A.N.U.S.

American Nihilist Underground Society

ANUS.COM: American Nihilist Underground Society (A.N.U.S.) at www.anus.com
RSS feed of ANUS.com opinions and news Mailing list:
Search anus.com:

Nihilism, Futurist Traditionalism and Conservationism

Who should rule you

06 03 12 - 16:49

The truth finally comes out, 223 years later:


The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies. - "People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say," by Natalie Wolchover, LiveScience


Why is the right rising?

We reject equality.

You either look at the world through yourself, or in the big picture.

The latter is for conservatives: we care how things actually work.

Liberalism, starting in 1789, has been a descent into human narcissism.

The world is turning right as we realize that democracy is a dead-end path to total Nanny State/Corporate control.

Who should rule?


The Highly Sensitive Person has always been part of the human landscape. There's evidence that many creative types are highly sensitive, perceiving cultural currents long before they are manifest to the mainstream, able to take in the richness of small things others often miss. Others may be especially sensitive to animals and how they are handled. They're also the ones whose feelings are so easily bruised that they're constantly being told to "toughen up."

Today, science is validating a group of people whose sensitivity surfaces in many domains of life. Attuned to subtleties of all kinds, they have a complex inner life and need time to process the constant flow of sensory data that is their inheritance. Some may be particularly prone to the handful of hard-to-pin-down disorders like chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. Technology is now providing an especially revealing window into that which likely defines them all—a nervous system set to register stimuli at very low frequency and amplify them internally. - "Sense and Sensitivity," Psychology Today


Remember the wise words of Arthur Schopenhauer:


"Plato had something of the kind in mind when, in the fifth book of his Republic, he explained his plan for increasing and improving his warrior caste. If we could castrate all scoundrels and stick all stupid geese in a convent, and give men of noble character a whole harem, and procure men, and indeed thorough men, for all girls of intellect and understanding, then a generation would soon arise which would produce a better age than that of Pericles."


In another context, Schopenhauer reiterated his antidemocratic-eugenic thesis: "If you want Utopian plans, I would say: the only solution to the problem is the despotism of the wise and noble members of a genuine aristocracy, a genuine nobility, achieved by mating the most magnanimous men with the cleverest and most gifted women. This proposal constitutes my Utopia and my Platonic Republic".[42] Analysts (e.g., Keith Ansell-Pearson) have suggested that Schopenhauer's advocacy of anti-egalitarianism and eugenics influenced the neo-aristocratic philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, who initially considered Schopenhauer his mentor. - "Arthur Schopenhauer," Crowdist Group Blog


The left got by for 200 years by calling us racist, elitist, sexist, etc. It was all nonsense.

Their fear is that the return of sanity will come.

A sanity which ranks some above others, and restores natural selection and a sanctity of life.

They fear it, because they are corrupt inside.

It's time to purge them and in their place, put a functional and realistic conservative Empire.

fourteen comments

Brett Stevens fan
Brett, stop being a goofy asshole. NO ONE WILL RULE ANYONE! This "rise" of conservatism will dwindle so fast once either one of these for GOP candidates are a fluke just like Obama.

FREEWILL IS HERE! Stop trying to force your gay fantasies of homogeneous America on everyone. How long have you been preaching this bullshit Two decades?

Dude, just the fuck up and kill yourself. Brett Stevens fan (Email ) - 07-03-’12 17:30
YukioM
Spot on Brett. Don't let the marginally-literate haters of life drag you down. YukioM - 07-03-’12 20:47
Yeah, not just say it, show it.
"The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. "

Well, Natalie Wolchover is wrong. The democratic process does not rely on that idea. It asserts simply that the majority deserves to make that choice, whether it's the best choice or not. And if they get the wrong choice, they deserve it.

And of course, the US does not have that kind of purely democratic process, it has a constitutional democratic process, which is designed to patch up some of those potential bad choices by the majority.

Now, go ahead, make the argument that we shouldn't have a mixed government of that kind, that we should go straight for dictatorship or monarchy. But the idea that there are problems with the democratic idea doesn't get you all the way there. You need to show that the dictatorship or monarchy would actually be better, that it would be a net gain. Yeah, not just say it, show it. - 08-03-’12 13:00
Time Curator 23
Sorry, but Natalie is not wrong. Any FUNCTIONAL democratic process DOES rely on an informed, intelligent electorate. Why would anyone care about a dysfunctional one?

Sorry, but ANUS HAS shown it would be better, many times in fact (as has history itself, I might add).

Sorry, we don't have a constitutional representative republic. We have a plutocratic duopoly banana republic that has no goal beside hypercommerce.

People deserve what they get? There are consequences for our actions (and inactions)? Why yes indeed. More the reason to end democracy. Time Curator 23 - 08-03-’12 15:39
TLDR, I know
We don't care about a specifically functional or a specifically dysfunctional one. We care about the justification for adopting a democratic process in the first place. And that justification is NOT any claim that by and large, the majority of people are informed and intelligent. The justification is, and has always been, that the people, have a right to control the country, by majority vote, whether they're intelligent and informed or not.

Again, I'm talking about a pure democracy there. A constitutional democracy is based on the idea that the people have the right to control matters by majority, but only up to a certain point.

And yes, that is what we have. The problems of the influence of money are real, but they do not chance the basic structure of our system. No system works perfectly as it's designed; every system is only as consistent with its founding principles as the people who run it; that doesn't mean those founding principles aren't there. (And a monarchy would be the same way.)

ANUS certainly hasn't shown that a monarchy would be better. For one thing, ANUS's idea of what's "better" is grossly incongruous to the rest of the world's idea. For ANUS, "better" includes the routine acceptability of genocide, slavery, punishment without trial, and the like.

For another, ANUS refuses to give a real idea of what *would* be better. It gives vague ideas like "healthy/sane society", and suggests that only the smart should survive and we should go to space more; why?

And even if you accept that idea, there's no proof that a monarchy would get you to that kind of good.

And history itself? If you can seriously look at the monarchies and dictatorships of the world, and compare their standards of living, art, and technological achievements favorably to what democracies have achieved, then again, I guess you just have a different idea of "better" than most of the world.

I don't follow the logic of that last point. How is the idea that people deserve what they get a reason to end democracy? With democracy, people make choices, and maybe those choices are unwise and they suffer the consequences. If you end democracy, then someone else makes the choices for them, so if things are still shitty (and they will be), they will be justified in simply blaming someone else for all their problems. Which version is more in tune with reality now? TLDR, I know - 08-03-’12 16:19
No, you don't get to just let ANUS pick the leaders.
From the same (top) study:

'Nagel concluded that democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders."'

That alone is advantage enough. No other system has found a reliable way to prevent this, certainly not the monarchy system. No, you don't get to just let ANUS pick the leaders. - 08-03-’12 16:30
Brett Stevens fan
@YukioM

Shut the hell up, you chink bitch. Brett Stevens fan - 08-03-’12 16:48
Time Curator 23
The American Revolutionary War was merely the replacing of a corrupt British royal class with a corrupt American merchant class; plutocracy remained firmly in place; appearance changed, but reality did not.

We do not have a democracy -- of any sort. No democracy has ever existed. In every society, there has always been, and always will be, elites and masses. A minority rules over the majority. This is because only a minority of individuals from any given culture are ever conscious.

Plato was forthright and brave enough to expose this in his Commonwealth / Republic. Democracy is a sort of hoodwinking of the masses, making them think they are empowered participants when nothing could be further from the truth. Time Curator 23 - 09-03-’12 12:54
Time Curator 23
Marcuse pointed out that totalitarianism is a form of societal coordination.

In other words, it does not need a political face or form. I could well have an economic one. But if people are only watching out for political totalitarianism, they might completely miss economic totalitarianism.

In other words, you might have an "open" and "free" society, politically speaking, while having a very tyrannical, master-slave society, economically speaking.

Something to ponder. Time Curator 23 - 09-03-’12 13:04
Something to shut the fuck up about.
@Time Curator, let's say that you're right: we do not have a democracy of any sort. Then the entire premise of this post is false, right? If you don't like democracy, as the OP of this post doesn't, then you have nothing to complain about with the US government. It's not a democracy.

Glad we settled that. Let's enjoy our great non-democracy. Something to shut the fuck up about. - 09-03-’12 13:23
Time Curator 23
Well, we are not complaining. We are just saying that there is a better way of living.

Well, while we do not prefer democracy, we also do not prefer plutocracy.

So we do have something to speak up about. Time Curator 23 - 09-03-’12 15:51
Say it. It's because we do have a democracy, and you're full of shit.
Well, you are complaining.

And if it's plutocracy you think we have, and democracy has never existed, then perhaps this post should have cited an article studying why the underpinnings of plutocracy are flawed.

Why the fuck did you even mention democracy if you don't think we, or anyone else, has a democracy? Say it. It's because we do have a democracy, and you're full of shit. - 09-03-’12 18:15
Somnambulist
@Say it: why don't you read 'The Problem of Democracy' by Alain de Benoist. It's really short, you could probably read it in a few days. Somnambulist - 09-03-’12 19:10
eyeless
Going on it's etymological meaning, Democracy is not a thing, has no place, and history begins to whisper of it's impossibility. A plutarchy is the reality of the situation in any case. Royalty is just another form of such a thing.

We always have a problem with it, so let'slook at what leadership is. Seeing clearly what others are too small minded to see, and herding everyone towardsit. The media in Britain is upset with the government over a lack of coherent direction, a lack of leadership.

If we trust the people to lead themselves, they will grow in intelligence and responsibility to meet the need. To have a leader means, in this case, a facilitator of communication. Decentralise this model, disperse leadership to the 1000 person mark, and everyone is happy. eyeless - 13-04-’12 03:20


(optional field)
(optional field)

Remember personal info?
Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.