Thoughts on how “freedom and democracy” undermines human society

Here’s a thought I often have:

When I was a kid I used to think democracy was this big thing.  Why shouldn’t I of thought that?  That’s what I was brought up with.  As time went on, though, I began to see another picture.   It was in high school, when I was a stupid teenager, that I began to question the word “freedom”.  It would eventually lead into “democracy” as well.   That questioning has gone on down to today. 

The reason why I began to question it is that everyone and their dog were saying that their freedoms were being violated in some way.  It got to the point that anything could be construed as a rights violation or a taking away of freedom . . . anything! . . a look, a word, a statement, a drawing, a belief.  Someone reading this could very well mould it into some freedom violation if they wanted.  In other words, it was too easy to make things appear ‘bad’ in the name of “freedom and democracy”.  This put the very term “freedom and democracy” in question.

Many of these things were so absurdly ridiculous and asinine but, yet, they were taken so seriously because “freedom and democracy” was mentioned.  People often acted like the world was going to come to an end if it wasn’t rectified.  And, more importantly, mentioning the “freedom and democracy” got people to do and change things.  It was, in some respects, like a command.  Anything “in the name of freedom and democracy” had to be done, regardless of how stupid or ridiculous it was.  This gave “freedom and democracy” great power and influence.  Some people learned, and eventually, abused this power.  In other words, “freedom and democracy” became a weapon for some people’s silly inclinations and wants, a way to manipulate the system, people, and society.  I sat and watched people use it to get their way and what they wanted time and time again.  Something that is abused that easily can’t be that ‘true’.

They even went so far as to use it in the legal courts.  And what did this do?  It turned the legal system into a pathetic joke, creating crimes out of nothing and making stupid laws that undermine things and are nonsensical.  It’s caused a whole warpage in the legal system.  It seemed that wherever “freedom and democracy” was called up some weird distortion or ridiculousness followed

I also began to see that no one questioned anything that was said in the name of “freedom and democracy”.  Its like “freedom and democracy” made everything they said automatically correct.  No one questioned it.  In other words, I saw a horrible blind obedience toward “freedom and democracy”.  This made it easy to manipulate and distorted.  Being this way, “freedom and democracy” became a word widely abused and misused by people.  To this day, saying something in the name of “freedom and democracy” means someone is trying to manipulate things to me.  You can’t take it that seriously.  And it seldom means someones “freedom” or that anyones rights are being violated!

What all this showed is that “freedom and democracy” is not a holy relic, nor is it infallible.  It was just another thing that could be manipulated and abused (which I witnessed and still witness).  But, yet, people treated it like a holy relic, like the word of god himself.  Whoops!  I guess I should have said:  “god himself, herself, regardless of race, color, creed, and sexual orientation”?  We’re in a democracy you know.  We don’t want to violate anyones precious American “freedoms” . . . God help us all! 

What I began to see was a horrible overvaluation of “freedom and democracy”, as if it was the answer to EVERYTHING and on which EVERYTHING was based.  They put it on this grand pedestal and practically worshipped it.  I always joked that, one day, they are going to start sacrificing goats to it.  Near where I live they have this area where they have a wall with all these plagues on it.  These plaques consist of the Declaration of Independence and other American political documents.  Above all this is a sign that says, “Freedom Shrine”.  Now all they need is an altar and it will be complete!  From this you can see that “freedom and democracy” has been taken to be far more than just a ‘political point of view’.  I tend to feel that this is the problem.


The fact is that democracy is an intellectual idea.  It’s an abstract though.  It was created, really, in the University, not in the ‘REAL human situation’ and in ‘REAL human experience’.  That is its failure.  They are trying to make life fit the image they created in their minds, which often has nothing to do with the real human situation.  If you look into the ‘democratic mentality’ you will see repetitive examples of how they try to force things to fit the image they created.  Hardly ever is there a fitting of their conceptions to the human reality.  It’s like they are trying to recreate humanity, society, and people according to this image and force the situation to fit the democratic scenario.  This means that democracy is a mentality that denies the condition and reality of things This, as it turns out, is where a lot of its destructive and undermining qualities originate.

This is because democracy is an ideology, based in ideals and ideas of how we would like it to be.  It’s a created image of a situation, fabricated in people’s minds making it abstract.  This means that democracy is like trying to force things to be a certain way.  It is not based in following the natural order of things nor is there any attempt to follow natural inclinations or tendencies.  As a result, it creates a condition that is not based in ‘naturalness’ and the natural order of things.  What it does create is an ‘intellectual order’, of concepts that ‘make sense’ intellectually.  This creates a society far removed from natural inclinations.

But humanity needs to follow natural inclinations.  It needs to follow the ‘natural order’ of things.  It needs qualities democracy does not allow.  This is a result of two traits of democracy:

  1. The devaluing of authority.  Democracy is based in not having anyone in charge.  Theoretically, the people are supposed to be in charge.  In doing this, democracy often creates a fear, hatred, or mistrust of authority.
  2. The idea of equality.  Everyone is theoretically the same.  There is supposed to be no class system or any differentiation between people.  As a result, there is no social hierarchy.

These two traits, though, attack things that are inherent in human society and its makeup, that hold it together, and make us who we are.  It attacks humanities natural tendencies.  Humanity, by nature, needs authority.  It needs a hierarchy, which is an inequality in people.  Without these two things humanity doesn’t work well.  In fact, they are what hold human society together.  This is what democracy attacks!  Democracy, then, is like a destroying of the mortar which holds the brick walls up.  By depriving us of our natural human inclinations, democracy has dehumanized us.

I should point out that I don’t necessarily see anything wrong with the basic idea of democracy.  It seems to me that the basic idea of democracy is a human quality seen all over the world in one form or another, but it is ONE OF MANY ideas.  They are good ideas IN a government, but they are not good AS the government.  The problem is that they have turned democracy into a religion, as THE ONLY THING. 

Because this attitude took centuries to create it suggests that when I say “democracy” I really mean “modern democracy”, of democracy-as-a-religion, which the more recent era created.  The democracy of even a hundred years ago is different than what we are dealing with now.  This shows that there are different forms of ‘democracy’ and that it has changed form throughout the centuries. 


The turning of democracy into a religion took centuries and many situations to bring it about.  The biggest thing that turned democracy into a religion, it seems to me, is the cold war.  It did this a number of ways:

  • Fighting the “evil communists” made democracies glorify their values as it was democracy vs communism.
  • This made them overvalue their beliefs, making it out far bigger than it really is.
  • Because we were dealing with a war it has become associated with national pride.
  • Its association with war also made it have a quality of a ‘saviour’ or something that ‘saves us’ from a bad situation.
  • The influence of the media made these qualities spread throughout the population, making it very extensive.


I’ve found that a lot of ‘freedom and democracy’ is an attitude people have.  It may or may not have a ‘formal belief system’ associated with it.  Many people, I’ve found, don’t have a ‘formal belief system’ to support their attitudes.  This is not uncommon as people often take attitudes but have no idea where they come from nor a belief system to justify it.  This means it’s an attitude people learn from society.  That is, it’s a social phenomena, not an intellectual one.  It’s really these attitudes that have done the most damage.  It makes people automatically take certain points of view or see things in a certain way.  It makes people assume things that often aren’t true.  In other words, these attitudes make people have preconceived opinions

Having these preconceived notions tends to create a narrow-mindedness.  One example is what I often jokingly call “The single explanation of democracy” which the U.S., in particular, explains almost EVERYTHING.  Basically, it amounts to this: 

—There is a leader or government oppressing the people.  The people must rebel against this leader or government and fight for their freedom.  Once this is done, they will establish a democracy.—

Sounds suspiciously like the American War of Independence, doesn’t it?  That’s no mistake. 

It is.

This shows how ‘freedom and democracy’ is a catering to national pride and NOT to the situation at hand.  It’s another example of how this attitude is rooted in abstract ideas and not in reality.


From my own perspective, I can see how democracy caused a stagnation in me.  I could almost feel the foot of democracy pushing down on me, rooting me in my place.  Why is this?  Because there is nothing to be a part of.  There’s no society, no culture, nothing to follow.  This suggests that ‘stagnation’ in democracy is caused by the HUMAN FACT that people need to belong and follow something.  But these have been undermined by the two traits I described above (authority is undermined, hierarchy is not allowed).  When there’s nothing to belong to and follow, there is a tendency to “sit” and be stagnant.  This is because there is really nothing to ‘participate’ in.  It creates a tendency to be more asocial and withdrawn in a democracy, and an absence of ‘socialness’.  People become more distant.

I have always said and believed that “humanity must be harnessed to do anything”.  This means that humanity needs something to hold it together, a leader, and followers, a hierarchy, to accomplish things.  Without it, humanity is ‘stagnant’, and that’s how many people are in a democracy.  Often, this ‘stagnation’ is like an apathy.

I found that, as I grew older, I started to have conflicts and dilemmas.  Almost intuitively, I knew they came from this society.  Early on, I did not know why exactly but I began to understand them after a while.  Some of these conflicts I experienced include:

  • I felt lost in life.
  • There was no one to follow.
  • There was no example.
  • There was no leader to look up to.
  • I felt a lack of confidence in myself.
  • I didn’t know who I was.
  • I felt as if I couldn’t fit in anywhere.

All these show a social deterioration and decay and my reaction to it.  There seems to be progression in this that goes something like:

  1. Being a democracy, there was no society there for me.
  2. The natural need for a society appeared in me so I looked and searched for it.
  3. I found nothing.
  4. I suffered conflicts and problems the loss the lack of a ‘social participation’ created.

What is this all referring to?  As I said above, a natural  human need for a society, a leadership to follow, and something to be a part of.  

I never found it.  There was none.  This is a democracy remember.  It’s a crime to have those things . . .  They have laws, now, to prevent the existence of an authority and any sort of a social hierarchy.

But my conflicts reveals an innate need to have a society, to be part of it, to follow, to participate, and take my place on a social hierarchy.  Now, in my mid-40’s, I still see nothing.  The society just seems ‘there’, like a rock on the wayside, and there’s still nothing to believe in.  Democracy was a major element that destroyed that which I yearned for.  All I needed was a natural human thing but democracy destroyed it and wouldn’t its existence.


One of the facts that democracy fails to acknowledge is that human society needs a hierarchy, it needs a social structure.  That’s the way it is.  Human society is based in social structure and hierarchy.  There needs to be leaders and followers.  By making everyone ‘equal’, and outlawing authority, the natural pattern of human society has been undermined.  In so doing, democracy does not allow a naturally appearing human society.  One could very well say that a democratic society is a warped unhuman society.  It tends to create a warped odd-ball type of a society.  Just look at the U.S. . . .

Democracies destruction of the human social hierarchy has undermined society and humanity in general.  In many ways, its made it static, brought it to a halt.  This has created the need for other ‘unhuman’ things to ‘come in’ and replace the missing social structure that normally holds society together.  This is exactly what has happened.  What it has done is create a ‘system’, a massive ultra-organized collection of laws, organizations, and technology.  Whats holding society together now is no longer human, but the ‘system’.  The human element, really, has been taken out of the picture.  Democracy has taken great measures to take it out of the picture too.  The ‘system’ has become the new hierarchy, the new leader, the new authority, the new social structure.  This inhuman entity is acceptable, and praised, in a democracy because it does not conflict with democracies beliefs.  There is no apparent authority.  There is no apparent inequalities.  As a result, democracy becomes further entrenched in a non-human world, where humanity takes a side role.  This has created a growing dehumanization of our world and a continuing reliance on the ‘system’ to survive.  In this way, our lives are increasingly becoming in control of the ‘system’, and will continue to do so.  In effect, then, democracy has taken society out of human hands and handed it to a ‘system’


With democracy, authority has no place.  It is looked at with great suspicion, fear, and hatred.  Remember:  authority oppresses.  Because of this, democracy must ‘watch’ and ‘curtail’ it.   A lot of laws and government functionality is for this purpose.  This attitude often creates a general sense of ‘paranoia’ in a democracy.

But authority is a basic aspect of human life since the beginning of time.  It has given us direction, held us together, made us united.  Now, a lot of that is not there.  As a result, in a democracy the benefits of the presence of authority tend to be absent.   Without any authority we see the problems created by the lack of authority which include:

  • A lack of respect.
  • An attitude of contempt.
  • A lack of discipline.
  • Immorality.
  • A lack of unity.

These, if you haven’t noticed, are all qualities that hold society together.  Their loss has greatly weakened and undermined society.  It has created, in a sense, a ‘disease’ of ‘authority-deprivation’ that is prevalent in a democracy.  Many of these qualities run rampant in a society.  In fact, they are so prevalent that they end up having great impact on society as a whole, affecting people’s behaviour as well as requiring effort to alleviate the problem.


Civilization is a creation of the male.  It was created by his organized mind and character.  This is because the male is a social person, a person who needs to belong, to participate, and to lead or follow.  The male naturally creates a social structure, a hierarchy, with authority at its head.  This is the natural tendency, the natural way of things.  Through this natural tendency societies were created and civilizations grew, all under the shadow of authority and hierarchy.  And, in this situation, the natural inclinations of the male grew and flourished.  He became someone.  He created . . . he did things . . . all under the shadow of authority and hierarchy.  The “best” in the male comes out when there is a social hierarchy that he belongs to and an authority he must follow.

But democracy has taken this away and by taking away the social hierarchy, and authority – the basic ingredients of society – the male has become lost, detached, unconnected, unhitched.   He now has nothing to belong to, believe in, or follow.  This has made the male somewhat ‘static’ and apathetic.  With no social structure or authority to belong to the male has suffered a death in a democracy. 

This has created a condition where the male appears to of ‘retired’ from society.  Many males are no longer wanting to do stuff, take chances, and do things their fathers did before him.  For centuries guys have done and participated in things, created, and maintained. 

Now, they sit. 

This reveals the fact that an “active” belonging to a society is very critical for the male.  Its more important, really, than money, social status, and other things we think the male ‘wants’.  Without this belonging, he ‘shuts down’ and becomes apathetic.  This is the state of the male in American society, a democracy.

Because of democracy the male also cannot have his ‘special place’.  It’s a crime, now, for there to be an all-male anything.  But, for centuries, males have needed and had a place to grow and become someone.  This is because it is NEEDED.  The fact is that the male needs to be able to get away from the female and society, to have a place they AREN’T, and to hang out with other guys.  Males, in a democracy, are no longer entitled to this basic human need.  As a result, they are not gaining the growth this causes.  This causes, in a democracy, a ‘stunted growth’ in the males.

It is stuff like this that creates a quality of an emasculation in the male.  He is not permitted to be a male, in many cases.  He is not permitted to grow into a male.  As a result, we see a ‘halting’ of the males development.  In a democracy, we are now dealing with a bunch of ‘maleless males’. 

All this creates an apathy in the male, as he now has nothing to ‘work for’.  I felt it even in me.  I found I had no desire to do anything.  I knew it was because there was nothing to be a part of.  So I go to the University or get a fancy job . . . so what . . . my going there does not make me a part of something.  As I said, belonging and following something is often more important than money, prestige, social status, etc.  Without that belonging and following there is no ‘incentive’ to do anything.   This viewpoint is held by many males nowadays (though few, I think, are aware of it), in this era of the democratic ‘maleless male’.


It seems that democracy creates misandry, the hatred of the male.  Wherever democracy goes misandry followsThe two big ‘modern democratic countries’ – Britain and the U.S. – are having big problems with this.  There are times when it seems that there is an attempt to destroy males or turn them into nothing.  In many ways, it seems the male is being ‘pushed out’, as if into exile. 

I have always felt that ‘democratic misandry’  is a result of the absence of authority in democratic society.  In other words, ‘democratic misandry’ is a contempt for an authority that isn’t there.  It’s similar to how a classroom of kids will be rowdy and spit on a teacher who doesn’t keep discipline.  In that sense, its like a crying out for an “authority figure”.

I tend to feel that ‘democratic misandry’ is proof that people are wanting an “authority figure”.  The problem is that their own system, which they believe in, has undermined it.  This creates a dilemma in a democracy, where the political system is actually destroying what people need.  Perhaps this can be described as the ‘democratic dilemma’


At first glance it seems that the females are taking to democratic society a lot easier than the male is.  Sometimes, it seems they flourish in it.  But this is deceiving.  It is actually as damaging to them as it is to the male, perhaps more so.   It just appears differently and is hidden behind other things.

In general, the female character needs to be a part of someone else.  Much of their identity and worth come from the association they have with someone else.  As a result, they are always needing and following other people.  This creates, in them, a tendency to have what can only be described as a slave-like attitude.  In a democracy this runs rampant because of its ‘people orientation’.  They imitate every fad and fashion like it’s a life or death issue.  Sometimes this blind following can be obsessive.  For some girls, this will dominate their life (a good example is the females obsessive concern over her phone).  Since this slavish mentality is following social trend and other people it gives them the illusion that they are OK and are ‘participating’ in society.  It often gives them what appears as a maturity. 

But this is only how it looks on the surface. 

This obsessive concern about ‘following everyone else’ is not a growing, it is not a developing of an identity, it is not a becoming of a person.  It is just a blind following.  With this blind obsessive following females, basically, become lost in it all.  As a result, behind all this is actually an insecure person, with low self-esteem, and unsure of how they are.   This creates what can only be described as a tendency to ‘flee their feminity’ in a democracy.  In other words, they are turning away from femininity and female things.  This can get so bad that they will view feminine things as bad, professing ‘enslavement’ and such (things that don’t exist).  In other words, democracy seems to ‘unhitch’ females from themselves.  As a result, they try to seek out other identities and things in an attempt to be someone.  Many girls, for example, will try to seek being a man or being man-like.  They will start to do, act, and behave like a man.  Though this may give a ‘temporary fix’ it never solves their basic problem, which will be with them all their life.  To be frank, many females in a democracy seem like they are living a delusion to me, of an endless battle to try to ‘fix’ who they areThis tends to create a fall in self-respect, which is so prevalent in females in a democracy.  They will often do all sorts of “attempts” at regaining their self-respect, which usually fails.   

All this shows that the female, like the male, needs a social structure, a role, an identity, to become someone.  And, like the male, ‘freedom and democracy’ has robbed them of this.  It creates something like an ‘identity starvation’ in democracy, of an endless striving to find one in a world that won’t allow it. 

The fact is this:  Identity needs social structure, and social structure needs authority.  Both of these have been undermined by ‘freedom and democracy’.  The result:  unstable identities, a common trait of democratic society.

Is it any wonder?

This lack of a stable identity often makes females think they have great power and influence, which they usually don’t.  I’ve always got a kick how feminists think that the ‘womens movement’ was so influential, as if it completely changed society.  Yes, they were responsible for it all!

This is not true. 

Feminism is just another ‘freedom crying’ group that followed along in the vacuum that “freedom and democracy” created.  Their whole premise, points of view, and basis of existing is rooted in “freedom and democracy”.  They’re just following along behind it.   In fact, they are so dependent on it, that if “freedom and democracy” were to die, so would they as all their premise, points of view, and substantiation would die with it. 

Most of the changes they think they are responsible for were actually already done by “freedom and democracy” in general, of which they are only a small part.  Many of the changes, conflicts, and dilemmas of the male, for example, were there before they even hit the scene.  What they did, really, is aggravate an existing condition.


Because of the undermining of authority and social hierarchy, there was great impact on relationships in general.  I think most of us know how the relationships between male and female has deteriorated.  It’s a fallout, really, of how democracy ‘took the human out’ of relationships, taking away the very pattern of social relations work.  How, exactly, are people supposed to have a relationship when everyone is ‘equal’ and the same?  How can a relationship when a person’s role has been undermined?  The answer is simple:  they can’t.  This is not how REAL human relationships works which democracy denies.

Marriage has taken quite a blow.  In fact, marriage, to me, looks like its become a ‘dead institution’.  Whats the point getting married in a democracy?  There’s nothing holding it together.   There’s no roles.  There’s no social structure.  There’s no ‘working together’.  As a result, there’s no meaning in marriage.  Marriage, in a democracy, is just two people “pretending” to have a relationship like their parents when, in reality, the basis for that relationship has been undermined.  As a result, they will never have a relationship like their parents.

Democracy has also undermined people’s relationship with authority.  Remember that democracy preaches that authority, the government, etc. is bad, something we must protect ourselves from.  As a result, it preaches a distrust and a hatred toward authority.  I know many people in the U.S. that don’t even acknowledge anyone as having any authority at all . . . we’re all the “same” remember!


With the degradation of the image of the leader that is found in “freedom and democracy” it tends to shun any form of leadership.  This ends up creating a society without any leadership and, in fact, without any leaders at all.  As a result of this, no one is in control of anything nor necessarily directing anything.  There’s also no one to make the decisions either.  Some of the effects of this include:

  • There becomes no one to look up to.
  • There is endless arguing over things.  Things never get done.
  • There becomes a lack of unity.
  • There becomes a reliance on laws and rules.  In a sense, they become the new ‘pseudo-leader’.  Without them there’d probably be no order at all!
  • Satisfying the ‘masses’ of people tend to take a dominant role.

All in all, it tends to create what can be described as a ‘mob society’.  This is where the mob, or masses of people, basically dictate what happen.  This type of society is controlled by the whims and inclinations of the mob, which seldom follows any logic or wisdom at all.  Because of this, it becomes a society without logic and wisdom.  Things are often done that make no sense whatsoever, all to satisfy the mob of people.


Because “freedom and democracy” undermine social structure and people’s identities it tends to undermine anything to do with a culture.  A culture, really, is a product of a consistent way of life, of an unchangingness in a society, where people have roles and meanings.  These are qualities not found in “freedom and democracy”.  The net result:  no culture. 

In fact, it seems to me that “freedom and democracy” destroys culture.  This is because culture requires people to be a certain way, follow certain prescribed roles, and in which there must be an ‘order’.  In “freedom and democracy” these are all forms of ‘oppression’.  It gives “freedom and democracy” a quality of an anti-culture.  A culture cannot grow and develop under these conditions and these attitudes.


Because society and roles tends to be undermined, there becomes a great overemphasis on the individual.  In a sense, the individual becomes the ‘new society’, the ‘new leader’, the ‘new everything’.  The individual person has to, in a ways, do everything and be everything.  This is because there is no society or roles, which would normally be there, to do it.  As a result, great strain is placed on the individual person.  This tends to create a number of effects:

  • Because of the great weight, burden, and responsibility that is placed on the individual, there develops great strain and stress.  As a result, people in “freedom and democracy” tend to be uptight and stressed out.
  • There is a tendency to be selfish or self-centered, only concerned about oneself.
  • The emphasis on the individual, and the absence of a society, tends to create an ‘aloneness’ or an isolation of the individual.   
  • There is a tendency for people to unnecessarily compete or try to outdo one another.  This, often, further divides people in an already fragmented society.
  • The emphasis on the individual, at the expense of a unified society, often makes it so that people can’t agree on things, creating a world of endless disagreeing over everything. 


Because society is not progressing in its natural human way, there is a tendency for people in a democracy to have problems growing into a person.  Its not uncommon that they have problems maturing as a person compared to the rest of the world.  Many people will have a hard time finding identity all their life or even a place in the society. 

The fact is that to grow a person must grow into something.  This something must be a preordained way of being or living or acting.  It is often something imitated.  ‘Equality’, and the undermining of roles, destroy this oppurtunity by taking away this preordained way.  As a result, many people have nothing to grow into when in a democracy.  Many kids end up imitating movie characters or other unrealistic and unhealthy things like that. 


Because of the undermining of innately human things, democracy has had an impact on the human situation.  What it has done is to uproot many human tendencies and inclinations.  This has created a number of reactions.  Some of these include:

  • A sense of feeling alienated. 
  • A lack of a sense of belonging in people. 
  • Having no identity.
  • Low self-esteem.
  • A lack of sufficient and satisfying relationships.
  • Since there is no ‘authority’ over us, who protects us, there is a sense of not being protected.  Hence, democracy seems to create an anxiety and insecurity in people.  This also often develops into a sense of helplessness in life.
  • Because democracy preaches fearing of authority there is fear and hatred of all forms of authority:  the father, the teacher, the police, the government, and even god. 
  • A tendency to not believe in anything.
  • The preaching of fear creates an attitude of paranoia and seeing threats everywhere.
  • Because democracy is based in ideas of ‘being oppressed’ there tends to develop attitudes and philosophies based in being the ‘victim’.  Many people, such as females and some minorities, will create whole life perspectives that is based in their being a ‘victim’, defining their identity, and situation in the world.
  • Because we are all ‘equal’, our opinions, beliefs, and acts don’t matter.  Anything we say, believe, or do is ‘just another thing to add to the collection’. 
  • This ‘equality’ also makes humanity nothing but a blurr, a large mass of endless faces.  In effect, it turns us all, really, into nobodies.


In a democracy, everyone seems to think they are entitled to everything.  They think that they should get things they never worked for or created.  It’s like saying, “Since we’re all ‘equal’, I should have what he has even though I didn’t work for it”.  It makes people feel that they are entitled to what others have, like it’s some sort of a right.   Sometimes, this can be where people expect things to be handed to them and given things for free.  This often creates a lack of respect for what people do and create.  It’s like saying, “we’re all equal, so its all of ours”.  

This creates a tendency for people to try to be something they’re not.  Is it any wonder why we see so many want-to-be’s in democratic society?  Democracy and freedom makes people think they can just walk up and be who they aren’t.  It creates a lof of “non-genuineness” in democratic society, or a phoniness, or a hyprocrisy.  The net result:  unhappiness, frustration, and delusion.


With all that has been undermined and destroyed, there has really been no new institutions created to fill the void.  Nothing has been created to replace leadership, culture, roles, marriage, or anything else that has been undermined by “freedom and democracy”.  This is further proof of how human society, in a way, is being slowly eaten away by “freedom and democracy” and how the ‘human’ is being taken away from us. 


All the effects of “freedom and democracy” seem to create a warped and distorted society.  How could it not?  Just about every aspect of the society is warped and distorted in some way or other, such as:

  • The image and use of authority.
  • The perception of right and wrong.
  • The law.
  • The ideals.
  • Peoples roles.
  • Peoples identity.
  • Social structure.

Just about everything is warped and distorted . . . just look at American and British society! 

But, we must remember, this warping and distortion is done in the name of “freedom and democracy”.  As a result, it’s OK and acceptable.  No one questions it.  It’s a warping and distortion that’s done for the ‘right’ reasons. 

But is it?

I don’t think so.  Any warping and distortion of human society is not good, regardless of the ’cause’ or ‘justification’.  This is because it is taking something natural and, in a way, defacing it.  To me, it appears more like an abuse, a vandalism of nature, than anything else.  It’s like a bunch of kids going uptown and destroying things and spray painting everything.  It’s a damaging.  And, whats worse, there’s no easy fix to the damage “freedom and democracy” created.  How do you repair the destruction of a social structure that took centuries to develop?  How do you repair the loss of a consistent cultural sense of right and wrong?  How do you repair the loss of an authority image?  How do you repair identity?  These are all things that are not easy to repair. 

In general, they are not repaired at all, nor is there any attempt at it.  As a result, “freedom and democracy” tends to leave behind a cultural vacuum.  This is a people whose “culture” is an absence more than a presence.  I’ve heard people mistake this vacuum for a ‘freedom’ because you don’t have a culture telling you what to do (yes, another ridiculous version of oppression!).  But where’s the growth?  Where’s the roles?  That’s not freedom, it’s a deprivation and it ends up creating a cultural starvation in democracies.  Many of these people will be starving for something to be a part of.  This starvation makes people chase after fads, trends, novelties, and other things.  It creates, in a way, an endless striving and chasing after things.  This is often a cause for unhappiness and discontent.


I often have this feeling that modern democracy is going to slowly erode humanity.  What am I saying?!  It already has!  I don’t think that, by itself, it will cause a ‘complete collapse’ but I can see that it has created a weakened humanity which, under the right conditions, could cause a form of a collapse. 

It seems to me that democracy is going to march on, creating more dehumanization, and more reliance on the ‘system’.  The male will grow emasculated.  The female will turn away from her femininity.  Relationships will be fragmented.  Everyone will be paranoid.  And so on. 

But it seems that, since the fall of the cold war, there has been a lessening of the “freedom and democracy” cause.  This has caused, it appears, people to start looking at things differently.  Because the cold war created “freedom-and-democracy-as-a-god”, its disappearance has decreased its relevancy.  The “freedom and democracy” line just isn’t that convincing anymore. 

But, in general, people are still believing in the attitude.  Perhaps, as time goes on and we go further away from the cold war, the “freedom and democracy” attitude will cease to be and its presence will fade.  When this happens, perhaps, we can regain our humanity, and start a human society again.

There are going to be stumbling blocks to this though:

  • Ingrained attitudes.
  • National pride.
  • The reliance on the ‘system’.
  • The influence of mass media.
  • Overpopulation, which tends to favor democracy, a ‘government for the people’.
  • Other new attitudes that may appear.

It seems to me that we need to try and undo the damage modern democracy created.  We need to start following and allowing our natural human inclinations to manifest themselves.  We need to regain our humanity again.  One of the things that prevents this seems to be modern democracy.  This, it seems, makes it so that a big part of fighting for our humanity is to fight against modern democracy!

This entry was posted in Dehumanization and alienation, Feminism: a destructive philosophy, Government and politics, Modern life and society, The U.S. and American society and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s