Democracy can be viewed on two levels: externally, as a series of institutions, and internally, as an infectious psychology which becomes a pathology with cult- and gang-like properties.
The outer level shows us an obvious problem immediately, which is that it is based on achieving an unrealistic but socially symbolic goal (“equality”) which replaces morality and practicality both, meaning that any action in a democracy must be justified in terms of its implicit but un-articulated goal of achieving Utopia through increasing human equality, a pleasant-sounding ideal which without variation means taking from the strong — intelligent, healthy, beautiful, morally good — to give to the weak, or those less intelligent, healthy, beautiful, and morally good.
Consequently, democracies flow in only one direction: steadily toward anarcho-Communism, or a state where people do whatever they want and are subsidized by the wealth taken from the rest. This perpetual childhood has less to do with the energy, time, and money it siphons from civilization,and more at least in the eyes of those who aspire to it in terms of avoiding existential decisions. People can simply exist in the moment, without having to plan, confront mortality, and most importantly, change their mental state or behavior in order to adapt to reality. Democracy serves to separate people from natural selection and life itself, in the name of achieving The Enlightenment™ goal of the individual and its whims, desires, judgments, feelings, and social status coming before all else.
In other terms, democracy is not merely unrealistic, but an anti-reality in itself, a state where all the normal rules are turned upside-down and all values are inverted so that the self can take priority over all else, even its own development (a more accurate term than “maturation,” which carries overtones of succumbing to inertia and not just acceptance of the status quo as inevitable, but rationalization of it as “good”).
This takes us to analysis of the inner level of democracy. In life, we normally seek to adapt to our environment and maximize it, like a farmer who clears the fields and plants, then later figures out how to increase yields. With democracy, the reward of succeeding in reality is replaced with success in the anti-reality of equality, so that we only feel good when achieving social success — democracy is ultimately a social system taking over and assimilating political, moral, economic, and cultural ones — by performing in such a way that we increase the equality in the universe.
Democracy, like a simulation in cyberspace, creates a fake reality comprised of symbols which are much simpler than the actual reality.
In democracy, whatever is simplest and speaks in terms of the accepted Big Lie of equality wins. In reality, whatever is relevant and strong wins out. Democracy exists to replace natural selection with social selection, so that only those who are harmless and yet quirky enough to attract attention survive. This eventually kills off the good and replaces them with a third world population of clever people with no actual skills or moral goodness. It basically converts civilizations into Instagram and Reddit, then nudges them into NYC-levels of diversity, at which point everyone blends to tan and inbreeding, rape, and chaos take over. You end up with the archetypal third-world population: low average IQ, mixed race, low ability, and low moral caliber.
Democracy serves its leaders by enhancing centralization, thus allowing them to accumulate more power as time goes on. This produces tyrants, or those who rule for their own sake, which means they seek power as an end in itself and are held hostage by defending that power:
A basic impasse of all control machines is this: Control needs time in which to exercise control. Because control also needs opposition or acquiescence; otherwise, it ceases to be control. I control a hypnotized subject (at least partially); I control a slave, a dog, a worker; but if I establish complete control somehow, as by implanting electrodes in the brain, then my subject is little more than a tape recorder, a camera, a robot. You don’t control a tape recorder – you use it. Consider the distinction, and the impasse implicit here. All control systems try to make control as tight as possible, but at the same time, if they succeeded completely there would be nothing left to control. Suppose for example a control system installed electrodes in the brains of all prospective workers at birth. Control is now complete. Even the thought of rebellion is neurologically impossible. No police force is necessary. No psychological control is necessary, other than pressing buttons to achieve certain activations and operations.
Consider a control situation: ten people in a lifeboat. two armed self-appointed leaders force the other eight to do the rowing while they dispose of the food and water, keeping most of it for themselves an doling out only enough to keep the other eight rowing. The two leaders now need to exercise control to maintain an advantageous position which they could not hold without it. Here the method of control is force – the possession of guns. Decontrol would be accomplished by overpowering the leaders and taking their guns. This effected, it would be advantageous to kill them at once. So once embarked on a policy of control, the leaders must continue the policy as a matter of self-preservation. Who, then, needs to control others but those who protect by such control a position of relative advantage? Why do they need to exercise control? Because they would soon lose this position and advantage and in many cases their lives as well, if they relinquished control.
Control represents a type of codependency relationship in which the herd rules its leaders, but in exchange, the leaders get to target parts of the herd that they dislike, which allows them to eliminate non-conformists, enforce obedience of method, and have everyone doing the same thing at the command of the control authority:
In its simplest terms, a codependent relationship is when one partner needs the other partner, who in turn, needs to be needed. This circular relationship is the basis of what experts refer to when they describe the “cycle” of codependency.
The codependent’s self-esteem and self-worth will come only from sacrificing themselves for their partner, who is only too glad to receive their sacrifices.
The codependent person feels worthless unless they are needed by — and making drastic sacrifices for — the enabler. The enabler gets satisfaction from getting their every need met by the other person.
In other words, this resembles BDSM lite: one hurts the other, but then is needed, and the one who is hurt is also needed, and therefore comes to need the hurt in order to feel relevant, valid, and important.
To keep this going, forces of control need to constantly make demands of the population such that it shows allegiance. The more absurd and unrealistic these demands, the better, since that way the population accepts that it cannot question commands, only carry them out with increasing fervor, since whoever is most loyal gets the power, wealth, and status that comes with being a supreme goodthinker.
These leaders come about, and become more Leftist, only because the population becomes increasingly Leftist. Every generation builds on what the past did and, if the Big Goal seems to be “equality,” each pushes farther toward equality. A Communist is just a Democrat in a hurry, as the old saying goes, but perhaps also, a Communist is what you get after several generations of Leftist Democrats.
We now see what happens when hive-mind and group-think take over, and when the herd prevails, as was mentioned years ago in the analysis of Crowdism:
With this sudden distrust of the “truth” upon which our society is based comes another sobering thought: for things to get this out of control, where we are controlled by predators who seem oblivious to our future, something must be fundamentally wrong about the way we’re governing ourselves.
A systematic change to this kind of order comes through a shared assumption, much like when a group of friends, upon perceiving their favorite bar is closed, meet at the next most likely place without having to communicate the name amongst themselves. More than a leaderless revolution, it was an unconscious one: those who brought it about had no idea they shared an ideology, or no idea what its name might be, or even why they did it. They simply did it because it was natural to do, and because nothing has since opposed it, it continues to this day in grossly simplified form.
The dirty little secret of the West’s collapse is that it has come from within. The extent of our modern disease is revealed by the fact that when we think this, we immediately try to blame either everyone, or no one. We are afraid to blame a process and implicate certain people as its methods.
In other words, while our leaders are parasites in that external level of democracy, they have come about because of the internal level of democracy, which is our increasing neurosis and insanity as we venture into a world of the self.
The Enlightenment™ told us that man is the measure of all things, therefore individualism and not realism is our new crusade; this quickly became egalitarianism, so that all individuals could experience it, and later, socialism, since they need subsidies to be able to do so.
When societies lose direction, they become self-referential instead of adhering to external reality. Consequently, you get a mass group governing itself by consensus or at least plurality, and this quickly creates a hive-mind like on a committee: people adapt to what they think the group wants, and promote it because doing so advances their own status and therefore, their interests.
For us to waltz into Communism, we do not need external Communists, only a group of people without social hierarchy, left to their own devices. The simplest message wins, and whatever scapegoats someone else for our problems rises, so we end up with blaming the rich, beautiful, intelligent, and moral for the lack of success of most people; this inevitably leads to the desire to abolish wealth, beauty, intelligence, and morality through the usual egalitarian stew of socialism, ugliness, low standards, and relativism.
When we look at the source of our crisis, Occam’s Razor says that we should pay attention to the historical movement which has been steadily gaining ground over the past three centuries. That is the change that what we were doing, and the most likely source for any other changes we experience.
In WW2, democracy finally triumphed; in the 1990s, it beat back the last non-consumerist society, the Soviet Union. At that point, all human societies took on the same form: constitutional democracies, market socialism, civil rights, and diversity.
In the 1960s, it took over popular culture using civil rights as its battering ram to force acceptance. Diversity destroys culture by forcing it to liberalize or relax its standards in order to accept other cultures; when that is done, nothing remains, and society becomes regulated exclusively by mass opinion.
When Bill Clinton assumed the presidency, he was not so much Leftist as prone to listen to mass culture. He embraced it, where other presidents held it at arm’s length, and followed the polls in order to determine what his beliefs should be.
This gave popular culture its total domination, as one might expect when the generation of the 1960s — raised by those who grew up in the Left-leaning 1930s — attained the age of being senior enough to wield power.
Now we exist in a time where almost everything we complain about is a result of mass opinion swaying democracy to do something stupid.
For example, take monetary policy. We borrow money like mad, spread it around, and then tax the resulting increase in spending. We do this simply because popular opinion likes free stuff.
Trump got yeeted out of office, all of the courts complied, the media complied, and even the supposed opposition complied. They bow down to what they see (in the media) as mass opinion.
Conservatives got out of the way when William F. Buckley changed their mandate from “conserve civilization” to “be Christian Libertarians.” After that, they did not discuss race, ethnicity, or social class. Again, following popular opinion.
We find ourselves now in a time of ultra-democracy, where the vote, procedure, laws, courts, and experts all follow whatever trend is currently obsessing the masses. We do not need a Communist Party because the same impetus has taken over the masses, thanks to democracy, diversity, and past decisions supporting those.
Ultimately, this shows us that the inner traits of democracy are more damaging. We can fix a bad government, but how do you fix an entire nation in various degrees of delusion because they rely on popular opinion for fact and direction?
Currently, the hive wants to crush any who fail to obey its bad decisions. They know that they are bad decisions, including the vaccine scam, but they have made them, so they rationalize them as good and see non-compliers as the enemy.
As this crisis accelerates, the hive becomes entirely self-referential. It wants to eliminate the opposition and have only itself exist, despite the fact that this will plunge into into the type of poverty the third world and Soviet Union knew.
This system operates by flattering the individual in the way that The Enlightenment™ suggested: instead of looking toward reality, we look toward what we as individuals want to believe.
That means that people go searching for the message that they want to hear, as if picking the right product off the shelf, instead of spending time trying to figure out what is real. This is a reversed form of thinking.
Forward thinking means that we figure out what is real, and then what we should do about it; backward thinking means that we look at what is on offer, and choose what is there, hoping that it will solve needs that we have not identified. We outsource both the choice of what is available and the definition of needs to others.
For example, a wanderer in the woods knows that he has needs: water, food, shelter, safety. He then finds objects that meet these needs.
The modern person instead confronts a series of objects without context or a definition of need. Does he need an iPad? For what need? The thinking has been done for him by a centralized, standardized system.
Traditional societies told people, “Reality — what we call ‘the truth’ — is supreme.” Modern societies tell them, “You are supreme,” which means that the individual chooses what to believe and do, regardless of reality. It has been dethroned.
That translation of focus comprises the destructive effect of modern society. Such societies are entirely self-referential, with people choosing what to believe based on what others believe and will reward.
In doing so, they set up a situation where people manipulate each other farther from reality. We all demand that what we want to be true, is true, and therefore others take up the cry, and soon reality is a distant memory.
Through this method, democracy creates the hive-mind. Without mass opinion and a committee mentality, people choose the water, food, shelter, and safety that they need. With mass opinion, they choose what others demand be the standard.
We have reached an age where we can no longer trust our society because it consists entirely of mass opinion, and almost nothing of reality. This is when nature calls for a restart, even more than regime change.