Wicc
Auto-translated
If only things were different. I am not the leader of a country, and my point of view is that of an ordinary citizen, not a leader. And as an ordinary citizen, I think of my own interestsThat is exactly the main flaw of democracy — you think of your own interests, but at the same time, you want to make decisions for the collective, whose interests may diverge from yours.
This is precisely why democracy works well only in collectives where the members recognize and accept the interests of the collective. Usually, these are small groups of intelligent people working toward a common goal, like-minded individuals. An alternative option is a small group of strong people who need to divide territory without conflicting with each other.
As the size of the collective increases, stratification occurs — some are smarter, some are stronger, some stand out in other ways. There is also a diffusion of motivation — members of the collective think more and more about themselves and less and less about the collective.
Therefore, within the framework of a state, democracy in its original idea is completely inapplicable — 99% of the population does not realize the needs and capabilities of the state, and is instead occupied with solving their own minor problems.
From this stems the practice of democracy that we observe worldwide — the elite makes a decision among themselves, and then it is legitimized in society through democratic mechanisms. The opinion of society is taken into account, but the elite themselves, in the process of internal squabbles, make adjustments based on the popularity of the decisions.
which are also related to obtaining the most truthful informationTruthful information is not hard to get, especially in our internet age. No one really hides it; everything is widely available.
The task of the media in all states at all times has been and will be not informing, but PR and propaganda — forming a point of view in the masses that is favorable to the leadership. Accordingly, the task of opposition media is to form a point of view in the masses that is favorable to the opposition. And the task of foreign media is to implant a point of view favorable to other countries.
In my understanding, opposition is good and necessary, especially if it is a constructive opposition. Regarding this topic — Snoopy and Peterius are examples of a constructive opposition; it is possible and necessary to talk with them, while Ichthyander and Roger are examples of a non-constructive opposition; they should be either ignored or ridiculed.
And as for foreign sponsors, they need to be dealt with harshly regardless of what they say. Their interests a priori diverge from the interests of the state, so in the event of any wrong action, the conversation is short — suitcase, station, Washington.
This is exactly how all reasonable states behave — both in the States and in Europe, there are strict restrictions on the participation of foreigners in public life. For example, the law on the registration of foreign agents (with corresponding obligations and restrictions) has been in effect in the USA for many decades, and it seems to me that this is not at all because Americans are afraid of some competition. This is ordinary social hygiene — not letting fleas under your shirt.
Not long ago, a similar law was finally passed in Russia. Now it has been passed in Ukraine. Clearly, there is a lot of stink, but one just needs to see who this stink is coming from — almost exclusively from human rights activists who feed on Western grants. For some reason, I feel absolutely no pity for them.
Perhaps, after being cleansed of them, a constructive opposition will begin to form in society.
Added after 1 hour 20 minutes
A good text:
Degradation of the system and society according to M.I. Veller
"...the relationship between a person and the state is the relationship of a subsystem with a system. Otherwise, it cannot be understood; otherwise, one would have to bring a deus ex machina onto the stage and invent a devil to counter it.
The interests of the person and the state coincide in the sense that by doing more for the state, the person lives better, wealthier, more interestingly, more diversely, fully realizing all their possibilities. But they do not coincide in that, to solve its own grandiose tasks, the system frequently crushes, drives, and sacrifices specific individuals.
But to proclaim the rights of the subsystem as higher than the rights of the system is a foolish benevolence. It is like bees attempting to privatize their own share of the hive. The right of a rivet not to be hit on the head by a sledgehammer, but otherwise, to hell with the ship. Why are you, rivet, needed without the ship? Then rivet me out gently and under anesthesia; the better I am, the more perfect the ship is.
In the history of every state and civilization, there was a peak of maximum achievements — be it the military power of an empire or grandiose urban planning. Characteristically, people did not live the most comfortably during this period. Having passed the peak, they became softer, cared more about people, wanted less to achieve god-knows-what for god-knows-why — and gradually the civilization weakened and dissipated. After the peak of deeds, people rejoiced for a long time in how well they lived, and then the great deeds shone from the past as a golden legend, and the decline grew. As soon as a state passes the peak of great deeds, it inclines toward decay.
At first, it inclines imperceptibly, almost not at all — the summit of a large semicircular mountain seems like a flat area for a long time, and then it gets steeper. The system passing the peak of development. While people are breaking their backs building a grandiose Temple — the system is powerful. When, exhausted, they say: 'Who needs this? It's better to live a bit better,' — the system, therefore, weakens. They will live a bit better, and then they will fall victim to the Barbarian neighbors and disappear."