The True Face of Democracies – Jean Thiriart


“The humanitarian democrats who affirm that men are equal, and who, by the faith in their belief, distribute the right to vote to everyone, cannot claim any experimental justification for their beliefs and their actions.

They are men who have a faith, and who consequently act, without trying to discover if this faith corresponds to objective reality.” – Aldous HUXLEY (“Proper Studies: The Proper Study of Mankind is Man”)

All our pseudo-democratic systems rely from the start on many false postulates whose main one states that numbers – that is to say the majority – make the law.

In the measure where all men are equal in intellectual capacity and morals, in the measure where the CHOICE engages responsibility, the system that consists of installing the domination of 51 people over 49 others is already incredibly contestable.



The elementary observation of the matter we learn is that men are different, unequal. Each man is a mixture of various talents (character, intelligence, health) and varied acquired qualities, (culture, discernment). Thus when a man gives an opinion or when he supports it he came do it by general ignorance, to satisfy material interests, or with discernment.

Gross opinions are extremely varied because men are extremely unequal. Even many left to themselves have the decency to accept that they don’t have an opinion, by deficiency. Taking positions in mass is only possible after a minimum of conditioning.

All logomachic and parliamentary democracy is based on the false postulate that one vote is as valuable as another

Thus the unlettered will have as much weight as the university educated when it comes to modifying the structures of the state; and the rentier will have as much weight as the worker when it comes to appraising the norms of decent manual labor.

EVERYONE TAKES CARE OF EVERYTHING. That’s in effect anarchy. This anarchy is nevertheless tempered by another fundamental vice, the second illness tempers the gravity of the first: it’s conditioning.



Very few men possess their own opinion. They believe they have one, in fact, they have the opinion of their family or professional milieu, the opinion of their usual newspaper.

ALL men have – from the start of their life – thought conditioned by education, instruction, environment. All of us went through this stage.

Immanent knowledge does not exist. Knowledge is firstly received. But then among certain men an overcoming occurs and thus is born one’s own thought by ratiocination (this word only has a pejorative meaning in vulgar language). Ratiocination is reasoning. On the condition of possessing from the start a minimum of intelligence and a minimum of culture, man can instantly, in his life, progressively liberate himself from his conditioning and elevate himself by himself alone. The human spirit has a very diverse arsenal of tools of thought; it would proceed by induction, deduction, the way of syllogism, the use of dialectic.

But alas, and we are the first to deplore it, the vast majority of men never surpass the stage of childhood and adolescent conditioning.

Soon, it freezes in this conditioning and wrongly confuses it with a “personality.” The faculty to analyze and the power to reason provides a relatively free will. This free will is more or less developed, but it will never totally eliminate the conditioning.

Logically and healthily, when we welcome an opinion, it should be the result of facts REFRACTED through the reasoning man. In fact, in the vast majority of cases the opinion welcomed is only REFLECTED by man, whose conditioning plays the role somewhat like a mirror here.

The majority of men are only BEARERS OF ECHOS. ARITHMETIC DEMOCRACY will hasten to count, to account for these “echoes,” and feign counting and accounting for “opinions.”

We realize very quickly that the democratic system of the type called “arithmetic” (universal suffrage) is fundamentally contaminated:.

a) By the false postulate of human equality

b) By the summation of echoes, falsely equating with the summation of opinions.

Even at the base of the system there already appears an experimental counter-truth and a countable imposture.

The number of echoes which the manipulator can use is a direct function of his means in the press, of his oratory means (eloquence equally packs good and bad wares).

These are, the daily paper, the TV broadcast, the film, the novel, which FABRICATE opinion, manipulate it. This work begins from infancy by the teacher who teaches history or morals to the taste of the reigning power. To which we will add properly oriented pastimes: boy-scouts and children’s publishing. And finally, the panoply of CONFORMIST HEROS.

We are not far from PAVLOV’S dog.

Even the asocial are conditioned and today adultery is stereotyped, “normalized” by film and the erotic press. Crime is equally taught by film and the press. Still the actors are WITHOUT THEIR OWN PERSONALITY; they are duly stereotyped as “lovers” or “killers”, as everyone is as “electors.” Permit us, thenceforth, to contest the value of popular consultations after having exposed the mechanisms as a trompe-l’œil.



It happens that the machine of intoxication and conditioning does not yet function as well or as quickly for the tastes of its owners.

They then utilize rigged or retracted arithmetic.

It was thus in 1983 in the French municipal election where a clever drawing of districts often made the minority socialists keep the majority of seats (like Gaston DEFERRE, then minister of the interior , in Marseille…)

The pimps of parliamentarianism have on one hand invented all sorts of devices, like case de tête, panachage, and who knows what.

Despite all these dishonest precaution accidents still happen, like burst of fever, like “Poujadisme” in 1956 in France: at that time they “invalidated” the electors.

And even more: in Argentina, at the start of the 60s, the Peronists won (in conditions of difficult propaganda) elections without possible contest. The retort: elections canceled.

To the journalists interested in our of “corrupting” of the youth and who speak of teaching HATE of parliamentary democracy, we can retort that it amply suffices us to DESPISE it. It is not very difficult to get there and to bring others there.



The attentive observation of human phenomena teaches us that quantity is rarely ever associated with quality. If we were inclined before the cult of the “majority,” we would still be in times of sorcery (the latter dates from the 17th century in Paris) and the cosmology of PTOLEMY.

COPERNICUS was right against all, and so were others before and other him. Closer to us think about SEMMELWEISS, that Hungarian obstetrician, recall PASTUER.

Happily for humanity the “majority” doesn’t rule permanently.

Progress is always made against the majority.



When we speak of ARBITRARY POWER, the semantic value of the word takes a pejorative burden in modern language. We forget too frequently that what a judge commonly does is to make exactly an arbitrary decision.

Politics is – in particular – the choice between flawed alternatives, one would find benefit most of the time in resolving problems by “arbitration,” by arbitrary decision.

Error or injustice could sometimes slip in, but is it different from the other method, that of the majority’s game. It is not different and much more seriously the system of precarious and unstable majorities rapidly leads to that of BARGAINING.

Who knows today that a vote of CONFIDENCE – in a chamber – is nothing other in fact than a vote of COMPLICITY:

“I turn my eyes from this if you turn your eyes from that..”

“I authorize you to pillage this, if you allow me to pillage that!”



As we exposed it above, voting is initially an affair of conditioning. One of the fraudulent techniques destined to avoid “accidents” that could hinder the conditioning, consists of turning public opinion from real problems to channel it towards “problems of distraction,” to turn it and engage it in channels of diversion.

Thus in Belgium, there was the same with “incivility” (cream pies between 1945 and 1950), then with “the Royal Affair,” then with the “scholastic war,” then with the “linguistic quarrel” that has been going on for more than 20 years.

All this has permitted for more than 40 years is to defer the test of total deficiency of the regime in the majority of very important social, economic, and political domains

The beautiful Belgian democracy, like other European democracies inspires a cruel analogy with a show in a rotten music-hall. We lower the curtain to avoid the whistles of the public, then in a jiffy we bring a clown BEFORE the lowered curtain to avoid the need to refund the seats.

In 40 years, Belgium has lost an empire, let the industrial zones die, made capital flee, raised a pseudo-army with effectiveness.

It has also participated in all the international turpitude to follow, either of the UN or Washington, because we have become a colony of the US.

Those are true problems.



The masses only interest themselves very little in politics. They only respond in general – and it’s a sign of health in their simplicity – to direct material preoccupations. If voting was not obligatory we would also have, as in France, 40% abstention in Belgium. The masses are not “unswervingly attached to their democratic institutions.”

If tyranny guaranteed paid leave, it would be accepted, if despotism did not touch pastis, it would be accepted.

The masses would choose without hesitating Fascism and Stalinism with butter rather than democracy with margarine.

In the occupied countries, the masses were, from 1941, anti-Hitlerian for reasons of supply and not because of the Nietzschean morals of the National-Socialists; they were pro-British in the attempt to return to the cafe and not by opting for the philosophy of John LOCKE.

The French election of 1958 that formalized the return of DE GAULLE to power transcribed well the popular weariness before the games of the neurotic in parliament.

DE GAULLE was clever to admit to the masses that with him they would not have less liberty (that of singers, that is to say, which pleases the people), nor fewer bistros, nor less pastis, nor fewer Folies-Bergères. Since then, the masses would no longer feel threatened in their REAL subjects of interest and they would prefer stability to the logomachic games of the Palais-Bourbon. Fundamentally, the people do not desire to “be involved with politics.”

They are constrained in parliamentary democracy.



Imagine a Catholic who went to mass once every four years. That would make you smile?

Well, popular participation in the matters of the state doesn’t happen any more often, in parliamentary democracy.

Once every four years everyone must judge on everything (they draw treaties for the future) during a few hours. In the ideal democratic lenses it’s very little, admit it.

There is however, a second form, it’s that of the totalitarian state. Totalitarian in the sense that it lives in ALL the citizens, and it rules through ALL its citizens.

A totalitarian state is ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT from a despotic state. The despotic state is cut off from the masses, the totalitarian state contains the masses and acts through them.

The totalitarian state doesn’t appeal to 51% of its subjects to ignore 49% of its subjects as parliamentary democracy does, the totalitarian state, like the father who ignores preference and occupies himself with all his children without discrimination, is interested in all its members.

How to get there?



In the parliamentary system, once every four years, the masses are “consulted” (after having been duly drugged) to entrust in a single vote ALL power.

During the four years that follow the Parliament, mediocre, incompetent, lazy, appropriates the blessings of power without which they would have to undertake real work.

The latter is entrusted to blind administration, anonymous through what they call reform acts.

Never has the bureaucracy of the state been so powerful.

Our parliamentarians identify themselves with the last Merovingians and the heads of the administration with the First Masters of the Palace.

The remedy to this situation consists in the participation of the entire nation in the responsibilities of the government, in all its various titles and various levels. It’s the diffusion of responsibility. This method presupposes firstly a de-conditioning, a de-brutalizing of the masses.

Following a popular education.

After that the natural elites emerge from all social categories, all intellectual categories. In each profession, there exists a natural aristocracy, a sort of ARISTOCRACY OF INDIVIDUAL APTITUDE.

A regime that lives IN PHASE with its natural aristocracies is a totalitarian state.

A despotic regime lives, on the contrary, in an opposing phase with its elites.

All real art of government of the city consists of living in sympathy (taken in the etymological sense) with all the members of the nation, by knowing the needs, and feeling the reactions.

This form of government is permanent, parliamentary democracy is cyclical, the first is infused into the nation, the second is transcribed by a vague electoral PROXY.

The first conception imperatively calls the essential conditions of its effectiveness: they are summarized by two laws at the base, namely:

Consultation is only done where there is competence (professional or intellectual)

Power implies responsibility.

Thus is designed a pyramid of consultations and responsibilities. The hierarchical pyramid is constructed of COMPETENCE and RESPONSIBILITY.

That way, there exists a continuity between the head and the body of the nation, a constant flux. Power is connected permanently in the nation.

It is, you find, a similar organization to that of the human body where the head does not command the arm to do what it’s incapable of doing, where the body cannot envision refusing the orders of the head, because they are more than united, they are complementary.



This communitarian government replaces a monstrously hypertrophied parliament by a pyramid of colleges. IT’S COLLEGIALITY OPPOSED TO ASSEMBLY. It’s the structured group to the formless crowd.

What is – from experience – the limit of one of these decision groups, one of these “colleges?”

Psychologists, organizers, and sociologists know by observation and experimentation that the limiting number of a decision group cannot, in any case, surpass 10 people, on the penalty of seeing its effectiveness rapidly diminish. But, in parliamentary democracy, our assemblies pretend to choose and decide in groups of HUNDREDS OF MEN.

Thus, even in the technical scheme, parliamentary democracy is stale from the start. The work “in commission” cannot change much in practice. Or absolute democracy is exercised and it’s a mess or party discipline imposes discipline on the vote on well-crafted records by commissions and it’s the negation of the assembly.

As you see ARITHMETIC DEMOCRACY; otherwise called parliamentary democracy, is packed with contrasts and frauds.

It started from the false postulate of the equality of men. IT MUST CONDITION its voters to avoid total anarchy, it had some failures before rigging the ballot, sometimes retracted the whole election. The true problems THOSE THAT HIGHLIGHT ITS FAILURE and by extension put in peril its principle, are masked by problems of distraction. The popular character of its roots is cyclical, seen occasionally.

All that has nothing to do with democracy (in the etymological sense of the word), it’s in fact a colossal scam.

Arithmetic-parliamentary democracy, No…

Oligarchy of mediocrity, pseudo-democracy, DEMO-PLUTOCRACY.


Source: Conscience Européenne n°16/17, May 1987.


One thought on “The True Face of Democracies – Jean Thiriart

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s