The Root Cause Of Our Problems With Government Is Tight Centralization

Have you ever wondered why leftists can push their agendas in government even when they’re flagrantly against the will of the majority? How do they get away with this? In a representative democracy, it shouldn’t work that way, but “shouldn’t” and five bucks gets you a cheeseburger. Excessive centralization helps them impose their will on the public.


The birthplace of the Frankfurt School, the Communist think tank that subverted the American universities

Infiltrating organizations has long been a leftist strategy, most famously with the “long march through the institutions” concept. Not only have they used this tactic to absorb rival factions, they’ve used it to subvert cultural institutions and even governments. When they get appointed to prominent positions, they’ll fight tooth and nail to get their like-thinking buddies in at all levels. Once critical mass is achieved, anyone with a different ideology can forget about getting a job there.

This is also why conservatives in social sciences faculty departments are pretty rare. After the indoctrinated Baby Boomers became professors, they promoted their comrades and excluded everyone with other viewpoints. (The only way for others to get in is to hide their views throughout their academic career until achieving tenure, which takes years of method-acting.) That’s also how leftists got control over Boards of Directors of huge businesses and imposed a left-leaning corporate culture. Quite likely, this is how they took over philanthropic foundations, while their Gilded Age founders are turning in their graves about the way their money is being spent.

What can be done about it? As for government agencies, the bureau certainly won’t reform itself. With painstaking effort, those who abused their power could be rooted out, as Joseph McCarthy tried to until the media shut him down. The simpler way is to abolish the agency. As for corporations, the best that can be done is to get the word out and stop buying their products. As for universities, we should send our children only to the few that haven’t been pozzed out yet. Also, we can set up parallel institutions, as I proposed with the art scene, though that’s obviously a long-term effort. We can stage our own Long March, though that will require much time, effort, and organizing.

If an institution is retaken, will the apparatchiks find themselves in the same position as all those Rust Belt factory workers who were shit out of luck after their jobs were sent overseas? Quite likely, it won’t be hard to find another cushy gig where they can push their politics. They can scurry off to find another agency to infest, or find themselves a high-placed position in some activism outfit, or get into another leftist racket like journalism; in either case, they’ll benefit from all the connections they’ve made.

Surely there must be a better way. Pinochet had his methods, though as for the USA, returning things to the way they were designed would go far.


Thomas Jefferson, President and architect of the US Constitution

The USA was designed as a federal republic, with the states retaining considerable autonomy. Even in the early days, there was tension between the Federalists, desiring more autonomy by the states, and the Anti-Federalists desiring greater centralization. The Federalist position prevailed for nearly a century.

The states are nominally sovereign, with the potential to act as countries of their own; thus they’re called states rather than provinces. This consideration was a major factor for why the former colonies, newly independent, agreed to enter the USA’s federal government in the first place. The Tenth Amendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Supreme Court, though, hasn’t been taking it too seriously. For example, the United States v. Darby Lumber decision pretty much treats it as a nonentity:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered.


Pope Pius XI, author of the Quadragesimo Anno encyclical

The Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity is a good idea, whether or not it’s your brand of religion. The basic principle is that a function should be handled by the smallest body competent to handle it. The only exception is when the designated body runs into trouble and needs assistance from a higher body. Otherwise, greater authorities take a back seat and leave well enough alone.

Thus, if education can be handled at the state level, then the federal government should let them take care of it. Note that states always provided for education—this was what they did all by themselves traditionally—and centralization came in with the Department of Education. Also, since families are capable of raising children, then the government should butt out unless a family runs into trouble. Government dependency is an abnormal condition, but has become a way of life for a large part of the public.

Big government opposes this concept, of course. A funny example is when Al Gore proposed a government agency to provide news on traffic flow. Then a commentator pointed out that private business already does that, which Gore would know if he turned on the radio in his chauffeured limousine instead of listening to whale noises.

Benefits of local control

Capitol building in Topeka, Kansas

When power is held at the local level, the people are more involved in public life. You’re still one fish in a very large bowl, but on a national level, you’re one fish in an ocean of hundreds of millions. It’s a lot easier to get an audience with a mayor or city councilman than with the President or a Congressman. Also, public morale benefits when people have more accessibility and input to a local government that wields the actual power.

It’s been said “you can’t fight City Hall”—more accurately, it’s an uphill battle. Even so, it’s practically impossible for an individual to stand up to Washington, short of having millions for lobbyists, lawyer fees, or “campaign contributions“. Decentralization means that people are more in control.

Further, greater power for local government allows things to be run according to the sensibilities of people living there. The Northeast and the Left Coast can have liberal policies, and “Flyover Country” can have conservative policies, and everyone is happier that way. Those who don’t like it where they are can move to another state, which is a lot easier than moving to another country. Also, federal social programs should be brought back to state level, as the Constitution doesn’t provide for things like Obamacare (despite what the Supreme Court said), AFDC, etc.

Each state will represent a unique experiment; the one providing the best societal outcome, the greatest responsiveness to the public, and the greatest efficiency will be a model that other states can copy. This should be more efficient, since huge bureaucracies suffer from diseconomies of scale (more layers of top-level highly-paid administrators, more difficulty coordinating meetings, etc.) Other than that, Washington waste is legendary: sweetheart deals, huge stockpiles of spare inventory they don’t need, and so forth.

All this is how federalism was supposed to work. Finally, decentralization takes power away from unaccountable Washington bureaucrats. SJW types can take over a federal agency, but they’ll have a much tougher time infiltrating fifty state capitals. If they try, citizens will have an easier time opposing them.

How federalism was abrogated

The beginning of the end for federalism. Next stop on the way was the FDR administration and the Supreme Court from Warren onward.

The Civil War set the ball rolling for further centralization. The Fourteenth Amendment, a Reconstruction-era measure, includes the “equal protection” clause. Its intention was to prevent Southern lawmen from turning a blind eye to crimes committed against freedmen. Successive judicial “interpretations” of this effectively gutted autonomy by states. The Fourteenth Amendment also allows for anchor babies to be US citizens, whereupon their illegal alien families can get welfare benefits. Other than that, the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause has been abused as a catch-all means for Federal power-grabbing.

Liberal Supreme Court members get away with this stuff through the “living document” doctrine. (Note the clever framing tactic.) Although the Constitution does have some gray areas intended to be filled in by precedent, they took it much further. Early on in the Marbury v. Madison decision, the Supreme Court declared itself the final authority on what the Constitution says.

Since the Warren court, time and again they’ve abused their power to legislate their politics from the bench and rationalize it after the fact. The “living document” concept means the Constitution is whatever they say. The tortured word-salad of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision is Exhibit A here, which abrogated the laws of all fifty states about a matter not mentioned by the Constitution. A series of 1970s decisions allowed pornography to flourish. These are two examples of many that profoundly transformed the American political landscape.

Up through the 1950s, the government more or less still paid lip service to the Federalist principles of the Constitution. For example, the interstate highway system was sold as a defense project. Congress didn’t have the authority to set up a national road system only for public use, but defense projects are covered as a delegated power under the Constitution. Much more recently, the threat of withholding Federal highway funds was used to blackmail states into accepting laws (such as the former 55 MPH speed limit) which normally would be a matter of state law.

The effects of leftist bureaucratic control

Generally speaking, if the people working at an agency like you, are indifferent to you, or don’t like you makes the difference as to whether your request is handled immediately, you go through the normal gauntlet of red tape, or you’re given an endless run-around. If you’re well-connected, that significantly greases the wheels of bureaucracy. This is pretty important for businesses needing licensing and permits to operate. Major operators that make heavy political contributions will have doors opened to them; small businesses trying to break into the game are in unfamiliar territory and have to play “hurry up and wait”. It shouldn’t work this way, but remember what I said earlier about “should”.

A pretty flagrant example was the IRS scandal during the Obama administration. Conservative groups applying for 501(c) nonprofit certification got stalled for years; other groups got their requests handled promptly. There was a Congressional investigation of that, surely at great effort to obtain. The results, though, were that the IRS top dogs all clammed up, and nobody confessed. Abuse of IRS powers was one item in Nixon’s Articles of Impeachment, but The Lightworker got no consequences. The only fallout was one IRS official quitting and two others retiring. Other than that, Donald Trump’s taxes have been audited every year—coincidence?

Whether or not the bureaucrats like you makes a big difference with social services too. One of my girlfriends fell on hard times and tried to apply for government aid. She got the runaround for being White. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Leftist effects on education

An actual handout in some schools

Centralized control of education has had profound effects. It’s pretty disgusting that educrats would use their position to indoctrinate students, especially those who are too young to make up their own minds. My first exposure to political propaganda in school was when I was in second grade. My third grade social studies text was full of bias, though I didn’t realize it then. No doubt those were innocent times, as indoctrination happens in kindergarten these days.

The worst example is evangelizing transsexuality in schools. Some of these kids will be persuaded to screw up their bodies with puberty-blocking drugs, and even get surgery, before they really know what they’re doing to themselves. Note that when Gyorgy Lucaks instituted an in-your-face sex education program in Hungary to attack traditional morality (he actually called it “cultural terrorism”), the Hungarians rose up and overthrew Bela Kun’s Communist regime. I guess they’ve done a better job of “boiling the frog slowly” here.

Title IX forbade sex discrimination in federally funded institutions. It’s an example of a law that sounds like basic fairness, but got used for other purposes that the public didn’t anticipate. Funding for athletic programs must be equal for both men and women. Since men are more interested in sports (including participation) than women, this means that many men’s programs ended up getting cut while women’s programs (even in fairly obscure sports) flourished. It also worked that way for high schools, even though they don’t receive direct federal funding.

More recently, the Obama administration used Title IX to institute extrajudicial tribunals to adjudicate sex on campus. Any noncompliant college will lose federal funding. It’s little wonder that false accusations have become a big problem lately. Whenever a crime really occurs, it should be handled by the municipal police; that’s their job. These tribunals don’t have the legitimate authority to administer law, or (as designed) have due process protections.

So this is what happens when the government places strings attached to billions in funding. The Common Core curriculum also got lots of criticism. This wouldn’t have happened if the Department of Education didn’t exist.

In summary

Centralization is how unelected bureaucrats hijack government functions. For this reason, putting things back to the federalist design by the Founding Fathers must be a key step in draining the swamp. This won’t be easily, especially since Antonin Scalia—one of the Supreme Court Justices worthy of the title—got the Breitbart treatment, but it must be done.

Read More: The Battle Of Berkeley Signals The Arrival Of A True Right-Wing Movement

230 thoughts on “The Root Cause Of Our Problems With Government Is Tight Centralization”

    1. I am convinced that after losing in Florida Gore went to the mountains of Tennessee where he set up an evil laboratory and built a machine which controls the weather. He has, essentially, become Lex Luthor. Haven’t you noticed in the last 15 years how there is oddball snow storms in spring and unseasonably hot weather in the winter. Al Gore is up to something and it involves the weather and also, somehow, he has got together with Dr. Mindbender to serpentor way too many fruit varietals. Pluots. Apriums. Plummocots. Look in your grocery store. Why are there so many oranges. Mindbender and Gore are plotting something big I tells ya

      1. I always enjoyed the many times he wanted to hold a spring Global Warming summit / conference and had to cancel due to snowfall.
        G-d has a sense of humor.

      2. He did.
        Except its only celluloid…
        And number one delusion of the leftists after white priveledge and rape culture.
        Believed it myself initially

        1. are you talking about global warming or mindbender serpentoring fruit….because fruit is being serpentored and I can’t see anyone but Dr. Mindbender behind it.

        2. See I don’t think so. Destro is the Cheney for both CC and Serpentor. Mindbender, in the 5 part miniseries Arise Serpentor Arise, is the one who creates Serpentor from the DNA of Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Hannibal and Atilla the Hun which is why I consider any unnatural mixing of more than one thing to create a new thing (plum + Apricot = Pluot) to be an act of Serpentoring.
          If Mindbender was anyone in relationship to Cheney he would have been Leo Strauss.

        3. I agree, in part, but I believe that in “creating Serpentor,” that Dr. Mindbinder basically became the power behind the throne. Serpentor was just a puppet on Mindbender’s strings. Destro was clearly Cheny to CC, but I think his influence on the Cobra command structure faded once Serpentor came to power.

        4. oh, ok. Yeah, I don’t care about that. Fresh fruit and vegetables on the other hand are incredibly important to me.

        5. Hey, last night I created several recipes for chicken based on pre-Socratics taking as a starting point that Chicken Parm is named for Parmenides. So Chicken Empedocles, Chicken Pythagoras, Chicken Heraclitus, Chicken Anaximander, Chicken Thales (of which Chicken Parm is superior descendant), Chicken Diogenes, Chicken Protagoras and Chicken Xeno were all invented. MY creativity is a little taxed. Maybe later I will do a Lacanian analysis of watermelon.

        6. Have you tried chicken Nechayev? You have to burn the chicken to cinders. Then you rebuild the chicken from the ashes and serve with nachos

        7. The original recipe for chicken Kiev involved cooking it yourself and then having it stolen by a local Tatar Mongol (available by the hour from Whole Foods)

        8. The only problem with this is that Chicken Kiev was invented in New York and there were no tatar mongols around

        1. Gore has brought a level of sophistication not dreamed of by those fools making cloud seeding gizmos. Gore can make it snow in august with the push of a button. He is mad I tells ya, mad!

        2. Cloud seeding with dry ice? Believe it or not, Kurt Vonnegut’s (author of “Welcome to the Monkey House, Slaughterhouse No. 5)” father was a part of such a program.

        3. Oh, they tested it before that. They first *used it* in a martial way in Vietnam.

      3. This is Alex Jones level shit. Seriously? One machine can’t control the weather. It’d be visible probably from outer space and the DOD would be on this stat.

      1. He is giving Fat Mike Moore a run for his money.. that I am sure. His jet-set global pan-handling as high priest for the enviro-cult is understandable once you realize he’s just shilling for the globalists (and making bank doing it).
        I had a friend stuck on his SS detail once in the 90s. Plane landed in bad weather and was raining hard. Everyone was waiting at the bottom of the stairs waiting for him to exit the plane. After 15 mintues someone from the SS detail went to see what was going on. He was reading the newspaper and when he noticed the agent said, “I suppose I left them waiting long enough.”
        That’s how the sex poodle rolls.

  1. There is a tight rope there for walking between federalism and centralization. With centralization you get the power-hungry and greedy bureaucrats out but for too much federalism and decentralization the different regions tend to start fighting. Even America had this problem there was a small war between Michigan and a Ohio over Toledo, a war that spread across Kansas and Missouri over slavery, and even violent action between New York and New Hampshire over what would become Vermont.

      1. I didn’t think that they’d acquired that nickname until after that one summer when the Russians invaded?

        1. Right, the famous Russian invasion of Mackinac Island. The yoopers took a huge hit. They couldn’t sell fudge for like two weeks and the rest is history.

      2. I thought those were a bunch of kids hiding out in the Rockies after the invasion of joint Soviet/Central American forces.

        1. The Rockies prior to the invasion were in Colorado and a few other states, but were relocated to Michigan after the war began.

    1. So they were fighting to force Toledo on the other state, I assume? Heh.

    2. States having raiding skirmish type wars would be pretty cool. I’m in Ohio and I have to say, those people over in Indiana have had it too good for way too long….

        1. No, but they like to think that they are. They really need to be brought down a notch or two. Maybe give up 25 miles along the border to Ohio. Something to put them in their place.

        2. With a long long running path beside it. So you can, you know, run dmz.

        3. It’s nice to know that a fellow so jaded and unflappable as you can still be shocked.

  2. Always interesting to see leftists vilify McCarthy because he ruined people on accusation alone. That reminds me of something leftists do themselves.

    1. It’s true. The vast majority of people who claim to be Liberals (in the context that they are against political persecution) are not when they actually get in power, and they don’t even realize it.

  3. Hey you wonder why leftists have been able to run rampant in federal govt? I’ll tell you why, because so called republicans (bushes, McCain, gramham, etc.) aren’t actually republicans – they are RINO. They are democrats masquerading as republicans. That is why they are so willing to roll over and lose. They are akin to the bball team that plays against the Harlem globetrotters. Paid losers.

  4. If our so called republicans actually represented our interests and felt the same as us they would have rooted out the leftists in the buearacies a long time ago. They would have made a stink about it and would have sought to have them outted and fired.
    They would have done what is currently being done by leftists towards us on the alt right. They would have hunted them like prey and done everything in their power to make the leftists feel pain.

    1. There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. They are one party that pretends to fight one another in order to keep us distracted from what they are doing to us and our country. It’s all *wink, wink* and *nod, nod*. They all socialize together and enjoy all the same perks of being government aristocrats living off our tax dollars.
      None of them have any incentive to change the system that keeps making them multi-millionaires.

      1. In all fairness I have heard reports that relations between republicans and dems have been strained over the last year or two

        1. It is a dog and pony show with the Bush type establishment neocons. There are some good politicians in there that really are conservative, but they are a minority.

  5. What we really need on the alt right is a big money backed. A soros type for the alt right. Someone who will fund guys like Roosh, Richard spencer, anglin, damigo, Jared Taylor and the list goes on. In order to be a significant figure on the alt right you almost need to have some family money(Richard spencer), have made it on your own(Jared Taylor) or just be willing to forgo a high income(anglin).

    1. I agree it would be great to see a big money backer (or backers) come in and fund a bunch of Alt Right guys to push the movement forward. But its a very risky proposition. Anybody with enough money to do it would have very little reason to do it. It is unlikely that it would be a sound monetary investment. So pretty much the main reason to do so would be to effect cultural change.
      Investing in personalities has a lot of drawbacks in and of itself. All you need is one jackass to decide its a good idea to start throwing “Roman salutes” and you’ve significantly undercut your message and turned off a lot of your intended audience.
      We’ve also seen personalities in the Alt Right turn on each other for no good reason other than to advance their own careers. Why would a backer put a lot of money to fund a group of people that may end up just shooting at each other?
      Much of the country believes the Alt Right is basically full of Nazis and white supremacy fucks. Anybody who gets in bed with the Alt Right, then, is open to being smeared and ruined if the Wall Street Journal, etc., decides to go after them. Why would anybody with a ton of money open themselves up to that?
      There just isn’t much upside in a big backer coming in and funding the Alt Right as a political movement right now.

      1. But we just need ONE older, very wealthy dude (it would never be a female) who doesn’t give a flying fuck in a rolling donut about what the media, academe, or his fellow wealthy folks think.
        There’s got to be someone on our side with the money and stones to stand up to the crybabies. Maybe it will come in time when the guy’s got a year or less to live, or something like that.

        1. He’ll never do it. I can’t remember the details, but I know I read a couple things indicating he holds somewhat liberal views on some issues. I was very disappointed. Plus he’s got the 2 kids in Hollywood, whose careers would be over if he or his estate ever became a financier for far-right causes.

        2. He’s actually a little “L” libertarian, so some of his views may seem “liberal” if taken out of context of the scope of his beliefs. That being said, without knowing what those specific beliefs are, I can’t really say for certain if my observation applies or not.
          Soros managed to spawn too, btw. Sometimes you just gotta do the right thing and hope for the best. But you’re probably right.

        3. I swear I cringe when I see how the progs and commies have co-opted the word liberal. I tell people all the time that commies fucked over and subverted “liberal” so bad, actual liberals had to start calling themselves libertarian.

      2. Shell corporations inside of shell corporations inside of shell corporations, an endless array of looped iterations of shell corporations. It’s how Soros managed to get his tentacles into most everything for decades before being sniffed out.

      3. As far as reason for backing the alt right I would first and foremost it’s because you love your country and want to create a better life for your family and future generations. Ie: cultural change.
        As far as your argument goes, I can turn it around and replace alt right with leftists like soros. He in particular has been getting smeared for his beliefs. Yes getting smeared is a deterrent – no doubt about it.
        Funding personalities means you have *some* say over what they do/don’t do. As in, you can prevent them from “shooting” at one another or doing roman salutes. You have more control over them to make sure they stay on message.
        I believe the only benefit to being a backer is effecting cultural and social change. It’s a money pit no doubt.

      1. You are thinking about this the wrong way.
        It is not so much about control as it is about security. The idea being if you ever run into a situation where the antifags threaten you or your family and you need additional security, you don’t have to depend on a bunch of guys like myself to chip in $20 or so bucks here and there. which btw, I gave you money for that. Additionally, there is the opportunity to do more speaking tours, book promotions, online advertising, hire additional staff, churn out more articles, etc. etc. Any increased security costs that may be attributed by antifag protestors at speaking events would be taken care of as well. Or in the case of Anglin – him getting sued or Spencer’s case where he had to sue Auburn so he could speak. Things like that get covered.
        I will not be so naive as to state there would be no control issues. But theoretically a donor would initially be attracted to the ideas of the alt-right and understand that it is a leaderless movement with differing factions who generally agree on a few concepts. The idea is to support the personalities of the alt-right and encourage others to ‘out’ themselves by offering financial security.

  6. Nope. Leftist justifications change on a dime.
    The root cause of all these problem is complacency. Until we are willing to repeatedly put a boot in their face they will rationalize any way they can because there is no consequence.

    1. Yep, couldn’t have said it better. They are like women when arguing, if you catch them on a logical point they go on an entire new tangent unrelated to the original discussion, and start their emotional histrionics and screaming and crying. The Left should and must be treated as if it were an organic woman, and that will make dealing with them much more manageable for our side.

      1. I wonder how much of it has to do with Commies being such low T guys. All the veganism and vegetarianism has got to be part of it. All that soy creating weak males. And since Communism and other various forms of coercive collectivism are tyranny of the weak, I wonder if that is what attracts these weakened males to these maternal entities in the same way women turn to daddy government to deal with the mean man who won’t do what she says.

    1. I’m telling ya’, all we have to do is call in the one force that has a spotless track record in putting down dirty, unwashed Leftists. That’s right….it’s time to call in the Ohio National Guard! They’re Ohio boys, they have to be itching to do a little Hippy Hunting.

      1. I grew up in Eastern Oregon, the politics between East and West of the Cascades is like night and day. Unfortunately, we were always outvoted.

    2. That doesn’t mean they aligned them, it just means they don’t think they can protect from them without it being bloody. Just imagine how much of a publicity disaster it would be if people died during that parade.

      1. We are Americans. We do not yield to threats. Threats against our treasured liberties are especially egregious. Many have paid blood before us to secure us these liberties.
        If you have to be such a little fucking sissy about it, make the situation known to the participants and let THEM decide. It’s clear that they neither need nor desire such protection.
        Deaths would be excellent publicity, considering the source of the threats. Some people wanted to hold a wonderful family friendly parade. How is this worth threats against life? Let’s put those issuing threats and causing violence square in the public eye, and get them the publicity they deserve.

        1. “We are Americans. We do not yield to threats. Threats against our treasured liberties are especially egregious.”
          So if there is a highly plausible threat that somewhere is going to be the location of a aerial bombing, would you go and take your family there? I sure wouldn’t.
          “our treasured liberties”
          When the did going to the rose parade become a liberty?
          “Deaths would be excellent publicity”
          I’m talking about for Portland dumbass, the city cancelled the event because they don’t want to seem responsible for any security failures, “Portland: where you might die in a gunfight during a civic event”.

        2. location of a aerial bombing
          Moving the the goal-posts straight out of the park. Way to go.
          going to the rose parade become a liberty
          And again. I think, as we have for the prior two hundred and forty one years, people ought to be able to go about their business and leisure, whatever that might be, free of coercion and suppression. Those liberties. You might as well also accept the fact that the threats of violence were political in nature. The terrorists specifically targeted a political party. This begins to violate all manner of constitutionally protected interests, primarily speech and association and conscience.
          I’m talking about for Portland
          And I’m not talking about Portland, shit-for-brains. I’m talking about the people that want to live happy, community-oriented, terror-free lives. I’m talking about exposing the dirty, rotten, disgusting vermin whose anonymous email led to the cancellation.
          In short, you are a fucking scumbag for defending yielding to terror tactics.

        3. “And again. I think, as we have for the prior two hundred and forty one years, people ought to be able to go about their business and leisure, whatever that might be, free of coercion and suppression.”
          No shit, the problem is that the coercion IS there, so if you have to do something. Having a gun fight in the middle of a public event is a pretty shitty way to do that.
          “And I’m not talking about Portland, shit-for-brains.”
          *facepalm* Are you fucking retarded? You quoted me, you were talking about what I was talking about. All this shows is you lack basic reading comprehension. Portland didn’t want a bloodbath, that is why they cancelled the event. If you feel so fucking butthurt about it, go track down who sent the emails instead of whining in a comment section.

  7. People deserve their own politicians. Just look how the so called red pillars in the manosphere who see themselves as awakened and realists, put all their hopes in ONE man at the top of the central power. Centralization occurs when men become like women and need a power outside of themselves to protect them.

    1. That’s because it was created by three black women. It’s a feminist movement masquerading as a racial movement.

        1. That sounds somewhat like the beginning to a hilarious joke.

        2. Yes, exactly. This thing has legs. Somebody should run with it.

        3. not really worth it. Just various pictures of dutch women on vacation and lesbians and you have to try and tell the difference.

        4. To be honest I’d never heard it until he brought it up. Must have been a regional thing.

        5. You right-coasters, and you left-coasters…so extreme…complete with your own sayings and fashion rules…I just will never get it…but diversity is what it’s allllllllll about.

    2. “Taken feminism to a new level.” There’s really no limit. Just when you think you’ve heard it all. Just like a spoiled child, the whole point is to elicit a response.

    3. Little do those dindu’s know that History has zero fucking connection to “history”, it’s from the Greek word “historia” meaning knowledge or wisdom.

  8. “The USA was designed as a federal republic, with the states retaining
    considerable autonomy. Even in the early days, there was tension between
    the Federalists, desiring more autonomy by the states, and the Anti-Federalists desiring greater centralization. The Federalist position prevailed for nearly a century.”
    You got it backwards OP. The Federalists wanted greater centralization while the Anti-Federalists wanted more state autonomy.

    1. Additionally, did the OP even read the Federalist Papers? Likely not. Either that or it was a genuine mistake.

      1. I think it is a genuine mistake because the two terms are counterintuitive.
        By a strict dictionary definition…a “Federalist” would want a small central government – a federal system, while an “Anti-Federalist” would want a less “federal” system which means a stronger Federal government.

        1. A less “federal” system doesn’t necessarily mean a more centralized system. It could be a confederation.
          Because of the disagreements between federalists and anti-federalists, the word “federal” was left out of the Constitution entirely.

    2. I read this and I was thinking the exact same thing. Pretty sure Alexander Hamilton wanted decentralization. He was an anti federalist I believe.
      Edit: I stand corrected – Alexander Hamilton was NOT an anti federalist – he was indeed a federalist.

      1. No Hamilton wanted centralization. He wanted a national bank, etc. It’s all in the Federalist Papers and other writings.

      2. Yeah, Alexander was a strong centralization guy, he probably would have opted to just keep us a monarchy given his druthers.

    1. Leftist cuck who is old and will be dead soon. “We will have to ask all women to wear a head scarf to show solidarity against islamophobia.”
      Obey your masters girls. You voted for them.

  9. Whenever I get upset about government centralization, I put on a little Kenny Chesney, eat a glob of genetically modified Cheetos, chug a few fluoride-laced Budweisers, and surfs me some Internet porn…burp. Ah. Much better.

  10. Just as with Journalism, people that get into government work are going to be inclined to be leftist. They want money and power to flow to the bureaucracy because their livelihood depends upon this. They all get paid because the taxman puts a gun to your head.
    The answer is eliminate all taxation and replace with user fees. All government workers would become volunteers or forced to sell their services to customers like everyone in the private sector. I can’t put a gun to someone’s head to force customers to pay me, why should they? Stop feeding the beast.

  11. Here in the City of Brotherly LOLs we’re gearing up for the battle of the Extremes – in one corner we have the NFL encamped on a diagonal stretch of the city rallying for the two-headed god of Spectatorism and Consumerism, where they’ll be met on Saturday by the People’s Climate March ™.
    Corporatism and Leftism battling to see who can more thoroughly
    fuk up MY travel this weekend…

    1. People’s Climate March? LOL! Are Leftist *ever* going to ditch 19th century lumpen prole naming conventions?

        1. Sure, but am I the only one who when I hear of some group whose name begins with “People’s” immediately considers it to be full of clowns?

        2. No, not at all. But you’re not the target audience. Like when that not-so-fresh-down-there commercial comes on, you don’t run out to buy a can of cooter spray (I’m guessing).

        3. what about Duane “The Rock” Johnson. He was “The People’s Champion”

        4. Anything. I don’t care what. Anything with “The People’s” or “People’s” in it strikes me immediately as juvenile. People’s Court? Stupid. People’s Front of Judea (splitters!), stupid. People Republic of North Korea? Stupid. There is literally nothing made serious by using People’s in its title.

      1. Its unbelievable…..I made the mistake of reading their rambling manifesto. As expected they can’t do anything without invoking Trump as the root of all global problems, but referring to this region as “occupied Lenape lands” really just takes the cake. That is, if they made cakes out of CRAZY.

  12. You have some interesting ideas in here–but you also have one glaring historical inaccuracy: the Federalist wanted greater centralized control with the ratification of the constitution, the Anti-Federalist wanted to see the confederation continue. This is probably just an editing mistake, but I bring it up because in the era of ‘fake news’ any small factual mistake can be jumped on to discredit the article, and even the website.

    1. I thought that was backwards. I was thinking “Wouldn’t Federalists want MORE central control?”

  13. I can’t be bothered with government centralization today – it’s NFL Draft Day! Which actor (I mean “athlete”) will go to which team? How many neck tats will he have? Will he be a Blood or a Crip? What will the over/under be on the number of rape accusations he will garner during his career? What are the odds that he will face at least one murder charge? Soooo exciting…

    1. How watching football on TV and memorizing stats became considered manly is beyond me. Like watching porn in your basement makes you a sex machine.

      1. Now, I can almost forgive enjoying the sport as a spectator in moderation, but to make the hiring/interview process into a spectacle?!?!? THAT I just don’t get.
        You ought a SEE the lunacy that’s accompanying this hootenany!

        1. I love to take the family out to watch a local High School game or play with the young men at church. Far different than the avid fans you see at work.

      2. It’s a degree worse than that actually. Watching porn in your basement and then recording the number of pumps, thrusts and blowjobs onto a stat sheet and then chatting with other guys about the numbers at work.

        1. Imagine getting into heated, nearly rabid arguments with the fellows while on break at work on who you want to draft?
          “Goddamnit Lou, I already had dibs on Jenna Jameson and Peter North! You said yesterday you were fine with that as long as you got Ron Jeremy, so don’t try and renege on that today!”

        2. Ohhhh…watch, it will happen someday. (I hope not, but….)
          About that Bambi-squirting thing? Depends on whether she’s faking it by pissing (10 minutes), or by having water injected into her cootchie with a turkey baster (5 minutes), etc.

        3. I could imagine the pizza bets at work. Will she get the whole cucumber in there? Any takers on the number of anal beads?

        4. What’s the over/under on the number of genital warts she has…wow, the prop bets this could engender.

        5. I’ll trade you Nina Hartley and Candy Samples for Ron Jeremy and your third round pick. Hahahaha

      3. I think it goes back to the Ancient Egyptians, who had gods that represented each city. Each city’s denizens would go to the local church-like joint, and worship the god entity. Some gods were eagles, some were snakes, some were lions, etc. And it was passed down, generation to generation, and then it spanned the globe, as it became clear that bread & circus was the way to keep the masses dumbed down and compliant – but it became a sports team thing, and not a religious thing.
        Now, be that as it may, what percentage of NFL draftees’ first names will contain three or four syllables? How many first names will end with -ius? How many with -von? Contravius, Demarius, Lontellius, etc. Trayvon, Rayvon, Marvon, etc. And how many out-of-shape white guys will get fatter while betting on football this season? And how much can I make by separating those white guys from their hard-earned cash. Sooooo intriguing…

        1. Haaaaa – one of my faves…”King Tut”…way more entertaining than an NFL game, that’s for sure.

  14. Government over-centralization and over-regulation only exists because large corporations bought out the government. Those corporations got big enough to buy out the government thanks to deregulation. Thus, there is an optimum level of regulation (with the aim of preventing kleptocracy) that is necessary for a society to function. Complaining about oppressive government bureaucracy without realizing where it comes from is just stumbling around in the dark IMO.

  15. It really isn’t complicated.
    Rule One: Groups are stronger than individuals
    Rule Two: Individualists must band together to defend themselves against collectivists
    Rule Three: Any group of individualists will eventually become either collectivist or will fragment into complete irrelevance.
    Collectivism wins.
    Individualism wins temporarily.
    Collectivism is the default philosophy of any large group of people.
    Slavery is the default position of humanity; liberty is an aberration.
    Accept it. Learn to live with it. Thrive in spite of it.

  16. Why do conservatives have such problems with bureaucracy? I would way rather have an educated and skilled bureaucracy make decisions, healthcare, than some dumb arse who had the best campaign slogan.

      1. No, I really want to know what you have against them. “Bureaucrats” take so much shit all the time, but can you actually point to any particular blunders of bureaucrats that weren’t ultimately caused by the failures of politicians? How would you suggest administrating a state instead, a caste system?

      1. Do you mean civil servants? Bureaucrats are simply the management/administrators for civil servants. What would you suggest we use instead? A caste system?

  17. These are the kinds articles that give me hope. Boom! What a piece. I Made the same observation. 5 years ago Neomascilinity wasn’t mature enough to express this idea, although, I trust it was on the tip of everyones tongue. The canon of Neomascuility had not progressed to this level of understanding. I’m pleased to see we are at and past that point now. Centralization is the root of our issues. The good news is that the only legitimate book of rules in this country is the Constitution, period. Title IX is entirely illegitimate, the federal government has no right choosing what sports are played and by whom in any schools. And it’s not just Titke IX, it’s the whole fucking progressive agenda – illegitmate! The rules say this country is a decentralized government and that powers are balanced, in constant check and ultimately deferred to the states. Sometimes it feels as though we are close enough to touch the culture and country we truly want. Because this is real and true. That’s why it’s smart to be a Constitution advocate. A decentralized country would not be feminist or homosexualist. It’s impossible by the simple fact that both movements are so fucked they can’t function without a highly centralized state.

    1. Why couldn’t said movements exist without centralization? Why couldn’t’ they implement their policies on a state or local level? Why not just have a centralized state with measures in place to prevent feminism from taking over?

    1. An RoK author more literate than I am and familiar with the South Australian public sector (Mark Webster?) could do an interesting case study article on SA’s bloated yet perpetually underfunded (to hear them tell it) public health system.

  18. An ongoing struggle since the country’s inception. The final “central bank” capture of the U.S. economy in 1913, the coup de grace. Maybe Joseph McCarthy shouldn’t be vilified after all. The only difference between the feudal systems of the middle ages, and today, is who runs the show. Indoctrination into “servitude” is not a good thing, and forced compliance by “LAW”, a natural outcome. The federal government has usurped authority it does not have a “right” to possess. State governments need a thorough house cleaning, and local governments need to address “real” needs, locally. A Constitutional convention of all 50 states is required.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *