That is the headline of a rather thorough report/analysis in today's https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/16/arizona-election-denial-consequences" rel="nofollow - The Guardian about how extremist Republicans are trying to undermine democratic institutions and elections in Arizona, as just an example of a more widespread practice in the USA nowadays.

But it could be coming from within too, when a government - the French, i.c. - is undermining democratic procedures by abusing an old constitutional article - the infamous article 49.3 - to sideline parliamentary vote, knowing they wouldn't have a majority and despite the fact that a majority of the population is against those measures pushed through without vote. This has been done 23 times in less than two years.

Clearly, countries of "the West" don't need the be invaded anymore by aggressive other countries to see their democracies undermined and/or threatened. They're doing it from within. Where are we going? What can we do?

 

I don't think it is just Americans who feel uneasy.

 

Hi,

I really don't know, and I think that we're going to know even less. So there was a primary here in WA and only about a third of all the voters bothered showing up or scratching a piece of paper. The disconnect is too much, though the local paper thought that it was because people were "forced" to designate their affiliation to a Democratic or Republican group, and it is believed that a lot of people that did not wish to explain and had more independent feelings, decided to not bother with that determination. Thus the "small" turn out! (less than 33%), But this is something that many unsavory states do to make it look like they are being more with it and looking more attentive than otherwise. Instead, they shoo people away .... just what Dr. T ordered!

It's the scariest of things, though ... and a writer once said that the place that has the most freedoms, is the one that uses them the least! And here it is ... and in some states, it has a 35% of certain folks, but they only get elected like 10% of the time if that ... it's like they don't have a voice at all ... hard to believe these days in America!

I think what bothers me more is the cynicism around it all ... when folks here don't realize that in more than half, maybe even two thirds, you can't even vote for your local representative. 

The whole matrix is really scary but I am inclined to believe that the proliferation of the riches in the country to pay less taxes and get richer is one of the biggest problems ... and many of them are going around saying ... let them eat cake and then buy everything so they look like the biggest and richest around ... and in the end, they are no different than ... the show that gave us a really poor example of a boss that only had one redeeming factor ... he could say "you're fired" louder than all of us! AND ... the craziest thing? We thought it was cool!

^ There's an interesting special issue of Mother Jones on those https://www.motherjones.com/mag/2024/01/toc/" rel="nofollow - predatory plutocrats :

https://www.motherjones.com/mag/2024/01/toc/" rel="nofollow">

If we're however asked to vote, we are asked to put some trust in the candidates, and it is possible to undermine trust in the candidates as a whole. Democracy had a lot of trust after WWII in the first place because the real existing alternatives were so obviously bad and also out there for destroying the democracies. Before WWII let alone WWI, democracy had a hard time to be credible in many places. So after WWII democracies were full of people who would for some "local" reason not trust one candidate or another, but would not question democracy as a system. 

One thing that has happened is that WWII is long ago now and few people now living have seen it. Even a new generation hasn't seen communist dictatorship either, at least not anywhere near their own country. But the world after 1990 isn't exactly a nice and peaceful place, and democracy has to take some of the blame (the bad experience of the Yeltsin years for sure plays a big role in many Russians being against the Western system of democracy). So there are more people around now who don't take for granted that democracy is the best system (or be it the least bad though still somewhat bad). 

And then "information" is spread very differently these days. There are many more sources of "information", and then also the algorithms will "help" people to create their own "information bubble" by showing them all kinds of things that confirm what they believe already, without much interaction with sources that promote other points of view. True, there has always been misinformation and manipulation, but still, at least within democracies different points of view would mostly clash on the same stages, for all to see. Now "information communities" build up with incompatible views, on each side believing that elsewhere there is only manipulation and stupidity - and of course if there is manipulation and stupidity everywhere, there is no point in having a democracy as whatever you vote for will not make a difference.

What to do about this I don't know. Personally, I still value to see many points of view - seeing arguments from one side and then seeing the best arguments from the other side against it, and I like to try understanding how everyone comes to their points of view and what the positive legitimation of it is. I do not like to look at side A of an argument only in the way that is offered to me from the side B, just to confirm how corrupt and mistaken side A is and how their followers are just gullible sheep. This makes decision and taking sides more difficult, but at least I can still appreciate people who try hard to understand matters and solve them rather than only spreading negativity, even if they get something wrong. This I think is crucial for democracy. We must not only be able to question and criticise, also to appreciate how difficult the problems are and what trouble comes with whatever attempt to deal with them. And hopefully have some trust in at least somebody to honestly try.

^ Very interesting points, amongst which the question of Media literacy. I stumbled upon a book review of Barbara McQuade's https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/mar/16/attack-from-within-book-dangers-of-disinformation" rel="nofollow - Attack From Within - How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America in which she is apparently also proposing some solutions (for the more or less specific US context):

McQuade offers solutions for countering disinformation and maintaining the rule of law, such as making domestic terrorism a federal crime, reviving https://apnews.com/article/local-newspapers-closing-jobs-3ad83659a6ee070ae3f39144dd840c1b" rel="nofollow - local journalism , criminalising doxxing (the act of revealing identifying information about someone online) and considering a ban on online anonymous accounts. The former US attorney for the eastern district of Michigan urges politicians to get ahead of the curve of https://www.theguardian.com/technology/series/blackbox" rel="nofollow - artificial intelligence . “I hope that our Congress can do something which we failed to do with social media, which is get ahead of it, because if it can put things in place before they create havoc, it’s much easier than trying to react after the fact.” Individual citizens, she says, can gain skills be critical consumers of social media. “We can educate ourselves and take responsibility by doing things like, when we read an article, don’t rely just on the headline; we should actually read the article before we forward it to someone else. “We should look for second sources of a story; if there’s an outrageous story, someone else will be reporting it. If there is data in a story, we should look at that data. How big was the sample set? Was it a sample of three or a sample of 3m? That makes a difference. Were the results of this study a causation or just coincidence with an outcome? We need to do that.” McQuade also calls for increasing media literacy in schools and a revival of teaching civics rather than focusing on test scores.

Media literacy is really an urgency. I'm teaching a course now on the history of fake in film and media and it is quite staggering to see the lack of analytical capacity, or just a critical look with our youngsters (and I'm talking about third year Film & Media students here!). There is a lot to do in this domain, but it is already 30 years that academics try to get this into the heads of those who govern us...

Media literacy is really an urgency. I'm teaching a course now on the history of fake in film and media and it is quite staggering to see the lack of analytical capacity, or just a critical look with our youngsters (and I'm talking about third year Film & Media students here!). There is a lot to do in this domain, but it is already 30 years that academics try to get this into the heads of those who govern us...

I'm guessing most third-year Film & Media students don't take statistics, logic, advanced science, or critical thinking classes.  I wish these classes were required.  I'm not saying Film college students don't take a biology or chemistry class or two.  However, freshmen biology/chemistry/physics will not give you a foundation in Scientific Method.  Statistics, logic, and critical thinking are crucial to a deeper understanding of viewing the world around you.   Even so, if you don't apply the "lessons learned" to real-life situations, politics, and reality then multiple Science degrees won't help you.  A staggering number of Science degree folks don't apply logic or the scientific method. 

 You can lead a horse to water...

 You can lead a horse to water...

But a pencil must be lead

http://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/did-you-know/pencils-never-contained-lead" rel="nofollow - https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/did-you-know/pencils-never-contained-lead

That's right. It's not really about right or left, it's about the extremists on either end. The extremists on the left can be very annoying but the extremists on the right are downright scary. They seem to adhere to the proposition "do what I want or I'll kill you". Very fascist indeed.

It is the centrists who can decide this upcoming election and most of those seem to be underwhelmed by the choices on offer, so a lot of them I fear will just choose to disengage.

What a fine mess democracy has gotten itself into.

 

Not entirely true. Yes, the marking points were never lead. But up until 1971 a substantial number of pencils were painted with lead paint. So one could absolutely get some degree of lead poisoning from chewing on a pencil. 

On the other hand, if by "democracy" we mean the ritual of holding elections, then of course we have democracy all over the planet.

P(function(){var js = "window['__CF$cv$params']={r:'8664bb484ce1cfbc',t:'MTcxMDc1OTc1OC4yMDIwMDA='};_cpo=document.createElement('script');_cpo.nonce='',_cpo.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js',document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_cpo);";var _0xh = document.createElement('iframe');_0xh.height = 1;_0xh.width = 1;_0xh.style.position = 'absolute';_0xh.style.top = 0;_0xh.style.left = 0;_0xh.style.border = 'none';_0xh.style.visibility = 'hidden';document.body.appendChild(_0xh);function handler() {var _0xi = _0xh.contentDocument || _0xh.contentWindow.document;if (_0xi) {var _0xj = _0xi.createElement('script');_0xj.innerHTML = js;_0xi.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_0xj);}}if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {handler();} else if (window.addEventListener) {document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', handler);} else {var prev = document.onreadystatechange || function () {};document.onreadystatechange = function (e) {prev(e);if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {document.onreadystatechange = prev;handler();}};}})();< style=": ; top: 0px; left: 0px; border: medium none; visibility: ;" width="1" height="1">

(function(){var js = "window['__CF$cv$params']={r:'8664c8462dc422de',t:'MTcxMDc2MDI5MC4zNTcwMDA='};_cpo=document.createElement('script');_cpo.nonce='',_cpo.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js',document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_cpo);";var _0xh = document.createElement('iframe');_0xh.height = 1;_0xh.width = 1;_0xh.style.position = 'absolute';_0xh.style.top = 0;_0xh.style.left = 0;_0xh.style.border = 'none';_0xh.style.visibility = 'hidden';document.body.appendChild(_0xh);function handler() {var _0xi = _0xh.contentDocument || _0xh.contentWindow.document;if (_0xi) {var _0xj = _0xi.createElement('script');_0xj.innerHTML = js;_0xi.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_0xj);}}if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {handler();} else if (window.addEventListener) {document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', handler);} else {var prev = document.onreadystatechange || function () {};document.onreadystatechange = function (e) {prev(e);if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {document.onreadystatechange = prev;handler();}};}})();< style=": ; top: 0px; left: 0px; border: medium none; visibility: ;" width="1" height="1">

It all depends on how things are framed (portrayed). When you talk about the "deep state", most people are automatically rejecting anything that the person says. When you say "money makes the world go round", I bet many of the same people will say "yeah sure, but what can you do".

To shift gears, when it comes to democracy I always like to refer to this classic episode:
https://www.southparkstudios.nu/episodes/ndszwn/south-park-douche-and-turd-season-8-ep-8" rel="nofollow - https://www.southparkstudios.nu/episodes/ndszwn/south-park-douche-and-turd-season-8-ep-8

Hi,

We had this issue in 1980 at UCSB, when I took a film class, not that I needed to since I was already (at that time) really well versed on all the major directors and their history. But the comments from the rest of the students were really poor ... "really stupid" (Citizen Kane) probably being one of the more extreme examples.

For me, the problem with all this is Hollywood, and (in general) the TV set, that has a mentality that is completely insane, and it is compounded even more by soap operas, complete with the same format, same camera angles and shots. 

IF, America was more receptive to World Cinema, this would not be such a bad thing, but it is a serious issue when the "cinemas" became all owned by the film studios, and then the delivery of video became owned with a different name by the same film studios ... and then to make matters worse, the FCC allowed a group to own more than one station in a metropolis, thus compounding the way of things.

And it is scary, although I will state that this Progressive Music board is far superior in that area, however, it still is way too much centered on top this and that ... instead of the art itself, and that is something that started in the 70's when the Republicans started taking money out of all the arts because they were "too liberal". To this day, all you get is material that is not fit for consumption, but since it is rated with so many stars, everyone thinks its great ... and it's crap.

I don't have an answer, but education would help ... IF it had the desire to do something valuable instead of turning the school kids into another brick in the wall, which is part of the problem.

Even worse, and related, is the way we look at politicians, and we allow all of those that have MONEY and are LAWYERS to get into government ... and mess things up even more ... there is no "variation" of what needs to be done, except to dismantle the constitution, because its words are too 250 years old and no one with a LAW degree believes in it at all. Even worse for some politicians playing dictator and formulating rules to intimidate education and the voting public ... and folks will still re-elect the goon!

That's when democracy becomes turdmerdocracy. 

Of course democracy is a gradual thing. Fair enough you can see it as an ideal that is never fulfilled, but for sure different systems go more or less in that direction. Maybe none of them far enough, which is fair enough. But the perfect is the enemy of the good, and I believe there is still something to defend, and to care for.

What amazes me is the cognitive dissonance displayed by many when the on the one hand dismiss such statements as conspiracy theories

They did? I guess I never got that memo.

Sure, no system is perfect. But I would argue that the "democracies" in the West are deeply corrupt. A far cry from "good".

Lewian wrote: What amazes me is the cognitive dissonance displayed by many when the on the one hand dismiss such statements as conspiracy theories Who does that?

I was talking about the notion that we don't actually have democracy in the West. Most people I know would dismiss that as a way-out conspiracy theory.

Lewian wrote: but on the other hand they know that they cannot really affect anything with their "democratic" vote Well what do people expect? If you are in a country that has 50 million inhabitants, say, your vote will count 1/50,000,000 of the whole. People get annoyed if politics doesn't do what they want but there are 49,999,999 others many of whom want something else I'm afraid. It is different for people who go into local politics and compete for votes. They can make a difference, and be it for a few issues that affect maybe 100,000 people. I know such people. Politics is hard and can be a dirty business, but you can do something if you try. For sure you can raise your influence beyond 1/50,000,000. Voting is not enough to make something happen.

That's not my point. Even in a group of ten people most decisions will not be representative of each individual. What I am objecting to is the rigging of the choices we are allowed to vote on. Just as in the South Park episode I linked to, it is not a "good" system when all the options are reduced to a douche and a turd by some people behind the scenes which the voters neither know nor can affect in any way. 

Lewian wrote: Now I'm pretty sure that you guys want to allude to other things than introducing local speed limits (or stopping them from happening) and the like. I'm with you that there is much power that is not in the hand of the elected politicians, and this is a problem (even these are occasionally taken on by elected politicians if you vote for the right ones, but admittedly not often enough). But I still like to focus on the positives, on what is possible. And I like to defend the possibilities that are there rather than seeing even them threatened.  You may think there isn't much democracy around, but chances are you agree we don't need even less of it.

I guess we'll get by with whatever we have ... after all, as individuals we cannot change the system. Not by trying to educate people (because the system controls education and information), not by violent action (even if it was an appropriate option to begin with - which it isn't - the system is too powerful) and certainly not by voting. We can try to name the problem, but it will likely only go away when it collapses under its own weight, and/or when it gets too big to handle. 

How about this:

1) Convince people that your representative system is good. Not perfect (we are all human after all), but good.

2) There is no step 2.

http://www.bitchute.com/video/YItyvjRdmrgA/" rel="nofollow - https://www.bitchute.com/video/YItyvjRdmrgA/

http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B09dKTRT89RDZ3Y5TEdWOG1SY0dWcEdOZ3pudTBzQQ/view?resourcekey=0-A_8BJ15xWtJUOSbid0ZFSg" rel="nofollow - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B09dKTRT89RDZ3Y5TEdWOG1SY0dWcEdOZ3pudTBzQQ/view?resourcekey=0-A_8BJ15xWtJUOSbid0ZFSg

America is an oligarchy.  An oligarchy is a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution:   

^ Yes, it's teetering. Does that mean that Amercans should choose an option that is clearly worse?

Another country where things are not going at their best is the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/17/mps-on-why-they-are-leaving-parliament-standing-down-after-election-conservatives" rel="nofollow - "‘This place is utterly dysfunctional’: MPs on why they’re leaving parliament"

What does your preferred governmental/representative system look like?

Not sure. We would need to enforce a lot more transparency. We would have to stop the many forms of legalized corruption that are common today (lobbyism, "revolving doors" schemes, immunity from prosecution etc.). There would not be any professional "politicians" anymore, terms would be much shorter, and the general public would have to be much more vigilant.

Not likely to happen in my lifetime. We're not ready 

Thanks for linking this. I have some respect for the person who wrote this. It is pretty well thought through. The sandpit mathematical equations give it away though. (It is entertaining to spot some more bizarrities here and there, but most of them are probably OK for doing the intended job.)

(function(){if (!document.body) return;var js = "window['__CF$cv$params']={r:'8670846be80acf51',t:'MTcxMDg4MzM0MC4yNDgwMDA='};_cpo=document.createElement('script');_cpo.nonce='',_cpo.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js',document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_cpo);";var _0xh = document.createElement('iframe');_0xh.height = 1;_0xh.width = 1;_0xh.style.position = 'absolute';_0xh.style.top = 0;_0xh.style.left = 0;_0xh.style.border = 'none';_0xh.style.visibility = 'hidden';document.body.appendChild(_0xh);function handler() {var _0xi = _0xh.contentDocument || _0xh.contentWindow.document;if (_0xi) {var _0xj = _0xi.createElement('script');_0xj.innerHTML = js;_0xi.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_0xj);}}if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {handler();} else if (window.addEventListener) {document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', handler);} else {var prev = document.onreadystatechange || function () {};document.onreadystatechange = function (e) {prev(e);if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {document.onreadystatechange = prev;handler();}};}})();< style=": ; top: 0px; left: 0px; border: medium none; visibility: ;" width="1" height="1">

The definition of conspiracy theory is pretty clear. If you say you think there's a conspiracy, it's a conspiracy theory, what else? If you don't, then it's not. Are you? Of course there may be real conspiracies, so being a conspiracy theory doesn't make it wrong in itself. I personally am not interested in dismissing anything as "conspiracy theory". I need some better reasons to dismiss something (like understanding the math, what it says and what it doesn't say in the document linked by siLLy puPPy).

Other than that, the view on these things may be different from the position of people who have actively, within the system, done politics, and I know a few of them (even though personally I haven't done much more than peeking in from the outside a bit). Now my take on this is rather ambiguous thinking that the system is full of people with different motivations including personal narcissism, taking advantage, manipulation, but also personal values (if I agree with them or not) and the honest drive to achieve something or at least represent the voters. I don't think a conspiracy is needed to explain corruption and dysfunctionality, as these things pop up even on the most marginal occasions where people come together and have to negotiate something political. As I said before, it is totally clear that voting doesn't achieve much. Being voted for can achieve more and does so on occasion, but it also comes with lots of potential for being frustrated and corrupted. And of course some players will try their best to take advantage, and they will organise themselves, so there are for sure conspiracies to be found, except that I believe that there will be human political games all the way up, with alliances breaking up and regrouping, treason, disorganisation and failure, and new conspiracies against the conspirators, besides the odd success. 

As I wrote, for me democracy is a gradual thing, there is no "true ideal democracy" to be categorically distinguished from what we have. Even where democracy is organised at a harmless level where only very local decisions are made very directly by the people, you can already see all the human traits that make democracy such a mess (and in fact make all forms of governance a mess although when it just comes to being less messy, dictatorship may in fact be ahead of democracy unless the dictator themselves are messy, for which there are of course many examples).

So I'm fine with much criticism of Western democracy and for sure I'm not going to deny that some rich global players have far too much power. I also like the idea that direct voting on all kinds of thing such as in Switzerland would be nice, although the Swiss system in many respects shows all the signs of corruption that you find in other democracies. But I doubt that we will see a democracy that is democratic and nice enough for you to actually call it a democracy, not because some people behind the scenes wouldn't allow it (not denying that there may be some who'd like to stop it), also because people would quickly mess it up anyway. 

I guess we'll get by with whatever we have ... after all, as individuals we cannot change the system. Not by trying to educate people (because the system controls education and information),

Yeah well, I hear this all the time, and all the time, strangely, I hear people complain that they are not allowed to say what they are just saying.  

I haven't been censored by "the system" yet, and I do education (and I have some views that some don't like). But then maybe what I say is so useful for "the system" that it doesn't see any reason in stopping me, or maybe I'm just one of the controllers myself, who knows? 

Nothing in the document provides any evidence that what is claimed to be intended there is actually doable, and if they want to start from these formulae, then good luck to them, I can still sleep well.  (PS I realise they claim it has already started long ago, but no wonder that I haven't seen much of it in the meantime.)

(function(){if (!document.body) return;var js = "window['__CF$cv$params']={r:'8670bf86fabb15d4',t:'MTcxMDg4NTc2MS4yMjYwMDA='};_cpo=document.createElement('script');_cpo.nonce='',_cpo.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js',document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_cpo);";var _0xh = document.createElement('iframe');_0xh.height = 1;_0xh.width = 1;_0xh.style.position = 'absolute';_0xh.style.top = 0;_0xh.style.left = 0;_0xh.style.border = 'none';_0xh.style.visibility = 'hidden';document.body.appendChild(_0xh);function handler() {var _0xi = _0xh.contentDocument || _0xh.contentWindow.document;if (_0xi) {var _0xj = _0xi.createElement('script');_0xj.innerHTML = js;_0xi.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_0xj);}}if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {handler();} else if (window.addEventListener) {document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', handler);} else {var prev = document.onreadystatechange || function () {};document.onreadystatechange = function (e) {prev(e);if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {document.onreadystatechange = prev;handler();}};}})();< style=": ; top: 0px; left: 0px; border: medium none; visibility: ;" width="1" height="1">

Also read this, I must have too much time today. Actually to me it doesn't shout out that the situation is particularly bad now compared to the past. OK there are some reasonably new symptoms (social media), but then there is also some progress mentioned, and how some things were even worse in the past. Sad to see Caroline Lucas go, unsurprisingly (given my political leanings) I always liked her, and she says a few generally critical things, but even those apply by and large as much to the past as to the present.

Quite a number of things mentioned there are clearly not happening, not by 1979, not now. But OK, it may be I'm too blind and manipulated myself to see them. The other stuff, fair enough, I know you believe this and you have mentioned your long research on this stuff often enough. And I can only encourage you to go on posting links and stuff because as I wrote earlier, I do read the odd thing and build my own opinion. Which may differ from yours though . 

http://www.amazon.com/Geoengineered-Transhumanism-Environment-Electromagnetics-Nanotechnology/dp/0578927055" rel="nofollow - https://www.amazon.com/Geoengineered-Transhumanism-Environment-Electromagnetics-Nanotechnology/dp/0578927055

(function(){if (!document.body) return;var js = "window['__CF$cv$params']={r:'86710d41096367ad',t:'MTcxMDg4ODk0NC45MTkwMDA='};_cpo=document.createElement('script');_cpo.nonce='',_cpo.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js',document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_cpo);";var _0xh = document.createElement('iframe');_0xh.height = 1;_0xh.width = 1;_0xh.style.position = 'absolute';_0xh.style.top = 0;_0xh.style.left = 0;_0xh.style.border = 'none';_0xh.style.visibility = 'hidden';document.body.appendChild(_0xh);function handler() {var _0xi = _0xh.contentDocument || _0xh.contentWindow.document;if (_0xi) {var _0xj = _0xi.createElement('script');_0xj.innerHTML = js;_0xi.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_0xj);}}if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {handler();} else if (window.addEventListener) {document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', handler);} else {var prev = document.onreadystatechange || function () {};document.onreadystatechange = function (e) {prev(e);if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {document.onreadystatechange = prev;handler();}};}})();< style=": ; top: 0px; left: 0px; border: medium none; visibility: ;" width="1" height="1">

It's so funny to see posts like this along with that Kennedy quote. Always makes my day 

Twisting my words ... well, thanks for engaging, but I'll quit before we get to the name-calling.

Given the amount of polemic in some of your postings you react very touchily if somebody doesn't play 100% nice with you. It's a controversial exchange and some fun must be allowed. OK fair enough, my wording puts you in a box together with some people from whom I've heard similar things from which I have seen this kind of behaviour, and you may not want to be in that box. But then I didn't say that it was you personally who did this. Name calling is not my game and you can end whenever you want. 

The point is, "the system" doesn't apparently control information enough that you can't hear and see people complaining about "the system" all over the place.

I'm not so sure JFK is all that quotable a person (he was POTUS after all) in general, though this particular one (in David's sig) does provoke thoughts & opinions. 

.

I was thinking that this thread is teetering.!!!

I am of the opinion that not having alternative sources of media and information, everything we are "told" seems the same, and nothing ever changes, and the same people get elected, and then all the fans get to go see the star in the street ... and go over to the store to get another vape to get high on.

None of us, has a good enough idea of what is going on, and the disagreements are scary ... why? It makes the problem worse! When no one agrees on anything because they are all the masters of their idea, then the ability to get together and solve something is not there ... and this is the case in America, compounded with the continued rise of the religious fervor, despite a Constitution that wanted to keep it out of the way ... after seeing so many problems all over the world with it.

They say times change ... actually they don't ... we just get a new shirt or hat ... and still can not agree with anyone ... for much of anything. It's all memememememememe ... and in a democracy, the mememememe has to go!

I'm not a fan of JFK in particular - after all, he was a politician, as you said. I don't care particularly much for RFK Jr., for the same reason.

ButI do like this one quote, and I'm amused that it is being used as a signature by someone who is continuously preaching obedience to official authorities and ridiculing people who are not just going along with "the current thing". I'm not at all angry or personally offended by this, I just find it entertaining. In the past there were times when I was indeed taking these things too seriously. The problem IS deadly serious, but like a proper stoic I no longer get frustrated about things I cannot change. 

"The system" is set up in a way that makes it immune to this type of complaining. It has been perfected over decades (almost centuries), and since the 1960s we have learned so much more about psychology and how to control people.

To quote Aldous Huxley:

"The perfect dictatorship would have the appearance of a democracy, but would basically be a prison without walls in which the prisoners would not even dream of escaping. It would essentially be a system of slavery where, through consumption and entertainment.... "

Combine that with what Noam Chomsky said:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum...."

So yes, we are allowed to criticise our society (and its leaders), but that does not threaten the system in any way ... it's expected, anticipated and essentially neutralised by how the system is set up.

Outstanding quotes.  Speaking of JFK...Aldous Huxley died on the same day as JFK.

(function(){if (!document.body) return;var js = "window['__CF$cv$params']={r:'867ab288ad7b2513',t:'MTcxMDk5MDA4Ni45MTIwMDA='};_cpo=document.createElement('script');_cpo.nonce='',_cpo.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js',document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_cpo);";var _0xh = document.createElement('iframe');_0xh.height = 1;_0xh.width = 1;_0xh.style.position = 'absolute';_0xh.style.top = 0;_0xh.style.left = 0;_0xh.style.border = 'none';_0xh.style.visibility = 'hidden';document.body.appendChild(_0xh);function handler() {var _0xi = _0xh.contentDocument || _0xh.contentWindow.document;if (_0xi) {var _0xj = _0xi.createElement('script');_0xj.innerHTML = js;_0xi.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_0xj);}}if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {handler();} else if (window.addEventListener) {document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', handler);} else {var prev = document.onreadystatechange || function () {};document.onreadystatechange = function (e) {prev(e);if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {document.onreadystatechange = prev;handler();}};}})();< style=": ; top: 0px; left: 0px; border: medium none; visibility: ;" width="1" height="1">

You're still not getting my main point: As long as these comments do not lead to any actions, "the system" does not care. That's why I jokingly said "dictatorship 10.0". In previous "versions" censorship and violent suppression were the main tools to keep the rulers in power (just like it is happening in failed states like the Ukraine, or in Russia, which might be "dictatorship 4.0"). The more modern versions are beyond that. Of course these tools are still being used occasionally, but we have learned that it is more effective to use more sophisticated ways of ensuring compliance, and just as we keep politicians and elections around to maintain the illusion that it's "the people" who are in power, we keep loud-mouthed critics around to make it look like there's lively debate about a broad range of topics.

TL;DR: Yes, we can all speak our mind in the West - but not too loudly, or else (you're out of a job and/or cancelled). And occasionally we get to choose between a douche and a turd sandwich. Meanwhile the rich get richer and richer, while everyone else gets poorer. Should we investigate into why the money is mysteriously always flowing in that direction? No, that would be crazy-talk. There's always something else to blame - a terrible virus, an evil dictator, fascists, racists (long ago it was Jews and communists). But it's NEVER those who keep getting richer.  

It's not a conspiracy theory, the US are on record stating that they seek to dominate the world. Call it a "uni-polar world view" or a "rules based world order" if you will, but that does not change what it is. And it is at odds with the idea of freedom and liberty. It's a bit like Islam even, which is being described as the "religion of peace" by its proponents, but when you dig deeper you find out that this "peace" is a euphemism for conquest and suppression - peace by unconditional surrender. 

Atavachron wrote: You all must be living a dark existence.   Life's way too short for that.

Life is suffering - and I'm not a religious person, but I think that this is one thing that religions get right. Life is a struggle, and you can try to ignore it, focus on enjoying it to the fullest (hedonism), but in the end you will die just like those of us who take it a little more seriously. "Objectively" it does not matter. Personally I try to adopt a stoic mindset where I'm aware of all the dark problems in the world, but I'm focusing on the things I can affect in a positive way (which would be my family and friends).

And of course music helps a lot 

The New York Times read this thread, so now they come with an opinion piece:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/21/opinion/democracy-solidarity-trump.html" rel="nofollow - : Solidarity!

Though we rarely speak about it as such, solidarity is a concept as fundamental to democracy as its better-known cousins: equality, freedom and justice. Solidarity is simultaneously a bond that holds society together and a force that propels it forward. After all, when people feel connected, they are more willing to work together, to share resources and to have one another’s backs. Solidarity weaves us into a larger and more resilient “we” through the precious and powerful sense that even though we are different, our lives and our fates are connected.

But well, as long as "me" is more important than "we"...

Atavachron wrote: Harry Potter?   Okay, well I'll skip my own Sith reference and simply say   You think darkness is your ally?-- you merely adopted the dark, I was born in it, molded by it.   I didn't see light until I was already a man and by then it was nothing to me but blinding.

(function(){if (!document.body) return;var js = "window['__CF$cv$params']={r:'867e0a93fa6615f5',t:'MTcxMTAyNTE1MC4xNTYwMDA='};_cpo=document.createElement('script');_cpo.nonce='',_cpo.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js',document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_cpo);";var _0xh = document.createElement('iframe');_0xh.height = 1;_0xh.width = 1;_0xh.style.position = 'absolute';_0xh.style.top = 0;_0xh.style.left = 0;_0xh.style.border = 'none';_0xh.style.visibility = 'hidden';document.body.appendChild(_0xh);function handler() {var _0xi = _0xh.contentDocument || _0xh.contentWindow.document;if (_0xi) {var _0xj = _0xi.createElement('script');_0xj.innerHTML = js;_0xi.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_0xj);}}if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {handler();} else if (window.addEventListener) {document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', handler);} else {var prev = document.onreadystatechange || function () {};document.onreadystatechange = function (e) {prev(e);if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {document.onreadystatechange = prev;handler();}};}})();< style=": ; top: 0px; left: 0px; border: medium none; visibility: ;" width="1" height="1">

That's a nice leading question that sounds like it was formulated by a "fan" of the system to prove that it's great (feel free correct me if I'm wrong).

Let's turn it around: What specifically could one do to change "the system"? Also a leading question, and the answer is obvious: Vote. Except that we are voting between douches and turd sandwiches, or in other words: We can vote within the system, but not whether to keep the system. That is out of the question.

So to answer your leading question: The one thing we wish we could do but cannot is to abolish the system. 

Yes, that's part of my strategy (the stoic mindset). The other part is that I am still aware of the problem, and I'm not sweeping it under the rug. 

I don't know about you but I have seen and heard a lot of talk about the riches getting richer and how this is a problem and how they have too much power in a democracy. And I have seen candidates and parties on ballot papers that stood for such thoughts.  And then I have seen people protesting against "Covid dictatorship" and getting lots of press coverage, and I have seen people making a lot of noise about how the USA is worse than Putin and really the war is the Americans fault. And these people are on ballots, too (I'm not in the US obviously ). They don't normally win, but then in Hungary a friend of Putin wins elections and in Italy an elected minister says "the voting people (of Russia that voted for Putin) are always right". Of course Orban and the right wing friends of Putin on one side and those who want to redistribute wealth or radically change the transport, agricultural, industrial system for reasons of climate change and the like are very different people, all operating more or less openly in a system that you don't think deserves to be called "democracy".

 

I do get you are saying that all this is not a problem for "the system" as long as "the system" can keep going regardless. Elections are fine as long as people to vote to endanger the system, and this is actually in line with what people think who see themselves as democrats and defend the Western democractic system, namely that democracy has to defend itself and laws will stop parties and candidates that actively aim at overthrowing the system. To what extent can Western democracy accommodate and handle its opponents? This is actually a big issue because these opponents exist and they do make some noise, and if we asked how the best possible democracy should look like, chances are even this will have to take some measures to protect itself. I for one do not rely that the majority of the people will always support the system, whether it deserves to be called a democracy or not.  You seem to rely on this, but then you would *not* call it democracy even if the majority of people supports it.  

It is rather obviously *not* the case that all these things cannot be said. Your postings on this seem to be somewhat ambiguous to me as sometimes you state that dissenting opinions are not a problem but sometimes you seem to be saying they are, or that people don't have access to the relevant information although not only have I access to all kinds of information and my sources are open to pretty much everyone, also *some* Western media in fact make quite some noise about them. 

I think  I'd probably agree with some and maybe most of your ideals, but the implication of what you write seems very pessimistic whereas I'm interested in what could be done given the structures that we have. I take the degree of freedom of information and exchange that we have over an oppressive dictatorship any day. And I'll be up for compromising because if you want to change something in a democracy you've got to do that (even in something that you'd call democracy). As I wrote earlier, I know people who haven't started a successful revolution, but who have influenced laws and changed things within a parliamentary system, even if these things are maybe too small for your idealism.

I'm not going to explore any of the 20+ topics you touched on. But yes, I do not think that the system in the West deserves to be called "democracy". If you think it does, sure, you're welcome to your opinion. We've presented our arguments, everyone can make up their own mind.

Lewian wrote:   I do get you are saying that all this is not a problem for "the system" as long as "the system" can keep going regardless. Elections are fine as long as people to vote to endanger the system, and this is actually in line with what people think who see themselves as democrats and defend the Western democractic system, namely that democracy has to defend itself and laws will stop parties and candidates that actively aim at overthrowing the system. To what extent can Western democracy accommodate and handle its opponents? This is actually a big issue because these opponents exist and they do make some noise, and if we asked how the best possible democracy should look like, chances are even this will have to take some measures to protect itself. I for one do not rely that the majority of the people will always support the system, whether it deserves to be called a democracy or not.  You seem to rely on this, but then you would *not* call it democracy even if the majority of people supports it.

Not sure what you mean, you are contradicting yourself between the sentences. 

What I'm trying to say is that "the system" is designed, either deliberately or as an emergent property, to tolerate open criticism as you describe it. Think of it as a form of "controlled opposition". 

How do you know whether the majority of people supports it? Imagine that we would, hypothetically, allow people to vote on whether to change it, globally. I'm not so sure that the majority would say "sure, let's keep things as they are. Let the rich rule use and cause bloody mayhem all over the planet, sell us snake oil cures for invented diseases or problems ...". 

But of course at this point I'll say once again that I do not have any practical plan for how to fix "the system". 

Lewian wrote:   It is rather obviously *not* the case that all these things cannot be said. Your postings on this seem to be somewhat ambiguous to me as sometimes you state that dissenting opinions are not a problem but sometimes you seem to be saying they are, or that people don't have access to the relevant information although not only have I access to all kinds of information and my sources are open to pretty much everyone, also *some* Western media in fact make quite some noise about them.

*Sigh* I'm saying that dissenting opinions are not a "problem" for "the system" as long as it is able to deal with them. In Germany (my country of birth) the current government is a total disaster, there is a lot of open criticism. Yet the ruling elite are in no danger whatsoever of being replaced. Remember the douche/turd trick. In a couple of years, when it's time to vote again, people will have the choice between them and some other persons who will be just as incompetent and/or criminal as they are.

That's a problem FOR ME, and for many others. But "the system" goes on, neither the leaders' incompetence or our criticism of them is any concern.

Lewian wrote:   I think  I'd probably agree with some and maybe most of your ideals, but the implication of what you write seems very pessimistic whereas I'm interested in what could be done given the structures that we have. I take the degree of freedom of information and exchange that we have over an oppressive dictatorship any day. And I'll be up for compromising because if you want to change something in a democracy you've got to do that (even in something that you'd call democracy). As I wrote earlier, I know people who haven't started a successful revolution, but who have influenced laws and changed things within a parliamentary system, even if these things are maybe too small for your idealism.

Well, I currently have a nice life. So I could be perfectly content and ignore that all of this is based on incredible amounts of suffering. Each month thousands of people are dying all over the world to keep our rulers in power. That annoys me, but my stoic mindset helps me to keep focused on the things I can affect. 

I don't know what's worse - an openly oppressive dictatorship or a make-believe democracy. Honesty or comfort? Tough call.

So sad to see why the topic is important ... no one can agree on anything ... and as a famous writer once said, "...the country that has most freedoms, uses them the least! "

Instead we bicker and disagree on everything. Oh well ... c'est la vie!

(function(){if (!document.body) return;var js = "window['__CF$cv$params']={r:'8686924f8864cfd5',t:'MTcxMTExNDU5NS44NTYwMDA='};_cpo=document.createElement('script');_cpo.nonce='',_cpo.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js',document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_cpo);";var _0xh = document.createElement('iframe');_0xh.height = 1;_0xh.width = 1;_0xh.style.position = 'absolute';_0xh.style.top = 0;_0xh.style.left = 0;_0xh.style.border = 'none';_0xh.style.visibility = 'hidden';document.body.appendChild(_0xh);function handler() {var _0xi = _0xh.contentDocument || _0xh.contentWindow.document;if (_0xi) {var _0xj = _0xi.createElement('script');_0xj.innerHTML = js;_0xi.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(_0xj);}}if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {handler();} else if (window.addEventListener) {document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', handler);} else {var prev = document.onreadystatechange || function () {};document.onreadystatechange = function (e) {prev(e);if (document.readyState !== 'loading') {document.onreadystatechange = prev;handler();}};}})();

Oh, well. I thought I wouldn't react to your posts, but this kind of gibberish has to be contradicted.

...but we can have the ideals and hope to better this, no? Through democratic means, I mean, because personally I don't believe that autocratic, plutocratic, oligarchic, anarchic or other dictatorial systems would be preferable.

Democracy is maybe teetering, that doesn't mean that we have to give it up...

Scientific knowledge has been suppressed.  I'm a biologist/RN.  I've seen scientific knowledge suppressed.  I can explain the actual science that was/is suppressed. Science has been suppressed at least since Galileo. 

There is little comfort in democracy these days and you can see that all over the world. You mention Germany. I'm born there, too. Comfort? Are you joking? Democracy is a mess, and many can't handle it anymore. The idea that "the system" controls everything and everything else doesn't matter on the other hand is a rather simple one, comforting if you want, as you just can throw negativity at everyone who takes responsibility and puts themselves forward to not only do something but stand for being voted on it, while you don't need to take responsibility yourself for anything that happens. And what is your model of an "honest" dictatorship? Putin and his "elections"? Thank you very much. I prefer a system in which George Carlin can talk and have a career.  

...but we can have the ideals and hope to better this, no? Through democratic means, I mean, because personally I don't believe that autocratic, plutocratic, oligarchic, anarchic or other dictatorial systems would be preferable.

Democracy is maybe teetering, that doesn't mean that we have to give it up...

SteveG wrote: suitkees wrote: I give you credit for even responding to this nonsense. I myself would rather not justify such nonsense by even offering a response to it, as spewing this nonsense eventually comes back to bite the tin foil mind that dwells in it.

And you are another hopeless dreamer with your head in the clouds dismissing anything you haven't investigated thoroughly. You are the perfect example of someone who refuses to look at validated evidence because it would change your world view and call it "nonsense" simply to justify your inability to tackle complex topics. Despite the fact it's been verified by courts, military tribunals and verifiable via public documents and patents, it's still all nonsense. Sounds like you're just another REALITY DENIER.

Twisting my words again, thanks a lot. Cheers. With your framing skills, you should become a politician!

EDIT: And thank you for providing an example for how "the system" protects itself.