Friday, March 12, 2010

Speaking Of Democracy

Nothing else exposes the assault on language like the multiple definitions of democracy. In some cases this assault has been unintentional and merely a sign of our language unable to keep up with thought processes and other changes within society. In other cases it may be a direct assault to confuse questioning people and skeptics.

Below I will outline some definitions as I understand them. I will put other words which are poorly defined in quotes to help expose the confusing nature of our language around these political issues to further expose the uselessness of our language in discussing anything regarding politics.

(1) The common definition of democracy is the right to vote. As the State propagandists were showing how we were converting Afghanistan to democracy the voting activities of Afghan "citizens" were shown on the "news". Of course "citizens" of Russia were allowed to vote (for Stalin).

(2) The political definition of democracy is the will of the masses. This is the most widely understood definition and is used to expose the dangers of democracy- that is that rule by the masses can devolve into tyranny against small groups. This is the reason why America (some say the "United States") is a "republic" (actually re-public) according to many patriots. In reality, America is a Republic, United States is a privately owned and operated bankrupt corporation that parades itself as a country as is in itself fascist and communist in nature.

(3) The philosophical definition of democracy has three components: Happiness (the right of "citizens" to persue what makes them "happy"), Equality - that is that all "persons" are considered to have equal rights before the "law" and Liberty - to pursue ones interest provided those interests do not interfere with the rights and freedoms of others. This comes from "After The Deluge" by Leonard Woolf who treats the subject in great detail in this excellent and well known book on communal psychology.

(4) The commercial definition of democracy is emerging through the freeman / redemption movement as the government of the "citizens" who are subject to bankster will through voluntary slavery made possible through the 1933 bankruptcy in which the United States took over America. (In reality this happened just after the civil war when America (the South) went bankrupt fighting the English Crown (The North)).

There are more than definitions than this, I am sure.

Platos Republic describes democracy as we see it now, rule by the "bourgeois" (people that control politics with wealth and ownership of means of production [Marx]) classes, corruption and insider politics that eventually devolves into despotism. Plato believed that the highest form of government was a Timocracy, a system where honor rather than power or wealth would be the goal of citizens. Plato believed this would devolve into rule by a philosopher king and this system if not carefully guarded would itself devolve into an oligarchy. The oligarchy (bloodline rule) would devolve into a democracy. Plato thought that a philosopher king would be the best system, where kings would be chosen from the schools with the criteria of the student that displayed the best characteristics of temperance, courage and wisdom which lead to justice.

6 comments:

Penny said...

the multiple meanings of democracy are not a mistake.
I think it is intentional.
Really, how hard is it to define a word?

Democracy to my mind is

Rule by and at the behest of a well informed citizenry.


Well informed is crucial, because, well informed, thoughtful people will not stomp on the rights of minorities.

Doug Plumb said...

The US citizens were, between 1750 and after 1900, the most educated people in the world.

I think that bringing in minorities to the USA was part of its destruction, not because minorities are inferiour but for the following reasons:

USA and England destroyed other countries, and these people had a place to go rather than stand and fight.

When people of different cultures mix, it dilutes and destroys culture. Culture is partly justice and when peoples justice system gets destroyed they go to the monster for justice (BAR / courts).

I think that Africa should be Africa, China should be China, etc. We western citizens have been brainwashed into thinking we have a better way and that we should be meddling in the affairs of others.

Iran used to be Persia, it changed its name to Iran due to Western influence. Iran means Aryan in Farsi.(I think that was in the Gatto interview)

Western culture is very young and too young to last. Western influence on other nations is like a child with a gun ordering adults what to do.

The early Americans did not think Chinese or Blacks were inferiour, they were angry because they saw what multiculturalism would do to their country.

I don't think they were so cruel as displayed in TV movies and corporate education.

slozo said...

The US is definitely not a version of Plato's Republic, sorry - I have actually read that book.

There are no 'philosopher kings' class, and you'd really have to stretch it / read between the lines quite a bit to transfer that group into the corpocracy power structure. And most importantly, if I remember correctly, Plato's Republic (or should I say, some guys who say this is what Plato taught us is his ideal republic) had the rulers as a group of people only bred to rule, and ruling as a group.

I see where you make the analogy and connections, but the corporate angle, the money angle, and a few other things really don't fit.

Obviously I agree with you on the USA not being a democracy in any sense of the word though.

Doug Plumb said...

I didn't say that the US is an example of Plato's philosopher king, I said that Plato's explanation of democracy describes the USA.

Doug Plumb said...

You are right about the rulers and Platos Republic, he did say there would be a ruler class. I'm not sure if this would have a king or not. The term "philosopher king" gets used a lot in reference to this book.

The idea is the same whether rule is by one king or by a class - the end goal is justice, rather than efficiency as in our existing system.

slozo said...

Sorry Doug - misread your comment about Plato and democracy.

From what I remember, no king, but a ruler class developed from a grassroots level of cultivating sharp young minds and bodies - the real intellectuals would also be physically superior as well. Then, they would spend all their time training and studying, and be fit to rule us plebes only good enough for heavy labour or whatnot. The ruling group had strict term lengths, and later became like a judge or something . . .oh, and the cultivation of these perfect philosopher kings (superhumans, really) was also helped by infanticide.

It is interesting stuff though, highly recommended as a good read now that I remember it.

Followers

About Me

My photo
Author of "Power Outage", available on Smashwords. I am a 50 year old free market libertarian who has had the time to read and consider the nature of globalism and the big machine that is surrounding us. I have participated in politics by running at the Fed level and debated Agenda 21 and 9-11 truth in front of large audiences. My background is in engineering and software creation. My business has provided me with significant time and freedom to learn the truth about the world around us. My goal is to expose Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development and Cultural Marxism.