Rene Guenon on the farcial nature of so-called "Democracy".

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
I have never for the life of me understood why people see "Democracy" as a good in and of itself as opposed to one possible way of organizing political life which has as it's proper end the securing of the common good; if a Monarchy or Dictatorship could secure that end better under particular circumstances than surely it would be better to have them as opposed to "Democracy"? Such is only common sense. However reading this this morning by the great French philosopher Rene Guenon I think incontestably shows the ridiculousness of the whole idea at least in the form of Parliamentary Democracy on a mass scale which we have now in the West. It expresses with depth and clarity all that the wisdom contained in my mother-in-law's favourite quip on the system; "In theory mob rule, in practice the rule of gold" but goes further in its diagnosis;

"If the word 'democracy' is defined as the government of the people by themselves, it expresses an absolute impossibility and cannot even have a mere de facto existence---in our time or in any other. One must guard against being misled by words: it is contradictory to say that the same persons can be at the same time rulers and ruled, because, to use Aristotelian terminology, the same being cannot be 'in act' and 'in potency' at the same time and in the same relationship. The relationship of ruler and ruled necessitates the presence of two terms: there can be no ruled if there are not also rulers, even though these be illegitimate and have no other title to power than their own pretensions; but the great ability of those who are in control in the modern world lies in making the people believe that they are governing themselves; and the people are the more inclined to believe this as they are flattered by it, and as, in any case, they are incapable of sufficient reflection to see its impossibility. It was to create this illusion that 'universal suffrage' was invented: the law is supposed to be made by the opinion of the majority, but what is overlooked is that this opinion is something that can very easily be guided and modified; it is always possible, by means of suitable suggestions, to arouse, as may be desired, currents moving in this or that direction. We cannot recall who it was who first spoke of 'manufacturing opinion,' but this expression is very apt, although it must be added that it is not always those who are in apparent control who really have the necessary means at their disposal. This last remark should make it clear why it is that the incompetence of most prominent politicians seems to have only a very relative importance; but since we are not undertaking here to unmask the working of what might be called the 'machine of government', we will do no more than point out that this incompetence itself serves the purpose of keeping up the illusion of which we have been speaking: indeed, it is a necessary condition if the politicians in question are to appear to issue from the majority, for it makes them in its likeness, inasmuch as the majority, on whatever question it may be called on to give its opinion, is always composed of the incompetent, whose number is vastly greater than that of the men who can give an opinion based on full knowledge."

The Jewish Paleo-Libertarian sociologist Paul Gottfried once remarked that the bourgeoisie tend to decay both culturally and morally the less that they have an aristocracy to look up to and as I remarked on another thread that very many of the main problems in Ireland can be traced to lack of an Aristocracy and please don't speak to me about the Anglo-Irish so called "Ascendency" who always lacked nobility and are now reduced over whelming to most pathetic wretches one can imagine existing. You may say that the English Aristocracy has grown bourgeois and debased, and do so indeed with some justice, however there are some among them who are still "Standing" amidst the ruins and a little leaven leavens the whole lump as Our Lord said.

People on here sometimes go on about the ROI not being a true "Republic" and one wonders what they mean. Would they consider the criminal regimes established by Robbespiere and Washington as being "true Republics"? Okay let us have a Republic but one truly based on what Plato (who's works I consider almost on a par in Divine inspiration with the Old Testament) proscribed in his book of the same name. What we need to do is form an ascetic Elite along the lines of the Guardians in that wonderful work, an ascetic corps formed from their youth up in love of truth and justice who will rule openly in a loving but firm manner over the masses in their best interests rather than the sham we have now where hidden manipulators pander to the vanity of the herd while working against both their material and more importantly moral interests.
 


Vega1447

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
5,685
I have never for the life of me understood why people see "Democracy" as a good in and of itself as opposed to one possible way of organizing political life which has as it's proper end the securing of the common good; if a Monarchy or Dictatorship could secure that end better under particular circumstances than surely it would be better to have them as opposed to "Democracy"? Such is only common sense. However reading this this morning by the great French philosopher Rene Guenon I think incontestably shows the ridiculousness of the whole idea at least in the form of Parliamentary Democracy on a mass scale which we have now in the West. It expresses with depth and clarity all that the wisdom contained in my mother-in-law's favourite quip on the system; "In theory mob rule, in practice the rule of gold" but goes further in its diagnosis;

"If the word 'democracy' is defined as the government of the people by themselves, it expresses an absolute impossibility and cannot even have a mere de facto existence---in our time or in any other. One must guard against being misled by words: it is contradictory to say that the same persons can be at the same time rulers and ruled, because, to use Aristotelian terminology, the same being cannot be 'in act' and 'in potency' at the same time and in the same relationship. The relationship of ruler and ruled necessitates the presence of two terms: there can be no ruled if there are not also rulers, even though these be illegitimate and have no other title to power than their own pretensions; but the great ability of those who are in control in the modern world lies in making the people believe that they are governing themselves; and the people are the more inclined to believe this as they are flattered by it, and as, in any case, they are incapable of sufficient reflection to see its impossibility. It was to create this illusion that 'universal suffrage' was invented: the law is supposed to be made by the opinion of the majority, but what is overlooked is that this opinion is something that can very easily be guided and modified; it is always possible, by means of suitable suggestions, to arouse, as may be desired, currents moving in this or that direction. We cannot recall who it was who first spoke of 'manufacturing opinion,' but this expression is very apt, although it must be added that it is not always those who are in apparent control who really have the necessary means at their disposal. This last remark should make it clear why it is that the incompetence of most prominent politicians seems to have only a very relative importance; but since we are not undertaking here to unmask the working of what might be called the 'machine of government', we will do no more than point out that this incompetence itself serves the purpose of keeping up the illusion of which we have been speaking: indeed, it is a necessary condition if the politicians in question are to appear to issue from the majority, for it makes them in its likeness, inasmuch as the majority, on whatever question it may be called on to give its opinion, is always composed of the incompetent, whose number is vastly greater than that of the men who can give an opinion based on full knowledge."

The Jewish Paleo-Libertarian sociologist Paul Gottfried once remarked that the bourgeoisie tend to decay both culturally and morally the less that they have an aristocracy to look up to and as I remarked on another thread that very many of the main problems in Ireland can be traced to lack of an Aristocracy and please don't speak to me about the Anglo-Irish so called "Ascendency" who always lacked nobility and are now reduced over whelming to most pathetic wretches one can imagine existing. You may say that the English Aristocracy has grown bourgeois and debased, and do so indeed with some justice, however there are some among them who are still "Standing" amidst the ruins and a little leaven leavens the whole lump as Our Lord said.

People on here sometimes go on about the ROI not being a true "Republic" and one wonders what they mean. Would they consider the criminal regimes established by Robbespiere and Washington as being "true Republics"? Okay let us have a Republic but one truly based on what Plato (who's works I consider almost on a par in Divine inspiration with the Old Testament) proscribed in his book of the same name. What we need to do is form an ascetic Elite along the lines of the Guardians in that wonderful work, an ascetic corps formed from their youth up in love of truth and justice who will rule openly in a loving but firm manner over the masses in their best interests rather than the sham we have now where hidden manipulators pander to the vanity of the herd while working against both their material and more importantly moral interests.

Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?
 

amsterdemmetje

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
16,552
This daily garbage along with it author should be dropped in a fetid backwater.
 

Henry94.

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
1,925
Even at the level of a company or a family dictatorships don't work. With the complexity of a state they become impossible inefficient and brutal.

A monarchy has slightly more to recommend it but there is no evidence that it would be suitable for the modern world.

Okay let us have a Republic but one truly based on what Plato (who's works I consider almost on a par in Divine inspiration with the Old Testament) proscribed in his book of the same name. What we need to do is form an ascetic Elite along the lines of the Guardians in that wonderful work, an ascetic corps formed from their youth up in love of truth and justice who will rule openly in a loving but firm manner over the masses in their best interests rather than the sham we have now where hidden manipulators pander to the vanity of the herd while working against both their material and more importantly moral interests.
Give us three nominations for the Irish elite.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
This daily garbage along with it author should be dropped in a fetid backwater.
Ma petite chemise bleue prolétarienne this thread was to a large part inspired by yourself. It was very illuminating (no pun intended!) to watch how poured vitriol over Taigh who has your best both material and moral interests close to his heart while Mitsui2 who would send you and people like you to made into glue in a knackers' yard if he thought he get away with it and their money in it for him you suck up to.

It would be far better for all concerned if you just allowed yourself to be ruled by people such as Taigh and I and not bother your brains about politics at all rather than having you and your ilk elect the likes of Enda Kenny to rule over you in the interests solely of the material greed of corrupt and corrupting forces.
 

EoinMag

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
4,811
Ma petite chemise bleue prolétarienne this thread was to a large part inspired by yourself. It was very illuminating (no pun intended!) to watch how poured vitriol over Taigh who has your best both material and moral interests close to his heart while Mitsui2 who would send you and people like you to made into glue in a knackers' yard if he thought he get away with it and their money in it for him you suck up to.

It would be far better for all concerned if you just allowed yourself to be ruled by people such as Taigh and I and not bother your brains about politics at all rather than having you and your ilk elect the likes of Enda Kenny to rule over you in the interests solely of the material greed of corrupt and corrupting forces.
There's two nominations for Irish elite Henry....ReF the bead rattler and Taigh the nazi.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,369

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
There's two nominations for Irish elite Henry....ReF the bead rattler and Taigh the nazi.
No I am far to controlled by my passions and emotions. Maybe in time I would be capable of undertaking such as task but not at the moment.

The only person I can think of in the public sphere who might be suitable is John M. Dillon (truly a national treasure).
 

fat finger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
2,216
What about the idea of permanent slow change from one mode of government to another, oscillating from rule by committee (democracy) to rule by a king or queen (dictatorship), one of the reasons Britain is so incapable of summoning the real flexibility required by its Brexit dreams is because at its heart is a monarchy that has gone beyond the possibility of challenge, whereas what is now required above all is monarchical cataclysm leading to the emergence of an entirely new royal house.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
Listening to this now and I recommend others do similar when they have time;

[video=youtube;PzAtszsW7WU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzAtszsW7WU[/video]
 

stakerwallace

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
13,187
I favour the teaching of ethics in schools. A systematic Ethics course based in dilemmas which confront all of us in life would introduce young people to decision making, consideration off consequences, the common good and the consequences of our decisions.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
What is this poster doing still here?

What on earth are the mods doing providing a platform for his foul nonsense?

No wonder everyone's nodding in agreement when McDowell calls p.ie a foetid (can we hold onto the spelling please?) backwater.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." (William F Buckley).

That about sums things up does it not?
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
87,212
I have never for the life of me understood why people see "Democracy" as a good in and of itself as opposed to one possible way of organizing political life which has as it's proper end the securing of the common good; if a Monarchy or Dictatorship could secure that end better under particular circumstances than surely it would be better to have them as opposed to "Democracy"? Such is only common sense. However reading this this morning by the great French philosopher Rene Guenon I think incontestably shows the ridiculousness of the whole idea at least in the form of Parliamentary Democracy on a mass scale which we have now in the West. It expresses with depth and clarity all that the wisdom contained in my mother-in-law's favourite quip on the system; "In theory mob rule, in practice the rule of gold" but goes further in its diagnosis;

"If the word 'democracy' is defined as the government of the people by themselves, it expresses an absolute impossibility and cannot even have a mere de facto existence---in our time or in any other. One must guard against being misled by words: it is contradictory to say that the same persons can be at the same time rulers and ruled, because, to use Aristotelian terminology, the same being cannot be 'in act' and 'in potency' at the same time and in the same relationship. The relationship of ruler and ruled necessitates the presence of two terms: there can be no ruled if there are not also rulers, even though these be illegitimate and have no other title to power than their own pretensions; but the great ability of those who are in control in the modern world lies in making the people believe that they are governing themselves; and the people are the more inclined to believe this as they are flattered by it, and as, in any case, they are incapable of sufficient reflection to see its impossibility. It was to create this illusion that 'universal suffrage' was invented: the law is supposed to be made by the opinion of the majority, but what is overlooked is that this opinion is something that can very easily be guided and modified; it is always possible, by means of suitable suggestions, to arouse, as may be desired, currents moving in this or that direction. We cannot recall who it was who first spoke of 'manufacturing opinion,' but this expression is very apt, although it must be added that it is not always those who are in apparent control who really have the necessary means at their disposal. This last remark should make it clear why it is that the incompetence of most prominent politicians seems to have only a very relative importance; but since we are not undertaking here to unmask the working of what might be called the 'machine of government', we will do no more than point out that this incompetence itself serves the purpose of keeping up the illusion of which we have been speaking: indeed, it is a necessary condition if the politicians in question are to appear to issue from the majority, for it makes them in its likeness, inasmuch as the majority, on whatever question it may be called on to give its opinion, is always composed of the incompetent, whose number is vastly greater than that of the men who can give an opinion based on full knowledge."

The Jewish Paleo-Libertarian sociologist Paul Gottfried once remarked that the bourgeoisie tend to decay both culturally and morally the less that they have an aristocracy to look up to and as I remarked on another thread that very many of the main problems in Ireland can be traced to lack of an Aristocracy and please don't speak to me about the Anglo-Irish so called "Ascendency" who always lacked nobility and are now reduced over whelming to most pathetic wretches one can imagine existing. You may say that the English Aristocracy has grown bourgeois and debased, and do so indeed with some justice, however there are some among them who are still "Standing" amidst the ruins and a little leaven leavens the whole lump as Our Lord said.

People on here sometimes go on about the ROI not being a true "Republic" and one wonders what they mean. Would they consider the criminal regimes established by Robbespiere and Washington as being "true Republics"? Okay let us have a Republic but one truly based on what Plato (who's works I consider almost on a par in Divine inspiration with the Old Testament) proscribed in his book of the same name. What we need to do is form an ascetic Elite along the lines of the Guardians in that wonderful work, an ascetic corps formed from their youth up in love of truth and justice who will rule openly in a loving but firm manner over the masses in their best interests rather than the sham we have now where hidden manipulators pander to the vanity of the herd while working against both their material and more importantly moral interests.
The thing that democracy is supposed to provide, which can be provided by no other system of government, according to its defenders, is legitimacy.

Only under democracy is it possible for citizens to truly be the authors of the laws that bind them. On one understanding of political legitimacy, this is a necessary condition for the legitimate use of coercive force.
 

farnaby

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,933
the law is supposed to be made by the opinion of the majority, but what is overlooked is that this opinion is something that can very easily be guided and modified; it is always possible, by means of suitable suggestions, to arouse, as may be desired, currents moving in this or that direction.
So the known tension between leadership and representation is worse than leadership without representation? No.

There's a valid point to this in our case because executive/leadership and legislative/representation are mashed together in our parliamentary system so we end up with local gombeens trying to do statesmanship. It's like watching a baby elephant trying to tango. Separate the executive (directly-elected) from legislative - much better than this proposed autocracy/dictatorship.
 

farnaby

Well-known member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
1,933
This daily garbage along with it author should be dropped in a fetid backwater.
This'll either hole the thread below the water or attract an enthusiastic but less philosophical response:

Tired of Occidental materialism, he [Guenon] turned to Islam, and more specifically, soufism. He was initiated in 1910[SUP][13][/SUP] into Islamic esoterism, where he obtained the name "ʿAbd al-Wāḥid Yaḥyá"
 
D

Deleted member 17573

The thing that democracy is supposed to provide, which can be provided by no other system of government, according to its defenders, is legitimacy.

Only under democracy is it possible for citizens to truly be the authors of the laws that bind them. On one understanding of political legitimacy, this is a necessary condition for the legitimate use of coercive force.
But does democracy provide legitimacy or just an illusion of legitimacy?
 
D

Deleted member 17573

Donald Trump beat the socks off all his better funded Republican candidates as well as Clinton.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

He proved money doesn't buy elections.
That's legitimacy right there.
Up to a point that is correct, but Trump isn't exactly on the breadline either. Indeed it might be argued that if he was dependant on the usual sources of funding he would not have made it past the first few primaries as he would have been dismissed as a no-hoper.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
The thing that democracy is supposed to provide, which can be provided by no other system of government, according to its defenders, is legitimacy.

Only under democracy is it possible for citizens to truly be the authors of the laws that bind them. On one understanding of political legitimacy, this is a necessary condition for the legitimate use of coercive force.
The majority has no right to do wrong and of course as pointed out in the OP the citizens aren't really the authors of the laws that bind them at all. A thread dealing with the subject of political legitimacy might be an interesting one though.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top