"Democratic societies are unfit for the publication of such thunderous revelations as I am in the habit of making"

In this quote, Salvador Dalí, the popular surrealist artist understood for his eccentric personality and groundbreaking works, talk about the nature of democratic societies and their relationship with questionable or innovative ideas. Dalí suggests that democratic societies, which typically pride themselves on openness, argument, and flexibility of expression, paradoxically might battle with accepting or totally engaging with revolutionary or intriguing revelations. The term "thunderous revelations" implies ideas that are stunning, transformative, or disruptive to the status quo.

Dalí's declaration can be analyzed as a review of the restrictions he perceives within democratic systems worrying extreme concepts. In a democratic society, popular opinion and bulk guideline play vital roles, potentially leading to a preference for agreement and conformity over development and dissent. As a result, groundbreaking concepts that challenge existing standards or significantly alter understandings might be consulted with resistance or apprehension. In this context, Dalí positions himself as an outsider or provocateur, whose "habit of making" such revelations sets him apart from mainstream society.

Moreover, Dalí may be commenting on the paradoxes within democratic societies, which on the one hand, commemorate freedom of expression, however on the other, can be uncomfortable with or resistant to concepts that significantly interfere with social and cultural standards. This stress can lead to a societal environment where progressive thinkers and artists like Dalí feel stifled or misconstrued. His work, frequently characterized by unusual, dream-like imagery, challenged conventional point of views and pushed limits, lining up with his view of himself as someone who habitually delivers concepts that may be too formidable or questionable for democratic audiences.

In essence, Dalí's quote highlights the obstacle for societies to stabilize openness to advanced ideas with the intrinsic desire for stability and consensus, ultimately questioning whether true avant-garde thinking can be fully embraced in democratic contexts.