Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Serious Do you prefer democracy or dictatorship?

title


  • Total voters
    43
Excalibur

Excalibur

You’re all gonna die
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 23, 2024
Posts
9,603
Online time
10h 1m
I believe that autocracy is man's natural form of government and that democracy only works in homogeneous societies made up of educated people with high IQs. The latter is pure fantasy in 99% of cases, which is why, in my opinion, strong men who seize power by force and out of necessity are needed to regenerate the state and discipline the disorganized masses.
 
my life wouldn't change much either way
 
Same thing, Democracy is a curtain to think your opinion matters when Jews puppet all.
 
I agree, democracy is very circumstantial & only works in a few cases
 
Well, I think democracy is fundamentally flawed. It leads to stagnation due to the focus on pandering to the majority rather than actually making good decisions for the state
 
dictatorship is getting cucked by rich chad so no, Democracy is useless but tolerable.
 
dictatorship but only if I am an high-ranking aristocrat :feelsdevil: :feelsdevil:
 
Democracy is a scam. With dictatorship, you at least know who rules over you.
 
dictatorship is getting cucked by rich chad so no, Democracy is useless but tolerable
1740007328789
1740007352233


same thing with democracy lol
 
Also a good quote in criticism of Democracy: "Democracy is mob rule and the mob itself is ruled by our enemies."
 
Fuck democracy, it's a system that intrinsically caters to normie NPC sheeps.
 
Democracy? More like Demonocracy :feelsdevil:
 
Democracy is a scam. With dictatorship, you at least know who rules over you.
literally every dictatorship is unstable as fuck JFL

and every top-ranking officer is a nepo baby or a dark triad psycho
 
democracy just mean u vote for a rich guy who dont care about u and ignores you. dictatorship same thing but no fake promises. either way, if u are at bottom, u stay at bottom. i choose dictatorship
 
literally every dictatorship is unstable as fuck JFL

and every top-ranking officer is a nepo baby or a dark triad psycho
In a good, stable, and educated society, I would avocate for Democracy. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as that right now, so dictatorship run by a nationalistic dictator would 100x be better.
 
If we were blessed with a good dictator, I wouldn't mind
 
democracy just mean u vote for a rich guy who dont care about u and ignores you. dictatorship same thing but no fake promises. either way, if u are at bottom, u stay at bottom. i choose dictatorship
Yes, I would rather live in a dictatorship with a direct and clearly defined vision than in a democracy with dozens of political factions fighting for power and pinning the masses against each other with their political agendas.
Then what was your point?
 
Democracy = Jewish Subeversion
 
false dichotomy.
Egyptian-Rodgerism is the only way

 
literally every dictatorship is unstable as fuck JFL
Banana republics in the third world don’t count. Spain was stable and prosperous under Franco until his death. The dictatorship could easily have continued into the modern era, but the Spanish king, whom Franco chose as his successor, decided to voluntarily restore democracy.
 
I like to be Hitler or king saud
 
Neither. Platonic aristocracy ruled by a council of wise men, whose new members are selected by unanimous vote. Their votes on every issue are the only ones that matter.
 
We need a single party Marxist Rodgerist dictatorship. Marxism Rodgerism is truly the only path forward for incels! :feelsautistic::feelsautistic::feelsautistic:
 
we need a based dictator to fix the ills of dumbocracy
 
Neither. Platonic aristocracy ruled by a council of wise men, whose new members are selected by unanimous vote. Their votes on every issue are the only ones that matter.
Establishing such a form of government would require a dictator first. I doubt the masses would vote to establish such an elitist system even if it was for their benefit.
 
Establishing such a form of government would require a dictator first. I doubt the masses would vote to establish such an elitist system even if it was for their benefit.
You have to break eggs to make an omelette, to use the tired saying. If a dictator is the prerequisite step to pave the way, then so be it. The hard part is going to be finding the right dictator who has a vision beyond his own juvenile lust for power and control, and can envision a future for his people hundreds of years after his death.
 
They’re both kike invented terms.
 
Most dictatorships are shit. Look at Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Russia etc.

Better off just living in a democracy
 
Most dictatorships are shit. Look at Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Russia etc.

Better off just living in a democracy
Most of these countries are third world shitholes that will always be bad regardless of their form of government. There are many examples of effective dictatorships that raised the standard of living of their people, such as the aforementioned Franco in Spain, Piłsudski in Poland, and even Hitler and Mussolini in their countries, whose only mistake was to get involved in an external war that they could not win.
 
Last edited:
same shit different sauce, regardless of what system my voice still doesn't matter
 
Doesn't matter ur still gonna be wave slaving
 
I want a dictator to come and completely destroy the country. burn it down.
 
A blackpilled dictatorship would be more preferable than any jewed democracy.
 
Most of these countries are third world shitholes that will always be bad regardless of their form of government. There are many examples of effective dictatorships that raised the standard of living of their people, such as the aforementioned Franco in Spain, Piłsudski in Poland, and even Hitler and Mussolini in their countries, whose only mistake was to get involved in an external war that they could not win.
Interestingly, many of those people and cultures are more receptive to autocratic rule than a democratic one. The more individualistic you are as a person and culture in any given society, the less amenable you are to autocratic rule.

Why? Because "who the fuck are you to tell me what to do and how to live my life?" I don't know if there are studies on this, but I'd be surprised if the null hypothesis turned out to be true.
 
Last edited:
That's besides the point, because that's how it has been for the vast majority of people throughout recorded history. I am asking from a theoretical and all-encompassing point of view.
theoretically I hate politics we should be free man :smonk:
 
Most of these countries are third world shitholes that will always be bad regardless of their form of government. There are many examples of effective dictatorships that raised the standard of living of their people, such as the aforementioned Franco in Spain, Piłsudski in Poland, and even Hitler and Mussolini in their countries, whose only mistake was to get involved in an external war that they could not win.
The ones in Spain and Poland happened around 100 years ago.

The only good Dictator who I can think of is Hitler and he was defeated anyways.
 
The ones in Spain and Poland happened around 100 years ago.
Franco's dictatorship ended in 1975, and the fact that some of the dictatorships were from a century ago is irrelevant. Representative liberal democracy is already centuries old at this point, and this argument discredits it even more, as liberal-democratic states are bound by the same laws and procedures they established when they were founded. Responsible dictatorships, on the other hand, are allowed to be more pragmatic and adapt to the times.
 
I believe that autocracy is man's natural form of government and that democracy only works in homogeneous societies made up of educated people with high IQs. The latter is pure fantasy in 99% of cases, which is why, in my opinion, strong men who seize power by force and out of necessity are needed to regenerate the state and discipline the disorganized masses.
Democracy, if it works. If we are talking about an ethnically and religiously homogeneous society, where only men who own property can vote, as well as those who, if necessary, will defend the country with weapons in their hands. Democracy should not extend to foids, old people. Only for young men who, if necessary, will fight to defend the fatherland.
A military democracy, as a society where everything will be decided by only adult armed men who will be sent to war if necessary, is my ideal. If you are not capable of being a soldier or holding a weapon, then you do not have the right to vote, because you do not deserve it. Old people, women, children - they are all obliged to obey adult men who will serve in the army, not old people, not women, not children will not sacrifice their lives and health for the state in which they live - so they do not have the right to be elected and have a voice in elections.
 
Last edited:
Democracy inevitabely leads to degeneracy and societal decay
 

Similar threads

The Supreme Goyim
Replies
29
Views
920
RandomGuy
RandomGuy
spud_tard
Replies
36
Views
2K
Sir Silentium
Sir Silentium
P
Replies
7
Views
988
sub3genecel
sub3genecel
AutismKing
Replies
15
Views
763
xek000000kk
X

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top