From the Illusion of Democracy to Democracy Awareness

On November 8, 2016, a portion of the population of the USA, about 55% will get a taste of democracy, one that is only available to them every four years. Brainwashed into believing that our governmental-system (of mind control) is a democracy, we the people once again have an opportunity to push through the brainwashing, face reality and put an end to the deceptive illusion called representative democracy.

Defining Democracy based on Reality instead of Brainwashing
Democracy is a form of collective/group decision making, wherein the degree of democracy expressed by the collective is equivalent to the degree by which all members of the collective have the opportunity to participate equally in all of the decision-making processes that affect the collective. For example: if a collective of ten people working together, make ten decisions every year and everyone in the collective has the opportunity to participate equally in all ten of those decisions, we would then say that their democracy, on a yearly basis, is collective democracy functioning at 100% of its potential, because all the people in the collective have the opportunity to participate equally in all of the decision-making processes. However, if only 2 people or 20% of the collective were permitted to participate in all of the decision-making processes, we would not call it a people’s democracy, but a democracy of the of 20%. Okay, we can call the decision-making processes of government whatever we want, but just because we call it a people’s democracy does not mean that it is one.

Representative Democracy or People’s Democracy
The difference between a representative democracy and a people's democracy is as follows. In a people's democracy, all of the people have the opportunity to participate equally in all of the decision-making processes that affect the collective. However, in a representative democracy, only the representatives of the government, not the people of the collective society, are permitted to participate equally in all of the decision-making processes. In other words, representative democracy is not people's democracy, because it is not of, by and for the people. Representative democracy is however, an excellent example of an oxymoron. Nobody ever participated in anything by sending a representative to participate instead. For example, if you wanted to go swimming, but you sent your representative instead, would you then call it Representative Swimming and claim that you had jumped into the water and swam around?


Solution
While the purpose of government is to control the collective expression of the people by controlling the minds of the people, the purpose of democracy is to express the collective determination of the people - as per the per the participation of the people. Therefore, let us push through the illusion of democracy to an awareness of democracy,  wherein each one realize that our power to determine the collective expression is only as great as our willingness and determination to participate in the decision-making processes.

Open Source Direct Democracy (OSDD) = Open Source Information + Direct Democracy (of, by and for all the people).

Basic Income

Basic Income (BI) is a generic term for proposals calling for a cash benefit or minimum income to be paid unconditionally to every adult in a population, on an individual basis (rather than a household basis) without a means test or work requirement. For example if Taiwan were to implement the Basic Income Guaranteed proposal (BIG), every resident of Taiwan (from a certain age onward) would be entitled receive a weekly, monthly or yearly subsidy regardless of their current income, wealth or family status. The main premise of basic income proposals (such as Living Income Guaranteed) is to create “an economic and political mechanism to ensure the establishment of Fundamental Human Rights of the public through allocating an allowance on a monthly basis to every eligible individual that is currently in a position of being unable to sustain themselves and/or the people in their custody (What Is Living Income Guaranteed?, 2013).

While advocates of basic income cite such ideas as human rights, democracy, technological unemployment and higher birth rates as reasons for implementing a basic income, opponents claim that, giving money to people for nothing would only encourage laziness. Even if it were a good idea, they say that, there just is not enough money to pay for such a proposal. Let us have a look some of the arguments for basic income and then you can decide how basic income might affect the population where you live. What do you think? If you were guaranteed a basic income each month, just enough money to live a dignified life, would you choose to sit around all day and play video games or would you motivate yourself to contribute to society, perhaps by finding a job, creating a new job, participating in political discussions or just doing whatever you enjoyed doing?

Basic Income and Human Rights

While human rights, such as the right to life, liberty and security are legal-entitlements that (should) belong equally to everybody, over half of the world’s population are still not permitted to live according to their human rights, simply because they do not have enough money to pay for the basic goods and services necessary to do so. This condition, called the unequal application of human rights is caused by allowing the world’s wealthiest individuals to own and control most of the world’s resources; thereby, creating false conditions of scarcity throughout humanity. Scarcity or a shortage of resources has forced billions of people to live in slave-like conditions just to survive. In fear for their lives, due to a lack of food, water or shelter, people have few choices but to do whatever it takes just to survive, even if this means working less than $2.00 a day. Scarcity within populations has changed the nature of people’s relationships to one another. Human relationships ought to be based on human rights and the principles of equality; however, when there is scarcity of food and water, these relationships change from that of equality to that of master/slave.

Nobody wants to live and work in slave-like conditions; however, when people do not have enough money to buy the food and water that is necessary to live, they are left with few options but to work as slaves, steal, fight or die. Basic income proposes to correct (to some extent) the unequal application of human rights, by providing everybody with just enough money to ensure that they are able to pay for the goods and services necessary to live according to their fundamental human rights.   In other words, ensuring that everyone has at least enough money to survive would increase people’s ability to pay for the most basic goods and services needed to live according to their human rights, thereby removing the conditions that force them into slavery.

Basic Income and Democracy

Recall that, democracy, as a form of collective decision-making is dependent on people being able to participate in the decision-making process. Therefore, when it comes to measuring the quality of our democracies, the question to ask is, how equal is everyone’s opportunity to participate in all of the decision-making processes of society. To answer this question, all we have to do is look at the distribution of wealth within the population. Those with more money have more opportunity to participate, simply because they are able to pay for more participation. Clearly, basic income by itself is not going to elevate a low functioning democracy to a pure democracy. However, it would go a long ways towards giving the most disadvantaged people more of a voice in politics, thereby better incorporating their needs into the decision-making processes of government.

For example, the United States has approximately 580,000 homeless people who are not represented in government simply because they are not provided with an equal opportunity to vote. Why? Because, they do not have the means (equals money) to take time, out of their survival-schedule, get on a bus and go to vote. America’s so-called democratic government claims it does not have the money to solve the homelessness problem. Nevertheless, when it comes to spending 1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) dollars to upgrade nuclear missiles, the US government has no problem finding the money. To put this into better perspective, consider that the USA has allocated 400 billion dollars to create a new fleet of F-35 Fighter jets. That is enough money to purchase a $600,000 home for each homeless person in the USA and still have money left over to feed him or her. Why do wealthy democratic nations still have homeless people sleeping on the streets? Because a corrupt world system of money also corrupts our democracies. Consequently, more money equals more opportunity to participate in the democratic system. How much influence do you think homeless people have in your governments? Why have governments not yet eliminated the problem of homelessness?

Basic Income and Education

It is no secret that, lower-income families often have to accept a lower standard of education or no education at all because of their financial status. Kindergartens, cram schools and daycare centers cost money. More money to spend on education means higher quality options. Even when education is subsidized by governments, many children still do not have the opportunity to go to school because they have to work to help support the family. A basic income of the amount of money necessary for families to live dignified lives would go a long ways towards ensuring every child is able to receive an education.   How do you think a basic income would change the lives of university students?

Basic Income and the Birth Rate

Although many believe that, the birth rates are decreasing due to the high amount of pollution in the air and chemicals in the food, another possibility to consider is that of insecurity. Faced with the high costs or penalties associated with having children, more and more young couples are choosing to put off having children until they are more financially secure. Some are even choosing not to have children at all. Though, a basic income by itself is probably not going to reverse declining birthrates, it would at least, provide an additional layer of financial security for parents and potential parents by reducing the financial burden of having children. Some basic income plans even call for parental guardians to receive an additional sum of money for each child they care for. Would a basic income influence your decision to have or not to have children? Do you think parents should receive extra money for each child they care for?

Basic Income and Gender Equality

Basic income is a hot debate among proponents of gender equality. Some say that, basic income has potential to overcome the gender divide simply by satisfying the principles of gender equality, meaning both men and women would be receiving exactly the same treatment. Others, however, argue that a basic income would only increase the incentive for women to reduce their participation in the labor market, especially given women’s weaker attachment to the labor force due to their traditional roles as homemakers. (McLean, 2016) What do you think?

Basic Income and Technological Unemployment

Technological unemployment refers to unemployment that is caused by technological advances. Automated machines, such as robots and computers that can think and learn are taking the place of human labor because they are more efficient. As a result, more people, especially university graduates are finding that, traditional jobs are no longer available. Although, new technologies will also create some new jobs, the main concern is that, there still will not be enough jobs to sustain a growing human population. Basic income advocates argue that, the only way to keep the capitalist market going is to keep money moving within the system by ensuring that everyone has money to spend. What do you think; if robots can do all of the labor, will humans even need to continue working for a living?

Conclusion

Equality, as a measurement of each person’s opportunity to live has largely been ignored by governments focusing on the economy and the GDP rather than on the quality of people’s lives. This is a consequence of human-interactions being tied to money within a malfunctioning money system.  Whereas, money should be used only as a tool to price and exchange products, we have instead defined money as the primary value, thereby downgrading the value of life to that of a product.  This is why; we humans destroy the life of the sea and the forests of the earth, transforming the life into money within the human competitive race to consume. In order to save this planet and humanity, we must reverse the course of the human race. This means letting go of the idea of money as value, and replacing it with the value of life. From here, we are able to redesign the money system to one that functions equally for the benefit of all life. Basic income is a step in the direction of reversing the course of the human race, ending the disregard for life and establishing the principle of equal life.

Is NATO a terrorist Organization?

Today, I posted a picture with the following caption on a Facebook post: The fear caused by the NATO alliance clearly demonstrates that, NATO, led by criminal central bankers within the IMF, BIS, World Bank, ECB and Federal Reserve of the USA is a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. Once again, NATO is a terrorist organization controlled by terrorists. Just turn off CNN for a moment and check in to reality.

Everything eventually comes back to us and, what we see now in the world system as the externalized reflection of the human collective is the reflection of the nature of ourselves. Therefore, when I say that, NATO is a terrorist organization, I am also saying that, every country of NATO is a supporter of terrorism, which is to say that, the citizens of NATO nations are supporting terrorism. Man know thyself! If leaders representing nations order acts of terrorism to be carried out, those represented by the leaders are in reality, terrorists, too.

Think about it! Is there any difference between the US government that ordered the slaughter of men, women and children in Vietnam, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, and the citizens that government represented? Aside from the children, I personally do not see the difference between governments that order acts of terrorism and their citizens who stand by and do nothing about it. The fear of retaliation from government will keep people in line for a time, but eventually, that monster of a reflection will get so big, leaving nowhere to turn to avoid facing the reflection of ourselves.

Representative democracy is a form of collective decision-making – representative of the people’s acceptances and allowances. In the case of NATO nations, it appears that, as long as the people are being fed and there is some hope for a better life, the people will accept and allow their governments to terrorize whomever they like. For example, just after France’s latest terrorist attack, wherein a truck driver allegedly killed 84 people, the French president, François Hollande allegedly ordered the bombing of civilians in Syria, thereby murdering 140 men, women and children. Who is the bigger terrorist? Based on the information and the definition of terrorism, president, François Hollande looks like a terrorist to me. That, Hollande represents the people of France makes the citizens of France complicit in terrorism.  The same argument applies to citizens of every nation that accept and allow their governments or leaders to cause harm in the name of their nations.  No wonder, so few are willing to face and acknowledge reality or our complicity. It is frightening.

The NATO alliance to protect one another in case of attack emboldens member nations such as the US to terrorize other nations; therefore, I say we demilitarize the entire organization, beginning with the USA. The reason I now call out NATO is that, their war games and positioning of forces and nuclear weapons, has increased the possibility of war with Russia, which would likely lead to WWIII and nuclear holocaust.  Therefore, I encourage everyone to stand up and speak out in favor of nation to nation cooperation, the disarming of NATO and the elimination of central banking cartels.

Although, some of my compatriots would deny that the USA is a terrorist state, choosing instead to focus on the good that they are able to accomplish, I say that, we are only as good as the worst of what we have accepted and allowed. Therefore, until we the people of nations, such as the USA face-up to the reality that, we are the citizens of terrorist states; we will only continue to be powerless, enslaved by our denial in fear of facing reality, for fear of having to accept responsibility.  

Our words are our power and we are able to write and speak them to change the current situation and create a better one. It is not pleasant to say; nevertheless, someone has to say it. The NATO alliance has become a terrorist organization; therefore, I vote that we demilitarize it immediately. Furthermore, as central banking cartels have done nothing but encourage and enforce debt-slavery throughout the world, I vote that we also eliminate them in the process of implementing a new equal money system.

What does Brexit mean for Democracy?

My guess is that, people are finally beginning to realize how little democracy we have actually been expressing. We have been brainwashed into believing that, democracy is all about the opportunity to vote for a candidate (from a list of 2-3), the one who will supposedly get to make all of the decisions for the next four years. It has all been a lie based on ideas that we have bought into and become part of. 

Even though the people got to vote on Brexit, the decision to allow them to vote was still made by groups of elite who still operate from behind the curtain. My guess is that (as I wrote about several years ago), there is a divide in the upper ranks of the elite behind the scenes. The side represented by the USA, NATO, the EU, BIS and so on seem to prefer more war. They are losing their grip on power and when that goes, there will perhaps be an accounting, which is what many people fear the most. The other side, represented by Putin, the Russian Orthodox Church, BRICS nations and (I guess) the awakening people prefer to move in the direction of more equality, which of course means more democracy.

The point that I care to make is this. Regardless of what games the elite seem to be playing; whatever their moves may be, those moves will be an outflow as a reflection of what we the 99.999 percent of the people accept and allow. Change comes from the masses, not the minority. Therefore, I suggest that, we use this momentum to keep the pressure on, keep pushing for more democracy = more equality = a more equal distribution of wealth. 

Democracy, as a form of collective decision-making can be measured within any segment of society or all of humanity, based on the distribution of opportunity (that people are afforded) to participate equally within the decision-making processes of society. 

The distribution of (quantifiable) opportunity to participate equally within society is the same as the distribution of wealth. Therefore, in order for us as humanity to increase our level of democratic expression, we require to decrease the level of wealth inequality. Interestingly, this is exactly what is currently happening.

While the middle-class has just about been wiped out, what many may not have considered is that, without the middle class, there will be no one left to hold up the upper classes. What we saw in the past with the middle-class collapsing was perhaps a result of the elite wanting to further the divide between the rich and the poor. What they perhaps did not realize was that, if you remove the middle blocks of the pyramid, the upper blocks are also going to fall and so too will the eye the pyramide. This is what is happening now (as seen in the market crashes); the billionaire-blocks are beginning to fall, which will leave the trillionaire blocks without support to hold them in place.  Thus, the trillionaire elite blocks of bloodlines at the top of the money system are waging war against one another for the power remain in control.

In short, The UK's vote to leave the EU represents somewhat of a move in the direction away from top-down rule of inequality. Moverover, it represents an opportunity for people to continue standing up and removing ourselves from the clutches of tyranny. A point to consider is that, change for the better in the world system comes from self-change for the better  that accumulates within and as humanity.

Severe Income Inequality is a Severe Violation of Human Rights

While human rights are the legal entitlements that belong “equally” to all of humanity, income inequality refers to the extent to which money is distributed “unequally” throughout society. What does severe income-inequality have to do with human rights?  As money is the basic means by which populations allocate and distribute resources, the distribution of income therefore determines which people have enough money to pay for the resources necessary to live according to our human rights and which people do not. Therefore, severe income inequality is a violation of human rights because; it causes those with less money also to have less opportunity to live equally according to their human rights.

Solving Global Problems at the Local Level

1.      Define the problem.

2.      Determine the cause of the problem.

3.      Design a solution that you are able to participate in at the local level.

4.     Join the community of responsible global citizens to stand as the change (in the small) that, you care to see in all of humanity.

Defining the Problem and Determining the Cause

Although the United Nations say that, human rights belong to all human beings equally, billions of people still do not have the opportunity to live equally according to their human rights. This is the problem. In order to determine the cause of this problem, let us have a critical look at some of the articles of international law, based on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Article 1: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Okay, so we are all born free and equal, but what happens after that? Where are the guarantees that, all human beings will have an equal opportunity to live dignified lives?

Article 2: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.” If everyone is really entitle to the rights and freedoms provided for in this declaration; why are there still so many people dying without the opportunity to live according to their human rights?

Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” This is perhaps the most important of all the articles. Although, article 3 acknowledges the right to life, liberty and security, it fails to guarantee everyone the right to the resources needed to survive, be free and be secure. Thus, it is like saying to a person who is dying of thirst: you have a right to drink water, but you do not have a right to touch the water.

Article 4: “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.” This article represents a form of hypocrisy written into international law. For example, let us look at the reality of billions of people’s lives. Imagine you live in a very poor country, where there are plenty of natural resources, but you are still hungry and thirsty because, the corporations that own the resources refuse to share the food and water with you unless you first give them some money. Furthermore, the only way for you to get some money is to work for them for $2.00 per day, i.e., agree to work like a slave.  This is how the structure and design of current world-system traps billions of people into slave-like working conditions. According to the UDHR, you have the right life and you have the right not to be held in slavery. However, the UNDHR does not guarantee us the right to the money that is needed to acquire the food and water that we need to stay alive. Consequently, in order for the poorest people to get money that they need to stay alive, they often have no choice but to accept slave-like working and living conditions. Thus, even though it is illegal to hold people in slavery or servitude, it is apparently not against the law for corporations to create the conditions that leave people with no choice but to agree to live and work as slaves.

In the beginning of this article we read that, severe income inequality is a violation of human rights because; it causes those with less money also to have less opportunity to live equally according to their human rights. In order to test this hypothesis, we can use the data in charts and graphs to compare measurements of income inequality with measurements of characteristics associated with human rights. 

Figure 1

As you can see from Figure 1, countries with higher rates of income inequality also have higher rates of health and social problems. This is because, when people have less money, they also have less ability to pay healthcare, education, security and so on. If the right to life were indeed applied equally to all, then the right to health and social services would also be applied equally to all. The reason that, health and social services are not applied equally to all is because of the unequal distribution of money. The less money one has, the less ability he or she has to pay for the resources and social services needed to guarantee equal human rights.  Within the money-system of humanity, we are able to quantify every form of inequality, which brings us to the following question.  How are we able to use the money system and its currencies of money to assist us to bring about equality within humanity?

Standing as the Change that we Care to see in all of humanity

It is impossible for the minority (that make up governments and organizations such as the United Nations) to change all of humanity for the better. Why?  Because, humanity is the sum of each person’s standing in relation one another. Herein, the first point for global citizens to see and understand is the point of self-responsibility. Change for the better, in the whole of humanity will only come from individuals changing themselves for the better. For example, one I-change for the better + one I-change for the better + one I-change for the better… adds up to a humanity that has changed for the better. The opportunity to create a better future for all of humanity is right now, and our participation begins as soon as we accept responsibility for solving the problems of humanity wherever and however we are able. In some cases, this means rewriting the current rules from a starting-point of what is best for all. For an example of new version human rights written by global citizens, have a look at The Bill of Rights by the Equal Life Foundation.