The general understanding is that democracy is the supreme form of government because your inate ability to choose your ruler. As I showed you in part 1 of this post, thats a false statement, you choose between 2 leading parties, maybe 3.

Furthermore, in today’s world the parliament does not represent its people like it is constitutionally designed to, however it does represent demagogy and populist stereotypes.

However, we are not here to bitch about how nobody cares but to make a different point, the supreme form of government is the one where people are free to join in communities and make their own rules.

Not only people are not free to make their own communities with their own rules nowadays, but they are not even permitted to leave the borders of their own country. Have you tried getting a passport in the U.S. ? Takes about a month and 30 offices.

So here’s the problem, I purchase a piece of land, I should be allowed to settle and make my own community with my own rules. Otherwise, I do not own the land but I lease it. Also, why is there a tax on property? Why are you buying it if you still pay taxes ?

Why is it that inovantion has stopped in the structuring of communities ?

Om.

“He who controls the sea controls everything” – Themistocles

The wealth of a nation is proportionate to the importance its people will give themselves, and this has developed superiority (west) and inferority (east) complexes all around the world.

Visiting the world and following international news, have taught me something, we are all essentially the same.. In the way we work, in the way we think and in the way we are subjected to the major “sins” that eventually run our daily routine (egoism, vain etc).

Given the equality, why some countries make so much more money than others.

I can think of 4-5 major connections between great wealth and countries:

• Access to the ocean
• A history of occupying other territories and murder.
• Early adopters of capitalism, great export and multi national companies which make this argument a continuation of the one above. Occupying more territory via diplomatic means and exploiting it.
• Population
• Plot of land and resourses

Looking at the fiscal policies in the west, there is no way those effect in anyway the outcome. The biggest economic gainers in recent past have had much more loose fiscal laws than the west.

Thus, as usual, I will focus on a single aspect, the ocean proximity.

Lets see. The top 20 economies of our world:

1 United States 14,119,050
2 Japan 5,068,894
3 China 4,984,731
4 Germany 3,338,675
5 France 2,656,378
6 United Kingdom 2,178,856
7 Italy 2,118,264
8 Brazil 1,574,039
9 Spain 1,467,889
10 Canada 1,336,427
11 India 1,235,975
12 Russia 1,231,892
13 Australia 994,246
14 Mexico 874,810
15 South Korea 832,512
16 Netherlands 796,651
17 Turkey 614,466
18 Indonesia 539,377
19 Switzerland 491,923
20 Belgium 472,103

source: International Monetary Fund

What do they have in common ? A FUCKING OCEAN. Why is that important ?

Today: 90% of all the trade happens on the sea.
Yesterday: Trade + War + Colonies.

Yesterday + Today = handicap for landlocked countries and countries with access to a crapy sea.

To answer the following hypotetical comment “YOU IDIOT !! ITALY, TURKEY AND SWITZERLAND DONT HAVE ACCESS TO THE OCEAN”.

They don’t, but both Italy and turkey have access to the mediteranean sea which was a huge trade hub throughout history and still is. Actually US, France, Canada & Spain have access to 2 water bodies (including the med sea on spain + france) , those are 4 of the top 10 and the only ones in that top with such access.

I am not gonna continue on how Turkey basically owns the bosfor straight and how its gate to the orient… blabla you get the picture.

Switzerland is indeed the exception and while not a fantastic economy by any means, it is a great example of how people with no ocean access should handle themselves. Among the many discrepancies about the swiss way of life: they are always neutral, they have been int he past the banking choice for all wealthy people, they make clocks, cheese and knives. Their strategy should be followed by all the non-coastal countries instead of ocean-blessed countries.

So technically the different approach they take confirms the rule.

Also I know some joker is gonna point out Belgium @ 20 with 5 feet of ocean access.. I will then point them to Antwerp which for centuries was the biggest and wealthiest city-port in europe.

To rap it all up, the ocean handles most of the trade today. The ocean is where these bytes have come from (there are actually wires at the bottom of those oceans that make the internet possible in case you didnt know).

So why all the hate ? Why the superiority or inferority when we are subjected to our heritage ?

Whats up with the lying Earth ?

-Om

There’s a general understanding in the west that war is a thing of the past.

In a world where the french will run a week long protest for the slighest mishap and where the are no domains available that start with “mothers%” or “mothersagainst%”, no one in the “civilized” world imagines being in a real war, I’m talking bombing of cities, infantery occupying cities and other things that characterize a real war and not a 1 way vector of oppression.

A short look at history will tell us otherwise, simple mathematics will show us that:

1. People don’t really change.
2. There have been longer periods of peace among the super powers.
3. There are still countries at war or in some form of violent combat.
4. People have slowly traded their personal freedoms and beliefs to the point that they can be pushed to accept anything, just like they have accepted war in the past.

I`ll focus on the two, nobody really cares about countries still at war. I mean, really..  Can you name two and a reason ? See.

Ok, so why I am saying that a war if not imminent will happen. Because, there have been longer periods of peace throughout the civilized (at the time) world.

And we have several such long periods:

1. Pax Americana
2. Pax Brittanica
3. Pax Romana
4. Pax Mongolica
5. Pax Sinica

One of those periods even lasted for 200 years (the roman one).

This is a very interesting read that has not been talked about much in the media. Basically one super power would hold the world in check. The Romans, the mongolians, the chinese in asia, the britons and the americans all superpowers of their respective period, have managed to keep peace between the world’s superpowers.

Vanga and Nostradamus apparently predicted a war next month (Novemeber 2010), will it happen ?

Probably not.

But the economic crisis, the perpetual armageddon scenarios, the past, they can’t all be wrong.

Are we bound to be war-like people forever ?

I mean. Is it really democracy when people choose from only 2 candidates, which always happen to be the 2 with the richest campaigns ?

Lets run a quick analysis on the ’08 elections:

Barack Obama (D)	$532,946,511	$513,557,218	69,498,215	$7.39
John McCain (R)	$379,006,485	$346,666,422	59,948,240	$5.78
Ralph Nader (I)	$4,496,180	$4,187,628	738,720	$5.67
Bob Barr (L)	$1,383,681	$1,345,202	523,713	$2.57
Chuck Baldwin (C)	$261,673	$234,309	199,437	$1.17
Cynthia McKinney (G)	$240,130	$238,968	161,680	$1.48

Really ? $1 billion (top 2) vs $6 million (the rest) ?

And then.. the top two guys.. you are supposed to pick from:

1 Highly Educated, Extremely Eloquent, African-american male.

vs

1 Older then most statues, republican like Bush, war veteran (in an era where americans are already tired of endless wars – with all due to respect to veterans)

Also, the first one has a budget twice the size of the later. I dont know about conspiracy theories, but I think that for most people the two candidate choice, just became a 1 candidate choice.

Maybe some statfreak has a better statistic on the effect of campaign funds versus campaign success.

I am not entirely sure how funding works in every country, but here, people can donate however much they want to a campaign. And when you have the numbers and know that the choice will always be between two candidates, people should and fund the top two, regardless of who wins, they will recup their investment with wealthy state contracts.

True democracy, will only work in several years when the votes will be spread out among more then 2 candidates.

To rap it all up, skip the thought “my vote doesn’t count if i don’t between these two” and make a choice for the one you really like and believe would help the nation.

-Om