Democratic governments
After respective years of the restoration of the Polish state we have already had all the wealth of experience; we had war and peace, we had inflation and deflation, economical boom and crisis, judaic number block and cooperation of judaic MPs with government club in parliament, democratic-parliamentary governments and "authoritative" governments. In particular, this last antithesis is now readily emphasized, with representatives of any young generations trying to see the essence of transformations taking place in the planet and in Poland.
Democracy was something powerful in political fashion before the war; a decent, “enlightened”, “progressive” man should have been a Democrat. He was allowed to add an adjective to himself, distinguishing him from the general democrats, as families of the same surname disagree in their nickname or coat of arms: he could so be a progressive Democrat, a social Democrat, a extremist Democrat, or even a national politician or a Christian Democrat, so that he would not forget the common trunk.
It would seem that democracy – at least here – is no longer present today, that it belongs to the past. That would be a mistake. Democracy inactive lives among us. There are inactive old democratic parties, and the reverberation of the democratic past has not died in the government camp. The most intense atoll is democracy among us, as a justification for its alleged antithesis, as a justification for the request for authoritative governments. I will make us believe that these 2 systems are "two at the ends of my other gods." Is that true?
Democracy is, as is known, a Greek name for a strategy in which the people regulation themselves, i.e. they are the head of the state. This form, which exists in the tiny Greek states, where almost all the people gathered at the marketplace to decide public matters, which is alternatively akin to today's municipal government, cannot be regarded as the parent of modern democracy; modern democracy is simply a subterfuge whose parents should be searched for in the 18th century free-growing lodges.
Hence, considering the essence of modern democracy, we will immediately overturn this false Greek pedigree. Let us presume that the nobility of this doctrine, which imposed the form of government in almost Europe in the 19th century, is questionable and very recent, while the paternity is admitted to the full collectiveity of the lie; modern democracy is like the daughter of a regiment. She was baptized by freedom, equality, and brotherhood.
These doctrines are the foundations of logical democracy. Humans have a natural right to individual liberty; they are naturally equal among themselves; in their originality they are good, they have a "natural" ethics. Unfortunately, their civilization, and especially their "social state", in which they must live out of necessity, spoils them. It is so essential to give them in this "social state" specified a state power that would as small harm to their natural goodness as possible. This good primary man naturally has a natural right to unlimited individual freedom; whereas the conditions of earthly life make him to live in a "social state," or under any authority. How do you justify that?
Is all power lawlessness and rape committed to human beings? Minds, trained in lodges, all logical gap in the doctrine they preached could always period with a thread of any fresh doctrine. The head doesn't hurt from besides much doctrine. So here was the tailor in Rousseau's person, who drew up his “fiction of a social contract”. It is actual – he preached – that an individual has an unlimited right to freedom, but power must exist, and that the individual in “the social state must submit to certain restrictions of his freedom. How do you get out of here? Well, let's accept the fiction that all human individuals in law law-laws erstwhile made a voluntary agreement between themselves, by which they allowed their freedom to be restricted to collectives. This alleged agreement he called Rousseau "a social contract". There were crucial logical consequences from the reception and lessons: therefore, the limitations on the individual's freedom are justified only in this voluntary agreement in this social contract, resulting from the designation of the necessity of any social organization, and so besides power, and so the individual's attitude towards the state falls within the category of private relations, average contractual relations. As a consequence of this regulation of the individual's freedom for state power, it regulates the content of this private-law agreement, and so they can only go as far as those who love freedom have allowed; and they surely have not allowed the limitations of greater, but only those which were essential for surviving in the "social state". It follows from this doctrine the dogma of democracy: to restrict individual freedom is allowed only if it is absolutely necessary, and only the full "people" with their consent can empower state power to apply these restrictions.
The democratic strategy of government was a strategy of permanent lies and deception. The fundamental right which democratic regimes have declared that the ruler of the state is “the people,” that the governments “at the will of the people” have nothing to do with a genuine reality. This lie was based on a strategy of parliamentary governments, inevitably connected with modern democracy. The rights of the individual, so to be governed, can only be restricted by the approval of the general, or "by the will of the people." But how can this “will of the people” be explored? More precisely by asking everyone. But it would be impossible to have people vote all moment; to have a good origin – according to the doctrines of democracy – any case of limiting individual freedom should be decided by a separate vote. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity of the procedure, let this free “people” choice his chosen ones, his representatives, “men,” and they will express his will on his command. Thus, democracy was adopted by the election institution of the representatives by the population, already known in a completely different form in the mediate Ages, and thus the free-meal caregiver fed parliamentaryism.
Parliament in a democratic strategy – it is simply a substitute for the "people", hence the dignity of this body and its individual members. Therefore, it is the Members, anointed with the content of the ballot box, i.e. the materialised trust of the "people" who must be "inviolable" and "independent of the government, i.e. to collect parliamentary diets; they must have free first-class tickets for all trains, so that they can meet as freely as possible the "people", by their name. And yet, despite all this, it can easy happen that the elected Members once, in a short time later, no longer represent the "will of the people", due to the fact that the moods of the voters have changed, and that is only 1 cure: the most common elections. This request, logically, was always defended by the most consistent democrats, by social democrats, that is, by the socialist international.
Who's gonna vote for the election? And how is this vote expected to take place? These questions are equally crucial to democracy, as to the court of the king-lord, the question of what ceremony should be at the birth of the heir to the throne. Since the French Revolution overturned the throne of the Bourbons based on bourgeoisie, or bourgeoisie, the exclusivity of the nobility to deal with public affairs and political laws was broken, so that the 3rd state was extended. The municipal and agrarian proletariat, however, for a long time of democratic doctrine, was deprived of the right to vote politically, and at most allowed for indirect elections, where only his elected MPs were to choose. The global socialist nation has put a large deal of effort in all countries to gain this heavenly happiness by allowing him to enjoy a democratic system, to vote. Years of ranks were fought by social democrats with a request for 4 adjectives and later even six adjectives, claiming that this is an crucial request for actual democracy. Why?
Elections should be universal, equal, direct, secret, and then inactive gender-free and proportional. The elections, as we know, were intended to empower Members to express "the will of the people". Who belongs to the “people”. Everyone, of course. Is it possible for anyone who has wandered into a country to leave? Actually, yes. The perfect of democracy is fundamentally the abolition of state borders, any United States of the world, and in the worst case, a state so hospitable that all stranger, as in the depot house, considers himself a co-host. Unfortunately, the organization of the state shudders at its complete support on the nomadic element; so democracy had to compromise one more time between doctrine and the requirements of reality and make the notion of a "citizen" who is to be without everything, but a man who has political rights in a given country. What does it substance if individual is simply a “citizen”? From belonging to a nation that erstwhile created a country in history? Of course, specified an attitude would be sinful against the principles of democracy, due to the fact that aliens are besides people who have the natural right to individual freedom, and the regulation of their freedom can only be achieved by their consent. How they are to give this permission. Of course, just like all another residents, in a vote; they must so be "citizens".
In a democratic system, blood, origin, cannot justify civilian rights. But not all of them can be "citizens" everywhere, even though the usually unpleasant work of military service is connected with it; therefore, contrary to the doctrine, this right of "citizenship" had to be limited by imposing any formal requirements upon which to have it. Origin has been taken into account among these requirements, but equally with another formal requirements. Thus, “citizenship” is determined by: origin from the father who is simply a “citizen” of the state; adoption by the citizen; matrimony to a “citizen”; long-term residence in the state; finally, so widespread the granting of “citizenship” by the administrative authority. Thus, under the influence of the doctrines of democracy, the "citizenship" of the individual, that is, the lasting relation between her and her descendants with the destiny of the state, is determined by the fulfilment of any of these requirements of a purely formal nature, and in thousands of cases it is simply decided by an administrative official, if no longer any advanced protection or bribe or sometimes temporary political tactics of the government. specified “citizens” are to decide by their vote on the destiny of the state and government in the state. This is how democracy paid thousands and sometimes millions of strangers for limiting their "natural right to individual freedom". And now it is essential that no of them are left out at the vote and that they can vote freely.
Here we can return to the celebrated adjectives. Voting must be common! I don't think that's a question. If everyone has to let the regulation of his individual freedom, then evidently everyone has to vote. The election must be equal! It's easy. What right would let 1 “citizen” to cast 1 vote erstwhile another cast two, 3 or even four? Would the freedom of 1 “citizen be worth more than the freedom of another? Where is “freedom, equality, brotherhood”? The election must be direct! Consent to restrict individual freedom – this is for serious, for solemn act, so that it can be performed with any deputies or attorneys. The vote must be secret! The "citizen"'s consent to the regulation of his individual freedom, symbolized in the act of vote, is on his part the renunciation of a serious, painful victim, laid down on the altar of the "social state"; is he at the same time a second victim, or can he be required to put his interests at hazard by means of an open vote to prove civilian courage? After all, civilian courage and courage do not require any democratic principles from the "citizen". The vote must be without sex difference! Isn't a female human? Is there no right to consent to the regulation of her natural individual freedom? The vote must be proportional! Why is that? As usual in accidents, erstwhile it's hard to guess, it's about protecting minorities. At each vote, any majority decides about the choice, while any inconsolable number remains on the ice. Isn't that a sin against the principles of democracy? Those happy ones have their chosen 1 who will decide for them the destiny of the state and the governments, and they would agree to limit their freedom without any guarantees? Therefore, they must be given representation in Parliament, and this can only be done effectively with the existence of multiple districts and with a proportional vote. And so there will be a number of tiny minorities without representation in parliament, but specified concessions to the reality of democratic doctrine must be reconciled, and it has already acquired the essential practice, that I will remind you of Rousseau's "social contract" or compromise on the substance of who is the "citizen" of the state.
One category of people whose freedom is frequently severely restricted by the state and who has never been given the chance to express their will is forgotten by democracy constantly: minors and children. Although it must be admitted to her that – as if she felt this constant harm done to so many human beings, deprived of liberty without asking – the age that entitles her to vote is trying to reduce as much as possible, but will this wipe the tears off the people of the city?
The democratic regulation is based on specified elected parliament, which comes simply “from the will of the people”. As a parliament is, in a sense, a kid of the "will of the people," so again, the government is simply a kid of the "will of the Parliament"; the government is so a grandson of the "will of the people" and represents grandpa only through his father. This is what a democratic household hierarchy looks like. all growling of the father, all "votum of distrust" of parliament deprives the government in the democratic strategy of the legal title to represent the grandfather, or "will of the people", and thus, simply speaking, drives the government away. How did the “people” come out on this “freedom” and “equality” and on this “superiority” in the state? The democratic concept of “citizenship” opened the way for the government to influence all sorts of alien strays who, even more so inhabiting indigenous peoples, were always willing to sacrifice for any ad hoc gain, for any vulgar material benefit; specified people were not hard to sneak into the assurance of voters or to buy this trust and thus to supply themselves with better access to the state manger. Against the background of the surprise of the vote, the backlog intrigues in Parliaments, and even by simply buying MPs and all the parties, he gained tremendous influence on the government and the state with powerful global capital. Elections in competition of candidates and parties became a costly thing, and a triumph available only to wealthy candidates and to wealthy parties. In this way modern capitalism grew into strength, as the inevitable consequence of democratic rule. The democratic strategy and modern global capital, which sucks out the broadest masses of indigenous people, are 2 distant companions.
The democratic strategy from beginning to end is based on lying and fraud. It is simply a lie that a man has any natural right to individual liberty; a fiction, or conscious lie, is Rousseau’s “social contract”; it is simply a lie that elections, together with all their adjectives, truly express the will of the people, it is simply a lie that the democratic government represents the will of parliament, and much more the will of the people. This is what all managers and activists of democratic parties know, their preaching of these slogans – it's just deception, and at best self-deception.
Democracy and its parliament have brought about another scourge of public life: modern political parties. The desire to influence governments as much as possible and the cost-effectiveness of elections have become the strongest cement for their cohesion. 30 Members jointly organised means more than 1 100 non-organised democratic governments who can vote against each another and put up with each other; hence encouraging Members to form a compact organization with solidarity and organization discipline. As a result, partisan dictators become their leaders, and respective specified leaders dictate their will to parliament and government. They execute this dictatorship without any responsibility, due to the fact that the government is formally liable for them, and the bills are paid by the "people".
The democratic strategy is the dictatorship of irresponsible people. Where did specified a lying and deceitful strategy come from in Christian Europe, so contrary to God’s laws at all turn and to human soundness, so monstrous? Today, it is well known that the birth and subsequent improvement of democracy is due solely to the Masonic lodges and their competent executives, their “Unknown Superior”. Who are these unknown dictators of democratic states? The answer is given by past and masonry researchers. Who truly benefited from democratic systems? Who has obtained through designation of the natural right to freedom, equality, the right to trade where or, the right to access all schools as a student or teacher, the right to vote actively and passively in parliament, and the right to occupy all authoritative posts in each country and public trust stations, and even the right to participate in governments? It is Jews who owe the doctrines of democracy and the essential capital influences to their full position in the world. In the democratic system, we have 2 alternatives: either complete anarchy, or under the “people” company, behind the backdrop regulation of secret interparty organizations and – the easiest – global organizations. In the absence of them, everything has to fall apart. The partisanism of the democratic strategy would prevent any government from being created, for longer, and would teardrop the state to pieces. So it is essential to have this secret cement, which binds the leaders of individual parties into any compact circles, whose existence remains a mystery not only to the “people”, but even to the general organization activists. The cracks and grievances in these secret circles origin incredible cracks and regroupings on the surface of open political life, and “people are later afraid about deciphering their meanings and reasons.
Tadeusz Gloziński
