An Ancient Case Against Democracy

Many who criticize us Reactionaries and Monarchists claim that our system of government is outdate. While it is true that Monarchy is quite old, democracy itself is also quite old. Both democracy and republicanism were tried centuries ago in Greece, and later in Rome. To be fair, they were quite a bit different then what we have today, but nonetheless were the forerunners of modern systems. In the following piece I am going to lay out a historical event that shows the dangers of rule by the people and how it threatened Western Civilization.

In the late 6th century BC, early 5th century, the Persian Achaemenid Empire was at its peak under Darius I. Several of the Greek regions in Asia Minor were under the control of Persia. Up until this point the Greek mainland was off the radar for Darius, who didn’t pose a threat to cities such as Sparta or Athens. Furthermore, Persia was known for its tolerance in rule. It allowed local cultures to keep their religions/traditions and even rulers as long as they bowed to the Persian Emperor.

However, things took a different turn at around 499 BC. The Greek region of Ionia banded together and lead a revolt against the Persian rule. A man named Aristagoras (the deputy governor of Miletus) was the man behind this revolt. Prior to the revolt, Aristagoras sought allies from several places, most notably Sparta and Athens.

This is were our case against Democracy comes into play. Aristagoras first appealed to the Spartan king, Cleomenes I. Cleomenes asked how far he would have to march to defeat this foe, but when he discover that the capital of Persia was a three month journey he declined the offer. Next Aristagoras went to Athens, which at this time was a democracy. He appealed to the people of Athens reminding them that the Ionian Greeks were decedents of Athens. Of course, the masses being emotional and easily persuaded, voted to  support the Ionian revolt.

Because of this mistake on behalf of Athens, Darius turned his gaze on them and mainland Greece and it sparked off the Grecco-Perisan Wars. It shows the difference between the decision of a single King for what is best for his people, verses the emotional and many times stupid decision of the masses.

Another quick example: When Persia began to island hop its way to the Greece mainland it went from city to city, burning it and enslaved anyone who had supported the Ionian revolt. Eretria was once such city. Before the Persians arrived the Aristocracy wanted to defend the city but the democrats wanted to let the Persians come, believing that if they didn’t resist the Persians would show mercy. They ended up listening to the democrats and guess what? Persia burned their city and took all the population and transported them back to Persia to be slaves.

These are the fruits of Democracy folks. These are the results of decisions made, not by Royal Races, but by demagogues.

 

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “An Ancient Case Against Democracy

  1. This might not be the right post to ask this, but I’d like to ask your views of Reactionism. I’m finding more and more that so called “Reactionaries” hold views very much contrary to the Catholic Political Tradition (what I would call Thomistic Integralism) as represented by the Restorationists. I find the adherents of de Maistre especially contrary to Catholic Tradition, and I have to say (please don’t take this the wrong way, I know you like de Maistre’s ideas) that the more I read of de Maistre’s life and works, the more I think he was incoherent and slightly mad. So I’d like to have a discussion about this with you, as highly respect your work on this site.

    [Also, since I don’t have Twitter, I’d like to say that the article on Star Wars you linked to is irredeemably wrong. I can go into this if you like.]

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If say I’m still learning. I’m a Catholic and hold sentiments to Monarchy, Sanctum Imperium, Distirbutism, Feudalism and so on. I’m attempting to figure out the eternal principles that govern man. When it comes down to it all I think the spiritual disposition of man is the largest problem. I believe that if man were to return to a theocentric philosophy as opposed to anthropocentric things would begin to heal. Race, government, economics are all sub-problems of a wider problem of modernity. I can’t say I’m a certain reactionary or not but cause I’m still synthesizing all the different views. I like Maistre but I understand what you mean by him and in honestly I believe his views were shaped by what he saw. I’m not an absolutist, if you will, of any particular thinker. I find certain truths written by many. Maistre, Guenon, Evola, Leddihn, Bonald, Chesterton, ect…. However all of them are fallible and all of them have been wrong about things. As I’ve stated before I know Iv been wrong before and I will in the future. I’m am always willing to revisit what I believe when it comes to politics. For example I reject nationalism, it is an offspring of Enlightenment, yet i sympathize with many nationalists. The reason for this is because, as Mouldbug said “chutulu keeps swimming left.” Meaning things that were once leftist dogma are now considered rightest to the current. That’s the hardest part about “Rx”. How far back your willing to go. The reason fascistist think they are “rightests” is because in a aspect they are more right then many today, yet they are still to the left of people like us. But one could say we are more left then those of Ancient Egypt who viewed their Pharaoh as a god. For me this quote sums up a lot, “The true rightist is not a man who wants to go back to this or that institution for the sake of a return; he wants firstto find out what is eternally true, eternally valid, and then either to restore or reinstall it, regardless of whether it seems obsolete, whether it is ancient, contemporary, or even without precedent, brand new, ‘ultramodern.’ Old truths can be rediscovered, entirely new ones found. The Man of the Right does not have a time-bound, but a sovereign mind. In case he is a Christian he is, in the words of the Apostle Peter, the steward of a Basileion Hierateuma, a Royal Priesthood.” – Erik Von KL. For me it’s about finding truth and one of the biggest reasons I’m a monarchist is because I sincerely with all my heart believe that the common man has no place in ruling. I believe that kings and aristocracy have that place, and this consistent confusion on what’s right and left and how to solve this and that only solidify my position. If tomorrow a King was installed in a Catholic Imperial System I would close down this blog and never speak of politics again. I’m not here to propose a solution. I enjoy politics, philosophy and hunting for those eternal principles. In the end it is the place of God, his Church and a King to rule. Most men need clear leadership and direction. Much that is lost today.

      As for the Star Wars thing there is no need. I know it’s all wrong. I just thought that was an interesting take. It’s a fictional universe to in the end it doesn’t matter.

      I hope that helped. I’m on a journey. I am Catholic first, I know something is wrong with the current world, I enjoy the study of such subjects. I’m a fallible man and I know I will be wrong from time to time.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks a lot for this response, I can only describe it as excellent. I really admire your writings on this site, and will continue to read them. I’d just like to clarify that for me Right is defined as what leads Man to salvation, and Left is what leads him away (see Our Lord’s parable on the last judgment). What really worries me is that what the Catholic Church actually teaches is being lost even among the Catholic political philosophers of the internet these days.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Of course. In a time of great confusion such as this it makes it hard for many. It just furthers my point. There should be a King and Aristocracy worrying about this with the Church by their side guiding men in salvation. We shouldn’t have to debate politics and try to figure out all these messes. I wish Monarchy was present and I was nothing more then a humble farmer with a large family, focusing not on the world problems but on my family and my lord. It would be nice to live in a simpler time, but alas that is not so.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. If you trust my own translation, here: https://thewarforchristendom.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/the-prophecy-of-the-six-crowns/

        The original texts I translated from are hard to find, here’s one off hand (albeit incomplete) : http://www.sagen.at/texte/sagen/oesterreich/wien/rudolf_von_habsburg/froemmigkeit.html

        It doesn’t specifically mention the Great Monarch, but it does say that the Imperial Crown is given to the House of Austria eternally.

        Liked by 1 person

      1. So glad to talk to you again. de Maistre was a Francocentric Freemason who thought that the French Revolution was a good thing (Considérations sur la France)… If you want to read a discussion about de Maistre’s other problems, see the one I had with Mr. Citadel over on my post, “Liberty and Catholicism.”

        Like

      2. I understand your problems with him. He opposed liberalism, and you are under the inexplicable belief that liberalism is Catholic doctrine, therefore you consider him (and the rest of us reactionaries) heretics. Express papal condemnations of liberalism being lost on you.

        His beliefs from before he was a reactionary are of course besides the point.

        Like

      3. If you had the intellectual honesty to read what I write, you would see that I explicitly bring up the Papal condemnation of Liberalism, which you probably have never read. It reads like this: “If when men discuss the question of liberty they were careful to grasp its true and legitimate meaning, such as reason and reasoning have just explained, they would never venture to affix such a calumny on the Church as to assert that she is the foe of individual and public liberty. But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not serve”; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals”

        Like

      4. It doesn’t say that because that has nothing to do with Liberalism. I deal with is at length in my post Liberty and Catholicism. “The purpose of politics is to promote freedom” is wrong unless you change it to “AN INTEGRAL PART of the purpose of Politics involves promoting freedom,” which I prove at length in the above mentioned post.

        Like

      5. Here’s an idea, why don’t you read my post, and responded to it there, instead of on a third-party site. I’m using Pope Leo’s definition of Liberalism, which you can read in the encyclical Libertas, or on my site. I’m not concerned with other definition, and neither is the Church.

        Like

      6. Leo’s doesn’t conflict with the one I cited.

        I read that post, but I’d had enough of your monomania, being that it was published right after our argument on my blog. I’m replying to you here because I read this blog and I saw you purveying liberalism. So I replied as I would to any other liberal trying to advance liberalism on a reactionary site.

        Like

      7. My monomania? What is that, pray tell? I wrote with the help of a scholar with a degree in philosophy, a comprehensive post on a subject I am well acquainted with, citing my sources, which anyone can read. You have yet to cite anything, even my own words, which you wish to use against me. And yes, the Catholic definition of liberalism conflicts with the one you give, read Libertas. And while I don’t wish to presume, it seems to me that author of the site and I are more or less in agreement, and that you don’t need to come to his rescue. If you have anything further to say, please say it on my site (Don’t worry, I’ll tell the Imperial Censorship Bureau not to touch your comments).

        Like

  2. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2016/04/17) - Social Matter

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s