Democracy explained

For something over two hundred years, the anglosphere has moved ever leftwards, ever faster.

Ever leftwards policies are baked in to a holiness signaling spiral, and the government elects a new people to vote for these policies that are already baked in.

They are not going to change their policies because of the votes of two hundred million black Muslim military age males screaming for infidel blood and white pussy. Rather they need the votes of two hundred million black Muslim military age males screaming for infidel blood and white pussy because they are already changing their policies and intend and expect to very rapidly change them a whole lot more.

I would have thought that everyone reading my blog knows this, but recently one of my commenters needed to have this explained to him.

54 Responses to “Democracy explained”

  1. Inquiring Mind says:

    Jim, do you know about this?

    Who knew that the once-hippie police of Madison, Wisconsin, who used to give out “parking tickets” for public smoking of marijuana, have gone “Alt-Right” on us?

    By the way, these goofballs methods of discouraging people from congregating in one particular block in the Downtown that is the source of a large volume of calls to the police is not specifically directed at the homeless, minorities, partying students, or any other group of special concern as all perhaps equally to blame.

  2. Inquiring Mind says:

    Jim, I respect much of what you say, but I am thinking the Puritans were horribly misunderstood. Alt-Right? How about Alt-Puritan!

    I guess you could fault the Puritans for being, at least argued by Mencius Moldbug, as the founding stock of Progressivism and its Cathedral and all that entails.

    But what of the ostentatious holiness going horrible wrong? What is your source? The Scarlet Letter, with Hawthorne representing a Missing Link in the chain of evolution from Puritanism to Cathedral, disapprovingly looking back to his forebears and virtue signaling, “at least we aren’t like those people”?

    But what about The Scarlet Letter? Is it about a bunch of holier-than-thou’s forcing poor Hester Prynne to wear a stupid “A” on her dress?

    Or is it about Roger Prynne A.K.A. “Chillingworth”, who, how should I put this delicately, got “cucked” by the charismatic Reverend? A scholar with more learning in his little finger than all of Puritan New England, but a beta male, a scholar-geek, the Ur beta male. And his wife’s lover Arthur Dimmesdale, charismatic but a secret hypocrite preaching what Puritan’s preach, a “pretty boy” and probably “dim” as his patronymic, but the alpha male in this story, the dude evoking tingles.

    Who are we supposed to identify with? In high school junior-year English, we were encouraged to hate the cucked husband as this evil, old man who turned to the occult to get his revenge on the Reverend, and we were encouraged to have empathy with the Reverend, who suffers at the hand of his rival, confesses his sin at the end and then dies, redeemed, saved, washed in the blood, where presumably the husband lives, as a broken man who has lost his soul, fated for That Other Place.

    See what I am talking about, the Sinner goes to Heaven and the Wronged Husband is damned?

    Tell me Jim, which of the two men do you identify with as representing Alt-Right virtue? OK, OK, these are fictional characters, but the whole book is a moral parable in which one is expected to choose sides. And wasn’t Puritanism coming down on the side of Roger Prynne? So what knock on the Puritans do you offer apart from what either Hawthorne (or Moldbug) has to say about them?

    Tell me, what about your take on modern feminism, Game, and the correct insights into male-female socialization of the PUAs but their wrong actions isn’t exactly alt-Puritan, and I mean it in the best sense of who the Puritans were and tried to be?

    • peppermint says:

      blah blah blah blah ideas books

      it’s simple. puritans tried to control the individual’s entire life, including sexuality, and progressives do the same thing.

      19th century christcucks started snipping men’s dicks to stop them from masturbating and turn them into Jews, and 21st century cyber-christcucks snip men’s dicks to turn help them masturbate about being women.

      19th century christcucks invented Graham crackers to help people not take pleasure in their food. 21st century cyber-christcucks have meal squares.

      18th century christcucks tried having everything in common, excluding women, and when it failed they restored private property and had thanksgiving. 21st century cyber-christcucks want a UBI and everyone to be polyamorous.

      daily reminder that christcuck heaven is this retard-tier utopia where no one has to work unless they want to or unless they have holy word commanded by g-d

    • jim says:

      Puritans started off with war against marriage and war against Christmas.

      This is exactly the phariseeism that Jesus and Saint Paul warn against.

      Initially the war on marriage did not have disastrous effects. Although they legalized divorce it remained socially forbidden, and they continued to legally and socially enforce patriarchy and Pauline marriage.

      But if you have marriage by magistrate, enforcing patriarchy and and Pauline marriage is like continuing to enforce slavery after the declaration of independence. It is an unprincipled exception.

      Very soon they were Holier than Saint Paul. They abandoned patriarchy, allowed women to speak in Church. And pretty soon they had late marriage and significant numbers of women never marrying, their impressively high fertility collapsed, and pretty soon the biological descendents of the pilgrims vanished. Long ago the Congregational Churches found themselves mighty short of congregations, and had to merge with non Pilgrim descended Churches to get enough people to show up on Sunday.

      It is a memetic disease that spreads horizontally using coercive means, and causes its adherents to fail to reproduce.

      However they continue to memetically propagate through such means as infiltrating other churches, and then amending their doctrines to puritanism: Think social justice warriors infiltrating the game industry and science fiction publishing and turning games into lectures on transgenderism.

      And of course, memetically propagate through state power, in particular and especially Harvard, which now rules the world, and in particular and especially the education system of the world.

  3. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    I generally agree with this sentiment.

    ‘Don’t let your enemy have your words’ is an important principle when trying to influence a discourse. Holiness has positive connotations (and should have positive connotations), and can have ambiguous meanings depending on context, and so its use it the way we use it here is non-intuitive to someone who does not truck these circles. Clever ‘reversals’ or ‘redefinitions’ of existing language is catnip for autists, but blank looks or reflexive dismissal often characterizes the use of such language in conversations between a proponent and an unfamiliar.

    A pithy word that specifically targets and encapsulates the phenomena we are actually referring too would be a highly beneficial exercise of white magic. A snarl word that makes it obvious something is being negged, which in itself constitutes a condensed argument and shaming broadside that can simply be deployed and redeployed indefinitely, placing on the onus on the target to try and qualify themselves rather than the other way around. See cuck for an example of this process.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:


      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Nobody cares about your clique of intellectual inbreeding.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          Don’t get all pissy and effeminate on me now.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Nobody cares about your garlic-breathed grecian hero, either. Wasn’t he a monastic, filling the role that only married men should take, as well?

            “Chrysostom”, time to experience some potentially nordicist bigotry.


            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              Caring about how many people care is the domain of women and leftists, thou fairy.

    • jim says:

      I discuss this concept extensively, and at length.

      A good word with appropriate existing meanings is “pharisees”, and “phaiseeism”.

      On the other hand, Christians have been fine with “Holier than thou” to mean not very holy at all for a long time.

      Any Christian understands that the pharisees were holier than thou. These are perfectly good words that have been around for a long time.

      There is a lot of support in the new testament for the proposition that religiosity is apt to go horribly wrong, and Jesus and Paul commanded their followers to not be like that.

      Paul on swiping pagan rituals is directly denouncing the Puritan position on Christmas. See “God is Dead

    • peppermint says:

      holiness means

      * Where progressives are wrong, they had good intentions. This is justification by faith.

      * all that matter is trying to get the good afterlife / uploaded to the cloud, to which end the holiness you display replaces the work you do

      * heaven / the cloud are places where you don’t have to work but may need to continue to be holy

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        I think an honest psychological assessment of the average prog would show that, in fact, their intentions are *not* good, and are in fact cretinous sociopaths (cf.

        Incidentally, that’s another phenomena in need of some white magic to call into being. ‘Progressive’ is a nice sounding word that taps into a highly attractive mental module (ie, forward thinking, doing good to make things better, et cetera et cetera), and for that reason I think any comprehensive attempt at stigmatization is doomed to failure (‘well of course I’m progressive, who wouldn’t want to make the future better? that’s crazy talk!’). Obviously we know that’s pretty much the opposite of what’s actually entailed in practice, but that is how it operates in the discourse, and that’s the problem.

        Shitlib is okay, but a bit too socially and historically contingent for my tastes. The same for gnostic, except in certain circumstances where it is appropriate. I have personally used solipsist in the past, but that is more a conditional descriptor, describing the (lack of) capacity that gives rise to the particular behavior (amongst others), but not necessarily the behavior itself, and hence can sometimes be inelegant in more flip exchanges.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          Excuse me, cretinous *psychopaths*.

        • peppermint says:

          so? Progressive is what they are called because progressive is what they are called. What you should call them if you want to be nasty about it is utopian, because they come up with all kinds of weird ideas about human nature and want to change everything about society in order to facilitate those ideas, but that doesn’t capture the ones who just see how sad it is that gays have diseases and want to redistribute health from the people who were lucky enough to have careers and families.

          • jim says:

            The distinctive feature of progressives which unites them with the original puritans is that they are thoroughly evil people who ape in exaggerated form the superficial characteristics of good people.

            • peppermint says:

              it’s all about the utopia where you don’t need to work or fight anymore, or at least everyone has government jobs or glorious and easy battles

            • pdimov says:

              I don’t think that the median progressive is evil. He’s just found a way to feel being good and righteous without actually being good or righteous.

              Something like heroin, but more destructive.

        • pdimov says:

          “‘Progressive’ is a nice sounding word…”

          It doesn’t matter. So was “gay”. Words have a habit of adapting their meaning to whatever is being identified by them, much to the chagrin of people who deliberately pick nice sounds to identify themselves.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            Gay has/had a much smaller exosemantic load than progressive. At the end of the day, its still causes a crucial mental short circuit.

    • jim says:

      The New Testament has quite a bit of stuff on ostentatious holiness going horribly wrong, and the Puritans were from the beginning in flagrant violation of it.

  4. pdimov says:

    “… they need the votes of two hundred million black Muslim military age males…”

    It’s not about the votes.

    Soros imported two million “refugees” into Germany not because he cares about their votes.

    Imported Somalis voted (((Phyllis Kahn))) out, instead of voting as supposedly intended.

  5. peppermint says:

    One big problem with the US is that no one is responsible for anything. The Supreme Court makes all the real decisions and avoids responsibility through its revolving structure, while the Congress avoids responsibility by doing nothing, granting authority to the executive bureaucracy, and having 534 others to she responsibility with, and he President dodges responsibility with term limits.

    Minister Pigfucker resigned after the Brexit vote and he is clearly responsible for government policy during his tenure. Does structuring government like that help? Or will Prince Harry’s military coup be he only thing that can possibly save England?

  6. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Nobody knows what holiness means in this context. Probably, it only means people are getting the latest philisophical accesory into their language which has to do with trendy philosophy rather than anything about religion. Holiness is actually a Christian term for being godly.


    • pdimov says:

      Everyone understands that “holiness” in “holiness signaling” is a reference to “holier than thou”, and “holiness signaling spiral” is caused by people’s inclination to adopt more and more extreme positions in order to outflank others and appear morally superior to them.

    • Alf says:

      Holiness is to a brahmin as money is to a vaisja, so I’d say it is very much a religious thing.

    • peppermint says:

      And how better to prove that one is godly, as opposed to worldly, than to consign his daughter to being the single mother of niggers and his son to crushing taxation and the back of the employment line?

      Let me guess – Hell is Forever!

      Heaven is some kind of bizarro-land where there’s a UBI or whatever so nobody had to work f they don’t want to. Unless Heaven needs some holy work, then they will be happy to be compelled.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Take up the White Man’s burden—

        Send forth the best ye breed—

        Go send your sons to exile

        To serve your captives’ need

        To wait in heavy harness

        On fluttered folk and wild—

        Your new-caught, sullen peoples,

        Half devil and half child

        Take up the White Man’s burden

        In patience to abide

        To veil the threat of terror

        And check the show of pride;

        By open speech and simple

        An hundred times made plain

        To seek another’s profit

        And work another’s gain

        Take up the White Man’s burden—

        And reap his old reward:

        The blame of those ye better

        The hate of those ye guard!

      • JRM says:

        “And how better to prove that one is godly, as opposed to worldly, than to consign his daughter to being the single mother of niggers…”

        One reason the holiness spiral has such a grip on modern White westerners is that it feeds off the apparently inherent sense of guilt we have. Puritanism was largely fueled by guilt and the need for certainty of salvation. We no longer have the working mechanism of the Church and true faith, so the faith/doubt/transcendence pieces have re-formed around social structures.

        Simply pretending to believe in the equality of blacks, and to put real effort into the pretend displays, is essentially the most basic membership requirement to be among the elect.

        Holier and more impressive displays involve the daughter sacrifice peppermint mentions, or initially less frightening, the adoption of a black baby.

        Is it status or is it a sacrificial act made requisite by guilt? It’s both, and probably more besides, but reassurance of salvation and knowledge that your holiness is seen by others are the prime motivators.

        In spite of our society’s evident hedonism, guilt is an incredibly strong motivator, almost made invisible by its sheer ubiquity.

  7. Antipas says:

    Liberal Democracy fails because it appears to only plausibly work as an ethno-state. Except an ethno-state liberal democracy looks suspiciously like National Socialism, which we all know is a horrible racist jew-killing ideology. Thus, you have to invent some diversity in order to not look like Nazis. The diversity spiral will eventually kill liberal democracy from within.

    20th century Scandinavian countries were essentially National Socialists without the jew-killing. They didn’t have many jews (or blacks or arabs) to deal with in the first place and the few they did have weren’t seen as problematic.

    To believe in Multicultural Liberal Democracy is to believe in the New Soviet Man.

    • peppermint says:

      If King Oscar doesn’t get serious about the invasion, Anders Breivik will be the next king of Norway, and he will abolish parliament.

  8. Brigadon says:

    Every time I hear a Politician refer to ‘our great democracy’, I want to smack the false smile off his face.
    Our ‘great country’ was not intended to be the version of social marxism entitled ‘democracy’. Democracies are failures. We were a republic, and will be again.

    • Dave says:

      To be fair, no one gets elected to power by criticizing the process by which one gets elected to power. “Mr. Stevenson, you have the vote of every thinking American!” “That’s nice, but unfortunately I need a majority to win.”

      I too detest the way politicians talk — they never answer a question with a simple “yes” or “no” but with an essay carefully balanced to offend neither side.

    • peppermint says:

      1) voting is restricted to White property owners. Me, I’d prefer White men over 50 with at least 3 White children and 250k$ in assets.
      2) these men are not philosophers and end up voting for commies promising that their children will be loved by the entire world if they give their daughters to niggers and send their sons to get shot or to the back of the employment line. Their assets are systematically drained and the government runs up a 20T$ debt during world-historic Times of prosperity.
      3) everyone is taught to hate and despise their children
      4) at least we avoided the problems Spandrell has pointed out with monarchies

  9. davecydell says:

    All I can think of is a president Trump announces an executive order that white people, male or female, can tomorrow wear a handgun on their hip or carry a rifle over their shoulder without impediment from any police force. In my dreams.

  10. Cavalier says:

    It’s obvious to me that they are “electing” a new electorate.

    It’s not very obvious to me why they bother to maintain the façade in the first place.

    It’s even less obvious to me how they can possibly expect to use Moslems to beat White men.

    • jim says:

      1 They really believe in democracy.

      2 They really believe that all men are created equal, that black muslims will replace the missing grandchildren and become middle class tax and mortgage payers in green leafy suburbs.

      3.They really believe that women etc in the army can fight just as well as white males.

      • Zach says:

        Basically Affleck in this video:

        • jim says:

          This is absolutely classic cuckservatism. All of them. They are all, all three, rationalizing the importation two hundred million black male Muslims screaming for infidel blood and white pussy. The differences between them are insignificant and irrelevant. All of them and each of them seek the destruction of western civilization, America, and the white race.

          • Zach says:

            This post better not be about me. I’ll start with that. You obviously have an incorrect view of what I believe, if it is. Maybe one day I’ll let you read my commentary, once I’ve properly vetted you. You think Radix is good? Ha!

            But I will say this… you were right about Trump. It took me all of one speech to see this. I think you are more versed in politics and history than me. I didn’t see this coming. You did.

            That was simple folks. See, it didn’t take much. Possibly the greatest speech in presidential history. And he can’t walk this one back. Yay!

            • jim says:

              We all know that Trump is not an alt rightist, let alone a neoreactionary. But neither is he politics as usual. That is why you have the entire political class screaming hysterically that he is literally Hitler. They were not screaming that Ted Cruz was literally Hitler.

              Of course, what we hope is that Trump wins, does an Augustus, shreds the constitution and the declaration of independence, and makes himself God Emperor. The time for the Republic has ended, indeed it is long past. Alas, he probably will not. But merely by running, win lose or draw, he has changed America for the better, allowing people to say the unsayable, to think the unthinkable.

              • Zach says:

                Yes. I’m growing more sympathetic to that view now. It makes sense. All I needed was a guy to believe what he says and to say it, with one voice. Everything he said made sense in that speech, and he owns it now. That’s all I ever wanted. And if I were to be honest, I was elated listening to it. It was fantastic.

                I think I missed the big picture, somehow. Getting overly concerned with the details of things that don’t much matter, and projecting my own personal standards unfairly on a politician who is in the habit of telling people what they want to hear on a day to day basis. So I have officially changed my mind after thinking about this. That speech helped to sway me in a big way. Not only about the merits of trump as I would like him, but also about the merits of disrupting the machine, at almost any cost. Any wrench in the gears of failure can do no harm.

                You’re right that Cruz could never give a speech like that.

                But make no mistake, I’ve been talking about our immigration problems, and democracy as failure, for damn near 20 years. I have argued at length, elsewhere that all immigration needs to be stopped completely, as engineered. Nothing needed to be explained to me in that regard. I know the consequences of all this. I feel so deeply about this failed democracy and the problems contributing to it, that I once challenged a CFO, at a lunch table at an awards ceremony for me, against my better judgment. I’ve been saying what you’re saying and what everybody has been saying in these parts for a lot longer than most, my friend.

                Remember, I was reading this blog, basically when it first started. Commenting for the first time, much much later, and I usually say something dumb on purpose. Do you think it was an accident, that I was there, from day one? You offered important insights then, like you do now. I am not steeped in history, like you are. I rejected history as being impossible long ago. Unlike an engineering blueprint, or computer code, its validity requires too many impossible sources. But your historical knowledge helped enable you to see this thing play out accurately. Don’t hold it against me.

                I think some apathy would increase my quality of life. But an idiot, I am not.

                That is all.

      • deltahedge says:

        Agree with that analysis. Now the interesting thing is how do you trade this scenario if you disagree with it?

        Other than opening halal businesses and generally appealing to the new conquistadores, I do not see many, other than to emigrate from such democracies. Just to where?

    • R7_Rocket says:

      The cuckfaced numales of The Cathedral need the façade of elections to maintain the illusion of legitimacy in front of the military, the police forces, and the armed White population (America’s prætorian class).

      • peppermint says:

        Everyone knows political power comes from military power – thus the 2nd Amendment granting nontrivial military power to the citizens – and the consent of the governed.

        Their consent is maintained through elections.

        NRx discovered why elections consistently violate the will and the bodies of the folk.

        Maybe we will end up with political power owned by one person who normally gives it to his kids or whoever, maybe it will be some kind or public thing; maybe our perspective on how to stop singnalarities is as naive as the Founding Fathers’ attempt to stop political parties by asking people nicely. The most certain thing right now is that what can’t continue won’t.

    • Lord Larperston says:

      “It’s even less obvious to me how they can possibly expect to use Moslems to beat White men”

      They will take the women, silly.

      Last time I was in London, I was stunned at the number of blonde-brown couples. The White men are already beaten in their own lands.

  11. Dave says:

    I was at the international arrivals terminal at JFK last May, and the sidewalk was packed with hundreds of black Africans all in identical Muslim garb. Anyone have any idea what’s going on here? Is this part of Hillary’s get-out-the-vote drive?

  12. JRM says:

    A thought-experiment of sorts considering an elite conversion to Islam:

    • lalit says:

      “Not just everyday safety, but the idea that the dating market has created such a broken situation where reliable worker bee class citizens cannot be created.”

      The Author is Giving the Elites way too much credit. They don’t think as far as that.

  13. […] Democracy explained […]

Leave a Reply