What Is Democracy?
Iain Davis
Based on the original article I published in 2022, in light of the subsequent shift away from “representative democracy,” we need to be clear about what democracy really is. Otherwise, how can we know what we want or what we are willing to defend?
Let’s start by discussing what democracy is not. Most people think democracy has something to do with electing leaders or “representatives.” This is called “representative democracy” (RD) and it is practically the polar opposite of “democracy.”
As a concept, RD immediately falls flat on its illogical face. The whole point of RD is to select the representatives who will form the government that will rule your life. The reason given for this is that we are all incapable of ruling ourselves.
Thus, all who elect RD governments assume that no one in society is capable of taking responsibility for their own life. Except, that is, for the tiny clique of representatives they vote for. These representatives, then, must be unique human beings. In addition to being able to rule their own lives—which no one else can—they apparently possess the ability to rule everyone else’s lives too. People elect magical beings as their representatives.
Electorates are told that RD enables them to exercise “democratic oversight” and that this has something to do with democracy. Democratic oversight of your elected decision makers is not a democratic principle. In fact, RD is anti-democratic.
The RD term is simply used by governments and their propagandists to sell dictatorial authority to people who don’t know what democracy is. Moreover, the few “democratic ideals” RD supposedly embodies are completely ignored by representative governments whenever it is inconvenient to uphold them.
In his 1949 essay Citizenship and Social Class, British sociologist TH Marshall described democratic ideals as a functioning system of rights and contended they were necessary components of an RD systems. These rights include the right to freedom of thought and expression, including free speech and peaceful protest, and the right to equal justice and equal opportunity under the law.
Few people would disagree that an RD system has to observe and maintain democratic ideals to have any credibility as a purported “democracy.” Yet, these values are consistently ignored by the magical representatives people keep electing and habitually choose to obey.
Though representative democratic politicians laboriously espouse these same democratic ideals, this is commonly done to score points over other self-proclaimed democratic politicians who they accuse of abandoning them. There is rarely any actual commitment to honour democratic ideals. Rendering the concept of RD even more illogical and palpably idiotic. What on earth do people think they are voting for?
To illustrate: take, for example, the EU’s recent European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). Touting the alleged media protections under the EMFA, the unelected and appointed leader of the EU, Ursula von der Leyen, was booed and heckled while speaking in Finland.
In response, she said:
To those who are here so loudly shouting and screaming. They can rejoice that they are in such a free country as Finland, where freedom of speech is a right, where there are no restrictions. If they were in Moscow, they would be in jail in two minutes. That’s why we have democracy!
The man questioning her was Armando Mema, a politician from the Finish municipality of Nurmijärvi. His own electoral platform is founded upon improving Nurmijärvi’s transport infrastructure and public services.
As von der Leyen was telling him how lucky he was not to live under Putin’s regime and how fortunate he was to enjoy EU protected freedom of speech, Mema was arrested and immediately thrown into the back of a meat wagon. Armando Mema received an on-the-spot fine, was told he would be automatically arrested and incarcerated if he dared to question von der Leyen in public again and says he is due to stand trial in Helsinki for supposed crime of exhibiting “disobedience to a public official.”
Armando Mema’s right to freedom of speech is not “protected.” It is “restricted” in Finland and everywhere else in the EU where he is not allowed to question his allegedly representative leaders. Armando Mema is one of approximately 450 million EU citizens who don’t have any protected right to freedom of speech precisely because the EU declares itself a “representative democracy.” If Russia operates a political dictatorship, the EU is indivisible from it. The EMFA exemplifies that fact.
The idea that an independent and pluralistic media—and therefore freedom of speech and expression—can be maintained through government regulation is an oxymoron. By definition, the media cannot be “independent” of the political state if that the state regulates it. Added to that, EMFA regulation couldn’t be more draconian.
The EMFA establishes a regulatory European Board for Media Services (the Board) to “protect users from harmful content, including disinformation and foreign information manipulation and interference.” It is “the Board” that will define what constitutes disinformation or “information manipulation,” whatever that is. Undoubtedly, reporting what happened to Armando Mema, or his criticisms of Ursula von der Leyen, will be deemed “disinformation” or “manipulated information” and censored by the EU’s media freedom Board.
The EU isn’t alone. All so-called Western democracies are pursuing the same agenda simultaneously. EMFA is more or less a facsimile of the UK Online Safety Act (OSA) and the very similar Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), as proposed and currently under debate in the US. In a similar vein to the OSA and the possible KOSA, in accordance with EMFA Article 4, independent journalism and “media freedom” is protected from state interference unless the state wants to interfere.
Rather like Article 29 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human rights—that determines you don’t have any “human rights” if the UN or its member states decide otherwise—Article 4(4)(c) of the EMFA stipulates that governments can only take measures against journalists “on a case-by-case basis by an overriding reason of public interest.”
Or, to put it more succinctly, whenever the political state likes.
Pursuant to Article 4(4)(d), when state censorship is supposedly necessary in “duly justified exceptional and urgent cases,” the state can not only censor the journalist’s reporting but also hunt the journalist down and punish them and their editors.
Remember, this is called the “Media Freedom” Act! So what does the EMFA empower RD governments to do if they claim they have to interfere in the “public interest.”
Under article 4(5) they can “deploy intrusive surveillance software” and any range of intelligence tools to spy on journalists. EU governments, under direction of “the Board,” can compel journalists to divulge their confidential sources and information; they can “detain, sanction, [and] intercept” media outlets, editorial boards and journalists or indeed “any person” from whom the state wants to extract information. If they wish to silence journalists and media outlets, the EMFA grants EU states the power to “seize” the premises and equipment—such as laptops or printing presses—of any media organisation or journalist the state doesn’t like.
The EMFA is an EU censorship and information control Enabling Act. The concepts of freedom or rights of any kind—let alone democratic rights or values—are well and truly discarded by the EU’s EMFA.
This kind of dictatorial legislation is pretty normal for RDs. Representative politicians like von der Leyen only extol “democratic ideals” as propaganda devices. Representative politicians, especially the most successful, despise democratic ideals and never miss an opportunity to ignore them completely. So why do people still imagine they live in “democracies” when they evidently live in dictatorships?
Representative Democracy
In RD systems people infrequently vote to devolve their individual sovereignty to other people. They agree to obey the diktats of their “representatives” until the next “election.” At this juncture, they reaffirm their obedience to the magical beings who will continue to ignore all of their alleged democratic rights. Most people enduring an RD system will exercise their so-called democracy on less than 30 days across their entire lifespan. They are told, and thus believe, this is democracy.
In an RD system the “government” is permanent. It centralises all political power. Oligarchs can easily convert their wealth to political power by corrupting a tiny gaggle of useful idiots.
RDs are nothing more than functional oligarchies and the representative politician’s only real role is to implement the policies handed to them by oligarchs and their policy think-tanks. That’s why our representatives want us to believe that RD is democracy.
While we do, we can still delude ourselves that we have democratically enshrined rights and, consequently, remain willing to accept any oppression. We must do this, we are told, to protect our blessed RD against evil bogeymen like Putin.
Representative democracy is not democracy. Representative democracy empowers functional oligarchies. In a democracy, there would be no permanent group of law makers to corrupt. Simply put, oligarchy could not possibly function in a democracy.
Democracy
There is no mechanism by which rights are granted, upheld or revoked in a democracy. Everyone is born with individual, inalienable rights and everyone has the same equal rights. No one can justly transgress anyone’s inalienable rights absent lawful application of the science of justice.
If a country really were a democracy—and there are currently none—it wouldn’t have any politicians. The people would govern themselves through the observance and enforcement of nothing but the “Rule of Law.” In a democracy they would do this through jury-led trials where juries are formed by a random selection of the people—sortition.
Real democracy demands that the people are permanently engaged in the democratic process. They must be skilled in critical thinking and well versed in the “science of justice”—Natural Law. They must be ready, at any moment, to put their skills and knowledge into practice.
In a democracy there would still be a body to propose laws. In a democracy there would also be another, perhaps larger body, that would enact laws. But, just like the juries sitting in courts across the land, they too would be formed by a random sortition of the people.
In a democracy, people—selected randomly from the population—would temporarily serve in the law making body and a different group of randomly selected people would temporarily serve in the law passing body. Like jurors, once their service was complete they would disband and return to their normal lives.
In a democracy the Rule of Law would be based upon the peoples’ comprehension and application of Natural Law: their appreciation of the science of justice. The objective of the jury would be to establish the “guilt” of the accused and, most importantly, restore justice where necessary.
In a democracy guilt is proven only if the jury is unanimously convinced by the evidence that the accused acted with mens rea, or a “guilty mind.” That is that the accused knew their actions would cause real material harm or loss to another person, thereby violating that person’s inalienable rights. Merely breaking a written “law” is not enough for a jury to find someone “guilty” when that jury is familiar with the science of justice.
Should the jury accept that the accused broke some written law (legislation) but was not guilty of causing nor intended to cause any material harm or loss, then the jury would find the law, not the accused, at fault. Clearly the faulty law would need to be rescinded or amended. In a democracy any jury of the people could therefore “annul”—meaning declare void or invalid—any law they found to be unjust.
In such circumstances, a new group of randomly selected people would have to reconsider the annulled law. They would perhaps discard it or amend it accordingly and send it back to the separate but new group of randomly selected people who might consider enacting an amended version of the previously annulled law. This new law would then be put to the justice test in jury-led courts entirely controlled by the people randomly selected to form a jury.
In a democracy the Rule of Law would be the rule of the people. Laws would be formed and established by the people, for the people. Crucially, in a democracy, the people would not simply obey laws through fear of punishment but rather because they are just. If individuals choose not to obey the agreed laws they would by subject to trial by a jury of their peers who would determine their possible guilt and decide their punishment in order to restore justice.
The sociopolitical system described above has nothing to do with electing representatives.
This system is called “democracy.”
Iain Davis is an independent journalist a researcher from the UK. You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog IainDavis.com (Formerly InThisTogether) or follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his SubStack. His book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. You can claim a free copy of his new book “The Manchester Attack” by subscribing to his newsletter.
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.
This works only for the herd mindset
The Crowd by Gustave Lebon is a must read on the subject.
Everything seems so easy from libertarian/ voluntaryist perspective.
“Everyone is born with individual, inalienable rights and everyone has the same equal rights.”
Is there a holy stone with this inscription I’m not aware of? It sounds good for average modern ear that is oblivious to huge problems with the concept of rights.
“Real democracy demands that the people are permanently engaged in the democratic process. They must be skilled in critical thinking and well versed in the “science of justice”—Natural Law.”
Demands, must be… does that exclude peoples wishes, inclinations, abilities….?
Skilled in critical thinking, skilled in wall painting….I see a huge difference here.
I certainly wouldn’t feel well considering a possibility that bad luck on lottery could bring a bunch of football fans to the power.
“In a democracy guilt is proven only if the jury is unanimously convinced by the evidence …”
Consensus is a recipe for disaster. Only one jerk is needed and things go south.
Interesting thoughts about decision making process.
No, rights are not written, not on a stone nor anywhere else. That is the point of inalienable rights. They are not created by people, they exist in nature and govern human interactions. They are self evident and shared equally by all. When you experience guilt because you feel you have done wrong to someone else that is because you know you have breached their inalienable rights and Natural Law, though you may not be able to articulate it.
You are labouring under the illusion that rights are decreed by authority which means the only rights you consider real are controlled by authority, and can therefore be restricted by authority. Such rights are not rights. They are behavioural permits.
Critical thinking us not some great mysterious art that few can master. It is something that all human beings can do innately. No one has to engage in the application if the science of justice but how else should we dispense justice? Or shouldn’t we bother?
There is no rule by consensus in a democracy. There is only the application of the Rule of Law, meaning observance of Natural Law. The Rule of Law is constantly tested. Sure miscarriages of justice would probably still happen but appeals would be considered, not just denied as they often are today.
I should have said: Decision making based on unanimity is a recipe for disaster. Only one jerk is needed and things go south.
“You are labouring under the illusion that rights are decreed by authority…”
Obviously we would need to define our terminology to have a productive debate. I’m talking about rights as they are, allowances to the plebs so they have a feeling they have something that sounds beautiful while in fact is nothing.
You are using the same word for similar concept with the main difference that is based on the notions of natural, inalienable. You will have hard time to provide sound arguments for your position, for example: there is nothing like rights or inalienable in nature, only in human society this notions could have any meaning.
I haven’t read Lysander, but I doubt he made good argumentation. I believe idea of rights is dead end street that grew up with individualism, rights are possession of an individual. How to have a flourishing society when people think primarily in terms of individual?
So… You think it’s far better to elect representatives, who are a different class of people, who are above the law, as we can clearly see, and who do not work for the people but work to keep themselves a separate class and centralise all power and money in their own hands?
I was wondering about the same things too. What happens when, by sheer lack of luck, we elect a government made up of trans activists and screaming radical feminists. I don’t know, maybe we should think about a sloution to that.
But to just reject an idea that may end cronyism and take power away from a self serving elite, simply because right now we don’t understand how exactly it would work is simply ridiculous.
But then here’s the second thing I myself don’t get either. The people, as you and many in this comment section so effectively demonstrate, are “so inured and so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it”.
“The people, as you and many in this comment section so effectively demonstrate, are “so inured and so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it”.”
It is no about: you are with us, or against us.
Here you have my radical thinking:
https://off-guardian.org/2025/07/16/the-experiment-of-representative-democracy-has-failed-whats-next/#comment-727455
https://off-guardian.org/2025/08/03/watch-how-to-leave-the-cage-solutionswatch/#comment-729434
This system is called “demockascam”
No. It is called democracy. Or it is at least it is by those who know what democracy is.
I refuse to be judged by you or any other person. It doesn’t matter if those persons are elected by majority vote or randomly chosen. It doesn’t matter if those persons are called politicians or citizens. No-one has a right to judge me. And no person has a right to make laws for me.
Why do you need all those laws? What is the actual need for them? It seems you only want to keep making laws so that some people can be judged so that they can be punished.
Your ”democracy” is just as flawed as all democracies. It’s because majority isn’t right, and unanimous consensus isn’t right either. Haven’t you learned anything from the covid scam or the systemic failure of all democracies?
Your idea of changing names, even when all your thinking goes along the lines of the establishment, won’t work. No democracy has ever worked – not for the people and not for the good of humanity. Democracy really is always evil to the core, since the idea of democracy is based on the idea that one person rules over other, some people rule over others. Some people then make laws and others must obey. Some people judge and punish other people, some people make the rules for punishments and judgements. People overrule people, that’s democracy. Some people treat all others as if they had a right to do so. But you don’t have that right – and no-one does.
When one person rules over another, there’s authoritarianism, there’s tyranny, there’s a dictator and his subject. There’s a slavemaster and his slave. That is a relationship which doesn’t move or change just because those persons and their roles or stories change. No change of names changes the evil character of this system.
I will not let you or anyone rule over me.
You have no right to make laws for anyone. Realize that.
You have no right to judge me.
No right until you run out of money
So well articulated. You’ve opened my eyes. Thank you!
So what kind of society are you advocating for? One with no laws?
Hornbach
Aug 15, 2025 8:59 PM
Dear Iain, I can see how this type of article attracts the “communicators” from the three/four letters agencies. I tried to scroll down but there is an inform mass of schite, generated so the real comments will be lost. Please call me “conspiratorial”
If you initiate the use of force or cause harm or loss, or if you act dishonourably in a contract you will be judged by others whether you want to be or not. If you are an agent of chaos, refuse to abide by Natural Law, and believe your freedom affords you the right to use force, cause harm and loss and inflict whatever harm you like on others (because you refuse to be judged) then you are not capable of living with other human beings.
So the question is not whether or not you imagine you have the right not to be judged, a right that doesn’t exist, but rather, knowing that judgement of your actions is part of what it means to live in any humane society and is inevitable, how do you want to be judged and what punishment will you unavoidably receive if you do cause harm? Or do you think there is some scenario where others will simply stand by and let you cause whatever harm you like?
You are absolutely right that no one has a right to force you to abide by their laws. You would be free not to. But if you chose not to you could not expect to live in a society with others who retain the right to defend themselves. If you think that “do as thou wilt is the whole of the law,” then obviously you would have to live with others who share your view, but you probably wouldn’t survive for long.
Let’s assume that there is no agreed “law” and everyone thinks they are free to do whatever they like and cause whatever harm they wish, because they imagine they have the right not to be judged by others. Without rulers that would result in violent chaos, which is not anarchy. Assuming you are not a recluse, your best hope is that you live with people who value restorative justice and who reject the initiation of the use of force. If you live with others who share your view and cause harm or loss to them, then why wouldn’t they simply kill you?
Anarchy is life without rulers, not life without rules. The original model of democracy established by Cleisthenes is just such a “system.” It would enable the people to live without rulers but not without rules. In a democracy it would be fine for you to hold your view but not to act on it. If you did you could not reasonably expect to continue to live among those who want to live in peace.
So the question is, are you willing to live in peace and act honourably? If so, then you would never fall foul of any “law” in a democracy.
Exactly.
Have I forced someone? Have I harmed someone?
Instead of addressing the question, you accuse me. On what grounds? Just your fantasies and imaginations.
You like to judge people based on your opinions, not facts. This is unacceptable, whether you’re a politician voted by some random people or a random person.
This serves as an example of how your idea of democracy works. No knowledge is needed and knowledge means nothing. Preconceptions, ideology and prejudices are the ways random people make judgements.
A system that doesn’t answer questions, that makes a mockery of those who question, that doesn’t allow criticism, that excludes or ostracizes critics, that seeks to punish those it sees as criminal or dislikable; that system is a lousy poor system, no matter how you think about it.
Cleisthenes had two punishments for individuals: being expelled from society or being killed. So murder was his preferred punishment for those who were judged by disliking members of society. Now, murder is universally known as the most serious crime. It is a crime everywhere, and we know it’s a crime. Yet some men, those who want to rule society, have suggested many ways to circumvent this universal law. The result has always been conflict and war.
There is a definite conflict of interests between those who want to rule society and society itself.
Society is people. Everyone is born in society. Everyone has a right to live in society. If someone suggests throwing out people from society, we know it’s a statement against human rights and society.
You take your idea of human rights from Lysander Spooner, who thought man’s right to property was a human right. All American capitalistic thinkers think that way. Man’s right to own land, parts of this planet, and other things like people or what people have made, is what man’s right to property has meant.
Historically, democracies have been used in slave societies to justify men’s right to own other people, land, resources, children, and even the whole society.
But society can’t be owned.
Jesus he addresses your questions! You banging your chest that “I won’t be judged” like a maniac, but, first of all, you live in a system that WILL judge you and you can’t do anything about it, second: as long as you want to live in a society, it is only natural and normal, that you don’t have the right to do whatever you want, if you infringe on others’ rights.
Difference is democracy will only judge you if you actually infringed on someone’s rights on purpose, as opposed to being judged simply because you brome some law that was written by authoritarian parties.
You think your heroic banging your chest, but you’re just stupid, sorry. You fail to understand the point.
There’s no such thing as “I won’t be judged” as long as you want to live with other people. Because you’re no king, you’re not special, you have equal rights to everyone else. Well, in a real democracy, a system you now argue against, but live in one where we elect parties and politicians, who are actually the ones who “won’t be judged”. Voted for Trump didn’t you?
Your presumptions, imaginations and ideology are false. I don’t belong in the privileged class of American men who protect their property and power in the world with money, state power and violence.
Your judgements of people you don’t know, based on your opinion and prejudices, show, in reality and practice, what your idea of democracy is. You want to be the judge. You want to be the executioner. Your rules. You decide.
But your decisions are false. They can’t be right because they are wrong with the facts.
You talk about equal rights, but you pre-emptively pre-judge and exclude people and groups of people based on your dislikes, hence you create inequality. You practice inequality. Because you hate some people.
Even when you have no idea who they are, what they think, or what they have done.
So, in democracy, the privileged class takes all the power and protects its privileges with the illusion of people’s power and equality. Clearly, you don’t practice what you preach.
You imagine I voted for Trump, but how could that even be possible when I clearly do not support democracy in any form? And what are the odds that I would belong in the minority of less than 5 % who live in the United States?
Can’t you read or count? Can’t you think? You call me stupid because I don’t believe in your illusions.
Iain Davis did not answer my question. Instead, he lectured about how doing wrong will get me punished, even killed, by people who have some common idea of natural justice. If such people exist, why haven’t they punished or killed the real enemies of humanity yet? If such conduct is natural to humanity, and they practice it quite naturally, why create new laws? What is the need for new laws?
It is as if there is no other alternative but democracy in some form or other. And those who don’t obey the rules or respect property rights will be driven out of society, punished in some not-yet-known way, or killed.
The money system and capitalism must not be questioned.
But you have that right by divine authority?
“Thinking is difficult. Therefore, let the herd pronounce judgement.”
Carl Jung
Well first of all, you totally misunderstood the article, probably didn’t even read Natural law or the science of justice.
Sorry, but if you commit a crime (ergo infringe on someone’s inalienable rights) you ARE to be judged. We’re not going to have anarchy.
Only in the current system there’s a body that can be bought, manipulated, thar writes laws and judges you simply because you broke them! Not because you actually committed a crime. This opens the door for an elite to control people and also to evade being judged.
There’s no “one person ruling everyone”. There’s only a randomly selected people who don’t work based on “all the laws” that were written to protect the elites, but simply looking at wether you infringed on someone’s rights. The law is not made up it protects people from crime. That’s all.
What you described has nothing to do with what was detailed in the article.
And it’s not “his democracy”. This is DEMOCRACY as was invented originally.
In principle, you a correct. In this instance Natural Law would be all that’s needed. However, human beings are definitely not mature enough for that now. The system described in the article may (or may not) move humanity towards that goal of human soul perfection.
Dear Iain, I can see how this type of article attracts the “communicators” from the three/four letters agencies. I tried to scroll down but there is an inform mass of schite, generated so the real comments will be lost. Please call me “conspiratorial”
absolute bullshit
it the same psyop as tommy 10 names and all the operative use
I named then.
Laurence fox been arrested how many time and the actor police turned up to his house for suppose freedom of speech posts. setup political party.
Tommy Shekels fake arrested every month the legal fee grift by rebel media.
U.k shillum bullshit Brian show loads of this type of MSM alt media + immaturity arrested stage as fuck lies.
Corbins brother was arrested 10 times during covid. Bullshit.
Arrested for regurgitatetism grift is the grift that keeps on grifting.
Recently Richie Allen reckons he had police turn up to his house and had to go to the police but cant say anything about it but spent 20 minute talking about it and deleted his post about it making it more real to the believers of bullshit.
Paul Golding Britannia 1st arrest at airport then did a legal fee shill. He crime freedom of speech,!!
Operative Avi Yemini rebel media had police turn up to his house and was later arrested (so they say)
Love police turned poverty porn oligarchy shill charlie love police Charlies Veitch wife beater, had the police turn up to his house and was arrested on the way to a march.
Freedom of speech. LOL
Fake court case money swindle Reiner Fuellmich was supposedly arrested after stealing the money.
U.K shillum Navy intelligent GCHQ outfit h Lt. Commander Brian Gerrish of the British Constitution Group. whol;e grift 15 year ago was about political changes,
Resistance GB was fake arrested ( bullshit)
Notice how they all have the exact same video angles as all the rest of the arrests. It is the same production company the comedy division of the MIC.
FFS grow up and by now you should of been versed in psyop 101
This fake control opposition unelected bureaucrats from the EU verses rest of the world is the same as MSM alt media + verses BBC
it gaves reality to the psychosis.
the dogshit grainy photo above shows this was as real as covid
shame on you Iain.
People who believe in this arrested grift that keep on grifting all share one thing in common they all believe in Jesus.
As per usual you profess a deep hatred of the spiritual world. Natural law on the other hand lives in the spiritual realm. The birds and the bees the flower and the trees ,Fibonacci Tesla and many others like Thomas Aquinas all had this in common and it is called NATURAL LAW.
Hence like previous ashlocks the likes of Darwin and those modernist such as Marx Frued and Einstein tend to defy natural law just like most tehhnocrats. Hence I suggest you walk in a large natural environment take in the fresh air the sun and enjoy the natural life which has been here long B4 Jesu or Abraham or DEMOCRACY
First we need to stop pretending there is a real democracy anywhere in the world.
So any alleged expert or layperson who talks about “democracies” AS IF a real democracy ACTUALLY EXISTS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD (or has existed at any time in ‘human civilization’) is evidently either a fool who’s repeating mindlessly and blindly the propaganda fed to them since they were a kid and/or is a member of the corrupt establishment minions whose job is to disseminate this total lie because any “democracy” of ‘human civilization’ has always been a covert structure of the rule of a few over the many operating behind the pretense name and facade of a “democracy”
“There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. […]. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies […]. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable laws of business. The world is a business […].” — from the 1976 movie “Network”
“We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” — Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice
Does anyone still not see how the deadly game on the foolish public is played … or still does not WANT to see it?
“Repeating what others say and think is not being awake. Humans have been sold many lies…God, Jesus, Democracy, Money, Education, etc. If you haven’t explored your beliefs about life, then you are not awake.” — E.J. Doyle, songwriter
“Elites are afraid of equality, they are afraid of real democracy, and they are afraid of justice.” —Scott Noble, filmmaker
And they absolutely refuse to allow real, grassroots competition.
Our words and meanings are much abused and thereby devalued by distortions that ‘re-contextualize’ (or mask) intentions and agenda – as well as by usage as shortcut references to assumed ‘meanings’ that mutate as vague, indeterminate and plastic ‘meanings’ that sort of – you know – convey some sort of impression.
I think democratic accountability means accountable and transparent to law – that that them hinges on the understanding of the function and nature of law.
For the law uncovered in our hearts is of an entirely different order than the impositions of coercion or control.
Idealising any kind of system is at best identifying potentials, but people do not fit to or conform to ideal expectations, nor use ideals or rules for the purpose originally envisioned.
Communication and relationship are thus essential to any naturally balancing order – as distinct from the illusion of being told what to do or being in charge of everyone else.
Honour and respect has to find a commonality in place of an exclusive morally posturing ‘identity’. Else there is no basis from which to effect anything but a reiteration of past conflicts and grievances in variant of polarised struggle, sacrifice and futility.
Uncovering an innocence of being and a source of honouring life in the living is ‘blocked’ by conviuctions of self-hatred – that may never be recognised as such because – well you know other people are such bastards! – or in modern terms viruses, or cancers of guilt such as ‘shouldnt exist” or procreate & etc.
Judgement is easy – especially when in private or an illusion of privately protected partitioning. I think the partitions are disintegrating for better and for worse – depending on where you stake your invested identity.
Invested self-illusions are protected as self – which thus run existential guilt or at least the fears that such guilt generates – which periodically demands sacrifice to abate or mitigate fear and make the Bad Stuff go away by restructuring the mind to NOT see in new variants of a mind-adjustment script – without which – could we tolerate such deep dissociation TO fragmented self-illusion of personal and socially masked projection (and attack).
The willingness to join in support for life is integral TO Life – This is a key fact but if life itself has been re-framed and repackaged into complex instruments of control sold as a potential asset or ‘gain of function’ then Life is sacrificed to the premise of gaining credits against fear of pain of loss.
Is it any wonder that financial power is focused through instruments or solutions set against fears of projected pain of loss?
By our own defences are we destroyed.
But are they defending what is true or real, or are they set to protect invested projections of what we have given Our Reality to?
An intellectual elitism has been used to set order over presumed or feared chaos or disorder. As if we have to first understand in terms of analysis and prediction, to then qualify or have ‘permission’ to move beyond poor choices or outdated habits.
OK so what’s wrong with ‘Law’ or ‘Identity’. I quite like both. They at least both let you know where you’re at. Where you’ve transgressed.
The ‘ego’ as the eternal enemy presumably as per Buddhist thought? Well then, at least lay your cards on the table rather than spouting from otherwise dubious sources…
Nothings wrong with a word or a meaning truly shared!
If you identify in grievance your grievance defines where you are at.
Love identifies all things truly because it does not judge.
The ego of self image is not your enemy – but if you identify in its frame, reality will become your ‘enemy’ by not supporting ‘you’.
There are ideas that I feel worthy of sharing for relevance to awakening from fear set in division to a love that reveals underlying commonality and unity – but NOT in the frame of the ‘ego’ rules and filters.
Ie: to honour freedom of choice in another is to share and strengthen that freedom in yourself. That you choose to engage controversially’ without joining in any of the ideas raised is your freedom.
FWIW I write from the integration of a lifetime’s experience and have the benefit of sharing and strengthening worth-ship as an invitation to with-ness. These are qualities of honour and respect for life.
Law is uncovered in the heart – that is integral to being. Where did I suggest law is ‘wrong’. A false or partial identity taken as true or final is not so much wrong as a mistaken or arbitrary limitation. Dissonance of being reveals a ‘wrongness’ or contradiction ‘calling’ for correction, but we are free to persist by mapping out dissonance to scapegoats – so as to persist a lawless identity – such as transhuman corporate banksterism.
No worries. We all defy expectations, whether wittingly or otherwise.
And no offense intended. If you do have some great message for humanity then you might begin that fundamental mission by basically expressing it somewhat better. Your pseudo-psychological posts are difficult to process, to put it mildly.
Communication seems key to the process, if only to indicate that we as Brahmans are clearly superior to the rest of humanity (at least as India is concerned) so will leave all you sub-types to work out what we really meant. Go figure
So clarity seems key.
I write from willingness to listen for the life beneath appearances or presentations of a masking world.
If it was music or painting it would be the same. It’s not for market or for impact.More specifically – it is not for the current framing of identity in conflict-driven ‘solutions’.
Who has eyes, let them see.
Everyone is tuning in to what they value; I live my freedom too.You ‘see’ psuedo psychological comments. I see you choosing not to engage in the ideas shared.That’s your freedom – fro your own reasons.
If people already understand it – why would I write it? – there’s already a mass of support for what you assume to know.
Reintegration is another term for healing.
Not at body-level – but of the mind to prior wholeness.
The mind can run a head of itself -unwitting.
Communication has been subverted and replaced by masking and distancing in ‘forms of communication’.
Original communication is thus denied, distorted or blocked by substitutes in which nothing real is exchanged, no real intimacy opens and private minds are maintained as the capacity to limit and thus control life.
Not in truth, but by judgement.
“A man sees what he wants to see and he disregards the rest”
A fair bit of truth in that. A picture being worth a 1000 words as someone once said. Similarly for non-verbal communication.
Anyway I’m not trying to disparage another’s contributions. As you said, why write if you’re only parroting what others have already expressed.
And yes you’re correct. It does seem that we all have narrow filters on reality
What is democracy, answer its dead, that’s what it is.
In the EU – the EU body funds the press to a greater extent, and in return the media reports on the warmongering, lying authoritarian bigwigs like von der Leyen, Kallas, Sandu etc in a favourable manner, the EU needs to be broken up, into its component countries, its now just another gangster club, extorting its own citizens for political and corporate gains; this can only be achieved via revolutions, a revolution in say Germany has a domino effect on another EU nation and so on.
Britain is the same if not worse than the EU – rights are quickly evaporating, and the backing of the genocide has saw the impingement by the English government on rights such as free speech and the right to protest roll back quickly, rights our forefathers fought for and even bled for are now under threat.
Americans have a head start on most EU/British citizens when it comes to crushing free speech etc, however Americans are well placed to fight back, as most Americans have access to weapons – weapons that will need to be used to win back the country – in what would be another bloody civil war, for the heart of the nations
They say history repeats itself over and over again, for me only armed revolutions will reset the clock of democracy – in most nations, now utterly captured by oligarchic politicians and their corporate buddies.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2025/08/14/gottfried-feder-on-a-german-state-built-on-national-and-socialist-foundations1/
I watched the interview (without the rest). The gentleman says he lived in Zündel’s house for three years. I had been familiar with his lectures and articles on TOO for years, and I myself had referred to him several times as a commentator there, and I considered him a kind of “exotic curiosity.”
https://rumble.com/v6xkmgk-warstrike-episode-107-interview-with-dr-alexander-jacob-on-national-sociali.html
However, he emphasizes that he is “not a Holocaust denier.” Unfortunately, there was no discussion of this statement, which I consider a significant shortcoming on the part of the interviewers. This automatically gives rise to some irresolvable contradictions, propagating and spreading the ideology of “industrial mass murderers” at the same time. Perhaps opportunistic hypocrisy for self-protection?
He could have said diplomatically:
“Jews were specifically persecuted, disenfranchised, and killed by the Nazi regime. Certainly, we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of victims here. However, compared to the total number of victims of World War II, this is a rather small number, which nevertheless claims sole ownership of victimhood. For this reason alone, I reject the term ‘Holocaust’, because it serves to instrumentalise and ultimately abuse these acts in order to justify terrible acts of one’s own.”
Government is the sole cause of war and permanent poverty. Advances in agricultural science made centuries ago, the firearm and automobile have made it completely unnecessary. Government invented none of these, and nothing like these things has been invented since everyone started being forced into the government schools. If humanity does not take the evolutionary step forward and jettison this extremely inhumane, malevolent parasite, it will be made extinct by it, if it hasn’t already. It is already purposely damaged the human race, perhaps fatally, for the power and profit of a few sociopaths who are too old to reproduce and always hated natural beauty. To continue with government is now certain suicide. We’ll see what happens.
Apropos beauty, the controllers and their mindless followers really do hate natural beauty, and it’s stifling and destructive.
WHY THE LACK OF BEAUTY IS DESTROYING SOCIETY
.
“Everyone is born with individual, inalienable rights and everyone has the same equal rights. No one can justly transgress anyone’s inalienable rights absent lawful application of the science of justice”.
No one is born with any “rights” whatsoever. After all, the very concept of “right” is a human invention. As a thought experiment, imagine a world where there are no humans at all, except for a new-born baby. (It’s a thought experiment, so ignore the fact that the baby is doomed to die almost at once).
Would the baby have any “rights”? Of course not. To say that YOU have a “right” is only to say that I have a duty to do certain things for you. A statement about your “rights” is actually a statement about everyone else, not about you.
Jeremy Bentham said the last word about rights:
“That which has no existence cannot be destroyed — that which cannot be destroyed cannot require anything to preserve it from destruction. Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense — nonsense upon stilts. But this rhetorical nonsense ends in the old strain of mischievous nonsense for immediately a list of these pretended natural rights is given, and those are so expressed as to present to view legal rights. And of these rights, whatever they are, there is not, it seems, any one of which any government can, upon any occasion whatever, abrogate the smallest particle”.
– Jeremy Bentham (“Anarchical Fallacies”, 1843)
As for “the science of justice”, that is precisely as nonsensical as the idea of “natural rights”. Justice, such as it is, is a human invention. The very word derives from the Latin noun “ius” meaning “law” or “right”. Needless to say, law, too is a human invention.
Bentham was talking nonsensical gibberish. To deny Natural Law, which self evidently is where we derive rights from, is easily debunked. A very simple thought experiment is all that is required.
Imagine the first court of the first kingdom to write, for the first time, the first law outlawing theft. Hitherto there were no written, man made laws. So, absent any written, man made laws, how did the first legal scholars in the first legal court on earth know that taking someone’s property without their consent was wrong? How did they know what property was? How did they know that stealing it was wrong? How did they know what “wrong” meant?
The answer is very obvious. Natural Law.
Precisely. We always get the missing link because of the try of doing without the Bible or some universal physical and morally basic conditions.
It always end up in gibberish skating around on the ice.
What is natural law?
natural law [2] asserts that certain rights and moral values are inherent in human nature and can be understood universally and independently by everybody.
For example moral law is build into children already at 6 years old they are able to see and judge what is unfair or justified.
But the sad thing about it all, is that the confusion about both democracy and natural law is so big today, so it is necessary to write an article about it.
“Grandma, you promised to play with me later. Later is now. You promised”.
6 year old boy.
Even the age of reason was, seven.
People have rights, plants have rights, the law can be put on trial, these things are all a part of natural law, the laws of nature, the laws of physics, ect, these are all as real and plain as the nose on your face.
You forgot: Animals have rights, too, not just people and plants.
“These representatives, then, must be unique human beings. In addition to being able to rule their own lives—which no one else can—they apparently possess the ability to rule everyone else’s lives too. People elect magical beings as their representatives”.
Not so. People elect representatives to run their government for the same reason that stockholders appoint executives and managers to run their corporation. The citizens and the stockholders have other things to do: working for a living, raising families, doing worthwhile things, and enjoying life for a start.
Representative democracy aims to be just another form of division of labour. The trouble starts when unworthy people are chosen as representatives, and they are not given adequate motivation to perform well and honestly. (The same applies to corporate managers, too; often their interests diverge from those of their employers).
Electing representatives is only half the job – or less. The other part, which is utterly neglected today, is providing feedback – or what behaviourists call “reinforcement”. When the representatives have done a good job, they should get approval and rewards. But when they have done a bad job – even for a short time – they should be pulled up (if necessary with a noose) and punished. The “time constant” is critically important. Everyone knows the rule that if a dog or a baby makes a mess, their nose must be rubbed in it immediately, and if necessary they should be given a smack. That way they come to connect the mess with the punishment, and learn to avoid making a mess.
As far as I can see, politicians and most corporate managers never suffer any punishment no matter how terrible a mess they make. If they were, we would immediately have the beginnings of a viable system.
‘DEMON-CRACY’ is a system whereby the voting public is periodically given the ILLUSION that there are different political parties with different agenda, of which some will appear more friendly or suitable, but actually, if ELECTED, turn out to be EXACTLY THE SAME. No matter who you vote for.
Demon-cracy means literally ‘rule by demons.’
Erm… no. That’s “representative democracy” what you’re talking about. That’s exactly what we have now.
Demo-cracy is what this article is about, which means “rule by people”
This sums up ‘Democracy’ in USia and every one of its outposts:
‘As a consequence of this cataclysmic unraveling Americans are increasingly enslaved to unbridled privatization, unprecedented forms of economic inequality, moral degradation, extreme atomization, an eviscerated public education system, and above all, a profound societal fragmentation all of which uncage the plutocracy to sack and pillage without any checks on their natural predilection to embrace a ruthless, authoritarian, and diabolical order.’
More here:
https://dissidentvoice.org/2025/08/race-segregation-and-sectarianism-in-american-cinema/
The UN Declaration of Human Rights is another piece of classic doublespeak.
The idea that we need a governing body, an unelected supranational one no less, that pompously grants us a list of rights is laughable. Such granted rights given by one hand, can be taken away by the other.
Plebs are granted these so-called universal rights by treaties and laws written by other men so that these same men can remove those rights when a pleb asserts his or her individualism or questions the groupthink.
Unalienable rights cannot be surrendered, transferred, or revoked. They are no one’s to grant or take away.
It was the same collectivist mindset found in the language of the UN Declaration of Human Rights that was used during the Scamdemic to strip individuals of their unalienable rights. Dressed up as ‘the greater good’ which is not the same as the common good, all it took was enough people to believe in a propagandized narrative (a series of lies) to turn on the fewer in number, yet better informed fellow beings.
In 2019, the WEF’s major corporations made an alliance with with the United Nations to ensure the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Virtually the same corporations that brought the world to the brink of ecological collapse now claim to be guaranteeing the zero-carbon transition, and they’re being taken seriously. And no ordinary person has a say in all this. Not only that, no ordinary person was informed. No newspaper or media published the news, not even the UN, at the time, dared to inform us. And what’s more, the EU has entrusted Black Rock, the world’s largest shadow unregulated bank, with leading the change.
https://www.cognitoforms.com/MultistakeholderismActionGroup/CorporateCaptureOfGlobalGovernanceTheWorldEconomicForumWEFUNPartnershipAgreementIsADangerousThreatToUN?fbclid=IwY2xjawMJB8xleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETBpVWNmSm15M1NVaTRiNTV6AR61HQ_txx_DTvtP7zsaK5h98YDWBfoMKEl6ZqJSOsPdiTeDwal5mMWHwxX2cA_aem_IsxLYc2cXv1aN8XOkeNiSw
Stop using the word ‘person’, a person is a corporation.
It’s true, I had to write people, but Google translated it like this. Next time I’ll be more careful and reread
I use Google Translate because this isn’t my native language; I too noticed, with disappointment, after posting, that it had translated ‘people’ as person.
about demo-cracy, is evident that the word ‘people’ is automatically censored…
No, the word “person” is not the same as corporation. That definition was manufactured by a clerk in writing up a SCOTUS case in favor of Southern Pacific Railroad in 1896. Just because a clerk, or a corporation, or a government functionary says the word person has a bifurcated meaning that includes the opposite of a person, a piece of paper, does not magically make it so. In a real democracy, a jury would honor the commonly understood definition of the word defining a human being and abrogate whatever legal nonsense was manufacturing human rights for a business. This is one of the things Iain is pointing out with this article. The oligarchs just make shit up as they go then smack non-oligarchs over the head with it. Real democracy self-protects against tyranny.
A good example of institutionalizing this practice is the legal system’s use of Black’s Dictionary. It redefines words into a whole unique universe of legal nonsense that is used to confound human logic and the sensibility of victims of the system, we the people. It lives in another universe than Webster’s or other commoner used dictionaries. This would be rectified in a true democracy.
In law, a legal person is any person or legal entity that can do the things a human person is usually able to do in law – such as enter into contracts, sue and be sued, own property, and so on.[1][2][3][4][5] The reason for the term “legal person” is that some legal persons are not human persons: companies and corporations (i.e., business entities) are persons, legally speaking (they can legally do most of the things an ordinary person can do), but they are not, in a literal sense, human beings.
In 2019, the WEF’s major corporations made an alliance with with the United Nations to ensure the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Virtually the same corporations that brought the world to the brink of ecological collapse now claim to be guaranteeing the zero-carbon transition, and they’re being taken seriously. And no ordinary person has a say in all this. Not only that, no ordinary person was informed. No newspaper or media published the news, not even the UN, at the time, dared to inform us. And what’s more, the EU has entrusted Black Rock, the world’s largest shadow unregulated bank, with leading the change.
https://www.cognitoforms.com/MultistakeholderismActionGroup/CorporateCaptureOfGlobalGovernanceTheWorldEconomicForumWEFUNPartnershipAgreementIsADangerousThreatToUN?fbclid=IwY2xjawMJB8xleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETBpVWNmSm15M1NVaTRiNTV6AR61HQ_txx_DTvtP7zsaK5h98YDWBfoMKEl6ZqJSOsPdiTeDwal5mMWHwxX2cA_aem_IsxLYc2cXv1aN8XOkeNiS
Democracy works when the people have the truth.
Democracy fails when everything we believe is a lie.
And the truth moves on:
The judge who hugged a living womanThere are many good people trapped in a bad justice system and see its faultsMartin Geddes — Future of Communications Newsletter <[email protected]>
Aug 14
Meet my heroic friend, Yvonne.
Yvonne is a living woman. Oh, yes, she is!
A judge hugged Yvonne because she stood her ground and refused to relinquish her status.
Let me tell you the story of an extraordinary recent court hearing in Newcastle.
Two months ago I attended another hearing at the same court building where Yvonne was the defendant, but on a different matter. Yvonne and myself are part of a group of freedom-loving people in the North East who meet up every Thursday evening at a children’s indoor play centre after hours. The group formed as part of the resistance against the Covid lockdowns, and people share their stories of resisting tyranny and corruption. When there is a court case, many will come along as supporters. Some came to my hearing in Carlisle in June. Three dozen turned up to Yvonne’s crucial council tax hearing on the previous occasion. You can read the story here.
This time, she turned up at court, and her name wasn’t on the listing board, but the tannoy was calling out for her. After the previous occasion, where the courtroom was genuinely bursting with people at the absolute limit of health and safety, they wanted to know how many observers she was bringing this time. Now, being public hearings, anyone can come — I didn’t know I would overwhelm the court’s capacity in Peterlee in October 2023 when I put the word out 48 hours before the hearing.
Anyhow, in this instance, nine turned up, which is a good number. There is clearly a recognition in the court system that the public is taking a principled interest in lawful due process. It is a quiet but unmistakable shift — a reminder to those in authority that every procedural step is now part of a living record, witnessed, remembered, and shared beyond the walls of the courthouse.
Rather than council tax, this was about water utility payments, where Yvonne is pushing back against lack of consent and state overreach. The details of the case are almost immaterial. What matters is that she not only differentiated herself, Yvonne the living woman, from the legal fiction of Mrs Watson, but that the court embraced this openly. In simple terms: the ‘legal fiction’ is the paper entity the state uses for contracts and charges; the ‘living woman’ is the person of flesh and blood.
Oh, the times are a changing!
This is what Yvonne said, and as context she has a stammer, so had registered this disability with the court. The judge offered to read out her statement for her, but she declined, opening with:
I have seen both honourable and appalling conduct from judges, but the same is true of campaigners and activists, many of whom are unnecessarily antagonistic to authority. I believe this respect is important, as judges by the nature of the job are forced into the energy field of other people’s misconduct, and it is an uncomfortable task. While the law is a buffer, turning sin into symbols, they are human and feel what is going on.
Having established she was going to speak her piece, even if awkwardly, Yvonne delivered her message:
like they’ll just give up trying to collect a court ordered debt against the legal fiction. And that CCJ against her legal fiction name has no real life consiquences.
The next step could be the claimant’s solicitors serving a statutory demand against the legal fiction name, seeking a court hearing to make her legal fiction bankrupt (if her fiction name has no assets) or send in the bailiffs to confiscate goods (if her fiction name does have assest). Even if they give up trying to collect, that CCJ will still stand, and have consequeces for Yvonne the living woman.
Sure she can spend an inordinate ammount of time in courts and research, which will serve only to delay the inevitable, gather loads of supporters to turn up and try to block the Bailiffs, she mite be successful a few times, until the inevitable time when the system turns up with an army of enforsers and suceeds in confiscating her assets+extortionate costs (just like all those cases the peacekeepers on youtube highlight but never show the endgame of when they lose their house).
She doesnt have to go to court once she makes the next step. You on the other hand is one of the reasons we are still slaves.
It’s not me cut n pasting whole substacks of someone elses work leaving out the important detail that she lost the case, in order to lead people down a path leading to ruin.
I’ve repeatedly asked you to supply an example of where these methods actually worked, and you’ve repeatedly failed.
I’ve been around this subject since 2011 at the first meeting in Derby, I followed multiple cases, including the one in Liverpool where the guy challenging his mortgage company eventually got locked up under the terroism act for 8 years and lost everything. During the reposession raid, police found a copy of the anarchist cookbook on his computer, the judge even acknowledged he had not opened the file since downloaded yrs prior, but mearly posessing the book was enough for the judge to direct the jury to find him guilty, because under the act posessing material useful to terrorists is enough to convict).
I’m not the reason we’re still slaves, I’m a realist who recognises the system is the reason we’re still slaves, and that people like you perpetuating a doomed philosphy are the reason good people, resitance fighters, get crushed by the same system.
History is littered with false prophets like you perpetuating false hope, which only serves the system by taking out resistance fighters on the systems chosen battlefield before the fight even starts.
Wonderful and exemplary. Very helpful that you shared Yvonne’s statement, and some background info.
Maybe use ‘civility’ rather than ‘respect’ – at least unless and until respect has been earned?
Bravo, Iain, for an(other) excellent article, and you really ‘nail’ the key pre-requisites for functional democracy in this paragraph:
“Real democracy demands that the people are permanently engaged in the democratic process. They must be skilled in thinking and well versed in the “science of justice”—Natural Law. They must be ready, at any moment, to put their skills and knowledge into practice.”
Looking around in our respective societies/cultures/communities, how many men and women would meet all three pre-requisites? Effective education (quality teaching in schools, in the family, and self-improvement), and an enriched life experience can – and with strong societal support WOULD – promote critical thinking and a deep respect for Natural Law.
However, the readiness to practice democratic participation would be impeded unless society & employers place it above all other obligations, and allot the requisite time for such participation.
This latter aspect is what is most lacking at present, whereas I am encouraged to see that critical thinking skills, and Natural Law and its practice are increasingly coming to the fore among enlightened populations who recognise we have a DUTY to each other and future generations.
Will never work with your lot as it was your religious freaks who ruin natural law and all the other laws.
I’ve heard about this concept (democracy vs representative democracy) of course I found it fascinating and shocking but never actully, fully undertood it. Finally this article clears it up, but one thing I still don’t get:
If people are ruled by people randomly selected, but the people selected have to possess the ability to think critically, how would that work exactly? I mean, if you look around (for example on social media) it seems like many people just don’t possess that ability. Or maybe they do, they were just successfully brainwashed by some narrative that makes them not use that ability. So would there need to be some sort of testing to establish wether those selected can think critically? But then this would close out individuals from the process. Maybe there could be a pathway, like a training programme, that could make these people eligible for the next selection.
I mean just imagine a bunch of radical feminists, trans activists, climate zealots etc deciding what’s good for everyone.
Not to mention everyone has to be familiar with the science of justice and natural law. Not like that’s impossible, but for now, practically no one is familiar with those.
So how could we transition from representative to real democracy with the people currently so deeply brainwashed with one narrative or the other, seemingly incapable of critical thought and so unfamiliar with natural law?
The ancient Greeks (IIRC) had what was called a ‘Sortist’ system, where every eligible citizen was entered into a machine of some sort that chose representatives at random. The idea being you get a true cross section representation of society. This is quite a good idea, but would not be popular these days as to be eligible, a citizen has to be someone who contributes to society in some way. Something we don’t see much of these days.
I think the criteria to be eligible should, at minimum, be that one can think critically and has a good understanding of natural law, science of justice. There should be a pathway open for anyone by some kind of test where they can prove they have these qualities. This way no one is closed out arbitrarily and the door is open for anyone to study and become eligible.
After all we don’t need to become lawyers who know how to “play”’ the current laws, we just need them to be able to establish wether someone caused harm to someone else knowingly.
Well, thankfully, we still have the bunch of radical patriarchs, heterosexual activists and climate nonsense zealots (mostly United Nations members who safe to say are majority of patriarch heterosexuals) deciding STILL what’s good for everyone.
Don’t lose hope!
Not sure what your point is Judith. Is there something inherently wrong with being heterosexual? If you are taking a poke at the UN, I am with you.
Absolutely nothing inherently wrong with being heterosexual.
Or homosexual or transexual or bisexual or whatever anyone chooses to be sexual.
I suppose my point is that it seems that any group that falls outside the heterosexual norm sooner of later gets vilified or at least blamed for whatever divisive agenda the (I would imagine mostly) heterosexual planners promote.
And as much as I hate woke-ism and all that goes with it, I do acknowledge that there is a reason for radical feminists. I wouldn’t have the vote today if it weren’t for them. Among other things.
Very happy for Civil RIghts activists. A lot less lynching and fire hosing.
Gay rights activists? Very happy my friends and family members are not pretending, at best, and being beaten up at worst. Same with trans.
I guess that’s my point.
Evil is evil. It comes in all shapes, sizes, genders, nationalities.
I’m with you, Judith. I believe that because humanity has been disconnected from individual autonomy and influence over their lives, and their community/society, they’ve just lost the skills and intent to engage them again. I think if we reconnect people to this authority in life, to make meaningful contribution and be a part of communal problem solving, all of the dust of oligarchic serfdom will just fall away. It will take time for sure. But I believe it is doable. Just look at how many people have taken their kids out of the rotting, worthless, police state public school system and are homeschooling. Once faith and trust disappears, anything is possible.
And I should add, beauty and goodness come in all shapes, sizes, genders and nationalities.
Yes ;-)!
Your point is understandable but wrong.
Men are down here with an ability to protect, women, children, elderly, society.
Women are here with an ability to care, care for first children, men, elderly, family, society.
Means man and woman have different conditions and abilities and functions in the social fabric.
Then you say homos and anomaly’s at times do the trick many times better than the stereo types.
I agree, I know homos with greater heart and contribution than many.
But it is important not to turn the world upside down because we experience anomaly are able to contribute too.
Wrong in your opinion.
Fair enough.
Sorry but the feminist who fought for youe right to vote have absolutely zero to do with a with what “radical feminist” means today, which is simply about pretending women were oppressed when they didn’t have to work, that women should pursue careers usually done by men and to promote basically hatred of men.
I have no problem with gay and trans people themselves , though my opinion is that they should not be considered normal in a healthy society. This doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to beat them or anything, just that we should absolutely not teach kids that they might have been born with the wrong organs, or encourage them to write love letters to their same sex peers, or anything of the sort. But this is exactly what is being done today and it’s all just called fairness and tolerance and acceptance. It is not, it is the promotion of degeneracy to little children some of whom end up with plastic surgery that will scar them for life and worse.
You don’t sound at all like you didn’t like wokeism and all that comes with it. You sound like a radical feminist who will go and scream into the camera and post it on social media and believe she made a point.
“Heterosexual activists”? 🤦♂️
People who are against teaching kids men can be born women?
We should just know the true platform:
Universal true basic norm: masculine Man and feminine Woman = One unit who make children.
All other categories gay, disabled, trans, m.m. we call anomalies to the true basic norm.
People who try to change the above correct forms, we label radicals, manipulators and destabilisers because this is what they are. Why?
Because they want to confuse society and cause evil toward their fellowmen and society for political reasons.
Exactly that. And I believe most people who reject the forced brainwashing of children in LGBTQP and other radical “leftist” bs all think this way. Meaning we don’t want these people being hurt or anything.
But part of the manipulation is to make it look like anyone who thinks this way, wants gays and the rest being lynched, while pretending that the only way to teach tolerance to little children is to encourage them to consider if they need a sex change.
Yeah, 100% agree with you!
I don’t know why I bother.
Well, you’re a radical feminist. Who was triggered by me pointing out how it wouldn’t be good to have radical feminists and other woke people being in any lead roles.
We’re having a good discussion about an extremely important topic, not about empty woke garbage. But all you can do is push woke garbage.
I also don’t know why you bother, it’s not 2016 anymore. People have had enough, and all this wokeism is finally coming to an end sooner or later.
Bluesky is where you should be. I heard it’s a great woke echo chamber. You could do well there. You can just block everyone you disagree with and pretend the world hasn’t moved on. Good luck!
Thanks. Same to you.
That’s good talk! 🤭
Democracy?
Rules WITHOUT Rulers.
Exactly, Johnny!
Rule #1 There are no rules.
Rule #2 Follow rule #1.
The truth is that the class of financial capitalism has openly emerged and is winning the class war, thanks also to the new and powerful weapons of artificial intelligence. This transnational class has the same interests everywhere, the same power structure, the same wars, and the same enemy: democratic peoples, the peoples in general, destined to be the new Helots.
Its slogan could now be: wars, wars, and more wars, to reshape the face of the world, wars that allow it to build the economic foundations of the fourth industrial revolution, which will lead people to digital slavery, to slavery, and nothing more.
In practice, England and the United States have banned the study of Marxism in schools, but in reality, their Zionist elites are now the only ones in the West to apply the radical teachings of Karl Marx: class warfare, but inverted, from above, in their case: no longer class warfare from below, as Marx taught.
War from above, against the people, to the end, until victory, no false consciousness: moral law, etc., the veils that have always hidden, according to Marx, the law of the strongest. It’s a shame that this time the people are asleep; they believe in the spell of the word “democracy,” they believe that this magic word will save them at the last moment. No democracy! In reality, in war, the strongest wins. Marx knew this; and what he taught the working class, the workers, who owned nothing (and were not happy) except their offspring, the arms of their children to be employed in the bosses’ factories, 12 hours a day, for a starvation wage, we are forgetting: ”Organize and fight, you have no other choice; if you don’t, you are destined to remain slaves forever.”
It should be noted that at that time the workers were the producing class, and the parasites were those who lived off the profits from the workers’ labor, the Capitalists.
The cunning of these capitalists is now to reduce the peoples to parasites who no longer produce anything, useless eaters to be controlled and crushed, to take away their historical role as an active, producing class from the people.
Let us not fool ourselves, the financial capitalists remain parasites even now.
Note how Marx defines finance capital in the third volume of Capital: [It] reproduces a new financial aristocracy (neue Finanzaristokratie), a new category of parasites in the form of project promoters, founders, and merely nominal directors; a whole system of fraud and deception relating to foundations, share issues, and share trading.
And at this rate, the peoples of the world will end up becoming slaves of this cannibalistic and genocidal financial class, with the risk of returning to a new technocratic feudalism: a nightmare.
Speaking of democracy, the word democracy—and Marx knew this well, as I said, as did old Nietzsche—is effective only if the people fight and win the class war; otherwise, it’s an empty word. Remember the speech of the Athenian Democrats to the Melians (which Thucydides reports in his work The Peloponnesian War), before razing their city to the ground and massacring them, reducing their women and children to slavery. Athenians:
“For our part, we will not resort to loud phrases; we will not proclaim ad nauseam that our position of supremacy is just because we defeated the Persians and that we are now marching against you to avenge the injuries received: long speeches that only arouse distrust. What each side can do and what is the result of a correct assessment of the facts must be done resolutely. For you know as well as we that in human reasoning, justice is taken into account when necessity presses equally on both sides; otherwise, the stronger exercise their power and the weaker submit to it.
If it is by the benevolence of the gods, we too do not fear being neglected by them; for we claim nothing, we do nothing that is not in accord with what the gods and men think, and what men themselves claim for themselves. For the gods, according to the idea we have of them, and men, as is clearly seen, always tend, by necessity of nature, to dominate wherever they are superior in strength. This law does not It was instituted by us, nor were we the first to apply it; therefore, as we have received it and as we will leave it to future times and forever, we use it, believing that you too, like the others, if you had our power, would do the same.”
Financil power, which also includes the neocon warmongering Christians and Sionist is a tribal power, based on blood ties. Without class struggle we remain in prehistory, wrote Marx. If the West and the USA are afflicted by the fetishism of goods, (commods), of which the fetishism of religion is only the most superficial and edifying aspect, it is clear that they are destined to regress to a tribal situation: a powerful and militarized social class (a minority) that enslaves and subjugates the others.
Democracy?
A word, not a state.
Democracy?
Us, without them.
Democracy?
See Kropotkin.
A myth.
You started out well, but drifted into waffle. Yes, before discussing Democracy (or freedom – another one that gets bandied about all the time) we need to define exactly what it is. Historically, it is a system that includes the general population. Democracy was about equality amongst the ruling elite or advisors to a monarch, not listening to the plebs. The reasoning being that to make an informed opinion about something, you need some sort of knowledge of it. But this of course led to abuse of power.
You then lead on to the ideal of rule by the people.
Interestingly, you accidentally perhaps, echo the origins of Communism and Socialism. In socialism, you essentially have the people deciding what is good for them, in communism, you have the party deciding what is good for the people.
So I would argue that what is called democracy in the modern world is in fact Communism.
Now that should get the Americans excited!
I think we both agree though that we need a change. Benevolent monarchs or dictators are my favourite choices, but they are hard to find.
to make an informed opinion about something, you need some sort of knowledge of it
The poverty of serfs was to rule out education and association. Then came the censorship and burning of scrolls and books. Now, censorship of online wrong-think and “self-radicalisation”, plus digital ID.
You make a point about censorship, but it opens the question of ‘is there a limit to free speech?’ Personally, I am conflicted.The quote often attributed to Voltaire of “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is something I admire, but I do not approve of the radicals (from all sides) that advocate for death and destruction.
However, I firmly believe you should be able to stand up and say you don’t like someone, or some group, for any reason without being arrested for a ‘Hate crime’
So where or do we draw a line, and how do we control it?
Chat GPT:”Switzerland’s political system is characterized by a “militia” model, where elected officials typically maintain their regular employment while serving in government roles.This model aims to ensure that political power remains distributed among citizens rather than concentrated among full-time politicians . Consequently, compensation for political positions is often modest across the country”
Pace Davis, I do not see that Swiss democracy is thus a shining exception to his RD. The country behaved no different or worse during the Scamdemic. than others.
That is, the % of vaxx-tardism and mask-tardism was the same. Admittedly,, Davis might reply that as the Scamdemic was globally-coordinated, local Cantonal governments with unpaid or-low paid politicians had no say, not to mention the power of the Meejah esp. as CH hosts Big Pharma (eg. Aventis), not to mention the WHO.
Privately owned Central Banking will eventually subvert all ‘political’ systems where a nation’s Treasury must accept fiat debt notes (IOU’s) as legal tender, owed back to the private Central Bank with additional interest.
There is never enough currency in circulation to pay the interest on the loan, so more debt “notes” must be created and loaned to the nation…
This path leads to national bankruptcy, the People using their State provided NAME, end up as the collateral for further loans.
Many have noted that, of course, Iran has an independent banking system. Syria also had an independent banking system. But Hezbollah also has an independent banking system. And although it’s not a state actor, it is a non-state actor. Hezbollah enjoys enormous popularity in Lebanon. And I was talking about this the other day.
About the fact that they have their own banking system. A system where anyone in Lebanon doesn’t have to be part of or affiliated with Hezbollah. They can bring their gold, deposit it, and receive a loan equivalent to the value of the gold, right? And the gold stays there.
Hezbollah doesn’t earn any interest. And once the loan is repaid according to the agreed terms, you come back and collect your gold. So there’s no loss. Essentially, you’re simply taking your gold from home and putting it elsewhere.
You’re taking the money to carry out whatever project you want. And then you can come back and get your gold back. And, of course, this is completely anathema to the World Bank, the IMF, and Western banks. Investment paradigms, right?, which are entirely based on usury, exploitation, extortion, and slavery—debt slavery.
And so all these countries have a system that doesn’t reflect the need of the US-led supremacist bloc to impose its own form of debt slavery on any country they target, and that’s a very important point to emphasize.
https://beeley.substack.com/p/silence-screams-the-zionist-washington?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=716517&post_id=168137450&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=7g2ma&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
So that is why they, the Pharisees and the Usurers, the People who worship Babylon, hate not only Hezbollah but Lebanon as a whole.
These verses highlight the biblical stance against exploiting others financially and emphasize fairness and compassion in financial dealings.
They are trying to divide Lebanon into two fractions groups of Christians and Muslims and let them kill each other in a civil war (cheaper).
Hopefully they are wise enough to see through this game.
The commandment against murder can also be viewed as based in respect for God himself, as man is made in the image of God himself, thus God is the only legal entity who can slay another human being.[5][6]
“The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground”, Genesis 4:10–11 (ESV).
The Genesis narrative also portrays the prohibition of shedding innocent blood as an important aspect of God’s covenant with Noah.[7][8]
To SamAdm: the set up became awful. pls be free to revise.
Utopia, true democracy!
I’ve been voting informally for the last several years because I felt nothing of substance ever changed for the better.
On the other hand, haven’t the minds of what I feel must be the majority of the people been scrambled to such an extent that they neither want the responsibility of democracy nor even to regulate themselves?
Excellent article, thank you Iain!
Artificial intelligence falls like a axe on the heads of the earth’s peoples, transforming and emptying democracies, and completely depriving the people of their say. And all this has happened in a relatively short time, nullifying national governments and making democracies obsolete. Now is the age of Technate run like companies or as armies.. All this is decided by a minority of the super-rich, politically and democratically illiterate, Indeed, hostile to democracies, to the point that even our survival instinct becomes a crime, perhaps the worst crime for them.
And it is precisely our drive to live and preserve ourselves that is under attack now .
Regarding AI, no one in the media dares remind these powerful figures who gather in Davos and the Bilderberg Group, that should be the people, from below, who control AI, democratically, just as the information and resources of the earth, must not be in the hands of greedy, unelected elites.
How did it become a crime to say that?
The real question is: who controls these new technologies today? Who controls information and history? The billionaires are not gods who dictate history, as Harari tries to convince us, when he presents us with our destiny as hackable animals, as a fate we cannot oppose. History is built through class struggles, but without access to new technologies, there is no class struggle; we’ve already lost.
Maybe I’d vote at election time if the ballot had “None of the above” or “None of the below” on it for the voter to mark. But they don’t, so I refuse to vote.
“Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges.” — George Carlin
Rights are not granted once and for all; they are the fruit of centuries of struggle. For thousands, millions of years, the law of the strongest has prevailed on earth. Our Constitutions alone cannot protect us; we must defend them. The Greek word “democracy” is composed of the word “people,” demos, and the word “kratos.”
The term kratos very prosaically means victorious superiority in a war against enemies, whether internal or external. It can also mean the victory of an opinion within an assembly. But it is always a victory achieved in a conflict.
So the very concept of democracy implies that the people must fight, stand firm as in battle, to defend it.
Direct democracy is the only solution to where the UK finds itself. Nothing else will now work.
That is the crux of the issue. They assume others are incapable since they themselves are too apathetic, lazy or too busy doing whatever. Therefore, they willingly outsource responsibility but justify it by blaming others. A lack of personal responsibility leads to a system whereby those who are interested and motivated can take advantage of the situation. A wide open, undefended goal allows them to score goals all day long against the best interests of the people.
Until people show an interest and participate in what goes on around them from the most local level, starting with the neighbours in their building or street, then the neighbourhood, next their town, then their country upwards there will be no meaningful change. Change must begin step by step from the foundations. Those foundations need to be built locally by groups of people cooperating and lobbying to improve their localities. If this were to occur simultaneously within many local communities it would create a groundswell of interest, especially where the people were sucessful in improving life locally.
Individual participation is the key. People who want to enact change will have to accept the need to give up some of their free time in order to get involved where they can. If one leaves it to others, don’t then complain when some other shysters do get involved and further manipulate and shape an already biased system to their own benefit or that of their paymasters.
But it start with much closer to home – self-responsibility before interest in what’s going on around them. And that’s the first sticking point.
It does start much closer to home and the crux of the issue is the human species. We humans are flawed. Some are just somewhat flawed while others are just evil. We lie, cheat, assault others, kill others, scam others, desire power and influence over others, etc.
I think any form of government would work, socialism, communism, capitalism, Marxism, no ism if humans were perfect or very near perfect. But we are not.
Just seems, to me, until we fix humanity we will continue to fail no matter what we choose in terms of governance. Honesty, self-responsibility before self interest, etc. are key to a civil society which we seem to be moving further and further away from.
Well, our owners are now working on “fixing” humanity, and their solutions are most assuredly not about fixing humanity for the benefit of most humans. Careful with language like that, it almost sounds as if you are advocating for their transhumanist and AI agenda, which they tell us will be so much better for all once flawed humanity is no longer responsible for its own governance.
What does need fixing is a population capable of critical thinking and one that sees the need for more actual hands on involvement dealing with some form of governance. Today that is a very tall order and not something our owners are interested in as it is diametrically opposed to their preferred “solutions.”
Not thinking of AI just humans. Critical thinking is key instead of just finding arguments and reasons to justify one’s ideology. I remember when one’s word was highly valued as well as being honest, truthful and trustworthy. Dependability and accountability were also valued. These, of course, were not universal human traits, but more valued than in today’s society.
I remember growing up lying was highly frowned upon and you could be punished. Stories about Pinocchio, George Washington cutting down the Cherry Tree, the boy that cried wolf were told to us to promote honesty and good behavior.
Today, the ends justify the means, if you’re not cheating you’re not trying, depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is, etc.
I guess, the point I’m trying to make, probably poorly, is there is no society push for honesty, fairness, accountability. It has become a self-serving, all about me and what I want and I can do or say anything to achieve my goals.
Anyway, I’m old and frustrated watching our society and others around the world moving away from a more civil seeking society to hateful and ideologically driven societies.
Well, if we “fixed” humanity we wouldn’t need government!
Bang on Rolling Rock. The idea of a real democracy described in this post implies a healthy and awake social/community at the grassroots level. I have worked in this area and have seen the extent of selfishness, isolation, aggressive survivalism at the grass roots level. The naive idea to return democracy to the people needs to address this first ie are “the people” ready and able for this
Democrazy…
Technocrazy…
Theocrazy…
We’ve all known for a long time now that our democracies depend on us choosing the ‘right’ representatives. To assist this process we’ve evolved various strategies like finely tuned social messaging (propaganda is so last year), ostracizing (or even incarcerating) troublemakers and, of course, banning political movements. We back this up with constant affirmations in our media along the lines of “You may think our democracy is bad but look how much worse it is over there“. (This is usually coupled with reporting blackouts, travel restrictions and other mechanisms to prevent us really seeing ‘over there’. Anything leaking through can be dismissed to the masses as ‘propaganda’.)
There is no such thing as ‘unalienable rights’. The whole concept of human rights materialized during the latter stages of the Cold War as a way of differentiating ‘us’ from ‘them’ — we have rights, they don’t (variation on “Four legs good, Two legs bad”). We’ve also found workarounds for rights problems in the US — whenever anyone has raised the notion of ‘unalienable rights’ then an army of well funded lawyers and politicians (often the same thing) read the Bill of Rights like a religious text and find loopholes in the drafting where the literal meaning can be used to override the sense. (This isn’t surprising since the biggest rights violators invariably are people of a religious bent, their faith no only primes them to reinterpret texts in their favor, it also excuses their morality because their beliefs stem from a Higher Power.)
I don’t think there’s much alternative to Representative Democracy at this time. Athenian democracy only worked for a minority and attempts to democratize based on local committees didn’t work out too well in Russia post-Revolution. (“Soviet” is a term for committee.) We just have to get the money out of politics; we almost had it in the US but big money is able to buy what it needs (and its pretty cheap, too). We also had a great idea with our ‘separation of powers’ but the concept fails with a sufficiently well organized attack.
Human rights originated where-and-when God-given rights were denied.
You’ll now get your rights from humans, rather than from God. Similarly for “unalienable rights”; the denial of the Divine as supreme rights-giver in favour of the non-transferable. Which, of course occurred long before the Cold War. Late 18th century.
And each such denial of the Divine reflecting the miracle-denying beliefs of the US ‘Founding Fathers’, as influenced by the French Revolution. Such ‘Fathers’ it seems still reverenced as cheap substitutes for the Church Fathers of old:
The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers (2010)
https://archive.org/details/TheHiddenFaithOfTheFoundingFathers
I beg to differ. I have an unalienable right to determine matters pertaining to my body, expression of opinion, and choice of lifestyle – as long as it cannot be proven that my choices are impinging on the rights of others.
Example: No mask or jab for me because contagion has never been proven.
I can see that the previous comments are not about the subject. Iain Davis is proposing a system but that has not been tested before. It is not about illiterates ruling or the Agora mob. Of course that we will never be able to test Iain’s proposal but it would be nice to dream of it.
No articles on Brigittte Macron being born a biological male?
Democracy would be where a bunch of uneducated people who don’t have a clue how Government works (and yet spend their whole lives criticizing it) assume control. Barcelona perhaps came closest in the 1930s.
Is that really the goal?
Shakespeare’s Coriolanus may well tell ‘The People’ all they need to know about the virtues of democracy. Going before ‘The People’ for their approval.
i.e. the degree of contempt to which real unfettered, unabated talent really regards those ‘masses’ (be that talent military or otherwise)…OK, so they had a better start in life, so then what?
The Athenian agora. Mob rule.
The crowd… Pericles was of aristocratic origins, however; even the Gracchi, who served as Tribunes of the Plebs in Rome, were of aristocratic origin, on their mother’s side (their mother was the daughter of Scipio Africanus). This does not change the fact that both were assassinated because, through the lex agraria, they fought for the redistribution of Italian lands, usurped by the rich from the poor, to the common people;
and Gramsci spoke of a workers’ aristocracy. Marx himself wrote that the class of financial capitalism reproduced at the top of society the tastes and behaviors of the lumpenproletariat, or the underworld; in short, it was a form of institutionalized criminality. Perhaps this should be reminded of those who venerate the Bilderberg Group…
Once again, the translator wrote “common people” instead of “people.” do not let pass the word ‘people’. Damn it.