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.
Article about democracy
Re: Article about democracy
Hi Tom. Very thorough look at the current system. Thanks for sharing.
What I have been seeing is that Democracy can work - where it's one man, one vote. However, for it to work for everyone and in a way that is best, we need to stop making our decisions based on self-interest and instead, consider what would be beneficial for everyone.
Understand, making decisions from a point of self-interest is an existential issue - we have been doing this for a very long time. So, what is required to change is our starting point - seeing where, in our minds we are going to the decision that interests us or benefits ourselves the most, taking the time to see how making decisions this way has gotten us to where we are with nothing changing, and redirecting ourselves to consider other ways that may actually improve the situation for all - including self. The challenge before us is to change everything from the current win-lose dynamic to a win-win.
For additional perspective on this point, suggest to watch The Century of the Self, if you haven't already as it goes in to how the system has been influenced and built on self-interest - and further, what can be seen is how the system and those who lead and/or make decisions for the many, are a manifestation of self - how we have been existing.
What I have been seeing is that Democracy can work - where it's one man, one vote. However, for it to work for everyone and in a way that is best, we need to stop making our decisions based on self-interest and instead, consider what would be beneficial for everyone.
Understand, making decisions from a point of self-interest is an existential issue - we have been doing this for a very long time. So, what is required to change is our starting point - seeing where, in our minds we are going to the decision that interests us or benefits ourselves the most, taking the time to see how making decisions this way has gotten us to where we are with nothing changing, and redirecting ourselves to consider other ways that may actually improve the situation for all - including self. The challenge before us is to change everything from the current win-lose dynamic to a win-win.
For additional perspective on this point, suggest to watch The Century of the Self, if you haven't already as it goes in to how the system has been influenced and built on self-interest - and further, what can be seen is how the system and those who lead and/or make decisions for the many, are a manifestation of self - how we have been existing.
Re: Article about democracy
Hi Tom - you are taking on a subject that is very near and dear to my heart.
I enjoy your breakdown and analysis of the problems that you see within the existing paradigm of 'democracy' and 'majority rule' and agree with much of your assessment. I would contribute by adding that when looking at what kind of governmental system we want, we must first deal with what we already have, and understand how and why we got here so that we do not repeat the same mistake again - but here "understanding" also means to stop judging and polarizing ourselves and blaming others or the elite or the secret cabals. For me that was one very hard pill to swallow after so many years of reading and studying how we have been pawns in the game of the elites.
For many years I have been a student of political philosophies. I dove very deeply into all manner of material - from Plato's arguments and modern textbooks on government and history, the hidden history of the financial banking families and institutions, to more esoteric things like Michael Tsarion and as well as the 'conspiracy' oriented stuff like Alex Jones and Jordan Maxwell. Throughout the years of research and investigation what I have come to find is that ultimately there is no way to prescribe a system that works for everyone, everywhere. Nor is it possible to exactly pin down who the 'troublemakers' are and which of the bad guys need to be removed. In cross referencing all of this stuff I realized that one central theme runs through all of it - which is that it always, and in all ways, returns back full circle to ourselves as the point of responsibility.
We have not yet in our human history realized that the first step that we need to take toward change is the change of our own self - our own status, capacity, awareness, and directive ability. We have yet to learn how to stop blaming the elite for making us slaves. We have yet to learn what it means to stop the spitefulness within ourselves that we so love to point out in others. We have yet to truly live the change we want to see in others and to stop blaming others for falling short of our own standards.
For me the biggest revelation that allowed me to see things much more clearly, and begin to really see the big picture and how things work and are interconnected was when I stopped trying to fix "the system" or come up with the right political/economic setup. While there are certainly things that can be greatly improved upon or done away with when looking at what we have now, the fact remains that what keeps us from having a better world is not the lack of better systems of social organization - but the lack of genuine change in PEOPLE, individually.
It is not 'enough' for people to come up with better systems of government. It is not enough to empower all people to be able to vote on the issues as equals. We must ensure that people who are empowered to vote are NOT still living in conditions of fear or survival. We must ensure that an empowered and politically engaged population is well informed and able to reason critically and decide on what is in fact best for all, even if that means personal compromises must be made.
Here we see that we cannot legislate a 'better world' into being. We cannot enforce by policy what people have not decided for themselves based on their own decision and responsibility. It is nearly impossible to tell people to change and take on more responsibility when we ourselves haven't taken those steps. To that end we have to be the first living examples of the world we wish to live in - to embody within ourselves first and foremost the qualities we wish our governments and 'leaders' to possess and be guided by. What form of government might that be? It is impossible to tell as yet, but we can begin with agreeing on the basic principle that the change must begin and resonate firstly from within ourselves.
I enjoy your breakdown and analysis of the problems that you see within the existing paradigm of 'democracy' and 'majority rule' and agree with much of your assessment. I would contribute by adding that when looking at what kind of governmental system we want, we must first deal with what we already have, and understand how and why we got here so that we do not repeat the same mistake again - but here "understanding" also means to stop judging and polarizing ourselves and blaming others or the elite or the secret cabals. For me that was one very hard pill to swallow after so many years of reading and studying how we have been pawns in the game of the elites.
For many years I have been a student of political philosophies. I dove very deeply into all manner of material - from Plato's arguments and modern textbooks on government and history, the hidden history of the financial banking families and institutions, to more esoteric things like Michael Tsarion and as well as the 'conspiracy' oriented stuff like Alex Jones and Jordan Maxwell. Throughout the years of research and investigation what I have come to find is that ultimately there is no way to prescribe a system that works for everyone, everywhere. Nor is it possible to exactly pin down who the 'troublemakers' are and which of the bad guys need to be removed. In cross referencing all of this stuff I realized that one central theme runs through all of it - which is that it always, and in all ways, returns back full circle to ourselves as the point of responsibility.
We have not yet in our human history realized that the first step that we need to take toward change is the change of our own self - our own status, capacity, awareness, and directive ability. We have yet to learn how to stop blaming the elite for making us slaves. We have yet to learn what it means to stop the spitefulness within ourselves that we so love to point out in others. We have yet to truly live the change we want to see in others and to stop blaming others for falling short of our own standards.
For me the biggest revelation that allowed me to see things much more clearly, and begin to really see the big picture and how things work and are interconnected was when I stopped trying to fix "the system" or come up with the right political/economic setup. While there are certainly things that can be greatly improved upon or done away with when looking at what we have now, the fact remains that what keeps us from having a better world is not the lack of better systems of social organization - but the lack of genuine change in PEOPLE, individually.
It is not 'enough' for people to come up with better systems of government. It is not enough to empower all people to be able to vote on the issues as equals. We must ensure that people who are empowered to vote are NOT still living in conditions of fear or survival. We must ensure that an empowered and politically engaged population is well informed and able to reason critically and decide on what is in fact best for all, even if that means personal compromises must be made.
Here we see that we cannot legislate a 'better world' into being. We cannot enforce by policy what people have not decided for themselves based on their own decision and responsibility. It is nearly impossible to tell people to change and take on more responsibility when we ourselves haven't taken those steps. To that end we have to be the first living examples of the world we wish to live in - to embody within ourselves first and foremost the qualities we wish our governments and 'leaders' to possess and be guided by. What form of government might that be? It is impossible to tell as yet, but we can begin with agreeing on the basic principle that the change must begin and resonate firstly from within ourselves.
Re: Article about democracy
Awesome perspectives here, thanks
My FaceBook - http://www.facebook.com/gian.robberts
My Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/user/GianRobberts01
My Blog - http://gianrobberts01.blogspot.com/
all for equality and life
My Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/user/GianRobberts01
My Blog - http://gianrobberts01.blogspot.com/
all for equality and life
Re: Article about democracy
Hi Carrie. Thank you for your reply. It opened up a cool point for me.
Looking like that this quote looks cool when we drop words stop and instead
What's the common trend in decision-making basis could be better described as self-conceit as I translated in the end of the article. Existing in self-conceit prevents us from looking into practicality of common sense.
What's actually self-interest ? What is self intested in - whats self intersted best - (from the existential perspective?) - I think it must be whats best for all life. Is the real self-interest the same as whats best for all life? Considering self as part of all life.for it to work for everyone and in a way that is best, we need to stop making our decisions based on self-interest and instead, consider what would be beneficial for everyone.
Looking like that this quote looks cool when we drop words stop and instead
What's the common trend in decision-making basis could be better described as self-conceit as I translated in the end of the article. Existing in self-conceit prevents us from looking into practicality of common sense.
thx,Ill do thatFor additional perspective on this point, suggest to watch The Century of the Self, if you haven't already as it goes in to how the system has been influenced and built on self-interest - and further, what can be seen is how the system and those who lead and/or make decisions for the many, are a manifestation of self - how we have been existing.
Re: Article about democracy
Could you please unflag or something this post so it may be displayed in 'latest forum topics'.
This forum is almost dead anyway, so I cannot see a reason why would this be a bad idea?
Thanks in advance!
This forum is almost dead anyway, so I cannot see a reason why would this be a bad idea?
Thanks in advance!
Re: Article about democracy
I would argue here that you have been decieving yourself, show me please 1 evidence that it has actually worked, meaning produced the results that are best for all life.What I have been seeing is that Democracy can work
Re: Article about democracy
Hi Joe. Thank you for your reply. You have been a great inspiration for me and more or less I know your story. However I think that you didn't grasp the article at all. It's a good indicator that it should be written simplier.
Yep, this is a blueprint for it, how to deal with it. We must just forgive ourselves for accepting and allowing the lie of democracy to determine our lives. We must just give it up and start to manage-guide-administrate-supervise-govern-control-steer-run-lead-direct ourselves.
I would be really interested with what you don't agree so that we may look into those issues closer.agree with much of your assessment
, we must first deal with what we already have
Yep, this is a blueprint for it, how to deal with it. We must just forgive ourselves for accepting and allowing the lie of democracy to determine our lives. We must just give it up and start to manage-guide-administrate-supervise-govern-control-steer-run-lead-direct ourselves.
I think we got here by allowing and accepting lies and deception and the reason for it is essentially to realize life.understand how and why we got here
I agree, could you be more specific to which part are you refering to?- but here "understanding" also means to stop judging and polarizing ourselves and blaming others
yes, its time to stop accepting and allowing it, stop playing chess and play life instead.how we have been pawns in the game of the elites.
I think we have to be more specific, at least what do we want from that system, what is it about, in which area it should work etc.there is no way to prescribe a system that works for everyone, everywhere
I think it was established long ago that we are the 'troublemakers'-bad guys for not realizing whats best for all as life, and thus letting the atrocitis continueNor is it possible to exactly pin down who the 'troublemakers' are and which of the bad guys need to be removed
I could not agree more.In cross referencing all of this stuff I realized that one central theme runs through all of it - which is that it always, and in all ways, returns back full circle to ourselves as the point of responsibility.
again, please be more specific, change of what?first step that we need to take toward change
Yes please. As you wrote we must realizing the point of responsibility for ourselves. Not accepting and allowing to be slaves, thus refusing responsibility for ourselves.We have yet to learn how to stop blaming the elite for making us slaves.
please tell me which part of the text did you got the impression of blame? I definitely don't want to start the blame game.stop blaming others
So you are saying that our systems of social organization produce the results that are best for all and thus dont need to be changed? Also why would people need to change? We don't understand the reasons why we should change and this is what needs to be explained. To see the common sense in change.the fact remains that what keeps us from having a better world is not the lack of better systems of social organization - but the lack of genuine change in PEOPLE, individually.
Please be more specific, enough for what?It is not 'enough' for people to come up with better systems of government.
Yes, and this is why we need to manage the population ourselves, not accept and submit to current management, which is hidden and it's main objective is to prevent us from being empowered, informed and 'politically engaged'We must ensure that an empowered and politically engaged population is well informed and able to reason critically and decide on what is in fact best for all
ok now this sounds a little bogus, please explainthe change must begin and resonate firstly from within ourselves
Re: Article about democracy
Recently I heared an interesing argument that I should include in the article. The story of how the Kossacks elected their leader. Kossacks lived in the place where is Ukraine now, but were part of Poland then. They wanted equal rights with polish nobility and didn't like the catholic church. Polish nobility considered them peasants and the fratricidal war begun in 17th century. Kossacks were destroyed with many thousands of them being impaled as an example. Impalation was an extremly cruel practise. Victim was impaled through anus to his solar plexis. The point of the practise is to the victim to stay alive and a good impaler, knew anathomy well and would dodge all the vital organs. Victim was then falling on the trunk by the weight of its body for several hours before eventually dying.
Kossack's called common sence 'jasa'. Jasny in polish means clear, bright, fair, obvious, definite. Becouse common sence is clear and explain itself. Person called 'jasaulic' was guarding, that everything is clear, understanded and would explain if someone would spoke nonsense.
Kossack's leader called 'ataman koszowy' could be translated as 'baskety general'. I was thinking what the basket could mean here and I think that wicker basket might represent interconnected society tited together as a strong basket, which was held by ataman-general/president. But what could be inside this basket?
So we are Kossacks and we want to elect a new leader. We think that you are most suited for the job and that you will take care of the job best from everyone. We come to you and say: 'You are a good householder (host), you have skills needed, you are responsible - become our ataman.' But you realizing the deceptive nature of the mind, scared that in the face of great responsiblity you may commit abuse say: 'Friends, this is a great temptation, danger to embed our money, we are so wealthy! I will accept but only on a condition that you help me.' We say: 'Ok sure,but how can we help you?' You reply: 'Let's make a deal: If I will touch the public money and steal anything you will put me in a leather bag and drown in a lake. If you agree then I agree.'
If that was the case today I wonder how many politicians would drop their 'well paid-actor' positions, and how many people would be interested in the leaders position.
Kossack's called common sence 'jasa'. Jasny in polish means clear, bright, fair, obvious, definite. Becouse common sence is clear and explain itself. Person called 'jasaulic' was guarding, that everything is clear, understanded and would explain if someone would spoke nonsense.
Kossack's leader called 'ataman koszowy' could be translated as 'baskety general'. I was thinking what the basket could mean here and I think that wicker basket might represent interconnected society tited together as a strong basket, which was held by ataman-general/president. But what could be inside this basket?
So we are Kossacks and we want to elect a new leader. We think that you are most suited for the job and that you will take care of the job best from everyone. We come to you and say: 'You are a good householder (host), you have skills needed, you are responsible - become our ataman.' But you realizing the deceptive nature of the mind, scared that in the face of great responsiblity you may commit abuse say: 'Friends, this is a great temptation, danger to embed our money, we are so wealthy! I will accept but only on a condition that you help me.' We say: 'Ok sure,but how can we help you?' You reply: 'Let's make a deal: If I will touch the public money and steal anything you will put me in a leather bag and drown in a lake. If you agree then I agree.'
If that was the case today I wonder how many politicians would drop their 'well paid-actor' positions, and how many people would be interested in the leaders position.
Return to “Questions and Perspectives about Everyday Life Moments”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest