The alarming background of a Dogma

Dear readers, please do not just skim over the upcoming statements(!), as this topic is far too important for that. If we truly want to make a positive change in the world, we need to start understanding a few things about the so called "Democracy" we claim to defend in endless wars. What are we really defending here?

Not too long ago, many even intelligent people believed in the dichotomy of communism versus capitalism, and that the world is either communist or capitalist. Today, we know that that the medium-term economic efficiency (in a materialistic definition) communist planned economies are far worse compared to the so-called free-market economies, both systems lead to the impoverishment of the majority, to dramatic environmental degradation, and the erosion of cultural identities.

Is this devastating outcome really because of the differences between these systems? Or could the real issue lie in something fundamental that almost all political leaders keep talking about:

Democracy?!?

Unfortunately, people have been kept in this artificial "duality" for generations:

The opposite of Democracy is Dictatorship!

Our education system has taught us to only think in black and white: "If you are not my friend, you must be my enemy".

With this simple worldview, the people can be misled. This black-and-white thinking keeps billions of people in the dark, uninformed and unable to make informed decisions that not only have an effect on their lives, but of others, too.

If we look at our current "modern" world with soberly, with a clear mind, and allow ourselves to ask questions that aren’t "politically correct", we might quickly start to see that a special kind of Dictatorship is hiding behind what we call "Democracy".

The closer I looked, trying to understand our current system that we call "Democracy", the more I realized that "fascism" is hiding under the guise of "anti-fascism". It became clear to me how intelligently designed this world order is. But this world order only benefits a small group of people. They hide their true intentions behind the opposite of what they claim to stand for.

George Orwell has warned us about this in his book "1984".

What does Democracy actually mean?

The term "Democracy" comes from ancient Greek, where "Demos" means something like "village". In these ancient times, the smallest political unit was called a "Deme," which was supposed to be about citizens governing themselves. But who was actually considered a "citizen"? Citizens were not the entire population per se, but instead a small group of people representing the political organ of the Demos. The vast majority were excluded from governance - they simply had no say. We should also examine the word "people" more closely. It referred to a group of free, combat-capable men who were allowed to carry weapons. These two groups, citizens and people, likely made up no more than 5-15% of the entire village population. The remaining at least 85% "unfree" were forbidden from influencing political affairs. This original form of "aristocracy" did not involve elections, as they were seen as undemocratic. Instead, there was an alternating political participation of all citizens, so everyone "got their turn."

This public sphere of democracy was opposed by the private sphere of the subjects, labelled with the word "Idios." In idealization of the "democratic elite", the modern word "idiots" likely originated, referring to the working class that had to toil for the "ruling Deme" through hard work and household chores, leaving them no time or leisure to question this injustice.

The Romans also distinguished between "Res Privata" (referring to the free leadership class) and "Res Publica" (the dependent lower class), separating residents by status. In today's context, we can draw certain parallels if we consider private corporations as the power holder of the systems (including politicians) and, on the other side, the serving or working class of subjects "kept" within a republic.

You might think that this is all "a bit far-fetched" because even a fact-based critique of the sacred cow "Democracy" is usually met with extreme opposition.

We are repeatedly told that Democracy represents a kind of "majority society," but this is far from the truth. For instance, the majority of Europeans did not want the EU currency "Euro", or were against participation in the Afghan war. Or the majority of the U.S citizens oppose the idea of funding wars in foreign countries that are known for their corruption, etc. But the "democratic" leadership obviously does not care what the people want. They simply decide against the will of the people while silencing them with scare-tactics. Think of the many stories we are being told to believe: Whether they are called terror threats, climate catastrophes, defending the democracy, or pandemics. All are nothing but proven methods of mass-deceit to "soften up" the subjects.

Cicero once said:

"There is no other form of government to which I would rather withhold the title of commonwealth than one in which everything is subject to the power of majorities. Such an assembly is as certainly a tyrant, for there is nothing more terrifying than that monster which falsely assumes the name and appearance of the people."

What Cicero is saying here is that the political system we call "Democracy" is nothing but a collection pool of tyrannical individuals who only claim to represent the will of the majority. The very idea of "the will of the majority" is the problem. Tyrants have an easy game to hide behind this wonderfully sounding idea.

The problem is that today's subjects have to work so hard for the "Deme" that they don't even have time to read the old scholars, and learn about the very things that directly impacts their lives.

In "ancient" Greek (approx. 500 to 300 BC), in order to participate in the "Democracy", any man could apply to participate in politics if he met certain criteria. During this ancient period, the admission criteria were very strict. One had to be at least 18 years old, from Athens, and prove absolute independence. All citizens (including members of the "Deme") could at any time establish an "investigative committee" if there was suspicion that the applicant had not supported his Athenian parents at some point or had been cowardly in war.

I want to clarify again that this procedure was not about applying for an office but merely about participating in Democracy, meaning having the right to ensure that political assemblies ran according to the rules. If one wanted to speak to the chairman of these assemblies, it was almost always possible. On average, every second citizen served as (honorary) chairman at some point in their life.

In this ancient Greek Democracy, there was no permanent army either. In times of war, the residents were immediately available to defend the homeland (naturally without pay). Representatives of the citizens' assembly ("House of Representatives") who made significant mistakes faced severe consequences. If a law was passed based on a proposed a change by a representative, the "initiator" was personally held accountable for life if this innovation proved to be disadvantageous to the residents in practice. In extreme cases, even execution could occur.

Thinking about our current "legal mess," there probably be no representatives left if we followed the same approach.

Plato summed it up:

"I see the downfall of any state coming where the law does not govern the ruler, but the ruler governs the law."

From these perspectives, one can describe our current social form as the opposite of what was meant by "Democracy." A better word to describe our current system would be "Democratorship", a combination of the two words "Democracy" and "Dictatorship". This term conveys the idea of a political system that has elements of both democratic practices and dictatorial control.

Great thinkers and philosophers clearly spoke out against democratic order, evidently recognizing it as the basis for tyranny.

A democracy with an expiration date?

This certainly is food for thought. Here, vast gates open for reflection. The critique aims to identify parallels between dictatorship by a single person, a small group of powerful (oligarchy), and tyranny by the people themselves (democracy).

The game is simple: "Whoever controls the system, benefits, no matter what form of power it is."

Everything seems to repeat itself. The Roman empire fell due to the consumption of its own resources. Back then, it started with an inflation of the government itself, an incredible increase in government officials, politicians, and similar state organs. Whether in ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, or the United States of America, eventually, a group emerges in Democracy focused on influencing or manipulating the masses to keep their power. The real people, the subjects slaving away to finance this system, which turned into an end in itself, eventually become irrelevant.

The "demotes" (a.k.a. "elites") rule over the "idiots"!

These connections can be quickly grasped by reasonably enlightened minds, triggering a moral component, namely no longer being able to support democracy's mechanism of oppression. When the best response to criticism of the "dogmatists" of our global "democratic governments" is:

Democracy is not 100% fair, but I don't know a better system"

it is proof that we don't have the brightest minds in politics but instead intellectually and morally bankrupt individuals. Perhaps one should really look back to the ancient philosophers because this realization has been described many times.

The old Roman "Cato" warned against this, loudly railing into the mob that dragged him from the podium when he was replaced by "Caesar":

"You silence those superior to you, only to surrender yourselves to the rule of one!"

The rest is well-known history, we all know the further course of Rome's downfall.

Do we see similarities here with today's "democratic order"?

The mass hysteria during the Obama election clearly showed in which stage of manipulation the inhabitants of this mostly democratic planet are. People crying on election day. When asked what Mr. Obama actually did better than i.e., Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton, there's no real answer, just empty words, shrugs and the statement: "Obama is likable", or "Yes we can!". To enthuse millions with such a cheap slogan can really be described as adventurous.

The case of Donald Trump is no exception. People who now opposed him during the election time 2016 used to love him, work with him, supporting everything he did. Journalists were fighting over interview slots with him. But something strange happened during the election time, and we saw how the masses started to oppose him, to the point of some people wanting his death. Media outlets were full of negative stories about Donald Trump (which later have turned out to be nothing but fabricated). Journalists tried their hardest to find anything they could to discredit Donald Trump. The people were bombarded with negative headlines in the news paper, on TV, on the radio, everywhere you looked. And the people? They bought into it, believing any "gossip" they were presented. They were basically made to feel betrayed by Trump.

This is the power of Journalism. The media can make or break people.

The U.S. Founding Fathers knew about the inherent path to tyranny within the democratic systems. They were all anti-democrats! This had nothing to do with bad intentions but with the studied experiences of history. They were clearly of the opinion that the United States should not degenerate into a democracy, which was also set down in writing. Instead, they preferred a Republic governed by a few select men of particular merit, whose task was to serve the people.

When President Andrew Jackson introduced universal suffrage within a democracy, it led to corruption through job promises, and the bureaucratic system began to emerge. The great sociologist Max Weber described this "order" as dilettante-administration by prey-politicians (also known as career-politicians).

The French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville said on this:

"The president no longer governs in the interest of the state but in that of his re-election; he prostitutes himself before humanity, and instead of resisting their whims as it would be his duty, he often lets himself be driven by their caprices."

We can look around and clearly see that leaders of the so called democratic order aim for re-election, not working in the interest of the people, catering to whims.

Tocqueville exposed the ballot mechanism as the basis for corruption and intrigue!

Voting every four years, playing "Democracy" for one day to chose a new leaders does not make us personally responsible for any resulting actions impacting all our lives. Not at all! On the contrary. The German expression for "casting your vote" literally translated means "to give away your voice". You cannot articulate it more clearly.

You give away your voice to a stranger to speak and act on your behalf!

This raises the infamous question whether or not you are allowed to complain when you did not vote, or "give away your voice".

After elections, the tyranny continues, regardless of who sits in the supposed seat of power. The tragedy of this system is that one can no longer recognize a natural person as a tyrant. It is the established institution called the "democratic state" that is the tyrant. The very institution which the people have been indoctrinated to believe they are themselves.

The political party system in republics further supports this false assumption. It's easier to chase a bad king out of the palace than a bad "democratic elite" for which one is supposedly responsible because they were "elected." But here lies the error!

Government depends on government-dependent servants.

How free and independent are our elections when too many depend on government jobs or benefits? A large portion of the wage earners are civil servants or otherwise employed in state enterprises, receiving their income from the tax budget. Another significant number of people have also become dependent on the system, whether through educational measures (i.e. student loan), pensions, or other social benefits (i.e., . Altogether, often more than half of all inhabitants of a democratic country are "trapped" in this form of dependency.

Given this opportunity, if we look at a voter turnout of approximately 50% of eligible voters (about 43% in the last European election), it quickly becomes clear that leading politicians are essentially "elected" by those dependent on the state.

Governments are therefore controlled by those they employ: Their own state-dependent employees that form the bureaucratic bubble!

Interestingly, most people instinctively feel this madness, provided that media influence hasn't clouded their minds too much. "We need to choose the lesser evil," says the all-encompassing cliché, or "there's nothing you can do against those at the top."

What does this have to do with the people as sovereign?

Democracy has degenerated into a "Religion" that no-one must ever question. A good portion of the general population seems to believe that the only alternative to this so called Democracy is supposedly a totalitarian, terrible societal form (Dictatorship), "which the history of the 20th century has taught us". A simple, factually incorrect but effective metaphor to lead a society slowly but surely into intellectual slavery.

To be reelected, politicians promise everything to the people, especially what they can never deliver.

Through the right to vote, subjects do not become citizens.

As democracy-loyal voters increasingly feel this systemic background, the global potential for aggression grows, which politicians (who act as representatives of the "Deme") can excellently use to initiate new wars by constructing enemy images.

Nothing will improve unless people start questioning the basic assumptions. Only then, they might rediscover fairer alternatives for coexistence, which are conveniently omitted from official literature. But that's material for another essay, which I (still) dare not approach.

In my view, besides the alternatives of money and land rights, which we will discuss in the future, there is still a lot more "homework" for us subjects to do in the sense of the Greek "Idios" to swim free...

Dear readers, I hope I've brought you closer to my question with this provocative text:
Democracy or tyranny, is there a difference?

I would like to close with a quote from Gustav Le Bon from 1895:

The masses never thirst for truth; they turn away from facts that displease them and prefer to deify error. He who understands how to deceive them will easily become their master. He who tries to enlighten them, always their victim...