Feed on



‘Vind je het niet opmerkelijk dat al de (onzalige) zaken waarmee we nu hebben te maken, al jaren geleden waren voorzien en daarna intelligent zijn geanalyseerd? Het “democratische systeem” lijkt op dezelfde wijze in elkaar gestoken als “ze” met de oprichting van de EU en later de euro hebben gedaan: de systeemfouten zijn ingebouwd. En toch doen die zelfbenoemde- managers en manipulators precies dat, wat ze niet zouden moeten doen.’

–        ‘ Wat ze niet zouden moeten doen, indien ze het algemeen belang op het oog zouden hebben (gehad). Quod non. Dat is de grote makke. En het hóeft helemaal niet. Neem nou dat afschaffen van de mogelijkheden referenda op te tuigen. Dat had helemaal niet gehoeven; je had de burger juist moeten opvoeden met en vertrouwd maken met het gebruik van referenda. Vandaar dat Lindsay zegt: “Social justice can then … only be secured by revolutionary, that is, non-democratic methods.” Die kant gaan we toch op? Wat maakt het bijvoorbeeld uit op welke politieke partij je stemt? Ze doen aan ordinaire politieke kartel-vorming. Hoeveel mensen die het over “kartelpartijen” hebben, zouden weten dat Peter Mair & Richard Katz dat concept hebben gemunt?’

‘ Peter Mair heeft een tijd in Nederland (Leiden) gedoceerd, dus men zou in Nederland moeten weten dat hij het al over kartelpartijen had. Deze (oude) politieke wetenschappers schreven zonder meel in de mond en zeiden waar het op staat. In bijna alle “moderne” en “postmoderne” tekstboeken van tegenwoordig wordt hoogdravend en omfloerst gezwateld, waarbij de schrijvers tig slagen om de arm houden. Het effect is dat alle malfunctioneren wordt verdoezeld en dat we straks van een koude kermis thuis komen.’

–        ‘ Je hoeft maar naar de naargeestige farce in de Oekraïne te kijken om te zien wat ons staat te wachten. Die negorij wordt compleet vernietigd, tienduizenden mensen worden door de gehaktmolen gedraaid en miljoenen worden ontheemd. Toch laten we halvegare fanatici (die zogenaamd democratisch zijn gekozen) hun gang gaan. Bizar.

’ Toch zit het allemaal tamelijk simpel in elkaar, als je naar de fundamentele, samenstellende (constituerende), elementen kijkt. Neem nou godsdienst, religie, geloof, en lees bij Lindsay: “It seems also to be showing that religion is the one force which can put up an effective opposition to it.” Wat hebben “ze” gedaan? Heel simpel “het Klimaat” tot godsdient benoemd. Dat werkt perfect. Putin vervult – samen met Xi – de rol van Satan. Nou, wat wil je nog meer? Een kinderhand is gauw gevuld hoor.’

–        ‘ Je zou een nieuwe “tweedeling” kunnen bedenken: de religieuze moslim aanbidt Allah en lijkt tot nogtoe vrij immuun tegen de woke- en gendergekte, terwijl de seculiere neocon/Westerling het Klimaat en Verdienmodellen in de plaats van God heeft gesteld. En zo sudderen we verder, blind als mollen.’

‘ Ook toevallig: “Talpa” is het Latijnse woord voor mol en Talpa geeft ons heden ons dagelijkse brood in de vorm van leeg “amusement”. Zo is de cirkel rond.’



Geredigeerd citaat uit Schattschneider (2009:13,14; vet toegevoegd): Predemocratic philosophers were a little vague about the details of the operation of the system but took it for granted that the sovereign will of the people would be translated into governmental action more or less automatically and inevitably just as the owner of a piece of property might be expected to administer it in his own interest. Even when it was realized that some system of representation would be necessary, no immovable obstacles to the full and precise expression of the popular will in the government were foreseen. The sovereign elector was expected to produce the most enormous effect in government simply by voting. The fact that this assumption involves a colossal oversimplification of the democratic process was not and probably could not have been understood by the predemocratic theorists. They made the very natural mistake of underestimating the difficulties arising from the numbers, preoccupation, immobility, and indifference of the people.
Everyone took it for granted that the people themselves would assume responsibility for the expression of their own will as a matter of course without so much as dreaming of the intervention of syndicates of self-appointed political managers and manipulators who for reasons of their own might organize the electorate and channelize the expression of the popular will.
This is the great omission in the theory of democracy formulated by the classical philosophers who dealt exclusively with imaginary democracies. There was no logical process by which these philosophers could have derived modern political parties from the classical concepts of popular sovereignty.

The gap in the theory of democracy left by the predemocratic philosophers has never been closed. So certain were the philosophers that the people would in fact use their new powers that the whole controversy has been concentrated on the competence of the masses to direct public affairs. At this point oceans of ink have been wasted.



Geredigeerd citaat uit Lindsay (1967 pagina 2,3,4; vet toegevoegd) The Essentials of Democracy:

Hobbes invented the Economic Man and the individualism which goes with that conception, and in his conception of human nature he was largely influenced by his desire to model politics and social theory on the methods of the newly invented physical sciences.

Hobbes himself was acute enough to see that if men are really isolated, equipollent units, united only by relations external to their nature, they can only be held together by a power external to them. He had no illusions that such men could make a working democracy. He wanted Hitler and a totalitarian state.

The times we are living in are in many ways behind this ‘scientific’ individualism. Not only is the theoretical desire to treat society in terms of the physical sciences as strong as it has ever been. There are much more potent practical forces working in the same direction. The tendency of mass production is to smooth out differences between individuals, to have little use for special craftsmanship, to create a civilization of men and women living the same sort of lives, wearing the same sort of clothes, reading the same mass-produced reading matter and enjoying the same amusements.

[M]ass production has evolved a thoroughly non-democratic type of organization, one in which planning and control are centralized in a few hands — where the fundamental distinction in society is between the few who control and plan, and the many who are controlled and planned. The influence of this model of ‘scientific’ business administration on the new totalitarian government is plain enough. It is equally plain that these superior beings who are going or who think they are going to have the fun of planning will have little use for the eccentricities and personal views or idiosyncracies which make the mass of men less ready to fit into theit scheme of planning. Toleration will seem a mischievous absurdity, any independent organization of will a dangerous nuisance, religious minorities a crime against their plans and therefore against the state. They will use all the powers of mass propaganda to back the forces which are already tending to make men more alike. The only religion they will tolerate is devotion to the plan.

There is a remarkable prophetic vision of this outcome of ‘scientific’ individualism in Nietzsche’s account of ‘the last man’ in the introduction to Also sprach Zarathustra and a recent elaboration of the same theme in Mr. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Hitler’s Germany has shown that such visions ate not neatly so much only a bad dream as we most of us imagined.
It seems also to be showing that religion is the one force which can put up an effective opposition to it.

If democracy and the totalitarian state are at fundamental odds, does this mean that democracy is as incompatible with socialism as it is with Fascism or National Socialism? The economic crisis has apparently made some Socialists think so. Their argument is that when things are going well with capitalism and there is a surplus to be spared, not very much pressure ot common regulation is necessary to get from the employing classes such concessions as will content the employed classes; but when the economic machine breaks down, the class war that is always latent in capitalism breaks out undisguised and the basis of democracy disappears.

Social justice can then on this view only be secured by revolutionary, that is, non-democratic methods. This is only to say that in our modern industrial system class interests are stronger than common interests and that capitalism so perverts our democratic institutions that nothing fundamentally opposed to the interests of the propertied classes can be carried through constitutionally. Of such statements there can be neither proof nor refutation. Democracy, depends upon men’s sense of their common interests prevailing over their sectional interests. There is no a priori reason why they always should or why at a crisis they should not. That depends on the extent to which the community has a common life, and that it never has completely.








Comments are closed.

Copy Protected by Tech Tips's CopyProtect Wordpress Blogs.