Is democracy actually something that anyone believes in? Because the bureaucrats and fucking politicians certainly don't
>There is a good reason why federal plebiscites are outlawed under the German constitution; it is because they are thought to have been a major contributor to the political and economic chaos of the country’s inter-war years.
>With good reason did Margaret Thatcher, citing Clement Attlee, once refer to referendums as “a splendid weapon for demagogues and dictators”. Much more so than ordinary elections, the referendum tends to funnel a multitude of different protest votes into a single, sometimes revolutionary force that vilifies or ridicules the established institutions and decisions of state.
>vilifies or ridicules the established institutions and decisions of state.
>established institutions and decisions of state.
So basically plebiscite is illegal in some European countries, notably Germany. What is ironic about that, is that in the past, plebiscite was basically synonymous with democracy. If the people aren't allowed to hold referendums and have nay power in the state, why the fuck bother calling your shitty system without term limits a democracy anyways? Evidently democracy is a fucking meme illusion that nobody but the fucking sub 90 iq masses believe in.
You're right in saying the plebicite is democracy. But you're wrong in assuming that democracy is a good form of government. There are only two inevitable outcomes of democracy:
>mass majoritarianism: essentially two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch, where people who have the majority can fuck over the natural rights of anyone else just because they feel like it.
>pluralistic dystopia: where elites and special interests coagulate institutional power withing themselves and essentially form an oligarchy.
Plebiscites get in the way of the latter, which is why the elites don't like any sort of referendum (think Brexit or Italian vote). But they do love direct democracy since they can manipulate the masses to work for them (think libs getting angry at the electoral college after Trump won).
Dominic Long
This biggest flaw of a democracy is the public's desire to raid the state treasury and enrich themselves. In an autocracy, standing between you and the treasury is a king and his giant standing army, but not in a liberal democracy with elected representatives. Politicians know of this desire, and will bribe their constituents with "free" anything for votes. Additionally universal suffrage has enabled politicians to divide people against each other along any demographic line (nationality, religion, gender, age, wealth), appealing to their sense of inferiority in relation to the "oppressor" group and securing votes.
Oliver Evans
hummm
Brayden Thomas
The "Senators" love Democracy. It keeps the people scrambled. It's why the try to spread it everywhere. They can burrow in, take bribes, and give the people a false illusion of choice. If you love your country, you should denounce Democracy. It's a means to an end.
Jason Thompson
You are right. The closest thing to democracy was what they had in ancient greece. Direct democracy. Even then, slaves didn't have a say nor women but that is a good thing because everyone knows that if women and people who doesnt have a clue are allowed to speak in a public discussion, everything turns to shit. Most people are not much better than monkeys who can speak and if you include a larger population of people that are likely to be dumber you can kiss your discussion goodbye.
No countries on earth have democracy today. Calling representative democracy, democracy is a bastardization of the term, and being proud of your jewcracy is absurd.
Then you have to ask the bigger question. Does having countries make sense? Wouldn't the world be a lot more exiting if everything weren't decided by some idiot bureaucrats far away from where it is happening? And today we have an even dumber institution, the EU.
So now jews basically control the whole of europe AND the US, and the world becomes more and more boring by the minute.
Christian Brooks
I in fact agree with you, I think not only just aristocratic republics with limited suffrage, or even benevolent constitutional monarchies, to be better forms of government. I just find it embarrassing that the people who do subscribe to democracy, don't question why they actually have no influence in society, and their system is basically a disguised oligarchy. It's all a fucking illusion
Adam Martin
do old people ever talk about the good old days?
Lucas Lopez
What really bothers me is that it's so ingrained in people that democracy is the superior form of government that they take that as a baseline in any discussion.
>Of course its a good idea to invade Iraq and spread democracy >Of course its a good idea to force Afghan tribesmen to have a bureaucratic democracy >if it fails its because we haven't tried hard enough because democracy is perfect.
Nicholas Williams
Yeah, that Hitler was a piece of shit and should have never been born. Others want him back. There's really no in-between
Jaxson Miller
Any young people fall into that second group?
Hudson Price
What about pre-Hitler Germany? Does no one want to return to a nationalist Germany without the Nazi's racial policy? Like something akin to the German Empire?
Ryan Thompson
I don't think there are many or any people alive right now who were around for that
Xavier Brown
We're not living in a democracy user. We're living in a mixed system, which includes popular and inclusive procedures, like voting for presidents and parliament, and exclusive and ""aristocratic"" procedues and institutions, like representatives in parliament, professional court system, constitutional courts
The so called "representative" democracy doesn't exist. If you have indirect representatives, then you don't live in a democracy
The elites call our system democratic, to present themselves as friends of people, as those who do something in the name of the people and they legitimize themselves before the people through defending alleged democracy
Basically they claim that they have kept their promise, because they've been fighting for democratism and egalitarianism since 18. century, and now they legitimize themselves by spreading a massive propaganda "see, we have democracy, like we promised, we've reached the end, our goal, and there are people who want to destroy what we have promised, and you must support us, because we keep our promises!"
Kayden Hughes
>This biggest flaw of a democracy is the public's desire to raid the state treasury and enrich themselves.
This is just a meme. Since the 1980s candidates in democracies have won by offering the opposite - to roll back the state and make cuts.
Adam Martinez
Never gonna happen. Monarchy is a meme. Some people may sometimes talk about the Kayser, but it's nothing but romantic nostalgia and larping. And as far as I see it: that counts for all the remaining monarchies in Europe and Japan aswell
Josiah Miller
I don't know. Possibly. NPD has less than 5% and will never get to power. No more Nazi Germany. If we get a dictatorship, it will be a far left one.
Juan Perry
>Monarchy is a meme Monarchy is a meme now, when nobody believes in a unifying tradition, when nobody believes in the grace of God, but once you get some unifying culture, then monarchy is totally viable, because this is a natural political system, of naturally best leaders and the passage of power is the smoothest, because people believed this is happening thanks to the grace of God and trust that the monarch will uphold the natural law, so there's no need for extensive and dividing elections
Anthony Bailey
so what are your solutions ?benelovent dictatorship with some form of constitution and gun rights ?
Noah Gray
>so what are your solutions ? no, a system like Poland-Lithuania had
First and foremost, you must have a well raised people, capable of slow discussion on important, public issues
Nowadays in a culture in which being goofy and ironic is being seen as an ideal to strive for, you won't have a good political system. Nowadays everything is subject to being ridiculed, people laugh at everything, because they're indifferent, they only search for bodily pleasures and laughter, nothing else, this is like an anarchy of emotions, there's no division between virtue and vice anymore
what will follow from now is definitely some tyranny and dictatorship, because most of the people are so stupid, that there are really only a handful of people capable of slow and serious discussion, and they will have to grab power and impose decisions on others
>we need enlightened despotism >alright, who's the despot you've got in mind >lol i dunno t. all democracy critics
Tyler Russell
A dictatorship can't really rule effectively without the people's support anyway. Armies require men and when one man is the target he becomes quite easy to punish. When half or more of the population are the targets there is no way to punish corruption. Democracy is mainly just a smoke screen. If the masses were really responsible enough to have a healthy democracy then it wouldn't matter if we had a monarchy or not and democracy would just introduce needless division for kikes to profit. In the end a strong Volk is all that really matters to ensuring we have the means to provide for our natural needs. Ideology is just how you help or hinder that goal.
Cooper Ortiz
>A dictatorship can't really rule effectively without the people's support anyway.
That's not true. Most dictatorships are supported by a majority that wants to subjugate a minority, otherwise they would just have a democracy. The dictator is typically a citizen that demonstrates all the values the majority holds in an exemplary way.
Most failed democracies take on this same characteristic, the difference is that they are less threatening because they are less capable of carrying out offensive wars. People don't really like war, and they don't benefit that much from it. A dictator can turn a war into a mission and control the flow of information to glorify it, free speech in a democracy prevents this and a vote will end it.
The issue we have in the USA is that our population is too large. To say democracy is a failure is to say that a town of 20k people that is run smoothly is a failure because the neighboring town of 30k people is a failure. You would say the town of 30k people should get a dictatorship and then overrun the town of 20k people. Under a democracy the town of 20k would just seperate, and the town of 30k would have to fix it's shit or just slowly dissolve. Either way it isn't the fault of the 20k people that are capable of having a democracy. The USA made seperation illegal, so you have smaller populations that are leveraged to fuck up votes by keeping them disillusioned. They feel hopeless because they are forever attached to a democracy with a majority that doesn't care about them. Corrupt politicians take advantage of this by mobilizing these people for civil disobedience. The reality is that these people should be able to do their own thing, have their own votes, and have their own democracy.
To the people that say "what about slavery?", well if you don't believe in slavery you shouldn't believe that a group of people are obligated to participate in an institution or government they don't support.
David Gray
Fine, but what do you say for an aristocratic republic featuring plebiscite? Power is vastly distributed to prevent abuse, though only the best are allowed to participate? Men, net positive tax contributors, pass a test, etc...
I'd settle for the above, it wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a lot fucking better than what we have now, and potentially more stable than an absolute monarchy
