Avatar
Kevin Alfred Strom
c355e199632d69b799f6d2fcf672ca2de553b912f6eba11513907ae12d372ec5
Writer, publisher, broadcaster, free thinker. Our destiny is in the stars. Was at https://twitter.com/kevin_a_strom since 2014, terminated under Musk in 2023 within hours of an ADL demand. I prefer to use NOSTR, but I am also sometimes found on https://gab.com/kevinstrom Mathematics, physics, and genetics are the real words of God.

Entering into the Tel Aviv/Washington orbit would be the opposite of being free.

The basic problem is that democratically-elected legislatures are allowed to make whatever laws they want to make. That power needs to be taken away from them.

Replying to Avatar noahrevoy

The Current System Fails to Attract the People We Want in Power

We have a persistent misunderstanding about political leadership that is actively worsening our problems: we imagine that competent, honest people will seek power out of moral duty, and that low pay is a virtue that keeps politics ā€œclean.ā€

In reality, the opposite is true.

Positions of rulership carry extraordinary responsibility, risk, scrutiny, and opportunity cost.

Anyone competent enough to govern a complex modern society is, almost by definition, capable of earning vastly more money, with less exposure and less reputational risk, in the private sector. When we deliberately underpay such positions, we are not signaling virtue, we are signaling that we do not value competence.

It is true that a very small number of people will pursue power out of moral obligation alone. But this is a statistical anomaly, not a governing strategy.

Even in a country the size of the United States, the number of individuals willing to bear immense personal cost purely out of duty is vanishingly small, a handful per generation at best. That is not enough to staff a legislature, an executive, a judiciary, regulatory bodies, and oversight institutions. And even among those few, not all will succeed, remain healthy, or avoid bad luck. Civilizations cannot be run on moral miracles.

What happens under low-pay regimes is entirely predictable:

Competent, honest people self-select out.

Those who remain are either:

- ideologues who value power over outcomes, or

- opportunists who expect to be compensated indirectly through corruption, influence, or post-office rewards.

Low official pay does not reduce corruption. It filters for people who plan to corrupt.

Why Punishment and Transparency Alone Cannot Fix This

Many people respond by saying: ā€œFine, then we’ll just impose stricter transparency and harsher punishments.ā€ This sounds serious, but it misunderstands how institutions form and sustain themselves.

Punishment without prior attraction creates a perverse outcome:

1) It further deters competent people, who already have better options.

2) It leaves enforcement in the hands of the incompetent, the ideological, or the corrupt.

It turns transparency into a weapon rather than a tool, selectively applied, politicized, or performative.

This leads to the exact failure mode we see today: rules that exist on paper but are enforced arbitrarily, by people who lack either the skill or the incentive to enforce them fairly.

A crucial question is almost never asked:

Who is supposed to design, implement, and enforce transparency and accountability if we have not first attracted competent people into the system?

You cannot build high-quality enforcement institutions with low-quality personnel. You cannot punish corruption out of a system that has selected for corruption.

Why the Order Matters

The sequence of the solution is not optional.

First, you must make rulership positions sufficiently rewarding to attract people who:

- have real alternatives,

- have reputations to protect,

- and have something substantial to lose.

Then, once competent people are present in sufficient numbers, you can:

- build real transparency,

- create auditability,

- and establish credible enforcement mechanisms.

Only then does punishment become effective, because it is:

- competently administered,

- evenly applied,

- and backed by institutions that function.

Reversing this order guarantees failure. Punishment-first approaches do not purify systems; they hollow them out.

The Core Correction

The uncomfortable truth is this:

If public office does not pay enough to attract capable people, the system will be run either by fools or by criminals, and often by criminals who pretend to be fools.

Compensation is not about rewarding virtue. It is about correcting selection pressure. Transparency and punishment are not substitutes for this, they are downstream tools that only work once the right people are present to wield them.

None of this is easy. If it were easy, history would look very different. But difficulty does not excuse getting the order wrong. And right now, we are getting the order wrong in a way that guarantees continued institutional decay.

In certain past societies, fame and glory were part of the compensation package for those of great ability, consistency, insight, pluck, and daring. Men so rewarded would have their pick of the best women, of course, as well as attracting wealth from patrons. When a society has commercially oriented and alien-controlled mass media, however, (something the ancients didn't suffer from), fame and glory are given to corrupters, subverters, the purely mercenary, and their accomplices, so the model breaks down.

You are right about monetary incentives. I think William Gayley Simpson was correct in saying we need a conscious, trained-from-birth aristocracy, dedicated like a holy order to the preservation and advancement of our kind. But if people who sell plastic toilet seats make more money (read: command more resources), incentives become perverse and, again, the model breaks down.

It's a lovely statue, a neoclassical Goddess of Liberty as a noble-featured White woman. It was a gift from one Aryan people -- the French -- to another -- the Americans. It had nothing at all to do with immigration or wretched refuse. That doggerel was added later by (of course) a Jew.

I don't have any definitive answers. But I think it might be helpful, as a first step, to decide what life is, and whether or not life is necessary for consciousness. The assumption for many is that we _are_ matter with consciousness somehow added in. But, though matter is clearly necessary, I suspect the "we are matter" view is the wrong perspective. After all, most of the matter in our bodies is replaced several times in our lifetimes. How, then, can that matter "be" us? I think it's more accurate to see ourselves as _events_, as something that is _happening_ to matter. Similar to fire. One then can view all life and evolution as a _single chain of closely connected events_ beginning with self-replication and culminating (so far) with consciousness. The question of whether we "can create consciousness in silicon" might hinge on whether or not our _inventions_ are an integral part of that self-sustaining chain of events, or not.

Inflation will inevitably get higher and higher as more and more of the competent decide they will never again design a weapon, build an aircraft, construct a bridge, or do anything whatever to support the regime in Washington or its masters in Tel Aviv.

Replying to Avatar EvolLove

nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpqescj06hztvpvks7yrc7lsns7v6kws48yy42efeu9md6xmjg8n8aqr95yqh

Since I have read Mein Kampf over a dozen times and listened over and over again to his speeches and can't think of any similarity between Trump the capitalist and Adolf Hitler our Lord and Savior, I ask for an example.

I was actually a European Trump supporter for years, until the media started claiming that Trump speaks like Hitler

That's why I started listening to Hitler, to prove them wrong. But it back fired big time. Media is dead wrong though

Trump is just gay for the Jews.

Worthy of consideration (part 3 coming in two weeks):

https://nationalvanguard.org/2026/01/faith-of-the-future-part-2/

Sir Arthur Keith proved that the ethny, not the individual, is the biological evolutionary unit that really matters. So we are hard-wired to treasure, preserve, defend, and advance our people -- and that is as it should be.

We could simplify this aspect of the human condition by positing three basic kinds of thinkers:

1. Group thinkers, who in most ways adapt themselves to the dominant philosophies of their group. These are, probably necessarily, the majority. They rise or fall depending on the worth of their leaders' ideas.

2. Independent thinkers who are individualists. If they too strongly oppose the group that nurtured them, they tend to fail, though sometimes in a meteoric fashion that influences others.

3. Independent thinkers who are loyal to their people and who try to use their new ideas to advance that people. These can be heroes, leaders -- and occasionally martyrs if their people aren't ready for them. I think they have the greatest chance of truly advancing human consciousness and evolution.

Haha very funny šŸ˜‚

Please read the first part on what a meritocracy is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

I hope you spot as well, that "white-only" does not fit into meritocracy. Since a meritocracy evaluates by what person knows and is able to do. So it is a system that bases on inclusion.

I'm not going to debate word definitions with midwits tonight.

I wasn't even referring to my own positions. I did, however, fairly summarize the Founders' general point of view. If you don't like the Founders' views, take it up with George Washington.

After all, a person who is able to take an insane conception like racial equality seriously is also likely to believe he can argue with the spirits of the dead.

It seems you're the one throwing insults, not I, Bill. I, too, greatly distrust the federal police agencies and have personally been a victim of their lies and violence on more than one occasion. My point is that we could have avoided escalating to this near-civil-war scenario if we had never begun state-forced multiracialism and multiculturalism.

There are nuances in the shooting of the lesbian leftist in Minneapolis that seldom get mentioned by the respective "sides." 1) The ICE agent shooter probably couldn't see that the front wheels of the SUV were turned; he was too close; and 2) the agents were shouting contradictory instructions -- "get out of the vehicle" and "leave now" at the same time.

What you personally are missing, Bill, is that people have, or ought to have, a right not to have widely divergent ethnies forced upon them as "neighbors" by the state, which is what has been happening in this country since 1965.

I spent a lot of time in pre-"diversity" Minnesota, and it was peaceful, safe, clean, community-oriented, and beautiful -- quite unlike the filthy, distrustful, dog-eat-dog multiracial war zone of today.

Your understanding is fundamentally flawed if you think "diversity" in the modern sense was a founding principle of America. One of the very first laws passed by the First Congress, whose members included many of the Founders, and signed by none other than George Washington, was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which stated that only people of European descent could become citizens of the United States.

Replying to Avatar the axiom

nostr:npub1cd27rxtr945m0x0k6t70vuk29hj48wgj7m46z9gnjpawztfh9mzshka8vl do you know why jews were forbidden from joining the ottoman janissary corps even though apparently they wanted to do so very much?

I don't know much about that. I understand that Janissaries often consisted of men who had been seized as boys from European families (though some families willingly gave up their male children for such service), and that Jews were officially exempt from such seizures. Just like in the US today, Jews generally held higher positions in society, making them unlikely to want to serve as cannon fodder.

"Safe," in their lingo, always means "safe for Jewish oligarchs."