Democracy is Relative, Elections are Bad

Exercise your right to remain silent, or you may forever hold your peace

“The greatest danger of the systems of modern totalitarianism is that they are so alarmingly up-to-date not only in physical and biological, but also in psychological technology. The methods of mass suggestion, of the release of the instincts of the human beast, of conditioning and thought control are developed to highest efficacy.”
Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General Systems Theory (1969)

On June 27th, I published the article below, arguing that the endgame for Democrats— and, indeed, for large swaths of the Republican establishment — was not just to imprison Donald Trump, but to disqualify him from participating in next year’s elections.

The 14th Amendment and the Democrats' Plan to End Trump

This plot hasn’t gone away and, if anything, it has thickened, particularly given the recent wave of indictments targeting Trump. Just this week, Politico, The Hill, The New York Times, The Atlantic, and Axios, among others, released articles exploring this possibility, broadening the Overton window to set the stage.

In their typical fashion, these publications didn’t come out swinging for the fences. Instead, they offered pieces that appeared balanced — if not reasonable — , some even discussing both sides of the argument, for a change. However, this is just the initial strategy, setting the stage for the next phase of the presidential race: normalising the notion that Donald Trump should be disqualified.

To safeguard our elections, it’s imperative that no one is permitted to question them, or to advocate for further scrutiny. To preserve democracy, we need to narrow the field of public choices, guiding the uninformed and chaotic masses towards an acceptable outcome.

Unlike the Right, the Left doesn’t fall to the fallacy that having a feather in your cap means you have a bird in hand. They don’t relent until the bird is completely defeathered. If the bird is still alive, they’d keep it comfortable, and then a discussion would ensue between the Regime and the Party, just as Ralph Northam intended.

Democracy Is Relative

“The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”
Josef Stalin (attributed)

Trump’s disqualification would neither be an outlier nor an anomaly. Looking at the at the world around us, it would actually make sense. A lot of sense.

On June 29th, commenting on the ‘re-election’ of his Venezuelan vassal, Nicolas Maduro, Brazilian president and career criminal Lula da Silva — himself a vassal to China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin — remarked, “the concept of democracy is relative.”

The next day, Jair Bolsonaro, the leader of the Brazilian opposition and former president, was declared ineligible by the Lula da Silva-aligned Supreme Court. His crime? Questioning the legitimacy of the electoral process (does this sound familiar?). One of the Justices even remarked, at a private event afterwards, that the Court had effectively “defeated Bolsonarism.” Still on the same day, Maria Corina Machado, the leader of Venezuela’s opposition, was banned from holding public office for the next 15 years.

As these events transpired, Israel’s Left mobilised large street demonstrations protesting the proposed judicial reform. This reform aims to curtail the Left-leaning Supreme Court’s ability to make executive decisions and legislate from the benches. Essentially, it would allow conservative leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, to fulfill his mandate effectively.

On May 30th, the leftist regime in Germany threatened to strip Hungary of the 2024 EU presidency. A German State Minister declared in the EU Parliament that Hungary, led by conservative Prime Minister Viktor Orban, is “currently isolated within the EU due to serious rule of law issues.”

Fast forward to August 2nd: Donald Trump was indicted on felony charges, accused of attempting to overturn the 2020 election results. This indictment has the potential to bar him from the 2024 election.

By August 10th, Germany was at it again, with leftist president Frank-Walter Steinmeier calling for the right-wing party, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), to be banned from participating in elections.

On August 27th, Ukraine’s Wolodymyr Zelenskyy mused that his country shouldn’t hold elections in the near future unless “the United States and Europe provide financial support.”

The above is a small sample of the unhinged, psychopathic drive of the global Left to suppress scrutiny over their actions and eliminate any opposition. Given this backdrop, it would hardly be shocking if Trump were to be deemed ineligible by some apparatchik within the judicial system.

Elections Are Bad for Democracy

“Competition is for losers.”
Peter Thiel

Last week, The NYT published an op-ed by Adam Grant, originally titled “Elections Are Bad for Democracy.” The headline sparked controversy — to the point that the paper felt compelled to revise it — but this is hardly a new sentiment among progressives. For instance, the extreme-Left British tabloid The Guardian has advocated this stance for years.

While I understand the backlash The NYT faced due to the headline, I do find myself in agreement with the op-ed to a certain extent. Elections are bad for democracy. Any reasonable person should recognise this. The process is irrational and counterproductive, often appealing to all sorts of crooks and leading to suboptimal results. Like the author, I also concur with William F. Buckley Jr.’s assertion that being governed by random individuals selected from a phone book might be more effective.

Yet, upon re-reading the article, post-headline change to the more palatable (yet also more revealing) “The Worst People Run for Office. It’s Time for a Better Way,” I sensed a different undertone. The paper’s concern isn’t just with the inherent flaws of the electoral process; they seem to take issue against a specific type of person they would prefer no to see in office, all while preserving their democratic credentials.

“Worst people” doesn’t mean exactly ‘worst people’. What the author seems to suggest is that just as cookies are good, but sometimes we get ants; democracy is good, but sometimes we get conservatives. His method of normalising every trick in the book to psychologically prepare readers for accepting that undermining Republicans is, in fact, positive for democracy is quite revealing.

Notably absent in his op-ed are mentions of any Democrat or left-wing politicians. Instead, Grant presents George Santos as an emblematic modern Republican to be sidestepped, contrasting with Abraham Lincoln as the archetype of a bygone, commendable Republican. A fantasy that is prevalent on the Left these days.

Furthermore, Grant lumps conservative Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban with the likes of Filipino hardliner Rodrigo Duterte, Turkish dictator Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Russian genocidal tyrant and war criminal Vladimir Putin. The NYT’s approach essentially screams the proverbial, ‘everyone I dislike is Hitler.’

To complete his tour de force against the ‘deplorables’ participating in democracy, Grant rages against the Electoral College and praises the ‘Citizens Assembly’ model, a system gaining traction in Europe and Latin America, where the government carefully selects a ‘random’ sample of the population to make crucial political decisions on behalf of the people. He seems to favour a model where the government choses the people, after all.

However, this concept might be just a bit too radical for now. In its stead, the Left resorts to other methods: political persecution, stripping of political rights, imprisonment of opposition. All tactics are justified when used against perceived threats: the ‘extreme-right,’ the ‘far-right,’ the ‘Christian Nationalists,’ the non-humans.

They can be censored, banned, or punched. They might be stripped from their bank accounts, as was the case with Nigel Farage in Brexit-obsessed Britain, or the protesting truck drivers under the Trudeau Regime in Canada. They may be sent to reeducation camps for questioning gender theology, like Jordan B. Peterson, or thrown in jail for interfering with the holy sacrament of abortion, like the five pro-life activists under the Biden Regime.

Conversely, the Left make sure to let their peers get away with literal murder, as the recent case of serial killer nurse Lucy Letby in Britain illustrates. Letby received multiple whole-life terms for murdering infants, with her youngest victim being a premature baby born at just 23 weeks’ gestation. Notably, in the UK it is legal to abort a baby at 23 weeks, as long as you are murdering at the orders of the progressive establishment.

On a larger scale, the most ambitious projects of the global Left keep faltering. In 2022, the plebiscite in Chile, which aimed to adopt a far-left constitution (introducing, among other abominations, a parallel indigenous state), was soundly defeated. The upcoming ‘Voice’ referendum proposing the adoption of an indigenous kangaroo parliament in Australia — sorry, couldn’t resist — seems destined to follow suit. But the trials for progressive fascism remain at full steam.

Amidst all this, democracy isn’t “dying in darkness” as previously advertised, but rather under the blinding lights of Enlightenment.

---

Don’t forget check out my upcoming fiction project:

---