THESIS OF THE CONCRETE DEMOCRACY


DIAGNOSIS AND LAPSUS OF THE CONCRETE DEMOCRACY

Utopia is known to foreigners as a republic state ruled by democracy, and its media has build a national illusion of a juridical state to both inhabitants and foreigners.

Democracy (Democritus; c469-370 B.C.; Greek philosopher*) means 'a state of society characterised by formal rights and equality**', and democratic way of handling issues is declared as 'pertaining to or characterised by the principle of political or social equality for all***'.
Democritus might had understood how democracy works in practise, but other have not; let me point out, explain and declare this unfortunate lapsus (latin expression for a mistake or an era****) to the rest of us as I understand it.

First however, word of a warning to protect Democritus and his theory, as well as rest of the philosophers and their theories. All -or at least most- of these philosophical and political models are planned for ideal circumstance or to achieve such ideal theoretical state of a theory.
Pointing out any practical dilemma related to a theoretical model simply proves us all being human beings and do not reduce theory's value - in fact it may even increase it as we may see from this given example.

We are living in environment were we may control ourselves and our own thinking process to a certain extent, but we are not able to control our fellow citizen thinking. This leads us to the fact of any ideal and theoretical state (i.e. political or philosophical) rarely existing in its purest form, or such state achieved, unless all thinking related to understanding the model, environment and methods aiming for the same goal. Such matter would mean understanding everything on an absolute level enough related to our environment and to the presented model, and would lead us to divine theories - era human est! Even so, who were not to say divine theories were not too complex to human, and simultaneous theories possibly serving some higher aim and all theories coming to one super-theory in the end. Either way I am sure you understood the presented dilemma (synonym for dilemma is a problem).

Our imagined test state called Utopia is democracy and a republic state. In this state lives 1000 adult [relative measurement] inhabitants plus unread amount of children. In Utopia we may expect to live fife wise person and one 'hell of a good bloke, who is know not to spit into the glass'. Utopia has got 501 female and 499 male inhabitants.

Let us all imagine in our imagination how using Alexander Graham's (1847-1922 A.D.) Bell's curve ***** visualises the variety of different educational capacities and the variety of various talents among us.
- Measuring direct intellectual capacity would be total lunacy, since some of us get better changes in educating themselves and people are differently gifted. People learn based on education and practice. This also effects to their intellectual resources.

In Utopia people needed to arrange an election on nation's long term lining. Thus they decided to arrange election in which every adult person had a vote.
During the election campaign no one in Utopia made a remark on how the 'hell of a good bloke, who is know not to spit into the glass' succeeded, got elected and ran the nations lining according to the Bell's majority without caring about the wise men warning.
Further more no one -besides the wise men- have been able to explain the mystery, why government bureau superiors select only less intelligent co-workers and win every vote they make in their bureau.
At the same time the s.c. 'intellectual resistance' was ensuring their posts on the government by restricting government post access to higher academic level.
Wise men understood why the 'hell of a good bloke, who is know not to spit into the glass' selected all state superiors, and why scribes were ensuring their interests in Utopia (-as they do in democracy?).

Utopia's second election was on national flag. There were three options to choose from: a royal ink coloured cross on a white surface, yellow farmer tools on a red surface and a pink sheet having a female symbol in it.
When votes were counted was the following result found; 501 votes for the pink, 299 for the red flag and 200 for the royal ink.
- And once again did the wise men knew why.

In Utopia wise men were not listened; Graham's Bell curve simply explains the Maslow's hierarchy and how these two are combined in democracy.
And most worrying observation was related to the wise men themselves; they were not all academically educated, but men with strong common sense and general knowledge. When they saw the declaration of word academic****** meaning not practical or realistic, lacking in common sense and wordiness, could they immediately understand and explain why an academic state representing a juridical state or democracy is doomed.


RUSSIA SCHITZOPHRENIA DIAGNOSES IN UTOPIA

Like in any state similar to Utopia, were wise men blamed of being psychopaths simply because less talented people were trying to analyse more intelligent victims on intellectual or political bases.
At the time most wise men were living next to poverty in Utopia and diagnosed under classification 'Russia Schitzophrenia*******'.

Utopia as such were doomed, but itself never understood it simply because its inhabitants were average, blind, ethically and morally corrupted. Utopia's scribes were those, who could memorise but rarely could think or construct anything really new by themselves.
Utopia tried to rescue its nation by asking statements supporting the national lining from states similar to it, but it never understood the real cause of the problem. Wise men understood another corrupted nation supporting alike and went in silence. For political reasons this article is not published in Utopia's Indipendent Media server - it is not allowed to.

This is the history of Utopia as I see it and have explained to all of us how dangerous thing a mistaken democracy can be.

Finland - July 22 200. For Democritus - a bit differently,



Ake Tyvi (www.stadia.fi)
Dissident


* Gramercy Books; Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language; 1996 by Gramercy Books; ISBN 0-517-15141-3; p. 384, decl. 'Democritus'
** Gramercy Books; Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language; 1996 by Gramercy Books; ISBN 0-517-15141-3; p. 384, decl. 'democracy' sub-decl. 3.
*** Gramercy Books; Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language; 1996 by Gramercy Books; ISBN 0-517-15141-3; p. 384, decl. 'democratic' sub-decl. 2.
**** Otava; Uusi sivistyssanakirja; Otavan painolaitokset Keuruu 1994; ISBN 951-1-11365-8; p. 374, decl. 'lapsus'
***** Gramercy Books; Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language; 1996 by Gramercy Books; ISBN 0-517-15141-3; p. 136, decl. 'Bell'
****** Gramercy Books; Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language; 1996 by Gramercy Books; ISBN 0-517-15141-3; p. 136, decl. 'academic' sub-decl. 3. and 4.
******* Asiadokumentit; YLE; Document film of Russia dissents and their diagnoses