« 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 »
The inability of a child to thrive in a Constitutionally protected God based perpetual threat and rape culture is not a fault of the child; however it does become their odious responsibility upon reaching adulthood to resolve the harms done to them. The Christian religion at its core is a toxic mechanism whereby intergenerational trauma is kept alive, active, and deeply embedded in each new generation, as it has done over the past 2,000+ years.
#955
What if the system we’ve been sold as “democracy” is, in practice, a mechanism for electing the next dictator?
PUBLISHED: June 11, 2025 03:11:11 AM UPDATED: No Updates
Every few years, citizens in democratic nations head to the polls, casting ballots in what is heralded as the cornerstone of freedom: open public elections. We’re told our vote matters, that it shapes the future, that it holds leaders accountable. Yet, time and again, the outcome feels eerily similar—a new face, perhaps, but the same concentration of power, the same disconnect from the people’s needs, the same march toward centralized control. What if the system we’ve been sold as “democracy” is, in practice, a mechanism for electing the next dictator?
This isn’t hyperbole. When a single individual or a small elite wields disproportionate influence over a nation’s laws, economy, and social direction—often for years at a time—we’re not far from autocracy dressed in democratic clothing. The problem lies not in the act of voting itself but in the structure of a system that funnels power upward, away from the people, and into the hands of a few. Today, in 2025, we have the tools, technology, and collective wisdom to do better—much better. This post explores the failures of our current “every-so-often” voting model and proposes a radical yet achievable vision for a democracy where the people hold true power and control over their country’s direction.
At its core, the modern electoral system is a snapshot process: citizens vote once every few years, and the winner assumes near-total control until the next cycle. In the United States, for example, a president serves a four-year term with significant executive authority—issuing orders, appointing officials, and shaping foreign and domestic policy. In parliamentary systems, prime ministers often hold similar sway, backed by party loyalty. Even in local elections, mayors or governors can act with minimal oversight between ballots.
This setup creates what political theorist Hannah Arendt might have recognized as a latent authoritarianism. Once elected, leaders face few structural checks on their power. Sure, there are constitutions, judiciaries, and legislatures, but these are often slow, politicized, or beholden to the same elite class. The average citizen’s influence begins and ends at the ballot box. For the next several years, their role is reduced to spectator, hoping their chosen leader doesn’t stray too far from campaign promises.
Proponents of periodic elections argue that they ensure accountability: if leaders underperform, they’re voted out. But this assumes a level playing field that rarely exists. Incumbents benefit from name recognition, fundraising networks, and media access. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and disinformation further tilt the scales. In the 2024 U.S. election cycle, for instance, reports highlighted how algorithmic echo chambers on platforms like X amplified polarized narratives, making it harder for voters to access unfiltered information. The result? Choices shaped less by reason than by manipulation.
Moreover, the time lag between elections allows leaders to prioritize short-term optics or elite interests over long-term public good. By the time voters can “hold them accountable,” the damage is done—whether it’s economic mismanagement, environmental neglect, or eroded civil liberties. The cycle repeats, with each new leader inheriting a system designed to consolidate power, not distribute it.
Periodic voting also fosters a subtle but pervasive sense of powerlessness. Citizens are conditioned to believe that democracy means choosing between pre-approved candidates every few years, not actively shaping their society. This learned helplessness is evident in declining voter turnout—globally, participation has trended downward, with only 66% of eligible voters casting ballots in OECD countries in recent years, per the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. When people feel their vote changes nothing, they disengage, ceding even more control to the system.
In essence, our current model doesn’t empower the people; it manages them. It’s a system that, intentionally or not, produces leaders who function as temporary dictators, accountable more to donors, parties, and media than to the public. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
To dismantle the elective dictatorship, we must reimagine democracy from the ground up. The goal is a system where power resides with the people—not just in rhetoric but in practice. Here are the core principles for such a system:
With these principles in mind, let’s explore a new model for democracy—one that harnesses 21st-century tools to empower the people like never before.
Enter liquid democracy, a hybrid system that blends representative and direct democracy to maximize participation and flexibility. In a liquid democracy, citizens can either vote directly on issues or delegate their vote to a trusted representative—a friend, expert, or community leader. Unlike traditional elections, delegation is fluid: you can change your delegate at any time, and delegates can further delegate votes, creating a dynamic network of trust.
Imagine a national platform where citizens log in to vote on policies—say, a new climate bill or education reform. If you’re too busy or lack expertise, you delegate your vote to someone whose judgment you trust, perhaps a local scientist for environmental issues or a teacher for education. This person isn’t a politician with a four-year mandate; they’re a fellow citizen, accountable to you and revocable at any moment. Votes are tallied in real-time, ensuring decisions reflect the collective will.
Liquid democracy addresses the flaws of periodic voting in several ways:
Liquid democracy is only half the equation. To ensure decisions are informed, not impulsive, we need digital deliberation platforms. These are online spaces where citizens discuss, debate, and refine proposals before voting. Think of it as a supercharged town hall, accessible to millions.
Such platforms already exist in embryonic form. Taiwan’s vTaiwan initiative, for example, uses tools like Polis to facilitate large-scale, constructive dialogue. Citizens weigh in on issues like gig economy regulations, with AI clustering responses to identify common ground. The result is policy that reflects nuanced public consensus, not polarized shouting matches. In 2025, with advancements in natural language processing (like those powering tools such as Grok), we can scale this globally, translating discussions across languages and summarizing complex debates for accessibility.
Digital deliberation ensures that liquid democracy doesn’t devolve into mob rule. By combining structured debate with voting, it fosters what philosopher Jürgen Habermas called “communicative rationality”—decisions grounded in reason and mutual understanding.
Technology is the backbone of this new democracy. Blockchain, for instance, can secure voting and delegation, ensuring transparency and tamper-proof records. Each vote or delegation is logged on a public ledger, verifiable by anyone. Projects like Ethereum-based voting systems have already shown promise in small-scale experiments, and scaling them is now feasible.
AI, meanwhile, can enhance deliberation by moderating discussions, flagging misinformation, and summarizing debates. Tools like Grok, with their ability to process vast datasets, could analyze public sentiment, identify blind spots in proposals, and suggest compromises—all while remaining neutral and transparent. The key is to keep these technologies open-source and community-governed, preventing corporate or state capture.
No transformation is without hurdles. Here are the main challenges to implementing liquid democracy and digital deliberation, along with solutions:
Not everyone has reliable internet or tech literacy. In 2025, 2.6 billion people remain offline, per the International Telecommunication Union. Solution: Governments and NGOs must invest in universal broadband and digital education, prioritizing marginalized communities. Offline voting options, like secure kiosks, can bridge the gap temporarily.
Online platforms are vulnerable to propaganda and bots. Solution: Robust moderation, powered by AI and human oversight, can filter out bad actors. Public media literacy campaigns, already gaining traction in places like Finland, can teach citizens to spot disinformation.
Continuous participation risks overwhelming or disengaging citizens. Solution: Make participation intuitive and rewarding. Gamify engagement with badges for contributing to debates, and use AI to personalize notifications, highlighting issues relevant to each user’s interests.
Those who benefit from the current system—politicians, corporations, media—may resist change. Solution: Grassroots movements, amplified by platforms like X, can build momentum. Pilot programs in smaller jurisdictions, like cities or states, can demonstrate success, creating pressure for national adoption.
Imagine a country where every major decision—budget allocations, climate policies, healthcare reforms—reflects the deliberated will of its citizens. No more waiting four years to “vote the bums out.” No more leaders acting as temporary dictators. Instead, a vibrant, responsive democracy where power flows from the bottom up.
In this system, a single mother in rural Appalachia has as much say as a tech mogul in Silicon Valley. A teacher in Lagos can delegate her vote to a trusted economist, then reclaim it when she feels strongly about an education bill. A farmer in Punjab can join a global deliberation on sustainable agriculture, his voice amplified by AI translation. This isn’t utopia—it’s a practical evolution, built on tools we already have.
We’re not starting from scratch. Beyond Taiwan’s vTaiwan, other experiments point the way:
These cases prove the concept works. The challenge is scaling it while preserving inclusivity and security.
The current system of periodic elections, with its illusion of choice and concentration of power, is a relic of a less connected age. It produces leaders who, however well-intentioned, function as elective dictators, disconnected from the people they claim to serve. But in 2025, we have the technology, the ideas, and the urgency to build something better.
Liquid democracy and digital deliberation offer a path to true people’s power—a democracy where every voice matters, every day. It’s not a quick fix; it requires investment, experimentation, and collective will. But the alternative is more of the same: a cycle of disillusionment, disengagement, and centralized control.
Let’s stop electing dictators. Let’s start empowering ourselves. The tools are here. The time is now. Join the conversation on platforms like X, share this vision, and demand a democracy that truly belongs to the people.
Find me on X.com || New ID on Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon.Social || Strangeminds.Social
2023 Findings in Spain found that 0.6% of the population of Spain had been sexually abused by Roman Catholic priests and laity. Up to 50 million alive on any day who have been raped or abused by Catholic clergy &/or Catholic laity
Current world population is 8 billion - 0.6% = 48 million alive today who are likely to have been raped by Catholics globally.
The church protected the perpetrators, not the victims
"This is a matter for the church and I respect the internal judgements of the church. I don't stand outside the church and provide them with public lectures in terms of how they should behave. I've noted carefully what his Holiness has said in the United States. Obviously that was a source of great comfort and healing in the United States. I'm like all Australians very much looking forward to what the Pope has to say here in Australia as well, as I am to my own conversation with the Pope later this morning." Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia, 17 July 2008. more
If you found this information to be of assistance please don't forget to donate so that we can extend these information pages which are focused on providing knowledge and information to survivor/victims on their Human Rights with justice, compassion and empathy at the fore along with sound knowledge of Human Biology and Psychology, Human Evolution and Neuroscience. Information is not provided as legal or professional advice; it is provided as general information only and requires that you validate any information via your own legal or other professional service providers.
Wednesday, 22 June 2022 - I may not have this down syntax, word and letter perfect or
with
absolute precision in every aspect; however time and the evidence will show that I am closer to the truth than
any religion has been or will likely be.
Let history be the standard by which that is measured.
Youtube - listen to Commissioner Bob
Atkinson get it wrong - again
The Commissioner informs us that the clergy sexual abuse issue was all over and that it had only been a
small statistical glitch around the year 2000. History shows this to have been a display of absolute ignorance
on the issue ...
Makarrata : a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination. The Uluru Statement from the Heart. See Yours, mine and Australia's children. I acknowledge the Traditional People and their Ownership of Australia.
#FAQyMe #FAQyMeGene trauma informed human rights justice failed institutions UN Convention on Human Rights Rights of the Child and a Bill of Rights for Australia future evidence resilience not providing or representing a secular Australia autodidact Constitutional Reform human rights Living Constitution Constitution Field Guide
Hegemony: The authority, dominance, and influence of one group, nation, or society over another group, nation, or society; typically through cultural, economic, or political means.
Mother and baby home survivors on redress delay:
'They are playing a game of wait and die'
Consultants
reported more than 520 conflicts of interest during audit of Australian aged care
2024 is the year of Survivor's High Court challenge of the legitimacy of the Catholic Church and its religion on the basis of its primary allegiance and obedience to a foreign state.
The FAQyMe Gene happily uses IP2Location.io IP geolocation web service.