The Sandcastle: Decline From Democracy To Tyranny Is Inevitable

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Jeff Thomas via,

The decline from democracy to tyranny is both a natural and inevitable one.

That’s not a pleasant thought to have to consider, but it’s a fact, nonetheless. In every case, a democracy will deteriorate as the result of the electorate accepting the loss of freedom in trade for largesse from their government. This process may be fascism, socialism, communism, or a basket of “isms,” but tyranny is the inevitable endgame of democracy. Like the destruction of a sandcastle by the incoming tide, it requires time to transpire, but in time, the democracy, like the sandcastle, will be washed away in its entirety.

Why should this be so? Well, as I commented some years ago,

The concept of government is that the people grant to a small group of individuals the ability to establish and maintain controls over them. The inherent flaw in such a concept is that any government will invariably and continually expand upon its controls, resulting in the ever-diminishing freedom of those who granted them the power.

Unfortunately, there will always be those who wish to rule, and there will always be a majority of voters who are complacent enough and naïve enough to allow their freedoms to be slowly removed. This adverb “slowly” is the key by which the removal of freedoms is achieved.

The old adage of “boiling a frog” is that the frog will jump out of the pot if it’s filled with hot water, but if the water is lukewarm and the temperature is slowly raised, he’ll grow accustomed to the temperature change and will inadvertently allow himself to be boiled.

Let’s have a look at Thomas Jefferson’s assessment of this technique:

Even under the best forms of Government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Mister Jefferson was a true visionary. He knew, even as he was penning the Declaration of Independence and portions of the Constitution, that his proclamations, even if they were accepted by his fellow founding fathers, would not last. He recommended repeated revolutions to counter the inevitable tendency by political leaders to continually vie for the removal of the freedoms from their constituents.

Around the same time that Mister Jefferson made the above comment, Alexander Tytler, a Scottish economist and historian, commented on the new American experiment in democracy. He’s credited as saying,

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

So, was each of the above gentlemen throwing a dart at a board, or did they each have some kind of crystal ball? Well, actually, neither. Each was a keen student of history. Each knew that the pattern, by the end of the 18th century, had already repeated itself time and time again. In fact, as early as the fourth century BC, Plato had quoted Socrates as having stated to Adeimantus, 

Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery comes out of the most extreme form of liberty.

Today, much of what was called the “free world” only half a century ago has deteriorated into a combination of residual capitalism, which has been largely and increasingly buried by socialism and fascism. (It should be mentioned that the oft-misinterpreted definition of “fascism” is the joint rule by corporate and state—a condition that’s now manifestly in place in much of the former “free” world.)

Today, many people perceive fascism as a tyrannical condition that’s suddenly imposed by a dictator, but this is rarely the case. Fascism is in fact a logical step. Just as voters succumb over time to the promises of socialism, so a parallel decline occurs as fascism slowly replaces capitalism. Fascism may appear to be capitalism, but it’s the antithesis of a free market. As Vladimir Lenin rightly stated,

Fascism is capitalism in decline.

Comrade Lenin understood the value of fascism for political leaders. Whilst he retained a close relationship with New York and London bankers, and a healthy capitalist market was tapped into for Soviet-era imports, he was aware that his power base depended largely on denying capitalism to his minions.

So, from the above quotations, we may see that there’s been a fairly erudite group of folks out there who have commented on this topic over the last 2,500 years. They agree that democracies, like sandcastles, never last. They generally begin promisingly, but, given enough time, any government will erode democracy as quickly as the political leaders can get away with it, and the progression always ends in tyranny.

We’re presently at a major historical juncture—a time in which much of the former free world is in the final stages of decay and approaching the tyranny stage.

At this point, the process tends to speed up. We can observe this as we see an increase in the laws being passed to control the population—increased taxation, increased regulation, and increased promises of largesse from the government that they don’t have the funding to deliver.

When any government reaches this stage, it knows only too well that it will not deliver and that, when the lie is exposed, the populace will be hopping mad. Therefore, just before the endgame, any government can be expected to ramp up its police state. The demonstrations by governments that they’re doing so are now seen regularly—raids by SWAT teams in situations where just a small number of authorities could handle the situation just as well. Displays of armed forces in the street, including armoured vehicles, in instances of disruption.

In London, Ferguson, Paris, Boston, etc., the authoritarian displays have become ever-more frequent. All that’s now necessary is a series of events (whether staged or real) to suggest domestic terrorism in several locations at roughly the same time. A state of national emergency may then be declared “for the safety of the people.”

It’s this justification that will assure the success of tyranny. Historically, the majority of people in any county, in any era, choose the illusion of safety over freedom. As John Adams was fond of saying,  

Those who would trade freedom for safety will have neither.

From this point on, it would be wise for anyone who lives in the EU, US, UK, etc. to watch events closely. If a rash of “domestic terrorism” appears suddenly, it could well be the harbinger that the government has reached the tipping point—when tyranny under the guise of “protecting the safety of the people” is inaugurated.

The most essential takeaway here is that, although some may object (even violently), the majority of the people will trade their freedom for the promise of safety.

*  *  *

We’re much closer to the tipping point of tyranny than most people would ever admit. That’s why we just released a PDF guide to show you how to safeguard your freedom. Click here to download it now.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
uhland62's picture

Democracy is ticking a ballot paper. What happens afterwards is not considered. Modern democracy no longer delivers.

CRM114's picture

Well, yes, but that's because what's called democracy today isn't. It's what the Ancient Greeks called Tyranny. They voted on every issue; they didn't tick a box for someone to do it for them.

They also got round the problem of jury selection by increasing the number of jurors for certain cases to ensure they were unbribable/unblackmailable. In at least one case the entire electorate was on the jury.

OverTheHedge's picture

Given that we now have the internet, that most fabulous of information sharing systems, we no longer need representative democracy. The idea that you hand over your vote, opinion, power and everything else to a "specialist"legislator, who knows far better than you what decisions to make is the stuff of 18th century communications.

The other problem with specialist legislators is that they will insist on legislating. It's their job, it's what they do. I remember the Blair government averaging 3 new laws every day. That's 3 things, each and every day, that became illegal, which the day before were not. Of course, the European approach to law is that everything is forbidden, unless specifically legislated to being allowed. Makes for much easier herding of sheep.

I say get back to a constitutional document which lays out a framework of freedom and not killing each other, and the rest can be sorted out in a court, with a jury of peers making the decisions. If you really, really need a new law, then the people can vote for it directly.

Never going to happen, unless all the specialists get shot first.

roddy6667's picture

Democracy in ancient Greece was quite different than today. There was no universal suffrage. MOST of the people were not allowed to vote. Women couldn't vote. Slaves (up to 40% of the population) couldn't vote. 80-90% of the population had no say in this "democracy".

Radical Marijuana's picture

That article was quite annoying with its glib abuse of political terms!

In a genuine democracy, "We the People" would control the issuance of the public money supplies. Furthermore, the power of the government would back up the value and integrity of that public money supply with all means, which would include the death penalty. Indeed, the original public money of the USA was supposed to be backed by gold and silver, while the measurements of those metals were backed by the death penalty. The deeper issues are that civilization necessarily operates according to the principles and methods of organized crime, while "We the People" were brainwashed to believe in bullshit regarding that.

Bit by bit, at about an exponentially accelerating rate, "We the People" lost control over the public money supplies. Indeed, the meaning of the word "money" gradually became inverted and perverted. At the present time, the public "money" supplies of the USA have become almost totally privatized. The most significant milestones of the political processes which demonetized silver back in the 1870s, and later demonetized gold, in 1971, were the creation of the Federal Reserve Board and Income Tax, in 1913, which effectively resulted in the powers of public governments enforcing frauds by private banks. Since then, about exponentially advancing technologies have enabled about exponentially increasing fraudulence.

There is nothing wrong with the theory of a democratic republic operating through the rule of law. However, the practical problems have been the vicious feedback spirals of the funding of all aspects of the political processes, and related sociopolitical institutions, including the schools and mass media, resulting in the vast majority of successful politicians becoming puppets, voted for by enough of the muppets, who were brainwashed for generation after generation to believe in bullshit.

The article above was almost totally based on taking for granted that kind of bullshit-based world view. Meaningful "democracy" in the USA has not significantly existed for more than Century. Rather, the best organized gangsters, primarily the international banksters, have captured more and more effective control over the government of the USA. In that context, it is a trivial distraction to focus on the issue that "voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."  Rather, the much more significant political events were the persistent and prolonged applications of the methods of organized crime through the political processes, which worked by bribery and intimidation, as well as occasional assassinations of those who could not otherwise be bribed or intimidated.

Nothing else compares to the significance of the murder systems, especially because those murder systems necessarily back up the monetary systems. In the USA the privatization of the public money supplies is being followed by the privatization of the public murder systems. (The most spectacular symbol of that, so far, were the events on 9/11/2001, which were an inside job, false flag attack.) Those historical events may be referred to as the development of "tyranny," but mostly people who do so still indulge in believing in the false fundamental dichotomy between "tyranny versus liberty," and then promote the impossible ideal of "freedom."

An alternative way of thinking that I recommend is to go through series of intellectual scientific revolutions and profound paradigm shifts in political science, in ways which can be better reconciled with the progress in physical science, especially including recognize the degree to which the dominate philosophy of science has also historically suffered from becoming bullshit-based, since science, as a social enterprise, had to compromise with the biggest bullies, who became the bookkeeping banksters, as well as that the vicious spirals of the funding of the scientific enterprises mirrored similar developments in the vicious feedback loops of the funding of the surrounding political processes.

The article above did nothing more than recycle a bunch of cliches, in ways which provided some superficially correct analysis, followed by the quite likely tragic trajectories that reasonably extrapolate from that analysis. However, that article does NOT engage in anything remotely close to sufficient series of intellectual revolutions. Rather its quote of Jefferson indicating "he recommended repeated revolutions" is NOT supported by anything remotely close to the kinds of intellectual scientific revolutions which would theoretically be required to cope with a world in which there are globalized electronic monkey money frauds, backed by the threat of force from apes with atomic weapons.

roddy6667's picture

There are more poor people than rich people.

There are more stupid people than smart people.

There are more lazy people than hard-working people. 

There are more have-nots than haves.

In a democracy the first group will vote in their self-interest and rob the second group in the voting booth.

css1971's picture

Which is why only direct taxpayers should be permitted to vote.

cheech_wizard's picture

Had to share this.... how the Spanish police deal with Antifa.


InnVestuhrr's picture

The fundamental problem with "democracy" as practiced worldwide is that it is just election of monarchs instead of hereditary monarchs. Once elected, to office at any level, the elected monarchs are free to do whatever THEY want, not what they promised in order to get elected.

The ONLY way that "the people" can have their will expressed through government is if all major issues must be voted on by "the people, ie the elected monarchs can only propose, not implement.

Today the technology exists to implement genuine democracy by  "the people" voting directly on the issues over the web, rather than only for the elected monarchs,  just like the billions of secure transactions conducted every day over the web. Then, and only then, can "the people's"will be implemented.

BUT first the constitution must prohibit government from giving any personal services or money to individuals, otherwise "the people" will just directly vote for infinite freebies.

Footprint's picture

Plato knew this already and gave a stainless steel armoured argument. Why is this being debated as news when this particular horse was beaten into a fossil 2,300 years ago?

FixItAgainTony's picture

Most folks don't read the ancient Greeks. But, if Plato got a salacious Twitter account...

Witkh13's picture

Please stop with claiming opinions as facts.  This trend of treating sensationalism as fact, is part of why Donald Trump was elected in the first place.

The decline from democracy to tyranny is both a natural and inevitable one.

That’s not a pleasant thought to have to consider, but it’s a fact, nonetheless.

Just because your pet candidate lost the election, fails to mean the world is going to end.  With PotUS Soetoro's election Conservatives, said the same "We are doomed!!! The world will end!!!" and obviously that failed to happen.

Instead of choosing to be overly negatively dramatic over the "state of our" republic;  Maybe use a few under utilized brain cells and empathise and 'understand' how your opposition thinks.  That is because the frequent "They're pure evil!!!" attitude, actually is a determent to you and everyone else.

The existence of pure evil is recognized by me;  Yet, it is a lot smaller, better hidden, and more diversified than most claim, think do I.

aldol11's picture

good article 

thank you