is waging immoral, costly wars in our name against people who will only desire to do us harm if we keep waging war against them, and the “democratic process” has done NOTHING to stop this. I find it repulsive. In order to break the Ruling Class, the Elites, the AngloZionist Empire, or whatever you choose to call them, and reinstitute peace, freedom, and prosperity back to the American people (whatever color they are) we need a massive overhaul to the entire system. That being, either a benevolent Strongman or de-centralization. I prefer the latter because it helps to hedge against the prospect of tyranny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The Left has co-opted “diversity” to create identity politics, which fueled a backlash from the Right. "

    No. The radicals on the left and right have set into motion this notion of identity politics, of "tribal instincts" and through their narratives make it appear that the average white American is caught

    "I prefer the latter because it helps to hedge against the prospect of tyranny."

    Not necessarily. Recall that southrons who preferred "local rule" created Jim Crow laws that coerced white and black southerners to behave in a certain manner. Their own personal freedom of association had been quashed. Severe consequences would be the result of daring to challenge the system politically and socially. Could white and black southerners left their communities and found refuge elsewhere? Certainly. But their homes and livelihood was THERE. Why should they leave? Instead, they fought against this suppression of liberties.

    Furthermore, the problem with "elites" still remains. Decentralization may serve as a consolidation of their influence, especially with an expansion of patronage. They could cater to interest groups who are to be counted on during election time. Accountability remains in light of competing groups, increasing levels of economic and social inequity as a result of their squabbles, and the neutering of institutional counterchecks on government (local legislature, judiciary, media, and civil society).

    "Our Ruling Class, Imperial Elites if you will, do what they want regardless and use these Red Herring “wedge issues” to keep the populace divided. Taking our eye off the ball, the real target, which is THEM."

    [Laughs] so what are YOU doing to stop the "elites" or "ruling class"? A number of posters here lament incessantly about this group, yet what specific courses of action are being taken? Now, for the sake of argument, let us assume that these elites are corralled. Would not another group of elites take their place and employ the same propaganda tactics to remain in positions of authority?

    Moreover, it is not as if the elites are sitting in some room together creating yet another "issue" for the masses to languish so the elites are able to continue their pillaging and plundering unmolested. The citizens themselves hold opinions on certain matters, and it is those varying positions that leads to discussion and debate.
  30. What is the best system of governance, because anarchy is not an option (someone eventually seizes power) nor is Marxism, where the people make themselves slaves to the state (and if they don’t are either forced to, killed, or sent to a gulag)?

    Or maybe to rephrase, what is the least bad option for governance where the people still have personal rights and tyranny is prevented? Leaders instead of rulers? I vote de-centralization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    "Leaders instead of rulers? I vote de-centralization."

    We don't have leaders we have handlers.
  31. @KenH
    Federalist 10: Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention
    “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths -Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

    The founders were not fans of democracy. The U.S. was founded as a republic - not as a one biped, one vote, everyone's equal but some are more equal than others democracy such as we have now.


    In Federalist No. 2, John Jay called us a “band of brethren” and “one united people” who shared the same ancestors, language, religion, principles, manners, customs.

     

    That sure doesn't sound like a clarion call to multiculturalism and the "anybody can be an American" bilge that's crammed down the throats of impressionable white kids from birth.

    It's time for a divorce and partition of America. If the ZOG refuses to allow this (since it would be bad for Israel and diaspora Jew control freaks) then there will eventually be oceans of blood. Of course, it makes most Jews gleeful when non-Jews slaughter each other.

    There is no out come difference between a Democracy and a Republic.
    A Republic is just a Democracy with a few tweeks…and they always fail.

    Read More
  32. It is good to see Pat is beginning to see that Democracies eventually fail.

    Read More
  33. @cricket
    What is the best system of governance, because anarchy is not an option (someone eventually seizes power) nor is Marxism, where the people make themselves slaves to the state (and if they don't are either forced to, killed, or sent to a gulag)?

    Or maybe to rephrase, what is the least bad option for governance where the people still have personal rights and tyranny is prevented? Leaders instead of rulers? I vote de-centralization.

    “Leaders instead of rulers? I vote de-centralization.”

    We don’t have leaders we have handlers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @cricket
    I agree. My question is how do we get to the point of leaders instead of rulers/handlers. It is not in support of our current system. I know ours is flawed. My question is: what would be the least bad system of governance?
  34. @Realist
    "Leaders instead of rulers? I vote de-centralization."

    We don't have leaders we have handlers.

    I agree. My question is how do we get to the point of leaders instead of rulers/handlers. It is not in support of our current system. I know ours is flawed. My question is: what would be the least bad system of governance?

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    Aristotle has some perspective on this:

    States are unstable, however, that are filled with those who have no share of political power and are poor.

    The real difference between democracy and oligarchy is between poverty and wealth. Wherever the rulers, whether they be a minority or a majority, owe their power to wealth, that is an oligarchy. Wherever the poor rule, that is a democracy.
     

    So give suffrage to as many as can responsibly manage property ownership over some threshold of value, say $100,000. If the enfranchised practice noblesse oblige, that's our best chance. J. S. Mill also advocates a property qualification.
    , @Realist
    My choice would be a meritocracy, but a revolution is required to change our form of government.
    Remember our original form of government after the Revolution was a crude form of meritocracy.
  35. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    We … the majority … the commonweal … always get what we ask for … pain and suffering included … though, a price for getting what we ask for.

    http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=192745&sid=a1adad19f9abe02992635f0276814c36

    It’s all part of : The Great migration … of a Prodigal Humanity

    http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=192715

    Read More
  36. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Diversity and democracy are largely inimical. Democracy becomes about tribal politics and identity (race) issues.

    Read More
  37. @cricket
    I agree. My question is how do we get to the point of leaders instead of rulers/handlers. It is not in support of our current system. I know ours is flawed. My question is: what would be the least bad system of governance?

    Aristotle has some perspective on this:

    States are unstable, however, that are filled with those who have no share of political power and are poor.

    The real difference between democracy and oligarchy is between poverty and wealth. Wherever the rulers, whether they be a minority or a majority, owe their power to wealth, that is an oligarchy. Wherever the poor rule, that is a democracy.

    So give suffrage to as many as can responsibly manage property ownership over some threshold of value, say $100,000. If the enfranchised practice noblesse oblige, that’s our best chance. J. S. Mill also advocates a property qualification.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    What you describe is a Meritocracy, our original form of government.
    , @Mao Cheng Ji

    So give suffrage to as many as can responsibly manage property ownership over some threshold of value, say $100,000.
     
    It already works this way, more or less. Only it's not about suffrage, it's about who's represented. The homeless guy can vote, but he got no one on the ballot who would represent his interests. So, he votes for the guy who has a better smile, whiter teeth. And that's the standard way any bourgeois democracy operates, as devised by James Madison & Co.
  38. Democracy only works in a homogeneous state where the people are still moral, religious and have a common cultural background and have skin in the game. IOW be land owners. Not wards of the state, not the indigent, the mentally ill, morons, not college students who own nothing and are nothing. Not low IQ minorities or stupid people in general who can’t even get a free ID card from the state.

    Yes it is elitist in every sense of the word. But the alternative is what you have today. Ethnics vote almost in unison for special set asides for their tribe including jobs – many of whom are illegals to boto. The wards of the state always vote for the pol who gives them more free s**t. In addition the ethnics support open borders and a eternal welfare state for their kind while persecuting whites. Worse they demand changes to the law and culture so they can import their own failed systems.

    It gets worse. It’s only held together by the state and armed men along with a massive flow of wealth to the ethnics. We’re not a state under such circumstances, only a collection of competing tribes who really don’t like one another.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Democracy only works in a homogeneous state where the people are still moral, religious and have a common cultural background and have skin in the game."

    Patently false. The constitutional monarchy of England, for example, was the combined creation of the laws and customs from the descendants of several distinct peoples--the earlier Britons (or Brythons), the Romans, the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians, along with the Danes and Normans.
  39. @Priss Factor
    Democracy works best with nationalism and homogeneity.

    Nationalism means national independence and sovereignty. Homogeneity means a people united in blood, history, and land despite differences in ideas.

    So, why is democracy failing?

    In Latin American nations, diversity undercuts democracy. Too many contrasting identities and interests. Too much strife and instability.

    Middle East and African nations are imperialist constructs. They have too much ethnic diversity, too much distrust. Democracy there leads to division along sectarian or ethnic lines, like with Iraqi and Afghan elections.

    EU is diversifying, and that will make democracy more problematic. But even in homogeneous Poland and other less diverse European nations, democracy doesn't work well since national sovereignty is iffy. They are under EU domination, and EU is under US domination, and US is under the control of the GLOB, a consortium of cynical oligarchs around the world.

    Japan, South Korea, and Taiwanese have worthless democracies since the most they can do is elect puppets of the US. Whoever wins must take orders from the US. Their leaders are little more than collaborators.
    They have elections and relative homogeneity, BUT no national sovereignty. (Japan may be better off because it has defacto one-party rule by conservatives who maintain some degree of consistency. In contrast, South Korea and Taiwan have powerful 'progressive' parties that take cues from PC of West.)

    Also, democracy is a political system. It is a political tool. A method. It is not the very stuff of culture, civilization, and people. For a nation to be solid and sturdy, it has to value and uphold things that are deeper and more substantive than mere political systems. Democracy is like hammer and nails. They must serve to build home on the land. Hammer and nails are tools for making a home. In and of themselves, they are useless. They serve the home on land.

    Democracy is a good, but it is not the highest good. If a Russian is given a choice:

    (1) keep Russian ethnos, territory, and culture BUT lose democracy and
    (2) keep democracy BUT lose Russian ethnos, territory, and culture...

    ...he would have to choose (1) over (2) if he is a true patriot. A civilization can survive without democracy. But a democracy without the core stuff of civilization has no value.
    To a Zionist, Israel is no less valuable as an autocracy than as a democracy. He may prefer democracy over autocracy, but the true worth of Israel is its foundation as homeland for Jewish ethnos, history, heritage, identity, etc. Those have greater value than any political system.

    If one cares MOST about democracy and 'liberal values', then one can have it in US, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Taiwan, etc. One would be a deracinated, de-narratived, and deculturalized libertarian.
    Civilization is much deeper than some political ideology.

    The current crisis if democracy is that the foundations are wrong for democracy in many nations.

    Some have too much diversity due to the fact that those nations are imperial constructs. Or they allowed too much immigration/invasion(like Canada is doing now).

    Some have homogeneity but no sovereignty. This is why governments are so weak in Germany, France, Italy, UK, Japan, Taiwan, etc. They are all cuck vassals of the US.
    And US democracy is going down the tube because of rising diversity and loss of national sovereignty. US is no longer ruled by American elites. It is ruled by the GLOB.

    So, to have healthy democracy, we need to allow overly diverse nations to split apart into more homogeneous ones.
    Also, we need to end mass immigration that diversifies demographics.
    Also, we need to boost national sovereignty. The problem is the GLOB opposes national sovereignty since its power derives from penetrating and taking over all nations.

    Also, we need to refute ideology-centrism.
    Ideologies are systems of thoughts, and they can be useful.
    But when radicalized, ideologies fixate on one theme/interest/entity and tries to make everything revolve around it when a healthy system is one where various components work together in sync. It's like the human body. It would make no sense to come up with heart-centric ideology or lung-centric ideology or eye-centric ideology and etc.
    Heart is crucial, but so are lungs, liver, stomach, intestines, and etc. The body works well by each organ doing its part. Organ-supremacism would be stupid, as if one organ is the center of all. To be sure, some organs are more crucial than others. If you lose a finger, you will live. If you lose your heart, forget it. Still, all parts of the body are crucial in their own ways and should be appreciated and given their due.
    On the other hand, organ-egalitarianism would also be stupid. Each organ has its own particular function. It cannot do everything. Lungs cannot act like the heart, and heart cannot act like ears and ears cannot act like stomach.

    Neo-fascism understands this, and it tries to find a way to make the various components of society work together in coordination.
    In contrast, leftist ideologies tended to favor one idea or one group over all others. So, Marxism favored the working class over all others. Instead of seeing the value of both the business class and working class and trying to make them work together better, communism sought to totally destroy the business class.
    As for Freudianism, everything was about the pud and poon. It was all sex. Sure, sexuality is important, but they are part of something bigger. Freud's monomania led to radicalism in therapy.
    As for feminism, it posits the crazy idea that women constitute a separate group like a race. In fact, the female is the other half of the male who is the other half of the female. It is unity of female and male that make for life and culture.

    Neo-fascism seeks the useful balance between man and woman based on their differences and commonalities. Feminism pits women against men like Marxism pit proles against bourgeoisie. Stupid. It's be like pitting the liver against the heart instead of acknowledging that they must work together. Puds and Poons are supposed to unite and work together, not war on each other.
    Leftism sees everything in terms of conflict. Neo-fascism sees things in terms of cooperation.

    Neo-fascism is also about autonomy and particularism. After all, it is the differences that make peoples and cultures interesting. Take two individuals. If we focus mainly on what they have in common, neither is interesting. They both have eyes, ears, nose. They both wake up and eat breakfast. They both read books and watch TV. If we focus on what people have in common, it'd make for a boring biography. What makes biographies interesting is that each person has a story that is unique and special to his own self. His own special childhood memories, his own experiences, his own lessons, and etc. Though these experiences may resemble those of others, each experience is still special and different. How each kid experienced Christmas is unique with different parents and gifts and etc.

    Same goes for cultures. Sure, there are common themes among all cultures. But stressing such commonness makes them boring. If we say every religion believes in deities, that's true enough, but it doesn't say much. What makes each religion special is it has its own vision and interpretation of God or gods and its own narrative of the people's experience with God or gods.
    Each culture has its own unique history and meanings. And this is what what makes it interesting and valuable and irreplaceable.
    This is why reading about French history is different from reading about Mexican history, Japanese history, Turkish history, Hungarian history. If we were to focus only on what all histories have in common, we could say, "they all had wars, they all had kings, they all had governments, they all had merchants, they all had artists, etc" Sure, but that's just generic bland description. It's boring.
    What makes a nation interesting is not what it has in common with all others but what makes it different and unique from others.
    But globalism tries to turn the whole world into the McWorld that only cares about Rap, Hollywood, videogames, homoworship, and etc.

    PS. We seem to be living in a post-ideological age. We have idol-ogy instead.
    Ideology is a system of thought, and like them or not, at the very least, socialism-communism, anarchism, libertarianism, and etc offered something like a coherent thought system.

    Today, we have mantras that are supposed to stifle the intellect and just make us chant along as if under hypnosis. "Diversity is a strength", "Inclusion", "Love Trumps Hate", "Black Lives Matter", "Marriage Equality" offer no system of thought. No philosophy. They are just supposed to be swallowed whole without chewing for edibility.
    Consider how the utterly ludicrous homomania gained great success via hype, spectacles, hysteria, entertainment, celebrity worship, etc. Teletubby Land.

    “…Japan, South Korea, and Taiwanese have worthless democracies since the most they can do is elect puppets of the US…”

    This is not true as they have their own system. If they were vassals of the US they wouldn’t have such large trade deficits with us.

    The US doesn’t have a Democracy. It’s an Oligarchy with some fixed votes and some not fixed. I’m not sure anyone knows the extent except the fixers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "This is not true as they have their own system. If they were vassals of the US they wouldn’t have such large trade deficits with us."

    Their own systems can only elect puppets.

    Those trade deficits are worthless because dollar is world currency and the US can just print more money. Besides, those nations buy US bonds, and their economies are dependent on the US.

    US can do without them, they cannot do without the US. And they know it.
  40. To the alt-right racist, misogynist, IQ-obsessed, asian-fetishists who were calling Trump their God-Emperor, the ethno-fascist dictatorship of racially homogenous North Korea must look like Utopia…

    Read More
  41. @cricket
    I can't believe my life has been reduced to engaging in this sort of banter, but what the hell.

    I both agree and disagree with both you Corvinus and Priss. The US system of Democracy has failed. It has not failed because of diversity of color, religion, culture, ethnicity, or sexuality, but a lack of diversity of ideas and options. The Left has co-opted "diversity" to create identity politics, which fueled a backlash from the Right. None of this is conducive to productive, positive change. Neither is voting in our current system, as no real change ever occurs. Our Ruling Class, Imperial Elites if you will, do what they want regardless and use these Red Herring "wedge issues" to keep the populace divided. Taking our eye off the ball, the real target, which is THEM.

    Ironically, a good way to not be racist is to stop bombing brown people in impoverished countries. That is a nice start. It also prevents an influx of refugees fleeing from said brown, impoverished countries, leaving the US more "white." I am confident in my logic here. Therefore, the conclusion I have come to is that we all, left, right, and wackos like myself, have all been subject to intense propaganda fueling a conflict between ourselves that doesn't really exist in order to perpetuate the dominance of the Ruling Class.

    In all seriousness, what the fuck difference does it make in my life if a couple of consenting adult gay dudes have butt sex? It doesn't. Or a Mexican mows my next door neighbor's lawn? Because it took such an easy, lucrative job from a white guy? Who cares.

    My bottom line is this: the US is waging immoral, costly wars in our name against people who will only desire to do us harm if we keep waging war against them, and the "democratic process" has done NOTHING to stop this. I find it repulsive. In order to break the Ruling Class, the Elites, the AngloZionist Empire, or whatever you choose to call them, and reinstitute peace, freedom, and prosperity back to the American people (whatever color they are) we need a massive overhaul to the entire system. That being, either a benevolent Strongman or de-centralization. I prefer the latter because it helps to hedge against the prospect of tyranny.

    “The Left has co-opted “diversity” to create identity politics, which fueled a backlash from the Right. ”

    No. The radicals on the left and right have set into motion this notion of identity politics, of “tribal instincts” and through their narratives make it appear that the average white American is caught

    “I prefer the latter because it helps to hedge against the prospect of tyranny.”

    Not necessarily. Recall that southrons who preferred “local rule” created Jim Crow laws that coerced white and black southerners to behave in a certain manner. Their own personal freedom of association had been quashed. Severe consequences would be the result of daring to challenge the system politically and socially. Could white and black southerners left their communities and found refuge elsewhere? Certainly. But their homes and livelihood was THERE. Why should they leave? Instead, they fought against this suppression of liberties.

    Furthermore, the problem with “elites” still remains. Decentralization may serve as a consolidation of their influence, especially with an expansion of patronage. They could cater to interest groups who are to be counted on during election time. Accountability remains in light of competing groups, increasing levels of economic and social inequity as a result of their squabbles, and the neutering of institutional counterchecks on government (local legislature, judiciary, media, and civil society).

    “Our Ruling Class, Imperial Elites if you will, do what they want regardless and use these Red Herring “wedge issues” to keep the populace divided. Taking our eye off the ball, the real target, which is THEM.”

    [Laughs] so what are YOU doing to stop the “elites” or “ruling class”? A number of posters here lament incessantly about this group, yet what specific courses of action are being taken? Now, for the sake of argument, let us assume that these elites are corralled. Would not another group of elites take their place and employ the same propaganda tactics to remain in positions of authority?

    Moreover, it is not as if the elites are sitting in some room together creating yet another “issue” for the masses to languish so the elites are able to continue their pillaging and plundering unmolested. The citizens themselves hold opinions on certain matters, and it is those varying positions that leads to discussion and debate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @cricket
    No. The radicals on the left and right have set into motion this notion of identity politics, of “tribal instincts” and through their narratives make it appear that the average white American is caught

    Fair enough, although I would edit this to say "their narratives make it appear that the average American is caught, with their perspective on who their "enemy" is based on "tribal identities".

    “I prefer the latter because it helps to hedge against the prospect of tyranny.”

    Not necessarily.

    Well, yes, of course. That's why I used the qualifiers of prefer, help, and hedge. Humans have yet to discover a perfect large scale system of governance, and never will. I feel that overall, the more de-centralized government is, the more difficult (but not impossible) it is for tyranny to take control over EVERYONE, although some people will inevitably get shafted. There will never be a system where NO ONE gets shafted. I think that the easiest way to not get shafted is to have accountable, transparent governance which is reached more efficiently through local control. If you have a better idea, I'd like to hear it. I'm open to human dialogue to create the least bad-system possible.

    Moreover, it is not as if the elites are sitting in some room together creating yet another “issue” for the masses to languish so the elites are able to continue their pillaging and plundering unmolested. The citizens themselves hold opinions on certain matters, and it is those varying positions that leads to discussion and debate.

    I incline to disagree here. There our elites sitting in some room together deciding what the "issues" are going to be and how to frame the narrative. They are the news and editorial rooms of the mainstream media. They are the gatekeepers of what even gets discussed, as well as propagandists.

    [Laughs] so what are YOU doing to stop the “elites” or “ruling class”? A number of posters here lament incessantly about this group, yet what specific courses of action are being taken?

    Your dismissiveness is not appreciated, but I will respond anyway. Lamenting is a start, actually, but not overly productive, admittedly. I do feel that more and more people are seeing the problem with greater focus, albeit without complete clarity as of yet. I also proposed an alternative to the current failed system rather than just bitching about it, which would be one where we keep freedom and democracy but ditch the concentrated power responsible for our current problems. Future problems will have to be dealt with at the time. Sure, it accomplished nothing, but why not ponder solutions instead of just complain?
  42. @Rod1963
    Democracy only works in a homogeneous state where the people are still moral, religious and have a common cultural background and have skin in the game. IOW be land owners. Not wards of the state, not the indigent, the mentally ill, morons, not college students who own nothing and are nothing. Not low IQ minorities or stupid people in general who can't even get a free ID card from the state.

    Yes it is elitist in every sense of the word. But the alternative is what you have today. Ethnics vote almost in unison for special set asides for their tribe including jobs - many of whom are illegals to boto. The wards of the state always vote for the pol who gives them more free s**t. In addition the ethnics support open borders and a eternal welfare state for their kind while persecuting whites. Worse they demand changes to the law and culture so they can import their own failed systems.

    It gets worse. It's only held together by the state and armed men along with a massive flow of wealth to the ethnics. We're not a state under such circumstances, only a collection of competing tribes who really don't like one another.

    “Democracy only works in a homogeneous state where the people are still moral, religious and have a common cultural background and have skin in the game.”

    Patently false. The constitutional monarchy of England, for example, was the combined creation of the laws and customs from the descendants of several distinct peoples–the earlier Britons (or Brythons), the Romans, the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians, along with the Danes and Normans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    “Democracy only works in a homogeneous state where the people are still moral, religious and have a common cultural background and have skin in the game.”
     
    They may not be so religious, but the British amalgam of Saxons, Celts, Old British (Welsh), Scandinavians and Normans has had nearly a millennium to settle down, with no invasions since 1066, and a typical Englishman would be hard pressed to decide whether he was an Old British or a Scandinavian.

    Democracy didn't work while they were fighting each other, but that was some time ago in the first millennium A.D.
  43. Buchanan confuses the issue by talking about Democracy. He should really be talking about elites.

    The traditional name for a national elite (up to WW1) was “Aristocracy” and a straightforward aristocratic viewpoint makes things a lot clearer.

    They’re a separate protected class who interact socially through a feudal system that they use to exploit the economy (in the Middle Ages the landed estates – but in the modern context , all productive sectors) and they fix and enforce the rules to maintain their privileged status.

    The result is the capture of most of the economic surplus of a country (since there’s no one to stop them) with extreme levels of inequality, and as David Stockman points out, the US is already there with 120.000 families (0,1%) now owning the same wealth as the lower 90% of the population. US society shows a greater level of economic inequality than pre-WW1 Imperial Great Britain or Czarist Russia.

    Also, the US Congress has become an empty shell, with the aristocracy choosing a figurehead leader (King/President) and working with the social police (Church/PC) to take care of dissidents, and there’s the usual contempt for the peasantry when contrasted with their own refined sensibility. The aristocratic agenda has little to do with the interests of the public. If Phillip II Spain wanted to fight Elizabeth I of England he could do so, without asking for anyone’s approval , in the same way that the US aristocracy can use US resources and troops to destroy the Middle East, because they want to, and no one can stop them.

    But still, Feudalism does have a few drawbacks.

    It’s better suited to simpler agricultural societies that don’t have too many skilled, educated and free thinking people (or free flowing digital information), so somehow it has to co-opt these people, since they’re the ones that keep things running (and man the security services), which really makes an economic constraint.

    The client middle class needs to be rewarded, and the general public can’t be too oppressed, to avoid the fate of the French and Russian aristocracies under Louis XVI or Czar Nicolas II (liquidated in successful revolutions), but in general, the conclusion has to be that aristocratic/feudal type systems (particularly multi-ethnic ones) perform poorly in the modern world when compared with the NE Asian type ones based on ethnicity, land and history.

    Read More
  44. @Corvinus
    "Democracy only works in a homogeneous state where the people are still moral, religious and have a common cultural background and have skin in the game."

    Patently false. The constitutional monarchy of England, for example, was the combined creation of the laws and customs from the descendants of several distinct peoples--the earlier Britons (or Brythons), the Romans, the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians, along with the Danes and Normans.

    “Democracy only works in a homogeneous state where the people are still moral, religious and have a common cultural background and have skin in the game.”

    They may not be so religious, but the British amalgam of Saxons, Celts, Old British (Welsh), Scandinavians and Normans has had nearly a millennium to settle down, with no invasions since 1066, and a typical Englishman would be hard pressed to decide whether he was an Old British or a Scandinavian.

    Democracy didn’t work while they were fighting each other, but that was some time ago in the first millennium A.D.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "They may not be so religious, but the British amalgam of Saxons, Celts, Old British (Welsh), Scandinavians and Normans has had nearly a millennium to settle down..."

    Through a continuous cycle of "strange" newcomers entering the land, settling, and intermingling, rendering anon's point impotent. Assimilation is not privy to a hard time table.

    "Democracy didn’t work while they were fighting each other..."

    Once they settled down, the foundational pieces of representative democracy were laid out. Disparate groups finding common ground. Amazing.

  45. Democracy has never worked. It is at best a rhetorical tool for manufacturing assent. By voting, one becomes complicit in the result. The problem with Democracy in America is that it really isn’t democracy at all. For the most part, the two parties (totally owned by the 1% and big business) present candidates to the voters. It is like being in a restaurant with only two items on the menu. One item is a breaded cutlet. The other item is a cutlet with breading. You want fish, but its not on the menu. Neither is steak. Neither is a pork chop. Neither is a salad. It does not matter, you were allowed to vote and that vote is a measure of consent.

    The jury box also used to be a place where you could vote (or nullify is you so chose). That is gone today as most cases are over-charged and then plea bargained so as to avoid the jury nullification option.

    Democracy appeared to work when the total US population may have been about 2 1/2 million people, or about the size of Chicago. Chicago’s city council has 50 alderman. In the 1790s, the House of Representatives had 65 members and the Senate 26.

    When you compare numbers, it is hard to say that Americans are meaningfully represented anymore, nor could they be. The nation is no longer the “democracy” of the founders. It is hardly a democracy at all.

    Read More
  46. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Sam J.
    "...Japan, South Korea, and Taiwanese have worthless democracies since the most they can do is elect puppets of the US..."

    This is not true as they have their own system. If they were vassals of the US they wouldn't have such large trade deficits with us.

    The US doesn't have a Democracy. It's an Oligarchy with some fixed votes and some not fixed. I'm not sure anyone knows the extent except the fixers.

    “This is not true as they have their own system. If they were vassals of the US they wouldn’t have such large trade deficits with us.”

    Their own systems can only elect puppets.

    Those trade deficits are worthless because dollar is world currency and the US can just print more money. Besides, those nations buy US bonds, and their economies are dependent on the US.

    US can do without them, they cannot do without the US. And they know it.

    Read More
  47. @Miro23

    “Democracy only works in a homogeneous state where the people are still moral, religious and have a common cultural background and have skin in the game.”
     
    They may not be so religious, but the British amalgam of Saxons, Celts, Old British (Welsh), Scandinavians and Normans has had nearly a millennium to settle down, with no invasions since 1066, and a typical Englishman would be hard pressed to decide whether he was an Old British or a Scandinavian.

    Democracy didn't work while they were fighting each other, but that was some time ago in the first millennium A.D.

    “They may not be so religious, but the British amalgam of Saxons, Celts, Old British (Welsh), Scandinavians and Normans has had nearly a millennium to settle down…”

    Through a continuous cycle of “strange” newcomers entering the land, settling, and intermingling, rendering anon’s point impotent. Assimilation is not privy to a hard time table.

    “Democracy didn’t work while they were fighting each other…”

    Once they settled down, the foundational pieces of representative democracy were laid out. Disparate groups finding common ground. Amazing.

    Read More
  48. Good article as usual, thanks.
    About comments”
    If a comment is more than 2 paragraphs long I don’t read it and I’m not alone.
    If you want to write a dissertation get your own blog.
    Brevity is what makes writers great, no one wants to waste time on intellectual “gassing on”.

    Read More
  49. @Timur The Lame
    I could write 10,000 words deconstructing 'democracy' ( with much humour) but it is all been written before in fits and starts. However, if the system is to be maintained, I offer several constructive adjustments that may in fact regenerate what is known as the 'sacred' democratic process.

    1) Assign varying strength to the individual vote. Mandate potential voters to take a relatively simple 50 question test. It would cover knowledge of the host nation (Capitol, founding father etc..), world geography, current events etc. The amount of correct answers dictates the strength of the vote. 50 correct = 50 votes. If some moron gets a goose egg, he still gets one vote so as to not remove his franchise for legal reasons.

    2) Implement a referendum and recall process such as the Swiss System. This would pertain to campaign promises. If a representative reneges on on a promise while campaigning he loses his seat through referendum and a by-election is held.

    3) Most importantly strengthen and elucidate all the scenarios that make High Treason a capital offense. Sell secrets to China, start wars on false pretenses and you will end your days swinging on a rope (possibly televised).
    No pleading and no mitigation, the law will be the law strictly enforced.

    These things are all doable.

    Cheers-

    Agree!

    Add to these the institution of the office of Tribunus Populi of the Roman Republic.

    Read More
  50. The US is far too big to be a democracy in any meaningful fashion, and it seems like the states are even less democratic. For example, in Florida, where I live, there is no statewide medium or newspaper for discussion of state matters, and hardly any real political debate about anything on a state level.

    A lot of what looks like democracy in action, for example collecting votes for statewide referenda is actually paid for by big business, and yet when you ask the people who are collecting signatures why they are doing this, they will tend to try to avoid admitting that they are being paid to do so or give false reasons.

    So for example, we had a referendum the result of which was to ban intensive pig-farming in Florida on the ostensible grounds that it was cruel to pigs to keep pregnant sows confined to small spaces in the company of other swine, and subjected to loud snorting, and yet all our supermarkets are full of pork and no one is protesting about cruelty to mummy pigs in states other than Florida, not even Jews, Muslims, or Seventh Day Adventists.

    I have never seen free range pork advertised, so I assume that pork sold in Florida comes from factory farmed porkers. Neither has there been a rush of pig-loving immigrants moving to Florida, though we have plently of professional golfers who enjoy the balmy winter climate, and possibly also the lack of a state income tax.

    Read More
  51. @cricket
    I agree. My question is how do we get to the point of leaders instead of rulers/handlers. It is not in support of our current system. I know ours is flawed. My question is: what would be the least bad system of governance?

    My choice would be a meritocracy, but a revolution is required to change our form of government.
    Remember our original form of government after the Revolution was a crude form of meritocracy.

    Read More
  52. @David
    Aristotle has some perspective on this:

    States are unstable, however, that are filled with those who have no share of political power and are poor.

    The real difference between democracy and oligarchy is between poverty and wealth. Wherever the rulers, whether they be a minority or a majority, owe their power to wealth, that is an oligarchy. Wherever the poor rule, that is a democracy.
     

    So give suffrage to as many as can responsibly manage property ownership over some threshold of value, say $100,000. If the enfranchised practice noblesse oblige, that's our best chance. J. S. Mill also advocates a property qualification.

    What you describe is a Meritocracy, our original form of government.

    Read More
  53. As I see it, the fundamental flaw with the current political process is the frequency with which pols stand for election and the exorbitant amount of funds required to mount a campaign. Special interests have identified this flaw in the system and have exploited it. So while these special interests have swarms of lobbyists throwing mega bucks to promote their interests, there is nobody lobbying on behalf of the silent majority. The only real, practicable, and workable solution I see to remedy this situation is to remove private money from the electoral process. Only a set amount of public funds should be made available for elections – i.e., not a penny of special interest money.

    If I’m not mistaken, there has been a political movement, know as The Clean Money Campaign Reform, trying to do just that.

    http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/cleanelections.html

    If enough Americans get behind this movement, there just might be a chance to salvage the existing system, without having to resort to more drastic measures.

    That said, someone or some group needs to kickstart this movement by organizing a rally in DC with people holding just one placard in their hands reading CLEAN MONEY CLEAN ELECTIONS. The rally should take place on Independence Day every year. At first, a few people might show up. But after more and more people come to realize that casting their ballot every two years is simply a charade, more people would join the annual rally. Once a critical mass is reached, we could take a page from the protesters at Tahir Square – i.e., no one leaves the National Mall until this basic demand is met.

    I’m prepared to show up at the National Mall in DC this July 4th with placard in hand. Who among the other Unz Readers is prepared to join me?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    If you want the monster to go away stop feeding it.

    This means collecting taxes locally AND spending them locally. Leave perhaps 10% for Washington level national expenditure. States and counties would then have to sit down and decide how they want to organize their own schools/healthcare/policing/courts and welfare.

    The public would inevitably have to get involved, and they'll know who is responsible for what and who to go to when the thing isn't working.

    The way to deal with national issues (e.g. an Iraq war) is to inform citizens locally of the advantages and disadvantages, calculate how much extra they are going to have to pay (supplementary tax) and then let them vote on it. Same across all the states with a simple majority deciding or rejecting the idea.

    The early USA used to work something like this.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    It was my impression the Canadian campaign finance system permitted any candidate to collect and/or to spend to a set figure but no more; any donations/expenditures beyond that set amount put that person's candidacy in jeopardy.

    In this way, the field is leveled: no candidate can win an election by grossly out-spending another.
    A very weak candidate would nevertheless not be able to compete. How could that be leveled, financially? (On the other hand, a p*%s-poor candidate could be competitive in US system if he/she attracts the right sugar daddy. )

  54. @geokat62
    As I see it, the fundamental flaw with the current political process is the frequency with which pols stand for election and the exorbitant amount of funds required to mount a campaign. Special interests have identified this flaw in the system and have exploited it. So while these special interests have swarms of lobbyists throwing mega bucks to promote their interests, there is nobody lobbying on behalf of the silent majority. The only real, practicable, and workable solution I see to remedy this situation is to remove private money from the electoral process. Only a set amount of public funds should be made available for elections - i.e., not a penny of special interest money.

    If I'm not mistaken, there has been a political movement, know as The Clean Money Campaign Reform, trying to do just that.

    http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/cleanelections.html

    If enough Americans get behind this movement, there just might be a chance to salvage the existing system, without having to resort to more drastic measures.

    That said, someone or some group needs to kickstart this movement by organizing a rally in DC with people holding just one placard in their hands reading CLEAN MONEY CLEAN ELECTIONS. The rally should take place on Independence Day every year. At first, a few people might show up. But after more and more people come to realize that casting their ballot every two years is simply a charade, more people would join the annual rally. Once a critical mass is reached, we could take a page from the protesters at Tahir Square - i.e., no one leaves the National Mall until this basic demand is met.

    I'm prepared to show up at the National Mall in DC this July 4th with placard in hand. Who among the other Unz Readers is prepared to join me?

    If you want the monster to go away stop feeding it.

    This means collecting taxes locally AND spending them locally. Leave perhaps 10% for Washington level national expenditure. States and counties would then have to sit down and decide how they want to organize their own schools/healthcare/policing/courts and welfare.

    The public would inevitably have to get involved, and they’ll know who is responsible for what and who to go to when the thing isn’t working.

    The way to deal with national issues (e.g. an Iraq war) is to inform citizens locally of the advantages and disadvantages, calculate how much extra they are going to have to pay (supplementary tax) and then let them vote on it. Same across all the states with a simple majority deciding or rejecting the idea.

    The early USA used to work something like this.

    Read More
  55. Look like what everyone thought was “our democracy” actually died a long time ago …

    http://www.unz.com/anapolitano/what-if-we-dont-really-govern-ourselves/

    Side note — I am stunned that the good Judge’s article has only gotten a handful of comments!

    Read More
  56. @Miro23
    If you want the monster to go away stop feeding it.

    This means collecting taxes locally AND spending them locally. Leave perhaps 10% for Washington level national expenditure. States and counties would then have to sit down and decide how they want to organize their own schools/healthcare/policing/courts and welfare.

    The public would inevitably have to get involved, and they'll know who is responsible for what and who to go to when the thing isn't working.

    The way to deal with national issues (e.g. an Iraq war) is to inform citizens locally of the advantages and disadvantages, calculate how much extra they are going to have to pay (supplementary tax) and then let them vote on it. Same across all the states with a simple majority deciding or rejecting the idea.

    The early USA used to work something like this.

    I’ll take that as a ‘No.’ Anyone else?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Anyone else?
     
    Okay, I'll bite.

    When both candidates are owned by the establishment, who cares if their campaignes are clean or dirty. Same shit either way.

    And when one of the candidates is not owned by the establishment - well, we've seen now how that works. The inconvenient candidate is attacked, in full force, by all of the establishment media, by politicians of his own party, and by the state security apparatus. And in this case your 'clean money' wouldn't make any difference whatsoever.
  57. @geokat62
    I'll take that as a 'No.' Anyone else?

    Anyone else?

    Okay, I’ll bite.

    When both candidates are owned by the establishment, who cares if their campaignes are clean or dirty. Same shit either way.

    And when one of the candidates is not owned by the establishment – well, we’ve seen now how that works. The inconvenient candidate is attacked, in full force, by all of the establishment media, by politicians of his own party, and by the state security apparatus. And in this case your ‘clean money’ wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    And in this case your ‘clean money’ wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever.
     
    One step at a time. First the political process, then the media.
  58. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Anyone else?
     
    Okay, I'll bite.

    When both candidates are owned by the establishment, who cares if their campaignes are clean or dirty. Same shit either way.

    And when one of the candidates is not owned by the establishment - well, we've seen now how that works. The inconvenient candidate is attacked, in full force, by all of the establishment media, by politicians of his own party, and by the state security apparatus. And in this case your 'clean money' wouldn't make any difference whatsoever.

    And in this case your ‘clean money’ wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever.

    One step at a time. First the political process, then the media.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    First the political process, then the media.
     
    You were talking specifically about campaign financing. That's one component of the political process. Media is also a component, and perhaps the most important one, at the moment.

    The powerful have many tools and methods at their disposal. Giving money directly to campaigns is one, and it used to be the most common one. But I have the impression that it's in the past, and you're fighting the last war. These days, probably because of the internet/social media, they don't rely on it all that much; they now operate via media owners, security services, and god knows what else. And in the end there's always a possibility of simply falsifying results.

  59. @geokat62

    And in this case your ‘clean money’ wouldn’t make any difference whatsoever.
     
    One step at a time. First the political process, then the media.

    First the political process, then the media.

    You were talking specifically about campaign financing. That’s one component of the political process. Media is also a component, and perhaps the most important one, at the moment.

    The powerful have many tools and methods at their disposal. Giving money directly to campaigns is one, and it used to be the most common one. But I have the impression that it’s in the past, and you’re fighting the last war. These days, probably because of the internet/social media, they don’t rely on it all that much; they now operate via media owners, security services, and god knows what else. And in the end there’s always a possibility of simply falsifying results.

    Read More
  60. This means collecting taxes locally AND spending them locally. Leave perhaps 10% for Washington level national expenditure. States and counties would then have to sit down and decide how they want to organize their own schools/healthcare/policing/courts and welfare.

    Sounds like a good idea in theory, but part of the problems seems to be that there is a Constitution with its enforcement arm, the Supreme Court. Presumably it is items like the free trade clause that explain why so many states seem to look exactly like each other once you are on the ground, whereas Haiti and the Dominican Republic are adjacent states, or even the French part of St. Martin versus the Dutch part, but you would never confuse one for the other for a moment even if they spoke the same language.

    For example, one of the things I find very weird in Florida is the tendency for roads to come to a dead end, and then start again somewhere else, sometimes miles away. I have seen the same thing in North Carolina and the two states are not even adjacent, so presumably the same thing occurs in the states in between, and quite possible in all states, yet I have never noticed the same thing in other countries that I have been to, so there must be some kind of central planning in the US, even though states are nominally independent states.

    Equally the system of elementary, middle, and high school and the grading system seems to be universal among the states… and so on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    The Founders intention was to promote State power and restrict Presidential/ Federal power.

    Like they said;

    1781 Articles of Confederation: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
     

    1791 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
     
    So making states responsible for their own taxation and spending and for organizing their own schools/healthcare/policing/courts and welfare is not such a radical departure.

    However, it would require a new Constitutional Convention.

    This would need to remove the Federal right to tax, and restrict Federal spending to the taxation money that the States agreed to send to Washington, and most importantly, the States could also take away the Federal right to issue debt (i.e. shut down the Federal Reserve/Treasury war funding, bubble blowing machine).
  61. @Mao Cheng Ji

    First the political process, then the media.
     
    You were talking specifically about campaign financing. That's one component of the political process. Media is also a component, and perhaps the most important one, at the moment.

    The powerful have many tools and methods at their disposal. Giving money directly to campaigns is one, and it used to be the most common one. But I have the impression that it's in the past, and you're fighting the last war. These days, probably because of the internet/social media, they don't rely on it all that much; they now operate via media owners, security services, and god knows what else. And in the end there's always a possibility of simply falsifying results.

    I’ll take that as another “No.” Anyone else?

    Read More
  62. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Russia and China, which have embraced autocratic capitalism
     
    According to my observations, Russia is not any more 'autocratic' ('oligarchical' would be a better word) than the US.

    The difference is not 'democratic' vs 'autocratic', but that the US oligarchical establishment has existed for over 200 years and it is now (relatively) well-oiled and tuned-up, while Russia is a very young country where internal conflicts are still bubbling, requiring a more observable form of arbitration.

    In regards to pluralism of opinions, however, Russia is far ahead of the US (probably for the same reason). Much wider spectrum of opinions (from communist to monarchist) is openly represented there, without inviting official condemnation, intellectual excommunication, and public sunning. So, there.

    Russia has been infested with internal conflicts since the fall of the Khazarian Empire.

    Read More
  63. As usual, Pat’s version of history and political science is deficient.

    Apparently, if he ever read de Toqueville (Democracy in America), none of his observations gelled in his mind. If he ever read the works of Thomas Paine, none of it gelled in his mind. He he ever read any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison or Benjamin Franklin, it never gelled in his mind.

    If he ever read what the Communist Party USA said about Democracy, it never gelled in his mind.

    “Every Body cries, a Union is absolutely necessary, but when they come to the Manner and Form of the Union, their weak Noddles are perfectly distracted.” Ben Franklin letter to Peter Collinson (29 December 1754)

    Read More
  64. @geokat62
    As I see it, the fundamental flaw with the current political process is the frequency with which pols stand for election and the exorbitant amount of funds required to mount a campaign. Special interests have identified this flaw in the system and have exploited it. So while these special interests have swarms of lobbyists throwing mega bucks to promote their interests, there is nobody lobbying on behalf of the silent majority. The only real, practicable, and workable solution I see to remedy this situation is to remove private money from the electoral process. Only a set amount of public funds should be made available for elections - i.e., not a penny of special interest money.

    If I'm not mistaken, there has been a political movement, know as The Clean Money Campaign Reform, trying to do just that.

    http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/cleanelections.html

    If enough Americans get behind this movement, there just might be a chance to salvage the existing system, without having to resort to more drastic measures.

    That said, someone or some group needs to kickstart this movement by organizing a rally in DC with people holding just one placard in their hands reading CLEAN MONEY CLEAN ELECTIONS. The rally should take place on Independence Day every year. At first, a few people might show up. But after more and more people come to realize that casting their ballot every two years is simply a charade, more people would join the annual rally. Once a critical mass is reached, we could take a page from the protesters at Tahir Square - i.e., no one leaves the National Mall until this basic demand is met.

    I'm prepared to show up at the National Mall in DC this July 4th with placard in hand. Who among the other Unz Readers is prepared to join me?

    It was my impression the Canadian campaign finance system permitted any candidate to collect and/or to spend to a set figure but no more; any donations/expenditures beyond that set amount put that person’s candidacy in jeopardy.

    In this way, the field is leveled: no candidate can win an election by grossly out-spending another.
    A very weak candidate would nevertheless not be able to compete. How could that be leveled, financially? (On the other hand, a p*%s-poor candidate could be competitive in US system if he/she attracts the right sugar daddy. )

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    In this way, the field is leveled: no candidate can win an election by grossly out-spending another.
     
    It's a bit more complicated than that:

    Canada's federal political parties receive the most significant portion of public funding at election times that is based on what they have spent through electoral expense reimbursements.

    Between elections, Canada's federal political parties have as their two primary sources of funding:

    Political contributions from individuals subsidized through tax credits – allocated according to monetary contributions.
    Per-vote subsidies – allocated according to the votes of Canadians.

    These sources of funding determine, along with loans and secondary revenue sources, how much money the federal political parties have available to spend.
     
    Given the presence of private contributions, there is, of course, the opportunity for corruption:

    The corrupting influence of fundraising
    In 2006, it was revealed during the Liberal leadership contest that one candidate, Joe Volpe, had received a total of $108,000 in contributions from 20 individuals that were all in some way connected to the top corporate executives of Apotex Pharmaceuticals. Each of the 20 individuals - which included 11-year-old twin boys and a 14-year-old boy - gave exactly $5,400, the maximum allowed at the time.

    According to political financing expert Louis Massicotte, a political scientist from Université Laval, political systems that rely heavily on political contributions from individuals can encourage corruption. In 2010-2011, it was discovered that corporations had been funnelling money to major provincial political parties by disguising the corporate funds as individual political contributions made by their employees, circumventing the political fundraising laws. Former employees of one corporation flatly admitted that political contributions had illicitly been made in their name.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada
     
    The only way to safeguard the electoral process against the corrupting influence of private money is to remove it completely from the process.

    CLEAN MONEY CLEAN ELECTIONS
  65. […] The Unz Review: Is Democracy in a Death Spiral? By PAT BUCHANAN            {Democracy is not … […]

    Read More
  66. who cares about democracy, whites will no longer exist in 100 years

    decade -American births – White Births
    1950-1959 – 40,100,000 – 35,100,000
    1960-1969 -38,750,000 – 31,450,000
    1970-1979 -33,400,000 – 25,250,000
    1980-1989 – 37,550,000 – 24,300,000
    1990-1999 -39,959,000 – 23,000,000
    2000-2009 -41,500,000 -21,200,000
    2010-2019 -40,000,000 – 19,700,000

    over the last 5 years more whites have died than been born. The decline is in full swing now. The average white American is 47 years old, while the average age of non-whites is 32. For the next several decades more whites deaths will exceed white births. The form of government we have is the least of our problems. White civilization cannot survive without a white population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "White civilization cannot survive without a white population."

    You assume that all white Americans ought to be concerned about this "problem", and that civilization is only created by whites. How antiquated is your thinking. American whites focus on race and culture from their own individual perspective, thank you very much. That is, unless you believe we should force us to depart from our own thinking on the subject.

    I'm sure that you are married and have at least five white children. You know, you are doing your part, right?
  67. @Jonathan Mason

    This means collecting taxes locally AND spending them locally. Leave perhaps 10% for Washington level national expenditure. States and counties would then have to sit down and decide how they want to organize their own schools/healthcare/policing/courts and welfare.
     
    Sounds like a good idea in theory, but part of the problems seems to be that there is a Constitution with its enforcement arm, the Supreme Court. Presumably it is items like the free trade clause that explain why so many states seem to look exactly like each other once you are on the ground, whereas Haiti and the Dominican Republic are adjacent states, or even the French part of St. Martin versus the Dutch part, but you would never confuse one for the other for a moment even if they spoke the same language.

    For example, one of the things I find very weird in Florida is the tendency for roads to come to a dead end, and then start again somewhere else, sometimes miles away. I have seen the same thing in North Carolina and the two states are not even adjacent, so presumably the same thing occurs in the states in between, and quite possible in all states, yet I have never noticed the same thing in other countries that I have been to, so there must be some kind of central planning in the US, even though states are nominally independent states.

    Equally the system of elementary, middle, and high school and the grading system seems to be universal among the states... and so on.

    The Founders intention was to promote State power and restrict Presidential/ Federal power.

    Like they said;

    1781 Articles of Confederation: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

    1791 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    So making states responsible for their own taxation and spending and for organizing their own schools/healthcare/policing/courts and welfare is not such a radical departure.

    However, it would require a new Constitutional Convention.

    This would need to remove the Federal right to tax, and restrict Federal spending to the taxation money that the States agreed to send to Washington, and most importantly, the States could also take away the Federal right to issue debt (i.e. shut down the Federal Reserve/Treasury war funding, bubble blowing machine).

    Read More
  68. @Travis
    who cares about democracy, whites will no longer exist in 100 years

    decade -American births - White Births
    1950-1959 - 40,100,000 - 35,100,000
    1960-1969 -38,750,000 - 31,450,000
    1970-1979 -33,400,000 - 25,250,000
    1980-1989 - 37,550,000 - 24,300,000
    1990-1999 -39,959,000 - 23,000,000
    2000-2009 -41,500,000 -21,200,000
    2010-2019 -40,000,000 - 19,700,000

    over the last 5 years more whites have died than been born. The decline is in full swing now. The average white American is 47 years old, while the average age of non-whites is 32. For the next several decades more whites deaths will exceed white births. The form of government we have is the least of our problems. White civilization cannot survive without a white population.

    “White civilization cannot survive without a white population.”

    You assume that all white Americans ought to be concerned about this “problem”, and that civilization is only created by whites. How antiquated is your thinking. American whites focus on race and culture from their own individual perspective, thank you very much. That is, unless you believe we should force us to depart from our own thinking on the subject.

    I’m sure that you are married and have at least five white children. You know, you are doing your part, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    Civilization can be created by non-whites , but white civilization can only be created by white people, just as Chinese civilization cannot be created by Caucasians...
  69. Democracy has always been in a death spiral. If history was taught properly, school children would know that the Greek democracies were total failures.

    Our Founders create a Republic with a constitutionally limited government to guard against the excesses and generally idiocy of a democracy. The enemies of liberty have been battering down those protections and limits ever since.

    Read More
  70. @Corvinus
    "The Left has co-opted “diversity” to create identity politics, which fueled a backlash from the Right. "

    No. The radicals on the left and right have set into motion this notion of identity politics, of "tribal instincts" and through their narratives make it appear that the average white American is caught

    "I prefer the latter because it helps to hedge against the prospect of tyranny."

    Not necessarily. Recall that southrons who preferred "local rule" created Jim Crow laws that coerced white and black southerners to behave in a certain manner. Their own personal freedom of association had been quashed. Severe consequences would be the result of daring to challenge the system politically and socially. Could white and black southerners left their communities and found refuge elsewhere? Certainly. But their homes and livelihood was THERE. Why should they leave? Instead, they fought against this suppression of liberties.

    Furthermore, the problem with "elites" still remains. Decentralization may serve as a consolidation of their influence, especially with an expansion of patronage. They could cater to interest groups who are to be counted on during election time. Accountability remains in light of competing groups, increasing levels of economic and social inequity as a result of their squabbles, and the neutering of institutional counterchecks on government (local legislature, judiciary, media, and civil society).

    "Our Ruling Class, Imperial Elites if you will, do what they want regardless and use these Red Herring “wedge issues” to keep the populace divided. Taking our eye off the ball, the real target, which is THEM."

    [Laughs] so what are YOU doing to stop the "elites" or "ruling class"? A number of posters here lament incessantly about this group, yet what specific courses of action are being taken? Now, for the sake of argument, let us assume that these elites are corralled. Would not another group of elites take their place and employ the same propaganda tactics to remain in positions of authority?

    Moreover, it is not as if the elites are sitting in some room together creating yet another "issue" for the masses to languish so the elites are able to continue their pillaging and plundering unmolested. The citizens themselves hold opinions on certain matters, and it is those varying positions that leads to discussion and debate.

    No. The radicals on the left and right have set into motion this notion of identity politics, of “tribal instincts” and through their narratives make it appear that the average white American is caught

    Fair enough, although I would edit this to say “their narratives make it appear that the average American is caught, with their perspective on who their “enemy” is based on “tribal identities”.

    “I prefer the latter because it helps to hedge against the prospect of tyranny.”

    Not necessarily.

    Well, yes, of course. That’s why I used the qualifiers of prefer, help, and hedge. Humans have yet to discover a perfect large scale system of governance, and never will. I feel that overall, the more de-centralized government is, the more difficult (but not impossible) it is for tyranny to take control over EVERYONE, although some people will inevitably get shafted. There will never be a system where NO ONE gets shafted. I think that the easiest way to not get shafted is to have accountable, transparent governance which is reached more efficiently through local control. If you have a better idea, I’d like to hear it. I’m open to human dialogue to create the least bad-system possible.

    Moreover, it is not as if the elites are sitting in some room together creating yet another “issue” for the masses to languish so the elites are able to continue their pillaging and plundering unmolested. The citizens themselves hold opinions on certain matters, and it is those varying positions that leads to discussion and debate.

    I incline to disagree here. There our elites sitting in some room together deciding what the “issues” are going to be and how to frame the narrative. They are the news and editorial rooms of the mainstream media. They are the gatekeepers of what even gets discussed, as well as propagandists.

    [Laughs] so what are YOU doing to stop the “elites” or “ruling class”? A number of posters here lament incessantly about this group, yet what specific courses of action are being taken?

    Your dismissiveness is not appreciated, but I will respond anyway. Lamenting is a start, actually, but not overly productive, admittedly. I do feel that more and more people are seeing the problem with greater focus, albeit without complete clarity as of yet. I also proposed an alternative to the current failed system rather than just bitching about it, which would be one where we keep freedom and democracy but ditch the concentrated power responsible for our current problems. Future problems will have to be dealt with at the time. Sure, it accomplished nothing, but why not ponder solutions instead of just complain?

    Read More
  71. “Democracy has always been in a death spiral.”

    Again, those who use the terms “always” and “never” lose credibility.

    “If history was taught properly, school children would know that the Greek democracies were total failures.”

    Demonstrably false.

    http://frombeyondthemargins.blogspot.com/2011/03/from-democracy-to-tyranny-where.html

    “Our Founders create a Republic with a constitutionally limited government to guard against the excesses and generally idiocy of a democracy. The enemies of liberty have been battering down those protections and limits ever since.”

    Praytell, what form of government would you prefer? Why?

    Read More
  72. @Talha
    Hey Rurik,

    we vote for peace, and we get war
     
    Bro, now, I'm not going to say; I told you so... ;)

    Just one addition - you forgot to call out the FED by name. That bad boy has to go down before things can be rectified - none of this is done without the ability to manipulate fiat money.

    I know I've said this before - I still can't believe my fellow Americans missed the boat on Dr. Paul - TWICE!!!

    Peace.

    Hey Talha my friend,

    I’m not going to say; I told you so… ;)

    well, yes

    all of you who said Trump was a ruse, it seems were less Pollyanna than I allowed myself to be.

    but I will say this- we had no choice

    Surly Trump is not so bad as the war sow would have been.

    We still don’t have a ‘no fly zone’ in Syria and we’re not yet in a hot war with Russia or Iran. So there’s that.

    I still can’t believe my fellow Americans missed the boat on Dr. Paul – TWICE!!!

    we came close enough that they had to lie and cheat to ban him from any chance, it was that close. So I’ll take our “victories”, such as they are.

    And the fat lady has not yet sung on his tenure, I suppose. I know, that’s small consolation to the people Trump has slaughtered in Syria or elsewhere, but I hold out a tiny, teeny hope that this will not all end in WWIII. And you’re absolutely right about the Fed. It is the center of all of this Old Testament, Orwellian horror show on acid. That demonic institution is the Mordor’s eye of war and strife and death and misery, and if we humans of good will could fine the wherewithal to end it, we could possibly avert their planned dystopian hell on earth.

    End the Fed!

    Peace bro

    Read More
  73. @David
    Aristotle has some perspective on this:

    States are unstable, however, that are filled with those who have no share of political power and are poor.

    The real difference between democracy and oligarchy is between poverty and wealth. Wherever the rulers, whether they be a minority or a majority, owe their power to wealth, that is an oligarchy. Wherever the poor rule, that is a democracy.
     

    So give suffrage to as many as can responsibly manage property ownership over some threshold of value, say $100,000. If the enfranchised practice noblesse oblige, that's our best chance. J. S. Mill also advocates a property qualification.

    So give suffrage to as many as can responsibly manage property ownership over some threshold of value, say $100,000.

    It already works this way, more or less. Only it’s not about suffrage, it’s about who’s represented. The homeless guy can vote, but he got no one on the ballot who would represent his interests. So, he votes for the guy who has a better smile, whiter teeth. And that’s the standard way any bourgeois democracy operates, as devised by James Madison & Co.

    Read More
  74. @SolontoCroesus
    It was my impression the Canadian campaign finance system permitted any candidate to collect and/or to spend to a set figure but no more; any donations/expenditures beyond that set amount put that person's candidacy in jeopardy.

    In this way, the field is leveled: no candidate can win an election by grossly out-spending another.
    A very weak candidate would nevertheless not be able to compete. How could that be leveled, financially? (On the other hand, a p*%s-poor candidate could be competitive in US system if he/she attracts the right sugar daddy. )

    In this way, the field is leveled: no candidate can win an election by grossly out-spending another.

    It’s a bit more complicated than that:

    Canada’s federal political parties receive the most significant portion of public funding at election times that is based on what they have spent through electoral expense reimbursements.

    Between elections, Canada’s federal political parties have as their two primary sources of funding:

    Political contributions from individuals subsidized through tax credits – allocated according to monetary contributions.
    Per-vote subsidies – allocated according to the votes of Canadians.

    These sources of funding determine, along with loans and secondary revenue sources, how much money the federal political parties have available to spend.

    Given the presence of private contributions, there is, of course, the opportunity for corruption:

    The corrupting influence of fundraising
    In 2006, it was revealed during the Liberal leadership contest that one candidate, Joe Volpe, had received a total of $108,000 in contributions from 20 individuals that were all in some way connected to the top corporate executives of Apotex Pharmaceuticals. Each of the 20 individuals – which included 11-year-old twin boys and a 14-year-old boy – gave exactly $5,400, the maximum allowed at the time.

    According to political financing expert Louis Massicotte, a political scientist from Université Laval, political systems that rely heavily on political contributions from individuals can encourage corruption. In 2010-2011, it was discovered that corporations had been funnelling money to major provincial political parties by disguising the corporate funds as individual political contributions made by their employees, circumventing the political fundraising laws. Former employees of one corporation flatly admitted that political contributions had illicitly been made in their name.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada

    The only way to safeguard the electoral process against the corrupting influence of private money is to remove it completely from the process.

    CLEAN MONEY CLEAN ELECTIONS

    Read More
  75. @Corvinus
    "White civilization cannot survive without a white population."

    You assume that all white Americans ought to be concerned about this "problem", and that civilization is only created by whites. How antiquated is your thinking. American whites focus on race and culture from their own individual perspective, thank you very much. That is, unless you believe we should force us to depart from our own thinking on the subject.

    I'm sure that you are married and have at least five white children. You know, you are doing your part, right?

    Civilization can be created by non-whites , but white civilization can only be created by white people, just as Chinese civilization cannot be created by Caucasians…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Civilization can be created by non-whites , but white civilization can only be created by white people, just as Chinese civilization cannot be created by Caucasians…"

    Categorical error on your part. Civilizations have been created by ethnic groups who are one of the major human races. Moreover, you assume that the United States is a "white civilization" created only by white people.
  76. @Travis
    Civilization can be created by non-whites , but white civilization can only be created by white people, just as Chinese civilization cannot be created by Caucasians...

    “Civilization can be created by non-whites , but white civilization can only be created by white people, just as Chinese civilization cannot be created by Caucasians…”

    Categorical error on your part. Civilizations have been created by ethnic groups who are one of the major human races. Moreover, you assume that the United States is a “white civilization” created only by white people.

    Read More
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 Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
While other top brass played press agents for the administration’s war, William Odom told the truth about Iraq—though few listened.
A thousand years of meritocracy shaped the Middle Kingdom.