Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Online Workshop Part 5: The End of History or the End of Democracy?

I was planning to shut down the blog by now, but I have a handful of posts that I'd like to finish before leaving the blogosphere, so I'll keep on blogging for a few more days. Online workshop parts 3 and 4 are still going on:

Online Workshop Part 3: What are Islam's Weak Points, and How do We Exploit Them? What are Ours, and How do We Fix Them?

Online Workshop Part 4: Whose 21st Century? The Retreat of the Western Order

But let us introduce another topic. At the end of the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama pronounced that we had arrived at "The End of History", and that capitalism and liberal democracy would now be the only global system left. But when I look at Europe today, I see democracies under threat because of an elaborate Eurabian bureaucracy and Islamic fanaticism. I see countries unwilling or unable to defend themselves against massive immigration/colonization, and the possible dawn of neo-barbarism. Has democracy become too soft to function? Have we arrived at "the End of Democracy" instead of "the End of History?" What does it take for a democracy to work? Can you still retain a democracy with massive illegal immigration going on? Is Multiculturalism inherently anti-democratic? Some people claim that the nation state is a redundant concept in a globalized world, but I can't see many democratic societies not based on a nation state. Can you? To me, the EU is the perfect example of how democracy becomes weakened when you try to make an organization above the nation state. And the UN is unacceptable because it allows dictatorships and corrupt non-democratic states to dictate democratic ones. Until we have something better, if ever, the nation state is the best way ever discovered of organizing society to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of people. The problem I think is that people get confused between democracy and human rights. Obviously you can't have pure democracy -- that is just mob rule. As some wag once wrote, "Two wolves voting to eat the sheep." That's why the famous concept of "checks and balances" were built into the US system of government -- to give some protection to the sheep. The framers of the US constitution thought long and hard about pure democracy and recognized its limitations.

The US system, with its separation of executive and legislative powers, isn't nearly as "democratic" as the European parliamentary system. Small parties have no influence there -- that's why special interest groups like feminists are often represented by lobbying organizations like NOW here rather than actual political parties as in Europe. But such a set-up mitigates against extremism -- in a Parliamentary system some extremist small party can exert influence beyond its numbers due to providing the swing vote in coalitions. Within the US system, there is a wide spectrum of political beliefs across the two parties. The Democrats have a liberal, centrist, and rightiest wing. Ditto the Republicans (although the liberal Republicans are a dying breed.) Under our system, Republicans are allowed to vote for Democratic proposals and Democrats are allowed to vote for Republican proposals. And representatives do frequently "cross party lines" to vote on issues that matter to their constituents. There is no such thing as "required vote" where you have to vote the way your party votes or else leave the party. Every vote on every issue to come up in the Congress is a "free vote." I think this is superior because it is voting on issues on an individual basis, not on a "group" basis. Of course the party in power does apply pressure, arm-twisting, etc. to get their members to vote "the Republican agenda" etc., but there is no legal requirement for them to vote so.

Ohmyrus: Bring back that Old Time Religion

Democracy is also a secular ideology and its proponents can be as intolerant as any religious fanatic. Other forms of government are viewed as illegitimate and ought to be converted into democracies. Many democrats cannot tolerate any kind of dictatorship – not the fascist kind nor the communist kind or the Islamist kind like what you see in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Islamists think that the only legitimate form of government is an Islamic state and therefore oppose Bush's plans with suicide bombers. Thus two intolerant ideologies, one secular and the other religious are fighting it out in the sands of Iraq. However, I believe that democracy is not the end of history. Francis Fukuyama is wrong. Democracy will one day be replaced by something else. Perhaps, in a thousand years' time, people will view democrats of our present era as being intolerant of other forms of governments like people of our era view medieval Christians as intolerant of other religions.

Hugh Fitzgerald: Stop taking the UN seriously

Only a fool nowadays would use a phrase such as "international community," which attempts to treat Syria and Iceland as the same kind of members, or Costa Rica and Saudi Arabia, as similarly situated and behaving. What nonsense. There is no "international community." There is no "community" which contains Iceland and Libya, Italy and Saudi Arabia, the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Some of these are our enemies; they wish us ill, they do not wish us well. Infidels and Believers cannot -- according to Islam itself, according to everything about Islam -- form a community. There is only the umma al-islamiyya, the Community of Believers. All others must be kept at bay, inveigled, fooled, undermined, ultimately conquered, and conclusively subjugated. No other possible outcome, according to what is contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, is possible. The phrase "international community" is telling. Those who use it are telling us something about themselves. And what they are telling us isn't flattering.

There are no "united" nations. There is an organization that has been undermined from within. It is now an obstacle to the wellbeing of all those who wish to see clearly what is at stake in the worldwide Jihad, and to preserve themselves, in Europe, in America, in Russia, and in the Middle East, from the imposition of a belief-system -- through being overrun, slowly but surely, by adherents of that belief-system -- that has left every place it has conquered intellectually impoverished, and in every other way as well. Taking the U.N. seriously is by now as absurd as, in September 1939, going to the League of Nations (or as those incurable salon-habitués, the French, liked to call it, la Société des Nations, the "society or community of nations"), to ask it to please, please, please deal with Mr. Hitler -- he is behaving so badly.

Should the EU be Dismantled?

Should the entire European Union simply be dismantled? I've started to wonder whether the whole thing, just like Islam, coincidentally, is simply beyond reform and a threat to democracy. Critics claim that the Council of Ministers, the EU’s supreme law-making body, which decides two thirds of all Britain’s laws, is the only legislature outside the Communist dictatorships of North Korea and Cuba to pass laws in secret.


At December 13, 2005 2:06 AM, Blogger John Sobieski said...

I was really ignorant about the EU structure, but after I studied it a bit, I was really shocked how complex it is setup and how removed from voter control so much of it is. Those socialists know how to construct a maze! As the wolf EU said to the gullible members of the EU party, when asked about his big greedy eyes - 'better to deceive you with my dear.' Instead of running, they said 'have your way with me.'

What started out as modest proposals (monetary conformity, setting limited standards) for the member countries, the EU began to devour, slowly at first but much faster now, those government rights and decisions, hacked away by the victims and handed to the EU on a silver platter - they used to belong to the individual countries and their citizens to decide for their own country but never again.

All the elites in their shiny towers creating regulations and laws, busy, busy little bees just trying to help 'improve' your life. Thanks but no thanks.

The US is almost as bad. Look how big our gov't is today. It's massive and into everything. Yet one of the prime directives - secure our borders - is ignored. How can that be? The big "C" - corruption. The big "PC", The big "MC" What a mess we are getting ourselves into.

At December 13, 2005 2:42 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

Quark2: The blog will still be here for reference.

I may still post a comment at Jihad Watch or LittleGreenFootballs every now and then. In principle, I can conceive of writing a post on special occasions, but if so, it won't be posted here. Most likely at Jihad Watch, but Gates of Vienna and Viking Observer are other possible candidates.

At December 13, 2005 11:00 AM, Blogger Ronnie Horesh said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At December 13, 2005 11:02 AM, Blogger Ronnie Horesh said...

I don't think the EU should be dismantled, but I do think France should be expelled. For a start, an EU without France and its insecurities would have one official language instead of 20. Then it would set about dismantling the corrupt, insane Common Agricultural Policy, which does so much to keep people in Africa (and elsewhere) poor and, if the French but knew it, desperate to go and live in Europe. An EU without France could have a rational foreign policy, instead of just doing whatever is calculated to annoy the US the most. It could oppose America on issues like the Iraq war from a principled stance, rather than because the French elite didn't want its corrupt links with the Saddam regime to be exposed. In short, an EU without France would have a lot going for

At December 13, 2005 5:53 PM, Blogger bordergal said...

Ditch the EU. The further away decisionmaking is moved from the average citizen, the more tyranny there will be.

There has already been that attitude when citizens vote against what the elites want that "we'll just do it until the great unwashed get it right".

Doesn't mean you can't have some loose form of European federation, but the EU is bureacracy at it's worst.

At December 14, 2005 12:13 AM, Blogger Snouck said...

You ask whether democracy can be combined with mass immigration? The answer is : "no". With mass immigration the political elite are just electing a new people and with Multiculturalism the cultural elite are shaping a new culture of their liking.

"Demos" = "people". One must have a people to have a democracy. The people must have a shared family bond and a shared culture. If the family bond is weakened by immigration of non related foreigners and the culture is weakened by Leftist fashionable reeducation thru the mass media and education system, then democracy is dead. It is that simple. The holding of elections, going to the voting booth and counting of the vote become mere rituals. Because new ethnic groups feel weak and will generally vote for the Left which supports them and the policies that increase their numbers and voting power.


At December 15, 2005 12:46 PM, Blogger KGS said...

Hej Fjordman, you get posted on the Frontpagmag then depart from us? I will keep an eye open for your posts on the sites previously mentioned.

About the demise of democracy, I would venture to say that its future looks robust, as more nations than ever begin to see it as a means in ending perpetual conflict.

Western states in the EU must wake up though, if they want to continue on as a democracy. Very ironic that the developing world is adjusting to the new reality of a democratic peace, while Old Europe is disembowling its democratic self.

Paristical socialism tends to do that to the host.


Post a Comment

<< Home