[I posted this on a normie sub, so pardon if some of the takes sound basic]

People on the DR have to start attacking the sanctity of democracy to normiecons. Democracy is just a procedure and a system of government, yet it has gained this holy status in the last 50 years or so. People invoke as if its some holy god with which we have a covenant with, or not being democratic is some massive failure or aberration.

What people don't understand that modern democracy as we understand it has only come into being in the last 234 years, with the US constitution being ratified. But even then, they restricted the franchise to land owning white men of good character, only about 20% or less of the population. Britain was not remotely democratic until 1830.

Even as recent as 1939, most of the countries in Europe were not democratic. They were either fascist, communist or monarchies. Yet, this procedure is given divine significance. The media tells us that if the choice came between race or democracy, we must choose the latter, between family and progessivism, we must choose the latter, between faith or liberalism we must choose the latter.

its more important than your race which has been around for 3000-5000 years, and informs every aspect of your being(its not just melanin as Quora big brains like to think). It determines intelligence, testosterone levels, likelihood of mental illness and violent behavior, height, physical build, aesthetics, collectivism/individualism, immune responses and time preference.

Its more important than your faith which has been around for 2000 years and form the moral fabric of society.

Adherence to liberalism and democratic values is more important than your family to which you share blood with. As we saw with recent events on twitter were liberal white girls tattled on their own parents for being Trump supporters and got them fired from their jobs.

Why? Does it even lead to success or honest governance?]

India got independence in 1948 and has been a democracy since. In 1948 the British left them with the best rail system in Asia and a modern university system. China suffered a genocidal war from 1937 to 1945 at the hands of Japan. Then immediately followed by a civil war that wrecked the country again. Its entire infrastructure ruined and intelligentsia slaughtered.

Then there was Mao's lunacy, the mass murder of educated classes, the cultural revolution and 50 million deaths during the great leap forward.

Yet under Chinese autocracy, China has emerged into a world superpower with the largest industrial base in the world. India has remained a dustbin.

Imperial Germany became a world leader of technology and industry, surpassing Britain by 1914, France long before that, it did these despite being a monarchy. Austria Hungary also as a monarchy became a world center of industry and culture. Japan under a monarchy went from being a feudal state in 1860, to becoming a world power that could Russia in 1905.

So its clearly not an essential for development. The whole mythos of democracy comes from the American world order and the first world lifestyle post-WW2, but Singapore achieved that with dictatorship as well.

Liberals have this idea that democracy is the perfect system, the final and ultimate mode of government as laid out by Francis Fukuyama. They get this notion from the dominance of the US order and how all other countries at least pretend to be democratic to appease the US. Yet, they forget the historical context behind this.

Democracy was just another system of government in 1939. WW2 left all other great powers in ruin except for the US which came out of the war richer and in pristine shape. The Soviet union became a military superpower, but it was crippled by the war having lost 16% of its population. This in combination with the crushing military expenditure required to keep up with the entirety of the Western bloc and China, caused it to limp till a collapse in 1991.

Its simply this historical happenstance, mostly owing to geography that the US became world hegemon. And its dominance allowed for the dominance democracy. However, this in unraveling as we speak. China is destined to overtake the US as it drowns in an ocean of debt, decadence and corruption.

Does democracy even care about the public opinion?

Was mass immigration to the West from the 3rd world ever put on a ballot? Most European countries heavily oppose muslim migration yet its pushed on them all the same. Did the people ever support or want a bailout of the banks? The offshoring of industry? The destruction of the welfare state? Drag queen story hour? Government money for BLM? Wars in the middle east for Israel?

Have these things ever put on a vote? Or when have the elected representatives ever respected these wishes? Why do they always do exactly what the wall street-silicon valley billionaire class want?

And even when the people get a vote, their wishes are overturned by the courts, and the media celebrates that has freedom and democratic values. People in hyper liberal California voted against gay marriage, yet the courts forced it on the country in 2015 any way. People in Taiwan in a referendum overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage, yet the courts pushed it one them anyway.

In what way is the people's will ever respected? The right votes for social conservatism and lowering of immigration and they get tax cuts and wars, the left votes for welfare and socialism, and they get drag queen story hour and gay marriage.

The buck always passed to the next presidential or PM candidate. They're all populists during campaign season but they turn into neolibs in office, and the next guy pulls the same con. Afterwards they get consultancies in big corporations or ''speaking tours'' by big banks. Its just legal bribery.

The West talk a big game about corruption in Russia or China, but in those countries the deals happen behind closed doors.

In the US, the bribery is open and happens with pomp and splendor at superPACs and AIPAC.

At least in Russia or China the dictators are afraid to pass extremely unpopular measures like gay marriage, transgenderism or black immigration because the people would be furious. There is real contact with power. They know that if they lose popular support some ambitious general will replace them.

So they mostly stay within popular lanes. Putin and Xi have higher approval ratings among their subjects than any democratic leader of the major powers. Ironically, autocracies seem to cater more to the people's will than democracies, where people just vote between two corporate puppets every four years.