Modern Citizenship Is Worthless. Here’s How To Really Make A Difference.

Most people don’t think politically. That’s because most people don’t have a polis—a city-municipality in which their progenitors had venerable roots. Those who do reside within a polis often do not qualify as citizens. In fact, 98% of the population today do not qualify as “citizens” using a historical definition.  Of course  most residents today are deemed citizens, so the result is that citizenship has become worthless.

Citizenship has no intrinsic rights and privileges. All are equal before the law. The city police will be as quick to taser a middle-class male as they would a ghetto thug or obese food-stamp mother of any race.  Instead of having value, citizenship has a number of liabilities—city taxes, fines, regulations, high cost of living in exchange for cramp spaces, traffic jams, littered parks and pot-holed streets.

Real citizenship in the classic sense of the word comes from being born into a family who resided in that city for at least fifty years, or who were part of an ethnic community entrenched in the city for about the same length of time.

Who Is A De-facto Citizen?

  • They often possess considerable real-estate around the historic districts and older suburbs, as well as the local cemeteries.
  • They often serve on the dozens of governmental and party committees and councils of whose existence hardly anyone is aware.
  • They have been involved in local unions, fire and police departments, hospitals, and other public organizations and institutions for decades, if not generations.
  • They hold power but do not vote, except as a gesture.

Today, anyone willingly to jump through the appropriate hoops can register to vote, which makes your vote worthless.  The lackadaisical turnout for municipal elections is proof of the fact that everyone knows in their subconscious minds that their vote is in fact worthless.

Go to your local precinct or ward polling place next election and observe the people who show up to vote—elderly women, some real-estate types, perhaps some small business owners who are supporting an insurgent candidate,  and the middle-aged lesbians. You won’t find anyone under forty-five voting for a city mayor or in city council elections.  Young people don’t vote. There are two classes of under-40 aged young people who are exceptions to this rule: those who have antecedents  from the politically oriented class of citizenry like the George P. Bushes of the world, and their lackies who aspire to become apart of the political class like the Paul Ryans of the world.

These two classes themselves are kept from assuming the reins of power—young men are effectively prohibited from gaining political or managerial power in our society without the prerequisite connections of birth.  And why not? Most young men, after all, are functional  idiots—by the classical definition of the word. We no longer train men to be citizens in school, and most are incapable of self-education in civic affairs.  Red pill men spend a great deal of time learning to develop their minds and bodies, to handle women, and business affairs, but they do not attend to politics. Libertarianism is a popular political philosophy among young white males because it allows them to rationalize their narcissism and effectively avoid history in the making.

So what’s the answer, if you’re a young man, business owner, family man, or individual who wants to put roots down in some city?

Prepare to make your city better.

To be politically effective, it’s not necessary to become involved in the politics of your area—instead you must  educate yourself to assume power. Read serious political works by real politicians. Start with the Greeks and stop at 1900. Learn the history and theory of municipal governance in the U.S. Study architecture and urban design. For hands-on training you can join a political party and serve in its ranks. Get to know the people in your ward. Work in the trenches, observe the party leadership, take notes, study their personalities and compare them and their methods to what you are learning in your own studies.

It’s not about party affiliation. If you’re a conservative red-pill male in a Democratic Party stronghold, join the Democratic Party. Become a precinct-committeeman. Spread your views in a neutral fashion. Most Democrats are only in the party for money, or out of ethnic loyalty. They may mouth liberal slogans, but watch how they live their lives, witness their dissatisfaction with the system, and then strike!

The Democrats were once a conservative party in the days of Al Smith.  Like any political party it can switch ideologies at will. Politics is not about ideology. It is about the long term good of the city. Think about how you can turn your city into an affluent powerhouse of industry and culture that is both clean and pleasant to live in. Use Singapore and Hong-Kong for models.

Party politics has become a feminine preoccupation in the U.S. Treat the young women you meet no more seriously than you have to, but not flippantly. Act as if you were assisting your cousin the Girl Scout earnestly intent on earning her merit badge. Politically minded young women are usually wall flowers and plain janes, but in terms of pickup, they are safe, sane, convenient and discreet. Treat them like the serious and mature children they are.

Remember, it’s all game, except for the education part. Ask Alinsky,  “Why do we organize?” Power. Kings are Sovereigns. You can’t be one without power.

Read More: The Strong Do What They Can, And The Weak Suffer What They Must

125 thoughts on “Modern Citizenship Is Worthless. Here’s How To Really Make A Difference.”

    18 year old and doing exactly what you say young people don’t since he was 12.

  2. Young people do vote, but vote irresponsibly. Most support the most popular candidate, or the one is so far out there that he/she sings to them. Politicians go to great lengths to annoy the crap out of you, only to support lofty ideals those with half a brain can see through. The problem is most of those are spinning hamsters, spitting out polity rhetoric that lacks common sense and factual insight. The day we reeducate ourselves and look at the world realistically is the day these Levithans are slain. But as it stands, politics is just a game of deceit.

    1. Politics is always a game of deceit and politicians/bureaucrats will never tell you the truth. The best political systems are ones that use the “dirty” aspects of politics as fuel for the nation to get stronger. If you rely on politicians/bureaucrats doing the right thing, you’ve got a really shitty political system.

  3. Today, anyone willingly to jump through the appropriate hoops can register to vote, which makes your vote worthless. The lackadaisical turnout for municipal elections is proof of the fact that everyone knows in their subconscious minds that their vote is in fact worthless.
    The more people who believe this, the less true it is, and the more any single vote counts.

    1. Even if only 100 people show up to vote in an election, the odds of your vote being a deciding vote is infinitely small. Voting is the most irrational waste of time imaginable. You literally have a better chance of winning the lottery and being struck by lightening on the same day then you have of your vote ever counting.

      1. Voting is the most irrational waste of time imaginable
        Not necessarily, especially if you’re a highly informed voter and most other voters aren’t; see, for example, Bryan Caplan’s book The Myth of the Rational Voter for greater detail.

        1. What does being highly informed have to do with anything? All votes count the same. And, unless your vote is THE deciding vote in an election (which is essentially a mathematical impossibility) your vote will never have any impact on the outcome of an election.
          I can’t think of anything more irrational than wasting gas by driving to a polling station and standing in line to cast a ballot that will never have any impact on who gets elected. You might as well fill out your own ballot at home and file it away in the trash can; it will have the same effect.

        2. I have read the book. It was a text for a law and policy class I took in law school. It has nothing to do with the point we’re arguing and does not make the argument you are suggesting it does. In fact, my adjunct professor for that class (who was a state representative, btw) taught us that voting was an irrational act and that your vote would never make a difference in any election — a pretty un-debatable fact that you, for some reason, are debating.

        3. whatever the book says it cannot discredit the statistical logic that a vote is insignificant in determining the outcome to the point of being a waste of time for the individual – don’t really see how there is any arguing against this.

  4. Except for the fact that most of us here want to get the fuck out of this country. Not “take root” in one of its forlorn feminist-infected hellholes. Good article otherwise.

  5. Making money in many industries requires being flexible and capable of relocation to other cities if not other countries. Limiting oneself to one city is not going to be in most successful people’s best interests.

  6. Thank you for reinforcing my decision to be a libertarian because otherwise I would be following blind power hungry pragmatists into a ditch. Really solid ad hominem against libertarians by the way. Better avoid actually confronting libertarian philosophy. I will definitely be avoiding history in the making because unlike u I know american politics has nothing to do with the long term good of any city. I would love to see ur explanation of how party politics could turn a city into a great place to live. What America r u living in? Have u talked to a democrat who actually holds real power? Fed up with the system? They are the system! No, Moral People should focus on creating wealth in the private sector in spite of sociopaths who are confiscating property and discouraging industry for their own gain and that of their friends as slimy and corrupt politicians. But yeah I’m the narcissist, not the people who want to be their name to be etched into history as they help run this country into the ground. Statism is organized crime, plain and simple.

    1. Great comment, Toby. This post articulates the reasons to avoid statists.
      Who Is A De Facto Statist?
      > They often possess considerably large opinions of themselves and seek to force other people to finance their pet liberty-destroying projects.
      > They often serve on the dozens of governmental and party committees and councils of whose existence hardly anyone is aware.
      > They seek to extract resources from other men by occupying local unions, fire and police departments, hospitals, and other public organizations and institutions for decades, if not generations.
      > They hold unearned power but need not vote, except as a gesture to fool people into supporting statism.
      > They are control freaks who only seize dictatorial power because it’s for our own good.
      > They hate free men and anyone who does not want to control others.
      > They are predominantly female or female-like; they need big brother because they have no individual strength so they must gang up on the strong to counter their weakness.
      What’s better than statism? Classical liberalism and the concept of phyles. According to Doug Casey, phyles are the future:
      “a phyle is a group of people that’s self-defined by whatever values they share. A phyle is not limited by race or language or geography – or, most importantly, by borders on maps or other such fictions – although it could be, if its members chose to be so limited. The word phyle was coined by science fiction author Neal Stephenson in his masterwork, The Diamond Age. It comes from the Greek, φυλή which means “tribe” or “clan.”But it would be at least as apt if they were called philes, stemming from the Greek word philia, which means “love”– the same root in the word “philosophy”. The basic idea is that man is a social animal, and we tend to prefer to run with others who are like us – or who love what we love. Birds of a feather flock together, in either case.”
      The manosphere is like a phyle. We share interests but we are worldwide, run across cultures and borders, and refuse to be limited by statists. And, before anyone starts running their mouth about race and whatnot, I am black and support all my brothers regardless of race or creed or nationality.

    2. Libertarianism is same as communism – great in theory, doesn’t serve people in practice.

      1. America used to be pretty libertarian when they were settling the West. Not that I am a libertarian.

        1. When they were settling west, hunting, logging, trade and mining were primary sources of income for a common man. West didn’t become more then a backwater until the rise of Los Angeles and California.
          As much as we like to idealize days of pioneering, it’s industrial might of the north that built America.

        2. I know, which is why I’m not a libertarian. I don’t think a libertarian way of government will destroy society like communism though.

        3. Well, libertarian policies are quite unpopular and that seems to be enough today. As much as welfare state is criticized here, it appears more convenient for both ruling classes and common men. Ruling classes don’t mind spending couple of pennies to keep people calm, with their faces stuck in TV.
          Free market creates antagonisms, and with it comes violence, crime, class-consciousness etc.
          With reformed capitalism we have today in the west, successful and ambitious still find the way to the top, while hamster-mentality masses work for the state.
          Main problem of whole concept is, it is quite difficult for people to move vertically in wealth ladder. With big taxes, middle class families cannot advance to upper classes. Also, rulers tend to be politicians and careerists, rather then rich people. Ofc, those who are already wealthy, simple defend their positions and use politicians as they see fit, which then again, creates monopoly. Sound familiar ?
          So indeed welfare state favors single men.

        4. All I will say is that America has nothing close to a free market economy. Again I shouldn’t even have to say this, it’s so obvious even Michael Moore conceded the point. Anyways when you say the free market causes violence, crime, class consciousness? I think that last one you meant class warfare? Anyways, the free market could not possibly cause violence because it is mutual exchange, no force, no fraud. The state on the other hand is a territorial monopoly of violence. An increase in crime is completely insignificant when discussing the market because…I am so tired explaining such simple definitions. Lastly, what could possibly cause more class warfare than a statist system that has people compete through special interests, lobbying, democratic politics for violently confiscated resources? Not to mention what could be more chaotic and unsustainable? Is it any wonder why the us government has accumulated far more debt than other government ever?

        5. Look, i can basically agree with everything you say here, at least in theory. Yes, state is territorial monopoly of violence. But if you had no territory, and no monopoly, you would still have people imposing stuff using violence.
          You are tired of explaining definitions – we’ll that is the problem, statistics beat definitions. Real life beats definitions. When liberation of economy in certain country brings increase in crime rate, then you can pretty much wipe your rear end with definitions.
          And I’m not talking about libertarianism, but all ideologies. Ideologies are shit. Pragmatism i appreciate.

        6. So how come whenever facts counter libertarian principles, all of them become enraged and start labeling everything that moves as “communist” or ‘socialist”.
          Whenever people appreciate ideas more than facts, that sounds like ideology to me.

        7. You have no statistics! You know how I know that? Because you haven’t brought up one statistic! Rather you have been vomiting undefined terms and under-developed thoughts onto your computer screen. And guess what? Every position in the universe has stats! Is every position correct? No, without developing a theory through apriori reasoning under which to investigate history, truth will elude you. The humiliating part is that you yourself are operating under false assumptions to interpret stats, even though you haven’t stated any. By saying “all ideology is shit”, a very well-worded counter-point, you are stating an idea which you still haven’t proved. Now what do we call that?…um…oh yeah ideology! By saying “free market causes bad things” you are operating under the apriori assumption that there is a cause-effect relationship there, which I agree with. However you are completely wrong in your conclusion because you are missing all the other important “first principles” I have been spoon-feeding to you. You have your work cut out for you kid. Good luck. And this isn’t ideology I’m employing to destroy u, it’s logic and reason. Very unfamiliar and scary but it’s good for you.

        8. No, i have not stated facts, because i have not been dealing with any yet in this conversation. I was talking that libertarians are also prone to dismissing facts as not important when they see fit.
          I have not yet stated any ideas here. I have stated observations. If i need repeat it again i shall – libertarianism does not work. How do i know that ? I don’t see it anywhere going on. Good luck with finding me by-the-book example of libertarian society.
          If you are going to claim now that “it will work if we implement those ideas the right way !”, i will also respond with “that’s what communists used to say”

        9. I can’t comment on your own specific run-ins with libertarians and why “all of them” supposedly became “enraged”. I wasn’t there. You’re certainly free to form whatever opinions you want based on those experiences. I just wanted to make sure that anyone else reading this discussion understands that libertarianism is actually a philosophy, and any opinions to the contrary is just that … opinions.

        10. Well, i would not label it as philosophy, cause people who declare themselves as libertarians, certainly have political aims, and certainly argue for political changes, and most importantly, can clearly mark their political opponents

        11. Free market actually PREVENTS antagonism. Trade spreads ideas and understanding and intertwines people. You dont kill the guy you buy stuff from, you kill the strange people who you dont know much about.

      2. Depends on what government you’re talking about. Libertarianism is what the Constitution dictates for the US Federal Government. The further down the ladder you go, the best form of government will depend on the character of the people in each state or city. Libertarianism at the city level does not work out all that well, but is a must at the federal level.

        1. Libertarianism has flaws already when you start with theory, let alone practice. Basically, libertarianism evolves continuously into an economical market entity that will be able to work without humans at all. Question is rather simple – what happens when humans become too expensive for market ? Then according to libertarianism, it should not be prevented to get rid of them and employ machines to serve it’s needs.
          Economy that doesn’t have man in it’s center is worthless and dangerous.
          Mankind of course, will never find the “perfect” economical model. Economical perpetuum mobile is too far away from a flawed modern man . We can only improve, claims of libertarians that with free market comes “end of history” is simply ignorant.

        2. I have often thought the same thing after being a huge fan of libertarianism. It’s logical progression is a world devoid of human capital but the same can be said of communism. The end result is that the machines will create and maintain the machines at which point we are “free” from servitude. But then what… I think it would highly dystopic world where humans are slaves to their own hedonism. Because all wants are satisfied.

        3. Both libertarianism and communism claim that free market/communism are “an end and new beginning” to development of human kind, meaning formation of production forces is over.
          As we research into these theories we realize they come to that conclusion because they both have paradoxical assumptions.
          Free market economists say one must not intervene into market. The question is – so how did market come to be in the first place ? According to them, market is like god – it has existed since ever, and will exist forever.
          Communists say, class societies change as material conditions change. Question is – so how didn’t people got rid of class society the first time they became “class conscious” ? How come people will get rid of capitalism via class consciousness but they didn’t manage to get rid of previous societies.

        4. 1)It’s embarrassing that I have to explain this to you but the “market” is nothing more than a large number of mutual exchanges between people, so when you say the “market” will get rid of humans and employ machines as if its a non-human entity you display your ignorance.
          2) What incentive would producers have to use only machines rendering all humans unemployed if then those unemployed humans have no disposable income to buy their products or services? There is no such flaw in the theory.
          3) I have never in all my years of studying libertarian theory (which is clearly a lot more than you) heard a libertarian make the “end of history” claim. They all criticize that claim made by statists.
          4) Libertarianism is not an economic model because there is no central planning. It is simply the acknowledgement that if the natural rights of life, liberty, and property (which the state claims to defend) exist, then the compulsory state cannot be morally or philosophically justified.

        5. What parallels are you drawing between communism and libertarianism? Your post was completely incoherent as if you threw a bunch of marxist ideas together and used that as an argument against libertarianism. What libertarian employed Marx’s class theory and theory of material productive forces? No, classical liberalism was the first to identify two classes in society long before Marx, the political criminal class who exploit the productive class. Furthermore, classical liberals completely destroyed Marx’s theories including Ludwig Von mises, the father of libertarianism. You should really read up on all this because it sounds like you are in way over your head. Again you are treating the market as if its a non-human entity and then projecting that ridiculous definition onto libertarians. The market is trade and if you understand comparative advantage and division of labor you would understand that trade is always beneficial and therefore began as soon as humans realized this. The state began when enough resources were accumulated through trade and the forming of communities that violent conquest became a viable option for some, aided by religion no doubt.

        6. 1) Economy isn’t based only on exchanges. There is also production.
          2) Who said anything about buying or selling ?
          3) Fukuyama did.
          4) Who said that liberty, property and life are natural rights ? I didn’t see in any mammals but humans, that nature guarantees life, liberty or property. Actually it guarantees opposite – death, roles, and lack of property.
          So as with every other ideas, liberty, property and life is what people guarantee to themselves – by using legitimate force – state.

        7. I’m not paralleling them as similar, I’m merely comparing them. Libertarians say trade must be protected from state, communists say workers must be protected from trade. Both claim same thing, that one will prevail over the other as ultimate solution for economy in human kind.
          Both claim people can take certain rights for granted, but i claim people can take shit for granted. Whatever right we claimed, we claimed that with weapons since the ages when first guy learned how to make a club and clubbed the shit out of fellow caveman.

        8. You’re confusing “rights” with “guarantees”. While the formal acknowledgement of the right to life, property, etc. is unique to the human species (for obvious reasons; no Cactus or Cockroach has ever penned a Bill of Rights), most of the natural world is in fact hard at work establishing the same rights in other, less formal, ways. For example, virtually all living organisms are biologically hard-wired to survive (in other words, NOT die, or live). It is the very basis of evolutionary science. What is evolution then, if not natures way of establishing a natural “right” to life across all species?”

        9. Well truth is, they are NOT unique to human species, since they are deemed as rights only for the last 200 years or so. We had slavery (which was considered perfectly normal) more than we had liberties.
          Sometimes it was considered natural for a serf to serve his lord. It was considered also god given and “unique” to humans and guess what – it was considered “civilized”.
          Savages that lived in hunting communities in Africa and Southeast Asia were considered primitive. So, it was material goods, not society that determined how “civilized” people are.

        10. 1) you can only exchange something if you produce it, good or service.
          2) this is such a bizarre statement when we are discussing the market
          3) never heard of him, not exactly the voice of libertarianism, either way it’s irrelevant
          4) and now it’s time to destroy you. By engaging in argumentation you are affirming you own yourself. With ownership comes rights. If you disagree you are contradicting yourself. Mammals? You are drowning in a sea of retardation so let me throw you a life preserver. Humans are not guided by some Nietzschean “might makes right”mentality. How could I prove this? Because if all of us were discussing this is in person, we would take it completely for granted that we would all deal with each other non-violently. If someone became violent over this discussion, the group would label that person a psychopath and no longer exchange anything with them. This dynamic exists in a myriad of exchanges without the state, with the state this psychopath could become a demagogue and use the political system to violently impose their will on others. So the state is not a solution but exponentially exacerbates this problem of evil. Look at the hundreds of millions of democides committed in twentieth century. Further proof that most humans have a general concern for each other is the fact that any American politician worth his salt knows how to use “common good” and “general welfare” arguments to get the majority on his side. The first argument that a statist demagogue throws at a principled libertarian is that “people would starve” or “sick people would die in the streets!” This is clearly a false accusation but it works every time because it brings forth haunting images to most people’s minds and they get on board with horrible welfare programs like obamacare. Lastly, by people making ridiculous statements like “pragmatism is the only way” they are stating a principle and are contradicting themselves.

        11. How many people do you know who when you ask them “is slavery wrong?” They would answer “it depends”. No most people have come to accept the principle that people own themselves. This is not political pragmatism, it’s an acknowledgement of natural rights! What I am putting forth is that if people can see the horrors of slavery and be moved to follow the logic of self ownership to the peaceful abolishment of slavery in every nation (except US and Haiti) and also see this as economically expedient, surely people can see the horrors of statism and be moved to completely follow the logic of self ownership and abolish the coercive state and see this as economically expedient. So just take the red pill already. But don’t worry, if you disagree, I won’t put a gun to your head and force you! That’s the difference between us and them.

        12. Hey, you are not being fair there. You are talking about past relations, so you mention slavery. How many people in future will tell when you ask them “is democracy wrong ?”, or “is free market wrong?” yes ? That we don’t know.
          That’s why i am saying we shouldn’t take anything as “natural”. What is right and what is wrong has changed thru history and one needs really strong arguments to convince me it won’t change anymore.

        13. 1) Let’s not pretend that we don’t know who earns vast reward today. It’s those who sell ofc, not those who produce
          2) Economy does not need to sell anything if it is sustainable. Free market sells stuff because it want’s to sustain itself. If market owns all production, then it doesn’t need work force, when it does not need workforce, it doesn’t need anyone to sell them anything. Now this sounds surrealist, but that is the point. According to libertarians, it is perfectly justifiable one day that market get’s rid of people and employ robots to sustain future economy, in which accent will be on producing stuff needed for expansion and maintenance of robots. Cause robots will not need either food, or clothes – they would be more economical.
          Isn’t that same what you said about state – that it isn’t economical ? Well, so aren’t humans.
          3) Google is your friend. He is by no means Anonymous
          4) Principles is not same as ideologies. Principles guide you, ideology imposes.
          As i already said, free speech is relative and recent. If you said 500 years ago in Europe that Jesus does not exist you would be burned at stake. Or denounced any part of dogma. Sounds like overreaction ? Well, it did not back then.
          So just because free market is “right thing” does not mean someone will sit by and watch free market going on without intervening – with violence, or whatever necessary to make things go his way

        14. Funny. Animals mark their territory, and are possessive of physical things. I think thats called property. They also tend not to kill their own kind, and generally only kill for food.

        15. The Marxist view of feudalism that pollutes modern historiography is generally false. Serfs and peasants enjoy perhaps more freedom then today. They had actual direct say in who their lords were. A group of peasants could switch allegiances and taxation actually resulted in protection, unlike today.

        16. By this logic, one can boil anything down to the same fundamentals. That doesnt make everything the same.

        17. Every political idea on earth has one thing in common – they all define justice as their basic principle. And there lies the problem. Justice is obviously something that is more of an ideal than reality that we can sight and that seems close to our reach.
          Hence, i hate it when anybody, including libertarians, claim that they will certainly reach ultimate justice.

        18. I think you should read more about socio-economical relations for example during 100 years war era. Back then, laws were such that peasant was literally a slave. All in all, slave had very little ways to determine his market value, since whenever situation was in his favor (manpower shortage during plague) state intervened on the side of feudals to keep them at minimal wages.

        19. Property is, in such confined place that earth is, a zero-sum game. Yes, value can indeed be created, but it can also be destroyed. So while to an animal, earth seems like a never-ending endless sea of space that he will never exhaust, to a human, from day one Earth is very well known and explored. He can already see his ultimate reach. Therefore he starts thinking and planning. He cannot use animal logic, because animals know nothing about resources. Animal’s world is world of renewable energy, renewable life, renewable territories, nothing seems like it will simply vanish.

        20. And they can only “own” their property through their own strength, cunning and violence. The same is true as humans, so we use laws and a legal system, and now a state, to keep the status quo without violence and to change the status quo without violence. Or with less violence anyway.

      3. That is completely illogical. A philosophy based on serving people in their actual wants and needs cant not serve people in practice. Its communism and statism that is delusional—great in theory, but doesnt serve anyone but select groups in practice.

        1. In your theory, only buyers have wants and needs. In reality, those who sell also have their wants and needs. Libertarianism does not want to acknowledge it. They don’t want to acknowledge that today, sellers have upper hand.

    3. I’m a libertarian too, Toby, but faaaark. Pragmatism trumps ideology in the real world every time. It just so happens that libertarianism in practice is the most effective and prosperous system of organisation. But you still have to be pragmatic

    4. thank you! the author lost me when he mentioned unions and controlling other people around you. unions = corruption in most areas

    5. Ethnicity>People>Nation>State.
      Citizenship is just piece of paper, blood and soil is what matters.
      White man could have Japanese citizenship, but he would never be Japanese, ethnically nor racially.

  7. Sorry, but this article is not up to the standards of ROK. It is disjointed and lacking a thesis.

    1. Agreed. The first half of the article was engaging but the last half is a mess and just doesn’t work.

  8. “Party politics has become a feminine preoccupation in the U.S”
    That’s why I don’t engage in worthless debates in the political domain.
    James brown said, “this is a man’s world.”
    Barack Obama said,
    “NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 2010 as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. ”
    (FYI… NBCAM was founded in 1985, 25 years before he garners praise and steals the spotlight by just proclaiming something that already exists, the same way my a woman feels like she’s accomplished something by just talking about it)

  9. Please — local politicians are figureheads. They work for the developers. The developers own the real estate. The government then makes land valuable by taxing everyone to subsidize the construction projects (roads, utilities, use restrictions). Local government also helps suppress the upstarts who dare try to play the game without kicking their tributes up the chain. Pay to play. It’s a racket.
    On a national scale, this land use racket becomes the oil industry — the layout of modern “cities” creates energy demand. Along with medicine and banking and war, the energy industry owns the US government.

  10. Yep, democrats are all about citizenship and making their cities better. Just look at Detroit, Los Angeles and Stockton Ca. And lets not forget to watch how well New York city will be doing in the coming years, it is going to be a fucking utopia.

    1. The racial makeup of those cities is a confounding factor. Democrats in MA, VT, IA, MN, etc are annoying but at least they don’t run their respective States into the ground.

        1. Yeah and the first American pilgrims are a great example of that…oh wait, many starved to death and they abandoned communal property.

        2. Yeah and the first American pilgrims are a great example of that…oh wait, many starved to death and they abandoned communal property.

    2. I am not a Dem and never will be. But in fairness, their are a lot of Dem states that are very nice- WA, OR, VA,NH. It is not the Dems that destroyed Detroit, LA or Oakland. It is the 3/5 human farm equipment.

  11. This article may fly over the heads of atomized and frustrated people in corrupt cities and oversized political bodies. But if you live in a small community of decent people it actually can be worthwhile to get involved in politics.

  12. Voting unfortunately is just an instrument used to appease the masses. True power was never acquired through a vote. Why do you think the popular vote does not elect the President of the United States , but the electoral vote. No wise person would put true decision making powers in the hands of the mob. But give them an illusion of power, make the mob feel important. Win the mob, manipulate the mob and you show your enemies and allies the sway you have in the world. There is nothing more dangerous than a charismatic orator. Power, true power is seldom displayed for the masses to see. Everything of worth is done behind closed doors.

  13. ” Politics is not about ideology. It is about the long term good of the city.”
    Wrong about the first and delusional with regards to the second.
    Politics ,Government,the State:the biggest blue pill is to still believe in such things.

    1. Based on what I’ve learned, politics is the means of acquiring, wielding and maintaining power, for the long term benefit of your family and by extension your city. The city part is less relevant in urban America due to the mobility of our society, but still holds true in most places. What are you getting at with your “blue pill” statement?

      1. “What are you getting at with your “blue pill” statement?”
        In the Matrix, the Blue pill was a choice for Neo to continue in a world of make believe,a false reality.A grand facade whose underlying purpose is to harvest humans.
        It aptly pertains to the State and its minions.The State is the great parasite which promotes itself as a force of good,when its net achievement is precisely the opposite.If you believe in Human freedom and prosperity then Government is inherently built to antagonize that.Good Government is an oxymoron.
        Every ailment in society is either prolonged or enforced by Government.Feminism,Marxism,Multiculturalism,Female Chauvinism,The Beta Male,the rise in marriage breakups,the rise in frivolous abortions,Obesity,Single mothers,Teen Unemployment,household debt (and every economic calamity),decline in education at the school level,ascending of drivel degrees and their graduates at the University level,prolonged and unnecessary wars.Really the list is just too long.
        By the way,you don’t even have to be a libertarian to acknowledge this (I’m not one,per se).

        1. I agree with all of these things, but outside of anarchic situations, there is always some kind of social order that usually takes the form of a government. Depending on the ambitions of a particular oligarchy, the population will benefit or suffer in a variety of ways. Of course politics, “the State” and governments exist, but they are platforms for conflict between competing oligarchies, rather than expressions of popular sentiment.

  14. This reminds me of the UAE. Each Emirate only grants citizenship to Arabs with ancestry from the Emirate. If you don’t have Emirati ancestry, you cannot be granted citizenship, even if you’ve lived there your whole life or have been born there. No taxes and you get political and economic privileges. (Emirati citizens are the only ones who can collect any welfare.)
    I used to hate it but slowly and grudgingly realized that it was a great system, created by the people of the land for the people of the land. It worked really well too – never did see an Arab Spring in the UAE, did we?

  15. Politics is a game of petty bullshit. Politics is never about what is good or right. The best political systems are the ones that are able use the political bullshit as fuel. The most important part of a nation’s success is within the ability of its institutions to have robust mechanisms to correct mistakes and in the political system’s ability to try all sorts of different policies until one works. Any system that can’t handle an idiot in charge or requires politics to be working for good is a bad system.

  16. Singapore and Hong Kong are terrible cities to live; with minimum park space and a tonne of shopping malls. People packed together and polution. Boring! The rest of the article was pleasantly satisfying.

  17. Naaa. I’ll just enjoy the decline of this once great empire. The Liberal scum (Hey “Brotha wolf” were you at) loves the fact that the latinos will over take the whites by the end on this century. It is wrong, for some reason, to say that I want America to be a white, English only country and bar enter to 3rd world theist.
    Ohhh well, I’m a 31 year old white man with no kids and a vasectomy. I am a ‘Last Generation’ American. The twilight of this once great empire will correspond with the twilight of my life. Nothing could make my happier. Let the shit-skin Illegals and their Anchor rats turn this country into the same 3rd world shithole that they where spawned in. What White Man’s country will they invade after they have devoured the US?
    I’ll laugh when lil Jose and Marrrrria are hoping that China founds UNICEF well enough to deliver food aid to the “Estados Unitos”.
    “Diversity” is cancer

    “With MY Last breath, I shall bare witness to the end of days.

  18. The US is not a Democratically Elected Republic
    I can prove it in one word: Immigration. At no point in this country’s history would the citizens have voted for any immigration with a 51%+ majority.
    Not today with Mexicans and other assorted filth
    Not 100 years ago with the Irish and Italians
    Not 120 years ago with the Chinese
    Not in Ben Franklin’s day with the Germans
    “Diversity” and “Multiculturalism” benefits the corporate owning class. Read Sinclair ‘s “The Jungle”.
    Now ask the liberals what Australia’s (92% White, 7$ Eastern Asian) minimum wage is currently. ($21 Au)

    1. Are you from Australia? I don’t think the census really depicts the levels off mass immigration of cheap labor to this country. Minimum wage is a lot less for U21 but the country will eventually be run into bankruptcy. The hipsters have no idea how to run a country. Only hope is that China invades for the resources. This country is the most highly sensitised to racism. It’s like your born with original sin if your white. Everyone that you gain is said to be at the expense of other races. It’s mind boggling!

        1. Yeh, I’m Aussi. They want you to think that but realistically that’s all for show. They just fly “refugees in” put it this way Australia has 20 million people in 35 years they want to have 65 million people. White people birth rate is 1.5. The maths doesn’t really add up.

        2. *also if you have European heritage it’s virtually impossible to become a citizen when any Brit with 10 pounds use to get a house.

        3. Who is responsible for that? Is anyone speaking out? I doubt anyone ever voted for it. I guess the shit-colored sub-humans will destroy Australia just like the US and the EU.
          Yugoslavia is the future of the US. Time to make sure my NRA dues are paid up.

        4. Plenty of people vote for it. People handed their guns in after the port arthur massacre ASAP. People in this country are guilted from birth. And are fed brainwashed lyrics that this is the land where we can open the borders. The reason for PNG was that people from India where hopping on rafts and coming here and many died so it was seen as a deterrent strategy and won easy votes but they fly many more in. Search cronulla riots after 20 years of immigration we have had race riots. This country will look like Iraq in 75 years.

        5. Sorry to hear that. I was in AU in 2011 the most beautiful women I’ve ever seen and everyone was nice. It was lovely. I served with Aussie troops in Taji. I consider Australia a ‘brother country’.
          I guess the “Dark Ages 2.0” will refer to the color of the populous. Japan and South Korea will be the only 1st world countries left.

        6. I hear Korea is having problems with immigration too. Japan stops all immigration. Yes, depending on where you are the women are good looking but they pile on the weight. Yes, after going to the US I consider you to be a brother country with a similar historical narrative but now they want to link Aus to china and Indonesia

        7. I lived in S.Korea for 2 years with the army. From what I saw, the few immigrants were Filipino slaves with no rights. And that was only in Seoul. The only non Koreans I saw in other parts of the Country where US Soldiers and English teachers.
          Nothing scientific… just my observations.

        8. Read Christopher hitchens article on Islam in Serbia. Basically states that the Serbians couldn’t outbreed the Bosnian Muslims so the only logical way they could preserve their identity was through a culling process.

        9. Yup. The most popular baby name in Yugoslavia was “Mohammad”. The most popular baby name in today’s EU is “Mohammad”. The most popular baby names in the US is “Jose”.
          The future will be… interesting.

        10. Sure will be! I think civil war is really the only answer. France has 75% tax rate and everything is free yet the Muslims still burn the cars. Look at the London riots. I’m certain there will be a civil war in a lot of the world unless the Chinese( certainly Fascist) take control of the situation by creating an Empire. I know which side I will fight for and it’s not the side of the left wing loons who bought this on themselves. I will only protect my own and hopefully watch the left wingers get thrown in the pit!

        11. * history has always shown the military and police in the end side with those that value strength through hard work and leadership – as thats what pays their bills-good luck to those that cherish the welfare state.

        12. Yeh people did speak out Pauline Hanson she was kicked out of what would be our version of the right wing party and then formed her own party that was blacklisted because its funding structure wasn’t set up properly but when it first started she gained huge fan following. Unfortunately she is highly inarticulate similar to Sarah Palin. The left wing were caught a bit by surprise and have lost a few elections based on immigration but are gaining lots of strength brandishing anyone who is against it as xenophobic or racist. Which really only leaves neo-nazi groups and inarticulate Bogans against immigration. Which feeds the public perception that only idiots are against multiculturalism.

  19. If you study history you’ll see this country was founded on liberal ideas aka libertarian. Only a blue pill man would join the Democrat party unless he was full on Machiavellian. This article sucks. Democrat party is the party of feminism.

    1. I agree. I see what the author is trying to suggest: he is suggesting that, if you’re in a predominantly democratic area, if you join the republicans, you’re never going to get into power anyway. But the problem with that is, unless you are able to convince everyone in the democrat party that you’re a left-wing socialist-marxist and a feminist, well you’re never going to get into power being a democrat either.

  20. Amazing article and I’ve been saying something similiar for a few years now. There should be a legal distinction between citizens and non-citizens. Rights and privileges that are unique to citizens. Most successful civilizations have done so.

  21. This article is moronic college kid bullshit.
    Liberty is rising. Statism is on its last legs. Get ready.

    1. Considering the efforts being made for internet censorship and the entrenching of the leftoid elites, as well as the statist republicans, one can just as easily come to the conclusion that liberty is dying, and statism and slavery are the future. After all, are not the idiots that make up the majority of the deluded, unwashed, ignorant masses marching head first and arms open into a willing, global enslavement? Make no mistake, just because the statist regimes are bankrupt, does not mean that they can’t keep the scam going indefinitely. After all… We only need the road to serfdom. Just a little more freedoms taken, just a few pennies more on inflation, just a little more debt, just more printed money. Next thing you know, you’re wondering why the cost of living is so high, and wages haven’t increased in 50 years, but you don’t mind, you take your state-mandated antidepressant, then drink from the spiked water supply, and go about your life. Welcome to the future, how grand it is, how brave our new world. And the worst part of it is, we won’t even care enough to whine about it on the internet.

  22. Do you practice any of this stuff yourself?
    Care to give a experiential breakdown of how you went about it? Feel free to leave out personal details.

    1. Yes, I do. But considering the response to this piece, it’s not worth my time to do it for free.

  23. I don’t vote for the same reason that Jimmy Wales doesn’t vote:
    A friend of mine discovered how easily residence details could be found because of voting records — several national and international media journos (rhymes with urinals, serves the same purpose) descended on the actual residence on record.
    My “residence” is a mail receiving agency whose “residence” address on file happens to be that of a solicitor. Usually finding the solicitor warns off any would-be investigators by letting them know we’re not fucking about.
    Otherwise, voting is overrated.
    I prefer to buy my politicians outright or to work with others to employ the “Putin doctrine” — if you can’t influence the politicians with money, perhaps you can influence them by using the power of scandal.
    I’d buy some of you voters outright as well if someone would establish a legal marketplace for that, but I suspect many of you value your vote highly instead of valuing it as cheaply as it should be regarded …
    Then again, I prefer to be in the business of political reality.

  24. This article isn’t about how to become a citizen but how to become a mobster / warlord in a de facto medieval or fourth world environment.

Comments are closed.