Political angles.

[BrettNortje]

I have been reading about politics for a few decades now, and actively getting involved in debates for about a decade. what i have learned is everyone has their own approach to politics, and they vary hugely.

So, what is politics? it is about resources, it is about talking instead of arguing, it is about peace and keeping the peace, it is about rights, it is about other things too, but those more or less would sum it up from my side.

It was on this forum about two years ago that i found my angle for politics - resources distribution. if you have resources, they need to be shared out with the rest of the country or region you preside over, or, there will be contempt. this could lead to unhappy citizens - another angle is to keep the majority happy, of course. it is also about getting votes - this it the ultimate goal of politics, of course.

So, my resources angle makes everything a resource. this could be human resources, emotional resources, raw materials, capital resources and liquid finance resources. in short, this is the one i choose to do things because it is so base, and, it works on needs satisfying in general, of course.

 

[BrettNortje]

Thinking of being a political leader is always a dream. everyone wants to control the way the country works, but, what they do not realize is that it is a hard job stress wise. when someone says something from the heart, a politician cannot respond from their heart at times, as they are sworn to being politically correct, yes? imagine some kids shouting that you are fat or something while you are trying to deal with issues? not nice.

So, what can politicians do to combat the heckler factor? i would say they could focus their energy onto the directing attention towards the personality that is heckling them, and deal with it directly. it is fruitless to shout at your own friends if you are being heckled, and, it would be counter productive to do so.

I find this is why people go after them in the news. they just want to be heard, and the best way to do that is to address the leaders that speak, yes? this would mean they get heard by everyone, for whatever reasons they find satisfying.

Of course, all voices cannot be heard, and then there are memorandums. these are like a lot of people quietly letting the state know that they are upset, and what they would like to see done. this is good for everyone, but, often it is not enough. that is why people take action physically with the state and then cause riots and protests, among other things, like sit ins in some places.

Politics must be about satisfying as many people as possible with the action taken as quickly as possible, in this respect.

 

[BrettNortje]

The best way to win people over is through examples set. this means, of course, actions speak louder than words. if the party, during an election run up, they could be spending money to make changes while the election is still coming. the evidence this is not happening shows that they do not care, yes? what good is promoting yourself and not leading by example? i know there are promises they do not care if they keep ,only to get reelected later with what they think is ample for reelection - this is all they care about, apparently.

So, look for a party that is spending money on making the country a better place while they are running - this obviously leads to showing that they care, and, then the people get to taste their promises through service delivery or other means that they cannot feel yet. this means that they will get a indicator of what the state wants done, of course.

Then there are broken promises, where the elected sit back and slowly find a avenue through the maelstrom of demands by the people. they must sit there for longer reading the the angles that are suggested than taking them - naturally the best plan should be put into action as soon as possible?

 

[BrettNortje]

With conservatism, the base of all conservative ideals, we find that this is actually described as a 'resistance to change.' this would mean that they want things to stay the same, so, some may ask how they adapt to an ever changing world?

I think it is fair to say that these people like to keep things the way they are through traditions. of course, this makes them more moral, as they listen to their elders and keep legacies going. this means they will stay the hand that steals as they were taught that stealing is wrong and therefore is against their traditions, for example. also murder would be less rampant as these people are sort of lacking in their dreams of more, settling for things the way they are. please observe a graph randomly on the internet to find the differences between liberal murder rates and the conservative murder rates while not at war? i am sure you will find that the stats back this statement up?

So, there is less crime with conservatism. there is less change to laws with conservatism. there is a better way of life regarding moral fiber and there is room for technology to play a role anyway. so what is wrong with conservatism?

If you were to look at the rights of a conservative country, they have been handled in a way suitable to the united nations rules surely, unless they do not sit on the united nations, which is where everybody wants to sit. these are the sort of people that use the death penalty and like women to be married before they have children, so strong family values are consistent for them.

Why people adopt liberalism is beyond me, and i hope beyond you at this point?

 

[BrettNortje]

Socialism is something newish to the world. this is where the state controls the means of production and other factors of the businesses. this is like nationalism, which i think of as another name given to these developments. if we were to observe that the state controls the workings of the business, as if they were 'department heads,' and the money still flows to various owners and so forth. this is like starting a business and then having the business put under administration, of course.

So, what is good about this? i would say that it is good to have the state involved in everything as then everything would be legal and administered in a orderly fashion. if the state was to oversee the working of the business, then there is less of a competitive edge though, as the state may have non profitable yet communal ideals for the business, complimenting the sector as a whole. this of course means good news for the sector, but bad news for the owners.

The good news is that the owners will still make money, but the drive away from the business will be so that it will reduce profits considerably.

My solution for this is that the state 'buys' the businesses. this will lead to something like a monarchy system, which has good and bad points, if you care to hear them? competitively, the sectors will still grow, as there will still be grants for research, and, the state will pay for the patents from these research projects, or they will be sold to another country.

All in all, i would say this is considerable for all people to acknowledge. i know it is already being practiced in europe in various countries with limited success or great success, and i know it takes a while to take hold of course.

Now, one more plus to this is corruption at a business level would cease to exist if the companies and 'state level leaders' were to all be able to look at each other's accounts. of course, they could all get in on it and make a right royal cover up, but with state transparency or being able to see what is going on at a state level, there would be no such thing.

 

[BrettNortje]

Fascism is something that led to world war two. it had it's birthplace in italy, and, was turned to military focus in germany before world war two. i think this is also a conservative form of state.

It is said that in the political compass, they are centrist, as, they are not as liberal as left wingers of liberals, but not as conservative as conservatives.

If the form of government known as fascism is to be analyzed correctly, i would say that it is a form of government, as is evident in propaganda videos i have seen, that tries to make the working class a beehive, an ant colony or, as i have tried to make out of my readers 'smurfs.' this would be where the people understand they have voted for the leader they have, their leader had a plan, and they dutifully try to carry out that plan, that they voted for. this calls for a sense of duty from the people, a sense that there is a role to play for everybody. i would imagine this does not lead to dissent though, as there were no riots to stop these movements in italy or germany. this means the people heard about it, they voted for it, they at least partially enjoyed it.

There is a new craze going over australia where people call themselves "jedi" as a affiliation on forms. this means that they want to call themselves jedi, as they aspire to be defenders of... something good? this will show that the people like to have fantasies where they play a role. of course, any leader able to make it fun to work and so forth would be the greatest leader ever, as then there would be no time for stress and evil fantasies as they would all be busy doing good deeds int heir fantasies, of course.

So, how do we create a fantasy world for our 'smurfs?' under this form of government, we could easily have, for example, factory staff, earn fifteen minutes off a day of their choice with meeting the targets set for them, and, slowly saving a day's worth of off time to have whenever they feel like it or to a agreed format. this could be made a fantasy by meeting with the manager and having a 'mock jedi meeting' with them, yes?

Under fascism, the fantasy we saw was a militant one, with soldiers standing out on the fields in neat files, and observing what a force they looked like after they took a photograph. this made the private servants very inspired to be a part of such a country and the women must have felt safe?

Another thing about fascism, it being conservative, was the role of women. they were encouraged into the kitchen and homes where they would play a prehistoric role with the lives they led. of course, they got to shop and go for tea while they spoke about their men - nearly every woman's dream, or reality. nobody wants to work, but some people have to work, so, under the guise of fascism, i would like to ask if it is rational to change the role of women so that they would be able to work if they were not married?

So, it is like a lifestyle reminiscent of the times of our grandparents. they always long for the good old days, and, these values could bring them back, of course.

 

[BrettNortje]

International intervention is something that happens to certain countries when there is concern over what is going on in another country. this is especially true in times of war. this of course occurs seldom and i think there should be more of this intervention from prospering countries into the less prospering ones. this would see a helping hand reach out to less performing countries and help them.

The thing is, most countries hate this sort of thing from america and european countries. they protest and so forth, while they should be celebrating - their country is becoming better run by international standards, who doesn't want to live in a western country? why not bring the west to them? this would see the country become more powerful, economically and legally, but this is counter conservative often.

This is why the countries political compass should match that of the aided country to make sure that everything will fit in with the country. this will see the people of the country commit to heart the help that is coming in, and then there will be more cooperation, you could say.

So, who helps who? africa and the third world needs some help to better themselves, and, this can so easily be learned from a text book from harvard or so forth, read through until being understood by, for example, judges and economists, yes? this could see the exchange of ideas flow quickly from end to end, and, even this could educate some members of parliament. i know in my country at least, we have a lot of politicians that had no working knowledge of the world and academics that cold stand to learn a lot. this is because often the winners of wars elect popular people from the community to run the country instead of qualified personnel, of course.

 

[BrettNortje]

Trickle down economics, i have just learned, is where the wealthy get most of the money, and it is supposed to 'trickle down' to the poorer people. if i was to try to justify this thus far with my understanding, i would have to draw an analogy of a fancy champagne glass display where they are all stacked up and you fill from the top to trickle down into the other glasses as the one at the top gets full. this could mean that it might work - if the ones above the bottom get full of money, then they might be filling those under them, yes?

This interests me, as, i believe that this can be done practically at a state level to private sector. the reason the state doesn't simply print more money for the people is that it will raise prices at a private level and then things will just cost more. but, if the state was to print more money for themselves, then they could afford to buy anything that they need, without the money entering the private sector unless purchases are made or money is spent.

Of course, if this was done properly, there would be hardly any need for taxation to be so high, as the state would just print more money to compliment the system. if the state printed more money, and spent it, there would be no need for taxes at all! this would mean that the state could afford anything it wants, knowing that they could do anything they wanted, from building satellites to building dams, of course.

As the money the state spends enters the private sector, the money will be spread as people buy things or pay for services. this means the money will remain in the private sector, and, due to there being no taxes, hopefully, the wealth of the country will grow along with moderate inflation.

So, the only problem i can find with this version of trickle down economics is that there will be a lot more inflation. this is not a problem for the private sector, who can only afford to pay so much, which keeps prices down. this means that the money will balance itself out, and, everything should be fine.

Now, suggesting to a state official that there should be no taxes this way could be hard, as taxes is what the country makes - that unless the system of mine is followed properly, there will be no need for taxes at all.

 

[BrettNortje]

Sanctions i find are a bad way to handle politics. usually, sanctions are placed on a state that will make their ability to trade much less effective. this does nothing to the leaders of the country - the decision makers that the sanctions are aimed at - and instead throttle the citizens as they need to pay more for goods.

In fact, i would say that sanctions back fire on a country imposing them, as this stimulates national 'nucleated economics.' this is where the nucleated or small introspective or inward looking economy will thrive, because it will be much cheaper now to buy and sell locally, making the market favor the citizens and businesses of the country with the sanctions placed on them. so, this is actually a great idea for the 'immoral' countries the united nations sets sight on!

If you really want to 'punish' a country, you should go after the leaders themselves. this would be where the world bank freezes their accounts, so that they may not withdraw money for trading, yes? this would see the leaders flounder around trying to negotiate with the rest of the world. but, this might be against the human rights charter, i am not sure. still it stands to reason if you are looking for results, you need to go after the leaders, not the innocent people of the country, yes?

Maybe there can be some other form of 'punishment?' if the neighbors of that country are aware of what they call wrong doing, it might be that the leader were democratically elected, but squalid or terrible living conditions would justify intervention by the neighbors and other concerned parties.

One example of this being ineffective, this intervention, was vietnam. this where the united states went there to try to force changes on the people and leaders, this did not work of course, as the terrain was terrible for the americans. i am sure a resolution was met though, as there is no media about the state of living conditions in vietnam now.

SO, there is the possibility to go to war about 'rights.' this is where the liberals and some conservatives want thing to change, and are willing to force a change. this is of course none of their business, as, the leaders and laws were elected by the people. slavery bears an exception though, as nearly all walks of life hate this sort of suffering.

Anyways, if you want to punish a country from your side, you could deny them lending from the i.m.f. or international monetary fund, yes? you could also put the government 'under administration' which would be where someone like the united nations comes to the table to force changes. this would be peaceful, as nobody wants to shoot at u.n. peace keepers. this could be called a cloaked attack though, as the u.n. would 'walk into your house' as peace keepers, then slowly make changes that they could not refuse.

Of course, this is not totally useful. if the neighbors of the country, along with enough aid, were to refuse for this to happen, then they could arrest the peace keepers and hold them hostage or send them to jail or something, yes? this is for extreme circumstances where like half the world is against a country, and th other half doesn't care, of course.

If this was to happen to north korea, and i could see the west trying to 'bully' them, then i am sure that all the 'third world dictatorships' would side with north korea. the justification of activities and methods is still up to be discussed though, and, the weight of the world, now having a outlet for getting into countries, will force others to the meeting table to iron out differences.

 

[BrettNortje]

ow i would like to talk about 'satellite countries,' or maybe we should call them 'demodulator' countries? a 'modulator' country would be a country where effects are felt from, and a demodulator country would be where the effects of certain things are also felt. this would be like america being a 'mod' country, and canada being a 'demod' country. this is because the operations in america can be felt in canada and mexico, so america is a mod country, and the other two are 'sat' or 'satellite' countries.

This is common from western europe to the third world too. the countries do not need to be landlocked, but rather just have economies and politics that affect others. i live in south africa, a mod country for the sub saharan africa regions. here the other african countries in the southern hemisphere lend money from, read about our news, and rely on us to feel safe in some ways, especially when it comes to economics.

Thus, the world has kings and peasants. this is evident from what i have just shown, yes? this would mean that these regions should band together to make it official, that these mod countries are very responsible for the livelihood of others, of course.

It is now apparent that, seeing as how the leaders affect the others, that the others should have say in the affairs of the leaders, yes? i mean, so many people hinging on the outcomes of one country means that the leader should be bound by honor to 'serve' all these places? it could come down to a language demographic, it could come down to a racial demographic, hell, it could come down to a political leaning demographic, but it will come down to someone needing authority and responsibility, yes?

So, there should be new parliaments set up. that or there should be political influence from one to the other, of course. the one could say that they will let others in if they let them in, and in so doing they will share ideas and resources, of course. this could be properly carried out, or it could fail, the methods used are in question here.

 

[BrettNortje]

Religion and politics are closely related, yet great effort is put into keeping them separate. this is because the church seldom has the know how to tell the politicians what to do, as was done so long ago. in ages past, the church had considerably more power, and then typically the church would fight for solutions with the ruling party or kings. no doubt this was a messy affair, yes?

The church has always been looking for money from it's worshipers and that paid for the church to do things for the poor and keep the preachers in good shape financially. i am now reminded of one preacher, jose de jesus, who makes his followers give him about forty to seventy percent of what they earn and tattoo triple six on their wrists like gangsters, and they keep coming back for more! things like this happen sometimes with cults, and, there are meny cults around the world.

Of course, my god is venus, as she aids me in ways i cannot describe. looking back over my life, she has always been with me, making me rather sexy i must say! i happen to be very good looking now too, and i attribute this to my god of course.

Now, i am looking for a spiritual revival. we now know gods exist, as if we, for example, pray for our hiccups to go away, correctly, with our hands held together under our chins and our elbows rather splayed out, we can pray and hear our gods in our minds, for some reason. the reason god does not answer your prayers is that you must go to jesus, as your "way to the father is through the son," of course.

I would like to make the churches more relevant. the churches are moderately kept by the state, who pays for the religious well being of the people of the country, of course. this means that the state is in charge of the church in most countries, but, what if there was a 'holy person' sitting in parliament? this would bring the effects of the holy beings out there into the parliament, where they belong, and then there could be spiritual representation by god in the parliament, of course?

I suppose that if there was a holy leader sitting there, they might have a nice break from the monotony of parliament for a while at least, while they listen to the plans of the church, which is good at demanding respect from the people, and, then helping the parties with their input into the scene they are trying to create. religion is something that the poorer majorities take to heart, and, they can gain votes while helping the poor. of course, if the poor and charities were represented in parliament, they could be 'rolled into the party' and they could help each other, of course.

 

[BrettNortje]

When wars break out, there are often refugees from certain countries at war going to other countries to seek refuge. if the other country takes them in, they need a plan so that they do not become a 'welfare state,' of course.

So, how does the country taking in refugees help them without harming their economy irreparably? the whole process of one country losing it's citizen labor force, losing it's taxes due to war destabilizing their economy, and the new arrivals for the new country makes it very hard to see through to a good conclusion, yes?

If we were to observe this occurrence, we could say that the labor force has moved from one place to another where they cannot work. this is why the new country needs to hire them quickly into jobs where they can feed themselves at least and hopefully soon pay taxes, of course.

This could be where the prior country could ship or dispatch the machinery to the new country, where the business can set up quickly. to help them, land and buildings could be built by the new country and the machines moved in. the new country could see investors buy these machines for their worth, and then they could get to work, yes?

Or, the new country could merely begin subsistence farming? this would be where the farmers or subsistence farmers from the old country and give them land and seeds to see what becomes of them. this could be where the farmers teach the citizens how to farm, and then they could at least eat, which is enough for refugees to live i think, yes?

Or, they could empty the accounts of the citizens into the new villages they will build for them, with cheap housing, of course. all this would require is a few slips to be signed by the people moving to the new country for the state of the new country to collect funds for them to build houses and places of work, of course.