Removing the Empires through a potential democratic avenue they feature
jos boersema
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Though it is proposed here that political party (DAVIDWE) never participates
in the EU and not even in debates about the EU (basically pretending the
EU does not exist), at the point where we are nearing a true revolution
(a 2/3rd majority, even a world-majority or a people's majority in the
empire), then maybe we could launch an electoral strategy.
Because once we are at that point and our victory is likely, then the
imperial command structures will not easily corrupt our parties anymore.
They are taken to be the last obstacles, the last ruins. To stand between
those ruins without any hope of rebuilding, means to stand there to clear
it away.
Once we have consistently rejected the EU until we are already having
revolutionary majorities among the peoples, all the DAVID sister parties
in the empire could come to a decision to all at once suddenly start to
participate in the democratic avenue.
For that to work, I propose we draft for this job really 'ordinary'
real people, who want to spend some time for this particular mission.
It would be a mission, it would not be becoming a ruling Government.
These people ideally are not part of the ruling class, but they are
at least having a strong enough backbone not to give in to the first
light pressure (or even criminal pressure). They should not fold to
imperial lust once they achieve their positions (which may entail
absurd renumerations and perks and all the trickery that the empire
uses to keep the delegates away from working for the people).
We would need to form a shell around these people, to support them
very well and be there, so that they keep to the mission.
Their mission is then to deconstruct the EU from the inside, during
revolutionary conditions where we could, pretty much, launch a
street revolution any day we want. They are then to pass all sovereignty
back to the nation states.
The first attempt would of course be through the procedures if they
remain to be reasonable. To officially end it, properly and procedurally,
according its own rules.
The second way is to constantly make rulings that are passing power
toward the nations, and to blindly pass into action the decisions of
the national Government for those areas.
The third way is to remain silent and not say a word. Not to vote,
show up to hold the seat but do nothing. To protest by remaining silent.
The 4th way is to alltogether capture much of the vote, but simply not
show up. That way the EU would lose its credibility, and we can use
that to further the case for national sovereignty.
If we engage in this not too soon, we are having a very good chance it
will help to deconstruct the empire. It can also work this way in other
empires (China, USA, India).
--
http://www.socialism.nl
jos boersema
> new world leader!
Oh, actually what I posted there is a tiny caveat strategy that
belongs to this system: http://www.socialism.nl
If you check that site, you will note that it comes with a complete
Constitution. Did I say "complete" ? Yes, complete. So it is a self
coherent model, with a representative government, police force,
judiciary (please don't tell me you're one of those dumb anarchists
or anti-law people, don't tell me you are that naive) ... coherent
economic system (neiter capitalist nor marxist), etc.
If you build a boat, do you build it with a special hole so that
you constantly need to keep your finger in there ? And if you take
your finger out of the hole, the boat would sink, and so you would
control the boat and those on it ? Becoming "the leader" ?
Go ahead, go search for that hole in my system. It's not there.
If you looked, you would see it is a system not of just one boat,
but hundreds of boats, hundreds of sovereign nations. How could
I even rule them all, be boss in them all ? Can't be done, and
is completely an unwanted goal.
There is in fact only one problem that is still messing up this plan.
And, that's you. Because you would not bowe to me ? No, precisely
the reverse: because you will bowe to me. Because you're all so
unbelievably childish and basicaly monkeyesc, that you will bowe
to whomever solves these problems in this big way. Even though it's
not really that difficult.
So, precisely the reverse is true. I don't want to be the boss
in the world, and it is an unwanted system with one boss in the world.
As long as you keep on track to that one-boss in the world, my
system can't be done. Once you finally, you dumb people finally
give up your monkey behavior of looking for the next top boss,
only then can my system be done and work. Democracy doesn't work
with idolatry. You're al failing two tests at the moment: you do
not do logic (thus becoming incapable of democracy), and you fail
in idolatry (thus also becoming incapable of democracy.)
Look what you talk about ! The very first thing that pops into
your head is the struggle for the boss position. It is all you are!
Your entire lives, you're just monkeys ! How insane ! How can you
be monkeys still after all this time ! When are you ever going to
shape up and do normal for a change ?
The biggest problem in the world, is not the problems in the world,
but the impossibility to solve them because the monkey would think
you're a god. And then, in the end, nothing is solved. This is
the trap you are in. Get out of it, please, or nothing can work.
I considder it all to be a failure already. It snags behind that
issue above discussed. Your idolatry that is. Or your lust to be
the top boss, which is just two sides of the same monkey medal.
Everything failed, because of that. Because you would make me
the boss. Everything failed because of that. I did what I could,
but this is something I can't solve, sorry. You have to solve it.
--
http://www.socialism.nl
jos boersema
> On 27 Nov 2009 23:04:37 GMT, jos boersema <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Cut a bunch of stuff
>>Go ahead, go search for that hole in my system. It's not there.
>>If you looked, you would see it is a system not of just one boat,
>>but hundreds of boats, hundreds of sovereign nations. How could
>>I even rule them all, be boss in them all ? Can't be done, and
>>is completely an unwanted goal.
>
> Refuse his system at your own peril. Refuse the number and you will
> die! Even the Muslim will bow to him!
I'm thinking that is something that has to happen, because you
can only think in terms of bosses and serfs. There is no other
way with you, and the ultimate of that hallicunation you are in
- which is something that monkeys and other hierarchical animals
are also in and that's where it imho comes from - is a world boss.
A single world boss, that is the ultimate in your dream of boss
and serf.
Once that has happened - and I note that the EU emperor has said
in his opening speech to the EU '2009 is the first year of global
governance' - and failed, then maybe there is a chance you will
be able to see the world in another way. Maybe. My system won't
fail (I think), therefore I'm not going to fulfill that world
domination dream you have for you. I'm not planning to be the
world boss, although obviously I would like my rules to 'rule'
those nations that need it (which is nearly all, except some
tribal nations, though even for them it might be interesting and
it lines up with their systems already). Someone else, someone
who behaves like a monkey out for power, should fulfill that
dream of power, so that you can see it, and experience that it
is nothing.
There is 2 ways you can look at my system: as a monkey, and as
a human, as a ball of emotions, or with some reason. If you look
at it as a monkey might, you'd think that the system is the way
'jos' steeres the world. That is a monkey, because the monkey
doesn't comprehend the logic of it. So it all reduces to emotion
and personality. If you look at it rationally, then you notice
the logic of the system, and that 'jos' does not have the freedom
at all to 'steer' the world toward anything. If a monkey sees
a wheel, and meets the person having invented it, the monkey
might have the feeling ''this is that person its personality,
that wheel; and if that personality would have been different
then i'd be looking at not a flat round wheel, but maybe a cubic
square rolling thing. If, however, you are human and look at a
wheel, you notice that "that bycicle wheel has to be light for
the task, and therefore it's thin, and it's round or it wouldn't
roll!, and it has spokes instead of a flat screen either to
prevent the wind from pushing on it or to make it lighter or
both, and the spokes go from the rim to two sides to keep the
wheel steady in the sideways direction".
Of course I don't really know how a monkey thinks, but you get
what I mean don't you ? There is no freedom to make up the system
anyway. The problem at hand is to make the world happier, power
makes people happy and slavery unhappy. Life must have some meaning
to it. Corrupt and criminal people cause unhappyness. If that is the
task, then that defines the whole system down to the last sentence.
In my model the economy is a DAVID system. In the past when there
where political movements, they usually got their theory wrong
and did things 'because they liked them.' It's not the case here.
There is a very precise problem, and it requires a very precise
solution. First of all the economy should be coherent, and not
promote corruption or be unworkable. That means economic science.
If has to be correct science, you can't just make things up and
call it ok. How does trade works ? In essence it is ok, but it has
to be about labor. What is money ? If invested it is most profitable
where labor is squeezed, eventually destroying the nation.
You can't say ''if invested, that is ok because labor will have
something to do.'' You can say that, but it be wrong, or blowing
a side issue up as if it was everything. No, there is no choice.
If you build a bike, you don't have the choice to use triangular
wheels either, even if you'd like that better. There is no choice.
Maybe that's the difference with how many people think and how
i did approach the subject: many people would think ''what would
seem fun to me.'' Bike with triangular wheels ? Great, let's try
that. Result: another 1000 years of misery.
I HAVE NO CHOICE in the solutions, because the problem dictates
the solution. Do you think I use a voter-group state model just
because I like that ? Because it is something that's something
my kind of person likes ? I don't know the names of any of my
neigbors, none. Don't know what any of them for work has. There
is nothing natural about a voter-group system in the street for
me, nothing at all. It does not come natural. It's not part of
my person.
BUT IT IS A STRONG WAY TO DEFEAT CORRUPT POLITICIANS, because it
brings the politicians right here close down to us, and we can
keep, wich our 50 person voter group, tight control. The problem
of government corruption, incompetent and demagogue politicians,
the lies that the TV produce and the media, that problem dictate
the solution: bring the elected and voters as close together as
possible.
Then comes the second step for this part of the problems: but if
the people need to elect someone in the street, maybe nobody wants
the job ! And maybe there are people, good competent people, the
kind you'd love to see in Government to defeat corruption, maybe
they've clustered somewhere. So they are in the same voter group,
and now they can't get in also. So the solution is obvious: voter
groups can elect anyone, in or out of their block, and from the
other side of the nation if they want to. Is that a problem for
corruption ? Not really, because the voters can get to know whom
they vote for ! Creeping up on things that could work, against
government corruption, aren't we. Solving things. But it has
nothing to do with me, the problem dictates the solutions.
Get it ? You could have tried to solve these issues also, and if
you'd done it right, you too would have had to conclude trade is
good. Products & services, essential trade (think about tribal
trade, primitive trade, barter trade). It only becomes a problem
when power starts to impact price. You have no choice. You have
to conclude finance capital is a massive danger, you have to
propose it be socialized. You have to chain the government to the
will of the public. You can't say ''oh, we'll do an oligarchy.''
Won't work, is incorrect, it's bullshit. You can say it, but it
would be /wrong/. You might have a taste for oligarchy or not,
but you'd still have to conclude it won't work. You'd have to
make up ways ... no you have to roll out every possible way
imaginable to chain the government to the public will, every
possible way. From them having average wage to having Referendum
laws. From a close relationship between delegate and voter, to
the absolute transparency of the Government decision making
process. There is no choice. In a way it is a technical challange,
social-engineering (but then done right, and not for evil).
THERE IS NO CHOICE !
You could follow your taste without thinking, but it'd end in
bullshit.
There's a multi-party strategy on my site also, think that's just
because I like it that way ? No ... look at history at all the
corrupt parties. What is the half-time of a party these days ?
15 years ? Hence the multi-party strategy, there is no choice about
it either. Revolution ? Why put women in the lead ? There is no
choice. That doesn't mean it has to go exactly as written down
and still come out right, but if you want to *optimize* it all,
then there is no choice. It's all optimized to fight corruption.
That's the singular task, to remove oppression.
Got nothing to do with me.
Of course, since I did it, marginal things and mistakes are affected
by the person. Why did I take a 10% petition to get a Referendum ?
Why not 15% ? Or 5% ? Why did I take a 50 person voter group, and
not 40 (note that too small and Government becomes too flimsy, the
room is actually quite limited to play with). 30 ? I think that'll
work less well, such councils are too fast, they represent fewer
people too. 70 persons ? Doesn't that make the meeting unwieldy ?
Too slow again ? But 40, 50 or even 60 or 70 ? Or even 20 - 80 ?
Why not ? Well, I guess at such details the person doing it does
affect it a little yeah. But the goal is purely to have it work
as good as possible, so the issue is not one of taste or personality,
the matter is of expectations. What would you expect to work, and
what would I expect, there might be a small difference there.
Maybe you would have said 40. Maybe you would have said 15% petition.
Maybe your voter groups would have 30 persons, or 60. But even there,
there is no freedom. Because you're dedicated to doing that which
you expect best results from. If that happens to be 30, you do that.
See ? Even many 'bosses' might think this way, but they try to solve
maybe another problem: 'what do I need to do to keep these people
oppressed.'
I see no choice in making up what I've made up, as far as I know
and as far as I estimate, it has to be like it is. That has nothing
to do with me, I am not that system. The problem dictated the solution.
Whether this bike will ride, trying will have to prove or disprove
that. The problem of this 'worship' or 'idolatry' or 'bowing down'
for a world boss, I've done the best I could to solve that, but it
still remains essentially unsolved. I can't change your people their
minds. I can show I'm merely human, but that may not be enough. Look
at history. Marx tried to defeat religion, only to start his own.
In the end I'm hopefull that with a little good will we can solve this
issue, but for now it is not solved. Right now it's not solved.
You will take me as the authority, you will do everything I say because
I say it. Unless you give up that attitude, it is a failure.
It is avery tricky issue, because once you give up that attitude, and
if I have something to do with that, then you will credit me with that,
and that again turns me into your authority.
This is, I think, the essential problem of humanity, it is why humanity
is never helped by ppl who could solve the problems. Because it ends up
that you would worship that person, and that's unacceptible. You are
still monkeys, your 'human nature' is still too undeveloped to have come
past the 'serf/boss' thing, the 'follower/authority' thing. If you had
come past that, ppl who could solve problems could have.
If you don't give it up, you are essentially a monkey, and without
solutions you will destroy yourselves and end up like animals again.
The world elites might catch you and herd you, the chance for peace
to rule, for honor and humanitarian and goodness and so on, they could
crush that. So, this is a strategic point where you've come highest
on this well of social behavior, human behavior. Either you break
through now and go on with the 'human jeorney' or you don't and you
continue to look for bosses and people who 'know better,' and then
the elites might launch their war on you. And you'd really merely
be monkeys, and your elites are the boss-monkeys who will real you
back in for oppression. It seems they have planned for this now, that
is what the rumor says.
If you had given up your idolatry, you could have been human all the
way. Now that you haven't, you will be turned back into an animal,
a species of monkey. You didn't want to be human, it's that simple.
If you don't want it, who is anyone to force it unto you ? Most likely
you will destroy yourselves one way or the other through monkeying
with technology. Then there'd only be animals left on Earth, or maybe
a few humans to try again, starting from the stone-age again. Who knows.
Give up your idolatry, it's the final hurdle. But I don't see you
capable of that, you will worship me as a god. So it is all lost.
Good luck with being monkeys.
--
http://www.socialism.nl
jos boersema
> On 2009-11-28, no_...@void.nul <no_...@void.nul> wrote:
>> On 27 Nov 2009 23:04:37 GMT, jos boersema <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Cut a bunch of stuff
>>>Go ahead, go search for that hole in my system. It's not there.
>>>If you looked, you would see it is a system not of just one boat,
>>>but hundreds of boats, hundreds of sovereign nations. How could
>>>I even rule them all, be boss in them all ? Can't be done, and
>>>is completely an unwanted goal.
Why do I write stuff like this on Usenet ? I am still trying to diffuse
and beat your idolatry. Maybe we can still win, who knows. It's up to
you.
Why is idolatry dangerous: it destroys democracy making it inoperable,
turning it into oligarchy. Because democracy has 2 components:
a) the protocol and
b) the content of what's voted upon, representatives and issues.
Ok, say we install the protocol, but the people 'worship Appollo.'
But not only Appollo, but also the 'priests of Appollo,' who after
all know exactly what Appollo wants done, right ? They are the
specialists, they know. And not just worship Appollo and its priests,
also the University people, because they have studied. But only
those who agree to the Appollo god, of course: you got to be careful
and only trust the right people.
See ?
Then you'd have the protocols of democracy, and it be an oppressive
olicharchy all the same. You've achieved nothing.
This threatens now. Look at the entire range, from Zeus to Jesus to
Marx. For everyone a priesthood springs up. This will happen for me
as well. And they'd be confusing the voting process, not the protocol
maybe, they don't need to. They say 'vote only for these people who
have the original flag jos made, from the Boersema-academy of Calderia,
only those of our movement.' And the the people, being idolators,
comply. After all ''Appollo didn't put that flag in their hands for
no reason! It is a sign, let's follow suit, let's do our part!!''.
Then they get all their delegates in, dictate what happens. Then
maybe they're going to start a war somewhere, some callamity, to
solidify their rule. They're going to try to steal taxation money
maybe. Come to think of it, this will be quite some task for them
though, because my entire system is *designed* from start to finnish
to exactly fight these people. The whole system is made for just that.
So they'd have their hands full in defeating all that I think. To be
honest, I don't think they'll manage.
So, maybe there is hope after all. But the day will be saved by those
who are not-idolatrous, who expose the liars.
Considdering what is coming down the pike from the world elites, maybe
it is still the best option to go for it and see what happens (my
system).
--
http://www.socialism.nl
jos boersema
> On 2009-11-28, jos boersema <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> On 2009-11-28, no_...@void.nul <no_...@void.nul> wrote:
>>> On 27 Nov 2009 23:04:37 GMT, jos boersema <jo...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>> Cut a bunch of stuff
>>>>Go ahead, go search for that hole in my system. It's not there.
>>>>If you looked, you would see it is a system not of just one boat,
>>>>but hundreds of boats, hundreds of sovereign nations. How could
>>>>I even rule them all, be boss in them all ? Can't be done, and
>>>>is completely an unwanted goal.
> [...]
>
> Why do I write stuff like this on Usenet ? I am still trying to diffuse
> and beat your idolatry. Maybe we can still win, who knows. It's up to
> you.
You know what this whole thing is ? First we where monkeys and we had
bosses, but everyone could be boss and though there was some beating
and fighting, it really wasn't that violent.
Then we became more organized and technical, and our powers where used
to solidify rule.
But, the 'being bad' is not only in the bosses, it is all throughout
the hierarchy. The lowest ranks are as mean and vicious as the bosses.
But this system could offer us - humanity - something: the bosses want
to have luxury, and they forced their new powers to create serfs out
of the lower ranks. Now something very interesting happens: the bosses,
because they are 'being bad,' they are going to enforce 'being good'
in the serfs ! Because with the serfs being incompetent, lazy,
disorderly, murderous, thievish, and so on: the luxury of the bosses
will be a lot less. And the armies of the bosses will be a lot less
powerful. So what you get is serfs get trained to be 'good.' A murder
in the oldest days, it might have been as much as a batch of honor,
a batch of power (depending on culture/species). Not necessarily
something bad. But the bosses lose slaves that way. So they don't like
it.
I'm often struck by the mafia, organized crime: you have these people
who can't follow the rules of society. They can't follow the traffic
laws all the way up to the laws against thievery and murder. The
penalties society imposes are usually proportional, for a thievery
you get a fine etc, or a few days in jail.
But then they 'descend' into organized crime. That is a place where
everything goes ? Where you can murder at will ? Where discipline
is even more lacking ? Exactly the reverse: it is 'do as you are
told, or you are dead.' Steal money ? Dead. Don't execute an order ?
Dead. It may be that organized crime does bad things, but internally
they are about discipline. The top bosses demand it. They want their
serfs obedient, and delivering money to them, while cutting them in
according to rank. Organized crime has a tendency to organize like
an army, with ranks. The street thugs may not have this, or loose
bands of robbers, and it tends to change its appearence with culture.
But above street-thug level and loose banding up for jobs, the
'professional' crime seems to be seriously disciplined. This is
quite funny, because these criminals are getting taught a lesson in
exactly where they fail in society, which is to respect the discpiline
of society.
That is the same thing, but most humans are more human now then that
they always have to do crime and war, and need to be disciplined by
threat of murder for the slightest infractions.
What this whole thing is about is: turning the disciplining from the
top down to the bottom (in exchange for luxury and power for the top),
turning that upside down and now it is going to be 'the masses of
formerly lower ranks,' to be having the disciplining effect upwards
into the Government. We the people are now going to be the force
that demands discipline, rather then being disciplined. We are going
to force our discipline unto the Government, and that demands a system
of course. Well, a system makes it easier. The ranks are reversed:
the lower ranks, labor, is going to have the higher rank but only
when they act as majorities. The Government is having the lower rank,
it is subservient as a group, to the people.
This turning around is already happening, in different peoples at
different times I guess. Universal suffrage was a big step. Today
we seem to be half way. If we can't manage do put our majority
discipline unto the Government, then the Government will manage to
put its discipline unto us (again). We have officially a Government
democracy, but in the economy it is still the bosses that rule the
companies and finance. What we need is a stronger Government
democracy, and to reverse power from few over many to many over
themselves in the economy.
The whole idea of a top dog is anti-thetical to all this.
Remember what the bosses wanted: 'being good' but also 'being
competent.' Only that produces luxury and power, that was that system.
Now we are supposed to be 'good' and 'competent.' We are supposed to
be ready to enforce a legal system upwards and around, know that system
and keep it in operation. We need to be competent enough for that.
Can we do it, do we have the needed goodness and competence ? The
goodness demand is not extreme at all, it's not a utopia: ppl can chase,
should chase their own happiness, and they can. But if, say 20% of all
people needs at least to murder one person a week to feel right, then
that's not going to be working well I think. In terms of competence,
enough ppl need to do enough to keep the system going, to force the
minimum discipline unto the Government, the "bosses," who are our new
serfs now (in a sense, in a good sense, but they should serve the
people and not their won pockets and lust for power, which is the
task of the people now to discipline them to that end sufficiently).
Like I said: we are half-way, we can go forward (my system for example,
though I see no other examples), or back.
Simply: if the competence lacks to notice something right and do it,
then we go on like this. So, it is a test I guess. If you have what
it takes, it will automatically be done, if you don't it won't be done.
If it is done, that means - or could mean - that you can do it.
It doesn't have to work perfectly, because the growth of competence
is continuing. Failure is part of that.
I'm doubtfull you can or will do it though, it can go both ways.
We are half-way with the democratization, why not continue ?
For background information about this:
http://www.socialism.nl/~joshb/technical_darwinism.html
We, humans, have managed to reach the very point of our technical
evolution, without yet having completed this social process. We
are still half way and on many points not yet half way (because
in fact our bosses are too often incompetent and very dangerous.)
We have reached a strategic point in our evolution, a point that
goes all the way back to the first point where humans used a tool.
If you see that some chimps already use tools, you can appreciate
at what kind of a strategic point we are. We are at a strategic
point that was millions of years in the building. We should have
managed this change already, but still we have not. Thus we are
in great danger. Maybe we can still complete this cycle properly.
Considder the length of the kind of cycle this is. Thousands
years is but the blink of an eye considdering its total length.
The penalty for failing could and probably will be measured as
an evolutionary catastrophe, our entire species could go wrong
for tens of millions of years or more.
You think not ? In that case you know nothing I guess. Evolution
of entire species can turn on a dime at moments. Either the good
will rule, rule of law and we discipline as a people the Government,
or the other way around. And don't bother fantasizing the enemy
doesn't have its strategic evolutionary plans lined up, because they
do.
--