The title could also be that why democracy is doomed to fall to totalitarianism, or mob rule, or whatever.
In 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish professor of history (University of Edinburgh), explained that the average age of democracies was two hundred years. That’s all the time it takes for the majority to realize they don’t have to work, they just have to elect politicians who take the money from the rich and distribute it in exchange for the votes. Logically, this leads to a system crash.
In fact, sooner or later all mass societies are inevitably going to turn into a totalitarian state. This is because the mass society is a semi-totalitarian creation. So totalitarianism is just an arm’s length from most societies. Seemingly the democracy is an antidote to this, because it’s based upon balance and check.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In the short term and in smaller societies, of course, it works. But not because they are democratic, but because they are small.
The democracy defines itself as people’s rule. The people check and balance the system by their votes. But can this decision be made with people deprived of the direct negative consequences of their decisions?
When the people are deprived of the negative consequences of their action, they feel encouraged to vote for the illusion of free lunch over their individual freedom. As result they begin to give up their true rights for fake ones. The logic of democracy would require some level of intelligence, education, wisdom which the most do not possess.
While the rights to vote are granted by default, without having to earn it, the question arises. Is it possible to make decision wisely if you don’t have to suffer the consequences of your action?
The truth is, that It is easy to make a wrong decision if you don’t have to bear the consequences of your action, and the future generations will pay for your error and gullibility.
If you purchase a product with your hard earned money, you always and immediately see the harm of choosing a faulty product. But if you vote for someone on the other hand, this natural effect of choosing is disabled. Moreover, in a short run it benefits you either. You do not have to pay directly for education, health care, even electricity. Because they are financed for you from taxpayers money, inflation, public debt. The future generation will pay for it with their future. This is what you consume in the present. The democracy as a mean of redistribution always rewards the individual, while the collective must take responsibility.
There is a flipside of course. You no longer have a right to choose the education based on what is the best for your kids. You no longer have a right to choose the service that serves you the best. Everything is pre arranged, decided, determined, and state-owned, including your future. And eventually you find yourself in a totalitarian country, what became totalitarian without bloodshed. You have no more voice because you voted for it. You are a helpless, powerless subject of the cronist oligarchic ruling elite, nor even a citizen. And whatever rights you have are up to the whim of power only.
Those citizens who are totally at the mercy of the government, because the state is the most important market player, which has no competition, have been proven to vote differently than free people. A vulnerable person can be influenced, blackmailed, bought. These voters keep the ruling elite alive. And those who believe in the impossibility of keeping the ruling elite under control with a single vote do not even keep their own thoughts under control, they also belong to ruling elite.
This is an extremely sophisticated mass brainwashing, which is ultimately about the uniformization, standardization, and nationalization of thoughts, which is why political propaganda is the only type of advertisement in the world that is fatal to true intellectuality.
Ironically, the democracy finally executes itself, because if everything is state- owned there’s no point of voting anymore. What would politicians argue about in socialism? They cannot argue about what they are arguing about in capitalism, that is, how to nationalize everything, and loot everyone. Because everything is state-owned, there is neither an opportunity nor a demand to speak against the state. The debate is therefore closed. The multiparty system is unsustainable in total state ownership, in communism. And the communism is the inevitable logical end result of all mass societies, even when they are democratic. Actually the democracy is a soft communism. Ironically the only thing that threatens democracy is democracy itself, because democracy has no answer to the challenge of being eliminated by democratic voting.
Democracy is, in fact, a very well-designed and extremely insidious totalitarian ideology that calls itself the sole custodian of freedom, with no alternative of. But then, in its entire system of ideas, it denies the legitimacy of freedom in an extremely astute way. Today, the vast majority of countries around the world claim to be democratic, but never before in history has so few people had so much power over so many people. Today, even a single person can initiate a chain reaction that leads to the destruction of all life on earth. Instead of the world being ruled by those who are suitable for it, such as philosophers, sages, scholars, like in the ancient and medieval city states, democracy and mass society guarantee that power falls into the hands of the most unsuitable: megalomaniac, narcissistic, irresponsible, power addict psychopaths. This means that with the advent of the modern age, we have become the toys of ordinary criminals and terrorists, as citizens, whom we call public dignitaries and our leaders. They don’t earn prestige and authority with their proper conduct, virtue, and wisdom, but they usurp it with cheating, and lying. Entrusting them with the protection of our freedom and property is like putting our house key in the hands of a burglar.
But let’s look at the totalitarian nature of democracies and compare it to a restaurant where I vote with my money for what I want to eat. Democracy wants us to see it as such. In reality, however, the ideology of democracy is much more like a socialist canteen than a restaurant. There, in theory, the majority decides what you have to eat for four or five years. This could rightly be called the tyranny of the majority, but democracy is based on a much more sophisticated lie. Because the majority has no real choice, they can only choose from a few menus. But the illusion of choice is reserved.
We can never vote for really important issues in elections. We are not allowed to vote for any essential: Territorial independence, abolishing the monopoly of central banks, shutting down counterfeiting and inflating money, tax exemption, self organizing security agency, and so on. We can vote for menus (political programs, clichés, and agendas), but we are never allowed to leave the canteen. In this public canteen, moreover, the food must be consumed in such a way that it is constantly desecrated and despised by the competing chef. While the chef we voted for doesn’t even listen to our criticism. And why would he do that when we have no real choice? In addition, we do not pay for the service voluntarily, but our money is taken away forcibly.
If we look closely at modern-day dictatorships and totalitarianism, we can see that they all grew out of the concepts of democracy and republicanism, and none of them from traditional monarchism. The best proof for this is that all dictatorships are officially republics, and dictators are considered presidents and not kings or emperors. Democracy is not the opposite or an alternative to dictatorship, but a degree of it. The only difference between democracy and a dictatorship in the classical sense is that we have the freedom to choose a dictator for ourselves in every four or five years. Meanwhile, during this four years, the elected government enjoys a complete monopoly to do whatever they want. No one can take power from them. Then, when the election cycle is over, they have to figure out some more salable lie that, if it works, will give them another four-year monopoly. And if the opposition wants to win an election, it has to overbid on that lie with even more lies.
Although democracy can always have only one end result, namely state bankruptcy and dictatorship in the classical sense, this process takes place to different degrees in different countries. It works quite well somewhere in the long run. Elsewhere, a series of crises follow one another. The size, tradition, and average intelligence of a given society, as well as the degree of violent integration, play a major role in the process. Democracy, on the other hand, is always a classically collectivist idea which alone has nothing to do with individual freedom and liberty. Anyways, I see no possibility of keeping the democratic system stable, or any society in mass scale. As I don’t see how the final crash could be avoided, and civilization can be saved. But maybe that’s exactly what’s needed for fresh start.
There is a worldwide debate about how the rights of minorities can be guaranteed in a majority society while they fail to understand that the majority society is the rule of minority, as democracy a tyranny of minority, and this minority is the ruling elite. Where one vote does not matter, no any vote matters. That is democracy. However, ninety-nine percent of the total state apparatus is made up of bureaucrats who are not voted on and therefore cannot be fired by people. Their power is hereditary. The democracy fails to prevent from tyranny of bureaucrats. They are not even able to slow down the growth of bureaucracy, and yet worse, they don’t even attempt it, because it’s none of their interest.
No matter how we look at it, universal suffrage gives both the voter and the elected an authority that they should not have, because neither of them will take responsibility for the consequences of their mistakes and sins. And this is inevitable in the case of democracy, because the right to vote is not a privilege that must be earned, but a fundamental right for which nothing needs to be done. So nothing obliges you to make a responsible decision, but everything encourages irresponsibility. Freedom means nothing if you are not allowed to do what the majority does not like.
The traditional monarchies, the ancient regimes, pose a much smaller threat to you because one tyrant with limited power is still better than millions of tyrants with unlimited power over you and the right to vote against you. Calling for what the majority wants is never a legitimate argument, because what if the majority wants lynching, or slavery, or the exterminating of the minority, or genocide? Are those all legitimate, just because the majority wants? Where there is democracy, there is neither freedom nor civilization, there is lynching, collectivism, mass hysteria and mob rule. Because everyone wants to rule everyone, but no one takes responsibility for anything, that is democracy.
You have to participate and vote in the elections, otherwise others will decide your fate. But if this slogan is true, then it is a hostage situation, and participation in the elections is nothing more than a provoked Stockholm syndrome. It is necessary to understand, that no matter whom and what you vote for, whatever you vote for, you vote against yourself. Do not let this slogan fool you. Do not vote for your captors or your potential captors! Do not be a part of their game! Don’t contribute to the collapse of civilization, neither with a single vote! Stay away from elections, stay home.
If you are interested in this topic in more detail please visit my previous posts relating to it bellow:
Thanks for reading me!