American right wing subversion of democracy

Anybody with a serious interest in protecting America's democratic institutions should pay heed to this article by a former Republican staffer who left his party in disgust. It paints a truly terrifying picture of where we are headed.

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779

Sure...bro. Sounds like 2012 is going to be a bad year for you and all of the effeminate beta males.

It was an interesting read. It certainly seemed to make sense of a lot of things. I'm eager to read what others think of this article.

>>2

here's a bright idea - Why don't you actually read this article before making some irrelevant comment, or are you afraid it might challenge your insular world view?

Democrats and Republicans would be nothing without each other, they both fulfil a fundamental role in machine politics revolving around controlling opposition.

1: Both parties try to appease various groups, of which rational voters are a small proportion and corporatists are a significant proportion.
2: Both parties oppose whatever the other party supports in order to attract voters, it's like "the price is right", their position on an issue only needs to be slightly more in one direction than their opponent in order to guarantee them support and since both parties realize this they usually compete and get around 50%.
3: Both parties also realize a 3rd party would disrupt this, they don't want to be stuck between 2 prices like some contestants on the price is right, so they cooperate to neutralize 3rd parties.
4: Both parties are a major influence on political culture, if this system results in minor contradictions they are in a position to change people's perceptions of this.
5: It would be no use if one party supported everything the corporations want and another opposed everything, it would be too obvious, so both parties oppose and support corporatists in various ways while harboring the opposite position of the other party as explained. Naturally the parties merely tolerate their token anti-corporatist positions and create propoganda to make it seem as though they care while really putting most of their effort into their pro-corporatist positions.

I can't be bothered to explain everything but I don't think this is really a case of which is the lesser evil, saying Republicans are evil is like saying it was the gun not the bullet that killed JFK.

>>5
I see no reason why the US cannot have a multi-party system. There are other federal republics that have a presidential system that have more than two parties in their legislatures. There's nothing in the Constitution that stipulates that there be only two parties in Congress. Politics is absolutely insane here.

>>6
This actually brings to mind how similar the developments in our party system and businesses have been. We began with an ideal that many will compete and the best will be chosen. Over the years, it has dwindled down to the consumer/citizen having the real choice of only a few large and influential/recognizable entities.

I see no reason why the US cannot have a multi-party system.
The biggest problem is that forming a third party would divide similar minded voters from their current party and weaken them. Tea Party would split the Republican Party, Green Party would split the Dems and so on. The party that doesn't split would usually have an easy victory.

>>8
Which is why the Tea party is eating the Republicans from the inside out. Liberals did the same thing years ago with the Democrats.

>>6

It's because of our voting system. The US has a single member district system, one politician for one district, even if he/she got just 51% of the votes. The other 49% is irrelevant. This encourages the formation of "big tent" parties, which focus on appealing to a wide variety of groups to gain as many votes as possible over the other party. Any more than two parties doesn't work, the weakest (third party) is pushed out.

Meanwhile, under a proportional representative system, districts elect multiple representatives based on how many votes their party received. As an example, if Party A got 45%, Party B got 30%, and Party C got 15% of the votes, A would get three reps, B two, and C one, or some other proportion or based on population. Under this system, third parties are viable and even encouraged.

There's also political polarization and corporatism, but those are more like symptoms.

>>10
I would think that abolishing first past the post voting would solve that problem. It doesn't necessarily have to have PR to work, but it does require restructuring of how both houses conduct their daily business (not to mention new mechanisms in place for when things get out of control under a multi-party system).

>>2
Most "alpha males" don't even know what an alpha male is.

America's founding fathers would all be considered right wing white nationalist "extremists"
The subversion of democracy happens because niggers and women are allowed to vote.

>>8
The biggest problem is that it's illegal for a third party to get on the ballot in most places.

>>5
Yup it's just a show, and everyone who votes grants legitimacy to a scam system.
Suggesting that america has some sort of "right wing" conspiracy who are trying to subvert democracy implies that
a) This right wing conspiracy exists(it doesn't beyond a few patriotic men who don't bow down to the jew)
b) that america is a democracy
c) that subverting the government isn't the proper thing to do because nothing will be done "through the system"!

>>13

See, the article makes a point of this but you probably tl;dr'd. It's a positive feedback loop. First you make government as impotent and inefficient as possible. Then when government can't get anything done, say that government is bad, then use that as an excuse to make it even weaker.

When you're actively subverting government, and using the results of that subversion to say "nothing will be done through the system", it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's easy to just abandon something altogether, like you're advocating, rather than working to fix it. There are too many forces at work which absolutely fear the prospect of an efficient government working for the public good, and they manipulate people like you into believing it's impossible.

>There are too many forces at work which absolutely fear the prospect of an efficient government working for the public good

You are such a fucking retard for even trying to imply that. You're conveniently demonize people by implying bullshit that isn't even realistic.

You're an embarrassment to the human race.

>>14
>First you make government as impotent and inefficient as possible.
the way it should be.

>say that government is bad
Nope, a conservative relies on his own wits and hard work.

You need to shut the fuck up you retarded statist slave and learn to stand on your own two feet.

>>16

The government is actually there to ensure the upward mobility of it's citizens.

You think you would be better off under aristocratic or plutocratic regimes?

>>17
We're already living under a Jew-plutocrat regime.

Good little lieberals always love to bitch and moan about Wall Street and the big bankers.  When someone mentions that Wall Street has more kikes in it than Tel Aviv and the big bankers are mostly kikes too, they get really really quiet for some reason.  Why do you suppose that is?

>>5
So what can we actually *do* to splinter this shit up?

We could use a proliferation of new, hip, attractive parties.

>>18
Why do you suppose that is?
Because the liberals know their paymasters are jewish.

I never realized the Obama fags were such hate mongers. :)

A government's perceived 'success' is the opinion of the governed. The form of government's 'success' is the opinion of the governed.

A monarch, Queen Elizabeth-I, did a damn good job of leading England; overseeing the defeat of the Spanish Armada, which allowed the British Empire to become a hyper-power through naval domination, along with her reign being a period  of economic prosperity.

Another monarch, Napoleon I, nearly conquered all of Europe while at the same time having the popular support of most of the conquered. He created a revolutionary legal code that still exists today, albeit heavily modified, in France.

An Aristocrat, Otto Van Bismark, unified the German-states and established the first partially government-funded healthcare and retirement plans, successfully making Germany more appealing to the Germans than immigration to the Americas.

A Fascist, Adolf Hitler, allowed for rapid economic and military advancement of an unstable, debt-ridden Germany  to super-power status in addition to creating a government that was extremely stable as long as the Fuhrer's underlings did not acquire too much power individually, which he was successful in preventing, something that is usually only attributed to Democracy. (and he was over-all a greater evil, but ignoring his racial ideology and racially motivated actions he was an excellent leader in most other fields until he started abusing amphetamines). He also nearly spread a banking system which cut out the private sector, saving citizens a lot of money and giving the nation far more control over it's currency.

A communist, Mao Zedong, succeeded in taking a China that was unmodern, war torn, and near-incompetent militarily and set it up to become a major industrial power with rapid economic success with a military capable of pushing back the UN+USA in the Korean War that later acquired nuclear weapons.



Would people under these nations choose democracy instead? Probably not. Those under Nazi Germany gladly rejected it (it was fairly obvious that the Reichstag was a rubber-stamp parliament). Tyranny often spawns from Democracies, with popular support of the people.

Furthermore, success could be interpreted as say, making the country more Religious could be seen as success if the people were Puritans.

>>22
Those under Nazi Germany gladly rejected it (it was fairly obvious that the Reichstag was a rubber-stamp parliament).
The Social Democratic Party (SDP) voted against Hitler's Enabling Act. It seems like the other political parties were either spineless or too afraid to speak out against the new regime.

>>23
The majority of the population voted for the Nazi Party, or the DNP which was in support of Hitler. After Hitler seized power the majority, 75% of the population, supported him fully, though most believed the other parts of the government to have substantial corruption. Despite the widespread belief that the other parts of the government were corrupt, the Fuhrer was seen as acting in the nation's best interests and being personally non-corrupt, so his government was tolerated.

Of course the socialists were pissed off, but they were a minority. A minority of any large population is always dissatisfied with the government.

Would the socialists have been better at governing Germany? Maybe, maybe not. If they did come to power WWII might not have happened, or would have happened at a later date with different sides (Socialist vs non-Socialist), and Germany would have kept all of it's territory (though the Nazis could have stopped at Poland, only taking the pre-WWI territory now a part of Poland leaving Poland land-locked, and evading WWII while having a much larger, much more powerful, Germany and allowing Fascism and Imperialism to exist into the modern day [and the glorious British Empire would still be top dog]).

>>24
The majority of the population voted for the Nazi Party, or the DNP which was in support of Hitler. After Hitler seized power the majority, 75% of the population, supported him fully, though most believed the other parts of the government to have substantial corruption. Despite the widespread belief that the other parts of the government were corrupt, the Fuhrer was seen as acting in the nation's best interests and being personally non-corrupt, so his government was tolerated.
I don't know where you're getting this from, but the fact that Hitler effectively abolished the German parliament via the Enabling Act pretty much rendered what the rest of the population felt about the National Socialist regime moot (as he pretty much silenced the people's voice in government). Hitler would have carried on whether or not it was popular for him to do so.
Would the socialists have been better at governing Germany? Maybe, maybe not. If they did come to power WWII might not have happened
SPD was the top political party before the Nazis came to power, and I think even before the days of the Weimar Republic.
and allowing Fascism and Imperialism to exist into the modern day [and the glorious British Empire would still be top dog]).
Meh, it probably would have collapsed some other way. If not World War II, then something else would have.

>>25
>>I don't know where you're getting this from, but the fact that Hitler effectively abolished the German parliament via the Enabling Act pretty much rendered what the rest of the population felt about the National Socialist regime moot (as he pretty much silenced the people's voice in government). Hitler would have carried on whether or not it was popular for him to do so.

They stated all theire intentions virtually from the onset. Everyone knew he was going to keep his promise and purge the corrupt parties which tried to seperate germany into internal factions thus weakening germany. And they needed strong government.

Even though he metioned all his intentions beforehand and 75% of the people voted for regardless, you are still going to claim complete refutation, that he didnt win the election, that the people didnt support him, and that it wasn't right to disband the parlament even after getting all those votes to do that.... I can't believe you sir....

If it wasn't 75% then what was it, comeon if we are fabricating everything then tell us how things really are. Get sources for everything mr source.man? Go on do it? Prove you're point.

But sir I beseach that whatever you do, that you do not hide behind half formed, unbacked statements with no substance to refute so that you can levy you're cheap lies and accusations against the germans without systematic refutal of you're points, for such is the cheap and feebleminded lies of the jews, the lowliest form of life on the planet.

>American right wing subversion of democracy

It's kinda getting very communist in here today OP?

/snicker

Isn't democracy, rule of the people socialist or left wing? Lol. But then wouldn't the right wing allso claim to be democratic?

Capitalism is a very recent invention, a mere few hundred years ago and the property belonged to the tribe. Communism is a Jewish reactionary movement to the jewish movement of capitalism designed to allow them to gain controll of other mens work without doing any work ironically themself.

Left-right wing politcs is a reactionary movement to the communist-capitalist, german traditionalist socialst movement conflict to avoid internall conflict in our current countries by claiming to represent our views, whilst not really representing anyones as much as possible least they insight responses from the oposition in todays post ww2 politcal system.

The left-right wing spectrum is an illusion, neither capitalist nor communist and Jewish in its entirety. So you mean Jewish subversion of democracy right?


Just like Jewish subversion of greek democracy (greek callapse), Jewish subversion of roman democracy (roman collapse), Jewish subversion of 1st, 2nd and 3rd germany (and 123 crash), Jewish subversion of ammerican democracy (american collapse).

And at every stage prominint people of there times like henry ford (book: jews the world foremost problem), several popes, Julius Ceaser (executed in parliament by the senators, alot of which financed him in return for favours ^.^ jew feeling much?) and other learned and knowledgeable people repeatatively pointed out thiere precise actions and all of which where silenced/disapeared, had a bad turn of luck etc...

No wonder the Jews have been kicked out of so many countries in the world, and are the only race to have had almost universal laws banning them from activities and entry into countries at one point in time. No wonder they now need there own country (running outa ones they can reside safely in without fear of mass reprisals, and there own nuclear armed military.

Imagine if the holocaust had actually happend lol.

Why is it that the jews slowly cause the eventual collapse of any entity that hosts them for to long, and why is it that after each collapse Jews become stronger, richer, and increasingly more privellaged and protected by law? And what is theire goals and reasoning behind causeing these collapse? What do jews think of non-jews? What do jews think about jewish txts that talk about executing jews whom see jew gold go to non-jews.

And why is jew-gold the most prevelant form of gold?

>Isn't democracy, rule of the people socialist or left wing? Lol. But then wouldn't the right wing allso claim to be democratic?

Speak English you gay assed Nazi Muslim.

>>26
for such is the cheap and feebleminded lies of the jews, the lowliest form of life on the planet.
Ah, so your true intentions finally reach the surface. It would have been nice if you had done so earlier.

>>27

>calling somebody a communist based on nothing
>making sure people know you are snickering at them by typing out '/snicker'

Fuck off back to the Fox news comments section aight?

>>31
Why would I do that when I can wipe my bloody dick onto your teddy bear tonight. Make sure you stutter Fox News over and over for me. OK?

/snickering

I do love shattering the little minds of people who can't tolerate different opinions.