Democracy, a tyranny in disguise
In this article, I wanted to undress and expose the most seductive of the sirens of our time, as captivating as she is deadly, as well-crafted as she is unjust: Democracy.
“Democracy is the most seductive and deadly of sirens.”
Alexis LSK
During his trip to America, the French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville (born in 1805) visited many places on the young, newly independent American continent.
He observed the beginnings of modern democracy and, like a keen observer, drew up a brilliant synthesis. He even succeeded in observing the beginnings of the drifts and long-term effects of this type of regime, thus predicting the future of the West for centuries to come.
He brings together all his work in his book “On Democracy in America” which is considered one of the greatest works of political philosophy, studied in the greatest schools and universities in the world.
200 years on, reading this visionary's work is bloodcurdling.
It describes with a terrifying level of detail and precision all the faults and vices of our current society.
He had foreseen everything that was going to happen.
And I make it my duty in this article to be the humble conveyor of his message.
Alexis de Tocqueville understood two fundamental things that still seem to be misunderstood by the majority of people in Western countries today, yet which seem obvious once we ask the right questions.
These two fundamental discoveries are that:
- Democracy is inevitable
- Democracy always turns into tyranny
Democracy has the particularity of having required so much struggle, so much bloodshed, so many debates, fights, heroic or revolutionary acts, that now it's embarrassing, disturbing, almost shameful, to realize that in the end it's not the “best system” as we've been led to believe.
But just like a bad acquisition that would have required too much effort, it's a matter of pride, ego and credibility to admit it. As if admitting it were an admission of defeat. And like a lost person who has wandered too far down the wrong road, it becomes far too costly and difficult to admit we've made a mistake and turn back.
And yet, that's what I'm going to ask you to do with me in this analysis..
Democracy places materialism as the one and only meaning of life
The first problem that Tocqueville will be saddened by, is that democracy automatically places materialism as the absolute indicator of everything: personal and professional success, the quality of an idea, a work and even the price of a life.
The first flaw of democracy is that it places all individuals on an equal footing.
It puts a delinquent or a simple worker on the same level as a doctor or an economist, on any issue.
This has two primary effects:
- Cancel out any willingness or merit linked to effort, work and study (what's the point of 8 years of study to judge a medical question, for example, if the first plumber to come along is going to have an opinion of the same value?)
- Putting in the hands of completely ignorant people very serious issues that require a high level of understanding, knowledge and skill
By completely ignoring the skills and legitimacy of each individual, it will put the first ignorant person to come along and an expert who has dedicated 30 years of his life to the subject, without distinction, on the same level by voting on an issue.
Their votes will have the same value, even though their level of expertise on the subject is profoundly imbalanced.
Which is an aberration.
Telle une course, de cette position de départ, se dégage au final un seul et unique but: s’enrichir.
Currency and money therefore automatically become the marker, the gauge by which everything is judged.
As a result, everything will become exchangeable, monetizable and subject to a desire for profitability.
Worse still, the value of anything will no longer be judged by its intrinsic quality, but by its pecuniary value.
The author shows us that in a democracy, for example, a book that doesn't sell is automatically presumed to be bad.
But you don't need to be a graduate of Saint-Cyr to know that the opposite is generally true.
So-called “popular” books are generally quite mediocre, whereas the most sophisticated books, which require a very high level of understanding, are by their very nature destined for a very small elite capable of achieving this level.
The number of sales is therefore not at all synonymous with quality, as it confuses quality with quantity.
Modern fast-fashion and fast-food, among others, have demonstrated this.
Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's the best choice.
This system condemns the most beautiful and accomplished creations to simply fade away into indifference if they don't appeal to the masses.
This simple observation, which may seem trivial at first glance, is in reality dramatic on a large scale, because it creates a mentality that no longer seeks excellence at all but only profitability.
We no longer seek to push our art or craftsmanship to the highest possible level, but on the contrary, to always simplify things, in order to sell to as many people as possible.
Democracy therefore intrinsically leads to a leveling down.
This is the reason why the republic seeks, by definition, to continually stupefy its voters. Because a lack of education automatically leads to a move away from conservatism.
But this is only the first level of observation.
The second is even more dramatic.
Democracy creates eternal consumers.
Because when the whole of society is managed and revolves around money, then the main and only objective that will occupy the entire existence of individuals will be money.
To survive in this world, the individual is therefore forced to submit to the eternal vicious circle of: you must work to get rich > get rich to consume > consume to exist.
Democracy always becomes demagoguery
But democracy doesn't just make money the all-powerful god, it also automatically puts power in the hands of the richest.
The election therefore serves to elect the most powerful and not the most just, the most altruistic or the most competent.
Worse still, democracy allows the wealthiest to lie, seduce and even corrupt voters in order to monopolize power.
The powerful therefore enter into an equally stupid vicious circle, where democracy pushes them to enrich themselves, and to enrich themselves they wish to gain power and once in power they do not seek to exercise it for the common good but only to get re-elected in order to continue enriching themselves.
Socrates, in his time, understood this very well. His idea can be summarized in the following example:
Imagine an election between two candidates, one a confectionery salesman and the other a doctor.
The former might flatter himself that he sells only pleasant and delightful things to his audience, and might accuse his rival of offering only disgusting medicines, vile remedies and painful operations.
The doctor wouldn't be able to answer with anything so seductive, and his only argument would be that all this suffering would only be there to help them.
Who do you think an audience steeped in the money mentality and materialism I described earlier would vote for?
As you can imagine, the masses, especially if they are ignorant or ill-informed, will always vote for the demagogue.
Like children, voters will always vote for the most attractive person and never for the one who wants the best for them, because democracy is programmed to elect the one who sells best and not the one who is right.
And the charade goes on and on, as each newcomer, generation after generation, wants to make his or her own fortune and take a slice of the cake.
The tyranny of the majority
Most people think of tyranny and democracy as opposites.
Alexis de Tocqueville shows us that this is a mistake: in reality, democracy is a new form of tyranny.
Why is that? Well, it's quite simple when you think about it.
Democracy is based on a presumption that is false.
This presupposition is that the majority will necessarily make the best choice.
Yet it's absurd to believe such a thing. Just because a large number of people have an opinion doesn't necessarily mean it's the best one.
If this logic had been applied from time immemorial, then we'd still believe that the earth is flat, because at the time the vast majority were against the idea that the earth is round.
Let's take a concrete example: you get 10 people to vote on a decision concerning a highly technical surgical issue. These 10 people don't know each other.
Of these 10 people, 9 are average workers: drivers, hairdressers, bricklayers, etc...
And 1 is a competent surgeon who is the only one who knows how to operate.
If they were to vote between decision A, which would be the right one (but not a seller), and decision B, which would be the wrong one (but attractive and easy), that would be 9 votes for B and only 1 vote for A.
The surgeon will be suffocated and always outnumbered.
This phenomenon is called the tyranny of the majority.
Democracy assumes that the majority is necessarily right.
The majority can quickly turn into a tyrannical, ignorant monster.
Socrates (again) gave an even more striking example.
Imagine society as a ship.
Who would you put at the helm of this ship? The majority? Or the small sailing elite?
Well, democracy will always elect the majority.
See how ridiculous it is?
Do you realize that this system is applied everywhere today in our modern democracies, for all matters put to the vote, whether through direct suffrage or representative election.
And then everyone is surprised to see that our countries are heading for disaster?
Democracy, since the French Revolution, has done nothing but condemn the country for the last 200 years or so, but nobody seems to make the connection...
It puts people who are very mediocre on certain issues on an equal footing with highly qualified people.
It presupposes that all opinions are equal, regardless of whether you've studied the subject for 20 years or are illiterate.
And by default, as each human being can only specialize in one area during their lifetime, we automatically obtain a mechanism that means that specialized and competent voters find themselves ALWAYS in the minority.
This tyranny of the majority simply imposes the wrong choices, vote after vote.
No wonder our societies are sinking ever deeper into decadence.
It's not surprising either that the powerful are delighted with this situation, because demagogues only create problems, then present themselves as the solutions to the problems they themselves have created, thus creating an infinite loop.
Democracy is anti-freedom
Alexis de Tocqueville's most terrible discovery was when he realized that democracy did not encourage freedom of thought, but on the contrary, only served to reduce its citizens' critical faculties and capacity for reflection.
Bathed in the illusion that democracy is just and good, citizens no longer seek to reflect and delegate the responsibility of critical thinking to others.
These citizens no longer form an opinion for themselves, but only through the opinions of others, newspapers and the media.
Worse still, in a society ruled by materialism and money, it's not in every citizen's interest to express his opinions to his neighbors.
After all, why take the risk of confronting your ideas with others, if they are potential customers?
In a world governed by the pursuit of enrichment, a political opinion will always be erased if there's something to sell behind it...
This vicious mechanism takes effect not just in the voters, but also in those in power.
In a democracy, conflicts of interest automatically arise.
Because yes, when a powerful man is elected and the people ask him to pass a law against one of his main economic allies, who do you think the powerful man is going to side with?
To the people or to their ally?
The most blatant example of this is that today - and you may have witnessed this yourself, or even been a victim of it - the majority of people don't dare speak out on certain subjects, for fear of losing their jobs or being socially ostracized, which in today's world quite simply means economic death, or even death altogether for the most precarious.
It's also not uncommon these days for people to receive death threats for taking a stand.
“The republic governs badly but defends itself well.“
Anatole France
So there you have it.
The more you think and the more you express your critical faculties, the more you jeopardize your life.
This freedom of thought is gradually being stifled, like a muscle that atrophies as it is used less and less.
And yet, isn't this “freedom of thought” the most vital, the most crucial, because it is the source of all other freedoms? How can you decide anything if you yourself are not master of your brain and your thoughts?
And besides, even if you're one of the few who realize this and decide to think more deeply... what's next? Vote?
Remember, your vote will be drowned out by the majority.
The worst part of all this is that Tocqueville also understood that democracy, in the long run, always focuses more and more on equality and not on freedom. He would use as a title in one of his major sections: “Why democratic peoples show a more ardent and lasting love for equality than for freedom.”
Democracy therefore intrinsically leads to egalitarianism... which is the backbone of leftism, as my friend from the Ego Non channel explains so well.
The famous motto of the French Republic: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” is therefore an oxymoron.
You can't have freedom and equality at the same time - the two are mutually exclusive.
How can we claim to want freedom, when at the same time we cut off the heads that stick out and the wings of the first person who wishes to emancipate himself, for the sake of equality?
In this situation, freedom is just an illusion.
Liberty and equality are incompatible - worse, they're opposites. Therein lies the lie of democracy, presenting itself as the regime of freedom par excellence, when in reality it is its greatest enemy.
This is what he himself will say when he announces: “Democratic peoples have an ardent, insatiable, eternal, invincible passion for equality; they want equality in freedom, and if they cannot obtain it, they still want it in slavery. They will suffer poverty, enslavement, barbarism, but they will not suffer aristocracy.”
You should be alarmed by this result. Isn't it the opposite of the so-called democracy you've been sold?
In reality, and now you know it my friend, it is on the contrary, its purest fruit.
Once we've reached this point, then, it would take monumental courage worthy of Ulysses to be able to do violence to ourselves in order not to succumb to its songs and facilities, if we don't want our civilization to be slowly murdered from within by the siren that is democracy.
At this point, we have no choice but to face up to the siren song with iron discipline...
or perish.
0 Comments