Do Not Waste Your Time!
A pirated (changed) book may considerably confuse you since the genuine book represents approximately eight hours of uninterrupted reading.
The authentic electronic book can only be obtained from www.endoldpoliticsnow.org
If your budget does not allow the expense (for the unemployed or low income earner for example), the book can be downloaded free of charge at a certain time of the month.
The Ebook is not genuine if this notice is not present at the beginning of your Ebook although its presence does not guarantee that it is genuine if it has not been acquired from www.endoldpoliticsnow.org.
Both www.endoldpoliticsnow.org and www.nobla.org contain this notice.
The terms "Old Politics" and "New Politics" are abundantly used every time politics is blamed for its limitations or for its bad influence or its bad behaviour.
But although the authors always have convincing explanations to put these terms in an optimistic context, nobody has ever explained why any applied theory of "New Politics" only reinvigorates the practice of "Old Politics".
Politics, new or old, has always been leadership exercised by a minority for its own benefit and imposed on the majority.
This is a situation still perceived by modern media as normal.
"New politics", as proposed under "Old Politics", is invariably the proposition that the current leadership, whose incapacity has inevitably become a preoccupying national subject, must be replaced by a new leadership claimed to be capable and good.
And society is full of groups of people who claim to have such leadership groomed and ready to overtake the old system and save the world.
New or aspiring politicians, who have yet to be found to be incapable, are then able to claim to have the unified leadership team that the public wants and the cycle repeats itself indefinitely.
But true "New Politics" can only exist when leadership is exercised by the majority and although this appears to be very difficult to achieve, the difficulty is only in clearly establishing its necessity because it is vitally necessary.
If one observes one's surroundings, one can see that prosperity and harmony in public life are only possible when society is aware of what is justifiably taking place and why, as life is often the simple process of knowingly allowing something to happen.
Harmonious social life under true "New Politics" only requires one to act when what is proposed to change it is not justifiable.
True leadership by the majority simply resides in the individual power to object when those who pretend to know propose to do something bad or inferior which is exposed by those who really know who can then object, on everybody else's behalf if applicable, and prevail.
However, this capacity to object is systematically repressed under "Old Politics" and objection is made impossible if not illegal or claimed to be "unconstitutional" and reprehensible.
True "New Politics" is not proposing new politicians as new leaders because the current leaders are failing, it is proposing a new form of leadership and proposing the only form of leadership able to succeed through true knowledge.
It is important to understand that what needs to be changed is the system itself, no the people in control of it.
This book is all about explaining clearly why and how.
This book is not about what is commonly termed "Political Sciences", it is about the effects of "Political Sciences" and "Old Politics" on society.
"Political Sciences" is about how to exploit people, "Old Politics" is the exploitation and we want to avoid these unwanted effects.
The objective is to replace with a modern system of government the moribund political system we have inherited from the rulers of the Roman Empire, a political system enshrined in "Political Sciences".
This book explains in details, with examples, how Old Politics (the old political system) works which is often very different than what people are led to think.
What the book explains is often no more than what the non-politicians: the wage-earners, the salary-earners, the housewives and the househusbands have witnessed or endured but did not consider to be the systematic and inevitable consequence of this political system.
The book also explains what New Politics should be when you know that the aspiration of every person is happiness, respect and prosperity through peace.
"End Old Politics Now" is an eye-opener endeavour made as simple as possible but it also requires a complement in the form of an organisation able and willing to convert what has been exposed into actions to correct what is not acceptable from Old Politics and in doing so, establish New Politics.
How to make the transition between Old Politics and New Politics is explained and developed in www.nobla.org, often referred to in this book as nobla or Nobla
Ending Old Politics implies introducing New Politics.
New Politics is not a cultural revolution and has no similarity to Old Politics in which the priority of a newly formed government is to undo as much as possible everything done by its predecessor.
New Politics consists of reusing what is reusable of Old Politics, removing injustices, correcting errors, generally improving Old Politics and making it a New Politics acceptable to society.
New Politics is rejuvenating a form of societal administration (government) whose main purpose so far has always been to allow a minority to exploit the remaining majority.
New Politics is ensuring that government becomes the best tool for a modern society in the knowledge that government will always be necessary and perfectible.
New Politics must be entirely based on professional expertise, not on popularity.
The best explanation is an analogy.
Old Politics is not an enemy making a frontal attack with a baseball bat giving you a fractured skull and a broken leg.
Instead, Old Politics is an extremely insidious foe disguised as a smiling friend approaching you from behind.
Old Politics is much more like being stung routinely by an unknown insect and having to nurse the resulting sores.
People who do not belong in Old Politics quickly live with numerous band aids of various sizes which can not be hidden but become part of daily life.
Ending Old Politics implies creating "New Politics".
New Politics is like gradually preventing the stings and reducing the need for new band aids as old ones become discarded.
The old political systems are complicated - and very artificial.
Only the politicians understand Old Politics and find beauty in the infinite variety of machinations it allows.
Only the politicians think that the many grotesque and fetishist traditions of Old Politics justify its preservation because they know that, despite its long history, Old Politics has never had any scientific basis.
Politics, being the organisation of social interaction, does not have to be explained in terms that people find difficult to understand.
When the politicians adopt such attitude, it is invariably to hide their objective from the public.
New Politics is entirely based on human needs, it is natural and there is absolutely nothing you need to learn to understand it or be part of it.
If there is one thing in life that everyone easily understands, it is one's own needs.
New Politics allows you to do what Old Politics forbids by not offering it.
New Politics also follows true democratic principles in order to be fully ethical and provide a solid foundation.
As an example: imagine a voting system in which you can make at anytime of your choosing the vote you are only allowed to make every few years on the day of the "General Elections".
That also means you can make that vote at any time, any day or night of the year, and change your vote if you want.
This is not a novelty, the old general elections are never "final", they only give a result applicable for a small number of years and sometimes much less.
Imagine the impact on Old Politics.
Is this not based on human needs, when weeks or months after these general elections, you find you have been deceived and you wish you had an opportunity to change your vote, or lodge one if you had abstained?
Is this not based on the scientific (psychology) fact that human situations are never closed.
Is it not "ethical"?
But this is only an example because in practice "electing" people to govern society is a very bad idea which we really have to abolish in New Politics and "electing" them in power for a number of years is even worse.
No, but there is a lot of work to do and there is a number of major misconceptions to explain along the way.
The first misconception we must avoid is to confuse "a lot of work" with "difficulty" which are not the same thing.
The second misconception to avoid is that this work will have to be done by a small number of dedicated volunteers willing to face much sacrifice.
There is seven billions of people on earth, most of whom want to contribute during their existence to the betterment of life.
The most unexpected issue will always be of interest to thousands of professionals able to offer a good remedy.
Obviously, if another very large meteor hit the earth or a nuclear war erupts, or famine becomes global, the surviving humans may have other priorities although a good form of government would certainly give them the best chance of recovery.
However, in the present political circumstances, yes, success is certain if only because the archaic political systems of Old Politics are crumbling, specially the "democratic" systems, and because our archaic politicians are becoming more distrusted and more disliked every day.
But more importantly, success is certain because humanity has the capacity, the will and the urge to progress at every opportunity, no matter how chaotic the opportunity may be.
Man is an opportunistic animal and if he sees an opportunity, he will seize it.
It is also more realistic not to wait for our old political systems to fully disintegrate before we act because we do not know what consequences this disintegration could bring.
"Brexit" is only a hint, a very mild presage, of what any nation could face internally due to crumbling politics.
But externally, the dictators are watching with glee at the developing prospect of conquering and dominating more easily a "democratic" world fracturing itself to their advantage on imaginary perceptions.
Because something bad is disappearing or waning (Old Politics) does not mean that what will replace it will automatically be better, it could easily be worse.
It is up to people to ensure that the dying political systems make room only for a better system.
Yes, considerably, powerfully, pitilessly, in any way possible and - with your money.
Delaying cancer treatment only allows cancer to spread faster and wider as the victim becomes weaker.
"People Power", or any other version of it, has been claimed many times to be the solution but it is only a slogan.
Giving "political power to the people" can only be used as a marketing strategy because "political power" is in Old Politics a "self-serve-no-pay" or a "self-serve-others-pay" attitude.
This self-serve attitude can not be confiscated from some to be modified and redistributed among many others.
It is also futile and even dangerous to give anybody a power that one can not naturally and responsibly exercise.
This means that the power you are able to exercise for your own benefit and that of others close to you is the power that you already have, it is the power inherent to your true personality.
Our natural is to decline any proposed responsibility for which we do not have a sufficient capacity or ability.
It is not natural for us to demand or expect powers that we can only handle with difficulties if at all.
However, people need the power to live their own life the way they want and that is a power that is taken away by their "leaders", by Old Politics, every time these leaders fear that their own uselessness or their incompetence or their abuses could be brought to light.
This means that no one wants or needs new or extra power.
People only want and need their natural power to be freed or restored and allowed to be exercised, individually or collectively.
Human evolution and indeed, human survival as a species demands that "New Politics" restore those powers because, contrarily to common beliefs, people are much more likely to do good things by being themselves than doing bad things.
Having a public life without Old Politics seems almost impossible but this is only because the idea or the concept of "Leadership" of the masses has been majestically exploited for thousands of years.
Leadership is still easily and very successfully distorted as you read this despite our modern society having every possible access to all the facts or clues demonstrating that old political "leadership" is fake and can not work.
Old leadership (and Old Politics) survives on a false claim made by leaders (politicians) and a false belief held by the masses.
The false claim is that finding "the truth" is very difficult and that only rare humans are able to dig it up and "apply" it, as truth evolves and is always hidden by hypothetical and powerful "enemies of good".
The claim also includes the promise that, once found, this new or improved truth will then be revealed to the masses by this leadership which will then govern the masses for their own increased benefit.
But the "truth" is that, in a modern and communicative society like ours, everything that is possibly knowable is known by anyone interested in knowing it.
This applies especially regarding every single aspect of your daily life, which you know very well, for which you do not need any revelation and for which you expect in vain reasonable and satisfying policies put in place by these leaders.
These are policies protecting you from organised abuses and exploitation so you can concentrate your attention on things more productive and more enjoyable than fearing an added political nuisance (or sting) every time something not immediately explainable takes place in Old Politics.
If your society or your country has an issue in Health or Education for example, nobody would find it normal to suggest that this issue has to be resolved by the professionals in the tourism department (Tourism) or the professionals in the housing department (Housing).
Yet, society seems to accept as a logical proposition that the same issue can only be resolved by the decisions of a proclaimed leader who may be a physicist or a singer of past fame or a police officer and, most importantly, is free to impose on any resolution his own views of life - and of himself.
The concept of having a leader (as opposed to having an arbiter), at any level, always brings inferior or bad results because, inevitably, the main objective of this leader is to ensure her or his own continued tenure of the position against competitors.
Serving the interest of somebody else, including society, will always come at the very best as a second priority.
The reason is that nobody who is in a position of leadership would ever be willing to suggest or highlight one's own deficiency and the necessity to make room for somebody else better qualified or more knowledgeable, if only temporarily or regarding a particular subject.
Almost invariably, even the truly honest needs to be alerted by others to notice having reached one's own "Level Of Incompetence" because we tend to be blind to our own limits.
Leadership, or the focus on one individual, leads inevitably this individual to self-protection.
Our instinctive reaction when discovering we have acted based on our own misjudgement is one of wanting to go back in the past so we could erase or undo the negative or undesirable result we have created.
It is not to wonder if we are capable of misjudging more and acting on it again and whether we should do something to prevent it.
Only people of a high ethical calibre are able to consider the second option.
Nobody in a position of leadership would ever tell you that yours is a situation in which the same leadership (as opposed to the expertise) is better obtained from someone else or is not even necessary.
Our leaders, our politicians, behave like the male individuals of many species of animals, they spend exponentially more time and energy keeping the competitors away from the reward than they do in successful mating.
Leadership by an individual always involves the elimination of competitors, a situation which can not ever be to the advantage of those lead.
However, true and anonymous collective leadership is almost indifferent to the result, and therefore impartial, because there is no individual glory or individual benefit to be expected from it.
This leaves only collective leadership as a true and efficient solution in New Politics.
Again, all the clues and facts are there for anybody to see.
If you have a water leak under the kitchen sink, you do not ask the electrician to look at it and if your high-fidelity sound system stubbornly remains silent, you do not ask the plumber or the mechanic to look at it.
But modern society allows Old Politics to do just that and worse by "electing" an actor or a lawyer or a market analyst or a mining engineer to become the leader of a nation and investigate and resolve all the social or public problems that could arise.
There is a number of necessary parts for a true type of collective leadership and to be effective, these parts must be compulsory and unavoidable.
As a simple example, your employer can dismiss you if you make in your "social media" post an unfavourable comment linked in any way to your job.
But your employer can also reward you if you make favourable comments instead in the same media, assuming you are or have become "popular" enough somehow.
And it has not become a common practice but it is an organised industry to publish fake favourable "reviews".
There are many reasons why it is vital for new government policies to be formulated or recommended anonymously.
The main reason being that many professionals would be too fearful to publicise their own true feelings, professional or personal, under their true name and address.
The fear would be too great of any adverse reaction from their employer or their clients or customers or even from the unknown next-door-neighbour.
We unfortunately live in a world that is corrupted so much that anonymity is becoming the only way to "tell the truth" to the world regarding public life.
Consequently, New Politics must be formulated strictly through a system in which personal information is never made public.
When a professional has to assess a claim, this professional wants to decide whether the claim is correct or not.
When a politician has to assess a claim, the politician wants to decide what impact on the voters the claim may have and whether or not it is popular to make the same claim or support it or contradict it, regardless of whether the claim is correct or not.
On the basis that professionals can decide if a claim is correct or not, we can safely assume that professionals are also capable of deciding which of two similar and correct claims on the same subject is the most accurate and therefore, give a ranking to claims (or statements) made by other professionals.
When a number of professionals give a ranking to a specific claim, it becomes possible to isolate exceptions or abnormalities because the majority of professionals will have very similar views regarding the major aspects of their profession.
This allows a ranking of the participating professionals themselves and a ranking of each of their claim (contribution, suggestion, recommendation etc).
Who and what is ranked below a minimum level is not included or does not participate in the policy-making process.
This may look like a novelty but it is not, it is how professionals work every day in their profession even if they never have any of those rankings on a piece of paper or clearly defined in their own mind.
This makes an enormous difference between decisions made by politicians and decisions made by professionals.
The only "novelty" is that New Politics systematises and records those rankings in a database used to formulate policies.
The responsibility is in ensuring that the system adopted only requires a minimal amount of work from any professional volunteering their time and expertise to the process.
This responsibility should not be difficult to resolve because it is important to realise that public life is not living on the cutting edge but living on what has been found to be tried-and-true and allowing everybody to improve on that for themselves.
The participation of the professionals consists of a number of options:
In New Politics, there can not really be too many entries or too many votes regarding any subject but there can easily be too few leading to a result which is not "representative" of the majority view within a profession.
Unlike some public forums in which anybody can argue a point forever and digress, the professionals have little interest in participating in theoretical or philosophical discussions of established premises of their profession.
The professionals also know that it is a waste of time on their behalf to submit what has already been submitted by somebody else.
A limit is then automatically taking place without predefining one.
True democracy also demands that no arbitrary limit is imposed on the number of participants or on the number of contributions each participant is allowed to make.
Only the quality of the contributions is important.
However, if every democratic country has laws and policies that deserve to be repealed, all have a large number of laws and policies on which we can build.
New Politics is not about reinventing the wheel nor making changes unnecessarily.
Some professions have a high sense of general ethics while other professions have a low or absent sense of general ethics.
But "professional ethics" are too often a matter of advertising them, often in a sterile and meaningless "code of conduct", without having to work by them.
This regularly creates deep conflicts that are very detrimental to society.
For example, nurses, doctors and surgeons have a very high professional standard of ethics while the professionals running the hospital employing them often only have "advertised" ethics.
This high sense of general ethics may simply consist of asking the opinion of colleagues when any uncertainty arises regarding the treatment of a patient in order to ensure that the best practice is always applied and human mistakes regarding the treatment are prevented as effectively as possible.
In the medical profession, important and uncertain decisions are only made by one single professional when there is only one professional present and a decision is urgent.
In New Politics, it is not that the professionals are free to do so as they see fit, which could leave the decision to a personal and self-indulging interpretation.
Instead, it is a professional duty to do so or be able to demonstrate if necessary, that there was no uncertainty or face the risk of being found to be incompetent.
It is important to have and to methodically maintain the highest level of ethics in any new system of government (New Politics), especially when it appears to be "overkill", because the alternative is only to allow Old Politics to resume its supremacy.
But this high level of ethics requires a fully revised attitude toward mistakes.
Old Politics allows you to vote every three, four or five years in what is often called "General Elections" and usually you have the option of voting for one of the candidates who want to become, or remain, the "representative" of your electoral jurisdiction.
This "representative" becomes the official supposed to make your political views count although the politicians have never explained how it is done since, once elected, this official promotes her or his own views and her or his own interests.
The result of these elections will be that one of the two main political parties will become the favourite to "form a government" and the next time you will have the privilege of voting again will likely be in another three, four or five years.
This is unless the politicians can not agree on how to "form government" on the basis of the last vote.
In which case, you have to vote again so that they hope, the interval will have given them enough time to rally a few more votes so that the new result gives them more bargaining power in the formation of the new government.
The procedure is rooted so much that few seem to notice how antiquated it is.
Public life can not be harmonious without a public consensus and therefore modern electronic voting is the major component of the consensus.
However, voting is corrupt if it contains limitations by not offering some possibilities of vote.
Society also evolves and human situations can never be closed which creates the necessity for the vote to be changed at any time one is of the opinion that one's last vote should be changed.
It is important to be aware that in a new voting system in which abstaining is an official choice, "not voting" is expressing indifference on the subject of the vote and is consequently expressing a vote.
In a responsible system of government, such changes of vote are intended to progress, to allow to go forward, not backward.
It is a matter of designing in a professional and rational manner the choices presented to the voters.
This should allow to initiate or improve dynamic policies at any particular time in the knowledge that the voters support for the policy may change later.
The electoral bodies of democratic countries have to be considerably expanded to face the various voting systems a democratic society really needs.
Among the possible voting systems, there could be:
In New Politics, although a professional like a Minister may face dismissal every day, it also implies that this Minister will keep the job indefinitely provided this Minister does a reasonable job.
Why are we satisfied with a "reasonable job"?
Taxes have a very bad reputation because Old Politics (the politicians) decide at election time, or at the time of the yearly "budget", what they will do with the proceeds of taxes which they always intend to use as bribes to boost their popularity in "targeted" electorates in preparation for the "next elections".
And who they bribe this year may have to be changed next year, or sooner, because of the unpredictability of Old Politics.
If necessary, the politicians will cut any past budget like the Education or the Health or the military budget to have a larger amount of money to be used as bribes.
As a result, the majority of taxpayers see taxes as a sort of legalised extortion because they know that there is no tax objective exempt from such abuse as services are often simply stopped for the same purpose.
This bad reputation will be slow to change but New Politics must let the (anonymous) professionals overtake taxation to restore its correct image.
You will say: "But there are already thousands of professionals in our taxation offices."
But the professionals we are talking about are not the professionals who apply the taxation rules, it is the professionals who study the human needs, study how to satisfy these needs, explain to society what has to be done, explain how it can be done, find what society can afford to pay for, find what society is willing to pay for and make all those findings public.
James Charles "Jim" Lehrer, an American journalist said: "If we don't have an informed electorate we don't have a democracy.."
But that was summarising the situation because not having an informed "electorate" (an informed society) is chaos and murder.
The news remind us of that reality every day.
In reusing Old Politics as previously described, there is no need to go back to square one to achieve a new honest and efficient way of taxing society but there is a lot of work to do.
It is a progressive renovation intended to achieve stability and predictability while giving faith in its objectives.
The main element in this renovation is that society wants to discover through New Politics (any open, honest and efficient form of government) that taxes always mean that taxpayers save money by paying taxes for a service wanted or needed by many rather than obtaining the service on their own and at their own cost.
If such is not the case, the tax is probably not justifiable.
It should not be left to politicians to decide, specially at election time, how to split what is available from the public coffers.
A society failing to control how it is taxed is not only opening the door wide-open to exploitation, it is inviting it.
It is like giving the keys of your house to someone you know you can not trust.
Old politics has never been able to establish a satisfactory system of taxation because under their system, taxing as much as possible and borrowing when the taxes are insufficient have always been the only way to operate.
Despite their determination to prevent their opponents from doing it, it is still relatively easy for politicians to make unrealistic promises at election time in the knowledge that there will not be enough public money to pay for the promises and that borrowing more will be necessary.
A true, modern and honest system of taxation must work within a range of taxation rates (for example within minus or plus two percent of a specific rate) rather than a predefined rate so that an independent body is able to make adjustments to the taxation rate according to actual receipts of taxation rather than estimates.
The taxpayers want to see the proof that when tax receipts are larger than anticipated, the tax rate is effectively reduced or the bonus is used to repay debts.
But this requires rigorous integrity in New Politics, some sort of sanitisation of our financial systems and adequate laws.
The resentment in many countries toward "globalisation" is due to the fact that our politicians (Old Politics) are introducing a form of globalisation that suits them, a form of globalisation that serves their interests.
At the national level, the politics closely follow the interdependence of the national politicians and the national big businesses.
At the global level, the politics follow the interdependence of any politician and multinationals.
Or, looking at it in another way, the politicians shape social and business globalisation to their advantage as Globalisation spreads and intensifies.
It was inevitable that big business could only support globalisation if there was more profit in it for them, after all, they finance it.
Why would they support it if it meant making less money or making no financial difference?
Big business and commercial politicians are always much better informed about their own case than any political politician who can only follow the commercial politicians' (self-interested) advice regarding that case.
Topping up such advice with an incentive will always ensure that, not only does an ignorant (reactive) politician accept it but eagerly looks forward to it.
Whether the interdependence is national or global makes not an iota of difference.
Consequently, resentful people rightfully or wrongly concluded that politicised and unregulated globalisation was detrimental to them.
However, the needs of people are the same regardless of their geography, their history or their beliefs and New Politics must be formulated in a way that suits everybody, in a global way.
Creating laws that are suitable to every citizen of every democratic country will result in a political system suitable to all without these laws becoming any form of global government.
New Politics is strictly about your human needs including your right to exercise your faith in any sociable way you like and regardless of what your faith is.
New Politics does not support or oppose any faith or religion which is a personal matter identical to any other need you may have (goods you purchase from the shop for example) and does not require a different approach.
No human, even our caveman ancestor, has lived without ever wondering about the afterlife, therefore every human has a faith including the atheist who believes that there is no god.
In short, New Politics is outside of religion.
It is repeated many times in this book that there is no law of business.
This claim is true and false at the same time.
Many laws have been created and applied for many years before being removed (repealed) or, more often, made ineffective (amended) to suit big business, in effect, allowing business to operate as if there was no law.
It is important to remember that laws regarding human interactions are constantly added or changed or removed from a body of laws born a very long time ago.
As the laws increased in number and in complexity, it became more difficult and finally impossible to throw away the whole book (or the library) of laws and create a completely new set of laws.
When a law is changed (amended), it is often necessary for the contemporary politicians to ensure that its original meaning is retained as they do not want the new ("improved") law to be in practice significantly different or the opposite of the old law since politicians and lawyers often have different meanings for the same word.
Further, politicians do not want those who have been affected or punished under the old law claiming compensation or seeking political revenge for the injustice they suffered.
When politicians change or introduce new laws, they also want to ensure that they will not loose votes as a result of the change.
The new or changed law must at least be acceptable or tolerable, if only in what it is portrayed to be, for those who could be subjected to it.
Removing a law that has become redundant (about driving horse carts in the city for example) is only cleaning the book of laws and has no effect on society.
But removing (repealing) a law protecting consumers is easily noticed by the public while rendering it ineffective (crippling it) may be unnoticeable until one is affected by an associated court judgement.
However, making ineffective or crippling a business law protecting the consumer is rather easy.
After many years of modifications of this body of laws, the whole thing has become incomprehensible to anyone not having had the necessary training and the meaning of many of its statements are even disputable by those who have.
It is also common that one particular point of law must be put in the context of another which may not be obvious to the untrained.
And this excessive complexity is what allows big business and the politicians to collude and deceive the general public, indeed; to fool it.
The lawyers paid by big business are able to spend a lot of time on any particular law.
This allows to find if advantages could be had for their employer if the law was slightly changed since anyone who is not an experienced lawyer will not foresee the intended impact of the change.
It may then be only a matter of changing a few words in a particular clause of the law to open an opportunity for more profits.
This law has then been watered down substantially or crippled and the politicians can still claim that it provides adequate consumer protection because all the punishment clauses are still there although they are now not applicable.
Humanity has recently made enormous discoveries about itself and its environment but is fearful to live by these discoveries.
Man can have some of its own visit the moon and return, can protect itself from most diseases and gather natural energy.
But with new weapons (the only science fully used by Old Politics) man lets the politicians make him wage wars for reasons unchanged for thousands of years - the survival of Old Politics.
Mentally, modern man has recently found a beautiful palace which he admires regularly but he prefers to live precariously near the cave because he knows the cave but not the palace yet.
Our politicians are very old, even if they are young persons.
This is because they are moulded from a cast made by the politicians of the Roman Empire.
Without knowing it, these Roman politicians had invented a system of interminable arguments and egocentric speeches which they would be proud to know is still used today.
All the succeeding politicians have discovered that this system worked well - for them.
The politicians have determined that the system is ideal to create and maintain the confusion and the divisions within the people, confusion and divisions necessary for the survival of the politicians.
It is an ideal system for broadcasting propaganda, it is ideal as a means for the secret conspiracies and it is ideal for providing an inexhaustible supply of scapegoats which are always important assets for any prudent politician.
Following the demise of the Roman politicians, numerous leaders and dictators have ruled the land under their control in different ways but they have always kept the people subdued, which was their main objective.
The advantages (for the politicians) of the Roman system were always kept but used differently since there is no need to be nice to the people if, under your orders, your military oppresses it ruthlessly.
But the crude military domination of the people progressively lost its appeal when, due to lack of money, or to save money, the subsequent leaders remembered and developed the ability to talk, rather than fight.
They also found that it was better to keep people alive, because dead people can not pay taxes.
Produced from the same mould of the Roman era, the politicians made a popular resurgence following the end of the Feudal era.
These politicians rediscovered that the power that they had always wanted is more easily obtained by alliances between similarly-minded rulers.
This power can then be imposed on those outside of the alliances as these politicians eventually gained control of the armed forces and created the police.
Over a short period of time, the industrial revolution, the industrial fabrication of paper, the appearance of radio, of television and, more recently, the appearance of the Internet have created an explosion of political arguments and speeches which always strongly support or strongly oppose the ideas or concepts of the two main political parties.
These are ideas and concepts which are never intended to serve society.
This interminable dissenting was increased again by the arrival of new classes of politicians like the political analysts, the business leaders and the business or industry analysts who themselves became politicians of various influence in their own field.
This proliferation of politicians infiltrated every possible human behaviour and began to devitalise human life itself as leaving a personal imprint on life is progressively restricted to a minority highly receptive to corruption and fraud.
All these official or non-official politicians have a vital interest in knowing what impact is made on society by any other politician of any description.
This included the impact made by the calculated speeches and arguments of the political politicians (those who officially want to govern a nation).
At the same time, emerging casual politicians made it a business to inform society about their own interpretations and theories.
This has resulted in the formation of a massive industry in which each participant wants political power of one particular form and one particular size for one particular purpose - usually: self-promotion.
Unfortunately, this massive industry, this industrial cacophony is what rules the modern world, almost entirely with "deep" advertising.
Its adepts have no room for caution because these politicians have discovered that people are much more easily and deeply motivated by images rather than by technical logic, even if these images represent people or situations that are imaginary or even impossible.
In such scenario, only the immediate result counts.
Following that approach, the politicians, not you, define the causes and the issues that are worthy of public attention and worthy of public money, starting with their own interest, and they have accumulated tremendous powers.
Do not forget that these politicians have even succeeded at reducing the powers of the Kings and the Queens of the world to a ceremonial role and gained control of their armies, which is not a small feat.
But this is an industry capable to formulate only many theories of mediocre quality because, often, its leading members lack the necessary knowledge of the subject under consideration, usually including the well-being of society, or they are motivated by political considerations or greed that an impotent society allows to flourish.
In this industry, a project is put under the responsibilities of the professionals only after the relevant section of the industry has defined its artificial characteristics.
These characteristics will be the net artificial result of all the opposing forces which react in any way to the existence of the project.
A very long time ago, knowledge has become too large and too complex to be assimilated by a single person.
It has become necessary to segment our knowledge so that humans could acquire it and master it more easily.
And the segmentation of our knowledge increases permanently.
For example, we have become dependent on computers to store and work with the knowledge that our experts and scientists consider to be too rudimentary in many fields.
Few people clearly remember how to calculate a square root and use the calculator instead.
Professionalism strongly encourages using the electronic machine because although it breaks down, it never makes mistakes when it works and computers keep in their "memory" many formulae that we have forgotten.
Our primitive brain can only assimilate new knowledge in this way.
This brain needs as much "free space" as possible because it can only evolve by a tiny given measure in a given period of time, when the quest for new knowledge can not wait and needs that free space urgently.
The people are becoming better educated and more difficult to deceive.
This forces the politicians to spend more time in the strengthening of their tenuous and nebulous image.
This is because their image is the only public impression that allows the politicians to survive in their own political systems.
Our politicians spend a steadily declining amount of time in learning the procedures of their government departments.
And the time that they are able to spend in learning in general can only be spent in learning how to strengthen their image.
It is an attitude by which the politicians are slowly undertaking an one-way journey to professional obsolescence.
The intellectual capacity of our politicians is declining permanently and irreversibly concerning what society really needs in its leaders: capable professionals instead of accomplished actors holding emotionally calculated scripts.
The politicians have always been unable to impose fair and useful laws on business due to the fact that one can not effectively regulate something if one only has a superficial understanding of how it works.
But the major inhibitor has always been the dependence of our politicians on the large business donations that they could easily lose if the business leaders found that their businesses were subjected to rules and laws that they profoundly dislike.
This does not include rules or laws which result in higher cost of goods or services which are simply passed to the consumers.
However, there is a crucial need for the business leaders to know precisely what they can not do.
Otherwise and in the necessity that no competitor must ever gain an undue advantage, the business managers at all levels are forced to probe continually for undefined business boundaries that can easily be moved by manipulating the public opinion.
It is also crucial for business leaders to be aware that they will be discovered and that appropriate and punishing reparation procedures exist and will be enforced if they do what is not allowed or if they permit it to be done by their employees.
To bring businesses to the level of modern ethics, we only need to apply business laws and rules that are fair and adequate.
We only need to establish many new standards when useful or necessary.
But to change the way in which Old Politics is done, we must dismantle the old political systems.
The politicians can not be "re-educated" mainly because they do not have the smallest trace of the most important quality of any true leader: unconditional and complete integrity.
Unconditional and complete integrity is not a dream or an idealistic expectation.
It has become a vital necessity of life due to our stage of evolution, a necessity that will only become more pronounced as we continue to evolve.
The old political systems, the old systems of government have nothing that is salvageable.
However, the Public Services or the Civil Services, (depending on what they are called in your country) do not have to be replaced because the public servants only apply laws and rules that are devised and enacted by the politicians.
The most cynical ability of the politicians, that of launching their own wars, is utterly unacceptable in the age of nuclear weapons.
For the welfare of Humanity, their departure is urgent.
We have a rare opportunity to unite in a noble cause, to free ourselves of this modern form of slavery, to automatically disinfect and heal many psychological bruises and lesions created by Old Politics and bear unknowingly, day and night.
These mental infirmities are soul-suckers that drain, at every second of the day, our ability to exist as life itself intended this ability to be: a state mainly satisfying and enjoyable.
Humans are the only wild animal (free to live their own life) who suffers from this condition.
If animals in the wild are eaten by predators when they are sick or old, humans can sometimes have a cruel and slow death.
But, until that end and given their limited possibilities, these animals live the best possible life.
We do not because of the permanent self-infatuation of a minority within our own species.
Politics is based on the facts that we are exploitable, we are gullible, we are easily scared and we are willing to trust against all evidence to the contrary if we are told what we hope to hear.
Since the vast majority of people have the same weaknesses, the politicians must know our common weaknesses and, most importantly, they must preserve these weaknesses.
The politicians would not exist if we did not have these weaknesses.
If you are of the opinion that this proposition is true, you are also likely to agree with the proposition that, if we want a better world free of the calculated injustices and exploitation to which we are all continually exposed, we must at the very least find a way to prevent the systematic and organised exploitation of our weaknesses.
Since banning this exploitation is not possible and eradicating our personal weaknesses is a slow and individual process lasting often a lifetime, this prevention is what this electronic book is about.
This prevention is necessary concerning abuse and exploitation which are imposed on us and unavoidable under Old Politics.
It is also because it is not possible for anyone, specially the young, the old, the incapacitated or the inexperienced or simply the tired to be constantly alert to any possible kind of abuse or exploitation and ready to oppose it successfully at any time.
This demands an amount of energy that we are simply incapable of providing naturally on a permanent basis.
To become immune to the exploitation by the politicians, or to learn how to minimise it, we only face one choice which is to accept the likely existence of our weaknesses or better, to discover them and negate their effect.
If we remain ignorant of our personal weaknesses, we will remain exploitable by the politicians who will continue to dominate society for their own personal gain because that is what politicians are: a type of people who can only survive by systematically exploiting others, including other politicians.
Becoming aware of these weaknesses is often a reasonably good solution because our defence mechanisms will then raise the alarm, often automatically, when someone is trying to take advantage of one of them.
As an example, flattery as opposed to true compliment, is often perceived very quickly by anyone, even when our ego is tempted to believe that the subject of the flattery is a true quality that we have, something tells us not to fully trust that person.
It is as if the lock of the door of your house does not work reliably.
If you know it, every time you hear an unusual sound near the door, your apprehension will be raised that something unwanted may be happening.
However, if you are not aware of it, you may feel safe but you are unknowingly vulnerable to any undesirable intrusion.
To see your weaknesses however, you may have to learn to look at yourself from the outside, as if you were two persons.
And we are two persons because we are all good and bad, weak and strong, happy and sad, optimist and pessimist etc.
These two sides are regularly opposing each other and we all have both.
It is also as if there was a hole in the wall of your house.
It may be cold if you do not know, but if you know the hole exists, you can plug it and stop the cold wind from blowing inside the house.
Our first reaction would be to plug the hole from the inside but the wind may be strong enough to blow the plug away.
However, if we go outside to plug this hole, the plug will be much stronger and more efficient.
When we can look at ourselves from the outside, we always enjoy a much better view and a better chance of self-improvement because we bypass the inevitable condemning social attitude.
And when you think of yourself as two persons, the good and the bad, this self-improvement becomes easier to accomplish because you know that you are making your good side stronger while diminishing or gaining more control of your bad side.
However, we need a bad side to protect or defend ourselves and this implies that we can never eradicate it completely and neither should we.
The difficulty to shed our weaknesses resides mainly in the false pretence that the old political systems instil in us and that we believe.
The politicians claim that we are either good or bad.
According to their pretence we can not be both.
Therefore and knowing that we are imperfect, looking at any of our own weakness would imply, under this system, that we are a completely bad person only able to become a little less bad.
This is a very depressing thought that we instinctively refuse to consider but, in the process, we may subconsciously become our own worst judge.
Man (the species) is naturally perfectible if he is let to see his weaknesses outside of the feared condemning system of society.
But man is also born with an ability to develop a permanent and imperceptible sentiment of guilt due to the fact that he is bound to do some "elbow-pushing" within society.
This elbow-pushing is done even against friends and family members to find and assert one's place in society.
But this elbow-pushing inevitably leads to an occasional and unintended displacement or fall of an innocent or even of a person who is loved or respected, hence our unconscious and constant feelings of guilt.
The professionals in the psychology sciences describe this as a feeling of guilt triggered by the simple fact that we exist.
And we all have it.
But the politicians exacerbate this situation to an abnormal level by ensuring that we have a growing feeling of guilt about our weaknesses, and a greater dependence on them for our own redemption since they always claim to be perfect.
The politicians achieve this by imposing countless increasing punishments, for any possible behaviour that they consider worth criticising publicly if it brings them any political advantage.
Because this feeling of guilt is painful and inconspicuous, we then automatically want to hide our weaknesses - to ourselves first and then to anybody else.
We keep these weaknesses locked in their hideout from where they happily continue to fester and allow the politicians to continue to dominate us.
Because our weaknesses stir this feeling of guilt, we are prevented to oppose in an ethical and effective manner the abuses by the authorities and the politicians.
We then compensate this feeling of guilt with the satisfaction and relief that we receive when others are punished regardless of the official reason for the punishment.
This may sound terrible, primitive and pathetic but this is how our subconscious behaves - using the most basic mechanism available to it.
Our subconscious then draws the conclusion that we are not the only "bad" person on earth which, by inference, allows us to raise our own individual value in our own eyes.
It is difficult to do good intellectual work if you have a common headache (it may be as simple as playing a game of cards).
But if your headache is constant, day after day, and grew progressively to its present state, you may not even know that you have a headache as you think that the way that you feel is normal and is the condition in which everybody lives.
You will not know that your intellectual capacity is permanently degraded and you will never be able to "see" things clearly because your mind is in a permanent light fog that distorts everything if only by hiding the sharpness of the details.
This is why so many people turn to meditation, undoubtedly with the belief or the perception that "something" which they can not identify, is blocking their ability to "see" clearly.
If our state of mind was the best that it can be most of the time for everybody, nobody would need meditation which would not even exist because no introspection could then ever show to you anything about yourself which you are not already aware of.
This page is dedicated by necessity to our main weakness that the politicians can easily exploit, our inevitable insecurity.
This insecurity is an indistinguishable mix of normal insecurity created by life itself and abnormal insecurity created by the politicians and is very comparable to the permanent headache previously mentioned.
If we ignore our insecurity, we have no hope of neutralising the politicians' exploitation of society.
But since this is highly related to human psychology, many readers may want to know more about Old Politics first.
Consequently, we may return to the subject later to explain some basic but important misconceptions that will always blur in our mind the apparent complexity of modern life.
However, if we can postpone learning about ourselves, which would give us a strong mental armour, we can not postpone learning what the politicians do and why at the risk of not understanding anything that is "political".
And it is all logical and predictable even if it is bad or even criminal.
The political debates that we have seen in the movies that depicted the politics of the Roman era were probably close enough to the truth regarding the behaviour of the protagonists.
Is it not astonishing that, two thousands years later, the politicians still behave in the same manner.
Using all their intellectual capacity and as if it was the most important thing in the universe, they are still searching, with the help of their advisers, for the eloquent and punchy statement which can raise their popularity and keep them in power, or ridicule an opponent and diminish his or her popularity.
They are also hoping that historians will rush to put it in the history books because nobody has said it with these words before.
When the politicians are in this situation, whether it was Roman politicians or it is contemporary politicians, they are in a deep trance and nothing else counts even if the entire planet was crumbling.
To them and at that moment, their survival depends on the successful delivery of that sentence which must be reinforced with a suitable body language, their intonations and their rehearsed feelings and pauses.
Only when they have proclaimed it to the world, will they be willing to consider the disintegration of the planet.
The politicians are ready to risk their life, but preferably the lives of others, for the words that they want to utter.
Their individual vanity leads them to think that they are exempt from any risk because of their perceived messianic destiny that, in their view, even other politicians do not enjoy, and of course due to the vast physical protection that they receive.
The political parties have adopted pompous names for the politicians that they choose to lead in each area of public life, like Health or Transport.
Some of these names or titles sound like "Chancellor Of The Exchequer", "Secretary Of State" or other meaningless title designed to impress society and give the politicians a higher status than that conferred by their often sordid political activities.
But for simplicity, we will give these people the title of "Minister".
Sometimes, they want to spend "quality time" with their family, at taxpayers expenses of course, and we can only assume that it means that the time spent last with the family was not of quality and did not count.
Try telling that to your boss after a disappointing holiday.
Occasionally, our politicians become aware of a political novelty applied in a foreign country.
Something that brings popularity to its instigator but something that may not be of real value to society.
Then, they take with them an entire team of public servants to visit their colleague in that country and learn how it is done because this is popularity that they are determined to acquire for themselves in their own country.
This is why political parties of different countries gradually do the same things and implement similar policies.
We can add to this list their sporadic activities like the interviews by the media, intended to boost their popularity again, and the public functions designed to collect funds for their political party.
We have listed: "Spend time with their family" in the last position, but this may be incorrect, it could be the second last in their order of priorities, before leading their government department.
As far as society is concerned, these activities lack cohesion.
The results of these activities do not flow as an output from one activity to a necessary input of another to produce something beneficial to society.
These activities are tools only helping the politicians to become predominant in their internal competition and, except as entertainment of an often bad taste or even a criminal taste, they are of no use to society.
This entertainment, this production of glamour and popularity distracts society enormously from the real objectives of life and also consumes a lot of public money.
This is because there are specially furnished buildings, fitted with the latest communication technology, reserved for performances that produce this glamour or popularity.
There is a lot of employees working to maintain these expensive buildings, employees lavishly catering for the politicians, moving them around, providing accommodations etc.
There is also a vast and costly number of advertising and research agencies involved, all trying to give their clients or masters an advantage over their competition.
But, worst of all, this is done by finding, adopting and promoting a view which is by necessity at the opposite end of the view successfully promoted so far.
This effectively acts as a political parking brake that, at best, can never be completely released.
And this has a negative effect on policies which become atrophic policies whose application costs society unnecessarily.
This is priority number one for our politicians and it is their most important activity.
Serving their constituents is an activity done mainly in secret with only the popular events exposed to the public.
When the speeches made by the politicians have a profound effect on their popularity within their electorate, the decisive factor at election-time is often the fine-tuning secretly taking place.
The public only discovers the details relating to this fine-tuning when something goes wrong, when the politicians try to save at any cost any political benefit or ill-acquired money that they look likely to lose following reprehensible activity.
Corrupt Old Politics starts here with this "fine-tuning" and Old Politics is never free of corruption which is why they want "confidentiality" so much and why they so easily find a business offer when they "leave" politics.
This is priority number two for our elected politicians.
These are activities that are exposed as much as possible because the politicians expect to build their popularity from the results of the debates.
They do this by making their opponents look inferior to themselves.
Our politicians would certainly like to give more exposition to the debates but they depend entirely on the decisions of the media in that respect.
A politician may think that what she or he said very recently is the saying of the century but if the media are of the opinion that it is not worth occupying any space in their medium, posterity may not be aware of this invaluable saying.
Every debate is a risk because they lose popularity just as much as they win it in these verbal duels.
But somehow, every single politician expect to be the winner every time.
This is an unrealistic expectation because, being all of the same mould and of the same intellectual and mental capacity they can mathematically only win half of their arguments with any particular opponent.
And, given that they have many opponents and innumerable versions of argument, this gives a statistically low final result.
But yet, they are all individually convinced that they will do better next time and that they will become politically invincible.
This is priority number three for our politicians.
It is very important for them because dedicating enough time in this activity can deliver the results that they want in the "Debates" and produce more popularity which can then be exploited at the next general elections.
However, strategies must be conducted in great secrecy and have an appearance of legitimacy, if unexpectedly exposed, because politicians do not want the public becoming aware that:
This is the lowest priority for any politician.
It is a symbolic job but they must appear to excel in it even though these government departments are perfectly able to work without a "leading" minister.
This happens when there is a prolonged period of political instability in the country following indecisive elections and there is no government in charge.
Their remaining activities are sporadic and are designed to either:
The importance of these sporadic activities will vary much depending on the current "political climate".
There are also many politicians who reach a level of power through machinations but prefer to remain out of public view by avoiding to be "elected" and instead impose in one way or another their political presence on the succeeding "elected" politicians.
Politicians are not only in the governments and the oppositions.
They are everywhere and at every rung of the social ladder because the modern means of communication have quickly made available to anyone wanting to copy them for one's own gain any exclusive exploitation technique previously devised laboriously by teams of professionals.
This is called "reverse engineering" and it consists of dissecting known results in order to establish their causes or in other words: finding how it has been done or "how-to-do-it", a capacity we all have.
Our most prominent politicians are:
This is inevitable because the nomination of "public servants" who are in positions of leadership in bodies that are administered by (read: whose wages or salary depend from) the "political politicians" is strongly influenced, if not plainly decided, by our political politicians.
This is how the political politicians remain in control of those bodies which are presented to the public as being "independent" through various deceits including the pretended "separation of the legislative and the executive".
The "legislative" being the "lawmakers" being the politicians and the "executive" being any employee having to follow or having to apply the laws made by the politicians.
In this system, everything is inevitably "politicised" and distorted from the top echelon of society.
And the attitude is propagated to commerce, business and industries and down to the most humble level of activity.
These public servants understand well that, under the old systems, their job will never be a "career" job done freely and professionally according to clear and established scientific or technological rules.
They know that it will be a job that depends on their own popularity within this enormously complex web of interactive politicians of all sorts and all sizes who are by necessity protecting their own position first.
Regularly, one politician temporarily becomes the other.
That is: political politicians become commercial politicians or commercial politicians become plain political politicians, "behind the scene" of course or unnoticed by the public.
A political politician becomes a commercial politician to further his or her interests by influencing business.
A commercial politician becomes a political politician to also further her or his interests by influencing public politics.
And both cases have shown many examples which always become a scandal of some sort as the sums of money involved can be very large and dishonest practices have been used to acquire the money.
In the process and because the majority of people are intuitive enough to understand the fine nuances used, the politicians show to everybody interested, or anybody "under pressure", how to do it.
This makes a dishonest society that follows the examples from the top, very often because people have concluded that there is no other way to survive.
The behaviour of the politicians is then understood and copied by many who become small to medium-size politicians expecting rewards that are proportional to their submission to the "politicised" system under which they work.
Workers then adopt small-scale corruption for rewards that can be marginal or even hypothetical, like hoping for a promotion at work.
Regularly, small-scale corruption is mandatory just to keep one's job as the job becomes a powerful bribe.
We can find politicians in small businesses and non-commercial organisations and even at home.
You may say: "At home? I can assure you there is no politician at home!"
Well, a politician is a person who is able to make other people change their opinions, in a way that puts these people in a state of mind more suitable to the purposes of the politician.
We all do that, if only occasionally, or without knowing it and without bad intentions.
This is why we can also find politicians at home.
We can all become a casual politician.
However, we only consider in this book the more malicious politicians.
This is politicians whose every action and every word are calculated with great care, often by an entire team of politicians or by a politician and a team of advisers, speechwriters and other assistants.
We also consider only the politicians whose motivations are clearly to deceive in order to exploit, and whose intentions are to deceive the public rather than, like a salesperson, influence a potential customer.
These politicians are more numerous in business than in the political parties and they learn how to circumvent the laws with impunity by observing each other or what others have done which can then be "reverse-engineered" with little imagination.
Even if they are adversaries, their interdependence is considerable and always secret.
Their communications are always in terms from which something that is illegal or is unethical but would be beneficial to them if it was done, needs to be understood without being enunciated.
This is what gives the average person the false impression that politics and big business have their own language and are too complicated for them.
The apparent complexity resides in the necessity to maintain obscurity and vagueness in their language in any circumstance on the ground that, even something perfectly honest and legal may suddenly require dishonesty or illegal activity to be accomplished and may badly need a "cover-up" of some sort if exposed.
With a little "experience" it quickly becomes "second nature" because what is being talked about involves situations rarely reached completely and solely by irreproachable means.
The net result is that politicians of any kind are extremely rarely in situations in which they think that they can safely use simple words and explain themselves clearly and they simply loose that ability.
We will also only consider the "political" politicians because society only needs proper laws of business to impose honesty and decency on commercial politicians who have been made to react as they do in their environment partly because of the lack of such laws under the old systems of government.
This lack of laws is due entirely to the dependence of politicians and political parties on the donations or the perks they receive from business in any shape or form.
If you want to become a Minister, you must join one of the two main political parties and you must fit their mould.
It is impossible to become a Minister like one becomes a bricklayer or an engineer or a teacher.
This is not something that you can learn in a school or in a university.
Becoming a Minister is a reward given by a political party or by its leader.
It is like sharing a cake or sharing business profits or sharing a collective win at the lottery.
When a political party wins the general elections, this gives the leader of the winning political party the authority to define the number and titles of the positions which will be distributed amongst the politicians of this political party.
These positions will never be determined professionally by what society needs.
Instead, the number of positions will be increased or decreased for the purpose of rewarding or buying some politicians and, if possible, punish or cripple the ambition of others.
For those who appear to be threatening to the leader (like a possible challenger), this punishment could be the granting of a "difficult portfolio" (any portfolio made unpopular due to its temporary harsh effects on society).
Those who have, or have shown, "leadership ambitions" know that they can not refuse a "difficult portfolio" or one of a very low status.
The leader will try to dampen any ambition and dent as much as possible any popularity these competitors may be able to gather.
If the election win is of a large magnitude, some positions will have to be created (invented) to satisfy all involved.
If the political party was barely able to "form a government" and the existing titles are too numerous, some will have to be abolished or the politicians who survived the elections may have to become responsible for more than one "portfolio".
This happens when a political party wins two successive elections, with a large majority in the first but a substantially reduced majority in the second.
This is an increasingly regular result of general elections in most "democratic" countries.
At the international level, politics changes somewhat because foreign politicians can not be competitors.
For example, the French politicians know that the Spanish politicians will never be their "opposition".
Therefore what is termed as "party solidarity" in the country becomes "politicians solidarity" between politicians of different countries.
What the politicians call "international diplomacy" is mostly one of those unwritten convention that developed spontaneously over time, that the politicians have found very convenient because they can only gain popularity from it and it costs them nothing.
The principle works as follows: when politicians of different countries meet, they are supposed to treat each other as if this other politician was the most important politician in the world, except for themselves of course.
This is why politicians shake hands vigorously and interminably when they greet each other but not before they have ensured that the cameras are ready to capture the moment as it seems they want to limit the risk of dismemberment.
It is a
"My glorifying you will bring you in your country more votes for which I do not care."
"Your glorifying me will bring me in my country more votes for which you do not care."
"Glorifying you will cost me nothing if you are soon evicted from office."
"Glorifying me will cost you nothing if I am soon evicted from office."
"However, we will both fail to win votes if we do not glorify each other."
This is done even if there are deadly differences of opinion between these politicians and they are expected to meet to try to end hostilities.
The urge to turn the event into a vote-winning exercise or a popularity-raising exercise is irresistible.
For example, Chamberlain shook hands with Hitler for the cameras before England and Germany went to war and US, Russians or Soviets politicians have shaken hands numerous times during the "cold war".
Most of our "democratic countries" have a large number of political parties that seem to indicate that there is a large choice from which anyone interested should be able to select a political party close to one's political expectations.
However we all know that this is not the case.
We also know that, from this large group of political parties, only two are able to "win the elections" and "form a government" while the others can only hope to have some limited influence on the political process.
This seems to be the same in every democratic country even when a third party (or an individual politician) gains "the balance of power" and claims to be in a position to change the "political landscape".
It is only an appearance and it is often very short-lived because an "arrangement" is quickly negotiated which results in the neutralisation of this third party or individual.
The political analysts are of the opinion that this is due to a universal dislike of the two major political parties.
This results in their share of public dislike being often equal in vote number.
But the politicians of the major political parties do not care because they are always convinced that they can promise to the voters something that is less disliked or less distrusted than what will be offered by their opponents to win the elections.
For many voters, it is a matter of voting for one disliked political party to prevent the more disliked other party from winning the elections.
The votes for the "minor" political parties are used indirectly for the benefit of one of the two major political parties.
That is all that this minor political party can do with your vote.
Following an election, a major political party may not be able to form a government by itself, but it can if it makes a "coalition" with a minor political party, in exchange for some political favours that this minor party would not enjoy otherwise.
In Australia, such political party has the title of "deputy-prime-minister" (acting as prime minister when the prime minister is sick or out of the country) granted to its leader when the Liberals party wins the elections.
Or the major party in power may need the vote of a minor party on a particular political issue.
This means that your vote for such a political party may give a result different than what you expected.
The politicians of the two main political parties are acutely aware of what they need to win the next general elections.
This is to be a fraction more popular or a fraction less unpopular than their opponents, all this in a few very precise aspects of public life.
This is also often in a few political divisions (electorates) and most importantly, for the few days preceding and following the date of the elections (for postal votes and similar).
And because this will be done with advertising, these political parties also know that the public will inevitably be disappointed when they see what they obtain after the elections, which can simply not meet the expectations raised by the avalanche of subliminal advertisements used to win the elections.
Therefore, the politicians must limit the number of these aspects of public life and limit their depth to a minimum in order to also limit the inevitable public backlash.
It is a matter of sizing the bait which must not be too small nor too large and to know where to cast it while pretending that everybody will benefit.
If they do not follow this rule, the inevitable public disappointment will be too large and they risk remaining "in opposition" for a long time after losing the next general elections.
This is because the people will remember they were hugely deceived by a big bait (big promises) when the failure to provide a small bait could have been forgotten and forgiven a lot more easily.
All the political parties, large or small, blue, green, yellow or red, as well as their politicians, are part of the same old political system that they all need for their own progress and their political survival.
The non-politicians - the wage-earners, the salary-earners, the housewives or the househusbands - think that it is something strongly in need of changes wrongly believed to be acceptable to the politicians.
But the politicians need the system as much as a fish needs the water to swim and as much as a bird needs the air to fly.
The only change the politicians will willingly accept is anything that has the potential to allow them to extract more money from the non-politicians.
Any other change will only be granted under extreme public pressure with the cold determination of reversing it at the first opportunity because the consequences of any possible change can only be presumed while the consequences existing before the change are already known.
In other words, there is always the risk that any new change erodes in one way or another the advantages the politicians enjoy.
"Methuselah" is the name given to a nearly 5,000 year-old living bristle-cone pine tree of California who has a living relative estimated to be older than 5,000 years.
If Methuselah had the ability to travel, it could have witnessed Old Politics already well alive at the time of its birth.
Methuselah could have witnessed the whole progression of Old Politics before man built any stony monument or structure and to the present day, seeing all the rulers and dictators including their personal brand of politics.
Methuselah could certainly confirm that Old Politics is a system solely intended to sustain the lifestyle of the rich and the powerful of the time, or those aspiring to be, at the detriment of the others.
Methuselah could also confirm that it is a system that has grown day after day, year after year to the benefit of the rich and the powerful and only suffered temporary setbacks when the people were strong enough to impose a change on their "leaders".
Similarly, Methuselah could confirm that any setback is always urgently (within a 5,000 years context) reversed by Old Politics to recover any advantage lost and acquire others if possible.
Methuselah could also attest that, within the parasites that Old Politics has always created, only contemporary Old Politics has learned to live from its host while making sure that the host remains alive for fear of dying with it.
In other words, contemporary Old Politics wants as many consumers as possible to increase its own wealth but, unlike some predecessors, it wants to make sure it does not kill consumers in large numbers or foment rebellions by draining too much of their lifeblood.
But contemporary Old Politics is besieged by the smallest possible problem and society always pays dearly for its convulsions.
Ignoring the "Brexit" convulsions, in many aspects of life and due to changes in public behaviour, these two major political parties must progressively share the same rhetoric and implement similar policies while still pretending to be very different.
The reason is that the political parties are always trying to gain the voters who support their political adversaries but also and mainly that the social classes of the past are losing their clear boundaries.
For example, a labourer may possess and manipulate shares in the stock market or a lawyer may have a taxi driver as a spouse or partner.
These are situations that were rare enough a few decades ago to affect the socioeconomic.
As a result, these main political parties have to broaden their preaching and encroach in the traditional and political territory of the other which means that they have to change their attitude toward social classes.
The politicians now need and desperately try to hold an old political system (Old Politics) which is slipping out of their hands like a wet bar of soap under the shower.
If Methuselah is a middle-aged tree, we are justified to wonder what it will see before its death, whether it is a natural death or it is nuked by a Chinese rocket so the Chinese dictators can try to keep their job.
The old systems of government also work by obstruction and because these political parties limit each other regarding what they can really do, the "general elections" become a choice between two organisations that ensure that the other is impotent and incapacitated.
It is like a healthy person having to choose between gangrene and cancer.
If not making a choice, or if voting for a small political party, this person will still have gangrene or cancer.
It is impossible not to have one or the other under these old political systems.
And in every "democratic country", society pays for two big clowns making the same grimaces.
This political system of periodic elections, between gangrene and cancer, is entrenched so much in our way of life that we need a serious mental effort to imagine something else.
Some people even subconsciously believe that the system is permanently welded to humanity and have no idea of how simple it is to change it, regardless of the very large amount of work necessary to achieve this.
This old political system is also often brandished as the pinnacle of democracy, which is plain ignorance or plain fabrication depending on who makes the claim.
True democracy is so much more than that.
Ethically and in an ideal political system, every idea or view shares the same right of consideration.
Nobody should be forced to choose between two defective philosophies since that is what you do at election time.
This is even if you vote for the most obscure and unknown political party or if you intentionally lodge an invalid vote or you do not vote.
You should not be forced to grant for a number of years, to any political party, unconditional power that can only be affected by the opposing politicians, not by you, on the basis of promises concerning what they will do or not do, in a system of mutual obstruction which is bound to produce unsatisfactory results at best.
You should be allowed to choose between healthy options, regardless of their sources, options that have naturally gained predominance by receiving the approval of the majority of professionals.
If one major political party makes promises A and B, and the other major party makes promises Y and Z, you can not choose promises A and Y, or any combination involving promises of both major political parties, or of any other.
This is not democracy.
Under these old political systems, you can only accept or reject whole policies promised before the elections, you can not vote on their details.
This is not democracy.
After the elections and regardless of what the politicians really do, you have no say anymore - till the next general elections.
This is not democracy.
Voting for the most efficient at the political demolition of the other is not democracy, it is stupidity.
Voting on the basis of promises that do not have to be kept is not democracy, it is gullibility.
And there are many, many other cases which show that you do not have democracy but that you have a political system that the politicians called "democracy" and they have decided that it was safe for them (their power would not be diminished) if they allow you to have that illusion.
It is necessary to understand how the minds of politicians work because in the artificial world that they have created for themselves things do not work as people think.
Politicians know well that they could propose to do a truly good thing for society and lose a lot of popularity and possibly lose the next general elections if their opposition is able to convince the majority of voters that the proposition is a very bad one.
Conversely, politicians also know that they could propose something that is bad that the opposition finds itself unable to criticise effectively for whatever reason (it happens for reasons explained below), and gain a lot of popularity if they find a way to convince the public that it is a good thing.
These politicians are also aware that, when they propose a policy, they will have to take into account the public perceptions of any particular subject related to the policy that they have successfully distorted to gain political points in the not-too-distant past.
In other words, if they have recently been successful at convincing society that something is bad (for society), they obviously can not change their mind and say that it is good when they think that they would have a political advantage in incorporating it in a policy because their opposition is very likely to successfully exploit the fact to the maximum and the media will not miss it either.
Therefore, many policies, if not every single policy, face distortion due to political necessity.
In this process the words "good" or "bad" or "truth" or "lie" all lose their meaning and all that counts is the public perception and how to manipulate it if it does not go in the direction wanted.
The media will only feebly try, if at all, to convince society that it is wrong in its perceptions, if that is the case, for fear of losing customers and this is a fact that the politicians take advantage of.
In "democratic countries", the constituents are the eligible voters of a particular geographical area that is defined only for electoral purposes under the old political systems.
In each of these areas, each political party can present one of their members as a candidate to be their representative of the area and the constituents elect one and only one of these candidates as their "representative".
A candidate does not need to belong to a political party but, if such a candidate becomes the representative, he or she will have a negligible effect on public life unless his or her vote becomes crucial to form a government or pass a policy.
Such candidates are called an "Independent" in Australia and to remain in power, they must most of the time rely heavily on favours that they can extract from the politicians in government for their constituents only and in exchange for their support for a government initiative.
This is unethical in itself.
So, being an "Independent" is no mark of honesty or integrity, it is just a different way of doing politics.
Some of the freshly elected politicians will have some extra work to do if they also become a Minister or if they receive some other responsibility like secretarial work for a Minister.
These "representatives" must then leave the capital of the country where they usually work, to return to their electorate and reassure their constituents that they have not being forgotten as a result of any of these promotions.
The vote of these constituents will be needed soon, as the next general elections are never far away and these "representatives" must keep their electorates in a good voting mood.
Of course each "representative" has a local staff to do that but, like any celebrity, it is important to be seen in the flesh regularly to maintain the enthusiasm and the adulation.
Beside the average voters, the "representatives" often have influential groups among the constituents.
The members of these groups may believe that their status is important enough to deserve to communicate directly with the "representative" rather than with his or her local electoral staff.
For example, this group, let's say the owners of a small local factory, may have told this "representative" about the existence of problems affecting it that the "representative" should bring to the attention of the Prime Minister or the President.
This is done because, under Old Politics, there is always public money available for any local group who knows how to get it through their ability to manipulate the local votes.
As the political parties receive "donations" from business, they also make "donations" to any type of business (including "charities") to improve their popularity.
The only difference is that politicians do not use company money to satisfy the expectations of local groups, they use public money.
Business donations often demonstrate the indifference that businesses have for the political parties as they regularly make large donations to both major parties so that both have an incentive to make policies that favour these businesses.
Whether the problems raised by this local group are real or imagined or inflated or fabricated is of no importance since this is a case of having become aware of one's political power to extract money or political favours by using that power at the level of the local political jurisdiction.
Under Old Politics, this type of pressure is seen as a "normal practice" among commercial politicians and political politicians, and this "representative" may have to listen carefully to such people.
Eventually, it may even be necessary that the representative obtain some favour (funds, loan, tax rebates etc) from the government for these groups in order to maintain his or her local popularity.
We have to remember that if the political party needs popularity at the national level or at the state level to win elections, this representative can only count on local popularity to keep his or her job.
As an example, John Howard, who had been Prime Minister of Australia for more than a decade, lost the general elections when Kevin Rudd of the Labour Party became the Prime Minister of Australia.
This loss in itself did not mean the end of his political career and John Howard could have had many more political opportunities outside that of being a minister.
But at the same elections he lost his "seat" (his own electorate voted against him) which was considered to be one of the safest Liberals seat in the country and that meant the end of his political career.
He then tried to become a prominent sporting authority in a Cricket body (sport) and was also rejected there.
Doors open readily in business politics (all sports are big business) for successful political politicians but they close as quickly for failed politicians and John Howard, despite his long tenure in politics as a P.M., had become a failed politician.
Since any politician is first a representative, this is the single element that can terminate abruptly their political career.
This shows that the relationship with the constituents is the most important job for a "representative".
In a substantial number of electorates, either the political party is the most important to the majority of voters or the representative is.
There are electorates that will vote for a political party regardless of who is the representative nominated by the political party.
When this is the case, this electorate is called a "safe seat" in Australia because it shows a lasting and strong majority for this political party.
It is even possible that a large proportion of the electorate will be unsure of who this representative is.
The other possibility is that a particular representative succeeds at becoming popular in an electorate that has no strong allegiance to any political party.
In this case, the majority of the members of the electorate may support the representative and some members of this electorate may even be unsure of which political party this representative belongs or if she or he is an independent.
This could be because she or he gives the impression of being "independent" by not having the usual obligation to officially adopt the views of any political party.
When their political party wants the politicians to do something of a political nature, politicians will always think first of how their consent to the request will affect their popularity within their electorate.
If a politician thinks that a loss of support from the constituents is likely, this politician will probably reject the party's request.
But it is easy to pretend to object vehemently in an orchestrated disagreement with the political party while working "behind the scene" for the success of the project.
This is why politicians can so easily accept the worst criticisms made by other politicians in the knowledge that it was what they thought they had to say to satisfy the voters while knowing that what they will do will be the opposite of what they said.
But sometimes, politicians take a risk, or a reward is offered, "behind the scene" of course, to take this risk.
Sometimes, the politicians depend fully on the political party and have no choice, for example in an electorate which is loyal to the political party rather than to its representative.
The politicians who are in such a situation appear to the public to be in a strong position when, in reality, they are weaker and more restrained by their political party than their colleagues who have won an electorate through their own political popularity.
This explains why a "representative", who is only known in her or his electorate, occasionally criticises openly the decisions made by the leader of the political party, to the amazement of the people from outside of the electorate who are bemused to see that the political party does not retaliate.
This representative knows that if the political party wanted revenge, she or he could easily become an independent without losing much popularity within the electorate and that the political party would "lose a seat", with possible devastating consequences.
This representative is possibly in a a very strong position, because if the loss of that "seat" brings the political party too close to losing government, then this representative can practically do with impunity from the political party anything that she or he wants.
The representative of a "safe seat" can take more risks with the electorate but has to adhere to the views of the political party much more closely.
This is because if the electorate does not like what she or he does, the electorate will blame him or her as being responsible for the initiative, not the political party that really issued the direction.
The voters will then still vote for the same political party as if nothing had happened and this party will "nominate" her or him again at the next elections for having been an efficient supporter and propagandist for the political party.
This explains why for example, the Australian politician and Treasurer Peter Costello, who had a "safe seat" and who regularly proclaimed that he should be the leader of his political party, was totally prevented from criticising the work or decisions made by his leader even though this could have been his only way to supplant him.
As long as the political party supported this leader, dissenting could have lead to Peter Costello not being selected as the Liberals candidate for the seat at the next elections.
The politicians who represent "safe seats" must enthusiastically approve the initiatives and the decisions of their party or their leader.
To remain silent is the only form of disapproval allowed to these politicians.
The leader, or the political party, may decide or promote something that is unpopular in a particular electorate, in this case, the politician or the Minister representing this electorate may have to oppose his or her own political party to keep a favourable image within the electorate.
This can easily be connived between the representative and the political party who is aware of the need to do so or it could be genuine, depending on the relationship between the representative and the political party.
Typical examples are the construction of new public infrastructures which are always opposed by the affected residents.
There are many cases when politicians have concluded that they had to defect from their political party in order to keep their constituents and their job.
In such cases, the ethical way to behave is to resign their position and find another job, if leaving the political party is the next step that they contemplate.
But only people of integrity do that.
You see, these politicians have an asset - their electorate - which they would lose if they resigned.
If the politicians wanted to join another political party without bringing their electorate with them, then they need to start all over again from the beginning.
Consequently, they create a new political party or more often, they join an other existing political party which welcomes them because these politicians bring with them a full electorate that these political parties hope this newly-recruited politician would be able to keep in this electorate's new political paddock.
Taking an electorate to another political party is not illegal in Australia (and most likely, in any other "democratic" country) but it is contemptuous of the feelings of the members of the electorate.
It also shows that the politicians consider that the voters are a commodity that they are allowed to manipulate as they wish.
Meg Lees deserted the Australian Democrats and became an "Independent" after having lost the leadership of the Democrats party.
It was likely that the majority of her electorate wanted to remain with the Democrats because this electorate quickly deserted her.
Politicians have also deserted their political party because it did not give them the status that they thought they deserved, like Don Chipp, in Australia again, who deserted the Liberals to create the Democrats party.
Occasionally they even join the "enemy", as Sheryl Kernot did in Australia, deserting the leadership of the Democrats (which she publicly described as a dead end) to join the Labour party (which seemed to have made her some promises).
Julian McGauran deserted the Nationals party to join the Liberals party, leaving his brother with the Nationals party.
It is likely that these politicians felt that they had nothing to lose, or perhaps they were too confident about their personal appeal within their electorate which they preciously kept when joining another political party.
But regardless, this reinforces the view that the constituents are the priority number one for any politician, even in acts of desperation or in failed self-promotion.
In tactics that can only be used by the main political parties, general elections are now always "targeted".
This applies to electorates that are "marginal".
These are electorates in which a change in "voting intentions" of a few percent could see these electorates switch from one political party to an other, usually to the other main political party.
The other electorates only demand regular superficial checks to ensure that they have not become marginal as the general elections approach.
For the politicians, it is much more important to win a few votes in an electorate that will become theirs as a result than to lose many votes in an electorate that will remain politically the same.
The purpose of the politicians is two-fold:
But both main political parties do the same.
So plainly offering to the voters small amounts of money in the form of a social benefit to increase the vote count in their favour has only worked the very first time that it was done which was a long time ago.
The principle of offering small amounts of money in isolated electoral sections of the community is still common but the context in which it is done has become more complex and more expensive.
Teams of political analysts and advertising agencies are now involved to draw a list of baits, a map of where they should be offered, the selection of recipients and saturate the voters with advertising propaganda in what must appear to be a new national scheme.
You see, the politicians must ensure at any cost (to you) that it is not seen for what it really is, a promise to offer your neighbour but not you (or vice-versa), a bit of money in exchange for votes that could make them win the next elections or remain in power.
They must successfully pretend that it is all part of their most needed "reforms" which, they will claim, are part of their more grandiose scheme of improving the management of welfare of society when, in reality, it is only of benefit to themselves.
In effect, the main political parties buy electorates with public money in the form of small "benefits" but at great cost to society in the form of research and advertising at the national level.
Politicians often claim that their political party use their own funds to do this but those funds are business donations or public funding of political parties.
Whether the claim is true or not, you pay for it as a taxpayer or as a consumer because politicians and big business never give from their own pocket.
The "privileged places" are buildings in which the politicians meet and are allowed to say anything that they want about anybody or any body (their opponents, businesses, organisations, etc) without having to provide any proof of their claims.
The politicians spend a lot of time in the "privileged places", abusing their opponents or making fools of them or of themselves.
The media have reserved seats in these buildings and are constantly watching these events.
They are also eager to prominently report the episodes that are entertaining - to the delight of the benefiting politicians and to the dismay of the others.
The media will then investigate to see if they can pour oil on the fire to keep the confrontations alive and to discover more entertaining episodes to publish and boost their own popularity and their profits.
The media will then carefully catalogue these "debates" for posterity because even the most insignificant segment can unexpectedly become very significant, even years later.
This sets in a very narrow path the manner in which these "debates" have to proceed.
Any subject that is debated by the politicians in a "privileged place" must be made as attractive as possible to the media who are watching from above.
If it is attractive enough, the media may report it, or it may report it in a more remarkable way or with more prominence.
The pressure for the politicians to interest the media in something favourable to themselves, or harmful to their opponents or competitors, is intense, constant, ruthless and without principles.
Hurting an opponent's reputation by any means is all that counts and is the only objective.
This is how the politicians are judged by their colleagues and their political party.
In their disgraceful world, this is their way, their only way, of making room for themselves and finding their rank within the pack of politicians.
They do it like a dog finds its rank in a pack of dogs, by testing which dogs are stronger, to which this dog will have to submit, and testing which dogs are weaker, which this dog can then dominate.
Politicians openly call this: "Having the numbers".
This is also the politicians' way to earn a mention in the history books and to obtain the power that they want to remain and progress in their system because they know that they can not achieve this with their own low intrinsic value.
There is an inherent benefit in this strategy because a false or distorted or fabricated story that appears as a true story in the first page of the newspapers, or in prime television time, will be corrected later at a lower level of the public attention.
It is common for the public to know of an initial accusation made in a "privileged place" but be completely unaware of a later official correction due to the fact that the accusation was incorrect or baseless.
Of course, the distortion or the fabrication of a story can become an entertaining subject in itself, but only if the media had no responsibility or involvement in the deception.
This is sometimes impossible if the media failed to check all the facts and all involved unexpectedly become silent.
In which case, what could have been of public interest is abandoned because it could trigger defamation proceedings against the media.
The politicians will always hope that the media will succumb to commercial pressure and that they will report the brain-waves of the politicians prematurely.
It always works to the advantage of the politicians, when they succeed in making something irresistible to the media.
For the media, time is the big enemy and if the politicians can present to the media something that is attractive to the public then the politicians have a good chance that the subject will be adopted by the media and published with little change.
A particular subject, even a known untruth, may be completely boring to everybody, but if a politician finds a way of placing it in a different and attractive or funny context, this subject will have a new lease of life with the media, if only for the day.
Any political reporting by the media will always translate at least in a small gain of popularity for a politician or a political party and a small loss for another.
To succeed, a politician has to try to shine more than the others in this practice of deception.
If the politicians ignore this strategy, they will remain in obscurity or have a short political career.
However, it is not necessarily automatic that a point that a politician may think to have been made to her or his advantage in the privileged place will appear verbatim when reported by the media.
This is because the media interpret it in its own way and the reporting may have an opposite result if the media are of the opinion that the proper context, as they explain it, gives the point a different meaning or intention.
In the list of priorities, the strategy and tactics follow the debates.
This is because developments in the debates often imply that strategy and tactics have to be reviewed.
The strategy is mostly imagining what they would do if they were in the circumstances in which they plan to trap their opponents.
In this simple ambush in the "privileged place", shown on Australian television, one of these politicians said something calculated that triggered their opposition into anticipated accusations.
But, surprise - surprise, this politician had a counter-counter-attack ready.
If the recollection of the author is correct, the politician was Alexander Downer under the government led by John Howard.
A piece of paper was proudly brandished and presented as if it was an official document containing a date, the name and details of whom, from this opposition, committed the precise political sin that this opposition is now trying to accuse the politicians in government of committing or having committed.
This shows that the debates are not spontaneous, improvised verbal duels even if the politicians have to improvise sometimes.
Instead, they can be elaborated plots involving much preparation and research by many public servants paid with public money.
In the example above, it was obvious that the politicians had set a trap but often the traps are more subtle, more diabolical and impacting considerably on the politicians freedom to make useful policies.
It must also be said that the brandished piece of paper mentioned above was not necessarily an irrefutable evidence of the claim as it may well be a worthless note taken by the politician or a member of the staff.
The brandishing of this piece of paper could well be another calculated deception because, in a "privileged place", nobody is in a position to impose its submission to any authority for appraisal of its importance or its validity.
This is because of the "privilege", a fact that they all know and exploit.
And this piece of paper was never seen again after it had been brandished on that occasion in the "privileged place".
This was probably because if it had been shown or its details mentioned outside of the "privileged place", someone could have been in a position to launch a legal action for defamation.
This may seem unreal and childish to most of us but, for the politicians, this is so serious that it justifies the loss of lives when necessary.
Devising the attacks and anticipating the inevitable counter-attacks, or counter-counter-attacks, is time-consuming for politicians and specially for their staff.
It is an endless chain of accusations and counter-accusations that implies much work in research and preparation.
This research is necessary because firstly, the media will not easily be tempted to expand and investigate in a hurry something that could only be a baseless accusation or insinuation.
The professional memory of their staff will quickly give them a hint in that respect.
And secondly the politicians must deliver lethal political blows to their opponents, political scratches are insufficient even if scratches are sometimes better than nothing.
This is why the politicians seem to come to these debates so very well prepared which raises the inevitability that they do not have much time left to be concerned about society.
This sort of battle of images and reputations is doubly time-consuming because the politicians can not trust each other in their own political party.
In politics, there are no friends, only alliances.
Even the most recent history has numerous examples of politicians claiming to be good friends only to seek each other's destruction in bitter public verbal exchanges following their competition for the top job or following a presumed friendship that has become a political liability.
The politicians are only able to criticise the political decisions and the exposed views of their opponents in other political parties, they do not have access to the details of the meetings between these opponents.
But their opponents within their own party (potentially every other politician in their party) have access to those details and are able to criticise whomever they want to hurt, at any time of their choosing and substantiate their claim to some extent.
This creates a need for the politicians to be extremely careful in what they say at party meetings, as much as what they say in public.
Politicians want to quickly learn to find and use phrases that lead in the direction that they want to follow but can be given a different meaning later if necessary because "party solidarity" has its limits, especially when self-defence or self-promotion are the objective.
Important mistakes in that respect are very rare.
The expression "Get real!" made by a female former Premier (a state leader) of Western Australia at a party meeting and reported to the media by her disapproving colleagues, was one of them.
These words were repeatedly mentioned by the media during the years of her following gradual downfall.
The plot that she had conceived was rarely known in details by the public but these two words remained etched in the public memory as a summary of her devious personality.
It is also very likely that these two words greatly contributed to the end of her political career as her federal colleagues tried unsuccessfully to enlist her in Australian federal politics.
The public simply did not want her.
This shows that it is very important for the politicians not to make mistakes in what they say in public or within their own political party.
This is why politicians always limit their conversation to "what-should-not-be" which they know to be unwanted by the voters and only talk about "what-should-be" after opinion polls have demonstrated it is very popular.
As a result, small or large political conspiracies are very rarely, if ever, something that is created clearly like a professional military battle plan that considers all the possibilities of progression.
Instead, conspiracies often starts small, with every participant having clearly understood the initial objective which is often to take advantage of what is perceived as an opportunity presenting no legal or ethical means of being used against opponents.
Therefore, no question must be asked if any advantage is obtained from the opportunity for fear that it could become obvious that something wrong is taking place.
In Australia, documents acquired by politicians in this way are often claimed to have "fallen off the back of the (legally transporting) truck" in the knowledge that the opponents will never be able to prove that it has been acquired by illegal means.
The objective of the conspiracy must never be clearly stated and grows with the conspiracy (Trump to Cohen: "There is no Russian business!"), a conspiracy that saw participants come and go in the knowledge that there is unfinished business.
And the speed at which it grows depends on how quickly the pieces fit together (favourably or unfavourably).
We could compare this to the game named "scrabble" in which letters are added to pieces on a board to form words vertically and horizontally.
Sometimes, many turns within the players need to be made to see only a small change on the board, sometimes it looks like the board is filling very rapidly.
If enough time and energy is spent in this objective, it becomes a team strategy similar to a war, with decoys and ambushes, advances and retreats but never clearly stated.
All that counts is inflicting some damage (or avoiding it) and pieces going on the board do not have to be "the truth".
In such a process, those who are unlucky enough to be seriously wounded (politically) must be send to the hospital (kept away from the microphones and the cameras for a good while).
Those killed (politically) must be buried with dignity (disposed of politically, but still praised).
Those only wounded lightly must not show their adhesive bandages (they must avoid to talk about the subject that created the wounds and they must keep smiling even if they suffer intolerable humiliation).
In these debates, the politicians must also "have the last word".
This is very important for their image, for their ego and for their political party.
When the politicians are in the spotlight and become speechless, they must quickly find something that they can say in an accusing manner and with the smile of a winner.
Some politicians excel at this and always seem to have the last word even if dumbstruck sometimes.
In Australia, Peter Costello was such a politician.
In such a performance and with the mandatory smile, he replied to his critics: "If that's the level of attacks, Mister Speaker..", he paused pretending to be interrupted by the opposition and repeated this line twice because he needed time to find his next line which was: "..bring in Mr. Shorten.".
The expression "Bring in Mr. Shorten" was meaningless to the public at the time, but Peter Costello gave the impression of returning a sarcasm, and having had the last word.
But quickly finding a punchy sentence to express disgust is not easy, even for politicians, if you are not really disgusted, hence the pauses and the lack of imagination in his reply.
When a leader delivers a speech at an official party function, it is "customary" for the party members to give a "standing ovation" at the conclusion of the speech.
This is regardless of what was said by the leader and regardless of what each individual member thinks of what was said.
Sometimes, the standing ovation begins by accident to the dismay of the leader who has yet to deliver what he or she thinks is the jewel of the speech but others who did not quite follow thought they had heard that final jewel and started the audible stampede.
The standing ovation is only an occasion to glorify the party by pretending and trying to convince the public that a new god has arrived in the form of this speaker and that this new god is from within this political party and no other.
Others who may have made a speech before the leader may be applauded without enthusiasm and sometimes even in a comical way as if wanting to conserve their energy and being reluctant to free both hands for the purpose.
But it is all fake, the standing ovation is not even "customary" as some say, it is compulsory and if not done enthusiastically, clapping hands at head level, it may even trigger feelings of revenge in some "hard-core" supporters of the speaker who have noticed the lack of enthusiasm.
This is because every member knows that this is how the speech will be concluded, that it is choreographed that way.
It is like an "encore" at the end of a theatrical performance when the audience wants to say that the performance was so good that it has not had enough of it.
And in this case, the members must appear to be begging for a lot more enlightenment that nobody else than the speaker is able to reveal.
And they are all fully aware that they must actively participate in this standing ovation even if, figuratively, they have a knife ready to stab this leader if they can get close enough.
They all know that these are two separate things, an apparent ecstatic admiration now followed soon by the infliction of the most abject political death if possible, because they are convinced that they can easily explain the change of attitude to the voters.
It is not possible to have a correct appreciation of what a political "leader" (a President or a Prime Minister) is without correcting the considerable public misconception of what a political party is.
The principle of Old Politics has always been that the politicians (those that we know in our modern society as "elected" politicians) are free to "govern" (manipulate and exploit if they want) society in the same way it has been governed for thousands of years as long as these elected politicians protect, and enhance if possible, the survival ability of the political party to which they belong.
The reason is that even a necessary imposition (a tax) has always been seen by taxpayers as a gross injustice and, in modern politics, the "opposition" will ensure that this is how it will be resented by the taxpayers.
So, during these thousands of years, politicians have become aware that, in practice, there is no difference in the public eyes between a tax or a law of benefit to society and a tax or a law of benefit to the politicians.
Any political party and any politician knows that, under Old Politics, taxpayers will never be happy about how the politicians spend public money because this spending always reminds of its acquisition which is always strongly resented.
As a consequence, the political parties and their politicians know that the underlying sentiment of society toward them is one of perpetual animosity on which everything beside taxes has to be built.
Old Politics then uses that permanent animosity as an excuse to blatantly exploit society.
These elected politicians may suffer an enormous political decimation at the election but the political party will remain even if all its elected politicians had lost at the general elections.
This political party wants to survive politically in the knowledge that the elected politicians will not.
The political party wants to be ever-lasting knowing that some of its members - the elected politicians - are ephemeral (gone at the first election they loose as a "representative", gone in another election when failing to renew their "preselection", gone in any other internal competition they loose, gone if they loose popularity too much, gone if they say the wrong thing, gone in so many scenarios).
The names of elected politicians, including the names of Prime Ministers and Presidents, are easily forgotten but not the name of their political party which survives them long after these elected politicians have vanished from politics or have died.
This clearly shows that there are two forces present in any established political party.
The politicians of any lasting political party form two distinct groups and any of its politicians can only be in one group or in the other.
One only becomes a member of Group A through proven dedication to it while one can only become a member of Group B by lodging in Group A an application for membership as Group A wants to retain complete control of the system.
Both are driven by the same motivation which is the realisation that the smallest amount of money taken from every citizen makes a large sum which could be theirs if they were in the right place at the right time.
But both accomplish their objective in very different ways.
And either can only survive through the existence of the other.
But this alliance is not as a result of the discovery of any efficiency in such system, it is because Group A knows that Group B will always be its greatest liability when - not if - it becomes "unpopular".
When the time comes from Group B to face political death, Group A knows that it must be prepared to separate from Group B and ensure its own survival.
The members of group B have also accepted the inevitability that, if necessary, they will become scapegoats for any mistake made by Group A on the ground that a spiritual leader can not really make mistakes while converting spirituality into actions fully has that potential in an obstructive system.
Group A also knows it can only count on Group B for its own survival through supreme political power which it must maintain at any cost.
The type of personality required to work in one group is incompatible with that required to work in the other group.
The unexpected conclusion is that any elected politician, any President, any Prime Minister comes from Group B, is ephemeral, is motivated by short-term ambition and is completely unable to contribute any lasting benefit to society.
Group A, the political party and its inglorious politicians, is the real master and any President or any Prime Minister has to submit to that master while he or she is allowed to pretend to reign over it or benefit electorally by letting society have that belief.
The obstructionist system of the various competing political parties ensures by itself that Old Politics is unable to support humanity in its evolution but this effect is reinforced within any political party.
This is because if any politician had any desire to support a long-term initiative, this politician would be in a group in which every other politician is only interested in short-term results.
This lonely politician could never succeed and would quickly be disabled.
The political party leads itself and the title of "Leader" is granted on the master politician of Group B which is always under the control of the politicians in Group A.
Group A allows the members of Group B to claim any glorious title they want in the knowledge that society needs a powerful symbol of its leadership and this can only be if society believes that the "leader" (the President or the Prime Minister) is the supreme authority of the political party.
Group A will also encourage the members of Group B to claim that they have revolutionary ideas, even regarding the political party, because it knows that this is what society wants to hear.
But Group A will want to ensure that it strictly remains a pretence and a self-promotion tactic.
Becoming a politician in any group implies unconditional compliance in many ways which shows that Old Politics can never produce a "leader" but can only enlist a new "follower".
This is a follower who is allowed to claim anything he or she wants, including his or her supremacy within the political party.
In the "privileged places", one politician from the government side is the arbiter of the debates.
If this arbiter decides that someone has made excessive claims or accusations, all that is needed is for this arbiter to ask from the politician involved that "the comments (or claim etc) be withdrawn".
This is only designed to give the public the impression that they have a code of conduct in the "privileged places".
Whoever made the offence is always anticipating this request, and the politicians willingly comply most of the time.
This is unless they seek special attention from the media watching the proceedings or if they need an excuse to leave so that they can do something else.
The politicians know well that the withdrawal of the comments is not going to repair the damages that they have inflicted.
They have accomplished their goal and "withdrawing" the comments is only symbolic.
When the same tactic is used in a criminal court for example, the judge will say to the jury that they should ignore a question or a statement just enunciated to which the opposing lawyer has objected successfully.
But how can the jury ignore it, especially and as is often the case, what has been said or asked implies very bad things?
This statement or question will remain in their mind regardless of what the judge says, and this is exactly the result that the unruly lawyer wanted.
Of course, this arbiter is biased, and sometimes is proud to be, in favour of his or her party and the demands for withdrawals will target the members of the opposition far more than the members of the political party in power.
These attacks and counter-attacks in the "privileged places" give sometimes unpredictable results as far as public perceptions are concerned.
Consequently, the politicians find it necessary to regularly check and reassess their directions.
Since there is no real arbiter in the "privileged places", the only way that this acrimony ceases is when the politicians become aware that the subject itself irritates the public and that further attempt at improving their image with this subject brings a loss of popularity rather than a gain.
Because they probe their popularity regularly, this is quickly detected.
For example, Bill Clinton, a former US President, had a short liaison with a female staff member, a liaison that seemed not to involve sexual intercourse and his opposition thought that this was an opportunity to destroy his political career and blemish his political party.
But after a short period of improved popularity, they discovered that the continued exploitation of the subject was resulting in decreased popularity for their political party.
At the time, some media commentators concluded that the public was not interested in Bill Clinton's sexual life but the truth is that this liaison was probably not sexy enough to maintain their interest in it.
Whatever it was, the public became irritated by the story and this opposition had to stop using it for their promotion.
The professionals tell us that germs become "resistant" to existing antibiotics and stronger or new antibiotics must be found.
Similarly, the public is not shocked anymore by what was shocking not long ago and Old Politics must find something more shocking to successfully shock the public again.
The politicians find it necessary to "escalate" their lies and distortions to make you believe the same thing because you are becoming "resistant" to political deceptions and lies.
The politicians may be of the view that the escalation is necessary and opt for violence as a distraction due to their rising unpopularity or the successful continued political attacks of their opposition.
This escalation never jumps from a simple lack of popularity suffered by the politicians in power to a military conflict (as the distraction), preferably with a much weaker "enemy".
But it reaches that stage incrementally over a period of time going sometimes through large demonstrations, riots and mass arrests, interspersed by increased propaganda.
In 2019, we witness a few democratic countries whose leadership is trying to be dictatorial which is a worsening of Old Politics.
The escalation is also necessary for the politicians in peaceful times when society is mostly of the view that the politicians do not need more power than what is required to fight the next general elections and run the country.
Then, this escalation will take place in the "privileged places" and in the media interviews.
For example, the politicians in government may be forced to take responsibility for a proposition regarding a policy and the political opponents will automatically claim that it is a bad proposition.
At this stage, both political parties want to convince of their views an electorate that has become more difficult to convince.
Simply exposing the facts is not an option because facts are often unconvincing by themselves specially when they can easily be countered with emotional arguments in Old Politics.
Consequently, and just to gain through the media the same amount of attention or the same popularity and the same rate of political success, there is this inevitable escalation leading away from reality.
And if it is difficult to make voters abruptly believe an enormous exaggeration, it is a lot easier to split that exaggeration in a number of parts used to incrementally exaggerate a believable and mild initial exaggeration on which the politicians can build.
It is then a matter of making you change your mind a little at a time or making you believe that society has done so and you are in a minority.
Anything is possible when you are able to access public money to pay the professional deceivers and propaganda is your only tool.
All this restricts the quality of likely already restricted options of improvement of policies.
There are few democratic countries in which a finely tuned balance of preparedness for escalation is not actively achieved and maintained by the politicians in government.
It only needs to be proportional to the size of the population.
For politicians, religion and politics do not mix and often, religion is only a skin to be worn in specific circumstances.
This is probably because they know that many religious sins are committed in their Old Politics and if unsure, religion can always be taken like an insurance policy - just in case.
Many politicians proudly claim to be deeply religious, but, as the Muslims remove their shoes at the door of their mosques, politicians shed their religion when they enter a "privileged place".
When the average person is inspired in places of beauty or in places of serenity, nothing inspires and invigorates more the politicians than being in a "privileged place".
They are then ready to tell the most incredible lies imaginable and make the worst possible accusations under the conviction that any god has already absolved them of any sin for which they may be responsible shortly.
It is interesting to note that the most murderous politicians can be religious people, like Saddam Hussein who was televised while praying, apparently convincingly, but was reported by the media, true or not, as having personally killed a few people, including one with his bare hands.
It is certain that religious politicians, including Saddam Hussein, G.W. Bush, John Howard, Tony Blair, Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbot and many, many others have self-serving views of their religion, if they truly believe in it.
These are views by which their god gives them special rights and treatment or views that their political sins are not sins but are political necessities exempt of divine judgement.
If this is not the case, then they must have a very distorted view of their religion, a view that is completely different than that of any other worshipper.
An online dictionary defines the word "belief" as follows:
"..an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof"
Beliefs can relate to religious and non-religious matters.
A belief is often a finality that does not have room for any change as it often appears to the believer as an undeniable and immutable fact, sometimes against obvious evidence to the contrary.
Politicians use the words "belief" or "believe" as a replacement for their absence of knowledge or as a motivation, religious or not, more justifiable than any knowledge.
And policies are mostly the result of their beliefs rather than accepted solutions proposed by a group of professionals following an appropriate professional analysis of a public issue.
Albert Einstein, being the physicist he was, placed his god above the universe, or outside of it, since he never claimed any divine influence in the formation or the working of the universe when he said: "God does not play dice!" in an unscientific moment since the claim was only an unproven belief.
However, if as a religious person, your interests are limited to your small farm, you will place your god much closer.
This is why, as recently as a century ago, until the advent of the aeroplane, people placed their god in the sky of the earth even though they already knew that we have a moon and a sun which has other planets, all far away from our sky.
This shows that the very core of religious beliefs can be very different between people sharing the same religion.
But Pierre Daco (a Belgian psychoanalyst) mentioned the after-life in one of his books and explained that the human body is made of many billions of atoms whose life expectancy is expressed in billions of years.
He then asked in French: "Is it not splendid?" while referring to our subconscious connection and our belonging to the earth and having explained that the atoms of the breath of famous dead people are in the air that we breathe.
It seems logical that a religious person making the same scientific observations would again have a different conception of god's place and god's influence.
You can "believe" that there is a god or you can "believe" that there is no god, there is only these two options.
In the circumstances, it relates to an unsolvable uncertainty that has existed in the minds of people for thousands of years and is likely to remain so for a long time.
It is because, amongst other believers, the religious and the atheist are unable to prove scientifically that the other is wrong although Einstein studying the universe could not have believed in any religious theory of "creation".
However, beliefs of any kind have no impact on sciences and technologies which are able to progress regardless and science will probably identify in due time the genes that make someone a true religious person or an atheist.
Even faith (being a true religious person or being an atheist) is not a decision we make, we are predisposed to it from the moment of conception.
It is normal to question and have beliefs about the inexplicable, like what happens to our spirit when we die or whether or not there is a god?
But it is not normal to run a country on beliefs, religious or not, about how things should be when there is an abundance of scientific and technological evidence available that allows you to find the best solution to any social or public problem even if it does not solve everything.
It is not acceptable to run a country on religious beliefs because religious beliefs are different for every believer in the same religion and no religion has ever achieved enough cohesion to ensure stable and tolerant religious government.
But most importantly, government is about ensuring the provision of material things for the people, not remodelling their spirituality and letting them resolve their material needs.
If a politician acts on "beliefs" and you are not familiar with the subject, you are likely to accept the proposition because you can only use your own beliefs to make sense of it and you may think it is normal for the politician to do the same.
But the politician is supposed to know and claims to know which is why he or she has been elected and is paid from public money, and that is the big difference.
Politicians deciding the directions of an entire nation on personal "beliefs" is criminal and even recent history has proven that.
George W Bush decided to invade Iraq (and kill many people) after brandishing a document that was supposed to be a proof that Saddam Hussein was attempting to "import active uranium" (to make an atomic bomb), a document that was a fake.
George W Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard were happy to "believe" without any validation that the document was genuine, later claiming that they "strongly believed" that it was an authoritative document.
The politicians performances are almost always defined by their beliefs, or what they pretend to believe, rather than by professional knowledge as we continuously see the politicians fluttering from one government department to another like a butterfly in a patch of flowers.
We all know that the politicians can barely face their political responsibilities which imposes on them to find a complement or a justification in strong "beliefs".
But there is a large difference and often a critical difference between knowing or learning "how to do it" and knowing "how to do it well".
And our modern society is full of people who can "do it well" so why give the job to an amateur who can only "believe" that he or she "can do it"?
Old Politics is a circus that the politicians can easily stop.
But they have no intention of changing this artificial system because of the individual conviction that they all have that there is still so much that they can gain from it that, they also think, the other politicians, even on their own side, are not clever enough or quick enough to glean.
You see it is not a matter of evaluating the technical knowledge or the intellectual capacity of colleagues which could force you to admit that they are superior to yours - as in the case of a more experienced colleague who performs more easily than you.
Instead, it is a matter of evaluating their ability to deceive, which means evaluating their ability to successfully pretend (that reality is not as you see it but as they claim it to be).
In a world of pretenders, anyone can always easily convince oneself of one's ability to pretend more or more convincingly than the others.
You could call this their ego.
But when you are unable to evaluate something on its technical or scientific realities and your future depends on a necessary demolition of that something (a proposition made by an opponent), the only tool that you have left is to discredit it subjectively (pretending) and this can be very powerful.
The fact that good initiatives become impossible in the process is of no concern to our politicians.
Only their survival within their unprofessional system counts and frightening the voters emotionally with an imaginary impending disaster resulting from a proposition made by their opponent is so much easier than having to prove that this opponent is proposing something that is wrong or inadequate.
The politicians become mentally addicted to this distortion of life.
For them, it is the reality and an art in itself.
Trying to remove this tool from the politicians would meet an insurmountable resistance because that is all that they know and possess to advance in their life.
It is also an unacceptable proposition for the politicians that in scientific and technical matters (in anything that is not political) there is a necessity to develop at any level a scientific mind-set following the fact that science (or reality) does prove in its own time the incorrectness of any incorrect theory or practice.
And any professional integrity demands from any team member responsible for this incorrectness that they acknowledge it publicly before their continuation of the task affected by the incorrectness is justified.
Only the politicians exempt themselves from this reality.
But it is very important that in public life we are spontaneously willing to acknowledge our own professional mistakes to our colleagues and even document them (explain in details) when suitable to help those who will come behind us or after us.
If this does not happen, the colleagues will be entitled to think that we are either not qualified as previously thought or that we are not trustworthy.
Having to discover and report one's own mistakes is difficult and embarrassing but making it necessary for someone else to do it is a lot worse.
In business or in public life, the important decisions never bring immediate results.
If we ignore the populist policies like increased punishments, the majority of political decisions are the less important decisions which are likely to bring results within a time frame of a few years.
This is already a problem for the politicians who are never sure that they will still be in government to enjoy the expected generated popularity.
For instance, in the early 2000, the Australian media were concentrating on industry complaints of a shortage of qualified workers in Australia.
However, in Old Politics, whatever is taking place is rarely clear and the counter-argument presented by some was that there was no such shortage and these industries were trying to "import" cheap labour as it was known that the same labour in some other countries was paid substantially less.
The official statistics issued shortly after seemed to support the counter-argument.
Nevertheless and whatever the true motivation was, the situation was due to the inactivity of the politicians either in failing to make sure that Australia would not face a significant shortage of skilled workers or failing to ensure that these industries pay the Australian workers the wages due.
But in either case, that would have been taking a position on the issue and facing disastrous criticisms of the opposition given the political ramifications.
So the politicians in power resolved the issue by following the wishes of big business and shifting the emphasis of the immigration rules from family reunion to working qualifications which the opposition could not "oppose".
But why is a government refusing to find what the problem really is and consequently avoiding any required solution?
The cause is simple to understand.
Working for the benefit of their opponents is one of the greatest fears of any politician.
The government of the time, under John Howard, never expected that its hold on power would last so long (eleven years) and it always worked as if it could lose the following elections which, incidentally, may be why it won four successive elections.
So it took no risk, proposed no major change in policies etc.
If his government had introduced in due time a good policy to resolve the shortage of skilled workers or if it had imposed on industries to pay "Australian wages" and if it had lost the following elections, it would have been working to the advantage of its opponents because:
But the government proposing and implementing this good policy would have gained no popularity and could even have lost some.
This is because the opposition would have criticised the idea until it became very unpopular.
Or, if the people thought that it was a good and necessary idea, the approach or the proposed implementation could have been claimed to be wrong and catastrophic.
This became a typical case of not losing popularity by ignoring the issue and doing nothing (or as little as possible).
There is absolutely no benefit, under Old Politics, for a political party in government to introduce a good policy or a good change of policy for which the credit can and will be claimed by the opposition when they get in government.
The choice was as follows:
You might say: "But under your scenario, the politicians in power create a bad situation for themselves if they do not lose the next elections, surely they do not want that." and this is partly true.
However, it is necessary to understand that for the politicians, being in power is all that counts even if to be, or to remain in power, they have to make the job more difficult for whoever wins the next general elections, including themselves.
In most democratic countries, a policy whose economic benefits are likely to materialise after the next general elections has an equal potential to be of advantage to the opposition and the politicians do not want that.
As we have seen, only a strong public pressure spurs the politicians into action.
In this example, the politicians in power will have improved their chances of winning the next general elections (by not taking any risk) and gaining an other term in office is all that matters.
This is regardless of how difficult the next term may be because both political parties will face the same difficulty after the election.
The regular general elections make such behaviour unavoidable.
However, in the vast majority of cases, doing nothing rewards the politicians very well under Old Politics.
The consequences of their inaction may only be exposed many years later, when it is worth no more than a history lesson.
It is important to understand that the politicians live in a world in which the image and the popularity are the only criteria that define their success.
It is a world in which the only knowledge and experience required are those necessary to deceive others and it is a very distorted world.
For example, it is easy to make a politician who has been seen eating a bar of chocolate lose a substantial amount of popularity by simply claiming publicly that: "He eats too much chocolate!"
And this popularity is what will determine if the politician survives politically after the next general elections, based on perceptions of the lowest derision.
In such case, the objective is to present a proposition that is emotionally charged and can easily bypass your ability to reason since the reasoning has already be done for you by claiming that the chocolate eaten is "too much".
Placed in the context of the intellectual capability of this chocolate-eating politician, the purpose is to send the message straight to your subconscious and let it make the appropriate conclusion.
If we do not "see through" the claim, we will interpret it subjectively as follows: "too much chocolate" means "too much fat" which means "too much plaque in the blood" which means "brain not working properly" which means "he makes bad policies" which means "I get a bad life" which means "I must oppose that politician."
Our emotional mind only makes elementary assumptions about our survival but will easily make this conclusion.
Every time that politician is seen or heard, the chances of associating him with excessive chocolate consumption will be very high and will reinforce the conclusion.
In the old systems of politics, such situations affect voting because people easily remember events that have made on them an impression strong enough to rule their personality, when those events have happened within the last few years which is the time that is spent between elections.
After a while, you may notice that the sight or hearing of the same politician is associated with an unpleasant feeling.
But you can not pinpoint why, which shows that, although the chocolate accusation may have left your conscious memory, your subconscious, who does remember, continues to rule your decisions because the 'unpleasant feeling' will incite you to remove that politician from your thoughts, including in your vote.
Do you remember any "swearing-in ceremony" following a general election?
Freshly appointed Ministers are like happy babies having just been fitted with a clean nappy.
They are all smiling and wriggling in anticipation of the usual and historic photograph but they are hopelessly useless to society.
This is a state that they will rarely leave despite all their pretences to the contrary.
They are also like pampered rich kids having just received a present that they can not use, like this female socialite who was "given" a football team as a birthday present.
Luckily for the football team, she knew that, if the team had to survive, it was better to leave its administration to the professionals already in charge.
A Minister can not use a government department directly because he or she does not speak its language, does not know its procedures nor, with any precision, what this department can or can not do.
For this Minister to use the department, the political party or the leader needs to appoint a special person who can act as an interpreter between the Minister and the department and ensure that the Minister does not try to use his or her new toy for something that it is not designed to do.
This special person, who knows how the department works, is also engaged to politicise the public servants as much as possible.
In the USA, this appointment of department officials by the government, or the President, occupies a few levels from the top, showing more determination than other "democratic" countries to influence the public servants.
In Australia, one of the titles used is the "Head Of Department".
The name may be different in other countries but we will use it here because it is simple and explicit.
The new Minister can not appoint this Head of Department.
This is a prerogative reserved for the leader of the party, showing already that this Minister lacks real authority on his or her department.
It also shows the inevitable lack of trust between closely associated politicians.
But the leader does not trust these Heads of Department either so they are only offered a short-term contract and can be dismissed at any time should they be inclined to become politicised by the opposition when sniffing a change of "political wind" any time before inauspicious general elections.
These contracts are rarely renewed when there is a change of government.
It would seem to anyone that a Minister should know what department is under his or her responsibility, but this is not always the case.
For example, the opposition of a previous Australian government asked the "Treasurer" (a Minister) some questions in the "privileged place".
This "Treasurer" listened in an impassive and casual mood.
Against any expectation, he remained seated and silent, seemingly unwilling to rise and answer the questions.
But then he suddenly said: "The Treasurer? That's me!", rose and promptly went to give an answer whose lack of quality was drowned in the laughter.
To his defence, he had only been a "treasurer" for a short time in a quick succession of Treasurers.
But this shows the lack of real importance attached to these titles by the politicians.
However, it is probably much more common for the Ministers to be ignorant of what can be done or can not be done with a government department.
But the Ministers, and their department, are unlikely to report it to the media, or to the public if a mistake is made in this regard.
Without the "Head Of Department", the Ministers would have a hopeless job to communicate effectively with their department because they would have to learn it first.
This would be like a driver having to learn mechanics before being authorised to drive a car or other motorised vehicle.
If you get a job as a chauffeur or as a truck driver, the basics of this skill may be required but the politicians know that "leading" a government department never lasts many years and they prefer to behave like the common driver.
Few common drivers would have the inclination to learn mechanics.
If one hears a strange noise while driving, it is so much easier to ask at the garage what the problem is.
And a Minister can always ask to the Head of Department, without really asking of course but meaning: "What is this thing I did not expect?".
If most common drivers do not have much desire to learn how their car functions, the Ministers know that learning their government department is something that they can not afford to do since they already do not have enough time to maintain or improve their image.
The Head of Department is there to give the necessary explanations to the Minister.
Alternatively, the Minister can give the "brief" to the Head of Department who can translate it in the jargon of the government department who can then understand and do what the Minister wants.
Given this, and the fact that a Minister may have to lead any other government department at any time, it is easy to comprehend that Ministers do not want to spend more time than is absolutely necessary with their department.
The Ministers have nothing to gain and have no interests to know any government department in any detail, it is a waste of time and energy under Old Politics.
The politicians will remember things peculiar to a government department, while being their Minister, only if those things can be used to increase their popularity or if they think that it is an interesting curiosity.
For example and during a stage of his political life, Peter Costello seemed to enjoy repeating a slogan which was probably told to him in a particular way by someone in a finance department because he was the Treasurer of Australia.
This slogan was: "Wage rises put pressure on the interest rate." which is incorrect, wage rises put pressure (sometimes) on the Reserve Bank (of Australia in this case) to increase interest rates.
And there is a marked difference since "wage rises" and "interest rate increases" (or decreases) could both be natural components of an economy, the Reserve Bank (which sets "interest rates") is not, it is an artificial and political insertion (good and bad) whose objective is solely to prevent a natural course of events.
The Ministers always give to their government department a brief of what they require, leaving it to their department to work the details.
This has been official practice since the time the government departments have become too technical for our politicians and this happened a long time ago.
However and due to Old Politics, our politicians are unable to make a clear distinction between what is "details" and what is not and be consistent in that approach.
Politicians are also under constant pressure to progressively classify as details what was previously not "details" so that they can consecrate more time and energy to the preparation of the debates which is where the publicity on which they live is.
For example, the taxation departments and the police departments decide more and more what is taxable and what is punishable and by what, and the politicians contribute to their own obsolescence in the process.
Once a department has received a suitable brief from a Minister, this department has the skill to accurately follow the instructions and fill in the details, simply because the politicians have given the departments the responsibility to work in this way.
If for example, the Minister discovers that something he or she was expecting to be a good source of tax revenue, is unexpectedly assessed as non-taxable by the taxation department, the brief is wrong and will have to be rewritten.
But our politicians know that and they are able to take all the necessary precautions to avoid such humiliating situations.
It would be complete chaos if government departments had to adapt their respective procedures and methodologies to the ignorance and ego-centrist personalities of successive ministers and luckily, it is the Ministers who must adapt to their department.
The system of giving the government department a brief is similar in all the democratic countries, again because they all copy each other.
This allows the Ministers to only have a minimum of liaison and involvement with their departments.
We know that it is impossible to be good in a part-time job.
By "good" we mean "above average", and in a part time job, we usually learn only enough to satisfy some basic requirements.
To be good, any job must be your main activity and your main interest, it needs all your professional attention and all your professional energy.
To excel in a job requires even more.
On top of that, "Public Services" or "Civil Services" or "Government Departments" (depending on the country), also have many experts who specialise in one specific area.
It is therefore impossible for any Minister, having no prior experience of a government department and having a low professional experience, to visit it occasionally and be, or become, its supreme authority.
Presenting a Minister as the "leader" of a government department is another deception.
It is also a fantasy if the politicians believe in it.
The real authority of any department is not the Minister, nor the Head of Department, in Australia it is the Minister's second immediate subordinate, it is the subordinate of the "Head of Department".
This person is a career person who remains apolitical and whom successive governments will keep in office for her or his experience of the department and his or her integrity to its rules.
It is the person who has the real necessary knowledge of what the department can do and of how it must be done.
In the USA, the same person is located in the forth or fifth position from the top.
While politicians benefit from what is emotional and big business benefits from what is not illegal, the media benefit from what is or is not moral.
The media like to see itself as a moral opposition to all the politicians and all the political parties.
By reporting events, it sees itself as protecting society against the abuses of the politicians of any description while finding justifications for its own abuses.
Like the politicians, the media have to maintain an image in order to make profits but like any other big business, it has an interdependence with the politicians.
The politicians must rely on the media to publicise anything favourable to improve their image and the media can only report what the politicians do or the effects of what they do or do not do.
While big business and the politicians can count on their opponents or competitors exploiting voters and consumers in the same way, which gives you no alternative regarding government, the media must ensure they do not offend their customers or upset the politicians enough to be unofficially black-listed or loose many customers.
Consequently, the media behave no differently than politicians or any other big business regarding the consumers and the voters, having simply adopted a different platform based on criticising the others.
This will inevitably restrict their ability to report to the public with full integrity.
Hence, the accuracy of the following quote.
But paying good attention to the media report will always show to the politicians, including the Ministers, what public reaction is to be expected.
The politicians will know how to take advantage of something favourable (not necessarily good for society but perceived as such by society) or how to defend oneself against something unfavourable (not necessarily bad for society or reprehensible but perceived as such), thus protecting or improving their popularity.
Because it is important for the media to be correct to avoid giving an advantage to competitors and report in details to satisfy the public, the politicians will almost always gain useful and reliable information about the circumstances associated with the subject of the media reports.
This will make the politicians aware of facts that they have no other way of knowing including the latest public perceptions regarding the latest political developments.
The media will also describe the possible developments that could follow the events that are reported.
They will describe their anticipated associated risks faced by the politicians or business and their logic leading to these anticipated developments.
It is also common for the media to publish what they think that the politicians should do to remain popular or to regain enough popularity to win some elections, even if it is a recommendation to deceive the people.
The media will justify that recommendation with the often correct conclusion that it is what the majority of voters have been conditioned to expect, whether this expectation is good or bad for society.
In this strategy, the media become an informed accomplice of the deceptions of the politicians since the conditioning is falsely making one believe what everybody else is thought to believe.
And this is a political tactic which can not be unknown to the media.
With the exception of rare mistakes and because of the competition between themselves, the media will always publish information that is up-to-date, complete and immediately usable by the politicians.
If the politicians can set a trap by using only part of what they think that they have discovered in the hope that the incomplete information will incite their opponents to make more mistakes, the media can not afford to do this.
This is because they would put themselves at a commercial disadvantage if a competitor was able to report all the details and therefore make its own material more interesting to the public and more profitable.
Consequently, in their attempt to satisfy the insatiable curiosity of their customers, the media will be working very efficiently for the politicians, even if the material reported is detrimental or critical of those politicians.
This is because, when a politician discovers that unfavourable claims, true or not, valid or not, have been reported by the media, this politician can already deduct what is unknown by the media about the reported events and can base his or her calculated behaviour or defence accordingly.
For example, a politician communicates with Fred who introduces this politician to Robert.
The public perception is that Fred has a bad reputation but Robert's reputation is worse.
The media discover and deem fit of publication the contacts between this politician and Fred but do not mention Robert even though the contact with Robert could damage the image of the politician much more.
This politician can safely assume that the media are unaware of the contacts with Robert and make a judgement concerning the likelihood of them becoming known.
This gives to the politician an opportunity to adapt and conceal evidence or prepare a defence, which could be unnecessary if the media never discover the contacts with Robert.
Remember that this politician may be trying to hide something that is politically detrimental but which is not necessarily illegal or criminal or even unethical, it is just a matter of public perceptions following an association of "images".
The politicians are always well informed of what the media are reporting, whether through a morning routine of reading the newspapers or following the "current affairs" programs on TV, or participating in radio talks.
All this has become so important for the politicians that they have specially trained assistants selecting from the news what needs to be known by the master.
These are all invaluable tools which quickly point to what could be the next cause of loss of popularity under Old Politics.
The politicians prove this by regularly quoting new media reports in their usual accusations of their opponents or in their own defence or that of their political colleagues or political party.
Whether it is in Old Politics or in big business, the salesman (the propagandist) is more important than the professionals or the engineers or the scientists who will impart usefulness and quality to the goods or the services or the policies.
This salesman will always be financially rewarded better and provided he or she is effectively loquacious, the lower his or her knowledge is, the better, because he or she can then try to "sell" you, with absolute conviction, the worst crap on earth, political or otherwise, as the best invention that he or she has ever seen.
In Australia, two prominent radio personalities as well as the radio station for which they worked decided to take advantage of exactly that.
The scheme estimated at the time to be worth eighteen million Australian dollars quickly became a scandal commonly called "Cash for comments".
See http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_for_comment_affair or enter "cash for comments Australia" in an Internet 'search engine'.
One of these personalities had deep links with a political party and there is no doubt that his political experience and fame was the springboard to a well-paid radio job used to make more gain.
But in old politics, every aspiring politician, political or commercial, is acutely aware of what these old systems expect and that propaganda is not one of the tools of the trade but is instead its main instrument.
This is due to the fact that in our modern society nobody is able to make for the same price anything of a noticeably better quality or appeal than what is already available and only words are left to try and gain an advantage.
The politicians know that their main asset must be the ability of a super salesperson (a productive propagandist) as the objective is not to "convert" one "prospect" (make one sale), it is to make a product or a service or a company name or a policy rise above others from the competitors as the best creation of the time.
The modern politician does not sell you anything, she or he only creates your urge to buy it.
However, loquacity (propaganda) must now be a complement to advertising since it is counter-productive to have a salesperson communicating "messages" conflicting with those communicated by the advertising campaign of the same product, service, company or policy.
But it all suffers the same fate than the political debates between politicians in government and their opposition.
The competitors do the same, advertising and propaganda must be "escalated" to obtain the same result contributing to the push of life into the artificial or the surreal.
Propaganda and advertising have become so massive and so intrusive that no consumer is able to see anything with an open mind, whether it is a company, an association, a product, a service or a policy.
This is because, without even knowing it, our brain is already conditioned, from years of exposition to related advertising, with a prefabricated perception of it before we even contemplate any need or use we may have for it.
Whether it is in politics or in business, it is important to buy those who have been deposed.
After all, you do not want them to turn against you, or against your political party or against your big business because, in the old corrupt systems, they could have some real ammunition that could do considerable damage to your image or to your popularity or to your reputation or even send people to jail.
In business, those who are deposed usually leave after a large and "confidential" financial package has been devised and agreed upon.
People were expecting that person to be unceremoniously dismissed, perhaps even sued or jailed, due to usually being responsible for large financial losses but instead, they get a generous package that astonishes the ordinary people who do not understand what is happening.
In politics, this sort of money is simply not available.
The politicians usually have to find for that deposed person, who may be a scapegoat, a job that is easy, well paid and allows to continue any business involvement they may have.
The main political parties have "gentlemen agreements" (meaning: agreement that would be immoral or illegal if put in writing) relating to political positions in a foreign country.
These positions are often used as a reward to the deposed politicians or to the politicians who have been fatally wounded politically.
Politicians are often not attached to their country as much as they claim during their official tenure of a post and they are often happy to travel and perhaps open new business opportunities in a foreign country they like.
For example, when he was expecting Bob Hawke to give him the job of Prime Minister of Australia, Paul Keating (who became Prime Minister later) was reported as having told him that "Australia is the arse of the world" implying that he deserved better than the job of Treasurer of Australia that he had at the time.
Occasionally the main political parties have public disagreements regarding the distribution of these rewards in attempts at getting a bigger slice of the cake.
But the politicians know that it could hurt them if the disagreements lasted too long and the public became aware of the fine points of these deals and their complete lack of ethics.
Therefore these disagreements, these bluffs, never last long and rarely gain much notoriety.
These rewards are always given discretely and without any fanfare or pomp.
Again, the qualifications or the background of the recipient are irrelevant.
For example, Bob Hawke defeated Bill Hayden and took from him the leadership of the Labour party in Australia before becoming Prime Minister.
To "buy the deposed", Bob Hawke and Bill Hayden who was a former policeman and, till then, a staunch opponent of the British monarchy and wanting Australia to become a republic, agreed that Bill Hayden would become the next Governor General (G.G.) of Australia, whose job it is to represent the Queen of England (and of Australia).
But when the media raised the conflict to him, Bob Hawke proclaimed that Bill Hayden was "admirably" suited for the job.
Incidentally, the media said that during his 'reign' as Governor General Bill Hayden progressively behaved as if he had become a member of the British royal family.
This is another confirmation that politicians live in a world of their own.
A definition found on the Internet says:
"A divide and conquer strategy, also known as “divide and rule strategy” is often applied in the arenas of politics and sociology. In this strategy, one power breaks another power into smaller, more manageable pieces, and then takes control of those pieces one by one."
This definition seems to be applicable to the Chinese foreign policy toward the "democratic world".
However, the following definition also found on the Internet is more appropriate in Old Politics of democratic countries:
"To make a group of people disagree and fight with one another so that they will not join together against one."
The prevalent beliefs of society are that dividing the people (Divide and Conquer):
But these perceptions are all very wrong.
Dividing the people, with all its fatal consequences, is still actively pursued daily as a major tactic by all politicians, even in what appears to be the most peaceful and the most civilised democratic countries on earth.
And it is easy to understand why and how it is done.
As an experienced professional, you can explain impartially the good and the bad, or the pros and cons, of ideas and suggestions relating to your profession and why you have selected one in particular and if a layperson claims that it is wrong, you will likely let them have their views but persist in yours.
But as a politician, you can not afford to grant any professional any recognition.
This is because the probability is extremely high that any solution to any social or public problem any professional could independently and professionally propose will clash with your own proposition or your stated beliefs.
Your own proposition is at high risk of being exposed as inferior because it is only based on its emotional popularity amongst the majority of laypersons.
A politician giving any recognition to any independent professional would be admitting that a country is better ran by professionals than by politicians and that the job of the politician is and has always been useless.
Politicians always have to limit any professional recommendation within "terms of reference" (a to-be-understood list of what they are not allowed to consider) to ensure these recommendations hurt the politicians or expose their ineptitude as least as possible.
Whilst formulating professional recommendations may be straightforward, formulating political policies is extremely tentative and unprofessional.
This is because politicians can not take the risk of making firm propositions about any issue.
Instead, they must find at every stage what the public perception is regarding any criticism inevitably put forward by their political opponents and the media.
If any criticism appears to be believed by the voters, the politicians have to change direction after convincing the voters that they were not going in that direction which was only an accusation made by their opponents.
If the voters are not affected by the criticism, the politicians can then indirectly test an additional feeler and repeat the cycle till they have formulated what can be claimed to be a policy.
In doing so, politicians actively "divide" the people because, from vague feelers to a firm policy (if there is one) they may have incited a large section of society to emotionally argue their own views of the stage and at any stage of the process.
This uncertainty has incited members of the public to argue amongst themselves about what seemed to be the direction after every apparent change of - direction.
In this example, we have demonstrated an unintentional dividing of the people and shown that politicians can not behave differently in this artificial system.
But the politicians are very well aware of these facts and dividing the people has become intentional and organised a very long time ago.
Even president Obama, considered to be a moderate, was using it as he was always shouting in his speeches as if there was in the audience a strong hypothetical opponent who had just wrongly claimed the opposite of the theme of Obama's own speech, an imaginary opponent whose views had to be fiercely fought.
Divide-And-Conquer is also very simple to devise and very insidious because the politicians who want to use such a tactic know how to do it without being detected, except by some professionals in human psychology who know what the intentions are and what the consequences are likely to be.
But "Divide And Conquer" is not limited to the proposition of ideas or the formulation of policies because politicians regularly want more than differences of opinion within society.
Regularly politicians want violence amongst the population because the differences of opinion have become insufficient and "escalation" is necessary.
This is often the case when the politicians become aware that they could loose the next general elections.
At the time of this writing (August 2018) Trump has lost prestige in a substantial way after recent disastrous meetings with North Korea Kim Jong-un and Russia Putin and unexpectedly, the media report the threat that the US is preparing to bomb Iran "as earlier as next month".
There is no doubt that if his prestige recovers enough, the threat will become "fake news" but the threat may be carried out if Trump's prestige continues to deteriorate.
If that happens, people will die in an armed conflict with Iran in order that a US politician can regain his popularity.
Politicians also create divisions within their own population (divide and conquer) for the purpose of distracting people from a diminishing popularity or difficulties like a faltering economy.
This may be done as a reaction to events but it is often done preemptively when politicians fear developments in the economy or if an opportunity arises since the politicians believe that people can not be divided too much.
We must remember that the politicians are always informed of government forecasts years before the public is affected which gives the politicians ample time to prepare for their political survival when the expected turmoil hits society.
There are two ways to accomplish this objective:
But things do not necessarily eventuate as the politicians expect.
This was demonstrated in the event that happened at the Lindt café in Sydney, Australia.
Although the politicians tried their best to make a connection with "ISIS" which was the political leitmotif of the time, a Muslim of Iranian origin killed an hostage before being killed himself by the police.
This was assessed later by the forensic professionals as "a rare mix of extremism, mental health problems and plain criminality" as the killer already had convictions for violent crimes and was even suspected of involvement in the murder of his wife.
In a more spectacular example leading to the "Cronulla Riots" and politically backfiring badly, "Divide And Conquer" took the form of a veiled political attack on Muslims started by John Howard when he was holding tenuously the Prime Ministership of Australia.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Cronulla_riots if the link still exists
The public is then used as a target for possible extremists in the hope that one or a few extremists commit some crimes that can be perceived as directed toward society rather than toward individuals and, in doing so, worsen the image of a minority that the majority is then encouraged to ostracise.
Whether they need a small riot or a war to remain in power, the politicians will work to instigate one in the knowledge that they are themselves well protected from any violence.
Stalin was reported to be furious during WWII because the Allies had organised an attack on the Germans in a way that minimised their own casualties.
Stalin claimed vehemently that "..troops must be bloodied in battle.." (must suffer dead and wounded soldiers to raise the fighting spirit of those able to continue the battles).
But to create animosity within society, our politicians want the civilians to be "bloodied", not the soldiers.
How to accomplish this objective is simple because any society always has a number of people who resent any particular situation as being unjust or objectionable.
This can be anything one dislikes or disapproves of or even fears.
The politicians know that making a statement or a speech pretending empathy on the subject will result in a sufficient number of people concluding that this empathy is now an official justification, even an authorisation to convey a resentment kept personal till then.
Society is then ready to marginalise a section of the community.
At some stage in Australia for example, the empathy was summarised in the few words: "go back to where you come from" which was a political theme also expressed in other terms by the politicians.
Inadvertently, it became a slogan when television documentaries wanted to highlight the injustices of the concept but used a badly-chosen heading.
The slogan was then adopted in the streets by some "resenting" people venting their resentment in one form or another on anybody meeting the suitable physical criteria.
The expectation of the politicians in such cases is that those marginalised will have members resorting to violence that can be claimed to be directed toward society rather than toward individuals.
Then, the politicians have an excuse to raise, for example, the spectre of mass deportations to make sure society does not concentrate its attention on more important matters detrimental to the image of the politicians.
It is a tactic that politicians use in times of peace because if you do not have a single problem in the world, your are able to clearly and fully focus your attention on the failings of the politicians.
However, if they have convinced you that there are at every street corner enemies wanting to cut your throat, the failings of the politicians may appear to you like an insignificant problem.
The politicians know that and take advantage of it as much as possible.
The politicians will even bring to life those "cut-throats" if necessary.
The politicians fear a cohesive society more than they fear their political opponents and more than any adverse event that could take place in the economy.
This is because loosing popularity when society enjoys a high level of social cohesion is loosing popularity on a large scale and possibly in a hostile environment.
A highly divided society leads to civil war, a highly cohesive society may lead to a revolution.
Following September 11, 2001, John Howard became a fervent supporter of G.W. Bush's intention to invade Iraq.
This was a "Divide And Conquer" tactic that could distract for a long time the Australian people from everything past but also from any future event that could arise politically or economically in Australia.
And this would have reinforced John Howard's leadership of the country.
G.W. Bush had failed to gain support at the United Nations for the invasion of Iraq and he had to launch a propaganda campaign to convince people all over the world of the necessity of this invasion.
But at one stage, he seemed to have other preoccupations than his daily propaganda and he was not in the news for a few days.
John Howard eagerly took the relay as if he wanted to antagonise Bin Laden and his followers and make them look toward Australia, probably hoping that they would "bloody" the Australian troops (the Australian public in the circumstances) with some violence.
Following the Bali bombing, which happened very shortly after, in which many people died including Australians, John Howard made a speech like a man for whom everything was going well.
But a few days later, a reporter briefly asked him in vague terms if this bombing could have been avoided if he had kept his mouth shut.
This made him uncomfortable for a moment because, as the killing of Australians had happened in Bali, a popular holiday destination in Indonesia but close to Australia, instead of 'in' Australia, his plan had failed because the death of Australians in a foreign country did not have on the remaining of the Australian population the effect that he expected.
He probably also felt that his plan could become exposed (like the "Get real!" comment mentioned earlier) in a long damaging media pursuit but luckily for him, no media followed this question.
However it is important to highlight the fact that, at the same time, all the other politicians throughout the world knew that it was vital not to antagonise any possible supporter of Bin Laden's philosophy any country could have, if they wanted to ensure that their population was exposed as little as possible to unnecessary violence and these foreign politicians behaved accordingly.
Only John Howard saw the need to try to inflame the situation at the risk of exposing his own people.
It is also appropriate to highlight the fact that, when the national currency or when the national economy is in trouble, the politicians will resolutely remain silent regarding the issue.
This shows that they know how to keep their mouth shut when they think it is necessary and that when they speak about an event or a situation, it is to obtain a reaction.
As recently as October 2014, John Howard was interviewed again on the futility of the war in Iraq because no "weapons of mass destruction" were ever found and he said that he was "embarrassed" about it, adding that he "could not believe it" (acting on "beliefs" again?).
For him, it still does not matter that more Iraqis people could have been killed and maimed as a result of this unnecessary war than under the entire regime of Saddam Hussein.
What counts is his own "embarrassment" following a war that he wanted on "beliefs".
There is also the Cronulla riots of 2005 that were incited by a speech of John Howard and by the political extremist views voiced by his previous chief of staff, turned radio presenter, Alan Jones (yes, the same person involved in the "Cash For Comments").
This provocation also backfired because "white" Australians, not the targeted Lebanese, were found to be responsible for the resulting violence which was reported by the media all over the world.
John Howard said after the unrest: "It is impossible to know how individuals react but everything this government's said about home-grown terrorism has been totally justified."
He continued: "It is a potential threat. To suggest that one should remain silent ... knowing what I know because that might antagonise someone else is a complete failure of leadership.".
But what he said is full of distortions:
It is important to insist again on the fact that politicians know the importance of every single word they say in public and the question also arises regarding the timing of his previous chief of staff about comments that he made at the same time on radio, as a radio presenter, in support of those made by John Howard.
It is also important to note that the responsibility of John Howard in the Bali bombing may never be ascertained because it is possible that the perpetrators had been hatching the plan regardless of John Howard's provocations.
But his responsibility in the "Cronulla riots" is undeniable and his behaviour regarding Bin Laden was exposing the Australian people to unnecessary violence.
It is a certainty that the purpose of John Howard was to Divide And Conquer through violence.
There is probably not a single person on earth who would have heard a child saying: "When I grow up, I want to be a crook" or "..I want to be a killer."
Of course we all had dreams as a child of what we would do when we become an adult and circumstances often diminish that expectation to some extent.
However the vast majority of people keep one clear dream in common which is to live in peace and leave to their children a better and safer world than the one that they have inherited.
The exception is the politicians who have no hesitation to foment animosity and violence between people, even wars, solely to satisfy an ambition of greater power.
History shows that armed conflicts and wars are only wanted by "leaders" (the politicians), not by the people.
This creates animosity and resentment on a large scale and lasting many generations which the politicians see as a perfect environment.
The politicians seem to be convinced that the world must be a dangerous place to live if they want to succeed even if they make it more dangerous for their own progeny.
As an example, this "tough" man who considers that success in life can only be for those who take most advantage of the others but was on the verge of weeping when one of his children unexpectedly became the victim of his cherished way of life.
These people do not seem to have any idea that their dishonest or criminal behaviour creates or sustains a vicious circle of which they are bound to become a victim as much as they are an instigator.
The illusion of superior ability to deceive or take advantage and the illusion of invincibility from the same vices used against them by others are what motivates them as their heroes and idols are invariably prominent personalities having attained a powerful or richer status through objectionable means.
Although such people may get rich or richer or more powerful, their state of mind prevents them from reaching any happiness because they are convinced that this happiness can only be bought with the power or the money they do not have yet, the power or fortune they still have to acquire.
The money or fortune or power they already have has failed so far to provide what they are searching for.
They may not be unhappy but their life is often full of emptiness.
While it is a fact that one must not be naive about society, it is also a fact that knowingly deceiving someone will force you to "look over your shoulder" as you know your deceit will be found and someone will want revenge.
This will be some insecurity easily avoidable.
Politicians of all descriptions do considerable damage to society in their attempts at eliminating the deep insecurity inconspicuously driving their personality.
Politicians are regularly declared "Persona Non Grata" by their own children who disapprove of their behaviour as a politician.
Since these politicians must always "carry the smile of a winner", we are oblivious to the tensions and unhappiness in their families.
Sometimes they prefer to sacrifice the love of their family to continue their political career because that is all that they know.
Some politicians publicly admit to suffer from depression which is an indication that, vaguely, there is an honest vestige of their personality trying to survive their distorted and engulfing world.
It is also an indication of admission that there is something wrong with their personality, if only the incapacity to adjust to their own artificial world.
This is although, inexplicably and trying to gather public support for their new "cause", they continue in their new life after "retirement from politics" to use the same deceiving behaviour that they used whilst they were an elected politician.
They do this apparently not having the slightest idea that what they are doing now is simply a different type of politics using the same stratagems that create depression for millions of innocent citizens due to the artificiality and injustices of modern life that they have nurtured while they were an elected politician.
This demonstrates that they have learnt nothing despite their mentally crippling affliction.
It is their form of addiction or it is a sad limitation of their capability to cope with true life that shows once again that politicians are below-average humans despite their eloquence, despite their pretended superiority and their glittering posture.
We must remember that, unlike any other occupation, Old Politics is not a sort of employment that one may choose as a job even as the worst option if the ideal job is not available and one urgently needs to earn a living.
It is not either something a deeply vocational prophet can enter to save the world from Armageddon.
Old Politics is an exclusive club in which positions are only obtained (often created) after considerable manoeuvring and a strong determination to belong in it, having found that the prospects offered by "political sciences" (exploiting others) are irresistible.
It is a club through which it becomes compulsory for any business to acknowledge your existence and your influence and the need to deal with you.
The objective of any politician is to wedge oneself as a successful "man-in-the-middle" between big business and the consumers.
But not every aspiring politician succeed or succeed as they expected.
The politicians often excel at history.
That is the history of politics and the military, not the history of the three basic groups of sciences, not the history of classical music.
The vast majority of politicians have a clear knowledge of any saying of past politicians, rulers, dictators and military conquerors reported in history books because politicians always base their own politics on the views and experiences of those past celebrities.
But no politician has ever claimed that Galina Ulanova (a famous ballerina) was their hero or idol since politicians do not look for spirituality in who they want to emulate.
And few contemporary politicians would know what Thomas Edison or Marie Curie may have said - which was not that long ago.
For the politicians, improving human life is not their responsibility, only the "populace" thinks it is.
The politicians see it as a "misunderstanding" that they are willing to tolerate because they can exploit it.
And, politicians think, history proves that politicians have always and only existed to live opulently at the expenses of the non-politicians in exchange for "governing" them.
Politicians can tell you, that is the way it has always been, not since man learned to write but since man learned to scribble.
The politicians consider their political lies and deceptions as a "normal" way of life even when they loose through the reciprocal dirty tactics of their opponents.
But this is only as long as they have hope of reversing that loss or inflicting later a bigger loss upon those opponents.
In their view, what their opponent has done to a politician only becomes politically unethical and morally wrong when that opponent defeats the politician comprehensively by destroying their image rather than inflicting a mere election loss.
Politicians who have no hope of reviving their past political glory want the media to continue to threat them as if they still were at the apex of their political career.
And it is so common amongst politicians to have that deep urge of a restored image following the last defeat that it is automatic amongst politicians to praise abundantly the redundant politician's immense qualities once they are convinced that this politician has been effectively killed politically.
With this attitude, they can hope to salvage their image when it is their turn to be politically demolished because they have allowed their opponents to keep their image at the time of their own political demolition.
It is another "gentlemen agreement" of Old Politics.
It is vital in Old Politics to glorify the politically-dead because their artificially maintained glory determines how they survive - physically and spiritually.
Recent history has demonstrated that Old Politics is succeeding at convincing society that it should only be concerned with consumption even if it deprives future generations of the essentials.
This is because Old Politics is the beneficiary of increased consumption which it wants 'now' and at any cost.
This was also easy since the global society, despite its burgeoning affluence is still psychologically marked by the recent world wars and the privation they created.
This recent history has also shown that the "true elite" of society has always considered itself as an isolated and ineffective minority resigned to its inability to influence politics.
The "true elite" being the experienced professionals trying to improve life in a scientific manner and those like philosophers or analysts able to "see through" political propaganda and political behaviour of Old Politics.
In effect, these people have always been silenced and have been looking at their inhibited ability through the prism of the past.
But recent events show that the new generations are ignoring the prism and want the global society to share their unobscured vision of man's future and their expectations of survival within crumbling Old Politics.
New vision and the resignation of experience seem to be conflicting forces but the citizens of the world have to blend experience and vision in order to prevent Old Politics from becoming a threat to humanity.
Failing this, we will not leave to our children a world in which we could have contributed to the betterment of the human behaviour and life but a world which could be a lot more dangerous than the one that we have inherited.
The earth will still happily orbit the sun if we allow global warming to persist and we fail to prevent nuclear conflicts but only some other form of life may enjoy the day, the night and the seasons.
Old Politics is a situation that has progressed to this stage for many millenniums and could easily continue for many more if it does not lead us to extinction first.
At the beginning of the twentieth century (1900), the general knowledge was low and the politicians were easily reaching their goal simply by lying to the people.
At the beginning of the ninetieth century (1800), this was even easier.
But shortly after WWII (1950), the political lies were still predominant, but things were beginning to change and they are changing now even more rapidly.
For instance, it is now impossible for any politician to convince the French or the British or the Germans that it is necessary to go to war between themselves which would have been perceived as plausible by the public only sixty or seventy years ago.
The people would simply think that a politician making such a claim in our days is crazy.
The contemporary politicians find it more difficult to make the public believe their lies and, today, the general knowledge is such that their lies are almost immediately exposed or sensed by the public or by the media, or by both.
As a result, the politicians do not rely on plain lies as much as they used to, they simply give to the facts a significance that they do not have but which suits their objectives better.
This allows them to initiate actions that are unexpected by the public but that, they can claim, are in line with those fake meanings.
The people of countries that are not yet "democratic" have a romantic view of the "democracy" in democratic countries.
From the pieces of information that they can gather, it appears to them as the ultimate replacement to whatever political regime currently controlling them.
The most visible advantage of democratic countries is a better material way of life but people who do not live in a "democratic country" do not have a realistic understanding of politics in democratic countries and this makes "democratic countries" appear to them like paradise on earth.
The majority of people living outside of democratic countries think that the people of democratic countries are able to support or oppose the decisions of their politicians and that, therefore, people of democratic countries support the foreign policies and the interference of their politicians in foreign countries.
These people wrongly think that these politicians would not be able to do what they do unless their own citizen approved of it.
And this creates the resentment toward people of democratic countries by people of some other countries.
This is exploited by dictatorial regimes which find it easy to use their propaganda machine to reinforce this incorrect perception and this is why there is a widespread view in Russia that "the west" is trying to run their lives and that the west is not a friend.
And this suits the politicians of the democratic countries because it creates unjustified animosity or fear which they can exploit.
People who do not live in democratic countries can not yet discern the many subtle ways by which the politicians of democratic countries impose their will on their society and control it.
They can not imagine that people of "the west" are totally powerless between "general elections" and that, during that time, the politicians in power can do whatever they like with public money, with the military and with the police.
They can not either imagine how politicians of "the west" put at risk or sacrifice, without being detected, the lives of innocent individuals of all age and gender in political machinations and why they do so just to increase their popularity a little and maintain their grip on power.
To their defence, many people in the democratic countries have no idea of how their "democracy" is exploited by their politicians, sometimes without any consideration for human lives.
You see, politicians are familiar with statistics that show how many people die every day in every possible type of circumstance from miscarriages, sickness, old age or suicide, including accidents, murders and deaths due to poverty.
In a democratic country of less than 26 millions approximately 200,000 people die every year, that is 550 people every day, so politicians could easily adopt the view that if some deaths are indirectly due to their activity or their attitude, it is justifiable and does not make much difference.
Unfortunately and as outrageous as it is, politicians of democratic countries actively and regularly maintain within society, on a small or large scale, a level of potential antagonism high enough to become lethal with a minimal political stimulus.
The vast majority of people in democratic countries think that being free to openly criticise the authorities is sufficient proof that they are allowed to oppose the system if they decide to do so.
But the people of democratic countries do not realise that their authorities are well aware that they are powerless as an individual.
People are unaware that the secret services as well as the police, the army and other authorities, which have been trained to accept the views of the politicians, will only become interested in them when they try to build an association of similarly-minded individuals.
Any politician will then always try to classify such association as "subversive" even if what its members want is as benign as a change in some law.
We have seen how reluctant the USA was to obey their own laws and prohibit torture.
Instead they had it done on their prisoners of war from Iraq and Afghanistan by "contractors" in developing foreign countries whose politicians were happy to collect the financial reward.
It is amusing to see the candid frustration of media reporters when they ask in vain to a politician to answer a question with "a simple Yes or No" and get comprehensive self-indulging propaganda instead.
It seems that these media workers have never learned politics enough to understand that "Yes" or "No" in public life can only be imposed on the ordinary people, the wage and salary earners, including these media workers, who have to fill in forms to get their dues.
Politicians do not consider themselves as ordinary people.
After having extracted that power from the voters, they grant and give themselves their own dues, automatically.
They do that simply based on the fact that they are politicians, regardless of whether they work or not and whether or not any of their work is considered to be satisfactory by the "employer" (the public).
Commercial or business politicians enjoy similar conditions in the form of a share of large profits and this is why both types of politician have so much in common.
But a worker like the cleaner, the electrician, the teacher, the doctor or the engineer, who have to answer clearly "Yes" or "No", has to prove that he or she has worked satisfactorily to receive her or his dues.
You see, politicians have quickly discovered that a "Yes" or a "No" were words implying a full acceptance of some attached responsibilities.
This is an unpleasant prospect and an unnecessary risk for them since they receive their dues regardless of whether or not they face these responsibilities.
And their survival only depends on convincing the electorate that the only alternative, "the other" (main political party), is worse.
In order to avoid any responsibility, the politicians who rose from the ashes of the feudal regimes and visited their constituents in horse-drawn chariots (more comfortable and classy than a saddle) invented the "Aye" and "Nay".
This became their way of expressing a negative or a positive attitude toward any proposition without the inherent responsibilities of clearly saying "Yes" or "No".
These expressions were not available to the individual politician in his personal answers (no "her" at the time) but had to be formulated in a common ritual which ensured that individual responsibility did not exist.
Those politicians had introduced the political back-door allowing them to say later if necessary: "I never accepted it, I only voted for it reluctantly." which also gave politicians the option to be "misinformed" or "misled" to justify and legalise their crimes.
The same ritual still takes place today and has always been the basis of the ideology adopted by any political party.
It is obvious that Old Politics is a comedy or an illusion or an exploitation or a catastrophe depending on the circumstances of the moment, but Old Politics could not invent a new answer and had to live by the immutable existing ones imposed by real life.
There is only three possibilities about anything, a positive possibility, a negative possibility and an undefined or uncertain possibility.
There is only a "Yes", a "No" or a "Maybe" answer or decision as the trilogy is immutable and a very common fact of life.
We have animal, vegetal and mineral, we have three dimensions.
We have administrative, executive and judicial and the law wants a company to have at least a Leader (in the form of a Chairperson, President, CEO or other title), a Treasurer and a Secretary.
We have solid, liquid and gas (plasma being a later scientific classification of gas in a particular state).
Things (your health, your finances, your mood or relationships, politics or the weather etc,etc) can only improve, deteriorate or remain the same.
You are tall, small or average.
There are always two opposing extremes (views or facts) which have a neutral centre.
And, as we often discover in the news, there were even "he", "she" and "the other".
The political parties of "democratic" countries are formed on the trilogy basis because they can only adopt one of these options regardless of what political issue they face and how.
There is always two major political parties representing the positive and the negative options which are the only political options able to survive public opinion.
This is demonstrated by the fact that no politician has ever found it necessary to invent a suitable political term for the expression "Maybe" as they know that it is a guaranteed vote-loser no matter how it is said, even as blackmail.
Sometimes they swap the options when, for example, the political party in power says "No" and concentrates on the negative necessity of a "dangerous" proposition made by "the other" (the opposition).
They also take turns in opposition and swap options again in many fascinating and imaginative scenarios but the principle remains the same.
But both options appear decisive and knowledgeable while the third option, the "Maybe" option, appears to lack the knowledge necessary to articulate a confident position (an assertive "Yes" or "No") and is potentially the pinnacle of indecisiveness or corruption.
A common political feature of the "democratic" world is that there is about fifteen percent of the electorate disliking the two major political parties enough to consistently vote for one of the various, sometimes even many, small political parties.
Most of those small political parties quickly become aware of the fact that their popularity will never reach a "best-seller" level.
This is because the two main political parties have had to abandon that hope a long time ago when their last gain of clear and lasting supremacy had obviously become the last.
But occasionally, there are politicians who desert one of the main political parties with the expectation of forming a third political force able to challenge the power of the two main political parties.
Technically, this is possible, even easily achievable, based on numbers alone.
If the two main political parties share eighty-five percent of the electoral vote then a third main political party needs only to reach a popularity level of slightly more than twenty-eight percent to become a political opponent of equal power.
This means that, technically, a third major political party, in any "democratic" country, needs to achieve roughly between fifteen and twenty-five percent of the vote to become a real threat to the two main political parties.
With that knowledge and regularly, politicians adopt that line of expectations and try to form a new political party not knowing that the trilogy principle explained above means that the project is doomed and bound to fail before it even starts.
This is despite the fact that the regular occurrence of the two main political parties being separated at election time by a tiny number of votes gives this third party great hope of some sort of power and success if it could muster the numerous votes of the disenchanted supporters of those parties, votes that seem so easy to get.
The reason for the certain failure is because, the "Yes" ("Aye"), "No" ("Nay") and "Maybe" options leave only the "Maybe" option available as the "Yes" and "No" options are firmly reserved for the two main political parties.
The only political option left (the "Maybe" option) is then to permanently oscillate between supporting or opposing one major political party on one issue or supporting or opposing the other on another issue which is what any small or starting political party does.
But in such case, they must always select a subject that is of public concern and deal with it in a way by which they can make the voters believe that they make a judicious and important correction to a major decision taken by a major political party and, they will claim, destined to create calamity without that vital correction.
This is the only way they can pretend that their option is a confident and decisive "Yes but.." or "No but.." rather than the dreaded unprepared and unconvincing "Maybe".
In such a tactic, this only "Maybe" option must be presented as a responsibility-taking option which is impossible in the "Maybe" statement to which this aspiring third force is limited.
This is because it is too easy to convince voters that "Maybe", in any form, means ignorance or uncertainty or is a plain natural combination of both.
To have any impact, the vague "Maybe" must be disguised as a considerate and resolute "Yes but.." or a "No but.." which appears to take responsibility conditionally to the addition of improvements proposed by this aspiring third political party.
This is despite the fact that this claimed conditional support presented as wisdom can only remain a basic "Maybe" option, a pretended "No" within the "Yes" camp or a pretended "Yes" within the "No" camp.
It is an illusion of power that can only feed on the direction taken by the political wind resulting from the interaction between the two main political parties alone.
Without that wind, there is no third option.
It is like an empty plastic shopping bag on the road in gusty wind, you never know where it will go, how high or how low or when it will stay still.
Regardless of its shape, this aspiring third force can only spend its political energy on the details rather than on the kernel of political issues since they have no power to initiate anything, let alone enforce it.
To succeed, this "third main political party" must get access to one of the other options (the "Yes" or the "No" option) by evicting the main political party in control of it.
This is why the "third main political party" never materialises as a political force and never will.
If at breakfast-time there is only two seats for three persons, one is certain to have to sit low enough to become acquainted with the crumbs and the ants collecting isolated grains of sugar.
In "democratic" countries, words are the weapon of choice.
They allow the politicians to achieve almost the same goals that they could achieve by using the police or the army to control the population or any group of "dissidents".
Words can do more damage than real weapons because they affect your psyche, your morale, your self-esteem, your love and hate and the rest of all your emotions.
You could recover easily from a flesh wound or a broken bone but psychological scars are often there for ever and the vast majority of those scars are created by the artificial way of life that our politicians try to impose upon us and by devious professionals in human psychology.
Our politicians know the importance of every word that they say in public.
This importance includes their apparent mood and the precise way in which whatever they want to say is said.
The politicians are the best professional actors.
Denying this is naive and makes you an easy political target and an easy prey.
When a politician says something, it is a certainty that some people will be displeased by what is said.
The politicians know that, so whatever they say is always said with the expectation that the number of people who are pleased to hear it will vastly outnumber the number of people who are displeased to hear it and there will always be both.
If a politician has the bad habit of talking to impress people with his or her loquacity, the political party will not appreciate that attitude because such persons are prone to say things that they quickly realise that they should not have said.
In the English language they call such a person "a loose cannon" (doing more damage to its owners than to its target or firing unpredictably).
Political parties isolate them very quickly because of the political danger that they represent.
Often they destroy themselves politically.
Sometimes our politicians also expect a lack of reaction when they refuse to say something.
For example, if the economy is not performing well and a commentator is trying to make one of the politicians say something publicly about it.
Under Old Politics, politicians will remain silent at all costs regarding the subject (quickly talk about something else) because that is the only option that they have to prevent the economy, and their own popularity, from deteriorating further.
But when a politician says something in public, it is with the certain intention of obtaining a reaction.
This reaction may be wanted from society at large or from a specific section of society, from an industry or businesses and the possible intended audiences are numerous.
It is a matter of designing a speech accordingly and that is the fundamental basis of Old Politics even though it is not obvious to the public who is tempted to think that the speakers communicate their own feelings or conclusions.
It is also the only tactic that the politicians can use to motivate society.
Because of their low technical knowledge and except for the basic slogans that they repeat ad nauseam, they are only able to raise emotional arguments, not technical arguments.
To obtain the best reaction, an emotional speech is necessary in almost every occasion and every word in a sentence must be chosen very carefully.
But often our politicians are not knowledgeable enough in human psychology to write their own speeches, hence their reliance on speech-writers and advertising agencies.
This raises the interesting question of what did the celebrities of the past really had in mind when you know that their historic speeches were written by the cream of professional writer-advertisers of the time.
Despite all appearances, a speech is rarely indicating any intention by the speaker to initiate anything except a public reaction.
Instead, it regularly deceives the audience by introducing slogans in line with the expectations of the listeners.
For example, a politician may proclaim: "The people of this country have waited long enough..", giving them the impression that "the people of this country" are important to the politician and that their wait is resolutely coming to an end.
In such case it is almost certain that "the people of this country" will have to wait more in any case or that if the wait is really coming to an end it is not necessarily to get what they expected.
This is a typical type of speech designed to inflame the sentiments of the listeners by its tone alone.
It conveys anger very effectively even if the anger of the speaker is faked.
It also raises anger almost regardless of what is said and since we all have a quantity of undigested frustration, politicians can easily turn that source of negative energy into anger.
A few words in this rousing speech are selected and enunciated, often repeatedly, so that the listeners can clearly hear them and figure what the target of their increasing anger should be.
This offers a safety valve allowing anger to escape because often the listeners do not know what the multiple causes of their frustration are.
If this target appears to be a human or humans or could be linked to humans, social unrest may follow or murders or assassinations may even be committed.
Politicians who make a rousing speech want a reaction in the short term because they know that the anger that they have created will dissipate quickly for most people if not used shortly, like the fizz of a bottle of carbonated drink left open.
Political politicians make rousing speeches because a single reaction is all that they want - increased insecurity - even if they want to make a rousing speech about a different subject the following day.
Any person making a rousing speech is always considered by the listeners as a person of authority.
Therefore the listeners will subconsciously conclude that this person has given them authority to discharge their anger on the target specified in the speech.
Rousing speeches are always necessary to build a lynching mob or start a revolution or in any other situation that needs our personality to become dominated by our primordial instincts or when one wants to instil fears.
And despite popular beliefs, those instincts are as predominant today as they were ten thousands years ago which is demonstrated by our regular need to repress them or "calm down".
Commercial or business politicians want your continued reaction (consumption) and a rousing speech is counter-productive because you can not exhibit anger and consume at the same time.
You do not want to drop your ice-cream cone on the floor because someone is provoking you.
The commercial equivalent of the political rousing speech is the subliminal advertising as both want to create and activate your uncontrollable reactions that your normal state of mind wants to control.
Commercial politicians hope that subliminal advertising may mesmerise you or act as a soporific leading you toward robotic consumption.
The politicians are also a negative in every possible aspect of life.
This is because once they face the necessity to breach the trust of the people with a lie or a deception, this necessity propagates itself to everything that they do, like a contagious disease.
It is not possible to be a little bit dishonest or a little bit honest, it is not possible to switch at will between honesty and dishonesty.
If you want to be honest about a particular subject, you must eradicate each related instance of dishonesty at its birth.
Unfortunately, the same applies to dishonesty.
It is not possible to be dishonest in a particular situation and to be honest about anything flowing from it.
Every instance of honesty that appears could expose the dishonesty that has been committed, like every nibbling of the mouse exposes more the content of a box or packet of food.
And dishonesty is inevitable if you must hide your ignorance of a subject because the image that you have fabricated of yourself is one of huge knowledge of that subject.
Do the politicians make judgements or decisions that are better than those of other people?
Obviously not, history has proven this many times and modern politics proves it daily.
Nobody could ever make a better decision or a better judgement than a good and experienced professional in his or her own speciality.
Unfortunately, when people are ruled by their insecurity, this simple logic will escape them.
People will then accept the pretension of the politicians that their knowledge is superior.
However, if one professional makes a mistake or introduce an error of judgement in a project, it will quickly be found and very likely rectified by the colleagues whose majority will refuse to progress until the correction is made in the knowledge that they would be asked to proceed on incorrect or false conclusions.
But if one politician makes a mistake, the attitude of all in the political party when the mistake is exposed will be to assess if they can continue by covering the mistake or pretending that it is not a mistake.
If they can not cover it, they will find a scapegoat by claiming that they have been misinformed.
Accepting that it is a mistake will be the last resort in many deceptive options because their image is such that the politicians must appear to excel and never fail in everything that they do.
Their image can not be tarnished in any circumstance and the compulsory "party solidarity" will ensure that every member of the political party will assist in the cover-up.
When the politicians face a complex issue for which they must find a solution, they constitute a committee which will provide them with "recommendations" on how to resolve the issue.
Constituting the committee involves giving it "terms of reference" which must prevent the research leading to recommendations already known by the politicians to be unpopular within the voters or within business.
Therefore, the "terms of reference" are laboriously reduced to the simplest form that will restore some lost popularity by appearing to resolve something but often bypassing the actual causes of public discontent as much as possible in order to displease business as least as possible.
Regardless, this committee must produce within these limits professional results for fear of being ridiculed by the wider society which expects to be informed about the recommendations but is carefully not informed about the intended implications of the "terms of reference".
Knowing they have an indisputable lack of knowledge, the politicians can only hope that these "terms of reference" they had to allow do not reveal recommendations they could not predict but are unpopular since these will be recommendations that they will refuse to implement.
The issue may be about Health or Communications or Housing or Transport for example but professional documents can only be fully understood by professionals of the profession issuing the recommendations.
Yet, the politicians deciding the fate of these recommendations could be an economist, a history teacher, a lawyer, an actor, a policeman, an accountant, a salesperson, a psychologist and other politicians of unsuitable qualifications, all having a look at the "recommendations".
For most, it will be like fishermen discovering the latest deep-ocean creature inadvertently caught in a trawler's fishing nets.
Mark Latham had visible difficulties explaining what a "bollard" was when confronted by the TV media while trying to become the Australian prime minister.
Not everybody is supposed to know what a bollard is but the problem was his desperate and unsuccessful attempt at trying to hide his ignorance on the subject.
This shows that since politicians are usually very efficient at hiding that ignorance, the public inevitably overestimates their knowledge of whatever issue they are considering and often overestimates by a large margin.
You can imagine what it will be like when an economist, a history teacher, a lawyer, an actor, a policeman, an accountant, a salesperson and a psychologist all try to give their interpretations of "recommendations" regarding health or communications or housing or transport, all having to pretend to have professional understanding and knowledge of the subject.
But fear not, although most participating politicians are unable to assess the quality and the meaning of the recommendations, this blend of irrelevant qualifications and past experiences is invaluable in guessing what could be unpopular in the recommendations they could not avoid.
Although society desperately needs a professional approach to the issue, this mix of unprofessional "lawmakers" gives the politicians a wide scope of views ideal to ensure that each unpopular consideration is effectively weeded out.
After having found popular justifications for a last round of eliminations or modifications, the surviving recommendations can be made to look as if they will be implemented as the objective was not to apply knowledge but to fully avoid unpopularity.
But in Old Politics, lack of knowledge can be compensated by amateurish imagination, for example a clever Australian government invented what it called a "Commission For The Future" (still live at the time of this writing in 2019) as if any initiative, political or not, could affect the past or the present.
And if there are professionally validated criticisms in the media or claims of ineptitude, the politicians can always claim that it is "..the best that could be achieved in the circumstances.." following their reciprocal obstructions between politicians in government and politicians in opposition.
You may be the best expert in Transport, and you may tell your political party that you obviously are the only choice for the job of Minister for Transport.
But if that is all that you can offer, you are useless to the political party.
This is because, in Old Politics, making a good and professional policy is often political suicide.
What the political parties want and need is people who are good propagandists.
Even though they may be ignorant of transport issues, there will be other politicians who will "deserve" the reward of leading the Transport department much more than you.
This could be someone who recently was an entertainer or a salesperson or a soldier or had any other background like this female expressing contempt for high education on radio by claiming to also have "letters after my name" which, she explained, were "M.O.3" for "Mother Of Three".
Instead, the ambition of every aspiring politician is to lead a department, any department.
This department could be of a low political status, for example 'Tourism' or similar and will then be used as a springboard to a more important department from which this aspiring politician can hope to demonstrate more visibly and vocally his or her political "ability".
This will be the ability to promote the political party rather than the ability to do good work for this department and the people it is supposed to serve or for the community at large.
And the object of this ability will be to score "political points", to sully any opposition at the slightest opportunity in order to improve one's own image because they can not demonstrate that they are superior since they are not.
They can only claim that their opposition is inferior or worse than themselves.
Under Old Politics, your political status among your colleagues is never achieved through your knowledge or your ability to professionally lead a department.
This political status can only be acquired through your ability to emerge in one way or another, in the eyes of the leadership of the party, from the other politicians of your own political party.
If you are able to emerge, then you are sure to become a Minister at the first opportunity.
This could be any time, when a Minister dies or retires or becomes a scapegoat and the ministerial portfolio you receive can be any existing or new portfolio for which your expertise, if you have any, does not count.
Under the old systems of government, your political party can always easily find paid professional bureaucrats to brief you so that you can pretend to be an expert and these systems are already set up to cover that aspect with the "Heads of Department".
And if you "emerge" enough, and to ensure that you remain in it, your political party may be forced to make room for you, possibly at the expense of a "good performer" who will often accept that he or she does not "have the numbers" anymore.
But this displaced politician still needs to be nice to the party for the political crumbs he may be eligible for from now on, or a possible political resurrection later, in this interminable realignment of alliances and party solidarity.
It is a very simple and efficient strategy although it is very costly to the public purse and very negative as it kills any good policy that may be proposed and it makes society progress - socially - at a snail pace.
The principle is "opposing" everything proposed or suggested by the govening politicians after having devised plausible reasons for doing so and whenever such attitude may slow or halt or even reverse political progress and dent the popularity of those politicians.
The politicians in opposition are able to support this negative option by ridiculing anything proposed, making it look bad or dangerous and generally blowing out of proportions every possible negative aspect, real or imagined, that the proposition could entail while ignoring or belittling or contradicting anything that looks positive.
This includes suggestive aspects like the colour of material or the weather forecast during an event or the timing or anything else that could associate a suggestive, emotional and negative aspect.
The Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot's only objections in his campaign against a "wind farm" in Tasmania was that it looks ugly, it is awfull and noisy which he discovered and did not like when riding his pushbike near one as a publicity stunt.
The objective is to create a sense of gloom at any cost so that when the subject is raised, the first thing that comes to mind is this sense of gloom.
Paul Keating in Australia won an election solely on the slogan "Who wants another tax?" after John Hewson was deemed a certain victor even though he had proposed a new Goods and Services Tax to replace a number of other taxes.
Having experienced more than two hundred years of evolving "democracy" and so much scientific and technical progress in the same period of time should have produced a global society that is mentally more advanced and socially more cohesive than it is.
But the old political systems have always been determined to confine any improvement to the public library and only allow its passage to the street or to the household when it suits them or when they can not avoid it because, in their old "opposing" system, any change always creates significant risks at election time.
This is why any politician will always face certain defeat in proposing in any way to solve "climate change" as it is an ideal demolishing ground for any opposition.
This is not that any opposition will always claim that climate change does not exists because they know that public opinion is strongly supporting the view that it does exist.
Instead the opposition will always pretend that, although they deeply wish to support any good solution, any solution proposed by any governing politician or the implementation of these solutions are the wrong approach.
The demolition potential is proportional to the perceived threat presented by global warming which looks apocalyptic and any opposition can easily pretend that any proposed solution is more apocalyptic than global warming itself.
Conversely, the popularity potential could be enormous for the governing politicians if they introduced a policy which effectively contributes to restricting global warming, therefore any opposition will not allow it to see the light.
This is why every politician went to the international Copenhagen Summit in 2009, each claiming they fervently intended to solve global warming at the summit but all warning "not to expect too much" and each leaving in a pretended sombre mood but delighted that the gathering did not make a single proposition.
Under Old Politics, the only way that the politicians who are "in opposition" can hope to win the next elections and form a government is by systematically discrediting everything that the politicians who are in government do.
The objective is to appear as a better possible government at the next general elections.
This includes the policies, simple or complex, that the politicians in government propose, especially if they are good policies because good policies are more likely to bring popularity, even real prestige, to the politicians in government if they are allowed to apply these policies.
The better a proposed policy appears to be, the more an opposition needs to "oppose" it (claim that it is bad) because their objective is to deny to the politicians in government any possible gain of popularity or prestige that they could harvest from the introduction of a good policy.
Even with the best will, the optimist will say: "My glass is still half full" while the pessimist will say: "My glass is already half empty."
It may also depend on how thirsty one still is at that stage but this shows how easy it is to make an electorate perceive the best proposition as the worst idea ever conceived.
The members of the media have concluded a long time ago that it is not a political party in opposition winning the election but a political party in power losing it.
Yet the media do not seem to understand that this is precisely how these old political systems work - by brainwashing the public into believing that those in power are doing a bad job which, by inference and by inference only, assumes that they would do better if they were in power but never explaining how.
The objective is to get the political power by evicting those controlling it.
Everything in life will have positive and negative attributes that can easily and effectively be exaggerated.
The final decision needs almost invariably to be a calculated decision that takes into account negative aspects which can not be avoided but must be fully known and assessed with integrity.
This is something that the old political systems will never be able to do.
While early democracy may have believed that it would get the best by making the various political philosophies compete between themselves, modern society has unambiguously discovered that this competition has lead to a perpetual attempt at evicting those in power who have no time to govern because they are too busy barricading the door, the window and even the drain.
"Modern politicians" have allowed the creation of "lobbyists" who are politicians whose objectives are to convince other politicians to adopt a particular attitude in a particular aspect of life.
Of course, this new attitude must be beneficial to the cause of the lobbyist or to the cause of the client or the employer of the lobbyist, usually a business of a substantial size.
It is regularly an attitude that is substantially different than the existing attitude or different than the attitude that is being promoted and often, it implies changes in the laws to someone's advantage.
The lobbyists will obtain faster results by influencing the politicians who are in government but that does not preclude lobbying the politicians who are in opposition or those in small political parties.
Only the circumstances determine the type of lobbying required and lobbyists as well as lobbied politicians all have a very open mind in that regard since, if nothing else, the politicians are able to discover what simmering business issues they may face soon in government or they can take advantage of in opposition.
Sometimes, it is useful to lobby the opposition in order to prevent the governing politicians from following public opinion.
"Lobbying" has become so proficient that our politicians have established conventions, sometimes official conventions, allowing visiting lobbyists only between certain times of the day on certain days of the week or month which gives the activity an appearance of legitimacy and openness to ideas.
Some democratic countries push the pretence of honesty and legitimacy to the point of wanting the lobbyists to officially belong to an association of lobbyists and be "registered".
Of course, that does not prevent powerful "lobbyists" not to be "registered" and lobby the politicians at a time of their choosing nor does it prevent the politicians to allow themselves to be lobbied outside of lobbying hours and outside of lobbying offices.
The media always talk glamorously about "Parliament" or "The House" or "The Senate" or "The Chamber" or other prestigious parts of buildings of any country where politicians assemble.
However, it never talks about the places where the deals are made that will affect the nation - the corridors.
This is because if every room is or could be "bugged" somehow, the corridors offer an unofficial and safer environment.
Parliament House in Australia is reported as having 4,700 rooms so there are many corridors where one can have a traceless and anodin-looking conversation despite any pedestrian traffic.
Corridors are "no man's land" or "demilitarised zone" where "compromises" or other agreement can be reached without been - compromised.
If the proportion had to be kept, the main political building should have close to 60,000 rooms in the USA and 300,000 in India.
But even at 4,700 in Australia, it is no wonder that the politicians are getting nowhere in such a maze.
The politicians will always show consideration to a lobbyist's cause on a "What's-in-this-for-me?" attitude, politically or financially or both.
The politician knows that the lobbyist is going to try to make the politician change public life to some extent to the advantage of the lobbyist or to the advantage of the client of the lobbyist but will offer something in return to the politician.
It is obvious that politicians could never listen to any lobbyist who is expecting to obtain a favour but is not prepared to give something in exchange (in theory: to society, but mainly to the lobbied politician).
This would be electorally damaging as voters would, at the very least, classify such politician as an idiot.
But all politicians have this weakness you see, they like to think that if it is good for them, it must be good for society, a weakness that any lobbyist only knows too well.
So, the lobbyists know that the favour that they are expecting from the politician must be presented as:
If the owners of a local factory (as in our previous example) may be able to influence their "representative", they are often limited to the strength of the votes they represent since they do not have the "purchasing power" of big business.
But lobbyists always work for large businesses which have the capacity to sustain the "incentives" they provide to the politicians.
The benefit for the politician could be learning something that can be used politically, whether or not the favour is granted (which is not necessarily easy or possible), since lobbyists are usually more knowledgeable than the politicians regarding the cause they try to promote.
Or the benefit could be a financial donation or a cost-free business proposition as a "man-in-the-middle" or a bribe or any other financial benefit which could all be disguised and even made untraceable.
Our politicians would have no reason to listen to lobbyists if there was nothing they could personally expect in return.
The "something-in-return" is the element that allows a lobbyist to be a special person for the politicians and creates her or his interest as the benefit can be very substantial for a little investment in time and the pretence to have an open mind about "new ideas".
Indeed, without this "something-in-return", the politicians would reduce substantially the political risk by refusing to see and listen to lobbyists because granting the favour requested by the lobbyist means that the unexpected change that the politician has to make, regardless of what it is, regardless of how small or large it is, will always raise suspicion and loud questions.
The obnoxious risks are the political decisions whose benefits to the public will not be obvious before the next elections.
These benefits may even show much later as the costs or other inconveniences, invariably blown out of proportions by the opposition, quickly occupy the public attention.
Except reviewing punishments, this leaves very little that the politicians in government can initiate without facing the destructive mood of their opposition.
Because the obnoxious risks include policies whose results may not show for a long time, the formulation of such policies usually takes a long time which can be exploited relentlessly by the opposition which has ample time to find aspects that can be denigrated in the public eyes.
However, the opposition is often successful at rapidly portraying any initiative of the politicians in government as bad enough so that they quickly have to abandon it.
For the politicians in government, taking any initiative is a big risk but not taking any initiative can in itself be criticised by the opposition.
However, the loss of popularity for inaction is always less because politicians always find good reasons not to do something or to postpone it.
The difficulties in finding the money is such an excuse, claiming the changes are unnecessary is an other.
Politicians always know:
Politicians of any political party will delay any new initiative till the last moment.
This is when public pressure has become strong enough, which may substantially reduce the effects of the criticisms by the opposition.
If ignoring a public issue does not trigger a strong public reaction, then the politicians in government will continue to ignore it and they will avoid taking any initiative completely if possible.
In such case, the opposition is unable to criticise the inaction effectively.
The popularity of the politicians in government is likely to be unaffected and so do their chances of retaining power at the next general elections.
If public life seems to be running smoothly, the politicians in government will pretend that it is because they are so good at actively and quietly preventing many imaginary dangers from materialising even if all they are doing is taking care of their own business at taxpayers expenses.
For any politician, it is all about not taking any unnecessary risk.
A quality solution is an enemy if it helps the opposition to win the next general elections.
It is very rewarding for politicians when their opponents have to abandon a project because what they were contemplating or proposing begins to tarnish their image.
This is why the politicians can accomplish so little since taking any of those risks can only increase their chances of losing the next elections.
Practically, our politicians will only undertake an initiative when the political risk associated with inaction becomes greater than the political risk associated with action.
In other words, the politicians will only do something when they have no other choice and whatever they achieve then will always be of a low standard.
Politicians will not take unnecessary risks (of loosing the next general elections) but if society is sufficiently aware of a particular social or public problem, the politicians in government and those in opposition may want to gain popularity from the issue.
Consequently and in the knowledge that the public attention is focused on a particular issue and expecting action, the politicians in government or the opposition will propose a "public debate" whose objective will be to find a solution to the problem, or so they will pretend.
All politicians will agree that it is a good idea.
But it will be a "public debate" to which the public is not invited because the public must only believe that it is allowed to participate.
If necessary, the politicians can always clarify that they only intend to have the matter "debated in public" as if any of their "debates" was confidential.
This makes sense since the real objective of the "public debate" is to discover, as we have seen many times before, what unexpected negative their opponents are able to find or fabricate regarding any proposition so that they can disregard it if it gives these opponents an efficient opportunity to criticise.
The trick is then not to make any proposition - directly.
The politicians in government and their opposition will then "leak" propositions and counter-propositions, or have a remotely associated official or public personality "float" it as if it was their own.
The objective will be to test the popularity or the unpopularity of the proposition after it has been subjected to all the possible criticisms.
And the "public debate" may have become a race between the major political parties to be the first to discover the solution that is "popular" so they can claim it as theirs.
Politicians avoid anything that is neutral, anything that brings no criticism but no popularity either because it could always and easily become a loss of popularity if somehow it later becomes perceived or presented as a negative.
Politicians always perceive the indifference of society as a real danger because people do not have an opinion regarding a specific subject and therefore, they are open to any opinion, including opinions coming from their opponents.
If any proposition or counter-proposition does not look popular, they will abandon it and claim that it was not theirs but that it was coming from the public, it is a public debate after all isn't it?
And their opponents, even though they know that the public is actively kept out of the debate, can not claim that it is not true since they hope to benefit from the same tactic.
However if a proposition or a counter-proposition becomes popular, it is like the angler getting a bite, they will soon both argue vehemently that, in reality, it is theirs and theirs only.
In this strategy they can both (politicians in government and in the opposition) swear that a proposition, any proposition, is not theirs if it is not popular or claim that it is theirs if it is popular.
Al Gore who was the Democratic candidate running for elections against G. W. Bush even claimed that he invented the Internet and later found that his claim was "unpopular".
They can both also claim that the unpopular proposition is not coming from the public and accuse the other side of introducing it, leading to much accusations and counter-accusations.
And when there is a popular proposition which they can claim as theirs, they can also claim vehemently that they "make no apology for it" as if it was an act of bravery in the face of strong objections.
They think that they can safely bluff the public that way since they know that the proposition is popular.
Surely, that must convince you that they are good and strong leaders, afraid of nothing, and that you must vote for them.
However, if they are both successful in criticising every proposition made by their opponents, the politicians can safely abandon the issue itself since nothing proposed has reached any level of popularity and this could be the ideal outcome for the politicians in government.
And you may wonder why it has all become quiet suddenly although it seems obvious to you that no decision has ever been reached and the problem remains unresolved.
It is like watching a thriller on TV only to loose sound and picture moments before the plot unravels.
The populist policies are those that include all the small financial or jail punishments that the politicians can invent without having to assess the true impact they may have on society.
Those are policies that find a receptive cord in our bad side because their objective is to hurt someone whom we are made to believe to deserve only to be hurt.
The principle is to trigger our innate urge for revenge which only needs unsubstantiated insinuations to create our acceptance of all sorts of arbitrary punishments, justified or not.
In the following example, the politicians had become aware that every road-worthy car is destined to end its life as a very low-value vehicle since every owner of a car that has become worn out, which they all do, is of the opinion that they should still receive money for it when disposing of it.
Consequently, such vehicles are often sold for the last time after a used-car dealer specialising in this field has ensured that the vehicle can survive a few more days or a few weeks.
In a policy clearly designed to give the voters the semblance that there is a high intention justifying it - the removal of unregistered or unsafe vehicles from the public roads - a state government in Australia then made a law that the number plates of a car whose expired registration is not renewed must be returned within a certain time or the owner faces a compulsory financial penalty.
However, the reality was that not returning the number plates was not triggering the penalty, only returning them after the deadline did.
But, at this stage, returning the number plates had become the least of the concerns of this last owner whose vehicle had unexpectedly and irremediably broken down and raised the prospect of an expensive towing for a car now known not to be repairable.
Populist policies produce nothing socially positive but generate a lot that is negative.
If they do not raise money, they usually cost dearly to implement (prison terms), a financial cost that our bad side wants to ignore, a financial cost that our politicians consider worthwhile if it helps them to win the next general elections.
A populist policy usually divides society into three groups (the trilogy again) and each is either a popularity win or neutral for the politicians who introduce it:
The net result is a gain in popularity for the political party or the politicians who introduce the policy and an incentive for politicians to find and enact populist policies.
Usually, a populist policy shows results (increased popularity) very quickly, often as soon as it is announced or even as it is being contemplated, and its creation is very easy.
The choice for the politicians is therefore to create a populist policy, when there is an opportunity, in which case they increase their chances of winning the next general elections and keep their job, or ignore this opportunity and increase their chances of losing these elections and their job.
The missed opportunity to create a populist policy will result in increased loss of vote because the inaction will be exploited by the opposition even though this opposition knows that they could lose popularity themselves if their opponents introduced a populist policy.
In other words, the old systems of politics impose upon the politicians to take advantage of any opportunity to create a populist policy and this helps the politicians to stay away from their real responsibilities.
An example of such populist policy in Australia was the introduction by John Howard of the "Pacific Solution" by which "illegal immigrants" arriving in refugee boats (many drowning before reaching Australia) were automatically deported to Nauru and Manus Island for "processing".
A large section of the Australian community had been brainwashed with views that these people where coming to Australia "without authorisation" or were "jumping the queues" or were "taking jobs from Australians" or coming to inflate unemployment costs and it became popular to punish these people for "cheating" or receiving in Australia social benefits they were "not entitled to".
But, hidden from the voters, the Australian government offered tens of millions of dollars to the governments of those little islands, or their corrupt politicians, to accept the relocation of the refugees.
This was done under John Howard's proclamation: "But we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come", a typical populist slogan that bypasses your reason and goes straight to your emotions.
This policy is still applied at the time of this writing even though it has always been known that most "illegal immigrants" come to Australia by plane with a visa - not in a refugee boat with no identification papers - and it is also known that most refugees coming by boats are eventually granted refugee status and allowed to stay.
In 2015, the Australian politicians in government proclaimed vehemently that "..no refugee moved to those detention centres will ever be allowed to settle in Australia.."
But this was said for "local consumption" (the Australian voters) because the decision is an international decision not an Australian decision or precisely, a decision made according to international agreements.
However, in 2016, it was found that the Australian politicians kept that promise by making an agreement with President Obama to exchange refugees.
In this agreement, the US would take a number of Asian refugees from Australia and in exchange, Australia would take a number of South American refugees from the US.
It appears that the Australian politicians had decided that the Asian refugee would not "settle in Australia" but that the same number of South American refugees would do so instead.
From 2016 to 2018, President Trump publicised this arrangement enormously when he strongly and repeatedly blamed Obama for "the most stupid deal" Trump had ever seen and he tried in his notorious telephone call from Malcolm Turnbull (then Prime Minister of Australia) to convince the Australian government to keep its refugees and presumably accept the refugees from the US as Trump had also promised to prevent them from entering the US.
In doing so, Donald Trump exposed the deception even popular and "honest" leaders like Obama are capable of concocting.
The Australian government of 2015 was even reported as offering money to these refugees to accept to be resettled in Cambodia, which could not be done without the complicity of the Cambodian politicians. It was also accused of paying in cash and at sea the owners of the boats to return to where they came from with the refugees.
Populist policies are increases in punishment for which the gain in popularity is provided by a section of society who wants stronger revenge for some reason but shows a complete lack of interest in knowing if the punishment reduces the crime rate or if any benefit justifies the cost.
As long as the extra punishment is inflicted, that is all that they want and a responsible government has a duty not to become an accomplice in this attitude.
This is a very important strategy used by the politicians, by business and the media.
It consists of proclaiming in any possible way that "you" are always good and correct while bad people and people who have the wrong views exist only within "the others".
It is nonsensical but emotionally, it works very well.
If the politicians imply that "you" must change or that "you" could be guilty of something, no matter how trivial or hypothetical it may be, they will lose your vote.
If the media or a business does the same, they will lose a customer.
This is because subconsciously, you will want to spiritually and emotionally distance yourself from them due to the unpleasant memory or prospect they raise.
But suggesting that only "the others" are bad or must change will make you feel good and happy even though this will ensure that nothing improves since everybody expect the improvements to come from "the others" or everybody else.
And politically, it is very powerful because it gives you the confidence that the politicians are determined to change the world and make it to YOUR image.
The same tactic is used in public policies.
For example, the politicians will loudly convince you that "the others" (or some others but not you) must pay more taxes to balance the national budget, which will please you.
This will be until you discover that your tax bill or the cost of the goods and services you purchase has increased.
Yes, in this case "the others" - that was including you.
It is extremely important for the politicians and businesses that "you" are never under any impression that you could have any part in anything negative or illegal or even embarrassing as a result of any of their statements or claims.
The politicians will also make you believe that the injustices that you see reported in the news can not befall on you and only hurt "others" who are guilty of hypothetical failures, if only being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This is because if you have misbehaved, you are convinced that you deserve compassion for a mistake including the mistake of allowing yourself to be caught when, you think, everybody else escape detection.
However, if an other person misbehaves in the same way, you will be convinced that punishment is the only solution for what was definitely a bad intent.
Instead, "you" must always be referred to in glossy terms, as "hard-working" or "law-abiding citizen" while some "others" can only be seen as "scroungers" or "tax-cheats" and our politicians have a large arsenal of adjectives and names as well as rehearsed sentences for the purpose.
Even something that is unpleasant or incommodating or embarrassing follows the same principle, "you" can not be associated with it in any way.
For example, baked beans used to ferment easily in our digestive system and create large amounts of offensive odours that the human body could not easily control.
If you had been eating baked beans, you were certain to incommodate others present during your digestion cycle.
It was definitely not a good idea to have a large serve of baked beans before going to work at the office as you were likely to arrive at work just in time for the beans to want their spirit released from their claustrophobic environment.
Businesses became aware that this resulted in limitation of sales and therefore, a missed opportunity.
Somehow, this side-effect was then removed when growers were taught how to grow a variety of beans, or possibly the original variety genetically modified, without the fermentation issue and the sale of baked beans increased considerably.
The businesses involved could easily have advertised the new benefits of the beans but it would have been counter-productive.
This is because customers would have touched these tins of beans in the shop very reluctantly for fear that other customers now informed about the "improved" product and watching would have associated anyone close to the shelf of beans with the side-effect which is now officially admitted but is claimed in the advertising to have been eliminated.
Onlookers could have feared that anyone touching a tin of baked beans in the shop could be a copiously farting customer overwhelming the others with nasty smells while still digesting the contents of the last one purchased.
The businesses involved could only hope that the customers would find for themselves that eating baked beans did not create unwanted smelly odours anymore because advertising the development would only remind of the possibility that despite all claims to the contrary, the problem still exists.
People may think that when a political party is against something, its politicians will work to prevent it, or that if a political party is for something, it will welcome any help in that direction.
But this is incorrect.
The Howard government in Australia was using the immigration of refugees as a "popularity-raising" and a "divide-and-conquer" exercises.
His government was taking every opportunity to make speeches that would increase the antagonism within the Australian society against these immigrants and candidate immigrants.
Then came Pauline Hanson who created a new political party called "One Nation" and started to make hostile speeches against the immigrants and refugees.
However, she did not do it as a part-time occupation like John Howard seemed to do but as her main policy and this looked more attractive to those who had previously adopted John Howard's views on the subject.
You would thing that the government of John Howard was getting an ally and would welcome Pauline Hanson and her party in their common fight against "illegal immigrants".
But Old Politics does not work that way.
When the politicians have selected (or imagined) a social problem that brings them popularity, they do not want that problem to be resolved and they do not want to "share" that problem with an other political party.
The purpose is to gain popularity by using this problem and if the problem was resolved then this would be one less source of popularity.
Also, there is only a certain amount of popularity to be gained from the problem and the politicians do not want to share this popularity either and it is easy to understand why.
If those who used to think that you were the best qualified to resolve a particular issue are thinking that a newcomer does it more efficiently, you are about to loose many votes at election time.
Therefore, if your true motivation is not so much to resolve the issue but to keep the job supposed to resolve the issue, this newcomer becomes an opponent, not an ally.
And if the issue is resolved, your job becomes less necessary or even unnecessary.
As soon as some members of Pauline Hanson's political party showed "disenchantment" with her leadership, the government of John Howard happily sent Tony Abbot (Prime Minister of Australia at the time of this writing) to "help" them to launch a court case against her which, reportedly, was paid by the political party (Liberals) of John Howard and Tony Abbot.
Pauline Hanson was convicted to a jail term which was overturned on appeal but her political career was destroyed although she re-emerged more than ten years later.
And the "disenchanted" members soon expressed disenchantment again when the court case was taken away from their control.
Of course, if the Liberals party was paying the lawyers, these lawyers would have acted according to the "instructions" of the Liberals party, not those of the "disenchanted".
But the reason for the behaviour of John Howard's political party was easy to understand and even predictable.
Pauline Hanson and her new political party were taking away popularity from John Howard and his political party.
By being more virulent and more consistent in her attacks against these immigrants, she was beating John Howard at his own game and "stealing" his supporters.
Pauline Hanson had become a serious danger to John Howard and his own political party and, in their view, it had become necessary to eliminate her from politics by any means possible.
Perhaps with minor exceptions like advertising to sell a personal item, the whole advertising industry is based solely on deceit and exploitation.
It is used extensively by every political or commercial politician to massively modify to their advantage your perceptions of society and your perceptions of life in general.
It is also intended to change in a very insidious way your perceptions of what they do, or do not do, as shown in an advertisement suggesting that drivers reduce their speed on the road by five kilometres per hour
Advertising greatly contributes to social problems due to the innumerable ways in which it gives people false expectations and the fact that false expectations, no matter how small they are, accumulate and unnecessarily reduce our ability to face the normal difficulties of life.
Advertising always let you believe that you will get a reward if you purchase the product or service or if you vote for a politician or a political party.
But this reward never materialises because any legal product or service has material limitations.
And politicians have never pleasantly surprised anyone regarding their promises since:
It has become impossible to turn your eyes, even in the privacy of your home, without having a passive advertisement of some sort popping up in front of you, whether it is a label on your shirt or on your shoes or on a multitude of objects bearing the name of a big business.
You are not allowed to think freely, big business must always be present in your mind.
Then there is the active advertising determined to occupy your full attention as soon as you switch on the radio or the TV, or when you use your telephone or your computer.
When a product does not have much to offer because it is of elementary use (a mailbox, a phone book, a spanner, a comb, there are millions of examples), the most common approach is to condition a potential customer to expect a mild reward as if there was a little something magical about the product.
This is achieved with a picture prominently showing the product within a number of people faces staring at it with contented or even delighted smiles on their face.
But the bulk of advertising intends to "motivate" the customers much more deeply by promising a "high" or making you believe that, despite your empty bank account, you can afford the product or service or you will not have to pay for it.
An advertisement for a car wants to make you believe, through a subliminal (subconscious) "message" of course, that when you are driving behind the steering wheel of this car, no creditor (people you owe money to) can stop you as you are then able to effortlessly manoeuvre, with this car only, and evade their futile obstacles.
Practically, this advertisement wants you to believe that you can buy this car and nobody can make you pay for it, although the advertisement clearly indicates that they will try.
But when you open your new mail, you then face the harsh reality reminding you that you can not avoid paying your bills.
Most advertising promise you a "high" - "Toyota.. What a feeling!" - but often in a much more disguised and persuasive way.
Big business needs you to consume more than you need, so advertising wants to convince you that if you are not happy in life or if you feel insecure, it is because you do not consume enough.
And there is even advertising intended to instil the temptation to borrow money to allow you to consume, becoming a modern slave of consumption in the process.
Advertising is harmful to mental health.
Advertising relentlessly projects idealistic images of idols who are people whose special attributes highlighted in the advertising are only maintained artificially with much difficulties.
But these are images of idols selected within a very small minority of people.
And these idols' own mental health is regularly affected, not by the advertising to which they subject the others, but by the advertising images to which they have to comply (the role model) to make advertisements.
Advertising diminishes everyone's self-esteem because it projects those images as if the majority of people were only failing to conform to an image by a controllable margin when in reality, it is extremely difficult for most to conform to this image in any way.
This is demonstrated by the fact that when we try new clothes, nobody would purchase the clothes without first having a look in the mirror which only means that we want to guess what other people will think of us in the new clothes.
This expected body look is the ideal image that we have unconsciously formed from advertising and is more important than the clothes making a comfortable fit.
Disappointments that are not psychologically digested trigger the urge for compensation.
Psychologically digesting a disappointment requires to be aware you had a disappointment and be willing to question yourself why it disappointed you and do this without giving yourself an answer. Not giving yourself an answer is the most important part.
The compensation may be to have a cup of coffee or a piece of chocolate or a smoke or a holiday or watching a movie etc.
However, very often this urge for compensation is unconscious, we are unaware of its existence and it becomes undigested.
When undigested disappointments become too numerous, a number of small disappointments make a large disappointment for which compensation can only be found in depression or drugs or in asocial behaviour.
Advertising also creates asocial behaviour or encourages it on a massive scale, for example, in making "paedophiles".
This is due to advertising by females who are required by the advertising agency to present or fake the body, the voice, the attitude and the manners of a sexually-receptive "under-age" teenager.
This gives many males a distorted and subconscious image of what a nubile female looks, sounds and behaves like - the image of a juvenile.
It must be said that the results of this tactic appear to have been understood by some advertisers who have replaced or modified these advertisements although the apparent change may be temporary and accidental or due to other motivation.
But presenting an under-age looking female as a fully sexually mature and aroused female (lips slightly open as if encouraging a sexy kiss being very common) has been used widely for decades, including in movies and in TV shows, and the "paedophiles" born from this advertising were often the victims before their paedophilia made its own victims.
After the Australian law had been changed by the politicians in order to increase punishments for paedophiles, a young male was convicted of being a "paedophile", with all the legal implications.
This was for having consenting sexual intercourse with an "under-age" female teenager claimed to have pretended to him to be older than she was in order to maintain the sexual relationship, "texting" to him: "..we do it again.".
This young man was obviously bewildered by the judgement as he seemed to be convinced that the juvenile-looking female was for him what society had taught him to be, a sexually mature female of suitable age and the law badly designed to punish the abuse of children became feral.
It is important for society to have a realistic, humane and scientific approach to the manifestation of juvenile sexual activity and to admit that an aroused female is sexually mature regardless of her age even if she is not mature enough yet to safely bear a child.
It is much more realistic to ensure that this female is aware of the possible long-term consequences for her health and behaves accordingly rather than making it a law that, according to her date of birth, she is too young to have a sexual life (which is obviously false) and denying it to her while heavily punishing her sexual partner for the only purpose of consolidating that denial.
As you know, advertising is huge, you can barely move without bumping into one.
It is also an ideal diversion when a particular group of people like our politicians, have a constant chronic lack of useful knowledge and a chronic lack of authority as demonstrated in their political fragility when facing their opposition.
Advertising allows the politicians to remove the focus from the substance and to direct it to the abstract, to the "subliminal".
This allows them to avoid the destruction contemplated by their opposition since advertising is never a clear statement of intent which could be criticised.
Instead, advertising intends to give you the expectation that some or all of your problems will disappear if you follow the instructions (to buy) given in the advertisement, whether is is a product, a service or a promised policy.
Because there is no suitable laws of business, greed will incite businesses, especially big business who has the financial means to advertise globally, to use all the known possibilities of advertising to increase profits without any self-restraint of how it is achieved.
It constantly becomes a vital necessity to find a more efficient advertising theme (take advantage of your deep emotions) than those used by the competition.
This constant need to find new ways of deceiving the consumers results in a very effective exposition of the human mind to the constant degradation of human values.
This is a degradation which is not even perceived by the members of society because its gradual progression spans over generations.
Children are born and grow watching advertising intended to affect their parent's behaviour, advertising which will be repeated and affect the children's own behaviour as they mature because if the context or the presentation of the advertising can be adapted to a changing way of life, the underlying motivation will always be the same.
And this will be to take advantage of our determination to avoid hunger, cold and insecurity as well as our strong desire to be loved and be appreciated, needs that will not change.
It is to be remembered that we often achieve these needs in an illogical manner, for example, insecurity triggers our urge to accumulate possessions which may include an abnormal accumulation of money.
The panoply of deceiving advertising grows like a snow ball going slowly downhill.
The volume of advertising to which we are exposed grows and grows and grows to the point that it smothers information.
The human brain is exposed less and less to spirituality and intellectuality as it is increasingly occupied with consumption which has moved away from a minor supporting role in life and has become its main objective.
And our politicians are adamant that you should leave the thinking to them and restrict your behaviour to consumption.
Mentally, we are barely leaving the cavern and unrestricted advertising is surreptitiously returning us to it.
As we have seen, under the old systems of government, formulating a good or a bad policy makes no difference for the politicians because it will be torn to shreds and vilified by the opposition anyway.
Given enough criticisms, a truly good proposal may even appear to be a lot worse than a truly bad proposal.
But politicians are always happy to meet or stimulate blunt or clumsy criticisms of their proposed policies or ideas.
This is because blunt and clumsy criticisms confuse the issue in the eyes of the public.
This confusion helps to hide any real vulnerability that may exist in a proposal or makes them more difficult to isolate and expose to the public.
Or it makes it difficult for an opposition to effectively get a negative grip on the subject.
Therefore, it is part of the political tactics to initiate blunt and clumsy criticisms when suitable so that the valid, sharp and clear criticisms become indistinguishable from the others.
You could think that there is not much that advertising could do in such circumstances but this is highly incorrect.
When suitable, advertising can be designed to create confusion, and "confusion marketing" is an important part of this industry.
Food production and distribution are a good example of how advertising has evolved due to the lack of laws and it is not limited to showing glossy pictures anymore.
Since food production and distribution has become a global business, big business is involved in most of it and has adopted the obstructive attitude of a political party in opposition.
Advertising now includes obstructing the critics when possible in order to give the advertising of the food its best chance of creating or sustaining large consumption.
When our politicians in opposition claim that a proposition made by the politicians in government is wrong, big business involved in food says that any critic of how the food is made is wrong.
Of course, criticising a critical article is not going to work but advertising never intends to challenge your reasoning by proposing and substantiating a counter-argument.
Instead it intends to win your subconscious to its cause of consuming more, without you ever knowing.
This is done with "confusion marketing" by cleverly designing a seemingly unrelated new article intended to 'authoritatively' counteract the points raised in the critical article without even mentioning it.
The trick is to make it as likely as possible that anyone viewing the critical article is easily exposed to the obstructing article so the true intention is not detected.
The advent of the Internet has offered the possibility of critical articles or comments to be removed (deleted) - for a price.
Our supermarkets are maintaining the consumers in a permanent belief that the latest supermarket prices are their latest discount unmatched by any competitor.
Whether the price cut or discount is real or a fake, they can then advertise throughout the country the "huge savings" that this new difference offers to the consumers.
But modern production and supply of food have not seen any superfluous cost to be trimmed anywhere in the "distribution or supply chain" (from the producer to the consumers) for a long time and consequently, any true discount can only be made by lowering the quality of the food.
Although the supermarkets have advertisements circulating every day, there are aspects affecting food they sell that they do not want to be known, let alone advertised.
The main objective is to protect practices that have become inevitable because they have reduced the cost and it is now impossible to sell the same food of a better quality because it would be more expensive.
The "hydrogenation" of food is old technology which consists of turning healthy oil into unhealthy fat used in many foods which remain edible for much longer.
Meat "plumping" injects water or sea water in meat, "pigmenting" or "dyeing" changes the colour of fish meat, "par-baked" bread is factory-baked then frozen then transported to the shop then baked again and put on the shelf, a bread that is never "fresh" and contains unnecessary chemicals.
Big business wants these practices to be talked about as least as possible and any criticism must be obstructed.
Many more similar practices exist with some explained in this very good Internet link: https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/everyday-shopping/supermarkets/articles/fresh-food-tricks
However, the purpose of these practices has always been to give a temporary advantage to a business in the name of competition but their effect is irremediably lowering the quality of food we eat.
The result is due to the exact same advertising which has conditionned consumers to evaluate only the price of food rather than its quality when considering shopping when the cost of food is only a fraction of our budget.
At the same time, food producers have been forced to adapt their industry not to produce food of quality but food of a cost as low as possible.
The status-quo is only attained when it becomes less profitable to produce food of a lower quality or the food could be poisonous.
Only rare scandals have forced the politicians to introduce laws at the risk of upsetting big business.
The most notable which happened a long time ago was the slaughter and sale of meat from sick animals which only became illegal when consumers died after consuming such meat.
If consumers want true consumer protection, they need compulsory food standards as a prerequisite to know first what they are purchasing.
However if quality can be lowered, advertising can not ever be reduced because if a product is only advertised occasionally, the consumers has been conditioned to subconsciously build the erroneous view that it is not easily available anymore.
Having had to abandon simple honesty and under pressure to follow examples to succeed or survive, this principle of distortion through advertising on a massive scale became adopted at every rung of the social ladder.
We feel compelled to polish or inflate what we say for fear of having it underestimated by the listeners.
It has become a normal practice to do the same, to "advertise" for many workers who depend on professional approval from others (every wage and salary earner).
Of course, this does not consist of having an advertisement in newspapers or on TV but simply using the same artificial techniques.
Everything must be glossed (suggestively advertised) including your feelings, your thoughts and your behaviour.
For example, if you apply for a job, it is insufficient to say that you like that job and always have and that you are usually seen by colleagues as being good at it.
You must have "Passion" for the job, with a capital letter of course, as if you are ready to eliminate anybody trying to interfere in your job.
And everything you say must reinforce that claim.
Then your interviewer must put you on top of the list of candidates thinking subconsciously: "I'll definitely get closer to a promotion if we give the job to this person obsessed with the job and if he or she kills someone for the company it will be his or her problem because that was not part of his or her job".
But any job applicant quickly found that they must also grow "passionate" about any job if they wanted to get one.
Even though it is now mandatory to be passionately passionate about any job you apply for, it becomes meaningless but the artificiality of life has been irreversibly increased somewhat.
Any job applicant knows that being oneself and modest at the time of the interview is the best recipe for not getting the job.
Advertising oneself effectively is the only way to get it.
Businesses and industry demand "inventory turnover", also called "stock turnover".
Having successfully determined how to make you "buy" anything, whether it is goods or services, the commercial politicians found that they needed also to make you replace regularly what you bought.
The exact definition may not be so much about "replacing what you bought" but sometimes getting the same money from you for a smaller replacement quantity, like in this advertisement appearing on Australian television at the time of this writing.
Apparently, the advertisement is about purchasing a small quantity of washing powder sufficient to do a single wash and it is repeated many times that you do it "every day!"
One would be tempted to think that the replacement truly envisaged in this case is about the worn-out washing machine - a much more costly exercise.
This shows that, in this case, they do not care if you wreck prematurely your washing machine as long as you buy a small quantity of washing powder "every day!"
After all, you could only be able to buy washing powder in small quantity anyway if you have to spend your money on a new washing machine.
It is not too difficult to forecast the replacement of goods if you know their expected life-span and it is also not too difficult to make financial forecasts following these anticipated replacements.
You see, "research and development" was initially intended to improve products but gradually made room to ensure that a product has a known life span suitable to the maker of the product.
Henry Ford constituted a committee of professionals to find which part of the vehicle never broke and discovered that the "king pin" (a simple cylindrical piece of metal) never broke.
He quickly ordered his engineers to make it weaker, an attitude adopted by every manufacturing business.
The supply of services follows the same rule as many service providers are not interested much in a single occasional service.
They like to emphasise (advertise) your numerous "benefits" if you come back regularly, preferably with a signed contract and an automatic payment.
If businesses decide that you should not have a particular need, the commercial politicians will convince you that you do not have that need, usually with a "you-do-not-need-anything-else" slogan-type advertising (which means that you do need their thing but not the things of others).
If you know that you do not need a particular good or a particular service and the commercial politicians want you to have such a need, they will convince you that you really have this need.
Usually by presenting subliminal images of a product's abilities you were unaware of, like a car stripping a high-rise building street of its asphalt and sending it up in the air.
This possibly meaning: nobody will be able to follow you with this car (because of the large chunks of asphalt flying in their path and the damaged road behind) even if everybody is watching (from the high-rise buildings).
Of course, these advertisements are also competing for the attention of your subconscious but the important point is that one amongst the competing advertisements will become predominant in your mind.
For example, the long-lasting competition of the past between Ford and G.M. when they regularly took turns for years at being the predominant car seller which depended on the success of their advertising because their vehicles were of the exact same basic quality and comfort.
But the main purpose will have been to maintain or increase the turnover (your consumption).
Our political politicians also want a "turnover" but a turnover of policies.
However, policies and laws are indistinguishable in this context as a "turnover" of policies or a "turnover" of laws become the same thing.
Since our needs are the same for all people and are likely to be the same for millions of years (only the fulfilment of those needs changes with evolution), policies could easily be made with the intention of lasting a long time and be adaptable to temporary fluctuations.
But this would mean that the politicians would be out of work very quickly.
This is not by itself a problem for the politicians who do not mind being officially paid for doing nothing since they are already paid for doing as little as possible.
The problem is that "out of work" means "out of the picture" which means out of sight of big business to which they have constantly to say: "Hey! I am still here - look at me!"
Generally, professionals in sports and entertainment need to attract the attention of advertisers to safeguard their financial future against premature loss of fame.
But politicians want to attract the attention of big business whether they loose fame or not and whether their financial future could be threatened or not by any loss of fame.
While it may be a security precaution for professionals in sport and entertainment, it is only an opportunity to make more money for the politicians.
Being out of work would be completely unacceptable to our politicians because they want to be the centre of attention for the media.
The politicians want to show to big business how good they are at persuading society to believe in their lies and distortions.
They want to show how successful they are at pretending to resolve complex issues and at devaluing their opponents.
These are qualities that big business is regularly willing to reward with generous "incentives", when these qualities are used to their advantage.
Consequently, it would be utterly unacceptable for politicians to allow for example, the creation of a policy that the professionals could estimate to be valid for at least the next twenty five years with only minor adjustments that could be made as required by the government department that administers the policy.
This rejection would receive the full approval of every politician of every political party who would be convinced that accepting it would be the end of big business donations, rewards and bribes, the end of "confidential" arrangements between politicians and big business and the end of Old Politics which they all want to remain alive and well.
The individual non-politician can only give a vote or a small donation to the politicians while big business can give them large amounts of money whether this money is in the form of a political donation or in any other form.
The individual vote or the individual donation is always obtained through advertising while the big money from big business can only be obtained in exchange of a political favour.
Business is not affected by electioneering advertising, it is only interested in one single piece of paper, the balance sheet.
If a large donation to a politician or a political party was supposed to improve the balance sheet and it has not, this becomes a serious responsibility because any business investment (including the political donation) is supposed to provide a dividend.
The business will coldly conclude that the mistake must not be repeated and the donation is better given to someone else next time.
Therefore business is always far more important for the politicians than the voters who are motivated by electioneering advertising.
And, to remain on the side of business, one of the most important contribution a politician can make is supporting the necessity to remove laws affecting business as business pretends that these laws hinder business growth.
The true objective is however that the less laws of business there are, the easier it is to exploit consumers, increase profits and share revenues.
In itself, adapting laws to please big business is the largest part of policy turnover or law turnover.
Any politician will always be eager to curtail those laws if only because the business donations are an essential building block in their prosperity.
Business donations act like an unexpected loan you do not have to repay.
This allows you to do things you may not otherwise be able or willing to do like paying with your own money for your own political promotion or for a disguised holiday.
Business donations also act as a free membership to a very restricted club, a very unofficial club whose mission is only to make its members richer.
There are two types of policies in our "democratic" world, the policies that our politicians are able to change without professional advice and policies of a technical nature that can only be changed by professionals.
As we know, the complex or technical laws often occupy sets of encyclopedia to which the politicians regularly apply amendments for the purpose of increasing government revenues or making business profits easier and larger.
These laws must not be comprehensible to the layperson and must have a level of uncertainty to ensure that they remain advantageous to big business and are not easily applied in favour of the consumer.
Laws designed to improve public life are occasionally created when the politicians perceive an advantage against their opponents and there is a possibility of reversing the law later if necessary.
But more often, such improvement is only obtained when the politicians have to submit to public demand or face too much loss of popularity and the risk of loosing the next general elections.
These laws are almost invariably the strictest minimum possible sufficient to restore popularity.
The politicians (also called "lawmakers" when they are in government) will claim that their job as a policy-maker or as a policy-maintainer or as a lawmaker is full-time and permanent because their laws and policies require their regular care.
You must admit that undoing what a previous government has done is a lot of work because it is not akin of disposing of something they have forgotten to take with them when they left like a previous tenant having left old cloth-hangers in the wardrobe of rented premises.
If you are serious about it, it often takes more work to undo what has been done than it took to do it and, regardless of the intention, it can only be the undoing or the crippling of existing laws and policies.
For every politician, any transaction relating to goods and services is the sure source of tax revenues and payment of their salary.
Consumption of policies is the sure source of political work, the justification of whatever benefit they receive as a politician and the continued presence in the media and in the mind of big businesses.
This means that the politicians need to make policies that will only be valid for a short time and then these policies need to be "reformed" when it is in the interest of the politicians to do so.
Consequently, our politicians have an "inventory turnover" or a "stock turnover" of policies or a "policy turnover" in order to justify their existence as a politician.
To achieve this goal, any policy must be made in a way that allows our politicians to revisit the policies often so that they can always pretend to have plenty of work to do.
Hence their love of the word "reform".
And this work is not only the drafting of a policy or law and its enactment which could be finalised within weeks or months, but involves all the debates in the "privileged places" where the policy is passed or rejected.
These debates are affected by countless instances of mutual obstructions and distortions, the endless fabrication and the destruction of arguments, the necessity to ensure media attention and the sudden requirement to advertise and counteract the opposition's unexpected success in the debates as well as their numerous holidays (when they are in "recess").
An enormous number of factors impose advances and retreats, making alliances, breaking alliances or changing alliances.
This involves continually monitoring the political strength of any other politician who is gaining or loosing predominance on the subject.
It is also necessary to have regular opinion polls and abruptly adopt an opposite direction to remain popular and always ensure that you can reasonably claim at any time that you "had nothing to do with it".
This can go on for years sometimes about a single proposed policy or about a single proposed change in a policy which can simply be abandoned if necessary or put on the shelf and unused when successful.
And this can be a policy or objective that is of no value to the public or whose only purpose could be to deceive the public into believing that the politicians are usefully occupied.
In this system, even the most critical opposition and every other political party is a friend because the politicians in power regularly pretend to complain and say something like: "..look, they're making it so difficult for us, we could be here forever!" (Joe Hockey) which is precisely what they want.
And in this political system, surely, you must be convinced that this is a lot of work that justifies the existence of the politicians forever.
Since human needs have been the same for thousands of years, from a professional perspective it is not conceivable that a new public policy is suddenly needed today but was not necessary yesterday or last week or last month or last year.
For example, when the car and the truck slowly replaced the horse and the horse cart, the purpose of the traffic was still to move people, goods and products, only the means of moving people, goods and products was changing and the change easily took half a century to complete in countries where it is completed.
The claim that a new policy is urgently needed can only exist for one of two reasons:
An informed society should detect and be able to efficiently oppose the first case.
If that does not happen, the culprit is the media which failled to inform.
In the second case, any policy which the politicians do not want to succeed becomes similar to the use by the bullfighter of the red cape intended to become the target of the charging bull and keeping this bullfighter safe.
The then highly emotionally debated proposed policy is made the target for the charging displeased section of the public keeping the politicians shielded from increased unpopularity - as long as the debate is alive.
The expectation is that, as the bull becomes tired of unsuccessfully goring the cape, time will make society forget the cause of their dissatisfaction.
If a problem arises, the cure is a new policy, if unpopularity emerges, the cure is a new policy.
What is in the policy is only of secondary importance as long as the politicians can brandish to the media a policy that they can claim to be necessary.
For instance, the "Public Register Of Paedophiles" (in Australia) was a brandished policy before its first word was put on paper and it was "the solution" that the politicians had to the problem of paedophilia.
The politicians had concluded that this allowed the public to have the revenge it wanted (against the paedophiles) and it allowed the politicians to avoid investigating and resolving paedophilia.
The "Name And Shame" policies adopted in different countries of the world are more "distractions" when the politicians want to convince the people that vilifying the guilty of exploitation is sufficient punishment while the guilty is allowed to keep the misappropriation and welcomes the solution since "shame" does not exist in his world.
Since "shame" is a meaningless word, this person can justifiably conclude that he or she has been "named", a good advertisement in their business.
Also, being accused of misappropriation which can not be made to be restituted is in big business a good reference rather than a damaged reputation.
Early in his presidency, Donald Trump was asked by a solitary reporter how he intended to deal with the "Chinese problem", as he had promised to correct the USA trade imbalance with China before the elections.
He seemed genuinely surprised by the question and seemed to see the reporter as someone who had missed the news for a while as he candidly replied: "It's done.. It's all fixed.." and after a short pause added words to the effect: "I signed the papers the other day!"
The politicians do not think that is is important to actually resolve the social or public problem they are paid to resolve, to actually see the results, they know that it is only important that the public believes that it is resolved.
In an example of policy used as ammunition, Mark Latham, who was the leader of the Australian opposition, proposed directly to the Prime Minister before the election, to make a "bipartisan" policy that parents should read a number of stories to their young children before they go to sleep.
The words were carefully chosen so that there was no misunderstanding that the stories had to be read before the children go to sleep, not the parents.
After all, politicians have to demonstrate that their "policies" are conceived with great attention when they present them in detail on television.
The intention was obviously to embarrass the Prime Minister of the time.
Yet, this shows how much value the politicians attach to the term "policy" or "policies".
But John Howard, to whom the proposition was made, did not ridicule it as a decent person should have done.
Instead he tried to turn the proposition against Mark Latham who had been recently reported as having insinuated that G. W. Bush was a criminal (following the then recent unnecessary war in Iraq).
John Howard then replied that the stories should be stories of love, not stories of hatred.
After all, politicians also have to ensure that no child could launch a "class action" because parents who need a break from their children claim to them that it is the new law that they must be woken up before the parents go to bed to be read stories that make the children cry.
For the politicians, policies are only general-purpose tools or ammunition to be used to gain popularity or diminish that of their opponents.
The policies are to the politicians what super-glue is to the handyman, you should always have some ready in case something breaks.
Politicians can use a policy as a policy or as a reward or as a bribe or as a bait or as an army grenade or as a camouflaged trap or whatever the circumstances require.
If the politicians are in trouble, they will announce a new policy to distract the attention of the public.
If their popularity is good, they may decide that, while the voters are happy and on their side, it is an opportunity to reintroduce a policy that they previously had to abandon due to public disapproval.
There are many policies that have been formulated and passed in Old Politics but have never been implemented, just waiting for the suitable occasion.
This is not an occasion for the policy to benefit society but any occasion in which the policy could be of benefit to the politicians.
As a result we live in a world flooded with political policies of doubtful use or benefit, policies that are a political pollution.
Until now, leading society has always been the prerogative of those who were able to pretend that they belong to a small and special group of people who have a special ability which is not available to others.
This has always required that society is anxious to have some social or public problems resolved and a leader or aspiring leader who is able to convince a majority of society that he or she has the solution.
But somehow, the existing promises have become insufficient and something must be found to reinforce or reinvigorate these promises.
This is when the "And More!" is added to the claim, often by implication.
It is crucial and you will find it in any political or business advertisement and the politicians never fail to use it.
This slogan may have many forms, for example, "To start with..", or to quote a previous USA President, Ronald Reagan: "You ain't seen anything yet.", all mean the same thing: "And (there is) more (to come).".
Reagan's promise was a big promise that "the best" still had to be offered to the American public.
However, "And more.", or any of its other forms, is used when there is nothing more worth mentioning, otherwise it would be told and explained.
It is an easy way to make big promises without promising anything and even politicians will adopt the claim occasionally if one of their colleagues implies more promises than the others but in a way that looks or sounds politically safe.
Each repetition of the same sentence or scene or picture increases the chances of their significance being "believed" by many, or so the members of the media have concluded.
However, the media present an incorrect conclusion of what does really take place.
It is not so much that the public believes in the intrinsic meaning of a repetition or in any propaganda - people are not deceived that easily - but rather believes that its presence or its existence has become indisputable and prevalent.
For example, if the politicians repeat all the time (in the media) that something is green when you know that it is red, you will not change your view that it is red but it will make you believe that most people think that it is green.
In other words, if society is brainwashed with the view that a political proposition is bad when you think that it is good, it will convince you that most people think that it is bad even though you persist in your view that it is good.
Similarly, our politicians are able to brainwash people, by any available means, claiming that a political proposition of theirs is good when you know that it is bad and obtain your passivity or your resignation when they implement it because you are convinced that it is useless to oppose it since, you think, most people believe that it is good.
And what is important is that most people will make the same individual conclusions - consciously or unconsciously following an advertising campaign.
This is a major tactic used by the politicians when they know that whatever they want to do is unpopular but is at the same time not challengeable by the opposition.
They know that they can not make people like it but they also know that they can make everybody believe that one is alone or in a minority and, in doing so, prevent anybody's objection.
So our politicians take advantage of this at every opportunity.
You only have to see a debate on TV between two politicians of opposing political parties.
They usually show no feeling or show faked feelings in their statements or questions because they know that what is important is to repeat them as often as possible during the debate and regardless of what their opponent says because they know that they can not make this opponent shut up.
They also know that this opponent will criticise them as much as possible and just as much as they will criticise this opponent.
This is like in a WWII artillery battle.
You send a number of missiles at the enemy, then you pick up the binoculars to check, as soon as you can see through the dust cloud, that the missiles reached their target.
If this is not the result that you wanted, you adjust the cannons, or the pieces of artillery that you have, and you repeat the operation.
The enemy is doing exactly the same but you have to ignore that and hope that you deliver the fatal hit first.
Whilst you are sending your missiles, the only thing that counts is to follow the procedure meticulously, and the possibility that the enemy may destroy its target first must not distract you from this goal.
In televised debates, the politicians follow the same plan of action.
They have a number of rounds that they can send and they will send them regardless of what is sent at them.
They will also send the same round repeatedly if they have the opportunity.
Unlike in artillery duels, this political duel will not kill them, it will not leave any visible mark either and, as long as the politicians keep their mandatory smile, they may even appear politically undamaged to the spectators.
So keeping smiling is vital for any politician exposed to a camera.
And as a spectator watching both politicians leaving with a terrific smile on their face, you could be excused for thinking that the only one hurt in the battle was the reporter (or moderator etc) who never got the answers he wanted.
After this political duel, they leave the battlefield and inspect the media reports to see exactly what damage that they have inflicted and what damage that they have suffered.
They then have time to collect more missiles and to polish their artillery in preparation for the next duel.
What counts in this battle is the brain-washing of the public you achieve by ignoring the meaning of what you can not control, what your opponent sends at you.
Once the public hears it, the damage is done and your only option is to fire your own ammunition hoping that it contains the antidote for the damage that you may have just suffered.
If it does not, there is nothing that you can do, you have suffered a political blow.
You then repeat as many times as possible the sentences or slogans that you have, to reinforce them.
To do this, you must be very good at picking words from what is directed at you and find a link in one of your sentences or slogans that you then repeat, so that the listening or viewing public thinks that your sentence or slogan follows the flow of the debate, even if only partially.
You can even add a touch of innovation, as the politicians do, by saying before you repeat something: "Well, as I said before..." or "If you ask the same question, you must expect the same answer..." which will put the blame on your opponent in the minds of the people who detect, or are annoyed by the unwelcome repetition.
There are many ways to divide the people and the politicians will do so whenever possible because the more fractured a society is, the easier it is for its politicians to rule it and exploit it.
The politicians want social conflicts to preserve their authority and their existence.
Provided these conflicts do not threaten their popularity, the politicians will inconspicuously nurse them with enthusiasm while pretending to do everything in their power to prevent them.
The most obvious way to divide consists of making a rousing speech that people can associate with a section of a community or a political opponent.
The subtle way at the other extreme is to make a proposition without leaning toward one of two opposite choices that the proposition usually entails ending your proposition with an implied but distinct question mark.
To achieve this you must make the proposition as if you were expressing your incertitude in a particular situation, and awaiting some inspiration that would help you make a decision to adopt one solution or the other.
The more uncertain you look the better.
Then large sections of the public become fearful that you could be swayed too easily by the people who have an opposite view on the subject because you look so uncertain and you look so receptive to any suggestion even if, in reality, your mind is firmly made up regarding what you will do.
It then becomes a necessity for people holding either view to convince people who have the opposite view of how wrong they are so that, you think, only your view remains for the hesitating politician to adopt.
This creates sometimes strong resentment and animosity between people of opposing views, even if they have no hope of communicating their view to the politician, even if their view has no chance of influencing anything.
This resentment could lead to social unrest which the politicians welcome because their power is maintained or increased.
The people have then been deceived into thinking that the problem is the people who have a different view of the solution rather than the problematic situation that needed a solution.
The lack of knowledge and experience of the politicians in any useful discipline is hidden at great public costs.
This defensive behaviour also consumes a large portion of their time and a large portion of their energy.
It also costs a lot psychologically when you have to continually pretend, even in your own working environment, to be somebody you know you are not.
This is because our instinct is to be accepted by others for who we really are and we resent it deeply if we have to pretend to be different to be accepted.
This is why some politicians suffer from depression and find it necessary to let the public know of their condition.
However, the intention to exploit or deceive someone is always a form of aggression toward that person.
In such case, the urge to be accepted for who one is has disappeared as one has become antagonistic, hostile, deceiving and often very hypocritical.
This always results in someone pretending to have a personality other than their true self because the result of the attempted deception is rarely immediate and final.
This necessity to conform to an image at all costs ruins the life of many people and this is why so many celebrities fall from fame so heavily or even commit suicide because that expectation remains even after they retire from their profession.
Unless they are able to break entirely from their professional past, it is nearly always impossible for these celebrities to escape their compulsorily faked appearance (the "role model") and be themselves as they find that they are condemned to a life-sentence of acting like a politician.
Professionals like nurses, doctors and surgeons often suffer a similar fate, sometimes asking themselves as this nurse complained: "When am I going to get a life?"
This is not because they have to comply to a role-model that deceives society but because of the role model of their high sense of ethics and their dedication to the sick, the hurt and the old.
Instead, it is because our artificial society exploits their high sense of professional ethics to the maximum and to the advantage of the politicians and big business who drive them to burnouts.
This time and energy that is consecrated to the appearance of our politicians (who they must appear to be rather than who they really are) is not available to purposes useful to society.
It is the bulk of their activity and it is a considerable handicap for anyone supposed to work professionally.
However, there is a political taboo or another "gentlemen agreement" between the politicians stating that they are allowed to destroy what their competitors say or do but not the image they are making for themselves.
This is their way of protecting in the long-term their own image from those who are able to expose and destroy it and the only way they have of ensuring the survival of Old Politics.
This is why they can always claim that the opponent is wrong but they can never say that this opponent has a job that should be abolished.
Who the politicians really are must be concealed from public view, hence the necessary "speech therapists", the "speech writers" and the numerous other "advisers".
These professionals teach the politicians what not to do, what to do and how, and how to rehearse it often by quickly discovering social opportunities in which a particular behaviour may be repeated and perfected.
It is vital to convey in a staged and polished display some imaginary abilities and imaginary qualities about the politicians knowledge and experience but more importantly about their character and critically, about their political intentions.
Imagine any professional like the electrician or the lawyer or the butcher or the doctor or the taxi driver having first to retouch their makeup, clear their voice and rehearse at your cost how they will provide to you a choreographed service or deliver a glittering product.
If the politicians were not fully successful at hiding their true personality, their obsession with scheming and their self-interested opportunism would be exposed very quickly.
This type of personality is not suitable for public display, it has to disappear if only for the duration of the public appearance.
What has to be corrected is every aspect of their personality, their look, their attitude, their speech, their body language, their reaction to events, their thinking.
The politicians have to communicate a significance and meanings that are in line with what they want the public to believe.
But this ability should be almost innate or the politicians will not progress much in their own systems.
In other words, they must have a basic predisposition for systematic dishonesty as opposed to opportunistic dishonesty which tempts us all.
As a politician, it is not a matter of clearly expressing what you believe but to express clearly what you want the public to believe and express it as if you truly believed it yourself.
And what politicians want the public to believe may be different tomorrow or next week or anytime later.
So, even though you know that you must proclaim it today as if you truly believed it, you also know you might have to truly believe the opposite tomorrow and then convince your audience of your indisputable logic for doing so.
Politicians simply have to learn that, from now on, they are not one but two persons, each being activated or deactivated at the appropriate time.
They are now some very specialised and high-profile actors.
The politicians learn to do this automatic switching, through the simple sight of what looks like a camera or a microphone, the sight or hearing of a group of people or of another politician or a stranger or an assistant etc.
All these people must be deceived comprehensively and think that what they see is the real you because they may all have an interest, now or later, in exposing publicly the discrepancies that you fail to hide or control.
It is also very important that these people have true admiration for you as this true admiration can bring an enormous amount of loyalty and popularity, sometimes strong enough for a servant to say: "I'll take a bullet for him.".
And if one of those persons finds it difficult to hide in front of the media his or her low esteem for a politician, the viewers will sense it and will subconsciously take it into account as one of those rare things that do not lie.
But unless the admiration is for your ability to deceive, admiration is only possible if the fake you always hides the real you, a costly exercise in self-esteem unless you become the fake you completely or your inherent morality is extremely low which would be difficult to hide.
In which case, someone may stop to be willing to "take a bullet" for you and expose the whole truth.
If your deep urge to acquire power is due to a complex of inferiority of some sort, the real you will likely have little chance of showing itself, you will become a constant fake till you die and nobody will ever guess what your true motivation was.
A politician is a caterpillar metamorphosed into a butterfly one moment and metamorphosed back into a caterpillar the next moment.
The image of a politician is the general perception that each of us has of a politician.
It can range from the perception of a completely unknown person to the perception of a revered and infallible guide (like Mahatma Gandhi was to many Indians) with many other possibilities between these two extremes including the image of a person that you loathe.
Needless to say that this perception is often grossly inaccurate and this is the important point for the politicians.
But an "image" is not a high-resolution photograph of a politician.
Every pixel of that "image" can be fabricated by the politicians, by their assistants, the advertising agencies and the media.
The "image" is a flattering hand-drawn portrait which is constantly retouched to highlight or to hide existing or imaginary personality properties according to the political fashion of the day.
The media contribute to that image as they regularly gloss the personality or the achievements of a politician in the expectation of making this politician more amenable in their interviews.
And the media can only afford a depth of "grilling" the politicians about equal to any other media for fear of being singled out as going too far (making politicians loose too much popularity) and forcing the politicians to avoid them.
Inevitably, this image will also fluctuate constantly in our mind.
The restaurant owner says: "You are only as good as your last serve." and the politicians are somewhat in the same situation.
We may have a blurred image of a politician, if for example, we perceive contradictions or vagueness in what this politician expresses.
We may have a positive "image" or a negative "image" of a known politician, at any moment in time, according to the accumulated behaviour of that politician and what we learn about that behaviour, including criticisms or praises expressed by others.
Of course, a positive image implies a readiness to vote for the politician while a negative image implies the opposite.
This position within the positive or the negative range changes considerably between individual observers (the voters) because things do not have the same importance or "value" for each of us.
And to make things more complicated, this importance or value may change in our mind according to our own circumstances.
This position also moves by a fraction within the scale, every time something is done by, or attributed to, a politician.
And although this is only by a tiny fraction, this fraction is very important to the politicians.
This is due to the fact that the major political parties are often sharing almost equally the support of the voters, as well as their antipathy.
A little difference in votes can make them win or lose the next general elections which is the prize that they want.
Due to the fact that, under Old Politics, the policies are advertised rather than technically proposed and the personalities of the politicians are fabricated according to a common political standard, a sizeable number of politicians are within that range.
This is because the advertising agencies used by the major political parties are usually also equal in their ability to make a suitable image for their client.
While the image of a politician is made at the level of the individual observer, which also includes all the other politicians, the popularity is obviously the count of these individuals.
For the politicians, the section of observers that are close to the median line on the scale are the important individuals to win to their cause.
This is because it is too difficult to convert the observers (the voters) who are at one extremity of the scale, while those that are at the opposite extremity are already unconditional supporters even if it is because they dislike the other major political party more.
Like the image, popularity will fluctuate between a positive or a negative position but the popularity of the politicians can not be changed without a change of their image.
However, a politician may have a change of image without doing anything, simply because this image may automatically improve if the image of their opponent deteriorates or their image may deteriorate if their opponent's image improves.
Their image can also deteriorate or fade away if it is not maintained, if they stay away from the media for too long for example.
This is the result of the artificiality of Old Politics by which we have to choose usually between two options only.
If you are forced at gunpoint to swallow a spoon of vegetable oil and a spoon of vinegar and tell which is the "best", you will choose the vegetable oil, but if the vegetable oil is replaced by sea water, you will say that the vinegar is definitely "better" than the sea water.
This is why governments change so easily in the democratic countries.
We are forced to make a choice between gangrene and cancer and the choice is very difficult because we would rather have neither.
It is then only a matter of time before the one elected in government demonstrates its inadequacy enough for society deciding to try the other in an interminable merry-go-round.
In some countries, it is common for governments to be unable to run their full term because machinations behind the scene to "form a government" or sustain it have collapsed, the government has collapsed and new elections have become necessary.
If politicians know that their popularity is high or low, they usually have no sense of urgency because they know that either they have a lot of "work" to do or that they have a good safety margin acting as a cushion against political adversity.
But when the popularity of a politician comes close to the median line, it becomes more important to attain and maintain the position above fifty percent of popularity.
This is the time when the politicians will fight for each fraction of improved image and popularity as if it was a matter of life or death.
Then, they will interpret every little detail of life to their advantage because they know that every one of those details can bring or cost one or more votes.
At this stage, every fraction of popularity counts and this popularity will fluctuate almost with every word used by the politician, with every intonation and with every physical expression, especially the facial expressions but including their hair, their clothes etc.
One facial expression may sway one voter, or more than one, from the positive region of the scale to the negative region.
One sentence may do the same to another voter and the clothes may do the same to a third voter.
This is not a theory or some hypothetical examples.
An electoral contest was lost in New South Wales by an Australian candidate because, during the election campaign, he tried to gain popularity by exposing himself at the beach in a swimming bikini to show his lean, physical fitness.
According to the media, enough voters thought that this had nothing to do with his ability to govern and he lost popularity instead of gaining some.
It must also be said that he did not have the body of a sex symbol which may have had an impact.
John Howard (in Australia) lost some popularity when the pocket of his suit was caught around the handle of the door when he entered the studio of a company of radio transmission while he was filmed by a number of television cameras.
This was perceived by the viewers as some clumsiness and their perception was correct since the pocket was caught around the handle of the door because John Howard was concentrating too much on how to expose himself, as best as he could, to the television cameras that were following him in a confined space.
This change of appraisal by the observers is subconscious but real and its impact is what unpredictably modifies the public opinion so quickly.
This is demonstrated by opinion polls almost daily.
If we had a counter measuring John Howard's popularity as he entered that studio, we would see the number shown diminishing when he freed his pocket from the inquisitive door-handle.
This is the type of subject used in the silent comic movies of the last century.
G.W. Bush reportedly won the second term of his presidency of the USA by 500 votes.
You can be certain that if, shortly before the elections were held, the American public had seen G. W. Bush wrapping his suit pocket around a door-handle, in the same circumstances than John Howard did, Al Gore would have won these elections.
This shows that under Old Politics, man uses a method worse than throwing dice to determine its destiny.
The tone of the voice of the politician has to suit the subject, away from the microphone when you want to shout (outrage, anger, reach the masses), close to the microphone when you want a soft and warm voice (sincerity, candour, simplicity, harmlessness, friendliness) and a half-way, tell-every-word (threatening, punishing) when you want to instil fears.
Of course the tone of the speech is more effective if the matching words are expressed.
Politicians do not want to talk like a popular Australian female singer who asks in her song: "Am I too outspoken?" in a submissive voice.
This sort of contradiction is always detected by the listeners and would result in loss of popularity for the politicians (and for the singer).
Politicians are renowned for taking diction courses, as well as public speaking courses when their political future starts to look promising, or even before.
And the sentences repeated by the politicians come from a gigantic array of clichés, slogans, sayings and answers that they have used many times, that they have refined and memorised.
These are their own clichés, slogans, sayings or answers, as well as those of other politicians or celebrities, past or present.
It is important to know that human themes are eternal, for example someone said: "Every man dies. Not every man really lives." and we are tempted to think that this could only have been said recently by a modern philosopher.
But this was said by a man who lived between 1270 and 1305.
Any saying we find penetrating today could have been conceived anytime within the last ten thousands years and many were before Christianity was born.
And this is what gives our politicians such a large quantity of sayings they can use to appear knowledgeable to society even if they use mostly the most recent sayings.
The size of this repertoire and the ability to use it efficiently are the difference between a new politician and an "experienced" politician or a "polished" politician or a politician on whom "nothing sticks".
The politicians work exactly like the famous actors who have an excellent recollection of their lines and of the precise expression of emotion and body-language that must accompany each word in these lines.
They also know how to do the physical actions needed to express the emotions required, like being breathless.
The quality of this physical conditioning is the difference between a good actor and an average actor, or a "good" politician and an "average" politician.
Firstly politicians must communicate an image of stature.
If they are small, they may have to use specially made shoes to appear as tall as possible, they may have to learn to walk with head up and this must look natural.
Do you remember the classic movie (My Fair Lady) in which the main female character had to learn good manners and learn to walk while carrying a hard-cover book on her head?
There is no other simple method to achieve this result and some politicians may have to do the same.
After she had resigned as Prime Minister of the UK, a photo was published of Theresa May walking in the street where she appeared to be scanning the footpath for cigarette butts.
Brexit had taken a heavy toll on her morale but the effect was unforgiving - bad publicity.
Politicians must also pretend to have great energy and agility.
For example, when climbing steps or stairs, as if it was a small obstacle conquered swiftly although these steps or stairs are part of their plot to enhance their image or they would be removed and the stage would be redesigned.
Obama never misses an opportunity to show to the world how easy it is for him to climb the stairs leading to his aeroplane or to the platform from which he is going to deliver his speech.
The politicians must appear relaxed and they must smile, especially when they are exposed for their lies or their deceptions, or they must learn to explode in "spontaneous" outrage.
If someone publicly accuses you of murder and it does not dent your apparent happiness, people are tempted to believe that the accusation is false.
And if you explode in faked outrage, not only that the accusation will be believed to be false but the accuser will also appear as a very bad person.
A "good" politician must know when to continue to display the beatitude of the innocent or display the outrage of the profoundly-hurt after such accusation.
They must also appear to listen intensely, to be patient, tolerant and compassionate.
One single failure in any of these moods will translate in the loss of one or more votes.
This can be a vote for your political party or the vote of a constituent concerning your career or the vote of a colleague concerning your position within your political party.
A benign mistake repeated too often can easily cost a political career.
A good example in Australia is Peter Costello, he carries with him a permanent air of superiority, an air of vanity that makes him appear .. so vain .. to the public.
This is a political defect that he seems unable to correct.
He is aware of his inherent ineligibility (at the time of this writing) resulting from this personal trait and he avoids to challenge for the position of leader of his political party on his personality, preferring instead that the position be passed to him as the nominated successor of the leader.
In this case, the air of vanity is the only thing that the voters see, it eclipses everything else and if Peter Costello succeeds in hiding it for a minute, it is so obvious in his behaviour that this repressed air of superiority is wanting to burst out at the slightest opportunity and this happens very often.
Politicians know that most questions are asked by the media hoping to trigger an answer that will be worth of a place in the first page of the newspapers or in the prime radio or television time.
In this sense, most questions are traps and the politicians are automatically suspicious of any question, especially if they can not detect the trap immediately.
You can regularly notice on TV a politician reacting to what appears to be a banal question as if thinking: "You don't fool me with that one!"
This is because the journalist asked a smart question designed to induce the politician to say what she or he does not want to say although this subtlety often escapes the attention of the spectators or the audience.
Politicians also know that a journalist or reporter may ask a favourable question to appear friendly to the politician and then ask the tricky question.
Politicians also know that the percentage of questions that they can answer profitably, directly and honestly, is too small to warrant a particular treatment and that the answers to these questions are often already known by the public.
From the point of view of the politician, most of the questions must go to the waste basket as soon as possible.
Then the politicians can concentrate on delivering a ready-made answer or a memorised answer that appears suitable to the question and should increase their popularity.
This is how the politicians appear to answer questions so easily, when they are not answering the question.
The most well-known politicians have often more than a decade of this "experience".
This can turn a politician into a very "smooth talker".
When you are listening attentively to such a person, you will often be convinced that you must have misunderstood a question when you notice that the politician's answer does not quite fit as you expected.
But you have understood the question correctly.
The politician does not want to answer the question but has to appear to answer it, or lose a lot of popularity for not facing what people consider to be his or her duty.
Therefore, the answer will almost always be a clever diversion from the question.
Even if the interviewer exposes this diversion, the politician will candidly repeat the same answer or will reply forcefully that this was the proper answer to the question.
What counts for the politicians, is that most listeners will think that there is a nuance that escapes them, and to the politician's delight, these people will now more easily remember this repeated answer than the question.
If some animosity develops between the journalist and a politician concerning an answer, this animosity will translate into a loss of popularity for the politician.
This is because people identify with the journalist and assume that the politician is under compulsion to answer the question since that is, in theory, why he or she is there.
But this loss will always be less than the popularity lost if the politician had given an honest answer.
The politicians know that the loss of popularity is inevitable with questions relating to unpopular subjects.
Even if they succeed at avoiding most of them, it is then a matter of minimising this loss and regaining or increasing their popularity, with the other questions.
The final result of an interview is what counts and the media workers know that if they want to interview the politician another day, they must give him or her an opportunity to "win" today for fear of the politician not being "available" in the future.
If you are a politician, why would you allow a journalist or a commentator to give you a series of interviews that make you lose popularity every time?
It is better not to be "available".
Therefore, every interview of a politician must allow this politician to gain at least a little popularity and the media become an accomplice.
A common answer, and often one of their first diversions, is to blame their opposition for an unpopular subject even if this opposition had nothing to do with it.
Politicians will not hesitate to claim that the opposing political party was the first to think or to talk or to dream about their unpopular subject and therefore this opposition is to blame for its existence.
All they need again to do this is a vague link and proclaim it in a way that targets your emotions, not your reason.
In that way, they hope at worst to share and halve the loss of popularity which will result in a draw, politically.
When an unwanted question is suitable, the solution is to answer with a sharp "no" (rarely "yes") when an interviewer ask a convoluted question that the politician knows will be difficult to follow by the audience.
The purpose of the interviewer is to trap the politician who detected the danger in the question through a few keywords.
And since anything else than a sharp "no" would be clarifying the question to the audience, it is in the interest of the politician to make the answer as brief and as harmless as possible.
Nothing could be briefer and more harmless than "no" which also does not require elaborating.
It also forces the interviewer to rephrase the question more simply or, most likely, ask the next question because now, it is obvious that the politician is alerted to the trap and that the audience could become annoyed with the same question put in a different form.
The media are indirectly a great assistance for the politicians because they will inevitably ask the same questions repeatedly, which gives the politicians an opportunity to rehearse and refine each cliché, slogan or answer.
This is why politicians seem happy to answer the same questions over and over again.
If channel X has asked a particular question to a politician that channel Y has not yet asked from the same politician, even if they know the answer, channel Y needs to ask the same question when they have an opportunity so that they can provide this particular answer to their audience.
And if the politician gives a slightly different answer even if its meaning is unchanged, it is a bonus.
The answer then becomes tailor-made for channel Y.
If the answer is substantially different than any previously given, it becomes a small gold mine for whoever asked the question.
This repertoire of answers is not only good to answer the wanted questions, but also to answer the unwanted questions to which the politicians do not want to provide an answer but which they must appear to answer.
Politicians quickly learn to ignore the fine details of a question, or its true significance.
Instead they learn to link any question to a memorised answer that they can use profitably and which will look like a reasonable answer.
All that they want is some sort of relationship between the two, like a few keywords.
The politicians are not interested in helping you to learn something from their answers.
Unfortunately, telling you the facts is an attitude by which they can only lose popularity in Old Politics, from those voters who do not like what they hear even if it is true.
All that the politicians want is to gain some popularity from the questions put to them, or at least, not to lose any popularity.
This is why it seems so difficult for the media to convince the politicians to answer a question with "a simple yes or no".
Any of these answers is certain to displease a number of voters and to result in a loss of popularity.
However if the answer is neutral, no voter is displeased and the politicians retain their popularity more easily.
The best way to maintain or increase their popularity is to have a popular answer for each question, regardless of any lack of true correlation between the question and the answer.
For instance, if a solution to a problem is required and a question is asked concerning possible solutions, the politician will avoid answering the question and, in doing so, avoid losing popularity with those who may not like the solution which may be envisaged.
But the politician will instead profusely elaborate on the need to eliminate the problem, something on which every voter agrees.
Under the old systems of government, each individual slowly builds an image of every politician, and to have a good image, each politician needs to deliver a number as low as possible of unpopular answers to the questions that have been asked.
Politicians who succeed at giving nice answers to most questions will have the image of a nice person and will enjoy good popularity.
To live a successful life, the professionals in the psychology professions tell us that we must be adapted to our society and to our environment.
The word "successful" does not mean that we must get rich, it means that, getting rich or not, we become satisfied with the results that we obtain for our self in most aspects of our life, in the knowledge that we can not get everything that we want.
It is to be noted that:
We all become unadapted at some stages of our life, when we face a challenge that we can not satisfy.
Being unadapted does not imply inferiority in any way, although that is often the way that we perceive it.
This is because we live in an artificial world in which we are always supposed to be perfect in whatever company or circumstances of the moment we may find ourselves.
You may be unadapted to hurdle jumping if you can not jump the fence without touching it but few people would perceive that state as an inferiority.
However, if you are in the company of a group of hurdle jumpers, you are likely to feel inferior.
Many feelings of inferiority that may affect us will be unjustified.
The adaptation that concerns us in this book is psychological or spiritual or emotional adaptation within our environment, including other humans living in it.
In general, if we are happy with our results, everything is fine, if we are not happy, then we become "unadapted" to some extent.
Mostly, unadaptation is an internal conflict between how one wants to behave and how one thinks one is expected by others to behave in a particular situation.
Being unadapted is a good thing sometimes, for example, if we spontaneously resist the pressure to do something that our sense of ethics or our conscience opposes.
And the vast majority of working environments creates such conditions under Old Politics, under the old systems of government.
In this particular case, being "adapted" (doing that something that our conscience opposes) may gradually cost us a lot in lost self-esteem.
But the point that we want to explain is not "adaptation", which is outside the purpose of this book.
It is the insecurity resulting from our unadaptation in a very artificial society that wants to make dishonesty the virtue and the necessity of a living creature born completely honest.
This is because our politicians can not exploit to their political advantage our capacity, or our incapacity, to adapt because it is different for each individual and unpredictable.
However, our unadaptation always produces insecurity which is the same for everybody, is predictable and can be exploited easily and successfully by any politician and big business.
To exploit it, these politicians employ an army of devious professionals in the psychology profession who are capable of explaining in detail how to take advantage of that insecurity.
Insecurity is the anxiety that we face when we are exposed to a new situation because we know that we must react successfully to this new situation.
This reaction may take only a moment, for example, being unexpectedly introduced to a stranger, or it may take a life-time and never be completely resolved, for example, as the victim of a life-threatening assault.
Insecurity may also be the fear that invades us when we are confronted by a traumatic natural event because we know that we want to survive this event.
In these cases, whether the insecurity is benign or traumatic, it is often normal.
We say "often normal" because, generally, the members of our modern societies have lost the ability to cope with violence.
Victims who live in violent societies or in societies in which the crime rate is very high adapt to violence with less psychological trauma because their ability to switch to self-defence (to trigger a large flow of adrenaline) is more easily accessible.
Wild animals regularly escape by a whisker from a predator or an enemy and, if they are unhurt, may regain their usual composure very quickly as if nothing had happened because that same flow of adrenaline is available at the slightest alarming sign.
Seeing violence in movies or on TV is very different than being subjected to it.
The majority of people who live in democratic countries are not prepared psychologically to be the victim of unprovoked violence, be it only a simple punch.
However, the general public will form the misconception that victims of such violence must somehow bear some responsibility for it, like as the result of an argument or were in a place to which they should not go, whether it is a building or a geographical area.
Punishing a violent offender does not protect society from this offender committing more violence because this intended punishment will only exacerbate the urge for psychological compensation.
This compensation will be more aggression subsequently exposing the members of society to a likely increased risk of violence from this offender.
The politicians take advantage of such situation and are determined to make society believe that they are instead its protector.
They do so by intentionally maintaining the highest possible sense of insecurity regarding public safety and by releasing violent offenders on the only assumption that they have been punished enough.
The general misconception is that the solution to unprovoked violence is punishment but the professionals are of the opinion that this solution increases violence rather than reduce it.
Our insecurity certainly becomes abnormal when it is exploited by the politicians who take advantage of it by conditioning our emotions through calculated speeches and massive advertising campaigns (saturation) designed to make us welcome their self-serving intentions.
Propositions, recommendations or suggestions made by politicians always contain a component designed to maintain or increase our insecurity.
This will make us more dependent on the security they claim to be able to provide which then reinforce their domination of society.
G. W. Bush said before invading Iraq: "When we talk about war .. we are really talking about peace."
Only politicians want you to believe that killing hypothetical or imaginary enemies, and killing many innocents in the process, will bring peace thereafter and forever.
A solution popular amongst politicians is to threaten with great fanfare, to increase your security by putting the violent criminals in jail for longer.
Unfortunately, putting the violent criminals in jail is always done after the crimes have been committed.
And the politicians always want to ignore the unused prevention mechanisms known to science as it is more popular to take advantage of the human urge for revenge.
The politicians are also able to exploit our insecurity for purposes that are not related to the causes of this insecurity.
This is because our insecurity is one homogeneous mental state of a variable size that is produced by many different causes.
For example, your level of insecurity existing in the morning may have been substantially increased by the end of the day by a number of completely unrelated minor events:
Insecurity is like water in the river, too much of it will break its banks and create a flood.
Insecurity is a psychological state that may be created, increased, decreased or maintained and the politicians are able to use any amount of our insecurity for any purpose.
They only need to utter premeditated words that imply that their latest concoction will make us "less insecure" (less unsafe) and we will be very tempted to believe that and allow them to try whatever they propose, even if it is completely unrelated.
This is because our subconscious likes to hear those claims or promises even if they are clearly impossible to achieve.
Such claim affects your deep emotions while being possible or impossible to achieve is only related to your reasoning.
Your reason will let you believe that it prevails but your behaviour is very likely to show that in this situation the winner is your emotions.
For example, you may agree with conviction that something is wrong but, under any sort of justification, you allow it to happen because, really, you do not want to prevent it.
But the politicians are themselves subjected to their own insecurity due to their perpetual fears of losing the next elections and loosing the advantages flowing from being "in power".
And since these elections will be the result of what you believe and fear, it is necessary for them to actively make life miserable for you while convincing you that everything they do is for the only purpose of making it paradisical.
Abnormal insecurity affecting the non-politicians is very often the result of misconceptions created or maintained by Old Politics.
An online dictionary gives the following definition of the word "misconception":
".. a view or opinion that is incorrect because it is based on faulty thinking or understanding.."
We can spontaneously build our own misconceptions without anybody else intervening and we can also build misconceptions according to the influence of somebody else.
For example, it is in the interest of the media and publishers to let people build misconceptions and fear of "black holes" (the space monsters that swallow everything even light) so that their articles and publications inspire interest and are avidly followed by many.
There are widespread misconceptions - about misconceptions.
It is necessary to explain how misconceptions work in order to know why we are exploitable by politicians because their advertising agencies know that extremely well.
Generally, people think that:
And most people would be astonished to learn that we need our misconceptions.
During the past millennia, man has progressively rid himself of the most blatant of his misconceptions, the most blatant of his unfounded fears and the most blatant part of his credulity.
This has made man less exploitable but this evolution has been, and still is, a very slow process with much left to be done.
But the reality is that we are by necessity full of misconceptions simply because ignorance can only be balanced by misconceptions and there is still so much we do not know.
These are misconceptions of which we are unaware because we all share them as if they were the truth or an undeniable fact.
And as we smile at the misconceptions of our ancestors, there is no doubt that in a few thousands years, people will also smile at our misconceptions.
Fear of the unknown is most conscious during that rare moment when we are in bed, almost unaware of our body and ready to fall asleep.
When we deeply feel alone, even if our spouse or partner is asleep only centimetres away, and suddenly, we wonder about the after-life and death.
After a short moment, the thought will crystallise on our own death with the most fearful sentiment, a sentiment that is intolerable as the only solution is then to immediately shake it away and think about something else.
The fear is so strong that we may even have to leave bed and do something just to occupy our brain with other thoughts.
We must spiritually escape urgently because at that very moment, we do not contemplate our own death in a reasonable or theoretical or logical way anymore.
We then vividly imagine it as arriving to us, we vividly imagine that we are facing the time to die and we vividly imagine being swallowed by the unknown.
Misconceptions that are not superficial are derived from that feared unknown and this is indicative of the strength of our instinctive will to eliminate that fear when it shows its existence, regardless of what triggers it and regardless of how to eliminate it.
Surprisingly, the subject most open to misconceptions is psychology, specially human psychology.
Even though our human behaviour is there for everybody to see and analyse, very few have been able to make any in-depth analysis of it which by necessity consists of using oneself as the main subject of research or as a comparison or measuring stick.
We are rarely able to see our own behaviour for its true motivations because the difference between what we are supposed to be in our artificial society and what we really are is too vast.
And this only exists because we are "intelligent" since, if we were not, we would not be aware of that difference.
Because it relates purely to the spiritual or the intellectual which are undetectable by any of our senses, nobody will ever be able to produce a proof of what the science of psychology has found except if those looking for the proof have a mind open enough and a sufficient sense of observation to draw their own conclusion.
Without that open mind and the sense of observation, psychology appears to most people to be a lot of theories not really applicable to daily life which could not be more untrue.
This has created the largest possible reservoir of misconceptions about the human being itself, starting with the many misconceptions that we are able to fabricate about our own personality and motivations.
The enormous difficulty for the layperson is due to the fact that, contrarily to public belief, we have no control of our self.
We are born with a personality that we have never been able to choose and which we will never be able to change (although we can improve its behaviour).
But most importantly we are born with a basic determination that is standard and the same for every person, a strong determination willing to kill us (suicide being an option) if we try to change it, a determination the psychology professionals call our subconscious.
This subconscious apply its own rules whether we like it or not and if you try to make it behave differently, it will fight back - and win - every time.
Trying to oppose it is like moving one small magnet (your will) toward a bigger and fixed magnet (your subconscious) while each magnet faces the same pole of the other.
The closer they are, the stronger the repulsion is and the stronger the force becomes wanting to turn the approaching magnet the other way so it behaves exactly like the bigger magnet instead of behaving in the opposite way.
This force will eventually become so strong that you are not strong enough to control the small magnet anymore and it will instantly turn a hundred and eighty degrees between your fingers before snapping toward the large magnet.
In broad terms, the only way to make this subconscious change its mind, so to speak, is by offering it something as a replacement of what it has got, something it thinks is better than what it has got.
This is why trying to make it (and you) only "drop" one of your misconceptions will not work while offering it a conception that is true or less incorrect will allow it to take your new conception and loose interest in the old conception which it will then "drop" as useless.
Rehabilitation of criminals works in the same way.
If for example, you try to make a murderer "drop" his or her urge to kill people, there is no way that can succeed even if the criminal wants it and wants to work with you toward that goal.
It is necessary to find what socially acceptable and new behaviour you can offer to the subconscious of this criminal to replace his or her urge to kill and that may take time and needs his or her participation.
If no replacement can be found and made, no rehabilitation is possible.
If we have no understanding of an event, fabricating misconceptions about it is not a compensation that we decide to apply, it is instinctive and may be totally subconscious just like breathing or blinking.
Our psychological balance needs an explanation, any credible explanation regarding that event, a need which is proportional in strength to our perceived threat by the event to our safety and therefore, to our survival.
If your subconscious does not perceive any threat in relation to the event, you will not build any misconception about it because your subconscious is indifferent to it.
It is like watching on TV the storm affecting your area and then going to the window to see it.
Watching it on TV may not raise a sense of danger when watching it through the window will.
Our psyche does not care much about what it sees as unimportant, like whether or not we know how to repair a broken television set, or how to cook a meal since missing the television set is not a threat to our survival and our psyche relies on our sense of hunger, not our tastes, to sustain our body with nutrients.
Consequently, we may be wanting to fight if our ability to obtain food is threatened but we are unlikely to want a physical fight because the television set is not working.
And this is not because we reasonably assess the importance of these cases on their true merits, which is a misconception, it is because our subconscious has decided for us what our reaction should be.
However, things become important enough to us to form misconceptions from what appears to be a low point on the scale of importance.
For example, we may feel a necessity to argue about a particular point as if our life depended on it while the same point may seem to be completely worthless to others.
One only needs to witness how emotional and unscientific debates can become, even among professionals, concerning subjects like animal cloning, stem cell therapy, human genetic engineering, assisted suicide or abortion, even politics, when convincing others of one's misconceptions seems to become a matter of life or death.
Misconceptions may also be minimised when we think that we control something.
In our context, the term "control" does not mean that we can modify or prevent an event, it only means that we have enough knowledge about it to protect ourselves from its unwanted effects.
For example, lightning ceased to terrify people when they started to live under the cover of a roof, the roof of a house or the roof of a cave for our ancestors.
The lightning could not reach them and therefore, the lightning was under "control".
Being at a safe distance of an inferno or an erupting volcano is another form of control.
Another example is any body of water, like a river, a lake or the sea.
We know that we can drown in it, or we can die if we fall in it in cold weather.
But we also know how to protect ourselves from death in this water, so that we can fish or swim or surf in it for pleasure with enough safety.
Then we have "control" of this water even though we are completely unable to change its behaviour.
Forming misconceptions following events that we can not explain to ourselves is not an intellectual process, it is an emotional process that is accomplished despite our intellect and we can not prevent it.
Education will restrict misconceptions to areas of life that it did not enlighten but these misconceptions will enforce their full influence regardless of that education.
For example, this highly educated senior mining professional working in a remote Australian location saying to a new junior assistant: "Thanks God you're not black".
This was presumably after having had encounters that he disliked with Australian Aborigines and trying to start a personal discharge or exchange of racial criticisms.
This professional had probably previously been briefed about the environment in which he was going to work but was manifestly under the influence of strong misconceptions since his reaction seemed inappropriate and excessive.
And if, without giving you a better conception, someone tries to make you abandon one of your misconceptions, you will be prepared to resist strongly, even to fight if necessary, in order to keep it.
This is because you need your misconceptions to maintain your psychological balance as best you can.
Trying to remove someone's misconception is sometimes like trying to remove the lifebuoy of a shipwreck survivor.
A common and powerful example of misconception is body cleanliness which may cause deep resentment and even animosity toward someone appearing not to be clean enough.
We know that misconceptions regularly lead to murders and even to wars.
We also know that misconceptions are damaging to social cohesion at any level and in any society.
One may have a high level of education with a number of university degrees but have a poor understanding of life outside the fields of these qualifications.
High education may make a person a very good worker but sometimes not much of a human being and this shows that judging someone's ability to lead on their academic background could be illusional and deceptive.
We also know how much of human suffering has been inflicted, because of many misconceptions that were held by individuals in position of authority.
This includes the burning on the pyre of any woman judged to be a witch, the investigations, political and religious (inquisitions) against "heresy" and, earlier in human history, the human sacrifices, to mention only some notorious crimes that everybody easily remembers from our history lessons.
But atrocities are not limited to these or to the past.
Our politicians pass their misconceptions into laws everywhere on earth as you read this because they are prone to building insecurity and misconceptions as much as the average misinformed individual of the developing world.
We all know that the invasion of Iraq that lead to the execution of Saddam Hussein resulted from misconceptions apparently held by a surprisingly high number of politicians of "democratic" countries.
But many other incidents that we quickly forget follow the same deadly pattern as we find in the daily news how many civilians have died on the day for political reasons.
The belief that people are not interested in politics is widespread in the democratic countries as it is regularly repeated by the politicians who have an interest in maintaining it alive.
It is again making you believe that it is the common belief when it is not.
If you believe this misconception, you will also think that you are isolated if political events hurt you enough to trigger your sense of revolt.
Hopefully (for the politicians) you will then contain your possible temptation to make it a public issue since that is the way revolutions begin as many people will also have the same resentments and the same sense of isolation.
But the truth is that people do not like to be involved in politics that they can not influence.
Ignoring the uncontrollable is sometimes the only way to keep our mental health in the face of the harmful political decisions that are made by the politicians, too often against an obvious public disapproval.
When people know that they have no say in the matter and they see something bad that should not exist, it is only humane to turn their eyes in the other direction when they know that there is nothing they can do to change it.
The overpowering sense of helplessness requires that you say to yourself: "I don't want to know!" because you have been made to believe that the only alternative is a futile and lonely fight against "the establishment".
This is an establishment that may be wanting to silence or incapacitate you through jail or death, even in the democratic countries, if your views became too popular for their liking.
Each day and in many fields, the new discoveries and the new developments made by scientists and professionals are reported by the media, and people are interested in that.
The same media will also report the latest political developments and for us, the two seem two different worlds running in parallel and following their own path, unaware of each other, when they should be one homogeneous daily evolution or progression.
Reality (what happens continuously) and its meaning, are outside the control of our politicians.
This is a considerable threat to their image because reality then shows to everybody how useless or powerless these politicians really are.
Therefore politicians must constantly distort reality so that it fits their views and their claims and they appear to be in control again.
But people are indifferent, even bored, about that political distortion of reality while they like to see what is reported with integrity.
The shedding of a misconception is irreversible, its reintroduction is normally impossible, there is no mental space available anymore for this misconception, even if it is only replaced by a lesser misconception.
This is like when you have traded your old car for a new car.
Nobody can convince you to return your new car and repossess your old car.
You are now instilled with a need for your new car, the need for your old car has disappeared, your new car satisfies your needs better than the old car.
It is like removing one ball from the middle of a large box of balls of all shapes and sizes.
As soon as this ball is removed, all the other balls find their own equilibrium and trying to re-position all the balls to their original place is impossible.
Our misconceptions behave also like gas bubbles in the sediments at the bottom of the lake.
When sufficient pressure is exerted on the sediments, one gas bubble is released and travels quickly toward the surface, but the restitution of this particular bubble to the sediments is impossible.
This gas bubble disappears when it reaches the surface.
The same applies when we become free of a misconception.
And we must use energy to maintain our misconceptions alive.
When a misconception is replaced by a better conception, this energy is released, in part or in full, and is then used for better purposes.
This release of captive energy also prevents the return of the misconception because our subconscious refuses to make energy available for the reintroduction of this misconception.
This is as if you have been doing regularly something that is useless and, suddenly, it strikes you that this action has always been useless.
From that moment, nothing can convince you to continue in this useless habit because the energy it was consuming has already been returned to the pool of free energy and it is likely already used for better purposes.
By ridding ourselves of our misconceptions, our emotions become less available for exploitation by our politicians.
For example, if sixty years ago, a politician would have proclaimed that the Soviets, or the Chinese, were ready to invade the West, most westerners would certainly have reacted emotionally, urging that each man, woman and child must be armed.
In those days, someone wrote a popular book called: "The Yellow Peril" (Le péril jaune) which shows how strong our misconception may be.
But today, any such claim would be seen with a smile because we have a better comprehension of what the Soviets or the Chinese were some sixty years ago and specially of what these people are today.
When man has through history slowly removed misconceptions that he had built for himself as a result of plain ignorance, our modern society has allowed our political and commercial politicians to use modern communication technologies to instil many more new misconceptions.
These misconceptions make life a little more artificial every time one is introduced.
However, this introduction is not done on a large scale, it is now done on a global scale.
It is not done sporadically about one material thing or one thought, it is done about everything and they do not do it themselves, they pay with public money the professionals in marketing and advertising to do it.
Every good or product and every political proposition must not be presented slightly embellished to the public by polishing it and ignoring or hiding any possible negative aspect it may have.
Instead, it must be presented only after teams of experts in the marketing industry and the advertising industry have found and applied every beneficial psychological and subliminal effect and distortion.
At the time of this writing (2019) it was shown in the news that, in a practice becoming common, a business had advertised a contest in which the objective was to find a symbol for a product of this business and the winner was a teenager who suggested an egg - a hen egg.
You can imagine the advertising agency having its psychology researchers and photographers spending days or possibly weeks turning around and watching an egg, without breaking it.
Only a real egg, not a plaster or silicone egg, would allow to discover all the subliminal messages this egg could suggest necessitating innumerable photos of it before finding the one that suits their advertising.
The consumers must be conditioned so that an obviously rudimentary product or good or political proposition is not only seen as absolutely perfect by the consumer but also as absolutely indispensable.
Marketers and advertisers have so much confidence in the persuasive capacity of their trade that they now prominently present defects and limitations as features.
Any science can be used for bad purposes but none as much as the science of psychology.
And the problem is not those trying to exploit with it, it is the society allowing the exploitation.
A common misconception is that if you do not believe in psychology, then it can not affect you and other people can not take advantage of you.
Needless to say that it makes absolutely no difference whether you "believe" in psychology or not, no more than morphine needs your belief in it to kill the pain or that "sodimet" (Sodium Metabisulphate) needs your belief to clean your home-brew equipment.
Having found how to produce on a large scale, our business leaders are concentrating all their attention on making society consume on a scale as large as possible.
That does not mean more people consuming the same individual amount or quantity, it means each and every person consuming much more.
Selling more and faster is now business's main priority, even its only conceived way of survival as consumers are continually reminded by the politicians of the importance of spending (consuming) just to keep the economy "going".
Business has found that consuming by ingesting (eating and drinking) is limited.
However, it is doing its best to convince consumers that they do not ingest enough.
Excluding ingesting, consuming on a large scale is now accomplished by inducing individuals to throw away as fast as possible, as much as possible and as early as possible.
For example, who is not under the impression that something in working order needs to be replaced only because it looks out of fashion.
It became necessary to find ways of consuming by replacing quickly what was sold in what the marketers and advertisers proudly started to call "single-use" items (giving you a good excuse to throw it away).
But the principle that was only supposed to apply to cheap containers has been progressively and silently applied to as many commodities as possible.
Many devices like electric implements in the house and any electric tool are not repairable when they cease to work and are usually thrown away and replaced by a new one.
A working television set becomes a throwaway if its "remote" does not work because the manufacturers have made sure that the consumer can not replace the "remote" alone and could not use any other "remote".
The practice is progressively propagating to more expensive commodities like the car which is, in the view of the car maker, a throw-away item when it has outlived its warranty since it then becomes expensive to maintain as the car maker's agent will not touch it anymore or very reluctantly and expensively.
Business has found that to increase consumption, it must promote "success".
That is "individual success" which does not consist of making a consumer choose a good or product or service from one source rather than another but convincing anybody to become a consumer of something in which they have no interest and in the process, exploiting anyone not running away from this unwanted proposition.
Exploiting others is so popular that it has become an industry of its own.
There is an enormous number of articles, books, "seminars" and online courses regarding "success", all based on how to deceive others and make them consume more.
It has even become an official form of education in schools and universities.
Of course, the themes are not about taking advantage of others but about the psychological human characteristics (or weaknesses) likely to lead to these advantages, leaving the student or learner to make the appropriate conclusions.
Our global society is now in this laughable situation in which it is common to believe that better protection for consumers is vital as much as it is for one to find and apply the best "success" stratagem fitting their particular ambitions but not having the faintest idea of the conflict in such expectations.
This shows how new misconceptions not only replace old ones but multiply like rabbits as a result of Old Politics and its incapacity to really govern.
Having a basic knowledge of how the weather forms prevents the belief that thunders are due to the gods having an argument or a fight.
When it suits them, the politicians claim that education is the only solution to avoid what they class as misconceptions.
They use this claim as an easy way to make you believe that you are too ignorant by insinuating that you have not learned the necessary subject and, therefore, you should remain quiet and silent because you do not accept their point of view.
However, education is really the solution but this "education" is not that you have to go to school longer, or that you must learn hypothetical subjects that you have missed, or that you need another university degree.
This is because (old) education is only intended to shape you into a worker who can fit in the existing workforce.
Instead, the solution is the education of what is happening every day and this education is the same for all regardless of the results obtained in our formal education.
It is the education we can not obtain in any school or university.
It is the education of life which makes human beings of us.
But the politicians do not want you to see this education with your own eyes, nor perceive it with your own emotions, nor interpret it with your own intellect, nor compare it to your own values.
It is the type of education that the politicians do not want you to receive because every time you truly learn something from life, it becomes a little more difficult for them to make you believe in their lies and a little more difficult for them to exploit you.
Our organisation is not a political party, it is an international political organisation and the differences are significant.
A political party often works at the national government level or at the regional government level only.
nobla works at all the levels of government, including at the international level of government.
Often, a political party is only concerned with some aspects of life, the environment or religion or the family for example.
nobla is interested in all the aspects of life including aspects ignored or neglected by the politicians.
The political parties and their politicians want exclusive rights to formulate policies and they grant themselves the authority to apply those policies without your consent, whether you find these policies justifiable or not.
They also want that you reject any idea coming from outside of their political party only because these ideas are not theirs.
Under nobla and regardless of nationality or place of residence or political views or political affiliation, every member has the right to submit a (Proposal for a) policy or a change of policy through a Wiki (the Topics).
Your idea may become a Policy if it is assessed as a valid and necessary option by the professionals in the field and if it gains enough public support.
Our organisation has reduced as much as possible the number of preconceived ideas and preconceived policies that need to apply from the beginning but we need a starting base.
If they are found to be incorrect or redundant, these ideas can be amended by the people and by the professionals.
However, no responsible government can take risks and society requires policies based only on sciences and technologies that have been tested and proven.
A political party wants to have the total and unconditional power to control the public life between the general elections and arbitrarily impose against your will any decision it may make, including engaging the country in military conflicts.
If between elections, a political party in government misbehaves, you can not remove this power and you can not prevent this political party or its politicians from misusing it.
nobla does not work by domination of the people which is a system of government that has to be abolished.
Modern public life or New Politics can only be harmonious under an informed society which implies that the good and the bad in every political proposition or event must be reported with the highest integrity and the members of society must be free to contribute to public life at their level of interest.
True democracy also demands that:
The experienced and contented workers who quietly do their daily work at any level are the true sources of human progress.
It is foolish to try to delegate any work to a thaumaturgist (including politicians) with the expectations of miraculous results and it is criminal to base public decisions on the vote of intentionally misguided or misinformed voters.
Businesses and corporations also often hope to find these thaumaturgists who are never able to produce the expected results.
These wanted results are impossible to obtain because everything in our world has already been optimised somewhere, by an individual or by a group of people, in one way or another.
A "new-comer" unaware of this optimisation, or failing to appreciate it, is bound to start at a disadvantage.
Further optimisation is only possible with rare complex scientific advances or progress which will not result from the hiring of a thaumaturgist.
Whether it is in the private sector or in the public sector, the obsession to want any work done by a thaumaturgist often results in a disaster capturing public attention due to its inevitable large financial aspect.
You pay for this disaster in one way or another, as a consumer or as a taxpayer or both.
Unfortunately, it is also often a desperate and doomed attempt at hiring a special person.
The employer expects that this special person is able to provide advantages undiscovered or unknown yet by competitors, advantages likely to be illicit and profitable without exposing the employer to the authorities or drawing their attention.
This special person always knows what is expected and will pretend to have that ability.
Whether in business or in politics, the discussion regarding this ability and the objectives will proceed in a disguised manner to ensure that unethical or illegal intentions are understood without being stated.
Under New Politics, any progression contemplated must always be incremental and exposed publicly for the approval and the disapproval of professionals on the basis that public life should never need an important or abrupt change of policy under a professional government.
The political parties overuse the word "transparency" as they want you to believe that everything their politicians do does not hide anything and is done in plain view of everybody.
Under Old Politics, what the politicians do not want to be transparent simply becomes confidential.
In Australia, a judge's verdict found in a court case the necessity to keep "confidential" the punishment he imposed on a large business guilty of having broken the laws.
This is an indication of the "transparency" obtained following laws created by politicians of "Old Politics" to favour business.
These are the same laws that punish harshly and without confidentiality the average citizen as it becomes vital then to "send clear signals" to the masses knowing that the "signals" will prevent the condemned from ever getting a job again.
To succeed, the political parties need your general ignorance of the facts and they need your belief in their distorted descriptions of events or outcomes which could not have been hidden.
Because you have clearly seen such outcome, it becomes necessary to erase from your mind your reasoned interpretation of it and replace it through advertising with a subconscious emotional appraisal suitable to the political party in government and its politicians.
Your ability to assess or judge their performances is manipulated at great costs in advertising in order to make your emotional reaction overwhelm in their favour any reasoned conclusion or reaction you may be capable of conceiving.
The result is that only the media are able to uncover and widely expose by any means they can imagine the reality that the political parties and their politicians want to hide.
But the main objective of the media is profits which regularly distort or inhibit the exposition of facts and sometimes even create collusion between the media and the politicians since the media are themselves big businesses which are not immune to the need of buying politicians.
This makes too often political "transparency" no more than a propaganda theme as true "transparency" is more than political transparency.
The public's distrust due to the lack of "transparency" in political motivations and behaviour is compounded by the public's distrust in the motivations and behaviour of the professionals who are often perceived by society as accomplices of politicians and big business.
The causes are that:
The members of the public then easily and justifiably become suspicious of any new proposition affecting them if it escapes their clear comprehension.
This creates the need to obtain true "transparency" at the political level AND at the scientific and technological level (at the professional level).
Social harmony can never be attained if the majority (those on whom a policy is imposed) has always ground for suspicion regarding what the minority (those involved directly or indirectly in creating and applying the policy) is doing.
True democracy demands true "transparency" in the form of:
The vote of the members of the public, or even their acceptance, on policies is not possible if the policies are not, at the very least, reasonably understood by those interested or affected.
Denying the layperson a suitable explanation of what is done in politics is unethical and undemocratic and is a primary form of dictatorship.
True transparency is only possible through the media which must have unrestricted access to political information needed by the public and must be under public scrutiny to truly report 'without fear or favour'.
If the members of the public cease to be purposely misguided and misinformed, they are then much more likely to assess with wisdom the quality of interpretations reported by the media.
However and counter-intuitively, the existence of media justifying their existence on sensationalism is still necessary because a reasonable decision is only possible when it can be compared to unreasonable or extremist views.
A political party in opposition is only able to become the governing political party by vilifying in any way possible any proposition made by the political party in government until the majority of voters becomes convinced that the proposition is really bad and must not be allowed to succeed.
However, if such a proposition is popular, this "opposition" will then claim that they also think that it is a good idea but that it is the proposed implementation of the idea that is very bad and will ruin this "good idea" if allowed to proceed.
In doing so, the political party in opposition keeps alive its option of criticising indirectly the "good idea" of the governing political party while pretending to support it.
The objective of the political party in opposition is to convince the voters that the political party in government is unfit to govern which would improve their prospect of winning the next general elections.
A political party in government must spend most of its time in finding what the political parties in opposition are not able to object or vilify in the eyes of the voters if they want to create or change a law or a policy.
The political party in government is then unable to effectively govern the nation since the political party in opposition has the power to restrict the directions in which it allows the political party in power to proceed.
Amazingly, it is the political party in opposition which effectively "governs" a nation or a country due to the infinite ease with which it is able to build unpopularity about any "improvement" proposed by the political party in government or its politicians.
This is due to the fact that any initial wide-scope of views any government may have is progressively restricted to a single narrow view that this opposition is willing to accept or, most often, unable to oppose.
At such stage, the only option left for the governing politicians is to claim that they are extremely proud of what they have achieved which, they will also claim, is the best ever decision and required a lot of knowledge and experience.
However, they know that what they have yet to discover is what this opposition is planning to do to make this now implemented proposition unpopular.
If you are seen leaving a prestigious building through its back door rather than through its carpeted entrance, it becomes very important to convince everybody that it was your decision to do so and you are not one of the cleaners.
This irrational way of governing can not exist when proponents have to expose their solutions which will be subjected to the vote of the professionals.
It becomes useless and counter-productive to criticise an idea or a proposition in order to belittle it or destroy it or tarnish the reputation of its proponents.
A political party relies heavily on party solidarity.
If a representative (a politician) is under public criticisms, all the representatives of the political party must rally to his or her defence, even if the criticisms are clearly justified.
The party solidarity is intended to protect the image of each of their representative because any political party becomes politically weaker when any of their representative becomes unpopular.
Under nobla, such attitude is unethical but is also unnecessary and even impossible.
However, this does not remove the possibility that an official could become the victim of organised defamatory allegations and be eligible to financial assistance to cover the associated legal costs.
Under nobla (New Politics), no individual is responsible for any decision made regarding public life since decisions are the result of a vote between many eligible participants.
The political parties want to make the public believe that their representatives (the politicians) are each a perfect example of what the ideal politician is.
They adopt this attitude in order to glorify to the extreme their politicians and their political party.
But no political party has ever defined what that ideal is.
And the representatives of the political parties never intend to conform to any ideal as this conflicts fully with their secretive machinations, their self-interest and often their true knowledge and experience.
Hence the creation of the 'image' and the creation of the 'role model', in politics, in business and in sports.
The political parties and their politicians want to dominate society.
They accomplish this by imposing their rules, starting with any government department and public service of any size or importance before making laws and rules intended to prevent society from challenging the existence and the power of the politicians.
These public services and government departments are not allowed to function according to their natural work ethics but must function according to the political difficulties in which the politicians find themselves.
Under Old Politics, Theory and Practice are often perfect strangers.
The main manifestation is the pretended "Separation Of Powers" by which political interference with one working in a public service is supposed to be prohibited and impossible.
However, if it is difficult (although it happens all the time) for the politicians to influence directly a public servant working at a lower level, those at the top level of this public service are appointed and may be dismissed at whim by the politicians.
If these top-level servants are dismissible at whim by the politicians, it is only logical that anyone working under the orders of these top-level servants may suffer the same fate and the whole service becomes subjected to the will of the politicians.
nobla does not want to rule the world or any country, it is not a government.
Our ambition is to provide society with the best possible system of government that is then administered in your own country by members of nobla who are seen by the citizen of your country as one of their own in whatever way they wish to define that.
This system of government must be just, honest and humane, it must be applicable within every society and be improvable by any member.
But most importantly, it must be based on scientific evidence only, hence our repeated references to "the professionals".
It is necessary to create a constitution for each government department and each public service and ensure that each works according to its constitution.
Although this seems to be a major departure from Old Politics, it is important to realise that government services of any kind are the only official organisations not having a constitution only because the politicians have always wanted to retain control of how they work at any level.
However, the creation of such constitution must be a public endeavour and binding rather than a vague and hypothetical intention.
The political parties, their politicians and big business are inseparable.
Big business needs the governing political party and their politicians to continually "improve" and make the laws more favourable to business.
Big business also needs any other political party and their politicians to support these "improved" laws by not effectively opposing them even if they pretend to do so to please their voters.
Every political party and their politicians need donations from big business.
And politicians also want some privileged access within the big business chain of revenues as a reward for their cooperation.
It is a reciprocal arrangement which has lived for thousands of years and is a bond stronger than any contract including marriage.
It is also why one regularly appears to enter so easily what people think is the domain of the other.
Politicians have an automatic right of entry into big business and big business has an automatic right of entry into the political parties, into Old Politics.
Consequently, both agree and collude to systematically deceive society by claiming that business creates jobs and needs to be protected by society for that claimed capacity alone.
This allows business to plea for the forgiveness of the consumers for its excesses and it allows the political parties and their politicians to claim job protection when supporting business in its excesses.
But business never creates jobs.
What creates jobs is a new or increased demand for goods or services.
This demand can be, but must not necessarily be, satisfied through a new or expanding business.
And any true new or expanding business is always the effect of a new or increased demand.
If you add a new business, in any shape or form, in an otherwise unchanged "distribution channel" (anywhere between the producer or producers or the factory or factories and the consumers), the new business can only survive naturally by taking a share of business from any other existing business in this chain.
That will not create jobs, it will only shift some jobs from one or more employers to a new employer even if it is not immediate.
The economists call this: "redistribution of income and wealth" and the politicians will always falsely claim that the new employer has created new jobs.
There is only two types of business.
There is good business (improving life generally) that the politicians should support and there is bad business (profiteering without contributing anything) that they should discourage or prohibit.
Good new business is business intending to make or supply new or improved goods or services that consumers are prepared to buy.
Bad new business is the one that artificially creates another "man-in-the-middle" opportunity, either as an individual 'man-in-the-middle' or as a company 'man-in-the-middle'.
This is done by:
Creating jobs is not the responsibility of business and business only creates new jobs with new or increased demand.
Business is naturally more interested in shedding jobs than it is in creating them.
Outside of population growth, new jobs can only be created as the result of knowledge regarding the latest developments in science and technology.
And only governments (the politicians and their government departments) have the free capacity to gather that knowledge, make the relevant conclusions and provide directions and incentives as necessary to maintain full employment.
But jobs are not created by any scientific answer, they are created by the fact that any single scientific answer raises at least two new questions.
Every scientific answer makes one job redundant, or contributes to its redundancy, and creates or increases the opportunity for at least two new jobs.
Full employment is only possible under governments (under any politician) that make this area their first priority and learn to master it regardless of the complexity.
It is a novelty because the politicians have always refused to be implicated in anything raising responsibilities other than superficial responsibilities.
It is a substantial change in attitude, a change that the political parties, the old systems of government, Old Politics could never make.
This electronic book (End Old Politics Now) is only the theory but unfortunately our world is full of past or present theorists who have never seen their theory satisfactorily put in practice.
The author of this electronic book has always intended to ensure that there is a vehicle useable to put the theory in practice and this vehicle is the website www.nobla.org.
nobla is the English word "noble" translated in Esperanto for the purpose of having a name which is "international".
However and in a very unusual way, what has to be put in practice is not the latest invention involving "artificial intelligence" or the latest description of the "big bang", it is the basic and proven knowledge of human needs and behaviour which Old Politics has always wanted to limit and control within its own self-profitable rules.
If you are of the opinion that this theory reflects your personal experience of Old Politics, then becoming a member of www.nobla.org is the only known way to build the practice by changing Old Politics in your country according to what you want rather than according to what the politicians want.
The principle is very simple:
As a member of nobla (a Not-For-Profit organisation), you may discover in www.nobla.org how deceptively simple and easy it is to make the changes even if the results can only materialise at the next general elections.
This simplicity and ease are not a weakness or a "loophole" of the old political systems that the politicians are able to remedy in a hurry by introducing a new law even if all the politicians of all the political parties unite in the endeavour.
Instead, it is something in which the politicians are truely powerless no matter what they say or do or try to do, it is the power of your vote.
Success is only possible through number. Union is strength.
Every member of society can now share political power to satisfy the true objectives of every person; safety, happiness and prosperity.
Our individual share of that power may be a small share because this is the best that we can really expect in a true democracy.
However, this small individual power becomes a tremendous force when every person's hopes and aspirations are the same.
nobla is based on a number of very important foundations which are the centrepiece and the pillars of our organisation.
Every person is able to ascertain for oneself that these foundations are real and primordial human needs or behaviours that have not changed in the history of mankind.
For example, man needs communications, this may be a letter or the radio or the Internet or the sign language of the deaf or the smoke-signals of our ancestors but every human has always needed to communicate within the species.
These needs are also deeply entrenched in our psyche and form our entire behaviour.
These needs are not affected by our personal geography, history, beliefs, or by any other individual human characteristic we may have.
This is proved by the fact that in every country not controlled by dictators we have the same type of politicians who promote the same type of economy, maintain the same government departments and apply very much the same policies.
However, the politicians will always flatter their own people by claiming that these people are different and require special treatment.
Nobody is simply a good person or a bad person.
We all have in our personality the capacity to be both and a bad side is necessary to defend ourselves, in case of attack for example, from an animal or from another human or even from the forces of nature.
If we did not have a bad side, we could not defend ourselves when facing a danger and the human species would have become extinct a long time ago due to its incapacity to express aggression, incapacity that would have made man an easy prey.
Vegetation is unable to express aggression which is why it can be eaten so easily.
However, this bad side becomes socially unacceptable when we want to use it at the detriment of someone else for our own gain or satisfaction or it is a reaction when our misconceptions overcome our personality.
People are naturally reluctant to become responsible (people do not want to vote) about how to regulate things in which they have no interest, things they do not know or do not understand.
We all want to live our own life first and the majority of people do not want to waste their time trying to appraise what they think is not contributing to their personal well-being and happiness.
These facts mean that, provided the options presented are rational rather than emotional, we can trust our society in a public vote because a misguided or vandalistic or extremist minority will have no effect on the final vote.
The majority will either see what is claimed as suspicious or incorrect or false (a lie).
Society needs to be informed in an impartial manner.
The best way to do so is to rely on the media and scientifically rate each medium and each of their writers or reporters for their knowledge, their honesty and their impartiality.
Any publication can only rate highly over time.
The rating of media and their analysts and reporters is no exception, they have to become trustworthy first.
It is to be noted that the readers or listeners of media that survive on sensationalism do not necessarily believe what is reported to them by these media.
Many of these readers or listeners simply like the way it is put to them or like what they know to be exaggerated criticisms of people or groups of people they dislike.
It is a form or revenge triggered by the fact that when we do not like somebody, it is not that person that we dislike, it is the image we have built of that person.
In a stable society, a majority will always form from people who are simply suspicious about a claim or are able to detect and, if not reject it, at least mentally quarantine it as a possible political distortion, exaggeration, fabrication, emotional exploitation, a lie or most importantly - an extremist view.
In a stable society, there will always be a majority that wants to reach reasonable conclusions in the knowledge that false or exaggerated conclusions will always hurt the innocents and always have a high potential to backfire.
In a stable society, this majority may be formed by different people at different times and according to the subject under consideration since we may be interested in one thing and be completely indifferent to another.
The proof that these propositions are correct is the fact that, despite all the turmoil that humanity has experienced in its history and is still experiencing, mankind has progressed and still progresses, showing that the positives and creations are overwhelmingly more numerous and greater than the negatives and destruction of which man is capable.
The common perception that the contrary is true is due to the fact that our senses are much more deeply impressed by destruction, which is often spectacular, traumatic and memorable, than by creation which is slow and often unremarkable and the fact that steadily improving today what was accomplished yesterday is almost invisible.
This progress could not have been achieved without a decisive majority working at any time on positives and creation while the remaining minority is obsessed with negatives and destruction that they perceive as progress or necessary self-interest.
However, a good information system is vital for the progress of humanity because knowledge is reported as doubling every year and the amount of circulating information, true and false, from which we all have to hope to extract the true from the false is becoming too much for too many people.
The expression "those who know" is not related to general knowledge and it has in our life a major influence of which we are almost always unaware.
It means that, regarding any specific person-to-person dealing (even when dealing with a company), one person is in a position of "not knowing" while the other is in a position of "knowing".
For example, when a highly educated scientist is contemplating the purchase of a used item from a preschool dropout, the school dropout is in a position of knowing (about the used item) but the scientist is in a position of not knowing (about the used item).
A person belonging to "those who know" could be a politician promising something, a shop keeper selling something to us, a doctor or a lawyer or an architect or an insurance expert advising us, a train or bus driver taking us to work, the school teacher educating our children, the plumber repairing a leak or the baker selling us bread.
It could also be any public servant deciding about your eligibility or a judge passing a verdict or the police officer taking your complaint or your boss telling you why you have to work in a particular way or the landlord's knowledge of the premises or this stranger from whom you propose to purchase a used car.
"Those who know" are any person we face in any situation which will require us to make a decision, at our expenses or under our responsibility, either immediately or later and according to the description or presentation of the situation by that person.
Our daily life is mostly spent as a "not-knowing" person having to face many of "those who know", even at work and in our field of expertise.
For example and as a tailor, you have first to know well what the customer wants.
Before becoming the "knowing" tailor satisfying the "unknowing" (about suit making) customer, you are the unknowing tailor (about what the customer wants) listening to the knowing customer (knowing or having an idea of what he wants).
And as a lawyer defending a "criminal", you belong to "those who know" as far as the law is concerned but you belong to those "not knowing" as far as the case of your client is concerned.
This is because this client may have lied to you or described a believed but false view of events or thought as unimportant and did not mention critical elements of the case which you may only discover through the successful presentation by the prosecution.
What we will receive from the transaction could be anything, from nothing if we never have to make an insurance claim to a material item collected at the shop or an expectation of something "better" materialising for us in the future after having consulted the doctor (a logical expectation in this case) or having heard the promise of the politician (an illogical expectation in this case).
"Those who know" are always linked to a transaction involving something we are expecting to receive in exchange for something we are expected and prepared to give, usually the payment of money.
While the payment is a guarantee that "those who know" will or have or are receiving what they expect, there is no guarantee that what is to be received is as described, or even exists, by "those who know" with whom we are dealing.
And this is what creates our deep urge to minimise the inequality and its risks, sometimes considerable risks, we face as the old political systems and even the old justice systems are rarely on the side of those who "do not know".
Humans are the only animals who transact between themselves as a way of life and it is a very successful strategy by which we abstain to encroach in the business of workers in other fields whilst they abstain to encroach in ours.
In doing so, we specialise and humanity progresses more rapidly and more efficiently for the benefit of all.
This human characteristic alone has propelled the species to what it is today and this is why we individually value it so much without even knowing.
It has found home in our genes through our suitable anatomy and it saves us having to acquire an enormous amount of knowledge that our brain is probably too small to store, let alone to comprehend and use.
It is easy to imagine what the world would be like today without specialisation, if everybody or every family had to grow their own vegetables, make their own bread, their own shoes, their own house, their own telephone, their own car, their own tooth brush and their own every single thing.
Carl Sagan wisely said: "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."
However, if you had to invent the universe, that implies inventing yourself as part of the universe, which you could not do if you do not exist, therefore, making the apple pie from scratch is impossible since only the universe can "invent" itself.
However, specialisation has created an indirect human weakness due to the fact that, in the vast majority of situations affecting our life, we are in the "do-not-know" category and we have to trust that "those who know", with whom we inevitably have to deal, will deliver what they have described or promised or have let us to believe to be.
As a result, the general population has developed a deep need to trust "those who know" who grow in number and variety as knowledge increases.
The average citizen deeply hopes that our politicians will keep all those people, and themselves, transacting honestly since there is so little we individually know and there is so much in which we could easily be exploited.
The progress of humanity demands that people can safely assume that "those who know" who are in positions or responsibility are trustworthy and that trustworthiness is the rule rather than the exception.
Although we transact many times per day in many forms, we only consider in this website the transactions involving the modern curse that our politicians are.
This is what we call the political politicians (affecting the voters) and the business or commercial politicians (affecting the consumers) since they are "those-who-know" exploiting us systematically, with impunity and on a large scale.
It is important to pay attention to this subject because these politicians imperceptibly drive the non-politicians (the salary-earners, the wage-earners, the housewives or househusbands) to slavery and robotic behaviour.
The contempt expressed by these politicians toward voters and consumers has been steadily growing in the last decades to the point when it is becoming palpable and almost official.
These politicians have reached the dangerous stage in which they have become aware that it does not matter if their lie, their dishonesty or their crime is there for everybody to see because they know that a suitable advertising campaign will dull the public reaction and reinstate the public confusion without individuals even noticing.
Becoming part of our instincts and done for thousands of years, transacting is something we all do without knowing, like moving one leg forward after the other when walking.
The huge difference is that walking is not linked to strong emotional feelings.
However, transacting is a matter of survival and can be linked to very high stress if, for example, we are faced with a draconian 'contract' from an employer or a service provider.
Do not sign or "click" and yo do not get the job or do no sign or click and you do not get the service.
The political politicians transact differently by always making promises before the elections knowing how to "discover" after these elections why they can not keep their promises.
Growing awareness within the general population is gradually changing from transacting in a state of hope of honesty from politicians and big business to one of transacting and demanding that honesty which is not possible under the old systems of government.
That individual hope still needs to find a collective expression to succeed.
In this type of transactions, we are at a major disadvantage cherished by the politicians and by big businesses as only we are in a position (of not knowing) to loose and be exploited and only they are in a position (of knowing) to exploit and profit increasingly.
Invariably, this exploitation is done on one individual at a time in one transaction at a time even when saturation advertising is presented to you on a screen.
To protect this state of affair, the transaction must be regulated by the politicians as least as possible which is what they ensure.
Although we are powerless in our transactions with politicians, most people hope (trust) that the politicians intertwinement with big business is not deep enough to prevent the politicians from protecting consumers against any exploitation committed by big business.
But this is wishful thinking because without the donations of big businesses and the perks they offer to politicians as "man-in-the-middle" in their business, the existence of politicians would be comprehensively terminated since their salary as a politician is to them rarely more than pocket money.
And big business needs a way of controlling politicians to ensure that laws made by the politicians are never to the disadvantage of big business.
So the partnership of politicians and big business is the only union truly living "Until-Death-Do-Us-Part" while advertising campaigns are often all they need to restore the docility of the general population and do so at its own cost.
Since we are all consumers, nearly everybody suffers including the employees responsible for the exploitation who are regularly deceived by their employer because the employee's conscience could oppose the imposed low work ethics.
But these employees receive the same treatment, if only from big businesses other than their employer.
Eventually, they become aware of the exploitation but continue to apply it for their employer because they will say: "It is my job" (they could become unemployed if they do not) and therefore they will claim that they are not to blame.
In the process, one has learned to change one's ability to transact with honesty to an ability to transact dishonestly and to one's advantage, a lesson that is likely to be used outside of work.
The only people who can avoid the frustration or the suffering are those who know exactly what is taking place.
That is those benefiting from it and rich enough to have a proxy taking the punishment on their behalf, whether the proxy is an employee or an external service.
If you are rich enough, you can easily employ someone, an individual or a company, from a private secretary to a cook or a cleaner, to face all those problems politics and big business put in anybody's way.
You are also happy to pay an excessive bill as a consumer in the knowledge that you indirectly get off the bills of all the other consumers or customers a share far much larger than the excess of your own bill.
This is because you know how the business operates which boosts your income by a substantial amount of money derived from shares, incentives, bonus or whatever interest you have in this business or receive from it.
Or it could be any other similarly-minded business whose policy you want to continue to operate in the exact same manner to keep open your option of sharing its profits in the future.
You need to be a person able to live and improve on your aptitude to transact dishonestly because honest transactions only give you what others who pay for it agree to be due to you.
And that is what makes the difference between the politician and the non-politician.
The lack of honesty of "those who know" in modern public life, at any level of society, has always been the single most frustrating element affecting any discontented society even if this lack of honesty is plain ignorance or plain stupidity (or both) which can only be detected by a keen observer like Martin Luther King.
It may create fear and anxiety if we have the impression that we should not trust someone on whom we presently depend as the idea of consciously allowing someone to take advantage of us, even in the most benign transaction, shakes our self-confidence to pieces.
But being taken advantage of systematically, without any hope of redress and by institutions supposed to serve us is extremely frustrating, highly demoralising and socially destructive.
As a very common and simple example, the time you spend in queues on the telephone knowing there is no alternative and uncertain that your call will terminate productively is mental torture and any decent politician should make sure that the practice is punishable because any individual deserves a minimum of respect.
The accumulated waste of time and money is not negligible but is a statistic that no politician or big business is prepared to research and publish although they are quick to calculate business losses through any cause related to the worker's behaviour (sick leave) or the customer's behaviour (shoplifting).
These inconveniences and small legal robberies or extortion (claimed to be "mistakes" when exposed) may not by themselves justify a complaint to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
But their variety, their number and their size or value keep growing or increasing because when one business does with impunity something profitable but unethical and new to its customers, other businesses become aware of it and decide to do the same or are inspired to do even worse.
And it has become a vicious circle.
It is like having a vegetable garden infested with weeds that you are not allowed to remove.
The first few weeds are disappointing but not alarming.
However, as their number increases and the weeds grow, your vegetables begin to be affected.
Eventually you will harvest very little if anything and if your intention was to ease your budget or have healthy food for the household, you will think of yourself as a failed gardener and a failed provider of good food for your family.
Even though you may logically conclude that those are small exploitation (sometimes not so small) by big business or policies of politicians, your self-esteem will be diminished enough to affect everything in your life simply because you are unable to eradicate any exploitation and you know and live under the permanent apprehension that the inevitable next one could be worse.
The most damaging aspect is the fact that smothering our transactional way of life by granting legitimacy and recognition only to transactions controlled by people from a particular rung of the social ladder is threatening the survival of the others which is the vast majority of any society.
Similarly, protecting the dishonest transactions controlled by politicians and big business by legalising (failing to make it illegal) them while denying legitimacy to honest transactions controlled by the average person has the same effect.
But our deep urge to trust "those who know" will remain unchanged and will restart afresh every time because, due to the urgency of daily life and under the old systems of government, we can not do anything else.
And this is what allows the politicians to make to you, before every general election, the promise that you will subconsciously believe of a new or reborn god, reincarnated in their leader, only to see the same old political activity resumed after the elections.
Expecting an honest behaviour in politics and in big business is not an idealistic dream, it is a basic necessity that modern society needs to enforce and has the power to enforce.
Under Old Politics, the laws of business related to consumer protection or their enforcement are practically nonexistent.
As a result, public or private sector workers, who are also consumers, often discover while working that the objectives of their employer may not be fully ethical or fully honest and discover that workers are only rewarded when adopting these objectives.
These are objectives which are in conflict with the glossy written and official intentions of the employer which are thought by the general population to be part of advertising rather than a commitment to the customers and to society.
Employees know that this literature is only a glorifying facade not applicable in real life.
Every worker knows that not following these objectives or adhering to the written and official instructions ("working by the book") is likely to result in other official reasons being found to dismiss them.
However, following the unofficial rules will lead to rewards and promotions.
Every worker also knows that the employer is free to change its rules at any time (because there is no law) according to what it perceives as being more profitable or reducing cost.
Under the old systems of government, the workers are directly answerable to their employer who is free to apply pressure to obtain results through practices that are unethical, illegal or dangerous but beneficial to the employer.
A good and well-known example is the transport industry in which truck drivers (who often must own their own truck at their own risk) are under constant pressure to sleep less and drive more.
This often necessitates the taking of drugs and the falsification of compulsory "log books" intended to prevent a practice that has been (like the driver) deep-seated for decades.
Again and as in many other cases, the politicians have created laws that punish the drivers for not sleeping enough but not their employers who are at least equally guilty.
An electrician can be jailed if a faulty electrical installation electrocutes someone but his employer who applied pressure on the electrician to save money during this installation is completely ignored.
In many cases of fire, the cause is found to be a faulty electrical equipment or wiring but there is no compulsory long-term record-keeping, or history log book, which could indicate who is responsible for the deficient electrical work.
In a competitive world and since few industries are exempt, this is a fact that can not be ignored by any business.
Therefore, defective work is indirectly encouraged by the politicians.
In the aviation industry, it is still common to corrupt the investigation of aeroplane crashes, which usually kill many, or applying political pressure to obtain premature conclusions regarding the cause of a crash.
It is no coincidence that there are so many air crash investigations shown on TV which, surprise - surprise, all conclude in the final segment (aviation-industry propaganda) of the show that the aviation industry had learned something from the crash and made aviation safer.
It looks so flagrant that these TV programs have only been allowed by the aviation industry on the condition that this final segment was included in the program, exonerating itself from its responsibility in the crash on the ground that it could not have known the existence of the cause of the crash before it happened.
Under the old systems of government, managers at any level who give to customers advice profitable to themselves or their employer or give workers unethical directives only loose their job as a punishment when they fail to remain undetected by the authorities or the media and they sometimes regain their job when the subject has ceased to occupy the public attention.
But regardless of the level at which unethical professional behaviour is committed, the vast majority of workers resent it, whether the worker is a wage earner or a salary earner.
This worker concludes then that one major component of the conditions of employment is the exploitation of others which is tantamount to stealing and the idea of having to steal for someone else's benefit whilst facing the associated risks leaves a very bad taste in anybody's mouth.
As a result, the majority of workers like their work but not their job.
This is why "working" or "going to work" has such an unpleasant image immediately understood and accepted by everybody who is not a politician.
Workers must reach happiness "despite" having to work rather than through the satisfaction provided by their work.
Martin Luther King said: "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.", he was not referring to a few politicians.
Sadly, he was referring to the hundreds of millions of workers, wage earners or salary earners, trapped often unwillingly and often unknowingly doing for their employer work that they resent, hoping or believing that there "must be" a good reason for it that escapes them.
Creating comprehensive laws of business by having a modern set of human rights and consumer protections will remove a lot of unethical or dishonest political and business practices, if not all of it.
Simply removing some existing laws encouraging dishonesty (like making the recording of phone calls illegal or unacceptable in court) would already contribute to this greatly.
Most "blue-collar" workers and professionals must have a licence (which they can loose as a punishment) to work in their trade or profession.
The "drivers" must also have a licence (to drive a vehicle in public places).
But those running a business and their "managers" at any level are exempt and often have a considerable freedom on how to "work" and regardless of how they define that "work".
The politicians only found it necessary for people working in finances to have licences when the politicians or their business associates became the victims of convoluted financial transactions they did not foresee.
Almost every human transaction is the subject of a contract even if such contract is only inferred.
This contract consists of a description by a provider of the "give" and the "take" that are the subjects of the contract.
The purchase of an expensive item like a house or a car, your job or your use of the electricity grid all require a contract specifying what the "give" and the "take" are.
Purchasing small items like groceries at the shop follows the same principle.
The groceries and their price are shown to you, which is the contract, the "give" is the groceries and the "take" is what you will have to pay.
If you put the groceries in your shopping basket, you agree to this inferred contract.
If you do not agree with this contract, you do not purchase the groceries and you decline to enter into the contract by leaving them where they are.
Old Politics is the only exception.
There is no contract of any type between the politicians and the voters since, for fear of loosing votes, the politicians can not afford to explain with any clarity, let alone in any contractual context, what they will or will not do (the "give") after the elections (the "take").
This "give" must only be a personal belief by the voters that it is what they want following promises made by the politicians enticing voters having opposite expectations to believe that they will all receive what they want.
The "take" is the vote which is based on whatever each voter thinks the "give" consists of.
But in this transaction, the "take" is paid without knowing what the "give" really is, even sometimes not knowing if there is a "give" at all.
In other words and under Old Politics, voters are always giving to the politicians a signed blank cheque (check in US English) at election time.
This is because any predominant issue of the moment must first be researched to determine its potential for popularity and its potential for unpopularity which may vary greatly according to the result of the elections.
Consequently, this research can only be done - and most importantly, paid from public money - after they win the elections and it is the result of that research that will determine what the "give", if any, must really be.
Since at that stage there is no need to tell the voters anymore, you will only discover what the "give" really is when the politicians start to formulate unexpected policies or delay acting on the expected policies while pretending that they are scrupulously implementing the promises made before the elections.
The Agenda becomes the contract in New Politics.
The Agenda is a form of "changelog" intended to record the starting or opening of a project and all the steps leading to its completion including the final vote to formally make it a "Proposal".
Wikipedia definition: "A changelog is a log or record of all notable changes made to a project.."
Since every step of a project must be concluded (adopted or rejected) by a vote, it is expected that the Agenda will include all the details of any Proposition (the "give" relating to the contract mentioned above) to be put to a public vote (the "take").
The Agenda is accessible only to members of nobla who have registered as a professional and have an adequate professional rating within nobla
The objective of the Agenda is not simply to promote honesty, it is to impose on any authorised participant to seek refuge in honesty and in professional correctness as time is less important than quality.
However, it is very important to realise that, having "collective leadership" as the main basis of good government, no participant is ever in a position in which one has to face a choice outside of one's ability.
In Old Politics, politicians regularly make decisions without having a full understanding of the consequences, sometimes having none at all.
Under nobla, any participant is able to leave such decision to someone else since no participant is ever committing to making any contribution nor is expected to achieve any particular result.
The members of nobla who are registered as professionals are free to make as many or as few Contributions as they wish whether such Contributions raise or answer questions.
nobla does not need to be in government in any country to make policies although it cannot implement any policy it makes which is the prerogative of the nation of any country.
Being an international organisation, nobla is not targeting any country in particular, it is only offering the interested people of any country to participate in the making of laws and policies intended to be applicable to every person and ensuring happiness and prosperity for all.
The main objective of any law applicable to every person is not to have an international standard of any type, it is to form a basic set of laws from which no ill-intentioned individual or business is able to claim exemption and a set of laws based on the scientific evidence that our needs are the same for all.
For example, if the scientific evidence supports the view that humans should have three meals per day, a law can be formulated that, regardless of the circumstances, any individual is allowed to have three meals per day but such law does not need to stipulate that the staple food must be rice or potato.
It may seem inconsequential but it is such elementary laws that are lacking or ambiguous in Old Politics and are the primary cause of exploitation and abuse.
When "the devil" may be "in the details", it seems obvious that the details are the part that needs most clarity.
On the basis of such elementary laws, our global society is then able to progress to more detailed laws culminating in a modern, just and humane system of government.
There is no doubt that the politicians will use their only experience - obstruction - to prevent the progress of nobla after claiming that whatever is proposed under its guidance is unconstitutional.
It is to be noted that, as bizarre as it may appear, it will be "unconstitutional" if most politicians object to it but it will be fully "constitutional" if they adopt and implement it.
There is absolutely nothing in any constitution of any country preventing these politicians to enact a law or pass a policy entirely designed by the members of nobla
Of course, the only way to achieve this is by applying on our politicians a very strong public pressure from a society determined to prevail.
These politicians have on occasions succumbed to public pressure and done what society demanded and it is only a matter of society finding that a proposed law or policy designed by the members of nobla is specially good and absolutely necessary and society showing to these politicians that they have no other option than implementing the will of society.
However, the members of society must realise that allowing Old Politics to "obstruct" what looks like inconsequential new laws, like 'three meals per day', will be what makes them succeed and allow Old Politics to survive and thrive.
And, as it is often said that in Old Politics "The devil is in the details..", it is rarely mentioned that the strength of a good policy or law is also in its details - or in what may look inconsequential.
There is no doubt that the politicians will claim that a nobla-inspired government is a threat to the constitution of your country.
It is extremely unlikely that a constitution designed to protect the politicians and their political system suddenly becomes suitable to truly expand democracy and to protect citizens and consumers from the many abuses the old political systems have allowed to develop and flourish.
If one looks at it from that perspective, it becomes obvious that in the long run, every country needs to throw away their old constitution and write a new one.
And again, there is nothing indicating that the people of any democratic country need a constitution fundamentally different than the people of any other democratic country.
20 April 1889, 30 April 1945
Was a German politician and leader of the Nazi Party. He rose to power as Chancellor of Germany in 1933 and later Führer in 1934. During his dictatorship from 1933 to 1945, he initiated World War II in Europe by invading Poland in September 1939.
Alan Kenneth Mackenzie Clark
13 April 1928 - 5 September 1999
Was a British Conservative Member of Parliament (MP), historian and diarist.
Alan Bartlett "Al" Shepard
November 18, 1923 - July 21, 1998
Was an American naval officer, aviator, test pilot, flag officer, one of the original NASA Mercury seven astronauts.
November 7, 1913 - January 4, 1960
Was a French Nobel Prize winning author, journalist and philosopher.
14 March 1879 - 18 April 1955
Was a German-born theoretical physicist.
October 27, 1913 - September 4, 1990
Was an American journalist.
Alfred W. Adler
February 7, 1870 - May 28, 1937
Was an Austrian medical doctor, psychotherapist, and founder of the school of individual psychology.
Ambrose Gwinnett Bierce
June 24, 1842 - 1914
Was an American editorialist, journalist, short story writer, fabulist, and satirist.
Amelia Edith Huddleston Barr
March 29, 1831 - March 10, 1919
Was a British novelist.
Amit Anilchandra Shah
22 October 1964 -
Is an Indian politician.
Angela Anaïs Juana Antolina Rosa Edelmira Nin y Culmell
February 21, 1903 - January 14, 1977
Was an author born to Cuban parents in France author of novels, critical studies, essays, short stories and erotica.
Andrew Jackson Young
born March 12, 1932
Is an American politician, diplomat, activist and pastor from Georgia.
Ansel Easton Adams
February 20, 1902 - April 22, 1984
Was an American photographer and environmentalist.
Aristotle 384 - 322 BC
Was a Greek philosopher and scientist.
Aadne Eivindsson Garborg
25 January 1851 January 1924
Was a Norwegian writer.
Arnold H. Glasow
Arnold Henry Glasow
1905 - 1998
Was a businessman and author.
Arthur C. Clarke
Sri Lankabhimanya Sir Arthur Charles Clarke
December 16, 1917 - March 19, 2008
Was a British science fiction writer, science writer, futurist, inventor, undersea explorer and television series host.
Aung San Suu Kyi
Aung San Suu Kyi
born 19 June 1945
Is a Burmese opposition politician.
August 25, 1923 - November 2, 1997
Was a Buddhist nun and teacher.
Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield
21 December 1804 - 19 April 1881
Was a British Conservative politician and writer.
Benjamin McLane Spock
May 2, 1903 - March 15, 1998
Was an American pediatrician.
Was a British Establishment and Puritan divine, Provost of King's College, Cambridge and leader of the Cambridge Platonists.
Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell
May 18, 1872 - February 2, 1970
Was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, writer, social critic and political activist.
Billy Don Moyers
5 June 1934 -
Is an American journalist and political commentator.
Robert Nesta "Bob" Marley
February 6, 1945 - May 11, 1981
Was a Jamaican reggae singer, songwriter, musician, and guitarist.
Sir Boyle Roche, 1st Baronet
October 1736 - 5 June 1807
Was an Irish politician.
B. F. Skinner
Burrhus Frederic Skinner
20 March 1904, 18 August 1990
Was an American psychologist, behaviorist, author, inventor, and social philosopher.
B. R. Ambedkar
Bhimrao (Babasaheb) Ramji Ambedkar
April 14, 1891 - December 6, 1956
Was an Indian jurist, economist, politician and social reformer.
Brendan Francis Aidan Behan
9 February 1923 - 20 March 1964
Was an Irish poet, short story writer, novelist and playwright.
Brian Randolph Greene
Born February 9, 1963
Is an American theoretical physicist, string theorist and professor.
Bryant H. McGill
Bryant Harrison McGill
November 7, 1969
Is an American author, aphorist, speaker and activist.
Mustafa Bülent Ecevit
May 28, 1925 - November 5, 2006
Was a Turkish politician, poet, writer, scholar, journalist and four times Prime Minister of Turkey.
John Calvin "Cal" Thomas
Dec 2, 1942
Is an American syndicated columnist, pundit, author and radio commentator.
Carl Gustav Jung (C. G. Jung)
26 July 1875 - 6 June 1961
Was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychotherapist who founded analytical psychology.
Dr. Carl Sagan
Carl Edward Sagan
November 9, 1934 - December 20, 1996
Was an American astronomer, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist, author, science popularizer, and science communicator in astronomy and other natural sciences.
January 18, 1904 - November 29, 1986
Was an English stage and Hollywood film actor who became an American citizen.
June 8, 1814 April 11, 1884
Was an English author whose novels attack, with passionate indignation and laborious research, the social injustices of his times.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman
Charlotte Perkins Gilman also known as Charlotte Perkins Stetson
3 July 1860, 17 August 1935
Was a prominent American humanist, novelist, writer of short stories, poetry, nonfiction and a lecturer for social reform.
Chester Bliss Bowles
April 5, 1901 - May 25, 1986
Was a liberal Democratic American diplomat and politician.
Christian Nestell Bovee
Christian Nestell Bovee
22 February 1820, 18 January 1904
Was an epigrammatic New York City writer.
Christopher Eric Hitchens
April 13, 1949 - December 15, 2011
Was an English author, literary critic and journalist.
Robert Christopher Lasch
1 June 1932, 14 February 1994
Was an American historian, moralist, social critic and history professor
Colin Luther Powell
born April 5, 1937
Is an American statesman and a retired four-star general in the United States Army.
551 BC, 479 BC
Was a Chinese teacher, editor, politician, and philosopher of the Spring and Autumn period of Chinese history.
Christopher James Gilbert
Born: May 29, 1987
Is an American poet, essayist, existentialist philosopher, songwriter.
Born 6 July 1935
Is a Tibetan monk religious leader of Tibetan Buddhism.
Dale Harbison Carnagey/Carnegie
November 24, 1888 - November 1, 1955
Was an American writer and lecturer.
James Dalton Trumbo
December 9, 1905 - September 10, 1976
Was an American screenwriter and novelist.
March 7 1946
Is an American author, psychologist and science journalist.
Daniel J. Boorstin
Daniel Joseph Boorstin
1 October 1914 28 February 2004
Was an American historian at the University of Chicago who wrote on many topics in American and world history.
January 18, 1782 - October 24, 1852
Was a leading American senator and statesman.
David Frederick Attenborough
8 May 1926
Is an English broadcaster and naturalist.
Glen David Brin
born October 6, 1950
Is an American scientist and author of science fiction.
24 January 1944
Is an American science fiction screenwriter and novelist. He is known for his script for the original Star Trek episode "The Trouble With Tribbles", for creating the Sleestak race on the TV series Land of the Lost, and for his novelette "The Martian Child".
Diane Lynn Black
born January 16, 1951
Is an American politician.
March 12, 1921 - March 28, 1989
Was an American radio personality, writer, respected speaker and author.
Edward Paul Abbey
January 29, 1927 – March 14, 1989
Was an American author and essayist noted for his advocacy of environmental issues, criticism of public land policies, and anarchist political views.
Edward R. Murrow
Egbert Roscoe Murrow
April 25, 1908 - April 27, 1965
Was an American journalist and radio broadcaster.
Elvis Aaron Presley
January 8, 1935 - August 16, 1977
Was an American singer and actor.
Émile Édouard Charles Antoine Zola
April 2, 1840 - September 29, 1902
Was a French writer.
Born February 7, 1956
Is an American entertainer and comedian.
Ernest Shurtleff Holmes
January 21, 1887 - April 7, 1960
Was an American New Thought writer, teacher, and leader.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
born 17 June 1952
Is a British Labour Party politician.
Everett McKinley Dirksen
January 4, 1896 September 7, 1969
Was an American politician of the Republican Party.
Ezra Weston Loomis Pound
October 30, 1885 - November 1, 1972
Was an expatriate American poet and critic.
December 10, 1727 - May 12, 1795
Was an American academic and educator, a Congregationalist minister, theologian and author.
Francis Bacon 1st Viscount St. Alban
22 January 1561 - 9 April 1626
Was an English philosopher, statesman, scientist, jurist, orator, essayist and author.
François de La Rochefoucauld
François VI, Duc de La Rochefoucauld, Prince de Marcillac
15 September 1613 - 17 March 1680
Was a noted French author of maxims and memoirs.
Frank Howard Clark
Frank Howard Clark
1888 - January 19, 1962
Was an American screenwriter.
Frank Hart Rich
Born June 2, 1949
Is an American essayist, op-ed columnist and writer.
Franz Uri Boas
9 July 1858, 21 December 1942
Was a German-American anthropologist and a pioneer of modern anthropology who has been called the "Father of American Anthropology".
Franz Uri Boas
July 9, 1858 - December 21, 1942
Was a German-American anthropologist.
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
October 15, 1844 - August 25, 1900
Was a German philosopher, cultural critic, poet, composer and Latin and Greek scholar.
29 June 1801, 24 December 1850
Was a French economist, writer and a prominent member of the French Liberal School.
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
1 July 1742 - 24 February 1799
Was a German scientist, satirist and aphorist.
October 3, 1800 - January 17, 1891
Was an American historian and statesman.
George Bernard Shaw
George Bernard Shaw
26 July 1856 - 2 November 1950
Was an Irish playwright and a co-founder of the London School of Economics author of music, literary criticism, journalism, drama, essayist, novelist and short story writer.
George Ivanovich Gurdjieff
January 13, 1866–1877? - October 29, 1949
Was an influential spiritual teacher.
George Henry Lewes
George Henry Lewes
18 April 1817 - 30 November 1878
Was an English philosopher and critic of literature and theatre.
Eric Arthur Blair, used the pen name George Orwell
25 June 1903 - 21 January 1950
Was an English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic.
George Frederick Will
Born May 4, 1941
Is an American newspaper columnist, journalist and author.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
August 27, 1770 - November 14, 1831
Was a German philosopher.
Gloria Marie Steinem
Born March 25, 1934
Is an American feminist, journalist, social and political activist.
Julius Henry "Groucho" Marx
October 2, 1890 August 19, 1977
Was an American comedian, writer, stage, film, radio, and television star.
Gustav Walter Heinemann
23 July 1899 - 7 July 1976
Was a German politician and President of the Federal Republic of Germany from 1969 to 1974.
Johanna "Hannah" Arendt
October 14, 1906 - December 4, 1975
Was a German-born political theorist (often described as a philosopher).
Hans Martin Blix
28 June 1928 -
Is a Swedish diplomat and politician for the Liberal People's Party. He was Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs and later became the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
born 12 December 1952
Is a British poet, novelist and children's writer.
Helen Adams Keller
27 June 1880, 1 June 1968
Was a blind and deaf American author, political activist, and lecturer.
Henry A. Kissinger
Heinz Alfred Kissinger
born May 27, 1923
Is an American diplomat and politician.
Henry Louis Mencken
Henry Louis or "H. L." Mencken
September 12, 1880 - January 29, 1956
Was an American journalist, satirist, cultural critic and scholar of American English.
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
February 27, 1807 March 24, 1882
Was an American poet and educator.
April 27, 1820 - December 8, 1903
Was an English philosopher, biologist, anthropologist, sociologist and prominent classical liberal political theorist.
H. Jackson Brown Jr
H. Jackson Brown Jr
Born 1940 Middle Tennessee
Is an American author.
Henry Louis Mencken
Henry Louis or "H. L." Mencken
September 12, 1880 - January 29, 1956
Was an American journalist, satirist, cultural critic and scholar of American English.
Henry Louis Mencken
Henry Louis or "H. L." Mencken
September 12, 1880 - January 29, 1956
Was an American journalist, satirist, cultural critic and scholar of American English.
H. P. Lovecraft
Howard Phillips Lovecraft
20 August 1890 15 March 1937
Was an American writer who achieved posthumous fame through his influential works of horror fiction. He was virtually unknown and published only in pulp magazines before he died in poverty, but he is now regarded as one of the most significant 20th-century authors in his genre.
Hugo Lafayette Black
February 27, 1886 - September 25, 1971
Was an American politician and jurist.
Jack Northman Anderson
October 19, 1922 - December 17, 2005
Was an American newspaper columnist.
John Francis "Jack" Welch
Born November 19, 1935
Is a retired American business executive, author and chemical engineer.
January 6, 1912 - May 19, 1994
Was a French philosopher, law professor, sociologist, lay theologian and Christian anarchist.
born January 1983
Is a Speaker, workshop leader and author.
James Arthur Baldwin
2 August 1924, 1 December 1987
Was an American novelist, playwright, and activist.
James Russell Lowell
February 22, 1819 - August 12, 1891
Was an American Romantic poet, critic, editor, and diplomat.
Born February 26, 1935
Is an American writer, director and producer.
James Douglas Muir "Jay" Leno
Born April 28, 1950
Is an American comedian, actor, writer, producer, voice actor and television host.
"Pandit" or "Pundit" Jawaharlal Nehru
14 November, 1889 - 27 May, 1964
Was a freedom fighter and first prime minister of independent India.
Jeffrey Scott Chiesa
Born June 22, 1965
Is an American politician and member of the Republican Party.
February 15, 1748 - June 6, 1832
Was a British philosopher, jurist, and social reformer.
James George Janos
15 July 1951 -
Is an American media personality, actor, author, retired professional wrestler, and former politician.
11 May 1895 - 17 February 1986
Was an Indian speaker and writer on philosophical and spiritual subjects.
James Allen "Jim" Hightower
born January 11, 1943
Is an American syndicated columnist, progressive political activist, and author.
James Charles "Jim" Lehrer
Born May 19, 1934
Is an American journalist, novelist and executive editor.
James Douglas "Jim" Morrison
December 8, 1943 - July 3, 1971
Was an American singer, songwriter and poet.
Joanne "Jo" Rowling, pen names J. K. Rowling and Robert Galbraith
born 31 July 1965
Is a British novelist author of the Harry Potter fantasy series.
Addison Graves Wilson
July 31, 1947
Is the U.S. Representative for South Carolina's 2nd congressional district, serving since 2001.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
August 28, 1749 - March 22, 1832
Was a German writer and statesman.
30 October 1735 4 July 1826
Was a leader of the American Revolution, and served as the second U.S. president from 1797 to 1801.
John A. Shedd
John Augustus Shedd
1859 – 1928
Was an American author and professor.
John James Conyers
Born: May 16, 1929
Is a politician.
26 April 1898, 19 February 1972
Was a pioneering Scottish documentary maker.
John Maynard Keynes
John Maynard Keynes
5 June 1883, 21 April 1946
Was a British economist whose ideas fundamentally changed the theory and practice of macroeconomics and the economic policies of governments.
John Morley, 1st Viscount Morley of Blackburn
24 December 1838 - 23 September 1923
Was a journalist, a British Liberal statesman, writer and newspaper editor.
John Wilder Tukey
16 June 1915 - 26 July 2000
Was an American mathematician.
October 8, 1720 - July 9, 1766
Was a cleric and political activist.
Jonathan Henry Sacks, Baron Sacks
born 8 March 1948
Is a British rabbi, philosopher and scholar of Judaism.
November 30, 1667 - October 19, 1745
Was an Anglo-Irish satirist, essayist, political pamphleteer, poet and cleric.
Joseph John Campbell
26 March 1904, 30 October 1987
Was an American Professor of Literature at Sarah Lawrence College who worked in comparative mythology and comparative religion. His work covers many aspects of the human experience.
Joseph Paul Goebbels
October 29, 1897 - May 1, 1945
Was a German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany.
Juan Antonio Williams
Born April 10, 1954
Is a Panamanian-born American journalist and political analyst.
Karl Wilhelm von Humboldt
Friedrich Wilhelm Christian Karl Ferdinand von Humboldt
22 June 1767 - 8 April 1835
Was a Prussian philosopher, government functionary, diplomat and founder of the Humboldt University.
Laurence J. Peter
Laurence Johnston Peter
September 16, 1919 - January 12, 1990
Was a Canadian educator and "hierarchiologist", best known for the formulation of the Peter Principle.
Leo Calvin Rosten
11 April 1908, 19 February 1997
Was a Polish-born American humorist in the fields of scriptwriting, storywriting, journalism, and Yiddish lexicography. He was also a political scientist interested especially in the relationship of politics and the media.
Leon Trotsky was born Lev Davidovich Bronshtein
1879 - 21 August 1940
Was a Marxist revolutionary and theorist, Soviet politician, founder and first leader of the Red Army.
19 May 1930, 12 January 1965
Was an African-American playwright and writer.
Lord Edward Cecil
Lord Edward Herbert (Gascoyne-)Cecil
12 July 1867 - 13 December 1918
Was a distinguished and highly decorated soldier.
Louis Leo "Lou" Holtz
born January 6, 1937
Is a former college football analyst as well as a former football coach.
Louis D. Brandeis
Louis Dembitz Brandeis
November 13, 1856 - October 5, 1941
Was an American lawyer and associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
October 2, 1869 - January 30, 1948
Was an Indian lawyer, politician, social activist, and writer who became the leader of the nationalist movement against the British rule of India.
Malcolm de Chazal
Malcolm de Chazal
September 12, 1902 - October 1, 1981
Was a Mauritian writer, painter and visionary.
Margaret Hilda Thatcher
13 October 1925 8 April 2013
Was a British stateswoman who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990 and Leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990.
Marguerite Vivian Young
August 26, 1908 - November 17, 1995
Was an American poet, novelist, biographer and critic.
5 July 1941, 10 October 2012
Was an American professor, researcher, theorist of media and technology.
Marianne Deborah Williamson
8 July 1952
Is an American spiritual teacher, author, and lecturer.
Marie Skłodowska Curie
7 November 1867 4 July 1934
Was a Polish and naturalized-French physicist and chemist who conducted pioneering research on radioactivity.
Samuel Langhorne Clemens better known by his pen name Mark Twain.
November 30, 1835 - April 21, 1910
Was an American author and humorist.
Herbert Marshall McLuhan
July 21, 1911 - December 31, 1980
Was a Canadian philosopher of communication theory and a public intellectual.
Martin L. Gross
Martin Louis Gross
1925 - August 21, 2013
Was a newspaper reporter, writer, editor and critic of the US government, psychiatry, psychotherapy and the US medical care system.
November 14, 1904 - September 13, 1990
Was an American author and critic.
Matthew C. "Matt" Taibbi
Born March 2, 1970
Is an American author and journalist.
1927 – July 25, 2002
Was an American aphorist known for his witty aphorisms.
Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck
April 23, 1858 - October 4, 1947
Was a German theoretical physicist.
Marguerite Annie Johnson Angelou
April 4, 1928 May 28, 2014
Was an American author, actress, screenwriter, dancer, poet and civil rights activist.
Michael Clifton Burgess
Born December 23, 1950
Is a doctor of obstetrics and gynecology and a politician.
17 February 1963
Is an American former professional basketball player.
Michael S. Levine
Is an American developmental biologist.
Michael Francis Moore
Born April 23, 1954
Is an American documentary filmmaker, screenwriter, author, journalist, actor, and liberal political activist.
John Morris Sheppard
May 28, 1875 - April 9, 1941
Was a United States Congressman and United States Senator.
15 August 1769 5 May 1821
Was a French statesman and military leader who rose to prominence during the French Revolution and led several successful campaigns during the French Revolutionary Wars. He was Emperor of the French from 1804 until 1814 and again briefly in 1815 during the Hundred Days.
October 26, 1883 - November 8, 1970
Was an American author in the area of the new thought movement.
Nathaniel Read "Nate" Silver
Born January 13, 1978
Is an American statistician (baseball and elections), writer, correspondent and editor-in-chief.
born Nathaniel Hathorne (added a "w" to make his name "Hawthorne")
July 4, 1804 - May 19, 1864
Was an American novelist and short story writer.
Avram Noam Chomsky
7 December 1928 -
Is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, social critic, and political activist.
George Norman Douglas
December 8, 1868 - February 7, 1952
Was a British writer born in Austria.
Augustine "Og" Mandino
12 December 1923 3 September 1996
Was an American author.
Omar N. Bradley
Omar Nelson "Brad" Bradley
February 12, 1893 - April 8, 1981
Was a United States General of the Army.
Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde
October 16, 1854 - November 30, 1900
Was an Irish author, playwright and poet.
Is a freelance writer of more than 65 non-fiction books, mostly on American English language and popular culture. He has written many articles on a wide variety of subjects, including baseball and the military.
Eugène Henri Paul Gauguin
June 7, 1848 - May 8, 1903
Was a French Post-Impressionist artist.
Ruth Eleanor "Peg" Bracken
February 25, 1918 - October 20, 2007
Was an American author of humorous books on cooking, housekeeping, etiquette and travel.
Percy Bysshe Shelley
Percy Bysshe Shelley
4 August 1792 - 8 July 1822
Was an English Romantic poet.
Peter Anthony DeFazio
Born: May 27, 1947
Is a politician.
Phillip Andrew Hedley Adams
Born July 12, 1939
Is an Australian humanist, social commentator, broadcaster, public intellectual and farmer.
Phyllis Ada Driver
Jul 17, 1917 - Aug 20, 2012
Was an American actress and stand-up comedian, best known for her eccentric stage persona, her self-deprecating humor, her wild hair and clothes, and her exaggerated, cackling laugh.
18 November 1647 28 December 1706
Was a French philosopher and writer.
P. J. O`Rourke
Patrick Jake "P. J." O`Rourke
born November 14, 1947
Is an American political satirist, journalist, writer and author.
428/427 or 424/423 - 348/347 BCE
Was a philosopher and mathematician.
Pope Francis born Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Argentina
born 17 December 1936
Pope of the Catholic Church.
Born February 27, 1934
Is an American political activist of Lebanese origin, an author, lecturer and attorney.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Ralph Waldo Emerson
May 25, 1803 - April 27, 1882
Was an American essayist, lecturer, and poet.
R. D. Laing
Ronald David Laing
7 October 1927, 23 August 1989
Was a Scottish psychiatrist who wrote extensively on mental illness – in particular, the experience of psychosis.
Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr
June 21, 1892 - June 1, 1971
Was an American theologian, ethicist, public intellectual, commentator on politics and public affairs and professor.
31 March 1596 - 11 February 1650
Was a French philosopher, mathematician and scientist
Richard Hugh Blackmore
14 April 1945
Is an English guitarist and songwriter.
born May 22, 1930
Is an American engineer, author and editor.
April 19, 1885 - 1950
Was an American author of self-help and New Thought metaphysical books.
Robert Lee Frost
March 26, 1874 - January 29, 1963
Was an American poet.
Robert Green Ingersoll
Robert Green "Bob" Ingersoll
August 11, 1833 - July 21, 1899
Was a lawyer, a Civil War veteran, political leader and orator of United States.
Robert Maynard Hutchins
17 January 1899, 17 May 1977
Was an American educational philosopher.
Robert Toru Kiyosaki
Born April 8, 1947
Is an American investor, entrepreneur, self-help author, motivational speaker, financial literacy activist, financial commentator, and radio personality.
Verni Robert Quillen
March 25, 1887 - December 9, 1948
Was an American journalist and humorist.
Born May 24, 1948
Is a German particle physicist and the Director General of CERN.
Ronald Dee White "Tater Salad"
18 December 1956
Is an American author, stand-up comedian and actor.
P. J. O`Rourke
Patrick Jake "P. J." O`Rourke
born November 14, 1947
Is an American political satirist, journalist, writer and author.
Rubén Blades Bellido de Luna
born July 16, 1948
Is a Panamanian salsa singer, songwriter, actor, Latin jazz musician and activist.
Ruth Fulton Benedict
June 5, 1887 - September 17, 1948
Was an American anthropologist and folklorist.
Samuel Heath Jaeger
born January 29, 1977
Is an American actor and screenwriter.
Saul Stacey Williams
February 29, 1972 -
Is an American rapper, singer-songwriter, musician, slam poet, writer, and actor.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
born in Spain 4 BC - died in Rome, Italy 65 AD
Was a Roman Stoic philosopher, statesman, dramatist and humorist.
Sheryl Lynn Lee
born April 22, 1967
Is an American film, stage, and television actress.
Suzuki Shunryū - Shōgaku Shunryū - Suzuki Roshi
May 18, 1904 – December 4, 1971
Was a Sōtō Zen monk and teacher who helped popularize Zen Buddhism in the United States.
6 May 1856, 23 September 1939
Was an Austrian neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, a clinical method for treating psychopathology through dialogue between a patient and a psychoanalyst.
Samuel Ichiye "S. I." Hayakawa
July 18, 1906 - February 27, 1992
Was a Canadian-born American academic, politician and United States Senator.
March 8, 1799 – June 26, 1889
Was an influential American businessman and politician.
469 - 399 BC
Was a classical Greek philosopher credited as one of the founders of Western philosophy.
Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
May 5, 1813 November 11, 1855
Was a Danish philosopher, theologian, and cultural critic who was a major influence on existentialism and Protestant theology in the 20th century.
Stephen William Hawking
Born January 8, 1942
Is a British theoretical physicist, cosmologist and author.
Born September 1943, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.
Is an American author.
Steven Alexander Wright
6 December 1955 -
Is an American stand-up comedian, actor, writer, and film producer.
Sydney Irwin Pollack
1 July 1934, 26 May 2008
Was an American film director, producer and actor.
Theodore Anthony "Ted" Nugent
born December 13, 1948
Is an American musician, singer, songwriter and political activist.
1608 - August 16, 1661
Was an English churchman and historian.
April 13, 1743 - July 4, 1826
Was the principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence and its third President.
born June 30, 1930
Is an American economist, social theorist, political philosopher and author.
Thomas Edward "Tom" Bodett
Born February 23, 1955
Is an American author, voice actor, and radio host.
Thomas Evert Petri
Born May 28, 1940
Is an American politician.
4 February 1892, 9 June 1953
Was an Italian judge, better known as an author, who is considered by many the greatest Italian playwright next to Pirandello.
Ursula K. Le Guin
Ursula Kroeber Le Guin
Born October 21, 1929
Is an American author of novels, children's books, and short stories.
October 5, 1936 - December 18, 2011
Was a Czech writer, philosopher, dissident, and statesman - first democratically elected president of Czechoslovakia in forty one years.
Vincent Thomas "Vince" Lombardi
June 11, 1913 - September 3, 1970
Was an American football player, coach and executive.
21 November 1694 - 30 May 1778
Was a French writer, philosopher and playwright.
Walter Savage Landor
January 30, 1775 - September 17, 1864
Was an English writer and poet.
Warren E. Burger
Warren Earl Burger
September 17, 1907 - June 25, 1995
Was a Chief Justice of the United States.
W. H. Auden
Wystan Hugh Auden
born in England February 21, 1907 died an American citizen September 29, 1973 in Vienna, Austria
Was an Anglo-American poet.
William Henry Beveridge, 1st Baron Beveridge
March 5, 1879 - March 16, 1963
Was a British economist.
November 28, 1757 - August 12, 1827
Was an English poet, painter and printmaker.
William Henry Blum
6 March 1933, 9 December 2018
Was an American author, historian, and critic of United States foreign policy.
5 December 1881 - 17 May 1952
Was a British psychologist and psychiatrist.
April 1564 - April 23, 1616
Was an English poet, playwright, dramatist and actor.
William Tecumseh Sherman
William Tecumseh Sherman
February 8, 1820 - February 14, 1891
Was an American soldier, a General in the Union Army, businessman, educator and author.
Sir William Wallace
April 3, 1270 August 23, 1305 "Hanged, drawn and quartered".
Was a Scottish knight who became one of the main leaders during the First War of Scottish Independence.
William W. Purkey
William Watson Purkey
Born August 22, 1929
Is a writer and singer.
William Penn Adair "Will" Rogers
November 4, 1879 - August 15, 1935
Was a Cherokee cowboy, vaudeville performer, humorist, newspaper columnist, social commentator, stage and motion picture actor.
Thomas Woodrow Wilson
December 28, 1856 - February 3, 1924
Was the 28th President of the United States.
W. P. Kinsella
William Patrick Kinsella
Born May 25, 1935
Is a Canadian novelist and short story writer.
In Australia, the politicians can "honestly" say that, concerning the ACL ("Australian Consumer Laws") for example, the consumers are well protected because as one Australian politician said: "..there is a fine of $AU10M for corporations who break the law.."
However what they do not say is that the fine is "up to" $AU10M and that these "corporations" know that, as the laws are, no consumer can ever succeed at having any court impose any fine as a result of these laws which have been specially designed to give to the consumers the illusion of protection but nothing else.
This Australian "ACL" is a compulsory legal system by which any consumer having any complaint must first seek a resolution through one business-specific body from many bodies created, according to the politicians, to "resolve" these disputes.
This is "Ombudsmen" or "Small Claims Tribunals" or "Consumer Protection" or many other names for agencies reorganised and renamed often and supposed to assist in any complaint one may have including health and social benefits and approaching or possibly even surpassing one hundred in a country of less than twenty-five millions.
This legal system is organised as follows:
The net result is that a consumer who suffered a wrong or has been exploited must prove every claim he or she makes, including when something does not work, but this big business is allowed to tell anything it wants without having to prove anything and is even allowed not to answer any particular question if giving any answer is detrimental in any way.
How can you prove that your land-line telephone or your Internet connection has never worked? How can you prove you have no water or electricity at home? How can you prove the service provider is intentionally sending correspondence to a fictitious or obsolete address knowing you will never receive it?
The politics of consumer protection may be presented differently in countries other than Australia but the result is very likely to be similar.
It is very likely that the vast majority of drivers are yet to be convinced of the need of many road regulations, especially regulations concerning speed because they regularly appear to be politically motivated rather than being designed scientifically.
It is to be noted that when our politicians implement traffic regulations designed to reduce the financial cost of injuries and fatalities borne by government insurances to a level acceptable to their budget, this is not science - it is politics.
The scientific approach is to correct bad driving habits but this is likely to be more expensive at the beginning, possibly unpopular and therefore unthinkable for any politician of the old political systems.
To compensate for their lack of true solution, the politicians resort again to advertising, the "we-are-doing-something-about-it" type of advertising.
For example in Australia, an advertising slogan was promoting the idea that if drivers reduce their speed by five kilometres per hour, the number of people killed on the roads would diminish by a particular percentage.
But, reduce the speed compared to what speed?
Since this is only a claim, it is likely to be the result of unscientific assumptions.
Such blind claims can only diminish further any trust the motorists may have in the validity of road regulations, not diminish the road tolls or their severity, and is a typical failure of Old Politics.
If they recommend to reduce the speed by ten kilometres per hour, instead of five, we should then save twice as many lives and so on.
And if the car was not allowed to move at all on the road (what the Singaporeans politicians try to do), nobody would be hurt or killed in a car accident.
When you try to find sense in this advertisement, the best that one can think is that a driver who used to cruise at 160 kilometres per hour should reduce the speed to 155 and a driver cruising at 60 kilometres per hour, and there are some, should reduce the speed to 55, a nonsensical proposition.
But many drivers never have a chance to "cruise", like in city traffic where driving is a continual start and accelerate followed by another stop.
Even on long Australian country roads, the cruising speed is irregular and depends on many factors, mainly the uneven and unpredictable quality and state of the "gravel roads" which are only "graded" dirt roads.
However this is not another policy made by a politician following a tormented sleep.
It is calculated by an advertising agency who knew exactly what the politicians wanted to achieve and it makes clear sense if the intention is to convince society that the government is doing something concerning the deaths toll on the roads and road accidents in general.
As a traffic observer, you can only see the traffic when you are not in it, like watching it from a high vantage point or on TV.
If you are in the traffic, your vision of it is limited to your surroundings, mostly your immediate surroundings.
And the primary objective of this advertisement is to psychologically make you an observer not involved with this traffic.
The government is then tricking your subconscious into thinking that the advertising campaign is directed at the "other drivers", not at yourself.
This is because when you contemplate the proposition that "..if drivers reduce their speed..", it can only be imagined if you are not in the traffic and you are only an observer.
And of course, you do not see yourself as a driver who could hurt or kill someone in a car accident, nobody does.
Therefore you do not see your own slowing as necessary.
Obviously if you consider reducing your own speed while driving, you are convinced that it will have no effect on the traffic because only some "others" are dangerous drivers and therefore proposing that you reduce your speed by 5 kilometres per hour will seem to you like an excessive imposition, assuming you understand how the politicians want you to do it.
Our sight is unable to see the difference between a film showing traffic cruising normally and the same film of traffic cruising at a speed reduced by five kilometres per hour unless both are shown simultaneously and the only difference we would see is a traffic reaching a particular point at different times.
But if the speed is slowed enough, say by half, then we can see and visualise the difference and this is important in this advertising.
Each of us can then easily visualise, or imagine, a traffic whose speed is reduced, not by five kilometres per hour which is impossible to do in real life, but substantially like when you have to reduce speed due to road-work and you must admit that the imaginary vision of a traffic substantially slowed becomes very attractive for any driver.
Having only been an observer, you can now jump in your car and drive it as usual because only "the others", the traffic as you observed it, must drive more slowly and safely.
You can now imagine a drive in a traffic that has become safer and easier to negotiate.
You have also become a supporter of this policy, a policy only designed to deceive you.
But you must know that nothing will change on the road following this advertising campaign.
The danger will not be diminished because every driver, including yourself, will continue to drive in exactly the same manner, each expecting only "the traffic", or the other drivers to slow down, as recommended by the politicians' advertising.