Posts Tagged ‘voting’

How The Visigoth Holiday Went Sour

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2016


You don’t promise Louis Farrakhan a draft horse and show up with nothing but a stuffed pink pony. You also don’t piss on the man’s leg and tell him it’s raining.

Maybe there’s a little bit of the pigeon in every confidence man, or maybe you just can’t fool all the people all of the time. The Leftists promise a Visigoth Holiday. In this fantasy, the brave Leftists will raid the city, and then give out the spoils to all who help them. Vote for them, and they promise you free money.

Like the children fed a few too many candy bars on Halloween, the Reverend Farrakhan feels his stomach turn. He offers his followers the following lowdown on Hillary Clinton.

“My dear brothers and sisters, this is serious,” Farrakhan told his congregation. “Her husband and Joe Biden were the authors of the crime bill that put tens of thousands of black brothers and sisters in prison. Mrs. Clinton backed the crime bill and then called our young people super predators. Of course she apologized, but just a minute. See Hitler could’ve said to the Jews after Auschwitz, ‘I’m so sorry.’ Would that be enough to satisfy you?”

My, my, my. Did he just say she was literally Hitler?

“In 2009 Hillary Clinton received the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood. It was Mrs. Sanger who advocated population control of black and poor people…In a 1939 letter, Sanger wrote about getting the black preachers to help with her efforts. She said, ‘we don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.’ … And when Mrs. Clinton received the award, [she said] I admire Margaret Sanger enormously. Her courage. Her tenacity. Her vision.’ Now they have to admit that the war on drugs was a war on black people.”

If not Uncle Adolf, perhaps Nathan Bedford Forrest. Or maybe Tom Wolfe desrcibed this well in his famous piece Radical Chic. Farrakhan certainly made sure Hillary caught some flak. But this is diversity’s Spirit of Mordor.

There was one genius in the art of confrontation who had mau-mauing down to what you could term a laboratory science. He had it figured out so he didn’t even have to bring his boys downtown in person. He would just show up with a crocus sack full of revolvers, ice picks, fish knives, switchblades, hatchets, blackjacks, gravity knives, straight razors, hand grenades, blow guns, bazookas, Molotov cocktails, tank rippers, unbelievable stuff, and he’d dump it all out on somebody’s shiny walnut conference table. He’d say “These are some of the things I took off my boys last night … I don’t know, man … Thirty minutes ago I talked a Panther out of busting up a cop …” And they would lay money on this man’s ghetto youth patrol like it was now or never … The Ethnic Catering Service, the bureaucrats felt like it was all real. They’d say to themselves, “We’ve given jobs to a hundred of the toughest hard-core youth in Hunters Point. The problem is on the way to being solved.” They never inquired if the bloods they were giving the jobs were the same ones who were causing the trouble. They’d say to themselves, “We don’t have to find them. They find us” … Once the Ethnic Catering Service was on the case, they felt like they were reaching all those hard-to-reach hard-to-hold hardcore hardrock blackrage badass furious funky ghetto youth.

The power structure lures in a diverse coalition of supplicants with a big candy bag of gimmedats. It promises far beyond what it can actually deliver. “If you like your doctor…” Then they have to figure out how to walk it back and get them to accept less than they were promised.

Two Lyndon B. Johnson quotes describe the game that is played with “diversity.”

First he holds out the lollipop.

“I’ll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

Then he reveals the scam.

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”—LBJ

So Farrakhan reacts the only way he can. He tries to raise the price of African-American votes. He tries to get more on behalf of his flock. But to do so, he has to threaten Hillary. This is of limited efficacy. What? He’s voting Trump? No. Evil Emperor Lyndon B. Johnson had the right of it. They are voting Democrat for the next two centuries.

Hillary knows it. Louis knows it. The people in the pews all know it. This is just gamesmanship. The only real threat Farrakhan has to make is that he and his will not ride to war with the rest of the Visigoths. Early voting patterns suggest that this could already be happening. Given the tightening of the election and the precarious position of The Democrats’ Precious, Farrakhan senses his shot at some of the graft. He pours on the denunciations and demands.

In doing so, he reveals the Achilles Heel of diversity: when a politician pledges to support protected groups — women, ethnic minorities, LGBT — this only works so long as the interests of each group are in alignment, which they only are temporarily, at first, when each group senses that it can have gimmedats in the same way Leftists plunder the population to pay themselves millions.

Over time, however, the interests become divergent. Different ethnic minorities have different wants. Every group wants its share of the pie, but there is not enough to go around. To pander to women, Clinton has to bring up “great women” like Margaret Sanger, and when she makes a speech to an African-American audience, she mentions Martin Luther King, Jr., instead. But this causes the groups to see through the multifaceted persona to realize they are being played.

The diversity model has broken down. The grifter-in-chief has met her match, and it is the first of many, because now that one group has started the shakedown, others will do the same. Hillary has chosen a losing position because each of these groups will demand its own benefits program, and they clash with each other as we go from airy theory to thorny implementation.

What will Hillary be willing to offer in order to real his votes back in? The real question intelligent African-American voters should ask is what she will actually deliver? Maybe not enough for them to waste a vote this time out. It’s just that sort of realistic cynicism that turns the Visigoth Holiday pitched by Progressives into a bitter taste in the mouth of all who listened to the promises of plunder.

Snapshot: Female Suffrage

Sunday, October 30th, 2016


As mentioned before, there is a problem with allowing women to vote (but scroll to the end for the punchline).

Harvard University President Larry Summers got in hot water for asserting that differences existed between male and female intelligence, and was later vindicated by scientific study (see also: Smart and SeXy) although the mainstream media ignored or counter-spun this information. However, that is not the problem with having women vote.

Women are not geared toward politics. Politics is the process of thinking toward the future in broad, irrational terms like principles and aesthetics. It requires people to take a strong stand because any idea will face a torrent of entropic forces trying to tear it apart, dumb it down or invert its meaning. Unlike in school, where the “right” answer counts, in politics the right vector or general direction counts. The details get settled later and cannot be anticipated in advance.

Nature has shaped women instead toward gaining social consensus. Their job in any situation, like in the archetype specific to them in the home, is to make everyone feel calm and accepted. Then they work out the details. For them, all is detail; there is no hierarchy or outline, but an unchanging goal of stability and peace, and from that they negotiate everything else. They are super-effective in social situations, unparalleled in family care and nursing, but devastatingly wrong in political situations.

Looking at American and European politics, we can see this in action. American women were the crucial group that elected Bill Clinton, generally on the basis that he was “good for race relations” and would establish pacifism between racial groups. American women also participated in electing Barack Obama for the same reason. In Europe, women dominate governments because they are perceived as safer and less warlike than men, with the female vote constituting a bloc they can count on to keep them in office.

We can see the evolutionary role of women playing out through these decisions: first, they pacify; then, they negotiate through details for what they think is a good compromise. The result is an inability to take any direction and then, as a result, a default to whatever the dominant direction is. Under female suffrage, the West has slide further down a path that will obviously not resolve well, simply through the process of compromise.

But for the punchline: while female suffrage is a terrible idea, so is the process of democracy in general.

Democracy disconnects actions from results. Votes are a lottery in which people hope their team wins, but then if not, conclude that the gods must be crazy and disconnect their brains until the next election. Even among high-intelligence males, the process of voting encourages a compromise mentality; working with the system is more important than working toward a result, especially if one wishes to stay in power.

Even further, democracy encourages the worst of human behavior by encouraging people to use the popular vote to take revenge on other groups. People can anonymous spend their neighbor’s fortune or sabotage his business, or simply approve for themselves handsome benefits at the expense of the rest of the citizens. Those with nothing to lose get the same vote as those who will be devastated, and the vote of an idiot is equal to that of a genius.

People like democracy because of its inherent pacifism. By its reliance on compromise, it prevents clear direction, which in the muddled simple-headed monkey thinking that is the default of humanity, means that it will offend no one and therefore give no one a cause for conflict. This ignores the fact that conflict is inherent because different groups and individuals have self-interest based on who they are, including what they can understand, and therefore are perpetually in conflict. Democracy just forces this conflict behind the scenes.

As we approach the eulogy for liberal democracy (1789-2016) occasioned by the simultaneous failure of every liberal policy yet created in the West, it is important to think the unthinkable, or “think outside the box” as we were encouraged in the 1990s. Our assumptions limit us to thinking along the same path we have been on, but because the results are so bad, it is time for new assumptions or no assumptions. Democracy has failed but there is no reason we must go down with that ship.

Voting As Mental Crutch And Physical Degeneration

Monday, October 24th, 2016


This afternoon like those of many other Americans my path took me to the local voting booth. We all stood in a long line that bent around the building and snaked into the parking lot. As the line lurched forward in tiny increments, most people stared at their phones, flipping through social media.

Only a few people seemed aware of their surroundings. The rest were aware of the back of the person directly in front of them, and maybe the cell phone. This made it easy to divide the people there into two groups.

The first group were the self-expression types. These were visually identifiable as “different” from my tribe and my people. One was a white guy in his fifties with his hair dyed blue. Another was a man wearing a shirt made of wide bands of the rainbow colors who walked along the line filming everyone while talking to his vlog audience about the size of the crowd.

A woman in her thirties, arms both covered in tattoos, wore a denim jacket with a patch saying U.S.M.C. DAUGHTERS ON BIKES. She was talking to a young Hispanic woman who kept her arms folded. Minorities and white people did not interact much other than this. People carried themselves with a type of provocative aggression, white and otherwise, as if to dare someone to challenge them. Regrettably it did not happen.

Several young women had come over from their jobs. They wore pantsuits and had expensive purses. It looked like their jobs did not involve moving around much. They were visibly nervous, and kept checking their smartphones to see what time it was, even though time was moving so slowly for most of us that it felt like days. They wanted us to see that they were important, and here on a sacrificial mission.

Someone from the group that administrates the elections came out to explain what an ID card is. There were signs in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese but according to her, many people still got to the front of the line only to find that they did not have their IDs or brought the wrong type.

The second group comprised people who were there from a sense of duty. The elderly were most visible, moving slowly but with purpose. Businessmen in suits looked out of place but grimly defiant in the way people are when waiting in line holds up events of actual importance.

This group, which seemed to be about a fifth of the total, are what normal white people think of as normal white people. The faces were German, English and related groups; they were not as ostentatiously dressed as the self-expression crowd, but were dressed simply yet professionally. Most did not bother to check their phones all that much, only too aware of the passage of time.

It was striking how small this group was compared to the self-expression group. The larger group wore more bright clothing, paid more attention to their appearance, and were more active in line, as if on a social outing. For them, their vote was a method of showing something about themselves, like moral goodness or simply standing up to the rest of society with a bold provocation.

If the 20% of people there who had purpose had alone survived and the rest perished, no deleterious effects would ensue. In fact, one might arrive at America before the decay: hardy, purposeful people who have no time to waste on the pretense of self-expression.

This led to meditations on the psychology of voting.

Even among smart people, voting reduces human intelligence to the level of a tabloid. Voting is the opposite of making a decision; it is closer to placing a bet, or playing the lottery. One makes a choice and then something happens to it which has no relation to how correct or realistic it is, so it is mentally destructive to place too much importance on the result.

In addition, voting ends the obligation to interact with the process after the vote. It is like tossing out a comment at the end of the party, then leaving; there is no investment in seeing it through to conclusion. Then, since the process has completed, the tendency is to turn off the mind until the next election.

In our minds, voting also teaches us to rely on the herd both for guidance and as a means of absorbing our errors. When voting, one wants to pick a winning answer, or something that other people like. This makes the question of what is right a distant second. Then, there is the thought that since each individual vote matters little, since only what most people like matters, it is not a serious decision. The group absorbs anomalies, good or bad.

Finally, voting enforces externalization of cost as a model. We are told to vote for what we want, and the group will support it if enough people like the idea. This means that we have no personal cost except for a tiny sliver of the impact, and we are encouraged to pass along costs to those with more wealth than we have.

This creates the mentality of a committee. Instead of making a choice based on the best option, the group chooses by what each member thinks the group will support. Reality is no longer the measure of our decisions; we are the measurement we apply to reality. This is backward thinking.

The end result of all of this is a cult/gang mentality. Society splinters into groups, and each group tries to use the weight of the vote to destroy its opposition. This is like a group of people in a car fighting over who gets to drive and no one is watching the road because to do so is to weaken their attack and defense against others.

With democracy, every gesture is a token or a symbol. None are designed to have effects in reality because they are focused on the system of voting which serves as a proxy or intermediary substitute for reality. We are not making choices, but manipulating each other. It is not surprising the results are so bad.

The early voting process passed relatively smoothly. The smugness of the people involved was hard to tolerate: the self-expression crowd felt like they were beating back some mythological enemy, while the duty-bound seemed grimly determined to participate in something in which their faces revealed a lack of faith.

As the years of liberal democracy fade — it has as surely died in 2016 as Communism did in 1991 — the thoughts that come to mind are not of the disaster of democracy itself, but the psychological effects it has had on us. People are timid, angry and devoid of the self-reliance that once made our nations great.

Someone tell me: where can I vote to end democracy?

Repeal The 19th Amendment

Sunday, October 2nd, 2016


From one arm of our Soviet media, a collection of neuroses masquerading as political thinking:

Watching Trump debate reminded Kristen Schwartz, 40, of dinner-table conversations with her in-laws: “It’s not polite to interrupt people, but if you stop to breathe or think about your point, they just talk over you and the conversation just gets louder and louder and louder.”

In an unnerving campaign season, what keeps their anxieties in check is the belief of Sandy Zielie, 46, the shop’s owner: “Women are going to save this country this election.”

…“I have always voted Republican, but I don’t feel like I could vote for Trump this year,” Rosanna Koehlert, 58, a college graduate and housewife, said as she shopped the other day in Merrimack, N.H. “He shouldn’t be making fun of people and making them self-conscious about the way they look. That’s not what a president should be.”

Keeping in mind that anything from the Washington Post is suspect because the newspaper as a whole is a Leftist propaganda organ like the rest of US media, this article is interesting: college-educated women speaking about trivialities as if they are the most important traits of the candidate.

This mirrors the general idea of Leftism, which is to make all things personal. This betrays its roots in individualism: individuals want equality so that they are guaranteed inclusion in civilization even if they fail or contribute nothing. This is why for them everything is personal; their agenda is personal, at the expense of society.

On August 18, 1920, the 19th Amendment was ratified and gave women the right to vote, something that our founding fathers clearly must have contemplated and rejected. Almost immediately the women’s vote helped pass Prohibition, which inaugurated the age of organized crime in this country. So far, so good… not really.

Since that time, women have been reliable Comrades who swing left on just about every election because of their desire to pacify, appease and subsidize problems. This makes them feel powerful, much as they do when spending money they receive for attendance at their jobs, because they have spent away a problem. Not surprisingly, this is the default government solution.

There is a punchline. Trump is doing just fine with women who did not go to college, which affirms for many people that college is a brainwashing session in which copious amounts of alcohol, promiscuous sex and labyrinthine nonsense theory erase the character and replace it with a guilt-ridden, self-doubting robot.

And another punchline: in addition to repealing the 19th Amendment, we should repeal democracy. People in groups vote just as stupidly as the women in the article above, who seemed guided by pretense and snobbery rather than anything approximating logical analysis. As the 21st century ripens, it becomes clear that democracy has made many decisions on the level of bad that Prohibition pioneered, and only now are we seeing how disastrous they were.

Votey McVoteface

Saturday, April 30th, 2016


Public servants thrive on being noticed. So when Britain’s Natural Environment Research Council asked the Internet to come up with a name for its new boat, this was a brilliant act of theater and notoriety-scrounging. But the results surprised no one, because we all know how democracy works.

Whatever idea is least offensive to most wins. This skews heavily toward illusory ideas, because reality is quite frankly offensive. None of us can have everything we want, and the cause of bad results is usually our own screwups, unless we pay attention to past results (consequentialism), discipline our impulses, and make cold nihilistic calculating decisions based on outcomes but aiming toward the best possible result.

Every other approach in the 6,000 years of recorded human history has failed.

We also know the history of democracy but can also see its effects in local contexts. School elections, HOA elections, even just trying to decide which restaurant to go to or movie to see as a group of friends. Democracy picks not the lowest common denominator, but the lowest option period.

When people become Votey McVoteface, it changes them by sabotaging their psychology. Instead of getting to express what they want, and getting an answer back that this idea is either reasonable or stupid, they get options delegated to them by the rest of the herd. These are never ideal, which neuters voters by forcing them to accept the stupidity of others as a gift.

Over time, Votey McVoteface stops taking it seriously. It’s a game like everything else: getting the fast line at the tax office, impressing the boss with fluff, seducing girls by being feminist, and on and on. When society measures goodness by how many hoops you jump through, the people with the least integrity always win.

I advance this idea also in an argument for an absent God. People say, if God is present, why doesn’t he show himself? Without taking a position beyond the argument itself, I say that it makes no sense for God to show himself or give us writing on the wall. When he does that, his audience become the followers who always win at the game. When you tell people what to do in order to succeed, you get toadies not geniuses.

If God wants a portion of humanity to follow him, he wants the good ones — and they tend toward religion, or at least reverent agnosticism, anyway. Is someone who finds great beauty in the woods and the world of ideas perhaps as religious as the most devoted churchgoer? Quite possibly — and with his disobedient streak, the life-interested agnostic or believer shows more promise than someone who sees the writing on the wall and conforms in hope of personal reward.

Voting does the same thing. It tells people how to be right, safe, inoffensive and successful without having taken any actual risk. That bloats society with lots of yes-men and goody two-shoes, even when they’re being ironic anti-heroes, and no people capable of independent thought. Not surprising that democracy lives up to its epithet, “the headstone of empires.”

Awakening from the nightmare of democracy

Monday, November 23rd, 2015


Across America and Europe, people are slowly awakening from the mental haze of illusions, propaganda and false promises offered to them by democracy. They are re-learning the lesson of ancient Athens, which is that once you go democratic, you get rich but your society self-destructs.

People are beginning to see the split between what they are told is true, and what is actually true. This is leading them to see how they are sold on certain “wants” as “needs,” and this has caused them to spend recklessly on the non-essential while neglecting the essential, which is the condition of our civilization and its future.

For years democracy trapped them in the dream. Follow us, and be Enlightened™. On this new path, you will be more moral than the kings, more powerful than the lords, and the master of your own future, beholden to none! While some glimpsed the demonic nature of this promised control, few had the bravery to confront the massively popular illusions with hard truths that were difficult to explain and understood by only a few.

Thanks to the relentless incompetence, greed and gift-giving of our rulers, we have learned that all the free stuff and good feelings came at a price. Namely, our societies do not feel healthy as they one did, but stand revealed as moribund dystopian wastelands waiting for the final fall into permanent third-world, mixed-race, cultureless and brainless status.

Imagine Idiocracy meets Blade Runner: a devastated landscape of heavy industry, ruling over a population from the low-IQ lands of the third world, mixed into a featureless grey mass that wants nothing except more food, drugs, porn, alcohol and gadgets to distract itself with. Surrounded by an environment that was ruined as it was displaced by the growing society, it is a perpetual future of existential misery but infinite ways of concealing the problem.

Their first taste came this week through a survey which revealed that most Americans feel like “strangers in their own country,” and see a bleak downward ramp for our future:

According to the Reuters survey, 58 percent Americans say they “don’t identify with what America has become.” While Republicans and Independents are the most likely to agree with this statement, even 45 percent of Democrats share this feeling.

More than half of Americans, 53 percent, say they “feel like a stranger” in their own country. A minority of Americans feel “comfortable as myself” in the country.

You can see the cogitation as it happens. “But… we voted for tolerance and peace, not violence and war!” It does not occur to them — yet — that by backing down from strong signals of identity and a unique place in the world, our society invited us to become the world’s punching bag. Or that diversity naturally creates conflict as it puts opposing cultures and groups with different abilities and inclinations in the same face and makes them compete for a share of resources shrinking with each person added.

As mentioned here before, we once thought the future would be glorious, but now we see it as a dark place like a technological Brazil with more uncertainty. As we go, we realize, the rest of the world will collapse inward as our dollars disappear (or are devalued) and a vast rush will appear among us looking for the scraps.

Where once people assumed that the triad of diversity, democracy and pluralism would save us from all ills, the problems with each have come out of the closet. Diversity and pluralism, or the idea that radically different groups who envy and hate each other for unequal abilities can co-exist in the same society, has fallen as we fight over what our standards, customs and values will be. Increasingly it becomes clear that under diversity and pluralism, we can have none of the above, and will instead get a lowest common denominator dictated to us by a government that will find endless reasons to increase its power.

Now that the chaos brought on by multiculturalism is out of the closet, more white Americans are feeling oppressed and alienated now that they are experiencing what it is like to be a minority in a country with an abusive mixed-race third world soon-to-be majority. This is not the future they were sold, they say, in which America would stay the same but other people could come here and participate in our wealth. But they are slowly realizing that the dream and the nightmare are the same, and that they were simply not told about the bad consequences, and with their voting, led themselves into the trap.

A majority (53%) of Americans say that American culture and way of life has mostly changed for the worse since the 1950s, compared to 46% who say it has changed for the better.

…More than four in ten (43%) Americans say that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while 55% disagree. Opinions about ‘reverse discrimination’ have remained fairly constant over the past few years. Half (50%) of white Americans—including 60% of white working-class Americans—agree that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem today as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while fewer than three in ten Hispanic (29%) and black Americans (25%) agree.

Notice the racial split: people with third world origins generally think things are going just fine, while white people are noticing what it is to be marginalized. They are also noticing that third-world groups are more straightforward about their self-interest, while whites are deferential and altruistic. Third-world groups come here as reverse colonizers, conquerors and slavemasters, not as friends. The few who realize this is a bad idea are marginalized in their own communities.

As part of our descent into permanent Brazil with Wal-Mart and Hollywood, we are seeing that third-world behaviors — including corruption, crime, lack of hygiene, dishonesty, laziness and deceptiveness — have taken root in our own communities as third-world people have arrived in significant numbers. It did not occur to the voters that people in the third world live the way they do because the majority of their people behave in such a way, or that there may be a biological condition — such as the few smart ones being killed as witch doctors — corresponding to the low average IQs of their societies and translating into their third-world conditions. The voters bought the line that the third world were equal to us in every way, and simply victims of misfortunes and oppression, when in fact colonialism often improved standards of living in the third world.

In fact, wherever liberal policies have been most successful, white people are most marginalized and conditions are at their worst, causing voters to regret the decisions they made. At the time, those decisions flattered them and made them feel like kings, tossing out gold to those peasants who looked on them with admiring gazes. Now they realize that instead they were waving a red flag in front of a bull, and now it is charging, and its demands will only increase — even as our society bankrupts itself and must sacrifice its essential functions to keep paying those benefits.

Just 28 percent of white New Yorkers approve of the Democratic mayor’s performance, and 59 percent now disapprove, up sharply from the start of his term, according to a citywide poll conducted by The New York Times and Siena College. …

Mr. de Blasio’s support among white residents has descended to a level so dismal that it has challenged a core assumption of his political strategy: that in a diversifying city, moderate white voters had lost much of their electoral influence, and that the mayor’s path to re-election runs through nonwhite communities.

The only problem here is that the voters exist in a permanent state of disconnect. In the next election, they might try to roll back… until the opposition candidate says something that offends their pretense as cosmopolitan, intellectual, educated and empathetic voters. Then they will run right back into the arms of the people creating the disaster now. As polls consistently reveal, there is a disconnect in the minds of voters between what they voted for and the results achieved. They do not understand the cause and effect relationship, or how their own pretentious and emotional decisions in the voting booth created the disaster before us now.

According to Rasmussen’s presidential approval rating poll of November 10th, 48% of “likely voters” approved of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, while 51% disapproved. On the same day, however, Rasmussen Reports published results of a poll conducted November 1st-5th showing that only 27% of “likely voters” opined that America was headed in the right direction, while 66% believed the country was on the wrong track.

…Recent polls by Rasmussen Reports show both that approval of Obama as president norms roughly 50%, while about a quarter of “likely voters” have believed America is going in the right direction. (Every poll has sampling error, of course, but most of these percentages won’t vary by more than plus-or-minus 3-5 percentage points if every adult American were interviewed.)

…The Gallup Organization, for example, reported that Obama’s approval ratings for November 1st-3rd, 2015 were 49% approved vs. 47% disapproved. Just a few days earlier (10/25-29/15), a poll conducted for NBC News/The Wall Street Journal found that 27% of the public opined that the U.S. was headed in the right direction, while 64% believed it was on the wrong track.

…a McClatchy-Marist poll (10/29-11/4/15) has data on assessments of Obama’s job performance and opinions about the country’s direction. In this poll, Obama’s job approval-disapproval split is 48% vs. 48%. The same poll, however, shows that 60% of the public think the country is going in the wrong direction, while 35% opine that it’s on the right track.

How could so many people be so wrong? We could point to the average IQ of 98 in America and say that only about 15% of the population possesses the congenital intelligence to understand the consequences of political actions, and that most of those are busy with jobs, football and shopping. But even more, there is a disconnect in democracy. It relies on making decisions based on trust in the candidates, and that these salespeople will tell us the true results of their policies, instead of erecting them and then skipping out at the end of their terms, enriched by their power at the expense of the rest of us. Even more, people are oblivious to the fact that governments justify their power with every group of suffering people they can “help,” and that politicians — like salespeople — are never held accountable for their promises or their actions.

What the voters do not realize — and will never realize — is that not only are the nightmare and the dream the same, but democracy and demagoguery, or the art of manipulating people through image and emotion, are one and the same.

In democracy, the vote decides the rule and after that, the voters (“we the people”) lick their wounds and accept what has come. Before the vote, they see contrasting promises based on theories untested in reality. Whichever one flatters the voters the most, wins. Voters love to be told how smart they are, and how free things are coming their way, and how it’s that other group — the team in red and not blue — who is stupid, ignorant and inbred. This makes them feel better about themselves. So like Pavlovian hamsters they keep pulling the lever, but then, since they have done their civic duty, they forget about all of it until something upsets them. When it does, they react emotionally, and then the other team picks up the ball and as the crowd cheers, runs down the field. Only later do they realize that both teams are fixed and playing for votes to get power to get money, and that they have zero interest in doing anything right for the citizens.

In their view, the voters are pig idiots who pull a con job on themselves from their own greed, and deserve to be manipulated and destroyed for their stupidity. Watching the voters get it wrong yet again, one has to conclude that there is legitimacy to this outlook. In particular, voters love any emotion that makes them feel like heroes, so they go in for altruism and gift-giving. This is the root of a toxic philosophy that separates cause from effect.

According Progressives, there is no original sin. All men can be improved by Darwinian evolution, social evolution, education and the compassionate leadership of the moral elite until they reach perfection. Perfection can be achieved rapidly, provided the enlightened leadership is obeyed in all matters down to the smallest detail of your life, your words, your deeds and your thoughts. Nothing is neutral, nothing is too small to be beyond the need for your betters to place it under their control. Nothing is apolitical.

Because there is no original sin in the Progressive system, all suffering must arise from the institutions of civilization. To be specific, in a semiliterate misunderstanding of Darwin, human societies are said to ‘evolve’ that is to say, to move by trial and error in the general direction of inferior to superior, drive by mystical forces of history. The flaws in human institutions hence are caused by an insufficiency of evolutionary pressure, that is, a lack of the wars and internal social breakdowns that drive social evolution to ever higher and more enlightened forms. This theory makes so little sense one is tempted to conclude it is not meant to. One assumes it is meant only to sound impressive and justify violence.

We all know what the future is: more of the same. They will borrow more money and keep the sad farce alive. Good people will be forced to work even more hours at even more boring jobs to pay for the rest, who will grow in number and in demands. If their demands are not met, they will start race riots or terror attacks, which they will do anyway because everyone knows only one group can be on top and every group wants to be it. Trust will decline, order will erode, and yet, you will be able to buy your way out of it if you sign on with a super-larger corporation. Then you will owe your life to that corporation, and in the few hours a week of free time that you do get, you will be too tired, distracted, and depressed to do anything but nod and maybe even vote. This is the future you chose; you did not vote for it directly, but for the type of delusional policies that have been proven by history to create it. That is the basis of the whole system: the disconnect between an image and what is required to create it, and the revelation that what promises to create it will make something far different indeed.

Let us look at the true root of this problem. It makes no sense to blame the third-world groups; we invited them here (or kidnapped them and sold them for our own profit). It makes even less sense to blame the politicians, because when you see a group of people behaving like idiots, the only thing to do is take advantage of them as any wealth they have they obviously do not merit. The rich? They are people like you and me, trying to escape this world of horror by buying their way out of it. It makes no sense to blame corporations, because they are only trying to survive in an increasingly corrupt and criminal world. Who to blame?

I suggest we look at the people making the decisions: the voters.

As Walt Kelley famously said, “I have met the enemy — and he is us.” Voters want to be flattered, and they support any policy that gives them more freedom — or more license — to behave as amorally as possible. They hate rules and they hate standards, including values and social order, so they vote to dismantle those at every turn. Even when they vote “conservative,” they vote for pseudo-conservatives who let the sick show keep on going on refrain from telling us that, as individuals, we need to grow up and get our act together so we have a brighter future. Voters especially love destroying other groups. They vote for things which will beat down their competition, destroy their neighbors and sabotage anyone who can tell the difference between truth and lie. They use “the poor” and “the minorities” to justify these passive-aggressive acts, but the real target is each other. They each think they’ll win the lottery and climb to the top of the heap by shoving others down.

In short, voters are morons. Most of them are biologically incapable of making sane political decisions, and all but a few of the rest are clearly emotionally and morally incapable of doing the same. The voters are the problem. They are the enemy here, and the only solution is to disenfranchise them by ending democracy. There is a reason democracy destroys every society that adopts it, and that is that most people behave like pigs, and in groups behave like insane pigs, and that voting causes them to switch off their minds and stop monitoring what their leaders are doing except once every four years for two weeks, leaving politics unmonitored and reckless. That is the heart of our problem, not any scapegoats we find.

Switching from democracy is so easy that even democracy can do it. We need to find a place where we can vote to end democracy, or seize power through money or the military or revolution. Then we need to delegate to the best among us the choice, and they will pick others who are also good, and make them our new aristocracy. These people do not get a day off and they are held accountable because they are in office for life. They fix the problem or it destroys them. The voters can go back to making bad decisions in their own lives and, without a power-hungry government to bail them out and control them, will be accountable for the first time. It will be a time of learning, a new golden age for humankind, but it only begins when we remove democracy to solve the problem of our terminal decline.

Recommended Reading