Saturday, April 02, 2011


Is the USA a democracy?

Will Egypt become a democracy?

For 'democracy' to work, you need:

1. Well informed voters. 2. Civilised voters. 3. Honest leaders.

It's all about getting the 'good' people in charge of managing things; and keeping the 'bad' people out of power.

Tim Stanley, at History Today, writes about The Democratic Delusion | Hist

1. He points out that democracy in ancient Athens (6th to 4th centuries BC) meant "an assembly of adult male citizens voting directly on day-to-day matters."

So, an assembly decided to execute Socrates for heresy.

Everyone was expected to go along with that (foolish) decision.

In 427 BC the Athenian assembly debated what to do about a revolt by the Mytilenians of Lesbos.

The assembly decided to send a ship to Mytilene to kill all the adult males and enslave all the women and children.

The following morning the assembly narrowly voted to send a second ship to cancel the order.

According to Tim Stanley, democracy "can descend into mob rule."

That is, in our opinion, if you have poorly-informed and uncivilised voters, led by 'bad' people.

2. According to Tim Stanley, Westerners usually link democracy with "liberty in faith, sexuality, business, speech and thought."

And, democracy "flourishes best when a country has divided powers, elected representatives and a maximum of self-government."

3. Tim Stanley writes: "Democracy as the West comprehends it isn't really democracy at all."

What if the Egyptians get 'democracy' and vote for shariah law?

Website for this image Among the people reported to be high ranking freemasons are: Napoleon, Lenin, Trotsky, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Roosevelt, Truman and Gaddafi.

Tim Stanley makes no mention of the argument that 'democracy' in the West is a sham, and that many of our leaders and institutions are secretly controlled by people who are not 'democrats'.

In his book, Under the Sign of the Scorpion (2002), the Estonian Juri Lina says about 150 million people died as a result of the Bolshevik Revolution, subsidized by the Masonic Jewish banking cartel.

"The West pretended to oppose the Bolsheviks but in fact defended them." ( - USSR - Experiment Was "Social ...)

On 24 June 2010, at Global Research, Andrew Gavin Marshall wrote about: The Global Political Awakening and the New World Order

The top 6,000 people in the world own 40% of the world’s assets.

The bottom 3.4 billion own 1% of world wealth.

In the feudal system, you have scores of top families who control huge amounts of wealth and power by using terror; and by using religion; and bribery; and seduction.

For the feudal system to work, you need the ordinary people to be ignorant and uncivilised.

Today, we appear to have rule by certain top bankers, businessmen and generals.

These are not your honest, good leaders.



aferrismoon said...

Its hard to imagine a democracy with a crowned head-of-state, while the elected appear to be dynastic in nature.

e.g. Cameron marries an Astor.

I don't know one person who, if asked, would have enabled the bail-out.

In a democracy no-one would vote for debt.

the %age of MPs voting for the Libya action versus the %age of the pop. that didn't want it seems to show that democracy has never got past the mantra stage

Democracy will come when we get computerised voting on all matters of individual and planet.

A 'real' global accounting system would better inform us .

We seem to have a cross between nationalistic totalitarianism and dynastic feudalism


brian said...

so you dont believe in 'democracy', neither does Gadaffi, or rather party politics:

in his Green Book, a bit of shrewd observation:

The party is a contemporary form of dictatorship. It is the modern instrument of dictatorial government. The party is the rule of a part over the whole. As a party is not an individual, it creates a superficial democracy by establishing assemblies, committees, and propaganda through its members. The party is not a democratic instrument because it is composed only of those people who have common interests, a common perception or a shared culture; or those who belong to the same region or share the same belief. They form a party to achieve their ends, impose their will, or extend the dominion of their beliefs, values, and interests to the society as a whole. A party's aim is to achieve power under the pretext of carrying out its program. Democratically, none of these parties should govern a whole people who constitute a diversity of interests, ideas, temperaments, regions and beliefs. The party is a dictatorial instrument of government that enables those with common outlooks or interests to rule the people as a whole. Within the community, the party represents a minority.

The purpose of forming a party is to create an instrument to rule the people, i.e., to rule over non-members of the party. The party is, fundamentally, based on an arbitrary authoritarian concept - the domination of the members of the party over the rest of the people. The party presupposes that its accession to power is the way to attain its ends, and assumes that its objectives are also those of the people. This is the theory justifying party dictatorship, and is the basis of any dictatorship. No matter how many parties exist, the theory remains valid.

The existence of many parties intensifies the struggle for power, and this results in the neglect of any achievements for the people and of any socially beneficial plans. Such actions are presented as a justification to undermine the position of the ruling party so that an opposing party can replace it. The parties very seldom resort to arms in their struggle but, rather, denounce and denigrate the actions of each other. This is a battle which is inevitably waged at the expense of the higher, vital interests of the society. Some, if not all, of those higher interests will fall prey to the struggle for power between instruments of government, for the destruction of those interests supports the opposition in their argument against the ruling party or parties. In order to rule, the opposition party has to defeat the existing instrument of government.

veritas6464 said...

Hey Aan,..."What if the Egyptians get 'democracy' and vote for shariah law?"

What if Gazans get Democracy and vote for Hamas?

Oh, they did.

"Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." - H.L. Mencken


rossoallosso said...

Anonymous said...

Middle Eastern men? Wow, what made them so sure they're Middle Eastern?


Anonymous said...


Ian Leslie said...

Interesting posting Aang. Democracy, hmmm? HERE is a little Biblical Democracy about Jersey! Enjoy :)

Anonymous said...


Gypsy scholar said...

The video shows homes that are too expensive for the Chinese to live in. They cost 75 - 100 thousand dollars to buy. The average Chinese anual wage is 6 thousand doolars.
Answer? The Chinese will have to borrow money at interest from a central bank who creates money from nothing and who itself created the money to build the homes in order to start debt slavery from China's economic get go.

Central banks which create fiat money from nothing literally enslave their people on purpose.

End the Federal Reserve central bank in the US and end the Rothschild central banking system around the world (193 of 197 countries).

It is ponzi scheme, a fraud which enslaves (literally) every citizen in the countries where it operates.

batymahn said...

I agree that while many people in the Middle East are chanting for democracy we in America need to look at ourselves. Our national and local budgets are out of control and all we can do is blame the other guy.

But democracy provides the ultimate check on power which is sorely lacking in many parts of the world. The free flow of information, and ideas, provides an essential economic advantage that other systems cannot compete with.

The other question is human behavior, at it's basic level. We all have a self-interest and we all have a tendency to believe what we want to believe. Is this behavior compatable with democracy?

This is an essential debate that we all need to have in order for democracy, or any other system, to move forward.


brian said...

did u know:

'As Asia Times Online has reported, a full Arab League endorsement of a no-fly zone is a myth. Of the 22 full members, only 11 were present at the voting. Six of them were Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, the US-supported club of Gulf kingdoms/sheikhdoms, of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. Syria and Algeria were against it. Saudi Arabia only had to "seduce" three other members to get the vote.

Translation: only nine out of 22 members of the Arab League voted for the no-fly zone. The vote was essentially a House of Saud-led operation, with Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa keen to polish his CV with Washington with an eye to become the next Egyptian President.

Thus, in the beginning, there was the great 2011 Arab revolt. Then, inexorably, came the US-Saudi counter-revolution .'

Michael said...

I think even with the three requirements you mention democracy cannot work.

It's achilles heal is that it is a form of government and thus by it's inherent nature is destructive to peoples liberty, life and property.

Any form of government exists to enable humans to control and manipulate others, to impose their values on others and to live at the expense of others. This is in no way civilised and it violates individuals inherent desires/rights.

Like all forms, democractic government seeks to constantly expand it's power and undue influence through war, using fear to seize more through taxation and force to seize more through conquest.

As for direct democracy I think it too is bad by no means worse than indirect. If people are so uninformed that they make bad decisions such as killing 'heretics' how are they supposed to be informed enough to vote others into handling such power? Arguably the decenratlised nature of direct democracy makes it less corruptable than representative democracy.

The Realist Report said...

The US democratic republic is a sham. Good post here Aangirfan.

Odin's Raven said...

Thycydides, in his chapter on the Melian debte tells us all we need to know on democracy, empire and international relations.

"..the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

"..the Melians surrendered at discretion to the Athenians, who put to death all the grown men whom they took, and sold the women and children for slaves, and subsequently sent out five hundred colonists and inhabited the place themselves."

Malooga said...

Of course, there is also the role of money -- corporations, beings "persons" in the eyes of the law have a right to free speech -- which they then exercise in the media they conveniently happen to own.

If an ordinary person had a trillion dollars to put towards electing the President they wanted, they might stand a fair chance of having a voice in a Democracy.

Maurintius said...

Most people don't understand how money works, but they do work for it and spend it almost every day.

A democracy? don't make me laugh or frustrated :)

Plutocracy is more like it!
Rich people getting richer, poor getting poorer and in the meanwhile the rich control the whole damn world!Not politicians or governments! And all this due to money! People are so depended on money I wonder what if one day(which will happen, and probably soon) people wake up in the morning realising they can't buy any food with their money cause it's worthless?

How will we eat?
What would happen?
Chaos and mass hysteria?

Time to wake up! Start protesting and demand change. ower back to the people and the issuing power of money back to countries world wide instead of central banks who control you where you stand.

BTW, is it allowed to copy this article to my website?

regards and good luck to all!

Anon said...

Dear Maurintius,

Feel free to copy this.



Maurintius said...

oke thanks, will do :)

Same goes for the articles at my website


Site Meter