WHAT IS REAL DEMOCRACY?

Every day, we hear references to democracy: parliamentary democracy, Westminster democracy, Australian democracy, representational democracy, and democratic majorities. And, of course, we have America’s obscene gift to the burning nations it invades and occupies… George Bush’s freedom and democracy.

These phrases are misrepresentations; what we should more accurately describe as products of public relations, propaganda, indoctrination, cant, misinformation or brainwashing; depending upon your favored vocabulary. What we must come to terms with is that this word, in the context of contemporary politics, has nothing to do with genuine democracy.

One would imagine that an even half-way intelligent person would suspect the integrity of a word used as a banner by George Bush while he kills more than half a million innocent Iraqi civilians.

And, on our Australian home front, one would not be in cerebral overload if one wondered about the meaning of John Howard’s cherished Australian democracy, while he routinely overruled 80% of Australians.

This is the same “democracy” that the US has trumpeted loudly while it plundered the resources of 42 sovereign nations it militarily invaded since 1946; overthrowing governments supported by the overwhelming majority of inhabitants. This is the same ‘democracy’ that the Israelis embraced as they killed 10,000 Palestinian men, women and children and dispossessed them of their land, which Israelis so spuriously claim as their own. As Mohandas Gandhi pointed out, religious persecution is not an excuse to invade and occupy another people’s land, and less than 3% of Israelis are Semites anyway and have no ancestral link with Palestine.

Without laboring the point, it may be concluded that this notion of ‘democracy’ is not compulsively desirable; a conclusion which has led many of the world’s youth to declare that “democracy is not what it’s cracked up to be”.

What all of this demonstrates is the power of propaganda.

The more logical conclusion; that people who are otherwise noted for their lies, distortions, oppression, hegemony, torture and genocides, might just be telling fibs, somehow does not occur to us.

Although popular media and government-owned TV stations never discuss this, the truth is that the source of anti-democracy propaganda is highly organized and incredibly well resourced; a fact now recognised by thousands of Internet sites; the only truly free media.

This powerful influence is a loose consortium of international bankers, led by the Rockefeller and Rothschild families; and by the seven global media owning families, particularly Warner, Disney and Murdoch. These represent an even more camouflaged elite who are united in the belief that they are born to rule the world; the ancient aristocracy, who were largely forced underground by the French Revolution and by subsequent international rejection of inherited or accumulated power. By 1850, with the Rothschild link with America’s plutocracy forged, this became the manipulating power behind governments that most of us have become vaguely aware of in modern times.

What few have ever suspected is the vast extent of wealth that finances public indoctrination; literally trillions of dollars. For example, as readily and publicly admitted by David Rockefeller, all spontaneous social movements that have emerged since 1969, have been subsumed and manipulated to serve the objectives of one part of this elite or the other. Thus it was that the women’s movement of the late 1960s, very reasonably demanding equal rights and equal opportunity, became suddenly diverted into a drive to replace men altogether and to promote the concept of the single family. This anthropological coup was easily managed by the media and orchestrated by compliant governments and by the United Nations (ie the UN HQ and funds of the UN’s WB, WTO and IMF are owned and controlled by the same Rockefeller-led banks).

The corporate motivation in such interventions is that the family is the prime cohesive unit of all societies and the source of values that are seen to be in conflict with globalist corporate control.

The two philosophical obstacles to the corporate-desired New World Order are Family and Democracy. This is the reason why the meaning of the word democracy has been under sustained attack, successfully reversing the meaning in many people’s minds, from government by electoral consensus, to government by entities who purport to represent the people.

Most assuredly, in the not too distant future, we will hear that ‘democracy’ has failed and must be replaced with something more practical; like a benign world dictatorship. The promoters of the new philosophy are somewhat coy about the language used to describe their vision of the future, but disillusioned insiders have described it as neo-feudalism; a return to the age of lords and serfs.

Very clearly, we would be wise to review this situation and figure out where our social and historical navigation went wrong.

What is known about real democracy?

The first question we should ask ourselves is what do we really know about democracy? Unfortunately, books on the subject appear to have disappeared from public libraries, so the prevailing confusion is eminently understandable.

Our oldest record of democracy goes back to ancient Greece, which in fact was only a partial democracy wherein a mere 18.5% of the population had the right to vote. All others; that is, all women, children, aliens and slaves had no right to vote. Only men, both of whose parents were Athenians, were eligible.

We are not told this because for the ruling elite this is an inconvenient truth. Nevertheless, we should not simply write the Greeks off; because the Athenians utilized democracy’s essential principles and, as a result, were politically and culturally ascendant for four remarkable centuries.

What is omitted from mainstream knowledge is that the ancient Greeks had a culture within which a major determinant for action centred on the powerful ethic of actively representing their countrymen and women.

Thus, voting councilors felt irresistibly compelled to visit their family and vassals and reveal their true feelings and aspirations regarding the current circumstances and future of Greece. The evidence of this is that some of the greatest thoughts to survive some 2400 years had their genesis in this tiny nation. There was considerable pride in achieving a nationwide level of representation, and implacable contempt for those who could not. We gain an insight into their values when we read the funeral oratory of Thucydides, upon the death of Pericles.

"We do not copy our neighbours (other nations), but we are an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few.

But while the law secures equal justice to all alike in their civil disputes, the claim of personal excellence and integrity is also recognised; thus, when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is appointed to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit.

Neither is poverty a barrier. A man may contribute to the uplifting of his country regardless of the obscurity of his origin or circumstances. We are prevented from doing the wrong thing by respect for the authority of the nation and for the laws, having a special regard for those which are initiated for the protection of the aged and the infirm, as well as to those unwritten laws which bring upon the transgressor of them the stern reprobation of the community.

An Athenian citizen does not neglect the state because he is committed to his own affairs; and even those of us who are preoccupied with commerce have a very fair idea of politics.

We alone, of the peoples of the world, regard a man who takes no interest in public affairs, not as a harmless person, but as a useless character. And, even if few of us are original thinkers and initiators, we are all sound judges of policy".

What would Thucydides think of our noble Australian manhood, whose thoughts rarely divert from football or cricket; or our fair ladies as they immerse themselves in the wisdom of Cosmo or New Idea? And, to those foreigners who bray a derisory laugh, is there not a pervading demographic equivalent in every western nation?

What made ancient Greece great was that this quasi-democracy, reinforced by a culture of almost obsessive representationalism, was able to harness the entire knowledge, experience and wisdom of its citizenry. The power of this is incalculable, but not unknown; we call it people power. Utilising people power, Greece was able to defeat the mighty Syrians, who were handicapped by a hierarchy with all power at the top; a scenario which ensured sycophancy and corruption. Sound familiar?
 
In spite of contemporary elites repressing our knowledge of history, it is still possible to read about other great democracies. The Irish Monks were our great first-millennia documenters, and most of us harbour vague recollections of these people, but few of us are aware that most of these monks were married with families, about a third were women, and the greatest monk of all was a woman (somewhat giving the lie to the historical revisionism of Rockefeller’s divisive feminists).
 
This was the 4th to the 9th centuries; a time when Ireland alone preserved all knowledge of ancient Greece and Rome and was the cultural hub of Europe. The Monks traveled the known world, recording cultures, knowledge and collected wisdoms and dispersed these amongst all peoples. Ireland of this time was a democracy; the kings, inherited clan chieftains of old, were the administrators and executives, but their role was exclusively the implementation of the will of the people. A similar regime operated in then contemporary Finland, and is still echoed in the culture of the Sami.
 
This Age of Enlightenment and Peace was terminated by the Vatican, firstly when it imposed celibacy on the Monks; then with the violent launching of a regime of enforced ignorance, repression, poverty, torture, hegemony, ritualised execution (burnings at the stake and garroting) and institutionalised war and genocides.
 
Although the Vatican has been anxious to forestall even the most casual of glances at the Age of Enlightenment, by shrouding it with the designation, Dark Ages; in fact, the true Dark Ages commenced with the defeat of European democracy and continued for more than a thousand years. This was a time of debauched Popes, as many as four ruling in competition during one period, and the theft of the wealth of all prosperous people, under the guise of eliminating heretics. Rome continues to wage a global war against democracy, even in Australia (ie the overturning of the NT’s voluntary euthanasia legislation, supported by 90% of the population, was launched by the Vatican).
 
The first millennia European democracies embraced many millions of citizens; however, by looking at the cultures of Australian Aborigines, the Kung of Africa and the Inuit of the far northern American continent, we can observe that democracy is actually a part of natural human social organisation continuity.
 
We would do well to glance quickly at these cultures; and where else but at home? While this brief article cannot launch anthropological civil war by presenting a definitive treatise, it should be recognised that, unlike their colleagues in every other country in the world, few Australian anthropologists bothered to learn Aboriginal languages. This entirely discredits their interpretations. It is simply not possible to develop anything approaching an insight into an alien culture, without first learning its language(s). The pidgin English used instead was, and is, entirely useless, as was pointed out by eminent and conscientious (a rare breed) anthropologist, Elkin, some seventy years ago. Little wonder modern anthropologists and black arm-band historians vilify him.
 
However, a few ordinary Australians did try to learn languages and these people developed a picture entirely different to the academic model. One of the insights to emerge was of a non-hierarchical people who made decisions by exercising consensus protocols. These operated simply and very effectively on a single principle: all decisions involve focus on a geographical location, therefore the person whose spirit had its origins in that location launched the consensus process. As each person’s personal name denoted his spiritual origins (and still does), ascription was immediately identified to all.
 
Initiating consensus required mere verbalising of the question by the protocol designate, with perhaps some neutral and objective elaboration of the implications and wider parameters. This was the signal for every man, woman and child to commence discussion.

The protocol initiator would eventually observe that absolute consensus had developed, and would formally verbalise the community’s consensus. In traditional Aboriginal culture, unilateral decision-making was entirely alien, as were power hierarchies. As in all cultures, through personal achievement, and even age itself, certain people most certainly developed higher status, but this was not applied to decision-making.
 
It is understood that the African Bushmen and Inuit used similar methods; perhaps, considering the evidence of known history, equally purist in application. The implications are that, during human prehistory, democratic methods of social organisation were the norm, and hierarchical systems were a later aberration, always with highly unpleasant consequences... endemic poverty, slavery, loss of freedom, torture, hegemony, ritual and institutionalised execution, and war. No non-hierarchical culture; that is one with flat power as opposed to the power pyramid, ever experienced these scourges.
 
More recently in European history, an Englishman, Thomas Paine, wrote a series of books about democracy, the best known of which was The Rights of Man. With incredible perception, Paine identified hierarchies as the cause of all man’s woes and his very popular writings meant the death knell of aristocracies; against which all of Europe subsequently rebelled. He identified the pivotal axiom of peace and prosperity by pointing out that all authority derived from The People.
 
The Rights of Man was the prime influence which countered the exasperating excesses of England’s George the Third and Louis of France, both of whom claimed divine right to rule. Paine’s thoughts provided the inspiration for the original drafts of the French and American Constitutions.
 
The aristocracy and merchant plutocrats moved swiftly to defeat this movement, and we may regard this as the commencement of the war we now know as Globalisation. The Jacobites sabotaged the French Constitution; and the ruthless American plutocracy, otherwise known as the revered Founding Fathers, and later through their agent James Madison, excised all references to democracy in the US Constitution. Much later, some scholar drew attention to the desecration and twenty-seven amendments were eventually implemented, the first ten known as the American Bill of Rights, embarrassedly emulating the British act of 1688. A more appropriate title would have been “Ooops!”
 
The cherished belief that American colonial leaders had a vision of democracy is hogwash. In fact, the Founding Fathers initiated an unworkable modeling of a presidency based loosely on the role of the British Monarch, but with more executive power; and with two incompatible houses of parliament which both tended to deny the wishes of the people. The United States of America was never a democracy and the word democracy does not appear in any of its enabling documents.
 
The US is a plutocracy; a dictatorial regime of the wealthy elite; which employs an oligarchy to pursue its interests. The American people are taught what to believe by the Plutocracy, as is the less ingenuous oligarchy; which the people harangue futilely to obey their wishes.
 
From time to time, the oligarchy believes itself to be the real power, and is abruptly reined in; as happened under Abe Lincoln and John F Kennedy; both of whom realized too late, what humanity is up against. With the recent Neocon’s radical departure from the Plutocratic agenda (as outlined by Rockefeller henchman, and architect of the Trilateral Commission , Zbigniew Brzezinski), it seems likely that George Bush and his mentor, Dick Cheney, have also succumbed to delusions of power and will also be punished. (Thus, the projected defeat of the Neocons should not be seen as a victory for democracy and freedom; merely a window of opportunity for us to out-maneuver the Plutocrats before they can groom a new line of front men). In this context we may now appreciate why Barack Obama's chief adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski, a chilling portent for the future.
 
As we Brits, Aussies, Frenchmen and Germans snigger at American naiveté and gullibility, we should become aware that democracy plays no part in our governments either, and neither is democracy mentioned in any of our enabling documents, including the Australian Constitution. We, too, have been deceived. Since 1850, the drafting of all laws and constitutions has been contained by the globalist elite, through their local servants; what we in Australia call the Law Society, Treasury and the Reserve Bank.
 
To understand real democracy, we need to sweep away the mountain of academic and journalistic garbage under which democracy has been buried. As the KISS adage suggests, we should keep the explanation simple, because genuine democracy is indeed simple; as we shall see:
 
All politics is about power.
 
Power in the hands of the people is democracy. Power in the hands of any minority or group is not democracy. What it may well be is oligarchy, theocracy, monarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy; or any of the specific variants on this theme; but none of these can be described as a democracy. In terms of the much abused words left and right: left is power distributed evenly throughout the people; right is power redistributed to a minority; a minority of many, or of one.
 
For the record, Karl Marx dispised democracy and recommended a system of bureaucracies (centralisation of power to committees), which inevitably evolved to dictatorships. No other destiny was possible; therefore, communists/socialists are right wing, not left wing; as the elitist manipulators of knowledge would have us believe. The confusion is deliberately propagated.
 
Fabian socialists too, are right wing, believing that government should be contained and eventually controlled by stealth and that ultimately, government should wield power on behalf of the people. Kevin Rudd, for example, is a Fabian socialist; as was Bob Hawke.
 
Their convergent goal has always been to make Australia subordinate to a world dictatorship; otherwise known as World Governance or the New World Order. New Zealand’s Helen Clarke is of the same ilk, rather big-headedly anticipating her UN reward to be Secretary Generalship.

Confusingly, John Howard sought the same goal, but favoured the monarchical and aristocratic route. Ironically, both camps are directed by the banker elite, led by the Rockefeller and Rothschild families; and both camps want to erase democracy forever.
 
We should be uncompromising in our understanding here. Democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people; nothing else.
 
So, what does this mean in terms of contemporary western political structures?
 
This is quite simple. We, the electorate, following considered exposure to all the relevant information, should decide the direction and thrust of policy. Those of us who wish to busy ourselves with the nuts and bolts of policy implementation are fully entitled to, although most would back away from details.
 
Something approximating this process occurred in 1967, when Australians overwhelmingly supported a referendum over Aboriginal inclusion in census. Although politicians remained hopelessly divided over the issue, the people discussed it in depth for a decade and inevitably found near-perfect consensus. Independent surveys demonstrate that such consensus already exists in respect of most issues, yet the corporate and academic surveys show the opposite, yet another example of thought manipulation.
 
In a democracy, electoral consensus should be conveyed in documented form to Parliament, wherein this consensus flows and melds with the consensus of other electorates, and is subsequently implemented by the public service.
 
The role of politicians in a genuine democracy is tantamount to that of message boy; albeit a trusted and broadly knowledgeable one; consensus coordination. It is not his or her role to deliberate or to preempt electoral decisions.
 
Ensuring democratic consensus
 
In pursuit of this consensus coordinating role; and at least until a culture of democracy is imbedded in Australia, each candidate should sign a contract with his electorate to convey to parliament only the documented consensus of that electorate; and also pre-sign an undated letter of resignation, which the electorate can activate in the event of betrayal. These are effective and realistic protections against megalomania, messiah complex and corruption.
 
Contrary to hierarchical propaganda, any competent survey of the electorate today reveals that, even on issues in respect of which the people have not had access to sufficient information, there is near consensus of 70% to 90%+ on almost every important issue; in spite of hierarchy-owned pollsters who claim otherwise; cheekily, even with opposite results.
 
 Although we have merely touched on the empowering phenomenon of democracy here, a single item of Globalist propaganda will demonstrate the extent of our indoctrination and our cultivated and unquestioning acceptance that absolute non-democracy is democracy:
 
We all ‘know’ that a 51% vote constitutes a democratic majority, yet a 49:51 division is actually clear evidence of absolute division in the community, hardly a desirable circumstance, or one upon which we should proceed without courting disaster and failure.
 
There are another cultivated forty-nine beliefs about government that are just as illogical and invalid, yet these are accepted globally as self-evident truths. To discover the hollowness of these, read the book Delusions of Democracy, to be found on http://www.zeus-publications.com/delusions_of_democracy

Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} © Copyright Tony Ryan, Tariff Restoration Bloc 2008

Paragraph.