Why and how it is absolutely necessary to change [wake up call-2]

Table of Contents of this Article

This entry is part 1 of 9 in the series ► I.c_Reboot of Democracy

“You can be part of the problem,
or be part of the solution”
[Indian saying]

As we saw in the previous article <see>, more than a century of attempts by Conservatives to restore real Democracy (which has gradually transformed into a Social Democracy in which the Left holds the monopoly of Power) it is necessary to intervene in a way that actually allows things to change.
The question is therefore that of “method”: how is it possible that a social community can change for the better?

∙The fundamentals of man’s ability to solve problems

One of the great truths that man has discovered is that

► until you are aware of the cause of a problem
the problem cannot be solved

(this is the concept that guides any action of modern science)

Indeed, when there is no awareness of the real cause of the problem, the situation continues to worsen.

Well, today a substantial problem emerges:

the Conservatives
(in general “dissidents”
with respect to current forms of government)
commit the fatal mistake
of being unaware of the essence
of the problem to be solved

This situation does not arise now, but is the result of persevering in an error developed for decades: in all this time, dissident Movements and Media have faced the problem they wanted to solve with the wrong approach (they have faced it with the same mindset, with the same methods with which the problem was created).

And this error is irreparably leading these Movements and Media to failure (to their closure).

Another truth discovered by the human being – and cited among others by Einstein – is

► when you are unable, after repeated attempts, to solve a problem, you must review your Principles before continuing

(in other words, at this point it is necessary to “take a step back in order to then take two steps forward”)

∙▫The mistake of conservatives movements and media (“dissidents”)

Today the conservatives, instead of applying the principles of traditional human thought (the one based on the experience of reality, which allows for a “problem solving”), adopt the principles of modern ideologies, in which ideas are a product “in abstract “of the human mind (the ideas do not derive, as has always been, from a scientific observation of reality).

This happens due to the fact that the current Conservatives are themselves victims of the school education of Cancel culture, and have lost sight of the functioning of actual reality.

This replacement of traditional human thinking with that of advanced modernity is the origin of the problem: in the new “cultural” (mental) dimension

when you are unable to solve a problem,
you think that the methods and tools
used up to that point have not been applied sufficiently, and that it is therefore necessary to insist with greater commitment with your approach.

In other words, in the new “cultural” (ideological) dimension one does not realize that one is making a mistake, and one continues indefinitely in error (in the ideological dimension, being the mind separated from reality, one is in the condition of the Baron of Munchausen, who thinks he can save himself from drowning by grabbing by the hair with his own arm).

For this reason, Movements and Media that are “dissident” today are continuing to follow Principles that do nothing but worsen their situation: the more they move, the more they sink into the quicksand in which they themselves have inserted themselves.

More specifically, the mistake is precisely that

Dissidents end up fighting the enemy
on his own ground,
following his own principles

(reasoning the same way).

A terrain on which the institutions
will always and in any case be successful

since in this context they define the rules, direct the judicial institutions, hold the monopoly of force, etc.

∙The underlying problems: the cultural problem and the conflict of interest

Analyzing the question of the activity of Media and Movements that try to improve things but that cannot help but let government institutions take on ever more absolute powers, it emerges that there are two fundamental problems:

● the cultural problem: the “cultural revolution” developed for more than a century (the Cancel Culture) has created a dimension in which people – now deprived of a knowledge of history and the foundations of human existence – are no longer able to understand what is the cause of the problem of social malaise that afflicts her.

A significant example of this rooted culture created by the “Cultural Revolution” of the last century: the majority of students in the US think that Communism is an improved version of Democracy.

● the problem of the organization of the Society (of government): the slow revolution of the forms of government implemented by the Incumbents in the 900s has endowed the States with an absolute (unassailable) power that pursues partisan interests (in conflict with the interests of the Citizens – or characterized by a generalized conflict of interest).

This situation of Citizens’ unawareness does not allow them to understand how much the current generation of politicians implement a totalitarian government not unlike that of the tyrants of antiquity (today fundamental elements such as the real meanings of principles such as civil rights, the real value of the Constitutions have been “canceled”).

It is therefore a question of
bringing the system of human culture
and the organization of the Society
back to their original dimension

(However, it is not a question of doing a “reset” to create something new – as them are trying to do with the Cancel culture. But, on the contrary, it is a question of recovering principles and tools that man used when things worked well for the Society).

In other words, it is a question of recovering that dimension that was essentially the dimension in which citizens deal in some way with the management of the social issues that concern them (we are talking about that governmental regime called Demos-cracy, in which the demos, in fact, participates in the administration of its territory).

▫● The need to restore the operating principles of the Society of Man

But this reorganization of Society in which human beings return to be aware of their responsibility towards their own life, and then take an interest in some way in the organization of the social community in which they live, cannot now be developed at cause of the intrinsic defect of the current form of Democracy: today the conditio sine qua non of Democracy is lacking: the civic awareness of the People (Citizens are not correctly informed of how things really are, and therefore cannot express their will correctly).

That is, summing up, the question is twofold:

the Society works only if:
► Citizens CARE IN SOME WAY IN THE FIRST PERSON with the social issues that concern them.
► Citizens ARE CORRECTLY INFORMED of how things are.

Otherwise there will always be an inability to frame the problems to be solved (to understand what the real causes of these problems are), and therefore we will continue to pursue the error (i.e. we will continue to let the political institutions covernino following their interests – and voting for people who pursue interests other than those of the Demos).

The Covid case is significant: the citizens are not at all informed about what the disease actually is, and have thus allowed the Doctors to cause the death of tens of thousands of people.

∙▫The fundamental factor for the good functioning of the Society: responsibility

The previous considerations lead us to one of the fundamental problems: the Principle of the responsibility of each person who operates within a system.

If it is true that today Democracy does not work today because the essential element, the freedom of Citizens, is no longer taken into consideration (this principle is expressed in the Constitutions as the principle of the Sovereignty of the People), it is equally true that

Another fundamental element
has been lost along the way:
the sense of responsibility
of the individual towards his own life.

That is, Citizens today – the Demos who is the soul of Democracy – do not feel responsible for what happens in their Society (for example, they believe that the Institutions are responsible for the problems of the Society).

This is mainly due to the cultural question mentioned above: the problem is that Citizens have for years undergone a “State Pedagogy” in which the idea is inculcated in them that “normal people” are unable to deal with matters relating to their life.

That is, in a sense,

Citizens have been educated
to think that they are unable to take care of themselves,
and therefore have to leave it to the Leaders and the “Experts”.

The consequence of this is that today

deprived of their traditional sense of responsibility, Citizens are no longer able to understand that they themselves have elected the politicians who direct the institutions.

One of the first points to be addressed is, in fact, the reintroduction of the sense of responsibility in the organization system of the Society.

That is, today it is first and foremost necessary that

Citizens begin to realize their share of responsibility for the current problems of the Society

In other words, the basic problem is that a Democracy can only work when the Demos (Citizens) deal in some way with managing the social issues that concern them <see my article “Reboot of Democracy: How and why to change the contrast strategies of Left politics”>

Today, paradoxically,

we complain of the current politicians
instead of starting to wonder
how to intervene directly to solve the problems

This applies

● to Citizens who complain about politicians despite having elected them themselves, instead of trying to understand that they hold the role of the Demos, and that they should therefore begin to take an interest in the issues that they have mistakenly placed in the hands of the institutions.

● for dissident Media that should increase citizens’ awareness of the system of government moving away from the demoscratic mode, and instead pursue the infantile mode of controversy (which, as decades of dissidence have shown, is absolutely sterile). And when they try to define solutions, today the dissident media indicate initiatives based on the same failed ideology of “expert government”.

● for the Opposition Movements which should develop solutions based on the involvement of the Demos, and instead limit themselves to a protest approach which does not obtain any substantial results (and which allows a further tightening of absolute power by the Institutions).

That is, the failure of dissidents and opponents is due to the fact that today they are based on the same ideology of the “welfare state” applied by the institutions: them are always solutions that are based on the action of independent politicians from a minimum level of citizen participation .

Summarizing then,

only by giving Citizens the freedom of choice,
but also the sense of responsibility
of their choices,
it is possible to develop
an effective reform process of our Democratic system.

■ the need to act on both factors: Information and Politics

The need to act both in the field of Information and in that of the Policy is due to the following considerations

○ A change in Information alone is sterile,
as it cannot lead to any change

(dissident information continues to be censored and legally obstructed)

○ A change in policy
without a change in the way Citizens are informed
does not allow them to choose better Representatives

What to do?

The only possible way to make Western Society work again is therefore to act on both areas of Information and Polis-tics. Otherwise a lame process of change would develop, destined to fail in the long run.

More specifically

it is necessary to bring government processes
back to the dimension in which
Citizens actively participate in satisfying their social needs.

And therefore the problems produced by the manipulation carried out by the institutions for decades must be corrected: the problems of degeneration of Culture (knowledge and civic awareness of Citizens), and the problems of the degeneration of the forms of management of the human community (government) used by man up to to the 1900s.

The way< indicated in the next paragraphs (and in the various documents published on my Sites) are:

► [information] reform information tools and methods.

► [politics] reform the institutions of democracy by bringing them back to their original functions (Reboot of Democracy)

► [media infrastructure] the need to develop new media platforms

█∙ [information] REFORM INFORMATION TOOLS AND METHODS

This chapter of the article “Considerations on the need to innovate the strategies of the Dissidents” illustrates how, as regards the information sector, it is necessary, among other things, that dissident Media abandon the current modalities that lead to not being understood by the majority of Citizens (and therefore, without the support of the people, to be destined to be increasingly censored).

Some specific points of the article are:

● INFORMATION MUST BE MORE EFFECTIVE

It is a question of adopting a radically new way of providing information: which means making a qualitative leap, starting to think “out of the box” (using the “Lateral thinking” of Disruptive innovation).

More specifically, it is about

stop thinking and operating
in the same way as the Mainstream (level of demagogy),
of a communication
for the elite of people who “have already understood”

The problem is in fact that dissident Media (and “opposition” movements) adopt an approach based on the attempt to convince people by operating on the same level as mainstream communication (with arguments “equal and opposite” to those of the Establishment).

That is, they use:

– a demagogic communication, that is, based on the art of obtaining the consent of the masses through a “story”. “Art” that is not able to convey substantial truths, and that

cannot oppose the “truths” of Mainstream
which have the official imprimatur of the “Institutions”.

– a critical, controversial communication: an opposition develops as a “test of strength” with the institutions that can never be won.

Basically

naively proposes a sort of counter-propaganda
that claims to oppose the propaganda of the institutions.

– an elite communication, destined to be understood only by people who “have already understood”, and it is not possible to make the great public understand incontrovertible truths.

In this form of modern information – also adopted by dissidents – one’s Ego is given vent and wants to prove that it is right (like the child in front of his parents).

Therefore, in the information innovation project, the following is proposed:

► more meaningful information, in which words are integrated with supports that make the information more “tangible” (among other things, with a different use of “visual” contributions).

► organic information: in which day by day information is integrated with a broad “knowledgment base”, which creates an organic system in which specific information can be integrated into more general information levels.

► Information conveyed through forms of interaction on a human scale.

That is, with a differentiation of the On demand diffusion from the scheduled one (a concept that is not yet understood by dissident media), and with user interfaces that are more “on a human scale”.

It is therefore a question of taking a step back
before continuing to proceed.

● INFORMATION MUST BE MORE “CONSTRUCTIVE”

To make information more tangible it is necessary that it be directly connected to an experience of the real situation:

that is, the user must practice an experiential path connected to the ‘information.

In order to develop real change in Society, it is therefore necessary to replace the current communication based on the verbal disclosure of news and opinions with “constructive” information.

The current problem is that dissidents (Media and Movements) produce information that in itself is not sufficient to “create knowledge”: because of this, Citizens do not understand the errors committed by the institutions, nor the existence of an effective possibility to change things.

And, since the knowledge process is always an experiential process, from an operational point of view,

► it is necessary to develop initiatives in which
Citizens are brought to participate directly
in the collection of Data/Information
relating to matters of public interest.

In this way people are transformed from passive users of information, into pro-active users towards the topics covered.

(as illustrated in the main article, these are initiatives of real “Scientific research by Citizens”.

█ [politics] REFORMING THE INSTITUTIONS OF DEMOCRACY BY RETURNING THEM TO THEIR ORIGINAL FUNCTIONS

This chapter of the article “Considerations on the need to innovate the strategies of the Dissidents” (cap. “Activation of initiatives complementary to information, which allow Citizens to develop an experiential knowledge process“> illustrates how to actually change things (at least to the point of being free from the current obstruction by the institutions)

► it is necessary that the users of the information
become active Citizens
who participate in the organization
of issues on their territory

It should be noted that the initiatives illustrated here, from a technological point of view, are only a simple evolution of the initiatives indicated in the previous chapter.

The Project outlines initiatives that allow Citizens to develop a de facto power that allows the “popular will” to be taken into consideration by government institutions.

This de facto Power derives substantially from the fact that the Citizens – who with their initiatives produce irrefutable truths – cannot fail to be heard by the Politicians who must then be confirmed in the subsequent elections by the Citizens themselves. <see my text “The acquisition of a new ‘de facto power’”>

With this kind of initiatives you are able to

begin to reconstruct the essence of Democracy,
in which the Demos
was primarily concerned
with the social issues that concern it.

That is, Democracy, due to its characteristics,can only be reconstructed bottom-up, from the Demos which is its essence: only by starting “from the small” (or from the local), with the direct participation of Citizens, is it possible to change things for the better (the idea of being able to rebuild Democracy from above – by electing a “better” political class – is one of the basic contradictions that today prevent real change).

The “Reboot of Democracy” project: a series of articles dedicated to the question of recovering the original qualities of modern Democracy.

The Dissidents, the Opponents of the current pseudo-democratic regime established in Western Democracies (today they are mostly the Conservatives who oppose the reset imposed by the Establishment) today seem to be totally unaware of the fact that they are reduced to chasing the moods – the traps – of the Politics of Establishment, and because of this they continue inexorably to be defeated.

Such opposition should include two fundamental issues:

► if today they put politicians chosen by them to the government, they only obtain the results obtained in recent years: a greater strengthening of the power of the establishment

But even more Dissidents and Opposers should understand that by now

► it is no longer possible to have regular elections:

the Establishment has armored its positions of absolute power.

(for example in the USA the lessons are no longer possible to hold regular elections; and in Italy the prime ministers are no longer elected by the citizens).

It is therefore necessary to start again
ON A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PATH:
with the “Politics by the People”

That is, as explained in my various documents of the “Reboot of Democracy” series, it is a question of taking a step back before taking two steps forward, to first recover the only dimension of the effective process in Democracy: the “Politics” (Government) managed with effective participation of Citizens.

█ [media infrastructure] THE NEED TO DEVELOP NEW MEDIA PLATFORMS

This chapter of the article “Considerations on the need to innovate the strategies of the Dissidents” illustrates how dissident media are inevitably destined to fail due to a fundamental flaw in their strategies: that is, they naively

Dissident media continue
to use channels and tools
made available by the Establishment

In this way they play on the field of the enemy, who is not only the opponent, but is also the referee of the confrontation.

That is, what is not understood is that

in the first place,
the dissident media should do their utmost
to create structures and tools
alternative to those of the Establishment.

For this reason it is defined as a particularly innovative road that offers the following qualities:

● allows you to create, in an easy and cheap way, new Social Networks alternative to those offered today by Big Tech (Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Slack, Disqus, etc….).

● these new social networks constitute a significant innovation of functionality compared to the world of current Social networks, which by choice or by inability to use the new powerful technologies uses obsoletemodels (Facebook, Youtube, etc …).

● the platform constitutes an eco-system in which each Social is integrated with the others. In these social networks, each User has an interface from which he is able to have an overview of his own content (and feedback).

Some of the qualities offered: the contents can be published and managed on multiple social networks, even unknown authors can be admitted to the debate of the “vip” (thanks to a system of references), it is possible to create “constructive initiatives” (illustrated above) with which Citizens organize actions on the territory.

Why and how it is absolutely necessary to change [wake up call-2] -libro