Democracy is defined as a “system in which power is vested in the people and exercised by them through freely elected representatives.”

Under our Liberal hegemony, this system is presupposed as moral: of course ‘the people’ should be politically empowered. Yet, just as ‘free speech’ advocates only practice their principles to a tolerable degree, democratists enact practical limitations on their particular ideology. Even its most ardent defenders admit democracy should be suitably limited, as unfettered political participation has the potential for abhorrent consequences.

Consider: modern democratists rail against the outsized influence of corporate donors. After Donald Trump’s election shattered hitherto political boundaries, media outlets declared a ‘fake news’ crisis and branded themselves as trusted ‘fact checkers’. Most notably of all, liberal democracy’s arch villain–Adolf Hitler–attained power through the ballot box. Today, there is not one supporter of democracy who puts ideological fidelity before the ramifications of Hitler’s electoral success–in fact, many promote the morality of killing ‘baby Hitler’.

As seen above, democratic devotees apply clear measures in restraining popular will, so to secure their favoured political landscape. Alongside such transparent initiatives, liberal democracy effects surreptitious machinations against its own citizens, to further secure political stability. Two of these means will now be examined in detail.

The first means exists in the orchestrated role played by the mass media. This occurs through the media promoting a perception of political variance; while staying silent on more important areas of cross-party concurrence. By constantly reproducing a stale clash–Liberal vs Labor, Republican vs Democrat–this legitimises all discussion within the figurative tent of open, democratic debate. Meanwhile, the exclusion of actual dissenting thought renders these opinions illegitimate–somewhat correctly, for they threaten to unsettle political stability. As articulated by Noam Chomsky,

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum but allow very lively debate within that spectrum–even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

This controlled politics plays out on many salient issues, giving people an illusion of choice. Take immigration, for example. Our parliament spends much time discussing ‘the boats’ and whether immigration levels should be sustained or slightly reduced. These debates have some distinctions, but none ultimately meaningful: both the Liberal and Labor party support our wholesale demographic replacement. In August 2018 when Fraser Anning raised a solitary, reasonable objection, the system scarcely criticised his reasoning–it vowed his personal destruction.

The second way exists in the system’s degradation of its citizenry. In a democracy, people exercise choice through voting. But if their reasoning faculties were so obviated through rampant private obsession, political interest and judgement would be drastically diminished such that voting would become a futile exercise.

Regrettably, this decline has precisely followed from modern society. We are sexually liberated through pornography and contraception; fast food outlets have spread insidiously; materialism numbs people from their mortal destinies. You need not even visit the cinemas to escape reality: Netflix supplies people with an endless home supply of movies and TV shows; YouTube promotes meaningless, trivial content on its Trending page, omitting the subjects that supersede our earthly existence.

This deluge in pointless, indulgent material has heightened private obsession and come at a dreadful cost: thwarting the cultivation of higher human capacities, creating an ignorant, amorphous mass. In this context, previously defining issues–the meaning of life, who runs the world, political affairs, historical knowledge–have grown largely irrelevant in a sea of infantile pursuits.

Because the public is so intellectually and spiritually degraded, the elites can deprave society without much trouble. Sadly, such is the radical character of these changes, that if they were formerly sponsored they might have provoked a revolutionary response.

Remember just *2 years ago* during the plebiscite campaign for gay marriage, when those concerned about the potential legalisation of pedophilia via the LGBTQ+ agenda were so cavalierly dismissed? Now, the City of Perth is hosting ‘Drag Queen Storytime’, whereby sexual degenerates push subversive ideas on children, aged 2-6. ‘MAP’, standing for ‘minor attracted person’, is increasingly preferred over traditional terms of reference. Society is drifting towards pedophile acceptance; but people are more inclined towards cheap fun than mustering a yelp for innocent children.

Moving towards a conclusion on the latent means of securing democracy, certainly, mere power is not bothersome. Nor is a sizeable sway over the means of communication, in itself, inevitably unethical.

Rather, the sensible dissident submits that liberal democracy, once famously referred to as ‘the end of history’, is predicated on a lie. Which is, that political and cultural institutions collectively permit citizens to make free, informed decisions over their country’s fate. In our contemporary liberal democracy, through contrived debates and rampant hedonism, people are permitted only a trifling iota of political agency.

References:

• The Conservative Mind, by Russell Kirk.
• The Abolition of Britain, by Peter Hitchens.
• ‘The continuing presence of Nazism’, by Lawrence Auster.