We live in a democracy. We are told this is the best system because it gives everyone an equal share of the immense power of the State, and in doing so, legitimizes its rule over us, the People.
However, upon first inspection, this is false. You do not have equal power to certain other people, in the famous words of Orwell in his novel Animal Farm, “All Animals are equal, and some animals are more equal than others.”
But this is just logical, no? How could anything function if everyone had equal power? Well that is not my point, but rather that the concept is a lie. My question is do you believe the lie?
Now you might retort that of course power is concentrated in certain persons or peoples, but that is only for functionality! That there are consequences for those who abuse power or use it inappropriately. Is that true?
It is certainly possible, but again we enter the realm of the theoretical. In reality, power protects itself from real justice, because it has the power to do so. Meanwhile power will do whatever it likes because it is power. It is like being a weak man and instigating a much stronger man into violence with only the use of insulting words. As much as you might argue that insulting words are merely vibrations in the air created via vocal chords, which have to be interpreted by the mind of the assailant which then induces that person into violence against you, you can try and blame them, but when you are laying in a puddle of your own blood and tears rolled up into a heap of ruin, what good did that argument, as logical and coherent as it was, do for you?
Like your assailant who beat you into a bloody pulp, the politician whom secretly reaps from the coffers and imprisons you falsely, slinks back into the shadows and becomes de facto anonymous, and should you even rise to power yourself, you would be unlikely to attain your justice.
You might argue that power is more distributed, thus different parts of power check and balance each other. Is that even true? This describes power as a schizophrenic Octopus lashing at itself with its arms, spending half of its time beating itself and the other half defending itself while everyone in the system is its victim! What could such a power accomplish? Such a house divided cannot stand, and we see such stagnation in parliaments and congresses around the globe!
So, we are at a sort of standstill where democracy is only functional when it is empowered via an Oligarchy. Is that your democracy? Throw away your theory and think, what is the system you live under? If I paint Mickey Mouse on the side of a prison, does it become Disneyland?
This is also not to argue for actual democracy, I could not think of something more horrifying, but rather that it simply isn’t real. Inasmuch as our “democracy” functions, it is not democracy. Nothing should be more horrifying than political power being formed from the masses, it would immediately collapse. Instead what we have is select individuals or small cohorts who decide everything on behalf of everyone. Is this ideal? No. In fact there is only one thing that matters really, whether we are governed by our friends or our enemies.
But this shouldn’t be, you might say, that even our enemies have responsibility to care for us when in power. Why do you think that? When has it ever been that way? Power is indivisible, and will seek to destroy all rivals, suffering none. When two opposing powers confront each other, war is inevitable until one is slain, or both (wherein a third power might rule).
The Canadian Trucker Convoy for example. This was a true grassroots movement to reclaim power robbed of them by the Federal government in Ottawa. It had widespread support from people across the country, at some point I would argue the vast majority. Yet, from the media, an allegedly power-neutral body in a “healthy democracy”, we heard many lies.
The first lie was that it was nothing to do with the Covid-19 lockdowns, but was a protest about the poor quality of roadways in Canada. We heard other lies too like they were “…funded by far-right American Republican Trump supporters…”. There were further lies, but hardly anyone in the mainstream “trusted” media, a “cornerstone” to a “healthy democratic society” interviewed any of the convoy organizers. The entire narrative machine was put to work in demonizing the trucker convoy. They were called domestic terrorists, and the typical slough of slurs you find from enemies.
The truth was far to the opposite. Most of the participants were not revolutionary thought leaders, but rather LIBERAL-minded people who believed the lies of democracy and “Canadian values” like freedom and liberty, personal choice, bodily autonomy, and the like. The government functionally first totally ignored the movement, acting like it was just a handful of “crazies”, thus marshalling no defence of their precious capital.
After a few weeks, and after much negative narrative framing by the media, now beholden to the Federal Government for a large portion of their funding (30%+), they performed a riot-police crackdown on the peaceful protest.
To put this in perspective, many governments around the world suppress protests, but usually they are not peaceful. The convoy protest had people joking, singing songs, hanging out in -20 C weather in hot tubs in the middle of the street or squares. People sharing food and feeding the homeless in the area, sharing resources like diesel for trucks so occupants could stay warm. Nothing was even broken or damaged.
One protestor put a Canadian flag into the hands of a statue of Canadian hero Terry Fox, and put a pro-trucker T-shirt on him and the “Cornerstone of Democracy” mainstream media characterized it as “rampant vandalism”, which was abjectly horrendous narrative framing in regards to the truth. Another concerned a protestor carrying a Nazi flag around, which was framed as if the protestor was supporting the Nazis, when it was quite the opposite, that the protestor was accusing the Government of being oppressive, which, by the nature of lockdowns, was TRUE. For all of these false narratives we have never seen an apology, never seen a correction, nor have we ever seen an admission that the narrative presented by the mainstream media was an open love letter of falsehoods in favour of the power which funded it.
While here I am going to also chastise the concept that we have opposition parties which are meant to question the actions of government on important issues, because during the lockdowns everyone from the Federal Government to the Premiers, of every party in every Parliament and Legislature, was in pure lockstep with everything. There was only one party which did not follow that narrative, it was the PPC, and it was for that reason and others I became the 244th and founding member of that Party when it was first proposed by Maxime Bernier.
Strangely too, after the “Emergencies Act” was falsely foisted upon us by the Canadian Parliament, the “Democratic Soul of Canada,” which quickly ratified the action (duly opposed by the Conservative Party), was sent to the unelected Senate, for a “sober second look”. And it was here, where actual debate and discussion occurred! The Senate of all places, the Crony-Capital of the Ghosts of Prime Ministers Past, actually had members fully questioning the legitimacy of such an action! In fact, some believe that the Senate was going to reject the passage, but before that could happen, Trudeau and his minions retracted the enactment, because: “…Mission Accomplished.”
As per legislation, there was an inquiry into the enactment which was run by a Trudeau appointed arbiter who eventually ruled that, by the thinnest of threads, the enactment was just barely justified but the prevailing conditions. However, it is commonly understood by many that this was a totally political position, knowing that the enactment was done under completely false circumstances, in order to save face for the Federal Government, the Arbiter put his finger on the scale (though perhaps Trudeau was wielding his hand to do so). The media of course played along the entire time, marching in step with Trudeau and his minister minions. There was subsequently a National Citizens Inquiry privately funded and done by Canadian citizens later that year, into the Covid Lockdowns (including the Convoy issue), which ruled that the Government grossly mismanaged Canada and undermined citizens’ fundamental rights, including: freedom of movement; Bodily autonomy; right of association and disassociation; right to informed consent; the Hippocratic oath was violated, amongst others).
Now for all of this, what exactly am I arguing? That Democracy is fake and gay? That we should have some other system? Not really. Though I would advocate for another system if asked. Monarchy for example can have nearly every negative quality that Democracy does, it may even from time to time produce a leader who is a certified madman. But there is something which Monarchy has within it that Democracy never does: Honesty. Power therein has a head, a Head of State, not a false head of state surrounded by mealy mouthed bureaucrats trying to steal the treasure without being caught. The only supposed benefit of Democracy in this regard is that the leadership has power for a limited time (until it doesn’t), though even then, who are you going to change it with? Some creature of that same system wearing a different coloured jersey. With a Monarchy you have to go through the trouble of dethroning them, but you at least are likely to have actual change.
Another argument is that the Monarch, though one person, is the Sovereign. He should not rob himself of his own wealth, and so we expect this not to happen, as his legacy (children, ancestors) will be ruined by it. The Monarch is an individual, ideally of the land of which he rules, connected to it by blood and time, sacrifice. If the land becomes bespoiled, it is a reflection of him, and what does such a wealthy man have but his reputation? He is there for life, it is his Garden so to speak, he has ownership of it. Shall we not forget the tragedy of the commons?
Democracy gives people power when they do not deserve it. Inasmuch as it is rule by the mob, it is destructive to the individual. Inasmuch as it empowers the individual, such is stolen by the mob once more. Why should slop-brained losers have any say in politics? Why should a welfare-bum with 80 IQ have an equal vote to a net-contributor to society? That person should have no votes, and only inasmuch rights as can be reasonably afforded by our morality and kindness. By rights he should be beaten and abused and shamed into being a productive member of society, or forced into a work camp and whipped until he mines coal good enough, or forced to break rocks for his cheques. Something, anything but be a lecherous drain on hardworking people.
The main topic here is democracy but I will have to go into liberalism for a quick moment. Drug addicts should be involuntarily committed into institutions which can help them manage their addictions. They should be forced off of the drugs, humanely if possible. If they continually undermine or fail to straighten up, they should be banished to remote islands and left as a group to their own devices. Yet, Liberal thought thinks otherwise, that these people should be allowed into polite society, harming completely innocent good people who keep the lights on.
I have seen too much destruction to have much sympathy for drug addicts. They are zombies who should live in fear of society until they are straightened out. I shed not a single tear for them. I cry for their victims left in their wake, the stabbing victims, the senseless murders, the abandonment of children, over drugs. If they wish to abuse drugs, they should be so abused. For those who defeat the addictions, they should be celebrated and honoured, as it is not easy to get out from complete rock-bottom. Which is more humane? To allow zombie-monsters to harm good people? While respecting the so-afflicted druggies “right to X, Y, Z”? No. Liberalism is monstrous and illogical, cruel, hateful, merciless for the good, while merciful to the bad.
Back to democracy, the problem stems right from the very bottom. People are feckless losers who are selfish savages hellbent on getting their own regardless of the cost to others. It is the electorate, having been expanded far too far, far to liberally, it is now rife with idiots, fools, easily propagandized ninnies who should be washing floors and not deciding who should wield power. That’s not to insult janitors, no, it is to insult universal sufferage.
Voting should be restricted, at MINIMUM to net-contributors to the funding of the system, because anything else is de facto corruption. This would solve the majority of the problems in democracy, but this will not likely happen until we see the continual decline of our society, where liberalism has foisted so icy chaos upon the good people, that they are forced by hook or by crook to reorient power to their benefit, where their very livelihoods are in the balance, where their very lives and families are at a near-constant, guaranteed, existential crisis; where around every corner, a monster lays in wait to murder them, their wives, their children. The best and only redeeming feature of democracy being that it eventually kills itself. It is just a shame that so many good people have to suffer throughout the process.
If your internal liberalism forces you to cry about it all, shed tears for those innocent victims which democracy has destroyed, for you stand amongst the ashes of millions of dead souls, their silence is the weight of democracy’s guilt.
