Democracy or tyranny?

And "TONY BLINKEN IS MORE INTERESTING AS A TRANS"

Once again, today I am providing you with my English translation of two articles, originally in Italian. Although written by different authors and published on two different websites, you will probably see a connection between the two articles.

What follows is my English translation of an article by Hugo van der Zee, originally in Italian, published on LuogoComune.net on 14th August 2024. (All emphasis mine).

Democracy or tyranny?

Democracy literally means “government by the people”. This is actually not a correct term, because in a democracy, the government is formed by only part of the people, at best by the majority. This is a weakness of democracy and has always been criticised. It is sometimes referred to as the “tyranny of the majority”. In its defence, it is often argued that democracy is not a perfect form of government, but that it works and is the least worst thing we can have.

But is it true? Does it really work? Is there really no form of government that can work better? These questions can be debated, but real changes to the current form of government are inconceivable in politics. It therefore seems that we have embarked on a path where it is not possible to reverse course.

Most countries in the world today are democracies, having become such only in the last few centuries. This has often been an involuntary process. Many present-day democracies have become so “by bayonet strokes”. When the media and politicians talk about democracy, it seems to have a religious status. Whenever fundamental criticism of governments is made, or serious issues are brought to light, we often hear the media and politicians claim that there is a “danger to democracy”. If democracy was compromised, it would lead irreparably to chaos and perhaps to a dictatorship.

Remarkably, Plato, in his collection of dialogues “Polytheia”, argues exactly the opposite, that democracy will lead to tyranny. Criticism of democracy as a form of government is present in all three major Greek philosophers (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle).

Socrates was very articulate. In an allegory that became known as the “ship of fools”, he compares a ship to society. Suppose you wanted to take a group of people on a long sea voyage. Would you choose a ship where all the crew members start arguing about which course to take and what to do in case of danger? The journey would be chaotic and the ship would probably never reach its destination. Now, you need a captain who has intuition and vision, a helmsman who understands navigation, can read the stars and is familiar with winds and coastlines. Then, of course, you need a cook who knows how to prepare good food, a carpenter who knows how to repair damage to the ship, and so on.

Plato also advocated the “government of the most qualified”. The problem with a democracy, according to Plato, lay in the fact that administrators will always try to deceive and manipulate the masses, especially through fear. That Plato was right on this point has become increasingly clear in recent years. The form of government in most Western countries today is as close to an “oligarchy” as it gets. The word oligarchy comes from the Greek “oligos” (few) and “arkhein” (to rule). According to Plato, oligarchy is the most negative form of government. A democracy corrupted into oligarchy still pretends to be a democracy, so many people do not realise they are living under a tyranny. In the “Polytheia”, Plato describes some basic conditions for a healthy society. For example, he states that there should be an informed electorate and that there should be freedom of speech and association. These are universal values, still called fundamental today, yet they are regularly trampled upon by governments.

Aristotle was less explicit, but described democracy as an inferior form of government. He argued, however, that democracy could work as long as the society was not too large. This was evident in the classical Greek period. For instance, when Plato writes of the “state”, he means the “city-state” (the polis) and not the nation-state. Aristotle also argues that a sense of belonging is fundamental and can only exist when the population has a common background. Tyrants always try to undermine this sense of community. In his work “Politics”, Aristotle writes: “A tyranny will always prefer foreigners to citizens; citizens are in their eyes enemies, foreigners will offer no opposition”. Such a statement could get you into big trouble today.

It makes one wonder that the great philosophers of classical Greece, considered the “cradle of democracy”, were very critical of democracy and even warned against it.

Now, what were the thinkers and philosophers behind modern democracies thinking? According to traditional doctrine, the French Revolution was the basis of modern democracy. Of great influence was the manifesto “Du contrat social” (The Social Pact) by the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The manifesto describes many of the basic conditions of a democracy, for example that all citizens must be equal under the law and have an equal voice. However, Rousseau's ideas differ fundamentally from today's democracies. For example, he argues that the sovereignty of citizens should never be surrendered or represented. Rousseau writes: “The moment a people allows itself to be represented, it is no longer free: it no longer exists”. Rousseau also argues that “there is no government so prone to civil war and unrest as a democratic government”. History shows that democracies have indeed suffered many wars, often conducted under the banner of the “defence of democracy”.

Another influential work was the French philosopher Montesquieu's “De l'Esprit des Loix” (On the Spirit of Laws). He saw representative democracy as a good form of government, but also wrote about its limitations. For instance, like the Greek philosophers, Montesquieu argued that democratic government can only work in communities of limited size. Furthermore, he argued that true reforms can never result from political decisions and new laws. There must also be a common morality, which cannot be imposed by a government. According to Rousseau, when this morality is lacking, we arrive at despotism, where the despot tries to keep the people under his control through fear and terror.

The 19th century politician and philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville was the first to make a modern study of the effects of a democracy. Like Plato, de Tocqueville concluded that democracy ultimately leads to tyranny. This tyranny is not installed directly through violence, but is the result of a “process of erosion”.
De Tocqueville saw the fundamental problem of a democracy in the fact that it transforms man into an “individual political unit”. There are direct obligations between government and voter, and this undermines the mutual obligations between people. This also undermines mutual social ties, ultimately family ties. The citizen as a political entity is often described as an advantage. The idea of the “self-made man” in a vast world of opportunities is an ideal often expressed in democracies.

According to de Tocqueville, the role of man as an individual political unit had the effect of isolating people, making them more susceptible to deception and seduction. Isolation also causes a tendency towards materialism, which can lead to hedonism. Accumulating money and possessions becomes a primary goal, but an even more problematic effect of materialism, according to de Tocqueville, is the “spiritual poverty” it causes. He described it as a mental illness, arguing that religion is the only cure. Democracies, however, have precisely a secular (material) tendency.

Other thinkers who analysed forms of government and sought better forms of society were humanists like Thomas Moore. His book “Utopia” became very well known, but probably never achieved what Moore had in mind. Utopia became synonymous with the “unattainable ideal”. The sociologist and historian Lewis Mumford tried to make people look at these works differently. Not as unattainable ideals, but as sources of inspiration. His book “The History of Utopias” describes a series of utopias, including Thomas Moore's “Utopia”, Tommaso Campanella's “La Città del Sole” [The City of the Sun] and Valentin Andreae's “Christianopolis”.

Every utopian has his or her own ideas, but many of those of the philosophers mentioned can be found in these utopias. For example, utopias are limited in size. A centrally led government, if there is one, has limited power and the residents have a common background that binds them. If these conditions are not met, an anti-social effect occurs that will lead to a “dystopia”. According to Mumford, the form of state that has developed in the West is such a dystopia.

The anti-social effect resulting from a centralised state government is a recurring theme in the books of the Russian writer Tolstoy. The latter made the statement: “The truth is that the state is a conspiracy, not only to exploit its citizens, but above all to corrupt them. I will never again serve a government”. Tolstoy poses the problem of the political system. The relay of politicians passing review is mere theatre. The centrally led state is like a poorly constructed machine. No matter how good the intentions of those operating it, the machine cannot function properly.

The philosopher Rudolf Steiner also argued that a centrally-led state apparatus has a detrimental effect and predicted that if these states united in “supranational” organisations, such as the League of Nations (the forerunner of the UN), it would lead to a social disaster of global proportions. Steiner described democracy as a “screen” behind which real power is hidden, outwardly democratic, but behind the scenes despotic.

Like de Tocqueville, Steiner believed that this despotism was a knock-on effect of materialism. Steiner was referring to the denial of the spiritual world. When one denies the spiritual world, one naturally wants to solve everything with materialism. As an example, Steiner cited the positivism of the French philosopher Auguste Comte. According to positivism, everything about man and society can be explained according to physical (material) scientific laws. It follows that all social life would be calculable and predictable. This materialistic worldview has led state governments to be primarily concerned with calculation and planning. Guidance does not come from social life itself, but people are expected to conform to policy programmes based on statistics and analysis.

In response to the social issues of our time, Steiner proposed the idea of “social triarticulation”. This is a form of cooperation that seeks to (re)organise social life into three autonomous “spheres of life”. Briefly: according to anthroposophy, three spheres can be distinguished in society. Cultural life, to which, among other things, education and religion belong and in which people must be free. The law (politics, justice), in which every human being has equal rights. And finally the economy, which concerns the production, circulation and consumption of goods (commodities and services). Within the economy, the focus is on cooperation between people. These areas of life are distinguishable but not separable. They are in constant interaction with each other, as human beings are part of the three spheres. The areas are autonomous, but interconnected. Since the areas are autonomous, they function best when they have their own governance.

If, for example, the economy dominates jurisdiction, this can lead to the rights of individuals being compromised. The symptoms of this phenomenon are evident in today's economy. Politics and law are powerless, and in many cases unwilling to safeguard human rights. Rudolf Steiner was not entirely against the idea of a state, as long as it was limited to conditions that could be considered universal. For example, the state could regulate safe working conditions. Within the preconditions, however, communities should be largely autonomous. Steiner saw the economy in particular as an area that should not be controlled from above. Issues such as the creation of money and the use of capital should be shaped from concrete (local) practice. According to Rudolf Steiner, this can only be organised effectively by associations in which investors, producers and consumers are represented.

It is clear that there is no shortage of ideas today. The question remains how to deal with them. Which road to follow? What is at least clear is that the political road will not do. The system has enough resources to ensure that real change will never happen. What is needed then, revolution? Almost all revolutions in history have been hijacked, and it is revolutions that have set us up with fake democracies. Real change can only happen “from below, from within and together”. Starting with yourselves, you will only participate in an initiative when it is included as a personal conviction. This requires people to be well informed, something Plato already described as a basic prerequisite for a healthy society.

Ultimately, of course, we must do this together. Cooperation is only possible if there is a strong relationship of mutual trust. This requires a common background, as well as control over things like education, justice, trade and the monetary system. This does not mean that communities will isolate themselves; on the contrary, trade works efficiently when mutual agreements can be made.

The criticism often heard levelled at these kinds of proposals is that they are unrealistic. However, it is unrealistic to think that humanity can go on like this for much longer. Society is in a downward spiral. Not everyone realises this. Society is still “spinning”, but like a flywheel whose driving force has long since failed. There will come a time, probably not far in the future, when the wheel will have to be changed, no matter what. If we do not want to end up in an extremely violent dystopia, we will have to act.

---

---

What follows is my English translation of the second article by Comidad, originally in Italian, published first on Comidad.org on 8th August and then on ComeDonChisciotte.org on 14th August 2024. (All emphasis mine).
P.S.: Do not be fooled by the title! You will understand it while reading the article.

TONY BLINKEN IS MORE INTERESTING AS A TRANS

Hard times for the cosmic pessimists who persist in denying the existence of progress. Once upon a time, to indicate an empty argument, one used to say: “dispute over the sex of angels”; today, however, one disputes over the sex of boxers. The quantum leap (the “qualitativer sprung”, in Hegel's words) could not be more promising. However, never underestimate the futility, let alone the diatribe between identitarians and trans-identitarians. Some will remember Secretary of State Antony Blinken's strum last May in a Ukrainian club; Blinken used the title of a Neil Young song to make a harangue about the free world. Indeed, freedom is important, especially the freedom to plunder public money; an art Blinken is good at.

With his fish-in-a-barrel expression that understands nothing and notices nothing, Blinken is often underestimated and despised. Yet the character has shown that he knows what he wants. When President Obama passed spot legislation to make his audience believe he wanted to limit the power of lobbyists in Washington by forcing them to declare who they worked for, Blinken resorted to a simple semantic trick. In 2017, together with other diplomats, he founded his own lobbying firm, but, in order to circumvent that law that was meant to be circumvented, he called it an advisory firm. Thus, West Exec Advisors was born. As a consulting firm, it was not required to disclose the identity of its clients. Blinken proudly displays on his official CV his multi-talented past between private management and his role as a State Department diplomat. The same person can pass the revolving door between public and private countless times.

Identity is important; so much that sometimes it is not appropriate to declare it officially, even if it is an open secret, as in the case of Blinken's clients, who are the usual multinational weapons, high-tech and finance corporations parasitizing the defence budget. This is all thanks to a confessed trans-identitarian like Antony Blinken, who in fact boasts of his dual identity: he is a civil servant, a secretary of state, i.e. a foreign minister; but he is also the manager of a private business company, from which he has temporarily suspended himself, because we are told that this way he is sure to avoid conflicts of interest.

West Exec does international consulting and also promotes Israeli defence and security companies. Having become Secretary of State, Blinken has obviously forgotten his former life as a private businessman and acts exclusively to protect public interests. On the other hand, Blinken has a double identity, or even a double personality, and perhaps one does not remember what the other does. In his travels abroad, Blinken can therefore happily deal with this and that, business and politics; anyway, his two personalities lead separate lives and are perhaps unaware of each other. After all, it would not be fair to deny Blinken what is allowed to Superman and Clark Kent.

In a publicity brochure for his company, Blinken stated: “West Exec's consultants have worked together with the highest levels of government, managing and anticipating the impact of international crises on decision-making: we can provide the same insights and strategies to business leaders around the world”. The brochure could not have been clearer: by keeping their foot in the door, Blinken and associates can “anticipate” international tense situations, as they themselves will provoke them, in order to create business opportunities for their clients. Corruption and conflict of interest are sold as a “competence”; and indeed, robbing the taxpayer is also a competence. Perhaps it is no coincidence that as Secretary of State Blinken has never helped to solve, or even alleviate, any international crisis; if anything, he has helped to aggravate it.

Conspiracy theories were based on the naive assumption that there is a legal-rational authority called the state, which can only be circumvented through manipulation from the outside; whereas it turns out that legal and illegal are complementary to the functioning of the kleptocracy. On the other hand, the kleptocrats have their own public relations people who produce dystopian affabulation so as to wrap legalised theft in a halo of social engineering. “Forbes” devoted a detailed article to the riches Blinken has been able to amass through his status as a spokesman between public office and private business. There is nothing to hide because it is all legal (or legalised), but the excessive evidence gives rise to underestimation.

Since all is well known, the establishment press also reported on the trans-identitarian status of the Biden administration. The Washington Post published a well-documented article on the occupation of the State Department by West Exec business attorneys, and this just as Biden took office. The intermingling of politics and business and the conflicts of interest did not arise today, yesterday or the day before. The “qualitativer sprung” lies in the fact that legalised and institutionalised corruption is currently being flaunted and publicised in order to expand the client base.

At this point, to call the US a banana republic would be an understatement and even a compliment. We are, in fact, facing a self-confessed and self-celebrated kleptocracy. However, the trans-identitarian syndrome also affects the editors of the “Washington Post”. Indeed, perhaps they are even transiting into parallel universes, in which the United States is a democracy and a rule of law and can therefore afford to stand on the pulpit and give Maduro lessons in legality.

---