The wise are always in the minority.
retards are always majority.
Anti-democracy thread
Ethan Jackson
Other urls found in this thread:
Henry Fisher
youtu.be
This is the most succinct summary of democracy.
Liam Cox
Jap OP is a fag every night. We know you're paid to post here.
That said, democracy just means policy will be made by liars in secret, with the lemming weaklings being trained to go along after. Which wouldn't be so bad, except the kikes want me to get the jab and eat bugs too, which is intolerable.
kys, OP.
Michael Green
Democratic rule is rule by single mothers, drug addicts, and the regime media opinion makers. There is nothing as corrosive to liberty as a democracy or a republic.
Additionally, civilization itself is a human domestication program. RETVRN TO WARRIOR LODGES
Adrian Anderson
This is now a forced integration thread.
Austin Morris
I don't know why we still have a representative political class when all political decisions could be handled by voting on the internet.
Liam Gray
Adrian Campbell
>This is the most succinct summary of democracy.
that's the difference between america and white countries
white countries can function as democracies just fine because the people are NOT retarded, in a white west european country, everyone respects and trusts each other, and we know that other compatriotes are just as able and trustworthy as we are
democracy cannot work in america, becase 1, americans are racially inferior and stupid, and 2, americans are selfish sociopaths who want power only for themselves, even when they are the least worthy of that power, so they try to steal power with jealousy, and they would never be willing to delegate something to another american, because all americans are strangers to each other, there is no national community, no single race, no patry.
Camden James
Aaron Flores
Didn't your country just re-elect the guy who burned down notre dame? Sit down, brown eye.
Ryder Ross
(1)
Let’s define “authority” as an unsophisticated subject might define it: an authority over me is someone I am morally obliged to obey. Authority is always legitimate by this definition, and it is clearly distinct from merely having the power to compel obedience. How to recognize authority is a difficult question in the abstract, but nearly always straightforward in practice—the authority is who everyone thinks is in charge. Because obedience is conceived as a duty, authority helps members of a group understand their membership in terms of participation in the larger moral order. Authorities are usually limited both in over whom they have authority, in over what subjects their authority extends, and in what they may command. A given person is often subject to multiple authorities from membership in various authoritative bodies (e.g. a family, profession, country, and Church), each receiving its legitimacy directly from God.
All societies need to be able to boss around their members, but there is disagreement about whether there should be distinct categories of rulers and subjects. Let us define “democracy” as the belief that authority should be wielded by some sort of impersonal structure or procedure, something in which all participate, rather than by individuals identifiable as rulers. The alternative is to have a frankly admitted ruler, an arrangement which we might call “authoritarianism”.
Jace Rogers
(2)
In practice, democracy always ends up being rule by the unitary mass media, which comes to control the perceptions and beliefs of the populace. A massive mind-control apparatus and consequent conformism is always a feature of mature democracy. The reason is as follows. Any increased ability to control the perceptions of the populace is rewarded with power, wealth, and the ability to further augment one’s influence, so democracies are driven to this endpoint by a process of natural selection. Democratic government is always irresponsible government, because rule is not honestly acknowledged, so the actual ruling faction never bears responsibility for its decisions, which are rather presented as the outcome of some impersonal process.
Democrats sometimes claim that their form of government fosters certain virtues associated with responsible self-rule which authoritarianism, however benignly exercised, cannot foster. This is an interesting argument, worthy of a response. Authoritarians can rightly reply in kind that democracy stunts the development of certain virtues, such as loyalty and filial devotion to a king, the humility of acknowledged subordination, and reverence for an inherited order. Furthermore, it is questionable whether democracy really does promote the virtues it advertises. For example, if the populace participates not in reasoned deliberation but unreflective partisanship, they are probably better without the experience. In fact, the virtues of exercising responsibility are better developed at the human scale of family and local community. Far from promoting these schools of virtue, the democratic state works to destroy their independence, attacking rival authorities by “liberating” their subjects, leaving itself the sole power over a social desert.
Jason Butler
If wise people were in the majority the definition of wisdom would rarify until they were once again the minority.
Mason Ward
>white countries can function as democracies just fine because the people are NOT retarded
Nicholas Perez
by all accounts democracy would have saved us from this faggot timeline and democracy would stop illegal immigration.
Justin Peterson
no muslims in france until the USA invaded france
Daniel Reed
america only ever had a corrupt republic, never direct democracy
Charles Perry
democracy is a kike side ideology.
Blake Green
It's not really the theory of democracy that's at issue. People in 31 states democratically voted against fag marriage, for example. In California, they have repeatedly voted to accelerate capital punishment and deny illegals access to public schools.
It's just that in practice there's no barrier against popular democracy becoming (((democracy))) and veering out of control. In the aforementioned votes, the plain will of the people was overridden by kike judges who know better and gave the homos and wetbacks their "rights."
So what we have now is the worst sort of hypocrisy. When the yid media does its work and everybody votes the right way, it's democracy and no dissent will be tolerated. When the people tell unpopular groups to blow it out their brown asses and no gibs for foreigners, then it's a (((violation of human rights))) and it has to be corrected by totally unaccountable lawyers who went to Hebrew University of New York.
Even a monarchy of inbred reptilians would be preferable to this madness.
Sebastian Sanchez
>no muslims in france until the USA invaded france
Now I know you're joking. Good bait though. Got two (2) replies out of me.
Adam Miller
A monarchy with our current elites would be just as homosexual and just as disgusting.
Jaxon Ramirez
dumb mutt, your country is the source of all evil, I'm glad you'll die soon enough, then my people will be free once again