Our age is dominated by self-proclaimed “democratic” elites controlling states that are increasingly self-organizing into a unitary world order likewise styled “democratic.”
But “democracy” in this sense is a meaningless word—a dishonest, self-justificatory label, just as “hate,” “racism,” “anti-Semitism,” and “Holocaust denial” are content-less terms of calumny and abuse.
“Democracy” as commonly used is polemical rather than descriptive.
Words Have Meanings
Despite widespread and even official misuse, words still have meanings.
Even when powerful institutions such as the Ministry of Truth proclaim without contradiction or ridicule—indeed, to universal acclamation—that WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, it is not so.
Likewise, anti-democratic elites posturing as democrats do not thereby transform themselves into something they are not.
Democracy is government of the people—the rule of the majority. In the era of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, “democracy” rather than “liberal democracy” was the preferred term, though the variants appear to be interchangeable.
In direct democracy, supreme power is vested in and exercised by the people—the “citizens” of a “state.”
We obviously do not have that. Indeed, the theoretical difficulties posed by such an arrangement in the real world appear insuperable. It is hard to imagine that direct democracy has ever existed outside of books and philosophers’ flights of fancy, despite frequent vague allusions to Greek city-states and New England town meetings.
Representative democracy is a society in which the supreme power is vested in the people, but delegated and exercised indirectly by representatives and officials chosen periodically in free elections. A synonym for this is republic—as in “the American republic.”
Strangely, wordsmiths have tacked a couple of new, incongruous definitions onto “democracy” in the past half-century.
One is equality—political, social, or economic.
But equality and democracy are manifestly not the same. If someone wants to speak of equality they should say equality, not democracy. This is emblematic of the pervasive dishonesty inherent in the use of both words today.
Equality is a separate topic. No one sincerely believes in it or practices it, or indeed could if they wanted to. People are too different. Today’s power elite, despite incessant use of egalitarian rhetoric, is as unremittingly anti-equalitarian as it is anti-democratic.
A final deceitful, highly convoluted, definition of democracy is the following (my comments in brackets): “A state of society characterized by tolerance toward minorities [existing states are anti-white; all non-white "minorities," especially Jews, are privileged; and whites, whether minority or majority, are discriminated against—there is no "tolerance"], freedom of expression [all states suppress freedom of speech and association], and respect for the dignity and worth of the individual [there is none] with equal opportunity for each to develop freely to his fullest capacity [anti-white discrimination and genocide alone negate this claim].”
Like calling democracy equality, this last definition has a highly artificial, Newspeak ring to it. It forcibly shoehorns in a specific, politically correct racial outlook as a core component of democracy.
Specifically, it asserts that democracy is intrinsically anti-white. Certainly, those who denominate themselves “democrats” today are that. Indeed, such racism is a core tenet of “democratic” faith and ideology, second only to philo-Semitism.
Conventional language manipulation frames politically correct racism of this sort “positively”: pro-non-white rather than anti-white. But its driving force is anti-white, fueled by deep-seated hatred.
Like equality, the second definition has nothing to do with democracy as historically understood, or even with today’s concrete “democratic” practice. But it highlights the centrality of racism to contemporary “democratic” discourse, activism, and policies.
A few caveats.
Second, although the dictionary treats representative democracy and republicanism as essentially synonymous, it is more accurate, at least within the Anglo-American (and Montesquieuan) tradition, to highlight the centrality in republicanism (but not democracy) of a division of power designed to forestall one-man dictatorship, mass (legislative) dominance, or control by faction.
For example, individuals such as Cromwell, Napoleon, Mussolini, or Hitler could all (conceivably) be produced by representative democracy, but would be impossible under a properly functioning republican system. But even in the former case meaningful periodic elections would have to continue in order for the state to retain its democratic status.
It is interesting to note in this regard the recurrence within republican theory of the white tendency to “threeness”: Indo-European tripartition (priest-kings, warriors, producers), Christian trinitarianism (Father-Son-Holy Spirit), and, in republicanism, the executive, legislative, and judicial functions.
Third, in white history, the right to vote—to participate actively in either the representative democratic or republican electoral processes—was significantly restricted (property ownership, literacy tests, exclusion of Negroes, women, Amerindians, etc.).
Finally, the supreme importance of freedom of speech and association cannot be overstressed, despite the fact that contemporary “democratic” theory insists upon its suppression.
The rise of the mass media in the early decades of the 20th century, and its monopolization by the Jewish minority, ended democracy in practice. To revive it, the social role of the mass media would have to be radically rethought, and the existing ethnic monopoly ended. By whatever means, the mass media would have to be open to a variety of points of view
Simultaneously, a total prohibition upon the suppression of marginal speech and association by Jewish organizations, post-WW II security agencies, or anyone else would be necessary, creating the possibility for marginal views to attain mainstream acceptance.
Without freedom of speech and association, democracy cannot exist.
What We Have Instead
Since true representative democracy requires freedom of speech and association, and the ability to affect public policy on major issues, it would not racially discriminate against, and continuously disadvantage, indigenous majority populations.
It would not target such populations for genocide, and relentlessly pursue policies to achieve this objective, existing laws be damned (representative democracy and republicanism presuppose adherence to law by those in power).
When George W. Bush demanded that “the voice of the [Iranian] people,” not the Iranian government, “ought to be determining policy, because we believe in democracy,” Patrick Buchanan retorted, “Would Bush himself submit his immigration policy to a popular vote?”
A representative democracy would not selectively deny candidates a voice in the democratic process through strong-arm tactics of every description, up to and including destruction of careers, loss of elections, imprisonment, and the banning of popular political parties.
What are some things that cannot even be publicly discussed in so-called “democracies”?
The topic of immigration may not be democratically debated despite government policies of “replacement migration” and systematic violations of law to achieve it.
Anti-white discrimination, “hate speech” (race-based abrogation of freedom of expression), Jewish power, and an endless variety of other topics are similarly off-limits.
What about Middle East policy? Post-Western elites are, they claim, militarily bringing the blessings of “liberal democracy” to decent, innocent peoples unjustly oppressed by malevolent, anti-democratic rulers.
For example, as I write, the following “news” headlines from major wire services are featured on Yahoo!’s front page:
- “Israel: Iran closer to bomb”
- “Obama vows to foil Iran nuke effort”
- The president says sanctions are having a big impact, but all options remain on the table. Swipe at GOP rivals
- “Romney: I will stop Iran”
- “Romney: Iran will obtain nuclear weapon if Obama is re-elected”
- “Bachmann worries Israel to be target of nuclear war”
The Communist-style cretinism of such “news” items and candidate behavior in light of endless military invasions and intelligence-orchestrated coups in the region requires no comment.
Such mouthings are not the product of a “free press” or of representative democracy. The media’s power to steer, monopolize, and limit public discussion, as well as to control the electoral and policy-making processes, is transparently anti-democratic.
A controlled mass media concentrated in the hands of a wealthy, racist minority with the power to set narrow limits on what constitutes “acceptable” public discourse and indirectly select a homogenous slate of candidates for elective office abrogates the very notion of representative government.
Obama, Romney, Bachmann and the rest are ambitious dogs and ponies in a media-orchestrated show.
Nothing was less democratic than Communism, yet that bloody dictatorship styled itself “people’s democracy,” and was embraced as such by sympathetic, like-minded non-Communist “democrats” abroad.
The fact that democratic rhetoric and forms are employed by such people is irrelevant. Empty words and precepts do not discredit the concept of democracy; they discredit those who wield totalitarian power in its name.
Representative democracy may or may not be an appropriate, viable, or desirable form of government. But responsibility for the behavior of existing states and their leaders at home and abroad cannot justly be laid at its door.
The United States, other ex-Western nations, and globalist institutions like the UN are intransigently anti-democratic.
Their “democratic” rhetoric is as empty and hypocritical as their endless drivel about anti-racism, freedom, equality, and human rights.