If democracy works, why does every single western nation have exactly the same policies that nobody voted for?>Flood of foreigners>Socialist program fraud by foreigners >DEI>Troons
>>540917607Democracy works in the sense that it allows foreigners to migrate and then take over your country, and that's what the jews hope for.
>>540917607Well it's simple, in a democracy the candidates compete to convince more people than their competitors that they will improve their lives. Since the government doesn't actually produce anything of value, what they have to offer is other people's stuff. So what a democratic politician offers to do is steal stuff from other people and offer it to enough people to get elected. Once in office this politician doesn't face any actual incentives to follow through with this policy except for in order to get reelected, to accomplish which he only needs to convince enough people that the alternative is worse than him. Instead his incentive once he is in office is not to improve things, but to plunder as much as he possibly can while he is still in power, since he doesn't own anything he controls, he is merely a temporary caretaker of an apparatus of expropriation.
>>540917607It's Jews, dude. We've talked about this, remember? "Every time." You know this.
>>540917607We are Building Back Better™ just like we said we would, during covid-19. Remember?
>>540917607fun fact: lobbying supercedes the popular votebonus fun fact: the cattle are easily influenced by propaganda, thus making swaying the popular vote trivial
>>540917607>foreignersdebt gdp ponzi>program fraudsomeone's getting kickbacks>deihyper-concentration of private equity>troonscartelization of heath sector through state intervention
>>540917607You know exactly (((why)))
>>540917607jews.
>>540917607It works so long as there aren't subversive 5th columns like Jewry. That's basically the problem.
Jews love democracy because they can buy all the politicians since they have the money.
The bigger and more diverse a democracy is, the easier it is for organized minorities to manipulate it. So a dozen white men can come to a pretty sensible plan together, but a hundred million men and women of all different races are basically completely unrepresented in government, while a few thousand determined people run the whole thing.This is why localism is so important in democracy. The federal government is the enemy of localism. If a community wants to keep blacks out, or enslave women, then democracy lets that community decide what it wants. Democracy comes first from the community, not from the state.Democracy is a great moral justification, but it does not seem like a great political system. By definition in democracy, anyone can attain power, including foreigners and even people at war with us. The oligarchical structure of china is far harder to infiltrate.On a communal level, we have almost zero power. Recently we heard stories of thousands of migrants being dumped onto small european villages. Those villages apparently have zero power over their own land, since they can do nothing to stop a foreign invasion.
>>540917607Democracy is treated as fairness when unfairness is sometimes necessary to safeguard the existence of said democracy but the voters within the democracy refuse to vote in accordance with each other. So it was split into a republic. This obviously was abandoned in favor of a more powerful federal model which reinstalls the previous over arching democratic model thereby subverting not only the will of the voter by reverse psychology and cognitive dissonance but also of the system itself placing itself above instead beside the will of the voter.
Because it's not really democracy as the ancients practiced it. That is mostly an illusion. Sometimes the will of the people has some influence, but in most cases that will is shaped by the rich and powerful. "Democracy" is an unwieldy political engine that can be influenced in various ways, mostly requiring a lot of money. But it still kind of works, in that society hasn't collapsed (yet).Modern democracy is also inseparable from technology, and other important conditions like the huge increase in population. We never had one without the other, except for some communist states which mostly failed or turned into democracies. Something like democracy is perhaps necessary to placate the seething retarded masses. It all fits together. You can't just pull democracy out of modern society and replace it with something else. The whole thing would change, or even die.So to me, the question of whether it "works" is unanswerable. It is what it is.
>>540917607Oooohhhh the new psyop is to make MIGA faggots denounce democracy lmfao world’s biggest crybabies of all time
It's existed and been successful for so long that it's enemies have figured out exactly how to exploit it's weaknesses. This is currently what is occurring, spearheaded by China.
democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others
>>540917607>If democracy works, why does every single western nation have exactly the same policies that nobody voted for?I dunno man, it's a mystery...
Democracy is evil, plain and simple. Any system that allows bad people to rule over good is wrong. Democracy by design ensures only bad people have any power.
>>540917607No one claimed democracy worked. Even the ancients knew pure democracies were mob ruled.
>>540917607big cock
>>540918622>Oooohhhh the new psyop is to make MIGA faggots denounce democracy lmfao world’s biggest crybabies of all timeTell me, if democracy is a good idea, then why is it that the US government now engages in far greater tyranny than the colonists who rebelled against the British crown were outraged over? Has democracy succeeded in safeguarding our liberty? Given that it clearly has not, I demand that you justify why you think it is morally acceptable to continue the practice in spite of the fact that it clearly hasn't worked.
>>540917607jews
>>540917607Its working exactly as intended. You just don't understand it.
>>540918842Moreover we have to examine whether we are actually in fact democratic. China and DPRK also claim to be democratic, the soviet union claimed to be democratic. Are we?I dont think the American people have had much control over their own lives since the 1800s. Specifically, stuff like modern banking (outlawing silver and then gold), womens rights, prohibition, racial integration, and mass immigration are all fundamentally nonconsensual actions by the central government made into local communities. Take prohibition for example. A democracy might have been towns and neighborhoods deciding whether they wanted alcohol to be legal. The federal government imposing its mandate upon all 100 million citizens is intensely anti democratic and totalitarian.
>>540917607KikesBlackmailed faggots who are appeasing kikesRace traitor assholes who are selling out their own on behalf of kikesFaggots bought and paid for by kikesI hate this shit world
>>540917607All of this is immigration, which is not decided in democracy
>>540919113>we have to examine whether we are actually in fact democratic.I think that we should simply abolish the state entirely. A democratic state is inferior to a monarchy, but neither can be justified morally. So ultimately my position remains the same regardless, and I see no point in examining whether the US practices "true democracy" any more then I feel the need to examine whether the Soviet Union practiced "true communism".>China and DPRK also claim to be democratic, the soviet union claimed to be democratic.Not exactly. They don't/didn't actually use the word democracy, and I have read enough to know that they define the word they use in their own languages far differently than Americans define democracy.>I dont think the American people have had much control over their own lives since the 1800sIf you want people to have control over their own lives democracy is objectively the worst way to go about it. Democracy isn't about having people be free to make their own decisions, it's the freedom to have a say in how the power of the state is wielded against everyone else.>The federal government imposing its mandate upon all 100 million citizens is intensely anti democratic and totalitarian.Quite to the contrary, it is extremely democratic and totalitarian. Democracy invariably leads to an expansion of the state, as anyone can hypothetically become a part of the apparatus of the state, and nobody wants to rock the boat of expanding the power of the state when they think it might be their turn to be the next one in charge of it. It is not a coincidence that democracies are far more involved in every aspect of people's lives than many so called "authoritarian" regimes. They are total governments, in that they have power and involvement in the totality of their subjects lives.
The answer to literally every bad thing happening ever is "the Jews are behind it."
Because it doesn't work. Glad you figured it out.All politicians everywhere are living, breathing piles of excrement. They'll throw you and everyone else to the dogs if it means they can exercise their perceived class-based superiority over you. There is no diplomatic solution to it.
>>540917727/thread
>>540918842You literally voted for this
>>540919485>I think that we should simply abolish the state entirely. A democratic state is inferior to a monarchy, but neither can be justified morally. Well first of all a state is made or abolished along lines of power, not morality. As in, you may think a monarchy is immoral, but it will impose itself nonetheless. But on the same time, the moral justification of a state is one of its most important assets. That is why cops serve it, and why people obey, and participate. When the state loses the confidence of the people, it is a problem. The moral justification of democracy is obvious. Just like the USSR, "the people" are used as a justification for everything the state does. The cops arrest antisemites because the politicians passed laws against antisemites and the people elected the politicians so therefore the people are arresting the antisemites. Or so it goes. In monarchy, the classic moral justification is "the divine right of kings", which is that the rule is hereditary. That is a very good moral for the same reason that when you die your house passes to your son instead of everyone in the neighborhood voting who should have it. Among other things, this avoids succession crises, since everyone knows who rules and who will rule after him. In our democracy we have a succession crisis built in to the system every 4 years. In China or Nazi Germany or other dictatorships, they do not have proper heirs and many times they collapse when the leader dies since there is no tradition of father to son inheritance.From my perspective on your points that democracies are totalitarian. I would say that totalitarianism is a function of technology. A state is ultimately just an organized group imposing their will upon everyone else. A famous example is in anarchy it is believed that private states would emerge and we would be right back where we started. Or a dysfunctional state such as modern America, Europe, or the Polish Lithuania, or 19th century China/Ottomans.
Voting isn't real and they do whatever they want and it isn't about what's good for you.Don't you see that by now? It's all about what the Jews want...
>>540919779Out of curiosity, could the king even hypothetically just abolish democracy in the UK? Like I know you're still technically a monarchy, doesn't the democratic government supposedly serve at his pleasure?>>540919818Ah, popular sovereignty? Is that your argument?>>540919860>Well first of all a state is made or abolished along lines of power, not morality.I said should, not will, so this is stupid to bring up.>As in, you may think a monarchy is immoral, but it will impose itself nonetheless.I said it's immoral, but democracy is far more immoral. My point wasn't about what will be done, but what I will try to justify or think is worth arguing about.>But on the same time, the moral justification of a state is (...) In China or Nazi Germany or other dictatorshipsI don't need a barely high school level explanation of civics like you just provided, but it's nice to know you at least paid attention to what the state told you about how they work.>many times they collapse when the leader dies since there is no tradition of father to son inheritance.This is the crux of why monarchies are superior to other forms of government. Because the state is treated as the king's property, the king will preserve its value for their heirs, and will respect property rights so that his property relation to the state is not questioned.>A famous example is in anarchy it is believed that private states would emergeWhile some limited state formation would likely take place, the modern situation of universal statism would be highly unlikely to reemerge, having been only created through some rather unusual historical happenstances. You are probably conflating "state" and "government", which are actually totally separate concepts. A state is a compulsory territorial monopolist on ultimate decision making. A government is just a group which assumes a managerial role in a polity. Clubs, companies, and so forth all have governments without being states.
>>540917607Democracy doesn't exist. Western democracy is just a show for idiots who believe in democracy.
>>540917607The top priority of every western government is white genocide. That is obvious.Presumably they're colluding to get it done, and may have been at it for decades, secretly working away like busy little beavers.
>>540917607Because democracy means rule by a hidden juish elite, and it's working as intended.
>>540917607In other words it doesn’t work.
>>540917607You didn’t want the dictatorship of the proletariat. Here you have the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
>>540922964We'd prefer just not to have a dictatorship at all.
