Sign Up

Please sign up to be able to read, comment and contribute to our website.

Log In

Universal democracy is Killing the West

One of the most amusing lies the West likes to tell itself is based on democracy. We are supposed to believe that we came up with the perfect system, after which everything became roses and sunshine and look at us being the apogee of civilization on Earth!

Anyone with a knowledge of history can tell you that democracy is not only fallible, but it also has one of the worst rates of advancement in human history. If the citizenry has to opine each time you build a town fountain, you'll soon die of thirst. Democratic: yes. Practical: not so much. In truth, democracy is nothing but a theory, and frankly, a pretty bad one. In order for democracy to work, you'd need to first have a population that is capable of understanding democracy. After 200 years of playing at it and more resources than the rest of the world combined, the West still doesn't quite have a good idea as to what democracy is supposed to be, and the citizenry, raised on democracy as a drug, still has no idea what the hell to do with it. Yet it's expected to work, and furthermore countries of a completely different cultural and social tradition are expected to be able to embrace it as an out-of-the-box ultimate panacea, and they're considered less-than when they can't.

But why should they? Democracy can only work in very specific conditions, and even then it only barely functions.

As far as we know, the only type of democracy that has ever had a persistent record of functioning across different civilizations is aristocratic democracy. The reasoning should be obvious—only people who are part of the community and invested in its success should be allowed to have a word on how society is ran. The original Thirteen Colonies were nothing but an aristocratic democracy, though for males only. By ensuring only landlords could vote regardless of gender you could achieve both democracy in its ideal form and a moderated form of meritocracy. This is the opposite of democracy by universal suffrage. Let's be very clear about this, universal suffrage is the death of democracy and the suicide of any civilised society. Why?

Let's allow Corneliu Codreanu to answer this:

" 1. Democracy destroys the unity of the Rumanian nation, dividing it among political parties, making Rumanians hate one another, and thus exposing a divided people to the united congregation of Jewish power at a difficult time in the nation's history. This argument alone is so persuasive as to warrant the discarding of democracy in favor of anything that would ensure our unity or life itself. For disunity means death.

2. Democracy makes Rumanian citizens out of millions of Jews by making them the Rumanians' equals. By giving them the same legal rights. Equality? What for? We have been here for thousands of years. Plow and weapon in hand. With our labors and blood. Why equality with those who have been here for only one hundred, ten, or even five years? Let's look at the past: We created this state. Let's look at the future: We Rumanians are fully responsible for Greater Rumania. They have nothing to do with it. What could be the responsibility of Jews, in the history books, for the disappearance of the Rumanian state? Thus: no equality in labor, sacrifice, and struggle for the creation of the state and no equal responsibility for its future. Equality? According to an old maxim: Equality is to treat un-equally the unequal. What are the reasons for the Jews' demanding equal treatment, equal political rights with the Rumanians? "

This says it all. By allowing anyone and everyone to have a say in the running of our nations we are allowing our enemies and the unworthy to have the same say as the people who built it and are invested in its future.

The states that practiced aristocratic democracy, Ancient Greece and Rome? We're still looking up to them, they were that successful. 2000+ years later we are yet to emulate their achievements, because our systems are far too fallible and thus we can't possibly think long-term.

Democracy is just a numbers game. If the lazy and the stupid are allowed to vote, democracy can no longer work because stupid people are corruptible. We learned this in Eastern Europe, where 30 years after the fall of communism we still have to find a way to make democracy work.


Because people are stupid and poor. Because there is a good percentage of the population who sells its votes for a bag of sugar and a bottle of oil. Because this means there is no way on God's Green Earth for a party that wants the good of the country to get into power.

Democracy where only landlords vote is a democracy that can't be subverted. It is a democracy where the original population can't be replaced by infinity brown people. Where the losers can't vote themselves a share of the successful people's money.

In a universal democracy, the people in power can't possibly afford the luxury of thinking long-term because the electorate is dumb and has the attention span of a goldfish.

The following things are true, and the reason why universal democracy doesn't work:

a) In any society, the number of losers and/or morons will always be larger than the number of smart and/or successful people.

b) Stupid people have a tendency to have a high time preference.

c) High time preference is not compatible with a successful society.

What does this mean? It means that in a universal democracy stupid people will always outnumber the smart and therefore the government will find itself incapable of accomplishing any long-term strategy, because the majority of the electorate will punish them for any such strategy.

The result is ruin and destruction, and it is clearly visible in any Western democracy.

The currency of democracy is popular support. Nothing big and costly can ever be achieved without it, which is why so many rich Western countries are incapable of creating any large infrastructure projects.

The future of their children is being sold to fill the bellies of the lazy losers and fuck everyone else. No current democracy can match the technological and scientific achievements of China. We have fallen behind because universal democracy has killed the possibility of improving the world by creating a better one for our children.

We are no longer the forerunners of humanity because our countries have been handed over to losers and we let them steal out future. This is universal democracy. A slow painful death by brown bellies of two-digit IQs encouraged and controlled by our enemies.

This is what "equality" brings. The ridiculous idea that having a vaguely humanoid shape and bipedal position entitles someone who accidentally fell off the tree last week to count itself as an equal to the greatest minds of the world.

This is what is killing us. This is what needs to die or we will.

Aristocratic democracy is white tribalism

This should be self-evident, but the study of history in the West is such a non-existent thing as far as pre-1940 times are concerned that it bears repeating. Aristocratic democracy appears first in the Greek city states. For the slow, I am talking about a civilization whose expansion and achievements we still revere and are yet to match. Each of the city-states found a system that worked for them, from militarism to aristocratic democracy to despotism, and in the process created systems of thinking and civics we're yet to equal, both us and everyone else on this miserable planet.

Giving only the landlords the right to vote meant the society could support itself and encourage achievement while carefully weeding out the weak. Socially speaking, this is the equivalent of the Spartans exposing weak babies at birth—the weaklings do not get to bring the entire society down to their level, but they do have the chance of improving their station.

Aristocratic democracies offered plenty of opportunities for those wanting to improve their station in life, and by making the title of citizen one both rare and respected it created an incentive to achieve that we're yet to emulate. This is even more obvious in the democratic aristocracy of Rome. A citizen voted, had a word in the running of the City and could get elected. And all you had to do to become a citizen was to pledge and serve 20 years in the military. It's simple, effective and the giant tracks of Greece and Rome prove without a shadow of doubt that it works.

But how is this white tribalism, you ask?

Of course it is. It is a white-specific form of government that is best suited for our temperament and strengths.

Because we're a race of heroes.

Much as we like feudalism, it always had the disadvantage that it impaired male social advancement. A man born in a low family had little chance to distinguish himself. Women did but that's another story.

The consequences of this cannot be underestimated. European feudalism became far too ossified for its own good, and a lot of strong bloodlines were lost to that ossification. The chance for a low born man to become a leader became close to nothing by the time high Middle Ages rolled on, and the results became obvious by the time a bunch of peasants obliterated the flower of French knighthood at the Battle of the Golden Spurs and caused the 100 Year War in the process. It all comes to blood, but we know this. The 100 Year War killed off many of the best warrior lines in Western Europe, and there was no way to replace them with the fresh red blood of peasants.

The poorest knight could always rise by strength and cunning to the highest offices—the story of Jean D'Artagnan is appealing exactly because it is the quintessence of Western meritocracy, but he was a knight, albeit a poor one to begin with. The crevice between a poor knight with just a sword to his name and the King was smaller than that between a peasant and a knight. The aristocratic democracy allowed any man born in the city to accede to power based on his skills, and that is something we need as a race with a K breeding strategy.

One of the reasons Communism managed to do well in poor countries to the point where it still holds a certain degree of appeal despite its crimes is because it allows a country to tap the potential of the lower-class males—and there's nothing more ambitious than a hungry white man with a brain.


Since owning property is the way to acquire voting rights in an aristocratic democracy, it stands to reason property would not be easy to acquire by non-locals.

It stands to reason that it would be so, as otherwise the risk of subversion by unfriendly allogens would be too high. We know that immigrants were not allowed to buy property until the late stage of Athens, and that the law was heavily centered on protecting the family property. As such, this is the most ethnostate friendly form of social organization.

It is intriguing that the protection of family property had been arrived to by way of religious belief, but we have long known the purpose of religion is to codify beneficial customs for society.

Incidentally, their religion also prevented the state from making laws, proving once again the above assertion.

It is worth noting that allowing immigrants the same property rights as citizens led to the fall of the Greek civilization—the same as happened later with the Roman one.

What stronger argument could be made?

Please log in to comment

Back to All Posts

If you enjoy our work, please share it on your medium of choice.
While we are a free site and make no money from traffic, more visitors mean a larger the number of people who get to see an alternative view.
Thank you

If you enjoy our work, please leave us a comment. Registration is free, and we will not censor you. WE want to create a community of intelligent people who care about the fate of the world, where we can discuss without fear of social media censorship.