People will lie about being democratic to gain power with no intention of implementing democracy. People will lie about being socialist to gain power with no intention of implementing socialism. People lie. Yes, it’s that simple.
Thomas Jefferson owned more than just land. He also owned more than six hundred slaves, mostly inherited from his father and his father-in-law and his political attitude toward the slavery question was always extremely ambiguous. His ideal republic of small landowners enjoying equal rights did not include people of color, on whose forced labour the economy of his native Virginia largely depended. 
The United States was founded on principles similar to those of ancient Athens where “democracy” and “equal rights” were reserved for the slave-making elite. Slave-makers like Voltaire helped push through free speech—the real motivation being that self-proclaimed “masters” wanted to be uninhibited in saying whatever they wanted, particularly when it came to ludicrous justifications for slavery and imperialism. (I still agree with free speech, but it’s important to understand the real reason for its acceptance.) Slave-makers like Voltaire are only interested in civil debate between slave-makers so that the basic assumptions of such debates are sharply delimited. For example: “Should Blacks be enslaved because they are racially inferior and no better than cattle, or should they be enslaved for humanitarian reasons such as helping them learn how to use soap?” 
Athenian-style slave-makers enjoy all the comforts and conveniences of enslaving others on top of the status of being “progressives.” Movements against discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation gained momentum in the West largely because they gave the appearance of liberalism while leaving slave-making pathology untouched. (This doesn’t mean that all the protesters for those movements were Athenian-style slave-makers or disingenuous. Those movements consisted of real as well as fake liberals.)
It sounds strange that slave-making can still exist despite professed acceptance of racial equality. However, that’s because slave-makers shifted from more direct forms of slavery to other forms of slavery such as wage-slavery which enslaves regular humans of all races.
(On the condition of slaves in Ancient Athens:)
Slaves could not own property, but their masters often let them save up to purchase their freedom, and records survive of slaves operating businesses by themselves, making only a fixed tax-payment to their masters. Athens also had a law forbidding the striking of slaves: if a person struck what appeared to be a slave in Athens, that person might find himself hitting a fellow-citizen, because many citizens dressed no better. It astonished other Greeks that Athenians tolerated back-chat from slaves. Athenian slaves fought together with Athenian freemen at the battle of Marathon, and the monuments memorialize them. It was formally decreed before the battle of Salamis that the citizens should “save themselves, their women, children, and slaves”. 
(On the conditions for former slaves in Réunion:)
The number of slaves in French colonies emancipated in 1848 has been estimated at 250, 0000 (or less than 10 percent of the number of slaves in the United States). As in the United States, however, forms of legal inequality continued well after formal emancipation: in Réunion, for example, after 1848 former slaves could be arrested and imprisoned as indigents unless they could produce a labor contract as a servant or worker on a plantation. Compared with the previous legal regime, under which fugitive slaves were hunted down and returned to their masters if caught, the difference was real, but it represented a shift in policy rather than a complete break with the previous regime. 
One can view the emancipation of slaves in Réunion as being a mere shift from direct Spartan-style slave-making to more indirect Athenian-style slave-making. Athenian-style slave-making is obsessed with finding ways to force other human beings to work. It has nothing to do with the fact that this helps the economy. It has everything to do with specializing in controlling the labour of others so one doesn’t have to perform any labour themselves. Athenian-style slave-making is the predominant force governing Western society today. People are forced to work in a way that is considered acceptable to the slave-makers. Anybody who stops working for the slave-makers and is not a slave-maker themselves becomes poor almost immediately.
Phoney-liberalism is reaching a tipping point where all of the progressive values upheld in rhetoric are becoming genuinely realized to the point that slave-making itself is in jeopardy. This a very dangerous time period as a result. Spartan-style slave-makers will do what they always do which is try to maintain fascist conditions. Athenian-style slave-makers, who have always fundamentally done the same while paying lip-service to human rights, are going to be all over the map. In Voltaire’s time, Voltaire could pretend to care about free speech and support free speech measures his entire life because so many other elements of society maintained slave-making conditions for him. This allowed him to look less hypocritical. However, if Voltaire were alive today, he would both have to pay lip-service to free speech to maintain his phoney-liberal façade, but then take immediate measure to help suppress free speech for the general public to help maintain slave-making dogma.
It’s obvious Justin Trudeau has become a walking contradiction at this point because he has to support liberal ideals in speech, but must immediately take action against professed ideals to maintain the fundamentals of slave-making:
David Suzuki on Justin Trudeau:
“I said, ‘Justin, stop it, you’re just being political, you just want to make headway in Alberta,’” Suzuki says he told Trudeau. “You’re for the development of the tar sands, you’re for the Keystone pipeline, but you’re against the Northern Gateway, you’re all over the damn map!” 
Both Spartan and Athenian-style slave-makers will be working hard to oppose many of the liberties that past slave-makers helped establish such as free speech; equal rights for people of different races, genders, and sexual orientations; universal suffrage etc. It will start becoming more and more obvious which people truly believe in principles of democracy, free speech, and liberalism and which people are just pretending. (Even the North Korean elite profess to be democratic.)
The frauds need to be discarded by society. I still support a basic income and basic human rights for all including those frauds. They will pay in the form of public condemnation, isolation and worst of all: not being able to execute their intrinsic slave-making pathology. Slave-maker ants will starve to death without their slaves even when food is provided. 
More genuine movements that re-emphasize the importance of racial and gender equality, free speech, democracy, sexual and religious freedom, the necessity of a basic income etc. and which simultaneously condemn phoney-liberals like Voltaire and Trudeau are critical. The ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement is a good illustration of the necessity for a second wave of real liberalism that reaffirms all the liberal values made popular in the past with the help of Athenian-style slave-makers who will now begin taking measures to counteract those same values because those ideals now threaten their control.
It will be scary how many people will drop their liberal façade and shift to extreme slave-making practices once their cushy, elite-oppressor status is threatened.
The entire history of Westernism has been inverse-civilization. This might be the first time Westernism has started to shift towards real civilization.
 Piketty, Thomas, and Arthur Goldhammer. Capital in the Twenty-first Century. Print. Page 158.
 Athenian Slaves
 Piketty, Thomas, and Arthur Goldhammer. Capital in the Twenty-first Century. Print. Page 593.
Western “civilization” has never qualified as true civilization—it’s always just been Spartan-style slave-making versus Athenian-style slave-making (which fundamentally rests on Spartan-style slave-making.) Spartan and Athenian-style slave-makers are still present. Harper and Trudeau voting in Bill C-51 was an extension of their desire to maintain oppression for others and control for the slave-makers.
Dorianism (Spartan-style slave-making) includes both sophism as well as physical Spartanism. Western Devadom (Athenian-style slave-making) fundamentally rests on Dorianism and takes advantage of playing “good cop” to the Dorian “bad cop” while still enjoying all the privileges of being a fundamentally “bad cop” underneath it all. Athenian-style slave-makers pathologically use the tactic of sticking extremely close to Dorianism in all fields and sectors of society, but giving everything a tiny tweak or adjustment to impart an air of liberalism and progressiveness (that isn’t actually there.) Western Devadom is Dorianism with a phoney-liberal makeover.
For example, Justin Trudeau voted in favour of Bill C-51 but said he would make a few tiny adjustments. That way, he creates the appearance of liberalism while maintaining the same basic oppression.
The phoney-democracy of the Athenians was used to cover up what Athenian society fundamentally rested on: elitism, oppression, and slave-making. The Athenian slave-owners wanted democracy for themselves, a minority elite that excluded women and slaves. Free speech in the West was largely pushed through by the Western Deva-types (phoney-liberals/Athenian-style slave-makers) because the “masters” wanted the ability to say anything they wanted. For example, Voltaire defended free speech not because he wanted to support that which was morally right, but to serve his own elitist self-interest. Not surprisingly, Voltaire defended slavery.
The ability to vote in parliamentary elections and rights like free speech have been extended to include women and all citizens. There are no longer any slaves (formally speaking—wage-slavery still exists but there are no people formally categorized as slaves.) Athenian slave-makers aren’t truly interested in democracy or free speech, just slave-making. Thus, now that representative democracy and free speech are getting in the way of slave-making, they want to suppress even that.
If Voltaire was alive today, he would support oppressive measures like Bill C-51 which suppress free speech. Men like Voltaire don’t truly care about free speech except for themselves and other slave-makers.
Imagine a scenario where an authoritarian regime holds an election and unsurprisingly wins with 99% of the vote.  Does anybody refer to this as democracy or even Democracy?
Of course not.
Does anybody use Democratic Kampuchea or The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as examples of democracy?
Of course not.
Every single human being is intelligent enough to figure out that authoritarian regimes lie about being democratic. Everybody is smart enough to know that dictators will stage phoney elections to create the illusion of democracy while having absolutely no intent of implementing true democracy.
Now imagine a scenario where an authoritarian regime says they will implement socialism and says that they will redistribute wealth equally. Does that instantly mean they are telling the truth?
Of course not.
It’s very clear that there was no wealth equality in the USSR. Some people were 300 pounds while others starved to death. It’s also very clear that workers did not own the means of production. Thus, there was no socialism in the USSR.
The same is true for Democratic Kampuchea where the elites were fed, but many common people died of starvation. People were forced to move from urban centres to the countryside where they were forced to work on farms they did not own and where the output of their labour was controlled by an authoritarian regime rather than the workers themselves.
Just because an authoritarian regime forces people to work on farms does not mean there is socialism or collectivism the same way an authoritarian regime holding an election does not mean there is democracy. People were forced to work on those farms to create the illusion of socialism the way phoney-elections are used to create the illusion of democracy.
Thus, new terminology must be introduced. Referring to Democratic Kampuchea as socialist is as ridiculous as referring to it as democratic. However, one could use the terms inverse-socialism and inverse-democracy to describe it.
Inverse-democracy describes a situation where an authoritarian regime poses as democratic and tries to create the illusion of being democratic (by holding phoney elections or putting the word Democracy in the official title) but is actually the exact opposite of democracy.
(Note: The term inverse-democracy would not apply to authoritarian regimes that outright declare that they are authoritarian and not democratic. The term inverse-democracy applies to authoritarian regimes that go out of their way to create the appearance of democracy while maintaining authoritarian rule.)
Likewise, inverse-socialism describes a scenario where the exact opposite of socialism actually exists, but people in power work to create the illusion of socialism (by forcing people to work on farms, for example.)
The prefix inverse- is better than the prefix anti- because the prefix anti- sets up an ambiguity.
Anti-democracy could refer to inverse-democracy (a dictator pretending to be democratic) or it could refer to open opposition against democracy.
Anti-socialism could refer to inverse-socialism (non-socialist regimes pretending to be socialist) or it could refer to opposition to true socialist principles.
Thus, inverse- is the best prefix, in my opinion.
Additionally, many people refer to a parliamentary democracy with high taxation and welfare as democratic socialism. However, this is not true socialism either. It’s merely capitalism with high taxation and welfare. Welfare-capitalism would be more accurate.
Socialism does not necessarily mean there is perfect wealth equality either. It just means that the workers own the means of production.
In one of my previous posts, I discussed one case where going with a minority opinion is still considered democratic:
“A large group of friends wants to go out to dinner together. 40% say they don’t care where they go. 40% feel like Italian food. 20% want Chinese food.
Italian it is.”
However, in the above example, 40% specifically said that they don’t care and will defer to the people that do.
This is not the scenario for the recent British elections where the majority of voters did NOT want David Cameron and the Tories to win and specifically stated this as the case:
Article: Cam again
Tony Blair’s last great election victory, in 2005, was achieved with only 35% of the popular vote.
It doesn’t really make sense for the Prime Minister of a country to represent a minority of the people rather than a majority of the people. This would mean the actions of the leader of the country could almost always be out of line with what the majority of the public truly wants.
Proportional representation would make a lot more sense.
Elitists are terrified of direct democracy and want to pretend the public has no idea what is good for themselves. Men like Friedrich Nietzsche characterized what he perceived to be slave and master mentality and clearly had a very sinister “master” mentality himself.
Again, people know what’s good for themselves overall. If they make a mistake, then they suffer and learn their lesson. Looking at the world right now, it’s obvious people who call for elitism have absolutely no idea what they are doing and never have.
If some people do not care one way or another about a particular issue, all they have to do is indicate that somehow and those who do care can decide. However, minorities cannot just assume others do not care. Such things must be formally indicated.
If people don’t feel they understand an issue, they can always do research, ask somebody they trust, etc. A healthy, educated, and well informed public should be able to make correct decisions for themselves. People who think they are SO much brighter than everybody else just need to find a way to explain their thoughts/plans/ideas to the public.
All things must be accepted by the general public—not just through implied consent, but explicitly through polls and plebiscite.
Property rights and academic titles were enforced on the majority by a minority and are not real/official.
I think the public, through direct democracy, can grant such rights and titles to make society run more smoothly, but it still needs to be the public that consents to such things. Anything else is the enforcement of tyranny.
One idea is for all academic titles to be stricken and then for the public to vote for who they actually think are intelligent to be part of academia (and perhaps for this to be a process that is repeated every few years.) This ensures people do not enter academia solely through parroting elitist ideologies and can actually defend their reasoning/logic to the people. If you can’t explain your reasoning to the common man, you probably don’t understand it well enough, in my opinion.
Another idea is to not even have formal academia. People who would be academics can do the same work, but just on their own time and living off community handouts. People who are good at science/technology can gather/work together and if they know what they are doing, their inventions will be notable successes. If they do not, their creations will flounder. It’s as simple as that.