Category: democracy

Cuck’s America

Cuck’s America: “conservative” Rush panders to brownster visions of America and of American history.

First, (before getting to the main point of this post) let me start out by denouncing the stupidity of democracy, of giving the average drooling retard the same vote as the rare informed person. I’m always fascinated by such concepts as the “post-convention bump.” Now it appears that Hillary is “six points ahead” after the DNC. And, we also know that the polls for candidates go up and down dependent upon trivial matters, such as Trump criticizing a Mexican judge.
Let us consider together. Contrary to most US elections, in 2016 there is a real choice. Not much of a choice, not what I would want as a choice, but at least there is some difference there – particularly on issues of immigration, law and order, and foreign policy, as well as the contrast between Trump’s “implicit Whiteness” and Clinton’s “explicit Coloredness.” There has not been an election in recent memory (at least not since Ronnie Raygun), where there has been such a significant difference between the candidates.
Very well. My point: who exactly are these morons who would switch their preferences between such drastically different candidates merely based on who was the last one to host a convention, or based upon a single passing remark? Who exactly are the imbeciles who would make an important voting decision based on such shallow, superficial reasons? Who exactly are these idiots with no grounding in any philosophy or worldview, or even a sense of self-interest, that could drift between a Trump and a Clinton from day-to-day based on trivial events and on passing whims?
Well, these would overwhelmingly be Whites (non-Whites are voting for Clinton, 100%, with no doubts or wavering), these are White American voters. God (or whoever) help us all.
And, second, then we have this (the main point):

And part of what we show in the movie is that the Democratic Party is actually the party of slavery, of segregation, of Jim Crow, of the Ku Klux Klan, of lynching, of forced sterilization, sympathy for fascism in the 1930s.

Those are bad things? Oh, wait, to cuckservatives and alien brownsters, they are.


The Democrats are the ones who interned the Japanese-Americans after World War II. So unbelievably, this Democratic Party has been implicated in the most sordid and heinous acts of history, and yet in a move of unbelievable Jiu-Jitsu what they do is they take all their crimes and blame them on the south or blame them on the Republicans or blame them on America, as if America did this or America did that, but America didn’t do it. The Democrats did.

Thus, conservatives view segregation and sympathy for fascism as “the most sordid and heinous acts of history.’

RUSH: Well, now, you ran through that list pretty quickly, and I know you don’t want to give away the entire movie here, but there’s a couple things I don’t want to gloss over. You link the KKK to the Democrat Party. You link segregation, Jim Crow laws to the Democrat Party. Do you realize if you took a survey of the American people, that would stun them, and most people wouldn’t believe that. I’m curious to know how you figured that out, where you went to learn that, how it’s documented in the movie, and what your audience’s reaction to this is. Because that’s big; it’s huge.

Yeah, Rush, huge, just like your stomach and your ego.

D’SOUZA: So, Rush, I think this is the power of the movie. It completely interrupts and discombobulates the Democratic narrative. Now, it is a fact that it was a Democratic delegate to the Democratic National Convention, Nathan Bedford Forrest, who founded the Ku Klux Klan. It is also a fact that the Klan had a massive revival in the early twentieth century due to a progressive Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson, screening a pro-Ku Klux Klan movie in the White House. 

It is also a fact — and here I’m quoting the progressive historian Eric Foner — that for 30 years the Ku Klux Klan was the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party in this country.

OK. Even IF we were to agree that this was all bad and horrible – who gives a damn about any of this today? How is any of this relevant to the Democratic Party of today? Do you think your average Negro is going to reject the Dems giving away “free stuff” and is going to reject Democrat pandering and Black identity politics because of things that happened decades ago? It has as much relevance as the Whig party. Stupid brownster and his cuck enabler.


D’SOUZA: Rush, I’m, as I say, a person of color. I’m a brown-skinned immigrant to the United States. I was born in Bombay, India. I grew up in a country that’s ruled by gangs. You saw a hint of it in Slumdog Millionaire. This is a country with corruption running all the way through it. You can’t get through the day without paying bribes. It makes you feel dirty at the end of the day. 

I came to America to live a different kind of life and to experience the American dream.

That’s great. But you know, Mr. D’ Souza, maybe Americans – native-born White Americans – have dreams as well, and those dreams and aspirations do NOT include having brown filth like you in their country.
We do not need alien Desis – with faces that could launch a thousand autisms – pontificating to us about their interpretations of American history, or lecturing us on how their unwanted presence in our country is part of the “American dream.” Your “dream” is our nightmare, D’ Souza. 
I cannot denounce this pro-brownster cucking strongly enough.
And if any naive reader thinks I’m being too hard on D’Souza, then remember this. Surprise! An anti-White colored liar. In other words – an Asian.
Trump wants America to be “great again.” Unfortunately, America is a dead country with no future, and one look at D’ Souza’s leering brown countenance is all the proof you need of that. Rush’s pandering only makes it worse.

Hillary’s America? No, it is Cuck’s America.
Advertisements

Strom on Voting and the Democracy Fraud

Aliens and morons voting.

Read here. Excerpts, emphasis added:

Look at the streets of your city. Look at the gibbering beggars, at the drug users and the drug sellers. Look at the ignorant Mestizo peons and primitive-minded Middle Easterners now flooding into our country. Look at the declining intelligence and educational level of the White population, too. See them as they walk down the street, with an obscenity or a brand of beer or the name of some TV star on their T-shirts and baseball caps. One man, one vote. The vote of the knowledgeable and upright is now guaranteed to be canceled out by the votes of the ever-growing mob of aliens and morons. Even if all our politicians were paragons of morality and wisdom, they would have to appeal to the rabble’s tastes and opinions in order to be elected, something that most honorable men could not stomach. And when in office, they would have to implement policies acceptable to the mob or they would quickly be supplanted by a smiling liar who made the appropriate promises. And every politician in our democracy is aware that the mood of the mob is managed quite effectively by the controlled mass media. If he wants to stay in office, he must never violate the taboos established by the Jews who own those media. 

In short, democracy as practiced in the United States of America today is a total fraud.  

Those who believe that democracy is “working well” because of Trump’s recent triumphs and rhetoric are deluding themselves. Remember the Reagan years: Do you remember how the Republicans and conservative Democrats effectively controlled the Executive and Legislative branches of government? Do you remember the phrase “The Reagan Revolution”? Do you remember the landslide re-election? — the enthusiasm of White Americans for “the gipper”? Let me ask you this, then. In eight years of almost total governmental power by Republicans and so-called conservatives, did they reverse in any significant way even one major anti-White policy or program? Were the gun-grabbing laws then on the books repealed? Were the American people given relief from the intrusive federal government and its leftist policies? Were the affirmative-action laws and minority favoritism laws repealed? Was the “foreign aid” to the Zionist entity and its client states stopped or even reduced by one penny? Was the flood of illegal and legal Third World immigrants across our borders halted or even slowed down? Were those who were here illegally convicted, punished, and expelled — or were they given amnesty for their crimes? And let me also ask you this — Were any of these things even attempted? No. The agenda of the aliens who control our media, deceive our people, and thus control both political parties continued through the Reagan years and will continue even if Trump becomes president. The advance of the anti-American agenda is much like the action of a ratchet wrench. In our phony democracy, the wrench only ratchets in one direction: the direction leading to the loss of our freedom and ultimately to the death of our people and our culture.  

Democracy as practiced in ancient Athens could only work so long as the voters were of a uniformly high quality intellectually, morally, and racially. Even then, mass democracy could never have worked. Mass democracy is not a viable form of government when you have a low average level of intelligence and moral character in the population.

Totalitarian Democracy?

Various social technologies.

In his biography of Hitler, I remember Fest commenting on the Nuremberg rallies, saying something about the possibility that those rallied could have evolved into a form of “totalitarian democracy.”  Fest did not further explain his meaning, but I have my own interpretation of that, which differs significantly from the “official” Jewish–inspired concept discussed here.
What I have in mind is a situation in which the totalitarian, non-elected leader goes in front of crowds at mass rallies, crowds that represent a cross-section of the population, and presents his views and plans.  The crowd, these representatives of the populace, can either (through some mechanism, ranging from mass supporting acclamation or expressed disapprobation to actual voting of some sort) can register either approval or disapproval to these views and plans.  If it is disapproval, the leader would need to (at least temporarily) shelve the idea (until the next rally) and/or engage in mass propaganda to convince the people.
Would the leader have the legal right to disregard the will of the people as expressed at the rallies?  Would the leader “cheat” by filling the crowd with known supporters of the policies?  That may occur, but would run the risk of losing moral legitimacy with the population, if the leader’s policies go against the true wishes of the people. I note that even the Hitler regime kept tabs on popular opinion and had some concern about what the people were thinking – and that with a population with a reputation for discipline, obedience, and following orders.
Those of us, like myself, who oppose the democratic fraud currently practiced in the West need to consider what social technologies can be used to allow the people to have a say in how the nation defends their (genetic) interests, and to create mechanisms that would prevent free-riding from unaccountable elites, working against the people’s legitimate interests.  A form of national socialist “totalitarian democracy” may be such a social technology.  I have in the past also considered political forms akin to what was extent in the Roman Republic (absent the flaws that doomed that state, such as personal loyalty of the military to their leaders rather than to “the people and senate of Rome”).  Thus, revolving dual Consults, a Senate, and a Tribune of the People (Plebs), balancing power and preventing any one person or group having too much control.  This could be another form of totalitarian democracy, more similar to the Wikipedia article, albeit with the people having a real say through the powers of the Tribune (who would be elected, but who would act only according to the structures inherent in a nationalist state).  Or, some combination of the Fest-Hitler-Rally idea and the Roman idea; the possibilities are endless.  One thing is for sure: a system like the current one, in which a plutocratic globalist oligarchy masquerades as a” democracy” while waging war on majoritarian (genetic) interests, is unacceptable.

Twitter and Free Speech

Hypocrisy of democracy.

The crazed leftist view on free speech issues is here:


Twitter has discovered what many proponents of democratic society already knew: censorship is not the opposite of free speech. In fact, so-called free speech can actually be used as a weapon to silence the vulnerable and dispossessed. Ironically, to maintain its position as a platform for free discourse, Twitter must censor its users. 

My first riposte to that stupidity is to state that the “vulnerable and dispossessed” are precisely those people who are having their speech silenced through Twitter censorship. 
And that’s not just an abstract and logical objection, and it is not merely specific to the Twitter case. In the “West” those groups alleged to be “vulnerable and disposed” – minorities of various kinds for example – are allowed to say and do whatever they please, they are allowed to organize in an identitarian fashion to pursue group interests, and their relative proportion of the population is increasing. Those groups – the majority for example, particularly heterosexual men – who are considered “privileged” and “powerful” are those whose speech is censored and in some cases criminalized, who are not allowed to organize on a group basis, and whose proportion of the population is, not surprisingly, declining.  Indeed, for the latter group, complaints about these issues are themselves censored, leading to a negative spiral of disempowerment.
That sort of puts into perspective “vulnerable and dispossessed” doesn’t it?
A commentator at that article expresses the following view (spelling corrected):

I am sorry, but that’s one of the most idiotic claims ever made in ars Technica. 

By definition, censorship is the suppression of speech, which makes speech less free.  

The so-called “hate speech” criteria are one of the reasons why the German and international media engaged in self-censorship about the Cologne sexual attacks resulting in unwillingness to properly report the events. 

In reality, the world isn’t one big liberal-arts college campus, you know?

And my own “free speech primer” is here.
Question: Should a White ethnostate allow free speech to its ideological opponents?  The answer is: no.  Yes, as I outline above, free speech is extremely important. But:

1. Those who deny free speech to others to facilitate the genocide of those others cannot expect the courtesy of free speech extended to them.  Their ACTIONS – not speech – have criminalized them. 
2. In a White ethnostate, any such people would either be no longer under the jurisdiction of the state or they would be put on trial and the slowly tortured to death as punishment for the crimes committed under the present regime. So, the entire question is irrelevant.
3. The sort of White ethnostate I envision and promote would not be a democracy and would not make a pretense of being one, or of hypocritically speaking of “freedom” while denying such freedom to its majority citizens.  It is the current regime – that bases its legitimacy on “freedom” – that has the obligation to free speech.  An openly national socialist regime has no obligation.

4. The only thing that trumps free speech is freedom of association, championed by a White ethnostate.  The current System denies its majority freedom of association, and uses censorship of speech as a weapon to silence opposition to that policy.