A telling example of undemocracy in the papers this week: a bigwig from Brussels called "Barroso" has come to tour the Netherlands on a "charm offensive" related to the Dutch voters' refusal to approve the European Constitution(al Treaty) in a referendum. As a result of which, the EU can't get on with milking Europe. Apparently the common people's approval is needed for this. Which would explain why the governments of some member states didn't hold a referendum at all. I don't understand why the Dutch government doesn't do what it usually does: make a plan, sell it to the public as a Great Improvement and then go ahead with it blindly and in spite of all protest. Because this is an international matter, maybe, and in the absence of military power, the Dutch government tries to dominate through moral superiority: "Unlike other democracies, we do represent the electorate"? Whether it's a matter of saving face or something else, Cloggieland is obstructing the European Union's plans for more administrative power over its member states and more income for its useless, parasitical self. And so Barroso tells the Dutch government that the EU has been "patient" with the Netherlands so far, but now it's time for the Netherlands to "show its devotion to Europe". The president of the United States of America calls his country "America" and tells Iraq he's running out of patience. A bigwig from the European Union calls his organisation "Europe" and tells the Netherlands he's running out of patience. Spot the parallels.
Democracy is like Christianity in that it justifies its existence by its moral values which it then fails to live by. Simply put, it breaks its own rules. No, I don't need a list of other religions/institutions that do the same - such a list might be long enough to wallpaper the inside of an apartment building. And the more these religions/institutions feel secure in their power, the more they tend to not only break the rules, but simply forget them. A snapshot from history: the modern white West brings civilization and enlightenment to barbarous backwards (but oil-containing) Third World countries by forcing democracy on them, and the European elite, the centre of all that's democratic, tells the spokespeople of a democracy: "Can't you just ignore the voters and do as we say?" Does Barroso realize the impact of what he's saying? A shower of rotten tomatoes would be in place here. The war on Iraq is totally unnecessary: a war on Brussels would be wiser.
But democracy in itself is Good! Democracy fills our bellies and defends our freedom from terrorist organizations like Al-Quaeda! A little Googling around confirms my suspicion that the real terrorist organizations are the governments of the modern white West, framing a suspect here, provoking an incident there, and those bearded, turbaned suicide bombers are just dumb pawns in a Western scheme to scare the Western taxpayers into sending out armed forces and letting their phones and email be tapped. It also confirms my suspicion that the Netherlands is not a democracy. Don't believe me? Speak Dutch? Google "Gerard van Westerloo" and see what this authority on politicology and political history has to say about the undemocratic system of Dutch government. And the funny thing is: I knew it! Without his background or the information he has access to, it was already clear to me that the electorate has nothing to say, from the prestige projects (the unnecessary "Betuwe" railway, the expansion of Schiphol) that are carried out in blatant defiance to the voters' wishes, the winning parties forming coalitions with parties that clearly hadn't received the voters' blessing, and the total non-impact on society of disbanding Cabinets. The Prime Minister and his (or her, but usually his) closest MPs could be abducted by aliens and, apart from a few panicked headlines, no one would notice.
(Update: I discovered later that van Westerloo was originally just a journalist looking for a story. What he discovered so shocked him that he delved into the subject, consulted leading politicologists and did a field study which he published as a book, for the naive Dutchies who believe that politicians want the best for us. Then again, both Amnesty International and Greenpeace were founded by shocked journalists.)
This country is not run by democratically chosen politicians, but by civil servants, pressure groups and industrial companies. The prosperity of the modern West (which many people living there, mostly the non-whites, are not given a large share of) is not a result of democracy but a combination of mild climate and colonial past, the latter resulting in money and resources from other countries streaming towards the West. And with a fair bit of prosperity and no starving masses desperate enough to gnaw their own arm off, let alone storm some presidential palace, the "government" - the body through which civil servants, pressure groups and industrial companies impose their will on the people while passing it off as the people's will - can afford to be lax and let cloggies have their "freedom". It can even let individuals like me write critical rants like this, although the current Dutch government doesn't like "individualism", and no doubt this text will be collected by the bots of special search engines and added to the huge file kept by special agencies on "potential terrorists and anti-social elements", I kid you not. Career-minded people should be careful how they blog, they are being watched. But: I have a certain freedom of expression, on the condition of remaining a helpless sheep, and on the same condition I may graze my belly full. (Currently a loony is trying to get himself and thereby half the country jailed for eating chocolate, because of slave labour on cocoa plantations. That would make short work of the full belly bit!) Neither is due to democracy.
Now I don't mind the Netherlands being ruled by civil servants, as long as they do it properly. Civil servants have a hierarchy that runs from government assistance down to mail delivery and street sweeping, and can be relied on to sort of serve the people. Other undemocracies of the modern white West are more unsavoury; France is ruled by a racist right-wing Establishment, Ireland and Poland are Catholic dictatorial regimes (Northern Ireland mixed with Protestant oppression), the (now ex-)president of Spain is a mass manipulator whose attempts to exploit the Madrid bombing have backfired, and as for America (United States of), the less said, the better. What these undemocracies have in common is the gimmick called "election". It is common belief in all parts of the world that a country which holds elections is a democracy, and vice versa. Due to which some terrorist Moslem dupes - already stupid enough to let themselves be used by the hated West - conclude, and publicly state, that it's all right to kill innocent civilians for the crimes of their governments, because those governments were elected by, and therefore operate with the approval of, said civilians.
To prevent the forming of tyrannies, the elected leaders of a country are allowed to rule for a certain period, then new elections are held. Let's say the period is four years. This is comparable to limiting the duration of marriage to four years, to prevent spouse-bashing; when the time is up, the couple is automatically divorced and may then remarry or, if they disappointed each other, find someone else - the second prospect is supposed to keep them eager to get along. But, during those four years, they are free to bash each other's brains in. Looking back only six years: yet another invasion of Iraq by the US, obviously planned before, but launched after planes fly into supposedly plane-proof buildings, preceded by an invasion of Afghanistan (to whet the troops' appetite?). After overwhelming support for their embarrassment of a president, US Americans slowly, dimly began to realize that they had been incredibly had; that they were being manoeuvered into a second Vietnam. The first US American protesters were booed and spat on: someone with a "peace" T-shirt was told to leave a shopping centre, angry ex-fans bulldozered a pile of "Dixie Chicks" CDs because the band had heckled Bush. But anti-Bush sentiment grew: the public began to demand the truth about the 11-9 incident. In a second-hand record shop somewhere in Groningen, I spotted a sleeve showing Bush's face with a red clown nose, titled "War on Errorism". In reaction to military aid from Netherlands - as usual, when "America" goes on the rampage, the whole modern white West is expected to join in - Dutch posters were spread of a woman and child about to be hit by a missile, captioned "Not In My Name" - protests against bombing Afghanistan. Already unpopular in Britain, Blair made himself more unpopular with his ridiculous "Iraq Dossier". Australia was dragged in when prime minister Howard joined the war; Australians went out on the streets with placards reading "HOWARD YOU COW". All protests by modern Western non-Moslem civilians against the actions of governments that, who knows, they may have voted for. And that's only about the oil wars, and not counting the habitual protests against governments' domestic attempts to screw the taxpayers. In short, it should be very clear even to someone from the crazed turbaned terrorist department that democratically elected governments do not operate with the approval of civilians.
That's right. When the elections are over, democracy is hung away until the next elections. To hell with government by the people.
And that's assuming the elections are fair. Which is generally not the case. The Germans are blamed for voting Hitler to power, but the critical election was planned on 1st May, Labour Day, when the pesky communist majority that opposed him would be too busy demonstrating and celebrating to vote. Does that sound stupid? I'm told US American presidents got "votes" from dead people. The cloggie neo-fascist party "Centrumpartij" bought votes from junkies in return for heroin. (And still failed due to lack of popular support. Heh.) In the past voting was done with a red pencil, but I've never voted on anything but voting machines. And what unreliable creatures these machines turn out to be. Not only is it easy to change the data inside them or alter which button is connected with which name; verifying votes is not allowed. Again, some Googling will suffice to turn up information about Diebold voting machines, VoteHere and the voting scam due to which Bush Jr has probably stolen the elections twice. US Americans wearing the anti-Bush "He's not my president" T-shirt may be more right than they realize.
Okay, that was in the States where politicians (who are also industrials and members of pressure groups) have real power and a real interest in winning the elections. I never suspected the Dutch of election scams, because the government is made up of elected parties gaining seats in proportion to votes, the outcome of elections invariably being: CDA (right-wing Christians), VVD (right-wing Liberals) and PvdA plus other small fry (Labour, assorted). In other words: Church, nobles, and commoners - topped off by the Royal Family to recreate the societal structure of the Middle Ages. Elections don't really make a difference, do they. But after last elections, I'm suspicious. In a time when religious extremism is seen as the root of all evil, the Dutch vote CDA (mildly Christian), ChristenUnie (rabidly Christian) and PvdA (disgraced Labour). And this alarmingly religious government, already planning to withdraw un-Christian civil rights and forbid shopping during the Holy Sabbath, is seen as providing the country with a period of peace, a pause to catch our breath after last years' rapid developments - like the skullduggery practiced by the EU? We Dutch are such mental invalids. We've had more changes than we can handle. We need a rest. What we really need is to put our lives in God's hands and do away with these stressful elections!
Yes, I really wonder who voted these parties to power and whether the elections were rigged, or the Dutch really are essentially anti-democratic X-ian sheep. Their lack of alarm after the last election's outcome, and the fact that they voted CDA at all, implies the latter. The CDA is again headed by Balkenende, who has done the following: authorized anti-smoking and dieting campaigns because we must Watch our Health (no gas masks against exhaust fumes?); tried to reinstate class differences and subservience to the Royal Family under the pretence of "respect"; talked about moral values while his military involvements classified him as a war criminal; and pretended to promote putting politicians back in touch with society, then appeared on TV with a coloured rap artist and ignored what this artist had to say, the next-day newspapers raging about the fact that the artist had failed to address the prime minister with the polite form of "you". Maybe the Dutch people really did bring on themselves the government that they deserve.
(Footnote inserted: the party that gets the majority vote can form a government with whatever other party it chooses, and so can ignore the nation's second choice and invite in a minority party. The CDA is always doing this and so I wasn't surprised it chose the Christian Union over the Socialist Party, which had more votes. But then I found out that the Christian Union has 6 seats to justify its presence, as opposed to 22 for the SP. So it's not the voters who've started running to God. Then again, in view of its bad record, who the heck keeps voting CDA?)
But still it's noticeable that the gimmick of elections contains the seed of its own destruction. It wouldn't be the first time in history for some Power That Be to say: "You've voted for me, now I'll make sure you never vote again". Or, alternatively, to use the outcome of an election to openly seize power. The modern white West is seen as promoter and distributor of democracy, but I know of two cases that prove the opposite. When Congo was called Zaire, the Netherlands received many refugees who supported president Kasavubu, only democracy had been overturned by dictator Mobutu, helped to power by... the USA. (The Netherlands should send the USA a bill for the costs of interviewing and housing these refugees. And a bill to Belgium for helping to stir up the trouble.) The date of 11-9-2001 for the WTC attack was supposed to mirror 11-9-1973 in Chile when the democratically elected Allende was ousted by dictator Pinochet, with help from... the USA. It seems that the modern white West wants to snuff out any democracy that wasn't imposed by the modern white West!
I spot a resemblance between modern white Western "democracism" (yes, that newly invented term ends in "racism") and the "help" extended by the former Soviet Union to ex-colonies of Europe. This communist dictatorial regime would financially aid "poor" countries wanting to throw off the Western yoke to encourage their own little Communist Revolution. (Marx's doctrine: proletariat... overthrow the capitalists... blahdiblah... Have yet to see it happening.) This was seen as the Evil Russkies extending their influence, although the resulting communist regimes were indifferent or even hostile to the USSR. Meanwhile, the USA jumped on this bandwagon of luring the poor to their side by giving financial aid to countries wanting to rebuild themselves into a healthy capitalist economy. To this day, inhabitants of western Europe and the non-communist part of the Third World have an enormous debt they don't know of, to anonymous investors that they've never seen. Rebuilding after World War II, recovering from colonial wars - someone somewhere is living very comfortably off this! Cuba had such a debt. Castro scandalized the world by saying "Natch, ain't gonna pay". It was maybe the only time he did the Cubans a favour. Communism is such a missed chance.
Dutch morons (the very phrase is a tautology) who go "If it wasn't for America we'd all be speaking Russian", please note that we are now all speaking American. I don't remember whether it was Deetman or Ritzen who, as Minister of Education, proposed that Dutch universities should start teaching in English. (Pidgin American, to be exact. Not even proper English. Politicians are fools.) We're watching American TV and eating American burgers and serving as launchpad for American nuclear missiles and buying American computers (made in China) for which we have to sign statements that we won't use them for terrorist activities. We have to help fund the American Joint Strike Fighter. As the communist regimes were protective barriers around the USSR, so the "free" countries are extensions of the USA. We are more slaves to America than we would have been to Russia. And to keep us (the Dutch morons) quiet, America allows us our peace and our democracy. But America would just as readily have planted a dictator here to keep us under control. Dictators are for when democracism doesn't work.
Meanwhile, our - not just the Dutch, but the whole "civilized" West - democracy is showing itself more and more the whitewashed twin of Marx's Communism.
Democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people. Replace "people" with "proletariat" and you have communism.
How "the people" are supposed to rule is not explained, any more than how the proletariat should successfully rebel against the capitalists and rebuild society. Since "the people" are supposed to be a majority, as opposed to a minority that rules them, democracy works with a majority vote. It also works with representatives who, to stay in power, only have to make the dumb masses (and masses are always dumb) vote for them. Nobility and monarchy says "I have inherited power over you". The Church says "I represent the Ruler of the Universe". The elected ruler says "I represent you". Three spurious claims to power, and still no rulership by the people.
Democracy is a popular movement that sounds very fair and just and right to people, so they'll commit to it and make sacrifices for it, and continue to support it long after it's shown itself just another trick by which humans control other humans. Just like communism.
Democracy typically results from a revolution, just like communism, which even requires revolution in the way of a seed that requires stratification to germinate. They're both built on violence. (By comparison: a group of missionaries that ended up being converted by the African natives, returned to the Netherlands and set up a small info centre on African culture. Something like twenty years ago our class was sent there for a cultural weekend, so I don't remember the details, but it seems that in one country, the "king" is democratically elected. This system existed long before the whites butted in. No wonder the missionaries felt humbled.)
Democracy was "invented" by the ancient Greeks (they coined the word) but didn't involve elections. The modern democracy-by-election was given its decisive impulse by the French Revolution, and its motto (translated) "Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood". As was communism.
Democracy not only breaks its promise of government by, for and of the people, it has a blood-stained history of oppression, torture and murder. That most of this oppression, torture and murder takes place beyond the borders, outside the public's view, is again a result of Europe's colonial history. Colonies wanting to become independent and rule themselves by themselves, typically could not rely on sympathy from the "democratic" colonizing countries, a shining example being Algeria. That the country of freedom, equality and brotherhood should insist on owning another country shows just what modern democracy really means. And, of course, we've all been educated on the horrors of communism to justify the nuclear arms race.
Democracy could have worked, if politicians hadn't been such a corrupt, conniving lot, and their electorate were less stupid and gullible. (To be fair, not all voters are stupid and gullible, but if election results are anything to go by...) Communism could have worked, if the communist leaders had used the enormous power given to them for something constructive rather than shooting peasants and "deserters", making factories mass-produce articles which no one wanted to buy, leading the high life driving big cars drunk on vodka, and generally replacing the Czar. In China, communists replaced the Emperor. That's why communism is such a joke: it promises to overturn old power structures, but never does. All it does is introduce ugliness and chaos to pretend something has changed. Which, if one critically observes modern Western society, also applies to democracy.
Communism uses terror and propaganda to brainwash people into obedient drones! I can't recall any period in my life when the government or some pressure group wasn't telling me what to think. But, wow, the Netherlands has no Siberia to send me to! If I were a serious activist, I'd mysteriously die in a detention cell. It has happened.
And oh yes, the USSR had dissidents locked up in psychiatric institutions for being "mad". Blow the whistle on someone in the Netherlands, and expect a visit from a shrink whose diagnosis will be "mentally unstable and suffering from stress".
Courtesy of the corrupt, conniving politicians and the system's lack of resistance against abuse, the word "democracy" will soon acquire the stink now rising from the word "communism".
In fact, given that the USSR was called "dictatorial communist regime" when there was no equal treatment, sharing of resources or improved living conditions for the working classes - all features essential to communism - I see nothing wrong with calling the USA a "dictatorial democratic regime". (The Netherlands is more a "demo-dictatorial regime", meaning, the Dutch don't need leaders to oppress them, they do the job themselves.)
The only telling difference between democracy and communism is that the latter always results in oppressive regimes, while the former can be an oppressive regime or a laissez-faire kind of government where the suits-and-ties do nothing to help or protect the voters (hey, that sounds Dutch!) and only keep the top of the social ladder occupied to prevent a power vacuum that might attract invaders. For which purpose they could simply be replaced by stuffed parrots. Or a talking "President Bush" doll. By contrast, today's Russian democracy consists of telling the Russians what to vote for and then using threats and bribes to make them vote. Almost but not quite as sophisticated as the bewildering choice offered by Britain's and the USA's two-party system: Shit and More Shit.
Personally, I no longer give a hoot about democracy.
It doesn't really matter what system is in power, or rather, what it calls itself, as long as it gets the job done: laying down an infrastructure for any services needed, making sure that the essentials of life (including peace, security and an unpolluted environment) are available to everyone, creating and maintaining internal networks of trade and transport, developing fair rules and ensuring that they are fairly applied, and generally managing the office without being a nightmare boss. These have been criteria for good leadership before "democracy" was ever invented. Even the ancient Sumerians were into planning and development, and I don't think Hammurabi felt a need to have his trade laws voted for. Democracy in its present form is unnecessary. The only real, practical form of democracy is letting whoever is ruling do the ruling - more accurately, the coordination - on the understanding that if the results are not satisfactory (and currently, they are not), there's going to be a bloody uprising.
But that would be "terrorism". And all the undemocracies are taking measures
Afterthought: The Democratic Delusion does a better job than I do at fully exposing the fraud that is modern Western democracism and its devastating effect on former colonies. I'll reproduce part of a text it quotes from a Lysander Spooner: "The will, or the pretended will, of the majority, is the last lurking place of tyranny at the present day."
Afterthought II: apparently, in 2007, the Dutch cabinet (Balkenende IV) set
apart some money to deal with the problem of "civilian cynicism towards democracy".
Can't say I noticed any improvement, unless the "improvement" was all the
privacy-reducing measures these last few years.