Print this post Print this post

The Dog & Pony Show of “Democracy”

Jeff Koons, "Ushering in Banality," 1988

1,480 words

Our age is dominated by self-proclaimed “democratic” elites controlling states that are increasingly self-organizing into a unitary world order likewise styled “democratic.”

But “democracy” in this sense is a meaningless word—a dishonest, self-justificatory label, just as “hate,” “racism,” “anti-Semitism,” and “Holocaust denial” are content-less terms of calumny and abuse.

“Democracy” as commonly used is polemical rather than descriptive.

Words Have Meanings

Maurizio Cattelan, "The First, They Said, Should Be Sweet Like Love, The Second Bitter, Like Life, And The Third Soft, Like Death," 1998

Despite widespread and even official misuse, words still have meanings.

Even when powerful institutions such as the Ministry of Truth proclaim without contradiction or ridicule—indeed, to universal acclamation—that WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, it is not so.

Likewise, anti-democratic elites posturing as democrats do not thereby transform themselves into something they are not.

Democracy is government of the people—the rule of the majority. In the era of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, “democracy” rather than “liberal democracy” was the preferred term, though the variants appear to be interchangeable.

In direct democracy, supreme power is vested in and exercised by the people—the “citizens” of a “state.”

We obviously do not have that. Indeed, the theoretical difficulties posed by such an arrangement in the real world appear insuperable. It is hard to imagine that direct democracy has ever existed outside of books and philosophers’ flights of fancy, despite frequent vague allusions to Greek city-states and New England town meetings.

Representative democracy is a society in which the supreme power is vested in the people, but delegated and exercised indirectly by representatives and officials chosen periodically in free elections. A synonym for this is republic—as in “the American republic.”

Strangely, wordsmiths have tacked a couple of new, incongruous definitions onto “democracy” in the past half-century.

One is equality—political, social, or economic.

But equality and democracy are manifestly not the same. If someone wants to speak of equality they should say equality, not democracy. This is emblematic of the pervasive dishonesty inherent in the use of both words today.

Equality is a separate topic. No one sincerely believes in it or practices it, or indeed could if they wanted to. People are too different. Today’s power elite, despite incessant use of egalitarian rhetoric, is as unremittingly anti-equalitarian as it is anti-democratic.

A final deceitful, highly convoluted, definition of democracy is the following (my comments in brackets): “A state of society characterized by tolerance toward minorities [existing states are anti-white; all non-white “minorities,” especially Jews, are privileged; and whites, whether minority or majority, are discriminated against—there is no “tolerance”], freedom of expression [all states suppress freedom of speech and association], and respect for the dignity and worth of the individual [there is none] with equal opportunity for each to develop freely to his fullest capacity [anti-white discrimination and genocide alone negate this claim].”

Like calling democracy equality, this last definition has a highly artificial, Newspeak ring to it. It forcibly shoehorns in a specific, politically correct racial outlook as a core component of democracy.

Specifically, it asserts that democracy is intrinsically anti-white. Certainly, those who denominate themselves “democrats” today are that. Indeed, such racism is a core tenet of “democratic” faith and ideology, second only to philo-Semitism.

Conventional language manipulation frames politically correct racism of this sort “positively”: pro-non-white rather than anti-white. But its driving force is anti-white, fueled by deep-seated hatred.

Like equality, the second definition has nothing to do with democracy as historically understood, or even with today’s concrete “democratic” practice. But it highlights the centrality of racism to contemporary “democratic” discourse, activism, and policies.

Additional Considerations

Jeff Koons, "Stacked"

A few caveats.

First, when the electorate no longer consists of an organic people, the resulting state cannot be the expression of a true Volksgeist (“spirit of the Volk“). (On Volksgeist see here and here.)

Second, although the dictionary treats representative democracy and republicanism as essentially synonymous, it is more accurate, at least within the Anglo-American (and Montesquieuan) tradition, to highlight the centrality in republicanism (but not democracy) of a division of power designed to forestall one-man dictatorship, mass (legislative) dominance, or control by faction.

For example, individuals such as Cromwell, Napoleon, Mussolini, or Hitler could all (conceivably) be produced by representative democracy, but would be impossible under a properly functioning republican system. But even in the former case meaningful periodic elections would have to continue in order for the state to retain its democratic status.

It is interesting to note in this regard the recurrence within republican theory of the white tendency to “threeness”: Indo-European tripartition (priest-kings, warriors, producers), Christian trinitarianism (Father-Son-Holy Spirit), and, in republicanism, the executive, legislative, and judicial functions.

Third, in white history, the right to vote—to participate actively in either the representative democratic or republican electoral processes—was significantly restricted (property ownership, literacy tests, exclusion of Negroes, women, Amerindians, etc.).

Finally, the supreme importance of freedom of speech and association cannot be overstressed, despite the fact that contemporary “democratic” theory insists upon its suppression.

The rise of the mass media in the early decades of the 20th century, and its monopolization by the Jewish minority, ended democracy in practice. To revive it, the social role of the mass media would have to be radically rethought, and the existing ethnic monopoly ended. By whatever means, the mass media would have to be open to a variety of points of view

Simultaneously, a total prohibition upon the suppression of marginal speech and association by Jewish organizations, post-WW II security agencies, or anyone else would be necessary, creating the possibility for marginal views to attain mainstream acceptance.

Without freedom of speech and association, democracy cannot exist.

What We Have Instead

Jeff Koons, "Balloon Dog"

Since true representative democracy requires freedom of speech and association, and the ability to affect public policy on major issues, it would not racially discriminate against, and continuously disadvantage, indigenous majority populations.

It would not target such populations for genocide, and relentlessly pursue policies to achieve this objective, existing laws be damned (representative democracy and republicanism presuppose adherence to law by those in power).

When George W. Bush demanded that “the voice of the [Iranian] people,” not the Iranian government, “ought to be determining policy, because we believe in democracy,” Patrick Buchanan retorted, “Would Bush himself submit his immigration policy to a popular vote?”

A representative democracy would not selectively deny candidates a voice in the democratic process through strong-arm tactics of every description, up to and including destruction of careers, loss of elections, imprisonment, and the banning of popular political parties.

What are some things that cannot even be publicly discussed in so-called “democracies”?

The topic of immigration may not be democratically debated despite government policies of “replacement migration” and systematic violations of law to achieve it.

Anti-white discrimination, “hate speech” (race-based abrogation of freedom of expression), Jewish power, and an endless variety of other topics are similarly off-limits.

What about Middle East policy? Post-Western elites are, they claim, militarily bringing the blessings of “liberal democracy” to decent, innocent peoples unjustly oppressed by malevolent, anti-democratic rulers.

For example, as I write, the following “news” headlines from major wire services are featured on Yahoo!’s front page:

  • “Israel: Iran closer to bomb”
  • “Obama vows to foil Iran nuke effort”
  • The president says sanctions are having a big impact, but all options remain on the table. Swipe at GOP rivals
  • “Romney: I will stop Iran”
  • “Romney: Iran will obtain nuclear weapon if Obama is re-elected”
  • “Bachmann worries Israel to be target of nuclear war”

The Communist-style cretinism of such “news” items and candidate behavior in light of endless military invasions and intelligence-orchestrated coups in the region requires no comment.

Such mouthings are not the product of a “free press” or of representative democracy. The media’s power to steer, monopolize, and limit public discussion, as well as to control the electoral and policy-making processes, is transparently anti-democratic.

A controlled mass media concentrated in the hands of a wealthy, racist minority with the power to set narrow limits on what constitutes “acceptable” public discourse and indirectly select a homogenous slate of candidates for elective office abrogates the very notion of representative government.

Obama, Romney, Bachmann and the rest are ambitious dogs and ponies in a media-orchestrated show.

Nothing was less democratic than Communism, yet that bloody dictatorship styled itself “people’s democracy,” and was embraced as such by sympathetic, like-minded non-Communist “democrats” abroad.

The fact that democratic rhetoric and forms are employed by such people is irrelevant. Empty words and precepts do not discredit the concept of democracy; they discredit those who wield totalitarian power in its name.

Anti-Democratic “Democrats”

Jeff Koons, "Balloon Rabbit"

Representative democracy may or may not be an appropriate, viable, or desirable form of government. But responsibility for the behavior of existing states and their leaders at home and abroad cannot justly be laid at its door.

The United States, other ex-Western nations, and globalist institutions like the UN are intransigently anti-democratic.

Their “democratic” rhetoric is as empty and hypocritical as their endless drivel about anti-racism, freedom, equality, and human rights.


This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Lew
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    The system we are living under now is a great illustration of the downside of fascism and all centralized, authoritarian, anti-democratic political systems. Under an anti-democratic system, once the people with decision making power start acting against the collective good, there is not a lot that anyone can do about it other than work for revolution.

    • Gunnar Tyrsson
      Posted November 21, 2011 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

      Lew: “The system we are living under now is a great illustration of the downside of fascism and all centralized, authoritarian, anti-democratic political systems.”

      I don’t necessarily have a problem with all centralized, authoritarian, and anti-democratic systems. It really depends on what that system stands for. A modern version of a Traditional society would, of necessity, be somewhat centralized and certainly authoritarian. An organic elite, a true elite based on superior values that serves and protects the folk of the nation will not be an elite based on popular consent, with all of the petty squabbles and special interest groups that this “democracy” seems to endlessly generate. This century will finally see the death of the Enlightenment, and all of its offshoots: Marxism, laissez-faire capitalism, and yes, liberal bourgeois democracy.

      The currents of the coming times will be the renewed call of blood and soil, and an Imperium of the White homelands. Democracy and the American experiment is dead.

      • Lew
        Posted November 22, 2011 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

        I agree in part. A mass egalitarian democracy — a real one as opposed to the phony one we are living under now — would not be my first choice. At the same time though, history clearly shows that White elites can’t be trusted. Because of this, I question the wisdom of giving any group of White elites unchecked authoritarian power. I think the ideal government for a White nation should include representative and Republican features so that problematic elites can be constrained and removed if necessary.

  2. Jim Stark
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    Not a bad article. It brings up a lot of good points and shows the weakness of the Democracy/Republican model.

    There’s no such thing as a “free press.” It always serves the interests of the ruling class and their agenda.

    Democratic/Republican forms of governments are utopian constructs that assume that “the will” of the people can somehow be or should be obeyed. Most people don’t care who their leader is, quite frankly, as long as everything runs fairly smoothly and represents the true interests of people. The people need leaders to show them what their “will” is, not the other way around. That’s how culture develops.

    The author talks in highly theoretical terms about how a Democracy/Republican form of government SHOULD operate. The reality is always far from the practice. I don’t see anything in the article that would actually suggest any kind of solution in a nuts and bolts way. The press is only one facet of the problems we have.

    Democracy/Republicanism is a form of societal denial where people can indulge their fantasies of not having rulers or authorities. Therefore, it’s not based in reality and is dangerous. The people can pretend that they are all as good as each other. That’s a cruel burden to lay on people.

    The author misses one glaring, inherent weakness in Democracy/Republicanism. It is a weak form of government and inevitably devolves into plutocracy, where one faction or factions “run” the whole show. A wise man once said, “There will always be kings, regardless what you call them.” It’s better to have a king you know, than a society run by nameless, faceless, anonymous “businessmen.” In reality, the criminal element takes over and the worst people rise to the top. Ergo, America.

    A strong leader elected by a representative democracy would abolish elections at some point. It would be the only sensible thing to do. Under our present Democracy/Republican form of government, the real issues would never get addressed. Elections are a pretense and have been for awhile. It just doesn’t work in selecting those best to lead. Even with a “free press.”

    It’s better to admit there is an undeniable hierarchy in life and design a government that promotes those most suited for the purpose at hand. But you have to define that purpose. It’s pretty clear today that the purpose should be supporting the white race first.

    In the West, Democracy/Republicanism has been played out. It has shown to have errors and weaknesses. The countries that hold on to it will become weaker. Unfortunately America came of age in Enlightenment thinking and will have big problems shaking off this liberty/freedom/equality past.

  3. Junghans
    Posted November 18, 2011 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

    It’s the best ‘democracy’ that money can buy, and did they ever!

  4. Posted November 19, 2011 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    Thanks Mr Hamilton. Good article.

  5. JJ
    Posted November 20, 2011 at 7:07 am | Permalink

    The media enjoys immense power and zero responsibility. The obvious strong arm of the plutocracy.

    • Junghans
      Posted November 22, 2011 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

      A great statement, JJ, very concise and true.

  6. Lew
    Posted November 23, 2011 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    It occurred to me that with a few modifications Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence provides a pretty persuasive moral justification for White separation. Signing a 21st century Declaration would be a great way for Whites to announce they are withdrawing from the dog and pony show.

    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident empirically demonstrable, that all men races are created equal not equal, that they are endowed by their Creator Nature with certain unalienable collective Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these collective rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism a desire for White genocide, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies White Americans; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain US Government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States the genocide of the White race. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    …list of grievances…

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America White America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good, White People of these Colonies this nation, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies White people are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown US Government, and that all political connection between them White Americans and the State of Great Britain US Government, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace