This paper is an attempt to summarize the development of social structures — namely democracies. This paper is written from a perspective from English philosophy. The theories of John Locke and Thomas Paine lay the foundation for this paper. Namely, Locke’s “natural state.” He expressed how man’s most natural state is one of freedom and independence. People innately fear confinement, whether it’s physical confinement or ideological confinement. People feel most comfortable when they are allowed to pursue their own endeavors in a manner of their own choosing.
Wikipedia mocks this “state of nature,” calling it fictional, however, I beg to differ. When I and many of my friends volunteered to join the American military, many of us expressed our disdain for being told what to do. A widespread practice to avoid the stress of being told what to do was to predict the order and act upon it before the order was given. If you knew you would have a “lay down” inspection as soon as you returned from the field, rather than clean all of your supplies and lay down your inventory that you used in the field, many soldiers had bought a second set of inventories that was specifically used for inspection. Why go to such lengths? It was not to save time and definitely not to save money. The expressed purpose was to avoid being told what to do. This is what Locke’s “natural state” is alluding to. No self-respecting individual likes to be told what to do.
Thomas Paine was pivotal in inciting and instigating the American Revolution against the King of England. As a political philosopher, Thomas Paine is among one of the most influential in history. He is the father of Social Evolutionism. Thomas Paine initiated his pamphlet “Common Sense” (1776) by distinguishing ‘Society’ from ‘Government.’ Society, he identified as being created based on human want, but government he asserted was a necessary evil which was created to control human vices. What did that mean?
Understanding society is an easier prospect. Although people enjoy privacy, independence, and freedom; we also wish to be recognized for our accomplishments, appreciated for our sacrifices, and being lavished with praise or expressions of gratitude always reassures us of our purpose in life. Our dignity and perhaps our sanity depends on the approval of those people around us. Besides, Paine acknowledges that teamwork is a huge incentive to create societies or communities. A community is a group of people who share resources. Whether it’s water, food, Internet, talents of our neighbors, or countless other resources too many to enumerate here, this was the premise which barter was built upon. If my talents could be traded for my neighbors’ talents, then we freely traded services with one another to make our community better.
However, people are innately selfish. Perhaps it’s genetic programming to concentrate our attention on self-preservation and self-gratification. Regardless, having joined a society, according to Locke, people “resign… [their] executive power of the law of nature” and “authorizes the society… to make laws for him.” In other words, we acquiesce to the society and agree to abide by the laws of the collective.
When disputes arise between members of a society, there must be a trusted procedure to resolve such disputes. The trusted procedure must be agreed upon in advance to avoid any impression of favoritism. The trusted procedure must maintain the appearance of objectivity because the idea of justice is dependent upon equal application of the law to all members of the society. Justice must be blind. Hence, this is the reason we invented government. Government is the administrator of justice. Government is the rule keeper. Government is the mediator and arbiter of rules/laws within a society. This is what Thomas Paine meant by saying it is a necessary evil. If people treated each other with dignity, fairness, benevolence, and love then we would never have created government in the first place. Of course, some disputes are the result of simple misunderstandings or miscommunication. There is evidence that James Madison considered himself an acolyte of Thomas Paine. In The Federalist Papers №51 James Madison said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” He was echoing the sentiment that Thomas Paine expressed in “Common Sense.” If we could contain our malice, greed, and selfishness and treat each other as angels, then no government would have ever been invented. The sole purpose for government is to act as our rule keeper, mediator, and arbiter of the rules that we have agreed to abide by within the collective… the society. Also remember, before a jury system was devised the king supposedly served as a judge. Disputes were brought before the king, and he decided the best way to preserve justice. Whether true or not is irrelevant. See, Paine was writing from the standpoint from everyone’s ideology — the Judeo-Christian ideology — that’s why he also referred to the biblical story of Israel selecting its first king, Saul. From the Judeo-Christian perspective, the Israelites were without a king and selected one simply because — and I quote — “they wanted to be like other nations.” The bible didn’t go into detail about the reasons for government, but Thomas Paine uses “Common Sense” as a way to explain his opinion. It’s evident, that many Americans accepted his explanation for its founding.
Most of America’s Founding Fathers were Deists. Most evangelical Americans alive today identify as Theists. What’s the difference? A Theist sees God’s hand in all matters. If I avoid catastrophe, it must be a result of God assisting me. If a achieve greatness, it must be a result of God’s help. However, a Deist sees God as a spectator. There are no prophecies and there are no miracles. Miracles are contributable to God. If God refuses to intervene then all success and all failures are directly attributable to people’s efforts. “God helps those who help themselves” is just a clever way to give credit to a deity that perhaps doesn’t even exist. Supporters of religion in an effort to garner support for religion tell us that if people ceased being religious, they would also cease being charitable. Does the belief in God make people more generous or charitable? Communistic Secular States have proven this to be an erroneous claim. The degree to which a person is religious has no impact on their mercy, benevolence, charity, or generosity. In fact, many Leftists are Leftists because they want government to evolve in a more charitable and compassionate manner. Those religious persons who think they have a monopoly on morality are also living in a state of denial. To equate someone’s Leftism as Satanism is disingenuous.
Image 1.
In history, we have two types of government that we refer to as democratic. I will ignore the term “social democratic,” because if we look at political philosophy as a whole, we can identify stages of development that the earlier philosophers alluded to. In diagram 1. I will refer to the model that I believe Thomas Paine was building and later Karl Marx added to. As the father to Social Evolutionism, he wrote clearly in “Common Sense” of a natural progression — at least, of the first three phases of progression.
1. ANARCHY
Anarchy (every man for himself). This is what John Locke and Thomas Paine alluded to as natural law or the natural state. We offer no allegiance to anyone. We write our own laws. We answer to no one. We obey no one. This is a pioneer or explorer alone in the wilderness. No one to be responsible for other than self. We are at our freest. To act whenever and however we dictate. We answer solely to ourselves.
2. DIRECT DEMOCRACY
Direct Democracy is what Thomas Paine referred to as the small community that we may join because the benefits of assistance from other people is just too valuable to pass up. There is strength in numbers so much more may be achieved in a shorter period of time. It is much more efficient to erect a house with assistance, rather than attempting to do everything ourselves. Of course, I alluded to earlier how barter grew out of this exchange of fellow citizens’ talents. If I am a brilliant blacksmith. I will do your metalwork in exchange for your tailoring, cooking, or woodworking skills.
3. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY (REPUBLIC)
Representative Democracy is what Thomas Paine referred to as the community we joined that has grown too unwieldy and large to allow direct participation for all its members. The society covers too much territory so perhaps I cannot attend all the meetings of parliament. I’m too busy so instead I may dispatch my son. As the society gets too big it becomes necessary to elect representatives to speak on the local communities’ behalf. They understand the local community’s needs and are supposed to have identical interests with that of the electorate back home.
The fourth phase of progression, Paine alluded to in “Agrarian Justice” (1797). If there is an evolution to government, are there other roles for government other than “mediation” and “arbitration”? Paine apparently attempts to wrestle with the idea of an economic duty or role for government. It is within “Agrarian Justice” that Paine describes a system which many Socialists identify as an advocacy for something akin to the “Universal Basic Income (UBI). I actually concur with that assessment. It appears evident that Paine was not just the TRUE Father of “Social Evolutionism,” but he may actually have been the first Utopian Socialist… thirty years before either Henri de Saint-Simon (1828) or Auguste Comte (1830).
4. SOCIALISM
If there is a god, why have we not observed prophets, miracles, and prophesies today? It will be argued that their time has passed. What if Deists are more accurate in their ideology than Theists? If there is a god, perhaps he has become more reserved and thus more passive with his engagement with human beings? If Deists are more accurate in their observations that God is more a spectator today than a participant, the reason government would be needed as a charitable institution is to replace churches. If God were indeed more of a spectator than an active participant in people’s daily lives or if Atheists are more accurate in their assessment, that the monotheistic religions are predominantly a PSYOP — an effort to control the masses — what’s the harm in allowing government to take over as the charitable institution? Because churches would sooner or later evolve into just social clubs rather than places of worship. Most decent people would like to help their fellow human beings, but the disagreement comes down to ‘how’ and ‘how much.’ Hence, Thomas Paine wrote about a more compassionate government in “Agrarian Justice” (1797). He wrote about this more than thirty years before the Utopian Socialists Henri de Saint-Simon (1828) or Auguste Comte (1830).
Who will care for those who cannot take care of themselves? Who will take care of the maimed veterans who return from war? Who will take care of the widows or orphans of veterans who failed to return from war? If churches or charities are unable to fill the need, government should do it Paine theorized.
The fifth phase of progression came generations later. Karl Marx was a German political philosopher and economist who wrestled with the inherent injustices he witnessed in his lifetime. He was born in mid-1818 and died in early 1883 so his lifespan covered most of the nineteenth century. If America was indeed a grand experiment. What did she do wrong? Karl Marx and Joseph Engels cowrote the “Communist Manifesto” and published it in 1848. This was, of course, before the American Civil War (1861–1865). What transpired between the publication of the “Communist Manifesto” and the American Civil War should serve as evidence that the American Loyalists were active in America. They had a vested interest in seeing the American experiment fail. What happened after publication of the “Communist Manifesto,” but before the American Civil War? Within the “Communist Manifesto” Karl Marx wrote of a continued evolution (or natural progression) of government.
Karl Marx was also anti-hierarchy and obviously anti-Monarchist. With the disappearance of class distinctions emerges egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is the antithesis of hierarchical structures — namely a Monarchy. Hence, Karl Marx picked up where Thomas Paine left off. Karl Marx was continuing Thomas Paine’s work.
5. COMMUNISM
If ‘community’ can be defined as a group of people sharing resources, what if the community shared ALL resources… equally? This is the beauty of Karl Marx’s Communism. Communism is the next step in Paine’s evolution.
However, Karl Marx didn’t stop there. Within the very same paragraph where he proposes a classless society, he also proposes a stateless society too. This passage above is from the end of the second section of the “Communist Manifesto” titled “Proletarians and Communists.” By generally abolishing the class or caste systems — those “class antagonisms” — they would be essentially sacrificing their own dominance or “supremacy” thereby abdicating or relinquishing their own rulership. Hence, why the model above is a dial or a circle, rather than a linear model. Karl Marx was proposing a system that ran so efficiently — or perhaps so equitably — that it would evolve into an Anarchy — “every man for himself.”
See, looking at government from the Paine-Marx perspective, government has a natural progression which can be dialed-up or dialed-down. It is up to the society to determine how much authority to give to their government. A minimalist’s view would say no state or Anarchy. However, the Founding Fathers in America decided to stop on the Republic because of their beliefs in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but also because of the technology of the time. Personally, I don’t buy into the concept that some societies cannot adapt to democracy. In my opinion, humans have an insatiable appetite for freedom.
Considering these two ideas, any failure to establish a democratic society in the 20th Century, the blame falls on the shoulders of the Elitists who have been fighting a secret subversive war on any other forms of government which raised its head above the primordial stew of ideas. People, as a collective — as a society — are much more creative, resilient, and resourceful than any individual.
Remember, Marx spoke of the “class distinctions hav(ing) disappeared” and “hav(ing) swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms, and of classes (in) general…” He is saying classes are obsolete and should be abolished. He’s advocating the abandonment of hierarchical structure. Now that we’ve looked at the “Communist Manifesto,” what transpired between its publication and the American Civil War?
James Henry Hammond was a wealthy plutocrat — a plantation owner — or what we call today — an oligarch. He hailed from my home state of South Carolina. He was perhaps the closest thing America came to nobility or gentry. After serving as both a Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives and as South Carolina’s 60th governor, he was elected to represent the state in the U.S. Senate in 1857. In his March 4, 1858, speech to the US Senate (commonly referred to today as his “Cotton is King” speech), Hammond introduced the world to “The Mudsill Theory.” I find this speech too repugnant to even type. So, I will screenshot some of it here… it is rather reprehensible and disgusting, but now — in my opinion — it was intentionally provocative. Again, they controlled us through emotion rather than allow us to approach things rationally and critically — perhaps one of the initial PSYOPs. (Divide and Conquer).
Additionally, the American who responded to Hammond’s speech was a lawyer from Kentucky named Abraham Lincoln. His retort came September 30, 1859 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society. Please, allow me to put this in perspective: In the mid-19th century, we had a political philosopher from Germany who attempted to continue the work of Thomas Paine — the biggest instigator for the American Revolutionary War — who largely financed the war effort with the proceeds from the sell of his pamphlet “Common Sense.” However, American Senators were advocating a reprehensible ideology on the floor of the Senate called “The Mudsill Theory.” This theory was contrary to everything written in our “Declaration of Independence,” that “all men are created equal.” Sadly, I call your attention to this to illustrate my accusation — America has been weathering subversion for a very long time. We Patriots have been asleep as the Loyalists planned, plotted, and schemed.
LET’S TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY — WHAT WAS THEIR VISION?
If the pursuit is for a government closest to perfection, then we must identify how we measure perfection. What, essentially, are we striving for? In one word, people seek fairness — or perhaps an equitable state (condition). If the primary purpose for inventing government was as Mediator-Arbiter, then that is a fair assessment — we desire an objective, fact-based, impartial judge who is equitable (or fair) in their judgements. How then can we repair the extensive damage the Monarchists have wrought? Some resources must be spent in a massive restructuring of the American government to restore transparency thereby restoring accountability to the People (the electorate). However, the model above suggests much more freedom than anyone has ever possibly imagined. Below, I will engage in a few various thought experiments to help you understand what I mean.
I understand that people shy away from the word ‘Utopia’ because it is viewed as too idealistic. However, if an athlete doesn’t strive for perfection, they’ll never improve. The same can be said of any endeavor or goal. If your fear of failure is so great that you’re resistant to try, why bother getting up in the morning? Just stay in bed!
Because the subversion has persisted for so long, it is essentially ingrained into our American system — being a systemic problem. Although America has laws against insider-trading, for instance, members of Congress have never been appropriately punished for it, and any enforcement is disproportionately applied. Anyone who fell outside the control of the subversive faction may have been punished, but anyone loyal to the traitors were shown one-eyed justice and preferential treatment. Hence, the need for the reeducation of the American public needs to accompany any transition and/or modification to the structures which make up the American apparatus. It is of utmost importance to restore transparency to the American people so they can be reassured that the institutions of government are functioning fairly and properly. This should include the prosecution of the subversive faction which seized government control so many decades earlier.
The following paragraphs use the model above (the dial) to calibrate the authority of government. How far we dial up or dial down its setting may seem arbitrary, but how much authority people wish to bestow to their governments should be deliberated thoroughly.
SOLUTIONS:
SCENARIO ONE (The Dial is set to “Republic”)
Let’s talk solutions. If a government can be dialed up or down and the degree of its powers or authority can be extended or reduced, where should we start? Well, if we want to restore America back to a state (condition) it was in shortly after the American Revolutionary War then our aim is essentially to minimize changes. We restore the Republic and corporations become like a fourth leg of the establishment. In this scenario, corporations are still allowed to manage the means of production for the society, but because corporations require the expertise that our leaders often rely upon, it would need to be incorporated into the system using checks and balances to minimize insider-trading, the revolving door of government, corporate lobbying, and campaign finance would all need drastic overhauls.
SCENARIO TWO/THREE (The Dial is set to “Socialism” or “Communism”)
In these scenarios, the main reason for choosing them is to abolish corporations. In other words, if we presume that Karl Marx was correct, then the means of production should be incorporated into a system which is decentralized and localized — community-based production. It has its appeal to the eco-friendly millennials. Minimizing transport-costs is definitely better for the environment, lobbying would be dealt with because all the experts would be working within the government. However, there are numerous issues with the way Communism was implemented in the 20th century. I, for one, think the central planning and its prolonged hold onto power is indicative of the subversion of the system. If these people were genuinely ideologues of Marxist theory, they would’ve streamlined production decades before Perestroika (1986).
SCENARIO FOUR (The Dial is set to “Anarchy”)
In this scenario, the purpose is clear — to abolish the modern nation-state. ‘Statism’ as an ideology that is diametrically opposed to ‘individualism’ didn’t come into usage until about 1912… interesting. Just before World War I, people recognized a threat from government seizing control from its citizens. If your definition of ‘anarchist’ is simply “someone who rejects all hierarchical structures (or ‘rulership’)” in a society, then I am an anarchist. However, I don’t consider myself an anarchist because I concede to Thomas Paine’s model. I think some form of arbitration/mediation must still be enacted (I purposefully avoid the word ‘enforced’ to help illustrate some of the demands of true anarchists).
SCENARIO FIVE (The Dial is set to “(Direct) Democracy”)
Allow me to start by saying, “I’ve left the best for last.” Sure, democracy gets a bad rap, but allow me to explain why I think that James Madison, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson would probably endorse this idea. Today, we have technology, that could give every citizen a voice, regardless of stature or location.
I understand that our American Founding Fathers wanted citizens who were vested in the community — that’s why they originally required landownership as a requisite to vote. However, these details are minor compared to the mountain of changes I’m about to present to you.
Every Utopian writer of the West has one thing in common. They all attempted to abolish private property in one form or another (e.g., Plato, Sir Thomas More, Karl Marx, and Gene Roddenberry). However, what if the real purpose for establishing Gene Roddenberry’s vision of the future wasn’t to abolish private property, but was instead an effort to abolish money?
Characters in “Star Trek” have made comments about money, but it wasn’t fully eliminated. The references to money within the franchise speak of “we have money, just not the kind you’re familiar with.” What if they digitized it? What if there was no paper money, but only e-currency — similar to bitcoin?
TOOLS/IDEAS THAT COULD REVOLUTIONIZE GOVERNMENT
THE BLOCKCHAIN
The blockchain as mentioned above. Its regulation could be maintained as long as it remains secure and transparent. Additionally, if currency were indeed digitized, perhaps smart phones would serve as your communication device, your payment method, your keys, your mp3 player, etc. (Pretty much like today.)
Understanding blockchain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSo_EIwHSd4
A deeper dive. As we look at why James Madison and Thomas Paine passed over Direct Democracy, they presumed that the natural progression from Direct Democracy to Republic happened due to society getting too big and unwieldy. However, if government is indeed a necessary evil that we seek to serve as our objective arbiter and mediator, then perhaps we should allow it to focus on what it was designed for. Perhaps courts of the future could be councils of LOCAL elders who serve as judges within their communities. The innovations are boundless when you consider the opportunity before us. Our ancestors never had such an opportunity to reshape government. Ever since the Macedonian Kings and the Spartans put down the Athenian Republic, they have maintained their stranglehold on power. This is what we’re witnessing in the 21st century — Elitists protecting their ideology and their lifestyles. The amount of corruption under their watch is staggering and disgusting.
I advocate a holistic approach akin to Buckminster Fuller’s synergetic approach. Buckminster “Bucky” Fuller definitely had a keen ability to “think outside the box.” His unconventional methods, combined with a tenacious resolve and uncanny wit probably helped popularize the American adage, “I conform to nonconformity,” or as Sinatra used to sing, “I did it my way.” Why are Americans today in such a rush to conform? American diversity is a strength, not a blemish.
OPEN SOURCE
This is why I also advocate the work of Stephan Kinsella. He is helping Americans realize that Intellectual Property (IP) has little intrinsic value or is more of a gimmick than a constructive component of any economy. We’re told that IP encourages development, but time and again, Kinsella shows us that IP actually hinders development and has been used by our Elites as a means to control the economy.
https://www.stephankinsella.com/
Additionally, the work of Marcin Jakubowski has produced Open Source Ecology (OSE) and his now famous Global Village Construction Set (GVCS). His work is about meaningful and tangible results for people that need it the most — our nonconformists — people who insist on doing it their way regardless of what is popular. They’re helping shape the narrative which awakens the “normies” from their slumber.
https://www.opensourceecology.org/ or
TED Talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/marcin_jakubowski_open_sourced_blueprints_for_civilization
Also, the work of Robert David Steele (RDS) produced Open Source Everything Engineering (OSEE). The beauty of OSE (above) is its simplicity. However, Steele helped illustrate the beauty of OSE combined with “Bucky” Fuller’s synergetic/holistic approach. In other words, he expanded upon Marcin Jakubowski’s work. His contribution was asking a fundamental question: What if everything was Open Source?
Unfortunately, Steele was killed by the malfeasance that he was helping to eradicate. Steele died from COVID-19 on August 29, 2021, at the age of 69, after being placed on a ventilator.
Lastly, the work of Jacque Fresco produced what he called the “Resource-Based Economy” (RBE) and The Venus Project. It was his work and planning which demonstrated a society could function without money. Demonetization is not some pipedream. Demonetization can become a reality, but people would have to retrain themselves about how they perceive value. Demonetization could be achieved if people only realize that financial profit/benefit/reward is not the only incentive. Why do people start a family? It clearly isn’t for financial profit. Why do people do chores around their homes for free? We’re not motivated solely by money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb5ivvcTvRQ
If your aim is freedom, then an Open Sourced economy, without IP or money is the economic model that should be seriously considered by any freedom-loving populace. The elimination of these two gimmicks would have a liberating effect upon the society and every individual within it.
HUMAN INTERDEPENDENCE
I will be the first person to admit that I don’t understand the value of gold. I don’t see or understand people’s fascination with the mineral. I know we use it to line the sun visors of our astronauts and it’s also used in computers, but I still can’t comprehend its importance. The reason I share this fact with you is to give you some context. We all can’t be experts in everything. We still would need to rely on other people to fully appreciate the world around us.
Also, I acknowledge that there are consumers and producers. If people have belongings and private property, how would they attain it? In extreme cases, they could fabricate it themselves. With true 3D Printing, people could manufacture items in their own home. However, it may not be necessary to go to such extremes. However, without corporations and without IP, manufacturing should be encouraged to be localized. The only issue then would be — acquisition of raw materials and their distribution.
The biggest obstacle to this realization is people’s fear that the world’s resources are finite. Only in a model where we visualize the world’s resources as a big pie and everyone’s slice of the pie is fixed do we see the encouragement to hoard resources. If people come to understand that the world does NOT have to be visualized this way. The world’s resources do not have to be visualized as a “Zero-Sum Game.” Even if its resources are measurable, does not equate to them being exhaustible or irreplaceable.
ABOLISHING CORPORATIONS & MONEY
If we demonetize, we could divide the planet into Manufacturing Zones. These zones could be responsible for insuring they receive an ample supply of raw materials. Raw materials, unfortunately, are not evenly distributed around the globe. There would still need to exist a means of production. The zones would be responsible for all manufacturing within it. Of course, with demonetization there would no longer be a need for a central bank (Federal Reserve), income taxes, or a monetary policy.
Resources could be regarded as a right, rather than a privilege. Everyone has a right to clean drinking water and access to the Internet. Why not maximize the model? Thomas Paine’s public income or a Universal Basic Income (UBI) would replace salaries. No money would be coined or printed, but a QR code could allow you access to the goods you wished to purchase.
What are the incentives? Would restaurants still exist? That’s the beauty of demonetization — society could become whatever you imagine it to become. Collectively, money has been a hindrance, not a liberating force. Why do our children prostitute themselves? Money.
The American Corporatists/Capitalists always point their fingers at the centrally-controlled state of China and call people’s attention to its ghost cities. They say, “See, centrally-controlled economies which fail to use market forces as a means to allocate resources always misallocate resources because of corruption.” This is, of course, true! However, it can also be argued that a 400-foot yacht is also a misallocation of resources. Nobody needs a private yacht that big. However, the key to balancing people’s greed/wants with communal responsibility and discipline is the realization that we’re in this together. The planetary community is attempting to function as one unit, one family, one entity. It should become evident to all that most of our preconceived notions about everything were contrived/fabricated in order to legitimize our Elites position within the society.
Relative to the dial referred to above, if these elements are adhered to (abolition of private corporations, money, and IP) then I would dial the government accordingly (i.e., I would dial the government to Direct Democracy or Anarchy. However, since I also genuinely want to allow government to exist within the framework of arbiter/mediator, then I would intentionally avoid Anarchism — so me, personally, would choose to dial it up to “Direct Democracy”). Ironically, I do consider myself a government minimalist. To quote Henry David Thoreau, “The best government is that which governs least.” (…just without the abolition of government entirely.)
ALLOWING PRIVATE CORPORATIONS TO EXIST
If corporations are allowed to exist in the new paradigm, there remains several points which need to be addressed. If corporations are allowed to exist, then they should be treated like an additional appendage of government. In other words, the constitutions need to expressly regulate, manipulate, and limit corporation’s role within the society. There should be laws that address corporations, but also acknowledge their special roles, thereby paying special attention to those roles, threats, and influences on the branches of government and its integral part within a “military-industrial complex.”
Additionally, the U.S. Congress should not be making any laws that apply to only some people and not others. The U.S. Congress members’ healthcare program that they provided themselves needs to be repealed and a healthcare system that is universally applicable replace it. Campaign Finance should be addressed. Election Days should be national holidays to allow all citizens the freedom to participate. Participation in all elections should be encouraged for all citizens. Gerrymandered voting districts should be repaired, and the practice discouraged (although I’m certain there are laws in existence already to discourage the practice). With demonetization financing really shouldn’t be an issue. Each candidate running for office, regardless of ideology, should receive equal exposure to the electorate. Legal bribery in America should be made illegal. Corporate lobbyists were a key source of depravity in America. Although the military and intelligence community (IC) are not linked to corporations, the Americans should also repeal their National Security Act of 1947 thereby abolishing the Pentagon, CIA, NSC, and the JCS. Since I’m on the topic of defense, DARPA should be abolished, and patent offices’ main function should be to catalogue inventions solely for the purpose for distributing them to the world community. Intellectual Property (IP) should be recognized as a right for all of humanity — including patents and copyrights.
THE DIRTY WORD “DEMOCRACY”
When I was younger, I went to the local college library and read books, journals, magazines, and newspapers. I recall listening to a lecture with the title, “The Dirty Word Democracy.” In this lecture the professor referred to the fact that many Communist regimes used the word “democracy” in their title. When Germany was separated into East and West. The Communists held East Germany. It was referred to as the German Democratic Republic (GDR) while West Germany was referred to as the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). North Korea has been referred to as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) while South Korea has been referred to as the Republic of Korea (ROK). This lecture opened my eyes. Having heard this it made me realize that these were just words. Like anything else, names can be abused, used to manipulate the masses and mask true intentions. Too often the British have been able to plant people in positions of power and control.
The reason James Paul Warburg was able to make a prediction of a one-world government so boldly is because it had already been achieved by 1950, at least, in their eyes. The French fell after the Napoleonic Wars and their rightful king (Louis XVI) was executed via guillotine years earlier. The Americans succumbed to greed and avarice because our corporatists were seduced by the promises of riches and power. The World Wars were used to weaken the Germans, Japanese, Italians, Spanish, Russians, and Chinese. Of course, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions were used as a means to further weaken Chinese and Russian resistance. This was all accomplished by 1950. We already had a one-world government by the time Warburg made his “prediction.” Globalism isn’t about CREATING a one-world government, but it will allow them to be acknowledged as our masters. Globalism is about them getting credit for something they’ve already achieved. Globalism will allow them to come out of the shadows and admit that they run the show. This is the real reason they may initiate a World War III. If they feel the resistance in China and Russia is too great, the war could be a useful tool to reduce the resistance in those countries — similarly the way they used the earlier World Wars to make the other countries more compliant. Additionally, by including Persia into the mix as the “third-leg” of the alliance of rogue states, would further establish Israel as the preeminent power in the region after the punishing defeat of Iran. Of course, there are some who predict that Israel may be allowed to be nuked, thus starting their World War. This is all highly speculative, of course.
Image 2.
Democracy is supposed to be about a government of the people, for the people, by the people, but the British won’t allow it. We all have our freedom. However, I feel just as free in Russia as I did in America. I also feel just as free in China as I did in Russia or America. To what extent? Democracy is just a word they — the powers that be — throw around in order to give people the illusion that they’re free. Unfortunately, many of people’s civil liberties have eroded over time. With each war comes new developments, laws, procedures, and protocols. The end of World War II, for instance, came the development of the National Security State. The Americans developed their National Security State with the help of the British and passed their National Security Act of 1947. This one law managed to create a paranoia in the people which allowed the government to cease being transparent thereby reducing its accountability to the American electorate. Within this one law saw the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Pentagon (renaming the Department of War to the Department of Defense), the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Security Council (NSC). Most of these positions were created so that they could be filled with people loyal to the enemies of America. These positions gave our enemies leverage in order to sway the opinions and policies of the President of the United States. This is why I also allege that the first civilian director of the CIA, Allen Dulles, will eclipse Benedict Arnold as America’s greatest traitor. His role in the assassination of a president of the United States — John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK)) — cannot be overstated.
Image 3.
When I was an undergraduate at my alma mater, I was given the narrative that America was founded as a Republic, but after Woodrow Wilson’s 1917 speech to make the world “safe for democracy” he essentially redefined us as a Democracy. It was cited as a defining moment for America.
One last note on democracies. Democracies are inherently less stable and less equitable than Republics. Americans established their Republic fairly quickly. After a failed attempt to establish a Confederacy in 1776, they later established their Federation in 1788 which has endured ever since. The French took about 169 years and five attempts before General Charles de Gaulle succeeded in establishing the Fifth Republic in 1958. However, I think we will learn that most of France’s inability to successfully create her democracy was a result of sabotage from the Elitists/Monarchists/Royalists who are fighting desperately to cling to power. Although agent provocateur is an ancient concept, we get the word from the French Revolution.
Plato wrote his “Republic” (375 BC) because he wished to convey the inherent weaknesses of democracies. A more contemporary writer, John Stuart Mill, addressed some of these weaknesses and gave us names for them that are popular to this day. In his book, “On Liberty” (1859), Mill spoke of “Tyranny of the Majority.” This comes about either through a supermajority (an overwhelming percentage of the individuals within a society agree) or people mistaken an idea’s popularity as a basis for its truth. “If everyone believes it, it must be true.”
This tyranny of the majority is exactly what America’s first president, George Washington, attempted to warn people about in his farewell address. The American newspaper “American Daily Advertiser” printed his speech September 19, 1796. In this speech he warned us of two distinct threats to democracy because he recognized the frailty of democracy.
First was demagoguery. Demagoguery is essentially dishonesty… saying or promising whatever it takes to get elected. However, it can lead to a tyranny of the majority when it negates the principle of subsidiarity. This principle can be summarized as “the principle that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level.” People’s perceptions are an extraordinarily strong motivation. People’s perceptions become their reality — regardless of truth. This is what we mean when we say that people’s perception is their reality. Hence, a demagogue’s lies can become people’s hope. People can pin their hopes and dreams upon such promises.
Second, was hyper-partisanship. He warned of “intolerant extremes,” and lauded “prudence, much by conciliation, and much by firmness.” In fact, he often spoke to Thomas Jefferson of reconciliation. This division isn’t natural though. As discussed in earlier papers, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) deploys the Hegelian dialectic (Problem > Reaction > Solution or Thesis > Antithesis > Synthesis) to execute regime change. Now it is being used against America. It is being used to negate the Principle of Subsidiary. The Federal government (centralized government) is creating division based upon the Hegelian dialectic in the guise of hyper-partisanship. The Principle of Subsidiary deserves its own book, in fact, I recommend reading Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” (1835 and 1840).
There are many metrics used to measure the success or failure of democracies. There are also many watchdog groups and think tanks that act objectively. I honestly question their objectivity. Many think tanks are, in fact, the source of much propaganda and manipulation. The Economist is a British magazine that used to be one of my favorite sources of information when I was in college. The Democracy Index from The Economist Intelligence Unit, a sister company of The Economist said that the year 2017 was the 12th consecutive year that countries that suffered democratic setbacks outnumbered those that registered gains… 89 countries regressed in 2017; only 27 improved. The latest “Transformation Index” from the Bertelsmann Foundation, another think-tank, which looks at emerging economies, found that the quality of democracy…had fallen to its lowest level in “12 years.” These metrics, I warn you, are seeded with disinformation.
TEDx is a grassroots initiative created under the banner of “ideas worth spreading.” TED () has hosted many conferences and forums around the world since 1990. TEDx MidAtlantic (2015), I believe, was held in Washington, D.C. Harvard Law Professor, Lawrence Lessig, spoke at that conference that year. He gave a speech titled “Our Democracy no Longer Represents the People.” In this speech, he referenced American politician William M. Tweed (also known as “Boss” Tweed) and quoted him as saying, “I don’t care who does the electing, as long as I get to do the nominating.” He went on to explain that any process that screens the candidates before the election is anti-democratic and called “Tweedism.” Today, around the globe, all democracies (all elections) practice their own form of Tweedism. It is because this fact that I assert, unequivocally, that there exists no true democracy on planet Earth today.
Image 4.
DEMOCRACY OF THE FUTURE WON’T RESEMBLE DEMOCRACY OF THE PAST
The reason I went into the history of the Democracy is because you and I both have a preconceived idea what a democracy is supposed to be. However, that’s NOT what I’m aspiring for. Instead, I think the goal of society should be to recognize that EVERY individual on the planet is equal. Every man, woman, and child should be respected.
We should imagine ourselves coming together as Thomas Paine did centuries ago. We should create a society that aims to treat everyone equally. We should optimize the use of resources — all resources. We should aim to minimize our impact on our ecological environments around us. Our utmost concerns should be toward the utilization of resources, space, and time. We should also prioritize cooperation over competition. Decentralization, localization, cooperation should be pursued vigorously.
I’m hesitant to label the philosophy for two reasons: One, I’ll probably mislabel it because its progenitor is probably out there somewhere already. Two, many of the labels that I think are applicable are all considered “dirty words” in the American vernacular. I do aspire for “equality” and “democracy” so it’s within the realm of egalitarianism. However, the label that I think defines it most closely is “progressivism.”
In all honesty, I’m not proposing anything new other than to pair the political system with a more compatible economic system. I’m simply suggesting that the technology exists to finally demonetize and pursue a more egalitarian economic model. Sure, this means rationing of resources. Perhaps this fact is enough to kill the idea. However, the economy envisioned by Gene Roddenberry looks astonishingly similar to Jacque Fresco’s RBE. This would require the elimination of IP, but according to experts like Stephan Kinsella, that would almost certainly be beneficial rather than detrimental to modern society.