We Rarely Get To Vote on Important Issues, like Immigration

We Rarely Get To Vote on Important Issues, like Immigration. By the Z-Man.

A good rule of life is that anything important is excluded from anything resembling the democratic process. No business runs on democratic lines. Armies do not run according to democratic principles. Those two areas are arguably two of the most important bits of any human society and they run according to fascist principles. Even family life avoids democracy as much as possible. The expression “head of the household” exists because households naturally have a leader.

If one wants to understand why voting is a pointless waste of time, you just have to ask why no important things are ever put to a vote?

Immigration is arguably the most important issue facing the country. Politicians avoid it like the plague. Even the “good politicians” speak in tongues when the issue is raised. Meanwhile, they scheme in private to do what they know is against the interests of the people. No one voting for it will dare mention it when on the campaign trail. …

You literally cannot say “No”

The reason our elections are meaningless, of course, is that no human society ever subjects important things to democracy. The old joke about if voting mattered, they would not let us do it was funny because it is true.

There is no correlation between public opinion and public policy. This study from 2014 went through 1800 issues and found no link between what the people told the politicians they wanted and what the politicians eventually did.

Empirical result: The rich and those with lobby groups rule, while average people and mass interest groups have almost no influence

Empirical result: The rich and those with lobby groups rule, while average people and mass interest groups have almost no influence. By Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, in an academic paper from 2014.


Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics — which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism — offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.

A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

Some details:

We have been able to produce some striking findings.

One is the nearly total failure of “median voter” and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.

Nor do organized interest groups substitute for direct citizen influence, by embodying citizens’ will and ensuring that their wishes prevail … Interest groups do have substantial independent impacts on policy, and a few groups (particularly labor unions) represent average citizens’ views reasonably well. But the interest-group system as a whole does not. Overall, net interest-group alignments are not significantly related to the preferences of average citizens. …

Furthermore, the preferences of economic elites … have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do. To be sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor, but only because those policies happen also to be preferred by the economically-elite citizens who wield the actual influence. …

In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes.

When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose.

Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

It’s not inevitable:

A possible objection to populistic democracy is that average citizens are inattentive to politics and ignorant about public policy; why should we worry if their poorly-informed preferences do not influence policy making? Perhaps economic elites and interest-group leaders enjoy greater policy expertise than the average citizen does. Perhaps they know better which policies will benefit everyone, and perhaps they seek the common good, rather than selfish ends, when deciding which policies to support.

But we tend to doubt it. We believe instead that — collectively — ordinary citizens generally know their own values and interests pretty well, and that their expressed policy preferences are worthy of respect. Moreover, we are not so sure about the informational advantages of elites. Yes, detailed policy knowledge tends to rise with income and status. Surely wealthy Americans and corporate executives tend to know a lot about tax and regulatory policies that directly affect them. But how much do they know about the human impact of Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, or unemployment insurance, none of which is likely to be crucial to their own well-being? Most important, we see no reason to think that informational expertise is always accompanied by an inclination to transcend one’s own interests or a determination to work for the common good.

All in all, we believe that the public is likely to be a more certain guardian of its own interests than any feasible alternative.

So, quantitative research finds what we all suspected: the rich and those with lobby groups have a great deal of influence over policy, while average people and mass interest groups have almost no influence.

If average people sometimes seem to be listened to on policy, it’s only because their interests coincided with a successful lobby group or rich people’s interests.

And the result? Creeping feudalism, where the rich elite rule with the aid of a pampered professional class and bureaucrats.

I’ll bet you’re looking forward to central bank digital currencies and security cameras everywhere.

But it doesn’t have to be that way:

A few thousand super-rich and a few thousand woke and climate activist ringleaders now tyrannize America

A few thousand super-rich and a few thousand woke and climate activist ringleaders now tyrannize America. By Edward Ring.

At the top of the top are a few thousand of the super-rich. At the bottom are a few thousand hardened fanatics, many of them professionals. These two super-minorities, working in tandem, currently control the destiny of America. Expertly manipulating the voters in the upstairs-downstairs coalition, they’re actively destroying everything we love and everything we need.

The minority occupying the top position in the upstairs-downstairs coalition are the plutocrats who run America. A 2017 analysis identified the top 0.01 percent [35 thousand Americans] to have an average annual income of over $30 million. A 2019 Stanford study found the top 0.1 percent [350 thousand Americans] control a total net worth equal to the entire cumulative net worth of the bottom 90 percent of Americans. …

Their influence is decisive. Every year, these billionaires and the corporations they control disburse billions — often getting tax deductions for doing so — to maintain standing armies of activist groups that conduct lawfare, fund civil disobedience, run massive propaganda campaigns, engage in targeted “get-out-the-vote” activities, prop up financially dependent media properties, and produce “expert” studies with paid-for ideas.

Hiring the crazies to bully the majority:

Co-opting potentially violent sociopaths, or as [Michael Shellenberger, a Californian and former progressive activist] puts it, “weaponizing mental illness,” has long been a tool of authoritarian regimes. In the USSR during the Cold War, during the German Nazi era, and in police states throughout the 20th century, recruiting thugs and turning them on their own people was a common tactic — as it is still in Communist China today. What’s happening in America is only slightly more nuanced, and highly effective.

The true political spectrum runs from collectivist at the left end to individualist at the right end. The author is exactly right:

Gary Allen, in his 1971 book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, blew up the traditional paradigm whereby the “Left” is communism and the “Right” is fascism. In what he suggested is a more accurate political spectrum, all forms of authoritarian government, communism, fascism, and socialism, are to one extreme, anarchy is to the other extreme, and in the center is a constitutional republic with limits on government power.

The distinction explains how a shared agenda could exist between outwardly antagonistic capitalists and socialists. Allen writes, “The seeming paradox of rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes the logical, even perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.” …

The future they are pursuing:

The hidden agenda is to sow chaos, triggering demands for more state control, and allowing governments and corporations to consolidate power and wealth further. This agenda is proceeding on schedule.

The public agenda, incessantly marketed as something to be desired, is to erase America as we know it, replacing it with what is enthusiastically portrayed as a transnational, transhuman utopia. According to this vision, every person on earth will have achieved “equity,” i.e., equal outcomes. At the same time, the footprint of human civilization will become ecologically benign, and the planet will be saved.

This is an impossible charade. What they are actually imposing on the overwhelming majority of Americans is a terrifying dystopia. Private financial independence will become all but impossible, the economy will be centrally controlled, productivity will be rationed, and, if anything, the health of planetary ecosystems will be worse, not better. Indoctrination campaigns escalate with every passing year. But if you question any of it, you are tarred as a divisive bigot.

For decades, intensifying with Obama’s presidency, establishment institutions in America have falsely condemned Americans as racist and sexist, despite American culture for all its flaws being the most inclusive culture in the history of civilization. This ongoing propaganda war on social stability wasn’t enough, however, when the MAGA movement began to attract Americans of all backgrounds in 2016. These MAGA Americans reject the narratives of systemic racism and sexism, and they reject climate doomsday scenarios.

To cope, the establishment began anointing the most troubled individuals among us as pioneering saints, destined to redefine what it means to be “normal.” American culture is now at a tipping point, because American institutions are now opportunistically validating behaviors that are clearly destructive and obviously pathological.

In the summer of 2020, they unleashed the crazies:

The riots of summer 2020 highlighted the individuals who now constitute the vanguard of the downstairs cohort of the upstairs-downstairs coalition. For months on end, Antifa and Black Lives Matter ringleaders, fêted by the media and funded by plutocrats, orchestrated murderous rampages in dozens of cities. Looters and vandals were described by establishment press and politicians as “mostly peaceful,” and “victims of racism.”

Other members of the downstairs cohort include homeless drug addicts, psychopaths, and predators, who in their uncontained thousands have made life unpleasant, unsanitary, and dangerous for millions of people in cities and towns across America. But they are not held accountable for their actions. They are no longer arrested for vagrancy, public intoxication, or even theft. In the name of compassion and equity, such laws are no longer enforced. This disregard for the rule of law only encourages and multiplies the worse elements, and further harms the genuine victims.

Climate militants, also a minute fraction of the population, have made common cause with BLM and Antifa militants. …

The preposterous extreme to which the woke gender warriors are trying to take America is incomprehensible to any sane person. Do you believe it’s appropriate for drag queens to recruit five-year-old children to learn how to twerk? Should states be boycotted because their legislatures had the courage to prohibit biological men from using a women’s restroom, or participate in women’s sports? Do you object to surgeons removing the sexual organs of children? Careful how you answer. Sanity is insurrectionary.

Language control, made possible by media ownership:

The public agenda of Antifa and BLM is “equity.” For the Homeless Industrial Complex, it’s “compassion.” For climate militants, it’s “saving the earth.” For gender warriors, it’s to end “discrimination.” But in all of these cases, their hidden agenda is to advance the power of the state, to divide and demoralize the population, to destroy conventional traditions and norms, and consolidate private property ownership in the hands of a small elite.

From outraged parents swarming in to be heard at school board meetings to individuals everywhere merely wanting to protect their families, their homes, and their businesses, those who defend order and normalcy are now the “divisive” ones. Worse, they are now deemed dangerous and are condemned by nearly every influential institution in the country.

Hope this state of affairs is only temporary:

A few hundred super-rich elites and a powerful handful of woke and climate activist ringleaders are the minorities that now tyrannize America. They are not defined by conventional ideological definitions, or by their faith, or by their ethnicity.

With money and fanaticism, they control establishment institutions and grassroots armies. The wealthy faction is united by greed, the woke and climate populists by nihilistic hatred. It is an axis of evil.

This cannot stand. There are too few of them and too many of us. Resist.

Establishment politicians are mostly bought and paid for. Trump, who is independently wealthy, is a very notable exception.

Elizabeth Warren: “billionaire-hating” senator funded by Soros, Gates and the Rockefellers

Elizabeth Warren: “billionaire-hating” senator funded by Soros, Gates and the Rockefellers. By Daniel Greenfield.

Liz Warren hates billionaires. Just ask the millionaire leftist. Or don’t, she’ll be happy to virtue signal to you anyway. The Elizabeth Warren official store even sells a “billionaire tears” mug for only $28 bucks: a profit margin that would be obscene if a capitalist billionaire were doing it.

US$28? What a rip.

Who actually funds Warren’s political ambitions? Our investigation of her political organization reveals that it’s billionaires like Bill Gates, George Soros, Jeff Bezos’ ex-wife and eBay’s Pierre Omidyar. Advisors include Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes.

Like her Cherokee heritage, Warren’s identity as a crusader against billionaires is fake. Without billionaires backing her organization, she wouldn’t have achieved so much influence in the Biden administration.

Tells you something about who is really running the place.

And their commitment to deception.

Elon Musk feels physically endangered

Elon Musk feels physically endangered. By Kevin Downey.

The wealthiest man on the planet, Twitter owner Elon Musk, is bringing free speech to Twitter, and he’s afraid it might cost him his life

“Frankly, the risk of something bad happening or literally even being shot is quite significant,” Musk remarked during a two-hour Twitter Q&A session. “I’m definitely not going to be doing any open-air car parades, let me put it that way. It’s not that hard to kill me if somebody wanted to, so hopefully they don’t.” …

Musk told reporters he won’t even stop to sign an autograph anymore.

“I’ve made it clear,” Musk declared as he got into a car. “I’m not doing any more, any more signings, ever again.” …

Check out the bodyguards

Upending the narrative has earned him enemies:

For starters, remember when cities across the nation boarded up their windows before the 2020 election? They weren’t doing that in case Biden won.

I’m also guessing the FBI probably isn’t happy with Musk, now that he released his bombshell news of their weekly meetings with Twitter bolshies before the 2020 election.

The Biden crime family can’t be fond of Musk, either, now that Twitter has helped expose Hunter Biden’s laptop, brimming with Hunter’s home-made drug porn and emails detailing how the family made mad stacks from, among others, people associated with Chinese communists. …

Musk has promised there are more smoking guns on the way. We don’t even know yet whose non-binary panties will get bundled up over the next info dump.

So, between the FBI, Joe Biden, and every blue-haired, trans-pansexual freak show, Musk probably has a lot of enemies.

Sad. Psychopathic bullies run too much of society. Still, not as bad as the old Soviet Union, eh? Could be a lot worse.

Newly liberated Twitter blows lid off Democrat tainting of 2020 election

Newly liberated Twitter blows lid off Democrat tainting of 2020 election. By Howie Carr.

To recap, in 2016 the DNC and Hillary Clinton concocted a fake scandal about Donald Trump and then peddled it to Democrats in the media, who hysterically promoted it for years knowing that it was 100 percent false.

In 2020, after the discovery of Hunter Biden’s X-rated laptop, the Democrats, knowing that everything on it was 100 percent true, peddled the fantastic tale that it was Russian disinformation.

And the same corrupt Democrats in the media, who four years earlier had promoted a bogus scandal about Republicans, now refused to cover a real, far worse scandal about Democrats.

As one person summed it up Friday night on the newly liberated Twitter:

“They stole the election. And they tried to make you think you were crazy for thinking you knew they stole the election.”

Now the Democrats are busted. Their new fallback alibi is that it’s really no big deal to steal an election, at least as long as they’re the ones stealing it.

Thank you, Elon Musk, for your courageous attempt to get the truth out. I don’t care how much money he’s got, what Musk has done could be hazardous to his health. So let me just state the obvious:

Elon Musk did not commit suicide. …

Who are these people subverting the US system?

The leader of the Twitter coup d’etat against MAGA appears to have been one Vijaya Gadde. Born in India, Vijaya went straight to the Ivy League — Cornell, and then to the even more expensive NYU School of Law.

Gadde wept when she found out that Musk was going to blow the lid off her sinister conspiracy, but don’t cry for her. She made $7 million in 2020 and then $17.3 million last year for her service above and beyond the call of duty to the New World Order.

Gadde was fired from Twitter by Musk, along with the new CEO, Parag Agrawal, who arrived in this nation in 2006 from India. He was immediately admitted to Stanford University, which is where the parents of Sam Bankman-Fried, the mega-fraudster and donor of $5 million to the Biden campaign, are employed as tenured professors.

After the laptop story was deep-sixed and Trump lost, Agrawal bragged to an MIT publication about his disdain for the Bill of Rights, saying he wanted to “focus less on thinking about free speech but (instead) thinking about how the times have changed.”

Yeah, times have changed all right. Immigrants to this country used to want to protect the Constitution, not trash it.

Another comrade involved in Twitter’s First Amendment suppression campaign was one Yoel Roth, the head of “safety and integrity.”

Yoel’s on the right.

Recent US elections: It ain’t over till the Democrat wins

Recent US elections: It ain’t over till the Democrat wins. By John O’Sullivan. Or how to win elections without getting the most votes.

The national popular vote for House candidates — which is the single best guide to the state of national opinion — was a victory for the GOP with Republicans (51.4 per cent) leading the Democrats (46.7 per cent). Not quite a landslide, but a healthy result which, however, produced a net Republican gain in House seats only just creeping into double figures.

If we compare how similar vote increases corresponded with gains in House seats in earlier elections, we find that on past performance the GOP might reasonably have expected to win anything between forty and sixty more seats. How can we explain this discrepancy?

That’s quite hard to do. …

When one side wins more votes and the other side wins more elections, the reason might be that the votes are cast in the wrong areas — “wasted”, as the phrase has it, because they pile up uselessly in “safe” party constituencies while the other side usefully wins all the tight races.

But that possibility doesn’t seem to apply to the 2022 election because the Democrats won more than their share of close races while also winning large majorities in their own secure redoubts. So what explanation is left?

Unfortunately, the only one that appears to fit the facts is that something odd is going on, and even more unfortunately that’s an explanation we’re not allowed to consider because it comes from unrespectable sources rather than the reliable mainstream media like the New York Times and NBC.

That explanation has something to do with the fact that in recent years universal voting on election day (with the result announced that evening or the next day) has been replaced with complex electoral arrangements that combine votes mailed in over a long period with drop-box ballots distributed unevenly across the states and arrangements that allow voting after the polls close, to be verified later, and also (of course) election-day voting—all the different ballots being then moved from localities to vast centralised counting halls, “put into the system”, collated, and finally revealed by degrees over a week or two to the waiting world with only one certainty or, to be fair, one likelihood: It ain’t over till the Democrat wins.

Something like that seems to happening this time around, with voting machines misfiring in some areas, vote counting that takes forever to count 50,000 votes (or the electorate of a UK or Australian constituency), and a candidate for the governorship of one state also being in charge of the electoral process.

It may be all above board, but it doesn’t look that way. As Walter Kirn explained it to Matt Taibbi on the latter’s independent news site, America This Week, about the counting in Las Vegas in the hotly contested state of Nevada: “If they counted money the way they’re counting ballots, those people would be in Lake Mead tied to a cinder block. The outsider, the American citizen, has every right to feel that these processes are simple, objective and rapid.”

The fact that citizens can’t feel any such confidence has consequences — namely that neither they nor the election losers in particular will retain their confidence in the fairness of the system — and the principle of “loser’s consent” will gradually evaporate.

The Catch-22 in this debate is that you’re not allowed to question either the fairness of the results in this electoral maze. If you do so, you’re an “election denier” and therefore an enemy of democracy. As President Biden’s press spokesman has said of these long delays in counting: that’s how the system is supposed to work. Well, yes.

One smoking gun is the temporary changing of the addresses in election databases, which probably lost the Republicans many tens of thousands of votes. But it still doesn’t explain how, given the vote disparity, the Dems keep winning where it matters.

Most US Voters Share GOP Concerns About ‘Botched’ Arizona Election

Most US Voters Share GOP Concerns About ‘Botched’ Arizona Election. By Rasmussen.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 71% of Likely U.S. voters believe it’s likely – including 40% who say it’s Very Likely – that problems with the election in Maricopa County affected the outcome of the Senate election in Arizona. …

The gubernatorial race in Arizona was even closer, with Democrat Katie Hobbs edging Republican Kari Lake by a margin of less than 20,000 votes. After reports of Election Day problems with vote tabulation in Maricopa County, Lake called the election “botched” and declared: “This isn’t about Republicans or Democrats. This is about our sacred right to vote, a right that many voters were, sadly, deprived of on November 8th.” Seventy-two percent (72%) of Likely Voters agree with Lake’s statement, including 45% who Strongly Agree. Eighteen percent (18%) disagree, including 13% who Strongly Disagree, while another 10% are not sure. …

The margin of sampling error is +/- 3.6 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Lack of transparency and credibility are killing US democracy.

The solution of the ruling class? Deny and censor:


Covid Scorecard: Excess Deaths 2020-22

Covid Scorecard: Excess Deaths 2020-22. By David Evans.

There are some silly and blatantly wrong numbers floating around that purport to show Sweden did better than anyone with covid — but they are just ideologically-inspired nonsense. See “Sweden Wins!“, which gives no source for its figures, and the accompanying lame defence/apology/walkback here.

So I looked up the data here and here, and did the calculations for an assortment of countries:

Excess Deaths Population (m) Excess Deaths per million pop Covid deaths per million pop
China           656,675 1448.0              454                  4 Not credible
Mali              13,496 21.5              629                35 Ivermectin
Singapore                4,718 5.9              794             287
Taiwan              19,844 23.9              831             608 Closed borders
Australia              23,280 26.1              893             624 Closed borders
Denmark                5,385 5.8              923          1,295
Japan           126,118 125.6          1,004             403
South Korea              57,672 51.3          1,124             601
Israel        5,424,502 9.3          1,488             1,274
Sweden              16,641 10.2          1,629          2,064
Somalia              31,488 16.8          1,870                81
Thailand           140,569 70.1          2,006             475
France           137,861 65.6          2,102          2,430
Germany           189,685 83.9          2,261          1,890
Vietnam           224,658 99.0          2,270             436 Closed borders
Indonesia           780,193 279.1          2,795             573 Some ivermectin
United Kingdom           191,538 68.5          2,796          2,880
United States        1,277,204 334.8          3,815          3,309
India        5,424,502 1406.0          3,858             377 Some ivermectin
South Africa           278,902 60.8          4,591          1,686 Some ivermectin
Russia        1,342,287 145.8          9,206          2,691

Excess death figures are uncertain estimates, and of course the covid death figures are often inaccurate too.

But no, Sweden didn’t win, by any measure. Considering that they have a headstart by being the country where the most people live alone — most covid is caught at home — they did about on par with the other western countries that didn’t close their borders and went the vaccine route.

No super obvious lessons here, but tentatively:

  • Closing borders helped (by avoiding original and delta, with mass exposure only to omicron).
  • Ivermectin helped, especially preventatively, but India, Indonesia and South Africa only used it partially.
  • Strong lockdowns worked in Asia.
  • Smaller countries (i.e. less population) did better.

Australia is an interesting case because it mostly kept out original covid and delta, is the most heavily vaccinated country, and vaccinated before covid spread — many of its excess deaths are indisputably from vaccines.

There is no data on costs, so the cost-benefit balance of the various strategies cannot be assessed from this sort of analysis.

Christmas Fund Raising

Christmas Fund Raising

With Christmas coming, this is the Wentworth Report’s third annual fundraising drive. If you find the information we present useful, please support us with a donation. We are in an information war, and we need your help!

Large or small, each donation is also a personal message of encouragement to keep doing what we’re doing.

The Wentworth Report continues to rapidly grow, with well over half a million views in each of the last three years. In an information environment dominated by big media and big tech, it has fallen on blogs to spread truths that are politically incorrect. It seems that we are the only ones left with the freedom to say it like it is.

We ran advertisements for a while in late 2022, but the income of a few dollars a day wasn’t worth the pain of seeing the advertisements, in our opinion. So we dialed them way back and you will rarely see advertisements now. We’d rather rely on donations and have a nice clean presentation without ads.

Please donate by credit card or PayPal, by buying “units of support” for our company, Unqwerty Pty Ltd:

  • Australian dollars:  Buy Now Button
  • US dollars:  Buy Now Button
  • British pounds:  Buy Now Button

If you have an Australian bank account, you can deposit directly to our bank account:

  • Name: Unqwerty Pty Ltd
  • BSB: 086420
  • Account: 563148308

Otherwise, please contact us at info@wentworthreport.com.

Thank you!