The Danger of Deconsolidation: The Democratic Disconnect

as a member of OPs demographic, monarchy is stupid. People don't like democracy because its been jewed to death: if you rig the press then you don't need to rig the polls because the goyim are working too hard to do more than listen to the news on normie radio stations or watch Lester Holt for 25 minutes. You tell big lies over and over like 'we must invade Iraq' and the population will acquiesce, its called Manufacturing Consent.

The way forward is unironic fascist national socialism.

Monarchies have to grow organically. National Socialism is a good step forward to that.

The main reason people are fed up with it is because democracy has become unable to get anything done.
People observe problems but fail to see democratic systems providing solutions.

I'd say that this is just a logical progression of increased political polarization. Eventually, people reach a point where they would rather not have a democracy if it means the other guys can get in power and fuck them all over

What's the difference?

That's the logical outcome of the centralization of power. The US was conceived as something like a league of city-states: bound together in the customs union and common defense, but otherwise, each state was allowed to create the laws it saw fit to create.

If you read the Constitution without thinking about the various Supreme Court rulings, you'll find that there is almost nothing in there about regulating the internal affairs of the States, except for requiring that each State respect the judicial proceedings of other States. The downhill trajectory really began when the 1st Ammendment began to be applied to the States, and all the other Ammendments thereafter.

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Bill of Rights was there to restrict what Congress could do, and Congress was forbidden from restricting free speech or the establishment of religion, not the States. Under the original and intended interpretation of the Constitutions, a State could've literally made it illegal by death to speak in a derogatory manner about a senator, say, and it would've been completely permissible.

The 10 Ammendment also makes it clear that the Federal Government may not grant itself additional powers:

Had such a system remained stable, the peace would've been kept, but it wasn't stable, and first you had the Civil War, followed by FDR's programs and then by those of LBJ. The States have become completely powerless today, with the result that the Federal Government regulates everyone's lives, and that whoever gets into power on the federal level and fuck over the whole country. In such a situation, it's only reasonable that you'll want to do away with democracy if you're not sure that you'll be able to maintain power. Why would anyone allow for the chance that an opposing camp come in and destroy their preferred way of life?

This could've been partially averted had no Supreme Court been instituted (as is the case in Switzerland), but the Founding Fathers should've also expanded the 10th Ammendment greatly, specifying in great detail that the feds may not create additional agencies, nor new restrictions in intra-state affairs. Take the 1965 Voting Rights Act: it was a complete outrage and would've precipitated civil war a hundred years ago all by itself, but in the 20th century, political thought had degenerated to such a level that opposing any legislation on procedural grounds was outside of people's conceptual universe. It did what its supporters wanted and that was all that mattered; that it dangerously undermined the Constitutions didn't matter. And it is the legacy of this Democrat-driven centralization of power that is now delegitimizing the republic. Trump's election and the rise of blatantly partisan, anti-rational politics is only the beginning. 10 years hence, Trump will be seen as moderate figure who tried to keep the ship afloat, and by then, much more radical people will be running for office.

The 60s were an unrecognized coup by the deep state. Think about all the programs going on then that have since been uncovered like Mockingbird. None of these went away they just get shoved under the rug and revived when people have forgotten, nothing's truly mattered in politics for quite some time. The only thing voting does is give them a barometer of just how much the public is willing to tolerate at this point in time.

this isn't democracy's fault though. it's the fact that democracy, by design, is a meta-system of government. you can vote in an oligarchy (google and amazon) if you want to, or an aristocracy (clintons, obamas) as long as the voters are conditioned to want it. when anyone challenges this, "it's a democracy, goy, best system in the world!" is the inevitable, observably false response. people need to know that democracy isn't a 'form of government' and is a factory for forms of government parametrized on the public sentiment. now who would control the public sentiment, huh? pic related.

The honest to god truth is that national socialism was Hitler being declared emperor. He even got his own Title Fuher

Checked

pic related

Kek stupid dems shitlary heil

They fail to mention America was never a Democracy.

Who is the real cuck? The people swarming in and taking your shit without asking and killing/enslaving your families to labor for them or the people who stare stupidly with their thumbs up their asses worshiping the yellow ribbons and camo pajamas that protect the plunderers?

Been saying this before Obama got into office.

Historically democracies always fail, leading to dictatorship and monarchy. If Trump is Caesar, you'll see the rise of Roman fascism and emperors again. You should have listened to Plato, niggers.

...