All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 22, 2013 - Davis Aurini
20:14
Democracy; Anarchy; Monarchy

My novel: http://www.amazon.com/Walk-These-Broken-Roads-ebook/dp/B009RZYO2O/ My blog: http://www.staresattheworld.com/ My Twitter: http://twitter.com/Aurini Glorious Hat! http://www.commieobama.com/pages/hat_info.html http://theobserverwatches.blogspot.ca/2013/02/the-sluts-of-singapore.html I may have stolen some ideas from here: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ca/2013/02/the-greatness-of-lawrence-auster.html

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, one question that keeps coming up in the comments section is, what exactly are your political beliefs?
Are you anarcho-capitalist?
Are you a monarchist?
Are you libertarian?
Are you Republican?
Are you a neocon?
Are you anti-natalist?
Are you...
Thanks, beautiful.
Thanks, beautiful.
But to revisit all of these questions, let's look at the fundamental question, which is what can we do to survive as individuals, as a group?
as a nation, as a race, as a culture?
What can we do to survive?
Now, it's a lot of fun, and it's a very, very good mental exercise to sit around speculating about Plato's Republic.
The guy wrote a whole book on the bloody thing.
But that's a very different question from asking, what can we do to survive?
What are the realistic possibilities that we can explore in this current foul year of our Lord, 2013?
What are our options?
And the important thing about the right is, unlike the left, the left has something they agree upon.
They have the end of history in their minds.
They have this mechanical God they worship that is, oh, there's a little bit of debate over what portion of feminism and which portion of GLBT and which portion of multinationalism and so on and so forth.
Like what exactly the end state is.
But they all agree that there is an end state.
And the only error you can do on the left is not being left enough.
We're not like that on the right.
We are a bunch of radical individualists that debate constantly, that have disagreements, but we can still be neighbors.
We can still be friends.
We can have intelligent discourse.
We don't need to blacklist anybody that disagrees with us.
We can listen to them, accept their position, and move forward.
So with all of that in mind, let's explore the three fundamental types of society that are being discussed nowadays.
Democracy, anarchy, and monarchy.
Now, democracy, and this form of religion, this form of government is the American religion.
It is the Declaration of Independence.
It's the Declaration of the Rights of Man from the French Revolution.
It is the 20th century religion, the modern age.
Democracy is modernism.
And on some level, every society has had democratic organizations.
Democracy in the functional level is absolutely self-evident.
That if you have a group of individuals and you all want to figure out what you're doing that night, you vote on what you're going to do that night.
That form of democracy has been omnipresent in every society.
Even monarchy, even theocracy has democratic aspects to it.
But what happens when you raise that functional mechanism of governance to the point of governance?
You start with the limited franchise.
And in fact, every libertarian and every fascist Reformation to democracy has involved taking the absolute franchise and restricting it.
The best example of this is probably Heinlein in Starship Troopers.
He wants to select for social responsibility.
In his science fiction novel, The Book Not the Movie, the selective pressure is that you have to have served the state in a particular type of function before you get to vote.
Now, the most obvious form is the infantry, is the military, but in the book, he also opens it up to a variety of other forms of service.
He even mentions that if a retarded man wants to get the vote, wants to serve the country, they'll have him go test spacesuits on Pluto.
With the implication that in reality, they're going to be a little bit nicer to the retarded man.
That's just the scary, dangerous risk thing that they try and keep him away with.
You know, you don't want the right to vote.
You don't want the franchise.
It's a bit too scary for you.
Just be a good little obedient citizen.
But those that actually want the franchise, those that want to participate, get to be involved.
That was his solution for limiting the franchise.
The old American solution was property.
You needed to own X amount of property.
Presumably, if you own this much property, especially in a homesteading country like the United States, you're not an idiot.
You're invested in the community.
You're going to vote responsibly.
But what inevitably happens with this franchise?
It gets expanded.
There's always going to be that voice on the margin, that voice that has $500 less property than is needed to vote.
There's going to be that person doing a public service that is dangerous, but isn't recognized as worthy of the vote.
That's going to be lobbying for their right to vote.
That limited franchise is inevitably going to expand and expand and expand until it encompasses everybody in the society.
Currently in the United States, we're watching the last expansion, where it goes not just to every citizen, but even to every non-citizen where they're legally allowed to vote.
And you wind up with the horrors of democracy, which I've discussed at length, and I'm sure you're all well aware of.
People are different.
People have different IQs.
Not everybody has the capacity to make rational choices for their society.
So you get anarcho-capitalism.
Anarcho-capitalism, Ayn Rand, hardcore libertarianism.
It's all part of the same thing, that we completely eliminate government And build free market anarchies in their place.
Now again, this sounds like a sexy place to live.
I would love to live in an anarcho-capitalist regime.
I'd be quite happy there, it'd be civilized, I'd be able to carry a sidearm with me, and the occasional Cro-Mag idiot that comes and starts trouble gets a 9-millimeter heater between the eyes.
Problem solved.
But we're not talking about a complete social reset right now, are we?
We're not talking about a bunch of high IQ and well-educated scientists colonizing Mars.
And some of you picked up on the science fiction story I'm referencing there.
We are not talking about a complete social reset.
We are talking about dealing with the situation we have before us.
The fact of the matter is that most humans are too stupid to live.
That we've had a dysgenic breeding process for the past 10,000 years, and we have this massive, genetically deviant underclass that can't begin to run their own lives, that is not intelligent enough to understand something as simple as a social construct or insurance or any of these other premises that go into the anarcho-capitalist society.
And yet they're here, they're voting, and some of them have quite a bit of wealth and a large number of firearms.
Anarcho-capitalism is a beautiful concept that would possibly work quite well with a whole bunch of educated, literate scholars upon Mars, but in the world we find ourselves in is a pipe dream.
It's a pipe dream worth studying, worth understanding, worth figuring out why this is such a great system and why we'd all love living in it.
But we tried it already.
We tried it multiple times.
Go ask the Irish how well anarcho-capitalism worked for them.
See, anarcho-capitalism, if you actually play with it, if you run the simulation in your head, and you know what?
Even if you start with high IQ people, eliminate all the degenerates, all the criminals, all the scumbag human beings of society, and you start with the best and brightest human beings on the planet.
The thing is, some smart people don't want to be masters.
Some of them want to be accountants.
Some of them want to be engineers.
Some of them just want to be given interesting puzzles to go figure out and have somebody else figure out the logistics.
Even with this ideal genetic starting base for your anarcho-capitalist society, you tend to wind up with monarchy.
One person owns 90% of the property and is responsible for creating rules that serve the majority to keep them happy.
Now in the democracy, you have the majority voting for breads and circuses.
You have them voting for degenerate entertainment.
The savages overwhelm.
Whereas in the end result of the anarcho-capitalist state, in that proto-monarchist state, you actually have somebody that's trying to run an intelligent civilization that recognizes some people just want to be engineers.
They don't want to think about this nonsense.
People don't want to think about making their computers run properly.
I'm a Linux guy.
A lot of people aren't.
Personally, insurance makes my head hurt.
I don't want to think about insurance.
I don't want a million choices.
I want a cast that does the insurance and gives me the solutions.
Same thing with my cell phone.
I don't want to think about it.
Somebody else comes up with the solutions.
All underneath this CEO-shareholder pseudo-monarchy.
Now that said, there are major problems with monarchy.
Major, major problems.
You know, it took 200 years for democracy to implode.
Monarchy, it took 800 years, but it still imploded, didn't it?
With monarchy, we have these inheritance rights.
We have these idiotic sons that inherit the monarchy, and they play with clocks all day long, then they marry Marie Antoinette, who makes idiotic comments about bread and cakes, and soon enough you have a democratic revolution.
monarchy has problems too but see we're also living in an era where we have two brand new social technologies that did not exist until now The first is the corporation.
It used to be.
Let's say you were a brilliant cobbler.
You managed to make the best goddamn boots in all of Germany.
And one of your sons wanted to go into musical theater and the other is a painter.
Your business died.
And this brilliant bootmaking technology that you developed died with your business.
Enter the corporation.
That permanent shareholder-involved entity that is immortal, that owns a patent, owns a technology ad perpetuum.
Now, of course, again, we've all heard the problems with corporations.
You know, Disney should have given up Mickey Mouse 50 years ago.
That should be common culture.
There's problems with this technology too.
Every technology is a double-edged sword.
But for the first time, we actually have a technology that can make an idea live in perpetuity.
Moldbuck has some interesting ideas about how to use this for governance.
And the second technology.
In the 1700s, they were aware of genetics.
It wasn't until Darwin that they really figured out how evolution worked, but they were aware of genetics.
They were beginning to notice that we have a dysgenic civilization.
In the 20th century, some very half-assed attempts at genetics were attempted by democratic countries.
Eugenics first appeared in California before being contracted by Nazi Germany, and a lot of ugliness resulted from this democratic scientist-as-priest conception of it all.
But monarchs in the 1700s were beginning to become aware of the dysgenic problems.
And we are far from figuring it all out.
In fact, currently our democratic society is so deeply morally opposed to actually understanding how genes correlate to pro-social behavior that if we see any sort of new eugenic program, you know what it's going to be.
It's going to be attacking the very genes that encourage brilliance, and they're going to be favoring obedience.
It's going to be another top-down, heavy-handed, dictatorial, democratic approach to the whole damn thing.
But nonetheless, this is an interesting technology and possibility for our species.
The point of all of this is that I don't have the solutions.
I don't have the last word on the matter.
And neither does anybody else.
That us on the right, we are trying to rebuild something.
And it's not going to be the exact same solution in every location, in every province, in every state.
This is fast becoming an international problem.
There is a blogger that I'm going to link to down below, the Observer Watches, who is not North American, who's not even remotely North American.
He's from Singapore.
And he sees the same ugly degeneracy appearing in his own country.
And his response, his response to these Singapore women that want to mud shark with white men, white men, come fuck the shit out of these whores.
Use up their most fertile years.
These degenerate sluts are never going to be part of any revival.
Use them.
I don't care.
They're not part of the solution.
they're part of the goddamn problem.
And when we look around at these savages that share our societies, most of them are part of the problem.
They are degenerates voting for breads and circuses.
And quite frankly, I don't give a flying fuck about those people.
I care about the people that are going to survive and eventually have their own children who will become part of the solution, who will revitalize this society.
I don't know exactly how it's going to happen.
I don't know if it's going to be a reversion to monarchy, if it's going to be some new form of government, if it's going to be anarcho-capitalism.
But those are the people I care about, and those are the ones I want to survive.
▲
Export Selection