Demos Kratos: Captive Consumerist System of Competitive Democracy

I Definition:

Democracy: a term or idea according to which "democracy," from the ancient Greek dēmokratía, a combination of dêmos, "people" (from the Greek "Plebos" or plebs, the people), aims to "distribute, to divide up," and krátos, "power," "to command," designates a political regime or regime in which "all citizens" participate in political decisions through voting. The agora (a place where the Greeks met to discuss the life of the city), the term "citizen" or "civis" in Latin, is a quality above all else, thus excluding women, slaves, children, and foreigners. etc... We can immediately, therefore, make a modern analogy or political and therefore economic life where are excluded, hehe, women once again, children and slaves (clients, employees, and foreigners), why slaves, one could say, because nowadays, there are no more slaves, right? But beyond the term, it is the condition, like the Shoah, shouldn't we say that the Jews were treated as real modern slaves, I say modern because if man has lived for a very long time on the planet, 60 years is not much since 1939. So, today it is a discriminatory regime (which I compare to slavery, because according to the Larousse, slavery is defined as the fact for a social group to be subjected to an economic and political regime which deprives it of all freedom (today without a passport, nor this identity, no movement), forces it to exercise the most difficult economic functions without any other compensation than housing and food. (In short, the working poor)) that the leaders pass off as an honest regime and that there is no other, which is obviously false (we have supposedly invented democracy, so we can invent something else, just think), let's reason, we invented the democracy, well, before there were what, monarchies, dictatorships, potentates, and other despotic regimes plus tribal regimes. So, we would have invented democracy and then nothing, at its invention, democracy certainly suffered controversies (people said like today but it's normal to get whipped, because I didn't do well, lol). People were also undoubtedly skeptical. They must have heard that: "what mode of government do you want to invent, everything has been tried" at the time I mean. In short, let's start again, it is a political system, a form of government in which sovereignty emanates from the people. Not to be confused with the theory of the separation of powers and the establishment of universal suffrage, which are two of the foundations in any case, of modern democracies, deeply unequal like that of ancient Greece, while all politicians present it as the best alternative, even in China that everyone in the West says that it is rather a dictatorial or authoritarian regime, which is called, hee hee, People's Democracy of China etc...

II The Pyramid:

Another system, in my opinion, borrows from the very nature of democracy, which is an intellectual, financial, and political scam. It consists of luring savers by paying high levels of financial returns, all or part of which are actually taken from the contributions of new subscribers. So, as we have just illustrated the Ponzi scheme, the democratic system is a political, economic, and social Ponzi scheme.

For me, since children are the guarantee of their parents, in many respects, they are certainly not the future but the past, democracy sells the future of children for the well-being of the present. Let's look at what's happening with the pension system in France and Europe. All politicians and economists say that it's the grown-up children, good little engineers, salaried employees, employees, and obedient civil servants, who are paying for the pensions of the past. The same goes for the debt. Or worse, it's not the children of their parents, but the grandchildren of their parents, who will pay, well, maybe the public debt. In fact, they are born political, economic, and social slaves.

So, in my opinion, it's truly a political Ponzi scheme, this time an economic and social one.

Moreover, the system is captive. Why? If we take the idea of ​​the social contract on which modern constitutions were more or less based to be enacted ("On the Social Contract, or Principles of Political Law," conceived and written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, published in 1762). Citizens are not free, as stated in the 1958 Constitution, or better, the Declaration of Human Rights (DHR), and are likely born, as has been pointed out, even less free given the weight of countries' economic and fiscal debt, with no country being spared, in my opinion. Captive, because we never choose who we want to serve (how awful, especially if I don't want to serve anyone), what state, I mean? In an authoritarian and not benevolent manner, state representatives make it clear that you had no choice; you were born citizens, with duties without anyone having asked for anything. Therefore, it is indeed a system of slavery and captivity, which is a euphemism and a pleonasm.

So why talk about a pyramid scheme or even a Ponzi scheme, and therefore a captive system? Besides, countries regularly withdraw into themselves and close their borders, making their "citizens" even more captive, or rather, their things, one should say. Why talk about public things like people: the Erasmus system or the exchange of students as commodities, the prisoner exchange system between states, the worker exchange system, visas, reciprocity in international law, etc. All these systems, a priori, concern human beings and not things. They are indeed treated and treated, human beings, as, or even at the level of, commodities (moreover, as a law student, I was surprised by the provisions of the Civil Code which address and provide: Property and people / in my mind, it was people first and property second).

III Language:

Aside: "Language is predominant in my articles; if you don't speak well, you don't write well, which also denotes, beyond language, a poorly structured and logical thought."

In fact, you have to think to qualify correctly. One can search and find the reason for this: rule of law or Roman law (Roman law is very harsh on individuals!), but for me, people are branded in blood and skin with the seal of law. In the name of law! Just as before, slaves were branded with a hot iron like cattle. So, they removed the hot iron, but kept the ideology, which! The ruling elites (political, economic, social, philosophical, business, merchants, etc.) of course.

For me, the leaders, beyond not believing for a moment in the power of the people, by the people for the people, they believe above all in their own power conferred upon them by confiscated institutions. They even consider the people dangerous; don't they say that the enemy is not so much outside as within their borders?

So the rule: the enemy of my enemy is my friend, is a bizarre linguistic construct: because it assumes that A is friends with C because C is an enemy of B, and therefore that A and B are enemies. However, as a good enemy and belligerent person who populates this planet, C is necessarily also an enemy according to the same rule.

But tropism or deliberate bias, I imagine we forget to mention that if the rule is examined with respect to A, it must also be examined for B and C, thus B and C also express the same rule: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Lol

It is in this sense that we must understand that A and C, uh no, and B are friends, haha. And yes, A and B are actually "friends."

IV History:

But in the first proof, we said that for the proposition to be true, A and B had to be enemies, and therefore A must be friends with C. This is to forget another rule: history is written by the victors. Thus, historians, politicians, economists, in short, anyone with any interest (power, money, pleasure, selfishness, etc.) voluntarily publish and create history. Even if it is distorted and not supported by facts. The leitmotif of these people is to say: in the absence of anything else, you shut up and obey, because if they weren't there among the Romans and the Greeks, and neither was I, for that matter, and they will say, you weren't there either. So, did the Romans exist or not! That's the question. Failing that, they talk about science, the new Greek oracles (forecasters), soothsayers (probabilities), and other healers (doctors), rules of law based on supposedly observed facts. The Inquisition relied on this to eradicate any opposing thought, because from there, man's greatest quest was to be able to control people's thoughts. Imagine that 500 years ago, people thought the Earth was flat; they killed or imprisoned people who said otherwise. Imagine 200 years ago, that the Earth was the center of the universe; the same pattern, the same pattern for anyone who said otherwise. Imagine what will be said in 200 or 500 years. A single man or woman may prove intelligent and wise, but in a group, yuck, how horrible the group behavior of men and women, therefore in "society."

To conclude:

What solution then? Well, as usual, this is neither the place nor the time to talk about it. Here, the point was simply to popularize modern democracy. From this perspective, we can write the following equation: T = 0

T, time, equals 0, because since the dawn of time, nothing changes. Man has never used his time to change things, neither for his own benefit (how horrible this term with economic connotations is), nor to change his well-being, his "good," "life." Because every man or woman has two goods: "life" and "good." But I respect people's choices. "People" in English is important because for English speakers, "people" means people and also things. You'll understand better that way.

Author

Vidal Bravo Jandia Miguel

Engineer - Master II in Law

UFR of Montpellier I

Panthéon Assas - Paris II