"One can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods"
RESTRICT ACT up next
By KATHLEEN MCCOOK APR 14, 2023
Airman Jack Teixeira has been arrested for leaking confidential intelligence and defense documents on a gaming chat server.1
The cacophony of news reports seems to be focused on Teixeira rather than the content of the items leaked. Immediately I read and heard that what was leaked may have been muddled and releaked and changed. This deflects the public’s attention.
Ironically George Orwell commented back when England was pro-Russian.2
One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ‘bourgeois liberty’ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought.
RESTRICT ACT Keep an eye on the RESTRICT Act wending its way through Congress. (RESTRICT is a lovely little acronym for Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act of 2023). It’s not just all about Tik-Tok.3
1 Jack Teixeira: US airman appears in court over Pentagon documents leak. BBC News. 4/14/2023.
2 George Orwell, The Freedom of the Press (Orwell's Proposed Preface to ‘Animal Farm’)
3 Joseph Cox, (March 29, 2023). “The 'Insanely Broad' RESTRICT Act Could Ban Much More Than Just TikTok.” Motherboard.
https://kathleenmccook.substack.com/p/one-can-only-defend-democracy-by
Democracy is the act of voting.
We vote for our representatives who then vote on our behalf.
That's called democracy.
The electoral college is representative in nature, a failsafe to ensure that less populated / smaller states have a somewhat proportionate vote.
We are a Constitutional Republic..which means we are a Republic, which is representational democracy, protected by an inalienable (in theory, demonstrably not in practice) Constitution.
That in itself can be voted away or amended by unanimous representative voting.
Trying this hard to disregard the left's idea of democracy to the point that you reject reality is extremely unbecoming.
We are a Republic. A representative form of democracy. We are backed by a Constitution, to aid in further preventing mob rule.
The left advocates for direct democracy, regardless of the Constitution's existence.
We are different, and for the sake of being correct and accurate, we ensure it is known that we are a Constitutional Republic.
But it is a form of democracy.
Both a Republic as we practice it, and a Democracy as it has been practiced commit the same fraud. The fraud of false claims on Jurisdiction.
Every Ruler, whether it be a Dictator, President, King, the Mob, or "an educated proletariat" (in the ideal Socialist, Democratic, OR Republic case) has, in all of our actual experiences, claimed the Right to dictate what the individual can do in their domain.
Each Individual has a Jurisdiction, a domain over which they are the Ultimate Authority. That Jurisdiction is themselves (by Natural Law), and in any reasonable society, their property. Each Ruler, no matter their type, in all of our experiences, has laid claim to the Right to tell people what they can or can't do within their Jurisdiction. The design of all of these system gives them power over Our Jurisdiction, including "the Republic" we have. This fraudulent claim on Our Jurisdiction was in there from the very beginning.
This is the key to understanding the fraud that has been perpetrated on our world, which gives an appreciation for how far back this goes. Every system makes this same claim. Every system also justifies this claim as being for someone's "good." In a democracy, or socialism, or communism (really all just variants of the same "ism"), and indeed, even in our Republic, the "someone" for whom we are forced to give up our Jurisdiction is "the greater." We do it all for "the greater good." It's different in a "Kingdom," but sometimes even Kings claim that they are stealing from the masses (taking their property from them in "taxes") and enslaving them in serfdom really just for their "own good."
It's all the same fraud with a different wrapping. Once we understand that any claim on Our Jurisdiction is fraudulent we will have the base framework from which to create a system that doesn't commit this fraud. This is what needs to be learned in the GA, more than anything else, this is the key to "our democracy," however you want to set it up. Any system that can't make claims on your Right to live your life, or handle your property is fine with me. Call it a Republic, call it a Democracy, call it Your Mom. Nothing else really matters but a built in respect for every Individuals Sovereignty over their Jurisdiction of Life, Liberty, and Property.
Totally needs to be reposted as its own post
I will write something up and post it. I've tried this quite a few times in comments. I am practicing. It needs to be said in the right way or it gets dismissed. I'm still working on the delivery.
I think that people have been trained to believe that the Constitution is some sort of perfect document, and "our Republic" is some sort of perfect system that the Cabal subverted. The evidence suggests the Cabal created both of those to lead us exactly where we are. Explaining that takes not just evidence, but a delivery that avoids the programming.
As someone who rants, it's definitely tough to keep people interested in your post.
The Constitution is not a perfect document, and does little to actually ensure that people retain their rights.
It should have had stronger wording, and perhaps a duration of time before it could no longer be amended -- say, one hundred years from its creation.
It should have outlined (more) specific remedies when the government became tyrannical, which the founding fathers knew it eventually would.
The Constitution is not a perfect document. A Republican form of government is not perfect either, as we see.
It's simply as close as we've gotten.
I think a kingdom is probably the best notion, but that only works when it's a benevolent ruler who protects the freedoms of its people, and as we see, entire family lines can be corrupted.
Thank you! That's a wonderful explanation. 👏👏
I honestly have no way to further phrase it so that someone who seems to have the leftist disease of rejecting reality can understand it.
Dude used NPR "agreeing with me" as some form of gotcha, as if the leftists are incapable of ever getting anything right which is not only naive but incredibly delusional and arrogant.
He's basically acting the same as the Orange Man Bad types. "They say democracy so we aren't a democracy MR GR GRR".
Ahhh I am getting frustrated. I should take a step back and continue reading my book for a few hours lol.
100% this. I swear this is why we've started seeing all this "We aren't a democracy!" horseshit.
It's just stupid.
You are mixing up voting with democracy.
NPR agrees with you: https://www.npr.org/2022/09/10/1122089076/is-america-a-democracy-or-a-republic-yes-it-is
The Heritage Foundation doesn't: https://www.heritage.org/american-founders/report/america-republic-not-democracy
Dude, it doesn't matter what site you link, and it doesn't matter whether NPR agrees, disagrees or catches fire.
We are a representational democracy, that is an objective fact. Voting to both affect and effect change is democracy. The distinction is between voting through representatives (Republican form of democracy) or voting directly (mob rule direct form of democracy).
This isn't an arguable fact. It is historically established over centuries, longer if we go back to older civilizations.
The founding fathers viewed direct democracy as a risk, so they established a Constitution and a Republican form of democratic government in order to maintain some semblance of fairness between states.
We still have direct democracy by the state too, for things like governor's races. Why is that?
Because at our core, we are a democracy. Because you vote, so that others may vote in your stead.
It says we're not a "pure democracy". And they're right. We're not a pure democracy. We're a representative democracy.
A pure democracy, we all would vote on every single issue. But we vote for representatives to make laws and such. We also have a Constitution that supports the framework of laws.
Also, I gave you a link to a government site, which is tasked to explain basic concepts of government. They said the US is a representative democracy.