System, law & strategy are theory, you act & decide. ---------------------------------------------------- All the things presented here comprise theory: - Theory of economic principle, contextual principle (land, money, management power), laws, additional details. - Theory of state principle, proposals for democratic systems and rule of law. - Theory on strategies for influencing the status quo in the context of parliamentary semi-democracy and capitalism (the ruling systems in the world today), with an emphasis on how to self-organize to defeat internal corruption. This is all theory, abstract theory. A system of laws, regulations. At times it contains examples of protocols that could be followed, or be used as a starting point to create an agenda, to make the changes toward this system go reasonable and with as few damage as possible, with an emphasis on how to implement the given system (rather then what to do with the system that came before it.) You have to note that this is theory, it is strategic theory, and it is are not situational commands. It is up to you to use your own thinking on the level of general theory and strategic change theory, and your understanding and thinking about your own situation, to create the actual decisions on your own and by your own ultimate judgement. This contains legal protocols to form councils, they do not contain the decisions made by those councils. It is important to realize this separation between general theory and action in real life, because otherwise you migth believe that once this stuff breaks through (if ever), I (jos) would lead it and direct it, and the many would do as I say. I have already theorized that such is a disastrous strategy, and therefore out of the question. Once this stuff breaks through, per strategy the stream of ideas and situational reactions proposed should dry up. Because it is up to you, you must populate it if you want to. It is no more then a boat with a sail, it isn't going anywhere without you in it rigging the sails and setting a course to your liking. First of all it is impossible to direct tens of political groupings in hundreds of nations. Secondly a central directing office means it is not a democracy but a subjugative tyranny. Thirdly, I'm probably dead quickly anyway, or forced under, if the system is thought of a threat by certain people who could lose a lot of money and power, and I was being directing it. If I direct it, murdering me would be a nice way to demoralize it all. Are you 'following the orders of Pythagoras' when you compute the long side of a straight angled triangle ? Or are you rather, having noticed the truth of a^2 + b^2 = c^2, conducting that law under your own conscience and understanding, as a tool to be used ? It is no different with anything here: it is a theoretical tool that can be used, after you prove it in theory and practice for yourselve. It is also for the long term important that you run it all by yourselve, so that no central subjugative tyranny may survive "me." I don't like to talk about "me" because it is irrelevant, but to talk about me in the sense of removing me from the equation can matter a little. This whole thing is: leaderless. I'm not the leader over it any more or less then you. There is no leader. To the degree I'm the leader over it: I abdicated and are gone, you are on your own, that's the way it must be. Then it can grow and shine, maybe (provided you catch the errors which might be in it, I guess, if any). It may be that all this here ( constitutes an easy to follow recipe for complete change and absolute democracy and lasting social stability leading to near perfect social justice in the long term (potentially). But that doesn't mean it is more then an advice. It is not an order coming down with force, merely a suggestion that this - in my opinion - seems a good way to go about these issues of social justice. That is all. The systems are there to be populated by *you* and not all positions be populated by *me* (or play-acting pretences of me). Very important to realize this: we are equal, nobody is boss here, we are equal. If I die it is as bad as if you die. The protocols are there for the governance and decision making. I'm not the boss, but if the protocols are agreeable then that leads to who/what ends up boss. That is boss, that's it. I'm not boss, or king or whatever. Realize that if you want to succeed, because it is up to you all the way every turn. It is up to you. It isn't even a boat: it is a plan on electronic paper, words and graphics. It is nothing, it fits 8 times on a mini-storage device the size of a pink-nail (2010). It is a plan for a boat, measurements of beams and connection diagrams, and a building plan for where to get the wood and tools. A plan is not a boat, it doesn't float, it goes nowhere, it is next to nothing as such. In the whole planet is is as big as a few square millimeter. What will happen is all up to you. I always disagreed when people said: this/that architect build that building. The architect of a building hasn't build anything. He made the plan describing the building, something quite different isn't it. Someone else build it, made it happen for real. The way to talk is to say: this building was build by so and so, such and such drew up the architectural plan and so and so checked it for errors, so and so delivered the materials and so and so kept the books, such and such did the floor pannels while so and so was ... The architect for it was working from a number of demands layed down by so and so, who had was instructed by so and so ... It is the same with this thing, if it happens by your action. I didn't make this, I drew up a plan on paper and that's all, flowing from some general wishes for social justice and stuff. That is all. Writing a novel is probably a lot harder, too. Fortunately for me, this stuff doesn't have to be entertaining to read. For lack of real talent in entertainment, I had to make this up, being crazy enough to try the unthinkbale I guess. It is entirely possible, even likely, that if the architect of a building in question actually was on the job building it, even just doing a small part in rigging the iron for the foundation, or pouring the concrete, or operating the machines to pound into the soil some foundation pillars, that from sheer incompetence in those trades the building collapsed after building it further. Having learned how to compute the weight of the building and applying the knowledge to how big the foundation must be, is one thing. How to rig the steel in the concrete columns of the actual building, is that the same thing as operating the calculator on a desk, no. It seems like it is two things, being good in the one thing means no time to learn the other thing. Being very good at one thing means even less time for the other. Two things that need each other on a complicated building at least. A simple building can be build even without an architect, but not without knowing how to handle the materials reasonably. It is a cooperation, if any one part falls out, someone will probably manage to fill in the gap when needed, become better at it then, ignoring other directions of learning ... then who is the more essential ? Everyone is equally important for it all, the future can go many ways. Without cement, buildings will still be there, without architects, people will manage to put a roof over their heads all the same. Without people knowing how to handle the building material, all the architects would start to put stone on stone and within a few years they would be able to build a small hut and live in it, forgetting how to make up complex buildings from glass and steel. If not for this, if this happens, maybe something better would have happened. Who can tell for sure ?! Who can say how it would have gone ? I can not, maybe you can ? Who knows, maybe one day we will know more, maybe we will know less; maybe someone knows, I don't know. Guessing is one thing, and short term is easier, but beyond that.