Exactly Why Should the Majority Rule? - What's the Argument for Democracy? - By David Gordon

Unlike many concepts in political theory, such as liberty or justice, democracy is easy to define. It denotes government by the majority, whether directly or indirectly. In the present essay, I shall restrict the discussion to government in control of a reasonably large territory. This restriction leads to, but perhaps does not entail, a further limitation. The type of government I shall endeavor to discuss is a variety of indirect democracy, i.e., a representative democracy, as in the United States and Great Britain, where the national legislature is popularly elected. Representative democracy is not the only conceivable sort of indirect democracy: imagine, e.g., a system in which the people by plebiscite can veto laws but only a non-elected body can propose them. Nevertheless, it is the system of government most frequently commended to all and sundry.

Though it is easy to characterize democracy, recent political theory has been marked by a conspicuous omission. Virtually no argument is ever offered to support the desirability of representative democracy, and the little that is available seems distressingly weak. Why ought democracy to be either instituted or promoted, let alone exported, as a recent book by Joshua Muravchik (Exporting Democracy) advocates? One would think that as important a question as that of the best political system would have generated an enormous literature. In point of fact, most writing on the subject simply takes for granted the desirability of democracy and inquires how existing democracies may be improved. The issue of whether democracy is a “good thing” is not thought worth raising.

A notable example of the omission I contend exists is a recent volume, The Conquest of Politics, by Bernard Barber, a distinguished political theorist teaching at Rutgers University. Barber criticizes a number of philosophers who have written about politics, including John Rawls, Bruce Ackerman, and Robert Nozick, for presuming to arrive at agendas for a just political order in the absence of democratic discussion. The decision of the people, rather than the excogitations of philosophers “voyaging through strange seas of thought alone,” should determine questions of distributive justice. To think otherwise is to be undemocratic.

Barber, whatever criticism one might make of him, at least has something to say. Concerning another group, the so-called Western Straussians headed by Harry Jaffa, it is difficult to give its members even this much credit. Is it an argument for democracy that Abraham Lincoln favored the system? The elaborate attempt of Jaffa, in Crisis of the House Divided, to argue that Lincoln correctly interpreted the Declaration of Independence to support a system of egalitarian democracy seems of purely historical interest. Why should Lincoln’s position be of any present-day importance? It is no more an argument for democracy that Lincoln favored it than it is one against this system that King James I opposed it.

What of the claim that the Declaration of Independence either mandates democratic government or, less strongly, recommends it? At best, the point would be relevant to the United States, for which the Declaration counts as an important historical document, rather than as a universal argument for democracy, unless, of course, it is contended that the Declaration enshrines principles of universal validity. But what is the argument for this claim?

Even if one restricts the discussion to the United States, appeal to the Declaration does not by itself take one very far. It seems more than doubtful, to say the least, that the Declaration can be taken to require democracy. It does not, after all, list among its grievances against George III that the monarch was undemocratic: it is the specific complaints adduced, rather than the absence of democracy, that the Declaration instances as the reasons entitling the colonies to “dissolve the political bands” that connect them with Great Britain.

To this one might counter that democracy is still the system most favored by the Declaration: even if other systems must be tolerated they are less than ideal. Although I am strongly inclined to dissent from this interpretation, I lack sufficient knowledge of the literature on the Declaration to discuss it in detail. (One related argument will however be discussed below.)

But suppose the Declaration did recommend democracy. Once more the question would arise: what is the significance of this? Some argument would need to be provided that the assumed view of the Declaration has binding authority. Surely the argument: the Declaration is one of the founding documents of the United States; therefore, any preference to be found in it regarding a proper political system ought to be followed by contemporary Americans, moves too fast. What precisely is the view of tradition supporting this position? Or is the argument rather that democracy has theoretical support independent of the Declaration, but that the support of the Declaration adds weight to this? But this merely returns us to the point at issue: what is the argument for democracy?

It might be contended that the argument that I have claimed to have trouble locating is in fact quite straightforward. Everyone ought to be in control of his own affairs, to the extent that his liberty does not impinge on the equal liberty of others. No one has the right to enslave another, using him as a mere tool. A version of this argument is, I suspect, behind Jaffa’s appeal to the Declaration in support of an egalitarian republic. If “all men are created equal,” how can a political system be justifiable in which some are entitled to lord it over others?

The principal difficulty with this argument is that it is far from evident how democracy emerges from the considerations here alleged in its support. Democracy is not a system in which each controls his own affairs but rather one in which the majority controls everyone. The principle of liberty from which the argument begins, which seems to me eminently plausible, leads to a regime of strictly limited control rather than to democracy. If it is replied that the argument shows the need for democracy combined with a Bill of Rights, we must again ask where does democracy come in? It seems to have nothing to do with the case.

But this argument has not yet concluded. If a strictly limited but undemocratic state exists, its rulers will still have more power than other citizens, however limited their restriction of individual liberty. Only democracy, a critic may claim, can eliminate this disparity.

But why ought it to be eliminated? It does not follow from the principle of liberty that everyone ought to be equal in power: if this is denied, I, for one, would like to see the reasoning set out. To assume that no person ought to have more political power than anyone else begs the question at issue, the desirability of democracy. This premise cannot be used as part of an independent argument in support of democracy: it is itself a restatement of an extreme version of democracy.

Some philosophers might contend that we have failed in our quest for the justification of democracy because we have not plunged deeply enough into the foundations of ethics. Is it not a basic principle of morality, as Ronald Dworkin contends, that everyone is entitled to be treated with equal consideration and respect? Only a democracy, it might be claimed, can obey this imperative.

I must confess it is not so evident to me as it is to Dworkin that the principle of equal consideration is correct. No doubt everyone should be treated with the respect due to him: but why equal respect? Is everyone of equal moral value? Charles Manson and David Hume? Fidel Castro and Douglas MacArthur? Perhaps, though, the point intended is a different one. Even though people differ in moral value, the respect due to them ought not to mirror their moral worth. (Presumably, supporters of this position will not regard defense against criminals as inconsistent with their concept of respect.)

Once more, this principle strikes me as implausible, but even if, contrary to fact, I had a good argument against it which did not appeal to conflicting moral intuitions, further discussion of it would take us too far afield. Instead, following our established tack, we inquire: does this principle support democracy?

It will hardly come as a surprise that it does not. As Dworkin himself has noted in another connection, treating people with equal respect does not imply treating them identically. The principle requires equal consideration of each person’s claims. It does not tell us without other principles what the outcome of that consideration will be. Dworkin is himself not only a democrat but a supporter of distributing economic resources along egalitarian lines; however, he does not obtain his results from the principle of respect alone. The details of Dworkin’s argument will not be discussed here; I have mentioned him only because his principle of equal respect, or similar rules, is often invoked in support of democracy.

Bruce Ackerman, for example, devises in his influential Social Justice in the Liberal State a series of imaginary conversations designed to illustrate the appropriate political and social principles. A requirement of his conversations, the outcomes of which turn out invariably to be democratic and egalitarian, is that no one claim that he is intrinsically more valuable than anyone else. Why not? Some people are better than others. Why must this moral fact be suppressed? How strong is an argument for democracy that rests on the refusal to allow reference to an obvious truth? Incidentally, Benjamin Barber, whom we have earlier discussed, criticizes Ackerman for a different reason – he is insufficiently democratic.

Are there no good arguments for democracy? Perhaps we have overlooked the obvious. Is it not wrong to impose a government on people without their consent? To do so seems inconsistent with a free society. If this is true, do we not at last have the argument for democracy which we have so far sought in vain?

Not at all. Consent has to do with the acceptance of the authority of a government by those subject to it: democracy refers to a type of rule, i.e., control by the majority or its agents. Consent neither implies nor is implied by democracy. Dictatorial regimes have enjoyed widespread recognition of their authority: one need only mention Napoleon during the years of his political success. A democratic system, moreover, can be forcibly imposed on a country without the consent of its citizens. In this case, the citizens are able democratically to govern themselves but cannot change the system, even if they overwhelmingly wish to do so. The United States has often acted in just this fashion in Latin America, since the days when Woodrow Wilson decided that the Mexican government was insufficiently democratic for his taste. Wilson also declined to grant Germany an armistice in World War I until the country replaced its monarchy with a republic.

Although consent and democracy need not in fact be connected, it might be argued that they ought to be. Only a democratic system ought to receive popular consent, even if people are benighted enough to think otherwise. But this contention presupposes that there exists an acceptable account of consent. Though I cannot here argue the point and can hardly ask readers simply to accept my assessment, it does seem to me that none of the principal theories of consent withstands philosophical criticism. It is in part on this basis that I support a libertarian system, in which the issue of consent to political authority does not arise. The arguments advanced in this essay do not, however, appeal to specifically libertarian contentions: the principle of liberty discussed earlier was deliberately worded in a way intended to be generally acceptable. But all this is by the way.

If in response it is alleged that even if we lack a convincing theory of consent, we at least know that the existence of a democratic system is a necessary condition of the yet-to-be found account, I fear that the familiar litany must be repeated: why is this so?

Perhaps the most substantial argument in support of democracy is that of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. A democratic regime, since it by hypothesis enjoys majority support, will best insure that political change avoids violence. A government that people dislike but cannot alter democratically will, in contrast, be susceptible to revolution, with its attendant destruction.

Mises’s argument seems to me vulnerable at several points. It does not address the contention raised earlier that a democratic system can itself be unpopular: unless the majority has the power to abolish democracy, Mises’s own argument would suggest the likelihood of revolution. He might, however, reply that, though he cannot show that democracy always leads to stability, it remains the system most likely to do so.

More directly to the essence, Mises fails to address the problem of revolutions brought about by minorities. Why should a dissatisfied minority confine itself to attempting to secure majority support for its proposals? Mises might reply that it has little choice – since the majority opposes it, it will lose should it attempt to seize power by force.

But this flies in the face of history; are not revolutions often, indeed usually, the result of efforts by a determined minority? Little purpose would be served by a long list of historical examples, though the French and Russian Revolutions will do for a start; but the list is unnecessary. All that is required to challenge Mises’s claim is to note that it is an empirical issue, not one to be settled a priori, whether revolutions stem in a significant number of cases from dissatisfied majorities. Unless they do, Mises has not shown that a system with majority support is in practice needed to avert revolution.

Mises’s claim that a government elected by a majority is unlikely to be overthrown violently by that same majority seems plausible. But if he has located a sufficient condition for immunizing a government against a revolution with majority support, he has failed to adduce a necessary one. Any regime that enjoys widespread popular approval will meet Mises’s requirement, which in fact is an instance of the trivial point that a group will not overthrow a system it supports. 

Furthermore, even if Mises is correct that democracy maximizes stability, precisely how does this work? If, finally, Mises were to respond that since governments may lose their support, democracy is necessary to allow changes in opinion to register their effect, an exactly similar rejoinder is appropriate. Any government responsive to popular discontent will be in a position to avert revolution, not just a democracy.

A supporter of democracy may reject the entire line of approach pursued in this essay. Why are arguments to justify democracy needed at all? Do we require arguments that we should not gratuitously inflict pain on others, or not betray our country to the enemy? Would we not look askance at someone who raised the question of whether he should steal as a “live option” rather than as a philosophical perplexity? Similarly, it might be contended that democracy stands in no need of further justification.

It seems to me entirely right that some truths, including certain principles of ethics, are known to be correct without the need for justification through argument. But is it plausible to think that the issue of how best to organize the making of political decisions is a matter open to direct apprehension? If it is, what are the intuitively evident principles governing division of power between legislature and executive? The requirements for public office, etc.? If these latter issues cannot be settled on intuitive grounds, why should we think the more general issue can be? What are the boundaries of intuition? Is this question also a matter of intuitive judgment?

If, in spite of these considerations, someone does have such a moral intuition, I have nothing to say against him. But to those for whom the question is a matter of inquiry, a case of this sort is irrelevant. Political theory cannot advance unless the analysis of controversial issues can proceed beyond the point of unsupported reiteration of prior convictions.

Those who support democracy but wish to go beyond appeal to an intuition of its desirability have work to do. Perhaps there is an argument that does show that democracy is entailed by sound morality. Much more likely, it seems to me, there is not. The slogan “Vox populi, vox Dei” and its endless modern variants are best consigned to the rubbish heap of exploded superstitions.

This article was first published in This World, Number 27, Winter 1992.

David Gordon is Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute and Distinguished Columnist at LewRockwell.com. He is also author of Resurrecting Marx and An Introduction to Economic Reasoning and editor of numerous books including Strictly Confidential: The Private Volker Fund Memos of Murray N. Rothbard. Send him mail.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/david-gordon/majority-rule-minority/

2016: the year of Russia’s triumph - The Unz Review - by The Saker

Just like European maps place Europe in the center of the planet, so do most western commentators look at the past year from a US/Europe-centered perspective. Which is fair enough. Furthermore, the AngloZionist Empire has just suffered two major disasters, the Brexit and the election of Trump, so there is truly much interesting to focus on. Still, what I want to do today is to look at the year which is ending from a Russian perspective. The following were the major challenges Russia faced in 2016:

1.       The Nazi regime in Kiev

2.      The civil war in the Donbass

3.      Ukrainian attempts to blockade Crimea

4.      The rabid hostility of the US Administration

5.      NATO’s policy of military confrontation in Europe

6.      The united European front against Russia

7.      Western sanctions, the subsequent drop in investments and credit and the low oil prices

8.     The growing dissatisfaction of the Russian people with the economic polices of the government

9.      The struggle against the “liberal” 5th column inside Russia

10.  The international aggression against Syria

11.   The demonization of Russia in general and of Vladimir Putin in particular

12.  Terrorist attacks against Russia

Let’s take these one by one now and score them:

The Ukraine 5/5

The Nazi occupied Ukraine is in free fall. In fact, it has been in free fall for a while already, but just like somebody jumping from the 40th floor of a building is doing “okay” passing by the 20th floor, so did the Ukraine still have the possibility to say “so far so good” and look halfway credible to the superficially informed. Now, however, it is becoming rather obvious that the so-called “Revolution of dignity” (which is how the Neonazis call the coup against Yanukovich) is an abject failure and that the “Independent Ukraine” is simply beyond rescue. The ruling class which came to power now is falling apart, everybody is fighting everybody else and there is no other discernible policy left beyond personal enrichment and survival. As for the “Joan of Arc of the Ukraine” and “Hope of the Ukraine” – Nadezhda Savchenko – she is now denounced as a traitor and FSB agent. Forbes is now running an article entitled “Corruption is killing Ukraine’s economy” while a former Ukrainian lawmaker has passed recordings of Poroshenko taking bribes to the FBI. As for the Ukrainian military, which Poroshenko has recently advertised as one of the 5 best in the world, it has only mustered enough forces to send one company size infantry force supported by 2 tank platoons to attack the Novorussian positions near Debaltsevo before getting them all killed. The situation of the Ukrainian military is so bad that they are now forced to use private cars to get to the frontlines and to evacuate the wounded. Yes, on paper the Ukrainian military is huge, but in reality it is a force which has a hard time surviving even before going into battle. Last but not least, the entire Nazi ruling elite had thrown its full political weight behind Hillary while pouring scorn and vitriol against Trump. To say that they are now screwed would be an understatement. Hence the mood of utter panic now taking over Kiev.

The Donbass 3/5

The Russian policy in the Donbass (non-occupation combined with overt and covert support) was clearly the correct one: the DNR and LNR are getting stronger while the Nazi occupied Ukraine is going down the tubes, vide supra, as they say. There have however also been clear failures and the two main ones are the Russian inability to stop the constant shelling and attacks on civilians from the Nazis and the Russian failure to establish security inside the two republics. If the first failure can be excused (there is no magic recipe to make that happen), the second one is inexcusable as seen by the murder of several key Novorussian figures. Furthermore, the situation in the Donbass remains very difficult and potentially dangerous. In the big scheme of things, Russia did very well, but as soon as you look down to the more detailed level many mistakes and failures become apparent. Still, it is now obvious to any decently informed person that time is now (and has always been, really) on the side of the Novorussians as every passing day makes them stronger and the Ukronazis weaker.

Crimea 5/5

The Urkonazis tried everything, from blockading the peninsula, to cutting off water and electricity, to sending terrorist infiltrators. This gave Russia the opportunity to “save” Crimea from the Ukraine over and over and over again. It is pretty darn clear that the Ukronazis have long given up of ever getting back Crimea and that all that is left to them are mostly ineffective ways to try to make the people of Crimea miserable thereby, of course, only strengthening their resolve. Initially there were some people in Crimea who were not quite convinced that the nightmare was really over and that Russia truly meant business (especially with all the rumors about “Putin selling out”). But now that the Russians have to put major efforts into shielding Crimea from the Ukronazi attempts at blockading it those doubts have disappeared. Crimea’s future looks extremely bright: not only is the Russian state pouring in billions of Rubles for huge infrastructural improvement and the deployment of a very large and advanced military force, but the prospects for tourism and trade are also excellent.

ORDER IT NOW

The United States 5/5

The credit for the election of Donald Trump goes first and foremost to the American people to whom I sincerely believe the entire planet owe a heartfelt and loud “THANK YOU!!!!!”. I will never be able to prove that and, thank God, we will never know if I was right, but up to the last minute I was convinced that there was a very strong probability that Hillary in the White House would have meant war, probably nuclear, with Russia. I am still undecided about Trump, but I view his upcoming term with cautious optimism and while I would never say never, I really very strongly feel that with Trump in the White House the risks of war with Russia have fallen to a dramatically low level and that barring some stunning provocation or disaster, a war between the USA and Russia has now become exceedingly unlikely. Glory be to God for His immense mercy towards us!

That being, said, I will dare to speculate that Russia did play a role in the election of Trump. No, not by hacking emails or by recruiting Ron Paul (!!!) as an agent of Russian propaganda, but by openly and firmly confronting the USA on all fronts and showing that Russia would not bend her knee before the AngloZionist Empire. As I have written many times, Russia has been preparing for war for years now and while Russians were (and still are) afraid of war, they are also ready and willing to fight it if forced to do so. In his latest press conference Putin specifically referred to the will of the Russian people as a key element in Russia’s ability to defeat any aggressor when he said,

We are stronger than any potential aggressor. I have no problem repeating it. I also said why we are stronger. This has to do with the effort to modernise the Russian Armed Forces, as well as the history and geography of our country, and the current state of Russian society

and he is absolutely right. Sure, Hillary was probably stupid enough to try to impose a no-fly zone over Syria, but the 200 or so generals and admirals who expressed their support for Trump probably understood what that kind of folly would entail. Furthermore, it appears that quite a few Americans are sympathetic to Russia and Putin himself. Again, in his latest press conference Putin referred to this and made some very interesting comments:

I do not take support for the Russian President among a large part of Republican voters as support for me personally, but rather see it in this case as an indication that a substantial part of the American people share similar views with us on the world’s organisation, what we ought to be doing, and the common threats and challenges we are facing. It is good that there are people who sympathise with our views on traditional values because this forms a good foundation on which to build relations between two such powerful countries as Russia and the United States, build them on the basis of our peoples’ mutual sympathy. (…) It seems to me that Reagan would be happy to see his party’s people winning everywhere, and would welcome the victory of the newly elected President so adept at catching the public mood, and who took precisely this direction and pressed onwards to the very end, even when no one except us believed he could win.

Putin puts it down to values, common values, between the Russian and the American people.

[Personal sidebar: for whatever this is worth, I regularly interact with Americans who support Putin on the grounds that "he stands for American values unlike the SOBs in Washington"].

But how did the Americans become aware of what values Putin and Russia stood for if not for the ceaseless efforts of Putin himself and the alternative media to convey these values to the general public? I think that by OPENLY denouncing the total hypocrisy of the AngloZionist Empire and by OPENLY offering a different civilizational model, Putin and Russia did have an impact on the public opinion in the West. To put it simply: Russia has scored an ideological victory over the AngloZionist imperialists. In other words, the Russian policy of standing firm against the Empire while openly challenging it on its ideological foundation was the correct one and it probably did have an impact upon the outcome of the election in the USA.

NATO 4/5

Russia has defeated NATO on two levels: a purely military one and a political one. On the military level Russia has taken all the asymmetrical measures she promised to negate both the US anti-missile system in Europe and the deployment of threatening military power in eastern Europe: Russia deployed the Iskander missile, doubled of the size of her Airborne Forces, and initiated the creation of a Tank Army in the western strategic direction (to read more about how Russia prepared to fight and defeat NATO see “How Russia is preparing for WWIII” and “The EU’s suicide by reality denial“). On the political level there can be little doubt that all the European leaders who favored confrontation with Russia are now unpopular and in a political crisis except maybe Merkel, but Germany alone can’t do anything meaningful (at least one “positive” side effect, so to speak, of the EU integration). As for the election of Trump, it has resulted in a NATO-wide panic, especially in those countries which had prostituted themselves to the Empire with special enthusiasm and zeal (Poland, the three Baltic statlets, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and our “Orthodox brothers” in Romania and Bulgaria). I don’t see Trump dumping NATO, there would be too much opposition against that, but with Trump in the White House all the nonsense about the “Russian bear is about to invade Latvia or Poland” is going to come to a crashing end and the poor folks in eastern Europe will come to realize that neither Russia nor the USA gives a damn about them. Trump will probably put the financial squeeze on NATO and force its member states to purchase even more US gear, but that will be a purely financial operation and not an attempt at surrounding Russia will military forces. Russia’s ultimate goal, the replacement of NATO by a European-wide common defense agreement from Portugal to the Urals has not happened, but the election of Trump is a huge step in the right direction.

The EU 5/5

Poor “EUans” (my own word for the European zombies who believed in the Bilderberger’s European Union): they are now, how shall I put it politely, totally “frigged”? Not only did the British people defy the Empire and vote for a Brexit, but now the Imperial Homeland has “backstabbed” them by electing a patriot who is not interested in maintaining the global empire (or so he says, at least for the time being). At the same time, the so-called “refugee crisis” is bringing several crucial EU nations to the brink of a civil war (France for example) while all the efforts of the elites to blame Russia for it all end up in abject failures. Just check out this hilarious article in the British Sun which accuses Russia of, I kid you not, “organizing sex attacks in Germany“!! True, we already had the “Serbian Chetniks using rape as a weapon of ethnic cleansing” and “Gaddafi distributing Viagra to his soldiers to rape opposition supporters” but Putin ordering refugees to rape women in Germany is the best, so to speak. And just in case the unthinkable happens in Germany, the Germans have already warned that Russian hackers might steal the election in Germany. If this was not so utterly disgusting it would be hilarious. The bottom line is this: the entire EU project is morally completely bankrupt, each EU member state is now in a deep political crisis and the so-called “elites” are scrambling to find a response to what appears to be an inevitable collapse of the EU-order over Europe. The European militaries are a joke, all of them, and when, say, the Swedes go on “Russian sub hunting” they always end up embarrassing themselves. If there are any extra-terrestrials observing us from space, the EU is beyond any doubt their laughing stock. As for the Russians, far from fearing the Europeans, they don’t even take them very seriously and they look at them with either pity or scorn for their apparently infinite lack of spine and dignity. Of sure, as soon as mentally sane leaders return to power in the various EU countries Russia will be more than happy to trade with the EU, send and receive tourists and generally have friendly relations. But after over three centuries of trying to sheepishly imitate the Europeans and be accepted as European themselves, the Russian have finally lost all interest in emulating Europe, at least in a cultural or political way. Of course, the Russians will still love German cars, French wines or Italian music, but the myth of the European cultural superiority has truly died. Good riddance!

The Russian economy 3/5

The main external factors influencing the Russian economy have been Western sanctions, the subsequent drop in investments and credit and, especially, the low oil prices. Almost exactly as Putin had predicted it, it took Russia two years to overcome the combined effect of these factors, so says not me or a Kremlin spokesman, but the IMF (see here). What matters here is not this or that figure for GDP or inflation, but the fact that all the key indicators for the Russian economy point to a gradual recovery and good prospects for growth. I personally think that the policies of the “economic block” of the Medvedev government made the effects of this crisis even worse than they had to be, but I have to admit that despite the major mistakes committed by the Russian government the Russian economy is recovering. If I had to score the performance of the Russian government’s policies I would have given it a maximum of 2/5, but since what I am looking at is the state of the economy I have to give it an objective 3/5. I just think that a 5/5 would have been possible. One small point here: some have made a great deal of noise around the planned reduction in Russian defense spending but what they are missing is that reduction has been made possible by the spending over the past couple of years and that the Russian defense program by 2020 has not been in any way amended, nevermind reduced. In other words, the Russian military can afford to use less money for a couple of years and there will be no cuts in defense programs as planned by 2020.

Russian public opinion 4/5

In spite of the still strong grip the “IMF-types” in the Russian government have over the key economic decisions in Russia there are some signs that things are getting better and that the Russian public is getting some of the heads it wanted to see rolling: here I am, of course, referring to the arrest of the Minister of Economic Development of the Russian Federation Alexei Uliukaev. Of course, the list of candidates for termination and arrest is much longer (see here) but Uliukaev was definitely one of the most influential and toxic member of the Atlantic Integrationists and the hysterical reaction of the Russian liberal press clearly shows how painful this arrest is for the Russian 5th column. As for right now, the arrest of Uliukaev has not been followed by more sackings or arrests, but it is quite possible that Putin did with Uliukaev what he already one did with Berezovsky: hit at the one “big guy” and therefore force the rest of his gang to play ball and give up any hopes of confronting him. Only time will tell if sacking and arresting Uliukaev will be enough to finally re-sovereignize Russia, but it sure is a very good beginning.

Russian russophobes 4/5

Sounds weird, does it not? “Russian russophobes”. Reminds me of the “self-hating Jew” category. And yet they exist, at least nominally. I say nominally because being Russian has never been about speaking Russian, or about living in Russia or even about some hypothetical “Russian ethnicity” (which really does not exist). One definition of what it is to be Russian was given by the philosopher Vasilii Rozanov who wrote the following prophetic words in 1913: “To love a happy and great Motherland is really not a big thing. We have to love her when she is weak, small, humiliated, finally, stupid, finally, even filled with vices. It is when our “mother” is drunk, lying and all entangled in her sins that we must not depart from her. But even that is not enough: when she finally dies, eaten up by Jews, and when only her bones remain – he will be truly “Russian” who will weep over her useless skeleton, abandoned by all. He truly shall be… ” Needless to say, Rozanov is hated by the Russian “liberals”. Contrary to Rozanov, these russophobic “liberals” rejoice in every Russian failure and they can barely contain their joy when some tragedy befalls the Russian people which they hate and despise for supporting a “tyrant” like Putin instead of them, the self-perceived “intellectual elites” of Russia.

When Putin came to power, these 5th russophobic columnist were literally everywhere since their families were usually members of the Soviet elites and since during the infamous 1990s they literally took control of every single lever of power in Russia from the mass media to the Kremlin. First, Putin got rid of the oligarchs, especially the “Seven Bankers“. Next, he gradually pushed most of them out from of mass media (that is when their colleagues and patrons in the West began speaking of the lack of a free press in Russia). And then he began the slow and outright dangerous process of getting rid of them, one by one, from inside the Russian government, including the Kremlin. But Putin’s biggest achievement this year has to be his extremely successful campaign to delegitimize this 5th column. He did that no by “cracking down” on them, nor did he murder any journalist or opposition figure, and he did not fill the “new Russian Gulag” with thousands of liberal dissidents. He (by “he” I mean not only Putin himself, but also his supporters) did the exact opposite: he gave them a platform and he made darn sure that their views would be freely aired on an almost daily basis. Those interested about this can read my analysis “Counter-propaganda, Russian style“. This was pure genius: instead of silencing the russophobes, Putin gave them a completely disproportionate amount of airtime (keep in mind that less than 5% of the Russian population supports these freaks) and let them hang themselves by being wrong on just about everything: they were wrong on Crimea, wrong on the Ukraine, wrong on the economy, wrong on social and civil rights, wrong on corruption, wrong on so-called “gay rights”, wrong about NATO, wrong about the EU, wrong about Clinton (they loved her), wrong about Trump (they hated him), wrong about terrorism and wrong about Syria. As a result, these “liberals” (in the Russian meaning of the word) are now universally seen as traitors, russophobes, snobs, racists, 5th columnists, CIA puppets, etc. They now are absolutely hated and desperate. As a result, during the recent elections, we saw the amazing sight of Russian “liberals”, including Jews, allying themselves with Nazis and organizing joint protests against Putin. Needless to say, that only served to further discredit them.

There are still plenty of 5th columnists in Russia, but they are mostly laying really low, hoping for better times and trying to remain out of the public eye as much as possible. Their main remaining center of power is the Russian Central Bank and the “economic bloc” of the Medvedev government, but since both Kudrin and Uliukavev have been kicked out, the rest of them are being very careful in their actions and statements.

All in all, 2016 has been an absolutely catastrophic year for the russophobic 5th column which is now in a state of total despair and which seems to have no future whatsoever.

Syria 5/5

Russia’s success in Syria is nothing short of amazing. Not only did an extremely small Russian military force succeed in turning around the course of the war, but it has held an essentially indefensible position long enough to deter Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and the USA from overtly attacking the Syrian forces or government. The Russians succeeded in this despite numerous, ugly and bloody provocations and despite having to operate in an extremely hostile environment (the region “belongs” to NATO and CENTCOM). One of the most amazing successes what how the Russians managed to save Erdogan in extremis from a US backed coup and convince him to work with Russia and Iran to solve the Syrian crisis. The liberation of Aleppo could not have happened had Turkey continued to support al-Nusra & Co at any price. At the very least it would have taken much more time. By the end of 2016 the Russians own the Black Sea, control, at least for the time being, the eastern Mediterranean and they are working with the three biggest powers on the ground: the Syrians, of course, but also Iran and Turkey. As for the United States, they seemed to have lost the entire region and their only “achievement”, so to speak, has been to alienate both the Israelis and the Saudis. As for President Elect Trump, he has clearly indicated that his number one priority will be to smash Daesh & Co. which happens to be exactly what Russia, Iran and Syria want too. If Trump really manages to kick the Neocon crazies to the cockroach filled basement where they belong, we could see something quite amazing happening: a joint Russian-US effort to destroy Daesh. The big problem here will be the totally counter-productive and, frankly, idiotic anti-Iranian rhetoric of the Trump campaign. However, there must be enough good brains around Trump to make him understand that nothing in the region can happen without Iran’s approval and that the US and Iran don’t need to love each other to agree on a common objective. Trump strikes me as a realist much more than as an ideologue. Hopefully, he will learn how to separate AIPAC-pleasing rhetoric with serious foreign policy (the crash of the Obama Administration ought to teach him that lesson).

What is certain is that Russia is now running the show in Syria and that without US or Turkish support, Daesh will be facing an existential crisis. Of course, the situation remains fluid, complex and dangerous. And I would never put it past the US or Turkey to do yet another 180 and to resume their support for Daesh. The Kurdish factor, Israeli policies and Erdogan’s inherent unpredictability all serve to make sure that the Syrian crisis will continue well into 2017. However, I think that the Neocon’s crazy rampage is reached is apogee and that things should begin to improve from now on. Russia alone simply could not save Syria, and yet she appears to have done just that.

The russophobic hysteria in the West 3/5

There was simply no way that the AngloZionist could be defeated on all fronts without screaming “oy veh!” to high heaven and screaming they did. All year long. Their allegations ranged from Russia wanting to invade Latvia to Russian hackers stealing the US election. And to make absolutely sure that there was no doubt at all as to the identity of these hackers, the AngloZionists informed us that these hackers called themselves “fancy bear” and “cozy bear”, that they used the alias “Felix Edmundovich” (the first name and patronymic of Felix Derzhinskii, the founder of the Soviet secret services) and that they worked during Moscow time office hours and they took breaks during Russian holidays. And least you think that this kind of nonsense was made up in an mental institution or a kindergarten, here is the link to the article in the article in the New York times quoting “security experts”. Amazing, no? But then again, when I see the Neocons seriously calling Ron Paul a Russian agent I realize that there is nothing, no matter how stupid, that these guys would not dare say. Chutzpah in action, I suppose. And while the left side of the Bell Curve appears to have fully internalized the message, there is a growing segment of the population which realizes how silly all these accusations are.

[Personal sidebar: while I am sure that there are some Americans who believe that the Russkies are a dangerous enemy of the USA, I have yet to met even one such American. In my day to day interactions I see *no* hostility towards Russians even when I openly speak Russian with my family in stores or restaurants or when I say that I am Russian. Maybe this is because I am in Florida and not New York, but I have yet to see a single example of anti-Russian hostility].

The Russian treatment by the Western-controlled WADA at the Rio Olympics was an absolute outrage, a farce and and crime all wrapped into one. And Russia is very much to blame for having allowed the key world organizations become so controlled by the West. However, let’s also see that the USA failed to have Russia completely banned from Rio and that Russian hackers (yes, they do exist) have uncovered convincing evidence which discredits WADA and the entire system behind it. I would call that “growing pains” for the post-Soviet Russian sport: Russia now needs to “clean house” in the very real cases of doping while, at the same time, wrestling the control of the key international organizations from the West. A tough task for sure, but Russia has an immensely powerful ally in this (and many other) struggles: China. But yes, all in all, the partial ban and subsequent Russia-bashing campaign is a black eye for Russia.

In the case of Europe, russophobia has always been a northern European thing. Mediterranean countries were only dragged into imposing sanctions under very strong pressure from the north. It now appears that France will soon be ruled either by one or the other generally pro-Russian parties which are competing for the Presidency. The Brexit took out probably the single most anti-Russian country in the EU and now Germany and Poland are more or less on their own in trying to desperately revitalize the anti-Russian front. The problem for them is that they are also both subservient US colonies and that while they can fancy themselves the next in line to defend the western civilization against the revanchist Mongol hordes from the East, the reality is that they will do whatever the hell Uncle Sam tells them to do.

From now on, the only bastion of true rabid russophobia will remain in the most thoroughly “Zionified” segment of society: the media, the so-called “intellectuals”, the “liberal interventionists” and all the “tribe of minorities” who have a beef with Russia on account of the different civilizational model she represents (gender differentiated parents, religion, patriotism (but not nationalism!), etc.). These will continue to pour a steady stream of filth against Russia in general and Putin in particular. Putin will not be their only target, however, and Donald Trump will be the recipient of whatever hatred remains after Putin. Frankly, taking on Putin AND Trump at the same time is a futile and possibly risky business, no matter who you are in the AngloZionist “jet set”, especially when you also have little traction with the general public whom you have regularly insulted, demeaned and dismissed.

There could be a gigantic return of the pendulum happening before our eyes against those who have produced the lion’s share of the hate-propaganda in the West: these guys might well end up finally reaping what they have sown and become the object of hate themselves.

Terrorism 4/5

This year as been tough on Russia. A recent anonymous comment posted on this blog made a good list of the tragic murder of Russians this year including the bombing on the Russian civilian airliner over Egypt, the Su-24 shootdown involving US AWACS, the murder of the Russian medics in a precision strike, the murder of the Russian Ambassador and the probable murder of the Red Army Choir. To this list I would add the Novorussian commanders assassinated in the Donbass. That is a lot of innocent Russian victims. But compared to the number of innocent Syrians or Turks this number is relatively small. It is outright tiny of compared to the kind of mass horror the Wahabis managed to organize in Chechnia. Let’s remember that Russia is a country at war with state-sponsored transnational terrorism and that many millions of dollars of “aid” are going towards the various Nazi and Wahabi organizations with have the murder of Russians as their main goal. I would say “so far, so good” but I cannot do that because I believe that Russia is still not ready to face the kind of terrorism which is likely to hit her in the next year. There is one specific type of target which is currently completely undefended and which the terrorists can strike with quasi-impunity: Russian Orthodox churches outside Russia.

The Russians need to revisit the kind of terror campaign the Palestinians waged in the 1970s against the Israelis when they attacked not only Israeli cultural centers, but also Jewish daycare centers, schools, and synagogues. Russian Orthodox churches are now facing the very same threat including bombings and hostage taking. As somebody who has attended Russian Orthodox churches all my life and all over the planet I know that the number of potential targets are in the *hundreds* and that they are all completely unprotected.

The Israeli example is crucial here because the Israelis rapidly realized that they simply could not count on the local police forces to protect them. This is why they organized various local organizations directly attached to a synagogue or school staffed by volunteers who could do many very useful and fully legal things to protect Israeli/Jewish targets such as, for example, begin to occupy all the parking spaces around a synagogue 48 hours before any religious holiday to make sure that no VBIEDs (aka “car bombs”) could be placed next to the synagogue. There is *a lot* a well educated group of volunteers can do to legally protect an exposed civilian target. They can do even better when they work with the locals cops and the security specialists at the embassy. The Russians urgently need to study the Israeli experience in dealing with a kind of threat which they will soon face. Remember, the Palestinians also began by attacking diplomats, officials and aircraft, but as soon as these targets were “hardened” they turn to daycare centers, schools and synagogues.

I believe that inside Russia the FSB has a good control of the situation. But outside Russia the amount of specialized personnel fully dedicated to security is woefully inadequate and needs to be dramatically expanded. During the Soviet era few government dared to openly attack Soviet targets, the fearsome (and very much exaggerated!) reputation of the KGB probably helped, while during the Eltsin years there really was no point in attacking Russia as she was internally collapsing. But now that Russia is very strong internally, and the Russian military personnel hard to get at, diplomats, children and clergy are probably going to be the next targets of the Wahabis.

The one good news about this issue that the the Soviets/Russians have been fighting the Wahabis since the 1970s and that they are acutely aware that there is no such thing as a non-state sponsored terrorism. The Russians know where the money, training and weapons come from and they know that terrorism can only be defeated by strong counter-intelligence and and intelligence operations, especially human intelligence. The foreign intelligence branch of the KGB, the PGU or First Chief Directorate, had a (very much deserved) reputation for being able to infiltrate agents pretty much anywhere, including the top echelons of the CIA and NSA, and we can be confident that the SVR today is slowly rebuilding is capabilities worldwide and, especially, in the countries which sponsor Wahabi terrorism. Just the way the Russian special services saved Erdogan and thereby “flipped” Turkey – one of the absolutely worst sponsors of Wahabi terrorism – is already a huge success. God willing, the Saudis will be next.

Conclusion

Simply put – 2016 has been a fantastic year for Russia. Putin’s policy of slow, low-key and deliberate move and counter-move has proven to be extremely effective. While to some “hurray patriots” it did appear that Putin was being passive and doing nothing, the outcome of this year has been a Putin victory on all fronts, including the most dangerous and difficult ones. Remember all the nonsense these Putin-haters wrote about “Putin selling out the Donbass”, “Putin unable to reply to the Turkish shoot-down of the SU-24″, “Putin disarming Syria” or “Putin betraying Assad”? These “hurray patriots” have been predicted doom and gloom for years now and they have been proven wrong every single time. Did that silence them? Somewhat. I notice that most of the “Putin is selling out the Donbass” blogs are posting very little and when they do, it is mostly stuff unrelated to their previous Putin-bashing campaign. The same goes for the Ukronazis commentators on sites which allow them to post: they seem to have thrown in the towel and given up convincing the world about how democratic the junta in Kiev is, about how there are hundreds of Russian tanks in Donetsk and how the Ukraine will join the EU and become Germany-like overnight. The only ones who are keeping up the Putin-bashing campaign are the western presstitutes, but they are doing that for pay and to keep their jobs. Besides, that is all they know how to do anyway. But all in all, there is a general lack of energy and enthusiasm in the Russia hating camp which is a real joy for me to see.

2017 could be an amazing year for the world, or it could be a big disappointment. Right now this depends mostly on what Trump will do after he assumes his official capacity. To me the single most important fact will remain that with Hillary in the White House our planet risked a major thermonuclear war. There is no reason any more to believe that this is going to happen. As for the list of all the good things which *could* happen in 2017 if Trump does the right thing for his country, it will be the topic of a future analysis.

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/2016-the-year-of-russias-triumph/

Vox Popoli: By any means necessary - George Soros is pulling out all the stops............

By any means necessary

George Soros is pulling out all the stops to try to impede the God-Emperor's rule while saving the EU from itself. But I find this article by the aged string-puller, entitled "Open Society Needs Defending", to make for very satisfactory reading indeed.

Well before Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, I sent a holiday greeting to my friends that read: “These times are not business as usual. Wishing you the best in a troubled world.” Now I feel the need to share this message with the rest of the world. But before I do, I must tell you who I am and what I stand for.

I am an 86-year-old Hungarian Jew who became a US citizen after the end of World War II. I learned at an early age how important it is what kind of political regime prevails. The formative experience of my life was the occupation of Hungary by Hitler’s Germany in 1944. I probably would have perished had my father not understood the gravity of the situation. He arranged false identities for his family and for many other Jews; with his help, most survived.

In 1947, I escaped from Hungary, by then under Communist rule, to England. As a student at the London School of Economics, I came under the influence of the philosopher Karl Popper, and I developed my own philosophy, built on the twin pillars of fallibility and reflexivity. I distinguished between two kinds of political regimes: those in which people elected their leaders, who were then supposed to look after the interests of the electorate, and others where the rulers sought to manipulate their subjects to serve the rulers’ interests. Under Popper’s influence, I called the first kind of society open, the second, closed.

The classification is too simplistic. There are many degrees and variations throughout history, from well-functioning models to failed states, and many different levels of government in any particular situation. Even so, I find the distinction between the two regime types useful. I became an active promoter of the former and opponent of the latter.

I find the current moment in history very painful. Open societies are in crisis, and various forms of closed societies – from fascist dictatorships to mafia states – are on the rise. How could this happen? The only explanation I can find is that elected leaders failed to meet voters’ legitimate expectations and aspirations and that this failure led electorates to become disenchanted with the prevailing versions of democracy and capitalism. Quite simply, many people felt that the elites had stolen their democracy.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US emerged as the sole remaining superpower, equally committed to the principles of democracy and free markets. The major development since then has been the globalization of financial markets, spearheaded by advocates who argued that globalization increases total wealth. After all, if the winners compensated the losers, they would still have something left over.

The argument was misleading, because it ignored the fact that the winners seldom, if ever, compensate the losers. But the potential winners spent enough money promoting the argument that it prevailed. It was a victory for believers in untrammeled free enterprise, or “market fundamentalists,” as I call them. Because financial capital is an indispensable ingredient of economic development, and few countries in the developing world could generate enough capital on their own, globalization spread like wildfire. Financial capital could move around freely and avoid taxation and regulation.

Globalization has had far-reaching economic and political consequences. It has brought about some economic convergence between poor and rich countries; but it increased inequality within both poor and rich countries. In the developed world, the benefits accrued mainly to large owners of financial capital, who constitute less than 1% of the population. The lack of redistributive policies is the main source of the dissatisfaction that democracy’s opponents have exploited. But there were other contributing factors as well, particularly in Europe.

I was an avid supporter of the European Union from its inception. I regarded it as the embodiment of the idea of an open society: an association of democratic states willing to sacrifice part of their sovereignty for the common good. It started out at as a bold experiment in what Popper called “piecemeal social engineering.” The leaders set an attainable objective and a fixed timeline and mobilized the political will needed to meet it, knowing full well that each step would necessitate a further step forward. That is how the European Coal and Steel Community developed into the EU.

But then something went woefully wrong. After the Crash of 2008, a voluntary association of equals was transformed into a relationship between creditors and debtors, where the debtors had difficulties in meeting their obligations and the creditors set the conditions the debtors had to obey. That relationship has been neither voluntary nor equal.

Germany emerged as the hegemonic power in Europe, but it failed to live up to the obligations that successful hegemons must fulfill, namely looking beyond their narrow self-interest to the interests of the people who depend on them. Compare the behavior of the US after WWII with Germany’s behavior after the Crash of 2008: the US launched the Marshall Plan, which led to the development of the EU; Germany imposed an austerity program that served its narrow self-interest.

Before its reunification, Germany was the main force driving European integration: it was always willing to contribute a little bit extra to accommodate those putting up resistance. Remember Germany’s contribution to meeting Margaret Thatcher’s demands regarding the EU budget?

But reuniting Germany on a 1:1 basis turned out to be very expensive. When Lehman Brothers collapsed, Germany did not feel rich enough to take on any additional obligations. When European finance ministers declared that no other systemically important financial institution would be allowed to fail, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, correctly reading the wishes of her electorate, declared that each member state should look after its own institutions. That was the start of a process of disintegration.

After the Crash of 2008, the EU and the eurozone became increasingly dysfunctional. Prevailing conditions became far removed from those prescribed by the Maastricht Treaty, but treaty change became progressively more difficult, and eventually impossible, because it couldn’t be ratified. The eurozone became the victim of antiquated laws; much-needed reforms could be enacted only by finding loopholes in them. That is how institutions became increasingly complicated, and electorates became alienated.

The rise of anti-EU movements further impeded the functioning of institutions. And these forces of disintegration received a powerful boost in 2016, first from Brexit, then from the election of Trump in the US, and on December 4 from Italian voters’ rejection, by a wide margin, of constitutional reforms.

Democracy is now in crisis. Even the US, the world’s leading democracy, elected a con artist and would-be dictator as its president. Although Trump has toned down his rhetoric since he was elected, he has changed neither his behavior nor his advisers. His cabinet comprises incompetent extremists and retired generals.

What lies ahead?

I am confident that democracy will prove resilient in the US. Its Constitution and institutions, including the fourth estate, are strong enough to resist the excesses of the executive branch, thus preventing a would-be dictator from becoming an actual one.

But the US will be preoccupied with internal struggles in the near future, and targeted minorities will suffer. The US will be unable to protect and promote democracy in the rest of the world. On the contrary, Trump will have greater affinity with dictators. That will allow some of them to reach an accommodation with the US, and others to carry on without interference. Trump will prefer making deals to defending principles. Unfortunately, that will be popular with his core constituency.

I am particularly worried about the fate of the EU, which is in danger of coming under the influence of Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose concept of government is irreconcilable with that of open society. Putin is not a passive beneficiary of recent developments; he worked hard to bring them about. He recognized his regime’s weakness: it can exploit natural resources but cannot generate economic growth. He felt threatened by “color revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere. At first, he tried to control social media. Then, in a brilliant move, he exploited social media companies’ business model to spread misinformation and fake news, disorienting electorates and destabilizing democracies. That is how he helped Trump get elected.

The same is likely to happen in the European election season in 2017 in the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. In France, the two leading contenders are close to Putin and eager to appease him. If either wins, Putin’s dominance of Europe will become a fait accompli.

I hope that Europe’s leaders and citizens alike will realize that this endangers their way of life and the values on which the EU was founded. The trouble is that the method Putin has used to destabilize democracy cannot be used to restore respect for facts and a balanced view of reality.

With economic growth lagging and the refugee crisis out of control, the EU is on the verge of breakdown and is set to undergo an experience similar to that of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Those who believe that the EU needs to be saved in order to be reinvented must do whatever they can to bring about a better outcome.

The article is riddled with lies, but even so, it is clear that the globalists are getting increasingly worried. And well they should. The rising tide of nationalism is going to kill their evil utopian dreams as dead as the League of Nations. The European nations will be greatly blessed if they are so fortunate as to find leaders half as effective, and half as genuinely devoted to their nations, as the Russians are to have Vladimir Putin.

What Soros calls "the open society" is a fraud being marketed by the globalist elite to mask their true objectives of rule by an international aristocracy. There are few institutions more openly anti-democratic than the EU, which subverts even democracies that don't belong to it. If the US was genuinely interested in spreading democracy abroad, its first order of business should be to invade Brussels.

History never ended. Liberal democracy - especially in its bizarrely contorted limited modern form - has completely failed.  The immigrant-riddled US political system is one financial failure away from collapse. How painful it must be to be reaching the end of one's road in the knowledge that all of one's works will be undone within a single generation.

The Saker has some relevant comments:

Poor “EUans” (my own word for the European zombies who believed in the Bilderberger’s European Union): they are now, how shall I put it politely, totally “frigged”? Not only did the British people defy the Empire and vote for a Brexit, but now the Imperial Homeland has “backstabbed” them by electing a patriot who is not interested in maintaining the global empire (or so he says, at least for the time being). At the same time, the so-called “refugee crisis” is bringing several crucial EU nations to the brink of a civil war (France for example) while all the efforts of the elites to blame Russia for it all end up in abject failures. Just check out this hilarious article in the British Sun which accuses Russia of, I kid you not, “organizing sex attacks in Germany“!! True, we already had the “Serbian Chetniks using rape as a weapon of ethnic cleansing” and “Gaddafi distributing Viagra to his soldiers to rape opposition supporters” but Putin ordering refugees to rape women in Germany is the best, so to speak. And just in case the unthinkable happens in Germany, the Germans have already warned that Russian hackers might steal the election in Germany. If this was not so utterly disgusting it would be hilarious. The bottom line is this: the entire EU project is morally completely bankrupt, each EU member state is now in a deep political crisis and the so-called “elites” are scrambling to find a response to what appears to be an inevitable collapse of the EU-order over Europe. 

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/12/by-any-means-necessary.html?m=1