Reflexions on Democracy

•July 4, 2008 • Leave a Comment

democracy-skeptikosexaminer

Reflexions on Democracy

by David Preussen

Over the ages a lot of written about democracy, some in favor of it, some against it. Praised in the name of liberty, and rejected in the same name. The idea of democracy has caused a lot controversy through all ages. The most commonly repeated criticism of democracy is that it amounts to mob rule, rule of the stupid, the uneducated, the ignorant. The problem with democracy like we know it today, democracy based on universal suffrage, is that the greatest number is of necessity the least enlightened, and consequently the least capable. On of the antinomies, contradictions, of the principle of universal suffrage is that, even thought meant to secure the rights and interests of the majority, in practice it more often than not comes down the opposite, the violation of the rights and interests of those it is meant to serve. The political capacity found in the greatest number is of necessity the least developed, and a lack of capacity and understanding the road to wrong decisions. Without the ability and the background knowledge to analyze facts and to reflect on them, the intention to do the right thing sometimes easily leads to the opposite of what was intended. For this very reason parents do not let young children make decisions all by themselves, but guide them and look over them so that they may not cause harm for themselves and others by their lack of experience and understanding.

The principle of universal suffrage as it is understood today, the right of each individual to vote independently of his capacity, has added another contradiction to democracy and rendered it even less practical than is was in the time of the old Greeks. Universal suffrage has robbed the children of the protection of their parents to use an analogy. If that was done deliberately to undermine the very thing it claimed to serve, namely the interest of the majority, I do not know, but what I do know, and what is obvious for those able to reflect on facts and history, is that it did precisely that. Universal suffrage has undermined democracy and brought us into the mess we have today, the rule of the media over the weak minded and defenseless masses that are unable to use reason and to reflect on the situation and are thus moving to the beat of the drums like slaves on a galere. What was sold to the masses as an universal blessing and source of liberty, has become an universal curse and source of tyranny. The masses were unable to render what was given to them. The French philosopher P.J. Proudhon understood the political limitations found in the average voter and the resulting implications quite well. Shortly before his death he wrote a whole volume on the subject; “De la capacité politique des classes ouvrières” (The Political Capacity of the Working-Classes), a work of which I sadly haven’t managed to get hold of in a translated version yet. The fallowing quotation is from his first major work, “What is Property?”, written in 1840. “The people, incapable as yet of sound judgment as to what is best for them, applaud indiscriminately the most opposite ideas, provided that in them they get a taste of flattery: to them the laws of thought are like the confines of the possible; to-day they can no more distinguish between a savant and a sophist, than formerly they could tell a physician from a sorcerer. Inconsiderately accepting, gathering together, and accumulating everything that is new, regarding all reports as true and indubitable, at the breath or ring of novelty they assemble like bees at the sound of a basin.” [1] To the human lemmings the logic behind an opinion doesn’t count as much as the power and popularity behind it, and the reason for this is simple, the popularity behind an opinion they usually notice, while its logic, or the lack thereof, in most cases remains hidden from them. “For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.” [2] The Italian philosopher Machiavelli wrote a long time ago and I could not put it better. The average voter is like a child making its first steps in the world of the adults, a world to complex for him and full of things he does not understand, a world full of predators that want to deceive and harm him for their own benefit. Like a child, the average citizen, as long has he hasn’t reached the required level of mental development and understanding yet, needs protection and guidance, protection from the predators, protection from making the wrong decisions, and consequently protection from himself. He is in need of guardians that watch out and guide him just as children are in need of their parents. For without protection, without a guardian, a small child is easy prey for predators and parasites.

The majority of links in the chain of individuals a society is composed of are what we may call “weak links”. And as a rule, a chain is only as strong as the weakest link it is composed of. A chain made of a huge number of links of which the multitude are weak links that provide no or not much support, is by necessity weaker than a chain composed of less but stronger links providing more support. Quality here clearly wins over quantity! The old Greeks were aware of this and did not provide voting rights to all, just to those holding citizen rights, and in some cases, a certain amount of property also. Women, slaves, guest worker, and the like, were commonly excluded from voting and participation in political matters. This practice, even thought questionable in many aspects, never the less managed to reduce the number of weak links in the political chain and made the Greek democracy, like it existed in city states like Athens, somewhat more resistant against predators than are those shameful excuses for real democracy we see today. The democracy of ancient Athens also included various other forms of political participation apart from mere elections and the citizens were truly involved in the political process. Of course, even the forms of democracy seen in ancient Greece were still far from perfect and that in various aspects, the fact that only certain classes were able to participate in elections and other political matters for example was a possible source of social unrest and eventually revolts, and just because someone had citizen rights did not necessarily imply that he had the capacity for meaningful participation in political matters also. Citizen rights a son gained by birth right from his father, while his abilities, knowledge, and understanding, the raw capacity to gain them at some point, was not always transmitted. Never the less, the reduction of participants in the political process had overall a positive impact on the Greek city states because it made their form of democracy more feasible, functional, and meaningful than that what is today commonly sold as “democracy”. Today everyone is free to vote, the thing is that it does not seem to matter what people vote for or think anyway. Elections after elections we get the same empty rhetoric, lies, and propaganda, and in the end they do the opposite of what the people want them to do anyway. And why is this undemocratic behavior possible to continue year after year? It is possible because the majority are morons, human lemmings, so to speak, which are so easy manipulated that it is easy for the media to make them believe what they want them to believe and than to vote accordingly. By reading about the history of propaganda, or public relation like it is often called today, the reader is lead to believe that around the end of the 19. century the people discovered from one day of the next that empty rhetoric and lies are more successful in guiding the voter than are reason and arguments, which is a lie, or rather a half-truth. Vital information to understand the cause of this change are usually left out because they have become political incorrect and highly unpopular in our time. Namely that this change in tactics was the direct result of the introduction of universal suffrage and the inclusion of women and morons, “weak links”, into the chain of political participants in elections. The citizens of ancient Athens, not obstructed in the political process by unreasonable women and so many morons, would have chased a leadership as corrupt and rotten as what we see today here in the west out a long time ago. Including those not able to meaningful participate has crippled democracy and made possible a dictatorship of the few under the guise of majority rule. Proudhon noted that “the history of universal suffrage, among all nations, is the history of the restrictions of liberty by and in the name of the multitude.”[3]

Even thought up to this point it may appears this way, this essay is not meant as an ode to aristocracy, quite the opposite, I’m writing in the defense of democracy and the pursuit of what is the most precious to a free man; liberty. My faith, my love, and my hope, lie in liberty. Summa lex summa libertas; the fullness of liberty lies in the fullness of reason, and so what I’m advocating here is a return to the principles of reason in the hope to reestablish and eventually increse liberty in our sacred lands. My proposal is a modification of the principle of universal suffrage, what I have in mind is to limit the participation in political issues to those able to demonstrate the required political capacity for meaningful and responsible participation. I thought of a kind of “voter license” which, similar to a driver license, every citizen may acquires in case that he fulfills the necessary requirements and wishes to participate in elections and the political process. I believe it is a equally fair and effective method, and that much more so than it was the case in ancient Greece, for the removal of weak links from the political process in order to restore a functional democracy with a healthy defense capacity against those I call predators. We do not let anyone drive a car, let alone fly an air plane, but participation in elections is open to any moron without any qualification or understanding when it comes to political issues whatsoever. A practice which by the way made George W. Bush “the leader of the free west”! The system is obviously broken and that not just since yesterday. As I see things, the only way to safe democracy lies in limiting participation in the political process to those able to participate in it in a responsible and thoughtful manner. And to those who believe that this would be “undemocratic”, let me remind you that we already have a system based on representation of the many by a few, at least that is what those in power were originally meant to do, even thought they seem to have forgotten that. Letting the more educated and capable citizen represent the rest by elections and other forms of political participations, is no different than letting a few rule in the name of the majority, representation is representation!

The road to liberty is called reason, ignorance is the name of the road that leads to tyranny and misery, and it is on us to decide which we gonna take. Letting everybody independently of his capacity vote comes down to leaving the elections to the least educated, the least capable, the most ignorant, for they constitute the majority. It in not in the interest of society that the ignorant dominate elections, and it is not even in their own interest. I propose a return to the reign of reason, let reason become the light to guide us out of the darkness!

1. P.J. Proudhon in a letter to the Members of the Academy of Besançon. PARIS, June 30, 1840
2. Nicolo Machiavelli , “The Discourses” (1531) Book I. Chapter XXV.
3. P.J. Proudhon’s “What is Property?” (1840) p. 446

The Deafening Silence…

•July 3, 2008 • 1 Comment

rupert murdoch

The Deafening Silence…

By Phaedrus

Considering the ever-increasing surge of seriously disturbing accusations being leveled at our old friends, the Jews, it is rather curious indeed that their direct responses have been so remarkably distant and detached. Now please don’t misunderstand Phaedrus here. We are all well aware that they’re screaming “anti-Semitism!” at the top of their shrill little voices at those of us who seek to expose the truth about them and their very curious history. Nothing too surprising about that, of course. And not only that, but they’re lobbying their pet governments in the West to introduce ever more ingeniously-contrived ‘Hate Crime’ laws to prevent legitimate researchers into the Jewish Problem from communicating their shocking findings to a wider audience. Speaking the truth is becoming increasingly criminalized. Anyone and everyone who speaks in negative terms about the Jews must be trussed-up and gagged by any means possible. Now this situation will strike a lot of people as downright unfair, not least for the reasons I set out below.

It’s not odd at all, however, that the Jews would like to see all opposition to them crushed; that’s only to be expected. But the really curious thing that is awakening suspicions among even some Liberals, is that these extremely broad, blanket responses are their SOLE weapon of choice against us. This limited technique of theirs works fine when the opposition against them is patchy, insufficiently motivated and improperly informed. They can push for censorship on the grounds that ignorant bigots are spreading lies about them just because they’re a minority race of people who are simply misunderstood. And for a long, long time now, that’s worked well for them. But lately, things are beginning to change. In the face of a absolute firestorm of lurid accusations swirling around about them on the internet, one thing is increasingly obvious by its total absence: any effort to directly engage their accusers face-to-face.

The Jews simply WILL NOT discuss specific allegations. Curiously, they choose not to defend themselves in the way you or I would INSIST upon, were it we that were on the receiving end of such endless diatribes. Now at first, this could be explained away (and it was) by simply claiming that the Jews didn`t want to ‘provide a platform for racists.’ In the early days (pre-internet) that excuse was widely accepted among the sheeple, who dutifully nodded their heads in unison with this noble sentiment. After all, back then it did seem a perfectly plausible reason. But as time has worn on and the accusations only grow louder and more insistent, to continue to remain silent increasingly seems to imply that they are unable to discuss these matters for the simple reason that they CANNOT counter them; the accusations (crazy sounding that they may be to the uninformed) are NOT baseless. They are grounded in vast stacks of high quality documentary evidence which when put before a Jew would leave him stultified with no answers and nowhere to run. Hence they resort to blanket denials which are not open to cross-examination, and increasing efforts to gag us through the courts.

Continue reading

P.J. Proudhon’s Reflexions on the Jews

•July 3, 2008 • 4 Comments

jews-proudhon-skeptikosexaminer-anti-semitism

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon 1809-1865

Reflexions on the Jews

“Jews; make laws against this race, which poisons everything, by mingling into in all affairs without seeking unity with any people. Demand their expulsion from France, except those married to Frenchman, abolish synagogues, reject them at any workplace, eventually demanding the abolishment of this cult. It is not by accident that the Christians considered them to be godless. The Jew is the enemy of the human race. One must send this race back to Asia or exterminate it. By fire or fusion or by expulsion, the Jew must disappear. What the people of the middle ages hated by instinct, I hate upon reflexion and irrecoverably. The hatred of the Jew, as that of the English, must be an article of our political faith.” (Carnets, 26 décembre 1847 – Translation by David Preussen)

Related:

    Beautiful Rhodesia

    •July 1, 2008 • 4 Comments

    The paradise that was once Rhodesia. (Now Zimbabwe)

    Poland in new blow to EU treaty

    •July 1, 2008 • Leave a Comment

    european tower of babel

    Poland’s President Lech Kaczynski says he will not sign the EU’s reform treaty at present, following its defeat in an Irish referendum last month.

    He said it would be “pointless” to sign the Lisbon Treaty, even though Poland’s parliament has ratified it. All 27 EU members must ratify the document.

    Continue reading

    As the people of Ireland do not ratify the treaty, it makes no difference anyway if he ratifies it or not. Be certain that he will ratify it imeditly once a solution for the Irish problem is found. Our politicians are all whores and so don’t expect them to have a soul or to make decisions with what is best for the people they claim to represent in mind!

    Related:

    Zimbabwe’s last white farmer forced to quit

    •July 1, 2008 • 2 Comments

    mugabe-zimbawwe-rhodesis

    “It’s just very disappointing,” said Mr van Rensburg, 37, who is married with two children. “I feel betrayed by the government. All we were doing was growing food for the country. We were not getting involved in politics or anything. What did we do?”

    Continue reading

    The people in Zimbabwe are already starving than the blacks so far have not managed to produce food on the farms stolen from the whites and there is little to no hope that this will change in the future. Forcing the last productive farmer out is truly a great idea in this situation! A receipt for disaster, true black nation building! Rhodesia once was once one of the main food producer of Africa and produced food for the whole continent, Zimbabwe today can not even feed its own people!

    Black empowerment^^

    Schopenhauer on Women

    •June 30, 2008 • 2 Comments

    arthurschopenhauer-philosophy-skeptikosexaminer

    On Women (Über die Weiber)

    An abridged version of Arthur Schopenhauer’s famous essay
    By Arthur Schopenhauer, German Philosopher (1788-1860)

    The nature of the female

    One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor. She expiates the guilt of life not through activity but through suffering, through the pains of childbirth, caring for the child and subjection to the man, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion. Great suffering, joy, exertion, is not for her: her life should flow by more quietly, trivially, gently than the man’s without being essentially happier or unhappier.

    Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’ One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day, and then ask oneself what, with the best will in the world, a man could do in her place.

    Natural weapons

    In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses its wings after mating, since they are then superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two childbeds, and probably for the same reason.

    Female truth

    The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.

    Feminine charms

    Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.

    Absence of genius

    Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.

    Insipid women-veneration

    This is how the peoples of antiquity and of the Orient have regarded women; they have recognized what is the proper position for women far better than we have, we with our Old French gallantry and insipid women-veneration, that highest flower of Christian-Germanic stupidity which has served only to make women so rude and arrogant that one is sometimes reminded of the sacred apes of Benares which, conscious of their own sanctity and inviolability, thought themselves at liberty to do whatever they pleased.

    Monogamy and ‘filles de joie’

    In our monogamous part of the world, to marry means to halve one’s rights and double one’s duties. But when the law conceded women equal rights with men it should at the same time have endowed them with masculine reasoning powers. What is actually the case is that the more those rights and privileges the law accords to women exceed those which are natural to them, the more it reduces the number of women who actually participate in these benefits; and then the remainder are deprived of their natural rights by just the amount these few receive in excess of theirs: for, because of the unnaturally privileged position enjoyed by women as a consequence of monogamy and the marriage laws accompanying it, which regard women as entirely equal to men (which they are in no respect), prudent and cautious men very often hesitate before making so great a sacrifice as is involved in entering into so inequitable a contract; so that while among polygamous peoples every woman gets taken care of, among the monogamous the number of married women is limited and there remains over a quantity of unsupported women who, in the upper classes, vegetate on as useless old maids, and in the lower are obligated to undertake laborious work they are constitutionally unfitted for or become filles de joie, whose lives are as devoid of joie as they are of honour but who, given the prevailing circumstances, are necessary for the gratification of the male sex and therefore come to constitute a recognized class, with the specific task of preserving the virtue of those women more favoured by fate who have found a man to support them or may reasonably hope to find one. There are 80,000 prostitutes in London alone: and what are they if not sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? These poor women are the inevitable counterpart and natural complement to the European lady, with all her arrogance and pretension. For the female sex viewed as a whole polygamy is therefore a real benefit; on the other hand there appears no rational ground why a man whose wife suffers from a chronic illness, or has remained unfruitful, or has gradually grown too old for him, should not take a second.

    No argument about polygamy

    There can be no argument about polygamy: it is a fact to be met with everywhere and the only question is how to regulate it. For who is really a monogamist? We all live in polygamy, at least for a time and usually for good. Since every man needs many women, there could be nothing more just than that he should be free, indeed obliged, to support many women. This would also mean the restoration of woman to her rightful and natural position, the subordinate one, and the abolition from the world of the lady, with her ridiculous claims to respect and veneration; there would then be only women, and no longer unhappy women, of which Europe is at present full.

    Property and inheritance

    In India, no woman is ever independent, but in accordance with the law of Manu, she stands under the control of her father, her husband, her brother or her son. It is, to be sure, a revolting thing that a widow should immolate herself upon her husband’s funeral pyre; but it is also revolting that she should spend her husband’s money with her paramours – the money for which he toiled his whole life long, in the consoling belief that he was providing for his children. Happy are those who have kept the middle course – medium tenuere beati.

    In almost all nations, whether of the ancient or the modern world, even amongst the Hottentots, property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in Europe that a departure has taken place; but not amongst the nobility, however.

    That the property which has cost men long years of toil and effort, and been won with so much difficulty, should afterwards come into the hands of women, who then, in their lack of reason, squander it in a short time, or otherwise fool it away, is a grievance and a wrong as serious as it is common, which should be prevented by limiting the right of women to inherit. In my opinion, the best arrangement would be that by which women, whether widows or daughters, should never receive anything beyond the interest for life on property secured by mortgage, and in no case the property itself, or the capital, except when there cease to be male descendants. The people who make money are men, not women; and it follows from this that women are neither justified in having unconditional possession of it, nor fit persons to be entrusted with its administration. When wealth, in any true sense of the word, that is to say, funds, houses or land, is to go to them as an inheritance they should never be allowed the free disposition of it. In their case a guardian should always be appointed; and hence they should never be given the free control of their own children, wherever it can be avoided.

    Source