When I was in fifth grade, my teacher asked her students “How can we preserve Democracy?” – I replied with the question “Why should we preserve Democracy?” I got detention. Needless to say, but I got a lot of detention in elementary school. Asking the right question is always better than answering the wrong one, because it allows you to see things as they truly are, instead of like your existing assumptions makes you believe they are. An interesting question if you read my previous article, hence becomes “What are the most dangerous mass psychosis on the planet today?” – I will create an argument that hopefully makes you understand you’ve been lied to in such a regard, and that Democracy is far from what it has been taught to be, in elementary schools to millions of children, all over the world, for some 100+ years in most western nations on the planet.
Winston Churchill said “Democracy is a terrible form of government, but it’s the least terrible type of government we have ever tried”. Answering Churchill’s answer with a question, obviously results in “Why not try something else but Democracy then?”
The by far largest mass psychosis on the planet today is the belief in that money holds value. However, this psychosis is not that dangerous. In fact, quite the opposite, because it “lubricates society”. The false belief in that money holds value, makes us capable of collaborating with people whom we would normally never collaborate with. This effect has been studied thoroughly, by thousands of our best economic minds, always resulting in the same conclusion. Another humongously large mass psychosis, is the belief in that Jesus was God in the flesh. Even though this psychosis is extremely easy to disprove, it’s not that dangerous. In fact, it also has a lot of positive side effects. So what sets Democracy apart? What makes Democracy dangerous?
At the core of the Democratic declaration of faith, is the belief in that the majority of the people have the right to appoint somebody and give him the right to rule the entire society. This results in that those who never voted for the person that won, and also spent a lot of time and energy to try to make “the other guy” win, are arguably the “enemy of the state” after the election. For instance, in the 1930s in Germany, there were two major political fractions; The Nazis and the Communists. The tension between these two different groups were so large, that when Hitler came to power, he passionately hated Communists to such an extent, that few of them survived Hitler’s reign. Most communists were “first in line” to enter the gas chambers in Nazi Germany because of this tension. To believe in Democracy, and casting your vote, is hence a very dangerous thing to do, unless you are 100% certain of that “your guy” will win. Something we can clearly see in large democratic nations on the planet today, such as the USA for instance, where the tension between the democrats and the republicans have been brought up to the level where we see open street fights between these two different fractions today. The fix for this problem of course, is to simply avoid taking a side. The only way to reliably avoid taking a side, is by avoiding voting, and avoid preaching in favour of any of these candidates, which arguably becomes a “vote for Anarchy”. Let me ask you a question to illustrate the problem …
Do you want to kill kittens or puppies?
Most people will choose whatever they perceive as the “lesser evil” when confronted with two choices, not realising the question has been skewed. If I asked the above question on Facebook, many people wouldn’t even see the third alternative, which basically is “Fux you a$$hole, I’m not gonna do any of those things”. However, most people would see the insanity in the questioning when the question is of such an obvious character as the above question is. At the core of the Democratic declaration of faith, is that you can’t get everything as you wish. For instance, if you want your candidate to give free medicine to the elderly, you’ll have to accept paying more tax, etc – Hence, democracy is arguably about finding the middle point, where 51% of your population is 51% in agreement with you. In Nazi Germany this implied you’d have to accept the notion of slavery, in order to live a life in luxury. It’s quite easy once you realise that the luxury most Germans experienced between 1937 and 1942, was based entirely upon slavery. Basically, stealing everything from the Jews, and giving it to the “Arian population of Germany”. Of course, the jews were the minority, so nobody really cared, because they’d never get the popular vote to overthrow the government anyway. The correct word for Democracy, hence becomes “The tyranny of the majority”. Which again is one notch up from tyrants and dictatorships.
Democracy is basically the belief in that the majority has the right to do whatever they want to do with the minority. Democracy is a perverted belief, roughly two notches “better” than the belief in that all non christians should be executed, and burned at the stake, for being Satan worshippers. So hence, my question to Winston Churchill becomes as follows …
Why not try something we haven’t tried? Anarchy for instance …?