Democracy as Regime Enforcement Mechanism

When they said it was mob rule, they weren't kidding

If you listen to Regime apologists, you would believe that democracy is both the single most important factor in all of existence as well as facing constant, existential threats from the forces of global evil. However, the astute observer can see that when the Regime talks about “democracy,” it does not at all mean the same thing that the average person understands by that term. Far from being some neutral political decision-making process that allows the body of the citizenry to participate in governance, democracy essentially is a sham, a way to apply a veneer of popular legitimacy to predetermined policies desired by Regime oligarchs. And if the occasion arises where the people get too uppity and start moving in directions the oligarchs don’t want, democratic results can always be…adjusted…to give the right answers. All in all, when the Regime talks about “democracy,” what it means is Regime-approved policies and personnel being implemented, and it’s been this way for decades.

We can see this to be the case with a story that was in the news fairly recently, which was the crackdown on violent criminal gangs by Salvadorean president Nayib Bukele. In a very short period of time, over 40,000 gang members were rounded up and incarcerated and, unsurprisingly, El Salvador’s rates of murder and other violent crimes plummeted. Village life became safe again once the fear of raids and shakedowns by these gangs went away. Salvadorean expatriates even spoke of returning to their country now that it’s safe. So this is a good thing, right?

Well…not if you’re the globohomo Regime. In fact, they were quite unhappy about the whole matter. Something something “dangerous for democracy and human rights” yada yada. It’s important to keep in mind that what they’re literally saying is that allowing criminal gangs to terrorise regular people is a vital part of democracy. Confining those gangs in a place where they are under control and prevented from raping, pillaging, and murdering people is bad. Why on earth might that be?

Remember above where I said that democracy is really about producing Regime-approved results? Often, those results come about because a population that otherwise might oppose some elements of the program is cowed into submission through the threat of force - force which is often farmed out to approved non-state actors. That was plain enough from Solzhenitsyn’s description of how the Bolsheviks emptied Russia’s prisons during the revolution, turning the prisoners into tools to be used to intimidate and despoil the “bourgeoisie.” Bolshevik-ran police turned a blind eye, but if a “class enemy” defended himself, and especially if he injured a criminal, then the full power of the state came down on him to make an example of him. This is not dissimilar to the process that began to take place during the George Floyd Summer of Love Tour back in 2020,

The process had already been going on for several years and continues to this day. The “defund the police” movement is not about eliminating the police, per se, but about replacing genuine local law enforcement with federalised ideologically-pliable Regime enforcement. $oros-backed DAs are installed into office to ensure that the “right” people get prosecuted for any infractions against Regime standards. Having (largely) given up on being able to outright disarm the American people, the Regime is now falling back onto an effort to de facto criminalise self-defence by socially prosecuting anyone who successfully does so. Based on the Left’s rhetoric - protecting yourself and your property is a threat to democracy, stopping criminals from victimising innocents is a threat to democracy - the Regime’s idea of “democracy” essentially just means using the threat of criminal violence to enforce social compliance.

Clearly, the purpose of “democracy” is to undermine legitimate authority and produce ever-increasing social strife. Functionally speaking, “democracy” equals “progressivism.” Progressivism, as with the rest of the Left, exists for the purpose of destroying “old” social orders and replacing them with new ones (which just so happen to be ran by the progressives). That’s why it is an ideology of permanent revolution, is never satisfied no matter how much “progress” it achieves, and cannot help but catabolise any society in which it gets power.

In such a case, majority rule does not necessarily coincide with democracy when that majority rule goes against progressive Regime mandates. It’s not democracy when a chud majority votes for things that the actual people want. It IS democracy when a small minority of leftie weirdos in the vanguard are catered to as change agents dragging a society in directions the oligarchy wants, even if a large majority of the people don’t. Sometimes the media will be used to gaslight the viewing public into thinking something has majority support when it clearly does not (e.g. transgenderism), often this facade of legitimacy is applied simply to signal to the public what exactly they’d better go along with it they don’t want trouble.

The end result is that everything becomes about democracy, either for it or against it, as the Regime has defined it. For instance,

So criticising the FBI for blatantly nerfing investigations against members of the Regime - the kind of thing that goes on in weird little banana republic dictatorships - is an attack on democracy? Ok. But true to form, under progressivism’s Regime, there is no such thing as objective rule of law anymore. Now there is just Merrick Garland using the DoJ to stamp a boot on the face of dissidents. And crushing dissent is the whole key to the Regime’s attitude toward the American people, which becomes a lot easier when you subvert mediating centres of power like independent district attorneys and local/state police agencies.

As much as the average Free Republic-style normie may not like my saying this, there simply is no such thing as the rule of law in this country anymore. Like constitutionalism, a rule of law regimen requires a homogeneous, high IQ, high conscientiousness, low time preference population that America simply does not have anymore. And because of its inevitable democratising tendencies, liberal republicanism was really doomed from the start (i.e. “we’re a republic, not a democracy!” was always going to end up being false eventually). Simply put, when you have democracy (even the “real” kind), you cannot truly have “the rule of law” because that presupposes an overarching authority that both defines and enforces the law (which you have with a monarchy). With democracy, on the other hand, you have ever-changing legal standards subject to the fractious whims of various factions within the system. These ultimately rest on two incompatible moral bases.

This is why progressivism and its “democracy talk” is so at odds with millennia-old standards of truth that practically every human society that has ever existed took for granted. For example, we see this contrast below,

Apparently you can either support “democracy” or you can support parents being able to shield their children from being pressured by publik skool offishulz into mutilating their genitalia and sterilising themselves irreversibly. Yet, this sort of ever-changing, ideologically determined definition is typical of broken-minded progressive leftist systems in which reality itself is viewed as something that can be altered at a whim. Did we not have democracy before large numbers of people started cutting their genitals off? These “sacred principles” conservatards in the gatekeeping establishment Right commentariat keep acting like there is still some kind of social compact operating in modern America - yet it’s one that only the Left is allowed to alter or break.

This brings me back around to the whole issue of policing and the application of the law. For all of the “tanks and F-16s” rhetoric, FedGov knows that it couldn’t resist a general armed insurrection by the American people. Anybody out there who thumps their chest about the US military flattening American cities to stop “Trumpsters” or whatever is an idiot (as well as being a horrendous piece of trash). FedGov also knows that it can’t simply take our guns away, so the Regime needs to find more subtle ways to subdue the American people.

That’s where the $oros DAs and the criminal class come in with the criminalisation of self-defence. By using low IQ, high time preference criminals to provoke self-defence situations, individual gun owners (or others who are a threat to the Regime) can be picked off using anarchotyranny and selective prosecution as a way to cow the rest into submission. Always remember that the Regime’s interest is in rendering as many Americans as possible functionally unable to resist. This is the reason for disarmament rhetoric. This is why they pack our food full of unhealthy garbage and call it a “conspiracy theory” when people notice. This is why they discourage physical fitness by telling you that working out is a fascist, far-right plot and that measuring BMI is racist. The last thing the current Regime wants is a nation full of healthy, confident, capable, well-armed citizens who can nullify Regime efforts at democracy through intimidation.

There is very definitely a two-tiered justice system in this country, it’s just not the one that we’re told exists. We’re always informed that the one which exists is biased against blacks and other racial minorities (actually, blacks simply commit more crimes, therefore they get caught up more in a truly even-handed justice system that acts in a colourblind fashion). What we actually have is one where Regime enemies (primarily middle- and working-class white suburbanites and rural dwellers) face stiff penalties while criminals - especially if belonging to certain approved racial categories - receive a slap on the wrist, no matter how heinous their crimes. The mob in the street and their lawfare enforcers in DAs offices all across our urban areas (primarily) can then use “democracy” to quash dissent and the actual will of the people. Lawlessness becomes the officially enforced norm that regular people simply have to get used to. You just have to abide with the constant looting of stores and take the blame for the resulting “food deserts.” Wanting to have a safe neighbourhood is just “white supremacy” and you’re a morally bad person for not tolerating the occasion home invasion coupled with murdered children or raped wives.

Ultimately, there are three choices with respect to a society’s policing: 1) Have an armed populace that polices itself through self-defence when official law enforcement is unavailable, 2) Disarm your population but have an intrusive and likely oppressive police state apparatus, or 3) Disarm your population but don’t do state policing, leaving people at the mercy of criminals. This last is what is currently being done, with a side dose of criminals being used as regime enforcers (at least temporarily) in place of formal state security. The whole point is to bullycide you and me into accepting this state of affairs as “necessary” for the cause of holy democracy.

The thing about trying to reverse this state of affairs is that you need a high trust society - or at least a segment of your society that codes for high trust - which in turn requires both ethnic and social homogeneity, as well as high asabiyya (which we currently don’t have). The trick is to have the social network built up so that anarchotyranny is nullified, if nothing else, by the simple unwillingness of the mass of the people in a community to tolerate or abide by it. Having a localist mindset and being willing to get over the energy hump to organise with likeminded people in your local community. The antidote to “democracy” is, ironically, greater civic and social involvement by Heritage Americans. The Regime does not want us to be organised. Yet we need to be to police our communities. But most of all, we need to be willing to reject “democracy” in favour of what is actually good and right and needful for our people.