Written Essay: Pro-Democracy Series #8: Telling People What To Do

Within any free society or in more actuality, a society that strives to honestly try and move toward being more free, there is one thing that should be paramount. And it is what was just stated....drumroll... freedom. What is freedom? An initial Webster's 1828 definition of freedom states it as: "A state of exemption from the power or control of another; liberty; exemption from slavery, servitude or confinement" - personal, civil, political, and religious. With a secondary, more simple definition being "Any exemption from constraint or control". Now within reality in modern society, we (being all individuals) should have the most freedom possible, within certain rules of course. Primarily which should contain the caveat of "not incurring injury or loss". To other property, people, and in a more sophisticated society, within aspects of nature as well. Unless you're going to live off the land and self impose being part of nature's brutal food chain by foraging and hunting, in which you need to incur occasional injury to other creatures and in most extreme cases, do viking style skull cracking followed by potential cannibalism to maintain sustenance during the brutal winter. Instead within modern political and civil society that's not the Purge, which is shared with your fellow women men, one does not have the freedom to say they're going to kill their neighbor without consequence, nor does one have the freedom to steal from their neighbor without consequence, nor does one have the freedom to kill their neighbor as an aggressor without consequence. Because all of which would be incurring injury and or loss.

Regardless of the rules set by laws, there is no way that any law maker would ever come into office by offering to limit the populace's freedom through enacting new rules and laws under their policies. So regardless of party or political orientation, one always has to market themselves on being pro freedom and in more extreme cases claim their opposition may want to even limit individual freedoms. However, a certain type of politician that is for progress (going forward) promotes real freedom from the two definitions stated prior and means it, because it's democratic freedom within a hopefully conscious and educated voting populace, while another type of politician that is for regress (going backwards), promises freedom, but has to lie about it because it's pho-authoritarian freedom which takes on another hidden element. And in this essay we give you a basic deconstruction of what that element is.

If you, like the majority, are pro-democratic, you want the most people possible to have a say in the selection of their representatives. Those whose policies actually do this are called populist. This comprises what is called the "proletariat", Who are the social class of wage-earners, those members of a society whose primary possession of significant economic value is their labor power. They make up 99.9% of society in the 3rd world and 90% of society in the first world. Then you have 1% to 10% of the society called the "bourgeoisie", who are a class of business owners and merchants which emerged in the Late Middle Ages, originally as a "middle class" between peasants and aristocracy. They are traditionally contrasted with the proletariat by their wealth, political power, and education, as well as their access to and control of cultural, social and financial capital. Who under democratic systems, also have a say, but unfortunately a very disproportionate amount of power. A long con is to make people from the proletariat think they are part of the bourgeoisie, when they are not. There are members of the proletariat who are pro-democratic and there are members of the bourgeoisie who are pro-democratic. However, when one is pro-authoritarian, they are the opposite of being pro-democratic because the pro democratic coalition wants both to have their say - that's why they can be truthful, while the pro-authoritarian minority only wants their small minority who happen to be the bourgeoisie and none of the proletariat to have a say, that's why they have to lie and spin. So we have continued and will continue to juxtapose in this series one who is pro-democracy vs one who is pro-authoritarian. As authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, no matter how crap, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.

In our country, the United States, we are not a true democracy. If we were every citizen would vote on each piece of legislation proposed both at a state and federal level. Although there are advantages to that way of governing and due to technical advances from when our country began we should move toward being more like that with perhaps some sort of system similar to the reddit upvote dynamic. All initially done on analogue paper of course and we will get much more into the heart of democracy which is "voting" later in this series. We instead are still currently a "democratically elected constitutional republic" in which we elect representatives to create and vote on legislation. And as a result, unfortunately have only two primary parties named after this system. One is the more left leaning centrist party called the Democrats who are interested in people and the other is the more right leaning party called the Republicans that's interested in property.

Although we are politically independent, meaning we do not tie ourselves to be a member of either of these specific parties, and have in the past voted across multiple parties, our voting history has primarily extended across parties that use colors such as blue and green. The green is a small third party but the blue is the Democrats, which we wish were even better because they suck ass at messaging and are still a corporate lite middle of the road party. However, they are the more balanced party (and this is a podcast one aspect of which is based in seeking balance) and are comprised of a spectrum of quite liberal people to quite moderate conservative people - who comprise part of a pro-democratic coalition, and for the most part, have representatives which actually work to represent the proletariat and are generally the more truthful of the two main parties. The other main party in the United States, the Republican party, is red and ever since we were a young tween, because we were not indoctrinated into extremist imperial religion which is the foundation of the whole party, knew it was a crew whose tactic was to divide and conquer by spreading fear and or full hate. And because they have always only really been conserved with representing the corporate bourgeoisie class it has always had to pretend it's for democracy but has never really ever quite been so and is instead just about power and control over the proletariat. Even though that's been the playbook of the party our whole life, being the less truthful of the two parties, in more recent years it has degraded heavily into becoming something that's not conservative, in the true since of the word, but has transmuted into a fascism meets idiocracy authoritarian clown show lie with every breath cult. Which is now saying some of the quiet parts out loud including sometimes openly announcing its hostility to democracy.

While we will get more into deconstructing this later in this series, a gentleman named Ethan Grey who was once in the red cult, and was strong enough to leave, gave an excellent simple deconstruction to its past and present messaging on freedom. Which the corporate legacy media (meaning even the networks outside of the full propaganda media) have, in our lifetime, done a crap job of having any direct conversation about with the American people because they are, for the most part, corporate networks who seem to be A-okay with fascism lite. Why? Sadly because they are not interested in being real hard hitting journalists that speak truth to power who fight the bourgeoisie man but instead work for the bourgeoisie man because they know they can make more money doing so. Hence, the sad state of the

fourth estate is if one wants to speak truth to power and hard call out liars has to go outside the main to do that. Which is resulting in an old paradigm fourth estate, that won't structurally fix the messaging problem, flowering a new fourth estate to take over in the old ones place. With this series being one aspect of us doing our part to help with that. So you will hear this deconstruction on an obscure podcast rather than on corporate media. By a random guy, who happens to be us - combined with Ethan, a former cult member who had the strength, will power, and spiritual development to de-program himself and get out of a cult, and deserves compliments for doing so. Here are his insights along with our insights, on the red cult's messaging on everything of importance:

1. You cannot tell them what to do.
2. They can tell you what to do.

You've watched the Republican Party champion the idea of "freedom" while you have also watched the same party openly assault various freedoms, like the freedom to vote, freedom to choose, freedom to have what books you want available at the public library, and freedom to marry who one wants and so on. If this has been a source of confusion, then your assessments of what Republicans mean by “freedom” were likely too generous. Here’s what they and other authoritarian parties throughout the world mean by freedom - for themselves and their members alone:

1. The Freedom from being told what to do.
2. The freedom to tell people what to do.

So with this in mind, let’s examine some of our political issues with an emphasis on who is telling who what to do. And there will be no ambiguity about what the world's authoritarian parties' underlying basic actions are ever again. Not what is said, but what they attempt to do. Starting with the COVID-19 pandemic, origins aside and pharmaceutical industry profits and greed and greed from maximizing profits aside, which are whole other stories, we were told by experts in infectious diseases across the world that to control the spread of the pan and if you're more conspiracy minded plandemic, it would be wise to socially distance, which on a side note is a terrible term - As we are social beings who desperately need social connection. So way better to call it "temporarily physically distance"... thus we were told by them to temporarily physically distance, wear masks in public spaces, and get vaccinated. So, in a general sense, we were being told what to do. Guess who had a big problem with that? All Republicans saw were certain people trying to tell them what to do,

which was enough of a reason to make it their chief priority to insist that they will not be told what to do. Even though what they were told to do could be said to save lives, including their own. As you can see, this is a very stunning commitment to refusing to be told what to do and in many cases was used as an excuse to do the exact opposite. So during this time we saw corporate grifting regressive collectivist dogmatic false Christian cult churches of Empire who hate science and know nothing of spirituality packed together for service without a mask in sight while we saw more true and moderate science accepting churches of unity encouraging their attendees to wear KN95's during their services as well as indigenous people hiking miles to get vaccinated.

On the room splitting subject of abortion, which we touched on prior in this series and congrats if you're still listening, claims of being "pro-life" are actually "forced birth don't care about life" by patriarchs who want to disempower women. But Republicans will nevertheless use marketing spin to claim to be the “pro-life” party because they recognize “pro-life” marketing lies can be used to tell people what to do - especially the female half of the species. The reason they lie about being “pro-life” when they are trying to tell women what to do with their bodies is not out of genuine concern for human life, but because they recognize that in this position, they can tell women what to do and claim it's about another life. That’s why when you use that same appeal “pro-life” toward asking Republicans to help pass legislation regarding doing something about gun violence in schools, it doesn’t work. Because there is no bigger subject for them than the second amendment "the right to bear arms" because on their end they are pro-violence and on your end in order to couple common sense rules with that right you are now in the position of telling authoritarian ammosexuals what to do and that’s precisely why they don’t want to do anything about it - hence you get "come and take it" and "from my cold dead hands" bumper stickers. So for a party that claims to care about life but is really an end times death cult, gun violence in schools is not a problem, but their children having to wear masks in schools is. Because somebody outside of their cult is telling their children what to do. Since the primary trait of modern American Republicanism is being selfish, someone else's dead children bother them significantly less than someone else telling their children what to do. Only *they* should do that because they are patriarchal extremist religionists who view their children as their property. Especially their daughters.

They claim to be for “small government”, but that really means a government that tells them what to do should be as small as possible but when the Republican Party recognizes it has an opportunity to tell people what to do, they are more than happy to grow government and have long had Deep State envy. Real or illusionary.

The reason Republicans are always so infatuated with the border, specifically the one connecting the USofA to Mexico, isn’t because they care about border security, it’s because they recognize it as the most glaring example of when they can tell other people what to do - specifically poor brown people. And if it's poor brown women that's extra icing on their hate cake. That's why it’s their favorite issue. You want in? Too bad. We tell you what to do and you have no say. If Republicans could do this in every social space, tell the people who aren’t like them too bad, get the fuck out - that would be something resembling their ideal society.

There are economic policies that we can demonstrate would be of obvious benefit to all voters. Including Republican ones from the proletariat who have been conned by decades of mainlining propaganda TV networks and AM hate squawk radio into acting against their own interests on behalf of the bourgeoisie. So how do Republican leaders kill potential support for these policies? Make the issue about who is telling who what to do. So for example, if we were a Labor or Green Party politician who said we're going to raise taxes on the top 1% of income earners so godzillionaires can have only 2 gulf stream jets instead of 5 gulf stream jets and in exchange we can have higher nationwide salaries for public school teachers. The framing from the red cult would be that someone outside of their party are the people telling their cult members what to do. If you want to know why Republicans can easily be talked out of proposals from green, blue, and other non-red cult parties that are shown to be of benefit to them, it is precisely because they have to entertain the idea of someone like Democrats telling their flock what to do. What should be understood here from the very beginning is that you are dealing with a worst case scenario mean and selfish bully with no heart, a corrupted mind, but a lot of will on an elementary schoolyard who says no one but them should ultimately be in the position to tell anyone what to do. Only they can do that - hence they are the authority - hence they are authrotarian.

On the issue of anthropogenic climate change, in Australia, the United Kingdom, and America, primarily influenced by Murdoch mind rotting propaganda networks in those three nations, we're now at a point where many regressives in those countries don’t regard it as a serious issue to the extent that they think it is a liberal hoax. The causes of climate change aside, in regards to the environment of our beautiful planet, there are two types of people on the subject. The type who want to use our lands, rivers, skies, and oceans as toilets and those who do not. We are on the side of both David Attenborough, the indigenous, and eviormentalists and are a strong advocate for not using them as toilets as we have been for the last couple centuries since the industrial revolution began. So when putting forth policies to support such things, and doing so involves telling Republicans to do something for the sake of the planet, you are still ultimately telling them what to do. Furthermore, you are conceiving the planet as not only a potential spiritual ecosystem, but as something alive and important that all human beings should have to share in an ecological balance. Since American Regressive's underlying foundation is based on the religions of the empire, not only do they have no interest in sharing it but think God put those things here for them to colonize, conquest, and extract for prosperity gospel profit. Which is a paramount example of their de-spiritualization.

Now here’s where things get interesting: when you explain to Republicans you want them to do something and explain it’s on the basis of benefitting other people and the environment by not using it as a toilet, then you have really crossed a line. Not only did you tell them what to do, you told them to consider other humans and living creatures. The whole point of an arrangement where you can tell people what to do, but you can’t be told what to do, is precisely to avoid having to consider others. This is why this is their ideal arrangement: so they don’t have to do that. This is why this is a very toxic school yard bully relationship with the idea of who can tell who what to do. So much so that it seems like the entire point is to conceive of a “right” kind of person who can tell other people what to do without being told what to do doesn't it? So let’s add one more component to this dysfunctional dark imperial shadow mindset for who tells who what to do.

1.There are “right” human beings and there are "wrong" ones.
2. The “right” ones get to tell the “wrong” ones what to do.
3. The “wrong” ones do not tell the “right” ones what to do.

As you can see, we've been hinting at what past essays in this pro democratic series have built upon in regards to anti-democratic authoritarian ideology. Which is who the authoritarian views as their "right people" - Which in Liberia or Sierra Leone are crazy black authoritarian warlord fascists with child soldier armies who pretend to have something to do with Christianity, in Saudi Arabia or Iran are brown extremist fundamentalist muslims that pervert Islam and smash statues from ancient Persia with sledgehammers, in Myanmar are

autocratic military state asian generals trying to weaponize Buddhism, and in the United States are "Straight only allowed White Male Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASPs) who are false Christian Supremacists and not real love thy neighbor Christians. All of which are cults so large that they prop up the accompanying caste systems structures. While in each case, the "wrong people" are everyone else in the multi-philosophical, multi-science, multi-faith, multi-ethnic worldwide pro-democratic coalition that makes up the majority of the population. Hence, if you're in the cult, you're considered "right", but if you're not in the cult, you're considered "wrong" and we'll be heading over into the nested layers of cults, in the next essay in this series.