1000 petals by axinia

the only truth I know is my own experience

The vision: The Rose of the World as a new global social system February 25, 2010

There exists an entity that for many centuries has proclaimed itself the lone, steadfast unifier of all people, shielding them from the danger of all-out warfare and social chaos. That entity is the state. Since the end of the tribal period, the state has been of vital necessity at every historical stage. Even hierocracies, which attempted to replace it with religious rule, simply became variations of the selfsame state. The state bonded society together on the principle of coercion, and the level of moral development necessary to bond society together on some other principle was beyond reach. Of course, it has been beyond reach even until now, and the state has remained the only proven means against social chaos. But the existence of a higher order of moral principles is now becoming evident, principles capable not only of maintaining but also of increasing social harmony. More important, methods for accelerating the internalization of such principles are now taking shape.

In the political history of modern times, one can distinguish two international movements diametrically opposed to one another. One of them aims for the hypertrophy of state power and an increase in the individual’s dependence on the state. To be more exact, this movement seeks to bestow ever greater power on the person or organization in whose hands the state apparatus lies: the Party, the Army, the Leader. Fascist and national socialist states are the most obvious examples of such movements.
The other movement, which appeared at least as far back as the eighteenth century, is the humanist. Its origins and major stages are English parliamentarianism, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, German social democracy, and in our days, the struggle for liberation from colonialism. The long-range goal of the movement is to weaken the bonding principle of coercion in the life of the people and transform what is largely a police state defending race or class interests into a system based on overall economic equilibrium and a guarantee of individual rights…
History has also witnessed examples of novel political arrangements that might appear to be hybrids of the two movements. Remaining in essence phenomena of the first type, they alter their appearance to the extent expedient for the achievement of their set goal. This is a tactic, a deception, but nothing more.
Nevertheless, despite the polarity of these movements, they are linked by one trait characteristic of the twentieth century: global ambitions. The ostensible motivation of the various twentieth century movements can be found in their political blueprints, but the underlying motivation in modern history is the instinctive pursuit of global dominion….

Taking advantage of that fact, despotic regimes systematically actualize the principle of extreme coercion or partly camouflage it with a cunning blend of methods. The tempo of life is accelerating. Monolithic states are emerging that earlier would have taken centuries to erect. Each is predatory by nature, each strives to subjugate humanity to its sole rule. The military and technological power of these states boggles the mind. They have already more than once plunged the world into war and tyranny. Where is the guarantee that they will not do so again in the future? In the end, the strongest will conquer the globe, even at the cost of turning a third of the world’s surface into a moonscape. The cycle of wars will then come to an end, but only to be replaced by the greatest of evils: a single dictatorship over the surviving twothirds of the world. At first it will perhaps be an oligarchy. But, as often happens, eventually a single Leader will emerge. The threat of a global dictatorship—this is the deadliest of all threats hanging over humanity… (more…)

 

Democracy or Freedom? May 12, 2008

 image by axinia

The meaning of the very word democracy is power to people, not freedom.The trouble is that the people did not get much training in learning how to handle power. It seems that the relationship between democracy and freedom depends upon the tension between power and people. Must freedom in a democracy mean a free-for-all grab at power? If so, we are perecisely in these deeper troubles that Rousseau, Jefferson and oterh godfathers of modern democracy wanted to prevent.

“Demos” means the people, “kratos” means power. However, who is the real ruler when the people rule? Nobody? Everybody? Or somebody. This body may act with such familiarity that its existence is unnoticed. Its shape is ill defined and its desire and purposes are not understood. Is this hypothetical ruler of democracy now inheriting the earth?

Gregoire de Klabermatten, “The third Advent”

P.S: The word on the picture (LUXUS) means luxury in German. In my personal view the modern democracy is almost the same as materialism. I find this photo very interesting, because one can see the shabby house wall and the “rich” word on it, showing the illusory power of riches on the fading facade of democracy.

LOVE, axinia

 

 
%d bloggers like this: