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.