Is Democracy Possible in America?

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, March 8, 2013

Forward
Alain de Benoist would say no.

Alain de Benoist, The Problem of Democracy, Arktos Media, 2011, £10.50, 103 pp.

There may be no better place or time to meditate on the defects of democracy than the United States in 2013. What an absurd figure we cut in the world, as we try to impose on Afghans and Iraqis a form of government utterly alien to them, while our own rulers lurch from crisis to failure back to crisis.

Alain de Benoist, one of the sharpest thinkers of the French Right, wrote The Problem of Democracy in 1985, but its insights are as fresh as ever. This is a short book, but one dense with ideas. Thanks to Arktos Media, it is finally available to English readers in a fluent translation, with explanatory footnotes and a preface by Tomislav Sunic.

ProblemDemocracy

Mr. de Benoist has written as powerful a critique of democracy as one is likely to find—so powerful that it is almost a surprise to find that he concludes with a prescription for how democracy could be made to work. Needless to say, both his critique and his prescription, though rivetingly relevant to the United States, are unknown in this country.

Mr. de Benoist begins by pointing out that “democracy” is so mystical a term that virtually every government on earth claims to be “democratic.” The communist countries of East Europe were “democratic republics,” and African dictators claim to be democrats.

Under Soviet occupation, East Germany was known as the "German Democratic Republic."

Under Soviet occupation, East Germany was known as the “German Democratic Republic.”

Westerners generally think democracy—loosely defined as free participation by the people in public life—is unquestionably the best form of government. Mr. de Benoist argues that no form of government is best for all countries at all times. Democracy, moreover, is European and heavily influenced by the Enlightenment and Christianity (an organization of celibate priests could not have hereditary offices, so voting was essential to church government). The leftist idea that the whole world should embrace democracy is pitiably ethnocentric.

Nor, as is commonly argued, is Western democracy a recently evolved and therefore particularly advanced form of government. The oldest parliament in the West, the Icelandic Althing, was established in 930, and there were clearly democratic tendencies in the ancient Italian republics, the Hanseatic municipalities, and the charters of the Swiss cantons.

Nor is it accurate to find stark differences between democracy and despotism. Unlike the Orientals, Indo-Europeans have seen very little despotism. In the Illiad, in ancient Rome, in Vedic India, and among the Hittites, there were popular assemblies that decided civil and military matters. In the West, kings were elected, and monarchy did not become generally hereditary until the 12th century. Even then, kings shared power with elected parliaments. In the West, virtually every system has therefore been a mix of collective and solitary rule. Some would even call the Athenian system not so much a democracy as an extended form of aristocracy.

The Gracchi were brothers who served as tribunes. Elected by the plebs, they could veto most government acts in Ancient Rome.

The Gracchi were brothers who served as tribunes. Elected by the plebs, they could veto most government acts in ancient Rome.

The defects of democracy

Mr. de Benoist notes that it has long been common to scoff at the idea of letting ordinary people have a role in government. As Hyppolyte Taine (1828-1893) wrote, “Ten million ignorant men cannot constitute a wise one.” Ernest Renan (1823-1892) wrote that elections mean a “destiny committed to the caprice of an average of opinion inferior to the grasp of the most mediocre sovereign called to the throne by the hazards of heredity.” René Guenon believed that “the opinion of the majority cannot be anything but an expression of incompetence.”

The best known American exponent of this view was H.L. Mencken, who wrote, “If it were actually possible to give every citizen an equal voice in the management of the world . . . the democratic ideal would reduce itself to an absurdity in six months. There would be an end to all progress.”

Many people therefore call democracy a dictatorship of mediocrity. Since politicians must appeal to the masses, elections throw up third-rate men. And because politicians must be reelected they never think in the long term and can never take necessary but unpopular steps.

In a democracy, the majority is supposed to rule, but Mr. de Benoist notes that this is an expression of numbers, not wisdom. “Quality cannot stem from quantity,” he writes. “The idea that authority, a quality, may stem from numbers, a quantity, is rather disturbing.”

A majority vote is supposed to reflect the sovereign will of the people, but Mr. de Benoist is skeptical of a sovereign will that expresses itself as half the votes cast, plus one. Moreover, majorities are constantly shifting; does that mean the will of the people is constantly shifting? If so, are the people competent to rule? Nor does majority rule take intensity of feeling into account; the vote of a coin-flipper counts the same as that of a passionate partisan.

A different approach is to claim that the majority view is the absolute and permanent will of the people—so long as it is one’s own view. On this theory, anyone who expresses a contrary view can be exterminated. This was Lenin’s and Robespierre’s version of democracy.

The Goddess of Democracy at the Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington, D.C.

The Goddess of Democracy at the Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington, D.C.

In these less philosophical times, a majority vote is seen as just a tool, a transient statistic that permits government to operate, rather than a significant expression of the people’s will. Modern democracies accept the idea of permanent pluralism and the proliferation of parties. But this concedes that there is no real voice of the people; only clashing factions, none of which seeks the national good.

When there are many parties there is never a majority—only shifting, unstable coalitions—which means impotence and irresponsibility. Whether there are many parties or few, parties become ends in themselves. Their survival, along with their hangers-on, becomes more important than whatever ideas they once represented.

No matter what is claimed in democracy’s name, it is actually a system of rule by minorities, since only elected officials actually rule. Moreover, they routinely break their election promises and are always free to flout the wishes of their constituents. Mr. de Benoist writes that when a voter hands over his decision-making power to a representative, “he is making use of his liberty only to renounce it.” This legitimizes the power of politicians over a passive population.

Even Jean-Jacques Rousseau scoffed that “the English people thinks it is free; it is greatly mistaken, it is free only during the election of members of Parliament; as soon as they are elected, it is enslaved, it is nothing.”

StormingBastille

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a major philosophical influence on the French Revolution.

At the same time, money rules politics. A poor man can hardly become a candidate, much less win an election. And because having power is the best way to raise money, the political class perpetuates itself. Moreover, Mr. de Benoist notes that “the tyranny of money clearly goes hand-in-hand with corruption and financial scandals.” Money proves the bankruptcy of the process itself: Most of it is spent on television advertising, which is the most insulting form of political discourse.

That voters can be swayed by television advertising only shows how powerful the media are. As Mr. de Benoist notes, “Popular will is thus being increasingly fabricated by using methods to condition public opinion.”

This makes fools of the sovereign people:

The fact that elections may be free is meaningless if opinion-forming is not. . . . Only a small number of people hold opinions that may be regarded as genuine convictions. The vast majority of people have no real opinions, but only impressions . . . for they are shaped by events, propaganda, and various forms of conditioning.

The candidates themselves are caught in the same snare. Modern political platforms are often based on surveys, which give everyone the same result. Therefore, writes Mr. de Benoist, “Out of demagogy and a concern to please, candidates all end up saying much the same things to everyone.”

And what they say is mundane rubbish: “In a society pervaded by the ideal of egalitarianism, the very notions of grandeur and collective destiny raise suspicion.” American politics, in particular, is all talk of money, spending, and budgets. It is the language of bookkeeping, not of destiny, greatness, or overcoming.

Romney

In modern politics it is common to win by narrow margins. This means no party or politician has a real mandate, and so cannot implement a program. It means politicians always try to win over their opponents’ supporters, which again leads to numbingly uniform policies.

This means that “voters are free to opt among different parties because they are prevented from opting among different ideas—for these ‘different’ parties are increasingly reasoning all in the same way.”

As a consequence, “Western man has never been more rightfully indifferent towards the ‘liberties’ he enjoys—although his illusion of having these liberties shackles his will to rebel.”

Although voters may be unable to articulate their frustration, sham choices are one of the great sources of today’s voter apathy. It is only natural that voter participation declines, and even important offices are won with pitifully small percentages of eligible voters. And who benefits from voter apathy? A self-perpetuating political class that is increasingly protected from discerning and motivated voters.

Voters therefore almost never vote “for,” but “against.” In a democracy, people are supposed to choose candidates who embody their will and desires. Instead, they vote against candidates who most clearly flout those desires.

As Mr. de Benoist explains:

Democracy has changed. It was initially intended to serve as a means for the people to participate in public life by appointing representatives. It has instead become a means for these representatives to acquire popular legitimacy for the power which they alone hold. The people are not governing through representatives; the are electing representatives who govern by themselves.”

Mr. de Benoist writes that far from being exercises in sovereign power, “elections are a ceremony for bestowing legitimacy: the people crown a candidate or consecrate a president without having much choice in the matter.”

Defenders of democracy

How do defenders of democracy answer their critics? Mainly by arguing that despite its defects, democracy is a government of limited powers and can never subject the people to tyranny. This is false. Any system of government can lead to tyranny. We already live under a “soft” despotism that would be the envy of Louis XIV or Ivan the Terrible. No king could make his subjects account for every penny of income and then dictate exactly what percentage to hand over in taxes. No “absolute” monarch ever told his subjects where they could have a smoke, or tell him how long his employees were to work. Our government even claims the right to kill American citizens overseas without a trial; it need only call them “enemy combatants.”

As Mr. de Benoist observers, “it is not the idea of ‘absolute power’ which democracy rejects, but rather the idea that such power may be the privilege of a single person.”

Nor is democracy clearly superior to what Westerners dismiss as “dictatorship.” Would Singapore be a better, happier place with Western-style elections and political squabbling? Would China? Is Algeria, which has been ruled since independence by a single party, more poorly governed than India? Was Spain under Franco any worse than the current wreck?

Francisco Franco was dictator of Spain from 1936 until his death in 1975. He oversaw the fifteen year economic boom known as the "Spanish Miracle."

Francisco Franco was dictator of Spain from 1936 until his death in 1975. He oversaw the fifteen year economic boom known as the “Spanish Miracle.”

Westerners claim that even if Singapore or China have dramatically improved living standards, their systems are inferior because the people do not have free speech. Mr. de Benoist lays bare this hypocrisy. Many European countries ban speech that might “stir up racial hatred,” and others even forbid dissident commentary on certain historical events.

Mr. de Benoist notes that if “stirring up hatred” were grounds for muzzling citizens, Communists and socialists should be the first targets, since their vocation is stirring up class hatred. He argues that any brisk attack on a political opponent could “stir up hatred,” and that a consistent application of “hate speech” laws would outlaw all political speech. The West makes a fetish of certain subjects and treats them just as hysterically as “dictators” treat criticism of the regime—and for the same reasons.

Mr. de Benoist notes that Germany even bans specific political movements, of both the Right and Left:

[This requires] believing that the ruling system is so excellent that once it has been established, we have the right to proscribe all possibilities of choosing a different one. All radical dissent—which is to say, all genuine dissent—is thus banned. But can we still call this a democracy?

How to make democracy work

After this blistering critique, what is left of democracy for Mr. de Benoist to support? To answer that question he takes us back to ancient Greece. He notes that in Athens, each citizen had an equal voice in the ekklesia or assembly, but emphasizes that “the crucial notion here is not equality but citizenship.” Slaves had no voice, not because they were slaves but because they were not citizens, and almost without exception, the only way to become a citizen was to be born of an Athenian mother and father.

As Aristotle pointed out, Athens came first and citizens were born into it. Mr. de Benoist notes that “this view stands in contrast to the concept of modern liberalism, which assumes that the individual precedes society and that man, qua individual, is at once something more than just a citizen.”

Pericles spoke at length of the value of Athenian citizenship in his "Funeral Oration."

Pericles spoke of the value of Athenian citizenship in his Funeral Oration.

Thus, the main difference between ancient Greek democracy and our own is not what are always told: that theirs was direct democracy whereas ours takes place through elected representatives. Instead, we have completely different conceptions of society:

Ancient democracy defined citizenship by one’s origin, and gave citizens the opportunity to participate in the life of the city. Modern democracy organizes atomized individuals into citizens, primarily viewing them through the lens of abstract egalitarianism. . . . The meaning of the words “city,” “people,” “nation” and “liberty” radically changes from one model to another.

Mr. de Benoist continues:

The effective functioning of Greek democracy, as well as of [ancient] Icelandic democracy, was first and foremost the result of cultural cohesion and a clear sense of belonging. The closer the members of a community are to one another, the more likely they are to have common sentiments, identical values, and the same way of viewing the world and social ties, and the easier it is for them to make collective decisions concerning the common good without the need for any form of mediation. Modern societies . . . have ceased to be places of collectively lived meaning.

Mr. de Benoist writes that modern democracy that ignores the crucial element of peoplehood is an American invention. It is no accident that it sprung up among people who do not even have a word that is the equivalent of Volk in German or popolo in Italian. It is democracy without demos.

Alain de Benoist

Alain de Benoist

Mr. de Benoist dislikes the all-men-are-created-equal phrase of the Declaration but, if anything, dislikes even more the idea that men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. The rights that matter in a democracy, he writes, do not come from God but from citizenship and common heritage. The American conception is doomed from the start because “where there is no folk but only a collection of individual social atoms, there can be no democracy.”

He quotes Raymond Polin (1910—2001) on the only proper basis of government:

The source of its legitimacy lies with the body of principles on which the deep-seated consensus of the nation is based. . . . Resting on a given conception of man, of society and politics, this deep-seated consensus carries an obligation to build the future history of the nation according to the inspiration of its spirit.

Mr. de Benoist believes that a healthy democracy transcends rivalries:

In this context, one should not underestimate the importance of the genuine phenomenon of national and folk consciousness, by means of which the collective representations of a desirable socio-political order are linked to a shared vision, comprised of a feeling of belonging that presents each person with imperatives transcending particular rivalries and tensions.

Under these circumstances democracy provides the fairest way to ensure that elites are genuinely worthy. And democracy does not try to make people equal; only to give them an equal chance to be unequal.

In such a democracy citizens would take an active part in public life, and with modern technology their democracy could be almost as direct as Athenian democracy. People would be active in local affairs and vote in frequent plebiscites and referenda. As Mr. de Benoist writes, “The people should be given the chance to decide wherever it can; and wherever it cannot, it should be given the chance to lend or deny its consent.”

The actual mechanisms of democracy—which readily degenerate into the spectacles of vulgarity by which America elects its President—are much less important than citizen participation. Mr. de Benoist believes that a genuinely constituted people could embody Moeller van den Bruck’s (1876-1925) definition of democracy: “a folk’s participation in its own destiny.”

Pop sensation Katy Perry.

Pop sensation Katy Perry.

The United States

For American readers, The Problem of Democracy throws a harsh light not only on our political system but on even the theoretical possibility of reform. Every one of Mr. de Benoist’s criticisms of democracy applies to the United States—and every one of his conditions for its success is missing.

Americans—fatally infatuated with their illusions—are the very people who should read this book but are the very people who will not. If democracy is “a folk’s participation in its own destiny,” we can conclude that America, without a folk, has no destiny.

Topics: , , , ,

Share This

Jared Taylor
Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance and the author of White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Matthew Turner

    Good to see de Benoist getting some recognition stateside. Sadly, your final comment is correct. Even were the average american to read this book, most would out of hand reject its message and conclusions. To busy listening to Sean Hannity or whatever.

    • Grim Jim

      Only older folks who wear diapers watch that little twerp.

      • Eagle_Eyed

        But not as many since his self-described evolution on amnesty.

    • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

      There might not be a need for educated Americans to reject his message, because we know that the United States of America was never supposed to be a pure democracy to begin with. It was supposed to be a mix of various systems. What I was always taught is that the ideal American system is a mix of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy, while not being purely any one of these things, and all three systems canceling each other’s worst features out to leave the best of all three.
      De Benoist is right to be skeptical of democracy. The framers of the Constitution would have agreed with him.
      Now, as for his argument against the universality of rights, these same Founders implicitly agreed with that. If you don’t blind yourself to the ample evidence that the Founders were racially aware and the functional equivalent of white nationalists.

      • Jedi Mind Tricks

        This is a Constitutional Republic, a democracy is two wolves, and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. Heck our economy is controlled by the Federal Reserve, and that’s a privately owned company. How can we be a capitalist society when we have a private central bank that issues fiat currency? Do you know who the international banking families are who own the Federal Reserve? How can we be a Constitutional Republic when the president pisses all over the Bill of Rights? You know since 1913 the U.S. Dollar has lost 90% or more of it’s purchasing power?

        All this has been going on for one hundred plus years, and soon all of our perceived freedoms will be stripped from us, and we will end up in Orwell’s “Brave New World”. The truth is they already switched to the One World Government, soon nobody anywhere on the planet will have any rights if the “Tribe” has it’s way.

        “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a jackboot stomping on the human face for eternity” – George Orwell, describing the message of “Brave New World”

        • Fair Dingum

          That was a line from George Orwell’s novel, “1984.” It has nothing to do with Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.” And I note in passing that Orwell took the line almost word for word from Jack London’s “The Iron Heel.”

          • Jedi Mind Tricks

            Good catch, I always seem to mix those two up.

          • Mike Lane

            Interestingly enough, London was a socialist.

          • Ignacio25

            A patriotic, eugenicist, “racist” socialist. I would take that socialist over a modern capitalist every day.

          • KevinPhillipsBong

            At a Socialist meeting in San Francisco, some members were arguing against racialist views and London stood up and said, “What a devil! I am first of all a white man and only then a Socialist!”

        • Robert Binion

          Our rulers are neither best nor brightest. They are “connected.” It is as if nuclear policy of the United States were being made by those ignorant of even Newtonian physics, by dolts too stupid to put their children behind seat belts. We have speculated upon the third world and, broken and broke, enter a fourth.

          • cadmium

            I agree but the rulers are almost always smarter than average and usually quite intelligent.I think the problem is more their character. It’s true democracy does make it tough for let’s say physicist-level intellects to succeed any more than the leftist community organiser, but the blame also has to lie with the best and brightest. Many demonstrate little interest in politics and are very consumed in their own ‘bubble’ of research or money-grabbing. And given most are atheists, they tend to vote liberal as a reaction to religion, without actually considering the whole package on the left and what it is doing to our countries. There is the added problem that academic culture pressures them into liberal stances as well. I remember a physicist came out and wrote off africa, saying it was clear by this point they probably can’t run civilisation as we’d hoped. They are not like us etc. He was then attacked and ostracised and if he’d been young, might have ruined his whole career. So what i’m saying I guess is it’s probably tough to get a physicist/mathematician etc. who not only has a serious interest in politics, (enough to cross into it), but has also withstood the liberal firestorm and emerged with a rightwing position.

        • MikeofAges

          One world is no world. Who said that? Well, I did, more than 20 years ago. But Orwell said a lot and saw a lot. A very lot. More than anybody, really. In the novel, there was provided an elaborate explanation for the dictum, “Ignorance is Truth. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.” The world of 1984 was anarcho-tyranny long before the term was coined. The point is, the masses were managed by being allowed to live in anarchic condition. Between that and the “one world” dictatorship of Brave New World, in the end the world, even the elites, will settle for the former. Even with the burgeoning technology of surveillance and control, maintain a perfect order will prove just too hard. Even the elites need a day off and a place to go slumming.

        • Cape to Cairo

          Actually, it would be Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, but your sentiments are correct.

        • Joschka

          Oh dear! “Federal Reserve” fantasy land…

      • Mike Lane

        Like Jedi Mind Trick said above- America is a Constitutional Republic. Once you say it is a “mix” you reach a realm of relativism and it becomes impossible to defend your argument, because there is no concrete, objective definition.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bill-Miller/100004334405350 Bill Miller

          Was a constitutional republic. Now it’s an idiocracy.

      • Nate Miller

        America and monarchy don’t mix. Sorry! The founding fathers & the pilgrims would turn in their graves at the very thought of monarchy and aristocracy! America was meant to be a secular Republic with democratic elections. That was the simple intended plan for our nation by her founders.

        Oh and the Queen of England and her little royal dogs can go to hell. I’m so happy the UK is being taken over. They deserve their fate.

        • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

          And you’re correct. The Founders didn’t want a pure monarchy, or a pure aristocracy, or pure democracy. Like I said, they gave us a complex system with elements of all three, the idea being that each element of the three would check the other elements such that the bad features of all three were factored out leaving only the positive elements of all three.

        • David Ashton

          So you are “so happy” that the people of the United Kingdom are “being taken over”? We English, Welsh and Scots “deserve [our] fate”.
          Let me just say that I find your glee as contemptible as it is ignorant.

          A study of Russell Kirk might help to wipe the grin off your unfriendly face.

        • Daisy

          Monarchy was intrinsic to an oligarchy which was really what the founding fathers wanted to maintain, just with their fair say in it.

    • gemjunior

      The Wallbanger holds them spellbound.

    • Will

      A nice check on democracy/mobocracy—and also on mafioso–might be injecting
      points in the legislative process where among three options deliberately voted on
      for the purpose of chance ceremony–we simply put the three in an ornate golden
      container and have a Congressional/media ceremony from which one of them
      is drawm blindly out and thus adopted. These wee “chance” checks on willfulness
      and excessive pride would also be a media frenzy. It would be a small step in
      the right direction…unless it got so out of control that Vegas became the national
      capitol.

  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    In modern politics it is common to win by narrow margins. This means no party or politician has a real mandate, and so cannot implement a program. It means politicians always try to win over their opponents’ supporters, which again leads to numbingly uniform policies. This means that “voters are free to opt among different parties because they are prevented from opting among different ideas—for these ‘different’ parties are increasingly reasoning all in the same way.”

    This is what I’ve been saying for awhile: Elections are a procedurally effective but substantively ineffective way of affecting change, for the most part in modern America and much of the modern western world for that matter. Notwithstanding voter fraud, (which is always a worry in certain areas), you can throw out red team and install blue team, or install blue team and install red team. But almost all the time, you wind up getting purple policies.

  • [Guest]

    Because I’m fast becoming an old crank, I was thinking as I read this article, “Yes, but we already have the diagnosis. What’s the cure?”

    It’s become my view over the last few years that we are a dying nation that is beyond any hope of recovery. We’ve already ingested lethal doses of poison. There is no antidote. But even if there were, the patient doesn’t want an antidote but instead demands an increased dose of the poison that’s put him on his deathbed in the first place. It’ll be a painful, protracted, undignified demise.

    I take the final paragraph of this review to be a confirmation of that sad prognosis.

    >>>Americans—fatally infatuated with their illusions—are the very people who should read this book but are the very people who will not. If democracy is “a folk’s participation in its own destiny,” we can conclude that America, without a folk, has no destiny.

  • A. Windaus

    There were 207.6 million eligible voters in the U.S., and of them about 150 million were registered. Of those eligible and registered to vote, only 121.7 million turned out to vote in 2012. If just over half voted for Obama, then the country is being held hostage to 60 million people, or 19% of the US population. Clearly not a democracy.

    • STEELWOLVES

      Look at it this way: 60 million voters received free cellphones.

      • MikeofAges

        No less an authority on politics than the late Jesse Unruh said he took all the goodies the lobbyist passed out and then voted whatever the hell way he wanted. Me too. I take the goodies and vote whatever the hell way I want.

  • Eagle_Eyed

    “Democracy” means one man (or woman, transsexual, and whatever other cultural-Marxist term people are calling themselves nowadays), one vote. Westerners who praise this system do so because they often erroneously think that “democracy” is responsible for all the cultural and technological systems they favor. They should look to morality, the rule of law, Christianity, and genetics instead.

    But the real question is this: if democracy (egalitarian voting) is the most moral form of governance, why are states the only system which use it? Corporations, charities, churches, private schools, families, etc. don’t ascribe to the “one man, one vote” principle but award/recognize authority on different grounds such as ownership stake or church bylaws.

    • Jedi Mind Tricks

      Once again, this was, and is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. The founding fathers were all Freemasons, this whole country was formed, and ran as a Freemasonic corporation. It was only through massive manipulation of the lower classes, and social strife, that the lowest common denominators were given control of this countries’ destiny. If left up to the oligarchy of Freemasons this country would be the wealthiest most advanced civilization the worlds ever scene, now it’s cities are in ruin, and it’s population destitute.

  • JackKrak

    Edit alert – first paragraph should be “Iraqis”, not “Iranians”

  • PBL

    For America the case is made more dire by our Founders appeal to Natural Law. Lacking a Divine Sanction (i.e. State Church) and saddled with large minority groups thanks to slavery and immigration driven neo-serfdom;

    America is past the point that one folk can assert itself and make its destiny We are well on the way to naked bribeocracy, with the racial tribes lined up to fight over the dead body politic like squabbling Hyenas–laughing over their good fortune.

  • JohnEngelman

    Democratic governments are unlikely to make catastrophically bad military mistakes. Adolf Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941. His decision to declare war with the United States six months later was another catastrophic mistake.

    In June 1941 Germany had lost the Battle of Britain. An invasion of the Great Britain could not succeed without air supremacy. The Soviet Union was the largest country in the world with abundant natural resources.

    In December 1941 Germany had failed to conquer the Soviet Union. The United States was invulnerable to air attack, and produced nearly half the world’s industrial goods.

    Since the eighteenth century in major wars the more democratic side always won.

    Today it is not democratic South Korea that threatens the Far East with nuclear war, but dictatorial North Korea.

    Those who realize that their political values, concerns and goals are not shared by the majority are sometimes tempted by the ideal of an enlightened despotism: that is to say a dictator who agrees with them. Nevertheless, while enlightenment cannot be institutionalized, despotism can be and is.

    • David Ashton

      Military decisions by governments are not the result of democratic voting in any event.
      The British decision to make an impracticable pact with Poland and to declare war against Germany (not the Soviet Union) was not democratic.
      The American people were democratically against foreign war until Pearl Harbor.
      None of the Soviet military decisions from 1920 to the end of the Cold War were democratic.
      It is possible to have a despotism in parliamentary disguise.
      A “democratic” majority can victimize a minority, e.g. by excessive taxation.
      As Professor Rummel has shown, parliamentary democracies are much less liable to initiate democides than dictatorships, but such governments also tend to be culturally fairly homogeneous, well-educated, long established constitutionally and mostly of north European ancestry.
      Wars are another matter – the USA has quite a record here.
      In any discussion of democracy, it is necessary to agree on precise definitions and to illustrate with accurate examples. Basically, people know what happens in their own experience and can give a general judgement on a government, but they are not experts in government itself. Government “by the people” is the key issue that remains largely unsolved both in practice and political theory.

      • JohnEngelman

        David Ashton,

        You regret the rich being “victimized” by “excessive taxation.”

        I regret the excessive power they have through their ownership of the mass media and through campaign contributions.

        • David Ashton

          The two things are not necessarily the same. A relatively poor majority can transfer wealth forcibly from a comparatively richer minority.

          • JohnEngelman

            What is wrong with that? No government can work by voluntary compliance. Force is necessary for civilization to work.

          • Poindexter

            You have hit upon a near universal truism . . . for nonwhites. That is why Arabs seem to require ruthless dictators.

          • Athling

            Democracy is a white thing. The entire concept of civilized government in which ordinary citizens have a voice in the affairs of government is a white thing. Democracy is bound up in whiteness. Whites invented it. It flowed from the minds of whites.

          • Room101

            The Founders of the United States scrutinized Democracy in all it forms and found it wanting.
            You’ll be called a “racist” if you look back into the records of the founding of the United States and discover why the Southern States wanted to count their slaves as full citizens for the Constitutionally-required census.

          • David Ashton

            The minimum essential for government is to preserve peace and order, to suppress crime and prevent invasion. This required force is funded by taxation. The question is how government employs its force.
            Governments rightly or wrongly do other things, which some political theorists defend as legitimate extensions of the above essentials, such funding strategic communications like railways, or even literacy education and crime-deterring welfare.
            The problem to which I refer is the compulsory transfer of wealth earned by productive citizens to much less productive citizens on a scale and in a manner whereby the numerical majority can always outvote the minority. Three muggers outvote the rich old lady and “democratically” share equally share her wealth.
            The socialist trick, in Britain at any rate, has been to use envy to win power. You say to the “poor” majority” that the “rich” minority have too much wealth, and a progressive income tax combined with welfare benefits will balance things out, so long as you return the right politicians and set up a bureaucracy than can administer the transfer.
            The other issues you raise such as the influence of rich people on opinion though mass-media control and on political parties by donations are serious indeed, but they are separate from the taxation process itself and which is not a specific remedy for such abuse.
            The power of the media and the bribery of politicians do affect the process of “democracy” especially in what our leftist friends call “late capitalism”, and make a mockery of it to a large degree.
            It is very difficult for political challengers to fund election campaigns against the “big boys” and certain “lobbies”. Look at the people gathered at the Fed HQ on September 12, 2008, to discuss the emergent banking crisis. Look at the Zionist funds for key politicians. Look at the funds from wealthy people directed to leftist “think-tanks”. Look at the power of one millionaire and the power of the British people during the notorious Black Friday period in UK financial history.

          • Guest

            Oh how quaint, you have no problem with using force for a civilization to work. Something tells me that if the same force were used against you (Or one of the groups you constantly slobber over) you’d be screaming the loudest about the injustice of it all.

          • Room101

            The West finds itself in its present predicament as to how civilization shall be best dis-mantled by our supposed betters, the intelligentsia and nomenklatura of certain un-mentionability.

            To know who rules, know who may not be criticized.

            To paraphrase the Jedi “mind trick” from an old Star Wars movie, ‘this is NOT the tribe you’re looking for…’

            All the institutions of the contemporary “West” are open to scrutiny and cost-benefit-analysis, noam sayne?

        • David Ashton

          I added further comment to the two sentences below through the edit facility but Discus would not let it appear, and I am not in the mood to write it all up again from memory just now.

        • Tinfoil A22hat

          The truly rich are not touched by anything as bourgeois as income tax. The people who are considered to be rich are the ones who get the screws put to them.

          As an example, a doctor who grosses 250k per year will see less than $150k of it. Not to mention having to make school loan payments equal to an extra mortgage payment per month, essentially in perpetuity.

          I believe this is why a lot of people who are considered to be “rich” cringe when hearing that “the rich” need to pay more. The “rich” that actually pay, are paying a lot, on money they have worked hard to earn, not just inherit. I don’t claim this to be true in all cases. I do believe it’s true in a lot of them.

    • The Traveller

      “Democratic governments are unlikely to make catastrophically bad military mistakes.”

      Excuse me? The English involvement in the first world war, anyone?

      • JohnEngelman

        The British won.

        • celtthedog

          Yup, thanks to our entry into the First World War, we lost our place as the most powerful nation in the world, the empire began to unravel and in just two decades’ time we had to do it all over again.

          The history of Britain in the twentieth century in a sentence? The First World War bankrupted the nation and the Second one finished off the job.

          Britain’s victory in the First World War is a textbook example of the Pyrrhic Victory.

          • Room101

            Nevertheless, generations of American schoolkids read of and watch gun-camera video of RAF Spitfires and Hurricanes over the Channel and Britain shooting down a more direct in-your-face-type military enemy, the Luftwaffe.

            Somehow or other, ALL White-people are now considered to be “racists” or “privileged” or well-connected because of some congenital melanin ‘deficiency’.

    • Luca

      Hitler was a political genius and a military fool. He could have defeated Britain but he gave up too soon because he really didn’t have the stomach for it, nor was it one of his goals. He wanted to align with Britain because he felt the two countries had much in common and that the true common enemy was the Red Menace. How different things might have turned out if Churchill had accepted his peace offerings.

      You are right about his mistakes, but using him in your analogy regarding Democracy is off base. The German people worshiped him throughout the 30′s and had there been a pure Democracy he would have been voted in by landslides.

      Hitler was articulate and knew how to appeal to the masses and apparently that’s all it takes to fool most of the people some of the time. We see it here today, but at least Hitler was honest with his people.

      • JohnEngelman

        In the German presidential election of 1832 Adolf Hitler won 36.8 percent of the vote. That is considered to be lowing by a landslide.

        Paul von Hindenburg won 53.0 percent. He was 84 years old at the time. That goes to show how desperate most Germans were to keep Hitler from power.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932

        • Luca

          I should have been more specific and said from 1933 forward.. Hitler was not as well known, and he was going up against a real heavy-weight in von Hindenburg. In 1932 the Nazi party was not that popular though this was the time period it was picking up steam.

          There is no denying Hitler’s ability to mesmerize crowds and his popularity after 1933. When he started picking the wrong battles and plunging Germany deeper into war is when he started losing his popularity.

          • paul

            He never lost his popularity

          • Bobby

            I believe that is true from the vast reading I’ve done about this interesting and little understood, period of German and world history. In fact, unlike say, Stalin, Hitler ruled through the continued popularity of his personality. He did not need to have constant purges ot the National Socialist hierarchy in order to stay in power, unlike the way the Soviet leader had to with those in power under him. If there was ever a leader who was a nationalist superstar, it was Hitler.

        • jambi19

          Yes, but the NAZIs won the majority of the seats in the Reichstag during the election. The NAZIs where the largest party in Germany of the time. “Democracy is the path to national socialism.” -Adolf Hitler.

          • JohnEngelman

            Federal elections were held in Germany on 31 July 1932, following the premature dissolution of the Reichstag. They saw great gains by the Nazi Party, which for the first time became the largest party in parliament, though without winning a majority.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932

          • jambi19

            Stand corrected. Largest in the Reichstag but not a clear majority.

          • R. Hess aka Prince of Peace

            Engelman, you’re a perfect example of why 99.9% of your people cannot be allowed in OUR tent. You possess a chameleon-like ability to look, speak, act, and think like the majority without having the inborn esprit de corps required to genuinely look after the people’s interest.

            I trust that you sincerely believe every thought you post here. Even though I may agree with you much of the time on certain issues, I still sense a difference of motivation between us (the white majority) and you (the infinitesimal minority). Your people interpret the world from a different frequency than do those you dwell amongst. History shows that your presence will always cause severe turbulence or worse. Semitism vs. Antisemetism, like the chicken and the egg, I care not which one came first but acknowledge simply that they are seperate and justified entities. Once one comes to this conclusion he must naturally proceed to seperate the semites from the bunch.

            For this reason I am now an ultra-zionist. You have a home, now go. I, and a growing number, long for a Transfer Agreement 2.0. Take this as your letter of cease and desist. We both know that your failure to comply will be tragic for both parties. We’ll do as evil Uncle Adolf: pay for your people’s vocational training prior to departure, allow you to take your possessions, and guarantee safe passage. Or you guys could take the initiative and Operation Magic Carpet Ride the entire diaspora back to Israel. I’ll volunteer to be one of your super-secret El Al agents. The only thing we ask is that you treat your neighbors a bit nicer and truly seek a lasting peace.

            The answer to 1984 is not 1776 but 1933.

            Godspeed

          • JohnEngelman

            Engelman, you’re a perfect example of why 99.9% of your people cannot be allowed in OUR tent…

            I trust that you sincerely believe every thought you post here. Even though I may agree with you much of the time on certain issues, I still sense a difference of motivation between us (the white majority) and you (the infinitesimal minority).

            - R. Hess aka Prince of Peace

            If, as I suspect from reading your posts, you admire Adolf Hitler, I do not want to be in your tent, and it is you, rather than I, who are in “the infinitesimal minority.”

          • David Ashton

            John Engelman is not a Jew, despite his high opinion of Jews and multiracial societies outside Israel.
            The vocational training for potential Jewish emigrants in Nazi Germany seems to have been hyped up by Zundel, but much more documentation on this would be interesting. What is your view of the Goebbels’ Diary entry on “liquidation” and Hitler’s explanation to Horthy of the fate of Jews unable to work?

      • Nate Miller

        I think you are wrong. Hitler was never the most popular leader. He was a cruel despotic dictator who came to power by ruthlessly crushing his opponents. Most Germans would have never voted for him. He knew it and so he grabbed power. My German ancestors fought against that madman who came to Germany as a low level corporal from Austria. Even today, except for a sorry bunch of low IQ Nazi skinhead bums (more like retarded Cancer patients on crack) no German likes Hitler. Thank God he lost! The man was an envious, resentful incompetent fool who lived in a dream castle.

        • Luca

          Should I believe all that I have read, all the documentaries I have watched, all the old newsreels, all of which I have filtered through a mental screen of common sense and logic..or should I believe your opinion?

          He was cruel to people he believed were alien unpatriotic bloodsuckers, and bent on destroying Germany. He was good to his own people even the non-Aryans.

          The Jews had plenty of warning to get out of Germany and many of the smart rich ones did just that. They were encouraged to emigrate and many did. He believed Jews belonged in Palestine and he had an obsession with ridding them from Germany.

          Oddly enough, he hated Communists more than he hated jews and killed 4 times as many Russians but you never hear the Russians sobbing about a holocaust. It was war, and stuff happens in war.

          Hitler was a political genius and a military fool with a very high IQ who felt he had a mission in life to save Germany. He was worshiped by an overwhelming majority of the German people when he took them out of a Depression that was far worst for Germany than it was for the rest of the world.

          This is history, not opinion. But I respect your right to say whatever you think is reality. I have visited Germany. Clearly the people today were taught to hate the man and those in the East were taught a complete revision of history compliments of their communist occupiers. Hitler became a drug-addicted delusional maniac who picked the wrong battles, but he was barking up the right tree.

          Besides their is no sense in arguing about history when what we have in this country now is a repeat of history. The liberal elite are destroying this country before our very eyes and I am starting to feel like a German jew in 1933. Those who don’t learn from history will repeat it.

          • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

            Oddly enough, he hated Communists more than he hated jews and killed 4
            times as many Russians but you never hear the Russians sobbing about a
            holocaust. It was war, and stuff happens in war.

            It is my understanding that the official party line of the Soviet Union after WWII was that the Holocaust was purely a German attempt to commit genocide against Russians qua Russians, and saying anything else was a crime akin to “Holocaust denial” in certain countries today.

    • JohnEngelman

      I am glad that Nazi Germany went down in total defeat. Nevertheless, after losing the Battle of Britain, the best course of action for Germany would have been to accept a low intensity struggle with Great Britain of indefinite duration. Germany should have concentrated on defending herself from British bombing raids, while continuing to ask for a peace settlement with Britain that required no concessions from Britain, only peace. Eventually the British would have tired of the struggle. Winston Churchill would have been replaced by a peace candidate.

      That is basically what Israel did after winning the Six Day War in 1967. Israel knew better than to get into a war of attrition with Egypt and Syria.

      Israel’s was the kind of decision a democratic country is likely to make. Because of that decision Israel still exists.

      • MikeofAges

        “Israel’s was the kind of decision a democratic country is likely to make. Because of that decision Israel still exists.”

        Yes, and because we did not make the same kind of decisions, we don’t.

      • New Rise

        The Soviets wouldn’t have stayed friendly forever.

      • David Ashton

        An interesting angle.
        The decisions made by the Chamberlain government and then by the Churchill government considered public opinion, but were not democratically designed by the electorate. The anti-appeasement analysis of Keith Middlemass and the recent “pro-appeasement” analysis of Patrick Buchanan both show how these war-relevant plans were decided by inner cliques.

        The British Peace candidate in 1938-40 was Oswald Mosley, whose fully stated position and detailed record has been viciously misrepresented, notably in “fiction” from C.J.Sansom and others. He was imprisoned without trial or even charge.

      • Paul

        More nonsense by Engelman. The Germans didn’t lose the battle of Britain as the casualties were similar,. They just didn’t WIN it. The battle took place over England. Every time a British plane went down with the pilot alive he was back in his plane within an hour. When the Germans lost a Pilot they lost a plane and had a captured Pilot every time. The purpose of the Battle of Britain was to do heavy damage to the British airforce. They succeeded in that. I still don’t understand the glee in which people like Engelman revel in the German defeat. The Brits had the entire world on their side, and specialized in tactics which the Germans were shocked by. I don’t really think even Hitler believe the Brits would sink so low.

        • JohnEngelman

          I still don’t understand the glee in which people like Engelman revel in the German defeat.

          - Paul

          I am not the only one who revels in the German defeat in World War II. It is the consensus.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VE_DAY_Piccadily_1945.jpg

          Are you sorry Germany lost the Second World War? If so, why?

        • kjh64

          The Germans did lose the Battle of Britain, their desire was to invade the UK and take control, they failed so they lost. As far as Britain’s “tactics sinking so low”, war isn’t nice, it’s not supposed to be. You do what you have to to defend yourself and win because to lose, you lose your country. Hitler wasn’t “shocked” by any tactics, he did the same things.

      • MikeofAges

        If the Nazis had not gone down to total defeat exactly in the way they did, the Soviets eventually would have conquered them without Western help. Maybe Europeans would have been saved from themselves by occupation and strong rule. The verdict of history is coming in, and postwar prosperity under the American umbrella just didn’t do it.

        Irony is a bitch sometimes. Woody Allen released an admittedly entertaining movie recently called “Midnight In Paris”. The sad fact is, it is midnight in Paris right now. Who in the cosmopolitan elite will say it?

    • MikeofAges

      Nuclear weapons have contributed the most to keeping nations in line. Old saying, dude. “Beer does more than Milton can, to justify God’s ways to man.” If you get my drift.

      • a multiracial individual

        I mostly agree with your point that nuclear deterrence keeps nations in line. However, there is another kind of nuclear violence that we should all find horrifying, Islamic Jihadists. When one sneaks a nuclear weapon into an enemy city and detonates it, there is less chance of the enemy group suffering immediate reprisal. Also, many of these lunatics are inflamed with a desire for martyrdom. The threat of death is less present in them. Of course, given the cowardly posture by our leaders the Islamists are soon realizing that bombs are not necessary. All they have to do immigrate and breed.

        • MikeofAges

          The issue of the death of people of their ilk does not deter them either. If these people do not wish for their own death, then they are, in the minds of the radicals, bad adherents and therefore deserving of death. On some occasions, have called this situation “The Crisis of the Golden Rule”. That is to say, when you are dealing with people who will come to your house and try to kill you, and want you to come to their house to do the same thing to them so they will get crack at you, they are following the Golden Rule, doing unto others as they want others to do unto them.

          We living in a novelly dangerous world, where there are people who simply do not operate according to the same principles of civilization that we do. And cannot be persuaded to join in a stable modus vivendi.

    • paul

      Hitler did NOT make catastrophic military mistakes. If not for Hitler his Generals would never have invaded France because they said it was impossible. Following Hitlers demands France surrendered in 3 weeks. Please understand that the entire world was fighting Hitler and Russia was being supplied with huge amounts of equipment by the US. On top of that, the Germans had wiped out the ENTIRE known order of Russian battle in a month. The Russians had four times the army of the intel given to Hitler by his staff.

    • David Ashton

      North Korea: so IQ scores are not the only factor that matters?

      • JohnEngelman

        No, but they are probably the single most important factor.

        • David Ashton

          In building a nuclear missile that can hit Seoul if not Washington?
          The clever criminal can do more damage than the half-wit.

  • pcmustgo

    Well, I certainly believe representative democracy, ala Occupy Wall St. is nothing but Chaos… endless squabbling and voting and arguing over what color to paint the wall or where to place the vase on the table.
    Endless obsessions with Power. The Left in general is obsessed with Power relationships and radical egalitarianism.

    It’s like that famous saying “Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen”

    If everyone makes every decision it’s endless decision making with no answers.

    • pcmustgo

      Also, how do you compromise on certain things… If I want to paint the wall red and you green, do we mix green and red together to make… brown and paint it that? Or paint half of it red and half of it green?

  • Triarius

    It’s hard to have a successful American democracy when a good portion of those voting are overtly anti-American.

  • connorhus

    de Benoist’s observations have some merit but they only really apply because these United States have been turned from a Constitutional Republic into some kind of Representational Democratic conglomerate.

    First off size is a big issue(pun intended). We went from a Representative for every few hundred thousand (I believe it was 300K Originally but could be wrong) to an average of 1 rep per a million or so now.

    Shifting from a Land holder that represents a family with skin the game vote to everyone having a vote did it’s harm as well and ultimately is what lead directly to the abuses the article mentions.

    It is my belief that at least certain areas of what remains of America will go back to a Constitutional Republic eventually. The simple fact that we had one and it bred what it did means that not all the population can go back to the farm after they seen Paris. The old rules do not apply any longer nor are the men who count of the same mind set to be ruled like they were 300+ years ago.

    Yes we are off the rails, the experiment has failed in some ways but the spark that lit the research is still very much alive.

  • Luca

    The problem with American politics are the politicians themselves and the political machine behind them. Politicians should have to pass vigorous background checks, should hold at least a Masters Degree in Political Science with strong work in Economics, World and US History and have a minimum IQ of 100 . Their financial records must be 100% transparent at all times and they should be eligible to be voted out of office as easily as they are voted in. In appointed positions that are at a federal level they should be eligible to be voted out by The People and have the governing body or official elect another a replacement.

    The current process allows idiots, thieves, traitors, criminals and scoundrels to hold office as long as they pass a popularity contest. They can generally win that popularity contest if enough money from various unknown sources is used to back the candidate. Your current President is a prime example.

    • Nathanwartooth

      Just being Black in a Black district is enough.

  • Mike Lane

    The problem with America arose when we started letting in those of Southern and Easter European decent. While they might not have been too detrimental from an intelligence, productive, or ethical/ moral standpoint, this started the notion of the “melting pot” (which has nothing to do with the American Dream).
    Before then, American did, in fact, have a quite similar idea to the German “volk”, though not as strong.

    • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

      I don’t know I agree with that. Ironically, it might have made the white American population more racial. White ethnics tend to think more ethnic than “plain ole white Americans,” and it’s a short step from ethnic thinking to racial thinking.

  • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

    Democracy: its origins, its destiny:

    “Egalitarianism leads to democracy; democracy leads to socialism; socialism leads to economic destruction; and democratic socialism in multicultural societies leads to death and democide.”

    (HANS-HERMANN HOPPE, Austrian school economist, libertarian political philosopher, emeritus professor of economics, University of Nevada, distinguished fellow, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, author of “Democracy: The God That Failed”)

    * * *

    “The collective death-wish that seized the European-derived civilizations sometime in the second half of the 20th century has hardened from mere wish to near-fanatical determination. The dogma of utopian egalitarianism, that has been used to justify the opening of white nations (with a very few exceptions) to mass immigration from regions with very different civilizational attainment, or none, waxes stronger by the hour.” (“John Derbyshire Wonders: Is HBD Over?” By John Derbyshire, VDARE.com, January 9, 2013)

  • Bud

    Well, all I can say is that on virtually every important issue the opinion of the majority of (real) Americans is better than the elite. The majority of Westerners would never vote for open borders, for example. The majority of Americans would never have voted for busing, etc. We haven’t had a failure BY democracy, we’ve had a failure OF democracy, with the new ruling class doing what elites have done throughout history, manipulating the system, regardless of what type it is, to better enable them to rape and rob the masses. Mass bribes, a goose-stepping media, a legislating judiciary, the blatant ignoring of democratically passed laws the elite don’t care for, and above all the importation of a new people – no political victory by the Left need be considered legitimate or democratic, a theme that I’m surprised we haven’t heard more of since this last election. You’ve been effectively disenfranchised for decades, the policy of colonialism we laughingly call immigration just makes it permanent.

  • NeanderthalDNA

    What a great review of a fascinating sounding book.

    Although I have always been a history buff and have studies religious philosophies and political ideologies, I made a vow to myself as a young man to avoid outright “philosophy” until my fifth decade, then compare what I’d come up with to that of the greats. Sort of see where I ended up without the contamination of any particular road map.

    I recently came up with the term, “totalitarian democracy”, which I’ve dropped here and elsewhere more than once, to describe the sickness we in the “liberal” West must suffer under. The bright, smiley, pontificous face of hypocritical repression, the silk glove over the same iron fist. Everybody is entitled to basically, within certain “popularly” prescribed parameters, live, speak, and think as they please. Within those parameters, of course – and the parameters, by the way, are not simply criminal. They are also ideological.

    As a teacher I think I thought of it as the “Cult of Stupidity”. It’s always been around in one form or another (beware over nostalgizing as well as demonizing the past), but as I witnessed the ever lowering of the threshold in order to justify ideological imperatives, the never ending stream of excuse making duckspeak issued to justify such (“educababble” was the term I used to describe such within the confines of the specific)…I dunno…one day I asked myself,

    “If it looks like a pile of excrement, smells like a steaming heap if it, has all those fecal flies buzzing about it…maybe…it IS EXACTLY WHAT IT APEARS TO BE!” As an indirect result of this golden epiphany, eventually I found my way to Amren, lol. Which is a good thing…

    But Democratic Totalitarianism (yes, it must be capitalized in Amerika) is all about turning that turd into a trophy and schlepping schiesser all over every wholesome and admirable quality imaginable in terms of who pays the bills. It’s about appealing to the lowest common denominator – like a limbo contest, ever lower until – and selling a big Lie which is the summ total of a lot of self esteem building little lies rolled into one obnoxious abomination to the soul.

    But it’s a comfy abomination for most. Comfy enough to not dare oppose no matter how infuriating or idiotic, for truly the wages of thought-word sin are death. A slow, wasting, ignonimus death. A deprivation of livlihood, a scapegoating and bleeding of the wealthiest plurality by the combined mass of diverse “victims” which constitute a numerical majority when united in the only activity that can unite them – the slow destruction of their benefactors…

    Not that its limited to one “side” or the “other”. Take your pick. Remember when we got attacked by A, responded by destroying B, got stuck with the bill? Remember the cascading wave of patriotic ignorance that swept over the land? Between the cultural Marxist, who controls and profits from this never ending, histrionic moral panic known as “racism”, and the big corporatists of the CEO class who see nothing beyond green (both live in gated communities, by the way), there has evolved a set of behaviors, beliefs, and values that all must at least outwardly ascribe to and it’s not all that nice nor smart. To oppose is death, to not oppose a form of undeath.

    Democratic Totalitarianism. Love it like Death.

    • KingKenton

      Tocqueville’s notion of despotic democracy envisioned the elimination of intermediary groups and the domination of atomized, politically ineffective individuals by a central state – even a central state that allowed politically disempowered citizens to make as much money or own as much property as they could.

      ‘History and Reading’ — Dominick LaCapra

      • NeanderthalDNA

        I was a bit rambling, I see.

        I love Alan Bloom’s “The Closing of the American Mind” too.

        But yeah, I believe DEISEL MECHANIC, above or below, hit on some good stuff about factionalization (DIVERSIFICATION) and it’s threat to “democracy”.

    • Adrien Wild

      Couple of problems here:

      “Amerika” is elementary post-Marxist fluffery. Referring to the US by the Soviet/Russian spelling suggests a preference. You run with that, but readers should not get fooled. You put a K in America and that tells you what America really is! It’s that easy! Ridikulous on it’s face, but oddly contagious among leftists.

      “Democratic Totalitarianism” – was invented by Chomsky. It’s his terminology, and it’s an oxymoron by any standard. Works only if you think democracy is a bad thing, and you distrust the people. You could say that Nazi Germany was Democratic, but just up until a certain point.

  • 1gravity

    Yugoslavia, anyone?

    • New Rise

      What’s the point? All we’d have is a bigger border we “can’t afford” to defend.

  • Athling

    When a crack addict has the same voting power as a nuclear physicist, something is awry. Democracies can work effectively with homogenous, self-disciplined, and well educated Caucasian people. A democracy must necessarily fail in multiracial societies. These societies are rife with conflict and eventually expose the fatal flaw in democracies. Voting is reduced to a game of numbers.

    • KingKenton

      Democracy: A form of government wherein a crack addict has the same voting power as a nuclear physicist…

      Lol, would make a great tee-shirt.

      • IstvanIN

        Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) is a physicist who treats America no better than a crack addict would.

      • Cape to Cairo

        That is assuming of course that the crack addict only votes once.

    • Reginald

      Einstein was enamored with socialism, perhaps even the Stalinist variety. This former crackhead reads AmRen. Which one of us would you rather have empowered?

      • NM156

        You’re a former crackhead?

      • http://twitter.com/stinklebrink Stinklebrink

        This is why Anarchism is the best choice.

  • Diesel Mechanic

    well, that was fairly nonsensical. You seem to be saying democracy will not work in america because of the nonwhites. I think that is what you are saying, but I just could not tease the meaning out of your ramblings.

    You are right that democracy is busted in america. But you seem to have no clue as to why. Luckily, I am here to enlighten you. Democracy is decreasing daily in america due to increasing factionalization. This increase in factionalization is due to decreasing homogeneity/increasing heterogeneity in the american populace, due mainly to mass immigration, racial integration, race spoils systems, and population growth.

    The more factions in the populace, the less democracy.

    Let us go back in time to the founding of the USA. The founding aristocrats (madison, washington, hamilton et al) found that under the Articles of Confederation, the degree of democracy in the several states were increasing greatly and that this high degree of democracy in the several states was causing lowered profits for rich folks like madison etc. The people were using the power of democracy to offer debt relief to debtors and they were taxing the rich. So the Founding Aristocrats came up with a plan to thwart democracy and install a pseudo-democracy using a anti-democratic constitution designed the man who who is today known as the Father of the Constitution–James Madison. The key to madison’s anti-democratic constitution was to increase the size of the voting district. Madison wrote that the way to rule america was by use of the ‘divide et impera’ maxim. Madison wrote that his constitution was so enlarge voting districts that more factions would be introduced into the electorate because of the larger amount of people in the districts. More faction, wrote madison, meant less unity, and less unity mean the people could not unite and discover their common interests. That way, madison wrote, democracy would be decreased and the pseudo-democratic federal govt would “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” Madison, like washington and morris etc, was one of the minority of opulent (when he came into his inheritance, he was worth about $100 mill in today’s dollars).

    So, the rich of today are using the same principle to decrease democracy by increasing factions in the populace. The so called civil rights law were crammed down the throats of the unwilling white majority. This was done accomplished by molding the culture of the elite universities starting about 100 years ago. That was when the rich started using their nonprofit foundations to fund the right kind of pseudo-leftist academics, writers, activists, politicians etc. The right kind meant those who would focus on race, gender, immigration rights etc instead of focusing on pure leftist economics like taxing the rich, workers rights etc.

    Eventually the rich, through their large nonprofit foundations such as the Rockefeller, Getty, and Ford foundations, were able to create a pseudoleftist subculture among the educated elite by molding their young and malleable minds in the elite universities. This fauxleftist subculture eventually led to the civil rights laws and judicial decisions that set the stage for racial integration, affirmative action etc, and THAT set up more factionalization among the populace. Race mixing in the neighborhoods and workplaces etc factionalized and divided the populace and thereby weakened the unity of the people. Thus divided the people could not control the govt and the rich were able to use their money better to control the nation.

    Thus, a coup was accomplished, just as it was in the 1790s, by increasing factions among the populace and thereby decreasing unity and destroying democracy.

    See dr fresia’s book TOWARD AN AMERICAN REVOLUTION, Dr Holton’s book UNRULY AMERICANS, Dr Roelofs’ book SOCIAL POLICY AND FOUNDATIONS: THE MASK OF PLURALISM, and the writings of James Petras and Frances Stonor Saunders.

    • http://twitter.com/wmhoad wmhoad

      I agree there is an elite trying “to decrease democracy by increasing factions in the populace.” By using group grievances based on race, gender and sexual orientation, they have essentially left the common American out the political process. But I do not believe that the elites are simply a cabal of the “rich.” The elites are mostly leftist leaders in politics, academia, journalism and entertainment who are often rich but are mostly interested in power, political power. The secondary “rich,” what might be called well-off, are paying the bills and either agree with the elites’ goals or are paying the elites to be left alone. I believe there are many ‘rich’ especially the 250 thousand to million a year range who are suspicious of the elites and the factional trends in this country but are not going to rebel too much as long as they remain comfortable and have some illusion of freedom.

    • Diesel Mechanic

      and as an example of proof of the principles I outlined above, look at the difference between large multiculti/high-heterogeneity pseudo-democracies like the USA versus high-homogeneity true-democracies like norway, sweden, switz, austria, denmark etc.

      First, these true democracies of western europe are SMALL. Smaller means fewer factions among the populace; fewer factions means more unity. More unity means a higher degree of commonly shared interests, which means the people can better control their own government (this is the opposite of what the wealthy want).

      Also, these true-democracies have PARLIAMENTARIAN governmental structures. Parliamentarian govts have the power of the govt placed into the hands of the politicians from the LOWER house. Typically the upper house and the executive branch operate SUBORDINATE to the lower house. The lower house typically, and in practice, controls the entire govt, in general, in ALL OTHER WESTERN NATIONS (canada, australia, britain, ireland, scandanavian nations, germany, france (to some degree), austria, on and on and on, all the other WESTERN nations (I do not include asia or latin america here; and the central and eastern european nations are in transition from a pseudo-socialist/democracy themselves, so we cannot count them).

      the fact that Parliamentarian govts have almost their power in the lower house means greater unity and greater democracy. Why? The lower house, just like in america, has SMALLER voting districts. Smaller–>fewer factions–> more unity.

      The rich hate a unified populace. Iceland is the most extreme example of a white and unified populace. Also known as one of the best places to live in the world. Small, white, homogeneous==best place to live in the world.

      As the elite’s pseudoleftist subculture spreads to western europe via academia, it allows the rich to increase nonwhite immigration, thereby increasing factions in the populace, decreasing unity, and allowing the rich to degrade the welfare state, lower taxes on the rich and destroy worker protections.

      Also these Parliamentarian govts have FEWER checks and balances. Fewer checks and balances mean the populace can better control their own govt. That is good for the rich and bad for the rest of us.

      The path forward for the USA is to devolve power back to the states. Decrease the taxing power of the federal govt and allow the states to get more in taxes. The white majority is better able to control the state govts. The federal constitution is the enemy. The state govts and constitutions are much more easily changed because it is easier to organize a smaller population than a large one.

      • MikeofAges

        Interesting, and if you remember when the “hippie” movement and counterculture was in full swing, certain states were regarded, depending on the individual or couple, as near paradises. Wisconsin and Oregon come to mind. Colorado. Minnesota. California, of course, but that was the magic of the Golden State, when it actually was golden, calling.

        What do these states have in common, other than California? They are medium sized, big enough to not be run by long established families and interests. They are fairly cosmopolitan but again not controlled by serious big money. They have traditions of tolerance, respect for civil liberties, and well-financed state governments which can support strong public university systems. Oh, and they are predominantly white. Even today, and more so back then. The hippy and counterculture movement has lived on and remains influential in the politics of states and locales. Ironic, perhaps, that this subculture is one of the pillars of pro-diversity, pro-immigration political coalition. What’s in it for them?

        • Diesel Mechanic

          What’s in it for them? Why do these false-leftists parade their politically correct minority-idolization attitudes for all to see? Because homo sapiens has the equivalent of an additional organ in their bodies. This organ is culture. Culture is a program that runs and tells us what is right and wrong. We are wired to feel good when our program tells us we are ‘doing the right thing.’

          Homo sapiens is evolved to ingest, internalize and re-transmit ideas via symbolic communications. This is how we competed on the savannah — the tribal leaders concocted a plan to trap the wild game/overcome the rival tribe. Then they transmitted that set of ideas to the tribe. The members of the tribes ingested and internalized these ideas, and retransmitted them to the rest of the tribe. That was our survival advantage, how we survived. Now however the tribal leaders have their own separate culture and they are in a sense of another species entire. They have used their millions to dominate and capture the centralized points of ideology transmission–education, academia, entertainment, government. These ideology-transmission institutions are dominated and controlled by those at the top. Call them homo sapiens elite. They are a parasite-predator on the rest of homo sapiens. It is is centralized flow of ideology that allows them to control the flow of ideology and mold the ideology and thereby domesticate the culture. Because culture is internalized, they have thereby domesticated america. Call us homo sapiens domesticus.

          The liberals have so internalized a certain subset of elite ideology that they adopt ideas and behaviors that are destructive to themselves, in the case of white liberals. White hatred, mass immigration idolization, the idolization of minorities etc.

          Likewise, the members of the other political tribe, conservatives, have internalized and adopted other different sets of self-destructive ideology–the belief that low taxation of the rich is good, that universal healthcare is bad, etc.

          Welcome to the ranch, the ranch where homo sapiens domesticus is raised and tended and slaughtered.

          • MikeofAges

            Good sociobiology. Bad political science. The white working class in America does not support leftism, period

          • Diesel Mechanic

            they did until racial integration/afff action/mass immigration. The same thing is happening in the previously all white nations of western europe: as the elite have domesticated those cultures with pseudoleftism, and thereby facilitated mass immigration, the white populace has become less inclined to support economic leftism.

            And that is just what the elite want. The elite do not want a strong welfare state. The welfare state protects the workers from the predations of the elite.

          • MikeofAges

            Merit to the idea. If you think about it, it was a feat just getting a number of European nationalities to get along, embrace a common ideal, and become something different than what they were in Europe. The political movement they embraced was liberal nationalism. This is something far removed from the Popular Front liberalism we have today. But a lot of blue collar whites are still democratic voters.

          • Mariner33

            Maybe theoretically, but not in reality. Welfare states, statist institutions require workers that rarely are motivated, hired, or retained on merit. The state has no competition or “governor” to control its inherent self serving, disconnected from external control and feedback tendencies and predilections.

            Remember a guy named Shulmann, and his “Small Is Beautiful”? The young college educated were infatuated with it, like tie dyed clothes or something. It appealed to the “back to the land”, and Rousseau idealism. It was a brief shine of tribal, small, homogenous groups doing the communal (commune), communism without the overhang of Jewish Atheism, aka Marxism, as an ersatrz religion.

            The welfare state is an involuntary taking and redistribution of wealth and earned assets. Its continued existence depends on mystical thinking, short circuit logic, etc, etc.

            Everything else you’ve written makes sense.

            I am a diesel mechanic as well. 34 years as a USCG licensed marine engineer, running ships’ powerplants all over the world.

          • Diesel Mechanic

            So, this means you will not be collecting social security, right. Good for you and your strong convictions!

          • Mariner33

            Social Security is a terrible method of achieving an aim. Privatized accounts would produce returns better than the Ponzi scheme and politicized mess that SS is. And your specific point is….? That government programs are inherently the best and most optimal? That you trust the political and intellectual classes to do the right thing, the efficacious thing, and hold themselves responsible?

          • David Ashton

            The “Cultural Marxists” of the 1960s were interested in using blacks, immigrants, sexual minorities, etc. against the white workers who were considered too well-off and family/church-oriented to make the egalitarian revolution, but having attained influence through these methods, then they worked for class-war in a time of global financial downturn, using industrial workers unemployed by cheap labor at home and overseas pushed onto welfare alongside the newcomers. “It is no accident” (Trotsky).

          • Diesel Mechanic

            is that why polls of working class whites show they are against austerity measures such as cutting social security and medicare? In fact the majority of every working class american bloc is against social welfare state cuts/austerity.

            So, working class whites are NOT against leftism. Social Security and medicare are the core pillars of leftism. Race-guilt/affirmative action etc is FAKE leftism, the leftism of the elite.

          • JohnEngelman

            “Race-guilt/affirmative action etc is FAKE leftism, the leftism of the elite.”

            Diesel Mechanic,

            That sentence belongs in Bartlett’s Quotations. Congratulations.

    • JohnEngelman

      Diesel Mechanic,

      Yours is an interesting viewpoint. I hope you continue to post here.

      Nevertheless, you seem to believe that most of the voters do not know what is best for them, but you do. The reason the rich have the power they do in the United States is because most Americans like and respect them.

      Many lower income Americans have respectable concerns social issues that cause them to vote Republican.

      • David Ashton

        If all or even most voters really knew what was best for them, there would not be such large and rapid shifts of opinion. Was it not Churchill who said that a belief in democracy would not survive ten minutes’ conversation with the average voter, or words to similar effect?

        • JohnEngelman

          It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

          - Winston Churchill

          Voters may change opinions on specific issues. A popular leader may become unpopular if his policies fail. Nevertheless, there basic principles are fairly stable. That is why democracies are more stable than dictatorships. When a dictator dies, and particularly if he is overthrown vast changes can happen.

    • Bobby

      I agree with your excellent analysis of the dynamics of democracy. In fact, the original idea of democracyas exemplfied by the Greek polis, Athens mainly, only worked because there was a small number of actual citizens, i believe women weren’t even included, and they basically came from a similar tribe of people. Yes, “The more factions in the populace, the less democracy.”, as you say.

  • Lygeia

    I’m not quite ready to accept fascism because of our race problems in America.

    • Jerrybear

      I don’t think this article was advocating fascism. It is just exposing the fact that democracy can not work in multicultural societies. Our current hodge podge is anything but unity. We have loose ethnic/class coalitions that continue to divide the country. The Balkanization of America continues. If and when the Democrats destroy the Republican party, they will not be united since their party is made up of ethnocentric and sexual deviant groups that will fight over who is the bigger victim group.

  • fakeemail

    I find that picture of Katy Perry terrifying in a way. It’s mass psychological intimidation. All the cool kids are for Obama, aren’t you? Goddamn stupid ass high-school never ends, does it?

    • celtthedog

      Yes, but that’s only because we are no longer a nation of adults and haven’t been since the Baby Boom generation refused to grow up.
      Say what you will about JFK, but he wouldn’t have had a pop star screeching at his rallies…
      That’s the difference between America then and now.

      But you’re spot on…

      • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

        Well, also to be fair, the pop stars of JFK’s day weren’t screechers, either.

        • Charles Edward Lincoln III

          Many of their fans were… and some early ’60s pop stars DEFINITELY DID qualify as Screechers—sorry to say I disagree with you on that. The Beetles were dignified House of Lords-type English Gentlemen compared to some of today’s idiots, but they were quite daring for their day and were at the top of a heap that included some pretty screechy types….

          • Nate Miller

            Bands from the 60′s & 70s such as The Beatles, Queen, Led Zeppling, Rolling Stones were the God Fathers of the liberal marxist movement in showbiz!

    • KingKenton

      We are a nation that is absolutely obsessed with Hollywood, Sports, and Televsion in general. It is almost a psychosis of sorts. It is utterly shocking (disgusting even), that people will sit hour after hour, day after day watching “reality” tv shows, etc. There is something terribly wrong.

    • Charles Edward Lincoln III

      No, High School doesn’t ever end because High School was designed to be the indoctrination of the people in non-democratic societies. NONE of the Founding Fathers of America or the Confederate States of America ever went to anything LIKE a High School because High School as we know it literally did not exist ANYWHERE IN THE USA until AFTER the War of 1861-1865. The first school in the USA to call itself a High School was in Boston in 1821, and it bore NO resemblance to the Post-1870s model of High School that Swept the USA by the 1890s-1900s. That first US High School, “English High” was originally created to educate working class schoolboys in preparation for business mechanics, and engineering trades as opposed to the Classical “Latin-Grammar” schools like Boston & Cambridge Latin that, since the 1630s, had prepared schoolboys from Cotton Mather to Benjamin Franklin and all the members of the Adams family for college (Harvard or Old Cambridge), the ministry, and scholarly pursuits. High School as Social Conditioning/Indoctrination was a strictly Post-Reconstruction Invention. Can you imagine Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn going to High School? Conforming to Anything? They represented the real spirit of Free American children in a really Free America. High School has become the greatest curse on the American Spirit in general and every American’s individual spirit in particular (and its equivalents are the greatest obstacles to the development of the spirit of individualism in Europe and around the World. Many people on AmRen seem to admire the Asians—I cannot share this admiration because the Asian Spirit ALWAYS seems to have been the Spirit of the Anti-Hill…the Beehive, and all other models for well-organized Socialist “Brave New Worlds”…..

      • MikeofAges

        The American high school, perhaps the whole K-12 system, was modeled on the Prussian system, which was instrument of the Prussian state. Its intention was to channel people into different directions in life in order to make them into efficient cogs in the Prussian geopolitical engine.

        In a word, this is another argument for school choice. Universal education is a reasonable goal, but somewhere along the line, the trolley left the tracks. The system has had to resort to extortion to force people to participate in its one-size-fits-all program. Only it doesn’t. Fit all, that is.

    • NM156

      I’d like to stuff her in a binder.

  • NorthernWind

    “Democracy” is just another modern cult. No different from “multiculturalism” or any of those other idiocies. It is stronger though, probably because it has been around longer.

    I would be for taking the original American constitution as inspiration for a future state after the West collapses. It was good but now that its legacy has run its course, we know that certain things need to be changed.

  • KingKenton

    I don’t mean to spam, but I thought it somewhat interesting that Amren and these guys would post articles discussing the short comings of Democracy within days of each other. Perhaps Beniost and Kinists have more in common than we realize, and that’s a good thing.

    http://spiritwaterblood.com/

    • MikeofAges

      We’re heading toward the next phase of civilization. Slave empires. Worldwide feudalism. Anarcho-tyranny. Without direct bondage of some kind, permitted anarchy becomes an imaginative way to manage the masses.

  • Zackers

    “The leftist idea that the whole world should embrace democracy is pitiably ethnocentric”.

    This is just a cheap shot at the left. An inaccurate volley, at that. If the all the world becomes a democracy it will likely be the legacy of George Bush Jr, by the looks of things, and something those on the far right in the US, like Jesse Helms, have worked for. Leftists stand for no principles, duh. Least of all democracy. Never have. Never will. Unless saving face is now a principle.

    It was the far right that supported all the tiny Contras and stood up to world Communism. Paleoconservatives and non-interventionists are a minority among conservative ranks.

    Perhaps NOW leftists feel safe coming out to say, ‘we did it all for democracy’.

  • KenelmDigby

    The system that has evolved in the western world is representation by ‘party’ and professional politicians rather the original Greek ideal of citizens actually participating in their own polity.
    The party system is an English invention from the Westminster parliament. the idea is that parties represent general factional interests in society and fight for those interests. A drawback of the system, which can be seen in England, its birthplace, is that it tends to the evolution of a ‘political class’ in which power is stitched up by a nomenklatura, which, in general, is concerned with its own interests rather than those of ‘the people’. Hence in England, the bifurcation was (it will soon change to ‘English’ v. ‘Immigrants), was between workers and owners, but mass uncontrollled immigration ‘slipped in’ despite massive, overwhelming and extremely vocal and pasionate opposition amongst the people, because the political class refused, in a consensus, to do anything about it.
    The key insight is that there is an unfortunate and irresistable tendency for politicains to think of themselves more important than the people they are supposed to represent and to bend parliament to fulfill theiir wishes and prejudices (and not to mention pecuniary interests and intoxication of power for its own sake).

  • Tinfoil A22hat

    “Americans—fatally infatuated with their illusions—are the very people
    who should read this book but are the very people who will not.”.

    I’m not a genius; I don’t even count myself as being overly intelligent, and that is my preface to the next statement: the very people who should read this book have become the very people who *cannot*.

  • MBlanc46

    The sort of democracy that’s being discussed here is “representative” or “parliamentary” democracy, what Marx called “parliamentary cretinism”. I imagine that it can only work at all satisfactorily within relatively homogeneous populations. More direct forms of democracy are less subject to the defects described, but also much more difficult to establish.

  • Anon

    In order for democracy to work, you need three things.

    1) a 100% white population….no slaves, no second class citizens, no apartheid nor other means to keep non-whites nearby.

    2) all men and many women should be armed

    3) authority only to the number of citizens where there is direct accountability….in other words, no government above the town, or city ward level. No outsiders get a say in anything….especially taxes.

    Sound radical? It’s simply the background upon which democracy has worked in the past. Democracy WORKS…..for moderately sized groups of white people who mind their own business.

    Empires, on the other hand, by their very nature require totalitarianism. In order to exist, an empire requires nationalist socialism. They MUST be deeply radically racist with a powerful oligarchy whose goal is looking out for racial self interest. Freedom can only be allowed within that framework.

    Sound radical? It’s simply the background upon which EVERY country above a certain size has worked. If you are not of a mind to mind your own business and, instead, seek to conquer and control, you cannot pretend otherwise. You must embrace it or someone else will come along and knock you off from on top of the mountain. This is basically what is happening to white people in our own lands. We refuse to embrace white supremacy…..and discover the hard way that not being on top means we are second class citizens, even slaves…with few real rights.

  • loyalwhitebriton

    Consider Monarchy. The following quotations sum it up succinctly http://www.monarchyinternational.net/quotations.htm
    Please don’t bother me with any anti King George stuff, ’cause I’ve heard it all. I will concede, though, that an effective monarchy could only be successful in a racially and culturally homogeneous society; and while we’re at it, let’s abolish fractional reserve banking, introduce honest money based on work, abolish egalitarianism from every aspect of society…sorry, I digress.
    Anyway, considering that democracy allows any old shyster to gain power, perhaps a return to monarchy is worth considering. Personally, I think that I would make an excellent monarch :) And boy, would I make the Left pay, and I mean PAY!

    • IstvanIN

      Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach – men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men
      are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.
      C S Lewis.

      My goodness if this doesn’t describe the US. Our heroes are frequently illiterate black thugs and half-naked women who are no better than prostitutes. God Save the Queen.

      • David Ashton

        A useful quotation.
        Here is another:
        “Plato’s citizens are all Greeks… And he believed that the qualities needed in his rulers were, in general, hereditary, and that given knowledge and opportunity you could deliberately breed for them… Plato is emphatic that exceptions occur and that promotion and demotion are a necessary part of his scheme…. If government is, as it must be, operated by a chosen minority, then the people’s choice is likely to be a bad choice because the people are so easily deceived…. Plato’s basic preference was not for an aristocracy in the common sense, but for trained expertise. It is true that he thinks this is likely to be provided by heredity guided by eugenics; but expertise and trained ability are the guiding criteria.” – Sir Desmond Lee.

    • Virginia Monarchist

      Amen!

  • Adrien Wild

    It’s problematic to journalize about professional philosophers and their work. For one thing, they don’t like to be interpreted by non-experts. To the extent they write for popular audiences, they nevertheless will not broach popular critiques. So it’s an inherently non-democratic sort of role, pronouncing on democracy from the safety of the academy.

    Most of the commentary here from the non-US English-speaking world lacks nuance about the contours of American politics. It’s as if they just passed over de Tocqueville.

    It isn’t *democracy* per se at issue. It is democratic principles, running through and through everything. From the grade school, to the city council, to the county seat, to the state legislature. Democracy does not make mean that the crack addict and the patriot genius cannot cancel eachother out often – it just means that decisions are made mechanically, as fairly as possible, and absolutely regularly. There is always a way out.

  • Adrien Wild

    I would add that the selection of images in this article obviously has nothing to do with the work of the philosopher, and therefore indicates quite a bit of tendentiousness by the author.

  • kjh64

    What this Frenchman does not realize is that the USA is NOT a democracy. I would say that today our country is a ” corrupt oligarchy”. The USA today is REALLY run by a small group of men(Congress) who make their decisions based on what big business wants, how much lobbyists give to them and what benefits their own careers, such as pandering to minorities to try to stay in power. They do not do the will of nor do they care about the American people or this country, they only care about themselves. Elections in America are just illusions, bascially two sides of the same coin.

  • dj2

    My answer is no, democracy is not possible in America. Remember, this is a different question than if it is desirable.

    America is too large and too splintered for democracy to be ineffective, which is why we haven’t had democracy in quite some time.

    This is that greatest insight you can have…that the country called the United States is very tightly controlled by global elites to serve as both a giant sponge and giant police force to maintain the flow of fossil fuels and consumer goods in and the flow of dollars out.

    That is the role of the United States, and you don’t have a say in the matter.

  • STEELWOLVES

    Frankly, I don’t know *HOW* you can have a “democracy” in America when we have a Supreme Court dictating our laws, overturning citizen referendums and usurping the will of the majority while imposing social engineering by judicial fiat.

    • a multiracial individual

      9 people make decisions for 300 million. I find that horrifying.

  • Paul

    I’m not so sure there’s a problem with democracy for white people. Most of the problems we have were inflicted upon us without asking for a vote. And most of them would have been rejected outright by a white majority

  • The Ice Queen

    Thank you for the excellent review Mr. Taylor. I will most definitely buy this book.

  • lamebrain liberal

    Isnt this lame brain female singer cute as a bugs ear?

    • MikeofAges

      The tight dress helps. Yeah. Just concentrate on the neck down.

  • JohnEngelman

    And what they say is mundane rubbish: “In a society pervaded by the ideal of egalitarianism, the very notions of grandeur and collective destiny raise suspicion.” American politics, in particular, is all talk of money, spending, and budgets. It is the language of bookkeeping, not of destiny, greatness, or overcoming.

    - Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, March 8, 2013

    I would rather hear democratically elected politicians drably discuss book keeping than listen to the riveting speeches of a charismatic dictator calling for “destiny, greatness, or overcoming,” to be achieved by aggressive war.

    • David Ashton

      But what if a majority think differently from you and vote accordingly?

      • JohnEngelman

        I am used to that. I would rather live under a democracy where my candidates usually lost elections, than a dictatorship where the dictator agreed with me.

  • JohnEngelman

    No “absolute” monarch ever told his subjects where they could have a smoke, or tell him how
    long his employees were to work.

    - Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, March 8, 2013

    There are many more employees than employers. Nevertheless, without government intervention in the economy employers have the power. Employees benefit when the government mandates work hours as employees see fit.

  • JohnEngelman

    Nor is democracy clearly superior to what Westerners dismiss as “dictatorship.” Would Singapore be a better, happier place with Western-style elections and political squabbling? Would China?

    - Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, March 8, 2013

    The examples of Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan indicate that Orientals are able to maintain well functioning democracies.

    Singapore is an interesting example of a well functioning dictatorship. Unfortunately, as long as it remains a dictatorship it can devolve into what exists in North Korea. By every criterion I care about Taiwan, AKA, Nationalist China, has a better government and economy than Communist China.

    • David Ashton

      I doubt if Singapore could turn into a poverty-stricken madhouse like North Korea.

  • dmxinc

    Have you ever read “Tides of War” by Preston?

    It seems to me that even in the ethnic enclave of Athens that politics still worked the same as it does today.

    During the war with Sparta with the death of EVERY male on the losing side at stake (every male!), you would think that the primary objective would have been victory.

    But, no the Democrats in Athens attempted to recall their General as he approached Syracuse. They were afraid he would become too popular with victory (he was in the opposition party).

    The commander fled and went to Sparta, told them of the importance of the pending invasion and the Athenian fleet was wiped out. The war was lost and Greece’s future with it.

    • David Ashton

      “Another cause of revolution is difference of races which do not acquire at once a common spirit; for a state is not the growth of a day, neither is it a multitude brought together by accident. Hence the reception of strangers…has generally produced revolution.” – Aristotle.

  • PDK

    A fully enfranchised democracy is insanity.

    I believe it easier for a bad person to pull a good person
    down than for a good person to pull a bad person up. Show me your friends and I’ll
    show you your future. When, in a fully enfranchised democracy, an alliance of
    the immature and the retarded, led by the God complexed, narcissists become the
    majority, sanity is voted out and insanity is voted in.

    It is surreal when the alliance expects, demands and forces
    upon non-liberal whites the role of the white man’s burden, whilst said
    alliance misappropriately points the finger of blame at those same non-liberal
    whites, who in reality, are the causal agent for their luxuriously high
    lifestyle. Only the immature, the retarded and those who suffer both traits,
    can never fathom the great depths of this conundrum.

    This is the reality of America today. The liberals, the God
    complexed and the immature, and their allies, the retarded and the immature
    have won. There probably is no saving our Founding Fathers free enterprise
    Republic at this point. The only viable solution is white flight followed by
    secession via a declaration of independence followed by an outlawing of
    everything that gave the alliance the power they needed to transmogrify our
    once great and flourishing nation. Only by never allowing the alliance their
    chance to steal our great collective good for their personal gain and vanity
    again would such an endeavor be worth the hard effort.

    In South Africa a similar problem, though more advanced, is
    showing America her future. The white Afrikaners were so successful they raised
    the life expectancy of blacks from 38 to 61. Now after near 20 years of black
    rule the black life expectancy has dropped down to 52. Further, the retarded
    blacks are murdering off the white Afrikaners, the people who gave said
    retarded blacks a better life in spite of themselves.

    Non-liberal whites should shuck the white man’s burden role,
    imposed by the white liberal, upon the non-liberal white. We are not our
    different sub-species keeper. They want their liberation from the non-liberal
    white man we should give it to them.

    Non-liberal whites should not share the white creations with
    any other sub-species. Let the others live in their natural state as created
    for them by the nature of their gene pool. Whites created anti-biotics and
    foolishly gave them to other different sub-species of humans. In turn, those
    other sub-species of humans have so misused and/or abused our miracle drugs
    that they are being rendered impotent. Further, outright stealing of the
    creations of our investing capitalist by the more r selective, gene pool people
    of the world, the third world people, has removed the incentive to spend on
    R&D, and so there are no new miracle drugs in the pipeline, we, and our
    humanity is headed for a Malthusian apocalypse of old Testament, Biblical proportions.

    At this point I could care less if all the more r seclection,
    gene pool humans suffer the horrendous deaths their gene pool leaves them prey
    to, including disease and starvation. They are thankless, clueless and prefer
    the death to the white race, rather than admit to themselves their envious
    immaturity is what drives them to kill the white goose that lays the golden
    eggs.

    Why we whites should allow any other, lower sub-species to
    steal from our gene pool is beyond sanity and into insanity.

    Let us non-liberal whites separate out from the alliance,
    secede, declare independence and leave those immature and retarded people to
    their own devices. At that point, never again should we afford those who ruin;
    their chance to ruin again. Thank you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Henry-Steyer/100003629372777 Henry Steyer

    For Bruno Gollnisch, a democratic government is by, for and with the folk.
    Determined by historical circumstances, people come together and agree on a constitution which gives the participants rights and duties. At the difference to other contracts, there is no superordinate instance that can legislate on it. Only the contractors themselves, the folk can be its arbitrator, and it is up to the folk to terminate not only a government but also a constitution if necessary. A democratic government gets its name by the simple fact, that the folk thinks it is the best for them. It is mandated on propositions often made by itself, but only the folk can be its reason for existence. An argument for democracy is that the low impact of a single vote make it for anyone possible to vote for the common interest without hurting to much its particular interest. All political systems can be corrupted by group or personal interests, and in an homogenous and educated society a democracy may be better at deflect them. There a some conditions for a government to be democratic. A government which does not assert the existence of its folk is not democratic, and it is not democratic, if it allows immigration from other races, because it would mean, that a democracy can negate or change its folk. At best, it is no longer a democracy for the people it was intended for.

    (my English is very bad)

  • David Ashton

    This thoughtful article prompts a fantasy – the early creation of an open university, correspondence and internet, called the New Century College, providing certification in (a) Western Civilization, arts and sciences; (b) Biological Anthropology; (c) Political Philosophy. To counter Cultural Marxism, Deconstructionism, Anti-”Minority” Studies, &c.
    Candidate students to submit a qualifying essay for course admission; e.g.:-
    (1) “A multicultural society is a contradiction in terms.” Discuss.
    (2) “It is in general a necessary condition of free institutions, that the boundaries of governments should coincide in the main with those of nationalities” (J. S. Mill). Discuss.
    (3) “There is abundant proof, alike furnished by the inter-marriages of human races and by the inter-breeding of animals, that when the varieties mingled diverge beyond a certain slight degree the result is invariably a bad one in the long run….If you mix the constitutions of two widely divergent varieties which have severally become adapted to widely divergent modes of life, you get a constitution which is adapted to the mode of life of neither” (Herbert Spencer). Discuss.
    (4) “If the history of the twentieth century is any guide, then the fragile edifice of civilization can very quickly collapse even where different ethnic groups seem quite well integrated, sharing the same language, if not the same faith or the same genes…. Ethnic confluence, economic vitality and empires on the wane; such was and remains the fatal formula” (Niall Ferguson). Discuss.

  • Will

    The debate in formation of our Constitution clearly indicates a consensus about putting limits
    upon democracy–or perhaps, a sense of sybiosis between (a) democracy and (b) hierarchy,
    each checking the other? The indirect election of senators and of the President was
    certainly one such check upon the formation of a “mold of vulgarity” (Jeffers’ great “Shine
    Perishing Republic”) And (modest) requirements of property for voter registration, yet another.
    We got lost along the way.

  • American Patriot

    There is no reason that Whites should want a demo(b)cracy in America. A Republic YES, we should do all we can by whatever means necessary to restore a Republic- a State under the Constituional control of the Citizens. NOTE- Citizenship must exclude the cowardly, the economically non-selfsupporting and those ignorant of civic virtue. Given the accidents and mistakes of history it seems we are stuck with a certain number of negroes/asians/non-White hispanics/followers of foreign cults such as islam within the Borders. It must be made clear to these people that they will while being treated with justice under OUR Law NEVER be permitted to Rule no matter what majority a nose count turns up. In that regard the most important task facing race realistic people is to encorage formation of economically self-supporting White families with at least three kids if not 4 or 5 to compensate for two generations deluded by the Chosen Media and to discourage the production of any more useless welfare tax supported negroes while closing the immigration pipeline to all but racially realistic Whites. European immigrants are useless if all they do is bring the PC insanity here which has destroyed Europe and is already a threat here.

  • Diamond_Lil

    Who told the singer pictured above in the first photo that wearing a tube of Perma-Tex silicone gasket sealer was trendy?

  • richard avard

    Nothing is ever going to change unless people in the know such as observers of this web site and others dedicated to education get off the asses and create another political party – a party based on common sense; and then do the hard work of identifying, interviewing, and choosing candidates for office at all levels of government, and then get them elected through a massive grassroots effort of walking pricincts and selling the Party to the folks. This requres massive grassroots effort ie lots of bodies doing lots of walking. I see no national leader who could generate this much enthusiasm and action. We need another General Patton who was a man of action and conviction. Perhaps someone will come along who can arouse the Youth because only they have the energy and motive to work hard for the cause because they have the most to lose if they dont

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-Hillyard/100000971153370 Mark Hillyard

    “Christianity (an organization of celibate priests…)”
    Christianity does not teach Democracy. From the time Moses was given the law the people chose from among them (people of their own race) representatives of ten, hundred, thousands, and from there Moses to the king who is the God of Israel.
    The Roman Church in no way typifies Biblical Law. A small sample of their disregard for the law is their command to abstane from sex and marriage. Forbiding to marry was called a “Doctrine of Demons”. That’s one reason the Roman Church is in so much trouble on the sexual plane.

  • Jsmbho

    I hope the GOP isn’t dead!

  • Pat Kittle

    “Is democracy possible in America?”

    Doesn’t the Israel lobby rate a mention here?

  • http://twitter.com/stinklebrink Stinklebrink

    I’ve always felt nations should be limited to city boundaries, it would produce a much more stable society and its citizens would be more active in it’s government. It would also prevent the noise we have with our large governments.

  • Joschka

    While Benoist’s argument seems superficially plausible, consider the extensive research comparing problem-solving by individuals with problem-solving by committees. Except in the rare instance where the individual is an expert in the problem domain, a committee always does better. Consequently, the argument that numbers don’t add up to wisdom is definitely lacking something essential. In some situations numbers DO add up to greater wisdom than the individual has. With the added feature that having one’s voice heard leads to far greater acceptance of the collective result than otherwise, Democracy looks a bit better. But not in every place for all time.

    • Horatio Bunce

      A committee is other than millions of atomized strangers. Category fallacy. A committee is not merely a quantity larger than one.

      Nor does your example directly dispute the proposition, in fact it reinforces it. It is likely that a hereditary monarch would be superior to a collection of rabble, based on his familial expertise in governance. Just as the farmer’s son might be expected to devise more satisfactory cattle management processes, than would you or I.

  • zaqan

    Does he offer a solution in the book? I am curious about that. It is one thing to criticize the system here (and rightly so), but it is worthless without an alternative presented.