Quality or Quantity: The Problem of Democracy

From the so-called “Enlightenment” onwards, democracy has become an increasingly common form of governance, to the extent that almost all present-day regimes are democracies of some sort. The supporters of democracy laud its triumphs as marks of human progress toward equality and a fair world. Unfortunately this mistaken view of democracy has corrupted the Left, to the extent that support for democracy is the cornerstone of most False Left ideologies and the idealistic leftists they fool.

In reality, the advent of democracy has meant little for ending the daily violence faced by humans, sentient beings, and the environment as a whole. In reality, not only has violence increased, but it has become more difficult to spot due to simple yet thorough brainwashing of the masses through ridiculous yet effective abstracts mottos (e.g. majority rights”, “free speech”, etc.). And, for the most part, increased violence has not been used toward noble ends, but to serve the slavish desires of the masses and elites. Any mass impetus toward a better world is a product of the bitter struggle of an idealistic few, not of mass nobility.

The fate of minorities in a democracy….

 Can problems be solved through the same means and by the same people they were created?

The Not-So-Critical Criticisms

Despite the general triumph of democracy, an increasing number of people are willing to criticize its shortcomings, but very few of these criticisms are aimed at the roots of democracy or offer radically different alternatives. These criticism either fail to condemn democracy as a whole, or they criticize democracy but agree on its fundamental principles. To understand the True Left’s revolutionary alternative to these protests, we must first know what they are, what they have in common with democracy, and thus where both are flawed.

The most common contemporary “criticism” of democracies can generally be reduced to the claim that so-called “democracies” are not democratic enough. According to such critics, so-called “democracies” do not live up to the name as government, and society as a whole, does not truly tailor to the decision of the majority. Common arguments include:

  • leaders elected every few years cannot truly and fully represent the will of the majority

  • victory in elections does not necessarily mean majority approval (such as when somebody is elected by having the highest vote count rather than majority vote, or in democracies with elections based on constituent representation)

  • there is not enough public involvement in and knowledge of government policies

  • financial elites use their money in the favor of select politicians and parties, disadvantaging alternative groups not receiving such funding & media attention, and thus limiting majority choice and opinion to a few options

  • politicians do not look after the interests of the majority, but after their own interests and those of their group and/or financial masters

(Besides these there are claims that leaders act unjustly and, thus, undemocratically; but since when is democracy just?)

In a variety of circumstances – perhaps even in the majority of them – all or some of these claims are certainly correct, and the alternative democratic forms they offer may indeed be more democratic. However, all of them assume and believe that moral good is the same as what is good for the majority.

Another group of critics can be called political paternalists (or maternalists, as the gender may be); they are people who support the use of state power (perhaps monarchically, but definitely in elitist fashion) to further the interests of the majority. Political paternalists are created out of the same belief as democrats that the goal of government is to look after the interests of the majority (whatever they believe those to be). The only difference is that paternalistic politicians, unlike democrats, believe that the masses are too stupid to govern themselves – that they do not truly know what is good for them, and so cannot choose and act in their own interests, thus needing more intelligent governors to choose for them.

A similar group of political paternalists are traditionalists. Where they differ from more reform-minded paternalists is in the belief that tradition is paramount for the good of the majority. According to them (and often in fact), tradition may provide safety, order, identity, and (self-referential) guidelines in life for the majority; in other words, it is officially justified on the ground that it gives something “good” to the majority, and perhaps a larger group as a whole. Furthermore, given that tradition is largely the product of the habits, beliefs, and desires of the majority of a group’s ancestors, tradition is arguably a form of democracy that cuts across time, and thus traditionalists are merely ensuring the preservation of ancestral democracy; in the words of traditionalist thinker G. K. Chesterton: “Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.”

The Tyranny Of The Majority

Essentially, all the individuals mentioned earlier are not different from each other: they do not differ in their primary interest, but they differ on how to attain it. The supporters of status quo democratic forms believe their current system is appropriate for the good of the majority, and so all reform is to be done within their system. The supporters of alternative democratic forms argue their preferred forms are better in fulfilling the good of the majority. The political paternalists believe taking control of the state in the masses’ place will be more helpful to achieving the good of the majority. And the traditionalists believe a state and society run in traditional fashion with traditional values is the best way to achieve the good of the majority.

The response of the True Left is: numbers do not determine what is morally good. The idolatry of the majority and its happiness must end. Essentially, any democratic state or organization whatsoever is one run by the principle of Might Is Right, where might is determined by numbers. Considering that an individual guided by this principle will live his life to pursue his own interests, and use others or treat others violently to fulfill his ambitions, as well as being enslaved by his desires, why should we expect anything different from a larger group of people (especially when they’re stronger as a group)? In fact, democracy’s record and its very foundations show that the troubles of minorities are secondary, if not completely irrelevant, so long as the select majority is satisfied. All leftists should ask themselves: is this something beautiful and noble and which I can fully support, or is it an evil which I must reject from the bottom of my heart?

Furthermore, not only is democracy operationally ignoble, but its very purpose is also. If the purpose of a government were to make the most noble decisions and the most noble society, power would in the hands of the most noble. If the purpose of a government were to look after the interests of the rich, power would be int the hands of the rich and those they’ve bought. Along similar lines, if the purpose of a government were to look after the interests of the majority, power would be in the hands of the majority. In other words, democracy is nothing more than a political means for the majority to satisfy its desires, and otherwise has no important goals beyond it. This is commonly known as hedonism, whereby one sells one’s soul for pleasure. Democracy is nothing other than majority hedonism or mass hedonism.

Democracy, in theory at least, stands against the majority being run tyrannically by any other individual or group. On the other hand, it does not question the tyranny of the majority. Through democracy, the minority is enslaved to the desires of the majority. Furthermore, through democracy, the majority is enslaved to its own desires, becoming incapable of knowing and fighting for any higher purpose.

The Root Of The Problem & The Solution

If the majority were noble, it could and would easily reject an ignoble way of life. We would expect mass action to end all forms of slavery and violence. In fact, we wouldn’t have these problems in the first place, as the majority would have never tolerated their existence and would have easily eliminated any barbarian outliers who did long ago. Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in. In the world we live in, not only does the majority not fight slavery and violence, but often does not see or comprehend them. And, in the world we live in, should most individuals even acknowledge those evils, they will often turn a blind eye to them or even approve of them.

The root of the democratic problem is not that the majority does not have enough power or the right guidelines for action. The problem is that the majority is of too low a quality to put it to use justly even if it were to have them. Interaction with most people does not show radical ignobility, but it does not show radical nobility either. What it does show is an apathetic mediocrity, a general contentment with one’s and others’ lot in life so long as one does not have to sacrifice and endanger oneself too much. (The recent far-right fearmongering, unfortunately, is making this even worse.)

History itself is a testament to the quality of the majority of humanity. In so far as history is not driven by abstract forces beyond control, but by the ambitions of real humans, its general quality is in line with the general quality of humans (i.e. the quality of the majority). Indeed, extremely barbaric individuals are culprits for extremes of slavery, violence, and suffering, but it is not every day that a Vlad the Impaler (a.k.a. Dracula) is born. The pages of history are not filled with incredible monsters, but with rather ordinary individuals with self- and group-interests, and with enough power to fulfill these interests. The pages of history are filled with slavery, violence, and suffering, not because of monsters, but because of average-quality people – the majority – being too concerned with their own livelihoods to constantly struggle in a revolution for a radically different world.

And, yet, occasionally, a light shines through the darkness….

The Rule Of The Noblest

The constitutionalist response to the flaws of history (and of humanity as a whole, according to them) is to create a constitution for people to follow and through which no individual or group (including the majority) may have too much power (in theory and if, and only if, the constitution is actually followed). Their rationale is that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, so that if nobody has an excessive amount of power, nobody will be able to do an excessive amount of evil.

We disagree.

“Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely, absolute power attracts the corruptible.” – Frank Herbert

Looking at history, constitutionalists will observe that many excesses of evil were possible only because unregulated power was in the hands of individuals or groups. They claim power corrupted them, but to us this claim is clearly erroneous: it is not power that corrupted them, but power which made their corruption visible and influential. The rare individuals of history, as well as those of the present day, who remained uncorrupted despite their absolute power, and who sought and used this power to better the world and to make their noble visions a reality, are proof of this claim.

Power is not the problem. Power in ignoble hands is the problem. And power definitively in noble hands is the solution to the problem.

External Link:  The Edicts of King Asoka

“My kingdom is not of this world.” – Jesus

History and our present state of affairs are ample proof that the majority is not ethically qualified to rule. Nor is the democratic form fundamentally ethical, in that individuals cannot choose which leaders to follow, but must obey the ruler the majority chooses, no matter how ignoble. The constitutionalist response to the first statement above is inadequate, in that a constitution, no matter how excellent, can only be enacted by an imperfect majority in a democratic state, in that the constitution itself may be the product of mediocre and ignoble minds, and in that the constitution may improve average quality people while at the same time preventing high quality, noble vigilantes from always acting in accordance with their own conscience. The constitutionalist response to the second statement above is nonexistent.

Despite the quality of the majority, to claim that humanity as a whole cannot rule justly is not only incorrect but also insulting to the few individuals who are of high enough quality to not be corrupted by power, who know we will not be corrupted by power, and who vow to not be corrupted by power. We have no desire for power for its own sake or for the sake of fulfilling ignoble desires. We genuinely wish there were no need for it in the first place.

“Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven.” – Jesus

Yet, however much we would rather be spared from power, we hate the evil in this world, and the evil of those thirsty for power, even more. In good conscience, we cannot let the world continue as it is. In good conscience, we cannot let our romantic visions of a noble and beautiful world die with us. Therefore it is our duty to take power and end the world’s evil through it, and so either take leadership ourselves or find high quality individuals worth following. The solution to the democratic problem, the problem of ignobility, is aristocracy, the rule of the noble.

End Game

The present-day rise of the far-right will lead to immeasurable amounts of violence and suffering, and to the enslavement of all individuals who oppose them, as well as of all future children treated as slaves to the perpetual preservation of the “white race” or Western “civilization” with all its hubris and pompous materialism. However, all this evil is not exceptional in history, where depravity is the rule. The rise of the far-right is a continuation. And it is a democratic continuation, where the majority is (not necessarily inaccurately) identified with “whites”, “indigenous”, “natives”, or “Westerners”. The far-right is the democracy of “whites” and of Westerners. And so it is opposed to genuine aristocracy. And so it is opposed to the True Left.

To ever achieve freedom, including freedom from the need to use power against evil, we will first have to end all corruption step-by-step. The far-right, and the Right in general, is not standing in the way of our perpetual progress in gaining more power. Rather, the Right is an evil we will have to end before we can relinquish our power. The Right is an evil we will have to end before we can end our miserable struggle. Only when all evil has ended, only when ignobility is nonexistent, will we no longer have a need for power or for rulership of any kind, including aristocratic. Only then will we have peace. Only then will we have freedom. And we long for that day. Are you with us?

Shatter Fate


11 thoughts on “Quality or Quantity: The Problem of Democracy

  1. Just one point of rhetoric: when mentioning cruelty to animals, it is better to refer to the NUMBER of animals killed (or subjected to other violence) rather than the FRACTION of “wildlife lost”. The former treats animals as individual victims. The latter implies that animals are merely a resource for human observational enjoyment that is not being sustainably managed. We should especially avoid talking about endangered species as something we are concerned with, as it suggests species extinction is what worries us, when in fact species extinction is a right/False Left worry, not a True Left worry. The True Left is only concerned about injustice towards individual victims. Indeed species extinction at least ensures no more individuals of that species will be victims in future. Of course I would prefer that species extinction occurs by non-reproduction rather than by killing individuals already born, but killing individuals already born such that species extinction occurs is still nowhere near as bad as killing individuals already born in such a way that maintains the species into the next generation whereupon the same process repeats itself again. Sustainable evil is always worse than unsustainable evil. So that CNN link is not a True Left link. Given a choice of rescuing all those individuals of endangered species listed by CNN or rescuing all the individual cows in a single milk factory, I would rescue the cows.

    Otherwise very good article. Adding the Jesus quotes is a brilliant idea. Leftists need to be motivated to take back Christianity in loyalty to its founder who was a fellow leftist, instead of abandoning it merely because they dislike what rightists corrupted it into by mixing it with Judaism. Awareness of Gnostic Christianity could shift large swathes of cultural Christians into the True Left in the same way that awareness of Christian Identity (and other similar “We are the real Israelites!” narratives) is shifting large swathes of cultural Christians into the far-right.

    Liked by 2 people

    • “Just one point of rhetoric: when mentioning cruelty to animals, it is better to refer to the NUMBER of animals killed (or subjected to other violence) rather than the FRACTION of “wildlife lost”.”

      I agree with what you said. That link is a temporary choice until I find something in line with what you’re saying that is also largely universally a product of democracy (or coexistent with it). I want something that shows that cruelty towards animals has, overall, become worse despite popular opinion that democracy is building a better world. Most of the species are going extinct not to prevent further injustice, but specifically because of injustice, so the link serves its temporary purpose. If you can send me a link in line with what you’re saying, I will put it in that place.

      “Otherwise very good article. Adding the Jesus quotes is a brilliant idea.”
      Thank you.

      “Leftists need to be motivated to take back Christianity in loyalty to its founder who was a fellow leftist, instead of abandoning it merely because they dislike what rightists corrupted it into by mixing it with Judaism. Awareness of Gnostic Christianity could shift large swathes of cultural Christians into the True Left in the same way that awareness of Christian Identity (and other similar “We are the real Israelites!” narratives) is shifting large swathes of cultural Christians into the far-right.”

      Good point. Perhaps an article on Jesus is due. This might take a while longer; I’ll have to take out the Gospels.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Would the communist “dictatorship of the proletariat” be an example of political paternalism?

    As ignoble as communism is, at least its followers are more open to state power and admiration of heroic individuals than other false leftist ideologies. Speaking of which, thankfully not all leftists are avowed secularists either, as the famous ‘Che Jesus’ demonstrates:


    • It depends on what we believe “real” communism to be. In my reading of Marx, the proletariat is supposed to achieve class consciousness on its own and thus achieve its revolutionary ends on its own. This process is democratic in so far as “the proletariat” is “the people”, a view which Marx (and communists as a whole) subscribe to. However, other prominent individuals like Lenin took a different, more practical approach in their revolutions: according to Lenin, the revolution would have to be led for now by the most class conscious proles (the vanguard) and help bring the rest of the proles to class consciousness through their zeal. This I would call political paternalism, even though Lenin’s rhetoric claims his movement is democratic – the vanguard are but an organic development of the proles acting in the interests of the proles (but who said elites need to be separate and not acting in the interest of their groups?).And, yes, once any communist regimes were established, they took a politically paternalist form (if not paternalist in general).

      I agree with you. I would assume (sorry, I have not had the chance to debate too many communists) that the best way to steer them away from it is not by showing them historical faults in implementing communism (e.g. the Great Leap Forward), because they could rationalize this as “the ends justify the means” or “that isn’t true communism”, but by showing them that the end goal (communism) is in itself ignoble. Beyond this, I think their admiration of individuals they perceive as heroic, like Che Guevara, Sankara, Chavez, and so on, is totally non-paternalistic (and I would argue non-communistic). In fact, it’s completely in line with our own view of leadership based on personality, and we would do well to foster those feelings.


    • Speaking of class consciousness, has anybody else noticed that far-rightists call themselves “race conscious”? It’s like they’re reading Marx and replacing “class” with “race” everywhere!


  3. Ichigo, you do know that Communism was nothing more than a Jew con- when they said people, they meant themselves and their Talmud actually tells them they are the only people.If you want further proof look at who made up the power structure of the Bolsheviks, note they were financed primarily by Jewish bankers. If masons did so as well, not that masonry serves Judaism. Note that synagogues were left alone while christian churches turned into whore houses and anti semitism a death penalty offense. Finally note that owning the protocols, you know, that book Jews didn’t write, was a death penalty offense. Basically communism was equal to Talmud law except for the fact they had to pretend to the massive numbers of Russians that the Jewish leaders represented “the people” Now if a Jack London , http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1164/1164-h/1164-h.htm for instance got on board it’s probably because he didn’t realize the Jews didn’t believe a word of what they were spouting
    Guess what, I wrote a neat thing about pinning Hitler to racism after WWII to be sure no other goy got the message of what Hitler was all about. Here tis
    I still think you guys are missing the fact that Vince McMahon is under the stage not on it and you targeting racist whites which have been encouraged to exist as a scapegoat distraction from the Jew misses the point
    How come you guys are scared to talk about the Jews anymore. Did the Jews take you over? VK have something to do with this? 🙂


    • exploitablegoy, I never said it isn’t.
      A lot of people know of the grand connection between Jews and communism (even if they don’t call this “a Jew con”). What do they do next? They praise Jews for it! Of course, they’ll denounce Stalin, Mao, and so on, but not communism (or Marxism) “in itself”, nor the Jews behind it. Why? Because they think it’s a good idea!
      I’m giving them ideological reasons to see that communism is evil, and thus that so are Jews. Furthermore, I’m giving them a more noble, alternative model for the world. Meanwhile, you’re just shouting “Jew! Jew! Jew!”, and claiming their sworn enemies like us are in fact undercover Jews or been taken over by them, which is time-wasting and divisive, so I think I should be asking you that question: Did the Jews take you over?

      “Guess what, I wrote a neat thing about pinning Hitler to racism after WWII to be sure no other goy got the message of what Hitler was all about.”

      Thanks! Now please remove the parts where you claim we’ve been co-opted by the Jews.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Exactly!

        Pro-Stalinist communists will just state that they are aware of the evil of the Jewish Bolsheviks, as was Stalin, that is why he ended up putting Jews into progroms after he realized what the Jews were really up to. They will quote numerous anti-Jewish statements Stalin made to this affect to prove this point. Thus, the argument ‘the Jews created communism therefore it is bad’ falls flat, and the idea of communism being a good idea still stands.

        Self proclaimed ‘educated’ communists will state that the Bolsheviks, Stalin, and Mao, simply perverted the true essence of communism, and the full glory of communism is yet to be revealed, and can only be realized by the leadership of ‘educated communists’. Thus, the argument ‘the Jews created communism therefore it is bad’ falls flat again, and the idea of communism being a good idea still stands.

        To which our ‘Jew aware’ detractors at ‘goybiscuit.com’, and so many other websites, would respond, “uh, uh…. but the Jews are evil!”

        These concepts are obviously to damn rational for most people to understand. What a sad state of affairs.


    • So, to sum up your argument, Communism is bad because Jews created it? This argument is the only one you are capable of contributing to ideological and political discourse? The purpose of this page is obviously WAY over your head, and I recommend you scramble back to the little cesspool in your corner of the internet, aka ‘goybiscuit.com’. I am assuming, and most likely correct, that you have never debated a true intellectual Communist have you? I would love to see you debate one! Especially when the only argument you can put forth is, ‘but, but, the Jews created Communism, and Jews are evil, here is why, see…?’ Is that how the NSDAP flipped Marxist’s?

      I recommend that my comment and ‘goys’ be removed, they have no place on this page.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “I recommend that my comment and ‘goys’ be removed, they have no place on this page.”

        No, I think you make good points about why we can’t waste time simply pointing at the Jews, and you put it much better than I did. If you would still like me to remove it, I will.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s