Friday, November 25, 2005

Public Opinion and Democracy

There are a thousand rules for every one rule people actually need to live successfully in civil society. We are over-governed. The state of the West is one of living in a state of permanent infantalization. We have written here that society is a large kindergarten ruled by p.c. nannies who do little more than mind the charges. And we have also written that such is good to a large extent, using the example of our friend Ali Sina, an apostate from Islam: that if people generally were to change their minds about fundamental beliefs, such as their religious beliefs, then social life would be of the most extreme and dangerous kind of anarchy. There must be a solid core of unchanging or glacially-paced social change in individuals as well as in societies at large to forestall chaos and violent revolution. Social change is a dangerous thing, being better to evolve than to turn topsy-turvy in all but the most extreme conditions. And there is an innate and powerful sense of that in the mind of the body politic: most people are content to live in a state in loco parentis, even as adults, as below:

Schools continue to be institutions to which parents look for help in their efforts to best serve their children. Schools are doing more because other elements of society (home, church, community) seem to be unable or unwilling to continue their historic roles. Teachers, parents, and community members need to recognize certain domains belong to parents and others to educators. With in loco parentis, both students and teachers benefit.

In his 1770 compilation of English law, William Blackstone applied the phrase in loco parentis to educators. By definition, teachers were given the right to act as parents would when responding to disciplinary problems.

Law is mostly a matter of contracts in the modern world. We make contracts as citizens with our societies, that we will obey the laws of society, and that society will not harm us. When we find ourselves in contractual disagreement with others or society itself we surrender ourselves to the judgement of our fellows to decide according to the contracts of law the outcomes of our disputes. The people themselves, delegated responsibility by the people, decide what is lawful and legal, and society, all of us together, act in loco parentis vis each other. Our contracts are popular, universal, and rational, positive laws created by man through rational debate and passed by consensus of the majorities with protection of minority rights. The majority rules, but not without restraint. And this lawful and democratic rule of rational law is guaranteed to all equally regardless of any station or privilege. All men are created equal, and they are equal before the law. That, in (extremely) brief, is democracy.

It's important to discover the difference between public opinion and democracy, if there is a difference. We, being democrats, are also revolutionaries, and our task is to change public opinion while at the same time preserving our democracy and spreading it further without destroying ourselves and our social and civil societies in the process. We need structural change in public opinion but not structural change in democracy. Is it possible to have one without the other? Can we redraw our social contracts to bring our democracies into line with a new set of social circumstances and also protect the rights of the individuals who make up our democracies? It will be a change in public opinion regarding the nature of democracy that will change, and we must be careful that we do not rip the fabric of our lives to shreds of our previous civility.

We live in a time of a bifurcation of Humanity between the worthless and parasitic surplus of subsistence-level peasant farmers relocated most often to urban centres where they have no identity and no reason for being as a class of Humanity on the one side, and the other part of Humanity that is inheritor of the Revolutions of Modernity, the possible way of the future of progress. However, within our Modernity we are split between the opium eaters of reaction and the vanguard of Progressive Modernity. We are in a state verging on civil war. Something must change within Modernity's bounds or we will surely tear ourselves to pieces, and our social contracts will be bits of stuff floating on wisps of wind and drafts of smoke. We must change public opinion regarding our Modernity or we must unite with our Left dhimmi fascist fellows and put paid to the Revolutions of Modernity to sink back into the feudal ages and to live like farm animals once again, no democracy, no universality, no
equalities in law. What are we going to do?

We cannot have a democracy and a tyranny of the majority at the same time. We cannot disallow Islam and Left dhimmi fascism simply because both ideologies are evil. Nor are we in any position to do so. Public opinion is not on our side at this time. That appears to be slowly changing as people are gradually determining that the mainstream media lie to the general public, that our political representatives are filthy scum, and that our university professors and public intellectuals are garbage liars, and that the so-called religion of peace, Islam, is a fascist totalitarianism. Our democracy is threatened by fascists of all sorts, particularly by Left dhimmi collaborators in the Islamic drive to destroy the West's modernity. And yet, still we are not ready as a general society to shift from our positions of self-imposed dhimmitude. That is in its own way a natural and healthy position for a society to take insofar as we cannot change too rapidly our ideas without collapsing into anarchy. Our change of mentality must be gradual rather than revolutionary. And once the change occurs we must not allow too much change or we'll face a furious public opinion that will demand the utter destruction of not only Islam and Left dhimmi fascism but the hanging of our own and the nuking of the Muslim populations of the world. We as the vanguard of social change from the Left fascism of our general will must tend our democracy as citizens acting in loco parentis. When we act to effect social change in our democracies we must do so with genuine care for the future of our democracies. We must work to change the public opinion of the majority but we must do so carefully and so that the majority do not become an anti-democratic mob.

We face an interesting problem in that the majority opinion today is that of opium-eaters intoxicated by the poison of Left dhimmi fascism. They are roughly the majority of the West's populations, and if and when they become a threat to the minority, meaning those who do not welcome Islam and dhimmitude, we have a legitimate right to defend ourselves from that majoritarian tyranny. It's our feeling that the tide is changing, and rrightly that it is slowly changing, in favor of liberal democracy as opposed to Left dhimmi fascism. We should work as hard as we do to continue this trend in our favor, and if we are threatened with extinction by the majority of dhimmi fascists we must resist. But if we are triumphant in our attempts to effect social change we must guard against extremism on out own part. We must have the public opinion on our side, and we must act in loco parentis as guardians of our democracy as well.

We must change our society, wipe out the rule of dhimmi fascists and redraw the social contract that allows us to live as reasonable adults in civil society. We face the bulk of the world's current population as they are, and they are parasitic. We split from them, and we must be careful in how we approach our future lest we go too far and wipe out not just the primitives of Islam but many of our own as well.

The rules have to change. We clear-minded democrats must rule.

No comments: