The Failures Of Democracy

Introduction

Democracy, originating in Greece, was once viewed as a liberation from authority but now appears to be the state-mandated religion in Western states. If you go against liberal democracy, then you will be prosecuted, just like priests were prosecuted in the Iron Curtain. These western democracies only present the illusion of a democracy while really being ruled by the wealthiest 0.01% of the population, who control the media and therefore sway public opinion on television, radio, newspapers, social media, etc. Ultimately, the voters, the people, are not independent thinkers but rather programmed computer bots that have had their views implanted from a foreign parasitic source. The source that planted the information doesn’t care about the bot, but rather the source sees the bot as an opportunity to make larger profits. This cycle is repeated every single day until the next election, where it starts over again, never truly ending the cycle.

Political parties

In western democracies, there are largely just two choices of how the political process will play out: there will either be a 2-party system or a system of unlimited political parties. In America, the 2-party system is so corrupt that both parties have all of their policies selected by the donors, whether it be minimum wage, foreign policy, capital gains tax, or immigration rate; all are selected by the donors who fund the parties and only care about themselves and their interests. In other democracies, like in Europe, we see many more political parties that are all over the place and are constantly arguing with each other while dividing the population into dozens of different political parties. One prime example of the failures of democracy included the country of Albania. Albania had 66 political parties run in the 2013 parliamentary elections in a country of less than 3 million people.

One would think this could be a joke, but no, this is 100% serious. In 2013 the population of Albania was just under 2.9 million people. This means that there was 1 political party for about every 44,000 people in Albania in 2013. Thankfully, since then the amount of parties in Albania has decreased, but this just goes to show how ridiculous these democracies can get. The situation is not a whole lot better in Thailand either. In the 2023 Thai general election, the country had 67 political parties contesting the election.

Thailand, which is expected to have a final birth rate of 0.95 for 2024, managed to divide the population into 67 different political parties. Some of the parties went by names like “New Democracy Party,” “Democrat Party,” “Democratic Force Party,” and “Thai Social Democratic Party.” They even managed to include a political party for teachers titled “Thai Teachers for People Party.” How on earth can a country that is struggling so much demographically unite as one nation under the banner of 67 political parties? This comes at a time when Thailand has reached its lowest-ever fertility rate, and instead of uniting the nation under one National Authoritarian banner, the politicians managed to carve, slice, and divide the population into 67 political parties. In the 2019 Thai election, the politicians did even worse, and instead of having 67 political parties contest the elections, they had 77 parties. Two of those seventy-seven parties were named the “Thai Teachers for People Party” and the “Thai Teacher Power Party.” It is important to realize the huge differences between the two parties, as one party is for the people while the other is for power. At least in 4 years, Thailand has gone from 77 to 67 parties; well, progress is evident.

Foreign Media

Another vital aspect of the failures of democracy is the effect that foreign media may have in influencing elections. The rise of globalization and the effects of it on media have forever changed politics. There are now so many possibilities of foreign interference on media outlets like X, Meta, and YouTube that can change people’s views and perceptions right before elections or even start revolutions. This has occurred so many times with Facebook that it is almost unbelievable how many opportunities there have been for foreign powers to influence the internal politics of foreign nations. Examples include the Tunisian revolution, the 2011 Egyptian revolution, Euromaidan, etc.

During the 2011 Egyptian revolution, one protestor stated, “We use Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world.” This is just asking for foreign interference in these open, liberal democracies. These countries eventually become puppet states after these revolutions are done taking place, like in Ukraine and Armenia. During the 2013 Brazilian protests, similar goals were proposed by the opposition as in the 2013 Turkish protests to bring in liberal ideologies that were pushed by foreign powers alien to Türkiye and Brazil. Then Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan compared the foreign interference during the two protests.

The anti-government coalition in Türkiye included socialists, communists, anarchists, cosmopolitans, and pro-LGBT protesters, all uniting in an attempt to defeat the “authoritarian” Erdoğan.

The foreign media influence attempts have gotten so out of control that there are now media platforms based in European countries that almost exclusively care about Israel. Visegrad 24 is a media outlet that puts an extremely strong emphasis on supporting Israel while blaming Qatar for supposed foreign influence. They go as far as interviewing a Brazilian model to talk about how anti-Israel the Brazilian media is and how that is somehow a threat to the West.

Of Visegrad’s 12 most recent YouTube videos, 9 of them are either about Israel, Qatar, or Iran, displaying why we must support “our greatest ally” and counter the disinformation coming out of Qatar or Iran. I thought that this was a pro-Western, pro-European page, but I guess the Holy Land must always come first after all. Maybe Visegrad 24 truly is just very passionate about Israel and their dislike of Qatar, but most independent thinkers have our own speculations.

America’s propaganda operations in foreign nations are also always active. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is an American government-funded propaganda outlet intended on destroying any National Authoritarian regimes like Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, etc. The outlet has a past in promoting anti-Soviet propaganda during the Cold War, so this comes naturally to them. Today they mostly post news taking place in the post-Soviet nations. One recent story speaks about a Turkmen woman’s experience in having to become a prostitute in the post-Soviet nation in order to feed her children.

Although a horrible tragedy, it is important to question whether the outlet really cares for the woman or if they just want to have the Turkmen regime toppled. If it did care about women having to become prostitutes, then it would speak about the estimated 1 million American prostitutes in the wealthiest nation in the world.

But of course they won’t cover that; why would they? Their ultimate goal is to bring “democracy” to the post-Soviet nations.

I’d be interested to know if this is part of democracy.

I’m sure this is what the Turkmen people would like to replace their “authoritarian” system with.

Turkmenistan is a nation of particular interest to the Hollywood elites. One would be curious to know as to why such pressure is put on a country that is internationally neutral, has no nuclear weapons, and has no international enemies. Maybe it has to do with Turkmenistan having the 5th highest amount of proven natural gas reserves.

John Oliver and Trevor Noah both coincidentally had a story on the nation’s then president just days apart. There was very little news in the country of Turkmenistan, apart from the conspiracy theory that President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow was actually dead. The rumor was fabricated the month prior to the videos posted by John Oliver and Trevor Noah, but for some strange reason, they both felt the need to cover the conspiracy theory that a “dictator” from the third world was dead, quite the coincidence. Typically American audiences don’t care much about geopolitics, especially from a largely unknown country, but the two felt the need to cover the story for whatever reason just days apart. They also made sure to speak about how the President is a propagandist and a dictator who oppresses his own people, like other mean third world dictators do. Does anyone else feel as though these “comedians”come off as condescending to their audience as they scold them on subjects? Well, of course the audience doesn’t feel that way; they live in a democracy, and in a democracy the media and pundits never lie since… we are in a democracy.

The western democratic propagandists have a history of claiming that leaders from anti-American countries are secretly dead and that their respective governments are trying to hide the facts from the public. They questioned if Kim Jung-Un, Ramzan Kadyrov, Alexander Lukashenko, Vladimir Putin, or Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow were dead; all of them are still alive today. The western propagandists have no basis in their claims, so they must grasp any straws that they can find in an attempt to impress Washington to give them more funding. This is how democracies work; they speak highly of their so-called “democratic process,” yet regardless of which political party is in charge of America, the government funding keeps flowing to the propaganda outlets.

Replacement of native population

The western democracies must always be capitalistic since those who pay the bills are internationalists who must fund the political parties, therefore legitimizing them to the general public. The greatest goal of capitalism is, of course, profit. The profit must come first, before the culture, the tradition, and the people. When the birth rate becomes below replacement and a labor shortage occurs, the leaders of democracies must import foreign workers to replace the native population. Since those who control the levers of power in these democracies don’t care about the native population, bringing in foreigners who have no connection to the people is of no concern to the elites; the only concern that persists is to gain larger profits. This was seen on the X debate at the very end of 2024 over the legitimacy of legal immigration of foreigners into the United States. Elon, the wealthiest capitalist in the world, doesn’t care about a people’s culture or traditions, so he, of course, is in favor of legal immigration, especially for the promotion of H-1B visas. Trump, a puppet of the capitalists, of course, must follow Elon, as it is the capitalists who control these democracies. This is very simple; as I explained earlier, the power comes from the top down. In Europe, immigration is extremely unpopular with the general population of the countries, yet the politicians must keep bringing in foreigners to keep up with the labor shortages and decreasing population. We have seen similar situations occur in East Asian nations. All one has to do is look at the population pyramid of countries like Japan, South Korea, Greece, Spain, and many others to realize that such a small and young population will mathematically not be able to support themselves and the future elderly population. Therefore, young immigrants must come in to fill the vacant spots of what would be natives if the fertility rate was at least 2.1. Bringing in foreigners has already caused immense chaos and damage to societies through crime, terrorist attacks, multiculturalism, etc. The asylum-seeking grift is one that also only brings a net negative to the state and society as the British government pays £8 million a day to take care of a foreign population that has no connection to the state. One tragic but sinister story took place in the UK, where an elderly British woman lost her life because her Indian and Romanian caretakers couldn’t explain her accident in the English language, leading to her death.

I’m not even sure how one can defend having these migrants in a country that they have absolutely no ethnic, religious, or linguistic connection to.

Even Bernie Sanders managed to outflank the GOP on immigration restriction recently.

The native populations never had a referendum for mass immigration, but the governments will still follow through on bringing in more foreigners. Those who control democracy won’t ever allow a referendum on immigration in any nation because it would rapidly get struck down as the majority of the populations in these European democracies don’t support bringing in immigrants.

The majority of the nations in this survey believed that immigration into their country was not a good thing, yet the immigrants will still keep coming into Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, France, Austria, etc. The whole point of democracy is that it must appear as though the voice of the people is heard when it really isn’t.

The illusion of democracy

The people do not truly get a say in elections since their views are inorganic as they have been planted by a foreign source, often from foreign elites like Soros, Musk, Sacks, etc. In the few times that the people do get an original idea and attempt to implement it and succeed, it gets struck down. This was seen in Germany with the recent rise of the AfD; once the party began to do well in elections, all of a sudden politicians began to publicly support banning the party. This is how democracy works: when things go as they are required to by the elites, all is okay, but then when a new party pops up out of nowhere, then all of a sudden we must ban them in the name of democracy. Another incident in which there was a referendum that the voters expressed an unpopular and non-mainstream opinion on was the 2018 Taiwanese referendum that included a question on gay marriage.

Although the majority of the population voted against the proposal, the leading party still legalized gay marriage in less than a year. How can voters disagree with the majority party on something by such a large margin? It is unthinkable, but remember, you can’t complain because this is democracy, and it all just makes sense. In the 2023 Democracy Index rankings, Taiwan was ranked as the 10th most democratic state, even though just a few years prior the government legalized something that 67% of the population voted against. Of course it doesn’t make sense, but this is the natural conclusion of democracy: the people are never supposed to be able to decide; they must instead be programmed to vote accordingly to what the billionaires who run the democracy believe in.

When countries do vote against gay marriage and the government does not ignore the people’s will, the elections are criticized by foreign organizations like the Venice Commission or RFE/RL in Kyrgyzstan in 2016.

Foreign allegiances

In democracies where there are a large share of foreign immigrants or people of immigrant backgrounds, there will no doubt be foreign influences that will impact the decisions of the politicians who have allegiance elsewhere other than the state.

There’s nothing wrong with being loyal to your own people; most people are. But what is a problem is putting citizens of a foreign state ahead of citizens of your country that you are meant to represent. It is the government’s job to make sure that those who represent the nation only have loyalty to their country.

Kemi Badenoch, the new Conservative Party leader in the UK, was born in England but raised in Nigeria and is now the leader of the second largest party in the UK. She has spoken of her dislike of Northern Nigeria, instead preferring her native Southern Nigeria. What exactly does this have to do with British politics? Nothing. That’s the point of democracy: to bring people in from all over the place who have foreign allegiances and pretend like they are loyal to one nation. This was also seen with Obama, who was born in America but lived in Indonesia for several years of his childhood, and Kamala Harris, who was also born in the U.S. but spent many of her formative years in Canada. Ultimately, the nation should be led by a person who has only lived in one country their whole life and has been loyal to that country their entire life.

People don’t know what’s best for them

The core belief of democracy is that the general population knows what’s best for themselves, so they should be able to go out and express their views. But what happens when the majority of the population doesn’t even know what is best for them, or what happens when their opinion is not represented by parliament? Well, in a democracy like Peru, the elected president attempted a self-coup; before being arrested, his replacement was Dina Boluarte, whose approval rating ranges anywhere from 3-6% today. A 6% approval rating for a president in a democracy.

People in democracies don’t even know what they want. The people do not feel represented, so it is the government's job to step in and do what is best for them, not necessarily what sounds good in the short term but rather what will work out in the long run.

Conclusion

Democracy has proven to be a failure time and time again. So many people in these democracies feel as though their voices are not heard, leading to low turnout rates in elections. With the clear failure of this system, I have proposed my own governing model that I believe can work for all people of the world: National Authoritarianism. I believe that National Authoritarianism is a light at the end of a very dark tunnel that may liberate all good people of the world from the sick elites that rule our societies in these democracies and will help secure freedom for all people once and for all.