The idiocy of democracy.

The idiocy of democracy

Noun democracy.
1. The political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives.
2. A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.
3. The doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the entire group.

The major points of democracy.
Please notice the words like doctrine, political and power, in which case the democratic institution is in essence a belief, or to be more exact a religion that believes in a supreme power, just like those that believe in God, but in this case believe in the supreme power of body of citizens, or to be more exact in the power of the majority. In clear words, and by its own definition, the democratic institution oppresses the minorities, since theoretically the majority rules over the minority and imposes their will on them. Now when you add the definition of the word politics, "Social relations involving intrigue to gain authority or power", you have created an environment for growing lies and deception, since we are talking about intrigue. (Noun intrigue: a crafty and involved plot to achieve your ends (usually sinister).

Now you may clearly see, after reading all the definitions, that all politicians, without any exceptions, are devious malevolent liars seeking power over the people, hence they will vigorously propagate democracy all over the world. Therefore the concept of "honest politician" is a genuine oxymoron, which is what makes all those that vote for them morons, especially if they expect that any good will come from them.

The idea, or better said the ideology, of democracy is an ancient thought preceding well the Roman republic, and goes back to Egypt in the times of antiquity. In other words, promoting democracy is no progress, but rather returning to something that in reality exists solely in the minds of people. All throughout the history the wealthy and rich folks had only one worry, and that not to lose their wealth, which was always the subject to the contemporary ruler or king, who could at any time take their money, wealth and power away from them. And so these rich folks concocted the idea how to keep their money without the fear of losing it. And of course the simplest thing was to have all these rich folks unite, (sort of like at the round table of Arthur's knights), where the king is either deposed or subjected to this ruling class of the rich, hence he has no longer the power to take their money away. This is how simple minded this democratic concept is, however one has to have the people believe in it, lest the people will go and take the money from the rich, which of course also happened in the past till this day, hence the ideology of socialism and communism.

The concepts of democracy, socialism and communism are all ideologies, or better said thoughts that people believe in, and that do not exist outside the people's heads. The core difference between an ideologue, (an advocate of some ideology,) and religious person is that the former believes by his own admission in something that does not exist, as opposed to the latter that believes in something that exists, e.g. God.

Democracy, socialism and communism simply cannot exist in a larger social scheme, because people have to know each other for it to work. Hence the word communism, which is actually distorted biblical concept where some Christian communities attempted to live without the use of money, and everything was communal property, hence the term communism. Of course these Christians communities did not elect their leaders, but rather their leaders were elected by the clergy. Needless to say that this did not survived, even among the believers, and this simply because of the human greed and envy. Now imagine that this did not survived even among those that feared God and lived in small communities, where everyone knew personally the other. What kind of a fool and idiot can actually believe that democracy, socialism or communism can function on a larger social scale like the state level? I tell you who, a complete idiot, hence one has to ask a simple question, do those that propagate it believe in it? Of course they don't, and those they do are complete fools, and who would want them, let alone let them, to run any society? And so, in all democratic, socialist or communist countries, the crooks and criminals run the country, while the fools believe in that particular governing concept.

The naivety of the believers in this electoral democratic process can be seen in the fact, that what one needs the most for being elected is money, which he either has to have, or has to acquire in one way or the other, usually by making promises to those that give him the money. In short, people here elect rich people over themselves, and then they complain when they do something else than they promised. This is plain and simply a charade for the stupid, who for some odd reason end up believing that they are taking part in the governing of the country. It really takes a genuine idiot to believe it, or better said a blind person, or rather a person that refuses to see not only the reality of this circus, but mainly his own reality. Please keep in mind, as mentioned above, that the democracy is all about the rich keeping the money, hence most of the elected people have money, since one needs the money to run for any democratic office.

The concept of a genuine republic differs much from the concept of democracy. The idea of republic is founded on people selecting their representatives for the higher government level. In other words, it was supposed to work like this. For example the USA has states, the states have counties and the counties have townships. The township people elect their representatives from their midst, who they know personally to be wise, honest and a decent human beings, who then represent them at the county level. These representatives at the county level then elect representatives from their midst, whom they know to be a decent and honest beings, to represent them at the state level. These county representatives at the state level then elect from among themselves again decent and honest people, who will represent their state at the government level in congress and in the senate. The election of the president would be done solely by congress and the senate, sort of like the election of the pope is done by those that are actually qualified to elect the leader from among themselves, because they know the man for what he is. This is how the sane electoral process should work, and there would be no need for all the political theatrics, no need for money, and most of all, the leader would be elected by qualified people, and not by idiots as it is done today. By idiots I mean any person that votes for another as a representative, or a leader, without actually knowing that person, which is downright plain and simply stupid.

So in true sense if the power to the people should be given, it can work only on a small community's level as presented above, in which case the majority would rule only at the lowest level, where most of the power would rest. The legislative concept would follow the same criteria, in which case most of the civil laws and its enforcement would be at the lowest level, the community level like township, and the higher the level the less laws. In this case the government would not infringe on the liberties of free men in these communities. The taxation should also follow the same example. The socialized services, like healthcare or other social benefits, work only if done on a smaller scale, or at most at the state level. If the government takes over, the whole thing will be destroyed, because it becomes just too big to manage. The function of the USA government should be mainly about insuring that the communities and states live in harmony without infringing on each other's laws and liberties, while providing security against the external elements, that is all. Anything else should be left to people in the lower levels of government.

In conclusion, the most power should be given to the township over its people, less power over them from the county, even less power from the state, and almost no power from the government. This is how it was intended originally here in the states, but by the greed and hunger for power, and by the stupidity and ignorance of the USA population, the idea corrupted to the point that most people in the USA not only accepted lies and deceit as a normal part of life, but also believe in this democratic nonsense, where fools vote for people they do not know, and elect a president for the entire country without having even the slightest clue who and what he is. The person, that is more likely to win the presidency today, must be first of all charming like some snake charmer, to charm this beast called "we the people", to elect him to the office.

The propagation of democracy in the world has just one purpose, to have people elect already corrupted and greedy people as their representatives, who will then join the internally elect world powers to control the world population. It is much easier to depose elected leader than a king or dictator, as all we need is to disclose some of his iniquities or transgressions to the public. And so, since all the politicians that are elected are liars and deceivers without conscience, their lives are full of decadent deeds, and if they don't go along with the worldly power that be, they are simply forced to resign, or have to go through some scandal and then are eventually, one way or the other, deposed. The entire democratic world politics solely rest on controlling the leaders via blackmail, or in the extreme cases they will have some accident if they don't comply. Beware of any rich man that wants to help the poor by talking.

Please don't misunderstand my article, I am in no way promoting democracy or republic, let alone giving the power to the people, but more or less trying to present the insanity and stupidity of it in its present state. In other words, I have seen governments come and go, form and die, because people are misled and misinformed in all these types of governments, and to part take in it in any way is just plain foolish, after all this world belongs to the devil, and what decent man would participate in its sordid affairs.

My point of the article is to point out the human ignorance and stupidity, especially when believing, or even worse, dying for "the cause". And so, all the people that participate in revolutions or uprisings pretty much become like some piranhas in feeding frenzy, destroying everything in sight. In the ancient writings the word beast often refers to the people, as in the case of "we the people", which is in essence a beast, or as the Romans referred to the people as a mob, and then adding, that whoever controls the mob controls Rome. I usually use another comparison, where one must be familiar with the sardine drive along the South African coast to understand it. The people is the sardines, and the whales, sharks, dolphins and even the birds having a feast eating them, as the sardines move in schools as one, but having no clue where they are going, that is who the "we the people" are, the stupid sardines. Now when you hear someone saying, "we are one", it means you are canned like the sardines. It is not for nothing that the bible compares the people to fish. In whose net are you?

The classification of democracy could be rated as feminine, as well as her sisters socialism and communisms, which are in essence founded on the original sin of envy, colorfully summed up in the sentence, "That's not fair". Therefore, the feminization of men is crucial for the democratic institutions. In simple words, the people's masculine right side of the brain must be subjected to the feminine left part, or simply said, subjecting the reason to emotions. In other words, the more emotional people are, the more susceptible to manipulation they become. Whatever we create will inevitably reflect us, hence the democratic governing reflects humanity in its political structure, the right, the republican party, to be the masculine, and the left, the democratic party, to be the feminine, and since we are talking about democracy being feminine in nature, the right will inevitably become more and more feminine as the time goes on, but that is another issue to which I will return in another article.

Just like democracy, socialism and communism are of the feminine nature, equally so is any revolution, hence often depicted in the feminine form, just like liberty. These are seen as feminine, because they are downright seductive to men, who then often follow blindly these feminine ideologies, and even to the death. The slogan, or better said the cause of all revolutions, is always lighted up with the same spark, with the infamous, "That's not fair!", which is the judgmental result of envious minds, or in the spiritual concept, Satanic. . Therefore it is no surprise when they propagate and speak of some "social justice", or wealth distribution.

The so-called justice, coming from all these feminine concepts, is at the core also feminine,  hence all about revenge, retribution and punishment, which are the results of human emotions and not reason. In this social evolutions, starting with revolutions, then democracy transforming into socialism, and then ending in the final enslavement of free men in the delusional concept of communism, ruled and enforced by laws created by the few. In short, all revolutions soon or later end up with a dictator that got his power through the deceitful democratic process.

The true reality of humanity can be clearly seen in the arts that it creates, as in this cases depicting the revolution as a seductive woman with her breast exposed, nurturing those fools that are living and dying for her, and worshiping her as some goddess. Therefore we have the term: "There is a sucker born every minute", referring to all those that worship her, or better said all those sucking on her milk of ideology.

Please note that it is primarily the youth that succumbs to her emotional seductiveness.

Written by Ludvik K. Stanek