Thursday, 3 May 2018

Death by Democracy: Why our enemies support 'popular rule'

Written by RW Jetz

Democracy is but one form of government, amongst many other viable alternatives. This sounds like a statement so obvious that it scarcely need be said; but to glance at the mainstream press today, it becomes apparent that the opinion formers would gladly have us all forget than any other form of government had ever been tried, let alone that they may have had a modicum of success, or worse, have been proven to better serve the people than democracy itself. The motivations behind this curious press policy will be examined in more detail later, but for now, let us just examine some examples of the 'cult of democracy' in our media:

Ah! The 'threat to our democracy'! A greater danger simply cannot be imagined for the attack dogs of the status quo, and thus we see the familiar targets - Trump, racially awakened white people - receive this most menacing appellation. On the other hand, to threaten other nations to protect or safeguard democracy, is very much kosher, in the truest sense of that word. But just what does the word ‘democracy’ mean to today’s global power structure, and just why does protecting it seem so important to them?

As Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan can testify, 'rule of the people' is painfully acquired.

 Defining Democracy

 We are often told that democracy is a core value of Western civilisation; indeed, that it is unique to us. And to an extent, this is certainly true; as an idea, it has precursors in Ancient Greece, wherein we trace its founding, and in Republican Rome. But their idea of democracy did not resemble our own. Though Greek writers such as Herodotus and Thucydides both made frequent references to Isonomia, a term signifying 'equality of political rights', and Roman historian Polybius described the Roman democracy to 'hold equality and freedom the utmost value', these were both very limited forms of equality compared to what we know today. Instead, both Greek and Roman democracy was based upon aristocratic tradition, limited to adult male citizens deemed of good character and education. Their 'equality' was between those deemed suitable to think politically.
Oy vey! Where's the diversity, goyim? Muh pluralism! 

Compare that to the levelling Marxist cult of democracy we know today, in which people are but interchangeable economic and democratic units. In our modern wisdom, we accord the stupid and feckless layabout interested only in sponging off the State the same political heft as - for example's sake - an intelligent and politically-minded ex-serviceman. Because everyone, regardless of intelligence or biology or moral character, may now vote, making the mediocre the largest voting demographic, democracy becomes a popularity contest of a particular type. The person who can best lie to the population wins. Electioneering is reduced to bartering handouts to various groups in exchange for votes. Parliamentary debate is then itself debased by the increasingly low standards of character required to be elected. And short-termism is the order of the day, because in any case, no grand schemes can be seen through to fruition in the brief tenure the democrat has in power.

As we have seen, the longer this goes on, the weaker and more pathetic the system becomes. Beyond the divisions between the sexes and the classes caused by social movements like feminism, and the cultural Marxist left more broadly, we have also now been transformed into a multiracial democracy. Increasingly, all our vote represents is an ever-growing battle between identity groups at the ballot box. As the left-leaning parties know all too well, the immigrant populations are overwhelmingly likely to vote for more multiculturalism and 'tolerance', because this safeguards their own ethnic interest (which they, unlike the white natives, are actively encouraged to pursue). Meanwhile the native white European, who sees or hears about the rape gangs, the stabbings and the acid attacks, and wishes to do something about it, begins to vote right. The system thus struggles to make a clear decision on anything, and there is nearly always an equal contingent of anger as satisfaction with a given democratic outcome.

Considering all this, it's difficult to see who could possibly benefit from such a terrible system. But considering that this method of governance is the most prevalent across the developed world, someone must be! Is it the people? Surely not. If the British people could have voted to remain the united European race they once were, capable of that remarkable solidarity that came to be known as the Blitz spirit, then surely they would have done so. But they were never asked! Is it, then, the politicians? In the narrowest sense, because although being a politician can be lucrative (and often these types are motivated by money), even these individuals can only ever hope to a short stint in power. If they are seen to abuse the system, they can be thrown out at the next election. And it's hardly like they enjoy a significant degree of control anyway - Mr. Trump is nominally the 'most powerful man in the world', yet he has utterly failed to deliver almost any of the agenda he promised in his election campaign due to the checks and balances nestled within the government apparatus. But if not they, then who truly stands to gain from all this? In short, cui bono?

Power Behind The Curtain: Who Controls the Democracy?

To answer this question, we must look beyond the democracy itself towards the apparatus we are frequently told is essential to its proper functioning - the 'free press' and 'free market'. The free press, read and viewed by the masses, discusses national issues and presents the marketplace of ideas from which the population is supposed to choose their representation. The free market - liberalised and open to global trade - is supposed to allow every citizen to make own fortune and to, if they choose to do so, pay to sponsor and popularise their own ideas.

The result is the following...:

While the rest of the democratic population is individualised, atomized, and divided, the Jewish minority is united. The extraordinary ethnocentrism that has marked them as a 'people apart' or a 'state within a state' throughout history clearly has its advantages, when the host society lacks cohesion and identity of its own. Building enormous pooled financial power, largely gained from the financial and economic sectors (in which value is speculated upon, and hardly created), the Jewish minority, which numbers less than 1.5% of the American population, has seized control of the press of the nation of 325 million people (not to mention the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, and other key financial powerbrokers). Owning a press organisation, particularly one with the reach afforded by today's communication technologies, is not a benign business venture like any other. It is a weapon of massive scope to mould the opinions of the broad masses. It is bad enough that even one of these outlets should fall into foreign hands, but that the majority, or near majority, in practically every Western country is foreign-owned is nothing short of a travesty.

These people run the government! The press have the power, at any moment, to turn the people against their elected 'rulers'. They engineer the social change they wish to see, by only promoting the candidates approved by them and their interests to take a position of power - Joe Public has a 'choice' of the same people's agenda in different colours! Acutely aware of mass psychology, they hide treasonous policies such as mass immigration behind emotionally disarming language. Their supporters become 'progressive', 'open-minded', and 'tolerant', while their enemies - us - are the 'racists', 'bigots', and 'Nazis'. The right to feel morally superior and to virtue signal is the carrot for those who obey, being socially ostracised or even imprisoned is the stick for those who do not.

Of course, if any party were to openly declare itself opposed to any of this, to actually offer any true change to the dazed population, our 'free press' would by no means be under any obligation to treat this party fairly! These radical extremists who want a TRUE representation of the people's will are either slandered to oblivion, or treated as if they do not exist. Which in all practicality means they actually don't, for the public obviously won't vote for parties they've never heard of.

The BBC's general election TV debate - which one represents us?

But no tyranny can survive if it doesn't have an outlet for popular discontent. Our democracy has that to an extent. You can attack actors like Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn all you want - they are the figureheads of the agenda, the people we're supposed to believe are in charge, and so criticising them is fair game. But will anything change? The parameters in which they operate is always set by the real power: the press barons and their financial sponsors. If the people we elect step out of line, we see they are quickly forced to apologise through combined press and financial pressures, as Corbyn did recently for the antisemitism storm in a teacup that was contrived against him in Labour.
All this embarrassment for 0.2% of the population 
The Power Of Money, and of Money Alone

It is worth talking further about these financial pressures, as it proves instructive into how our democracy functions (or fails to). We can determine that bribery and corruption has crept into our politics for one simple reason: if popular support and getting elected were all that mattered to our public servants then immigration would have never been allowed to proceed as it has. When Enoch Powell made his infamous Rivers of Blood speech, calling for a complete stop to immigration and a gradual deportation of foreign-born citizens, 74% of the population polled supported him, and there were mass popular rallies to show solidarity with him and his ideas. One would think that this would be a no-brainer for the democratic Conservative Party - do what Enoch says, and the people will get right behind you with their votes! But these Tories did quite the opposite, continuing immigration, removing this wrong-thinker from their party, and ultimately hastening, to use the great man's memorable phrase, the heaping up of the nation's funeral pyre. Could it be that the financial carrot and the media stick brandished by a certain ethnic mafia may have had an influence on the decision of that renowned moral paragon, Edward Heath?

Hateful goyim who were on the wrong side of history - according to the Tory party, anyway

And on that very question of political morality, isn’t it remarkable that the people who do actually ‘represent us’ all seem to be drawn from some of the lowest elements of society? Physically, the men are chubby and weak; the women, unattractive, rowdy and masculine. They turn on their stated ‘principles’ without the slightest scruple, and commit treason daily with a brazenness that would stagger if it hadn’t all become so depressingly normal. The Europeans who built civilisation believed in hierarchy - the rule of the strong, with the concepts of honour and responsibility as their political currency. Who had proven his honour, let him lead! Today's democracy is spiritually empty, powered only by money and material - who can lie most effectively to the people, then do as little as possible on their expense? Can we be surprised at the calibre of individual who rise in such a system?

The democrats. Do these look like people you’d trust to watch your coat/bag while you nip to the toilet? How about people you’d trust to run your country?
Contrast this to the so-called ‘authoritarian’ ruler - say, a monarch or fascist leader. It is healthy to be suspicious about the level of power with which they are entrusted, but there is a level of responsibility that comes with it! If an autocrat makes one too many deleterious decisions for the populace, the histories of Louis XVI, Tsar Nicholas II or Charles I, amongst countless others, has shown that they get their comeuppance, as a popular movement springs up to punish those responsible for their misery. Not so for the democrat! Within 5 years, he can be gone if the people don’t like him. Does that bother him? Not one jot! It is that very mechanism that serves as a release valve for any popular anger, meaning any old scumbag can commit treason without ever really having to answer for his crimes. Today's democracy means no responsibility for your actions - heck, the people themselves are hoodwinked into shouldering part of the blame! 'Well, we voted for them, after all...'. What a joy for the enemies of civilisation to have a system which continually changes the face of today's scapegoat and the colours attached to him/her, while the true power behind the curtain remains the same…
A true leader does not fear taking responsibility, nor facing his own people
Our enemies are keen to do anything they can to prolong democratic rule of our nations. Why? A democracy is weak! Look at the list of expulsions of the Jewish populations over history and tell me how many of those societies were democracies. Only a nation under so-called authoritarian rule can summon the wherewithal to remove hostile foreign interests from the central organs of the state. This is why the Jewish press attacks what it calls 'strong men', or indeed any sign of lasting, stable rule (with the support of the people, mind you!) which could oppose them, from Trump to Putin to Kim Jong-un to Erdogan. Although enjoying more popular support than any of our rulers could hope to achieve, they have the gall to claim that these aren't true democracies! In reality, what they mean is that they are too strong, too unwilling to allow themselves to be bought and sold like we have been.

As we in the Alt Right are already constantly labelled as 'threats to democracy' by the 'free press', then let us wear the term with pride. We are indeed a threat to democracy - the deceitful, empty, and callous version of democracy, where money matters, and not the people. Because whatever Greek and Roman equivalents might have been, today's democracy is certainly not for us, the people! And that is precisely why we must oppose it. For the sake of our people, we must try to build a new machine.

No comments: