Many of you have likely read the title of this post and decided instantly that I am delusional. Others who possess a more open mind, may be harbouring doubts but, are curious to see where I am going with this. Regardless of your position, I ask that you allow me fifteen minutes of your time to share with you my thoughts on the matter. You may very well find yourself an advocate for dictatorships by the end of this article.
I would like to stress that it is not the purpose of this piece to attempt to change anyone's political disposition, nor is it to convince anyone that we ought to be living in a dictatorship. I merely want to weigh the pros and the cons of the two systems in question to determine which of the two would be better for the people of any designated country as a whole.
I do not consider dictatorships to be the ideal system that all men should adhere to. Though I once considered myself an anarchist in my late teens and early twenties, I now hold no loyalty to any one system of governance or self-governance. My personal experience in life, as well as the understanding of the world that I have adopted as a result of that experience, has led me to refrain from labelling myself and others.
This practice only serves to perpetuate the division among the people and builds barriers to communication and unification. I decided long ago that I would no longer assist the true elites of this world in their campaign to divide and conquer. No longer do I utilise labels to drive wedges in places where we ought to be building bridges-- so please, call this a thought experiment or an invitation to discussion, but do not interpret it as a claim to one singular perspective.
I think a great place to begin would be with a clarification of the definitions pertaining to these two systems of government.
Democracy;
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Dictatorship;
a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.
To summarise-- in a democracy, the power is shared among numerous people who have been elected by the people, whilst in a dictatorship, the power is held by only person.
Democracy
Being brought up in the Western world, I remember finding the definition of democracy to be rather perplexing. Knowing that the power is ultimately supposed to be held by the people can leave one questioning whether they do in fact live in a democracy, or if they have perhaps been lied to. You need only talk among the people and discover how unhappy everyone is with the way that things are run to realise that the power is most certainly not in the hands of those it is intended to be.
Regardless of the inefficacy of the system of democracy, Western countries have long since found it prudent to invade other countries and bring civilization--in the form of democracy--to those so-called primitive countries. Inefficacy is perhaps the wrong word to utilise in this instance. That would imply that the intended function of democracy is not consistently achieved. If you believe that the purpose of modern democracy is to bestow among the people the power to choose their own futures and make the decisions that will affect them and their children, then the system is most definitely a failure. However, if we look at it from another perspective, one where the true function is to oppress the people and milk the wealth of a country into the hands of a very small group of people--then the efficacy of the system is unquestionable.
This realisation answers the aforementioned curiosity. Do we live in a democracy? - The answer is no. Though it may have started out that way, one of the main problems with democratic governance is its susceptibility to corruption. The Western world has fallen victim to this corruption to an extent that the democracy that once existed has morphed into an entirely different political structure that is more akin to the likes of Communism/Marxism or Socialism. A quick study of the Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848, will reveal just how accurate that statement has become.
It is my opinion that democracy simply doesn't work, at least not in terms of the people. So now the question remains, can dictatorships work?
Dictatorship
When I hear the word dictator, two names spring to mind instantly. Two leaders that the media--and also Hollywood--seem to have fought effortlessly to convince us were unwavering in the brutality of their dictatorships.
The men I speak of are Adolf Hitler and Muammar Qaddafi. Western conditioning has led us to associate these names with tyranny, but that same Western conditioning has also led us to believe that we live in a democracy, so perhaps these names warrant further investigation.
When it comes to Adolf Hitler, it is always going to prove difficult to uncover the truth. Especially for the likes of my generation, who were not alive at the time of his reign in Germany. I have spent some time looking into Hitler and I have found that there are several inconsistencies that challenge the stories we are told about him at school. It was always very difficult for me to believe that someone who refused to eat meat or eggs because they did not want to see an animal die so that he could be fed, would be willing to murder six million of his fellow man in such horrific fashion.
As I mentioned, uncovering the truth is pretty much an impossibility at this point, as we all know the victors write the history books and Hitler eventually lost. Nonetheless I want to mention a few lesser known facts about Hitler, World War II and the holocaust. Though obviously not proof of Hitler being a saint, I find that these particular pieces of information may be relevant to this discussion.
The Unknown Holocaust
In the lead up to what we now refer to as the Holocaust, there was a mass genocide of upwards of 30 million Russians--mostly Christians. Some researchers claim that the number was as high as 66 million. The Bolshevik revolution that lead to this--the largest genocide in documented history--was reportedly pioneered predominately by Atheistic-Jews.
This genocide may give us insight as to where any distrust Hitler may have harboured for the Jews was conceived. Wikipedia will have us believe that only 5% of the pioneers of Bolshevism were Jewish, but here is a video of Russian president, Vladimir Putin stating that it was upwards of 80%. I am inclined to trust his words more than that of Wikipedia, but you will have to make your own decision.
The Bolshevik revolution is a subject worthy of its own article, so I encourage you to go and do some research on the issue for yourself. I mention this only to highlight the influence of the Jewish-owned media. Most in the Western world know nothing about this genocide, yet everyone knows of the 6 million Jews who were allegedly murdered in World War II.
If something of such great significance can be buried from the history books, we must wonder what else has been covered up.
The Blitz Was A Retaliatory Act
I remember learning in school of the infamous Blitz attack, when German fighter planes took flight over Great Britain, dropping bombs on the civilian population. I remember how horrific it sounded, taking the war to the people and not the army. Murdering women and children who had no way to defend themselves.
What I later discovered is that this act came as a direct result of the German civil population being bombed relentlessly for weeks on the orders of Winston Churchill. Only after Hitler had exhausted every opportunity for peace--so it is said--did he then decide to respond in kind.
If you are interested, you can find more information about what provoked the Blitz bombings here.
The Holocaust May Be Exaggerated
There are many living today who would tell you with certainty that the Holocaust in its entirety was a hoax. I know not what to believe because I wasn't there, but having looked into it I can tell you of some of the claims and discoveries that contradict the narrative we are taught at schools and see on Hollywood movies.
To this date, there has been no evidence of gas chambers being used to kill POW's discovered in Germany. There have also been documented cases of gas chambers being built on concentration camps after the war. This suggests that someone sought to have people believe that the gas chambers were utilised during the war, when in fact they were potentially non-existent at that time.
The figure 6 million--the number of Jews allegedly murdered by the Nazi regime--appeared first in a US publication by a Jewish author, long before the actual number of dead could be ascertained. This publishing helped to encourage public support for US intervention into World War II, which ultimately resulted in the fall of Hitler. Researchers claim that the 6 million figure is grossly exaggerated.
The Nazi war camps--more commonly known as concentration camps or death camps--may not be accurately portrayed in the history books and in Hollywood movies. We are painted a morbid picture of an oppressed and victimized people in Nazi war camps. There is a different story, however. One where the prisoners were treated with the utmost respect.
They were well-fed, well-provided for, and given medical treatment and entertainment. They were allowed to attend concerts, organize plays, make music and play sports.
They were also, according to witness testimony, provided with a currency so that they may trade among themselves.
Considering that Hollywood and the media are outright owned by Jews, we can find incentive for them to lie about what really went on in World War II. Jewish sympathy has been a powerful force in recent years, and those brazen enough to question the motives of some of the Jews are branded anti-Semites and ostracized by their peers. Also, Germany is still paying reparations to members of the Jewish community for these supposed war crimes, so there is further incentive to perpetuate such a lie.
On the other hand, I can think of no reason for so many people to lie about the war camps being less than we are told. The only logical presumption one can make as to why someone would have such motives, is if they were anti-Jew and wanted to encourage hatred of Judaism as a whole. This is likely what the Jewish media would have us believe, but I find it to be a hard pill to swallow.
The Jews have been expelled from at least 109 countries in the past. This has been reportedly for perpetrating child ritual sacrifices, poisoning of wells, and infiltrating positions of power to usurp control of a nation from within. I know not of the definitive reason for their continuous expulsion from the nations around the world, but it is clear that the holocaust has assisted the Jews in preventing it from happening again.
A combination of Jewish sympathy and fear or being accused of antisemitism has quietened those who may wish to speak out against any current abuses of power committed by Jews.
If you would like to read up more on the Nazi war camps, you can find a couple of interesting articles here and here.
Hitler Freed His People From Debt Slavery By Making Usury Illegal
This is perhaps the most relevant piece of information that the world ought to know about Adolf Hitler. The first law he passed after coming into power was one to protect animals from inhumane types of slaughter--such as the preparation of Kosher food products.
Soon after that, he made charging interest on loans illegal in Germany, liberating his people from the grip that fractual reserve banking had on them at the time. This served to get the economy booming, creating over 3.5 million jobs in his first 3 years of power alone.
We all know that the central banks of the world have long been controlled by Jewish influences. This act alone may very well be the real reason for World War II. At a time when central banking dominated the entirety of Western civilization, it was a dangerous precedent for a crippled post-WWI Germany to revive their economy and surpass that of all other European nations in only three years through the abolishhment of usury.
This could have led to the people in other countries around the world wanting the same for their economies, and so one has to wonder if that is the true reason that Hitler and Germany found themselves having to fight a war against 51 countries.
The biggest killer in World War II was starvation. Germany's supply routes were targeted, leaving soldiers, civilians and prisoners without the food they needed to survive. If the agenda of those who sought to end the reign of Hitler was to protect the Jews who were allegedly being murdered at death camps, then why would Anglo-American forces and their allies attack food supplies that resulted in the deaths of so many Jews who were being held prisoner at these camps? It simply doesn't make sense.
These are many a reason to doubt the veracity of the claims made against Hitler, and the reasons we are told that World War II had to happen. Again I will admit that we cannot know for certain what caused these events, but this is certainly enough for me to have serious doubt what I have been told about Adolf Hitler.
There are stories, seemingly with a lot of evidence to support them, that the Nazi's conducted experiments on humans and other sickening atrocities. These could be true. They could also be Jewish propaganda. We don't know, and we can't know.
One thing is irrefutable about the man, though. He was loved by his people.
When is the last time you seen Obama receive this much of a reception by his people?
Whilst I cannot be too certain of much in relation to Adolf Hitler, when it comes to the second name on our list, Muammar Qaddafi, I am a lot more confident in my knowledge surrounding his role as the leader of Libya. At the time the main stream media in both the US and in the UK had begun to demonize Muammar Qaddafi, I had admittedly never heard of the man.
By this point however, I had long been awakened to the reality of the world and the true role of the media as a propaganda machine, so I felt compelled to do own my own research into the type of man that he was.
The BBC, CNN, FOX News and the likes were reporting that Qaddafi was a tyrannical war criminal, perpetrating chemical attacks on his own people--a people who were apparently united in rebellion against him. The fact that Qaddafi came into power by rebelling against the former leader of Libya was also used to paint him as an evil dictator who stole the power from someone else and then initiated a reign of terror on his people.
I learned this was all a fallacy. I have never seen love for a leader like the love I saw Libyans express for Muammar Qaddafi. Also, while he did enact a rebellion to dethrone King Idris from power, he did so because King Idris genuinely was a tyrant and Qaddafi even managed to execute the coup without shedding blood.
Where I shared information about Hitler that cannot be verified with absolute certainty, I will now share some information about Libya and Qaddafi that is 100% verifiable.
The Best Economy Of Our Generation
Before the demonization of Qaddafi and the subsequent NATO bombings of Benghazi that the propaganda was able to muster support for, Libya's economy was that of one we in democratic countries can only dream of.
For the equivalent of $0.14, a Libyan citizen could purchase forty loaves of bread.
When purchasing a car, the Libyan government would pay half of the price.
All electricity was free for the people in Libya.
Newly married couples were gifted 60,000 Dinars ($50,000) by the state to purchase a new home to begin a family in.
Any Libyan who had a newly born child was instantly gifted 5000 Dinars, the equivalent of over $4000.
If a Libyan desired to take up a career in farming, they would receive farming land, a farming house, equipment, seeds and livestock to kick-start their farms, all paid for by the government.
Education at all levels was 100% free, and should you graduate and be unable to find a job in that field in Libya, you would be paid the national average for the employment position until a job opened up, or have paid transport and accommodation to a part of the world where you could find the job you are not qualified for.
All Libyan citizens received a share of Libyan oil sales directly into their bank accounts.
A home was considered a basic human right rather than material wealth, and Qaddafi vowed that he would house every single homeless Libyan before his own mother and father who slept in a tent. His father actually died while still living in a tent with his wife and mother.
These facts about Libya should be enough to convince anyone that the people being in open rebellion against him was nothing more than a a malicious lie. They loved him for what he did for Libya, and understandably too.
His People Stood By Him Until The End
After over three months of the Libyan people being bombed in the streets and in their homes by NATO, the people of Libya refused to turn against their beloved leader. This short video of a pro-Qaddafi protest in Tripoli is testimony to the support that was offered to him until his cowardly murder. Of course, this protest got no coverage on any mainstream media news outlets, other than RT News.
The Libyan people wanted to be heard by the American population, hoping to disprove the allegations that they were against Qaddafi so that the people of the US would pull their support for the bombings in Libya.
Qaddafi Was Against Sharia Law
Muammar Qaddafi made enemies of Al-Qaeda with his progressive views towards women's rights and his reluctance to impose Sharia law in Libya. The so-called Libyan rebels that wanted to see Qaddafi unseated from power were in reality Al-Qaeda operatives, armed and trained by the US, placed in Libya to cause civil unrest. Libyan civilians who were caught speaking well of Qaddafi were tortured and murdered by the rebels, causing the people to become afraid to speak to reporters. Of course, as per usual the mainstream media narrative was the exact opposite, claiming that pro-Qaddafi forces were torturing and murdering the rebels.
Qaddafi Made Usury Illegal In Libya
Much like Adolf Hitler, Qaddafi saw interest on loans as a stranglehold on his people. Rather than see them suffer through a life of debt slavery, he abolished usury and installed a central bank in Libya that would hand out loans interest free. Where as every democratic country in the world has a national debt of hundreds of billions to trillions, Libya had no debt, and a national surplus of $150,000,000,000.
Like Hitler, He Was Loved By His People
That's a lot of love.
What Got Him Killed?
Qaddafi was a problem for Western civilization in numerous ways. The economy was thriving without usury, to the point that if enough Westerners noticed the positive impact a debt-free economy could have for the people, it could have very well resulted in a global rebellion against private central banks. He was also seemingly uncorruptable and stubborn to boot. Any and all attempts by Western powers to make him bend to their will proved unsuccessful. Perhaps the biggest mistake he made, and the most monumental threat to Western civilization he could have thought of, was when he began negotiating the development of a gold-backed currency for Africa.
He also planned to create an African version of the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements. This move would have resulted in Africa becoming the new first world, and Western countries becoming the third world. Fiat currencies would be reverted back to their true worth, that of the piece of paper they are made from. This was a bigger threat than even that of when Saddam Hussein decided to start selling gold for Euros instead of dollars, and Qaddafi had unknowingly signed his death warrant the moment his mind conceived this idea. -- As a side note and perhaps unrelated to this post, we now find ourselves in a time of Russian demonization, perhaps because Putin pioneered the development of BRICS, a multinational collaborative alternative to the IMF.
Democracy Vs Dictatorship
Democratic leaders would have us believe this is an easy choice. Democracy over dictatorship is the best for the people, they say. Whilst it is true that one person possessing the power can be a bad thing, especially if the likes of Joseph Stalin is at the helm, we now know that dictatorships can also be a great thing if the leader is someone who is of integrity and cares for his people.
I'm yet to see a great example of a democracy, but I'm open to the idea of it being good for the people if it could remain uncorrupted. If the power truly were with the people and they were able to exercise it without resistance, then I can see the advantages of that.
I think what it comes down to essentially is morality. In a democracy, it's easier to betray your morals and walk the line of corruption when you can see that all your peers are also doing it. The burden of guilt for the impoverishment and oppression of the people is then shared amongst a collective of numerous quasi-leaders.
In a dictatorship however, if your people are oppressed, you cannot share the responsibility. If you are corrupt and the people you are supposed to be protecting are suffering because of it, you have to bear the burden of guilt and face your immorality in the mirror at every glance.
Another important factor that should be considered is the reversibility of any given system of governance. In a dictatorship, if the leader is tyrannical or unworthy of his position, it is only one cog on a wheel that needs to be replaced. A simple enough task when compared to other political structures.
In a democracy, corruption spreads until it has consumed the whole system, becoming an entirely different self-propelling and continuously regressive monolithic governing body. To tear this system down and replace it is not quite so easy. Every cog on every wheel must be removed, repaired and replaced.
If that isn't difficult enough, when one tries to change any part of the system, the remaining faculties of the omnipotent giant of democracy kick into self-preservation mode. This often results in the attempted change leading to a growth in size and an increase in power for the system, making it even more difficult to reverse. Perhaps this is why decades upon decades of fighting against a system that has repeatedly fucked us has only led to the birth of an even more formidable opponent.
This is why--if I had to choose--I would rather live in a dictatorship than in a democracy.
A Proposed Solution
A democratic dictatorship could be a great thing. If the people voted for one single person to lead them with absolute authority, then that one person would have the burden of responsibility and the fate of their soul to wrestle with. They could not convince themselves that it is anyone else's fault for the state of their country, nor succumb to the temptations of corruption through peer pressure. Should that person prove to be bad for the country, then it would become the people's responsibility to remove them from power and vote again for someone who is up to the task.