Our Motto: Transparency and logic


in the head of the liberal democrat



After listening to you, intelligent, well-read (including social philosophy) liberal democrat, I was inspired to address a few issues which have deeper philosophical,  ontological basis. The basic  unspoken issue is; are masses irrational (conduct unexamined life as some philosophers will say) and the elite is rational thus superior (as Plato would say). Is the liberal democracy a system comprising the people led by a noble elite, elected in a democratic process? Is the populism a system, also elected, but consisting of the masses misused by unscrupulous elites? Often Orban, Putin, Trump, Lega, Front National, M5S are called populist leaders or movements. Dictatorship is not populism. Is populism a denigrating term  used by liberal democrats to distance themselves from the politicians which do not play the right game with the masses.

You say it is easy to bring people (masses) to rage and unrest but it is difficult to control and direct the anger and the unrest of masses afterwards.
Where the anger comes from? Does it mean that living in a society/State creates such a degree of frustration (many philosophers will agree - comparing involuntary submission of the citizen in a State with the hunter gatherers) so that it is always possible to use a suppressed anger-energy of frustrated masses for political purposes.  In order for a State to function, citizens must give up some freedoms. The State always represses some aspects of the human nature. This frustrated energy can be tapped and direct to the (self-) destructive, oppressive goals.

2. You talk about the role of elite. It is a paramount dialectic area of tension. Is it possible to define the role of elite apriori. Is elite created by masses or is the elite usurping its role in the masses. The game is never played according to this scenario "you (masses) are not very wise, you are irrational you are danger one to another -  if you elect us we will ensure that you can live good life"

3. You actually make an assumption about what a society should be. You say, and I understand that in some mystical way we conjure a set of values which are not subjected to the influence of the voters even if they are in majority - this is crucial difference to the populism.  For example, in liberal democracy it  will not be allowed to change minority rights whatever electorate wants. (Otherwise it would mean populism)  You say, liberal democracy is defined by the set of basic undisputable values. (Philosophical discussion what and how we construct values goes for thousands of years)

4. I understand from your lecture that the populists are the people plus elite who are ready to question the fundaments of the liberal democracy including the basic human right and the right of minorities.

 Concluding, I assume, (you may not be willing to admit it) you believe that the people/masses are not able to govern themselves. The (naturally) superior elite is needed to lead masses. Masses are ruled by elite elected in democratic election within the political corridor defined by the elite.




With great interest I have listen to your lecture/presentation. Let me express some spontaneous impressions. I was positively surprised by the precision with witch you use the economic and philosophical terminology. You have good tools but you “dig” only on the surface assuming some issues to be facts/axioma without discussion. All your logical sequences and analysis are consistent and logical.

The trouble emerges if you question some of your basic assumption. You do not explicitly state on what “ideological” assumption you lean on. I assume you promote and express the set of values and analysis based on the liberal model. I understand that you are paid for your opinions if expressed within well-defined borders. I do not think that you can reveal underlying reason and fears (on which your social fictions are constructed J-J Rouseau) as you may lose your position, identity and life subsistence.

You are always free to lean outside the social corridor if only for the purpose of the experiment. The social corridor is much narrower than the “law” allows as the masses have to be kept in insecurity and under constant coercion in order to prevent them developing strange ideas. But if you are educated to “love” the “law” (Plato) you are living in a perfect society as the “education” prevents you doing things outside of the social contract. This self-contained life, “I-stay-within-the-borders” and therfore all is perfect, is reserved for the elite.

 The site describes what happens if you insist to keep to the “law” and rules with the precision. As long as I was part of some kind of elite (having diplomatic badge) it was enought to follow law. All bahaviour was tolerated as it was assumed that I have the power to prove that i behave with the letter of law. After retirement some aspects of the the same behaviour was treated by the masses as trespasses.






tariffs Trumps tariffs adjustment and the EU 




prop EU's propaganda


 Any society, state needs propaganda, rituals, flags, symbols etc. The EU has to learn to make better propaganda as the example above shows, we have recalculating the medal according to the population size. Any state is based on "fiction" supported by religion, not theistic religion but "civic religion". (J-J Rousseau).  Civic religion uses the same paraphernalia as the theistic religion (having God) these as mention above, visible prophets, cloth, flags etc., even buildings. Soviet architecture was based on the church architecture.




  Brexit - who's position is stronger - EU or UK?


 The Brexit negotiations simplifies view

UK is not leaving the negotiating table because it needs (wants) acceptable tariff agreements.

As regards the trade, UK is more dependent on the EU than vice versa.




 UK is able to leaves the EU on  its own terms. There is not much in the EU treaties what is biding UK  to the EU so UK can do it one-sided. Just say good buy.


The only big problem is the future custom tariff and UK doesn’t want to lose the EU market.

 If the EU doesn’t accommodate UK wishes


UK will be forced to withdraw from the negotiations and adjust to live without preferential custom tariffs


  Where do the current values of the EU come from


Short,  generalized, “emotional” view of the Europe seen from  the Nordic perspective - after living 40 years in the Central and South Europe. (UK, Netherlands, Denmark and Easter Europe are in a separate category)

· Authoritarian mentality, especially Germany, Austria, Spain

· Contemptuous approach to women i.e.  sex workers at home and on the street

· Poor inter-human communication, based often on power (macht)

· Fear of Authorities, privacy-paranoia especially in the Central Europe



The EU is more and more influenced by the “Central European” values.

The idealistic and politically correct set of values is crumbling under pressure of crisis. In searching for  solutions one is falling on the tools from the repertoire of the Central European modus operandi.

young Young EU  paramenterians talk about the european issues and we analyse their views

An article in the German version of 
    8 junge Europa-Abgeordnete erklären, wie sie sich die Zukunft der EU vorstellen

Are we confident that we are in good hands?
by Leonhard Landes 
      Our views 
  We see the following problems in the EU  1. Deficiency in the  democractic procedures and the EU political structure
2. Within the framework of the EU structure some countries were brought to the verge of economic disaster like Greece
3. Authoritarian and patriarchal social features especially gender relation predominate in the majority of the EU countries. Except UK and Sweden not much is done within METOO movement.
4. BREXIT - The advanced country with the exceptionally well-developed Rule of Law, transparency, tolerance is leaving  the EU
5. Member States ignore EU laws taking to too long exceptions from the Schengen free movement.
Nice young people, avoiding to mention the major problems of the EU       Lets see what our young EU MP's think or avoid to think about 
Interviewees name interview answer  our comments below
Jan Philipp Albrecht Jan Philipp Albrecht (Deutschland, 35 Jahre)
Fraktion der Grünen / Freie Europäische Allianz
“Nicht nur das Logo der nationalen, sondern auch der europäischen Partei sollte auf den Stimmzettel der Europawahl stehen” Bizarre understanding - why to make it difficult for  the new parties. It is a  conservative, authoritarian approach
Still it is not clear if it will be allowed to vote for the same party from all member states. i.e. transnational electorate.

Albrecht represents Environmental progressive party.  Knowing national past he doesn't trust authorities, and is against transparency as he confuses it with privacy. He keeps distance to Metoo movement. (check Twitter)  It is not strange as he comes from a nation with patriarchal and authoritarian past. The position of women ouside of Scandinavia is very week
 Ska Keller Ska Keller (Deutschland, 36 Jahre)
Fraktion der Grünen / Freie Europäische Allianz
Allerdings haben die CDU und CSU im Europäischen Parlament “dafür gesorgt, dass es keine transnationalen Listen von Kandidatinnen und Kandidaten bei der kommenden Europawahl geben wird” Keller tells almost nothing about metoo. In Sweden thousands of actors, doctors witnessed about sexual harassment. Strange that in the  German patriarchal society all is almost quiet.  
elly schlein Elly Schlein (Italien, 32 Jahre)
Progressive Allianz der Sozialdemokraten
“eine Gemeinschaft der Offenheit, der Solidarität und der Möglichkeiten für unsere und die nächste Generation Nice approach not to have ideas, no details on what to do. With this approach there is no much future for the EU.
Nadja Hirsch Nadja Hirsch (Deutschland, 39 Jahre)
Allianz der Liberalen und Demokraten 
“Ohne beherzte Investitionen in digitale Infrastruktur, barrierefreien Zugang zu Produkten und Dienstleistungen, praktikablen Datenschutz, drastisch bessere Bedingungen für Start-Ups und digitale Innovationen werden wir Arbeitsplätze, Wohlstand und globalen Einfluss verlieren.” Why not to copy digital infrastructure of Sweden. In Sweden and Estonia all can be accomplished on-line except passport
It works very well.. 
Why to reinvent things. Germany and Austria are the largest obstacles for transparent, open societies due to the past experience of dictatorship and the lingering fear of Authorities. Digitalization assumes  transparency and openness. Comparing to UK Denmark and Sweden - the citizens in Germany and Austria are very "fearful" and understandably  suspicious vis-a-vis the state. Even Street View is not fully implemented.
The issues of digitalization  is not the primarily the EU issue, it is internal issue. Sweden has done it alone without much problems.
Eva Eva Kaili (Griechenland, 31 Jahre)
Progressive Allianz der Sozialdemokraten

Chair Scientific Foresight Unit #STOA
“Wir müssen Wege finden, wie wir die Länder an Bord holen können, die nicht die Geschwindigkeit der restlichen Länder haben”

Länder, die das nicht wollten, sollten nicht dieselben Freiheiten haben, in der EU Entscheidungen zu treffen.
It would mean that the Greece could be excluded from the EU elite.

I heard discussion in the finance circles where Greece is called Auction State.

How could the EU allow such econnomic disaster like in Greece