Democracy is literally “the people are smart, or they are retarded, but either way they will get the political governance they deserve” and that is how it is supposed to work.
3 Likes
That seems to be the case. Every new generation that has not experienced hardship does not appreciate what it receives from the previous generation.
As characteristic example, see the rich families. The first generation that creates the wealth often values the education and gives the best to their kids. Very frequently, by the 3rd or the 4th generation the wealth has been spent.
In politics, see for instance how easily political opponents accuse each other as “fascist”, “racist” etc. Terms that meant something stronger than today’s usage. These words become meaningless when they are used out of their original context.
2 Likes
Yeah well… natural selection is not just a humorous side note on this planet but a law of existence.
Playing stupid games such as letting retards vote gets us precisely the very stupid outcomes we deserve.
Precisely.
We are hardwired to strive for the betterment of our circumstances and quality of life.
But if we ever get there, the very biological gordian knot that is wired into us and allowed us to get there, will also cause our collapse and downfall.
An old writer from our country Madách Imre wrote Tragedy of man.
The end conclusion and basically closing sentence spoken by god is something i hated to date because its so blatant, nonsensical, futile and sisyphean: “küzdve küzdj és bízva bízzál“
Its often translated as “Strive on, and have faith“ but its original meaning is closer to “struggle for struggle’s sake and believe for belief’s sake”. Something that hardly even makes sense on first read, yet whether knowingly or unknowingly but it is the closest thing to the true nature of life on this planet i have heard in my life, and a philosophy of its own.
2 Likes
@ProfessorX
@ghatzige
@Nausamedu
I would argue that the option or choice in democracy is an elaborate con, deception, and illusion.
The people are presented political candidates or leaders that the rich oligarchical aristocracy preselected already well in advance for their own benefit. Voting is the theatrical illusion you have a choice but none of it is real whatsoever and whoever is voted for you can be rest assured none of them will represent the people’s will. They will pretend to represent the people’s interests, but at the heart of it all democracies is organized oligarchy the true masters of every democratic political candidate or representative.
Also much the same for senators and congressmen beyond presidents or prime ministers.
Democracies or republics are inferior governments if you want something beyond governance by the superwealthy. They are inferior governments that reward bribery, blackmail, extortion, and general corruption.
2 Likes
I agree with Professor X on this point: in democracy, people get what they deserve.
In US there are practically only 2 major parties, but in many other democratic countries there are multiple and governments can be created by collaboration of parties. Thus, votes on both big and small parties count.
In my country, everyone practically can create or join a party and ask people’s vote. Yet, serious people are reluctant to enter into politics, because the average voter cares mostly for temporary gain, not for the common good. With such mentality, politicians who make big promises get elected.
For US, what exactly do people expect when they vote for billionaires? Plus, serious public health insurance exists in most western countries but not in US. What stops voters to demand better public health insurance from their politicians? Oh, I know… this is communism…
Voters in democracies should learn to take responsibility and refrain from blaming everyone else for their choices.
3 Likes
Again, democracy isn’t even real and is largely inefficient beyond the superwealthy that just rigs it all in their favor anyways. Just skip the political foreplay and go straight to autocracy which is a similar continuation of past historical monarchy anyways.
A benevolent dictatorship would get shit done right away and destroy entire oligarchies overnight. [As they should be.]
The monopolies posed in opposition to societal and existential progress need to be absolutely destroyed within totality. Leave none of them intact.
1 Like
I mean… its kind of a self-perpetuating problem, isnt it?
Democracy would required informed voters in order to make at least palatable outcomes. But since the majority is voting on the basis of emotion and what not… functioning in essence like (for all intents and purposes) animals… what is your expectation?
Oh oligarchies are at least somewhat acceptable considering that they need the host body to stay alive in order for them to thrive as well. So they often end up protecting and holding the country together.
ON THE OTHER HAND, today you get these globalist trashbags bred in a petri dish somewhere in a Soros or WEF foundation college, groomed from early age to think for the cause, stand for the cause, play ball or else.
And the outcome is the Gramsci belief of the world where revolution needs to be forced onto humanity just for the revolution’s sake. Not because its better or anything, but we need to destroy every identity, value, culture and moral the masses hold till we have bred a species of grey cattle we can do whatever we want with.
But that rant aside: Sure.
The people once again allowed an aristocracy to form and rule over it and basically the entire planet, and they reign under the guise of democracy and violently condemn every and any deviation from the model that keeps them in power.
I expect nothing, that is why I say we get what we deserve. And with this mentality, giving directly the power to a dictatorship will make things worse in my opinion.
Dictators are also acting like animals, imposing to other animals whatever they like. Oligarchy and corruption does not become better, simply because the “enlighten” dictator cannot control everything that his/her associates are doing without iron fist. Kim Yong-un style can work, if we want to live under North Korea conditions.
China seems today to be in better shape than US, but Chinese never had democracy, so their current system fits well with their mentality. Do you believe that Americans are ready to accept a leader without questioning his/her decisions?
Even if you think that democracy is not real due to influence by Soros or whoever, let’s trade this with Putin’s system and see who in the west will be happy.
The dictators choices of today are not hypothetical, we see them around the globe. Let’s choose which system will be good for us with the current options.
Democracy itself is not inherently a sham as you say. It can function in a ground-up manner with legitimate politicians being elected from the people, rather than controlled top-down by billionaire special interests like it is today. But ultimately it doesn’t matter much which form of democracy there is, as long as there is voting which results in the elected outcomes and enough people are participating in the voting, then it is democracy. And the people will get what they deserve.
If they are living in a sham system with setup billionaire candidates and only two choices, shit A or shit B, it is still their fault for voting. That is exactly one of the reasons I do not vote. I make a conscious choice not to vote because I understand a choice between shit A or shit B is not a real choice. That is because I am not stupid like most people. Most people vote anyway, even if they know it is shit A vs shit B they say dumb stuff like “well the lesser of two evils…” and that is precisely how we have slid step by step into hell.
2 Likes
This Tabula Rasa of yours, I don’t understand it.
Politics, understood as the science of government, only ever arises from an existing structure. No political arrangement ever spawned but from a given situation, from specific people, as a specific, concrete institution.
That’s why aristocracies exist to begin with, it is the swords behind faits accomplis that get to impose law. Who wields the sword? Absolutely that is the first question.
Democracy doesn’t ask what 20 castaways in an island do. It asks what developed economies with international trade and powerful armies and great cities do.
The foundations are the beginnings, and the beginning was a land owning class. Not incidentally. Structurally.
I think you refute yourself. You learned ?? Then education is what is at fault. I am a professor and I know it is the fault.
only one in three Americans (36 percent) can actually pass a multiple-choice test consisting of items taken from the U.S. Citizenship Test, which has a passing score of 60
Then you are referencing the strict definition of the word. The modern definition.
At it’s core politics are nothing more than the relations of human beings and groups within human society.
Ask yourself what politics entails when it comes down to the basics, and you will find nothing more than man manipulating man for benefit, whether its their own or that of the larger group against other groups. Its the active, practical representation of the instinctive framework with which our species organizes itself.
Thats why you will find the exact same things playing out when you drop 20 ppl on a deserted island and when you look at any current day voting for any position of authority.
And this is in reference/response to what?
NO, you leave out the relationality of ever human being. To his family, his neighbors, his friends, church, organizations – all those thing Tocqueville called “intermediate institutions”
Politics to be moral must have the principle of Subsidiarity
subsidiarity is the organizing principle that decisions should always be made at the lowest possible or least centralized level of authority that is capable of addressing an issue. It empowers individuals, families, and local communities while preventing higher authorities from overreaching
1 Like
You are comparing pure idealism to reality.
What is the point of a monologue about how “things should be (in my opinion)”?
I NEVER have any truck with pure idealism because it can’t exist. The me that might say something about pure idealism is the real me …so there goes pure idealism just by thinking 
Contrast this
with this
THey are not comparable ,at least not as I intended and used them. Pure Idealism is a personal only thing and politics is by defnition not personal only.
So-called “civilised” humanity, or perhaps more accurately, conditioned humanity, suffers from a blockage of perception. Many of our innate capacities for receiving and responding to the living world are dulled or silenced before they can fully inform consciousness. This is not merely a physical phenomenon but a psychological, cultural, and relational one.
The same dynamic appears in our relationships with one another. Just as our responsiveness to nature can be obstructed, so too can our capacity for empathy. We become insulated from the experiences of others, interpreting them through layers of fear, prejudice, ideology, and self-protection rather than encountering them directly.
The result is a fractured relationship with nature, with our place in the world, and ultimately with ourselves. We find ourselves estranged from the larger community of life and uncertain of where we belong within it. In this sense, modern humanity appears traumatised and disoriented, searching for a security that continually eludes it.
Instead of finding security through relationship, participation, and mutual recognition, we often seek it through familiarity and control. What resembles us is perceived as safe; what differs from us is perceived as a potential threat. The stranger becomes an object of suspicion rather than a possible friend, neighbour, or member of the wider human community.
Yet if thinkers such as David Abram (The Spell of the Sensuous) are correct, this insecurity arises precisely because we have lost touch with the deeper web of relationships that sustains us. A person who experiences themselves as fundamentally separate from nature, from others, and even from aspects of their own being will inevitably seek security through exclusion and possession. By contrast, a person who experiences themselves as participating in a living and interconnected world may discover that genuine security arises not from defending boundaries, but from recognising kinship.
The tragedy of the modern condition may therefore be that our greatest capacities for connection remain present but largely inaccessible, buried beneath layers of conditioning that teach us to see ourselves as isolated individuals in a world of strangers. The task is not necessarily to acquire something new, but to recover forms of perception and relationship that have long been neglected.
Not sure why you make the distinction for humanity. All of life, and life itself is completely based on conditionals. What you describe is akin to a disassociated consciousness that views and regards everything with the same disinterest.
As it is meant to be. The life of a loved one holds more value to you than the life of a random nobody living on the other side of the planet, who you didnt even know existed until someone has bought it to your attention.
The notion of regarding everyone with the exact same disposition falls back onto the suggestion in the previous paragraph: you’d be regarding everyone with the same disinterest.
When everyone is special, nobody is.
The problem is the paradox.
We were born of, and shaped by “nature”.
Through nature we evolved our intellect and ability for abstract thought, and in doing so we have become an anomaly that questioned it’s own existence and the laws which shaped and created us and all of life.
The thing that “traumatizes” us is what makes us human in the first place.
Most of life doesnt even have the ability or function to think of itself, to recognize itself because self-awareness results in very few and very short term evolutionary benefits.
It catapulted humanity into a position where it essentially became the prime species of the planet, but since abstract thought is abstract… no longer having problems to contend with, limits to break, ways to improve itself, it is now imploding under the lack of meaning to it’s existence.
Without meaning to offend… this is peak naivety and ignorance.
Its the same old song of “why dont we just all hold hands and sing kumbaya”
Its like the story of Jay Austin and Lauren Geoghegan, a couple, who quit their jobs in Washington D.C., were more than a year into an around-the-world cycling trip to document the fundamental kindness of humanity and who ended up getting murdered in in Tajikistan.
Just one paragraph above you talk of nature. Of having fractured our relationship with nature.
THIS is what that fractured relationship looks like. This is what it looks like when one has had it so good for so long, has drifted so far from reality and nature that they start to think that existence is a hugbox of kindness and love.
There is one single universal law on this planet created by nature, which governs all of life and existence. And that is survival of the fittest.
Humanity goes on these wild expeditions of trying to determine what universal morality and ethics could or should look like, what the purpose of life could be, when its all there in black and white for all living beings to see.
When you speak of nature, of having drifted away from nature and natural order. THAT is what you speak of. NOT some kumbaya fantasy of all life coming together and just cuddling eachother in complete understanding and acceptance.
Heck, most of life doesnt even have the capacity to understand the basic concept of love where an existence is not a threat to their own. There is… there is so much wrong, so many layers of misguided idealism and wishful thinking in regards of this that there is probably not even a way to address it completely.
Without the added nuance, requirements and perquisites, this line of thought is simply suicidal empathy and nonsense born of ignorance, much like the most common place addage “diversity is strength”
No. Its not.
There is exactly one specific scenario under which there lies benefit and strength in diversity, and thats when all and every participant works for the same goals, follows the same idea, puts in the same intent for effort towards the good of the whole as well as their own.
In the usa, this was the concept of the usa.
As long as everyone followed and abided by the american dream, all those random groups of people came together to share a purpose, and through shared purpose kinship became a self-evident fact.
And then liberalism came and the “me” took over via perceived differences. And the american dream, the so called melting pot where diversity was strength, suddenly became the tower of Babble where every group was out for their own benefit and own preferencial treatment.
And that was the end of america. Today, its a nation that is the antithesis, the nadir of cooperation.
The true face of “diversity”.
The modern condition you refer to is simply the lack of recognition that human beings require problems to solve. And thats all there is to it.
Its all in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
When you need to build your pyramid, need to find food, need to create shelter, need to ensure security, need to protect your own, then you will have no time, point or purpose for decadent nonsense like self-actualization and thinking about why we all cant just hold hands.
The kind of kinship and coming together is born of benefit, through shared purpose and needs.
And those require problems. Without problems, you will have only decay and falling apart. Everyone looking out for themselves with no reason as to why they should prioritize the needs of others.
This is the Benedictine Clear Creek approach, the approach of Fr Luigi Giusanni
1 Like