Election 2012 Part II: Quality is no longer an option

It must have been a shock for Mitt Romney to realize that in 2012, quality no longer matters to the voters. Quantity does, in the form of finding every specific interest group and pandering to them with promises of free handouts.

This is the fundamental flaw of democracy: not, as John Adams alleged, that it is inherently unstable; actually, it’s quite stable. Not, as de Tocqueville alleged, that the voters will discover they can vote themselves freebies, although that happens to. Its fatal flaw is that when the voters cannot tell the difference between real and unreal, they pick unreal because it’s easier and more pleasant.

Even worse is that voting itself teaches them that their only obligatory is to go cast an opinion. They aren’t required to know about it, or calculate the odds of its long-term success. They are only there to participate, and there’s no right or wrong answer. With this to train their minds, soon they drift away from reality entirely. In short, demagoguery arises from democracy.

At that point, the winner will buy out the voters. Don’t come up with a long-term plan; offer each identifiable group an identifiable bone so they know you’ll give them something. This isn’t voting as duty, it’s trading votes for promises. The hidden Achilles Heel is that these unrealistic promises tend to distribute the wealth, power and authority needed to make important decisions, and as such both paralyze the nation and reduce the function and thus value of its economy.

***

First, we should contemplate the question of what happens when the citizens cannot differentiate between good and garbage.

Is it an intellectual failing? Perhaps. A failure of our educational system? Unlikely: smarter people usually learn through experience as easily as school. Or is it a moral failing? Certainly our moral standards have been declining. Where in the 1950s, we dressed up to go out, had values involving bravery and self-reliance, trusted in if not God at least a sense of life having a divinity and purpose to it, we now have pluralism. Pluralism means that every lifestyle, opinion or method is right. All at the same time. In other words, chaos.

As our standards slide, we should look at the relationship our political decisions have to our culture. People like me don’t want to legalize drugs because doing so sends a signal of approval to our society, which then accepts drug use as normal, and that then changes the society around us. We have increasingly decided in favor of the individual and its absolute right to be as wrong or incompatible as it wants, or inappropriate, no matter what the long-term consequences. To our society, those consequences have been devastating.

This moral failing is what leads to a Democratic party that wages eugenic and genocidal demographic warfare against its native population, and that in turn leads to voters who whether Mitt Romney’s “47%” or not, will only vote for candidates that offer free things — and they don’t care about the consequences. Since the 1965 Hart-Cellar act, America’s population has become one-third driven by legal immigration, versus one-tenth before the act. Ethnic minorities rose from true minority status to 30% as of the year 2000.

What was the consequence of this change? A decreasing European-American share in the electorate. European-Americans tend to vote mostly Republican, because they believe in the idea of a shared value system and thus a majority. Democrats, on the other hand, are the anti-majoritarian party because they believe in pluralism. To a liberal, exceptions are more important than the rule, and tolerance for any method is preferable to having a common goal, because a common goal will inevitably constrain methods to what works.

The result is a country divided by race. The permanent association of “Republican” with “racist,” a catch-all term for those who do not endorse multiculturalism (diversity, multiculturalism and internationalism are all terms meaning the same thing). But the real result was that, through this 1965 act, Democrats were able to elect Barack Obama in 2008 and implement their plan for hooking the population on entitlements. Notice that city dwellers elected Obama, and these are the same people who apparently let Hurricane Sandy — the biggest storm in generations — approach and did zero preparation in advance?

But even worse, pluralism is now a permanent reality. There is no culture in common; there are no goals we share. Our countries have become large shopping centers and we are just occupants. And if you’re not down with that plan, your leaders plan to replace you with people who are.

***

I don’t want to say “All liberals are the same.”

But I will, because it’s true. Liberalism is a mental disorder spread through self-pity.

It causes people to act in similar ways. This is why all of history’s liberal republics have had short lives and followed the same downward curve.

The liberal method is pluralism, followed by social chaos, followed by strict control through handouts and terror, which in turn causes people to hide actual errors behind positive, dogmatically-correct statements. The nation then drifts away from any reality and falls apart from within.

When you look at the end days of the Soviet Union or Revolutionary France, you see this.

When you look at modern America and Europe, you see it also: there are certain things that cannot be said. Certain things that when said, truth is assumed, and the person saying them is admitted to the next level of income, socialization or popular esteem.

All liberals, whether the same or not, put their countries on the same path.

***

When you have an electorate that will vote for someone who promises freebies even when it’s clear there isn’t the money there, as happened in the USA and France and will happen with the EU approval in the future, you have an unworkable situation. You cannot win elections on sense. You must win those elections on lies. Specifically, lies that trade away the longer-term future for short term rewards that go directly to individuals and do not stimulate the economy, nor encourage good behavior.

How did the world respond?

They downgraded our debt as an investment. When you have a society that votes itself entitlements to win elections, the bill is presumed to never come due; their currency is worth less if not worthless. The the market plummeted. What is interesting here is not the temporary drop, but what changed hands to whom. This represented people getting out of certain investments, not divesting in general. They’re betting against us now.

The analogies to Rome keep getting clearer. The US is in decline not because of Barack Obama, but because it elected Barack Obama. Instead of a nation of thoughtful people, you now have a majority of amoral idiots who don’t care what they destroy. That’s a bad investment and a bad empire. It’s bad enough when the poor overwhelmingly vote for this theft. Even worse, it seems that our new elites are just as clueless. Who does that squeeze out?

The new endangered species: the American middle class.

This is part II of our Election 2012 coverage. Next: a plan for the new millennium.

26 Comments

  1. Ben says:

    If America falls apart, I don’t think the liberls would have the resources to steal from the productive members of the human race, but would only drive themselves faster to ground. The territories they leave behind can be re-integrated later. What do you think the chances are for something like that?

    1. That’s the mechanism of collapse itself. The people who have the power become disconnected from reality. The damage isn’t purely economic. Mostly what happens is that no one feels any obligation to positively give a damn any more. In the late days of the Soviet Union, “it’s not my job” was just as common as it is in American union shops now. No one cares about anything other than their own personal income, and dodging the penalties that come for being out of line.

      This is why totalitarianism just doesn’t work. It creates incentive for people not to care about the consequences and results of their actions. It is a form of micromanagement. If government says plant the beets on November 12, and the ground is frozen, you’d better plant the beets or you’ll get shot. So you do it, they die, and you report that capitalist saboteurs killed the crop. If you don’t plant, and a KGB man shows up, you will be shot for not planting. You do whatever they say no matter how crazy it is.

      The USA is now in the grips of soft totalitarianism from socialism. They are using the underclass as a weapon to force you to conform. If you don’t have big buckets of money, you will end up living in the ghetto or mixed middle class hoods. That means you will probably be victimized. To avoid this, you conform. The system wins.

      Although people think the opposite is true, the sad reality of it is that the system came to be this way through liberalism. People want freedom, that makes chaos because most people can’t tell the difference between reality and fantasy, and government then sells them security but only if they do exactly what is wanted.

      In this view it’s easy to see Hitler as an idealist and Stalin as an incompetent. Stalin’s system for totalitarianism required direct intervention, which gave rise to a powerful infrastructure of killers who eventually removed him. Hitler seemed more concerned with using control for ideological goals, like blocking bad information because he thought it was bad, than he was about using control in order to make people conform. A true controller would not care what contraband information they had, but would use the presence of it to make them live in fear and conform. It is not surprising that the Russians won the spy game over Hitler.

      In our time George W. Bush is regarded as the great Hitler but really it was Clinton who was better at this game than Hitler. Clinton created a big gold rush of fast credit, and anyone who participated would get rich, but he also would undermine those who did not owe him allegiance. The result was that in order to get rich, you needed to get with Clinton, and if you did not the rug got yanked out from under you.

      Obama now is inheriting the Clinton method but with his Chicago gangster-style (not gangsta-style) way of rewarding cronies and sabotaging dissidents. This Broadwell chick that brought down Petraeus must have been a windfall for him, unless he paid her to ramp up the crazy so that he had some reason to remove Petraeus. It could also be Petraeus is just a foolish man who got snookered by a hooker. Can’t tell. I know that around Clinton people died, but I don’t think that was his method of control, nor Obama’s.

      If you do what Obama wants, you get on the crony list. If you don’t, strange bad information about you gets out to the media, or your underlings inexplicably do really crazy and destructive stuff and bring you down that way. Obama works by a universal bribe: do what I want, you get on the government trough, then all is good for you. If you don’t do what he wants, he offers that trough to people around you and they betray you.

      What’s next for America? More socialism lite, and becoming Mexico, basically. Not just genetically, which is bad enough, but in approach. The few rich are going to be forced to live by corruption in order to hide their assets from the infinite black hole of public spending, and everyone else will be either dirt poor or live in unstable, dirty, dangerous and toxic middle-class suburbs.

      There will still be rich areas and whitopias. Whitopias are the suburbs where people make life so boring and normal that only white people want to go there. You’re not necessarily rich, but you’re normal. Rich areas like San Francisco will just require everyone to be wealthy, but since they’re unstable, they’ll attract people who are part-criminal and part-entrepreneur.

      At this point, your best choice is to get out of the cities and get a good business going in a small city or big town. You will make enough money to do whatever you need and can watch the disaster from a distance. If you have a business, you can also hide your assets in that business. Your business can buy your computers, phones, travel, some food, cars, insurances and some clothing. This is how most of white America that’s not already into urban culture or on drugs is going to ride out the insanity.

      1. 1349 says:

        The people who have the power become disconnected from reality…
        Mostly what happens is that no one feels any obligation to positively give a damn any more…
        No one cares about anything other than their own personal income…

        This allows some people to criticize conservatism and caste systems. “Frozen”, “conserved” castes, with people in the upper castes thinking their high status is their benefit (while it should actually be their burden – hence “noblesse oblige”), lead to a collapse.
        Of course, this concerns caste systems in their final, near-death stages. But the leftist history insists that the above is what castes in general are about.

        Obama now is inheriting the Clinton method but with his Chicago gangster-style

        I imagine a gangster hat would suit him. ))))

        Stalin’s system for totalitarianism required direct intervention, which gave rise to a powerful infrastructure of killers who eventually removed him.

        It was hardly his killers that removed him. ;)

        This Broadwell chick that brought down Petraeus must have been a windfall for him, unless he paid her to ramp up the crazy so that he had some reason to remove Petraeus.

        The official story looks nonsensical.
        To me it looks like Petraeus was purposefully removed.
        And what about Kubasik? Same day!.. =))) Did Lockheed Martin finance Romney?

        1. “Frozen”, “conserved” castes, with people in the upper castes thinking their high status is their benefit (while it should actually be their burden – hence “noblesse oblige”), lead to a collapse.

          I think they’re symptoms of a collapse, which begins with the overpopulation of the lower classes.

          1. 1349 says:

            I’m inclined to think the overpopulation of the lower classes is, in part, the upper classes’ oversight.
            Like, if no ascension is allowed in our infinite-storeyed building, but creatures from the surrounding wilderness (crows, owls and ferrets reincarnated =) ) keep arriving to the ground floor, the latter is going to get overcrowded. Make the were-animals work and ascend; kick the worst of them back out to think things over and then try again…

            Anyway, when the monarchy and aristocracy collapsed in my region, there was no overpopulation. The nobles started enjoying their rights instead of doing their duties. Look at the idiots:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Liberty
            Liberum veto was particularly nonsensical and destructive.

  2. Jacob says:

    I’m kinda scared of all these idiots being in charge of weapons that could wipe out the entire earth. Everything white liberals do seems suicidal. At least the minorities have their best interests at heart.

    1. Everything white liberals do seems suicidal. At least the minorities have their best interests at heart.

      Comment of the day. White liberals are so obsessed with themselves that they actively seek to destroy anything that is not themselves.

      They even do it to their own kids.

      If you are a liberal, you are a megalomaniac, and you want to be seen as a good person to the extent that you hide all your bad deeds and pump up all your good ones. This creates such total instability in you that you tend to support anything that looks popular and ignore all results, such that you leave a trail of chaos in your wake. At that point, your goal becomes to smash anything else so that it cannot threaten you and your self-image.

      Liberalism is a complex philosophy until you start viewing it as a type of publicity stunt. It’s a whole bunch of proles, advertising that they’re good people and nice compassionate people, look what we do for the gay black midget orphans, and they use that to put themselves in power where having good judgment and good leadership (as a result) would not.

    2. Materialist, atheist, individualist liberals see the world as part of themselves.

      When they die, there is nothing left after them.

      They want to take it with them by destroying it, immolating it on the pyre of Ego.

      1. crow says:

        That’s it, in a nutshell…
        The difference between right and left.
        The right sees the world, sees life, and understands it is part of it.
        The left sees only itself, and anything else is only there for its exclusive plunder.

  3. Still getting that pressure feeling in my head from this futile searching I’m doing. What is the best answer to this, after I’ve been labeled as loser? I know I am beset by the demons of my own ego, even as the bad actors in the world have a hay day and the “I’m so kind” people in the world celebrate their messiah.

    I know that the principles that make us free are not changing. Why is the message of freedom lost?

    I think it’s possible to live free, if we think freely in our minds and let our choices reflect clarity and love for the good.

    1. crow says:

      Who’s labeled you as a loser?
      Why would they do that?
      What do you think of this label?
      Is it, in any way true?
      And if it is: so what?
      I see you at least investigating.
      Very few ever get that far.

      1. In my mind, I’m on the losing team. Maybe I’ve only labeled my side as the losers. They would say we’re losers for the same reason they said Romney was. Uncool.

        Yeah, I suppose if I’m a loser in their game, I feel insecure about it. I wonder whether I’ve been blind or stupid. Doesn’t matter if it’s in their eyes, but in my own. Heavy shit to work out. I’ve done it before and it always improves my life, so I’m investigating.

        1. ferret says:

          “I’m on the losing team.”

          There are no winning teams this time. Winning is not about powerty.

          “When President Obama was first elected in November 2008, 30.8 million Americans were on food stamps. As of August 2012, 47.1 million were – a rise of about 50 percent.”

          (http://rt.com/usa/news/post-election-food-stamps-476/)

          Also check the sidebar articles. All this is far from winning.

          Thus, it doesn’t make sense to feel as loser because of being realistic.

          1. “When President Obama was first elected in November 2008, 30.8 million Americans were on food stamps. As of August 2012, 47.1 million were – a rise of about 50 percent.”

            I wouldn’t listen to Russia Today for anything, it’s a pure propaganda rag, but there’s truth to this. It’s one of many factors. The problem is not so much the underclass itself but the over-inflation of American value. Jobs are easy, people do nothing at them, and get paid a lot. If you go to work in government, you’re on easy street. If you make people happy with some dumb message about compassion and hope, you get rich. This economy is feeding off itself. It has nothing to offer anyone who doesn’t assume it is valuable. This is the instability of the value of America, and it will be called in at full force if there’s ever a real war. Obama is a fifth columnist but not for Communism, he’s here for the parasitic element inherent to every human being who has low moral fibre.

            1. ferret says:

              Actually, I didn’t know that RT stands for Russia Today; it was Google who returned this article on the “food stamps” search. The numbers were correct, so I decided it was good enough. Anyway, we can consider any site publishing this statistics as an anti-American propaganda site :)

        2. Owl says:

          I can potentially help you with that.

      2. All language is categorical, which is why it’s so awkward. It then becomes syllogistic:

        1. All leaves are green.
        2. This is a leaf.
        3. Therefore, it is green

        But not:

        2. This is green
        3. Therefore, it is a leaf.

        These are different from labels, which exist in a world where everything is of face value, and categorizations are of a null syllogism:

        1. Lisa is a loser.
        2. LOL something goes here.
        3. There’s a sale at Penney’s.

        The reason it’s a flat hierarchy is because instead of the whole wide world, liberals see only a single measurement: socialization.

        And if it’s convenient for them to call you a loser, they will, and not care whether it’s right or not because for them, there’s no right or wrong.

        1. Why couldn’t you just say that labels are a social judgment and leave it at that? These syllogisms offer nothing to your argument.

          1. Kinderling says:

            1. Lisa is a loser.
            2. LOL something goes here.
            3. There’s a sale at Penney’s.

            This is Professors Robert Limbar’s famous study in 1897 of the right brain hemisphere while the left brain was frozen with injections of the cavity with alcohol.

            One subject was Miss Leala Dauby.

            He used repetive affimations in a slow authorative tone:

            1. “Lisa (originally Leala) is a loser” which induced feelings of superiority (detachment) and inferiority (attachment), creating judgement and guilt in equal measure as the left brain did not impart it’s objectivity.

            2. “LOL (originally “Hoh!” said with riddicule and saracasm) something goes here” induced a put-down that was not understood to be at herself or targetted to someone else. Feelings of resentment (detachment) or humiliation (attachment), led this patient to a state of heightened exhilaration and despair at the same time.

            3. “There’s a sale at Penney’s” (Peinity’s being Newcastle exclusive emporium) drove envy (detachment) and desire (attachment), rejection and hope at the same time.

            After the experiment it was discovered her left brain hemisphere did not develop control again and Leila lived a life of seeking pain and pleasure, gambling in order to deliberately loose, and destructive behaviors creating a sense of purpose.

            This was similar to Professor Limber’s earlier inmates who were addicted to burning their fingers and putting them in cold water whenever stress was applied to them.

            He coined the word “Social-idiom.” For when challenged about their behavior, he found they simply blamed and praised society in equal measure for all their ills.

    2. What is the best answer to this, after I’ve been labeled as loser?

      This is what liberals do best, which is passive-aggressive social bullying.

      The real losers are the people who destroy without sense, and fail to create. That’s not you.

      1. crow says:

        So there :)

      2. This is what liberals do best, which is passive-aggressive social bullying.

        The masters of this are Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who are not only passive-aggressive bullies but hide it behind humor and “nice guy” sparkles (not even manly enough for J.O., they go full brony).

    3. What is the best answer to this, after I’ve been labeled as loser?

      You’ve got a lot of liberal family members I see. Mine are gloating too. It reminds me of being in high school, how all the idiots went around behaving like fools. Then senior year came. Suddenly the tribe was separated. The people who did something with their time had gotten grades, athletics, started a business, 4H, got good at a skill, apprenticeship, a million other things that were constructive. The idiots had been idiots. It wasn’t 100% definitive, but the long game is the only one in town.

      As other people have pointed out here, the problem with liberalism is that it’s suicidal. The problem with that is that it’s slow. No one wants to be right long after they’re dead, but it beats being wrong and as a result being neurotic. The people who are calling you a loser are neurotic, which means they don’t trust their judgment, which means they’re calling you a loser because if they hear it said out loud they feel better about it and can almost think it’s true.

      The real loser here is America. Instead of a strong leader who will fix internal problems, we got the wimply college boyfriend who will do smoke and mirrors, keep the payouts rolling, and basically piss away this country to keep his support base of women, minorities, gays/etc, drug users, teenage voters, single parents and reform Jews (who hate Israel because Reform Jews are alas Liberal more than Jewish) happy. This will devalue the currency, ruin international prestige, and let our infrastructure continue to rot away so that when we do need to get something done, there will be huge barriers in our way. Obama will retire rich and popular.

  4. […] absolutely zero sense of responsibility to anyone whom it causes harm? Brett Stevens of Amerika.org describes what results […]

  5. […] Kinderling 11/12/2012 at 2:33 pm […]

  6. […] Kinderling 11/12/2012 at 2:33 pm […]

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.507 seconds