Skip to comments.Democracy is Bigger Lie than Communism - Prominent Orthodox Priest
Posted on 10/24/2013 6:01:20 AM PDT by marshmallow
Moscow, October 24, Interfax - Head of the Patriarchal Commission for Family and Maternity Archpriest Dimitry Smirnov, believes that democracy is based on lies.
"It's just a lie. Communism is also a lie, but Communism has religious features. Communism seems to take a lot from true religions. The Communists have their own teaching, their own "Holy Scripture." They have their own rituals. They have their martyrs, their have their prophets. They have their heroes. I would say they have their messianic promises," the priest told the radio station Radonezh.
As for democracy, "people have never had real power anywhere," the priest said. "Democracy is simply deceit. Because all people are different and it cannot be that one person equals one vote," the priest said.
The priest believes that all issues are resolved with money in a democratic state and "the transition from monarchy to capitalism was carried out by moneybags for their own benefit." "In the olden days, if you were a duke you were a duke, regardless of whether you had money or not. Now I decide if you are a duke or not. And if I need to, I buy your daughter, marry her and become a duke too, I take that title. And if you want to become a president? No problem. You want to work in politics? That will cost this much," he said.
A true democracy, is a failed construct, anyone who’s studied history knows this.
Ping for later
About half of what I read .. even here in FR, is; invent a situation, make it a problem, ask a question about it, and either .. solve the problem or ... toss it out for the barrooms to buzz on.
While USS AMERICA sinks.
The Framers agreed with a lot of this—that’s why we live in a Republic—not a democracy.
HEY PREACHER FOR SATAN... WE KNOW THAT... THAT IS WHY OUR FOUNDERS SPURNED DEMOCRACY AND GAVE US A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. NOW BACK INTO YOUR RAT HOLE.
The original "democracy" was that of ancient Athens. I know very little about the subject, but as I understand it, it was not a "pure democracy" as we define it today but more of an oligarchy. Perhaps it was merely the Greek counterpart of the Latin res publica.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for any other that has been tried from time to time.
Communism and Naziism are honest about the millions they intend to kill. Socialism lies, but still manages to kill millions.
Sign me up for a republic.
You have two cows.
With Socialism, the government steals one and gives it to your neighbor.
With Fascism, the government steals both, and promises to sell you milk.
With Communism the government steals both, and promises to give you milk.
With Naziism, the government steals both cows and shoots you.
with Anarchism, you shoot the government agent and steal another cow.
With Capitalism, you sell one cow and buy a bull.
We need just enough Anarchism so that Capitalism is free to do its good work.
True democracy is a fatally flawed system, and always will be it is why we were given a republic, though anymore I feel we’ve lost it.
In Athens they had an interesting way of voting.
People put the name they wanted for office on a pottery shard. The shards were put into 12 white pots whith numbers on them. A black pot had shards with the numbers 1 through 12 on it. A shard from the black pot was selected at random, and all the votes from the pots not selected were thrown out. The selected votes were redistributed into the 12 white pots, and the process was repeated until a single name was chosen.
They also did the same thing with votes to ostracize.
The idea was, given that not many could count very high, there wasn’t much trust in totaling up the votes. They could see which pot was selected. There wasn’t much reason for vote fraud, as “The G-ds” were able to control who was selected by any vote. Yet, getting lots of votes did make your candidates election more likely.
Women didn’t vote. Slaves didn’t vote. Foreigners didn’t vote. Yet the franchise was widely held, for the standards of the time.
We have taken the republic back before. Wilson was a tyrant and used the war powers to insinuate the government into states (federal race discrimination) and to take over the economy in all sorts of rotten ways.
And under Harding we had the ‘end of war’ induced recession that was the the deepist on record, but also the shortest on record. The leftists of the time never forgave Harding for shuting down their socialist masterpiece.
I understand that the franchise was limited to certain people, which is why the original "democracy" was not a "democracy" in the modern understanding of the term.
Gosh, he must be right, after all only the rich have cell phones.....oops.
Well, only the rich have computers....oops.
Well only the rich have cars....oops.
Well only the rich can take plane flights...oops.
Must be more of that deception thing.
In early america you stood in line to see your town clerk, told him how you voted, and he marked it down on a big leger book.
After doing it all day, he would in theory know how everyone voted, but would be bound by duty (I know, imagine that now!) to not disclose it.
At the end of the day, the votes were tallied in the ledger book and a letter with the result was sent to the appropriate authority.
This is why you see people saying idiotic things like "fascism (or Falangism, Nazism, etc) was a left-wing movement." They try to define the political spectrum in other cultures and other times in terms of the issues that define the Right and Left in America today. While they're at it, perhaps they can inform us whether Athenians or Spartans were Democrats or Republicans in the Peloponnesian war?
Well, if you look at the two city-states critically, Athens would have leaned more toward liberalism while Sparta leaned more toward Conservatism. We’re talking shades of gray here, however.
I could agree with this, but I'd add the fact that Sparta was also by far the more collectivist society while Athens was more individualistic. This underscores how the claim that individualism = rightwing and collectivism = leftwing is nonsense, since you can have both leftwing and rightwing collectivism, or left and rightwing individualism.
Thank you so much for saying that (I've often longed to but chickened out)! Yes, the John Birch Society's claim that "right" means small government individualism while "left" means big government collectivism applies only in our country, and sometimes not then. Plus, it was a ploy to dissassociate themselves from right wingers elsewhere who embarrassed them.
The JBS claim that "Nazism is left wing" is refuted by the very fact that so many American palaeoconservatives promote the very same ideas and sometimes the works of Fascist and Nazi writers. Implying that Spanish Falangism (of even the pre-Franco variety) was "left wing" simply serves to discredit us.
I admire your courage. Prepare to get piled on.
Sparta was a totalitarian nightmare--children reared collectively by the State, being left out to die if they weren't physically perfect, and being brutalized into becoming fighting machines. How any conservative (of the American variety) can claim to admire Sparta is absolutely beyond me.
they've watched 300 too many times...
I had a debate with somebody on an earlier thread who said that Fascism was left wing movements because they were anti-individualist. I pointed out to this person that by this absurd reasoning, the military (and especially the Marine Corps) are the most "left wing" institutions in America because they are profoundly anti-individualist.
As you point out, laissez-faire capitalism and US/British style constitutional republicanism was perceived as a liberal (even radical) ideology by the aristocracy, the Church, the military, and the civil servant classes in continental Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries. There were numerous reactions to both classical liberalism and to Marxist socialism from the traditional right, which American conservatives naively consider "leftist" because of their opposition to US style capitalism and Democracy.
In my last post, I didn’t mean to imply that Britain was a republic, but that it had a constitution that created a balance of powers and limited the power of the monarchy over state and property.
A most astute, and correct, observation! It was not a Communist, but a French right winger, who once said that "the individual is nothing; society is everything."
Ironically, the Persians come off pretty good in the Bible. Of course, the ancient Jews liked Alexander too.
With Nazis, the crux of the matter is this...even by American standards, conservatives must believe that there are certain qualities to human life which are transcendent and unchangeable whereas the Left believes that everything is ‘perfectible’ (changeable)...while the Nazis believed in strong centralized control (Left wing by American standards but Right wing by pre WW2 European standards) they also believed in certain unchangeable qualities (racial identity being primary among them) just different qualities from what the American conservatives believe...in this sense they were ‘Right wing’. Does that make sense?
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
The fundamental divide between Left and Right is their views of human nature. Leftists believe that human nature is a blank slate, that if you engineer the perfect society, you will also engineer away human nature. Maoism is probably the most extreme example of this, they even tried to socially engineer away differences between the sexes by forcing men and women to act, dress, and work identically.
The Right believes that certain aspects of human nature are innate and immutable, and that no amount of social engineering will change the fact that people, as individuals and as groups, are different and unequal. Nazism took this to the extreme of saying some ethnic and racial differences trumped all else. It's certainly a perversion of rightwing ideology, but nevertheless grounded in rightist thinking.
For Marxists, your social circumstances determined your identity. For fascists, your identity determined your social circumstances. This is why these ideologies were mortal, irreconcilable enemies. The fact that they both used a strong centralized government to implement their ideologies is peripheral - it's a means to an end, not the end.
Most people will acknowledge that anarchists are/were Leftists, so even in the US, the notion that "small government = conservatism / big government = liberalism" is nonsense.
There are both leftists (anarchists) and rightists (libertarians) who want minimal government, just as there are leftists (Communists, socialists) and rightists (fascists, monarchists, theocrats, military juntas in Latin America) who want strong central government.
The reason for this is that what matters isn't the size of government that you want, but what aims you want that government to achieve or not to achieve.
The Nazis were socialists to the core. Like the Communists, they advocated a classless society.
True the Nazis allowed private ownership of industries, but that was merely because Hitler needed the industrialists to build up his war machine. ...And speculation is that once the war was won, and the Industrialists were no longer needed for the war machine, that they were to be dealt with in the same manner as the Jews.
Not at all. In their vision, there would be a new aristocracy created from the SS elite that would rule over other Germans.
The regime promoted the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, a national German ethnic community. The goal was to build a classless society based on racial purity and the perceived need to prepare for warfare, conquest, and a struggle against Marxism.
No difference from Lenin advocating a group of professional revolutionaries who would rule over the masses, in order to implement the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Being a Judaic Theocrat, I've figured a few things out over the years of struggling with these issues, ie, why Judaism is considered anathema by the traditional "right," why so many Jews are liberals, etc. Here is my understanding as of now:
In its ultimate form "right" advocates the supremacy of local custom over universal truth. The implication is that because they worship the G-d of Heaven instead of a local "gxd" rooted in the landscape that Jews are subversive and corrosive.
Taken to its ultimate form (at least the one it would have had before it went nationalist) the "left" advocates the plowing under of all local customs and beliefs in the name of a universal truth, but a "truth" that is reduced to the purely physical. From the traditional Judaism perspective both are wrong.
Jews are indeed "programmed" in a sense to destroy local "gxds"--because local "gxds" are false. They are supposed to spread the knowledge of the True G-d, the G-d of Heaven, who is infinite and ultimately outside the universe itself, unlike so many "gxds" worshiped by non-Jews. Jewish liberalism is indeed a perversion of this genuine Jewish mission, but HaShem nevertheless providentially uses it as He uses everything.
Of course "right" and "left" within the American context or simply as easy reference points are something else again, and quite valid.
Not so ironical. Khorush the great was an exceptional man, one would have to consider God’s hand over his actions. Unlike others, he didn’t rule by crushing and killing, rather by making his subjects like him