CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 民主，最危险的宗教 — 第三章——多党政治

October 31, 2022

Democracy, the Most Dangerous Religion
民主，最危险的宗教

3. Chapter 3 – Multi-Party Democracy
第三章——多党政治

By Larry Romanoff
拉里•罗曼诺夫

译者：珍珠

Content
目录

3.1. Defining our Terms
3.1. 定义我们的条款
3.2. Government vs. Politics
3.2. 政府与政治
3.3. Democracy (Multi-Party Politics) in Real Life
3.3. 现实生活中的民主（多党政治）
3.4. A Substitute for Civil War
3.4. 内战的替代品
3.5. Epilogue
3.5. 结语

3.1. Defining our Terms
3.1. 定义我们的条款

We should all feel sorry for democracy, this one word carrying on its back the heavy load of almost the entire Oxford English dictionary. This poor little noun, descriptive of almost nothing in particular, has been saddled with so many unrelated and irrelevant connotations that it should have collapsed from exhaustion or misery centuries ago. The US seems unique in collecting every manner of good things and placing them all in the Democracy bag, to the extent that there appears to be maybe 1,001 things in this bag. The result is that the word means whatever one wants it to mean, and we might have 1,000 people with 1,000 different meanings. One American acquaintance insisted that her pet’s “right to dog food” was a “human right” and therefore included in the meaning of democracy.

我们都应该为民主感到难过，这个单词背负着几乎整个牛津英语词典的沉重负担。这个可怜的小名词，几乎没有什么特别的描述，却被背负着如此多的无关和不相关的内涵，以至于几个世纪前它应该已经因疲惫或痛苦而崩溃。美国似乎在收集各种好东西并将其全部放在民主袋中方面独树一帜，以至于这个袋子里可能有1001种东西。结果，这个词意味着任何一个人想要它意味着什么，我们可能有1000个人有1000种不同的含义。一位美国熟人坚称，她的宠物的“吃狗粮的权利”是“人权”，因此被包括在民主的意义中。

American dictionaries don’t seem to be of much help, with vague, unintelligent, and clearly unexamined definitions being all over the map. Some claim it means ‘self-management’, which it does not. Others state it means “the control of a group by the majority of its members”, but democracy is not “control” of anything. Some dictionaries conflate democracy and government or management, and it is not these either. One said it was a system in which everyone shares in making decisions, also not true, and silly. Another claimed it to be “a system in which the people exercise the powers of legislation”, also obviously false. Yet another claimed it to be “a doctrine that the numerical majority can make decisions binding on the entire group”, this one perhaps true but missing the point. If the dictionaries are so confused, it’s not a surprise everyone else is confused too.

美国字典似乎没有多大帮助，因为它们的定义模糊、不明智、明显未经检验。一些人声称它的意思是“自我管理”，但事实并非如此。另一些人则声称它的意思是“由大多数成员控制一个群体”，但民主不是对任何事物的“控制”。一些字典将民主与政府或管理混为一谈，但事实并非如此。有人说这是一个每个人共同决策的制度，这也不是真的，而且很愚蠢。另一个声称它是“一个人民行使立法权力的制度”，这显然也是错误的。还有一个声称它是“一种认为多数人可以做出对整个群体有约束力的决定的学说”，这个可能是真的，但并没有抓住重点。如果字典如此混乱，那么其他人也感到困惑也就不足为奇了。

But, democracy, in real life, is surprisingly close to being nothing at all. It is simply one method among many of selecting a representative for a group of people, often by a simple majority vote. We needn’t complicate this with politics or political parties. When we choose a student representative in our high school class, we nominate a couple of people, conduct a vote, and we’re done. That’s democracy. We can debate this point but, fundamentally, democracy is a selection process. What the selected do after their selection, is irrelevant to the definition.

但是，在现实生活中，民主与毫无意义相差无几。它只是为一群人选择代表的众多方法之一，通常是通过简单多数票。我们不需要用政治或政党来使它复杂化。当我们在高中班上选择学生代表时，我们提名几个人，进行投票，就完成了。这就是民主。我们可以辩论这一点，但从根本上说，民主是一个选择过程。被选中的人在选举后做什么，与定义无关。

3.2. Government vs Politics
3.2. 政府与政治

The more serious issue is that (at least in the US and Canada), ‘government’ is confused and conflated with ‘politics’, and both used as somehow vaguely synonymous with ‘democracy’. This is one of the main sources of confusion. Let’s deal first with the issue of government vs politics. We can argue that these two items are unrelated except in the most peripheral way, at the interface. Whether of a country or a corporation, “Government” is management. “Politics” is a struggle for power.

更严重的问题是（至少在美国和加拿大），“政府”与“政治”混淆在一起，两者在某种程度上被模糊地等同于“民主”。这是造成混淆的主要原因之一。我们先来讨论政府与政治的问题。我们可以说，这两个项目除了在界面上最边缘的方式外，都是无关的。无论是国家还是公司，“政府”都是管理。“政治”是权力斗争。

In a one-party government system, there is no such thing as politics in the sense in which we are dealing with it here. This is also true of all our corporations, institutions, and organisations, where we have only one “party”, one management team, working together for the good of the organisation. Ideologies are put aside and we look for consensus, not a battle and a “victory” for our side. This is proper government and management, entirely free of politics.

在一党制政府体系中，不存在我们在这里所讨论的政治。我们所有的公司、机构和组织也是如此，我们只有一个“党”，一个管理团队，为了组织的利益而共同努力。意识形态被搁置一边，我们寻求共识，而不是一场战斗和我们一方的“胜利”。这是适当的政府和管理，完全没有政治。

It is true these divisions do sometimes occur in corporations, where management members are overcome by ideologies and become “political”, with these instances inevitably to the severe detriment of the organisation because they split the management team into opposing factions, with the overall good of the organisation and its people lost in that struggle for an ideological victory. It cannot be otherwise. These “political battles” are unrelated to the actual management of the institution or organisation; they are simply an internal struggle for power, and this tends almost inevitably to consume the organisation to the point where only the minimum of necessary “management” is actually carried out. Such power struggles are always inflamed emotionally and, if they persist through time without resolution, the organisation itself will collapse. And this is what is occurring in slow motion today in all the world’s democracies: the unrelenting power struggle between two ideologically-opposed factions results in both absent and bad management, the governments inevitably collapsing into some kind of authoritarian fascism.

的确，这些分歧有时确实发生在公司中，管理层成员被意识形态所征服，变得“政治化”，这些情况不可避免地对组织造成严重损害，因为它们将管理团队分裂为对立派系，组织及其人员的整体利益在意识形态胜利的斗争中迷失。不可能不是这样。这些“政治斗争”与机构或组织的实际管理无关；它们只是内部权力斗争，这几乎不可避免地会消耗组织，使组织只进行最低限度的必要“管理”。这种权力斗争总是情绪激昂，如果它们持续存在而没有得到解决，组织本身就会崩溃。这就是今天世界上所有民主国家正在缓慢发生的事情：两个意识形态上对立的派系之间无情的权力斗争导致双方管理缺位和不良管理，政府不可避免地陷入某种专制法西斯主义。

So, “politics” is not government; politics is a power struggle. “Democracy” is not government either; democracy is merely the selection process for the governors. “Government” is essentially unrelated to either politics or democracy; government is the management of an organisation, whether of a nation or a corporation. Thus, what Americans seem to call “Democracy” is not government. It is religion-based politics, a power struggle between two teams to select which side in that struggle will be victorious and supply the governors of the corporation named the United States of America. When Americans (and others too) speak of democracy, they are referring to the power struggle, the battle between two political parties for supremacy. They are NOT referring to the “government”, to the actual management of the country after the selection process, but to the selection process itself. If you doubt this, then remove the two political parties and the power struggle – the election campaigns, and what you have is no longer a democracy, not by any accepted definition.

因此，“政治”不是政府；政治是一场权力斗争。“民主”也不是政府；民主仅仅是州长的选拔过程。“政府”本质上与政治或民主无关；政府是对一个组织的管理，无论是国家还是公司。因此，美国人所谓的“民主”不是政府。它是基于宗教的政治，是两个团队之间的权力斗争，以选择谁将在这场斗争中获胜，并选出美利坚合众国公司的州长。当美国人（和其他人）谈到民主时，他们指的是权力斗争，两个政党之间争夺霸权的斗争。他们不是指“政府”，也不是指选举过程后的国家实际管理，而是指选举过程本身。如果你怀疑这一点，那么删除两个政党和权力斗争——选举活动，那么你所拥有的就不再是民主，而不是任何公认的定义。

It should be obvious that “democracy”, at least by this definition, is totally unrelated to things like human rights, free speech or universal values. How do we proceed from here to a long and complicated set of “democratic values” that Americans use as a combination preaching pulpit and whipping post? With democracy being a simple almost-nonentity, what could possibly constitute democratic values? What kind of hysteria prompts us to attach human values or attribute an immense intrinsic moral worth to a simple selection process? This expression, like “rule of law” and so many others, is a myth and, like all myths “it is designed to serve an emotive rather than cognitive function, not to provide fact based on reason but as propaganda to arouse emotions in support of an idea”. It is nonsense. The whole idea, the very concept, of ‘democratic values’ is absurd. Americans have taken a simple no-account process, injected it with a kind of theological silicone and transformed it into a religion.

显而易见，“民主”，至少在这个定义上，与人权、言论自由或普世价值完全无关。我们如何从这里走向美国人作为讲坛和鞭子组合的漫长而复杂的“民主价值观”？民主是一个简单的几乎不存在的实体，什么可能构成民主价值观？什么样的歇斯底里促使我们赋予人类价值或赋予一个简单的选择过程巨大的内在道德价值？这个表达，就像“法治”和许多其他一样，是一个神话，就像所有神话一样，“它旨在服务于情感而不是认知功能，不是提供基于理性的事实，而是作为宣传来唤起情感以支持一个想法”。这是无稽之谈。“民主价值观”的整个概念都是荒谬的。美国人采取了一个简单的无责任过程，给它注入了一种神学硅胶，并将其转化为一种宗教。

It is part of the Western bible that the only enlightened way to select a nation’s governors or law-makers is to create an ideological rift that splits the population into two violently-opposed camps, then give them sticks, and let them fight. And this battle is the only real “democratic value” that exists. Adding things like human rights to this definition is childish nonsense. The core, and the only important part, of “democracy” is the battle, the power struggle for victory and the right to appoint governors of one particular ideology to manage the country. That, in essence, is what constitutes a “democracy”, nothing more. There ain’t no religion here, no human rights, no universal values, no dog food.

西方圣经中有一部分说，选择国家统治者或立法者的唯一开明方式是制造意识形态分歧，将人口分为两个激烈对立的阵营，然后给他们棍棒，让他们打架。这场战斗是唯一存在的真正的“民主价值”。在这种定义中加入人权之类的内容是幼稚的胡说八道。“民主”的核心和唯一重要的部分是斗争，为了胜利和任命一个特定意识形态的统治者来管理国家的权力斗争。本质上，这就是“民主”的构成，仅此而已。这里没有宗教，没有人权，没有普世价值，没有狗粮。

The inescapable problem is that multiple ideologies and parties inherently serve to create only divisions and conflict, by both definition and by design. The two opposing combatants in this unending struggle for power, do not in any way act as “checks and balances” on each other, nor are they anything that might be termed “healthy competition”. They are in a life-and-death struggle for victory, and inevitably the good of the overall organisation is the victim. If the power struggle ceased after the election, the victim might survive, but in any Western Parliament or the US Congress, that power struggle is never-ending because the two parties share the governing rights and, just as with any corporation where management members are overcome by ideologies and become “political”, this tends almost inevitably to consume the “government” to the point where only the minimum of necessary “management” is actually carried out. And, just as with a corporation, the unrelenting power struggle between two ideologically-opposed factions results in both absent and bad management, and the government inevitably will collapse. There can be no long-term planning in such a context since the longest term is at maximum only a few years and might be as short as weeks or months.

不可避免的问题是，多种意识形态和政党从定义和设计上来说，天生只会造成分歧和冲突。在这场无休止的权力斗争中，两个对立的战斗者决不会相互“制衡”，也不会成为所谓的“良性竞争”。他们正在为胜利而进行殊死搏斗，不可避免地，整个组织的利益是受害者。如果权力斗争在选举后停止，受害者可能会幸存下来，但在任何西方议会或美国国会中，权力斗争都是无休止的，因为两党共享执政权，就像任何公司管理层成员被意识形态所征服并变得“政治化”一样，这几乎不可避免地会消耗“政府”，直到只有最低限度的必要“管理”得以实施。而且，就像公司一样，两个意识形态对立的派系之间无情的权力斗争导致双方管理缺位和不良管理，政府不可避免地会崩溃。在这种背景下不可能有长期规划，因为最长期限最多只有几年，可能短至几周或几个月。

3.3. Democracy (Multi-Party Politics) in Real Life
3.3. 现实生活中的民主（多党政治）

Let’s see. We’re having a birthday party and half of the children want to go to the zoo and half to the park. So, we separate the two groups, give them sticks and let them fight it out. Whichever group wins, can make all the decisions. Would you do that? Well, why not? That’s multi-party democracy. Firmly separate your population on the basis of some ideology and let them fight. In a Multi-Party Democracy, there is no room for cooperation or consensus. We don’t talk; we fight. I win, you lose. That’s the system, inherently based not on harmony and consensus but on conflict. It’s the cornerstone of the democratic system that the ‘winners’ control everything and the ‘losers’ are totally marginalised. In Western political society there is little apparent concern for the losers even though they can form 50% or more of the population. Western multi-party democracy is the only political system in the world designed to disenfranchise, isolate and betray at least half of the population.

让我们看看。我们正在举行一个生日聚会，一半的孩子想去动物园，另一半想去公园。所以，我们把这两组分开，给他们棍子，让他们打架。无论哪一组获胜，都可以做出所有决定。你会这样做吗？为什么不呢？这就是多党民主。根据某种意识形态，坚定地将人口分开，让他们打架。在多党民主中，没有合作或共识的空间。我们不说话；我们打架。我赢，你输。这就是制度，本质上不是基于和谐和共识，而是基于冲突。这是民主制度的基石，“赢家”控制一切，“输家”完全被边缘化。在西方政治社会中，即使他们可以组成50%或更多的人口，也没有人明显关心失败者。西方多党民主是世界上唯一一个旨在剥夺公民权利、孤立和背叛至少一半人口的政体。

If we wanted to separate our population politically into two ideological ‘parties’, the logical division would be a gender separation of men and women. Or maybe a sexual division – the homos and the heteros. That should make an interesting election campaign. Unfortunately for democracy, the deliberate cleavage of our societies for purposes of politics was done according to perhaps the most inflammatory of human characteristics, an irreconcilable simian-theological divide, creating two factions perpetually at each other’s throats.

如果我们想在政治上将人口分为两个意识形态的“党派”，逻辑上的划分是男女两性。或者可能是性别的划分——同性恋和异性恋。这应该是一场有趣的选举活动。不幸的是，对于民主来说，我们社会为了政治目的而故意分裂，可能是根据人类最具煽动性的特征，即不可调和的猿神学分歧，造成两个派系永远相互对立。

We have many names for the ideological teams: Liberal-Conservative, Labor-Capitalist, Democrat-Republican. We sometimes refer to them as the Left Wing and Right Wing, or Socialists and Corporatists, but the division is more sinister than these names suggest. The ideological rift that has been created for the sake of politics is really between the ideological left and the religious right – between the pacifists and the war-mongers. ** And it appears that, though I make no claim to sociological credentials, human society, at least Western society, will automatically cleave along these lines if given a fertile chance. When we look at the often-vehement enthusiasm with which many Westerners embrace their political convictions, it is apparent that this separation, this cleavage of people according to their propensity for war-mongering, involves some of the deepest and most primitive instincts and emotions of the human psyche. What sane person would consciously divide a population based on this ideology? And for what purpose?

我们为意识形态团队取了许多名字：自由保守派、劳资资本主义、民主共和党。我们有时称之为左翼和右翼，或社会主义者和社团主义者，但这种划分比这些名字所暗示的更险恶。为了政治而产生的意识形态分歧实际上是意识形态左派和宗教右派之间的分歧——和平主义者和战争贩子之间的分歧。而且，虽然我没有社会学证书，但似乎人类社会，至少是西方社会，如果给予一个肥沃的机会，会自动沿着这些路线分裂。当我们看到许多西方人拥抱他们的政治信念时，他们往往表现出强烈的热情，很明显，这种分裂，即根据人们好战倾向进行划分，涉及人类心灵中一些最深层次和最原始的本能和情感。一个理智的人会根据这种意识形态有意识地分裂人口吗？为了什么目的？

** In the days before wokeness, it used to be that these groups had very clear identifications, the socialist Liberals and the hard-nosed corporate Conservatives. But today, with every politician seemingly determined to be the gayest transvestite on the block, their positions on the spectrum are becoming blurred. Still, we do have our pacifists and war-mongers intact.
**在觉醒前的日子里，这些群体曾经有着非常明确的身份认同，社会主义自由主义者和顽固的保守主义企业。但今天，随着每个政治家似乎都决心成为该地区最快乐的易装癖者，他们在光谱上的位置变得越来越模糊。尽管如此，我们的和平主义者和战争贩子仍然完好无损。

3.4. A Substitute for Civil War
3.4. 内战的替代品

The ideological separations serve not to do good, but only to create conflict. And that conflict is not the same as what we might term ‘healthy competition’. Political conflict is exclusive, dishonest, sometimes vicious, very often unethical, forcing people to go against their own consciences and the good of the nation for the sake of the party. The ideological rifts inherent in party politics have been introduced into Western government – by design – precisely because they induce the conflict so necessary to any team sport. How can we have a competition if everyone is on the same team, just trying to get the job done? The inescapable conclusion is that Western democracy – politics, in fact – was deliberately and cleverly designed not to select good government but to delude the peasantry into participation in a primitive, socio-theological rite of competition, conflict and victory. A useful substitute for a civil war.

意识形态分歧无益于国家发展，只会引发冲突。这种冲突不同于我们所谓的“良性竞争”。政治冲突是排他性的、不诚实的，有时是恶意的，经常是不道德的，迫使人们为了党而违背自己的良心和国家利益。政党政治中固有的意识形态分歧被引入西方政府——这是有意的——正是因为它们引发了任何团队运动都必不可少的冲突。如果每个人都属于同一个团队，只是想把工作做好，我们怎么能进行竞争呢？不可避免的结论是，西方民主——事实上是政治——被故意和巧妙地设计成不是选择好的政府，而是欺骗农民参与一种原始的、社会神学式的竞争、冲突和胜利仪式。内战的一个有用的替代品。

The combination of the primitive instincts and emotions that drive politics, team sports and religion is not only potentially explosive but essentially mindless; a kind of yearning herd mentality with a propensity for violence. It is clear that politics, in the Western sense, is seldom guided by reason. Reason can accommodate and withstand discourse; ideology on the other hand, cannot. Politics, religion, and team sports have a common root in the Western psyche. None can be discussed intelligently for very long; all raise violent emotions, all suffer from ideology that is blind to fact and reason, all possess the same primitive psychological attractions. People don’t join a political party from a commitment to good government, and they don’t join a Western religion to learn about God. In both cases, they do it to join a winning team.

驱动政治、团队运动和宗教的原始本能和情感的结合不仅具有潜在的爆炸性，而且本质上是不加思考的;一种渴望暴力的群体心理。很明显，西方意义上的政治很少以理性为指导。理性可以容纳和承受话语;另一方面，意识形态则不能。政治、宗教和团队运动在西方人的心理中有着共同的根源。没有一个可以长时间明智地讨论;所有这些都引发了暴力的情绪，所有这些都受到对事实和理性视而不见的意识形态的影响，所有这些都拥有相同的原始心理吸引力。人们不是因为对善政的承诺而加入政党，他们也不是为了了解上帝而加入西方宗教。在这两种情况下，他们加入一个获胜的团队。

Most Westerners will tell us that the multi-party electoral system is about freedom and choice and is “real democracy”. But the multi-party system is not about freedom and choice, and it is not about either democracy or government. It’s about a fabricated game of social conflict and competition, about playing in a team sport. In a multi-party democracy, the “game” is not good government but the election process itself. After my team wins the election, the game is over and we all go home. In the Western world, it is ‘politics’ that is the attraction, not ‘government’. I sincerely doubt that many people who are active in the political process give even a single thought to the quality of government that will emerge. Their only focus is winning the game for their team. The process has become so corrupted that Western democracy doesn’t even pretend to refer to the quality of government that might ensue as the end result after an election. And this is because the end result is the process itself – the competition, winning the election, nothing more.

大多数西方人会告诉我们，多党选举制度是关于自由和选择的，是“真正的民主”。但多党制不是关于自由和选择的，也不是关于民主或政府的。它是一场捏造的社会冲突和竞争游戏，是一场团队运动。在多党民主中，“游戏”不是好政府，而是选举过程本身。在我的团队赢得选举后，游戏就结束了，我们都回家了。在西方世界，吸引人的不是“政府”，而是“政治”。我真诚地怀疑许多积极参与政治进程的人是否考虑过即将出现的政府的质量。他们唯一的重点是赢得团队的游戏。这个过程已经变得如此腐败，以至于西方民主甚至不假装提及选举后可能产生的政府质量。这是因为最终的结果是过程本身——竞争、赢得选举，仅此而已。

In the individualistic, black and white Western societies, the multi-party democratic process is in no way intended as a method of problem resolution. It is instead consciously contrived precisely because it creates the problem, engaging an ignorant public in the debate of irrelevant issues while setting the stage for open conflict and a ‘law of the jungle’ political battle. The conflict resolution portion of this masquerade is the forced voting, which appeals to the Western Right-Wing mentality because it is the only system short of physical battle that can resolve the issue on an all-or-nothing basis, creating the winners and losers these societies need.

在个人主义、非黑即白的西方社会中，多党民主进程绝不是解决问题的方法。相反，它是有意制造的，因为它制造了问题，让无知的公众参与无关问题的辩论，同时为公开冲突和“丛林法则”的政治斗争奠定了基础。这场化妆舞会的冲突解决部分是强制投票，它吸引了西方右翼的心态，因为它是唯一一种没有身体战斗的制度，可以在全有或全无的基础上解决问题，创造这些社会需要的赢家和输家。

One of the more distressing congenital deformities of nations with multi-party politics is that by the time all the special-interest groups – the lobbyists, senators, financiers, bankers and flakes have grabbed their share, nothing useful is likely to remain for the common good. The outcomes are preordained because elected US officials are too busy looking after the interests of AIPAC, Israel, the Jewish lobby, the CIA, the US military, the defense contractors, the international bankers and the big multi-nationals, to worry about the people and the nation. The welfare of the voters is increasingly irrelevant, which is why the US government spent $7.7 trillion bailing out the banks instead of the people. US-style Multi-Party Democracy is a formula for waste, inefficiency and corruption. It is the one form of government that will guarantee decisions will be made to benefit private interest groups instead of the country as a whole.

多党制国家中更令人痛苦的先天畸形之一是，当所有特殊利益集团——游说者、参议员、金融家、银行家和浮士德都抓住自己的份额时，可能没有剩下任何有用的东西用于共同利益。结果已经注定，因为当选的美国官员太忙于照顾AIPAC、以色列、犹太游说团体、中央情报局、美国军方、国防承包商、国际银行家和大型跨国公司的利益，而不用担心人民和国家。选民的福利越来越无关紧要，这就是为什么美国政府花费7.7万亿美元救助银行而不是人民。美国式多党民主是一种浪费、低效和腐败的公式。这是一种政府形式，将保证做出有利于私人利益集团而不是整个国家的决定。

How did the supposedly-great concept of participatory democracy descend to such a pathetic level? The fundamental issue is that Western democracy has never had as its objective the selection of competent leaders or good government, but was instead created as a way of sidelining ‘the people’, dividing them by ideology and engaging their attention in a game – in a team-sport competition. That is entirely the fault of the deliberate and cleverly planned creation of multi-party politics, and it is too late to reverse course, too late to eliminate dysfunctional ideologies and the curse of politics from government. The hole is too deep; we cannot return to the beginning and start again. To do so would require a social upheaval equivalent to a popular revolution, and any Western government would viciously put down any such attempt. In spite of all the propaganda to the contrary, no Western “democracy” would permit ‘the people’ to actually gain control of their government.

参与式民主这一本应伟大的概念是如何沦落到如此可悲的地步的？根本问题是，西方民主从来不是以选择有能力领导人或好政府为目标，而是作为排斥“人民”、以意识形态划分人民、吸引人民注意力的一种方式而创立的——一种团队运动比赛。这完全是多党政治故意和巧妙策划的产物造成的，现在扭转方向已经太晚了，消除政府中功能失调的意识形态和政治诅咒已经太晚了。漏洞太深了；我们不能回到起点重新开始。这样做需要一场相当于人民革命的社会动荡，任何西方政府都会恶意镇压任何这样的企图。尽管有相反的宣传，但没有一个西方“民主”会允许“人民”真正控制他们的政府。

The situation is much exacerbated by the obvious fact that all these so-called “democracies” are controlled from behind the scenes by those who encourage the rift because they so hugely profit from it – to the extreme detriment of the entire nation and its people. It is largely due to that heavy external manipulation and even heavier external financing that the process continues unabated. It is vitally necessary for all democracies to ban those parasitic aliens from any and every part of government, but their control is virtually total and this is no longer an option. And even then, the political parties would still exist, so the problems would moderate only slightly. The only permanent solution would be to eliminate the political parties themselves, and thus to have the US Congress all being one team working together for the good of the nation, but it is too late and this will remain a dream.

所有这些所谓的“民主国家”都受到幕后操纵，而幕后操纵者正是那些鼓动分裂的人，因为他们从中获利巨大，这极大损害了整个国家和人民。这种情况因一个明显的事实而更加严重，即这些所谓的“民主国家”都受到幕后操纵，而幕后操纵者正是那些鼓动分裂的人，因为他们从中获利巨大——这对整个国家和人民造成了极大的损害。很大程度上是由于外部的严重操纵和更严重的外部融资，这一进程有增无减。所有民主国家都迫切需要禁止这些寄生外乡人进入政府的任何部门，但他们的控制实际上是全面的，这已不再是一种选择。即使这样，政党仍将存在，因此问题只会略有缓和。唯一的永久解决方案是消除政党本身，从而使美国国会成为一个为了国家利益而共同努力的团队，但为时已晚，这将仍然是一个梦想。

3.5. Epilogue
3.5. 结语

I will repeat here a brief paragraph from above:
我在这里重复上面的一段简短的话：

It’s the cornerstone of the democratic system that the ‘winners’ control everything and the ‘losers’ are totally marginalised. In Western political society there is little apparent concern for the losers even though they can form 50% or more of the population. Western multi-party democracy is the only political system in the world designed to disenfranchise, isolate and betray at least half of the population.
“赢家”控制一切而“输家”完全被边缘化是民主制度的基石。在西方政治社会中，即使输家可以构成50%或更多的人口，他们似乎也不太关心。西方多党民主是世界上唯一旨在剥夺、孤立和背叛至少一半人口的政体。

It is of much importance to ask: How do you feel about that?
问这样一个问题非常重要：你对此有何感受？

An American friend told me that she burst into tears when George Bush Jr. won his second term. She was distraught, but also angry and bitter and felt betrayed. Her conviction was that her country would suffer terribly under this regime, as it did. We all know the feeling when our party loses an election or a favorite team loses an important game; the loss is personal to us, and it not only disappoints but it hurts. But in national elections, a full 50% of the population are in this condition, sometimes more, depending on the country. Have you ever thought about that, or do you simply take satisfaction in the fact that “you” won? Do you ever consider, as one result of your treasured “democracy”, the one that reflects “the yearnings of all mankind”, that fully half of your population is totally disenfranchised, disappointed, angry, resentful, even bitter? Why is that okay with you?

一位美国朋友告诉我，当小布什赢得连任时，她哭了。她心烦意乱，但也很生气和痛苦，感到被背叛。她坚信她的国家在这个政权下会遭受极大的痛苦，就像以前一样。我们都知道我们党在选举中失败或最喜欢的球队在重要比赛中失利时的感觉；对我们来说，损失是私人的，它不仅令人失望，而且令人痛苦。但在全国大选中，整整50%的人口处于这种状态，有时更多，取决于国家。你有没有想过这个问题，或者你是否只是对“你”赢了的事实感到满意？你曾经考虑过吗？作为你所珍视的“民主”的结果之一，它反映了“全人类的渴望”，你人口的一半完全被剥夺了权利，失望、愤怒、怨恨、甚至痛苦？为什么你会觉得没关系？

Do you ever think that one of the most critical events in your nation – the selection of your government – was deliberately constructed in such a way as to alienate half of your own population? Why do you think that’s good? Is this bitterness at disenfranchisement one of your “universal values”? Is this alienation one of “the yearnings of all mankind” that you want to force upon me and my country? How can you possibly claim that this “democracy” of yours, is the best of all possible systems for appointing government leaders and lawmakers? Can you not see how much better life would be with only one political party where everyone was on the same team and there were no perpetual struggles for power? Why do you so fervently believe that the selection of your government should be a team sport engaged in by 200 million incompetent players? This might be understandable if a few 8-year-old children were planning a birthday party, but when 200 million adults use this method to select the one thing most critical to their well-being – their government, this is not democracy; it is pathology.

你们是否想过，你们国家最关键的事件之一——政府选举——是故意以一种疏远你们一半人口的方式进行的？为什么你们认为这是好事？这种对剥夺公民权利的怨恨是你们的“普世价值”之一吗？这种疏远是你们想要强加给我和我的国家的“全人类的渴望”之一吗？你怎么能声称你们的“民主”是任命政府领导人和立法者的所有可能制度中最好的？你难道看不出只有一个政党的生活会好得多，每个人都在同一个团队中，没有永久的权力斗争吗？你为什么如此热切地相信，政府的选举应该是由2亿无能球员参加的团队运动？如果几个8岁的孩子在计划生日派对，这可能是可以理解的，但是当2亿成年人用这种方法来选择对他们幸福最重要的一件事——他们的政府，这不是民主；这是病态。

*
Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

罗曼诺夫先生的作品已被翻译成32种语言，他的文章发表在30多个国家的150多个外语新闻和政治网站以及100多个英语平台上。拉里•罗曼诺夫是一名退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职位，并拥有国际进出口业务。他曾是上海复旦大学的客座教授，为高级EMBA课程提供国际事务案例研究。罗曼诺夫先生住在上海，目前正在写一系列十本书，通常与中国和西方有关。他是辛西娅•麦金尼的新文集《当中国打喷嚏》的撰稿人之一。(第2章——与恶魔打交道)。

His full archive can be seen at:
他的完整文章库可以在以下看到：
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/
He can be contacted at:
他的联系方式：
2186604556@qq.com

This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.