Any Forums, you have 5 minutes to explain why democracy is not banned like Fascism and Communism

Any Forums, you have 5 minutes to explain why democracy is not banned like Fascism and Communism.

Attached: 61NTMbIdqAL.jpg (907x1360, 66.18K)

reskin of feudalism

Why is it not banned? Well it is a continent tool as it implies more freedom.

In reality nobody governed is free. All systems of governance employed today are exploitative, and have no one's interests but their own at mind.

because jews like it

listening to popper is how you get nazis

Democracy let’s real decision makers hide behind committees, “voting bodies”, and so on

Why can't people just talk normally on this shithole.
What is the obsessesion with framing everything as "bait?"
Is it like a psychological defense mechanism to distance your core from the crap you're posting?

sorry bro, you're retarded. listening to popper is how you get current year liberal democracy

It's the jews. always will be

>Any Forums, you have 5 minutes to explain why democracy is not banned like Fascism and Communism.
because it makes billionaires and jews rich and powerful while keeping an underclass alive that will work for cheap.

retard, Popper is a turbocapitalist kike, totally against fascism of all forms.

The idiot's vote it its yoke. That is why democracy will be fought for, to the the death, by the elite -- if necessary, using every, last proletariat life.

Attached: democratic_cycle.jpg (1088x798, 165.83K)

that's what I said
read the 25 points and get back to me

he believed he was against fascism.
in reality he advocated intolerance of threatening social groups.
what were the Jews to 1920s-1930s germany?
after the jewish communist civil war, after the jewish weimar republic, after the jewish economic and social domination, what were they?
a threat to german social order. a threat to the open, tolerant society that allowed them to thrive in the first place. the nazis saw this and acted like good popperites, drawing a line. they would not tolerate the jews or all their tolerance would be for nought.
popper, and you apparently, are self-important midwits who can't take the outside perspective long enough to figure this out.

Democracy is based

Attached: democracy.jpg (960x892, 51.61K)

Hitler didn't hate jews until he tried listening to them.

Imagine the west would become democratic over night, it would be worse than „the purge“. Nobody wants democracy, except if they want some kind of Mad Max scenario

>le 'liberals are the real nazis' meme

Direct democracy is dangerous. There were too few protections in the US from the mob and more momentum/elite oversight was necessary. It could have prevented the 60s from ever reflecting in policy and probably saved us. Too late. The founding fathers had the right idea but didn’t go far enough. I am fairly certain Plato also expressed qualms about direct democracy being just mob rule.

they have effectively no connection to the german political party of the 1930s.
yet the ideological similarities are striking.
I have plenty of time to discuss this, if you care to say something more compelling than "I disagree"

popperite intolerance is behind the populist reaction in germany, following the communist civil war, and the weimar republic's social and economic extremes. the common people came to associate these intolerable ills with their political enemies.
I'm not going to point you to some jewish "10 signs of fascism" blogpost.
I want you to read "the 25 points" and think about what attracted young german men to certain meetings in the 1930s.
copy

"25 points"

into a search engine and read it before you get back to me. it's short.

Attached: 1662037739729485.png (1080x1633, 1.07M)

popper's intolerance of intolerance is a necessary contradiction in liberal thought in order to maintain diversity and tolerance. in the natsoc worldview there is no such contradiction because tolerance is a much lower priority, well behind the wellbeing of the race.

popper's ideology also conflicts with the core idea of fascism which is that the state is above all. in popper's worldview the ultimate goal is to create a certain type of society, the open society, and the state is merely one means of achieving this goal.

>a necessary contradiction in liberal thought
funny, it's one of the few things about them I don't find contradictory: violent rejection of dissenting thought. their chief value is not diversity and certainly not tolerance, only change. but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
>popper's ideology also conflicts with the core idea of fascism which is that the state is above all. in popper's worldview the ultimate goal is to create a certain type of society, the open society, and the state is merely one means of achieving this goal.
arguably the difference between state and society is semantic. (NGOs spend billions pushing the set of norms that constitutes "open society" where, at government and inter-government fora, to be adopted by and between states.)
more to the point, liberals are not at all shy about leaning on the power of the state. popperite intolerance is still the applicable term, even if popper would be appalled at its consequences. how and why he failed to see he was describing reactionary nationalist populism is not my concern, drawing attention to the growing threat of popperites is. constant vigilance, friend.

>5 minutes
Not necessary, democracy leaves more room for illusions and that is actually a summary of all the reasons democracy is not banned. In fact democracy itself is an illusion.