Democracy: Beginning of the end?
(blogs.mediapart.fr)
Comments (9)
sorted by:
He’s a communist and talking about how to retain communist control, though. Democracy is literally communism and always has been. All the people in charge when it started being pushed publicly spoke out against it as such.
Tolerance is a sin. Start off intolerant and you won’t have to compromise on your core philosophical beliefs merely to retain political power.
Have there ever been any democratic communist regimes? Places like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea don't count, of course.
Democracy is what communists use to destroy traditional power bases in a country in order to institute the chaos they need to obtain single-party power. Democracy is intrinsically oligarchy because the vast majority of people are neurologically incapable of having the responsibility of voting. They thus vote exactly how their masters tell them to vote. When the master is the television, that’s everyone, everywhere, all at once voting the way that one person tells them to.
Once communists get a majority in the legislature (or executive), they simply make their opposition illegal and instantly take over.
You know, like in the US 60 years ago.
I thought they generally came to power through violent revolutions.
Which can’t happen without a reduction in power of the traditional ruling class, otherwise “the white man ascendant” of myth would simply kill them all outright.
-ist (ones consent to a suggested -ism) contradicts ex (out of)...the latter implies expression; the former implies repression. Few suggest existentialism to establish this contradiction within consenting many.
Sleight of hand: "express yourself; don't repress yourself...and I'm not sorry...it's human nature". https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/madonna/humannature.html
Consenting to any suggestion makes the battle (reason) inevitable, because ones consent invites the suggestions of another into ones mind/memory, which establishes a void.
Aka turning towards (to face) dragging on (dragon), which implies carrying suggested information towards outcome, while facing away from perceivable origin.
Why is a dragon sitting on a treasure? Because dragging on suggested information implies the hoarding of valuables within memory. The one trying to inspire others to let go of what they "drag-on" implies a knight (servant) in shining (light-bearer) armor (choice to resist) trying to slay the drag-on by beating held on beliefs with endless blows of contradiction.
A sword implies a thrust (inception towards death) weapon (choice) of offense/defense (balance) with an edge (knowledge).
You cannot call yourself tolerant when your entire religion hinges on "if you disagree with me I am straight-up Killing you."
Free Western Society died in the hands of Jewish civilization since the fall of Rome.
Momentum implies the beginning (inception) and end (death) of matter (life)...if one ignores this process of setting apart, then one permits few power (cracy) over many (demo).
a) Ones consent to suggested pluralism (we) implies a contraction, which ignores singular (one) extension.
b) Extend aka ex (out) tendere (to stretch)...only within ongoing (inception towards death) can one temporary (life) stretch outwards.
c) Unlimited whole (motion) sets limited partials (matter) free to choose how to respond.
To tolerate; verb - "allow without interference"...being implies interference within all, hence each ones FREE will of choice interfering within the DOM-inance of balance.
Nature allows one to be free.
A parasitic few suggests an ignorant many to interfere with each others free will of choice within conflicts of reason (allow vs deny)...while ignoring natural balance for artificial imbalance.
Society/socius/sekw - "to follow" attacks resistance (life) within velocity (inception towards death) by lowering defense.
Ones consent to suggested socialism (society) and communism (community) attacks ones defenses. Aggregation makes many weaker than few, because among many...each one can shirk response-ability onto another, while doing jack shit about few.
Only during destruction (inception towards death) can a willing being (life) build growth...
The suggested rhetoric "will be destroyed" tempts a being to willingly focus on the suggested destruction of self, which in return prevents building.