One of the buzz words most celebrated in the United States and much of the West today is democracy. It is right up there with diversity and equality as one of the terms which politicians, academics, media figures and elites almost uniformly praise. As French political philosopher Alain de Benoist wrote in The Problem of Democracy on page 13:
This almost unanimous consent given to democracy as a word – if not always on the thing itself – gives the notion a moral and quasi-religious meaning, which discourages discussion right from the start.
A page later de Benoist dispenses with a popular notion about democracy – that it is somehow more Progressive or advanced than other forms of government. He writes:
Any such idea is unsubstantiated. Democracy is neither more ‘modern’ nor more ‘developed’ than any other regime. Democratic regimes or tendencies can be found throughout history. Once more, the linear view of history here proves particularly misleading. In relation to political regimes, the very idea of progress is meaningless.
De Benoist then goes on to make the point that ‘absolute despotism has always been exceedingly rare in Europe’ and that ‘The vast majority of political regimes throughout history can actually be classed as mixed.’
Southern leaders have traditionally warned against universal suffrage and unfettered democracy. Except for the brief and highly exploitative period of US military occupation of the Southern States following Lincoln’s war against the Confederacy, the South restricted the franchise and held at bay the forces of democracy throughout its history right up until the 1960s. Robert Barnwell Rhett, who perhaps more than anyone deserves the title ‘Father of Southern Nationalism,’ voiced common objections to what defenders of classical civilisations everywhere have seen as a dangerous and destructive system:
Universal suffrage will give those who have no property, the absolute control of the property and legislation of the country… in all its horrors… the despotism of numbers may be the most terrible that can scourge a fallen people.
Indeed, as the franchise has been expanded in the United States and democracy has been released as a political force, the state has been greatly expanded in size, the family has been wrecked almost beyond recognition, war-making in foreign countries has become normal, the educational system has fallen into an abysmal condition, the people are spied upon night and day and every activity one might possibly engage in is regulated and legislated to death. Democracy has not brought liberty – quite the opposite. Neither has democracy brought security. Warfare under democracy is more savage and bloody than ever. Indeed, the twentieth century, which might prove to be the high-water mark for democratic government, was the bloodiest hundred years in human history. Another aspect of the sort of democratic government that now prevails in the Western world is the great power of central banks, consolidated media empires and bureaucratic agencies. One of the most troubling and destructive parts of the agenda pursued by Western democratic institutions is the replacement of Western peoples with Third World populations. This program is openly supported by democratic elites such as the United Nations migration chief Peter Sutherland, as well as most government leaders, politicians and academics in the West.
What positives does democracy, at least in its current, highly-touted form, truly offer?
Given the above, it is refreshing to see some resistance to US-style democracy. We have two recent examples of Eastern European governments resisting outside efforts to undermine their societies, promote democracy and ultimately install a more compliant regime in power. The two examples come from Russia and Belarus.
Russian President Vladmir Putin has spoken openly of late about the decline of the Western world - a fate he is trying to prevent in Russia. At the same time, Putin has warned the Russian people about efforts on the part of the Atlanticists and their allies to encircle and weaken Russia. Clearly, he also sees a threat from ‘pro-democracy’ non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which are often fronts that organise opposition to regimes opposed to Washington, DC. AS reported by RioNovosti:
The British Foreign Office has criticized Russia’s recent law on non-governmental organizations saying the new legislation creates unnecessary obstacles for the normal operation of the civil society.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed on Saturday a law forcing non-government organizations (NGOs) engaged in political activity with foreign financing to be branded as “foreign agents.” The law will come in force starting in November.
“By creating additional burdensome requirements for NGOs, and labeling them with a term seemingly designed to generate mistrust, this move can only be seen as having a negative impact on the free operation of civil society,” the Foreign Office said in a statement.
The top British diplomatic body has praised the work of Russian NGOs and their contribution to the democratic developments in the country.
Given the absolute tragic state of the United Kingdom today and the destructive ideology it so enthusiastically embraces, it’s refreshing to see Russia move to limit their influence.
If there is any country in Europe the Atlanticists and their allies hate more than Russia it has to be little Belarus. US and British media outlets love to attack Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko, frequently referring to him as ‘Europe’s last dictator.’ Recently, Belarus has been in the headlines due to a dispute between it and Swedish pro-democracy activists, the Swedish government and the European Union. Reuters has the story:
Belarus has expelled Sweden’s ambassador over his actions to support democracy, Sweden’s Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said on Friday, as the European Union’s foreign policy chief said the bloc would consider responding with “appropriate” measures.
The diplomatic dispute flared up after a plane chartered by a Swedish public relations firm dropped hundreds of teddy bears over Belarus on July 4 in a pro-democracy stunt, prompting President Alexander Lukashenko to sack his air defense chief and the head of the border guards.
It took Lukashenko, a former Soviet collective farm manager, weeks to confirm the incident and Stockholm’s ambassador appears to have been told to leave soon after the Belarussian leader spoke publicly about the scandal for the first time.
The expulsion marks an escalation in the dispute and is likely to worsen already strained relations between the EU and Belarus and further isolate the small former Soviet republic on the world stage.
“The Lukashenko regime in Belarus has decided to expel our ambassador,” Bildt told reporters on Friday. “They have made accusations against the ambassador. They are groundless. Fundamentally, this is about Sweden being engaged in democracy and human rights in Belarus.”
Like the UK, much of Sweden has been utterly wrecked in recent decades and the country faces a demographic crisis of enormous proportions. It may be the first Western European country to have a non-European majority if current trends are allowed to continue. Thankfully, there is a growing resistance to further replacing the Swedish people. However, Sweden is certainly in no position to lecture Belarus, or anyone else in Europe for that matter, on how to run a society.
Like Russia and Belarus, Egyptians have also acted to restrict ‘pro-democracy’ NGOs from operating freely in their country. This is of less concern to us given that Egypt is not a Western country but it is a positive development nonetheless.