Hitler & Democracy

[TheEnslavingForce]

the communist jews such as Trotsky and Molotov had already murdered around 30 million people before the Germans even elected Hitler in 1933. Winston Churchill even confessed that he also would have picked Hitler over the murderous communist jews just as the Germans did. The real "death camps" were located in eastern europe and ruled over by communist jews such as Genrikh Yagoda and Lazar Kaganovich. Germans simply exercised their inherent right of individual or collective self-defense.

[7jerryv7]

Hitler may not have been elected but he was appointed chancellor by a democratically elected government, specifically Hindenburg. The electoral college is based on Representative Democracy. Note that there is a difference between being sarcastic and profound.

[Obasiliasfilosofos]

A visible example of the tyranny of the majority I do see is the case of homophobic plebiscites against same-sex marriage.

Its probably true that historically the tyranny of the minority is more common then the opposite.

[Salse7rito]

George W. Bush was also elected democratically. One of the worst presidents.

And Bush was re-elected. Hitler was not re-elected.

How is it possible that people still want to elect such bad guys ?

Democracy needs more control by the people.

[SupplantThis]

even though just 4% of the people the jews owned 85% of the Berlin banks at the time when Hitler broke jewish supremacism inside Germany. The jews inside America are the same 4% of the population but for the last 95 years have enjoyed complete control of the USA banks, USA media outlets and USA political bodies. Americans are allowed to "elect" political representation only from the source pool that has been "selected" for them by their jewish money masters.

[ImperialRussianGuard]

This is rubbish, in the 1933 election the National Socialist party won the elections with 44% of the popular vote. Along with their political allies the Nazis had a 52 % majority in the Reichstag. The way Hitler was able to make himself dictator of Germany through being able to pass the Enabling Act with a 83 % majority in the Reichstag. The claim that Hitler was not elected is absolutely pseudo-intellectual.

[dojunmarn2]

What a bunch of idiocy!!! All this Jew propaganda has done its work well. The US is run by Capitalist/Communist Jews that run your media, control your educational system, buy all your politicians and relentlessly lie about the Great Hoax that can't be proven forensically. And this smooth talking "populist" jerks you off, instead of telling you to get off your fat arses like Hitler did and beat the shit out of these Communists that want to control you and race mix you with blacks.

[QuatFax]

It's also worth pointing out that the Nazis never received a majority of the vote in a fair election. They received a plurality of the vote in July and November of 1932 and in March of 1933. Only a minority of the public ever freely voted for the Nazi party. It wasn't until they suspended all other political parties and rigged the elections that the Nazis received an absolute majority of the vote.

[Supenmanu]

Actually what the National Socialists did is the same as what all Parties with the word socialism in them did. They used and took advantage of democracy to gain power and once powerful enough would smear and demonize democracy by saying it would only be a tool for a manipulative, capitalist elite. They would then use that as justification to abolish democracy and any opposition.

[TakeSomeAdvice]

wow suprising you have become a realist. The minority make the rules. I've been saying this over and over and no one listenes. When I say I dont believe in minority rights, this is what I'm talking about.

There's minority rule.

There's majority rule.

There's induvidual rule.

Right now we live under minority rule in the world.

[Fullmetalpizza]

"Democracy, where the votes of two idiots count for more than

that of one wise man."

[QuatFax]

@Fullmetalpizza So who do we establish as the wise man? I'm not saying that everything the majority says is true, but what minority can truly be said to be any more fit to govern?

[Fullmetalpizza]

Ehh..

"..That evening Hitler told his Cabinet that the doctors gave Hindenburg less than

twenty-four hours to live. The Cabinet enacted the following law: The office of Reich President is combined with that of Reich Chancellor. In consequence, the previous powers of the Reich President will devolve on the Führer and Reich Chancellor, Adolf Hitler. He will nominate his

own deputy, In a plebiscite on August 19, 90 percent of the German

people voted in favour of the new law."

[1977de33HERBST2010]

54 divided by 23 = 2.347826087

AND I WAS BORN 7JULY7 THE 23RD 23/07/1979 IN HH (Hamburg) North of Germany, that was a Monday :o) :o)

The last digits are 8/08/87, so all those people who were born on AUGUST 28th 1987, have turned 23 !!! 23!!!! 23 !!!! 23!!!! 23 !!!! DREI und ZWANZIG :o) LOL lol :o)

The day BEFORE YESTERDAY !!! THIS is FUN !!!! PLEASE check my CHANNEL !!! :o) 14/88 VERSUS PEACE VERSUS 666? OR THE OTHER WAY ROUND??? WHO CAN TELL ???

[OutOfTheBoxThinker]

The problem with a democracy in the anarchistic meaning of the word is that the masses today are too ignorant and/or too nihilistic to give any kind of authority on a national level. To enable a stable form of true democracy one requires a totalitarian leader (much like Hitler) to re-educate the masses according to a logical worldview and it's very hard to find such leadership willing to return authority to the masses in time as authority is addictive.

[redlinetri]

Let me see if I understand you correctly: You're a leftist who whines all the time about how it's the government's job to do everything for you, then you whine more when this power you give them gets abused by them? LOL, what a dumb stupid retarded dumb stupid idiotic dumb moron you are.

[Proudtobeacommie]

@redlinetri

Except, no he doesn't say that it's the government's job to do everything. The principal aim of Anarchism is self governance.

However, I don't know why I am bothering to make any comment to you. You are a troll with little better to do than lie, strawman and make ad homien attacks against people who disagree with you.

Grow up.

[redlinetri]

@Proudtobeacommie Buddhagem is an anarchist? That's hilarious to be honest. He probably subscribes to Noam Chomsky's bullshit of anarcho-syndicalism, as he is the only academic who would put his name to such a bankrupt doctrine. In any case, the same shit would no doubt happen under anarchy, if not worse.

[majorl31]

@redlinetri you said it

[redlinetri]

"Hitler, democracy...Hitler, democracy...It's almost a knee-jerk reaction."

No it's not.

[Proudtobeacommie]

@redlinetri

Yes, it is.

Given the fact I have studied the period in which Hitler came to power, I can tell you right of the bat he had dictatorial powers 'before' he offically won the majority thanks to the Old guard from the Kaisers era. Also, the only reason he got enough votes in the end is because the Catholic Centre party threw their lot in with him and he had arrested 80 socialist and communist deputies before the election so they were unable to vote.

That, sir, is history.

[redlinetri]

If you hate multinational corporations so much why the hell are you using YouTube. In case you didn't realize, YouTube IS a multinational corporation. Typical commie logic.

[scatcoitus]

he wasnt elected democratically. he was rendered the title of chancellor by hindenburg

[redlinetri]

buddhagem, this "small minority" owns your mind, hahahaha. Capitalist loving bourgeoisie fool.

[jeremybody]

@redlinetri LOL!! Tell me about it. Buddhagem complains about how democracy is abused and it isn't "true democracy" missing the point entirely - "democracy" always gets abused that's why it's a shit form of government. What happens in buddhagem's pure democracy when 90% of the people vote to kill the remaining 10%?

[redlinetri]

@jeremybody I think buddhagem may full well be the dumbest YouTuber ever. He likes his high union wage which he makes off the back of the poor Chinese workers who produce the materials that he uses to build houses. Of course he doesn't want equality, he wants more for himself.

[leeason1]

Notice how buddhagem focuses on Hitler rather than any other of the numerous historical figures who have been responsible for atrocities just as great? Because he is brainwashed and follows whatever the movies tell him to do.

[leeason1]

HAHAHA, buddhagem goes on about this "small minority" who runs the world.  Obviously if such a small minority is able to run EVERYTHING they are obviously far smarter than you will ever be buddhagem. Get over it. PS - give me my job back!

[luciusETRUR]

In this video you cite the constitution was called democratic, when in fact they opposed and despised democracy. It wasn't until the Southern secession was put down that our government began to go towards "war criminals as presidents".

[The2009lover]

i know ive never voted in my life and i can

[The2009lover]

he"s right a elctro vote what counts and i hate this bastard

[gunthaarz]

I love the vid! Kudos for you! Hope it goes viral on facebook, youtube and everywhere.

All the best!

[VanDoodah]

All forms of democracy are barbaric. Fuck democracy; I'd rather have autonomy.

[husky720]

That's a terrible, terrible idea you dumbass

[verstwo2]

How was Obama a war criminal when he was elected?

I think you'd find a majority citizens at one time did support slavery and saw 'blacks' as inferior. Lynching and the KKK were popular non-government non-corporate movements.

The majority of Americans don't believe in natural evolution...lets turn power over to them?

NO matter how you frame it, this is still 'representative' democracy, and an argument against representative democracy is not an argument for direct democracy.

I don't disagree

[luciusETRUR]

@verstwo2 Obama a month into his administration committed criminal activity such as military attacks against a nation we aren't at war with (Pakistan, Somalia).

Also, we are NOT a democracy, we are a Republic with some democratic means of elections. The only representative democratic part is the House and the State. Senate, originally, is not intended to be democratic and the President is definitely not.

[verstwo2]

Military strikes into a country are not illegal if they are allowed by the country in question. Which is what happened as far as I know.

The US could be described as a Constitutional Democratic Republic, they are not mutually exclusive terms. The President IS also democratically elected. He IS democratically representative, only on a much larger scale.

[luciusETRUR]

@verstwo2 Whether Pakistan allowed thme to attack, I know Somalia did not. Also, the President is NOT elected democratically. George W. Bush in 2000 lost the democratic election, however he won the electoral election.

[luciusETRUR]

@verstwo2 Uh, the president is NOT elected democratically. He is elected through the Electoral College.

[Gloomshadow1]

Who says the US is a Democracy?? Its a Republic and is should be ruled by a minority, it all countries are but as we see now our ruling minority is very wrong-headed, its a banking cartel and thier days are numbered. The Nationalists are on the rise again..you thought we left?? LOL

[2pandora4]

Here's a thought...

They put Obama in "the 1st black president"! When they cull the herd as part of the master plan it will comprise mostly of blacks, homeless, minorities. Mr. Obama will go down in history as the one that killed his own and destroyed the country. Again, just a thought.

[mastermind0501]

Just thought you should know, hilter was elected as democratically as possible for the interwar period in germany. He was elected to a system where two people held an office similar to president. He was chancellor i believe although i cannot remember his specific title. Although i agree with many of the views in this series, as a historian i cannot although such a false statement to go unnoticed. Remember a democracy only lasts as long as both leaders and people adhere to the social contract .

[buddhagem]

Listen, don't pretend to be a historian, ok? It just makes you look silly. There's not a historian on this planet who is going to try and argue that Hitler was democratically elected. If you'd like to educate yourself on the subject, I have links in the sidebar. The more important question, really, is who taught you that lie, and why? Again, I urge you to check the links. You're no historian.

[shawn3975]

@buddhagem You are absolutely right Hitler lost the 1932 German election. Hindenburg the man who won would latter appoint Hitler as chancellor after members of the Nazi party sent him threat letters. It is strange that they dont press this in history books, at least none of the ones I have ever read.

I do not agree with how you tie the electoral college into this video about Hitler. The U.S. presidents we vote for would be elected with or without it anyway so that is a diffrent situation.

[Kellerharius]

You're a historian yet you can't remember that his ''elected'' role was Reichskanzler from 1933-1945?

[buddhagem]

Listen, moron, Hitler wasn't elected. No amount of lying on your part is going to change that easily discoverable fact. He was appointed Reichszkanzler by Hindenburg (the guy who actually did beat Hitler in the election). BTW, you claimed to be a Historian, not me. Again, there are links in the sidebar if you'd like to actually educate yourself about this; otherwise you can peddle your lies somewhere else.

[Kellerharius]

I never said he was elected...

Unless you accidentally confused me with the ''mastermind'' person.

[buddhagem]

Sorry about that. I thought I was responding to Mastermind.

[Kellerharius]

No problem, brother. :)

[busessuck1]

@buddhagem Haha what a shithead

[OneforEating]

@Kellerharius

No. Hitler was not supposed to have won the 1932 election. That was really won by the Communists and Social Democrats. The Nazis pooled their votes with the Nationalists to gain a simple majority and a state of emergency was declared. Then Hitler suspended the Parliament. So he wasn't technically elected. He stole the election.

[ThePivotFighter]

he put elected in quotes '' ''

[QuatFax]

@mastermind0501 Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that Hitler was democratically elected. Hitler wasn't running the Holocaust as his electoral platform. People didn't vote for Hitler with the knowledge that years later he was going to start killing Jews and Slavs. Besides, it's likely that most Germans weren't even thinking about race in 1933. They voted for the Nazis because the Nazis offered a new economic vision that, at the time, was appealing.

[Obasiliasfilosofos]

@QuatFax

Also the fact that Hitler was more passionately opposed to the Versailles treaty that financially burden Germany

[larma7]

Bravo!!! GREAT VIDEO!!!

Crimes against humanity have always been carried out by the few elite minority.

[Zakdayak]

Know a lot of people who worked hard to elect him and a lot were proud to see a Black man win. I give him a D+ ( in the first 100 days, B+). Putting the specifics of his policies aside, I don't think it's a fair criticism to say something is undemocractic because the majority don't participate. Of itself, doesn't mean much. The Elect. College argument is better, but we saw both in the primaries (in a rigged game Hillary would have been the winner) and in the general, the pop vote triumphed.

[buddhagem]

I'm glad you enjoy the electoral college. It's a wonderful idea to have 270 unknown people choose the leader of a country of 300 million. Sure. Great idea! The elections we have are designed to not be democratic. Go back and read Madison. He's pretty clear on this.

[Zakdayak]

Why is everyone on Youtube like this? I don't "enjoy" the electoral college. That's not the point. You just have a snide attitude about it, when the results would be the same without it (except 2000). In fact, you could quote Emma Goldman and rationalize not voting at all. The Left's problem is not who the candidates are or officials, but that we don't pressure them suffciently once they're in office. What you ought to be focused on is Prop. Rep for the House, for example.

[buddhagem]

You're missing the point. The populace didn't choose Obama or McCaine to even run. These people were selected for us and then we're given the "privilege" of voting for one or the other. That's not democracy. The majority of adults saw through this and didn't vote for either candidate.

[Zakdayak]

The truth is more complicated than that, Hillary didn't win. Yes, Obama was acceptable to certain sectors of Wall Street. But if it was as rigged as you contend, he wouldn't have won at all. The majority of adults don't know shit from shinola. They don't vote because they don't understand politics or a single issue. They know what they want, to a certain extent, but they don't know anything about policy, law, history. I'm not the only one to have made this point on this page.

[buddhagem]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I've said nothing about anything being rigged. That's exactly how the system works. Your arrogance regarding the people who don't vote is refuted again and again in opinion polls. Hate to bother you with facts but if you look at even the majority of people who voted for Obama they believe he supports policies he doesn't support. Same with McCain or any other candidate. The people who know the least are those who vote. That's pretty standard

[AnAverageSkeptic]

I had some respect for you from one of your other videos. But, I just lost all of it when you said Obama is a war criminal.

You are nothing but a paranoid conspiracy theorist who uses Buddhism as a veil.

[buddhagem]

I'd challenge you to hold Obama or any of our past presidents from Truman on to the standards at Nuremberg. Just a tip: The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal according to our own constitution and international law. The terrorist attacks we've launched in Pakistan, murdering countless innocents: illegal. Torture, extraordinary rendition, terrorism by proxy, the support for the recent coup in Honduras carried out by a thug trained at our terrorist camp. Nothing conspiratorial here. Facts.

[Zakdayak]

Yes. But it comes in degrees. I would have preferred that Obama to go after the lawyers who rationalized Bush war crimes. If he went after the legal structure, illegal wiretapping, extraordin. rendition, torture, would have been very difficult to do in the future. On the other hand, I've actually worked poli campaigns and the people who do vote think they're classless and don't give two shits about int'l law. Yes, Obama is an accessory because he hasn't met his duty to investigate and punish.

[AnAverageSkeptic]

So you honestly blame Obama for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Along with all of the atrocities that followed?

I don't agree with war to begin with, but for you to say that "Obama is a war criminal" is completely baseless. Had you said "Bush is a war criminal" that would be more acceptable since it was him who called for the war and his VP that ran the torturing. You can't blame Obama for what he inherited.

If someone takes a crap and then hands it to you it doesn't me you took a crap.

[buddhagem]

To hang Obama as a war criminal you don't even need to mention Iraq or Afghanistan. His actions in Pakistan alone are sufficient to warrant war crimes. What right does Obama have to launch attacks in Pakistan? That's baseless? Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman...all war criminals according to the standards at Nuremberg. That's not baseless; it's a fact well supported.

[AnAverageSkeptic]

Again you are blaming Obama for things George DUBYA Bush started. Unless you expect Obama to on the day he takes office pull out every soldier in every country and stop all conflicts, then in your eyes, he's a war criminal.

You have a very loose standard for war criminal that can fit just about any leader.

For real examples of war criminals I suggest you do some research on a little guy named Adolf Hitler and a guy named Omar al-Bashir. Then say Obama is a war criminal.

[terpis]

BG: "...for all your worrying about this tyranny of majority..."

Crying shame / laughable irony to see how this at least quasi-authentic popular 'taking to the streets' played out amongst that great sleeping giant, America's 'low information publics'.

Lot of obvious blue-collar action in that teabagger rabble, and yet their struggle for 'movement' coherence holds together best around the Paultard-Reaganite fixation on the 'tyranny of the majority'.

[rring88]

I always wondered if we could of stayed neutral in WW2. If we gave Japan all of the steel and oil they wanted, we could of never fought them. Should we of not fought them? Was it okay to let them slaughter the Chinese? The Russians might of beat Germany by themselves.

[prjctcivilian]

so combine the 2, if we take baby steps by introducing socialism- giving the working class the will to work as they work for themselves. and by introducing democracy it hopefully will work as the people (read marx's theory of alienation) no longer act as passive slaves they own themselves, the means of production, politics, etc the people want to engage and become informed as it directly effects them and the social institutions make them need to be informed- worker councils and shit

[prjctcivilian]

55ella2007k you should read some anarchism before you comment here, i don't mean to be rude but most of us reject the notion that there is a fixed human nature.we feel that everything that occurs in history should be viewed in context to that historical time. We all have inept qualities but the severity of them is dependent on nurture and what the subject is exposed to and absorbs. so the social institutions have a very important role in developing a certain ppl.

[55ella2007k]

Great points, as always, buddhagem. As far as true democracy is concerned though, it cannot function without an informed and engaged populace, and this is sadly not the case here, nor in many other so-called democratic societies. Even in a perfect world, noone could be informed about every single issue affecting their lives, even if they tried, so a 'representative' democracy, would perhaps be a better solution than DIRECT democracy - IF those representatives did not act out of self-interest.

[55ella2007k]

continued: this, of course is NOT what is happening, and perhaps the problem lies within human nature. This has been an ongoing debate since Plato's Republic - which I am not a big fan of, btw. - At this point, we do not even have anything close to democracy - representative or not. At the same time, I am extremely leery of so-called popular movements arising from the political right + forming alliances with them, anti-govt overall, which is precisely how fascists come to power.

[prjctcivilian]

the idea is that as you introduce democracy into everyday life in other forms than just voting for your president or w.e. this combined with the creation of institutions and worker managed workplaces, where democracy is promoted and practiced, the working people would gain a confidence that no longer are the alienated in their lives as they are no longer exploited in the workplace b/c they own it. they gain the confidence that they are in power and excercise their power. i.e. a demo!

[CaptainFrantic]

You have now touched on one of my big objections to democratic theory. Hardly any issue is a binary "yes" or "no" vote and, as you correctly identify, any split in voting (over say 5 options) WILL result in a tyranny of the minority almost every time if executive power is used to enforce such minority decisions. I'm really not trying to get in your face about democracy but I just feel it's important to point out it's inherent deficiencies and problems.

[buddhagem]

Your reservations are wonderful, encouraged and expected, my friend. Have you happened to read the link from the infoshop Anarchist FAQ on the tyranny of the majority? I'm pretty sure it's in the link in the sidebar. I'm going to get to some of the stuff you're mentioning but you may want to check it out on your own. Good stuff. Anarchists have been thinking about this for a long time. Much smarter ones than me :)

[ZullGostnu2]

Yes, democracy, communism and anarchy could be failing because of the republic states, a minority tyrant. They only democratic method I know about is the California initiatives. I think 650,000 signatures are required to have a direct vote on anything.

Any time anyone, democratic or republic can dictate to me, I find this appalling and will not support it.

I will go through your series on democracy and think about it. You make some very good points.

[buddhagem]

Thanks. I really hope you'll think about it and check out the links I provide for more reading on the subject.

[ZullGostnu2]

True, the governments you mentioned are republics, not democratic. Democratic methods are used to vote for representatives who vote. I agree, the current system is better described as a tyranny of minorities. It is a funny joke being played. Talk about 1984 newspeak....

Where has democracy every worked? Any true working systems? To claim it works better requires proof. Democracy may be no different than communism, a system that fails in reality. At the moment even anarchy is a failure.

[buddhagem]

We have lots of examples in history. I don't know what your definition of "worked" is, but we've had highly democratic societies that have been functional, productive, and inspiring examples of what could be. The Spanish Revolution of 1936 is a good example. There are plenty more. And what's more none of the examples you'll find failed internally. They had to be crushed by an external force.

[RevolutionarySpectre]

While Hitler wasn't directly elected neither have any of the US Presidents you compare him to.

[buddhagem]

Exactly my point. None of these war criminals are arguments against democracy. In fact, I would argue, they are arguments in favor of democracy; more democracy. Lots more.

[funeralsong34]

I think the elector college had its uses in the past, with the way corruption of ballot stuffing, you can look at NY back in the 1800s as a prime example. I agree tho its time has passed & the popular vote should have more weight.

As for the 90 million that didn't vote, I think you have to count a few million in prison, the millions of handicap & people released from prison. As I remember felons can not legally vote, so probably your looking at 75 million who didn't vote.

[josealonsoleon]

So what you are saying is that there are 15 million people in prison in the US. SHit that's more people then some really democratic countries in the world....hahahaha

Is that number real? Any source on that?

[buddhagem]

No, the actual number is closer to 2 million in prison. Nationmaster is a good site for stats like that. We incarcerate more people than any nation on earth. But it's no where near 15 million.

[funeralsong34]

Yeah I'm thinking more people are mentally ill & probably not released from hospitals to vote. Also figure people in hospitals unable to vote because of severe injury/illness. Then add in homeless people, I believe you need an actual street address to vote.

I knew a few people who did not vote because they felt they had no actual valid candidate, but I'll agree with buddhagem that more people did not vote.

[buddhagem]

Well we could split hairs. We have about 2 million in prison. You've got another 13 million to disenfranchise. Some felons can vote; some can't. It depends on the state. Each has different rules. The fact that you can serve your punishment and be released and law abiding citizen and still not participate is undemocratic. Your 75 million seems low to me but at any rate we agree that more people avoided the circus of the election than voted for either candidate.

[funeralsong34]

Figure homeless, people injured in hospitals & mentally ill are not voting as well. But I'll agree a lot more did not vote then did.

[buddhagem]

Yes, I think we fundamentally agree. Not to beat a dead horse here, but why should homeless people be barred from voting? I don't even know what the law says about this really. But homeless people should definitely be allowed to participate. Even if they aren't legally, which I'm not sure on, I think you have another few million. Plus the mentally ill. I really don't think you're anywhere near 15 million. My guestimate would be closer to 5 million for all those groups.

[josealonsoleon]

At the end of the day these arguments seem so futile because elections are so far from being what democracy is all about. As posted in another comment these words are not mine they were picked up off a anarchist poster in Luxembourg:

"If elections could change anything they would have been banned a long time ago" by those same people that are the tyrannic minority that control us all. So voting is not the way and buddhagem said it crystal clear or will in a further video, Democracy is revolution

[funeralsong34]

I believe homeless people do not vote because you need a physical address & proof that you live in that district other wise you may have fraud by people voting in multiple districts, figure say a republican who lives in a conservative republican district were a democrat has zero chance to win could simply act homeless & vote in a district were its close to whether or not a democrat or republican & influenence the outcome.

[josealonsoleon]

Great video. What happened to Anarchy?

[jrpigg]

David's talking about anarchy in this series. Democracy is crucial to what anarchy's about. ;)

[josealonsoleon]

I know, I was pulling his chain...:-) That's the whole irony, most people don't understand anarchy or democracy, how could you have a group of anarchists agree to how and when they will do anything if they don't have TRUE democratic principles driving their actions.

Thanks for the heads up, had I needed it...:-)

[buddhagem]

Thanks brother.

[Joe40oz]

Yep, already knew about this.

Good job exposing it though, did it better than I.

[buddhagem]

Thanks. I'm glad you liked it.

[TheLeftLibertarian]

Great observations! But I think youre promoting Direct Democracy rather than Representative Democracy. I noticed that people are getting confused about your definition of the word. There is an important distinction because in a Representative Democracy, people can be easily influenced (mob rule) where in a Direct Democracy, the media, the workplace, the community is directly control by the public. Representative Democracy is mob rule. The real question is: Who controls the mob?

[buddhagem]

Well I've been avoiding labels of "direct" and "representative" for a reason. I've been trying to get people to think about the essence of substance of democracy rather than any particular form it takes. Once you understand its essence the forms take on more meaning.

[keeritz]

I am always surprised to see that there are people in the world with the humanity and the desire to tell the truth like you. thank you for your videos

[buddhagem]

I am humbled by your kind words. Thank you so much.

[porkchopexpress07]

I'm guilty of this Hitler cliche. It's catchy like

Mussolini 'making the trains run on time',which I'm constantly correcting people on. These memes are insidious.

The system isn't just "broken",its meant to work this way and we are brainwashed

with these antidemocratic views to perpetuate it.

[buddhagem]

I've been guilty of it, too. And when I realized it was a lie I was like, "Where the hell did I learn that?" I'm certain I learned it in school. It's sad really. There's so much bullshit we have to dig through.

[porkchopexpress07]

So much programming to unlearn. Sometimes takes a whole life. Be it politics,religion,race,sex,gen­der,and social relations. It truly is garbage in,garbage out most the time.

[AllieCaulfield]

great work david

[buddhagem]

Thanks. I've been really enjoying this series of videos.

[nightpotato]

Tyrannies of the minority are bad, therefore we should replace them with tyrannies of the majority? That seems pretty logically fallacious...

[buddhagem]

Well we want to rid ourselves of tyrannies all-together. Stick around. We've got more coming.

[jumpnjza2]

Wait wait wait wait, soooo how does your electoral college system thing work? You elect people who elect for you? What? Huh? I'm confused. Explain this shit for me, comrade.

Agree with everything else.

[buddhagem]

If you check the links in the sidebar there's a nice link that explains the electoral college. Basically the two parties pick the people who will vote in the presidential election. There are 538 of them and so at election time when we vote we vote for one of these people to go and actually vote for president for us. Technically they can vote for whoever they like but historically they stick to party lines. It's as undemocratic as it gets. Takes 270 votes to win.