CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 民主,最危险的宗教 — 10. 第十章——民主神话

November 11, 2022

 

Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion
民主,最危险的宗教

10. Chapter  10 – Myths of Democracy
10. 第十章——民主神话

By Larry Romanoff
拉里•罗曼诺夫

翻译: 珍珠

CHINESE

 

CONTENT
目录
10.1. The People are in Charge
10.1. 人民当家作主

10.2. In a Democracy, the People Choose . . .
10.2. 在民主国家,人民选择……

10.2. Checks and Balances
10.2. 制衡

10.3. The Legitimacy of Government
10.3. 政府的合法性

10.4. The Myth of Democratic Accountability
10.4. 民主问责的神话

10.5. The Public be Damned
10.5. 诅咒公众

10.6. “Democracy” is a Child’s Fairy Tale
10.6. “民主”是孩子的童话

10.7. “Democracy” is a Child’s Fairy Tale

10.7. “民主”是孩子的童话

 

 

10.1. The People are in Charge

10.1. 人民当家作主

Alexander Tytler wrote that all governments are essentially a monarchy, and indeed there is no lack of quotations available from elected officials stating in one form or another the conviction that they were “elected to rule”. Nor is there any lack of evidence that their behavior corresponds well to this hypothesis, it being a common expression that ‘democracies are essentially four-year dictatorships’. Tytler assessed democracies very clearly when he wrote that:

亚历山大·泰勒写道,所有政府本质上都是君主制,而且确实不乏民选官员以这种或那种形式表示他们“被选举为统治者”的信念的引文。也不乏证据表明他们的行为与这一假设相吻合,因为“民主国家本质上就是四年独裁”是一个常见的表达。泰勒在写到民主国家时非常清楚地评估了民主国家:

 

The people flatter themselves that they have the sovereign power. These are, in fact, words without meaning. It is true they elected governors, but how are these elections brought about? In every instance of election by the mass of a people through the influence of those governors themselves, and by means the most opposite to a free and disinterested choice. But those governors once selected, where is the boasted freedom of the people? They must submit to their rule and control, with the same abandonment of their natural liberty, the freedom of their will, and the command of their actions, as if they were under the rule of a monarch [or a dictator]“.

人们自以为拥有主权。事实上,这些话毫无意义。他们确实选举了州长,但这些选举是如何进行的?在每一个由人民大众通过州长本身的影响力进行选举的例子中,都是通过最不利于自由和公正选择的方式进行的。但是,一旦选出州长,人民所吹嘘的自由在哪里?他们必须服从他们的统治和控制,放弃他们的自然自由、意志自由和行动指挥,就像在君主(或独裁者)的统治下一样。”

 

He is of course recognising that once the people cast their vote, they have in fact elected a sovereign with absolute authority over them. No one can claim the freedom to ignore Congress or the laws, the IRS, the police, or any other institution. “The people”, in fact, have no power at all after an election, neither with the elected governors nor their actions. The people are, in fact and in reality, living in a dictatorship in all senses of the meaning of this word. “Government by the people” is a jingoistic nonsense that is so obviously foolish as to deserve only ridicule.

他当然意识到,一旦人民投票,他们实际上已经选出了一个对他们拥有绝对权威的主权者。没有人可以声称可以自由地无视国会或法律、美国国税局、警察或任何其他机构。“人民”在选举后实际上没有任何权力,无论是当选的州长还是他们的行为。事实上,人民在所有意义上都生活在独裁统治之下。民治政府是一种沙文主义的胡说八道,如此明显愚蠢,只值得嘲笑。

 

If you are an American, and you are in charge, why are you giving yourself body cavity searches at airports? If Americans are in charge, why are they spying on themselves, recording every one of their own communications? Why are they financing all that military hardware and training their own police to brutalise them? If the people are in charge, why would they choose to deny themselves a universal health care plan? Is it the 40% of working-age Americans who have no job, who are voting to eliminate their own unemployment benefits? Is it the 35% of Americans living below the poverty line and dependent on food stamps to live, who are voting to eliminate those same food stamps and starve themselves to death? 

如果你是美国人,而且你负责,你为什么要在机场进行体腔搜查?如果美国人负责,他们为什么要监视自己,记录他们自己的每一个通信?他们为什么要资助所有的军事硬件,训练自己的警察来残害他们?如果人民负责,他们为什么要选择拒绝全民医疗保健计划?是40%的没有工作的美国工龄人口投票取消自己的失业福利吗?35%生活在贫困线以下、依靠食品券生活的美国人投票取消这些食品券并饿死自己吗?

 

Why did Americans decide to lose 50% of their net worth in 2008, and donate it to members of Congress, Citibank, Goldman Sachs and the owners of the FED? If Americans are in charge, why did they choose to have tens of millions of their countrymen become homeless, consigning families with children to sleep in the sewers of Las Vegas? Why did  ‘the people’ decide to spend $7.7 trillion to bail out the banks instead of bailing out themselves and recovering their homes? If the people are governing, why did they have the police beat them to death during their Occupy Wall Street protests?

为什么美国人在2008年决定损失50%的净资产,并将其捐赠给国会议员、花旗银行、高盛和美联储的所有人?如果美国人掌权,为什么他们选择让数千万同胞无家可归,让有孩子的家庭睡在拉斯维加斯的下水道里?为什么“人民”决定花费7.7万亿美元救助银行,而不是救济自己并收回他们的房屋?如果人民执政,为什么他们在占领华尔街的抗议活动中让警察殴打致死?

 

10.2. In a Democracy, the People Choose . . .

10.2. 在民主国家,人民选择……

 

One of the greatest delusions in “democracy” is of references to the ability to vote out disfavored politicians. But the people have no such power or ability since they do not control the nominations and will be presented only with choices to which the secret government is quite indifferent. Tytler recognised that the political parties – his ‘governors’ – control the selection and nomination of candidates, thereby eliminating both freedom and disinterested choice.

“民主”最大的错觉之一是提到能够投票选出不受欢迎的政治家。但是人民没有这样的权力或能力,因为他们不控制提名,只会被提供秘密政府相当漠不关心的选择。泰勒认识到,政党——他的“州长”——控制着候选人的选拔和提名,从而消除了自由和公正的选择。

 

If I control the selection and nomination of candidates, elections are a waste of time and money and your vote is irrelevant since I select and present for your ‘choosing’ two candidates who are equally within my influence and control. It is of no consequence to me how you vote, since both candidates will do my bidding during their term. And I am not much concerned with their general behavior during their term, provided they initiate the legislation I have demanded, and vote appropriately for its passage. Partisan political disagreements are permitted, but only in areas of irrelevancy. It is all a kind of stage play, with me behind the scenes directing the action. In any democracy, voters do not select the candidates, nor do they choose or nominate anyone – the Parties do that. Voters are then offered an after-the-fact opportunity to rubber-stamp one of two clones. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” is pure fiction and has never existed anywhere.

如果我控制候选人的选择和提名,选举就是浪费时间和金钱,你的投票无关紧要,因为我会选择并推荐两名同样在我影响和控制范围内的候选人供你“选择”。你如何投票对我来说无关紧要,因为两名候选人在任期内都会听命于我。我不太关心他们在任期内的总体行为,只要他们启动了我要求的立法,并为其通过投票。党派政治分歧是允许的,但仅限于无关紧要的领域。这就像一场舞台剧,我在幕后指挥行动。在任何民主国家,选民都不会选择候选人,也不会选择或提名任何人——政党会这样做。然后选民会获得事后机会,为两名克隆人中的一名盖章。政府的民有、民治、民享纯粹是虚构的,从未在任何地方存在过。

 

Dylan Ratigan, a best-selling US author, expressed it perfectly when he wrote, “Power, whether in an electoral system or a corporate boardroom, originates with the people who control the nomination of candidates, not with those who “vote” after this process is complete”. Those who nominate, dictate. This cannot change unless the parties themselves are eliminated, and that will never happen. The small elite groups who control the political parties from the shadows are far more powerful than the people, and they will never relinquish control.

美国畅销书作家迪伦·拉蒂根在书中完美地表达了这一点权力,无论是在选举制度还是在公司董事会中,都源于控制候选人提名的人,而不是在这个过程结束后投票的人。”提名者说了算。除非政党本身被消灭,否则这一点无法改变,而这种情况永远不会发生。从阴影中控制政党的小型精英团体比人民强大得多,他们永远不会放弃控制权

 

10.3. Checks and Balances

10.3. 监督与制衡

 

Every aspect of the concept of democracy that exists in the American mind is equally fallacious, one example being the common claim of the virtue of ‘checks and balances’ which is yet another utopian delusion scarcely requiring the effort of proof. When Bill Clinton obeyed his handlers and removed all the financial restraints on the bankers that led to repeated devastating economic crises, including 2008, where were the ‘checks’? When the Bush regime told its 1,000 lies to convince the American public of the “necessity” of destroying Iraq, where were the checks? Where were the checks that prevented Madeline Albright from killing half a million children in Iraq?

美国人心目中存在的民主概念的各个方面都是同样错误的,其中一个例子是制衡美德的普遍主张,这是另一个乌托邦式的妄想,几乎不需要证明。当比尔·克林顿听从他的处理者,取消对银行家的所有金融限制,导致包括2008年在内的反复破坏性经济危机时,“制衡”在哪里?当布什政权说了1000个谎言,让美国公众相信摧毁伊拉克的“必要性”时,“制衡”在哪里?阻止马德琳·奥尔布赖特杀害伊拉克50万儿童的制衡在哪里?

 

Americans argue their two political parties provide a check on each other, but their actions constitute ideological obstruction rather than ‘checks’ which might be considered responsible or sane. In these and hundreds of other examples I could list, there are no checks whatever. The entire concept of checks and balances in Western democracies is just a jingoistic delusion created by extensive propaganda instilled in ignorant and stillborn minds.

美国人认为他们的两个政党相互制衡,但他们的行为构成了意识形态上的阻碍,而不是可能被认为负责任或理智的“制衡”。在这些例子和数百个其他例子中,我可以列举,没有任何制衡。西方民主国家的制衡和平衡的整个概念只是由大量宣传灌输给无知和死产的思想而产生的沙文主义妄想。

 

10.4. The Legitimacy of Government

10.4. 政府的合法性

 

The US is the only nation in the world that infernally meddles in the internal affairs of other nations to the extent of arrogantly presuming to judge and classify their governments according to the peculiarly American definitions of “legitimacy”. One of the more pervasive American propaganda claims is that their multi-party electoral system is the only morally legitimate kind of government because “power flows from the people”. That’s an obvious lie, but let’s look further behind the claims.

美国是世界上唯一一个恶毒干涉别国内政的国家,它傲慢地根据美国特有的“合法性”定义来评判和划分别国政府。美国最普遍的宣传之一是,他们的多党选举制度是唯一在道德上合法的政府,因为“权力来自人民”。这是一个明显的谎言,但让我们进一步探究这些主张的背后。

 

Iran once had a well-functioning democracy led by Mossadegh, a man dearly loved by his people, and there would have been no basis on which to dispute the legitimacy of this government. Frightened when Iran planned to nationalise its oil industry, the US sent in the CIA to destabilise the country and overthrow the government, after which the Americans and the Jewish bankers in the City of London installed Shah Reza Pahlavi, one of modern history’s most savage dictators but recognised for decades by the Americans as the “fully legitimate” government of Iran. When the Iranian people finally arose in a national revolution against this foreign-sponsored tyrant, re-took control of their nation and reinstituted their former electoral government, the US refused to recognise it as legitimate and has spent decades trying to destabilise and overthrow it again.

伊朗曾经有一个由人民深爱的摩萨德领导运作良好的民主国家,因此也就没有理由质疑这个政府的合法性。当伊朗计划将其石油工业国有化时,美国感到害怕,于是派遣中央情报局破坏该国的稳定并推翻政府,之后美国人和伦敦金融城的犹太银行家们扶持了伊朗国王礼萨·巴列维,他是现代历史上最野蛮的独裁者之一,但几十年来被美国人视为伊朗“完全合法”的政府。当伊朗人民最终起来进行一场反对这个外国支持的暴君的民族革命,重新夺回对国家的控制权并重新建立他们以前的选举政府时,美国拒绝承认它是合法的,并且几十年来一直试图破坏和推翻它。

 

In past decades, the US has similarly destabilised and overthrown governments in about 50 countries, in each case installing brutal military dictatorships that terrorised and massacred their own populations, and in each case proclaiming these dictatorships as the “fully legitimate governments” of these nations. Is it necessary to point out that in none of these cases was there any power “flowing from the people”? American hypocrisy at its finest.

在过去几十年里,美国同样颠覆和推翻了大约50个国家的政府,每次都建立残酷的军事独裁政权,恐吓和屠杀本国人民,每次都宣称这些独裁政权是这些国家的“完全合法的政府”。有必要指出的是,在这些情况下,没有任何权力是“来自人民的”吗?美国虚伪到了极致。

 

The US hijacked Hawaii and Puerto Rico and Panama, and imposed foreign governments on those nations. These governments are not legitimate by any standard, though the Americans naturally recognise them as such. You have read of the recent colonisation of Iraq and the totally foreign-controlled regime that was installed, under the power of the Khazar Jewish bankers in the City of London, and maintained by the permanent US military presence. There is no definition of ‘legitimate’ which could be used to describe Iraq’s government, and there certainly is no power flowing from the people who bitterly hate the Americans but have no power to force them to leave.

美国劫持了夏威夷、波多黎各和巴拿马,并将外国政府强加于这些国家。这些政府无论以任何标准来看都是非法的,尽管美国人自然会承认它们的合法性。你们已经读到伊拉克最近的殖民化,以及在伦敦金融城哈扎尔犹太银行家的权力下建立并由美国永久军事存在维持的完全由外国控制的政权。没有“合法”的定义可以用来描述伊拉克政府,当然也没有权力来自那些痛恨美国人但没有权力迫使他们离开的人。

 

We haven’t many kingdoms left, but where does Prince Rainier of Monaco derive his power? Certainly not from the people, but on what basis can we claim he is an illegitimate ruler? Monaco, and indeed every country, has the right to whatever government system it wants. The US recognises the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but where does the Saudi ruling family derive its power and legitimacy? Certainly not from the people.

我们剩下的王国已经不多了,但摩纳哥的雷尼尔亲王从哪里获得权力?当然不是从人民那里,但我们凭什么说他是一个非法的统治者?摩纳哥,实际上每个国家,都有权选择任何政府制度。美国承认沙特阿拉伯王国,但沙特统治家族从哪里获得权力和合法性?当然不是从人民那里。

 

American interference in the political elections of other nations is becoming legendary, with massive efforts coordinated by the State Department and the CIA to influence the results and produce a pro-US winner who will permit unregulated plundering of his nation. As mentioned elsewhere, the US will spend more money per capita to get their favored candidate elected in foreign countries than is spent by the candidates themselves. Russia, Ukraine, Brazil, Venezuela, South Korea, Canada, most European nations and many more countries have been the targets of such US interference. The Americans also interfere heavily in China, especially in Taiwan and Hong Kong. In each case, if the American-favored candidate wins, then the US praises the government as “legitimate”, but if the anti-American candidate wins, the US mounts a massive international media campaign condemning the election as fraudulent and the resulting government as illegitimate.

美国对其他国家政治选举的干预正成为传奇,国务院和中央情报局协调了大量努力,以影响选举结果,并产生一个亲美的赢家,允许对其国家进行不受监管的掠夺。正如其他地方所提到的,美国将花费比候选人自己更多的人均资金来让他们青睐的候选人在外国当选。俄罗斯、乌克兰、巴西、委内瑞拉、韩国、加拿大、大多数欧洲国家以及更多国家一直是美国干涉的目标。美国还对中国进行了大量干涉,特别是在台湾和香港。在每一种情况下,如果美国青睐的候选人获胜,那么美国就会称赞政府是合法的,但如果反美候选人获胜,美国就会发起大规模的国际媒体运动,谴责选举舞弊,谴责由此产生的政府是非法的。

 

How are Western democracies considered ‘legitimate’ when they seldom if ever represent even half of their populations? One of Canada’s recent governments was chosen by only 25% of its people, France’s President by only 20%. The last few US Presidents have been elected by only 25% of the population. This result isn’t unusual in Western democracies; we often see voter turnout of only 30% to 40%, meaning if one party collects all the votes it still disenfranchises two-thirds of the population. On what basis can any of these governments or leaders be considered “legitimate” when they are opposed by 75% or 80% of the population? According to a PEW Research poll at the time, the Obama administration and Congress had the support of less than 10% of all Americans. With such a small level of public support, how can the US President or Congress pretend to be the “legitimate government of all Americans” and to claim their power ‘flows from the people’? If American power were to flow from the people, the entire US government would evaporate in a revolution, replaced by something the people really did want.

当西方民主国家很少甚至从未代表过其人口的一半时,它们如何被视为“合法”的?加拿大最近的一届政府是由25%的人民选出的,法国总统是由20%的人民选出的。最后几任美国总统都是由25%的人口选出的。这一结果在西方民主国家并不罕见;我们经常看到只有30%到40%的选民投票,这意味着如果一个政党收集所有选票,它仍然剥夺了三分之二人口的权利。当这些政府或领导人遭到75%或80%的人口的反对时,他们怎么能被视为“合法”的?根据当时皮尤研究中心的一项民意调查,奥巴马政府和国会得到了不到10%的美国人的支持。在如此小的公众支持下,美国总统或国会如何假装是“所有美国人的合法政府”,并声称他们的权力“来自人民”?如果美国权力来自人民,整个美国政府将在革命中蒸发,取而代之的是人民真正想要的东西。

 

Americans also make the claim that theirs is only legitimate government form because elected officials are chosen in a majority vote, but this is prima facie nonsense. There is no rational philosophical principle substantiating the thesis that popular opinion is even correct, much less morally sound or theologically legitimate. Majority support does not make a leader legitimate any more than it made slavery legitimate. In the US, as in no other Western nation, does so little power “flow from the people”. As well, in no other nation does there exist the monumental divergence between what the politicians and military do and what the people believe they do. These two factors lead only to the conclusion that the US government is the least legitimate of all Western governments, and of most others in the world as well.

美国人还声称,他们的政府形式是唯一合法的,因为当选官员是通过多数票选举产生的,但这显然是无稽之谈。没有合理的哲学原则来证实民意是正确的,更不用说道德上合理或神学上合法了。多数人的支持并不能使领导者合法化,就像奴隶制合法化一样。在美国,和其他西方国家一样,权力很少“来自人民”。此外,在其他国家,政治家和军人的行为与人民认为他们所做的事情之间存在着巨大的分歧。这两个因素只能得出这样的结论:美国政府是所有西方政府中最不合法,也是世界上大多数其他国家中最不合法

 

The Americans attempt to disparage China by challenging the legitimacy of the nation’s government, in spite of the fact that it consistently has the overt support of 90% or more of the population – compared to only 10% in America. It should be clear these challenges derive from neither rationality nor philosophy, but from a puerile hypocrisy. Americans define legitimacy in any way that supports their political objectives and permits a pretense to moral superiority. We needn’t go so far as to attempt a concoction of measures that would qualify a government as legitimate. We need only demonstrate that the American measures are dishonest and insincere political double-talk. No nation has any obligation to recognise the US in its role as self-appointed arbiter of legitimacy and, given the extent of the Americans’ continuing hypocrisy, there is little point in pursuing this debate. In any case, China’s government is what it is, and is not planning on going away anytime soon.

尽管中国政府一直得到90%或更多人口的公开支持,而美国只有10%,但美国人试图通过挑战中国政府的合法性来贬低中国。很明显,这些挑战既不是理性的,也不是哲学的,而是来自幼稚的虚伪。美国人以任何支持其政治目标的方式定义合法性,并允许假装道德优越。我们不必尝试炮制出使政府合法化的措施。我们只需要证明美国的措施是不诚实和不真诚的政治空谈。任何国家都没有义务承认美国自封的合法性仲裁者的角色,鉴于美国人持续的虚伪程度,继续进行这场辩论是没有意义的。无论如何,中国政府就是这样,并且不打算很快离开。

 

10.5. The Myth of Democratic Accountability

10.5. 民主问责的神话

 

One of the most widespread and stubbornly pervasive myths told about Western multi-party democracy is that the elected officials are accountable to the people. It is truly a tribute to the power of propaganda that most Westerners appear to mindlessly accept what is one of the greatest – and most obvious – lies in history – that elected officials in any way report to the people.

关于西方多党民主最普遍和顽固的误解之一是,当选官员对人民负责。大多数西方人似乎盲目地接受了历史上最伟大、最明显的谎言之一,即当选官员以任何方式向人民报告,这真是对宣传力量的赞扬。

 

“The public will pass judgment on each of them. The people who started the Iraq war have paid and will pay a political price.” This is incredible, from the mind of an American adult.

“公众将对他们每个人作出评判。发动伊拉克战争的人已经付出了政治代价,并将继续付出代价。”从一个美国成年人的角度来看,这简直不可思议。

 

The public will pass judgment. And how will that happen? Well, some politicians will pay “a political price”. The US White House and Congress concocted and promulgated nearly 1,000 enormous lies to justify the invasion and destruction of an innocent country, killing perhaps a million civilians – most of whom were women and children – while formally establishing the most evil torture regime in history. The nameless people in the City of London who incited the war and derived all the benefit from it will remain unnamed and immune, but a few of their lieutenants who permitted the execution of this travesty might not be re-elected. And that’s “accountability”.

公众将做出评判。这将如何发生?好吧,一些政客将付出“政治代价”。美国白宫和国会捏造并散布了近1000个弥天大谎,为入侵和摧毁一个无辜的国家辩护,杀害了大约100万平民——其中大多数是妇女和儿童——同时正式建立了历史上最邪恶的酷刑制度。伦敦城那些煽动战争并从中获益的无名人士将保持匿名和不受惩罚,但他们的一些允许执行这场闹剧的副手可能无法连任。这就是“问责”。

 

With the 2008 financial collapse, the US government conspired with foreign bankers to perpetrate what was surely one of the greatest and most fraudulent thefts in history, and all members of both groups remained in power and were handsomely rewarded for their crimes while fully half of the nation’s middle class evaporated into the lower class and is now living on food stamps. The accountability is where?

随着2008年金融危机的爆发,美国政府与外国银行家合谋犯下了历史上最大、最严重的欺诈盗窃案之一,这两大集团的所有成员都仍然掌权,并因他们的罪行而获得了丰厚的回报,而全国一半的中产阶级却都已沦为下层阶级,现在只能靠食品券生活。责任在哪里?

 

Democratic theory tells us that “we, the people” choose someone to represent us, but still retain full control over those we select and over their actions. We are filled with the knowledge that these elected representatives are accountable to us and that we can replace them at any time. WE are in charge. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are electing not a representative, but a master, and any control we may have had was dissipated with the casting of our vote.

民主理论告诉我们,“我们,人民”选择代表我们的人,但仍然对我们选择的人和他们的行动保持完全控制。我们知道,这些民选代表对我们负责,我们可以随时取代他们。我们负责。事实远非如此。我们选举的不是一位代表,而是一位主人我们可能拥有的任何控制权都随着我们的投票而消散。

 

How many times has a politician been elected on a promise to not raise taxes, then upon being elected immediately raised the taxes? And what can the people do? Absolutely nothing; there is no recourse, in any democracy. Perhaps in theory the people get these unwanted tax laws repealed, but that can be accomplished only through the same elected representatives. “The People” cannot repeal or pass laws on their own account. To effect a repeal would require an overwhelming national outrage which the politicians would fear to ignore, but this is unlikely, and in practice the public is insufficiently organised to accomplish anything useful. People can (and do) protest in the streets, but to no avail. Look at the massive “Occupy Wall Street” protests in the US, and similar violent protests in the UK. The governments and local police soon forcibly dispersed the demonstrators, arresting the leaders, and the movement died.

有多少次,一个政客当选后,信誓旦旦地表示不会加税,结果却立刻加税了?人民能做什么?绝对什么也做不了;在任何民主国家,都没有追索权。也许理论上人民可以废除这些不想要的税法,但只有通过同样的当选代表才能实现。“人民”不能自行废除或通过法律。要废除法律,需要压倒性的全国愤怒,政客们不敢忽视,但这不太可能,实际上公众没有足够的组织能力来完成任何有用的事情。人们可以(也确实)在街头抗议,但无济于事。看看美国大规模的“占领华尔街”抗议活动,以及英国类似的暴力抗议活动。政府和当地警察很快强行驱散了示威者,逮捕了领导人,运动就此结束。

 

In Western democracies, except for serious criminal acts, elected officials are in practice personally immune from judgment or sanction. The population at large has no legislative or other authority over those they elected. It is in practice almost impossible for any elected representative to be held accountable, even for the utmost bad faith or corruption. In every so-called democracy, the elected politicians lie, mislead, bankrupt the people, trash the economy, engage in unjustified wars for their own ego, cancel social security benefits, and give huge tax breaks to the rich while bleeding the middle class. They violate rights, spy on their public, and perpetrate every kind of dark deed while enriching themselves from their corporate sponsors. It is not for nothing that George Bush Sr. said, “If the people knew what we were doing, they would hang us in the streets.”

在西方民主国家,除了严重的犯罪行为外,民选官员实际上不受判决或制裁。广大民众对他们选举出来的人没有立法或其他权力。实际上,任何民选代表几乎不可能被追究责任,即使是最严重的欺诈或腐败。在每一个所谓的民主国家,民选政客撒谎、误导、破产人民、破坏经济、为了自己的自我而发动不合理的战争、取消社会保障福利、给富人大幅减税,同时让中产阶级流血。他们侵犯权利、监视公众、实施各种黑暗行为,同时从企业赞助商那里中饱私囊。老乔治·布什说:“如果人民知道我们在做什么,他们就会把我们吊死在街上。”

 

And We, The People, having lost our jobs, our homes, our investments, our sons in the wars, can do no more than look miffed and say, “Well! I sure won’t vote for you next time.” What a stunning tribute to the power of propaganda and brainwashing that “We, The People” so firmly believe we are in charge.

而我们这些失去了工作、家园、投资和战争中儿子的人民,只能愤怒地说:好吧!下次我肯定不会投票给你。对于我们人民如此坚信我们负责的宣传和洗脑的力量,这是一个多么令人震惊的赞扬。

 

What does it mean, to be “accountable”? First, there is seldom such a thing as being generally accountable. Accountability means accepting personal responsibility for your actions or inaction. It means answering to your peers or superiors for serious mistakes, for incompetence, for acting in bad faith, for malfeasance or corruption. There is no personal responsibility in any Western democracy and, without personal responsibility, there is no accountability.

“负责”是什么意思?首先,很少有普遍负责的事情。负责意味着为自己的行为或不作为承担个人责任。它意味着为严重的错误、无能、不诚实、渎职或腐败向同事或上级负责。在任何西方民主国家都没有个人责任,没有个人责任就没有责任。

 

To elect a different person the next time, is NOT the same as holding a government official personally accountable for creating a financial or human disaster through incompetence or ignorance. Replacing the party in power for one term is NOT the same thing as holding each member of the previous party personally accountable for their mismanagement. These do not, in any sense, constitute accountability to the people. In Western democracies, elected representatives are accountable to no one.

下一次选举不同的人,并不等同于让政府官员个人对因无能或无知而造成的金融或人道灾难负责。取代执政党一届任期,并不等同于让前一党的每个成员对其管理不善负责。这些在任何意义上都不构成对人民的问责。在西方民主国家,当选代表不对任何人负责。

 

What does “accountability” look like in the real world? You hire an accounting manager for your manufacturing firm, then later discover $150,000 is missing from the accounts. You fire this man, file a statement of claim for the missing money, call the police to charge him with theft, and nod approvingly when he receives a 3-year prison sentence and the Accounting Institute cancels his certification so he can no longer obtain employment in that field. That’s accountability. But in the politics of a democracy, your one and only response can be to say, “I’ll hire someone else next time.” That’s NOT accountability. It’s nothing.

在现实世界中,“问责”是什么样的?你为你的制造公司雇佣了一位会计经理,后来发现账目中少了15万美元。你解雇了这个人,对丢失的钱提出了索赔声明,并打电话报警指控他盗窃,当他被判处3年监禁并且会计学会取消了他的认证使他无法再在该领域就业时,你点头表示赞许。这就是问责。但在民主政治中,你唯一的回应可能是说,下次我会雇佣别人。这不是问责。这没什么。

 

 

Accountability is George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Madeleine Albright, Obama and both Clintons being tried and hung as war criminals. Accountability is Congressmen and Senators being forced to individually justify their failure to stop the unconscionable Iraq war when the lies became obvious. It would mean criminal indictments and a lifetime prohibition from government for all members of the US Congress who participated in, or didn’t act to stop, Guantanamo Bay and all the other US torture prisons around the world.

问责制是乔治·布什、迪克·切尼、唐纳德·拉姆斯菲尔德、马德琳·奥尔布赖特、奥巴马和克林顿夫妇被审判并被绞死为战犯。问责制是国会议员和参议员被迫单独为他们在谎言变得明显时未能阻止不合情理的伊拉克战争辩护。这将意味着对所有参与或没有采取行动阻止关塔那摩湾和世界各地所有其他美国酷刑监狱的美国国会议员进行刑事起诉并终身禁止其进入政府。

 

Accountability is the President and entire US Congress being forced to individually justify to the people – and to the law courts – why their primary loyalty is sworn to Israel and the Jews instead of to their own nation. Accountability is convictions for treason and invoking the death penalty. Accountability is jail terms, huge fines, and a lifetime prohibition from government for those politicians who voted to trash the banking act and permit the bankers to render much of the population homeless. Accountability would be the nationalisation of all the banks responsible for the malfeasance of the US housing disaster, the seizure of all banking bonuses from those who received them, and billions of dollars in fines and life sentences in prison for the perpetrators of it. It would mean the permanent dissolution of the FED and lifetime prison sentences for its directors and owners. But in Western political systems, virtually all responsibility is collective and shared, and a party is blamed rather than the individual elected member. And without personal responsibility, there is no responsibility at all. And in any case, the only persons with the power to execute this ‘accountability’ are the same politicians who need to be held accountable, so we can kiss this one good-bye.

问责制是指总统和整个美国国会被迫单独向人民和法院证明,为什么他们的主要忠诚是向以色列和犹太人宣誓效忠,而不是向自己的国家宣誓效忠。问责制是指叛国罪的定罪和死刑的判处。问责制是指监禁、巨额罚款和终身禁止那些投票支持废除银行法案并允许银行家使大部分人口无家可归的政客从政府获得任何职位。问责制是指将所有对美国住房灾难负有责任的银行国有化,没收所有获得银行奖金的人的奖金,并对该行为的肇事者处以数十亿美元的罚款和终身监禁。这将意味着美联储的永久解散及其董事和所有者的终身监禁。但在西方政治体系中,几乎所有的责任都是集体和共享的,一个政党受到指责,而不是个人当选成员。如果没有个人责任,就没有责任可言。无论如何,唯一有权执行这种问责制的人是那些需要被问责的政客,所以我们可以和他们说再见了。

 

And besides, how can you sanction someone for incompetence or acting in bad faith when you hired him knowing he had no qualifications and no accountability to you? YOU are the one who voted for that incompetent and self-serving used-car salesman. YOU chose him. YOU hired him. If anyone should be held “accountable”, it should be you. It is 100% your fault that an incompetent person was placed in that position of responsibility and created a disaster. It’s YOU who should be hung, not him. But since no credentials are required for candidacy or election in a democracy, since there are no prerequisites of education, knowledge or experience, or even trustworthiness, for even the highest government positions, on what basis can voters presume to punish incompetence?

此外,当你雇用某人时,你知道他没有资格,也不对你负责,你怎么能制裁他的无能或恶意行为?是你投票给那个无能和自私的二手车推销员。你选择了他。你雇用了他。如果有人应该被“问责”,那应该是你。让一个无能的人担任这个责任职位并造成灾难,这完全是你的错。应该被绞死的是你,而不是他。但由于民主国家竞选或选举不需要证书,由于没有教育、知识或经验,甚至没有信誉的先决条件,即使是最高政府职位,选民凭什么惩罚无能?

 

We cannot hold someone accountable for failing in their job unless we understand that job. If a patient dies after a hospital operation, how do you know if that was an unpreventable occurrence or if the physician made a mistake? You cannot. You are not competent to judge because you are not a professional in that field. You can hire a medical specialist for a professional opinion, but who do you hire in your “democracy”, to give you that professional second opinion when your politicians screw up? The entire concept of “democratic accountability” is a myth.

我们不能让一个人为工作失败负责,除非我们了解这份工作。如果一位患者在医院手术后死亡,你怎么知道这是不可避免的还是医生犯了错误?你不能。你没有能力判断,因为你不是那个领域的专业人士。你可以聘请医学专家提供专业意见,但是当你的政客搞砸了的时候,你会雇佣谁来给你提供专业的第二意见呢?“民主问责制”的整个概念都是个神话。

 

10.6. The Public be Damned

10.6. 诅咒公众

 

More than this, referendums (a national vote on a particular important issue), which were the one remaining guarantee of true ‘government by the people’, at least on selected issues, are now generally forbidden – certainly Canada and the US have made this position clear. The reason is that these politicians are primarily interested in following their own ideology and agenda, and have no intention of permitting ‘the people’ to interfere. Sometimes, as in the case of optional wars – and all wars are optional – since it is the people who will do all the dying and paying, perhaps they should also do the deciding. If George W. Bush had called a referendum on Iraq, do you think the US would have gone to war? Not likely, but Bush wanted the war, so he just proceeded without asking. The people be damned.

不仅如此,全民公决(就某一特定重要问题在全国范围内进行投票)是真正“民治政府”的唯一保证,至少在某些问题上是这样,但现在通常被禁止——当然加拿大和美国已经明确表示了这一立场。原因是这些政客主要关心的是遵循自己的意识形态和议程,无意允许“人民”干涉。有时,就像选择性战争的情况一样——所有的战争都是可选择的——既然人民会付出所有代价和牺牲,也许他们也应该做决定。如果乔治·W·布什就伊拉克问题举行全民公决,你认为美国会发动战争吗?不太可能,但布什想要战争,所以他只是没有问就继续了。该死的。

 

To anyone who follows the news, it cannot be much of a secret that the US has had 50 military bases on Okinawa for a great many years, much to the bitterness and chagrin of the Japanese who live there and claim their lives are being destroyed by the US military. The entire population of Okinawa, and much of the population of Japan itself, are violently opposed to these bases, especially the one at Futenma. Protests are constant and widespread. Nobody wants the bases there – except the US. More than one Japanese President has taken office on the promise to rid Okinawa of these US bases, only to find himself quietly replaced by someone more pliable to US interests. The public be damned. The US wanted to install military missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic where more than 80% of all citizens were firmly and vocally against them. Did the governments call a referendum to consult the public on such a serious matter? Of course not. The public be damned. When virtually an entire nation is in favor of something – or against something, doesn’t “democracy” dictate that the will of the people is obeyed? Well, not where the US is concerned, it doesn’t.

对于任何关注新闻的人来说,美国在冲绳拥有50个军事基地已经有很多年了,这已经不是什么秘密,这让居住在那里的日本人感到痛苦和懊恼,他们声称自己的生活被美国军队摧毁了。冲绳的全体人口和日本的大部分人口都强烈反对这些基地,特别是普天间基地。抗议活动不断发生,而且范围很广。除了美国,没有人想要那里的基地。不止一位日本总统上台时承诺要消除冲绳的这些美国基地,但最终发现自己被一个更顺从美国利益的人悄悄地取代了。公众该死。美国想在波兰和捷克共和国建立军事导弹基地,但80%以上的公民都坚决反对。政府就如此严重的问题召开了公民投票吗?当然不是。公众该死。当几乎整个国家都赞成或反对某事时,民主是否会要求人们服从人民的意愿?好吧,在美国的利益面前,这不会发生。

 

10.7. “Democracy” is a Child’s Fairy Tale

10.7. “民主是孩子的童话

 

“Government by the People” is a fantasy. It has never existed anywhere and it most certainly does not exist today. Democracy, in all its supposed glory, is a myth, a fairy tale for the simple-minded.

“民治政府”是一个幻想。它从未在任何地方存在过,而且今天肯定不存在。民主,在其所有所谓的荣耀中,都是一个神话,一个头脑简单的童话。

 

*

Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

罗曼诺夫先生的作品已被翻译成32种语言,他的文章发表在30多个国家的150多个外语新闻和政治网站以及100多个英语平台上。拉里·罗曼诺夫是一名退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职位,并拥有国际进出口业务。他曾是上海复旦大学的客座教授,为高级EMBA课程提供国际事务案例研究。罗曼诺夫先生住在上海,目前正在写一系列十本书,通常与中国和西方有关。他是辛西娅·麦金尼的新文集《当中国打喷嚏》的撰稿人之一。(第2章——与恶魔打交道)。

His full archive can be seen at

他的完整文章库可以在以下看到:

https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/  + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

He can be contacted at:

他的联系方式:

2186604556@qq.com

*

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

本文可能包含受版权保护的材料,其使用未经版权所有者特别授权。此内容根据合理使用原则提供,仅用于教育和信息目的。此内容没有商业用途。

 

Copyright © Larry RomanoffBlue Moon of ShanghaiMoon of Shanghai, 2024

版权所有 © 拉里·罗曼诺夫、上海蓝月亮、上海月亮,2024