T
ThatDjangoWalk
Zephir
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2020
- Posts
- 1,776
- Reputation
- 3,259
As some may remember we have pointed and clarified in the past it is childish, utterly ridiculous and i would dare to say a sign of clear weak mindedness and lack of manliness to think that somehow democracy is the best political system. Just taking a look at the so called most democratic era of human history, we are witnesses that the 3 top empires of the world are not close to being a democracy (USA, China and Russia).
But not only that, to think at this point that democracy even exists in it's purest form is one of the ultimate signs of the brainwashing processes the human being has undergone for the last century. A great number of components of the world in the 20th and 21st century society has been shoved so much with this concept and idea of a political system by their leaders, that the majority of that grasp of population has elevated this to their top priority list. Many nowadays, perhaps even the majority would support an invasion to a foreign land with the premise of it being to implement a so called democratic system, yet would they approve the same for a country which is starving? Would they decide to implement a dictatorship which will grant food on the table at the end of the day by sacrificing their idea of democracy, or would they prefer a large number of people starving for the sake of impletenting their incompetent political system concept? Well the examples are there, take a look at the most famous wars of the last decades, this society of "care bears" who worry so much about the rights of a 5% of men who want to penetrate other men for some reason don't decide to push their goverment to invade regimes who imposse starvation, yet, they will support economical sanctions to imposse starvation for their fellow human beings. (By the way, this reminds me to stoning. These human rights supporters will speak out about stoning some random adulterer per year and at the same time they will support the stoning of thousands via bombing entire families inside their homes for the sake of that random adulterer, and what is the only difference? What is the only reason for which such contradiction is seen as moral? The response os that those are democratic bombs with drawings of freedom, human rights and a pride flag. Yes, double standards is their everyday bread)
The question now is, what is this fake concept of democracy? Well this is easy to understand. Democracy, as defined by Brittanica, is "a system of government in which power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or through freely elected representatives".
But is this the case? Definetly not. Every so called democracy that you will find has their own starting point and a very specific discarding process to define who is eligible to present himself for this democracy, who is eligible for voting and who is not, what kind of ideas are elligible to vote for and what sort of morals, ideologies and politics are not qualified to take place into this "free elections" and "party of freedom". And who are the hands that determine and decide which are going to be those guidelines and limits? A privilege which is reserved to a few, sometimes called "Founding fathers", sometimes refered by some as "Winners write the history" and those sorts of nouns.
Democracy is such a weak and poor system that for it's own foundation it relies on a completely opposite system to even aspire to exist, it must be impossed by some sort of colective or party somehow yes or yes to start existing, something which is almost contradictory with it's own definition.
And for it to keep "working" and stay in place, it must rely on those same bases proper of a totalitarian system. The analogy of this is almost (i emphasise on the "almost") that of a squared circle: Impossible, inconceivable, contradictory. If without totalitarianism and impossition democracy can't exist, then every democracy by definition is unexistent.
And why democracy needs such sort of bases, laws, constitutions, etc, to even exist? Why these democratical states constitutions in their begginings usually imposse a democracy as their mandatory system? At the end of the day, if the people want some sort of Fascist state, Communist state, some sort of Totalitarian state, etc, in which the people by definition also want democracy to be abolished, democracy should allow this to happen.
The only manner to mantain democracy is to make the new generations adopt it since their early begginings, imposse it on them, make it seem mandatory and the logical step i.e creating a monogenous society in which people support and want democracy, with the same line of thinking, morals, etc, as stated in the title of this thread (and as we have demonstrated, they push it so much that thanks to it they tend to prefer offering a democratic system than food on the table for a starved family). Otherwise, democracy would never even aspire to be.
But not only that, to think at this point that democracy even exists in it's purest form is one of the ultimate signs of the brainwashing processes the human being has undergone for the last century. A great number of components of the world in the 20th and 21st century society has been shoved so much with this concept and idea of a political system by their leaders, that the majority of that grasp of population has elevated this to their top priority list. Many nowadays, perhaps even the majority would support an invasion to a foreign land with the premise of it being to implement a so called democratic system, yet would they approve the same for a country which is starving? Would they decide to implement a dictatorship which will grant food on the table at the end of the day by sacrificing their idea of democracy, or would they prefer a large number of people starving for the sake of impletenting their incompetent political system concept? Well the examples are there, take a look at the most famous wars of the last decades, this society of "care bears" who worry so much about the rights of a 5% of men who want to penetrate other men for some reason don't decide to push their goverment to invade regimes who imposse starvation, yet, they will support economical sanctions to imposse starvation for their fellow human beings. (By the way, this reminds me to stoning. These human rights supporters will speak out about stoning some random adulterer per year and at the same time they will support the stoning of thousands via bombing entire families inside their homes for the sake of that random adulterer, and what is the only difference? What is the only reason for which such contradiction is seen as moral? The response os that those are democratic bombs with drawings of freedom, human rights and a pride flag. Yes, double standards is their everyday bread)
The question now is, what is this fake concept of democracy? Well this is easy to understand. Democracy, as defined by Brittanica, is "a system of government in which power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or through freely elected representatives".
But is this the case? Definetly not. Every so called democracy that you will find has their own starting point and a very specific discarding process to define who is eligible to present himself for this democracy, who is eligible for voting and who is not, what kind of ideas are elligible to vote for and what sort of morals, ideologies and politics are not qualified to take place into this "free elections" and "party of freedom". And who are the hands that determine and decide which are going to be those guidelines and limits? A privilege which is reserved to a few, sometimes called "Founding fathers", sometimes refered by some as "Winners write the history" and those sorts of nouns.
Democracy is such a weak and poor system that for it's own foundation it relies on a completely opposite system to even aspire to exist, it must be impossed by some sort of colective or party somehow yes or yes to start existing, something which is almost contradictory with it's own definition.
And for it to keep "working" and stay in place, it must rely on those same bases proper of a totalitarian system. The analogy of this is almost (i emphasise on the "almost") that of a squared circle: Impossible, inconceivable, contradictory. If without totalitarianism and impossition democracy can't exist, then every democracy by definition is unexistent.
And why democracy needs such sort of bases, laws, constitutions, etc, to even exist? Why these democratical states constitutions in their begginings usually imposse a democracy as their mandatory system? At the end of the day, if the people want some sort of Fascist state, Communist state, some sort of Totalitarian state, etc, in which the people by definition also want democracy to be abolished, democracy should allow this to happen.
The only manner to mantain democracy is to make the new generations adopt it since their early begginings, imposse it on them, make it seem mandatory and the logical step i.e creating a monogenous society in which people support and want democracy, with the same line of thinking, morals, etc, as stated in the title of this thread (and as we have demonstrated, they push it so much that thanks to it they tend to prefer offering a democratic system than food on the table for a starved family). Otherwise, democracy would never even aspire to be.
