Democracy the Sham

If you think "the people" have anything to do with democracy, think again...

We’ve been hearing an awful lot about “democracy” lately. We keep learning that it can only be promoted through the universal use of unaccountable ballot drop boxes that allow people to vote six or seven times. Congress is currently holding hearings about the grave threat to democracy presented by flyover country types wandering around the Capitol building that their tax dollars pay for. We even overthrew a popularly-elected government in Ukraine in 2014, and are trying to provoke a war with another nuclear-armed nation to keep it in power, all in the name of democracy.

Of course, the commonality between all of these examples (as well as many others that could be given) is that they are demonstrations of the cynicism that surrounds most “democracy talk” in our modern world. In point of fact, whenever anyone in a position of power in modern worldwide globohomo society talks about “democracy” (including the street-level antifa dreck who enjoy official institutional support for their “activism”), they don’t really mean it. Or rather, they are redefining the term in a way that differs from the way the regular Joe is used to thinking of it. Instead, the term is used as a signaling phrase to connote anything that is officially Regime approved and must be placed outside the realm of questioning.

This isn’t really surprising, since - and let’s be honest here - democracy is fake, and always has been. Now, popular government going all the way back to classical Greece has always been suboptimal, to say the least. By its very nature it appeals to the lowest common denominator and makes people with no real personal agency think that they have a legitimate say in government. As anyone familiar with Tytler’s phrase about democracy lasting only until the public realises it can vote to itself largesse from the treasury, popular government lends itself to a systematic “hackability” by various factions that ultimately results in its overthrow and/or collapse. The histories of the various democratic Greek poleis and the terminal phase of the Roman Republic shows this in spades.

However, anything with democratic forms - even republics, even the American Republic - are ultimately hackable, no matter how many safeguards you build into them. As the history of safeguarding shows, no matter how much you idiot proof something, there’s always going to be a better idiot who comes along. This is especially the case when the idiots in question want to break the system so they can remake into the form they desire. How do I know this to be the case for the American Republic? Because it has already happened, how do ya think? The democratic elements within our system have already been hacked. We now find that “democracy” in its denotative sense is easy subverted at the same time that it is itself the subversion in its now-connotative, globohomo sense.

And subversion it is. The reader should understand that basically nothing that is described as “democratic” today involves an actual concern for the interests, desires, or good of the body of the people themselves. Nothing that progressives, Democrats (and even many Republicans), Regime insiders, and the like tell us are vital to “democracy” have anything to do with giving the “body politic” what they want or need. Indeed, when the actual, regular people of a nation try to assert themselves politically, it’s usually referred to as “white nationalism” or “fascism” and treated as a “grave threat to democracy.” If there was ever a system that demanded a “rectification of the names,” it is ours.

Now while I don't support democracy as a governing principle, I do support the idea that government should work for the benefit of the people of a nation, even if they don't have a direct say in governance. There still should be an organic kinship between a nation and its aristocrats and leaders. In post-Enlightenment history, populism and democracy were considered, if not synonymous, then at least closely allied since it was believed that the people would govern themselves for their own best interests. Ultimately, the faith in democracy was misplaced, but the underlying idea of government acting for the people (if not necessarily by the people) is reasonable.

As such, if democracy were actually a real thing, then populism would be no threat to it since it would merely involve a coinciding of the will of the people (or at least the majority) with what is best for the nation. Yet, when you have a system in which the people themselves - or at least the founding, heritage stock of your nation - are considered the threat to “democracy,” then there is definitely not even a pretense to this being the case anymore. Indeed, what we find in the USA and pretty much every other Western nation is that the original stocks are ruled over and hated by a transnational oligarchy that has absolutely no sense of kinship or affinity with them at all.

This is shown in that this transnational oligarchy has been working assiduously to render the founding stocks of Western nations into minorities in their own countries. This “Great Replacement,” as it's being termed, is not so much a conspiracy theory as it has been settled public policy since the 1960s. It's real, and it's all a way to game “democracy" by importing new populations to replace the old ones who just won't play ball with what globohomo wants. I mean, it's not like the Left doesn't sometimes admit what it's doing here. Not just in America, but also in France one sees the obvious fact of population replacement through immigration. Certainly, it's not as if various regimes the world over have been reluctant to call in foreigners to give them the support that their own natives won't.

But hey, since all these newly-introduced clients are going to eventually be voting for their progressive Left patrons, it's democracy in action!

Now, if all this seems like it's not what was really intended when our systems were set up, well, that’s because it's not. The Left is not really interested in working within established systems in an even-handed manner, but would rather subvert these systems regardless of formal law or informal custom. And for the Left, “democracy" is only a vehicle for progleft revolutionism that is designed to dynamite civil society and replace it with left-oligarchism.

“And so in City after City, street-barricades are piled, and truculent, more or less murderous insurrection begins; Populace after Populace rises, King after King capitulates or absconds; and from end to end of Europe Democracy has blazed up explosive, much higher, more irresistible and less resisted than ever before; testifying too sadly on what a bottomless volcano, or universal powder-mine of most inflammable mutinous chaotic elements, separated from us by a thin earth-rind, Society with all its arrangements and acquirements everywhere, in the present epoch, rests!” (Thomas Carlyle, Latter Day Pamphlets, No. 1, p. 8)

Ultimately, you can have the rule of law or you can have globohomo's version of democracy, but not both. Certainly, the Left doesn't want anyone getting in the way of implementing its program. Hence, why they import new populations to outvote the old ones.

It's also why they seek to suppress the ability of regular people to defend themselves from their criminal clients. I've always remembered Solzhenitsyn's description of this during the Bolshevik revolution. The Bolsheviks used released criminals to act as enforcers and terrorisers of the population (sound like any Soros DAs we could mention today?). At the same time, they made defending yourself or harming these criminals illegal, even if you were protecting yourself from one who was breaking into your home. You injure or kill one? YOU went to the gulag.

This is exactly why the Left is so adamant about gun control. It's hard to terrorise a population who can shoot back, after all. And as I've pointed out before, the bulk of the riots during the George Floyd Summer of Love in 2020 actually took place in carefully curated locations where the Left controlled the local levers of government and actively suppressed people defending themselves and their property. When rioters tried to head out further into Red suburbs, they were usually met with armed citizens and quickly turned back. Kyle Rittenhouse scoring his hat trick in Kenosha was enough, by itself, to completely shut down rioting in that city. Last year, South Africa served as an “unfortunate" example of the effectiveness of armed citizens at stopping the Left's client proxies in their tracks. So the Left really doesn't want more people learning from these examples.

But the thing about gun control is that it perfectly exemplifies the sham that is “democracy" as the Left uses the term.

Keep in mind that it is entirely true that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to the militia. But the kicker is that the militia basically encompasses the entirety of the law-abiding, non-mentally ill population of the country, since the unorganised militia of the United States is defined as such by the US Code. Further, by law and custom, a functional participation has been extended outside the relevant age range. What lefties don't understand is that when the 2A describes a “well-regulated militia,” what this means (in historical context) is that the militia should we well-drilled and provisioned. In essence, if we were really following the 2A, then every member of the unorganised militia would be provided with access to and training on “weapons of war" such as fully automatic machine guns, explosives, and rocket launchers.

To really be true to any sense of democratic populism, a broad-based citizens militia is virtually a prerequisite for any sound sense of civic republicanism. A real democracy would encourage widespread participation in local militia groups since these best represent the genuine sense of “the nation in arms" as a body of citizens capable of exercising civil and political power. Even in non-participatory political systems, the armed body of the people can be a safeguard of the safety of the nation. Indeed, militias (as well as churches and männerbund) are a large part of genuine civil society and work to generate and maintain social cohesion.

But if you're a transnational globohomo elite, you have no interest in safeguarding the safety of the nations you're exploiting, not do you want them to have high social cohesion. These things are, indeed, directly contrary to what you actually want. So the best way to prevent the flyover proles from stopping you is to disarm them, using “democracy" and tragedies (which you've engineered yourself) to provide a veneer of legitimacy. This is especially the case when true populism keeps reasserting itself despite your best efforts to suppress it informationally and politically. If the people are going to be troublesome, then you'd better take away the tools they might use.

As such, the current push for more gun control is just another in a series of fake democratic moves aiming to stifle any real popular movement again globohomo machinations. The pious bleatings about democracy “needing” gun control are akin to those asserting that democracy “needs" to suppress free speech or free movement or free economic activity or whatever else The Powers That Be find inconvenient. “Democracy" takes on a decidedly cynical cast that demonstrates the reality of its use as a psychological tool for control and manipulation. As Carlyle would have said, it is a sham and a false thing. “The people" can exist without it and in fact would better off if they did.