064/ 201 27 26
MYTH ABOUT DEMOCRACY AND CIVIL SOCIETY,
AS THE UNIVERSAL RECIPE FOR SOCIAL CONSENT
(Liberal democracy as totalitarian plutocracy)
Eventhough the word democracy is often connected with the antic Greece; the truth is that democracy is considerably younger and far more linked with contemporary Europe. Liberal democracy is a direct product of the French revolution in 1789, created to protect capitalism, and in today’s society: The Corporational (New) World Order. Modern democracy defers from the antic in almost every way, except in it’s name. We could say that democracy, by the Plato’s “prophecy” evolved into tyranny, and “armed injustice”.
The word –democracy- is constructed by two old-Greek words: demos- people, and cratein- government, to govern. However, in this translation we should pay extra attention on the meaning of the word demos. In the Holy Bible there are three words that depict people, each one in different connotation.
The first word is ethnos, and ethnos depicts the people that have its own culture, customs, tradition… but it does not have Christian faith. The second word is demos, which depicts the people who had culture, customs, tradition, and faith but renounced God; demonized people. The third word is Laos, which depicts the people with culture, customs, tradition, and Christian faith (the New Israel).
From the above said, we can draw a conclusion that democracy means the government of the demonized people. Every “true” democrat confirms the truth of this statement; because renouncing God, secularization, is one of the things they are most proud of.
Democracy, as one of the faces of the ultimate totalitarianism, was not the only product of the French revolution. She had two brothers, communism and fascism. These three, only principally different, ways of governing were created to ease the control over the citizens. The artificial divide backed them up on some sort of left wing (as the liberal option) and right wing (as limited conservatism) politics. The lefties are fighting for even more extreme separation from the old system, and the “conservatives” are for the moderation of such extremism.
This kind of divide was giving good results until the end of the nineteen-century, when the first true revolutionars appeared among the right wing thinkers. To quote Alexander Dugin: “Contrary to plain right wing thinkers, the “conservative revolutionars” were not denying the deep crises of political and social order in Europe, nor did they consider the values of the pre-revolutionary period as unquestionable. Differing from plain right wing thinkers, they claimed that the crises was not only the product of the outside, foreign force (that comes from the antichristian, antimonarchist and antieuropian forces, that we call “free masonry”). However, the similarity with the left wing in criticizing the state of crises in the pre-revolutionary period does not implicit consent in determining the positive orientation in the quest for the solution of the crises. The left wing aims to radicalize the theses about Freedom, Brotherhood and Egalitarianism, and “conservative revolutionars” on the other hand, insist on the completely unlike approach and aim to the order that preceded not only the revolution, but the reasons for the revolution as well.”
This kind of conception obviously started jeopardizing the governors, so they decided to conduct a radical equalization of the left and right wings. The culmination of this process happened in the Second World War, in which the right wing was erased as a serious political option.
In continuation (in the Cold war) two wings of the left wing struggled for prevailing. The two wings were: liberal democracy and communism, or socialism. In the beginning of the 90s in the last century, communism was defeated and the whole World stepped into the 21st century with only one political option, democracy.
The fight against democracy, organized or individual, looks impossible only because of the myth that is created around democracy, as it being the universal recipe for social consent.
The concept of democracy and the system represented by it should be opposed to any universal solution. Democracy, at least in theory, offers the possibility to choose, which naturally means there must be some differences. Hence, contemporary sole existence of democracy as a system, denies it self, and we can conclude that all its left from the democracy is a myth, not the democracy it self.
Even that myth, that we often call democracy, and which is governing the World, has numerous deficiencies, which are devaluating it as the “universal” solution. If we take in consider the fact that all social communities were not created on the same fundaments, nor in the same conditions, it is natural that we can not equalize them all with the same system of government.
If we take a particular plant from Australia, and we plant it in Europe, it is possible that the plant will give fruits on both continents, but it is impossible for that fruits to taste the same. Why would we than expect from democracy, created in Western Europe and modified in USA, to give the same results in Russia, which was developing its own society in completely different geopolitical conditions for thousands of years.
Anglo-Saxon countries, such as Great Britain and USA, can build their states on the principles of democracy and multiparty parliamentarism, because their societies were born in such conditions. They have preceded democracy, they gave birth to democracy and they raised democracy. End yet; even they do not respect the principles of democracy that they are enforcing in the rest of the World.
The Great Britain and USA constructed their systems of government on the two-party principle, in which the differences between those parties is the same as the difference between the Pepsi and Coca Cola. On the other hand we have countries such as Serbia, were democracy was enforced, which are significantly smaller from the above mentioned, and they have over 350 parties. The democrat explains this fact as alleged barbarianism and immaturity of such peoples, and they neglect the fact that those countries had civilized, functional societies and strong states hundreds of years before democracy. Contrary to their explanation, this fact can only show the universal instability and inconsistency of democracy.
Countries that in the geopolitical sense do not allay with the West nor with the East, and have a long history of statehood, are more than capable of building just society, but only if they respect the natural laws. That means that for some countries, and for others it is not, the best solution is the natural, organic society. That suggests, among other things, erasing of artificial divides, such as party divides, and implementing of guild classification. The organic society represents the type of governing in which everything is connected and interdependent, like human body. That offers a chance for the community to develop in coordination, integration, hierarchy, equality and justice.
State-building capable peoples, such as Slavic, for centuries constructed their societies in accordance with the God given Order in the nature. That means that they never had a closed system of “castes”, nor egalitarian system of “democratization”, but the guild classified system in which progression and retrogression came as one earn them.
This kind of governing is a positive attitude towards the world, without discrimination of any part, because as much as the body needs a hand it needs a leg as well, as much as the eye is worth to the body, the ear is as well. Opposite to this system is a global democratisation that is by its nature negativity. Democracy is based on the principle of tolerance, which means accepting something that you do not like. Those things that democracy can not tolerate, such as a concurrent system of governing, she erases completely, what makes her a totalitarian ideology.
The democratic idea of egalitarianism means, in theory, that all people has equal rights. But in practice, this egalitarianism has completely different connotation. When the French revolution arouse, and masses went on to fight for equal rights, they were not aware that they are not fighting for bigger rights of the so called third Estate, but for the taking the rights of other Estates, what would indeed equalize them but on the bottom, and on the top the handful of the rich would stay and govern. From this we can see the plutocratic nature of democracy.
This kind of egalitarianism meant (and means the same today) that two tailors have greater authority to make a battle plan than one general. In such conditions it is illusionary to expect a positive outcome in the battle, which means that the “tailors” did not gain anything, and furthermore that, together with the “general”, they all are defeated. Equalisation on those principles is opportunistic to every natural law of hierarchy, and that is way we have never seen two rabbits to attack a tiger.
As we could see from the above stated, different societies need different social arrangements as a condition for social consent. Enforcing democracy is a totalitarian imperialism and universal, global system, that would enable universal social consent, whatever you call it, is only a myth.
1. Popovic, M. 2000. “O filozofiji prava kod Srba” Sluzbeni Glasnik, Belgrade
2. Dugin, A. «Kratka ideologija treceg puta”, www.komentar.co.yu
1. Velimirovic, St. N. 2000. “Srpskom narodu kroz tamnicki prozor”, Pravoslavna crkvena opstina LINC, Linc- Austriа
2. Dugin, A. «Kratka ideologija treceg puta”, www.komentar.co.yu
3. Krstic, N. “Pravoslavlje i demokratija”, www.czipm.org
4. Ljotic, D. 2004. “Zakoni zivota”, Asprovalta
5. Moskovian, St. Philaret 1996. “O bogoustanovljenosti monarhijske drzave” OBRAZ 1-2, Belgrade
6. Popvic, M. 2000. “O filozofiji prava kod Srba” Sluzbeni Glasnik, Belgrade
Nemanja S. Mrdjenovich
(The paper for the International Conference: “THE TEMPORARY AND ETERNAL: The socio-cultural scenarios of the contemporary myth”; Veliky Novgorod; September 28.(11. October) – September 29.(12. October) 2005.)
/Translated from Serbian by Nemanja S. Mrdjenovich/