A parade of ideas in the form of modish -isms concerning the betterment of society is put through its paces each day. The social media intelligentsia dream up progressively complex systems by which we can free ourselves of the modern technocratic, oligarchic, gerontocratic, or kakistocratic enslavement.
But instead of focusing on wholesale, fully furnished frameworks, let’s brainstorm some potential quick-fixes that could immediately transform society for the better without necessarily dredging up the entire ideological waterworks.
The whole point of this list is to be as un-ideological as possible, in terms of political systems; rather than propounding the various communisms, monarchisms, and the like, we’ll stick to low-scale practical changes which can be adopted as amendments or equivalent.
We’ve seen, for instance, in Curtis Yarvin’s recent pseudo-debate with Hanania that Yarvin was accused of dogmatically sticking to an “impractical” ideal of monarchism. Even if it is superior to current systems, the problem is we know that it’s simply too impractical to happen—there are far too many hurdles to leap from what we have now to something like a sudden monarchical system.
Hence the pursuit of such ideals feels like a waste of time when one could instead focus on real policy changes that have at least a chance at reality. There may be time and place for idle mooning but here let’s focus on the realistic and practical.
This is the first and biggest no-brainer that many have discussed, particularly of late, sparked by Glitch, I mean Mitch Mcconnell’s now regular brain glitches.
Age limits in particular come in two forms: first to stop the corrupt gerontocratic congressmen from accruing decades of increased susceptibility, and a lowered threshold, to graft, corporate bribes, etc. But also to prevent members from becoming completely senile, useless, and entitled, treating their position as a comfy sinecure for which they no longer have to put in much work, or be concerned with the needs of constituents.
Term limits on the other hand serve a slightly different purpose. They’re also a difficult topic because term limits hurt the good congressmen whom people actually like, along with the bad. It’s sort of like chemotherapy: you have to take out a lot of functioning healthy cells in order to get all the malignant ones. If a particular congressman is brilliant and beloved by his constituency for doing an amazing job in his home district, then term limits would eventually force them out of office, to be potentially replaced by someone inadequate and inferior. Some believe this trade-off is a worthwhile sacrifice. Do you?
The fact is, the longer a congressman stays in office—even if they start out well-liked and well-intentioned—the more prone they become to that slow ignominious fall toward bribery and corruption.
It always starts small: they may take a little bit, thinking it’s harmless in exchange for something likewise insignificant. But over time, human resistance begins to wear away at a predictable pace. They grow jaded as corporate middlemen slip more and more money under their table, greasing their palms for a “good deed” in return. “It’s not so bad,” they think. “The people—my constituents, they still like me. I get work done for them” come the self-justifications, building up a cognitive dissonance layer cake.
Eventually, their tastes grow. Humans become tired of their samey circumstances, begin eyeing those moreish niceties of life. How easy it would be to have a boat, then a larger boat, a yacht, another house, more expensive women, etc. These require ever-larger “donations” from their corporate sponsors. Corruption becomes a simple inevitability of public office—but over a long enough timeline, those falling victim to its seduction never consider themselves corrupt, but rather practicing a time-honored tradition of rewarding their own perceived hard work. “I deserve this!” they think.
There are very few humans built to withstand the pressures over the course of many years, but it’s not worth risking the entire system for those outliers.
Make short congressional term limits and you give no time for the creep of human vice to render through them, turning them into corporate sell-outs
This of course creates problems of its own. For instance, who would want to even run for congress if term limits were a short, one time deal? There are possible solutions to that: for instance, having congressional seats be a civic duty chosen via lottery in the same way as jury duty.
Such a system called sortition was used in ancient Athens, as well as the city-states of Lombardy, Venice, and Florence, amongst others:
Could something similar work? What do we need “professional” congressmen for? Does anyone actually believe that congress members are somehow “qualified” to do what they do? Sure, most of them might have law degrees but you could easily make such a system pick only from a pool of juris doctors. This would keep the ‘dynastic’ elements from gaining power in politics, particularly if paired with restrictions on family members being selected per certain number of generations, etc.
Some have opined that the truest difference between the U.S. and China is not China’s perceived ‘economic communism’, which doesn’t really exist per se, but rather that in China the state controls its corporations while in the U.S. the corporations control the state.
It’s a culture difference—in China, the heads of the corporations bow to the party leadership for several reasons. One: their is a culture of respect but also fear instilled in them, with demonstrative ‘consequences’ for crossing the state’s leadership.
Two: Chinese corporate leaders do not see themselves as Westernized and find it much harder to ‘dissemble’ outside of China. Unlike Western CEOs—which includes those of Russia—who very often have loyalties to outside countries and therefore feel no true bond to their homeland, whether through ethnic ties, tradition, heritage, etc., Chinese corporates know themselves as Chinese and, save for a few famous dissident outliers, aren’t as predisposed toward selling out their country.
American CEOs on the other hand not only feel at home abroad, but actively detest—or should I say deplore?—the fly-over half of the country. They are much more likely to be part of the gallery of globalist organizations like Bilderberg, CFR, et al, where they take their orders—errr, guidance—on policy. It creates a scenario where the heads of American corporations have no interest whatsoever in serving the actual American people, something illustrated by things like the Budlight debacle.
One solution is to implement some kind of government control or limitations on corporations. This can come from a variety of angles, for instance from how and where they invest their money, to what their CEOs are allowed to do or be a part of, etc.
But these ideas aren’t novel. There’s been a push from the elites themselves for something called ‘stakeholder capitalism’, which is exactly what we’re describing. Recently pushed by the likes of Lynn Forester de Rothschild, it’s a type of capitalism where corporations have a social responsibility to their stakeholders, which includes their customers, rather than only their shareholders, which are only the people who’ve purchased shares of their stock.
This all sounds great on paper. But the fact that the elites themselves now push this is cause for concern and wariness. They are merely trying to disenfranchise us even further by co-opting the movement early, so that once society gets to the breaking point, and implementation of such initiatives becomes de rigueur, they can then control the process, making it as favorable to themselves as possible.
The other consideration is from the perspective of corporations’ direct power over our government and, specifically, electoral process. This is something much simpler to theorize solutions for. Everyone knows the plague of lobbyism has completely controverted and supplanted our “democracy”—if it can even be said that such a thing’s ever existed. It should be much simpler to create legal controls limiting the ability of corporations to lobby and suborn the government. Particularly, direct corporate contact between their representatives and specific members of congress should be strictly controlled.
The problem is, much of the above constitutes direct violations of some of the country’s founding principles. You know, republicanism and the restrictions to the central government’s authority, overreaching regulations, etc. Regulatory restrictions begin to cause discomfort for many people, because it necessitates a larger, stronger central government—more controls and overreach, which goes against the principles of free enterprise.
But China can be said to have a functioning form of stakeholder capitalism. Something like 15% of financial flows in the U.S. go toward real investment in the economy, while in China that number is over 40%.
That means Chinese companies prioritize putting a large chunk of their money toward benefiting the actual stakeholders, i.e. the citizens, which improves everyone’s living standards and is beneficial to the whole of society. American corporations use their profits for stock buybacks and other financialization tricks which keep the vast majority of capital from ever trickling down in any appreciable way, nor benefiting the average citizen in the street.
How does China avoid such pitfalls? As I said before, it’s a combination of a stern reining in from the central governmental authority, as well as a cultural, ethnic affinity which allows Chinese CEOs to view citizens as of their own ilk, rather than as “other.” But the fear of state authorities is certainly palpable and serves as great ‘motivation’ in conforming with societal mandates.
You’re not likely to see the above happen in the U.S. Many will be proud of that fact; the U.S. is a place of “freedom” they say. But it’s the exact kind of freedom the parasitic corporate class prefers as its host.
Top Chinese billionaire Jack Ma was reportedly “disappeared” for some time after going against the grain and criticizing government regulators. Such a thing would never happen in the U.S., where “freedom” reigns—to the infinite glee of the CEOs, who proceed to run roughshod over any and all pesky regulators.
But most people would likely agree that corporations need to be reined in in some way.
Americans are taxed for the purported ‘privilege’ of using things like government roads, facilities, and services, which all require upkeep. For corporations, on the other hand, it’s the opposite; they’re granted large subsidies to establish themselves in a particular city/state, as if it’s a privilege for the people to be graced by their presence. But after draining billions in subsidies from those same people, the corporation will refuse to put any money back into the community, instead recycling it into the financialization whirlpool.
Companies need to face punishment for leeching off society, rather than allowing money to be funneled back to it to support new infrastructure, etc. Most of all, corporate heads need to face demonstratively severe punishment the way they do in China and some other countries.
This one is such a self-explanatory no-brainer that I won’t even spend much time on it, as the idea is so universally accepted and clamored for, and constitutes such simple common sense, as to be almost tautological. The Federal Reserve system serves private banks first, which are its primary constituents as they are the direct shareholders of the reserve system.
One potential, previously envisioned “fix” I’ll mention is something aptly described by TreeofWoe recently here on Substack. Dubbed the Chicago Plan, it was cooked up in the wake of the Great Depression, and essentially called for the termination of the Federal Reserve as well as the “fractional reserve” system. It would have given total control of the money supply to the U.S. treasury and required banks to have the exact, full reserves on hand of any money they intend to lend, rather than 10% like the current fractional reserve system allows. This at the least represents a springboard for potential ideas.
Ultimately, the common theme here is that the further removed an institution from public accountability and representation of any kind, the more axiomatically corrupt it will become, and the less it will serve the public. This applies to everything and everyone else in government and bureaucracy.
There are several completely different aspects to this. First, from the utilitarian standpoint get rid of all recent Covid-era changes, like mail-in voting and the ‘new normal’ allowance for vote tallies to take days or weeks. Those are the immediate obvious changes.
The much broader and far more important issue, however, is in how our elections work to begin with. The media has total control over who’s allowed to be nominated, as they control the platforms that give voice to potential candidates. They can ignore and blackhole anyone who’s not an establishment candidate as they see fit.
It’s what was done to many over the years, from Ron Paul to Tulsi Gabbard. Moreover, the way the system works, where you need to raise, effectively, billions of dollars for a campaign, needs a major overhaul. As it stands, the system merely rewards the establishment candidate who gets the backing of the most corporate and billionaire donors.
The easiest, first thing to do is create extremely strict criminal penalties for the types of things Mark Zuckerberg did in the last election.
As the Federalist notes, Zuckerberg spent hundreds of millions of dollars “[funding] a targeted, private takeover of government election operations by nominally non-partisan — but demonstrably ideological — non-profit organizations.”
Criminally outlaw any and all such corporate and oligarchic meddling in the election process, with severe punishment.
Secondly, forbid any centralized entity from acting as gatekeeper to the candidacy process. No “Townhalls” from obviously biased outlets like CNN, who somehow have final say on choosing which candidates are allowed in and given a platform, and who conveniently get to choose all the softball questions to elevate the establishment-picked candidate while tarnishing the dangerous outsider.
Some kind of national commission with strict oversight must handle the entire process; it cannot be allowed to be co-opted by private interests as it is now, where CNN or other corporate outlets control entire stages of it, as well as openly partisan oligarchs like Zuckerberg being handed the reins to critical pipelines of the operation.
These corporate carpetbaggers excel at co-opting the lower and mid-end processes while everyone’s eyes are kept glued only to the surface machinations. It’s the same technique used by Soros to buy out the nation’s DAs to subvert the criminal justice system. The tentacles of these private, highly partisan interests need to be painfully rooted out with severe punishment for all transgressors.
The previous point naturally segues to the next big one. The corrupt-beyond-repair two party system has degenerated into what is effectively a two-sided criminal cartel—a mafia which shakes hands and winks at each other from across the aisle, secretly divvying up the boundaries to their respective ‘turfs’.
They stage a show for the masses, feigning disagreement on certain hot button issues to keep the strategy of tension going, but in reality their only mandate is to keep any third party from gaining power and shouldering in on their criminal enterprise.
But how to break such an entrenched system, where the inordinate party power represents a sort of cultural mythos intrinsically embedded in the American psyche?
In answer we must first ask: what is the source of their power, exactly? The main source is their intimate ties to the media-corporate-industrial complex. The parties basically function as commercial partners to the media conglomerates and major corporate powers in the country; they are bound at the hips. This is the power they wield—the power to sicc the media and corporations on any potential ‘competitor’, instantly dissolving or destroying them.
This can be most easily seen by the revolving door and horizontal advancements that have become a regular and accepted “feature” linking the structures. Major governmental figures regularly become contributors or hosts on MSM channels, while the CEOs of said outlets hobnob with all the top congressmen, having them on speed dial the way CNN’s Zucker regularly called and dined with “friends” on Capitol Hill.
One has to think of the two parties as just extensions of one and the same structure, which includes the media-military-industrial complex. It is quite literally a single, unitary, close-knit family business with different ‘arms’ or branches for carrying out varied functions. For this reason, to uproot one party or the other is impossible. The entire system would likely have to collapse in its entirety first, to be rebuilt from the ground up—from its ashes.
One new example is this White House dispensation to obedient media ‘publicists’, directing them to turn their scrutiny on Republicans:
As ever, we’ll see the above faithfully carried out in the not-too-distant future by the loyal media capos and captains. That’s because the system has gotten so sclerotically degenerative, so utterly calcified that it’s bringing about its own demise by dint of the crustaceously regressive nature of its palsied torch-bearers.
Intelligence agencies are chiefly tasked with enforcing control and compliance over American citizens, not identifying and preventing outside “threats” like they’d have you believe. This is not something “new” that’s a byproduct of the modern era’s corruption—it has been this way since the beginning; in fact, it’s the chief founding principle and raison d’etre for these agencies’ existence.
Such agencies are an unnatural and foreign extension of the government. The primary issue once more stems from the lack of transparency and accountability. And why is there no accountability? Because all the agency heads, representatives, etc., are not elected by the people and have no one to really “answer to”.
This is particularly the case when most of their projects are classified even beyond the purview of the president himself, let alone any other high-ranking figures like congressmen. If you want to see an example, just watch the latest congressional hearing on UFOs (or UAPs as they’re now being fashionably called). It doesn’t matter whether they’re real or not, what matters is that several members of congress openly admitted on camera that they “were not allowed” to ask or look in certain places or on certain topics—and these are not regular members but ranking security committee members who have top secret clearances. Extrapolate that beyond the circus of “UFOs” into other directions of policy.
This results in the intel agencies operating as rogue units, taking secret cues from abroad with no mechanism even in place for true oversight, and as a consequence, accountability.
The same logic can be applied to other—perhaps less overtly—nefarious agencies, whether it’s the FDA, FTC, FCC, Department of Homeland Security, and endless others. The constitution was never designed with the vast majority of them in mind. Abolish them all and you’ll immediately enjoy the fruits of a freer, more just country.
It’s not loony or impossible—rising candidates in other countries are pushing for just that. Argentinian presidential candidate Javier Milei, for example:
It’s akin to what Musk did to Twitter. He riproared through Twitter, firing 80% of the administrative bloat—I mean “staff”—only to find the company running even more efficiently than before:
The same percentage of governmental agencies in the U.S. are nothing more than bacterial limpets operating as enforcement arms for global power structures.
If you have localized administration over the institutions these agencies control you become immune to top-down conformity imposed by the centralized committees which take their orders from even more centralized multinational institutions, like guidance from the UN and various global policy making centers.
This is the only real reason for creating agencies like the Department of Education, Department of Health, et al, at the federal level. The aforementioned didn’t even exist until the 1980s—you really think the country can’t do without them?
To use the Department of Education as an example, in its very foundational creed, they list the following four key functions for its existence:
Focusing on “key educational issues” and discrimination, equality, and all the other virulent DEI initiatives. You can probably guess what “key educational issues” means—things like gender ideology and other liberal shibboleths. It’s an open admission that the only reason for this agency’s existence is to forcefully push top-down propaganda measures onto local districts. These measures themselves are ordered onto the DoE from global central-planning institutions, after the initiatives are ‘formulated’ in incubation thinktanks like WEF, etc.
Getting rid of almost every single “department” and “agency” in the federal government will immediately free the country from the bulk of malign foreign influence.
The founding fathers always envisioned for states’ rights to be supreme. The first Articles of Confederation signed in 1776 gave states primacy over a drastically more limited federal government. Sure, their initial attempt didn’t work out quite as well as they’d hoped, so in the revised final Constitution of 1789 federal power was increased.
However, even then it was nothing compared to the overreach exercised today. One way it’s managed to circumvent the constitution is with the aforementioned trick of creating an endless litany of agencies, departments, and ministries, some of them under illegal “emergency powers” like the Department of Homeland security created in the wake of the 9/11 false flag.
It all represents an encroachment by the federal government over states’ rights codified in the constitution. Most of today’s societal ills could be easily ameliorated by simply allowing states to do their jobs. You don’t want mandatory vaxxes, abortions, anti-gun repressions, etc.? Then there’s a state for you, and vice versa.
In principle that’s already how it works, to an extent—or so they’d have you believe. But clearly there are oppressive movements to legislate the ideologies from left-leaning states over the entire country. The federal government has repeatedly violated its jurisdictional limitations in recent years, from illegally interfering with Florida’s anti-vax medication procurement and supply to illegally barring Texas from protecting its own border, and thus the safety of its citizens.
Along with imposing a vaccine mandate, they are meddling in how we fuel our cars, heat our homes, educate our children and treat their ailments, zone our communities, and construct our roads—all of which represents a vast expansion of federal powers that undermines political accountability, policy innovation, and civic participation.
A recent Heritage Foundation report offers abundant evidence of excessive encroachment. The number and cost of federal mandates have increased markedly—an additional 457 enacted between 2006 and 2019—as have preemptions of state and local authority. (Federal dictates have likewise engulfed private enterprise, including 856 new mandates between 2006 and 2019.) -Source
The above article states that the growth of “federal mandates” that encroach on states’ constitutional rights has been meteoric only in recent years.
Growth in the number and scope of federal mandates is largely a modern phenomenon. Researchers have documented one instance of Congress enacting a major mandate in 1931, one in 1940, none in the 1950s, nine in the 1960s, 25 in the 1970s, and 27 in the 1980s.
Since 2000, Congress and various presidents have approved more than 190 statutes with intergovernmental mandates, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Collectively, the laws have imposed more than 1,000 separate directives. The volume of red tape is massive.
Major new legislation should be introduced that renews the proper “balance” between state and federal powers as envisioned by the founding fathers. The amendment, as all things on this list, needs to be very deliberately worded with extreme prejudice toward the highest possible carceral punishment for anyone even remotely attempting to violate it, be they president, supreme court justice, or corrupt congressmen.
An inordinate amount of congress members, and members of the government bureaucracy in general, maintain treasonous dual loyalties. The most notable of course are those with loyalties to Israel and Zionism in general, which they vocally pronounce at every opportunity. There have been high ranking members of the U.S. government under federal investigation as Israeli spies. One of them was Paul Wolfowitz, who was investigated by the FBI in 1978 for espionage for Israel, yet somehow still managed to occupy top positions in presidential administrations afterwards. It’s safe to assume there would be hundreds of other cases, were attorney generals actually interested in prioritizing such things over prosecuting regular Americans for walking into a public building that they technically own.
Presently, there are many governmental figures with clear dual loyalties to Ukraine. I’ve highlighted before how many figures, particularly from insidious ministries like the DHS’s doomed disinfo one, have intimate ties to Ukraine. Hell, Kiev-born Vindman was literally responsible for Trump’s impeachment. Think about that—a Kiev-national took down a president of the United States.
But then Trump himself isn’t exactly a paragon of loyalty to his home country.
Well, there’s the problem.
There needs to be a flushing out of all personages of “dual loyalty” by way of some strict new law or mandate. It’s difficult to envision how such a thing would be enforced. But the U.S. government once did quite a thorough job of it with the anti-communist McCarthy lustrations. Why not apply the same gusto and scrutiny to everyone else who might have wandering loyalties to anything but their home country—you know, America.
So, what do you think folks? Will any of these work, or do you have your own ideas?