Democracy is your worst enemy

The world over, many of those seeking improvement in the lives they lead under

corrupt and sometimes brutal authority are looking to the concept of democracy for

salvation. I use that last word deliberately because like religion, democracy promises

one thing and delivers another.

Even in the relative stability and 'advanced' position of the dominant civilisational

paradigm (a.k.a. 'The West'), one hears voices calling for democracy, as well as

responses telling us that democracy is here, that we should be thankful for it, and that

it's here to stay.

The truth is that, right now, the concept of democracy is the central artifact in a grand

and elaborate system of propaganda and control, and as such it is your worst enemy,

wherever you live.

There are many excellent full-length critical works on democracy - including the

brilliant "Democracy: The God that Failed", by Hans-Hermann Hoppe - but for those

who have not yet gotten around to reading in depth on this topic, I felt moved to

write this post as an introduction/summary of the main problems with democracy in

theory and in practice.

1. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. So said John Adams two hundred and

twenty-five years ago (as a warning), and he was bang on the mark. Regardless of the

details of a given proposition, it will, under a democratic system, carry if it has the

weight of popular support behind it. Just as the religious use god as justification for

whatever they do, the democrat can point and say, "Look! we have the majority

supporting us! It's democratic!" But democracy is, as Hoppe brilliantly describes, 'the

god that failed'. Since some people care about such things as justice and freedom,

there have been many critics suggesting that, despite democracy being better and
more accountable (in their view), than say monarchy, despotism, or other antecedent

civilisational advances (a la the 'Sid Meier' model of dialectical materialism), it's not

really democracy if minority groups are left disenfranchised, exploited, or - if they're

really unlucky, genocided, as has happened in more than one democracy. But sadly,

this lofty and well-intentioned though ultimately-futile approach ignores the fact that

if you want to determine the course of events based on majorities, then you are

literally making sure that there will always be minorities. The minority are those that

were disenfranchised through the act of implementing the democracy in the first

place. Throughout history, the minorities have changed over the decades, passing

through a cycle of disenfranchisement, assimilation and complicity, but the dynamic

remains the same. Yet still, after all this time, there existattempts to make democracy

more 'liberal'. "It's not really democratic," say the 'liberals', "if virtues like freedom

and truth are crushed along the way." Oh, but it is, it most certainly is, if the majority

want to crush freedom and truth for others. And majorities have generally tended to

want to do that, since they are motivated to do so by the sickest of heteronomous

urges, egged on by a civilisational paradigm that has been specially sculpted for that

type of behaviour.

To use an example from my own recent experience, consider the fact that Guest

English Teachers in Korea (drawn from UK, US, Canada, etc.) are compelled to take

HIV tests, in contradiction with UN 'Human Rights' guidelines. This appalling invasion

of individual sovereignty is ostensibly justified to protect children, yet the Korean

English Teachers with whom we share the classroom, are not made to do the same.

Setting aside the practical problems with this approach for a second (including the

fact that the Koreans are statistically much more likely to be at risk of STDs, since

most Korean men visit prostitutes and eschew the use of prophylactics), the fact is

that this policy exists, in the partial democracy of Korea, because it is the popular will;

parents feel safer. And since democracy is about the majority, the concept of

individual freedom is sacrificed on the altar of popular appeasement.

The worst aspect of democracy is that it simultaneously drives both those who violate

individual sovereignty and those who say that it is undemocratic to do so. The

religious are fond of cherry-picking from their scriptures to find some morsel or other

to back up what they're saying, and many religious people can be heard to say things

like: "Oh, those other Christians/Jews/Muslims, they're not real Christians/Jews/

Muslims...we're the real deal, useusas your exemplar.

Likewise, virtually anything can be described as democratic or undemocratic,

according to the personal whims of the critic or crusader making the given argument.

2. Policy (the dictats of democracy) is always carried out by an empowered elite.

This elite nearly always disregards the very values they claim to represent, since the

entire practice of seeking assent and 'having' a democracy is almost always a sham to

mask raw power and heteronomy, anyway. And even in (purely hypothetical) situations

where the elite would be entirely well-intentioned, subjective interpretation and

decision-making that affects a whole load of people that have not consented, is just

plain immoral. And if there ever was consensus behind every proposition, then it

wouldn't be democracy, or even government, but a consentient community, which I

have written about at length.

3. But these 'ideal democracies' are purely hypothetical and in reality, the only

feedback the disempowered participant in democracy has is to ask the

empowered elite to change their ways. ... The worst part of this is that the same

people that are suggesting that the people elected to government can change things

for the better are likely the same people that deny that the rest can change. What I

mean is that when a person like me suggests that people can change and accept

voluntary modes of cooperation and living, they say "Oh well, people are flawed and

bad, that will never work!". This is an affirmation of the worst possible model: a fixed

human nature for the masses, but a mystical exemption for the psychopathic ruling

scum, who these days, remember, are often drawn from those self-same masses. It
seems that when one is elected to office one is no longer affected by human nature

and can be impartial, just and benevolent. What a horrid, slave-meat mentality it takes

to trust 'government' and distrust spontaneous order and voluntary cooperation!

4. Supporters of democracy talk about consensus when it is the precise opposite

of democracy. Consensus is when everyone agrees so no major conflict exists, and

democracy is when that conflict is managed according to the dictats of the

empowered elite, arbitrating arbitrarily. I couldn't count the number of times that

supporters of 'democracy' have said things like "We're all about consensus, inclusion

and social justice", and then they turn around and force edicts on people, and

disenfranchise those not directly involved in their bureaucratic committees.

5. Democracy has a worse track record than any of the worst forms of despotism.

Millions upon millions have died due to the actions of those who can claim a

democratic mandate for their appalling crimes. This alone should sound alarm bells to

those who seek salvation in democracy, but instead the situation is nearly always

justified by attempting to twist reality into some grand narrative of 'progress' or a

psychological battle of 'us vs them'. "We're not yet at the promised land" is the

unspoken sentiment (largely-unrecognised as religious) that underpins this entire

tradition of apologetics.

6. Democracy is a religion, as I said earlier. Think about how most modern people

view the inquisitions and pogroms of the past, and the jihads and godly genocides of

the present, and you have some idea of how future communities of people will, one

day, if they survive, view the zealots of democracy.

Please think about all of the above points and decide which side of history you want

to be on.