T'would BE SMARTEST if anything needing to be run
were run by someone smart enough to run it.
It's virtually inevitable that democracy,
as it evolves, BECOMES a scam
You can't elect or vote away the facts
and, IN FACT (as noted in the 2 paragraphs below freshly highlighted in red this morning Wednesday Nov. 9 2016) , the majority is NOT always right!
Definitions of DEMOCRACY (officially (1) but truly (2 & 3):
OFFICIALLY, DEMOCRACY IS, according to the commonly accepted definition
(not the democratically approved but the officially approved definition, i.e. the official story):
(1) A TEXTBOOK POLITICAL SYSTEM through which the majority of a state's
citizens or its elected representatives make the best or at least
the most widely acceptable decisions about all affairs of state by
BUT, ACTUALLY, DEMOCRACY HAS TO BE, since no really intelligent person could possibly believe the majority is always or even usually right, and nobody with a political agenda (with or without a working brain) EVER trusts "the people" to vote as they should without first being told how to vote,
(2) A TIGHTLY RIGGED PROPAGANDA CONTEST, through which voters are extensively and relentlessly trained and in which the slickest, costliest, most pervasive propaganda
almost always wins, whether or not the majority even bother to vote
or the majority of those who do vote have any clear idea of how their votes pertain to their own interests.
IN FACT, most "voters," most of whom will freely tell you they have no interest in politics and, with a little digging, admit they're sure everything is a matter of opinion, WILL NOT VOTE ANYWAY, and most of Americans (for instance) who DO vote on election day (which is all democracy is to Americans) will uncritically vote the way the media have already told them they'll vote.
SO, ULTIMATELY, DEMOCRACY IS:
(3) A SCAM through
which a minority keep the majority convinced that all is fair and that they (the majority) are running things while, in fact, a rich
minority run the state for their own benefit by manipulating
a majority vote for any outcome they consider important. You should
note how perfectly this true definition dovetails with the first definition
OK. Just in case the above is too tightly written for some readers, I'm going to run through it again.
According to the meekly accepted official definition, democracy is one of
several alternative political decision making systems defined and
distinguished by the kind of hierarchy involved. This is normally
in reference to a system of state government. In a democratic state,
the top of the decision making hierarchy is supposed to be its base,
i.e. the entire population, i.e. "the people."
This is supposed to
make it better than a monarchy or dictatorship in which one person
supposedly has things his way, or an oligarchy or theocracy in which
one faction supposedly have things their way, because, in a democracy,
while everyone can't have things his way, supposedly most people either
will have their way or will agree on a compromise. This is supposed
to be better because the results will seem better, i.e. more desirable,
to more people. Though the word fair is seldom used, because it's
too clear for the comfort of the insiders who actually run things,
this is supposed to be and does indeed SEEM fair.
BUT, there are some
inevitable problems with the democratic process and thus with the
official definition of democracy. First, assumptions about the desirability
and fairness of such a process and its results depend on the obviously
invalid corollary assumption that "the majority are always right,"
i.e. that the majority TOGETHER somehow know what is desirable and fair, so that
the more people who vote yes on an opinion, the more likely the opinion
is to be valid. Second, precisely because that's such obvious nonsense and nobody with any sense or
influence privately believes it (whatever he may say in
public), the supposed process will almost never happen or be allowed
to happen, anyway.
Democracy's shortcomings are seldom (almost never) addressed
because the concept has been EXPEDIENTLY deified in America and its client states. A lifetime
of relentless indoctrination has convinced most Americans and their imitators that the superiority
of democracy over all other possible political systems is unquestionable and that, therefore, what that system DOES must always be right.
In fact, that attitude is sanctified and perpetuated by the opinion
making magicians who promote it by focusing public eyes away from
the obviously not very impressive results of the process and on the process itself, literally convincing most people that democracy is not so much a desirable means to a desirable end as it
is an end in itself. And not just an end - a sacred end, which no
one should ever question. Democracy may currently be the most sacred
of sacred cows, more sacred, even, than the sacred cows of patriotism
and "freedom," and most people, even famously intellectual people,
are currently AFRAID to question it. Not even I am supposed to question
it. But I do, because, as a compulsive truth teller, I refuse to be diplomatic about this.
not all of whom are really very good with language or logic, unconsciously
confuse democracy with fairness, because the word fairness has been
put into the magician's pocket and the word democracy held up before
their eyes in its place. It's a trick - to fool you with - get it?
Fairness is a very desirable end, because fairness would be an essential
part of the elusive ideal of civilization.
But the word fairness has not been deified, obviously because its
meaning is too clear for the comfort of the rich and the religious
who actually want to keep the world unfair (and thus good for them
not you - get it?) and who depend a lot on the absence of clarity
to keep their victims off balance, so they have hidden the word fairness and deified the word democracy instead.
Philosophical leaders who sincerely
want a civilized world for everyone (i.e., obviously, among other
things, a fair world) often try to get around this cross-deifying
trick by pulling a counter-magician's trick of their own - calling
a fair economic system (instead of socialism or communism) economic
democracy. But the language challenged majority, for whose convenient
unenlightenment the words socialism and communism have been demonized,
just as the word democracy has been deified and the word fairness
has been disappeared, don't get it, and the mass media of the rich
don't help them get it. And, anyway, they're wrong. The logical end
of sincere social philosophers, especially socialist/communists is
civilization, including civilized fairness, not democracy, which is not an end but a means - and not
necessarily a means to either civilization or fairness. I don't care how new this point is
to you: democracy DOES NOT EQUAL civilized fairness. And democracy DOES NOT
LEAD TO civilized fairness, and it is civilization including civilized fairness, not democracy, that you should
be concerned about.
Obviously, democracy, which is only supposedly
a fair political process, is a means, not an end, and whether the very sensible end - civilization - is achieved democratically (which is unlikely), by an intellectual elite conspiring on everyone's behalf (which is more likely), or by a benign dictator (which is most likely) is not as important as you may think.
The end that all
civilized people should seek is surely a good life for everyone,
which ought to be, among other things, fair. You don't need to take
a vote to decide whether that's the end civilized people should seek.
It IS - period. The notion that such an end would be less desirable
if it were not achieved democratically is nonsense. The notion that
any end, including UNfairness, is acceptable if it does result from
a democratic process is insidious nonsense. The notion that the concept
of democracy is so ideal that it will certainly lead to good ends
or even the best possible ends, including civilization or fairness, or any other
desirable end, is obviously also nonsense. The notion that democracy
is itself an end subverts any practical value democracy might have
as a means IF it were workable as a means. In fact, in practice,
democracy has not normally worked as well as its advocates expect
or pretend to expect.
The following just painted red the day after U.S. presidential election day.
It may seem fair for everyone to vote, but,
first, supposedly fair but really only pleasingly numerous votes don't
necessarily lead to fair or even representative decisions, and, second,
even representative votes (probably luckily) never happen. It's probably
lucky they don't because the majority, though they know a lot about
sports, celebrities, TV shows and sex, know so little about important
political, economic, social, ecological and philosophical issues that
it might be even more disastrous than it is if they had their way.
But there's little danger of that. The common ideal concept of democracy
(a pure religious fantasy) assumes and requires that all or most citizens
be well educated, well intentioned, and actually likely to study all
issues carefully before each citizen separately makes the best decision
he can and votes accordingly. But nothing like that ever occurs. It
is absurdly ironic that people who call communism too ideal then turn
around and "believe in" democracy. "Believe in" is a religious phrase,
and democracy is a typically unbelievable religion, because, in fact,
most citizens are either not capable of being well enough educated
to vote wisely or with respectable intentions, or they are just circumstantially
never that successfully educated.
In either case, every thinking person
actually knows the majority can't be trusted, and it IS as certain
as the law of gravity that nobody with a political agenda who has
the will, the wit and the way will EVER permit the majority to vote
until he has done what he can to teach or persuade them to vote as
he wants them to (and that includes liberals who pretend to idolize "the people"). Therefore,
as clarified by the second definition of democracy listed at the top
of this document, democracy ALWAYS includes or virtually consists
of a competition of propaganda promulgated by competing minorities.
Let me repeat: this is as certain as any law of physics because nobody with any sense,
whether cynical or benign, no matter how pious his protests, actually
"believes in" the majority. And that the wealthiest or best funded
minority's propaganda will probably win is SO probable - so near certain
and so well known that mass media in America ALWAYS compare competing candidates'
or competing factions' bankrolls more prominently than they compare
their ideas or agendas - don't they?
Also, because huge numbers of votes are involved
in any state with millions of citizens, democracy always immediately
devolves into a contest between only 2 or 3 inertly established factions
with enough backers to almost certainly OUTNUMBER the combined opposition.
And this means smaller factions, even if they are logically most likely
to advocate and achieve the most ideal ends, are discounted.
in any normally large population, since communication of propaganda
or reasoned argument has to be of the mass kind, mass media owned
by the wealthy end up writing, producing, directing, and staging all
elections. That's obviously what happens in America, the self declared
bastion and best example of democracy, where Americans are routinely
rehearsed by the mass media on their assigned political positions,
thoughts, and voting intentions for up to two years before they almost
always vote exactly as they've been told they will.
Democracy is supposed
to be: (1) a process whereby the majority of a state's citizens make
the best or at least the most desired decisions about all affairs
of state by voting. In fact, democracy is: (2) always a propaganda
contest in which the slickest, costliest, most pervasive propaganda
almost always wins. And, though in rare instances, scattered widely in
time and space, people do sometimes surprise their puppeteers and
vote in their own best interests, democracy is normally: (3) the perfect
tool of rich capitalists, both ensuring that the will of the rich
will almost always prevail and at the same time supporting an illusion
that decisions are being made by the people.
I can read the minds of people whose objections to cynicism (meaning truth they aren't prepared for) are so repetitive I have them memorized, so in response to their anticipated question - "But what the heck have YOU got to offer in place of democracy, HUH?" - outraged, sceptical, and also seriously curious readers are offered my Note to Nowhere:
If Not Democracy, What?, and also, one of the two most important documents on this site: Civil State, which explains what should be the structure and purpose of a civilized civil state.