A Better Democrat Party

[Immanuel Can]

It's come to the point where the Democrat Party must rise from the ashes.

Yes, that's the topic: how should they do it?

Apparently that's near the top of the president-elect's to-do list...

This isnt' the thread for that discussion. You'll find lots of people to discuss that elsewhere, I think.

[Gary Childress]

Well, this is the sort of old-school propaganda that failed the DP so badly in the last election. Instead of just regurgitating it, Gary, why not actually make a suggestion potentially helpful to the DP?

Those are supposedly items on Trump's platform that got him elected.

Only "supposed" in Dem propaganda. It hasn't happened, it probably never will, and of the things listed, only "build the wall and deport illegals" was really in the Repub. platform. Getting rid of forced innoculations will probably happen. The rest never had any truth to it at all.

But it doesn't matter. We're not talking about them, but about what the Dems can do. And frankly, Gary, I'm a little surprised you'd rather carp about the winners than help your own side recover. That's a bit mystifying, I must say. Perhaps you don't have much faith in the future of the DP...

I assume that since Trump got elected, Americans must want his policies. Why else would they vote for him?

[Gary Childress]

https://thebulletin.org/2024/11/america ... ier-again/

https://thebulletin.org/2024/11/trump-p ... secretary/

https://thebulletin.org/2024/11/welcome ... etrostate/

[Alexis Jacobi]

Not relevant. The topic is the DP, and how for them to go forward. You seem to have forgotten it's not about me...or you.

Conversations here are always, in some very basic sense, about those who write and take positions.

Still, I respect your quest for some strategy that the Democrats might adopt to come back on the scene. It is just that making a recommendation about what they must do involves defining what, in reality, needs to be done.

Carry on IC, and know you are loved.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This one’s for you, IC.

The Dems need to resign from the Gynocracy!

[Immanuel Can]

Those are supposedly items on Trump's platform that got him elected.

Only "supposed" in Dem propaganda. It hasn't happened, it probably never will, and of the things listed, only "build the wall and deport illegals" was really in the Repub. platform. Getting rid of forced innoculations will probably happen. The rest never had any truth to it at all.

But it doesn't matter. We're not talking about them, but about what the Dems can do. And frankly, Gary, I'm a little surprised you'd rather carp about the winners than help your own side recover. That's a bit mystifying, I must say. Perhaps you don't have much faith in the future of the DP...

I assume that since Trump got elected, Americans must want his policies. Why else would they vote for him?

Then you should get his policies correct, obviously: your list above was more reflective of failed propaganda than anything. Time to think for yourself.

Either way, the actual topic is not Trump. It's the way to the better for the DP. Got anything relevant on that?

[Immanuel Can]

The Dems need to resign from the Gynocracy!

That's a useful suggestion. It's clear they lost ground with the female vote as well as the male one. Playing to the pink-hat set didn't seem to serve them well.

Maybe they need a more broad view of the lives of American women, and a policy that reflects more real women's interests, one that appeals not merely to radical Feminists but to ordinary women and perhaps even to centrist and conservative ones. That would be a good strategy.

[Gary Childress]

Either way, the actual topic is not Trump. It's the way to the better for the DP. Got anything relevant on that?

I suppose a good place to start for that would be with what the Democratic Party is wrong about or what the Democrats need to change in their policies and platform. Since you are coming from an outside perspective, perhaps you can shed some better light on what the Democrats are doing wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

Either way, the actual topic is not Trump. It's the way to the better for the DP. Got anything relevant on that?

I suppose a good place to start for that would be with what the Democratic Party is wrong about or what the Democrats need to change in their policies and platform. Since you are coming from an outside perspective, perhaps you can shed some better light on what the Democrats are doing wrong.

I'm asking you, actually. That's why I proposed the topic: so other people could speak to it, people better positioned to say what went wrong for the DP.

I'm not American, so I'm not even capable of being a member or supporter of one of the parties. But a couple of things are obvious, even from an outsider perspective. One is that the DP took a serious beating in the last election, and if they want to succeed in the future, they need changes. But what those are...well, an American is better positioned to say what Americans will respond to.

And you're an American, right? So you're on deck.

[Gary Childress]

Either way, the actual topic is not Trump. It's the way to the better for the DP. Got anything relevant on that?

I suppose a good place to start for that would be with what the Democratic Party is wrong about or what the Democrats need to change in their policies and platform. Since you are coming from an outside perspective, perhaps you can shed some better light on what the Democrats are doing wrong.

I'm asking you, actually. That's why I proposed the topic: so other people could speak to it, people better positioned to say what went wrong for the DP.

I'm not American, so I'm not even capable of being a member or supporter of one of the parties. But a couple of things are obvious, even from an outsider perspective. One is that the DP took a serious beating in the last election, and if they want to succeed in the future, they need changes. But what those are...well, an American is better positioned to say what Americans will respond to.

And you're an American, right? So you're on deck.

I mean, I think Israel needs to reign in its war and seek some kind of peace. I think the Ukraine situation needs to be resolved peacefully somehow. I think I don't want to see a nuclear arms race and I would like to see more cooperation between nations in addressing climate and pollution issues. And overall, I would like to see more good will between nations of the world. And that probably means that we need to be ready to compromise over our interests as much as we expect other nations to.

[Immanuel Can]

I suppose a good place to start for that would be with what the Democratic Party is wrong about or what the Democrats need to change in their policies and platform. Since you are coming from an outside perspective, perhaps you can shed some better light on what the Democrats are doing wrong.

I'm asking you, actually. That's why I proposed the topic: so other people could speak to it, people better positioned to say what went wrong for the DP.

I'm not American, so I'm not even capable of being a member or supporter of one of the parties. But a couple of things are obvious, even from an outsider perspective. One is that the DP took a serious beating in the last election, and if they want to succeed in the future, they need changes. But what those are...well, an American is better positioned to say what Americans will respond to.

And you're an American, right? So you're on deck.

I mean, I think Israel needs to reign in its war and seek some kind of peace. I think the Ukraine situation needs to be resolved peacefully somehow. I think I don't want to see a nuclear arms race and I would like to see more cooperation between nations in addressing climate and pollution issues. And overall, I would like to see more good will between nations of the world. And that probably means that we need to be ready to compromise over our interests as much as we expect other nations to.

That's what you want. Okay. I'm not sure it's where the DP wanted to go, but maybe they should.

But what does the DP have to propose or promise in order to convince electors that they are going to be able do some of those things? After all, one of their mistakes in the last election was leaving their proposals too vague.

[Gary Childress]

I'm asking you, actually. That's why I proposed the topic: so other people could speak to it, people better positioned to say what went wrong for the DP.

I'm not American, so I'm not even capable of being a member or supporter of one of the parties. But a couple of things are obvious, even from an outsider perspective. One is that the DP took a serious beating in the last election, and if they want to succeed in the future, they need changes. But what those are...well, an American is better positioned to say what Americans will respond to.

And you're an American, right? So you're on deck.

I mean, I think Israel needs to reign in its war and seek some kind of peace. I think the Ukraine situation needs to be resolved peacefully somehow. I think I don't want to see a nuclear arms race and I would like to see more cooperation between nations in addressing climate and pollution issues. And overall, I would like to see more good will between nations of the world. And that probably means that we need to be ready to compromise over our interests as much as we expect other nations to.

That's what you want. Okay. I'm not sure it's where the DP wanted to go, but maybe they should.

But what does the DP have to propose or promise in order to convince electors that they are going to be able do some of those things? After all, one of their mistakes in the last election was leaving their proposals too vague.

It's as if we live in different worlds. You seem to see Trump as just another candidate who won an election. A lot of policy analysts and experts on international affairs seem to see the election as an enormous disaster, even going as far as declaring the United States a "failed democracy" after the results of the 2024 election. I tend to wonder who is right, you or them.

https://thebulletin.org/2024/11/welcome ... etrostate/

https://thebulletin.org/2024/11/what-to ... dangerous/

[Atla]

Democracy didn't fail, it works just as advertised. Democracy is the system where two idiots outvote one smart person, since two out of three people are idiots, anywhere in the world and at all times.

Idiots helped create the "establishment" in the past through their votes, and now idiots try to get rid of the "establishment" by voting for something equally bad or worse.

[Walker]

It's come to the point where the Democrat Party must rise from the ashes.

Yes, that's the topic: how should they do it?

By not doing as they have done.

Then again, by Rising From The Ashes (which is the topic), do you mean to once again be as they have been, or to be as something other than what they have been?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The Dems need to resign from the Gynocracy!

That's a useful suggestion. It's clear they lost ground with the female vote as well as the male one. Playing to the pink-hat set didn't seem to serve them well.

Maybe they need a more broad view of the lives of American women, and a policy that reflects more real women's interests, one that appeals not merely to radical Feminists but to ordinary women and perhaps even to centrist and conservative ones. That would be a good strategy.

I think that in a significant sense the issue runs quite a bit deeper. We have to be able to think and to speak freely on this issue. Basically, we have got to drive the faggots out of the main rooms of society and back into their various closets.

There. I said it! Whew! In fact sodomy should be made illegal again. The anus is not a sexual organ. The toleration of homosexuality, sexual deviants, cross-dressers, and those who, as James Lindsay very clearly alludes to, employ sexual deviancy as a social and political tool and a means to undermine *normalcy*, all this must be confronted at the foundational level. The very notion of *normalcy* has to be reclaimed and the its ground, let's say, reconquered. This is, naturally, phallic intellectual work of the First Order! I do not in any sense mean to denigrate the vagina and all symbolical, feminine references. But really, I mean c'mon!

Get the pussy out of the public sphere. Let's start today!

Think for a second of the images that came out of France at the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. True, the French long ago succumbed to a perverse feminization of their manliness (and my own theory is that the French Revolution with all its outrageous excesses and its intention to disrupt religiously-defined mores and ethics has led to a destruction and weakening of the masculine), but we must not allow things to go that far.

We must at least review again the gist of St Augustine's assertion:

“Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.”

― Augustine of Hippo, City of God

But obviously, and simple by saying this here on this forum (saludos Flash Danger Pants, you pervert) it arouses immediate resistance. The sick fucks then have something they can rally against and fight against. Call it *patriarchal values* or whatever you want. But the manipulation of sexuality within the realm of revolutionary politics has to be confronted.

There are problems however. The recent Republican victory is provisional. It is all untested territory. And there is no way around failing to recognize the authoritarian element, and indeed a proto-fascistic element, that moves in it. I recently read about half of The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert Paxton (it is a good study) and I was made to realize that what I refer to as proto-fascistic is really quite common and when understood as a *reaction* against Liberal excesses, one can better understand certain elements of what has been going on in the US recently. One has to recognize a type of visceral, non-intellectual, emotional reaction that can easily capture people, and certainly motivate the crowd (as in The Madness of Crowds).

Consider the following , which has borrowed from Le Bon's reference to The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind:

We are going through a great crowd derangement. In public and in private, both
online and off, people are behaving in ways that are increasingly irrational,
feverish, herd-like and simply unpleasant. The daily news cycle is filled with the
consequences. Yet while we see the symptoms everywhere, we do not see the
causes.

Various explanations have been given. These tend to suggest that any and all
madnesses are the consequence of a Presidential election, or a referendum. But
none of these explanations gets to the root of what is happening. For far beneath
these day-to-day events are much greater movements and much bigger events. It
is time we began to confront the true causes of what is going wrong.
Even the origin of this condition is rarely acknowledged. This is the simple
fact that we have been living through a period of more than a quarter of a
century in which all our grand narratives have collapsed. One by one the
narratives we had were refuted, became unpopular to defend or impossible to
sustain. The explanations for our existence that used to be provided by religion
went first, falling away from the nineteenth century onwards. Then over the last
century the secular hopes held out by all political ideologies began to follow in
religion's wake. In the latter part of the twentieth century we entered the
postmodern era. An era which defined itself, and was defined, by its suspicion
towards all grand narratives. However, as all schoolchildren learn, nature
abhors a vacuum, and into the postmodern vacuum new ideas began to creep,
with the intention of providing explanations and meanings of their own.

-- Douglas Murray, The Madness of Crowds

You pretend, IC, that you have a genuine interest in how the American Democrat Party can restructure itself, but the fact of the matter is that it will not be able to. And I return to a central premise: No one of us here will be able to offer much if we cannot define how what I refer to *normalcy* can be restored first to our own persons, and then in our families, communities, and in our nations.

The issue, as I understand it, revolves around essential and core disorder at the level of the soul. How order is recovered when disorder has sunk itself into the patterns of being -- now that is a very tricky and fraught topic. It is unfortunate, at least in a sense, that reaction against sick and deranges social habits takes a somewhat aggressive and even violent form.

So when I say you have to *beat down the queers* (that is an abbreviation for all manner and categories of sexual deviancy) and send them back to their steamy closets, it is right there that the intolerant spirit shows itself. Yet it is necessary and in a sense unavoidable.

[As you certainly imagined I am working on an entire series of chapter that I will incorporate into The 13-Week Email Course. Give me some time! I think it will really help you to get clear about things.]