3,059 words
Part 1 of 2
Classical liberalism tends to get a bad rap in our circles. There are reasons for that, of course. Although it didn’t turn out to be the final word in political theory, or a be-all end-all ideology, there are some valid principles from it which should be salvaged. More to the point, is democracy — or representative government, to be specific — washed up?
To read this, get behind our Paywall
What Went Wrong with the United States?
Part 1
What%20Went%20Wrong%20with%20the%20United%20States%3F%0APart%201%0A
What%20Went%20Wrong%20with%20the%20United%20States%3F%0APart%201%0A
Share
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
Related
-
Trump’s Deportations: Bluster or Promise?
-
Notes on Plato’s Alcibiades I Part 4
-
Notes on Getting Through to Fundamentalists
-
Gramsci and Fascism
-
Nowej Prawicy przeciw Starej Prawicy, Rozdział 7: Czynnik moralny
-
Think about It: Michael Nehls’ The Indoctrinated Brain, Part 3
-
Notes on Plato’s Alcibiades I Part 3
-
Think about It: Michael Nehls’ The Indoctrinated Brain, Part 2
11 comments
Kudos Beau Albrecht…
“The Roman Republic after 200 years of practice failed not entirely because of dissension among the Senate or a multiple variation of ideas converging at one time in their assembly, after all this is what true democracy is. The Roman Republic fell to dictatorship because it was fighting over personal power and control amongst themselves which it now prioritized over the best interest of the people. It became corrupt and used its body and secret alliances to bribe and manipulate overall decisions, laws and justice itself for their own priorities or principles of personal wealth through self-empowerment. When the product of these self-centered efforts increased the suppressive state of the people, it [Senate greed, Publicani and its Equestrian servants] lost its sound support, which made it fragile and ripe for capitulation. Caesar simply crossed the Rubicon and walked in. When in turn Caesar levelled all unjust accumulating debt during the Civil war, And in turn also prevented a vengeful reprisal against the senate by a plebian power grab; (all accomplished with force) to the equal dismay and applause by all, it worked. Caesar was considered a great leader by some historians because of his justice forced on all, with the equal compromise by all, to the partial benefit and sacrifice by all. And, to all’s satisfaction or not, no one side profited completely but balance and the economy was restored through strength and decisive control, and through dictatorial mandates.
Like the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchi before him who tried to redistribute land to the poor and to veterans of the Carthaginian wars who lost their farms during their absence, (this loss initially caused by the property confiscations from soldier farmers by the state or senate and ruling class equestrians for unpaid property taxes while away on military campaign),, Caesar also tried to rebalance wealth by dealing with surmounting debt, a problem that had now become dangerous and had grown out of control. Unlike the Gracchi Tribunes who were murdered at the hands of the senate, he succeeded through dictatorship.
The greatest of his achievements, though lacking in the same melodramatic drama [as his military campaigns” – Reflection
We can say that through “The Directory”, Napoleon was produced on the same stage.
“There is nothing I dread so much as the division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our constitution” – John Adams
“Every state is a dictatorship – Antonio Gramsci”.
Another source states;
“There is no constitutional concept of a perpetual or indissoluble union. The Constitution was a contract between the member states, which retained the right to withdraw at their discretion.
New York was one of three states that put an actual secession clause in its ratification documents.”
Good finds – I’m saving the Adams quote for an upcoming book that hopefully I’ll get around to finishing.
If we were now in the final year of Donald Trump’s second term, and if he had managed to accomplish twenty-five percent of the things that got him elected, we would be angry that he had failed so miserably, but our side would not be as deeply and justifiably dismayed as we are now. We would still basically believe in the system. We’d be hoping for someone better than Donald Trump, who could take over and get us a little closer to our goals.
The 2020 election was not just a disappointing loss, it was a perfect storm. It was certainly a fraud. The Democrats had a vote harvesting combine so efficient that it produced more votes than there are voters. There were blatant procedural violations at polling places. The Supreme Court justices ran and hid in the toilet when presented with the valid case of Pennsylvania, which had violated the explicit directives of the Constitution by superseding the legislature’s role in structuring the election process. That provided courts across the country with the magic words to dismiss cases: “no standing”. Trump voters were understandably outraged and descended on Washington, D.C., where, instead of convincing congress to even go through the motions of a hearing, they got themselves killed, beaten, and persecuted, and provided the Democrats/media with “insurrection” talking points. And then, after first fortifying themselves with National Guard troops from around the country, the Bidet junta hit the ground running. The entire military establishment shut down for indoctrination in Negro worship. The borders were thrown open and every one of Donal Trump’s executive orders was rescinded. Sexual perversion, femininity, and negritude became the most important qualifications for appointment to government offices. The DOJ, under the iron-fisted Merrick Garland, commenced an ongoing pogrom against non-believers. The list goes on and on to the present. The whole thing was like watching the World Trade Center disaster: the planes loaded with innocent passengers slamming into the fully occupied buildings and bursting into flame, and then the structures entirely collapsing into rubble, dust, and smoke. So, yeah, we are wondering what the hell went wrong.
If the elections can be cleaned up, the endemic problems listed in the article will remain, to which I would add the fact that the electorate is half female, and a significant number of voters of both sexes have incompletely formed brains—under 25 years old. Historically speaking, this is relatively new, and explains the carnival of perversion and victimhood that is political culture today. Both women and young people have greater empathy, and are more easily persuaded by the media.
The cherry on top is that the MSM (after pointedly not presenting both sides of the story like real journalists would) began accusing The Donald of trying to steal the election. The chutzpah is off the charts!
Democracy is well founded. Legitimacy should flow from the people up, not from the top down, because the people are the true owners of their own genes and the genes of their children, and our genes are our true treasure.
The people at the top are not the true owners of our genetic treasure, and they prove their illegitimacy by their willingness to squander and pollute this priceless treasure. The people at the top act like they are wasting somebody else’s treasure, and it’s true; they are wasting what’s not theirs to waste.
Right-wing thinking idolizes “hierarchy,” and “aristocracy.” This really comes down to the squalid rich stomping on the poor. This thinking is radically wrong. The less we have of this the better. It is incompatible with the survival of our race. The rich are wickedly corrupt, and they are antiwhite or they are willing pawns of antiwhites who unlike themselves are racially aware, ethnocentric, and well-organized. If it’s not Larry Fink of BlackRock “forcing behaviors” it’s some wealthy, treacherous White who serves the same agenda. We Whites won’t survive by making an idol of this “hierarchy” and bowing down to it.
There is no good alternative to the root of the democratic idea, which is that the state should serve the people (by which I mean the race) and not vice versa.
Since we are stuck with democracy in some form, we should think about what has gone so wrong with it, and why “the state” is everywhere our enemy and nowhere our friend, and how we can do better.
Beau Albrecht’s thoughts on this are very much to the point and I am eager to read the second part.
The democracy is really good for small ethnical homogenous countries and even so – with some important electoral restriction (no rights to vote for state officials and welfarers, because they are dependent of the state and cannot vote freely, some educational census etc.)
Democracy makes the people the font of legitimacy, which flows up from the masses to the officials at the top, who are stewards of the interests of the people.
This is the opposite of a system where legitimacy begins at the top, with the god-king, or the philosopher-kings, or the oligarchs, or the leader, and flows down through his officials and institutions to the people that the rulers own and possess, and who feel the boots of “elites” like Larry Fink grinding hard on their necks.
The direction of the flow of legitimacy is the essence of democracy, and whether the rulers choose to have some elections is not the essence of democracy.
The Inca king was a living god whose word was law, and who dominated politics, society, the armed forces, and the food stores, meaning who got to eat. The Inca king was the owner and possessor of the people and the font of legitimacy. What was nearer to him was more legitimate and what was further from him and his expressed will was less legitimate, down to the mass of the people who were the lowest and the least. If the Inca king had chosen to have an election from time to time that would not have made this system a democratic one.
Another well-written and measured article, Beau.
Typically democratic constitutions do not name money as a source of political power and try to limit it as other sources of political power are limited.
Money is always and everywhere a source of power in democratic states. Often it is the main source of power. It benefits from the rule that power flows out of offices that are held for a short elected term and power flows into offices that are held for life, such as a seat on the Supreme Court. Wealth and control of the mass media that are held for life and for generations are potent political tools, while a seat in the legislature as one vote among hundreds may not mean much.
The combination of constitutions that are are oblivious to the power of wealth and don’t limit it, the Jewish genius for gathering and concentrating wealth, and the rise of mass media tools that let the wealthy few dominate and silence the White many has been bad for us Whites.
I understand and support the ideals of democracy. I also try to believe in God, the problem is my practical side intervenes and perhaps settles with “god helps those who help themselves” and if my acts are benevolent – then perhaps in return they serve god.
Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy – Mussolini
I believe he did not wish it were true, as much as I sincerely wish it was not true. It is the primary reasoning which propelled his career with popular democratic support (upon consolidating power he expelled corporate heads from Gialitti’s parliament, where they actually held seats and directly influenced laws without the need of present day lobbies). The level of corruption in our “democratic republic”, now directed by powers of finance is too overwhelming to ignore or dismiss and sadly helps justify his predictions. Authoritarianism has reigned in many forms throughout history and in recent history (past centuries) it has chronologically remained in power much longer in the form of capitalist oligarchies.
In my discussion with a professor of economics and history at NYU (Richard Wolff), I was similarly told, methods or the carrying out of democratic principles begin at the grass roots level which includes neighborhood councils, in schools, churches, etc. This is how a democratic society should work. Authoritarianism [secular and non-secular] are in fact fallback positions when we cannot properly self-govern or govern in any other way, or when democracy fails. Unfortunately the majority of our present overfed sleepy society in all its pulpits are manipulated by our own sense of nationalism, superiority, infallibility, indifference, god chosen right (from Zionist to southern Baptist), etc., preached to us by a sinister system of mainline media corporations and their left / right political arms of service.
Benjamin Franklin spoke to a woman on the steps of Independence Hall after the close of the constitutional convention of 1787. The woman queried the good doctor “Well doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” To which Franklin replied “A republic… If you can keep it”.
If we the people are unwilling to fully participate in the hard and ugly work of government sausage making, which goes beyond flipping a switch to elect a prop every 4 years, then you must simply conclude that “We, the people…” no longer deserve the equity and prosperity that a democratically republican (peoples) form of government delivers. (and in essence is why we are losing it)
My follow up question for the professor was;
Can the false aspiration for a messiah or authoritarian be equally as blind and dangerous as waiting for the second coming of the aspired ideal democracy? Or at least a level of democracy that will reverse the destructive path that we have been firmly bound to for the past 5 decades? (population boom, global warming, lack of professional diplomacy, nuclear threats, wealth and power shift / imbalance, etc.) Our hopes and procrastination has cost us a great deal of valuable time. When we look at 150 UN nations voting against us globally, I ask myself “When the majority views are the same or identical as the governing officials” (self-government) as you say, does that always make Democracy good?
“There is danger in reckless change, but greater danger in blind conservatism.” -Henry George
And blind conservatism can be easily equated in the proud blind belief and the following of a great false or impotent democracy.
I think that it’s important to realize that there are so many great things about White American society. It’s worth preserving in every way. I write about this in my essay “A New White Christian American Republic”.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VsayBI5G_6iJNPNwOTzrqfzC7_247X3gN8saRHHhKn0/edit?usp=sharing
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.