Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old June 7th, 2012 #1
Donald E. Pauly
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
Smile Professor Shamir on Democracy

This comes from Israel Shamir's list at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/messages . He is my Nemisis since he is anti-Zionist but still comes up with some good stuff. This is long but worth a complete read and a thorough study.

Quote:
http://www.oziz4oziz.com/what-is-real-democracy.html
©Copyright Tony Ryan 2012
Australian Rescue Series oziz4oziz.com
More articles
tonyryan43 @ gmail.com

DEMOCRACY versus REPRESENTATION©

A rather ruthless German of the 1930s era once observed that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth; and the bigger the lie the more believable it becomes. These notions impressed some equally ruthless gentlemen in international banking, media, advertising, and politics and thus began a global media and national education system campaign to convince people that the act of electing a representative to do our thinking for us constitutes democracy.

The result is our much-lauded majority rule election system, and its practice has almost entirely derailed our former understanding of democracy. Thanks to the incrementally escalated cost of media-focused election campaigns, our choice of candidates is largely restricted to preselected political party nominees, who themselves are approved for their unswerving loyalty to the agendas of campaign donors. Ultimately, these donors represent globalist bankers and corporations, developers, and powerful local plutocrats. Thus, our ‘representatives’ provide token representation, if at all.

At least, we tell ourselves, all government decisions must be made on the basis of majority voting, which is democratic, is it not? It is not, as we shall see. As far as votes are concerned, 51%, far from being a triumphant democratic majority, is actually empirical evidence of absolute division in the community and not a desirable position at all; and, anyway, the parliamentary vote almost never reflects electoral opinion. The two-party system is exactly that: a system in which two parties are encouraged to squabble and create an illusion of opposition, when both are owned by the same powerful interests. More recently, as cracks appear in the façade, third parties are permitted as a diversion. In other words, Tweedledum and Tweedlledee have been joined by a bastard sibling… The Greens (which explains why the Greens get such terrific media attention).

Directing rare focus on such clarifications of reality, we begin to realise that representationalism is not democracy in any shape or form. So, we are forced to ask ourselves, what is real democracy, if there is such a thing? We have been told democracy commenced in ancient Greece, which is historical nonsense. While it is true that we have been guided to use this Greek word for people’s consensus councils to encourage this belief, in point of fact, Democracy has been around since mankind engaged in consensus decision-making; which commenced when extended families began to coordinate hunting efforts by pooling individual knowledge and experience. There are peoples alive today who in 40,000 years have never ceased engaging formal consensus protocols rather than adopting hierarchies of decision-makers. But as few of these speak communicable English, and few anthropologists bothered to learn their languages prior to profitably colonising their cultures, it will be less confusing to glance instead at what one hardnosed yet very astute Greek businessman had to say about democracy;

Thucydides, at the funeral oratory for Pericles:

“We do not copy our neighbours (other nations), but are an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while the law secures equal justice to all alike in their civil disputes, the claim of personal excellence and integrity is also recognised; thus, when a citizen is in anyway distinguished, he is appointed to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit. Neither is poverty a barrier. A man may contribute to the uplifting of his country regardless of the obscurity of his origin or circumstances. We are prevented from doing the wrong thing by respect for the authority of the nation (the people) and for the laws, having a special regard for those which are initiated for the protection of the aged and the infirm, as well as to those unwritten laws which bring upon the transgressor of them the stern reprobation of the community.

An Athenian citizen does not neglect the state because he is committed to his own affairs; and even those of us who are preoccupied with commerce have a very fair idea of politics. We alone, of the peoples of the world, regard a man who takes no interest in public affairs, not as a harmless person, but as a useless character. And, even if few of us are original thinkers and initiators, we are all sound judges of policy”.

It is clear from this speech that Greek government was the rich product of the vast pooled knowledge and experience of the entire Athenian populace; whereas monarchies were severely handicapped with decisions shaped by the limitations of the individual leader; very poor human resource dynamics indeed. The contemporary counter-elitist revision of history provokes a new perception: that all hierarchies are inherently weak and can only survive by repressing inevitable dissatisfaction, and by stealing the productivity of others; which in turn leads to poverty, slavery, incarceration, torture, ritual execution, colonialism, and war. In stark contrast, no culture in which decision-making was exclusively the product of consensus has ever spawned these scourges. But to be sustainable, consensus protocols must be allpervasive. This was not the case in Greece. Much as Athenian consensus was a powerful concentration of community ability, the weakness of the representative councils was that re-interpretation of consensus was always on the cards, and open to manipulation. Why? Because only male Greeks whose parents were both registered as Athenian-born could vote; and all Greek women, half-Athenian men, and all aliens and slaves were without direct voice in government, even though many of these exhibited powerful intellects and great achievements. Thus, only 19% of Greeks were enfranchised; making this in very real terms, a 20% democracy. There was, however, as Thucydides helps us to appreciate, a powerful cultural expectation that these representatives would faithfully convey electoral will to the administrative council.

We should note ruefully that this expectation no longer survives in modern representative governments, except perhaps, tongue-in-cheek on election day. And the Greek 20% is replicated in the modern west with the 1% elite; hence the actions of the Occupy Movement. But thank you anyway, Thucydides. Our next witness from the past is English refugee Thomas Paine who is most famous for his inspirational The Rights of Man, a book which all Americans inexplicably consider is the genesis of the American Constitution. The embryonic American government was designed by the wealthy elite to be a monarchy in other than name and with considerably less power for the people than the English people enjoyed at that time. While it is true that the draft Constitution was shaped around Paine’s axioms of justice and democracy (ie all authority resides in the people; and the people shall decide the amount, method of collection, and purpose of expenditure of all taxes; and taxes shall protect the aged and infirm from poverty; the founding fathers charged James Madison with the task of excising all references to democracy from the draft; a successful project for which he was later well rewarded.

It was much later that it was discovered that the critical clauses were absent; hence the remedial first ten amendments, titled with ironic dogmatism as the Bill of Rights. In all, twenty-seven amendments were imposed on the American Constitution, none being permitted by the plutocracy to have any meaningful impact on their powerbase; with the possible exception of the sacrosanct right to bear arms.

Sacrosanct? Barack Obama has obviated even this by arranging for Rothschild protégé and ex-Nazi, George Soros, to purchase the bulk of American arms and ammunition companies, ensuring ammunition supplies can be withdrawn at will without harming firearm sales. (Concomitant with this, FEMA has ordered a supply of 450 million hollow-nosed cartridges, which convention disallows in the military. I will leave it to the reader to figure out who is to be the target of these bullets). But back briefly to the subject of Constitutions, the US was the first nation to have its constitution castrated. By 1793, the aristocracy and plutocracy had jointly already sabotaged the French Revolution by pitting working class against middle class thus ensuring all genuine supporters of democracy perished. Thenceforth no national constitution in the world has been permitted to include the word Democracy. Law Societies in each country are the constitutional editors and censors, who also ensure there is adequate ambiguity in legal drafting to ensure profitable contention and convenient circumvention.

English-born Thomas Paine, who became an American in anticipation of his glorious contribution to human rights, prosperity and justice, died a bitterly disillusioned man. But this was always inevitable because he based democracy and equal rights, not on the economically-recommended principle of equal opportunity from conception to the grave, but on the creative integrity of the Christian God. A largely non-Christian humanity was forever excluded from The Rights of Man. But thank you anyway, Thomas Paine.

Our next witness to the real nature of democracy is Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln, a man of immense complexities and conflicting values, understood the true nature of political power like few others before or since, and who clearly comprehended what I have written above, and even more clearly identified the covert role of the international bankers in their sleight-of-hand creation of their own wealth out of unnecessary debt of the productive masses, through the fractional reserve system.

When the bankers offered to finance the American Civil War, to their fury, Lincoln rejected usury in favour of national bonds, thereby saving the US massive interest repayments that Americans would be paying to this day. He was also aware of the propaganda campaign to distort the meaning of democracy and to counteract this he coined the lyrical definition of Democracy that for a while at least, defeated the propagandists… Government of the People, by the People and for the People…no room here, we should note, for representationalism whatsoever. Lincoln had concisely described pure democracy.

The bankers then demanded Lincoln permit the establishment of a private reserve bank, to which a very savvy Abe refused. Weeks later he was assassinated. They did not finally get their way with America until 1913 when they were forced to fabricate their own President, Woodrow Wilson; wherein the private and corporatised Federal Reserve Bank was established to take control of American currency and finance management, and thereby use inflation as an additional means of diverting billions of private citizen’s savings into their own banker coffers. The investment market also was colonised… Wall Street (and, earlier in England, the City of London, which is similar to the Vatican in the city of Rome; a country within a city). Since that day all American Presidents have trotted on the banker’s leash, the only rebel being John Kennedy, who shared Lincoln’s fate.

From Lincoln we turn to our next observer of democracy: Lord Acton. Acton articulated the real nature of politics, economics and community management. Like Lincoln, he perceived this was all about one entity… power. His incisive mind identified all human groups as being managed under one or other of two essential organisational models: Government by the people or government by a spectrum of hierarchies; broad, small, or singular in constituency. Interpretation of the personal philosophies of Acton and Lincoln has often been confused by those who underestimate the powerful influences of religion, race, and nationality on thinkers of the 1860s era, and the unyielding loyalty demanded by one’s family genesis. Thus, Lincoln led the Union in the American Civil War whilst Acton supported the Confederacy due to his recognition that the centralising of power of the Union must inevitably lead to tyranny. Today, with mounting horror, we can see that Acton was absolutely right.

Nevertheless, Lincoln was locked into his historical role and Acton, an Englishman of German origin, who was also a devout Catholic, even though he denied papal infallibility; saw the world in his own nurturing context. Both men understood the darkness of power and the light that is democracy, but both were powerless to walk any path that was not lit by their respective cultures.

Any serious student of politics should read Acton’s famous 1878 pronouncement, however, the contexts do require contemporary re-interpretation, which I provide as follows:

Hierarchical government transfers power from the people (manifested as neighbourhood, village, clan, region, or nation) to one or more people; forming oligarchies, upper classes, plutocracies, theocracies, aristocracies, dictatorships, and so on. Acton also observed that disproportionate or centralised power invariably corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. He was critical of leadership and authority, which tend to become self-validating; and recognised that all great men are bad men (they also write the histories). Representationalism, as practiced by all western nations, has created inevitable concentrations of power in politicians and their backers, but more particularly in those backers who fund election campaigns and those who control the media that shapes public attitudes to party policies. In the past three decades, this power has become more concentrated, with formal coordination developed between media owners and the owners of global banks and corporations.

This immense concentration of power is in the hands of ruthless Zionists led by such entities as the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Sassoons, Lazard, Erlanger, Baring, Warburg, Schroeder, Selingman, Speyers, Mirabaud, Mallet, JPMorgan, GoldmanSachs, Leub, Hill Samuel (Macquarie), George Soros; and with Rupert Murdoch leading the media. The agenda of this conglomerate has coalesced into what we now know as globalisation. The ultimate objective is One World Governance under the control of the eventual surviving leader of the globalist alliance.

So, do any democracies survive today? To my knowledge, none. All politicians, and in fact all who enjoy some part to play in the ruling elite class, like to endlessly repeat their assertion that we live in a free and prosperous democracy; and the banner of every genocidal army is adorned with the banner of Freedom and Democracy. They can make these claims, comfortable in the knowledge that no challenge to the truth of this will ever be heard in the mainstream media; including ABC and SBS.

Several pro-democracy political parties exist in every country and these tend to support Citizen-Initiated Referenda (CIR) as the most simple means of restoring democracy, and in practical terms they are probably right. Nevertheless, CIR is open to manipulation by both government and the media, and reform that removes election issues and campaigns from both the media and government will be essential to achieve even this partial democracy.

In purist terms, we would be wise to ask: what is democracy in the contemporary context? Put simply, this would be policy formulated exclusively by the electorate. More broadly… all policy formulation developed through informed consensus within each demographic component of each electorate; each policy conveyed to the public service for implementation. An electorate is, itself, a conglomerate of human groups – neighbourhoods, suburbs, and villages; or alternatively, clans and language groups. The size of each consensus group depends entirely upon context. A nation may well decide collectively on issues of sovereignty, currency, and defence. Regions may identify formally with other regions and adopt common policies regarding water resource management; and language groups should be free to design education programmes with cultural applicability. And in urban areas, neighbourhoods should feel free to pursue policies that enhance the quality of life of its members; although it is probable that most urban communities will formulate common policies. This is how genuine democracy works on the ground. We should note that political parties, elections, and voting, have no essential part to play in a genuine democracy; although voting can be a convenient and incidental tool to measure consensus.

Although those with control issues are forever compelled to deride such options, claiming people could never agree, in fact large scale experiments demonstrate that if people have access to the same exhaustive information, consensus is invariably above 97%. This was first discovered in a suburb of Darwin in 1985, in which a school feeder area identified desired policies. Although the community was utterly divided prior to self-surveying, ongoing per-neighbourhood discussion resulted in almost complete consensus within the confines of seven days. Concomitant with this, social behaviour underwent extraordinary change: Dogmatic individuals became tolerant, reticent personalities opened up, and there was a tangible surge to find common ground, even on such prickly issues as school discipline. Unexpectedly, the behaviour of the suburb’s youth displayed a marked improvement, perhaps intuitively reflecting a new community spirit and the temporary elimination of alienation. Sadly, the school’s teaching hierarchy regarded the entire exercise as a threat to its authority and one teacher was discovered destroying survey results.

We are reminded of Lord Acton’s misgivings about self-serving authority. But, certainly, those who value government by leadership and hierarchical authority will always oppose democracy and these people can be relied upon to loudly broadcast objections with their hands firmly over their ears. The Machiavellian notion that people can never agree simply does not withstand analysis. Observe any two people agree on anything, and we will see them smile. We are hardwired to agree, not surprising really, considering we are social animals. Nature would not have it any other way. We can witness daily, the practice of all leaders to hoard information; to restrict knowledge, because, as they know, knowledge is power; and centralised knowledge creates power elites. But if we make all information pertinent to a commonly perceived issue, and available to everyone, discussion always produces consensus. This is because, contrary to the claims of all leaders, we are not all different at all. In fact, regardless of culture, all human beings share the same core values… the personal need for recognition, protection of family, the desire for prosperity and happiness. These regulate priorities, and when an issue is identified by the group, providing all members have access to the same information, all will form the same conclusion.

Such has been the weight of elitist propaganda broadcast over the past century;most readers will need to read the above text several times before objection triggers cease to fire automatically. Here are some exercises that assist in this regard, and which help to rehabilitate our analytical ability:

It is critical that we understand the significance of the word belief. We can define belief as the adoption of an attitude or position in spite of the evidence. Not insignificantly, this comes perilously close to a definition of insanity. Once the full implications of this irrational behaviour sinks in, we perceive that engaging in belief is the epitome of foolishness yet how often do we hear someone declare “I respect that person for his beliefs”. Since childhood, we have been conditioned to regard belief as noble; as synonymous with faith. Here again, we encounter the word games so encouraged by the manipulators of power. It is positive and empowering indeed to have faith in a friend’s courage, or ability, or loyalty. But this is a very different meaning of the word, to the blind faith in a god or gods.

Similarly, by playing on ambiguity, the power elite have been able to exploit two meanings of the world representation. In politics, as a group (electorate) we can elect or appoint a person to convey our documented consensus to an implementation entity… traditionally, the public service. This provides no opportunity for reinterpretation or manipulation of our intentions. The message bearer is, therefore, our formal representative. This is democracy. (Note the absence of parliament?).

However, an entirely different dynamic can be adopted wherein we elect a person to think, plan, and negotiate on our behalf. This is representationalism and bears no functional similarity to democracy at all. Representationalism is also a formula for corruption inasmuch as several circumstances can, and usually do, intervene:

· The representative can simply represent his own interests;

· The representative may be elected from a limited choice; as in party
preselection; wherein representation will be on behalf of party controllers;

· The party who controls the representative may not be elected, so his
message is wasted;

· His representation can be manipulated or distorted by a third party, who
control the controllers.

In fact, in western politics, the two latter scenarios apply; doubly so because the media and campaign financers represent the same interests; and, with cynical satisfaction, they make even more money from the punters from this corrupt practice. Most of the entire western world has been confused by the play on the word representation to accept representationalism as democracy. To ensure we do not dwell on the inconsistency, we face a daily barrage of other sleight-of-hand euphemisms that fully occupy and confuse our minds: freedom and democracy, war on terrorism, war on drugs, Islamofascism, free trade, equal rights, equal opportunity, appropriate, robust, war on poverty, overpopulation, world hunger, and the most obscene of all… humanitarian intervention… a more recent euphemism for killing tens of thousands of civilians.

If we are to have a future, we must first of all eliminate belief from our thought processes and instead become critically evidence-based in our thinking. This is simply adoption of a thought structure process habit. Anyway, the mere exercise of reading this article will already have precipitated the propaganda-immune process and we will find ourselves increasingly engaging in a rethink of any political phrase or catch-cry.

Catch-cry? What an old-fashioned word. But yes, this game is not new. It has been played for thousands of years and it is only now, that unrestricted exchange of thought has become universal vis a vis the internet, that genuine people power can finally evolve and corruption be ended forever. A note of urgency: the globalists are moving swiftly to control the internet and we have possibly one year in which to prevent a terminal return to the insanity of medieval feudalism.

Tony Ryan
© Copyright Tony Ryan 2012.
tonyryan43 @ gmail.com
Australian Rescue series: URL http://www.oziz4oziz.com/

Last edited by Donald E. Pauly; June 7th, 2012 at 08:15 PM. Reason: format
 
Reply

Tags
ancient greece, ancient greeks, democracy, pericles, thucydides

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:02 PM.
Page generated in 0.49817 seconds.