Winston Churchill believed ‘Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others’. We all have been fooled by these words and it’s time to look at this statement closer. We have blindly believed this questionable authority instead of looking within a common sense into practicality of that system.
Democracy originated in ancient Greece in 5th century BC when it was a slavery country. Rich men who owned slaves could participate in democracy - demos, so we can translate democracy as ‘rules of the slave masters‘. This does not sound promising, but we must realize that this system was invented with bad intention with the purpose to prevent us from exercising our right to manage ourselves in the way that would be best for all.
The biggest misconception about democracy is the understanding about rules of majority. Rules of majority means that majority of people is involved in ruling and really contribute to the management of the society. It doesn’t mean majority is needed to pass a questionable law. Many bills are passed by marginal difference for example 51% to 49%. Does that mean that 49% is wrong? Obviously it makes no sense, so how can we take the opinion of majority as a measurement of truth? The point is not to vote for two different, but beautifully presented lies but to find the solution that will simply be the best for everyone. Everyone must agree and understand what is the best solution in order for bill to be passed. If someone would vote ‘no’ that means more debate and investigation is needed on the subject or the benefits of the bill are not explained clearly enough to such a voter. 100% of votes = consensus is required to pass any legislation.
In democracy it is said that majority rules, but actually majority is always worse. In any group and in any given task we can find someone most suited for it and thus better than majority. If majority is worse, then its ruling will not be best for all, as it could have been done better by the best. It is in our interest and in the interest of the majority to be ruled by the best not by worse. In democracy everyone has a right to vote: criminals, mentally ill, alcoholics, drug addicts etc. This is really not in our best interest to let such people decide on important matters, as they could harm themselves and others. In the ancient times our ancestors had a far more practical system and it is implicit we understand it. They said that, the right to vote had a man who confirmed with his way of life that he was a proper householder. Meaning that he set the space in order around him, has healthy family, good offspring and farm. When he proves that, he can be granted with the right to vote. If he has nothing, then how can u let him vote? Women and Elderly didn’t have a vote right, however elders had an advisory vote as they were carriers of tradition. It is said that family is the smallest social group and this system gives vote to the family, exercised by the head of the family.
In democracy you can come to a court hearing, read a newspaper, just better not to bother anyone, only be present. You can take part or you don’t have to. If you don’t want to, then you are more than welcome not to get involved. In the original system if you witnessed any violation of social order, you were obliged to make every effort to fix it. If you weren’t doing that, then you were counted as accomplice. This is an obligation. If you can help society and you are not doing that, then you are a criminal. That means everyone takes responsibility for everything – becoming householders. They tell us ‘we will do everything for you, you just sit tight, you are just a tiny cogwheel in the machine , you can’t do anything, we will do it for you’. We say ‘NO’ you are in fact a criminal if you sit and do nothing. ‘My house is on the side – I don’t know about anything’ – that means you are a criminal. You cannot neglect the bigger picture, that concerns everyone.
Sovereign cause means anyone can go to the ruler with the matter of state importance. If anyone would stand on his way, that person would be considered a criminal. If that matter can be solved or managed by others, he would be punished. Everyone has a right to seek council.
Another misconception is organizing elections every four years. What if we have already chosen the best representatives? Why should we change them if they are doing their job the best from everyone? Also, If someone is doing their job badly, why shouldn’t we elect better representatives immediately instead of letting them continue for 3 more years?
Let’s look how this presented system works in practice. 10 neighbors get together and decide on the matters concerning this 10 families. They are looking for consensus on the best solution to whatever issue they might have. If they need to elect a representative, they decide among themselves which one would do the job best, be their best representative and elect him by consensus. Another group of 10 will do the same accordingly and the new 10 elected representatives will form a new group of 10 and in the same manner will elect it’s representative. He will now represent the whole 10 groups meaning 100 families. Few more steps like this and we can elect the final 10 representatives of the whole country. The size of the group needs to be relatively small so that everyone in the group know themselves well and can achieve consensus. Historically we had 12 Slavic provinces governors, but probably groups as small as 6 could work in the beginning.
This ancient system was used in many places before, for example in Ukraine up to 17th century, in Russia up to 14th or in pre-catholic Poland. My best translation of its name would be ‘kin-tribal system with monarchic self-heritage’. In the time of special needs like war, a monarch could be elected out of the final group to accelerate the management process.
This system allows society to manage itself by its best representatives, contrary to the current situation when we are ruled by ‘professionals’, ‘managers’ – politicians. Featured system prevents foreigners, fools and miscreants from having an influence on the management. Apparently nothing more efficient cannot be invented anyway, so I imagine when we decide we want to rule/manage ourselves we should consider the common sense of the points presented in this article. Playing by their rules – using democracy is a sure loss. Democracy cannot produce best for all results, it is guaranteed by its design. It is a criminal system created by criminals, so why would anyone want to take part in it? We have every right to manage ourselves and we should realize the common sense of exercising that right. We believed Winston Churchill and we have become victims of information war. There is a tactic in that war that is based on three parts: catchword – explanation – propagation. Catchword means everyone must find out what to do. Couple words, people don’t usually read more than three. For example 'democracy is a lie’ or ‘democracy of ancestors’ or ‘original democracy’ or ‘kin-tribal system’. Draft of explanation is this article and propagation is actively searching to spread the information for example going door to door, calling random numbers, then our own textbooks, schools etc.
We must realize there is self-conceit and there is common sense, which we need to develop. None of this is my original idea. This information has always been here and I would just suggest everyone to consider it. Remember the copyright, meaning, make sure to copy everything rightly!
So I wrote this article and I'm looking for any comments or perspectives on it, thanks.