"All of these things are distractions to keep us busy." To me they either look like symptoms or symbolic victories, in the war of symbolism. Do not take it at face value, look at the symbolism. What is being promoted by and by who? And what is not being promoted and by who? Who gets protection, who gets persecuted? Who gets the funding and who is put out of work?

"Whoever is yelling the loudest about "democracy" and calling for every dog and donkey to have a vote probably wants everyone to forget what democracy is. Plainly put it is simply a means of collective decisionmaking."

That is not what it is, that is in text books, not real life. Also there is no democracies, there are republics and republics are more like banana republics.

"The USA is a Constitutional Republic and it is the Constitution that establishes the makeup of the Republic."

It may have been founded as such, long time ago. But it has not been that for quite a while. Certainly the constitution has no real role in American politics.

"Democracy was never expected to be universal. In the beginning it was very limited, votes being limited to primarily landowners. "

I think you mean voting rights, not democracy. Yes, originally voting rights were limited to about 6% of population. But the vary nature of the liberal system made the road to universal if not beyond universal suffrage, inevitable.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse ( willingness to give money, or money given to poor people by rich people) from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been about 300 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.” ― Alexander Fraser Tytler

Indeed.

The Institutionalized Minds Of Most Americans

Friday, Apr 07, 2023 - 09:00 PM

Authored by Kevin Porteus via AmGreatness.com,

We depend on the state for everything from government jobs and student loans to occupational licenses and the use of public resources. And we have the habits of mind to prove it...

[zerohedge.com]

Problem is that the Institutionalized Minds Of Most Americans, demands big nanny state, and also wants endless freedom to avoid any kind of responsibility.

As someone put it...

"Modern liberalism suffers unresolved contradictions. It exalts individualism and freedom and, on its radical wing, condemns social orders as oppressive. On the other hand, it expects government to provide materially for all, a feat manageable only by an expansion of authority and a swollen bureaucracy. In other words, liberalism defines government as tyrant father but demands it behave as nurturant mother."

@Krunoslav

That is not what it is, that is in text books, not real life.

I've never seen that in textbooks. I've only seen long dissertations and pedantic word salads to describe democracy. In essence, it is a collective means of decision-making. One is not a collective, by the way. Is two people with voting rights a democracy? Is everyone with voting rights a democracy? The USSR claimed to be superior democracies and every citizen had a vote. They didn't vote for parties or ideological direction, they voted to send a representative to the Duma. It was collective decision making process in the district on who would be sent. The Duma presented the issues and the representatives from the districts voted on them in what could be called a collective decision making process.
A 6% portion of the population that had voting-rights in America was deemed a democratic system.
What came with the voting right was a responsibility to the country and the welfare of the general populace. The vote was expanded to include Blacks and women, whom may or may not have cared about the country or the general welfare of the populace. But they protested until they got the right to be involved in the nation's collective decision making process. A universal democracy could never be a viable option and this seems the direction of the democrat liberals. So I agree with you on the point that liberalism contains the seeds of its own destruction.

I think the confusion of what defines a democracy is in who should have voting rights. I think there are limits as to who has or doesn't have voting rights and people should realize they are not just voting for themselves but for the good of the nation and security of its population. Most people don't have the responsibility of what having a vote means. They should leave that responsibility to politicians and not share in the responsibility of destroying the nation which politicians eventually do. Having the vote means they are contributing to the destruction of the nation and you can be sure politicians will make certain the people, and the people alone, are responsible for making wrong choices in their collective decision making.

@FrankZeleniuk "The USSR claimed to be superior democracies and every citizen had a vote. They didn't vote for parties or ideological direction, they voted to send a representative to the Duma. It was collective decision making process in the district on who would be sent. The Duma presented the issues and the representatives from the districts voted on them in what could be called a collective decision making process."

Yes. In way its very similar to when you hear today EU/USA politicians talk about "our democracy", "our values", threat to "our democracy" etc. Its how ruling class uses language to try and provide false moral high ground to their immoral rule.

It would appear...

“Sometimes it seems that everybody in the world is in favor of democracy, just as long as it gives them the result they want.” ― Jack Lessenberry

One of the problems off course is that...

“People use democracy as a free-floating abstraction disconnected from reality. Democracy in and of itself is not necessarily good. Gang rape, after all, is democracy in action..” ― Terry Goodkind, Naked Empire

................................................

"A 6% portion of the population that had voting-rights in America was deemed a democratic system."

I don't know if that is how it was seen at the time or called that way, but yes I've found a list of events on the record and how the voting rights increased in a place like America, although similar situation existed in Ancient Greece, in Athenian democracy which unlike United States republic, was imagined as direct democracy.

This is a timeline of voting rights in the United States. The timeline highlights milestones when groups of people in the United States gained voting rights, and also documents aspects of disenfranchisement in the country.

1780s

1789

The Constitution of the United States grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males (about 6% of the population).[1] However, some states allowed also Black males to vote, and New Jersey also included unmarried and widowed women, regardless of color. Since married women were not allowed to own property, they could not meet the property qualifications.[2]

Georgia removes property requirement for voting.[3]

The rest of the events can be found here: [en.wikipedia.org]

.................................................

Dan Sanchez - Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the editor of FEE.org. asks....

What Went Wrong

The revolutions from 1688 to 1917 replaced one superstitious basis of state legitimacy with a new one.

There are two kinds of liberty, ancient and modern. (The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns)

[fee.org]

Again we must ask, as Constant did two centuries ago: what went so wrong? It all goes back to the reliance of the original liberals on the people’s state. John Locke’s notion of a hireling, representative government simply misunderstood the nature of the state. Legal plunder is not a “perversion” of the state, but its actual, primary function. As liberals came to discover through their pursuit of “legal plunder” theory, the state is and has always been a parasitic protection racket. It doesn’t tax in order to protect, but “protects” in order to tax. Like in the Twilight Zone episode “To Serve Man,” the state’s “social contract” is not a service agreement, but a cookbook. “To protect and serve,” indeed, Mr. Policeman writing me a $200 ticket.

The true basis of whatever amount of liberty we manage to retain and reclaim stems, not from the state but in spite of it: from our growing realization (whether as a vague sense or a full understanding) of the state’s kleptocratic nature, and our stubborn intolerance of depredation that results from that realization.

That all-important realization is precluded by the belief in the people’s state: by the conceit that “the State is us.” But the State is not us. There is no such thing as “rule by the people,” because there is no such thing as “the people.” There are only individuals. There is no such thing as a “general will.” Only individuals have wills. “The People” is an incoherent abstraction: a fictional, willful entity that we have been inculcated into believing in, even though we cannot comprehend it. The revolutions from 1688 to 1917 replaced one superstitious basis of state legitimacy with a new one. The king and state clergy graced by an incomprehensible god have been supplanted by a commander-in-chief and technocratic bureaucracy graced by an incomprehensible entity called “the people.” The new superstition is even more powerful and dangerous than the old, because it involves the tempting delusion of self-service through participation in state power.

The perils and evils of nationalism and socialism did not end with collapses of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

It is also more powerful and dangerous because it is a superstition that feeds, and feeds on, avarice, belligerence, and collectivism. It provides an easy lever for the state to use to divide and rule. Simply declare a foreign war, and nationalists will rally around the people’s state to achieve the national unity necessary to overwhelm and plunder foreign enemies. Simply declare a class war, and socialists and other class warriors (social justice warriors, crony capitalists, etc) will rally around the people’s state to achieve the class unity necessary to overwhelm and plunder domestic enemies. By extending an open invitation to participate in legal plunder, the people’s state divides its subjects into warring factions that are too committed to fighting each other using the state to recognize that its true enemy is the state.

The perils and evils of nationalism and socialism did not end with collapses of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. They haunt us still.

As young university-bred cultural Marxists and the new insurgent movement of young populist nationalists both continue to radicalize and face off with ever greater hostility, it becomes ever more important to discard our misplaced faith in the people’s state that fosters the conflict and collectivism driving such movements.

Source: [fee.org]

........................

"I've never seen that in textbooks. I've only seen long dissertations and pedantic word salads to describe democracy. In essence, it is a collective means of decision-making. One is not a collective, by the way."

I guess not. But like to think of itself as a collective.

Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.

IDEALLY, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. It can also encompass social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.
Criticism of democracy: Economists since Milton Friedman have strongly criticized the efficiency of democracy. They base this on their premise of the irrational voter. Their argument is that voters are highly uninformed about many political issues, especially relating to economics, and have a strong bias about the few issues on which they are fairly knowledgeable.
“Democracy arose from men's thinking that if they are equal in any respect, they are equal absolutely.” ― Aristotle

“The aspirations of democracy are based on the notion of an informed citizenry, capable of making wise decisions. The choices we are asked to make become increasingly complex. They require the longer-term thinking and greater tolerance for ambiguity that science fosters. The new economy is predicated on a continuous pipeline of scientific and technological innovation. It can not exist without workers and consumers who are mathematically and scientifically literate. ” ― Ann Druyan

Because men are in a group,
and therefore weakened,
receptive, and in a state of
psychological regression, they
pretend all the more to be
"strong individuals." The mass
man is clearly sub-human, but
pretends to be superhuman. He
is more suggestible, but insists
he is more forceful; he is more
unstable, but thinks he is firm
in his convictions ...
Democracy is based on the
concept that man is rational and
capable of seeing clearly what
is in his own interest, but the
study of public opinion suggests
this is a highly doubtful proposition.

JACQUES ELLUL, Propaganda

@FrankZeleniuk
"What came with the voting right was a responsibility to the country and the welfare of the general populace. The vote was expanded to include Blacks and women, whom may or may not have cared about the country or the general welfare of the populace. But they protested until they got the right to be involved in the nation's collective decision making process. A universal democracy could never be a viable option and this seems the direction of the democrat liberals. So I agree with you on the point that liberalism contains the seeds of its own destruction."

Yes. Inevetably so.

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.... A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” ― Thomas Jefferson

In an attempt to make the United States a constitutional republic, instead of direct democracy system, the founder’s attempt to find a loop hole in the iron law of oligarchy. But they were not only fooling themselves, but also everyone else who is out of self-interest and vanity bought into this utopian vision. But it was not a consensus or democratic process when these decisions were made. It was people like Jefferson who was a slave owner and belong to the upper crust of society, these were the people that made a decision in the name of Americans withough Americans having much say in it. So much for democracy and representation. It should have been a hint. And indeed for many it was, but little choice did they had.

"In the early stages of the rebellion by the American colonists, most of them still saw themselves as English subjects who were being denied their rights as such. “Taxation without representation is tyranny,” James Otis reportedly said in protest of the lack of colonial representation in Parliament. What made the American Revolution look most like a civil war, though, was the reality that about one-third of the colonists, known as loyalists (or Tories), continued to support and fought on the side of the crown."

American Revolution, also called United States War of Independence or American Revolutionary War, (1775–83), insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies won political independence and went on to form the United States of America. The war followed more than a decade of growing estrangement between the British crown and a large and influential segment of its North American colonies that was caused by British attempts to assert greater control over colonial affairs after having long adhered to a policy of salutary neglect. Until early in 1778 the conflict was a civil war within the British Empire, but afterward it became an international war as France (in 1778) and Spain (in 1779) joined the colonies against Britain. Meanwhile, the Netherlands, which provided both official recognition of the United States and financial support for it, was engaged in its own war against Britain. From the beginning, sea power was vital in determining the course of the war, lending to British strategy a flexibility that helped compensate for the comparatively small numbers of troops sent to America and ultimately enabling the French to help bring about the final British surrender at Yorktown.

[britannica.com]

If you want to understand democracy, spend less time in the library with Plato, and more time in the buses with people. ― Simeon Strunsky

@FrankZeleniuk "I think the confusion of what defines a democracy is in who should have voting rights. I think there are limits as to who has or doesn't have voting rights and people should realize they are not just voting for themselves but for the good of the nation and security of its population. "

Yes, the term democracy has been elevated to a position of "fairness" and "moral good" and everyone who is against it or questions the rhetoric surrounding it, is often labeled not just wrong or disagreeable, but downright evil. This is the legacy of the leftist mindset.

"Most people don't have the responsibility of what having a vote means. They should leave that responsibility to politicians and not share in the responsibility of destroying the nation which politicians eventually do. Having the vote means they are contributing to the destruction of the nation and you can be sure politicians will make certain the people, and the people alone, are responsible for making wrong choices in their collective decision making. "

“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.” ― Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States of America, from 1901 to 1909

"Remember one thing about democracy. We can have anything we want and at the same time, we always end up with exactly what we deserve." ― Edward Albee

...this off course presumes that voting actually changes anything. But if it did, they would made it illegal long ago. Hence the reference to today's "our democracy" or democracy of the soviet union. They only used the term to give themselves a moral justification for being tyrannical, but if voting actually made a difference, they would make it illegal.

Just look at Brexit. Voted on yes. Implemented, no. Not in any real sense, because voting does not change anything.

Its more there to pacify opposition than to make a difference.

If you want to understand democracy, spend less time in the library with Plato, and more time in the buses with people. ― Simeon Strunsky

picture: People sitting on bench at bus stop in Los Angeles California

"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." - George Bernard Shaw, Irish dramatist & socialist (1856 - 1950)

"You have to remember one thing about the will of the people: it wasn't that long ago that we were swept away by the Macarena.” ― Jon Stewart

"Popularity should be no scale for the election of politicians. If it would depend on popularity, Donald Duck and The Muppets would take seats in senate." ― Orson Welles

"Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame." ― Laurence J. Peter (1919 - 1988), US educator & writer

"Today, democracy is being allowed to vote for the candidate you dislike least." — Robert Byrne

“Democracy arose from men's thinking that if they are equal in any respect, they are equal absolutely.” ― Aristotle ....my knowlage is as good as your ignorance.

.....................

“The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’

‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

Food is more expensive and they want us to eat zee bugs and they polluted entertainment by injecting woke degeneracy into everything. How long before, only thing that remains is pitchforks and torches.

Its not hard. “If you want to keep people happy, just keep the food and entertainment rolling.”
― E.A. Bucchianeri, Brushstrokes of a Gadfly

........................

But liberalism is not some way out, its the root cause.

“There is nothing that has done more havoc to the rain of revival than the illusion of "modernism and theological liberalism" Liberalism sets itself as another gospel but not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
― Oluseyi Akinbami

The liberal ideology is a contemporary religion. I disagree with the viewpoint of the progressive modern liberals that pursuing religious freedom is a worthwhile objective, because it is a false premise. Liberals impose their own religion upon other religions because they believe it to be the only true faith and the most moral of them all. So much so, they believe that simply self-identifying as a liberal is enough to be morally superior. They outsource the responsibility of personal morality by unloading it onto the liberal ideology itself. This is expanded by the Liberal dogma of the “doctrine of universal human rights.” Those who disagree with it are rarely tolerated; hence, those that are more dogmatic among the liberals, consider even challenging the human rights doctrine to be blasphemous.

“Liberalism has failed, not because it fell short, but because it was true to itself. It has failed because it has succeeded. As liberalism has become more fully itself, as its inner logic has become more evident and its self contradictions manifest, it has generated pathologies that are at once deformations of its claims, yet realizations of liberal ideology.

A political philosophy that was launched to foster greater equity, defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs, protect human dignity, and of course expand liberty in practice generates titanic inequality, enforces uniformity and homogeneity, fosters material and spiritual degradation, and undermines freedom.”

― Patrick Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed (2018)

Reminds me of what someone said. Liberalism delivered what it promised, but it was the opposite of what most expected.

Liberalism vs. Reality - Feb 29, 2020 Excerpt from James Burnham, Suicide of the West (1964; New York: Encounter Books, 2014), pp. 319-40; 345-9.

Feb 29, 2020 Excerpt from James Burnham, Suicide of the West (1964; New York: Encounter Books, 2014), pp. 319-40; 345-9.

The Guilt of the Liberal - Feb 29, 2020 Excerpt from James Burnham, Suicide of the West (1964; New York: Encounter Books, 2014), pp. 221-8.

@Krunoslav Some good quotes there.

Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.

See that is not democracy but yes, they want everyone to think that is what it is.
The US had a system of democracy. Canada does and the UK does. They are all different in their granting of voter rights. It isn't even a form of government. the form of government is described in their constitutions. In one sentence you can say these people and these people will have voting rights. some are broader than others in scope but the assignment of voting rights can be said in one sentence. We are a democracy. It says nothing really about the form of government. A democracy can exist in any form of government, even a Dictatorship where the people are allowed to vote on certain issues or representatives.

I like Jefferson, I think he was saying since about 6% of the population had a vote and that a universal democracy should never exist in America. Democracy is not necessarily mob rule if individuals are voting and not a mob. Mobs are like a herd of sheep that just follow and have no idea what direction they are going.

@FrankZeleniuk "Democracy is not necessarily mob rule if individuals are voting and not a mob. Mobs are like a herd of sheep that just follow and have no idea what direction they are going."

Well, protests we see are closest thing to a mob rule and democracy, or as some would say, when everyone thinks the same, no one is thinking. Do to peer pressure, most conform and any individual voice of reason is lost in the noise of others. That is why there must be a leader with a platform to speak and respect of the listener so they listen.

Democracy, in a sense of direct democracy was mainly attempted in Ancient Greece, although it still had many limitations as to who can vote so in practice it was a small minority voting in a system and place where number of laws and regulations passed was manageable for such people. Modern nations states are not very suitable for such system and American export of constitutional republics have proven to lead to tyranny by default. Hence for the time being we are all stuck in system where we can't solve problems by voting, because the system is the problem itself. It fosters corruption, divide and conquer tactics and systems such as think tanks, lobbying, party systems etc ensure that as the system continues to move on its inevitable course, the gap between interests of the people and their so called representatives are more and more widening. This is not a bug of the system, this is a feature of the system.

If you make a list of laws and regulations voted on in the last few generations and practical interests of ordinary people, you will notice ever more wider divergence between the two. Like I said, its a feature not a bug of such systems.

Sadly its more than pop culture, it was "Joe Biden deploys teenage TikTok stars to blame soaring gas prices and inflation on Russia as US's worst cost-of-living crisis in 40 years tanks president's ratings ahead of midterms" This creature was one of them. They also hired them for pushing the jab.

The Biden Administration is looking towards TikTok influencers to help get their message across to younger people particularly on issues of Russia and inflation

It's partly a way of battling Russia's propaganda machine about its invasion of the Ukraine

Ellie Zeiler, an 18-year-old who has more than 10 million followers produced a video explaining why gas is so expensive
Biden has been accused of cynically trying to distract from the fact that inflation was a serious issue for months before the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Last week, The White House held a zoom briefing for about 30 popular social influencers

Jen Psaki helped lead the White House message Influencers on the call said the White House emphasized its work with allies

By James Gordon For Dailymail.com

Published: 05:59 BST, 15 March 2022 | Updated: 04:24 BST, 18 March 2022

[dailymail.co.uk]

Jonas Brothers Film TikTok with Biden at White House #Shorts

VIDEO: Biden Hires LGBTQ Influencer To Shill Vaccines From Inside White House
ByMorgan

Aug 10, 2021 Biden, COVID-19, Influencer, LGBTQ, Tik Tok, vaccines, White House

A bizarre video released by a Tik Tok influencer from inside the White House has been criticized online.
The Biden administration has hired 50 online “influencers” to promote COVID-19 vaccines to young Americans. One of them is a homosexual LGBTQ influencer named Cooper, who released a video from the White House showcasing his role, but it has been referred to as “cringe” by critics.

The Biden administration has hired 50 online “influencers” mostly under the age of 30 to promote COVID-19 vaccines to young people. One Tik Tok influencer named Cooper released a video from inside the White House, featuring White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, that has been widely criticized and referred to as “cringe.”

As The New York Times’ Taylor Lorenz reported Sunday, the Biden administration signed on 50 Twitch YouTube, and TikTok users to reach their massive follower counts, which largely consist of young users under the age of 30.

The Times spoke with some of the influencers who received inquiries from the White House through a marketing organization, asking them to address “a massive need to grow awareness within the 12-18 age range.”

The influencer, who has long white painted fingernails, put out a video depicting a day in his life as a White House intern. At one point in the video, Cooper is standing in front of portraits of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and is wearing a open white jacket and skirt with his chest hair visible. Throughout the video Cooper acts childishly, and can be seen putting on makeup and doing Tik Tok dances. At the end of the video the influencer asks viewers to comment if they want more videos.

The White House hired another influencer to promote vaccines pic.twitter.com/LK7JOOcGz1
— Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) August 9, 2021

The video, shared by the Twitter account known as “Libs of Tik Tok,” has widely been criticized online. Former Senate candidate and America First firebrand Lauren Witzke slammed the Biden administration over the move. “Welcome to Hell. No, your grandfathers would have never have gotten off of those landing crafts in 1944 or staged a cold war against the Soviet Union if this was the kind of ‘Democracy’ they were told they were saving,” Witzke posted to Gab.

In reaction to the video, Conservative activist and Congressional candidate for Nevada Mindy Robinson said “Apparently being cringe AF is also a side effect of the vaccine…”

I feel like I lost testosterone watching this
— gosuprime (@gosuprime25) August 9, 2021

This is so bad that I am going to figure out how to unvaccinated myself.
— Zach Ward (@UnrealZachWard) August 9, 2021

In related news, the United States military, under the direction of Biden regime Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, is moving to require all service members to be injected with the COVID vaccine by September 15, according to a report from the Associated Press. Refusal to be injected could be treated as failure to obey an order, and unvaccinated soldiers may be subject to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Source: National File

@wolfhnd first meme character was a real queer or gay White House intern of Biden's administration, wore black and white alternate cut suits ect

I got memes of it somewhere....

@Krunoslav

Thank you, I guess I just can't keep up with the goings on.

@wolfhnd no worries it's a full time job.