Argument for Monarchy, Part 4 – Cult of Democracy

Cult of democracy

Democracy today – much like other modern things – is a cult. Democracy is perfect, and cannot be damaged by evidence. When society does well, it must be a result of democracy; but when democratic system does not work, blame is always shifted elsewhere, and true believer asks for more democracy. But historically, democracy and similar system have always produced decline of faith and morality and their replacement with materialism and laws – both of which are characteristics of totalitarian systems. Socialism believes humans can be improved, contrary to all the evidence (general trend has been, since the end of Middle Ages, downwards). Utopia can be achieved by governmental action – and when that fails, solution is invariably more government and more control over individual. Bonds of blood, culture, history, morality and so on are replaced by external control (totalitarianism).

Lawmakers are given mandate by the people and thus believe themselves the highest authority: above the law, not subject to the law, and able to change the law at will. They thus aim to control all modes of behaviour and set their own standards, as seen from modern politically correct culture. French Revolution, from which “mandate of the people” originates, killed tens of thousands of people. Communists killed tens of millions, as noted earlier. French Revolutionary government, Communist government and modern democracies all hold to claims of diversity and acceptance, yet they all condone mass murder of undesireables. At least 20 million were killed in Russia for their religion and monarchist opinions. In Spain, Republicans killed 55 000 people while Nationalists killed 75 000 according to some figures, though estimates for both vary wildly (40 000 – 110 000 victims of Republican terror vs 60 000 – 200 000 victims of Nationalist terror). And the only reason why Nationalists killed more is the fact that they had won the war.

Democracy: road to long-term disaster

Above clearly shows that democracy actually causes disaster, but basic reasons for such are as follows:

  • race for votes
  • resistance to compromise

“Race for votes” denotes already-mentioned tendency of political parties to sacrifice everything on the altar of gaining votes. Left consistently promotes mass immigration, no matter the consequences. Reason for this is not humanitarianism – no matter what they might say, Left does not care about well-being of immigrants. Rather, they are using immigrants to fight a culture war against the Right: and this culture war is something that very setup of democracy not only enables, but promotes. Consequence of this is that certain groups (in today’s West typically Marxist Left) will attempt to achieve cultural hegemony and shut down any possibility of discussion and differing opinions, introducing ideological totalitarism within so-called politically pluralistic system. In Croatia, Communist Party still holds power over 30 years after so-called “democratization”, and prevents any serious opposition by holding tight hold over media and academia.

In democracy, there is no interest in the future. Politicians care only about being (re)elected, and thus promote policies which will secure their reelection. These policies bring short-term benefits, but are oftentimes devastating in the long term: example being national debt or mass immigration facilitated by the Left as a way to gain votes. A very good example is First World War: by 1916. it was more than obvious that no gains resulting from the war will be worth its continuation. But war was continued because, for politicians who had supported it, it was political suicide to admit that war was in fact useless. Situation was made worse by the “sunk cost fallacy”, which in fact formed part of previous argument: so many resources had been spent on war that politicians could not back off while saving face in front of the public. Nor did politicians have reason to consider the consequences of continuing the war. Politicians in democracy do not pass power to their children, and in fact will be out of the office by the time full impact of their policies is felt. Consequently, they have no discipline, and are in fact encouraged to seek immediate gratification through exploitation of their priviledged position. Elected politicians have nobody to leave the state to, no reason to care about its future, while at the same time having a set term limit by which to secure their own personal future – by enriching themselves at the expense of the people they are supposed to serve.

In a monarchical system, monarch typically hopes to pass the crown onto his successor: this is true even if monarchy is technically elective. As a result, he has vested and personal interest in the future. King alone – and his successors – are responsible for the debt, whereas in democracy debt incurred by the politicians is passed onto the people. Monarch has reason to leave his holdings – the state – in a better state than when he inherited them; failure to do so was usually due to incompetence rather than intent. In democracy, politicians destroy the country by intent, simply to enrich themselves. And if king were to become tyrannical, he alone would be to blame.

Even when intent is not there, fact is that democracy – with its regular and frequent elections – serves to psychologically condition politicans and people alike to seek short-term gratification at the expense of long-term benefits; to burn down the house in order to warm themselves, so to speak. In military terms, this would be equal to allowing tactical/operational considerations usurp the place of strategy, much like Japanese did (“what to do should we go to war with US” became “what to do when we go to war with US”, and as a result Japanese Empire was destroyed).

As a result of the above, politicians in a democracy support policies (such as immigration and breakdown of traditional family) which result in destruction of society – divorce, illegitimacy, abortion and crime. Homicide rates multiplied in US from 1900 onwards, in step with destruction of traditional values.

This is a consequence of immigration policies, abandonment of traditional extended family, multiculturalism and dependency on government.

Resistance to compromise is a consequence of the need to win in an electoral race against the opposition. Oftentimes, politicians and political parties reject compromise because accepting it would alienate the portion of their voting block. Other times however, compromise is not needed in the first place because both primary parties (in US and Croatian systems) are of the same opinion and only pretend to be different during elections time (which is still enough to fool the voters).

Voters themselves are another reason why democracy does not work. Thanks to modern materialistic, maximum-exploitation society, average voter has neither interest nor opportunity to inform himself about social issues, let alone about actual positions of political parties in said issues. Since politicians care only about next elections, voters are ones who need to be capable of ensuring the future of the nation; but as was just explained, they are mentally and physically incapable of doing so. Result is that voters swallow politicians’ promises hook-line-and-sinker, and thus vote themselves onto road to disaster. How else do explain Croatian HDZ-SDP duopol, except by the fact that voting body is politically retarded?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s