A Word About Democracy from a Man Brought Up in a Dictatorship

I am a Jew, and like many Jews, I fled the land where I was born. That was the Soviet Union. I am far from alone. Seems that at every stage of history, someone has been sure to throw the Jews into the sea. The Jews, however, had already been to the sea – when they left Egypt – and got out safely. That sea was the Red Sea. When I got out of the red, socialist sea, I found a sea of democracy in Israel. And here is what I have since learned:

Under Soviet socialism, there was no democracy. The state controlled the press to the extent that there were no automobile disasters, no mine collapses, no factory fires, no train, streetcar or airplane crashes, no earthquakes nor floods.

There were no natural disasters under socialism. If cold winds blew in the USSR, they came from the West. Imported cold currents and cyclones also came from there. If hot winds blew, they were called Afghans. If there were organized thefts of socialist property, their authors were known to have Jewish surnames.

Bad news was forbidden under socialism. And it seems that people got used to it. How much easier it is to live as a person who is not constantly bombarded with reports of catastrophes and crimes, right? Such a person has a life of calm, other than the aspect of life that was streamlined in long queues for food and goods, all of which were sorely lacking under "developed socialism."

In a totalitarian state, the majority of the population is doomed to be content, for the alternative is dangerous.

Confusing article. It confuses democracy with pluralism. There are some nations that are democratic but not pluralistic and other democracies that are pluralistic. So, perhaps Hungary is a democracy that is not pluralistic but the U.S. is a (fake) democracy that is pluralistic. Pluralism means many religions, creeds, classes, ethnicities. And pluralism often spells death to a democracy.

Where we’re at, as we have lost our Constitution based Republic where we had a morality based freedom…a freedom subjugated to morality (we weren’t able to hold on to it, but we can take it back.)

From the article:

Anti-religious liberalism has created a religion according to which the formerly weak are placed on a pedestal in the name of equality. In his book Philosophy of Inequality (1923), in the seventh letter (on liberalism), the philosopher N.A. Berdyaev writes: “Freedom and equality are incompatible. Freedom is first of all the right to inequality. Equality is above all an encroachment on freedom, a restriction of freedom. [...] Freedom is linked to the qualitative content of life. Equality is directed against every qualitative difference and qualitative content of life, against every right of elevation. [...] Equality devours freedom.”

What the Left fails to realize is that not only is/was our country based on God's morality but our power came from our adherence to that morality (and obedience to Him).

That is why Joe's WH is such a clusterf**k and people on the Left (take Kamala and Terry McAullife for example) are such clueless idiots.

God is still right where He's always been and our country is there for our re-taking.

Okay. Good. I am not the only one who read that and wondered what point the author was trying to make.

We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy is mob rule. To The Founders, Democracy was anathema. They were right to view it with distaste.

Mather Byles (who was a Tory, not a Patriot) once said ”Which is better: to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" When he said that, he was likely referring to a Democracy.

His statement: "...Liberalism is an ideology that puts one person, the individual himself, not an aristocrat, not a rich man, not a representative of the government or the majority, not a member of the power structure, as the center of the universe. It does not accept the cult of any one "great" person, but accepts the cult of any single person..." is a bit of a dog's breakfast of a statement, though technically true.

I think he is trying to address the issue of individual rights versus collective rights, but it seemed like a ham-handed way of doing it. In that statement, it boils down to a choice between a cult of a single person, themselves, or the tyranny of being ruled by an aristocrat, rich man, oligarchy, etc. instead of the ostensible variant we have in our Republic, or at least used to have. We are an oligarchy now, IMO.

It was hard to follow for me. The article seemed internally inconsistent.

I think your thought process is on the right track, and boils down even further:

We have certain inalienable rights that are given to us by God, and not by any mortal man.

In that structure which is called Natural Law, no mortal man or men can justifiably take those rights from us, and we are morally justified in resorting to violence to protect those rights if they are going to be removed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.