Mechanical Procedures

John (יוֹחָנָן) ascending with
the Lamb of God (Ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ)
to the New Jerusalem (καινὴ Ἰερουσαλήμ)

Mechanical Procedures |
Thursday – July 23, 2026

Sometimes modern people, ideologues of supposedly different persuasions, make the argument that there is a qualitative and meaningful difference between democracy and the so-called "tyranny of the majority", and they often go on to argue that within the confines of a democratic society there are certain "checks and balances" that will ensure the proper exercise of the "rule of law", read "The Law Of The Land", and that in this way the humans rights of each citizen will be ensured and protected, even guaranteed. The "tyranny of the majority" on the other hand is, they claim, something entirely different: really the rule of mobs and savage fanatics, the lowest and most primitive (infra-human) elements in any society, which the vast majority of people tend towards I must add. I can grant that this distinction would be upheld in theory and even in certain practical instances, because there are real differences here: if we consider this complete chaos, this mob rule, to be quite anarchic, it would be better to admit that democracy is much more controlled; and while this is true, it would still not account for the fact that democracy, while being controlled, tends in an accelerating manner towards this infra-human state of chaotic rule—especially as an increasing number of people are dull, to say the least—which means that ultimately democracy will reach this bottom of the abyss in the material race towards incremental improvements of mechanical procedures, read "Mechanism", procedures conceived to eventually release humanity from, in Christian theology, the original sin – the first schism, read my "Bible Study series", and the introduction of disease and decay, as if the human state itself must find a cure.

    This all is also to say that indeed, democracy is a controlled chaos, but it is also true that there can be no such thing in the manifested world as a complete chaos, for that would require a contradiction at the core of the ontology: namely that chaos itself becomes so widespread throughout the universe that everything would amount to the same indiscernible identity – namely a vast void of homogeneous sameness or nothingness, depending on your perspective, read "Disintegration". How can something at one hand be considered a pure and complete chaos, but on the other hand consist of the same identity in such a way that the entire universe is permeated by this identity? Therefore, it is also quite erroneous to conceive of this distinction between a controlled chaos (Democracy)* and a pure chaos (Tyranny), for that distinction can never be truly made without also admitting that everything in the material realm is truly completely arbitrary and lacking of any original principle—something that certain people have no problem doing, read "My Views on the Concept of 'Gender-Queer'"—any principle that truly bounds man even to the material world only, and this would include profane science as well. What can be best done to resolve this contradiction is to admit that we (the moderns) do not know where to place the exact distinction between democracy and tyranny, between controlled chaos and pure chaos, read "The Problem of Borders", other than estimating this distinction by allowing democracy and its many children to reach their absolute limit at the edge of ontology, which in the end could only amount to the complete destruction of the world at the end of this cycle, read "The Eschatology of the Kali Yuga". Is this the goal of the moderns? Not quite, but since they lack the proper knowledge to deal with the consequences of their ignorance, which would be quite strange and contradictory, they will pursue mechanism and its procedures to that aforementioned end, even when the end has ceased to serve the material order, read "What is Capitalism?" and "Pseudoscience".

    You may ask yourself: why does this all seem so stark when most people seem oblivious? Indeed, you would be right in raising that question, but the question that you really should concern yourself with is not what other people think, read "Other People", but instead why you should be weary of the opinions of other people, a topic that I have covered elsewhere. See, it is fancy among these proponents of democracy to cling on to the opinion of the majority, as if the majority of people must always be correct, which in itself constitutes a vast delusion so powerful that it is capable, in part and even completely, of warping the outward (exoteric) manifestation of the world into the momentary and temporary will of the horde, which is really what most people are taught to conceive of as chaos or complete and pure chaos, really tyranny as opposed to ordered descent into the world in a justifiable and legitimate way, read "Hierarchy", of the law, in the case of most ancient civilizations sacred law and in the case of most modern (read Western) civilizations profane (secular) law, read as well "Temporal Power". Of course, this all still applies to the material world, if we only concern ourselves with the material world that is, because why should the opinion of the apprentice matter as much as the opinion of the master, or why should the opinion of the novice matter as much as the opinion of the apprentice? The world is layered invariably and undeniably in hierarchies, and this is perhaps best summarized by the clear distinction that can be made between high art and low art, the essential and the substantive, read "Qualification", because even most moderns would be more than happy to freely admit that they would not prefer for their prodigy to go on in their capacity, mostly because their art, their low art,† is quite frankly not worth while. Could this same thing truly be said about high art: is high art not worthwhile, and would the likes of Michelangelo not proceed to create beauty on their own accord, read "Divine Inspiration"?

    If democracy and and mechanical procedures of all kinds really serve the supposed "will of the people", then it would be prudent to make that aforementioned distinction between controlled chaos and pure chaos clear, and clearer yet; the problem though, is that no such distinction can ever be made, that at the same time can satiate the monstrous and growing apatite of the populist hordes, and that can serve to uphold true order in the land. Nay! What moderns lack in their material experiment are true principles that can serve to ground them in the world, and they lack these principles because they lack a true connection with the Creator and because they are out of order; they, the moderns, are misplaced in the natural order of things, they are lost on the high seas without hope of ever finding shore – they are inhabiting a hell on Earth.

Reginald Drax (AKA, M. C. Dutt) – July 23, 2026.

Footnote(s)

* I must add that democracy being correlated with a kind of "controlled chaos" as opposed to a "pure chaos" is somewhat misleading, because even the closest thing to "pure chaos" would still be controlled by the vast momentum of the vanguard of the mob: the loudest, the most offensive, the most ignorant, and the most primitive elements within the populist horde, really the persons inhabiting the bottom of the abyss, the infra-human modality, and dwelling in disordered sentimentalism and the pure bliss of their many and uncontrollable urges – true monsters.

† The best way to conceive of this distinction is to consider why some art is truly beautiful and therefore deserving of the title art; while some other so-called "art" has no true quality whatsoever within it, and is therefore completely incapable of being truly beautiful, thus able to serve as a bridge between the heaven and the earth, which is the true definition of beauty.