myata

A few days back right in the neighborhood I saw not a small group of youth marching by shouting "Allahu akbar" orchestrated by several leaders. I thought it was some Muslim holiday didn't connect. This is a ticking bomb, quite certainly. But look, who cares we have this picture democracy with a once-in-so-many-years ritual and nothing else can or will be done.

In the current system, these notions are purely speculative and abstract. The state of any organism, including political ones is determined by the reality of its existence, not some dusty paperwork. Where accountability is de facto non-existent; where in their own words, they have to face it once in some many years as some ritual; no force in the world can force political entities to be transparent and accountable. Words and wishful thinking will change nothing here. For the system to change its ways one has to change the basis of its existence, its environment. Politicians have to know that they are accountable every day and for every act, and this is a key part of their job description, not some old-time mantra.

This is a gross oversimplification. In the 17th century, aristocracy and elites that run democracy were quite homogeneous and could agree on some rules and traditions even if not defined formally. Now any number of populists realized that the rules are either weak or non-existent, there are no safety checks and by subverting formal structures of a default party they can be propelled right to the top of the political stage, instead of earning their way there in an open competition. It's a crude and inadequate instrument for the societies in this century. Can be dangerous too. Well that would be Rome in something like 400 BC. Looks like in two millennia plus we haven't learned much, have we?

Secret calls and gifts to Vlad-the thug and dictator. What didn't we know?

We know all there's to know about this. There's nothing normal about it, and not within a thousand miles of normal for a great democracy. The only way anyone supporting it, is accepting it as the new normal and standard - indefinitely, for generations. Sure, they knew.

"Tough on Vlad"? In what distorted, fantasy world? "Donald Trump reportedly asked Vladimir Putin for his advice on whether the US should help arm Ukraine at their first in-person meeting." (while in office, 2017) Ask a dictator who three years earlier invaded an independent European country for his opinion. What speeches do we need to hear, having working eyes and a brain? Where's the enigma? No way around it: we knew everything.

Look no further than just South: if a political party is compromised by populism or authoritarianism, it still hangs right at the top of the political spectrum only by the fact that there are no other, more sane alternatives. We are desperate: buy this rotten thingy or you're stuck with the other rotten one, for the eternity. And they do have independent justice system. Desperate? Or cursed, by own complacency and thoughtlessness? Whatever it is, it can't and won't go on indefinitely. Inability to evolve and change is a sentence.

What about absolute, total absence of accountability? Wouldn't that be some problem, in a democracy? Coalitions, compromises is a normal and necessary part of sane and adult politics in modern societies. Where are examples of monolith societies where a half of population really and genuinely supports one party? None. Doesn't exist. FPTP of course would create only distorted, tortured pseudo coalitions, because "representation" (should we read it literally in this time and century or only symbolically like in 1700 something?) doesn't represent anything like the real and factual political spectrum of the society.

Western societies are walking into a crisis. The populace is coming, firmly and solidly, to view democracy as a gadget or Santa Claus's bag to shake or knock if and when great things aren't coming out anymore and want to, insist on forgetting that it's a shared responsibility: reason, memory, responsibility. And of course all kind of smart, semi-smart or just lucky to be in the right place with the right color of hair folk figures out how they could use it to their benefit. As always, since who knows how far and deep, would anyone know? And nothing seems to change it. Again. Oh oh. The next epiphany time with difficult choices and self-administered heroic struggles coming up and maybe it would work out again for a couple of generations, or maybe it wouldn't this time around, like who promised that it always would, right? Doesn't look like we could learn, does it?

1941-45: Patriots of America stood to and defeated totalitarian fascist thugs. 2024: False pseudo-patriots are ready to give everything and kiss the hand of new totalitarian fascist thugs. See it very clearly for what it is. It's right before our eyes.

Brainlessly lying folk will just throw up more sh*t in the hope that some would stick even monkeys knew how it's done. Obviously, adult people cannot control their adult children. Everyone, anyone with a piece of a working brain knows that. But we need to move beyond tit for tat politics and be careful about any facts of interference, even attempted.

No "teflon". No miracles. Just that the brainless cult would take anything, any plainly obvious lie from its Beloved Idol for the final and ultimate revelation. What's new here? Hasn't exactly that happened throughout millennia in the history, how many times and often, to boring stupid infinity? Oh yes. We're seeing it around, in a great and proud democracy. Formerly proud party of democracy, a cult. That's new, sure. But what is it, that we couldn't see or didn't know? Where are the miracles?

Beep! Lied, again. Falsely claimed JPMorgan endorsement. Just couldn't stop lying. Prolific liar, convicted felon, alleged instigator of an attempt to overturn a democratic election, for the top job in democracy? We know and we choose.

As is in Poilievre's TV ad, just press this button here and all your problems will be solved. By me. Magically. How, what, will it work - why, who wants to know, and bother? Visualize it, in adult sane politics you have seven, ten opponents each clearly formulating what their priorities are and what they would do. And among them, you: just vote press here and stop thinking. One would have to be totally, finally desperate to go for that, agree? But that's us here, isn't it? They can do that just because a) they can and b) we have no options - and they know it. Desperate. How's that, for the reason and effectiveness or even basic sanity? This is a bad, terrible system for this time and century. And it will bring democracy down. Just give it time.

They said and showed clearly so many times over that they have exactly zero interest in any meaningful political change. Swapping the smiley pics once in so many years serves them just fine, thank you!

That was amazingly thoughtful, by the way. With a good microscope one could watch it (the Maga brain virus) working on the brain. In real time, too.

OK for an illustration this is what's wrong with binary politics: Who won the debate (BBC) I can't care to comment on the debate that I didn't watch but in a sane world the question itself is perplexing and major media are playing right into it. Why everything, anything has to be a contest? Why there cannot be no other approaches and questions in our politics but some punching circus show? Look, in a sane world I'm following public debates and events of 1,2,.. 11,12,13 parties. I get to understand their goals and policies. I narrow down on the one or few that seem to be closer to my priorities. Where is the f-ing "contest" in this rational and sane picture? Why should there be a "winner" and what does it even mean? We're coming terribly close to losing the sane meaning, the rational point of the whole thing: - the participants have to be competent and willing to work - we get to know them and what they represent - we choose those and not necessarily between two, who represent our priorities. Then those who proved their worth in a fair and equal competition with others, earn the right to implement their ideas that represent our priorities. Why, who can tell that this picture is somehow wrong and the dump contest show is the only way it has to be. Nope. No way. Just insane, really. And no sane ways out of it.

And one more time, and again: the system that plays by insane, in this day and age rules cannot and will not stay sane. It will create itself phantoms and fetishes only because it can and has to be seen doing something. The way to deal with the insanity is to change it, update and renew.

Please read the topic. The way forward is Canadians creating a new Political Reform Party, then electing in with the mandate for a meaningful political reform. Another option is referendum, and if positive, let both members of the default duo keep ignoring it. Status quo is not an option, not for long term. It's the path to erosion and then, decay of democracy.

There's no avoiding this outcome: when political entities are competing not with the best players in the political field for the most sound and relevant to the society policies but only with the default political twin they are bound to create, almost intentionally, phantom causes, like pandemic togetherness in place of sound and effective policies, woke/trans/children you name it, on one side and slash and cut everything with (worthless) $50 in the hand, on the other. It's not even about policies at that stage, the change for the country, but the pretense and show, making a different appearance when the substance never changes. There will be no end to it and no exit, within the system. It was created in the 17th century and was marginally better than the absolute rule back then but it's no match for the complexity and needs of a modern society. And it will lead democracy into stagnation and eventually, decay. A renewal is needed, and with certain urgency.

Truth is the enemy. The reality is. Where is the limit? Why?

How is it just minimally "sophisticated" in the framework of modern society, would you care to clarify? There's de facto zero accountability for the governments, almost nobody cares about the opposition outside of the the election period and there's zero chance to choose political priority, agenda or policy that one likes and prefers not to mention, any meaningful change and pretty much ever? (Trudeau's phantom election reform was most recent one) Where do we find that sophistication then? In the theatrics of the circus period? Or in tongue-twisting of the talking heads at election time (but that's their bread and butter so can be related to the thingy known as "conflict of interest" beep beep!)

I don't think we can glance over the fact that he never mentions the law, what is right but who he knows and how well. What does it mean when he knows a warranted war criminal, a factual modern equivalent of Hitler, "has very good relationship" with him and implies that he has democratic legitimacy? Between the rule of the law and the mob rule where is the middle ground? No, we can't ignore that. Can't hide behind policies. We knew everything.

As well, we can be rational and remain with the reality. It tells us that 1) Trump's closest associates voiced, publicly, something very close to if not identical to Putin's demands: giving him the territory that he occupied and unreasonable and illegal restrictions on the sovereign policies of an independent European nation. In a complete violation the international law and the Charter of United Nations. There's nothing supposed about it, it's a fact. 2) Iran didn't get "what it wanted". It didn't get lifting of the sanctions, for example. It got a deal to allow the inspections of its nuclear facilities. Trump didn't tell you or anybody how he could prevent Iran from obtaining nukes without inspections and short of going to an all-out war.

This is easy, really: if Vlad should just get what he wants for his "peace" then what is the meaning of the law, the entire international environment world was trying to build for eight decades after WWII? Is it done, over now? Will all matters and conflicts be decided by the small circle "who knows"? Note a parallel here too: for over a century, America fought and struggled to establish the rule of universal law that applies to every citizen regardless of status or anything else. Someone hasn't been happy with it. So, should the law be limited to regular folk and some, ascend above and beyond it? Simple questions. But with the thing knows as the Time there are no obvious, easy questions that are decided for the eternity and we could go to rest blissfully. No, no. We can choose and decide otherwise. We can end it if we like, most certainly. This is a choice, not a given. And the choice is ours.