The American Political System and White Racial Discourse

In the recent mid-term elections (this is being written in December of 2022), Democrats, apparently with a good amount of success, charged Republicans with being no less than a threat to American democracy.   My goodness—I guess hyperbole goes over big in this text-and-Twitter-depth age.  Whatever its success as a campaign tactic, a great deal has been said and written about democracy these past few months.  For instance, this in The New York Times, which naturally finds that the threats to democracy come from conservatives:

[The] United States today finds itself in a situation with little historical precedent.  American democracy is facing two distinct threats, which together represent the most serious challenge to the country’s governing ideals in decades.

The first threat is acute: a growing movement inside one of the country’s two major parties — the Republican Party — to refuse to accept defeat in an election. . . .

The second threat to democracy is chronic but also growing: The power to set government policy is becoming increasingly disconnected from public opinion.  The run of recent Supreme Court decisions—both sweeping and, according to polls, unpopular—highlight this disconnect. Although the Democratic Party has won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections, a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees seems poised to shape American politics for years if not decades.  And the court is only one of the means through which policy outcomes are becoming less closely tied to the popular will.

“We are far and away the most countermajoritarian democracy in the world,” said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard University and a co-author of the book “How Democracies Die,” with Daniel Ziblatt. .  .  . In a recent poll by Quinnipiac University, 69 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans said that democracy was “in danger of collapse.”1

I’ll use the democracy-under-siege talk so prominent lately as a springboard to a consideration of the America’s political system from the perspective of White racial advocacy.   This writing can be viewed as a follow-up to an article of mine in 2020 called “A Suggestion to American White Advocates: Root Your Arguments in This Country’s Core Political and Cultural Ideals.”2   You might want to check out that article to put this one in better context, although it’s really not necessary; this piece stands on its own.   To give you an organizer for what’s coming up, my basic take is that from the perspective of Whites’ wellbeing, rather than democracy being under threat, democracy is the threat.

To begin, as a matter of fact, we don’t have a democracy in this country.  Our form of government is a republic.  We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands.  Our political system is grounded in the Roman republican form more than many realize. President, congress, and senate are all Roman terms.3  Unlike in a democracy—say a Greek democracy, Athens—citizens seldom vote on matters themselves.   Instead, they select individuals to take on that task.  In the Federalist Papers which justified the political system the Founders had created, James Madison underscored this key distinction between a republic and a democracy: “In a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.”4

It is important to note that these representatives are not merely doing the electorate’s bidding.   The Founders of the American nation wanted decisions of state guided by the wisdom of those who held positions in government and not by the immediate impulses of the citizenry.  In Madison’s words, “The public views should be refined and enlarged by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interests of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be the least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations”5

Within our republican political system, there are many departures from simple majority rule.  In the beginning, senators weren’t directly elected but rather chosen by state legislators, and the President still isn’t (the Electoral College).  States with small populations like Wyoming have as many senators as New York and California.   The Supreme Court is appointed.  The President can veto legislation.  Indeed, in the early years of this country, the distinction between a republic and a democracy was an important one.  John Adams declared, “There is no good government but what is republican.”6

And more than simply a republic, America is a constitutional republic.  The federal constitution puts a brake on what can legitimately be a matter of collective determination.  The Constitution sets up a separation of powers and checks and balances that prevent majorities in one branch of government—perhaps dominated by powerful factions (the old term for interest groups)—from wielding control.  The Constitution’s first ten amendments, called the Bill of Rights, spell out protections of individuals from the totality as represented by the federal government.  They give explicit acknowledgment of the view that individual citizens have inalienable rights — the term used in the Declaration of Independence. These are rights possessed by all humans, and they can’t be taken away.  These rights are not up for a vote.

To be sure, our form of government reflects democratic principles and includes democratic practices.  The government does not have arbitrary power over people and operates at their consent.  Citizens have the opportunity to participate in the political process.  There are open and free elections and referenda.  All this is democratic.   But still, while the people are heard and wield power, the republic does not require, in the words of the Federalist Papers, the “unqualified compliance to every sudden breeze of passion of a popular majority.”7

In the last century and as it continues now, democracy has taken on the quality of a religious law worth killing and dying for.  World War II was portrayed as a war for democracy.  In recent decades, the Americans talking loudest and slickest at harnessing power have beaten the drums for a crusade to convert other countries to democracy by blowing them up and exterminating their citizens.  In earlier times, however, that justification for conquest and bloodshed wouldn’t have played, because democracy wasn’t sacred.   Major figures in the first century of this country’s existence were not sanguineous about it:

  • James Madison noted democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”8
  • Alexander Hamilton: “The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity. When they assembled, the field of debate presented an ungovernable mob, not only incapable of deliberation, but prepared for every enormity.”9
  • The writer James Fennimore Cooper saw democracies as tending “to press against their proper limits, to convert political equality into economic leveling, to insist that equal opportunity become mediocrity, [and] to invade every personal right and privacy; they set themselves above the law; they substitute mass opinion for justice. 10
  • Highly respected French observer Alexis de Tocqueville as early as the 1830s foresaw democracy was inevitable, but he expressed reservations about that prospect. He worried about a perversion of society “into a sea of anonymous beings, social droplets, deprived of true purpose.”11  He noted that democracy promotes antipathy toward eccentricity or any manifestation of defiant individuality.12  “Democracy,” de Toqueville wrote, “encourages a taste for physical gratification; this taste, if it becomes excessive, soon disposes men to believe that all is matter only; and materialism, in its turn, hurries them on with mad impatience to these same delights; such is the final circle within which democratic nations are driven round.  It were well that they see the danger and hold back.” 13

The American republic was conceived as being comprised of individuals not groups.  The Bill of Rights, for instance, protects individuals not groups.  This is important to keep this in mind in a time preoccupied with group identities.  In our time, the idea of individualism, this mindset, carries a negative connotation, including within White racial discourse, as it is linked to selfishness and lack of concern for others and the common welfare.  However, this wasn’t the case at this country’s beginning.  Back then, it was assumed that individuals would, and should, focus on serving their private wants and needs and it wasn’t assumed that this would run counter to a concern for, and service to, the needs of the whole.  The ideal earlier in our history—let’s say prior to WWII–was that individuals would conduct themselves in a way that the more they served themselves the more they were capable of, and motivated to, serve others.

Republican citizenship was not a matter of always looking out for oneself, nor was it deferring to the common good in every instance.   Rather, it was striking a balance between the private and public dimensions of one’s life.  That balance was central to the concept of a true individualist, and it was the predominant view in the beginning that the American political experiment depended on true individualists to make it work.

Benjamin Rush, a physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote an essay entitled “Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic” that relates to this consideration.”14

While Rush used the word republic or some variant of it seven times in his essay, including in the title, the word “democracy” appears not once.

Also striking about the Rush essay is his stress on liberty, referring to it as “the object and life of all republican governments.”  Time and again, Rush writes about freedom, along with his worry that government tyranny will rob people of it.   At its core, the American republic is a test to see what will result if individual people, free from governmental dictates, are given the opportunity and the charge to make a good life for themselves and theirs and at the same time be good for other people and look out for the political arrangement.  The inherent tension between democracy and personal freedom and self-determination did not escape the Founders.  At heart, democracy is a method of social coercion, a way to direct and limit the actions of individuals, since those who aren’t on the side of the majority have to do things the victors’ way.

Throughout his essay, Rush wrote about virtue, linking it to the preservation of freedom — “without virtue there can be no liberty.”  To Rush, virtue meant the personal traits of self-denial, brotherly kindness, character, honor, and physical discipline.  In the beginning, it was assumed that the welfare of the republic depended on the virtue of its individual citizens.  Virtue referred to such qualities as a strong work ethic, self-sufficiency, love of country, an austere style of living, strict observance of a moral code, and willingness to sacrifice private profit for the public good.15 In his farewell address, George Washington declared virtue to be “a necessary spring of popular government.”16

Rush’s essay emphasized the importance of strong loyalty to state and nation.  About the education of a child: “He must be taught to love his fellow creatures in every part of the world, but he must cherish with a more intense and peculiar affection the citizens of Pennsylvania and the United States.”17 Allegiance to a geographic entity was considered vitally important for the success of the American political experiment.

More to be said, but you get the basic idea.

*   *   *

The big contention in this context is that Whites have fared very nicely under the American constitutional republican arrangement and the ideals and ways inherent in it—personal freedom and responsibility, virtue, and so on.   A republic is particularly suited to White people, and while those involved in setting up the American political system didn’t go to any great length to punch up that fact, I have the sense that they were well aware of it; they knew what they were doing.

Similarly, those currently engaged in pulling the props out from under the Founders and this country’s political heritage — including referring to it as a democracy — know what they are doing.  Unhindered by constitutional restraints—the notion of a “living constitution,” etc.—democracy serves the interests of Whites’ adversaries.   It takes power away from individuals and puts it in the hands of the collective, which is increasingly non-White — or better, those who can control the collective by managing the information and idea flow and throwing money around and making people pay who get in their way.  Democracy politicizes everything:  whatever it is, anything and everything, is put up for a vote and the majority (or again, whoever controls the majority, and in this day and age it is increasingly people surreptitiously and openly hostile to Whites, males in particular) wins the day.  Ironically given how it is pitched as putting the masses in charge of their fate, democracy paves the way for minority control (among the possibilities: resentful, revengeful, and exploitive anti-White ethnic and racial elements; self-anointed media elites: kowtow-to-me gripers and grievers; I’ll-handle-it managers and bureaucrats; paid-off and intimidated politicians; and bullshitters).  Bottom line, a republic serves White interests; a democracy works against them.

With that being the case, what follows for White racial discourse—its content, topics?  These six things come to mind:

  1. Give consideration to the connection between the republican political form and White interests. How does a republican system measure up against authoritarian, democratic, aristocratic, elite-managed, and Big Boss (Trump’s image just popped into my head) arrangements?
  2. Make room for American voices — Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and (I’m thinking out loud) Emerson and Thoreau and Mark Twain and Edgar Rice Burroughs (the Tarzan author) and Teddy Roosevelt and H.L. Mencken and . . . oh, I don’t know, just somebody besides Julius Evola, you know? American thinkers, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Walt Whitman, Teddy Roosevelt, Ernest Hemingway, somebody.
  3. Ease up on badmouthing individualism; look for its positive aspects, and there are some. And generally, be conscious of the downside of dichotomous, either-or thinking — there’s this thing and that thing and this thing is better than that thing, universalism is better than individualism, etc.  Libertarianism, ugh.  Carl Jung’s concept of enantiodromia comes to mind: the idea of positive development and the achievement of wholeness resulting from the integration of opposites (the example above: citizenship in a republic involving both selfishness and selflessness).
  4. Do a word count in White racial dialogue and debate: how often do the words “freedom,” “liberty,” and “self-determination” appear? How about if it is more often?
  5. Pay more attention to the relationship between what individuals are made of and what goes on collectively? I’m reminded of Madison Grant’s observation over a century ago that Nordics, as he called them — Americans of northern European heritage — were becoming characterized by “base desires, passions, and behaviors, and becoming less dignified and honorable.”18  The Founders had it pegged: virtue, character, personal worth, however you want to talk about it, matters greatly; it’s not just about large forces and systems.
  6. Give more attention to the connection between nationalism—identification with, affinity for, commitment to, a particular country—and White wellbeing. Do Whites tend to do better within the context of strong nation states?  A non-American example, would Whites living today in Hungary be better off if they saw themselves in the first instance as White Hungarians or as White nationalists?  Would White Americans be better off focusing their energies on getting their country back, or would they be better off if they viewed themselves as White nationalists and seceded from the U.S.?  Do current-day American White advocates— representative of, by far, the largest segment in this country, whose ancestors created and developed it — see themselves as part of us in the U.S.?  Or have they internalized the notion from their adversaries that they are them here: fringe, right wing, dissidents?  Looking into American nationalism could surface the need for those who argue for Whites to examine presumptions and ideas that limit them.

  1. David Leonhardt, “‘The Crisis Coming’: The Twin Threats to American Democracy,” The New York Times, September 17, 2022.
  2. Robert S. Griffin, “A Suggestion to American White Advocates: Root Your Arguments in This Country’s Core Political and Cultural Ideals,” The Occidental Observer, online, posted June 13, 2020.
  3. Richard Brookhiser makes this point in his book, Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington (Free Press, 1996) p.122.
  4. James Madison, “An Objection Drawn from the Extent of Country Answered,” Federalist Paper Number 14, in Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers (New American Library, 1961), p. 100.
  5. As quoted in Lance Banning, The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic (Cornell University Press, 1995) p. 203.
  6. As quoted in Nathan Tarcov, “The Meanings of Democracy.” In Roger Soder, ed., Democracy, Education, and the Schools (Jossey-Bass, 1996) p.25.
  7. Tarcov, p.28.
  8. See Robert Westbrook, “Public Schooling and American Democracy,” in Soder, p. 128.
  9. Ibid.
  10. Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind, seventh revised edition (Regnery, 1986) p.200.
  11. Kirk, p. 12.
  12. Ibid., 155.
  13. Ibid., p. 211.
  14. Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education in a Republic,” in Steven Tozer, Paul Violas, and Guy Senese, School and Society: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, Second Edition (McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1995) pp. 40.
  15. Ibid, p. 24.
  16. George Washington, George Washington’s Farewell Address (Applewood Books, 1999).
  17. Tozer, Violas, and Senese, p. 42.
  18. Grant’s observation comes up in my article, “‘What If?’ Thinking: Imagining Alternative Histories as a Way to Know,” The Occidental Observer, online, posted December 3, 2021.


31 replies
  1. Connie
    Connie says:

    This is a fantastic article.

    For Democrats, who basically sponsored the riots, arson, and looting of 2020, to criticize the Right for violence and the destruction of democracy shows just how blind and dishonest they are.

    Democrats and the Leftists who believe such things cannot be taken seriously as thinkers or good citizens.

    I would just like to say that I am not thrilled about how some minorities, notably Blacks, too often just pull the voting lever for pro-crime, pro-welfare, anti-American Democrats without thinking much.

    They’re destroying the big cities that White have to live in. They should give Whites reparations.

    They’re not voting intelligently. It’s blindness and selfishness, and it’s very destructive.

    I wish they wouldn’t vote. Please don’t go to the polls if you’re going to vote stupidly.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” They’re not voting intelligently. It’s blindness and selfishness, and it’s very destructive.”

      Superb observation which is also true for most Nordic voting .

  2. HamburgerToday
    HamburgerToday says:

    I agree with the author that Whites in lower North America should draw upon American statesman. But I think Calhoun would be better to study than Madison or Jefferson. As for repudiating ‘democracy’, the author basically creates a strawman ‘democracy’ and then knocks it over. ‘Democracy’ is participation in power for the common citizen. That’s what it is. The methods of that participation vary, but they all come back to participation in power. It has nothing to do with the 50%+1 system that emerged in America.

    America is based upon the democratic principle of ‘popular sovereignty’. That’s how the White men who killed and died for the Revolution understood what they were fighting for and these were the same White who were immediately betrayed by Washington and the Founders when they sought to assert that sovereignty. There is no logic to the American Republic without the foundational idea of ‘popular sovereignty’ and there’s no notion of ‘popular sovereignty’ that does not implicate ‘democracy’ as ‘participation in power by the common citizen’. None.

    So, rather than grovel at the people who created a constitution that *failed* immediately to maintain ‘liberty’ for the many, how about we look at the writings and ideas of maybe the only truly great American political theorist: John C. Calhoun

    We cannot worship the Founders or attempt to use their language to describe or conceptually manage a stage of history so different form the one in which they lived. Calhoun saw farther because he saw where we are right now and had some idea how to stop it.

    If I was writing the Preamble to a constituion for a White Republic, the first line would be ‘The community can survive without the individual, but the individual cannot survive without the community. We assert the political-economic order described below in the collective interest of North American Whites, if you cannot submit to the will of the community, begone.’

    • Captainchaos
      Captainchaos says:

      Pining after muh constitution is nothing more than a boomer nostalgia cult. Oh what if…just what if…all the muds and Jews would disappear…then we could have muh constitution back. What if we could go back to a time of flintlock rifles and agrarianism where hardy yeomen desired self-rule like Calhoun wanted. This shit is truly comical. Technology alone has rendered such a societal form unlikely if not impossible to implement. A technological society requires technocrats to run it. How many of the rednecks that you’ve seen on the Jerry Springer Show do YOU think would be inclined to give up their cellphones in exchange for a yeomanly life? All those shitheads care about is whether or not they get to keep their toys. If you follow us to Red State secession you get to keep your toys, if not you don’t, that is the only sales pitch going. Stop fucking around and just back Red State secession!

      • Captainchaos
        Captainchaos says:

        Hitler’s dream was that of a German technocratic elite ruling over the White world for as long as our race shall endure. His successful conquest of the arable land and resources of the East would have cinched it. We have the same opportunity now. German-descended people of the Midwest and Great Plains regions of America already DO occupy and make productive the arable land of this continent. All we’ve got to do is break it away from ZOG and the National Socialist dream can live. That happens with Red State secession.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” A technological society requires technocrats to run it.”

        No doubt . However , the most important constituent of a technological culture is humanity . Technocrats whom are poorly educated in very significant humanitarian concerns are a hazard to your health or wellbeing .

    • Barkingmad
      Barkingmad says:

      “‘Democracy is participation in power for the common citizen. That’s what it is.”

      All-powerful kings and queens, aided and abetted by an armed force, ruled over a population that was basically still a bunch of babies, and the members of the tribe obeyed and worshipped them unthinkingly, like tiny children instinctively attach to their parents.

      Next stage up: democracy. It looks to me as if it represents a stage of human development equal to that of the older child, i.e., the adolescent individual; Mom ‘n’ Dad (king/queen or legislatures) are now giving you a bit of power and the right to decide certain things for yourself. But it’s no substitute for all adults behaving as mature adults should, with no one standing over them explaining right and wrong, and endlessly rewarding and punishing. Democracy is dying out and all liars will go with it one way or another. Cleansings and purgings are never comfortable. The next system doesn’t yet have a name, if it ever comes to be. There’s the possibility of worldwide nuclear annihilation to consider.

  3. Deb
    Deb says:

    Call me a nationalist because I cannot think of one reason any race, other than White, has improved this country. The small number of inventions created by other races are but a drop in the bucket compared to the genius of White men. To think I spent over 30 years involved in liberal social programs to help enrich the lives of Blacks, makes me want to give my forehead a sharp flick followed by the words ‘dumb-ass’. I’ve moved on I’m delighted to say.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      Wow, what a waste of a life, especially as you must understand you were certainly doing much more harm than good. Liberal do-gooders are a worse plague on blacks etc than the Jews. Especially white females.
      My compliments on escaping that mind-trap, most liberals stay teenagers with teenage opinions their entire lives. Your redemption shows true personal growth.
      Strength and bravery too, liberals understanding how retarded their life’s work has been normally just double down as a cope.

      • Deb
        Deb says:

        Your backhanded compliment stung a bit but that feeling was quickly overridden by the realization you are likely diminished by your own demons and for that, I absolve you of your cruel intent.

        The transition from lost to found is never an easy one.
        Author Unknown

        • Emicho
          Emicho says:

          There was no “cruel intent” lol it was just a statement of reality, I’m genuinely impressed you are over such nonsense and even more that you admit such things.
          We all have our demons, no doubt, but I’m sorry to hear such a thing “stung” because if you were totally over it all, it wouldn’t have.
          It wasn’t your fault you were brainwashed into such gibberish.

        • Barkingmad
          Barkingmad says:

          I agree with you, Deb. No one who “thinks like us” now can say that his/her past is pure in these kinds of matters. Only a few weeks before I saw something on television which hit me like a ton of bricks and changed my mind on just about EVERYTHING, I was walking down a busy street, on a lovely sunny day, and upon spotting a group of tall, skinny really dark African men in their African garb, I said to myself, “Isn’t it wonderful to see all these interesting people right here!” Before God, this is the truth.

  4. Strange World
    Strange World says:

    The former speechwriter of KGB-Mongol Putin (aka Poo-Teen) claims that his former boss has worked out an escape plan to South America called “Noah’s Ark Project” in case he loses the war against the useful idiots of ratface Zelensky.

    If you believe it, you’ll be blessed. The Central Asian bulldozer mug of the rumor spreader represents unquestionable credibility:,_%D0%90%D0%B1%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%81_%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

    “‘As the name suggests, it’s about Putin’s last option in case the situation at home becomes untenable for him, that is, if the Kremlin loses the war, Putin is ousted and has to quickly seek refuge elsewhere,’ said Galiamov, who has been living in exile in Israel [sic!] since 2018.”

    Vlad could perhaps be granted asylum in Chile like his former Red Front Komsomol member Erich H. and his “purple witch”. Or on “Ernst Thälmann Island”.

    “Margarita Island in Venezuela – here the Russian leadership is looking for real estate.” I once read an old adventure book by a Pole with a German surname, in which Margarita was titled “Island of the Damned”, inhabited by a cannibalistic native tribe called Arawak.

    Soon, Jewropa will look like Venezuela. And that, although Venezuela should be filthy rich just because of its natural resources. But corruption and communist mismanagement are ruining everything. In addition, there is the notorious organizational incompetence and incurable laziness of the Third Worlders. (All of Six’s vids include English subs.)

    Perhaps the infamous Tartar Empire, to which Putin owes his unmistakable facial features, has not perished at all and continues to exist subterraneously?

    An American with a German surname discusses the “inexplicable” population decline of so-called civilized countries. I offer a succinct conclusion: decadent Western value system that is demographically neither renewable nor curable by itself.

  5. Strange World
    Strange World says:

    Aha, “Coche Island”, what sympathetic inhabitants.

    Habeck visit backfires
    Namibia: “Germans, flee to your ex-colony!”

    Come to Namibia, the government urges Germans for whom energy is becoming too expensive. For this, the ex-colony of German Southwest creates an extra visa and slaps Economics Minister Habeck.

    WINDHUK. German energy cost refugees are welcome in Namibia. For this, the government of the former colony of German Southwest Africa has now even issued a separate visa. The state advertises German language, architecture, local cuisine and warm temperatures.

    Germans are now allowed to live in the African country for up to six months. To do so, they must apply for a visa. President Hage Gottfried Geingob also advertises the small time difference. With only one hour, there are no problems to work for German companies from the Namibian home office.

    Since Namibia, where some streets and towns still bear German names, is located in the southern hemisphere, African summer prevails there during the European winter. Bathing weather, while in Germany one does not dare to heat one’s home to pleasant temperatures, is another argument of the government, which also expresses its incomprehension about Germany shutting down its nuclear power plants. They could even have supplied uranium for it, they say from Windhoek.

    Namibia: “German is one of our languages”.

    The Minister of Economics, Robert Habeck (Greens), had just visited the country to try to convince the Africans of Germany’s energy policy. But there they only shook their heads in disbelief. The new visa, issued only to Germans, must now feel like a slap in the face to the traffic light politician.

    The country is also cheaper than neighboring South Africa. The half liter of Windhoek Lager – brewed according to the German purity law – costs 1.60 euros. Nangula Uuandja is in charge of the settlement program for Germans. She told Bild: “You Germans are very welcome here! Namibia is also called Germany’s little sister. We have cities that look like German cities. This is your second home here, a piece of Germany in Africa. We have German architecture, German street names, with the A1 even a German highway! German is one of our languages.”

  6. WCH
    WCH says:

    Clearly the US is an Aristocracy run by mostly Jewish Oligarchs. When citizens are poled over 90 percent concur that the US congress does not represent the majority of citizens. This is not new. It’s just becoming more obvious because the politians no longer hide it.

    • Ron Chapman
      Ron Chapman says:

      G’day WCH,
      It’s true that ‘Jewish oligarchs’ run the US and much of our world.
      Arguably though, to understand what that means we need to acknowledge that those ‘Jews’ are Talmudists i.e. the Khazarian Mafia masquerading as a long dead ethnic group of Judahites who were controlled and farmed by a barbaric tribal leadership group of Edomites who called themselves Pharisees and assumed authorship of the demonic genocidal series of law books known as the Talmud. The Talmud was used as a barbaric sociopolitical tribal control mechanism over Judahites, using an ideology that promised adherents that they would subjugate and enslave all non-Talmudists because they, the goyem, are mere cattle to be used, abused and slaughtered at will by Talmudists.

      Arguably, after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, Pharisaic elites fled to Babylon and later merged with Canaanite elements in the north Caucasus becoming the rulers of the Khazarian Empire. When the Khazarian empire was destroyed by Russian and Byzantine Christians in the 11th century AD some of the Khazarian elite set up shop in Venice becoming the Black nobility which ruled the Venetian empire. Subsequently they relocating to Portugal, Holland and eventually to the City of London. But other Khazarian leaders took the bulk of the Khazar population and fled north west towards slavic Polish and Germanic lands. This group morphed into the Ashkenazis that currently represent over 90% of those who started calling themselves ‘Jews’ around 1775 AD.

      Eustace Mullins brilliantly exposes Talmudists (ie ‘Jews’) as being occult Canaanites, ie heirs to the “Will of Canaan” bequeathed to his children by Canaan, Shem’s wicked nephew. Eustace Mullins says the Will is only found in the Talmud: ‘.., where it is presented thusly:
      “Five things did Canaan charge his sons: love one another (ie members of your own tribe), love robbery, love lewdness, hate your masters, and do not speak the truth.” Pes. 113b.

      Eustace Mullins also says: The Will of Canaan has been the Canaanites’ prescription for all of their operations during the ensuing three thousand years since the testament was given. Today it remains the operating instructions of the Canaanite heirs, who presently control the World Order. At the same time, it remains unknown to the peoples whom the Canaanites continue to rob, enslave, and massacre. (Eustace Mullins, Curse of Canaan. p16:

      The key to the success of Canaan’s current heirs – the Jews – is their ability to “NOT SPEAK THE TRUTH” – the fifth injunction Canaan bequeathed to them.

      Arguably USans and the whole gentile world must eliminate the Khazarian Mafia (not ignorant non-Talmudic ‘Jews’) or be eliminated.
      Peace and Blessings,

  7. Strange World
    Strange World says:

    Six reports from Lviv/Western Ukraine about historical
    contexts that the media do not want to show us – but are
    important to understand current events. (incl. Engl. subs)

    He actually seems to be called Six, which is not neces-
    sarily an English name. I only knew Sixt until now. Why
    his parents had to call him “Billy” is probably due to an
    Anglo-Saxon influence that even reached East Berlin.

  8. Strange World
    Strange World says:

    Mr. Eberstadt said American youth have become “more European in the last 10 years, and not in a positive sense.” He cites Israel as a shining example of growing demographics. Of all places. How is this all connected, the decline of the West and the rise of the Jew state? Doesn’t it seem obvious that the two are conditional on each other?

    This question is not asked; it must remain hidden behind a wall of meaningful silence. The cautious way in which the two discussants use their words shows unmistakably who is in charge in today’s America. When Adolf says that it is the inner constitution of a people that makes its state flourish, then one knows at the latest now what was meant by that.

  9. Ron Chapman
    Ron Chapman says:

    Thanks Robert for this erudite discussion.

    As I see it, human consciousness is designed to evolve and as it does it increases the individual’s awareness of life, the universe and everything. Arguably those who fought for freedom from British usury based tyranny and established the constitutional republic of ‘these united states of America’ were striving to create a polity in which sovereign individual humans could survive and thrive.

    Those individuals were steeped in Christ Jesus’s teachings that were substantially distorted and corrupted by those who forced the Romans to crucify him. Moreover their progeny and ideological followers have exacerbated that process for more than 1700 years. Never-the-less the societal environment of the Constitution’s founders was positively influenced by Jesus’ message that we need to seek to love neighbour as self for the love of God. What was lacking then, as now, was a deep understanding of what that means.

    Arguably, truly acceptable human societal governance only emerges in communities in which a majority of individuals have evolved sufficiently to understand and implement what is meant by love of self and everyone and everything, for the love of God.

    The authors of the Constitution and the leaders of the American War of Independence made a huge leap forward in socio-political ideology but US society didn’t make the commensurate leap in spirituality needed to “keep” the personal freedom and good governance they acquired. Nor has most of the US population improved its spiritual development since then. In fact, a majority appears to have lost much of the moral fibre, mental acuity and physical strength that enabled their predecessors to create the nation.

    Arguably USans now need to claw back the socio-political, cultural and moral ground lost to godless cultural Marxist materialism AND to simultaneously develop the spirituality needed to keep that ground. That will require accepting the truth about their corrupt polity and the gross distortion of current US socio-political, economic and spiritual governance. It will also entail exposing the lies that have distorted our entire human history.

    Many USans currently appear to lack that understanding and the need for it. That seems to be due to a gross over emphasis on materialism that accentuates ego-centrism and elevates the desire for physical and emotional comfort. That ethos has been exacerbated for more than a century by escalating Ashkenazi manipulation of the economic, social, physical and spiritual life of USans. It has culminated in WOKEIST LGBTQ+ism which signals the almost total destruction of morality and rationality in half the population including a seeming majority of leaders in government, industry, academia, science and technology; and large swaths of the legal, religious, cultural and medical professions. Anyone who thinks that 2 +2 can equal five and that men can be women cannot participate in a healthy society

    IF that is the case, any discussion of how to improve US governance needs to be predicated upon total demolition of debauched US political, economic, cultural and religious structures. That destruction and needed reconstruction process got seriously underway during Trump’s first presidential term but it can only be completed following a total collapse of US political, judicial, financial, religious and cultural structures followed by their re-creation on genuinely moral and rational foundations.

    Peace and Blessings,

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      …” a gross over emphasis on materialism that accentuates ego-centrism and elevates the desire for physical and emotional comfort.”

      You have previously asserted in a
      ( December 14, 2022 at 5:36 pm ) comment of
      the T.O.O. essay
      “On Reinventing a Ruling Class, Part 1”
      by Prof. Andrew Fraser at this link __

      that __

      “We are here to learn to be like the Creator.”

      How do you suppose that we can attempt to bring a cosmic Universe , of infinitely many huge objects such as planets in stellar systems , into existence without having an obsession about creating material things which is also known as having an obsession with materialism ?

      Also , please note that
      in the same comment above you asserted __

      “I disagree with the proposition that the only purpose of human existence is to have FUN.”

      which has a spin which grossly misstates my overwelhmingly scientificly affirmed statement that __

      The [ ultimate purpose ] or goal —

      not “only purpose” as you asserted —

      of normal humanity

      is to have FUN as previously defined in various T.O.O. commentaries .

      You further assert in the comment that learning
      “to be like the Creator … involves experiencing all there is to experience. That’s an endless process which involves suffering as well as fun and ultimate ecstasy.”

      Normal humanity does not have a purpose/goal to experience suffering . However , they accept suffering as often being unpredictable and unavoidable in their pursuit to achieve FUN as defined .

      Your “Creator” appears to be identical with Satan ; to wit __


      I make peace , and create evil :


      ( verbatim quote from : The Holy Bible / KJV /
      Book of Isaiah / chapter 45 / verse 7 ) .

  10. Strange World
    Strange World says:

    But now it’s getting really interesting: Will we at least finally get a satisfactory answer to Mr. Eberstadt’s observation from the almighty “Bibi”? He should actually say: “Your shamefully low birth rate is mainly due to the fact that our forces are constantly undermining your national morale in such a destructive way that you no longer develop any desire to start a family! Besides, we are doing so splendidly because we have been prospering from your money and substance of life for decades!” But hear and see for yourselves:

  11. Lucas Andrew Wheeler
    Lucas Andrew Wheeler says:

    Seems me you overlooked John C. Calhoun in your list of America political thinkers. Do we have some sort of regional bias there?

  12. Lucas Andrew Wheeler
    Lucas Andrew Wheeler says:

    A great article but your lisit of deep American political thinkers should include John C. Calhoun.

    • Ron Chapman
      Ron Chapman says:

      Moneytalks December 18, 2022 at 2:24 am
      G’day moneytalks,

      I apologise if I misquoted or misrepresented you in relation to ‘The [ ultimate purpose ] or goal — of normal humanity is to have FUN’
      I agree that ultimately human beings are meant to enjoy life, the universe and everything.
      You ask:
      How do you suppose that we can attempt to bring a cosmic Universe , of infinitely many huge objects such as planets in stellar systems , into existence without having an obsession about creating material things which is also known as having an obsession with materialism ?
      As I understand it, we are here to learn to crawl before we can walk, as it were. As spirit beings we are here to experience for the Creator. That seems to involve evolving from scratch, as infintesmial bits of Creator energy, in a holographic cosmos created by myriad varying energy frequencies emanating from the mind of the Creator. The process develops through ever increasing energetic refinements that manifest as physicality i.e. the physical materium that is the cosmos. The cosmos evolves in physical complexity from physical elements that have infintesmal consciousness. That results in tangible physical matter such as suns and planets etc. Eventually that nascent element of consciousness on some planets evolves floral life, fauna life and eventually human life whereafter that human consciousness becomes increasingly self aware. That awareness gradually evolves into higher consciousness as we grow in the ability to understand life, the universe and everything and love its visible manifestations. That ability to love seems to grow especially in relation to living manifestations which we gradually realise appear as real energy emanating from the Creator of us and the cosmos.

      You allso ask:
      “We are here to learn to be like the Creator.”
      How do you suppose that we can attempt to bring a cosmic Universe , of infinitely many huge objects such as planets in stellar systems , into existence without having an obsession about creating material things which is also known as having an obsession with materialism ?
      Arguably our primary purpose as ascending HUmans (Higher Universal man) isn’t to bring the cosmos into existence but I understand that some angelic beings are engaged in assisting the Creator to do that by managing the complexification of Creator energies into universes, suns and planets etc.
      As I understand it, that process is not an obsession but a rational loving activity just as proper HUman loving procreation and nurturing of progeny and the development and improvement of their physical environment on this planet is a rational loving activity.
      In both contexts the work deals with material manifestations but, if properly undertaken it is not obsessive or materialistic.

      “to be like the Creator … involves experiencing all there is to experience. That’s an endless process which involves suffering as well as fun and ultimate ecstasy.”
      Normal humanity does not have a purpose/goal to experience suffering . However , they accept suffering as often being unpredictable and unavoidable in their pursuit to achieve FUN as defined .
      Your “Creator” appears to be identical with Satan ; to wit __
      Arguably, humans start their first human incarnation as primitive beings who have just graduated from animal status (having just become self conscious during their previous life) and so they have to consciously learn about life, the universe and everything from scratch. That’s why family and community life is so important and why the demonic Khazars and their ilk seek to destroy family and community life and get the ‘state’ to school infants and children from cradle to adulthood whereafter the MSM and academia et al take over the process of indoctrinating and propagandizing them.
      It is inevitable that humans will make mistakes through ignorance, peversity and miseducation etc. Those mistakes are falsely labelled as ‘sins’ by religions but in fact they constitute the necessary learning process. People eventually see their mistakes having to endure suffering as a result. The process takes a long time and hence we have reincarnation and eternity to complete it
      Suffering exists because the Creator has bestowed the ultimate gift of free will on HUmans. Without it we would be automatons
      Peace and Blessings

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” It is inevitable that humans will make mistakes through ignorance, peversity and miseducation etc. Those mistakes are falsely labelled as ‘sins’ by religions but in fact they constitute the necessary learning process. People eventually see their mistakes having to endure suffering as a result.”

        A glitter of gold in your prolific theological works of art known as comments .

        However , your theological explanation for suffering has no empirical basis . A more scientific/realistic explanation would be that suffering is usually the result of inexorable chance events ( some of which may not have anything to do with ignorance , nor perversity , nor miseducation ) that negatively impact normal humanity’s efforts to attain goals or fulfill desirable purposes .

  13. Michael
    Michael says:

    The more illegitimate their regime is, the harder they push the narrative that any challenge to their ill-gotten power is “a threat to democracy” which “leads to fascism” or whatever. One having successfully infiltrated and subverted the system, they (we know who they are) pretend very hard that it is all fair and above-board, because to acknowledge any irregularities might have people investigating further; so to maintain the appearance of legitimacy they have to silence absolutely any questioning or investigation of their ‘accurate elections’ which would seem to call into question…their legitimacy.

  14. Ron Chapman
    Ron Chapman says:

    G’day again moneytalks,
    The life of the beautiful Jim Key was suppressed by the Khazarian Mafia for obvious reasons. That horse is a good example of an animal who had developed sufficient awareness and consciousness to be ready to transition to human status in his next incarnation.
    See eg:
    This “Horse Story” Is True. The Smartest Horse That Ever Lived. I Prove It.

    Beautiful Jim Key – the world’s smartest horse:

Comments are closed.