We Do Not Live in a True Democracy
A Response Alan Hamilton’s “From Blue Shirts to Brown”
Tryfon Farmakakis
Alan Hamilton’s “From Blue Shirts to Brown” is a great article which gets a lot of things right but has one major weakness and ironically it is similar to what the author is accusing the group of doctors which authored the letter to the Premier: misconception of reality.
This weakness, unfortunately, is a common misconception in democratically sensitive commentators in our modern world which really needs to be addressed in its fundamentals.
Calling the right to protest “democratic” implies, as the whole article does – take the Thucydides reference for example – that the Australian regime is democratic but corrupt.
I hate being the bearer of bad news but no representative/electoral system is democratic in any way; and the ancient Athenian democracy, to take the most well-documented example of a real democracy, was light years different from today’s “democracies”.
These are republican systems modelled after the Roman one, which was anything but democratic. Actually, the Roman regime was intentionally non-democratic, but oligarchic/plutocratic and by definition corrupt, exactly like today’s western regimes are.
It is worth noting that historically pretty much all the western regimes owe their existence to the US system, which was established by the Founding Fathers after debates which unequivocally rejected the democratic system of governance for the republican one, no surprise there by a group of super-wealthy privileged members of the elite. The major parties of the current two-party US political power landscape historically owe their names to this debate.
Don’t get me wrong here. The current systems are obviously a great progress from the previous authoritative and arbitrary super-hierarchical ones, but they are certainly not democracies and this should be clear.
Now you may wonder how come that almost everyone believes that our current regimes are democratic. This misconception is another clear victory of the elite’s propaganda machine through the centuries and if you look a little bit to the history of the relevant debates, these distinctions were very clear among the commentators of the times, mostly until about 100 years ago.
At some point people must realize that elections are not democratic, lot is. Elections, as everyone knows, are bought by money. In a democracy there are no professional politicians, professional judges or professional lawmakers. A true democratic citizen would despise even the notion of this.
In a real democracy citizens do all these directly or elected-by-lot bodies do it. Also there is always the possibility to recall any public official at any time. Terms in public offices are strictly limited in time and frequency. Democracy[1] is the regime where all explicit powers, legislative, executive and judicial are exercised directly by the citizenry, or by allotted bodies, which is the only democratic and just compromise when practicalities make direct participation of everyone not feasible.
No citizen of any ancient democracy would be fool enough to think that representation by an elected-by-elections person who decides and legislates for them with carte blanche for four years is democratic in any way.
Most importantly now, in a democracy there are no “rights” as we mean them, because these were established to protect the “citizen” (subject is the correct word) from the arbitrariness of the separate government/state. In a true democracy the citizens are the government/state.
Ask yourself. Were there protests in ancient Athens? No, because they had no meaning. Where there in ancient Rome? A lot, because they had.
Similarly, were there parties with institutionally recognized power, legislative protection etc in ancient Athens? No, because they had no meaning, same reasons. What are parties? Do they represent actual essential ideological differences or are they just groups of interests?
I think nowadays the answer is pretty clear. And that is because the only ideological debate which has actual meaning and essence is always democracy vs other non-democratic stuff. The current fetishization around economics which dominates the left vs right modern debates, practically since Marx, is just a secondary issue which naturally follows the essential.
For example can you imagine any real democracy which would allow such an unequal distribution of wealth? How would that be possible when the 90% of the decisive bodies would be the poor?[2]
To conclude, there is a huge difference between a democracy and our modern oligarchies and there is no way to change them but radically, bottom-up. But first people really need to see things clearly about what is and what is not so that they are clear about what they want.
Continuing to call modern western regimes “democracies” just propagates the confusion and hinders true reform.
Lets call them for what they are, liberal oligarchies and the liberal part is being stripped away pretty rapidly now that the masters don’t feel much resistance. It is up to us, but we first we must have things clear in our minds.
Notes:-
[1] For the same reasons the use of terms such as “direct democracy” serve no democratic purpose. There are not many versions of democracy, but just one, and the use of adjectives just propagates the confusion.
Sorry for the insistence on details but words are a very powerful thing, and our masters know this pretty well. I believe Orwell has made this abundantly clear.
Take for example the use of the newly introduced by the elites term “social distancing” instead of the preexisting and scientifically correct term “physical distancing”. No accident there.
[2] For a really good philosophical analysis of the real essence of democracy and the elitist principles of our current regimes I strongly recommend the article Plato and Castoriadis: the concealment and the unravelling of democracy by Yorgos Oikonomou which can be found here.
Tryfon Farmakakis is an Electrical and Computer Engineer from Greece. He would love it if you would visit his YouTube channel, watch and participate in the debates.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
The World Economic Forum has infiltrated America’s public health agencies and scientific academics. They have hijacked our science turning it into social engineering science. We need to stop running around like scared little lab bunny rabbits. We need to get out from under the parasite class who run their criminal information warfare [io] [iia].
Who gave this parasite class, the 1% of the 1% to play God without permission?
As a programmer and computer engineer who writes code and algorithms, I am very concerned that we have zero accountability, let alone discussions or peer-reviewed critical analysis of how dangerous it can be when these oligarchs have the ability to rule over our own bodies by algorithms.
Last week I had another disconcerting conversation with one of my colleagues who is an Artificial Intelligence consultant and works as a sub-contractors over at the Atlantic Council think tank, and he commented on how, ”It’s now all about hacking the human brain and our biological bodies- that keeps those damn Technocrats so obsessed.” He jokingly complained how feels like a drug dealer now, ” Our algorithms are light years beyond predictive behavior analytics, and once they realized this it became like an insatiable drug they fiend for. So now we sell them the perfect drug. Invisible power to control.”
These shadow brokers and contractors have become the drug dealers for the cabal of elites. Providing dazzling code for push-button control.
The engineers of this social science work under line items as Info Operations [io] , [iia] Internet Interactivity Activities, the more polite acronyms for reality hacking. They just let the algorithm rule us now.
The problem is there are not many familiar with how far advanced AI, machine learning and much other dark technology ( developed by outfits such as DARPA) have become . It will enable these corrupt technocrats to usher in a ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution.’
A revolution that will forever change what it is to be human. A near-future where the promise of human 2.0 is only reserved for this parasite class, while the rest of humanity suffers as our own bodies and brains become the raw resource of energy to exploit.
These parasites are the same psychopaths who constructed our global central banks of fiat currency. A monetary system with a record of failure. We are now are witnessing once again how their worthless fiat currency, backed by corruption, debt, liber accounting fraud, manipulation by algorithms, their obfuscation of our real monetary value- precious metals, and ongoing manipulation of the public’s perception through wars, bubbles, manufactured crisis after crisis and now pandemics.
This parasite class has a historical record of brutality when they have failed to find cover for their own failed systems.
In America our own CDC (Center of Disease Control) is just one of many institutions that their algorithm enjoys infecting that will diminish all its legacy equity of trust into dust. In this new world, we all have become disposable on their fast track to trans humanism. Equality my ass.
The algorithm does not care about our health. If it did all these natural treatments would be available, instead, we let them make us sicker and abuse the psyche of all our children. The psychological torture of weaponized algorithms attacking our mental well being and threats of arrest for going to church, running our lives as games. Excuse me folks, but this is called Terrorism.
How are they getting away with it?
It all sits on the PCR test which is scientifically meaningless but has become their perfect weapon for social engineering. The entire Scientific community understands the amount of trickery that a PCR can have without set standards of its sensitivity markers to detect the virus. All with no proof for the RNA being of viral origin.
Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof?
We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from. PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from.
That has to be determined beforehand.
In the context of SARS-CoV-2, we so-called conspiracy theorists are still waiting for the proof of whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in all these science teams in vitro experiments show purified viruses.
What’s quite frankly the most exhaustive case of gaslighting- would be the FDA’s own printed words.
As I pop my daily Vitamin C, zinc, and vitamin D – I see that all too familiar label ‘ These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA ….’
But I will tell you that what has been evaluated by the FDA is the PCR testing functionality. And they read as follows where the FDA admits that:
“positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”
Perhaps the most astounding is the actual PCR Test Kits own medical inserts ( distributed by Roche ) reads:
“ These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection”
And:
For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.”
Then what the fuck is real science now?
This parasite class are good for one thing. Creating fake money, fake science, fake realities, fake threats and fake perceptions. All to feed their insatiable need for control.
The whole C19 house of cards pandemic now sits on the PCR test. This is all code. DNA, RNA.
Another big concern. Our brains have no intrinsic fire-wall for this new code that these mad scientists are infecting us with. Fuck cyber attacks. The real threats are the psychological attacks that have already dismantled our attention spans.
Social media was the contagion that destroyed our sense-making and once they get their medical hooks into everybody our own bodies down to our microscopic cells will be ruled by their algorithms.
They had their deep hooks in Silicon Valley and Shanghai long ago planning for their ‘Great Reset.’ They write code. Viruses are code.
This war was coded, gamed, simulated and now being played. On us. I am not saying this sarcastically. These games they are playing are killing us.
The covid19 pandemic is not based on classic virology or real science.
It’s a new social science. Not valued by ethical skepticism. Novel in that it can disregard a gold standard in satisfying the four Koch’s postulates because it’s a type of new science where they can write their own code.
We are on the path of becoming just another upstream of data to be mined for reflexive control over our own bodies and brains. Stop writing code for these bastards! People need to realize that the Emperor wears no clothes.
To use fear as some form of bio-API to social engineer us into pieces of code where they can control us bit by bit, is an abomination.
Now we somehow must all submit to their demands as a solution for a better future for ecological and equitable fairness. My ass. These are the very same problems that these fuckers have created that plague humanity in the first place.
Welcome to the Technocracy- where we the people have become the serfs as raw resources and energy for their Fourth Industrial Revolution.
HUMAN 2.0
https://youtu.be/ywuCRVJVDqs
THE REAL SCIENCE OF PCR
https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid19-pcr-tests-scientifically-meaningless/5717253
THE AIDS AZT SCANDAL
shorturl.at/nswP3
You make some excellent points.
Democrat Tulsi Gabbard agrees with Republican Donald Trump on the risks of vote harvesting by others: https://justthenews.com/video/tulsi-gabbard-says-voter-fraud-serious-threat-seeks-outlaw-ballot-harvesting
which will be bigger during SARS-COV-2.
America and its various satellites and satrapies contribute little or nothing to the world except murder and mayhem, terror, slaughter and starvation, lawlessness and violence, misery and exploitation, gross injustice, mendacity, and sanctimonious, brazen hypocrisy.
Their crimes are without parallel in human history. Their sheer evil and insanity actually make Adolf Hitler or Genghis Khan appear quite sane and moderate by comparison. Without any exaggeration.
But this Empire Of Evil does not have much longer to run.
It is visibly disintegrating, financially, economically, politically, racially, socially, morally and spiritually.
There is a very weighty account to be settled, and the day of reckoning is at hand.
These cowardly parasitic bullies have their jackboot on the neck of humanity. And the world wants to breathe. They will shortly have to face the wrath of their past and present intended victims. Millions cry out for justice from beyond the grave.
They have sown the wind over the past 70 years and more.
They are going to reap the whirlwind.
<i>”I hate being the bearer of bad news but no representative/electoral system is democratic in any way; and the ancient Athenian democracy, to take the most well-documented example of a real democracy, was light years different from today’s “democracies”.</i>
There was a more recent example than that, although it was not electoral per se; the Jamahiriya social system which prevailed in Libya under Gaddafi, until the Americans ‘took him out’. Check it out.
https://thesocialistcommunity.wordpress.com/2018/01/06/jamahiriya/
Nice reply. No argument from me!
The Coronavirus Act is license to terrorize
Human rights, civil liberties and ‘democracy’ itself are being flushed down the toilet. A global coup by unidentified entities is being waged on our future and politicians have abandoned the constituents who pay their salaries
I wonder if the staff of campaign group ‘Liberty’ are joining with the people who are physically marching on the streets to protest against lockdown? Will ‘Liberty’ make any difference?
I wake every morning with a terrible dread. The future looks totalitarian
Democracy has never existed in a true form. For that to happen then the acknowledgement of slavery and its abolishment would have occurred centuries ago.
Voting means nothing
No man can confer rights to another that he does not have himself.
Voting is merley a mechanism for mob rule.
If we are to synthesise a society that recognises the individual, then the individual must be recognised as his own highest authority.
Morality must prevail.
And it must be comprehended that morality is defined by life.
All other considerations are worthless unless this primary foundatonal principle is not met.
Authentic education is the key to headway being made, but this has & will remain impossible while the global economy is continually asset stripped by the usurous fractional reserve debt based monetary system that enables monopolisation and counterfeit leadership.
Lucid thought is confused by intellectualisation, That is the western way.
Intellectualisation is focused by lucid thought. That is the eastern way.
You misunderstand – partly my fault.
Left, right, centrist, labour, conservative, liberal, republic, communist, socialist, fascist.
ALL intellectualised labels for control. The politics of parasites.
Western!
Lucid thought does not require intellectualisation. It is in plain sight.
When these people use the term “our democracy”, does that include those who vote the other way?
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez: “Vote for Biden so Our Democracy Can Live To See Another Day!”
Sep 19, 2020
The Benjamin Dixon Show
She’s part of the scam.
There’s no ‘democracy’ anymore when coronavirus legislation means politicians have carte blanche to impose what they want on us at a moment’s notice.
Re: She’s part of the scam.
I’ve paid very little attention to Cortez, but my guess would be that her main role is that of the judas goat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_goat
In stockyards, a Judas goat will lead sheep to slaughter.
She’s obviously part of the scam. Exactly like Bernie Sanders was. There is no career politician who manages to climb the democratic party’s ladder without being sold out.
Exactly.
In 6 weeks time we will see a colour revolution in America, just like they staged in Ukraine, Bolivia, Libya, Syria, Georgia and so many other countries worldwide, certainly if Trump wins.
Millions of postal votes going missing, lost in the post and arriving too late to be counted. Millions filled in incorrectly and disqualified. How many Americans are capable of filling in a voting form?
Results disputed and delayed in the courts for weeks and months.
100 cities burning on election night.
Widespread violence and loss of life.
Mysterious shootings and a steady supply of martyrs as and when required.
All the Madcows and the Coopers singing from a prepared hymn sheet.
“Trump must go! Trump must go!! Trump must go!!!”
Just as previously Gaddafi/ Assad/ Maduro/ Morales/ Lukashenko/ Morsi/ Whoever Must do!
The superannuated Spooks and Dirty Cops and Generals declaring Trump must stand down “for the good of the country.” And the usual unnamed “intelligence sources” declaring that Putin/ China/ Iran/ Zimbabwe has stolen the election yet again in favour of Trump.
Regime Change is coming home.
Fantastic stuff. I agree but also suggest we need to be wary of the notion of decision making by bodies “drawn by lot.” This is the model for the modern concept of sortition which is a significant step away from democracy rather than toward to it.
https://in-this-together.com/sortition-in-the-uk/
In the UK, while most don’t know it, we already have a codified constitution which establishes true democracy. That is rule by trial by jury (judicium parium) where every randomly selected jury has the full power to annul any and all so called legislation.
This is democracy based upon selection by lot. And just as our constitution has been obfuscated for 800 years, so we should guard against the usurpation of the notion of democracy simply by bodies drawn by lot. True democracy, as you eloquently highlight here, is more than that.
https://in-this-together.com/the-british-constitution-deception-part-1/
Excellent article.
So where the Greek democracy the good stuff then? In Athens it did not include woman, children or slaves. About 10% of the Athenians had influence in this form of rule. Egalitarian a lot?
Yes but times change. What do you think about criminals being able to vote? What do you think about criminals being able to be in parliament? Just some thoughts.
Times change indeed. More thoughts. Maybe democracy is just the dictatorship of the 51%? Is there any other kind than criminals in parliament by the way?
Parliament is stuffed full of ‘criminals’ who voted for wars in foreign countries or who’ve inflicted poverty on millions.
This guy needs to be put on trial (along with all the rest of them)…
Left comments on his vids to the same effect. Traitor.
My pet Kea said: “Sqwuaaak!”
Which my pet Sheep translated into
“Baa ba ba baa ba….”
Being fluent in Sheepese I have the translation and it is as follows:
“Politicians come and go. The Real Power in ‘government’ are the BUREAUCRATS.
They can speed up, slow down, confuse (and so forth) process, information and decisions as they desire…
Much like what you Humanians are experiencing currently with the implementation of applied Bureaucratic Pseudo-Science conjuring an unseen alien protein invader from inner-space… supposedly trying to kill you all.”
Then my pet Sheep decided to go for a strolll and my pet Kea flew off to play a game of chess with the Octopus that lives by the rock pool at the far end of the beach.
.
Excellent story.
I highly recommend the works of the late Ellen Meiksis Wood, who extensively addressed the difference between Athenian democracy and the American-initiated make-believe “democracy” which was intentionally set up to enable a small elite to maintain its power while providing the illusion of “participation” to the rest of us. For example,
https://solidarity-us.org/atc/68/p2198/
Voting for out of touch, corporate sponsored shills once every four years – bought and paid for careerist shills who do what they want anyway is not ‘democracy’. There’s more ‘democracy’ voting for X Factor.
And if we can’t demonstrate then we no longer have a voice.
Are protests banned in North Korea, Russia and China?
Video of police in London using heavy handed tactics against what was reported to be a peaceful anti-lockdown protest:
https://twitter.com/DarrenPlymouth/status/1307309205813157893?s=20
A proper government is a TOOL. That the public can use to make decisions, and implement those decisions.
A social tool, a process of methods that results in rational decisions.
If your government does not do that, you need a new government.
Have you considered the possibility of a system that is structured such that it does not matter if the people elected are liars, selfish and corrupted?
No?
Perhaps you should.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/decisions/10157715460072278/
What I find infuriating and frustrating is the inability of the smartest people on earth, to connect the dysfunction of our current government systems, with those systems consistently demonstrating the inability to resolve or manage the problems we face as community, nation and species.
If it was working, if that process of systems was WORKING, then we would be solving and managing those problems, instead of watching our existence spiral into extinction and irrelevance.
We can do better, we should do better, we simply have to make the effort to make the effort.
We assume, and rely on the process within congress to represent the majority of public on the decisions they make.
We assume that if every person elected to congress did factually represent the majority of people within their each respective district, that the result of the process THEY use, of voting on that decision, will in fact represent the majority decision of the entire nations public.
Notice if each member of congress did that, there would not be any corruption, no money, no dishonesty, etc etc.
So, consider this example of that process, simplified to the best case scenario, I described above, of every member of congress behaving as a true representative:
**** *****
Consider 3 districts, no parties, no money, absolute honest elections and everyone votes.
Each district elects a representative and that representative is required, by law to represent the majority of the people in that district.
District one, 4999 people said “yes”, 5001 said “no”.
The majority said no.
District two, 5003 said “yes”, 4997 said “no”.
The majority said yes.
District three, 4999 people said “yes”, 5001 said “no”.
The majority said no.
The majority of the people, 15,001 of them said YES!
The minority, Only 14,999 said no.
The representatives voted two to one and the decision of CONGRESS, was NO.
The MAJORITY of the people said YES!!
**** *****
Notice that the PROCESS failed.
We RELY on that process, and it DOES NOT WORK!
They keep pretending that it is true, that our government relies on public approval or permission for the acts of atrocity those people perpetrate against humanity.
IT’S A LIE.
Who is telling you that lie?
NOT ME!
Get it? If the public majority had any control, we would not have to fight our government constantly to get any public service or benefit from their decisions.
If the people owned the government, we could make decisions that constrained corporate profit opportunities to those that benefit the public.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike-anderson/need-a-new-government/10155645258522278/
It’s not a republic either.
Another example of misinformation.
Ben Franklin stepped out and asserted that we have a “republic”, if we can keep it.
We did not, then, nor ever have had a republic.
Republic, defined by Mirriam-Webster
a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.
Representatives.
Representation.
NOT misrepresentation.
What bothers me is the inherent contradiction that people ignore, when they claim that using representation should not somehow be an accurate accounting of the public decision on matters.
If the result of using representatives does NOT in fact represent the public will, then IT IS NOT REPRESENTATION!!!
It’s NOT.
Note that the definition above, does not in any manner imply nor require that such representatives, be ELECTED! The OFFICERS should be elected, but they ain’t representatives, they are administrative staff, HIRED by the public by election.
The people employed by the public as representatives must NOT, NEVER, be elected. Elections do not and cannot result in representation.
The representatives, hired, must be responsible to the PUBLIC, not the elected officers, otherwise the public does not and cannot have the ultimate authority.
As for the governance, according to law, MUST be the law that is enacted BY THE PUBLIC, again, if it were otherwise, then the PUBLIC DOES NOT, NOR EVER DID, have the ultimate authority.
Just remember this:::
If we have to take it to the streets and use civil disobedience, then VOTING DID NOT WORK!!!!
The core premise of our constitutional fraud, lies within the concept of representation.
It was thought, and many today “believe”, that electing some person to a position of power and authority to misrepresent us, somehow results in representation.
There are two points of contention in that “belief”.
The first, is that as individuals, we are NEVER represented, by some person, that is making decisions that we disagree with.
It’s simply NOT true. That results in misrepresentation, not representation.
Some may argue that the process does not and was never intended to represent us as individuals.
I agree. However that does not change the TRUE fact, that we are NOT being represented by the people we elect, when they make decisions we don’t agree with. That is the point, and the argument stated above, is simply an excuse for NOT representing us.
Think carefully, if that person can misrepresent any of us, they can misrepresent the majority of us. And they DO. That’s the damn point.
Then there is the result of how they make decisions as a legislative body. Most people want to argue that it is within that process that the majority of us are represented.
However that is only true about half the time, (assuming that each member properly represents the majority of citizens within their districts). (which, as we just discussed, they DON’T)
Look at the graphic carefully, it’s not about the electoral college, it’s about CONGRESS!
Once the numbers of people within districts, the number of districts and the diversity of view within the districts increases to the levels we find in society today, about half of the decisions made by congress MISREPRESENTS the public majority.
The system is predicated on REPRESENTATION, and that representation is REQUIRED for the system to be properly considered a republic. If that process does not result in decisions made by congress that represents the public majority, then IT AIN’T NO REPUBLIC!! That is simply TRUE, and no lie, excuse or bullshit can change that.
A key component of 4 branch, is that rights are protected, and responsibility is enforced.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/4-branch-government/note-001/2507802689540218/
I am confident that my fear of how this system failed at providing representational leadership, is minimal compared to how the system is failing at so many other much more fatal problems we face.
“They” don’t teach about this is grade school, high school, collage, or any technical universities. People might get the wrong ideas…
Excerpted from Sortition – Wikipedia
“In governance, sortition (also known as selection by lot, allotment, or demarchy) is the selection of political officials as a random sample from a larger pool of candidates,[1] a system intended to ensure that all competent and interested parties have an equal chance of holding public office. It also minimizes factionalism, since there would be no point making promises to win over key constituencies if one was to be chosen by lot, while elections, by contrast, foster it [2] In ancient Athenian democracy, sortition was the traditional and primary method for appointing political officials, and its use was regarded as a principal characteristic of democracy.[3]
Today, sortition is commonly used to select prospective jurors in common law-based legal systems and is sometimes used in forming citizen groups with political advisory power (citizens’ juries or citizens’ assemblies).[4] ”
Complete text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
Also see: https://www.britannica.com/topic/sortition
When rules fail within an economic system, it is time to change the rules… Direct democracy and civilian organizations wherein members are chosen by lot could provide solutions to our failed “representative” democracies. Switzerland’s governance is based on direct democracy, and it works extremely well…
Excerpted from: Direct democracy – Wikipedia
“The pure form of direct democracy exists only in the Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus.[15] The Swiss Confederation is a semi-direct democracy (representative democracy with strong instruments of direct democracy).[15] The nature of direct democracy in Switzerland is fundamentally complemented by its federal governmental structures (in German also called the Subsidiaritätsprinzip).[4][5][6][7]
Most western countries have representative systems. [15] Switzerland is a rare example of a country with instruments of direct democracy (at the levels of the municipalities, cantons, and federal state). Citizens have more power than in a representative democracy. On any political level citizens can propose changes to the constitution (popular initiative), or ask for an optional referendum to be held on any law voted by the federal, cantonal parliament and/or municipal legislative body. [16]”
Please refer to complete text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
Perhaps it is false pride as a Briton, but I think the British parliamentary system has also served as a model for many countries. In fact, few if any countries described as “democratic” vest a single person with so much power as the US system vests in the president. As to both, I have no issue with the Marxist term “bourgeois democracy” to describe a system that creates the illusion that power is wielded by the people when in fact it is monopolized by the ruling class.
I still wonder why do modern slaves believe that a “vote” (in paper or electronic) is able to CHANGE any of this…
… in the mean time, dear fellow slaves,
and do not forget to keep on voting!
Athenian democracy may well have been a “real democracy” for the some 10% of the population who were adult non-slave male citizens, but what about the rest?
Obviously not for the rest. But one should remember that every society chooses, essentially arbitrarily, who is considered a citizen and who not. A modern democracy would obviously include everyone, hopefully even children. The ancient example is not provided as a model to copy, but as a fruitful sperm. On its principles we should build upon.
In 1974(?) the lights kept going out. As a young man who knew nothing about anything outside of the world of engineering I became aware of a debate about who ran the country, was it the government, the unions, the newspapers, the banks? In the course of a couple of days my eyes were opened. I was blind and then I could see!! Of course this isn’t a democracy. So who or what is in charge? Well Nature in the form of the Law of Entropy of course. Always has been always will be. Back then we could have worked with it and we wouldn’t be in the pickle we are now. Still spilt milk and all that.
margaret thatcher the milk snatcher
she was surrounded by child fiddlers
jimmy savilles spent 6 christmas holidays at checkers
cyril smith ted heath leon britain lord greville janner dolphin square
elm guest house,tory blair freaky browns bottom
eye could go on into saturnalia infinity
molech the khazar pirates the roth shill royal family sachs coburg gotha battenburgs whatever
did some mention democracy
or was it open air pig pen on a large human pharma
born bonded city of london investment in your name
papers in order birth certificate drivinng licence registering car pay finds contract contract contract
under stand stand under
stand under in the dock is that the law of the sea
pirates red beards
death certificate
cashing out your city of london name bond
freedumb
i agree with above it may not be that we live in a perfect true democracy
but rape is an imperfect science is it not
my life already
I have always thought people in power were there for my entertainment and even funnier were the people who took it all so seriouly, that would be 99% of the UK pop.
I happen to think that those in power have our very best interests at heart. Take this fake virus thing.
In the late 1960s one of my first jobs was working in long range planning for HMG. By then it was clear to those of us working in that field that the world would be in a state of entropic collapse by 2010.
[Entropic collapse = more and more energy would be needed to find and process new energy]
Plan A was to press ahead with fusion power so that by the time all the easy oil started to run out around 2000 we would all seamlessly switch to running on electricity. Plan A didn’t work out due to problems with fusion power and so when conventional oil supply started to contract in 2005 the world plugged the gap with fracked oil which I’m sure you have all heard about. What I suspect you know nothing about is that fracking for oil is no more than a Ponzi scheme and even more importantly fracked oil isn’t regular crude oil as it contains no diesel. Now most of you probably have no idea that the world runs on diesel. Trucking, shipping but most importantly agriculture all run exclusively on the stuff. And peak diesel occured in 2005.
So there you have the essence of the dilemma facing the folks in charge. Whether you know it or not, you are living through Plan B i.e. collapse the world economy and so strip out most of the world’s shipping and trucking and so concentrate the remaining diesel for use in agriculture so we all get at least a meal a day. In the circumstances it looks like the best thing they could come up with.
So my question is what would you have done?
As a Chartered Engineer it has always been my job to come up with solutions to Societies problems. As this starts to dominate your life, month after month, year after year, just try to remember it is really the only way possible to keep the world’s tractors running at this stage in the game.
I suspect most readers here didn’t really vibe with Maths/Physics at school? I left the University system at the age of 24 bearly able to read and write as I couldn’t see the point. In other words we live in completely different worlds. From what I can tell I was trained to think and most other folk just erm, well, think; according to their culture/educational attainment/tribe/gender/class/what there mum and dad told them.
I know Plan B dosn’t look too attractive to many people but as soon as Plan failed A their options were very limited.
Interesting point of view. However, If what you say is true, why not just go out and say that? Why 9/11? Why climate change? Why COVID19? Seems like a lot subterfuge for an issue that anyone could understand. So not sure I buy it 😉
The people I know in the world of farming have been well aware of the diesel issue for at least 20 years, folks with skin in the game. Can I put it this way. There is a road junction near me covered in a yellow box. As I cycle through 90% of the time the junction is blocked by stationary vehicles. The vast majority of people seem unable to look 5 metres ahead. The men I worked with in the ’60s had no trouble looking 40 years ahead. The trick of course is to get out a lot and hang out with the brightest people you can find and if you ever feel comfortable move to another Continent/change Profession. Do you like comfort? Buying/ not buying things?
The greatest threat to humanity is people who look at society (or the world, etc) and think it’s their job:
a) to decide what the problems are
b) to come up with the solutions
c) to coerce society into accepting those solutions
Please read the Laputa section in Gulliver’s Travels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laputa
Lost in a Dark Wood,
As an engineer I was trained to work from 1st Principles so finding no evidence that the world exists I deduced that it dosn’t. Now in your dark wood where ever you look you can only see your world reflected back and like many folk you confuse your world with the world and are ignorant enough to think they are the same thing. But what is really sad is that no one has ever cared enough about you to point out the error of your ways. No wonder you feel lost.I realised homo saps were nothing more than part of nature and just like a supervolcano could take us all out in couple of years so we would take ourselves out by 2100 as the vast majority seem unable to stop reproducing.
Reality is holistic, eternal, infinite. There are no “first principles”. We can extract fragments of reality, and some of these fragments form causal chains. But if the only reality you acknowledge are these latter fragments, then you have a very limited vision.
btw: who trained the trainers
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Essays:_First_Series/Self-Reliance
Emerson:
The magnetism which all original action exerts is explained when we inquire the reason of self-trust. Who is the Trustee? What is the aboriginal Self, on which a universal reliance may be grounded? What is the nature and power of that science-baffling star, without parallax, without calculable elements, which shoots a ray of beauty even into trivial and impure actions, if the least mark of independence appear? The inquiry leads us to that source, at once the essence of genius, of virtue, and of life, which we call Spontaneity or Instinct. We denote this primary wisdom as Intuition, whilst all later teachings are tuitions. . . .
You are very right, but there are solutions. You will find a lot of stuff to begin with over here, I highly recommend watching and looking into seriously: https://www.amazon.com/Close-Encounters-Fifth-Kind-Contact/dp/B086DH2YVH/
And welcome to the rabithole…
Interesting position. The problem is dilution and the limit to the number of representatives that sit in the United States House of Representatives. As the population grows, it gets more diluted and representatives become more and more out of touch with their constituents.
Fortunately, we have elected commissions at every level. Townships, cities, parks, churches, associations……etc….etc.
With The House of representatives it is all about ME. The minute a Rep is elected, he or she is already working on the next campaign while taking directions from the people who trained and funded them, which……. fits YOUR narrative. A great example is AOC. Those are not her ideas. Before she was elected she was working the politics of getting good tips while making a large repertoire of strong drinks fast, while maintaining a sexy smile. Sounds a little like politics……
The real emergency is the shift of the political balance from rural based populations to urban based populations. We have shifted to a population of people that are dependent on government and expect the government to take care of them in every way.
Very easy to manipulate. Because of that, anything goes.
Using climate change to manipulate is so offensive. Pollution is the issue. Telling people the world is ending in 8 or 12 years because of climate change is so wrong. It’s not a bad thing to come up with new energy strategies, clean up the environment, plan a little better, slow population growth where it’s needed but we have a few years to do it humanely.
The concept of a “Carbon Footprint”…..I am laughing and crying at the same time. We have a law that requires our state to use a minimum of 5% renewable energy. Windmills and solar panels are everywhere. We have arable land being replaced by “solar fields”.
Counter intuitive, wouldn’t you say? Carbon absorbing oxygen making plants are being replaced by solar panels……. And the federal government is funding it.
People seem to have forgotten about the ecological balances being maintained by Earth. Increased CO2 increases plant growth that increases O2 production. Go figure…
But wait….Climatologists hired by the United Nations say differently. And they have proof. The data, which they made up, says so.
Gasses dissolve in ice cores don’t have the resolution needed to prove the experimental models documenting climate change. They work over an 800 thousand year cycle and are really great but not over a few hundred years. Measured data was too erratic and so, they made it up to tell the tale.
Call it science and most politicians won’t refute it. Same as the virus. Is it being orchestrated simultaneously? Was it random? The important thing is that people are buying it and freaking. Most politicians don’t know what to think.
Chicken little has succeeded.
Bill Gates and the gang of elites are loving it and getting ready for the next phase.
They will get population growth under control, even if it kills them……after all, there is not much time anyway….
Brian Sides
If Voting Changed Anything, They’d Abolish It
You got it…..
Stronger still …all who vote are the PROBLEM..
we can discuss this a full afternoon but simply put ..you take part in this rigged game …don’t complain, You get what you deserve 🙂
have a nice day all
Specially, admin1 . Now 9/11 is over again for another year .
You can relax and don’t have to clean the responses so madly LOL
.
So are today’s fake democracies or ‘liberal oligarchies’ better or not than places where ordinary people can never vote to remove leaders and ruling classes, like communist and Islamist oligarchies? No human rights and freedoms with the second option. You also presume to know that ordinary people don’t know what’s best for themselves (‘people really need to see things clearly about what is and what is not so that they are clear about what they want’). This presumption is that old Marxist elitism, that working people have ‘fakse consciousness’, but the enlightened Marxist, who will save them from evil capitalists who gave them jobs, never does. Finally, democracy cannot ‘allow inequality’ or not, or any other moralising opinion. It is simply a technique which empowers all ordinary people to choose from diverse agendas and parties. Leaders must ultimately bow to voters or lose. You demean ordinary people and their only political power when you mischaracterise and demean democracy like this.
Ordinary people can vote for which political showbiz personality gives the most convincing pretence of representing them. They can never vote out a ruling class (oh the naiveté!)
I see that our resident expert is schooling us in ‘Marxism’ yet again, what a privilege! I have one short question posed in volume 3 of Capital. In terms of the circulation of production/ circulation Marx postulates the following: M-C …P… C’-M’ But it doesn’t always work out like this there is the irritating ‘Transformation Problem of in terms of the transformation of newly created value, and its realisation as prices of production. As for the declining rate of profit, there are factors which slow down this process but do not altogether stop it.
You being an expert of Marxism I would appreciate any comment that you wish to make.
With modern ICT, it should be easily possible for every UK subject to vote online 6 times a year about matters of importance. If you look at Switzerland, they do not have citizens voting every day, but they regularly vote on matters of importance in addition to normal elections.
The reason this is not done is that corrupt rich people want the system to stay as it is, because that way they stay rich and they have bought the legal officials so they can stay corrupt too.
If Voting Changed Anything, They’d Abolish It
I was watching the Welsh news yesterday and it was reported that there had been one coronavirus death in Wales that day. This was the first alleged coronavirus death reported in Wales in a number of days. Yes one alleged coronavirus death.
Strangely they did not report what other deaths had occurred in Wales that day. There was no update on how many had died of heart attacks or car crashes or other accidents or any other cause.
Yes one death this madness must end. We must stop all these deaths but how.
There is only one way to completely prevent death and that is to prevent life.
The more life you can prevent the more death you can prevent.
If they want to stop all car driving related deaths they need to stop all driving of cars.
If you want to stop accidents on stairs we need to get rid of stairs.
If we can prevent people being born then we can prevent them dying.
Simple
I am getting confused they said stay at home going outside is dangerous.
Now the say it is safer outside and enclosed spaces are more dangerous.
So they are reintroducing lockdowns and stay at home messages again.
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.
The stress and worry of paying bills and future prospects. The immediate problem of buying food particularly if you have children and no money to buy food and pay bills.
Watching news not a lot as much as I can stand . Very little push back. Everyone agreeing to the message or those they allow on TV. That there will be more coronavirus deaths this winter if we do not lockdown.
Of course the media can plug this nonsense because they are being paid in full.
All the lockdown narrative is pushed by those whose salaries continue to be paid.
My view is that it must be a criminal offence for anyone to be paid if they promote lockdown.
Once they are at the bailiff’s door, they will not be so stridently certain, will they?
Voting has been abolished by dictators because it can indeed change everything, ie remove them.
“If voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let us do it” – Mark Twain.
WE think the war against humanity is winnable and offer this new information to all:
We think this is worth sharing, perhaps vital? Please feel free to repost if you wish.
http://olivefarmercrete.blogspot.com/2020/09/if-we-are-to-win-this-war-this-is.html
Correct Tryfon. It’s all a giant Punch & Judy Show. Or, in other words, a pantomime. The system gives the illusion that we have an actual say in what happens, when in fact we don’t. Those with the real power on our planet; the 0.01% don’t get to face any vote. They aren’t recallable.
Incidentally, I haven’t voted for at least 24 years. As Emma Goldman said ‘if voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal’.
It’s actually not worth voting for 80% of UK citizens in Westminster Elections as the seats they are registered to vote in are safe seats. You need Jimmy Savile or The Yorkshire Ripper wearing a blue rosette to get a change of allegiance of MP where I vote. It’s the same in over 400 constituencies.
The whole system selects a small subset of the population to decide at each election.
Different systems in both Australia and New Zealand, Rhys, but you still have candidates vetted, and the party machine will grind up anyone who is too independently minded or may prove ’embarrassing’ in their public utterances (Bojo is exempted from this due to, shall we say, his connections)
A bit puzzled by the Jimmy Saville reference, then I clicked. You’re in a safe as houses Conservative seat!
I fully agree that party machines destroy critical debate and grind up independent voices. However, you may be unaware how many ordinary Tory voters and party members today despise the UK Conservative party machine, which they accuse of conserving nothing, ignoring the people’s greatest concerns, ending genuine debate and ousting patriots. This machine, say the critics, has turned their party into Labour-lite, an elitist, wokist, Blairite clone hostile to true conservative values, indigenous Brits and the national interest. Bojo is in no way outside or exempt from that machine. He now sits on top of it, and reflects its stifling conformity faithfully. He too is a liberal, metropolitan snob and elitist, no more a true supporter of British workers and values than the Labour frauds who abandoned them long ago. Boris is no patriot or real conservative; leftists should be pleased he’s working for their cause so well.
This is a spot-on criticism of how democracy frustrates those wanting more diverse voting options and radical policies or change. For example, many Conservative voters are appalled at how the ‘party of Britain’ today fully embraces leftist or woke policy on multiculturalism and globalism. Most Tory politicians would never dare to say ‘Britain First’, preferring instead to badmouth and even prosecute the few nationalists who still do (Labour MPs could not even dream of saying something so taboo). But millions of British voters wanting that traditional value and basis for government policy (regardless of whether it’s right or not) are now denied the choice. This is why the Brexit vote was so revolutionary, such an awesome display of people power. Plebs were actually given direct democracy, a decisive say over the nation’s destiny, and the politicians promised to respect that choice. They weren’t sincere, of course, and have since spent years outraged by the stupidity of ‘low-information’ voters, and seeking to save poor Brussels autocrats from majority rule in primitive Britain. Sadly, I suspect that most posters also regard dumb voters rather than Brussels as the problem, just like the elitist politicians. They make a fatal mistake; despite its flaws, only democracy can ever give plebs the chance to remove failed of fraudulent ruling elites peacefully, when given real diversity of choice. American voters took that chance with Trump, the maverick anti-politician and famed enemy of the DC establishment, AKA the swamp, with its MSM lackeys, corporate funding and control, its warmongering neo-cons and the hideous military-industrial complex. If you hate corrupt, undemocratic ruling elites like I do, then Orange Man Bad should be your champion. Any inability to take this claim calmly and rationally reflects the elite’s huge success in demonising ordinary people (the demos) and their democratic choices.
Regarding Jimmy Savile, although it’s something that almost everybody thinks they know as fact, I don’t think we will ever really know? He was accused after his death by women who were encouraged to come forward anonymously with the prospect of a payout from his will, which would otherwise have gone to charity, and with no negative repercussions for false testimony. There was a letter allegedly from the police that turned out to be faked, saying that he was too powerful to investigate while alive. The late blogger Anna Raccoon, a retired lawyer who had been at the school for wayward girls at the time when some of the incidents were alleged to have happened, spent a lot of time investigating the allegations that were made public, when people chose to speak to the press, sometimes for money. She found nothing credible, for example often the timetables were impossibly off. With a celebrity like that, it only takes one in 100,000 to come up with a false accusation, and you end up with a large number of allegations that “confirm” each other through weight of numbers. One false accuser said she was “only trying to help” because he had “obviously” done what he had been accused of.
Emma Goldman was clearly more naive or narrow-minded than your typical gammon or little englander. Those sneering at democracy should recall that Germans couldn’t remove Hitler and gang, that Soviet citizens could never vote out the mass-murdering communist elite. Imagine how the plebs could have changed the world for the better had the ballot box never been denied them. Today, hundreds of millions can only dream of voting out Xi Jinping, the Iranian Islamists, or any other deranged murdering autocrats. Goldman appears never to have realised how power-mad dictators can never be peacefully removed from office, how they always deny or destroy democracy, human rights and freedoms to maintain tyranny, and can silence or disappear critics like you with one wave of their bloody hands. That’s truth, not pantomime.
There is no democracy if leaders can make electoral promises and then not have to keep them once in power. This is turn leads to politicians becoming more akin to actors, with set scripts that have no relation to their policies; because the 2 main parties are in fact different factions of the SAME party (the Corporate Party) and their real policies are identical on all the major issues.
Despite unprecedented, unending political and cultural opposition and an almost entirely hostile MSM, Trump has successfully renegotiated the awful trade agreements destroying the livelihoods of millions of working class families, made massive progress in ending endless US wars of intervention, cut taxes significantly, greatly reduced the huge flows of illegal immigrants, eased the regulatory culture stifling the economy, and built around half the famous wall while denied Congressional funding. He is also bringing peace deals to the Middle East and standing up to the murdering dictators in communist and Islamist regimes that other western leaders love to trade with and continue to support. Trump has done precisely what democrats are supposed to do: serve the national interest and deliver on electoral promises (whether you agree with these or not is irrelevant). That is why the only way US Democrats and leftists will prevent his imminent re-election by a landslide will be via continuing violence, disruption, chaos and cheating in November and long after. Open civil war is a real possibility if armed American voters stand up to fight the antidemocratic left, who very clearly can not tolerate a system or people they do not control. Sadly, posters here will likely see such rebellious, anti-leftist voters as evil ‘fascists’ rather than noble ‘resistance’. That accusation is as off target as their more usual slurs that normies are merely dumb or passive ‘sheeple’.
Meanwhile in Liverpool…. a neighbour reported a 50/50 distribution in mask wearing at the local Asda superstore. My neighbour who was one of the happy clappers for the NHS was now saying unequivocally he would be no longer wearing a mask. all the young dudes getting hammered in the city centre with total disregard to social distancing.
This type of behaviour will expose the fact that there is no virus running rampant. Government solution – “LOCK EM DOWN”
Will the UK police be targeting groups larger than 6 if they are composed of peaceful XR and BLM protesters or maybe worshipping Muslims? I doubt it; it might look too oppressive or suggestive of the UK as a police state, and attract hurtful criticism. The MSM would be outraged. BTW, according to CNN and Joe Biden, huge crowds at Trump rallies spread the virus, but huge crowds of BLM protestors (ie not Trump voters) do not, because they are moving! I imagine the UK MSM will adopt similar double standards, as they notoriously did when calling those destroying historic statues ‘peaceful protestors’ while those defending them were ‘violent rightwing extremists’.
Pseudo-democracy is based upon the premise that the masses are incapable of rule and must be kept in a state of ignorance with a show of trivia and mindless entertainment. But a small elite with the power knowledge and civic duty is best fitted to rule over the hoi polloi for their own benefit. The first premise may be true, the second is certainly not. But political theory is of course based on the second premise. The ‘mob’ of poor and ill-constituted is on the loose and must be corralled in for their own sake as well as social and political stability. The short critique of this – posited by Orwell, who else – was that the ‘mob’ was already on a rampage, the mob of oligarchs and plutocrats.
The English Constitution – 1867 – written by Walter Bagehot is the standard text for elite rule. He spoke about the effective and dignified part of the constitution. The dignified aspect was the show of government, Queen Victoria travelling in her Golden Coach and opening Parliament, the cavorting of the Royal Family (sounds familiar) Empire Day, elections and Parliamentary debates, and so forth. The effective part of the constittution was the functions and policies carried out by the PM and Cabinet together with the invisible professional civil servants influenced by the press and the actually existing oligarchy.
But of course in such oligarchic structures corruption and decay would set in and the whole thing would eventually collapse. As Balzac, although in a French connection once said, ‘ … corruption is the instrument of the swarming mediocrity.’ Or in the English connection – ‘Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’
So power must corrupt far more in autocracies, because autocrats can never be removed, challenged or even criticised by plebs without huge risk to person and family. Think how ordinary Chinese and Iranians must dream of the wonderful people power we westerners enjoy, the legally-protected right to vote out frauds and failures at regular intervals! Or imagine how North Koreans could finally show their real feelings about their monstrous leader and wannabe god Kim Jong Un, if they had a secret vote. Imagine world history had Germans been able to freely vote out Hitler or Soviet citizens to remove Stalin and the CCCP via the peaceful ballot box. To the many, many millions of people who continue to suffer under real oppression and evil dictatorships, those spoilt, privileged westerners sneering at democracy are unbelievably naive. So politically naive, they call Trump the evil dictator, when he is just about the only elected leader to stand up to real murderous dictatorships.
” ….we westerners enjoy, the legally-protected right to vote out frauds and failures at regular intervals!”
That must be at least 30 years out of date. Voting is frankly inconsequential if there is not the real possibility of fundamental change to the electoral outcome. In the US two establishment right-wing parties, neo-liberal globalist outfits and government by a two cartel. The financial/corporate/political oligarchy is the ruling power and elections don’t take place under their dominion. If you don’t understand that you do not understand the contemporary situation. And BTW your arguments are vitiated by your use of straw men, Russia, China, and of course it goes without saying, North Korea. An outworn debating trick. Who would you recommend anyone in the US/UK for? If you can bring in straw men so can I.
And then of course there are your learned views on ‘Marxism’ of which you appear to know absolutely nothing. You really are an embarresment but you don’t even appear to know it.
Exactly. No matter who gets in they are controlled by higher powers.
The only democracy will work is one which puts immediate power in the hands of everyone.
Think how ordinary Chinese and Iranians must dream of the wonderful power to vote for a dogshit sandwich or a catshit sandwich, just so long as it’s kosher.
Our Zionist masters provide us with infinite variety. You can have a black monkey, a gay monkey, a trannie monkey, or a monkey with a vagina, just so long as it rattles its little tin cup for its organ grinder.
Really thoughtful of our masters.
Iran was a multi party parliamentary democracy until that was destroyed in a campaign of terrorism and subversion mounted by the CIA jointly with British Intelligence, in the interests of the big western oil companies.
There was never any concern for democracy when the puppet dictator Shah was ruling the place with his western supplied and trained secret police.
The Islamic Republic was created in its place, voted for in a referendum by the vast majority of Iranians. With regular elections with a choice of candidates and millions voting. But of course Iran is insufficiently subservient to the US Empire, so it is not “democratic.” Unlike the “democratic” Saudi Arabia of Bonesaw Bin Salman. Or the genocidal Zionist Terror Regime in Israel.
https://worldchangebrief.webnode.com
Weiner Laptop: New FBI Whistleblower/
Crickets Start 50 Day Seige/
Ginsberg’s Death Reshapes Election.Left Claims”Dying Wish” Was Replacement Delay/
Trump Plans Major Weapons Sales To Taiwan/
New Foreign Policy Transforms Both Parties
If you believe in fighting for democracy please attend Trafalgar Square today or next Sat at 12pm.
And if you want a united resistance to fight for democracy, then remember that sneering at David Icke or other non-leftist demonstrators only divides us. Sneering at those unlike you, of course, is precisely what the globalist elites do, and exactly what they want leftists to do in order to keep the dumb plebs divided.
No this is not a democracy. The only democracy that will work is ability to decide on most important matters, and the ability for the majority to eject the government at any given time for piss poor performance.
Meanwhile there is nothing in Soros, 5G, the Dewish Quest – don’t be so conspiracy theorist/racist….
Democracy as ‘the ability for the majority to eject the government at any given time’ sounds unworkable to me. Maybe you have taken Marx’s infamous ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ too seriously, as the old anti-semite and racist did himself (he never explained how the workers might choose or control their Marxist rulers). The only way that Marxist ‘democracy’ has ever ‘worked’ was by presuming that actual dictators like Stalin and Mao and Castro etc could mystically assume to know what hundreds of millions of working individuals thought and wanted better than the workers themselves. No proles ever experienced any kind of democracy in hyper-elitist Marxist systems, only decades of oppression, tyranny, terror and death.
No, I’ve not done that. Marx was another fraud of that proven subversive group.
I think it’s the only system that can work fairly. We’ve tried everything else. Now we need to try a more direct form of democracy. One where the power actually lies with the people. “Oh but it couldn’t work is of course what the current ruling class would say”. I say to hell with them. None of them can be trusted. The only politician with integrity is one who resigns in disgust.
Democracy – generations of complication – princeps and patricians, a collection of martinets amid a bubble of selfdom – venting their sickness to the bread mouths and circus minds of those who’s being is riddled into the conditioned dependence of a subsidiary – absorbing its hellish…parasitic influence, in the deluded assumption, that one day, for their trouble – they’ll be herded to a highway for the promised land.
Wow ! Where did you get that ? What a great song !
it’s all yours – feel free – Cap….. .
😉
Has there ever been Democracy? Is it anything but a pipe dream? The history books essentially seem to be about Mafia wars between different ruling families, with a gradual centralization of power until now – where a one world power is feasible given the technology available
You bring up a good point. Part of the problem with history is that we can never really know what that what we are being served is true, and who knows with certainty how Athenian or other “democracies” really worked, or if they were really democratic (taken as meaning actual rule of and by and for the people). However, it is a bit beside the point, because we will not find the answer to current problems by trying to find some “perfect” or “pure” form of governance thousands of years in the past.
I tend to agree with you, and there is a name for that type of mafia governance, it’s called oligarchy and it will of course masquerade as something else when appropriate. It is for example very convenient to rule by divine right (monarchy) when your group (oligarchy) is in control, so most “monarchies” in that sense are just institutionalized oligarchies.
Divine right was an absolutely brilliant invention, I think it’s no surprise that that this “god king” concept arose in so many cultures at different times. Claiming and making people believe you have a direct communication with their gods seems to be the sure way to rise to and to keep power over the many.
Of course our current systems are again mostly oligarchic (rule of the few) masquerading behind a facade of “representative” democracy. The same was true in the USSR -communist party tops were the oligarchy, same is true in China today.
I always have to smile a bit when I read about “Russian oligarchs” in the western Mainsteam media – like they are the only contemporary oligarchs 🙂
We know enough about ancient Athens to understand how democratic it was and while not perfect for our modern standards (what is “perfect” anyway? a completely subjective term. There is no perfection but a constant struggle to adapt societal rules to the constantly evolving social conciousness and imaginary, and I can’t think of a better regime than democracy to do this) it was light years ahead of anything else in its times, and of quite a lot in our times.
Divine right is quite an interesting story and I believe it has much more in it historically than some people arbitrarily claiming they spoke to God. It can be traced back at least to ancient Egypt and Sumer and one can’t help but thinking how it came to happen. To me it is not convincing that at some point some rulers started claiming it, and convinced the rest about it, just with words or violent suppression. I think that there is enough archeological and ancient literature evidence to suggest that there were more at play in ancient prehistoric times, namely a possible extra-terrestial factor that influenced human evolution, both physically as well as socially. Of course the access of a small elite to forbidden science and technology that would seem like magic to the uninitiated is another possibility, but then the question arises, where did that come from? These assertions might sound ludicrous initially but if one starts to seriously researching them he will realize that there is much evidence to support them. But this is a huge discussion and maybe this is not the place.
🙂
Has there ever been autocracy? You know, those barbaric tyrannies which, in modern times, have been led by communists, fascists, Nazis and Islamists. They are of course horribly real and historically verified. I’m guessing, but I’d say autocratic rulers have ruled about 98% of human history. But all of them fear and ban all human rights and freedoms, such as the freedom of speech you enjoy in order to sneer at democracy. Dictators have the freedom to do that too, but not their enslaved nations.
Try exercising freedom of speech and expressing some Wrongthink unapproved by the kosher elite and see what happens to you.
As any words these days word democracy has to be extracted from newspeak word prison that corrupts all meaning.
Meaning of the word democracy and its content.
The word democracy demo[-]cracy, means demo -> people, cracy -> rule or “rule of the people”. .. [It means the democracy] i.e. a rule of ALL SOVEREIGN PEOPLE.
The sovereign people in democratic system are ALL THE PEOPLE that belong to equal, equitable, egalitarian society, a democratic society, society of human beings who at birth automatically acquire equal, unalienable right to rule directly on all matters of organization of society they belong to.. including all the rules self-imposed by society through its government actions or decrees reached by consensus.
Some Principles of democracy.
The sovereign people must, however, pay a price for belonging to the democratic society and for acquiring their social status of rulers, namely by self-limiting their absolute freedom and renounce violence and intimidation (fear) as influence peddling practices disallowed within society relying instead on humanity, reason and consensus.
The sovereign people must willingly adopt certain human social morality and ethics as a foundation of democratic social system. Any kind of violence, manipulation or intimidation among people within society renders it undemocratic and elitarian since at minimum it creates specialized elites of skilled violence and/or influence peddlers effectively preventing any meaningful democratic process.
In such democratic society division of labor can never turn into divison of social perogatives and by that creating elites of all sorts. For example professional guardians would create such a elite of perogatives and hence destroying democratic rule where all are sovereign rulers and bearers of all social prerogatives and all social responsibilities.
In a word, in democracy what we call basic human and civic rights stem not from government but from human morally driven social egalitarian constitution i.e. a set of permanent rules/culture of inclusion, good neighborly interactions, equality, equity, reciprocity and rules for cooperation and betterment of society and its welfare that is directly determined by all sovereign rulers namely all the people themselves.
In democracy none of those foundations of society are subject of government executive powers or rules or laws that may be possibly changed since foundational principles of egalitarianism are not negotiable as they are based on human social morality, solidarity, caring and sharing.
Otherwise democratic society itself will disintegrate.
In democracy power to rule is unalienable and always resides among individual people, never in government itself that is just social construct, some ad hoc temporary tangible manifestation of people’s direct collective sovereign rule and can be changed/reformed or liquidated at will, anytime, and any prerogatives of power, if granted, withdrawn immediately if government does not meet expectations of sovereign rulers i.e. the people.
How people rule under democracy is also subject to democratic principles of equality, and sovereignty of every individual who belongs to the society.
In classical case it means belonging to local community, working there and contributing to socioeconomic and political life there. Individuals, who have majority of socioeconomic and political interests outside the community, even if they reside there, are not eligible to claim sovereignty and hence citizenship rights within this particular community run by democratic rules. That does not mean that they are denied rights that stem from social constitution ( sharing, caring etc.,) but only that they are not sovereign rulers in this particular community and hence have no direct input into government rule.
The direct rule may involve many measures including among others, proposing rules, enforcing rules and agreeing to the rules.
The basic principle of democratic rule is rule by consensus, by discussions, debating and compromising in order to reach some consensus i.e. agreement among all equal sovereign people before proposals are finally openly, publicly and unanimously approved by the assembly. The transparency is not only desired but required in democracy or there is no democracy.
This is expression of the fact that every individual has all sovereign power not just part of it, and has to make decision on his/her own before any rule is bonding for all within society. But this is in its core different from just a simple veto since dissenting individual must provide material alternative to the rule, must express his/her constitutionally mandated engagement into civic duties and responsibilities, and debate it openly before insisting on his/her dissent.
Such attitude makes all decisions of assembly of sovereign people extremely deliberate and very slow since they require continuing discussions and education about proposals on the table with no time limit until a consensus is reached.
In fact instead of focusing on fixing of some expediencies deliberate act of sovereign ruling is focused primarily on preserving democratic principle and process and not on particular desired outcome.
It is worth to note that in a democratic system government stalemate or perceived paralysis in no way negatively affect day-to-day functioning of the society and its economic foundation that operates mostly upon a permanent social constitution [extra-governmental social contract among sovereign people based on idea of equality equity and egalitarianism] rather than government decrees or laws that cannot contradict it and have no superiority over it as assured by rule by consensus principle.
What it does however, it effectively guards fundamental principle of direct sovereign democratic rule of the people, as number one consideration rather than agility of the government, and hence severely limits government adverse influence on society itself such a concentration of authority.
In classical democratic society, no exigent circumstances [natural catastrophe, war, plague etc.,] are handled by government, and instead all those functions are assigned aprori to social organizations within community, unrelated to government itself, following rational course of action in their mitigating efforts appropriate to local circumstances as defined by social constitution.
What is even more important is that all government decisions are directly implemented by sovereign rulers that made those decisions and especially most impacted by them since no authority to implement any government decision in truly democratic system can be delegated to any professional group temporarily or permanently.
Any substantial departure from the above principles of democracy renders any social organization fundamentally undemocratic implementing degrees of private, individual or group/class tyranny.
COVID once again unveiled tyranny we live under.
The link to “Plato and Castoriadis” was very interesting, but it seems too easy for people today to forget that Plato was not trying to encourage a view of the world which would be appropriate for all time, and certainly not for 2020.
He was a very far-sighted soul, but the intellectual tools he had at his disposal were not capable of transforming the Greece of his day into the UK of modern times, nor, of course, would he have wanted them to. His concern was with the society which confronted him, and we shouldn’t judge him according to what confronts us today, because that is not at all the same scenario.
Neither he nor his compatriots of lesser intellect had the same attitude to human thought as our wisest philosophers and teachers have today. Thinking, for an ancient Greek, was simply not pursued as an independent activity, but was an inseparable, and rather foggy, part of general human consciousness, belonging largely to the Mysteries, legends and deities.
As with most modern progress, the good aspects of increased individual human self-awareness have come with a very unpleasant price tag – that being the inability to grasp the social difficulties and consequences of having acquired the freedom to think and create as we see fit.
Of course most people don’t know the difference between mob-thinking and independent thought, nor can they be bothered to contemplate it, but that difference is nevertheless there to stay, and its consequences seem likely to become ever more apparent. That said, I believe there is a purpose to this development, which is for us gradually to learn to cope with the difference.
Today, genuine thinkers have genuine enemies who wish to stop them in their tracks, which is why the media have been taken over by those enemies. If we give the matter any thought at all, we can surely all agree that what our modern media represent is “groupthink”, and there are only two options when it comes to their treatment of the person who can think critically, like an individual, in such an environment:
1. Do a Piers Morgan on him, shout him down, ridicule him, insult him, accuse him of all sorts of extremism and stir up the whole viewership against him as a terrible foe.
2. Dismiss him as an eccentric who seems harmless enough…
Plato was wise enough to recognize this sort of manipulation, but his wisdom was generally ahead of its time, and, as I said earlier, it lacked the practical tools for its implementation. Nor is that a bad thing, since the wisdom of the future, introduced prematurely, invariably leads to catastrophe.
The stories of The Garden of Eden, Prometheus, and now, the dawn of true self-consciousness in Man, all involve pain; however that pain is not supposed to destroy us, but to make us wiser.
We probably stand right now at a crucial threshold of our existence. I have never seen anything like the pandemonium which is now going on over the whole world, and I suspect that has a purpose too.
Plato was a great mind, who advanced thinking incredibly in his times on various fields. But what is also true is that he deeply despised democracy, one of the reasons being that he blamed the Athenian democracy for the death of his beloved mentor, Socrates. Plato is rightfully accused for being the intellectual grandfather of all oligarchic thinkers, I believe the seminal work on this was done by Karl Popper in “The Open Society and Its Enemies” and Castoriades picked up the relay stick of critique and analysis and finished the race. Plato is accused for being the first great philosopher who tried to frame the philosophical construct for elitist, oligarchic and conservative regimes. Of course the result was full of holes and sophistries, not to mention outright failure when his ideas were attempted to be implemented, things which acute modern thinkers have pointed out.
With regards to history and what we know about it, it is no accident that the majority of the vast ancient Greek literature that has survived in our days is mostly the one authored by oligarchic, elitist thinkers, members of the elite in their times. The many works of the very famous and popular in their times democratic philosophers have not survived, or are hidden in some private libraries, the Vatican one being a prime example, and this is no accident. If you haven’t read “The Name of the Rose” by Umberto Eco, I strongly urge you to. It is not a coincidence that Plato was not popular among the majority in ancient Athens, such as Democritus was for example. To hopefully make this clearer, an interesting historical fact worth mentioning that most people are not aware of, is the name Ephialtes. Did you think of Ephialtes of the Thermopyles, the traitor? That’s not who I mean. I am talking about Ephialtes of Sophonides, the mentor of Pericles and the man who instigated the revolt which overthrew the rule of Areios Pagos, which was manned only by rich people with blue blood, and led to the establishment of the first real democracy in Athens. Everybody nowadays thinks of Pericles as the soul of Athenian democracy, but no, ancient Athenians regarded Ephialtes as their man, Pericles was not so liked, they even put his beloved etera under trial. But all ancient and modern historians remeber and praise Pericles, who was of blue blood and super wealthy family, this is no accident as well. At the same time if you think about it, it was he who put Athens in the road of the empire which led to its demise, as well as Alcibiades, similar story. I mean it was he who even convinced the Athenians to bring the treasury of the Athenian League in Athens in order to plunder it. Of course the Athenians themselves have a major responsibility for this, but this is another discussion about the corruption of war and power (it is worth noting for example that the Athenians failed to export their democratic ideas to their foreign policy). To come back to Ephialtes, it is even postulated that the later Greek historians, such as Herodotus for example deliberately named the traitor of Thermopyles Ephialtes, to smear the name of the original democrat Ephialtes in the centuries. Of course the famous ancient Greek historians were all from rich families and blue blood and were deeply anti-democratic.
Food for thought I hope.
Thank you for the food for thought!
I understand this view, but my assessment of Plato’s mind makes me doubt that he “deeply despised democracy” for such personal reasons as you indicate. I believe he could see beyond the personal into the “eternal”, for want of a better word, and strove to maintain his focus on such lofty considerations.
From what I have seen, he rather ruefully had to admit that democracy tended to degenerate into inferior forms of government, which is not to say that he wished that to happen. I would also say that his doubts were well-founded, if the 21st Century is anything to go by…
As with most of us, there are probably two Platos:
a) The Plato who could imagine, hope for, and work towards, an ideal society.
b) The Plato who was well aware of what human nature was, and could see in the details all sorts of reasons why the ideal would be very unlikely to materialize.
The influence of “The Mysteries” of his time should also not be underestimated. The initiates into those mysteries were not the ordinary people, nor was it automatic that the aristocracy would be found worthy of initiation. There were always moral considerations, and Plato has plenty to say on those.
Thank you particularly for all the historical background, which I found highly interesting, although my own interest in Plato tends towards his personality and his methods of teaching.
There exists no man without ego and Plato had a huge one. His insights into the “eternal”, with its forms etc, are of extreme interest and importance, his interpretations of them though, quite questionable. If you have any doubts about how undemocratic his thinking was and how hypocritical he came out because of his personal bigotry towards democracy think of this: He openly admired the Spartan regime and society. I militaristic society, ruled by a rich minority of landowners, which treated its slaves like subhumans and never produced any intellectual, artistic or any kind of cultural work worth remembering. Not even one person of notice. And the reason he admired it? Because it had retained its laws and societal structure unchanged for over eight centuries (talking about conservatism…). Nevermind that they had no written laws and were governed basically arbitrarily by the powerful and the clergy. Now the hypocrisy of this lies in the fact that there would be no Plato if there were no Athenian democracy and democracy in general. There would be no tragedy, no comedy, no science, no mathematics, no historiography, nothing. All these were products of the basic essence and functioning of democracy. No Sparta could have produced Plato and if he had tried to express his views as a Spartan “citizen” he would had been probably dead or at least exiled. Athens gave him the space and the nurturance to develop as Plato. But Plato still admired Sparta. Talking about hypocrisy…
Sorry for the bomb commenting, but it was too late to edit the previous one. Disregard it and read this one:
There exists no man without ego and Plato had a huge one. His insights into the “eternal”, with its forms etc, are of extreme interest and importance, his interpretations of them though, quite questionable. If you have any doubts about how undemocratic his thinking was and how hypocritical he came out because of his personal bigotry towards democracy think of this: He openly admired the Spartan regime and society. A militaristic society, ruled by a rich minority of landowners, which treated its slaves like subhumans and never produced any intellectual, artistic, scientific or any kind of cultural work worth remembering. Not even one person of notice. And the reason he admired it? Because it had retained its laws and societal structure unchanged for over eight centuries (talking about conservatism…). Nevermind that they had no written laws and were governed basically arbitrarily by the powerful and the clergy. Now the hypocrisy of this lies in the fact that there would be no Plato if there were no Athenian democracy and democracy in general. There would be no tragedy, no comedy, no science, no mathematics, no historiography, nothing. All these were products of the basic essence and functioning of democracy. No Sparta could have produced Plato and if he had tried to express his views as a Spartan “citizen” he would had been probably dead or at least exiled. Athens gave him the space and the nurturance to develop as Plato. But Plato still admired Sparta. Talking about hypocrisy…
With regards to your mention of the degeneration of our current regimes, it is the natural tendency of every non-democratic, hierarchical, oligarchic system. It is easy to corrupt and power tends to concentrate more to the top as time goes by. Except if you still regard them as democracies. Plato proposed a system governed by enlightened “philosopher kings”, specialists, talking about elitism… There is no man who won’t get corrupt by power, no man. And this it seems he never managed to comprehend, the man who was well aware of human nature… I guess he had quite a big idea about himself.
Now it is important to note here that the Athenian democracy did not fail. After its demise as a ruling super-power (a status which easily can be argued that was at odds with its democratic nature) it continued existing for several decades, and was finally eradicated viciously through violence. It was Alexander the Great (great my ass) who gave the final blow to democracy in the ancient Greek world and for this he should be pissed upon forever and certainly not admired. Imagine that in order to completely eradicate the democratic wants and demands of the Athenian people, the whole class of Thetes, the vast poor class of Athens which was the major democratic base of the city, were exiled to Thrake, as far away as possible, so that democracy could never flourish again at the place where it was born.
I suppose this is enough historical information for now, and if I could offer you an advice is to remember that there are no superhumans, every human being is victim to his pathe, something that the ancient Greeks realized very well and is fantastically illustrated in the classic ancient Greek tragedy and is actually one of the major reasons why they chose to have democratic institutions. Because it is easy to corrupt the few, but pretty hard to corrupt the many…
Today, we see Plato through the fog of two millennia, and I believe it is a mistake to apply modern fashions in morality to what the people of his day were doing.
I believe you are right when you say that we all have an ego, but it seems to me that the human ego itself, like the human body, is also in a process of evolution. Not only that, but not all egos start from the same place at the beginning of our individual conscious life. Some are clearly very developed at an early age, while others spend their whole earthly existence in a dream-like state. Yet another consideration is what the human ego has become since Plato’s day.
Then there are the people like Plato himself, who naturally didn’t have Freudian or Jungian terms at their disposal, but who contemplated their own minds as much as they contemplated the minds and actions of others, and who made discoveries – in the light of the common sense of their time – which were extremely illuminating, and not made in the spirit of entitled snobbery which you seem to assume on account of the coincidence of their fortunate material position in society. Plato knew about that too, but he also sought truths which would have validity for human evolution into the future, rather than practical, materialistic solutions which would have short-term benefits for himself and his pals.
There was a religious aspect to his endeavours, including an acknowledgement that there was a greater reality beyond his own “ego”, and it is precisely the lack of that religious aspect which bedevils modern attempts to explain what human beings are, and what they ought to be.
I can understand the temptation to use our modern knowledge to belittle the achievements of people who lived so long ago, but I can only say that I personally find it riveting to read Plato explaining things.
That is not the same as agreeing with everything he says, but, as a teacher, he seems unafraid to open ALL the doors to knowledge, and to offer us a warm-hearted invitation to step inside. Even if I were ultimately to reject everything he shows us, I’d still find the journey fascinating.
He was a great teacher, not the head of a dogmatic church, and his work is understandable by almost anyone – which, in itself, is a remarkable achievement.
I don’t disagree with anything that you just mentioned, I just wanted to point out that as every individual, so did Plato have his own prejudices and one of them was his animosity towards democracy.
Then we are probably in fundamental agreement. Perhaps it’s just a question of degree. From what I’ve read of Plato, I don’t find him so emotionally involved personally in the subject of democracy that he would feel something so strong as animosity towards it, but rather “disappointment”. The impression I get is more like a resigned “sigh”, as he accepts that it probably can’t work in the long-term…
How was Athenian system a democracy?!
Only proprietors were allowed in discussions and voting!
More detail please. The subject is more complex than you imply. The dates and persons involved in ancient Athenian political development are necessary for a coherent picture to emerge.
Just as one wouldn’t judge the 20th Century merely on rock music, Germany in 1933, or the Thatcher years in the UK…
Not true. The vast majority of the base of the Athenian demos were small business owners, craftmans, small land owners and thetes, people who manned the oars in the ships. Also, it was not them, but the small minority of super-rich land owners who owned the great majority of slaves.
Based on repeated public polling and outcomes. the three most successful contemporary democracies are all non-Roman: Switzerland’s Athenian democracy. China’s consultive democracy, and Singapore’s Singaporean(?) democracy.
Here’s a snapshot:
Goes to show that brainwashing can make people forget the meaning of words: Covid has shown us that people are weak and willing to tolerate massive abuse before, if ever, reacting to support their own interests.
Now that we are referring to dictatorship as “consultative” democracy, I propose that we refer to watermelons as oceans and sheep as lions.
Goes to show that 99% of us know jack shit about China, too, and don’t want to know.
I live in China, so am not surprised that the Chinese would claim to be a democracy, but from your comment I am now guessing that these polls were taken in the west?
No, the polls were taken in China, which is the most polled, most surveyed country on earth. Harvard University has been polling Chinese for decades and this is their latest report: https://ash.harvard.edu/publications/understanding-ccp-resilience-surveying-chinese-public-opinion-through-time
Governments that consistently produce the outcomes their citizens desire are democratic while governments that fail to produce such desired outcomes are not. China’s does and America’s doesn’t.
It’s simply lazy to deny that China is a democracy just because its application of democracy is different from ours and we can’t be bothered looking into it. China is far more democratic than the USA, in both form and substance. The Carter Center oversees elections, voter turnout is 20% higher than ours and Chinese trust and satisfaction with government is many times higher.
No matter how you slice it–constitutionally, electively, popularly, procedurally, operationally, substantively financially, even theocratically–China comes out ahead.
Wow, you really have been on the hard drugs. Have you ever been to China? Have you ever lived there? Have you ever had anything to do with their government? How do you get your “facts” from China?
Frankly I am stunned that anybody is so dumb to believe that China is a democracy, and someone who can write cogently. Maybe there is a second China that you are talking about? Either that or maybe the West reaslly is as fucked as I suspect it is.
So the billionaire Xi, professional politician, son of Mao’s head of intelligence, has been exterminating his opponents in the CCP this year – again under the ruse of the eradication of corruption. How does this fit into the democratic model? This is the second purge, he purged his opponents when he first came into power. Again, how does purging work in a democracy? So, who elected this guy and how come he just happens to be the son of one of Mao’s buddies? Was it a free and fair election and was Xi found to be the best of the 1.4 billion people that could have stood for election?
You are an idiot, hate to say it, but you are.
If China is so bad then why do you live there?
My wife is Chinese. Life is a set of compromises and living near her family is the benefit that makes living here worth living with the unpleasant oppression of occupied China.
You left out the bit about his cannibalism, devil worship and human sacrifice.
And the 500 million Weegers being turned into soap and lamp shades in concentration camps.
I live an hour from the border and have been visiting since 1967 and of course I’ve dealt with their government. I get my “facts” from Harvard University and similar adversarial agencies.
Read this analysis and get back to me: Selling Democracy to the Chinese.
I know Xi’s family history well, have written extensively about his career, and have US Government reports on him long before he became President. None of your claims show up anywhere in his record. Quite the contrary. Do you have any evidence for your remarkable claims?
You’re trying to impose a Western (Roman) interpretation on Chinese (Confucian) politics. He had no ‘opponents’ when he came to power. Nobody was ‘purged’ and, even if they were, ‘purging’ simply means that they were assigned to lower level jobs.
Again, you are attempting to impose a (failed) Roman/Western system on a (successful) Confucian civilization. As Professor Martha Stout observed, “Western politicians are more likely than people in the general population to be sociopaths. I think you would find no expert in the field of sociopathy/psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder who would dispute this… That a small minority of human beings literally have no conscience was and is a bitter pill for our society to swallow–but it does explain a great many things, shamelessly deceitful political behavior being one”.
Centuries of bitter experience have taught the Chinese that they must be carefully excluded because sociopaths–socially deviant, selfish, shallow, irresponsible, callous, remorseless users of others, pathological liars, glib con artists with an exaggerated sense of self-worth, unrealistic goals, parasitic lifestyles, chronic instability–are drawn to politics like moths to flame.
Charlie Rose asked Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore’s current prime minister and son of the country’s founder, about nepotism, calling it ‘the curse of Asian politics,’ and Lee replied, ”Our system is founded on the concept of meritocracy. If anybody doubts that I, as Prime Minister, am here not because I am the best man for the job but because my father fixed it, then my credibility and moral authority are destroyed. First you must have the moral right, then you can make the right decisions. It’s a basic Confucian precept”.
Singapore Government White Paper restates Lee’s response more bluntly, ”Many Confucian ideals are more relevant to Singapore than political ideologies borrowed from the West. The concept of government by honorable men who have a duty to do right for the people and who have their trust and respect fits us better than the Western idea that government power should be as limited as possible”.
With proper men the country’s growth is rapid, just as vegetation flourishes in the Spring. Therefore, the art of government lies in getting proper men, and proper men are attracted by the ruler’s own character, which he cultivates by treading the ways of duty and cultivates duty by practicing compassion. –Confucius, Doctrine of the Mean,
Compassion, in this context, means lifting 400,000,000 people out of poverty.
An ad hominem like yours is more than just an insult. It’s an insult used as if it were an argument or evidence in support of a conclusion. Verbally attacking people proves nothing about the truth or falsity of their claims. This can take the form of saying “Claim X is false because the person making it is an idiot.” But it can also take the form of “Claim X is false because the person making it is a propagandist,” or “Claim X is false because the person making it is a conspiracy theorist.”
Why not refute my claims with contrary evidence?
Generally, people use ad hominem attacks like yours for one of four reasons:
1. You believe that an argument is a simple competition in which winning or dominating is the goal.
2. You believe that the absolutely correct position is already known to you but do not wish to reveal it.
3. You believe that argument is entirely about social positioning: that the only meaningful outcome concerns which person looks best in the eyes of third parties.
4. You mistakenly assess your cognitive ability as greater than it is and, by inference, greater than the person you are attacking (the Dunning–Kruger effect).
Which fits you best?
Wow, and everything in bold, that says something about your bullshit. Okay, lets start from the beginning:
Let’s take a definition from here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
Definition of democracy1a : government by the people especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S. from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy— C. M. Roberts
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Yes, complicated, not in bold, but it is kind of contrary to all the bollocks you are spouting.
You’re talking about one form of democracy, which is fine, but any government that consistently fails to deliver democratic outcomes cannot be considered a functioning democracy.When social majorities’ expressed political preferences are ignored by their governments and there is little constraint on the power of the executive, we call them ‘autocratic.’
Sheldon Wolin called such governments formal democracies, and listed the US as one such.
Gilens and Page later proved him right. Here are their findings:
Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters, “the best evidence indicates that the wishes of ordinary Americans…have…little or no impact on the making of federal government policy. Wealthy individuals and organized interest groups—especially business corporations—have…much more political clout…the general public [is] … virtually powerless . . . The will of majorities is…thwarted by the affluent and the well-organized, who block popular policy proposals and enact special favors for themselves . . …Majorities of Americans favor specific policies designed to deal with such problems as climate change, gun violence, an untenable immigration system, inadequate public schools, and crumbling bridges and highways . . .Large majorities of America favor various programs to help provide jobs, increase wages, help the unemployed, provide universal medical insurance, ensure decent retirement pensions, and pay for such programs with progressive taxes. Most Americans also want to cut ‘corporate welfare.’ Yet the wealthy, business groups, and structural gridlock have mostly blocked such new policies [and programs].”[2]
Page and Gilens find, “government policy…reflects the wishes of those with money, not the wishes of the millions of ordinary citizens who turn out every two years to choose among the preapproved, money-vetted candidates for federal office”. “When citizens are relatively equal [economically], politics has tended to fairly democratic. When a few individuals hold enormous amounts of wealth, democracy suffers. The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy,” they write, “while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”
That’s why survey results look like this:
I don’t doubt that western regimes are nowadays almost complete facades of democracy, but naming the Chinese regime as a democracy is also a logical fallacy, as I believe I illustrated clearly enough in my article. Saying that it is more democratic though is an acceptable argument which can be discussed. I tend to believe that you are right that the basic philosophical principles of the Chinese system are more directed towards societal stability and “growth” than our completely corrupt western power elites and societies, totally oriented around individualism nowadays, but this is a very different purpose than the democratic one. A quick and famous reference is the famed speech of Pericles https://www.thoughtco.com/pericles-funeral-oration-thucydides-version-111998
One could argue, and possibly rightfully, that the Chinese example is closer, but it is still really far away. For example no autocratic/totalitarian measures, such as suppression of criticism or suppression and punishment of the expression of opinions, no matter how extreme they sound (except if they directly call for instigation of violence or the dissolution of democratic rules), can be tolerated in a democratic society, something that the Chinese regime is constantly doing. Neither the indirect or direct punishment of people who are not considered “productive” enough. Moreover, despite their current state, the US Constitution is the only constitutional legal document that includes the provision about the fundamental right of the “pursuit of happiness”, which can certainly not be just the pursuit of economic growth or a job where you work as an ant and have no realistic option to pursue your true wishes. Obviously the state of the western societies is terrible, and it is great that the Chinese regime lifted millions out of poverty, but one should remember that this happened in the west in the past as well and should at some point stop and focus to distribution of wealth and environment preservation, and most importantly the possibility of people to pursue their own idea about happiness and not the allowance of the emergence of billionaires and the mindless pursuit of economic growth. To me there is nothing that guarantees that the Chinese regime and society will not evolve towards more totalitarianism and autocracy and elites fostering. The only thing that can guarantee this is not a good philosophical base, though it is important (the west used to have it as well), but true democracy. Time will tell how China will evolve, but personally I am not very optimistic and I don’t like the idea of being a fan of anything, it is quite at odds with the notion of being a free democratic thinker and citizen.
We know nowadays that we have the technology and the productive means to guarantee a very good basic level of income, services and freedom to pursue happiness to everyone no strings attached (except perhaps their fundamental democratic obligations as citizens), but still this is not happening, not in China, nor anywhere, neither do I see them aiming for it. This is what we should be talking about.
Neither you nor I am in a position to prescribe what democracy should be, let alone what ‘real’ democracy is.
Though not the only way to judge a democracy, the first criterion must surely be, does it consistently achieve democratic outcomes?
If it does, we can proceed to examine its other aspects and if it does not, then we can move on.
Bottom line: China consistently achieves democratic outcomes more than any nation other than Switzerland.
Sorry, but I totally disagree. It is the right and obligation of every citizen of every democracy to express his opinion about what is more democratic, more right or more fair, and in a real democracy to have an equal vote on every decision. This is the essence of it.
Now with regards to whether China’s achievements serve the democratic purpose, this is very controversial. Should I mention the Orwellian monitoring and control of its “citizens” for example?
Americans do that all the time, but that doesn’t make America a democracy. On the contrary.
Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters, “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.” Democracy in America? U.Chicago Press. 2018
(Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy, Talking Points memo, 4.18.2014)
‘Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens’.
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595
Americans do what? Decide on every issue directly? I don’t think so.
The issue of how public debate is controlled by the privatization and conglomeration of media is important, but the same problem exists when they are centrally controlled by the state, and one could easily argue that the latter is much worse.
I don’t understand why are you constantly trying to compare with the US, there are other examples, historical as well as current. I sense you are quite a fanboy of China and honestly I don’t enjoy discussing with fanboys. The word itself has the same etymology with the word fanatic, and that is no accident.
You’re conflating two meanings of ‘state,’ Roman and Confucian.
They’re entirely different animals.
Martin Jacques explains why:
Well, I see that you are constantly avoiding to address the issues I point out, such as censorship, monitoring, suppression and control. I suppose you argue, but don’t have the audacity to do it directly, that for a Chinese individual with a “confucian” mindset all these are acceptable as long as they serve the preservation of the sacred state, with its sacred mission. Sorry but these notions are light years away from the western democratic mindset (the true one, not the corrupt one that is currently dominating) and I will never abide to them, neither will ever the western societies. Because societies evolve, the collective human consciousness evolves, and its social institutions have to evolve with it, or civilization fails. Now if you love conservatism in order to have social stability, no matter how much the individual is suppressed, I am afraid you will not find many followers, even in China it is becoming increasingly difficult to enforce this and the dissenters are becoming increasingly more. Of course you might love the idea of having a state-father-figure to take care of you, run by some technocrats who know better, but this reduces the human collective to cattle, something that I would never abide to. There is a saying here in my country that goes “Better to live one hour as a free man, than forty years as a slave”. Of course it depends on your definition of freedom. But mine includes the positive aspect, having actual institutional power, and voting for someone to represent you in elections is an abolition of your power, not an exercise of it.
Also if you noticed in my article, I don’t like any version of any state similar to either the western or the chinese versions. In my idea of a democracy the people are the state, and this is fundamentally different. I believe I made the distinction between the Roman and the Greek conceptions quite clear in my article but it seems that you can’t grasp it. Perhaps this conversation has completed its circle.
All countries, whether they call themselves democracies or otherwise, employ censorship, monitoring, suppression and control.
LOL! I see you ran out of arguments already. I was kind of expecting it. Have a nice day!
Perhaps you’re unaware of the powers democratic American Presidents regularly exercise:
• warrantless surveillance of private phone and email conversations.
• SWAT team raiding homes;
• thousands of shootings of unarmed citizens by police
• harsh punishment of schoolchildren in the name of zero tolerance
• endless unpopular wars
• secret bans on 50,000 people from flying and refusing explanations
• imprisoning 2,000,000 people witout trial
• executing 2,000 people each year prior to arrest.
• out-of-control government spending with little benefit to citizens
• heavily armed, militarized police;
• roadside strip searches;
• roving border sweeps that imprison citizens and non-citizens
• privatized prisons with a profit incentive for jailing citizens;
• fusion centers that collect and disseminate data on citizens’ private transactions
• militarized agencies with stockpiles of ammunition
No Chinese leader, including Mao, has ever had one such power.
OK, lets go again with the US. Man, you are hopeless… A typical fanboy. Enjoy the rest of your life.
The crowd is less “conservative” than at unz, but have even less of an idea who you are, hence their opinions.
At least this bunch has a sense of humor and isn’t obsessed with Jews and blacks!
How can China possibly be democratic?
It hasn’t fought a single war for Israel.
Why not call it democracy?
Its preferable to what we’ve got, ZOG Rule.
ZOGocracy.;
Rule by, of and for the 43% of the 1%.
Why not call what you have as “dictatorship” or “oligarchy” or “aristocracy”, there are plenty of words out there already. CCP occupied China is “dictatorship”.
In any case, no need to worry about it, the west is winding back the clock, this time to overt white slavery, controlled and abused by the oligarchy. Democracy will become an historical artifact. Enjoy.
Even in an oligarchy you should at least know and be free to discuss who rules you.
The Soros Cover-Up — Newt Gingrich
“It seems there is suddenly a movement in media to silence anyone who speaks out against George Soros—and, specifically, his funding of radical prosecutors seeking to change the criminal justice system by simply ignoring certain crimes.
“When I brought up Soros’s plan to get pro-criminal, anti-police prosecutors elected across the country, two of the show’s (Fox) participants interrupted me and forcefully asserted that Soros was not involved.
“This is ludicrous. Soros’s plan to elect these prosecutors has been well documented already—and it has nothing to do with his spiritual or ethnic background.”
https://americanmind.org/post/the-soros-cover-up/
It has everything to do with his spiritual and ethnic identity. Always ask yourself when you see people engaging in such subversion, on such a grand scale, what is their identity? Nine times out of ten it’ll be the same one.
A closer look at this identity and its ideology does not permit me to ignore the above fact, and it should not anybody – unless we admit we would rather allow our demise because we were too afraid to look at the truth.
The that you have to couch your comment in the terms above tells us something.
Once the oligarches have made machines that can reproduce themselves without the help of humans, then the human race will have elimiated itself and spawned a new being which is not carbon based but is just pure technology. Then you won’t have a right to live, let alone free speech: What a wonderful world that will be! We are ruled by beings driven to want more and in the process they will destroy everything.
Great article ! Where I live they are rerunning Mary Beards “Meet The Romans” again the reference to Rome makes it topical . For democracy to exist as it is envisioned by the optimistic and naive , equality , education ,and moderation in all things must be embraced by the elites and the masses . Not a chance of that occurring at humanities current level of evolution /devolution?
The goods and bads of all countries result from the people, not the government: the government is just a reflection of the people. Australia is morally bankrupt, like all of the west: the Aussie majority are happy to oppress the Aussie minorities …. that has been happening for ever. The freedom lovers are just white abos in the average Aussie mind and they are happy for the police to beat the shit out of any refusenik: happy to oppress the freedom loving minority. They are not happy to let people make their own decisions, do their own thing, be independent people and still have a comfortable life. They want laws, regulations, the mental security in knowing that the world is ordered and there are no surprises.
The book “Let them eat Tweets’ covers this subject well and does so without any reference to Marx and classical class theory. It describes the problem with democracy as the ‘conservative dilemma’, the problem that the minority with all the resources have with keeping the majority happy with this situation. Its not a new problem, either — it first reared its head in the mid-19th century as the voting franchise was enlaged to include more ‘ordinary’ people. This raised fears in Britain but they were proven unfounded — Benjamin Disraeli understood the innate conservatism of much of the oridnary people (what we’d call the milddle classes these days) and coopted them — bribed them in a way — to retain their support.
The problem with this approach was that not all politicans were as smart as Disraeli so conservatism tends towards wide gaps in wealth and opportunity, gaps that mirror the feudal systems of old. Rather than giving a little conservatives often end up co-opting extremist sentiment as a tool to keep their base engaged. The problem is that eventually the tail ends up wagging the dog — the conservative establishment finds these sentiments useful tools but eventually becomes prisoner of them.
The book is well worth a read. As for Democracy itself, its what we say it is. We’ve had minority government in the US for many years now but we’re still the exemplar for “Democracy”, intent on pushing our version of it on others whether they want it or not.
Just one point which seems minor but in fact it’s not, and the author seems to be well aware of, and is language, the POWER of language.
This is a basic error in human cognition: It is through language that the world is apprehended (discarding direct non-linguistic experience on the way, ) so you only need to twist language to have a twisted worldview, like calling “democracy” something that is not and “enhanced interrogation techniques” to torture…and voilà: now you have a democratic goverment deeply concerned by it’s citizens”
Most people overlook this very basic building block of reality perception and “live” in world that doesn’t exist but in their minds….and they will even kill to keep their mentally-created habitat.
I would agree that this is an important point, but I would argue against the essentialisn of the position that language (and language only) constructs reality. It is, in fact, very possible to access a layer of reality that is not apprehended by language, but it does take some discipline to “unlearn” language. To succeed in doing so confers a great deal of power, which is why I advocate for what I like to call “orthogonal ways of knowing” (a term borrowed from another Off-G commenter). My deep intuition informs me that this is our only way out now, and precisely because the Totalitarian State has achieved almost full-spectrum dominance over the linguistic domain.
This is what I meant by “direct non-linguistic experience” which is the actual way for direct knowing….but it has been supplanted by linguistic-conceptual knowledge.
I believe that the invention of language by humans was a backward step in our evolution.
With basic sounds, movements, signs, facial expressions, etc. elders of the tribe were respected for their long memories and great knowledge. Now any youngster can read a book or (even worse) google something and become an “expert”.
And I agree with Ramdan, language can be maniputated and slanted to bring about a desired result. The computer age would not be possible without a spoken/written language.
We shouldn’t confuse tools with the evil motives of the aggressor. Sticks, drugs etc etc would all be used instead of language if they were the only tools to realise the goal.
The problem with tools is as time goes on they get more and more powerful, enabling bigger and bigger goals. Again, they are just tools but in evil hands.
I believe the growth of tools to oppress ourselves and others is what the Unabomber was fighting against. Like many before him, he saw where this was leading and wanted to prevent the inevitable catastrophe.
Excellent point. I think it also ties somewhat into Juval Noah Harari’s concept of “shared fiction” as the basic building block of large scale societal cooperation. People have a strong need to believe in the same stories and concepts, otherwise it’s impossible to have shared goals and large-scale cooperation. Language is a key part of setting up this fiction. As it implies, this is fiction, it’s not necessarily real. Just look at religion for example – it’s an elaborate fictional construct which organizes behavior in a certain way. The tool to do it – language of course, what else? some religious imagery, buildings etc, but mostly just simple language and stories. The fact that so many people are religious in the 21st century is a testament to the power of language and pure fiction to shape the course of human society.