Democracy is Not the Same as Freedom
Todd Hayen
You hear the word “democracy” thrown around quite a bit these days. “Democracy is being destroyed in the United States by Donald Trump!!” and “Democracy is being destroyed in the United States by Joe Biden!”
Every time we turn around we are being told that democracy is being destroyed by this or that—in the US, Canada, the UK, Germany, North Korea—oops, they don’t have any democracy to destroy, right? I forgot.
Not only is democracy being destroyed in all of our previously democratic countries, but it is being destroyed in countries that never had democracy, or haven’t had it before recently acquiring it. All of us democratic countries also have to be the ones responsible for maintaining democracy everywhere else in the world—like the lack of democracy, or lost democracy, will somehow rub off on us, or it will spread to us like some sort of infectious disease.
We must kill “non-democracy” before it spreads, because the more countries that are not democratic, the more likely we, the US and Canada, and anywhere else that is “free,” will get struck down and crumble. Very much like what happens when you have a bad apple in a bushel basket filled with other, healthy, apples. The rest of the apples will surely go bad.
But here’s the rub—“freedom” being conflated with “democracy.”
A democratic country is not necessarily a free country. And although I don’t know of any of these, I don’t think a free country needs to be democratic—a strong constitution is all that is needed, really. A strong constitution and a strong means to protect it.
Even countries that claim to be democratic are not free, often they are not even democratic. Take the late GDR for example—the German Democratic Republic, East Germany. They were clearly a communist country which afforded the populace very little freedom. While the GDR technically held elections, they were more symbolic than democratic, serving to legitimize the authority of the ruling party rather than offer genuine choice and representation to the people. Their government was complex, as are most governments, and even though a country may tout being a democracy, it often is far from it—at least far from what the general populace believes democracy to be.
I will not claim I even begin to know what the “general populace” thinks democracy is, but I doubt if I would be far from the mark if I said most people define democracy as “the people having the freedom to choose their leaders, typically through a popular vote”—majority rule. But it seems to be far more complicated than that. We must answer questions regarding the definition of “popular” vote, questions (in the US) about the electoral college, questions about who gets to vote, and who gets to be candidates, and who doesn’t, and whether that vote is administered legally and fairly. These considerations mentioned here are only a drop in the bucket, and they are essential to contemplate before we understand exactly what democracy is.
And why is democracy always conflated with freedom? If any of the above complexities are not handled fairly and transparently, you can easily construct a corrupt system of “voting” that entirely misses the point of freedom of choice. Let me use the former GDR as another example here. In that country, which called itself a democracy, The Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED), the ruling communist party, held a monopoly on power and tightly controlled the electoral process. Opposition parties were not allowed, and the SED effectively predetermined the outcome of elections. Voting was also not truly secret, as the government could monitor and punish those who did not support the regime. Additionally, only candidates from the SED-led National Front were allowed to run for office, ensuring that the ruling party maintained control over the government. Jump back to a “free democratic society”— supposing the populace did all decide on one leader in a free, corrupt-less, vote, there is no guarantee that the elected leader would do a single thing he or she promised in order to ensure his or her election. Is that freedom?
On the other hand, what if the “people” want a corrupt leader? Or a leader they think will do right by them, and do not give any scrutiny or thought whatsoever regarding the method the leader will use to accomplish his or her promises? What if the majority of the people want a fascist dictator (Hitler was, after all, voted into office), or want a communist government, or, closer to home, want to vote for socialism, and thus lose many freedoms they previously had.
I’ll turn now to Ayn Rand, an author and philosopher of the early to mid-20th Century. She is famous for such books as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Here is a quote from one of Rand’s ardent followers, Leonard Piekoff, which certainly reflects her own philosophy:
Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom…”
And a quote directly from Rand herself (found as Chapter 12, “Theory and Practice” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal):
“This means that the majority may vote away the rights of a minority—and dispose of an individual’s life, liberty, and property, until such time, if ever, as he is able to gather his own majority gang. This, somehow, will guarantee political freedom.
But wishing won’t make it so—neither for an individual nor for a nation. Political freedom requires much more than the people’s wish. It requires an enormously complex knowledge of political theory and of how to implement it in practice.
It took centuries of intellectual, philosophical development to achieve political freedom. It was a long struggle, stretching from Aristotle to John Locke to the Founding Fathers. The system they established was not based on unlimited majority rule, but on its opposite: on individual rights, which were not to be alienated by majority vote or minority plotting. The individual was not left at the mercy of his neighbors or his leaders: the Constitutional system of checks and balances was scientifically devised to protect him from both.”
I have to admit, I am not a fervent fan of Rand’s philosophies, but this bit does make sense to me.
I recently viewed a nine-part Netflix documentary Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War. Throughout this master production of propaganda, I became numb to the word “democracy.” Democracy this, democracy that.
They must have uttered the word 1,000 times in describing the importance of preserving democracy in this country and in that country—particularly regarding Ukraine.
Very seldom did they articulate the word “freedom.” And it seemed that the only illustration of freedom in these countries threatened with losing their democracy were swarms of people protesting.
Yes, free assemblage and peaceful protest is indeed an example of freedom. But it isn’t the only one, and it isn’t the only freedom people lose when ruled by a totalitarian government. Maybe masses of people protesting the government is an example of democracy, but it is only one aspect of freedom—freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom from the tyranny of medicine, freedom to be an autonomous being with inalienable rights. On and on.
Trust me, I do not hate the idea of democracy or majority rule. However, at its best, it has problems as Rand so eloquently pointed out. But what we are seeing in our present world, democracy is definitely not at its best, and the powers that be manipulate the word to mean what is best for them. The battle you and I face is not a battle for democracy, it is a battle for freedom.
Don’t let them trick you into thinking otherwise.
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.
Honestly, it is becoming tiresome to read diatribes of well-read people about democracy which read like the works of a five-year old who doesn’t know what he is talking about, and getting intrigued by old-worn and long ago deconstructed arguments against democracy, as the one quoted by Rand.
I guess it is the outcome of being thoroughly indoctrinated since your tenderest of years that you live in the most advanced democracy in the world. Wake up people, western regimes are not democracies, they are republics, it is quite a completely different regime. Go read some political philosophy before starting to mumble about it with kindergarten argumentation.
Anyway, you can read an introduction on the subject in a relevant article I wrote for this website a few years ago: https://off-guardian.org/2020/09/18/we-do-not-live-in-a-true-democracy/
Ian Davis also authored an excellent article about the subject recently for this website: https://off-guardian.org/2022/04/15/democracy-is-dead-long-live-democracy/
Also read Ian Davis’s recent article about the same subject, also published in this website: https://off-guardian.org/2022/04/15/democracy-is-dead-long-live-democracy/
Democracy: 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to eat for dinner
The only eventuality you are not free from is death…
Everything else is freedom of choice.
The door is always open.
It was refreshing to see Ayn Rand mentioned in Dr. Hayen’s essay. It was kind of like “old home week” for me. In my college days, I climbed on board the Ayn Rand Objectivism band wagon (I’ve been “off the wagon” for about 60 years now).
Ms. Rand extols the virtue of freedom – in particular the freedom of the creators (without whose creative acumen the rest of us would starve) to do their thing.
The rest of us are also 100% free in the Randian world – to pursue any job we wish in the society the creators create. And, as a corollary, to accept any pay we wish along the pay scale the creators think appropriate for our labor. And therein hangs a tale, doesn’t it?
(I’ve never engaged in self-promotion before – and hopefully never will again. But I wrote a short story, a parody of “Atlas Shrugged.” I’m going to link to it – but that’s okay because I don’t really expect anyone to actually read it.)
http://www.extaanzelitmag.net/the%20turtle%20turns.htm
The U.S. and other Western nations are – “democracies” – in the very same sense that a biological male proclaiming himself to have magically “trans-formed” into – “a woman” – is actually a woman. As in only some fantasy world where “wishes” and “feelings” trump material reality.
Sunday May 19, 2024
Democracy is a Mirage…!
U.S.A. since 9/11 and Pandemic Engages in Targeted Retribution, Retaliation, Vengeance, Punishment & More
Freedom of Speech, All Consitutional Rights & Due Process All Intentionally Violated
The U.S. Government, All Federal, State, City and County Courts both Civil and Criminal, All Federal State, City Agencies.
All Public Officials, All Law Enforcement, All Public Servants, All Politicians and More….
Continue to VIOLATE with INTENT the Rights of American Citizens….
A. Violations&Retaliation of FREE Speech
B. Violations&Obstruction Due Process
1. Deprivation of Rights
2. Conspiracy of Rights
3. Abuse of Power under Color of Law
4. Public Corruption
5. Judicial Corruption
6. Fraud
7. Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice
8. Filing of False Instruments
9. Destruction of Evidence
10. So much more
We are being propagandized about the threats to “democracy” especially in the US; despite the fact special interest groups have totally captured and control the political process and pretty much rendered it useless. It is a rigged system. We have been duped and brainwashed to believe it is the best form of governance known to man.
First of all direct elections were never the norm in Europe. A few British colonists who would become “founding fathers” were exposed to the idea of representative governance by the Iroquois Delawares and Susquehannas, the indigenous inhabitants of the Northeast. https://www.chickasaw.tv/episodes/our-history-is-world-history-season-5-episode-1-tribal-councils-benjamin-franklin-s-framework-for-democracy https://www.thoughtco.com/native-american-influence-on-founding-fathers-2477984
The system is not designed for multi party inclusion and participation. In the US it is extremely difficult to get third party candidates on the ballot because the system is structured to have only two major parties (one actually with minor differences) and cracking that system requires vast sums of money to sue to get on the ballot , open the process, get media exposure get included in the “debates” and pay to get the vote out. Also the Electoral College was the hedge the founders implemented to ensure their class would retain control (only property owning white males were allowed to vote) of the government. Over time the vote has been expanded but the system is still rigged. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy We need to wake up and accept this reality.
The battle for freedom? Already fought in 1770.
“Democracy serves you right to suffer baby. But the good days are gone”. J. Geils band.
https://youtu.be/W3Xt6Y2RUYg
Where’s your freedom if you’re forced to obey the majority vote/decision?
What is the individual that doesn’t belong to the collective?
What’s wrong with equality and freedom for everyone?
Aren’t you an individual one in the collective everyone?
Isn’t what’s good for everyone good enough for you?
If you can grow your own wheat, grind it and bake bread, Build your own house and protect yourself from predators, congratulations.
Otherwise it’s comply or starve
A rational counter to the collectivist ideology pushed by Tyson & co would be based around Due Process; i.e. the Magna Carta. And it would require the “scientists” to give evidence under oath in support of their claims. However, I think we’re stuck with hoping that the jab cull will be sufficient!
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/deprivations-of-liberty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause
—
Neil deGrasse Tyson on “the social contract of public health”.
Clip: 1:37
https://rumble.com/v24xlp4-pbd-and-neil-degrasse-tyson-duke-it-out-on-the-morality-of-forcing-covid-in.html
Full Video (I couldn’t get past a couple of minutes!):
Neil deGrasse Tyson
PBD Podcast
Ep. 223
Streamed live on Jan 9, 2023
In this episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Neil deGrasse Tyson and Adam Sosnick.
“In a democracy the people choose a leader in whom they trust. Then the chosen leader says, ‘Now shut up and obey me.’ People and party are then no longer free to interfere in his business.”
― Max Weber (1864-1920)
Some more from Weber’s Poltics As A Vocation:
Well, if one were to look carefully, and survey carefully, one would find that the majority ARE in favor of individual rights. Of course a bought and paid for media would never want you to realize that because it would threaten them. If people really knew that the majority wanted individual rights, well people might just have a renaissance like uprising. They might just feel safe enough to say “NO!!!” to the few sicko psycho bastards that think they can buy and force their way into any and all forms of human degradation that attempts to make nothing out of the value of individual human lives.
Ah yes, Ayn Rand, that shining literary beacon of trite platitudes on the “free market.” Did you ever manage to hack through “Atlas Shrugged?” How about that long, long screed out of “John Galt,” the hero of that insipid book? I admit, I never did make it through that 75 page long ramble, but I did read most of her corny book, although only the once as that was about all I could stomach. Trite never has done it for me.
Rand was certainly long winded and could come up with many pretty words to describe “freedom” but freedom for whom? For rapacious capitalists to tell themselves that amassing all the wealth of humanity was a good thing, and that those same capitalists were merely trying to preserve capitalism and the “free market” for all those dirty idiot plebes who perhaps wanted some say in how all that capital amassed from their labors was allocated? Why, how dare those peasants think they understand all those complexities without a billionaire to explain it to them.
Should it not be mentioned by Rand and her acolytes that the same billionaire class bleating on about freedom had no intention of sharing said freedom with the working classes that provided the actual means to amass all that wealth, while they filled the heads of all those workers with the promise that if they were just given a bit more “freedom,” that sharing would start any day now…. Many of that hypnotized working class believed it fervently, many of them screaming at any form of any controls on the hoarding of capital as “communism” while the billionaires became trillionaires letting the working class fight their battles for them. When billionaires talk about cutting taxes and regulations, they are NOT talking about cutting taxes or regulations for ordinary people but for themselves, shouldn’t we fucking see that by now? Hell, many of the trillionaire class helped put those pesky regulations in place to stifle any competition to their monopolistic practices, but that’s heresy to even mention that any “good capitalist” would actively seek to stifle competition in the “free market” isn’t it?
Authors like Rand are just another form of propaganda, so why should we be surprised at all how well her little screeds were accepted by those who willfully ignored the pillage? We should certainly be able to see by now that the Galt’s Gulch freaks have indeed won, they not only own what passes for governments, but they own damned near everything else and they’re working on owning it all. Many of the plebes still refuse to see that all that trite bullshit justification spewed out by those like Rand who do the bidding of the trillionaires who own us is all is exactly how we got where we are today and will bleat on endlessly about “communism” while what we face is anything but.
And really, the woman lived off of good old Social Security in her dotage, but never mind that as she certainly felt she’d earned it, with all her lecturing on individual responsibility and bashing of the collective means that provided her own security in her old age. I agree democracy is a sham, but what’s the solution? Galt’s Gulch for trillionaires while the rest of us wait for the crumbs they’ll so benevolently share? Well baby, we will very soon be right there, in most of the ways that count we already are. Now what? Let’s just blame it all on democracy and let techno-feudalism reign. Surely that’s the solution to all our problems, right? The trillionaire class has come up with the perfect plan for all of us, if we just allow them enough freedom to implement it. It appears we will do so.
Far too much analysis. There are only 2 groups manipulating and devouring us: the scheming hoarder psychos and the traitorous public servants (including legislators and judges). Their relationship is oligarchy. Most of propaganda originating from US tries to deflect blame for every outrage from public servants and make it a matter for private legal contention (liability).
Electing “leaders” is not democracy, it’s a republic. Even Republicans frequently clarify that the US is a republic, not a democracy. They like leaders telling the plebs what to do and make no bones about it. One can call our system a Representative democracy, but noen of the voting public is “represented” by this Uniparty system. Both Parties and the CLUB’s Bar Association are private membership associations which are not ruled by law, nor do they follow law. They make up and apply rules as they deem necessary. It is a cloaked form of totalitarianism.
On the other hand, real democracy is problem-solving design and direct vote on policy. Small and large tribes collectively self-ruled themselves in this manner until agriculture halted hunter-gatherer living off nature. Rand was a psychopath with egomaniacal intent that is essentially anti-social. Tell me a tribe of 50 would tolerate any one person having/accumulating more than another. No. They found methods of building consensus to survive and thrive. This is doable.
At Occupy Oakland we discussed, vetted, debated and approved policies/actions with a 90% consensus, or the measure failed. Problem solving, creativity, debate, design/redesign, approval, implementation and oversight by a collectively decided acceptable standard of consensus. The US capitalist ruled republic system has wordsmith programmed the word “collective” to be a triggered landmine. Let’s grow up and get over the system’s daily manipulation of the english dictionary and hold to the meaning of words and not the suggested inferences of capitalist spin, like Ayn Rat. Go to Webster’s and work forward. Collective is group, cooperation, sharing. Society is a form of collective, association, relationships, iteraction. It’s not a bad word until people like Thatcher say “there’s no such thing as society”. Or capitalists landmine the word “social-ism” into a knee-jerk rejection.
There is the individual. There is a collection of individuals called society. When individuals work together toward common objectives and goals, that’s a collective. Without this Humanity would never have survived outside primate groups. This valorization of the individual at the expense of society is where capitalist dogma has engaged a LOCKDOWN of human intellect, to our deep detriment.
Whether or not it works or not doesn’t mean that the system is not “representative democracy”. It’s pretty simple, it’s a system where the people democratically elect representatives to represent them. Of course we all know they don’t represent “us”, but that’s still what the system is.
They call it “representative democracy” but it is not. They call the police, courts and jails the “justice system”, but it is not. If anything is not what it’s name’s definition is, it is NOT what they call it. Anybody can say or write a word. But making it correct attribution to a reality is what me must only accept. The logic of your argument is self-defeating, as it accepts no-solution as a solution. It is not,
You’re not getting my point, I’m not sure why. We agree the end result is not democracy, representative, but that doesn’t mean that technically that IS what the system is supposed to be. You can’t parse that? Your response here makes little sense.
Are you a human or a supposed-to-be human. The US has NEVER been a representative democracy because it excluded a majority of society. I get the same argument from people supporting “capitalism”, who counter criticism by saying it’s not capitalism, it’s supposed to be capitalism. The old “free market” argument. My response is for all of us to stop accepting these abominable systems they control by saying “well it’s supposed to be”. The words are just a wrapper hiding unknown contents. If we want everyone to collectively problem solve, design, approve, implement and oversee policy then that’s what we should only accept. Whether you call it democracy or republic is irrelevant. Throw the word democracy under the bus and create the above “system” and name it uniquely as defining the above conditions and let’s move toward that solution. Hashing and rehashing what “democracy” is simulates nothing, which is what the owners want.Starting to build the above system which simulates actual democracy happening scares the living crap out of them. That’s why their trying to lock us down now in every facet of life. We’re getting close to doing it and sending the ruling class to bogieland.
Your 90% pass rate for consensus itself was a trap. How may laws get 90% approval in any legislature?
You did not read what i wrote. It worked as designated. Anyone who fears democracy being mob rule, cannot fear it with 90% consensus with a Bill of Rights that protects that 10% from harm. Agreed upon rates of consensus with established rights of protection makes it all happen.
Do you see why *quoting Ayn Rand* is not a smart move?
Constitutional system of checks and balances was *scientifically devised*
You may be relieved to know that it’a “free world” and there is such a thing as World Congress of LGBT Jews.
Imagine that.
Democracy is a cult, it is theatre. You, cannot effect meaningful change at the ballot box, it is not allowed. That is not how the system works. It is all a game. The system, ‘Caesar’ – institutionalised man, and womankind, power, covers all ‘sides’, no matter who you, vote for ‘Caesar’ always wins. None of those that you, vote in have any ‘power’, whether a President Trump or Biden, a Prime Minister Sunak or Starmer, they do not make decisions. They are puppets doing as they are told by the shadow government/deep state/whatever you, want to call it that continues on, and is why nothing changes no matter who you, vote for. You did not vote for it, and cannot vote it out. Caesar seeks to perpetuate itself, for which it requires your participation.
*”Who is Caesar?
A core part of Caesar’s strategy is that you can never clearly identify him. When his name is first mentioned we recall a guy from two thousand years ago – Gaius Julius Caesar – the general who seized power in the last days of the Roman Republic and became its first dictator. But his name, Caesar, transformed into a title for all the many Emperors that followed him, eventually becoming Kaiser and Tsar, with such titles still in active use today.
In all these cases, the person of any individual Caesar is irrelevant, for Caesar lives on symbolically wherever earthly power is exercised. The truth is therefore unavoidable; there is not just one but millions of Caesars, all servants to the One Caesar, all exercising POWER in the OUTER WORLD over SPACE-TIME-EVENTS. This is the definition we must constantly bear in mind for Caesar is present wherever there is ownership, trade, currency, hierarchy, and law. And he (but sometimes she) always demands tribute.
Caesar rules the capitalist system. But he also rules the communist system. He is a socialist, marxist, libertarian, and conservative, all at the same time. He is a registered Republican and a campaigning Democrat, and will encourage you to support any side of an election or referendum that suits his ends. In truth then all political parties belong to him, but because Caesar is no fool he covers his bases by also being the ruler of all revolutionary movements as well as all the authorities and bureaucracies which prop up his status quo. He is the system, and the anti-system.
Caesar is personified in every greying, aging, defunct and bankrupt government as well as every bright new hope. He is a supporter of every ‘Better Way’ and an affiliate of every tradition. Certainly, different Caesars will distribute power, money, property, and opportunity in different ways. One Caesar will definitely benefit one section of society, while another will prioritise elsewhere. This is the way that Caesar ensures that he never loses control and that all changes of government operate Caesar’s rules for Caesar’s benefit. Revolutions to overturn Caesar always result in the proclamation of a New Caesar. It is always true that once the King is dead the new proclamation is ‘Long live the King!’
Every aspect of the human Outer World is in Caesar’s domain. He exerts control over business, industry, government, and charities. He presides over the military as well as maintaining a militia of police and government agencies. He determines, through his servants in the media, what is and is not discussed, but makes sure to offer up the illusion of conversation and enquiry on his fake-play-acting-stages known as radio, TV, and the Internet. He exerts his authority more subtly at festivals, conferences and symposiums where he knows he will find a rich seam of compliant people whom he can scare into doing his bidding. He extends his power further by creating institutions, guilds, unions, and associations to act as his gatekeepers, making sure that they regulate human thought and behaviour across a million sectors of human life.
Different faiths are consecrated in any one of Caesar’s many names, for he is clever enough to know that full control of his human stock can easily be established if people believe themselves free to choose – when all the while Caesar has pre-determined the options available for selection.
Caesar’s goal in all this is to make YOU reliant on HIM, for all the essentials of life. He demands that you relinquish your ability to HEAL YOURSELF and bow before his anointed priests, whom he calls doctors. He intends that you abandon all attempts to EDUCATE YOURSELF and wants you to hand yourself over to his appointed clerics called TEACHERS. He certainly does not want you to FEED YOURSELF nor SUSTAIN YOURSELF in any way. He wants you to become totally dependent upon him and his minions. And he is in no special hurry to achieve this; after all, he has been busy with this for thousands of years.
Already this picture of Caesar will be too much for most people to bear, which is why the TIME OF ADJUSTMENT tends to bring only partial visions of Caesar. Early realisations that something is profoundly wrong tend to occur as a result of a bad experience at the hands of one kind of Caesar. The loss of a job might seed resentment against Capitalist Caesar and draw the victim into social action or resistance of some kind. But equally if one’s awakening occurs while queuing for hours for food then the Marxist Caesar may be identified as the enemy. Yet both these visions are two sides of the same Coin of Caesar. There are many Caesars to rebel against, but if we do so only partially, then we are in danger of swapping one form of external control for another. There is, however, another way, if we can bear it.”
*Extract from “Who is Caesar, and why should we care?” by Richard Abbot: https://www.thehermitage.org.uk/blog/who-is-caesar-and-why-should-we-care
Important article. The most important fight right now is for freedom. It’s the greatest threat we face. We would need to overthrow oligarchy to attain real (direct) democracy, which is something we’ve never had anyway. We’ve only had the appearance of democracy with the existence of ‘democratic’ institutions, enough to fool most of the population.
Although even in a direct democracy freedom/liberty would need to be vigilantly protected independent of democracy and not be subjected to a vote of any kind. The majority have no more right to impose tyranny on the individual than a minority of rulers does.
’tis truly a golden age for pervy predators. Jimmy Savile looks up from Hell and wishes he’d been born half a century later.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GN5Dq-aWcAAKed_?format=jpg&name=large
Should have offered more context. This is new YMCA policy. See here:
https://twitter.com/LisenBarter/status/1791944560739770782
I look forward to the updated Village People song.
The problem of definition and determination has vexed philosophers, particularly analytic philosophers, for millennia (see below.) The horns of the dilemma are that if we do not assume name-essence theology (supernatural power of ideal causal naming; ontologism as deontologism via the power of the word)…. Then what?
Without necessary ontogenic connection, names are arbitrarily assigned symbols that mean nothing except by imposed convention. Even analytic philosophers can only assign contingent association of properties after Kripke. Names mean by extensional or ostensive pointing to things for which the labelling has no necessary causal determination whatsoever.
When Aristotle came up with his ‘essential’ metaphors, he could point to the ‘market’ or agora. It was demarcated by place-marking stones that defined the limitation, circumscription or horizon of the agora, where democracy was practiced. Those stones (horos) became analogous with the “definition of definition” by metaphor; the horos of the agora became the boundary of definition (horos or horismos) by disemplaced analogous metaphor. So where is the marketplace now?
The periphery of the marketplace is planetary. Where can we point and say: “this is the agora”, let alone “this is the essence of the agora.” So what of the democracy practiced there?
Any attempted redefining of democracy must be planetary as irreducible to any one particular location or time. The ongoing “government of the people by the people” is in the self-regulating metabolic behaviour of everybody, everywhere, all-at-once, all-the-time. If anybody can see this unbound description as indefinitely indeterminate, inessential, acausal (nonlinear, nonlocal determination by activity) then they will not let on. So much for extensional definition or description. Back to intentional definition by genus and species. If anybody else can see the indefinite, indeterminate and inessential cyclical causality of this, they are not letting on.
Shall we now try to define freedom as a planetary horizon? What is the essence of freedom? And how is it necessarily different from democracy as global governmentality, practiced by the people for the sole benefit of some people? We in the developed countries embody a lot more energy–in the form of commodities including our physical bodies–than those in the periphery. So where is democracy centred if not in our cellular-molecular matrix. So what is freedom: freedom from our particular and peculiar form of highly racialised planetary democracy? Our ATP is their poverty: is that democracy, freedom, justice or some other unaturalkind of thing?
The Learned Elders of Psyop have a word or two to say about “freedom”.
Asserting a proposition such as “Democracy is not the same as freedom” assumes rational-causal essentialism—specific and essential difference—which assumes determinative naming; which assumes essence. If you cannot see the circularity of assumptions is infinite and ungrounded, except by Aristotelian tautology, then the generative assumption is that Aristotle and his commentators knew what the fuck they were talking about. They did not. Don’t let them trick you into thinking otherwise.
Can a name, any name, name the causal essence of a thing, the specifically “what it was to be” (to ti ên einai) or give a phrase or essential account (horos) of the necessary and sufficient causal conditions for a thing, anything, to be that particular kind of thing? Can we name the necessary behavioural nature of a thing, that actually forms and shapes its matter and generates its change? Can we even properly translate the generally understood “to ti (…)” formula as expressing the notion of essence? No, we cannot. But that did not stop our intellectual antecedents raising theology, metaphysics, science and economic reason on ungrounded gobbledegook. Which follow to the letter. Logic is the science of what validly follows from what. If your postulates are shite, your conclusions are a priori double shite…. Ex falso quodlibet [EFQ.]
Political freedom (….) requires an enormously complex knowledge of political theory and of how to implement it in practice. The postulates of which must be valid. They are not. They are nothing. They are nothing but circularity and language-gamification nobody wants to confront as ungrounded rhetoric. But we will assert them exactly as expostulated, by rote if needs be.
This allegory goes back at least as far as the Cratylus, which is generally taken as a primary source on the correctness of naming. The fact of necessary ontological connection between name and causal essence could not even be established then, some two millennia ago. That is why Aristotle attempted to “define definition as determinative” way back then. But ‘they’ have managed to fool you that each name names an ontologically differential kind of thing which leads to the semantic parroting of excremental essentialism taken for granted now. It works. Nobody even knows the principle postulate, the primary cause and principle on which we built rational-theology.
Don’t let them trick you into thinking otherwise. Do not question the postulates of questioning, ever. That will definitely define the essential causality of freedom, I think….
< Can a name, any name [such as Democracy or Freedom] name the causal essence of a thing, the specifically “what it was to be” (το τι εν είναι) >
Precisely. The headline suggests opposition between two empty names: Democracy & Freedom. The author is a North American Anglo hence has a hazy notion from school history that Democracy and Freedom are Good Things: but he does not describe the things themselves, as they exist in his country and in his own experience (on the one hand) or as he thinks they ought to be (on the other hand). For instance, Democracy is Freedom in one sense: freedom to vote. But there are another Four Freedoms (at least):
How many freedoms does the author want his Democracy to have?
And what sort of Democracy does he want his nation to adopt? Direct democracy, Representative Democracy, Full suffrage, Limited suffrage, Democracy with Islamic characteristics, or with Chinese characteristics, or with Yankee characteristics?
“Freedom of speech and expression” throws up a paradox. The liberal ideology of freedom and the analytic philosophy of language go hand-in-hand as the “anglo-american” or anglophone tradition. This absolutely involved the “necessary” connection between name and thing which eventually became name as “sense and reference”; the name or statement (logos) is truth-conditional on it picking out matters of fact or states of affairs in a semantically possible world or worlds… not this one.
Called ‘rigid designation’; in some semantically possible world there could be a necessary and sufficient set of conditions that designated ‘democracy’; but ‘freedom’ as freedom of speech is always contingent on necessary naming or rigid designation; if and only if there is such a semantically possible world!
The only really-real world is the earth now populated by global activity at the near monopoly level. ‘Democracy’ and ‘Freedom’ designate if and only if they refer to human socioecology, market anthropology or whatever labels ‘we’ use. The labels are meaningless tokens, the activity is really-real. There is no necessary or causal connection between sense and reference. The two terms in question “co-refer” to the same anthropological activity. People do not want to play that language-game so they invent possible worlds in imaginability-only.
History shows that whomsoever makes the most plausible semantically possible worldversion wins, often by atrocity… killing off the opposing worldtheories (Becker called them symbolic “immortality projects” or “causa sui projects”… of which there can be only one.) Freedom is the freedom from brute biophysical reality in order to imagine symbolic worlds by rigid designation that both absolve and perpetuate atrocity in this world. Don’t let them trick you into thinking otherwise or you might have to employ terms that only refer to the appalling poverty in this world that affords us our psychic possible world.
NickM
BTW: If you are really interested in language there is a cogent differentiation to be made between “linguistics” and “semiotics”. Broadly (non-categorically!) linguists talk of semantics, syntax, lexemes, morphotactics and so on as if they were floating around “out there” as mind-independent, body-independent and so on. Semiotics makes use of the “semiotic triangle” of symbolic name, imagination, object or objective which may or may not be in a real world.
The difference is subtle but semiotics necessarily signifies embodiment whilst linguistics does not. Any name-essence or autonomous syntax without embodiment is necessarily none-sense. No name means anything. Any combination of names, verbs and so on–as propositional statements–only mean the social activity they embody in enactment. We act out our ideas and ideologies which reveals what our performative possible worlds mean to us!
https://dumptheguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/16/democracy-reset-westminster-power-party-labour
“Our democracy” is total NLP – it isn’t “mine” and it isn’t “democracy”.
“Desperately needs a reset” – subtle that.
“We should think of this instead as a grand national reset” – just for those who missed it the first time. Kettle got his dictionary out for synonyms for “great” and found “grand”.
“Recruiting more scientists and stopping the churn of jobs are said to be Starmer’s priorities” – sounds very like technocracy.
“Starmer has already hinted that the devolution of power will be central to his “missions”. That’s a big idea for a still highly centralised country such as Britain” – I’d be all in favour of genuine localism but that’s not what this is going to be. The same people advocating it also immediately want local planning objections steamrollered. It’s about fragmentation and creating de facto city states.
“Life-changes of this kind need to be prepared for, and that is happening. But, like the future, they can never be wholly foreseen. In government, as in life, things never turn out quite the way you hope or expect” – forget what they promise in advance, it isn’t worth the screen it’s written on. They’ll do what they want once in power – and HM’s Loyal Opposition won’t reverse it.
The closest thing to democracy is Switzerland where referenda are regularly held to determine everyday stuff.
The ancient Greeks came to the conclusion that direct democracy wouldn’t work as it was too cumbersome so representative democracy was born.
The problem is, that’s great when your representatives are honourable and honest.
When they are a bunch of self-interested, lying bastards you have a problem
Bullshit
They had a referenda on vaccines and vaccine pass and guess what happened.??
Swiss voters back law behind Covid vaccine certificate
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/why-the-swiss-have-voted-three-times-on-the-covid-19-law/48602254
Votes like this one should never happen even in a direct democracy. Issues related to freedom/liberty should never be put to a vote.
Therein lies the other problem of democracy. The voters.
The biggest problem with Democracy IS the fokking gokking voters man.
Swiss democracy confirmed the continuation of banking secrecy, regardless of requests from other governments investigating criminals.
I called it yesterday in the comment section. I am not betting to feed the beast, you got to be slightly wet behind the ears to think TV sports is real.
The giant Fury vs small Usyk from Ukraine, the fight called ”the ring of fire”.
The small outsider from Ukraine wearing Russian regalia upon entrance and wearing his beloved Ukrainian flag boxing shorts with maria on the back the devoted Christian
shocked the world to beat undefeated giant Gypsy Fury in a huge upset win.
The only thing missing was a donate to Ukraine arms grift at the end.
What next??? Isrehel to win the golf.? World cup.? Tennis.?
OMG shill Shapiro is Asking His Audience For Donations to the IDF
Can You Be Anymore More of a Shameless Grifting Unamerican Traitor
800 Billion is Not Enough? You Need to Shakedown Your Gullible Christian Audience Too
https://twitter.com/i/status/1711776096197480765
To quote Keyser Soze from The Usual Suspects “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” I am not saying if the devil exisits or not but the quote is allegorical to many things. The controllers have managed to convince the population that democracy is the greatest thing when in reality it is a cover for underlying control of the many by the few through a complex set of circumstances. A web of deceit involving supranational organisations, central banks, corporations, NGOs, think tanks and powerful families.
Democracy has been used as a rallying call to justify bombing countries, run by dictators who have outlived their use, back to the Stone Age to bring them democracy (TM).
A population can be manipulated easily when they are told democracy is at stake. The hard of thinking are directed by a ‘free press’ to act accordingly by supporting the actions of the party running their ‘nation’. Or by voting in another party, quite literally swapping one set of puppets for another. The mirage of democracy stifles too many questions being asked. For example, “Who is pulling the puppet strings? and “Cui bono?”
The Plandemic amply demonstrated through the words of
puppetsleaders of so-called free nations that screamed the importance of democracy, meanwhile whose actions did everything they could to remove the rights and liberties of the citizens. The hypocrisy should have been clear to all, but it seemed only a small percentage of citizens saw through it.The planned coming technocracy is likely to maintain the semblance of democracy as long as it continues to work. Unless, the controllers go for the option of pulling back the curtain on democracy and the party political system to discredit it and usher in their pre-prepared solution from scratch, starting with a clean slate.
The people have been thrown a bone (democracy) to give them the impression that they have a choice. Even as more wake up to this limited choice, apathy increases, rather than thinking and working together to consider creating a new system of governance. One that benefits the vast majority while respecting the rights and wishes of the individual.
However, for now at least, the Greatest (political) Show on Earth between just two parties – where the ‘entrance fee’ requires billions of dollars – to maintain the illusion of democracy in the ‘free’ world this November still shows that the illusion is working.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he DID exist.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CL4BT2CN/
Culling going as planned:
“Heart patients forced to wait over a year for treatment in England
Waiting lists are at a record high, almost double since 2020, with heart disease being the largest cause of premature death in deprived areas”
From Observer/Graud/What’s the difference?
Stop being a heart decease patient victim. Its really that simple.
Learn to love tinned sardines. Try them on toast with butter and white pepper.
< Democracy is Not the Same as Freedom >
And Freedom is not the same as Equality.
And Equality is not the same as Charity.
And Charity is not the same as Knowledge.
And Knowledge is not the same as Wisdom.
“And Life is not a Walk in the Park” — Pasternak, Dr.Zhivago.
Pathetically, most Folks in the West can’t see that they are slaves to Mammon, money and manipulative men.
They can’t see that they have been trained, taught and tied to the tracks of rabid consumerism.
They can’t see that they are doped, distracted and dumbed down by devious dirt bags.
They can’t see that democracy only works for the demented and devious at the top of the dung heap.
They can’t see.
They can’t see.
They can’t see.
How do you unblind the wilfully blind?
Ignorance IS NOT an excuse.
Money (or what we generally accept as money ie fiat currency) itself is not evil. It is the love of it and how one chooses to use it.
Money buys freedom. Freedom to quit the hamster wheel of debt servitude, by not needing to work all one’s life to pay down debt nor merely exist day to day.
As long as the current monetary and socioeconomic system exists, having enough money to free oneself as best as possible is not a bad idea.
Money is a tool, just like any other. Use it wisely.
Money is evil. It is a scam. It produces nothing but steals. Inequality is inherent, so there can never be equality, freedom and other values as long as money is. Most human history has been lived without money, in peace.
If money is a tool to make you free, you’ll do anything to get money, don’t you?
Can’t you see how people kill for money, lie for money, steal for money, make wars for money, even mass murder humanity for money?
How people waste their lives for money? How money has made humanity its slaves?
It’s freedom for those who have money. How about us others?
Money in some form or other has been around for most of what we know as human history.
At first it involved bartering going back to 6000-7000 BC. Be it animals such as cattle, or seashells and beads which could not be easily copied (faked). Next came coin minting in the form of silver or gold dating back to around 600 BC in Ancient Greece.
Coins lasted centuries until banknotes appeared. Even banknotes were (theoretically) backed by precious metals until the early 1970’s. Nixon officially closed the ‘gold window’ in 1971.
Cheating of some form has always been around. Gold and silver coins from as far back as the Middle Ages were routinely ‘clipped’, where shavings were removed from the edges of the coins. It is the reason later coins had and still have milled edges.
Previously, upto 17th Century, goldsmiths were the bankers of the day. They discovered they could hand out paper warehouse certificates as IOUs when precious metal coins were deposited with them, since people did not want to carry around lots of heavy coins. The goldsmiths begin lending out these receipts with interest, giving out more of these IOU receipts than they had gold in their vaults. It was the first attempt at fractional reserve banking.
Fractional reserve banking and usury form the basis of the banking system today.
It does not matter whether money exists or not. As long as there are items of value or of use, there will always be unscrupulous people looking to take advantage of others. Cheating and stealing is as old as the hills. It is not money that is the problem, it is dishonest people.
What you know as human history is just the history of kings and emperors, states and empires, owners and controllers of land and people. That is not the history of humanity. Human history is much more than just a couple of thousand years of darkness.
You’re blaming humanity or humans for this evil system that’s been around for hundreds or thousands of years. Most people never had anything to do with this money system, protected by state and law. You must realize a state is not eternal, and neither is money. They have been created in a time and place (history), and they are destroying themselves because this evil system contains seeds for its destruction.
”It does not matter whether money exists or not.”
Of course it matters, and it matters a lot. When you were born you had no money. Your mother who produced you probably wasn’t paid for her hard work and labor. Where did you get your money?
Why do you think you are entitled to have money, while I am not?
Money makes people greedy and evil.
https://qz.com/94189/just-thinking-about-money-can-make-you-more-evil-researchers-say
People weren’t born evil, but they learned to be evil because of this evil system. This system is not eternal; it was born, and it shall die.
Money, state and capitalism are very novel inventions in human history. These systems of stealing, murdering and lying are of course anti-human and criminal.
Blaming humans while praising money means accusing the innocent victims while letting the real crime go unnoticed.
But it’s your choice to be ignorant, incoherent and on the side of evil.
You have bought your freedom with money, but you have bought much more than that. You’ve bought the idea that humans are eternally evil, that money has always been around in some form, that money does something good, and you’re better than others, those without money. All those ideas are wrong.
The earliest modern human fossils found are 300,000 years old, but humanity may be much older than that. This age of darkness, including the invention of money and other false gods, has been around maybe 6,000 years, maybe a little longer, but anyhow, it only represents maybe 1 or 2 % of the history of humanity. And, the age of darkness, meaning this world of sin, is coming to its end.
And it’s about time.
First, I never said anything like the following that you mentioned “Why do you think you are entitled to have money, while I am not?”
The only thing that anyone should be entitled to is the freedom to live their lives as they wish without harming others. It could also be said that everyone should have the right to clean water, air, some land and a roof over their heads.The rest is upto them, in order to create a good life for themselves.
Clearly, you hate money and say you have none. Therefore, what solution do you offer for a new way of living? I am not glued to any system if there is a better one. It is simply the system we currently have and therefore I, like most people, will operate within it.
Do you think people who work hard should be able to store the value of their labour, in for example, a medium of exchange such as money or other assets?
If you cannot see that there are greedy people who will always find a way to take advantage of others, regardless of the existence of money, then there is nothing more I can say. Just as there are lazy people, who if they were part of a community without money, would not put in the effort to better said community. They would attempt to live off the labour of others.
A society can only function well when all participants contribute to its functioning in a fair and equitable way.
Greed is a mortal sin which will be destroyed by God.
How did humanity manage to live most of its life without greed, without money, without private property and without the state? Then came the greedy man and said ”this land is my property, and if anyone else wishes to use it in any way, they must pay me.” And the greedy man made papers to show the land belonged to him, he made borders, he made resources found in his land ”money”, and he forced with violence others to obey him, to work for him or to pay him.
But all land property is stolen property. It has been stolen from everyone of us.
It doesn’t even make any sense that some dude owns land.
What kind of insanity is this idea that the planet Earth can be owned by some dudes in America? They even privatized the Moon and space.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/people-have-been-claiming-to-own-the-moon-for-over-250-years
You think people are lazy if they are not forced to work. But work has nothing to do with money. And all people do work. Humanity has worked, produced and reproduced, invented and discovered freely until some insane people had the thought of greed.
I’m pretty sure your mother has worked very hard to give you life, to take care of you and to teach you without pay. So how do mothers do that?
The most important things in this life are still moneyless.
Things people do for money and because of money are harmful and worthless. Money forces people to work for money or else they will die. It’s the most violent system ever invented. In the picture of this article there’s a gun pointing at someone’s head, and it says VOTE. It would be more accurate if it said WORK. That’s the reality of most people.
Thank you for this breath of fresh air amidst all the money changing notions. Money was created, and continues to exist, for one and only one purpose: accumulation.
If indeed, as most people insist, money is merely a convenient medium of exchange, then why would, could or should there be more in circulation than just enough to effect such exchanges?
Even the concept of “saving for a rainy day” blows the money as an exchange medium right out of the water. Saving for that “rainy day” is the sleight of hand which allows accumulation to slip in unnoticed.
Money has come to be more important than anything else in human existence. Food, water, clothing and shelter take a back seat to it – because without money these things cannot be had.
Even going “back to nature” and building one’s own home and making one’s own clothes and growing one’s own food requires money – otherwise how will one get the tools needed to effect a “back to nature” existence? Not to mention acquiring the land needed for the job – considering that every square inch of the Earth is now claimed by someone or something as their very own, and they have the deed to “prove” it.
The problem is there is no perfect system. Any system we choose would have to have built in basic liberties, i.e., individual, unalienable rights, and a system to ensure those basic liberties are adhered to. The U.S. Constitution was supposed to cover the bases but look at it now. It might not be majority or mob rule, but it damn sure is minority or fascist tyrannical rule. The minority rule the vast majority. So instead of building in liberties to a system where the people have the power, we built in liberties to a system where the rich have the power, who continuously and insidiously take those liberties away. I’d rather take my chances on the people.
Either way, the author is right, the battle is for freedom, not democracy. It’s like the Pink Floyd song, “if you don’t have your freedom, you can’t have any democracy. How can you have any democracy, if you don’t have your freedom?!
We are being ruled. How can we have any democracy when we are being ruled? It’s impossible no matter how you slice it. Whatever we decide to do in the end, rule by the rich has got to end. That’s what the battle for freedom on Planet Earth is all about.
Ayn Rand had the right idea but didn’t account for that groups of people called corporations claim individual rights too. Same for religions and other hive minds….
“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”
-Frank Zappa
“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”
~ Emma Goldman
The Constitution was so lacking that they had to AMEND it with the bill of rights, because people were protesting the lack of rights in the Constitution!
https://www.michaeltsarion.com/constitution-con.html
“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” – Judge Charles Evans Hughes
“Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.” ― Benjamin Franklin
Same michael tsarion that sold the Trump is going to save us grift.
What has that got to do with his article?
You’re right Todd, that we need immutable rights, a constitution, which enshrines specific rights for all, and that democracy – as is evident in all countries that claim to operate by it – is not what it is sold to us as.
Alexander of Realeyesation has an interesting video explanation of democracy vs freedom. As I have no account with Realeyesation, this is his Bitchute link:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/CmZZ2JnIj1IO/
Hitler, btw, got in with a 31.1% vote, as do most political leaders even today – their percentage vote ranges between 25 – 30% percent and many are forced to form coalitions, otherwise they would never form government. I’m wondering what the use of voting and “democracy” is even. Should we perhaps just have local governments, fully accountable to the local people?
You last sentence says that you don’t want nationwide railway arteries, interstate highways, air traffic control, laws for conduct on the oceans etc etc.
Village democracies only work small scale – sooner or later, the interests of individual villages come into collision and then you need a way to resolve such matters.
Probably the first requisite is honorable behaviour…. then could local governments not cooperate with each other?
Absolutely, and that’s what I meant – cooperation.
Local government would be so much more under OUR control.
I have an extremely sad story to tell you at this point:
I recently met a British girl in a bar who asked me if I was a movie star? I fought hard not to lie and replied that I was an educated pig farmer but that my life was like a movie.
She wasn’t impressed, it was beneath her dignity to raise pigs, wouldn’t even allow me to dance to the latest Chicago rap “music”, but from then on just turned her ice-cold shoulder to me.
Later I saw her leaving the bar with a movie star: it was a rising TV hero of Nigerian-Togo-Ugandan descent.
I couldn’t get over it at all and spent the whole night crying into my fluffy Garfield pillow. I woke up in the morning with her perfume still in my clothes. “You see,” I said to myself, “the world is evil, bad and mean!”
You wanna do the movie star strut?
1. Leave your sunglasses on.
2. Affect an air of disdain for the plebs.
3. Wear fashionably shabby designer clothes.
4. Come with an entourage.
5. Never, ever use the public toilet.
6. Snigger frequently and laugh loudly at stupid jokes.
7. Check your Social Media pages every 3-5 minutes.
8. Stare into the middle distance every now and then.
9. Grunt at your bodyguards.
10. Don’t get pissed.
Alternatively, you could feel sorry for the girl that her sad existence can only be made worthwhile by tagging on to someone with a bit of publicity??
Very funny.
Where did you get the fluffy Garfield pillow?
Maybe an educated pig farmer and a British girl in a bar isnt the most obvious couple to put together. Try the county village dance hall Saturday night or a burger center, and good luck. Some day SHE will turn up. https://discoverynn.ru/upload/resize_cache/webp/dev2fun_opengraph/a5c/v7hisfxvgo15utspkuxzy63jrxhw9eaw.webp
The fundamental trick was persuading people that representation equals democracy – everything else followed from that foundational error.
It’s worse than that. It’s persuading the brain dead masses that anyone, either a group or individual has any rights or authority over another.
In the case of governments they transitioned straight from unlawful monarchies/dictatorships to unlawful constitutions, with a pack of court jesters at the helm, play acting as “leaders” to protect Rome’s emissaries (monarchies/dictatorships) from outright rebellion by the slave class.
Democascam also has religion related to it. It wouldn’t be able to work without,
the church of cardinal chooses the pope.
The Jesuits the army of the church
even at a local level the church Committee will vote in new people,
the tax exempt scams and the shake down of the old to scare them that if they dont do good
they will end up in hell so give the church your house or belongings.
FFS they even put posters up saying the church needs a 1000$ to run a day.
Give give give just like the politicians take take take.
Invading other undemocratic counties taking them of there natural diet and water source, calling spring water untreated water then calling clean water… fluoride poison crap. saying unvaccinated 3rd world people are not privy to westerners medical care, o they jab them up.
Always there will have the church involved to do this, the pervs have been
busted so many times for fiddling with the children under the guise of conversion to a faith.
They take the children of breast milk and tell the newly converted to get formula.
De moc a scam would never work without religion/church.
The fundamental question is whether internet technology now renders it possible for direct democracy to take place far, far more regularly?
Internet technology came from the US military
Peart and Rand.
The will of the majority has to respect the rights of minorities. That’s why you have a Constitution and a legal framework to enforce it. In theory this should be perfect but in practice there are all sorts of things that could go wrong, mainly because no justice system is truly impartial — the system can and will be gamed and captured, there’s too much of an incentive not to.
The problem we have today is that ‘democracy’ is just a shorthand for ‘us’. The other lot, ‘them’, can’t be democratic, their elections much always be corrupt so that their autocracies can be maintained. This rather blatant “Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad” mindset shouldn’t be credible but for some reason it is. We’re told repeatedly from every media outlet the simple truth that “Us equals democracy equals good” and “They are bad because they’re not democratic” that we’re incapable of noticing that “us” includes a fair sprinkling of seriously undemocratic societies and ‘they’ hold elections.
Anyone looking from the outside into the USA can see that the USA is not democracy and that every single presentation of US society glorifies the ‘in crowd’ that pay zero regard to the right of who they consider to be the ‘nerds’, the ‘freaks’, the ‘losers’ etc etc.
There’s no film of the football heroes being sent to prison for making computer geeks want to kill themselves, is there?
There’s no example of the bitchy female teen who thinks she’s god’s gift to blowjobs ending up in hospital because her contempt for some other girls saw her get fingers pushed into her eyes, is there?
Oh no, those horrible disgusting people have to be forgiven, because they are SO superior that their despicable nastiness must just be forgotten about.
Make some movies where the nasty in crowd truly get what’s coming to them.
Then talk about your upholding minority rights…..