> The gap between rich and poor widens, culminating in a revolt by the underclass majority, establishing a Democracy. Democracy emphasizes maximum freedom, so power is distributed evenly. It is also dominated by the desiring element, but in an undisciplined, unrestrained way. The populism of the Democratic government leads to mob rule, fueled by fear of oligarchy, which a clever demagogue can exploit to take power and establish Tyranny.
Who cares as long as we have Netflix & Internet?
Yeah, sounds like Lenin & his company's rise to power.
Basically Democracy is where people are so attached to pleasures that they do not distinguish between good desires and evil desires. Instead they pursue freedom.
That's basically the American ideology - freedom is above all, no matter what's right and what's wrong.
The most fearsome thing for the Democratic people are discipline and morality (Americans call it fascism, socialism, racism, etc).
But with time a Democratic society decays and the people of Democratic personality type become unable to govern themselves. And as a consequence Tyranny establishes. This is what we see now with Bush, Obama and Trump.
Our tyrant will be Jeb.
Why worry, sheeple will never go against their masters, even knowing they are about to be butchered.
wtf am I reading?
Democracy lead to decay? If there would be real freedom when people may ask and discuss consequences of feminism deeds and misdeeds and culture differences those of color there wouldn't be any decay.
What bring a decay is moralism, overpowered authorities, oppression of thoughts and ideas.
Always it were, are and will be totalitarianism and moralism which made society decay and decease.
> If there would be real freedom when people may ask and discuss consequences of feminism deeds and misdeeds and culture differences those of color there wouldn't be any decay.
But in this case people would like to be ruled by better people. Not faggots like Justin Trudeau but people like Carl Mannerheim for instance. Which in turn would lead to more disciplined and moral society - and it wouldn't be a democracy anymore.
Moralism know now boundaries. Today you allow prohibit what you don't like, tomorrow they will ban what you like either, some time later all members of society will be oppressed by different taboos to some degree and lose initiative ans creativeness and society will come to stagnation and then they will be accuse as cause of problems 'immorality' and ban more and more things while society will totally be unable to work.
Moral is the worst thing because it create nothing and not only destroy things but even close paths for future.
> Moral is the worst thing
t. Democratic personality type
Well my moral tell me I must kill you children and parents.
Do you accept?
Where there is no moral you can 'turn off' what you dislike. But in moral society you can't 'turn on' what you like. Moreso you even have no what to 'turn on', like it was back in the USSR television: three channel 50% of air were emptiness and other 50% was censored 'good news' and censored translations from communistic bureaucrat's congresses.
> my moral
Moral is not personal, it's common. Moral is what makes you stronk and better than the others (and others agree with that).
The Republic is a must read for anyone who is into politics.
a make-believe story from a political outsider is only a must read for day dreamers. read what socrates‘ ideas caused in sicily, and weep. pros stick to thucydides and other real historians
I'm all for electing some philosopher kings if you can show me any
>Moral is not personal, it's common.
Moral of Muslim - rape Christian.
And they moral became moral of all society. Most law-abiding, very moral Christians there would snitch on you if you resent against repefugee who raped this moral Christian little daughter.
That how moral is created.
There were no people who thought let Churkas settle in traditional Slavic rural cities was a good thing, but now moral changed by a whim of the only one man.
See. I hate pig lard. And many people too. We could ban it an kill every one who talk about it or watch a picture with it. But instead there are vegans who could make use of process of lard prohibition and add ban to all meat and eggs, while I like eggs. But then there would be those who would use the very rhetoric of prohibition of lard and meet and with the same words insist to ban sugar and society would have nothing to object, and so on and so forth.
Every time moral ban would be initiated by minuscule group of people but after ban would became a law all society would think that anyone who violate the law are criminals and because of that are equal to murderers and thieves and so they are bad people hence what they did is an evil i.e the stupid rule composed by petty minority would became a general common taboo.
This is how moral works.
There is no strength at all. Moral only destroy society and almost never follow the true wishes and values of majority but instead forced values of marginals to be the very base of general opinion.