Scenes from Freeacre's trip to the coast.
Ok, I’m getting on my soap box today and have a rant going on in my mind that I will share with you-all.
There is much written on the internet and the MSM concerning the events going on in the East, particularly the rebellion in Egypt. Much speculation as to whether this was set up by the PTB and they will take advantage of it to further their agenda or is a genuine grass roots rebellion to get a “democracy” as a form of government for them to live under. Democracy? Really? I am seeing similarities to the Tea Bag movement, similarities to the local militia movements. Who takes them over?
There is much misuse of concepts like “the democratic state”. What does that really mean? Do elections really change the big money and power brokers agenda?
The following sure appears to me;
- Most of the world’s population desires the means of raising their “standard of living” from whatever it is presently. This increase takes the form of acquiring some increase in some form of medium of exchange and the resources it will consume. We are now back to exponential increases in consumption and the issue of sustainability.
- Populations look at who is/has been successful at this and admires how they do it and make attempts to copy the methodology. This takes the form of “ass kissing” and “bending over” in their efforts to emulate and gain some kind of advantage in acquiring the medium of exchange. It is admiration of the rich and famous. So what is the predominate methodology? It largely depends on allegiance of the minions under the striver in at least a quasi voluntary slavery. The system promises rewards that can not or will not be met, the carrot on the end of the stick image. The methodology operates on the fringe or outright outside of established legal framework and is often outright illegal. It has very questionable moral or ethical operation.
- Rather obvious throughout history and the known mechanization of U.S imperial government that it is a common practice to manipulate other governments and populations by military threat or economic means. Do you really believe that our government and its security operations had no clue that an uprising in the Mid East was eminent and was ripe for manipulation?
- Notice that the term “democracy” is thrown about with abandon, just as it was in Vietnam, Korea, most of the countries in South America when they were in upheaval, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. They had to have a term in opposition to Fascism or Socialism to compare to and is being done today concerning the Mid East. The ONLY significant point concerning this centers on the concept of “free elections”.
- Now ask yourself and answer honestly; Do we here in the U.S. (the supposedly bastion of democracy in the world) have free elections? If you answer “yes” then there sure isn’t much more discourse available. If you answer “no” then what leads you to believe it will happen anywhere else? Were the elections in Iraq actually free elections or were they manipulated? Are these elections actually free or are they manipulated pre planned outcomes, chosen candidates and are mostly controlled by money interests?
So Egypt (and other countries) get rid of the current despot and clamor for democracy and free elections and they actually get them and in the process drawing up some form of a constitution and system of law. Who gets to do this? How much actual participation of the “great unwashed masses” get a say in this? If you say not much or none I’d have to agree. Just how much real change can we expect in Egypt? Take a look at this link;
In our own situation, just how much do you trust any substantial group to formulate a system under which you must live? Do you want to turn this kind of decision making over to the elites and their agenda? Or maybe the “sheeple”, or just who? Of course, I want some say in this and I want the decisions made by people that see things the way I do. I want to be a stake holder, but can that ever happen? Supposedly, I am a stake holder if I get to participate in voting for the people who make these decisions. Does it actually work that way? Or is it an ideal that never quite makes it?
The simple fact is that under any kind of an IDEAL, uncorrupted social organization the society will do just fine, no matter what name you put to it. Even a benevolent dictator is ok. The key words are IDEAL, & UNCORRUPTED.
I’ve got to ask another question for contemplation. How do you limit or eliminate the agendas and corruption from the formation of a new government? Our constitution tried to do that and was relatively successful when compared to what was gong on in Europe at the time. But, we sure as hell can see how it has ended up, corrupt to its eyeballs.
Statesman and individuals in society have blathered continuously over time since our countries formation that democracy, despite its flaws, was better than the alternatives. I agree within certain parameters of observations. However, slavery, whether physical or economic is still slavery. Whatever freedoms a democratic system offers has always been, eventually, eroded into just another form of slavery to the agenda of the elites.
It sure appears to me that a truly long term solution to mankind’s woes does not depend on the concept of democracy as a governing paradigm.
It is not that I oppose democracy as an ideal, but how it has been, and is, manipulated by interest blocks to become something quite different. After all, in a democracy, what the majority or power blocks clamor for most often have little if anything to do with the “common good” concept, or the interests and well being of the minority.
Within a purely democratic system, where some kind of a majority establishes the rules of the game, someone has to lose their interests, which can be a good thing, but most of the time is bad for the minority. In a representative republic (democracy) these kinds of decisions at the governmental level are by some kind of majority and even if the populace is radically against the decisions, it is still implemented. Witness the popular opposition to Buskies bail out of the banks and financial services, or the popular uprising against the open boarder with Mexico or the objections to NAFTA or CAFTA. Simply put, those in the position of power and decision making “know better for what is good for us”, which has absolutely nothing to do with “majority rule” or any real concept of citizen participation in the decision making. This adulteration and denial of citizen participation is carried right down to the local levels of government. Our community has been fighting this crap for the 5 years we have been here. Ultimately, those with the power will find a way around objections and whatever legal difficulties are involved to pursue their agenda. The ultimate aim for citizen participation is to delay and limit the amount of damage they propagate on the society involved. This is far removed from any kind of democratic process that makes sense to me.
Again I emphasize, I do not have an intense opposition to any means for human societies decision on how to govern themselves as long as it contains and adheres to the concept of actual (not disguised) freedom of the citizenry to determine their own futures individually. It must contain the concept that “your freedom ends at the point of my nose” and visa versa. Which of course, is not what is or has been instituted in this world. All governments violate this in some form and to some extent, many to the real extremes.
My last question today I pose is how in hell can real freedom for people be realized for the long term and not just a generation or two?
I really wish I had a good workable answer for that. I assume it has a lot to do with a consensus of the population that freedom is important, desirable and achievable. I don’t see that consensus in our population at this time.