← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · friedrich braun

IN PRAISE OF DEMOCRACY

Thread ID: 16450 | Posts: 14 | Started: 2005-01-26

Wayback Archive

friedrich braun [OP]

2005-01-26 18:59 | User Profile

[I]This is actaully a very funny piece.[/I]

ON DEMOCRACY

Machiavelli said that the Prince will retain the outer form of traditional institutions while changing their inner substance. This applies in particular to a meaningless concoction popularly known as "Democracy".

"Democracy" includes Communism, but does not include any form of “racial discrimination”. Since “racial discrimination” was generally practised until about 40 years ago, this means that "Democracy" is only 40 years old.

If you don't believe in "Democracy", you are a criminal (for example, Gottfried Küssel, who got 11 years and served 8 (!) in Austria for advocating the legalization of the Austrian National Socialist Party (without about 25 members), or Günther Deckert, who got 9 months and served 5 years (!!) for INTERPRETING a speech by Fred Leuchter at a meeting attended by perhaps 200 people; or Hans-Jörg Schimanek, who got 15 years (!!!) in Austria for saying that Austria should be part of Germany and that he didn't believe in the gas chambers. (It was partly for protesting Schimanek's conviction in Austria that I got 5 months in absentia in Germany.)

I was rereading "The Thoughts of Chairman Mao" the other night, and lo and behold! The “Great Helmsman” talks about "Democracy" on every page. If we believe in "Democracy", does that mean we believe in Chinese Communism? If Chairman Mao ran for President against The Gang of Four, would be bound by the results? I don't think so.

The fact is, that "Democracy" is a meaningless noise, the definitions of which are switched whenever it suits the liberals. For example: Europeans are expelled from their homes in Asia and Africa where they lived for centuries: that's Democracy". But we can't expel African and Asian immigrants from their homes in Europe, because that's not "Democracy"! We killed millions of Europeans during WWII to "save Democracy", but we can't kill a few (or a few million) scum immigrants, because that's not "Democracy"!

Since "Democracy" has no real meaning, and since the various definitions all contradict each other, and since the very concept implies the suicide of the White Race, I think the term should either cease to be used, or a sensible definition should be devised.

My definition is: "Democracy" means the "Self-Determination of Peoples". "Democracy" is not compatible with the abolition of national borders or with racial and national mixing. I do not believe in a "Democracy" in which every racial, national, ethnic, and religious group is a "minority" to be outvoted by everyone else. Nor is it clear why "minorities" should enjoy special privileges (so-called "rights") in a "Democracy". I believe that all nationalism must be rooted primarily in ethnicity, in race.

According to this definition, then, nationalist dictatorships can be "democratic", but internationalist "Democracy" can never be.

I've lived in two dictatorships, and frankly, there's not that much difference. To me, all political systems are the same. If you agree with the government, you feel free. If you don’t agree with the government, you find out you're not so free. If anything, dictatorship is better, because it's more honest. There's less propaganda. There's less censorship. In many ways, there's more freedom. For example:

In Spain and Portugal under Franco and Salazar, you could anywhere in the country at any time of the day or night, even with a woman, and you felt safe. Nothing like that in our "Democracies".

[Note: The same thing is true in many Moslem countries. Cairo is one of the biggest cities in the world, but a woman can walk home alone at night, even at 2 in the morning, and feel safe, because rapists are shot or beheaded. Same thing in Tunisia, Morocco, etc. And we're going to teach them about " women's rights "?]

There was only one political party in Portugal, the National Union. But they held elections, with opposition candidates. How much simpler to have 2 parties and control them both (the American system), or 10 parties and criminalize the opposition (the European system).

FOR EXAMPLE:

In Belgium, about 12 years ago, there were 3 anti-immigration parties (the Vlaams Blok, le Front National and AGIR). Between them, they got 750,000 votes, 20% of the total nationwide. You are FORCED TO VOTE in Belgium; failure to do so is punishable by fine or imprisonment, so the voter turnout is 100%. But a lot of people are drunk, or have a hangover, or don’t give a damn, so they simply cast blank ballots. Result: the anti-immigration parties and blank ballots totalled between 50 and 65% of the vote!

Anybody can get on the ballot in Belgium with 500 signatures on a petition; every small town has some oddball character running for national office with 500 signatures. So the government indicted 5 officers of one of the largest anti-immigration parties in the country ( the "Front National", a Belgian organization entirely separate from the French "Front National") for supposedly FORGING FOURTEEN of their FIVE HUNDRED SIGNATURES on their petition – after getting SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND VOTES together with the other two parties! Possible prison sentence: 5 YEARS IMPRISONMENT. They recently outlawed the largest political party in the country, the Vlaams Blok, claiming the party wasn’t “democratic”!

Having destroyed practically every anti-immigration party in the country, the local oddballs with their 500 signatures all went back to advoating exactly the same things: "fighting unemployment, protecting the environment, and more rapid integration of immigrants", with slogans like "Let's Move Forward - Together!" That these programs all contradicted each other bothered no one.

When Hugo Chávez got elected President of Venezuela, he got 116 out 120 seats; the two parties that had run the country for 40 years simply went out of existence - literally. Soon afterwards, I translated a position paper for the Social Democrats (who control political parties all over the world) raising a howl against the election, claiming it wasn't "democratic"!

I've also translated large numbers of confidential documents for the so-called “European Communities”, and personally I prefer Communism. Under Communism, somebody is responsible for everything. Stalin signs an order, it’s signed “Stalin”. Then, when things go wrong, some Commissar gets the blame, and he gets shot. But at least you have the satisfaction of knowing that somebody got shot, and that the next clown probably will be, too. The EEC destroys industries, putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work, and the order (“called a “Guideline” or a “European Directive”) is signed simply: “The Commission”. There are no names. Nobody knows who that means. Stalin was more honest. If you killed him, the system would change. In the end, he was poisoned by his doctors, and the system did change. The bureaucracy of the EEC resembles everything I’ve ever read about Communism; it’s just more sophisticated (so far). If Stalin was a “nation-killer”, then what is the EEC?

In 1958, the opposition candidate for President of Portugal, Humberto Delgado, got too many votes running against incumbent President Américo Tomás, so they changed the Constitution! What could be more "democratic" than that?

The Salazar regime in Portugal (1926-1974) was by all accounts the one of the most repressive dictatorships in 20th century Europe, fighting a 13-year war against Communist guerrillas in 3 African colonies 22 times the size of Portugal (1961-1974). The Communist Party was outlawed and was forbidden to organize. But you could buy Communist books in any student bookstore: complete speeches of Castro, complete works of Stalin, anything you wanted (at least towards the very end). The same was true in Spain. Assuming that the "Democracies" are still at war with the National Socialists (55 years later), can you buy revisionist books in any bookstore, anywhere in the world? Of course not. You can't even buy "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" at Arthur Butz's own university.

One reason the Portuguese went to war in Africa was because 750,00 Portuguese lived there. They fought for 13 years, in a war they couldn't win no matter how long they fought, and no matter what they did. In the end, the Communist-indoctrinated Army officer class, conscripted out of the universities, got fed up and overthrew the government.

The Americans, by contrast, fought for 9 years in Viet Nam, a country where no Americans ever lived, in a war they could have won in 6 weeks by bombing the dikes and docks in North Viet Nam. This was never done. Instead, the North Vietnamese were notified, in advance, of which targets would be bombed, on which dates, so that they could concentrate their anti-aircraft fire around precisely those targets.

The only intention of the American government in any war is to fight just long enough to get a lot of people killed, and then give everything away to the Communists (or Zionists). Objectively, the duty of the US armed forces in Viet Nam was either to refuse to fight or to overthrow the government and win the war. This was never done either. The US Army doesn't overthrow governments. Why not? Because we live in a "Democracy". Proof that there's more freedom in dictatorships.

In dictatorships, newspapers are subject to pre-publication censorship, or post-publication seizure. The seizures are usually treated as something of a joke, and always result in increased circulation. For example, in Portugal, every newspaper carried a notice saying: "This edition has been reviewed by the censorship commission". Dreadful! Shocking!

When Fred Leuchter got arrested, somebody sent me 2 newspaper clippings, one from Seattle, Washington, and one from Huntsville, Alabama. Two newspapers, 2,000 miles apart. The articles were almost word for word the same. Why? Because there are only 2 wire services in America. Dictatorships are more honest.

Both Franco and Salazar enjoyed the many jokes told about them. Salazar in particular had an extremely malicious sense of humour. Portugal had 1 television channel, controlled by the government. Every 15 minutes there was an Omo Detergent commercial which consisted of an obvious (and very cruel) joke directed at the President of Portugal, Américo Tomás (pronounced Too-MAHSH). The commercial consisted of a cartoon of a senile old man wearing a sailor suit, like Donald Duck, hopping up and down and jabbering about how he was going to wash his "little sailor suit" --"o meu fatinho, o meu fatinho, o meu fatinho, tinho, tinho de marujo" -- in Omo Detergent! Tomás was an 85-year old naval officer who always wore a spotlessly white dress uniform; he often appeared on television directly after this commercial. You couldn't open a newspaper without seeing him. He was treated as a laughing stock because all he did was dedicate monuments and make speeches; but in fact he was the most powerful man in the country: he had the power to dismiss the Prime Minister, Marcelo Caetano, a much younger and more liberal man who did all the real work (Salazar was alive, but he was in the hospital). This was after 9 years of war (1969-70). Nobody noticed. Nobody thought anything of it.

How much more "Democratic" to have 200 television channels (cable, satellite, etc.), control them all, and react with Stalinist hysteria and repression (five-year prison sentences, loss of civil rights, huge fines, etc.) at the slightest jocular reference to anything. A few years ago, I heard a Portuguese pop singer complaining about censorship under the dictatorship. If they didn't like the lyrics, he couldn't release the record; but he wasn't fined or imprisoned. Hans-Jörg Schimanek should be so lucky. In Spain today, it's against the law to tell jokes about the King!

If you can buy Communist books in anti-Communist dictatorships, but cannot buy revisionist books in a "Democracy"; if you can make jokes about the head of state in a dictatorship, but cannot make jokes about Jews, "gays", blacks, etc., etc., in a "Democracy", then what does that tell us about the horseshit "Democracies" in which we live?

Most dictatorships come to power after periods of national anarchy and chaos, and their only real concern is to maintain order and protect certain vested interests. Most dictators attempt to identify themselves with the traditional patriotic values of the nation. To a traditional dictator, patriotism is enough. They don't care what you do, unless you do something in politics against them. In this sense, there can be very great freedom in a dictatorship.

In a dictatorship, national policy is set by the Head of State. In a "Democracy", everything is for sale on the stock exchange. "Democracy" is government by news media, by advertising. Even if 99% of the population are bitterly opposed to something, their opinions are ignored. The politicians follow their mass media slave masters every time. Whose little country am I? Anyone who has money to buy. The media slave masters don't even use their own money. They don't even have to borrow it. They use your money. For example, do you have an insurance policy or pension fund? All of that money is invested in the stock market. Insurance companies and pension funds are the biggest investors on Wall Street. They are also very big advertisers. Then, somebody representing the pension fund calls up the TV station and says, "We didn't like that program last week. We want more multiracialism. Shape up or we're withdrawing our ads." They use your money to destroy your life. Does that seem "Democratic" to you? You bet your life it's "Democratic".

Dictators can be killed or overthrown; it happens rather frequently. But how can you fight the stock exchange? You could shoot thousands of fund managers, and nothing would change. Nobody is ever responsible for anything.

Nobody ever disappears down a Memory Hole in a traditional dictatorship. Dictators often take a dislike to a certain artist or writer, but they don't pretend he never existed. On the contrary, they use the artist's "degeneracy", etc., to justify their own dictatorship.

Every society has certain moral standards. Even cannibals and head-hunters regulate every aspect of their lives by rigid taboos. A tribesman who refuses to conform is killed or expelled from the tribe.

"Democracy", as imagined by the liberals -- a society in which everyone is "Free" to do everything except "Hate", i.e., criticize the liberals and their menagerie of pet freaks – has never existed and never will.

Far from being something very new, "Democracy" is a retrogressive form of government, predating hereditary monarchy. Under a system of elective monarchy (for example, Spain between the 6th and 8th centuries, Denmark up until the 16th century, much of German history, and most of Polish history), the king was elected by the nobles. This system was abandoned because it led to constant foreign invasion and civil war. There was always a noble with a claim to the throne who called in foreign troops to support that claim. In Poland, the result was 700 years of chaos. Far from being the irrational institution that Americans think it is, hereditary monarchy was a tremendous innovation in the art of government.

In modern "Democracies", foreign voters are imported. Party A imports 1 million scum immigrants to vote for Party A, while Party B imports 2 million scum immigrants to vote for Party B. Democracy is gerrymandering on a worldwide scale.

In fascist dictatorship, there are no elections, so there is no need for foreign voters. (The National Socialists held a secret referendum every year instead.) Generally, the economy is run at a surplus; popular support is purchased through extensive investment in public works (hydroelectric plants, public utility companies, steel mills, swamp clearance projects, etc.). Fascist regimes balance the budget while undertaking extensive internal improvements. This seemingly impossible feat does not fit into the standard right-left dichotomy.

The financial success of fascist government is easily explained. Fascist regimes, like all governments, finance most of their activities on the bond markets. But unlike Communist regimes, they do not interfere with the profit motive, and unlike "Democratic" regimes, they do not degenerate into chaos. Instead, they offer the prospect of a government which is strong enough to eliminate waste and pay interest on bond issues.

It's not true that you get uniformity of opinion in dictatorships: What you get is a range of opinion acceptable to the government. For example, you may have the Catholics, conservatives, monarchists, moderate socialists, fascists, etc. It's the same in a "Democracy". You get a range of opinion acceptable to the Jews.

Dictatorships don’t try to get inside your mind and change the way in which you think on hundreds of different subjects. In a "Democracy", for example, you are bombarded with "new items" and sob stories designed to change your attitudes towards transsexuals for two weeks, after which transsexuals are totally forgotten and the media become obsessed with something else.

In dictatorships, propaganda and censorship are recognized for what they are. People are extremely sceptical. They don't believe everything they read. They believe very little. In a very general way, there is probably far greater fear of expressing "forbidden thoughts" in a "Democracy" -- where "forbidden thoughts" are infinitely numerous and are constantly changing with ephemeral mass media fashion -- than in dictatorships, where the only forbidden thought is "being against the government" (and doing something about it, for example, organizing a demonstration).

People are more alert in dictatorships, because they know where the propaganda is coming from: the government. In a "Democracy", you're bombarded with propaganda from so many different angles and in so many disguises that you think it's a "plurality" of opinion. But it's not.

Dictatorships are societies like any other, and the same sorts of people are in positions of influence. As always, you can do anything you want until you interfere with somebody who has more influence than you do. In Spain in 1936, in a democracy, the homosexual poet Federico García Lorca molested the son of a Civil Guard and was taken out and shot. In 1965, under the dictatorship, I asked one of the top officials of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Cádiz whether I could play the piano. The students told me not to, saying: "Look out, he's a raving queer." ["Está casado y tiene seis hijos, pero es el maricón más grande de toda Cádiz"; he was the rector or decano, I forget which.] I knocked on the door to his office. He said, "Come in". I opened the door. Without a word, he got up, walked around me, shut the door, came back, and started to unbutton my shirt. I told him to stop. He said, "Why?" This was right after class, in the university building, under the so-called "rigidly puritanical Catholic dictatorship".

How could a person like that keep his job for even 5 minutes? Because for every "raving queer", there are 10 secret homosexual sympathizers protecting him. All nationalist societies in history (even primitive tribes) have been anti-homosexual, because homosexuals build a state within a state, like the Jews or Freemasons, and destroy everything which does not suit them personally. This process is now reaching its epitome in the United States. Homosexuality is now taught by law as "normal" in public schools (California), while heterosexuality is progressively criminalized as "Sexual Harassment". In New Mexico, a 13-year old boy was recently booked for "Sexual Assault" – a criminal felony -- for slapping a girl of the same age on the buttocks! He could perform sodomy in the same school, probably even in public, and it would be a "Hate Crime" to criticize him! Interracial rape is no longer punished; black rapists are not even suspended from the basketball team! If homosexuals offend you, you are a "Hate Criminal". If you offend them, you are a "Hate Criminal" again. It can't work any other way. That's the way the liberals want it. Liberals are universal destroyers, like Ghenghis Khan.

In Spain towards the end of the dictatorship, I was stopped by the secret police (in “democracies” we call them “detectives” or “plain-clothes policemen”) for failure to carry an identity document and held in a police station for several hours. The police had nothing else to do, so they stood around criticizing the government to me for about an hour. Could a white police detective criticize Affirmative Action to a foreigner in front of witnesses in a police station in New Orleans? It's probably a "Hate Crime" even to ask the question.

You are always free at somebody else's expense. What we call "Democracy" is merely the name that we gave to a dictatorship of our own values when we were confident of them and willing to impose them by force. For example, 30 years ago, homosexual acts were a crime in every state except Illinois; but you could place a racial covenant in the deed to your house, stating that the property could never be re-sold to anyone with African ancestry. Now it's the other way around. Homosexuals are worshipped (their obnoxious behaviour and AIDS notwithstanding), but you're a criminal if you discriminate racially with your own property. You are an object of opprobrium if you discriminate in choosing your own friends.

Are we any freer than we ever were? Of course not. It depends which gang you belong to. One dictatorship has been substituted for another. You can say, "It's my body", and murder your children -- that's "Choice" -- but you can't say "It's my apartment", "It's my house", "It's my job", or "It's my country". -- that's "Discrimination". Yet "Discrimination" is a form of "Choice" (6th definition in the Webster's Unabridged). What's the difference logically?

"Democracy" is dictatorship plus salesmanship. To be effective, propaganda must reverberate from all sides, and must appear to offer the sucker a choice. One egg or two in your malt? Do you want the blue one or the red one? Shall we deliver it today or tomorrow?

Dictatorship says, "You're going to have an egg in your malt because it's good for you, and it's 25 cents extra". It's like truth in advertising.

In a dictatorship, propaganda issues from one central source, and for that very reason is much less effective.

This is why dictatorship is preferable as a system.

Dictatorships justify other dictatorships. It never occurs to our enemies that whatever they do to us today justifies whatever we do to them tomorrow.

Since the victory of the dictatorship of the liberals [or the Bushniks and his hen-house of Jewish neo-cons, for that matter] means the destruction of all values, not to mention civilization, culture, and the white race, I prefer a nationalist dictatorship of my values to a liberal [or neo-con] dictatorship of theirs.

Our greatest enemy is the delusion that we live in freedom. In fact, what we live in is a dictatorship of the Jews. The more the Jews do to destroy the illusion of freedom, the better. The more persecution of "racists" and "Hoaxoco$t Deniers", the more "Human Rights Tribunals", the better. The Jews don’t care about racists, and they don’t care how many Turks you set fire to. They only care about the Revisionists, because Revisionists prove that the National Socialists were right about the Jews. That is why you almost never hear about the Revisionists. Nobody ever heard of Fred Leuchter until they arrested him on his way to a TV station. Nobody ever hears about Revisionists until they go to court. There is more interest in Revisionists today than ever before, even in the mainstream media. The dictatorship of the Jews is backfiring in a big way.

So, the plan is: We use the same tactics which proved so successful for the blacks and homosexuals: calculated obnoxiousness, deliberate provocation, and political extremism for its own sake. This causes the Jews to lose their marbles and resort to increasingly dictatorial tactics. This destroys the value of their own propaganda, which is then seen to issue from a central source. This puts us in the position of being able to accuse them of "Destroying Democracy". Then, we fight a revolution to "Restore Democracy", and set up a dictatorship of our own, called "Democracy". Our dictatorship will have 2 wire services, 2 political parties, and 5 acceptable shades of opinion, represented by major magazines and newspapers, all favourable to us. Control will be exercised financially. Anybody we don't like will be accused of "Not Believing in Democracy" and will be killed. Any time the natives get restless, we start a war to install "Democracy" (as defined by us) someplace else (on the other side of the world). In short, we'll make America the way it used to be when it was a decent country (admittedly, that was a long time ago)!

The Americans will eat it up. You don't need brains when you're dealing with them. "Whistle while you work, Hitler is a jerk". That's their intellectual level. And the best part of it is: it's all been done before. It doesn't pay to be original in politics.

CARLOS W. PORTER

[url]http://www.cwporter.com/prdemoc.htm[/url]

grep14w

2005-01-26 19:11 | User Profile

This guy is brilliant. Lots of good info and context that the sheeple desperately need - the educateable portion of them, anyway.

Franco

2005-01-27 04:21 | User Profile

:king:

Negro with low IQ: "I be likin' demokwacy, yo!"

Feminist: "I will vote for every leftist candidate who runs for office."

Leftist: Me, too."

Mexican who barely speaks English: "Voting fun. Have done many time...like to stick pin in hole, punch paper...fun...tamales?"

Vietnamese who just arrived in America 4 years ago: "Wham bam bing bong. Bam wham fong wong? Bing? Wham pham? Tram bam pham!"

Amerikwa, 2005: better!

Prince

2005-02-02 18:27 | User Profile

[quote=friedrich braun] I was rereading "The Thoughts of Chairman Mao" the other night, and lo and behold! The “Great Helmsman” talks about "Democracy" on every page. If we believe in "Democracy", does that mean we believe in Chinese Communism? If Chairman Mao ran for President against The Gang of Four, would be bound by the results? I don't think so.

The fact is, that "Democracy" is a meaningless noise, the definitions of which are switched whenever it suits the liberals. Just because Communist regimes proclaim themselves to be democratic that dont make it so. A Democracy is the system of government under which there is a constitution, separation of powers, government officials are elected into office by the people or appointed by their elected representatives, there is no censorship or restriction of free speech. Communist regimes are not democracies hence his line of reasoning is flawed, self serving and the premiss is conveniently ill scrutinized.

Prince

2005-02-02 18:44 | User Profile

Machiavelli said that the Prince will retain the outer form of traditional institutions while changing their inner substance. This applies in particular to a meaningless concoction popularly known as "Democracy". In his book The Prince Machiavelli makes a marked distinction between republics and principalities. Much of the book is concerned with the differences between the two and how the wise prince should handle them. He advocates diametrically opposed measures in handling those accustomed to live with relative freedom and those not. Even in the 16th century a wise man like Machiavelli recognized some live under conditions of greater freedom relative to others.

xmetalhead

2005-02-02 20:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Prince] A [B]Democracy[/B] is the system of government under which there is a constitution, separation of powers, government officials are elected into office by the people or appointed by their elected representatives, there is no censorship or restriction of free speech.[/QUOTE]

That's not a democracy, that's a republic. The US was set up as a republic, meaning rule of law trumps the arbitrary rule of man.

And the United States today is functioning outside of it's original Constitution. Americans are not able to exercise their rights as plainly stated in the Constitution, but only given privilige to do so by politicians and can be revoked at anytime.

The article posted by Braun makes some astounding and truthful points. Great post.

Prince

2005-02-02 22:05 | User Profile

[QUOTE=xmetalhead]That's not a democracy, that's a republic. The US was set up as a republic, meaning rule of law trumps the arbitrary rule of man. Democratic Republic if you like. The United States is both. Republic is a state that is not governed by a monarch but by a president and also denotes an independent sovereign nation or federation. A nation can be both a republic and democratic but it can also be a non-democratic republic, eg. United Soviet Socialist Republics. Likewise a Constitutional Monarchy, eg. United Kingdom, isn't a republic and yet is considered democratic.

Kevin_O'Keeffe

2005-02-02 23:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Prince]A Democracy is the system of government under which there is a constitution, separation of powers, government officials are elected into office by the people or appointed by their elected representatives, there is no censorship or restriction of free speech.[/QUOTE]

I am not aware of any of these things being innate to the definition of "democracy," other than perhaps that some public officials must be elected, or appointed by the elected representatives of the people. The rest of that is just democratist propaganda, frankly. I mean, has there EVER been a society without censorship? Certainly not First Amendment America....If the people elected to impose a brutal, tyrannical, genocidal, censorious, arbitrary, totalitarian dictatorship, that would still potentially be deemed a democratic state. Its the demos that defines democracy, not the results one subsequently gets by placing political power in the hands of said demos. Contrary to popular belief, "democracy" is not defined as "everything good in the realm of government."

Quantrill

2005-02-02 23:55 | User Profile

Democracy, n., political system in which 51% agreement = right.

Prince

2005-02-03 02:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]I am not aware of any of these things being innate to the definition of "democracy," other than perhaps that some public officials must be elected, or appointed by the elected representatives of the people.[/QUOTE]That is a very simple, bare, concept of democracy, i.e that democracy means only majority rule. My definition is not of democracy per se but of modern day democracies. Context is important. What is accepted by most people as democracy in our time? [Quote]The rest of that is just democratist propaganda, frankly. Constitution, set of fundamental laws which is considered the cornerstone of the whole political system. It ensures, among other things, that those transitorily elected into office do not change the rules of the game. A constitution is an integral part of any modern day democracy. Separation of executive, legislative and judicial power is also fundamental. Judicial power in particular, it is recognized, should be completely independent and impartial. Free speech and the role of the media is central as well but that is a complex issue. Suffice it to define as pre-condition for democracy that there be no such thing as a crime of opinion or thought (National Socialism and denying the Holocaust have been outlawed in some "democratic" nations. It is the only exception and even then... anyone can go on the internet and discuss Nazism to death for example). That at least I think we can say regarding free speech universally.

I mean, has there EVER been a society without censorship? You need to be more specific. How are you being censored? If the people elected to impose a brutal, tyrannical, genocidal, censorious, arbitrary, totalitarian dictatorship, that would still potentially be deemed a democratic state. If it becomes tyrannical, arbitrary, totalitarian dictatorship it ceases to be a democracy. That is why a more extented definition of democracy is needed beyond "majority rule". However there is no inherent system of morals to democracy. A nation can be brutal, tyrannical, genocidal, towards others and still remain a democracy. Contrary to popular belief, "democracy" is not defined as "everything good in the realm of government." One definition is "the lesser of evils" (Churchill?). What I find awkward is the inability to simply oppose democracy, for whatever reason, instead of going through all sorts of contortions to make it all out to be some sort of fiction. This only demonstrates to what extent such people are convinced of the superiority of the system -- they cant criticise it head on, they have to put up a disfigured image of what they oppose and fight that instead.

Franco

2005-02-03 03:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Prince]Just because Communist regimes proclaim themselves to be democratic that dont make it so. A Democracy is the system of government under which there is a constitution, separation of powers, government officials are elected into office by the people or appointed by their elected representatives, there is no censorship or restriction of free speech. Communist regimes are not democracies hence his line of reasoning is flawed, self serving and the premiss is conveniently ill scrutinized.[/QUOTE]

There have been African countries that called themselves 'democratic' even though they were not democracies.

Franco

2005-02-03 03:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]Democracy, n., political system in which 51% agreement = right.[/QUOTE]

A democracy is where Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, homosexuals, feminists and leftists can 1) vote; 2) hold public office.

Deeemokwacy: it makes a country s-s-stwonger...and still s-s-stwonger!

xmetalhead

2005-02-03 15:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Prince] Context is important. What is accepted by most people as democracy in our time?[/QUOTE]

Being able to eat, buy and sleep whatever and with whomever one wants to. That's how most Americans have been deceived to view democracy and freedom.

[QUOTE]Constitution, set of fundamental laws which is considered the cornerstone of the whole political system. It ensures, among other things, that those transitorily elected into office do not change the rules of the game. A constitution is an integral part of any modern day democracy.[/QUOTE]

The original rules of the game have been mutilated by elected officials and non-elected judges alike. What's the use of, in America's case, the original Constitution if it's largely ignored and held in contempt?

[QUOTE] Separation of executive, legislative and judicial power is also fundamental. Judicial power in particular, it is recognized, should be completely independent and impartial. Free speech and the role of the media is central as well but that is a complex issue. [/QUOTE]

It's not a complex issue if the country is 90-95% White. A multiracial and diluted populace through jewish influence is what complicates and wrecks the true nature of a free republic or true democracy, if you will. You know, the jewish and gentile talking heads just love to say, "oh, well it's such a complex issue" as a way to ensure that nothing ever changes to benefit Whites.

If this is democracy......

Ponce

2005-02-03 17:23 | User Profile

Democracy and freedom is nothing more than a state of mind (once that you have been brainwashed), what is freedom to a someone from the Cyehi tribe in the Amazon is not freedom to someone from Cairo Egypt.

The American people don't know this but 93% of our lives is controlled by laws, even when we sleep.

In the US, as well as elsewhere, you have democracy and have freedom [B]only as long as you obey the laws of where you are at.[/B]

That was one reason why I moved to the middle of nowhere in the Oregon woods, here there are less people therefore less laws.