Are there any good modern anti-democratic thinkers?

[Anonymous No.24051742]

Democracy is self evidently bad but everyone believes the Churchill lie that there's no good alternative. Is it the poison of individulalism that keeps people married to this awful system? I can think of few academics who'd dare question this sacred cow.

[Anonymous No.24051751]

Hans Hoppe - democracy: the god that failed

[Anonymous No.24051767]

>>24051751
I've heard of that book and he was one of the academics I was thinking of. Haven't read it because he's a Libertarian.

[Anonymous No.24051776]

>>24051767
He’s not like the other lolberts and isn’t associated super closely with the US libertarian party because he’s European. Hes a legitimate thinker unlike Rothbard.

[Anonymous No.24051794]

>>24051776
I'll check it out then. I do not know how Libertarianism can be made into an ideology that can defend against bad actors or reconcile what total freedom does to you. From what I've heard, he advocates for the dissolution of public governments which seems crazy on the face of it but I'll try to keep an open mind.

[Anonymous No.24051800]

>>24051742
>Democracy is self evidently bad but everyone believes the Churchill lie that there's no good alternative.
maybe people believe that because every other system produces hilariously absurd results
>but people go to jail for a couple days in "democratic" england for hate speech!!!!
ok, and Hitler executed people for speaking badly about him in private.

[Anonymous No.24051811]

The only way for mental health is leaving this society. 4chan, in all its chaotic glory, has somehow managed to stumble onto the truth of existence better than most philosophers ever could. Memes like "nothing ever happens" cut right to the core of reality: everything we think is a big deal is just pointless noise in the void. News cycle? Fake and gay. Global crises? Temporary drama. It’s all just the same recycled suffering, endlessly looping while everyone pretends it matters. This is basically Buddhism 101—samsara is a treadmill of meaningless bullshit, and the only way out is to stop caring about the illusion. 4chan’s collective shrug at "important events" is like reaching enlightenment, but instead of meditating under a tree, you're shitposting about anime and geopolitics.

There’s a strange beauty in the chaos, a freedom that comes from letting go. Memes like "Not My Problem" embody a kind of defiant detachment, a refusal to be dragged into the illusion of responsibility. Dumping oil down the sink isn’t just apathy; it’s a ritual—an absurd rejection of a world that demands you care for its endless problems while offering nothing in return. There’s despair here, yes, but also liberation. It’s the raw, unvarnished truth that the Buddha himself sought: the world is suffering, and the only way out is to stop clinging to it. For those who’ve seen through the illusion, 4chan isn’t just chaos—it’s a sanctuary filled with the kind of bittersweet clarity that comes from accepting the cosmic joke and laughing anyway.

Where monks sit in silence, 4chan howls into the void, finding in its chaos a truth that is raw, relentless, and profoundly Buddhist at heart.

[Anonymous No.24051812]

>>24051794
I would say that his critique is stronger than his solution. He does a very good job of demonstrating how bad democracy is even compared to other yea yes d forms of government like monarchy. I am not a Hoppean libertarian, but he convinced me that democracy should be shit canned and there are lots of better alternatives.

[Anonymous No.24051816]

Alain de Benoist.

[Anonymous No.24051818]

>>24051800
You can't look at the state of things and say they're not absurd. At least you knew that Hitler was in charge, that's clearly not the case with Biden.
An argument in Hobbes' Leviathan is that the wealth of a king is directly tied to the wealth of his people, your defends of democracy Winston Churchil impoverished the nation to fatten his wallet.

[Anonymous No.24051833]

>>24051818
>At least you knew that Hitler was in charge, that's clearly not the case with Biden.
Biden ISN'T in charge. Treating the president like he's the king because there's only one of him is one of the most autistic political things us americans do. The president's entire job is to enforce laws written by other people. That's it.
No one person is in charge of a democracy. That's the whole fucking point of popular sovereignty. Power is diffuse in government, because the power is diffuse amongst the whole public. There is not american hitler by design.
>that the wealth of a king is directly tied to the wealth of his people
Well, no, not really. The crown is the total state. The monarch is the kingdom. He thus has an interest in the success of the kingdom, or the total state, but he is not invested into any one particular facet of it.

[Anonymous No.24051852]

>>24051833
Every country that is even partially democratic becomes an oligarchy because cunning people recognize that president isn’t the real power and most people are stupid and easily deceived to allow an oligarch to accumulate power.

The largest problem of democracy in any form that running a government is not the same thing as running your own body and most people are too stupid to know what is good for a government, of those who know what is good for a government at least half are willing to use government for personal gain at the expense of others. The number of honest and smart people is vanishingly small. These conditions are a nursery for oligarchs

[Anonymous No.24051866]

>>24051833
I'm not an American but I thought the president's executive orders were not to be disobeyed even if he is bound by the constitution.
>No one person is in charge of a democracy. That's the whole fucking point of popular sovereignty.
Maybe I misunderstood the American system then. Regardless, I would not say this is a good thing, neither did Hobbes who talked about how flatterers (lobbyists) could exert much more influence over parliament than a king.
>He thus has an interest in the success of the kingdom
So you agree with me then. If the king was in charge I do not think he would have entered WWII at the cost of the entire empire and vassalage to America.

[Anonymous No.24051887]

>>24051742
Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison.

They already criticized democracy and presented a solution.

[Anonymous No.24051914]

>>24051742
Can you define what you mean by democracy? This is a buzzword at this point and I've become skeptical of any post about it.

[Anonymous No.24051917]

>>24051742
and how is this pol thread related to literature??

[Anonymous No.24052337]

>>24051776
>being European makes you a legitimate thinker
You deserve our boots on your ground

[Anonymous No.24052341]

>>24051816
Maoist retard imo

[Anonymous No.24052343]

>>24052337
No, not being a part of the US libertarian party legitimizes him

[Anonymous No.24052345]

>>24051833
Dont tell us how to behave

[Anonymous No.24052347]

>>24052343
>every American libertarian is a member of the US libertarian party.
Delete that and repost.

[Anonymous No.24052349]

>>24052347
I did not say that. You’re reading comprehension is dogshit.

[Anonymous No.24052410]

>>24051917
Is political literature not allowed here? Because that would mean that picrel threads should categorized as /pol/ tier too.

[Anonymous No.24052521]

>>24051811
tl; dr

[Anonymous No.24052567]

>>24051742
>there's no good alternative
well....everything else has failed.
Anyways, the sovereign individual is in the ballpark and highly influential with the new tech elites (peter theil wrote the forward when he wasn't busy being a pedophile and Musk is a fan)
It predicts many developments of the technological developments of recent years despite being written in the mid 90's (gig economy, crypto, social media etc).
One of its main ideas is that as communication technology develops it will be increasingly hard for nation-states to control information and (crucially) the proliferation of disinformation. This will inevitably lead to the downfall of nation-state based democracies (something we're seeing now with autocrats, plutocrats, dictators and oligarchs becoming much more prevalent over the past decade or so driven by distrust of power elites...... apart from tech billionares for some reason). Society will collapse. Billions will die and from this will emnerge a return to a form of decentralized, quasi-feudal system, but with key differences. Instead of feudal lords controlling territories through force, "sovereign individuals" will control their wealth, access to technology, and connections.
This book is anti-democratic insofar as it urges those that see themselves as "sovereign individuals" not to stop this hellish decent into depravity but instead to accelerate it by increasing the volume of disinformation and promote societal division (puts Musks aquisition and constant shitposting on twitter in context).

Regrettably this is a highly influential strain of thought that now has purchase on the inner workings of the American government and marks a shift from tech elites having some kind of utopian "we're going to make society better" inclination.
A new world order is in its gestation period and it will no longer pretend to be democratic.


trivia Jacob reese-mogg's dad co authored the book despite being almost completely technologically illiterate and a gold-bug

[Anonymous No.24052577]

>>24052337
dilate

[Anonymous No.24052602]

>>24051742
What we have today is a demagocracy, wich is the rule of demagogy rather than that of the majority. Like with all forms of government, it becomes the more plebbitary the more it is ruled by a small minority (because it means that the people has decayed, only plebs accept a government that is totalitarian and where the leadership has absolute authority). The less the power of the supreme authority, the more it is questioned, the more aristocratic the government. In the end of the day, an aristocratic government, no matter the form, has to behave like an individual aristocrat: it's foremost task is to do nothing. The more the people pose an impediment to the government, thus, the more aristocratic it is, wich makes democracy the most aristocratic of all governments. An aristocracy, on the other hand, is only aristocratic for as long as the aristocracy has no power over the people, and a monarchy is only aristocratic for as long as the king was elected and is recognized by the people, while a dictatorship is never aristocratic, it is antithetical to aristocracy itself.
If you do not understand this logic politics is not for you.

[Anonymous No.24052637]

>>24051742
Read Chinese communist party materials. They make a very good case for it. Three Body Problem's Dark Forest is a good novel exploring it.

[Anonymous No.24053098]

>>24051742
>>24051751
Don't listen any of the lolbertarians. You want to read Carl Schmitt. Specifically the Concept of the Political, and Political Theology. You can read Dictatorship but its a much longer book. Concept of the political and political theology are respectively like no more than 50 pages each minus the shitty 30 page forewords by nobody professors.

[Anonymous No.24053118]

>>24053098
>Are there any good modern anti-democratic thinkers?
>modern
>modern

[Anonymous No.24053126]

Aristotle

[Anonymous No.24053143]

>>24051751
>Democracy is le bad but free market is le good
Both are bad.

[Anonymous No.24053165]

>>24053118
Modern is unspecific. Carl Schmitt was 20th century which is still very relevant.

[Anonymous No.24053173]

>>24051742
Confucius

[Anonymous No.24053800]

>>24051742
>Democracy is self evidently bad
>Almost every successful country on earth is a democracy and only falter when they become undemocratic
Really makes you think

[Anonymous No.24053813]

>>24053800
Hitler status: elected - six gorillion dead
Stalin status: election - thirty gorillion dead
Mao status: elected - sixty gorillion dead
Hmm

[Anonymous No.24053963]

>>24053813
Yeah and then they stopped having democracies and THEN people died lol.

What other system would have prevented it? Give the person in charge even more power? Again democracy only fails when it stops being truly democratic.

[Anonymous No.24053999]

>>24051742
"Good"? No. No such thing as that.
You do want all the modern neoliberalism/neocolonialists who trick people into believing that voting is democracy. They fooled you despite knowing Churchill was a liar.
>The poison of individualism
No. State-capitalism. This is the sacred cow. Notice how is sheepishly calls it "Western Democracy". The alternative is actual democracy, or direct democracy.

[Anonymous No.24054002]

>>24051742
>Are there any good modern anti-democratic thinkers?
"Good"? No. No such thing as that.
You do want all the modern neoliberalism/neocolonialists who trick people into believing that voting is democracy. They fooled you despite knowing Churchill was a liar.
>Is it the poison of individualism ...
No. It is state-capitalism. This is the sacred cow. Notice how this globally dominant system sheepishly calls it "Western Democracy". The alternative too fearsome to mention is actual democracy, or direct democracy.

[Anonymous No.24054014]

>>24054002
Reddit is down the hall and to the far left

[Anonymous No.24054118]

>>24053143
No the free market isnt a bad thing, you're just a tranny

[Anonymous No.24054125]

>>24052349
No, you're just being devious and insincere. Tell us what you really think.

[Anonymous No.24054128]

>>24052577
You're brown

[Anonymous No.24054417]

>>24051742
Ernst Jünger: The forrest passage, The worker
Carl Schmitt: Concept of the polictical
Max Striner: The unique and his property
Karl Marx: On the jewish question

sadly the best critique of democracy is only available in german and it's called "Demokratie - die perfekte Form bürgerlicher Herrschaft" from the political magazine GegenStandpunkt

[Anonymous No.24054495]

>>24054014
Not an argument, lackey.

[Anonymous No.24054508]

>>24054417
>Max Striner: The unique and his property
>Anti democratic
All you people are not bright at all.

[Anonymous No.24054512]

>>24054508
pls explain to me where he is advocating for democracy

[Anonymous No.24054513]

>>24054417
>sadly the best critique of democracy is only available in german and it's called "Demokratie - die perfekte Form bürgerlicher Herrschaft" from the political magazine GegenStandpunkt
then translate it, fag.

[Anonymous No.24054518]

>>24053800
Not a single successful country is a democracy.

[Anonymous No.24054532]

>>24054513
It's like 250 pages long. I had half a mind to read it myself since I can manage German articles with a dictionary but over 200 pages of political theory is too much for me.

[Anonymous No.24054553]

>>24051811
This isn't pragmatic detachment. It's indifference for teenagers and losers that's very easy to practice when you have no skin in the game. If you're forward thinking with a vested interest in the world and people around you indifference is not only impractical, it's evil.

[Anonymous No.24054629]

>>24052337
Why are you on /lit/ if you can't read? Is it helping you in becoming literate?

[Anonymous No.24054646]

>>24051794
Physical Removal, which is basically an extreme form of freedom of association. If you ever seen libertarians screaming about repealing the civil rights act that's where it comes from.

The problem with hoppeanism is that it's an all or nothing system that would take a long time to implement and would require the entire world to get on board.

Not impossible but close.

[Anonymous No.24054650]

>>24051742
Rechtsphilosophie (philosophy of law) by Hegel. He describes a monarchistic kind of gouverment, though with a elected parlament in it.

[Anonymous No.24054653]

Yarvin

[Anonymous No.24054666]

Mosca, Michel, and CW Mills primarily, followed by Burnham and Francis.

[Anonymous No.24055164]

>>24051742
Moldbug will educate you. His multi-part essays are basically books. Read Open Letter, Gentle Introduction, and How Dawkins got Pwned. Then move on to Gray Mirror. Or work backward. A Conversation About Monarchy is a good primer. The Moldbuggian worldview in 45min.

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/

https://graymirror.substack.com/

Skeptical Waves on YouTube has good audio versions of all his stuff.

Godspeed.

[Anonymous No.24055172]

>>24054653
He's an actual well-read genius and internet people dismissing him don't know what they're talking about. He's head and shoulders above anyone writing about politics today.

[Anonymous No.24055208]

>>24053963
Sorry, but your whole appeal to democracy fumbles into a child-like tantrum.
>uh uh uh well er it was the success of democracy that led to these genocides
What a moron.

[Anonymous No.24055211]

>>24051833
>Biden ISN'T in charge
Israel is.
/thread

[Anonymous No.24055214]

>>24052567
>well....everything else has failed.
Most countries of the world are not democracies.

[Anonymous No.24055239]

Drury argues that Strauss is a neo-platonic elitist who not only hates and rejects modernity (and thusly democracy) but advocates the covert, tyrannical rule of philosopher kings (and in doing so provides an interpretation of Strauss that is eerily similar to the idea of the Illuminati, might I add). Drury in her own critique of democracy sharply points out that democracy is just might is right dressed up in a way that’s palpable for women and fags/cowards (latter half of this statement is my added emphasis). Lots of people hate Drury and her interpretation though, and pic related edition of her book fervently hates the Bush era neocons, coloring her new introduction’s analysis heavily. I encourage everyone to read this book with an open but critical mind and to explore Strauss indepth yourself.

[Anonymous No.24055243]

>>24055239

[Anonymous No.24055244]

>>24055243
Elaborate how my post just barely stops at the Hitler-pill>>24055243

[Anonymous No.24055585]

>>24055244
Hitler is the jackpot of the democratic process.

[Anonymous No.24055591]

>>24051800
>couple days
You lying semite, keep your forked tongue behind your teeth

[Anonymous No.24055595]

>>24052410
>/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/ . If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/ . Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.


ffs I swear /lit/ can't read

[Anonymous No.24055598]

>>24053118
yes, the modernists were a loose group of theoreticians who wrote "master narratives" that attempted to reduce all of politics to a single concept or system. schmitt is one such thinker.

[Anonymous No.24056749]

>>24051887
Deeply underrated post. The solution to democracy is representative government, where people do not 'rule' but select the most intelligent among them to arrive at laws via reasoned consensus. Granted, electioneering, media manipulation and donor-driven corruption corrodes this system--but not entirely. With a few more tweaks (drug and IQ test requirements, term limits, etc.), Madisonian representative goverment would be the optimal solution.

[Anonymous No.24056781]

>>24056749
>Also, a contrarian word for George Fitzhugh, one of the most amazing political theorists in American history. Fitzhugh argued that the ideal society is slave society, not because it gave total freedom to slaveholders but because it required slaveholders to manage slaves while also operating profitable sub-systems of governance on plantations. To Fitzhugh, slavery was a form of proto-socialism which ideally would embrace whites and everyone else, slaveowners included, in a social order of mutual obligation. It's an utterly different political perspective. Intellectually adventurous anons should take note.

[Anonymous No.24056862]

>>24056781
There's a YA book which explores this general idea: there's a city ruled by a dictator and all the citizens are his slaves. It's been a while since I read it but from what I remember the arguments in favour of it had merit but weren't that deep, mostly along the lines of "what does it matter if I'm a slave if the life I lead is good?"

[Anonymous No.24056886]

>>24051742
Dugin, of course.

[Anonymous No.24056930]

>>24051742
The only "viable" ones that I know of would be the libertarians and accelerationists. The rest are only anti-democracy as a means for aesthetics, like the traditionalists and "third way" "thinkers."

The problem with the former two is that their thought has yet to be really systematized. Everything from classic CEOs confusing capital for merit and thus advocating for ancap to dark enlightenment online demagogues falls into these categories and only have in common a rejection of equality within all.
And this is somewhat why we lack a genuine critique of democracy; we've rejected a natural and religious explanation for the state in favor of formal modern explanations where the individual takes precedence. Now the only critiques lie in the state's legitimacy as a byproduct of man or in an individual's legitimacy to dispose of his own governance.
Both of these are hard to take seriously because, as others have already pointed out, the former only exists in political praxis and the latter feels like the start of a tyranny.

[Anonymous No.24056939]

>>24054512
>He skipped the part about the union of egoists

[Anonymous No.24056957]

>>24056930
>libertarians
They're either radically pro democracy or frauds.

[Anonymous No.24056962]

>>24051811
What are you, 13 kek

[Anonymous No.24056990]

>>24056749
IQ tests and intelligence is more of a technocracy rather than a representative government,and I don't think we've realistically had a technocracy ever in the world except on a non-governmental small scale.

However, you're right to point out how democracy is often confused by representative government, though representative government is often seen as a variation or subcategory of democracy alongside things such as "true democracy", and the difference between democracy and oligarchy is often a matter of perspective since the ancient Greek's version of democracy would be considered more akin to oligarchy rather than true democracy.

A lot of this comes from media. I know Stellaris for example (a political RTS game set among alien empires in space) only classifies it's governments under Imperial (Monarchy), Dictatorial, Oligarchic, Corporate, (Variation of Oligarchic where the government is basically a corporation), Democratic and hivemind/machine intelligence. In this example democratic refers to a more democratic version of a representative government, even though technically speaking Oligarchic can be a form of representative government too in some examples (The game allows for both authoritarian and egalitarian Oligarchy due to further customization).

Bit of a random example when I used to play that game like 6 years ago, but it's a common example of how the common definition of "democracy" can differ a LOT depending on who you are talking to and how.

[Anonymous No.24058787]

>>24051742
Antonin Scalia is not anti-democratic but is more aristocratic/technocratic regarding the Constitution. I’ve read many a complaint about democracy, particularly regarding his dislike of the 17th Amendment. His scholarship is a mix of theoretical/practical (as good legal scholarship is both). Ama

[Anonymous No.24058797]

>>24053813
When were Mao or Stalin elected by traditional democratic means? Hitler was elected sure but his position as the fuhrer auf ze third reich was not given to him democratically.

[Anonymous No.24058799]

>>24056886
Shill

[Anonymous No.24058806]

>>24051917
>and how is this pol thread related to literature??
It's kinda wild how almost all ideas related to political ideology tends to be relayed through books huh you fat fucking dipshit. Not everyone wants to discuss Humberts obsession about fucking kids or Captain Ahab's vendetta with a big fish. You go to Pol if you want to jerk each other off about which race is el epic supremo, discussing nuanced ideas that are posited by authors on works regardless of whether they're political or philosophical happens on lit for the most part, granted it's mainly by pseuds but at least it doesn't degenerate into people spamming nigger or blaming Jews for everything too quickly here

[Anonymous No.24058830]

>>24058806
Someone forgot to read the sticky >>24055595
Also "Captain Ahab's obsession with a big fish" is a infinitly more nuanced, less biased/pozzed, personally important to the human will and meaningful topic to discuss than all the chuddy ramblings that have been relayed thus far. You can find endless discussions like these on the web, but /lit/ is one of the few places I have seen people discuss literature earnestly, so I hope it takes priority. If you think arbitrary bullshit politics are more important than attempting to piece our and further understand and praise human will than art, congratulations you have been propagandised.
Remember that you should build a philosopical foundation and understanding of the world and your wants for it before forming your political views, half the people on this God forsaken website just seem to already have a formed political view (indoctrinarion) and form their worldview around it to meet it. Fucking jews I swear.

[Anonymous No.24058950]

>>24055595
You can't read. Politics =/= Political literature. Plato's Republic is a political book. Just one by a philosopher. All political systems have a philosophy behind them anyway.

[Anonymous No.24059292]

>>24051742
You're starting with the flawed premise that we have some kind of democracy to begin with.

[Anonymous No.24059309]

>>24058797
>all instances of democracy being bad were show democracies
No true scottsman fallacy.

[Anonymous No.24059310]

>>24051742
I think Moldbug is pretty interesting. He doesn't really approach it through a typical right-wing or left-wing angle, instead criticizing democracy / progressivism for its lack of efficiency. He still identifies as right-wing, but he doesn't come at it from the "well, these were the old traditional ways and the old traditional ways were good" angle.

[Anonymous No.24059388]

>>24051866
>I'm not an American but I thought the president's executive orders were not to be disobeyed even if he is bound by the constitution.
Congress can overrule him. It's set up to be only true power by default. But the problem is it's run by one of two political parties who are more alike than different in nature at any given time.

[Anonymous No.24059398]

>>24059388
It has also abdicated its responsibility for 80+ years, being a bunch of clucking hens.

[Anonymous No.24059401]

>>24059309
THEY WERE LITERALLY NOT DEMOCRACIES AND OUTRIGHT SELF ADMIT TO THAT!
Worst is, I can think of plenty of examples where democracy fails or has failed before, it's just you had to pick the most extreme ones to call it out under absoluteky nonsensical assumptions.

[Anonymous No.24059565]

>>24056930
>accelerationists
Accelerationism isn't a coherent position though. It's elaborate magical thinking.
>yes bro we will make everything worse and shittier and through the magic of capital and techbro elitism a better society (for the people I like only) will emerge from the ruins

[Anonymous No.24059568]

>>24056957
Hoppe is a fraud eh?

[Anonymous No.24060241]

>>24051811
4chan users are the most culture war addled addict retards on the internet. Refreshing the page 10 times a minute just to be the first to write "nothing ever happens" is not detachment.

[Anonymous No.24060457]

>>24058799
Aww, libcuck is afraid.

[Anonymous No.24060479]

>>24053143
>People being free to trade with voluntary partners is le bad

OK chud

[Anonymous No.24060484]

>>24056749
The issue isn't dumb people getting into power. The issue is evil smart people getting into power.
Democracy is what ensures that's the most likely outcome