Sunday, July 12, 2015

If Voting Did Any Good It Would Be Made Illegal

Greeks wondering who is actually in charge of their country.

Hint : The New World Order is not about increasing local power of governance. They don't care if anything they do works, they just want to be in charge no matter what happens.

National governance in the West is a disaster. But it could be worse. You could be dumb enough to cede sovereignty to people like these. Then you'd have some problems, alright. Global governance is everything that was ever wrong with government throughout human history except now they'd be too far away for you to even address your grievances to. And that's every psychotic ruler's dream. No accountability and no feedback, forever.


styrac1 said...

I don't feel sorry for them. They voted Marxist filth, the only nation dumb enough in history to vote commies to power. They are willing to live (or should we say die in Europe) no matter what the cost. A nation so bereft of an identity of its own that is willing to sacrifice itself to stay "European".

Well since "West" in the 21st century equals communist block in the 20th the only way to stay in it would be voting for communists. Any reasonable patriotic government would move as fast as it could out from the totalitarian sh*thole of the EU-SSR and join the BRICS. Unfortunately the Greeks are in no position to elect anything else but traitors, much like Kwainzanians.

Grogard said...

No means yes, peace means war blah blah blah.

Ron said...

It’s important to understand what the mechanism is by which representative democracy has been undone.

There is nothing wrong with representative democracy. The only problem in the system arose when that the vote was given to people who should not be voting.

The founders understood human nature very well when they limited the vote only to men who owned land.

All the real problems with democracy can be traced to allowing emotional children (women), and rootless men (non-land owners) to vote. These two groups will inevitably be irresponsible in their decision making.

Neither group is capable of good decision making because both groups are composed of people that cannot have any concept of responsibility in the sense that a land owning man can.

Women by nature are not actually responsible for the consequences of their decisions, they are by nature, helpers, followers, not innovators or leaders. If we see them as lacking a sense of responsibility, that is part of what allows them to be effective in their role. I am not absolving them of all responsibility, I am pointing out that they cannot, and more importantly, SHOULD NOT have the same sense of consequence that we men do. Otherwise, they would go insane from the competing pressures of their obligations and vulnerability.

Landless men are much the same. There is nothing inherently wrong with being a landless man. It is from such men that new vistas are conquered, companies are formed, innovation is generated. A man who has everything to lose will not take risks, but a man with a lot less to lose and a lot to gain will dare it all. Such men are essential to the health of society, but they must be limited in the decision making they engage in.

Suggestion. If the voting population in Greece had been limited to land owning men for the past 50 years, I propose that they would not be anywhere near the level of trouble they are currently in.

The conflux of these two groups is what gave rise to the entire feminist movement. Men adventuring in the West, would spend their money on female prostitutes. Damaged women. Some of whom had enough presence of mind to retain their earnings and then invest it properly. These women because influential and powerful, and immediately turned to promoting their own wanton values above that of their respectable sisters in order to turn the hierarchy of the pecking order among women in their favor.

Thus suffrage, feminism, a general disparagement of men, encouraging a hypergamous hysterical race among the women to gain the favors of the “alpha male”.

Now we are living in the horror that had it’s genesis in that evil. yes, there were always the wicked and deranged, but this was the fuel that they tapped into to make their nightmares into reality.

Anyway, don’t take me too much to heart. I’m just musing.

bicebicebice said...

Texas Arcane said...


I was in my thirties before I understood the original voting rights in America.

The Founding Fathers were trying to keep insane, self-destructive, vengeful outsiders from voting. As you pointed out, such people are necessary for the health of a society in single men who have nothing to lose. Allowing somebody who has nothing to lose to vote is voting to lose everything.

bicebicebice said...

Democracy only works if K-selected people are allowed to vote, add R´s into the mix and you get instant idiocracy.

Sam said...

"...It’s important to understand what the mechanism is by which representative democracy has been undone.

There is nothing wrong with representative democracy. The only problem in the system arose when that the vote was given to people who should not be voting..."

You're exactly right. There's several sites called Reactionary who pour abuse on Democracy constantly. I've pointed out to them of several occasions that getting some guards with fuzzy hats and a King does not immediately make a country successful. I also point out exactly what you said about Representative Democracy. They have nothing to say. I believe it's because they're nothing more that the new "-ism" of the week the Jews are trying to attract people too. They have no substance at all besides bitching about what we have and coming up with new/old failed King ideas.