Democracy, American Empire, Manufacturing Consent, and the Future.
[QUOTE=pdw;65764309]Even if you believe democracy is fake, you don’t think it’s desirable?[/quote]
In a Darwinian world, governments must always pursue their national interests, and the only true national interest is self-preservation. Which in practical terms means power, economic growth(money), self-defense, stability, etc.
It doesn't matter what a government wants to be, it must first survive. For a government, the ideal would be pursuing the national interests with as much support and as little interference from the people as possible. Which means the common people need to believe the right things and do what they're told.
The "national interests" are very analogous to "corporate interests" insofar as Walmart must pursue its corporate interests(not employee interests) or it won't survive. Socialists think corporations should be democratic, whereby Walmart would give regular employees the same voting power as its executives. That is a ridiculously stupid idea. The average employee at 95% of corporations is a moron. The surest way to bankrupt Walmart would be to let its rank-and-file employees make corporate decisions.
Walmart is an oligarchy, and through this oligarchy Walmart can pursue its corporate interests. Real democracy would be fatal to any corporation, just as it would be fatal to any country. So why then does "American" or "Western-style" democracy work?
People complain about money in politics but money in politics is not a bug. It is the only thing that makes democracy work. The "bug" is that people are aware of it. Democracy requires the "manufacturing of consent" through the control of information/perception by gatekeepers. Democracy "works" as long as public opinion is in harmony with the national interests because all governments pursue the national interests regardless of what the common people think. If the discordance between the national interests and public opinion is too great, the government must either do a better job manufacturing consent, or the government must become a despotic state, otherwise it will cease to exist.
Thus the apparent "freedom and democracy" of any country is equal to the effectiveness of its leaders in manufacturing consent. You are only "free" to do "good", and "good" means whatever benefits the state(or doesn't cause problems).
This same dynamic has been true since the beginning of civilization. There has always been a "priest" class whose job was to shape public opinion and to manipulate the common people into obedience. The new "priest" class consists primarily of intellectuals, scientists, and the media. It is their job to tell the common people what to believe and what is true(according to the state). To condition our minds, create consciousness, create values, create perceptions, create reality.
[url]https://gloria.tv/post/8qZ7knguqbzn16okwYeJ42c8h[/url]
So why then does democracy exist? Well, that is simple, because it is powerful(and for no other reason). But if democracy is so powerful, why hasn't it always existed? And why has every previous attempt at democracy ended in failure?
The reason people think democracy is great is because America is rich. If America was poor then democracy would be roundly mocked as the dumbest form of government ever thought up. Thus the key to understanding why democracy has conquered the world is in understanding how America got rich and the role democracy played.
In the first place, America was already rich before it became a "democracy". In fact, American democracy was only slightly more democratic than the British parliamentarian system we separated from. The British system mostly goes back to Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War. The English Civil War pitted what amounts to the manufacturers and the capitalists of the cities against the landowners of the countryside. The English Civil War began the transition of power from the nobles to the capitalists. Which is also why Oliver Cromwell invited the Jews back to England to help build a commercial and banking empire. Ultimately leading to the creation of the Bank of England.
The only reason American democracy "survived" in its early years was because it was essentially protected from foreign influence by 3,000 miles of ocean. The French had secured our independence then almost immediately had their own revolution which kept Europe occupied for the next three decades. With Europe at war with itself, America issued the Monroe Doctrine and continued gobbling up more and more territory. Partly by taking it from its native-inhabitants, and partly by buying it from European countries who were going to lose it anyway. The reason Napoleon sold us Louisiana was because he was losing and wanted to prevent it from going to either Britain or Spain. And the reason Spain sold us Florida was because we had already invaded. Later we took Texas and the American Southwest from Mexico, purchased Alaska from Russia which was about to lose it to the British(and thus would have been part of Canada). We took Hawaii, then crushed the Spanish to take Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines.
What was the role of democracy in all of this? Or I should say, what role did "the people" have in any of this? Nothing. The only benefit of democracy was that it was used as an excuse for expansion and empire(just as it still is). In fact, both northern industrialists and southern planters(IE slave-owners) justified their conquests in the name of freedom and democracy. From Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Jackson to Abraham Lincoln.
Same basic thing happened in the French Revolution as well. The revolution produced neither freedom nor equality, but it did nearly conquer Europe by ideologically appealing to the masses. Creating a kind of crusade to overthrow the governments of Europe, leaving behind a French Empire. Same thing with the Russian(communist) revolution which also produced neither freedom nor equality, but was designed to ideologically appeal to the disaffected masses and to create a crusade that would overthrow the governments of Europe(if not the whole world), leaving behind a vast Russian Empire.
What we call "democracy" is really just American Empire. Without America, democracy could not exist. It is just as much an ideological system designed to conquer the world as France's "liberty, equality, fraternity", or Marxism.
So why has America succeeded where others have failed? Because we have practically controlled the entire Western Hemisphere for the last 200 years. We are the most secure empire in world history, with no rival powers in our hemisphere and 3,000 miles+ of moat between us and our nearest geopolitical competitor, with the ideal geographical location to project naval power into every ocean on the planet. Add to that our massive territory and natural resources, where our naval dominance allows us to control international trade and thus the international currency.
So to your question, what are the benefits of democracy? If the government can effectively manufacture consent, democracy is stable and calm. If the people think they have the power, they don't fight it. There are no rebellions or civil wars. People obey the laws, and those who don't are despised.
But if the government can't manufacture consent, democracy is unstable and divisive. The people resist the government and we are always one emergency/disaster/tragedy away from revolution/civil war. People don't obey the laws, and those who don't are often praised.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=721Ja6aOYSo[/url]
The latter is both produced by and exploited by foreign powers, who use ideology/influence/propaganda to destabilize their geopolitical rivals. Made all the worse under democracy because democracy is naturally divisive, owing to its need to pit half the country against the other, making us hate each other.
Here's the truth, America CANNOT survive China surpassing it economically. If America loses the petrodollar, it is over for America. The only thing that keeps the lid on here is that we're rich. If our economy collapses, if America stops being #1, there will either be a violent revolution that transforms America into a totalitarian state, or America will be fractured into a million pieces.
Democracy can only survive as the dominant economic/military power. The reason our enemies aren't democracies is to protect their sovereignty by keeping out American(corporate) influence. Every democracy other than America exists because America allows it to exist. And we only allow them to exist because they function as American vassals. We would turn on them, we would destroy their infrastructure, we would bankrupt them, the moment they oppose us. America is the most ruthless empire in world history.
As for whether dictatorships are worse than democracies; it is stupid question because all governments are oligarchies. Dictators/Kings/Emperors/Presidents/etc are all just heads of state. A King never has absolute power even if he claims to. He would be deposed/murdered in a heartbeat if he opposed his nobles. All the rest of these people are just heads of political parties. And all governments become more authoritarian as they become more unstable. A perfectly stable government would be visibly libertarian, regardless of its form.
Lastly, heaven is not a democracy. And it wouldn't be heaven if it was. Democracy is in reality an awful form of government that is incredibly divisive, manipulative, which psychologically involves everyone in something they don't actually have any control over to give the appearance of legitimacy to a government that is hated by the majority, and which creates policies that are opposed by almost everyone(or should be if they weren't forced onto political teams where they feel compelled to support policies they never otherwise would).
With that said, arguing about whether democracy is good or bad is largely a waste of time. Either a democracy(America) is powerful(rich), or it isn't. Same thing is true about slavery, Marxism, and everything else. If slavery had been economically-superior to wage labor, slavery would still exist. If the Soviet Union was richer than America, it would have won the Cold War. Had Nazi Germany defeated the Soviet Union and taken control of its vast resources, causing America to face Germany in the Cold War instead, America would have lost the Cold War because the German system was economically and militarily superior. Fascism will defeat free-market capitalism every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
If America was the only country on the entire planet(meaning no fear of foreign influence or war), would democracy then be the best form of government? Absolutely not, and by no measure could it be. It would be better to have no government at all than be ruled by a mob of morons. In the absence of all other considerations, a technocracy would be infinitely superior to democracy. Even plutocracy(what we have now) would be preferable to democracy. I would even place theocracy, monarchy, and stratocracy above democracy.
PS: None of this should be interpreted as a defense of Russia or China or anyone else. I hate those countries even more than I hate America. Moreover, America's involvement in this war is not to defend democracy. It is to defend American empire. And since there can be no democracy without American empire, then a weakening of American Empire is necessarily a weakening of democracy, regardless of whether Ukraine is itself a democracy(it isn't).
[quote][I]"It is true that the masses have always been led in one way or another, and it could be said that their part in history consists primarily in allowing themselves to be led, since they represent a predominantly passive element, a 'matter' in the Aristotelian sense of the word; But, to lead them today, it is sufficient to dispose of purely material means, and this shows clearly to what depths the present age has sunk. At the same time the masses are made to believe that they are not being led, but that they are acting spontaneously and governing themselves, and the fact that they believe this is a sign from which the extent of their stupidity may be inferred." - René Guénon
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society... In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind." - Edward Bernays
"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights." - Albert Einstein[/I][/quote]
In a Darwinian world, governments must always pursue their national interests, and the only true national interest is self-preservation. Which in practical terms means power, economic growth(money), self-defense, stability, etc.
It doesn't matter what a government wants to be, it must first survive. For a government, the ideal would be pursuing the national interests with as much support and as little interference from the people as possible. Which means the common people need to believe the right things and do what they're told.
The "national interests" are very analogous to "corporate interests" insofar as Walmart must pursue its corporate interests(not employee interests) or it won't survive. Socialists think corporations should be democratic, whereby Walmart would give regular employees the same voting power as its executives. That is a ridiculously stupid idea. The average employee at 95% of corporations is a moron. The surest way to bankrupt Walmart would be to let its rank-and-file employees make corporate decisions.
Walmart is an oligarchy, and through this oligarchy Walmart can pursue its corporate interests. Real democracy would be fatal to any corporation, just as it would be fatal to any country. So why then does "American" or "Western-style" democracy work?
People complain about money in politics but money in politics is not a bug. It is the only thing that makes democracy work. The "bug" is that people are aware of it. Democracy requires the "manufacturing of consent" through the control of information/perception by gatekeepers. Democracy "works" as long as public opinion is in harmony with the national interests because all governments pursue the national interests regardless of what the common people think. If the discordance between the national interests and public opinion is too great, the government must either do a better job manufacturing consent, or the government must become a despotic state, otherwise it will cease to exist.
Thus the apparent "freedom and democracy" of any country is equal to the effectiveness of its leaders in manufacturing consent. You are only "free" to do "good", and "good" means whatever benefits the state(or doesn't cause problems).
This same dynamic has been true since the beginning of civilization. There has always been a "priest" class whose job was to shape public opinion and to manipulate the common people into obedience. The new "priest" class consists primarily of intellectuals, scientists, and the media. It is their job to tell the common people what to believe and what is true(according to the state). To condition our minds, create consciousness, create values, create perceptions, create reality.
[url]https://gloria.tv/post/8qZ7knguqbzn16okwYeJ42c8h[/url]
So why then does democracy exist? Well, that is simple, because it is powerful(and for no other reason). But if democracy is so powerful, why hasn't it always existed? And why has every previous attempt at democracy ended in failure?
The reason people think democracy is great is because America is rich. If America was poor then democracy would be roundly mocked as the dumbest form of government ever thought up. Thus the key to understanding why democracy has conquered the world is in understanding how America got rich and the role democracy played.
In the first place, America was already rich before it became a "democracy". In fact, American democracy was only slightly more democratic than the British parliamentarian system we separated from. The British system mostly goes back to Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War. The English Civil War pitted what amounts to the manufacturers and the capitalists of the cities against the landowners of the countryside. The English Civil War began the transition of power from the nobles to the capitalists. Which is also why Oliver Cromwell invited the Jews back to England to help build a commercial and banking empire. Ultimately leading to the creation of the Bank of England.
The only reason American democracy "survived" in its early years was because it was essentially protected from foreign influence by 3,000 miles of ocean. The French had secured our independence then almost immediately had their own revolution which kept Europe occupied for the next three decades. With Europe at war with itself, America issued the Monroe Doctrine and continued gobbling up more and more territory. Partly by taking it from its native-inhabitants, and partly by buying it from European countries who were going to lose it anyway. The reason Napoleon sold us Louisiana was because he was losing and wanted to prevent it from going to either Britain or Spain. And the reason Spain sold us Florida was because we had already invaded. Later we took Texas and the American Southwest from Mexico, purchased Alaska from Russia which was about to lose it to the British(and thus would have been part of Canada). We took Hawaii, then crushed the Spanish to take Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines.
What was the role of democracy in all of this? Or I should say, what role did "the people" have in any of this? Nothing. The only benefit of democracy was that it was used as an excuse for expansion and empire(just as it still is). In fact, both northern industrialists and southern planters(IE slave-owners) justified their conquests in the name of freedom and democracy. From Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Jackson to Abraham Lincoln.
Same basic thing happened in the French Revolution as well. The revolution produced neither freedom nor equality, but it did nearly conquer Europe by ideologically appealing to the masses. Creating a kind of crusade to overthrow the governments of Europe, leaving behind a French Empire. Same thing with the Russian(communist) revolution which also produced neither freedom nor equality, but was designed to ideologically appeal to the disaffected masses and to create a crusade that would overthrow the governments of Europe(if not the whole world), leaving behind a vast Russian Empire.
What we call "democracy" is really just American Empire. Without America, democracy could not exist. It is just as much an ideological system designed to conquer the world as France's "liberty, equality, fraternity", or Marxism.
So why has America succeeded where others have failed? Because we have practically controlled the entire Western Hemisphere for the last 200 years. We are the most secure empire in world history, with no rival powers in our hemisphere and 3,000 miles+ of moat between us and our nearest geopolitical competitor, with the ideal geographical location to project naval power into every ocean on the planet. Add to that our massive territory and natural resources, where our naval dominance allows us to control international trade and thus the international currency.
So to your question, what are the benefits of democracy? If the government can effectively manufacture consent, democracy is stable and calm. If the people think they have the power, they don't fight it. There are no rebellions or civil wars. People obey the laws, and those who don't are despised.
But if the government can't manufacture consent, democracy is unstable and divisive. The people resist the government and we are always one emergency/disaster/tragedy away from revolution/civil war. People don't obey the laws, and those who don't are often praised.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=721Ja6aOYSo[/url]
The latter is both produced by and exploited by foreign powers, who use ideology/influence/propaganda to destabilize their geopolitical rivals. Made all the worse under democracy because democracy is naturally divisive, owing to its need to pit half the country against the other, making us hate each other.
Here's the truth, America CANNOT survive China surpassing it economically. If America loses the petrodollar, it is over for America. The only thing that keeps the lid on here is that we're rich. If our economy collapses, if America stops being #1, there will either be a violent revolution that transforms America into a totalitarian state, or America will be fractured into a million pieces.
Democracy can only survive as the dominant economic/military power. The reason our enemies aren't democracies is to protect their sovereignty by keeping out American(corporate) influence. Every democracy other than America exists because America allows it to exist. And we only allow them to exist because they function as American vassals. We would turn on them, we would destroy their infrastructure, we would bankrupt them, the moment they oppose us. America is the most ruthless empire in world history.
As for whether dictatorships are worse than democracies; it is stupid question because all governments are oligarchies. Dictators/Kings/Emperors/Presidents/etc are all just heads of state. A King never has absolute power even if he claims to. He would be deposed/murdered in a heartbeat if he opposed his nobles. All the rest of these people are just heads of political parties. And all governments become more authoritarian as they become more unstable. A perfectly stable government would be visibly libertarian, regardless of its form.
Lastly, heaven is not a democracy. And it wouldn't be heaven if it was. Democracy is in reality an awful form of government that is incredibly divisive, manipulative, which psychologically involves everyone in something they don't actually have any control over to give the appearance of legitimacy to a government that is hated by the majority, and which creates policies that are opposed by almost everyone(or should be if they weren't forced onto political teams where they feel compelled to support policies they never otherwise would).
With that said, arguing about whether democracy is good or bad is largely a waste of time. Either a democracy(America) is powerful(rich), or it isn't. Same thing is true about slavery, Marxism, and everything else. If slavery had been economically-superior to wage labor, slavery would still exist. If the Soviet Union was richer than America, it would have won the Cold War. Had Nazi Germany defeated the Soviet Union and taken control of its vast resources, causing America to face Germany in the Cold War instead, America would have lost the Cold War because the German system was economically and militarily superior. Fascism will defeat free-market capitalism every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
If America was the only country on the entire planet(meaning no fear of foreign influence or war), would democracy then be the best form of government? Absolutely not, and by no measure could it be. It would be better to have no government at all than be ruled by a mob of morons. In the absence of all other considerations, a technocracy would be infinitely superior to democracy. Even plutocracy(what we have now) would be preferable to democracy. I would even place theocracy, monarchy, and stratocracy above democracy.
PS: None of this should be interpreted as a defense of Russia or China or anyone else. I hate those countries even more than I hate America. Moreover, America's involvement in this war is not to defend democracy. It is to defend American empire. And since there can be no democracy without American empire, then a weakening of American Empire is necessarily a weakening of democracy, regardless of whether Ukraine is itself a democracy(it isn't).
[quote][I]"It is true that the masses have always been led in one way or another, and it could be said that their part in history consists primarily in allowing themselves to be led, since they represent a predominantly passive element, a 'matter' in the Aristotelian sense of the word; But, to lead them today, it is sufficient to dispose of purely material means, and this shows clearly to what depths the present age has sunk. At the same time the masses are made to believe that they are not being led, but that they are acting spontaneously and governing themselves, and the fact that they believe this is a sign from which the extent of their stupidity may be inferred." - René Guénon
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society... In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind." - Edward Bernays
"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights." - Albert Einstein[/I][/quote]
Total Comments 0
