THE DEMOCRACY, SO TO SAY ...
(Frivolous About The Serious — Political Essay)
— in English
By Jotata – Atatoj, 2021,
known also as: Ivancho Jotata, Ochnavi Atatoj, Ivan Bugarow, Jotabash Giaurgi, Nostradamus Buladamus, and under other cloning names
Abstract: I give here in humorous form explanations, why I do not like the democracy, what it lacks in order to be good enough for intelligent people. These explanations are more than a dozen, they have many times not an empty intersection, i.e. some ideas repeat themselves, but in this way the things are better explained, I have shown the different facets of this quite often misunderstood social phenomenon. Because it looks good from afar, but in its essence is just a beautiful lie.
[ The idea for illustration is in placing of one picture in a frame under the title and the author, which has to be square and probably 450 x 450 pixels (because I use usually 525 x 725 for the cover and then multiply by 3, when necessary). The picture is a waist portrait of young Greek woman representing Miss Democracy. She is with long straight nose, probably blond, smiling, crowned with a diadem with 6 five-rayed stars made of some light blue or green precious stone, she is clothed with a piece of cloth, fastened at the left shoulder with a golden brooch in form of a star, which leaves the right (and well formed) breast open, and on the border of this cloth, diagonally, beginning at the left shoulder and passing under the right breast, is read DEMOC(R). Then her right hand is little raised from the elbow and she holds in it a whip, while the left is nearly horizontal and with it she shows … the sign of the fig. ]
[ Opening remark: Ah, I surely know this language, which has become contemporary Latin, I am simply bound to know it, and I have used it much for 20 or so years, I am not bad even in producing verses in it. I have begun to study it when was about 18 and learned it alone, and am using it pretty good, because it is relatively easy, better than, say, German, or Russian, or French, etc., but I am not glad with it because if someone has bigger abilities he has to make also bigger efforts to give even more out of him, so that English could have been much better! Still, although here it is one of the basic languages, I am using many many others, and because of this I have to add even in the beginning that with this work I am fulfilling another important task, to check the suitability and easiness of practically all contemporary European languages. After all this pretty long work I can definitely say that this is my swan song in the political matters. ]
[ Remark (to German variant): I will write this material, contrary to my other materials, first in German, so that let me explain why I have taken this decision. At the second place stays this, that German language is better qualified than the English one, and I want to make also translation to Italian, but I don't know the latter so good, in order to make alone this, and will use computerized translators, checking only the ready translation (what I have once already done); and, anyway, the English language is a … miscarriage between the languages, isn't it? And firstly, I want to better my German, what I will never do, until I begin to think in German; yet this means that I will make more errors than usual, for what I beg my readers to be excused. Maybe this is enough. ]
1. Impossibility of this solution
2. This procedure is not used anywhere else
3. The democracy in Ancient Greece
4. Zero solution
5. Strategic and tactical ruling
6. Great and unreasonable!
7. The best ... pacifier for the people!
8. It reigns bad represenativeness
9. Division of the powers
10. Lawfulness against morality
11. Moral image of the politicians
12. Feminine ruling
13. Other moments
14. Advantages and disadvantages
15. Closing comments
I think it is clear what I mean here, but let me say this explicitly. I will speak here about the widespread in the last two centuries in the West, and now also in the East, rightwing democracy, which differs from the Old-Greek original, as well also from the democratic elements in old Rome or earlier, and more so from the leftwing or people's democracy. Because democratic elements were applied since primeval times, also between the animals, but this is not yet democracy. Said in other way, this democracy requires free elections for rulers, so that the one who is more loved (or less hated) will be chosen. And the people vote for parties, for highly placed persons, whom they do not know, and the common people are not able to make good decision, because they understand nothing about governing of a state, and such elections are applied nowhere else, because usually is required some qualification, and so on, and so forth.
I have already spoken many times about this, your Jotata can't jump over one such interesting and misunderstood field, can't allow himself to ignore it, and has made also many propositions for bettering of the ruling (at least in his NAPUK-Party, in the Codex), yet here I will discuss this topic in more details and in its fullness. Why? Well, because there are many countries where this works not good, because (practically) for this purpose were fought the two World wars, because this is one open bamboozling-hoax, and there must exist someone who will open the eyes of the masses. Frankly speaking I am not the best one, who has done this, there exists one person, who has told the truth in the shortest possible form, and this is the well-known Oscar Wilde, only he has used the word bludgeoning, what is a kind of beating with some cudgel-stick, what I would have substituted with maltreatment. So he has said that the democracy is bludgeoning of the people, by the same people, and in the name of (for) again the same people! (And when I think now about the question, why I am not so clever as he was, I can find only one reason for this, because I am not … a homosexual! Probably for the reason that these people are very fine feeling, for them the sex is not a dirty thing for proliferation of mammals and other bisexual animals, but a kind of expression of emotions. Well, this was said for fun, but who can be sure that it is not so with these people?)
1. Impossibility of this solution
Ah, dear readers, I feel myself a little awkward to explain such elementary things, but this is because we do not like to ask ourselves questions, to exercise our thinking abilities is not one of our beloved pastimes, we, i.e. the masses, like actions, not thinking. Even I personally have not asked myself the question about the elections from below, until occasionally, at about age of 25, I have heard that such choice is impossible in principle! Yet I have my mitigating circumstances, that I was simply … happy, for to set myself questions, and also our elections under the totalitarianism were entirely redundant, only demonstrative, to parade with them, it was not like today, when I have analyzed this question already in 1991 - 92 and have made my conclusions.
Well, however it is, the truth is that in order to be able to choose one must know good, not only the subject area, but also the candidates who compete, or, as an exception, the establishing of superiority of the competitors has to be very easy and obvious. The latter happens when a duel, also between animals, is carried out; and the common people have, naturally, no idea about ruling or economy or laws or public relations (i.e. the art of deceiving the masses) et cetera. Yet more important here is, that the people have not enough knowledge about the candidates for MPs, and because of this they are not able to do the right choice. This, what they know about the candidates, are unimportant things like: appearance, behaviour, manners, way of speaking, beloved type of women or men for them, the brand of their cars, their acquaintances, political orientation, but this does not suffice for to make a right choice. And the people show quite often their unexpected sides, even when one has lived many years with another one ... bottom to bottom (so to say), so that at the end the voters remain almost always disappointed.
In short, it is impossible to conduct from below a competent choice, because the voter must know more than the person whom he chooses, to be better than him in this sense, in order to perform a competent choice, but when he stays below he almost always knows less than this person! So that the choice is right only when the voter chooses persons who stay below him, or when they do not exceed him much in their abilities, id est when they are like him or sillier. And it is usually so done, there are chosen different committees or juries, but from their colleagues in the field. Only this suffices for to scratch out the democracy, yet we are going further.
2. This procedure is not used anywhere else
Well, these are obvious things, because in every specific domain or competition exist specially formed juries; it is so in the sports, in the study, in the production, everywhere; and if with the court juries it is not so, then this is because there must be applied a kind of arbitrary choice and in this case special knowledge is not needed. So that this procedure is wrong in its core, and for this reason it was not applied in the thousand years of human history, just for a pair of centuries in old Greece, and in the last 1-2 centuries. Allow me to remind you that when the democracy was introduced in old Greece, by one Pisistratus, the masses have not wanted to accept this, they thought that this was some trick of the rulers, more so because this man was a tyrant! Hence, the people in ancient times were not at all so stupid like we now are ready to take, they were even more clever and moral, they believed that the ruling is some art, which requires many talents from the person, and also that the democracy is advantageous for the rulers, when it was applied by a tyrant.
So that we must think from time to time, must cast glances back in the history, and if one takes that our history is entirely wrong, and we have to spit at it, then I alone can spit at him or her, because this is quite stupid behaviour, we must honour our ancestors. But the point is not only about our ancestors, even today pure democracy is applied nowhere else, solely some elements, when the choice is more difficult than usual, when there are many candidates, as a kind of arbitrary choice, as additional requirement. It is impossible to imagine such things like, e.g.: the students to choose their teachers, or the patients their medics, or the soldiers their generals, and so on, and if one takes that this is possible, then he must, at least unconsciously, suppose that this is some joke. Yeah, but we believe, because we are just silly.
3. The democracy in Ancient Greece
How was it in the beginning, ah, in ancient Greece? Well, it was there at that time slave society, not like much later in US, no, a milder and nice slavery, it can be said, yet there were slaves, to be sure. What means that there were strong laws, the society was well developed (for those times), the people lived wealthy, and if we start from the Latin sentence that the people want two things before all, panem et circenses, or bread and circuses in English, then they had enough bread but few circuses, and as a result of this were almost always dissatisfied. And this clever man has thought (according to Jotata), that it would have been better if he could clog their mouths, pass all responsibility at their shoulders, but could be still chosen, he and the other aristocrats, by them. This was a brilliant dream, he has thought through also all details, but his silly people did not want to bite at this bait, so that he has asked some of ancient sages (Solon, if I am not mistaken) to explain the people, that in this way it will be better also for them.
And how was all organized there? Well, in their Areopagus-Parliament were chosen by 10 persons out of each of the 50 so called dems-genera (or big families), what made together 500 men (no women, of course), which people have dealt with all important questions, they were also the Court. Note, however, that at that time the free men in Athens must have been at the most 10 thousand people, though I guess that their number was not higher than 5000, because to every man were probably wife and mother, a pair of children, and 5-10 slaves, so that the people who have chosen were 1/10 of all people there (supposing that the city has had 50 to 100 thousand people). And this gives one out of ten, and also in one genus or family or area, so that these men have known well each other, or then have known who of them stands higher, and as consequence of this must be chosen. This has nothing to do with the present-day elections, where is chosen one from more than 10 thousand practically unknown people. Yes, but in spite of this the chosen persons were surely substituted with new ones, and the entire democracy was changed with periods of dictatorship, and vice versa! So that already at that time was seen that only democracy is not a good solution of the problem of ruling.
4. Zero solution
Good, so far we have found that, put in another way, people, who understand nothing, chose persons, whom they do not know, and in addition to this the voters require no documents for whatever professional qualification from the persons, what, in fact, is a kind of madness! In this situation it is quite normal to suppose that such solution is impossible, and we must throw it out of the sphere of social ruling without further discussions. And this undermines the whole democracy, because, in reverse order, if we require some qualifications then this can lead to discrimination of some persons (who, for various reasons, have got no qualification), to know the persons who are to be chosen in an entire state is today directly impossible, and to educate the common masses in the ruling, economy, and other areas is a clear utopia. So that, as the things stand, there is simply nothing more to be done here, and the communists were right, when they have invented the people's democracy! What is true, and also … not true, it depends on the goals which we have set before us (about what I will speak further).
And what is this zero solution? In two words, this is a solution, but which is trivial and not interesting, and which usually is not necessary to "search", because it is obvious. This comes from the solution of a linear homogenous system of equations (say: A11*X1 + A12*X2 + A13*X3 = 0, then A21*X1 + A22*X2 + A23*X3 = 0, etc.), which system has always the solution, where all unknowns (Xj) are 0 , but there is no necessity to really search this solution. This means, that instead of the official elections can be used an usual arbitrary choice, or then the choice can be made by some authorized instance (how it happens when is chosen a caretaker government). Yes, but if it will be done so, the voting fraud will be impossible, and this is something what the rulers do not want, and we have also not finished our investigation.
5. Strategic and tactical ruling
How we have already seen the democratic choice is wholly unsuitable for choosing of the right persons, but in spite of this it is often used and the things go not always bad, so that we will try, here and in the next pair of points, to find the answer to the question: how is it possible that incompetent persons can, still, do their work? Because of this it is already time to begin to make difference between strategic and tactical ruling. The strategy is the art to apply such methods, which lead to total destroying of the enemy (the root here is related with the grinding, like in the words: street, estrade, Slavish 'strivam'-grind, etc.), and the tactics is the art to make the things work like well oiled clockwork (to say tic-tac). I am explaining these things in order to give you an opportunity to understand better the etymology of these old-Greek words, but to put it easier, the strategist is the one who can only require, yet is not interested whether this, what he wants, can be done or not, while the tactician is the doer, the executive director, who must know what can be done and what not.
From this one can come to the conclusion that in a family the born strategist is the woman, who can only want (say: three times daily, at least, or you can easily imagine that I will not stay with you forever), and the man is the born tactician (who knows that once also suffices, if he can make it to "work" at least 10 minutes, and even better 15). In Bulgaria we have also the saying that the man is the head, yet the woman is the neck. Many people, including also me in the past, think that this division of functions is not necessary, and one person, who can fulfill both functions, is to be preferred, yet this must not be so, here for psychological reasons, but sometimes for functional ones (how it is with the two sexes — this increases the diversity in the next generations). So that, if we have here some strong division of functions, this would have been good, but the MPs are, for one thing, incompetent persons, and because of this suitable only for strategists, and, for another thing, when some of them later become ministers they try to fulfill also the functions of tacticians, and this goes often wrong. In this field must be carried out some better differentiation (with what I think to deal later).
6. Great and unreasonable!
Here I will come at the end to the above title, but first want to explain two moments that look a little mysterious. The one is the answer to the question: when it is so, that here people, who understand nothing, choose persons, whom they do not know, and in addition do not require whatever documents for qualification, how is then possible, that in many cases they make good choice, or also, in some other countries and moments, always bad choice (like, e.g., in Bulgaria)? Well, it's good here to simplify a bit our question, and instead of MPs to have … apples, which are placed in a basket, and look the same when touched with fingers; and then the question is: how could it happen, that when we are not looking in the basket but just stretching a hand grasp an apple, this apple will be always good, respectively bad? Ah, this must be clear, this can happen only then, when all apples are the same, right? And it is more or less so with our MPs, there are no principal differences between them; and there exists also the parties which are important, not so much the persons. But when the situation is such, that nobody can make wonders, then each chosen person will turn to be at the end bad.
And also from the side of the MPs: how can it be so, that whoever happens to be chosen, he can fulfill his work equally good (or, then, bad)? Here, too, the answer is simple: when either the work is very easy, so that each one can fulfill it, or when not he (or she) alone is doing the work but his subordinates (say, in the ministry), who must be competent persons. So that you see, that under the democracy the elections are also not very important; they play a more influential role over the ruling of state or region than it was under the totalitarianism (when they had no effect whatsoever on the chosen persons — they would have been taken in the government also without elections), yet not so big one, how the people suppose. Everything is deceit and fraud (or bamboozling), these elections from below are unquestionably unreasonable, but exactly this is what makes them so great and ingenious, that no common or mediocre person would have come up with this idea! Because, you must know, that the genius stays very close to the stupidity. So also here, a thing which contradicts to the common sense can (in another light, so to say) turn to be brilliantly clever.
7. The best ... pacifier for the people!
Yes, all this is bad, but the bad and the good in this world are closely related, they go hand in hand, or, as a known saying says, even the devil is not so black as he is painted (and then I would add that the very God is not so white as one thinks about Him), and it turns out that in another light this can look not so bad, as one would have supposed! And really, the democracy is less effective than every strong centralized ruling, the way in which the elections are performed is at least comical, the politicians are easily changeable, every party is bad, if taken in a long run, multiple opinions hinder the taking of the right decisions, it reigns unnecessary noise everywhere, and so on; I would also say that the democracy is conscious that every decision is only temporary, and it expects this, would have alone be hindered if a right decision of the problems will be found (because such situation will decrease the circuses, hence the people will be disappointed)!
Yet if we forget all this and look at the things from psychological point of view, then it turns out that the masses like this deception, because every living object wants to deceive with something the other objects around! Yes, we want to deceive the others and also to be deceived by the others, what tells us openly the Latin saying: Mundus vult decipi! We want to lie to each other, and, look here, the democracy comes and gives us this opportunity, this makes us (with the exception of me, naturally) happy, we want almost to embrace her, this Miss Democracy. I call this shutting of the mouths of people, in the same way how a suckling is pacified with an artificial nipple! Because what is the purpose of a pacifier? Ah, double-sided, for one thing to deceive the baby that he (or she) has a real mother's breast in his mouth (what here means that the common people are those, who choose the rulers and are generally important), and for another thing, to protect the breast of the mother (here to preserve the political system, because the politicians change, but the democracy remains). And not to forget also the psychological moment, that the people were asked, and now they must behave well till the next elections. Well, nicely thought through, really brilliant, excellent fraud!
8. It reigns bad represenativeness
This is a thing that as if nobody notices, everyone assumes that it must be exactly so, that the National Assembly (how it is called in Bulgarian) has to be elected as assembly of all supporters of parties, but this is not right! It is not right, because in this way we get an assembly of parties, a big committee of representatives or deputies of all parties, and these are different things, because, in order to give an example, in Bulgaria in the election take part less than the half of the population, and this already for 20 years. This happens for the simple reason that the people, like also your Jotata, cannot find a suitable party to which to give their votes, but, be it as it may, why should these people be excluded from the society, only because they do not want to take part in this silly game? Well, I admit that there will always exist silly people, who will be thrilled by new things (when it is known for long time that there is nothing new under the sun), who will pay attention to all commercial ads, or are always ready, say, to look under the cap, for to find there some number, with which to win something (with the probability that on the first of July and in the middle of Europe, in Vienna, it will … begin to snow), etc., i.e. people, who are ready to participate in this democratic game, yet this does not mean, that the other more serious people must be discriminated.
There are, then, two approaches here, either we renounce the parties, or build a representative sample of the population in the Parliament, or the both things together. The parties are, naturally, not necessary, it can be voted for persons, and the latter may belong to some party or not; if before a pair of centuries this could have been difficult to do, then there are no problems today to organize votings for hundreds or more persons and in a big country, not in meetings and not in one day, but, let us say, in a week, and via the Internet. Then a representative sample can be chosen by an ordinary random choice, yet also with other parameters (like: age, sex, ethnicity, income, etc.), and this will be real national assembly (where, e.g., if it goes about current Bulgaria, the Gypsies must be somewhere around 25 %, and the Turks about 35 %). These persons, obviously, must not rule, but in order to express their opinion about all important questions one such body in Parliament will be very important! And then can very easy be chosen parties according to their percentage in the elected (or randomly chosen) Parliament (or in one of its Houses); I mean how many persons, und who exactly, this will say the ruling body of each party. So that these things, naturally, can be done, if we only want to have this.
9. Division of the powers
I will express here one brilliant thought and allow you to quote and praise me where you want. Why? Well, because this thought is very simple, yet I have seen or heard it nowhere, I have come to it alone, with the help of my brain cells, and it is: the development is expressed almost always in some differentiation of ideas or concepts! Well, all right, from the standpoint of dialectics this is not a new idea, but who is interested nowadays in dialectics? It was part of the communism, hence it must be now forgotten. But, be it as it may, I want to say that just one group, or assembly, chamber, house, or how you call it, in the Parliament is not enough, there must exist at least two, possibly three, or even four chambers in the Parliament, which must have different functions, and represent different layers of society! And this exists practically nowhere, because the second chamber, where it is available, fulfills other functions (there are represented ethnical or territorial groups, this is not enough). What I mean here are the two basic groups, the common people, and the rulers. How I have already noted, the MPs are chosen as representatives of the people, but then they become at once transformed, as if with a magic wand, and begin to make laws and to rule over the state, what makes a complete mishmash!
More precisely, we must choose in the Chamber of Rulers such persons, who understand something about ruling, who are not, how we in Bulgaria say, 'Sulju and Pulju' (mediocre and even stupid common people). And not only something, this must be competent persons, businessmen, economists, public relations persons, and other specialists, and they must be chosen by special commissions, not by the common people. Yes, it is always done so, in various juries, even the Roman Pope is chosen in this way, this is surely possible to be done, yet we want that the swindle continues. And then in the Chamber of People, of the common ones, we must use simple (or with given parameters) arbitrary choice and chose, let us say, by two persons from each year of birth from 20 inclusive and to 70 exclusive, if we want to have there 100 persons; in this case it is good if in the Chamber of Rulers we have also 100 persons.
So, and the functioning of these Chambers should be clear from their names: the Rulers must rule or govern, make new laws, appoint ambassadors, etc., and the common people must say their yes-word about nearly everything, else it will not be counted as accepted! The erroneous practice, which is applied nowhere else, that persons, who participate in something, are taken also in the jury and give their meaning about the ready results, must be expelled from the democratic system at once and forever. Yeah, but nobody notices these things, it is like in the … fairy tale about the naked king, everybody is amazed by his new clothes, and nobody (with the exception of your Jota, who is not published in his country, because has studied much and tells the truth) comes to the thought, that the democracy is just ... aqua nuda (how we in Bulgaria like to say).
10. Lawfulness against morality
Ah, this is a centuries-old question, which has never been properly settled, because … well, because we want to have either the one pole or the other, never something from both things, never a good compromise variant, where we will have laws made in beforehand, yet also a common morality. You surely know, that the religion, as main bearer of morality, exists for hundreds and thousands of years, but since the French revolution it is practically thrown out of the ruling, because the latter wasn't religious instance. Also the communists (like the fascists, I suppose) were not for religious ruling of the state, and the today's democracy, too, but people, it is one thing something not to be officially required, yet it to be had or used (say, before more than about hundred years the sexual intercourse outside of families was regarded as sinful, but the people have not ceased to copulate, have they?), and it is another thing to throw something entirely away (how this happened in non-religious countries, like Bulgaria f.ex.), but it is much better if we retain this, however do not propagate it and warn against it (say, we do not totally ban the cigarettes or alcohol drinks, or in some countries even some drugs). This partial preservation is the most difficult, but it is, still, possible.
What I mean here is that the different religions judge in different ways about life, and if we leave them somehow to exist together, what has happened from old times in some countries (at least partially), then we can make an intersection of all religions, how it is called in set theory, what must be a pure moral! Well, this is a little utopian, but not entirely unreachable. And however this happens, it is good to strive to this, and to make, if not a pure, then partially moral body in the Government! I do not propose, however, to build some Religious Chamber in the Parliament (because the time of religions is as if a bit passed; to this I think that the atheism is also a kind of religion, yet this requires more place for to be explained better), but to make a Chamber of Sages (or wise ones), which will fulfill also moral functions! This Chamber must form the third power in the Government, which has also to say its opinion about almost everything, but will play also the role of the strategists, because the Rulers are the tacticians, and the people are the appraisers! Three powers are now much better than one, aren't they? And precisely these persons must be chosen in the usual for the democracy way, i.e. through official voting in the whole country, yet not in one day (this is not needed), and probably in a pair of rounds, what must allow voting for near acquaintances! Well, a bit complicatedly, but correct.
11. Moral image of the politicians
I will further occupy myself with moral questions, and here will speak about the moral image of politicians, which leaves a lot to be desired, because these persons work for their own benefit and profit from the post, and the masses do not like this. Now look here, it is clear that everyone must care about the others, but almost nobody does this, because such is the life, and each ruler wants to do so, that he becomes richer, not poorer, yet when the people see this they are not very enthusiastic to behave well, and when the democracy gives them the opportunity to protest, they do exactly this (how it often happens in Bulgaria, in the last pair of years), so that the behaviour of politicians and their mercantilism hinder the effectiveness of the very ruling. And if we will have the three proposed by Jotata — it's me, people, applaud me — Chambers in the Parliament, it will not be so difficult to introduce there some moderate payment, what means something around the average monthly salary, which usually is 2 and 1/3 minimal monthly salaries (MMS)! What in two words means, that the politicians must, at last, would I say, live like priests and set a good example for the others, not the other way round.
And why I think that this is possible? Ah, because the Chamber of Sages, where the actual voting is performed, is filled with strategists, and they do not rule, become no ministers, etc., for them this will be a kind of publicity, they will feel themselves quite happy with 2 MMS (and would stay there also without money); then the Chamber of People consists of common persons, who will feel themselves also happy to be there for some time (they would agree even to pay something, if needed); and the Chamber of Rulers, well, the persons there will not be really happy to work almost without money (for such responsible and usually highly paid work), but in comparison with the other chambers they will comply to the situation (and also take this work as a kind of advertising). This, however, does not mean that these persons will live there really poor and spend their own money, no, because they must receive free many additional things as fringe benefits, like, say: eating, clothing, personal car, medical care, education, staying in resorts, and so on, and this also for their family members, only not as authentic money, that can be saved and with which later can be exercised power.
12. Feminine ruling
It can be said that the democracy is a kind of feminine ruling, not in the direct meaning, of course, but as weak, emotional, incompetent, ineffective, sometimes scandalous, seductive, and so on. And it is really so, and for this reason the democracy is often substituted with some strong centralized ruling (tyranny in Old Greece, or communist, resp. fascist dictatorship), or the people choose at least a political figure with iron fist, or an aristocrat. I may also add that it allows an easy inclusion of foreign elements, like: presidential institution, multi-chamber parliaments, extra-parliamentary protests, caretaker governments, round table discussions, and others — well, a whore sleeps with everyone who pays well, doesn't she? All this can sometimes be useful, and I myself propose some new elements of democracy, but you know that the sexes are two, only one is not enough, and for this reason is this form of ruling, like also the other one (say, the dictatorship), not able to function entirely alone; or we must build some hermaphroditic structure of ruling; or have also to expect changes in the time.
Anyway, the feminine nature of democracy can explain good many of its phenomena. F.ex., it is good chiefly for changing, not for long-lasting stable ruling, and such are the women, they want to have different men (while the latter easier accustom to one and the same woman); it is a ruling without a constant goal and works good then and there, where exists no vital goal, just to have interesting life, and I can tell you from my own experience that for one woman important is not so much what is there for eating, but how … the table is covered, literally, what is the table cloth; then the important thing for democracy is how is lived in this moment, not whether a given party is good or bad, but only at present, it does not strive to some millennial kingdom-Reich of light as paradise, or to a bright communist future, and also the women live in the current moment; and so on. The democracy relies on the unreasonableness of the ruling body and the impossibility to find the best politician or party, and changes them simply; it has also no morality (why this?) and likes everything what happens, as long as the democratic game continues! Yet as result of this it creates an excellent working … perpetuum mobile, it renews itself on the place, what every woman also does, figuratively speaking, when gives birth to new people.
13. Other moments
When I have already written my planned dozen points, this means that it is time to end this material. I will stress here on some moments, over which I as if have jumped, but which are important, so that I may feel ashamed even in the … other world, if have forgotten to clarify them! The one thing is that nowadays, in the time of computers, all official votings can be carried out in an open manner, hence they must be performed in this way! This must not be difficult to perform — since the last century is received money from machines and no cardinal errors have resulted from this —, with the use of passwords, and not in one day, what must allow to be done all possible statistics, what, if you ask me, is very important. More than this, in this way will be made possible to perform elections also in several rounds, what will allow us to realise the iterative choice, which is the only possible choice from below, which is used since centuries.
Further, the secret voting must be performed only in small groups, where one can be afraid to express openly his or her voice. Also all MPs, as persons responsible for the whole country, must be chosen exactly in the whole country, not in regions, where in many cases they can not be elected, but in the whole country the votes can suffice. And if it is performed voting for parties, then the names of the concrete persons are not important, each party can and must make and publish an ordered list with the names of its candidates before the elections. And also — I think that this is very important — there must be answered many and often done questionnaires by the masses, let us say, about a dozen questions monthly; they must not be compulsive for the Government, yet this is very important information; and this must be done by one centralized instance, not by various media or companies, and also with the use of passwords.
There can be voted also for a pair of powers, let us say 5 (where the order of the choice can be of importance or not). Or there can be voted not only "for", but also "against", and this will give an entirely different sight on the political scene. Or there can be had some phases of might, where the simplest are two periods, of the dictatorship and the democracy, but planned in advance, not to come to them via revolutions. And other variants; how I have already hinted, the democracy offers many possibilities, it is not bad in principle, but, alas, the people are still … stupid enough, and because of this it is not sufficiently good!
Ah, I must say something also about the protests, because here, too, all is done contrary to the necessary, not in the right way. I mean that people want to express their opinions, and they must have this opportunity, yet not to hinder the normal way of life, but they are doing exactly this, and just find work for the policemen, to stand between the protesters and the passers-by. The right decision is to allow all protests on special places, and for this purpose can be used the stadiums, where everything can be filmed from different sides and later be shown where necessary, but also in real time on large screens in front of the important institutions. This is obvious distancing, which can easily be realized today, but I think that it is done nowhere. There must also be made efforts in order not to come to such protests, where must exist some commission and everyone, who wants to express his or her opinion, must be allowed to come before it and do this, then the opinions must be classified and some decision has to be taken, but at least these opinions must be kept somewhere and made accessible for all interested (not in the way how Bulgarian official public treats your unique Jotata in entirely barbarous manner). There must exist also some possibility for gaining access for some new parties or groups of people (let us say: peace movement, or unemployed intellectuals, or single mothers with children, etc.) to some auxiliary chamber, before they begin to protest.
14. Advantages and disadvantages
Ah, I want to turn your attention here to this moment, that an important characteristics for each thing, or form of ruling here, is the effect in the future, to what it leads. Yes, but if we start from the dialectic, then (almost) each thing turns into its … opposite, and this means that if something is taken for bad, then later this can lead to something good, and vice versa (where the last is as if denied by nobody — take the proverb that the way to hell is strewn with good intentions)! Have you understood this? Well, this means that from this standpoint the centralized ruling is better, because it leads to democracy, but the latter leads to strong power, and is for this reason worse! And this is added to the view, that the centralized ruling has a moral excuse, it aims at something, while the democracy aims at nothing, and this is why I spit so hard at the democracy.
This denial of its own quintessence can be noticed also by the parties or the money or the sexual intercourse (or the … knowledge), where, f.ex.: all partial interests contradict each other and lead to one party, what means no real party, or much money leads to weak and later to no interest for money, or the sexual intercourse also denies itself at the end (or much knowledge — how it is with your Jotata — leads to denying of further knowledge — because it will come someday time when … the universe will begin to shrink, and then it will turn out that all was for nothing and nothing again, while, e.g., the simplest pleasures of life look more satisfying). Yes, this is so, but these are philosophical observations, so that it is better not to delve deeply into them, I wanted only to show you that each medal has two sides, and the democracy has shown itself in many countries not as better, but directly as worse, and because of this it is necessary to be paid more attention at these things.
Yet to pay more attention means to make compromises, it is so, but we don't like this much, we want to react in total manner. And really, if we cast a glance at the current day's democracy and that from before a century (let's say in 1910), it must be clear that we have changed nothing in the Western democratic model, but instead of this we have had two World wars, have invented the radically different people's democracy, and have it also totally discarded, yet have come to no one compromise. But if we do not want to make compromises, then it happens simply much bloodshed, this is our alternative. Well, the people live nowadays affluently (as consequence of our non-natural: food, drinks, clothes, homes, etc.), they will probably not come to new wars for economic reasons (although this can not be guaranteed), but they can come to this for moral ones, and if not exactly to wars, then perhaps to suicide bombers (to remind you about one Laden-"boy"). So that this damn democracy may be lies and deceits, but this is not so important, more important is that it can be changed, and because of this I am making here my different propositions. But, as I said, it depends on the degree of stupidity of the common people.
15. Closing comments
At the end of this essay I want to clarify to you that I have written it for the other people, for the whole world, because I have already reached my 70 and publish anonymously, have no special wishes more, need no money or glory, and the miserable pension that I receive is enough for me; if in addition I can spit at Bulgarian barbarity I feel almost happy! And I can also endure this stupid democracy, because the intelligent person accepts any form of ruling, for the simple reason that it is better than the anarchy. What disturbs me is that the people all around look at the democratic ruling as at a next kind of business, where everything is cheating, but one can do nothing, such is life, while for me this falls into the social realm and, hence, there must be applied other criteria, such like love to the neighbour, humanity, religious feeling, cares, some kind of … sanitary, or priestly, work! Well, this may seem for many of you a little utopian, yet I like the utopias because they are logical, and, in the end, this is me, I concern myself about the other people.
OK, I will finish this my capital work (although all my works are capital and fundamental), I have already sharpened my special feather for the final point — such is just my habit —, and will surely make this, be quiet, but before this I want to address my potential readers. So, my readers, I beg your pardon, but you will definitely be … stupid, this is to be expected, at least 90 percent of the humans are just stupid, yet I hope that you know this! Because, how it is known from the ancient Greeks, there are stupid people who know that they are stupid, and this is … good, for they are greedy to learn something more, in order to know more, they are not very happy with what they already know, and there are such people who are so stupid that they don't notice this (are just not able to notice this), but because of this are very happy. So that if you are of the category of those, who know that they know nothing, then you would throw yourself like hungry little birdies at the grains of wisdom which I, Jotata-Atatoj, have sown for you! I hope that you are such readers, and will devour all my works quickly, and this is a correct behaviour.
Because, look here, I may think up utopias, but they are nice utopias, I dream that the politics can be raised so high, that it will stay in such relationship to the capitalism, in which the dear God stays to the whole material world! This means that the politics should be divine, should contain beautiful ideas, should connect everything together, so that the unpleasant and deficient capitalism will shine like renewed! Even if this is impossible to realize, it looks so good, that is worth trying! And here is the final point.
[ Closing remark: In this way this material and in this language is finished, but you are invited to cast a look in at least one more language. Why? Ah, because I am fulfilling two tasks here, to educate people about the rightwing democracy, in a bit frivolous manner in order not to bother them much, and also to compare as many as possible languages, with the purpose to evaluate their suitability as world standards, meaning chiefly their easiness. And I have come to my conclusions, which reduce to the statement that all languages are bad, except one! I will not play hide and seek with you, this one and only good language is … my Bulgarian one! This is not a new topic for me, but now I have gathered more detailed proofs. All this thanks to the misunderstood democracy, and myself existing thanks to the barbarian reaction of our whole official publicity (which has led to my birth under this pseudonym)! And have in mind that I am comparing practically all Slavonic, and Teutonic, and Latin languages, or all contemporary ones, so that my conclusions are entirely justified. And mark also this, that Bulgaria is the unquestionable (outside of its borders) barbarous nation in the civilized part of the word, and that our Bulgarian language is the best and simplest of all other civilized and contemporary languages, and these two facts simply cannot be occasional, they must be somehow related! So that at the end of this my democratic epopee I may with clear conscience exclaim: Long live Bulgarian language! and Down with the democracy! Amen! ]