Democracy, a Cesspool of Mediocrity Run by Hostile, Self-Serving Elites

Editor’s note: Since today is 250th birthday of the American experiment in democracy, this article is particularly relevant, coming as it does in the aftermath of Trump’s betrayal by attacking Iran on behalf of Israel and illustrating once again the conflict between American national interests and the power of the Israel Lobby and its financial and media influence—not to mention the huge increase in the wealth of Trump and his family (at least $2.7 billion).

The State is the coldest of cold monsters. It lies coldly; and this is the lie that escapes from its mouth: “I the State, I am the people.”
     Friedrich Nietzsche

The best critique of democracy, the most “documented, clear, tight and implacable”[1] is without any doubt that of Jean Haupt. After having analyzed all its mechanisms, i.e., its founding principles, universal suffrage, the competence of elected officials, parties, parliament, the government, and the head of state, Haupt concludes that democracy is contrary to the legitimate interests of the citizens as well as to the superior interests of the Nation.[2]

This is an astonishing, even scandalous statement for the vast majority of Westerners who swear only by democracy, but is Jean Haupt, right? Let’s take a close look at all its mechanism.

Founding Principles of Democracy

The sacrosanct trilogy of Masonic origin “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” is the keystone of all democracies. Three magic words with strong connotations, but which contain a whole world of contradictions. It is indeed impossible. In the words of English specialist on subversive movements, Nesta H. Webster,

to have complete liberty and equality, the two are mutually exclusive. It is possible to have a system of complete liberty in which every man is free to behave as he pleases, to do what he will with his own, to rob or to murder, to live, that is to say, under the law of the jungle, rule by the strongest, but there is no equality there. Or one may have a system of absolute equality, of cutting every one down to the same dead level, of crushing all incentive in man to rise above his fellows, but there is no liberty there. So Grand Orient Freemasonry, by coupling together two words for ever incompatible, threw into the arena an apple of discord over which the world has never ceased to quarrel from that day to this, and which has throughout divided the revolutionary forces into two opposing camps.[3]

As for fraternity, it is the most blatant of impostures:

Fraternity, the darling child of democracy, was baptized in a bloodbath [the French Revolution of 1789], and that was not to be the last! Never have men been so betrayed, hated, envied, robbed, tortured, murdered, massacred, as since the Fraternity was inscribed on the pediment of our public buildings. It is enough to go through the history of the last hundred and fifty years to notice that democracy is an endemic and permanent civil war.[4]

Thus, by coupling three terms that are forever incompatible, the people and their vassals, who rule over us have introduced into the social arena a permanent bone of contention. And it is precisely because of this “divide and rule” strategy that Louis-Ferdinand Céline, one of the greatest writers of the last century, thought democracy was the perfect cover for Jewish dictatorship.[5]

As noted by retired professor of humanities, Thomas Dalton, democracy is a political system used by Jewish elites to acquire wealth, control mass media, and influence politicians while remaining hidden from the public. This materialistic and anti-spiritual “judeocratie,” concludes Dalton, elevates “mediocre” and easy-to-manipulate politicians such as Donald Trump and the Young Leaders of the World Economic Forum—Angela Merkel, Tony Blair, Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, and Jacinda Arden—to serve Jewish interests at the expense of their own citizens. [6]

In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler says the following about democracy:

Democracy has become a tool in the hand of that [Jewish] race that, because of its inner goals, must shun the open light — as it has always done and will always do. Only the Jew can praise an institution which is as corrupt and false as himself. [7]

As enemy of mediocrity Ezra Pound says: “Democracy is now currently defined in Europe as ‘a country run by Jews.’”[8]

Freedom of Thought

Is freedom of thought guaranteed in a democracy? No, says Jean Haupt, because

men, nowadays, whoever they are, wherever they are, are subjected, hour by hour, in the street, in the office, in the factory, in the workshop, in their work, in their leisure, and in their distractions, and even in the intimacy of their homes, through the intermediary of the image, book, press, cinema, radio, and television, to the constant, permanent, invasive, declared or insidious, brutal, or underhanded action of undemocratic propaganda.[9]

Everything that does not contribute to the glory of democracy is hidden. And since the media are owned by the ruling oligarchs, they have complete control over the political affairs of the country. Democracy in this sense is an authoritarian government that does not say its name. It does not tolerate dissonance and takes all means at its disposal to bring to heel those who do not adhere to the official version of things. Thus, to put it like Jean Haupt: “The happy citizens of a democracy are as free as one who is condemned to death is free to move, chains on his feet, in the two square meters of his cell…”[10]

Freedom of the Press

No mainstream media today is free, that is, independent. They are all in the hands of some trust or financial group, itself in the hands of God knows what other entity. Whether they are on the left or on the right, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, it’s bad cop–good cop.

Information disseminated to the public is totally censored, filtered, manipulated by the hidden forces that run our governments. And that’s without mentioning the pressures that are exerted through false advertising.

On these questions, it is worth reading John Coleman’s The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations: Shaping the Moral, Spiritual, Cultural, Political, and Economic Decline of the United States of America, Noam Chomsky’s The Manufacture of Consent and Propaganda; and How to Manipulate Opinion in a Democracy? by Edward Bernays, the pioneer of corporate PR and propaganda, who had this to say about democracy:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitutes an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. … We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. … In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.[11]

The people who rule us, the cosmopolitan financial cartels who get rich through war, financial speculation, and usury, are indeed powerful — powerful in their ill-earned money and their boundless ambitions. They can buy anything and anyone: the most influential media, it goes without saying, but also scientists who live on subsidies, crooked politicians they put in power, leftist university professors who only see salvation in the end of capitalism; journalists, editors, activists, influencers, and losers of all kinds as well as notorious hacks all have a price. In our materialistic world, everything can be bought.[12]

The search for truth, doubt, principles, morality, integrity, love of a job well done, remorse of conscience, fear of divine retribution hardly exist anymore. The population in general has been domesticated, dumbed down, even subjugated by the Golden Calf and limbic capitalism. Having lost their moral and spiritual compass, having lost their national, cultural, and ethnic identity, they find themselves disarmed in the face of the globalist psychopaths who rule over us.

Simply put, whoever controls the money and the press controls the world. It is for this reason that democrats first impose “freedom of the press” in the name of human rights on the authoritarian countries they want to Judaize. They know very well that it is through this breach that “the torrent of subversion […] will rush in, irresistible, allowing them to storm the regime and destroy its institutions.”[13], [14]

And if that is not enough, the dictators of democracy will turn to bombs as they did in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Gaza, Ukraine, and Iran. “No liberty for the enemies of liberty,” said Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, a politician of the French Revolution who was guillotined in Paris on July 28, 1784, on the Place de la Révolution (now the Place de la Concorde).

Universal Suffrage

“It is on absolute equality which, by nature, does not exist and cannot exist,” insists Jean Haupt, “that the democrats base the institution of the universal suffrage. It is the famous principle ‘one man, one vote.’”[15] In this system, the vote of the most insane, the most illiterate, the most ignorant, the most morally and politically incompetent, the most easily manipulated by media propaganda has exactly the same value as the vote of the most intelligent, the most educated, the least manipulable and the most morally and politically competent.

Since the majority of the population belongs to the least competent group, it is this group that elects the candidates. In this system, it is presupposed that the majority has a better emerging judgment than the judgment of the parcels that constitute it, the average citizen, and conversely, it is presupposed that a minority can never be right. This is false in both cases. A majority is not necessarily right, and it is often the minority dissident elite that is the most competent.

Democracy is therefore the opinion of the mediocre. With good media coverage, enough money, false electoral promises and in some countries, like the United States, fraudulent manipulation of the vote, those who really rule are therefore able to get almost anyone elected.

Parties Against the Nation

Everything is said in this quote from António de Oliveira Salazar who served as Prime Minister of Portugal from 1932 to 1968:

We proposed to eliminate the regime of the parties, convinced that the partisan organization, with its struggles and incompatibility, its interests and influences, had brought us only paralysis of the State and governmental instability, a counterfeit of national representation, a ferment of civil war. … The Nation tends instinctively to unite; the parties tend to divide…[16]

In the same line of thought, this quote by Jean Haupt:

The existence of multiple parties, with their committees, their newspapers, their leaflets, their meetings, their congresses, their parades, their demonstrations, maintain in the country, in the street, in the office, in the factory and sometimes even within families, an endemic state of agitation, division, hostility, hatred, which, in periods of electoral campaign… is transformed into crises, into outbreaks of fever, into an explosion of exacerbated passions. The parties are a ferment of civil war. [17]

But the divisions are not only between the parties, but also within the parties themselves. Each party has a center, right, far right, left and far left with its leaders and followers sometimes as passionate about their side as if it were an opposing party. And when the internal quarrels become important, the party can sometime split into several enemy factions. This dynamic is especially visible in multicultural societies, where identity-based concerns frequently enter political discourse. In such contexts, groups defined by religion, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or environmental values may advocate for their specific rights and interests.

Moreover, how can one be a civil servant, judge, policeman, doctor, or teacher and still be a member of a political party? Each will tend to defend his or her political option, sometimes to the detriment of the community. Thus, if the party in power is the opponent of the party of any civil servant, the latter will be disloyal to the government whose policy he disapproves of. He will harm and betray the taxpayers who pay him, thinking that he is doing the right thing, because he is convinced that the policies of the party in power are harmful to the country. In fact, as Mário Saraiva says, “when both national and party interests are at stake, experience teaches us that it is futile to hope for a solution other than the sacrifice of the national interest to the party interest.”[18]

The incompatibility between party and national interest is particularly dangerous when it comes to internationalist or globalist parties. Under different misleading names, these parties all advocate the end of nations, no-borders, replacement immigration by Third-world populations, economic ruin of the middle class, deindustrialization, debt slavery, race-mixing, sexual dystopia, and world governance.[19]

The people who elected them are of no interest to them. Once in power, their political bias takes precedence over everything. Their game is to manipulate the populations, notably through fear, in order to surreptitiously force them to accept political options that they would refuse in full knowledge of the facts.

Parliament

Parliament, which is the product of partisan struggles and majority voting, in turn operates on a partisan and majority basis. In other words, parliamentary activity is only the extension, within the assembly, of the divisions, struggles, and rivalries of the parties; parliament is the theatre where ideologies, or simply the interests of the parties, clash; it is the image, on a reduced scale, of the democratic nation. The democratic parliament, with a majority and partisan base, suffers from the congenital, inevitable and incurable evil, which gnaws from top to bottom, like gangrene, all democratic regimes and countries: the division, the civil war, more or less endemic and more or less declared.[20]

How can you expect it to be otherwise? MPs are elected to defend their party and its interests. Their seat in parliament is a battleground against other MPs from opposing parties. They are less concerned with the interests of the community as a whole than with partisan interests between parties and within their own party. “This is why parliament is only a closed field where ideologies clash, no doubt, but where hatreds and ambitions clash above all.”[21]

Competence and Integrity of Elected Officials

What is required of MPs in terms of competence? Nothing, except to be able to read and write. They are no longer even asked to be eloquent: “the poster, the leaflet and the advertising slogan take the place of eloquence and, in these ‘new style’ electoral campaigns … the greatest ally of the candidate MP is money.”[22]

Being young and good-looking, cunning and able to act and sob in public when necessary are major assets in today’s woke society that lives on emotions. Voters in general cannot make out the difference between words and actions. Many voters will inevitably choose the most attractive and best talker to represent them, regardless of his or her other qualifications. The space between reality and appearances becomes unbridgeable.

These ambitious politicians — oriented in their policy preferences and funded by wealthy donors — will be de facto beholden to them. They will not be free to defend the interests of their constituents, and frankly, they don’t give a damn anyways. That’s not their purpose. It is impossible in such a case for the majority of elected officials to be models of virtue, probity, and dignity as they should be when representing a nation.

Didn’t the rabid philosemite Donald Trump, financed substantially by Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his wife, play into Israel’s hands? How many promises did this slavish promoter of professional wrestling deliver? Not one. How many Jewish criminals did he pardon? Many. And doesn’t Emmanuel Macron obey the Rothschild bankers who got him elected? What about Trudeau when he was Prime minister of Canada? Well, like all the Young Leaders schooled by the Davos crowd, he followed their orders to the detriment of the interests of his own people? These leaders are vulgar puppets in the service of the globalist elites whose interests are contrary to those of the peoples and nations they govern.[23]

Government and Head of State

Under these conditions, it is impossible for the government and the head of state to be strong if the leaders don’t serve the people who elected them, if parliament is weakened by partisan bickering and if its members are incompetent. If the foundation is shaky, the rest of the edifice will be too. The state and its leader will be dysfunctional, as is the case in all Western democracies today, which are all controlled by cosmopolitan financiers. But beware of the consequences:

The idol “democracy” serves today to demolish the peoples and races, and to manufacture, “Frankenstein” style, a gray and faceless humanity [that had] hoped to be homogeneous. This illusion will quickly dissipate: racial chaos will reform, but in disorder, the hereditary characters that were meant to be dissolved by crossbreeding. The sorcerer’s apprentices at the service of the idol will have prepared a future in which humanity may not survive.[24]

In the end, true democracy is only possible, said Aristotle, in ethnically homogeneous societies. Despots and tyrants have always ruled over highly fragmented societies such as today’s Western societies. A multiethnic and multicultural society is therefore necessarily chaotic, because it is totally devoid of philia, a fundamental concept defined by Aristotle as a brotherhood of identity rooted in the blood and flesh of citizens. Thus, multiethnic and multicultural chaos prevents any expression of philia, the indispensable condition for the cohesion and sovereignty of a people.

---

[1] Jean Haupt, Le Procès de la démocratie, Éditions Baris, 2019, p. 6.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Nesta H. Webster, World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization, 1932, p. 7.

[4] Jean Haupt, work cited, p. 35.

[5] Louis Ferdinand Céline, Bagatelles pour un massacre, 1937.

[6] Thomas Dalton Ph.D., “Democracy Is an Ideal Government for Jewish Influence,” The Occidental Observer, March 25, 2024.

[7] Adolf Hitler, Volume One, section 3.15, Mein Kampf (Clemens & Blair), T. Dalton, ed., 2022.

[8] John Tytell,  Ezra Pound: The Solitary Volcano, 1987, p. 257. Cited by Thomas Dalton, “Democracy Is an Ideal Government for Jewish Influence,” The Unz Review, March 25, 2024

[9] Ibid., p. 18.

[10] Ibid., p. 19.

[11] Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda, Ig Publishing, 2004, p. 23.

[12] Jean Haupt, work cited, p. 21.

[13] Ibid., p. 26.

[14] Ibid., p. 34.

[15] Ibid., p. 52.

[16] Ibid., p. 56.

[17] Mário Saraiva, Os Pilares da Democracia, Livraria Clássica Editora, Lisbonne, 1949. Cited by Jean Haupt on page 62, work cited.

[18] Jean Haupt, work cited, p. 74.

[19] Kevin Macdonald, PhD, The Culture of Critique. An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Antelope Hill Publishing, 3rd Edition, 2025

[20] Ibid., p. 76.

[21] Scott Howard, The Open Society Playbook, Antelope Hill Publishing, 2021.id, p. 76.

[22] Ibid., p. 77-78.

[23] Scott Howard, The Open Society Playbook, Antelope Hill Publishing, 2021.

[24] G. A. Amaudruz, postface to Jean Haupt’s book, work cited, p. 134.