Oh, I was referring to if the population truly grows to such a high number

AH

I think he loosely referring to cities aka ground zero socialist hives

or that

They do lack the infrastructure to properly sanitize, so the effects would be terrible.

they lack the ingenuity to do much of anything on their own

most of INDIA doesn't the infrastructure to sanitize, most people in that nation don't even own a water-tap

And I heard that from the mouth of some of their social leaders

we have to drive the public or at least policy makers cast aside the myth of boasian anthropology in favor of a true racialist viewpoint set forth by Grant and Stoddard

also apparently Ross Douthat supports repealing the 17th Amendment (direct election of senators)

based and redpilled

How else would it be done? By electoral college on a state level?

Nomination or oligarchic selection I assume

I want a more elitist form of government, akin to the original American republic. A senate that can ignore the will of the common voter on occasion is important, or else we'll never fix issues like debt and healthcare

before it was state legislatures

house reps were elected by the state's population, but senators were elected by state legislatures

and of course, the voting population itself was pretty different too...

it's better than what we have now

which is direct election of both

I like it

There is still PR pressure from the public. Republican establishment types support the agenda now

>have awful shitty elite
>have had that since early 20th century
>has only been a matter of how bad they are
>wants a more elitist form of government

<:really:453005408064241674>

oof

We can still b u l l y them

that's why I qualified my argument with the fact that the population was different

that would never work now, and it's good that populists are able to benefit from direct elections

Im pretty sure you get v& and shutdown if you try to bully them

populists' leveraging of direct elections is a reaction to a broken system

we're well past the point of managed, representative democracy, the way it was originally envisioned

but if we were still a serious country, I'd be more comfortable with a less directly-democratic system

of course. everything else is of secondary concern for now

besides, just like in the socialism-libertarianism debate, both direct democracy and illiberal democracy require a high level of trust that your fellow citizens/the elites aren't going to screw you over

and we all know what ruins that societal trust

>elites
>aren't going to screw you over

(((elites)))

I'm talking about people who achieve success and influence in society, not (((elites)))

but fair point

the English, for a long time, had the concept of "noblesse oblige" - basically nobility with obligations to society

i.e. your higher status means you're responsible for giving back, be it through charity, patronage, serving in the military, whatever

if I achieved success & influence in society, as a normie, I would be extremely hesitant to enter politics if I was to do anything short of further attempting to disenfranchise whites