Direct Democracy


Elitists are terrified of direct democracy and want to pretend the public has no idea what is good for themselves.  Men like Friedrich Nietzsche characterized what he perceived to be slave and master mentality and clearly had a very sinister “master” mentality himself.

Again, people know what’s good for themselves overall.  If they make a mistake, then they suffer and learn their lesson.  Looking at the world right now, it’s obvious people who call for elitism have absolutely no idea what they are doing and never have.

If some people do not care one way or another about a particular issue, all they have to do is indicate that somehow and those who do care can decide.  However, minorities cannot just assume others do not care.  Such things must be formally indicated.

If people don’t feel they understand an issue, they can always do research, ask somebody they trust, etc.  A healthy, educated, and well informed public should be able to make correct decisions for themselves.  People who think they are SO much brighter than everybody else just need to find a way to explain their thoughts/plans/ideas to the public.

Property Rights and Academic Titles


All things must be accepted by the general public—not just through implied consent, but explicitly through polls and plebiscite.

Property rights and academic titles were enforced on the majority by a minority and are not real/official.

I think the public, through direct democracy, can grant such rights and titles to make society run more smoothly, but it still needs to be the public that consents to such things.  Anything else is the enforcement of tyranny.

One idea is for all academic titles to be stricken and then for the public to vote for who they actually think are intelligent to be part of academia (and perhaps for this to be a process that is repeated every few years.)  This ensures people do not enter academia solely through parroting elitist ideologies and can actually defend their reasoning/logic to the people.  If you can’t explain your reasoning to the common man, you probably don’t understand it well enough, in my opinion.

Another idea is to not even have formal academia.  People who would be academics can do the same work, but just on their own time and living off community handouts.  People who are good at science/technology can gather/work together and if they know what they are doing, their inventions will be notable successes.  If they do not, their creations will flounder.  It’s as simple as that.

The Elite Fit to Rule


The only elite fit to rule over humanity are those who understand the value of direct democracy, in my opinion.  They are the truly sane human beings who must push back any force that tries to enforce a minority will on the majority.

This “elite” supporting TRUE democracy can (and hopefully does) include the majority of people.

People’s emotions are more accurate than what elitists define as “logic/reason.”  Every person who pretends to be pure logic/intellect supports imperialism, military power, oppressing other groups, and—in many historical cases—slavery, racism, sexism, rape, torture, etc.  People who say they are pure logic/reason also despise direct democracy despite supporting invading other countries using the phoney excuse of spreading democracy.

People who pretend they are of advanced intellect always need to be extreme elitists who justify the worst abuses of power because in reality they aren’t reasonable or logical in the slightest.  However, if they talk in a condescending manner, create the illusion of intellectual sophistication, and support the oppressor, it makes no difference how stupid or nonsensical they are.

People’s emotions are LOGICAL and accurate the majority of the time.  For those times intuitive instinct is not accurate, logical extrapolation of commonly held truths to broader situations, allowing the maintenance of logical consistency, is helpful.

People who think pure logic can guide all actions are not logical at all in most cases.  They just don’t want humans to trust their gut instincts and want to enforce elitism using excuses designed to sound logical.

People should trust their instincts and temper it with a little bit of logic here and there for greater accuracy.  People who want humans to be PURE logic are typically asking for humanity to be wrong/inaccurate the large majority of the time under the illusion that such actions make sense from some special realm of advanced intellect (which in reality does not exist.)

Selfishness Destroys Capitalism


Everybody is always naturally taking themselves into account without even thinking about it at the deepest level. We unconsciously assess what will allow us to survive.

However, some people help others to help themselves (though they are not consciously thinking about it that way, which is normal.) Others are programmed on the deepest level to hurt others to help themselves or to pretend to be altruistic when they are not. This latter form of selfishness which seeks to hurt others to get ahead is the one we pretend is actually a good thing that will benefit humanity when, by definition, it cannot.

The type of selfishness that hurts others to get ahead is (inherently) never a good thing and will always be considered evil. Even in competition, there must be rules of fair play. Immoral selfishness seeks to break the rules of fair play and then brainwashes humans into thinking that it’s a good thing to break such rules.

Capitalism requires fair competition to work properly. It’s best if customers know which retailer is selling a product for the cheapest price right away. Would the government ever invest in a website that lists the lowest prices so customers can get the best product for the lowest cost, forcing less efficient businesses to change?

Of course not • because that would encourage fair competition and fair play and very sinister pathologies do not like that. They want an unfair environment that only benefits those who argue for the necessity of unfairness under the guise that it will benefit humanity in the long run when (by definition) it will not.


Altruism: E.g. I help a feeble, elderly man walk to a destination.

In the long, long run, I do benefit from this kind deed but not always on an easily or immediately detectable level. (I don’t need to consciously think about it this way either, but it doesn’t hurt. The true mechanism granting benefit is so advanced, Buddhists refer to it as receiving benefit for good karma.)

Fair competition: E.g. A race to the finish line.

This is the type of competition that would ideally drive a properly functioning capitalist society.

Sinister selfishness: E.g. Taking a crowbar to somebody’s knee before a competition or giving myself a head start while pretending people who didn’t beat me just didn’t work hard enough.

This is the type of selfishness that people argue will still be beneficial. It won’t. It messes everything up and only results in elitism and a nobility willing to maintain such sinister backward logic.

The only capitalism I favour is High-Efficiency Capitalism where nobody is poor, inequality is always capped, and people compete for RELATIVE rather than absolute wealth.

And, NO, feeling good about doing good for others does NOT negate an altruistic act. That positive feeling is what maintains altruism in many cases. There are deeper levels of sacrifice that are more painful, but on a deeper level, even these acts are rewarded (though on that level, very few consciously think about it that way because reward may only be granted in an unforeseeably distant future.)

The Daily Servant of Power


Today’s servant of power is:

Ayn Rand

One doesn’t even have to read Ayn Rand’s work—only get a synopsis of what it’s about—to know it doesn’t make any sense.

Why did Ayn Rand write what she wrote?  She would probably say because she is advocating for ethical conduct, leading to what she regards as the best functioning society.  Her basic assumption is that people are selfish and that’s the way it should be, but with the implication that she is a well-intentioned individual who just so happens to have society’s best interests at heart.

Would Ayn Rand ever admit to being a purely self-serving human being?  I, personally, think she is.  Technically, she should be okay with me viewing her in this light.  Yet, it’s pretty obvious she would be upset if confronted with the notion that she is someone who pathologically supports the ideology of the oppressor to move up the ranks of the social ladder at the expense of others.

Her entire career is pure self-contradiction, in my opinion.

Consensus vs. Democracy


In a previous post, I discussed the phenomena of consensus which I felt was more common within the Eastern tradition. However, I don’t think it’s a good thing for people to sacrifice their actual opinion and thoughts and go along with the group because it destroys important dissenting and minority views that often are the greater truth.

It would be great if all people had good intentions and their natural stances were generally accurate, for the welfare of the group, and in agreement with everybody else, but that’s not always the case.  The fairest thing is democracy where people vote in what they think.  If by chance there is a consensus, then great, but if not, majority rule should prevail until people with a minority position make a compelling case to the general public long enough that it becomes the new majority stance.

Democracy is exhausting, but still the best way, in my opinion.  I still disagree with the elitist set-up of the West which I barely even regard as democratic.  Western states have destroyed true fledgling democracies in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Latin America etc.  I support direct democracy (because it’s a natural right and) since technology makes it particularly feasible now.  Those who think the public are dumb need to work hard to explain things in a way people can comprehend.  Often if it can’t be explained to the average person, one may not understand it well enough themselves.

The Daily Servant of Power


Today’s servant of power is:aristotle


I always thought the reverence people had for ancient Athens and Aristotle represented a lack of genuine insight.

Ancient Athens is no example of direct democracy.  When women aren’t given the right to vote and slavery is a common staple of society, it’s still just elitism masquerading as liberalism.

Aristotle, himself, tried to find excuses for why slavery was justified for his own self-convenience – nothing more.

On top of that he engaged in the constant fear-mongering oppressors always use against the people they victimize.  The British fear of the East Indians, the fear European settlers had for the Native Americans, the fear Westerners have for Middle Easterners despite using their industrialized militaries to slaughter them in large numbers or various tactics to destabilize the region.

This mentality is pathological (in a way that makes it even more evil.) Here’s a perfect illustration: Tampa police: Marine reservist attacked Greek priest he mistook for terrorist

The Spartans were likewise “terrified” of the Helots, whom they had enslaved.  Aristotle compares the Helots to “an enemy constantly sitting in wait of the disaster of the Spartans”. [1]

Lying for the oppressors says everything about a person’s true character and, at the end of the day, character is all that truly matters in terms of alleviating human suffering and building a truly peaceful global community.

For me, Aristotle is like Orwell. I agree with many of Orwell’s observations and assertions and often make use of his ideas.  Nineteen Eighty-Four illustrates very well the use of a constant threat of enemy attack to justify endless, mindless warfare.  However, if Orwell were alive today, he might also be engaging in mindless fear-mongering and Islamophobia and would most likely have supported genocide in Gaza.  People become very different when it comes to power and easily do everything they originally purported to oppose.