Fake Democracy Today: give me Slavery, or give me Death!

                [thoughts from    ~burning woman~    by Sha’Tara]

I have heavily criticized and mocked, the modern concept of democracy.  I particularly despise the use of the word democracy as it is applied to those Western nations that but recently emerged from the oppression of their imperial rulers.  They are at best plutocracies.  A better description is, kleptocracies.  

Truth be told, there is nothing democratic about any self-styled democracy.  There may be vestiges of it in some European countries, though I seriously doubt that.  At least based on my interpretation of the concept of democracy.  Socialism as practised in Scandinavian countries doesn’t mean democracy; one is more likely to encounter meritocracies.

Why can’t I accept the term “democracy” as it is applied to Western republics or constitutional monarchies?  It’s very simple: a real democracy would exist freely without any undue influence from any economic, religious or pre-eminent political forces.  It would operate freely under the flow of freely cast majority of votes. Never would it be influenced by advertising or propaganda.  Note the emphasis on “free.”

Let’s get right to it.  During a political campaign, the campaigner would have his or her expenses defrayed by the democracy (the commons) because, you see, it would be the democracy, not her/his ego that got them on the campaign trail.  Do we need reminding that an elected representative in a democracy is a servant of the people, and not of one’s ego?  

Let’s see how our current “representatives” compare:

If a campaigner was caught uttering lies during a campaign, not only would s/he be instantly disqualified from being a representative of the democracy, but subject to severe censure and legal repercussions likely to result in a jail term.  If a campaigner was caught being subverted by a lobbyist, both candidate and lobbyist would be arrested and charged with violating the public trust, the equivalent of being a traitor to the country.  And let’s face it, it is a treasonous act.    

Critical point:  It is my contention that any elected representative in a real democracy could never earn more than the least paid member of said democracy.  To expect more pay than anyone else is to mock the concept of equal representation.  No democracy can function properly under the economic system called capitalism, much less under the current system justly called “predatory capitalism.” 

In a democracy, no election can be valid unless, and until, every member of said democracy has voted, no exceptions allowed except in situations where the individual is mentally or physically unable to complete her or his vote, in which case a person could be duly authorized to cast their vote through power of attorney.  As to voting age, I say the sooner a member is made aware of her/his responsibility, the better.  Voting age? 16.

Obviously in a democracy there can be no political parties, that being a contradiction.  The electoral process would be quite simple, really.  It begins at the most local level.  A community elects a representative to run for governor of a state or province.  That person then runs against all other elected representatives from other communities.  The one who is elected governor is then automatically qualified to run for president, or prime minister.  The one who wins the final round of votes becomes the president.  Too complicated? 

She or he, cannot represent any other group or be attached to any business enterprise, religious organization or other pressure group during the time in office.  A contract to that effect must be signed by the president elect and any violation of this contract would mean a life sentence without parole.  Are we clear on this?

If a people is going to insist they want to live in a democracy it’s high time they took responsibility for their claims.  It’s more than high time the people put an end to the current farcical events of “elections” bought by the highest bidder and candidates coming from the richest members of that society.  Any individual expected to vote under current conditions, if any intelligence was in play, would automatically say, “How stupid do you think I am?” 

I’m sure that with a bit of thinking about it I could come up with an even better description of a proper, working democracy, but for now, this is enough to create some food for thought.  Yes, and I know that these simplistic ideas of mine will be relegated to the garbage pile of non-history as non-applicable, pie-in-the-sky bullshit.  Why?  Because the brainwashing says they can never work.  Not common sense; not simple facts: brainwashing.  Slosh-slosh goes the big political brainwasher through the years until it goes into full spin during the election.  After which, when the insults and punches have been thrown, everybody gradually regains their balance from being spun dizzy, and it’s business as usual.  And you call that a democracy?  “How stupid do you think I am?”   

But just so you know, I happen to know these ideas I presented above are totally applicable, totally practical and absolutely necessary if a working political system is to be called democratic. 

They will not ever be applied, or even tried, however, because our elites will make sure we never get it; that we continue fawning to, and supporting sociopathic, narcissistic, political ponerologists; the war-mongers and billionaires with their locked-in institutions: public education, religious organizations, banks, spying, defence and policing agencies, political parties and all their “grassroots” affiliates, the main stream media, Big Pharma, the medical system and academia, in which we all must trust for no better reason than that they eat us and our world alive, killing our neighbors, enslaving and imprisoning our families, our descendants, leaving always tiny thread of hope for baseless dreams to keep us performing: working, voting, studying, arming, shopping and believing. 

With that much institutional brainwash knocking us about, they can be assured that we’ll never clue in as to what’s actually going on.  Oh sure, we’ll read about it, maybe even think about it, and we’ll certainly talk ourselves blue in the face about it but we’ll never – GET IT.

The “system” says we need to believe… in anything, anything at all, as long as we don’t GET IT.  As long as  we never learn to trust one-another or lean on one-another.  The “system” has us trusting in literal demonic forces.  Even if every one we met or encountered walked around lovingly caring for others, looking and acting like angels from heaven: yes, even so, when it comes to choosing a leader, we’ll go find and choose the demon.  Only the demon is qualified to rule and the ruler must be given sycophantic armed support and protection if deemed necessary, the adulation of fandom and handed the key to the national storehouse and if possible, to all planetary reserves. That’s the brainwash. 

That’s the age-old programming, obviously too much of a headache to try to hack into and neutralize.  The real slogan of any so-called democracy today is, “Give me slavery or give me death!” 

“We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe”.  Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

30 thoughts on “Fake Democracy Today: give me Slavery, or give me Death!

    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Your question, though fired off in humour, is actually a very serious one. Today’s taxation system, because of the grand theft of compound interest on fake money and the fact that those who control the system naturally don’t pay their share of the tax burden, is grossly onerous to working people, and even to those who cannot find employment. But in my idea of a democracy the sharks couldn’t exist, so yes there would be taxes to support the infrastructure of our civilization, but we wouldn’t be supporting thieving bankers, or the huge bureaucracy we do now. We could eliminate probably up to 90% of our military “budget” by coexisting peacefully with other nations and relying on a strictly defensive military force, much as Russia had recently until goaded by NATO and US/EU military alliances supporting terrorists and “revolutionaries” all around Russian borders. The thing to remember is, there would be so much riches from eliminating systematic legalized corporate banditry and banksterism that taxes would not be a significant issue. By “taking care of our own” we would also eliminate much of the current bureaucracy and costs associated with social welfare. This is a HUGE subject, but thanks for bringing that up.

      Reply
  1. franklparker

    ” We could eliminate probably up to 90% of our military “budget” by coexisting peacefully with other nations and relying on a strictly defensive military force, much as Russia had recently” Has the Kremlin hacked into your computer? Where have you been for the last few decades? Have you read any Russian dissenting literature (eg. Alexander Solzhenitskin)? Irnically, it was those two disciples of neo-liberalism, Reagan and Thatcher, that succeeded in negotiating downwards the vast numbers of nuclear weapons on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thanks for the comment, Frank. I only mentioned Russia because recently the NATO wolves have been howling at the bear looking to draw blood, and the bear has had to raise itself up on his haunches to let the wolves know he’s not defenseless. Nevertheless, Russia’s military budget is still less than half that of the US.

      Reply
  2. Woebegone but Hopeful

    This is a cogent and eloquent argument Sha’Tara. In parts it resembles my own views, but then they diverge because I go into the area of the Socialist State and there arrive all sort of problems and issues over freedoms/responsibilities; but that’s for another day.
    The question I would like to ask is in two parts:
    1 Do you envisage a problem with those who will not ‘come quietly’?
    2. Suppose some people wish to exercise a right not to vote? (I personally don’t hold to it myself, but just supposing?)
    All the best
    Roger

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      I anticipated your questions. There is no easy answer. For those “who will not come quietly” well, they’d have to accept the will and choice of the majority. Knowing people, such a drastic change as proposed would not happen without revolutions. And even then it’s quite possible that the same thing would happen that happened to the communist revolution. To the second question, that’s a bit easier. We’d have to have the wisdom to include some kind of carefully worded “conscientious objector” status. For those who, for whatever reason, used the CO status, there would be penalties in losses of certain benefits since they could not be classed as full members of the democracy. If there were no serious “checks and balances” upon individuals you’d end up with the same kind of anarchy extant today. A true democracy demands full responsibility by all. That’s the only way to ensure that “the majority rule” is of, by and for, the people.
      Bottom line though, is simple: if we cannot achieve a state of democratic status, then we prove to ourselves (or whomever may be watching) that we are incapable of, or unwilling to, rule ourselves justly and we fully deserve whatever power(s) place themselves over us and enslave us. If these powers act in such a way as to despoil the planet beyond recourse, or launch a devastating nuclear war, so be it: fully deserved and there are no longer any victims: just perpetrators through global acquiescence.

      Reply
      1. Woebegone but Hopeful

        Thank you for that comprehensive and intelligent reply Sha’ Tara.
        That is a clear argument. Some folk might not like it, but then as a world community we can never have everyone pleased with everything.
        I’m with you on the responsibility in a true democracy. There seems to be a trend which looks suspiciously fashionable that to believe in nothing and to not get involved is the ‘smart way’- sounds like fodder-talk to me.

      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        Thanks for further commenting, Roger. As an activist, I remember well how difficult it was to “convince” people of the necessity to protect (in our case) agricultural lands, and push in legislation that slowed down industrial, commercial and residential encroachment on farm land. Had we not done so in the early 70’s there would be no agriculture left anywhere in this valley. Our (greatly hampered by political and industrial powers) efforts to save our farmlands forced development into the hills, where it is taking place now. Of course there still remains the very serious problem of over-population and our successful efforts remain but a stop-gap measure. Sadly, like climate change, over-population is being mostly ignored, mainly because a large population ensures consumerism’s continued expansion and predatory capitalism is mostly dependent upon that plague (along with perpetual war – hot or cold) to keep itself in power.

      3. Woebegone but Hopeful

        Yes indeed. And it seems that everyone knows what they want irrespective of how it might affect others. At the very end of the day the salutary lessons lie in the fossil records- extinction events, and no amount of paper fortunes or paid for strident newspaper editorials can do anything about that.

  3. Spyros

    Unfortunately it is part of democracy to null democracy. By definition, it is the rule of the majority. But if the majority gets fooled, it can become the opposite. There is no limit what a majority could want. The nazi party got elected democratically. Democracy doesn’t mean liberties. You could have a king and get more of them. He could say “do what you want lol” or something.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Of course. The idea behind the “essay” is to tie in with what I’ve been saying about man and his world: we need to switch dependency from external power to self-empowerment and focus on compassionate interaction. We need to set boundaries that cannot be crossed, example, a child’s life, and a mother’s. When these are made sacred, inviolable, then we begin to move forward. Until then, all that we go on about is a complete, ridiculous waste of time, effort, money and brains.

      Reply
      1. Spyros

        Yes, we think of the same about self-empowerment.

        As for the boundaries. They need to be made specific so I can agree or not. For example, the right to property can be good imo, but if it means to expand your property so as to deprive others of property, then it gets reversed. And a vague constitution has allowed such legal ‘holes’ to exist.

      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        Because of the brainwash, “self empowerment” is seen as ultimate selfishness, when in fact it works itself out in the opposite direction. The self empowered person does not need to take or oppress, nor would s/he lean in the direction but rather would choose compassion, which means giving without thoughts of reciprocation. It’s a real stretch for people of earth to contemplate such a way of life, of course; they are not the self-sacrificing kind as a general rule. But if a “system” was put together that emphasized such a way, it would not take long before a general sense of direction towards compassionate interaction would develop. Full stop here: that is what the current ruling forces fear people will discover because that means the end of their blood-sucking rule world-wide. So they do everything in their power to create chaos through fear and baseless hate.

      3. Spyros

        I know what you mean. The theory that we are animals, along with the jungle law have imprinted into the minds of people that power is evil, and that to have any you must be evil, otherwise you must be a victim. So those who don’t wish to harm go to that side too –with the help of Jesus, as well. I connect having power to granting power and to love as one (spirit, not animal) re-creates others in his image. And of course a system based on such principles would be quite different.

      4. Sha'Tara Post author

        …and if we are to experience any sort of life worth living on this world that is where we must go. I don’t care how “pie in the sky” such thinking is labeled as, if those who label it cannot come up with something better. We can tinker with all of our civilized ways until the cows come home and nothing will fundamentally change. You mention Jesus. I’ve read the gospels. I know for a fact that had people turned to such teachings wholeheartedly we would not be in the mess we are in now. Considering the astronomical costs of maintaining an evil system globally, what’s so terribly hard about turning to compassion in all our transactions involving power? It works, I’ve proved it to myself now for nigh on 35 years. You can’t argue against success. Again, that’s what the powers that be don’t want people to discover. We are not animals and we are not robots. We possess “consciousness” and with that we can change our very reality.

      5. Spyros

        I don’t put limits in my thinking how things can become. In fact those limits in thinking are part of the brainwashing. You deviate from the average, you’re abnormal. So then only few are given the right to form that average. That’s how indirectly and dishonestly the weak rule the rest, because the rest agree.

      6. Sha'Tara Post author

        On boundaries, I wasn’t talking about physical boundaries, in fact those will need to eventually disappear. Do we need to own a piece of land, if there is respect for one’s needed space? If i grow a garden to feed my family on a piece of land close to my residence then that is sacred. If there is extra space and someone else is willing to use it, I have no reason to deny them access: it’s common ground. Eventually all of earth must become common ground. The boundaries I speak of, as made clear in my example, these are the ones that need “policing.” We could so easily begin right there: establish a clearly enforceable global law that makes any violation, exploitation or oppression of children and mothers a crime of the highest order, that including members of such children and mothers’ families. That would include all acts related to war: if you can’t fight your wars without negatively affecting women and children then you start one and you are de-facto a highest order criminal. Can we do this? If we cannot, then please, let’s stop referring to ourselves as human beings. Change it to the proper terminology: deranged, demonic beings.

      7. Spyros

        Well laws are limitations. If you trust to an absolute degree you don’t need any. If you know you can make your beautiful painting as you want it and put it somewhere and nobody comes to paint anything else over it nor damages it without your consent, you don’t need to safe keep it.

      8. Spyros

        😛 But don’t worry for you can have your life without other’s agreement, or with the agreement of who you want. That you must agree is part of the brain wash.

  4. Darryl Walker Jr

    Great piece Sha’Tara! You are absolutely right: our perspectives on democracy line up nicely.

    I like your alteration of Patrick Henry’s mantra – as the liberty/death dichotomy is a false one. There is no liberty, only slavery. Capitalism is a system of exploitation whereby workers suffer under wage-slavery. But with all the propaganda, we are made to believe that we have the “freedom” to work for different companies. Translation: we have the “freedom” to choose our slave master. This is the absurdity of Western brainwashing!

    We are not valued as full citizens who can participate in this so-called democracy. The original democracy, back in Greece, did not have full participation, either. At best, the electoral system relegates the masses to a voyeuristic position on the sidelines. The entire electoral system is a sham that provides us with an illusion of choice. We approach the ballot and see that two candidates names are already printed on the sheet – all that is required is our “vote”. But these candidates were selected before they were elected; meaning, the corporate overlords rubber-stamped them as “safe” before they entered the political domain.

    Every four years we debate where this nation has gone, and where it should go. Usually, this is discussed in terms of a “Left-Right” spectrum – whereby the former is “liberal” and the latter is “conservative”. This is nonsense. They are two wings of the same dead bird. In this fake democracy, our participation is horizontal: we can only debate along the Left-Right continuum. Think of a graph with two axes: one horizontal, and one vertical, intersecting in the middle. The horizontal plane is about the Left-Right continuum; the vertical plane is about the structure of society. These two planes intersect at the point of HUMANITY and CIVILIZATION. The goal of politics is to keep us theorizing horizontally about lame, pre-packaged issues; as opposed to theorizing vertically which is structural.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Well said… well said… well said. Quote: “Every four years we debate where this nation has gone, and where it should go. Usually, this is discussed in terms of a “Left-Right” spectrum – whereby the former is “liberal” and the latter is “conservative”. This is nonsense. They are two wings of the same dead bird.” !!!!!!!!!!!

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s