This chapter is not «against» democracy or its means (rule of law, freedom of parties, etc.) and I reject in advance as defamatory any «interpretation» of this kind. But it turns out that democracy is at the centre of a quadripolar diagram (chapter I-4), at the intermediate level of compromises. For this simple logical reason, the answer to the question «is democracy good or bad» depends on the height we are in the diagram. On the lower level of dualistic opposition, we are in a dictatorship or in a chaos: democracy is then a better choice, a liberation, an organization. But on the contrary, in the higher level of non-duality, the compromise is blocking the solutions. In this situation, the formal democracy as we know it today becomes an obstacle or a danger.
Thus any dualistic opinion «pro» or «anti» democracy and the rule of law, is bound to produce calamities. And the right attitude depends on the level of evolution of the people who practice democracy.
So, for psychoprimitive people, ready to fight each other, the rule of law is needed, with police and all, until they learn to live together peacefully. At this point, democracy can work smoothly, without constantly calling the police. On the other hand, we also can fully assert that a psychoeducated society (chapter V-12) being in the upper level of the diagram, it no longer needs the legal and democratic compromises. Such a society brings more respect for people than the rule of law, and more freedom than democracy. It can therefore forget them, not because they would be bad, but because their goals would be achieved well beyond the vision which inspirited them.
Thus democracy and the rule of law are like a buoy: essential for a pedestrian to cross a river, but an unnecessary burden for the bird who can fly over. Or as the tutor for a tree, or as the mould for the bronze, necessary to create the shape, but which must be removed to reveal and complete this shape.
It turns out that today the vast majority of people are still below the intermediate level: democracy is good for them. And a still awaited progress in several countries. It is also an indispensable guide for people unable to understand non-duality, who therefore need democracy and the rule of law. So, democracy is a considerable improvement over dictatorship.
We use to say that this progress is due to the voting rights and the rule of law, to the point of defining democracy by them. I would say that, as in any quadripolar diagram, is the mindset of the majority (more or less dualistic) which defines the height in the diagram where stands a given country: dualism (dictatorship), compromise (democracy) or non-duality. It is therefore really the mind of the people, their spiritual level, which determines whether a country is democratic or not. With the level, democracy exists, even without votes or rule of law. Without the level, democracy simply does not exists, and it automatically falls into civil war and elected dictatorships (Nazism and many others). And if I could see all along my life so many dictatorships fading away, and so many democracies flourishing, I know we owe it to a real change in the spirit of peoples, and not to some legal artifices for counting votes.
But we also are starting to find people at the upper level of non-duality. And many problems are then revealed, for example the difficulties of democracies to apprehend a serious emergency such as climate change. This clearly shows that democracy has reached its limits, and must quickly find better than to oppose «opinions» back to back, in «debates» where the real solutions were excluded before starting.
A deeper problem is that democracy is not a way to find the truth. This is what psychologists call a method of conflicts reduction. In a system where the majority rules, only a minority is dissatisfied, and its interest is to keep silent instead of engaging in an unequal battle. This is a considerable improvement over dictatorships, where the majority is dissatisfied. But if it is the majority who is wrong, or is manipulated, then serious problems may remain unresolved despite well-known objective solutions, such as climate change, or oppression by the high financial. Other serious disputes such as abortion can even not be discussed, from the science inability to understand consciousness (what this book tries to correct). So we clearly need better than the current democracy. And without waiting that everybody is psychoeducated. This is what this part is offering.
However the aim of this chapter is much more modest: why does democracy most often gives birth to a kind of floppy dictatorship accepted reluctantly, while people are free to vote for fair solutions and competent leaders.
49% and 51%, these figures are familiar to you: it is the results of the last elections. No matter which ones, in 1850 or yesterday, in France, in the USA, Russia, and even in Libya just after Kadhafi.
The problem is that, for statisticians, this consistency is highly unlikely: human opinions vary based on many criteria, plus the personalities of the candidates, political situations, etc. It is simply impossible that in such a variety of countries, peoples, issues, we always find the same figure, with such a precision. It is like flipping a coin a thousand times, and the coin always falls on the edge! This never happens.
Facing this absurd conclusion, the first explanation which comes in mind is that all the elections would be massively rigged. Such an explanation would make a nice conspiracy theory, but it is however highly unlikely: counts are public, with assessors from each party, who check one another. Anyway known examples of ballot box stuffing rather produce extreme results.
Anyway to assert without proof the existence of such rigging would be legally defamation. I therefore abstain. But as a scientist, I do not have the right to assert that there would be no problem. Because this is what statistical science shows with an almost absolute certainty: there is something which massively distorts the results of the elections. And nobody recognizes himself in this strange political class, arrogant and frightening, that we nevertheless brought to power by our own votes.
In mathematics, an attractor is a place which attracts the values of a series. We can consider that in the elections, as they are held today, 50% is an attractor: there are far more results than predictable, which are grouped very close to 50%, sometimes so close that several recent elections had to be redone, because the count could no longer tell the winner.
What is this mechanism which so violently deforms the intentions of the voters? And offers such a convenient grasp to manipulators? It is subtle enough, so that apparently no one has noticed it yet. But it is actually quite easy to understand, once we understand the basics.
Let us first take a specific example: why in France do Catholics not vote for the left? Strictly speaking, if we read the Gospels, the Christian values of equality, solidarity and aiding the poorest, are labelled «left» today. Better, in the Acts of the Apostles, just after the death of Jesus, his disciples gather in a community which is much more like a Soviet kolkhoze than anything else, with total collectivization of all property, money, land, etc!
So why Catholics do not vote left? The reason, the first you ask will tell you bluntly: the left opposes the spirit, denies human dignity, and often reaches atheist fundamentalism (the memories of «revolutionary» persecutions are still alive, and the new racist bullying against Muslims revive a wound which was not really closed). It is truly amazing that things as cosmically conflicting as social values and the rejection of the spirit, can coexist in the same noggin. But we nevertheless have written evidence in every election, from almost all the parties, even from the «green».
On the other hand, the right «supports» the Catholics! But this protection comes with capitalist values of egocentrism, privileges and confiscation of production, in clear the exact antithesis of the Christian values. the trap of the right is gross: be Catholic if you want, but only the Sunday at the Mass, the reminder of the time shut up and work.
In such circumstances, Catholics should not vote for any of the two, because both choices are ultimately as hypocritical and ineffective. However abstention always brings up much worse things, so that people prefer to vote anyway.
This simple example is enough to understand the dilemma of the voters, who have to choose between two fundamental values, artificially brought into opposition. It is a bit like asking people to vote between being roasted or being boiled, we would surely find something like 49/51 (And even probably the usual abstention rate). A result devoid of any meaning anyway, because the only right answer, «to stay alive», was removed from the possible choices. But if you asked this question, you would surely get 99%.
Well, of course, the actual elections are more complex. But precisely this complexity reinforces the problem: people have to choose, not between one, but between several pairs of values, all artificially placed in opposition. Even ecology was opposed to protection against drugs, and more recently sexual freedom was opposed to the rights of children. So the choice really offered to voters is never really good, and rarely totally bad: it is an ambiguous choice, between a roughly equal number of positive points and negatives points. In these circumstances, the electoral choice in the second round is like between the half full glass and the half empty glass, and even the results fully reflect the ambiguity of the proposals.
Are people aware that they are fooled? Apparently not: most being still too dualistic, they think that this division is natural, and themselves see things in this way. And, when given a choice between two values, most «take side» and start to hate the «other side» and all its values at a whole, positive or negative. Without seeing the manipulator who presented them things in this way. Or there may even not be any manipulator at all, since politicians and the media are themselves much more dualistic than the people, already hallucinating two opposed camps. In the end, the choice of the voters is made according to their opinions on such or such points of the program, and these opinions being set at random by their neurosis (chapter V-12, where we saw that neurosis result only from the operation of material neurones, without any consideration for the suffering or happiness they produce), everything happens as if a large majority of voters were voting with flipping a coin, while believing they have the choice. This is how the results are statistically so close from 50%. Even important issues are not really able to really bend this law!
Even politicians seem to check the different points of their programs at random, producing all these grey parties without personality, just able to prevent society from sinking. Only the extremes are noticeable by their dangerous positions, but even so there they are somewhat interchangeable, and we often saw the voters of one side voting for the other.
And yet, this is direct universal suffrage. The electoral systems with several levels are even worse, always favouring stale parties and outdated politicians, that we no more expect. For example the Italians will long remember Berlusconi, who continued to appear at the head of different chambers for several years, despite the hatred of the voters. It is not by accident that in France the various reactions of the 19th century restored multi level elections at the expense of universal suffrage. Even the French Fifth Republic still refuses the popular initiative referendum.
Are the manipulations that I shall describe here intentional, or are they only the statistical result of the random actions of psychoprimitive and dualistic politicians? I prefer not to try to answer this question, contenting myself to observe the reality and massive pervasiveness of the facts. The real answer, is up to you to bring it, with understanding this chapter, and voting for those who will attempt to apply the solutions proposed in the end.
This little perverse game is as old as the elections. Politicians and media are unanimous in doing so: they see us as more or less «left» or «right» (the terms vary by country), and anything which does not fit into this classification is described as «ambiguous» or «nebulous» (what they were saying of ecology in 1978 in France). This classification can be unravelled. For example, if we consider the left as partisan of social progress, and the right as capitalist, then the far left appears as a «super left». However this is not at all the same thing: the far left is Marxist, while the «moderate» left just wants to control capitalism. Same thing at right: fascism is not at all a super-capitalism. Instead they rather hate the big business (But being much less smart, they always are done by them). Hence we have four totally different things, which should instead be placed in a square: for instance social at left and capitalism at right, and then liberal up and authoritarian down. This really makes a square with four places, not two. If we add ecology, it does not fit in any one of these four categories: it needs a fifth one. Oh even not: Who could really be against the survival of our specie? Normally a vote on ecology should not get less than 90% of the votes (only sociopaths can actually wish the destruction of mankind). To say that ecology is «left» was a major mind control manipulations of the late 20th century, and only from this comes the fact that ecology remains confined to a few percent in the votes. In any case, it cannot exceed the fateful 50%, as long as it prostitutes itself wearing a partisan label which does not match anything. For proof, the reverse is also true, and right or extreme right parties who attempted to use ecology no more succeeded to raise it in the votes.
This reduction of all the ideas to a simple left-right linear scale is the direct cause of this bipolarization which is blocking politics: all the disappointed of the first round will vote at the second round for the candidate «of their side», even if it is totally different or utterly zilch. It is precisely this transfer process of a variety of criteria on only two candidates in a second round which, through the laws of statistics, selects the two candidates «half empty glass» and «half full glass» that we almost always find here. And which removes any real choice in elections.
Politicians and manipulators know this very well: they take random right or wrong positions on the various program points, but in equal quantity on each side, so as not to distort the balance. Or they also suffer from random opinions, which make them check at random the different program points, giving statistically an equal number on each side. Elections then pick the least able to control their opinion neurosis. And this is what we observe: we very rarely see a politician change his mind. Even if it costs him his position.
We can define extremism as the desire or will to resort to arbitrary authority, or even to physical violence: denial of the rights of certain persons, freedom restrictions, censorship, etc. However this is a social disease, not a political orientation. Only haters and frustrated people are extremists (and of course sociopaths, but the extreme voters are too numerous to all be sociopaths).
In the electoral propaganda of all sides, extremist are always used as scarecrows: «danger of communism» incentives to vote in the second round for the «half-empty glass» right wing candidate, while the «half-full glass» left caditate appears as the only containment against fascism. So even the extreme right and the extreme left play too an active role in maintaining a servile majority of «half empty glass» and «half full glass». We can very clearly see this operating in recent examples:
-In France in 2013, at the occasion of protests against «gender studies» in schools and against homosexual adoption, the extreme right said they «supported the demonstrators», who were then at once labelled «extreme right» by the media. Which of course led to their massive demobilization. If the gender studies are gone (for now) the adoption by homosexual couples has actually been legalized (pending sadomasochist adoption, bestiality adoption, scatology adoption, etc.) without any democratic vote, and without any debate or any study on the consequences. I do not call it democracy, but pure manipulation.
-In France around 1995, when my own children were victims of discrimination against fathers, I contacted the protection associations (there were several, quickly growing in importance). But I was told that «they agreed to receive help from the extreme right». Needless to say they did not received mine, and that this movement rapidly went downhill. Indeed, extremists enter a movement only to pump out voters. But for the transfer to be effective, they must then destroy the movement, by discouraging the other members. The extreme left did exactly the same thing with the nuclear plants protest movement.
-In France in 2014, at the scandal of the Sivens dam, everybody opposed the unnecessary destruction of one of the last natural areas of the region. Similarly, the absurd airport project of Notre-Dame-des-Landes, uselessly placed in the middle of countryside, produced a strong opposition for years. One of the proposed forms of action was non-violent occupation of the endangered sites, by the Gandhi methods which so well protected the Larzac in the 1970s. This action took a very interesting name: the ZAD, «Zones A Défendre» (Zones to defend), by parody of administrative vocables like «Zones A Détruire» (Zones to destroy). However, who we saw coming along in the ZAD? Anarchists and leftist armed with Molotov cocktails, facing the police also brought for this purpose (For having «clashes with the police», the police needs to be here too, right? If it is not here, there never are clashes). And when the police is not there, then those people turn into tramps, building crates huts and making the sites messy. Thus the population quickly divested from these struggles, that the media and Wikipedia just had to present as the feat of extremists with anti-social ideas.
-The Wall Street Occupy movement was associated with extreme left or anarchist ideas, or with the liberalization of drugs, driving out the ordinary citizens who launched it.
-Spirituality is equated to cults, who are the extremists in this area.
-Terrorism is used to justify racist bullying against all the Muslims, or racist rejection of the Syrian refugees.
-The private UFO research associations have been assimilated by the media to conspiracy theories (Chapter VII-2), also a form of extreme right, often fascinated by the nazis. We shall see in <Chapter VII-5 about the AZF disaster, who really creates these conspiracies theories and why.
Note that in all these examples, there is a collaboration between extremists (who invest the movements) and the media (who present the movements as the feat of only the extremists). Often the media themselves use the same words and the same manipulations than the extremists, see the following sub-chapter.
This is how the extreme are used, by boosting disinformation and confusion, as a foil against any truly progressive idea. But we must also remember that the extremists can also be used to directly control peoples, when democracy is no longer enough to anaesthetize them. This is what happened with the nazis, brought to government by arbitrary decisions of the media, some top executives and the entire political class. There is no guarantee that this scenario cannot happen again today, under the pretext of such or such «danger», real or perceived. In France, 2016, only two or three attacks served as a very convenient pretext to introduce a handy emergency state, to prohibit various social demonstrations and artistic events.
Well, as the power in the world is essentially to the great capitalism, we think they are not going to use the extreme left as they use the extreme right. However in communist revolutions without psychoeducation, the great capitalism succeeded almost as well to recover the power for its own purposes, as in China.
A society which is not based on a shared ideal needs repression against those who disagree with it. But to justify the repression without looking authoritarian, it needs a scapegoat, that everyone will agree to condemn. For a long time the extreme left and anarchists have played this role in Europe and America. But today (2016), the mummy of Marx is falling into dust, while the far-left parties are becoming seniors clubs. Then only sects and paedophiles remained to justify the special laws and authoritarian rants of sociopathic politicians. And still with cults they have to «help them to exist», as with the ridiculous staging at Bugarach, lol!
However, with terrorist acts on the French soil (2015, 2016), the media engaged in a genuine apologia, or even directly relay their propaganda. Thus the faces of the terrorists in France remained several months in the headlines (as French singer Renaud sings about a young scoundrel: «Tomorrow in the newspaper there will be my portrait»), while detailing their lives, their tastes, their sexual activities, etc. as one would do from formidable characters. But their victims, orphans, dead or mutilated, are left in a contemptuous silence! The media even say that it is their fault:
We can see every day (France, 2016) that the media directly relay the propaganda and mind control of the daesh, such as to call it «state» (which gives it the same legal authority as the police and justice) «Islamic» (giving it the same moral authority as the Pope or the Dalai Lama) and even «jihadist» (which presents their activity as a legitimate defence, and their victims as violent aggressors!). That large media use exactly the same mind control methods as exotic barbarians arises serious questions. It is indeed difficult to reassure oneself by thinking that they are only psychoprimitive people with similar mental structures. In all cases, they are not better than the daesh, with their «forums» full of racists and trolls. Do not try to find why some young French people want to join such an outlandish and barmy group as the daesh: they «saw it in the TV»! That only a hundred fall into this trap set by the Orwellian media is ultimately extremely reassuring about the value of Mankind.
In France, the «tiercé» (Trifecta or tricast) is a bet system on horse races. The media publish «pronostics», attempts of predictions of the results, for the players. Of course, these predictions are incomplete or biased: if anyone could do exact predictions, he would keep them for himself!! But the vast majority of players has no real information on the capacities of the involved horses, and the only information they have are the various predictions. So a large part of the players bet on the horses whom the pronostics designate as probable winners: it is the tiercé effect. Applied to elections, we find the same effect: voters have little information about what the candidates will really do if they are elected. But if the media pronounces thousand times certain names, crediting them with high polls, while never uttering other names, this results in «sympathetic» votes, votes from tiercé effect.
A variant of the tiercé effect is the effect of notoriety: a large share of voters cast their vote on the name they most often hear (either good or bad). This allows for even nutter candidates or extremists to occasionally have mayors or deputies in a random district. But if the next time the best known candidate is an ecologist, he will win too, yet in the same district.
Moreover, it often seems more profitable to vote for a less good candidate, but more likely to be elected (against the brandished threat of a frightening enemy of «the other side»). This is what is called the useful vote, which allows media to easily manipulate the elections. Well, of course, cases of direct fraud by polling companies are rare. But the media who order or publish polls are free to choose the questions, and especially to choose which surveys will be published or not. So they can determine several months in advance which candidate will be in the second round: just do a survey with the desired candidate A, who then necessarily get all the votes, and publish it prominently. If another survey was done with only one unwelcome candidate B or C, he would necessarily have a similar number of votes, but it is enough not to publish this survey, and not even do it. When voting, a significant part of the electorate will vote «useful» for the candidate A, even if they prefer B or C. But they believe that they have little chance of winning! Thus the media manipulators can direct votes on their candidate, while crushing others. Of course if the manipulation was made in favour of candidate B or C, they would pass, while A would be marginalized.
These manipulations operate in total independence of the program or personality of the candidates.
Rumors and lies. The Zion Elders Protocol was a fake document which was extensively used by the nazis to justify their racist policies. The same process emerges again today against spirituality, with the denunciation of imaginary movement: Maya prophecy, inedia (Chapter VII-5). These entirely imaginary «risks» are then used to establish real controls.
Present a unanimous opinion as an opinion which divides the population. It is enough to interview «objectively» two persons, one «pro» and one «anti». And give them the same weight in television presentations. So even if there is only one «anti» person, we see a vast «anti» movement, and a «pro» movement weakened by opposing arguments. This is the case for example for daylight saving time: while my own vote page rejects it massively, all the media sites show a mixed 50-50.
Unequal speaking time. The electoral laws guarantee equal time in the media for all the candidates. Indeed, everyone sees his head framed by the TV during the same time. However the media regularly and massively divert these laws in different ways: -organizing «debates» between «important» candidates; -make abundant mention of the names of the 49/51 candidates, and rarely of others; -publish many off topic comments on the lives of the candidates they support: their clothing, their comments on football, of touching scenes where they laugh, are in the company of children, etc. (We can find on Youtube archive images where even hitler looks tender and sympathetic!) Of course this treatment induces sympathy toward these candidates, even if they are dangerous, while other candidates appear unknown, inhuman or disturbing.
Biased statistics. I remember in the 1960, the television was against bikers. Why I have no idea, one of their usual kinks, forgotten since. One of them was interviewing an insurer, who confirmed that the bikers were involved in more accidents than motorists. But as he was about to tell the percentages of responsible accidents, the journalist interrupted him to ask another question, and avoid revealing comparison of responsibility. We can see many similar examples every day, throughout the television news.
Incomplete information. The media are fond of unnecessary private details on those accused, but they usually «forget» to give «the» important detail which would really tell if the person is responsible or not. Example: in the Saint Jacques de Compostela train derailment, we were told that the driver was consulting a map while talking on the phone. However, even Wikipedia does not specify whether he was doing it on his own initiative, or if he was under pressure from its direction, which would exempt him from liability. That way we can «debate»...
Present a balanced statement as a critic. This is relatively rare, but a blatant example is visible (2016) since years (2007) on the wikipedia page on the Maitreya Project, which they accuse of expropriating lands at low cost. In facts the Project always opposed this themselves, as visible in the wikipedia's sources themselves: «The Project’s bottom line of control is that it will not proceed to lease the land offered by the Government of Utar Pradesh unless and until a full, fair, and agreeable settlement is reached with all stakeholders.» To omit this information allows for hiding the spiritual purpose of the Project, and to describe it as a mundane project as any other.
Useless information: horrific accidents, assaults, football, blunders of celebrities, neckline of actresses, etc. are by no means «information», which would be useful for the exercise of our rights or the direction of our lives. Yet the media devote to these more than half of the space where we expect information. Often they speak only of this, and we are imposed their ridiculous or heartbreaking stories even in supermarkets, waiting rooms, or on the home pages of... Internet browsers. Microsoft Edge pushes even the mockery until calling this stream of rubbish «My News Feed»!! Is this what is called «Edge play» hahahaha!
Expanded text. Some papers simply repeat the title, with longer sentences, or explaining what everyone knows (except the writer). Worse, the same texts are repeated identically on all newspapers and all the news sites! Then, to do an internet search on the real source becomes a challenge.
Spoofing search engines. A blatant example of this happened with my page on daylight saving time: for many years it appeared in 2nd or 3rd position. But little by little it became invisible, pushed in the hell of low ranking by hundred of media pages on the same topic, all repeating each other while bringing no information. This happens as long as the search engines consider an empty media page «more relevant» than an detailed informative page on a «personal site». We even can use this example to get an idea of the relevance of the search engines, depending on the rank they give to this page. Surprise, in doing again this test, 2016 is rather give good results: it seems that the main search engines ended to address the issue described here. Bing: 8 (big progress) Yahoo: 8 (big progress) Google: 31 (in progress) Duck Duck Go: 43 (lowering) Yandex: not found (more than 200). Baidu: not in the 67 results. This test must be done again at least every year, as the results are often changing. Another very interesting test is with my «General Epistemology», a very difficult key word.
Paid trolls. Today that most of the information comes through the Internet, it is fashionable to have a «forum» for discussing each item. But it is easy to check, for example on a site like Yahoo News, that most of the comments are racist, and in more that most are published all together immediately following the article. So this is a clear case of stuffing and manipulation of a forum, with the approval of their own managers. (A general rule is that if trolls are allowed on a forum, it is that this suits the managers in one way or another.).
To make a bad pill pass with sugar. This is a very common method, but I do not see it denounced often. The principle is simple: offer complex laws, affecting many different areas. But we cannot «itemize»: thus desirable or positive aspects are used for imposing negative or retrograde points, hidden elsewhere in a complex or ambiguous text.
Negotiate a so-called «resonable middle ground». The principle is simple: to bring up a clearly excessive law, which produces a movement of rejection. Thus we necessary land in the negotiation room. At this time, propose a «middle» or «reasonable» version of the law, a «compromise» which removes the most shocking aspects, but which still contains the negative point that one really wanted to impose. And that defenders are forced to accept under penalty of losing everything, and to be treated of psycho-rigid, extremists, etc.
How the trade unions help passing anti-worker measures. Of course, trade unions emit protests against any regression in working conditions. If they did not, they would lose their members and therefore their resources. But if the trade unions agree with the system, then their protests are limited in time, or they combine then with the previous manipulation. Then they say that we must «learn to stop a strike» or that «we shall continue the fight otherwise». The only net result is to steal the energy of the sincere activists (when they do not outright drop them, a common occurrence when they apply conscientious objection). These are things I have seen many times, for different unions, including «youth» student unions.
A vote does not solve the problems. Let us take an obvious example: abortion is a crime for some, forbidding it a crime for others (Chapter VI-5). Therefore each of the two opinions can say he is in a situation of self-defence because of the practice of the other. The fact is that they do not fight.
What allows a civil war not to break out in such a situation, is that people learned to live with other people of different opinions, and to do with it. At a minimum, they understood that a violent confrontation will bring more harm than it would save. Thus it is not democracy which produces peace, but a sufficiently pacified mind which makes democracy possible. The best proof is that many young democracies still see violent clashes, often for trivial reasons. Obviously these people did not yet learned to live together without punch up, and this is where we must start, before letting peoples fend for themselves. Well, ok, democracy certainly helps, even if it needs cops: preventing a violent pro/anti abortion action, or sending UN troops for allowing elections to be held. Which one is worse: forty years of UN mandate, or forty years of civil war?
The problem however is that the removal of any effective means to influence the attitude of the majority also discourages people: democracy brings a state of passivity, which prevents to actually find solutions to the problems of which it blocks the discussion. Hence the fatalism of the vast majority of persons, who all complain but do nothing, thinking that any political or social activity is doomed to failure or taking over.
Still on the example of abortion. We remember that, not so long ago, abortion was banned, and even punished. I am not speaking of the Middle Age, but of a period of about 100 years, between 1870 and 1970, when abortion was prohibited by democratically elected representatives. Of course it was forbidden before, but what is remarkable is that during this period it was forbidden democratically, in full respect of democratic process of drafting legislation. So, if this occurred, it is not because there was no democracy, it is because, at the time, there was a majority of people opposing abortion! In contrast, abortion is democratically authorized since forty years. What happened to justify this change? Are unborn children suddenly become insensitive and soulless? No: people simply changed opinions.
Thus, an opinion and its opposite can be equally «democratic»! For a scientist, this poses a serious problem: a chemistry experiment which yields different results depending on the opinion of the chemist, this does not exist. And the very purpose of this book is precisely to say that in a social or spiritual experience, this no more exists. Indeed, the impact of abortion, on women as well as on children, did not changed between 1870 and 2016. What has changed is purely subjective: an opinion. A simple preference: before we took care of children and women were sacrificed; today it deals only with women and children are killed.
People generally get with it by saying that these fashion changes are «progress». Without denying the real progress which arrived by democracy, we must recognize that the reversal of opinion on abortion only changed the victims, without in any way solving this awful problem (see full discussion chapter VI-5). And we can quote many other changes which were made democratically, but of which we cannot honestly say they are progress: homosexual adoption (Chapter VI-6), the Swiss racist law (prohibition of Muslim buildings), vote for the European sadomasochist pseudo-constitution, massive and repeated votes for the partisans of the sadomasochist austerity policies, nucleomasochist plants, greenhousochist effect, etc. And I am nice, I did not mention the democratic election of ahmadinejad or hitler (this happened because of the dope was bad that day, hi hi hi)
The conclusion is clear and without appeal: There is absolutely no guarantee that a democratic vote gives fair results, or that it reveals the truth.
The error comes from the revolutionaries of 1789 (France), who were in an extreme situation: the people, in a super-majority, defended their rights against the tiny minority of the privileged nobility and clergy. It happens that in this case, the vast majority was right. But this was one case among thousands of other possible cases! Most often, important decisions divide the public opinion without clear majority, or they reach conflicting interests. We even see today, quite contrary to the spirit of 1789, a large majority slavishly supporting the emergence of a new financial nobility and a new media clergy!
The very idea that the majority would always be right is very strange: If we were to vote for the laws of physics, then flat Earth would still be a «reasonable and generally accepted truth», we would probably still be condemning Galileo (no machines) and theories such as Relativity or Quantum Mechanics would be a tiny minority (no GPS, no mobile...).
This is not a gratuitous prospect: some US states effectively banned proven scientific theories, quite democratically. From there, to prohibit «subjective» moral principles, there is only one step... that our politicians are taking every day.
So not only democracy does not say who is right, but it can also produce as dangerous or nutter things as the whims of the worst dictators.
In physics, we do not vote: we study, we reason, we check. This is the heavy and constant price for any scientific truth saved from ignorance, and any statement which does not meet these criteria is ruthlessly rejected as error or fraud. Why would anyone be exempted from such a requirement in the social, political or spiritual realms, where the mistakes have much more painful consequences that an error in medicine or a plane crash? It is precisely to push in this direction that I wrote this book.
On the other hand, once the truth is established, voting and democracy have no purpose. We never needed a vote to make two and two equal four, and we must no more need to vote to make two and two races equal.
Finally, scientists criticize the vote systems of representatives, accusing them precisely not to represent the people, not even the majority. And this is what we observe: even if workers and peasants are by far the majority, we regularly observe that half of the votes are for anti-workers or anti-people parties.
The reason is that the processes seen previously produce the selection of a class of politicians with all similar ideas («right» or «left» just meaning the side of the luxury restaurant table where they all stuff themselves while mocking us). Thus, in facts, they all agree.
An example? Better: a mathematical proof! During the attempts of the French government to put in place the very reactionary «loi travail» (2016), 80% of the deputies signed a «motion of censure» which would normally block this law, and even bring down this government which betrayed its voters. Yet the law passed... How? Simply there were actually two motions of censure, a «right» one and a «left» one. And nearby all the deputies signed for «their» motion against the other! The net result is that neither of the two motions had enough support. There he becomes VERY DIFFICULT to think that they did not concerted before. Or that they are really VERY stupid.
Only some signed the two motions: French readers, carefully note their names on a bit of paper, and store it with your elector card.
Amirshashi Pouria, Asensi François, Attard Isabelle, Bocquet Alain, Buffet Marie Georges, Candelier Jean Jacques, Carvalho Patrice, Charroux Gaby, Coronado Sergio, Dolez Marc, Fraisse Jacqueline, Nilor Jean Philippe, Sansu Nicolas.
This is the full list. It is «funny» to see that only a small part of the left really opposed this right wing law (and only two «greens» on 16) while the right totally abstained to support the left motion. And, ooooh surprise, nobody in the far right: still they had a fantastic opportunity to defend the French.
All intelligent or educated people realized that the current voting systems massively distort the will of the citizens. The scientists analysed these systems through various methods, including games theory (which, despite their name, are serious studies applicable to many helpful areas including algorithmic, administration, etc.). If «gaming» the electoral system allows to manipulate it, a scientific analysis of these gaming methods also allows to find the least manipulable electoral systems:
-Direct universal suffrage
-Referendums for decisions about unique and accurate points. Such referendums sometimes take place, but we often have to vote for several contradictory points, for instance the so-called «European constitution». The idea here is to have more often such referendums, but each on an unique and accurate point, to avoid manipulations in the kind of opposing fundamental values.
To be noted that some civic sites, such as avaaz, we move europe, change.org, etc. realise this function with organizing online petitions. These are not votes, but they still seem efficient to push things in the right direction.
-Popular initiative referendum would allow the citizens to decide on their real concerns, without filtering by any political class.
-No accumulation of mandates, strict limitation of their number and duration, to avoid the appearance of a class of politicians whom only purpose is to be re-elected.
-Some scientists even claimed recently that picking random people in the street to fill the parliaments would give better results than the usual occupants of these places. This can actually be blatantly proved: although there is for a very long time a 80% majority against hunting, «foie gras» or bullfights, nothing is done to prevent these horrors. And the reason is very well known: the current politicians, both right and left, form a privileged coterie who continue to impose these things, and to reject any referendum or legislative vote.
The idea of taking random people is appealing. We well do this for the jurors in courts. And in ancient times the «day of the fools» often produced interesting decisions, adopted afterwards. I would however add imperative psychological tests to eliminate the stupid, violent, sociopathic, dogmatic, temperamental, etc. Otherwise parliaments would quickly become rat races, where the trolls would block any reflection. Such tests would not alter the percentages of the different opinions, because opinions are only neuroses, chapter V-12, not sociopathic issues: the tests would not filter any, but they would filter out the various forms of political or religious extremism.
The number of deputies selected in this way may be larger, but with a shorter term.
Another proposal I do here would bet to elect the ministers, by themes: home, economy, environment, etc. This would break the today system where the president brings all his buddies in, all biased in the same way. Or the well known manipulation of bringing an environment ministry as a bait during the elections, and firing him just after.
Add to this the capacity of the people to influence budget repartition, for instance to force an increase of funds for environment.
However the notable disadvantage of a more representative democracy is to raise the trolls: dangerous nutters or retrograde political groups, usually silenced by common sense, but which on this occasion would find a way to express, be «legitimized», or even weigh in decisions, especially between two 49/51 blocks.
For this reason, I would suggest rather to work on the fundamental reasons why people take dangerous and unreasonable opinions. See later in this chapter. This entire book is also a tool in this direction.
(See the scientific definition of «metaphysics» in the third part. Anyone caught to bray that this does not exist, thanks you to pick up your ration of hay in this part, before continuing this discussion)
Only direct universal suffrage represents the people. And yet, it is no more the truth, as seen above. There are examples, such as the racist Swiss referendum against the construction of minarets.
It happens that, just as we saw in <chapter VI-8 on economy, politics is a human domain, which involves consciousness and human values, that only this consciousness knows (fifth part). There can therefore not be any technical or algorithmic solution to the political and social choices. These choices inevitably emerge from the exclusive domain and exclusive authority of consciousness, inaccessible to the materialist thinking as well as to the egoistic mind (see chapter V-10 for the definition of the ego). In other words, there is no way to default ourselves on a «system» of the need to find the good ourselves. And if we let a «system» to put itself in place, then inevitably it betrays us (Chapter VI-13), from its very nature non-conscious phenomenon. And this is what happens with democratic regimes, which let themselves be so easily manipulated by political or financial interests. Thus, all the calamitous psychology of dictatorship can continue to function under democracy, just with less noise, better oiled, more «consensual».
Most people pretty well feel that they are manipulated, but without understanding how. Hence the popularity of conspiracy theories (Illuminati, NWO, etc.). Without denying the real conspiracies (climate deniers, debt scam Chapter VI-8), this state of facts is easily explained with only the psychological and statistical mechanisms seen above: these mechanisms being... mechanisms, precisely, then they operate, and they produce their effects: what we call «the system» (chapitre VI-13)... as long as people are neurotic enough to serve themselves as gears. Conversely, a society of sufficiently responsible and active people cannot degenerate into a «system», even under a violent dictatorship. Moreover, such a society does not need «conflict resolution methods», neither democratic nor other, to make decisions. These are things which I see are starting to appear since some years (2016), although still at a small scale.
Thus the whole history of democracy, and more generally of politics, is governed by a constant struggle between enlightened humans (forces of the good) against neuroses, atavism and conditioning of the materials neurons (forces of the nothing, since they serve nobody and no purpose). When great minds and generous popular movements exist, then they are making a difference, and freedom and happiness increase. But when people indulge in the nothing (television, football, drugs...), then manipulations and «the system» automatically recreate injustice and deprivation of liberty. These things are like the mucus in the nose: if we do not blow it constantly, it flows.
Without denying the previous scientific solutions, but aware of their limits, we can try to solve a different aspect of the problem: the manipulation through the left/right division (or any other form of polarization which may appear in the future)
The idea is to propose an electoral list «for the good», refusing any left/right marking (or similar). This method was used by French environmentalists in 1978 (the genuine ones, the ones concerned with pollution, not with smoking reefers). Other electoral lists «for the common good» used it successfully. The reason for this success is that voters are wary of partisan political formations, which only seek votes, but do nothing once elected. Voters clearly expect better. Up to us to offer them what they want.
However the lack of right/left position also creates a huge risk for taking over and infiltration, especially by extremists. For this reason, we still need a marking, not partisan, but in the practice. Let us call these beacons in this case.
So in France Ecology 78 choose two strict beacons:
-No report of votes in the second round (to deny recovery by politicking)
-No nuclear power (to prevent recovery by pseudo-environmentalists without serious project)
This worked very well, with virtually no hiccups, and a result of 5%, fantastic for the time. However Ecology 78 was a temporary structure, and it was easy for the manipulators to create their own «left» party. The media then completed the manipulation, by saying the new groups were «the environmentalists» and ignoring the real associations which ran Ecology 78. Since, the «greens» remain capped at 5%, while ecology should exceed 80% for long.
It is interesting to note the enormous efforts, and their high degree of coordination, by both the right-wing media and by left politicians, to try to grab Ecology 78 into their system: to steal speaking time into technical meetings (I have personally seen this several time), massive entryism, creating structures with similar names, but under their control, lies in the information, newspapers describing the environmentalists as being «fuzzy» or «undecided» or «hippies» or «utopian», instead of speaking of their program, etc. So many frantic efforts show that Ecology 78 was a major threat to their system. That these efforts were conduced synchronously and unanimously by people who pretend to be enemies, demonstrates a deliberate collaboration, which goes beyond a mere connivance in fact. It is therefore very clear that we must reject from the very start any alliance with whoever says he is right, left, centre, and all the more from the extremes. If anyone wants to work with us, it is up to him to prove his intentions by working for positive values, not to us to submit to their deceptive system.
in 2002 in France the second turn of the presidential elections was between a right candidate against a far right candidate. The first was the usual half empty glass who checked at random good points and bad points, while the second was a totally empty glass, having deliberately checked only bad points in his program. The result in this case was very far from the 49/51 attractor: 82% for the lesser evil.
We can also find cases of huge deviations for positive candidates: 62% (indirect) for Mandela, 74% for Lech Valesa, 89% (indirect) for Aung San Suu Kyi. Still I am cautious with these figures, because these characters were appearing as liberators, and this point superseded all the other program choices. Especially Lech Walesa lost the subsequent elections, after displaying several negative points.
Are there truly full glass candidates? The only example I see is the kingdom of Bhutan. Although not a formal democracy, it seems to be the only authoritarian regime enjoying a large spontaneous popular support. Or at least no real opposition, despite the total absence of any repressive system.
These examples still tell one thing: the people who vote may be neurotic, but they are not idiots. So that, when a clear direction emerges, they are still able to recognize it, even statistically. When this happens, then the statistics of the opinions no more obey the «system», and this naturally brings large positive deviations from the 49/51 attractor.
This is an important observation, since it is possible for a good candidate to win an election, by presenting a program with only good points. Even if several of these points may be considered «polemical» by a majority, they will still statistically contribute to raise the votes way above 50%, so that such a «full glass» candidate can hope to beat any «half glass» candidate by at least ten percent, or even much more.
This rough estimate is based on the 10% of people never submitting to evil, as found in the Stanley Milgram experiment. Even if all the others were all neurotic people voting as at random, this still leads to 55% minimum for a totally good candidate. I think this is a very pessimistic estimate, since most people have at least some partial hint of the good. But it is the only estimate I have which is based on scientifically established figures.
A difficulty for an electoral list is to gather enough people: when somebody is elected, whoever he is, he needs support, advisors, technicians, administrators, all trained and competent, to put the policy of the good in action. To appear alone in the elections does not inspire confidence, and the elected would end anyway facing a formidable problem: recruiting with blindfolded eyes some goldfishes in a pool full of piranhas (Mandela managed this very well: he converted the piranhas, hahaha).
This is one of the reasons for traditional political parties. A government with a powerful party in accordance with its ideology has no trouble recruiting people who serve it: nazi party, soviet party, and in France the ENA, where come from all these derealized technocrats. However, a party needs to clearly know who are its members, and if they agree enough with the ideology to properly execute orders. It is this very need which recreates the conditions for a dictatorship: a party is a state within the state, which often ignores the basic freedoms of its own members. Clearly it quickly becomes a «system» of its own, that nobody really controls, and which mistakes are impossible to correct (as environmentalists have learned the hard way, in only some years). Hard to really contribute to democracy in such conditions!
Of course these people must also agree on the good points. This is important, because the lack of such people is what destroyed a government such as the one of Lech Valesa, after many other innovative or revolutionary governments.
The problem is that today it is still very difficult to find people who agree with all the good points and with no bad point. Normally, my General Epistemology allows everybody to scientifically find the good points... but it is not yet «known in the media»! (Let us bet that, after the usual 40 years hazing, it will become a new social norm, somewhere by 2060. But my subscription to this world will be finished, so that everything will be up to you).
But on the other hand, we can find people who agree with only some positive points, but still psychoeducated enough not to get in the way of other positive points they do not approve. People able to work together where they agree, without leaving their disagreements disrupt this work. It is these people who need to meet, and get to know each other. But for this, we definitively need another solution than the dualistic and uncontrollable traditional parties:
This problem is not soluble today with the dualistic logic of mainstream parties: if we write an Aristotelian statement for the agreement with each positive value, the intersection of all these sets only contains very few people today. It is still very difficult to find people who are in agreement on all the positive points.
(This is not a definitive or pessimistic statement: such people shall inevitably appear, and they shall inevitably end up becoming the norm, just as with people able to accept that two and two make four: impossible to find in the time of chimpanzees, but the universal standard today)
But this problem is easily solved with fuzzy logic (chapter I-3). Well, anyone caught braying that fuzzy logic is «imprecise» or «nebulous» will have to abstain of any drug for two weeks, and learn this page by heart. To avoid any «wilful ignorance», I shall call it gradated logic, but it is definitively the creation of Lofti Zadeh that I use here.
The idea is to consider a clearly defined minimum, and a maximum, between which is the gradation.
These two diagrams represent the truth value of the statement «the speed is too high».
The left image is in Aristotelian logic: we pass abruptly from false to true.
The right image is in fuzzy logic: we pass progressively, between a minimum (80) and a maximum (100).
Thus, for each of the positive values which follow, we also define a minimum and a maximum. Of course this will not be a speed, as in the above diagram, but still an intensity. Thus, in the example of animal welfare, a minimum today (2016) is to refuse hunting and bullfighting (80% of people being already okay with this, we can even go much further, perhaps up to vegetarian school canteens). The maximum will be to grant animals similar rights as to children. This minimum is of course a pragmatic minimum, but a person who accepts this minimum is more likely to go further, and less likely to stand against more advanced measures.
With this system, the intersection of the different sets is significantly larger than with Aristotelian logic, as shown here on the charts.
This intersection is achieved as follows: at least not to fight any other value, and remain able to work with someone despite disagreement over the exact limit. People who place themselves in the intersection do not necessarily agree for making a «party», but we can still see them as members of a network of positive people. So, in this way, we revealed positive trends in people, even if they did not yet realized them. But anybody who stands against a single positive value excludes himself from the network.
Moreover, there is no need to control members, nor of a centralized management that an ego can monopolize. This cuts the root of the totalitarian degeneration problem of parties, that we saw in the previous subchapter.
What I propose is not a political party with a detailed line, formal membership and member control, but voluntary adhesion to a charter, in a network of people with progressive ideas, persons of heart, intelligent or competent (university degrees, etc.). Not «partisans» or «militants», but people able to take a position in an institution, a government, a company, an organization, etc. Or able to provide other forms of support, financial, public, artistic, etc. (Simple «partisans» can still be very useful, for example to sign petitions, attend events, etc. This is even already done with networks like avaaz, we move europe, change.org, etc.).
The network operates on the principle:
* Know each other, and work together where we agree, without leaving our disagreements disrupt this work.
«Know each other» can refer to directories, meetings, a social network on the Internet, etc. to be able to quickly find competent people.
In elections and in general in all public action, the first beacon will be to prevent the manipulation of votes by a bipolar system:
* For the common good, not partisan, neither right nor left, nor any other bipolar system, especially not extreme.
The second idea is to prevent the manipulation of votes by artificial opposition of fundamental values:
* Fundamental values cannot be opposed to each other.
Now we need the list of fundamental values themselves. This list contains only positive choices. Everyone agrees with that, you will say. But neurotic opinions precisely make that many people label values at random as good or bad. This is why I wrote this book «General Epistemology», which allows to scientifically determine which values are good or bad (Chapter VI-2 on ethics, based on an objective definition of good and evil, chapter V-5). As seen in the sub-chapter on manipulation by bipolar systems, such an entirely positive list should stabilize in the 60% minimum, facing any other list with random negative choices.
* This list is a set of fundamental values, inseparable and non-negotiable:
* For the happiness of everybody: peace, freedom, prosperity, quiet and pleasant living spaces...
* Ecology: to end up polluting or dangerous industries, energy transition, nature protection
* Economy at the service of all, equitable repartition of work and production
* Social minimums guaranteed for all
* Free health and free contraception for all
* Freedom, democracy, human rights, child rights
* Freedom of expression and objective information
* No violence, peace and peaceful coexistence in the country and in the world.
* Animal welfare: neither hunting nor cruel games
* Racial, religious, sexual equality, assistance to refugees, etc.
* Relying on science and knowledge, themselves at the service of human consciousness
* For those who wish, peaceful spirituality, non-sectarian and ecumenical
* For all, knowledge and availability of any method to positively transform our minds
* No addictive substance or process damaging our minds (drugs).
The following two points are part of the list:
* This list will be maintained by raising the minimum according to the evolution of society, in order to remain well above the average of opinions.
* It might even be necessary to add points which are unpredictable today.
In this way, the list will remain a «full glass», providing energy to the society, instead of sucking it like the old classical «half-empty glasses» parties. Indeed, if we do not improve the list, then the whole society will catch up, and it will become another 49/51 party.
Even with such an entirely positive list, it remains a serious risk: that people create opinions as what the minimums described in this list are «the truth». They are not, by their very nature of compromises, and all the more temporary compromises. On the example of animals, we already see opinions such as «predators are essential to ecology», meat «necessary for some races», being vegetarian a matter of «personal taste», we can kill an animal if we «transmutes his suffering with a ritual», etc. Such views are not only negative, but they are also the germ of reactionary ideologies and parties, which will bring opposition and confusion when the majority of the society will realize the need to protect animals and decide to go toward full vegetarianism.
I took here the example of animals, because History is instructive. Even in the West, the recommendation not to eat meat is not new (Zoroastrianism, 2600 years ago, maybe 4000). But the practical difficulty to do it led to various excuses, which afterwards became difficult to challenge dogma, or even reactionary ideologies, as seen above. Today that to remove meat is easy, we shall have to eliminate these dogmas, and return to the founding intuition. Similar steps apply to drugs (legal if they are «traditional»), money (which would be an «energy»), etc. Even «freedom of expression», presented as an absolute, needs limits (for instance the indiscriminate publication of names of victims by Wikileaks, exposing these people to retaliation).
Also, as things will evolve, different people will have different interpretations on what exactly these beacons are or not, or how to evolve them to remain at the head of the society. It might even appear subnets, or even several different networks. Obviously, we hope not, but this can happen (chapter I-9), or become necessary if the network organization becomes a neurotic political party or a new system. So, such divisions are not really a problem, as long as these networks are connected by gateways (common subnets, common members) and they do not fight each other.
Clearly, if the maintenance «does not happen», then people at that time could create another directory with higher minimums.
Such a network would solve a serious defect of today society: the difficulty for good people to meet, and even to recognize each other. Indeed, members taking initiatives (electoral lists, governments, businesses, associations, thinkers, artists, scientific research, etc.) could then easily find partners able to assume a particular project, or to support them. Such people are now dispersed and difficult to identify, diluted in the mass, or drowned in the noisy sociopathic blather.
For this, there could be one (or several) members directory, mentioning their actual skills and experience. It could even include more personal data, for purpose of meetings! (But no sex, because then we all know very well that everything will be reduced to that).
But we must also, at this point, be aware that working together is more demanding than to attract votes. So this requires a subnetwork with higher minimum than today, decades ahead of the 2016 society. For instance:
* Know each other, and work together where we agree, without leaving our disagreements disrupt this work.
* For the common good, not partisan, neither right nor left, nor any other bipolar system, especially not extreme.
* Fundamental values cannot be opposed to each other. If they look opposed, it is either that there is a manipulation, or that we have a dualistic mindset preventing us to see a simple solution.
* This list is a set of fundamental values, inseparable and non-negotiable:
* The search for happiness should be the priority value of society. Other values result of it: peace, freedom, prosperity, quiet and pleasant living places...
* Ecology: urgent end of the nuclear and fossil fuels, control of polluting or dangerous industries, organic food, nature conservation in general (not just in reserves) against urbanization, noise and deforestation.
* Economy in the service of all, equitable distribution of work and production.
* Warranted social minimums for all.
* The robots do not «remove jobs», they free us of the need to work. But this can happen only if the robotic production is free, such as with a mandatory minimum income for all.
* Health and free contraception for all. No unwanted pregnancy should occur, which would make abortion unnecessary.
* Freedom, democracy, human rights, children rights.
* Direct suffrage, referendums by popular initiative, no multiple mandates and strictly limited in duration.
* Freedom of expression and objective information, through a free and independent press, free Internet accessible to all, allowing all sources of information to be accessed anywhere without filtering.
* No violence, peace and peaceful coexistence in the country and in the world. The only military interventions should aim at protecting peoples.
* Animal welfare: massive education toward vegetarianism, help meat producers to recycle, abolition of vivisection, hunting, foie gras, cruel games
* Racial, religious, sexual equality, assistance to refugees, etc.
* Any claim must be based on a scientific review, with methods appropriate to the field. Science and knowledge are at the service of human consciousness.
* For those who wish, peaceful spirituality, non-sectarian and ecumenical. Lessons at school and catch for adults, about the different religions and serious spiritual paths. Learn to protect oneself against sectarian or fanciful practices.
* Lessons at school, and catching for adults, on methods of psychoeducation, to eradicate violence and prejudice, and positively transform our minds.
* No additional authorization to any drugs, reduce existing authorizations, helping producers to recycle, combat trafficking through appropriate means, educate on psychoeducation (previous point) to eliminate the need for drugs.
* This list will be maintained by raising the minimum according to the evolution of society, in order to remain well above the average of opinions. This work must be accomplished by positive persons having a demonstrated mastery of non-conceptual thinking.
* It might even be necessary to add points which are unpredictable today.
Such a directory could take the form of a «social network» on the internet. However, the ideological orientation and arbitrary decisions of sites like Facebook makes them inappropriate. Instead, use the model of encounter sites, where people gather by interest and spontaneously organize discussion groups. Such groups can be the seeds of future associations, companies, or why not governments. The only criterion for membership is agreement with the charter, and the only exclusion criterion is total disagreement with the charter, assault against other members, or dishonest activities.
For instance members would check different categories on their skills and abilities. They then receive mails gathering matching demands for aid. These categories could be anonymized: for instance «can provide financial support» would expose the person to abusive canvassing or flattery. But if the list is private, then potential supporters receive funding applications, while remaining entirely free to reply or not. In the case of job hiring or applications, various anonymization are needed too.
A very interesting point would be to have the children in these sites. After all, it is their world that we prepare. This however requires a strict exclusion of any sexual content or any form of aggression.
The funding of the network will be by subscription, not by advertising. Indeed, the experience of «free magazines» on organic food or alternative medicine shows that it quickly becomes impossible to suppress sectarian or pseudo-scientific content, often imposed by a majority of advertisers. This even repels serious advertisers and serious methods.
Although a text is necessarily conceptual, the charter must be meditated non-conceptually. It must be reviewed, analyzed, controlled and modified only by positive persons able to reason in a non-conceptual way (or at least according to fuzzy logic). This is an important safeguard for preventing the transformation of the text into an ideology or a normative system (Chapter I-9).
These beacons must not be too many. But each is indispensable, to prevent a type of deviation or recovery. For example we do not expect spirituality in politics, and this beacon seems unnecessary here. However materialism is extremely dangerous here, hence the necessary reference to the spiritual. Of course «if desired», «peaceful» and «ecumenism» are then essential to avoid fanaticism and sects.
Actually, I tried to have a number of points considered as auspicious, such as 12. But I had to give it up, contenting myself to avoid the number 13. In a previous attempt, the «Réseaux Espérance», 5 showed too little, still leaving large ambiguous areas.
The network could provide some protection for members against various scams and ideological pitfalls:
Some filtering is required. For example in 1985 I wanted to meet a «rézoteur» (networker) of the «Réseaux Esperance», who said he was interested in electronics, to build wind turbines (still heretical by the time). As long as we were talking about UFOs, all went well. But when I started talking about work, he said he «did not wanted a new catechism». It is to avoid such idlers that we need job skills, not «interests».
Other common problems are investor scams, or sects. Indeed, people who discover that society lied to them, are prone to taking the opposite course of it, and to accept as «truth» anything which goes against this society. This creates an environment favourable to sects, «free energy» and other unproven «alternative medicines». This is one of the reasons of the three points on science and spirituality. These three points remain general in the charter, but in the case of a directory they need a strict application: only what is proven by scientific studies, and only what is recognized by the major religions.
For the same reason, people who suddenly discover a field, strongly tend to accept without discernment all the «ideological package» which comes with. For example ecology is often parasitized by leftist/anarchist ideas, materialism and atheistic fundamentalism, drugs, and even by extreme right influences (yes yes yes: the fascination with predators, regulation of species by the «strong» and the elimination of the «unsuitable». It happened from the nazi support to the German naturists, ancestors of today environmentalists). It is to avoid such perversions that the network's charter combines ecology with spirituality, refusal of discriminations, rejection of drugs, and animal protection.
Finally, somebody who has an awareness taking in an field, often idealizes people in this field, and often fails to realize that there are other areas. Thus he associates with people of this area, for groups, businesses, marriages, communities, while thinking that everything will go well with them. Of course this is not the case, and disagreements in other areas are more likely to break these unions, than with people who assemble at random. Worse, the adhesion to the «ideological package» often blocks the awareness of other areas. This is how we end up with non-spiritual ecologists, scientists who do not vibrate, and other aberrations of this kind. So, combining inseparably all the areas listed above help newcomers to understand that the awareness taking is about all the areas of human experience, and reduces the risk of remaining stuck by an allergy to another area.
Such a network would of course be international. It would routinely communicate through the Internet.
Such a network would not be a formal group with membership and member list, as this would inevitably lead to disagreements, mistrust or clan mind. It would just be a place where interesting people can find other interesting people. The best structure is probably a totally free general admission (still with manifesting agreement with the charter) and subgroups by categories, classes, each under the responsibility of a committee.
Such a network would have a private status, as uninterested people do not need to be... interested in. Especially, the private statute prohibits malicious disclosures in the media. It also allows members to disclose their identity to other members only if they deem it necessary.
However it does not need to be secret. And in any case always within the law. Naturally, democratic governments will seek to know what it does. The idea is then to have nothing to hide. And if we are preparing «happenings», to do it in person, out of the network, not on the Internet.
Of course in dictatorships this is trickier. The tactic would then to do nothing illegal in the dictatorship, not to oppose it frontally. Well, if people want to oppose it, they are free, and it is up to their honour. But he cannot engage the network, which must remain available without taking the risk of being banned or repressed. It is also a good reason to consider as secret the lists of members living under a dictatorship.
I ignore when such a network will exist, which name it will bear, etc. But here also, we are nearing the critical mass, and things could go very fast. As evidence, the appearance of various initiatives going in this way:
avaaz, we move europe, change.org, socle citoyen, PoliCAT, ES BLEIBT DABEI. I especially love the later, all new, non-partisan site gathering a whole country in a mere expression of love for a positive candidate.
Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux.
Legal notice and copyright Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches, examples, quotes...), all the texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and right owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome. No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me. Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules, may result into law suit.