They were freer than you. They worked fewer hours and the King was not allowed to show up at their houses and measure the length of their swords.
Previously: Tfw No One Told You Peasants are Peasants
People don’t want to hear the word “peasant,” as if it is some kind of nasty pejorative. What word are you supposed to use for the masses of people who make decisions based on something other than reality-based information?
What do you call people who believe that “trans kids deserve dignity” or that Trump is going to do mass deportations with an app? What word would you prefer I use?
They are peasants. That’s what they’re called. That’s what they’ve always been called. It is a group of people, the mass of people, who have simple drives and are not capable of complex critical or analytical thought.
For the record, I am Irish. I do not have patrician sensibilities. I am into grilled cheese, sex tourism, and jet skis. I listen to AC/DC. I support violence on principle, even if it serves no purpose. If black people are fighting outside a strip club for literally no reason, I start hooting.
I have taken professionally administered IQ tests, so I know where I sit, but I am a very humble man, and I don’t think I’m better than anyone (except Indians). I am not passing judgement. I am not insulting the peasantry, and in fact, I believe more capable people have a duty to protect them and provide them with lives of dignity. People who have an emotional response to the use of the word “peasant” are just emotional peasants.
But the peasantry exists. The majority of people cannot be reached with reality-based information, and must instead be appealed to with emotional materials.
You are not going to somehow convince the 90% of the population that has no interest in facts to look at the facts and make decisions based on the facts, and the people still trying to do that are actually insane. The only thing you could sway them with is an emotional appeal (which was the original goal of the Daily Stormer before the censorship made it impossible for it to reach anyone who wasn’t looking for it).
“Liberté, égalité, fraternité” failed. Actually, it’s the worst failure ever.
If you could have a discussion about the Jews, lay out all of the facts without irate lunatics screaming emotional slogans at you and claiming you are metaphysically evil for examining data, all of those capable of reality-based thinking would say “yeah, you’re right, we’re going to have to do something about these people.” Instead, we have a situation in this country where it is possible for Jews to make the argument that they are both the wealthiest and most powerful group in the world and also the most oppressed, and, from there, that they are being oppressed by Gazan infants and their only recourse is to burn them alive. And people take this seriously. Who takes it seriously? Only the peasants. No one engaged in reality-based thinking would take something like this seriously; it is drooling retard nonsense. But the Jews are able to charge it up with emotion, and the peasants will slurp it down like a delicious chocolate milkshake in the parking lot of UDF.
It used to be the happiest place on earth
The issue is genetic. That is a demonstrable fact. Intelligent people have intelligent children and intelligent people tend to marry one another.
We have now had 150 years of democracy, this attempt to raise the peasants out of the dredges and up into the realm of the enlightened, and there has thus far been zero progress. It is less than zero progress. Far from the advent of the middle class raising the peasantry into the ranks of the enlightened patrician, the peasants are getting dumber the more pampered they are.
It’s like the old saying goes: “Give a peasant a fish and he’ll eat it. Give a peasant a boat and he’ll go to some filthy manmade lake and drive it around in circles while wasted on Coors Light.”
I should add that I think social mobility and meritocracy are fundamental goods, especially in comparison to an exclusively blood-based class system. This is something closer to what many of the Founding Fathers were pushing for, which is why they formed a democratic republic, but limited who was allowed to vote, explicitly preventing the enfranchisement of the peasantry while also providing a clear ladder for those born into the peasantry to climb their way out. This is significantly better than the ancient aristocratic system, but the ancient aristocratic system is infinitely better than universal suffrage. Universal suffrage democracy has failed, and maybe the system of the Founding Fathers was always going to devolve into this, which would mean that the historic aristocratic system is the only viable option.
Imagine if you had a 150-year-long program to teach dogs how to talk, and there were still no talking dogs, and the primary issue of discussion in society was how we needed more money to develop more advanced methods for teaching dogs how to talk.
This isn’t reasonable. In fact, it is pathological.
Mitch McConnell, as well as many others among the most powerful in government, often have approval ratings below 20%. Some of these “woke” policies that were forced down everyone’s throats by the government and media had less than 10% popular support. The will of the people is not being represented, because the masses of people are incapable of engaging the system in the way that supporters of democracy imagine they should be able to engage it. What you end up with, in a democracy, is a minority of people controlling the majority of people and enforcing their will on them. That is, the same thing you had in an aristocracy. It’s just that in an aristocracy, the elite typically felt some kind of compassion for the peasantry, and further, everyone knew who was in charge, and if the elite got out of control, the peasantry knew who to riot against, whose heads to put on stakes. So in an authoritarian system, there is an actual, working system of checks and balances.
In a modern universal suffrage democracy, no one has any idea who is responsible for anything. Further, if leaders are so hated that they are forced to resign, they are very easily replaced by people bought and paid for by the exact same interests. New leaders can just be slotted in, while the people behind the scenes, who actually run the mechanism of state, remain unchanged.
Democracy is the worst system imaginable, and it will always devolve into the most aggressive form of tyranny, which is what has happened in the modern West. The peasantry obviously does not like the situation, but they have no recourse, and if they complain, they are told to vote. But the system of voting is completely controlled by emotional appeals, perfected in a laboratory setting by the financial interests that own the politicians.
There is no way to fix the system. At this point, the only plausible solution to the Western empire is for the empire to overextend, to collapse internally, and to be replaced with some form of despotism. That is not ideal, obviously. But there is no other path out of this corner we’ve been boxed into by democracy.
This is all very obvious. I am not saying anything here that is not right in front of everyone’s faces. The problem is that people who should know better – smart people – have a religious devotion to the concept of universal suffrage democracy, because they have a mystical belief in the nobility of the peasantry. Peasants are not nobles. If they were nobles, they would be called “nobles” and not “peasants.”
When I see people who believe in democracy lamenting that the peasants don’t care about the facts, it makes me sick. They appear to be insane. I used Caitlin Johnstone as an example of someone doing this because she came across my feed doing this. I didn’t mean to target her specifically, and I do generally appreciate her work. But I would challenge her or anyone else who believes in democracy to a debate on how exactly you are going to convince the 90ish percent of the population that has no interest in facts to be concerned about facts.
I know Johnstone bans anyone who uses the word “Jew” in her comments section, so I’d be happy to put it in writing that I will only speak of “Zionists” during our debate, and never say the word “Jew.” This issue is only tangentially related to the Jews anyway. It’s a question of human nature, which existed long before Jews took over Western civilization. It just so happens that the situation was very good for the Jews, as they are the ultimate experts at manipulating the peasantry.
