Would you rather live in a democracy or a dictatorship?

This might seem like a straightforward and easy question to answer. In the West, politicians and the media promote the idea of democracy as an unquestionable virtue. It is touted as the foundation of Western civilisation and should be the foundation of all civilisations. It is something that every nation should strive to defend.

The word ‘democracy’ originates from the Greek word ‘demokratia’, which means ‘rule by the people’ or ‘power of the people’. I strongly argue that no country in the world is ruled by their own people or that the people of any country have any significant power or even real influence in decision-making. In this post, I discuss various aspects of Western democracy and the direction that it is heading in. I also discuss a few different types of dictatorships.

This post is an expansion on the ideas I expressed in my post, Faces for the Faceless.

Elections

Countries typically hold elections every 3 to 5 years. Some countries, like the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, have two-party systems. They typically use first-past-the-post voting systems, with the exception of Australia, which has a preferential voting system (see my post First-Past-The-Post Vs Preferential Voting Systems). Many European countries have more than two main parties. This is facilitated by proportional representation voting systems (see my post UK General Election Results (2024)). Regardless of the number of parties or the voting system, politics is almost universally divided along a one-dimensional political spectrum from left to right.

Political Ideology

The one-dimensional political spectrum is easy to manipulate. It divides the public into two groups, the left and the right. The terminology ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ traditionally had meaning. We can generalise their ideology under social and economic as follows. In terms of social issues, the left-wing leaned more towards social liberalism and the right-wing towards social conservatism. In terms of economic issues, the left-wing leaned more towards Government control over the economy (i.e., production and distribution), whereas the right-wing leaned more towards the market to run the economy.

Left-wing ideology appealed more to working-class people, who are predominately employees, and those with limited capacity to earn income. Right-wing ideology appealed more to entrepreneurs because of economic policy and the elderly, who are more likely to have conservative values.

‘Left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ have lost their meaning. Hence, I just refer to them as left and right. They only vaguely follow traditional ideology. Instead, they follow the politics of the day, which is presented by politicians and strongly propagated and even exaggerated by the media. This is done to promote the ideology of the Establishment (i.e., Government, Big Business, Media, Banks, and Religious Institutions) (see my post The Establishment).

Manipulation of Ideology

The media use their more extreme position in an attempt to radicalise the population towards a particular ideology. This could be of the left or the right. This is done to manipulate the population into encouraging the political party they believe represents them to become more radical. This is to create a powerful dichotomy between the two sides. This is a divide and conquer strategy that pits the population against each other and not the Establishment. This also helps create the illusion of choice, as the two main political ideologies appear so different.

There has been a considerably stronger radicalisation towards the left. There is generally a greater bias in the media towards left ideology. However, the bigger difference relates to the left bias in the education system. This runs all the way from primary school to university. For example, ‘Gender Ideology’ and Islamic teachings have been inserted into primary school syllabi. The majority of US universities have Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programmes.

There is also a strong left bias in Non-Government Organisations (NGOs). They infiltrate populations at the grass roots level. For example, through universities or trade unions. They organise and fund protests supporting the left agenda. This was evident with the organising of the anti-Israel marches across Europe and the US. NGOs are typically funded by left-leaning large global organisations such as the United Nations, foundations such as the Gates Foundation, and even private companies and wealthy individuals. The NGOs amplify many of the messages of these organisations.

Left vs. Right Radicalisation

It is easier and more advantageous to the Establishment to radicalise the left-leaning population. This is because their belief system is compatible with Government control and their desire to challenge the status quo, which they desire to be able to remodel society to progress their agendas.

Many on the left believe Government control and intervention are necessary to redistribute wealth, income, jobs, resources, opportunities, etc. Many also believe the status quo is inherently biased towards the ruling class. To them, the ruling class also includes majority ethnicities, religions, and even sexual orientations. This is a strong deviation from traditional ideas around class struggle, which focused on perceived disproportionate returns to capital or land over labour.

Radicalism of the left, i.e., the far-left, is used to promote strong Government intervention. The Government have geared their radicalisation of the left towards social intervention. This includes censorship, imposed equity of outcomes over meritocracy, application of law to favour minorities, emphasis of minority culture and religion, and reinforced ideology through the education system.

Radicalising the right to help promote Establishment agendas is more problematic.

Many on the right believe in reduced Government control and intervention. They support free markets over centralised planning and economic growth over equality. Despite their desire for economic liberalism, many from the right are socially conservative; therefore, they strongly value tradition. Cultural shifts caused by mass immigration are a huge threat to tradition. This leads to the right strongly leaning towards nationalism as a mechanism of defence.

Radicalism of the right, i.e., the far-right, would lead to fervent opposition to the Government and extreme nationalism and even ethno-nationalism. This could lead to anti-Government riots, terrorism (cyber or physical violence), attacks on immigrants, and attacks on minority races.

The Government or even opposition parties are unable to radicalise this group directly because of the right’s natural progression towards anti-Government sentiments. Far-right radicalisation is a bottom-up phenomenon and not top-down. Radicalisation is most likely to occur in response to the actions of the far-left or violence from those that threaten indigenous culture and tradition. Despite media rhetoric, there is little evidence to suggest any significant rise in far-right extremism.

The Establishment has done a reasonably good job through the media and NGOs of convincing even the moderate left that a far-right threat exists. This has been done through normalising the far-left; therefore, even moderate right views can be perceived as far-right even if they are far from it. However, if the vilification and the threat to the right continue, a far-right response is possible.

From the perspective of the Establishment, the far-right are more useful for creating division than directly advancing their agenda. The focus of the right has been directed towards immigrants. However, the immigrants themselves are not the source of the problem. This strategy further fuels the division between the right and the left and the immigrants.

Destabilisation (e.g., sanctions and wars) of South America, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, which has been caused by both self-proclaimed left and right parties, has led to strong push factors for people to leave their home countries. At the same time, left Governments and NGOs have gone to great lengths to entice people to the Western countries. This has led to people from poorer countries desiring to move to the West through any means made available. Not all of these people are from countries that would qualify them as genuine refugees.

Radicalisation of the right could become an important part of the Establishment. For example, in the US, Donald Trump has used authoritarianism, which has been supported by the moderate right to suppress the far-left. Ultimately, authoritarian precedents will be used to suppress all, which left Governments will also use to justify authoritarian initiatives. The UK Government is trying to implement digital ID using the argument of combating illegal immigration.

Far-Right is Not Fascism

The media often try to confuse far-right and fascist ideology. The outcomes of the two may appear similar, e.g., extreme racism, but the underlying ideology and motivations are completely different. Far-right ideology is bottom-up resistance to authority. Fascism is top-down authoritarianism. Far-right ideology supports extreme nationalism. Fascist ideology supports the ideology of the fascist elite and that of the party (e.g., the party flag replacing the country flag). Far-right ideology is extreme right-wing ideology. Fascist ideology evolved and then deviated from Marxist ideology.

A likely reason that the media want to confuse the public, left-leaning in particular, is that fascism, particularly Nazism, is extremely threatening. Most people are aware of the horrors of World War 2. Another reason they want to equate the two is to create the illusion that their proclaimed far-right surge will transition into fascism or even Nazism. Many Western countries have parties that the media have designated as far-right. These are the Republicans (MAGA) in the US, Reform in the UK, AfD in Germany, National Rally in France, Brothers of Italy, Fidesz in Hungary, Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, Sweden Democrats, Vox in Spain, and the Finns Party in Finland.

In practice, existing self-proclaimed left-wing Governments are considerably closer to fascism. I consider them fascist adjacent, and they are moving towards moving towards Plutocratic Socialism (e.g., control of wealth by the Establishment and the broadly even distribution of the scraps to the rest of society).

Establishment Goals and the Need for Radicalisation

The Establishment wants to increase the size of the Government. When I say size, I am referring to spending and not necessarily employment or Government output. Government spending is predominantly increasing in outsourcing and procurement. Therefore, big Government promotes Big Business, which is a key power player for the Establishment.

Government growth is less about controlling output and more about controlling demand. The Government wants to make decisions on behalf of its population. This gives the Government and the Establishment more power over the people. Greater spending also gives the banks more power, as Governments need to borrow more money to support their spending and their size. This leads to further transfer of wealth to the rich.

The Establishment like to challenge the status quo to advance their agenda. This often involves gaining more power, accumulating and controlling more wealth, and creating and extending division. Advancing the ‘woke’ agenda (i.e., a form of radical left ideology) and creating mass immigration have created the biggest challenges to the status quo.

The ‘woke’ agenda challenges the status quo in many areas. This includes sex/gender identity, freedom of speech and expression, value of human life, climate action, racism and other forms of discrimination, perception of the family and its role, and differentiation and prioritisation of rights of different groups. Mass immigration challenges the status quo regarding culture, religion, politics and overall demographics.

The ‘woke’ agenda serves several purposes. It pits the ‘woke’ indoctrinated, many of the minority groups, and immigrants against the population who feel threatened by the ‘woke’ and whoever they align themselves with. The main purpose is to enable the Government to gain greater control over the population. The ‘woke’ offer them welcomingly pressure for them to censor ‘offensive’ speech and actions. They push the Government to discriminate against the ethnic majority based on the perception of racism. They push the Government towards supporting the climate agenda, which is just another mechanism for growing the size of Government and expanding its control. I discuss the woke agenda in detail in my post Rise of the Woke.

Mass immigration also serves several purposes. Like with ‘woke’ culture, mass immigration creates divide. It pits the immigrants who do not want or are unable to integrate and the ‘woke’ who believe these immigrants are being victimised against the indigenous population who feel threatened by them. In other words, an extension of the divide created using the ‘woke’ agenda.

Most Western democracies are suffering various crises. These include economic, financial, housing, infrastructure, and health crises. These crises greatly increase the tension between these groups. This has led to civil unrest in many of these countries, which could escalate further into civil wars. If this leads to the fall of the Government, there is little impact on the Establishment, as Governments of democracies serve as just the face of the Establishment.

The main purpose of mass immigration is to enable the Government to reshape the culture of the country. Western culture is liberal by nature. The people value freedom, and they value democracy because they believe it supports freedom. The Establishment do not want the people to have freedom. It weakens their grasp on control. Many of the immigrants do not share Western liberal values. They more closely follow values that align with their religion. This is particularly true for immigrants from Muslim nations. The Government can adjust the laws to accommodate the new cultures to keep them happy, thus making them more compliant to the Establishment; many predominantly Muslim countries, such as the UAE, Qatar, Oman, and Saudi Arabia, have some of the lowest crime rates in the world (Numbeo). These adjustments will likely alienate the indigenous populations. The changes made in society will likely lead to emigration of the indigenous population, thus bringing about the culture change even quicker.

Mass immigration could also be used to replace the indigenous citizens. The number of indigenous people in Western democracies is likely to decline, and this decline could be sharp. As the quality of life in these countries deteriorates, many of the indigenous people will flee. Plunging birth rates further add to this problem. There is also the possibility that the indigenous population will drop further if the Western democracies engage directly in war with Russia.

Currently, Ukrainian citizens are being forcibly enlisted and used as cannon fodder against the Russian military. In Ukraine, men are being abducted by conscription squads and forced into the military to fight on the frontlines (BBC). Leaked reports from Ukraine indicate that as of August 2025, as many as 1.7 million Ukrainian soldiers have been killed in the war (Military Watch Magazine). The Ukrainian military have become so desperate for more soldiers that they are enlisting disabled and elderly men (Aljazeera). Ukraine lacks the capacity to adequately train their conscripts (The Washington Post). The combination of lack of weaponry and lack of training renders most conscripts little more than cannon fodder for their enemy.

When Ukraine runs out of people to fight, other European countries could be designated to be used as the next fodder nations. Several journals and politicians have discussed a possible war with Russia by 2027 (Atlantic Council). European countries do not have an abundance of well-trained soldiers. They do not have the capacity to rapidly and adequately train a large number of soldiers (European Council on Foreign Relations). However, Europe has a large combined population; approximately 450 million people live in the European Union. They have plenty of men who could be trained with the minimal skills to become the new cannon fodder. This could extend the war with Russia for decades. Essentially creating a forever war scenario that would be very lucrative to industries such as defence and banking. The vast number of newly arrived immigrants could replace a large portion of those fallen in war. As long as Western countries keep welcoming them, and as long as Africa and the Middle East remain destabilised.

There is also the possibility that Russia could also eventually exhaust itself and the Western Establishment could take control through inserted puppet leaders. I would argue this is an unlikely outcome. Firstly because Russia cannot be easily defeated in their own territory, and secondly because the Western Establishment desires to keep Russia as an external threat (i.e., bogeyman figure) to manipulate their own populations.

Democracy Bottom-Up Initiative

I believe modern democracy was a bottom-up movement rather than a top-down movement. The general population became wealthier and more educated. Therefore, they were less accepting of authoritarian, dictatorial leadership. The structure of leadership needed to change to accommodate changing public sentiments. However, those in power will always refuse to relinquish it. Hence, the creation of the facade democracy that every Western country has.

Modern democracy has evolved over centuries. There are many arguments regarding the main influences on its evolution. I would argue that the most significant factor is liberal Protestantism. We can argue that the work of Martin Luther set the foundations of liberal Protestantism. He helped make the Bible available to the broader public, thus shifting power from religious leaders to the public. The democratisation of the Bible enabled greater access to more thinkers and a more rapid evolution and diversification of thought.

Liberal Protestantism encouraged people to challenge belief through reasoning rather than accepting religious dogma. This also meant a growing number of people in Protestant nations also questioned authority and would become less tolerant of authoritarian leadership. Hence, creating pressure on democratising leadership. The earli