Animals whose humans do not reproduce, they make other existences different from themselves.
Is it democratic to oblige someone to exist? Everyone knows that it is not democratic to force a person to live in a place that another would assign to him, that is what dictators do with their subjects or their slaves, as well as the so-called democratic society when it condemns a criminal.
Yet this is what everyone achieves by fabricating an existence for himself and for the account of society simultaneously. Are we all born slaves or criminals? Well, yes, we all are. We are treated as such at the same time.
Assigned to patriotic and terrestrial national residence, condemned to occupy our flesh too sensitive and mortal, and forced to work to buy this body daily.
What did we do before we were made to deserve such a fate, the fate of being made and serving such a society of idiots and slavers that will try to train us in this role to replace them as a simple social cog? Nothing, since we were flowing our “inexistence” into the paradise of nothingness.
Making a cog to replace a defective or dead one, or to serve a mother's desire for love, is like making a baby-medicine for the sick child of a family. It is also immoral. So if this is not the reason for making an existence, what is it?
Life is a parenthesis of suffering and misery that never serves the experience of a nonexistent. Life serves the experience of the living, but life and experience serve no purpose, since both terminates. On the contrary of the inexistence which is eternal.
Life is not democratic, it is arbitrary, since imposed by the parents. How can one achieve a true democracy of government despite this basic arbitrariness? It is impossible, it will ever be only an approximation of democracy.
We are born autocratically by maternal dictatorship (in France), to reach a pseudo-democracy stemming from a customary system where the existing ones who forged these customs that enchain us were far fewer than the actual existing ones subjected to these customs by impregnation from birth.
In a democracy, it is the majority choice that has the power over minority choice, but the choice to make lives without control has never been questioned. If we are in Democracy, we are also in a world of morality, ethics, rights, laws, and justice.
Human Rights in the first article assert that we are born equal in dignity and rights. How can we be born as equal to others when our body and our intellect are imposed on us? And how can we make our rights respected when the power of our body and our intellect prohibits us by their inferiority?
And how can one live with dignity when we are born disabled or when a handicap makes us weak bodily or intellectually during our life because our body was built with a fragility that we did not desire? The law prohibits endangering the lives of others.
How can we not endanger a being that did not exist and that we produce for the service of existing ones? It is an infinite risk to pass from non-existence to existence, and it is also an infinite suffering, and all this solely for the service of existing ones.
We are social cogs and democratic governments try to put the oil in the right places in these wheels so that society turns at best.
We shall never succeed in a utopian democracy because, in order to exist, we must already have imposed the existence of the members of this democracy, education itself must be imposed on brains virgins of cultural meanings.
But society is only a concept whereas the existing ones are sensitive flesh, and each person counts, every person who has been forced to exist to serve as a cog must live in well-being.
If parents and society have not foreseen this total individual well-being, they should reconsider their fundamentals on Human rights, or else they should not make children! For to fabricate a child in unhealthy conditions, for a life that has not even request to be made, and still less to serve, is more than a shameful act, it is a crime.
Are the ideas about the world, the society, the human species, and life, worth more than the suffering, the misery, the fear, and the death, of the sensitive and conscious person we want to make to accompany us, pursue and perpetuate our ideology?
To simplify: “Is a concept more important than a person?” No, never. And yet, how many people have been sacrificed, still today, for the stupid ideas of stupid leaders?
The general good of the existing ones should always consider the good of future existences that the existing ones constrain to exist, which must never be forgotten.
To be a spawner (a mother!) it is to constrain a person to exist without mastering the making of this existence, or the life that it will lead, and to propose to exist to a possible handicapped from birth. Every mother is a criminal by definition, for engendering is a crime. Engendering is endangering someone else.
Democracy will never take account of future generations because they are not there to give their voices to the choice that the existing ones make. They will undergo, constrained and forced, for the service of existing ones. We are all born with a morphology, anatomy, and intellect that are imposed upon us, but the social whole is also imposed.
Our voice is not taken into account in the choice of this pseudodemocracy in which we are forced to exist. We enter virgins of cultural meanings, into the social river, and the pseudodemocratic current carries us and shapes us. Two things, however, modify or direct the current, these are knowledge and tools.
The best way to govern humanity is not democracy, it is intelligence, rationalism. The rationalist that I am, proposes the drastic and rapid depopulation of this world. In 50 years this can be settled.
Every form of government is an arrangement between idiots, for the intelligent know how to govern themselves by taking account of others. And it is all the easier to realize that there is no friction due to an excess of population.
But true intelligent do not commit the crime of making children…
Democracy, in today's morally overpopulated world, to be true, must be a constant representative democracy. Democracy must represent our evolving ideas, not just a very short period of time, that of voting time.
During the 5 years of the presidency (in France), people no longer exist by their ideas, only by demonstrations and violent strikes of minority trade unions (singing masters), or when they are consulted by very rare referendums. They no longer direct their lives, they are directed. This is dictatorship.
Democracy designates chiefs. If instead of designating the leaders, it chose the ideas, it would work even better. There would be no longer any fear of dictators.
I propose to realize a “democratic software”
(See the specifications (in French) of the wiki of “Nuit Debout” at this link:
https://wiki.nuitdebout.fr/wiki/Logiciel_démocratique)
One person, each person, desires wellbeing. The aim of any government is to guarantee the welfare of every citizen, every person, on the national territory. Is there a need for an ideology for that? Is there a need for “Democracy”?
Once one has defined what wellbeing means, what is contained in the term, what wants in general, if not in detail, each person, and what is necessary for that wellbeing to be effective, is this to incompetent people (perhaps and not always and on everything) to specify how to achieve it?
If the principle of governance is not to bring individual welfare to all its fellow citizens, what is it? Does the election serve to say that the wellbeing of every individual is not an absolute necessity, and that we can choose a particular policy that will cause a particular percentage of citizens to be abandoned to their own fate?
If this is the purpose of elections then what is the use of Human rights, which assert that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights? What do we mean by the rights to freedom, to equality, and dignity, without wellbeing from birth to death and without having to pay for it?
What does a human being desire? A human being does not want to exist, but once he is forced to be born, he has the right to demand a minimum of rights, such as the right to be healthy, to have a long and interesting life, and not to have to buy his body daily, and to exist in a healthy and non-warlike world, and under the tutoring of caring and loving parents.
If it is constrained to live with a disability from birth, it is entitled to claim compensation and reparation from its parents and society.
Once this minimum is assured, what can be the demands of a human being who has been forced to exist? And does it know this human being that free will is impossible, and all the consequences this absence has on our societies and individual behavior?
It is not a question of finding the best way to govern man. The question is what is the best way for man to exist, to constrain him to exist since he is constrained to exist, and to exist on the planet.
No one wants to be governed, so it is a question of finding this best means and trying to lead the man to that best, from the present (deleterious) state, if possible. But is it really necessary to force someone to exist since in any case the existence of humanity as a whole will cease as it began?
What is the purpose of a human being during its short life? To transmit the culture and try to improve it? So there is only culture that matters. It sounds like a computer system that always ends up to be worn out and that we have to constantly change the storage system if we do not want to lose the data.
But if computer science serves men, to whom serves culture that men pass each other as a relay baton that serves no purpose, because at the end there is nothing and nobody to seize this baton? Pschitt, makes the cultural baton at the end of its journey!
Science is not democratic, it only describes precisely and truly as possible. It affirms nothing, it only demonstrates.
The facts are not democratic. No vote will ever change a fact. Earth is not the center of the universe by a democratic vote, it is or is not. And then comes the description of the facts and the agreements between humans on these descriptions, that's why scientists have chosen a universal language, mathematics.
Those who do not understand this language cannot be among the people who accept or refute the mathematical description, if they want to mingle with the description they must learn.
Democracy, on the other hand, applies to the living conditions of all. A government elected by at least 50% of the voters (which is not the whole of the citizens) “must” grant the wellbeing to 100% of its associates, that is to say 100% of its fellow citizens.
It is his absolute duty. The way in which it achieves it more or less liberally, more or less socially, does not change this mandatory objective. Do you know a single leader who succeeded?
Democracy is the voice of the people, but in what areas can this voice be taken into account? There are areas in which a non-specialist cannot have a valid opinion.
A non-specialist cannot, for example, give a valid opinion on the science and technology of nuclear power, but knowing that the risk is not zero, it has, of course, the right to give its opinion for making known if it wants to accept the risks that society causes it to run.
And, of course, there are varying risks with nuclear power depending on whether you are more or less far from the nuclear plant in the event of a possible accident. Everyone knows, even the scientist, that the zero risk does not exist, and the nuclear industry has enough messed up to be known that there is a risk.
Democracy from the point of view of the proximity of the risks cannot be global since the risks concern mainly those which exist near the nuclear plant, and those who do not run these risks cannot impose them (why is there no nuclear plant in the center of the big cities where the need for electricity is greatest?)
But by altruism those who are out of reach can have a say in the risks in which society puts the others.
There is also the problem of food GMOs, which is still a different problem because here the risk itself cannot be evaluated by a non-specialist. In the case of nuclear power, the risk is certain, but in the case of GMOs the average person knows nothing, it can, theoretically, only follow the advice of specialists.
My answer about that is that if we go beyond intensive agriculture to feed humanity, so there is a big problem of overpopulation. It is not the soil and nature that must adapt to us, but we who must adapt ourselves to it. A small population of humans would have no problem in any field.
If individuals have the right to dream (at home), the state, on the other hand, has no right to dream. And since free will does not exist, the State cannot pretend to believe in its existence simply because democracy, demagogy, demands it. One cannot rule a human without free will in the same way as a being who possesses one.
Scientific truths about the functioning of the world and the functioning of human beings must be imposed as Copernicus, Galileo, Malthus, Darwin, Mendel, Einstein, etc. have done.
It is not only a question of good education, but a question of ethics when false descriptions disrupt the world to the point of producing unspeakable misery on billions of people for millennia.
Free will is impossible, all the more so because we are all obliged to exist. Each of our cells is an automaton, and a set of automata (one thousand billion automaton cells) produces nothing but a large automaton.
Our brain is composed of automaton neurons and the set also composes an automaton producing different automatisms, but which are always automatisms. Thought, of which consciousness, sensations, ideas, result from this automatism, and anything produced by the body can generate only automatisms.
These automatisms can be retroactive, and give us impressions of self-control, but there are nevertheless automations, as we can produce them in a computer system.
The State must impose the popularization of this information, “free will is impossible”, and also recall that we are all obliged to exist without having desired it. The State must accept these consequences in all areas, educational, judicial, social, and governmental.
The human world may only be better. Do you know any policy-leaders who do not assert that the truth must always be said. So, they have to say it!
“Democracy” in China is (in 2016) a representative for 1.4 billion people. The “Democracy” of the USA, it is an elected representative for 300 million inhabitants. In France it is a representative for 65 million people. In Luxembourg it is a representative for 580 thousand. And in Vanuatu 260 thousand.
What is the best for a true democracy? The best of democracies is that each one represents oneself. There is only a drastic depopulation of the human world that can allow it.
The smaller the countries, the more they will want to maximize the population to compete with the countries around them. For example, China and France cannot compare each other.
Once China is developed to the same level of average wealth per capita as France, it (the Chinese nation) will be worth as many times as there are more inhabitants, that is to say about 20 times France . And as for Europe, it's about a third of China…
The good Democracy is inversely proportional to the number of inhabitants of the Earth, since the freedom of one stops where the other begins. The biggest democracy is therefore reached with one inhabitant upon the planet. Long live that Democracy!
Democracy implies secularity, since the power of the people is not exclusive to a few individuals, but to all. But what secularity is it? Secularity can not be secularity in which the ideas of all idiots are accepted as principle of knowledge to be transmitted.
It is therefore necessary to be able to differentiate a good knowledge to be transmitted from a bad knowledge. To whom do we grant this power of selection? Yet it must be done.
Unfortunately, revolutions are needed to move from a social management system in a religious mode to a secular one, the whole legal system being too complex to pass from one to the other by simple choice.
Why not rationalism?
Democracy is a set of democracies. Your property, your house, your office, your business, which is located in a Democracy, is not a kingdom of which you are the King. You must behave at home as in a Democracy and respect the rules of Democracy with the other people who live with you.
In the particular case of the tutoring your children does not exempt you from democracy with them, whether in the private or the public. Moreover, fabricating a child is an offense and a reckless crime according to the law, even if it is not said in these terms directly in the texts, you could be considered by society as a criminal if your children file a complaint against you.
The notion of entity State comes from kingship. Democracies should not operate on this model.
When all the borders have fallen:
- There will be a single human rights system
- We will no longer need armies
- There will be only one general democracy
- No more international competitions leading to wars
- The wrongdoers will have no place to escape the police
- The bosses will not be able to hide their wealth beyond the reach of the people
- No more tax evasion, no more tax havens
- No more brain drain
- No more offshoring
- We can manage the ecology with a single voice
- Nuclear power will be subject to the common law
- Private banks may be abolished
- There will be only one currency
- Compulsory education around the world will make stupid cultures obsolete
- People will no longer flee their country to find employment, security, food elsewhere
- Income of existence will be imposed and generalized
- etc.
Democracy is the present best way to manage overpopulation. I do not want to be managed. I do not want to feel managed. I want to feel free at all times physically and mentally.
The aim of any democracy is to favor the greatest number of people by trying not to disadvantage minorities too much. By allowing overpopulation by the development of the means of health, by the intensification of the food resource and the energies, the democratic countries produce more and more unhappy people. They therefore make the opposite of what they are done for.
Current democracies produce associates (by procreation) without asking if others agree to the introduction of these associates into the group. Every child is an immigrant of nothingness who does not ask to emigrate from the paradise of inexistence to the hell of earthly existence. Democracy is not an improvement of non-existence.
No one is free to be born and die. Galloping overpopulation conditions human relations, freedom of movement today is not that of yesterday. The most favored people cannot be the standard of the measure of human welfare, but only "the one" that is the most disadvantaged as well as the number of disadvantaged.
Today billions of people are treated miserably by others, whereas only ten thousand years ago they were probably no more than a few million of existing. There has been no social progress according to this moral count of overpopulation.
The government of democracy is not democratic since there is a head of government. Democracy is only an electoral principle. Democracy should be the principle of equality between people all the time, every second.
The current democracy chooses a representative who behaves like a leader for the ideas he presents, but he applies to others because the conditions change during his mandate, and above all that no obligation is on him to apply the ideas he proposed (except a desire to be re-elected).
A set of ten Democrats elect a group president, they walk on a path and a cross appears. Four people want to go right whose president, and six want to go left. What does democracy do?
Does the president represent the group democratically according to the elections, that is, as a “leader”, it is he who chooses, or does he represent the group constantly? If the leader is really democrat he will be interested in the constant will of his group, if he is a pseudo-democrat he will only apply to his own desires and personal beliefs.
To govern a boat, it is to react to the elements. The purpose of the voyage is imposed by the shipowner. In a democracy the shipowner is the people. What is this shipowner people expecting to give his orders to the leaders?
If democracies A and C agree on a common project to the detriment of B, this does not give them the right to disregard the right to refuse this project by B. Idem for two democrats who would agree on the back of a third. Same on a majority of voters who would agree on the back of a minority.
We are not in Democracy, we are in an elective "Statecracy". If we were really in a democracy, that should not be just the democracy of the existing ones, it should take care of the following ones in priority since they will be much more, one hundred billion, one thousand billion. We should be concerned about this thousand billion inhabitants of the future.
We are all equal and have the same rights, which means according to the law that we are all entitled to try to enrich ourselves. But we cannot all enrich ourselves, we can only try to enrich ourselves. There are only a few billionaires. We are not equal before the enrichment, but only before the attempt. Is it not cunning, this liberal ideology?
Another problem with this system of enrichment of some is that it is pyramidal and therefore requires that the fund providers, the people, grow in number constantly (or work more and more, or both at the same time). The increase without control of the population benefits the rich, but it will nevertheless have to stop one day!
The salary of the employers is a mandatory check-off on the job of the workers, it is not the workers who democratically decide the salary of their employer by a levy on the work that they carry out. The company is therefore not democratic according to our way of thinking about democracy, it is an Athenian-style democracy where some privileged people, the shareholders, manage the city.
The majority of humans is poor, so mankind loves poverty, and therefore we can impoverish it even more, thinks the billionaire slave trader of fact. Democracy is a system put in place by the rich so that the poor manage themselves and produce work therefore money whose the rich organize flow towards their pocket.
Money is a power of a few men over others. The money is undemocratic. The plutocracy without borders laugh at the national democracies. I do not know how one can call democratic society where 80% of the world's wealth is in the pocket of 20% of humanity.
Soon the rich will manage humans from the Moon or Mars. Will the earthlings be gullible at this point?
In a democratic system how is it that the ultra-rich still exist? What are the laws that protect the rich and enable them to enrich themselves unduly and above all without reason, that is to say without any measure with the work they have done? Democracy is the will of the people. Do the people want to be subject to the bankers?
Do the people want to be poor? No. The majority of the people, however, is poor. This vast majority desires, as is well known, the distribution of wealth. So how is it that this democracy is not implemented by the rulers representing these poor people?
One can be perfect altruists, if one admits that the others also have projects to realize as important for them as for oneself. It is the degree of importance that should not be judged. For example, a child project should not be considered infantile. But as time is short for everyone, the problem is the priority of the projects.
But how to do and say that priority does not mean more important? This is where democratic judgment comes in, and secularity…
When you talk to a non-democratic or non-laic person, you talk to someone who does not care about you, your rights, your health, your life, because in his opinion only his point of view is valid.
For example, the believer thinks that the god he has imagined makes him infallible in his judgment and therefore in the very idea he has of the existence of his God. This believer does not realize that the idea of the existence of his God, it is he who proposes it, that is to say his imaginary, and not a true god. He is mentally caught up in a kind of OCD.
As Chinese governments conduct themselves in an absolutist manner with their own people, there is no reason for them to behave in a different way with us, and probably even worse. The Americans with Guantánamo were very disappointing, it is an image of their Democracy perfectly detestable, proof that no people are protected from the deviance even within a democracy.
The Americans have shown with Guantánamo that they have a national idea of Democracy, not an international one, which is absolutely disgusting, and all humanity can have a great fear of such a powerful “democratic” people who do not practice international democracy.
How can a nation that claims to be “democratic” also claim its “sovereignty”? It is all the more paradoxical for France which has cut off the head of its sovereign.
The birth is not a natural right, it is a natural power, like to use its muscles to move, and since it is a power, it must be regulated. To make a child is to make a person, to add an associate to the nation, an associate that others must take into account (life, education, health, death).
The power to make a child must be democratically managed by the entire nation. To make a child is at first a risk for the child himself (and for the woman who is going to give birth), by what right do you push a person to take risks?
If you want to restore morality in the social system, you have to reanalyze what man is, but this analysis will oblige you to ask yourself the question of the obligation to exist, which is not moral in itself.
Procreation is an immoral act, and all that follows, cannot at the same time deny this immoral fabrication and the invention of morality by humans who seek equality, whereas it is distorted as soon as birth by this immoral act. Procreation produces servitude. Procreation is dictatorial in itself.
It is certainly not necessary to be 7 billion people and even less 10 billion. We should at most keep our species on the threshold of its perenniality, but it would still be immoral to force someone to exist.
If humans were not regarded as possible collateral damage by their own parents perhaps life would be more acceptable, although I doubt it, since the obligation to exist will always be a dictatorship, whatever the welcome gift you offer to each new existence manufactured for parental and social service!
Too numerous human population demonstrates that our animality is not subject to rationalism, and must therefore always be managed authoritatively. To move on to a total libertarian and liberated world, it will be necessary that the understanding of our functioning be distributed individually amid all humans and understood by all.
If there was only one question, that all those who want to produce a new existence should ask themselves, it should be this one:
“Now that I have fabricated a suffering being, how can I undo suffering?”
Dead end
E. Berlherm (December 2016)
