DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: True Left vs False Left
*****************************************************
#Post#: 23939--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Democracy
DIR By: GermanicDemocracy?
Date: November 21, 2023, 2:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Does western democracy mostly derive from Germanic people
instead of the Greeks?
>
> I was reading about Charlemagne‘s forced conversion of Saxons
and supposedly one of the reason the Saxons (mostly the lower
classes) resisted conversion so strongly is because they didn’t
want their political and democratic rights stripped from them.
>
> Obviously one of the most democratic countries in Europe has
been England who derive from the Saxons. I’m just wondering if
Athenian democracy is overstated in comparison to the Germanic
influence on western democracy.
>
> [Response:]
>
> --
> While it is true, that tribal societies usually have a more
democratic structure than 18th century absolutist monarchies or
modern dictatorships, I wouldn't go so far as to claim that this
Germanic tribal society has had much influence on modern
democracy. The no-source-text clearly gives us certain keywords
that make it clear that this is not a democratic society
described here: Nobleman. Castes. Leaders.
> The Noblemen were basically early Monarchs. It isn't described
how the assembly was put together, but I think it's fair to
assume that it wasn't be a general election that would hold up
to modern democratic standards. Germanic tribes had
pre-Monarchy-structures and over time, Germanic states became
Monarchies in the early Middle Ages.
>
> The conflict between Charlemagne and the Saxons was complex
(Saxon Wars - Wikipedia), but it wouldn't be correct to put that
down to democratic structures. While the Saxons and Charlemagne
are both considered "Germanic", one shouldn't underestimate the
regional "proto-patriotism" of Germanic tribes. Charlemagne was
basically a foreign invader who wanted to conquer Saxonian
lands, establish himself as ruler and change Saxonian culture
and religion. Those are enough reasons for any culture of any
kind to defend itself fiercely without even discussing how much
democracy one might have under foreign rule established by
war...
> --
>
> A lot of western democracy is derived from the Germanic legal
tradition. The thing to look at is how the Middle Ages dealt
with parsing the competing legal traditions of Roman Law,
Canonic Law, and Germanic tribal law – there's a reason
Medievalists dubbed the 13th c. "The Century of the Lawyer".
> --
>
> I think there are really two different strands of ideas which
modern Western political systems have been influenced by, to
varying degrees depending on country and circumstances.
>
> 1) The Enlightenment, through the French (and to a lesser
degree in Europe post 1945, American revolutions)
>
> 2) Feudalism, in the broadest possible sense.
>
> To the degree that a state’s politics is the product of ”1)”,
the Greeks and Romans may be more influential than the Germanic
peoples - although filtered through the really very Christian
and very nerdy Enlightenment.
>
> To the degree that a state’s political institutions is not of
Enlightenment origin, it is basically all Germanic. Every modrn
country in Europe that has some tradition of political
representation which goes back longer than the French
revolution, be it Sweden, The UK, Switzerland or w/e is of
Germanic origin.
>
> All Feudal institutions are (or were?), more or less, Germanic
in the broad sense, in the way that the basic power structure of
nobles who are freed from taxation and are a military class is
more Germanic than Greco-Roman. The entire tri-partite division
of medieval society probably is more similar to how
pre-Christian Germanic societies were organized than the late
Roman state (but this is not the same as saying it is 100% a
direct product, of course there was cross-pollination etc).
>
> In the most direct sense, the nobility in most of Europe West
of Poland, even in places like Italy and Spain, is
disproportionately of Germanic descent, if you look at the
genaeology. Since for a lot of the middle ages the nobility were
in many ways synonymous with the most free part of the
population, and as everybody knows the nobility had a conception
of themselves which was quite familial, separate from the
commoners…well… the argument is self-explanatory…
>
> Historically it is not entirely as clear cut: I think I
mentioned the Italian citystates. Well, we also have things like
Novgorod, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Gallo-Roman
nobility in Provence before the crusades there (ai’ve heard, I
am no expert)…
>
> So there have certainly been other kinds of political freedom,
with a flavour from other European ethno-cultural groups, but
the Germanic strand seems to be the only ones who have survived
to the present day in some form in some places as a real
separate influence from the Enlightenment.
>
> Whether this is the product of chance or greater resilience is
an open question: I think both, but that is just my gut.
Germanic Europe was just not so civilized, and property -holding
was comparatively egalitarian with down south, for a very long
time. It makes sense that people who marinate in this cultural
substrate for centuries (or millennia?) develop a more
egalitarian attitude toward politics than peoples with a more
mixed experience, including living under the bureaucratic and
incredibly hierarchical collossus which was the late Roman
Empire.
> --
--- End Quote ---
HTML https://historum.com/t/does-western-democracy-mostly-derive-from-germanic-people-instead-of-the-greeks.190206/
Noteworthy in regards to the above questions and responses, and
timely considering western civilization and current
geopolitics?:
--- Quote ---
> ...
> There is one important difference between the past Reich and
the present Reich’s policies. The old Empire granted freedom to
its people and showed strength to the outside world, while the
new Republic displays weakness in foreign affairs and suppresses
its citizens at home. In both cases, we can see cause and
effect. The powerful national state does not need excessive
domestic laws since its citizens love it and are attached to it.
The state that is a slave to international interests must resort
to compulsory force in order to make its subjects perform the
services it demands. Therefore, it is one of the greatest crimes
of the
> new Republic to dare and speak of “free citizens”. This could
only be said in the old Germany. The present Republic is a
slave-colony for the benefit of foreign countries. It has no
citizens, but, at best, subjects. For that very reason it does
not have a national flag, but only a trademark introduced and
guarded by official decrees and regulations. This symbol is the
Gessler’s hat of German democracy and it will always remain
alien to the heart of our people. (Gessler’s hat is a reference
to the story of William Tell. Gessler was the local ruler who
put his hat on a pole and demanded the citizens bow to it when
they passed. William Tell did not bow and was arrested. It is
also a play on the name because Gessler is the name of Otto
Gessler, the Minister of the Reichswehr.) This new Republic has
thrown the symbols of the past into the gutter, without any
respect for tradition and greatness, but the day will come when
the new Republic is astonished to find that its subjects were
only play-acting and honored its own symbols superficially for
they meant nothing to the people. The Republic has made itself
nothing more than an intermission; it will be a short,
unimportant part in German history.
>
> In order to save itself, this new Republic must constantly
restrict more and more the sovereign rights of the individual
states, not only for financial reasons, but also to maintain
control. Since it drains the last drop of our citizens’ blood
through its tactics of financial extortion, it must also take
away every last one of their rights unless it is prepared to
watch as someday general discontent turns into open revolution.
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pg. 387. Ford translation....
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 24174--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Democracy
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: November 28, 2023, 1:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Western Liberalism enhancing Colonialism
--- Quote ---
> By the end of the nineteenth century, a large portion of the
globe was controlled by European nations committed to some form
of liberal democracy at home. Their colonial possessions did not
have legislatures or other democratic political structures for
the most part, and few of their people had the right to vote or
any ability to choose their rulers. In contrast, in the
metropoles that controlled these colonies the principle of
popular sovereignty was gradually becoming the norm, as was the
idea that all adult men should have the right to vote. Moreover,
nations like France and Britain that had made the most progress
in developing liberal democracy at home had also created the
largest overseas empires. The fact that metropole and empire
were usually legally distinct served to mask the fact that they
nonetheless constituted whole political units internally
segregated by race. Within them, liberal democracy was largely
for whites, while nonwhites were subject to authoritarian
imperial rule.
>
> ...
>
>
> In both the British and French empires, somewhat like in the
United States, voting practices varied widely according to
local traditions and legal customs. Often, however, whites
could vote and “natives” could not, or if the latter could in
some cases vote, their votes would not translate into any
meaningful political power or self-rule. Electoral rights varied
widely across the British Empire, but in most of its colonies
the 156 Chapter 4 local privileges around racial distinctions
meant that inhabitants could not vote, and frequently within the
colonies the British designed electoral privileges around racial
distinctions.76 Many colonies, like Britain itself, based
suffrage rights upon property, and that fact alone usually
prevented most of the indigenous, non-white population from
voting. In India, for example, only a tiny percentage of adult
males could vote until after World War I.77 In Jamaica, while
Black and colored men could vote in the nineteenth century,
property qualifications—especially for those who wanted to run
for office—were high enough to keep a white oligarchy firmly in
the saddle. As historian Thomas Holt has commented, “If, all
things being equal, Black men should rule the island, then all
things could not be equal.”78
>
> The racialized character of British imperial electoral
democracy was most evident in the white settler colonies.
Democracy was often much more advanced there than in the mother
country; for example, New Zealand was one of the first modern
nations to give women the vote. This liberality usually did not
extend to indigenous or nonwhite populations. In Canada before
1867, British male subjects could vote, but not Catholics, Jews,
or indigenous peoples. In both Australia and New Zealand,
formal as well as informal restrictions kept most members of the
indigenous populations away from the polls. Interestingly, South
Africa represented one of the few cases where colonial Africans
could vote in large numbers, a major factor in prompting white
South Africans to seek independence. To an important extent,
Britain’s white colonies gave their white subjects all the
rights of freeborn Englishmen, and in a colonial situation this
traditional sense of rights increasingly translated into the
right to vote.79
>
> Although the French Empire was in general more centralized
than that of the British, it also practiced various approaches
to native enfranchisement. When the French abolished slavery in
their Caribbean and Indian Ocean colonies in 1848, they made the
former slaves citizens of France and gave the men of the “old
colonies” the right to vote on an equal footing with French men
in the metropole. That at least was the theory; the reality on
the ground in Martinique, Guadeloupe, Réunion, and French
Guiana was very different. The old colonies remained colonies,
even though their inhabitants were citizens, a fact that
circumscribed their political autonomy vis-à-vis France.
Moreover, the white planters and former slaveholders continued
to dominate the local economies, essentially based in the
production of sugar. French ex-slaves could in fact vote, but
their ability to do so did little to improve their conditions in
the years after the abolition of slavery.80
>
> Most of the inhabitants of the rest of the French Empire were
subjects and therefore had no right to vote. It was possible for
natives to become citizens by attaining the status of évolués,
“evolved individuals,” by giving proof of assimilation into
French culture and law.81 Since this meant not only obtaining
French education in colonies with few schools but also
renouncing other legal traditions, notably Islamic, it was a
path open to and taken by only a few individuals.82 In colonial
Algeria, for example, the number of “evolved ones” amounted to
only a few thousand out of several million people.83 This
practice not only benefited few people but also reinforced the
idea that freedom was a European idea reserved for white
Europeans.84
--- End Quote ---
Source :
White Freedom The Racial History of an Idea Tyler Edward Stovall
2021 Princeton University Press page 170, 171, 172
#Post#: 24200--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Democracy
DIR By: democracy
Date: November 28, 2023, 10:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The events in Europe shows that in times of crisis under the
rule of democracy, the far right is more easily able to assert
itself.
#Post#: 24218--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Revisionism of WWI and WWII
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: November 29, 2023, 4:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Japanese's Worldview during World War II
--- Quote ---
> Fighting both fascism and Western racism during World War II
was also a key issue for the colonial subjects of European
empires. This was especially true of those in Asia, confronted
by the threat (or reality) of Japanese invasion and occupation.
More than in the case of the Allied struggles against Nazi
Germany and Vichy in North Africa, Imperial Japan’s approach to
the war made this a very complex question. On the one hand,
Japan’s war effort, especially against China, was motivated by
its own racial prejudices. Japanese troops frequently looked
down on the Chinese as dogs, and such attitudes helped
facilitate widespread massacres against the civilian
population.188 On the other hand, the Japanese portrayed the war
in the Pacific as a pan-Asian campaign against Western
imperialism and their conquest of colonies like the Dutch East
Indies and the Philippines as wars of liberation. Japan
certainly had its own colonies, notably Korea and Taiwan, but it
nonetheless saw itself as a force for Asian racial deliverance
and freedom. During the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 Japan had
supported a resolution for racial equality that was defeated by
the Western powers, and many Japanese saw the Pacific war as
merely a new phase in this struggle for racial equality.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
White Freedom The Racial History of an Idea Tyler Edward Stovall
2021 Princeton University Press page 257, 258
#Post#: 24233--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Democracy
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: November 29, 2023, 9:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Discriminative and Eurocentrist attitude in China came from the
Democratic Chinese
--- Quote ---
> The Goddess of Democracy, along with the destruction of the
Berlin Wall, became one of the most prominent symbols of the
global movement for liberal democracy and freedom in the late
twentieth century. Like the Statue of Liberty itself, the
Goddess also had an important racial dimension. The whiteness of
the statue—not just the white color of the papier-mâché but more
significantly the prominent European features of its
face—contrasted sharply with the typical Communist statuary in
China, including in Tiananmen Square itself. More generally, the
pro-democracy movement in China began with a wave of racist
attacks against African students. Prejudice against Africans was
nothing new in China, where many saw African students as unduly
privileged (a criticism made much less often of other foreign
students). In December 1988, a series of attacks and
demonstrations against Africans broke out in several cities,
most notably in Nanjing but also Hangzhou, Wuhan, and
Beijing.110 Resentment over African men dating Chinese women
often provoked clashes, but many Chinese students also attacked
the regime for importing and protecting the Africans. As Barry
Sautman has noted, “Student ‘democrats’ did attach slogans about
human rights and freedom to anti-Black exhortations and thus
used the events to advance their own agenda by claiming that the
regime failed to protect the rights of Chinese against the
alleged depredations of Africans.”111 In China, as in other
parts of the world, desire for freedom and racial prejudice were
strange but close bedfellows. The Goddess of Democracy
symbolized not just liberty but white freedom as well.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
White Freedom The Racial History of an Idea Tyler Edward Stovall
2021 Princeton University Press page 109
#Post#: 24415--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Democracy
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: December 12, 2023, 10:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: antihellenistic link ---
>
> Democracy cannot work properly on people with low intelligence
and low ability to sustain their economy
>
> [quote]Prof. Vanhanen proposes that high IQ per se is
necessary for democracy because “people in countries with low
national IQs are not as able to organize themselves, to take
part in national politics, and to defend their rights against
those in power as people in countries with higher national IQs”
(p.270). The peoples of low-IQ countries may want democracy, but
they cannot establish and maintain it.
>
> ...
>
> Prof. Vanhanen concludes otherwise: A high average, rather
than a tight distribution of IQs is what creates the middle
class. More intelligent people are better able to defend and
further their interests and to acquire education, which prevents
the concentration of power resources. This distribution of
political power supports the emergence of market economies,
which help distribute power resources more widely. Standard
deviation in IQ is probably similar for most countries, but
those with high averages are more equal and more democratic.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
Who is Capable of Democracy? Posted on August 22, 2020
HTML https://www.amren.com/news/2020/08/who-is-capable-of-democracy/
[/quote]
Continuing
--- Quote ---
> According to my theoretical argumentation, this relationship
is causal. Important power resources tend to become more widely
distributed in countries for which national IQ is high than in
countries for which national IQ is low. Intelligence is a factor
which increases the ability of people to invent new things and
technologies, to produce more effectively, to work in different
trades, and to establish organizations to further their various
interests.
>
> ...
>
> Nearly all components of the IPR (Index of Power Resources)
are more strongly correlated with national IQ than with MT (Mean
Temperature). The highest correlation is between national IQ and
tertiary and the weakest correlation between national IQ and FF,
National IQ explains 59 percent of the variation in tertiary,
but only 8 percent of the variation in FF. IR is much more
strongly correlated with national IQ (0.818) than ER (0.562).
>
> ...
>
> The IPR (Index of Power Resources) is assumed to be a crucial
intervening variable in the hypothesized relationship between
mean temperature and ID. Therefore it is important to explore to
what extent the variation in the IPR is due to the variation in
national IQ and mean temperature. The results of correlation
analysis support the assumption that a substantial part of the
variation in resource distribution (IPR) can be traced via
differences in the average mental abilities of populations
(national IQ) to differences in climatic conditions (MT).
Because the IPR explains nearly 70 percent of the variation in
the degree of democratization (ID) in this group of 172
countries, the results support the argument that a significant
part of the variation in ID can be traced to differences in mean
temperature via intervening variables.
>
> ...
>
> The results of this multiple regression analysis indicate that
national IQ does not explain anything of the variation in
ID-2006 that is independent from the impact of the IPR. The
coefficient of national IQ is not statistically significant. The
impact of national IQ (Intelligence Quotient) on ID-2006
(Democracy Index) seems to be completely mediated by IPR. The
multiple correlation 0.815 is practically the same as the simple
correlation between IPR and ID-2006 (0.813). Although the
correlation between national IQ and ID-2006 is 0.575, the impact
of national IQ on ID is insignificantly independent from the IPR
functions as an intervening mechanism in the hypothesized causal
connection between national IQ and ID. MT and national IQ do not
increase the explained part of variation in ID-2006
independently from the IPR, but are both needed to explain
variation in the IPR? The multiple regression analysis in which
MT and national IQ are used as independent variables and the IPR
as the dependent variable answers this question (Table 3.8).
>
> ...
>
> The definition of the four variables intended to measure
annual mean temperature, differences in the average intelligence
of nations, the
> distribution of intellectual and economic power resources, and
the level Variables 41 of democratization makes it possible to
transform the original hypotheses formulated in Chapter 1 into
testable research hypotheses.
>
> 1. The higher the annual mean temperature (MT), the more the
> values of national IQ, IPR, and the index of democratization
> (ID) tend to decrease.
>
> 2. The higher the national IQ, the more the degree of resource
> distribution (the IPR and the mean) and the level of
democratization
> (ID) tend to rise.
>
> 3. The higher the degree of resource distribution (IPR), the
more
> the level of democratization (ID) tends to rise.
>
> ...
>
> The average level and quality of democracy rose systematically
with the level of national IQ in all cases, and thus the results
support the basic argument on the constraining power of national
IQ. The quality of democracy tends to rise with the level of
national IQ no matter which indicator is used to measure the
quality of democracy. However, it was also noted that many
countries deviate significantly from the average pattern at all
levels of national IQ.
>
> Finally, in Chapters 9-17, descriptive country reviews were
used to Ilustrate the variation in the level and quality of
democracy between the seven national IQ categories. The nature
of each country’s political system was described briefly from
the perspective of democratic governance. Country reviews show
great differences in the level and quality of democracy between
the countries of the two lowest and two highest national IQ
categories. Political systems tend to be less democratic and
more violent and corrupted at low levels of national IQ than at
high levels. Similar systematic differences emerge in political
rights and liberties, the rule of law, and the security of
people between the low and high levels of national IQ, but
country reviews also show that many countries deviate more or
less from these average patterns. This implies that there is
room for human choices and that the quality of democratic
governance is not strictly tied to the average intelligence of
the population.
>
> ...
>
> Political systems adapt to environmental constraints in the
continual process of natural selection in politics, and this
process of adaptation produces different institutional
arrangements and behavior patterns. People in countries with low
national IQs are not as able to organize themselves, to take
part in national politics, and to defend their interests and
rights against those in power as people in countries with higher
national IQs. This difference is reflected in the quality of
democracy.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
The Limits of Democratization: Climate, Intelligence, and
Resource Distribution by Tatu Vanhanen page 45, 47, 51, 53, 54,
55, 56, 260, 270
#Post#: 24416--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Democracy
DIR By: antihellenistic
Date: December 12, 2023, 10:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Democracy cannot work on multi-ethnic and "low intelligence"
society
For example :
Uganda
--- Quote ---
> Uganda provides an example of a restricted democracy in an
ethnically very heterogeneous country. The largest tribal group,
the Baganda, does not comprise more than 17 percent of the
population. Because of the fierce tribal competition, it was not
possible to stabilize democratic institutions and a party system
adapted to tribal divisions during the first decades of
independence. Finally, Yoweri Museveni’s National Resistance
Movement routed other military forces in 1986 and restored peace
based on the hegemony of his military and political movement
(cf. Kokole and Mazrui 1988). In 1996, Museveni legalized his
power position through a competitive presidential election, and
in the 2001 presidential election Uganda crossed the threshold
of democracy. Political parties were still banned, but
presidential elections were competitive. This kind of restricted
democracy might be better adapted to some African countries than
a full democracy allowing party competition along ethnic lines.
However, Uganda’s system may be less stable than Botswana’s
dominant party system for the reason that Uganda’s system is
crucially- based on Museveni’s personality. By a referendum in
2005, the establishment of political parties became legal, and a
multiparty system emerged in Uganda (see Banks et al. 2007, pp.
1272-1276).
--- End Quote ---
Senegal
--- Quote ---
> Senegal provides an example of a successful path to
democratization through a dominant party system. The Socialist
Party established by Leopold Senghor ruled without opposition
until the 1978 elections when some opposition parties were
allowed to take part in elections (cf. Coulon 1988). Since the
1993 election, Senegal was only slightly below the participation
threshold of democracy, and finally in the 2000 presidential
election the opposition’s candidate won the presidency. The fact
that the largest tribe (Wolof) comprises nearly half of the
population supported the survival of the dominant party system,
but ultimately it was not enough to stabilize it. Ghana and
Nigeria are examples of countries in which it has been very
difficult to adapt political institutions and party systems to
the requirements of the ethnic heterogeneity of their
populations (cf. Chazan 1988; Diamond 1988).
>
> From the perspective of democracy, a parliamentary system of
government and a multiparty system adapted to the ethnic
divisions of the population might be best suited to the plural
societies of sub-Saharan Africa, but in practice these
institutions may not function as expected. The experience shows
that African ethnic parties have quite often been unable to
agree on the democratic sharing of power and on the basic rules
of the game in democratic politics. Disagreements have led to
violent clashes and breakdowns of democratic institutions. It is
worthwhile to experiment with fully democratic political
institutions, but if they repeatedly fail in practice, it might
be useful to consider how to establish a less democratic but
more functional political system. Perhaps it would be possible
to establish a political system that combines dominance by one
group and some kind of representation of various tribal and
regional interest groups. From the perspective of such a
compromise, a strong presidency based on the support of the
dominant ethnic or regional group, on the support of a dominant
party, or on the support of the military might be a more
practicable governmental system than a fully parliamentary
system presupposing cooperation between ethnically based
parties. Political rights and civil liberties would be more
restricted in such dominance systems than in full democracies,
but they might be able to guarantee civil peace and legal order.
--- End Quote ---
Source :
The Limits of Democratization: Climate, Intelligence, and
Resource Distribution by Tatu Vanhanen page 264, 265, 266
HTML https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71tNWW237mL._SL1374_.jpg
Therefore Hitler's governmental system were proper for
multi-ethnic and "low-intelligence" society. And if sun
environment "lowering intelligence" and "decrease democracy",
then Hitler were man of the sun, not man of the cold-climate
#Post#: 24417--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Democracy
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: December 12, 2023, 11:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Democracy cannot work properly on people with low intelligence"
But what does "work properly" actually mean? When the majority
votes to prohibit immigration (e.g. Denmark), that is democracy
working properly (as Aristotle intended). So do we want a
democracy that works properly or a democracy that doesn't work
properly? I want the latter.
You yourself posted:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/demographic-blueshift/msg21417/#msg21417
--- Quote ---
>
HTML https://64.media.tumblr.com/46490063d4b7d85d7f18eecd1d681c0e/ef518d77278aa371-d3/s640x960/a3b79aacba281da1619842b7f0b7d5a3aa6d680e.jpg
--- End Quote ---
Which one shows democracy working properly? Which one shows
democracy not working properly? Which one do we want?
"Hitler's governmental system were proper for multi-ethnic and
"low-intelligence" society. And if sun environment "lowering
intelligence" and "decrease democracy", then Hitler were man of
the sun, not man of the cold-climate"
No, you have it backwards. Germany started off as an Ice People
country, therefore a democratic Germany would work properly and
hence become more and more rightist, which is what we don't
want. This is why we consider it a good thing for Hitler to rule
Germany autocratically, since this is the best way to make it
more leftist which is what we want. It is Ice People countries
(where democracy would work properly) which most need autocracy
(with a leftist dictator), not Sun People countries (in which
democracy would not work properly anyway).
On the other hand, when no suitable individual like Hitler is
available, the next best way to make Ice People countries more
leftist is to get democracy to stop working properly by
importing new voters from Sun People habitats to outnumber the
Ice People voters.
#Post#: 24440--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Democracy
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: December 14, 2023, 6:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Democracy working properly a month ago:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/western-democracy/msg16458/?topicseen#msg16458
--- Quote ---
> Nearly seven out of ten French people believe that the state
should adopt a stricter policy regarding the reception of
migrants
--- End Quote ---
Democracy working even more properly now:
HTML https://rmx.news/migration/80-of-french-support-ban-on-more-immigration-two-thirds-back-referendum/
--- Quote ---
> According to the survey conducted by the CSA Institute for
CNEWS published on Tuesday, 80 percent of people in France want
a ban on immigration, compared with just 19 percent in favor of
further new arrivals.
>
> Opposition to more mass immigration is the majority view among
all age groups. The most welcoming demographic is younger
people; however, 68 percent remain against more immigration
compared to 31 percent in favor.
> ...
> While opposition to mass immigration is almost unanimous among
right-leaning voters — 100 percent of Éric Zemmour’s Reconquête
and 98 percent of National Rally voters are against it — an
increasing number of left-wing sympathizers are also questioning
the number of new arrivals into France.
>
> A total of 56 percent of left-wing voters oppose more
immigration, with the only slim majorities in favor found among
supporters of the Radical Party of the Left (55 percent), LFI
(55 percent), and the Greens (52 percent)
--- End Quote ---
This is why the real danger is democracy working properly, and
not democracy not working properly.
#Post#: 24593--------------------------------------------------
Re: Western Democracy
DIR By: rp
Date: December 27, 2023, 6:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://twitter.com/dharma__vijay/status/1739882190086058431?t=zPG0yXsZxUTlSKe4bBvJTQ&s=19
[Quote]
No. All our lack of civic sense boils down to democracy and
diversity. Civic sense needs some amount of enforcement in
diverse countries. In India can't enforce because the
misbehaving chap would be from a community which is a vote bank.
So no action will be taken.
HTML https://twitter.com/GabbbarSingh/status/1739874687952544235?t=Y3Jj-MRfkqQKoUiSseNipg&s=19
[Quote]
Can India ever reach this level of Civic sense? Ever?
*****************************************************
Page 18 of 22
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page