Prologue.
This is a compilation of aphorisms from Sayings which more succinctly define my criticisms of democracy, and create a document to defer to in debates on morality.
A Compilation of Post-Enlightenment Criticisms of Democracy by P. Michael Amedeo
Mass politics were a mistake. The democratic notion that democracy assures the popular expression is erroneous, as instead, the encompassing system is easily manipulated by a scarce contingent of peoples who appeal to consumer politics: easily digestible political slop, like cartoons, beer cozies, signs, banners, et cetera, and the entire affair becomes one entirely fixated on emotionalism, as opposed to true praxis. The entire notion of democracy is predicated on this fraudulent notion that the masses, via some arcane opulence of knowledge, are capable of self-government, essentially alloting authority to the unfit. And so a dilemma arises: what to do to ensure adequate government, one of benevolence, one of primacy. I propose a transcendent governance which allocates the replete privilege of a ballot only to the rational, these contingents would be recognized as high religious authority, superior military officials, the monetarily opulent, and those of great political acumen such as former or current politicians. Why must the stewardship of governance fall upon the shoulders of those who benignly and passively accept trend and emotionalism? The problem with democracy is that the system attempts to utilize something for broad civilizational health, culture, and apply it to governance, entirely unaware that elites produce culture, and so democracy is not the pure reflection of the popular view, but rather a reflection of the charisma exercised by those who can adequately manipulate the self-interested peoples of broader society. The people of society are aimless unless directed, and cannot produce culture, being beholden to the directions of leadership. Though culture is necessary, such as maintaining the family unit. If culture becomes immoral or deviant, then these populations behave this way, which is bad for the economy and demographics, as fatherless children are more likely to be unsuccessful. If one leader were to direct a culture into one of promiscuity or immorality, the consequences of economic and demographic collapse would occur, and the ever-self-interested population can easily fall into immorality, such as engaging in homosexual or transgender behaviors. The best system of government is one in which only the elites are permitted the prerogatives to vote, as all of these people are rational and intelligent, and so would truly vote on what matters most. I believe Carlyle was right in believing history as an event organized by the elite, as due to a fundamental psychology, humans crave some kind of leadership, per the Bystander Effect, and thus have sought sufficient leaders who then creepingly conquer the minds of many, halted only by the irrational self-interest of most people. This is why populists are so pervasive in our paradigm, from the left, from the right, and eve from the center, there is the rise of populists, which can be attributed to a mix of Enlightenment ideals of misplaced egality --suggesting all peoples are blank slates and equally deserving of political endowment, even in an absence of proficiency-- as well as a rise in amoralism, as politicians are becoming ever secular, and so have no moral persuasions to halt the ever-detrimental march of political democratization. This pertains greatly to our Carlylean history, as this entails a time of struggle, as we have immoral peoples controlling fundamentally stupid masses who have never thought of rational concerns, and are instead preoccupied with the vanity of politics. For this reason, democracy ought to be abolished in favor of an enlightened aristocracy. I speak not in the favor of a rejection of the Enlightenment, but in ode to a post-Enlightenment which arbits genuine improvement, as opposed to merely empowering those who contribute nothing substantive to intellectual discourse, reprehensibly so. Why do many presuppose the moral imperative of democracy? I feel it is the delusion of egality, and the perception that exclusion is negative, irrespective of context, which is I feel influenced by a rather Marxist, and subsequently simplistic, view of the world. Of course, hierarchy of the merited ought to exist, lest the merited be stifled by the incapacity of the collective, which has prior sought in history to deprive the most merited of their entitled authority. The virtue of meritocratic hierarchy derives from the necessity of leadership, which encompasses the preservation of liberty. Is it not an inherent moral good that we harbor individuals in our society which are endowed with such apparent skill, and elevate them to leadership positions, as they are the most qualified and elegant? Without the rule of the merited, there is only kakistocracy, which is insufficient in the preservation of liberty. Hence, I detail the exclusive voting minority in the enlightened aristocracy. “Enlightened aristocracy” entails a criteria of wealth and education which must be met, lest we see the rise of the invalid, the irrational, and the abhorrent, and the imminent death of liberty. The perfect, eligible voter ought to be a culmination of wealth, land, education, moral conviction, and political acumen. Democracy provides power exclusively to the most irrational of individuals –those who undermine liberty– those who shall exclusively vote in a manner which is immediately socially acceptable, per their herd mindset. To so assert and impose a purported authoritarian nature upon enlightened aristocracy is a ludicrous thought, as the system of enlightened aristocracy is specifically designed to deliberate and prolong a libertarian state, and create an environment hospitable to a constitutional republic. The diffusion and distribution of state prerogatives is an imperative. T state ought to be relegated to the most minute position in life, merely prolonging liberty and perpetuating itself, and the only attainable is the defense of such a sacrosanct, with this perception being more than compatible in the accommodation of enlightened aristocracy. Exclusion from the political process is not the befalling of tyranny upon those who meet an insufficient criteria to participate. I lament in the fact I now believe politics is transient in fleeting. I love philosophy and ideology, the stagnant, immutable ideas of influence and governance, yet these scandals, these affairs, they are all meaningless to me. I still harbor the desire to enter politics to implement my ideals, though admittedly I have no interest in the transient scandals accompanying these matters. Politics is fleeting and transient. There is no Obama, there is no Trump, only ideas with names and faces. The diagnosis is issued, and the prescription is elitism, aristocracy, traditionalism, and Christianity. If we presuppose that modern morality is indeed fraudulent, then there is no reason to oppose racism, sexual, whatever phobia, et cetera, as it is merely the aforementioned imposition of post-WW2 liberal elites who sought to deify themselves. Is the UN not a pantheon? Men who dwell in distant lands in arcane monuments who construct morality? It is a pseudoreligion, and treasonous to mankind, an indictment of democracy, an indictment of modernity, and a monument dedicated to the memorial of adequate governance. Modernity, as it persists, is a perverse parody of government which equates vices to freedom, and any attempt to discourage these behaviors which augur societal detriment is met with accusations of archaism, unjustly so, to equate fact and reason with antiquated notions. The modern pantheon denigrates and vilifies our ancestors, derived of a misguided philosophy who elevates humanity to divinity as a consequence of mass politics, and the denial that mankind exists as aimless and self-interested lest directed by leaders. It is evident in all studies, and yet these grafters of the liberal paradigm insist inaccuracies in the observable. As for restoration or reaction. To restore? Is that not mere reaction? Not to say that reaction is inherently objectionable, but rather, that romantics build government derived of their literature, their poems, their epics, and are not always reflective of sufficiency. Perhaps a concession of philosophy is necessary as well as reaction and acceleration, that reaction cannot sustain a government in solitude, but requires a companion of retrospection and post-libertarian thought. These liberal democrats, so naive on the nature of man's psychology, and of governance. A moral imperative that all ought to vote is silly, as it presupposes that, no matter how unqualified, these masses are somehow able to dictate policy. Should small children and the infirm vote as well? They're citizens just like you or I, no? Is it not wrong that we exclude them from democracy? And this is my point. Only those of adequate status are truly capable of governing. The telos would be synthesis of sentimentality with wholly postmodern concepts such as patchwork. I lament the fact that I feel as though I am entrenched in an ignorant society. Just recently, I had watched an MSNBC loudmouth-talking head complain about how Doug Burgam, or whoever is in Trump's cabinet at the moment, apparently force his staff to bake cookies, isn't that ridiculous? And I kept thinking, this nagging thought insisting within the confines of a my mind, "what does this matter to true benevolent governance? Why do we care about this matter? This isn't philosophical, this isn't ideological, this is digestible junk for those least qualified to be entitled by voice in politics.", and this very much disturbed me how much of this nonsense exists. They try to make crude art about people such as Donald Trump, some dimwit drawing the Power Puff Girls accosting the man, and I kept thinking, "he's not going to see this, this is a futile endeavor. Why draw such a thing when it is entirely irrelevant to everything beyond serving as mete propaganda against a regime which is already in power? There is no more vote to sway, the election is over.", and I feel this is all reflective of an egotistical pseudosolipsism, in which these people loudmouth about politics despite knowing nothing of their true impotence. Every protest, every march, it is all futile and meaningless. In truth, the few command the many, and culture is top-down. And this, is why I reject democracy, I reject egalitarianism, I reject secularism, and I believe in the Dark Enlightenment. I wish Donald Trump were truly as the media evaluated him: a threat to democracy, our next Hitler. A true Übermensch, so admirable in his tyranny, though unfortunately Mr. Trump is not like this at all. This is why I have since desisted in even watching my former favorite conservative media channels, such as The Daily Wire or PragerU, flawed as they are, and have fixated on hard, Christian morality, post-Enlightenment philosophy, neoreactionism, reactionary modernism, and metapolitics. I long for another Dark Ages, for this age of "progress" is mere kraterocracy manifest: man deifying man. It is sickening.