Why Not Have a Vote For Things That Actually Matter?

If we are so committed to the principle of voting on things, why not actually commit to this idea and see it through to its logical end? We ought to have a discussion about how “democratic” our society really is if we hold democracy to be such a key identifying point of our identity, so much so that we’re willing to go to war for it and impose our system (out of the goodness of our hearts, of course) on others. I mean to say that if we’re all for democracy in principle, and by that we mean letting the peasants vote and take power in decision-making processes, let’s extend that principle to stuff that actually matter to us in our actual lived lives.

Q: Why shouldn’t we get to vote for the heads of large industries like the major energy suppliers?

A: Because Liberal voodoo principles say that we can’t.

And here I thought that we had already decided that voting and Democracy was sacrosanct? What gives? Which god do we truly serve?

Clearly, there is some cognitive dissonance at play here, people. Until we untangle our minds, we’re not going to be able to make any progress figuring out how to get out of this mess that we’re currently mired in.

Now, I believe that the goal of any ideology, political or otherwise, is to set up mental barriers - spooks in people’s minds - to confuse and dazzle them. Ideology then is a cynical power play made by ideological magicians to prevent people from fighting over what actually matters. The true name of the game is the pursuit of power and deciding how it is to be distributed. That is the prize actually being fought over and the rest is just emotional and intellectual shum to further the hidden goal: concentration of power in one sector/segment of society over others and the subsequent justification for the power status quo at any given time.

It is a simple, observable fact that the peasants do not have much say at all in the true decision-making processes in any of our countries. An unaccountable oligarchy, an unaccountable secret police, and an unaccountable ideological priest class are the real power-brokers in our current political system. The rest is theater and more and more people are waking up to that fact.

Why is it then that our undying belief in the principles of democracy and voting do not extend to these undemocratic institutions? Any thinking person has to admit that our democracy appears to be artificially limited, and limited for no reason that stands up to any serious scrutiny.

Regime-approved intellectuals and the peasants that they hold in their intellectual thrall tell us that voting and the power of the people ought to be limited, even though the reasons that they give for this are arbitrary and inconsistent. Why should the mayor’s office be democratized, but the CEO position of Gazprom left alone? Why is it a sin against the G-d of Israel to essentially nationalize/democratize large monopolies? Why is it good to allow big business to operate a parallel, feudal system in our society?

The answer is, as always, the ideological spooks that have taken to nest like cockroaches in people’s heads preventing them from seeing the world clearly.

I want to bring up an example that is less polarized and ideologized to drive home my point. I pose the following question to you: why not let the people vote for the head of the FBI directly? Why not have a referendum on whether or not to have a secret police institution at all?

We should first ask ourselves why we even bother voting for politicians. The principle at play here is that people should have a say in how power is wielded in their countries. And both the FBI and, say, Gazprom are institutions that are essentially the same where it matters most, namely in their ability to wield enormous amounts of political power and use it affect all of our lives profoundly.

Pavlovian hair-trigger, knee-jerk emotional defense of business cartels and their supposed “rights” is a serious obstacle, and it is a wall that I hope to break through eventually. But I will simply side-step it for now by asking people whether or not they ought to have the right to vote for the principle of the school, the chief of police and the garbage-collectors and so on. In America, the peasants have traditionally enjoyed a certain level of control over local institutions that peasants in Communist-occupied countries in the Slavlands were stripped of by the Bolsheviks. That is to say, ideas of local self-governance and of the people having a say in their community are not exactly foreign and beyond the pale (of settlement lol). My point is that the principle of Populist self-rule exists already, in principle and in reality in many places, but that it hasn’t been scaled up to the level that it ought to be if we’re going to be intellectually consistent or concerned with figuring out a way to give more power to the people.

Populism, which is concerned primarily with granting more power to the people to counter-balance other castes in society and using that power against elements of the parasitic elite almost always demands greater democratization of the power process. This process, if allowed to run its course, leads to Authoritarianism eventually, because a strong champion is what the people will vote for, given the chance. Populism, being rooted in the expression of the people, who are themselves rooted in place and a history, is also inherently hostile to a globalist transnational elite and to institutions that have no accountability to the people. Furthermore, Populism isn’t about fetishing the process of voting per se, but about achieving a new status quo where the people are NOT hapless and at the mercy of their oppressors. Many Populist movements rely on the power of the ballot box, sure, but can quickly move to kinetic methods if their primary goals are not achieved.

Point being: the ideal system that we’re talking about here is a political power distribution that is both top and bottom heavy. That means a powerful executive office and an empowered, self-organized peasantry. Few would object to a system where peasants can police themselves, decide who they want to live with and how, and what goal they want to dedicate their community’s time and resources towards.

However, some half-baked Populists begin to resist on an ideological level when it comes to the idea of catapulting a champion to the highest, most powerful office in the land to act as a counterweight to “counter-Populist” forces or creating such a powerful office if it does not exist in the current political system that is in place. This is extremely short-sighted and it is why I spent so much time defending this particular aspect of Populism. The ideal that we should be striving towards is a system that actively strips power from the “middle” which can be conceptualized as the eternal bureaucratic machine, the secret police, the oligarchs and the “institutions” that Liberalism is so fond of erecting to curb the power of Populism with so-called “checks and balances”.

Giving more power to the peasants means giving the peasants a say in whether or not they want to be locked down and forcibly vaxxed by Big Pharma and their backers in the federal government and the international NWO cabal. It means local communities being able to rally around local hetman and able to mount a defense against transgender shock-troopers being sent into their libraries and schools to molest and indoctrinate their children. It means a well-armed and well-organized peasantry capable of working together to defend their interests instead of squabbling over made-up issues over Thanksgiving dinner that the journalist class cooked up as a means of dividing and turning them against one another. Sadly, we no longer have any of those things. We also no longer have a powerful, popular executive position capable of supporting us in our fight against the powers that be. The oligarchy, the spooks, the media and the other Liberal institutions enjoys far more power than the office of the President in most all countries.

On a fundamental level, the problem has to first be outlined and understood before any steps can be taken to actually combat it. We find ourselves in an ideological prison, first and foremost. People simply do not think in the manner that I have outlined above. Self-styled intellectuals chase after ideological spooks instead of looking under the hood of our political regime and seeing it for what it truly is with clear eyes.

Power has to be studied. It has to be explained. We need an institute for the study of power. For now this blog will have to do. And then, people need to make hard changes in their thinking before we can make any progress at all. I can’t stress this enough: the greatest obstacle that we face is the stubborn refusal of the modern peasantry to comprehend the nature of the enemy that they face.

Having said all that, feel free to ignore everything I wrote and simply fall back on the default whining about human rights, healthcare, veganism or whatever it is that gets your emotional high going in the comments below.