People tend to think that the term “democracy” means “people voting for things.”
In fact, in common usage, it doesn’t mean that. It means following a specific set of values, laid down by the elite. These values are often shifting, but they generally have to do with female dominance of society, racial mixing, and homosexuality. It also references a very specific economic order, based on public-private partnerships paid for through taxation, and a system of international banks interlocking with multinational corporations to squelch independent enterprise.
Following this, when they use the word “freedom,” they are referring to “democracy.”
It becomes a totally confusing mess, where no one understands what is actually being discussed. I think it is generally accepted that “freedom” is a good thing. However, what is freedom?
We have recently been told that India is not free, because they voted for a populist leader. We are also told that we are free, despite the fact we are locked in our houses and the government is now directly dictating all of our actions to us.
Belarus is one of the few countries that has refused to do a lockdown. In the middle of the lockdown last year, we were told that Belarus was not free, because they didn’t have enough democracy. However, they were allowed to open their businesses, to gather together in public, to go to church. That is to say: by any objective measure, when NATO countries were trying to overthrow the government of Belarus last year, they were attacking a country that was much more free than their own countries.
Whenever they talk about this democracy-freedom nonsense, you have to ask the key question:
What do people want to do that they are not allowed to do?
That is the bottom line here. All of the rest of this stuff ultimately amounts to gibberish that is not connected to “lived experience,” i.e., real life.
It needs to be noted that people’s freedom to do something is very often connected to taking away someone else’s freedom.
- If: A homosexual has the freedom to dance around naked in the street
- Then: A heterosexual father does not have the freedom to take his child outside and be assured he will not see a naked dancing homosexual
In that example, current democracy values dictate that it is more important for the homosexual to have the freedom to dance naked in the street than for the father to protect his children from seeing naked men. However, this dictate is based on nothing.
- How does a homosexual feel when he knows he will be arrested if he dances naked in the street?
- How does a heterosexual feel when his son is exposed to a naked homosexual man?
Obviously, it’s impossible to quantify emotional states.
When you remove the moral barriers to homosexuality, you would then have to quantify it thusly:
- The joy the homosexual gets from dancing naked in public is proportional to the imposition a heterosexual gets seeing the homosexual dancing naked
- Does allowing homosexuals to dance naked through the streets liberate more people than it imposes on?
Because homosexuals are relatively few, obviously more people are imposed upon than are liberated.
We can also consider the feminist freedom of “no fault” divorce:
- Q: Do women get more joy from destroying families than the suffering they cause on their husbands and children?
- A: Joy and suffering are not quantifiable, but there are more husbands and children than there are women
The same “freedom test” can be applied to the media claiming there is no freedom of speech in China, because you are not allowed to criticize the government – while our internet is totally censored, and people are banned from public speaking if they support Donald Trump.
This relates to the economic system associated with democracy. They claim that because their private monopolies are in charge of censorship, instead of the government directly, that it is not actually censorship.
But we ask:
- Where are more people feeling as though they cannot say what they want to say: China or America?
Obviously, there are more people in America that support Donald Trump than there are people in China that are against the government. Therefore, China has more freedom of speech than America.
So, then there is the bottom line:
Does democracy increase general freedom?
The answer, obviously, is “no.”
However, the root problem is the arbitrary nature of democracy values:
- “Homosexuality, feminism and mass immigration are more important than a stable social order” – why?
- “Monopolistic corporations dominating the economy is better than free enterprise or communism” – why?
These are just totally random, baseless assertions. There is no underlying value system or philosophy of democracy. Democracy serves as a placeholder for not having a value system.
The word is intentionally vague, meaning that people put their own values onto it. You’ll find that both right and left are calling for “democracy.”
- Why is democracy better than Buddhist or Islamic theocracy, a defined system of order?
- Why is democracy better than Stalinist communism, a defined system of order?
- Why is democracy better than Hitlerian fascism, a defined system of order?
It is specifically better for our ruling class because there is no defined system of order.
It is so shapeless that you can say it’s morally wrong for police to arrest people for rioting and burning down cities, and also that it is morally right to send in the military to fight internet conspiracy theories.
Everything these people that run our countries say amounts to a lot of gibberish designed to cover up basic corruption.
All of this leads to the final question:
- Is this current system of disorder sustainable?
Obviously, it isn’t.
And obviously, the people running the show understand that.
It is intended to collapse in on itself, and be replaced with something else.
The coronavirus hoax is the collapse. You are bearing witness to late stage democracy, and you are beginning to see a new order rising from the chaos.