Democracy and human sacrifice

Yesterday, the news was full of people celebrating Obama‘s re-election. People were celebrating having given their power to a proven and unrepentant liar, who is responsible for the deaths of many innocent people, who legalized unending detention for those suspected of future terrorism, while overseeing the definition of terrorism expanding. People were celebrating having submitted their power to a violent liar [violence is government’s nature, dishonesty is representative democracy‘s nature].
It is a strong delusion they are under. It reminds me of the Aztec ritual of human sacrifice.
The Aztecs believed that they  needed to feed the gods human sacrifices in order to give the universe sustenance. So people were regularly killed to keep the gods alive and looking after them.
You would think that even once the people were convinced that it was a necessary evil, they would begrudgingly accept, and try to feed the gods as little as possible. But instead, it was made an honour. When the Christian Spaniards came over, they were ridiculed for their horror at the practice. The victims went through a series of elaborate rituals beforehand, including leading songs and dances, blessing children, and hearing people‘s petitions to the gods; all before they had their still beating heart ritually torn out (no exaggeration). When the Spaniards attempted to free them, some would indignantly reject being released and demand to be sacrificed.
What’s the link between this and democracy? Well, democracy is all about sacrificing your power and freedom (life?) to politicians (gods?), in order to sustain “order“ and avert “chaos“. Even if you accept the madness of this sacrifice to feed our world system, it at least should never be loved or celebrated. (The parallels can also be seen in rituals such as national service)
A big question is, where do these deceptions come from? Who convinced the Aztecs to sacrifice their lives, and citizens to sacrifice their freedoms? Peter Kropotkin explains it brilliantly for the state in the state: its historic role but if you don’t want to read the whole book (it’s very good), basically the state took freedom by force, then claimed they were responsible for every good thing, and everything that was failing was because the state wasn’t big enough. I imagine the same thing (more or less) happened with human sacrifice.

Now the really important question is, how do you save the victims who are still worshipping the gods? The Spanish conquered and, I assume, outlawed the practice. The Aztec population was decimated by the Spanish, and those left were thoroughly oppressed.
But, more hopeful, there were victims who didn’t go quietly. Some cried and pooed themselves on the way up. They weren’t sacrificed to the gods, but were killed to the side, while mocked by the crowd for being unmanly. I expect many eventually became Christians.
And, it is estimated that voter turnout in the U.S. election has fallen since 2008, and is falling elsewhere in the world as well. I take that as great news.
God bless you.

[I‘ve complained enough about democracy as a whole now. I‘ll try to shut up about it for a while, and only be constructive or specific in my complaints.]

[My information about the Aztecs is from year 5 history, and Wikipedia (the two agree). If I was wrong anywhere, please correct me. Thank you.]

P.S. do not link this idea of sacrifice with the Christian idea of dying to self. Dying to the sinful self is good for you, and brings joy and freedom. I talk about this (more or less) here.
God bless you.


Philosophical reason I won’t vote

[As a personal aside, I‘d rather Romney win over Obama in the U.S. election. Not because of policies or personalities. Just out of curiousity. I know where Obama was a liar and where not; now I‘m curious about Romney. They’re both such liars, I have no reasonable way of seeing who will be worse anyway.]

I‘m very keen on living by logical principles. I‘m so keen, I stopped peeing in the shower (gross, I know), because that logically leads to having to accept standing/washing in a urinal. So here is why I won’t vote for any coercion, ever.
If you vote, you attempt to direct government coercion using paper, and must acknowledge the validity of others doing the same even if they disagree with you (or be a hypocrite). So if you vote, you are held to all votes, because they are doing to you, what you tried to do to them. The only exception to this is if the winner does something unconstitutional (unless they change the constitution first).
You therefore lose the right to complain about election results. You must accept whoever is elected according to the system you try to use.
It doesn’t matter if you think the “majority“ made the wrong choice. You accept the same method of control, you must live by the logic of your methods.
You can’t bet on a game, lose, and refuse to pay. If you had won the election, you would want your opponents to give up their freedom, so if you lose, you have given up yours.
I want the principle of my freedom to be upheld by all my actions, even if it can’t be practically upheld. I need to at least allow myself to disobey, even if others never will.
If your man (or party) wins the election, you cannot complain. You gave him whatever authority you had. You planned for him to take the authority of the entire population.
And don’t complain when the winners are liars. You knew they would be. If they weren’t supposed to be liars, the system wouldn’t have representatives. There would either be a vote on everything, or a vote for a policy package.
So if you want to be able to protest or complain without being a hypocrite, you must repent of voting. Then, you are no longer held (by principle) to the votes of others.
I’m also against it in principle, because I don’t support violence or the threat of violence in any form. Clearly, government is a form of violence.
God bless you.

P.S. I have no philosophical issue with non-violent protests or civil disobedience against government. If there is any place for rebellion against authority (and Jesus did clear the temple) this is the way to do it.

P.P.S. I‘m not a US citizen anyway, so their election doesn’t much affect me, unless they declare war or do secret stuff in my country (by “my country“, I mean home in the larger sense) or the countries of friends and family.

God bless you.

Sand castle democracy

This current system of democracy is truly terrible. What strikes me is the amount that voting gives the great illusion of participating in change.
I‘d like us to imagine, if rather than pieces of paper being put into boxes, votes were cast by placing a single grain of sand upon a castle, and whoever‘s castle ends up greater, wins power. The castles may get magnificent, but your grain is forever lost. Did your grain ever increase its grandeur? Is placing the grain worth your trouble?
And then the castle that would be built would function as a symbol of the new government, that would quite surely crumble away, like the hopes of the voters in the party, as its lies are gradually revealed.
The greater the castle, the more tragic the mound of sand left at the end of the day.

Ahh, dreaming of a system designed to reveal its own faults. Pointless to plan, but crucial to imagine.
My point is, if you want something good to be done, don’t try to convince politicians through paper (or sand). Instead, do good things directly, and when necessary, actively protest against the government.
It is people, not institutions, and certainly not governments, that will make the world truly better.

God bless you.