Why Democrats are crushing democracy: The billion-dollar scam behind blue cities



What explains the Democrats’ anti-democratic turn?

The underlying issue is that "democratic" governments are actually wildly democratically unpopular.

Basically, Washington, D.C., and its Western European satellite states would not retain control — or the ability to steal as much money from their people — if they allowed truly free speech and free markets.

Blues are getting innocent people, largely minorities, addicted to drugs in order to make money for their NGOs. They're also letting innocent people get attacked on the streets. Blues are befouling their own neighborhoods for a quick buck. This is genuinely evil behavior.

And that's why they've become so anti-democratic:

  • Building one-party states (e.g., California)
  • Faking the news (e.g., Russiagate)
  • Censoring the internet (e.g., Hunter Biden story)
  • Show trials of political opposition (e.g., Trump)
  • Weaponizing commercial law (e.g., Elon Musk and Delaware)
  • Arresting tech founders (e.g., France)
  • Imprisoning people for tweets (e.g., U.K.)
  • Blowing up Nord Stream, then covering it up
  • Funding COVID-19, then hiding that too
  • Fomenting war and cold war everywhere

The list goes on and on. This is also why they blather so much about democracy. Censoring the Hunter Biden story during the 2020 election shows they're about as genuinely "democratic" as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Indeed, communist states also called themselves democratic repeatedly for very similar reasons. Just as "communism" meant one-party rule by the Communist Party, this type of "democracy" just means one-party rule by the Democratic Party — or the Democrats' wholly owned blue subsidiaries in places like the U.K. and France.

To prove it, ask a partisan Democrat if he would push for actual democracy in the sense of competitive multiparty elections. Of course not — if Democrats reduced gerrymandering, they might elect a Republican! And that of course would be an attack on "democracy." Thus does the epistemic loop close.

Anyway, the whole point of Western anti-democracy is to frustrate the democratic voice of the people in favor of one-party control by an illegitimate, parasitic regime. But why?

But why?

Why do Blues care about control so much? Are they simply sadists who want to see the streets of their own capitals covered in filth while innocents are assaulted by criminals?

That's surely part of it. Another huge part is that Blues are more interested in stealing money from people via $100 billion trains to nowhere than in any kind of genuine public service. And that is why they will fight so bitterly to retain control: Blues are looting historic amounts of money and want to continue doing that.

The blue business model

This is a huge concept, but you can get the idea in just one graph from the city of San Francisco. Note how the budget of this homeless "prevention" agency went from $200 million to over $1 billion per year, while the homeless population skyrocketed?

That's because these Democrat drug dealers get paid for increasing the homeless population.

They do the marketing by putting up billboards for hard drugs. They manage the supply chain by handing out syringes. They secure the real estate in the form of "safe injection sites." And they handle compliance by suing in the courts and abolishing the police.

And that is why blue cities have become s**tholes: because Blues get paid for making them into s**tholes! This is the Democrat scam. They are McKinsey for MS-13, essentially management consultants for murderous drug dealers.

Blues have their smarts, though. The primary blue business model innovation is to avoid taking a small cut of a $10 fentanyl transaction in lieu of taking all of the $1 billion-plus for fentanyl "prevention."

Blues are, in short, criminals posing as cops. Like the Communist Party, the Democrat Party is a pack of government criminals. You can see it from their sympathies — among other things, this is why Blues wanted to abolish the real police, so they could loot in peace.

That's also why they destroy democracy in blue-controlled areas like California: By turning them into one-party states, they avoid all accountability for their crimes.

Prove and scale

Once the homeless industrial complex model was proven in San Francisco, it was scaled to the rest of the U.S. and the world.

Going from $200 million to $1 billion per year is huge! It's more than Uber makes in SF. If that was a venture-backed business, you'd scale it everywhere.

And so the Blues did. Thus you get San Francisco on the Seine. Paris imported not just the tech of California but the woke of California as well.

Now you might say: Well, this is unethical!

And of course, the Blues who do this completely lack ethics. Blues are getting innocent people, largely minorities, addicted to drugs in order to make money for their NGOs. They're also letting innocent people get attacked on the streets. Blues are befouling their own neighborhoods for a quick buck. This is genuinely evil behavior.

But we know that kind of person exists. After all, that's why drug dealers exist. And that's why Democrat drug dealers exist.

That’s why they do it

So that's why Western anti-democracies will fight so hard to remain in power: because they want to steal your money because of the blue business model.

And the blue business model isn't limited to Democrat drug dealing, of course. There are endless variations, both American and foreign. Some examples:

a) Blues made money from the $100 billion California train to nowhere, which produced billions for unions and zero miles of rail.

b) Blues made money by forgiving student loans for Blues while imposing punishing taxes on Reds.

c) Blues make money from every bill they pass, which always include appropriations for blue-controlled universities or subsidies for blue-controlled nonprofits.

d) And above all, Blues make money by literally making money — by printing money via the Fed. This is the largest theft in human history, and the printed bucks go largely to Blues.

There's more I can say, but you start to get the point. Western anti-democracies are cracking down on democracy because they want to protect the blue business model. Many Blues just wouldn't have as much money or as much status without their parasitic states. So trillions of dollars are at stake, and they will play for keeps.

PS: There's only one force that's stronger than blue, and that's orange. But that's a topic for another day.

Editor's note: This article was originally published on X (formerly Twitter).

The first rule of building a new society: Be fruitful and multiply



Balaji Srinivasan’s book, "The Network State," lays out a speculative roadmap for the formation of a new kind of political entity — an online community with its own laws and commerce that eventually grows and evolves to the point where it can acquire land and some of the other hallmarks of what we think of as modern statehood.

I won’t attempt to summarize the book or the project here — Balaji himself provides a number of summaries of different lengths in the opener to the book — but I do want to zero in on one particular aspect of "TNS" that makes it quite a bit different from the kinds of libertarian startup city or “free state” projects that the pitch may call to mind for some readers: the one commandment.

It re-establishes that the purpose of sex is reproduction, not self-actualization, pleasure, identity formation, or any of the myriad other things we use sex for.

In contrast to both standard-issue democratic pluralism — which pointedly doesn’t take a side in most debates about ultimate values but instead aims to provide a neutral framework for unaligned individuals to peacefully pursue radically different ends, and to free-market ideology, which leaves “utility” undefined while trying to set up rules by which different utility maximizers can compete to the good of all — Balaji advocates that network states be explicitly and overtly ideological.

The idea is that the community’s laws and markets are a vehicle for the working out of a single ideology, versus being an area where different ideologies vie for temporary dominance. That’s where the one commandment comes in.

Balaji (he’s popularly known by either his first name or his Twitter handle, @balajis) writes:

Communities Are Causes First, Companies Second
Every new startup society needs to have a moral premise at its core, one that its founding nation subscribes to, one that is supported by a digital history that a more powerful state can’t delete, one that justifies its existence as a righteous yet peaceful protest against the powers that be.
To be clear, it’s a huge endeavor to go and build an entire moral edifice on par with a religion and work out all the practical details. We’re not advising you come up with your own Ten Commandments!
But we do think you can come up with one commandment. One new moral premise. Just one specific issue where the history and science has convinced you that the establishment is wanting. And where you feel confident making your case in articles, videos, books, and presentations.

It’s interesting to me that the opening chapters of Shadi Hamid’s book "The Problem of Democracy" explicitly highlight the same motion in the post-Enlightenment West — i.e., first came liberal values around individual rights and the primacy of the rule of law, then democracy and markets took shape afterward as an expression of those liberal values (and with the aim of securing individual rights).

Like Hamid's book, Balaji's "The Network State" is not as concerned with preserving liberalism as it is with promoting a specific process (in Hamid’s case, that process is small-d democracy, and in Balaji’s, on-chain governance) that can accommodate a variety of ideological projects. Also, like Hamid, Balaji definitely has his own preferred set of ideological commitments that he'd like to build his own polity around — Hamid is personally committed to liberalism, while Balaji promotes a trinity of concrete ideals: truth, health, and wealth. But for both men, they’re okay with other people using the process (democracy and network states, respectively) to pursue very different ideological programs. Let a thousand internally aligned but externally diverse polities bloom.

A proposed “one commandment”

skynesher/Getty

I’ve been involved with Balaji’s network state project in some form or another since the summer of 2021, so I’ve had a lot of time to think about what “one commandment” I’d propose if I were founding a new online community — maybe not an entire network state but something along the spectrum from “a chat room” to “an entirely new political unit.”

I recently hit on a “one commandment” I’m happy with. Some readers will recognize it instantly, and among those who do, it may be polarizing. But hear me out: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill up the solar system, and subdue it.

This is a variant of God's initial commandment to humanity in Genesis 1:28, but with “the solar system” substituted for the original’s “the earth.”

I like this commandment for a few reasons.

First, it’s pro-natalist. This commandment explicitly says that having children is not only good, and by virtue of who says it and when, it strongly implies that having children is the highest good. It’s the one thing you’re obligated to really get after in this life. As a pro-natalist, a father, and an anti-anti-natalist, I rate this commandment five stars.

Second, it’s universal by design and tradition. Much later, rabbinic Judaism envisions a kind of Russian nesting-doll arrangement of divine commandments, where the Genesis commandment above applies to all humans, as does the later Noahic Covenant. So, I think many different kinds of people from different religious and secular traditions could sign onto this commandment.

Next, it comes to me through a tradition that’s important to my own formation and to which I'm still committed: Christianity. But it’s older than Christianity and probably older than anything that’s recognizably Jewish.

It re-establishes that the purpose of sex is reproduction, not self-actualization, pleasure, identity formation, or any of the myriad other things we use sex for. There are entire modern discourses, especially the current morass that is gender ideology, that stop even making any sort of intelligible sense when your context for thinking about concepts like “sex” and “male and female” is anchored in reproduction.

If you sign on to it, then it forces you to put your money where your mouth is. Children are really expensive and a huge burden in modern, capitalist societies. If you’re going to be actively pro-natalist, this means having kids, which is undoubtedly the most significant financial decision anyone can make.

It’s good that it’s divisive and forces you to make tradeoffs among fundamental goods and goals. For instance, pro-natalism has serious implications for women in particular and for their autonomy and freedom because women are the ones who have to carry the babies to term. If you’re going to do women’s rights and pro-natalism, then you really have to work at managing the tradeoffs there. Likewise, it also has implications for pretty much every other tradeoff in every other area you can think of. It doesn’t work as an adjunct to some other set of ideologies that can exist apart from it — no, it’s a term in every equation you’re trying to balance.

One clear implication of the change I’ve made to the original commandment is that space exploration is good. The aim isn’t just to fill up the earth and subdue it but to fill up the solar system. It commands us to go to Mars and to the other planets and moons, and a whole set of technological advances will be required to enable that vision.

Finally, there’s a clear win condition. It doesn’t leave the terms of success ambiguous or unachievable. When the group that has dedicated itself to filling up the solar system and subduing it has done so, then at that point, we’ll have fulfilled the one commandment and can figure out what’s next.

I could probably think of other benefits to this one commandment if I were to keep going, but I think the list above is a good start. I also like my list because it explicitly acknowledges that there are tradeoffs and definitely downsides to pursuing a pro-natalist one commandment like this, but — and this is the really critical aspect of all One Commandments, whatever they are — it is definitionally outside of and prior to any kind of cost/benefit calculus. Every calculus has to start with a set of axioms, and the one commandment is the axiom.