I regularly read heartfelt reports expressing dismay at undemocratic democracies, political structures and spokespeople corrupted by greed, and corporate shadow hierarchies augmenting their version of order via puppet administrations that support “the people” in name only. There is a swift way to remedy this. Perhaps full implementation would take time as these radical recommendations would collapse the current status quo – faux populism.
For a new order the first requirement would be to do away with “parties”. There would be no corporate organs driving (they use the term directing, but driving is more apt) planning, influencing decisions around or opportunity to veto implementation of unfriendly policies. Every single politician would be independent and of equal status, whether one becomes an expert in the environment or another master’s trade (if “trading” was still necessary). Politicians would need to become paragons of virtue; something never seen today. There could be no corrupting influences, for instance. The only way to effect austere measures is via the imposition of the maximum penalty and the only way to rid our corridors of power of corruption is to implement austere measures for the furtherance of the good of humanity. Any transgression by any paragon of virtue, no matter how slight, would see the execution of the death penalty. Politicians must become divine representatives of mankind. With this honour transgression comes at a hefty price. End of corruption.
There is still some way to go, because modern day politicians bluster they are “paragons of virtue” too. So, to effect seamless change, virtue should be defined in detail. For instance, there could be no more corporate alliances. Indeed, a politician’s income would not vary, could not be swayed by corporate interests and any unaccountability would see the imposition of the death penalty to the detriment of the honorary member and equally severe punishments for those that pervert the course of honour. I know it is American tradition, but the time for soft ball is over. Playing hard ball is the only way to implement lasting change. Of course, we all know the tricks that modern politicians pull concocting convoluted affairs with extended families and corporate friends. Per new order, that style of operating would be dead in the water even if it meant a lot of dead politicians and extremely disadvantaged associated networks. I hear the sceptics hissing, “Nice try, but who’s going to enforce all this?”
Yes, agreed, today their (the corrupt corporate brotherhood of anarchy) armies are bigger than those under instruction of virtue. Nevertheless it only takes one paradigm shift of thinking to corrode the goodwill bonding negative instruments. Perhaps a better way of looking at new order would be to consider that corporate power base ever present today. That would no longer exist. Corporates would simply uphold the law, if they existed at all. For instance, with powers stripped, moguls might decide they did not wish to continue on their current courses to oblivion. Let us suppose that was so – all infrastructures were abandoned to the apparent detriment to stability of life supporting networks. No problem. There is another way that could be quickly installed by new political organs. Although, I should qualify, this would mean “nationalising” all corporate entities and their goods and chattels without compensation for the estranged parties. Therefore, I suggest that moguls would be up for new order given the right balance of power.
There would be advantages, for moguls could also become esteemed paragons of virtue of near equal status to politicians. I recently read a fine post by Anna von Reitz about theoretical enslavement of man. It focuses on how the beloved US constitution was hijacked by the corporate entity United States of America, Inc. “The Constitution of the United States of America” in 1868 reduced the “constitution” to little more than a commercial agreement (a corporate charter) between the government (whip masters) and the People (slaves). The article focuses on the plight of the native Indian populations that were reduced to displaced captives on their own land. I shall build a separate post, analysing, adding to and praising the content of Judge von Reitz’s weighty text. If only there were more like her that understood the issues facing humanity.
For this piece, I must delve back much further as the problems began not with ethnic “racially abused” slaves. Democracy was formally invented [supposedly] by the Greeks but governance wielded little power and was seen more of a chore than an advantage. The ancient Romans adapted the Greek model to being something approximating modern political organs. They had a senate, senators and one clear leader. In the eyes of the Romans, man was not born free but, rather, had to earn his liberty. Even so, many peoples were untroubled by federal governance and were allowed to roam free and establish settlements on vast tracts of unclaimed, valueless lands. The reason these lands remained unclaimed is there was no charter or deed underwriting ownership. Even so, the Roman oligarchs still tried to impose global commercial controls with the introduction of global currencies (all issued by Rome). Control the money and you have the people in your hands.
The gall of these industrialists impresses me. Anna von Reitz saw through the spider’s web. I assume most, if not everyone, has heard of the “Tales of Robin Hood” even if they have not read them (or the modern volume based on them). This in reality (and there was a very real reality obscured by the robust heartiness imbued by sentiment) was set against a backlog of “real” King Richard at the crusades fightin’ fiendish Moors (Muslims) and protectorate King John seizing common lands in favour of the Crown. These newly acquired lands needed to be coveted, so a sheriff’s department was appointed to impose order. Common survival rituals were outlawed as a consequence and, to put it bluntly, we are told by the painted texts, in not so many ways, the people had nowhere to live and next to nothing to eat. Though origins are spurious, Robin Hood’s tales, I believe, were commissioned to justify the imposition of the Magna Carta (another commercial charter – between the Crown and the people). Whilst, in its original form, it does legislate for freedom of use of [now] federal lands or “federal common lands”, charters are designed to be adapted.
Where the real tyranny (hardly noticed by Robin Hood) is clear comes at the behest of King Richard, who supposedly “knew nothing” (and if you believe that you believe pigs are made of marshmallow) of dastardly King John’s theft of common lands. Once owned by the Crown nothing, apparently, could reverse “lack of” ownership. So, brave King Richard dishes out the newly acquired booty his buddies, including, allegedly, Robin of Loxley (yep, dear old Robin Hood). These, in turn, put the prior de-facto owners to work as rent paying serfs. A new slave management structure was born – the “feudal system”. Today, with rates and other taxes, theoretically no one is free. Indeed, the only ones unaccounted for are the displaced homeless. All must be deemed an irreconcilable burden on the system in the eyes of commerce as all social services (police, health, information bureaus and so on) rely on contributions from legitimate tax payers. The unacceptably large numbers of professional people reduced to adroit poverty and fringe homelessness has become the premium nightmare of those that uphold virtues of capitalism.
Anna von Reitz argues that social security is viewed as a jump start loan for tax payers under the current system of commerce. Ghost insurance premiums accrue to stock sufficient social security funds for this enterprise. Thus, as I explain in a prior post, there are over a hundred million global charities fund raising for issues that fall outside the objectives of the social security fund. If government was, as it should be, for the people, there would be not one charity. Instead of the current, patronising, tax right offs for charitably inclined corporations, for our new order all charitable causes would be the uncapped responsibility of commerce as it is trade that assures the currents of currency. Naturally there would be a high degree of scrutiny and potential debate as to the worthiness of each charitable requirement.
I have read Lance Hart’s book on Wheelism; a revolutionary extra-terrestrial inspired mechanism of government. Though Lance only reveals the cosmetic framework, which is a form of cross species environmental contribution-ism, he does stress the importance of learned debate. This, he assures, is not the mock fanfare of our modern political theatre. Wheelism gives no opportunity for Napoleonic oligarchs to hiss vulgar diktat by proxy through rehearsed, pretty intermediaries. Their debates are lateral exchanges that perfect illuminated thought. Audiences are left agog. Ours; the chattel of modern political organs, are always dispatched far more confused by the profound inconsistency of arguments than they were at start of each monstrous charade. Hence, faux populism is all about voting the other out and nothing do with legitimately securing power. The closest any would be Caesar comes to igniting political fever is with hollow promises of glorious bribes that inevitably evaporate under the weight of commercial priority when considered by the actual exchequer.
To summarise, our new system of government would comprise independent politicians free of parties. However, expert guided departments would give room for individuals to specialise. Debate would be learned and all policies and decisions would be for the people. Commerce instruments would remain in place, though maybe temporarily, and these would exclusively fund government for the people. Other than prestige, there would be no advantage gained by running politics or a corporate entity. All laws would be based on virtue and not the result of petty crusaders whims. A high degree of latitude would be given for arguments in the new justice system. Government lobby groups would be abolished, but instruments would be available and society participation encouraged (councils). Any unheard voice would be given the right of hearing and inclusion in the fair debate mechanism. The education system would be revamped and roles of children, rules of childhood reassessed. Scientists would work for the people. Craft industries would be encouraged for those with insufficient skills and others lacking destiny drive. Everyone would receive social security from cradle to grave and everyone would feel empowered being part of society’s engine.
I am sure I have missed out lots of good ideas so I will check the comments section as, in the spirit of true democracy, this will be the first entry of many on this subject. We can discuss health, “global warming”, environment, plight of animals and the banking system and lots, lots more at your leisure. Your feedback is vital as this instrument affects everyone as it will [theoretically] enhance everyone’s lives; oligarchs included. Let’s face it guys, even for you oligarchs, think how much better this world could be if we got it right!