Direct Democracy Now
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The sovereign Direct democracy now Dieter Walter Liedtke Clarification immediately The sovereign Dieter Walter Liedtke Clarification immediately The sovereign Study on the social system dispute: Dictatorship + Fear or enlightenment and Direct democracy + freedom Dieter Walter Liedtke Imprint Fundacion Liedtke -Sovereign Global- 07157 Puerto de Andratx CIF: ES G 653012460 www.the-sovereign.global Contact: [email protected] Ó Dieter Walter Liedtke 1988 - March 2021/ Wikipedia / IStock/ Translations We ask for your help in translating the book "Der Souverän" and our Souverän web pages into other languages, as the various languages have been translated from the German text into the other languages using the text translation programme DeepL. Please help us by correcting the translation texts in an e-mail to: [email protected] We would be happy to provide the book "Der Souverän" translated into all other languages, free of charge as a PDF to all internet users and to design further web pages of the Souverän with the translated texts. Please send an e-mail to clarify the copyright issues of the translations from the German text into another language that has not yet been translated to: [email protected] 5 Index Clarification immediately The Digital Manifesto The media code Creativity is the key 6 The Digital Manifesto The Social System Question 2020 -March 2021 The authors Prof. Dirk Helbing, Prof. Bruno S. Frey, Prof. Gerd Gigerenzer, Prof. Ernst Hafen, Prof.Michael Hagner, lawyer and AI expert Yvonne Hofstetter, Prof. Jeroen van den Hoven, Prof. Roberto V. Zicari and Prof. Andrej Zwitter already warned in 2016 of the dangers of a new feudal rule through a data dictatorship: "Digital democracy instead of data dictatorship" "Big Data, Nudging, Behaviour Control: Are we threatened by the automation of society through algorithms and artificial intelligence? A joint appeal to safeguard freedom and democracy." "We are at a crossroads: If increasingly powerful algorithms were to limit our self-determination and were controlled by a few decision-makers, we would fall back into a kind of feudalism 2.0, as important social achievements would be lost. But we now have the chance, with the right course set, to embark on the path to a democracy 2.0 from which we will all benefit. Despite the fierce global competition, democracies would do well not to throw overboard the achievements they have built up over centuries. Compared to other political regimes, Western democracies have the advantage that they have already learned to deal with pluralism and diversity. Now they just have to learn to benefit from it even more. In the future, those countries that achieve a good balance of economy, state and citizens will be leaders. This requires networked thinking and the development of an 7 information, innovation, product and service "ecosystem". For this, it is not only important to create opportunities for participation, but also to promote diversity. "Looking to China: Is this what the future of society looks like? "Such control of society turns away from the ideal of the self-responsible citizen towards a subject in the sense of feudalism 2.0. This is diametrically opposed to basic democratic values. It is therefore time for an Enlightenment 2.0 that leads to a Democracy 2.0 based on digital self-determination. This requires democratic technologies: Information systems that are compatible with democratic principles - otherwise they will destroy our society." (Excerpt from the article in: Spektrum der Wissenschaft/Special Issue: Digital Manifesto) The evolution of social systems is, as history shows, a development that goes hand in hand with the Enlightenment, Renaissance and education, slowly and with a time lag. A fundamental question is: How are the media integrated into the different social models of the countries? However, in the 21st century, some new questions need to be asked about the interaction of political power, surveillance capitalism, power of media groups (social and classical media), PR information, disinformation and evidence-based information, and their representations and enforcements in publications, as they control and predict the behaviour of the population. It has been shown that for thousands of years, fear-inducing information has been used to stage and control IQ reductions in the population in order to maintain power. Today, these fears are generated by self-confirming, neuronal, permanent information loops in all media, which either cause and favour anti-democratic effective structures for dictatorships and, on the other hand, cause a rebellion or a readiness for revolution to arise in parts of 8 the population, which generate anti-democratic fear and effect loops on both sides, which we can, however, dissolve with a second renaissance and enlightenment through the introduction of direct democracy. Will the collection and use of data, as well as information in the media that stirs up fears, make it possible for Western democracies to be politically controlled and to temporarily reduce the IQ of their populations, which could lead to the establishment of totalitarian systems of rule? But how can human rights, fought for over centuries, be abolished and democracies destroyed? How can this happen globally and in almost all countries at the same time? Can misinformation in the media and fear-mongering by governments lead to the intellectual and material exploitation of populations, at the cost of human rights and constitutions, still be implemented globally today? One can briefly illuminate the possibility of such a consequence by looking at our history. We assume the following premises for today: Global corporations are economically oriented, totalitarian ruling structures that govern countries and governments in a finely chiselled, covert and almost unrecognised way, supported by the media, their PR agencies and some large international organisations; they are now replacing the old regional, feudal ruling systems. In order to be able to illuminate the hidden feudal will of a few people of today, one must remember the old systems of rule in which: a) the life of a subject had to be lived without human rights, 9 b) the law did not apply to all people, c) the subject, as a serf, has not been able to dispose of his life or of his freedom, d) a serf was exploited mentally, economically and physically by his master, e) the kings were appointed by God, f) higher-ranking nobles gave fiefdoms (land) to the lower nobility, which they managed as serfs with his peasants residing in that fiefdom. The peasants had to pay taxes to him and work for him. The feudal lord himself did not pay any taxes, but had to provide war services for his ruler if necessary, g) the fate of the serfs was predetermined by God, the Church and the feudal lords. The question is: How could the subjects be dominated by the few feudal lords at that time and how could they be exploited in livestock farming? Evidence shows that most of the territories ruled by kings, princes and nobility at that time were small, had a small population, and about 95% of the population was illiterate. The ruler could exploit his own people for centuries with a small number of police, soldiers and with a small secret police department covering his domain, as well as through alliances and intermarriage with other ruling houses, if the population numbers in the domain did not increase. Further questions follow here: 10 Was the first step taken to minimise the growing population and spread fear by increasing taxes, thereby ruining livelihoods and finally staging wars between nations? (See also the book by Martin Clauss "Military History of the Middle Ages" and the book review in the magazine "Spektrum der Wissenschaft by Theodor Kissel" who summarised: "Using the example of the Hundred Years' War between England and France (1337-1453), Clauss shows that campaigns of plunder and devastation dominated warfare in the Middle Ages. The primary goal was not necessarily the physical destruction of the enemy, but the destruction of his resources. ") or the archaeology report in "Spektrum der Wissenschaft" by Hekan Baykal about a slaughter that wiped out an entire settlement for which science has no explanation. "The site reached its greatest extent during the Iron Age between 350 and 200 BC, when the region was populated by the Celtiberian Beron tribe. At this time, when the brutal raid also took place, the village had almost taken on urban dimensions: More than 300 buildings stood along streets and public squares that were up to five and a half metres wide, paved and lined with pavements. In addition to living quarters, they also housed shops and communal facilities for the estimated 1500 inhabitants. Were families not allowed to come together unchecked as a larger group or a village to share their scattered knowledge or thoughts and thus discuss their existential concerns with creative ideas to achieve knowledge, prosperity and their independence? Were the people who did not belong to the feudal structures deliberately to remain poor so that they could not gain knowledge, build and feed ever-growing families, settlements or cities? If so, were they then destroyed? If people could no longer work, did they have to die early so that knowledge could not be acquired and passed on? 11 Should travel be possible for a serf only with the consent of the liege lord, to enable his property as well as access to the serf at any time? Was therefore given to the serfs: - the access to knowledge was blocked for millennia, - they were not given schooling,- the Bible was written in Latin,- the church service was held in Latin or- the tax burden was driven so high that the population remained poor and thus, due to increased fears of survival, diseases and wars, could not care about education, creativity or consciously exclude other people due to existential fears? For this, the population figures, the mood among the people, the records before the war years in the respective dominions could provide information in a scientific study.