Universal Democracy
by David Sims
DEMOCRACY does not require universal suffrage. In ancient Athens, where democracy first appeared, the right to vote was limited, and some people there were slaves, who could not vote. [Anyone not an Athenian or Attic Greek by birth had no vote, so of course only Whites could vote — and only those Whites considered best-qualified had the vote. It is estimated that out of some 300,000 people in ancient Athenian territory, only about 30,000 were permitted to vote. — Ed.]
Democracy works better when it is limited to people who have children and property interests: a stake in their country’s future. Democracy works better when all of the voters are intelligent, conservative, and morally decent men belonging to the country’s founding ethnic stock. [This would mean, in our nation, limiting the franchise to the nation’s founding race alone, with anti-nationalist agitators, morons, the dull, chronic welfare dependents, Marxists, Jews, other non-Whites, and perverts absolutely prevented from voting. — Ed.]
The free market, on the other hand, works best when the ability to engage in profitable trade isn’t limited to big corporations; i.e., free markets works best when participation isn’t limited.
You can’t have both universal democracy and universal free market participation. Sooner or later, one will be sacrificed in order to keep the other. If you keep universal democracy, the least industrious and the least competent people will vote themselves largesse that harder and more competently working people will be taxed to pay for.
So the wiser course is to sacrifice universal democracy in order to keep universal participation in the free market. Limit the vote to the wisest and most decent men of the country’s founding ethnic stock.
* * *
Source: Author
For further reading:
Is democracy really necessary or perhaps it is a utopia ?, Democracy is easily corruptible, example USA. Egypt lasted longer than Greece, and the Chinese have been thousands of years to this day. Egypt succumbed to the integration of slaves and Jews (suspected of destroying civilizations), but highly ethnocentric isolationist China still exists as such. The best would be a civilization governed by the homogeneous-ethnocentric meritocracy (Symmetric, honeycomb type), nature is the way.
I recall reading Plato (The Republic) stating that the best government is by a benevolent monarchy. The problem is that today many of the monarchs work for the enemies of their own people.
At the center of Confucianism is a social contract: the governed owed allegiance to the rulers, but the rulers who did not care for the welfare of the people lost the “mandate of heaven” and could be justly overthrown. Confucius never gave rulers a license for oppression.
“SALUS POPULI SUPREMA LEX ESTO”
(The People’s welfare shall be the supreme law)
Cicero,
Roman statesman, lawyer, academic and skeptic philosopher.
Democracy is not simply a utopia. It is a scam. How can a society be confident what’s best (or not) for its interests when important decisions are taken, laws enacted and policies implemented just because out of -say- 10 votes, 6 said “this” and 4 voted “that”, so we do what the 6 want but not because they are necessarily right but because they are numerically more. In other words “Democracy” is an illogical system destined to fail because quantities (the mobs) rule over qualites (aristocrats).
It is wrong to state that ancient Greece had Democracy. (I am typing under severe time restrictions so my comment will not offer references at this time) Only the city state of Athens and for a very short time of a few decades preceding the Peloponnesian War had a political system resembling democracy but in closer examination it was …not. Because, i) women did not have the right to vote and so did (not have the right to vote) those who were classified as “metoikoi” (immigrants) and of course the slaves. ii)Yes Athens of the so called “golden age” was a society were slaves were employed for doing the work while their owners gathered in the Agora and endlessly debated the issues. iii) All Athenian males HAD to be first… Read more »
Mister Sims, I appreciate it when a man gets to the point in a few words. I try to do the same.
Topic: “Holy” Inclusion
Translation:
Germany: The system plans to lower the voting age in order to guarantee the greatest possible incompetence of the electorate.
Children can be manipulated to the limit and they don’t know what they’re doing. That qualifies them as voters. Children are intended to be used as weapons against their race – and against themselves.
The situation in Germany has worsened
As long as the Mega-Lockdown (curfew, martial law, shooting those who dare to leave the houses) cannot be enforced, it is important for the system to maintain the illusion of democracy (the moronic belief that one can democratically vote oneself out of enslavement and annihilation).
You are allowed to correct because English is not my first language. Greetings
This subject raises a question that I have had for some time. What exactly does the National Alliance propose as an alternative to democracy? National Vanguard’s numerous articles praising Hitler and national socialist Germany and condemning democracy suggest that the National Alliance favors either a personal dictatorship or a party dictatorship. Very likely this prospect pushes away some people who might otherwise become members. Who wants to live in a country where no one has any rights that the government must respect?
The National Alliance is flexible about the form of government we wish to have governing ourselves; however, we want that our principles, goals, ethics, and so on be applied with whatever we choose. The form is only nominally important, the substance matters most. Questions or problems regarding each type of government must be addressed ruthlessly to prevent corruption of our purpose, of course. If a hierarchical dictatorship structure happens to be what we have to work with, then we’ll go with that. If we can achieve state authority using democracy, we can make that work too. The National Alliance is structured like a corporation (and it is one in fact) with all authority emanating from the Office of the Chairman, a structure Americans are very familiar and comfortable with. If… Read more »
Perhaps I misunderstand the sort of corporation that the National Alliance is. In the corporate structure with which I am familiar, major decisions are made by shareholders. Most Americans would be horrified at the thought that they would have to live under a totalitarian regime of any sort. For myself, it’s obvious to me that no one man can be trusted with absolute, unchecked power. I’ve yet to meet anyone who is wise enough and capable enough to be entrusted with it. Among America’s Founding Fathers it was axiomatic that power tends to corrupt those who have it, and the more power they have, the greater is the temptation to abuse it. But, lest the Founders’ intentions be misunderstood, they did not believe in what we now call “democracy.” Democracy… Read more »
Corporations aren’t made with a one size fits all system of decision making. They vary according to the bylaws set up at their creation and modified (if it is considered necessary) during the ‘life’ of the corporation. Take each individually as they come and read the paperwork, it’s generally not complicated. The fatal flaw of any system is in the men who run it. Any system that wants to run as corruption-free as possible must have institutions which imbue all with the principles, ethics, mores, values and so on taught and practiced by all and of the leaders, these things must be engraved into their hearts. Grooming the best in terms of fidelity to these things must be made strong so that the weak (most corruptible) are weeded out fast… Read more »