Conservatives of ModDB
Entertainment & Press
We are a group of Right-Wing advocates of freedom and individual liberty, the right to life, right to own and carry firearms, freespeech, net neutrality, individual rights, constitutional republic government, separation of church and state, limited government, anti-globalist, freedom of association, property rights, the free market, mandating transparency, preservation of western culture, Christianity and the European people against feminism, Islam, marxism and political correctness. For those on Mod DB if you're a conservative, libertarian, traditionalist, reactionary, Christian, Orthodox, nationalist or New Right, for US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or European nations join us to help defeat progressives.
Will the European Union fall?
Post a comment
Description
I agree. Globalism doesn't have a place in a world of coherent nations, filled with distinct people that hold their own heritage sacred trying to fight for their own interests. Anykind of universal cosmopolitan model is going to be leaving alot of people with the short end of the stick as its a souless creation, not based on people. on who they are, but on MONEY.
Big businesses outsource the jobs, MNC's and GPE's come swooping in to gain a foothold where native businesses have difficulty competing with mass migration of cheap labor & 'free trade' that is not free as it mandates the outsourcing & attempts to be highly secretive so no one catches on until its too late. Such a political union (that is what they are) is guaranteed to fall if its only basis for surviving is swallowing up more and more states to increase its cumulative GDP, taxes and trade, then ignoring the wishes of those states whenever there is a contradiction between the desires of the unelected EU Commission bureaucrats (there are 3 not sure which one is THE commission that makes policy proposals, who the hell knows?) & a nation state. Politicians from European states who got kicked out want a cushy job (tons of perks/benefits with six figure paychecks).
The EU is anti-democratic institution. I'm not saying that states need to be democratic, the US isn't, its a constitutional representative republic, which means it has democratic elements but with protections against "mob rule". The pure democracy's of Europe devolve into every ethnic/racial/religious groups voting to take resources away from the other and if not them then social/corporate groups do it. The most effective at lobbying are business interests because they have the most money and can easily organize unlike common people. These capitalists who had good ideas get copied and refined and so they have to compete with more and more companies who have lower prices, reducing the number and usefulness of capitalists in various industries. They don't want to compete anymore so they push for regulation ie create barriers to entry. Trade-unions can do this too for workers (increase conditions but decrease demand for work) though usually much less effectively except for high-skilled work with labor shortages. This leads to more and more aspects of society and industry being regulated & more heavily than ever before, with selective tax breaks & legal teams to maneuver around regulatory loop-holes for the loyal lobbyist donors.
This happens unless there is non-democratic checks/balances in place based on objective set in stone standards like a constitution, hereditary or permanent governance under a Monarch/aristocracy or a limited franchise (someone mentioned epistocracy before, that is a smaller voting base of people knowledgeable or invested in what they are voting on, thats what that means basically). I don't presume to know what works best, but I think where seeing which lasts longer under certain circumstances.
Rather what I meant in anti-democratic is that its a globalist institution, especially one that is as pro-regulation and pro-cronyism, which is certainly not going to be representative of 'the people' because its not talking about any particular group of people but rather reasons to perpetuate its own existence as a political globalist power. Now I need a break.. all of this evil is a strain on my sanity.
I'm much less interested in feelings, and I oppose beliefs not grounded on evidence like "all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with unalienable rights".
You don't have to believe that your value as a citizen is based on your ability to vote. The more voters there are the less value each person's vote is. Especially when there's voters that don't care about politics ~50% of the population who change their minds regularly. As such gaining total 100% right to vote across the board is mostly symbolic, those who can make the most difference in each area of industry are barely heard.
I want the constitution to work but IF IT DOESN'T WORK, mainly because there has been very few people in power willing to protect it, a complicit media with the political class, a brainwashed population willing to defend any stupid decision, and incentives in place to disregard the constitution, with several barriers that where in place have subsequently been removed then something should be done about that.
Epistocracy is about leaving decisions on areas of industry to those who have the MOST TO LOSE by voting stupidly and irrationally. It is merit-based which is similar to the concept of 1790 Immigration Act's restriction on immigration based on whites with 'good character'. By requiring knowledge, it could massively decrease the power of the two party system. Since those employed in a industry won't be making stupid decisions that could effect millions of other workers IN THEORY as a POTENTIAL FIX for the aforementioned problems. A good video on this: Youtube.com
Some of the checks/balances that have been eroded:
Moddb.com
Moddb.com
Moddb.com
Moddb.com
Trump is taking out the trash:
Youtube.com
Youtube.com
Youtube.com
Youtube.com
Leftists becoming terrorists: Youtube.com
Leftists getting arrested: Youtube.com
Hollywood pretending to be funny: Youtube.com
God Emperor Trump Rising: Youtube.com
Can't Stump the Trump: Inauguration edition:
Youtube.com
How we feel: Youtube.com
What happened to Hillary: Youtube.com
Moment of Reckoning: Youtube.com
Hes growing stronger: Youtube.com
Reveals liberal hypocrisy regularly need more of that! Can't Cuck the Tuck: Youtube.com
For those interested, differences between libertarianism and alt-right: Youtube.com
Cultural libertarian and Alt-Right alliance fractured: Youtube.com
TheUnBeholden said, "I'm much less interested in feelings, and I oppose beliefs not grounded on evidence like "all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with unalienable rights"." The fact that you belittle and delete the words of the Declaration of Independence itself makes very clear that you are merely pretending to be a conservative. The Constitution is rendered meaningless without the core principle of natural rights that CAN'T be taken away because they are endowed by God. John Adams quote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Anybody that does NOT believe in God given unalienable rights does NOT believe in the Constitution and is the ENEMY of the American Republic. "Epistocracy" is totalitarian rule by an elite group over the common people who have had voting rights stripped away. Its laughably insane that you are allowed to admin a site that claims to be conservative while you are clearly an anti-conservative, anti-constitutional disinfo agent.
I'm not a constitutionalist or conservative, I'm more Traditionalist than anything else. So yes that means I and people like me who have little faith in John Adam's original belief as many others did are "enemies" of the republic, if you don't believe in free speech & freedom of association. But thats good, because this is how great societies are formed. They are formed by treason, sedition & rebellion. This is how the US was formed.
As for everyone being equal not even the founders of America thought that regardless of what the Declaration of Independence stated. They where very worried that blacks would out breed whites and would not be able to sustain a free society which would result in dictatorship (which tends to occur in Africa) & removal of the freedoms we fought for. There was a plan to deport blacks after they had gained their freedom: Radixjournal.com
Because that didn't occur we've gotten rampant crime: Moddb.com
and the demographic shift is Asian, Black and mostly Hispanic making us a minority within a few decades: Dailymail.co.uk
Basically, there is no freedom unless there is people willing to defend it. If by legal, social & economic means there is less and less people willing to defend it then it collapses. Which means you need limitations on democracy that go beyond things like 1790 Immigration Act or presidential powers limiting who is capable of entering the US & potentially becoming a citizen. Thats why there is checks/balances in the constitution (ie how America is founded). The founders and even people who want to protect the constitution, had little faith in democracy.
You can't argue it on religious grounds either because I know those arguments better than leftists and even most conservatives do, who by the way conserve nothing but whatever ground leftists have gained with civil rights, gay marriage, feminist movement, multiculturalism & immigration. Its going to take alot more than proclaiming "muh rights" to get out of this predicament.
I think I can summarize this better to show the polarizing views... the checks/balances are there not just to stop "totalitarianism" or "tyranny" but also "mob rule". The latter becomes tyranny by numbers which as I've shown, the founders KNEW THIS WELL. Its why blacks & American Indians had very few rights (not equal or inalienable), why women weren't allowed to vote, why immigration was white-only, why we are a representative republic & why "progress" that dismantles checks/balances puts us on the verge of collapse. The majority will take the rights of the minority. The minority have to be able to have the safeguards in place to prevent that from happening which can mean taking the rights of the majority or revaluauting what it means to be a US citizen, which has changed over time & will continue to change ie depends on the Spirit of the Age (is temporal). From white European America, women getting the right to vote (1920), American Indian becoming equal citizens (1924), to African American getting equal rights in the 60s, and finally the "honey pot" (a myth).
Immigration was limited to free white persons of good character (Naturalization act 1790) only until recently was it appealed with the 1965 Naturalization Act. Its why the latter was argued that it WOULD NOT CHANGE the majority 85-90% white demographics of America. Which we see now was quite clearly a lie and there are gullible people who believe in diversity/multiculturalism enough to try and carry the lie further. Yes there are conservatives claiming that equality has to be preserved which is not possible because you can't preserve that which doesn't exist.
I like to think that there is a element of us that is universal or spiritual and not dependent on changing politics & the overton window. However I don't think equality is at all a spiritual element except in the eyes of god. We all have drastically different capabilities, intellect, character and identity which will largely determine success. As such, there will be many weak people who will want to take everything away from the successful or minority groups they don't like (which whites will become w/o physical removal of the illegal migrants, lazy/parasitical & the evil). You can't claim that is truth or justice because the declaration of indepedence says so or because lots of people say it is (I'd imagine most don't hence why no one argues it that way). Thats why they always say "fairness" or "muh rights". Truth is independent of opinion or feelings.
The WHY America was founded doesn't matter to a mob, they are ruled by group psychology (eg group polarization), feelings & common bias. "equal inalienable rights" was historically for white European males only, and even democracy for us required restrictions. Equality is CLEARLY us buying into our own propaganda THAT WE NEVER BELIEVED in the first place.
"Listing "natural rights" and "constitutional limits" and then repeatedly mocking those principles proves that the title bar of this site is a fraud. Furthermore, denying the equality of men and promoting the idea of stripping the right to vote from common citizens is not only anti-conservative and anti-christian, its outright fascism. Since I believe in free speech as a Constitutional conservative, I would never deny somebody the right to be heard no matter how ludicrous their propaganda was so long as it was not outright sedition. Nobody is "attacking the right" here, I am identifying the enemy within the gates. Since you constantly promote white supremacism, fascism, and oligarchy its clear that this site has nothing to do with conservatism at all. However, don't let me stop you because watching an anti-conservative disinfo apparatchik admin a "conservative" site is pretty funny to say the least, lol."
Your making assumptions again that "certain rights if stripped away are anti-christian and anti-conservative", that the federal republic is a democracy which it is not AND that the group is here to cater to you specifically. The right to be heard IS NOT GOING TO BE STRIPPED AWAY. I never advocated for such a thing. Your conflating the right to free speech with the political right to vote, which are not the same thing & I merely provided a option for states. The right to vote if used to strip away rights from minority groups, if its heavily biased (incorrect information - which is very common), used for personal gain or profit has no consequences for the majority that makes this decision, it does however have massive consequences for everyone else that the voting effects. Whats missing is individual responsibility & consequences for making bad decisions. It justifies the initiation of force against millions of people because they want that persons belongings or to remove their rights. Ever heard of thou shalt not steal? Using that against statism & democracy isn't unheard of. As for racism, voting rights hasn't changed anything for minority groups. Blacks are worse off than they have ever been before, the right to vote doesn't fix racial disparity & crime rates. Those problems are a separate set of democrat party programs. Eg low-income housing schemes, education standards and funds, and welfare.
Because of this we end up with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton running and coming close to winning. I'd imagine you won't be too happy about being subjected to Democratic Socialism & a War Hawk. Your assuming that states don't have the right to experiment with epistocracy because its "sedition", yet states have rejected the right to own guns with strict gun control, voting rights with voter ID laws & the right to free speech with liable laws. The rest of what your saying doesn't address any arguments your just restating the same thing over and over again because you believe in a certain right. If we all believed in the same thing there wouldn't be any political and internal turmoil THAT WE HAVE NOW. Which is going to get worse in the coming four decades when whites become a minority. I'm more than happy to continue this elsewhere since this page isn't the place for that ALSO why don't you show yourself & sign in? Guest comments do frequently disappear even if they get thumbs down, I've lost my comments because of that.
I'm sad to hear you think that millions of lives potentially being ruined is funny because that says alot about that egalitarian mindset. The benefits and harm ie the epistemic question doesn't matter because "muh rights".
To clarify, a political right is relational between state and individual, and it justifies force against the losing side ie its a human made law or a civil construct and not a natural law. I don't see how voting to infringe on the natural law rights of minority citizens can be justifiable. This is a part of negative rights which are the fulfillment of your own personal choices that may still restrict, oppress or have disproportionate impact on the lives of others like the civil right to adoption & abortion does ie a negative right that restricts the negative rights of others. Objections can also be made to civil rights like right to marriage for all sexual-preference groups on religious grounds. Its not merely positive rights that restrict negative rights as the people of the US became largely repelled by due to Communism's positive right claims of a collective over the negative rights of the individual. Also I'm not sure how a libertarian could ever get a free society WITHOUT being a political dissident which is where this argument comes from. The idea is that private property & our rights may be threatened in the future which requires defensive measures installed to prevent that and ensure the security of the nation state, hence epistocracy or creation of a independent free society.
James Madison, the fourth President of the United States who is hailed as the “Father of the Constitution” for his role in drafting the antiquated document in addition to the Bill of Rights said about blacks.
--To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the U.S. freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by or allotted to a White population.--
Even “the Great Emancipator” Abraham Lincoln himself, during the Lincoln-Douglas debates, asserted:
--I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.--