All Categories

Persistent Happiness

7/13/2019

The Ultimate Quest of Mankind

The general consensus of Philosophers is that the state known as persistent happiness is an unattainable utopia, but for some philosophers, it may be attainable by living in a loosely defined time called the present.

The general consensus of monotheisms is that persistent happiness is attainable only by living in what is known as the grace of the One God be it down here on earth or up there in the afterlife/Heaven/Paradise.

The general consensus of some of the eastern religions is that persistent happiness is attainable only by detachment from normal life, and by living with other detached people in monasteries.

The general consensus of humanity is that what we call happiness are but periods or moments in life sandwiched between other emotional states.

And of course we should not forget the current trend of “persistent happiness in ten easy steps” sort of teachings…

I think persistent happiness is not an impossible utopia, is not contingent on being detached from life, is not in vague terms like grace, a hypothetical Paradise, or in techniques of auto suggestion.
Living in the present won’t help either, because it would mean getting detached from the continuum of our time on earth hence from our life. Our memories will transport us in our past, and our projects and hopes will project us into the future. So living in the present would mean living without memories without projects and without hope. In my personal opinion, this tragic perspective of a life can never lead to persistent happiness.

If we adopt the premise that collectivism is a slower but wiser and incomparably more powerful version of individualism ensuring individual survival/prosperity in situations where greater means of action than that of individuals are required, then we have to question the generally accepted though pathetic outlooks of humanity to “happiness”:
Can a human being be persistently happy in an ocean of human beings (or even animals) in misery? Strange, that’s what he always thinks.
Can a human being consider himself happy simply because he is less miserable than other human beings? Strange, that’s what he always considers.
Can a human being look for the few positive aspects of his existence and consider it a source of happiness? Strange, that’s what he always does.
It is tragic to have such pathetic expectations for happiness.

Humanity suffers not only from the lack of persistent happiness, but is made to live without any perspective of persistent happiness.

In its quest for persistent happiness humanity is even sometimes led to minimize the importance of the first condition to persistent happiness: a state of inalterable material abundance/physical well-being, and to compensate either:
-by exaggerating the scale/importance of his furtive moments of physical/emotional well-being by considering them as its fair share of true bliss, or
-by creating an abundance of fatalistic “wisdom” and/or religious “spirituality” by repeating phrases like “This is the way it should be” and/or “this is God’s will” to dream itself in a state of persistent happiness by making itself imagine knowing an unknown/unknowable/hypothetical purpose for its unenviable state.

Humanity may even be made to go to such lengths as to make itself think that material abundance is detrimental to persistent happiness.
Material abundance can indeed become detrimental for happiness but only in the very precise context of a pathologic obsession for accumulation.
Only the fear of lacking (scarcity) and/or confusing his personal worth with that of his possessions can cause that kind of obsession in a human being.
It should be noted that the accumulation of the needed scarcities themselves rarely creates an obsession. The accumulation of the means to acquire these scarcities is the common creator of obsession/dependence hence unhappiness.

Persistent happiness is only possible under two simultaneous conditions:
When all needs are abundantly met, and the ego is satisfied to the full.

What is “an ego satisfied to the full”?
By probing itself and its environment, the human abstract mind became aware of the existence of the “understandable” (hence controllable/useable) laws controlling the entire universe.
It saw its own stupendous, unique power of understanding and eventually using all of the laws of the universe and tailored the human ego accordingly.
So until proof of the contrary, the human ego knows that man is the only creature aware of the cosmos, furthermore possessing the potential to understand and use its laws.
Under these conditions it is not unreasonable to consider that the human ego considers Man as the self-awareness of the cosmos.
And though scarcity has always taught man and with good reason that “more” is the only way for survival and well-being, it is my certainty that understanding and interacting with all the laws of the cosmos remains the unmitigated purpose of the human ego.

Understanding its environment has been man’s basic survival trait.
The true scale of the human ego is the scale of its need to understand.
The true scale of the human ego is the scale of its environment: the Cosmos.
Substitute trivial purposes created by scarcity like riches and power which only grant access to scarcities can never satisfy our ego definitively, only deceive it that maybe “more” will …
Abundance will be the end of all the scarcity-related trivial purposes.

If our ego, tailored by the most powerful tool in the universe (our abstract mind) is allowed to express its true nature and scale in an unprecedented, inspiring collective endeavor to understand, domesticate and use the laws governing nature and the cosmos to create whatever our collective sees fit thus satisfying our collective ego to the full,
Then be it by the endeavor itself, by the conquest of an extreme lifespan in health and youth, by the creation of free abundance or by the unshakeable peace a trans-generational alliance of all nations of man would create, the thought-to-be-impossible “persistent happiness” will be the persistently inspired “persistent euphoria” of humanity.

The universe containing us holds the double key lock to human euphoria.
Our all-capable abstract mind holds one key, the collective of our nations holds the other.
Both keys should be inserted and turned simultaneously.

2 Comments

Superiority

7/13/2019

0 Comments

Oxford definition:

Higher in rank, status or quality.
Having or showing an overly high opinion of oneself; conceited.

No defined limit existing between normal and “overly high”, both can only exist as subjective estimates which need to be determined within each context.
So to stay clear of unmanageable estimates, we need to work with the simplest of relative terms defining superiority: “higher”, which in a context of value would translate into “better”, and in a context of importance into “higher indispensability”. Since those are all relative terms, then they can only make sense and have a purpose in a collective: a clan.

A clan is a group of individuals cooperating for collective survival/prosperity in an environment of scarcity and constant conflict with other clans for the acquisition and the protection of property/scarcities.
In a clan, individuals have the imperative to be “good” to each other to survive and prosper as a clan, and “bad” to rival clans with which they always are in some form of active or passive conflict over scarcities.
Incidentally, Good and bad are but the subjective human designations for some of the behavioral consequences of scarcity, and naturally these designations are inversed in the opposed perspectives of rival clans.

Why be “superior”?
In a clan where individuals have the imperative to be “good” to each other, people need to acquire subtle, non-conflicting/non-violent means to “deserve” more prosperity hence acquire a higher priority of access to scarcities within the clan. “Superiority” does the trick.
So in an environment of scarcity, “superiority” would be a successful strategy of non-violent competition to acquire a higher degree of indulgence from the clan to personal desires including security and prosperity.
If, hypothetically, “superiority” was unsuccessful or had always implied the lowest degree of indulgence hence the lowest degree of security or prosperity in the clan, would it be nurtured through the eons and be transformed into a basic trait of behavior?

The logical evolution of this successful strategy of personal superiority deserving greater prosperity would be to expand and be transformed into a clan superiority to be used as a justification for any conquest which always is about acquisition hence for abundance, in spite of any pretext.

In between clans this auto-proclamation of “superiority” can go to extreme lengths in its quest for prosperity; slavery to create almost-free abundance or genocide to acquire the entire property of their victims.
But if humans can go to such lengths by an auto-proclamation of superiority, then no need to speculate upon the lengths they will consider going if this superiority becomes a divine pretext “revealed” by a certain mystical superior being, even if the “revelation” was repeated to three different groups at three different times and is always about the superiority of each one over the others.

For monotheists “superiority” is the only crucial issue: the superiority of their own doctrine comprised of the auto-presentation of their one God and His “revealed” system of demands and recompense over all the others. It starts with the Genesis making God think and apprehend not only humans but Himself as well in terms of “better than”, “the best”, “the most powerful” or the “only” and naturally this central apprehension of “superiority” becomes the central apprehension of all monotheisms and monotheists consequently creating their way of life and the perfect pretext for expansion, intolerance, and conflict.
In the east, the land of supposed “inferior” religions, when two strangers met, they used to ask in open, respectful acceptance: “To what sublime religion do you belong?”.

Humans will lower themselves to unfathomable depths of inhumanity in the name of an undefined yet considered as divine “righteousness” to destroy an undefined yet considered as anti-divine “unrighteousness”, both direct reflections of Good and bad, themselves simultaneous consequences programmed in human nature by eons of collective survival as clans in scarcity.
Scarcity is the only cause of every aspect of the consequence called “human nature”, including every behavior and sentiment.

Even if the intertwined hypothesis of superiority having its origin in a clan as a successful non-violent strategy for superior abundance needs layers of analysis and clarification due to its generalization to almost all domains of human organization (hierarchy), the clear cut “Theory of Clans in scarcity” is the one theory that simply and clearly explains all and every human behavior.
Everything would have been so simple to understand and consequently life would have been easier if the presented one God was not presented as an entity with such modest logical capacities as to confuse cause and consequence.

So the main, simple, primitive strategy of “better than”, “the best” and/or “the only” allowing easier access to scarcities within the clan could have developed through the eons to not only become the leitmotif of aggression/conquest, not only the divine design of creation, not only the apprehension of the monotheism presented one God of his supposed creation, not only the outlook of every monotheist to any other religion including other monotheisms, but to become the auto-apprehension of the one God Himself.
So before the infantile confusion between cause and consequence, the current monotheistic divine cause of everything (Good) including the reason of its own existence was simply the consequence of human clans evolving in scarcity.

Not knowing better, we still think and behave in terms of “better than” or “the best” and seek power or recognition, not realizing that these in fact divulge an instinctive, deep insecurity and a clear incapacity to evolve outside the realm of our fear or lacking, even while living in obscene abundance.
These make ALL of us the victims of our instinctive yet very logical fear of lacking.
We always were and still are the children of scarcity.
Will we be able to change our environment of scarcity and in doing so, eventually change ourselves as well?

But if men still think that mankind will always have an irrational side which will aggressively oppose even the most pertinent logic and basic rationality if it involves discarding their instinctive, intuitive fears and behaviors, then the following should be considered:
- Under the current conditions of existence man can definitively be seen as both rational and irrational, logical and instinctive but taking a few moments to think about any domain of his irrationality or instinct we realize that there was a long lost time when all of these behaviors currently apprehended as irrational/instinctive/intuitive were a must for survival and prosperity. If there was no need for them, they would never have existed. This makes these fears and behaviors extremely logical, the ultimate rationality for that time which lasted for a few hundred thousand years.
- Also, if these behaviors were elaborated/programmed in his nature for so long, then it is also the ultimate rationality not to let them go easily, even if we realize that they no more serve a purpose.

Mankind was, is, and always will be exclusively rational.
There is not a shred of irrationality in the thinking algorithms of men.
The thing is to have the real INFORMATION to which to apply his rational mental algorithms.
Man is the ultimate rational creature who craves understanding, even if sometimes in the absence of factual knowledge, he takes shortcuts to knowledge either by extrapolating the law of cause and effect into superstition by creating spirits to “understand” natural phenomenon, or by considering childish, extravagant stories as the “revelation” of the knowledge he craves.

There is no doubt in my mind that when mankind is communicated the real information about its new conditions of existence, as always it will behave rationally and very slowly but surely will do the logical thing even while enduring the soul-draining pain of gradually letting its “gut-felt” certitudes (and fears) go, if not “properly” frightened by “global” players for whom any change means losing their archaic strategy of domination to own everything existing.

In the game of Monopoly, someone owns everything at the end after forcing family and friends into bankruptcy.
What happens next?
In the game “The bank” is not allowed to play, very unlike our current planetary game of Monopoly where a consortium of the biggest banks is the only one playing and using representative democracy to force us to play along.

As hard as it is to imagine, in total, everlasting abundance any form of individual or clan superiority will be slowly but definitively replaced by a form of acceptance/respect, since superiority can no more serve a positive purpose but only irritate partners and endanger their vital support for a life of abundance and euphoria.

0 Comments

WAR

6/23/2019

1 Comment

We are made to believe that a global war is a solution to a global economic/financial crisis, presenting the opulence of Western Europe after World War II as proof.

War is by far the most expensive project man can ever be forced into. It’s so expensive that it quickly depletes any resource, even that of empires.
How does borrowing billions further for useless destruction AND needless reconstruction solve an impoverishing crisis?
Something else had to be at work after WW II.
WW I made the global economic situation so much worse that the rival nations had barely the time to catch their breath before being forced into the much more devastating WW II only two decades later.

But after WW II, the yet greater financial crisis and devastation was relaxed by the ingenious Marshal Plan which consisted of American donations and loans to what is now known as the Western European countries.
These donations were contingent on buying American goods, ensuring a rapid recuperation for the Western Europeans and a dynamic industry for the Americans.

The Marshal plan also shielded the devastated Western Europe from the temptation of joining communism and its centralized, utterly collectivist social order and marked the beginning of American leadership of Western Europe.

Without the Marshal plan, it took almost forty years for the Soviet Union, the true victor of WW II, to recuperate from the war effort and just as it had, it was tricked into enormous military expenditures. To avoid the risk of an extinction - level third world war, it attempted in vain to match Regan’s massive deployment of NATO forces at its borders. Naturally it went bankrupt, was dismantled, and contracted debt.

In Western Europe, the economic crisis was only resolved by the Marshal plan creating an environment of abundance even if strings were attached.
A Marshal plan before WW I would have been nice…

Consequently the solution to any economic crisis is never the small, temporary and fickle abundance acquired by war at the expense of a rival, but a planetary “Marshal plan” investing in science to create a permanent abundance for all with no strings attached.

Science is now able and ready to create the only alternative to war: abundance. Our nations should negotiate possibilities and modalities without delay. If we were actually governed by Direct Democracy where no lobby could pilot our representatives into announcing a system change while actually fighting the idea itself, we would have been in an advanced stage of negotiations already; the catastrophic Political/economic/ecologic situation would have rendered it imperative.

The only victors of war are the money lenders to both manipulated sides/victims, weapon manufacturers and all sorts of global parasites.
War is always about acquisitions, be it land, riches, control or markets, and in general for the benefit of industrial/economic/financial conglomerates, while the people die, lose everything and burden their future generations with debt.
Instead of making the victor richer, war makes all sides/victims poorer… debt… to be paid later… always later.

But the “winner” does have a priceless, immediate prize:
It gets to fall on its knees later than the loser when the debt acquired for causing destruction to the rival and reconstructing the destruction caused by the rival kicks in.

Like a duel where both antagonists kill each other, but the winner dies ten seconds later, enjoying the sweetness of “the great victory”,
… for ten seconds.

1 Comment

Nations In Debt

6/23/2019

2 Comments

A financial system of Global investment and conglomerates of private banks with different names like “world bank”, IMF, etc. dispenses credit to countries.

These credits are contingent on “reforms”, insinuating that global investment is there to correct and help badly administered countries.

In fact the word “reform” refers to the total deregulation of the receiving country’s legislation: the “reform” “liberates” the receiving country of regulations protecting its resources, allows global finance to walk in, invest in the most lucrative sectors and eventually control or literally own the resources and sectors by which the country could pay back its debt.

Countries have always been unable to pay back even the interests on their debt, yet… are offered more debt? Unpaid debt is the end of both liberty and Democracy.
Global investment will de facto own and rule your country.
ALL your elected will only be puppets, in spite of their posture of unmitigated authority… And they know it.

If your country is indebted, then get used to watching all your national lucrative sectors “privatized” (sold) for a fraction of their true value, and nothing your representatives promise will change anything; it’s no longer their call.
But the mechanism is still more sinuous: another administration marketed as left wing would be made to re-nationalize some formerly privatized sector but this time at a steep price by re-creating or furthering the debt, for the game to go on unchecked:
Tic – Toc – Tic – Toc - …
Tic: privatization … you lose,
Toc: re-nationalization … you lose.

And with the gold and precious metals standard long abolished, the private banks will always find a way to render “legal” the creation of the money mass needed to…
Buy our planet… us included (and our moon!),
With Printed, colored paper we were made to agree to hold value.

Of course we can easily wash away all this, but representative democracy stands in the way: it is both the creator and the guardian of the situation.

To succeed, we need to call upon our true might:

We need to unleash Direct Democracy.

2 Comments

Direct Democracy

6/16/2019

2 Comments

Closest translation from Greek: “people command” or “people sovereign”.

Oxford definition of Sovereign:
-Supreme ruler,
-Possessing supreme or ultimate power.

The regime called Democracy was and always is presented as the only alternative to a monarchy or to any authoritarian regime headed by a unique sovereign and of course his council.
This regime called Democracy was about leading society according to the desires of the public through elected representatives.
Most social thinkers at the time thought that “representing” the public was defeating the principle of “the people sovereign”, but the public lacking the means of unlimited interconnectivity at the time, the ones presenting the alternative of representation as “the great invention” had their way.
But considering representation as “the great invention” is only admitting it to be the best alternative to “the people sovereign”, even if it is not “the people sovereign”.
So terminologically the actual system of representation may at best be called “representative democracy”, never “Democracy”.

What is to be sovereign?
In a monarchy, it is the king who decides while considering the input of his council and commands others to make it happen.
In a theocratic regime, it is the highest ranking priest who decides while considering the input of his council and commands others to make it happen.
In any regime ranging from tyranny to any kind of Democracy, the procedure of taking the decision and making it happen remains the same.
Being sovereign means having the power to make the decision.
So in true Democracy, it is the people (the sovereign) who should decide while considering the input of their council (the specialists in their midst) and command the hired administration to make it happen.
In a Democracy, the hired administration should administer the decisions of the public, never the public itself.
If the public should decide on a person to decide in its place, then who is making the decisions? Who is the sovereign?
Representative democracy makes the public surrender their sovereignty meaning their power of decision to someone who consequently becomes their sovereign and a key personality (exposed to pressure, blackmail, etc.) who decides for the nation: A very risky configuration.
Representative democracy is falsely considered as “The people sovereign” simply because the representatives including the sovereign obtain the “approval” of the majority of the public to decide in its stead by promises they may or may not keep.
Later they may even take actions contradicting their promises in all impunity.
This “approval” of the people is the factual surrender of their sovereignty. How can surrendering their sovereignty make “the people sovereign”?
Does the sovereignty of the public reside in the single programmed act of surrendering / refusing its own sovereignty?

In a self-sustaining system where the representatives are almost always the same (career politicians), it is perfectly natural that the pillars of power created to help and control the sovereign evolve into pillars of collusion with the sovereign, to empower and be empowered in return.
Expecting anything else is infantile.
Representative democracy is almost as far from Democracy as any regime admitting a sovereign, since to be elected any individual needs funding and exposure which are only possible by collusion with organisms and/or “power players” having the means, but also interests to satisfy.
These interests may or may not be symbiotic with that of the public, and sometimes may even be at its expense.
The principle of Democracy was created to prevent such privileges which define the defeat of public will/interest.
Representative democracy itself creating the things it was supposed to prevent should make us reconsider the consequences of representation.

Today the idea of direct involvement of the public in all affairs of the state is called Direct Democracy.
This is a diminishing term insinuating that Direct Democracy is only one vague version of Democracy among many when it should be the only clear definition of Democracy.
From here on in this article, the stand-alone term Democracy will designate Direct Democracy: people sovereign and representative democracy will be designated by the term Representation.

For the moment Democracy is associated with referendums.
Democracy should transcend referendums and claim the entire system of governance.
A system of self-governance that both leads and follows our human progress needs to be in that same state of progress; it needs to be a process.
Perhaps initiating the process of Democracy by referendums is one of the valid options.
So if as a first step in the process of Democracy we decide to restrict Democracy to referendums, then we should consider the fact that the result of any referendum will always be contingent on the available information.
Without complete and untainted information, all thinking processes of the public will be impaired, rendering the referendum non- representative.
“Tainting” the available information by “analysis”, interpretations, personal opinions or omissions invalidates the result of any referendum.
To have a valid referendum, the public needs a source of untainted, complete information, integrating the different perspectives of the different constituents in the society.
Mass/news media are owned by private companies/capitals hence the legitimate doubt as to the objective treatment of information in domains involving the interests of their owners,
the rare public channels still depend on people elected by funding and exposure, which raises the same issues as the first,
the internet may be extremely useful but will always be unreliable.

So the public needs to create a source or sources of untainted, thoroughly verified, complete information which will enable the citizens to think.
Some sort of a ministry of information totally controlled by the public may fit the bill.
This independent ministry should be totally distinct from any apparatus of the state, be administered by an often changing elected body, be funded without strings attached, and have new media at its disposal. It should hire investigative journalists who will deal only in facts, and only present information that is complete and thoroughly verified.
Hosting all sorts of live discussions with all sorts of people from all walks of life (scientists, sociologists, businessmen, taxi drivers, butchers, bakers, farmers, …) will familiarize the society with the different perspectives of its different constituents.
The manner of administration of this ministry should be decided by the public; for example by an often changing administrative body, where each new body would be elected sometime before the end of the mandate of the former, ensuring familiarization, experience and continuity.

A complementary option to initiate Democracy may be voting for candidates to parliament/congress who pledge to exclusively play the role of messengers between the public and the parliament/congress by:
-Bringing all the issues raised in parliament/congress to a platform where it would be thoroughly discussed by the public and its specialists, and later presenting the ensuing vote of the platform to the parliament/congress as his own,
-Reading in parliament/congress exclusively the proposals of the public formulated and voted on   the platform.
Of course a certain delay should be observed between the vote of the parliament/congress and the vote of the public presented by the “messengers”.
This problem would be easily solved by considering the result of a vote in parliament/congress as definitive only after receiving the votes of these elected “messengers”.

This would be a way to graft Democracy to Representation. Doing this will allow Democracy to run on a small scale for a certain time allowing the public to acquire the experience and confidence needed while simultaneously correcting and perfecting the projected mechanisms of Democracy. Later when these mechanisms become operational, Democracy would be both able and ready to claim the entire system of self-governance in one form or another.

Another complementary option to initiate Democracy may be the creation of yet another ministry governed by the public and for instance, called “ministry of Democracy” which would elaborate the unavoidable necessary systems and mechanisms to endow all willing members of the nation with the time and experience needed to get familiarized with the perspective of decision making.

All of these options are presented to initiate the continuous process of Democracy.
Democracy is similar to an operating system integrating an antivirus program: It should enable, facilitate and monitor the operation of society, continuously adapt to new situations, enhance its performance and counter any attempt to hijack or corrupt the system.   Like any operating system or antivirus program, without continuous updates Democracy will become obsolete very fast.

It should always be kept in mind that all these options will be in their infancy at the beginning with their fair share of unavoidable shortcomings and errors.
Making the public think that it is currently ready for Democracy is fooling it into errors and ridicule.
We are not ready to tackle all the issues of our state at this stage, but we can be perfectly ready very soon; a few months, to a year or two.

Perhaps instead of grafting Democracy to Representation, some may prefer to create on a platform some sort of a popular parliament or congress parallel to our actual one constituted by all willing citizens.
This popular parliament would participate in legislation by a proportional representation determined by the ratio of those who prefer to represent themselves to those who prefer to be represented by representatives.

We should consider and perhaps test all our options, maybe even simultaneously.

There is an understandable non-issue with Democracy that upsets the economically privileged constituents of a society. They fear that if Democracy is instated, the poor will rob them of their wealth.
In my view, it is Democracy that will save their wealth for them.

Most (perhaps all) countries governed by Representation are indebted. The people did not decide to contract debt, their “key” representatives did.
Currently, representatives are selling (called privatizing) everything of value in their nations and sometimes even indirectly taxing the poor just to pay only a part of the interests on the debt of their making.
The cries of the impoverished will be drowned by the arrogance of the yet non-impoverished in the name of order/good governance, considering the impoverished as being responsible for their situation.
Order/disorder is a consequence, not a cause.
Treating a cause before it creates consequences is the spirit of Democracy.
Letting a non- treated cause inescapably create consequences and then silencing these consequences is the spirit of tyranny.

Eventually the impoverished will have nothing more to give.
The impoverishment will move up and tax the next level of society, and so on.
This situation will continue as long as we continue with representation.
The indebted country will sell its national treasures and everything of value.
Crash after crash the money in banks will be less and less accessible.
Crash after crash investments will be lost for individuals and small banks.
Crash after crash the big banks will absorb all the investments along with the small banks.

Do the economically privileged think that they risk nothing, or they risk nothing for the time being?
The answer should make them see that eventually either the entire society wins together, or falls as alienated parts.
And if we think “global”, then either the entire human society wins together, or falls as alienated parts.

Representation can only continue doing what it does: tax and sell anything belonging to the nation that has value or can generate profit.
Only Democracy allows us to deal with the debt logically, hence save everybody, including the economically “privileged”.
On the long run, Democracy is for the benefit of all the constituents of society, and “detrimental” only to global finance and its ambitions of unlimited profit which serves no vital need, just throws the rest of humanity overboard in an ocean of scarcity and misery while causing an irreversible, catastrophic ecologic/environmental failure.

  A warning:
The nation(s) which tries to initiate a process to extricate from this system of farming humanity by representation, debt and eventually poverty will most probably suffer the wrath of global finance which may go to extreme lengths in stopping the process, because Representation has always allowed foreign/global actors to freely Lobby/pilot our “key” representatives to their own interests under the cover of “democratic legitimacy”.
We should remember that almost all nations which were not yet absorbed in this system of representation, debt and eventually poverty were textbook tyrannies.
But before rightfully dismissing and condemning tyranny like any normal, self-respecting human being, the following facts deserve some consideration:
1 - Knowing all too well the fact that an educated public is harder to govern, strangely most of these tyrannies had a free education system including free universities alongside the private.
2 – Knowing all too well the fact that a well fed, well healed people will always think of ways to make their lives still better hence becoming a danger to the tyrant, most of these tyrannies had free healthcare and retirement systems.
Of course we are always relieved to see any tyranny go, but in the painful absence of Democracy where the people would submit to no rule but their own, I am no longer sure that submission to representation, debt and eventually poverty in a globalized world with globalized, profit oriented, domineering foreign economic rule is better than submission to a non-globalized native tyrant.
Naturally these nations suffered civil wars, went bankrupt, lost all their social guarantees and were obliged to accept being “helped” and “invigorated” by debt, and have now joined the ranks of the modern, free, representatively democratic, “privatized”, invigorated and indebted nations.

Democracy is an open process of civility which will secure the extension of the economic middle class by elaborating a corresponding economic/ecologic/financial model.
In Democracy, we even need not concern ourselves with non-provable “conspiracy” issues or any issue really; Democracy will shed abundant light on anything and everything and correct all and every imbalance in our societies.

Democracy is not only our best bet,
It is our only bet.

The political/economic/ecologic situation is so far gone that nothing can be accomplished by “reasonable”, “responsible”, progressive half measures and patches.
A massive, rational hence inherently pacific yet unstoppable civic insurrection/revolution is needed.

To take back the control of our lives and to preserve all life on our planet we need to unleash our true might;
We need to unleash Democracy.

2 Comments

Persistent Happiness

Superiority

WAR

Nations In Debt

Direct Democracy

BLOG

Archives

Categories