I think anyone who reads that phrase will have an immediate understanding of some things it could denote or connote. A telescope is one of those.

Cela décide tout. Autant dire que les pires gouverneront. OK — having now read the whole article, I am very grateful and appreciative. It contains many essential truths, and is very clearly explained. I am even less inclined to quibble about the arbitrary and narrow definition of some words!

However, I believe that this article leaves us confronting an even bigger question: why is it that elections are so ineffectual if you think they are meant to give a voice to the ordinary people? Except perhaps for scientific and other specialist audiences, and — I sincerely hope — judges.

Root meaning of regime

Language is supposed to let us communicate accurately, reliably and truthfully with one another, but it is the most effective tool of deception and manipulation ever known. How do people like Alcibiades, Hitler and Obama manage to speak for an hour, inspire the audience to a peak of excitement and enthusiasm, and yet turn out — on examination of the transcript — to have said little or nothing material? An extremely interesting fictional take on the idea of sortition — carried to an extreme — is Philip K.

In a future world, the presidency of Earth — the supreme political office — is allocated by pure chance. Not only the person who is to become president is chosen randomly — their time in office is also random. And to avoid any cheating, it is all controlled by a super-computer which, one must imagine, is completely immune to any kind of hacking or other influence.

The story follows the fate of an obscure nobody who suddenly hears that he has been chosen, and in fact is already the new president. This risk is minimised when the randomly selected body has a few hundred members: due to the law of large numbers, the percentage of callous-unemotional individuals formerly called psycopaths will converge towards the 2 or 4 percent they represent in the general population.

It may very well be that we as a species will be extinct wihin a week. Personally, I think we are well on our way to that extinction, which I consider more or less deserved. We need to start living in harmony with this planet, or we will perish.

No political system has yet appeared that recognizes this simple yet crucial fact in any meaningful way. What about the banksters and other criminals? Fresco and Joseph provide a number of great ideas, yet overall, their solutions are not feasible. They cannot logically result from the current situation. Right now, Mikie, everyone has an organized crime problem.

The banksters perpetuate their cartel through extortion and violence up to, and including, world wars. They also destroy and distort spiritual perspectives because material selfishness will inevitably serve the criminal empire. Why do we have this debate? The animals themselves in general are not capable of the higher thinking and organisation required for a successful revolution- that is provided by the pigs.

But the animals do have the will and desire. The pigs always have real control, and aim to be a replacement for the farmer- and indeed be even more efficient in exploiting the animals. Democracy happens in many structures across the planet. The legend of King Arthur is a great example. In this small structure true democracy works- and is seen to work by each member. Think about this.

The individual has a choice. To an independent alpha, common democracy is seen, at best, as a means to an end- that end being the finding of the best leaders- and once the leaders emerge, democracy is just another system to be manipulated and exploited.

But is democracy the best means to find the best leaders? Sadly such sayings are psy-op propaganda methods used to sell any dodgy idea. Obviously it could be true- but equally it could be false- and since the people who push this saying are those whose power comes for the democratic system, we have reason for suspicion.

Look- the real issue of life is the constant battle beween good and evil. Democracy is fine if the battle continues within that system successfully.

« root » en français

Let me give you an example. Every leader of the West- and most in the non-West, like Putin- say that Iran must be prevented from owning nuclear weapons, but Israel must never have its nuclear weapons taken away. A sane person would suggest that if the story of lampshades and soap being made from Humans was a complete fabrication now admitedthen any similar detail is highly suspect as well- for the original liars clearly invented their lies for a reason- and that reason still seems to be in play today.

Want proof of this? The German government bulit and gifted Israel three submarines purpose designed to carry Israeli nuclear missiles. Little old lady goes to rpison for what she thinks. Well each right is targeted in turn. Take Freedom of Conscience. Russia, like almost regime cetone nations outside the Anglo-Saxon domain, has no Freedom of Conscience.

Putin should be against the police state. Putin should be for Freedom of Conscience, and end the idea of state approved religions.

Russia needs to be lily white to have even the smallest chance of beating the Deep State. The zionists are past masters of taking democracy, and turning it into the same pitch black colour as their souls.

How so? Most independent movements in Human History have been organised by the most evil forces- the puppet masters who so easily take advantage of us. All that is required for evil to win out is for good men to choose to do nothing. A few years back i wrote this, in anger in just 30 minutes. Since then, alas, both Houses of Parliament are stuffed full with career politicians: as you say, the sort of people whom Plato considered the least fit to rule.

First of all, Socrates was rightly condemned to death. The that comdemned Socrates were probably too many; maybe would have decided otherwise…. I am intrigued by your speculation that a smaller and hence more attentive jury might have voted for Socrates: a happy ending — thought it would have deprived Humanity of its most inspiring martyr to free thought and free speech.

Though a few distinguished exceptions like Pres. Putin, Dr. Assad and Rev. Polls do represent public opinion, duly misinformed by demagogue politicians and mass media. A resonably sized alloted body would represent informed public opinion, which is quite different.

Sortition is only for the legislative; you still need an executive and a president as leader. The difference is that this leader would not be able to claim a direct mandate from the people: he will just be an employee of the assembly, that may dismiss him at any moment.

If you will forgive me the ignorant question, but…how well did that true democracy work? True democracy i. It is called cognitive diversity.

Régime sinusoïdal forcé

A group with high but similar qualifications how many lawyers are there in Congress? These are the people making the decisions, but not the ones implementing them. They will choose an executive, president and government, that will answer directly to them, having no legitimacy direcly emanated from a popular vote.

People naturally look for leadership. In some social situations, cream rises; it others, the opposite.

It makes no sense in vast accumulations of human in industrialized mega cities. It means the rise of the scoundrel and the demagogue profiting on the lie of egalitarianism, and in the last analysis it is the tryranny of money—the money that makes the vast industrial civilization possible.

An alloted assembly will still have to elect a president and a goverment, who will provide some kind of leadership. But, absent the legitimacy of popular election, the executive will be a mere executioner to the will of the legislative, as God intended.

They will fire the president like you fire a poorly performant employee. The only real example of free society where the rights of all citizens and other races and ethnicities with diff religion and culturs were granted in the ancient world is under Persian king Cyrus the great, Cyrus cylinders are the only deklaration of human rights from the past.

We are so Euro centric and forget that Persians achieved these Nobel human values some years before any Atempt by Greece. The first decree for religion freedom in Europé was declared by Hungarian king in the 16 century. This king was a stooge of Othman Empire.

Some years after Persian. I concur; ditch the system and bring full Republican justice crashing down on the oligarchs. And it will.

People who adopt any particular point of view may not like being told that they are enslaved by prejudice, but they resent even more deeply an accusation of dishonesty. A factor of morality as well as of intelligence is thereby introduced; animosity is aroused and any discussion drops to a lower level. It is of course a fact that any two people can be as honest to God and to themselves as it is possible for fallible humanity to be, and can still fail to arrive at the same conclusions.

On peut l'écrire sous la forme. La figure ci-dessus montre l'établissement du régime forcé, c'est-à-dire la disparition du régime transitoire au détriment d'un régime sinusoïdal permanent de même fréquence que l'excitation. On note la présence du régime transitoire par l'apparition d'interférences entre deux signaux non synchrones de fréquences différentes. En effet, avec un grand facteur de qualité, le régime transitoire fait apparaître des oscillations faiblement amorties de fréquence voisine de la fréquence propre qui se superpose au régime sinusoïdal forcé.

Lorsque le régime transitoire s'est dissipé, toutes les grandeurs électriques oscillent de façon sinusoïdale à la même fréquence que l'excitateur fréquence imposée par le G. On s'interesse aux propriétés électriques des circuits une fois ce régime sinusoïdal installé.

Par définition, l'impédance d'un dipôle passif linéaire s'écrit. Notez que la notion d'impédance n'a de sens que pour un dipôle passif soupe a loignon pour mincir en régime sinusoïdal.

On peut déterminer l'impédance d'un dipôle passif linéaire en le soumettant à une tension sinusoïdale puis en effectuant les mesures de la tension efficace, de l'intensité efficace ainsi que du déphasage entre le courant et la tension électrique.

En effet, d'après la définition de l'impédance, on a. On remarque que le conducteur ohmique n'introduit pas de déphasage entre la tension et le courant puisque l'impédance d'une résistance est réelle et se confond avec sa résistance.

En régime sinusoïdal forcé, à chaque grandeur électrique courant, tension correspond une grandeur complexe associée. Instead of looking for competition among social groups, then, these émigré property sales encourage us to think about how a changing economic context affected social relations. It was not only social hierarchies that were put in flux by the Revolution, the sources of wealth that these hierarchies relied on also took on a new aspect. Both suggest a more positive response to aspects of revolutionary property policy than is generally assumed.

As Blaufarb points out, broader investment in reimbursing feudal claims suggests confidence in the Revolutionary government.

It also suggests property owners may have been strategic in their response to revolutionary upheaval. The sale of émigré property has long been viewed as having forged a bond between buyers and the state; one might consider the same to be true of those who reimbursed feudal charges. Seen in another light, however, the individuals concerned might have thought they were making prudent investments or even hedging against the future. A speculator who rapidly bought and sold émigré property would have little solidarity with the revolutionary regime; a feudal tenant may have cleared his title quickly, fearing that feudal claims would be restored.

That is, people may not have thought in terms of supporting the state or not, focusing instead on how to protect their assets and turn the political upheaval to their advantage.


This was decidedly the case in Guadeloupe, where major landowners stayed much longer than they did in other regions. Frédéric Regent shows the particularity of Guadeloupe, while keeping sight of the important intersections between the colonial and metropolitan contexts. The émigré laws were applied, but plantations placed under sequester were not sold.

The state rented them out, as they did many properties in the metropole, in exchange for payment in sugar. The particulars of colonial cash-crop cultivation, however, meant that renters of seized plantations continued to use methods of constraint and punishment against plantation workers that had been practiced before the Revolution, a dynamic that highlights the ways that plantation production maintained many of the social relations practiced under slavery even after formal emancipation.

In some ways, the Revolution transformed plantation property, converting it into national lands that contributed to state revenue and, most importantly, freeing the enslaved labourers who worked the land.

But, in other ways, the plantations themselves inflected Revolutionary law, limiting the effects of property reform. The high value of sugar and the entrenched practices of plantation labour regimes imposed their logics. The return of the émigrés and their ongoing machinations to reclaim their assets dragged on into the Napoleonic era and beyond.

But émigré property is not the only area in which revolutionary contestations continued into the new regime. The unorthodox quality of their arguments suggests a diverse pool of ideas about property was available, and that the brokers may not have seen any contradiction in recombining them.

This leads one to wonder about the afterlife of such claims: clearly soldered together fortuitously, did this practical hybrid fall apart immediately, or did it inspire others?

One set of ideas did not so much displace another as take root amidst it. Revolutionary property reform is contextualised in a longer period of reform and contestation beginning in the s and extending well into the nineteenth century.