"Liberal democracy is simply a regime,
in which democracy degrades freedom,
before he chokes it down.’
Nicolás Gómez Dávila
In all political system, institutions and laws should be above divisions and the peculiar interests of individual political factions. The overarching sense of a state is to guarantee order and order and to warrant the safety of citizens. Currently, both in Poland and in the wider West, we see the phenomenon of manipulating the process of legislating, denying the legality of institutions, taking over by organization clicks and utilizing them for interests of opposing parties. Law and institutions cease to be guardians of order and order, becoming tools in the hands of political demagogues and tyrants, for whom the only value is like the unrelenting lust of power. With the improvement of this phenomenon, the victim of destructive forces is society and the state itself, and the consequence is erosion of its authority. The eventual consequence must be political tyranny. This is an inevitable consequence resulting from the nature of the democratic system, which inactive in ancient times described in the State Plato: “So it is natural that dictatorship is not from another system, but from democracy; from freedom without borders – slavery is the most complete and wild.”
We have late observed this phenomenon in the United States, where the MAG movement Donald Trump questioned the result of the presidential election under the slogan "Stop the Steal", making far-reaching accusations of mass forgery. presently in Poland, the Citizen Platform community is questioning the legality of the Constitutional Court and the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the ultimate Court, and the uncomfortable judges appointed by the opposition Law and Justices, mention to them as “neosiers”. The process of undermining the institutions and denying their legality is gaining momentum, as evidenced by accusations of falsification of the presidential elections in Poland in 2025, which the opposition was expected to admit. The main propagandists of these claims became Roman Gierty and Tomasz Lis. A akin situation occurred in 2024 in Romania, where the Constitutional Court annulled the election process due to the triumph in the first round, uncomfortable for the leftist establishment and the European Union, Călin Georgescu. The absurdity of the full situation is added by the fact that the Romanian Court of Appeal declared the action of the Constitutional Court illegal. Despite this, the Central Election Office refused to re-registration Georgesc's candidacy. George Simion, who replaced him as an opposition candidate in the fresh elections, rightly described these events as a "state coup." The re-election in Romania won a puppet of political forces from Brussels. A unusual coincidence, the European Union has no longer questioned this choice. We are dealing with an excellent example of the peculiar use, not only of the election institution itself, but besides the right and the judiciary, to keep power. Questioning the results of elections and negating the legality of institutions is becoming increasingly common practice in European and Western countries. This is the consequence of a violent political game – the essence of these accusations is an effort to destruct political opponents. In this fight, the institutions of the state become toys in the hands of hostile parties. This negates their superiority and their position above political particularities. The institutions are no longer beyond the conflicting interests of political groups – they have become their hostages and pawns in the game of power. By taking distant their authority of superiority and independence, they take distant the authority of the state itself.
The situation in its essence begins to match the reality of the 3rd century C.E. in the Roman Empire – a period of constant chaos, where individual factions, above all the military, carried to the top and overthrown the emperors, frequently mercilessly murdering them. Of course, the form of modern chaos and political conflict is different. In today’s world, direct force is seldom applied. Competition is destroyed economically, politically, socially. However, the fight, as in the past, begins to be about submitting to the institutions in order to usage them for the peculiar interests of individual political parties. This destabilizes politics, destroys assurance and religion in the institution, but above all it strikes the authority of the state as something permanent that does not yield to changing opinions and interests, but excels from the heights over the manifestations of human vices and weaknesses.
The phenomenon we are witnessing has deeper causes: it is due to the nature of democracy. Democracy is tantamount to moral relativism – the foundation of this strategy is the will of the people, and thus the component of countless wills of individuals. The apparent freedom, the primal thought of modern liberal democracies, is truly an anarchy of diverse beliefs, worldviews, ideas. For a reason Nicolás Gómez Dávila stated: “As the highest perfect of freedom is the first step towards eventual nihilism.” If everyone has the right to have their own fact and their own values – with the passage of time the inevitable consequence of this state of affairs will be social atomization, which will yet lead to a "war of all against all." Separate individuals and groups who profess utmost values to each another must enter the course of conflict sooner or later. Millions of conflicting worldviews, truths and beliefs cannot be reconciled. The unity of the state and society is incapable to withstand the tension generated by chaos at the level of moral principles. Where there is no community of religion and value – there cannot be order and order. The social scenery will be dominated by constant interior conflict. The tree increasing on the ground will yet gotta collapse in the relativistic swamp. The essence of freedom is the thesis that Nicolás Gómez Dávila put forward, and which the democratic man seems to be the worst of possible heresies due to the fact that he limits his will: “The real freedom is to be able to take the actual master.” Democracy does not recognise individual authority and “state”. He believes that they are tyranny, limiting “human rights” are the self-court of individuals. The essence of democracy is relativism, walking side by side with negation of nonsubjective and absolute truth. It is simply a state of barbarism and anarchy that will lead to the Hobessian "state of nature"—the war of all against all. A state where the state and society will fall into chaos and decay. Western liberal democracies are already moving in this direction. This can be seen in the progressive atomicization, isolation, breakdown of families and widespread, deepening social conflict. Masses imported from the 3rd World, from completely different cultural circles, only deepen this process. The eventual consequence next to tyranny, which is the only force capable of keeping this social anarchy full (at least for a while), can be cultural and home wars. Can you imagine the anticipation of co-existence and dialog between supporters of Grzegorz Braun and Donald Tusk or Robert Biedron? The values here are so distinct and hostile that it is impossible. The only chance of coexistence is to submit to 1 faction of the another by means of the legal strategy and the apparatus of state violence: “You can live alongside us if you comply with our laws, principles and values. If not, you will be punished.” Western democracies have long existed on this foundation. Are you Catholic? You can be in the privacy of the Church or in the privacy of your own home. If you follow spiritual law – which is evidently incompatible with the legal strategy of atheistic and secular democracy – you will endure consequences.
With respect to the nature of the law in the democratic system, it should be noted that the law "established" by the will of the majority or expressed by it has no absolute durability. It is not an absolute and indisputable law. The law based on the will of the people is temporary, changing and so the majority of the population view it. “Believe” in it as long as it is convenient. The West has experienced the tragic consequences of this fact for centuries – without drawing any conclusions from this fact. The will of the people is simply a sacred dogma of democracy, the celebrated "volonté générale", about which the chief demagogue of this system, John Jakub Rousseau, wrote. It is in democracy that is superior, not objective, ontological principles, as in the case of theocracy, or classical Catholic monarchies, which were based on spiritual dogma. “The will of the people” – ephemeral, abstract perfect Rousseau. In fact, it was perfect for a strictly democratic one, for how can 1 know the will of the people, “universal will”, but only by means of popular voting? The essence of an election act is not quality or truth, but quantity. In the democratic strategy and doctrine of Rousseau, people and people take the place of God derived from theology. Hence many in the doctrine of politics to describe this strategy as “anthropomorphic religion”. In another words, Rousseau gave a sophisticated word of authority to the masses and mob. He is the father of modern mass democracy, its “holy” patron, “doctor” and the chief prophet of democratic religion. Thus it is 1 of the main protoplasts of modern demoliberalism. To deny the will of the people is to deny this system, to deny it. This is equivalent to the position of the worst enemy of democracy. The enemy of the mortal. 1 that democracy must destruct and eliminate.
Of course, there is the concept of "democratic religion" – a broad social mass believes in this strategy and thus believes in its legal strategy to which they submit. However, it is the weakest form of religion, based on utmost selfishness and individualism. It's not a belief anyone would want to die for. The politician believes in democracy and its legal system, due to the fact that they let him in the private sphere to follow his momentary wishes. In the social sphere, thanks to the social state model, they supply a safe and stress-free life for him. Nevertheless, a law that does not come from a spiritual component cannot anticipate society to admit its holiness and integrity. specified a law is exclusively the domain of technology and rationalist records, not faith. No 1 will sacrifice his life for specified a law, but many will effort to modify, change, and usage it for their own purposes. A politician believes in democracy and its legal strategy as long as this strategy is economically efficient. It is only a substance of time until we see the erosion of this religion – it will proceed with the deterioration of the financial situation. Already today, this is happening in front of our eyes in Poland and another Western countries. Increasingly questioning institutions, regulations, judicial authorities is the natural implication of the current strategy – the law founded on the will of the majority nobody truly believes, fewer want to submit to it unless they are forced to. Obedience comes solely from the momentary fear of criminal punishment. If there's an opportunity, he'll question and step on his authority. This is due to the fact that democratic authority is not an authentic authority, whose value and meaning are founded on intellectual, moral and spiritual superiority. It's a mockery of authority. It is only authoritarianism that persists in power as long as it has a monopoly on the usage of violence.
The regulation of law has become an empty slogan for political propaganda. "Rights of rule" in the mouth of politicians of the 3rd Republic of Poland, as well as those of the European Union, means only 1 thing: submission to their political will. The law is just an excuse here. They form the law according to their peculiar political interest, and it itself only exists to service their power. Law ceases to defend the fact of nonsubjective and nonsubjective moral principles – it begins to be a tool in the hands of political tyrants and demagogues. It thus loses its ontological objectivity – speaking theological language – its holiness. This is Machiavelle's legacy, Cardinal Richelieu and anthropomorphic concepts derived from philosophies specified as “state ration” or “power will”. What Europe and the West look like after centuries of improvement and dominance of this thought of pure power overwhelming the spiritual-moral aspect – we see everywhere around us.
The legality of certain institutions is presently denied in order to take over and usage them for their political purposes. The next phase will be their marginalisation or liquidation. At state level, tyranny will triumph. The tyranny of an individual, class, group, organization – indeed pure tyranny, and thus a strategy without restriction, based solely on the will of 1 who exercises power and has a monopoly on the usage of violence. Returning to the example of the European Union: it has no "law" and stands in the defence of no "lawfulness" – the Union is simply a political tyranny of Brussels commissioners – far-left ideologists whose will and ideology form reality. "Law" and "lawfulness" are excuses – they are only a tool for implementing their will and left-wing ideology. As shortly as the will changes, laws and regulations will change immediately. They will be adapted to the requirements of the moment. This is utmost anthropomorphism – man places himself in the place of God and natural law, after which he begins to form reality by means of violence, according to his arbitrary, not settled on any nonsubjective truths and values, will and interests. It's the essence of political tyranny.
We observed this phenomenon during the French Revolution. It started with an effort to enforce reforms, manipulate the king's institution and the state's strategy to implement particular, selfish interests. Louis XVI, king and institution, was a puppet of political forces. The weak, incapable to foretell the consequences of the ongoing past process became a victim of the masses. Another phase was the negation of the institution itself. Louis XVI's execution was a negation of the institution and its final liquidation. What happened then? panic and tyranny. The same process, for the minute in a different form, with another tools, is played in Poland, Europe and the West. Institutions and laws are utilized for peculiar interests. Power is elevated to altars. Power for power itself. The power of tyranny.
If anyone believes in democracy, they pray to a false god. Democracy is not a healthy political system, but a manifestation of the end of the state and culture. Democratisation is simply a manifestation of the collapse of the state and community, the last phase of the existence of the state and national organism. Democracy is chaos and anarchy. It's a negation of hierarchy, families, authority, order. It's a strategy where there's no longer a natural community. It is simply a tyranny of the masses that keeps the dead of a debilitating culture in unity, trying to force itself, with the aid of socialism, bureaucracy and authoritarianism of the apparatus of state force to keep alive something that is already a fiction that is barely alive.
Sooner or later, the fresh Napoleon will come. Already at the dawn of the French Revolution, even before the start of terror, genius Edmund Burke foretold France's inevitable military dictatorship as a consequence of the revolutionary utopia. For Poland and Europe, it would be good for this fresh Napoleon to not appear in the form of a Salafi caliph with a sword at his side, which will turn into the heads of the infidels. If this happens, it will mean the end of our civilization. At the same time, however, it will be the end of chaos and anarchy as Christianity ended the chaos and anarchy of the Roman Empire. The end of civilization means the birth of a fresh one. This brings about the restoration of a community of beliefs and values, thus restoring order and order. Rational law and values are frequently simply an instrument and a facade that obscures human will and lust. There is no law and no state without a sanction coming from above. Without authority rising above man and his weak, fallen nature.
Mariusz Starved
