Perspective

Democracy Isn’t Working

Democracy is failing citizens across the West, society is polarising, and the achievement of your goals in the future is becoming increasingly uncertain. No, ‘the people’ cannot be trusted to make the right decisions.

Since Trump gloriously restricted CNN and the BBC’s press access,  The Washington Post, The New York Times and other rags have come out boohooing the fact that democracy isn’t working for them.  Rather like when a child accuses another of cheating when they are losing, the lugenpresse would have us believe that a democracy which doesn’t work in favour of their leftist ideology isn’t democracy at all.  So, after Brexit and Trump, drowning in leftist tears, and with nationalists doing so well in European polls, I must be head over heels with democracy, right?  How wrong you are!

The bien pensants are so ingratiating when they not only defend democracy but do so because ‘the people can be trusted to make the right decisions’.  Setting the majority of people aside for one moment (bless them), democracy is, even on paper, the worst political system there is.  Churchill (also grossly overrated) was wrong when he said that it was the worst, except for all the others – chortle, chortle.  No, Aristotle was right – democracy is simply the corrupted form of a republic, just as tyranny and oligarchy are, monarchy and aristocracy.  Except, with the rule of many, indeed the rule of a majority, there are greater and more plentiful opportunities for corruption.

As celebrated as it is, democracy pits every conceivable group against the other, destroying trust in whole nations, let alone communities.  Classes are divided as the political class offer the working class more of what the middle class are producing, all the while introducing yet another competing group of immigrants to replace a now dependent working class in the labour force.  At least if a king becomes corrupt, you can assassinate the rascal; aristocrats can potentially hold others in check; but, democracy is the cancer of political corruption.

What makes democracy all the more dangerous, however, is that there is no meritocracy to it.  People have decision-making power by virtue of falling out of their mothers and not dying for 18 years.  We wouldn’t wish to employ someone on those criteria alone, yet the overwhelming majority religiously swear by these criteria in politics, not just for themselves but for every country!  And, well, if it’s good enough for the overwhelming majority…

Bringing the zombified masses to question their beliefs about democracy is nigh impossible; and it is precisely for this reason that large-scale democracy is so destructive – people are simply too simple for democracy.  For years I have been trying to convince others of the truth of Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed – that such a system degenerates society by offering everyone, from the working to the political class, a quick grab of power or resources with no concern for the long-term, no thought for heritable interests etc.  In that time, I have come to learn a lot about the general psychological condition of Westerners.  I now understand why people won’t change their minds about democracy and why political responsibility should be relinquished from them, for their own good.

Let’s just look at three general psychological traits of the masses: Low IQs, the Dunning-Kruger effect and Haidt’s Elephant.

For whites/Europeans, the average IQ is 100.  Albeit, we have a greater representation among the gifted and intelligent than East Asians, whose average is several points higher.  Sounds good, so what’s the problem?  It is a small, absolute minoity with IQs above 120, i.e. who can gather and infer their own information, let alone the smaller group who actually do.  With that in mind, we must look at the Dunning-Kruger effect; that is, despite ‘lack[ing] the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments’, as one study put it, people assume their mental abilities are greater than they are.

More significantly, when they cannot grasp thinking which is above them, they assume the more intelligent are incompetent and trust instead in their own judgment.  This renders the masses unable to select the best representation and, worse, vulnerable to deception and exploitation from those smarter than themselves (perhaps one of several reasons democractic offices seem to attract sociopaths).

But, how can the masses be awoken from their slumber?  Haidt’s increasingly popular analogy of an elephant and its rider is a fine way of describing the political defensiveness we are all prone to.  Our ideological baggage, especially in our subconscious, is the elephant we (hopefully, with some control) ride around on.  Overcoming this beast has to be a gentle process of listening to others’ beliefs, acknowledging the good in their intent, shared aims and, thus, giving them the opportunity to be civil and to reciprocate.  There is no guarantee they will change their views of course, but you stand a better chance than charging at them, on the offensive; the elephant will reel, the defences will go up and your views will be stubbornly dismissed.

On the large-scale, masses can be manipulated by the self-interested and sincere alike.  In Le Bon’s The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, he noted typical traits of the mass mentality: ‘impulsiveness, irritability, incapacity to reason, the absence of judgment and of the critical spirit, the exaggeration of the sentiments’ etc.  Hitler made good use of this understanding, swaying the black and white emotional thinking of the masses and completely curtailing Haidt’s Elephant.  Such a strategy is open to all and so I candidly employ it with you now.

We share the same wants and needs: security and freedom for ourselves and our loved ones, and the wherewithal to make enough money for leisure and other personal goals.  Now, we both need a society that’s stable enough to make this a long-term reality.  Traditional systems of government with aristocracies and monarchies did just that; those who ruled had the incentive to not rock the boat or rush to implement lots of new policies, because their children had to inherit the responsibility after them.  People were mostly left in peace and the classes weren’t in an endless political war with each other but rather respected each other as kinsmen with a shared vision of liberty, property and the rule of law.

Democracy is failing citizens across the West, society is polarising, and the achievement of your goals in the future is becoming increasingly uncertain.  No, ‘the people’ cannot be trusted to make the right decisions.  If we want a high trust society and a prosperous future, we must first humble ourselves and trust in the natural hierarchy of tradition – the old order of aristocracy.  What trust can we have in a subversive political class who claim to represent us but instead emotionally manipulate us to serve their own ends and those of wealthy interest groups?  Down with democracy, up with the noblesse oblige!

Originally Published at The Warden Post

Share:
  • SatirevFlesti

    Though Hoppe’s book is great, and a classic, I stopped reading at “lugenpresse”.

    Firstly, it’s “lügenpresse”.

    Secondly, stop throwing in random German words that were popular with Nazi’s in the 1920s and 30s. It’s not only pretentious and pointless (just say “lying press” in English), but it just gives ammunition to those on the Left who want to classify the alt-right as neo-Nazis.

    • Rik Storey

      This word has memetic value and is popular with the alt right; and if it’s good enough for Richardo Duchesne’s blog, it’s good enough for me.

    • ThomasER916

      If you don’t have the stomach to deal with shit-slinging anti-Whites then you’re not going to make a difference in this world. So keep your head down and shut the fuck up! We’re going on without you.

  • Scott Schroeder

    Every government that has ever existed in the real world has been an oligarchy regardless of what it calls itself. A nation whose government calls itself a democracy is ruled by the group that controls public opinion. Democracy works fine for that group. It would work fine for us if we controlled public opinion. That’s why pro-whites need to win the propaganda war and take power.

    • Lantern

      You nailed it there. Propaganda is the intellectual food of the public mind. Public opinion results from it. Media is everything.

      • steve r.

        That’s why the jews bought up all media so they could control the masses minds.

  • MylesStandish

    American nationalism will always be democratic; we can no more change that aspect of our character than we can change the color of our skin. It stems from the folkish principle that, “he who pays the piper calls the tune” or “no taxation without representation”. The proper American form of democracy concerns only the freemen, not the wards and dependents. These freemen form an assembly and decide what the proper course of action is, that is, how they should spend their own hard-earned money.

    The problem is that this proper republican form has been eroded and displaced by a corrupt, foreign despotism which seizes money from the American tax-payer, the freeman, and disperses it amongst the various parasites. While the teeming underclass does manage to survive without working under this scheme, the real culprits are the vile tax-farmers, commissars and oligarchs who are living lives of gross excess off the fruits of our labor.

    As for this notion of looking to the old continent and their “aristocracies” as a superior system – it’s nonsense. If that way were truly superior then America would not have been swamped by immigrants fleeing these dysfunctional hellholes, huddled and tempest-tost. Even the very aristocrats themselves showed up, hat in hand, if they were unlucky enough to be second-born.

    There are no easy solutions, no knights in shining armor coming to save us. God helps those who help themselves.

    • Charles The Hammer

      Democracy worked reasonably well so long as only White men were able to vote. Some people say that only White men with property should be able to vote, and that is what some of the founders believed. I think it should be more like Starship Troopers, only White men who serve their time in the armed forces should be able to vote.

      • ThomasER916

        Vote, run for office, hold a teaching position… basically, any profession that serves to coalesce Whites.

  • unpaidpundit

    “What makes democracy all the more dangerous, however, is that there is no meritocracy to it.”

    There is more meritocracy in democracy than in aristocracy. Donald Trump won the presidency on his merits — he is a master salesman/marketer/manipulator.

    • Y Finkelstein

      I agree in large part with the statement that democracy is more meritocratic than aristocracy. This is why I don’t understand the position of Alt Right Monarchists. Monarchy was what lead to Inbred Retards like Charles II of Spain ruling and ruining great powers, or the more famous example of anemic Tsarevich Alexei.

      We need to use Democracy to subvert our ends, then subvert democracy and the Constitution itself. There are numerous examples of Dictators ruling in a somewhat democratic and legal fashion. This is what the Alt Right should strive for, not Monarchistic Larping.

      • Monarchism

        Being inbred is not a requirement of monarchy, nor is it exclusive to it. Roosevelt’s wife was a Roosevelt before he married her…
        You can have laws against inbreeding and still be a monarchy. Democracy on the other hand is insanity. If democracy were really meritocratic then all companies should be forced to be democracies, but they aren’t, they’re best monarchies because as soon as employees would get to vote, they would vote someone in who would destroy the company for their own short term benefit.

        • Y Finkelstein

          To be clear, I am not in favor of democracy. I am in favor of the APPEARANCE of democracy to grant legitimacy to a rightist Dictatorship. This can be achieved through plebiscites where the public bestows confidence on the dictatorship. Pinochet was a master at using plebiscites and legal maneuvers to rule within the Chilean Constitution.

    • Monarchism

      We could have a gladiator contest to determine the next president and call it a meritocracy too. Being able to be a master salesman/marketer/manipulator is a skill, but not necessarily the right skill. Someone who can convince the unintelligent masses to give him power is not necessarily a good administrator. However someone who is born into his role and studies to do his job from birth, free from having to lie about how he will administrate because of the absence of elections is much more likely to be a good administrator in my opinion. Just think of companies, imagine if every private company was forced to have elections every 4 years, do you think they would become meritocratic? How many do you think would survive even a year?

  • Broad Top

    We HAD an aristocracy, in effect, before women’s suffrage. White male property owners. That likely would’ve been good enough.

    • Maple Curtain

      Yes. To write a whole article on the failure of democracy and fail to note the massive effect of women’s suffrage renders the whole thing pointless.

      Step 1: give women the vote.

      Step 2: stand back and watch your society collapse.

  • illkhan

    Democracy is moral cancer and it needs to be permanently stamped out. The average person is a waste of space, they don’t have the capacity to make important decisions.

  • VictoryOrValhalla

    I think raw population also has a factor in there; a small, Greek City-State could probably run competently on a democracy ruling over a few thousand people, but a nation with 320 million people on it, 80% of which can barely function on a daily basis? Shit gonna burn.
    Granted, America would probably run well enough if you cut the parasites and required ID plus some miniumum qualifications to vote; a few years of employment, registered tax payer, property ownership perhaps. No gas chambers required, just cut the free food. Use the saved money on building a godly wall. Everyone’s happy, and if they’re not, who cares, they’re starving and/or outside the wall.

  • Jarod

    Democracy can work if only a certain class can vote…

  • Sami el-Haid

    Biggest problem is rebuilding this “aristocracy”. Answering those questions of who goes where and who serves who.

    I find democracy to be a rather unfortunate development, and its most fervent defenders are often most detestable characters, leaning towards the anarchist side of the political spectrum. It’s something that societies are essentially “stuck” with simply because there are no easy alternatives (and no legal alternative given that democracy is akin to state “ideology”). People fought fervently for this system and it has done little other than erode societies for leftist ideals, e.g. global economies, supranational organizations like the EU and UN, and multiculturalism.

    Concepts of democracy/freedom obviously mean different things to different people. For example, in Communist terminology; Communism equates to democracy, yet democracy as we know it is considered a “bourgeois” system to defend the interests of capital.

    The number of people these days that would be “sincere democrats” would be very few in number and studies on the issue suggest that it is thankfully declining. Turkey’s Erdogan summed it up quite well in his statement that democracy was simply a bus travelling along a road. You just use it to reach your destination.

    The left knows subconsciously knows this and do not value democracy either, hence they desperately want Trump to fail despite his legitimate victory. They rejoice at every bit of news that he has made some sort of mistake simply because they have never really accepted the election and do not consider anything other than leftists to be democratic; therefore he is something anti-democratic.

    There will inevitably be a (I borrow this term from political theorists) “post-democratic” era. Humans will continue their search for better forms of government after having a good go at prior ones.

  • craicher

    There is a solution to the problem of monarchies allowing idiot first born sons to rule. It is the Celtic system of the Derbfine. Every healthy unblemished male with the same great grandfather (or something to this effect) is elligable for the throne. The nobles then choose the best one. It cannot be understated that the king or potential king must be without physical or mental blemish. And should be become physically or mentally ill during his reign he must sacrifice himself. Perfect Really.

    • Y Finkelstein

      The problem with this is that it led to incessant Clannish wars where Ireland, Scotland, and Wales were reduced to divided principalities which were easily conquered by the United English crown.

      • craicher

        The Traditional form could be applied to modern times. Just as the original America was a modern spin on it. Land holders (a type of noble) were the only ones allowed to vote and the story goes, even if not true, that they wanted to crown Washington king. If stability is the main thing you want then something like the dictatorship in China (not really communist) will probably rule this country well into the future. Globalist will argue that a world government (surely to be a dictatorship) will end all war and be the most stable form of governance the world has ever known. What did that Pictish king say of the Romans “They make the world a desolation and they call it peace”… something like that. Or It we can accept that conflict is part of human nature.

  • ThomasER916

    If the people cannot be trusted to “name the Jew” or be “racist” in defense of Whites then they cannot be trusted to form a government.

    • steve r.

      Right. If you aren’t naming the jew you are chasing your tail.

  • Maple Curtain

    Tell us about this supposed “aristocracy” and how you plan to get one.

    Then tell us about the feckless sons and grandsons of the aristocracy…

    Then, look around at the shithole that England has become…

    Then, STFU.

    • craicher

      Yea that is very true and a good point. that is why we need an aristocracy of merit that is not always a birthright.

      But the argument could be made that England is where it is because of the rise of Parliamentary democracy.

      Even when the British Empire was in its hayday Evola called it an Empire of Shopkeepers. England has been at the feet of the money power for quite a long time and does not serve as a good example of an aristocracy.

      But besides the details of how to make it happen I think everyone can agree that having the best men rule is a good idea and that in our current democratic systems this is not happening. More like the most crooked rule.

      • Maple Curtain

        As ‘Broad Top’ notes elsewhere on this thread, a vote restricted to male property owners (excluding all women) is a sort of aristocracy. Men of some achievement. Men will keep other men in line under threat of violence. Women are just short-sighted plunderers.

  • steve r.

    Fight the zionist jews or die by the zionist jews. It’s us or them at this point.