I wonder if all Western governments are on purpose betraying their voters
well, yeah. the last time democracy was about doing what people wanted/said they needed was ancient Greece. nowadays democracy is a blame-diffusing framework that lets 500 thieves all go "well, it's a very complicated issue..." while they pull the wallet out of your pants, pocket half the money, and use the other half to pay a mercenary to kill you if you point it out.
I can't remember who said it but one of the arguments against America having a republic instead of a monarchy was "I would rather have one tyrant 3,000 miles away than 3,000 tyrants one mile away."
Given how difficult it seems to be to stem the tide of corruption, one wonders if it might not be better to have a monarch than a senate. At least with a monarch, all you need to do is get rid of one person if they aren't doing their job.
Then again, we saw what happened to Rome after the 5 good emperors passed. But once again, one could argue that it was the praetorian guard that was at fault, which of course begs the question of who will guard the guards.
I'm certain there will never be a perfect system as long as humans are involved, but one thing I'm more certain of, is that politicians would be much more wary of their voters if they didn't have armed security. I'm not advocating RULE 2 of course, but I do think a lot of their brazenness in violating basic rights in the last few years stems from their perceived invulnerability, at least with respect to the average Joe.
Given how difficult it seems to be to stem the tide of corruption, one wonders if it might not be better to have a monarch than a senate.
Yes, it is. Dictatorships have their own problems but 'democracy' is a system that has corruption baked into it's very foundation. Democracy is basically a synonym for deception and corruption.
A monarch who for all intents and purposes owns the country has a vested interest in his country prospering as his own wealth and prestige is tied to it. Also the royal family is interested in the monarch not doing stupid shit because if shit hits the fan their heads will be on the chopping block too.
Taking total control of a monarchy is pretty much impossible. Once the monarch gets disposed you have to start over again and you are in very real danger of the new guy going after you if he is aware of you.
While in a democracy you don't actually give a fuck about who is leading the country as you have control of the system itself by subverting the media, the governmental institutions, finance, industry etc. Politicians change but the rot in the system remains. So even if the new guy is aware of you trying to get rid of you is pretty much impossible unless he turns the country into a dictatorship.
You can of course do all that in a monarchy/dictatorship too but you'll have to be extremely careful as the second the monarch/dictator becomes aware of you and he has the loyalty of his people and military he can wipe out all your gains overnight.
That's why first Europe was democratized and since the end of WW2 the rest of the world too.
For a democracy to be immune against corruption you need to have a population that is highly aware of what's going on and will use violence if necessary. But when you have such a population what's the point of voting in the first place? It's a waste of time and just makes everything less efficient.
I can't remember who said it but one of the arguments against America having a republic instead of a monarchy was "I would rather have one tyrant 3,000 miles away than 3,000 tyrants one mile away."
You're almost certainly thinking of the local colonial assembly scene from early in The Patriot, something like this line was said by Mel Gibson's character. He does end up fighting the forces of the 'one tyrant 3,000 miles away' anyway though. Also by the time of the Revolutionary War the British monarchs had no power, Parliament had become supreme in the aftermath of the English Civil War & the Glorious Revolution, so really the colonies were being ruled by '3,000 tyrants 3,000 miles away'. It's why the Olive Branch Petition sent to George III by the Continental Congress never could've worked even if the king had read & sympathized with it, the power was not his to give away and certainly Parliament wasn't about to cede their power.
Overall I think it's less a question of what specific system you need to have in place and more a question of local, decentralized vs. distant, centralized authority. Much of Western political history until about the 18-19th centuries (when the centralists won pretty much everywhere outside of the USA, and there their victories have been piling up through the 20th century instead) has been defined by the constant struggle between local elites vs. the elites in the metropolitan center of each country (London, Paris, etc.)
In hindsight, the rule of a local elite - nobleman, parish priest, etc. doesn't really matter as much as the fact that they come from & live in your neighborhood - is pretty much always preferable over that of the distant centrally-based bureaucrat and/or politician in the long run, often in the short run too, even if they are 'tyrannical'. A locally-based ruler is not only more accessible, but he has to be more responsive to their constituents' needs too, because he runs a much higher risk of being run out of town or lynched by said constituents if he pisses them off too much compared to the distant ruler. He is also much more likely to be familiar with, and interested in preserving, the customs & traditions of his community compared to said distant ruler (ex. in France, local Breton and Occitan lords spoke and didn't try to suppress their own regional cultures, that came after the Paris-centric modern French state bulldozed them and viewed the local cultures as threats to central authority & uniformity).
Now there are circumstances that make having an overarching central authority beneficial or even necessary, even before the Industrial Revolution and industrialization of warfare. The Founding Fathers acknowledged this truth, that's why the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. A fractious, hopelessly decentralized confederacy of de facto independent states dominated entirely by insular local interests would've been piss easy for great powers like Britain/Spain/France to divide, conquer & partition; you need only look at what happened to Poland around the same time to get a picture of what would've actually happened to a US that stuck to the Articles down the road.
But as a rule, it's generally best to decentralize internal governance & domestic policy down to as local a level (and thus, as close to the governed) as feasible. What 'feasible' looks like keeps changing with developments in society & technology though. Throw in the natural human ambitions of, as said, local vs. central elites in there and you have a constant struggle that must be fought generation after generation, but it is what it is - part of the human condition that we all have to live with until & unless some apocalyptic event that changes everything (whether it's the Second Coming, a Deus Ex-like technological singularity, etc.) happens.
I think what's underlying the destruction of the West is mostly a deep scar and echo from WWII.
It's not a coincidence that the enemies of the West call those trying to save the West Nazis. They're sticking their finger in the wound to hurt us, because it does hurt us.
The deep culture lesson the masses took from WWII is that any of us can go along with and do the most terrible things we thought only 'lesser' races did and so we have to be hyper-vigilant against becoming that monster. This directly led to 'civil rights' that destroyed black society (which relies on stricter discipline to function), anti-men Feminism, mass immigration, all the focus on 'victims' and 'minorities'. Anything to not become the bad Nazi.
And it's not just the holocaust, but all the other terrible shit. Fire tornado in Dresden, the atom bombs, a lot of truly horrible death on an industrial scale. All the whites believed they could have been the bad guys.
Today, to the older say half of any Western country WWII was a real thing - even if it was before they were born they knew somebody that was shell-shocked or that should have been there but died. But the hope is that to the younger half it's just book thing. "Oh so I'm a Nazi because an illegal alien got deported? Don't care." It's like calling somebody a Red Coat - you know it's an insult but it's not the four-letter N-word. The crazy young left is still echoing the cause, maybe louder than ever, but the foundation is gone.
MIT famously established that democracy = rule by mega donors aka oligarchy. And now that a lot of capital is almost completely mobile, there’s nothing tying most of the ruling oligarchs to any nation. The best you can hope for are physical commodities oligarchs who are at least anchored to and dependent on certain geographic regions (and, by extension, some of the people who live there).
It has taken me quite a while to work through my own feelings on these things, but what I've come to recognize is that one of the largest problems that generations who grew up online have, is that we've been putting too much stock in trying to understand issues simply through the Internet, rather than actually getting involved in the real world and seeing what's going on first hand.
Frankly, I'm actually leaning towards the notion that much of this propaganda is intentionally designed to provoke people until they actually do that. The real issue comes from the true believers who will stick to what they perceive as "their side" so faithfully that they never once seek dialogue outside of confirming forums, and then go off to take action entirely on their own, based upon little other than the (false) forms within their imagination.
well, yeah. the last time democracy was about doing what people wanted/said they needed was ancient Greece. nowadays democracy is a blame-diffusing framework that lets 500 thieves all go "well, it's a very complicated issue..." while they pull the wallet out of your pants, pocket half the money, and use the other half to pay a mercenary to kill you if you point it out.
I can't remember who said it but one of the arguments against America having a republic instead of a monarchy was "I would rather have one tyrant 3,000 miles away than 3,000 tyrants one mile away."
Given how difficult it seems to be to stem the tide of corruption, one wonders if it might not be better to have a monarch than a senate. At least with a monarch, all you need to do is get rid of one person if they aren't doing their job.
Then again, we saw what happened to Rome after the 5 good emperors passed. But once again, one could argue that it was the praetorian guard that was at fault, which of course begs the question of who will guard the guards.
I'm certain there will never be a perfect system as long as humans are involved, but one thing I'm more certain of, is that politicians would be much more wary of their voters if they didn't have armed security. I'm not advocating RULE 2 of course, but I do think a lot of their brazenness in violating basic rights in the last few years stems from their perceived invulnerability, at least with respect to the average Joe.
You still have the corruption, they just say 'By Order of the King' instead of 'Its Complicated'
Well, at least it makes it less complicated.
Yes, it is. Dictatorships have their own problems but 'democracy' is a system that has corruption baked into it's very foundation. Democracy is basically a synonym for deception and corruption.
A monarch who for all intents and purposes owns the country has a vested interest in his country prospering as his own wealth and prestige is tied to it. Also the royal family is interested in the monarch not doing stupid shit because if shit hits the fan their heads will be on the chopping block too.
Taking total control of a monarchy is pretty much impossible. Once the monarch gets disposed you have to start over again and you are in very real danger of the new guy going after you if he is aware of you.
While in a democracy you don't actually give a fuck about who is leading the country as you have control of the system itself by subverting the media, the governmental institutions, finance, industry etc. Politicians change but the rot in the system remains. So even if the new guy is aware of you trying to get rid of you is pretty much impossible unless he turns the country into a dictatorship.
You can of course do all that in a monarchy/dictatorship too but you'll have to be extremely careful as the second the monarch/dictator becomes aware of you and he has the loyalty of his people and military he can wipe out all your gains overnight.
That's why first Europe was democratized and since the end of WW2 the rest of the world too.
For a democracy to be immune against corruption you need to have a population that is highly aware of what's going on and will use violence if necessary. But when you have such a population what's the point of voting in the first place? It's a waste of time and just makes everything less efficient.
You're almost certainly thinking of the local colonial assembly scene from early in The Patriot, something like this line was said by Mel Gibson's character. He does end up fighting the forces of the 'one tyrant 3,000 miles away' anyway though. Also by the time of the Revolutionary War the British monarchs had no power, Parliament had become supreme in the aftermath of the English Civil War & the Glorious Revolution, so really the colonies were being ruled by '3,000 tyrants 3,000 miles away'. It's why the Olive Branch Petition sent to George III by the Continental Congress never could've worked even if the king had read & sympathized with it, the power was not his to give away and certainly Parliament wasn't about to cede their power.
Overall I think it's less a question of what specific system you need to have in place and more a question of local, decentralized vs. distant, centralized authority. Much of Western political history until about the 18-19th centuries (when the centralists won pretty much everywhere outside of the USA, and there their victories have been piling up through the 20th century instead) has been defined by the constant struggle between local elites vs. the elites in the metropolitan center of each country (London, Paris, etc.)
In hindsight, the rule of a local elite - nobleman, parish priest, etc. doesn't really matter as much as the fact that they come from & live in your neighborhood - is pretty much always preferable over that of the distant centrally-based bureaucrat and/or politician in the long run, often in the short run too, even if they are 'tyrannical'. A locally-based ruler is not only more accessible, but he has to be more responsive to their constituents' needs too, because he runs a much higher risk of being run out of town or lynched by said constituents if he pisses them off too much compared to the distant ruler. He is also much more likely to be familiar with, and interested in preserving, the customs & traditions of his community compared to said distant ruler (ex. in France, local Breton and Occitan lords spoke and didn't try to suppress their own regional cultures, that came after the Paris-centric modern French state bulldozed them and viewed the local cultures as threats to central authority & uniformity).
Now there are circumstances that make having an overarching central authority beneficial or even necessary, even before the Industrial Revolution and industrialization of warfare. The Founding Fathers acknowledged this truth, that's why the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. A fractious, hopelessly decentralized confederacy of de facto independent states dominated entirely by insular local interests would've been piss easy for great powers like Britain/Spain/France to divide, conquer & partition; you need only look at what happened to Poland around the same time to get a picture of what would've actually happened to a US that stuck to the Articles down the road.
But as a rule, it's generally best to decentralize internal governance & domestic policy down to as local a level (and thus, as close to the governed) as feasible. What 'feasible' looks like keeps changing with developments in society & technology though. Throw in the natural human ambitions of, as said, local vs. central elites in there and you have a constant struggle that must be fought generation after generation, but it is what it is - part of the human condition that we all have to live with until & unless some apocalyptic event that changes everything (whether it's the Second Coming, a Deus Ex-like technological singularity, etc.) happens.
Nobody ever said that. It's partially a reference from the movie The Patriot.
in the end, ifs not the type of government that matters, its the quality of the group you pull the leaders from.
Under Israel
No need to wonder, they absolutely are.
Unless you're either a foreign invader or an oligarch, yes, the western government you live under is your enemy.
I think what's underlying the destruction of the West is mostly a deep scar and echo from WWII.
It's not a coincidence that the enemies of the West call those trying to save the West Nazis. They're sticking their finger in the wound to hurt us, because it does hurt us.
The deep culture lesson the masses took from WWII is that any of us can go along with and do the most terrible things we thought only 'lesser' races did and so we have to be hyper-vigilant against becoming that monster. This directly led to 'civil rights' that destroyed black society (which relies on stricter discipline to function), anti-men Feminism, mass immigration, all the focus on 'victims' and 'minorities'. Anything to not become the bad Nazi.
And it's not just the holocaust, but all the other terrible shit. Fire tornado in Dresden, the atom bombs, a lot of truly horrible death on an industrial scale. All the whites believed they could have been the bad guys.
Today, to the older say half of any Western country WWII was a real thing - even if it was before they were born they knew somebody that was shell-shocked or that should have been there but died. But the hope is that to the younger half it's just book thing. "Oh so I'm a Nazi because an illegal alien got deported? Don't care." It's like calling somebody a Red Coat - you know it's an insult but it's not the four-letter N-word. The crazy young left is still echoing the cause, maybe louder than ever, but the foundation is gone.
Without watching the video, they are.
You wonder? Get with the tin foil hat club, already! They are and have been for decades.
MIT famously established that democracy = rule by mega donors aka oligarchy. And now that a lot of capital is almost completely mobile, there’s nothing tying most of the ruling oligarchs to any nation. The best you can hope for are physical commodities oligarchs who are at least anchored to and dependent on certain geographic regions (and, by extension, some of the people who live there).
Yes.
They don't want citizens.
They want slaves.
Ya'll wanted to work from home and have a "work life balance." They decided you were more trouble than you were worth.
It has taken me quite a while to work through my own feelings on these things, but what I've come to recognize is that one of the largest problems that generations who grew up online have, is that we've been putting too much stock in trying to understand issues simply through the Internet, rather than actually getting involved in the real world and seeing what's going on first hand.
Frankly, I'm actually leaning towards the notion that much of this propaganda is intentionally designed to provoke people until they actually do that. The real issue comes from the true believers who will stick to what they perceive as "their side" so faithfully that they never once seek dialogue outside of confirming forums, and then go off to take action entirely on their own, based upon little other than the (false) forms within their imagination.
One day people will realize all Western governments are working for their enemies.
They promise whatever gets them elected.
Once elected, they do whatever they want.
Those conflicting isn't something they are concerned with either way. Betrayal isn't the point, it's not even a consideration.