Is democracy really is the best ruling system?
No. National Socialism is
If your definition of best is that it's the easiest for powerful people to control in that the masses have no idea they're being controlled, then yes.
If best means efficient, then absolutely not.
It must be considering nobody actually gets to live in a democracy. It's too good for the common man.
السيد مقتدى الصدر
For colored people it is, for everyone else it's hellish and unjust.
The troll*
Gosh if you heard his speeches whilst living in the usa you'll certainly roll laughing
If you live where he's the
Leader of the most influential party
And has hundreds of thousands of cocksuckers
And militia(s)
You'll consider suicide
Don't be harsh on some migrants please,they just want to leave these unfixable hellholes
I was just messing with you I don't support any religious party ruling separation church from state was the reason United State became a great country.
>"If I am in favor of democracy, I can only regret that propaganda renders the true exercise of it almost impossible. But I think that it would be even worse to entertain any illusions about a coexistence of true democracy and propaganda."
-Jacques Ellul
To me it is frustrating that a conclusion that seems so obvious is nevertheless resisted by so many otherwise intelligent people. Democracy has become almost a sacred concept to them, this idea that the policies guiding our nation should be decided by counting the votes of every featherless biped who has reached the age of 18. It’s like motherhood: they’re almost afraid to question it.
This seems to be as true of intellectuals in our society as it is of Joe Sixpacks. The fact is that intellectuals are no more likely to be independent-minded than people who work with their hands; most intellectuals, just like most Joe Sixpacks, are lemmings. In fact, as Ellul points out, it is precisely the intellectuals who are most strongly controlled by propaganda, because they are more open to every medium of propaganda.
Well, it should not be surprising to us that although books such as Professor Ellul’s Propaganda – and many others – are readily available, almost no one has heard of them. Keeping the public believing in the myth of democracy is an important element in maintaining control over the thinking and behavior of the public. It is simply immoral and scandalous to question the reality of democracy. It’s like questioning the truth of the “Holocaust” story. And for that reason we’re not likely to be taught in our social studies classes in school or to read in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal even the most obvious and self-evident conclusions presented by Bernays or Ellul. We’re still taught how democracy safeguards our freedom, even while those who control the mechanism of propaganda in our democratic society are working day and night to eliminate that freedom.
It is unfortunate that we cannot use propaganda the way it is used against us. I’m certainly not a propaganda expert myself, but I understand enough about it to know that the use of propaganda on a large enough scale to be effective in changing the attitudes and the behavior of the public requires a much larger mechanism than anyone but the Jews possess. I’m talking here about so-called “vertical propaganda,” which simultaneously conditions large numbers of people through the use of television, magazine advertising, and other mass media. The Jews worked hard to seize control of that mechanism and build it up throughout all of the last century.
There is, of course, what is called “horizontal propaganda,” in which the attitudes and behavior of individuals in small groups are changed through suggestion by group leaders and guided group discussion. This is the sort of thing that was used in communist prison camps and in some religious cults and is used in “sensitivity training” in America to condition employees in government and in private business today. It also is used to a frighteningly large extent in America’s schools to propagandize children. It doesn’t require much in the way of mechanism, as “vertical propaganda” does, but it does require a large number of conditioning groups operating simultaneously in order to be effective on a significant portion of the population, and that in turn requires a large organizational infrastructure to get people into the groups and then to coordinate their conditioning.
No. A theocracy with Jesus Christ at the top will eventually be the best.
Until then, a democracy is best. But the citizens must demand honesty from those elected. If corrupt, prosecute or kill those at the top.
I'm hoping to see gallows on the Mall in Washington DC soon. And know it will never happen.
I cannot help but agree with Bernays and Ellul that the governing role of propaganda is inevitable in a modern, centralized, technological society. Without propaganda as a coordinator for the lemmings, we would have chaos. The only way to avoid propaganda would be to return to the sort of decentralized society without mass media, based on the farm and the village, that we had during the Middle Ages and in ancient times, and we can’t do that as long as we live in a world where we are surrounded by dangerous enemies: which is to say, we cannot afford decentralization and the giving up of our mass communications capabilities as long as we have Jews waiting for us to lower our vigilance. The important thing is not to try to avoid propaganda – we really can’t do that – but to ensure that the people who control the content and the direction of the propaganda are our people and that they have the right motivations. That is the essential thing. Beside this everything else becomes insignificant.
An understanding of our present situation leads us to a conclusion that many otherwise intelligent people are afraid to confront. That frightening conclusion is that there is no peaceful way out of this situation. The Jews never will voluntarily relinquish control of the mechanism of propaganda, and as long as they retain control America and our civilization and our people will continue down the slippery slope toward oblivion: non-White immigration will continue, the White birthrate will remain far below the replacement level, the media will continue pushing multiculturalism and race-mixing, and the Jews will continue their efforts to reduce our freedom to a choice of hair curlers and ball games, as they already have done in Europe. And as long as their television screens stay lit and the shelves at the shopping malls remain full of consumer goods, the lemmings will go along happily with everything.
We cannot vote our way out of our planned demise. Either we will let ourselves be led into extinction by the masters of propaganda like lambs to the slaughter, or we will fight back, and when we fight back there will be a period of bloody chaos. When I have said this in the past I have been accused by people who otherwise agreed with me of having bloody-minded fantasies. They did not want to face the prospect of violence and bloodshed, and when I said that we must face it they accused me of wanting it.
Well, I don’t want it – except as an alternative that is infinitely preferable to extinction. I prefer a peaceful path to survival and freedom and progress, but I no longer believe that a peaceful path remains for us. The people who accused me of being bloody minded were people who were comfortable, who were living fairly high on the hog, and of course they didn’t want their comfort to end. They didn’t want their comfortable world to become chaotic and dangerous and bloody. I can’t blame them for that. But they let their desire for a continuation of comfort hide the truth from them. They wanted to believe that we can vote our way out of the mess we’re in and that everything can be resolved peacefully, and so that’s what they believed. I can only agree with Professor Ellul that the worst thing we can do now is entertain any illusions about the efficacy of democracy in combating the destructive propaganda mechanism being used against us by the Jews.
Our responsibility is to continue building our capability for taking advantage of events as they happen, and that means primarily to continue building our means for communicating effectively with every independent-minded White man and woman with a conscience and attempting to gain his or her participation in the effort to reach others. I don’t expect that our communications capability will win any elections for us, but it certainly will enhance our ability to fight back.
It's the worst. Also Poland can't into democracy, everytime we had it it ended horribly. Partitions happened because we had noble democracy (the king couldn't do shit because he had to have full support of nobility and those greedy fucks only cared about their positions and money) which turned Poland from Europe's greatest power to a fucking joke. We're having the same shit again, only now everyone is allowed to vote on their retarded views and ultimately get fucked by their "representatives" as always. Poland never amounted to shit when it had democracy, our best times have always been under a single, strong leader.
Are you writing a manifesto? Do you think you're going to be the next Hitler or something? Nobody cares this much about your opinion when you're just another poster on an anonymous imageboard.
Learn economy of language. That's why we use words like cuck - there's a lot of meaning packed into such a simple little word. I'm violating my own rules though. I should have just said tldr and left it at that but I thought you might understand this more.
what democracy? the ancient Greek model, with reasonably homogenous, not too stratified, not too big (remember Aristotle "you can't make a polis with two people but with ten thousand ...it's not a polis anymore) communities? Absolutely.
modern "democracy"? see
democracy only works in homogeneous societies. we have to divide our fictional country fellow iraqi brother
Perhaps if we had a collection of poleis governed either democratically or semi-democratically, each according to a constitution that they themselves devise for local government. Large landholding individuals would be a threat to these collections of people, so they could have their own estates and have political representation all their own because they have more skin in the game and more to lose from bad national government.
Then, the national government is run by a man whose only real job is to maintain the collection of poleis and landed estates, with help from several advisors. His office would, naturally, be inherited by his oldest son so the poleis and landed estates couldn't compete for it so as to exert greater control over their neighbors for their own benefit.
I wonder what we could call such a type of government.
No. Absolute monarchy is the best. It was handed down by our alien ancestors and is in every single historical document/religious text for that reason.
No. It's been shown to have a pretty major weakness.
>democracy founded
>goes well initially when vote is restricted to land-owning men
>if the principles of society hold and it isn't subverted into a dictatorship, eventually the vote is extended to all men due to discontent among the lower classes or a recognition of the fact that, based on the founding ethos of most democracies they shouldn't be excluded
>still goes pretty well, but becomes a little more corrupt due to the lower classes having less time to devote to politics and thus being easier to manipulate
>eventually, women begin to agitate for the vote and/or increased power and influence
>they pressure and manipulate the lower class men into allowing them to
>women now hold the vote
>nation begins to decay and collapse because women are trivially easy to manipulate as voters and regardless of their level of education or free time will always vote based on their kneejerk emotional reaction
>politics degenerate into a large-scale game of emotional manipulation to control the female vote
>politicians no longer bother putting out any information and never engage in rational debate, so lower-class men without the time to devote to extensive research find themselves totally without information to make a proper decision
>upper-class men who have the time to conduct research find that their vote is worth no more than anyone else's and they have no influence on the course of the nation
>nation enters period of extreme moral and societal decay before either being turned into a dictatorship, collapsing into anarchy, or being conquered by a foreign power
it happens every time
Only Kurdistan should, if iraq were to be fully divided into sunni shite kurdi regions these regions will still have corruption,only way is for iraqis to make a wake up call,which, knowing our history, won't happen.
Absolute monarchy suffers from the fact that, eventually, the power will fall into the hands of someone who is utterly unfit for it. If you pass the crown from father to son you will eventually end up with a son who is mentally retarded, insane, inbred, violent, corrupt, or simply too stupid to rule. When absolute power falls into the hands of such a person, the nation falls into turmoil.
In my own opinion, the best form of government would be a constitutional monarchy where the king has strong authority(unlike the modern ones with vestigial kings). The country would be run largely as a representative democracy with the vote limited to educated men, but with the King maintaining full power of veto over their actions and a constitutionally limited ability to make decrees. This two-part system allows for enough checks and balances to work properly.
You may go "but that's essentially britain's system and britain has gone to shit", and that's true. But the reason that Britain has gone to shit is that the monarchy functionally lost all power. It fell into the hands of a woman, Elizabeth II, who deliberately failed to exercise the royal prerogative at any point and thus allowed one side of the two part system to fail. On the other side, women were given the vote, causing the other side to fail. If the country has a proper constitution and measures to prevent this are enshrined in it, this should not fail.
Or you could have a feudal monarchy, and the power a king has is based on how well he maintains the lords and free cities under his control. So a more effective king will have more power by merit of how efficient he is at governing.
The problem with an elected legislature is that it will seize more and more power, and because the offices in it are held based on elections, the men who will have the most power within that legislature are demagogues. You blame Britain's fall on the monarch not exercising enough power - well what about the English Civil War? King Charles I exercised his monarchical powers, and it got him beheaded.
You can hold up some ideal about how the parliament and the king are supposed to cooperate, but when one gets in the other's way, this ideal crumbles. With feudal monarchy, the lords and cities handle their affairs and the king handles them all collectively. If the king's rule is truly insufferable, the lords can depose him and put his heir on the throne. Or, if the dynasty is insufferable, they can put a new dynasty on the throne.
the feudal monarchy can work, and did for a long time. but I fear that its emphasis on what are essentially citystates wouldn't quite work in the information age. with the amount of global information at the fingertips of every individual, it's harder and harder for them to identify with their localities or put stock into city-scale politics. On the flipside, the power of technology means that something like the English Civil War could be prevented. In the English Civil War both the King and Parliament went around raising armies from the countryside to fight for them. This resulted in a brutal civil war. The conflict itself also arose because the boundaries and division of powers between Parliament and the King were poorly defined. However, if the nation has a standing army equipped with modern technology, who are loyal only to the nation's Constitution which clearly lays out the extent of Parliament and the King's authorities, that will not happen.
one of the best quick rundowns ive ever read desu senpai
No.
Technocracy.
There is no best system of government or best ideology. The world is not static. The best form of government depends on what time it is
Im going to clue you in on what's the purpose of democracy and why it was invented in the first place OP
you see, my sand friend, it's a political ideology that originates from the medaterranians, it's main design was to send political challenging insurgents into your enemie's political establishment and position them to slit their throats from behind while theyre asleep and hijack the wheels without actually going full apeshit monkey war on them. It's the trojan horse of politics and was designed this way from the start. It's why pisssrael and JewSA is always promoting "democracy" in the middle east.
Democracy works best in small groups. The larger and more diverse the group, the less their wants and needs intersect and the worse democracy works.