Problems With Democracy: The Reactionary Red Pill

My political position and identification has changed over time, and it is entirely possible that it will change further, but I would like to discuss the logic behind my current position in the hope that I can help others to have a more realistic worldview.  My position is the product of about 30 years of human interaction, observing, reading the news, and of course studying history.

My present position can be described as reactionary, which is nearly as far to the right as one can go without being an anarchist.  But before getting into the details about why I maintain the position that I do, I would like to briefly discuss the political spectrum.

The Political Spectrum:

Leftists, who currently control the bulk of mainstream political dialogue, define the political spectrum as having communism on the far left, and some sort of fascism/national socialism on the far right.  This is a dishonest tactic designed to straight jacket the dialectic so that only socialist positions will be viewed or considered.  There are other views besides varying degrees of socialism, and a political spectrum model which does not take them into account is an invalid (and useless) model.  A coherent political spectrum which accurately encompasses all positions would be a gradient from absolute totalitarian collectivism to absolute unmitigated individualism (anarchy).   Another way of looking at it would be being owned by another, to utter self-determination and self-ownership.

In this model, anarchy is on the far right, and just to the left of that is libertarianism and reactionaryism, which overlap but are predicated upon different assumptions about the world and humanity.  A little further to the left of those would be traditional American Conservativism (tradcon).  Nationalism can occur at any place along the political spectrum, as it’s not tied to any particular economic model or authority structure, but it cannot co-exist with Cultural Marxism for obvious reasons.

Classical Marxism and Cultural Marxism would be at the far left, along with Islam, which is also a collectivist totalitarian ideology.

What is our goal?

Unlike those on the left, those of us on the right recognize that there is no perfection, nor can there be any utopian system, and any attempts to create utopia via force are only going to take things further in the opposite direction from the intended goal.  Humanity is flawed, the world is flawed, life is not fair, and there can be no perfect system.

Our goal is not to perfect the world or create a new type of man, but to be left alone.  The heart and soul of every right wing person can be summed up in three words: LEAVE ME ALONE.

Our main desire is to be free to do our own thing.  Leftists will say, “That’s not true, you guys did_____.”  But the fact is, most of what we “do” is a reaction to something that someone else has tried to push onto us on some level.  We are like a badger who will generally mind his own business until poked, but when poked there is going to be a lashing out, and the backlash may be disproportionate to the poke.

The reason why some of us are conservatives, libertarians, reactionaries, right wing nationalists, or anarchists is because those are all different paths which (if properly executed) will lead to the same outcome: being left alone.

So what is the best way to achieve being left alone?  Not demotic politics.*

Demotic Politics is Destructive to Freedom:

Everyone on the right, conservatives, libertarians, reactionaries, and anarchists, can agree that redistribution of wealth is wrong, and that one person does not have a moral or economic obligation to support another person’s kids, etc., but the first two groups typically support a system that allows for that to occur.  As long as people can vote, there is always the chance that they will vote money out of your pockets and into theirs.  Democratically instituted laws which prohibit such behavior can always be turned over at a later time if the majority opinion shifts, or if the majority is successfully manipulated into voting against their interests by demagogues, so the only way to truly prevent this from happening is to take away the means by which it is done.  No voting.

Note:  There is also the chance that one group will use the government to browbeat and persecute another.

Democracy is Predicated on Faulty Premises:

In order for democracy to work, there are two conditions which must be met: 1) those who count the votes must do so honestly and without error, and 2) the bulk of the population must be morally and intellectually qualified to make sound decisions.

There is no way to prove that the first requisite is being met.  In order to do so, one would have to be at every polling place at once, and physically count the votes, verify that the machines are properly functioning, certify that no ballots are being thrown out, and that those voting are legally authorized to do so.

The second proposition is not valid.  Originally, voting in the US was restricted to men who own land, under the premise that such men would be morally and intellectually qualified to vote.  Such a criterion may suitably establish the intellectual qualification for making sound decisions, but not the moral, as it is possible for people to acquire wealth through unscrupulous and anti-social behavior, and wealth does not rule out malice.  But to let everyone vote regardless of personal success is even more foolish.

If a person is not able or willing to make sound decisions in their own personal life, then there is no basis for assuming that they will make correct decisions for the entire country.  Many people live in perpetual debt, while others live on welfare, and many of those on welfare use government subsidies to breed and produce more children.  Others have suicidal and masochistic tendencies, and yet their vote carries just as much weight as that of Chuck Norris or Bill Gates.  Not all ideas, opinions, and methodologies are equally valid, yet democracy renders them to be of equal weight when it comes to selecting leaders.

Coming back to the economic aspect, if someone cannot manage their own resources effectively, then why should they be consulted on how to manage tax revenues?  A CEO does not ask an entry level clerk who lives perpetually in debt to manage the company’s finances.  If he did so, the business would quickly go under.  One reason why the USG is so badly in debt is because people who live in debt are allowed to vote.

Clearly, at the very least, there needs to be some limitation on who can vote.

Democracy leads to low quality leadership:

Aside from the fact that allowing the morally and intellectually unqualified to have an equal say in choosing rulers undermines the quality of the rulers, it also undermines the quality of their rule.

A man who owes his power to a certain segment of a society, or to special interest groups, is going to pander to those groups on some level, under the best of circumstances.  Furthermore, since elected officials do not technically possess ownership of their office, they are less likely to take care of it.  They have no permanent, vested, personal interest in the government, the economy, or the country.

They enjoy their position, live off of tax payer money, go on tax payer funded vacations, and when they are done they can go pretty much anywhere they want and enjoy a high standard of living.  If the government and the economy collapse after they are gone, then it is no loss to them, except perhaps the loss of a pension which would be minute compared with what they already have saved.  In fact, the country could be completely invaded, and they could simply transfer their wealth overseas and live lavishly somewhere else.

They are invested in the country in the same way that a renter is invested in the apartment.  The apartment is not his, and he only cares about the apartment while he is there.  He does not care how whatever damage he inflicts on the apartment will affect the landlord when he’s gone, because it is quite literally not his problem.

Furthermore, there is the issue of diffused blame.  When a democratically elected government does something horribly wrong, who takes the blame?  Do we blame the representative with which the horrible idea originated, do we blame the representatives who voted for it, or do we blame the president/premier/prime-minister/big chief who signed it into law?  The blame is diffused across a somewhat nebulous body, sheltering corrupt politicians from being held responsible, and allowing them to continue with their criminal behavior.

Maybe you can vote out a particular politician, but what kind of choice is it if the other option is even more corrupt and left wing?  It’s no option.  In the past leaders or rulers who committed egregious acts of treason would have been executed, but now they are able to diffuse the blame and retire with pensions.

Democracy is destructive to production and property:

Individuals are concrete, whereas groups are nebulous.  An individual cannot be divided, but there is always some criterion by which groups can be divided into subgroups or smaller units.  Therefore, the group only has value in as much as it can protect the individuals which comprise it.

Production of wealth and property arrangements stem from the individual.  A man is free to assume control over any territory and/or resource when it is not owned by anyone.  If it is owned, he is free to trade his abilities in exchange for compensation, which can be in the form of an item, territory, or currency.

For example:  A man is free to take mud from the ground, shape it into a sculpture or a pot, and do with it as he pleases.  He can trade it for something else, keep it, give it away, or destroy it.  Without him, the item would not have existed, therefore its existence is rooted in him.  He has ownership by default, unless he willingly gives it up.

It is natural for people to acquire and create what they can through their innate abilities.  Since abilities vary, not everyone will achieve the same level of prosperity.  Acquisition by force is unnatural, as it artificially impedes upon the natural abilities of another.

Democracy upsets the natural order by authorizing some individuals to act aggressively against others on behalf of a group.  In cases of direct democracy a group of rabble team up to directly impinge upon the natural freedoms of others.  Gang rape is an example of direct democracy.

The priority (and moral imperative), is not to give everyone a say, or just to the group which can bring more force to bear, but to remove unnatural obstacles that inhibit people from living up (or down) to the level of their abilities.  Under ideal circumstances, every function will be filled by those who are best suited to the specific function.  When this process is inhibited then the quality of life for individuals and the quality of goods produced is reduced.

Democracy is not a moral imperative:

The idea that because someone is ruled over by a particular body they ought to have a say in how things are run, regardless of their qualifications, is irrational and undermines the purpose of having an authority structure.  Most people know instinctively that the proposition of demotic politics and participatory government for all is a faulty proposition, but they resist this notion because they and their ancestors have been fed false propaganda from cradle to grave for hundreds of years.

For example, most parents, except for perhaps the most blinkered of hippies, do not let their children have a say in the household budget.  If diffusion of authority and participation in government are natural rights and natural phenomenon, then parents would let little Johnny have a turn in determining the monthly budget.  But most parents know that little Johnny is not qualified to make such decisions at the tender age of five, and that he does not have any right to make such decisions as he had no share in generating the wealth, and does not have the same level of reasoning skills, knowledge, or raw intellect as his parents.  It’s only natural that little Johnny be kept out of the decision making process, as he doesn’t have the experience and/or mental prowess to make proper decisions.  Putting little Johnny in a position of authority over his natural superiors would be unnatural.

Another example:   Most people are not troubled about whether or not prisoners and convicted murderers are able to vote.  Why not?  Because they are criminals, and it has been proven that they are not morally or intellectually qualified to make decisions in how the country is run.  Saying that “they did something bad, which shows they aren’t qualified” glosses over the fact that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.  If anyone claims that someone is qualified to participate in government then it is up to them to demonstrate worthiness.  Suitability should not be assumed in the absence of evidence.  Letting everyone participate until they do something truly psychotic is asking for trouble, and bad behavior is really a matter of degrees.

If you are capable of recognizing that children and convicts should not be allowed to participate in government due to lack of qualifications, then you do not believe that participatory government is a moral imperative, and there is no harm in taking the next step and recognizing that others are also not qualified to participate.

Property ownership vs. Democracy:   Individuals concrete, groups nebulous.  Production and property arrangements stem from natural voluntary interactions.  Democracy upsets the natural order.  Democracy leads to theft

Most people don’t want democracy:

There are different levels of belief.  There is that which a person believes to be 100% true in spite of himself (or herself), and that which a person espouses and WANTS to believe, like a value that one has adopted and declared an axiom even though he only favors it under certain circumstances.  This is true of Democracy.

Whenever democracy has been practiced, people have always worked to put in place mechanisms to prevent people from voting things into law which they find personally disagreeable.  The ancient Greeks only allowed men and citizens to vote.

American conservatives attempted to restrict voting based on gender and ownership of property, while liberals attempt to nullify the conservative influence through mass immigration from the third world and indoctrination through public education.  In their hearts, both groups wish to curtail the influence of the other, and neither group is satisfied when the other is allowed to have their way.  When Bush Jr. was president and DOMA was voted into law, the liberals continually bellyached about the tyranny of the majority, but they also bellyached about how Bush Jr. supposedly lost the popular vote.  Since then, they have supported all the court rulings which struck down the various “gay marriage” bans, bucking the democratic process.

The fact that both groups wish to curtail the influence of the other shows that neither is committed to democracy as a matter of principle.  What most people really want (with the exception of anarchists), is an absolute ruler who governs in accordance with their personal values.  People cling to democracy (while trying to rig the game) because they are afraid that the other side might take charge permanently.  People reject monarchy because they are afraid someone from the other side might take permanent charge and be difficult to get rid of, but actually one man is much easier to get rid of than a large and bloated government were blame for every problem is diffused into an enormous crowd.

It would make better sense for incompatible peoples to go their separate ways, divide up the territory, and form new governments which are of a more permanent nature.  If we could all have our own countries where we compose the majority, and a leader who ruled in accordance with our values, and who could not be voted out, we would all breathe a sigh of relief.  We would all also feel the relief in our wallets and bank accounts, as such a small government would require a good deal less money to run.

Democracy is only the illusion of control.  The only way to truly have any control over the government is to have one which sees its interests as being positively connected with those of the governed, and one which is easy to remove should it become hostile.  A big government is much more difficult to get rid of than one man.  European countries were able to remove monarchs (for better or worse) in the past, when they wanted to, but it would not be so easy to get rid of the EU or the various parliamentary systems and the parties which compose them.  Furthermore, the EU and national governments of Western Europe are deliberately bringing in hordes of 3rd worlders to use as voting ringers against the Native Europeans.

If a king had opened the floodgates of Islamic immigration in Europe during the 1800’s or earlier his head would have been on the chopping block, and for good reason.  Today the politicians all point fingers at someone else, or shrug and say they have no control over it.  Who does have the control then?  Obviously not the regular citizens, even though the citizens voted for those people.  The citizens cannot get rid of the Muslims through voting, and if they decide to try to solve the problem themselves their own governments would clamp down on them.  During the middle ages the people and the kings were in unison on issues of national security, and this was accomplished without any democratic processes.

Democracy sets people against one another:

Democracy does not work with empires.  If multiple people groups are sharing a territory, and are all ruled by the same government, then they will use elections to compete for power and resources.  Divisions along the lines of class, race, ethnicity, and gender will become more pronounced and hostile.  Inevitably people will start to use government to transfer wealth from another group to one’s own, which breeds hostility.  The main concern is for one’s own group to have as much power as possible, which takes precedence over issues of policy.

In the US the Republicans still try to run and argue based on policy, whereas the Democrats attempt to play up identity.  Democrats have styled themselves as the party for blacks, Mexicans, and women, and they have successfully labeled the Republicans as the party of the “evil” white man.  This leads to racial hostility, and an existential crisis for white men.  If, for example, a man’s wife votes differently than he does it can lead to hostility in the marriage.  In some cases it may result in the termination, or the non-start, of a dating relationship.  I once rejected a woman because I found out she supported the Democrats and Obama.  I might have been able to explain it to her, but it was easier to just find someone else rather than invest time and energy into an endeavor which may have ultimately been futile (opportunity cost).

The Democrats no longer attempt to build cases for their policies, but instead resort to appeals to emotion and identity.  Rather than create an argument for why I should have to pay for the birth control of some woman who is neither wife, girlfriend, nor family, they claim that my unwillingness to do so is a product of misogyny or a “war on women,” and in doing so bypass both logic and demographics which don’t interest them.

Feelings are not a valid reason for taking money from one person and giving it to another, but in demotic systems it’s numbers that win votes, not necessarily logic.

That is another reason why the democrats want to grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens from Mexico.  They know that they can count on those people for votes, and if that bloc ever waivers they will transfer more wealth to them while portraying other groups (such as the white male) as the enemy.

In prisons, people often have to join race gangs to survive.  That could become the model for the entire country if things continue in the direction they are going.

Natural hierarchies are good:

When it comes to businesses, schools, and religious institutions there is little to no democracy.  The idea, in all three cases, is that the person who is the most qualified is in charge, and the lowest ranking underlings do not tell him what to do.

In a business, it is typically the most intelligent and clever person who is in charge.  The more intelligent he is, the larger his business will be.  The people underneath him benefit from his leadership, and sometimes he may consult with others, but he is not bound to follow their ideas, and he is not likely to be concerned with the opinions of the janitor or the lowest ranking of clerks.  The low ranking clerks and the janitors do not get to vote in a new CEO, or make decisions in work place policy or in how the money is spent, and most people just accept this as a matter of necessity.  Everyone knows that the business will do best if the best people are in charge, and everyone beneath that person will benefit from his superior intellect.

When it comes to religious organizations intelligence is a factor, but so is moral purity, or at least moral superiority.  The man in charge of a church hierarchy may not be expected to continually expand revenues, but he will be expected not to drink or divorce his wife.  It’s a somewhat different set of criterion, but the idea is that the man in charge is supposed to be superior.

When it comes to education, the principal may listen to teachers, but he is not going to let the teachers determine policy, and certainly not the students.  Typically the principal has a higher level of education, like a masters or doctorate, and he is also typically a former teacher.  Why?  Because his job requires making higher level decisions, so he must have the intellectual capacity to properly make those decisions.

So why is it that we adhere to natural hierarchies in all situations EXCEPT for government?   Why not apply the same logic and level of expectations to government that we do to business, religion, and education?  Is government not important?  I think it’s very important since government has the ability to come and take away all of my stuff, but none of those other entities do.

Democracy is a gateway for Marxism:

Demotic politics is the machine that Marxists use to push their agenda.  They foment hostility through demagoguery, and once in charge they create something like public education or socialized healthcare, make people dependent upon it (or at least think they are), and then demonize anyone who attempts to take these things away, while in the meantime the Marxists work toward the next issue which will be nothing other than government takeover of some other facet of society.

Public education is especially a problem, because it is designed to indoctrinate the younger generations into Marxist thought, while also attacking the traditional culture, value, and economic system.

The solution is to privatize everything, including government, so that Marxists will have no gateway.

But what about…?

At this point there might be a few objections and/or comments, so I will address them briefly here.

A tradcon or libertarian will probably be thinking “we don’t have a democracy, we have a Republic.”

We are SUPPOSED to have a republic, but we actually have a democracy.  In any case, republic is a demotic system which attempts to restrain both mob and government with a constitution or set of laws which are supposed to be unchangeable.  The problem is that demotic forces will inevitably erode any rule of law based system.  First they look for loopholes, then they begin to subjectively reinterpret, then they begin to flat out dismiss and add in new things which were never intended.  Once the people who created the original legal system are all dead, and a new generation which largely does not share their values and priorities takes their place, then they will gradually vote away the original legal system.

“But you also won’t be able to vote!”

I don’t care.  It would be a small price to pay for subversives not being able to vote.  My goal is to be left alone to do my own thing.  I’ll support whichever system is the most amenable to that, and the current system is not.  For example, if I was a photographer, florist, or baker, I would be FORCED to service “gay weddings” in spite of my religious convictions and general revulsion toward such practices.  Furthermore, no one should have to lose their job or be in fear of losing their job for saying something which is not in-vogue with the left.  Under monarchies people don’t have to worry about losing their jobs and never being able to work again because they said something that offended gays or feminists.

The problem now is that there are hordes of people who would like to use the government to hurt me on some level, and I would rather take that power away from them.  I don’t care about hurting them, so long as they leave me alone.  Letting these people vote is like handing an anti-social toddler a knife.  The kid doesn’t need the knife, and as long as he’s an anti-social toddler he is probably going to do nothing but cause trouble with it.

I’m more worried about having Muslims for neighbors than whether or not I can vote.  If I have to have Muslims for neighbors then my vote isn’t really working.

The Solution is Monarchy:

Sometimes the old ways are the best ways.  People say, “if we could just get back to the Constitution” or “if we could just have a solid white majority,” but the fact is, up until the late 20th century Europe and the US were over 90% white.  We used to have a Constitutional Republic and a 90% white majority in the US, but we still got from there to where we are now, and this was due to demotic politics.

Monarchies are far less costly than demotic governments, which inevitably and continually grow.

Monarchies are easier to hold responsible for their actions, because everyone knows exactly who to blame.  If a monarch decides to take 50% or more of his citizens monthly income, or flood the country with culturally incompatible and violent foreigners, then his head is going to be on the chopping block.

A monarch is not likely to deliberately destroy the country, because his continued existence, and the personal safety and welfare of his progeny, are dependent upon the country being strong and healthy, unlike demotic politicians now, who act like renters.

A monarch has no reason to pander to special interest groups because he has a vested interest in keeping the country the way it is, and he does not need to worry about re-election.

A monarch has no reason to pander to lobbyists, unlike politicians, because he does not need their money in order to win an election.

Back when Europe was governed by monarchs there was no existential crisis.  The kings protected their countries and their people.  Furthermore, many of the kings went to war when there was a war.  Richard the Lionheart and Frederick Barbarossa went on the Crusades.

There was no mass immigration from Islam or Africa.  When the forces of Islam appeared in Europe the kings and the people defended their borders.  Now they can’t, and in countries such as France and England there are “hate speech” laws in place that keep people from even being able to properly complain.

“But that’s too much power for one man to have,” someone might object.

Government can still be absolutist even if the power is diffused over a large enormous body.  Is it any comfort to you if your oppressor is an enormous bureaucracy instead of one man?  Which is easier to get rid of?  One way to deal with this problem is to have smaller countries which are, at least, ideologically homogeneous.  Smaller countries put the king closer to the people, so that the monarchy can be tied in with the culture rather than opposed to it.

Also, it’s disingenuous to think that power can be permanently diffused.  It is not in the nature of power to diffuse, but to concentrate.  Even in situations where a council governs a region, there will be one voice which is louder and more forceful than the others, and even if there is some mechanical process in line that inhibits him from acting on his own, the others will still fall into line.

Regarding the USA:

The USA is no longer a nation, but an empire.  White liberals and traditional conservatives have less in common with one another than do Indians and Pakistanis.  Hindi speaking North Indians and Pakistanis are genetically identical, and they still speak essentially the same language, but culturally they are radically different.  Because of the difference in culture and values, they are no longer one people.

The same is true of the US, and the situation is further complicated by the mass immigration.  Yugoslavia broke up into a number of smaller countries based along ethnic lines.  The difference between Croats and Serbs is much smaller than the difference between European-Americans and the bulk of Mexican immigrants (legal or otherwise).

The US government is in debt, and our currency is based on nothing concrete.  Since coming off of the gold standard, the currency we use is loosely based upon labor and production, but with production going overseas and debt rising, the system is going to break.  The socialism and Keyensian economics will only exacerbate the problem, and the government will no longer be able to maintain any sort of control, or pay the army.  Power will revert to the local levels, and from there it may break down even further.

There will literally be a New Mexico out west, or “Aztlan.”  This region may be the first to go, as liberals seem to be unwilling to force those people to obey the law, and those people could not really care less about white liberals who don’t speak their language, except in as much as what white liberals can do for them.

Once this happens, many of our people will be tempted to create new constitutions which allow for demotic government.  I strongly recommend that we resist this temptation and revert to our pre-democratic roots, which served us well for thousands of years.

Others will be tempted to create ethno-states.  While I have no problem with people doing this if they want to, any prosperous ethnostate which maintains demotic politics is ultimately going to degenerate.  Would you rather have Charles Martel in charge, or Obama?  Traditionalist and culture driven monarchies produce Charles Martels, whereas demotic systems produce Obamas and Bushes.

Personally, I do not think a 100% homogeneous ethno-state is necessary, but it is important to recognize the connection between intelligence and genetics, and to not deny that some aspects of intelligence are heritable.  I believe that European monarchs knew this intuitively, which was why they often bred with one another.

With modern science we know that DNA plays a role, and that incest is to be avoided, but, whoever the king marries ought also to be a person of high intelligence, so that the superior intelligence of the monarch is continually maintained over the generations.  The daughter of a successful businessman might be a good option, or a successful business woman, or a female doctor.

I will discuss the details of the system I advocate further in another entry.

*In case anyone does not know the definition of “demotic,” this is how it is defined by



of or relating to the ordinary, everyday, current form of a language; vernacular:

a poet with a keen ear for demotic rhythms.


of or relating to the common people; popular.

Published by:


I could be described as a libertarian monarchist with religious leanings and sympathies towards anarchy and nationalism. I have realized that a lot of my views are reactionary. Most of the time it's when I see something I don't like that I feel inspired to write. I'm basically like a badger being poked with a stick. I'm fairly ornery when poked, but I don't wish people harm provided that they don't seek to harm me either directly or indirectly. I don't at all care for the left, and I am not at all happy that they are out to destroy my way of life and undermine my freedom. But one of my goals is to spread awareness as much as I can. My Manifesto in Short.: 1. Dejure rights and positive liberty are invalid concepts. Man in his natural state is free. He is free to create what he wants, occupy and defend a territory he exists in, associate with who he wants, wear what he wants, say what he wants, follow whatever religion he wants, and essentially do whatever he pleases. Government is an artificial imposition which requires force both to come into existence and to exist. Therefore, government is not in a position to grant freedom or rights, as those already exist prior to the institution of government. Government can curtail freedoms, but it can never give them. The only fully legitimate function of government is to protect the natural rights of others from being violated by forces which they are incapable of combating, for example, protecting a farmer from the Mongol invasion. Protecting someone from having their feelings hurt is not a legitimate function, as never having hurt feelings is not a natural right. 2. Freedom of association and speech are more important than anyone's feelings. Feelings are subjective, and there is no reason why one person's feelings are any more valid than anyone else's. A law to protect one person's feelings from being hurt is certain to harm another person's, therefore, feelings cannot be a basis for law. My freedoms do not end where another person's feelings begin. 3. Democracy is a failure, and it is predicated on faulty premises. In order for Democracy to work, two criterion must be fulfilled, 1) those who tally the votes must do so honestly, and 2) those who vote must be moral and intelligent enough to make wise and proper decisions. The first premise is impossible to prove, and the second is not true of most people, therefore, Democracy is a questionable endeavor at best, and ultimately doomed to failure. In fact, under the best of circumstances Democracy is mob rule, but aside from that it also opens the door to demagoguery, tribal politics, and lobbying. 4. Communism and Islam are no less evil than Nazism. Communism has killed more people than Nazism, and in fact Stalin alone killed more people than Hitler. Islam has killed, and continues to kill more people than Communism and Nazism together. The only reason why communism and Islam are given a free pass is because Cultural Marxists are in charge of education, the media, and entertainment. Cultural Marxists have decided to institute communism by attacking the culture, and they have recognized Islam as something which they can use as an ally (for the time being). That is why both of those toxic ideologies get a free pass, but really they should not. Hitler worked with both Communists AND Muslims before the allies entered the war, and during the war he continued to work with Muslims. If some guy were to go around in a Nazi uniform and goose-step and Sieg hiel as he walked down the street he would never be able to get a job. His life would be over, and he might even be met with physical violence. If a white guy did it then things would be even worse. However, Muslims are able to walk down our streets wearing their terrorist clothing, their robes and hijabs, which represent thousands of years of slaughter, antisemitism, and persecution of religious and ethnic minorities (not to mention violence against women), and people just let them go. I want a complete and indefinite hiatus on Muslim immigration, and I want us to start repatriating the Muslims that are already here. 5. I utterly reject the concept of the "social contract." I did not ask to exist, nor did I have any control over what part of the world I was born in, which people group I was born into, or what other groups might happen to exist around me. Since my existence is entirely involuntary, I cannot be held responsible for the fact that I exist, nor is my existence sufficient grounds to argue that I owe something to someone else. I do not owe anyone money, goods, or services simply on the basis that I exist or that they exist. 6. Collective guild is a rubbish concept. No one can help what group they are born into, and no one is born owing anyone else anything. Debt is the result of borrowing resources on some level, and having just entered in the world one does not have the capacity to borrow, or really do anything beyond the most basic biological functions. Therefore, the notion that one baby is born owing something to another baby is absurd at best. 7. I thoroughly support Israel. I fully admit to supporting Israel for religious reasons, but if those were not in place I would still support Israel out of enlightened self-interest. Israel fulfills the real world equivalent of the function Gondor serves in Tolkien's Middle Earth. By that I mean they are close to the evil army, and draw a lot of it's attention and focus, and in doing so they protect the west. The difference is, that in Tolkien's world the west does not actively seek to import orcs and other members of the evil army, behind Gondor's back, whereas our moron leaders in real life do constantly import the evil army. Also, Jews are not a monolithic group, There are both left wing and right wing Jews. Those who are on the left are not motivated by religion to do what they do, but by the perverse Marxist ideology which they have adopted in place of their religion.

Categories UncategorizedTags , , , Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s