Against Democracy:
The Five Fatal Flaws of Universal Suffrage
All that appears to grant freedom to mankind has in fact ordained its' enslavement, impairing and crippling from within while outwardly bearing the banner of liberty.
-Boyd Rice, spoken word preamble to “Since Yesterday” by Current 93
Die Demokratie repräsentiert den Unglauben an große Menschen und an Elite-Gesellschaft: „Jeder ist jedem gleich.” „Im Grunde sind wir allesamt eigennütziges Vieh und Pöbel.
Democracy represents the disbelief in great human beings and an elite society: “Everyone is equal to everyone else.” “At bottom we are one and all self-seeking cattle and mob.”
- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power
Author’s note: this essay was written and revised before the assasination of Charlie Kirk and was originally slated for publication on September 11, 2025. No revisions have been made referencing this. Readers are free to infer whatever obvious conclusions are to be made from that event in relation to the arguments and contentions set forth in this piece.
Over the past century, the United States transformed itself from a republic to a world empire. This has caused unimaginable bloodshed, death, and destruction. America’s status as the lone super power, however waning that status may be, has allowed the United States to infuse various manifestations of American Unkultur directly into the stream of European culture and society. Supplanting European hegemony, American might and power have facilitated in turn American cultural imperialism. Such cultural and societal incursions have been a key, critical factor in the Great Replacement as a critical mass of Europeans delude themselves with absurdist la-la dreams of diversity and multi-racialism.
Some have written about the dark side of Pax Americana, with some of Patrick Buchanan’s works such as Death of the West and A Republic, Not an Empire as notable examples. Not nearly enough however has been written about how faulty and specious the underlying assumption of this directive really is: that dubious supposition is that democracy1 is without question not only a good unto itself, but a sort of categorical imperative: something that is always and invariably right, good, and just in all instances. This essay will outline just a few of the considerations that not only reveal democracy to be anything but a good unto itself, but impugn the very notion and concept itself. This of course is in direct contravention to so many tenets that the masses have been inculcated with, not only since high school civics class, but since elementary school and before.
A foundational premise to any attack or criticism of democracy is an understanding of what voting is fundamentally. In isolation, the individual act of voting is infinitesimal in a population of tens or even hundreds of millions of people. In the aggregate though, voting is a remarkable assertion of political authority. As will be revealed, however, what appears to be granting the masses such political authority is simply carte blanche license for mass media conglomerates, and those malignant interests that wield them, to deceive, program, and indoctrinate the masses to their bidding. Concerning the nature of voting more directly, this following admonition in Starship Troopers is particularly noteworthy. Using Colonel DuBois’s lecture to his class of cadets as a mouthpiece, Robert Heinlein describes voting both as an exercise of political authority and the invocation of state violence:
When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
When leftist swine vote for open borders, or policies that teach transgender nuttery to children and adolescents, or any number of disastrous policies that these people vote for, those policies are backed by the dormant violence of the state, which can and does include active violence of the state on an intermittent basis. When leftist pigs vote to prop up “refugees” in expensive hotels, they, through universal suffrage, are mandating compliance through the state, including extraction of tax dollars as well as seemingly endless deficit spending to finance their mad delirium. When voting is properly contemplated for what it is intrinsically, the prospect of granting universal suffrage indiscriminately, with the only qualifiers being of age, being a lawful citizen, and absence of felony conviction is truly astounding. That consideration in turn reveals five fundamental flaws of democracy, flaws that reveal democracy to be irredeemable at best, evil at worst.
I. All Men Are Not Created Equal
Perhaps the greatest evil of universal suffrage is that it regards every man and woman as equal, that it regards all votes equal to each other, or even that it counts all votes at all, with minimal qualifiers of citizenship, being of age, and absence of felony conviction. Inequality is an inescapable and immutable law not just of the human condition, but the natural world at large: an inescapable but (at least for some) hard truth that not only necessitates some form of hierarchy, but renders hierarchy an inevitability. Some individuals have superior intellectual capacity to others, just as some are born with a natural aptitude for health, strength, and virility while others are not so fortunate. But whereas some are damned to physical inferiority but are otherwise more or less healthy enough to get by in life, others suffer from crippling disfigurements and disabilities rendering them all but invalid. Certain tendencies derived from the Enlightenment aspired to ameliorate these inequalities, stating that inequalities derive solely or principally from class, environment, and other external factors. To the extent these thinkers never envisaged the possibility that such suppositions would be extrapolated to all of humanity, including certain races and peoples that have proven to suffer from marked inferiority in intelligence in particular, the general principle of this thought does nonetheless have merit to an appreciable degree. The merit of such thought is not absolute, however, even among European and East-Asian peoples; some are born with superior intellect, while others are not only less fortunate, but are so deficient that they simply should not be enfranchised with the power of the vote. A bona fide dullard born with not just below-average but defective intellect should simply not be allowed to vote. Consider that people with downs syndrome are entitled to vote, as others with significant cognitive disabilities, absent a court determination for lack of mental capacity, are entitled to vote as well.
Similarly, much greater scrutiny should be applied to the very infirm and senile. On the latter point, it is of note that, theoretically at least, the very elderly can potentially lose legal capacity to sign legal instruments such as contracts, though many do nonetheless sign contracts with various predatory enterprises of ill-repute, such as reverse mortgage brokers and exorbitantly priced retirement homes and what not that are contributing to the further disenfranchisement and dispossession of Generation X, millennials, and succeeding generations.
Failure to account for deficiencies in mental constitution as a born, immutable condition are not the only defect with universal suffrage. The folly of such a proposition is even more acute in balkanized, multicultural societies, as the white demographic is the only reliable block of so-called “swing voters.”2 Every other racial demographic, most especially blacks but others as well, vote in accordance with their collective racial interests.3 It is thus madness for an incumbent white polity to enfranchise hostile, disparate ethnic and racial groups that often (but admittedly not always) have diametrically opposed interests, racially and collectively, just as the very proposition of multiracial societies is, axiomatically, a proposition for ruin. That concern is of course compounded by standard deviations in intellect between blacks and whites in particular.
II. Democracy as a Prisoner of the Present
A second, closely related flaw in democracy—in universal suffrage—overlaps somewhat with the absurdity of giving dullards and geniuses alike an equal vote; that flaw relates to the propensity for constituencies to be prisoners of the present. More sophisticated voters, and those voters who have been reared with a sense of community—a sense of duty to posterity and nation—are somewhat less susceptible to this propensity, but are not entirely immune. A survey of modern democracies, particularly after 1945, demonstrates a tendency for voters to award themselves with ever larger and fantastical indulgences of governmental largesse, at the expense of future generations. This is one factor in several in some $325 trillion in debt owned by the nations of the world, with much of debt owed by the collection of the world’s so-called democracies.
Critics of democracy often cite that more authoritarian forms of government, from monarchies that extend power beyond just ceremonial functions to various dictatorships tend to have a more forward-thinking view. Crucially, the dumber constituencies get, and the more balkanized and alienated such societies become as a result of the wonderous marvels of so-called multiculturalism, more aptly described as multiracialism, a critical mass of individuals will harden themselves and turn inward, only thinking of their own individual benefit. This not only degrades the social fabric whereby citizens look after the welfare of one another, but accelerates the atomization and deracination of the individual as well.
III. The Evils of Ignorance and Philistinism
Just as democracy is immoral in giving the mentally defective and the inferior equal suffrage to those who do not suffer from such defects, there are other factors that ought to disqualify persons from suffrage. These pertain to deficiencies in education and, for lack of a better term, culture, or being cultured, as it is the inability to restrict voting based on these deficiencies that reveal a third flaw in democracy. As in many other instances, the German language is armed with a word that lacks any real equivalent in the English language: Bildung. Unlike any equivalent in English, the German term “Bildung” denotes both a sense of education and culture. Both education and a state of being cultured are essential, as there are many who are well educated but have not been cultured with the values and traditions that temper the individual away from the number of delusions and absurdities that have seduced masses of people in the modern world. Some millennial “boss bitch” type may have a master’s degree, but if she listens to Katy Perry, “Snoop Dogg,” or Taylor Swift, or reads People magazine, or binge watches Bridgerton or A Handmaid’s Tale and other such dreck, she is wholly wanting of that vital German concept of Bildung. Such a woman may or may not be educated, depending on how that term is properly understood and defined, aber sie ist gar nicht gebildet worden. In this day and age, a person who is more or less educated does not necessarily possess even the semblance of a classical education.
The conservative propensity to cite both the Constitution and the framers as an appeal to authority is a tendency as troubling as it is dogged, but it should nonetheless be of note these very framers cited an educated and somewhat refined citizenry as a necessary predicate for the democratic system to be at all tenable. Consider this sample quote in Federalist Paper #55:
As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.
That predicate that “Republican form government presupposes” quite obviously has not been fulfilled for some time. The suggestion that much of the American population has been subject to a mere “degree of depravity” would be a euphemism of the most incredible sort. Large swathes of the American populace are unspeakably ignorant and strikingly philistine, and that tendency afflicts both sides. Liberals are quick to point out how much of the GOP constituency believes in “young earth” theology, positing that the world is only a few thousand years old as predicated on a literal reading of the Book of Genesis. Conversely, despite hollow pretensions of being more educated and cultured, a critical mass of leftist pigs are firmly embedded in the very worst expressions of American Unkultur. They constantly cite Star Wars and any given iteration of “capeshit” slop, and they do so with the reverence one might expect of a person citing Goethe, Shakespeare, or Homer.
This essential predicate becomes most precarious insofar as mainstream conservatism has allowed the institutions of education at all levels—as well as all cultural institutions and centers of power—to fall in the hands of truly sinister interests with designs on civilizational ruin and racial suicide. This reveals another central flaw in the American constitutional model; it never envisaged protections for these institutions of culture and education. The framers of course were wholly unable to even conceptualize modern mass media as it exists today and how mass media evolved from newspaper concerns and the peril of yellow journalism, to the later advent of broadcast radio, and then broadcast and cable television, superseded in turn by modern mass media, which includes both social media and mass media. In relation to both these modern institutions and their predecessors that existed in centuries past, no protections were envisioned that would guard against an oligopoly of media outright. They certainly never contemplated the prospect of these implements being procured by powerful but diabolical interests of unimaginable wealth that have designs on civilizational ruin and racial suicide for Europe and the West, let alone offer protections against these existential threats. So-called free-market capitalism and universal suffrage have proven utterly unfit to protect society from these dangers.
These considerations reveal another closely related flaw with democracy concerning culture—or being cultured—as an equally essential predicate for a citizenry suitable to entertain the massive responsibility of voting, of exercising political authority and invoking the violence of state action. The lack of such a predicate, as well as mainstream conservatism’s neglect of and even disdain for matters of culture, leads to a most predictable result, predictable to all but the sort of fuddy-duddy, “respectable” conservative who is just that daft and pig-headed not to see the obvious: in very short order, what is properly known as American Unkultur became pervasive not just in the States and the Anglosphere at large, but much of Europe as well. Prominent figures in this Unkultur, as well as various insidious, moneyed interests that control the mass media conglomerates that shape, define, and promulgate this Unkultur wield remarkable influence on the hearts and minds of a critical mass of people.
Somewhat famously, the presidential campaign for Kamala Harris enlisted some of the most insipid, distasteful celebrity figures imaginable, including Taylor Swift, “Megan Thee Stallion,” real name Megan Jovon Ruth Pete, and so many others besides. Mainstream conservatives foolishly utter assurances that it did not work, that Donald Trump won regardless. Their empty assurances notwithstanding, he won by fairly narrow margins. And regardless, large contingents of the populations are beholden to such influences.4 Consider the blithe assertion that anyone who even likes Taylor Swift—either as a person or her “music”—should not be allowed to vote, let alone people who are swayed or influenced by what such figures in the “culture” endorse politically or ideologically. The same principle applies to anyone who likes other such garbage, gynocentric pop music. The one exception might be a sort of inverse endorsement, i.e. because Taylor Swift endorses Kamala Harris the opposing candidate is necessarily the right choice.
Ascertaining Hierarchy and the Search for Natural Aristocracy
The inevitability of both inequality and the existence of hierarchy that follows as a corollary is fairly straight forward and easy to discern for those who dare to examine human nature as it actually exists. A far more daunting task is how to ascertain both inequality and hierarchy, a most difficult endeavor that has troubled even the greatest minds and thinkers who have not been so deluded by so many fairy tales about equality that pervade conventional wisdom in modern times. As the disastrous cost of this folly of believing in equality of man and between certain races becomes more apparent to more and more, some are foolishly embracing monarchy and a caste system of European nobility as a response.5 Others are suggesting that the right to vote should be limited only to those who own property. Both ideas could not be more absurd or wrong-headed.
The idea of monarchy is utterly discredited by historical figures like King Henry VI, Charles the II of Spain, and other assorted rulers. So-called regency periods, which crippled governance of the state, were not uncommon in European history. One can even turn to King Charles III—formerly prince Charles and the ex-husband of Lady Diana—as a further indictment of monarchy. He lobbied for the Church of England to change its motto from “Defender of the Faith” to “Defender of the Faiths” and has been a key facilitator backing the demographic transformation of the British Isles. Even Queen Elizabeth, despite her wild popularity, did nothing to stop the Great Replacement that took hold in Britain during her lifetime. These considerations alone reveal that being born to supposed noble blood, nothing more than winning the cosmic lottery, is a poor barometer to discern natural hierarchy as it exists in nature. To be fair, there have been many great monarchs, from King Henry V, to Queen Anne, to Frederick the Great, but surely a method to discern and embrace hierarchy can be devised that recognizes such extraordinary individuals regardless of birth into nobility, peasantry, or the shrinking middle class


Predicating suffrage on property ownership is equally specious. Despite the enduring myths of the “deserving rich”6 as well as the lie of upward mobility, most property ownership and most wealth in this country is attributed to some appreciable degree to generational wealth, passed down through inheritance. This is compounded by an increasingly bleak economic environment over the past 25 years which has seen fewer members of Generation X and millennials own homes. With the third “once in a lifetime” economic calamity stemming from absurd COVID policy and inflationary spending, the economy is on a trajectory set to eclipse even the Great Recession of 2008. Accordingly, such matters are poised to worsen.
Among dissident voices in the hard right, Devon Stack has been uniquely poignant on such matters. Aside from stating a natural aversion to persons of the moneyed class such as Richard Spencer and Tucker Carlson, this author recalls one anecdote Devon Stack offered in relation to living in San Francisco when he was working as a media consultant, and most particularly how he had a Jewish landlord that he was obligated to give two or three thousand a month. The landlord died, and his daughter, who was simply born into such generational wealth, was then the benefactor of such exorbitant rents. Instead of franchising the moneyed class even further, perhaps, at least in relation to the more egregious instances, designs should instead be envisaged on how to disgorge such ill-gotten wealth from their clutches, channeling certain political movements in history that correctly confiscated and disgorged such wealth.
Instead of contemplating such flawed and very foolish methods to discern and establish hierarchy, any polity that envisages the salvation and resurgence of European culture, society, and posterity must endeavor to ascertain natural hierarchy in men as it is exists by natural faculties and capabilities, not the arbitrary and capricious marker of perceived nobility or wealth. This consideration, incidentally, was a central tenet of Volksgemeinschaft. A concept discussed by this author many times before, Volksgemeinschaft loosely translates as “people’s community” or “national community,” although the word Volk has a unique racial connotation absent in any English word, as evidenced in the related adjective “völkisch.” While this ideal predates the Third Reich by several decades or more, the concept was embraced with particular zeal by National Socialism and their bid to unify Germans across social classes and award each German citizen according to merit and ability.
Perhaps the best model on how to best discern natural hierarchy and merit was presented in Robert Heinlein’s unfortunately titled Starship Troopers. Readers who have not yet read the book are implored to do so. The science fiction novel is of course also a political and philosophical treatise that envisions the failure and collapse of democracy.7 Rather than turn to failures of the past, such as monarchies and absolute dictatorships, a novel system emerged that infused certain elements of democracy into an authoritarian system. The system Heinlein envisions grants citizenship—and the right to vote—on service and, implicitly at least, on merit. This is largely achieved through military service, but Heinlein envisions other methods of service as well. To the extent such service also requires a baseline in native abilities in intelligence and health, this system affords a perfect balance, with safeguards against the excesses and flaws of monarchies and absolute dictatorships on one hand and the inherent flaws and evils of democracy on the other. After reading this important novel, it occurred to this author such a system would have likely delivered National Socialism from the fatal flaws and “excesses” that were, in the words of Field Marshall Ritter von Leeb, “due to the Führer's personality.” This is not to suggest that absolute dictatorships are the categorical evil that conventional wisdom implores—both Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet contradict that, as does Toyotomi Hideyoshi who saved Japan from European colonialism.
IV. Peaceful Exchange of Power to Jonestown Nuttery of a More Attenuated Sort
The fourth flaw of democracy is that it does not recognize, to a sufficient degree, the limits as to what should be agreed to or accepted in the peaceful exchange of power that is the hallmark of the democratic system. Every presidential election, and most particularly since Trump uttered murmurings about contesting the 2020 election that was almost certainly stolen, media pundits and other sorts wax and wane about the sanctity of democracy, and how important it is to allow for a peaceful exchange of power as facilitated by a democratic form of government. This is stated categorically and without qualification: a fundamental error.
A significant predicate underlying this error is the notion that all disagreements are like another, from matters of taste, matters of economics, to basic, fundamental ideological and political differences. It is utterly simplistic and foolish, even, to reduce human affairs to a simple binary of agreement and disagreement. Such differences, in actuality, fall in three categories:
· Personal preferences
· More important matters that reasonable minds can disagree on
· Matters of first principle where there can be no disagreement
It is often suggested that what the reactionary right both advocates and denounces are simply a matter of personal preference. The notion is that denouncing negrocentric and utterly obscene rap music is just a personal preference. One also supposes, according to this naïve and foolish mindset, that parents who wish to induce their children into the trappings of transgender nuttery are also just a matter of mere personal preference.
A matter of personal preference would be a disdain for cucumber tonic water or the music of Lawrence Welk. It must be conceded, however, that perhaps the disadvantages and troubles presented by Lawrence Welk do transcend beyond just mere personal preference. To the extent willful ignorance exuding such sappy, sickly-sweet fare blinded a familial relation of this author and much of the not-at-all the greatest generation from discerning hard truths in family and societal affairs alike, perhaps such insipid, goofy music is not so harmless after all.
Above questions of mere personal preference stand weighty matters that, although important, are nonetheless matters that reasonable minds can usually disagree on. Such matters include things like taxes and tariffs and other economic policies, whether school vouchers are sound policy, so on and so forth. One way to conceptualize disagreements about such policy matters is to envision a polity united behind the same ends and the same core values, but with some disagreement as to the best methods and policies to achieve those ends and facilitate those values. There is of course limitations to that as well. The American Revolution was instigated in no small part due to tax policy. Disastrous economic policy and monetary spending that is certain to lead to economic ruin and hardship should also not be countenanced or tolerated in the slightest. That consideration impugns and indicts the current system further, given the economic hardship and uncertainty that has pervaded over the past quarter of a century.
Transcending well beyond such matters are those matters of first principles, matters that are not negotiable and that reasonable minds cannot disagree on. These are disagreements not just about the best means to achieve certain ends, but fundamental and irreconcilable differences about the ends themselves and the underlying values on which those ends are predicated. Immediate examples of such matters illustrative to most include actual pedophilia,8 slavery, and prohibition against murder absent legitimate affirmative defenses such as self-defense. At a more abstract level, such things are often envisaged as so-called inalienable rights and protections that are supposed to safeguard the republic and populace from mob rule. Even absent constitutional prohibitions against such proposals, most would balk at the idea that legalizing pedophilia or freely allowing cold-blooded murder should even be countenanced for a “vote at the ballot box,” and if it were a critical mass would likely permanently disenfranchise those who entertain such insane ideas. 51 percent cannot vote to rob and murder the other 49 percent. The majority, at least in theory, cannot vote to infringe on what The Constitution in the United States and other constitutions in other countries deem to be constitutional rights or otherwise prohibits.
Unfortunately, such protections against and limitations to majority rule in the various constitutions of the democracies have not been nearly restrictive enough. If fifty percent plus some trivial amount, i.e. 50 percent plus x, had convinced itself of the prodigious advantages of both voluntary and then compelled consumption of Jonestown Kool-Aid laced with cyanide, legal proscriptions as well as our collective instinct for self-preservation would prevent them from enacting such policy, regardless of whether such Koolaid crazies merely advocated for their “right” to imbibe the poison voluntarily or, even worse, sought to make consumption of the poison compulsory for everyone. The same would apply for a hypothetical mass delirium that convinced itself of the supposed advantages of the philosophy of “efilism;” for those unaware, efilism dictates that all life is suffering or otherwise repugnant and loathsome and that, therefore, if there were a way to exterminate all human life, an adherent of this “philosophy” would not only be permitted but morally obligated to murder every man, woman, and child on the planet and snuff out all of humanity.9
Consider however that a number of policies embraced by the left are no less ruinous, in the long-run, than the imagined Jonestown Kool-Aid constituency or adherents to efilism. The mad delirium of open borders and other pet projects of the left will destroy European civilization and murder its posterity and will do so with absolute, mathematical certitude. Such mad delirium will lead to such ruin unless counteracted by whatever necessary and effective means should those means become available. The same rationale applies to tolerance and even promotion of race-mixing. The ruinous, disastrous nature of such policies may be somewhat more attenuated and gradual than the Jonestown Kool-Aid mob contemplated above, but the end result is no less inevitable or certain. This not only applies to the notion of allowing foreign and racial imposters into Europe and the Anglosphere, but well-organized hostility to government agencies like ICE which enforce responsible immigration policy and protect the borders of a nation; enforcing immigration laws and protecting a nation’s borders are one of if not the most central functions of the state. The same consideration applies to any number of anti-natalist policies that have plunged the European peoples in the world into a demographic crisis whereby the death rate far exceeds the birth rate. Deluded, brainwashed Swedes, Germans, and others have no more a “right” to open the floodgates of their countries to black and brown hordes than do murderous, insane people have a “right” to vote for either voluntary or voluntary and compelled consumption of Jonestown Kool-Aid—that the disastrous consequences are immediate compared to the somewhat slower, more subtle consequences of multi-culti delirium are of no import. Indeed, the latter implore a particularly acute sort of intolerance and action of much greater urgency precisely because the ruin and death they cause are more gradual, more attenuated. Vigilance and action are even more warranted against a poison that kills slowly over time versus a shot of Jonestown Kool-Aid or unending rounds of Russian Roulette with several chambers loaded, when the lethal dangers are open and obvious to even the profoundly stupid and utterly deranged.

There is perhaps no more striking symbol10 revealing ruinous immigration and racial policy for what it is intrinsically than the young Scottish lass who brandished a kitchen knife and axe to ward off brown skinned imposters who have no right to be there in Scotland, the British Isles, or the sacred continent of Europe: imposters who were sexually accosting this young girl and her sister. These and other harrowing accounts and images conclusively demonstrate that no constituency has a right to plunge its people and nation into such civilizational ruin and racial suicide. Indeed, the sons and daughters of Mother Europe must come to that epiphany, that essential realization, that even if 50 percent plus some infinitesimal margin vote to infuse black and brown hordes into the British Isles and the sacred continent of Europe, then any means both necessary and available must be employed to prevent them from enacting such folly.

This dark epiphany can be conceptualized another way. The paradigm of accepting the “peaceful exchange of power” also assumes, most would agree, that each side does not resort to cheating and fraud on a widespread, systemic level. Few would suppose that a constituency should sit back and let an opposing party take power in spite of dirty tactics such as widespread election fraud. In addition to the stolen election of 2020, which, it seems the Democrats writ large will almost certainly get away with, the Great Replacement is tantamount to a long-haul ballot stuffing scheme. This is immediately apparent given that black and brown people and even East Asians vote democrat (or their equivalents in Europe) as a block, as a collective racial demographic. A central motivation behind this wicked ploy is to effectively import democrat larvae by way of anchor babies that will vest in a decade or so and the “plug and play” voting constituencies of third world black and brown people by naturalizing them en masse to empower them with the right and authority to vote. This will soon render the United States a one-party system, similar to how Mexico was ruled by the PIL for nigh a century. This is “dirty pool,” as they say, and is reason enough to nullify the agreed upon social contract that is the hallmark of democracies whereby each side agrees to accept the result and allow the opposition to come to power should they prevail.
When policies embraced by the Democrats, or their equivalents across the pond, are assessed through this perspective, the only argument for tolerating them at all, for not taking stern measures to stop them permanently, is any meaningful opposition is not yet close to securing political power and practical power sufficient to do so. However, given how ruinous such policies are to any rational thinker, there is no normative reason not to implement far more drastic, permanent solutions if and when those solutions become available. As articulated in “Questioning Democracy in the Land of Unending Economic Disasters,” “Democrat policy, Cultural Marxism, and liberalism writ large have already wreaked untold suffering and death through their civilization destroying madness.” The existential threat posed by these political parties and their underlying ideological systems are "grounds alone to take left-wing parties and cultural institutions and their leaders and functionaries ‘off the market’ by whatever means necessary and available. . ..” If both political power and the necessary political mandate are ever achieved, the mandate should be clear:
Remove these institutions and their leaders and functionaries from power and from public discourse, forever. Purge every last whiff of Cultural Marxist filth from the universities, the media, publishing houses, and every other cultural institution and center of power as well.
V. Limitations of Individual Autonomy and the Specter of Modern Mass Media
The fifth indictment against democracy relates to naïveté concerning individual autonomy and the drastic limitations of what is perceived as individual choice. The United States Constitution and the democratic ideal more abstractly are predicated on Enlightenment presentiments about the individual—that is each and every individual, rather than a small contingent of individuals—being a rational thinker, wholly capable of individual thought and even individual autonomy. As explicated at length in “Thrust Into It All: The Individual Defined by Culture and Circumstance,” any notion of individual choice and autonomy is far more limited than conventional wisdom supposes. In some individuals, there is practically no such individual autonomy. Contrary to naïve fairy-tales about individual choice, the individual is defined, in profound and incalculable ways, by the environs that envelop him and all of society. This is what German philosopher Heidegger described as Geworfenheit.11 A person who came of age in the 1920s is highly likely to enjoy hot jazz music, whereas a child of the 80s, such as this author, will, some outliers excepted, choose from a variety of genres made available to him in that particular cultural milieu. This same phenomenon explains why, in the classic film Back to the Future, George McFly, Lorraine Baines, and all their peers more or less dress the same, like much of the same music, and more or less exhibit all the same mannerisms peculiar to that generation and that youth culture as it existed in 1955. Indeed, to the extent an individual likes Marty’s rendition of “Johnny B. Goode” and the heavy metal guitar solo rendition at the end is effectively determined not by individual choice, at least not as much as our philosophical and political traditions would implore, but the time and circumstance one is born into. This is explicated at length in “Living Young in 1955: Reflections on Themes of Culture, Youth, and Destiny in Back to the Future:”
Lorraine, George, and their peers react most enthusiastically to the rendition of “Johnny B Goode,” as it was a number that, while novel for the time, still nonetheless drew heavily from the music of the youth culture at the time. But to a man—like a school of fish—they scoffed at the heavy metal solo riff at the end. This same riff that was so untenable to those kids in 1955 would be and was popular among many in 1985 precisely because of how the cultural milieu that envelops the individual shapes him to such an incalculable degree. Take any of George and Lorraine’s peers and have them born not in 1938 but 1968, and a large number of them would have loved that solo heavy metal guitar riff. In this way, whether someone likes Marty’s heavy metal guitar riff is far more dependent on when and where he was born than any one individual’s unique predilections.

The manner in which the individual is defined and shaped by external environs, most particularly the cultural milieu that envelops the individual and society at large, reveals how vitally important culture and cultural and educational institutions are. If what is perceived to be individual choice is formulated and conceptualized, at best, as a somewhat expansive drop-down menu, more critical observers will discern how these cultural centers of power populate the fields of that drop-down menu. Crucially, this in turn reveals how vitally important cultural institutions are to any polity and the future of civilization itself.
Before democracy was installed throughout Europe, very often directed through military occupation or coercion, culture was steered and directed by the aristocracy and other esteemed institutions that had been established for centuries, including Catholic and later Protestant churches, as well as European Universities before the subversive virus of Cultural Marxism had infected the institution of higher education. The result was the apex of European art and culture. In the modern world, however, aristocracy or other authorities with ties to race, blood, and history no longer direct and sponsor the culture, at least not to anywhere near the same degree as before. Rather, under the guise of democracy, mass media conglomerates, Hollywood, and a corrupted university system fill that role. Those new institutions are controlled and wielded by the most sinister elements imaginable: George Soros, Larry Fink, Michael Eisner back in the day succeeded by the likes of Robert Iger, this among many other enemies of Europe, most of whom hail from a certain background with a particularly unpleasant, kosher aftertaste. It is noteworthy that Britain, prior to de facto American occupation since Pearl Harbor, resisted this tendency somewhat in the 19th Century. Rather than Hollywood and mass media conglomerates, Britain’s traditions, rooted in rich history and aristocratic hierarchy, directed the culture. As a result, Victorian Britain did not produce such vile Unkultur like vulgar, negrocentric rap music, Coca-Cola, McDonald's, and mind-numbingly idiotic sitcoms, game shows, and the like. Rather, guidance and direction of culture by esteemed institutions and traditions of Great Britain produced high culture, ranging from the many great authors of Victorian literature to the Pre-Raphealite school of art. While it is of course true that Victorian Britain did not have to contend with the hypnotic power of modern mass media, these regulating structures in the forefront of the Victorian cultural milieu were nonetheless essential safeguards.
American democracy lacked both the centuries of history as well as hierarchical thinking to ever afford it such safeguards. This is compounded by the naïveté and lack of foresight by Enlightenment thought on which these democratic ideals are predicated and above all its equally influential successors. First and foremost among these are John Stuart Mill and his seminal tract On Liberty, which has become a sort of companion piece foundational to the First Amendment not just as a legal proscription against government censorship, but as one of the highest societal values championing freedom of speech and free expression. Mill and other thinkers lived before any mass media existed, even before radio existed, let alone television or modern mass media. This train of thought never envisaged how mesmerizing such elements could be, or the existence of multi billion-dollar advertising campaigns peddling any number of vices.
This legacy of Enlightenment thought and its successors in the 19th Century also failed to discern various phenomena discerned by modern psychology. These phenomena demonstrate that humanity is much more like a school of fish than a collection of sovereign and autonomous individuals. People copy and mimic each other in any number of ways. This is demonstrated first and foremost in the transgender menace. Properly recognized as a social contagion, the transgender menace has deluded a sizeable number of individuals to destroy their bodies, mutilate their genitalia, and render themselves infertile. People will in fact jump off a bridge because others did, figuratively and even literally, as demonstrated by the Marilyn Monroe suicide phenomenon. After her suicide, the suicide rate jumped twelve percent. This and other copycat phenomena have led to the promulgation of various standards in media coverage and reporting, both voluntary and mandated by regulatory and governmental action, setting forth that suicide is to be reported with a specific methodology that reduces the chances of any such copy-cat phenomenon.
The degree to which humanity acts in irrational and destructive ways and can be induced to adopt the most irrational and destructive beliefs cannot be easily overstated. Despite not being equipped with modern knowledge of psychology (where psychology is not a discredited crackpot science propped up by pharmaceutical interests and the psychotherapy racket), Thomas Carlyle understood these propensities more than 150 years ago in his searing, irrefutable attack on democracy, “Shooting Niagara: And After?” Indeed, the Sage of Chelsea describes the very “school of fish” propensity described above, utterly impervious to reason:
It is indeed strange how prepossessions and delusions seize upon whole communities of men; no basis in the notion they have formed, yet everybody adopting it, everybody finding the whole world agree with him in it, and accept it as an axiom of Euclid; and, in the universal repetition and reverberation, taking all contradiction of it as an insult, and a sign of malicious insanity, hardly to be borne with patience.
Carlyle then likens such irrational group-think to the German concept of Schwärmerei.
. . .. This people cannot be convinced out of its “axiom of Euclid”12 by any reasoning whatsoever; on the contrary, all the world assenting, and continually repeating and reverberating there soon comes that singular phenomenon, which the Germans call Schwärmerei (‘enthusiasm’ is our poor Greek equivalent), which means simply ‘Swarmery,’ or the’ Gathering of Men in Swarms,’ and what prodigies they are in the habit of doing and believing, when thrown into that miraculous condition.
The crazed but prophetic Scotsman then expounds how such groupthink, such mob hysteria, such Schwärmerei, is induced from the top down, denoting that “Some big Queen Bee is [invariably] in the centre of the swarm.” Once such “prepossessions and delusions seize upon whole communities of men”—absurd prepossessions and delusions that, in our modern age most particularly, have been installed in the minds of men and to even greater extent by way of cultural indoctrination and programming, one beholds the fearsome terrors of such group-think, of such Schwärmerei, in earnest:
and the swarm once formed, finds itself impelled to action, as with one heart and one mind. Singular, in the case of human swarms, with what perfection of unanimity and quasi-religious conviction the stupidest absurdities can be received as axioms of Euclid, nay as articles of faith, which you are not only to believe, unless malignantly insane, but are (if you have any honour or morality) to push into practice. . .!
Indeed, Carlyle asserts that a central tenet of democracy, urging the equality of men, is such a fit of irrational delirium of “whatever of palpable incredibility and delirious absurdity, universally believed, that can be uttered or imagined.” Carlyle denounces the very notion of “the equality of men” in this chastisement denouncing the very notion that “any man [is] equal to any other:
Quashee N*gger to Socrates or Shakespere; Judas Iscariot to Jesus Christ; — and Bedlam and Gehenna equal to the New Jerusalem, shall we say? If these things are taken up, not only as axioms of Euclid, but as articles of religion burning to be put in practice for the salvation of the world, — I think you will admit that Swarmery plays a wonderful part in the heads of poor man kind; and that very considerable results are likely to follow from it in our day!
The democracies, as they have been constituted, have envisioned no safeguards for this. Carlyle’s premonition about the “Queen Bee being the centre of the storm” could not be more profound, insightful, or prophetic. This diagnosis so aptly describes how capital as well as cultural and political institutions shape and define the cultural milieu that envelops one and all as well as what may properly be described as “public consensus.”
It is of note that Oswald Mosley warned of this very phenomenon:
The Press will not be free to tell lies. That is not freedom for the people, but a tyranny over their minds and souls. Much humbug is talked on this subject. What is press freedom? In practice it means the right of a few millionaires to corner newspaper shares on the stock exchange and to voice their own opinions and interests, irrespective of the truth or of the national interest.
Even Mosley would not have been able to comprehend or predict the hypnotizing power of modern mass media. His contemporaries after all only had to contend with radio as well as videographic materials, namely news reels and cinema that were available only at local “moving picture” theaters. Today of course modern mass media has exploded, not just in the increasingly arcane media of broadcast and cable television, but new social media that has arisen with the rise of the Internet.
The False Assurances of the 2024 Election and Other Matters
Some are apt to balk at these assertions, noting that Donald Trump won the 2024 Presidential Election, despite a concerted effort by modern mass media and cultural centers of power to prevent that from happening. The power of modern mass media may not be omnipotent, after all. These interests could probably not convince a majority on the supposed advantages of Jonestown Kool-Aid or the philosophy of “efilism,” to the extent one can call it a philosophy at all. But they would convince a sizeable enough number of people to be of gravest concern. Beyond that, despite his boasting that he did, Trump did not really win by a landslide. He won with a comfortable margin in electoral votes, but only by a couple of percentage points of the popular vote. This is true notwithstanding the abject disaster that was both the Biden Administration and Kamala Harris as a person and as a presidential candidate. Effectively half the country still opposes, and opposes with great adamance, the Trump Administration.13 And they do so despite how ruinous democrat policy has been, including open borders policies, letting in tens of millions of third world aliens, a permissiveness of petty and violent crime that has put off even blue city voters, and a slow burn economic disaster from absurd Covid policy and inflationary spending that will likely eclipse the Great Recession in 2008 in the economic ruin that is likely to come.
Beyond that, as everyone knows, Elon Musk bought Twitter. This has significantly “disrupted the frequency” promulgated by these powerful, but diabolical interests that wield the implements of modern mass media as tools of indoctrination and programming. Donald Trump and other figures, from merely right of center to those of a more radical persuasion, have been unbanned.14 If Elon Musk had not procured Twitter, or if Joe Rogan had not had Donald Trump as a guest, Kamala Harris would certainly have won. Had Elon Musk not procured Twitter, if Joe Rogan, who wields monumental influence, did not invite Donald Trump to be on his podcast , had Rogan not endorsed Trump, a sufficient number of the masses, operating more like a school of fish than individuals, would not have voted for Trump and against Kamala Harris.
In addition to demonstrating how vital the control of cultural institutions and implements of modern mass media are, these considerations also call to mind the Solomon-Asch experiment. For those unaware, the Solomon-Asch experiment involved two variations of the same experiment, namely a volunteer sits with other volunteers to assess which line or shape is smaller than the others and other simple tasks. Unbeknownst to the volunteer, the other “volunteers” in the room were not volunteers at all, but surrogates paid to produce answers directed by the study. In one set, all the paid “volunteers” provide the wrong answer. In that instance, almost all of the actual volunteers would change their answer to conform to the group. To what extent that tendency stems from a desire to conform or lack of confidence in what the subject sees before his very own eyes in each individual instance is unclear. In the other variation, one of the paid surrogates provides the correct answer before the actual volunteer does. In that variation, the paid volunteer invariably provides the correct answer.
This phenomenon illustrates and explains the pivotal role figures like Elon Musk and Joe Rogan played in the 2024 election. Dissent by ordinary persons without such platforms is important, but in order to persuade a critical mass of persons on a large enough scale sufficient to change outcomes, some contingent of platforms of modern mass media must be yielded by benign interests, as opposed to the powerful, moneyed, and truly nefarious interests that wield a monopoly—or, more precisely stated, oligopoly—on modern mass media before Elon Musk stepped forward and procured Twitter. It is of course most noteworthy that the tide started to turn against the transgender menace at precisely the same inflection point. Once Twitter stopped banning so-called “dead naming” and allowed users to call so-called male-to-female transgenders men and female-to-male transgenders women, or even other apt describers such as “troons,” “pooners,” and even the “subhuman vermin” that they are, public opinion started to turn against the transgender menace in seeming lock-step fashion. These and other considerations conclusively demonstrate that the idea of individual thought and individual autonomy are but a chimera, a fantastical fairy-tale that should only deceive children. And to the great extent that the tenets of democracy are predicated on these fanciful notions of individual autonomy, they must be jettisoned and destroyed.
The Five Flaws as the Very Repudiation of Democracy
These five flaws are attenuated by other considerations that impugn democracy as the veritable evil that it is. Under American hegemony, “Snoop Dogg” and Katy Perry are cultural figureheads, while the likes of Werner von Braun and Leni Riefenstahl have been forsaken. The term democracy has become shorthand for the sort of civilizational ruin and racial and national suicide highlighted in this very tract. “Saving democracy” and “für die Demokratie” in Germany have become mantras to oppose Trump and the Alternative für Deutschland respectively. In actuality, it has nothing to do with democracy, unless democracy is only legitimate if it excludes any platforms that oppose leftist orthodoxy. Rather, it has to do with multi-racialism, opening the floodgates to limitless black and brown hordes. Democracy is becoming synonymous with such madness, and there should not be qualms in citing how the word “democracy” is linked with these pathological tendencies in the unwavering, uncompromising condemnation of democracy as an institution.
Moreover, Democracy has also been inextricably linked not just with personal license but a radical sort of individualism that seems to have no conceptualization of how individuals and society are profoundly impacted and harmed by what others do: the equally perverse and absurd ethos that “what consenting adults do” is of no one’s concern, that people should be allowed to say and do whatever they please, regardless of how harmful and destructive such behaviors are to both the individual and society. This seems to be a natural and inevitable corollary that follows from absurd ideas about human equality and equity as a social value. If everyone is equal to one another, and if everyone’s vote is equal to another’s, it follows that no one is to judge or assess what traits and behaviors are desirable and undesirable. In many ways, the ethos of democracy can be distilled to that revealing line from the introductory jingle to that particularly stupid and inane sitcom, Diff’rent Strokes:
Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
This absurd, ruinous “philosophy,” to the extent one can call it a philosophy at all, is the very abnegation of sacred and essential values, such as order, hierarchy, and the very faculties of discernment and discrimination that distinguish between the wise and the foolish, the beautiful from the ugly, the virtuous from the depraved, and the good from the bad.
These and other considerations reveal how other assorted evils stem and emanate from these five fundamental flaws of democracy, like so many tendrils and appendages emanating from a most malignant, dark nexus. These five critical flaws of democracy, as both an institution and as an ideal, are not only discrediting but fatal. The tremendous dangers posed by these flaws implore the need for a much greater authoritarian strain than any democratic form of government has ever envisaged. Preventing the masses from entertaining such mad delirium as open borders, ever growing deficits approaching infinity where constituencies vote themselves largesse of the government in forfeit of the future, and other civilizational ruin can only be prevented through authoritarian measures, backed by agents of social and societal cohesion such as common race, common blood, and venerable institutions and establishments: venerable institutions and establishments founded on the collective erudition and wisdom of the great traditions that have evolved and been passed down through the ages. Unbridled democracy cannot protect the individual or society from the sort of Schwärmerei Thomas Carlyle warns against. Mechanisms must be in place to prevent bona fide defectives from having equal or greater say in matters than men of both genius and wisdom, the great individuals who most deserve a say. Structure and control facilitated by a much more authoritarian bent is also necessary to safeguard the vital institutions of media, culture, and erudition that the democracies have handed to the very enemies of Europe and the West, just as that same authoritarian bent is necessary to revive and safeguard those venerable institutions that had directed and cultivated the culture before the Fall of Berlin and the rise of American hegemony.
PLEASE NOTE: readers who enjoy this content are urged to consider offering a paid or founding member subscription. Readers who enjoy this essay are asked to press the “like emoji” to signify their favor and share with anyone who would find this insightful, interesting, or provocative.
Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) under the handle (@)astheravencalls. Delete the parentheses, which were added to prevent interference with Substack’s own internal handle system.
Enveloped by Kultur-Terror
Author’s note and disclaimer: this essay is exceptional for its pronounced anti-American sentiment. This author is grateful for and appreciative of those more mainstream readers who likely disagree o…
Democracy as Pretext for American Hegemony:
Japan, China, Nordkorea, Bosnien, Sudan, Jugoslawien, Afghanistan.Alle diese Länder haben etwas gemeinsam, was ist es, he? Diese Länder sind in den vergangenen 60 Jahren von Amerikanischen Truppen bo…
A tiresome objection by fuddy-duddy conservatives types will be addressed in this footnote: namely that is not a democracy a public. As explained in “Both a Democracy and a Republic,” the word democracy pertains to both direct and indirect democracies. Such pedantic nonsense only serves to deflect from the real issues.
Consider Ann Coulter’s admonition of swing voters as having the “IQ of a toaster” and that anyone who is on the fence weeks or even days before a national presidential election should also not be allowed to vote.
The 2024 Presidential Campaign bucked this trend to some very limited extent, but not as much as mainstream, “civic nationalist conservatives” would have readers believe. A majority of Hispanics still voted for Kamala Harris. And while an unexpected number of blacks voted for Trump, they were still a distinct minority.
There is at least one study indicating that celebrity worship is associated with or contributes to lower intelligence.
Others express a desire to repeal the 19th Amendment which grants women’s suffrage, but keeps the rest of this political system in tact. Repealing the 19th Amendment through this system will never happen, and in any case this overlooks that there are a considerable number of men who should be given such political authority known as the right to vote.
This phrase was of course coined by Robert Reich, an odious figure. But just even a broken clock is right twice a day, the left is not wrong about everything.
Yes, this author is aware that Heinlein emphasized to the readers, to point bordering on parody, how this state was multicultural, free from bias or “prejudice.” Armed with the faculties of discernment and discrimination, more critical thinkers are able to adopt ideas that are useful and persuasive, and reject those that are not. Death of the author and all of that.
At the risk of incurring unwanted controversy, a peculiar propensity has overtaken much of discourse in American public life that equates a 16-17 adolescents with that of prepubescent children, obliterating the distinction between minor and child. This trivializes the grave implications of pedophilia and child molestation.
This “philosophy” goes well beyond that, with some advocating killing all life on the planet or even the Universe were it possible. Along with advocacy for gratuitous cruelty and killing of animals, such nuttery has convinced this author to reject freedom of speech as a categorical imperative. Anyone who advocates for efilism, or the gratuitous torture and killing of animals, vermin excepted, should get the “Captain Hadley” treatment, with the swift carriage afforded by the fusion of cruel hearts with unwavering conviction and resolve that such insane and loathsome delusions will be not be countenanced or uttered. The blunt end of goons and storm-troopers should be the only reply.
This was true at the time this lengthy was being written and revised. The murder of Iryna Zarutska by Decarlos Brown Jr seems to have eclipsed this image to a large degree.
Often translated as “thrownness”—but better described by this author as the state of being thrust into—this concept pertains to all the external factors that limit, constrain, and define the individual and the trajectory any individual’s life is likely to take.
For those unaware, the axioms of Euclid are five mathematical axioms identified by Euclid, an ancient Greek mathematician.
A requisite disclaimer that such comments must no be interpreted as an unequivocal endorsement of Donald Trump. This author is well aware of his abject Zionism and other serious drawbacks. He is nonetheless far preferable to the alternative, who may have been “game over” for any movement that opposes the left in any meaningful way. The appointment of Supreme Court justices and federal judges alone is enough to disabuse certain voices in the hard right who so foolishly insist the election of Kamala Harris would have been preferably. See generally, “Good Intentions or the Maddest Folly.”
No, Elon Musk’s free speech platform it is not perfect, Greg Johnson of counter currents and James Edwards of The Political Cesspool still remained banned. Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor had to start new accounts, as Twitter never reinstated their old accounts.












Universal Mass Democracy and its consequences have been a disaster for this country.
Thanks. Where do we go. I try to firmly but patiently push, lead, point and cajole my offspring towards thinking and acting in this direction. Current events, when truthfully reported, add to the emphasis of our dilemma.
Regarding civilization, I have come to realize that civilization must be regarded as a verb, and that the type of civilizing is determined by the dominant cultural power. European civilization morphed quite some time ago into a judaicized 'western' civilization. That is what has to be stopped.
Cities are no longer good for white/european culture unless the cities are re-captured.
And yes strong leadership is needed. Unapologetic and based upon old culture, not today's econo-excrement.