Zbigniew Piekarski on Government of the people by the people?
"When the people itself is corrupted liberty is already lost."
- Maximilien Robespierre (1758? - 1794)
When the French Revolution started, the French wanted to give themselves a new constitution based on the American and British models. Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, was wholly on the side of the French Revolution, as was Thomas Paine, whose writings inspired the American Revolution. Concern over what was happening in France began to surface during the period of Robespierre, who was the leader of the twelve representatives of the 'Committee of Public Safety,' and who, in the name of virtue, eliminated presumed 'Enemies of the State.'
The committee was created on April 6, 1793, and its aim was to purge all internal counterrevolutionary elements, to raise new armies, and to assure food supplies for the armies and cities. In the five months from September 1793 to February 5, 1794, the revolutionary tribunal in Paris convicted and executed 238 men and 31 women, and acquitted 190 persons. By February 5, there were 5,434 individuals in the prisons of Paris awaiting trial.
Estimates vary as to the number of victims throughout the land. However, thousands were guillotined and over 200,000 were arrested.
Some still maintain that the committee was among the most creative executive bodies ever seen, as it rapidly put into effect policies that stabilized the French economy and began the formation of the French army.
In the field of economics, the law of the maximum and other measures set price and wage ceilings, forbade hoarding and withholding from the market, requisitioned food and supplies for the army, and instituted rationing. It also made land purchase by peasants easier.
From the fires of the French Revolution, there emerged a Corsican who attempted to unify Europe by force of arms. He failed. But the dream became embedded in the tribal memory of the Frank. Thus the Frank, by allying with the Gaul, has achieved far more by the promises of not perpetrating war on others and unlimited bounty, and has come to dominate the other tribes of Europe.
In the Anglo-Saxon and Norse principle of democracy, sovereignty belongs to the people, and is given by them to the government. In the Frankish and Gaullish model, the state is the authority and the people are its subjects.This is reflected in the bureaucratic nature of the European Constitution, where power will rest with four institutions: the Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Court and the Frank-Gaul alliance. Nothing can be done to dismantle the latter. They set the rules and they decide who can be exempt from their application.
It will not be possible to change the European Government through democratic means, since two of the institutions are appointed; the third is only elected indirectly; and the fourth has a mandate from heaven.
Under the proposed EU Constitution, the European people can never remove their actual rulers, though individual governments can change the Council of Ministers, and the European Parliament can force the resignation of the Commission - but it has no powers to create a new Commission. There are also fundamental differences in economics. One is individualist and the other is collectivist. The Anglo-Saxon model relies on markets and individual enterprise, while the Frank-Gaul model relies on state regulation and welfare.
To the Slav, all the above is irrelevant. Language has recognized the contribution this tribe has made to the world, as the word 'slave' has the etymological root 'Slav,' because Slavs were often enslaved by other Slavs, other European tribes and even Arabs. The uncomfortable truth is that, to the Slav, other Slavs - and in particular their own leaders - pose the greatest threat.
In the Slavic model of democracy, the State is there for the private use of those in power, whilst its people are treated as its property. The economic model is neither individualist nor collectivist, but particularist, whereby the ruling elite use specific sectors of the economy as their own personal fiefdoms, and continue to extract tribute regardless of which titular head is appointed.
Membership of the EU appears to hold out hope for the unconscious imperative of the Slavic Tribe. 'Slavicus Normalus' has sold his freedom, once again, for the promises of a more prosperous existence and the benevolent leadership of tribes other than his own. The Slavic leader has sold his serfs for a promise of a longer duration in power and a larger bounty with less responsibility and even less accountability.
Yet all is conditional upon the munificence of the Frank and the Gaul. Currently, the Franco-German model is working badly, and both tribes are in deep political trouble. President Chirac of France won only a single regional election out of 22 in recent mid-term elections. In Germany, real GDP growth has been below one percent for the last three years, and the expectations for the current year are falling. Prices for gasoline have hit the highest levels in the country's postwar history, as oil prices have soared. This will not assist in the supposed economic recovery.
And now Tony Blair, the British prime minister, has reverted to his Anglo-Saxon principles and promised his people the right of freedom of choice in a referendum. Other tribes, though unwilling, may have to follow suit. Unless the constitutional treaty is endorsed by all 25 members of the enlarged EU, it will not come into force.
Whatever the outcome, the health of the local Slav population will improve by the application of the demands from Brussels. Health warnings will appear on packets of cigarettes and their price will triple. The battle against obesity is next, as health warnings will appear on certain food products and the price of most staples will increase by far more than anticipated. The Slavic genetic propensity for bolshy belligerence is about to be tested.
Once again, an idea conceived when the social mood was full of optimism and benevolence and when markets soared is being questioned, as the mood begins to turn and the markets begin to top.
- Maximilien Robespierre (1758? - 1794)
When the French Revolution started, the French wanted to give themselves a new constitution based on the American and British models. Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, was wholly on the side of the French Revolution, as was Thomas Paine, whose writings inspired the American Revolution. Concern over what was happening in France began to surface during the period of Robespierre, who was the leader of the twelve representatives of the 'Committee of Public Safety,' and who, in the name of virtue, eliminated presumed 'Enemies of the State.'
The committee was created on April 6, 1793, and its aim was to purge all internal counterrevolutionary elements, to raise new armies, and to assure food supplies for the armies and cities. In the five months from September 1793 to February 5, 1794, the revolutionary tribunal in Paris convicted and executed 238 men and 31 women, and acquitted 190 persons. By February 5, there were 5,434 individuals in the prisons of Paris awaiting trial.
Estimates vary as to the number of victims throughout the land. However, thousands were guillotined and over 200,000 were arrested.
Some still maintain that the committee was among the most creative executive bodies ever seen, as it rapidly put into effect policies that stabilized the French economy and began the formation of the French army.
In the field of economics, the law of the maximum and other measures set price and wage ceilings, forbade hoarding and withholding from the market, requisitioned food and supplies for the army, and instituted rationing. It also made land purchase by peasants easier.
From the fires of the French Revolution, there emerged a Corsican who attempted to unify Europe by force of arms. He failed. But the dream became embedded in the tribal memory of the Frank. Thus the Frank, by allying with the Gaul, has achieved far more by the promises of not perpetrating war on others and unlimited bounty, and has come to dominate the other tribes of Europe.
In the Anglo-Saxon and Norse principle of democracy, sovereignty belongs to the people, and is given by them to the government. In the Frankish and Gaullish model, the state is the authority and the people are its subjects.This is reflected in the bureaucratic nature of the European Constitution, where power will rest with four institutions: the Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Court and the Frank-Gaul alliance. Nothing can be done to dismantle the latter. They set the rules and they decide who can be exempt from their application.
It will not be possible to change the European Government through democratic means, since two of the institutions are appointed; the third is only elected indirectly; and the fourth has a mandate from heaven.
Under the proposed EU Constitution, the European people can never remove their actual rulers, though individual governments can change the Council of Ministers, and the European Parliament can force the resignation of the Commission - but it has no powers to create a new Commission. There are also fundamental differences in economics. One is individualist and the other is collectivist. The Anglo-Saxon model relies on markets and individual enterprise, while the Frank-Gaul model relies on state regulation and welfare.
To the Slav, all the above is irrelevant. Language has recognized the contribution this tribe has made to the world, as the word 'slave' has the etymological root 'Slav,' because Slavs were often enslaved by other Slavs, other European tribes and even Arabs. The uncomfortable truth is that, to the Slav, other Slavs - and in particular their own leaders - pose the greatest threat.
In the Slavic model of democracy, the State is there for the private use of those in power, whilst its people are treated as its property. The economic model is neither individualist nor collectivist, but particularist, whereby the ruling elite use specific sectors of the economy as their own personal fiefdoms, and continue to extract tribute regardless of which titular head is appointed.
Membership of the EU appears to hold out hope for the unconscious imperative of the Slavic Tribe. 'Slavicus Normalus' has sold his freedom, once again, for the promises of a more prosperous existence and the benevolent leadership of tribes other than his own. The Slavic leader has sold his serfs for a promise of a longer duration in power and a larger bounty with less responsibility and even less accountability.
Yet all is conditional upon the munificence of the Frank and the Gaul. Currently, the Franco-German model is working badly, and both tribes are in deep political trouble. President Chirac of France won only a single regional election out of 22 in recent mid-term elections. In Germany, real GDP growth has been below one percent for the last three years, and the expectations for the current year are falling. Prices for gasoline have hit the highest levels in the country's postwar history, as oil prices have soared. This will not assist in the supposed economic recovery.
And now Tony Blair, the British prime minister, has reverted to his Anglo-Saxon principles and promised his people the right of freedom of choice in a referendum. Other tribes, though unwilling, may have to follow suit. Unless the constitutional treaty is endorsed by all 25 members of the enlarged EU, it will not come into force.
Whatever the outcome, the health of the local Slav population will improve by the application of the demands from Brussels. Health warnings will appear on packets of cigarettes and their price will triple. The battle against obesity is next, as health warnings will appear on certain food products and the price of most staples will increase by far more than anticipated. The Slavic genetic propensity for bolshy belligerence is about to be tested.
Once again, an idea conceived when the social mood was full of optimism and benevolence and when markets soared is being questioned, as the mood begins to turn and the markets begin to top.
