Each election we are told (from both sides) is the most important ever, the one that will place the nation irrevocably on one path or another. It is a priori unlikely that this should turn out to be actually true this time. Allowing oneself to be convinced of it leads one into an error much worse than just, say, misgauging when the USA did or will cross the demographic tipping point beyond which whites have no recourse from expropriation by the new vindictive majority. One might say that the reactionary web is haunted by a specter–the specter of Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Clinton is said to be a fanatical Leftist who will carry hostility toward Christians and whites far beyond what Mr. Obama has done. Some of the same people who say this will also say, without noticing the contradiction, that she is an infirm old woman who only seems competent to lead the nation because of relentless media duplicity. The trouble with both of these ideas is that they imagine that Mrs. Clinton would actually be leading us, rather than being a figurehead for the permanent government. This would be to imagine that the things conservatives don’t like about liberal governance–the promotion of sexual degeneracy and family dissolution, the demoralization of men, the hostility toward whites, the intrusions against paternal authority, the anticlericalism–are just a matter of policy from the person at top, that the bureaucratic machine itself is a neutral mechanism that can be turned toward any end.
As I wrote at the Orthosphere,
Recall the three categories: correct/incorrect, moral/immoral, friend/enemy. Both nationalist and internationalist liberalism are false. Trump may well be more personally immoral–I don’t know either of them personally well enough to tell. Clinton, though, is a member of the Left-anticlerical party and is therefore an enemy in a way that the candidate of the other, unprincipled party isn’t. Recognizing this carries no personal enmity. No doubt Mrs. Clinton simply accepts the same principles taught in all our schools and newsrooms as self-evident truth, and she acts for what everyone she knows would say is the good. She is being chosen to preside over a system whose character is already fixed, one that can operate without her input by a thousand zealots and career civil servants, that will giver her orders rather than vice versa. If Mrs. Clinton were to die tomorrow and continue to be carried around by her handlers, “Weekend at Bernie’s” style, she would be the perfect liberal president. The nationalists, on the other hand, have put there hopes on Trump actually ruling and not only presiding, ruling against the wishes of the state’s current agents, as if such a thing were done any more, as if any mortal could possibly be up to such a task.
So, yes, Mrs. Clinton is full of evil beliefs, but she’s no extremist, because these evil beliefs are what our ruling class deem common sense.
The United States is ruled from the New York Times, which dictates what belief is acceptable and what belief results in unemployment and ostracism, not the White House. The White House is an intermediary for passing orders from the New York Times to the federal civil service; the figurehead at its top can be bypassed easily if needed. An uncooperative president would likely not win a fight with his indoctrinated servants, who only need hold off till the next election to get a new nominal head. In any case, the New York Times rules America both through government and through corporate employers. Recalcitrant heretics can be released to the private arm no matter who is president.
Well, could we change the country by taking over the New York Times? Not likely (although it’s a better idea than voting). Democracy is rule by media. Liberalism is social control by technocrats, although it tends to understand itself in terms of its critique of all rival systems. The media and civil service can’t decide to drop democracy and liberalism and rule by another ideology. As long as they rule, these ideologies will be in force. They can only be eclipsed by the rise of nondemocratic, nonliberal power structures. Taking over the New York Times would only be a good thing because then we could blow it up, but even that would be only a start.
To the extent that elected officials like President Obama have influence, it is usually to restrain their zealots. For example, Mr. Obama refuses to go along with the folly of suing Saudi Arabia and the Vatican, thus implicitly taking a stand for the validity of the political as opposed to the legal realm, simply because he must deal with political realities. My reading of Mrs. Clinton is that she is also a cautious person, always wary of political realities, and she would only launch a major liberal crusade (domestic or foreign) if the zealots manage to make restraint seem to her more risky.
What does voting say? Above all, it denotes one’s assent to the democratic system. This is something one should not do. Democracy is a bad system of government. It conceals power, making it irresponsible. It lends unlimited power without responsibility to the press. Its elections promote all the worst impulses, the selfishness and self-righteousness, of the populace. It inculcates a false notion of authority as rising from the will of the people rather than descending from the sovereignty of God. Even if one admits the bare fact that democracy can be a legitimate form of government (meaning one must to obey its laws if one is a citizen of such a polity), one can still recognize that it is the worst and most corrupting of legitimate forms, and one should not provide it the ritual affirmation of a vote.
Secondarily, voting denotes one’s endorsement of one or the other candidate. If you wouldn’t say to a friend “Hillary Clinton is an acceptable ruler for my country” or “Donald Trump is an acceptable ruler for my country”, without getting to add any qualifications about “…at least is better than…”, then you shouldn’t say it to the world by voting for either.
What does voting do? Mostly, it adds an aura of legitimacy to the process. Democracy produced a candidate you were willing to say was acceptable to you, so what do you have to complain about? It has a tiny effect on the outcome, which in turn has a small effect on how the country is governed, as I explain above. We conservatives are waiting for a new Augustus to deliver us from democratic degeneracy, and I don’t see how democratic politics is ever going to get us closer to this (except, perhaps, by failing spectacularly). Lastly, it has a small effect on the future of the Republican Party. When the Republican candidate loses an election (as he will in two weeks), the articles always appear claiming that it was the social conservatives’ fault, that if the Republican Party would only ditch conservative Christians, it could win over all those hip abortion-and-sodomy-loving young people who are just waiting to be sold the party’s message of unrestrained capitalism and world policing. This election has, I would say, offered very little to social conservatives, so I feel particularly entitled to let the Republicans go down in flames on their own without having us to blame for once.
Filed under: Uncategorized
A) Your point about the worthlessness of a single vote is correct.
B) It’s true that Clinton isn’t anything extraordinary among present-day western politicians. She’s a figurehead for the ruling class, just as Obama is.
C) One can vote in an election without necessarily legitimizing democracy. Your vote is nothing sacred, as it’s just a part of a bureaucratic process in which politicians are selected. Therefore, it’s quite easy to partake in such a prosaic process without ascribing to it any deeper meaning.
D) I think Trump really is different than your normal elite-approved presidential candidate. He might actually do stuff like sue the mainstream news stations into oblivion and jail much of the ruling class for their myriad crimes. While doing those types of things won’t make the political system perfect, it’s better than nothing. Just like with how Putin’s Russia isn’t Czarist Russia, it’s still better than what came before it.
trump is doing all that anyone could hope right now by legitimizing (I hope), the idea that the system is rigged. Unfortunately, the system is so rigged that it will be either interpreted too narrowly, (particular elections might be rigged but who cares?) and deemed false, or else will end up deligitimizong dissent. I will say, my admiration for the guy has gone from practically zero to non-zero. He seems like he might be he kind of guy who would get assassinated by the deep state of he were to win. I wouldn’t have thought that a few months ago. I still don’t really think it, but now I can at least imagine it. Maybe I’m being fooled, who knows.
EAT SHIT NIGLET
Excellent. I’m glad to see at least a couple traditionalists (you and Zippy) standing firm against voting.
I think the Trump phenomenon was a very cunning maneuver by Satan: if the GOP had nominated one of their standard milquetoast ‘conservative’ candidates who loves open borders and free trade, a lot of traditionalists probably would have said “Screw it, I’m staying home,” and would have thereby avoided being implicated in the evil of the liberal democracy by their participation.
Instead we got Trump, and his anti-immigration and anti-free trade and anti-neocon-world-democracy stances (which are good things) have proven to be too much of a temptation for lots of traditionalists.
So what exactly should you do to destroy democracy, then?
Hillary’s immigration policy coupled with the current demographics of the United States assures a permanent Democratic government for the next few decades, if not centuries. You are effectively subjecting yourself and your children and your children’s children to life under the system you claim to be against because you want to be principled. Suicide is not noble.
“We conservatives are waiting for a new Augustus to deliver us from democratic degeneracy”
And yet you refuse to do anything about it and instead blog about how terrible democracy is in your little corner of the internet. Trump’s victory means a shift in the Overton window, potentially to the point where anti-democratic ideas stop being vilified and enter the political discussion.
You legitimize democracy by living in it, being a “good citizen” and tolerating the degeneracy. Voting is a tiny drop in the ocean. Refusing to do it because of a “principle” that you don’t actually hold seriously in any other aspect of life is pathetic.
A few points:
1. As far as I’m aware, no major presidential candidate prior to Hillary has ever openly intended to attack Russia without provocation. There is one important way that a sitting President could drastically change things before the Cathedral-state has a chance to act, and she just might do it.
2. Trump stands outside the current Overton window (unlike usual Republicans who stand at the right edge of it). He’s not very far outside of it, but his being President will likely force it rightward in some ways.
3. Trump has refused to say whether he will accept Hillary’s election, has threatened to personally intervene to have her arrested (i.e. directly ruling the bureaucrats), and threatened to change libel laws to restrict rule-by-the-press. It is possible that he will actually rule, and it’s evident that he rejects many of the democratic principles that are presently considered sacrosanct.
4. Even with normal Republicans, they still serve as a brake to some extent. Thus even in normal elections voting is still worthwhile in the aggregate for this reason.
Voting is a tiny drop in the ocean.
Always good to find something on which to agree. Personally, instead of the drop in the ocean analogy, I prefer the pinch of incense.
The fact is that either Trump or Hillary will be elected, and it’s OK to have a preference for one outcome or the other. (I weakly prefer Trump, but I don’t think he’ll be much better than Clinton, and I don’t think Clinton will be much worse than Obama.) If people express their preference by voting, I don’t have a problem with that. I’ve chosen not to express my preference that way this year.
But I do wish that people who’ve decided to vote, and who prefer Trump, would just quietly vote for him and stop acting as if he’s some kind of Alt Right hero who actually cares about immigration or factory jobs or corruption or our Christian/European cultural heritage or whatever else. Nobody with half a brain should at this point be under the illusion that Trump believes any of what he says, and that he won’t say whatever he thinks people want to hear.
The fact that people on the Right have chosen to act this way, and that support for Trump has for so many of them become the litmus test for conservatism, is basically evidence to me that Trump has succeeded in destroying the Right. I don’t believe he conspired with, say, the Clintons to do this, but if it were true I wouldn’t be surprised.
Let me revisit the “voting is a drop in the ocean” because I might be wrong. Consider our education. We’ve been trained from a very early age that not voting makes you the Worst People in the World. Occasionally someone says it point blank but it’s certainly there by implication. Even John Zmirak got into the act by comparing not voting to masturbation. You know, a mortal sin. So this drop in the ocean apparently has immortal souls in the balance.
But consider the old Test Acts of England. Here is the oath in its most basic form that anyone who wanted a public position higher than Town Dog Catcher had to swear to officially:
“I, N, do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever.”
Wait. What? Transubstantiation? I thought Transubstantiation was supposed to be a mere pedantic exercise. Angels dancing on the heads of pins and all that. A drop in the vast ocean of theology. Of course it isn’t. Gotta hand it to those Reformers: they knew exactly where to stick the knife. To take the oath is to cease to be Catholic.
So it is with not voting. You are sticking a dagger right in the heart of the supreme sacrament of liberalism. Once it is discovered that liberalism is an incoherent lie your whole worldview shatters and can’t be reassembled. It’s not simply a case of being a pedantic jerk acting on some random principle. Asking someone to continue to pull the levers is like asking someone who stopped believing he was Napoleon to continue to wear his funny hat and demand everyone salute him with “Oui, mon général!”
Maybe Trump will actually talk about major election fraud post-election, whereas Romney seemed too chicken to even bring up the massive documented fraud.
Documenting and exposing the fraud of democracy is a good thing, and a really narrow loss for Trump would be likely to do that. So voting for Trump may indirectly expose truth, and truth is of God.
Scott W:
So it is with not voting. You are sticking a dagger right in the heart of the supreme sacrament of liberalism. Once it is discovered that liberalism is an incoherent lie your whole worldview shatters and can’t be reassembled. It’s not simply a case of being a pedantic jerk acting on some random principle.
Correct.
Man is embodied, so what makes a man a liberal or Christian (or whatever) is not mere assent to beliefs. Certain defining actions (very often habitual and therefore rituals) are not just markers that ‘I am a liberal’, but are modes through which a man, carrying out these rituals, is a liberal. Rejecting a central ritual is therefore a momentous act.
In addition there is also more than one type of rejection; ‘I refuse to vote because I reject liberalism’ is different from ‘I would vote if there was an acceptable candidate’.
John Stuart Mill an arch-liberal, but also a very experienced administrator with the East India Company, when it was the effective ruler of India, understood the power of bureaucracy to obstruct any ruler.
“[N]ot only is the outside public ill-qualified, for want of practical experience, to criticise or check the mode of operation of the bureaucracy, but even if the accidents of despotic or the natural working of popular institutions occasionally raise to the summit a ruler or rulers of reforming inclinations, no reform can be effected which is contrary to the interest of the bureaucracy. Such is the melancholy condition of the Russian empire, as is shown in the accounts of those who have had sufficient opportunity of observation. The Tsar himself is powerless against the bureaucratic body; he can send any one of them to Siberia, but he cannot govern without them, or against their will. On every decree of his they have a tacit veto, by merely refraining from carrying it into effect. In countries of more advanced civilisation and of a more insurrectionary spirit, the public, accustomed to expect everything to be done for them by the State, or at least to do nothing for themselves without asking from the State not only leave to do it, but even how it is to be done, naturally hold the State responsible for all evil which befalls them, and when the evil exceeds their amount of patience, they rise against the government and make what is called a revolution; whereupon somebody else, with or without legitimate authority from the nation, vaults into the seat, issues his orders to the bureaucracy, and everything goes on much as it did before; the bureaucracy being unchanged, and nobody else being capable of taking their place.”
The fear of the entire Liberal Establishment is in the air, it’s palpable. This has been an awesome election season!
Vote for Trump or you’re betraying God.
Should I repent of donating to the Trump campaign?
I’m really thinking that the LORD might in fact judge Americans pretty harshly if you don’t stand with Jehu when Jezebel makes a move on the land. This idea that we are to be uninvolved with major and “one-in-a-lifetime-individuals” being a force in the governance of our own country is laughable at the very least:
“she is an infirm old woman who only seems competent to lead the nation because of relentless media duplicity.”
HER RUNNING MATE IS A GAY CATHOLIC JESUIT DEFENSE LAWYER WHO’LL LAST LONG PAST HER EXPIRATION DATE AND DO EVERY GAY THING SHE WANTS.
“The United States is ruled from the New York Times”
DONALD HAS THREATENED TO SUE THE NEW YORK TIMES AND WILL PROBABLY DESTROY IT LIKE HULK SMASHED GAWKER AS SOON AS HE GETS THE CHANCE.
“I feel particularly entitled to let the Republicans go down in flames on their own without having us to blame for once.”
DONALD TRUMP IS DESTROYING THE WORST OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY EVERY DAY, HE’S ALREADY DONE IT SPIRITUALLY, HE’S DOING IT FINANCIALLY, HE’LL DO IT IN FACT WHILE IN OFFICE.
“As long as they rule, these ideologies will be in force. They can only be eclipsed by the rise of nondemocratic, nonliberal power structures.”
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK A BUSINESS AND ITS CEO ARE?
Peter Blood:
The stunned looks and uncomprehending reactions have been rather priceless.
Mind you, it makes no sense to vote. But the entertainment value of this year’s circus is well above par, at least for those of us with perverse senses of humor.
Agreed, mostly. I think we’re in a major transition / realignment. Things could get, um, interesting. I also think it might even be hastened with a Clinton victory, which would be pyrrhic.
ArkansasReactionary,
It seems to me that Trump has moved the Overton window rightward in some ways (immigration), but leftward in others. For example, on NPR yesterday, the host of whatever show it was interviewed the president of the Log Cabin Republicans. The Log Cabin president said that while he is not endorsing Trump because of uncertainty over him, the GOP convention this year was by far the best for the sodomy lobby ever, and that Trump’s senior advisors have assured him that under a Trump administration, the sodomy lobby has nothing to worry about. Also, the host noted that Trump seemed much more familiar and comfortable with standard sodomy lobby rhetoric, for example, referring to the lobby as ‘LGBTQ’, rather than the apparently outdated ‘LGBT’.
The 2016 Republican platform, signed off by Trump, calls for traditional marriage and the overturning of Obergfell. But Trump is not going to criminalize sodomy at the federal level or otherwise badger gays to stop being gay. He’s also going to let Christians be Christians, so no more persecuting Christian bakeries or photographers or schools.
when Jezebel makes a move on the land.
Dystopia Max, Jezebel AND Pharisee
Andrew, the part of Pharisees are being played by the #NeverTrumpers, Hillary’s coalition and co-conspirators are very clearly playing Sadducees.
So still waiting for those non-liberal power structures to rise up spontaneously. I guess the answer you’re giving is to wait…wait…wait…
@Ian
I’m mainly concerned with Trump’s stated positions. Not rumor and hypothetical speculation.
So still waiting for those non-liberal power structures to rise up spontaneously. I guess the answer you’re giving is to wait…wait…wait…
I’m not sure what you mean as I don’t recall any regular here claiming that about non-liberal power structures. Rather, it has been demonstrated that liberalism is an incoherent falsehood, but an unusually resilient and adaptive fiction (almost like it was designed by supernatural powers, but not of the good kind.) But once one recognizes the falsehood there is still the danger of using liberalism’s tools like consequentialism and the idea that we have to pull up the tares of liberalism (Matt13:24-30). The answer is not merely wait, but to repent, preach the Gospel, and practice the corporeal and spiritual works of mercy.
Stop pretending to be a Christian, you revolting traitor
No offense, m8, but you’re a fucking retard.
“Well…” said it best.
The most likely outcome of this election IMO is that Trump loses by a landslide and restricting immigration is deemed untouchable for a generation, while the SCOTUS is assuredly liberal (read: No restrictions on abortion) also for a generation.
However, the Republican party might adopt a less democratic primary process to ensure that incompetent and unqualified people like Trump don’t get the nomination in the future. That would be a quite minor victory for conservatism, I suppose?
We shall see.
>> “As long as they rule, these ideologies will be in force. They can only be eclipsed
>> by the rise of nondemocratic, nonliberal power structures.”
>>
>> WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK A BUSINESS AND ITS CEO ARE?
This is a misconception worth addressing. Business corporations certainly are part of the liberal power structure (see e.g. Weber and MacIntyre), being exclusively based on contract, instrumental reasoning, and meritocracy. One could argue that they are even more perfectly liberal than the State, which at least retains some residual aura of preliberal authority. It is not surprising that businesses often exceed government in their zeal for feminism and immigration.
It goes without saying every Christian here must repent and preach the Gospel, I’m asking if you or Bonald or anyone has anything specific in mind to undermine liberalism. It seems all you’re saying is live your life and everything will work out? Maybe Bonald could point to something more specific in his archives.
Bonald,
One reason a business is not more liberal than other member orgs of the liberal power structure is that the individual parts, in principle, are dedicated to a common inferest of the whole rather than to the subjective preferences of all of the “stakeholders”. However, it is still part of the liberal system in that telos of the business is to serve the subjective preference of its customers.
“This is a misconception worth addressing. Business corporations certainly are part of the liberal power structure (see e.g. Weber and MacIntyre), being exclusively based on contract, instrumental reasoning, and meritocracy.”
HOW ON EARTH DOES TRUMP’S EXPLICITLY FAMILY BUSINESS FIT THAT MODEL? HOW IS THIS EXPLICITLY FAMILY-ORIENTED ORGANIZATION AN AFFIRMATION OF THE LIBERAL POWER STRUCTURE? WHERE ARE HIS SONS RUNNING ON THIS MODEL, EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY?
“One could argue that they are even more perfectly liberal than the State, which at least retains some residual aura of preliberal authority. It is not surprising that businesses often exceed government in their zeal for feminism and immigration.”
WHERE THE HELL DOES TRUMP EXPLICITLY ENDORSE EITHER IN WORDS OR ACTIONS? HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE THIS DISENGAGED WITH A CAMPAIGN THAT EVEN THE LIBERAL MEDIA IDENTIFIES CORRECTLY AS ABOUT A RESURGENT PATRIARCHY?
Max, serious question, why are you yelling (using caps)? Chill.
Hypothetical question: Would it be okay to vote if you’re voting for a guy who promises to dismantle these liberal structures? Ends justify the means sort of thing?
One could argue that such a vote would erode rather than reinforce the legitimacy of the system and would thus be acceptable to an anti-democrat. Communist and fascist party’s have successfully used democracy against itself, but it was crucial that they were also prepared to act through non-electoral means. It is also true that these were mass movements and so in a sense democratic even when not procedurally so.
@ Roepke:
Thanks, but did you read what I wrote? I expect that a President Trump would fail to restrict immigration or appoint conservative SCOTUS judges. And I don’t mean he’d try but be stopped by a hostile congress, I mean he would immediately abandon any pretense of having supported doing those things.
Everything you’ve heard from Trump so far is just because he figured out the Sailer Strategy could get him elected. Once he’s elected he’ll ditch that strategy and start using a new one. Importantly, he has no ideology to ensure continuity between the two strategies. You won’t recognize President Trump, and he’ll probably look a lot like Hillary.
Why isn’t this obvious to more people?
@Well….
I should have been more clear, I certainly agree with you. I intended to remark that Trumpistas had nominated a clearly incompetent demagogue and the most likely result will be that immigration and abortion restriction becomes politically untouchable for quite some time after a landslide Trump loss.
I think Trump has been pretty consistent in his belief since the 80s that the US is getting ripped off in trade and immigration, I’d expect him to try to change that if he did win. For all the rest, I think you’re right.
@Roepke:
Ah, got it.
Why do you think immigration and abortion restriction would become politically untouchable if Trump loses in a landslide? The logic of that isn’t intuitive to me.
Some questions jump to mind:
– What does it mean, in terms of practical outcomes, for something to be politically untouchable?
– Didn’t Trump prove that touching politically untouchable things is not only possible but can be politically lucrative?
– Trump isn’t going to vanish after the election. While I expect him to become much more Leftist if he wins (to the point where a Trump presidency and a Hillary one are barely distinguishable), I’d guess he’ll go back to talking a Rightist game if he loses. Might this not keep topics like immigration and abortion restriction within the inside edge of the Overton window?
[…] Reminder: why you shouldn’t vote. Because even if all the reasons This Time It’s Different™ were true, that only proves […]
Well, I said Trump would go down in flames and when you’re wrong you’re wrong. Let’s hope my assessment of Trump’s capability as a President is equally as wrong as my assessment of his electoral chances. Particularly, let’s hope Pence gets to pick Supreme Court nominees.
ArkansasReactionary:
I’m mainly concerned with Trump’s stated positions. Not rumor and hypothetical speculation.
Right on cue, in Trump’s first interview since winning the election he declines to push to repeal homosexual marriage.
GJ:
What would “repealing homosexual marriage” actually mean?
Reversing Obergefell would simply return the matter to the states. Reversing Windsor would allow the Federal Government to refuse recognition of marriages valid by the laws of a state.
Would anyone view this as a satisfactory solution, except lawyers specialising in Equity & Succession, who would reap the rich harvest in litigation that “limping marriages” invariably generate?
Michael Paterson-Seymour:
What is the end goal of Manif Pour Tous if not to rid of this nonsense of recognizing same sex unions as marriages?
Reversing Obergefell and Windsor would be an initial step into reopening the controversy and allowing voices to be heard on the matter. These United States, almost consistently, voted against extending marriage to homosexuals. It was our courts who decided against the people and took the issue away with rather flimsy reasoning and accusations that all opposition is “hateful.”
By doing so, it has not only permitted open attack on Christians [to prevent us from teaching our own institution and driving us out of having a say in the public square] but an attack on republican equality; an opening for undermining filiation and giving free rein to all sorts of biotechnological mischief- the most prominent example currently being the disgusting practice of surrogate pregnancies.
Without this first step, and it would have to be this as to shoot down the stare decisis and shake our politicians from complacency, raising the issue of what to do otherwise will remain banned from respectable conversation and subject anybody who disagrees in the slightest to a very real removal from society and actual harm (in some cases.)
So while it’s very easy to ponder the abstracts; it’s much tougher to actually do something about it! The longer we wait on someone- anyone- to break through the consensus, the harder it becomes to maintain our Christian community.