Anti-majoritarianism reflects self-doubt

You’re going to see a lot more of situations like this. A law or rule is on the books, and it seems unfair to minority groups, so they protest.

In response, government gives them money. Mitt Romney notices they’re part of the 47%. The rest of the country wonders, “Uh oh. Can I actually say this? That the 47% is mostly non-white and the 53% is mostly white?”

Perhaps the Republican Party is slow to figure it out, but the people voting for the Republican Party are not slow. They realize that the Democrats have been using immigration and domestic minorities to pad the voter rolls, in addition to their homegrown cadre of the disaffected, neurotic, self-pitying and futilitarian.

(I should define: a “futilitarian” is any person who believes that humanity is screwed for any effort higher than self-interest, so society should just stop harshing on my buzz, man, and give everyone a chance to live an easy life of non-work jobs, free porn and lots of entertainment from Panem et Circenses, Inc. who is just coincidentally a government contractor. I digress.)

This election isn’t just about getting America back from the Barack Hussein Obama Socialist Agenda(tm). It’s about getting America back, period. Either the majority wins out, or they get replaced by big government, more immigration, a Soviet-style wealth redistribution plan and internationalist rule in the UN style.

When people figure out an inkling of this, and I just mean a little slice of it, doesn’t take much, they begin to freak out. First is that they are conditioned to “not notice” (which means force their brains to ignore) race and class issues. They’re already squirming because they are seeing something they are programmed to not accept as true.

Second they’re losing their marbles because they don’t understand it. “Why do they hate us?” asked 4.1 million well-intentioned ladies hired in middle management simultaneously. Burly outdoors types are wondering if this is the great race war.

The answer is a lot simpler. Think back to when you were a kid. How did you make it through school? If you were popular, you joined the future leaders of America types. If not, you made excuses for not being popular, and joined kids who were united by not being popular.

As any high school movie shows us this unpopular group includes at least half of the kids in the school and comprises many subcultures. Goths, punkers, white rappers, nerds, stoners, geeks and surfers.

When these different groups join together, they have the most power in the school by their sheer numbers. Unlike in the movies the popular kids aren’t scheming against the nerds, they’re busy being popular, getting into Harvard and planning how to spend all the money they’ll make at their future careers.

But what it takes to join all these different groups is a kind of social contract that says “because not being popular is part of who we are, we agree to accept each other totally and form a different type of popularity.”

This is what the Democrats, Communists, Socialists and any other non-majority party do. They unite different groups under the banner of anti-majoritarianism or first, not being part of the majority, and second, wanting to unite and take over from that majority.

I had this one job that rewarded people for sales made on the phones. This quickly separated everyone out like oil and water, between the go-getters (annoying tools) who had lots of sales, and the “slackers” who didn’t even bother to harass ordinary people with these stupid sales pitches.

When someone got enough sales to be part of the cool group, they kind of disappeared. This new identity was something they were proud of and they had a new social group. The rest of us just fell off their radar.

During one pre-Christmas rush, all the slackers got together and started just ignoring the go-getters. We wouldn’t transfer calls to them, or give them any information, or even talk to them. The result was total breakdown of the system and who did the burden fall on? The go-getters. For once the slackers were home at Christmas and the “winners” got to spend the night on the phone, explaining Windows 95 networking to the drunk, lonely and bitter.

The American majority is mostly white, middle class, socially conservative and economically classical liberal, religiousish, family centric and essentially nerdly. They’re not cool like the slackers, the minority groups famed for their music and colorful art and cooking, or the Democrats.

Most of them don’t understand yet. They hate you, the anti-majoritarians. They don’t hate you because you’re white, middle class, possibly Christian or chaste. They hate you because you’re the majority, the well-adjusted people who are happy here. You represent what they can’t have and they project their dissatisfaction with themselves onto you.

Anti-majoritarianism reflects self-doubt on the part of those who hate the majority. If they had the ability, they would either join the majority or find another way to have what that group has. Obviously they have not, so obviously they can not, and this secret in plain sight makes them enraged.

They won’t stop until you the majority are destroyed and replaced with people more like them. Again this is not race, but the mere fact of your majority status, that they will use against you. They don’t care what the truth is. If the facts don’t agree, they’ll fake them. If the newspapers don’t agree, they’ll start their own. They will do whatever is necessary to gain control.

The American majority slept through all the liberal social experiments because the majority believed that these were legitimate ideas to advance society, in the interests of the majority. Instead it turns out to be a replacement and destruction program. The majority now is figuring out that even if they attain minority status, they will still be destroyed through violence, wealth redistribution and lots of hateful laws.

I have observed that almost nobody understands just about anything during this election. People are telling you stupid stuff, like to write-in George Washington or stay home. The real fact is that you can’t afford to. This election will determine whether this country destroys its majority and thus becomes a third-world war zone, or reverses course and regains its former greatness. There are no other options.

25 Comments

  1. Anon says:

    I’m not an American, so I don’t claim to understand perfectly why this election is so pivotal. I’m not sure that Obama winning this election will necessarily result in America becoming third world. Liberalism leads to disaster, this is known; Obama winning the election could be a stepping stone to him showing just how bad Democrats are at running the country.

    There is also this to consider: each presidential terms lasts four years. Unless a president or party is given at least 2 consecutive terms, it is hard to ascertain the net effect of their policies. In recent years, American voters seem to be very undecided as to the direction they want their society to go in. Red (Reagan), Red, Blue, Red, Red, Blue (Obama). If the importance of the elected candidate is anything to go by, American voters seem to be in limbo regarding which they prefer.

    I don’t fully understand the link between the general election and the actual conservatism of the white majority. Is it simply a case of inconsistent voting, plus people being dazzled by election campaigns? I think this is far more likely than the majority constantly wavering about what they actually prefer. This tends to remain relatively constant throughout a generation, at least.

    For me, this is positive. It shows a distrust of the electoral system, and a lingering suspicion that democracy isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. The problem is that there is no viable alternative at present.

    The final point to consider is that the House of Representatives and Senate also play a major role, and their ideological makeup is not directly tied to which Party’s candidate is in Presidency. Of course, a Democrat president would never endorse outright conservative laws, and vice versa. But legislature can have a powerful effect on the way things ‘actually’ are, especially in the absence of a strong leader.

    Perhaps the Americans can disabuse me of my notions. I welcome it. Your politics are confusing:-)

    1. John D says:

      I enjoy your observations. I am an American living in Europe, and I’m finding the awareness that many Europeans have of the outside world very encouraging (of course, maybe you’re Canadian, I don’t know).

      Presidential elections in the US are decided by about swing states, since winning a state wins the candidate all the electoral votes of that state. Many people will vote for the other party’s candidate if they’re excited about him (many registered Republicans voted for Obama in 2008, and some Democrats will vote for Romney this year). Voter turnout is also crucial in these states, since obviously you can’t win if your supporters aren’t bothering to cast their ballots.

      The possibility that another 4 years of a democratic President will change the way people look at democrats is zero. Americans are far too entrenched in ideology to look at evidence and make logical decisions. I think both sides of the political spectrum are becoming stronger, with continuously fewer independants with each election. Nonetheless we are witnessing an erosion of conservatism in the US, and things Republicans used to say even as recently as 20 years ago would be catastrophic to say publicly today.

      1. Esotericist says:

        The possibility that another 4 years of a democratic President will change the way people look at democrats is zero.

        Sensible…

        Americans are far too entrenched in ideology to look at evidence and make logical decisions.

        But then you veer off the road into nonsense-land.

        The point of this article was that it’s not about ideology, but choice of majority or the anti-majoritarian insanity.

    2. Esotericist says:

      Liberalism leads to disaster, this is known; Obama winning the election could be a stepping stone to him showing just how bad Democrats are at running the country.

      Europeans should be silent on this issue, since last time around you were all cheering for Obama. You also don’t understand the USA at all and probably can’t until you come here and live here without a safety net back home.

      You’re assuming that people are going to connect Obama with his bad deeds. That’s crap, of course, since it will take decades for them to manifest. He will take office, things will be bad, and then the recession will end because they always do, and he will be hailed a hero. All while destroying white interests.

      When Chinese tanks roll over your corpse, you’ll regret your words.

      1. Anon says:

        I’m not European, but I can see where that assumption comes from.

        I’ve never cheered for Obama – I watched his inaugural speech with family and had an immediate sense that the U.S. were so happy to prove they were now completely P.C. by electing a black. To me, that seemed the main point of electing Obama – “see, we’re not racist, now, accept our McDonals and Coke lifestyle in your country!”. There were obviously other issues (such as the weakness of McCain as a candidate), but that was the striking impression.

        For America, Romney is a better choice than Obama. However, the prediction of doom some have made if Obama is re-elected, I think, is premature. But, in the end, it represents a reversal (if not a major reversal), and if you care anything about your country, then it does make sense to support Romney.

        And, I suppose, it doesn’t make sense to preempt what Romney and Republicans will do once in power, as getting him there represents the first step. If he is elected though, it would be wise that Republicans don’t go into “we won, we won” mode and forget that Romney is still “mainstream” and since he was elected, somewhat of a populist. Like Mr. Stevens said though, once you have something workable, you can apply pressure to it (mainstream conservatisim) and improve it.

  2. John D says:

    Interesting analogy with high school students. I just want to point out that even though most American students who are popular “go getters” do often lead in some ways and on average tend to go to competitive colleges, oftentimes the superior members of the creative class (be they artists, biologists, writers, etc.) don’t fit in as well socially. The initial causes of this are usually innate, which then makes them unable to popular and subsequently reforms their identity and thus informs their politics.

  3. Jim says:

    You have it wrong. This isn’t the most important election for the majority. It’s the election that decides the fate of the cronies who the liberals have been subsidizing. If Obama is elected along with progressives majorities, expect to see financial collapse and large amounts of misery on those who need the government to survive.

    1. Esotericist says:

      I don’t think history reacts that quickly. Obama will continue doing what he has done, with similar results. This recession is already lifting. He will then just have more of a mandate to do what he needs to, and you who sat home instead of voting will realize that you helped in the destruction of your own interests.

  4. Lisa Colorado says:

    When i was back in college we had an interesting election for student body president. It was the regular white guy vs. the interesting black guy. I voted for the interesting black guy because I wanted to hear what he had to say and I wanted to see if there were any different ideas that he could bring us. And I wanted to prove I wasn’t a racist.

    He got elected but he didn’t properly show up for the job. He went a few times, then stopped. His comment as he left office was, “this is a joke and I don’t have to participate in it.” So, the regular white guy came in and we never heard another thing about it. I was too busy being silly and partying away my best opportunities.

    Then came the election where H. Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate, and I do believe he threw the election for Clinton. I had already experienced the disappointment of seeing the “groovy” candidate fail to lead, so I voted for Bush. Of course, Clinton got it. Congress, before his term ended, enacted some of the laws such as the “fairness in lending” act and the other one that said we ought to stop making sure home buyers are qualified to hold up a mortgage. Those and other decisions played out in 2007 and 8 with the big collapses and bailouts.

    If you look at the threads leading off of the President and follow where they lead, you can see how he’s getting his decisionmaking process and why he’s letting the Baathists and other Islamic groups feel their oats.

    Romney is the regular white guy in a climate where many of my friends’ self-loathing inability to identify their own interests and the need to maintain them, will lead them to vote for the groovy one. I only pray to creation that honesty can please come to people’s hearts.

    1. Esotericist says:

      I’ve made the same mistake, voting for the groovy candidate, and then finding out that groovy is itself a scam. Ever since then, I’ve put my vote where the candidate actually listens to some sanity, even if he’s far from perfect. The point is to stand up and be voted instead of listening to the Democrat-friendly news, giving up, and wasting your vote and thus ensuring that the groovy/fraudulent candidates win.

  5. Bob says:

    Mittens won’t do a thing about the invasion, the racist colonialism the elite are waging against the real American people. If he becomes President it is far more likely that amnesty will be passed – the Democrats are for it and he’ll bring the Republicans, wobbly in the best of times, into the deal. It would be better to have Obama and an antagonistic Republican Senate or House.

    Mittens WILL start a war with Iran, precisely to cover up the fact that he and his fellow Republicans have no domestic vision beyond the idea that billionaires are neeto. Trillions more in debt, ten thousand (disproportionately white) dead young men, all while continuing to import future Islamic terrorists. No thanks.

    This election won’t decide anything, 40 years of racist colonialism will decide. Demographics is destiny, and there’ll be no turnaround if Mittens and the Republicans are elected. If not this election then the next one or the one after that at the latest the Republicans will cease to be a major factor in national politics. The only issue is and will be race, and the Republicans idiotic refusal to see that 30 years ago has doomed them and the nation. Thousands of years of civilization “defended” by people like Orrin Hatch and George W. Bush, destroyed in one generation.

    1. Esotericist says:

      If not this election then the next one or the one after that at the latest the Republicans will cease to be a major factor in national politics.

      By all means, let’s give up before we have to.

      1. Lisa Colorado says:

        Mitt gets elected, a milder amnesty is passed. Obama gets elected, no more border.

        Mitt gets elected, congress can push back on things Bama did. Bama gets elected, we have national healthcare–because suddenly we’re going to be able to afford stuff that we couldn’t, because well never mind.

        Romney gets elected, the Islamists will have to fight harder. Obama gets elected, he admits he’s Muslim finally and Jefferson’s understanding will have been shat upon.

        The Left will get to blame everything on someone else–that’s what they do best. And when it fails they will blame again. A big chocolate mess of smeared blame, no nougat of responsibility.

        Bob, you’re from Utah and you’re ex-Mormon and you’re soured to what is good about that church. I’m from Utah and I’m ex-mormon but I’ve seen outside of Utah and seen that nasty sour evil attitudes about something you can’t change makes you that person you are–not the church. Come into the light of the world outside the Utah “are you Mormon or are you cool” paradigm because nobody outside of Utah gives a flying shit about that. I’m glad I left the state and saw how the world works outside of B.F. Utah. You need to try it and stop living in the damp beneath a rock, Gollum.

  6. Time Curator 23 says:

    Steve Harris,

    Romney will turn this country into a third world status police state in which the White middle class is skinned alive and in which reactionaries escalate violence.

    Romney is not a man who represents and champions the White middle class male, he represents and champions arrant individualism and insane globalism.

    Jim,

    Whether Obama or Romney are elected have no bearing on whether a total financial collapse occurs.

    1. Esotericist says:

      Romney is not a man who represents and champions the White middle class male, he represents and champions arrant individualism and insane globalism.

      Actually, as a businessperson, he represents whatever will make him succeed.

      This is a reason to elect him: he responds to the majority.

      1. Lisa Colorado says:

        Time, I don’t know whose baggie you’re smoking from.

      2. Time Curator 23 says:

        What? He should be elected because he values fame and and uses it to get into a position of power? Well, yes, I would expect that of ANY half-way competent politician in our country in this day. The question is: what is he then going to do?

        1. Time Curator 23 says:

          Hey Lisa,

          I don’t do any drugs, but I do see how my earlier comments seemed a bit strange. Anyway, why do you think Romney will (and by that I don’t mean Romney himself, of course, but rather, the Romney administration over the Obama one, and the psychological effects thereof throughout the society) better the country?

          cheers

          1. Ted Swanson says:

            @Time Curator

            My reasoning goes like this: if you don’t think Romney is better for the country, then it follows you think Obama is better for the country. Politics is basically all symbolic these days, but symbols do matter. It’s a symbolic statement.

            1. Lisa Colorado says:

              I think Romney could better the country because of his Mormonism. You can say what you will about the Mormon prophet being visited by disincarnate entities who told him about golden plates (this is how the Koran, Science and Health, and A Course in Miracles came about also) and you can read the Mormon Standard Works and see that they think their faith went back to the beginning of time and into the New World and they all knew of Christ and the plan of salvation–it just needs proper translation and revision–but what I’ve seen of the Mormon church, growing up in it, is that it looks one way when you are rational and two ways when you’re not rational. The first way is, it gets people to focus on a group identity and work toward a goal, which is a salvation to many people. The second way is, it gives families a way to be together forever, by adhering to God’s plan. The third way is that it looks like an authoritarian cult that you need to get away from.

              What I see in the Mormon Church is that some people are great leaders who can get people to work at their best. The faith is like a fire. It makes people healthy. The Church welfare system has people working for the benefits they get. The temple system excludes dilettantes. They have some of the greatest addiction recovery groups–it’s the twelve steps, plus the Holy Spirit. If we could get just a taste of that with Romney it would be a vast improvement.

              1. Ted Swanson says:

                I only had one Mormon friend growing up, but let met tell you, you couldn’t ask for a more top notch friend. Him, his 4 brothers, his parents, they were simply a wholesome, intelligent, classy family. I would sleep over, go there for cub scouts, my parents were friend with his parents, etc. All 4 brothers were perpetually on the high-honor roll for grades, in Eagle Scouts, yet they weren’t robots, either, they got into the usual little trouble a normal teenager would. After my friend graduated high school, he went on his “mission” I believe, then he went to BYU, now he’s a doctor with a wife and 2 children – the whole shebang!

  7. Time Curator 23 says:

    Romney IS a commercial fascist. Why writers on this blog think Romney is going to change Amerika back to America is beyond me.

    1. Esotericist says:

      Why writers on this blog think Romney is going to change Amerika back to America is beyond me.

      And there you lose sight of the plan.

      There are no one-step solutions.

      The point is that Mitt Romney responds to the majority.

      The point is equally that Barack Obama will do nothing but try to destroy the majority.

      Thus you the voter have three options:

      1. Vote Mittens
      2. Vote Obama
      3. Something else

      Since #1 and #2 are the only ones being counted, you have to be majestically stupid to do #3.

      Of #1 or #2, which one is going to respond to the interests you favor? We know it’s not Obama!

      1. Lisa Colorado says:

        A new conservative philosophy must be based on the way things are. Right now, there is a battle. We need to open up and admit we’re going to have to fight.

      2. Time Curator 23 says:

        How is #3 not being counted?

Leave a Reply

39 queries. 0.734 seconds