And when he does not behave thus,but, on the contrary, oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe their ancient customs and privileges, exacting from them slavish compliance, then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in no other view. And particularly when this is done deliberately, unauthorized by the states, they may not only disallow his authority, but legally proceed to the choice of another prince for their defense."
Plakkaat van Verlatinghe, or Oath of Abjuration (Dutch declaration of independence), 1581
At the end of his latest, Fjordman writes:
Average citizens who still identify with their nation states thus keep electing people who betray their trust. Since the elites identify little with the nations they are supposed to serve, more power to them will only make matters worse, as it already has in Europe. Corrupt and incompetent individuals will always exist. If you get a corrupt leader every now and then you are dealing with a flawed individual. If you constantly, again and again, get corrupt leaders you are dealing with a flawed system. Our political system is now deeply flawed. The problem is that I cannot easily see how to fix it.In the subsequent discussion I tried to argue that the fix was contained in the Fjordman piece itself: If the problem is the destruction of the demos and the lack of loyalty of the rulers towards their respective demos, then the fix should be found in the restoration of demos and rulers coming forth from it.
With the latter I mean that a well-developed demos will produce leaders that are loyal to it and will defend it's interests. Thus the first order of business is to undo a century of gradual tearing down everything that (partly) defines a people, or demos, the damage of which was decribed by Fjordman in The EU and the Globalist Alliance. Moreover, I believe that, huge efforts notwithstanding, a sense of demos still exists in the common people of Europe: those, in all layers of society, that still identify with their nationality, or nation, or heritage (I will continue to use the word demos now, since it encompasses more then the narrower sense of words like 'people', or 'nation', or 'nationality', let alone 'ethnicity' or 'race').
The bulk of my argument is contained in a post by Baron Bodissey of Gates of Vienna (thanks for the kind words, Baron). The Baron used it as a starting point for his thoughts on demos. It's an articulate and thought-provoking post. However, the Barons thoughts, as did the ensuing discussion tended to focus on what defines a demos, what are it's characteristics. I personally believe it is the wrong question and in the end going down that road may be even defeating the purpose.
A demos is a demos if it says it is.
I think that in essence demos is the result of a self-organizing process. To be sure it involves shared values, shared history or shared language. But in the end whether one belongs or does not belong to a certain demos, is a matter of the individual only, and is not necessarily defined by characteristic values or history.
Trying to define a priori what constitutes a demos is essentially the same as defining a set of rules (based on religion, convinctions, heritage, etc.) that measure somebody's eligibility for membership. There is a tendency in human nature to come up with further rules in cases where the results is unclear (and thus undesirable: the decision 'in or out' cannot be made). This dynamic may lead to ever narrower definitions of what it means to be part of a demos that unjustly leaves out an increasing number of individuals.
A recent immigrant to a country may decide to adopt his new home as fully his. He does not share the history, not all of the values and maybe a limited understanding of the language. Yet by identifying with the citizens of his adopted homeland, does he not become de facto member of the demos?
Trying to explicitly define a demos carries the risk of excluding potentially valuable members, because they fail to meet a set of essentially arbitrary standards. And reversely, setting such standards may include individuals that have made choices which puts them at odds with the interests of the demos they have been assigned to. In Western Europe nowadays the best examples of these may be converts to Salafi islam or the many EU-rocrats working steadily to replace the powers of self-determination of the demos with the absolute rule of the EU.
The curious things is: A demos is first formed. Only after that it's characteristics can be pointed out. The existance of a particuar demos is a given. A demos is defined by common acceptance, it is a demos if it is recognized as such, at the very least by the members of a demos themselves. This is where the self-organizing principle comes in: Anyone describing himself/herself as and identifying with being 'American' or 'French' or 'Dutch' is, in principle, 'American' or 'French' or 'Dutch'. It is a matter of choice, in a free country anyway.
I realize that talk is cheap, so maybe an additional definition would be 'anyone working in the interest of a demos is part of it'. And of course, it is still human nature that a would-be member does not become a full member until he/she is accepted by other members. But I think that in principle the statement holds. All that other stuff, like acquiring the language and the mores of a demos, comes second. First there is the decision to be part of this demos; consciously in some, subconsciously or even unconsciously in most members born into the demos. But the essence is the the individual is the ultimate arbiter on his or her own membership.
The demos thus formed by individuals identifying with the idea of the demos in question may (no, it *will*) have certain characteristics, but these must not be understood to be defining, since these characteristics will not all apply universally to all those that consider themselves member of the demos. Thus, the character of a demos can only be used descriptively. It can not be used definitively, because doing so would exclude members of the demos you are trying to define.
By the same token the demos that we belong to, by birth or by choice, defines us in manners that are not always obvious. If everyone around you shares a certain value that you hold, that value becomes the natural order of things. But what we need to recognize is that a lot of the values we hold have been entrenched in the demos during generations of day to day life. The values that we hold dear, the traits we consider best about ourselves are more often then not values characteristic of our demos, that we internalized through the good fortune of being raised in a certain demos. No man is an island, as the cliché goes.
The death of democracy?
Lately the very concept of democracy has become under fire. Fjordman recently was very critical of democracy, but did not go so far as to declare democracy dead. On the other side of the aisle, over at the collectivists, they have not been so coy. During the run up to the June 22 EU Summit that brought us the Turnip (the treaty that is the same as the failed EU constitution of 2005, even though every member of government in rebellious countries like the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands deny this) the most scandalous display of premature notices of the death of democracy was given by Giorgio Napolitano, not surprisingly a former hard-line communist. Labelling Eurosceptics 'psychological terrorists' he declared that the EU was not to become a super-state, but rather a 'post-democracy'.
Basically it means that with the great complication that exists in the modern world, it is only reasonable that our governance is expropriated by those with the intellectualUnfortunately, this type of reasoning is not only to be found in the circles of dedicated EU-rocrats. It is nowadays commonly found in politicians of all stripes around Western Europe. And it is false!
capacity to deal it. The common mass, ignorant and stupid as they are, are not equipped to comprehend the intricacy of politics.
It is a morally and intellectually lazy argument to excuse the incompetence and unwillingness of the current political classes to put the issues in clear terms to the general public and render himself at the mercy of the voters, as a democratically elected official should.
The Turnip is arguably the single most complicated document in human history. Not because the matters are so complicated, but because it was designed to be complicated. Yet there are more then a handful of websites around, run by people volunteering their time and expertise, that are able to present the facts of the Turnip in such a way that anyone can understand what a dangerous piece of work the Turnip really is. So, if unpaid, volunteer citizen journalists of the pajama brigade are able to present complicated matters in an understandable fashion, what does it tell us about our current crop of politicians?
Explaining complicated matters to the general public in a way that the understand the issue at hand may mean that the general public does not agree with the proposed solution. Or it may even decide that the issue isn't worth the time and money that politicians want to devote (see, for instance, the lacklustre reception by the general population of the Global Warming issue). Maintaining that issues are too complicated for the general population and should be left to 'experts' and 'professionals' is a deliberate ploy to bypass democratic accountabillity and wrest undeserved power from the hands of the population.
And it is hypocritical in the extreme, given the trajectory of the average politicians career. The average politicians usually climbs the ladders inside the structures of the poltical party of his choice, after having finished a study of dubious relevancy. In the process of climbing the ladders the aspiring politician is encouraged to take 'cadre courses', in which he or she is taught the ropes of politics. And that is it.
So, by claiming that public accountability should be bypassed in favor of opinion of 'experts' and 'professionals' renders the politician automatically unfit to participate in the decision making. Obviously, this fact will not be recognized by the politician in question, who thinks of him/herself as entirely capable of pronouncing judgement, just on the merits of his/her position. Any politician using the 'too complicated for the general public' argument indicates (s)he has stopped serving the population and instead thinks of the population as serving him; (s)he has become a little tyrant. And if left unchecked little tyrants become big tyrants. Genocidal tyrants even. Hasn't that been the story of the 20th century?
The 20th century has been a series of mostly disastrous experiments in re-inventing humanity and society. Mostly it resulted in tyrannical regimes that set themselves up as the ruling class, behaving like the Prince that believes all men were created as slaves to him. The latest such experiment is upon us through the attempts at instituting a "post-democratic" ruled by transnational bodies like the EU and the UN and NGO's. And it must be defeated if we are to keep our personal freedom and sovereignty.
Nanny and the individual
The single greatest threat to the integrity of a demos is arguably the Western European welfare state. Fjordman and others have pointed out that this model replaces mutual dependence between citizens with the singular dependence of the individual on the state. Often this is presented as a vast conspiracy of collectivists of all stripes to subjugate the people and set themsselves up as the rulers. I personally tend to be sceptical of major conspiracies. Usually the results are better explained by incompetence and shortsightedness. The case of the current welfare state and the predominance of gramscian ideas and methods is possibly no exception.
Since the end of the 19th century European politics has become more and more partisan, meaning that politics increasingly changed into a system of political parties vying for power. It just so happens that the politics of power as described by collectivist thinkers are the penultimate means for securing a loyal base of voters. If the average citizen becomes more dependent on the state, then by extension he or she becomes more dependent on the political party of his or her choice. A further step in this process is the tendency of political parties to promise more intervention to 'alleviate' worries occupying their voters. Necessarily this will lead to ever increasing powers to the state.
Recently in the Netherlands we had a good example of this with regard to the upbringing of children and government plans to centrally monitor every child in the Netherlands for 'early warning signs' of potential trouble. Thus the interest of the State and the interest of democratic political parties are aligned in a manner that ensures that the governing elite, ministers, civil servants and MPs alike, identify more with the State than with the people the ought to serve. Electoral promises notwithstanding, our rulers are part of the State. In this day and age that means that they live inside a bubble, an artificial world of politics that has little to do with the day-to-day life of the average citizen. In effect these kind of politicians have left their original demos and have effectively joined another. In Western Europe, this demos might be called 'the EU-rocrats'.
(On a side note, it is worth mentioning that the whole concept of political parties is collectivist in nature, stems from collectivist thinking, as Hayek describes in his 'The Road to Serfdom'.)
A development that happened in parallel was the promotion of Individualism, which in essence was state sanctioned egotism. The high point of this development was during the 90's. Every citizen was encouraged to seek full self-fulfilment and to disregard any criticism they might incur in the process. This had a devastating effect on public life, due to circumstances felt in full force in the Netherlands, where the notion of individual freedom was one of the founding liberties.
However, the notion of individualism was more noxious in that it disallowed any criticism and defended the less social elements who went into a tirade, threatened with or even applied physical violence when confonted with criticism of their involuntary remodeling of the bus stop, or some such. Victims of street violence were often told by the police that maybe they'd been better off if they'd kept their criticism to themselves.
Although this is an extreme example, it was (and still is) quite common to see someone engaged in unambiguously anti-social behavior and meeting no resistance. And even if they do, the local authorities will not make a big deal out of it. He has an individual right to play his stereo at the top its volume at three am, doesn't he? At worst he will be told to turn the volume down by an effiminate police officer, but more likely then not, the complainer is told to 'work it out together' with the anti-social, sleep depriving cretin.
As a result, citizens started to avoid interaction and became increasingly isolated. Increasing distance between members of family meant that they did not even have the family network to fall back on. And thus the only thing left as a safety net for citizens became the state. Needless to say that in such a situation solidarity among citizens is also non-existant. If you hit dire straits don't expect your neighbors or family to bail you out. Nine out of ten times you will hear 'But you can apply for benefits, can't you?'. The State has become the surrogate of a social safety net. However, where social nets have a measure of equality built into them, the relationship between individual and State is highly unequal, with the state the master over the individualized, isolated citizen.
Of course it takes two to tango. In Western Europe democracies the two partners would be 1) politics and 2) the electorate. That things have gone down this road for so long can be blamed on short sighted or malicious politicians, devious NGO's and lobby groups and what not. But we must accept some of the culpabillity. Not because we need an extra injection of guilt. But because in doing so we recognize the way out of this mess.
We must admit to ourselves that no matter how much we lament the actions and legislation of politicians and political parties, we voted for them. We gave them their mandate. Yes, they may have grossly abused the mandate given to them. But we always came back for more, didn't we? We vote for one set of charlatans, see the deception and incompetence, vote for another set of charlatans, equally inept and corrupt and then we go and vote for the previous set of charlatans again. And still we wonder why we are being shafted ever more openly and brazenly.
We the people
If the State has anything to fear it is being challenged in it's authoritity. Being unable to adress the individuals grievances of all individuals under its care, the States looks for go-to people to discuss grievances and possible solutions. That is why special interest groups get a disproportional share of governments attention and legislation. It is the reason for the atrocious multi-cul legislation we've seen. It is the reason why Mohammed and the Quran are de facto protected, while an artist putting a crucifx in a jar of his own urine gets a prize. It is a truism that the squeeky wheel gets the grease.
That being the case, it is time that the original demos in Europe, what by and large is the 'silent majority' of Europeans of all nationalities, becomes the squeeky wheel. As Fjordman wrote a couple of weeks ago Europeans Have to Stop Talking. They Have to Act. He is right. However, as the Baron indicated we have to get rid of at least three decades of having an inferiority complex drummed into us. We in the West get it constantly drilled into us that we are too rich. That we use too much, pollute too much. Global warming can not be a natural occurrence, it has to be man-made. Moreover, it has to be white-man-made. Basically, we are made ashamed of our well being.
But if that is the case, we should get over it. There is much to be proud of and much worth fighting for. Our well being and our wealth is not just luck of the draw. It is hard earned. It is the result of an ethic that values work for its own sake and puts man in control of his own destiny. It is the result of a metaphysical world view that allows man freedom. Freedom of will and freedom of choice.
We should take care of our planet. We should care for the poor, the hungry, the thirsty and the sick. But not at the cost of losing ourselves in being ashamed of our own success. We worked, and are working, hard at earning our (and our governments) keep. It is high time we threw off shame and fear that has been imposed on us. It is time we stand up and be counted. It is time to make some noise.
What is a boy, or girl, to do
So, what needs to be done? Restoration of the demos, obviously. But although stating the solution is simplicity itself, the practical application is anything but.
In order for the demos to be restored, the effects of hyper-individualism and the welfare state must be neutralized. This means restoring social safety nets, a sense of community. It also means that individual citizens need to be weaned off the states teat. Not in a literal sense, but in the mind. Every citizen must be made to realize that when push comes to shove the interest of the individual and the interest of the State will not align. The only real hope a human being has is the support of family, friends and like-minded citizens, in short: his or her demos.
Make yourselves heard! We've carried the weight of the world on our shoulders for long enough now. It is time to set the burden down and reclaim what has been taken away, before it is lost for good. Stop voting for the people that are leading us down this road. Organize. Produce candidates that are untainted by the structures of 'mainstream politics'. Candidates that serve the people and not some abstract notion of a utopian society. If history (especialy the hostory of the 20th century) has proven anything, it is the abortive nature of utopian ideals applied in real life. Do not become part of 'mainstream politics', but be proud of the fact that you are representing an alternative.
No, check that: We do not merely represent an alternive. We are Alternative. We are the new Underground, the new counter-culture. After four decades and more of watching everything that was useful, good, masterful and beautiful about our heritage scorned, desecrated and destroyed, we are the ones to say: Enough! It is time to get back to basics. Back to the ideals of liberty and a just government as they were defined in the 16th to 18th century. Time to re-establish the sovereignty of the individual.
This is a rather tall order and will not be accomplished in a few years. As of yet we are too few, too far between. We need to build up 'critical mass'. This process has already started. Around Europe (and it is quite surprising to see this trend so massively) parties that are not considered ‘mainstream politics’ are gaining popularity. In the usual MSM commentary this is blamed on the increasingly fickle, short attention-spanned voters. But I think it might be an indication that more and more people are recognizing that ‘traditional’ political parties do not represent the people anymore.
Vlaams Belang in Belgium, Wilder’s PVV and the Socialist Party in the Netherlands, the Kascinski twins in Poland, Front National and MPF in France. For better or for worse, people are more and more turning to parties that still project a sense of interest in preserving the nation state. If the potential is there (as it seems to be), it can be mobilized.
Inform yourselves and others. Back in the 80's and early 90's we had the more or less believable excuse that we did not have the information, what with the MSM being in cahoots with the powers that be. But these days we have the internet. There are a shed load of bloggers that work to reveal the truth of what is happening from every possible angle. Read and share Fjordmans European Declaration of Independence. Read and share the articles on Brussels Journal, Gates of Vienna, EU Referendum and Jihad Watch. The information is out there, only a google search away.
And if worst comes to worst... Well then, maybe we should seriousy consider to "legally proceed to the choice of another prince for [our] defense."
