Do White People "Deserve" to Die Out?
Posted on: 11/08/2017 09:49 PM

by John Young

Democracy in its original form had nothing to do with voting. Rather, the focus was on civic participation -- participating in the life, responsibilities and culture of the people.


I recently read a lamentation on the Internet that went something like this: "if white people are so easily duped and so incredibly vulnerable to deception, if their altruism is so maladaptive they willingly pay for their own kids to be raped, maybe they should die out."

It is an interesting point that on the surface may make sense, but suffers from a number of incorrect assumptions and even outright ignorance.

The first assumption is what I will call the democratic assumption. There does not exist on earth any definable group of people with a majority of members having the breadth of knowledge, long-range vision, ethnic heart and intellectual strength to make the right decisions in the face of complex issues. No group has this. One of the fatal flaws of the popular understanding of democracy is that it has been confounded with franchise, wherein a person who can't even find their country on a map gets to choose on the basis of popularity a person who will make decisions about nuclear weapons and the future of life on earth.

And this is one reason why the leftist forces of entropy have long advocated for universal franchise. They know that most people of any group are not suited to lead. They can't even make intelligent decisions for themselves, much less for others, so their exercise of franchise will always result in the destruction of civilization.



Just think for a moment. Maybe 400 years ago, most people in our culture did not choose their own husband or wife, yet despite Henry VIII literally forming his own church in order to obtain divorce, divorce was incredibly rare. Today, when people are allowed to choose their own spouse, fully 50% of those marriages end in divorce. And this doesn't count all the broken engagements and the failed attempts that never make it to marriage. If average people can't even handle such a mundane choice, how are they to ascertain the veracity of global warming claims and the suitability of proposals for amelioration -- and then vote on the right candidate to implement that?

Democracy in its original form had nothing to do with voting. Rather, the focus was on civic participation -- participating in the life, responsibilities and culture of the people.

Even in America, all that was required by the Constitution was that the states have a republican form of government -- that is, a form of government in which the government had powers that were specifically granted whereas the people were free to do anything that wasn't specifically prohibited. If you look at the original Constitution before it was amended, our Senators were appointed by the governments of the States they represented, our President was selected by a group of electors appointed by the States and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President. The only office that was elected was the House of Representatives. Everyone else was either appointed, or selected by a small group of presumably wise people.

Due to current victimhood narratives, it is generally assumed that free white men have always had the right to vote in America, but that is not true. At the time of the war between the States, fully 60% of the over 600,000 white men who died, had no right to vote. That is because most states had property ownership requirements, literacy tests and similar requirements in order to assure that those who voted had a stake in the outcome beyond being free riders, and enough wisdom to make a good choice in their selections.

Even our founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, realized that there is a natural aristocracy among men, and that these natural aristocrats are those who should lead our people.

So the lamentation I described above demonstrates not just a misunderstanding of democracy and franchise, but also a profound misunderstanding of human nature.

People need leaders who should be men of wisdom, intellect and moral integrity who have the long term wellbeing of the people and culture at heart. In past eras this was served by a manorial system and aristocracy. This certainly had problems, as all human institutions do, but this fell not out of its failure to maintain the people and culture -- but out of a conversion to mercantilism. Mercantilism created an environment in which moneyed interests took predominance. It is even arguable that commerce is the primary reason the United States sought its independence from Britain in the first place, and most certainly why the Articles of Confederation were replaced with the Constitution. (See "Hologram of Liberty" by Boston T. Party)

As far back as we have written history, the bulk of our people had no authority over policy. That authority was held by people who were bred and trained to rule in the interests of the people and the culture. It is only in the past 150 years with universal franchise that the gullibility of the common man has even become an issue. Universal franchise is a great favorite of the forces of dissolution, because the votes of those who should be leading are cancelled multiple times by the votes of those who should be following. And due to the Dunning-Kruger effect, those who should be following instead of leading are unaware of that fact.

As previously mentioned, inherited aristocracy had issues, and the system in our original Constitution sought to correct for that by limiting franchise in such a way that great men who were worthy leaders -- Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Monroe -- would be in positions of leadership.

I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth among those who should be following already. But consider this before you get too upset.

You have voted yourself a disaster. The unfunded liabilities of the governments you've elected at the state and federal levels exceed the value of everything in the country combined. You have voted us an alienated multicultural cesspool in which terrorism is quickly becoming a common occurrence. You have voted us an economic system that enslaves people to the economy rather than the economy serving the people. You have voted to create a world where your children could easily be genocided in open ethnic warfare that could have been completely avoided.

But meanwhile, what do you really want? Maybe a good homelife with a good spouse, kids and joy. Maybe the ability to work an occupation that gives you satisfaction. Maybe some degree of predictability and stability that will allow you to save for the future and leave an inheritance to your kids. Maybe some liesure time in which you enjoy your friends and activities. None of these things require franchise to achieve.

Furthermore, the natural aristocracy of which Jefferson spoke is not entirely hereditary. They are an outgrowth of our people, and created via their own merit. Even if you, personally, are not a part of that aristocracy, your child COULD be. And under proper leadership, even while you enjoy your right to keep and bear arms, your child won't be shot to death at church.

So the lamentation is incorrect. There is plenty of reason to work for the preservation and progress of our Folk. Save for the serious criminals, the insane and the deformed -- who should receive proper care -- ALL of our Folk are necessary and they all have proper places and roles. The fact they have made bad decisions is not a sign of their weakness, but a result of their being put into a position in which they should never have been placed.



Printed from Western Voices World News (http://www.wvwnews.net/content/index.php?/news_story/do_white_people_deserve_to_die_out.html)