introducing a transitory Political meta-system

(Why Politics Sucks!)

Don't get me wrong - but its one of thsoe balance issues. Politics is/are important. Politics are simply the 'established social core' we might say that 'conducts' our (the peoples) interests into action. That we here in europe for instance have a good gas supply is thanks to politics since most of it is coming from russia (thanks!).
But of course the general consensus amongst people is that it isn't a result of good will but a matter of money. We need gas, russia needs money. What a nation has makes it strong (or not, ... "the banana issue") - and what it doesn't makes it weak; And so to become strong we need(ed) "commerce".
But so - money is the culprit. However, in democracy we however have the opportunity to act against decisions that we deem bad; But the reason why politics sucks is that this basic concept is more of an illusion than a fact.

A simple 'rod' to measure how 'bad' a government actually is, is to measure the way(s) a good oppinion/idea needs to take in order to get politically recognized. I just had a side-discussion with a collegue; And another one with another one; today or so, and by today I realized that 'we', those that live at the bottom of society (I'm semi-homeless; Which means: I'm permitted to stay in this house/room for a set time; Good means: I have to "let my pants down" every year, bad is: I have to do so twice a year - the questions asked aim at evaluating whether I need this type of social aid; Which is actually more seriously a 'social aid' thing because I have a really hard time making space in my head for actually taking care of my life. I can try, but whenever I have something on my mind, like this, its been a waste of time and effort!), kindof do have the best insights into whats wrong with this world, but are the ones people care least about! And becomming politically active and effective is practically a full-time job without fulltime demand; And I don't find any handles to make my oppinion count.
Anyway - factor that out and what remains is basically 'attention'. I'd say that comparing whats currently happening in the US is similar to what recently happened here in germany; So, Trump and AFD. There was one incident regarding the AfD where some e-mails were leaked that showed how it is an intended part of their concept to use controversial statements in order to gain attention and to so have a larger potential of gaining votes. In some regions they finally cashed in 30% or so; Which is a lot in our political system; And anyway pretty much like the sudden rise of a third big party!
And if you're not german, well, the AfD is ... a "we're islamophobic but not", uhm, "we're no nazis but strangers suck" party - so, adressing serious issues that however channel into radical perspectives that I don't believe do any good! Like, how many anti-semites ever feel attracted to that party; The AfD also speaks against a lot of freedoms including press and for an increase of police (yea, actually the whole program) - and so all the conspiracy theorists that feel lied to by the press and blame the jews for everything are kindof on board of their train as well. "But not" P). In essence germany there kindof voted for the "classic" family model of woman has to cook and daddy goes bringing home the money. They say people are allowed to be free, but a more strict supervision has to be put in place. It ... I mean, ... yea, only 30% at least! (... fools ...)


The further the way our good ideas have to travel; And the more 'BS' a government is capable of (like 'Stuttgart 21' - the government deciding on a mega-project, renewing the Stuttgartian main station, planning in a budget that is way beyond what we could effort, then even bloating the actual costs further up, (and yea, other people cry about 'refugees' taking away all our money [shakes head]); With literally no voice amongst the people agreeing to it, protests being on the way - and hey, an additional shit-hat of confusion regarding where to put the cross on a 'yes-no' paper to not accidentally vote wrong; Where the elections were done 'after' they started digging already!) the less we also trust them elections to be legit. But be that as it may, lets picture the following scenario: A room, one speaker and an audience of 50 people. The speaker starts talking, people in the room are undecided, 10 people are however in alliance with the speaker and make sounds of confirmation. Everyone who was tendentially against the speaker now has an impression of being the minority, not regarding the actual balance; And sympathy can further increase the bias to "buy into" the situation, discarding all serious doubt about it.

I have no problem being open about whom I voted for during the recent elections. I voted for the FDP. They are liberal, forward-looking and 'lifetime-quality' oriented. That is why I also refused to vote for a more extreme 'anti-right-wing' party.
"Word of mouth" however has it that the FDP is a party for rich people, well, because they ... well, I guess I don't really know! Of course I believe that my choice is the best educated guess - and that most people that voted for the AfD would have voted for the FDP if the public relations had shifted respectively. What I'm generally pointing on there is what I have to call 'exposure of concepts' and 'productive exchange of ideals' - which does or would however not happen if one party has an agenda it 'won't' expose, no matter what. So what I do in my mind is to yet aim at exposing them by digging to the logical roots of their agenda and wonder how come there are no answers.
Anyway - all that stuff should become a matter of the past; But what 'we' need to get there is that 'I' get global attention. But to sortof help this thing along, as to also dis-arm the cataclysmic potential of my statement there, the general idea involves the following: "Once I have that attention" (in the dis-armed sense it means 'enough of it') - I'm asking you, the people, to go shopping. You have to buy a red and a blue bandana; And if you feel like it also buy some other stuff - a t-shirt, shoes, whatever in both colors. You guess - and I guess you're guessing right!

So, to help this along and to dis-arm the cataclysm, I pick the color blue and red. That isn't a constant thing, but 'contemporary choice' dependent. The thing is the following: First, if I have enough attention I can pronounce an issue - like the very first would be: "Do you hear me?", once so coupled to a choice. Instead of attempting to vote the way we were used to, I'd at some point have a thing we should vote on; And whatever color you pick, by picking a color you're "giving me power". You're saying: "We hear you, and we're with it!". More importantly: The more people that 'hear me', the more those that don't while being opposed to whatever are forced to follow suit - and bam; Which is why the bad guys will mostly focus on making that bam not come that much like a bam. But so, the thing is the following: Showing color also means that everyone gets a visual feedback of how which people are oriented. So, where are the people that mostly wear blue and where are those that mostly wear red; And who are those shitheads that wear both or something like that? So, a man comes into a bar, ... nobody shows flag, nobody is politically active, so he can talk and start making people feel insecure. With color: A person with a red flag comes into a bar filled with blue flags. Starts saying the same things. The result however entirely different. Instead of insecurity, the social stronghold provided safety!
But if you want to dream about the future, better imagine white.
This could also help people that are otherwise in conflict to find common ground.

Then I'd say we keep a color for a week - and discussions about right and wrong should automatically be less hostile. People can talk!
A craving for a final vote to make things official, solid numbers, can hereby be avoided once the social big-picture is clear enough. Things will automatically roll-on depending how what where; And the big thing to worry most about is relatively harmless after all (false-flags).


Anyway - this is easy and efficient; Where the greatest concerns for forgery are a matter of who chooses/draws which color for what. We can do it on the fly. We can so quickly react; And finally - well, my bad - we might also need white bandanas in case of ... reasons.
It also helps taking away tension from things that aren't deemed relevant enough - to move things into different directions - as well, seriously, we don't wanna vote on something new every other day or so. Maybe, kindof.

Whatever!


It would also be a nice feature for online-forums and something similar for news and anything that holds any political/social balance/weight. You know! Just as a poll, provided it is any good, on every topic that requires consense to become valid; Like "Warcraft is a bad movie!" (it isn't!).
But of course we should yet sortof tend against giving any shits about it outside of actual forums where people practically talk to each other; And to some extent should tend against giving any shit about what online polls say! So, we should have good issues before calling on a vote like that, so people have a serious reason to go out every once in a while.


"Problems over problems" - we'll figure it out eventually! I hope! At least the simple parts of it shouldn't be much of a problem! The rest is just as anything else and always: Evolution!
United Evolution
Christopher Nikolaus Sonnberger, June the 7th 2016 AD, 19:01