[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 976 KB, 1266x719, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
13659049 No.13659049 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What are some anti democracy books

>> No.13659056

The wisdom of the crowd

>> No.13659061

In reality your vote is meaningless. Political power is being able to influence others, writers, businessmen and political candidates have way more power than the average pleb.

>> No.13659062

The reality is that the guy on the left of your pic probably doesn't vote and he could have at least intuitively a better understanding of the word than the one on the right.

>> No.13659075

President via divine right when?

>> No.13659088

That’s not true, it’s just that democracy degenerates over time. It requires specific parameters to be healthy, and we have been reducing them (like a large middle class) and increasing the ability to vote at the same time which only made those parameters more demanding. This attempt is most certainly scrapped.

>> No.13659101

>Political power is being able to influence others
Pleb's aren't influenced by rational dialogue and policy-based campaigns. It's been studied that people vote not on policy but on a vague sense of traditional allegiance to whichever party they're voting for. You think the blacks came out to vote for Obama because of his economic and foreign affairs policies? You think the hicks and rednecks came out to vote for Trump because they believe in Republican tax policies? You think Gazzer from down't pub who hangs EDL flags from his window and votes UKIP actually knows what the fuck he is voting for?

Democracy is flawed because it gives the retard plebs the same political power as the professors, economists, analysts, philosophers, mathematicians, and scholars. Demagoguery is a necessary practice for all politicians who wish to succeed, because they have to appeal to retards. If we implemented a system where people have to take an exam of some sort before being eligible to vote, and the people who score higher have votes that count for more than those who scored lower, maybe politicians would have to change their strategy from sensationalist rhetoric to actual reasonable policy.

Of course this would be a disaster for most people on here because this website is far-right and if people were given votes by merit no right wing party would ever be elected again.

>> No.13659110


You started off good then fell out of a helicopter onto the spire of any ivory tower

>> No.13659124

>Of course this would be a disaster for most people on here because this website is far-right and if people were given votes by merit no right wing party would ever be elected again.
What is with this disconnect that lefties have? They can be the majority and the minority, the successful and the oppressed, all depending on what suits their needs in that particular moment. Is the reality that they are overwhelmingly the poor and stupid just too harsh too bear?

>> No.13659163

Read the fucking republic pleb

>> No.13659180

>Demagoguery is a necessary practice for all politicians who wish to succeed
true and that is a problem, but still one individual vote doesn't matter. In a democracy people de facto have different levels of power, even if that power often comes from unethical means.

>> No.13659238
File: 84 KB, 572x590, No thank you, no founding fathers or enlightment bullshit for me..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Whenever I ascend to, and assume its office (estimation, 20 years). Thereafter, I shall abolish congress, all courts, the constitution, the sum total of the fifty states and their respective legislatures and replace them with a hierarchical structure based on intelligence and virtue, modeled after Plato's Republic.

>> No.13659246

Terrible meme. The man on the right can seek office and have more power than the loser on the left.

>> No.13659254

Democracy is the same thing as divine right.

>> No.13659257

The leader should be elected by merit, i.e. video game competition (mental prowess competition).

>> No.13659260

And he will be hated by the masses because he preaches the truth, whereas the scum conforms to it and indeed is a product of it.

>> No.13659266
File: 5 KB, 211x239, wow good insight.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Democracy is the same thing as divine right.

>> No.13659271

The women vote based on who would make a good husband, and the men on who would make a good neighbour.

>> No.13659293

The bible

>> No.13659316
File: 92 KB, 800x800, 1566140388891.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>And he will be hated by the masses because he preaches the truth, whereas the scum conforms to it and indeed is a product of it.
Wow, you're so enlightened.

>> No.13659338

Against Democracy by Brennan and Democracy Hoppe are the big ones. Against argues more for an epistocracy or a more limited franchise but the critiques against democracy itself are very thorough. Hoppe argues for a sort of libertarian monarchy or the private ownership of government because he doesn't see any better alternative. Another good one in the same vein as Brennans book is the Myth of the Rational Voter.

>> No.13659351

The idea that democracy gives political power to the masses is as sordid as the idea that porn gives sex to the masses.

>> No.13659362
File: 72 KB, 1024x510, 1527000795310.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Predictable response from the NuRight.
More accurately, it is the extension of Divine Right to each individual, the abstract reigning figure, as well as an act of abstention and absolvement. Hence the generalised lunacy as democracy begins to degrade.
But feel free to debate me and prove me wrong.

>Divine right formalises the monarchist structure and allows it to become rigidly hereditary. Legal divinity takes the place of legitimate divinity, as ancient monarchies had the right - or, more appropriately, duty - to slay a demon who appeared on the throne as a form of divinity. A false spirit threatened the entire city or nation, and a law of divinity would be seen as the very same thing. Essentially it would mean that a demonic throne remained sacred.

>Liberalism functions in a similar way, a synthesis or formalisation of succession. Succession itself becomes the divine transfer of authority, and is in a sense even more absolute as it institutes into law a king who cannot be killed. A headless king. Only the head of the Leviathan has true absoluteness.

>That is only one similarity. There is also the historical connection in that liberalism develops as an enclave of absolute monarchism. Monarchism proved to be incapable of maintaining its growing borders and wealth, in particular the expansion of the new world. In many ways liberalism is just a development of monarchist efficiency - a necessity of the system's growing size and mobility, thus extending its power to the sovereignty of each individual.

>> No.13659368

Panderers get office, professors and their journalists actually control what happens through driving public opinion, and most importantly, no one is responsible for the results.

>> No.13659373

It gives and it takes away
"By the ears and the eyes and the brain,
By the limbs and the hands and the wings,
We are slaves to our masters the guns;
But their slaves are the masters of kings!"

>> No.13659389
File: 880 KB, 1390x1975, Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>VVhy, yes, mye fellowe man, I uerily do belieuee that Monarchie and the Constitvtional Righte of Kings shall henceforthe remedee all thate whiche whomst'd've bvried our Great Nation's traditiones without proper rites and successiue processe.

>> No.13659395


>> No.13659420
File: 46 KB, 850x400, quote-it-is-a-far-greater-happiness-to-obey-no-one-than-to-rule-the-whole-world-christina-126-27-32.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

And a good reference:
>Historical accounts of Christina include regular reference to her physical features, mannerisms and style of dress. Christina was known to have a bent back, a deformed chest, and irregular shoulders. Some historians have speculated that references to her physical attributes may be over-represented in related historiography, thus giving the impression that this was of greater interest to her contemporaries than was actually the case.[154] However, given how influential Christina became in her own era (especially for those in Rome), it is likely her style and mannerisms were at least of general interest to those around her, and this is reflected in many accounts.[93][154] As a result of conflicting and unreliable accounts (some no better than gossip), the way in which Christina is described, even today, is a matter of debate.[136]

>According to Christina's autobiography, the midwives at her birth first believed her to be a boy because she was "completely hairy and had a coarse and strong voice". Such ambiguity did not end with her birth; Christina made cryptic statements about her "constitution" and body throughout her life. Christina also believed a wet-nurse had carelessly dropped her to the floor when she was a baby. A shoulder bone broke, leaving one shoulder higher than the other for the rest of her life.[note 19] A number of her contemporaries made reference to the differing height of her shoulders.

>> No.13659430
File: 3.32 MB, 900x3000, 4880CA9C-C259-4328-ABC3-33913E23DEB0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The Will to Power by Nietzsche is pretty much the foundation of modern anti-democracy

>> No.13659440

Yet modernism's natural form is democracy. So Nietzsche cannot provide an escape. There are more similarities than there are differences.

>> No.13659500

How did they degenerate in the first place if democracy is so good then

>> No.13659526

Criticism of Democracy is itself redundant because we don't live in a Democracy nor could we ever create a Democracy (let alone one that would be desireable). The only criticism worth making is descriptive of Democracy as being inherently Plutocratic and pointing out that there will always be a sovereign for reason going all the way down to the structure of our language.

>> No.13659532
File: 14 KB, 300x400, asselerationism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It seems that the largest framework of dialectical conflict that emerges in the modern fringe political/ideological circles is the one of accelerating technocapital and deterritorialized Luciferan transhumanism versus counter-capitalist eudaimonic decceleration based in redemption, and often characterized by a return to pro-nature/ecological state of being (often anti-futuristic, but not necessarily) and creation of an associated Platonic-Helegian complex (be it Vedic neopaganism, Christian Distributism, or even some form of Venus project ecotopia).

The working class, we, the people, HAVE NO CHOICE ABOUT CAPITALISM. WE ARE THE GODDAMN PEASANTS OF THE PAST WE LAUGH AT. We already live in The Dark Enlightenment, with the modbugs Cathedral in the West crowning the oligarchs.

The technological process cannot be stopped by democracy, it disappeared at some point after the Second World War. The only solution I SEE is to turn the diagram unnaturally a "xeno grey hat cracking" if you wish, in the most ethereal sense of the concept.

Democracy can and must be exercised through the market.

>> No.13659536


>> No.13659537

>r-real democracy has never been tried guize

>> No.13659538

He is 100% correct. The "will of the people" is entirely a mythological concept tanamount to believing in "collective subconscious". It completely abstracts from real human social heirarchy. There is absolutely nothing you can point to that is or even is affected by the will of the people.

>> No.13659541
File: 31 KB, 311x322, 1565289168346.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

And let me guess, you fancy yourself as the type of guy on the right?

>> No.13659549

The Art of the Deal :^)

>> No.13659558

Criticism of Democracy is itself redundant because we don't live in a Democracy nor could we ever create a Democracy (let alone one that would be desireable). The only criticism worth making is descriptive of Democracy as being inherently Plutocratic and pointing out that there will always be a sovereign for reason going all the way down to the structure of our language.

>> No.13659572

I fancy myself as the guy on the left, which is why I don't vote and think democracy is fucking dumb.

>> No.13659576

This would probably be the exact opposite of my own argument.
But what would you say is occurring if the will of the people is not dominant or even involved? And if mythologizing is out of the question, what is the form of the humanist worldview which opposes democracy?

>> No.13659591

Democracy and libertarianism is based and should be the standard among any society of intelligent people. The only case where authoritarianism is acceptable is if the society is filled with subhumans who are incapable of self-governing. In this case, the authoritarian government should euthanize all of the subhumans, leaving only the intelligent and responsible citizens, and reinstating democracy.

>> No.13659606

How come democracies always end up enacting retarded policies then

>> No.13659617

Because those societies are filled with retarded subhumans who fall victim to Bernays style propaganda. I never claimed that a society filled entirely with intelligent people has ever existed.

>> No.13659654

"Against Democracy" (2016) by Jason Brennan
dude is a libertarian apologist for capitalist evil but his argument for Government by Simulated Oracle is sound and dare I say based and he contends seriously with the demographic bias argument

>> No.13659665

If we look at Feudalism, the system operated on a basis of conquering leaders being granted the new land (see Magyars in Hungary, conquest of Ireland). The transition then into the Industrial Revolution is that the factory owners, Railways Magnates or Bankers would possess the greatest amount of power moving into the democratic revolutions of the 19th century. Of course when we look at parliaments or congress, those that have the most money have greater sway over congress. These NGO that weild this power gain their staffers and intellectuals from the universities and are then investing in the media who promote their causes. What we see then is an incestual reletionship between these 3 organs of power. The public concerns are shaped largely by the universities and the media who can direct attention towards different things that are interesting to the NGOs.
It may be a hard pill to swallow, but take the Civil Rights Movement. It is funded largely by the same millionaires that fund the media, who broadcast things such as the police attacking the protestors in Selma. Whether or not the CRM was just or not is irrelevant- the point is that had the moneyed people not wanted the media or universities directing attention towards this cause, it wouldn't happen.
In regards to what is the optimal system, I couldn't say. Personally I think we need honesty on who it is that really runs the governments of the world (Koch brothers are two billionaires with enormous power, for example, in the US Congress), what organs of power are involved and how the mechanism of power operates.

>> No.13659668
File: 110 KB, 750x750, trickle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

M-GAtards first into the gene incinerators.

>> No.13659682

This. Eugenics is the only way forward.

>> No.13659689

If you engage on any meaningful level with Marxist authors, you will see that even if they are not openly against democracy a la Marx or Lenin, they view the road to gaining power as not being through proselytising the masses but through gaining control of the culture in the case of Gramsci. Also, earlier writers of Liberalism were not in favour of Democracy (Rousseau, Burke etc.).

>> No.13659692
File: 22 KB, 480x270, 6311BB57-51D9-4085-9AA5-2F755E1A23FF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>modernism's natural form is democracy
That’s ego. The republic established less than 300 hundred years ago is already falling apart. So much for the “natural” form of democracy.

The fundamental mistake made by those who choose weak methods of control is to assume that the abscence of control is left to the individual, when in fact it is left to other conditions.

>> No.13659695

>Government by Simulated Oracle
There's nothing sound about it. There's no comparison between an oracle and general consensus. They are opposed completely, with an oracle requiring sacred hierarchy and a nobility of solitary life in total opposition to individualism.

>> No.13659698

There is not a single point of disagreement between your social views and that of the typical billionaire if you are a liberal or a "social democrat".

>> No.13659727

Yes, glownigs are the ubermensch. Yet, there is a general belief and a formal functioning of democracy remains.
And unfortunately the state of the board probably couldn't cope with anything more in-depth than what I posted, so it has to be leveled somewhat for any discussion to go on.

However, modernity itself is a mode of revolution, or political apostasy. So your argument doesn't contradict what I said. Even Nietzsche's Strong Man can be seen as clearing the territory for democracy/a new order of liberalism.

>> No.13659742
File: 85 KB, 960x960, need them.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

There is. But how different are Trumptard views from neoliberals?

>> No.13659753

t. lib
Your link argues my case for me.

>> No.13659758

The power of democracy is that you need to convince people to vote with you, and it’s like a perpetual revolution

>> No.13659770
File: 1.09 MB, 3013x1481, 8BFAA2F5-FA8A-4287-8B95-6DC2D01EA2B8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Even Nietzsche's Strong Man can be seen as clearing the territory for democracy/a new order of liberalism
That’s because all of those foundations presuppose that man is an autonomous unit.

Liberalism holds the idea of “free will” as it’s core foundation. Of which that foundation is built a completely false set of ideals which in wake of our highly complex and technological has allowed for the mass manipulation of the world. Of course, this manipulation and misconception has been in existence forever, but is only until recently that the false god of "free will" has been able to wreck such havoc on society and civilization at large.

We now need to update our political theories accordingly with this more pure interpretation of man’s nature. Otherwise we will continue to doom ourselves to failure in an ever more complex and technological world.

>> No.13659784

You need to go back.

>> No.13659800

>ever more complex and technological world
I used this phrase twice in one comment, excuse the hangover posting

>> No.13659801

What is the source (or your argument) for free will being the foundation?

>> No.13659875

Really, all ideologies heretofore have presupposed that man is an autonomous unit, who makes rational decisions through free will, and that manipulation of the mind from outside sources is downplayed at all costs. Other than calvinism, who has legitimately led their political belief with humans being non-autonomous?

This isn’t a debate on democracy and authoritarian, both of those still assume man is autonomous. Authoritarian believes autonomous man needs to be controlled, and democracy believes autonomous man needs to be free.

>> No.13660007

If this was never said by IJR, it should have been.

>> No.13660014

Aristotles' Politics.
Hobbes' Leviathan.
Talmon's The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy.
Ortega y Gasset's Revolt of the Masses.
Anything by Nietzsche.

>> No.13660044

>professors, economists, analysts, philosophers, mathematicians, and scholars.
all but a few of the philosophers and most of the mathematicians would be hanged in a just world so fuck that shit too

>> No.13660046
File: 406 KB, 500x334, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

anything by Slavoj Zizek
>The more we live as 'free individuals' . . . the more we are effectively non-free, caught within the existing frame of possibilities--we have to be impelled or disturbed into freedom. . . . This paradox thoroughly pervades the form of subjectivity that characterizes 'permissive' liberal society. Since permissiveness and free choice are elevated into a supreme value, social control and domination can no longer appear as infringing on subjects' freedom: they have to appear as (and be sustained by) individuals experiencing themselves as free. There is a multitude of forms of this appearing of un-freedom in the guise of its opposite: in being deprived of universal healthcare, we are told that we are being given a new freedom of choice (to choose our healthcare provider); when we can no longer rely on long-term employment and are compelled to search for a new precarious job every couple of years, we are told that we are being given the opportunity to reinvent ourselves and discover our creative potential; when we have to pay for the education of our children, we are told that we are now able to become 'entrepreneurs of the self," acting like a capitalist freely choosing how to invest the resources he possesses (or has borrowed). In education, health, travel . . . we are constantly bombarded by imposed 'free choices'; forced to make decisions for which we are mostly not qualified (or do not possess enough information), we increasingly experience our freedom as a burden that causes unbearable anxiety.

>> No.13660506
File: 261 KB, 1200x750, DAfIyl5XoAAmTC3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Democracy is a system that allows the Masters all the power with none of the accountability because the Slaves are actually under the impression they control their own destiny.

>> No.13660524


>> No.13660546

You will need a bit more work if you want to argue that leaders in democratic states are on average less accountable than leaders in any other kind of states.
You should at least look at the various incarnations of democracy throughout history, look at something so apparently superficial as the difference between 4th and 5th Republic in France.
Also Guénon is meming a bit here, the idea that democracies aren't "really democratic" is one of the most tired tropes in common discourse. Literally nobody ignores that the people don"t really rule in modern democracy.

>> No.13661304


>> No.13661337

>literally nobody ignores
Except 99% of people including academics

>> No.13661344

You clearly never had a conversation on politics with an European or almost any middle-class American. "Ours is not a real democracy" was already a cliché when I was in highschool.

>> No.13662324
File: 70 KB, 960x685, HoppeDoItForHim.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Hoppe and Carl Schmitt

>> No.13662355

The average person doesn't care about the truth, such as the fact that they are average.

>> No.13662407
File: 147 KB, 768x768, EED3819E54014F47B36F33A7F953508C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>the average opinion of plebs is divine right
Unless you mean having a bunch of money and therefore influence gives you divine right. Then let me laugh even harder

>> No.13662537
File: 208 KB, 1280x798, CnsGAeDVMAABPw6.jpg large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Liberalism and democracy were the zeitgeist of the 20th century. Now they are crumbling, but what will replace them? Authoritarian kings need religion to justify their positions, and overt absolute dictatorships have been tried and failed. Caesarism will replace democracy.

>> No.13662559

Guenon was writing at a far different time than today. Obviously it is common to say such things today. However, you underestimate the naivete of his time.

>> No.13662572

Implying Socrates or any classical philosopher knew better than the average Joe on mundane things

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.