Skip to content

The biggest threat to powers that be is always the truth…


Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter.

Unfortunately, America no longer has use for self-made sages. Instead it prefers mass produced, defective outputs versed in leftist college or university indoctrination, all with the goal to eradicate any and all the freedoms enjoyed by the autodidact (See – Autodidact: 8 Reasons Why You Need To Become a Self-Taught Master).

Notice how alternative media is extraordinarily vulnerable. Even now, it is being silenced by someone pulling the plug on the Internet or parts thereof.

Like a “Funds Inaccessible” message on our bank account, a “Site Not Available” message now greets us when we try to pull up once familiar sites now being censored by narrow-minded gatekeepers and the overlords of our slum-dog culture; having been reprimanded by some millennial or Generation-Z “editor” for being “mean-spirited.” The fatalism behind this rationale could be cited as “deplorable” racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or Islamophobia, or peddling what has been “officially” deemed as quasi-“misinformation,” but make no mistake, the truth that emerges from alternative forms of media (those outside of the mainstream propagandists) poses a grave threat to those who would rule us, and they know it. Just as they now steal everything we’ve got (see “You Will Be Poor”), they will suppress the truth by any means they deem necessary.

In other words, we must do as we are told because they are not interested in the good of others; they are interested solely in power… Noticeably, what some select minorities cannot seem to grasp is that most free and independent-minded people desire to be more principled about their own lives, not so easily swayed by others, and not willing to cave in on their own morals, but rather stand on principle.

Delusion is a dangerous thing, and more often than not, it proves to be a deadly distraction, but this is simply another “inconvenient truth” about misperceiving, and misccommunicating the realities of subversive ideology meant for the political purpose of providing deceptive safe spacesin which to destroy Freedom.

By lies, intimidation and silencing of honest American citizens, treason, subversion, and criminal activity is the way the liberal Social Democrats and their Marxist allies  choose to handle every issue they encounter.

Institutions systematically direct individual memory and channel our perceptions into forms compatible with the relations they authorize. They fix processes that are essentially dynamic, they hide their influence, and they rouse our emotions to a standardized pitch on standardized issues. Add to all this that they endow themselves with rightness and send their mutual corroboration cascading through all the levels of our information system. … For us, the hope of intellectual independence is to resist, and the necessary first step in resistance is to discover how the institutional grip is laid upon our mind. –Mary Douglas, How Institutions Think (1987)

We must not continue to slide down this slippery slope. Not only because it is wrong to align with debased domestic terrorists, but because it will also be our undoing

Consider this insight from an unlikely source:

The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values, “enlightened” psychological techniques for socializing children, dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth. These crypto-leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain bourgeois types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois tries to bring people under control of the system in order to protect his way of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are conventional. The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the system because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the oversocialized type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker and he is more securely socialized. He is differentiated from the ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by the fact that there is some deep lack within him that makes it necessary for him to devote himself to a cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And maybe his (well sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that of the average bourgeois. ~Theodore John Kaczynski

Every election is a sort of advance auction of stolen goods.

During the time of the Post War boom, and prior to the Great Depression, H. L. Mencken wrote a short essay entitled, Vox Populi, it is a highly insightful and relevant analysis of the American political scene

Vox Populi seems to presage the arrival of an American President, a man with a good sense of how our society should be led, and someone who is also a master in the arts of persuasion and influencing the masses. Herein is an extracted and lightly edited format of the best parts of the text.  It is highly recommended to read the full essay or get a copy of the book, of which it can be found: H.  L.  Mencken’s Smart Set Criticism.

Mencken was an old-school conservative, basically libertarian and an opponent of FDR and the New Deal. He certainly wouldn’t have had any use for Democrats such as Clinton or Obama and certainly Biden, being an enemy of both political cronyism and the welfare state. It is doubtful that Mencken would like any of the contemporary politicians very much either, including many Republicans, since he disliked demagogues and was highly wary of mass movements in general, be they for better or for worse.

Understand, That demagoguery is an appeal to people that plays upon their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side. Demagoguery is a manipulative approach — often associated with dictators and sleazy politicians — that appeals to the worst nature of people.


H. L. Mencken, Vox Populi (June 1922)

The Key Political Question:
How, in spite of the incurable imbecility of the great masses of men, are we to get a reasonable measure of sense and decency into the conduct of the world?

The Traditional Answer is to Educate the Masses..
By spreading enlightenment, by democratizing information, by combating what is false with what is true.

But Educating the Masses doesn’t Work…
Why? Because that scheme, however persuasively it is tried, invariably gets shipwrecked by two or three immovable facts:

One is the fact that a safe majority of the men and women in every modern society cannot be educated, save within very narrow limits. It is no more possible to teach them what every voter theoretically should know than it is teach a chimpanzee to play the viola de gamba.

Second, the safe majority, far from having any natural yearning to acquire this body of truth, has a natural and apparently incurable distrust of it.

And third, no body of teachers in Christendom is capable of teaching the truth. The teacher, almost ex officio, seems to corrupt it and put it down, so the inevitable tendency is to preserve and spread the lies that are respectable to the current masters of the mob.

Now, I Don’t Deny that People can Learn Things…
The great masses of men can take in certain sorts of knowledge, at least within narrow limits:

Fully 80 percent of the inhabitants of the United States, within our own time, have absorbed a number of solid facts, before unknown to them — for example, that beer is easy to make in the kitchen, that wood alcohol has various unpleasant physiological effects, and that it is dangerous to crank a Ford.

Probably half as many have taken in information of a somewhat wider and more philosophical kind — for example, that the guarantees in the Bill of Rights are merely rhetorical, that saving the world for democracy costs a great deal of money, that feeding a human infant on fried liver will not make it flourish, and every old woman who mumbles as she shuffles along is not a witch.

Go back a thousand years, and you will be able to show even greater accretions of knowledge, much of it sound.

The average member of the American Legion, though the professors may report him a moron, knows more, I am convinced, than the average legionary of Caesar’s Gallic army, and what he knows is better organized.

The average American farmer, though he voted for Bryan, is more intelligent than the peasant of Charlemagne’s time.

Even the average American Congressman, at least in matters that do not concern the business of lawmaking, probably has more useful information in him than the average member of a Tenth Century Witenagemot.

The Progress of Enlightenment Doesn’t Reach the Great Masses of People

Enlightenment is a matter which concerns exclusively a small minority of men. The size of that minority is always grossly overestimated.

Because a man is a Ph.D. and licensed to teach Latin grammar it is assumed that he is generally intelligent — that he shares, to some extent at least, in the stupendous miscellaneous knowledge of a Virchow or Huxley. The assumption is often false. He may be, in fact, practically an imbecile, and not infrequently he actually is.

I do not here argue, of course, that the intelligence of a man is to be determined by subjected him to an examination like that recently proposed by Thomas A. Edison. Edison himself, indeed, though he could pass his own examination, must be thick-witted at bottom, for when he goes on a holiday he chooses such men as Harding and Henry Ford as his companions.

But what I do argue is that no man can be said to share fully in the progress of human knowledge who is ignorant of any of its basic facts — for example, the facts that ghosts do not actually haunt graveyards, that printing money cannot make a nation rich, and that men cannot be made virtuous by law.

The Human Race is actually split into Two Distinct Species

The one species is characterized by an incurable thirst for knowledge, and an extraordinary capacity for recognizing and taking in facts and evidences.

The other is just as brilliantly marked by a chronic appetite for whatever is most palpably false and a chronic distrust for whatever is palpably true.

To the second species being the overwhelming majority of individuals under democracy, including all the favorite politicians, philosophers, theologians, star-gazers, and diviners. These half-wits now run the world.

 The People in Power Today are Mob-Masters

The great nations of the world are run today, not by their first-rate men, nor even by their second-rate or third-rate men, but by groups of professional mob-masters, all of them ignorant and most of them corrupt.

Well, how is it that such men reach so high an estate in a great nation — and in every other great nation, under democracy, there are scoundrels to match him?

It comes very simply. The mob-master is imprimis, so near to the mob in his natural ways of thought — his gross self-seeking and lack of sensitiveness, his tendency to reduce all ideas to hollow formulae, his feeling of kinship with the ignorant and degraded men — that it is easy for him to put himself into their collective mind.

He is so lacking in ordinary professional pride and conscientiousness that he is willing to submit with alacrity to the mob’s mandates, even when he dissents from them and regards them as dangerous and wrong.

In brief, he is a demagogue, and his power rests wholly upon his talent for that role. What keeps him in office is simply his tremendous capacity for evoking the emotions of the mob.

The Problem of Democratic Government Narrows Down to…

How is the relatively enlightened and reputable minority to break the hold of such mountebanks upon the votes of the anthropoid majority?

At first glance, the thing seems insoluble, but there is one consolation: The man of education and self-respect may not run with the mob, and he may not yield to it supinely, but what is to prevent him from deliberately pulling its nose?

What is to prevent him from playing on its fears and credulities to good ends as a physician plays upon them by giving its members bread bills, or as a holy clerk, seeing to bring it up to relative decency, scares it with tales of mythical hell?

In brief, what is to prevent him swallowing his political prejudices in order to channel and guide the prejudices of his inferiors?

It may be, at first blush, an unsavory job — but so is delivering a fat woman of twins an unsavory job. Yet obstetricians of the first skill and repute do it — if the fee be large enough. So is hearing the confessions of Freudian old maids. Yet priests do it. So is going to war. Yet the chivalry of the world has just done it.

What I propose, in truth, has been done already

Men of very considerable intelligence have done so to brilliant effect. I allude to the boob-bumping that was undertaken during the late war by certain members of the intelligentsia.

Some of the most potent raids upon the boob emotions made during those days were planned and executed, in fact, by men who were normally too sniffish to engage in any such enterprise.

If they devote themselves to the arts of the demagogue in peace times as ardently and ingeniously as they did in war times, they would present a very formidable opposition to the Bryans, Roosevelts, Hardings, Cabot Lodges, Cal Coolidges and other professionals, and perhaps debauch the booboisie into accepting ideas of relatively high soundness. Not, of course, as ideas, but as emotions.

As a matter of bald sense or decency, I believe, it is a sheer impossibility to induce the mob to do or believe anything. But as a matter of fact it is possible to make it do or believe almost everything. The demagogue is a man who is privy to this fact.

There will come a change in the conduct of the world when men of intelligence and integrity also become privy to it, and being privy to it, act upon it boldly and vigorously.

Exposing the agenda

A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing.

In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion

In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous.  But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law.

One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence.  Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions.

At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it.  In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty.

Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes.

Whenever his notions show signs of becoming “dangerous,” i.e., of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative.  And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage.

Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty.  They never really are.

Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster.  They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor.

The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them.  If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it.

The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize.  They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it.

~ H. L. Mencken, “Liberty and Democracy” (1925)

See Also

H. L. MenckenWikiquote

Value conflicts are and have been a part of America’s social and political landscape since the nation’s inception. A plethora of opinions and personal observations are available as they relate to the historical nature of this subject matter and many of them are summarily used to secure control of a political territory or the climate created for some particular set of ideologies and/or morally corrupt notions, which inevitably lead to injurious agendas being heaped upon the minds of electorate listeners.

The now not so covert post-American sentiment, and Neo-political climate change that is being pushed recently and has evolved over the last several decades is surely evidence that such a thing is not necessarily a conspiracy, but is, in essence a true fact.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: