As a famous man allegedly said, “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Most sources focus on the ignorance of the voters, or their misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of certain facts, but bigger factors exist as well.
It is true however that in terms of politics and history, voters are goldfish. They know only what has happened in the last fifty years at the outside, and only in a cartoonish sense where every war has a single cause, every altruistic action can be taken at face value, and bad guys are motivated by a desire to be “evil.”
For starters, the Bell Curve rules us all, and this means that only a tiny portion of civilization has the genetic-biological code for the brainpower necessary to understand these issues in depth. Newspaper “understanding” means dumbing down complex issues to simple binaries that address the present moment alone.
Almost all issues in the hands of media become entertainment. There are good guys and bad guys, and we root for the good guys and the underdog, since we dislike those mean bullies who have power. However almost none of history fits within this template; it fits the audience, not the topic.
This means that whoever is most unreasonable yet knows how to play the victim takes over the democratic society. Any group that portrays itself as a victim is “owed” equality by the group, so wealth, power, and status flow to them while being taken from all others.
Further, we suffer from the committee mentality in democracy. When a committee gets together, it has one goal only, which is to get out of the committee room before the next meal. Consequently, people aim not for what is sane, intelligent, and good, but for what they can con the others into accepting.
Even more, when a committee approaches a hard issue, each member weighs in with their own demand that is paradoxical to the rest. This makes them important in the decision-making process, and therefore more likely to get what they want even if completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
In this way, “mission creep” is assured and at the same time, no one is talking about an actual goal, only how to achieve some kind of result for which none of them will be blamed. The art of compromise involves avoiding the actual goal and instead getting a little bit of what everyone wants.
For this reason, any time something comes out of a committee, it no longer resembles anything like a working plan. It is mostly a jobs program for the committee members. The cornerstone of bureaucracy, the system we got after aristocrats, is the committee and its compromises that never really address anything.
Committees mostly consists of negative goals, namely not getting blamed, not taking responsibility, and not losing power. The one thing that everyone on the committee agrees with is that they should have more power, which means more money, and less interference by others who know better.
On top of these democracy issues, we face another: the dark organization. This is what happens when members of a group form a little clique, gang, cult, union, or mafia which decides to use the resources of the society for their own ends, like Tammany Hall or the Deep State.
Dark organization arises any time there is meritocracy. Beloved by egalitarians, the meritocracy can only exist through study and tests, therefore it rewards those who get good at the tests, but this group by definition thrives only in the narrowed field of school and work and does badly with real life.
Groups of this nature are threatened by people of real competence because such people know better and in times of emergency, demonstrate this, making everyone else look less competent for not having seen the same thing. Dark organizations by definition exist to exclude such people.
On top of all of that, the fundamental problem of democracy is passivity. In nature, humans adapt to their environment or perish; in society, they must flatter, manipulate, and cajole others into providing income. Consequently they view society as both a benefactor and abuser to be rebelled against.
This produces a passive mentality where people do what they are told in order to avoid consequences from other humans, but because it is imposed, retaliate with passive aggression by doing the minimum, gaming the system, and always portraying themselves as victims.
Finally, democracy produces narcissism. When you get rewarded with “equality” before achieving anything, there is no particular value in it, just like automatic citizenship means you take it for granted because it was free. This simultaneous lack of value to the world plus validating of the self produces narcissists.
Narcissists tend to view others as targets for manipulation and work toward their own advantage regardless of who is harmed. They will play the victim when confronted, then vigorously reject any realistic solutions while offering none of their own, so that whoever tries to solve problems has only bad options to choose from and can be blamed.
Every society gets the parasites that it deserves. Societies which accept democracy have endorsed the behavior above and get nowhere because their citizens are now a pile of mental health problems, including narcissism, and have become manipulative, selfish people.
On the Dissident Right, we accept that there cannot be health — civilizational or personal — within modernity, which is the society based around democracy, individualism, and equality. We cannot choose the Left-flavor or Right-flavor of modernity; we need to escape modernity entirely.
A society without individualism is one with ethnic homogeneity and social hierarchy, since that is needed to have competence rule in all parts. This clashes with the democratic idea that what is most popular is right, and says instead that what is most realistic is right and everything else is error, evil, stupidity, and failure.
Societies like these will look a lot like the present society except that they will have one ethnic group per civilization and will make fun of the stupid while raising up the best. Such societies will not operate by endless rules and procedure, but by results: those who achieve will be promoted.
Almost all of our fellow citizens are afraid to take the mental step, known as change, that is required to be ready for such a society or to desire one. They hide behind individualism and the idea that they are important simply for being human because they fear being forced to adapt to reality and having their success or failure visible.
When we hide behind the moralistic socially-driven world of individualism, results in reality do not matter if you can blame someone else or play the victim. In a realist society, people assume adversity is everywhere and are interested only in those who thrive and succeed, so that we may all benefit from their leadership.
This creates a constant upward pressure like natural selection by, generation after generation, ensuring that the smartest, wisest, noblest, and bravest win out while the less capable steadily lose. When was the last time the good guys won, in modernity? Other than a few lotteries, these events are few and far between.
Realism is compatible with natural selection and improves the human being. People fear that because they fear themselves. Consequently, there is a huge audience on both Left and Right for people who preach a variety of our current system with a bias for one flavor or another.
If you care about the future of your society, it makes sense to pay attention to the historical fact that the West rose under the realists, but fell under the individualists. This is a do or die question. If we keep going on our present path, we end up as Brazil or Russia forever.
This path begins by rejecting all of those on the Right who are offering us a flavor of the present system instead of opposing the present system — democracy, individualism, and equality — entirely. You cannot have only a drop of poison in your wine, nor can you have any egalitarianism in your society and still survive.
In the 1960s conservatives made themselves socially acceptable by, following the results of the last world war, pledging to be unlike Hitler. They did this by denying realism, specifically genetic reality about social class, race, culture, ethnicity, and individual differences. They accepted equality instead.
After all, equality won the wars. In WW1, we finished what the Napoleonic Wars and before that, the French Revolution, had started; the kings were dethroned for the most part and democracy took over. In WW2, we eliminated the last of the “nationalists” or people who believed that they should protect their ethnic groups from admixture.
When the Soviet Union fell in the Cold War, so did the idea of a society dedicated to anything beyond the individual. Communism compelled the citizen to work for the State; the new postmodern society simply taxed the citizen and compelled him to do nothing but pay his bills and watch the “right” television.
In the internet age, society has become a mashup of all of its previous influences because since we have now democratized the audience, they are all producing niche and special interest content which is further erasing organic culture as the State has always wanted. Nothing but ideology and economics remains.
Conservatives did their best to avoid the worst of what faced us. They won the Cold War, kept the crazies at bay for as long as possible, and preserved individual liberty. This approach did not work; we are now in a neo-Communist Regime with a mixed economy dedicated toward subsidizing democracy, individualism, and equality, especially diversity.
Those who want to make the Right great again need to go back to that 1960s decision by William F. Buckley and reverse it. We need to start talking about genetic differences, nationalism, and people quality again. Anyone who fails to do this is a collaborator of the Regime and should be treated as a traitor.
Tags: conservatives, democracy, equality, individualism