When you inform your neighbors about the dangers of a globalist shitbag candidate they want to vote for and over 50% of them still do. What does one do? All the pre-destructive solutions are non-peaceful.
As ghey as democracy is, the problem stems from too many people ("politically inferior" I should say) voting.
Plato is quoted of talking about "ending up governed by your inferiors". It was in reference to non-participation in politics, but even so, if inferior people end up governing you, then the mistake was letting inferior people vote at all. If you only have two choices, then mistake was allowing a two-party system to take hold in the country at all. It's not that democracy is fake/ghey, it's the reality that universal sufferage is allowing the sheep to be led by the nose to their destruction. Sheep don't want to think, they just do, and don't want to make complex non-tribal decisions. Thus it becomes easy for wolves to subvert the herd and keep out any good, well-meaning shepherd.
The early-stage US combated this issue by disallowing voting from anyone who wasn't a landowning taxpaying male. It may not be appealing to the mass populace, but I've come to the conclusion that allowing the people who contribute back to society to decide it's fate is superior to autocratism, monarchism, collectivism, etc. But just like how wealth vanishes in three generations, the same happens in politics, at which I would argue human nature is doomed to the slavery-freedom cycle
When you inform your neighbors about the dangers of a globalist shitbag candidate they want to vote for and over 50% of them still do. What does one do? All the pre-destructive solutions are non-peaceful.
While the other 50% vote for the other party's globalist shitbag candidate. Democracy is fake and gay.
As ghey as democracy is, the problem stems from too many people ("politically inferior" I should say) voting.
Plato is quoted of talking about "ending up governed by your inferiors". It was in reference to non-participation in politics, but even so, if inferior people end up governing you, then the mistake was letting inferior people vote at all. If you only have two choices, then mistake was allowing a two-party system to take hold in the country at all. It's not that democracy is fake/ghey, it's the reality that universal sufferage is allowing the sheep to be led by the nose to their destruction. Sheep don't want to think, they just do, and don't want to make complex non-tribal decisions. Thus it becomes easy for wolves to subvert the herd and keep out any good, well-meaning shepherd.
The early-stage US combated this issue by disallowing voting from anyone who wasn't a landowning taxpaying male. It may not be appealing to the mass populace, but I've come to the conclusion that allowing the people who contribute back to society to decide it's fate is superior to autocratism, monarchism, collectivism, etc. But just like how wealth vanishes in three generations, the same happens in politics, at which I would argue human nature is doomed to the slavery-freedom cycle