Free from the lies that we’ve been told
Free for a life brave and bold
Free from the ones who hold us back
Free for the ones we love
from the song One Day Soon
And I will war, at least in words (and should
My chance so happen - deeds), with all who war
With Thought; - and of Thought’s foes by far most rude
Tyrants and sycophants have been and are.
I know not who may conquer: if I could
Have such prescience, it should be no bar
To this my plain, sworn, downright detestation
Of every despotism in every nation.
Byron
The United States are destined either to surmount the history of Feudalism, or else prove the most tremendous failure of all time.
Walt Whitman
I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and freedom of discussion as in America.
Alexis de Tocqueville
Introduction
If writing about Cultural History seemed like an act of madness then writing about Democracy must definitely qualify as crazy.
Or, Democracy? WTF? Indeed!
But, as we said in our previous entry, the key word is seems.
They once said, The King is Dead! Long Live the King!
Pete Townshend said, Rock is Dead! Long Live Rock!
Can we now say, Democracy Is Dead! Long Live Democracy!?
Sure, why not? But what is Democracy? And, can it live anywhere if it doesn’t live in the USA? Which it obviously doesn’t. Well, that’s what we’re going to consider in this entry.
So, without further delay, let’s get to it. But, before we do that, a word on the word Democracy and how we’re going to use it here.
Obviously, from the quotes above we’re looking at Democracy in this entry from the perspective of Culture and for a reason.
Things are primarily cultural, not political.
Culture subsumes Politics. Always has, Always will.
For example, people in some circles on the political Right are fond of reminding us that The USA isn’t a Democracy, it’s a Constitutional Republic. When, obviously, it’s a Democratic Constitutional Republic. As categories Democracy and Constitutional Republic are independent, not mutually exclusive.
But, in spite of the fact that they're so wrong-headed about it as they are about most things, at least they’re willing to look at the Constitution and consider its value, as opposed to interpreting it ahistorically so they can then tear it to pieces and attack anyone willing to defend that document, which brings us to the Left.
Because this is what the Left does in the name of Democracy.
When anyone disagrees with them they either blandly dismiss or aggressively attack their opposition as being someone who is promoting a Conspiracy Theory. A statement that reveals not the slightest comprehension of what a theory actually is or does, or, to be more precise, what we do with a theory, ie; test it.
That the Cancel Culture Left does not grasp what a theory is or does should come as no surprise when one considers just how embarrassingly stupid and pretentious Critical Race Theory is.
Note: The funny thing about Critical Race Theory is that it presents itself as the truth, when the truth is, it isn’t even a theory. The not at all funny thing about it is that it's a poisonous, pseudo-intellectual toxin being injected into the body politic of an already dying nation (presumably to finish it off).
So, you’ve got one side prating about our Constitutional Republic, while the other side justifies its anti-democratic actions in the name of Democracy. What are we to conclude?
That in their anxiety to convince themselves they’re right ideologues rarely think very carefully. But thinking carefully, or as carefully as we can manage, is what PRC is all about. And we can still do that even though a journal entry limits our scope.
So, in today’s entry we’ll try to think carefully about the word Democracy, looking at it as we do all things here, from the perspective of The Irreducibles, which subsumes Culture itself.
After all, what is the point of looking into how others interpret words if we’re not willing to test and use our own categories?
So, since our perspective regarding the word Democracy is cultural, what definition of the word are we going to offer?
Simply this, Democracy is the age old desire to live free.
And, since all living requires a context and since that context is cultural, Democracy is the age old desire to live in a free culture.
Finally, and as always, we'll make no attempt to be exhaustive.
On the contrary. As with all of the entries here, my interest is in simply directing attention to a particular subject, as I now understand it, and offer that perspective for your consideration.
Part I
They say Democracy Dies In Darkness. But, since history certainly seems to suggest that it was born there too, maybe that's exactly where it will be born again, or, simply, rediscovered.
Trapped in a dark cave, struggling to reach that small ray of light high above, we might miss an opportunity to find our freedom where we least expect it. It might be much closer than we think, but, in the darkness. And let’s face it. Things are pretty dark. Or, as Bob Dylan put it, It’s not dark yet. But, it's getting there.
Naturally, there are probably some out there who think it’s not dark at all, that there is no darkness. So, keeping in mind that some think it’s already dark, others that it’s getting there, and
others that it’s not dark at all, we’ll be arguing in this entry as if it’s here now and what one might do to free themselves from it.
By arguing from the position that it is, in fact, very dark indeed, we’ll be able to better understand the value of freedom itself.
Which brings us to the subject of today’s entry - Democracy.
Because Democracy is commonly associated with freedom.
But, because freedom is also another word for indeterminability that freedom requires discipline, and so does a Free Democracy.
Which is why it’s harder to achieve than what we have now. And, unfortunately, what we have now is Absolute Democracy.
Or, rather, what we’ve had up until now is Absolute Democracy, though, as we shall see later, even that has given way to something else far more troubling. But, for now we’ll keep the focus on Democracy, both Absolute and Free. So, what’s the difference between Absolute and Free Democracy?
Briefly, it’s the difference between Culture and Tyranny.
Or, it's the difference between Dogma and Pragma.
And what is the difference between Dogma and Pragma?
Pragma is not only interested in, but also willing and able to expose its ideas to a process of continuous feedback and correction for the purpose of improving the quality of life for all involved, in as much as that is possible - and Dogma isn't.
On an intellectual level, or what passes for intellectual, Absolute Democracy’s thinking starts deductively using abstract absolutes and works from there, downhill, of course. Put simply, Absolute Democracy means popular government and personal freedom.
Absolute Democracy rises to power through demagogy and maintains itself with a lethal combination of non-stop propaganda, censorship, coercion, force and popular support.
You would think that to the extent it does have popular support it wouldn’t need propaganda, censorship and all the rest. But it does. Why? In part, because anything popular is superficial and therefore easy to forget. That’s why the propaganda, and not just the propaganda, is non-stop. But there’s another reason why, and that is to exaggerate popular support, which isn't always there.
Of course, this appearance of popular support is one part of the hostile elite's big push toward totalitarianism, along with demonizing dissent, pathologizing opposition, inciting mob violence and, of course, last but not least, Divide and Conquer.
The perfect music for Absolute Democracy is Rap.
Because both have one thing in common - repetition with no development. The same thing over and over again, like the chattering of an idiot, only less stimulating and a lot less interesting. Rap is the soundrack to America's demise.
Note: The fact that such a statement is attacked as racist and a threat to our Democracy only proves the point. Since words like racist, sexist, antisemite, etc. are power terms used to get those accused of them to cower in fear, shame, and silence. How democratic. Oh, and so much for being oppressed.
And the lack of development is what explains the need to exaggerate, or, overcompensate. Which is another way of saying overreact. And, as Nietzsche once said, Whenever anyone overreacts it means they’re lying to themselves about something.
Of course, the other thing they have in common is that if you don't like either one you're somehow or other a bad person.
Absolute Democracy is fundamentally dishonest and corrupt.
What accounts for this?
When it comes to Absolute Democracy the key word is Absolute.
What suffers, of course, is Democracy, or, more specifically, what’s lost is freedom, our basic freedoms to see, hear, feel, think, believe and create for ourselves and others, as opposed to being forced to do what others, namely a hostile elite, their useful idiots and paid proxies, tell us to do. In short,
Absolute Democracy is an oxymoron.
How can we explain this loss of freedom and the subsequent failure and total collapse of a once great country like the USA?
Note: The greatness of the United States was in its attempt to create a free culture and has nothing to do with a political party or Presidential candidate who never really valued that freedom in the first place, obviously, or they wouldn’t have lost it so easily. In fact, since things are primarily cultural and not political one could even say that a political party. putting the cart before the horse, can do more to abolish our freedoms than sustain them. And, of course, that’s exactly how things have turned out.
One answer is that anything fails that operates out of what Hegel once referred to in so many words as the realm of the absolute.
The absolutizing of anything is the kiss of death.
Why? Because anything absolute prohibits feedback and correction, which is the source of human adaptability.
Another and related answer is that the failure is a result of the loss of control over our beliefs. When someone no longer cares anymore, about anything, we say They’ve let themselves go.
From this perspective, We The People let themselves go. How?
By not keeping their ideas from devolving into vague abstractions, glittering generalities, and absurd absolutes.
And why did they do that?
Because they wanted the easy life, obviously. They sold their collective soul for a mess of pottage and got it. They turned their backs on reality and now they’re paying. And, as we’ve said here before, All evil is the result of turning one’s back on reality.
Sentimentality and Cynicism (two sides of the same coin) are all about wanting to hear the tune without paying the piper. But the piper in this case is reality. And, in the end, reality always wins.
But far worse can be said about Absolute Democracy, though, to give a full list would be too depressing and anyway unnecessary.
We can, however, name a couple of things for the sake of clarity.
For example, the bad habit of explaining things away using crude maxims and easy answers instead of more reflective thought.
The addiction to short cuts and putting the cart before the horse.
Both can be seen plain as day on current discussions about race.
Ever notice that it’s exactly those who absolutely forbid any honest discussion about race who make themselves the experts?
So much so that Democracy has given way to an Expertocracy.
But whoever heard of a willfully ignorant expert?
Or, to be more precise, an aggressively anti-democratic and willfully ignorant expert, who prates about saving our precious Democracy, as one taxeating political mediocrity said recently.
When oily reptilian-types like that say they’re going to change the world you know the lamb is about to be fleeced.
How can you be an expert on something you’re willfully ignorant about? You can’t. So then, what does the word expert mean in this case? Expert liar? Expert fraud? Expert denier of reality?
Bad as this is though, and it’s very bad indeed, it’s still not the worst thing one can say about Absolute Democracy.
So, what is the worst thing we can say about it today?
The worst thing one can say about Absolute Democracy is that it’s maladaptive. As in biologically maladaptive. How so?
Because Absolute Democracy drastically limits the range of response, thereby rendering both the individual and group maladaptive to themselves, let alone to their environment, since we can hardly live without responding to the world around us.
Absolute Democracy inexorably moves in the direction of making any opposition unthinkable and certainly extremely dangerous.
But, since this is obviously unsustainable, the elite that runs it all, as well as that part of the public that blindly obeys their mindless talking points, respond by doubling and tripling down, etc, etc, ad infinitum until the whole thing quickly devolves into what exists now in the late and truly once great USA, Anarcho-Tyranny.*
*The fact that the hostile elite, et al. knows this is exactly why they attack anyone who uses the term as someone on the far Right, clueless as ever to the fact that this only proves the point of those using the phrase in the first place. This is what I like to refer to as Denunciation without Refutation. The Us Good/Them Bad, Either/Or block universe that such people live in is a perfrect example of what Steven Pinker, no Right-winger, calls The Left Pole. Who could possibly deny that he's right?
And what is Anarcho-Tyranny?
Anarcho-Tyranny is what you have when the lawless are deified, while the lawful are demonized. A government of, by, and for, a schizophrenic, paranoid elite operating out of The Dark Triad.
Evidence for this today is proven on every street corner and is now fully entrenched in our social institutions - all of them. You could see Anarcho-Tyranny on full display during the 2020 riots.
1. Media blasts false propaganda to incite violence.
2. Criminals are let loose to help start the riots.
3. Leftist non-profit groups are activated.
4. The State abdicates responsiblity to enforce order.
5. Self-Defense is criminalized and framed as murder.
The purpose of doing this is to demoralize and pacify.
This would explain why today in the United States free speech has become a capital offence while espionage is now a liberal art.
Just look what has happened to The FBI, and not just The FBI.
But there’s more, and it’s very bad indeed, very bad. A rigid, top-down Anarcho-Tyranny is one consequence of the fact that:
The elite is terrified of leadership, but hungry for power.
And, as a result of infiltration, subversion and networking, it does have power. Lots of it. But, owing to its low-character, self-focused leadership, it irresponsibly squanders that power by using it to effectuate its insane demands to be placed above criticism, loved unconditionally and blindly obeyed, or else. This is the kind of thing one can see in dysfunctional families that depend on the Sacred Cow-Scapegoat relationship to maintain its stability.
Since dysfunctional famillies are characterized by empathy defecits and a lack of emotional sobriety, the Sacred Cow-Scapegoat relationship is designed to conceal this rather unpleasant fact. When that fails not only is the scapegoating justified, but the abuse is validated, as in "He deserves it."
In fact, because the family is the most basic bio-social unit since the Neolithic age and even Paleolithic, because family is both the foundation of society and the matrix of character, this unhealthy Sacred Cow-Scapegoat relationship, though so often found in government, actually starts in the family. That being the case it’s hardly a surprise that the current government is so determined to completely destroy and ultimately replace the family.
This would fall under the categories of eliminating the competetion (thou shalt have no other Gods before me) and destroying the evidence* Because if a family survives, recovery is possible. And a nation of families dedicated to recovery would not only be better able to identify a corrupt government, but also take action against them and put them in jail where they belong.
* Like the US government did with the crimes they commited on September 11th, 2001. The #1 crime being mass murder. By the way, when was the last time you heard someone in government talk about that day? With the way things are going they'll probably make it a national day of celebration. After all, if they're capable of murdering nearly 3,000 people in one day like it was nothing why wouldn't they celebrate? In any event, no surprise they compare January 6th to the Civil War while ignoring September 11th. This is the sort of behavior one should expect from power hungry psychopaths.
In any event, being above criticism, it never questions its own assumptions, so it has no interest in revising its own categories.
No surprise there, since revising one's categories, or, personal development, requires courage, honesty, and intelligence.
The result? The hostile elite operates with impunity in the realm of the absolute. In other words, whether by design or default Absolute Democracy is incapable of the continuous learning, change, and growth it needs to sustain the very social institutions its power now controls. It's even worse with an Anarcho-Tyranny.
The quote Absolute power corrupts absolutely comes irresistibly to mind. And the key word here is Absolute, not power. Because it could just as easily be said that Responsible power governs judiciously. Power is a word. It's our response to it that counts.
Certainly, our response to the demands of competent social management, which is what good governing amounts to, is not going to be adequate if we refuse to question our own categories.
And some of the hostile elite's categories are pretty absurd. For example, the whole thing about White Privilege. The elite says it wants to eliminate it, when, of course, what it really wants to do is abolish the privileges of freedom provided by the Constitution.
In other words, they want to abolish the Constitution. Put bluntly, they want to abolish the country and its host population. A similar elite did the same thing with the Kulaks in Russia in the 20th century that they're doing to Whites in the USA in the 21st.
What’s that if not treason? Afterall, No Constitution, No Country. No Borders, No Country, No Rule of Law, No Country. They don’t call the hostile elite Nation-Wreckers for nothing.
That’s why they equate dissent with terrorism, which, of course, is itself an act of terrorism. The only difference is, since the hostile elite is the one who actually has power, its terrorism isn’t imaginary at all. On the contrary. It’s the one thing that is real.
In fact, the hostile elite is characterized by hostility exactly because, though it’s power is real, it allows unrealities to enter into the very explanations it uses to control all of the behavior within each of the social institutions that sustain its power.
In other words, what the elite is hostile to is reality itself. And that is definitely an unsustainable, or, maladaptive model.
In short, as we speak, the world’s still richest and most powerful country is maintaining itself on something that is unsustainable.
Absolute Democracy leads to Anarcho-Tyranny.
And, it could also be added that Anarcho-Tyranny ends in the complete destruction of an entire country. Just look around.
The only bright spot in this rather dismal scene is that Anarcho-Tyranny will ultimately end by destroying itself. Let's hope so.
Of course, it has to be said, that Anarcho-Tyranny’s destructive force might make recovery impossible. It very well may be.
Especially since the current Anarcho-Tyranny is itself fast devolving into a weird and creepy form of government that could best be described as a kind of Sado-Masochism errily reminiscent of certain passages from Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers.
So, what’s the solution? Or, better yet, what’s the alternative?
The alternative to Absolute Democracy is Free Democracy.
Part II
So, what is Free Democracy?
Free Democracy is something completely different and much harder to achieve and maintain. But, in facing those difficulties Free Democracy earns its highest victory - a free people.
Another description of Free Democracy would be a collective of individuals who do not see the individual and group as mutually exclusive but as independent categories capable of sustaining free interaction long enough to discover common interests.
Free Democracy is a balance between popular will and individual rights. It’s a civilized society that tries to establish diversity in unity through the guarantee of civil liberties. Without those you simply can't have a functioning country. Again, just look around.
Free Democracy certainly wants stability and peace, but it also recognizes the dynamic character of a culture and its social institutions. So it knows it must safeguard criticism and insure the freedom of thought and expression. It values the privileges of freedom, especially the intellectual freedom of everyone.
From this perspective, The Rule of Equality, often misunderstood, states what many Americans seemed to mean by the word Democracy, that everyone is entitled to protection against individual and mob tyranny. The whole community might be against the individual, but the individual still lives.
Note: Few understand and value this freedom more than family scapegoat survivors.
From this perspective it’s pretty clear that Absolute Democracy is a dangerous play on the word Democracy simply because it claims complete freedom for the majority, or for its leaders.
This is why sentimentalizing the word Democracy has resulted in a cynical dismissal of its usefulness and even of its virtues.
Because there’s no question that Free Democracy at its best is still susceptible to breakdowns, just as any individual is who likes to live dangerously by constantly challenging themselves.
And there’s no doubt that Free Democracy is a challenge, which, again, would explain why it’s so difficult to achieve.
Because what it fights is individual or group tyranny that tries to exercise a local tyranny that could easily spread if not stopped.
Free Democracy is an attempt to fight the fascist spirit in us all.
A spirit, moreover, that has little to do with a particular belief or political party. Both of which are at best symptoms, not causes.
In fact, to see fascism as something belonging exclusively to a peculiar mental trait or characteristic of a particular person or group is absurd, and more than a little suspicious. Just as it’s absurd to assume that only one group or individual cares about freedom, when, in fact, the respect for human freedom depends on a number of things, such as intelligence, habit, courage, humility, gratitude, and even a healthy scepticism of its value.
It has, or should have, nothing at all to do with social class, race, gender, sexual orientation, or nationality, let alone an ideology.
From this perspective, it’s pretty obvious that what really makes Free Democracy so challenging and difficult to achieve and maintain is that it’s constantly fighting an internal fascism within both its borders and even the individual who values freedom.
So, what is the difference between Free Democracy and a fascist country where everything is ruled by propaganda and force?
What's the difference between Free Democracy and the USA?
If Free Democracy is not a social institution then what is it?
It’s an atmosphere, an attitude, in a word, it’s a Culture. It’s not at all limited to a particular country. It’s wherever we find it.
In fact, it’s right here and now, as I write and you read.
No matter how much we might complain, and not without reason, about anything, from ourselves, our social institutions and our incompetent leadership, there’s something in us that remains democratic, simply because whatever freedoms we have enable us to fight for more. And this is true however badly damaged those freedoms are as a result of our own limitations.
We don’t want Stalinist trials, pointless riots, or racial pogroms.
On the contrary, the vote, the jury system, freedom of the press, all symbolize our collective desire to live in a free culture.
Because that’s what Democracy is - a culture, a free culture.
It’s the deliberate cultivation of a deeply emotional and intellectual passion found in anyone with thoughts and feelings.
Sure, like any passion it’s sometimes vague and even impractical.
But it’s as real as a child’s affinity for their mother.
Could you imagine a life without a mother’s love? Then you can imagine a life without freedom, which can’t exist without a passion for life, which is often snuffed out in those who were not loved as children. That being the case, is it any surprise that the collapse of the family and the loss of our freedoms have converged within what used to be the borders of the USA?
The only solution would be to rescue what’s left of one’s passion for life and to go in search of a love and work that will help you recover your freedom and become who you are. It can be done.
But that’s another story.
Note: A borderless country is a toothless country. If anyone doubts this just try to enter a country with borders, like China or Israel, and they'll show you their teeth. Enter a country like the USA and their aging patriots will try to gum you alive, while the open borders fanatics will conspicuously shower you with a love they'll shamelessly deny their own families, so as to feed their addiction to mood-altering through self-righteousness. This bizarre and pathetic spectacle might make one reconsider entering the country at all. On the other hand, it might encourage millions of migrants to enter so as to replace the entire host population all together. Which, of course, is the whole point of open borders.
Part III
True, as a political movement Democracy has been reinforced by everything from science, the French Revolution, Romanticism and, of course, the Industrial and Communications Revolution.
We can even extend that list to include capitalism. But, in that case, though the connection is real, it’s not cause and effect.
After all, there were democrats under Feudalism.
So, yes, it’s true it’s been spreading through the West for the last five hundred years. But, in fact, it’s as old as Jesus and Socrates.
Many people, many minds. That’s the basis of Democracy.
But, as we’ve already pointed out, this could go in two directions and, by moving in the direction of Absolute Democracy, begin sooner than later to work against itself and eventually devolve into either Communism or Fascism, or a weird mix of the two as it has now in the United States, and not just the United States.
So, the question becomes, if we are to choose to live in a Free Democracy how do we establish it and then keep it going?
Happily, we’ve already touched on the answer.
And the answer is, that the two most important attributes of a democratic culture are free interaction and common interests.
You can’t sustain a culture without common interests. So, what common interests do we have? And, since you can hardly find that out if you’re not free to interact with each other, how free is the social interaction that takes place within the culture itself?
Unfortunately, free social interaction for the purpose of discovering common interests is not permitted in the United States right now, obviously. When the hostile elite talk about social distancing they mean it. The last thing they want is that the many groups that make up the country unite against them.
As Lenin once said, the best way to control the opposition is to lead it. From that perspective it’s no surprise that only a few years after the financial collapse and the Occupy Wall St. protests Goldman Sachs was contributing to LGBT and BLM, as part of their cynical and opportunistic Divide and Conquer shtick.
Given the way the hostile elite operates it can’t ever permit that the country unify, because it will unite against them, of course!
Note: In 2020 alone we got Covid Lockdowns, George Floyd Riots, Election Fraud, and the government-enforced institutionalization of Critical Race Theory. What's that if not a coup? For proof just consider the fact that the public is prohibited from talking about any of it openly and honestly. And all of this just to protect a hostile banking elite that has already looted the country's treasury.
Comments