Democracy without Education

Many years ago Nelson Mandela cast off apartheid in South Africa, and the the black people who live there had great hope.

Unfortunately, life never seems to work out the way we want it to.

Today as we speak, South Africa is descending into a failed state.

Widespread looting is rampant.

What’s going on? And what are the root causes of this?

Of course we can talk about the past president, Jacob Zuma being placed in jail due to corruption, but that’s not the root of the problem.

A mandate to loot does not exist because a past president is placed in jail.

If people do loot, they are looting for another reason.

The reason they’re looting is because they don’t have a stake in the game.

Jacob Zuma being placed in jail is a trigger, an excuse.

The real problem is the inequity of income and wealth in South Africa today.

The unequal income and wealth exists because of educational disparity between black and white.

The hope was that democracy for black folk would fix that problem.

But it did not fix that problem, and it cannot fix that problem.

It cannot fix that problem because a healthy democracy is not the cause of a productive society, but the result.

Now, of course, you wouldn’t know that by watching our main stream media.

Our main stream media babbles about democracy as if it is a magic salve that heals all wounds.

Of course, you know by now that it isn’t.

You know this because there are many failed states in the world that have beautiful constitutions with beautiful democracies.

But they don’t work.

They don’t work because healthy democracy is a result, not a cause of a productive society.

A democracy without an educated electorate is nothing.

A democracy without an educated and trained citizenry has no solid base of support in which to operate a heathy government.

Education is everything.

You have to have educated citizens with skills.

A few years ago, a black man in South Africa spoke before the cameras.

He was an immigrant from Ghana. His automobile repair shop had been ransacked.

He spoke about crime in South Africa.

He said that the problem with South Africa is that the people there don’t have skills.

They lacked vocational skills.

People without skills, people without education riot.

Democracy without educated people, without skilled people, is not a democracy at all.

It’s a raging mob screaming for Barabbas.

People who are educated, people with skills, people who can live a prosperous life don’t riot. They don’t loot. They obey the law.

They study. They take a measured response. They think.

Unfortunately, this lesson was lost on the United States and the other geniuses around the world who were pushing South Africa to democratize overnight.

South Africa complied, and apartheid still exists – but with rioting.

What will fix this is education.

Democracy without education is useless.


Archer Crosley

Copyright 2021 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

Presentative Democracy

Do you believe that representative democracy is the ultimate form of government?

I don’t.

I think it’s a terrible form of government.

The elites figured out how to rig elections pretty much the day after they came into being.

Did you know that Napoleon and his brothers rigged elections in France?

That was 200 years ago.

Not only did they rig the elections and plebiscites, they were brazen enough to rig them with rounded number victories: 16 million to 4 million.

Forget about the fine-toothed comb.

Why bother with precision?

But even if elections weren’t rigged, why would we want a dope who knows nothing about the issues to cancel out our vote because some Boss Tweed type clown bought him a barbecue sandwich?

This is the problem we have with elections today.

Actually, it’s worse.

No longer do the elites have to mess with paid voters showing up at the polls.

With our “advanced” voting machines, the elites can remotely program the votes in with the click of a button.

It’s unhealthy.

The politicians will gladly help that criminality along by assuring that voter identification not be required at the polling booth.

Clearly the politicians and the elites who control them desire the system to be this way.

Since they do, what does that say about them?

What does that say about representative democracy?

This invites the question as to why politicians should be voted into office in the first place.

We don’t elect cardiologists.

We don’t elect bakers.

We don’t elect carpenters.

Instead we vote with our feet.

Instead of a formally electing someone, we actively use the people who we say offer the best service.

So why don’t we do that in politics?

Why don’t we jettison this idea of electing one guy to represent us every two to four years?

Maybe we can devise a different model in which to get things done.

What would this system look like?

To get things done any citizen could petition a professional (specialist) who has gone to school for handling that specific common function that we currently entrust to the government. Let’s say that we want to widen the intersection near our office so that it can accommodate a dedicated right hand turn.

Once that specialist is petitioned, a mechanism is set in place so that other petitioners can either join in or oppose the petition.

This petition after a certain period of time can then be adjudicated by professional judges that are agreed upon by the specialists.

In this matter, citizens can then make changes to their city or neighborhood that they feel are important and relevant.

None of these specialists or judges would be subject to being elected. They would go to school to gain expertise.

There could be specialists for schools, specialists for roads, specialists for healthcare, education, specialists for what have you.

Accordingly there would be judges for these areas of expertise.

The mayor, and the commissioners would be a thing of the past.

What would be the consequences of such a system?

What would be the upside? What would be the downside?

Theoretically, we should have greater expertise and better decision making by virtue of having specialists take care of various issues.

We trade in the bloated, corrupt jack of all trades for a lean, clean machine of expertise.

Secondly, we decide issues on their own merits, not by compromising other areas.

Currently, if we want to improve our schools, we have to give in on other issues. We can’t just improve our schools; we have to give the mayor’s buddy the concrete job for the new highway even though doing so may be a really bad idea.

So if we moved to this new system, gone would be the giant omnibus bill in which congressman can throw in their pork.

But maybe that’s not a good thing. Maybe pork and fat is good.

Maybe people need that pork to provide needed jobs that otherwise can’t be gotten.

That is something we would have to think about.

But it’s worth trying.

It’s worth trying because the current system isn’t working.

Representative democracy doesn’t work because the key weak link is the representative himself.

If the representative is bought off by corporate interests, which is what’s going on today, then democracy can’t possibly work.

Within a democracy that’s controlled by people who can present their case directly to a specialist, let’s call it presentative democracy, we might stand a better chance.

Of course, the specialists and judges can be bought off, but by decreasing their range and scope, we might be able to limit the damage they can do.


Archer Crosley

Copyright 2021 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved

Winners and Losers

Why can’t our society improve?

Well, first things first, to improve our society, we must discover truth.

Yet, we are not interested in truth. Our attitude toward truth in this day and age rules against truth ever being discovered.

Welcome to America where truth is avoided assiduously.

In America, Dan Bongino can be heard stating on YouTube: You never ask a question that you do not know the answer to.

And I say to that: If you take that approach, you will never arrive at the truth; you will never better yourself.

Unfortunately Mr. Bongino’s belief is shared amongst the majority of the population.

Americans love machos.

Americans love winners.

Americans love people who ask questions that they know the answers to.

Only losers ask questions they don’t know the answers to.

Mr. Bongino’s dictum is shared amongst lawyers, doctors, and nearly everyone else in society who purchased their brain at K-Mart.

Why is it necessary to ask a question that you know the answer to?

Well, it is necessary if your goal is to win a debate or argument. Winning the debate is paramount in American society today.

Winning is everything in America.

Only losers discover information they did not previously know.

Americans loves winners.

This mindset is reinforced by the President of the United States.

Trump, apparently, at least according to Trump, is a winner.

Dan Bongino, I presume, is a winner also.

But what about the truth?

Would we be better off if we did ask questions that we didn’t know the answer to if it led to a greater truth?

Let’s put it this way: Would you rather win the debate and not ask questions that would lead to a greater truth, or would you rather lose the debate yet discover a higher truth even if it made you look like a fool?

In America today, it’s obvious that people prefer the former.

Americans prize perception over substance.

Yet are we better off by taking that approach?

Let’s answer this question in a different way by use of analogy.

John Wooden was a winning coach for the UCLA Bruins. He won many national championships.

At first glance, one might think that he was obsessed with winning.

Would it surprise you to know that Wooden was not obsessed with winning?

Would it surprise you to know that Wooden didn’t ask his players to win?

Would it surprise you to know John Wooden asked his players to give 100% spiritually, physically, mentally, and that if they did that the wins would take care of themselves?

Would it surprise you to know that John Wooden preferred that his players give 100% and lose than give 50% and win?

It wouldn’t surprise me at all because that’s exactly what John Wooden wrote in his book.

What this analogy illustrates is that process is important and that process is more important than the end result.

Applying this wisdom to truth and debating, one can only conclude that process is important when discussing important matters on television or in the living room.

Applying this wisdom to truth and debating, one can only conclude that we would be much better off by asking questions that we don’t know the answer to rather than avoid risking looking like a fool by not asking questions that we don’t know the answer to.

When we take a better approach to truth and wisdom, then America will be able to improve.

And not a moment sooner.

Ask questions that you don’t the answer to. You might look like a fool, but you and the world will be better for it.


Archer Crosley

Copyright 2020 Archer Crosley all rights reserved.

Political Atheism

Support Donation

To support the time and effort in producing this blog, please make a small one-time donation. I will totally appreciate your contribution, but I only want you to make a donation if you think this is the very best stuff out there. Otherwise, fuhgeddaboutit.


Is political atheism, not voting, acceptable?

As a young man, I would find it incomprehensible.  Given the lies we now know our government has fed us over the past seventy five years, I would say political atheism is mandatory.

Yes, you may argue, but how will things change if one does not vote?

Well, how will things change if we do vote?

Currently we vote for change, but nothing happens.

And it matters not if we are Democrats or Republicans.

The wars continue, important issues are trivialized and the poor get poorer.

Worse, no intelligent discourse is forthcoming from our intelligentsia.  They’ve been coopted as well.

Political correctness has strangled academia.

This phenomenon is not unique to the United States. People in Europe are feeling the effects of poor leadership also.

What has happened is that the elites figured out how to game the system.

They figured it out a long time ago.

They created think tanks which are less think tanks than good old boy networks controlled by multinational corporations.  These think tanks populated by Ivy Leaguers and Oxbridge types, control the think thanks and stand ready to fill cabinet positions in various governments around the globe.

The elites control the networks which feed a steady diet of lies to the masses.

The elites also control the phony polling companies which tell us what we are thinking.

And here we thought we knew what we thought.

Well, we did seventy five years ago.  These days, we are told what we thought.


Furthermore, we, the voters, only exist to validate what the elites want.

In other words, our vote really doesn’t count.

Of course, Mark Twain noted such over one hundred years ago when he said: If voting mattered, they’d never let us do it.

Now, if Mark Twain didn’t say this, he should have.  It sure sounds like something he would say.

Never was this wisdom more in evidence than the recent Brexit vote in the UK.

The elites in the UK called an election to see if the people wanted to exit the European Union. Of course the elites never wanted to leave. Their position was to remain in the EU.  They fully expected the people to dutifully follow as they have reliably done in the past.

Much to their surprise, the people voted to leave.

What did the elites say to that? They said no. And so for the past two years the elites have pulled every trick in the book to negate the will of the people.

In other words, they don’t give a rat’s ass what the people think.

So if the elites don’t care about us, why should we care about them?  Why should we participate in their phony sham of a democracy?

We shouldn’t.

We don’t exist to serve the elites; they exist to serve us. If we can’t get that through elections and representative democracy, then it’s time to try something else.

Political atheism is a start.



Our Democracy

Democracy is a sham never more in evidence than the elections in Florida.

It works like this: If the elites don’t get what they want, then a recount is in order.

Of course, the recount in Florida is only coming about because the “last minute ballots found” trick didn’t work. 

It won’t matter anyway.

We delude ourselves so badly.

We are are willing to believe anything.

Our current delusion is the supremacy of technology.

We want to believe that an unscrupulous person cannot link their computer to the voting machine and add in 37,543 votes supported by an equal number of registrants complete with bogus addresses, birthdates and signatures.

Well, as it turns out these voting machines can be tapped into via the Internet through a variety of ways. They aren’t foolproof.

Here is to the Pollyannas.

We don’t really need an opinion from a computer analyst, though, do we?

No, we only need to understand that human nature has not changed.

Machines may not lie, but we still do.

Now, here is a fact to consider:  I have had numerous bank accounts, equity and credit, for the last 45 years. The bank has never made one mistake on my various accounts in that period of time. Not even a penny.

I’ve had many, many mortgages held by many, many banks, and never once has a mistake been made on my mortgage.

I keep hoping that there will be a glitch in the system and that my mortgage will disappear.

I’ve had no such luck.

How is it possible for a government to regulate a financial system that never makes a mistake by even a penny on my banking, credit cards and mortgages over decades, yet the same government can’t come up with a foolproof voting system.

They can’t because they don’t want to. They want the corruption at the voting booth.

A corrupt voting booth is instrumental for putting into office the people who they, the corporate elite, who control both parties, have chosen.

Sure, authorities.  The system is sound.

Whatever you say.

It’s Your Republic

When Ben Franklin exited Independence Hall, he was asked what type of government we would have.

He answered: A republic if you can keep it.

That’s an odd reply.  I guess he must’ve known something.

I guess your Founding Fathers must’ve known something.

Indeed they did.

The Founding Fathers – unusually gifted men who stand as testament to man’s regressing intelligence – distrusted the people.  They distrusted a raging mob – not because they were racist as commie professors would have you believe.

They knew the harm a mob could do.

So they bequeathed to us a republic.

What did they not give us?

A democracy.

Now this goes against everything you thought about the United States.

Don’t we live in a democracy?


We don’t, and thank the Lord we don’t.

The success of the United States is directly related to the fact that we do not live in a democracy, that we do not have “one man, one vote” as the mobs screaming for Barabbas so fervently clamor for.

Why would we want to live in such?

Why would we want to live in a country where people who don’t know what they’re talking about have a say in running the country?

Would you go to a cardiologist who didn’t know anything about the heart?

Would you go to an auto mechanic who knew nothing about cars?

Would you have your house built by someone who didn’t know anything about building a house?

How about a baker who makes crummy cookies?

No, and so it goes with governance.

The very last thing we want is a raging mob running affairs – especially a raging mob directed and financed by wealthy corporations.  Somebody has to pay, house and supply these organizers, right?

Think about that the next time you watch a march in Washington DC.

A democracy is loud, boisterous, fickle and irrational. A democracy calls for a referendum.  A democracy bangs a drum. A democracy asks you to get out there and do your patriotic duty by kicking some ass.

A republic which your Founding Fathers gifted you is none of that.

A republic is quiet, civil, resolute and rational.  A republic elects officials to do the people’s will. A republic plays a flute. A republic asks citizens to stay calm and exercise their patriotism by obeying the law and quietly going to work.

It’s your republic – if you can keep it.

Corporations are not People

Corporations are not people, yet our courts think they are.

Unlike people, corporations have no sense of shame.

Unlike people, corporations have no natural limited lifespan.

Unlike people, corporations are rarely given a jail sentence.

When a corporation commits gross malfeasance the corporation is almost always permitted to pay a fine.  The corporation is almost never placed in jail; consequently, income never stops.  The corporation is thus free to continue malfeasance but in an newer disguised way.   Knowing such, the corporation can justify future fines as operating costs.

If you commit malfeasance, you go to jail.  When you go to jail, all incomes stops.  When all incomes stops, you lose your house if you have not paid it off; your dependent family suffers.  If you complain to the judge, the judge usually says:  You should have thought of that before you committed the crime.

These words a corporation will never hear.

Why, it would a crime to do so, corporate apologists wail.  The shareholders will suffer, they add.

Your Founding Fathers on a certain level recognized the danger of corporations which is why they limited their power.  Corporations, traditionally speaking, were not afforded the same rights as individuals.

Corporations were chartered and confined to a specific purpose under penalty; if they exceeded that purpose or committed malfeasance their charter could be be revoked.  Owners could be held liable for criminal activity.

Corporations were not permitted to own stock in other corporations.  They were also forbidden from making political contributions so as to limit their ability to influence legislation.

But that was then, and this is now.

Corporations pushed to expand their rights.  One clever way to do this was by getting judges in the courts who thought their way.

One way to accomplish this would be to control the process by which judges were nominated and selected.

If they could control the Senate Judiciary committee who recommends the judges, their task would be easier.

Tne best way to control the Senate Judiciary committee would be to find a way to elect Senators who thought like them.

Thus the 17th Amendment to the Constitution that went into effect in 1913.

The 17th Amendment was sold as an improvement in democracy. Direct election of Senators seemingly gives people greater control of their elected leaders.

It does anything but.

What direct election of Senators accomplishes are costly Senatorial campaigns that are won by corporate cash and lots of it.  To ensure that they win either way, corporations finance both candidates.

Unless you support the corporations, you aren’t getting the cash, and you certainly aren’t getting prime access to big media which is controlled by you guessed it – Corporate America.

Not surprisingly your Senate is dominated by candidates beholden to Corporate America.  They pass legislation and lots of it friendly to Corporate America.  They finance wars friendly to Corporate America.

And they put judges on the bench friendly to Corporate America, judges who refuse to see that corporations are not people.

The Threat to Democracy

I was watching SKY News a few minutes ago as a member of the American Swamp was registering his concerns about what he perceives as Trump’s threat to democracy.

The guest speaker was a former member of the Bush administration.

The threat to democracy to which he referred is a code phrase for threat to corporate profits. This phrase was used extensively back in the 1960s to justify our war in Southeast Asia. This phrase was used again to justify our wars in the Middle East.

Anything that gets in the way of corporate profits is a threat to democracy.

The real threat to democracy, of course, are the corporations themselves and their lackey stooges in the government who attack anyone who dares to take one penny from their corporate pockets.