How democracy is anti-individualistic

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.


This entry was posted in Anthony. Bookmark the permalink.

164 Responses to How democracy is anti-individualistic

  1. AS says:


    “I remember reading somewhere that the way we store memories seems to be linked with our ability to understand language–causing very few people to retain memories before they became verbal.”

    Yet another reason why democracy must be destroyed.

    Considering that we obviously had other ways of storing memories (probably the same as how animals do it) prior to learning language, it would be more accurate to say that learning language cripples these earlier ways and even removes most humans’ access to their earlier memories, as usual with the more neotenous tending to be relatively less affected.

    Anyway, pre-verbal memory retention should be one of the tests we use in future to pick out aristocratic bloodlines. (Aristocratic, if you can’t do this, please change your username.)

    “Obviously “SJW” is used as an insult against people who genuinely care about important issues, but I believe some of the negative stereotypes come from reality. For example, I’ve mentioned to you before in private how people who latch onto veganism or environmentalism because they think these causes are cool and ‘trendy’, without actually understanding the moral reasoning behind them, are counterproductive. They make the public’s perception of these issues more negative and make it more difficult for actual activists to make change.”

    I agree. I’m just saying we need to own the term. We obviously have nothing in common with the “Aryan Brotherhood”:

    who similarly attach negative stereotypes to the term “Aryan”, but the fact that they exist was no reason for us to distance ourselves from the term which actually belongs to us. We had a duty to reclaim it. We must also reclaim the term SJW:

    for the simple reason that the words “Social Justice Warrior” carry an originally positive meaning (as does the word “Aryan”).

    “There are words such as “slacktivism” to describe people who think clicking “like” on a link or “donating 5 cents per day to save this poor African child” will actually make a difference in the world. And these people are often very arrogant and love to boast about how much they supposedly care and about how great of a person they are for doing “so much”… I think the general word for this behavior is “virtue signaling”.

    I think we should be willing to acknowledge there is a difference between the people described above and people who sincerely care, but whose rhetoric and strategies may be poor due to being stuck in a False Leftist worldview.”

    Indeed, but rightists also label what Rachel Corrie did as “virtue signalling”. They do not distinguish between slacktivists and real activists, nor between True Left and False Left; anyone to the left of a “cuckservative” is automatically an SJW to them. The only way we can make all these distinctions which need to be made is to lay claim to the term “SJW” and then expel the slactivists etc. from its domain, the same way we expel racists from the Aryan domain.


    “How are simple ordinary working people comparable to Zionists?”

    You think there are no Zionists who are also simple ordinary working people? You should spend some time in Israel. (I recall you have partial Jewish ancestry, so that should be easy for you to arrange.)

    “What is the difference between this site and a democrat like Hillary Clinton?”

    Clinton calls the Alt-Right “deplorables”. We call the Alt-Right “sterilizables” (or “.50-ables” if I am talking to NS). That is the difference. We do not believe their politics are due to ignorance or lack of education or any other of the excuses which the False Left uses, but due to INFERIOR BLOOD.

    Clinton also excludes Jews from her “deplorables”. We include Jews in our “sterilizables”. Clinton would defend the “right” of Jews to preserve their identity. We consider Jewish identitarianism to be every bit as bad as any other identitarianism.

    “Noble people don’t jump ship when the going gets rough.”

    I already dealt with Mixing Bowl who spouted the same rubbish here:

    “You say they were fooled, and then say his rhetoric was racist. So you’re trying to say that Trump is not racist?”

    Trump is racist. His rhetoric is racist. Those who like his rhetoric are racist.

    But his racist rhetoric was a bunch of lies! Therefore those who believed his racist rhetoric were fooled!

    (I actually needed to explain this…..?)

    “Trumps rhetoric was anti establishment, that’s why they voted for him.”

    Rightists perceive the establishment to be anti-racist. Their idea of “anti-establishment” is return to an openly racist culture.

    “And if these voters were racist, then whats your argument for those that once voted for Obama then voted for Trump.”

    Obama’s 2008 opponent was McCain, whom the rightists nicknamed “McAmnesty” – in other words they deemed McCain to be worse than Obama on immigration (which is their top issue).

    I haven’t spoken to any 2012 Obama voters who became 2016 Trump voters.

  2. Pandorastop says:


    Are you the author for this site?

  3. NuminousSun says:


    No I am not the author, but will begin work on an actual website for the True Left shortly. What’s up?

  4. Steven says:

    It was Ossendowski, if I remember rightly….

  5. NuminousSun says:


    The email contact I was given by Hashtali when I was originally going to take control of the site was not Ossendiwski’s. I can dig it up if need be.

  6. Numinous_Sun says:


    Perhaps the take away from that is that Jake S. is so good at what he does he even turned a “white nationalist” vegan… :D

  7. Numinous_Sun says:

    Revealing the secrets of one of Australia’s worst online trolls
    But what makes Nathaniel Jacob Sassoon Sykes particularly unusual is that, despite his neo-Nazi persona, he himself is a Jew.

  8. Pandorastop says:


    Yahoo! Got hacked. That’s “what’s up”.

    I will be migrating to a better provider in the future, but, in the meantime all of my contacts and messages are gone.

    I look forward to seeing your take on a Left site. I financed a domain for the last one and while I applaud the effort, ‘a’ message was lacking. It was basically an inferior copy of this one.

    The “Real Hitler” site, who was that?

    The “ARYnzm” site, who was that?

  9. Legion says:

    “…in other words the apparently more empathic behaviour (which can also be fake, as with Jews) is an effect of being multilingual, rather than higher empathy causing people to want to become multilingual.”

    It’s interesting how the more pure you evaluate yourselves and our enemies, the more behaviors seem to merge and their intentions diverge.

    I am guilty of using homonyms, but I have always used somewhat distinctive pronunciations. Saying words how they are spelled has always been my initiative, and being “corrected” in this has always repulsed me. For example Worcester is definitely not pronounced Wusster and if not ‘Wor-Chester’ then ‘Worce-Ster.’ Language can be so absurd.
    One thing I have always done my whole life is address people based on their profession. Mail man, instructor, etc to me it is reminiscent of the military: Drill Seargeant, etc, yet it relies more on rank than occupation.
    I also, have always hated pranking. Why would someone abuse my trust for the sake of their own humor? How could I trust them in a serious situation after that. One disrespects my property, and now I feel no compulsion to offer them hospitality, yet they are offended by my behavior and claim I am the one causing a conflict between us? I remember a Jew that was part of my group of friends in school, and he used to always disrespect me and my property but then play it off as innocent. If the same was ever done to him by anyone, he would react with violent supremacy.
    What I don’t understand is the dueling logic. I do think dueling is a good concept. I don’t understand why a gruesome outcome is preferable over a clear victory. I also don’t think that any of these suggested dueling tools, besides maybe a gun, create a fairer environment.
    One more thing, there is no attribution to this quote, although that might have been intentional, it is not typical of this website: “Hess was there, with his wife and sister-in-law. In comes a half-drunk student, who permits himself to make some impertinent remarks about them. Hess asks him to come out of the inn with him and clarify his views. Next day two hobbledehoys come to see Hess and ask him to explain the insult to their comrade! I forbade Hess to become involved in this ridiculous affair. … We had an irreparable loss in Strunk … His wife was insulted — he was killed. Where’s the logic? In 1923, Dietrich Eckart was simultaneously challenged to a duel by sixteen or seventeen flabby adolescents. I intervened, and put the whole affair in good order.”

  10. RP says:

    ““Many children are pressured into behaving against their intentions”"
    The statement is also true for children who choose not to eat meat simply out of parental pressure, and thus will end up “rebelling” against their parents by doing the opposite.

  11. Robert Young says:


    “I understand this. I myself am guilty of eating meat until I was 13 even though I had known it was wrong since I was 3 (before that I assumed meat came from animals that had died of old age), because my parents forced me to. (For this alone I deserve to burn in hell.) But I could never have hunted in person. The difference between passive toleration of evil while under oppression and active participation in it – and enjoying this – is one I consider a fair indication of blood memory, which is the topic here.”

    This is literally the same kind of arguments that gang rapists often make when they get charged with rape, by blaming everyone else that participated in a rape by claiming that they were forced into the act of rape. I don’t take them seriously, and I do not take you seriously, either. You still consumed meat, even when you knew that it was ethically wrong to do so.

    Also, you have invited people into your movement that have openly admitted to practicing white supremacy, with said people promising that they will make up for it by becoming born-again aryans, which is repulsively hypocritical of you. Their repulsive attitude is no better than a rapist that tries to cover up his or her rapists by promising to be a better feminist, and you enable that kind of repulsive attitude that deserves condemnation.

  12. William Eastfield says:

    @Rudolf Jungman

    So you’ve been Vegan all your life? Swag.

  13. Mza9 says:

    In a ‘rape’ scenario the victim is still alive, probably crying, screaming, panicking, frightened to death, tortured. Anyone of the participants in that rape who claims they didn’t know the rape was wrong is either a sociopath, or they are lying.

    If right-wingers are incapable of persuading the ignorant over to their side then how did Trump get elected? Retaliatory racism, while still wrong in any true Anti-Racists eyes, is not on the same level as initiated racism. Retaliatory racism is usually based in fear and ignorance. Initiated racism is usually based in tribalism and exclusivity.

    Lest we forget that Hitler himself was also a meat-eater most of his life, before going vegetarian….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>