Evidence For Blue Pill Brain Damage Puts Modern Democracy Into Question

Democracy is widely accepted as being the fairest political system. Anyone who dares question its legitimacy is usually cast out as a fascist or a moron. Despite this fact, few people seem to understand how their beloved structure actually works. Democracy literally means power to the people, but as they hold the power, they also bear great responsibility, as the old maxim goes.

This responsibility comes in the form of coming to a collective understanding of the world’s problems and working as a cohesive unit to solve them. For this system to function, however, the majority must work rationally to be able to tackle them. Quintus Curtius touched on this point from a historical perspective in his essay yesterday, and now we will look at its modern applications.

Collective irrationality

Recently, various articles have been written about certain topics, all of which have an underlying aspect in common: collective irrationality. In each case, there has been a fundamental rational error committed and its effects have multiplied exponentially as more people have got involved. Therefore, if the majority of humans are incapable of operating rationally, how can a system which relies on them having a fundamental basis of understanding the world function properly?

Take for example the UVA Rape scandal: the specific details of the case were not clarified properly before a verdict was made. Widespread outrage accompanied with mass-confusion could have and should have been avoided by literally a few seconds thought: did the evidence point to a rape, or not?

This is similar to the Zoë Quinn affair(s) in which the overwhelming and unambiguous evidence pointed to Quinn being guilty of sleeping with men for her video game’s approval whilst in a relationship, yet thousands came out in their droves to defend her.


Unreasoned thinking is evident in global issues as well. For example, liberals continue to support Obama despite his sickeningly anti-liberal drone strikes and torture policies. People also continue to support the premise that CO2 emissions cause the ice caps to melt, even though the Antarctic ice sheets have expanded in volume since 2012.  Blue-pillers continue to overlook very simple facts in their hundreds of millions.

How emotions override reason

The worrying fact about all of these errors is their simplicity. The logic behind these problems is in no way complicated or ambiguous, so much so that were the issues stripped down to their finest details; they could be resolved within seconds. It is far easier to work out whether the UVA Rape case was false or whether Obama is liberal than tackling questions on an elementary school reasoning paper.

Elementary School Reasoning Paper

It is wrong to suggest that people make errors because they are not intelligent enough. Even the simplest of human intellects is perfectly able to understand the cases described above. The errors arise not because the brain’s reasoning circuits are too weak; they arise because they get overridden by the brain’s emotional circuits.

In other words, blue-pill thinkers make elementary errors not because they lack the intelligence, but rather because they lack the ability to control their emotions.

Scientific breakthroughs in the last fifty years support this claim. Drew Westen, the director of clinical psychology at Emory University conducted a study which proves that the frontal cortex, responsible for rational thought, literally switches off when blue-pillers try to analyze information.

In his study, both Republican and Democratic party members were asked to evaluate information which threatened their preferred candidate while their brain activity was monitored. Westen discovered that:

“none of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged. But there was a rise in serotonin levels after the information was ignored.”

The awful truth that this experiment reveals is not that the blue-pillers in this experiment were not thinking incorrectly, it is rather they were literally not thinking at all. Instead, it was the emotional part of the brain which was being triggered.

The subjects reacted to the information as someone would a shocking scene in a horror movie, or as primate would a snake. Furthermore, after they had ignored the information, they experienced a feel-good rush that one would normally expect to happen after riding a rollercoaster, not after analyzing facts and figures. Stefan Molyneux elaborates on this phenomenon in his video:

Blue pillers’ brains are in a pre-philosophical state

The ignoring of information and emotional reactions observed in the test subjects are the same processes which occur in blue-pillers across the globe. The UVA Rape protestors’ emotionally react to words such as “rape” and “violence,” triggering a wide range of irrational emotions and prejudices and coming to an incorrect conclusion after no thinking has taken place.

The Obama supporters are similarly responding to his skin colour and handsome face as opposed to looking at his statistics. Emotions override reason in each case.

This is proof that the human brain has developed very little since its reptilian past, despite our firm belief that we have made great evolutionary steps since our primitive roots.

Reasoned thinking has simply not been important to our survival: historically, we only needed to react quickly to fears and impulses to survive and reproduce; the cavemen who sat and pondered about their predators all died out. Humans cannot override hundreds and millions of years of evolutionary brain development.


The worst part about these conclusions is the fact that despite these results, we continue to believe that we are in fact philosophical and reasoned when we simply aren’t. We have constructed massively complex and interdependent systems which rely on our capability to be rational thinkers.

The population has grown so large and technology so advanced that a basic error in judgement can have extreme effects: simply look at the drunken oil futures selling incident or MF Global. How can we expect to avoid errors like these if we aren’t even capable of working with even the very simplest of facts and figures?

Democracy = Rule by the blue pill

Let us return to the original issue of democracy. Can it really be functional if the people are physically incapable of thinking? In our current system, any transgression by the government is acceptable as long as the majority of people accept it, no matter how immoral it is.

Democracy legitimizes stupidity.  As the UVA Rape case and the Quinn affair have shown, even so-called “smart” people will believe the most ludicrous of claims without evidence, just as long as it is presented in a way that appeals to their emotions.


Democracy would be a perfectly fair system if the world had no problems which require rational thinking to solve. However, this is simply not the case. Democracy is not adequate to tackle the problems of massive debts, declining birth rates, and peak oil because the majority of people are not capable of thinking rationally.

In today’s democratic system, the tiny minority of red pill thinkers have substantially less power than the mass of Obama supporters, global warming enthusiasts, and the idiots who support Sarkeesian, Sulkowicz, Quinn and co.

We must therefore ask ourselves the question: is the right to vote really worth anything if it is offset against an irrational majority?

Read More: Why The Ukraine Crisis Is A Red Pill Vs Blue Pill Superpower Clash 

248 thoughts on “Evidence For Blue Pill Brain Damage Puts Modern Democracy Into Question”

  1. I stopped reading at “I deny science”, i.e. “look at this one aberration regarding ice caps, the whole theory must be wrong!! I so smart.”

      1. It is true that the Daily Mail article linked to by this article made a big deal out of one data point when that data point was irrelevant because the trend showed warming, as the Washington Post notes:
        It is also true that many of the global warming scientists touted by the left are serial liars who make up their data, including the data in question here. So yes, global warming does seem mostly like bs.

        1. The one thing that I’ve learned over time (and it includes all politicians…both major political parties in the U.S..).
          Any time you have that much money involved there will be a level of corruption. The higher the ‘purse’, the higher the level of corruption.
          It’s in our government, pro sports, and even in the United Way (sad to say). Any movement will come out and report whatever is necessary (at that time) to get access to the money. It’s all about appearances.
          The U.S. prays at the church of the ATM.

        2. Im on the fence about this global warming stuff, but you need to ask the question: Is agenda driven science truly science??
          I dont think so, so I kinda lean towards this all being bunk…

      2. Yeah, that’s what it is, leftist bullshit. Scientists from all around the world are all secretly working together to hold on to those huge research dollars. Amazingly, not one has blown the whistle or let it slip. Scientists are good fucking secret keepers. Man, every time I see a noble prize ceremony with all those liberal elites walking with gold canes, gosh I just get so mad. It’s all just a leftist conspiracy.

        1. The only reason the government investments a ton of money into global warming research is because global warming scientists say it is a catastrophe. They have a financial incentive to make the problem out to be larger than it is.
          If you look at polls of the broader scientific community, rather than polls of those who are climate scientists by profession, most of them do not believe in global warming.
          Of course, the left naturally is glad to use global warming as another means of increasing government control over society and playing off people’s fears.

        2. Link me that poll please.
          I agree that certain entities may be claim an imminent catastrophe in order to advance their own agenda, but denying that humans are unsustainable and polluting the Earth is silly. As I just posted below, anybody who doesn’t believe humans have the power and ingenuity to pollute the Earth are either willfully blind or dumb. Ever smell a boy’s dormitory? Don’t tell me we can’t pump out enough waste to affect the environment.

        3. You can cite this as another example of Mr. Hagen’s argument that humans will rationalize anything to support their confirmation bias.

        4. Yeah, that’s what it is, leftist bullshit. Scientists from all around
          the world are all secretly working together to hold on to those huge
          research dollars

          It’s not only about research dollars. It’s also about the libtardation of academia.
          In the current academia climate you can’t say anything anymore that deviates from the liberal world view.

        5. That’s exactly what it is, and the article proves it. Appeals to absurdity don’t work when the ‘absurd’ has in fact been proven to be a fact.
          You were dropped on your head as a child, weren’t you?

        6. Citation for this conspiracy? (please don’t cite the Penn State email made up hoopla either) Or is the proof of the conspiracy also covered up? I bet it was aliens!!

        7. Here are the links:
          (1) My claim that the majority of those who are climate scientists by profession support the “consensus” was not based on a poll, but on a study which analyzed the abstracts of published studies on climate change, and found that while 97.2% endorsed the notion of anthropogenic global warming, only .7% rejected that notion. The study is here:
          some have interpreted this study as meaning that 97% of all scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming:

          (2) It is likely that the published studies reflect not the views of the average scientists, but the views of climate scientists, who no doubt publish the vast majority of papers in that field. Polls of other types of scientists show much more uncertainty as to the idea of a global warming catastrophe; for example, take this poll of meteorologists:
          (3) One more thing, I was wrong to state that the majority of scientists disagree with global warming. What the poll of meteorologists does show, however, is much disagreement over the cause of global warming, as well as only a minority of scientists who believe that global warming will overall be harmful to mankind (some, in fact, embrace it as a good thing).
          I believe this disparity is because those who are climate scientists by profession purposefully hype up these claims due to the massive amount of money they receive from the government to perform research in this area. And actually, people have blown the whistle. For example, it was revealed that many on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change actively worked to suppress climate skeptics:

        8. The article IS the citation, you stupid fuck. And appeals to derision won’t work for you either. Grow the fuck up.

        9. That 97% figure exists because they trust the models in question.
          And this blog author that you so disdain witnessed this shit for himself. He went and investigated it. He doesn’t need a credential from the International Institute of Journalism in order to tell what he saw.
          If you refuse to believe him, then that’s your choice. But it’s willful blindness (and don’t even try to counter-accuse me of such a thing; spare yourself the embarrassment)
          As for the Guardian’s piece on him, that’s called a deflection. Better luck next time.

    1. A near 30% increase in the ice caps is hardly “this one abberation.” Since science is based on evidence, not political ideology, and this would be evidence of cooling, wouldn’t YOU be the one denying science?
      Experiment trumps theory every time.

      1. The evidence shows a decline. One uptick does not negate a trend. The stock market occasionally falls too. Doesn’t mean the trend up doesn’t exist.
        Look, anybody who doesn’t believe humans have the power and ingenuity to pollute the Earth are either willfully blind or dumb. Ever smell a boy’s dormitory? Don’t tell me we can’t pump out enough waste to affect the environment.

        1. This is an issue that is still up in smoke for me. I’ve heard the point of view of the climate change denialists and I think I understand their point. That liberals could be using the rhetoric as a platform for their own agenda.
          But we’re talking about permanently changing the ecosystem here… In a way that is consistent with scientific thought… The planet Venus is much hotter than Mercury, despite the fact that Mercury is much closer to the Sun. The reason? Venus has a tonne of greenhouse gas in its atmosphere that traps the Sun’s rays and heat.
          Climate change deserves a well-thought out response though I haven’t kept up with the most current research on it.

        2. What bothers me is that climate change has become a hot button issue full of wild allegations and severely polarized people. Thus, there is no room for discussion about actual environmental problems like pollution and decreasing aquifers. Sustainability should be the central platform of the Republican party – living conservatively, eliminating waste (aka increased profits), living within our means and not fucking up this wonderful Earth we are so lucky to have.
          Regardless of whether the world is being heated up, we should all care about decimated fish populations and mountain top mining. We can’t agree on that, so we can’t even breach things like factory farms and their link to obesity.

        3. Don’t let it be up in smoke for you. It’s bullshit and the most demagogic dangerous type of junk science used to control the proles and lemmings. In the 70’s and 80’s we had some of the coldest winters on record in North America. Those same “scientists” were proclaiming we were on the edge of another Ice Age. Scare. Tax. Control. There have been wild fluctuations in the earth’s temperature long before anyone ever heard of CO2.

        4. No one is denying the humans can pollute the Earth, however the real pollution, chemical pollution like the one affecting humans and many species is not addressed. Real issues like this are hidden by the smoke of unproven theories and mostly fake data. And if the timespan used in the studies is expanded, we can observe that in the Early Middle Ages the Earth was hotter than today and species did just fine. Passages in the Swiss Alps have frozen and thawed cyclically for millennia, long before fossil fuels were burned. By the way the Sun and even the stars and clouds have a larger influence than the CO2 in the atmosphere.
          You cannot infere trends using 100 hundred years of data, for a system with millions of years of history and ignoring far bigger actors than the CO2.

        5. I get that.
          But it doesn’t mean that climate change theory is scientifically unsound.
          Scientifically it makes more sense to me that the Earth’s climate would be affected if we change the composition of the atmosphere then otherwise. How much CO2 is too much CO2 is the real question.
          Regardless, fossil fuels will eventually deplete anyways. My point of view is that R&D into renewable sources of energy (or using more current sources more efficiently and less obsessively) is a task man will have to contend with whether or not climate change theory is true.

        6. We are affecting the planet, but no one really knows to what extent. The real issue is overpopulation, but no one is addressing that. It is well worth to keep in mind too that the planet has undergone a lot of changes all by itself prior to overpopulation or pollution, such as massive droughts and ice ages. No one knows if we are at the start of a change like that either.

        7. Clark you’re one of the best here in terms of quantity and quality but I’m going to have to disagree somewhat with you. “Climate change” usually occurs over decades even millennia. We’ve had serious warming trends, one in the early middle ages that brought the Vikings out of their Scandinavian comfort zone. Centuries after the Medieval Warm Period there was an on and off again mini Ice Age from from the 16th to the 19th Centuries. You can’t have “climate scientists” touting a coming Ice Age and then in a few short decades say that we’re all going to roast to death. Weren’t there even claims by some that snow was about to be a thing of the past? As late as January 1994 Time Magazine was touting the coming Ice Age. Sorry you can’t have it both ways. Environmentalism has always been about government control to save us from one apocalypse or another. As far as the Co2 thing goes without boring anybody any further I think the argument is overblown at best and hysterical at worst. I also think that a global review of weather station data around the globe the last century dispels the idea that we’re undergoing a worldwide phenomena of warming. Even if I’m wrong and we are you can make us all 14th century peasants to appease the elites and the weather is pretty much going to be what it is going to be. I will close on this note. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html People will believe what suits them politically.

        8. I’ll read the link and get back to you. Don’t feel like reading it ATM.
          In a related post I said that I don’t have all the data and so I don’t really have a hard stand on this issue. But like I said I think it deserves a properly thought out response. Burning fossil fuels and pumping tonnes and tonnes of CO2 will eventually change the composition of the atmosphere. What would be the exact effects I don’t know. Is the amount that we are outputting negligent I don’t know.
          Considering how the funding structure of academia works (i.e., publish or perish) I am willing to believe that scientists on both sides simply have an agenda to prove their point. Scientists both for and against it will do whatever they have to to keep the funding coming, and the data will be kept in such a way that it is not easily accessible for the layman.
          Based on what I know I am not convinced 100% either way. That is a bit of a copout answer, but I am just not convinced. I don’t know enough about either position to pick one yet.

        9. “the most dangerous type of junk science” ?? Really? Hyperbole much?
          Look, you don’t even have to be a scientist to know that people affect the environment. A big city surrounded by asphalt is several degrees warmer than a village at the same latitude surrounded by fields. It’s ludicrous to think that big factories, buildings, smokestack outputs, and alterations to the landscape, would have no effect on the environment.
          If, for the sake of argument, one agrees that the earth is not warming, I suppose it is possible that the 10 hottest years occurring within the past 2 decades is just a coincidence, and that the pattern of the global annual temperature increasing at an average rate of 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970
          is just going to reverse itself any day now, what would be the worst thing that would happen if we believed the “lie” of global warming?
          We would all pay a little more money in a carbon tax? It’s not like politicians can’t or won’t tax us more in another way. I guarantee you the Obamacare tax costs me $2,500+ a year which is more than any tax increase I’ve ever had, and yet it sailed through easily, despite being a blatant payoff to insurance corporations. Or perhaps we would all pay a little more for products that were produced in a more environmentally safe manner. Again, not terrible, and the sky is not falling. And even if it was a lie and we overpaid, we would at least have cleaner air and water at the end of the day, even if it was “unnecessesarily clean.” If you look at the worst case scenario of this conspiracy theory, I just don’t see a bad outcome. Certainly nothing like lighting $3 trillion on fire on an oopsie-we-invaded-the-wrong-places Mideast war. Now THAT was a government lie that had REAL negative consequences to it.

        10. I actually agree with you here. Whenever the “right” tries to put forward a market based solution, or make it such that it makes economic sense to do something “eco friendly” the Left is on it like shit on stink and scream and snarl like the hooligan apes that they are, until the idea goes away.
          The biggest detriment to the environment debate is the Left. They apply their religious fervor to every single one of their causes, they act in a rigid and dogmatic way, and they make it a point to personally destroy their opponents. There is no feasible way, in the world, to deal with even sensible issues where we might find common ground as long as we have *those* hooligans to deal with.

        11. Well, I also blame the right. Their correct response should be, “OK You’re right lets do something about the environment. Instead of a global carbon tax, we propose cutting carcinogen particles from power plants by 25% over the next decade” or “a 10% increase in automobile MPG would be just as effective, let’s try that” or something similar. I never hear anything from the right that is pro-environment. W even signed that “clear air” law which was jokingly referred to by Jon Stewart as “clearing the birds from our air”. Other than their warmaking, that is the biggest issue that prevents me from ever tolerating the right in America (note: the right in the rest of the world is very pro-environment and I would certainly be a British Conservative)

    2. I’ve never understood this silly conspiracy of “money hungry scientists” who make up some story about a fake problem in our environment, when in actuality it is clean and pristine, because they will get rich this way!
      Listen, I LOVE a good conspiracy theory. I do. But this has got to be one of the weakest I have ever heard. This silly debate about should we call it climate change or global warming and is the majority of it mans fault? Or only a little bit? Ah, we really don’t know so I’m afraid to commit either way. Can we take another poll of my voters? is all bullshit.
      Average temperatures are warming. Lakes are shrinking. Water and air quality are declining. Oceans are becoming more polluted. NONE OF THIS IS GOOD, SO WHY ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT ANYTHING? Hell, the most right wing person I know lives near Glacier National Park, and even he readily admits how much it has shrunk over his lifetime.
      The false idea that the corporatists put out there that somehow business is being strangled because it is forced not to pollute is baloney. And even if it were true, so what? I’d rather have fresh air and water than shave a few pennies off the cost of some plastic shit at Wal Mart. I suppose theoretically there is a point beyond which environmental rules are so restrictive that companies are no longer able to operate, but it’s laughable to think we are anywhere near that point. Hell, they still discharge raw sewage into the Chicago River! You can’t tell me our environmental rules are too onerous.
      The facts are that the quality of our environment is worsening. That is unmistakable. I want fresh air that doesn’t give me cancer and sinus infections every year. I want fresh water to drink and pristine outdoor spaces (parks, beaches, lakes) to play in. Who the hell doesn’t?
      I don’t care if Al Gore said something that wasn’t true or that if a scientist somewhere made a mistake or even purposefully distorted something. The focus should be on how to preserve and maintain a clean, safe environment. If you are not discussing that, you are falling into the trap of the politicians and feminists. Their first trick is to DISTRACT and get people arguing about the wrong thing.
      Our current wars are a great example. They are supposedly in retaliation for the 9-11 attacks which were done by 17 Saudis and 2 others. NO ONE is talking about Saudi Arabia. Yet if you get some right wing asshole arguing with a left wing hippie about how Iraqis should be murdered and their country turned into a parking lot, you have effectively distracted everyone from the real question at hand. Same thing with climate change / global warming.
      Also, you tend to really turn off a lot of reasonable people if you come off as anti-environment.

      1. You seem to not get it and use two fallacies at the same time: Composition fallacy (just because the city I am in is hotter the “whole planet is hotter and for the same reasons”) and straw men (you anti-GW are anti-environmentalists and want to deny my rights to clean water etc).
        The global warmists are not interested in any of the stuff that’s important like Chemical pollution and its short and long term effects on human and animal life, water purity, deforestation, land management, space travel research, disposal of radioactive waste and I could go on and on. Because these topics are not popular (read known by the masses) and are not easy to tax and do not work as great as parts of control ploys like Global Warming they are left unpromoted and awareness is not developed.
        Just take for example the rise in autism, cancer rates and the decrease in testosterone and sperm in human beings and other species. Those are real problems but no one seem to care, they collectively (paid scientific chills and politicians) tell we have to get used to this new normal as they are so fond of saying. What about the thousands of chemicals that are thrown in the environment every day, and whose synergistic effects are unknown…?

        1. The point of the asphalt example is that humans can affect climate and the environment, not to propose that because a city is heating up, therefore average temperatures are climbing. It is merely a refutation of the false statement many on the right respond with about any environmental law: “Humans can’t even affect the environment”. Wrong.
          I really don’t care what the global warmists want. I actually believe most of them just care about the environment, and are too ignorant to understand the nuances of it, and since global warming is what politicians focus on when they talk about the environment, the sheep support that.
          Just like one could come up with a list of countries that are military threats (N Korea, Somalia (pirates), etc.) but because the politicians talk about Iraq, the sheep who are worried about their safety and security are all gung ho about blowing shit up in Iraq, when it was never a threat.
          The part that bothers me though, is that government lies and fucks shit up all the time. If you assume they are lying about global warming, the result of following that lie seems mostly positive–we will get cleaner emissions, maybe pay a little more. Compared to other things the government is wrong about– welfare fraud, military, health care, or just about any other issue, the outcome can be catastrophic. I’d rather be too conservative on the environment, than too activist on starting wars, which ends in hundreds of thousands dead, families destroyed, trillions of dollars lost, and returning veterans permanently on the dole and getting public health care because they are disabled and in pain– or too generous handing out free housing vouchers to the slackers, which ends up wasting billions and takes away the motivation for many to work.

  2. Democracy is a myth and I can prove it in 1 word: Immigration.
    At no time in the US’ 250 year long history has a 51% majority supported immigration of any minority group.
    Not today with the Latinos
    Not 100 years ago with the Irish and Italians
    Not 130 years ago with the Chinese
    Not in Ben Franklin’s day with the Germans.
    So who do I vote for to keep the brown people out? No one. They serve their the CEOverlords by undercutting America wages. That goes for the Mexicans who take “Jobs Americans wont do” [Never mind the fact that Americans did those jobs until the brownies priced them out of the market] And then we have the Indian and Pakis who take the jobs that “Americans can’t do” [Never mind the fact that Americans did those jobs until the brownies priced them out of the market].
    Furthermore, I refuse to vote for anything higher than local issues until the Electoral College and state equivalents are abolished. I live in Washington. WA’s electoral votes will go to the Dem candidate by a large margin. Voting for the Dem would be like pissing in the ocean, voting against would be likened to pissing against the wind.

    1. ..and all the groups you mention have integrated far better than the blacks who have been there for 200-300 years..

        1. Can you blame them? I blame liberal whitey and hope he is the first that the muslims put in that cage and set alight or they get the blunt end of the butter knife for the beheading. i want the liberals to meet their diversity god.

        2. I understand what you’re saying. The disenfranchised always ĺook to something like ISIS. The liberal agenda turned into an unexpected gift to radical Islam. So now what do the rest of us do?

        3. Yes, in the war that the west and islam are fighting it seems like a constant war for the hearts and minds of the people. So many government organisations spend billions if not globally trillions promoting the western liberal ideology. Now Islam is pushing against this and doing a strong job. However for the white western male it seems unappealing to sign put to a religion that our people have been fighting for the last 1400. it also doesn’t appeal to the rationale mind to swap one beast for another. That’s why it is essential for white men to embrace their culture more than ever. Have pride in their culture and essentially wash our hands with other cultures. Live by the strong libertarian ideals promoted by thomas jefferson, live for the strength of body and mind prompted by the ancient Greeks and the innovation that lead to the most successful society the world has ever seen. allow the degenerates and parasites to die because you will no longer engage with them.It’s all very MGTOW but at the same time understand the need to have children and breed for the next generation of war.

        4. Yeah and Islam never tried to conquer Europe and lay waste to Christendom. Wake up, if today Islam (a weakened form nonetheless) is used by the elites of the West as a tool in their Hegelian dialectic games, doesn´t mean that Islamists are my friends. My ancestors fought those people for hundreds of years. The best arrangement is that we stay in our land and they in theirs…

        5. Such a pity we can’t bring Richard The Lion Heart and Oliver Cromwell back for a few years. They’d certainly have a final solution to the Muslim problem.

        6. yes there is, it’s been happening since 700AD Mohammad was a military leader with expansionist policies.it was only between the 18th and 20th century that western military gains made it an untenable situation for Islamic aggression towards Western Europe. it’s doctrine is about outwardly expanding. This same doctrine was taken on by the Mongols as a badge of pride when they adopted Islam. It’s central to the the belief system.you can believe every attack on the west is a false flag to incriminate islam in the eyes of the media and the people and it still will not distort that at a fundamental level the texts show that there is a hatred towards non muslims.

        7. My friend, Muslims are not a unified nation against which we fight. Every empire expands until it overextends. Read some history on the Ottoman’s for example. You will see that the fact that they were largely Muslim was purely incidental to their objectives of conquest.

        1. Not very well. But when you consider all that happened after ’emancipation’, such as continued lynching, race riots (ex: Tulsa race riot), and the distribution of crack to black neighborhoods by the CIA (destroying families and businesses), it’s hard to imagine any group of humans faring well. Doesn’t help that now they’re welfared to mediocrity and used as social commodities by the left. But, no, keep on dehumaning black people if thats what you need to do to temper your fears and frustrations. In meantime, I’ll continue to do my volunteer work and try to help our next generation one child at a time.

        2. It bez whity’s fault.
          Why does a Mexican anchor baby, who goes to school wondering if his mother will be deported before he returns, outperform his negro peers.
          Keep making excuses for the chimpsand I’ll keep paying my NRA dues

        3. I’m glad he hasn’t been banned. it’s always hilarious reading his comments. it’s hard to believe someone has the gumption to put those comments down to paper.

        4. Who’s making excuses? I’m just explaining why things are what they are. It is important to recognize our past so that we may better understand our present and work towards a better future. If explaining the past causes you to get defensive, that’s a personal problem.

        5. This guy needs to hate. Pointless debating with people like him. You have a certain number of lizard brained people who are still caught up in the primitive “them and us” mode of thinking. I actually think there something congenitally wrong with their brains that prevents them from actually thinking logically.

        6. “Keep making excuses for the chimps”
          What a sad man who never saw what Western black men can do when they don’t get fucked by those who “love” them.
          You think some “republican” (or black person) came up with the social engineering to first destroy the black man, then his family, then his women and ultimately his race? (See “welfare”, “planned parenthood”, “affirmative action”, “medical experimentation on blacks in the US like Tuskegge, etc.”, “CIA crack scheme”, “FBI infiltration and murder of the original Black Panther leadership and replacement with demented thugs”, the list is long).
          And now they do it to the “proud” white man who is too stupid to see it and blames the “chimps” and “satan’s synagogue/jooz”.

        7. I answer them just in case one will accidentally find out one of my claims is true, and for others who don’t know and won’t swallow the hate-stupidity.

    2. At no time in the US’ 250 year long history has a 51% majority

      What counts are the voters, not the overall population. You just need a majority of the voters (actually even less, since third party voters are discarded).
      Also this: http://i.imgbox.com/alFRbHSv.png
      Also: You seem to argue that somehow democracy is being kidnapped by some conspiracy/secretive forces. In reality it’s the democratic system itself that is broken. You can’t have a system where the majority of voters are stupid (women), welfare parasites (women), unproductive (women) and willing to swap liberty for security (women).
      It takes approx. 3 to 4 generation until the falling apart is clearly visible. We are at this moment now. Democracies with women’s suffrage don’t work, just as democracies with kids’ suffrage won’t work.

      1. Democracies always fail, it certainly doesn’t help to allow women to vote, but democracies always commit suicide even the ones that never get around to female suffrage (Athens, Rome, etc.).
        Restrain the enthusiasm of your rhetoric with the bounds of history.

      2. “Also: You seem to argue that somehow democracy is being kidnapped by some conspiracy/secretive forces.”
        1st. We never had a Democracy. The US never claimed to be a Democracy. We are a Republic who elects our leaders via democratic means. This is not interchangeable.
        Secondly, I am not claiming that democracy The Republic “is being kidnapped”. I am claiming that it was never anything more than an illusion.

    3. Honestly not a truer word ever said.Look at the vote in Switzerland on their nation wide plebiscite . 51/49 against mass immigration of over 50,000 immigrants a year. A huge percentage given Switzerland has 11 million. Then the next year a new order was given to cut it down from 18,000 to 1800 still a huge number given these people have 8 children, don’t work and commit crime or just wash shit. This was rejected because people gerrymander the vote. Have a year of mass hate against the racist 51%. These immigrants will then vote to invite their families and soon the Swiss will be crying to be in the EU and voting themselves into poverty with all the Euro trash countries. The EU will eventually be making calls to ISIS to have them govern their backward Islamic state. The SWiss couldn’t even vote against marronites next to their most beautiful heritage pieces of architecture. The gem of Europe will not be destroyed by an outside force but by their own people. And thats what happens when you swap your traditional swiss bankers for the tribe and mix in liberal ideology..

      1. “The gem of Europe”, stolen from murdered Jews and built upon fortunes of dirty money, Switzerland my ass.

    4. Abolishing the electoral vote will hand all electoral power to the big, cobalt blue, cities. Be careful what you wish for.

      1. The power already belongs to Cobalt blue States. That’s how Romney got 48% of the popular vote and about 32% of the EC’s vote.
        That is why a man’s vote in Vermont are Arkansas is next to worthless and a Republican in CA doesn’t waste his time getting out of bed.

    5. Who are these immigrants coming to America? How many of them each year? How many leave America each year? Is it ironic that the the descendent of immigrants is complaining about current immigrants?

      1. Technically though, we were conquerors first, then immigrants once we cleared the land of the original natives and sent what remained of them to putter around in wasteland “reservations” drunk and depressed.
        The entire reason the Injuns got knocked off was that they had no unity, were fond of killing each other as much as they liked killing us, and they had no immigration policy or standards (not being unified, you see). When you tell Joseph Englishman “How, white man, land belongs to all, Great spirit says so” he’s going to take you at your word that you don’t own it, then stake his claim and shoot you if you say otherwise. History quite aptly demonstrates this.
        Hence “Nation of immigrants” means very little as a retort to *illegal* immigration. We arrived and cleared them off, but good. Then all of the immigrants that arrived post Injun came as *legal* immigrants and assimilated to the culture in short order. This is the exact opposite of what’s happening today.

        1. Well I’m not talking about “illegal” immigration. I also was not referring to the difficult case of the natives. My point is people keep talking about this problem of immigration without specifying what they mean. America is actually a very difficult country to legally immigrate to. But in any case, immigration is an issue that can only exist with a government and it is only a problem because of welfare payments. In the absence of government the concept of immigration would not exist.
          Just on the natives. Not sure what you mean by disunified. They were formed of many different “tribes”. Also, are you suggesting that it would be ethical for a new set of conquerors to kill everyone in America and just take over?

        2. “America is actually a very difficult country to legally immigrate to.”
          Fly to Mexico, walk across an imaginary line on an unguarded piece of land, contact your local Democrat HQ and they’ll make sure you get access to all the government programs you’re “entitled” to. It is so easy that about eight million people have done it under just Obama.
          Oh, you said, “legally,” well that is just handled ex post facto for those foolish enough to want to *all the burdens* of US citizenship.

        3. The natives were in the stone age. Tribes is the next step to the lowest form of social organization: bands.
          It is simply ridiculous to claim that America was “their land” in the first place. They were stone age nomads, who had no concept of property. They laughed at the white men for inquiring about land ownership, saying “can one own the air?”
          If they did have a real civilization, and if they were civil enough to deal with the whites, the whites would have dealt with them, as they did with India, Middle East, China, etc. Indeed, the white man tried his darndest to deal with them, and there was even quite a lot of intermarriage.
          But the Indians continuously went on raids, and they started wars constantly…
          History has been rewritten to create more and more white guilt, for the purpose of cultural marxism. The big turning point was Howard Zinn’s People’s History, which became a big hit in leftist academia, and filtered down to influence all school curricula at all levels below graduate school.
          I will not try to argue further, but I have given the general line of thinking, and you can do with it what you will.

        4. Fair enough – conquest begets conquest, and now the darker complected hordes are conquering pasty white countries, and getting paid by you dumbasses to do it, while you guys fap to (usually large, Black) sports stars and if you’re even married, have 1 autistic kid the 1 time in 2 years your soon to be ex-spouse let you fuck her without a condom on her way to fucking the guy she’s leaving for with your money.

        5. Got it. So because they didn’t understand their rights (why did they fight over them though? Strange) it was OK to murder them and take their stuff.

        6. Can you back this up with evidence? Although even if true it suggests the problem is government not “immigration”.

        7. By their “rights,” do you mean a right to property? So you are basically saying that they had a right to the land, under some kind of “common law,” since they did not claim the land legally in any way?
          The common law understanding is that if a person lives on a plot of land and cultivates it, and if his family has done so for generations, it is more or less his property.
          In the present day, when a white rural person does this, it doesn’t count, as in the case of Cliven Bundy.
          However, the Native Americans were almost all nomadic, stone age people. They hunted lands and migrated once they exhausted its ability to provide for their hunter-gatherer lifestyle. The image of Indians teaching the clueless white men how to grow crops is a lie. They did not have agriculture, mostly. They developed and worked no land. Even common law would not have applied for most Indians.
          When the whites arrived, the Indians, form what we can tell from virtually no evidence, but only common sense deductions, basically said, “Oh look, another tribe has moved in. They are a little different, they came by ship, dress their entire bodies, have pale skin, and their women make me get a hard-on. I guess we’ll wait and see how this works out.”
          From then on, the history of whites and Indians is the history of competing tribes. There was some alliance, some intermarriage, some friendship, and some war (they fought purely for self-interest, not to protect some kind of rights). The playing field of the Americas was not a playing field of organized people, with clear boundaries for their respective states. It was a vast expanse of free range, with hundreds of tribes moving and warring and organizing on their own whim continuously. The whites emerged the victors.
          You can only think of this point in history in this sense. The whites outcompeted the other tribes, and are no more guilty than some mexican tribe migrating north and outcompeting other tribes in present-day USA, or a californian tribe outcompeting all other tribes and creating an empire. However, because one group is white, and we are taught to hate whites, this one group is treated as the spawn of satan.
          And this event in history can not even be compared to 21st century life, as the way in which humans must interact in the 21st century must/should change in accordance with the new demands placed on individuals by modern living. You do not hold a caveman to the same standards as a businessman, though you might acknowledge that the businessman is “superior.” I really *do* want rule of law and cultures, if I can make them happen instead of the law of the jungle, so I will try to make that happen.
          As for murdering Indians, this is a big topic, but I will just sum it up by saying that I don’t think there was any intention to kill off the Indians by USA government, though there certainly were many racists who talked about that, just like how many stupid conservatives want to nuke Iran right now in the year 2015.

        8. Look I don’t have enough time to research the complex issue of the natives but I will make two points. You can look at the results of the European settlement and ask yourself if such an outcome would be considered just if it happened to you. Second, you run into an immediate problem complaining about immigrants when literally everyone in America is an immigrant.
          To suggest that invading and killing the native population simply because they had a different economic model (which worked well for generations) is just is not an argument that holds water in my opinion. It seems more like a rationalization to me.
          By the way, there were actual programs institute by the US government to eliminate the native. This is part of the historical method.
          I don’t think Mexicans sneaking across the border is an appropriate analogy for Europeans settling in North America.

        9. Offhand- I applaud your constant fight against the crazier commenters who say outrageous racist things.
          the “everyone in America is an immigrant” – one could say that everyone
          in the world is an immigrant, since people groups have moved so much in
          the past. I personally do not hate/complain about immigrants, within
          reasonable boundaries- I am Italian/Sicilian in descent, so I
          technically come from immigrants to USA. Everything must be kept
          reasonable, to me. There should be no reason to totally be against
          I had a big comment prepared with all the facts, but I just erased it on purpose to not waste your time.
          My beliefs remain:
          -There was no planned extermination of Indians
          -The wars against Indians were only fought because other Indians wanted America to help them fight their enemies
          -There is a great history of cooperation between whites and Indians
          -As time has gone on, Indians have assimilated more and more, often moving to urban centers
          -The original policy with Indians was intermarriage
          -The later policy was “containment,” or, to a reasonable person, negotiating territories, which worked in everyone’s interest
          -The policy was never genocide, though some racists would have wanted it, just as people want to nuke Iran right now
          -Immigration in the uncivilized, unsettled, undeveloped stone age
          world is not the same as immigration in a civilized world (you have
          agreed, I think), because of different social structures, and should not
          be treated as a moral equivalent
          -blacks were more displaced and used than Indians ever were, but people falsely want to claim that the opposite is true.
          story we have been taught was created by marxists like Howard Zinn, and
          is perpetuated by SJW/hipster fools. It is official part of the school
          curriculum. The point is that whites might feel accomplishment for
          building civilization from scratch, and social capital from nothing, so
          the entire story of the development of America has to be treated as if
          it was an act of evil, so that whites will always ever feel guilty and
          beholden to minorities.
          It is all about the white guilt.
          Ironically, this kind of SJW nonsense just pushes many men off the edge,
          as we see in the comment section. America has been moving to the
          political right for decades, even while the liberal brainwashing program
          has been going full steam.

        10. Yeah personally I have no time for “White guilt”. Obviously you have no responsibility for actions taken by people hundred of years ago. You make a good point about immigration. It only exists as a concept because of modern government. But part of of derives from primitive lizard brain thinking (strangers =threat) and lastly from a complete misunderstanding of economics.
          If all property was held privately then there would be no immigration.

      2. “Is it ironic that the the [sic] descendent of immigrants is complaining about current immigrants?”
        Let’s talk about that. My mother’s side came from Ireland and Scotland 3 generations ago. They were left to starve to death in the street if they could not afford food and shelter. Businesses were free to openly discriminate. Schools did not omit students who didn’t speak English. Is that still the case? Do we have nigger and spic children dying in the street from lack of care today? No we have Obama’s shit colored illegal alien aunt claiming that she as a right to disability money and subsidized housing. We have muslim Tsarnaev scum collecting welfare, shitting out children in Section-8 housing while declaring jihad on the very people who prevented them from being stomped to death by Russian Spetsnaz. These sub-humans pieces of filth come to this country, against the will of its citizens, immediate get on welfare and then bitching about how easy the Ellis Island gringos had it.
        Remove all of the “Social Safety net” and allow children to die in the street and I’ll soften my anti-immigrant rhetoric.

        1. There is too much hate and emotion in you for us to have an intelligent discussion on this point. I hope you can rise above it my brother.

  3. Problem with democracy is that although the people have the power your average person is a moron who believes what the media an Hollywood tell them. So essentially the people who are meant to have the power are being controlled, not the other way around.

    1. Robert Heinlein had a solution for that in “Starship Troopers” [the book not the god awful movie]. In it there where civilians and citizens. Only people who had earned their citizenship could vote. I think we need a system like that.

      1. Starship troopers was a very interesting book, sadly the movie was a complete fuckup an was actually a war satire but people didn’t actually pick up on the satire part. Only problem with that is the powers to be would grant citizenship to people who will vote for them.

        1. The movie was actually written and started production as ‘Bug Hunt’. The ‘starship troopers’ theme was plastered over the existing screenplay when the studio purchased the property, but it was supposed to be ‘world war 2 in outer space with bugs as Nazis’ instead of having any actual connection to any decent SF writer.

        1. Don’t worry just replace all the women soldiers(which are impractical if one wants a sustainable population) with men. Only veteran men who served the country can get the right to vote.

        2. Women always served a purpose in armies. Their job was to follow in the baggage train and provide necessary services to the soldiers (sex, nursing, trade, etc.).

      2. I think we need a system where you can only vote for things that affect you and don’t hurt anyone else. In other words, I can vote to keep a store in business by buying products from them but I cannot vote to have some of their income directed to me so I can pay my rent.

        1. That is the only true and fair form of democracy ever discovered. So naturally people are taught to hate on it, because ultimately it doesn’t benefit the power brokers who require force in order to achieve their “vision” for others.

    2. Indeed, I would say that this proves that oligarchy, monarchy, feudalism and other forms of ancient rule that predominated the civilized world are the natural order of things.
      It is unavoidable that the strong will rule the weak, even if you give the weak the vote.
      Democracy has led to some crazy government actions, of course, but the power structures of the elites still exist and call 99 percent of the shots.

  4. if you take for example: a highly educated lawyer who knows history and understands the danger of particular government or a particular bill. When that individual casts his ballot, has the same say as a drunk village idiot who also votes.
    the truth is, some people are better than others. some people are born good and some people are born bad. it’s got nothing to do with nurture.
    the people who really yearn to change things politicaly and people who are intelligent enough to change things politically in a good way are oppressed really.
    it seems like our only power left is that we can “call” our representatives and lobby… but in a lot of cases, those representatives accept large amounts of money from special interests and obey their pay-masters.
    you could argue that the media owns the minds of citizens, but in the “prop 8 bill” for or against same-sex marriage, people made the right choice to vote against same-sex marriage, so there is hope when people actually vote on the bills.

    1. Except…the Left will then use the courts, filled with monsters from their side, to overturn any prop you may pass.
      The game is rigged.

      1. I see what you’re saying. However, there are laws in our legal system already that the left doesn’t like. One is the right to bear arms as well as the first amendment which blocks congress from prohibiting freedom of speech. They’ve been rather ineffective in nullifying those. So if people vote a bill into law through referendum of the individual citizen rather than a vote among a few hundred “representatives”, I think the left would have a hard time going against the entire masses and overturning them.

  5. Which ethnicity are the majority of bankers/big banks?
    And if you really investigate it, the people who are running the country?
    If I get any haters/manipulators, its only ‘cos its true and they got something to hide.

      1. Switzerland has a successful direct democracy, but that’s what happens when you have an all white, protestant majority electorate.

        1. 38.2% Catholic, 26.9% Protestant according to Wiki…. also high private gun ownership and compulsory military service for all men, voluntary for women…. etc, etc….

    1. whether the majority of bankers are jewish or some other ‘ethnicity’ those bankers are going to run things one way or another. Money buys presidents, elections etc. Why would that change under a non democratic system. It would become worse and more open

    2. And if you really investigate it, the people who are running the country?

      Obama is half black half white. Feminists run the country. Women elect these feminists.
      The EU parliament is not full of Jews.
      Obama is not a Jew, nor is the UN full of Jews.
      This is the reason:
      I am not even claiming here that Jews are innocent angels, but whatever Jews are, without women’s suffrage none of this would be a problem.

      1. Fair enough, but re. Obama George Soros was one of the most prominent backers. The elites, whoever they are, get what they want, and largely dictate policy. Soros’ open society sponsors / foments feminism etc. even if women tend to be the ones who lap it up

        1. Fair enough, but re. Obama George Soros was one of the most prominent backers

          And yet Obama wouldn’t be president without women.

          The elites, whoever they are, get what they want, and largely dictate policy.

          Women are the elite and after each election they get more what they want.

        2. the manosphere has a tendency to play down women’s responsibility, including on account of masculine pride which says “women can’t be responsible for anything important”. That is incorrect, but at every stage feminism has been financed or otherwise promoted and sponsored by progressive male elites, often extreme left academics but also by men like Soros, who has directly funded womens’ organisations like NOW, organisations like queer international (promoting for example gay rights in Palestine!) and every other progressive cause imaginable, through his massively funded Open Society foundations. He has helped radicalise the democrats in the US, and has sponsored Obama’s career from the beginning. Sure women voted for Obama, so did blacks. But men like Soros have been pushing the agenda, or at least bankrolling radical feminist organisations. Blaming women just plays into the same anti-hate agenda the left’s power depends on.

        3. but at every stage feminism has been financed or otherwise promoted and sponsored by progressive male elites

          Your statement is correct but worthless, since it’s always men who finance things.

          But men like Soros have been pushing the agenda

          Of course, women are too incompetent to push agendas without the help of men.

          Blaming women just plays into the same anti-hate agenda the left’s power depends on.

          Why are you protecting women?

        4. So if I point out that Soros is an arch-villain pulling the puppet strings from behind the scenes I’m white-knighting for women? As I stated I think women should be held accountable for their actions, and for the effect they have had, but if they are not, and to the extent they are not the origin of those actions / those effects then those who actually are responsible need to be held to account. So the question arises why are you trying to play down the critical role of agenda-setters and king-makers like Soros? Without the likes of him feminism would still be getting laughed at as the preserve of dykes in dungarees. Instead the funders have ensured there are thousands if not tens of thousands gender studies departments in every university, and feminism and ‘diversity’ gets promoted at national and international levels

        5. I’m white-knighting for women?

          You are a white knight because you try to obfuscate women’s fundamental role in it all. Women are the enemy and should be treated as such. What Soros does or not would be pretty irrelevant if women had no voting rights.
          It’s the normal women who are like this:
          It’s the normal women who love feminism. These are facts, your “behind the scene puppetmastery” is just a conspiracy theory that (even if true) is pretty irrelevant. Even if Soros dies, feminism would continue to spread.
          Your post features exactly the same idiocy like A.Wyatt Mann’s pictures. Always portraying women as victims, always shifting the blame away from women, always blaming accusing men or some invisible conspiracy.

          Instead the funders have ensured there are thousands if not tens of thousands gender studies departments in every university, and feminism and ‘diversity’ gets promoted at national and international levels

          And more conspiracy theories. And more useless statements because all of these things were not a problem if women hadn’t equal rights.
          What is a bigger problem? Some guy donating millions, or allowing children to go to a university and dragging down the whole education system?

        6. As I keep pointing out I agree that women’s responsibility for promoting feminism is too often underplayed in the manosphere, and this very thread I’ve given the reason for why I think that is the case. So how am I obfuscating the role of women? Actually you said ‘fundamental role’. The word fundamental is a key though isn’t it. ‘Radical’ feminism is mainly women derived, so lets give “credit where credit is due” but the dominant intellectual and activist framework in which feminism, radical or otherwise, sits, has had very little to do with women. Feminism derives its power from marxism, and marxist activism. Focussing exclusively on women is to focus on the effect of generations of tireless and massively organised subversion by groups amongst whom women have only been a part, and not by any means the most important part.
          I am the one giving a nuanced analysis. You on the other hand are simply pushing a simplistic agenda, that as I’ve said is highly likely to play into the hands of the anti-hate agenda

        7. but the dominant intellectual and activist framework in which feminism,
          radical or otherwise, sits, has had very little to do with women.

          No, it has everything to do with women. Because without women they would be utterly powerless.

          I am the one giving a nuanced analysis.

          You are giving conspiracy theories which even if true are irrelevant. I am cutting through the jungle of 1000 ideas why feminism is strong and spreading. It’s strong and spreading world wide not because of Soros, but because most women are feminists and have voting rights and are the majority of the electorate.

        8. Nothing I’ve said is a conspiracy theory. You’re seeing things in what I’ve said which simply aren’t there – which perhaps says more about your agenda than mine. Soros is someone who has had an objectively massive impact on world affairs. When he isn’t breaking the bank of england or trying to do the same for countries in europe and the far east, while trying to topple governments in Eastern Europe (including successfully Ukraine) he is promoting progressive, through his massive funding networks (the open society institutes) financed to the tune of about $2 billion. He is one guy. We are talking about corporate elites, not jews. Very few of those at the top are women. There is certainly an increasingly evident symbiotic relationship between those elites and the mass of women who keep them their. But you’re only trying to tell one side of the story. The fact that you make reference to conspiracy theory when reference is made to how the kingpins and corporate elites manipulate and socially engineer society suggests that it is you who are doing the obfuscating

        9. Nothing I’ve said is a conspiracy theory

          If you don’t want to be accused of conspiracy theories, you need something more than just claims that ‘the elite is tirelessly subverting society by promoting gender studies’.

          Very few of those at the top are women.

          I am very well aware that women are pretty incompetent. No need to point out that most of the world’s leaders and influencers are male.
          I am also aware that you AGAIN switched the blame from women to men. Your argument is exactly how feminists would phrase it and do phrase it.

        10. Nope, I want blame to be distributed according to just desserts. Women are responsible for a lot, far more than the manosphere likes to give credit. But those academic and financial elites are no fantasy. In the case of Soros who you are simply letting off the hook for some unfathomable reason, I gave concrete examples and demonstrated at least some of the influence he was peddling. If you want to hold women fully accountable, then you’ll need to demonstrate that the elites, academic & financial, somehow ‘work’ for women (as opposed to for themselves). That might well be the case (guess what men have always done things for women without realising it) but that’s not what you’re arguing: you’re arguing that the elites aren’t that important: that its women’s voting patterns which are the only thing that really matters. Of course that matters. But those voting habits have been shaped and incentivised by progressive and elite policy. And more to the point women’s votes aren’t going to disappear any time soon (beyond the establishment of l sharia law or something). So why not focus on what we can change rather than what we cannot. Why are you giving the big boys a free pass, when we could be focussing on both the men and women who have created this situation

        11. But those academic and financial elites are no fantasy.

          Elections stats are no fantasy. Your ideas of Soros being the mastermind behind feminism is fantasy. I don’t doubt that he plays some role, but compared to billions of women worldwide, it’s minuscule.
          Soros’s death won’t hurt feminism a bit. Abolishing women’s voting rights on the other hand would be the end of feminism, even if Soros would continue to live 100 years.

          But those voting habits have been shaped and incentivised by progressive and elite policy.

          No, they haven’t. Women vote liberal because they are women. I notice that you AGAIN protect women and shift the blame on men.

        12. Soros did not create feminism, nor is he the ‘mastermind’ behind it – I have not alleged that. But he is probably the most prominent, powerful and easily identifiable of the myriad progressive elites – some of them financial, some cultural) who have relentlessly pushed progressive politics to the extent that it has become the dominant paradigm in the world today. You seem to be that very rarest of things – an anti-feminist who doesn’t think that bankrolling gender studies programs, feminists activist NGOs and progressive media etc etc to the tune of billions of dollars of dollars (and that’s just Soros) isn’t very important in bringing about the situation we are in. Why would you want to gloss over such an obviously crucial factor in the rise of progressivism. I mention marxism / socialism as contributory influences to the rise of feminism and you gloss over that too. So you’re also an anti-feminist who seems not to believe in ‘cultural marxism’ either (pretty much like your average guardian reader).
          You say I protect women, when I have clearly and repeatedly said that women need to be held accountable for their actions and the effects of their actions, and have even suggested that they might even be the real puppeteers behind the ‘elites’ you consider to have such a trifling influence on affairs. So I don’t deny the accountability of women. I argue that both predominantly male progressive elites and women (both activist and non-combatant) have created and sustain feminism. Yet you want them to portray them as the only party involved. You want to suggest that the radical politics that have turned this world upside down over the last hundred years or so are marginal, and that the only thing which matters is “women’s essential nature”. Nor are you able to provide any clue as to how, if men are persuaded that women shouldn’t have the vote, that would make any appreciable difference in a world where they pretty obviously do have the vote, and are more secure in that privilege than we are.
          To reiterate I am presenting a nuanced description of the current situation, whereas you are presenting a gross overstatement of what could be a reasonable argument if it were contextualised within the catalyst of organised and funded progressivism

        13. Yet you want them to portray them as the only party involved.

          No, I portray them as the main party involved. As the elephant in the room. Compared to that elephant, anything else, including Soros, is irrelevant.

          To reiterate I am presenting a nuanced description of the current situation

          Yes, you concentrate on irrlevant nuances.

        14. “No, I portray them as the main party involved.”
          Then you need to situate your argument more carefully, because this is the first point when it hasn’t amounted to denialism with respect to every other factor
          “you concentrate on irrlevant nuances.”
          I’ve pointed to the case study of ONE man amongst a small army of ‘financially-endowed’ progressives activists who personally topples economies, topples regime (multiple regimes) makes presidents and the policies they push – where did gay marriage come from? where did the current campus rape hysteria come from. Obama sponsored those things. Soros sponsored Obama. No causal link? Just one individual. Women’s voting habits may well be the elephant in the room within the MSM. Not really at ROK though, where the idea has been around for a while

        15. where did the current campus rape hysteria come from.

          Women. http://i.imgbox.com/oujr5cRK.jpg

          where did gay marriage come from

          From women watching stupid TV series.

          Obama sponsored those things. Soros sponsored Obama.

          Obama wouldn’t be president without women.
          And even Obama is only a nuance. Because after Obama will come the next president that has to pander to women. It’s all irrelevant. The only thing that matters are women.
          Just imagine a democracy where most voters were kids. Let’s say 55% of the voters consisted of kids from 3 to 12. Now comes Anti_Femastasis and says “Kids’ suffrage is the problem” to which michaelmobius1 responds “No, most of the problem makers are adults, because Soros is an adult and he paid $10 million for X and $5 million for Y”.
          Both views are correct of course, but the root problem, the main problem, the big problem is kids’ suffrage.
          You point out minor problems. Feminism existed long before Soros and will exist long after Soros. Women’s nature is the root of feminism just as kids’ nature would be the root of other problems. Whatever Soros does only works because women cheer for it. Maybe without Soros the development would be a little bit slower. But that’s about it.

        16. Of course women have shaped feminism, and have come up with a lot of stupid shit, but feminism has evolved in particular historical circumstances, within the wider context of liberal progressivism (which could arguably have contained it) but in particular within the context of revolutionary marxist socialism & sexually revolutionary freudianism. Female suffrage could have developed very differently outside of that context, a context that is still relevant today. Female nature may well predict certain types of voting patterns (I agree that it does) but there are too many factors that you are underplaying in order to make your case that women are in essence responsible for all modern ills.

        17. G. Soros admitted that he worked for the Nazis to help discover Jewish assets, and Jews in hiding.

        18. Female suffrage could have developed very differently outside of that context

          Now you are adding history speculations to your set of conspiracy theories. It gets crazier and crazier.

        19. I read about that. He said he felt no guilt about that because he had no choice. But since then he’s never felt any guilt about anything he’s ever done. He describes 1944 as the ‘best’ year of his life. I’m not sure whether he elaborates on what he meant by that

        20. As always you manage to come across as an anti-feminist who plays down to the point of denying the role of marxist and post-marxist subterfuge the point of which was always to produce the kind of consciousness that has spread amongst women today. Trying to ‘naturalise’ this consciousness outside of that context serves that agenda well. As for Soros your ‘conspiracy’ consists mostly of what he has himself claimed. He describes himself as a quasi-God intent on changing the world

        21. denying the role of marxist and post-marxist subterfuge

          I don’t deny it, I merely see it as what it is: The current cultural Marxism is nothing but female nature on display.

        22. thanks, but not really. Once you start looking into Soros, you can never quite look away

        23. “I merely see it as what it is: The current cultural Marxism is nothing but female nature on display”
          I find it difficult to believe that you actually think that makes sense. Cultural marxism is a history of radical left subversion that as far as I’m aware until the 70s or 80s didn’t have any notable female member (I’m sure there were some but I couldn’t say who they were) This is a good article on the idea that cultural marxism isn’t just a conspiracy.
          You know if you were a leftist you could still denounce the article as a load of right wing non-sense

        24. Cultural marxism is a history of radical left subversion that as far as
          I’m aware until the 70s or 80s didn’t have any notable female member

          You write again and again the same thing. I am fully aware that Soros and Obama are MEN. And I already told you the reasons and why it does not matter.

        25. So a century of ongoing organised subversion designed to promote matriarchy (amongst other
          things) and which has produced exactly the intended result “does not matter”? One might wonder why they bothered to get out of bed

        26. So a century of ongoing organised subversion designed to promote matriarchy

          It matters only because since a century women have the right to vote.

  6. Voters are only part of the problem; the bigger issue is that there is no one to vote for, as in most countries there are two parties that are pretty much identical except in name and anyone who gets voted into office truthfully never really cared about the people.

      1. Yeah, and they are all on the far left end of the political spectrum. Trudeau getting elected will be the final nail in the coffin for Canada.

    1. This pisses me off a lot. Democracy is a system that sustains itself through obfuscation of facts and the perpetuation of tired cliches that do not hold up under careful scrutiny. For example, bringing up nationalism amongst a crowd of bluepillers triggers a tidal wave of accusations that Im a Nazi, Fascist etc. None of them can shake free from the programming and look into what nationalism/pride in ones nation and its achievements actually is. Then theres the whole issue of bluepillers understanding complex political systems like Fascism and National Socialism. People have no clue about the implications of holding into ideas that are exclusively sanctioned by the media and the state. The horrific natures of Stalinist/Leninist/Marxist regimes are not even properly taught in my University. Most of the people in my class had no clue what the Khmer Rouge was when asked about it. Leftism needs to be associated with living in the dark ages if we ever want to save ourselves.

      1. People didn’t know what the Khmer Rouge was at a university? It’s not even that long ago.

      2. Nationalism is not something I can see as positive. First, I don’t feel any sort of connection to someone just because we hold the same passport. Second, I don’t feel that my nation is anything special or “better” than average.. quite the opposite. Third, political boundaries are arbitrary lines, and while I can see the French relating to being French, the Scots to being Scot, etc. I live in America, and being American doesn’t really have a specific identity. And I sure don’t feel a special connection to another person, just because they were born within the same imaginary boundaries as me. Especially when that could be 2,000 miles from where I live! And then finally it seems to promote warlike behavior and I don’t really see an upside to it.

  7. Agree with the overall point, but the claim about global warming is wrong.
    The seasonal antarctic sea ice is growing each winter, but that is not long-term ice. It melts away each summer. In fact, land ice in Antarctica is at a record low mass and the ice sheets continue to shrink and destabilize each summer. One theory is that as the summer melt melts more land ice, more freshwater is released into the southern ocean, allowing a greater winter freeze due to the fact that freshwater freezes at higher temperatures than saltwater.

    1. (Gore’s Dec. 10, 2007 “Earth has a fever” speech) Gore warns that entire polar ice cap will probably be ice-free in five to seven years:

      “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the
      entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be
      completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,”
      (Dec. 2013) Global Warming Expedition to Prove Antarctic Ice is Melting Trapped by Ice:
      “The Antarctic ice was unaware that the science was settled… and settled in place instead trapping Turney and his media Warmist allies in its Climate Change denier grip.”
      (Jan. 2014) THE FREEZING WARMISTS:
      All that inconvenient ice.
      First a bunch of global warming people get themselves frozen in. Now the Chinese ice breaker which used its helicopter to free them is stuck too!
      You can’t make this stuff up.
      The media would like to ignore the fact that climate scientist Chris Turney of the University of New South Wales was on a global warming expedition.
      The more inconvenient fact they hope to dance around is that 2013 saw massive expansion of Antarctic ice.
      In a world which has not warmed since 1998, can the media ignore thermometers, satellites and all that ice?
      (Feb. 2015) The Snow Beat the Snow-Deniers:
      Last year, the New York Times predicted the end of snow. This week, its employees had trouble getting to work because of a travel ban caused by the blizzard. And those New Yorkers still subscribing to the print edition of the Old Gray Lady of Eight Avenue were even more out of luck.
      Snow wasn’t over, but the New York Times was.
      A few days after the New York Times forecast a snowless future in 2014, a major snowstorm (which didn’t read the paper and wasn’t aware of the 97% scientific consensus) hit shutting down airports, causing major accidents and killing dozens of people. Thirteen inches of snow fell over the city.
      A week after warning of the end of snow, the New York Times was instead forced to report on “downed power lines, stranded travelers, abandoned vehicles and yet another mess of snow, slush and ice.”
      CBS This Morning, which originally broadcast claims that the snow was going away, has now been forced to put its staff up in hotels near the studio and bus them in. Don Dahler, the CBS correspondent involved, was complaining on Twitter about how badly Long Island had been slammed by the blizzard.
      Once again the snow beat the snow-deniers.
      The snow deniers have been around for a while. Fifteen years ago, Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia, the hub of Warmism, said that within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

      1. Anti-environmentalism is something I just don’t get. I want clean air and water. I want to breathe fresh, clean air. I love hiking and the outdoors. I wish our water wasn’t so fucking dangerous that you can’t even drink it unless it runs through a chemical treatment plant, something that didn’t even exist a hundred years ago, and for the entire history of humanity.
        If a *politician*, not a scientist, makes an overblown or exaggerated statement about our environment, that is no reason to be A-OK with pollution. Hell, politicians lie and distort about everything. Take any issue, from international “threats” to health care to education and you will find people from both parties taking it to ridiculous extremes. Protecting my environment is one of the few duties of government I am thankful for, as it is one of the only things an individual cannot do himself.

        1. “Anti-environmentalism is something I just don’t get.”
          You may not “get” it, but you certainly seem to see it in places it doesn’t exist.
          “I wish our water wasn’t so fucking dangerous that you can’t
          even drink it unless it runs through a chemical treatment plant, something that didn’t even exist a hundred years ago, and for the entire history of humanity.”
          Water has always been dangerous to drink. Until recently it was always safer to drink beer or wine, still true in many countries.
          “Protecting my environment is one of the few duties of government I am thankful for, as it is one of the only things an individual cannot do himself.”
          So naive. Enlighten yourself:
          Don’t concern yourself with phantom menances displayed by the illusionist’s right hand. Always watch what the left hand is concealing.

        2. Throughout thousands of years of human history, humanity was able to survive by drinking the fresh water found in rivers, lakes, and aquifers.
          Chemical treatment plants did not exist 100 years ago. Humanity has lived for thousands of years and only VERY RECENTLY have we gotten to the point that the building block of life, water, is too dangerous to drink without chemically treating it first.
          I don’t think you are trolling but seriously… you don’t want clean, drinkable water???

        3. “I don’t think you are trolling but seriously… you don’t want clean, safe water???”
          One Word: Fluoride.

        4. The link above is full of stories about Fukushima radiation not being contained, fish and shellfish and oceans being unsafe, untold environmental damage caused by the reactor damage… is that what you meant to show me? Because I’m completely on the same page. Fukushima is a huge disaster.
          Oh, I remove the fluoride from my water before I drink it, with a reverse osmosis system.

        5. “Oh, I remove the fluoride from my water before I drink it, with a reverse osmosis system.”
          Fluoride natural to the environment, or is that primarily fluoride that the government is adding to the water in the USA and various (primarily) client states (Australia, Canada, etc.)?
          What does it tell you, if you need to actively screen out something that the government is adding to the public water supply in the name of public health?

        6. Being for clean air and water, being against dirty air, these are fine things. Nobody I know who is anti-MMGW wants dirty air, water or air. The problem lay in the clearly unscientific approach, the paid government scientists who mouth in unison while *non* government scientists remain skeptical, the fudged data that was discovered, the actual growing ice caps, no warming for nearly 2 decades now, etc. combined with “The debate is over! ™” (which is so anti-science as to be staggering) that are off putting.
          Clean up the lakes, pick up litter, stop polluters, all fine and reasonable. Force me into some form of global governance and insane taxes which eradicate my way of life, and you can go pound sand.

        7. Throughout thousands of years of human history, humanity was able to survive by drinking the fresh water found in rivers, lakes, and aquifers.
          That’s not true at all. Stream/lake/river water contains both Giardia and Cryptosporidium. One will give you severe dehydrating shits for weeks (which can be lethal in a non-technological society) and the other can outright kill you.
          Filtering and drinking water, even well water, has always been a human practice. The Egyptians wrote descriptions of proper water filtration techniques in the 15th century BC.
          If you’re in danger of dying on a hike from dehydration, sure, sip some stream water, but when you get back home get to a physician fast and get some antibiotics.
          Orthodox is correct, one of the key points of beer, wine and other liquors is that it was heated up, or had a high alcohol content, which killed the nasty shit in it.

        8. The problem is that Global Warmist want us to ignore all the stuff you mentioned while taxing us to death and restricting the liberties of everyone else, based on flawed data and erroneous models.

        9. In the lakes of Canada, near Thunder Bay, I survived drinking the lake water for a week, with a group of a couple of dozen. No one even got the runs. This is the “land of a thousand lakes area” that doesn’t allow motorboats, so there is no oil / gas spillage and even though the water looks similar to lakes from the USA, the water is clearer (although still somewhat blue/green, like the ocean). This was a few years ago on a Boy Scout trip and no one even bothered to use cheap portable camping filters, the water was that clean / safe. I don’t know about the Egyptians, but I know many native American tribal cultures survived off the pure clean water of the land.

        10. And I’ve walked along the outside of buildings, on the 8″ ledge, 50 some feet in the air for fun and never fell.
          I still wouldn’t recommend this to people as a wise course of action (I was young and stupid).

  8. There is a reason that, when the constitution was written, the right to vote was given only to white, land-owning men. The reason for that was very simple: White land-owning men had skin in the game. They were the gentlemen, expected to be educated, rational, in command of homesteads that might have dozens of people working under them, in addition to their families. Only the men who had something to lose were allowed to vote, because they could be expected to think carefully about any vote that would risk what they had.
    Then we let women vote.

    1. It just seems inevitable that the voting franchise gets expanded even if it initially was limited to a privileged few.

      1. Inevitable? Seems to me that the only inevitability would be discerning the reason why only a small class was allowed to vote, rather than extending the franchise willy nilly without regard to consequences.
        Of course we did extend it to everybody, but I don’t think it’s an inevitability really, history is filled with millenia of “only small segments have a say” with no real expansion to “the all”.

    2. It would be interesting if we could go back to limited franchise. Though I’m not to sure if the criteria should be property owners, as major companies don’t have much national loyalty anymore. They aren’t connected and dependent on the land like in the past. I think the most feasible criteria would be something along the lines of Starship Troopers. Where you have to do some kind of federal service. You have to prove you care, and put yourself on the line. Though that has it’s own problems with governmental size and bureaucracy stifling the individual.
      Though personally I think democracy is good, and works but only on a much smaller scale where everyone is intimately interdependent on each other. Were a consensus and common good and be established at least somewhat. But with the size of modern governments there are just too many people, too many conflicting ideas. Too much stupidity, manipulation and false information.
      Man is a pack animal. after a few hundred people we only care in the abstract.

      1. there is a huge difference between pitch fork justice / mob rule and democracy where conscious intelligent decisions are deliberated on and a consensus reached, like a jury in a murder trial.
        modern democracy was a con job, to both take power from the king, while placating the masses by giving them ‘a say’.
        now we have an essentially faceless, corporate style ruler, where the buck can be passed endlessly. The monarch had to be mindful of mob rule and revolution but now we’ve become so docile with our so called freedom of choice’ that we don’t see we have no choice at all.
        the news media is the most halarious thing, because it purports to educate and allow you to have an opinion on current affairs….. you too Mr. Voting man are an important part of the process in this free and fair democracy of yours….. we are a public service and keeping you informed of up to the minute news and events so you can have an educated opinion come election day….. hahahha… the only thing you are doing watching the news is wasting your time… it’d be better watching porn, at least when he cums in her mouth, that’s actually real…. hahahaa…

        1. I want to show great work opportunity… three to five hours of work daily… Weekly paycheck… Bonus opportunities…Payscale of $6k to $9k /a month… Just few hours of your free time, any kind of computer, elementary understanding of web% and stable connection is what is required…Get informed more about it by visiting my profile>page

    3. Not to mention that back in those days, ONLY the landowners paid taxes, and everyone knows/knew that taxes are what make up the politicians’ salaries.
      The first time this concept got jeopardized was in the early 1800’s when a certain black plantation owner refused to pay his taxes because as a black, he wasn’t allowed to vote. He re-used the quote, “No Taxation without representation” to justify his actions.
      The right wing of congress decided that he had a point and started to make the appropriate changes, but the left intervened, claiming that, “no black should get to vote until ALL white men (including the non-taxpayers) should get to vote”.
      So, from then on, taxation without representation was once again prevalent in the USA. It’s especially worse today considering how large our welfare system is.

      1. There were no property taxes back then in general idiot, there were only tariffs. If you don’t want others to vote, they shouldn’t pay tax.

        1. The government run by men dude.

          And? If Obama does something it doesn’t mean that “men did something”.
          “Governments” are a completely different beasts than “men”.

        2. Obama only does what he is told.

          Obama does what he loves to do: Pushing misandry and feminism, just as he’s been told by the majority of the electorate (women).

        3. This is the point. He is a figurehead, a clown to entertain the masses. Pay no attention to him. Rather, look at what actually happens.

    4. This article has a lot of problems including:

      This is proof that the human brain has developed very little since its reptilian past

      Proof? Very strong words. I am sure evolutionary scientists would disagree with you.

      the cavemen who sat and pondered about their predators all died out

      Bullshit! This pondering is how we out competed all of the other human species and why we are here today. This “pondering” is our evolutionary advantage.

      1. Right, that made no sense to me either. It was the homo-australo-whatevers that charged into the mad fray without thought that got to die first. The smart cookie thought “You know, I’ll bet I can kill a cave bear much easier with this heavy, sharp napped flint thing I made, tied to a stick, than I could with my bare hands”.
        Humans are neither entirely rational nor entirely irrational. We engage reason and logic when necessary, and sometimes we don’t. It’s frustrating to be certain.

        1. Or how about getting mammoths to run off a cliff and KILL THEMSELVES! for our benefit by spooking them into stupid, unwitting suicidal behavior? We only risk the time it takes to climb down the cliff or hike around to a gentle grade further along the ridge and backtrack to the cliff bottom!
          God, that line really grated me. Poor reasoning ability on the author on this point.

      2. I spotted this too, also in the study it was staunch democrats and republicans who reacted in this way and so extremes from either side. This isn’t really an accurate representation of normal voters then. Most people (one hopes) can see the pros and cons of each side but extremists stuggle with this.

        1. The problem is that policies are so complex, unless you’re the lawyer writing it, you don’t have time to read it and mull over its intentions and practical implications. This is why I try to evaluate the character of political candidates more than understand what they “stand” for. This is important, too, and I will glance at their platform, but if they have what looks like a good platform but an irrational, emotional rhetorical style, I will see them as ineffective at best and twisted / confused / dangerous at worst.

    5. Yeah the indians who owned all the land first had nothing to lose. except all the land and all the valuable resources in them. And the white land owners who got land for free had what to lose again. They used blacks to farm the land and the women did all the house work. Sorry, white men were the only ones doing nothing back then.

    6. Those White land owners were the one who set us down this path to socialism and totalitarianism.

  9. American democracy is a sham. Women have all the benefits of citizenship without the obligations. Females should be required to register for military service, even if its non-combat kitchen work etc. Or alternatively, a man’s vote should count more than a woman’s vote.

    1. p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
      I remember reading a book I think it was “Red State, Blue
      State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do”.
      It mentions in it that married women often voted on average for
      republicans and voted for conservative laws. While single women vote
      on average democrats and voted to increase the state. The book also
      talk about religious female vs non-religious to a similar on how they
      voted (I will let you guess). With the graph you show above I don’t
      think it was just only because of women voting out number the men but
      it would also be the average women (and even some men) voting had change since the 1960.
      I put this in part due to the Lyndon Johnson’s great society programs
      (Welfare that mainly targets single Mothers) and the no fault
      divorce. If you then look at the graph above with a graph of the
      divorce rate you will see as the divorce rate rises the rate of
      the National debt and government spending follows.

  10. Democracy should be limited. Just because the majority of people support something doesn’t mean it should be enacted. Remember that one time a majority supported slavery. There are some rights nobody should be allowed to vote away.

    1. That was the thought behind having a Constitutional Republic. Certain things were simply beyond the power of “the people” to take away or regulate with laws or “the vote”. And we messed it up anyway.
      I understand that government exists and will always exist, I simply do not believe in one being good for me as an individual any longer. While the current system(s) may do some things I like or approve of, generally they work almost entirely against my interests while having the temerity to charge me for their work against my will. Truth be told, while I wish a government on other people because to be honest most people have no impulse control and work strictly on emotions, I frankly don’t see the need for one over my own person. My morals and values keep my impulses in check, I don’t need some Diana Moon Glampours with her 10 gauge to force me to do right (or wrong).
      So I guess that makes me rather Anacap, but an Anacap Of One. heh. The rest of the world can rot under the weight of its own self imposed dictatorships for all I care.

  11. how does drawing attention to the problems with democracy square with the issue of defending liberty. The picture suggests liberty involves gun ownership for a start, but there aren’t many clues as to how demonstrating the well-known flaws in democracy would amount to a defence of liberty. Fact is even the most ardent defender of the democratic system (leftist or rightist) will readily admit that people are generally thick, passive, led by the nose, most easily identified as either sheep or wolves (as the picture suggests) etc, and that voter apathy is the norm rather than the exception. Any suggestion that democracy is not the best of many bad systems of government needs to have some alternative stated. From context, I’d say the alternative could be some kind of limited democracy – which is still democracy, just not universal suffrage, or given the american context, some roll-back to an older form of the republic – but how the case would be made within political discourse is simply unclear to me: a coup d’etat is simply not going to happen unless it is a ‘covert’ one, in which case it probably has already happened, given that we’re being governed by ‘elites’ within the government (in the US, but also pretty much all of the west too)
    Talking of elites, think of the Neo-Cons. Think of how they persuaded the US and UK etc to go into aghanistan and Iraw : to fight terror and to spread democracy. Notably in countries without any tradition of democracy, with the result that the middle east is up in flames. Except, does anyone actually believe they were spreading democracy in the first place? In fact the neo-cons were doped up on the political theory of Leo Strauss, someone who believed in defending superior civilizations. Western democracies were still obviously regarded as superior to oriental tyrranies (like the taliban, saddam hussein, gaddafi etc) but Strauss was notable for following a kind of perverted Platonism: as far as I can tell he saw Plato’s republic as advocating for an aristocratic intellectual elite. So even if the ‘form’ advocated was democracy outwardly – in reality democracy was only a shell that provided legitimacy. The real decisions would be made by the elites (just as is the case now however much those elites may be manipulating women to vote for socialist feminists policies) and lying to ordinary people would be fully justified precisely because they could be relied upon to be sheep that were easily led by the nose.
    So effectively, the elites who run the world don’t give a monkey’s about democracy, and the chief virtue of democracy in its current incarnation is that it can be manipulated to produce the results elites want with the imprimatur of democratic consent. In other words what is effectively being argued for is that democracy is unfit for purpose – something that is demonstrably the case as it is at present – with a view to replacing it with err. an elite. But we already have an elite as argued above. And guess what, that elite is not US.
    So, who should be in the spotlight – women as a whole or the puppet-masters. I’d say both potentially. But, surely one can see a certain danger here. If you surrender the principle of democracy as democratic freedom (however fatal its flaws may be) then when the elite step up to the table and say oh lets take over formally what we were already doing informally (not that you’re aware of that) what can you say in response since you’re already abandoned the principles of democracy.
    To use anti-femastatis phrase below ‘billions of cunts’ may be a danger to liberty and right government, but I’d say they were less a danger than a single George Soros.

    1. “there aren’t many clues as to how demonstrating the well-known flaws in democracy would amount to a defence of liberty”
      Probably the opposite in fact. Human limitations are why some would suggest we need dictatorial leadership. Which will inevitably be the elites as you identified.

      1. we’re losing our liberties anyway. By arguing for limiting franchise, or even ‘dictatorial leadership (what would that mean exactly – how do we know it would be wise or benevolent) all we’re likely to do is lose the moral high ground, a high ground which if demonstrated, could enable us to challenge everything that is happening around us. What I don’t get is why we should expect to be the ones who benefit under a new limited or more autocratic system

        1. “What I don’t get is why we should expect to be the ones who benefit under a new limited or more autocratic system”
          We shouldn’t. Which is one reason I’m highly skeptical of the “let’s hurry up and get to a collapse” argument.

        2. I agree. Some group always benefits from political chaos, but the idea that its going to be you is like hoping to win the lottery

        3. I’m pretty sure the ones that will benefit will be the already wealthy and the ones that don’t will be the rest of us. Kind of like every other transformative change that occurs in modern society in my lifetime. Expecting the majority of people to apply logic and deductive reasoning as to how society got to a tipping point is wishful thinking. So is thinking that just because we cross some threshold the elites would lose power. We’d probably be more likely to double down on already failed practices that further empower the elites than actually oppose them.

        4. I think it comes perilously close to utopian / wishful thinking. I don’t think its necessarily ‘red pill’. Feminism / progressivism is threatening fundamental rights and liberties and centuries old legal safeguards – democracy evidently doesn’t guarantee those things but it makes challenging that process a possibility

    2. You will never, never get out of this via political solutions. Especially ‘solutions’ involving ‘humanism’ and its sinister sister, Equality/Egalitarianism.
      The ruse is to sell the Almighty People that if they just tweak the politics, the ideology, the market policies, or put the Other party in power, or instill reforms, or etc, that improvement will result. It will not result, because the issue always returns to the same, ancient faults in human behavior — selfishness, pride, greed, thuggism, lies, envy. Controlling mass consciousness (and thus, ‘voting’) was perfected half-a-century ago. Those techniques have not been abandoned, to say the least.
      Human beings (and their endless ‘improved’ systems) cannot solve their own problems. Ever. The Big Lie is that they can. Humility before God — and reliance upon God, NOT upon Really Smart Men Like the Founding Fathers etc. — is the only way to a sane and healthy planet. To a planet where little boys are again allowed to have daddies, and where maleness isn’t preyed-upon and punished for the profit and pleasure of punks and affiliated cowards.
      Everything else is just people, and their puppet-masters and puppet-mistresses, telling themselves what they desperately want to hear.

      1. I don’t disagree, I just don’t want to abandon the only recourse to some kind of restitution that we have.
        “Controlling mass consciousness (and thus, ‘voting’) was perfected half-a-century ago. Those techniques have not been abandoned, to say the least.”
        Quite, they’ve been intensified, and are now effectively the means whereby we are governed. But those forms of manipulation and control, and all forms of manipulation and control can be expose – we can manage our management even if we can’t eliminate it. There will always be elites, and democracy will always be a farce but there can also be checks and balances, and real education (not what we have) which upholds those things. Religion may be a part of that, but at the moment its not clearly on the defensive to put it mildly

    3. ” . . .a coup d’etat is simply not going to happen unless it is a ‘covert’ one, in which case it probably has already happened . . .”
      November 22, 1963

  12. The elephant in the room here is race. I won’t go too deep into this, but the issues with race have insured that this country is divided among a bunch of selfish, stand-offish minorities.
    Whites are the only atruistic race in America. Even Asians try to act in their own racial interests in this country. I cannot have a political conversation with anyone non-white, because it always boils down to “Democrats help my people so I vote for them!” Non-whites have an incredibly hard time understanding that you are to vote based on altruistic, moral considerations.
    The ultimate example of our stupidity is our obsession with Obama. To be short, Obama recently rolled his eyes and whined on camera about how stupid America is to worry about ISIS. Sure, ISIS isn’t an existential threat, but they could kill some people, and that person could be me.
    If Obama was white, there would be OUTRAGE about what an asshole he is. Indeed, he is an asshole. But since he is black, people are bowing and worshiping and jizzing their pants every time he opens his mouth.
    The good news is that the bureaucracy is outcompeting the congress for power, which is at the same time scary, because it is invisible.

    1. While some aspects of HBD are true, most race-talk in the ‘sphere is mainly by blue-pill guys who just don’t want to accept the truth about women. Any race-based ideology always becomes a whiteknighting ideology.

      1. I looked up HBD and found “human biodiversity.” Is that what you mean?
        I’m not really trying to say whites are genetically the master race or anything. I don’t even know if you are accusing me of that, or just talking about this other issue off to the side.
        You have made a good observation about racial people whiteknighting…indeed, one of the reasons people create ethnic solidarity is obviously to keep the other (more genetically aggressive) races from taking “their women.”
        This is true for whites scared of blacks, and Asians scared of whites taking “their women.”
        But the reality that America is extremely fragmented, and that their is serious racial tension from blacks and latinos towards whites, and that this racial tension drives them to demand things from the government that are meant to be unjust towards whites, is unavoidable to anyone with a brain.

    2. That’s total BS because his administration invented the whole ISIS thing. Hell, he was the first person I ever heard use that term “IS / ISIS”. And I was like what the FUCK is he talking about? Some group just suddenly popped up that we’ve never heard of and that didn’t exist weeks ago? Yeah, nice try. I’m not buying it.
      He’s trying to downplay it so that republicans can play it up and act like it’s a huge threat. Then the two parties can argue over something that’s not even real, and get maybe another war or two out of it if they’re lucky.

      1. That’s a fascinating observation. So much so that I’m now inspired to investigate this. As you mention, suddenly “ISIS! ISIL!” from the thin air.

        1. I haven’t investigated this much, frankly haven’t even seen any of their videos, etc. because I didn’t buy all the previous stuff about Al-Qaeida and this was just more nonsense on top of the old, and I have better things to do. But it’s awfully strange that they just popped out of nowhere, and immediately are running oil refineries, producing Hollywood style videos, have western accented PR men, etc. Some who have seen the head chopping video say it looks fake and doesn’t even show a decapitation, but just cuts to blood.
          And the same criticism exists about the Jordanian pilot supposedly being burned alive. All I have seen is a few stills from the videos that are EXTREMELY high quality which indicate thousand dollar camera equipment and trained photographers.
          There was a segment I saw on Al-Q, I think it was part of the Power of Nightmares excellent BBC documentary, that dispelled much of the fear and power that was falsely attributed to that group. The CNN reporter that had the famous interview with OBL and his legion of AK-47 spewing bodyguards, well it turns out they were hired as “extras” that day, to follow him around in rags and shoot off their guns in a staged entrance.
          I don’t get too much into these long rabbit holes because I believe the following: (1)The US government is responsible for causing the 911 attacks. Whether they simply trained and armed the Mujahadeen who later turned their weapons against the west or whether they ignored confirmed intelligence that an attack was coming, or whether they directly ordered attacks as some truthers say, does not change this.
          And (2) The US is also responsible for ISIS. Whether they created it and funded it themselves (appears most likely) or destroyed the state apparatus of Iraq, its military, its society, its infrastructure, which later allowed foreign Islamists to invade it, they are still responsible. These conclusions are true, no matter if you are a “truther” or a strict believer in what the government tells you at a press conference, or anything in between.

      2. Actually, you might have a point about ISIS. I don’t give a crap about the middle east’s problems. The elites want to keep it under their thumb to have more control over the world, to raise the value of their investments, etc.
        But, either way, Obama has dissed the American people before. Remember “cling to God and guns?”
        He remains an asshole. When he talks, he looks down his nose. Imagine him being white for a second, and replay his mannerisms. You will think, “this dude is super stuck-up!”

  13. The reason i don’t vote (illegal in my country) is that i believe it is criminal that that the people are thrown this illusion that they are given a choice. I’m reminded of the scene in batman where two options are given that are both in the peoples name. A process where the people are unseen and have no voice in the matter. this is modern democracy the illusion that the unseen vote matters and that people and that society will somehow react to said vote in a way that is just and fair.Democracy is even more criminal because at it’s foundation 1 person=1 vote. it promotes the equality myth. The only likely scenario that would be fair would not be monarchy or tyranny by a few but a system founded on libertarian thoughts yet enforced by something with A.I. this may be about 500 years off but there is hope for our species yet. As long as the genes of the chosen are allowed to grow in the wasteland

    1. the real reason democracy is crap is this:
      the word demo = half
      Well, Only 10 in 100 people have superior decision making skills, and an intelligent society would narrow it down to 1 in 100
      “most of the people, most of the time, are idiots”, according to the book “the crowd” by gustav lebon
      How can a group of idiots, decide what the other idiots get to do whilst the intelligent decision makers are overlooked>>? and have low influence due to low numbers despite the actual VALUE of their decisions being better for the majority…

  14. I don’t put much stock in the opinions of people who make statements to the effect of “the great majority is stupid”, but who imply themselves to be part of the minority who aren’t.
    The author attempts to make a point about how people’s emotions lead to stupid BS being proliferated and believed in by lots of people, but all the examples he gives are of leftist-liberal people doing it. Yet, he unwittingly demonstrates how he himself (and the other side of the US political landscape) does it by jumping on the global warming denial bandwagon, thinking himself oh-so-rational simply because of one isolated, out-of-context fact about annual change in ice-cap size.

    1. Global warming is bullshit and there is no evidence for it. It is merely another socialist show to keep the herd in line. The author is correct here and merely quotes one of many examples that give lie to the absurdity of the now greatly discredited propaganda of global warming.

      1. Well said.
        If it were “one isolated, out of context fact”, that’s one thing. The mountain of evidence of *no* warming over the last 17 or so years, the growth of ice caps, the deliberate and malicious fudging of base numbers in Essex, the “look who gets to profit” chart that is easily laid out all point to this being a nearly criminal hoax of the largest order.
        The hubris required to think that we can change the weather is breathtaking. Sure, we can nuke the planet and do it, but otherwise, might as well claim to be able to control the tides.

      2. Thank you for demonstrating exactly what the author is talking about. Your “many examples” are carefully selected snippets of fact taken out of context and used to build a picture that sounds plausible for those who are ignorant of the wider context, letting them believe they have an informed opinion. Add to that emotions of contempt towards anything perceived to be left-wing and a predisposition to believe in left-wing conspiracies and an ideological aversion to government intervention, and you have all the ingredients for the kind of emotion-driven proliferation of BS that the article is talking about. The irony is quite delicious. The author of the article has made his point quite well, though probably not in the way he expected to.
        You think *only* people on the opposite side on the political spectrum from you are susceptible to be driven by their emotions to believe and propagate absurd BS? Think again, fucker.

        1. I thought again “fucker” and I still disagree with you. I think you and I have been here before. I have looked at the “evidence” for global warming and it is horseshit. Nobody said anything about left-wing conspiracies. That said, the mere fact that governments are pushing this nonsense and increasing taxes in response should tell you everything you need to know.

        2. Global warming & climate change is not bullshit. Anthropogenic global warming is most probably bullshit, though.

        3. Yes that’s what I meant. Obviously the climate change continuously regardless of what man does.

      3. Global warming is a term for increased average temperatures due to increased Carbon Dioxide levels… Look up ocean acidification… It’s the decrease of pH of the oceans due to an increase of Carbon Dioxide… All of the factors mentioned are in fact measurable, not so much bullshit.
        Look up the history of acid rain, measurable effects on nature made by man.
        2 billion years ago Cyanobacteia made the oxygen you breath… Earth is just a complex biochemical reaction.

  15. The easiest answer is always less government. You cannot have more government and more liberty!
    Unfortunately, the counter message is the one taught to our young people in school and through the media. Turn on the news, all you here is how the government controls the money, creates jobs, will protect you from the rich, etc.. As the individual is stripped from society, tyranny will continue its march to take hold.

    1. Actually, you can have more government and more liberty. Removing power from the government won’t necessarily hand it back to everyone equally. Most likely, the power vacuum will simply be filled by whatever institution takes on the role that government just abandoned.
      I’d rather let power be in the hands of a government which, despite its flaws, I still have some say about via the democratic process, rather than, say, a megacorporation which only cares about its bottom line.

      1. There is no such thing as equal power. The more power the government has the more unequal the society is. Today’s America is a prime example.
        I trust a person or business who needs my dollar and will provide a good or a service for it in order to survive than a government who will take my dollar by force and tell me it is for my own good.

        1. Interestingly enough, almost every other first world country has a bigger government than the contemporary USA, and still almost everyone of them have far less inequality of all kinds.
          You might find yourself in a situation where you need the commodity provided by the corporation much more than the corporation needs your dollar. Or, where you need the money you get from working for it more than it needs your labour. In both cases you are beholden to the corp. Bargaining power tends to be in the hands of the party who suffers less from not making the deal, and that’d certainly be the corp, as long as it’s more financially well-endowed than you.

  16. “When choice is left up to the crowd, the crowd chooses Barabbas each and every time” – Roberto Benigni

  17. And no one tries to solve the puzzle? All 4 answers are correct! depending on what you are asking. So in my world all 4 are equally correct.

  18. An absolute Monarchy would be fine…I’m sick to death of worthless politicians and their endless bullshit.

      1. Fuck America….we’ve plenty of royalty in Europe…also We got plenty of immigrants…especially Muslims. Along with tolerance and equality… Although I can’t ever remember voting for it. So much for democracy

        1. I’m from the UK. Last monarch we had who got too assertive had his head cut off by riff raff

        2. Ah yes…”Money Vs Divine Right” Didn’t exactly lead to democracy did it…not that it ever mattered if you were from the Labouring/Working classes – it was all about Money.

  19. To call modern, western “democracies” democracies would make every anciet Greek philosopher who wrote something on the topic turn in their graves.
    Democracies were never intended for stupid people to vote, nor were they intended for people who contribute nothing to society to do so.
    If you give people to vote for something to be given to them other people have to work for, even the most stupid person will do so. The few intelligent people who realize that this will not work out as socialism will only lead to you running out of other peoples money will not help.
    This problem would not be solved by giving the right to vote only to intelligent people, intelligence does not stop people from being selfish.
    But it could be solved by executing the political leaders at the end of their term in office. And that is the point I get stuck at. What kind of person would run for political office under this system?

  20. The only people that should be allowed to vote in a ‘democracy’ is men of higher than average intelligence and/or men with families. women have come to show they just simply cant be trusted to make a rational decision about anything, and just vote based upon their peer pressure and liberal/marxist brainwashing programmes.
    As for the jewish question that keeps popping up, i dont believe they are all against us but they sure have done their fair share of decay and damage to western civilisation as a whore, considering marxism and feminism was pushed by prominent jewish intellectuals.

      1. well my intent was, that people allowed to vote would actually have a stake in the society, and not mindless selfish idiots or childless catwomen making the vote. but i understand what you mean.

  21. The biggest problem of today’s democracy: Instead of two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner, it’s now a horde of sheep voting to have the wolves defanged and castrated.

  22. Sorry, TL:TR democracy is far to be a perfect system but communism government (mostly dictatorship) are not a better solution.

  23. Limiting the vote to landowners would be a fantastic idea that would swing this country around in under a decade. That’s in response to James statement below from seven months ago. This article is also correct to point out the flaws of democracy. The problem is, what if the end of democracy and the beginning of dictatorship or kingship happened with Obama or someone like him. Then where would we be?
    While this article makes some good points, the devil is in the details. There are some egregious jumps to conclusions that are unreasonable to make. The scientific study the author sited had no way of discerning red pill men from blue pill men from what I can tell. All it shows is that both republicans and democrats will rationally evaluate their competitors shortcomings while ignoring their own candidates shortcomings using an emotional response. So I’m assuming the author means to say all Republicans and Democrats are blue pill? I’m sure there is a small percentage of democrats and a slightly larger percentage of republicans that are red pill. And who’s to say that some red pill men (ie, men who realize western society is stacked against them, crumbling, enabling slutty female behavior and that they were lied to about society and women and then need to just make their own path) wouldn’t behave the same way if presented with negative evidence about a political candidate they like.
    An insinuated point in here seems to be that red pill men would only behave rationally and that all repubs and dems are blue bill and won’t behave rationally. I think the real point is that the public at large will always lean toward mob behavior and behave irrationally, especially when stirred up, no matter what public it is. That’s why representative democracy, otherwise known as a republic (basically) is a good choice. With only land ownering citizens being allowed to vote of course. True Democracy is a terrible choice, unless you are dealing with a small racially homogenous city state, like Athens in ancient Greece.
    Full disclosure. I was raised to lean republican, then swept far left during college on some issues (never fiscally), then swept back right again when getting into the real world and eventually landing on something more akin to libertarian. Although I’m not as extreme as Stefan Molyneux in a belief that no government at all would work just fine.

  24. You know you’re dealing with a psychotic megalomaniacal scumbag if they don’t think they need to explain themselves to you but they keep insisting on shoving their idiotic BS down your throat. It’s like when minimum wage supporters tell you, “economics has nothing to do with it, it’s all about fairness.” As if the universe was ever fair. They never want to explain to me how economics is fair.

  25. Democracy stopped being a good system the day universal sufferage took full effect. People who don’t have skin in the game shouldn’t have a say on how the game is played. That’s why people on welfare, stay-at-home moms, people who receive any kind of government benefit like food stamps, criminals (not necessarly because they don’t have skin in the game but because they cheated while playing) and OBVIOUSLY illegal immigrants or anyone who doesn’t have full citizenship should not have the right to vote.
    Liberals and leftists everywhere around the world could NEVER be elected if they couldn’t buy votes by promising people on welfare more welfare. I don’t see how that’s different from a candidate handing out stacks of cash to people at a voting booth. And it’s a vicious circle because the more people you have on welfare, the more people vote for more welfare, then more people go on welfare because why work when half your paycheck goes to fund some loser’s pot and pizza addiction (more gravely though, a broken socialised health and education system), so there’s more people to vote welfare etc… until the entire thing collapses because holy shit Sherlock money doesn’t grow on trees.

Comments are closed.