Saturday, December 13, 2008

Two Wolves and a Sheep: Democratic Tyranny

SoporificDuring the great twilight struggles of modern times — against the various forms of totalitarian Socialism in the 20th century, and against totalitarian Islam in the 21st — much has been made of democracy. Installing democratic governance in place of existing despotisms is seen as an unalloyed boon for the West, and beneficial to our national security.

But what is this “democracy” that everyone talks about? We all have a general idea about it: the ballot box, the purple fingers, a legislature composed of the people’s elected representatives, and so on. But, strictly speaking, democracy is just one form of representative government, and possibly the worst. Other, sturdier forms include the constitutional republic and the constitutional monarchy, both of which have long and distinguished pedigrees.

Once upon a time, the United States was a constitutional republic, and not a democracy. The Founding Fathers wisely considered pure democracy to be a danger to the commonweal.

But we have long since forgotten their prudence, and the current general understanding of the American political system is that it is a democracy in which the majority rules. Whatever 51% of the electorate wants at any given moment, that’s what we must have.

This definition is so widespread and entrenched that most people don’t even remember the original political structures that made the Republic work. The Constitution is seen as a quaint and annoying impediment, something that has to be gotten around in order to implement the will of the people.

Nothing better illustrates current trends than the ongoing arguments about Barack Hussein Obama’s missing birth certificate. On December 8th, in an article an article entitled “Obama Derangement Syndrome”, David Horowitz had this to say about the birth certificate controversy:

The birth-certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil. (McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.)

What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on U.S. soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for president trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if five Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots? [emphasis added]

Mr. Horowitz is a former man of the Left, and he has not entirely abandoned the demotic enthusiasm of his former political stance. In this view, the Constitution of the United States is a “contested technicality”, and he looks askance at the idea that it can “trump” the expressed will of the people.

He’s got a lot of company. Most people instinctively disdain any constitutional provisions that run counter to popular opinion. But they overlook an unpleasant and dangerous truth: unconstrained democracy leads inevitably to tyranny.

There are no exceptions. If democracy is not hedged around with safeguards to check the venal and capricious expressions of the popular will, then tyranny will eventually be voted into existence.

The Framers understood this fact all too well. But two hundred years of opportunistic tinkering have eroded all the checks and balances, leaving us with a naked and unprotected version of democracy which is all too easily manipulated and corrupted by those who already hold positions of power. The universal franchise, the advent of various forms of socialist ideology, the deterioration of civic education, and the emergence of modern mass media have all contributed to the decline of our constitutional safeguards. Barack Hussein Obama just happens to be the lucky guy who stands to gain the most by seizing the historical moment.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Conservative Swede and I have been discussing this and similar topics in a series of emails. A portion of our dialogue is reproduced below:

CS: This is a made up story, that is, a new improved — and from here on valid — national myth about how democracy trumps the Constitution, so if the electors vote for Obama (while knowing it’s so!) that trumps the breach of the Constitution.
 
  But despite my ability to see through things and see things coming, I have to say that when I read it again I find myself still too naïve. I’ve been assuming that they would use more sophistication in their deception, making up things that sounded better theoretically. But Horowitz and the liberals don’t care about that. They make up for it with their bullying attitude, which works just fine.
 
  So I was right in how democracy would trump the Constitution, but I forgot that this implies a change of demeanor. Democracy without a constitution is exactly mob rule. And this is precisely what we see coming from Horowitz and the liberals. Democracy has eventually defeated the Constitution — welcome to mob rule!
 
BB: The Constitution has not been operative for quite a while. Federal income tax withholding was unconstitutional. Kelo was unconstitutional. Campaign finance “reform” was unconstitutional. The recent bailout was unconstitutional.
 
  The advantage of the birth certificate issue is that it may make the demise of the Constitution more obvious and more publicly known. What has been tacit will become open. We will publicly enter a post-constitutional era. I have no idea what will happen after that, but at least the pretense will be over.
- - - - - - - - -
CS: The greatest trick of the devil is in making us speak in terms of democracy as the thing we strive for: how we are going to stick to democratic values, fight for our democratic principles, strive for more democracy, etc. You also hear reasonable people using just this language. When it’s in fact exactly democracy and democracy-talk that torpedoes the good, civilized and balanced republican government systems that are typical of (a very long and thriving) European political tradition, of which there is not much left (and people are no longer even able to formulate these ideas).
 
  With this as with so many other things, people have not learned, have not internalized, that it is exactly what they are taught to strive for that throws us into the hellish abyss. It is exactly our concept of morality, our ideals and how we formulate them that causes this civilizational suicide. Until this is reversed, there’s no way to truly save us.
 
  No, our civilization has not been hijacked by Leftists, Cultural Marxists, the Frankfurt School, etc. The problem is in our fundamental concept of morality, and this generates and regenerates all the problems, and consistently turns society more and more towards the left. Surely it’s because of this that leftists are having a field day, but that’s just an epi-phenomenon.
 
BB: Yes, you are exactly right. “Pure democracy” has triumphed. The two wolves have voted on what they will have for dinner. Our country is screwed.
 
CS: There are very few of us who see this problem with democracy. Even fewer who see the overall problem with our very concept of morality. And even those among us who understand easily slip back into democracy-talk and goodness-talk. It’s a very long walk to find our way back to pre-Enlightenment ideas (which also have to be adapted to the Industrial Age). Even I find it hard to formulate the political ideals of, let’s just call it, “The Republic”. It’s just too easy to slip back into democracy-talk.
 
  Democracy-talk is revolutionary and emotional and sounds so much better when you want to rally people into action. The principle of The Republic is more for the consumption for philosophers.
 
  And it’s even harder to go against our deeply ingrained concepts of good and evil. It’s our most fundamental social grammar. The most basic data structures of our thinking.
 
  Brutal and oppressive tyranny is hidden under our modern superstructure of democratic ideals. Never have people lived under such a brutal and dishonest tyranny with such a complete lack of solidarity among them. But of course, never have the guiding ideological illusions been so marvelously wonderful; people have been turned into junkies. This is our heroin.
 
BB: Yes, this is like Brave New World, not 1984. We have our “soma”. This is a smiley-face tyranny. But Frank Vanhecke’s case, for example, demonstrates that it really is tyranny. For those who step outside the acceptable range of opinion, the smiley-face becomes a frowney-face in jackboots.
 
  What we need, for the purposes of discussion, is an alternative to the word “democracy”. Victor Davis Hanson (who is a fan of the Greeks, and devoted to the ideal of the Republic) refers to “representative government”, which is a fairly good short term for what we mean.
 
  Voting is only useful in limited-sized groups that are relatively homogeneous in composition. The original American structures were built that way — “democracy” was entirely local. The larger institutions were built up from representatives of the local-level elected bodies, and the Senate was deliberately devised to check democracy. Each of the three branches of government was designed to prevent any possible tyranny in the other two.
 
  But all of those safeguards have been thrown away now, of course.
 
  There are many ways that a representative government can be built that truly reflects the need and will of the people. Tyranny is not the only alternative to democracy; there are other possible forms. And if they are to work, they all must incorporate checks on the expression of democracy.
 
  To put it bluntly, I consider pure democracy to be a bane on the body politic.
 
  Democracy is what brings us Obama, national health care, the Education Department, and federal bailouts of private companies. Democracy inevitably results in the people voting themselves the contents of the public treasury.
 
  Democracy allows the Constitution to be overthrown and replaced with the tyranny of the majority.
 
  I prefer the ideal of representative government, which includes our (dying) constitutional republic, constitutional monarchy, and other viable forms of self-government which support and maintain a set of competing power blocs that prevent tyranny from arising.
 
  Pure democracy could only work in a small homogeneous state, like (say) Andorra.
 
  Left unchecked, democracy will always vote tyranny into being.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

So here we are, at the apotheosis of Western Civilization, in the full flowering of democracy. Two wolves, one sheep, voting about what to have for dinner.

So who are the wolves, and who are the sheep?

In Europe, Wolf #1 comprises the Socialist political parties of various hues along with the full bureaucratic apparatus of the state, and Wolf #2 includes the Muslim immigrants who help keep them in power. Together these two groups can outvote the ordinary indigenous European sheep every time.

In the United States, one wolf is represented by the combination of welfare clients and non-WASP ethnic groups which reliably vote to keep the liberal-socialist regime in power. The other wolf is made up of federal, state, and local government employees, plus the unions and other remoras on the federal shark. Ordinary hardworking taxpaying sheep are no match for them at the ballot box.

The competing power structures — the various estates under the European monarchical systems, or the three branches of government and the sovereign states of the USA — no longer exist. There is only the unchecked and ever-growing power of the central government, voted into office election after election. This enormous bureaucratic system battens off massive taxation that is only possible under a productive and technologically advanced economy. As long as it can dole out the “free” benefits to complacent voters, the system continues to function.

But those days are almost over. The welfare state Ponzi scheme relies on an ever-growing population to provide new rubes for the old game, and all that is about to come to an end. The existing system will fail; it cannot avoid failure.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Democracy in America — and the rest of the West — is damaged beyond repair. It has reached its inevitable final form in the modern welfare state and is rapidly approaching endgame. There is no longer a large cohort of well-educated, virtuous, and industrious citizens who could come together and re-engineer the system. The existing structure cannot be supported indefinitely, and will have to collapse before any new, more resilient forms of representative government can emerge.

The collapse of the existing system is inevitable. The only questions are whether the collapse will occur suddenly or in slow motion, and whether a period of ignorance, brutality, and repression will intervene before liberty can be recovered.

The pattern is now clear, and future historians will be able to chart the natural flow of cause-and-effect in democracy’s trajectory of self-destruction.

When it is stripped of all republican, monarchical, or other time-tested structures that restrain the tyranny of the majority, the democratic process is eventually manipulated by the privileged classes to direct ever more power into their own hands. Bread and circuses are delivered to the voters to keep them quiescent, and the voters in return deliver their votes to one or another members of the oligarchy who keep the machine running smoothly for their own benefit.

Schuman Square, 9/11/2007

As the system becomes more and more brittle, repression becomes more overt. All real dissent is squashed, gently if possible, but brutally if required. Just ask Frank Vanhecke.

We are left with a shell and a caricature of the original functions of self-government. People can vote for anyone on the ballot they want to, but they can’t change the system that exploits their vote.

You can choose Coke, or you can choose Pepsi. But you can’t choose not to drink soft drinks.

33 comments:

Ian B said...

I think this discussion, like most discussions regarding democracy etc kind of misses the point. Any political system can only survive with the consent of its people, (or by ruthless suppression). If the majority of the people don't want to live by the provisions of a constitution, that constitution will fall. If everybody converts to fundamentalist christianity, or most do, you'll get a christian theocracy and to heck with the constitution. If they all become communists, or fascists, or muslims, or anything else, the same. Nobody will be interested in a 200 year old document. The only way to preserve a free society is to win the argument in the minds of the masses.

Our societies are in the state they are because conservatives and libertarians have lost the argument. They have lost it totally, and completely. The Enemy- the left, whatever you wish to call them, have used all manner of underhanded tactics, but they have nonetheless gained the popular support of the masses.

You need mass support. That's all that counts.

Czechmade said...

Our situation could be defined as "living with the result". That is what makes us so stupid.

Going through the last centuries, focusing on various periods independently of the school curriculum might revive our instincts.

This is our saga, Mahabharatam, Ilias etc. Going through it again and again revives the old heroes and devils partly or fully defeated.

Aquila said...

These days I tend to feel physically ill whenever I encounter a statement like:

“Whatever 51% of the electorate wants at any given moment, that’s what we must have.”

On what planet?

“Once every four years” does not equal “any given moment”

If any of the governments and their agents of all the so called ‘democracies’ ever did things that were actually supported by at least 51% of the electorate for even 20% of the time I would fall off my chair in surprise.

All this talk of republican government being ‘sturdier’, whatever that means, or democracy reflecting the peoples’ will, as if the ‘people’ have any genuine power, is essentially meaningless. Both versions are elective juntas and designed to ensure that the will of the people can be safely ignored by governments simply because they are ‘sturdier’ in maintaining their hold on power.

The correct term for the forms of government we loosely refer to as republics or democracies (assuming honest elections) is ‘elective junta’.

Always has been.

Always will be.

Until this is clearly understood by a significant proportion of the population no progress towards an alternative system that genuinely reflects the will of the people can ever be devised.

It would be a tragedy to look to the American founding fathers for guidance. The contempt they held towards their fellow citizens, as revealed by their strictures against the ‘democracy’ straw man they created, were probably little different to the views held by George III.

Baron Bodissey said...

Aquila --

I said "any given moment", and I meant it. The advent of mass opinion polling (along with the mass media to spread the word) has ushered in an era of plebiscitary democracy. Politicians change course all the time based on popular whim as expressed in opinion polls.

We're already there. 24/7 pure democracy.

James Higham said...

because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil.

Yeah - some technicality - whether he was eligible or ineligible, that was all.

xlbrl said...

Russell Kirk--
Are permanence and continuity impossible for modern society? Three checks upon the empire of unbridled discussion seem possible: the deliberate revival of the concept of traditional wisdom, the growth of public boredom with talk and with change itself, and the coming of catastrophes which teach men to distrust their own opinions.
If a conservative order is indeed to return, we ought to know the tradition which is attached to it, so that we may rebuild society; if it is not to be restored, still we ought to understand conservative ideas so that we may rake from the ashes what scorched frangments of civilization escape the conflagration of unchecked will and apetite.

viracoche said...

The concept of democracy, or republic is noble and good. The idea to share power among the recipients of its fruits. The problem is in the execution. Those that do not contribute should not vote. Perhaps it would be a democracy in a large oligarchy. Only those who serve should be allowed to decide our future. A few examples I can think of would be members of the armed forces, medical professionals, scientists, small business owners, etc.
Never happen, just my 2 cents.

Charles Martel said...

Great discussion - thanks. Democracy is ultimately the most despotic of all forms of government for it blunts and undermines effective opposition. After all, who could oppose the will of the people?

I do have a queston for CS. You said, With this as with so many other things, people have not learned, have not internalized, that it is exactly what they are taught to strive for that throws us into the hellish abyss. It is exactly our concept of morality, our ideals and how we formulate them that causes this civilizational suicide. Until this is reversed, there’s no way to truly save us.

Could you please expand on this and provide some suggestions for additional reading. You are definitely on to something here and I'd like to more fully understand what you are saying.

Thanks.

jezekiah said...

The problem is in our fundamental concept of morality...

This is an insight that needs to be looked at more closely.

I've long maintained that morality in the 20th century has largely been dictated by the monkey-see/monkey-do influence of the mass media. If we can ascertain WHO has the lion's share of influence within the mass media, we can more easily pinpoint those who wish to see the breakdown in morality in the larger culture.

Andrea Shea King said...

Excellent analysis. Linked.

Reading Baron At Gates of Vienna

Andrea Shea King
The Radio Patriot

Aquila said...

"We're already there. 24/7 pure democracy."

To take just one obvious example, when over 70% of the people in the US want something as basic as the immigration laws to be properly enforced and this majority is ignored with impunity for decades then there exists a state of pure democracy 0/7.

Baron Bodissey said...

Aquila --

Ah, but the trick is this: when the people want something that all the elites simply will not allow, then the gatekeepers make sure that no major candidate for national office ever supports that position.

Nice trick! So both major parties support amnesty. You can vote for Pepsi or Coke, but not for whiskey or Gatorade.

That's how modern democracy works. Mob rule when it is useful, soft (or not so soft) tyranny when it is necessary.

Alex said...

“Whatever 51% of the electorate wants … we must have.”

That is certainly the impression that the nomenklatura want to create.
In reality, however, the oligarchs contemptuously ignore many popular desires that are in conflict with their agenda.
Without fear of retribution.

Keep digging.

usabikes said...

Thanks for the article. Just one comment regarding the possibility of Christian fundamentalists creating a theocracy:~ as one of said fundamentalists, though not North American, my observation is that American Fundies frankly wouldn't dream of doing away with the Constitution. To them its almost as sacred as holy scripture - a bit like that old joke about an American visiting Cambridge University who upon seeing Jesus College and Lincoln College exclaimed "I can't tell the difference between Lincoln and Jesus", to which his host replied "Yes, we get a lot of Americans who think like that!"

There are strengths and weaknesses in every Christian culture, having visited several Afican countries and the US on two occasions I concur with this observation of most Missiologists: in Africa the Christians are still bound up with fetishes and witchcraft, while in the West Christians are bound up with Materialism.

One thing I'm quite sure of though, the last thing American "fundamentalists" of any stripe are prone to do is to abolish the Constitution. To think otherwise I'm afraid, is to do a diservice to one of the strongest bulwarks the US has against tyranny and for liberty.

The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon said...

Wahhh! Wahhh! Mommy, MAKE THEM STOP!

Funny, I didn't hear right-wingers like the Baron whining when George Bush won the 2004 election with 51% of the vote. Then is was MAJORITY RULES, BABY! GET OVER IT!

By the way, Baron, the United States is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic, defined as rule by representatives elected by the voters, bound by constitutional principles.

Like the 8th amendment ban against cruel and unusual punishment ... OOOPS! That one HAS to go so we can torture secrets out of evil Muslims, right Baron?

Conservative Swede said...

Charles Martel,

Thanks for your interest. I do not know straight ahead what other reading to recommend. As far as I know, I'm pretty much the only one saying this. However, for perspective I'm reading Burke, Hobbes, Nietzsche, Aristotle and Machiavelli.

I should be writing more myself about it. But the idea has been with me for a few years now. And many exchanges I have in this forum is built on this insight. And my modus operandi is often in trying to get people to see the deeper picture, in how we have not been "hijacked" by Gramsciists but how there is something fundamentally very wrong with our civilization. This implies that the problem is within us all, and that the main fight is an internal one, within our souls. I'm often trying to trigger this inner process within others in exchanges in forums like this. Normally without result, since people base their identity and world view upon the idea that our civilization is basically sound, and then mysteriously hijacked by Cultural Marxists. A so much more convenient delusion.

The background for this inverted and destructive morality is found in the invention of liberalism (and socialism which is just a slight variation of the theme). If we dig deeper we find the Enlightenment as the origin of this sort of morality. If we dig even deeper we find that the seeds for this inverted morality comes from Christianity.

There is an ongoing discussion in another thread, mainly between me and Sagunto, which relates to all this:

LINK

Charles Martel said...

CS,

Thanks. I too am a great admirer of Burke, Aristotle and of course Kirk. I have less use for Hobbes, Machiavelli and Nietzsche.

I haven't read the thread you've referred me to just yet, but what I have been striving for is the development of some sort of "unified theory" of Western Civilizational disintegration which your posts seem to hint at.

I will get back to you once I've read the thread you suggested.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Gordon, the people who made the popular vote the issue in that election were your side, not the right. Bush won the electoral college - the election by the states - and that has always been the argument of the right. The fact that he did also win the popular vote is icing on the cake, but it's not necessary, and only you lot ever wanted to try and make an issue out of it, only to have it backfire. Hoist by your own petard matey boy.

Conservative Swede said...

Charles Martel,

but what I have been striving for is the development of some sort of "unified theory" of Western Civilizational disintegration which your posts seem to hint at

Maybe one day I will attempt to write down such a thing. However, no such unified theory could be expressed without considering Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals (whole book under link).

And about criticism of democracy. Here's the introduction to Hans-Hermann Hoppe's book Democracy: The God That Failed

None of above criticisms are identical to my own. In both cases there are big differences between me and them, especially in the sort of conclusions they head for after expressing their criticism. Having said that, the reason I link them is that this is among the best and most insightful written on each topic, Nietzsche on criticism of our morality, Hoppe on criticism of our democratic ideal. Both above books should be considered mandatory reading.

PS. Kirk must be Russell Kirk rather than James T. Kirk. I have read neither.

Conservative Swede said...

This discussion between me and Bodissey has been going on for several weeks and is much longer. The Baron has edited it in order to bring out the essence in this compressed format. But I'd like to point out the first part said by me is mixed in time. The first paragraph was written three weeks ago, two weeks before Horowitz "shut up" article. On November 23 I wrote, as one of several bullets suggesting how the liberals will spin this:

* Some made up story, i.e. a new improved and from here on valid national myth, about how democracy trumps the constitution, so if the electors vote for Obama (while knowing it's so!) that trumps the breach of the constitution.

So I saw Horowitz article coming already beforehand (although I didn't see it coming from him, but unfortunately I'm not surprised either).

Then the second and third paragraphs are written after Horowitz article. When I say "I have to say that when I read it again I find myself still too naïve" this is referring to how I read what I wrote in November 23.

My idea from November 23 that there would be a spin story involving the electors, and how their "blessing" of a technically ineligible Obama (assuming it would be known by then) would be the important part of the spin, was truly giving to much credit to the liberals here (What was I thinking? Electors do not even exist in the minds of people anymore as political actors. Not even formally.)

Horowitz and the other liberals uses a narrative that is so much more blunt, backed up with simplistic bullying. The argument goes: the vote of the people is valid even if it was based on a big lie, and "shut up!".

Conservative Swede said...

My suggestion of the spin of how democracy trumps the constitution came up in a discussion between me and the Baron three weeks ago.

The Baron had written:
It's obvious that nothing can prevent Obama from becoming president, especially some stupid little piece of paper like the U.S. Constitution.

But *how* the Constitution is abrogated will be the big question. If it is violated flagrantly, then the breakdown process will begin very soon and accelerate rapidly.


Which made me consider in which ways that the establishment could orchestrate this deception. So I answered the Baron:

Well yeah...? What is possible?

* Bribing the right people to fake the paperwork, and then bribing another load of people to accept the fake. But it probably won't really be a matter of bribing. Most people involved would do it for the higher good. And the judge could be worked up in long serious talks about how: i) the country be thrown into the flames of a civil war would he take the "wrong" decision, and ii) the whole forgery is water-tight and cannot be exposed.

* Would it be possible to sweep the whole thing under the carpet? I.e. by media not writing about it.

* Some made up story, i.e. a new improved and from here on valid national myth, about how democracy trumps the constitution, so if the electors vote for Obama (while knowing it's so!) that trumps the breach of the constitution.

* A combination of the two last combined with: i) pleading from the Democrats to the Americans to be good sports about it "Hey, it's just a technicality. He really is American natural born in a more true sense. And after all we already had the election, and people wanted him, and we don't want to go through the hassle..."; and ii) aggressive attacks on Republicans telling in threatening language that the Democrats won't let them *steal* another election from them (ironic isn't it?).

Wow! Considering what pride Americans take in their constitution, and in being honest and truthful, this lie of the highest order will eat them up from the inside.

Makes me think of Theodore Dalrymple definition of Political Correctness:

"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."

thll said...

Conservative Swede said...

"Charles Martel,

'...but what I have been striving for is the development of some sort of "unified theory" of Western Civilizational disintegration which your posts seem to hint at...'

Maybe one day I will attempt to write down such a thing... "

It's already been done - Spengler's The Decline of the West

Conservative Swede said...

Thll,

It's already been done - Spengler's The Decline of the West

Another good book to read, related to this. And yes, Spengler was much influenced by Nietzsche.

However, Spengler describes the rise and fall of a civilization as an organic process (as seasons going from spring to winter). But this is too fatalistic and to little informative. Essentially it just tells us that a civilization is bound to fall. There no specific criticism there of the modus operandi of our concept of morality, which systematically makes us go wrong.

Charles Martel said...

CS,

I've read the introduction to Democracy: The God That Failed about 9 months ago and was much impressed. I'll give Nietzsche a go.

Please read Kirk's Enemies of Permanent Things. If you've not read Kirk, do yourself a huge favor and read this or his Conservative Mind. Both amazing books.

Charles Martel said...

CS,

Do you believe it is Christianity itself that is responsible for systematically making us go wrong or is it the post Enlightenment interpretation of Christianity that is the culprit?

Personally, I find the "morality" being taught in my Church today very troubling.

Just the other day our pastor said we are all racists which I found particularly loathsome. Later I approached him afterwards and told him I disagreed with his characterization of all of us as racists. I told him that his sermon added to the hand wringing self loathing that has crippled our culture. He became very defensive.

Anyway, I love my Catholic religion, if not this dunce's poppycock and would be distressed that if inside the teachings of the Church there resided some poison pill. I do believe that within the current teachings of many current Christian denominations there resides a poison pill.

Your thoughts? Please feel free to email me anytime at charlesmartel732@google.com

Conservative Swede said...

CM,

Do you believe it is Christianity itself that is responsible for systematically making us go wrong or is it the post Enlightenment interpretation of Christianity that is the culprit?

It's definitely the post-Enlightenment interpretation of Christianity that is the culprit. Compare it with the Orthodox church which is not affected by this. This is still mainly a healthy Christianity. E.g. how Russian Christians demand a church in Mecca for fairness.

However, the seeds for the Enlightenment is found entirely in Christianity. Quite as you say, there resides a poison pill within Christianity.

Christianity is great for civilizing under-civilized people. However, when Christian ethics is applied to people who are already over-civilized it's directly suicidal. And secular liberalism just makes Christian ethics more unfettered than in Christianity itself. I have written many articles criticizing Christianity, Christian ethics and Catholicism at my blog. Some of the criticism is a but harsh, maybe Nietzsche-like. Forgive me for that since that is characteristic of a discovery phase. Many of these explorative journeys have been done during much pain.

It seems to me that Christian ethics should have an expiration date. St. Paul explained that with the arrival of Jesus the old rules of the Jewish God (the law religion) did not apply anymore, and that now there were new rule (word of Jesus, religion of creed). He made the analogy in how the rules can change for a person when reaching adulthood. What we would need in the civilization of Western Christianity is yet a new set of rules. Rules of retirement age, rules for the already over-civilized, rules for the timid ones which it will only severely damage to make more timid.

Conservative Swede said...

CM,

So I will have a go at Kirk and you at Nietzsche. The text above is the one I consider the best. His writing style is highly polemical, but his analytical skill can be razor sharp, cutting through things a lazer (quite as Baron Bodissey on a good day). Most people seem to think that Nietzsche is a bit "too much", but use him for providing perspective (he certainly does). He did many intellectual discoveries that influence many after him, e.g. Spengler as mentioned above.

Here's a summary of the book I recommended:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Genealogy_of_Morals

Bear in mind that Nietzsche does not explain what *I* mean. I mentioned him solely since you asked for something to read, and I truly cannot think of anyone else having written such a deep criticism of our Western morality.

The main argument of this thread is about criticism of democracy, or more specifically of democratism. These arguments are commonsensical and do not require Nietzsche to understand.

Conservative Swede said...

Please feel free to email me anytime at charlesmartel732@google.com

Tried it and it didn't work. Now it's your turn. My email is conswede(at)mailbolt.com

Charles Martel said...

I don't know what I was thinking! It's charlesmartel732atgmail.com.

Also, I will tackle the book you recommended.

Email is on the way.

kritisk_borger said...

Ok, so democracy is a very ‘undemocratic’ way of governing. What then is the alternative? It’s easy to criticise and point out flaws in the current system, but it’s a lot harder to come up with good viable options that would be considered to be more fair and just to the average citizen.

Everything will eventually come to an end. Empires emerge and empires fall, and the same thing will happen to the USA and the EU at some stage. I don’t ever think that the third world immigrants of the western world are going to be repatriated back to their native lands, it’s a logistical nightmare and it would cause all sorts of horrible problems if such a policy were ever to be implemented.

I think the best option all things considered would be to create self governing areas within the borders of the current nation states. Large land areas could be purchased or allocated by western nations and designated as new nation states where those members of the indigenous population who wanted secession from the state could be given an opportunity to shape their own future on their own terms.

As time moves on and more and more ethnically different and foreign individuals flood into the west, the more tempting this idea will become. Even today residents in the west flock to gated communities to escape the crime and violence that are holding them hostage. Of course another option would be a violent armed struggle, but that would be a very bloody and traumatic affair.

kritisk_borger said...

I’ll just mention quickly that during the last EU referendum in Norway in 1994, TV footage from the polling stations showed several undecided voters walking in and out of the polling stations, visibly confused as to whether they should vote yes or no.

I believe the end result was 51 percent No, and 49 percent Yes.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Ian B, you're still in the democratic framework. What the majority wants is deeply irrelevant when they don't have a political power. If the majority would want me dead and yet I'd control the army, what they want is deeply irrelevant. I just gave you an absurd example.

The bottom line is that most people are clueless about politics and shouldn't have the vote. Electing your leaders is a great thing, provided that only worthy people get to elect them. Our democratic problem comes from the loss of checks and balances and due to universal suffrage, which is one of the most idiotic ideas ever concieved. I don't see why the vote of someone who runs a business and owns a house should be as worthy as the vote of someone who is homeless or on the dole. I had an epiphany about this when a woman said she's going to vote for a man who was already elected three times in my country and couldn't run anymore(normally, it would be two times, but appointing your buddies in the supreme court gets you some priviledges) and I knew the situation better even if I was 14 at that time. So I realized that the only people who should have any political choice in terms of voting are people who are in between 25 and 65, don't have a record, own a business or a home, are net taxpayers and are married and have children. Voting should be a priviledge, not a right.

Charles, the way we run our countries and socialism are related to our moral framework. The poor and weak being good and in need of liberation and the strong and rich being evil isn't coming from Marxism, it's coming from our ethics. Same with us seeking stupid things like equality or not wanting to discriminate, the latter feeding on the former.

Aquila, I didn't see people not voting for people that aren't the ones who want the borders shut. I didn't really see people support Ron Paul, for example. He would have wanted to change birth right, take away welfare from illegals and shut the Southern American border down.

Gordon, I don't know if you just fake being an idiot or you actually are one, but Bush was a clueless moron too. And I don't see how the US is a constitutional republic. The constitution says that the government can't do certain things that it does, so it's obviously not one. Maybe one in name only.

ConservativeSwede, the Marxists did provide some help, in my opinion. I mean, I do believe that we accepted it due to our moral framework and I do find the idea that they somehow forced it on us ridiculous, even though they created the concepts that became dominant. For example, feminism didn't win because of the academia and media alone. It's funny, but I always found it weird how people victimize themselves and like the poor and weak. I never did. I'd rather read a success story of a man who achieved against all odds than read the self pity of some emo person. By the way, that quote about political correctness and communist propaganda is spot on. The first step towards totalitarianism is a polity that censors themselves. About Christianity, in Eastern Europe it's not suicidal because it is constrained by a degree of nationalism, which was the case all over. Basically, Christianity was great as it promoted within group altruism, while nationalism excluded the others so the universalism of it wasn't applied to the whole world. Just like liberalism, when it was constrained by nationalism and it promoted individualism within a certain group, not as an universal creed, it was good. And I don't get how the word of Jesus can be applied without the OT considering it's in the NT that the OT is still valid.

rebelliousvanilla said...

kristisk, if by democracy you understand universal suffrage, then yes, democracy is horrible. Also, I really abhor people who wet their pants over fairness and justice in the liberal sense of the word - what's fair and just to the average citizen is deeply irrelevant. First of all, a governance system isn't good by itself, but the way it organizes society. You must have certain ideals towards the nation should move and you choose the government system based on that. For example, life in Eastern Europe is still pretty bad, even if we have democracies because we don't have capitalism. A capitalist nation that is ruled by a despot will always have higher living standards than a socialist democracy. Just look at Singapore who is the wealthiest country in the world(reserves and GDP per capita) - it's not democratic. People living there are also freer than Europeans and Americans. Also, I never get why you people think we need to repatriate/deport the immigrants. We don't, we can just make them leave. They come here for better living standards, for example. Take the welfare and jobs away and they'll move somewhere else. You don't need boxcars and so on to get rid of them. Also, them living here would be irrelevant as long as they don't have political power and the European way would be the only way. Crime is easy to do away with - look at Singapore. Capital punishment for drug dealing, kidnapping, murder, lying under oath to lead to a capital conviction etc.