While the West is busy hating itself, Russia, China and other former super powers are building civilizational confidence to increase their competition on the world political map. It's no surprise that we at Corrupt have a few less admirable things to say about the West as it is today. But we're also hopeful and positive about society in general. A contradiction? Let me recap why the current Western status quo should be criticized, but still is both dominant and pleasant to live by:

Liberal democracy: Before the New World Order (pre-WWII) Europe was a collection of dictatorships, which later transformed into socialist Fascist States. During that time we saw a lot of tragedy, including economic collapse and genocide. Yeah, democracy sucks, but looking at history, it's no wonder our leaders wanted to abandon the old way of managing government.

Capitalism: Admittedly, capitalism has its problems. Yet we tried out socialism, in different extremes, and we saw that it completely failed wherever it was implemented. What happened when nations around the world, almost exclusively under Anglo-American leadership, began adopting a (mostly) free market principle? They quickly escaped mass poverty and low standard of living. Today not even hardcore-socialist countries like Russia and China really believe in a planned economy.

Multiculturalism: Even the Nazis get this one; we're living in a mass-communication society today. Regardless if you don't believe in bringing in lots of people into your country, your culture cannot avoid being influenced by foreign cultures, rendering cultural patterns dynamic and ever-changing. That diversity of ideas and lifestyles, one way or another, will exist also within pretty homogeneous cultures is a mark of the age.

NWO: Sure, it exists, a New World Order. Why so many people resent it is baffling, because never before has so many people in the world enjoyed such a high standard of living under extremely humane conditions. Maybe that's a problem in itself, but there's a reason to why the West won the Cold War, and why everyone else suspiciously is trying to emulate its development.

European democracy, unlike America's two-party system, offers a broader range of choice, but the question is if diversity of opinions carries an intrinsic value. I'm not sure if I believe the European model is superior to the American, however ludicrous both really are. Each European party specializes on a certain topic, but there's no "expert" choice available, since it'd effectively reduce democracy to fascism (I approve).

Therefore I cannot really answer what party I vote for. The Moderate party understands economics, but lacks cultural leadership. The Liberal party currently understands the school system, but not much else. The Green party emphasizes the environment, but with incorrect methods. The Center party is clueless. The Social Democrats are wrecking Sweden in all aspects. The Sweden Democrats understand culture, but fail by emulating welfare politics. The Christian Democrats don't know how to consolidate their voters. The Leftist party is nuts. Diversity at this point is pretty useless, because we're arguing over differences instead of addressing society as a whole.

Social Democratic welfare States, I argue, are more suspect to a homogeneous political climate. The nature of any government bureaucracy is to reinforce its own importance and expansion. For instance, if you sit at the top of a health department and a new flu is out, even if it's not really harmful to the public as a whole, you'll want to take some--any measure against it to appear like you're being effective. That way you'll receive more funding from politicians.

With an ever-growing welfare apparatus, political parties will have to dedicate more and more of their energy toward maintaining and managing it, meaning a big part of their political agenda will revolve around tax rates and government policies. So even if you're a Conservative and don't trust governments too much, you'll inherit a system that needs to be managed anyway. The chance of reducing or even removing a department or institute that already exists is minimal, and voters will feel less safe if you suddenly announce that a health department or a job center must go, since they are essentially seen as platforms of safety.

Once a society becomes Social Democratic or any socialist democratic variant thereof, it will therefore effectively homogenize its political arena and limit it to a liberal-leftist battlefield where small government changes become hot topics during elections. If you look at America right now, you have one major party that wants to reform but keep an old health care system, while another big party in power wants to reform and change the current system. In Sweden the health care discussion exclusively revolves around what the tax rates should be, not about any change to the system itself.

In Social Democratic societies the political alternatives meet in the Center and orient themselves around leftism, because Conservatism transforms into welfare-friendly liberalism, which sometimes shares similar goals with Conservatism, but wants to implement them through a bureaucracy. We see a similar development in America where an increased influence from bureaucracies after the Iraq War and the government take-overs of companies in crisis has led to a more homogeneous political climate around foreign policy and the economy.

Welfare democracy, put simply, is a dead end and will eventually force the West to commit suicide.

As he recalls his embarrassing time in the debating hall, Alex finds it hard to redeem Western democracy.

Well, I can think of a few unorthodox qualities it possesses, which do relate to the pointless bickering Alex was witness to.

Firstly, the fact nothing gets done in a democracy isn't something to be completely despondent about. Nor is the fact that no-one cares what gets done or whatever anyone else does. Democracy is great at pacifying people into inaction, and they generally try to replace the action with fiercer rhetoric. This is great if you think you know better than 95% of the population - leave me to make my decisions alone, morons!

And it's not only the average citizen who no longer gives a shit in a democracy, it's the higher-ups too. Due to the decisiveness of arbitrary autocracy, be it monarchical or a dictatorship, it's not unreasonable to state that such institutions stick their fingers into private lives without justification from time to time. Worked hard and honestly your whole life and now run your own very successful paper merchant? Well too bad, because you've just been nationalised/been caught committing heresy/been caught sodomising, by the King, Commissar or Führer.

Another Good Thing is that it gives annoying social climbers (i.e. cunts) a distinct and separate avenue where they can much better satiate their sense of self-satisfaction. Thankfully this makes it much easier to avoid them.

So, democracy isn't perfect, but sometimes I don't give a shit - and neither does democracy.

I had to sit through a painstakingly boring municipality meeting today. Every journalist occasionally does. Watching these "leaders" side-track facts, attack each other, confuse themselves, play drama on stage etc. makes you wonder why the hell the Greeks ever invented democracy. Maybe it was supposed to be a theater show. Here's some of the gold of what I witnessed today, which I'm supposed to write a news article about before midnight.

7 million in debt

Young woman from the Justice-Socialist Party, clearly upset: Lennart, X company now reveals it had 7 million in debts when we bought it. I mentioned this during our last meeting but you consequently told me I was fantasizing and called me all sorts of foul names. Why did you lie to us?

Lennart, a true Social Democratic patriarch, takes the stage: I completely trusted the figures I'd received from the economic department, which didn't address this figure as debt.

Socialist: Don't sneak around the facts Lennart, you know you lied to us. And you called me filthy names and told me I was dreaming. Again, I ask, why did you lie to us when you knew the facts?

Social Democrat: You are standing here and basically claiming the economic department lied. Are you ready to stand by that comment?

Socialist and Social Democrat argue for 5 minutes, then are forced to give it a rest.

Public transport

Man from the Green Party takes the stage: We've received complaints from people saying they don't have the proper credit card or cannot make the SMS payments to work on buses. We need to look at this, otherwise people might choose to take the car instead of public transport.

Social Democrat, again, irritated: We've increased the number of people choosing public transport by 20 % with this system. We will not, I repeat, we will not use cash machines anymore. This has already been decided.

Greenist: But if people have problems with credit cards and SMS payments, this system may hurt the public transport business.

Social Democrat: WE WILL NOT INSTALL CASH MACHINES AGAIN.

Greenist realizes his issue was a non-issue, backs down.

Hidden buffers

Man from Justice-Socialist Party: The municipality has over a 10-year-period put away X sum of money for investments, yet only used about 30 % of that money. This is money that should be used for government programs to combat unemployment, gender inequality and poverty. Can one correctly address this sum as a hidden buffer?

Woman from the Folk Party: This is ridiculous, there is no hidden buffer anywhere, all money is addressed carefully in the annual report. If anything, we should be happy we didn't spend all that money--that way we don't have to borrow.

Socialist: Let me repeat again. Money that is put away for investments, yet are not used, and if this becomes a decade-long pattern, is it not right to call this a hidden buffer?

Social Democrat: Now we know why all Communist economies to date have crashed.

Quiet laughs can be heard throughout the all.

Another Socialist: This is typical of you Lennart, whenever you lack arguments, you attack the person. I hope everyone in this room, including the audience, is taking note of this.

The meeting is supposed to take lunch at 12 but stretches on for almost 30 minutes more thanks to the Socialists not giving the issue a break, and basically everyone from liberals to Social Democrats insisting that it's a phony issue to begin with.

Some people say that democracy works on local but not government level. I think we've cleared out this misconception. Obviously there's at least as much incompetence, drama and false pride going on in the municipality halls as at regional and national level. We're paying these people large sums of money each month to talk gibberish in this fashion.

I wonder how much we'd achieve if we removed all of them and replaced them with one expert within each field under a homogeneous political philosophy. It cannot possibly get worse.

Michael Arth, a community reconstructor, architect and politician who's running for Florida Governor, just sent me this:

Michael E. Arth, a democratic candidate for governor, has a booth at the Florida State Democratic Conference being held at Disney’s Yacht and Beach Club convention center in Orlando from October 9-11. Arth is protesting an incident that took place Friday evening, at the reception that occurred from 6-8 PM. According to Arth and witnesses, Karen Thurman, the president of the Florida Democratic Party, told Arth who was waiting next to the podium, that he would not be introduced or allowed to speak after Alex Sink had been accorded the same privilege.

“I asked Karen Thurman why she is continuing her campaign of trying to freeze a viable candidate out of the gubernatorial race, refusing to communicate with me, while at the same time showering the party’s time money on an anointed candidate long before the primary.” Arth said. “I told Thurman it was very undemocratic of the Democratic Party to endorse one candidate over others and attempt to control the election process. She ignored the comment about democracy and said that she and other party leaders just wanted to focus on one candidate. In other words, she admitted they were being undemocratic.”

Arth, in a grievance filed after months of being ignored by his own party, pointed out that this is politics-as-usual. “The two parties function like the old Soviet Union. A few people at the top choose the candidates and we get to vote for them to help maintain the illusion of democracy. The other ways in which we are denied proper representation is with private campaign financing, a blatantly unfair winner-take-all system, and gerrymandered single-member districts that prevent majority rule and bolsters two-party rule. These things allow the vested interests to control public discourse.”

The eternal paradox of the democratic process: once a two-party hegemony is established, independent voices will be actively worked against. Ron Paul knows it, Peter Schiff knows it, alienated neo-Nazis and leftists have known it for decades, and now Michael Arth knows it too. So while we have freedom to vote, the actual choices we make are limited to soft-socialist Obamarama and soft-fundamentalist Republicans. Neither is pretty attractive, that's why I laugh at people who really think democracy is a good idea. If we want subtle dictatorship, why not just call it fascism and go with it?