The game of democracy

From Wikinormous

“I do not believe that dictatorship is a lasting form of scientific society – unless (but this proviso is important) it can become world-wide.” - Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society p67 1952

The today so politically correct and sought after 'democratic world governance' under the pretense 'world peace', 'interdependence' and 'sustainable solutions' can never be achieved under the naive faulty notion that 'ending sovereign nations spontaneously will make it so'. Such claims are meant to look like a one united world but under a deceptive dictatorial aim. Why else do you need others to govern you? Why do we need a global government if were it not because some don't want you to govern yourself?


”A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson

global Democracy has sadly been heavily promoted as the sublime solution for humanity, by numerous INGOs (28,900 known ones according to CGG anno 1995) and policy makers like World Federalist Movement (WFA), WFI, NED, UN, CoR, Brookings Institution, VWG, Sapiens et al. Democracy has been made the absolute ethics and UN hoist its moral flag, where Commission on Global Governance tells it bluntly; global taxation, a standing UN army, an Economic Security Council, UN authority over the global commons, directly involved INGOs representing 'civil society' advancing global governance etc. From CGG's Our Global Neighbourhood Ingvar Carlsson and Shridath Ramphal, 1995, initiated via UN Charter by Willy Brandt.

Some say democracy has its safeguards against majoritarianism through many levels/methods of discourse and voting, making a good environment for any individual opinion. That may be true but there are many overlooked subtler bending ”coercive” tactics crucial to consider. Such as lobbyism, political correctness, conventions, public relations molding our ideas and thoughts, and the downright ”overt” secrecy behind closed doors negotiations (EU Council, ACTA, Bilderberg, CFR, BIS [1] etc) and anything for the sake of national (global) security. The meaning of fabianism (gradualism) is the key point here, as well as dialectics.

”When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.” Chatham House Rule

This is the often called for 'invocation of conduct' in INGOs of global importance and dignity. Many official representatives from the political, journalistic, academic, industrial and economic world attend these exhaustively manifold meetings, and transparency is obviously not the number one principal.

the ever diverting dualism

Are there any real differences between left and right? Why has personal ideas/ideals become so stupendously one dimensional in the first place? When the same sponsors, experts, trustees, mentors and advisors are seen behind either parties during decades, could the charade be any more apparent? Is it therefor not even worse than majoritarianism, namely rule by the few, a plutocracy/oligarchy? Besides what better name for this type of democracy when we vote for remote representatives once every four years, while laws, bills and acts goes through the machinery every day in between? Even when a public referendum on Ireland was held over the EU-treaty the outcome was not in favor of the policy, so in accordance to gradualism, they better vote what they are told.

“Inverted totalitarianism,” as he calls it in his recent Democracy Incorporated, “lies in wielding total power without appearing to, without establishing concentration camps, or enforcing ideological uniformity, or forcibly suppressing dissident elements so long as they remain ineffectual.” To Wolin, such a form of political power makes the United States “the showcase of how democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed.” Chellis Glendinning

So there are no solid safeguards and guaranties that 'democracy' wouldn't be abused as ideological or societal method. It would ideally sound more sane if 'safeguards' if any, was plainly and simply, you and me.

War becomes less and less possible the more you see Individual beings in stead of groups, communities, ideologies or nations to represent them. [2]

The dangerous ”logical” step for advocates of global governance is to conclude that the Globe can somehow represent us. Gaia, a cute collectivist mascot representing humanity, not the individuals. Well, It will be a ”working model” only because you will be told what to do and what to think. Yes we will have ”global peace”, as long as you don't dissent. ”War on terrorism” will most likely never go away, in fact the definition of the term is being more and more extended to include 'environmental extremism', 'leftwing extremism' or 'alternative media' (see DHS lexicon), i.e. arbitrarily anybody opposing (the global agenda). You may end up being diagnosed with the 'desease' Anarchia - exess of the passion of liberty, a form of insanity, rebeling against centralized federal authority (Benjamin Rush phraseology from ca 1800 on par with DHS lexicon). This is fascism in its utmost fulfillment, but we will gladly embrace it for it will keep its promise under one world law. No wars against nations, because we live under one global rule. Signs of hegemonial methods are when discussions on human values and personal ideology are made farther and farther away from the individual. How can trends towards global centralized governance be more democratic than the opposite? On a global scale, who is ever going to represent You?

”... a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government ... unless there is a world government which secures universal birth control, there must from time to time be great wars, in which the penalty of defeat is widespread death by starvation ... Unless, at some stage, one power or group of powers emerges victorious and proceeds to establish a single government of the world with a monopoly of armed forces, it is clear that the level of civilization must decline until scientific warfare becomes impossible - that is until science is extinct. Reduced once more to bows and arrows” Bertand Russell The Impact of Science on Society p117

”A world consciousness must be developed through which every individual realizes his role as a member of the world community... It must become part of the consciousness of every individual that "the basic unit of human cooperation and hence survival is moving from the national to the global level.” Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974

”In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for cause. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitude and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.” Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, p75 1991

Except for above given pitfalls of democracy, perpetual fear from terrorism being one of the prominent incitement for 'unifying humanity', 'climate change' (aka global warming) is certainly on par, to create a 'unified organic and interdependent world system'. Global financial meltdown also being a high ranking threat among many other with very predictable echoing rhetoric. Dubious as the rhetoric is, it sometimes does sound correct and adequate for each individual and nature and humanity as a whole, however, the methods and the science must be scrutinized not from the top down. Most of global policies come from a very single source, emanating from a minority, scattered from above 'onto the rest of us'. In my mind real change must come from real grassroots (not from a submissive 'below' root movement but any 'direction' i.e. any human being).

... as a working model?

”... as a collective we must understand that democracy can only exist in a society with an educated populace, and the right for self-governance can only be obtained through knowledge. As long as the Internet remains Neutral and uncensored, we, as a global community, can make a difference. We can fill the gap left behind by our corporate governments by becoming proactive in every aspect of our lives and our civilization.

The more information that we share within our collective the more informed decisions we will be able to make for our society. For those who have not noticed yet, the established hierarchical system is collapsing.”

What we must – rediscover – is our individual sovereignty, and the only true spontaneity emanating from each and everyone of us, as self-governance. A creative and critical individuality in contrast to a passive/indifferent consumerism. Yes we can work globally, yes we can dismantle national boundaries (or any boundaries) and create far more truer peace, but not in a hierarchical collectivism realm, but a collective holarchical. The closer to our personal existential achievements the more authentic responsibility and respect. The individual must never be subordinate the sum of the collective (collectivism), but in balance.

Observation versus Authority

”(1) Observation versus Authority: To modern educated people, it seems obvious that matters of fact are to be ascertained by observation, not by consulting ancient authorities.” Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, pg15

And I thank you! The one key point in 'the scientific outlook' I do submit to. Though the one key point being the most demanding, namely to become your own expert. Otherwise you end up ”consulting ancient authority” ... (in other words, no expert, however decorated, can ever be your observer.)

Even if some authoritarian method indeed is applicable, it can never become a law impossible to break. If the pursuit of science is true, then there can never be One answer, One method, One law. If the pursuit of science is true, you can only discover new ones.

In fact, on this note, any 'authority' worth its name could only be 'authoritarian' in that they 'are not'. An authority knows so much, therefor so little. Authority is not truth, rather –truth is authority

The machination of control in 'the technetronic era' was never up for debate, but ...

Two hefty additional digs into the Global Agenda.

The roots of internet, (D)ARPA and ARPANET

The creation of ”global human conscience” in Zbigniew Brzezinski's words

Excerpts from Between Two Ages, America's Role in the Technetronic Era, 1970, and The Grand Chessboard, 1997.

and david rockefeller ...

Populist Paranoia
”For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ”internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” David Rockefeller, Memoirs, pg. 405 2002

<comments />