Democracy's For Loser States
As far as I'm concerned, democracy has no use in a society which seeks to promote and uphold moral and time-proven values. As I said last time, democracy, in the "civilised world" at least, has devolved into a choice between "decline in 70mph or 110mph" every five years, or whenever the hell your country has elections. So what's its value? The point of democracy is for voters to vote for genuine change in a country's leadership. Not merely two candidates fighting over spending increases, just of slightly different proportions.
I've become more and more skeptical on the issue over time. Whatever your thoughts on it, allow me to take you on a tour of the world as we explore just how "successful" the system has been.
UK:
Despite their latest attempts to grab a point or two in the polls, the Labour Party will rue their big push for democracy come the next election:
Labour's drastic fall from capturing just over a third of all votes in last year's election, to now sitting around the late teens, will rankle many Labour backbenchers and cabinet ministers. Especially given that the Green Party, which has four seats in the Commons and captured a measly 7% of the vote in 2024, is now polling close to Labour, and has seen a drastic increase in membership as of late. Zack Polanski's leadership seems to have done it, which is odd given that he thinks a woman can have a penis, wants to abolish landlords–which is now broad party policy–and sees nothing wrong with the number of men coming into the country each year. Yet, they now poll just a few points behind the incumbent party.
The only good thing about the party's rise is a genuine difference on policy to Reform UK, which means that if their ascent continues, and if we can rely on polling, then by the time that we have a new parliament, for once since the Second World War there'll be genuine differences between the two main parties.
Aside from that, the post-WWII consensus has meant that voters have allowed for the systematic hollowing out of Britain's values and traditions from the core, resulting in the UK finding itself in a rut of such catastrophic proportions that the people in power now no longer know how to tackle the issues that the country faces.
As I observed with the esteemed guest on some rubbish morning tv programme a few weeks ago, the war that the veteran fought in, in the name of freedom, was the war that wasn't. Because the second it finished, the best thing we thought to do was vote in a guy who promised the biggest load of "free" stuff since F.D.R. in the US a decade before him. And so it went on...
As a democracy, Britain is one of the prime examples of how the system sucks. The government is close to holding £3 trillion pounds of debt on its books, English society is regulated beyond beggars belief, rape gangs scourge towns and cities across the land while HM Govt. keeps open Asylum Hotels in a town near you. Where can you vote on those issues? ...the issues that really matter?
Nowhere, and you'll never be able to, and most likely, you'll never be able to hold to account the perpetrators and those complicit in Britain's cultural and economic self-inflicted suicide. Why? Because you voted them in.
The longer the political class remains in charge, the slimmer the chances are of reclaiming Britain and restoring the values that turned it into one of the world's greatest and largest empires.
Western Europe:
I have more sympathy for inhabitants of the "Eurozone", that His Blairness so nearly dragged the UK into. Arising from the ashes of destruction of the Second World War came the notion that Europe should be effectively one nation, or at least governed by a guiding set of principles and values, to act as a vanguard against extremism. Which has meant that for the best part of the last century, Western Europe has been presided over by the centralised European Union. "We don’t unite states, we unite people," said Jean Monnet, the Architect of the Schuman Plan.
So how's that going?
Which breaks down as:
The highest ratios of government debt to GDP at the end of the second quarter of 2025 were recorded in Greece (151.2%), Italy (138.3%), France (115.8%), Belgium (106.2%) and Spain (103.4%), and the lowest ratios were recorded in Estonia (23.2%), Luxembourg (25.1%), Bulgaria (26.3%), and Denmark (29.7%).
And how's that vanguard against extremism going?
~2015 in Paris:
~A month later on New Year's Eve in Cologne:
After "Scores of women say they were sexually assaulted and mugged by groups of men largely of Arab and north African appearance".
~The following year in Berlin:
On December 19, 2016, Islamist attacker Anis Amri drove a stolen truck through a crowd in central Berlin, killing and injuring dozens.
For more recent examples, see:
2025–Pro-Gaza protests across Italy that turned violent in September:
...the Europe of 28 (EU-28) could stagnate in 2050 at approximately 500 million people while losing 49 million people of working age (20-64). That number means 11 million potentially active workers fewer in Germany and 7 to 8 million fewer in Spain and Italy.
The Catholic News Agency published this article, in, errr...2006:
According to the publication, “immigration in France has led to a strong growth in the building of mosques and evangelical places of worship, which has been paralleled by the decrease in Catholic churches. France now has more than 1,500 mosques, almost as many as exist in Istanbul, Turkey.”
“The Muslim population in the European Union increases by one million people per year, and consequently, at that pace, the EU will have at least 40 million Muslims by 2025. France is the country with the greatest number of followers of Islam: 10% of the population,” the article adds.
“The EU continues to attract immigrants. According to Eurostat, the EU’s Office of Statistics, “the relative economic prosperity and the political stability of the European Union are highly attractive factors,” Alba notes.
“Europe is increasingly Islamized and France is at the head of the pack,” the article adds.
So as far as I'm concerned, you can stick your freedom of movement of "goods, services, capital and persons" where the sun don't shine; soon, Western Europe's working population will be made-up almost entirely of immigrants:
Even if all migration into Europe were to immediately and permanently stop – a “zero migration” scenario – the Muslim population of Europe still would be expected to rise from the current level of 4.9% to 7.4% by the year 2050. This is because Muslims are younger (by 13 years, on average) and have higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern.
If you change the people, you change the country. It's all demographics at the end of the day. And you can't vote on that. In fact, even when you can vote on it, most likely the political class will turn a blind eye to it. In Germany, AfD lead the polls yet can't get in to government due to awful proportional representation systems. In France, National Rally have the largest number of members of parliament, but none of the political class can abide by that, so refuse to work with them. Much the same in The Netherlands too.
Sure, there's outliers within Western Europe that don't have the economic or demographic issues that face the larger players - Denmark, Norway, Estonia, Latvia etc.
Yet.
But keep in mind that not a single European country, EU member or not, has a fertility rate above the needed replacement rate of 2.1. So unless that's addressed imminently, all of the countries that haven't imported cultures from the third world will be forced to do so, because if they don't, their workforce will eviscerate.
As for the EU, it seems like it's gonna take a lot longer for member nations to realise that the promise of free trade, a single currency and a centralised economic system was the biggest sham since err, well, NATO. Which ironically, is made up of mostly EU countries too. Who would've thought that having a central bank to dictate monetary policy of over 350 million people would go to crap?
USA:
The US is an outlier here: it's the only country that is constitutionally a Republic but has all the elements of a Democracy. And there's a clear difference: A Democracy is two wolves and a chicken voting for their dinner; a republic is a strong chicken.
The framers realised that democracy could become as execrable as the UK in the 21st century–where nearly 20% of the British electorate would happily place trust in a party that believes men can become women. Imagine if we still controlled the colonies eh?
They instead decided that the best system would have a sprinkling of democratic elements: The president would be elected via the electoral college, which originally meant that in some states, electors were elected by popular vote, while some were appointed by the state legislature. In Congress, the House of Representatives would be the only directly elected branch. This was because a) it was the chamber where taxation originated and b) terms are just two years long, meaning that if pernicious taxation are levied, people can have the chance to hastily vote their representatives out. The Senate was originally appointed by state legislatures and terms were, and are still, staggered, meaning that if a damaging popular movement spread through the nation at a given period, it could only capture a third of the chamber.
In fact, voting wasn't even enumerated within the Bill of Rights: voting was a privilege and limited. It only became reformed over time with subsequent constitutional amendments. Not that limiting the electorate is necessarily a positive thing; however, it does mean that instead of millions of people voting for more spending appropriations and women being able to "control their bodies" - a smaller number of people, who are actually going to use their vote for good, can do so. And even if those people were to make an uniformed decision, the Constitution would prevent infringement on liberties.
And for a while, that worked: Americans were, for the most part, left alone by the government.
But as America has developed, democratic elements have been greatly expanded. Both chambers are now directly elected, voter rights are ubiquitous, and the race for the presidency has become a popularity contest. So America sits on the largest debt pile ever amassed in modern history and acts unconstitutionally most working days.
Whilst Benjamin Franklin was leaving the constitutional convention in Philadelphia, he was asked what sort of government had been created. He replied:
"A republic, if you can keep it."
If only he could see it now...
~There are the main players in the "fight for democracy", as Kamala Harris put it. Of course, right now, whatever political system is in place in your country, it's likely that it's imperilled to some degree or another–or soon will be. No country has the perfect system–when there's people involved, there can't be a "perfect system". With that said, lionising democracy is quite clearly the least responsible port of call in response to the dangers facing the Western world, where democracy has become as ubiquitous as a migrant attack on a Christmas market. The democratic cultural suicide can't continue: the forces of the universe prohibit it. How that plays out is the real question.
©TomLarge2025
Comments