https://hesedyahu.wordpress.com/2019/09/06/democracy-the-religion-of-politics/When I thought about this article, another title came to mind, but there is already a book out there with that title: Democracy: the god that failed.
Can I be candid?
I guess I’m gonna be.
I’m sick to the back teeth of the ignorance of religionists, especially those in the modern age who think they’re so much better and more intelligent than those who just rely on ancient books and teachings, claiming to reject God and religion yet harping on like a TV evangelist on steroids about the gods (unrealistically elevated notions) they adore and yet are ignorant of the faith, or better fideism, behind such adoration.
I live in the UK, and the media keeps pushing the Brexit narrative ad nauseum, the fact that around 25% of the population, just over a half of the voting cattle – or at least that’s how the vote counters depicted it, true or not – voted to leave the European Union (EU), a group that includes members from the governments of many of the countries in Europe. The UK’s territorial gang, its “government,” although having had this vote happen in 2016, has delayed the departure of their members from and participation in the EU for three years, breaking deadline after deadline. From the beginning of this Brexit rubbish until now, the UK mafia (govt) and its media have been helping shape the minds of its voting cattle using multiple means. All this whilst claiming to respect something called “democracy.”
For the voting cattle, voices of anger have sprung up. On one side, the side that “lost” the vote, accusations of a vote based on ignorance and intolerance – yes, intolerance, that most grave sin – have been levelled against the “winners.” Some amongst these “losers” and their politicians have been working to fight the coming of Brexit, asking for another vote as they think “the people” has changed its mind. Yes, you read that right. They think a collection of individuals have one mind. Such is the lunacy of the cattle.
On the other side, the “winners” complain that their “elected representatives” in government have not acted upon “the will of the people.” Yes, they think 25% of UK’s population is “the will of ‘the people’.” They think “the people,” whatever that is, has “a will.” Reification at its best, right. Some amongst them are getting irate at their “representatives” and publicizing their ire.
And both sides – all sides including the gang called government and the media – keep referring to their object of devotion: democracy.
“Oh, our democracy is old and we spread it across the world!”
“We must protect our democracy!
“Oh, these people are anti-democratic.”
“He is not the champion of democracy but is, in fact, the enemy of democracy.”
“You should be upholding democracy.”
“The only democratic thing to do is have a people’s vote.”
“Oooh, our democracy!”
“What an affront to democracy!”
“Democracy this!” and “Democracy that!”
I’m gonna do something now that I’ve not done before on this blog and that I don’t do in real life. I’m going to be publicly obscene in my language. But …
[censored] democracy!
If you feel the need to leave my blog because I used what you think is obscene language, then feel free. If you want to distance yourself from me because I profaned and blasphemed the holy cow of western civilisation, I’m fine with that. Bye!
But carrying on, I’m a man who likes to be accurate with words. I don’t like to just give meaningless insults, and most, if not all, obscene words are just that, emotive outbursts of sound that don’t really fit what they’re aimed at if you look at literal meanings. The expletive I used above literally means to have sex with someone, but, believe me, I don’t want to have such relations with political democracy, neither, thankfully, is it actually possible. But the question is this: how is the expletive being used?
To put it briefly, a more wordy way of expressing it that would resonate with my respect for God would be this:
Democracy, specifically political democracy, is a contemptible, despicable and vile thing. May God curse it, revealing it for the modern deluding idol that it is, strip it naked, take away its deluding power, and consign it to utter destruction and reproach!
But I think the expletive version gets to the point quicker, but in a more godless way.
Why do I hold political democracy in such contempt? How did the calamity called “Brexit” cause the contempt to flare up like some rash-like allergic reaction?
First, let me state what this political democracy is. There’s a certain territory in which there is a gang who is believed to have a “monopoly of legitimised violence or aggression,” meaning that in general, when they aggress against a person, initiating violence and coercion, it’s seen as being ok. Should anyone outside of that gang or its employ do this, then it’s not accepted as being ok. In practice, that means that this gang can take your property without your consent under threat of harm/death and it’s ok and called “taxation,” but someone outside the gang that does the same thing is condemned and called a robber or extortionist. This gang can demand obedience, force its will on you under threat of harm/death without explicit contract or stated agreement and it would be regarded as law making and enforcement, but someone outside the gang who does this will be condemned and called a hostage-taker, a kidnapper, or, should this happen sexually, a rapist. So that’s the gang.
You may be able to see that the perception of the acts described is wholly dependent on subjective faith in the gang. And with enough people believing in the legitimacy of the gang creates what could be called “a cult,” but the description is sanitised to become “the electorate,” those who give the gang the veneer of legitimacy.
Under the control of this gang is the territorial population within which is that electorate. The electorate votes for the superficial aspects of the territorial gang. Since the gang gets to force its will on the whole population and extract funds from the populace, some of the population want to feel as if they have some of that control too, in effect, to control their neighbours by means of the gang. But everyone has different ideas on how to control people and affairs. So, a system having been devised so as to keep the gang in control and enough of the population pacified, those wannabe-controllers (an easier description would be “busybodies”) are given simplified, normally somewhat bipolar, and normally quite superficial choices by the gang and those choices are voted on by the herd of busybodies. The aim of the busybodies is to vote for this weak aspect of control and hope to be in the bigger number of busybodies to get one’s way. This way the gang feels legitimised and enough of the cult/electorate feels as if they’re part of the system that is supposed to work for them.
Again, please note, that with the vote of the cultic electorate, only a portion of the population, the gang (a much smaller portion) thinks it owns the whole population and thus can impose its will on everyone.
After all that description, I can summarise it by saying that political democracy is simply using the might of numbers, mob rule, with the aim of forcing one’s will on other but in reality, the gang has never relinquished real control and many times its members and thugs gets to do what they want irrespective of what the cult has said.
Man, I haven’t written “gang” so many times.
I know I may have missed some details about so-called “representatives,” but maybe I can deal with those other decorations and deceptions another time.
Essentially, there is nothing essentially good or moral about the system. It’s not about a morally-educated and conscientious populace. It’s not about a righteous gang. It’s just about control, morals and truth be damned.
And that last point is evidenced by the fact that the gang called government is the most successful killer, thief, damager of lives and preserver of unfairness and injustice of all time. Not one individual mass-murderer can surpass it, not all of the private robbers put together can match its ability to take the property of others. No one can match the unjust power of the gang, but that is only because it’s the population, or enough of it, that gives the gang manpower, the fruits of its labour and the faith to legitimise its acts.
I could stop now. In a way, I’ve already shown why I can detest political democracy as deeply and as thoroughly as I do. I’ve shown why it’s one of the few times I think an expletive is apt to associate with such a beastly idea or system. But I’m still happy to break down further why if political democracy was physical and burning to death, screaming for help, and I had no water but had sufficient urine to at least quell some of the pain and suffering, I would, instead, slowly find a chair, get some snacks, settle down alone, and watch every moment of its torturous suffering and demise. I would not even urinate on the thing.
Complicity: I was listening to a British conservative called Jacob Rees-Mogg, and he made a remarkable statement of such truth. He said it as leader of the house of commons on the 5th or 6th of September.
An election gives the choice to the British people and it validates whatever we [the government] do.
That is democracy. It is the vote of the cultic electorate that enforces the illusion in the mind of cult member and gang member alike that the system is legitimate, especially in a moral capacity. Then whenever the gang does immoral things – and it’s a staple of the gang called government to do evil – the electorate, whether they are on the winning or losing side, are complicit in the immorality of the gang. It reminds me of the words of Etienne de la Boetie.
It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it.
…
Poor, wretched, and stupid peoples, nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to your own good! You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives. All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves render as powerful as he is, for whom you go bravely to war, for whose greatness you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves?
(Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, by Etienne de la Boetie, 1548, rendered into English by Harry Kurz, found at
https://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/serv_vol.htm )
Although the author was speaking of a single tyrant, his words aptly fit the gang called government, a “fester” in every land, and the means by which it gains faux-legitimacy over the whole population thanks the cult of the electorate. Understand that without the people, without the law-abiding tax-payer, “law” and “legislation” would only be the limited mutterings and opinions of irrelevant strangers. But it’s only because of the people that such mutterings become law, become a powerful order to go to war, or pillage the people through (certain) traffic stops or civil forfeiture. The only reason why government immorality is so powerful is only because of the people giving it faux-legitimacy and manpower. Without the people, Stalin and Mao, and even the lesser Hitler, would have had a more limited impact; they may never have impacted the pages of history. But it’s only because of the people that such horrendous acts were done, why horrendous acts are still being done, why it is guaranteed that horrendous acts will not only be continued, but will be justified.
So democracy ensures that people become complicit in the immoralities and injustices of government. And I’m not even talking about the way in which most, if not all, governments legally protect what the seven laws forbid, because, if I added that fact, that highlights some of the fundamental evils of society and its idolised gang and idolised system of empowerment.
Attracts the good to support evil: I love the fact that the seven laws are all prohibitions (yes, including the laws concerning justice), because a person can keep them simply by not acting in certain scenarios. You don’t have to shout out and preach, you don’t have to have a blog or even be recognised by some religious-Noahide community. Nobody but God needs to know your name. But when the time comes to bow to the idol or steal, you can just say “Hey, sorry, I’ve got to go home and feed the dog.” I don’t have a dog, never had a pet, but it’s a nice excuse. But just don’t do the act, and you’ve fulfilled the law; you’re innocent.
When it comes to complicity in the immorality of government, the elevation and cult-indoctrination concerning political democracy causes even well-meaning people, even good people, even people who say they love God and accept his directives, to actively support evil by means of the vote. Seven-laws “prohibitives” – did I make up that word? – would call righteous the one who actually stayed at home and didn’t support and further legitimise anti-seven-laws, anti-moral systems by means of the vote. But it’s by means of democracy that even good people sustain, maintain and legitimise the legalisation of idolatry and murder (through abortion) and war-mongering and the other injustices of the modern state.
I know the excuses: if I don’t do something (meaning “vote”), then I can’t make a difference. Since the seven laws are “do not act,” then it is by “doing something” (translate as “voting”), that you support evil. Or the excuse may be that, by supporting the system by voting for political party x, then at least I’m supporting a pro-Israel policy or an anti-abortion, pro-life policy. But the anti-seven-laws system, the unjust and immoral system, is still maintained through the vote whether a voter “wins” or “loses.”
Also, you’re not so important that it needs your input.
It doesn’t matter how you twist it, how you contort reason, the fact is that via political democracy, good people support evil.
I wrote a scathing condemnation on social media.
I don’t believe enough people know right from wrong. If they did, there would be no government or support for such a gang. Govt isn’t evil because people are good. Government exists & is evil because people support evil, ergo the people are evil.
I’ve not found a way out of that reasoning yet.
Essentially trying to force one’s will upon one’s neighbour: The purpose of democracy is not simply to have a voice. You don’t need to vote to have a voice. Just talk. Just write something. A person has a voice without voting. No, the voter, the cultic electorate, doesn’t simply want to have a voice. The voter wants his will, what he wants, imposed on those around him. And it’s not about discussion and collaboration. That is cooperation, not democracy. It’s all in the word: demo-cracy, demo coming from an old word meaning “people,” and cracy from an old word meaning power, the hold one has over another. Democracy is about control. That’s why “mob rule” is the exact equivalent (so is gang-rape, but I won’t go into that). The vote doesn’t just mean “hey I said something.” The vote actually means “I want to give my input into a system of control and power, as if I too can affect that control and power.” But the effect of that vote normally means that such power and control will be forced on someone else. The essential nature of government is to force itself on others.
Am I saying something alien? Doesn’t government, even in a sanitised way, mean control? Isn’t democracy therefore a way to have some control over the controllers who control everyone by means of threat (law) and robbery (taxation)?
The voter is normally ignorant of this, having fuzzy, misguided ideas in mind instead of the actual reality. Again, that’s why it’s so similar to a cult. If a voter was more knowledgeable of this and continued to vote, then that would be a purposeful busybody, and possibly an evil person.
A person without the right to rule conferring that right on someone else: One delusion of democracy that is so often promulgated is the notion that government derives its power from the people, that people delegate powers to government for the government to have its authority.
Now someone having read this article so far, or who knows my view of government, or has absorbed certain information from philosophical anarchist (not Antifa or the violent group that calls itself or is labelled as “anarchist”) or voluntaryist, or who has simply stripped away the opinions about government to look at the earthy facts, any of such people will already know what I’m gonna say next. For me, it’s one of the reasons why I can never view any government, except for one which explicitly gets its authority from God, as having any authority, why no law has any substantial meaning to me, why, when a commenter recently said to me “you have to do what the state tells you, even if you don’t understand it,” I had to label his comment as fallacious on so many levels. Just to state, most, if not all, modern governments are secular, and therefore can never be said to have gotten its authority from God. Never!
No individual has the innate right to own or rule another (I’m excluding the relationship between parent and child). No group of such individuals by sheer numbers gains that right or authority to rule another, to force him to comply or to take his property without his consent. Why? Because none of the individuals in that group have such a right or authority. Even a whole territory of millions of people do not have that right or authority to rule another. Why? Because not one individual in that multitude has that authority.
So, since you cannot give or delegate that which you do not have, democracy has no authority whatsoever. “The people,” a group of individual humans, cannot delegate to another set of humans a right or authority that they do not have. Hence, no government has authority. No democratic government has any authority. They do not have a right to rule people if, by their own admission, they get that right from the people.
Now don’t mistake authority for power. Power is different. If you have enough people, you can force a person to do a lot against his or her will – that’s another reason why a perfect form of democracy is gang rape. And governments can definitely get power by gaining manpower, thugs who are willing to carry out the threats of the gang. So no government has authority, but they can have power. But there is nothing moral or righteous in that. There’s no moral difference between that government and a bunch of thieves, robbers and murderers. Therefore, Lysander Spooner may have correctly labelled that which people call “government” as “a band of thieves, robbers and murderers.”
The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves “the government,” are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman.
…
The secret ballot [as is done in most, if not all, “democratic” countries -DD] makes a secret government; and a secret government is a secret band of robbers and murderers. Open despotism is better than this. The single despot stands out in the face of all men, and says: I am the State: My will is law: I am your master: I take the responsibility of my acts: The only arbiter I acknowledge is the sword: If anyone denies my right, let him try conclusions with me.
But a secret government is little less than a government of assassins. Under it, a man knows not who his tyrants are, until they have struck, and perhaps not then. He may guess, beforehand, as to some of his immediate neighbors. But he really knows nothing. The man to whom he would most naturally fly for protection, may prove an enemy, when the time of trial comes.
This is the kind of government we have … (from No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner)
Might makes right: There’s a saying I love about the state because it is quite true. Hmmm … it seems I’ve found two sayings that are both lovely.
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force …
and
Government is force. Politics is a battle for supremacy …
I don’t care about the source or the context. I’m only taking the phrase as it is and for how I’m using it. And I could say something similar about political democracy.
Democracy is not righteousness or truth. Democracy is not fairness or justice. Democracy can’t even be about equality, because if we were all equal, there couldn’t be a government with authority over others. No, democracy is a form of government, and therefore it is just about control. And democracy is about having enough people, even numbers, to force oneself on others. It’s the might of numbers that is believed to have the dominant say in who writes and upholds the gang-threats called “laws.” So democracy is only and essentially the doctrine of might makes right. There’s nothing innately moral about that.
This is especially true when we aren’t dealing with a court of intellectual, philosophically and morally sound individuals, but rather a rabble, a mixture, where there is more likely to be ignorance than intelligence, self-seeking rather than altruism, craven rather than giving. Therefore there is nothing at all good about modern political democracy.
Democracy mystified: Another delusion of democracy can be seen in the way people use the word. Although political democracy is not innately good or fair, people have mystified it into meaning something like “fair.” When people are said to be “anti-democratic” or “enemies of democracy,” political democracy has ceased to simply be mob-rule, but has been elevated into epitomes of fairness and right.
This is the power of the idol called “democracy.” It should just be a stone statue, a limited nothing. But its adherents have turned it into “the only true and best way for the world.” I hear people boasting about Britain, about foreigners emigrating here, legally and illegally, because, for one, Britain is supposed to be the mother of “democracy,” or the oldest “democracy.” Again, the word isn’t being used in its proper limited way of enough people getting to force their will on others, but rather as if “democracy” is a crown, a glorified thing, when, in fact, it’s more like a zombie movie, where hordes of the mindless and hungry try to get their bellies filled. The only difference is that these zombies don’t just try to eat the humans but they also seek to consume one another.
Legitimises evil and delusion: Because political democracy encourages people to feel part of a system bigger than themselves, and because people normally don’t want to belong to evil organisations or systems, through delusion, evil gets called “good” and good “evil.” And why? Because it was voted for. Because the majority say it is so. Why do you think homosexuality and murder of the innocent via abortions are now actually celebrated and legally protected lifestyles and decisions? Because in a democracy, all you need is enough people. Especially, in these days, when it is more virtuous to make a person feel good rather than do what is right and true, as is exemplified in modern society by so-called gender reassignment, where a biological man, in certain countries, must be called a woman if he feels like a woman, a claim that makes no real sense when it’s pondered upon.
Other delusions that political democracy keeps afloat was, once again, expressed by the British politician, Rees-Mogg, when he said:
The people are the boss of the Parliament.
A person has to laugh at such an declaration, but also cry when it is taken so seriously that it is repeated by others and used as evidence as if it were a solidly rational point.
It is only in a world where a man is called a woman that the public “servants” are those who dictate to others through threats called laws, who have a standing army called the police to protect their edicts, who maintain the robbery-taxation and “welfare” rackets. I again laugh and cry (inside, of course) when I see the “public servants” called “cops” (or, more properly, the pigs, the filth) demand a person give their ID threatening to lock them away (essentially, kidnap) should they fail to comply. I’ve not seen many actual servants tell their masters what to do and then grab them, bind them in chains, and lock them away, having the power to kill the master.
Again, only in a politically democratic world, where a man must be referred to as a woman, can those who are truly the masters, owners and dictators be called “servants.”
Political democracy is an asylum, a madhouse, where insanity isn’t cured but encouraged.
Look, I could go on and on about the drunken, deranged whore called “political democracy” or “electoral politics” or the political cult. But I think I’ve said enough for now. Almost.
Again, I know, on this topic, I stand alone. Those who knowingly accept the seven laws or the Jewish Torah are, in my experience, normally supporters of the state, of political democracy, to one extent or another. They all embrace socialism or collectivism to varying levels. Indeed, the tradition we read says stuff like “the law of the [territorial gang] is law,” which is normally taught as “it is good to obey the state” to one extent or another. Some even insert it into one of the divine laws for humanity, the law of Justice, to make it seem like a moral imperative to obey whoever thinks they’re in charge. I personally think such a stance is both crazy and idiotic and self-contradicting. That’s why excuses are made like, oh it’s only if the law is good, but that makes things subjective again. I normally read it as “a dictator is gonna dictate, doesn’t make him right, but if you’re gonna go against him, you’ll have to deal with solely human consequences if you get caught.” To me it’s not a statement of divine command to govern moral righteousness, but just an observation about what human rulers are like.
But again, the Torah “community,” including the Jews and Gentiles, is very much an authority-driven one. “Find a teacher, and do as you’re told.” “The whole territory and everyone in it belongs to the ruler.” Stuff like that. In my other articles, having rabbinical names to insert in what I write would make my point more compelling to such minds. But here, with regards to the people I know who enjoy Torah, and even the people amongst whom I live, I’m, for the most, alone.
Topic: Democracy: the religion of politics (Read 1185 times)