Democracy is dead??

[j0da]

John_s, are you the latest type of the "spec ops droid" we've heard lots of rumors lately? The kind of bot which will exploit the ideas used by victims in order to get them by surprise?

But wait! You wrote about OPs, Lizards and psychopaths and then you expressed care about Laura's integrity! I'm sorry for my remark about you being a droid - you must be a good guy!

 

[Renaissance]

However, Joe, you have, without justification, accused me of being "somewhat hysterical".

"Somewhat hysterical"!?!?! I think your rolling on the floor hysterical! absolutely hilarious!!!

his constitutes a form of assault, as if you are trying to defend yourself from something in the list that struck a nerve. You did not even consider the bulk of the post, Joe, only the list. Do you see a threat to yourself in that list, Joe?

ohh stop my sides hurt!

Please note also, Joe, that this forum is read by -many- people who choose not to participate for whatever reason. Many people, Joe. You have put yourself on the Watch list.

AHAHA HAHAHAHA no, really stop!

Your reply or non reply to this communication may cause serious doubt Lauras' integrity and abilities as well as cause serious doubt about the nature and motives of the C's. Weight your actions carefully, Joe.

Oh John your too much. Really.

 

[domi]

The lizzies are extremely intelligent.

Is this assessment based on direct and personal experience with lizzies? Please elaborate.

Thanks.

 

[Laura]

Democracy, as a c-o-n cept pertaining to liberty and rights, is perhaps the best weapon of mass destruction ever empolyed against humanity by sts/physcopath beings, both human and other.

On this point, I partly agree because the problem with "democracy" is that it relies on an "informed citizenry" and posits that all men are created equal.

Well, we know that not all men are created equal: consider the bell curve. Consider it in terms of a very small minority of pathological deviants at one end, and a small minority of noble intellects at the other. The deviants will always be able to persuade the 80% in the middle to follow them simply by dangling the carrot of material goods and power or bread and circuses.

Democracy, as an end, needs to die a final death. A constitutional republic, with inaleinable rights (as opposed to civil rights), even if imperfect, is far better. Especially if only free individuals (as opposed to citizens) with a basic, working knowledge of the constitution are allowed, by law, to choose representatives (as opposed to leaders) through a democratic prosess (which is NOT the same as a democracy).

I don't necessarily agree with this point. I do think that significant changes need to be made, one of them being the method by which governments are selected. Any time you place that power in the hands of the people - ANY people - there is a path for corruption and destruction. The closest thing I have been able to come up with that might work is a lottery method for selecting representatives from a pool of qualified candidates. In that way, there is absolutely no need for campaigning or "popularity" contests.

Also, the pool of candidates ought to include representatives of all professions that have been vetted as to their psychological health.

There are five ypes of individual who will argue for democracy as a form of government. Lizards, physcopaths, OPs, cowards, willfully unintelligent human beings.

Well, I think that my idea of a specially modified democracy isn't too bad and I'm pretty sure I'm not a Lizard, I KNOW I'm not a coward or wilfully ignorant, but I leave it to others who know me long and well to decide if I am a psychopath or OP.

 

[Jacques]

"You're missing the point. It's not the form of government, it's the type of human being behind it. And your list above is somewhat hysterical, apart from the psychopath part."

However, Joe, you have, without justification, accused me of being "somewhat hysterical". This constitutes a form of assault, as if you are trying to defend yourself from something in the list that struck a nerve.

I read many times the answer of Joe and i do not see anywhere in that sentence where he is telling that you are somewhat hysterical. What i read is that he said that the list what "somewhat hysterica"l but not you. Two separates things.

I wonder why you understood it like that? May be that is you who are trying to defend yourself?.

 

[john_s]

Laura,
I appreciate your reply to my post. It is mature and well spoken. Again, I appreciate that very sincerely.

Laura wrote:
"The deviants will always be able to persuade the 80% in the middle to follow them simply by dangling the carrot of material goods and power or bread and circuses."

This seems to be very true. When I consider this point my mind makes an association between the way that I was raised and the way that I ended up raising my children. I would frame this by saying that my parents had no actual knowledge of the art of raising children. The inabilities of a generation are passed to the next until that lack of knowing is corrected. And that correction came when I found myself becomming like my father. The only time that I have been truely afraid of my self. A frantic analysis of the situation guided me to the consideration that I might gain insight through the observation of my own childhood and that of my extended family and friends, as well as observation of various others where pertinent data was available. By this process a solution developed whereby I became the greater peer in the lives of my children. Communication between us became sufficient to the point that they allowed me this privledge. What makes this relevant to this discussinn is that the children,s mother is a true physcopath. Her abilities to decieve and manulipate are genuinely excellent. The relationship was well established by the time that I came to this knowledge. I was dad, there was no backing out and she knew that. But she did not prevail, the children were not lost and I was not destroyed (though nearly so). What is my incorrectness, what is our incorrectness whereby the eighty percent would prefer the physcopath as a peer?


Laura wrote:
"I don't necessarily agree with this point. I do think that significant changes need to be made, one of them being the method by which governments are selected. Any time you place that power in the hands of the people - ANY people - there is a path for corruption and destruction. The closest thing I have been able to come up with that might work is a lottery method for selecting representatives from a pool of qualified candidates. In that way, there is absolutely no need for campaigning or "popularity" contests."

I would find that acceptable and workable in a sto enviroment. However we are all sts at this time. That is just a momentary fact and really not worth getting excited or upset over. This moment may pass tonight or it may linger for many years. We simply do not know because possibilities exist. My personal preference is to work on the assumption that the sts enviroment will persist for a substantial period of time and this is why I advocate a constitutional republic with specific organic rights and voter qualification. I may be that such instrument could be refined a bit more without impeding liberty and free will. If the moment should pass quickly, nothing of value would be lost. If the moment should linger, the somehting of value might be gained. Perhaps a portion of the eighty percent.
As an aside, it seems to me that accepting one's self as sts provides a distinct advantage over not acknowledging or wishing one were otherwise. It seems to allow two distinct and opposite viewpoints within one' self. If this system of opposites is viewed from a third and seperate viewpoint, one is then presented with a multidimentional, moving picture of the forces interacting within one's self as well as in others. It seems to introduce quite a bit of interesting data to consideration. What do you think?


Laura wrote:
"Also, the pool of candidates ought to include representatives of all professions that have been vetted as to their psychological health."

I fully agree so long as the procedure will produce zero false positives. Additionally, voters should be qualified by this same procedure.


Laura wrote:
"Well, I think that my idea of a specially modified democracy isn't too bad and I'm pretty sure I'm not a Lizard, I KNOW I'm not a coward or wilfully ignorant, but I leave it to others who know me long and well to decide if I am a psychopath or OP."

Laura, if I had sensed in any way that you were one of the types on my "list" then I would never have formed my posting to establish communication with you. The "list", by the way is simply the result of fourty some odd years of watching people. The good, the bad and the ugly. And whatever else. The thoughts you presented to me were not of a stark, democratic rulership, but rather of a democratic process whereby qualified representives could be authorized to represent and not rule. It has been refreshing to talk with a mature and thoughtful individual.

I do have a concern that I would like to discuss with you.

Again, I very much appreciate your time.

john_s

 

[vinny]

it seems to me that the main problem (how to have an 'actual' democracy or system of society, which is ponerization-proof) is how to stop the ponerization process from sneaking in via the backdoor, and then taking over again.

Always, in all these suggested schemes, or solutions that I can imagine up for myself, there are 'overseers', or a process of 'vetting people for psychological health', or some kind of 'governing entity' whatever. how on earth do you stop this from becoming corrupted? It is something I have often strained my brain over.

All I have so far, is that ANY large-scale over-arching system that is a SINGLE system (like a power bottleneck) governing the whole population, will NOT work. The reason being, that in these cases there is always a LARGE motivation for psychos to take over, due to the enormous potential for abuse of power, and self-interest. and so: the larger the potential for power-abuse will cause a proportionately more sophisticated measures to be attempted to infiltrate it. so, for example, any national or even global system would be under attack from almost infinitely sophisticated, devious and determined efforts, which are almost certain to succeed at some point.

What I find interesting is the way in which the Australian Aboriginal societies have lived for an enormous number of years in a pretty-much unchanging stable state, as far as I can make out. The key elements seem to be a total lack of any overarching power structure which has the 'casting vote' on any issue across the whole population. Instead there are local tribal 'elders' who hold detailed wisdom/knowledge regarding the nature of life/humanity and how to deal with issues - I am guessing that in some way this must include a knowledge of psychopaths, what they do, and how to deal with them - but always on a 'local' level, because 'local' is all there is.

so: 2 keys, (as Lobaczewski discusses) -
1: small scale power structure - everything is on a personal scale, thereby allowing the 'law of three' to be used in dealing with any situation.
2: comprehensive and public knowledge of psychopathy.

still we have a problem: if this system only works on a small scale, then we are ALREADY in a situation where the world has gone LARGE scale ponerized, and so any small-scale system that was too obviously non-pathocratic would be instantly crushed by infinite forces from outside - look at what has happened to the Australian Aborigines over the last century, for example.

so John_s, your suggestion of a constitutional republic, with inaleinable rights. well, wasn't the USA supposed to be something like that? I think it would be vulnerable to all the same things - because it is an omnipresent, hierarchical system that is 'homogenous' everywhere (so is a power bottleneck, again), though maybe you have more details that would make this an interesting idea?

I'm also thinking about Laura's 'lottery' idea - where there is no motivation to 'get into power' because there is no control over it. But then who runs the lottery?!

so. I don't know. this is as far as I've come with my reasoning, and everything I think of is still full of holes ;)

 

[j0da]

Democracy, as a c-o-n cept pertaining to liberty and rights, is perhaps the best weapon of mass destruction ever empolyed against humanity by sts/physcopath beings, both human and other. Democracy, as an end, needs to die a final death. A constitutional republic, with inaleinable rights (as opposed to civil rights), even if imperfect, is far better. Especially if only free individuals (as opposed to citizens) with a basic, working knowledge of the constitution are allowed, by law, to choose representatives (as opposed to leaders) through a democratic prosess (which is NOT the same as a democracy).

The sad fact is that people of America already HAD a REPUBLIC. There WAS a republic, there WERE inalienable rights, there WAS simple workable Common Law, people WERE sovereign, etc. And what happened, hmm?

As regards 'Political Ponerology' , it is good that these perceptions have been formatted to fit the present time, but they are by no means newly discovered. They have been known for as long as souled individuals have been on the face of this earth. Sadly, with the advent and growth of mass communication structures, souled individuals have lost, to a large degree, their ability of intuitive logic. It has always been known that there are certain persons and groups that one should beware of. It has always been known that there are certain "signs" that indicate inherently bad persons or groups.

You seem to put the blame on mass communication, which as almost every tool is only as good or bad as people who use it. Here we get back to the problem of psychopaths.
Obviously, contrary to your belief, facts about inherently bad persons or groups weren't known.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I think the idea of self-governing communities instead of giant nation-state entities is probably good. But in the end, without knowledge of psychopathy in the general population, it wouldn't work, cuz the communities would end up secretly in "cahoots" together and still owned/run by the same person/group behind the scenes, like many countries/businesses are today. So I think there is no really best way to resolve this mechanically in terms of the mechanics of how the system would work, but consciously by simply preventing psychopaths or selfish or generally unfit to have any offices of responsibility. But having communities, where nothing on a large scale takes place without votes from communities and individual citizens, is good. It's like a big checks and balances system. And the direction any community or group of communities goes should be fully decided by the communities and all people within based on data and a conscious/critical analysis of the data.

But again the problem is that most people aren't conscious and critical, they can't make decisions - they're told what to decide. They can be manipulated to vote for any person or idea or direction through clever pathocratic/manipulative advertising of that idea/person/direction. So everything will always fail and continue to fail without critical/conscious awareness and knowledge on behalf of the general population, which goes back to what Laura said, and what many throughout history have said is a requirement for any kind of democracy, for any kind of freedom to exist. Knowledge is freedom, it's the only possible way, there are no shortcuts or mechanical systems that somehow guarantee freedom without requiring knowledge. Any such idea is a lie.

Thomas Jefferson's quotes on the subject:

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:207

"The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes." --Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779. FE 2:221, Papers 2:526

"The information of the people at large can alone make them the safe as they are the sole depositary of our political and religious freedom." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1810. ME 12:417

"The diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:322

"Though [the people] may acquiesce, they cannot approve what they do not understand." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Apportionment Bill, 1792. ME 3:211

(SAO's note: The above is exactly how our "voting" is done. People do not agree to a candidate, they just vote. The government pretends it has people's approval because it was "chosen by the people" - but people cannot choose what they do not understand, and yet they do anyway because the system allows for it, and everybody pretends that nothing is wrong with this)

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384

"No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1821. ME 19:408

"Freedom [is] the first-born daughter of science." --Thomas Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois, 1795. ME 9:297

"Light and liberty go together." --Thomas Jefferson to Tench Coxe, 1795. (SAO's note: Light=Love=Knowledge)

"We are now trusting to those who are against us in position and principle, to fashion to their own form the minds and affections of our youth... This canker is eating on the vitals of our existence, and if not arrested at once, will be beyond remedy." --Thomas Jefferson to James Breckinridge, 1821. ME 15:315
(SAO's note: Talking about psychopaths? They do eat the vitals of our existence, and knowledge is the only true remedy as he says.)

And a bunch more here:
_http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1350.htm

Sounds like the man understood what is necessary - that no mask, no "system" will work without an educated and critical citizens - all of them.

So when John says:

Democracy, as a c-o-n cept pertaining to liberty and rights, is perhaps the best weapon of mass destruction ever empolyed against humanity by sts/physcopath beings, both human and other.

I'd say, this is true for any system of government or ideology that is treated as a method of achieving liberty and rights that does not include an educated citizenry at its root. That no system througout history has ever worked to achieve what it had promised, not communism, not democracy, not anything, is a testament to the fact that it was all lies, all of it. A psychopath in charge of any system will make it into a tyrrany, under any name or symbol or flag or ideology. And ignorant citizens will just scratch their heads wondering "what went wrong", or worse, not realize that anything is wrong at all. We're doomed to repeat this cycle forever if the true problem is not globally understood by all people and addressed.

Addendum: John,

Lizards, physcopaths, OPs, cowards, willfully unintelligent human beings.

The problem with this list as I see it. Lizards are a working hypothesis. Psychopaths - they argue for every form of government, depending on where they are and what is popular. OP's - the same, but also normal people and everyone else who's brainwashed by psychopath does so as well. Cowards - everybody is afraid of everything, fear can be involved in almost any decision imaginable. But most people who argue for democracy or any other form of government do this because they are brainwashed, not because they are afraid of the alternative. We are not one person, we have many "i's". One part of you loves lies, another part hates/fears lies. One part of you loves truth, another hates/fears truth. Fear, anger, any emotion is not inherently bad, it's how you use it, and what it is aimed at and why, etc. It can teach and help, or it can lead to your destruction. Devil is in the details, it's up to you. And "Willfully unintelligent human beings" - most human beings have no will, after all, we are all machines until we choose not to be. Though it's not necessarily "fear of the truth" or "fear of lies", probably a better word is "aversion" or "discomfort-with". I seek truth not because I fear lies, though true, I do fear the consequences because I understand what they are, and I do fear what will happen if the world continues on its current path - for myself, my family, and the whole world. But I seek truth because I love truth, despite my own fear of it and aversion to it. You could even say that love of others is a motivator - I want to help the world, I want to help others escape their mire of confusion and slavery that I found myself in, cuz I know how horrible it is, especially when you wake up and SEE your natural state, your own sorry existence for what it is - I want to help ALL others, just as others have helped me, to get out of this web and wake up. For that I need truth, knowledge, I need to get myself out first so I don't accidentally lead them astray and make the situation worse. So it is my love for the world that drives my search for truth, love for "God" you could say. But just how strong that love is, and whether it is stronger than the mechanical pull of entropy, that is yet to be seen.

So it's a pretty meaningless list. I'd say the list is basically 2 things. Those who stand to benefit from it, and those who are ignorant and don't know any better.

 

[john_s]

domivr wrote:
"Is this assessment based on direct and personal experience with lizzies? Please elaborate."

Well, the lizzies heel has been on our neck for several hundred thousand years and it seems that there is little to nothing that we can do to change that until the wave arrives to level the playing field. Actually, we allowed them to place their heel on our neck. So, if you were a third party watching this transaction, whom would you say is intelligent?



Namaste wrote:
"I wonder why you understood it like that? May be that is you who are trying to defend yourself?"

I understood the communication that came with the symbols or words. When one says that someone has authored something that is hysterical, the implication is that one has stated that the author is hysterical. This amounts to, at very least, a careless accusation which is a form of assault. Had joe been truely curious (and polite)he would have inquired as to my reasoning. He did not.
Also, I have no need to defend myself from joe. My intent was to steer him to analyze his reactive statement. He did not present his thoughts in the form of contemplated conversation. Though I believe that he could do that.



sleepyvinny wrote:
"so. I don't know. this is as far as I've come with my reasoning, and everything I think of is still full of holes."

As regards this post, there actually are no real holes in your thinking. You have simply reached a logical conclusion without reallizing it. Or so it seems to me. We have the psychopaths, and they have us, and we are all stuck in this third density merry-go-round for the time being. The best we can do is to is to establish safeguards against them and they will do their best to breech those safeguards. It is a perfectly natural state of affairs. You might try repositioning your viewpoints to see the situation as an interesting challenge and perhaps aquire some interesting data to work with.
I find it refreshing to know that the "time being" is simply a passing state of affairs.



jOda wrote:
"The sad fact is that people of America already HAD a REPUBLIC. There WAS a republic, there WERE inalienable rights, there WAS simple workable Common Law, people WERE sovereign, etc. And what happened, hmm?"

O.K. This is not a precise
lesson in history. It is a generalization used to develope a point. At the end of the war of District aggression several states had been militarily subdued and several states had aquiesed to Federal rule. On or about eighteen seventy seven the Districy of Columbia reformed itself into a corporate democracy.It designed a new constitution for itself, the -U-nited States Constition. This is vastly different than the original -u-nited States Constitution. This new constitution was imposed on all states and enforced at gun point. This is blatant fraud and there is no statute of limitation on fraud, so it can be reversed. We still have a republic of sovereign States, inalienable organic rights, a simple, workable Common Law and the People of the sovereign States are still sovereign, etc. These things have been hidden because of the denial of truthful data to several generations of our forefathers. It's all still there, it's all still actual and workable. Just needs to be relighted and cleaned up.
Laura has posted an interesting work on transmarginal inhibition. It seems to me that the principals set forth in this work were used, at least in large part, to subject the original Republic of sovereign States to the unfettered democratic whims of the incorporated District of Columbia. It may be that since the time of the integration of human essence into second density organic bodies by the Orion organization(s) that some second density organic survival programing may have carried over, inpart or in whole, to the present day human races. This could explain how programing that alters the behavior of dogs could be used to affect the behavior of humans. Apparently dogs, in general, do not have well developed, concious, introspective analytical abilities. Also, it seems to me, that this programing technology deals primarily with the organic brain structure and so a workable option for humans might be to realize that mind and brain are seperate items and learn to use mind apart from brain. I say this because there seem to be documented cases where humans have been discovered to exist normally with little to no "necessary" brain mass. I also say this because if the powers that -would- be have allowed this data to the public at large then they probably have something more effective in the waiting. If so, it may be along the lines of a direct physical technology or perhaps something that can effect changes in mind itself.
But, getting back to what was, one does not learn to ride a bicycle instantly. One usually aquires a few bumps and bruises in the process. And so is the process of self determination by individuals and groups. Gravity (physcopathy) is always present, but becomes less of a hazard as we develop skill and prudence.

jOda wrote:
"You seem to put the blame on mass communication, which as almost every tool is only as good or bad as people who use it. Here we get back to the problem of psychopaths.
Obviously, contrary to your belief, facts about inherently bad persons or groups weren't known."

Actually, what I intended to convey by by this communication is that all knowingness and all ability exists within each of us. Therefore, to rely overly much on external sources to -in-form us tends to create a weakness which can be exploited by hostile others. Too much reliance on external sources can result in anchoring to these sources. If an anchor is lowered one often has less or no choice about being dragged down with it. This is not to say, and I did not say, that external sources are not useful, because they are. Each individual must develope a sense of prudence for himself and then make prudent decisions concerning his reliances as opposed accepting what he is told that his reliances should be. Externally cultivated mass reliance on some things can be exploitable by not so nice persons or groups.
Also, it is not my -belief- that "facts about inherently bad persons or groups were known". It is an observation that evil has been opposed well into the seeable past. Had the principals of evil not been at least intutively grasped there would not have been any successful opposition to evil. You cannot oppose successfully without some type of knowing of or data about what you are opposing. Data tends to be refined with time. The data we have about physcopathy today may be obsolete tommorrow. The word fact may have been a less than clear choice of terms. Please excuse me for that. In using the word fact, I had intended to convey the idea that some information or some form of data depicting the nature of evil existed during the seeable past. Most probably the format of this information or data differed according to need and circumstance by region thereby making it difficult to conceive of as universal. To view todays data and information on physcopathy as complete would be folly as more and better is likely to be brought forth in the future.



ScioAgapeOmnis wrote:
" Knowledge is freedom, it's the only possible way, there are no shortcuts or mechanical systems that somehow guarantee freedom without requiring knowledge. Any such idea is a lie."

It would seem to me that knowledge, in and of itself, has little ability to accomplish. Whereas knowledge, when used to authorize and initiate a corresponding action, can accomplish, even to a phenominal level. So, in all honesty, I cannot blame any mechanical system for failing in and of itself. I can say that failures generally occur because physcopaths aquire knowledge and then -act- accordingly. I hope we can learn to act on knowledge better than they do.


ScioAgapeOmnis wrote:
"Sounds like the man understood what is necessary - that no mask, no "system" will work without an educated and critical citizens - all of them."

Thomas Jefferson is a brilliant individual. I say -is- because his wisdom is timeless and he lives through that wisdom.



ScioAgapeOmnis wrote:
"I'd say, this is true for any system of government or ideology that is treated as a method of achieving liberty and rights that does not include an educated citizenry at its root."


I agree, but I would add one small ammendment. I would say educated and active citizenry.



ScioAgapeOmnis wrote:
"So it's a pretty meaningless list. I'd say the list is basically 2 things. Those who stand to benefit from it, and those who are ignorant and don't know any better."

I am a bit unclear on "those who stand to benefit from it". Do you mean those who stand to benefit from the list or those who stand to benefit from democracy? I would appreciate your help with this.



To whom it may concern: I am pressed for time and have not checked spelling and grammer closely. Please forgive.

john_s

 

[vinny]

ScioAgapeOmnis wrote:
"So it's a pretty meaningless list. I'd say the list is basically 2 things. Those who stand to benefit from it, and those who are ignorant and don't know any better."

I am a bit unclear on "those who stand to benefit from it". Do you mean those who stand to benefit from the list or those who stand to benefit from democracy? I would appreciate your help with this.

I'm sure SAO meant those who stand to benefit from 'democracy', ie: potential abusers of power who see this as just another ideology to 'use' like all the others (so that would include psycho's and any hypothetical STS higher power structure); plus those who find (illusory) comfort in believing that such a system will 'look after them', so they don't have to think for themselves (so, OPs and functional-OPs: anyone mechanically taking the path of least resistance - which is pretty damn much everyone).

 

[john_s]

sleepyvinny wrote:
"I'm sure SAO meant ....everyone).

Thanks. Have been busy.
john_s

 

[Ormond]

This will make it crystal clear why the mainstream media is pushing the meme that 'Democracy is 'dead'.

Note: Transcripts of this CFR book aren’t on the internet. The following chapter was transcribed verbatim from a1991 Pantheon Books paperback first edition.
July 16, 2007

http://www.danbutlerprojects.com/share/The_Vacuum.doc

THE CLUB OF ROME


The First Global Revolution
A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome
Pantheon Books
New York, 1991. ISBN #0-679-73825-8

Chapter V pg 104

THE VACUUM

 

[alberto]

Well,after reading some of the opinions about democracy and if still alive or not I have this to say.
I do not think a "democracy" is after all a good way to represent and do justice to all at all.
First of all a democracy will represent the opinion of most people or will represent the will of most people but what about the minority?
The minority will never have a voice and will always be silent.
In other words you will have togo with the flow or you will be in trouble.
In a democracy you only have the right to agree with the majority.
In the dark ages if you said that the earth was round and circled around the sun you wouldn't see the next day alive,but hey it was the majority!!!!!.
Today the majority has other ways to silence the minority.
They use TV AND THE MEDIA to ruin your live if the think you are rocking the boat too much.
Their best ally is the people's stupidity because people believe that if in on TV then it must be true.
JUSTICE FOR ALL is a myth.
If you have money enough to buy the best team of lawyers that they know the art to spin the truth,twist words then you would be found NOT GUILTY.
Not to mention we are living in the era of so called "experts"
There are experts on everything you can imagine and they use them to back their lies.
When I say "they" I mean politicians,people with power,etc.
So, do I think democracy is dead?
Well, who cares, is not good for me anyway I am a minority!!

 

[vinny]

I would say that once you have an understanding of the study of ponerology, it becomes clearer as to why it is not 'democracy' that is directly the problem (the idea of: freedom of political expression, with societal rules based on majority consensus via proportional representation), but those who pretend to implement it, whilst in fact creating a monster. It is the same thing that happened with communism - a monster created under the pretence of 'everybody shares'.

so the problem is the lack of knowledge among the general population, regarding the psychopaths who implement these sham ideologies. In such a situation, NO system is going to work -. they can easily kill off 'democracy' (so called) and invisibly latch onto something else, whilst underneath it all, carrying on with the same monster.