Democracies end up anti-democratic because only a tiny minority of radicals (politicians, interest groups, major corporations, etc.) achieve power centralized in the capital. They work the levers of government, place their servants in power, and advertise via government education and media. As individuals in a democracy, we lose all power. Only masters have power, and their conflicting agendas ensure strife and discord. These groups do not seek individual representation for us but to subjugate individuals outside their grasp to their dictates by force of numbers.
In democracy, the biggest herd wins. So the game is no longer about what individuals desire but about bringing more outsiders into the fold to build the majority, ensuring power. The individual loses all hope of self-governance; his only chance at obtaining some semblance of representation is to compromise himself and join a large group which at least represents less than everything he despises.
Modern centralized, democratic government removes self-determination from the people and places it in the hands of major political parties and their financial backers. Self-representation is not achieved by voting; you’re not choosing a leader from a consenting group. Instead, national parties directed by major corporations are choosing loyal, obedient tools (politicians) to do their bidding. Being allowed to vote when you have no chance of being represented (other than choosing what appears to be the lesser of two evils) is not representation. Voting exists to provide an excuse for an over-bloated bureaucracy to subjugate the non-consenting individuals they mold, manipulate, and extract from.
At its core, democracy is devoid of tolerance and diversity. Instead of acceptance, it seeks conversion and submission. We should allow others to disagree with us, hold their own opinions and live by them. In this way, everyone can achieve self-governance, and none must attempt to control others. We should remove the will of the majority as our political authority and return sovereignty to the individual.
To get a basic idea of self-governance, imagine each county or town in the United States was autonomous. There would then be thousands of forms of governance, and every arena would be small enough for the voices of individuals to be heard, with no national parties trampling on local choices. Imagine, liberals, if Donald Trump and evangelical Christians had no power over you. Republicans, imagine if there was no more liberal agenda. Libertarians, you could legalize liberty!
Further, you would not have to quarrel to maintain power. Each society would be devoid of internal political strife, eradicating so much anger and hatred towards each other. You could live with like-minded people, all governed as you desire; a unified whole. Instead of the modern top-down diktats from Washington, we would have a bottom-up decisions, and the people would return as the priority instead of the government.
We institutionalize discrimination against minority opinion through voting. Every day that a legislature gathers, it has the power to pass laws against your conscience, and your property is in danger. Even your speech, thoughts, and modes of behavior are regulated. Democracy is demonic. It is the opposite of “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.”
Under democracy, only large herds, or, as we call them today, political parties, can attain the power to manipulate the government to their liking. This reality necessitates indoctrination so the herd leaders can maintain power and sway future individuals to not only accept the current situation but conform to their way of thinking.
Because individuals or small local communities face overwhelming opposition from these entrenched powers, it becomes nearly inconceivable to start a new party outside those already established. Further, it is impossible to reform such a corrupt system built upon leeching off of society, where many people, both powerful and dependent, are invested in maintaining the current system. The result of every democracy is one or two influential clubs of elite corporations, politicians, military personnel, and special interests manipulating society.
The most potent lobbyists, media, and financial backers use their influence to direct the public’s opinions and make it impossible for challengers to gain a footing. They prevent any serious threat offering people an alternative to a bureaucratic centralized democracy.
Once entrenched, it seems we cannot remove them. To some extent, voters can remove individual politicians and select from a variety of baptized party representatives; still, they cannot so easily remove the powers behind the politicians by the same method.
If I gave you the option to choose any pet you desired, but I only offered you an elephant or a donkey, who is choosing? In all likelihood, you would rather have a dog, cat, fish, or some other animal (hopefully not a snake), but in American politics, we only have two choices.
I vote third party not just because I despise the major ones but because I don’t want to become an accomplice by forcing my choices on innocent people (non-voters). I would never intentionally vote to control others against their will. I am less concerned about subjugating other voters because it is a fair fight. We are already politically at war; they are invading my home by seeking to impose their ways on my family and on me. Therefore, my third-party vote is somewhat of a defensive “just war” tactic, guaranteed to be a losing one. Further, I do not desire to pick a winner because the thought of becoming an accomplice in indoctrination, oppression, theft, warmongering and other prominent party misdeeds is repulsive to me.
Having a Republican or Democrat rule when I did not endorse, vote for, or desire either is not representation. I might get punched one election cycle by the government’s right hand and the next by its left, but I would prefer not to get punched at all.
The freedom voters believe exists in democracy is actually the freedom to choose what centralized interventionist regulatory group seeking to control its civilians’ economy, politics, and minds will win, further making a mockery of self-government.
If the typical American voter were honest, they would admit they only choose the lesser of two evils. I believe they might not like “their guy,” but they’re sure they don’t want the “other guy.” For example, according to one poll taken during the 2020 presidential election—where the two most desired politicians for each party were represented—most voters believed both candidates were mentally unfit for the position.
We see evidence of this among the primary party candidates running for president. It’s true that to even get to this point within the party, politicians have had to conform to a certain extent, but some non-conformists and rogue-leaning candidates can still gain support. In the early primary election, party backers have more choices, and we often see a large percentage of the votes spread out amongst the candidates. As fringe candidates are weeded out, loyal party members still support the party but increasingly only to defeat the other ticket.
I have found that members of either party will admit to faults within their group. They will even come out of the closet and say they disagree with many things. Further, they often don’t wish to force their ideas on other people. However, they wave their team’s flag proudly because they wish to prevent the other party from forcing their harmful, immoral ideas on them. In other words, they are fighting against more than advocating. They are not so much attacking others as protecting themselves.
Revealing too is that both sides’ politicians portray their lifestyles as under attack by the opposition. Everyone is on the defensive, constantly under assault by the potential threat of the competitor coming to power. Due to democracy, they must continually be “politically active,” donate to parties, vote for the parties’ representatives, and memorize catechism in the form of political talking points to evangelize others in hopes of maintaining a semblance of self-governance. Democracy guarantees constant effort is needed to prevent ongoing tyranny while assuring the inability to achieve self-governance.
Even if we vote for the winning candidate we are still not getting self-governance. Choosing a candidate is much like choosing a flavor of ice cream; there is some variety, but the cookie-cutter Republicans and Democrats are basically the same. To be elected nationally, you must, by and large, conform to the set standard laid before you. If you stray, if you think for yourself, and if you are honest you have little chance because the lying politician next to you can advertise himself better than you can. He can make promises he has no intention of keeping, while you must be sensible. He will also have the backing of the party. You must not just beat the liar but the lunatic asylum supporting him.
You are playing on their home turf; by their rules, success is anything but assured for a non-compliant candidate who wishes to become elected.
Successful national parties are watered down to the lowest common denominator to garner enough votes. The outcome is principle and diversity cannot succeed. Instead, national parties ensure the exclusion of independent and minority thinkers, and their votes and voices become lost in a sea of monotone zombies blindly following the party they belong to.
