by Ghassan Kadi
Until China surpasses the USA as the world’s strongest economic power, if it hasn’t already, and until the different nations of the world make up their minds as to who is the mightiest of them all; America or Russia, the West continues to be seen leading the world in many different aspects; least of which is in its arrogance.
Despite its failing family values, drug addiction problems, corruption, growing divide between the haves and have nots, huge economic crises just to name a few problems, the West has the audacity to present itself as a model for the rest of the world to aspire to.
Undoubtedly, the West has had great foundations. They go back to ancient Greece and Christianity. Had the West really and truly followed the ancient Greek wisdom and proper Christianity, it would not have succumbed to the level of moral bankruptcy that it has reached now.
Western civilization was overrun by human greed and by archaic royal regimes that regarded their citizens as serfs and property. The French revolution was a great step in the right direction, but not enough to put the path of the West on the straight and narrow.
As the Western mind was liberated by the works of European philosophers, scientists, artists and musicians, ancient monarchies had to move with the times thereby adopting democracy and giving their people a say.
Democracy in essence means the rule of people. In theory, it is a great concept; if and when applied properly and to the right people.
The objective here is not to have a philosophical discussion per se, but we have to go back to the philosophical background of the concept.
The ancient Greek philosophers promoted the idea of autocracy of the sages. A system in which the ruler is one who had never sought to be head of state, and if anything, one who would very reluctantly accept this enormously responsible position and rather pushed to accept. Symbolically, the Speaker of the House in some Western countries continues to be physically pushed by colleagues upon his/her inauguration all the way to his/her chair.
The concept is well explained in Plato’s Republic, but in fact was put into practice by Plato’s supreme teacher, Pythagoras. The school of Pythagoras was a small group of people headed by the great wise man Pythagoras himself. Over and above his wisdom and profound knowledge, he was a just and fair “ruler” who did not want any personal gain for himself. His ultimate objective was to lead his people to better life and to better philosophical/spiritual understanding of life and its purpose.
His school was the epitome of teaching wisdom with what comes with it including humility, self-control and respect. It was a difficult school to get into, and novices had to take a vow of silence that could last for a number of years after joining.
Greek politicians eyed the school with suspicion. They were simply unable to understand what Pythagoras was trying to do and why. They grew jealous of the state of esteem by which he was regarded amongst his people. They subsequently found in the school a threat to their dominion and power. They had to find a way to close it down and so they accused Pythagoras of totalitarian dictatorship. His school was eventually attacked and demolished culminating in one of the most tragic moments in human history and a resulting in a great opportunity missed that humanity did not have the chance to learn from much. More than two thousand years later, humanity by-and-large has not yet woken up to the enormity of that moment in history. If anything, it is an event that has been forgotten and ignored.
In reality, the concept of democracy developed as the anti-thesis of what is better known as the Plato’s Republic model. It was not the result of an evolution in civil law, but rather that of failure to understand, adopt and adhere to the lofty principles of Pythagoras.
Let us jump from ancient Greece to the post-French Revolution West. The West regarded democracy as the epitome of civil law. The word became synonymous with freedom, justice, equality, and many virtues that do not directly relate to the literal meaning of democracy at all.
With adopting democracy, the power of the individual became one exercised in polling and voting. Once again, in essence, if democracy is practised properly, then it can lead to some of those afore-mentioned virtues. There is however a big provisor. The majority will have to make the right judgement.
Some would argue that if the majority wants a demon to rule them, then they should get a demon. This is how democracy works. In reality, a demon cannot and will not rule with justice and his/her rule will create many innocent victims domestically, abroad, or in both.
Even if democracy is practised properly therefore, there is always a major concern about the majority of people choosing the right person for the top job. What if they don’t? What if a country overtaken by fear goes and elects a ruler who is dangerous? After all, Adolf Hitler was elected. Those who would dispute this and argue that Hitler rigged his rise to power can look forward in time and further west to the USA and remember that George W. Bush was not elected only once, but twice!
Who could imagine that a person with very low intelligence and dogmatic fanatic views of the world would get elected to become the strongest man on earth? But it did happen. Who could guarantee that Sarah Palin will not one day become President? The democratic process allows her. All she needs is enough zealots like herself to vote her in.
Furthermore, the good attributes of democracy have been hijacked by the conniving stealthy dictators who found a loophole in the system. That biggest loophole is the so-called two-party system.
When a Western voter goes to the polls, he/she can only choose between two people that the party machines have picked for him/her to choose from. How is this a representation of the will of the people? This is dictatorship under the guise of freedom of choice. The presence of minor parties in Western style democracies does not change the two-party nature of who ends up in power, needless to say that minor parties do not aspire to challenge the foundations and principles of power duopoly, instead they seek to have enough numbers for them to partake in the same game they allege to want to fight against.
Democracy has been elevated in the West to the level of divinity. One can criticise everything and everyone, a mother is legally allowed to abandon her children and walk away if that makes her feel happy, people utter ugly words of blasphemy, they can ridicule their political rivals and leaders and drag them into the gutters, they make fun of the Queen and Prince Charles’ ears, they make fun of religion and all that is holy, sacrilegious and of prominence, but no one would dare say a single word against democracy and democracy became untouchable.
The real difference between the democracy that the West promotes and dictatorship that it fights is that the latter is under the rule of one person or party and the former is under the rule of one of two parties. This is hardly representative of the will of the majority of people.
Countries like the UK have a very developed and fair judicial system. It would be interesting if someone would sue the major parties for hijacking democracy. There is no reason why donations cannot be collected by some enthusiast to list such a hearing in court and set a precedent. Would High Courts rule against the two party system? We do not know, and this prospect has not been tested; at least not yet.
The non-Western world has its own rules of governess. They don’t always work, but they are not archaic and barbaric as the West would like to portray them to be.
Politics in many non-Western developing nations is primarily in the hands of tribal and/or community leaders. Those leaders act like a council of elders. In many situations and settings they are well-received by the country’s national leader (president). The president has to liaise with them to make sure that they are happy with his leadership and that their own subjects are not going to revolt against him.
There is a form of democracy in action; not one that is based on Western criteria, but it exists.
No one is claiming that such systems always work effectively. Dictators will always find ways to rise to power. They always manage to find ways to suppress the masses and capitalize on public fortunes. The point to be made here is that in this system, the two-party system has no place and no need at all.
And why is it that non-Western countries should need to import the Western-style two-party system and what will the benefit be?
After all, how often do elected Western leaders keep their election promises? When they break them, how often do they get held accountable?
If the West brands non-Western leaders as dictators, it does so whilst totally turning a blind eye to lies and deception that its own leaders make in their rise to power.
To elaborate with examples, among the spate of weapons used against Syrian president Bashar Al Assad in the West is that he is allegedly a dictator. This description has the propensity to brand him as an evil un-democratic man, and a guarantee to stir up hatred towards him. This is an easy word to use to incite hatred; just like how in the past the use of words such as heretic, Indian savage, Jew, Communist stirred up similar emotions.
Assad is not Pythagoras, but Obama is not Plato either. In reality, Assad’s popularity brings his station as a president much closer to real democracy than that of Obama.
Western style democracy reeks with the stench of the invasion of Iraq and the Haliburton contracts and has the ugly face of Rumsfeld.
If democracy truly meant human rights, and it doesn’t, and if it’s alleged protector and defender the USA really cared about those values, it would first and foremost feed and house its own homeless who are the victims of the greed of those in power. Before it sends its fighter jets and drones to kill civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, it should be sending food packages and blankets to the residents of Central Park in NYC; those thousands who camp there in subfreezing winter temperatures.
Democracy therefore was not initially the end result of political and ethical reforms of the ancient Greek sages. It was in fact the second best option that the politicians of the time adopted when they realised that the philosophical teachings were going to strip them from power. Democracy was the result of the failure to understand and adopt the wisdom of the great sages.
At best, democracy means giving citizens a say in their governess by enabling them to partake in the decision making of who should their rulers be. But this definition does not intrinsically include justice, morality, freedom of expression, freedom of worship, human rights and all the other attributes that the West insists to associate with democracy.
Western-Style Democracy however is an aberration of democracy; one that does not allow any given individual to compete for the top job on equal par with any other individual. It is a system that has been hijacked and manipulated by the two-party system and the big business that sponsors political parties in pursuit of their own vested interests.
Neither Western-Style Democracy nor democracy is the bee’s knees of human development and pursuit of perfection. They are simply political systems like any other; with their own merits and demerits, strengths and weaknesses, and in adopting them, the West does not have much to be proud of and little argument that supports coercing other nations to adopt them.
The US cares more about the “image” it projects abroad (“superpower” “richest nation” “number one”) than about the reality at home. There comes the Hollywood syndrome too in which according to it the US has been victorious in about every single war it has participated. Even (according to Hollywood) the 2nd war world was won because of the US when in reality it was actually the Red Army that defeated the germans. I ve got to read the NYTimes at a plane yesterday and I was really surprised that they mention the republican candidate Rubio as one of the most capables to eventually lead the US (should they win). I just thougth no my god! This man is like a clone of McCain in a younger version so not so much more to say about its capabilities.
CHP [Turkey’s leading secularist Party, in opposition to Turkey’s Sunni Islamist leader, President Erdoğan] deputy Şeker spoke after [his CHP colleague] Erdem, pointing out that the government misled the public on the issue
He also underlined that all of the files and evidence from the investigation show a war crime was committed within the borders of the Turkish Republic.
“The investigation clearly indicates that those people who smuggled the chemicals required to procure sarin faced no difficulties, proving that Turkish intelligence was aware of their activities. While these people had to be in prison for their illegal acts, not a single person is in jail. Former prime ministers and the interior minister should be held accountable for their negligence in the incident,” Şeker further commented.
However, Erdem is not the only figure who has accused Turkey of possible involvement in the gas attack. Pulitzer Prize winner and journalist, Seymour M. Hersh, argued in an article published in 2014 that MİT [Turkey’s version of America’s CIA] was involved with extremist Syrian groups fighting against the Assad regime.
In his article, Hersh said Assad was not behind the attack, as claimed by the US and Europe, but that Turkish-Syrian opposition collaboration was trying to provoke a US intervention in Syria in order to bring down the Assad regime.
Even prior to Hersh’s report, a detailed (and better-written) presentation of the case against Obama, which likewise reported that this was a “false flag” operation and that the anti-Russian forces (headed by Obama) were behind it, had been presented by the great investigative journalist Christof Lehmann. He had headlined on 7 October 2013 at his nsnbc news site, “Top US and Saudi Officials responsible for Chemical Weapons in Syria,” and he opened: “Evidence leads directly to the White House, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, CIA Director John Brennan, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia´s Interior Ministry.” (The U.S. has been allied with the Saudi royal family against Russia since 1945.) Lehmann went on to note that: “The CIA maintains a station, US Special Forces (JSOC) train insurgents, and several other US institutions are present in al-Mafraq. The point is of particular importance with regards to the visit of the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Jordan, which will be detailed below. Al-Mafraq has been the major transit point for Saudi and U.S. arms shipments since 2012, and the delivery of advanced Saudi and U.S. weapons to the insurgents since early August 2013.” So: The U.S. President had been up to his eyeballs in the scheming to “precipitate a US military response,” as Hersh phrased the matter five months later. Obama desperately wanted to have a publicly-citable reason to invade Syria in 2013, just as Bush had desperately wanted to have a publicly-citable reason to invade Iraq in 2003. (And, in both instances, the U.S. ‘news’ media cooperated with the President’s scam. A detailed 14 January 2014 MIT analysis of the evidence, which proved that “the government’s interpretation of the technical intelligence it gathered prior to and after the August 21 attack cannot possibly be correct” was simply ignored by the U.S. ‘news’ media.)
All of the evidence indicates that U.S. President Obama and Turkey’s President Erdoğan were working together to create a case for America to bomb Syria until Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad would be gone, so that Assad’s government could then be replaced by a Sunni Islamist regime (like Erdoğan wants), which would be hostile to Russia and which would thus enable in Syria the construction of pipelines so that gas from U.S.-allied Sunni Qatar and oil from U.S.-allied Sunni Saudi Arabia might take the place of Russia’s oil and gas in the world’s biggest energy-market: Europe. It’s a joint operation both of the U.S. aristocracy, and of the Sunni Arabic royal families, basically a U.S.-Wahhabist operation.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/seymour-hershs-news-report-banned-in-u-s-is-finally-confirmed-in-turkey.html
Thanks for this “truth will out” moment.
Salam mmiriww,
I love your postings, especially like the video of 9/11 and the planes being in hangars. How about the Ghouta chemical (sarin gas) attack never happened. Kerry gives us a precise dead figure of 1429.
Best regards,
Mohamed.
“Democracy in essence means the rule of people.” So, democracy does not exist and nowhere and never did exist. That means that every argument that one makes on the basis of democracy has no meaning. Forward that messages to all politicians in the first place and let them bring real meaning to the world.
Kind Regards, Ben
Real democracy in the sense of your definition did exist at one time. But to find it we have to go way back past history into herstory. Let’s say 100,000 years ago before the onslaught of patriarchy and false-flag democracy.
OMG! Did you really just say patriarchy? ROFLMAO!
What does that string of capital letters mean?
OMG = Oh My Gosh (some use God)
ROFLMAO = Rolling on Floor, Laughing My A** Off
I got a chuckle out of that.
Great military commentary on carrier group vulnerability and as he puts it “Grrr bow-wow woofery”
http://russia-insider.com/en/military/us-navy-can-be-sunk/ri10892
UK became a democracy, now english are a minority in London, lovely.
http://expandedconsciousness.com/2014/04/06/nationalism-is-an-infantile-disease/
“Each one of us, since birth, is born onto a piece of land. That’s all it is. A piece of land. It’s only as we grow up that our parents, elders, teachers, relatives and ancestors provide us with labels via the education system and media, etc. that make us believe differently. These labels make us believe that the artificial is infact, real.
We believe that ‘nationalities’ are legitimate when really, they are the biggest form of separation for the human race, besides Religion, in this generation.
Patriotism is possibly one of the most delusion qualities of the human mind right now. Is it because we want to feel whole/meaningful? Is it because we want to be a part of something, an identity, to give ourselves purpose or something to live for? Who knows…[]…In reality, there is absolutely no difference between you and the person living in a different continent. None of us had the choice to be born where we are born. None of us had the choice to be raised into the family, creed, area or culture we were raised in. There is no evidence before birth suggesting that any of us put more or little work in than somebody else to deserve a ‘better’ quality of life.”
I think that the writer of that article seems to think a person just “appears” and then is a “new unconnected” being.Well I could tell them that their parents had a “bit” to do with their “appearance” on this earth.And their grandparents,great grandparents,etc,down the line,are why they are “here” as well.No matter how inconvenient it is for people to think about that today.No,we are connected to “who we are”,whether we like that are not.Your race,your ethnicity,is “you”.You might not like that.You may hate and want to change that.But while you can change beliefs,religion,even citizenship sometimes.You can’t wash away your heritage,you can’t physically change your parentage and the race/ethnicity you were born into.So no,nationalism (not the ultra-aggressive nationalism) is not wrong.Its just who we are,no more,no less.
“Your race,your ethnicity,is “you”.
Speak for yourself.
There is zero probability that I am anything like 90% of the bigoted scumbags from this particular backwater.
It’s part of the reason to read this blog – to interact with some who are not of that ilk.
“It’s part of the reason to read this blog – to interact with some who are not of that ilk”
Unfortunately I do believe “Liz” is of that ilk.
Some good ol shallow hal North American analysis…
You words or a classic case of self-hatred.It would take a Dr Freud to cure it.So I’ll have to pass on the attempt.
“You can’t wash away your heritage”
You just have to be joking – here is a flavour of that http://www.evangelicaltruth.com/orange.elect.htm
“Most candidates within the Orange Order are unaware of the underlying British Israelism theology that permeates the Loyal Orders.That is because prospective candidates are not subjected to the teaching until they join. Even if they wanted, they have no means of scrutinising it in the light of Scripture. It is only learn after they have obligated themselves to this secret Order.
British Israelism views the Anglo-Saxon Protestant people of the United Kingdom as being the physical descendents of believing Israel. They attempt, by all types of imaginative theories, to prove that some of the most notable men of Scripture (Old and New Testament) actually immigrated to, or visited, the British Isles in their travels. Some within the Loyal Orders hold that within this choice nation of Britain the Orders occupy an elevated position – the equivalent to that held by the Levites before the cross. They feel they are the literal descendents of the Levitical tribe and the guardians of their supposed ancient secret practices. They believe that the Orders have preserved much of their teaching and practices.
The Orange Lecture
Every new Orange member (saved or lost) is personally informed when he joins the Orange Order that he is “one of the elect.” He is taught this in his introductory catechism. The Orange Order gives this false assurance to every single new candidate when they join the order, regardless of his spiritual state, assuring him that he is saved, saying:
“What art thou?
One of the elect!
Of what house?
The house of Israel!
Of what tribe?
The tribe of Levi!”
The British Israelite Society had a Sunday night radio show here for years, and their office was across the hall from my favourite Indonesian restaurant many moons of moons ago. They fancied themselves the New Chosen People, just as the Septics now see themselves as the New New Chosen People. But the originals still call the shots, with millennial expertise at manipulation.
I ‘ve been in London for several years. There are entire areas of London where English people are virtually non-existent. You are literally shocked when you see one.
Buzzzzzz. Wrong! The 2011 census recorded that 2,998,264 people or 36.7% of London’s population are foreign-born. EDL by any chance?
It makes London a nicer place, actually. And as much of the UK’s wealth came from looting other countries, particularly India, it is poetic justice.
Which is all very well MM, speaking at a political, power broker level. But for the average working English, who didn’t benefit from the rape of India and Africa, who just want to live in the land they know and love, surrounded by their own kind, who didn’t ask for this pouring of completely unlike peoples to be forced on them, and for whom its a misery the wealthy, the powerful and the political don’t have to endure, it’s an undeserved punishment for the sins of others.
It’s the reason my brother and I wont go back to visit. We want to remember the land we grew up in as it was, not grieve over what has been done to it.
I think some of the ideas on democracy promoted by former senator Mike Gravel have huge merit. The only power government has is to make laws. Once passed the bureaucracy will mindlessly enforce them. It doesn’t matter if the law is illegal or downright evil and murderous. They will enforce it because “it’s the law”. So you then have to go to court and appeal all the way to the supreme court to have it overturned.
So in a modern democracy here is how you can stop that.
1) All laws must be reviewed by the courts before they get voted on to make sure they are legal (i.e. constitutional). No “legal opinion” saying “we who promote this law think it is legal”. It must not infringe on individuals rights to avoid the “3 wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for lunch” syndrome.
2) A vote is held on the new law. If less than 50% of the eligible voters vote then the law doesn’t pass. Not voting is counted as a negative vote. If the issue being voted on isn’t important enough to the majority of the people then it doesn’t become law. This means only items that are important to the majority will be passed into law.
3) All laws must have feedback loops to measure their effectiveness. This must be included in the law so that ineffective laws don’t get passed.
4) All voting must be done securely. This is very possible from a technical standpoint. The vast majority of voting machines in use are open to manipulation by design. The parties don’t want accurate machines that can’t be tampered with.
Any form of government that allows one to vote, disregarding intelligence is doomed to failure.
re: Western democracy: Yes, and the ironically the G-d given “right” to attack organized religion ( mainly Islam) has become a new article of faith in the neoliberal secular schema. Cynical nihilism will rule and all will bow down. Extreme individualism as the greatest good is a problem on all levels. Example:
A friend of mine and several of her fellow workers were having trouble with a supervisor the other day and no one wanted to risk speaking out. the immigrant from Latin American commented to her ”What is it that Americans don’t understand solidarity?” Anyway, she spoke out first to upper management as the one who had the best prospects for another job and who had no kids to support. This cleared the way for the others but they all went seperately.
The spiritual path is to do what is put before you with the highest intentions and greatest skill. Thanks for your insightful article Mr. Kadi.
Groupthink delusion on the G-d (/Allah) cad /controversy-is-good-if-it-makes-you-think/comment-page-1/#comment-113193
Fallacious hope is to be utterly despised and countered wherever it raises its ugly head. .
Thanks for this primer on democracy, the current politically correct slogan for all nations that want to win the game of power.
“The Fallacy of Western-Style Democracy” is rightly contrasted with Eastern Style more ancient versions.
In my view you do not take the argument back far enough past the axial age of patriarchy.
“Freedom in capitalist society remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.” Vladimir IIich Lenin.
I found it revealing that twice you used the word “governess.” A woman who teaches and helps raise children.
Our species’ original governing system was by womem matrons of small communities. This lover-lineal and matri-lineal system was systematically overthrown by patriarchy. I explore these ideas at thelovegovernment.com.
There is a conspiracy of silence on this subject but “In a room where people unanimously maintain a conspiracy of silence, one word of truth sounds like a pistol shot.” Czeslaw Milosz.
As you hint, today the quest is “mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the ‘mightiest of them all?'”
I think the best system aligning with our original template and operating instructions is “consensus,” not democracy.
But that requires an educated public. “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill.
Pythagorus is an example of a good patriarch within the dysfunctional system of patriarchy, or rule by men. He is the fountainhead of a philosophy of the Great Chain of Being, a fallacy if there ever was one.
I for one don’t want a chain around my neck. “The first duty of man is to think for himself.” Jose Marti.
“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” James Bovard.
It goes back to the question of who we are and why are we here. The short answer can be found in one word: “love.” The long version is found at thelovegovernment.com.
“If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.” Mark Twain.
I believe the Vineyard consensus is that the West is a mess and that Russia is the best. A good patriarch at the helm and an educated public.
That’s as good as it gets for now but in the future…? “The future is not the same as it used to be.” Yogi Berra.
I don’t know if “governess” was an unconscious slip or a masterful stroke but IMO it is the key to unlocking the present governmental log-jam.
Thanks for bringing water to our vineyard. Quite a contrast to:
“They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot spot
They took all the trees
And put them in a tree museum
And they charged all the people
A dollar and a half to see ’em
-Joni Mitchell
” “If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.” Mark Twain.”
Voting does make a difference.
When i vote i inherently accept the voting result (which always turns out the wrong way) and therefore i implicitly authorize the tyrants to enslave me.
No wonder it’s is totally taboo to criticize Democracy – the Elite had it never easier!
This also explains why in a authoritarian regime you always find highly developed ‘cultures of resistance’ while in Democracies everybody is subdued and has ‘mush for brains’.
Thanks. Now I know why I don’t vote for people I don’t know personally or from reliable locals like in our town of 8000.
@ Dennis & Lenin
“Freedom in capitalist society remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.” Vladimir IIich Lenin.”
Indeed.
@Ghassan
“Democracy was the result of the failure to understand and adopt the wisdom of the great sages.”
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~demo5337/Group3/hist.html:
“…The Pythagoreans had discovered irrational numbers! If we take an isosceles right triangle with legs of measure 1, the hypotenuse will measure sqrt 2. But this number cannot be expressed as a length that can be measured with a ruler divided into fractional parts, and that deeply disturbed the Pythagoreans, who believed that “All is number.” They called these numbers “alogon,” which means “unutterable.” So shocked were the Pythagoreans by these numbers, they put to death a member who dared to mention their existence to the public.”
Not so great after all.
You Know Anon, you are the epitomy of the liberal movement. forget the past..they were all butchers…
and yet, you know nothing but what television has taught you..If you read books, you’d have a different song to sing.
The past is the future.
You know Ann,
you are the epitomy of riddles.
Do you mean the future will reflect the past (and that there is therefore no hope) or have you a more cheerful story to tell
***please don’t be rude to commenters – modaa
Comrades Ulyanov and Clemens had it pretty right, I would say. The other great dirty secret of capitalist democracy is the truth that Churchill alluded to. 50% of the electorate is, by definition, of below median intelligence, and if measurable, similar distributions must apply to knowledge, morality, spiritual understanding etc. And doesn’t it show.
I worked for years in hospitals, meeting the polis and hearing the vox populi and it ain’t an edifying experience. We have parliaments that represent the public all too closely. I’d be hard-pressed to nominate more than half a dozen parliamentarians in the entire country who aren’t malevolent imbeciles, whereas, years ago, the Depression/WW2 generation produced some real exemplars of various human virtues. All gone now.
that’s unfortunately because, generally speaking, decent people don’t relish the idea of the campaigns and etc…they don’t ‘get into’ politics…
Thank God for Cynthia McKinney, who has waded into the deep sesspool of modern politics and has weathered it and is becoming a master of ‘the system’…a dangerous person for the scum that usually frequent those pools…
and Putin seemed to know from a young age what he needed to learn, to be ready for his job…intelligence service….
Dennis thanks for that. I can try to blame the automated spell check, but I will be honest and say it was a terrible oversight on my part. I assure you that the issue was about “governance” and that it had nothing to do with either Mary Poppins or Maria Von Trapp.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I enjoy and benefit from your work.
“Western Style Democracy”?
Where has Ghassan Kadi been this last half century?
The predominant government format in the West is better understood as “Western Style Dictatorship.” In most of the West, Democracy, and the accompanying Republics, have long fallen by the waysides.
The remnants of America’s democracy was assassinated in Dallas, along with its Constitution and its brave elected President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, on November 22, 1963.
When these thinkers?/writers?philosophers?professors?CIA think tank types? understand that they can no longer sell the “West is Democratic” brainwashing crap (to anyone other than Americans – low IQ – 28, who will believe absolutely anything they hear on TV), they must unleash fallback Plan B.
Plan B – is to lightly critique ‘Western Democracy.” Western democracy is just not that good; and, beside that, other countries have the right to deny women the right to vote, the right not to show their faces (and most other parts of their anatomies), not to view porn movies with their boy friends, not to abort at will, not for all to gamble and participate in blood sports-women, as well as men, not to obey the Rothschilds, not for women, as well as men, to enjoy anal sex at the Skull and Crossbones Society, among other earthly delights, and the right to deny citizens the right to vote for bought candidates from bought political gangs, who worship the Golden Calf.
In other words, the West remains – much more fun, (look at the above list – and there is more); it is just a bit too pushy at times; if it would just calm down, all those in the less fortunate areas of the globe will come around soon enough. Their teenagers just love that heroin; and who cares about family life when you can get a girl pregnant at the age of 12?
Get it? The West remains “where its at.” Some sort of “approved” by the Rothschilds elections. You may vote for H. Clinton and win slavery, or you may vote for Trump, and win H. Clinton and slavery. It’s a win-win. Only not for you.
That…… is “Western-Style Dictatorship,” backed by fascists, bombs, missiles, nation after nation devastated, millions dead, millions dispersed, homelands stolen, and misleading titles.
There is no “Western-Style Democracy,”
Democracy comes from the heart. -AC It comes from here:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CHMQ_B0wCmoVChMI5dvq3pHyyAIVjJIeCh1fbQuZ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fimgres%3Fimgurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.mtholyoke.edu%2Fcourses%2Frschwart%2Fhist255%2Fla%2Fbigliberty.jpg%26imgrefurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.mtholyoke.edu%2Fcourses%2Frschwart%2Fhist255%2Fla%2Fdelacroix.html%26h%3D600%26w%3D764%26tbnid%3DEIGQX-V2uJLcOM%3A%26tbnh%3D157%26tbnw%3D200%26usg%3D__wMZP6rK2842kKgXGYe14M_qZYbk%3D%26docid%3DcvtmvlHmAC9EjM%26itg%3D1&usg=AFQjCNFN5JqG5ZmKF0R_OZE_rBfcyEbJZw&sig2=B9mzOWcXToYZ5KloSst0_g&bvm=bv.106379543,d.cWw
For the Democratic Republics!
IMAGINE
Nice description of false-flag freedom.
What does “-AC” mean?
Dennis Leary on November 02, 2015 · at 5:21 pm UTC
Nice description of false-flag freedom.
What does “-AC” mean?
AC = Anarchist Collective
group of friends.
Have used Durruti as my nom de plum on occasion.
Your points on democracy are all correct, and I have been mocking the fact that the West has been worshiping Democracy like it’s a God many times in my comments.
There is one overriding issue, and that is:
Even if Democracy is as good as advertised/believed/worshiped, there is no right for any nation to perform Regime Change on another sovereign nation, using the pretext that it is not a democracy. To do so would undermine all international laws and lead to chaos/war/famine/refugees/terrorism etc etc.
Fact is in many places, including the US (perhaps Especially the US), democracy is not really 1 person 1 vote, but 1 dollar 1 vote, those that contribute mightily to campaigns benefit the most overall. Thus the US, through “democracy”, is getting closer and closer to a form a Corporatism/Fascism and Oligarchy.
@ alan
“there is no right for any nation to perform Regime Change on another sovereign nation, using the pretext that it is not a democracy.”
why not?
Here’s what Uncle Bob had to say /real-world-vs-tv-reality-is-a-war-inevitable/comment-page-1/#comment-92936
“India invaded East Pakistan,now Bangladesh. I don’t condemn that invasion since it helped free them from being slaughtered during their revolt against Pakistan.But none the less it was an invasion and you asked for the name of a time India invaded another country.”
Really?
How does an invasion to stop a massacre have anything to do with “democracy”.According to the “West” both countries involved are “officially” democracies.But regardless of whether both,one,or neither of them are/where democracies.India’s invasion had nothing what so ever to do with “democracy”,it had to do with mass slaughter.And you don’t need to be a “democracy” to dislike that.As I recall the nazi German Ambassador to China during the “Nanjing Massacre” worked very hard trying to save the Chinese from Japanese soldiers in the city.And further back,the Kaiser’s diplomats in the Ottoman Empire worked to protect Armenians from the massacres during WWI.And were some of the most important sources exposing the Armenian Massacres.Once again,nothing to do with democracy.The list of things like that are endless,that is just two small examples.Human decency and hatred of cruelty is not a “democratic” trait.Its a moral trait,found (or not found) in individuals throughout the World.In and outside “democracies”.
What is this moral trait you refer to?
What moral basis did the British have to create (as many Irish Nationalists see it) an artificial border in the 1920’s between what is now the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. The basis, of course, was to appease the threat of the Northern Irish Unionist Protestants from taking up arms against the British a few years earlier.
This appeasement curtailed massive slaughter at the time only to lead to more than 30 years of violence in which thousands of people died in the 1970’s/80’s/90’s between Unionists & Nationalists in Northern Ireland.
Was it OK for the British to prevent a (seemingly inevitable) war in the 1920’s between Republican Ireland and Unionist Northern Ireland?
The jury is out.
In any case it was not a simple case of preventing slaughter of the innocent but rather “might is right” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-19718680.
Your analysis is overly simplistic.
The “heritage” you earlier referred to is yet another important (and often illogical) difference created by the powerful to divide people (with limited ability to understand that they are being used) which often leads to conflict.
Your comfy heritage may be ice cream soda and baseball – not where I come from. Here an underlying repugnant odour of hate pervades society.
There are very few innocents (imho) – including the gullible.
As you say the “jury is still out”.Personally I doubt that there would have been that massive war.Ireland is a very complicated case.Many of the people on both sides share the same ethnic origins.The big divide in Ireland is a culture build around religion,not ethnicity or race.After the 17th Century,until the 19th Century, the Northern Ireland Protestants (mostly “dissenter” sects,so-called) suffered oppression only slightly different than the Irish Catholics.And in fact many of the Irish rebels of that period were Protestant.It was only with the 19th Century that the British tried to unite all the Protestants into a “British” loyalty.Using Protestant ministers and founding groups like the Orange Order to divide the Protestant dissenters from the Catholic Irish.They were very successful as we see.
“And in fact many of the Irish rebels of that period were Protestant.It was only with the 19th Century that the British tried to unite all the Protestants into a “British” loyalty.Using Protestant ministers and founding groups like the Orange Order to divide the Protestant dissenters from the Catholic Irish”
And so you can see, whatever the background, the madness behind the opposing “heritage” of sometimes next door neighbours.
Heritage infers pride. Pride infers ego. Ego infers conflict…at the very least it describes a feeble minded and unexplained yearning to belong to a group (no matter the nature of it).
Out of interest, further to you prior “Freudian”self hating slur, what exactly does your North American “heritage” really mean to you?
Heritage:
1.something inherited at birth, such as personal characteristics, status, and possessions
2.anything that has been transmitted from the past or handed down by tradition
3.the evidence of the past, such as historical sites, buildings, and the unspoilt natural environment, considered collectively as the inheritance of present-day society
Heritage “can” infer pride.It could also infer shame.It can infer many different things to different people.But the one thing it certainly infers is the past of a persons society.As for the “longing to belong to a group”.That is a human trait,it is part of our being as humans.So there is no reason we should regret that.But what could be a problem is what ” type” of group we would want to belong too.So that would be something to think on before joining a group.
In Ireland over the centuries the mixture of peoples has been enormous.Ireland was a “cradle of modern colonialism (along with Spain,Poland,and Eastern Europe.).For the English,it started as their model of colonialism,that they transported to the “New World”.Until the break with Rome,people were only divided by either living in settled English controlled, and partly settled by the English areas of Ireland.And the Gaelic areas,that had few English settlers.After the break,many of the English settlers remained Catholic,while a few of the Gaels adopted Protestantism.That divided people even more.And by the 18th Century,you had a society determined more by religion than anything else.Many of today’s Catholic Irish are descended of English/Norman settlers from centuries past.While some, loyal to Britain Northern Irish “Ulstermen”, have Gaelic descent.But after all these centuries most of them consider themselves as Irishmen on both sides of the border.Most of the Ulster Irish Protestants just want to be connected to Britain.While most of the Catholic Irish want an independent Irish state.Britain itself has at least 5 million people of Irish descent that live there (probably with mixed marriages,that is a conservative figure).Most of them consider themselves today as “British”.So there is no real divide today as in the past.In Britain itself,the old Catholic-Protestant divide isn’t what it once was.
I’ve noticed there is a lot of hubris and hate in your attitude on here.Would you care to share what past experiences have created that in you.Maybe even if we aren’t Dr Freud’s we might be able to understand you better.
Anonymous…if I was the moderator, none of your attacks would have gotten on the board…
Watch out.
“Anonymous…if I was the moderator, none of your attacks would have gotten on the board…”
But you are not so…
Ireland was divided by blood and fire. Forced Anglicisation proceeded apace under Elizabeth and James. Protestants moved into Irish estates that were available because the Irish nobility that had traditionally held them were driven into exile.
For centuries, the resistance to predation has been mischaracterized as a religious dispute by the predators.
‘Western ‘Democracy’ is a lie, just like ‘Western Moral Values’, ‘Human Rights’ and ‘Freedom’. An entire universe of untruth.
11/2/15: Crosstalk. Each guest eventually comes up with good points but Marc Slevoda just shines . https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/320454-multipolar-world-cold-war/
Democracy can be bought. The Golden Rule applies -‘He (or She) who has the gold, rules’
We keep trying to explain away greed and pillaging as something Nobel gone wrong. A country established on the backs of the genocide of native Americans and slaves.. Practicing the very same in other countries for the last 300 years. We talk books and books of where it all went wrong. Can all be explained in a couple of sentences.. The mafia on a global scale..
The US Drive for Hegemony Has Been Exhausted… Nearly
In their own circles, the political elites and domestic institutions of the US are extremely forthcoming. One book that lays out all the reasons behind the actions of the US on the international stage in very accurate detail, nuances included, is not an analysis but rather a blueprint published in 1997 (in Russian 1999). I am referring to “The Grand Chessboard” by Zbigniew Brzezinski.
The main objective of the US is clearly defined within it. Namely, the pursuit of a new form of world hegemony and includes the methods to be used to achieve it: by gaining control of Eurasia, the key to which is to pull Ukraine away from the Russian sphere of influence, bringing it into the geographical fold of Europe.
In no uncertain terms, this scant publication represents a real time plan of action, which we have witnessed being implemented over the years. A political instrument of the plan – the so-called Trilateral Commission – was founded by the same aforementioned Brzezinski and David Rockefeller in 1973. US policy is not limited to “protecting interests” or “responding to challenges,” it is a thoroughly designed, all encompassing political project.
The strategy of the US in the 20th century radically transformed from a doctrine of isolationism towards internationalist control of European affairs. This took place by means of the all-out war between European countries, in which the United States played a limited and isolated role. At the expense of this war, they built upon the situation and have strived to keep the conflict going since that time – first in the form of the Cold War with the Soviet Union and now through an artificially induced confrontation with Russia. Not limiting itself to that, conflicts must now be spread across the continent.
Russia resists
In Syria however, this tactic has encountered a serious setback in the form of an effective intervention by Russia – both militarily and politically. A formidable obstacle to the continuation of the United States’ strategy has also developed in Ukraine.
In fact, at present the United States has almost completely exhausted much of its energy on this project of revamping US hegemony, within the circumstances that unfolded after the dissolution of the USSR.
All that they conceived, was implemented; but control over Eurasia was not achieved. On the contrary, the ensuing processes pushed Russia into the field of Eurasian political planning, where it is able to offer a system of collective security on the continent from a Eurasian geopolitical and geo-economic standpoint, replacing the outdated “European only” NATO and ridding the US of its hegemony, in principle from Lisbon to Vladivostok, as many Europeans already desire.
Running the world by lies and duplicity has its limits, and now the neocon strategies are failing badly
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/us-drive-hegemony-has-been-exhausted-or-nearly/ri10777
— A country established on the backs of the genocide of native Americans and slaves.. (mmiriww on November 02, 2015 · at 4:48 pm UTC )
Yeah, you are quite right, mmiriww. I’m just amazed at the people, speaking about 40 shades of democracy when referring to the USA. While it had never existed there.
Not a single shade of it. Never.
And within western, i.e. our democracies, there ARE other inherent disturbing things.
For example, the freedom to vote, to go to he polls in the election day or not to go…
For example, germany, portugal, brazil and many other democracies have 6 plus or many plus parties and they pick up a candidate each frequently…
The absurd point is that, anywhere, there is a valid pragmatic rule: the greater the freedom all citizens have to go or not enlist and NOT go to polls that day, the bigger and easier becomes the manipulation of the process. And of course of the results.
Because the black spots and evil maneuvers of the political system are so evident that the majority of people will reject them and decide NOT to show up and vote! They feel they wont change the whole thing, that´s why.
If they were forced to show up – on mandatory voting – and vote for, say, president by means of a monetary fine and/or
other civil penalties no matter small, they would vote in far bigger numbers. And electoral results in terms of representation would be better. Or in other words, results would surely be “much less bad” that they are with the ”all free’ system : where to vote or abstain is the same thing. And It is easy to understand the whies of such a psychological behaviour.
How about going to school: shouldn´t it be free to go or not to go for common kid ?
This seems or is a kind of ‘ contradiction’ of course. But reality shows many contradictory things in every field. In theory it should be “the freer the better”, but when it comes to popular participation is an absolutely invalid principle.
“In theory it should be “the freer the better”
Why – so that some innovative Capitalist made good can quench a guilty conscience with a tad philanthropy?
Direct copy&paste from wikipedia:
An idiot in Athenian democracy was someone who was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private—as opposed to public—affairs.[6] Idiocy was the natural state of ignorance into which all persons were born and its opposite, citizenship, was effected through formalized education.[6] In Athenian democracy, idiots were born and citizens were made through education (although citizenship was also largely hereditary).
So, what can you expect from a democracy of idiots?
It’s not so much about democracy as about parliamentary democracy.
The voting is basically only an emergency measure to send the bums home. The true value of parliamentary democracy does not lie in “the people” ruling, or the majority getting their way: It is the attempt to shape policy primarily through rational debate. It is a lofty goal, and it can also be practised within alternative forms of government, but the ideal is that policy can be based on the power of arguments, public debate, and the interrogation of settled traditions. Public debate assumes there is a much larger public forum in which all questions are discussed, and that people listen to each other. This means people defer to reason and that all reasonable people may participate.
These are lofty goals. But such values tend to get lost in all the hubbub of who gets to be boss and to rule. If all is well, it should actually not matter all that much who rules if people are obeying reason instead of purely private interests or rulers.
Thank you, Mr Kadi, for holding up a mirror behind the false mask of “democracy” exposing the corporatist (fascist, in reality) head behind it.
Minor correction:
A governess is woman hired in a private home to care for and instruct the children.
Governance is the method by which power is of government is administered.
Chris Hedges latest article on the recently deceased political theorist Sheldon Wolin:
“Sheldon Wolin, our most important contemporary political theorist, died Oct. 21 at the age of 93. In his books “Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism” and “Politics and Vision,” a massive survey of Western political thought that his former student Cornel West calls “magisterial,” Wolin lays bare the realities of our bankrupt democracy, the causes behind the decline of American empire and the rise of a new and terrifying configuration of corporate power he calls “inverted totalitarianism.”
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/11/02/sheldon-wolin-and-inverted-totalitarianism
Ghassan, this is one of the best writings what I have ever read in the recent weeks. Very simple and elegant explanation, that the power of push and torture can work only till the energy of the suppression will release the power what was supressed for a very, very long time in the history of the humanity of this beautiful earth.
Thank you for the opportunity to give us the gift to read this article
This is one of these idiots who are presenting the democracy on their way. Just a confirmation of Ghassan, what he has wrote
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1b8_1446372549
“the West continues to be seen leading the world in many different aspects; least of which is in its arrogance.” –
After the semi-colon, this should read, “…aspects; *not* least of which is in its arrogance.”
Please don’t insult the author – your post has been edited.Mod TR
“The French revolution was a great step in the right direction” – I stopped reading after that. The French Revolution was nothing but Bolshevism and mass murder.
Ghost, my favourite observation re. the French Revolution was made by Zhou En-lai when chatting with our PM, Gough Whitlam (deposed later in a CIA organised constitutional coup). Gough asked the Premier what he considered were the greatest results of the French Revolution, to which the wily Premier replied, ‘It’s too early to tell’.
This is going to be one doozy of a clusterf**k. I couldn’t agree more that genuine democracy does not exist in the west.
“Neither Western-Style Democracy nor democracy is the bee’s knees of human development and pursuit of perfection. They are simply political systems like any other; with their own merits and demerits, strengths and weaknesses, and in adopting them, the West does not have much to be proud of and little argument that supports coercing other nations to adopt them”.
The basic problem is us. Humanity or should I rather say western industrialized “civilization” to which the rest of the global south seemingly wishes to emulate. We have lost all knowledge of the right way to live and exist in harmony with nature and with each other. We have cut ourselves off from nature and thereby turned ourselves into a parasite on the body of the planet. We have evolved into what can only be called a cancer on the body of this planet.
We have cut ourselves off from nature and created an artificial construct within which we exist and the maintenance of which is poisoning and polluting this planet upon which we all depend and destroying its ecosystems, and which is ultimately unsustainable.
But this artificial construct is now beginning to run out of steam, its starting to get very top heavy and wobbly, and its pretty soon going to come crashing down around us.
We are beginning to see signs of this impending collapse all around us. More and more people in the “rich” west are struggling to make ends meet, people are beginning to get edgier and we are witnessing the rise in racism and xenophobia in Europe while the unprecedented gap between the haves and have nots continue to grow. The world is aflame with countless conflicts while an unprecedented drought is creeping world wide. There are 60 million displaced peoples worldwide, the greatest number since the second world war and Europe is deluged with refugees.
At least in past global conflicts you had clear delineations of the combatants and who is against who, this group of countries and people against that group of countries and people. In what the future holds for us its going to be everybody against everybody, nobody will be spared. White against black, rich against poor, Christian against muslim, even within individual countries it will be left against right, Turk against Turk, German against German.
Anybody know if they are still accepting volunteers for that mission to mars ?
“Anybody know if they are still accepting volunteers for that mission to mars ?”
+1 ;-)
That or we all just crawl back into the pond.
A fundamental problem and cause of humans going “against nature” is because for whatever the reasons, humans are pound for pound physically the weakest, slowest, most unprotected, disarmed and weaponless of all the animals,—no speed, no agility, no real strength, no fangs or claws, no fur or scales. Can you imagine humans living in the wild without any tools, and without even any clothing? Where could the human species ever survive? Somewhere in the trees? Or on some remote islands? But because humans have their intellect and creativity, and because the human body for all its weakness and slowness and vulnerability is actually very well adapted for handling tools, devices, various machines,—humans evolved concepts of shelter, buildings, concepts of using animals like horses to gain speed, weapons that kill at a distance, various machinery. That is the setup, the physically inferior and challenged human overcoming handicaps and limitations by creative technology that disrupts natural cycles, sometimes.
But nature would simply exterminate humans if they were totally naked, without tools and without any technology.
Obviously the first humans, without technology, were not exterminated by nature (and could even run down an antelope, by superior endurance) — and were able to do so to a great measure because they knew how to cooperate with each other, and could develop culture, surviving and thriving for quite some time. They also live for a long time using only very simple tools such as blowguns, spears and nets.
We don’t even to imagine how this was done — there are still a few areas where humans live like that, and many were found during the 20th century.
This is a meaty article. I find a lot to agree with, but also quite a bit to disagree with.
First disagreement is a minor point of fact–“two party system”? No, “the west” does not rely on “two party systems”, that’s a purely US thing and very weird. Even the idea that there might elsewhere be two “main” parties with others being modifiers or hangers-on is simply rubbish. The closest outside the US to that would be places without proportional representation, such as Britain and Canada–but even there, there is a fair amount of creep in which parties are considered “main”. But in Germany, or Italy, Holland and so on and so forth there is nothing like two constant dominant parties.
Leaving that aside, the weaknesses of existing democracy basically come down to two things. The first is information. Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one–and the man who owns one is always a millionaire. His advertisers are corporations. And to stay in business and get easier access to news, he needs to have a friendly relationship with the government, while the government could definitely use a friendly relationship with him. The media people rely on for information in every country (democratic or not, actually; China’s no different) is, usually tacitly, geared to support the wealthy and powerful. They’re quite sophisticated about it, with a range of tactics from distortion to distraction to clever framing to outright falsehood. So the thing is, say I’m a person living in a democracy. I want to decide who would make the best ruler. But I depend on what the media tell me about my available choices. I can reason perfectly but if my data is false, well, garbage in, garbage elected.
The second problem is the word that so often gets omitted. We don’t live in “democracies” pure and simple. We live in “representative democracies”. In Athens, people gathered together and made decisions. There’s a gorgeous story in Thucydides’ “Peloponnesian War” about this one time where an Athenian force fighting on some islands had taken these prisoners and wanted to know what to do. So a dude got up and made this barnstormer of a speech about how horrible the enemies were and the injustice of their cause and how they’d killed Athenians and stuff, and how revenge demanded the prisoners be killed to show that Athens meant business. And everyone was all “YEAH! Athens! Athens! Athens!!!” and voted to send a ship with a message to kill the prisoners. So then this other dude was horrified and made a barnburner of a speech about how Athens was known as the centre of the civilized world and this was against all justice and rules of war and how other cities would look on it with horror and they wouldn’t be able to hold up their heads after agreeing to this atrocity. And everyone was all “What have we done? Have we become barbarians?! We must stop this!” and they voted to send another ship with a message, with a reward if they got there first. So those second guys rowed really hard, and in the end they didn’t kill the prisoners, which is good in my book. The point is, what they were doing was to a fair extent direct democracy, not representative. And it was clearly not perfect, people still being people, but it had clear advantages over representative democracy. The bigger your political unit, the more distant a representative will be and the less idea you will have what they’re up to, especially given the information problem.
Direct democracy is unwieldy, especially at the tech level of ancient Athens. But modern internet technologies make it potentially a lot more workable. We need a lot more of that stuff, and a lot less of unaccountable representatives.
The information problem can probably only be dealt with by tackling a third problem which people do not even consider a problem with democracy: The democratic deficit in the “private sector”. We mostly agree that democracy is important, but toss it the moment we step in to work. For however many hours a day, we accept a bribe in return for being temporarily a slave. We give up control over our lives, and we subordinate our decision making to the pre-decided objectives of the organization, which is ruled by some other person or people. We have no say. So, for instance, if it’s a news organization which is disseminating news about Syria or Russia, if we want to keep on collecting a paycheck we will disseminate according to the editorial line, which is ultimately dictated by the owners. So as a reporter, or web programmer, or proofreader (do they still do that or do they just trust spellcheck?) or whatever, we do not have a voice in whether the organization publishes false news; we shut up and go along with it, or at most grumble quietly and impotently, or we lose our job. Same at a clothing store–if it sells clothes that will fall apart in two weeks that were sewn by prison inmates being pimped as free sweatshop labour because they smoked a joint, the people working in the store got neither a say nor a share of the profits skimmed by these tactics. And on and on. Ultimately, the only way to get information that’s any use to real people is to democratize the workplace, including the media workplace. And yes, I’m talking (certain forms of) socialism. But I don’t mind if you call it something else; the point is, people need to be running things.
This article has traces of one of the major problems that crop up when democracy is being analyzed, IMO–a confusion about what the point is. You can see that in what looks kind of like an argument for Platonic philosopher kings. On what basis? Well, that they’re wise and would do a good job. So it’s a utilitarian argument (and one I don’t buy on those terms either). But the point of democracy isn’t that the demos do the best job of ruling. It’s that everyone is equally a protagonist in their own story, equally a moral agent, and nobody should have the right to decide for another person without their consent how they will be ruled. Kings, dictators, whether “philosopher” or any other kind, have no legitimacy, no real basis on which they should be able to override dissent; it’s as reasonable for a dissenter to shoot a dictator as it is for a dictator to have someone jailed or executed. Tribal setups aren’t overtly democratic, but if you look closely enough and dig down a bit, in the end they base their claims to legitimacy on a sort of implicit democracy–on the idea that people for the most part agree to the setup. Far as I’m concerned, if that’s true then you could make it explicit and nothing would change, and if something does change then your claim to legitimacy was false.
Claims of efficiency or effectiveness or so on in the absence of democracy are also very suspect. Efficiency or effectiveness at doing what, for whom? Politics is all about defining what the objectives are going to be, not just the means. You can have your philosopher king and he could be totally brilliant and do whatever he does as well as he possibly could, but how do you know whether what he’s doing well is the right thing to be doing at all? One could argue philosophy about it, I suppose–but ultimately, there are going to be different opinions about what’s the right thing to do. So how do you gain legitimacy for one of them? Well, for any political unit there are the people defined as being part of it, the citizens. They have points of view on the subject. Ultimately, the legitimacy of a political project derives from what the citizens of the polity think of it. Hang on, that’s democracy again! I would argue that in the absence of democracy, real democratic consultation and popular decision making, no political project can have legitimacy and so no leader can be determined to be doing the right thing–there almost is no “right thing” to do if the people haven’t decided what it is. Note that this actually pretty much applies to modern propaganda-ridden representative democracies, which have little or no legitimate popular voice in or consent to government policies.
Note that in all this, I won’t say the people are always right. They’re often wrong. People can be too biased towards the short term. They can have misleading models of how the world works, which prompt them to support some policy which will not actually get them what they want. They can be selfish in ways which blind them to side effects of what seems to promise gain. They can be lazy. But all these problems apply to elites such as aristocrats, hereditary tribal leaders (how are these two different?), plutocrats, theocrats, philosopher kings and so on, plus they add extra problems. They tend to govern for their own benefit, rather than the people’s benefit; even to the extent they do govern for the people, they govern for what they imagine the people should want rather than what the actual people actually want; and their information about the people’s situation tends to be nearly as flawed as the people’s propaganda-ridden information about them, so it’s hard for them to govern for those people as effectively as the people would govern for themselves (even if they wanted to, which they rarely do).
Thanks for a well thought out contribution.
Your mention of direct and representational democracy triggered a memory of a man in our town of 8000 who was talking about direct democracy (and also for universal wi-fi) a few years ago. I was running for city council about that time but really had no idea of what he was talking about.
Now I understand more. 8000 people and maybe 5000 voters is a bit much for direct democracy it seems.
In my ideal democracy world, I see us returning to live in small communities where everyone knows everyone else. That puts a upper limit at about 2 or 3 hundred I guess. The ideal ideal would be 30 to 60 I imagine.
That’s not going happen of course on our planet so it’s confined to my imagination. But it could be happening on another planet in this staggeringly large universe of possibilities. I’m already there in a hologram sense so it’s not just useless speculation for me.
Salam Leary,
Walden Two sets the limit of 1,000
Bests regards,
Mohamed.
Peace, Mohamed. Thanks. For a recluse like me, 1000 seems a lot of people to know but I could change and socialize more.
PLG, excellent observation regarding the totalitarian nature of wage slavery under capitalism. This, of course, is one of the prime motivations of privatisation, that and looting the common wealth. The Big Lie that the ‘private sector’ is ALWAYS more ‘efficient’ doesn’t stand a moment’s scrutiny, but the MSM presstitutes MUST conform to their owners’ ideology or their well-paid jobs vanish. Moreover it explains the undying drive to smash unions as a centre of power for working people, who must remain isolated, atomised and powerless supplicants before their Masters. Indeed in the Common Law, the English law created by the rich to defend their status and property, the laws of industrial relations are known as ‘Master and Servant’, or to translate from the gibberish, ‘Parasite and Host’. Western ‘democracy’ under neo-liberal capitalism is, in reality, private totalitarianism presided over by psychopaths. Which is why humanity has been driven to the brink of self-destruction.
The problem with most social systems, western especially, is their reliance on hierarchy–the need for a leader. It seems that people today are illiterate when it comes to philosophies, when one can be awarded a PhD–Doctor of Philosophy–without ever having taken a course in philosophy. Without such knowledge, how can one judge most anything rightly? For this discussion, Hobbes, Locke and Hume and their predecessors are required at a minimum–their whole works, not Cliff Notes or snippets from text books. My point is that the citizenry must be educated to a very high degree in order to govern itself, and I’m certainly not the first person to say that. The citizenry must also regularly meet to discuss and plan for the basic management of its communities, not be diverted into watching sports and other frivolities. Proper management of a community is an intensive undertaking requiring a great amount of time, energy and commitment.
An entire book could be written as a response to Kadi’s posting, or a whole semester length graduate seminar topic. But with most of the world a Dystopia in the process of collapse, I think this subject is rendered esoteric and such endeavors a waste of time.
There’s a new book out, The Devil’s Chessboard, that’s getting some interesting reviews. The one at the link discusses an organization I’d heard of but knew nothing about and is one of the main reasons why democracy will never exist.
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/02/the-deepest-state-the-safari-club-allen-dulles-and-the-devils-chessboard/
We need to recall that ‘democracy’ as practised in Athens did not enfranchise women or slaves, and the men spent a good deal of time ‘ostracising’ one another.
The simple fact is that ‘Democracy’ in the West is a total sham. For a start, the basic contradiction is that capitalism and democracy are totally antithetical. Under capitalism the economy rules the state and society. The owners of capital make all the real decisions and politicians are just the stooges and front-men hired to keep the rabble in line.
The process of ‘democracy’ in the West is so ludicrous as to transcend humour. All electable parties MUST be pro-business, pro-rich, pro-capital. Even the mildest ‘socialist’ collectivist tendencies have been ruthlessly purged in the last forty years. The MSM is owned totally by the Right, and in recent years even supposedly ‘liberal’ organs like the UK ‘Guardian’ have marched to the Right. They are not ‘newspapers’ in any sense any more, but partisan and strident propaganda rags for the class interests of their owners, creatures like Murdoch.
Elections are farces, held every few years, and with NO real input from the plebs in between. Success depends on the amount of money spent, which means that the rich political ‘contributors’ call the shots. This open corruption is simply ignored, not even bothering to be denied. The parties campaign by offering bribes to various groups, most of which ‘promises’ are forgotten after the election. The rest is mostly character assassination of the ‘enemy’, and threats, and fear and hate-mongering against various groups, all aided and abetted by the MSM.
The election process returns to power parties who, in ‘first past the post’ states, can achieve power with votes as low as the 30% range. Gerrymandering and malapportionment are rife, and elections often stolen, as in the USA in 2000 (by judicial coup) and 2004 (computer fraud). Voting is mostly voluntary, and participation rates have been plummeting for years, particularly in the USA and among the young. Once elected the votes of 50% plus are totally worthless, and the winning party governs as an elected dictatorship. Yet this system is declared the best in existence and the best possible, despite it returning a series of regimes that balanced incompetence with malevolence over the last forty years, at least.
I often outline these opinions in Comments in the local media, and they INVARIABLY are censored, which is quite interesting and indicative. I’m a supporter of the Chinese system, where there is one party of power and Government, that any may join, and rise according to their talent and luck. Such a Party also exists in the West, the party of capital, of wealth and hereditary privilege, admission to which is virtually impossible these days.
China’s system does away with vicious oppositionalism and in-fighting, as occurs in the West, and the resultant social division. China’s governing party has factions and cliques, but they keep their machinations private, unlike Western political parties, who specialise in social division and strife as means to achieving power. The meritocratic basis of success in Chinese politics shows, too. The Tea Party phenomenon of an agitated and fanatic faction of angry imbeciles deciding policy could not happen in China. As a result China has surpassed the USA in seventy years, rising from the lowest base imaginable, and without the unprecedented advantages the USA enjoyed after WW2.
Dear Ghassan…one point to say, in a fabulous wonderful beautiful essay…
George Bush didn’t get elected the first time, when he ran against Al Gore…see this link for specific point and many others Cynthia McKinney documentary – the Bush fake victory is early on in this documentary
https://youtu.be/CxqnqtL6xkI
Thank you so much for history lesson about Pythagoras…so sad and true what you say.
Gahassan, please accept my ‘picking’ your essay which says very well, the same as what I feel..
But this point you make ” a mother is legally allowed to abandon her children and walk away if that makes her feel happy,…”
Ghassan, what is even much worse in the west than that…is when the mother gets the child taken away because she is not ‘following democracy’ …either by homeschooling…or, even more pertinent today in USA –
she does not want her child vaccinated…that’s a crime in California…the child is not allowed to go to public school without being vaccinated.
And much better than food packages for the people living under bridges and in the city parks, would be employment for those who can work, and mental hospitals for the others, because many homeless people are not able to find gainful employment (sometimes because of vaccinations)
But again, I understand and totally agree with your point
Fully agree with you Ann. One can think of thousands of examples, and it’s often hard to choose the ones that elaborate the situation at its best/worst.
This article can be summarized by the following statement: “Representative democracies do not work”. Why? Because politicians are self-serving corruptible liars. A pure democratic system would be a Direct Democracy which is defined as a form of democracy in which the people, not their politicians or leaders, decide and approve of policy initiatives, regulations and rule of law, directly. This is accomplished by means of a vote/referendum made by the people requiring a double majority for approval/adoption. Switzerland has used a Direct Democracy for over 150 years and is one of the most democratic countries in the world. The only saving grace for “Western” democracy is that it is secular. In Canada, a new majority government was just elected with only 39.5 % of the popular vote. Hardly a mandate!
Also, I believe Kadi’s statement “democracy in essence means the rule of people” is incomplete. Democracy in essence means the governing of people by elected representatives.
Karl Marx said that “religion was the opiate of the masses.”
He should have said that “Democracy is the crack cocaine of the sheeple.”
There was only one kind of democracy and that was the democracy of the Athenians, which by the way has been dead for centuries thanks to the Spartans and the Macedonians. In the west there is only elected oligarchies and the Anglo sphere peoples have been pioneers in presenting their very individualist and mercantile system(political, economic, and cultural) as “liberal democracy”.
I was the first to post any comment here, as far as I could tell, because “no comments yet, be first
to comment” was the printed subtitle, back on 11-2-2015.
To this date, I see no evidence that my commentary “submitted to moderation” has been posted in any form whatsoever.—The only harsh statements about anything or anyone in my commentary were against the Da’esh, Wahhabist, Salafist and Taliban deviations in modern Islam, about some similar notions back in the 19th century West, and about which direction these ideologies and movements seemed to be going.—Nothing at all was said against Russia.—So why the apparent censorship here?—Oh yes, I did put forth some speculative thinking, what would the world likely be like, had the American Revolution failed, and there never was a USA?
It seems my commentary was inviting people to consider a different perspective on what has been going on in human history, considering that the main article put forth some profound political philosophy. So what then, I say it should be considered whether humans and the human countries, nations, races, ethnicities, cultures, religions, are somehow being manipulated by acting factors that set humans up like stupid gladiators in an arena, fighting, torturing, slaughtering each other “endlessly” just to produce rage energies and fear energies for the “nourishment” of other intelligent or semi-intelligent predatory entities, or “emotional organisms” within and among humans as I like to call that. And granted, my final suggestion to seek real culprits amidst secretive societies and demented religious cults,—these types are elusive and hard to track.—It is much easier to focus blame on clearly openly existing institutions like US intelligence services,
or “bankers” or “the West”, the CIA, the Mossad, the “AngloZionist Empire” instead of ferreting out
persons like perhaps the Order of Thule in Germany, who would worship and simply get high on “boundless righteous rage and endless holy warfare” and who would practice human sacrifice nowadays in forms more sophisticated and far deadlier than like previously strapping living people onto altars and cutting out their living hearts… So? Where is freedom of speech here? If anything, the USA contributed the Bill of Rights and the thinking and ideology behind it.
—What’s going on with the censorship here?
The moderation policy here is to sent all ‘questionable’ comments to Saker. He then reviews these comments and decides whether the comment is to published. The Saker can be contacted via emai vineyardsaker@gmail.com.
Regards
mod-hs
I don’t bother to read lazy peoples comments, I read a few words like someone commented and ignored the rest.. If someone is lazy enough to not make up an alias, their comment most likely is not worth the time it takes to read.
And no I don’t take anything I read as matter of fact.. I need a time line and previous history so I can weigh on if what they said requires me to waste time or not. I can find enough comments that gives my ego a great boost, but they are worthless.. But if I read Pepe I know I can take that to the bank as that is info he got by hard work and not just made up on the fly. So dont worry about your comment not showing up, not many would have bothered to weigh its merits in the first place..
Aren’t you mixing up Pythagoras and Socrates?