Now in our reality at the beginning of the the 21.century the blogosphere has become the only really “free press”.
This blogger believes that we can no longer take the things for granted, we have been taught in school. Neither can we trust the media to diligently inform us objectively about the most important events in our world.
It seems more and more so, that those, who control the content of what is presented to the public in the media, do not believe in democracy or the ability of the general population to use truthful information to make reasonable choices.
The elites who have the greatest influence on the mainline media outlets use them to create false images of the world we live in, in order to manipulate the population to move into the direction the elites prefer.
The power to manipulate information and populations at will has corrupted the minds of our western elites and alienated them from the common principles of ethics. The result is a political culture which shows a disdain for human life and it´s dignity. The direction those elites prefer us to go leads on a path to endless war and destruction.
These elites, however, are not isolated from the rest of us. They have created an ever more intrusive authoritarian structure of power and control. At the moment, we all, the elites and the rest of us are imprisoned by this system. Everyone lives inside this system and very many work for it.
A growing number of people on all levels from top to bottom have come to hate this system more and more. But even though, the system has now become so overpowering that even many of those, who are seated in power-positions within the system, feel helpless to change anything.
Group-pressure within the structure and more often just self-censorship will lead them to conform their actions and words to the perceived demands of the system. This happens on every level of the power-pyramid.
And while some ethnic, national or religious groups are indeed very much over-represented in the power-structure and others are very much under-represented, you cannot reduce the issue to a single ethnicity, religion or nation. Of course, the elites have different sections who sometimes cooperate and sometimes compete for power. But if one section would be removed, another one would take it´s place, as has happened in the past.
The problem doesn´t lie in the individual or the section of the system, it lies in it´s philosophical underpinnings, the belief that human beings are not of equal value, and it´s ever more centralized authoritarian structure. These are the factors which create today´s culture.
This harmful culture cannot be changed by single individuals, no matter how virtuous they might be. It only can be changed by the cumulative effort of millions of voices coming from different cultures all over the world and from different stations in society. In the past all resistance to the growing power of an unethical elite has been neutralized by infiltration and defamation.
Experience has shown, that resistance is most effective, when it is decentralized. Different people work on different aspects. They work in small groups and sometimes those groups cooperate with one another. If there is no central leadership who sets the agenda and a dogma everyone has to agree upon, there also is no power-struggle of who gets to do that. Infiltration and instigation of inner-group fights, the method of divide and conquer, will be a lot harder this way.
Most decent men and women all over the world have far more in common with all other decent people than what sets them apart. The things we disagree on, are not unimport. Indeed they are often very important for us, but we must remember, that they are actually the smaller part of our views. What we agree upon is enough to make us cooperate and resist an elitist agenda where human life and dignity is in constant danger.
When we share our ideas with one another, accepting that there will always be things we seriously disagree upon, we still will find common ground enough to cooperate on the most important issues. We don´t have to convince others, push our views down their throats by force, neither do we have to change our own views against our convictions to please others. We must realize, that even though we disagree, we need one another to create this cumulative effect, which eventually will change the world to a better, more peaceful place.
The internet is the best example of a decentralized and non-authoritarian system where cooperation is not enforced but comes naturally and easy, just look at all those wikis, open source programs and file-sharing sites.
The internet is a non-commercial market-place of information and ideas. It crosses all national borders, all religious and philosophical boundaries. It can create a better understanding of the world in many of us, and eventually and hopefully more tolerance and respect for other people´s ideas and views.
By becoming members of the global blogger community we are entering the closest thing to a global democracy we have at the moment. It´s a true democracy, one which crosses borders, but does not abolish national sovereignty, neither does it take power away from the individual and his or her local community.
Blogging alone cannot change the real world, but the online-community of anti-war-bloggers is one of the models for non-violent political activism in small groups, who occasionally meet in large demonstrations. Over time, this activism subsequently will create this cumulative effect we need for a change of thinking within the whole social system from top to bottom. And when we think ethically, we will act ethically, and then war will be over.
If we think ethically and act ethically, then democracy will be rejected as a vile tool of petty tyrants: the internet is absolutely NOT democratic, since the decisions of (50%+1) do not bind the other (50%-1).
Democracy is gang rape – anyone who votes is trying to force THEIR view of how life should be lived on the entire population.
Democracy is all about pretending that the greater mass of humanity is incapable of living peacably with one another, and that there is a need for a bunch of parasites to ‘direct’ them to do the right thing – through force if necessary. And then, government hires thugs and assassins to force compliance.
Democracy is an improper tool for any form of decision-making. The internet is a tool of anarchy (the abolition of state hierarchy) and akraty (the abolition of state force).
It’s a definitional thing: if 50%+1 can force the rest of the society to bend to their will, then it is tyranny. Only voluntary exchange is morally just.
Cheers
GT
GT
We need to get along with one another. Therefore we need rules which are generally accepted. In the internet I could just delete your comment and deny you access to my blog, if I wanted to.
In real life you might be bigger than me, you could just come and kick me out of my flat, since you´ve got the bigger fists or the bigger guns.
In a democracy we come together and set laws which will hinder you to kick me out of my flat and me to do the same to you.
In an anarchy the guy who can get the biggest and most ruthless gang together (owning the most resources and biggest stashes of cocaine), can kick everybody out of their homes and really gang-rape women and children.
There are many models how democracy can work. In some cultures, it´s not about majority rule, but the different groups will discuss any issue until a compromise has been found which everyone can give his consent to.
Even the internet isn´t an anarchy. When people start to cooperate they also build a certain structure and make rules (like no porn and obscenity here, and only left-wing material there and so on). But if you don´t like the rules of one group here, you just join another one.
Democracy means you can participate and give input to the rule-making and you´ve got a choice to leave.
GT, politicians have usurped the representative power vested in them by the people, but the old media cover for that crime, and still wash our eyes and ears with the word `democracy`.
Thus appalling crimes are perpetrated, in particular in foreign lands, in the name of the people, which the old media does not expose, having been the quiet orchestrator for several years prior to the opening assault.
I submit, that we all would have been engulfed by ww3, perhaps three years ago, as a consequence of a Israeli initiated – and followed up by America, nuclear assault on Iran, were it not for many many people watching and discussing intently, via the new media, the fact, otherwise unknown, that Iran has committed no crime against Israel nor has any designs to, which makes the Israeli and American leaderships palpably war criminals should the incineration of the best part of tens of millions Iranians take place, and so be liable to immediate arrest, rather than decades later, or not at all.
If the assault on Iran does not take place it will only be because too many people will know what the frustrated perps have been thinking even before they thought it, thanks only to the glorious internet.
The political and banking establishments of the West need ww3, otherwise they will fade from the relentless exposure of their nefarious intentions on the internet.
As so much is at stake, our only tool facilitating this exposure must never be wrested by these psychopaths from our hands.
michael mazur
Well said. I fully agree, without the internet WWIII would have started already.
And there would also have been another and maybe nuclear 9/11 to justify it.
[...] –MORE–” [...]
[...] Silver Lining Food for thought « Obama’s “new” policies in the MiddleEast–cartoons The Internet, a model for true democracy July 9, 2009 From blog Time to think [...]
Nice article. But I guess u r being naive when think that the internet is the bastion of democracy & free speech. I agree with GT, but only partially. The internet much like western media & the western political process is all about the power of the majority. The power elites with their vast resources & influence are able to drown the voices of the others (if not silence them like in a dictatorship), & thereby dictate & direct the views & mindset of the majority of the people & so exert their power. Therefore in a western pseudo-democracy the net result is the same as if were a tyrannical dictatorship, the only difference being that the people are given the impression that they are free.
The internet works the same way. U are forgetting a number of vital technical issues e.g. the servers which host the net, the domains, the Internet connectivity itself is owned by Big Business or the corporate elite & their governmental stooges. So the Net is actually under their control. Any website, blog, internet user has simply to do or say something antithetical to their interests & they can simply ban it. . The major websites with global reach & influence e.g Yahoo.con, MSN.com, wikipedia etc all serve their interests. So the elites are satisfies with the status quo, even though there are numerous sites, blogs & forums that voice their opinion against them (but their reach & impact is very limited). The moment they feel that popular opinion on the net is against them, the perceived freedom of the net will be severely curtailed.
[...] The elites who have the greatest influence on the mainline media outlets use them to create false images of the world we live in, in order to manipulate the population to move into the direction the elites prefer,” the Icelandic blogger writes. [...]
@Notsilvia Night:
What you describe as a state without rules, without structure is anomie which has nothing in common with anarchy. Anarchy just has no hierachy. There is no one ruling and no ruling class. What you describe with “but the different groups will discuss any issue until a compromise has been found” is clearly not democracy but a tool of anarchy. When you said “Even the internet isn´t an anarchy. When people start to cooperate they also build a certain structure and make rules.”, it shows you don’t know what anarchy means. Please read some more about it.
“Democracy means you can participate and give input to the rule-making and you´ve got a choice to leave.”
No you haven’t got a chance to leave because all democratic countries are helping (aka forcing) countries to introduce democracy as well (even if for some countries democracy might be a step forward).
Andre Rosowski
You are right I do not know the intellectual definition of “anarchy”, I´m not an intellectual. I only know what non-educated people understand when we hear the word anarchy, it means the total collapse of law and order and suffering of the weak, the women and the children.
A libertarian society sounds a lot better in the ears of most people than an “anarchy”, although according to your definition it might be the same.
And I do not believe, that we in the western world actually live in a “democracy” or that we are actually bringing true democracy to any other country on either the barrel of a gun or by economic black-mail.
I see it like this, we live in a “propagandocracy”. It has the trappings of democracy on the surface, underneath it´s actually an ever stronger growing fascism, an evil union of corporations with government, fueled by militarism.