I have a principle I call the free market paradox. Which is that if a market has no government interference, a few corporations can consolidate power and bribe the government to impose regulations. If the government does interfere with the market, the biggest corporations will bribe the government to impose regulations that help the big corps. The only way to stop this is to create a class of people who are independent from the market, who have the power to regulate it. For most of history, this is the aristocracy/military or the clergy (in more religious societies). Democracy does not have this because politicians cannot gain popular support without campaign funds and media support. This is the fundamental failure of universal democracies. It's also why Hman gave so much power and parallel functions to the SS. They were meant to become pagan aristocrats who could break the influence of the German corporations and clergy.
The state will take up that power if the major corporate players support it, the politicians need to appease those players, and the people have some hope of receiving benefits from regulation. The US government wears the tattered hide of the commerce clause like the impenetrable Nemean lion. The Founders couldn't have conceived of this level of interference.
It’s not founders it’s founding fathers. Not one of those people at the decoration of independence was a woman. Give credit where it’s due and stop using government words. They are only there to confuse people and divide them. Don’t give into the system you’re making it worse. Don’t you understand that?!!
How can a government not be capable of even gaining any power over the market? This is a government which first of all, would let monopolies run rampant and crush their opposition with aggressive and socially destructive tactics, and second must be incredibly rigid and weak. The market needs some regulation, it just can't be done by people who rely on the market as their source of power.
The thing about your comment about land ownership, if the right to vote was tied to land ownership then certain talented people would prioritize becoming landowners in a way they aren't now.
Got-damn truth right here. I know of a few direct forefathers of mine who were in some wealthy influential positions. I also know more than a few direct forefathers who were poor as shit. My father is building up wealth right now, and I am certain it will not make it to my generation unless he takes dire steps, and soon. Generations of my family have climbed up and fallen down the social ladder. It is a never-ending cycle of struggle, attainment, then laziness and loss.
>First of all, the royal line is a very well-maintained family, eugenically speaking. If the queen pops out a good amount of kids, one or two of them are bound to be quite gifted. The main problem that arises here, is succession.
Isn't there also the issue that aristocratic marriages are generally matched by lineage and alliances and not abilities?
I also want to add that isn't the "cognitive class" of society generally quite "secluded" nowadays? Especially in this increasingly cognitively stratified society you have these intelligent college students who seem to be oblivious to race problems in their countries because they live in their own relatively racially homogeneous bubbles (these students usually come from well off backgrounds), and they promote all sorts of mass immigration because in their belief as long as the 90th percentile is fine then the country will also be fine which is sorta correct on paper until you realize that in countries like Denmark the low iQ immigrants are costing the country more than they contribute (welfare, police, etc).
>Isn't there also the issue that aristocratic marriages are generally matched by lineage and alliances and not abilities?
Yes, I thought about this as well. It makes the kingmaking process less efficient but I think usually the crowds who are tactically useful to marry each other with also tend to be well-bred (other royal families or high nobility) so it isn't going to completely negate the nigh-invincible selective privilege that a prince has.
>I also want to add that isn't the "cognitive class" of society generally quite "secluded" nowadays? [...]
Yes, definitely, which is why I emphasize the issue of "smart people are not good at democracy either" because they often just use their intelligence to justify believing the things most conducive to social and sexual success, when quality of life is good.
These college students only believe society depends on the top 10% in Banania's wet dreams, in reality they are ironically the most likely to deny the existence of a cognitive elite. You are 100% correct about what is going on in Denmark and also as a matter of fact what has been going on in America for decades. Alt Hype has a good video demonstrating the welfare deficit from minorities being not far from 1 Trillion$/yr
>Alt Hype has a good video demonstrating the welfare deficit from minorities being not far from 1 Trillion$/yr
I actually only happened to know this yesterday after looking at a chart of federal spending and its absolutely mind blowing that in 2016 , welfare made up 33% of the proposed spending budget. I never even knew they were that parasitic.
Also off-topic but for some reason the "moniker" Banania is rlly funny to me lol it reminds me of the putin banana meme
Democracy is a fleeting system in the grand scheme of things that just so happens to be paramount today. The democratic revolutions of the 18th & 19th centuries was merely the byproduct of the bourgeoisie overtaking the traditional feudal society by their new increased wealth, yet lacked political influence hence provided the means for revolution.
Democracy succeeded because it has been the most powerful nations (England & the US) to support it, and for the past 2 centuries by means of their industrial wealth & also size, been unchallenged. There was a challenge to the success of democracy as large autocratic states such as Germany & Japan industrialized and functioned successfully. And of course that challenge was met with WW2. But at the end of the day the allies were still larger, both demographically & with their colonial holdings. Democrats take the allies win in WW2 as proof of democratic success. But in reality Germany and Japan were truly successful and wealthy nations for their time.
Another reason democracy was seen as successful is the cold war but the USSR was obviously less industrialized and too poor to actually challenge the democratic/capitalist world. At the end of the day what settles global power is economic productivity and demographic weight.
Democracy (sort of) succeeded because Western nations eliminated its threats rather authoritatively with violence (such as WW2, the Cold War, colonization). But liberal democracy is a self weakening system. Low fertility, womens rights, allowing freedom in forms of degeneracy, letting “freedom of expression” for treasonous ideas and even politically supporting them, allowing parasitic behavior (from elites & poor). The decline in standards, religion, and family values, as well as societies respect and protection of it, is a result of too much freedom. This causes society to weaken and be susceptible to getting exploited and also sows seeds of self induced collapse. Democracy is a self defeating system and was meant to get conquered ,or collapse and give birth to a new autocratic/one party state. Its a transitionary government from the old feudal monarchy to a new modern corporate aristocracy. I would argue China actually succeeded in this because its govt gave up on communism and industrialized but continued as a one party state.
Lets not forget democracy FAILED in Germany because it failed to deal with its threats. Germany wasn’t England who was so powerful to be safe from outside influence. Soviet propaganda, stipulations by other nations, etc. the failures of democracy became more apparent then for Germans. For the English who couldn’t be challenged or influenced they wouldn’t understand......
That is until today. The Western world has declined in relative power and demographic size. It is susceptible to influence, migration, and other nations intentions. And it finally becomes apparent just how weak and terrible a system of democracy is in a more multi-polar world.
This is an excellent article that I was recently linked to in response to my own article on Monarchy. There are clearly fundamental flaws with the structure of modern democratic nations. I do not think that single-party rule via aristocracy would work because it misses a core moral feature. One thing that makes the modern age so difficult is the convergence of 2 problems in leadership: humanist morality and failed democratic statecraft. The latter is clearly outlined in your article, but the former is subtler.
If the population doesn't see there being a higher moral arbiter than the state (usually God historically) then the state becomes the sole moral arbiter. Good and evil are easily transformed into pro-state-policy and anti-state-policy. Materialistic religions like communism easily take advantage of this to leverage totalitarian control over the general populace. Without some type of founding myth requiring a higher moral arbiter than the state, a single-party-aristocracy is likely to fall apart to tyrannical rule. This is why I like monarchy; it requires some divine myth to legitimize the position of the monarch.
Very well done article. I'm probably more in favor of limited franchise democracy for the state and federal level as an American, but for the local I think more direct democratic measures could work since the people who are elected as Sheriff, Mayor, or Town Council are the people of that community and most people, should at least, know each other.
There is also a problem with the clear difference between the personalities of the Elite and the Plebeians, which Machiavelli described as Two Humors. One is spirited and dominant and adaptable and is willing to use extra-legal means to get what they wanted. They tends toward oppressing others. The Plebs are more lawful and productive and retiring, unless they are organized as the army and have legal institutions in which they can restrain the elite oppression. John McCormick went into detail on Machiavelli’s thought on the conflict between the two classes.
What do you think about the critique of democracy and parliament in Mein Kampf? It's been a while since I read it but iirc Hitler didn't like it beacuse a) It let people hide their responsibility behind a collective (not sure how relevant that is in the modern day) and b) parliament doesn't take into account that it's members have different specialisations. It has made me think that a technoracy-like government where a lot of the power is held by departaments would work
There is plenty of evidence, however, that the masses are not merely uneducated but largely incapable of this sort of political agency. I feel that this is by design. The people in high places don't want an intelligent citizenry and have spent 60 years dumbing down the people so that instead of thinking logically, they go with their feelings, like a bunch of children. That's why the idea of free stuff is so powerful. There is no logical thought that there is nothing free. Somebody must pay for it.
But it makes governance easier. If you can brainwash them young and keep them stupid, you have a built-in base of people who will always vote for you, even if it keeps them trapped.
They did it with the blacks with Section 8 housing and welfare.
They do it with Mexicans and people south of the border by not making them learn English and having documents in 8 different languages.
If you can keep each group separate and control what they hear, then you can control them.
You don't have to have an intelligent person who considers what's best for everybody, just someone who thinks about what's best for his tribe.
That's how you create a drone and bring down people.
How many people continue to wear masks today, even though COVID is gone?
How many will get the MPox vaccine, even though they don't participate in sex orgies?
How many people would willingly lock themselves down and rat on their friends and family?
>If you aren't willing to standby and defend your vote publicly, then you shouldn't be voting.
I can't in good conscience support this while I sit on my computer writing political essays under a pseudonym because my entire livelihood would be at risk if I wrote it under my personal identity. What I would support, however, is a voting system based entirely off of caucuses. This forces people to defend their political choices, but in a more private environment where they can't just be intimidated with outside life factors into voting a certain way or not voting at all
I have a principle I call the free market paradox. Which is that if a market has no government interference, a few corporations can consolidate power and bribe the government to impose regulations. If the government does interfere with the market, the biggest corporations will bribe the government to impose regulations that help the big corps. The only way to stop this is to create a class of people who are independent from the market, who have the power to regulate it. For most of history, this is the aristocracy/military or the clergy (in more religious societies). Democracy does not have this because politicians cannot gain popular support without campaign funds and media support. This is the fundamental failure of universal democracies. It's also why Hman gave so much power and parallel functions to the SS. They were meant to become pagan aristocrats who could break the influence of the German corporations and clergy.
If a government truly has no control over a market, then the government cannot be bribed into interfering with it.
The state will take up that power if the major corporate players support it, the politicians need to appease those players, and the people have some hope of receiving benefits from regulation. The US government wears the tattered hide of the commerce clause like the impenetrable Nemean lion. The Founders couldn't have conceived of this level of interference.
It’s not founders it’s founding fathers. Not one of those people at the decoration of independence was a woman. Give credit where it’s due and stop using government words. They are only there to confuse people and divide them. Don’t give into the system you’re making it worse. Don’t you understand that?!!
Sure but do you fail to recognize that you are not describing a government with no control over the free market?
How can a government not be capable of even gaining any power over the market? This is a government which first of all, would let monopolies run rampant and crush their opposition with aggressive and socially destructive tactics, and second must be incredibly rigid and weak. The market needs some regulation, it just can't be done by people who rely on the market as their source of power.
Army creates state creates market
The thing about your comment about land ownership, if the right to vote was tied to land ownership then certain talented people would prioritize becoming landowners in a way they aren't now.
That's a good point!
Yes, and the 19th amendment should be eradicated immediately
Based and Hoppepilled
"Intergenerational wealth is usually fleeting"
Got-damn truth right here. I know of a few direct forefathers of mine who were in some wealthy influential positions. I also know more than a few direct forefathers who were poor as shit. My father is building up wealth right now, and I am certain it will not make it to my generation unless he takes dire steps, and soon. Generations of my family have climbed up and fallen down the social ladder. It is a never-ending cycle of struggle, attainment, then laziness and loss.
On average it only lasts 2-3 generations from what I've heard.
The only way around that could be aristocracies I imagine.
I’m glad you are using words like forefathers instead of founders, which is a government word put out there as propaganda
>First of all, the royal line is a very well-maintained family, eugenically speaking. If the queen pops out a good amount of kids, one or two of them are bound to be quite gifted. The main problem that arises here, is succession.
Isn't there also the issue that aristocratic marriages are generally matched by lineage and alliances and not abilities?
I also want to add that isn't the "cognitive class" of society generally quite "secluded" nowadays? Especially in this increasingly cognitively stratified society you have these intelligent college students who seem to be oblivious to race problems in their countries because they live in their own relatively racially homogeneous bubbles (these students usually come from well off backgrounds), and they promote all sorts of mass immigration because in their belief as long as the 90th percentile is fine then the country will also be fine which is sorta correct on paper until you realize that in countries like Denmark the low iQ immigrants are costing the country more than they contribute (welfare, police, etc).
>Isn't there also the issue that aristocratic marriages are generally matched by lineage and alliances and not abilities?
Yes, I thought about this as well. It makes the kingmaking process less efficient but I think usually the crowds who are tactically useful to marry each other with also tend to be well-bred (other royal families or high nobility) so it isn't going to completely negate the nigh-invincible selective privilege that a prince has.
>I also want to add that isn't the "cognitive class" of society generally quite "secluded" nowadays? [...]
Yes, definitely, which is why I emphasize the issue of "smart people are not good at democracy either" because they often just use their intelligence to justify believing the things most conducive to social and sexual success, when quality of life is good.
These college students only believe society depends on the top 10% in Banania's wet dreams, in reality they are ironically the most likely to deny the existence of a cognitive elite. You are 100% correct about what is going on in Denmark and also as a matter of fact what has been going on in America for decades. Alt Hype has a good video demonstrating the welfare deficit from minorities being not far from 1 Trillion$/yr
>Alt Hype has a good video demonstrating the welfare deficit from minorities being not far from 1 Trillion$/yr
I actually only happened to know this yesterday after looking at a chart of federal spending and its absolutely mind blowing that in 2016 , welfare made up 33% of the proposed spending budget. I never even knew they were that parasitic.
Also off-topic but for some reason the "moniker" Banania is rlly funny to me lol it reminds me of the putin banana meme
Didnt even read yet 1000% agree
so true!
Democracy is a fleeting system in the grand scheme of things that just so happens to be paramount today. The democratic revolutions of the 18th & 19th centuries was merely the byproduct of the bourgeoisie overtaking the traditional feudal society by their new increased wealth, yet lacked political influence hence provided the means for revolution.
Democracy succeeded because it has been the most powerful nations (England & the US) to support it, and for the past 2 centuries by means of their industrial wealth & also size, been unchallenged. There was a challenge to the success of democracy as large autocratic states such as Germany & Japan industrialized and functioned successfully. And of course that challenge was met with WW2. But at the end of the day the allies were still larger, both demographically & with their colonial holdings. Democrats take the allies win in WW2 as proof of democratic success. But in reality Germany and Japan were truly successful and wealthy nations for their time.
Another reason democracy was seen as successful is the cold war but the USSR was obviously less industrialized and too poor to actually challenge the democratic/capitalist world. At the end of the day what settles global power is economic productivity and demographic weight.
Democracy (sort of) succeeded because Western nations eliminated its threats rather authoritatively with violence (such as WW2, the Cold War, colonization). But liberal democracy is a self weakening system. Low fertility, womens rights, allowing freedom in forms of degeneracy, letting “freedom of expression” for treasonous ideas and even politically supporting them, allowing parasitic behavior (from elites & poor). The decline in standards, religion, and family values, as well as societies respect and protection of it, is a result of too much freedom. This causes society to weaken and be susceptible to getting exploited and also sows seeds of self induced collapse. Democracy is a self defeating system and was meant to get conquered ,or collapse and give birth to a new autocratic/one party state. Its a transitionary government from the old feudal monarchy to a new modern corporate aristocracy. I would argue China actually succeeded in this because its govt gave up on communism and industrialized but continued as a one party state.
Lets not forget democracy FAILED in Germany because it failed to deal with its threats. Germany wasn’t England who was so powerful to be safe from outside influence. Soviet propaganda, stipulations by other nations, etc. the failures of democracy became more apparent then for Germans. For the English who couldn’t be challenged or influenced they wouldn’t understand......
That is until today. The Western world has declined in relative power and demographic size. It is susceptible to influence, migration, and other nations intentions. And it finally becomes apparent just how weak and terrible a system of democracy is in a more multi-polar world.
Exactly, you have a new follower!
This is an excellent article that I was recently linked to in response to my own article on Monarchy. There are clearly fundamental flaws with the structure of modern democratic nations. I do not think that single-party rule via aristocracy would work because it misses a core moral feature. One thing that makes the modern age so difficult is the convergence of 2 problems in leadership: humanist morality and failed democratic statecraft. The latter is clearly outlined in your article, but the former is subtler.
If the population doesn't see there being a higher moral arbiter than the state (usually God historically) then the state becomes the sole moral arbiter. Good and evil are easily transformed into pro-state-policy and anti-state-policy. Materialistic religions like communism easily take advantage of this to leverage totalitarian control over the general populace. Without some type of founding myth requiring a higher moral arbiter than the state, a single-party-aristocracy is likely to fall apart to tyrannical rule. This is why I like monarchy; it requires some divine myth to legitimize the position of the monarch.
I wrote an article on it: https://alwaysthehorizon.substack.com/p/a-reasoned-case-for-monarchy-return I'd be obliged if you'd give it a look and tell me what you think.
Very well done article. I'm probably more in favor of limited franchise democracy for the state and federal level as an American, but for the local I think more direct democratic measures could work since the people who are elected as Sheriff, Mayor, or Town Council are the people of that community and most people, should at least, know each other.
There is also a problem with the clear difference between the personalities of the Elite and the Plebeians, which Machiavelli described as Two Humors. One is spirited and dominant and adaptable and is willing to use extra-legal means to get what they wanted. They tends toward oppressing others. The Plebs are more lawful and productive and retiring, unless they are organized as the army and have legal institutions in which they can restrain the elite oppression. John McCormick went into detail on Machiavelli’s thought on the conflict between the two classes.
https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/8/2/237/700005?login=false
What do you think about the critique of democracy and parliament in Mein Kampf? It's been a while since I read it but iirc Hitler didn't like it beacuse a) It let people hide their responsibility behind a collective (not sure how relevant that is in the modern day) and b) parliament doesn't take into account that it's members have different specialisations. It has made me think that a technoracy-like government where a lot of the power is held by departaments would work
That’s an interesting observation
There is plenty of evidence, however, that the masses are not merely uneducated but largely incapable of this sort of political agency. I feel that this is by design. The people in high places don't want an intelligent citizenry and have spent 60 years dumbing down the people so that instead of thinking logically, they go with their feelings, like a bunch of children. That's why the idea of free stuff is so powerful. There is no logical thought that there is nothing free. Somebody must pay for it.
I don’t think it benefits the elite to have a retarded citizenry. Massively lowers profits
But it makes governance easier. If you can brainwash them young and keep them stupid, you have a built-in base of people who will always vote for you, even if it keeps them trapped.
They did it with the blacks with Section 8 housing and welfare.
They do it with Mexicans and people south of the border by not making them learn English and having documents in 8 different languages.
If you can keep each group separate and control what they hear, then you can control them.
You don't have to have an intelligent person who considers what's best for everybody, just someone who thinks about what's best for his tribe.
That's how you create a drone and bring down people.
How many people continue to wear masks today, even though COVID is gone?
How many will get the MPox vaccine, even though they don't participate in sex orgies?
How many people would willingly lock themselves down and rat on their friends and family?
>If you aren't willing to standby and defend your vote publicly, then you shouldn't be voting.
I can't in good conscience support this while I sit on my computer writing political essays under a pseudonym because my entire livelihood would be at risk if I wrote it under my personal identity. What I would support, however, is a voting system based entirely off of caucuses. This forces people to defend their political choices, but in a more private environment where they can't just be intimidated with outside life factors into voting a certain way or not voting at all
Secret vote also avoid the problem of being dominated by a strong personality.