Democracy is dead??

  • Thread starter Thread starter eagles fly free
  • Start date Start date
Even if votes did matter and weren't rigged, do the people who cast them know the truth about the candidate they are voting for? Well, they consistently vote for blood thirsty psychopaths believing that they are awesome guys who want to help. So uh, no. So "freedom of political expression" is irrelevant if your "political opinion" is totally managed to begin with. Anything you "express" is what you're told to believe anyway, a lie. So it always comes back to the fact that all ideologies are irrelevant. If there is a possibility for psychopaths to be in control, then everything will always work the same way. And that possibility always and only exists when people are ignorant of them. So knowledge on behalf of *all* people is the only solution. There will never exist a world where a benevolent STO group governs a group of ignorant sheep. The destiny of all sheep is either to be eaten by wolves or herded by shepherds for skin and food. STS will always exist, and as long as people *can* be manipulated, they *will* be manipulated and controlled. Ideologies will just come and go like different species of fish. But as long as the fish are underwater, they'll all be equally wet.
 
After thinking about so-called democracy for some time, I have come to the realization that the whole "election process" is a big sham. It's all based on "electability." Consider what writes in his book "Blink."

The Warren Harding Error:
Why We Fall For Tall, Dark, and Handsome Men

Early one morning in 1899, in the back garden of the Globe
Hotel in Richwood, Ohio, two men met while having their
shoes shined. One was a lawyer and lobbyist from the state
capital of Columbus. His name was Harry Daugherty. He
was a thick-set, red-faced man with straight black hair, and
he was brilliant. He was the Machiavelli of Ohio politics, the
classic behind-the-scenes fixer, a shrewd and insightful
judge of character or, at least, political opportunity. The
second man was a newspaper editor from the small town of
Marion, Ohio, who was at that moment a week away from
winning election to the Ohio state senate. His name was
Warren Harding. Daugherty looked over at Harding and was
instantly overwhelmed by what he saw. As the journalist
Mark Sullivan wrote, of that moment in the garden:
Harding was worth looking at. He was at the time about
35 years old. His head, features, shoulders and torso had
a size that attracted attention; their proportions to each other
made an effect which in any male at any place would justify
more than the term handsome - in later years when he came
to be known beyond the local world, the word "Roman" was
occasionally used in description of him. As he stepped down
from the stand, his legs bore out the striking and agreeable
proportions of his body; and his lightness on his feet, his erectness,
his easy bearing, added to the impression of physical grace and
virility. His suppleness combined with his bigness of frame, and
his large, wide-set, rather glowing, eyes, heavy black hair and
rather markedly bronzed complexions gave him some of the
handsomeness of an Indian. His courtesy as he surrendered his
seat to the other customer suggested genuine friendliness toward
all mankind. His voice was noticeably resonant, masculine, warm.
His pleasure in the attention of the bootblack's whisk reflected a
consciousness about clothes unusual in a small-town man. His
manner as he bestowed a tip suggested generous good-nature,
a wish to give pleasure, based on physical well-being and sincere
kindliness of heart.

In that instant, as Daugherty sized up Harding, an idea came
to him that would alter American history: Wouldn't that man
make a great President?

Warren Harding was not a particularly intelligent man. He
liked to play poker and golf and to drink and, most of all, to
chase women; in fact, his sexual appetites were the stuff of
legend. As he rose from one political office to another, he
never once distinguished himself. He was vague and
ambivalent on matters of policy. His speeches were once
described as "an army of pompous phrases moving
over the landscape in search of an idea." After being
elected to the U.S. Senate in 1914, he was absent for the de-
bates on women's suffrage and Prohibition - two of the
biggest political issues of his time. He advanced steadily
from local Ohio politics only because he was pushed by his
wife, Florence, and stage-managed by the scheming Harry
Daugherty and because, as he grew older, he grew more
and more irresistibly distinguished-looking. Once, at a
banquet, a supporter cried out, "Why, the son of a bitch
looks like a senator," and so he did. By early middle age,
Harding's biographer Francis Russell writes, his "lusty
black eyebrows contrasted with his steel-gray hair to give
the effect of force, his massive shoulders and bronzed com-
plexion gave the effect of health." Harding, according to
Russell, could have put on a toga and stepped onstage in a
production of Julius Caesar. Daugherty arranged for Hard-
ing to address the 1916 Republican presidential convention
because he knew that people only had to see Harding and
hear that magnificent rumbling voice to be convinced of
his worthiness for higher office. In 1920, Daugherty
convinced Harding, against Harding's better judgment, to
run for the White House. Daugherty wasn't being facetious.
He was serious.

"Daugherty, ever since the two had met, had carried in
the back of his mind the idea that Harding would make a
`great President,' Sullivan writes. "Sometimes, uncon-
sciously, Daugherty expressed it, with more fidelity to
exactness, `a great-looking President." Harding entered the
Republican convention that summer sixth among a field of
six. Daugherty was unconcerned. The convention was
deadlocked between the two leading candidates, so,
Daugherty predicted, the delegates would be forced to
look for an alternative. To whom else would they turn, in
that desperate moment, if not to the man who radiated
common sense and dignity and all that was presidential?

In the early morning hours, as they gathered in the smoke-
filled back rooms of the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago, the
Republican Party bosses threw up their hands and asked,
wasn't there a candidate they could all agree on? And one
name came immediately to mind: Harding! Didn't he look
just like a presidential candidate? So Senator Harding be-
came candidate Harding, and later that fall, after a cam-
paign conducted from his front porch in Marion, Ohio,
candidate Harding became President Harding. Harding
served two years before dying unexpectedly of a stroke.
He was, most historians agree, one of the worst presidents
in American history.
This typifies the election process: a show run by careful choreographers, put out by the media.

So, of course, to fix what is wrong with democracy, the media would first have to be dealt with.

I think that all public media should be publicly owned and overseen by public commissions that are not in any way related to politics - neither elected nor appointed, but selected by random lottery from pools of qualified citizens. Only in this way can we guarantee to ourselves the support that is needed to accomplish everything else that must be done to clean up the mess that Ruthless, Greedy Men have made of our planet.

Once I thought about that, I realized that this was also the perfect solution for government: pools of individuals that have been vetted as psychologically healthy, from every profession, selected by lottery to serve specified terms - like 5 to 7 years - and provided with standard housing and reasonable salaries while serving in government.

All lobbying should be outlawed. Any issue under consideration should be turned over to a committee of researchers that are experts in the field and who work in conjunction with a panel of citizens selected as described above: from a pool of candidates, and preferably from the various professions that might be impacted by the subject at hand.

Serving in government should not be, in any way, rewarded by accrual of power and money, it should, instead, be rewarded by honor and esteem. In this way, it would attract an entirely different kind of person.

Anyway, those are just some of my imperfectly formed thoughts about democracy and how it COULD work.
 
Personally, I don't think the masses of humanity are now (and possibly never were) mature enough to govern themselves. A best case scenario IMO would be where a group of people who together were intellectually and emotionally mature and positively oriented towards others, would assume control of the day to day living of the rest of the people. This group would vet and hire other people necessary for the day to day functioning of the society (whatever the level of technological progress). Of course, there would likely be those who did not want to form part of such a society. These could go off and form their own. Chances are however, that this group, not being exactly conspecific with the first group, would eventually initiate hostilities of some description.

So basically, my scenario wouldn't work, at least not in sense of creating a peaceable world.

In short, as long as human beings maintain the proclivity for violence, there will always be violence in this world. Today, we are just at an advanced stage where the "not exactly conspecific group" have over long years, risen to positions of almost complete control over the rest of us. In getting there, they have systematically murdered those people who could have formed part of the first group I mention above.

Joe
 
I think it should be treated and conducted as a "public service". The government's purpose should be exactly what it is defined to be (but totally ignored in practice) - it's for the people, to serve the people and their interests - and in no way are they allowed to manipulate, manage, or influence what those interests are. And I know I'd be asking for too much here, but if we could integrate "waking up" as a requirement for all kids, that'd be nice. Kinda like public schools are required - but real schools that teach to critically think, to observe and eliminate our own machines and programs, to learn about manipulation and conversive thinking and all other pathocratic/STS methodoligies, and how not to ever be a victim of them, ever. To teach to be objective at all times, to recognize what is a true STO and STS, etc. And from childhood to help kids to develop a conscious center, and to eliminate standardised "public classrooms" and address each child individually because everyone is at different stages and abilities, has different needs and responds to different approach, etc. Of course this would not eliminate socialization or isolate anyone from others because interaction with others will be available under a different context and purpose than classrooms, clubs, and bars. Where groups like this one are available not just over the internet but everywhere, a big global network and... ah nammit wishful thinking again :O

But I agree with Joe, "we" can't really "establish" something like this without at least some political control over the current system. We can't just suggest it and wait for either the psychopaths or the sleeping majority to see the benefit of this, that'll never happen. But we also can't force it on anyone. So I think it basically comes down to, something like this forum. We have our own little spot in the world, with its own goals and methods, and a focus on personal growth and awakening of all involved, collecting and spreading Knowledge. And then others can join this group under the condition that they understand and follow the rules and behave. And I think, like with this group, given the fact that everybody is totally different in terms of intentions, knowledge, etc, there has to be a conscious group that is at the root, and is in the end "in control" of the system itself, otherwise all is lost. Because as soon as the conscious group is not in control, chaos resumes, any and all point and purpose is diffused and survival/manipulation becomes the name of the game again - like what would happen if this forum is given to just a random group to run it, it wouldn't work. But at the same time the conscious group cannot control the people, but just establish and maintain the rules of their own world/system/group, and joining it and leaving it is always voluntary (except when ejecting someone who does not follow the rules).

This makes me wonder, if a world was purely STO, how would they deal with STS who say "give me your planet or I open fire". Do they just move out and let STS in? If so, where does this end? What if STS says "I want your body" - do you just say ah well I can always find another body to incarnate into, and you abandon your physical body to avoid conflict? Ok, what if STS says "I want all your energy", do you surrender that as well? At which point are you rendered into nothingness as a result of avoiding conflict, because you're afraid that "owning something" is STS? I don't think STO owns/controls, but at the same time, it does utilize energy, utilizes planets, utilizes technology, utilize whatever is necessary to achieve their goals. And if they just keep giving up all the necessary tools that they created or found like planets, technology, their bodies, energies, they'll never achieve anything, they'll always just be busy running and giving over to STS demands.

I know this may sound trivial but I'm kinda battling this idea, and it just makes sense that a line has to be drawn to achieve anything, but where? If a group of 10 STS show up, would a planet of a billion STO move to accomodate their demands, because STO does not wish to "own" the planet? Is it reasonable to relocate billions at the whim of a bunch of snotty STS? Who is the STO serving by this? All the energy and resources that would go into giving the STS group this planet and relocating and finding another planet could be spent on serving other worlds and learning. So they are not serving anybody, only the STS group to become stronger and get more resources to enslave others with.

So when Joe says "assume control", it seems that this actually can be STO, please correct me if I'm off my rocker. At some point, STO has to assume control over a resource/system/energy/physical body/object/whatever in order to do *anything*, to do their job as STO, and to refuse to relinquish this "thing" whatever it may be to others just because they demand it, so that the STO group may continue to be of service to others. And this may also be why the yin yang has a black dot on the white half. You gotta defend what is necessary when it's necessary to preserve your usefulness to service to others, whether it is your own free will, your own energy, your own body, or your own planet. Maybe at higher densities this list grows smaller as you "need" less resources to be STO. But like at 3rd density, you even need ground to walk on, so if you don't defend your ground, you can't do anything at all cuz you're missing what is necessary for you to continue existing and doing what you do.

The C's have remarked about certain technologies/artifacts created by STO but sought after by STS, but STO has hidden them so that the STS cannot acquire them. Not because they "own" this stuff and wish to have it for themselves just to have it, but because giving power to STS eliminates the point of serving others as STO, you're empowering the side that will cancel out any service you give. If every other dollar you made you gave to STS, your total service is 0 cuz each dollar you use for STO, the next one you give to STS and it is used for STS. So don't give all your money to psychopaths just because they demand it. I think this is easier at 4th density since we depend on a lot less, so we can focus more energy on serving and less on defending our "tools", etc. Does that make any sense, or is my reasoning off on all of that?
 
ScioAgapeOmnis said:
But I agree with Joe, "we" can't really "establish" something like this without at least some political control over the current system. We can't just suggest it and wait for either the psychopaths or the sleeping majority to see the benefit of this, that'll never happen. But we also can't force it on anyone. So I think it basically comes down to, something like this forum. We have our own little spot in the world, with its own goals and methods, and a focus on personal growth and awakening of all involved, collecting and spreading Knowledge. And then others can join this group under the condition that they understand and follow the rules and behave. And I think, like with this group, given the fact that everybody is totally different in terms of intentions, knowledge, etc, there has to be a conscious group that is at the root, and is in the end "in control" of the system itself, otherwise all is lost.
Precisely, but it is a temporary construct to fulfill a certain purpose. When that purpose has been fulfilled, it disappears.

ScioAgapeOmnis said:
This makes me wonder, if a world was purely STO, how would they deal with STS who say "give me your planet or I open fire". Do they just move out and let STS in? If so, where does this end? What if STS says "I want your body" - do you just say ah well I can always find another body to incarnate into, and you abandon your physical body to avoid conflict? Ok, what if STS says "I want all your energy", do you surrender that as well? At which point are you rendered into nothingness as a result of avoiding conflict, because you're afraid that "owning something" is STS? I don't think STO owns/controls, but at the same time, it does utilize energy, utilizes planets, utilizes technology, utilize whatever is necessary to achieve their goals. And if they just keep giving up all the necessary tools that they created or found like planets, technology, their bodies, energies, they'll never achieve anything, they'll always just be busy running and giving over to STS demands.
It's not about lying down and submitting to predators, far from it. There is definite aspect of defense and even conflict, but just not on the terms that the bad guys play. The difference is that we are defending something that is not ours, it is a principle that exists in reality at large. There is no identification with it as "ours". We simply serve a function, as it is in us to do so.

ScioAgapeOmnis said:
I know this may sound trivial but I'm kinda battling this idea, and it just makes sense that a line has to be drawn to achieve anything, but where? If a group of 10 STS show up, would a planet of a billion STO move to accomodate their demands, because STO does not wish to "own" the planet?
No, STO would defend the principle of creativity, and not allow it to be negated by STS. It is serving the purpose of bringing balance to all things. It is in fact just a game.

ScioAgapeOmnis said:
So when Joe says "assume control", it seems that this actually can be STO, please correct me if I'm off my rocker. At some point, STO has to assume control over a resource/system/energy/physical body/object/whatever in order to do *anything*, to do their job as STO, and to refuse to relinquish this "thing" whatever it may be to others just because they demand it, so that the STO group may continue to be of service to others. And this may also be why the yin yang has a black dot on the white half. You gotta defend what is necessary when it's necessary to preserve your usefulness to service to others, whether it is your own free will, your own energy, your own body, or your own planet. Maybe at higher densities this list grows smaller as you "need" less resources to be STO. But like at 3rd density, you even need ground to walk on, so if you don't defend your ground, you can't do anything at all cuz you're missing what is necessary for you to continue existing and doing what you do.
pretty much, but with the caveat that there is no identification with anything that you are defending in terms of it being "mine". It is about serving a function.

ScioAgapeOmnis said:
The C's have remarked about certain technologies/artifacts created by STO but sought after by STS, but STO has hidden them so that the STS cannot acquire them. Not because they "own" this stuff and wish to have it for themselves just to have it, but because giving power to STS eliminates the point of serving others as STO, you're empowering the side that will cancel out any service you give. If every other dollar you made you gave to STS, your total service is 0 cuz each dollar you use for STO, the next one you give to STS and it is used for STS. So don't give all your money to psychopaths just because they demand it. I think this is easier at 4th density since we depend on a lot less, so we can focus more energy on serving and less on defending our "tools", etc. Does that make any sense, or is my reasoning off on all of that?
I don't think it is possible to even speculate about what is or is not at "4D". We simply cannot imagine. Gotta wait apparently and focus on the job in hand here. STO serves STS in certain instances. For example, "the C's" serve us and we are STS, but in doing so they are serving STO. The are many factors to consider, and very few involve linear thinking. :-)

Joe
 
people please group all of the Greeks into one catagory, i.e. Athens and Sparta have very distinct cultures. I believe there is already a thread about women's role in the different city states. In Sparta women many more rights, essentially they ran the city state, the men considered it their duty to protect the Sparta but they really didn't run it.
 
I've been thinking about this for sometime too - that democracy by design is unworkable. First of all at it's basic form, it's no different to mob-rule, the majority whether wrong or right will overpower the minority and enforce it's values on others. That's very STS. On top of that, there's no need for any moral guidelines in a democracy, just majority rules and the rule or guidelines can be changed on whatever the majority wants, even if it wants the worst things imaginable.

Worse still, all it takes is to tip over just a small percentage above 50% for disastrous changes to happen, i.e. 1% over will allow decisions to be enforceable on the other 49%. That's really a mass stepping over of free will but many feel that's OK because people as a whole should know what's in their own best interests.

But there is a big assumption here. That assumption is that we all have the capabilities and information at hand to know what we need to know. So all it takes to gain power for any small group is to make people believe that they are "in the know", and at the same time take away real knowledge from them - isn't that what our media is all about? So given psychopathic leaders are intent on maintaining power, democracy under this circumstance will always favour creating an ignorant majority.

So democracy is actually a great tool for psychopathic leaders, because if you dumb down the people, you feed them lies, their values and decisions can be easily twisted, so they will "vote" the way they are designed to "vote" and have a false sense that they have "control" over their political destiny when in fact they don't. But by some small chance that doesn't work on the day, you can always fudge the votes in your favour anyway, because you're in control and your ignorant majority will believe whatever you say.

On it's own, as a system to run anything I feel democracy too is just bad design. What if a company like Google decided to run by democracy so a cleaner had an equal vote to those who know their product well or those who built the company. It wouldn't happen because it wouldn't work as a business. It wouldn't work here as a forum, that was a good point above - would it work at all? I reckon it's telling too that the current world powers ransack the rest of the world to install democracy, as if without democracy people are doomed. Democracy is held in such high esteem, its been trained into us that way too via our state funded and/or overseen education system - this is very telling also.
 
Democracy, at least what we believe it to be, can't be dead because it never was. In the time of the Greeks the only citizens were the very few. Being so small in numbers there is a chance that between themselves the practice of democratic rules/customs did take place. The majority (in numbers) of the people that lived on Greek territory were excluded from "the system".
And centuries later, here in America, democracy never was either. America is a Republic, not a Democracy.
And as for the Constitution and its famed but never proven system of "checks and balances", that is also food for the gullible. Anybody interested, read Jerry Fresia's Toward an American Revolution, subtitled Exposing the Constitution and other Illusions, South End Press, Boston, MA, 1988. :(
 
alkhemst said:
I've been thinking about this for sometime too - that democracy by design is unworkable. First of all at it's basic form, it's no different to mob-rule, the majority whether wrong or right will overpower the minority and enforce it's values on others. That's very STS. On top of that, there's no need for any moral guidelines in a democracy, just majority rules and the rule or guidelines can be changed on whatever the majority wants, even if it wants the worst things imaginable.

I agree alkhemst, I think you nailed it on the head. That is why I appreciate Orlov's Communities that Abide. He says that humans have always done better in smaller working groups of around 150 people. Then if they are all similar in their understandings and like-minded, there doesn't have to be an authority figure, just those who may have more responsibility than others. They will all work together towards the same goal and not become overextended or begin politicking. Certainly something to think about.

From Orlov:

As we prepare, we must understand two things. The first is that little can be achieved by acting alone or as nuclear families; what is needed is a band, a clan, a tribe. The second is that we must think small: within the limits of Dunbar's number, which is somewhere between 100 and 230 individuals, and is commonly taken to be around 150. This number is based on the cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable personal relationships. Indeed, throughout much of human history, people lived in groups that rarely exceeded Dunbar's number. Larger groups are possible, but only at great expense, either in the form of exorbitant amounts of time expended on “social grooming” (a.k.a. politics) or through the imposition of authoritarian, hierarchical structures which tend to be very inefficient. Thus, larger groups are, by their very nature, less efficient, squandering resources on organizational maintenance, which smaller groups avoid. The number 150 is ubiquitous.

_http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2013/07/communities-that-abidepart-i.html
 
alkhemst, CNS: I concur with your comments. And as well, of course, with Orlov's substantial explanations. Thanks for your contributions. They are appreciated. :cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom