Sunday, March 16, 2014

Of Cabbages and Kings and Democrats and Republicans

More Baloo Cartoons HERE.
Cute Baloo Cartoon there, but it's actually misleading. There are exceptions in history, of course, but by and large, in Western Civilization, kings can't get away with just anything. Louix XVI of France certainly couldn't, nor, could Charles I of England. And to the American consciousness, those are just the two most obvious examples of kings losing their heads for poor performance. Now, by "king" I'm including all hereditary rulers, so the same goes for Nicholas the Last, Tsar of Russia. Not all of them lose their heads — often they just lose their jobs, like the last Kaiser of Germany and the last Kaiser of Austria-Hungary. And if you pay any attention to European history at all, you'll remember that a lot of kings were overthrown by revolts by other nobles, often their relatives, who then became other kings themselves. Now, they didn't do it by themselves, of course. The incumbent king had to have irritated enough people for the next guy to accumulate a following big enough to help him overthrow the incumbent.

And, of course, many of the kings who survived and kept their jobs, a great many of them were well aware that they could end up that way, and made sure they ruled in such a way as to keep most of the people happy most of the time. Over at Alternative Right, they're saying that the "democracy" arument is

Now, think about this. We are often told by our rulers that in the US, that will never happen again, because we have democracy, and no king, but a President, who can be voted out. Or even impeached. Technically, this is true, but of late, after being told this, we're then assured that the Second Amendment is therefore unneeded, old-fashioned, and just plain bad. The Founding Fathers didn't realize that we'd have such wonderful leaders as Clintons, Bushes, and Obamas, so they foolishly set up the government to make it deliberately vulnerable to an armed populace.

But I digress. The main problem with the fact that we're told that democracy has removed any such necessity is that we believe it, and we're constantly told that the government is our servant. So when the Government does things that no king would have dared to do, we somehow feel that it would be churlish of us not to be quiet and put up with it. Over at Alternative Right, we're told that the "democracy" argument, if it ever did make sense, no longer does, because we're now in a post-democratic state, and the Social Contract has been palimpsested out of recognition.


Back in 2011 it was revealed that all sexual assaults involving rape in Oslo in the previous five years were committed by "males of non-Western background." The figures released by the police showed that in the five years between 2005 and 2010, there were 86 rapes, in which 83 of the perpetrators were described as having a "non-Western" appearance. The remaining three cases involved unknown attackers, but, given the identity of the other 83 attackers, it would be reasonable to assume that they, too, were non-Whites.

The women attacked were, of course, overwhelmingly Norwegian.

At the beginning of 2010, 151,000 persons or 3.1 per cent of the Norwegian population had a refugee background, with Iraqis (19,768) and Somalis (17,665) forming the largest groups. Of course, no one is surprised anymore that a remote, historically White country like Norway should now have a burgeoning non-White population. The CIA Factbook figure based on a 2007 estimate put the total non-White population at only 2 percent. Figures from 2012 now put this at between 6 and 7% – an alarming rise.

On the Norwegian TV news report that mentioned the rapes, one of the victims, a young blonde girl mentioned that her attacker was a man of Pakistani origin who claimed he had the right to do exactly as he wanted to a woman, "because that is how it was in his religion."

Similar narratives are emerging from other White countries subjected to Third World colonization. So, how does such an unnatural situation arise, where a supposedly democratic country allows its young women to be raped by an imported population that has no connection and no cultural affinity with the host country?

To understand this aberration we have look deep into the problem of our so-called "democracy" and how we are 'represented' by our leaders. Whether we have ever passed through an actual period of true democracy (something that could be defined as a period when the government actually did more or less what the people wanted), it is clear that we are now living in a post-democratic world, where governments find ways to impose policies, such as refugee policies, mass immigration, rising taxation, the end of capital punishment, gay marriage, massive overseas aid, and wars that the vast majority of people, even in their mass media-brainwashed state, simply disagree with.

In most modern Western states, democracy has been subverted by the false dichotomies of mainstream party politics and a compliant mass media that imposes cultural taboos on political discourses that challenge the status quo.

The distant past was also characterized by a lack of direct democracy. In its place, they had a range of rights and relationships between the different classes and the ruling elite(s); these were later formulated by the political theorists of the 17th and 18th century into the concept of the Social Contract. This was the idea that sovereignty and the power of government was based on some quid pro quo between rulers and ruled: loyalty in return for security and the maintenance of certain rights, for example.

In pre-democratic states, the social contract between ruler and ruled represented a kind of indirect or "shadow democracy," with an unelected government supposedly doing what the people perceived was in its best interests. As long as kings and oligarchies fulfilled their end of the bargain, there was no need for something as troublesome and messy as real democracy, which might involve revolution, rebellion, and the occasional royal beheading.

Having stifled direct democracy in a number of ways, the modern post-democratic state also has recourse to certain social contracts in order to achieve the compliance of the ruled. This state effectively mirrors the old pre-democratic state, in that the political elites of both seek to maintain their power through a range of "social contracts" or "understandings" with the public, rather than allowing the masses to get too mixed up in the day-to-day running of things.

It is this indirect way of referencing the popular will that has created the terrible situation in Norway and other White countries. The Norwegian case is a particularly clear-cut example of the dysfunctional way the social contract operates in a modern post-democratic Western society.

Whatever the motivations behind it, the idea of allowing Third World refugees into a modern Western country is predicated on certain ideas that the rulers get the ruled to agree to in some way, often through various forms of soft power shaping the inherent beliefs and opinions of the masses through careful emphasis and de-emphasis. The media and the education system of course play key roles. This is the basis of "the contract," which, in our modern age, can also be constantly reformulated as events dictate. (Read the rest HERE.)

1 comment:

  1. Just got off the phone with Vlad. Said he'd consider backing up my proclamation of the Kingdom of Dixie.