[Skybird]

A question for you, Respenius.

If 100 million "Alphas" elect 10 thousand "Betas", and these 10 thousand "Betas" then elect 100 "Deltas", and these 100 "Deltas" elect a council of 3 leaders,

and than three other groups like the "Alphas" in this example do like this, too,

and then the 4x3 leaders come together and form a gremium of 12 where the agree to have one superior leader -

is this one leader than democratically legitimised by the 400 million different Alphas?

And if he decides and the gremium of 12 decides issues and policies that the 400 million different Alphas do not want and never have agree to and never have voted for - is it okay to say to them that they should accept it nevertheless, since the council of 12 and its leader are democratically legitimised by the 400 million Alphas?

And if this council at the top and it's leader than decides policies that never have been set up for election to the Alphas, can you say then the Alphas ever legitimised these policies?

And if these policies are even not only not legitimised by the Alphas, but even are in known and direct opposition to what a known solid majority of all Alphas want them to be, and if they reject them therefore, can one then say that they have no right to not wanting them since the nevertheless democratically legitimised them?

NO. Not in my book.

If I vote for soembody, who then votes somebody, who then votes somebody who then votes somebody - have I voted for the very final winner in that voting? Could I even have forseen that outcome and let them form my initial decision? Has what this final winner then makes and does, ever be a voting issue?

Again, the answer is a sounding No.

And in reality, the structure I somewhat abstractly outlined, is even more complicated, and gets distorted even more by a plethora of lobby groups and interest parties that neither directly nor indirectly have ever been set up for an election process at all.

Nobody in a nation gives an election vote for EU policies when voting his national government or the government of his federal state. and the Eu votes again get somewhat hijacked and reflect national issues again, not EU-wide issues.

The process I outlined above as an abstract "model", is the reason why people, as you say, do not care and lose interest in politics. It creates the apathy you warned of.

but why warning of it? Hell, I hope and wish that less than 5% of people would go to elections. then it would be totally obvious even for the blind cold stone buried under a moutain that the "winner" of those elections would not have any legitimicy to think he represents the people.

Did you know that in Germany in the past federal states elections, in half of the 16 federal states the turnout was such that no winner is there who could say he represents the simple 51% majority of all people that by law would be legitimised to vote? There are many who have scored a high victory in numbers, let'S say 40 to 25 or so - and still represent just a fraction of that majority.

BUT THAT IS TOTALLY IGNORED IN GERMANY. It is a taboo in Germany that we already have American circumstances. It gets nicetalked at best (if it ever gets mentuioned at all), and a picture is painted showing the winner of elections, forming local governments in coalitions, "representing the population". but fact is that they already have lost the population, and speak for maybe just every fifth or so only.

Lets bring this system to a fall - by refusing to participate in it, refusing to legitimise it, by civil disobedience, rejecting to pay attention to the established structures and groups, and ignoring the figures and blocking the lobbies. Let'S let them run into an empty void and slam the door behind them.

that is the only chance to bring change into these frozen structures. Participating in them, legitimising them by voting for parts of their internal structures - only makes sure that that they carry on like they did in the past, unchanged and unchanging.

The time is not yet ripe for this, too many people still prefer to be small and silent and afraid and think about their own day-to-day interest first, never looking tejn years ahead. But the future we are heading into, is grim and gloomy, dripping with conflict and elemental fight for survival. The change we refused to allow taking place in a somewhat evolutionary way and at slower speed by accepting it while still not having run out of time, now will come nevertheless, but since it finds us unprepared and unwilling to prepare and with no time left, it will come in a revolutionary way, brutally fast, and where we find ourselves without time to adapt, it will simply break us and roll over us. The shortening of oil, disappearing ressources in general, climate change, desertification, loss of humus worldwide, the poisening of the ocean and the dissapearing of fish, the shortening in sweet water, the rising mass migration of the peoples, the mass dying of people living in the third world in areas that are affected by climate change - all this is on a head-on-collision course with our excessively wasteful hyper-materialistic way of living. And where it finds us unprepared, it will break us and washes the pieces away, that simple. For the old order, that represents what we allowed our former well-meant ideals to pervert into, is just standing in the way of things to come.

In a way, both ecologically and culturally-civilisational, we are moving backwards, so to speak, and return to circumstances and conditions of earlier times that represent earlier stages of things on planet Earth, with less order and more chaos. the higher the life form, the earlier it will disappear, while the lower life forms it was made of, will last longer. Civilisational structures will go first, then supernational structures, nations next, accompanied by the desintegration of ungovernable cities. It will go step by step in the order of it's construction - just in reverse. It's as if you read a book on human civilisation and man'S history - from the last to the first chapter.

This finds us ill-prepared, and that'S why I am so extremely pessimistic. for example the negotiations in Bonn to prepare the big climate conference at the end of the year. The US fights over not reducing its CO2 emisions by more than 4% - until 2020.

Japan offers 8%.

The EU offers 20% reduction.

None of these smart, economically well-educated, highly intelligent minds has understood what is happening right now. The biggest storm in man's history is heading into our direction at highest speed - and while we see the trees already shaking wildly, they are fighting over wether to use the Celsius or Farenheit scale.

We are not just absurd in allowing that. We are suicidal on a civilisational level.

H.G. Wells had a very pessimistic view on human evolution, saying that it just forms the destructiveness that is set to destroy us. You can see that attitude in his novel "The Time Mchine". The older I become, and the more I see and experience, the more I tend to share his conclusions.