Direct Democracy Propaganda [anti]
"In a society, shared intelligence is the ONLY intelligence and, true democracy is the ONLY way to enable it." - Alex Romane [PA founder]
Years of media, institutional and establishment propaganda has conditioning people into mistakenly believing that they live in a democracy simply and only because the majority can elect representatives. In adition, the people have been conditioned to believe that a democracy is defined by having certain freedoms and, when you consider that the UK does not even have freedom of speech [for example] as a point of law and, that the majority of the UK people believe that they live in a democracy based upon this [non-existent] freedom of speech, you start to see just how successful this particular propaganda campaign has been.
The word democracy is Greek in origin [demokratia] and means 'rule of the people'.
The only aspect of democracy that the people have access to is that of electing representatives but, the Greeks invented democracy [rule of the people] not 'representative' democracy so even without the web and phone, the Greeks voted upon ALL policies and NEVER voted to elect 'representatives'. This is why direct democracy is the only democracy.
Representative democracy [representative rule of the people] is not related in any way to the Greek model and wasn't implemented in the UK until 1832 but, it was ONLY implemented as a knee-jerk, fear-based gimmick to prevent revolution [as witnessed in France] and NOT to represent [confirmed by Parliament's inconsistent actions ever since]. Furthermore, representative democracy is an illusion and doesn't even exist because while we do have the rule of representatives, we do not have any rule of the people [it is a dichotomy]. Democracy has been stolen by the so-called 'representatives' and under them it has regressed so by continuing to empower them, the people are freely voting for death because in reality, the UK has a system of representative rule only.
Democracy is purely and only defined by the people [the majority party in any state] being in control of the rule of law - it is not defined by fairness, freedom or even by common sense. These are merely potential components of a democracy [even then only of a liberal democracy] and are not themselves the definition of democracy. Therefore, there are currently no democracies in the world and there hasn't been since the concept died due to invasion in its ancient Greek birthplace.
We believe that this propaganda campaign is in-place to enable a corrupt and dangerous minority to retain indefinite control but, it has only succeeded because of the people's lack of knowledge and this is still thoroughly exploited. It is therefore no coincidence that knowledge and direct actions are what will set democracy free and, we believe that we are also seeing this same propaganda campaign now targeting the definition of direct democracy. The people have forgotten what the true original Greek definition of democracy actually is and this in turn has led to the complete self-disempowerment of entire nations.
Furthermore, there are no democratic components within the architecture of the UK Parliament and instead, there are 26 unelected bishops in the House of Lords and a Statute book in the House of Commons that is based directly and only upon Moses' 10 Commandments. The UK parliament consists of 650 elected members [House of Commons] + 830 unelected peers and bishops [House of Lords] and so, the UK is not a representative democracy by any measure and is actually the only remaining theocracy in the Western world. The electorate generally still doesn't understand the true definition of democracy [in any form] and the UK is still a theocracy and the coalition has stated many times that although it will listen, it will not regard majority public opinion.
The fear of legitimate, non-revolutionary, UN-sanctioned direct democracy is the ONLY issue that unites all governments and so-called 'representative' parties globally.
We believe that mainstream media articles regarding direct democracy are designed to condition the people into believing that e-petitioning and other semi-automated opinion-gathering facilities [such as in Switzerland, California and Iceland] are direct democracy but, direct democracy gives complete policy implementation control on ALL issues to the people ONLY. Anything less is still an attempt at representative democracy [if not a theocracy].
It is not possible for a centralised partisan system or a hybrid system to deliver true direct democracy and so any party claiming to deliver direct democracy without pledging wholesale reform to the system is clearly only offering public participation.
Public participation [to any degree] is not direct democracy.
It is simply another component of 'representative' democracy and partisan politics!
This blog by Stephen Neitzke explains brilliantly why there is an establishment-oriented anti-direct democracy propaganda campaign, while also explaining why even the so-called 'liberals' and 'progressives' don't endorse direct democracy. From our own experience, our explanation for why reformists and anarchists alike do not endorse direct democracy are best summed-up in the book Animal Farm [by George Orwell] which addresses corruption within the leadership elements of revolutions.
Switzerland, California and Iceland do not use direct democracy and instead use digital gatekeeper systems that collect opinions. It is not possible to have partial direct democracy/partial self-rule/partial freedom - you can either make a choice or you can't. If Iceland [for example] was a direct democracy, why would the Icelandic government be considering using Chinese web filter systems to censor the web [Feb. 2013], when such a policy is not being called for by the Icelandic people?
Direct democracy is not communism:
Communist regimes are not decentralised and no communist state has or will ever allow for any degree of public participation in law-making. Some modern communist parties tend to use the term 'direct democracy' as a gimmick [to be aimed at potential voters] and we know this because of the direct requests we have received from communist parties from around the world, whose founders ask us to assist them by acting as consultants. Our response has instead always been to encourage them to offer full direct democracy by using our protocols as a template for themselves.
Tyranny over the minority campaign:
Propagandists who use the tyranny and 'mob rule' angle to deride true and direct democracy consider 51% verses 49% to be tyranny, but 1500 people [800 of them unelected] verses 64 million people to be more fair and so, maths alone reveals the hypocrisy of this argument.
The UK Parliament itself is a constitutional tyranny of the minority [this is exactly how it functions] and, it is through their behaviour that MPs also confirm that it is them who are the mob - NOT the people when in unity.
As the nature of direct democracy is based upon self-rule [the ability to make our own choices/freedom], it can never be direct democracy itself that is flawed and can instead only be the laws that people choose [with their free will] to implement with it, that can be flawed. In a true and direct democracy, there are no minorities because there are no socially-oriented divisions. Every minority group in Britain will be voting upon issues of UK and regional law - not Pakistani, African, Jamaican, Islamic, Judaic or Mormon laws [for example]. As UK citizens with equal access to UK voting rights, there are no minority groups and all are united as one and, no one will no have to choose from only a left/right perspective [which benefits parties more than it does even their own voters].
This is exactly how true democracy can unify societies - these minorities ARE the majority but, only when there is no divisive spectrum and partisan centralisation - which the propagandists seek to maintain.
We've also had a minority [Parliament] making all of the decisions - often now voted into power by a minority [due to lack of turnout] and it has failed to represent anyone other than itself and big businesses. It is giving absolute power to the minority that is and has always been the only tyranny and those who say that direct democracy is tyranny over the minority also deny that 'representative' democracies and theocracies are systems of minority control. In a direct democracy, minorities would have exactly the same access to democracy and power as majorities would have.
Direct democracy is simply the mechanics that will enable for the people to have true democracy [to have the rule of law] - that's all. No system can be blamed for the policies that people choose to implement with it but, direct democracy is the only system that enables full public participation regarding policy implementation. Blaming direct democracy for any potential negative results from any laws that may be implemented is no different to blaming a car for crashing instead of blaming the diver. Any problems that arise will be the result and fault of the policy itself - not the fault of the system that implemented it. When cars crash, we ban the driver - not the car. Direct democracy itself as a system can not make any choices - this is the job of humans.
If ten men vote to rape five women, it is the men's thinking that is at fault [not democracy] and evidently, this particular objection to direct democracy is expressed by those who think as rapists do - blaming the act of rape on anyone or anything but themselves. Incidentally, if UK voters cared about rape, why are they directly funding the rape of pro-Assad women and children across Syria, when very UK tax payer has the legal right [since 1215] to with-hold tax payments if they feel that the government is abusing their money?
Direct democracy would actually enable rape victims to reclaim power by influencing the formation and implementation of related laws - making-up for areas where the current system continually fails them:
• Cameron lets rapists and child abusers go free if they apologise - offers Restorative Justice without prison!
• PA direct democracy proposal: Rape case judges not to be allowed to consider mitigating circumstances
For those who believe that direct democracy is dangerous because it enables for abstract and alternative thinking or for 'mob rule' to become law, a continuation of the primitive mainstream-only thinking where solutions created by outsiders remain blocked is preferable and, if anyone expects solutions for ALL issues to come only from a group of approx. 600 politicised religious-oriented partisans who prioritise political concerns above the advice of specialist scientists and advisers, they are deluded [the remit of Parliament is to control law, not to create solutions]. The majority being able to decide upon the viability of policies is what ensures that a direct democracy itself can evolve because policy amendments and reversals can be implemented within hours and, at very little expense. The 'mob rule' theory misleadingly suggests that everyone will be voting upon all policies at the same time, all of the time and, as a block but, this is extremely propagandist because it is obvious that people will mostly only be voting upon issues that concern or affect them directly and, not every issue will be relevant to everyone.
Concerns about people needing to be educated so as to use direct democracy 'wisely' are expressed only by pro-leader types who want it used in accordance with their own personal wishes or never, who remain deluded about politicians being problem solvers, who don't think that others can think for themselves and, who place themselves and MPs above others.
True and direct democracy is about learning to trust and empower each other more than we trust those who we elect. It is not about getting it 'wrong' or 'right' and NO political system is designed to get policies 'wrong' or 'right' or, to even create policies in the first place. Creating policies is the responsibility of people, while political systems simply facilitate and implement policies into law.
Ironically, the Greeks only lost their true democracy when its male-only electorate voted to invade Sparta - which then conquered Athens in self-defence. War was NOT the consequence of using true democracy, but was the consequence of male-only thinking that voted to use violence [without provocation] against others. Through true democracy, these men could have instead voted against war [they alone made the choice - not the system] and which ever system people use, it will always be them creating the laws they implement - not the system.
Propagandists [such as the LSE] who blame true and direct democracy for the negative results of any laws that people create with it, have a hidden agenda and so are being intentionally manipulative. They present both the true democracy system and the separate decisions/laws as one interlocked entity simply because they themselves are not prepared take social responsibility and/or, because they themselves are benefited by the current system of hypocrisy that allows them to continue in their denial.
The Pirate Party
If your idea of true and direct democracy [rule of the people] is more akin to limited participation governed by representatives who seek to lawfully enslave musicians only and, to lawfully discriminate against musicians who are unwilling or enable to also become performance artists [such as ill or disabled musicians], then this is the party for you. You will empower the Pirate Party to kill-off independent music in favour of the major labels and banks and so, you and them will actually be assisting the capitalist set-up that they say they are against because, slavery is the ultimate expression of ultra-capitalism.
The Conservative's attempt at distorting the definition of direct democracy naturally includes diluting it into limited public participation via e-petitions and this is emphasised by MP Zac Goldsmith and in our opinion, it is simply a propagandist attempt at misleading the electorate so that the 'threat' of genuine direct democracy never materialises. With pro-government people always being selected directly by the sitting government of the day to run the BBC Trust, we also suspect that the BBC is supporting the Coalition's strategy of publishing misinformation regarding the definition of direct democracy. After all, it is media conditioning that has led us to believe that we already live in a democracy when we don't because democracy means rule of the people [majority rule] and also, because the UK is still a theocracy. We believe that this strategy is now being applied to the term direct democracy so that people never see that the only true definition of direct democracy relates to total decision-making power being ONLY with the people and never with the state.
As of late 2012, UKip has been talking of being "The only party to advocate using direct democracy" [despite the PA being established in March 2010] and while UKip does mention how if they were elected into government, their members would not be concerned with policy decision-making but would instead be concerned only with the day-to-day running of Parliament, there is no explanation of how they will reform, install and deliver direct democracy and, no mention of using a national communication mechanism [such as the internet], meaning that their idea of 'direct democracy' is not quite what it says on the can and is more like their marketing - a blatant lie.
We attended a conference in London [March 2014] where UKip's Cliff Dixon was a guest speaker and when we asked him how UKip intends to deliver direct democracy and how it is that UKip is "The only party to advocate using direct democracy", he conceded that it was actually just limited public participation that they meant and, he was conscious of the difference and not bothered that UKip are therefore misleading their own voters. Then, after eluding to his background in IT, he went on to deride direct democracy citing that once someone casts a vote from their mobile device, they will then be tracked [not realising that this happens now with every UK citizen anyway] and, he was also unaware of the concept [and 100% security from intrusion] of closed networks.
Parties that offer direct democracy without reform are consciously deceiving voters because without reform, they can only offer limited public participation within a 'representative' democracy and, UKip have publicly confirmed to us in-person that they are aware of this.
UKip is founded upon the lie [now adopted by the Conservatives and other weak-minded pandering politicians] that the UK has an immigration problem when in truth, the UK has an over-population problem and so under UKip [and now also the Conservatives and Labour], legal immigrants [who are probably the biggest single contributors to the UK economy] will be blocked from entering the UK while illegal immigrants who cost the economy and who are more likely to engage in criminal activities [even if simply to support themselves] will be unaffected because, UKip's policies mostly target legal immigrants. In addition to this, the UK economy could potentially also be hit through the cost of funding welfare and support payments for the 2.5 million Brits who could be expelled from the EU in response to UKip's policies and, the UK's over-population problem will remain completely unresolved. It is for these reasons that we now believe that UKip is actually a racist organisation because regardless of its EC-accepted constitution, while UKip ignores these fundamental issues, the only issue remaining is that of race.
PA direct democracy video: Poll confirms UK is ignorant and racist - thinks immigration figure is twice what it is
• 'Anti-establishment' UKip merges with holocaust denier to take £millions from EU tax payers
Before the 2016 EU referendum, UKip's leader Nigel Farage stated that he wanted a re-vote if he lost by a bigger margin than he won by, so now stays silent.
The Open Democracy portal [opendemocracy.net] which claims to be "open" and which names red herrings such as Switzerland, California and Iceland as users of direct democracy, is itself supported by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund - the Rockefellers being the family that has made trillions on the back of polluting the atmosphere with CO2 as the world burns their oil, yet who blames governments for the current state of the environment. It is the Rockefellers who have confirmed that they have an agenda for a new centralised world order and such an agenda obviously runs contrary to any form of democracy.
PA direct democracy video: David Rockefeller discloses New World Order agenda
PA direct democracy video: Rockefeller jokes about world domination
PA direct democracy video: The Rockefellers
PA direct democracy video: Beyoncé confirms - hand symbol is respect to Rockefellers
Channel 4 [a BBC division] and the BBC:
C4 really push with a heavy use of propaganda and misinformation on one of their 'educational' channels. This page attempts to give the impression that the entire UK would have to crowd into voting halls every night and that there is just no other way of enabling for the harvesting of majority public opinion - despite all of this being expressed through a medium that is web and phone-friendly.
The BBC then goes one stage further by stating that in principal, direct democracy is a good idea but, that voters aren't educated enough to make decisions that regard aspects of their own lives and, that voters would have to understand politics and law to an advanced level so as to have an opinion, an idea, or a solution. To summarise; you are all unable to feel, to think, and to communicate with each other - even though you do this on-line every day.
If you believe the BBC when they say that David Cameron is introducing direct democracy via on-line petitioning, please note that the 100,00 voter petition system has been in place for years off-line and, that begging Parliament to discuss a given policy does not give the people any decision-making ability. Please also note that in both the UK and the US, there is a proven link between 'allowed' public proposals and proposals already scheduled to come up for debate, which we believe is extremely telling of both government's continued disregard for majority public opinion as well as their opportunistic outlook.
This particular issue is becoming so blatant that even the mainstream Washington Times picked-up on it and published an article about this aspect [11th Jan. 2013]:
What kind of 'direct democracy' enables the people to vote ONLY upon the policies that a government or any gate-keeper chooses [such as in Switzerland, California and Iceland or with the EU initiative]? The BBC actually describes in great detail how the EU initiative works as an opinion gathering facility and nothing more - even though within the same article, they constantly refer to this initiative as being direct democracy.
Daily Mirror newspaper:
Representatives [such as Jeremy Corbin] questioning a Prime Minister on behalf of the electorate is not direct democracy [as reported by the Daily Mirror on 17th Spet. 2015]. True and direct democracy has no use for representatives and is ONLY about voters deciding upon ALL laws between themselves [no rule of the people can be achieved through such a gimmick].
Direct democracy is NOT the gift that the anarchists have given to us, as this piece of blatant propaganda from the Guardian newspaper states. The article also goes further by attempting to condition readers into thinking that protesting and begging are forms of direct action and if this was true to any extent, we would all now be experiencing the change that Occupy could have brought about. In sharp contrast to the Guardian item, The Telegraph article 'How direct democracy makes Switzerland a better place' does explain how in Switzerland, this form of 'direct democracy' is merely a component of the current representative democracy and that as such, the people do not actually decide upon policy implementation.
London School of Economics:
In a piece of anti-direct democracy propaganda that is so full-on that it makes itself transparent, the London School of Economics blames what the Swiss have chosen for themselves on the system that enabled them to choose it [which could just as simply have delivered the opposite laws]. It also goes further by attempting to portray Switzerland as a direct democracy, which it is not.
On behalf of their clients, major advertising agencies create advertisements that are designed to leave a simple, compact and definitive message in the mind of the viewer and, to have that message spinning around after the advert has stopped. This article is an obvious example of how mainstream institutions attempt to implant into the reader's mind, the message that 'public participation is direct democracy and direct democracy is bad'.
The ONLY people who would have the legal and ethical right to assess if direct democracy results in 'wrong' or 'right' policies would be the people of that direct democracy.
This and articles like it are actually criticisms of how other cultures use their free will and the publishers behind them are fully-aware of this but, their pensions are locked into filthy agendas with associated propaganda campaigns that forbid that they be honest in their reporting. To date, the university has received £5.6 M from the Emirates Foundation which is funded by the brutal totalitarian, pro-Sharia UAE government and, the university's secret links to the former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi and his family were only revealed in 2011.
The UAE also executes homosexuals but neither Stephen Fry nor David Cameron have ever had a bad word to say about the LSE's relationship with the UAE government and so, as well as continued funding for the LSE, arms continue to flow from the UK to Kuwait, Bahrain and the rest of the UAE in an effort to suppress a real Arab Spring, where Western-backed governments are refusing to stand-down and bow to the will of the people and, where Western lamestream media agencies show you nothing of the truth of how our freely-elected government is literally directly involved in the killing of the people of these states.
The university was also criticised for a "chapter of failures" in its links with the Gaddafi regime and a report by former Lord Chief Justice Woolf released in November 2011 said that mistakes and errors of judgement had damaged the LSE's reputation so, with this in mind and with the blatant propaganda of its article taken into consideration, its obvious that direct democracy represents a potential threat to its funding and political support.
Whilst not having any malicious intention, the organisation WDDM provide a good demonstration [in actual dialogue format] of how people [and then organisations] decide to create their own definitions for existing words and phrases to suit their own aims. At the time of publishing this PA page, their definition is summarised as; "DD is a socio-political structure where the citizenry as a whole enjoys irreversible legislative rights, equal to, and in cooperation and competition with the same rights of democratically elected representative bodies." In our opinion, this definition of 'direct democracy' presents nothing more than a co-operation between the majority and Parliament [a system with conditions attached and, a system which still includes representation and even worse - supervision].
Voting for direct democracy outside a general election
It is up to us, the people [not the politicians] to use the power that we have always had, to choose to implement direct democracy as soon as possible.
This is not a protest campaign.
In accordance with Magna Carta Article 61 and with UN UDHR Article 21 and with all democratic principals up-held by the UN [which the UK is signed-up to], the People's Administration's Direct Democracy Twitter blog is a UN-sanctioned and legally recognised voting format for UK reform to direct democracy - even outside a general election.
Vote legitimately for a peaceful and structured UK reform to direct democracy now simply by following the People's Administration's Direct Democracy Twitter blog and when numbers reach a point of critical mass, we'll do the rest.
The People's Administration's constitution for reform to direct democracy and our voting protocols for implementing direct democracy have both been accepted by the UK Electoral Commission and the UN as legitimate. In a general election, the People's Administration DOES NOT have to field candidates to secure your vote on the ballot paper. Outside a general election, you can vote for a legitimate reform to direct democracy now by following @self_rule