Liberal democracy is socialism


The alt-lite are on the march in the current year. From nowhere, these champions of free speech (but not ‘hate speech’) have jumped out of the interwebs and into the ring to smack down the half-tonne purple-haired land whale lesbians of the postmodern left and take back the culture.

They’re taking their pills…

Jordan Peterson taking pills

Hitting the books…

Sargon hitting the books

Polishing their guns…

Sydney Watson's guns

And getting ready to defend the straight Trump-loving frogs of Kekistan.

Where's my Brain Force?

With some minor differences in emphasis, these maulers of the Marxist man-haters have developed a philosophy based around several key tenets. Chief among these are the supremacy of the individual, the sacred status of free speech and a fierce opposition to racial, ethnic, gender or religious collectivism and identity politics.

Any form of tribalism is a big no-no, especially for the alt-lite’s self-helping Jungian-Daoist dad professor.

Who incidentally thinks some XYZ authors are misogynistic antisemitic right-wing identity-politics ideologues.

Ouch dad.

Unlike the good prof, I have no animus toward those of the alt-lite persuasion. I used to be one. I’m not going to punch lite. The reason I moved away from libertarianism, classical liberalism, conservatism, liberalistism, Kekistanism or whatever moniker various alt-liters are using in the current year, is that it is an ideology with inherent errors and irreconcilable contradictions that will ultimately make it become just another form of leftism.

I began this journey because I was disgusted with living in a culture that had become a sea of lies. I was repulsed by our everyday cruelty, heart-hardening degeneracy, crushing nihilism and societal suicide. I came to hate moral relativism and crave moral absolutism, leavened with the loving grace of Jesus Christ. I came to believe, and still do, that the truth will set us free.

The truth shall set you free

I therefore refuse to submit to another set of slightly more comfortable lies. It’s the truth or nothing. That’s why I write and speak unpopular truths about uncomfortable topics, no matter what the personal, professional and financial costs. It’s also why I couldn’t stay in the more mainstream-friendly and much more lucrative alt-lite camp.

The primary contradiction at the heart of alt-lite philosophy is a misunderstanding of what is called classical liberalism today as a movement of the right, when in actuality it is a movement of left. This misguided view stems, in part, from a misreading of twentieth century history and a misunderstanding of what caused the totalitarian horrors of the last 100 years.

Classical liberalism was always a movement of the left. It’s Whiggism; a political movement in the late eighteenth century which attracted radicals, socialists and reformers. It was never right-wing.

The main problem I have with the classical liberalism of alt-liters such as Jordan Peterson and Alex Jones, however, is that it is not classical at all. It is thoroughly postmodern. American-influenced libertarians will espouse as Holy Writ the United States Constitution. For American-style libertarians today, it’s political scripture.

The answer to 1984

If libertarians though really want to go back to 1776 and restore the form of liberalism which prevailed during the early modern period, then we will go back to a society in which niggers are property, natives are fauna, children STFU and only land-owning white men can vote.

Unless, that is, they’re a Catholic, a Quaker or a Jew. Those subhumans can GTFO.

In other words, if you want to be a real classical liberal, you’ll want to join the queue at the most radical fringe of the alt-right. You’ll also need to ditch that beloved universalism of yours, and engage in that most evil and dreaded terror of terrors.

Peterson identity politics

We’re gonna need some more pills.

When the writers who formulated classical liberalism put down their maxims about the rights of the individual and the role of the state, they were doing so for an audience made up exclusively of white males. The spiritual equality of Christianity had not yet been misapplied out to every possible form of equality between individuals, at it has today. To extend the language and ideas of classical liberalism universally to all humans is to create a postmodern form of liberalism which is not a rejection of leftist thinking at all. It is a software update for it.

The argument that any form of universalist liberalism today is inherently left-wing might strike some of you dear readers as going too far. Let’s look then at a more concrete example of what I’m talking about.

The history of voting rights in the modern period has been a trajectory of ever-increasing expansion to a greater diversity of identity groups. This was not the intention at the beginning. We hear constantly these days about the virtues of the modern god democracy. Wars are fought for democracy. Regions have the shit bombed out of them to give them democracy. It’s the cult that can’t be questioned, and this quintessentially American obsession has made itself felt here just as strongly.


As I have argued before in these pages, democracy is nothing but a fig leaf for a socialist elite to plunder the productive and the virtuous to bribe the useless and the indolent. The extension of voting rights to broader and broader identity groups throughout the modern era has run parallel to the expansion of the welfare state. That’s because not all groups are equally productive, and identity politics is not a new phenomenon. Individuals from lower-IQ ethnic groups and unmarried females can be relied on by socialist parties to consistently vote for ever-greater expansion of the welfare state. Men and married women from higher-IQ ethnic groups are the ones who end up paying the bill.

The only way to prevent this decline into socialism in a system with voting rights is to limit the franchise to those who pay tax, especially since mass immigration and the breakdown in family formation in this country enriched us with a tidal wave of useless eaters.

The liberals of the alt-lite would be horrified at such a suggestion. How can one group be granted a right to vote and others not? It would be smeared as identity politics. Which, according to Professor Peterson, would immediately bring about another Holocaust.

Where's my pills?

For Professor Peterson and his followers, this is the great danger of our time. Peterson preaches a form of radical individualism as a pathway away from the dangers of collectivist thinking, the identity politics that follow and the inevitable genocide that will result. He draws a series of pretty straight lines between all three.

Peterson’s argument that identity politics per se will create an environment similar to Weimar Germany from which a form of white racial totalitarianism will goosestep is almost correct. Almost. There is a danger of totalitarian racialism emerging again in reaction to the anti-white fanaticism of the cultural Marxists. It will not be identity politics which causes it, however; what the professor misses about both international communism and the national socialism it generated is that both were based upon utopian political idealism and the granting of absolute power to the state for the purposes of social engineering. Both are forms of utopian totalitarianism.

Collectivist thinking didn’t cause the many holocausts of the twentieth century. Absolutist governments bringing about heaven on earth did.

Both Bolshevism and Nazism grew out of the toxic morass of German Idealism applied to political identity categories. Both are what Karl Popper (George Soros’ professor and mentor) called ‘historicist’ ideologies; belief systems which claimed to have discovered the iron law of history and the truth about how the great problem of man could be solved. The dialectic of the first was rooted in class, the second in race. Both were ultimately grounded in a Marxist dialectic of group victimhood and a belief in the perfectability of man through the reconciliation of this dialectic by the mediating power of the state.

The orthodox Marxism of the Bolsheviks preached that the proletariat, in the form of the Russian peasantry, were oppressed by the bourgeoisie, the kulaks and aristocracy. By agitating the peasants to overthrow the aristocracy and the middle-class kulaks, the predominately Jewish Bolsheviks were able to bring about their worker’s paradise which killed 100 million. The narrative of racial grievance at the heart of National Socialism used the (real and imagined) power of internationalist Jews to propose that the noble Aryan race should throw off parasitic Jews and subhuman Slavs to reach the stars. It ended in ashes, of course. All utopias do.

Alt-lite campaigners against ‘identity politics’ ignore all of this nuance. Instead, it’s about individuals versus collectives. That’s just not true. East Asian cultures, for example, are famously collectivist. Individualism is a strange monster to them. Outside North Korea, they are societies which are much freer than ours in many ways. If you don’t think so, go there. Despite what the TV tells you, we’re the Marxists in the current year. The Chinese even have a word for our retarded millennial SJW generation: baizuo.


Alt-liters love to scoff at the excesses of the SJW left. Sargon of Akkad has made a brand out of hitting the pause button and critiquing PC spasticness mid-sentence. Ultimately, however, the critique that men like Peterson, Sargon and even Milo have of the left is that it has lost its way. They want to re-engineer, rather than eradicate, leftism. They don’t want to abandon the ideal of a liberal society; they just believe that the postmodern left doesn’t represent liberalism anymore. They still believe in universalism. They still believe that striving for ideals, rather than dealing with reals, is the best basis for a good life and the maintenance of social order in the West.

This is the fundamental divide between left and right, and between alt-lite and alt-right (if you want to call it that). It’s the difference between those who still believe in the potential of idealism to bring about a better society, and those who believe that only a return to hard realism will re-establish order, harmony, civility and virtue in society.

It is also in this crucial difference that the fundamentally leftist nature of what today is called classical liberalism is revealed. Today’s classical liberalism only looks right-wing to us because the campus dykes have made our society into pinko Clown World. If Thomas Paine, John Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill saw what is considered liberalism today, they would disown it.

Liberal democracy in the current year is socialism. The great dialectics of the First World War, Second World War and Cold War have worked themselves out, and from the human mince-maker of the twentieth century we ended up with a synthesis of international communism and international capitalism.

This system of ours, what we might call liberal democratic socialism, serves the interests of those at the top of the power pyramid very well. Do what you want, say what you want, screw who you want, screw what you want, smoke what you want, drink what you want. As long as you pay your taxes and stay within the confines of acceptable opinion, no-one will tell you what to do. Who is anyone to say that one thing is better than another?

Nothing absolute. All relative. Just like the devil likes it.

  • Jai_Normosone

    I know what the problem is… it’s “-isms”. Ban all of them and the problem will go away!

    • W. Hunter

      I prefer a scorched earth policy, rather than banning.
      Vastation, or nothing !

    • Repeal fake marriage

      So… You’re an ismphobe? I am totally offended and will screech at you untill you recant.

      • Jai_Normosone

        Damn straight! Those -isms are going to be the end of us all!
        W. Hunter has the right idea. Sounds like a good job for CAPTAIN NAPALM!!! 😀

      • W. Hunter
  • Paul Thompson

    The diffusion of power to an ever-widening mass of people (through the democratic process) is a process called “Anacyclosis”. A term coined by the Greek philosopher Polybus, 2400 years ago. Societies cycle through three broadly-defined stages – monarchy (dictatorship), aristocracy (junta), democracy and back to dictatorship.

    Dictatorship lasts as long as the leader does. When he dies or is deposed, power passes to his inner-circle, who become the junta. The junta leaders in turn, attract their own inner-circles of supporters and they compete with each other for power. Eventually, attrition leaves only two or three junta leaders standing and one of them will consolidate power by implementing a (genuinely) democratic political system. Power then diffuses through society but this process eventually leads to huge numbers of factions, all pursuing their own interests without regard to anyone else. As the numbers of different interest groups grow, no one interest group can persuade all the others to vote for its programme and the only real power they wield, is that of veto. The result is political gridlock. All it takes is one crisis that the political system can’t respond to and the stage is set for the “man on the white horse” to ride in and take control.

    Democracy in the U.S. is now so widespread that the political process has reached gridlock and this puts them one crisis away from dictatorship. Australia is far down the road of democratic gridlock but we’re still some years away from dictatorship. China and Burma, by comparison, have passed through the stages of dictatorship and junta and are in the early days of democracy.

    • In the anacyclotic model there are high and low forms of each system as well. We’ve gone from democracy to ochlocracy – mob rule. Vested interests and political thug operations control the process. When I look at how foreign and domestic interests have co-opted our political and judicial processes at the expense of the people, a ruthless king with a big sword looks pretty appealing tbh. Let’s settle the question of succession once he dies.

      • Paul Thompson

        Ah! Feudalism! Probably not a bad choice, hiven the alternatives currently on offer.

  • I enjoyed this article but it’s got one massive assumption, that modern classical liberals wouldn’t support a system where only taxpayers vote. This is incorrect I’d imagine most would support this idea eventually, even if not initially or already. Milo has openly stated this is the system he supports (sorry no link, it’s somewhere).

    I’d imagine the people you criticise would fully or mostly agree with your assessment of Democracy, for one because it’s completely true. One individual one vote does not work, giving women and foreigners the vote without caveat or responsibility has been an utter disaster.

    Again, this is just the truth and I’m sure they would agree. If not it would make a great debate and they would likely lose.

    I disagree with the concept that online liberals are mostly on the Left, so long as they support free market capitalism they are not on the Left. This is more an issue of definitions though, how do you define Left and Right? I define it on economic grounds as this is the most accurate and useful way to define it, you may define it differently.

    This is the test:

    I know Sargon came up on the bottom Left when he did it but I’d imagine this has moved to the bottom right as he’s recently been far more supportive of capitalism. I think he’s mind has been changed on that but who knows.

    As for Alex Jones, check out this interview with Vox Day:

    I think your assessment of democracy and collective identity are right but your assessment of certain figures is slightly off.

    • There are no massive assumptions in my articles.

      Your massive assumption that free market capitalism is right-wing is very off. There is nothing inherently right-wing about unrestricted free markets; rather, the way laissez-faire international capitalism has operated has destroyed local economies and weakened the bonds of families, communities and nations. International capitalism is a social solvent and a globalising force, and the model of national capitalism espoused by the East Asian countries over the last 60 years is a model more in alignment with true right-wing thinking. Here’s Vox talking about it:

      The capitalism/right vs communism/left dialectic is a false one created during the Cold War. A much more useful understanding of the left vs right dlalectic is the difference between relativism and absolutism, and between those who want to start with ideals to create an ideal society and those who want to start with reality and draw principles and strategies from there.

      “I disagree with the concept that online liberals are mostly on the Left, so long as they support free market capitalism they are not on the Left. This is more an issue of definitions though, how do you define Left and Right? I define it on economic grounds as this is the most accurate and useful way to define it, you may define it differently.” That’s exactly what I’m talking about. That’s relativism. There is no pure truth, only my truth and your truth. It’s the ol’ Talmudic “on the one hand, but on the other hand…” muddying of the waters. And it’s exactly the problem I’m talking about when it comes to the difference between a leftist and someone who is truly on the right.

      What the alt-lite have in common is that they want to return to an earlier form of leftism. They’re the new conservatives, that’s all. And their program will lead us to exactly where we are now. Just like it did before. Jones had Vox on because he’s concerned about Shapiro moving in to Texas and taking his market share, backed by big money from San Francisco. It’s political, driven by money and ego. What’s emerging in the alt-lite ‘alt-media’ is just another form of the old media. People who want to build platforms by pandering to established prejudices in their audiences, mouthing neat slogans they got from others and making sure the donation link is always at the top of the description while actually getting their funding from big money interests in the background. These people will never really rock the boat. They pick fights to build credibility and regurgitate safe ideas. They will not change anything.

      I don’t usually bother arguing about this topic though because I know that the alt-lite will either become hard realists (as Molyneux has done, but hides his power level) or fade away once economic hard times really hit. That’s when an audience for the truth will emerge – when people are hungry and scared. It’s sad, but that’s just the way it is. When people are fat and happy, they slide left. When they are hungry and angry, they veer right. That’s why the alt-right was always inevitable, and why it will win.

      • That’s the thing, your definition of “right wing” is different to my definition of “right wing” and your definition isn’t clear.

        I divide right and left on economic grounds, I’m not sure what you are dividing your right and left on, maybe you could explain it in detail?

        Capitalism is just free trade absent force, property rights and contract law. In other words, don’t commit violence, don’t steal and keep your word.

        It’s not a system, it’s rules of conduct. Nationalism and internationalism are separate issues to capitalism.

        I’m not against “National Capitalism” in the sense that we remain a single nation and culture with internal capitalism and you’re setting up a strawman here by not defining the terms.

        It’s not capitalism that’s weakened the family unit, it’s Marxist indoctrination and state force through welfare. This isn’t capitalism, it’s the very opposite.

        Also, you didn’t address the assumption I brought up you simply dismissed it. I’m confident online liberals could be swayed by the argument that only taxpayers should get the vote. In fact I’ve never heard any of them talk about it other than Milo who is in favour of the idea.

        • My definition is very clear. You just don’t understand it.

          • That’s not an argument, if it’s clear you should be able to explain it concisely here.

          • Lol, I just saw there was “read more” tab on your response, it was camoflaged by the video. My bad.

            “A much more useful understanding of the left vs right dlalectic is the
            difference between relativism and absolutism, and between those who want to start with ideals to create an ideal society and those who want to start with reality and draw principles and strategies from there.”

            OK, that makes sense but this still puts Jordan Peterson and the people you criticize on the Right. Especially Peterson who’s work is based entirely on the realities of life. His views are empirical and based in reality, he just has an idealistic goal based on the question of how to make life much better than it is now.

            Under your definition the “right” is essentially fatalistic, it’s basically saying “well there’s nothing we can do about things so let’s just accept it.” This is a weak position that’s ironically not based in reality, thus it’s self-defeating.

            We can make things better, we just need to base our strategy on reality, this is Peterson’s position.

            I understand your criticisms when it comes to race realism and you are right on that to an extent but it’s just one issue in a broad range of issues. By this definition the “alt-lite” are still on the right, they just aren’t as far to the right as you are. Your criticism of them in this regard and the fact that they won’t “rock the boat” is indeed a fair criticism as far as I can tell.

            That doesn’t make them Leftists and applying this label
            lumps them in the same category as Marxists who ARE entirely

            The “alt-right” under the US definition won’t win because the “alt-right” are statist to the core, THEY are the Leftists under your definition of the Left/Right divide. Richard Spencer is as idealistic and ideologically driven as any social justice warrior.

            If when you say “alt-right” you mean ethno-Nationalism based on principles of small government and capitalist protectionism (ie not actually alt-right, maybe white-right or some other term) then I tend to agree with you that it will win eventually as people wake up to how they’ve been utterly screwed.

            Again, this doesn’t make the “alt-lite” on the Left, it just means they aren’t as right wing as you. Kind of like National Socialism is on the Left but if you ask a Commie it’s “right wing” (far-right).

          • Jordan Peterson uses empirical data to substantiate Jungian hypotheses. That’s not at all scientific. Jungianism is neo-Freudian mumbo-jumbo.

            Richard Spencer was always a kosher plant and has a very limited following. He was anointed by Hillary Clinton herself in a speech during the 2016 presidential campaign. Identitarian Duginism is not the alt-right. He is most certainly on the political left. I should probably find a better label than ‘alt-right’, as I could give less of a shit about a utopian ‘ethnostate’ and detest statism. Call it the ‘new right’, whatever. It’s a return to reality and a belief in metaphysical certainties which were abandoned at the time of the Enlightenment when we began this mad quest for the utopia of perfect equality and freedom. That experiment is coming to an end.

          • Anti-Statism is where you and Peterson would definitely find common ground. Peterson is completely against the state. Less so with Sargon and his group.

            Abandoning statism is the most important issue of the day, this may need ethno-nationalism it also may not (at least not hard-line). I’m always interested in the evidence.

    • W. Hunter

      I took the political compass test.
      I ended up closer to Ghandi, when I thought I would be closer to a Stalin or Hitler.
      Maybe I am a closet Communist/Socialist ! Egads !
      Obviously I need to work harder to become more of a hardliner authoritarian Fascist.

  • W. Hunter

    Mr. Hilton, thank you.
    I always draw a great deal from your analysis of our current state of affairs.
    I think those of the alt-lite have found a sunny, comfy, safe harbour and will not emerge.
    They are happy to sit in their rocking chairs with their knitting.
    Can’t blame them I suppose.

    The alt-right is asking the hard questions and pushing discussions further, more strength to them.
    The lites pull down the shutters and hide when their feelz are challenged.

    • Our movement’s greatest weakness is that the truth drives most men absolutely bloody mad, and it frightens others away. It’s much nicer in the Platonic cave, watching shadows on the wall.

      • W. Hunter

        Speaking of frightening people…….
        Red October.

        Keep an eye on the US mid term elections in November.
        Lots of juicy (and horrifying) stuff will be dropped into the public consciousness
        about the vipers nest of evil crimes committed by Obama/Clintons etc.

        Supposedly there are over 24,000 DOJ sealed indictments!

        This is extraordinary.

        I imagine Trump/DOJ will reveal indictments just before the elections, to get maximum impact.
        Lots of high rollers going down, if not already.

        When these truths start dropping, I wonder how many normies will go full alt right and how many leftists/liberals will literally lose their minds.
        These events will empower the alt right enormously.

        Interesting times, dead ahead !

  • entropy

    Libertarianism is a philosophy, not a political doctrine. Like free speech, it was one considered leftist but is now a conservative value. The ideas didn’t change, society did. Adhering to pre-enlightenment definitions of conservatism isn’t going to win many disciples.

    • It’s also silly calling Classical Liberals and Libertarians “Leftists” when they are essentially calling for the same thing just with different methods and slight ideological differences.

      • entropy

        True. Although I typically avoid calling myself a liberal of any stripe given the widespread and often contradictory use of that term in the modern vernacular.

    • I don’t care about disciples. I’ll make my money honestly elsewhere. I care about what’s true.

      • entropy

        I’ll agree with that if you concede you replied to the least relevant portion of my comment.

        Left and right are relative terms, dictated by the position of the centre. When the centre slides left, previously left-wing positions become mainstream and then conservative. However, if you’re on the far right, everything looks like it’s coming from the left.

        You’re right that liberal democracies are becoming increasingly socialist, but by corruption not design. You’re conflating too many issues here. Classical liberals aren’t slavers and democracy isn’t dead just because North Korea calls itself the DPRK.

        • Yes, what constitutes left and right changes over time. There are, however, constants to both of them. I believe in a metaphysical reality which sits above and behind the physical one, and while the physical instantiations of left and right change (because physical reality is flux) the metaphysical nature of both of them does not (because spirit is eternal).

          The right stands for social order aligned with reality. The left stands for social utopianism aligned with ideals of freedom and equality. Arguing that left and right don’t mean anything because what they are applied to changes is the type of relativistic thinking I’m calling out.

          It is not happening by corruption, but by design. The Fabian socialist types in the 19th and early 20th centuries knew that universal suffrage would give them their expansion of welfare and the centrally planned society. It was just a matter of time. The socialists pushed for the end of the Republic and the transition to democracy for that very reason.

          • entropy

            The corruption is happening by design but not the design of liberal democracy.

            I agree with your left/right distinction up to ‘freedom and equality’. Liberal democracy comes from classical liberalism, which was once a far left school of thought and certainly aligned with freedom and equality. It is now conservative thought as social liberals drag Western democracies further to the left. The authoritarians and statists are now on the centre-left while the centre-right defends freedom and individual liberties. The definition of ‘equality’ can be debated but liberalism, like democracy, was never married to universal suffrage.

            I’m not saying that left and right don’t mean anything. They’re relative in form, not function. But you’re saying that words don’t mean anything. Our corrupted, once-liberal democracies might be teetering towards socialism but it doesn’t follow that classical liberalism is socialism.

      • Dan Flynn

        Hi David, give this a read when you get a chance. Very interesting, we might find that we share some ideas in common. The whole ‘Left/Right’ concept is becoming more blurred by the day. It’s about the USA but has some clear implications for Australia.
        ‘It [The Democrats] plays to the margins, especially in election seasons, refusing to address substantive political and social problems and instead focusing on narrow cultural issues like gay rights, abortion and gun control in our peculiar species of anti-politics.’

  • Sam Vimes

    Cheers David, really thought-provoking article. I’ve always thought of anyone anti-SJW, anti-collectivist, anti-progressive as being part of a very broad church, but have never considered that there must be an inherently right bias to this side of the platform? Commentators such as Sargon, or Dave Rubin or Peterson for that matter have pretty much stated that they have been left of centre either on some issues, or on most things in the past, but are virulently anti-progressive. Is being ‘left’ in the classical liberal Jefferson Whig sense such a bad thing in this age of leftist insanity, government kleptocracy and what amounts to a two-party duopoly state in much of the Anglosphere where voters get to choose between social democrats masquerading as liberals or conservatives, and a labour opposition with Marxist tendencies a la the US, UK, and Aus? What’s your idea of hard realism in 2018?

    • Good points, and questions. I agree that the left-right paradigm itself is a hindrance to people coming together around the truth. I was so consumed by my crusade against the cultural Marxist left for so long that I came to see the right as holding the truth. That was a mistake. There are elements of truth in any left-right divide on any given topic. If there was no kernel of truth in Marxism, it wouldn’t appeal to so many people.

      My opposition to people like Peterson and others in the alt-lite is that they want to stick with ideals as the start and end point for their thinking. They want to bring about a perfect, or indeed even better, society through the application of idealistic principles, mainly based around equality and/or freedom. It’s a thoroughly modern way of thinking, and I believe we will not get our Alex Jones-style RENAISSANCE OF TRUE LIBERTY!!! without abandoning this fundamental error of modernity.

      Realism is starting your thinking with reality. That means abandoning any form of universalism in regard to race, gender, religion, etc. Some groups and some individuals are better than others. Some are stronger. Some are smarter. ‘Free speech’ as an organising idea for a movement is ludicrous. There is only free speech while other men with guns consent to you speaking freely. Try talking about (((certain topics))) and you’ll see what free speech really means. A much better goal would be personal, communal and national sovereignty. This is not a universal principle, i.e. it’s not some ‘right’ we think we’re born with. It’s something that requires strength and will to be defended. This acknowledges the realities of power far better than some damp-squib idea of muh free speech.

      Now, that doesn’t mean that any class or category of people should be made into a supergroup of people to rule over the others, or something like that. Alt-liters immediately think the type of argument I’m making will lead to death camps. It won’t. I’d much prefer if the apparatus of state were dismantled entirely and we went back to some very limited form of government, with families under the headship of elders and communities in charge of local decision-making. How we do that with a system based on voting is problematic. Household-based voting, perhaps? Tricky. As de Tocqueville identified, once people can vote it’s not long before they’re putting the omnipotent hands of the state in your pockets to take your shit.

      • Sam Vimes

        The one thing I’ll say is there is no society without ideals and a set of rigid doctrine (either religious or legal) to enforce order. I love the idea of limited government and personal sovereignty, as do all libertarians, sadly I feel this will likely devolve rather rapidly into a civilisation-wide Burning Man!

        • That’s the point many of us have reached. Look at Milo, for example. I admire his talent and the sacrifices he’s made, but at the end of the day he’s a degenerate Jew who fucks black dudes. Is that the future we want? That’s not the restoration of our civilisation. It’s the nail in its coffin.

  • Hyper Future Vision
  • White Robot

    This is the worst article I’ve read for some time. If one is to use moral absolutism, applying “Thou shalt not bear false witness” is a good place to start.
    This article is also indicative of the imperative to protect Free Speech.

    • That’s not an argument. It’s gibberish.

      • White Robot

        It is an argument, and a good one. You begin the article with a flawed and bitchy premise that the people singled out in some way only condone a species of protected speech. This is a blatantly bearing false witness. J. Peterson was standing up against Compelled Speech when he became notorious, C. Benjamin has recently stood in the middle of London publicly defending the Free Speech of every individual and was disappointed that a Muslim speaker was beaten by the crowd before he could speak at the same event, the hot chick likes guns and money (so wtf?) and A. E. Jones is defending the U.S. constitution which contains provisions for the right of free association and Free Speech.

        I can further, but will wait for rebuttal.

  • switch1

    Totally agree re voting rights, Personally I think generally those who for no good reason don’t work and pay tax and claim social security all their lives should never be allowed to vote. If you don’t pay in, why should you dictate what happens with the money of others.
    I’d imagine if that was the case, labour would never get into Government.

  • Democracy is the gun at our backs and the noose at our necks.