Democracy

On doit des egards aux vivants; on ne doit aux morts que la verite.

-Voltaire

Whenever a choice presents itself, whether in partisan politics or in mundane situations such as friends or family deciding where to have lunch, the well-intentioned practice is to 'put it to a vote' (and we know where good intentions lead). Like a rockstar, or a demi-god, democracy has become more popular than consensus - if by popular you mean 'conveniently palatable' - as easy as it is sloppy and as insidious as it is unnaccountable. As I consider the hundreds of millions of human lives destroyed just in the last half century in the name of spreading democracy, a requiem seems not only appropriate but overdue.

The three most popular assumptions that I hear about the theory of democracy are that

• to vote is to exercise freedom, because 
• only free people may vote - in short, freedom and voting are the same - and therefore,
• since freedom is moral (relative to slavery, for instance, which is immoral), to vote is also moral. 

A good slang translation might be "people power", which almost has a humane ring to it ... until you imagine a great engine running on human fuel. At those times, most folks will defensively admit that democracy is flawed (although not how or why), but that if only we had something called "true democracy", then we would also have widespread opportunity, social justice and whatever else can be promised or imagined - the problem, they insist (without quite noticing it), is not the theory, but "the people".

If you accept the hieratic notion that "the people" need to be ruled, then you can see how democracy is the opposite of freedom.

At an individual level, democracy is simply wishful thinking, and seems harmless enough. Voters (a group that never includes me) almost universally subsist on three fundamental assumptions of their own. These alone almost argue for licensing the vote:

• I know what is right and good for me
• I know what is right and good for others
• I can be relied upon to want what is right and good

You may have noticed that voters do not necessarily assume as much of their fellows, often the reverse. With all due respect (and not an ounce more), even a cursory glance at the average voter would disqualify them by any sane and moral reckoning. Nobody who eats junk food, smokes, spanks their children or supports any war anywhere could abide by these simple metrics.

Democracy (Greek -demokratia) is a compound noun derived from -demos ("commoners") and -kratos ("might"). The concept of "the people" is not germane to democracy and, what is more important, neither is respect for self-ownership. Rather, the relevant origin, demotic (-demotikos), "of or for the common people" (literally the "district" via the Proto Indo-European root -damo, "division"), refers to "the commons" themselves and not to human beings.

Like nearly every other flourishing social invention, democracy exists not in spite of the rulers but to serve their interest.

There are no grassroots movements - for though there is a more savory word for the opposite of freedom, it is politically incorrect and a bit too close to demotic for comfort. The antonym is hieratic (-hieratikos, "of or for the priesthood"), another tool of the archons suggesting that democracy even today is merely a secular religion and propaganda, its gospel. Evidence abounds - from euphoria and catharsis (c.f. Adolf Hitler, Barack Obama) to human sacrifice (democide has surpassed war as the leading cause of non-natural death).

The message is designed to promote 'buy-in' by offering a combination of choice and common purpose.

Of course there will never be a clean election where real power (-kratos) is at stake. Thus the same folks who justify voting and elections with platitudes like, "I want to have a voice ..." or "The people deserve to be heard," hate me for asking, "How useful is it to exercise your voice at the same time as everyone else - who, exactly, is your audience - why do you want to be ruled?" Don't get me wrong: I am not one to complain that democracy doesn't work - on the contrary, it is the best propaganda tool ever invented, capable of spreading and legitimizing the biggest lies (such as "majority confers morality").

The truest vision I ever did see of democracy in action was in Oakland CA, where a score of 'activists' in a crowd of thousands, surrounded and surveyed by hundreds of paramilitary police and a few odd news helicopters, banging on the upturned underside of five-gallon paint buckets as they marched in circles, chanted "This is what democracy looks like" until the spell wore off - as a direct observer, I will only say that nothing tangible or good was produced by these people, and at great cost.

All this may raise uncomfortable questions about how or even why to vote, or how to 'fix the system' and so on, which may not be relevant nor my intention to answer, per se. Neither intending to judge others nor to speak for any group, I admit that I prefer freedom over slavery, come hell or high water. Since I advocate for truth, I feel compelled never to use the word democracy unless I mean "Mob Rule".

Just as the religion of democracy was invented in Greece, so it is practiced there today in its purest form.

T H I S   I S   W H A T   D E M O C R A C Y   L O O K S   L I K E  ! ! !

. . .

Weird

Yet another tragically misused heavy hitter of a word wasted in this softball language of ours today is weird. The uninformed mistake weird for either 'strange' and 'unusual' or 'crazy' and 'madcap'. In any case, it is used as a toss-off adjective, dismissively (if not derisively), without mystery or respect and almost never as a noun or a verb. I include the word as evidence not of linguistic evolution, but of degeneration.

Whereas I have been called weird almost since I can remember, I can still count on the fingers of but one hand the folks who could tell me what weird means and /or accurately identify my weirdness. As for the hundreds of others, I will not flatter myself or attempt to quantify the value, if any, of their various and similar diagnoses.

Weird derives from the Old English noun -wyrd, meaning 'fate' or 'destiny', although its deepest root, the ancient Proto-Indoeuropean verb, -wert, 'to turn, to wind', is the source of our modern verb -to become. By way of the Old English  -weorðan and German -werden (to become), both clear cognates of weird, arises that fateful synonymity of becoming
and turning into. For example: "And lo, with a whimper and croak, the prince was turned into a frog."

Once upon a time, the word was spoken with a reverence and a trepidation more becoming to its meaning. It was the province of wizards to work with such forces as destiny - which also explains the 'Weird Sisters' moniker given to The Three Fates. Although nowadays there is little respect for the power of words, weird reminds us of the quasi-magical origin of language itself, nothing less than a technology and not one to be trifled with or taken for granted.

Witches and wizards don't take center stage often nor for very long, preferring to operate behind the scenes while preserving an air of mystery. Yet as inconspicuous as they try to be, they stick out like a sore thumb - they do not and cannot blend in among the common folk. Strangely, the reason weird is mistaken for variations of creepy or crack-pot, eccentric or insane, is due exactly to the striking and uncanny image that they present to the world (and that just might get them burned at the stake in many a time and a place).

Thus, the word is now applied to those who merely seem weird (and who are legion) and not to those who actually are weird
(and who are rare), incorrectly. I regard it as a compliment to be called weird, and yet I avoid using the word myself, or at least using it first in any conversation. By using it correctly, in the sense of having 'the power to control fate', the benefit is twofold: my respect for the language deepens and I become just a bit more weird in the bargain.

D O   N O T   T E M P T   F A T E

. . .

Idiot

One of the niceties I notice between my real dialogues and my various social media adventures is that in one arena I am fairly often called a/n (insert salacious expletive at will) idiot and in the other, never. Any guesses as to which is which? I suspect it is a mere tactic, used more in fear of cognitive dissonance than as a measure of my stupidity.

Nowadays, it's a vulgar word synonymous with 'dumbshit', 'fuckwit' or, simply, 'moron'. The suggestion is that the person so designated lacks intelligence. Although intent to slander may be clear, the most accurate or effective choice of words is not.

Chances are good that if you've been called an idiot, and especially if you've ever called anyone else an idiot, then you don't know what one is and that you, yourself, are an idiot. The confusion arises because idiocy has more to do with property than with intelligence. Indeed, some of the smartest individuals are complete idiots.

Idiot derives from the Greek -idios, meaning 'private', 'one's own', or 'proper to one's self'. With relatives including idiom and idiosyncrasy, it has a peculiar ring. As you can imagine, idiots have their own way of seeing and doing things; they live in a world of their own.

The ancient Athenians used the word scornfully to distinguish idiots from citizens, on account of the latter's participation in common, public (i.e. civilized) life. It was considered selfish to abstain from the requirements of citizenship, which, besides correct birth, were education and service. The implication is that to be an idiot is 'to value individual satisfaction more highly than the common good'.

Idiot entered the Latin language when Roman soldiers slaughtered the Athenian armies, the latter composed mostly of private citizens unschooled in combat with only a few genuine officers. Private was the name given to the lowest rank to describe men who (briefly) fought in their own clumsy way, and the tradition continues. In his own inept attempt to classify varieties of mental retardation, Dr. Henry Goddard confused lack of education and/or the lowest military rank with IQ levels as measured by a peculiar (and flawed) theory of 'mental ages', with idiot at the bottom of the scale (aged less than three years).

The most notorious idiot in English literature must be Sherlock Holmes - and for a real case study, consider Howard Hughes. Maybe instead of calling someone an idiot in a moment of otherwise justifiable anger, you might instead point out that they have their own private understanding of the matter and/or that they may be a closet sociopath. If you feel that you are being called an idiot unjustly, you might simply smile and say, "And you, Dr. Watson, are feeble-minded."

T O A S T   O F   T H E   I D I O T S