One issue that has the potential to cause confusion is the racial psychology of leadership. Are Aryans (I speak of the prehistoric race and its genetic legacy here) more inclined to democracy or autocracy? What about Gentiles? We observe that Gentiles in the modern world are arrogant and uncooperative. Any suggestion that people should organise themselves for the common good is met with accusations of ‘infringing on their rights’ and the attitude that people should mind their own business. However, Gentiles are also much more inclined than Aryans to following traditions, conforming to public opinion and social norms and sacrificing their individuality for group identity. They rarely think independently or express controversial ideas. Even most racists feel the end to avoid controversy by saying things like ‘I’m not racist, but…’ And leading the group they have submitted themselves too is often a leader, who impresses them by displays of power and strength.
Gentiles are only impressed by leaders who embrace and affirm the values of the group. They are averse to a reformer because reform suggests the possibility that their values and beliefs are flawed. They will not listen to such a leader no matter how good his ideas are. Gentiles put a leader who as similar as possible to themselves in power in order to convince themselves of their own worth. Or it may be that by having a leader who embraces group values, they feel less ashamed at having sacrificed their individuality, since the allegedly best person in their society also follows these values. This is why politicians who make themselves out to be ‘one of the people’ or come from ‘humble origins’ so often succeed in democracies, and why those who do not do this, hoping the people will judge them on the quality of their ideas and competence as a statesman alone are seen as ‘aloof.’
Aryans, on the other hand, will consider the ideas of a potential leader and follow them if they judge the ideas to be good.
One of the main criticisms of autocracy is that there has never been one that is benevolent, however this is false. It is telling that the person most often quoted with reference to this idea is Zionist swine Winston Churchill, who said ‘democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.’ In Europe, people often have a bad impression of autocracy due to the legacy of feudalism, but there were many benevolent leaders in pre-feudal Europe. There are many stories demonstrating the nobility of the Anglo-Saxon kings, for example, and the feudal monarchs that came later were unrelated – Gentiles who had conquered the more Aryan Anglo-Saxon kings. In the Roman Empire, despite the brutality and decadence of some emperors, we find some extremely noble emperors who still bore substantial Aryan blood, such as Marcus Aurelius and Julian the Apostate. Going back further in time in Europe, we can point to the kings of Europe’s great Aryan civilization, the Minoans, who presided over a society of socioeconomic and gender equality for several centuries. The same is true in other parts of the world. And in the early modern period, there was Napoleon and Frederick the Great.
Another disgusting pro-democratic quote comes from Alexis de Tocqueville, who said ‘In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.’ This quote captures the anti-individualistic core of democracy, since instead of treating people like individuals it judges an entire population based on the behaviour of the numerical majority. I remember when the government was trying to push SOPA, there was a comment on an article saying ‘If you don’t have anything to hide, you don’t need to worry about SOPA.’ Say the majority of people agreed with him (and, in my experience, the majority of people DO have this slavish attitude, just like the majority of people do not question 9/11 or the Holocaust and believe the loss of liberties that has occurred in the last decade is necessary to ‘fight terrorists.’) Say the majority voted for a law like SOPA. Would I, who strongly disapprove of SOPA, deserve to be censored? No, because I do not share the majority opinion and it is not my fault the majority of people are slaves. But according to Alexis de Tocqueille, I would deserve this. And the sort of people who would vote for SOPA if it were ever put to the public vote should never have been allowed to have a say in the first place, on anything, because the way their mind works makes them incapable of being free, so it is pointless to give them a vote as if they were free (although they should not be enslaved or, in this example, censored. They should simply not be able to make important decisions since they will end up enslaving themselves and everyone else, by voting in favour of SOPA, for instance.)
Every ideology that derives from democracy is an extension of this anti-individualistic mentality. For example, I am against modern Feminism, but not because I think women should be subjugated. Modern Feminism is designed to make women seem inferior, although most Feminists do not realise this. There have been campaigns by Feminists, some of which were successful, to demand that a quota should be introduced in certain professions so that a certain proportion of positions have to be filled by women. This gives the impression that women would not be able to do this without help, and that they are getting jobs they do not deserve. But, as usual, the masses are not perceptive enough to see what is going on and hail it as a form of ‘progress’. Exactly the same is true for affirmative action for ethnic minorities. But, getting back on topic, there is an even worse issue here. It is bad enough for someone to be enslaved, but particularly disgusting for someone to be enslaved by someone who is inferior to them. Or, if not enslaved, then occupying a subordinate position to someone who is inferior to them. The injustice here is obvious. In giving any group higher priority than another, it is possible that an inferior person from the high priority group will be commanding a superior person in the lower priority group. Some women are superior to some men, and they should occupy a higher position, but if it is the man who is superior, he should occupy the higher position. This should be obvious, and yet this simple principle of judging people based on quality has been lost in identity politics (i.e. anti-individualistic politics.)
The most extreme example of identity politics defeating the individual principle is the relationship between adults and children. This site continuously stresses that children tend to be superior to adults in morality. I will not be drawn into a debate on this, because this is yet another example of the identity politics I am writing against. However, it is definitely true that some children are superior to some adults in morality (and even in intelligence) and it is disgusting for them to have to take orders from someone inferior to them. Of course, I think that the enslavement of children (which is the situation we have) is disgusting anyway, but I want to point out the link between this situation and the conflict between the democratic view that judges people based on membership of a group and the individualistic, anti-democratic view that judges people based on quality.
The world we live in today is backwards – the worst people are the ones making all the decisions and the best people have been marginalised and have no influence. Hopefully we can do something about this.