Consume Product

>Tallest, I wrote a comment recently describing democracy as the social propaganda of an ethnic oligarchy. What do you think of that description and if you disagree with the phrase "ethnic oligarchy", how would you describe our system?

The problem, as always, comes from jews perverting our language. The Founders created a *republic* modeled after the old Greek and Roman styles. Thing is, Greek republicanism was also known (to them) as “democracy.” But that word *explicitly meant* “only people of our ethnic group can vote, and only those who owned land, and only men.”

> “For Aristotle, **democracy is possible only within homogeneous ethnic groups**, while despots have always reigned over highly fragmented societies. **A multi-ethnic society is thus necessarily anti-democratic and chaotic**, for it lacks philia, this profound, flesh-and-blood fraternity of citizens. Tyrants and despots divide and rule, they want the City divided by ethnic rivalries. The indispensable condition for ensuring a people’s sovereignty accordingly resides in its unity. Ethnic chaos prevents all philia from developing… Civic spirit, like public safety, social harmony, and solidarity, is based not on education or persuasion alone, but on cultural unanimity — on common values, lifestyles, and innate behaviours.” **~ Guillaume Faye**; *Why We Fight*; 2011

Jefferson’s views were identical.

>“**There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents.** Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. **The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society.** And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? **The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy.**” **~ Thomas Jefferson**; letter to John Adams; [October 28, 1813](https://archive.is/Fd8IQ)

The Founders created the United States as a **monoethnic patriarchal timocracy.** That’s not what it is anymore, though.

> describing democracy as the social propaganda of an ethnic oligarchy

Fundamentally that's not it. It's situational, and in a Democracy in an ethnic homogeneous country it wouldn't be that, so it's not fundamental to Democracy.

Democracy is rather the rule of the weak, the rule of weakness. It allows women to vote, who tend to vote left, for "soft" (good goy) policies and are heavily affected by propaganda and trivialities (sometimes they vote based on bad reasons). It allows the ignorant to vote with the same power as those who are knowledgeable. Aside from that it pursues a notion of equality, and along with it a notion to see humans "equal" to all others, or at least in voting power. That's why it is fundamental to them to see niggers as humans and as such as "equals."

In essence you can vote for 2 things: You pay less taxes and decrease parasitism, or you pay more taxes and increase parasitism. Every non-White has a tendency to favor parasitism. And White women are somewhere in the middle, so by default it's already a system shifted towards the left, and no politician that doesn't promise some degree of gibsmedats can win.

After a while politicians are all about outcompeting each other over who offers the most gibs.

So Democracy is fundamentally a system of systematic weakness, parasitism and effeminization. All it takes is for it to start rolling one time, and then it will never stop.

lol no. The US was founded as representative republic comprised of a moon racial, patriarchal timocracy. That it was done so citing classical liberal principles (with respect to absolute monarchy) has fucking nothing to do with modern communist definitions of those words.

But we already have the wealthy getting together, and doing what’s best for THEMSELVES under the guise of what’s best for the nation.