This started from posts by Libertus, but with expansion and commentary.

Tyrannical nature of democracy

Democracy is a self-destructive political system for several reasons.
Democracy formalizes political competition between interest groups, which leads to deep divisions
within the society. It also produces artificial divisions, as politicians seek to gain votes at the
expense of one another. Democracy is “a battle over who will acquire the power to force the other
side to bend to its will”, and thus it turns people within a nation, within a society, into enemies. This
leads to anger and hatred, as it is natural tendency of people to see those without the group as evil:
progressives see traditionalists as worse than Nazis; not as group to have a dialogue with, but as an
enemy to be exterminated by any means necessary. Result is nation where people despise one
another.
This division into herds is absolutely devastating for the society. As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
notes, "The true "herdist" will carefully avoid acting or thinking originally, in order not to destroy
the uniformity which is so dear to him, and he is also ready to rise immediately against anybody
who dares to act independently and thus destroy the sacred unity of the uniform group to which he
belongs. The loyal herdist will not rise alone against the sacrilegious offender; he will have the
support of the rest of the circumscribed society and thus a mass action of collective protest will take
place, forcing the "lonely individual" to conform or to withdraw.". Examples can be seen
everywhere, especially from progressives. The end result however is that democracy – ironically –
destroys political action and plurality of political opinion alike. Greater formal democracy leads to
reduced actual (practical) democracy.
Democracy seeks equality. But human beings are different by their nature: different through
genetically-inherited abilities, through education, life experiences, personality, choices. Thus
equality is only possible within an authoritharian, totalitarian society which sees individuals as non-
entities (for all zeros are equal). In democracies, government offers to steal from people to give to
other people so as to gain votes and/or influence. The result is social devastation: rich can always
avoid taxes (even – and perhaps especially – in a democratic society) and poor need to be bought.
Thus all the burden of this policy falls onto the middle class, one class which is absolutely crucial
for well-being of the society. Eventually, middle class is destroyed as incentive to produce is lost.
Since anyone can gain power by joining a gang – that is, a political party – there is less resistance to
government abuse in a democratic system. In a monarchical society – especially feudal one – people
gained membership of a certain social circle through birth (or elevation). As a result, different
circles (King – magnates – minor nobility – Church in a feudal society; Emperor – nobility of
capital – nobility of provinces – thematic armies – Church in Byzantine Empire) kept each other in
check; the exact system of "checks and balances" which is so often posited as an advantage of a
democratic political system. These circles were also kept in check from the outside. Because
likelyhood of joining the abusers was so low, there was less willingness to tolerate abuses from
those outside any given circle. Further, these social circles had genuinely different interests due to
their differing social positions. In a democracy, all "political parties" are members of the same
class / caste and thus have, in effect, same social interests; differences in political programmes are
nothing but lies told to gain votes, and they disappear as soon as government is formed. The only
actual differences which may exist reflect interests of parties' sponsors; most specifically, whether
they are sponsored by national or international capital. In a feudal or similar system, differences are
genuine.
In a democracy, tyranny is hidden by anonymity and numbers. Anyone can point to anyone – or
everyone – else. A tyrannical monarch however would be personally guilty, and easy to point to.
This has wider social implications (as saying in Croatia goes, "fish stinks from the head").
Monarchical ideal promotes personal responsibility. In a democracy, responsibility has left the
individual and become "social" responsibility of people as a whole. Result of this was expansion of
crime, moral decay, and destruction of the family. Instead of primates, humans are becoming
insects.
As a result, crime rate has gone up. Crime rates in modern democracies are higher than in
premodern societies. This is partly a consequence of multiculturalism, but multiculturalism itself is
based in democratic ideals. The breakdown in family unit caused by welfare dependency, state
intrusion into upbringing and education as well as materialistic exploitation of individuals has
destroyed family. In US, blacks have it the worst – 70% of children are born outside marriage
(compared to 10% in 1950s). As a result, unemployment, drug usage and gang membership all went
up.
Democracy as such is a much greater danger to liberty than is monarchy. As soon as child is born, it
becomes property of the state. Everything, every aspect of life, eventually becomes regulated. Mass
voting inevitably moves towards totalitarianism. This can be seen from today's progressives. Voting
means competition between ideas, which means that ideas other than one's own are seen
automatically as dangerous. This means that any differing ideas need to be eliminated – today,
political correctness, social justice, "hate speech" laws and similar serve the same purpose as
"verbal delict" did in Communist states.
Because humans are primarily emotional beings, who require time and peace to consider things,
large groups of humans are easy to scare into stupid behaviour. Emotional problems are posed to
cause mass emotional reaction leading to demand for governmental solution – any solution. Thus
people vote away their own freedom believing that government will solve their problems – like
sheep voting for wolves. But government never solves these problems – in fact, it is in elected
politicans' interest to create more and more problems, so that people clamor for more and more
restrictions. This is what is happening in the West nowadays: politicians promote mass immigration
> mass immigration leads to increased violence > people get scared of violence and ask for security
> government provides "security" at price of freedom (more police, more surveillance cameras,
larger and more intrusive governmental apparatus in general). And problems are never addressed at
their source: drug wars are fought instead of dealing with cause of increased drug usage (breakdown
of traditional family, overworked and overexploited parents etc.).
Compared to today's "democracy", royal absolutism of 17th century was very mild and non-
intrusive. Today, girl scouts are getting fined 500 USD for selling lemonade in wrong areas, one
cannot raise his own livestock without government's approval, laws and regulations are designed to
benefit large corporations while pushing small producers out of business. Christians are forced to
make homosexual wedding cakes, and conservatives have to pay taxes so that their children can be
indoctrinated in progressive egregore / groupthink. State authorizes what people can believe, learn,
eat, use for medicine. State brainwashes people, and once majority is brainwashed, anything can be
legalized – be it murder (e.g. abortion), rape, genocide etc. Even without it, things are legalized by
trumpeting "international treaties", "human rights" etc., while at the same time basic human rights
are being taken away: such as right for self-defense. Democracies always seek to disarm the
populace to avoid resistance to their rule, no different from dictatorships – which they in truth are.
In monarchies of 1900s, only 3% of populace worked for the crown. Today's democracies in Europe
have the proportion of 10% of populace working for the government at minimum, with maximum
of 29% and average on level of EU of 16%. In democracy, government has achieved autonomy
from society. Serf gave 10% of income to lord and 10% to Church; in modern democracy, half the
salary goes to various insurances (see here), and total tax is 35% (just value-added tax is 25%). In
addition, quarter of wage may go to landlord if person does not own his own home. Serfs
themselves were often poor city people who moved to the country. They had no lands, and could
choose which lord to follow. In exchange lord would swear to protect them – and this was generally
done. Further, since lord was interested in profitability, he usually allowed towns on his lands to
self-govern.
Democracy and professional psychopathy
What is even more frightening than size of democratic government is the quality of the same. In
democracy, politicians are under constant pressure to gain and maintain power. Since they have a
set term limit, there is a huge pressure to steal and cheat as much as possible before time runs out.
Further, politicians in modern democracy are not selected by the lottery. They are actually
professional politicians – that is, they chose to enter politics. But as JRR Tolkien has pointed out,
"The most improper job of any man, even saints, is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for
it and least of all those who seek the opportunity.". A successful politician in a representative
democracy is a psychopath who lies to voters. Representative democracy has career politicians,
which means people who seek power. But people who seek power are precisely ones who should
not be granted power: representative democracy ensures that power goes to those who are least
appropriate to have it.
Problem is also in voters' psychology: people admire liars and hate those who tell them the truth.
Modern politician is a liar by instinct, since that is how most easily he will gain power. Psychopaths
tend to be fearless, confident, charming, ruthless and focused – exact qualities which a politician
needs to succeed. Elected politicians have no conscience, and typically offer excuses and place
blame on the others – one of basic characteristics of psychopathic behaviour.

Authoritharian democracy
In a centralized democracy, self-rule is an illusion. In Roman Empire or feudal states, cities had
high degree of autonomy. Even in Byzantine Empire, cities could determine much if not most of
their own internal matters.
In democracy, only minority of populace are ever represented. Typical is two-party system (US,
Croatia, UK, France), which in reality rapidly becomes one-party system when (nonexistent)
ideological and practical differences between ruling parties are observed. Ruling parties legislate so
as to prevent third parties from disrupting the system. Usually 1/3 of population do not vote, which
means that winning party always has less than 50% support. This is because average voter
recognizes that he is powerless against the state, and indeed nowhere is person as insignificant as in
democracy. And even this formal representation of minority does not really happen: politicians need
money for their campaigns, and this comes from wealthy donors. Since voting is merely a one-time
affair, politicians actually represent the interests of those who finance their campaigns.
This question of backers is significant. Modern capitalists – especially those from finance industry
and/or international magnates – share much the same psychopathic pathology of elected politicians.
Yet politicians require their support to win the elections, and this support needs to be paid back
during said politicians' term in the office. And since modern large capital is in cahoots with large
state, end result is that there is only one political option available: Marxist-statist power centralizers.
This means that Western "democratic" countries are on an inoxerable march towards absolutist
totalitarianism. Power structures in mass democracy belong to media, bankers, big business, interest
groups, corporations and bureocrats; there is no room left for the people, and elections do not
matter. There is no way to opt out of the system, or to change it; the whole system is akin to giving
person a choice of the means of an already predetermined execution. No matter the vote, outcome is
the same.
System itself is designed to divide the people into groups. This is why democratic politicians
support immigration, as it allows them to create even more division and conflict within the society
which then can be exploited for their own purposes. Democracy as a system is built to create and
promote conflict – but it does so within the society itself, destroying it in the process.
While democracy is a certain road towards tyranny, democratic system cannot be removed as easily
as a tyrannical ruler. A monarch could not hope to turn against his people and survive, whether in a
feudal or a Byzantine system. Democratic governments do so regularly.
Monarchy is at significant advantage here. A King only benefits from uniting his people, and is not
required to serve particular interests of his financial backers. Kings do not need social engineering
to steal money, nor do they have the pressure to get rich before their term runs out.

Average voter
Democracy requires informed voters, but voters nowadays are anything but informed. Most people
are so concerned with basic survival that they do not have time or energy to spend on crucial task of
following and understanding politics. Vast majority of voters merely parrot what mainstream media
serve them, with no thought or understanding.
Because ruling class has media and education under its thumb, voters do not get basis necessary to
form proper decisions. Public opinion is manufactured and strictly regulated. Yet they serve purpose
in providing legitimacy for decisions made by said ruling class, allowing it to act more freely than it
would be able to in a non-democratic system.
In order to fill hole that lack of tradition and God have left, government will provide tasks such as
fighting racism and promoting diversity – thus leading people towards destroying their own
civilization for the sake of feeling well. Democracy is only possible in a system where government
is absolutely minimal, where there are traditions, morality and law higher than that of the state –
which is to say, in a traditional, ethnically and culturally homogenous society. But democratic
government takes over education and other social tasks, and in the process destroys the very basis
of democracy itself.

Centralization
Centralization of government has led to greatest evils in history. Going by demicides, it is exactly
strong governments which caused greatest mass murders in history. Communism killed 107 million
people, Nazism 21 million and right-wing militarism 22 million. As R.J.Rummel stated, four times
as many people were killed by their own governments as had been killed in all the wars ever fought.
Greatest threat to human life were not wars, but massive centralization of power. This means that
the exact systems promoted to increase safety by reducing chance of war – that is, supranational
institutions (e.g. EU) – are far greater threat to human life than the wars they are ostensibly trying to
prevent. Among forms of centralized power, democracy is the least lethal, because – compared to
Nazism/Communism/etc. - democracy is least centralized. However, democracy merely
decentralizes political process; what is also necessary is decentralization of power, and this can only
be achieved by moving decision-making power to the lowest level possible (which, again, is the
exact opposite of what EU is trying to achieve).
Democracy has also had impact on war. War, ever since French Revolution (and even earlier: Thirty
Years War), was no longer a war between rulers: rather, it was a war between nations, between
peoples. And thus peoples became a legitimate target, something that was rare outside the Ottoman
front. Combined with greater centralization and cohesion of democratic states, wars became more
frequent as well as more destructive as military became stronger and more effective. Rulers also,
having an excuse that they are executors of public will, could fight more freely. In contrast,
monarchical wars are wars between monarchs themselves, which significantly reduced their impact
on the populace. Combined with more stable foreign policy, this made wars much less destructive.
Further, in a feudal society, lords and kings were expected to lead armies themselves – there was
thus a personal cost to war, unlike modern democratic warfare where politicians oftentimes even
benefit from war. While wars were more frequent, this was a consequence of political
fragmentation, and said wars were less destructive than civil disturbances so frequent in modern
Western multicultural democracies.
Greatest decentralization was achieved under medieval feudalism, when Europe consisted of
thousands of de-facto independent political entities. Nearly everything was done by local (city,
village) government, with central government only demanding taxes – if that. Customs and
traditions were above the laws and could not be altered by rulers, thus preventing the government
(king, lord) from sliding into tyranny, as modern-day political entities are prone to do. And said
customs were local, not even national and let alone supranational. Medieval kings did not create
laws or legislate; laws were traditional and local, given and fixed by tradition and custom. Thus
King could easily be tried for violating the laws – this was the case even in Byzantine Empire. But
in feudal monarchy, unlike Byzantine Empire, vast majority of people lived beyond the reach of
royal influence or power. Kings depended on their vassals, even in war, and said vassals depended
on their own vassals – all the way down to knight and his peasants. As a result, any ruler who
wanted to remain in power could not be tyrannical, as that would mean risking swift removal from
either above or below. "Divine right of kings" was never accepted by the Catholic Church; in fact,
rebellion against tyrannical ruler was considered a duty. "Right of kings" was only proclaimed by
James I of England, a Protestant. Thus, despite often-repeated opinion, removing a king in a feudal
monarchy was both legal and legitimate – resistance to tyranny was a duty. As Thomas Aquinas
writes: "If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that
the king be deposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he
abuses the royal power. It must not be thought that such a multitude is acting unfaithfully in
deposing the tyrant, even though it had previously subjected itself to him in perpetuity, because he
himself has deserved that the covenant with his subjects should not be kept, since, in ruling the
multitude, he did not act faithfully as the office of a king demands.".
Local government is closer to the people and more accountable. Rule by a local lord is in essence
more democratic than that of a supranational (or even national) parliament. Decentralization avoids
tyranny by offering a diversity in government which centralized society cannot achieve. This is
highly beneficial, as there would be no need to subject entire society to experiments: rather, a single
province could live out, say, "progressive paradise" – or any other novelty – and those who do not
want it would be able to see how said experiment turns out. And people who do not like politics in
one province could easily move to another province within the state. Result would be a much more
efficient and effective system, better able to experiment and adapt to new circumstances. It would
also stop much of infighting as there would be no need for various groups to force themselves on
each other, as modern centralized democracy mandates.
In contrast, power structure of a centralized country – especially a democracy – cannot be removed
easily. Democratic power structure is especially dangerous as power is spread out to many people,
and thus becomes systematic. Consequently, once criminals and psychopaths establish themselves
in a democracy removing them becomes almost impossible, whereas a psychopathic local lord – or
even a psychopathic king – can be removed fairly easily. This again can be illustrated by various
"democratic" duopols: Republicans and Democrats in USA or HDZ and SDP (that is, KOS and
UDBA) in Croatia. In both cases, there is no appreciable difference between two parties and people
suffer under them, yet same two parties are always being elected. A single ruler is easily removed,
whereas removal of ruling structures of democratic (or even pseudo-democratic: e.g. Communist)
society would cause massive social disruption. And democratic government oftentimes has much
more extensive systems of oppression than a feudal (or even Byzantine) ruler would have, thus
making it much more dangerous to remove violently. Elections are no answer to these issues, as
they are easily "tweaked": in last Croatian parliamentary elections (July 2020.) 352 voting papers
were declared invalid. Željko Glasnović required only 8 votes for a seat in Parliament, yet he lost 11
votes just in Livno. Of course, HDZ refused to repeat the elections despite significant irregularities
noticed at various voting places. Even without such tweaking, voters are typically uninformed and
even outright idiotic: Croatian Communist Party (HDZ – SDP (Restart) – Pametno – Narodna –
Reformisti – HNS) in the end received 119 seats out of 151, or 79%, proving that people love the
most those who do them evil. And elections themselves were placed into middle of Corona
epidemic for two reasons: 1) to limit willingness of voters to go to elections (HDZ's clients were
certainly going to vote) and 2) to exploit tendency of people to avoid "rocking the boat" during a
crisis.
Overall, centralization of power means that formal democracy is, in practice, less democratic than a
monarchy (of feudal or Middle Byzantine style – absolutist monarchy of 17th and 18th century is
another matter, though still debatable). Central government forces people to accept changes it wants
to make, whether people want those changes or not. Tax in absolute monarchies never rose above 5-
8%, there was no property tax (nobody thought their private property was on rent from state), and
medieval peasants had right to defend their property even against the kings.
Modern democratic government places itself above the law – no law is higher than the lawmaker –
and is thus not accountable to the very laws it holds average person to, whereas a king in a feudal
monarchy was still subject to the law which was derived from custom and tradition. Precisely this
subordination to law was difference between a king and a tyrant: a tyrant refused to be subordinated
to the law. A king subordinated himself to the law, and administers republic under guidance of the
law. Thus modern democratic government can call for legalization of gay marriage, pedophilia,
necrophilia and drug usage. People who disagree with politically correct beliefs are forcibly
removed. In democratic Germany, dr. Heinrich Flechtner was ejected from Stuttgart Germany's state
parliament after he accused Communist parties running Germany of having "blood on their hands".
At the same time, globalist corporations use centralized government to dictate politics.

Cult of democracy
Democracy today – much like other modern things (progressivism, multiculturalism etc.) - is a cult.
Democracy is perfect, and cannot be damaged by evidence. When society does well, it must be a
result of democracy; but when democratic system does not work, blame is always shifted elsewhere,
and true believer asks for more democracy. But historically, democracy and similar system have
always produced decline of faith and morality and their replacement with materialism and laws –
both of which are characteristics of totalitarian systems. Socialism believes humans can be
improved, contrary to all the evidence (general trend has been, since the end of Middle Ages,
downwards). Utopia can be achieved by governmental action – and when that fails, solution is
invariably more government and more control over individual. Bonds of blood, culture, history,
morality and so on are replaced by external control (totalitarianism).
Lawmakers are given mandate by the people and thus believe themselves the highest authority:
above the law, not subject to the law, and able to change the law at will. They thus aim to control all
modes of behaviour and set their own standards, as seen from modern politically correct culture.
French Revolution, from which "mandate of the people" originates, killed tens of thousands of
people. Communists killed tens of millions, as noted earlier. French Revolutionary government,
Communist government and modern democracies all hold to claims of diversity and acceptance, yet
they all condone mass murder of undesireables. At least 20 million were killed in Russia for their
religion and monarchist opinions. In Spain, Republicans killed 55 000 people while Nationalists
killed 75 000 according to some figures, though estimates for both vary wildly (40 000 – 110 000
victims of Republican terror vs 60 000 – 200 000 victims of Nationalist terror).

Democracy: road to long-term disaster

Above clearly shows that democracy actually causes disaster, but basic reasons for such are as
follows:
• race for votes
• resistance to compromise
"Race for votes" denotes already-mentioned tendency of political parties to sacrifice everything on
the altar of gaining votes. Left consistently promotes mass immigration, no matter the
consequences. Reason for this is not humanitarianism – no matter what they might say, Left does
not care about well-being of immigrants. Rather, they are using immigrants to fight a culture war
against the Right: and this culture war is something that very setup of democracy not only enables,
but promotes. Consequence of this is that certain groups (in today's West typically Marxist Left)
will attempt to achieve cultural hegemony and shut down any possibility of discussion and differing
opinions, introducing ideological totalitarism within so-called politically pluralistic system. In
Croatia, Communist Party still holds power over 30 years after so-called "democratization", and
prevents any serious opposition by holding tight hold over media and academia.
In democracy, there is no interest in the future. Politicians care only about being (re)elected, and
thus promote policies which will secure their reelection. These policies bring short-term benefits,
but are oftentimes devastating in the long term: example being national debt or mass immigration
facilitated by the Left as a way to gain votes. A very good example is First World War: by 1916. it
was more than obvious that no gains resulting from the war will be worth its continuation. But war
was continued because, for politicians who had supported it, it was political suicide to admit that
war was in fact useless. Situation was made worse by the "sunk cost fallacy", which in fact formed
part of previous argument: so many resources had been spent on war that politicians could not back
off while saving face in front of the public. Nor did politicians have reason to consider the
consequences of continuing the war. Politicians in democracy do not pass power to their children,
and in fact will be out of the office by the time full impact of their policies is felt. Consequently,
they have no discipline, and are in fact encouraged to seek immediate gratification through
exploitation of their priviledged position. Elected politicians have nobody to leave the state to, no
reason to care about its future, while at the same time having a set term limit by which to secure
their own personal future – by enriching themselves at the expense of the people they are supposed
to serve.
In a monarchical system, monarch typically hopes to pass the crown onto his successor: this is true
even if monarchy is technically elective. As a result, he has vested and personal interest in the
future. King alone – and his successors – are responsible for the debt, whereas in democracy debt
incurred by the politicians is passed onto the people. Monarch has reason to leave his holdings – the
state – in a better state than when he inherited them; failure to do so was usually due to
incompetence rather than intent. In democracy, politicians destroy the country by intent, simply to
enrich themselves. And if king were to become tyrannical, he alone would be to blame.
Even when intent is not there, fact is that democracy – with its regular and frequent elections –
serves to psychologically condition politicans and people alike to seek short-term gratification at the
expense of long-term benefits; to burn down the house in order to warm themselves, so to speak. In
military terms, this would be equal to allowing tactical/operational considerations usurp the place of
strategy, much like Japanese did ("what to do should we go to war with US" became "what to do
when we go to war with US", and as a result Japanese Empire was destroyed).
As a result of the above, politicians in a democracy support policies (such as immigration and
breakdown of traditional family) which result in destruction of society – divorce, illegitimacy,
abortion and crime. Homicide rates multiplied in US from 1900 onwards, in step with destruction of
traditional values.
(Homicide Rates 1900 – 2001)
This is a consequence of immigration policies, abandonment of traditional extended family,
multiculturalism and dependency on government.
Resistance to compromise is a consequence of the need to win in an electoral race against the
opposition. Oftentimes, politicians and political parties reject compromise because accepting it
would alienate the portion of their voting block. Other times however, compromise is not needed in
the first place because both primary parties (in US and Croatian systems) are of the same opinion
and only pretend to be different during elections time (which is still enough to fool the voters).
Voters themselves are another reason why democracy does not work. Thanks to modern
materialistic, maximum-exploitation society, average voter has neither interest nor opportunity to
inform himself about social issues, let alone about actual positions of political parties in said issues.
Since politicians care only about next elections, voters are ones who need to be capable of ensuring
the future of the nation; but as was just explained, they are mentally and physically incapable of
doing so. Result is that voters swallow politicians' promises hook-line-and-sinker, and thus vote
themselves onto road to disaster. How else do explain Croatian HDZ-SDP duopol, except by the
fact that voting body is politically retarded?

A lot of the above is based on the following:

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?801857-Monarchy-vs-Democracy-A-Critical-
Look-at-Democracy&p=15862019&viewfull=1#post15862019
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?801874-Monarchy-vs-Democracy-The-Case-for-
Feudal-Monarchies