Democracy is an evil antidote to government. It is a pure majority rule. A limited republic is the only way to rule a society. Where the minority has some rights.

Someone is from Hungary can update me in short about what's going on there? Thanks ahead of time.

Written by Anthem on 12.11.2011 at 06:34

Democracy is an evil antidote to government. It is a pure majority rule. A limited republic is the only way to rule a society. Where the minority has some rights.

Democracy, as a form of political rule, or in other words, government, is an "evil antidote to government"?
Way too "poetic" and confused to make any sense whatsoever.

Democracy in nowdays is two wolves and one sheep voting for food. Today corruption has infiltrated everywhere. And that's a result from democracy. Freedom is virtual. It's the free space you have between the barbwire. The only thing that changes between any constitutiion it's the size of free space you have between the barbwire. Politicians corrupt voters by giving promisses. These promisses regard the personal interest of every single voter or groups of voters (with regional interests for example) and we end up in a circle that politicians are corrupted and voters are corrupted. So a corrupted goverment is elected from corrupted voters and we have a corrupted nation. That's the general idea for democracy today. My personal opinion is that democracy can only work in a direct way (like direct democracy) and if people first think of common and public interest and then their individual interest. What people don't get is that if a nation is in prosperity then along goes their living standard but if the nation is in decay then the people will go down with it. People are the nation NOT the politicians.

Contrary to popular belief, Democracy does not ensure individual freedom. All it is is fucking mob rule.

Zizek as usual, has a wonderful and understandable way to express a point:

'Slavoj ?i?ek thinks political correctness is exactly what perpetuates prejudice and racism'


Maajid Nawaz would simply call this condescending attitude no-colonical in an ironic way.

If I know Zizek well enough, this, like the rest of his insights, already exists in the literature. First thing that came to mind for me was Benign Violation Theory - in the YouTube video he's in essence intuitively explaining it.

I'll quote some dialogs from Plato's "Complete Works"...

Quote:
"...how does tyranny come into being? It's fairly clear that it evolves from democracy."

"It is."

Quote:
"Extreme freedom can't be expected to lead to anything but a change to extreme slavery, whether for a private individual or for a city."

"No, it can't."

"Then I don't suppose that tyranny evolves from any constitution other than democracy?the most severe and cruel slavery from the utmost freedom."

"Yes, that's reasonable."

Quote:
"...by trying to avoid the frying pan of enslavement to free men, the people have fallen into the fire of having slaves as their masters, and that in the place of the great but inappropriate freedom they enjoyed under democracy, they have put upon themselves the harshest and most bitter slavery to slaves".

"That's exactly what I mean."

"Well, then, aren't we justified in saying that we have adequately described how tyranny evolves from democracy and what it's like when it has come into being?"

"We certainly are, he said."

Democracy always implies the sacrifice of individual interests to collective interests; everybody must be "his brother's keeper". Nobody should be taking responsibility for themselves. We all should lean on each other like a broken human type... And we all should hide behind "numbers", as if strength is synonymous with greater numbers. All lies. Only an individual can be strong and truthful, and when strong individuals meet they will never require any sacrifices at all from each other...

In short: Democracy is pretty much a utopian idea. The result is always anti-life, especially when you're dealing with humongous amounts of people...

And isn't it a coincidence that Friedrich Nietzsche saw a direct relationship between it, and Christianity? Both appealed to "the weak", and those who were willing to sacrifice themselves for a non-existing "greater good"... It appealed to those who have absolutely no self-esteem, self-respect, and respect for life at all... And it doesn't take long to figure out that, if you cannot even love and respect oneself, then you certainly cannot ever be able to love and respect others. It's that simple. Hence why the world is full of fake "love", and fake "smiles"...

Søren Kierkegaard, and especially Gustave Le Bon were critics of "the mass", and I highly recommend reading their "Provocations" and "The Crowd" respectively...

I hate the concept of Democracy, it's basically just mob rule, it's the masses superseding the rights of the individual. I'd prefer a Republic.

I also loathe the idea of referendums (which quite literally only exist in a democracy as far as I'm aware), in my country (which I believe is classed as a "Christian Democracy", the polar opposite of Libertarianism), I have voted in multiple referendums and the side which I voted for lost because the majority voted for the incorrect answer (Yes! I am dealing in absolutes, anyone who takes issue with that, get fucked ) . The masses just don't know what's best for a thriving society nor individual rights, it's worth noting that Socialism can only come into effect through a democratic vote.