Mind Mastery

For a system that operates in most countries in the world currently, democracy seems to be a seldom understood concept.

There are two types of democracy.

- Modern democracy or pseudo/fake democracy

- Real democracy

Pseudo democracy is what operates in most countries.

It’s a belief based system that your voice is heard and valued if you vote for a political party to rule you.

Real democracy is based upon practical reality.

Pseudo democracies trick you into believing that if you vote once every few years (and if you don’t you’ll be punished) on which ruler you’d prefer boss you around, you’ll be participating in the creation of a better society.

Real democracy presents each individual the opportunity and responsibility on voting for each specific project in their town.

In pseudo democracies, if a state minister/ruler wants to build a police academy in your town, you have no say in the matter.

In a real democracy, when someone presents this idea at a peoples council meeting and the whole community rejects it with not a single person voting in favour, then the project does not go ahead.

If the people want a new natural health facility to be built, their voice counts for nothing if the pseudo democratic minister/ruler does not give his permission.

Even if every single person in the community wants something and it’s only the single lone minister/ruler who disagrees, the minister is the ruler and his voice counts more than everyone else's combined.

Real democracy works on the 51% principle.

If someone proposes a new idea to build a new aged care facility on Jackson avenue and over 51% of people agree and support the idea, then and only then does the construction commence.

In a real democratic society if someone proposes an idea to build a tram line through the centre of town and less than 51% vote in favour, then the project does not go ahead.

In an authentic democratic town, the people may even decide to require 80% of the community’s vote before proceeding with any given project.

It’s up to the people to decide.

Real democracy works when you vote and express your will on each and every single matter that is relevant to you and the community you live in.

For a peoples council in a community to be legitimate, it is recommended that it has at least 51% of the towns total population as active members.

In a town of 10,000 people, over 5,000 people would be necessary for a peoples council to operate ethically as a true expression of the will of the people.

The voting age should be lowered to 12, as nothing should be presented that is so complicated a 12 year couldn't understand.

If a 12 year old cannot comprehend the nature of the proposal, then the proposal is most likely not a good one.

If someone under the age of 12 displays maturity and awareness of the nature of proposals and projects, they may also be able to participate in the peoples council.

We live in a strange world and there do exist children who are more emotionally and metally mature than some adults.
Competency tests to particpate in voting can be constructed in schools to ensure those who wish to become peoples council members are fully capable of casting votes.
A similar process for adults could be considered.


Just because someone is young, does not mean their voice is worthless.

Why should being able to support what you do or don't want in your town be effected just because of your age? Young or old.
If you were young and comprehended the simple process of voting to support what you agreed and disagreed with, would you want that right to be withheld from you because someone else decided that you weren't the correct age according to them?
The moment we begin to start devaluing the voice of our children is the moment we start raising a generation which is guaranteed to be less than their true potential.

It is more important that the proposers and counter proposers state clear and concise arguments then for the voters to be experts on specific concepts.

The duty of explanation for and against projects lies with those who present and counter.

Peoples opinions don't matter if they are not informed, once they are informed, then they matter.

It is our duty to ensure people are always informed before making decisions.

If someone is mentally disabled or slower to intellectually mature than others, then they should not be able to vote as they wouldn't be able to accurately.

This could negatively effect our outcomes if people cannot cast informed votes.

It is more important to inform people of the nature of proposals then it is to convince them.

This way, we can cast a vote according to our own thought process, not someone else’s which has been imposed upon us.

Being able to make up our own minds according to the available presented information is critical for the function of true democratic societies.

You don't have to be exceptionally intelligent or an expert about building bridges to be able to choose the proposal which costs less, needs less volunteers and is a clearly better designed construction.

Simplicity, not complexity, is paramount to successful communities.

The population of the town is determined by available statistics and the town is considered the geographical area inside a border, which can be easily seen on maps by anyone.

If people don’t vote yay or nay for a project, then their voice isn’t heard and their will is not counted.

If there are 10,000 people in Frocksville and 8,000 of them participate in the peoples council as members, which is the management system for the towns community, and only 5,000 people contribute their vote for building a new community jetty on the local lake, 4,200 for and 800 against, it seems practical, fair and efficient to use this statistic as an accurate method for the peoples decision to build the jetty.

Even though there are 10,000 people in Frocksville, not everyone voted.

8,000 people are members of the peoples council and have declared that they are interested in the towns management and want to vote on projects.

Although, only 5,000 people did cast a vote for or against the jetty project.

If the total population of the town had voted, 51% would have been 5,100.

In this instance, out of the total population and the peoples council members, only half the actual population voted, 5,000 people.

Because only 5,000 people decided to have their say, then it seems reasonable to only take into account those people who decided to participate in the decision of constructing a new community jetty and cast a vote.


The 2,000 people who do not wish to participate in the peoples council and their community's management have the right to not participate, but not to complain about the jetty being built or any other community matter as they are not actively participating and contributing.

If there are 8,000 people of the community of Frocksville who are members of the peoples council, yet only 5,000 vote, then the 51% principle applies to only those who chose to participate in the actual voting.

If 5,000 people voted on the proposal of the jetty construction, then it would require 2501 people to vote in support for it to be approved by the majority.

In this case, there were 4,200 who voted in favour, an overwhelming majority, so the project was given the green light by most of the voluntarily participants of Frocksville.

Whoever proposes the idea of the project would present their reasoning, through a power point presentation, video or via some written method.

The initial person or people against the proposed idea would present a counter argument why the proposal should not go ahead.

These for and against presentations would be presented live at a peoples council meeting and would be recorded and uploaded to the community app and any other associated social media groups or platforms.

We’ll make it easy for people to be aware of the projects proposal and easy to find more information about both sides.

For people to cast an accurate vote, they must be able to become informed of the pros and cons of both sides.

Making sure that the voting method is legitimate and cannot be rigged is very easy.

We use a paper and digital method to ensure accuracy and that anyone can verify the legitimacy of the vote, anytime.

There would be a paper notebook in the community town hall titled with each project.

The notebook is separated into for and against the specific project.

Peoples council members would sign their name on numbered line for or against.

Example

Jetty construction – Opening proposal date 24th june 2023 – closing date 24th july 2023

For
1. Signed name
2. Signed name
Etc…

Against
1. Signed name
2. Signed name
Etc…

The notebooks would be stored in the town hall, allowing everyone to cast their vote and for everyone to be able to verify the legitimacy of the votes.

Each new project requires a new notebook.

The notebooks are kept after the decision has been made for future reference.

Each proposal should be allowed 1 month to give the people enough time to decide which side or idea they support.

If the entire community decides to vote in less than one month, then a decision can obviously be made quicker.

The same system can be used via the online digital community app.

It would just look like a digital version of the physical paper notebook, which again anyone can verify and cannot be corrupted.

There would be a page for the specific project and inside that page a for and against category.

You simply write your name down, yes or no.

That’s it. Everyone can see your name and how you voted and you can see everyone else's.

The need for secrecy in such important decisions is the surest way to create corruption, just as we have now.

You have nothing to hide and everything to show by having your voice count.

There is no way to cheat in this system and doesn't rely on trusting anyone for the accuracy of votes because it is such a simple and effective method.

Unlike current pseudo democratic systems, this system cannot be rigged.

If someone does try and write their name down more than once or use fake names, they can be easily caught out by anyone.

Actual democracy does not work only via representatives, this is a trap of pseudo democracy to steal all of your power.

In fake democracies we are tricked into consenting once via voting, then they use the excuse that because you consented to vote, you therefore consent to everything else the “elected representative” does there on after.

Whether you agree or disagree with the representatives choices is inconsequential, you gave them your permission to exercise your will by voting for them to be in charge of you.

Even if you willingly voted for your ruler of choice, how much say did you have over their second in command, advisers and associated ‘experts?

This is obviously a poorly designed system as no one man or woman is ever going to be able to exercise your will the way you would.

It’s your will and belongs to you, you should be responsible and have the power to use it as you desire.

Your will does not need to be re-presented when you can present it yourself, via presentation or vote at peoples council meetings or via a dedicated community app.

In fake democracies, you can only vote for people, when you are allowed to.

In real democracies, you vote for ideas, whenever those ideas are presented.

There are exceptions when it comes to representatives, such as in times of war, but these are exceptions and should NOT be the rule.

You would not be able to vote for whether or not a tunnel should be built beneath a town halfway across your country.

Because you don’t live there personally, the outcome doesn't effect you personally.

It seems fair that the people who live or work in a specific town have the right to manage it the way they see fit without outside influences.

Of course, if you still did wish for a tunnel to be built under a far away town because you could see the benefit but the towns people could not, you could ask to present a persuasive argument at a town meeting with the pros and cons of why a tunnel should be built there.

The towns people can either accept or reject the proposal.

If the people don’t change their mind after seeing your presentation, then so be it.

If they do, great for everyone.

When considering national parks and state forests, would it not be reasonable to divide the land up evenly between the surrounding towns?

The idea of proximity management makes the most rational sense as opposed to our current non-localised and uninvolved management.

Our current method of managing land is quite bizarre, somehow a very small group of people wearing fancy suits that many if not most people did not vote for, have exclusive right to land that is no where near where they live or work.

It’s an absurd management system that does not seem to obey logic, only special interests groups and their desire for power over other peoples local resources.

If a ‘crown’ ‘state’ or ‘national’ forest is near a town, that closest town/s and it’s collective community/s should have the management rights, not a group of people 1,000ks away in a different city.

Why? Because the forest or land is geographically closer to those people and it only makes sense that the people who live the closest should have the most right in deciding how they use their land.

If a resource is discovered in an unoccupied area of land in the middle of an uninhabited area, then the closest town/s and townspeople should be able to decide how they manage those resources.

If there is an unclaimed and unused area of land in a town that holds resources, like a mineral deposit or timber forest, then the community can take collective ownership of these resources and decide how they would like to use them.

If that unclaimed land ‘belongs’ to the government, then it really doesn't and actually belongs to the people, because who’s will is the government meant to represent anyway?

If it belongs to a private individual or corporation, the people can arrange meetings with the current owners to decide the best way forwards.

Perhaps the community all chip in and buy that land at a reasonable price from the current private owner, which would be a fair exchange.

If the current owner is unwilling to co-operate, there may be grounds to take the matter to an independent arbitration centre based upon dishonest and unethical behaviour.

If someone is deliberately restricting resources from others, not because they are using them, but because they don't want others to have them, then this can be considered a crime.

If what they are doing on the land is causing harm to others and the environment, such as dumping toxic material into a river, poisoning the soil, fracking, venting toxic fumes into the air or emitting harmful EMF radiation, then action can and must be taken to prevent them from breaking The Lore.

That action would be to follow the ladder of escalation.

The use of defensive force is only to be used if all other methods have been used to no effect.

It’s always best to ask someone nicely to stop what they are doing before moving onto the handing of paperwork.

Do you think it would be appropriate to use defensive force against an individual or corporation that was actively causing harm to your towns environment and in effect, the people that live there?

After you had exhausted all peaceful solutions, of course.

Do you feel that you and the towns folk would have the right to use force and defend each other and your land by from dangerous agitators who ignore reason and all means of peaceful co-operation?

That’s up to the community to decide.

Just remember, when it comes to morality and ethics, you always have the right to defend yourself from destructive opponents.

It there’s not a problem, don’t initiate one, if there is, solve it.

It is illogical, impractical and inefficient to have someone or a group of people who are not in the local area act as a ruling authority and decide how a community manages their resources.

Everyone is free to suggest how a town should or should not manage their resources, but no one is free to dictate through violence how a community is to manage their resources.

Rulers exist in pseudo democratic nations.

Leaders exist in real democracies societies.

In real democracies, you have the power to influence change and have your voice heard, in every single decision of consequence.

In pseudo democracies you don’t.

All you have is the coercive threat that you must pick your preferred ruler until the next time you are again forced to pick either the same, or slightly different ruler. That’s it!

Whether or not the voting is rigged or all the political party’s actually work for the banks is irrelevant.

As the fundamental structure is flawed.

Even if only good honest people were to be elected, it’s still an awful system that is unfair, unjust and a waste or resources and talent.

Watch this video “If Your Were King” to see how it's practically impossible to be a 'good' king.

The whole structure of a pseudo democracy is built upon the concept of a ruling class with more rights, privileges and benefits than the rest.

It doesn't matter how good or honest you are, you can’t magically be voted into a special job and gain more rights and powers than others.

Especially if people didn't even choose you to boss them around!

Immigration and restricting peoples movements just because they are from a different piece of land than you is an interesting subject.

If the community of Frocksville had a majority vote to allow anyone and everyone who agreed to abide by their same Utopian philosophy to visit and live in their town, then why would people in any other town feel they have the moral right to violently stop specific people living in a town which they are welcome?

Why even have the idea of borders, if not as a means to dominate and control people by taking their precious freedom?

This world equally belongs to all who live on it.

The idea of having bordered countries is too broad of an idea to have any real logic behind it, only opinion and feelings.

In uncivilised monetary and involuntary societies that divide themselves into categories via country borders, sure, this can make some sense.

But in peaceful and civilised human societies, on the local town community level, this does not make sense.

If you wanted to travel to another country, essentially just a different area of land on the same earth we all live communally on, because a local town in that country had invited you to visit, should other people in a different town have the right to violently stop you from peacefully visiting the town which invited you in?

Of course not, no one has the right to initiate violence against a non-violent and peaceful person.

If you simply wanted to visit somewhere else in the world, while of course being peaceful, how can anyone justify using violence to stop you from freely travelling?

All you’re doing is moving your body over land to place yourself in a different position on the earth.

You’re not breaking any Lore’s Of Morality, you’re not trespassing on someones private property or breaking into their home.

So now the question that may be raised is, ‘well isn’t the land and country owned by the people who live there and if you go there without permission, you are now trespassing on public land’?

Would the locals require permission from anyone else to walk down the street, go to the park, or drive along the roads?

No, so why should you?

Can a local just walk into anyone's house without permission or enter a fenced property just because they want to?

No, so obviously you can’t either.

Why make different rules for different people?

Why should the rules of where a local can go be different to where a visitor can go?

We can’t live in a world of equality if some people abide by different rules than others, no the rules must stay consistent and fair for everyone.

If a huge influx of foreigners began to arrive in your country and appeared to be ready for an armed invasion, then sure, that’s an appropriate time to act.

Having border policies wouldn't have prevented the invasion and hardly would have delayed it.

If a huge influx of foreigners came to your town and your towns people didn't like them, well then that is your right.

You don’t have to allow them access to your stores or business’s, you don't have to sell or offer land to them.

If they were desperate refugees, that’s up to you the individual and the town as a whole as to what aid you do or do not offer them.

If they are refugees, they may be quite open to the idea of supporting your new Utopian town and may become a great asset and even greater friends.

But as long as these foreigners, who should be treated the same as everyone else, behave in a peaceful way and don’t violate The Lore, then what is the problem?

The real problem is the mental conditioning we have received from war mongers who have successfully installed divide and conquer strategies into our minds.

We just have to uninstall that corrupt program and look at things clearly, as they are in reality, not as they are according to psychopathic rulers.

If in a worst case scenario the foreigners begin peaceful and then try to take over the town, you have the community protectors, militia and ideally everyone armed.

Not to mention that you can call upon the aid of other sovereign towns in the Utopian Alliance.

If all we have to worry about is terrorists coming from outside our country, then we are lucky.

Compared to what we have now, terrorists coming from the inside and working for pariliament.

In a Utopian society, we are far better protected than a dystopian society.

Comfort comes from strength. Fear comes from weakness.

If we are strong, well prepared and well organised, then we have nothing to fear by being hospitable and expanding our community.

All the world is ours, let’s treat other people like our brothers and sisters, and maybe they will treat us the same.

In real democracy, the leaders and supporters stand side by side.

No one is on a pedestal and no one is kneeling.

Shoulder to shoulder, arm in arm, we all march together with a common goal.

Peace.

To learn more about real democracy and witness it in action, read this short story.

The Third Utopian Principle Of Democracy is critical for the true will of the people to be enacted.