WHILST WE hAVE ESCAPED TO THE COUNTRY-GANADOR CONTINUES TO OFFER CUTTING-EDGE INSIGHTS AND STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS TO RETAIL- AND SHOPPING CENTRE OPERTATORS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. 

The demise of democracy

The demise of democracy

In about 600 BC. Lycurgus, the famous Spartan lawgiver, put into Sparta’s constitution a provision that banned the circulation and possession of gold, silver, or other precious metals as a means of transacting business and replaced these forms of money with an iron currency, variously reported as being in the form of disc or bars. This provision was part of a plan of social reform intended to spare Sparta the evil consequences of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few citizens.

This stratagem had unintended consequences. Whilst it was designed to make money more accessible, it also meant only strong, virile men were capable of carrying money. Not only did men control money, the system of government included the Appella or Demos – assembly of the people, held once a month. Every male citizen over the age≥30 could participate in the Appella at any time. They did the electing and indicated their will on questions of the day.

Politics, power and money have always been inseparable; and the impact on the livelihood of all the people is undeniable.

When this system evolves and changes into something that may not have been intended, it is critical that society takes notice and responds.

Our democratic system of politics structurally, systemically leans left. This is considered self-evident as even the ‘right’ wing of politics offer policies and programs (health, education, welfare) etc that are philosophically aligned with the left.

Is this a problem? If so, how did this come about and what are the causes and effects of meta-trends driving socio-political change?

The Causes of Change

Broadly speaking, there are two types of people. This division can also be viewed (very broadly) as predominantly feminine (clouds) and masculine (dirt). Or, if you like a more jordanpetersonion binary, it could be chaos and order.

It stands to reason that both elements, in balance, would make for an optimum world order. Sufficiently cloudy and chaotic to be innovative, interesting and growing. But also sufficiently grounded to be stable.

As stated above, the ‘cloud people’ have won - and the world order is skewing increasingly left. One explanation for this is that women got the vote.  Dave Reynolds makes this common sense point well. (Please keep your outrage knickers unknotted to process the ideas first, before throwing bombs.)

The franchise for women was the first great cause for feminism, and I must admit that it is eminently just. It is only fair that women, who are just as human as men are, and presumably just as entitled to consideration, should have an equal say with regard to the government which governs them. But women differ from men psychologically, in deep, hormonally conditioned, instinctive ways, and they are more inclined to be fearful and to crave security. So, they tend to favor security over freedom, and vote more towards the political left than men do, on average. Thus women’s right to vote steers a nation toward socialism, which doesn’t work—or at least it doesn’t work nearly as well as more masculine free-market capitalism. But they don’t want to see this. Women in general are more inclined to vote for greater gentleness in society, and also the greater weakness and defenselessness of its members, in opposition to the harsh and unavoidable reality of Charles Darwin. Feminists in the west are now even against fecundity as a survival mechanism. Women are more compassionate, and thus more inclined to favor humanitarian aid to floundering “shithole” countries as well, which simply (or complicatedly) increases the size of the problem (by increasing the number of hungry mouths there, increasing catastrophic destruction of the natural environment due to said overpopulation, increasing overflow of excess mouths into places like the EU, etc.). Women, being more subjective and feelings-oriented than men, vote in ways that are less rational, and are sometimes plain destructive to society. Women want the abolition of weapons and violence, which promotes a weak, effeminate populace incapable (or even unwilling) of defending itself against aggressors who don’t give a flying damn about feminized social justice. (It is true that hypermasculine, aggressive societies have been destroyed by picking the wrong enemies, but this is less of a hazard than a hyperfeminine society just degenerating to death.) As I’ve already mentioned it really is only fair that women should have the right to vote, but it creates one hell of a philosophical dilemma.

Extend the vote to women wasn’t the only thing; combined with birth control, women have been given control over their bodies and the freedom they desired - which was the intention, but the byproduct was a liberated attitude and practice of sex. This destabilised the family unit because it gave men obligation-free sex. Abortion, single-parenthood, stress, increased need for welfare etc meant that those who needed it (logically) voted for welfare-oriented programs. And politicians wanted the votes to give them access to power, creating an inevitable cycle of programmes(benefits) designed for the needy, weak and marginalised, creating an incentive to be needy and remain weak. (What is intended as a safety net becomes an incentive because it isolates you from the consequences of inaction.)

The combination of Women’s suffrage and the Pill unleashed an unimaginably powerful force of change and no one foresaw the full consequences of it.

The Effects of Change

Where the ‘Western Way’ became the dominant cultural paradigm, countries have followed the same arc. With the extension of democracy to ‘all’ came the trend towards feminisation. Whilst these societal changes were framed from a perspective of ‘justice’ (and they were/are just) it failed to consider the consequences of the pendulum swinging to the one side.

In pursuit of justice, mercy, kindness, freedom and ‘rights’, we have lost strength, safety and certainty, and perhaps most importantly our sense of reality and our commitment to the value of objective truth.

The ‘progressive’ values tend towards the higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy, and the ‘conservative’ values tend to more foundational values. Whilst it may at first appear regressive to focus on the lower-end values, the reality of Maslow’s hierarchy is that those higher order values can only be pursued when the lower level needs are assured. What must society look like before we collectively realise that the pursuit of personal/ego ideals are endangering our capacity to fulfil those lower order needs?

Some would argue that it is already at that point.

For instance: whilst the rich, feminised western world becomes fat, lazy and defenseless (in addition to being nurturing, just and benevolent) the more masculine, conservation-oriented cultures (Russia, China, Asia, Middle East) are exploiting this weakness to advance their own causes (e.g. religion, territory or wealth).

[The progressive, western democracies view some of these cultures as backwards and barbaric, and those cultures in turn view the West as corrupt, soft and degenerate. There is truth to both views.]

The inevitable conclusion is that when a political system leads to eventual self-destruction, we have a problem that needs a remedy.

The Remedies

Peaceful: Change the Narrative to win hearts and minds

Those who are ideologically left-leaning, control the instruments, platforms and institutions (e.g. education, media etc) that make it possible to dictate the context in which the public narratives are conducted.

It may be necessary to build alternative institutions and platforms in order to participate in the conversation and in order to get access to the minds of people. That means right-leaning people will have to play the long game, but must also understand there are ‘tipping points’ when it may be too late. There are attempts to replace Wikipedia (InfoGalactic), Facebook (WeMe), Twitter (Gab) but the business model of social media platforms is such that there is only one winner per format, so success seems unlikely.

Violent: An uprising to rescind Feminism & Democracy

A negotiated return of the patriarchal rule is unlikely and the price is unpalatable unless it gets to the point where it becomes evident that mere  survival is at stake. Too many people are dependent on the system to voluntarily dissolve the system.

The temptation is to see this commentary is male privilege wanting to protect itself. Assurances to the contrary will ring hollow, but nevertheless it would be remiss of me not to counter such presupposition. This really has nothing to do with male/female privilege, nor with any biased preference for male patriarchal systems. This is about the biological and physical reality that males and females function differently, and that there is a clear systemic skew that has emerged that favours the feminised, nurturing model (socialism) and that a permanent imbalance is logically and rationally undesirable because it is unsustainable..

At its root, democracy is governance to appease the lowest common denominator. Democracy is fundamentally flawed because every vote is equal, so we get the government the average person votes for. When politicians are the ones controlling the keys to the vault, and they can promise the goodies from the vault in exchange for the vote, the vault gets empty pretty quickly.

Walking back the voting rights to the point in the past where only the strong, conquering males could vote would achieve the necessary rebalance. As Dave Reynolds puts it:

This has the advantage of weeding out the least intelligent, least industrious, and least willing/able to fight for their freedom, the least meritorious, thus greatly improving, on average, the quality of the decision-making with regard to national survival of the fittest.

He cites the fact that the Athenian “democracy” allowed only adult male citizens, amounting to a small percentage of the population, to participate in government, and the original system of the USA of 1800s only free adult male landowners were allowed to vote.

This has the advantage of weeding out the least intelligent, least industrious, and least willing/able to fight for their freedom, the least meritorious, thus greatly improving, on average, the quality of the decision-making with regard to national survival of the fittest.


A return to an ancient version of democracy iis equally unlikely to happen, as it will also require a violent overthrow of the system of government. In a democratic system, people vote for the self-interest, not for the greater good, so they will never vote to voluntary give perceived rights.

Much like the monkey who sticks his hand in the jar to grab the goodies, and refuses to release the food even though he can’t get his hand out of the jar and consequently dies of hunger hanging on to his ‘gains’.

Such a change in our system of government is certainly ‘unfair’ towards half the population. None of the remedies seem probable anyway.Some minor ‘adjustments’ to the current system seems to be quite justified:

A: Removal of voting rights from a group of peoples as a minimum:

  • Anyone on the dole or on any form of Government support

  • All prisoners (including those who are serving less than three years)

  • All first generation immigrants (which would include me)

  • All non-tax payers (or in default/ arrears)

B:  Change the structure of government

  1. Lengthen the election cycle.

Officials are elected for 3 years. That means the actual effective ‘work’ period is 18 months - as they honeymoon after the election or gear up for the next. The short cycle is maybe intended to give people a more active say and keep them on their toes, but the (unintended) effect is that unpopular but necessary decisions (with short term pain for long term gain) never gets made. (Terms should be limited to two cycles - in orider to combat onset of corruption.)

  1. Allocate responsibilities based on Expertise

Ministers are allocated portfolios (without necessary having any real expertise in that field) whilst being incentivised to serve a region/ geography (their electorates). Often ministers would be conflicted to do what is right for the country with what what the impact would be on their electorate. (And consequently the driving force of so-called ‘pork-barrelling’.) It also means that politicians are effectively interchangeable as domain expertise is not a requirement for a ministerial portfolio.


A few small changes may at least postpone the demise of the system, but I don’t know what the alternative ‘grand solution’ is. The only outcome (we can’t bear thinking about) is that things get so bad that our physical survival as a people and a nation becomes so self-evidently at stake, that people are forced to submit to an imposed order that will unwind centuries of ‘progress’ to go back to a fork in the road where we made a mistake.

It is naive to believe that an extraordinary problem like this will be solved by ordinary people except under extraordinary circumstances.

A dystopian future like ‘A Handmaid's Tale’ (ironically envisioned by a female) may prove to be prescient.

Monkey-trap (1).png
Do you fear the truth?

Do you fear the truth?

The future is all about Clouds vs Dirt

The future is all about Clouds vs Dirt

© 2017 Ganador Management Solutions (Pty) Ltd PO Box 243 Kiama, NSW, 2533 Australia