SARKOZY & CO: THE FELONIES OF ‘DEMOCRACY’ OPEN THE ROAD TO SORTITION

They have quasi-arrested, however shortly, former president Sarkozy -which is very good. But they, better all of us, should do much more: should cancel professional politics. No country will ever clear its politics of corruption without shutting and sealing the ballot-boxes for good.

Three, even four centuries of electoral democracy in North America have proved beyond any doubt that money rules the political system of the West. If you cannot invest a lot of money you don’t even conceive to be elected a representative of the ‘sovereign’ people, at any level. If you are not a millionaire, you must either offer yourself to Big Money, or you must convince a great many electors to be silly enough to donate small amounts to your election fund. In both cases you will be under the obbligation to return the gifts in some way. Politics, that is capturing votes, is so expensive that truly honest politicians do not exist -cannot exist.

Only exceptions, those few abnormally wealthy persons who will enter politics for innocent ambition rather than illegitimate designs. Sometimes, not at all always, said tycoons can be said to have become politicians out of respectable intentions. A number of plutocrats did so in history, from Pericles to scores of optimates of our days. Unfortunately the business of plutocrats is plutocracy, i.e. strengthening the egemony of money.

Needless to say, the greed of politicians does not stop at simply paying the bill of campaigns and electioneering. Most professionals of representative democracy are soon enticed by the prospect of becoming rich, of upgrading their station in life, from eager fortune-seekers to millionaires. Italy of course has got the distinction of possessing the most avid caste of politicians in the Western world. Practically all members of the Italian regional legislatures and administrations are presently under judicial investigation for embezzlement and other crimes. Every Italian professional of democracy has his price.

The salvation is Sortition, of course. One day members of assemblies and other officials will be selected by the lot, for short terms of office. The need for them to spend, in order to be elected will disappear. Randomcracy (direct, selective democracy) will substitute our rotten institutions. Sometimes it will occur that the lot selects the wrong persons, but their terms will not be long, their harm will be tiny. Above all, they will not have political debts to repay. Sortition is the only conceivable protection against venality and other felonies by normally putrid career-politicians.

Italia docet  (if you prefer, Sarkozy docet): hoping that career-politicians will redeem themselves from the bondage of sin, and will become honest, is worse than naive, is stupid. They simply go on being dishonest. In America several politicians stay in office for their entire adult life. Their silly electors keep voting them indefinitely. Very often their scions and heirs do the same.

That France has exposed corruption in the highest place (presidents Chirac, Giscard d’Estaing, even Mitterrand, can be also mentioned) is splendid news. Sortition will never have a chance, worldwide, if something really enormous doesn’t happen to lay open the absurdity of remain enslaved to the mechanism of election with built-in corruption. It was in a distant, totally different age, that we could not do without representation of the parliamentary type. It was so when the mass of citizens were poor, ignorant and feeble in front of sovereigns and aristocracies;  when they did not travel, did not speak languages, did not communicate, were not part of a global, hypertechnological community. Today a great many electors are more educated or qualified than their elected delegates.

We now live in a future ‘which has already begun’. In order to get rid of elected politicians we shall have to rely to ever increasing disclosures of political crimes and misconducts. Only such crimes will someday force us to stop staying subjected and spiritless. To the effect of such rebellion we shall want hundreds of behaviors the likes of the  French presidents’, better, of the typical Italian elected rascals’. Their malfeasances will bring Randomcracy nearer. Monsieur Sarkozy and his peers deserve our applause: they will be our Liberators.

A.M.Calderazzi & Associates of www.Internauta-online.

MAL FRANZESE: IL PATRIOTTISMO BELLICISTA

Dicono sia stata Parigi a trascinare Londra, più una Washington perplessa, e persino il marziale Consiglio supremo di difesa al Quirinale, nella semicrociata contro la Libia. E da mesi ci chiediamo il perché di questa avventura strampalata, priva persino delle motivazioni imperialistiche accertate per le imprese nell’Irak e nell’Afghanistan. Che è venuto in mente ai generali dell’Eliseo, troppo buro-manager per aver vinto vere battaglie ma ambiziosi di glorie mediterranee quanto il loro Principe?

Le analisi sugli idrocarburi di Gheddafi e sugli scenari della geopolitica seriosa le lascio ad altri. Io sono convinto che i francesi non sono pienamente guariti dalla malattia ereditaria che li portò più volte vicino alla tomba: la variante guerrafondaia del patriottismo. Charles de Gaulle, grande clinico più che generale, riuscì quasi  a guarire i suoi compatrioti col placebo della Grandeur (=falso farmaco che copriva una terapia affatto diversa: liquidazione dell’Empire, Algeria compresa; conciliazione definitiva col ‘nemico ereditario’ al di là del Reno; ruolo comprimario nel solo ambito brussellese). Il professor de Gaulle sconfisse la malattia, senza poterne eliminare le ultime, quasi innocue, cellule maligne. Rimaste quiescenti, di tanto in tanto si attivano, ma è naturale non preoccupino troppo.

La malattia essendo una mutazione del patriottismo, non cominciò con le glorie militari di Luigi XIV. A quell’epoca non si era patriottici, contava la casa regnante non la patria; e poi le troppe vittorie spossarono il primo sovrano d’Europa al punto di dover implorare per anni, restituendo quasi tutto il conquistato, la pace di Utrecht.

No, la malattia del patriottismo di guerra cominciò con la smagliante vittoria della Repubblica a Valmy, seguita da Jemappes, le quali poi generarono i trionfi dell’irresistibile Corso. Valmy è il sinistro batterio che ogni tanto si risveglia;  oggi ‘arma’ gli implausibili missili di Sarkosy. Quanta storia sarebbe diversa (=migliore) se a Valmy avesse vinto il duca di Brunswick invece che i francesi Kellermann e Dumouriez. L’anno orribile per la Francia fu il 1870: quel che contava della nazione e in più la borghesia bottegaia credettero ciecamente ai marescialli e ai ciambellani i quali millantarono che l’armata francese era tornata invincibile. Un dubbioso Napoleone III fu costretto alla guerra contro Bismarck, conseguendo la disfatta quasi immediata a Sedan e la fine del proprio impero.

La perdita di Alsazia e Lorena fu la ganascia che imprigionò la Francia nel patriottismo revanscista. Esso si impose nel 1914-18 con una strage da un milione e mezzo di morti solo francesi -di fatto un plurimo genocidio- più la concatenazione a un secondo conflitto mondiale.  Gli storici militari considerano la sconfitta francese del maggio 1940 la più grave in assoluto. Il tribunale di Norimberga avrebbe dovuto sentenziare anche sui responsabili del 1914, i quali non erano solo a Vienna e a Berlino: anche, forse soprattutto a Parigi, in subordine a Pietroburgo e a Londra, seguite dalle capitali satelliti Roma, Belgrado, Bucarest, Lisbona, altre.

Alla Libération del 1944 seguì il diciottennio delle illusioni riesumate: che i carri armati (americani) di Leclerc avessero preso Parigi; che le armi potessero tenere il Levante -Churchill intimò a de Gaulle, allora debolissimo, “se insisti te la vedrai con la potenza dell’VIII Armata”-, più ancora che potessero conservare il Nord Africa (l’Algeria!) e l’Indocina; che il duo Mollet-Eden vincesse a Suez (1956). Oggi il duo Sarko-Cameron tenta Suez Due, ma è certo che l’eventuale ‘vittoria’ su Tripoli avrà molti padri, anche più virili dei piloti Nato.

Le belluine missioni che stanno uccidendo i libici perché i superstiti si ritrovino democratici e progressisti risalgono, al di là della falsa vittoria del ’56 sull’Egitto, all’ebbrezza di Valmy, ai voli delle aquile napoleoniche, all’aritmetica sbagliata dei fatui marescialli del 1870, al delirio sciovinista del 1914, al rassegnato patriottismo di massa del 1939.

Chissà se il successore di Sarko il Tripolino ucciderà le cellule bellicistiche che sfuggirono al chirurgo de Gaulle, di cui i francesi fecero male a sbarazzarsi nel 1969.

Anthony Cobeinsy

SARKOZY’S AND CAMERON’S NEW SUEZ

Possibly the French and British attack on Libya will produce better results than the 1956 Eden-Mollet campaign against Egypt;  however some resemblances exist. President  Sarkozy acted first and rather ferociously, so somebody maliciously hinted that the President  is trying to emulate the napoleonic conquest of Egypt. Out of the innumerable campaigns of the youngest among modern-age generals, the victory in Egypt is the enterprise nearest to Libya.

 In 1797 the 28-year old genius has already triumphed over several sovereigns of Europe, including the Holy Roman Emperor. So Napoleon is given an army to invade Britain, but decides to take Egypt. In  June 1798 the Man from Corsica conquers Malta, in July he subjugates Alexandria and defeats the Mameluk army at the Pyramids. When admiral Nelson destroys the French fleet at Abukir, Napoleon marches against Turkey, enters Syria, does not conquer Saint-Jean d’Acre  and in October 1799 returns to France. In a few months Bonaparte becomes First Consul, in 1802 a plebiscite gives him life tenure as  First Consul (3,577,000 voters, 3,568,000 yes). Two years later Napoleon becomes the Emperor.

I rather feel that the war on Libya shows some similarities to a serious disaster of France, the 1870 war against Prussia, i.e. against the future German Reich. The 1870 act was astonishingly senseless- after 141 years the historians only know of one single reason for the war, a diplomatic slight of Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian head of government, to the French ambassador. To defend her ‘prestige’ France, then the greatest power in Western Europe, declared war. In a few weeks she was disastrously defeated in just one major battle, at Sedan. The humiliation was so bitter that the French nation was ‘condemned’ to seek revenge through a First World War wich killed 1,5 million Frenchmen. Finally in 1940 the German revenge against the French one costed France the most smashing defeat in modern history.

This terrible chain of events began (in 1870) because of a French overreaction to a discourtesy, i.e. to a minor offense. The antecedent facts: a Hohenzollern prince, cousin of the king of Prussia, having been offered the crown of Spain, Paris vetoed the acceptance: The father of the German prince renounced the crown on behalf of his son; the king of Prussia confirmed the renounciation. When the French embassador pressured the king for a more emphatic renounciation, chancellor Bismarck jumped on the matter to entice Paris into a war by denying the French diplomat an extra audience of the King.

The ministers, generals and court gentlemen of the French emperor, Napoleon the Third, promptly fell into the Bismarck trap, so Paris declared war on Prussia on the assumption that the French army was mighty. As we know, the defeat was immediate. It must be clear that France’s public opinion had ardently demanded war.

Today many observers believe that the real motive of the Libyan campaign of Paris is improving Sarkosy’s chances of re-election. If this is true, evidently the French nation is as enamoured of ‘glory’ as she was when she assailed Bismarck. Everybody knows the results of 1870: the emperor fell prisoner ad was deposed; France went republican; a bloody Commune revolution in Paris killed 20 to 30 thousand; Germany unified into a powerful Second Reich. In due time we shall see whether the French voters will reward Sarkosy’s undertaking.

Was David Cameron, the British premier, moved by a French-type pursuit of ‘grandeur’ in sending the RAF and Navy against Muammar Gaddafi? Perhaps not. We only remember Winston Churchill, a glorious predecessor of Cameron, doing his best to involve his mighty country into WW2.  His much-stated goal was defending the Empire. He won the war but the Empire soon evaporated. Today his proud nation is one of the satellites of the United States -not the most important of them.

JJJ                                                                                                                       

da Daily Babel