∙Politics (of the 20th century) is dead: it is necessary to restore real Democratic Politics

Table of Contents of this Article

This entry is part 2 of 2 in the series ► 0__Wake Up Call

WAKE UP CALL (1): do become aware of the reason for the continuous failures, and do start again in the correct way!
∙Politics (of the 20th century) is dead: it is necessary to restore real Democratic Politics

In the twentieth century, even the best Conservatives failed to stop the revolutionary action towards real Socialism produced by the Left.

How can the Conservatives themselves from 2021 onwards be able to counter a Left that has now acquired absolute power (as it has demonstrated by canceling the results of the 2020 US elections, and managing the “emergency policies” for Covid?

The underlying problem is the unconsciousness of the Conservatives: they have forgotten what real Democracy is (they don’t know what it is actually necessary to restore). And they still don’t know very well the essence of Socialism (its real strategic abilities for subversion).

Another problem is that today there is an attempt to heal the parties and the movements of the conservatives that have not existed for many years. It is necessary to define a radically new “New Politics” (which in reality is nothing more than the recovery of the original “by Citizen, for Citizen” Politics. Which today can be greatly improved in its tools, in its processes thanks to new hi- tech.

Some points developed:

● The characteristics of Socialism: how and why Socialism succeeded in obtaining absolute Power. And how the situation can evolve further <see>

● The problems for US Democracy derive from the fact that the Conservatives’ “institutional politics” betrayed the original ideas (“government by the People”) <see>

● the factory defect of modern Democracy, which is destined to evolve into an increasingly radical form of Socialism. <see>

● In 2020 it emerged that the “Politics of Parties” (at national government level) is permanently compromised, and therefore the need for a (radical) turn in conservative politics is necessary. <see>

● The difficulty of recovering a true Democracy due to a generation of incompetent (or bad faith) politicians (and journalists) <see>

● The need to define a radically new “New Politics” (what can be done) <see>

Why no one seems to have understood that it would have come to this point (to the real Socialism of 2020). And why do few now seem to understand what is really going on (after Biden’s “election”)?

The answer is simple:

1) people have no idea what Socialism is

2) Politicians (and the current Democracy System) are not democratic at all

∙1) TODAY WE HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT SOCIALISM REALLY IS

The fact is that we have always heard of real Socialism as a political theory applicable within a democratic system.

But Socialism is quite another thing:

any form of Socialism
is not played according to institutional rules,
or according to the morality of man

(at least not the traditional rules, applied for millennia, and reproduced in the texts, for example in the 10 Commandments).

Citizens, politicians, authors, journalists today have no idea what concepts such as “the end justifies the means”, “single thought”, “single party” mean, although these are fundamental elements of strategies aimed at creating a real dictatorship. And

they have no idea how the Socialists (the radical Left) develop subversive strategies at a level hidden from the public

(occult strategies developed in total contrast to what they claim in public).

Social Democracy Spontaneously Evolves Towards Real Socialism

One of the characteristics of the Left Ideology that is lacking awareness today is its intrinsically evolutionary nature:

► Left thinking spontaneously evolves towards Socialism.

This is because the Ideology that underlies the policies of the Left is itself Socialist.

In other words, even the more moderate forms of leftist thinking are based on the idea that the State must govern Citizens from above (for their own good). This is precisely in contrast with the conception of Demoscracy, in which the Demos, the People, governs itself.

This substantial, radical difference exists even in the more moderate forms of leftist politics. This basic setting of the Left’s thinking means that it continually seeks to “improve” Democracy in the direction of strengthening the “Central Power”.

The defect of this strategy is that the majority of Citizens, when they see the negative consequences thus produced, regularly oppose the Left at the time of the elections.

The current problem for Democracy is that

at this point in its evolution (in 2020)
the Left was able to eliminate the need for elections.

That is, the Left today has reached a level of power that allows it to make that leap forward towards real Socialism that until now had been impossible.

This can happen partly because the transformation strategies of government institutions applied for decades have managed to give the Left the levers necessary for the leap; and partly because the “cancel culture” has reached a point where Citizens are no longer able to distinguish between Communism and Democracy (see the polls in which in some contexts the majority of students consider Communism a “improved” form of Democracy).

This process of cancel culture is nothing more than a soft “cultural revolution” with which traditional Culture has been replaced with a new Culture compatible with the precepts of Socialism.

At this point, that is, most people (including Conservative politicians, journalists, authors, professors, etc …) are no longer able to understand what is about to happen: how the Left is making the expected leap towards real Socialism.

The radical principles of the Left

So let’s see in summary, what are the elements that are the basis of any socialist project:

● the dictatorship of an elite: in the Left Ideology the human being is unable to take care of himself, and it is therefore good when “special” people take care of the People.

Essentially, Socialism means that Society matters more than the individual: in Socialism the “Social state” imposes its choices on Citizens (for their own good).

● violence, for the Socialists, is the necessary tool to obtain Power (to achieve Good).

The idea of the Socialists is that the traditional society (the one defended by the Conservatives) is based on a grave injustice that must be corrected: the inequality of wealth (in the quality of life) is in fact due to a form of violence exercised by the people who are better off, which to protect their status use the “force” of compliant institutions such as the Courts and the Police.

So to get a just Society it is necessary to use violence (deaths are an acceptable side effect of a just Politics).

● the theft is therefore justified, because any form of property is illegitimate (including money), and therefore in itself is the result of a theft. It follows that stealing something is a form of justice (it is the re-appropriation of something that belongs to us by right).

The redistribution of wealth applied in Social Democracy through taxes is based on this idea.

● annulment of property and fundamental freedoms: these are sine qua non for the creation of a just society.

This idea derives from the preconceptions (ideas for which a rational, scientific explanation has never been presented) that (1) the human being is unable to take care of himself, (2) that those who have more than others has committed an injustice, and that (3) to commit such injustice (and to maintain its status) the “bad guys” use illegitimate forms of violence

It is therefore concluded that to obtain a just Society (the Good of all) it is necessary to eliminate not only the properties that are “illegitimate” (the “riches” are confiscated), but it is also necessary to eliminate the freedoms of the individual (the ‘human being free to act could harm himself, or harm the Society; and the freedom of thought – to express one’s ideas – could lead to disorder in a Society that functions only when the mass follows the directives given from above).

If the preceding characteristics are the foundations of the socialist Doctrine, there are other operational characteristics that depend on them that need to be taken into account:

● the end justifies the means: since the just Society – in which definitive well-being is ensured – is nothing other than the realization of the Socialist Regime (the State that takes care of the individual in all respects) it is necessary to ensure that at whatever cost the Socialist Doctrine is applied: it does not matter if any “problems” arise during the process of creating and maintaining this Regime.

● the Cancellation of Culture (cultural Marxism) is a necessary step since traditional cultures contain within themselves the “original sin” it is a necessary step since traditional Cultures contain in themselves the “original sin”, basing them on the Idea that the Society functions only when there is a freedom of initiative on the part of individuals. Such a Culture can distract the Citizens committed to carrying out the directives from above..

Cultural Marxism was invented by A. Gramsci, who had intuited how a sort of brainwashing would lead the People to give their consent to Socialism (Orwell, who had been a militant Socialist, effectively described the Single Thought and the Single Party characteristic of Socialism).

● double face: the Socialists have a public face and a soul that operates behind the scenes (in contrast to what they publicly claim).

The public face (in Italy they speak of Communism with a “good” face) is based on a boosted demagogy (without any moral qualms), very refined and effective (which is possible thanks to A. Gramsci’s strategies of “cultural hegemony” that have led to a Media monopoly)

The occult soul – Deep State (Swamp) – typical of the sects that conspire to obtain power, operates with the typical strategies of Marxism: disinformation, sabotage, intervention by violent militias, denigration, etc. (Obama admitted in his autobiographical that his political thinking was set by an important militant of the Communist Party, who developed subversion actions in US naval bases).

Socialism therefore on the one hand
claims that it wants to protect Democracy
from the Conservatives,
but at the same time
it works behind the scenes
to overthrow Democracy and reach absolute power.

Any law approved by the Left involves a weakening of the power of the Demos, and somehow favors a “strong power” (Police and Judiciary, Global Capitalism, Media, etc…).

2) CURRENT POLITICIANS DO NOT ACT IN A DEMOCRATIC MODE AT ALL

(or the current one is not a Democracy at all, so its tools and rules can only lead to real Socialism)

If the unawareness of what Socialism actually is, is one of the factors that have allowed the Left to reach the condition of substantial real Socialism, another factor is not understanding what Western Democracy essentially is in the version of the last century:

almost everyone thinks they live in a real Democracy, while today we live in a “socialist Democracy”.

This entails substantial problems, among others that the current politicians are not only unable to do anything to satisfy the needs of Citizens (this would be their real, and only, task), but inevitably ends up favoring the interests of Socialism. .

∙The development of Social Democracy, in summary (its factory defect)

The problem with the current policy is that

the System-Democracy of the twentieth century
is plagued by a factory defect
that not only does not allow the development
of a truly democratic government,
but also ensures that
an ever greater level of Socialism is generated

This factory defect developed in two fundamental steps:

● The origin of this “factory defect” dates back to the period following the foundation of the first modern Democracy, that of the United States, when some Founding Fathers went to France where the Regime established by the French Revolution was in force, and began to think in the “Socialist mode”, according to which a “good” State is composed of enlightened individuals must take care of the People (and they have created in the US a central government, at national level).

● a subsequent progress in the process of dismantling Democracy (and creating a Socialist base structure) is due to the action of Presidents W. Wilson, F.D. Rossevelt and Obama (all admittedly admirers of real Socialism):

Such presidents have affirmed their desire to achieve Socialism: Obama in his autobiography written before his presidency; previously Wilson with his thesis “Socialism and Democracy”, and Roosevelt stating that Stalin was a reference for American Democracy – Keynes, the “mind” of Roosevelt, had been awarded by Lenin the highest honor of the Soviet Union for indicating , with his theories, a new way of realizing Socialism in the West).

■ THE FAILURE OF MODERN POLITICS: THE ROLE OF POLITICIANS IN THE 1900S

In this transformation of real Democracy into a Social Democracy (in which a gradual process towards real Socialism develops) the Institutions and characters of “Institutional Politics” are not at all Democratic in the real sense of the term (this also applies to Conservatives more prepared and combative: the defect is upstream, in the cultural setting of the people, not in their desire to be correct and effective).

That is today

► that of the politician, who should develop the interests of Citizens, is nothing more than a new “profession” with which it develops interests that do not correspond at all to those of citizens

The politician today does nothing but develop – perhaps in good faith – the interests of “groups of people” that he thinks will ultimately bring an advantage to the Society. But this is an arbitrary conjecture with respect to the rules that define his mandate as Citizens’ Representative (whose sole purpose is to directly satisfy the interests of the Citizens). <see “Democracy was born as a system for satisfaction of citizens needs”>

∙Ideological politics replaced real politics (the applications of Socialism have never worked)

Basically in modern politics the politician, at best, develops a program for the gratification of his ego. That is, he proceeds in a mental (ideological) dimension not unlike the Socialist one. Indeed, like the Socialists,

he thinks that his Electors are not able to look after their own existence, and that he has to be a bit of the adoptive father of the Electors.

And on the basis of this interpretation of the nature of Man, the politician considers himself justified when he does not directly interpret the will of the Citizens who elected him directly, but relies on the ideas of people he believes to be enlightened.

This is, in fact, an ideological vision of politics.

In this vision, the Politician, instead of paying attention to the practical act of managing solutions to the real problems of Citizens’ lives (the task for which he was elected), operates on a more general level, a level of “Ideas” (Ideology) in which it adheres to a dogma not linked to actual reality.

The problem with these ideas, is that

the foundations of ideologies
do not derive from a scientific observation of reality:
Ideologies are only theoretical hypotheses
that have never been proved.

In fact, these are strategies come from the intuitions of some intellectual. The problem is precisely that the validity of these ideas has never been tested in applications on reality (it is as if in a treatment one wanted to apply a medicine that a doctor claims to guess is effective, but that no one has ever tested).

After more than a century of application of the Left Ideologies, the irrefutable result is that they have never worked (them have always produced strongly negative results such as poverty and deaths): and they continue to justify such failures by asserting that in such applications “they have always erred people in the application of the ideology, but the basic Idea is correct ”.

The fact is that the “experiments” of the Left Ideology (Socialism) are many dozen, and all have failed – note that the only example reported as positive is that of Sweden: but if we analyze the graphs that show the alternation of poverty and wealth in the history of Sweden it is noted that with the application of Socialism an impoverishment of the population has always been obtained, and only with the restoration of free enterprise has a satisfactory economic condition been recovered.

∙The general scope and the specific scope of problem solving in Democracy (problems can only be solved locally)

The basic difference between Democratic politics in its original conception and Modern politics is that while the original politics developed in a dimension of interventions on the real world (at the local level, on the territory in which the needs to be met are present), in the Modern politics claims to improve the conditions of society by operating at a “general level” (with “universal” solutions deliberated at the level of the “State or federal” parliamentary debate. <see my text “The recovery of the only form of legitimate politics in Democracy (Polis-tics)“>

Regarding the question of the “general level” of Politics (the “central” level) in which modern Political Ideology claims to be able to solve the problems of the Society, it is necessary to consider that in reality the problems to be solved cannot be identified at this “general level”.

More specifically, there are no “general problems” of racism, the Police, gender, wages, abortion, etc …

That is – at least in a Democracy –

the problems to be solved through government
exist only in local variations,
whose peculiarity is due to specific conditions
such as culture, territorial characteristics, economic resources of the territory, etc …

It is clear that a sparsely populated area, where there are very small agglomerations of houses far from each other, has needs that are profoundly different from those of a highly populated City: for this reason it is not possible to define in general, at a “central” level (Parliamentary) universal solutions (for all territories).

The differences, even profound, between different areas of the Nation depend, for example, on different cultural conditions (different ethnic groups, different religious cults, etc …), different characteristics of economic resources (some territories are desolate, others have mines or tourist attractions).

The cultural difference between the various areas, for example, implies the need to eventually have different forms of School education. That is, an area where different languages are spoken may need to have two different types of School (as happens in Canada).

The fact is that the goal of the Left is the standardization of Culture, and therefore the standardization of School education. Which is precisely in conflict with the essence of Democracy (and with the Constitution).

Therefore, all the problems debated today at the (central) parliamentary level must in reality be resolved at the local level.

This applies, for example, to a deeply felt problem such as that of the behavior of the Police which often produces more harm than good.

The problem represented by the work of the Police, in essence, is that it was born as one of the services for Citizens (such as the fire brigade or ambulance paramedics), but today it has completely lost its original function (it has become a weapon at the service of “political interests”). That is, Police too – like politicians – works to support interests that are in conflict with those of citizens. <see my text “The Police violence problem: towards a solution“>

We have a significant example of this problem (the shooting in Wendy’s parking lot in Atlanta in 2020): the case of the Citizen who, being aware that he was drunk, decided to sleep in his car in a parking lot because his driving would represent a danger.

In this case, the task of the Police as a “public service” would be to ensure that the Citizen is able to reach his home (or, as a minimum, to confiscate his car keys and let him sleep). Instead, in this case they wanted to exercise a free “authority” by arresting the person, who reacted in a very dangerous way, and was killed by the police.

In this case, the intervention of policemen inclined to “hard manners” was fatal. But probably in a sparsely populated area, where gangs of thieves plunder the territory, policemen mainly trained in the use of “hard ways” would be an advantage for citizens.

There is, in fact, no “universal” solution for the national territory, but the “right solution” is the one desired by the citizens of the specific social community.

The same is true of the issue of gun possession: in the territory where the nearest policeman is 100 miles away, the situation is certainly very different from that of a densely populated city.

Depriving Citizens who live isolated from public security services the possibility of keeping an “efficient” weapon can be fatal (obviously knowing that in this area citizens are unarmed, gangs of thieves converge in that area). While the possession of weapons not heavily regulated in a densely populated city can pose serious dangers.

The case of the lockdowns of 2020 shows us how “universal” solutions (the lockdowns) to create serious damage, given that the states of the USA (and Sweden in Europe) that have decided not to impose security measures, have obtained economic and of public health much better than those of the States that have adopted the restrictive measures.

It must be taken into account that the cultural differences between different territories can be very deep (think of the differences in customs between Catholics and Muslims). And that therefore, for example, if in some territorial areas measures can be adopted that allow students of different sexes to share changing rooms, in other areas such measures would create serious problems.

∙The Problem of the Dictatorship of the Majority (and of the Minority)

As we know, in Democracy there is the problem of the “dictatorship of the majority”.

But you need to consider a couple of things:

1) in the local government the problem of the need to adapt to the Will of the majority is reduced to a minimum.

2) in Social Democracy there is a worse problem: the Dictatorship of the minority.

1) in the local context many factors greatly reduce the problem of the dictatorship of majority:

– most of the deliberate actions do not imply the abiding by all citizens: there is the possibility of “opting out”, which also allows the citizen not to pay for something that he does not use.

– people know each other at least by sight, and therefore violations of the rules are often tolerated.

– thanks to the effectiveness of the Common Law, a system in which citizens are free to act according to their intentions, since in case of transgression of the Community Rules they are punished by the juries of other citizens, not many restrictive rules are necessary.

2) in the Socialist way, in which decisions are made of a “Universal” mode, these decisions overlap the popular Will expressed at the local level (by citizens who want to solve their problems in their own way).

In this way, in fact, creating a Dictatorship of the Minority: few politicians decide on behalf of many people (and their decisions are to be applied even when citizens do not agree).

In summary, in a true Democracy,

(1)
if the needs of citizens are to be truly met,
it is necessary to take into account that
there are only specific problems
to be addressed
(linked to specific local realities)

(it is necessary to develop solutions based on the specific “Demand” of the Citizens of the Territorial Area).

The basic problem of the current parliamentary Democracy is therefore that

(2)
a “general” solution
(defined at national level)
ends up by imposing decisions
at the local level
that prevent defining effective solutions.

These decisions taken top-down in fact interfere with the complex and delicate process of solving problems at the local level (in fact they prevent it, preventing the expression of the Citizens’ Will). This is largely the cause of the poor quality of life in today’s Democracy.

From a certain point of view

Modern (Parliamentary) Politics
consists of a sort of Dictatorship of the minority,

since in it the solutions are defined at a “universal” (central) level trying to “please everyone”.

In this way the Laws produced by Parliaments end up imposing on local majorities rules against their Will (the essence of Democracy is the Sovereignty of the Citizens, i.e. their will is supreme, it cannot be opposed by any other will – obviously when we say that the majority wins in Democracy, we mean the majority of the People who live in the Community in which we want to solve problems).

The basic problems of modern politics

The basic problem of current politics is that today we are all imbued with modern Culture (this also applies to the best Conservatives) which sees the Politician no longer as a person who works to solve the specific problems denounced by his constituents, but as an agent operating at a more general level where parties confront each other on “universal” issues.

In the dimension of modern Politics in recent decades, Conservatives end up operating almost exclusively to stem the Left’s strategies of “revolution” of the system of government.

The problem is that this way

in modern Politics
we lose sight of the purpose of democracy
(of “real” politics)

which deals with the solution of contingent problems of Citizens in the specific territory.

This type of Politics is the only one originally envisaged for Democracy (at the foundation of the first modern Democracy, the US).

In the new dimension of Politics, most government activities – at best – are a waste of time. In fact, in modern Politics we end up focusing on abstract objectives with respect to the material needs of People: many of these activities do not concern the actual life of Citizens at all, but are a matter of principles, technicalities relating to the structure of the central institutions.

Many of the actions taken by the Trump administration have not produced any actual results. As was the case, for example, for the designation of Supreme Court judges, who now no longer have the power to defend the Constitution (which occurred after the 2020 elections).

The same goes for attempts to change the Agencies, or the bureaucratic system, which have continued to hinder the government. And it also applies to the continuous attempts to have important documents delivered by the Agencies, which either never arrived, or arrived but strongly redacted.

The case of the impeachments during Trump’s tenure is significant of how Conservative policy has been reduced to wasting time in countering the actions of the Left.

In this period the Parliament became a kind of Court in which a trial (without rules) of Trump took place.

Meanwhile, the US was devastated by riots and lockdowns against which the Conservatives did nothing to defend the Citizens (and were unable to clearly expose the crimes committed by the Obama administration), and to restore the judicial system to its original function.

In the documents relating to the “Reboot of Democracy” it is illustrated how it is actually impossible to change things from within the institutional system, but we must start from where Democracy has its foundations (where Citizens hold a power that cannot be opposed by current political institutions): the government of local communities. <see my articles “Annotated Index of Series “Reboot of Democracy”>

∙The “Game of Modern Politics”: Citizens become an instrument (the specific interests of Politicians)

So, in summary, the difference between the original modern Democracy (the one founded in the 1700s in the USA) and the current parliamentary Democracy is that in the first we work to solve real problems, while in the second we play a “Game of Politics” in which the original functions of government “for the People” have been lost. And it is thought that complex alchemies can indirectly bring benefits to citizens.

This Game of Modern Politics has become a game for its own sake, and produces a constant worsening of the quality of life of the populations (or rather it leads to the development of an ever greater level of Socialism).

This deterioration in the quality of life caused by the current policy is due to the fact that it ended up

transform the original concept of politics
as a process of satisfying the needs of citizens,
into a process
of satisfying the requests of groups of people
whose interests are found
to be in conflict with the needs of citizens

The latter are:

– Ideological interests: those of people of Socialist “faith” who think that the realization of their “Utopia” can be good for the Society

– economic interests: these are the interests of the Lobbies, in which the protagonists of global Capitalism count more and more (which today operate in synergy with governments)

– selfish interests of politicians (and of “experts”, who are assuming ever greater power).

Of course in each person there are different measures, more interests:

– Politicians who pursue an Ideology are not immune from the fascination of Power itself, of privileges, of money.

– the Big Capitalists – for whom further gains do not represent a real advantage – are fascinated.

Basically in modern politics

the Citizens from the End of Politics
become an instrument of it.

A significant example of this is the aforementioned case of the lockdown for Covid which became a political tool in 2020 (in function of the 2020 elections) and posed dramatic problems to CItizens (a demonstration of this instrumental use of Citizens comes from the declaration Governor Cuomo who, the day after Biden’s proclamation as President, said he wanted to start lifting the lockdown).

∙■ The need for a (radical) turning point in Conservative Politics: towards a “new Party” (the mistakes of the Conservatives )

One of the important things that has emerged in the Trump mandate is that today there are no more Right and Left, but all politicians (almost all) adhere to a defined transversal party as the Establishment (the “One-party” to which the Left aspires).

This became evident when the leaders of the American Right began to claim they vote for the Left (such as the Bush family and Mitt Romney). Also take into account the calls to unity made by the Left (which are nothing more than the request to the Conservatives to merge into a “One-party”).

For these reasons, it is a loser to continue to do as it did for at least the mid-1900s, when

1) Institutional Policy (including that of the Conservatives) resulted in a greater radicalization of Leftist policies.

2) all attempts to reform Democracy, to bring it back to its founding principles, have always been canceled by the Left (see also the cases of Reagan and Trump).

This means that today, if we want to bring modern Democracy back to its original dimension (the dimension of the development of Citizens’ interests),

it is first of all necessary
to understand how counterproductive it is
to follow the path of institutional politics
currently applied by the Conservatives.

That is, from a strategic point of view, today

it is necessary to abandon
the current policy of “opposition”
to the subversive policy of the Left

(with which they are transforming Democracy into a form of real Socialism).

It is therefore necessary to realize that the current policy of the Conservatives – in particular with the new strategies of “absolute power” implemented by them in 2021 – can no longer produce any positive results.

And it is therefore necessary to move to a new form of Politics – which is actually the original one of Democracy – in which we work directly (“by the People”) to improve Citizens’ lives. A Citizens’ Policy that provides Conservatives with a de facto power that no one at the institutional government level can oppose <ssee my text “The acquisition of a new ‘de facto power’”>

What are the basic problems to be faced in the Reboot of Democratic Politics

Upstream of everything, like every time you want to solve a problem,

► you have to be aware of what the problem is
– otherwise the problem continues to develop.

The problems that must be faced in defining a policy that can restore Democracy to its original condition are:

■ We have forgotten what real Democracy is. And the essence of Socialism is not yet well known (its real strategic capacities of subversion).

In other words, the sense of why (real) Democracy was founded has been lost – as the affirmations of the Founding Fathers, and of A. Lincoln when he stated: ‘Democracy is direct self-government, over all the People, for all the People, by all the People”). And we therefore live in a world of abstract ideas in which everything has become “relative” (there are no longer any constraints imposed by objective reality).

That is,

the idea of the importance of the possibility of Citizens
to decide on how to manage
their own social community has been lost

Another problem that we encounter today in wanting to develop a Policy capable of bringing the current government system back to a dimension of real Democracy, is that today in institutional politics

■ we get lost in the details, ending up losing sight of the general context.

Today we get lost in skirmishes of “opposition”, ending up losing awareness of when the Left is actually doing: the creation of a real form of Socialism.

In this mental dimension, during Trump’s mandate, no one understood that the Left was operating, together with the large companies of Silicon Valley, effective strategies that would have nullified the results of the 2020 Elections (through what is in fact a coup). And now few are able to imagine what will happen in the near future.

Because the Conservatives have not thought of repealing the law that provides to Social Networks regarding their behavior? And why was it not thought of applying the anti-trust rules for these companies? Or to do a check on Dominion’s machines before the 2020 Elections? Or, in any case, to institute greater controls in voting operations)? And why the Right did not think of creating alternative Social Networks to the existing ones? (with Parler the ingenuity of the Conservaotri proved, who put their business in the hands of their dangerous enemy: Jeff Bezos)

Due to this unawareness, today we are in a paradoxical position in which the Conservatives (Politicians, Authors, etc …)

► continue to try to solve the problem
with the same methods and tools that created it

(see next chapter “The problem of a generation of incompetent (or bad faith) politicians (and journalists)”)

The problem is that today, when it is necessary to start over (Reboot) Conservative politics, starting from the ground up, many are still focused on trying to save a Republican Party that has no longer existed for many years (either because they are unprepared, or because they are corrupt).

the inherent problem of the Republican Part: a Party that defines itself as a Republican and claims that it wants to support the Democracy conceived by the Founding Fathers

Republican means supporting the Republic as a form of government.

But the Republic is a radically different form of government from that of the Democracy created by the Founding Fathers of the United States.

In other words, the Republic is not at all what was indicated as Democracy by A. Lincoln ‘Democracy is direct self-government, over all the people, for all the people, by all the people “.

The Republic contains that manufacturing defect described in another point of this article, which leads the Government to assume an ever greater power of its own.

The real Democracy is still developed today in the small Towns, where it is governed precisely in the manner defined immediately after the American Revolution (the dimension of government increasingly limited by the government of the Republic).

How can a Conservative party (which wants to recover the Principles of Sovereignty and Citizen Freedom) keep the name of a form of government that imposes top-down laws on citizens?

Basically, as Einstein said

► “If repeated attempts to change a system fail,
it means that there are errors in the principles [of your action]”.
That is,
in this case it is necessary to start over
by healing the roots of the System

the possibilities for current Politicians to recycle themselves into a more rewarding role

Note that current Political leaders can enjoy new rewards – even the most selfish ones – greater than those obtained with the current institutional policy.

This is because by developing a Reboot of Democracy (of modern Politics) they would develop an epochal change – a restoration of real Democracy. And they would go down in history as heroes comparable in a sense to the Founding Fathers of the United States.

■ THE DIFFICULTY OF THE RECOVERY OF A TRUE DEMOCRACY: THE FAILURE OF CURRENT POLITICAL CULTURE

The underlying problem that led to the situation that occurred in the post-Election 2020 is therefore the unawareness of those who thought they could oppose the Left through the institutions (Parliament, Judiciary, National Agencies, etc …).

Unawareness which means the lack of both a knowledge of the essence of the Left Ideology (of the potential of their strategies), and of the functioning of (real) Democracy.

Because of this (for decades), at the level of institutional policy

(1)
Politicians fight for a cause they don’t know,
against an enemy they don’t know

And also, naively

(2)
Citizens think are serving their own interests
by giving others the power to decide about their life

That is, bizarrely, Citizens think they can take care of their lives by choosing people to take care of them.

The consequence of this situation is that the current one is not a Democracy at all (it does not work according to the rules of Democracy). And that those who are aware of this – the Left, Crony Capitalism – are able to exploit the situation to develop institutions that allow them to manage the system according to their will.

In summary, in such conditions a Democracy cannot function (it provides disastrous results as regards the quality of life of Citizens) due to the fact that the functioning of a Community of Man is based on the (psychological) rules of the “functioning” of Human being as a social individual (and if these rules are not followed, Society ends up in chaos). <see my text “The meta-rules that govern the life of the human being“>

In essence, the basic conditions that allow a Society to develop a good quality of life for individuals are:

1. no one can take care of satisfying a person’s needs better than the person himself (at most the person can be supported by others in defining the solution, but others are unable to create satisfactory solutions).

For this reason it has been specified that in Democracy Citizens are Sovereigns, that is, ‘Democracy is direct self-government … by all the people.’ (A. Lincoln)

2. a human being to whom another human being (a Citizen) grants a part of his power (as happens in representative democracy) inevitably tends to use this opportunity to increase his own power (this happens even if initially this power delegated to him is minimal).

This happens precisely because of the nature of man: the factors that contribute to this degeneration of top-down power systems are, for example:

– if a first generation of people can perform a good government action, subsequent generations are not up to the task; o they are easily corruptible (this has also been found in the Market in the life of Companies).

– those who govern in a despotic way do not necessarily do it out of selfishness: in some cases they do so for ideological reasons, thinking that the more power they get, the better they can serve the citizens who have chosen them as their representative

The problem of a generation of incompetent (or bad faith) politicians (and journalists)

The unawareness of how Democracy works (and of the characteristics of strategies of the Left) mentioned above, has actually created

a generation of Politicians and Journalists without a true democratic soul.

In other words, the people who have fought in recent decades to keep Democracy in its original dimension (in within the Constitution) have applied tactics and strategies that in fact have only led to an increase in the level of Socialism in the government system.

This happens because their unawareness leads them to play the game of the Left.

This means that today

it is not possible to improve the current modalities of institutional politics because it is in itself flawed.

The moment of truth: the opportunity to begin a true recovery of Democracy

It is this inability of the Politicians (in reality it is very often bad faith) that has led to the current situation of abrogation of Democracy (US elections in 2020).

The positive aspect of the current situation is that it is a moment of truth in which all the errors committed in recent decades have emerged. <see my Article “Why the development of authoritarianism represents an opportunity it is not just a drama“>

That is, in this moment it emerges that things have always worsened due to people – until now considered “heroes” – such as Trey Gowdy or Tucker Carlson: it turns out that these people for years have operated in total unawareness of what Socialism is (of its destructive potential) and of what Democracy is (what is the purpose of any “democratic policy”: to satisfy the needs of citizens).

In other words, these people have contented themselves with operating – with great gratification of their Ego – at the level of verbal or legal skirmishes with the representatives of the Left who have played the game of the radical Left (which is able to use the demagogic skirmishes to its own advantage ).

Some examples of the failure of the “heroes” of Conservatism

Such people, due to their deep unawareness, are not only unable to protect society from the strategies of the Left. But they ended up favoring the development of an ever greater level of Socialism.

A significant example is that of the members of Parliament’s control committees, such as Trey Gowdy.

What was the latter and his party comrades able to do?

The answer is: they have not achieved anything concrete (other than letting the Left seize power illegitimately).

In practice, Gowdy has done nothing but complain for years about not being able to obtain documents required by the various agencies (which is required by law). And he continued, in a childish way, to accuse others without ever having done anything at the parliamentary level to create new rules that forced government agencies to present the documents requested by the parliamentarians (that was the fundamental point to be able to show the public the strategies developed by the Left to arrive at the 2020 Election coup).

With this behavior Gowdy got worse: by letting things develop according to the intentions of the Left. He basically endorsed the obstructionism that allowed the Left to arrive at the situation of real Socialism of 2021.

The part that definitively revealed Gowdy’s political qualities was, when the Left arrived at the hoax of the Washington D.C. “riots” of 01/06/021, his siding with the Left accusing Trump of having induced the riots.

Of course you can understand his attitude, given the threats that the Conservatives have received (who are expelled from the rolls of their profession). But it certainly cannot be justified (it is basically an act of cowardice towards those who elected him for years).

Obviously there are many failed “heroes” like Gowdy: Bar, Durham, the conservative members of the Supreme Court, who in the moment of truth betrayed the expectations of those who had placed them in their roles.

The problem is that even the best fighters like Jim Jordan or Tom Fitton (very clever and brave) were in fact not able to achieve a minimum result (the only one who has achieved something significant is Devin Nunes, and for this he was several times lynched even by the Republicans)

Many self-styled conservative journalists such as Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson (considered heroes by the Conservatives until the 2020 Elections have behaved in the same way).

Even these journalists have always developed editorial lines based on verbal polemics on the policies of the Left, without ever trying to understand what was really happening (which instead he was able to do, always within Fox News, Steve Hilton).

But above all they have deliberately avoided talking for more than a month about the problems related to electoral fraud after the 2020 elections, despite clamorous evidence emerging every day.

Also in this case we can understand their attitude (Ingraham had the contract expiring), but we cannot justify it (in this way the most followed TV by the Conservatives made its large audience believe that there was no evidence of electoral fraud) .

But the highlight was seeing Carlson scandalized by the fact that the Social Networks, after the confirmation of Biden as President, have censored him (when he himself-censoring himself about the electoral fraud has contributed to the false election of Biden, and to the situation of repression implemented by the new regime).

∙■ WHAT CAN we DO TO CHANGE THINGS? (and what cannot be done)

The current problem is that even having the awareness of what is happening, and of what Democracy is (what is actually necessary to restore) today it is practically impossible to resume the politics of opposition to the Left used up to now since it with the last years of its a “soft revolution” has reached a position of

► CHECKMATE TO THE SYSTEM-DEMOCRACY,
which can no longer be adjusted by operating from within it.

And, for example, one can no longer hope to stop the production of decidedly anti-constitutional laws (with annulment of filibusting and neutralization of the Supreme Court) or to hope to have regular elections (with the new “methods” the Left is able to annul any majority of votes).

Now it is therefore necessary to focus on the possibility of developing a solution that does not fall into the mistakes made up to now.

It is particularly important not to react, not to resist, since this is what the Left hopes:

– by reacting we obtain the effect that a normal person would get who reacts to the provocations of a champion of Mixed Martial Arts (the nature of the Left is provocative, precisely because it is aware of being devastating on the level of the conflict).

– by resisting, one becomes immobilized in the current condition, of an unreformable condition of government (of an undrainable swamp).

It is therefore necessary to understand how the current situation is unreformable due to the achievement by the Left of a situation of absolute power, that is, a monopoly in the management of the various areas of “power” such as the Supreme Court (which no longer dares to defend the Constitution ), Courts, Media (which I can transform virtuous actions of the Right into criminal actions.), Security Agencies, etc …

But instead of despairing, of stubbornness in trying to oppose the subversion implemented by the Left since 2020, it is necessary to be able to interpret the situation in its positive aspects: an opportunity to finally change things in an effective and lasting way.

There are in fact at least two factors that show this possibility:

● the Left has entered the point of the evolution of ideological systems in which they begin a gradual self-destruction. A recurring phase in history in which the Socialists are afflicted by the “delusion of omnipotence”: they are increasingly convinced of their ability to dominate that they think they can bend the will of the Citizens who oppose their brainwashing. <see my text “The evolution of the methods of government of “empires” (of the State)“>

● the coup of the Left of 2020 was an opportune moment of truth in which the intrinsic inability of the Republican politicians was highlighted:

– those who are actually part of the One-Party establishment.

– those who lack the awareness of what Democracy conceived by the Founding Fathers of the United States actually is (and do not know the real real danger of the Left). <see my Article “Why the development of authoritarianism represents an opportunity it is not just a drama“>.

The first step that the Conservatives must take is to become aware of what emerged in 2020:

– the failure of “modern” Conservatism (decidedly different from the one that animated the Founding fathers of the United States), which highlighted how the politics of Right have been a failure (even great men like Reagan and Trump have failed to change things in a stable way)

– the true face of the Left: it aims at real Socialism, so it is impossible to counter it at the level of government institutions (in which it assumed absolute power).

► It is therefore necessary
to define a new form of Politics
(which actually recovers
the foundations of the Politics
developed at the birth of US Democracy).

∙Politics (of the 20th century) is dead: it is necessary to restore real Democratic Politics -libro