If good grammar is not enough, then what is enough?
The collapse of bedrock religious institutions within the country has totally shattered the ability of this country to have general shared understanding of what is something that is good. america had healthy protestant institutions but they got hollowed out with evangelicals and megachurches.
The new law must be combatted with institutional capture. It cannot be defeated without using extreme means. The systems of governance are dysfunctional - the very mechanism Thomas Aquinas used to declare the immorality of duels in question 40! While it is always important to have the capacity to inflict extreme violence, that does not mean it is an effective means conducive to whatever the desired ends are.
Democracy needs to be rolled back.
It happens from creating organizations of social credit which exclude others and take care of members. Making things private is the only way to roll back democracy without institutional power.
domains can be charity, education, food catering, media, trades, and religious organization.
the right want things to stay the same, the left wants to change things as much as they can. gay race communism and the whole lot. did you know the nazis were leftists? they wanted guarantees and job security for every german. they had to compete against the communists in the idea sphere of 1920s germany and had to rip certain things to win ardent nazi supporters from the communist camp. and nick fuentes invokes adolf hitler as a saint (for the wrong reasons). if the right is going to do anything radical, they are going to have to invent something completely new (that’s not to say that isn’t already being attempted). the author of the original piece is correct when he says “It cannot be defeated without using extreme means”. rally under your own banner. of course, christianity hasn’t seen this type of militarism since the crusades, and if you were to try and revive it you are fighting upstream against a few schisms that’ve happened since then.
small town political american activism as detocqueville described it in democracy in america is still as alive and active as it’s always been. you can’t take it from these people. as long as there are still populations descended from the original american settlers on this continent, they will be practicing that; sure as a chinaman will study for the test, sure as an indian widow will throw herself on the pyre, sure as the mesoamerinid will do tricks with knives. that is not a good place to start undoing democracy. curtailing democracy can only be scoped at at the federal level.
in DIA detocqueville explains why there is no permanent political statesmanly class in america, and a primary cause is that the salaries of congressmen is less than going into business or financing can make you, so all the most talented people in america go into that instead of statesmanship. increasing the efficacy of our federal government could simply be done by making the salary of a congressman much higher. ^no more clowns like george santos, nancy maye, and lauren bobert^. this would be a break from the spirit of the founding of the country (more on that later), but would still be completely legal under Constitution. the part of the 27th amendment that governs this:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
the circumstances that led to it:
One group of delegates maintained that the Constitution should “fix” salaries for Members of Congress according to an objective standard. During one June 1787 debate, James Madison argued that it would be “an indecent thing” to permit Members of Congress to “regulate their own wages.” 13 Madison believed that the Members of the national legislature would be “too much interested to ascertain their own compensation” and that they might “put their hands into the public purse for the sake of their own pockets.” 14 Instead of adopting this “dangerous” path, Madison proposed tying Members’ salaries to the average price of a commodity, such as wheat.15
Other delegates disagreed with Madison’s view and argued that Members of Congress should determine their compensation by law. For example, Nathaniel Gorham, a delegate from Massachusetts, contended that Members of Congress should have the flexibility to adjust their salaries “from time to time,” noting that state legislators had often done so without incident.16Under this proposal, Members’ salaries would be paid out of the national treasury17 and Congress could adjust its compensation in order to take account of future circumstances.18
A third group of Convention delegates argued that each state government—rather than the Constitution or Congress—should determine compensation for its Members of Congress, which would be paid out of the state’s treasury.19 Delegates who supported this arrangement argued that it would allow each state to adopt the amount of compensation that it deemed reasonable20and prevent states from unwillingly contributing a disproportionate amount of funds to Members’ salaries.21 Proponents also maintained that, by setting Members’ compensation, states could ensure that Senators, whom state legislatures would elect, would not “lose sight of their constituents” when serving in the nation’s capital.22
Delegates who opposed allowing each state to determine its own Members’ compensation independently of the other states, such as Alexander Hamilton, contended that this arrangement would allow state legislatures to exercise too much control over Members of Congress.23 In this vein, opponents noted that individual states would control Members’ salaries despite the fact that “the whole nation has an interest in the attendance and services of [all of] the members.” 24Opponents also argued that frugal states might reduce salaries to such a degree that talented people would not want to serve in Congress.25
the objections to the third proposal (that the state governments field the salaries of their congressmen) have lost their weight somewhat, as the hamiltonian federal model won out since. of course, say, a politically motivated state that wants to hamper the interest of the union for the sake of the state (say, a scenario where lowering tariffs would clearly benefit the union but only at the detriment of a state with a strong manufacturing base) then the state could hold its own representative hostage by threatening to withhold pay if they don’t vote for the interests of their constituency. but, having the states attach a salary to their representatives could quickly become a (mostly healthy) source of pride and competition between which state can pay their reps the most. these considerations make a hybrid model viable, where the federal government pays a flat stipend on top of a bonus fielded by the state. i don’t think the founding fathers considered that one. i think motioning a state-government fielded stipend on top of the already-existing federally-funded salary would actually be the easiest congressman salary reform of all. the formation of a small, nascent, well-paid permanent statesman class is crucial for undermining democracy.
i think the main point of this article is “beat them at their own game”? if the systems of government are dysfunctional, then that is the playing ground you have to play on. you have to play the game the same way that your opponents did, and importantly, you have to learn how to play it better. they already know all the tricks. you have to be prepared that they might know how to take the game to the next level, or move the game outside of the game to some other control plane (in cybernetics, the control plane is a separate thing from the communication plane). it comes down to” you have to learn how to play the game too or you’re fucked. if private organizations of social credit are just the communication mechanisms for re-hijacking the institutions (taking control), then that is fine. if “private institutions” mean withdrawal and isolation, you will be smothered. as soon as the leftist faction that wants to destroy everything takes power again, the continental US will be flooded with tens or hundreds of millions of more migrants. for every white commune there is, there will be a favella down the road of (spoken politely) non-self-governing peoples.
In democracy the bar for holding an institutional position of power is lowered, with, in modern American democracy, few filter for a persons personal morality. Lack of moral guide plus super open democracy means problems.
Democracy needs to be rolled back. How this happens is through private isolated communities. It happens from creating organizations of social credit which exclude others and take care of members. Making things private is the only way to roll back democracy without institutional power.
Private organization acts as nodes of power like political castles allowing interests to assault and battle for the key terrain features which compose the public institutions and therefore dictate not only the public interest but the public.
i don’t think “capturing these types of institutions” is an effective thing to call for. any plan must have a set win condition, fallback partial success conditions, and reasons for it. OP’s post lays out reasons for it: a moral failing in the enforcement of law. (I actually disagree with this parat too, but I am bleeding >2k words here for the fun of it to give people ammo and just see what happens).
filtering for morals requires self-organizing, and the screening of everyone else in the group instead of a checklist screen. this is, in fact, the standard way of forming a group like that. but to prevent votes that destroy beautiful things from taking effect, a competency screen is more effective. those have hard thresholds for cutoffs and there is absolutely no self-organizational overhead at all. rolling back democracy means rolling back the voting power of the individual. it means shrinking the voting pool as much as possible. should i am surprised that all this talk about rolling back democracy doesn’t involve passing a civics test or english proficiency test. if the right is going to make any “extreme” moves at all, shrinking the voting pool is a good place to start. (i shrunk the voting pool: scowling wojak vs. gigachad?)
“rolling back democracy” is enough of “changing things” to be an effective rally cry (for whom?) (again, this has already been explored extensively elsewhere). this cannot just happen through “private isolated communities”. sooner or later a champion political candidate must show up for this. someone runs for senator championing congressman pay reform and voter reform. a few senators campaign on it, and a federal representative and two governors promising to pay their state’s federal representatives. this is when someone gets in front of a camera with his real name and face and a screaming debate moderator says “you are attacking democracy!!!” they stare into the camera and say “yes”. scowling wojack vs. gigachad. someone has to believe in it enough to be loud about it and put something at stake for it. there was a candidate for governor of ohio, casey putsch, who did this, and got 20% of the republican primary vote, which is pretty impressive (he was disavowed by nick fuentes, which makes me think that nick fuentes - despite his truly remarkable political savvy - is an ineffective leader). i want you to imagine lots of globalist-indoctrinated paper-hand-holding flags-of-the-world public elementary school educated liberals to go into a doubt spiral: the things they hold the most sacred are being brazenly attacked. there will be a disturbance in the force, as if millions of front-facing camera video minute-long rants are posted on tiktok about how democracy is in danger.
on the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law: nothing i have proposed here goes against the constitution, but the constitution should not be looked at as a solely blameless document. the constitution only became the cornerstone of american mythos after 1900 - after 60 years of influx of immigrants from many different european countries - and a new loose identity had to be formed around political and religious ideas instead of ethnicity. if someone wanted to make the argument that america is about its effective systems of governance, and not the people, then boy mamdani is your perfect token for that, because (despite everything) he is remarkably effective at governing. but america is a people that has a roots from before the founding. the ethnicity of americans, specifically the (descendants of the) settlers who populated the land, predates the declaration of independence by around 150 years. the declaration of independence was the catalyzing moment that gave those settlers an identity and a rallying point, but the people came before the documents, not the other way around. this is in the spirit of the well-fed guys under wide open skies (they don’t have that in britain) who took up arms against the british. this spirit transfers through horizontal memesis (person-to-person) to most non-descendants, whether they realize it or not. the spirit of america is also alive and well in the constitution, written by these americans who set out to make the most ambitious political project in history; but the people comes before the ambitious political project, not the other way around. it is the spirit of those people that we should be acting in, not the spirit of the constitution itself and even less in the letter of the constitution itself. (OP actually mistakenly goes the other way around in the first paragraphs, treating the constitutions’s hallmark three branches of government as an incarnation of a tripartite system of law enforcement and “institutional law”, instead of merely history’s most ambitious political ARTIFACT of all time. the failings of enforcements do not come down to semantics. if you argue the wrong people in circles around long enough, they just lynch you. the point of departure is admission of non-american blood as citizens) it is still reasonable to propose sweeping changes while still remaining within the constitutional framework, but the constitution itself is not the most sacred thing that animates this continent. it’s first the descendants of those people, and then the transferrable spirit that haunts the rest.