Direct Democracy: Crucial Counterbalance To Vital Security State

So Obama was too scared to go to Paris (that’s the charitable explanation; the non-charitable theory is that he listens to dimwits too much). What when the self-declared leader of the Free, is a scared rabbit? Here is one drawback of Representative Democracy, “democracy” through “representatives”, or so-called “leaders”. Have you see a rabbit lead? When I run in the mountains, I see dozens of rabbits leading straight to the bushes (as in George W. Bush).

Not everybody can be as courageous as Israel’s Netanyahu (the only leader with

Franco-Germania Faces Hard Philosophy Ahead

Franco-Germania Faces Hard Philosophy Ahead

a personal guard in Paris, at his side always), Abbas (Palestinian president), Angela Merkel, David Cameron, Renzi (Italia), Rajoy (Espana), the Malian, Ukrainian presidents, and tens of other heads of state, who were also demonstrating in Paris. Even Russia sent to the Paris demonstration its fiercest specimen (short, maybe, of Putin), the Siberian hard man, Putin’s mentor, Ukrainian thirsty Foreign Minister Lavrov. Hopefully, Lavrov’s heart learned something.

The attack against Charlie Hebdo was, philosophically speaking, worst than 9/11: bin Laden was surprised that the towers fell, and 9/11 was construed by some hearts of stone, as a counter-attack against big capital, Wall Street, and the exploitative system of the Middle East financiers had helped to set-up.

But clearly the attack against satire is a direct attack against intelligence, and cannot be construed as an attack against exploiters (or an anti-racist attack: several collaborators of Charlie Hebdo were “Muslim”, two got assassinated, two survived). And the attack was planned by a collaboration of Al Qaeda and the Islamist State: the terrorists themselves said it. A video shot by one of the criminals AFTER killing a black policewoman, and grievously wounding others, was edited by ISIS, and put on the Internet two days later… From the Middle East.

The Security State cannot be avoided: as technology keeps exponentiating (a good thing), more and more lethal power can come in the hands of lunatics (a bad thing).

Thus the need to prevent mighty weapons to get in bad hands, and even very bad ideas to get installed in otherwise innocent minds. Hence the need for THOUGHT CONTROL (this means that Islam has to be put on rails which are defined by the Republic; it also means Internet control; some countries, such as the UK, already have it, France will get there within 6 weeks).

“Thought Control” is, of course, a very delicate problem: imagination, irreverence, satire have to be allowed, but not systems of thought leading to lethal issues.

Who is going to watch the watchers?

Well, We The People, directly.

Some of the commenters on this site rolled out the usual objection to Direct Democracy: the so-called “Madness Of The Crowds”.

Wisdom Of Crowds: Paris, 01/11/15.

Wisdom Of Crowds: Paris, 01/11/15.

Hazxan from the UK said: “Patrice, what really is “Democracy”? All my life, every day, it was programmed into me that we had a “democracy” that it was a rare and special thing that meant we lived in the best of possible worlds. Even that those who didn’t have this Democracy should be bombed and crushed until they had this Democracy whether they chose it or not (we chose it for them – begin to see the paradox?)”

Agreed that seems a paradox, but, when people do not live in democracy, they live in plutocratic dictatorships. It starts with dictators, but dictatorship is not stable, if it does not use demonic means, hence the adjective “plutocratic”.

This is not just theory, but practical considerations: look at Egypt now. Chief of the Army All Sissi had to make a coup against the Islamists. He went from military dictator (bad, but necessary) to elected president (re-establishment of representative democracy).

If Al Sissi had stayed a dictator (instead of becoming an elected president), he would have had to use more demonic means (because all those who voted for him would have been more or less against him, thus they would have had to be repressed).

Another frequent commenter, EugenR Lowy: “I have to disagree with you about direct democracy. Direct democracy is possible only at the local level and not at the level of big states. More than that I do not believe in the wisdom of the masses, as some obscure decision making theories claim. The masses at the end have tendency to turn to certain authority to lead them, when the situation is becoming too unstable and insecure, and we are back in the worst form of political leadership. To make right political decisions, the decision making must be aware of existence of realities as long term processes and not a stand-still state, which can be immediately corrected. How many among the masses understand this? Even the educated ones not necessarily are aware of this.”

I deeply believe in knowledge and wisdom, but I am not sure even a highly professional scientist is aware of the problematics of political and historical processes, knowledge that is necessary to formulate right opinion in the major political issues.”

There is every reason to believe that scientists are no experts at politics. Several Nobel Prize level scientists became Nazi Party members before Adolf Hitler (at least one of these Nobels had worked closely with Einstein).

Eugen’s point of view does not just condemn Direct Democracy, but even Representative Democracy: after all, in Representative Democracy it’s We The People who elects the representatives, all the way to the head of state.

Hitler’s Nazi Party got enough votes to control the Second Reich (!) Parliament. President Hindenburg thought he had no choice but to select Hitler as Chancellor, in a coalition government. Then the Nazis were able, through their “Patriot Act” to mangle German society enough to acquire total control.

Another example is the nephew of Napoleon I. Elected president of France, he made a coup against himself and baptized himself “Emperor”. Hitler actually copied that method, which had been inaugurated by Napoleon I.

Thus, when Eugen says We The People can make bad choices, it’s true, but it condemns all Democracy, Direct or not. It’s easy to make the argument that “Representative Democracy” is more dangerous than the direct form. Indeed, bad legislation can be reversed, whereas really bad leaders can’t be, once they have seized the Security apparatus.

Socrates and Plato had disserted about the subject of leadership ad nauseam. And incompetently. Whereas Pericles, earlier, advised by better philosophers, including his wife, made a splendid exposition of the “Open Society”. So it’s not a question of times long gone: Pericles expressed the thoughts of Progressive philosophers, whereas Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were of an increasingly fascist and plutocratic persuasion.

Plato’s solution was the Philosopher-King”. That’s an idiotic notion, because a real philosopher has neither the time, nor the inclination, to be king. Similarly a real king has no time, nor inclination, to be a philosopher.

There were many attempts in the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century, to make philosopher-kings. Those who really contributed to civilization positively were few: mostly Henri III and Henri IV of France (and perhaps Francois I, or, paradoxically Louis XVI). Then, of course, Peter the Great.

Both Henri III and Peter were great because they did not hesitate to assassinate execute whom they viewed as the most potent enemies of the very progressive States they led… Against determined Salafists (The Catholic League for Henri III, the “Old Believers” for Peter).

Aristotle, a student of Plato, wrote quite a bit about politics. Differently from Plato who hypocritically brandished the concept of philosophy, Aristotle went all-out for monarchy. His students, friends, executors of his will, were the plutocrats who destroyed Greek democracies, and launched the “Hellenistic States” (which lost on the battlefield, but later won the battles of ideas with the Roman Republic). So Aristotle Destroyed Democracy.

Modern Solution: The Grand Democratic Synthesis:

Socrates bemoaned that Athens voted on anything, and elected everybody, including generals. That, he said, made people who did not know how to make shoes in charge of making shoes.

The solution to this was found by the Roman State, and blossomed during the Middle-Ages. It was what I called DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS.

Those use the principles of representative democracy and meritocracy inside, while, outside, being strictly subordinated to the government. Guilds, Academic, Medical, Judicial, Engineering organizations are examples. And the Army and Police ought to be foremost.

Example: In the modern German army, soldiers are supposed not just to obey the Military Code, but the German Constitution. In general, all armies ought to take their oath to the Constitution first… Or even its spirit (hence Egypt’s Al Sissi was correct).

Modern Solution: We The People Ought To Legislate:

The model is very simple: Switzerland.

Whereas plutocrats need, with the present system, to just buy 2,000 “representatives” to control the entire planet, they cannot buy billions of people: that would defeat their motivation, which is to rule over We The People, not buy them (that’s the taxation we need to apply to them).

So Who Is The Government?

There, to some extent, Switzerland again comes to the fore: it has an executive council of seven, and the president is elected for a year. The Army has only colonels. Generals are elected in case of imminent war.

The historical model here is the Roman Republic. Its executive system ought to be greatly imitated: A Consul had full powers for just one month (on the following month the other Consul had the powers).

In truth, the Roman Republic worked pretty much as a Direct Democracy, although this system was immensely, and way too complicated.

Instead, we should imitate the Athenian Directly Democratic system. With the Internet, the main problem of Athens, namely that voters found very difficult to come speak, debate, and vote at the National Assembly, can be easily solved.

So what about the objection that We The People is dumb, ill-informed, fickle, prone to madness? As I said, this is Plato-Aristotle objection, and just an excuse for plutocracy (preferably with the “philosopher” on top, gorging himself, as Aristotle did).

Those who do not get educated, and are not motivated for education, stay, indeed, dumb, ill-informed, fickle, prone to madness. But what we see in Switzerland is that the Direct Democracy has made We The People ever more motivated to learn stuff, ever more knowledgeable and wise. One can see the Swiss electorate think and change: as a proposition goes to a “votation”, the polls show opinions changing wildly as the weeks go by, and the debate evolves.

We The People can be educated, learn, and grow in wisdom as children do. Given a chance. The 2,000 individuals who presently rule the world, and their sponsors, who telerobotize them, and increasingly own the planet, quite a bit as the Saudi family does, do not want We The People to be given that chance. So let’s grab it.

Patrice Ayme

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

24 Responses to “Direct Democracy: Crucial Counterbalance To Vital Security State”

  1. Chris Snuggs Says:

    A question for all “liberals”, “appeasers” and haters of the free world and especially the USA:

    Are you willing to allow a state regime ruled by a group of 12 fundamentalist religious lunatics who believe that God requires them to destroy apostates, Jews and insulters of Mohammed to acquire an H-bomb and the capability to land it on Washington , London or Paris? (or of course Tel Aviv).


    • gmax Says:

      I feel that liberals are so racist that they cannot even imagine that Muslim fanatics have the brains and balls to atom bomb Washington. Their tolerance for what they call Islam is a form or racism. Patrice said this many times in many ways.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Chris: Bonne Annee, bonne sante’….

      Playing victim is a business in the USA too. I was in a pretty infuriating meeting today about race in the Silicon Valley. I am a total anti-racist, and I hate been given racist lessons by pseudo-anti-racists sanctimoniously giving Hitler-like discourses (it helps to be a Nazi specialist!)

      Although the speaker (from Stanford, no less) was very engaging, she used massively the sort of psychobabble where the white race (whatever that is) is supposed to watch over every adjective, when addressing a person “of color”. The consensus in the USA is that one cannot insult the prophet, because he belonged to an oppressed minority (never that his followers quickly conquered most of non-Chinese civilization in a few years).

      Well satyrs no doubt regret that they cannot f the rophet, because He is long dead.

      Otherwise, it’s as GMax puts it: sheer racism. I am actually scrambling an essay on that: the sheer racism of intolerable tolerance.


    • hazxan Says:

      Patrice, one day perhaps we should try a real democracy to see how it really is. For sure, none of us today have ever lived in a genuine democracy.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Easy to do: as in Switzerland, more and more “votations” could be introduced. California has a Swiss-like system, and arguably older, but USA politics is perfused with the influence of wealth… However, last year, the Californian People voted more taxes on the Rich, and now the state is running a surplus. The Rich, apparently paralyzed by fright, have forgotten to leave the State…


  2. gmax Says:

    Everything is tied up together. Yet plutocrats are pulling the strings, especially through the US universities. So it’s hard to do anything about it. A mass propaganda against Charlie Hebdo is turned on in US academia. And the New York Times is actively nasty sgainst CH


  3. EugenR Says:

    Dear Patrice, again I have to oppose you. Swiss democracy is not an example for anything. In middle of Europe they lived peacfully without war for at least 500 years. So they created a bank system, where many who being afraid to hold their money in their home country deposited it. The Jews before WWII, then all the dictators and scums of Africa and the Arab world etc. This gave them enourmose cash. Not surprisingly Switzerland is the richest country in Europe, without producing anything except cheese and watches. 😉 Then, when they were asked about immigration policy, obviously they refused to share their wealth. World leading countries can’t behave like this.

    As to the Democracy versus Platos philosophical king, it is not an easy question to solve it in few lines. Yet I will try my best. At first, let’s speak about what are the major issues in todays world. The answer will be of course to save the human civilization, which is lately more and more endangered.
    A. Because of the environmental catastrophy we are heading towards.
    B. Because of the new technologies, that can be more and more easily exploted by individuals or small group of peoply with deadly determination. The result is all this islamist terrorists, who if they would have the means would happily blow up the world, and the means are from day to day more available to any individual.

    So the question is how to protect the human civilization. A friend of mine, who is very much in technologies, said lately, “I am not surprised by the terorist attacks, but by the relatively small destruction they cause.” Do you belive this happens because of limited level of sophistication of the terorists? I don’t.

    So the question remains, what next. It seems the democratic – capitalistic system of today has no tools to cope with the problem I am speaking about. As I wrote many times (also in my book,) since capitalistic economic system is yield driven, it can’t help with global problems. This is also why it has natural tendency to create plutocratic system, with banksters and all the other oligarchic barons.
    I am not saying I have perfect solution if any. I am saying let’s put together all our intelectual potential to come up with some political system, that may work and cope with the major issues I mentioned above and there are for sure some others I did not mentioned.
    As I understand you have young children, for their sake we have to do something about it.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The Swiss DIRECT Democracy system is very recent: 20 years. Saying it has to do with stealing Jews and Nazis is the sort of base argument I tend to use a lot, and would be delighted to use on some Swiss nationalist… But it’s irrelevant to making a direct democracy work.

      The latter is the main source of Swiss superiority at this point. JC Trichet ex-head of ECB said that. It’s not just me.

      Switzerland accepted a million immigrants in the last ten years. (Only Israel compares, but Switzerland does not buy its immigrants… ;-))
      So now there are 8 millions Swiss.

      The number one industry in Suisse is pharmaceuticals, not banks… Don’t tell me it’s because they are nasty…

      More later, got to go!
      But I will reduce your opposition further…


      • EugenR Says:

        You are of course right, Swisserland produces much more than cheese and watches. Yet how can be explained, that a country with population of 8 million has a currency competing the US Dollar and Euro, and right now due to some very odd decision to devaluat then revaluate the Swiss Franc ( what means erasing part of their liabilities. I wish I could do the same), enriches itself and causes monetary turmoil all over the world.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Well, Krugman and other economists said they could not understand the Swiss decision about the Franc. But I do. If I find my blurb on that, I will put it on the site.
          Strength of Suisse is from DIRECT Legislative Democracy… Which was the old system used in the Roman REPUBLIC.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Destroying individual terrorists is not the war. Destroying nasty system of thoughts is the war. The three French terrorists did not try to kill most of the people they came across, because their hearts were not into it. They killed only two women (while claiming they did not kill women). They had lost much of the battle of ideas already.


      • hazxan Says:

        “Destroying nasty system of thoughts is the war.”

        Isn’t that what all the dictators think they’re doing? Very, very few people boast of how evil they feel. They all feel they’re doing good…it’s those trampled underfoot by that “good” who see it as evil.

        As we have no mind control machines yet capable of “destroying nasty systems of thoughts”, presumably you mean destroy the people who hold those nasty thoughts?

        If a system of thought is “nasty”, how does it propogate? Why can’t it just fade as people reject it and naturally adopt “nice” thoughts?


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          I am NOT interested in destroying people. I would prefer to reduce Al Zawahiri, the head of Al Qaeda, and its brains since before Bin Laden, to madness by arguing with him, rather than by shooting him. (It’s him for ordered the Paris attack).

          We do have means to destroy nasty systems of thought. Read my last essay on the Pope and company. The Pope makes the apology of possibly lethal violence in the name of opinion, he is an Abrahamofascist… Yet he follows Christ, the guy who came with a sword, and Abraham, the killer of children, closely.

          Each time people gather to celebrate Abraham, we ought to point out that they celebrate the willingness to kill children if so ordered. By the boSS.

          I disapprove of the attacks against Iraq and Afghanistan, as led (However, I approved of the attacks in Libya and Mali, and CAR). If the Americans wanted to kill the tallest Arab in the world, they should not have had to invade half of central Asia to do so. I was always against the drone campaigns, etc… Detailed arguments are in my essays of several years ago.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Many people, especially war leaders, are nasty. They love nasty systems of thought. The Qur’an was ordered by emperor Othman, written by a committee of his generals, and alternative versions were boiled. Jihad would have conquered the world, had the Franks not stopped it (721-750 CE).


  4. robert sinclair Says:

    I cant be bothered to read all of this because if you are so well informed and so clever, you know that the Paris incident, 911 etc are all hoaxs, the evidence is there its obvious. The police clampdown, the 3 million peoples march. These are a repetition of the the 30’s in Germany. This all a clamp down on our rights.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, like the landing on the Moon. Actually the World Trade Center never existed, and bin Laden is a famous actor. More than 4 million, in the main French cities alone. Yes, I decided to take power, through my tentacular, tendrillitic spirits… Soon everybody will be thinking like me, and intellectual retards will be condemned to listen to me all day long… from the deepest cachots…


  5. hazxan Says:

    “Are you willing to allow a state regime ruled by a group of 12 fundamentalist religious lunatics who believe that God requires them to destroy apostates, Jews and insulters of Mohammed to acquire an H-bomb and the capability to land it on Washington , London or Paris? (or of course Tel Aviv).”

    Isn’t that exactly the sort of demagoguery typical of politicians up to no good? It sounds like something Bush said before the illegal invasion of Iraq. Could by crying wolf…but the USA’s attempts to “help” the free world (more likely “profit from the whole world”) have not had a good track record over the past 50 years. Everywhere they go in “peace” they leave war, terrorism and chaos.

    Maybe this time, for once, they should just stay home and think a bit more about not stirring up enemies and hatreds.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Bush lied about Iraq, through and through. However, take Kim in North Korea. If one extends the trend, it’s clear the USA will have to take him out (he threatened atom bombing USA cities; he can’t do it today, but maybe next year…)

      As far as the terrorizing Islamists are concerned, they have succeeded to create fear. When one has a 5 year old in a French school as I do, one worries. These things don’t happen just in imagination: I was nearly killed a few time accidentally, but I was also the object of attacks with lethal force (from right wing fascists; I used to be more clearly a left wing fanatic, now I am more equal opportunity, ;-))

      Believe me, plenty of hatred is out there. Western military force has to come out, and show not just the force of civilization, but the civilization of force.


  6. hazxan Says:

    But most importantly, just because many of us do not like recent USA foreign policy, does not mean we hate “the USA and the free world”. I may hate the handful of greedy cunning deceitful psychopaths running the USA, but not the whole nation – I’m married to an American after all! There is much to like about that nation, many great people, but many contradictions and much to dislike too.

    And freedom, whoever really hated “freedom”? Respecting other nations freedom to do business as they wish is fine by me. But not with the political and business leaders of the US, it seems.

    My opinion is that they’ve taken a turn for the worse since the 1950’s. Perhaps the deposing of Mossedegh in Iran was the proof that they could conquer the world by stealth rather than covert invasions?

    Government is the oldest protection racket. Making the people pay for protection from enemies they carefully cultivated. It’s Profits vs Prophets, the world would probably be a better place without any of them.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Hazxan: The way I handle this, is that I attack, defend, criticize and deconstruct systems of thought. If I focus on an individual, it’s as a vector of this system of thought, or mood. Like a mosquito Anopheles Gambiae is the carrier of malaria.

      Mossadegh was the other side of Hitler so to speak. Both, to some extent were USA plutocratic manipulations.

      Take an example right now: the USA is by far the country of massive tax evasion by plutocrats. Yet, the USA gives lessons to the rest of the planet about THEIR tax evasion. Washington and Wall Street know very well that astronomical tax evasion by USA corporations in Europe is an atrocity (I weight my word!). Yet, it augments their power, and that of their sponsors. So they let it happen, as they let happened the aiding and abetting USA plutocrats did with Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Franco… Or Ho Chi minh, for that matter.

      So conquering by stealth did not start yesterday!

      Both WWI and WWII would have ended by quick Franco-British victories, if the USA had not helped the other side stealthily (something I pretty much documented extensively on this site! Some USA citizens I viewed as friends, once they understood what I am exactly saying, stopped literally saying me; never saw them again… This is an on-going phenomenon. Once they had a look at my site, many Americans, who used to smile to me all the time, do not smile anymore, and avoid me. So I am a bit less optimistic than you…)


  7. hazxan Says:

    Patrice, if you put your thoughts on the plutocracy and US support of Nazism to the democratic vote, how do you think the people would vote? President or detention center? I think your arguments against North Korea, Putin and Islam may save you from the detention center. Just! (if the media actually reported them…)

    And if the majority disagrees with you, do your thoughts change?

    Democratic decision making has to have boundaries. We would all know that voting on the shape of the earth would be lunacy – although a few hundred years ago, it could have made sense. How would we settle arguments and what should or shouldn’t be put to the vote? Some would argue that going to war should be decided by the people. But how could they make an effective decision when so few of us have little knowledge of global politics, the nations military etc?

    Control of information would become even more important to ensure that we voted the way our owners need. Propaganda is everywhere now, media is a confusion of incoherent words and images. If decisions are to be made by the people, then they need to have easy access to accurate and complete information. That is the biggest obstacle as currently it is a full time job to dig out the signal amidst the noise. The distorted debunkings of the out of context debunkings of the vested interested debunkings of anything questioning the status quo.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Direct democratic vote is a learning process. Learning to learn. I do not agree with all the decisions taken by the Swiss (I disagreed about minarets, for example). The Swiss anti-immigration votation is been actively reverted by various representative bodies (EU and Swiss).

      Right now, We The People is idiotic, although not as idiotic and certainly less corrupt than the leaders… It’s all about learning, that is, changing… My ideas on USA plutocrats and Nazism can’t be put to vote, because one can’t vote on facts, hehehe…

      For this sort of things deliberative bodies could be organized…. With better defined rules than on present sites (I have been banned by sites I learned later were financed by… bankers.)


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: