http://threesology.org
For those readers who have taken the time to rummage around the present (Threesology.org) site, they might have noticed that not a lot has been said about three-patterned political occurrences. While there are a few historical examples such as the three ships of Christopher Columbus (actually there were four), Hitler's Third Reich, three divisions of the French Society during the French Revolution, etc.; the existence of examples involving discussions of a more contemporary nature are particularly absent. However, when one does seek out references, we find typical textbook orientations where Communism, Democracy, and Socialism are discussed without an application of everyday subject matter not involving some other textbook model such as economics.
Such discussions do not provide us with a "street level" observation, a bird's eye view, as well as a hindsight from which a measure of foresight can be established to recognize a type of shell game is being played... with the people being the pea. As part of the study of Three-patterned Occurrences being logged, it is of need to provide an example of an examination dealing with the three types of "named" governing processes, though "pure" examples of them are not regularly defined nor practiced.
For example, America does not really practice a Democracy... it practices a superficial (hypocritical) "Demo" thereof, with more of a "Plutocratic Aristocracy" as the dominant feature. Similarly, the government of China is a Socialism with a Communist tattoo on its face, much in the manner of a bald-headed person wearing a wig backwards to promote a deferred image of humility and claim that it has eyes in the back of its head. And again, France is not practicing an actual Socialism, it is more of a mixture of whatever the people will accept... thus presenting the functionality of a "So-Soism". The original placement of the following selection can be found at → 3 buses of governance. ← While some readers might be inclined to interject the comment that a Monarchy, Dictatorship and Theocracy, are also "named" and have been dominant occurrences, the example did not focus on them as current occupations of sociological consideration in present day history.
(e.g.- "The Great Leap Forward"/ followed by: "The Cultural Revolution"/ followed by: "Revolution against Revolution"/ followed by: ............1) — Ideological Purity — [Leap-frogging mountainous obstacles to greener grass others refer to as resource capital that is difficult to get, keep hold of and make proper use of.] |
|
(e.g.- The "ELF": Equality, Liberty, Fraternity) — Ideological Practicality — [The ELF is an embellishment of Rumpelstiltskin's alter ego... like trying to name the ineffable.] |
|
(e.g.- The American Dream) — Ideological Freedom — [The Elf as a Leprechaun, cousin to Rumpelstiltskin: each individually claiming ownership to some imagined pot o' gold...] |
|
1(In China for example, one might say there is the search for a yin/Yang
structural identity compromise involving): ideology, political mobilization, class
struggle, anti-intellectualism, egalitarianism, and xenophobia on the one hand—
and economic growth, stability, educational progress, and a pragmatic foreign policy
on the other... (It is a division that was noted, respectively, in the old 1970's
Jiang Qing group versus the Zhou-Deng group.)(Source: "Cultural Revolution." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.) However, there are different groups today struggling with their own mix and match ideological variations involving [a leap-frogging amongst the trichotomously arranged lily pads of] pre-modern (traditionalism), the present (modernism) and post-modernism (futurism)... which produce a to-and-fro, 'concentric ripples journey' between a complementary dichotomy and complimenting trichotomy (both of which are akin to an infant's liquid diet being experienced by all countries... who have not matured to the development of anything substantially solid in their ideological pursuits of sustained practical governance. Fictional variations abound. |
Communism:
(Or else sacrifice your life so that others may benefit from your example.)
The Single State Party exercises control... (though it may provide for the practice of multiple parties being socially present— in order to give the public the impression there is social and political liberty)... and even if the people think they are free to live out their lives within social boundaries thought to be best for all; (as is determined by the opinion of a select few who can persuade weak personalities to follow suit). The people are only free enough to believe in what they are persuaded to believe in, because opposition requires the committed cooperation of multiple strong personalities.
Socialism:
(The less you pay the less honorable it is.)
Liberty is exercised like a Yo-Yo or rubber-band attached to the same return-to spot; thus falsely giving the impression that the Collective Will of the People is being heard and transformed into social reformations instead of supporting an underlying governing architecture which creates the situation for a recurrence of a history repeating itself with guises and variations only a perceptive few can distinguish as distorted refractions contoured by current philosophical fashions.
Democracy:
(as a god in the form of an Almighty Dollar)
(Democracy's facade must be kept at any cost, and you must foot the bill... even if it means being trampled by the dog-eating-dog pack chasing their own tail.)
(In the United States) the public is being subjected to the Totalitarian exercise of...
...that has bred an escalation of the incidents of unwarranted Probable Cause Seizures (and the public has no recourse whatsoever because the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, often takes the side of business and the government, but not the people). Incredulously, the so-called experts in government don't know how to contemplate the historically laden reasons for the government's use of an uncontestable laws which come to effect its robber-baron tactics against the public! Government policy makers can not collectively see any wrong doing in order to produce needed changes in governance. Whereas the public is entitled to some form of compensation if a person's land-property is to be taken, this is not the case for Civil Asset Forfeiture or "Probable Cause" Seizures. (Resulting in an incrementally increasing violation of public liberties that the people have no protection from because Democracy has taken on the native personality of irrationality that continues to erode the sanity of the public by laws that direct the Will of the People into further enclaves of irrelevancy.)
Right of Eminent Domain also called condemnation or expropriation (Right of Government to seize property [typically land] but must give compensation [typically inadequate], based on some rationale of permitting a reduced amount to be given.
|
Here is an extremely short list portraying a long history of governing authority claiming a right to do as it pleases... and continues to do so:
|
Governing authority today can be just as mule-headed as were those legislators in the 1700's Parliamentary England before, during and after the Revolution. Government have been committing "legal" thefts from the public for so long, it can not see the behavior as wrong or that its offspring are acting as bullies. The people do not have equal protections under the law when the law has set itself up above the Will of the People, a Will that is not permitted to have a consistent voice. If the law can not be used to assist the public against government badgerings because those in government are incapable of recognizing irresponsible behavior by having been born into such exercises like those who were once born into the ownership of slaves and could not comprehend anything wrong with it; than the usage of violence and destruction against the government will be warranted... albeit highly undesirable.
Note: another example is to cite the behavior of the (fighting-oriented, blood thirsty) Spanish Conquistadors whose aims of conquest (mainly for gold) found a further reason to subjugate Aztec Mexicans by assigning it their Christian duty to stop them from practicing the religious ceremony of human sacrifice. However, instead of using discussions, petitions and protests, the Conquistadors engaged in murder and mayhem because the people were brought up believing in the social need for human sacrifice. In this case, both the people and the government, despite any personal moral misgivings, chose to engage in a practice felt to be disgusting by the Spanish. There was little to discuss in terms of attempting to get the people and the government to change their mind and see the perceived truth as believed in by the Conquistadorians.
A third example is to recall the behavior of Russia, America and multiple other allies during World War II. Because the Nazis were engaged in aggressive behavior against multiple innocent targets (just like the U.S. government is against its citizenry), the Allies had no other alternative but to engage in counter-aggression because diplomacy (discussions), petitions and protests did not and would not work against a single-minded obsession which exercised a "might is right" orientation, just like American courts do. Trying to tell the American government it is wrong is no different than trying to tell Nazi Germany it was wrong.
In addition, when America used the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of using steps at more Diplomacy, petition and protest... it rationalized the usage of testing a new weapon under the guise that it saved thousands upon thousands of lives... when it did not kill or destroy military combatants nor military installations. America wanted to test the bomb on innocent civilians even though the Japanese High Command could have paid witness to its destructive power if it were detonated nearby in a non-habited location. The U.S. had to find some way of justifying its cost expenditures and perhaps show itself to be a military dominance. America's usage of the atomic bomb on innocent civilians must be weighed against the Japanese destruction of military targets in Pearl Harbor. Both instances show the nonsense the public has to deal with when confronting the one-sided ignorance of governments, despite all the rationalizations employed by the introduced sociological and psychological calculations added to a matrix of considerations and the avowed agreed upon beliefs of so-called experts in one or more fields.... where revenge is the bare fact of expression in orchestrating an act of violence.
 |
|
Less than two weeks after being sworn in as president, Harry S. Truman received a long report from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. “Within four months,” it began, “we shall in all probability have completed the most terrible weapon ever known in human history.” Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted from the interplay of his temperament and several other factors, including his perspective on the war objectives defined by his predecessor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the expectations of the American public, an assessment of the possibilities of achieving a quick victory by other means, and the complex American relationship with the Soviet Union. Although in later decades there was considerable debate about whether the bombings were ethically justified, virtually all of America's political and military leadership, as well as most of those involved in the atomic bomb project, believed at the time that Truman's decision was correct. Source: "The decision to use the atomic bomb." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013. |
It should also be mentioned that it has been said that the usage of the bomb was weighted by the view that it might not work and that in order to build another one, it would have taken over a year... such is the stage of rationalizations.
Again and again governments take out their aggression on innocent civilian targets in war and in times of non-war. (An absence of war should not be used to define peace.) Britain did this against Germany just like Germany did this against Britain and multiple other countries. Governments like to exercise aggression against civilians so much so that such acts have been ingrained into standard practices that many come to describe as normal and natural... and yet if a civilian public uses aggression against a government or government agency/agent, it is somehow transformed into an ignominious and detestable act... Whereas the people can be abused and subjected to pathetically disgusting acts of injustice by the government, they in turn are not permitted to mete out the same. It is a "do as I say but not as I do" situation... regardless if the retaliation is justified or not.
A government likes using aggression but frequently needs to have some excuse ("reason") for doing so. It will try to publicly describe efforts at amelioration by way of diplomacy and concession, with or without an expressed petition or protest... but use such behavior as a stalling tactic in order to prepare a means of using more aggression. Another stalling tactic is the use of conciliatory speeches which is a typical tool employed by orators of Fiction, Fairy-tale and Fantasy government story tellers. Governments are also good at arbitrarily choosing one or more individuals (or companies/associations) to be the fall guy for an event in which their were multiple players, though the other players received government assistance and support for the same wrong doing! Governments like to stack the deck against the public by not providing a means by which the people can have a dominant voice to effect its collective Will. The government does not like to lose and prefers to make a profit, even when the public is not aware of the government acting as a business partner but does not include the public as the primary and dominant stock holder.
In our attempts to promote the idea for establishing a New Government (a Cenocracy), it is of need to define our reasons for doing so, yet such an exercise quickly denotes itself as participating in supplying information in a journalistic manner. In other words, we would become like other sites that exhibit numerous indications of poor, bad and out-right malicious government-based activities. We do not want to be another type of community bulletin board that quickly evolves into a make-shift montage with the more recent postings adding to the burial of previous ones. Those of us connected with Cenocracy.org do not pretend to know every single problematic social issue. We do not see nor hear all the issues, and therefore can not speak about them. Though each of us can easily focus on one or more issues which we are particularly interested in and perhaps specifically informed about, it is of need that our central purpose be that which is directed towards altering the underlying structure of government because we collectively think this is the best route for addressing the many social issues we do become aware of. Granted some issues appear to be more complex than others.
Many of us in the public are disgusted that so many social issues affecting all of us are not being appropriately addressed by any of the government forms existing in the world. Whereas in a Democracy the people are supposed to have the power of a collective vote, such an exercise is a Fantasy. The right of the people to collectively vote on all topics of interest to them is being violated by all governments. If not in the process of discussion or vote tallying, then in the final wording and application of that which was voted on. In other words, the Will of the people becomes a Fairytale within a social Fiction. And though countless thousands are not cognizant of the actualities, many of us are... in as much as we may derive from the information we are privy to and are inclined to make an assessment of. But we are not perfect and freely admit this. Nonetheless, our imperfections do not obscure the falsifications we are being subjected to by myriad government functions whose authority are most likely ignorant of, but nonetheless participate in because they not only know no better, but would not want to change if called upon to do so, because of a long-established routinized mind-set.
In our examination of the many different forms of government being practiced, it is of need to note that no one is practicing a "pure" form of Communism, Democracy or Socialism, and that all of them borrow from one another in terms of their own practiced one-upmanship ideology; even if they go out of their way to suggest otherwise... by minimizing the usage through linguistic manipulations which label it something else or as a "short-term" trial application to address some extreme circumstance. (Also, denoting imperfections should not be used as an excuse to perpetuate imperfections by claiming some ignorantly defined "naturalness", and thus prevents an impossible escape to achieve something better.)
However, it should also be noted there are those governing systems that practice deep deceptions which their publics', for the most part, are not generally aware of. A good example of this deception is the United States' so-called brand of Democracy. America does not practice a Democracy in which an equality of public voting, to determine governing policy, takes place. Only the small country of Switzerland attempts to practice a closer realization of an Actual Democracy... though it should not be used as an example to suggest its model of "Actual" Democracy would work effectively in another country such as Russia, China, the U.S., etc...
The U.S., from one perspective, is the practice of a Plutocratic Aristocracy which Masquerades as a "Democracy", with the word Democracy defined as a "Peoples government" and frequently illustrated with the phrase of being a government Of, By, and For (all) the People... though such an idea is neither a part of the Independence Declaration of the 1700's or the Constitution. In other words, the government is run by a wealthy class, and this continuation is thus its own established aristocracy. It is a club of individuals who use various types of currency to exert influence on creating— or undermining government policies that are directed along courses which make, break or sustain particular individuals as the wealthy sovereigns... who directly or indirectly influence the activities of government for one reason or another. But it is a club that not all wealthy people share an equal partnership in, and many wealthy people do not consciously participate in the social and economic games thereof. Such games enlist the tactic of engaging in a "moving target" strategy that even some of the players are not cognizant of. Some of the players are particularly stupid people who can conceal their ignorance and mistakes by covering them up with whatever currency will act for a time as a blanket of leaves, then snow, and then a growth... as a part of the cycle of life everyone is conditioned to by habituation.
In order for the government to be run by a few who do not want to set themselves as a public target for practicing such an aristocracy; which defines the existence of an unrecognized Shared-Monarchy that some observers refer to as a "Corporatocracy"... and requires a definition to fit this day and age— the government, as a resource for those who are participating, is then used as a tool to help perpetuate the illusion that the people have a Democracy in order to keep them participating in a system of inequality, or "particularized equality".
Like those standing or sitting at a game of gambling, with different players taking a moment's highlight; this is the manner in which America's Aristocracy plays out. Some of the players never invest too much at any one time, while others go-for-broke. Still others try to make a name for themselves by taking a lead position and yet others who prefer to participate with cautioned bets so as to be able to retain their presence, if for no other purpose then to be a "participating audience" who are required to make some measure of bet in order to keep their place at the table. The role of the public in all of this is to be the support staff in this Casino called America.
The Plutocratic Aristocracy was initiated by a coalition of white men, some of whom owned slaves, who wanted to grant themselves entitlements but did not want to give the impression that they were doing so. Some of them engaged in self-deluding sophistry, because they were trying to advance a form of government that they were not intellectually capable of doing. With a Revolution having been fought against a Monarchy, it would not bode well for those who had identified with the Aristocratic Gentry of a Parliament, to portray themselves as a Colonial Gentry— though this is in fact how they viewed themselves. By claiming that the government to be established was a Democracy, a "Peoples Government", but not declaring that the "people" to whom they were predominantly focused on was themselves and their own interests; the population was then satisfied they had a very different government that belonged to everyone. Such a perspective was influenced by the French slogan of Équalité, Liberté), Fraternaté, though these words were being interpreted to be practiced very differently. Whereas those in the French government were thinking in terms of a social equality, those in the American government were thinking in terms of privileged entitlements.
However, despite France's claims for establishing social Equality, it did not let women vote. The Colonial government of North America was established with voting disallowed for women, slaves, Native Indians and all non-property owning White men. And even though voting rights have been increased, they are not universally applied to those who marry or join the military at a young age, but are expected to "perform their (tax paying) duties" like all adults. In addition, that to which all these voters can vote on is just as minimized as was the privilege of voting. Thus, in effect, those in government grant themselves the entitlement of having the lion's share of voting power. In other words, whereas those in the government stacked the deck against the public by excluding the majority from an ability to vote, this same self-entitlement takes place by excluding the people from being able to vote on the majority of issues.
Whereas Marxist theorists give an explication of the concepts "Class Consciousness" (i.e. "WE", "US", "OUR's") and "False Consciousness" (i.e. "I", "ME" "YOUR's"), these are not necessarily tied to a defined "Voter Consciousness". For the most part, a person's vote is aligned with notions of liberty, freedom and its attendant 'personal choice' or preference. When a collective voter consciousness does come to mind, it produces collective efforts that are typically directed towards the permissibility of individualized voting. A case in point is the past notion that certain segments of the public in a given population do not have the right to vote. A collective voter consciousness in opposition to this is about the right to cast individual votes, and not the casting of votes to legitimize an increased power of a voting activity. In other words, the suffragettes used protests as the action of establishing the power of a collective vote so that certain individuals (all women) could vote, but did not enable the whole of the populace from being able to vote in collective unison as a single dominant voice, such as when a referendum takes place. The referendum is relegated to the status of being a temporary (collective) voter with a consciousness to be awakened from slumber only on extreme measures... as if it were a clumsy drunken oaf that is better off if left unconscious for most of the time... or like a drugged mental patient who is permitted to reach only that level of sobriety needed for someone to get their signature to act as the power of attorney.
While most of us today think it is rather silly that women and others were kept from voting, and that the people of the past actually went along with such nonsense; many people today go along with the stupidity and nonsense of letting themselves be excluded from being able to vote on any and all issues pertaining to a government that is supposed to belong to the people! For many of us, if we had a time machine and could venture to the past prior to the uprising of the woman suffrage movement... we might be astonished at the rationale being used to sustain the mentality for not letting women vote. Likewise, for those of us who can look about and see the same mentality being practiced with respect to an inability of being able to vote on all issues; we find ourselves trying myriad ways of diverting our acknowledgment of such madness... though we may actually want to scream out loud like Charlton Heston, as the astronaut George Taylor had done in the "Planet of the Apes" movie when he said "It's a Mad House!" in reference to his captivity by talking apes. His experiences provided a perspective which made his captivity all the more intense, though try as he might to muster a level of humility in order not to provoke censorship from those who could not possibly understand the many contrasts his mind had to juggle between the differing realities. (The one that was but should not be, and the one that should be but is not.)
Many of us have experienced our own living hells... or at least situations which appeared to present us with reasons to escape from, in one manner or another. For example, with respect to the present discussion; though people in the colonies enjoyed freedom from some levels of religious persecution in Europe, there nonetheless remained forms of persecution which caused some people to escape to living amongst the Indians who practiced an enlarged sense of freedom. Women were (and still are) particularly vulnerable to various forms of persecution because those whose vision becomes more intellectually acute through discernment and comprehension, frequently make contrasts that they might not be able to resolve with some type of acceptable rationale. Such was the case for the Suffragettes, but is an intensity of application not as distinct in the striving for an Equal Rights Amendment. And as noted in the previous Home page at this site, the ERA movement falsifies itself as an identity when it attempts to display its image with the previous personalities of Voting and Equal Rights. It is like adding on too much perfume and cosmetics to conceal the real beauty of Equal Rights.
But social equality is the voice of both Socialism and Communism. America practices various social inequalities brought about by wealth, strength, intelligence, and position, to name but a few examples. If we define "Communism" as a shared "commonness", then all of us would be enabled at a chance to work at any occupation or play at any diversion. Practicing Communism is much easier with a population that views itself as the same race. The presence of different races makes the usage of a Communism more difficult, unless the members of a society define themselves in a larger definition of "race" such as the human race. It is difficult to practice a Communism when language usage advocates a recognition of diversity. For example, acknowledgment and deference to behavior defined as talent, giftedness or genius, is not the perspective of celebrating a commonality. Acknowledging differences in behavior because we humans have different perceptions and organization thereof, is not Communistic-oriented. Despite the desire to establish an equality whereby everyone benefits equally, there can never be a true or pure Communism because it requires a type of cooperation that would obviate the need for establishing a ruling party to insure compliance with standards of perception that should be obvious to everyone if "Communism" was an ideal orientation everyone does, will, or should focus on. The question of ownership in a pure form of Communism is irrelevant because everyone would be of the same mind. Hence, "pure" Communism is an unachievable "commonism" because it is the illustration of "clone-ism" (clone-istic colony or "clonolony")... where everyone is the same... but not even insect colonies do this. There exist divisions of labor which may themselves entail subtle unknown internalized hierarchical (pecking-order) stratifications we humans can not appreciate without being a particular insect species.
Because of the type of creatures we humans are, we can not at present function as a Communism. The ensuing deterioration of the planet as a celestial body, to say nothing of the destructions perpetrated by humanity; clearly details our own incremental demise so long as we remain on this planet, in this solar system, in this galaxy. Even those who would marvel at the function of social insect societies are inclined to admit they are not Communistic, because divisions of labor exist based on genetically endowed determinants, and the usage of "centralized government" in terms of a queen... whose frequency of appearance in different insect "societies" lead some to suggest it is advisable for humanity to adopt a matriarchal formula as well. Communism (Commune-ism) must thus be defined in terms of a utopic idealism and is an attempt to create a type of Heaven on Earth. While we can admire the desire, we must contend with the realization that is unrealistic.
Though some Communist thinkers consider Socialism to be an immature form of itself, and rests at a stage between itself and Democracy; Socialism can also be referred to as a more mature form of Democracy... albeit in a youthful adult sense. As with Communism and Democracy, Socialism concerns itself with ownership of property and resources but thinks that the ownership should be controlled by the "State", (or Government). Ideally, Socialism should limit private ownership so as to prevent the occasions of monopoly and associated abuses. Socialism must practice both wage controls and costs for goods and services. The collective voice of the people as the dominant governing power must be an actuality and not just an illusion as presently practiced by the typical Democracies of today. But such democracies are not inclined to teach cooperation. A "survival of the fittest" orientation is the underlying theme taught in many homes, work places and classrooms. To be the best, to have the most, or in general, define oneself in some way as an individual. Inclinations towards practicing Communism are found in "team oriented" efforts, though they may have a label such as "Community efforts". Such exercises might make a person feel good about themselves for contributing in a cooperative effort, but the feelings are misunderstood because they occasion many different actions which enable one to interrupt a routine... like a vacation from oneself by way of diverting one's behavior to non-typical activities.
But such forms of shared "common-ism" are not sustained for long. Most people tire of the participating in divergent forms of a "community" involvement and want to return to a former niche', though it too may be a routine. But it is a routine in which one's individuality is defined... and like most people, if given the opportunity, they would prefer to travel in their own car instead of car pooling. But one's "own" car is an illusion of property ownership. One does not actually own a vehicle if they do not pay the required fees to operate them on "public" roadways which are controlled by the laws of a given government entity. Likewise, a person does not actually own a house... they rent it by way of tax fees. They might soon find themselves without "their" property if they don't pay property taxes. Likewise, so-called "public property" does not actually belong to anyone in the public for which they might stake a claim to actual ownership... it is "owned" by a managerial service called the government who can sell it according to the dictates of those acting as "elected" officials who have an ability to over-ride public opinion by claiming a right of eminent domain. It is the exercise of a dictatorship, though one might just as easily describe the law as a Monarchial privilege that can also be seen in the policy of "Civil Asset Forfeiture".
 | |
 |
Struggles to climb hills or navigate obstacles... but good on gas if appropriately tuned. Comfort is sacrificed for utility as an excuse for mis-managed conservation and infra-structure. Enduring philosophical callouses are misinterpreted as wisdom acquired by experiencing multiple types of "The Way" (Middle of the Road) potholes and detour signs; becoming normalized into personalized ideologies of empirical naturalness and divinely inspired character... nurtured by a weakened (springy) social under-carriage due to an inadequate maintenance regime that substitutes the rubber soles of shoes for shock absorbers. One-party STATE ownership of resources and production without public controls, creates compensatory primitive actions due to over-crowding conditions of commonality producing celebrations of mediocrity which is a modernized exercise of controlled restraint akin to the notion of foot-binding. The STATE owns the banking system as its own personal treasure trove that forces public participation by demanding all monies be directly deposited. It is the duty of all to work... the longer and harder, the better for the STATE control of ALL. "Pure" (opposed to "raw") Communism is a "commonism", which is a colony of clones where everybody is enabled to perform any single task which could include multi-tasking if required.. |
 |
Gas consumption is relegated to the ideology of sacrificing an image of egotistical
power without resulting to pretensions of pious humility; as a means of expressing
a willingness to share, but not be taken advantage of. Is regularly involved with the scaffolding of hill and obstacle constructions so that it can enjoy the benefits derived from an associated coasting. (Such as the instigation of a civil or military conflict... typically outside its own borders.) Attempts to redefine the words comfort and sacrifice into values of a shared social equalité without affecting liberté while claiming to promote a greater global fraternité. Multi-party STATE control of resources is diminished in favor of Capitalistic- orientations that require proportionately higher taxes in order to perpetuate consumer confidence in the spirit of social equality, though financial freedom is diverted (sacrificed) into a [warm and fuzzy, feel good about oneself] social expression of greater altruism, thereby undermining the public's conscious acknowledgment that there is the need for a greater level of public control. The STATE controls the banking system on behalf of the people who are encouraged to keep their way of life viable by encouraging public participation by utilizing a direct deposit system the people must utilize because all previous forms of banking are being relegated towards obsolescence. Enough work must be made available so that more-than-enough taxes are generated. "Pure" (as opposed to "raw" human forms of) Socialism is the permissibility of individuality but a collectively shared social goal, instead of the practiced "So-Soisms" (So and So does this or that for so and so reasons). |
 |
Regularly creates its own hills/obstacles to show off its power and influence...
if not in its own country, then in others. (Like neighborhood kids who deliberately
manufacture obstacle courses to test their bike riding or skate-boarding abilities.)
"Super-Charging" takes place in many forms (i.e. excessive fees, crime, falsehoods, duplicity, etc...). Incorporates numerous rationalizations such as "efficient" gas guzzling, "credible evidence", "free" (electoral-winnowing presidential) elections, a "peoples government", etc... Produces comfort-related excesses/esclations/surpluses... such as cars, criminals, "crustaceous" (hard-nosed/hard-shelled) corporations and government agencies... as well as homelessness, helplessness (public dependency) and hopelessness (social disenfranchisement or desperation.) Maintenance costs are high because taxes are disproportionately allocated by frivolous party-line idealisms without public controls. Investor-based corporate ownership of resources protected by multi-party government policies without public controls; creates a dog-eat-dog survival-of-the-fittest public mentality which favors isolationist forms of "family values". Everyone will be told they have the Right To Work, and will delude themselves into believing this also means they have right to get a job. The Banking system is independently owned to participate in government controls on behalf of the people who are incrementally forced to participate by encouraging the use of credit and debit cards as well as using a direct deposit system as its primary means of communication. (It can thus increase its holdings to use as it wants but pay little dividend to depositors who are charged usurious fees if they use even the smallest amount of the Bank's money because of an accidental overdraft. The Banking system not only bakes the cake but wants to eat it all, while providing only a few crumbs to the public, by way of their Socialist-funded system.) "Pure" (as opposed to the "raw" types of phony) Democracy, permits individuality but ensures collective agreement as to the defined allowances thereof. Present "Democracy" is practiced as a Demonstration, a Phoneyness played out in words and slogans like a child's make-believe doll house world; but is never actually practiced. It is an advertising gimmick for those whose interest is in making a buck, with their valued "currency" taking various forms. |
|
Communism wants the benefits of a free market and free thinking,
so long as they are STATE controlled "freedoms" to insure everyone crosses the same
finish line at the same time, even if the STATE mentality has run its course as a viable
perspective. Advocates of Communism see it as the best governing system. Socialism is viewed as a lesser stage of development between itself and Democracy. Democracy (advocating capitalism) is seen as an exploiter of human frailty and weaknesses... like a demon taking advantage of the innocent and naive. Wide spread social addiction: Symbolic (Agrarian Temple, tit-for-tat) habituation practices. Socialism promotes the idea that it is socially responsible for freedoms to be equally denied under STATE administration. Advocates of Socialism see it not as a middle ground between Democracy and Communism, but as a step beyond both— that is free to utilizes portions of different governing formulas (such as the presidential and parliamentary systems) as an expressed attempt to minimize the excesses of having too much or too little. Wide-spread social addiction: Self-absorbed Industrialization practices. Democracy promotes the idea that a free market philosophy goes hand in hand with free thinking, (while obscuring the fact that it is a type of Monopoly game where a select few will always reap most of the benefits and the rest are to be supportive thereof by embracing various illusions and delusions.) Advocates of Democracy claim it to be the best form of government (based on a business ethic of capitalism), (though an Actual Democracy is not intended to be used). Communism is seen as being too restrictive of human rights and Socialism is viewed as promoting a form of Communism. Wide-spread social addiction: Loaded dice, stacked deck, fixed roulette wheel practices. | |
All three "public transportation companies" (viewed as economic entities), operate without goals beyond a hand-to-mouth existence shaped by make-shift philosophies that rely on classroom settings in which educators instruct by using a Monarchial or Dictatorial pedagogy and not one based on Communism, Democracy or Socialism. Analogously; likewise... business, government and religion are simply three different kinds of meals sampled and eaten during the observed "day" (life-time) of an individual, in the particular cultural environment they are grown and learn to adapt to.
Neither Communism, Democracy nor Socialism, as they are presently practiced, have an established means by which the collective Will of the people can assert itself without resorting to a Revolution; unless sustained protests and petitions creates a disturbance which those in authority can not silence into some oblivion of deferment, or otherwise successfully run the government unless it defers to the protestors. Protests and petitions which do not disrupt the orientations of those in authority may create an argumentative backlash with the public because it disrupts their orientations which do not find the protests rationale. In other words, the public is not convinced that what is being proposed, has the logical merit being ascribed to it. If a protest does not engage those in authority who can introduce desired changes, the public's examination of the protest argument may reach a point of intolerance. Dispelling the usage of Communism based on an easily understood logic is one thing, but getting a public to adopt a New form of Government without an explicit formula does not provide them with an alternative.
A new government design must permit private ownership, but limit it so that the public is not subjected to the owner's desires for excess at the expense of the public's sovereignty over State control. A government that claims itself to be a Democracy and yet utilizes a type of governance which severely limits the collective Will of the people from actually governing itself, is an hypocrisy a conscious public would rightly be ashamed of and discredit by way of making it obsolete. Whereas present governing structures value themselves via economic theories with differing values of ownership of production, goods and the disposition of raw resources... including human resources; they actually diminish the value of the people by not advocating public ownership of the State (i.e. the government), through a practiced means by which the collective Will of the people can assert its Will over the government as a standard legislative process.
Page first posted:Sunday, 10-Jan-2016... 01:50 PM
Updated Posting: Monday, 08-Feb-2016... 10:48 AM
Latest Update: Saturday, 17-June-2017... 3:38 PM
Herb O. Buckland
herbobuckland@hotmail.com