You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

“Democracy” is not some magic spell that keeps a prosperous ship floating. Democracy, when it is not restrained by ironclad laws restricting what the 51% can do and protecting the minority, allows the mob to vote to take the ship apart and divide it up while you’re sailing. The mass-man has always wanted this power, but sane countries have in one way or another limited what damage the democracy mob can do at any given time.

Communism seeks to come to power by democratic means, always, that is, to get the 51% to vote themselves the power to do whatever they want. And when they come to power they go about stealing and destroying and, for some amount of time, by consuming what the productive people have made and what they (the communists) have stolen they can coast on the fumes of what the previous system has produced. Communism takes what has already been produced and consumes it until it is gone and never produces enough on its own to replace what there was and then it consumes itself – and it does so at first by exercising the assumed power of the 51%.

The only organism that has killed more people than communism is the mosquito. And “direct democracy” is the swamp that produces communism.

The term BOLSHEVIK means “the greater or majority.” The term was taken as the name of that party because in a single historic vote they were able to garner 51%… as opposed to the MENSHEVIK party which means “the lesser or minority.” After the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, and following the civil war that resulted, the term was adopted generally to mean Russian communists. Bolsheviks came to power democratically and went about disassembling any rights of the individual that restricted what THE PARTY could do in stealing life, liberty, and property.

Now, in a perfect country, the good man need not be involved in politics because his rights, that is, his life, liberty, and property would be protected from the mob by laws that heavily restrict what the mob can do. The more imperfect (or the more corrupted,) a country becomes, the more involved a man must be in politics in order to protect his life, liberty, and property from the mob. The more power that government and politicians have to take and steal – the more a man or woman has to be drowned in politics in order to try to protect life, liberty, and property.

In my life, politics has generally boiled down to Democrats and Republicans arguing over stolen property; who was going to get to spend the stolen loot and on what. They’ve switched sides here and there on different issues, but both have been somewhat imperfectly restricted from all the damage they could do or would like to do by the Constitution which has restricted how much of the ship they can rip apart and divide up while the ship is still under sail.

This current mob (which calls itself “progressive”, along with deep state institutional political actors, but is neither historically liberal nor conservative but is actually bolshevik,) ought to be resisted by whatever means necessary by both the traditional liberal and the traditional conservative because of what will inevitably happen when the mob throws off all restraints and consumes the vestige of rights still held by the individual and the minority. The traditional liberal, who has historically been interested in protecting the rights of the minority against the force of the majority, and the traditional conservative, who has historically sought to conserve a system where the gyrations and exuberances of the next generation (and the next) do not upset the applecart too much so that the overall prosperity of the nation continues to increase, all fall under the boot and the tread of the Bolshevik – and the modern “progressive” is nothing at all but a Bolshevik.

It is interesting to read in the Bolshevik’s own hand what and how he intends to come to power. Read Lenin and Trotsky and the others. Read Lenin in Zurich. They openly and actively worked to increase pain, suffering, dissatisfaction, turmoil, and conflict… especially the suffering part. They wanted it. It was a political aim. The more suffering the better. Economic distress, starvation, shortages, civil disturbances, riots, anger, and racial division – these were not “bugs” in the system, they were features. These men wrote that they wanted more and more of these things, and actively sought actions and policies that would increase suffering, anger, and need because by these things they knew that they could more easily manipulate the 51% into giving them even more power. They worked with the enemies of the country, they incited riots, manipulated battle losses, manufactured shortages, sought suffering by means of inflation, war, riots, racism, anger, strifes, death. All of these were tools and goals of Bolshevism. And they have been the tool of communists whether they have taken the name of Bolshevik or not. And they are the tools of the modern “progressive” today.

I wrote a book with my friend Sophek Tounn, a Cambodian whose family escaped the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge (Communists) in Cambodia