What’s everyone’s favorite thing about it?
Well, we can do whatever we want, within reason of course. But who does this benefit? If you ask most people, you’ll probably get, “well, everyone. Duh.” But think about how different people are for a minute. Now, imagine every single person in this system going down a path that could potentially interfere with the path of another person. Does it sound beneficial now?
Now factor in that with more resources comes a greater ability to pursue one’s goals. People that normally wouldn’t stand for certain schemes may feel inclined to abandon their values and do one’s bidding because the rewards for doing so are simply too large to resist. There is because of that an inherent divisiveness to this political system. That being the matter of the 1% vs. the 99%, robber barons vs. the working man, rich vs. poor, etc. Democracy, capitalism, and free markets, therefore, can all be thought of as synonyms.
The simple ugly truth about democratic societies is that “freedom”, it’s central tenant, necessarily leads to their inhabits falling prey to exploitation. In other words, people can’t be trusted to keep a democracy going. It will not sustain itself. Because someone or some group of dedicated individuals within the 1% will eventually use their resources to reduce the 99% to slavery.
Are monarchic/aristocratic societies any less vulnerable to foreign attacks, invasions, and civil disputes? Of course not. But there is consistency. You may not get what you “want”, but you at least know what you’re going to get most of the time. Monarchs, unlike deciders within the 1% in democracies, genuinely must in fact appeal to “the people”. Because if they don’t, they will be overthrown.
Central deciding figures within democracies, however (mostly financial), have no need and are in fact disincentivized from appealing to any honest, hard-working people. Because those people want what’s reasonable. For you to share. But there comes a point when you have so much money, that on top of getting greedy and changing yourself, everyone’s perception of you changes wildly and you suddenly find a bunch of friends you never knew you had. They get greedy themselves and when you don’t cover this month’s rent for them (cause it’s like “nothing” for you), you suddenly find a bunch enemies you used to consider friends. You see what’s going on here?
and the Pursuit of “Happiness”
I can prove there’s no free will with pure semantics. Did you choose the last thought you had? If so, how did you do that? Did you think about what thought you wanted to think? If so, what compelled you to think that thought? Did you have to think about thinking about your thoughts to do that? And what compelled you to think that?! Did you think about thinking about thinking about your thoughts? You see how ridiculous this notion is that we “control” our thoughts, emotions, and subsequently—our behavior?! There’s no such thing as an uncaused cause. Everything happens for a reason. To suggest that our every thought and action is made purely out of thin air, based on our authoring is madness.
There is no free will, and by extension zero applicability in democracy and egalitarianism. These are fraudulent, Jewish inventions established with the ultimate goal in mind that one day everybody will be too dumb and week to defend themselves against global Bolshevist assimilation. When you give people the “freedom” to do what they want; they don’t. They still often go down paths they end up regretting, which they wouldn’t have, had the state put them in their place and made sure they were going down their optimal, objective path.
The lack of free will also means that capitalism as an economic system is flawed at its core. Considering that in light of determinism, it would seem that everyone’s position in a capitalist system (regulated or not) depends entirely on luck. Ooh, communism must be awesome then, huh Mitch? No. Communism doesn’t work. It’s literally the most Jewish idea ever conceived. Let’s turn all members of society into our slaves; but we’ll make them willing by telling them it makes them pure, gives them purpose, and all this crap. Then when enough are on our side, we’ll butcher up all the other dissenters into little pieces. And of course, all the main rewards of everyone’s hard work will be hoarded openly by 30 or so people in a highly secured building somewhere, kicking back, laughing their asses off. Not a shitty deal for the people at all.
Another aspect to democracy people just can’t seem to let go of is freedom of speech. What many don’t realize however is that freedom of speech was made to protect unpopular speech. Speech that’s popular doesn’t need protection because everybody engages in it. It’s unpopular speech that could get someone jailed or killed in societies where free speech isn’t a priority. On that note, what’s the most unpopular speech you can think of? What’s the most taboo subject matter out there?
Holocaust revisionism. It’s more reviled than “misogyny, racism, transphobia,” and all this other stuff that upsets the establishment nowadays. Arguably, the single quickest way to become a social pariah nowadays, is by simply asking, “did the Holocaust really happen?” It’s the only genocide that’s illegal to question in certain areas, primarily Germany. But that’s probably just a coincidence, I’m sure. It’s not like anybody resides there that might know anything.
Now, I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out: things aren’t okay in our society, and the world over for that matter. It’s free speech that allows us to get through these tough times, talk out our differences, and come to conclusions that will benefit us all. But free speech has to be entirely free speech if this is to work, and for that—the unpopular speech (again, Holocaust revisionism, more than ever before) must be paid attention to. It must be acknowledged, fairly debated, and given the thorough, objective analysis it deserves.
The state’s job in fascism is to put everyone both where they want to be and where they are most efficient, without overstepping the boundaries of other people’s positions as I alluded to with democracies earlier. In democracies, we’re left to figure these positions out and get them filled on our own, which doesn’t work because quite frankly we’re not all on the same page.
Communism is often compared to fascism in a horse-shoe theory-esque fashion. While they are functionally similar, communism exhibits one key difference that cripples it. Desire is not a priority. What people want to do, their faith, culture, and their potential desire to leave the country is not a factor and won’t be taken into consideration. All you get for non-compliance is a bullet.
It’s communism that “anti-fascists” are against, yet advocate for at the same time. It’s a topsy-turvy world we live in, folks.
What’s going on here?
This system was never meant to work or keep us in a cooperative state of union with one another. It’s a system made by people who wanted the world for themselves and simply loosened Western society’s laws and traditions (since we were so cucked as to let them) to do so.
Demo means people, cracy means system. Democracy, therefore, means, a system by and for the people within the system. Does that strike you as familiar in any way, perhaps in terms of a sixth grade “social studies” class lesson?
But we’re not Nazis obviously. Goodness, no! So, what are we then? If in fact, the true democracies are fascist in nature, and we’re clearly far from Nazidom, which do both seem to be the case—what kind of system of government is the United States exactly? Well, that’s a much more troubling topic that warrants its own post altogether.