View Full Version : problems and solutions

12-17-2016, 02:59 AM
Trump fooled everyone into believing he was the change that was needed.

For each group that wanted change, he like the outgoing Marxoid negro conned them into believing he was it: despite these groups wanting radically different and mutually exclusive change (supposing they had even the faintest idea of what kind of change they wanted, which they almost without exception did not); and despite Trump having no principles or even vaguely coherent plans. Of course, he didn't actually fool everyone. He fooled the electorate, the masses, the rabble. They occupy not only HUD housing and trailer parks, but also the professional offices in the nicer parts of town, and even the premier libertarian (?) forum called RPF; the truth is that the vast majority of people, of all intelligence quotients and stations in life, are deeply and profoundly retarded when it comes to politics. Yes, some of us weren't fooled, because we aren't fools, but we were hopelessly outnumbered.

In other words, it was a typical election cycle.

But, it was atypical in one important respect. Hope for libertarian reform via electoral politics was publicly poked, prodded, adorned with a crown of thorns, crucified, burnt at the stake, and buried in a dung-heap. There will be no libertarian reform for the foreseeable future, because the only possible vehicles for such a movement have been hijacked by paint-huffing chimpanzees and crashed at full speed into a brick wall (in the case of the GOP) or left to rust out beyond repair in the yard (in the case of the LP). In all probability, the time for reform is permanently passed. It was always a long shot; now it's Polish cavalry charges c. 1939. People fighting against the very essence of democratic politics, i.e. it's inherent bias toward ever increasing outlays from the trough, do not get many chances better than we had this year. A once in a generation opportunity was squandered, but what's worse, much worse, catastrophic, hope-shredding, and what I'm beginning to appreciate ever more clearly it was probably bound to be squandered, by the very nature of this enterprise, and the way we have to try to win, and the types of people whose votes we need to win. Necessity, not contingency, finished us off. Sisyphus just can not get up that hill, can he? ...because things aren't arranged so that he can.

There is, however, one silver lining.

People are losing faith in democracy.

As some of you may recall, I've been a monarchist for some years. Consequently, I find this to be an interesting time. There are opportunities afoot. There is blood in the water. The Great Cancer at the heart of the what we still sardonically call civilization is maybe, almost, in remission. There might be a chance to finally excise it and restore health to the body politic before gangrene sets in. Of course, with some NAZI Trumpanimals being hostile to democracy themselves (for entirely different reasons than we liberals should be, mind you, Hitlers =/= Hohenzollerns), and quite keen on arbitrary imprisonment, and censorship, and warrantless searching, and torture, etc, we have to be concerned about this trend developing into a 1933 type situation. The good news on that front is that Trump, being a degenerate imbecile, is not remotely capable of seizing, let along competently exercising, real power. However, some of his hangers-on may be more competent. It's really hard to say what might happen. The main interests groups in the capital are obviously salivating at the prospect of a sede vacante Presidency run by mercenary non-entities George Bush squared in a few months. It's going to be quite the show.

In any event, there's nothing for us there: let us leave pleb politics for the plebs.

The thing to do at the moment, if it's ever going to be done in our lifetimes, is to do whatever we can to accelerate the growing understanding among thinking people and the growing sense among unthinking people that democracy is failing.

Because, obviously, it is.

And the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.


Liberalism was ruined once by foolishly aligning itself with democracy.

Let's not do it again.

The future of liberalism must be:
-cosmopolitanism (contra the volkish nationalism of the Trumpanimals)
-meritocracy (contra the lumpenproletarian levelling of the triggleypuffs)
-and monarchism or oligarchy (contra...everyone [but no one whose opinion matters])

So, that's it.

r3vo out

Natural Citizen
12-19-2016, 12:45 AM
Well. I'm not fan of monarchism or oligarchy. Not that there's a difference. And there's nothing libertarian about them. Not yesterday. Not today. Not any day.

Even if people want to call it Anarcho-Monarchism. Same ending.

Natural Citizen
12-19-2016, 01:20 AM
While I'm reminded, let us consider the distinction between a Democracy and our consitutional Republic. Both of which are forms of government and are not only dissimilar; they are antithetical. Completely opposite forms.

This from The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles. (https://www.amazon.com/American-ideal-1776-twelve-principles/dp/0911668020/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1482131952&sr=8-1&keywords=The+American+Ideal+of+1776%3A+The+Twelve+ Basic+American+Principles.) Hardcover – 1976, Hamilton Abert Long...

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government.

12-19-2016, 07:54 AM
The future of liberalism must be:
-cosmopolitanism (contra the volkish nationalism of the Trumpanimals)
-meritocracy (contra the lumpenproletarian levelling of the triggleypuffs)
-and monarchism or oligarchy (contra...everyone [but no one whose opinion matters])

The future of Liberalism is:

This requires defiance of identity politics as well as educating people about the difference between collectivism and communitarianism.

12-28-2016, 11:25 AM
The future of Liberalism is:

This requires defiance of identity politics as well as educating people about the difference between collectivism and communitarianism.

repair iphone screen (http://www.mobileqcanada.ca)

12-28-2016, 11:43 AM
Life in America governed by the Constitution we have in place right now would get a whole lot better in a hurry if we would:

1. End the Fed
2. Get rid of income taxes
3. Cut the federal budget by about 80%
4. Quit meddling in the affairs of other nations

Trump won't accomplish all of that, but he is a step in the right direction.

And anybody that tries to judge his performance before he is even sworn in is a blithering dolt that can be ignored.

Watch my feet, not my mouth.

Actions speak louder than words.

12-28-2016, 01:19 PM
Doom and gloom baby, doom and gloom. :D