what do we decide
Every nation has to deal with a multitude of issues and policies like foreign, financial, economic, health, public service, defense, ...
But there are some issues and policies where the public is never consulted. These policies never change regardless of the party we bring to power, or the government that we change.
This means nothing can influence these policies; not us, not the parties, not the government that we change.
I am sure you can think of a bunch of them.
Who determines these policies?
All the policies that do not change regardless of the party we vote for, involve lobbying.
It is clear that lobbying that circumvents and defeats the principle of democracy itself by pressuring directly the executive branch of our representative democracies, is something that is external to public control or knowledge, even if some lobbyists themselves present it as being an "integral part of democracy" ...
Well it's not, and can never be.
The executive is not there to execute the decisions of the lobbies.
Lobbying is in total conflict and contradiction with any democratic constitution, since democracy was elaborated to prevent any kind of defeat of public will and eventually interest.
"Integral part of democracy" ...
Lobbying would have been considered so illegal in a system that claims to be democratic, that it would have made ALL the founding fathers of democracy "jump" to protest ...
It would have made ALL the intellectuals that elaborated our constitutions "jump" even higher ...
I want to discuss a single issue among many, a single policy that never changes, and is the strangest of them all, at least for me: Our national debts.
What is it really? When did it start? Of course now that we asked, we will be given a precise date, but did we know at the time that we started contracting debt?
When did the public decide to contract this debt?
Were we even asked?
Whom do we owe?
How is it materially possible to be richer than the combined wealth of the nations of the planet, since all the planet owes to these organisms of credit, without being able to pay back?
What is the so called "world bank"?
Was it created during a session at the United Nations (when it still existed beyond its name) as a collective bank constituted of all the national banks (controlled by the public) of all nations as the name insinuates?
Does the United Nations collectively decide which country the World Bank will "help" and with what interest, or the World Bank is privately owned, and it is the owners who decide?
Anyway, we all know this debt was contracted in the beginning behind our backs and without asking us, and we are told now it's too late, and we should pay it by working more and more for less and less...
What happens if countries cannot pay their debt (which is actually the case)?
Do the organisms of credit seize the country?
No acquisition is legal, if it deprives others of their living necessities.
When were we made to forget this vital limitation of acquisition?
Do the organisms of credit seize the people?
To do what? Go to prison? Surrender their will?
I think some twenty years ago Australia was not allowed to clear its debt by the gold it was mining... Why?
It is curious to notice that the countries not indebted to global organisms of credit are/were primitive tyrannies and enemies of modern representative democracy... They have/had tyrannically kept their populations from joining the ranks of the modern, invigorated, liberated, and indebted nations.
Luckily, one by one, all these nations (rich in resources, pipelines) are being liberated and invigorated...
I was made aware that whatever ridiculous reason or pretext was presented to the public for going to war, money was the only real reason.
The depressions preceding the first and second world wars are proof enough.
Who or what produced these depressions?
We have seen the pictures of Germans paying for food with a wheelbarrow full of money...
Maybe the reason was the legendary mental and physical "incapacity" of the Germans, or their equally legendary "laziness" ...
If Germans fail, the world should rethink the system.
Depressions are only caused by the financial system in place.
Who controls the financial system in place, except the banking system?
Is the banking system controlled by the consortium of all the national banks of every nation on the planet, which are supposed to be controlled by elected representatives?
Do we even have national banks which are controlled by our representatives? I know we have the names...
Are our nations incapable to do what individuals do?
Why is the world obligated to work with private banks?
Why is there no other choice?
Eighty years ago our "representatives" could have negotiated to give Germany the markets it needed. Instead, they preferred to see their own people kill and die, and increase all national debts (all sides) to astronomical proportions.
Wouldn't it have been cheaper for all the nations that were "forced" to contract debts to go to two world wars if Germany was given a few markets it desperately needed?
I know that everything can be presented as being so complicated, that even the "presenters" themselves understand nothing of what they are presenting, but the plain fact is that both world wars had financial motives and/or purposes... like any world war, past or future ...
The current financial system is out of our control (strange in a democracy where the public should control and oversee directly any system that acts within the boundaries of the nation).
If we were asked, we surely would have refused the debt, since everything was fine at the time, and there was no immediate need to borrow money with interest.
These are the things that lobbying and globalization succeed in pressuring our executives behind our backs and change our lives forever without asking us.
Lobbying and democracy, even representative democracy, are mutually exclusive.
There is no way they could be made to coexist.
As long as there are lobbies secretly pressuring our executives, our system of government will have nothing to do with democracy.
Lobbies were formed and prospered during representative democracy.
Democracy creating the thing it was created to prevent, should make us reconsider...
To conclude,
Without direct democracy we are powerless.
Representative democracy eventually defeated the spirit of "The rule of the people" which is the definition given to democracy.
Currently, the following is the only thing we are allowed to decide, and are so passionate about:
The political party we vote for.
We are made to identify ourselves with different political parties, and consider the others as the rivals.
The political parties, behind some different/opposing declared ideas, hide the real mechanism of division of the people. Instead of discussing the system of government itself, we are made to choose between political parties.
Choosing between political parties is our only allowed "interaction" with the system. The choice between political parties turns our focus on each other, and away from the mechanisms of the system of government.
We got divided, while they secured their togetherness and became the "ungoverned government", or the "unadministered administration".
This is what our democracies are reduced to and have reduced us into: voters for a party.
All the representatives of all parties will eventually all do the same things, since although left free in minor issues, they will all be forced to do what they are pressured to for the important issues, just like the ones before them.
A higher perspective would help to understand our real situation.
Do we talk with other parties ourselves, or let our representatives offer us a good show?
Did we ever organize ourselves as one public regardless of our political differences, or rather failed to constitute a united force to be reckoned, by treating the other political parties as the "others" or "rivals"?
So, are political parties an advantage or a hindrance to create the kind of power that could take control of everything going on in the nation?
What is the strategy that can render the constitution of that power impossible?
Division!
Any kind will do.
Division into only two equivalent parts is preferable...
Remember your classics; even the side you open the egg might be used to create hostility and serve the purpose of division. At the time we all found that tragic...
Yes, my psychiatric condition got the best of me ... again ...
But there are some issues and policies where the public is never consulted. These policies never change regardless of the party we bring to power, or the government that we change.
This means nothing can influence these policies; not us, not the parties, not the government that we change.
I am sure you can think of a bunch of them.
Who determines these policies?
All the policies that do not change regardless of the party we vote for, involve lobbying.
It is clear that lobbying that circumvents and defeats the principle of democracy itself by pressuring directly the executive branch of our representative democracies, is something that is external to public control or knowledge, even if some lobbyists themselves present it as being an "integral part of democracy" ...
Well it's not, and can never be.
The executive is not there to execute the decisions of the lobbies.
Lobbying is in total conflict and contradiction with any democratic constitution, since democracy was elaborated to prevent any kind of defeat of public will and eventually interest.
"Integral part of democracy" ...
Lobbying would have been considered so illegal in a system that claims to be democratic, that it would have made ALL the founding fathers of democracy "jump" to protest ...
It would have made ALL the intellectuals that elaborated our constitutions "jump" even higher ...
I want to discuss a single issue among many, a single policy that never changes, and is the strangest of them all, at least for me: Our national debts.
What is it really? When did it start? Of course now that we asked, we will be given a precise date, but did we know at the time that we started contracting debt?
When did the public decide to contract this debt?
Were we even asked?
Whom do we owe?
How is it materially possible to be richer than the combined wealth of the nations of the planet, since all the planet owes to these organisms of credit, without being able to pay back?
What is the so called "world bank"?
Was it created during a session at the United Nations (when it still existed beyond its name) as a collective bank constituted of all the national banks (controlled by the public) of all nations as the name insinuates?
Does the United Nations collectively decide which country the World Bank will "help" and with what interest, or the World Bank is privately owned, and it is the owners who decide?
Anyway, we all know this debt was contracted in the beginning behind our backs and without asking us, and we are told now it's too late, and we should pay it by working more and more for less and less...
What happens if countries cannot pay their debt (which is actually the case)?
Do the organisms of credit seize the country?
No acquisition is legal, if it deprives others of their living necessities.
When were we made to forget this vital limitation of acquisition?
Do the organisms of credit seize the people?
To do what? Go to prison? Surrender their will?
I think some twenty years ago Australia was not allowed to clear its debt by the gold it was mining... Why?
It is curious to notice that the countries not indebted to global organisms of credit are/were primitive tyrannies and enemies of modern representative democracy... They have/had tyrannically kept their populations from joining the ranks of the modern, invigorated, liberated, and indebted nations.
Luckily, one by one, all these nations (rich in resources, pipelines) are being liberated and invigorated...
I was made aware that whatever ridiculous reason or pretext was presented to the public for going to war, money was the only real reason.
The depressions preceding the first and second world wars are proof enough.
Who or what produced these depressions?
We have seen the pictures of Germans paying for food with a wheelbarrow full of money...
Maybe the reason was the legendary mental and physical "incapacity" of the Germans, or their equally legendary "laziness" ...
If Germans fail, the world should rethink the system.
Depressions are only caused by the financial system in place.
Who controls the financial system in place, except the banking system?
Is the banking system controlled by the consortium of all the national banks of every nation on the planet, which are supposed to be controlled by elected representatives?
Do we even have national banks which are controlled by our representatives? I know we have the names...
Are our nations incapable to do what individuals do?
Why is the world obligated to work with private banks?
Why is there no other choice?
Eighty years ago our "representatives" could have negotiated to give Germany the markets it needed. Instead, they preferred to see their own people kill and die, and increase all national debts (all sides) to astronomical proportions.
Wouldn't it have been cheaper for all the nations that were "forced" to contract debts to go to two world wars if Germany was given a few markets it desperately needed?
I know that everything can be presented as being so complicated, that even the "presenters" themselves understand nothing of what they are presenting, but the plain fact is that both world wars had financial motives and/or purposes... like any world war, past or future ...
The current financial system is out of our control (strange in a democracy where the public should control and oversee directly any system that acts within the boundaries of the nation).
If we were asked, we surely would have refused the debt, since everything was fine at the time, and there was no immediate need to borrow money with interest.
These are the things that lobbying and globalization succeed in pressuring our executives behind our backs and change our lives forever without asking us.
Lobbying and democracy, even representative democracy, are mutually exclusive.
There is no way they could be made to coexist.
As long as there are lobbies secretly pressuring our executives, our system of government will have nothing to do with democracy.
Lobbies were formed and prospered during representative democracy.
Democracy creating the thing it was created to prevent, should make us reconsider...
To conclude,
Without direct democracy we are powerless.
Representative democracy eventually defeated the spirit of "The rule of the people" which is the definition given to democracy.
Currently, the following is the only thing we are allowed to decide, and are so passionate about:
The political party we vote for.
We are made to identify ourselves with different political parties, and consider the others as the rivals.
The political parties, behind some different/opposing declared ideas, hide the real mechanism of division of the people. Instead of discussing the system of government itself, we are made to choose between political parties.
Choosing between political parties is our only allowed "interaction" with the system. The choice between political parties turns our focus on each other, and away from the mechanisms of the system of government.
We got divided, while they secured their togetherness and became the "ungoverned government", or the "unadministered administration".
This is what our democracies are reduced to and have reduced us into: voters for a party.
All the representatives of all parties will eventually all do the same things, since although left free in minor issues, they will all be forced to do what they are pressured to for the important issues, just like the ones before them.
A higher perspective would help to understand our real situation.
Do we talk with other parties ourselves, or let our representatives offer us a good show?
Did we ever organize ourselves as one public regardless of our political differences, or rather failed to constitute a united force to be reckoned, by treating the other political parties as the "others" or "rivals"?
So, are political parties an advantage or a hindrance to create the kind of power that could take control of everything going on in the nation?
What is the strategy that can render the constitution of that power impossible?
Division!
Any kind will do.
Division into only two equivalent parts is preferable...
Remember your classics; even the side you open the egg might be used to create hostility and serve the purpose of division. At the time we all found that tragic...
Yes, my psychiatric condition got the best of me ... again ...