Hey guys. I'm just curious as to what you all think of democracy...

Hey guys. I'm just curious as to what you all think of democracy. I'm pretty bluepilled on it and wanna learn some arguments against it.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
twitter.com/AnonBabble

find a better looking chick if you want to draw people in to your thread. Just a thought.

Gross

Nice tits

Democracy is the worst system of government in the world except for every single other one.

>muh winston churchill

Its objectively the worst actually. Monarchism, Authoritarianism and even primitivism does not produce the dysgenic

chunky

>letting double digit IQ plebs decide the fate of a country
>a good idea

Pick one.

Also in democracy rulers have no reason to think of the long term consequences of their actions because they only rule for 10 years at most.

Democracy produces solutions to societys problems

You and around 80 percent of the population are 'blue pilled'

"the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue pill)"

And this is exactly why democracy doesn't work. Because people don't know what is going on, they don't know who to vote for, and they don't know when they are being lied to.

When 80 percent of the population is being taken advantage of.... well ... you do the math.

Not until you give me a name

Still a fat smelly bitch, though.

... by causing more problems.

Democracy is like being polite. It works until it doesn't. Commit to it if you want to but eventually one side or the other is going to turn to violence. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Those don't produce the same incentive among the general populace to improve living conditions or production.

Right now the only reason we have dysgenics is due to abundance. We're in the decadence phase, which is the same if not worse for every other form of government.

Like what?

Poverty?
Terrorism?
Obesity?
(((Unequality)))?

Oh wait, those are things that democracies have spent TRILLIONS fighting and have made all these problems worse!

Demcucks will never admit this

Can a government exists that protects the rights of the people without being at least some form of democracy? If so, what kinds of checks and balances are there?

Democracy is mob rule. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner is Democracy.

Gay shill detected.

Democracy is your chance to be a part of society. A vote for authoritarianism is still a vote, even if it is the last vote ever allowed.

Go back to dildo time.

Fuck the general populace, double digit IQ plebs cant produce anything of worth.

Abundance only produces dysgenics with forced redistribution of wealth, like we have in all modern democracies.

here's the kicker

that's actually a shoop

Even though it makes a dozen more in it's wake?
Eat shit faggot.

>the rights of the people
Literally a meme.

Democracy is mob rule and said mob can be influenced by (((outside elements)))

This 2tbqfh famalamdam. Along with that comes the issues with first past the post voting.
youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Quantity doesn't create truth or morals. Five who vote for raping a woman is just as moral as five who vote against it.

I uhhh....

Democracy looks good.....

H O M O
O
M
O


Nice grill, sauce?

Democracy works until it doesn't, and when it doesn't we just swipe it under the rug and keep going.
But it's the best we got.
Communism won't ever work, it's utopia.
Monarchism and Fascism put too much power in just one hand.
Anarchy is just retarded.

>random insults, probobly projecting

Really made me think.

>part of society

That is accomplished simply existing

Democracy is pretty neat. Not like it exists anyway.

That girl is fertility incarnate you fag

her tits only look good in photo, they will ugly sacks once you get her on the bed.

Human rights are literally the basis for western civilization and governments. They're the only thing that separate us from the sandnegroes.

See I believe in a poll tax, IQ test, Identification for voting etc. People who are on welfare cant vote. No anchor babies. With these in place but not limited to, could democracy work?

Wow, disgusting. There is some degeneracy in the world, and it isn't necessarily Cred Forums.

>letting millions of people that have no idea about how economics, politics, humanities, culture, etc. works decide the fate of a country instead of military leaders that devoted their life to their country or emperors that have been specially raised to lead a nation

Democracy is rule of the mob, like 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what is for dinner. This is especially dangerous with useful idiots that live in a society with controlled media. Wouldn't you rather than live through mob rule instead live by what is the right thing to do?

>human rights

nigga please. If you become too much of a problem for your democratic government you're going to get a barbell dropped on your neck anyways

"Human rights" is a christcuck meme.

Greek and Roman aristocratic morality is the basis of the West's greatness, Christian ethics is the basis of its slow decline

He's right, you know.

Here's the original.

Democracy is mob rule. Read Madison on pluralism in the federalist papers.

Ah yes, we need to go back to retarded inbreds ruling everyone!

>Abundance only produces dysgenics
Abundance is victory over nature, over other nations. It frees people's times so they can focus into the arts and sciences.

Without abundance, we wouldn't have the philosophies of greece and rome, nor its architecture.

All good things come to an end, the only thing we decide is when that end comes.

Also, at this point in time we probably have far better and natural distributions of wealth unlike every other form of government you mentioned.

Just face, it other forms of government are fucking fossils.

We know how you feel about fat asses Brazil. Decent white people want no part of that, but your jungle monkey self can have at it.

then who is she?

some actress right?

Too many gorditas. You are what you eat, Mexi-bro.

>Democracy and plutocracy are equivalent in Spengler's argument. The "tragic comedy of the world-improvers and freedom-teachers" is that they are simply assisting money to be more effective. The principles of equality, natural rights, universal suffrage, and freedom of the press are all disguises for class war (the bourgeois against the aristocracy). Freedom, to Spengler, is a negative concept, simply entailing the repudiation of any tradition. In reality, freedom of the press requires money, and entails ownership, thus serving money at the end. Suffrage involves electioneering, in which the donations rule the day. The ideologies espoused by candidates, whether Socialism or Liberalism, are set in motion by, and ultimately serve, only money. "Free" press does not spread free opinion—it generates opinion, Spengler maintains.

>Spengler's analysis of democratic systems argues that even the use of one's own constitutional rights requires money, and that voting can only really work as designed in the absence of organized leadership working on the election process. As soon as the election process becomes organized by political leaders, to the extent that money allows, the vote ceases to be truly significant. It is no more than a recorded opinion of the masses on the organizations of government over which they possess no positive influence whatsoever.

Read the Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West for more.

>not a single argument
>makes absurd claims about knowing what a "natural distribution of wealth" is
>states obvious facts like "abundance is required for growth"

Typical demcuck

>Decent white people don't want healthy, strong and fertile women, with wide hips and huge tits.
And you guys wonder why you're going extinct.

Ha, what a fucking hack.

Philosophers who pine for supreme psychological liberation have often failed to realise that they belong to a confederacy that includes the Stoics. ‘According to nature you want to live?’ Friedrich Nietzsche taunts the Stoics in Beyond Good and Evil (1886):

O you noble Stoics, what deceptive words these are! Imagine a being like nature, wasteful beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without purposes and consideration, without mercy and justice, fertile and desolate and uncertain at the same time; imagine indifference itself as a power – how could you live according to this indifference? Living – is that not precisely wanting to be other than this nature? Is not living – estimating, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And supposing your imperative ‘live according to nature’ meant at bottom as much as ‘live according to life’ – how could you not do that? Why make a principle of what you yourself are and must be?

This is pretty good, as denunciations of Stoicism go, seductive in its articulateness and energy, and therefore effective, however uninformed.

Which is why it’s so disheartening to see Nietzsche fly off the rails of sanity in the next two paragraphs, accusing the Stoics of trying to ‘impose’ their ‘morality… on nature’, of being ‘no longer able to see [nature] differently’ because of an ‘arrogant’ determination to ‘tyrannise’ nature as the Stoic has tyrannised himself. Then (in some of the least subtle psychological projection you’re ever likely to see, given what we know of Nietzsche’s mad drive for psychological supremacy), he accuses all of philosophy as being a ‘tyrannical drive’, ‘the most spiritual will to power’, to the ‘creation of the world’.

Nietzsche was so retarded he couldn't even understand Greek and Roman morality, especially Stoicism, which in its modern incarnation is pretty fucking simple to understand.

Figures that a shithole country wouldn't care about human rights :^)

Thats not fat and i have never fucked a fat girl or been a fan of them

We don't wonder. I'm not interested in a stick figure like tay-tay, but the pig in OP's pic if a fat digusting lard-ass.

Do you disagree?

>anonymous 4chaner thinks he is smarter than Nietzsche

>posts pure sophistry