Counter-Currents
If Only We Could Burn Down Freedom’s Road
The Very Latest Indictment of Democracy
Richard Parker
1,164 words
Recent events have steeled this author’s aversion and opposition to democracy. Universal suffrage is a bad idea, to put it mildly, and there is no better proof than recent developments in the presidential campaign for Kamala Harris. In denouncing democracy (direct or indirect), this admonition from Robert Heinlein in Starship Troopers bears repeating.
“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.”
Why in the world should anyone and everyone, by mere virtue of the fact that person is 18 or over and either born in the United States or a naturalized citizen have that authority over others? Why is our civilization so lacking in the very faculty of discrimination, which discerns the brilliant from the stupid, the swift from the slow?
This week it was announced that Beyoncé is pledging some four million a month and lending her entire catalog to the campaign of Kamala Harris. This on top of Taylor Swift and many other pariahs in American Unkultur. Some pundits warn this could secure enough of the Gen Z and millennial vote to make Kamala Harris a prohibitive favorite.
First and foremost, any culture or civilization that produces garbage like this, to say nothing of vulgar “gangsta rap” music, is utterly beyond redemption. Such considerations certainly repudiate quaint notions about American exceptionalism held by far too many. In this way, Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless America” and the sentiment it represents are only slightly less of a pariah. Beyond that, people who like Beyoncé or Taylor Swift should not be entitled to make any decisions of import about anything. A person whose vote is influenced or determined by such endorsements, unless such endorsement convinces that person to vote for the opposing candidate, should not be allowed to vote. Such a person has no right (or ought not have the right) to exercise the sort of political authority described by Heinlein—political authority over others, backed by state violence.
In addition to this unsettling state of affairs about Beyoncé and others of her ilk, the Harris campaign announced the selection of Minnesota governor Tim Waltz as Vice President. He is the embodiment of the self-hating white, particularly in view of his position on and comments about Black Lives Matter and the St. George riots which first erupted in Minneapolis. In a television interview, his wife, Gwen, talked about the smell of burning tires that emitted from the riots and how she chose to keep the windows open as long as possible, to get a nice whiff of the change that was in the air. In addition to that, one must consider his odious policies authorizing so-called transgender care on minors and other matters regarding the transgender menace. As stated in “Leaping into Delusion, Death, and Personal Destruction,” transgender lunacy must not be tolerated at all, either for adults, children or minors. What these people stand for is brought in even sharper relief with this statement from Josh Shapiro lambasting the censoring of what books “our children read.” These of course are the books in question.
Why should those rightly opposed to such evil, untenable beliefs continue to play this sordid charade where we are expected to enunciate our respect for the results of a democratically elected election? Why should we pretend that those people who choose such odious ideas and policies as their politics ought to be allowed to have a say at all? Every radical movement begins with hushed utterances and quiet whisperings in a café or salon (figurative, literal, or virtual). It is fine to understand and recognize that all of this is part of the ruling regime in power and that this regime is, alas, probably not going anywhere in the foreseeable future, but why must those rightly outraged by such despicable cretins—contemptible subhuman vermin, really—continue to give lip service to platitudes from high school civics class?
When the republic was founded, the populace consisted of Anglo-American colonials, with some Dutch and Germans mixed in, peoples who are related racially and geographically to the British ancestry of the majority. The majority who descended from Britain or came from Britain directly had the tradition of the Magna Carta and English Common Law, important precursors to the Constitution. The importance of this set of conditions was of course enunciated in the 1790 Immigration Act, which was enacted before the Bill of Rights and was not included as a touchstone of the Constitution only by some sordid fit of cosmic fate, as the framers would surely have balked at this multicultural experiment that we are subject to in the modern world. The idea of a democratic republic worked because the populace was largely similar and most everyone shared the same goals, the same values, and to a large extent the same background. There might have been some disagreement about the means involved to achieve fundamental, agreed upon ends, but most agreed on the ends to be achieved. None of these conditions that were presupposed by the Framers apply today.
Even assuming that the idea of universal suffrage is somehow intrinsically good, America, since 1965, since the Hart-Celler act, is in flagrant and obvious contravention to the original intent of the democratic republic as envisioned by the Framers. The demographic changes attributed to the Hart-Celler act are of course compounded by the onerous regime of civil rights laws that have invalidated many personal freedoms, including right to free association.
Setting aside how basic, fundamental conditions presupposed by the Framers have long since been rendered null and void, people who choose Kamala Harris or the Democrat Party writ large, who let vapid, inane Hollywood celebrities or awful “musicians” like Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, or “Megan Thee Stallion” influence or determine how they vote should not have a say, and, if the necessary means ever become available in the distant or not so distant future, must be made not to have such a say. Voting is the exercise of political authority over others, backed by state violence. If Europe and the Occident are to ever recover from the existential perils we are faced with, such privileges to exercise such authority over others—that is, ultimately, state violence—must be awarded in a far more judicious manner than just citizenship and being 18 or over. It is entirely unclear how this will ever be feasible, if it will ever be feasible, but at some point dissidents need to come to this dark enlightenment. When, if at all ever possible, burn down freedom’s road, utterly and entirely. The very idea of democracy is the enemy of the Sons and Daughters of Mother Europa. Anyone who doubts that is reminded that Beyoncé and Taylor Swift may well decide this election.
Please see the author’s Substack, The Raven’s Call, which features additional writings from a hard-Right perspective.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
12 comments
I’ve always been a free-speech absolutist, much more, I think, than most people who call themselves that, but an author here at Counter-Currents penned an anti-free-speech argument that resonated with me. It was approximately like “In a society, there should be robust discussion about what is best for the society and how to achieve it, and people may disagree with both the ends and the means, and that is okay. What’s not okay is outright calling for the destruction of the society itself. There’s no good reason for a society to allow people to openly promote its very destruction.” It wasn’t enough to change my personal inclinations, but I accept that it’s rational and maybe even wise for a society or organization to restrict speech that fundamentally aims to destroy that society or organization.
Now, I’m not sure how to best tie that into this topic of universal suffrage, but I was reminded of it. Like freedom of speech, representative democracy is one of those ideals that has been deeply and relentlessly inserted into our brains by the culture, but representative democracy doesn’t seem to serve our real interests. The idea is that everyone can help shape society, but in reality all we get to do is check a box every four years, while our “representatives” routinely ignore our clearly expressed will and desires.
Letting modern 18-year-olds vote is hardly better than letting 8-year-olds vote. You should not be able to vote to shape the future of a society until, at the very least, you have a demonstrated stake in the future of that society, which is not something that can be assumed from mere presence in it. Demonstrated maturity – not merely assumed by age – would also be good. I could probably write a detailed list of criteria, and the one I’m about to propose wouldn’t actually be on it (because there should be alternative ways to demonstrate one’s quality), but I’ll say that things would be better if people couldn’t vote until they were supporting themselves financially and married with children that they’d spent at least five years raising.
Democracy is one of the greatest European creations, but it only works among Whites.
I’ll confess that I like Taylor Swift, but I’m not letting her tell me how to vote. People who are influenced by celebrity endorsements are low-information voters by definition.
Does the USA at present have a real democracy? The soldier citizens-to-be in Starship Troopers, at least as I read it, were able to cast serious votes on substantial issues. Does this describe the current USA?
I am genuinely curious. The last time I saw that sort of thing I was much younger and in California, when various propositions on such issues as property taxes were opened up to the voters.
It isn’t necessary to have plebiscites and let citizens micromanage things. Still, we seem to be less capable of influencing our nation’s overall direction than people in juntas. The votes are cast and counted, and whatever was going on… keeps going on.
Do we need to have democracy? There are so many stupid men, even intelligent men who are first stupid in youth, that even the most ruthless eugenics program will not be able to guard against bad voting patterns. And if there is a wrong way to vote, then why allow voting at all? Is that just moral relativism? I’ve seen that concept destroyed by several authors on this site.
The White man who is able to create our ethnostate has proven himself worthy of being king, and his offspring will be backed by whatever deity/ies we are worshipping when the religion of our new age has finished forming.
Yes, we do need Democracy. However, we don’t need universal suffrage. Democratic ideas in some form have been common in European societies throughout history. It’s in our nature, whereas rigid authoritarianism is not.
Democracy is uninspiring and inefficient. Beyond having a village council I don’t think there is much use for it.
I will respond to your comment and several other comments here. Concerning democracy, although I am not religious, I always think of that lesson in the bible, you will know the freet by the fruit it bears.
That stated I am wary of a dictatorship, see eg how Uncle Adi messed up, war with three peer powers (and yes I know about neutrality in name only, USS Reuben James incident, etc etc).
I really like the model presented in Starship Troopers. Service guarantees citizenship. Use something on that model, but add principles of Volksgemeinschaft, race, blood, and soil. Also do something about the implements of mass media and you have a sustainable model for civilization.
That stated, I do not want to share a nation with people who vote for Kamala Harris, who share the views about BLM or transgenderism (or any number of positions) held by Walz, his wife, or those of their ilk. And, as I stated, anyone whose vote is influenced or determined by what a pop star says must not be allowed to exercise such political authority of others.
There is a conflation of ‘democracy’ with ‘exercise of electoral franchise’. But ‘democracy’ is really ‘participation in power’. It doesn’t require ‘national franchise’ or anything like that. John C. Calhoun’s Disquisition points the way to mitigating the hazards of ‘popular franchise’ while maintaining genuine ‘participation’ in power.
99.99999% of all the decisions made in your life are not made by you or are ones you participate in at all. At work, most decisions are constrained. The same when you’re consuming.
The truth is that ‘America’ is one of the most undemocratic places in the world because most people are not making meaningful decisions about their lives most of the time.
But we can create a continental-scale system in which ‘communities’ are the primary ‘political actors’ with the understanding that those ‘communities’ can be interest-groups of any kind.
I encourage the author to read John C. Calhoun’s Disquisition regarding the best way to balance ‘democracy’ with ‘sound governance’. The short version is that ‘democracy’ requires a system of deterrence to prevent ‘government’ from becoming a pawn of ‘factions’ but that deterrence must be other factions and ‘the right to refuse obedience’. There is not such thing as a free lunch. Any system of government powerful enough to guarantee ‘individual rights’ for any member of any community has already negated the very idea of ‘community rule’.
America has been destroyed by Whites not taking ‘freedom of association’ as seriously as they took ‘freedom to keep and bear arms’.
My dad was born in 1890. He did not have a lot of formal education, but he did have a lot of insight and wisdom. He used to say, “A democracy is where all the damn fools get to vote.”
C.E. Whiteoak: August 12, 2024 My dad was born in 1890… He used to say, “A democracy is where all the damn fools get to vote.”
I don’t know who said it first but my favorite definition of democracy is “two wolves and a lamb voting for what’s for lunch.”
After viewing a few minutes of the DNC lovefest going on currently in Chicago, dominated by Blacks, Jews and queers, it’s clear that today Whites represent the lamb when it comes to voting. The GOP isn’t much better when it comes to representing the interests of White America.
C.E., your dad was first eligible to vote more than 100 years ago, prior to WWI, when America could still have been considered a White nation. What has the quadrennial ritual in democracy resolved since then? Dr. Pierce told us 24 years ago — six presidential elections back! — in “Elites vs. Masses” at nationalvanguard.org
ONE OF THE most profoundly depressing experiences an American can subject himself to these days is watching the various presidential candidates campaigning on his television screen. My god, what a sorry spectacle! Bush and McCain, Gore and Bradley: these are the “leaders” approved for us by the media masters… Over here we have an approved conservative, a kosher conservative, in the person of George W. Bush, Jr., and three approved liberals, in the persons of John McCain, Al Gore, and Bill Bradley. What a choice!
Pierce can be heard reading this in a slide show, here: “Dr. William Pierce – Elites vs. Masses” at video.natall.com
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.