The following article at the bottom of this post, impelled me to write all this.
Too long has this word " Democracy" been spewed around without anyone taking heed of how erroneously it is used for everything irrelevant to its purpose, rendering it a religioesque umbrella-term whose social monitoring power ranges from talking against fascism or terrorism to imposing stricter legislation that take away your freedoms in the name of security. Democracy is the biggest hoax ever created. And it is so only because it is the easiest way to appease the sheep that comprise the social mass. Every political shepherd-leader uses it as a scapegoat and a panacea to cloak under its "holy" name a political correctness which no one is ever allowed to speak against. It gets tiresome. Thus, in the name of democracy we have unfathomable evil and crimes committed, much like the christian church and islam mosques have used their doctrine to sway the masses for an idea, demonizing everyone and anyone who opposes our financial interests, branding them terrorists or extremists, because if anyone ever speaks against this "democracy", he or she will be reprimanded and chastised at once, not only even by those in power, but epseically also by the very blinded sheep in the lower strata who by fighting to maintain this system are in effect fighting to remain enslaved. In turn, under this pervasive notion of "democracy", we have absurdly and erroneously conflated it with the idea of voting so as to elect representatives, to the point that not only they have become synonymous, but worst of all, the idea of voting is used as though it is some kind of holly term that must be evangelized to the entire planet. Gentlemen, and ladies, this is the best trick ever devised to control the masses that has ever been opposed on humanity. Worst that religion itself, for its sinister ideology poses as something that seemingly is religious-free, yet comprises of all teh characteristics that define a religion: blind faith, with illogical adherence to supernatural attributes that could confer upon us true joy and an elated harmonious society. Alas, if only this were true. I have yet to see history not show more crime and injustice in democratic societies compared to periods of tyranny itself. The only difference is that Democracy uses nice words to oppress you worsly, and mentally, while tyranny merely uses physical violence. For this reason, we can surmise, democracy, and representative democracy for that matter, is the worst form of tyranny ever devised.
For the record, true democracy has NEVER existed. Ever. Even in ancient Athens, which is the society that spawned the very idea of democracy. It only existed for about 80 years in total, and in those eighty years, it was only the right of those who were male citizens to vote (although this is rightfully and justifiably so back then given the specific circumstances in ancient Athens, because, for example, only the men would fight battles, and hence only they should decide, and knew what was at stake in order to decide for or what should be done concerning matters of the state, ). Nonetheless, as absurd as it may sound, so long as they are active members of society, today both men and women should have the right to vote. By extension, voting should not involve electing representatives, but should concern a direct, local and regional decision-making for matters that concern only those involved. Those who are imprisoned or unemployed, for instance, should not have the right to vote, for they are NOT contributing to society, and hence should not have the right to partake in the decision-making process that shapes the lives of the rest who comprise a society towards which those others do not contribute. At first thought you may deem this idea to be completely absurd, because you cannot remove all the brainwashing that has been instilled in your puny brain from the cradle, but take a step back and ponder this idea for a moment; in deed, democracy would immediately become exponentially more effective by this change alone, because the right to vote, SHOULD BE EARNED, and voting should NOT concern electing representatives, while it should also only concern the very region and very people who are partaking in this decision process and are the ones who are immdiately affected, granting them thus the true power to shape their lives any way they see fit, instead of being told how it should all come together, be this as simple as creating roads, or as complex as how taxes should be allocated fairly.
Sure enough, true democracy necessitates that the DEMOS (the people) possess the CRATOS (the power/state), which should be directly held by the people without any intermediaries, mediators or representatives. The very fact alone that in today's so called "democracy", which is only a system that is democratic only by name, we have the worst oxymoron of all: "representative democracy". Yet how can the people have true direct power if they are represented? The clown who began it all was Louis the IV, who, seeing that his kingdom was in danger, sought to appease all the starved rioting peasants by giving them a fantastic illusion: the delusion that they have power, so they shut up and their rebellion was effectively quelled. The morons. The only thing they actually did was to vote so as to elect some dude, by choosing among five or six other dudes whom the king and his court had put forth as candidates a priori, and the elected candidate would merely be the minister or adviser to the king, who in turn, could or could not choose to listen to what his advisory and his joke of a cabinet proposed. The practical upshot of this wondrous social engineering manipulation is that Louis' idea spread like widlfire amongst all other kingdoms in Europe, who were all more or less facing similar problems of upheaval to some extent, and they adopted the same trick. The whole gimmick is laughable to this very day. I mean The president of the united states is not a true emperor only because he doesn't have the title attached to his name. Or do youo really think that your prime minister is not a king for all intents and pruposes?
You see, even if "representative democracy" could be justified logically, who is to say that I want to vote any of the idiots who are up there posing as candidates? Why can't we nominate anyone we want and vote for them? Who chose these specific five or six clowns to be eligible to ask for our votes? I certainly didn't, did you? What guarantees do I have that by choosing between A, B, or C candidate, that I am not effectively choosing between a set of concealed sames, that is, whether i am choosing in effect between people who are nascently in accord with one another's agenda or in league with a plan to work for the interests of some other, more powerful, rich men? Here is how downright idiotic and illogical democracy is: let's say we have a dog who promises that he is a male dog. in fact he swears by god he is a male dog, and that if you choose him as your chosen-one, your elect pet, he will do all the tricks in the book. In turn, we decide to vote on whether all this is true, so we can decide if he will turn out to keep his promises. You vote "male" and that you want the dog for a pet. I vote "female" but that I also want the dog for a pet. Your sister votes "neuter" and that she doesn't want it for a pet, and your mom votes "blank" and also voids her vote concerning hwether she wants the dog for a pet. So is the dog male or female? And if we end up adopting him as our chosen pet, will the dog actually do all the tricks he promised? Well, bang me please, because I never thought casting votes could predict the outcome of someone's promises, or if there is any validity in this idiocy of pluralism we have been taught since we were children in objectively discerning the truth, let alone the future. We have the illusion that some clown will actually be able to take better decisions for our interests, and that we ourselves cannot be bothered to decide about these matters. Thus, likewise, you have some clown-dog politician, begging for you to throw him a bone of a vote, while he promises to fix this or that, and then you vote for him, and he just does butt all of what he promised, or even does the very opposite of what he promised in effect working for some scum masonic guild or selling out your country to serve the interests of some international banker, and in fact turns out to be not a loyal politician-dog, but a cunning politician-cat. Meanwhile you have the illusion of mental masturbation which governs your thinking process since you were a child, that you are ostensibly changing something with your vote, when even the very system of voting is without any shadow of doubt rigged, to the point that my pet monkey wonders how the hell do people like G. Bush ever got elected... well the system is such that you can count certain votes in certain ways that even if he did not receive enough votes from the people to become emperor, he received enough votes from the legions, sorry I meant regions. the rules of elected representative democracy are like monopoly or some board game, in fact; the whole process has so many rules and clauses or windows that those running for office can practically (re-)elect anyone they want. In fact, how is it fair, for instance, if a party that received 42% can rule the rest of the 58% which was discorded and spread thin across all the rest of the several remaining parties? This is the very definition of tyranny. In fact this idiotic mentality IS ever prevalent in Canada. Think about it: you have a minority who argue for their stupid rights that concern no one else but their severe minority (all the while they also want to have no responsibilities) and the vast majority must, and has to, make way to please them. For the love of Jesus Christ, Buddha, Allah, Satan or whatever you believe in, if there is ever any logic in this, can you not see that you have exceedingly distorted the notion of democracy in your mind, when the very word itself is devoid of its very meaning? In our country, we have made it so, that if you are male, white, healthy and young, you are at a disadvantage. If you are an old, unhealthy, native female, you'll probably get a job, even if she is not qualified and can't use a computer. Democracy? That's god damn communism, not a social state. What??? It's true. At long last someone has to break this stupid political correctness and speak up. Brand it with these fear-mongering anti-hitler-residue titles "fascist' and such balls. It isn't, in any way. It merely wants true equality. I'm not saying we should not help our fellow citizens in need, but we should not go to the other extreme either, where we are disillusioned to think that such a misbalance of opportunity in life should be counterbalanced by depriving those who could offer more and truly be productive, be they white, black, native or female, gay or whatever. They shoudl have opportunities ONLY if they DESERVE it. The very fact alone that they get opportunities merely because of their race, sex, or sexual orientation IS THE VERY NOTION OF RACISM, because in fact you are discriminating favoritely for someone based on these attributes. Why do you think that racism is only when you discriminate negatively, to the disadvantage of some people? Racism is also a fact when you discriminate positively, as it is likewise to the disadvantage of some other people. No discrimination of any kind based on race or sex and the such, be it positive or negative, should be extant in our society, if we ever want equality. I never took anyone's land for insatance. Why the hell should I have to pay 150 bucks for my glasses and pay thousands for my education, when someone else gets all this for free because just because of their race, and merely because some british or french dude took someone's land nearly three hundred years ago? Or do you think it is fair that this economic black hole in the finances of our social system will be sustainable for the years to come when every clown uses his 2-year old daughter's treaty number to buy booze and cigarretes for himself and his friends? Give me a break. Does the truth HURT? SOMEONE MUST say it without fear of political correctness, this cancer of a notion for our society, which is the worst censorship of our times, an insiduous and subconscious mechanism to impose self-monitoring to the detriment of justice, true genuine equality and logic itself. At the current rate, the way we are granting treaty rights, every person, white or native, is abusing our social system, striving to intermarry with natives so they can enjoy tax cuts, without any moral qualms, and in about 4-5 generations more than half of Canada will be traty-status. This is unsustainable. Who is going to pay taxes? Why do some people get GST cheques, for instance, when in fact they DO NOT pay GST? How illogical is that? So what in the name of fairness we become unfair? This is akin to saying we should fuck in the name of virginity. Go to war in the name of peace. Kill in the name of Christ.
Beyond this subject, generally speaking once more, in deed, in the name of equality we have created the worst inequality. Just as in the name of fighting patriarchy, we have created matriarchy.. At large, in Canada, we oscillate from one extreme to the other, merely producing the other side of the same coin. We are fighting oppression, by oppressing. Is this democracy? What democracy do we have in this country when the Quebecois, for instance, DO NOT respect the laws of our federation, which dictate that ALL OF US MUST have bilingual roadsigns, and their province outwardly neglects this, so every single road sign is ONLY in French? What an infuriating situation, getting lost every single time. Having this homogeneity in road signs or other such basic bilingual elements that are a commodity regardless fo cultural background, would not imply that the rest of Canada wants to anglicize them, nor that the rest of us want to destroy our French element, which I and nearly all of us would agree that we are pround to have (so long as I do not see that idiot Sarcozi on the front page of our Quebec newspapers every morning I take the metro in Montreal... Jesus, otherwise I feel like I'm somehere in Europe, not in Canada...). What i;m saying, is that we must all adhere to TRUE equality FOR ALL AND EVERYONE in this great land of ours, CANADA, without discriminations, if we want to be ONE true nation, and not a mosaic of disparate citizens, akin to our corporate-state-of-a-country neighbor to the south. Because being merely CITIZENS differs dramatically and is in stark contrast with being a NATION. We will never have true democracy if we are ONLY citizens, and not a nation. For what really defines us all as Canadian at present? What? Beer, moose, Tim Hortons? What do we ALL have in common at present? This is the sad truth dear reader. We are merely CITIZENS, not a NATION, collectively at large. And some politicians are prostituting our ideals so as to serve the interests of international banks. How dare this HARPER guy speak about democracy??? His words are travesty. In the name of Democracy HE has raped Canada not few a time in the past. Why have we forgotten the scandals he and others were involved in? I despise international banks and their puppets. So should you. I am weary of their embellished words, which employ the very ideals you and I uphold, democracy and the such, and distort them as leverage, so as to make me believe in their cunning plans to take more freedom away from me! And all the scum who want to keep us thinking we are different, in the name of some kind of distorted fairness, may bark all they want that it is logical to be partial to one or the other minority and discriminat against the majority.
If you want true Democracy, voting should NOT be a CHOICE, but MANDATORY. And it should NOT concern electing representatives, but it should involve making decisions directly at a local and regional level, with only rotating "custodians" who are merely and ONLY administrators of social wealth and interest and utterly accountable for their actions, to the point that if they do something wrong, they should be tried just like every other citizen, explicitly because their actions and mistakes may be detrimental to millions of people, and as such, their mistakes are worse than any crime.
So, YES MR. HARPER. DISSENT IS VITAL TO DEMOCRACY. VERY MUCH INDEED. Dissent with everyone who rapes ours and natives' land for oil, when we have all the resources to go Green. I am disgusted to even hear Harper is literally prostituting the term democracy so as to make us side in support of his party, using our very beliefs and ideals, such as a greener future, as leverage and the medium through which he can maintain support. This of course, does not mean I support anyone else. I would go as far as to say that they are all dirt, for i have yet to meet a politician who is not a liar. i know not of any politican who is not a solicitor support using our very own ideals as leverage and then spitting on them. The profession of "politician" should be banned, lest we end up sooner than later with a global government run by banks with puppets, these professional politicians. If only everyone would adhere to virtue and logic alone, and not befall prey to the interests of a few rich men puppet masters, swayed by the promises of the election campaigns of their puppets.
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/mr-harper-dissent-is-vital-to-democracy/article2349447/
Mr. Harper, dissent is vital to democracy
BRUCE COX
Special to Globe and Mail Update
Published Monday, Feb. 27, 2012 2:00AM EST
Last updated Monday, Feb. 27, 2012 9:55AM EST
327 comments
As leader of the opposition, Stephen Harper was clear on the vital role of dissent in a democracy: “When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it’s rapidly losing its moral authority to govern.”
In power, however, Mr. Harper’s Conservatives seem to have taken a page out of a U.S. election campaign: Smear your opponents early and often to avoid dealing with the substance of their arguments. Think of the advertising campaigns against Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff, “Taliban Jack,” or more recently, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews’s demand that the opposition “either stand with us, or with the child pornographers.”
MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY
You can’t take the tar sands out of the climate equation
The ‘freedom’ show on the Rideau
‘Foreign money’ is a hypocritical diversion
Q&A
Discussion: Radicals, foreign money and Northern Gateway
PHOTOS
The fundamentals of democracy
What should alarm those concerned about Canada’s democracy, however, is how the Conservatives have brought this election war-room mentality into government itself. Rather than engaging with citizens or organizations who disagree with their policies, Mr. Harper’s government has sought to attack, even criminalize them.
One example is the government’s recent revision of its anti-terrorism legislation to include environmental groups as a potential threat, even though there is no evidence of any Canadian environmental group ever employing violence. And recently, this paper revealed that assessments by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have labelled Greenpeace – a group founded on the Quaker principles of non-violence and refusing to turn a blind eye to the abuses of those in power – an “extremist” organization.
The academic who uncovered this evidence made the link back to Greenpeace’s opposition to the expansion of the Alberta tar sands. Prof. Jeff Monaghan of Queen’s University noted that government rhetoric around Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline and “the frequent use of words like ‘radicalism’ and ‘extremism’ to characterize opposition” is being used to legitimize taxpayer-funded surveillance of vocal political opponents, such as environmental groups. Other published reports indicate that the security services are reporting on their findings from such surveillance operations to private-sector corporations, including a presentation to “energy sector stakeholders” in November, 2011.
This attack on Greenpeace is simply one part of a broader, well-orchestrated campaign against anyone who questions the wisdom of tripling the size of the tar sands or building the new pipelines this requires.
We have seen this building over the past few years, but the campaign began to roll out in earnest in early January, when Mr. Harper expressed his concern about “foreign money” influencing Canadian energy policy. He was not referring to the foreign money represented by multinational oil companies or state-owned Chinese firms, but rather to U.S. charitable foundations supporting Canadian environmental groups’ efforts to protect globally significant ecosystems.
Three days later, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver accused environmental groups of being foreign-funded puppets looking to “hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.” Their crime was to participate, according to the rules established by federal law, in the environmental assessment of a new pipeline that would stretch from the Edmonton area across the Rockies and through the Great Bear Rainforest, bringing more than 200 oil tankers a year along B.C.’s pristine coast.
Next, there were the behind-the-scenes threats to change the legislation governing charities. This has already had a chilling effect, as groups have been weighing the loss of their charitable status as retaliation for speaking out against the tar sands or the Enbridge pipeline. Then, a Conservative MP publicly announced his intent to bring in a private member’s bill that would prevent environmental groups from receiving foreign financial support, even as the Prime Minister went to China to try to encourage foreign investment in the tar sands.
Digging deeper, Greenpeace obtained internal government documents under the Access to Information Act that detailed how Ottawa actively works with oil companies to attack environmental laws in Europe and the United States, laws that would force tar-sands companies to clean up their act. Rather than introducing measures to reduce pollution, the federal government has chosen to join – at the invitation of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers – a public-relations campaign to “turn up the volume” in support of the tar sands at home and abroad.
The federal government’s own “Pan-European Oil Sands Advocacy Strategy” document divides Canadians into two camps. “Allies” include the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, business groups and the National Energy Board. Environmental and aboriginal groups are identified as “adversaries.”
What’s good for oil companies isn’t always what is good for the country. Canadians need to send a clear message to Mr. Harper’s government: Building and governing a nation differs from running an election campaign. It requires, at minimum, an acknowledgment that those who disagree with you are still part of the community.
Bruce Cox is executive director of Greenpeace Canada.
