I have thought about this for a while but the thread about: "Do we really need politicians this day and age" [ Which I totally liked BTW] made me start this thread, which is coming from a slightly different angle.

Let me try and explain. In ancient history, those that fought wars well, like Alexander the Great or Ghengis Khan were leaders because of their strategic knowledge and heroism [in this case being at the forefront of the conflict hands on]. The same with some Kings.
Then it changed and there were monarchs. Not necessarily fighting any longer in person but still either ruthless or good at politics per se or just rulers because of heritage. They ruled Lords and Earls and as such the land.
They were a different kind of leader to those that actually went out and literally fought in person.

Then at some point politicians emerged. People that were not necessarily nobility and definitively nor royalty but people with zest, ideas, persuation powers. Maybe even good strategists if there was a war. [of course heritage still mattered but I am trying to show that monarchs were replaced by politicians].
In Britain for example the Queen doesn't actually have any power any longer, it is the Ministers and the Prime Minister that sort of "ruled".
Have you noticed the past tense I used there?
There was a golden era of politicians that were voted into parliament and then did what they thought best, elected by the people.
This era IMO is now over.

I look at any political party here in the UK and find that they are all the same, just with different names. Many people have the feeling that those elected are nothing more than puppets.
This can also be applied to the US Presidents of late.
I am 100% sure that those who we see as the head of state are actually answering to someone else.
So they have IMO taken the place that the Queen has now. They are just for show because we are used to this kind of system.

So we have to ask, if these politicians are just nice to look at, who really has any influence?

Personally, I have the feeling that anything to do with big companies and money and hence advertising and making more money is in charge.
So why don't we change our leadership arrangements once more?
Times have changed. We live in a consumer society and hence we are ruled by big companies.
BTW I am not in any way saying that I like this!!!

First it was the strongest who ruled.
Then it was the cleverest, who ruled
Now it is blatantly those that give us what we want in goods/services that rule [or those with money, but that equates back to consumerism. They own the people. They are the actual new leaders.

The Queen at the moment is merely an icon. She has no power. She is a remnant of times gone by.
Ministers are now exactly the same but they are still treated as if they are in power. Actors, puppets, tokens.

So why not change again and accept that the time of politicians is over and that the time of global companies and/or rich people has come?

Please remember that I do not have to like what I just said but that this is how it is nowadays and I am merely contemplating what would happen if politics as such would be replaced officially by consumerism.
Richard Branson would make a good leader for example

Are politics as they stand in our western world out-dated as consumerism seems more important to the general public than fighting wars?
Should we stop the charades and bring on a new kind of leadership as has been done throughout history, depending on the need and trends of the public?
What do you reckon?

Sorry this post wasn't about gays or Obama...

There is nothing wrong with the US Constitution, created to regulate the elements of civilisation - religion, economics, social and politics while helping mankind to achieve responsible freedom and common aspirations in life. It is not perfect still, for perfection exists not in the mortal world, but had serve US well for 2 centuries as well as for the free world that had adopted largely of its contents, including the UN.

The only flaw lies in the greed of humanity that had sought to undermine the Constitution. Lobbying by the rich should have been banned, but it was not and thus the chaos we live in today.

We humans are barbarians at heart. This is our true natural state. Civilisation was something that was imposed upon us, but it was accepted by the majority as they had no security living under barbarism. Eventual extinction was the only thing they could look forward to under it.

But with Civilisation, it gave them hope that they may live to see more sunrises yet, and a future for their next generations as societies progressed.

Monarchy as a political system had its limits, more so dynastic ones, where power resides in only the few. Some rulers were benevolent but many were plain power lusting greedy pyschopaths, whom decide the lives of mankind, a matter of chance and gambling with fate of our world.

Rather than take a chance, the american system whereby a group representing society rule was created, with checks and balances, to serve all citizens responsibly, regardless if one was the richest man or another the poorest farmhand. It worked, and despite the errors of mortal men, changes were possible, every 4 years by electoral vote. By making mistakes, acknowledging them and then correcting them enabled our progress through time intact.

Unfortunately, barbarism could not be exterminated from our genes under present advances of science. These power lusting greedy mortals only got smarter.

They now worked behind the scenes, lobbying legislators with corruptive powers of coercion and unwarranted advices, that their minds were of a better calibre to decide for the nation than the petty masses, even allowing the legislators full credit for successes ( and usually blame as well, fools that politicians naturally are).

As such, legislators began serving them than listening and serving the masses.

Afterall, a guy in a suit, living in a mansion, chauffered by a huge limosine, armlinked with a bodelicious babe on his side, armed with bags of cash, and with a charming smile providing proof of his talent and successful decision making processes, makes a better convincer of his cause than a raggedly looking petitioner with his unwashed clothes, robbed of his labour and opportunity in life by the rich man and now pleading for succor from his elected legislative.

We, as an awakened society, will have to fine tune the current political system, eliminate opportunities of patronage by the rich and agenda seekers, not overthrow it, for there are none political system better unless we wish to enchained ourselves and our future generations to dictatorships in exchange for stabiliy, to live as slaves/serfs as how our ancestors once did, and screw with mankind's freedom, potential and future.

I agree broadly with your assessment of the way of things in the United Kingdom at the moment. I think that the way things are today, has been caused by a series of factors, each adding in some small way to the sheer level of depravity and disloyalty to the people, that our political leaders and their ilk display.

First of all, I wish to point out that the Labour party as they stand are NOT a labour party at all. They have no firm plan for, nor wish to support to the hilt, the British workforce. They did in days gone by, or more accurately twenty or so years ago (which was the last time the Labour party had a member who knew what hard graft felt like). But now they are as much of a bunch of entitled little public school boys as the Conservative party.

The Conservative party have always been a gaggle of econo-fascistic scum, hell bent on making life damned near impossible for small businesses and working class folks. They have not changed a damn, aside from getting a better PR department head, or at least they DID get a better PR guy. He had to leave his post because he was right in the thick of a scandal surrounding the phone hacking incidents so widely reported in the media. Tells you alot about the party in my view, that they were prepared to touch him with a rifle round from the next county, let alone have him so close to the PM.

The Liberal Democrats... This is a group in whom I am severely disappointed. I had seen the effects of the Tory hatred of workers when I was a young boy, and the blatant turning of the Labour Party into another branch of the same during the Blair years, and voted for the Liberal Democrats last time around in order to deny either the Cons or Labs the right to have any say in my affairs, or those of the people. Lo and behold, the yellow bastards proved to be no better than the other two, by getting into bed with what amounts to the forces of Satan, in political terms at any rate (I am not suggesting that Cameron is actually a deamon, although I am suggesting that he and his party are pretty much evil incarnate).

The fact that every major party has turned its power to the cause of preventing honest hard working folk from earning a decent screw, and allowing contracts which by rights ought to be carried out in Britain, by British companies and British workers, to be handed out to European concerns leads me to believe the problem is with the system, not just the greedy, power hungry, megalomaniacs involved with governance.

The reality is that for a person to attain office high enough to affect the outcomes of political debate, or indeed enact the will of the people on any given situation, one has to have first bowed at the feet of figures and structures in Whitehall, who though unelected, have massive clout. One also has to have impressed the "right people". In order to do this, it is required that a person completely remove, discard, or very carefully hide any presence of moral fibre or respect for the people, that one may have started ones political career with.

Therefore, it has rather ceased to matter a damn, in my opinion, what we replace politics with. The only important thing for the moment, is that politics dies a fast and preferably messy death, at the hands of those it most damages with its constant lies, deceits, broken promises, and empty threats. Once we have removed the cancer from our flesh as a nation, then we can worry about the realities of putting something else in its place. One thing that must happen, if we are to replace the current system with a healthier one is that Whitehall as a power base must be destroyed.

Unfortunately, to do all this would throw our nation into chaos, because the clever, slimy buggers have made themselves indispensable. I really wonder just how much my nation and its people can take before we rise en masse to deal with this problem once and for all? What is it going to take?

Originally posted by Hecate666

Hmm. Hecate is a known name for an evil witch. Also the number you carry in your self-appointed identity seems to point to the direction of evil.

BTW I am not in any way saying that I like this

You are also not in any way saying that you do NOT like this. No one who genuinely hates something, says "I am not saying I like this". Why be so vague? Why not just come out right and say you HATE it? There is something alarming about the way you worded that.

Now it is blatantly those that give us what we want

Excuse me? Give us what we want? What are you talking about? I don't want the things they "give us". Besides, nothing is GIVEN, everything has a price tag. If you don't have the means, you aren't being "given" anything.

Besides, our wants are irrelevant - it's our NEEDS that are important. And there is already One that gives us what we need.

in goods/services that rule [or those with money, but that equates back to consumerism.

You have strange view about the power structure, and quite naive approach to money. The ones that create money, don't care about "having money". Money is debt, and the whole system is designed to collapse. Money is simply another tool to enslave people and to make sure they comply, like good, little slaves. Willingly.. (the best slave is the one that willingly wears the shackles)

They own the people. They are the actual new leaders.

What a strange thing to say. Do you really think people can be owned? No, at least not without their consent (if even then).

I don't even think LAND can be owned (because it's very unfair to those who are born AFTER all land has already been acquired - and we are all supposed to be born equal, with equal opportunities). But that's a longer story.

The fact is, "persons" can and are owned - for persons are created by corporations or governments, and thus they belong to them. People make the mistake of identifying with their "person", by performing joinders. That means that they really only own the "persons" (although people foolishly think they own them themselves, but they don't), but since people have 'identified' with the "persons", that's when they willingly become 'their' property in all practical ways, if not in legal/lawful details.

So why not change again and accept that the time of politicians is over and that the time of global companies and/or rich people has come?

Your post reads like a bad propaganda piece.

What you are talking about is a very naivistic view of things - you don't even mention the bankers, or the whole "strawman" power structure - the very KEY to power, authority and freedom. Search "Freeman on the land", "Common law", "Strawman", "Artificial Person", and try to learn to walk before you attempt to win the olympics 1500 meters race.

Originally posted by Shoujikina

Originally posted by Hecate666

Hmm. Hecate is a known name for an evil witch. Also the number you carry in your self-appointed identity seems to point to the direction of evil.

As much of a God loving Christian as I am, I would never allow myself to consider a persons handle before the point they are making. Even if you have gone on to cover the points made, you are setting yourself up for an utterly unhelpful confrontation. Furthermore, it is not for you or anyone else to judge a person, especially based on such small issues as the name they give themselves on a conspiracy site.

BTW I am not in any way saying that I like this

You are also not in any way saying that you do NOT like this. No one who genuinely hates something, says "I am not saying I like this". Why be so vague? Why not just come out right and say you HATE it? There is something alarming about the way you worded that.

And now you are picking over the word choice of a person who has made some utterly reasonable points, and asked some thoroughly important questions about the world around us. Have you even BOTHERED to consider the substance of what has been said in this post to which you have so venomously responded?

Now it is blatantly those that give us what we want

Excuse me? Give us what we want? What are you talking about? I don't want the things they "give us". Besides, nothing is GIVEN, everything has a price tag. If you don't have the means, you aren't being "given" anything.
Besides, our wants are irrelevant - it's our NEEDS that are important. And there is already One that gives us what we need.

Man cannot live by bread alone, as you well know. And in this day and age that is all the more obvious. This again is something you would probably have an easier time understanding, if you payed attention to things that happen further away than the tip of your nose. This however, according to your responses thus far, may prove more unlikely than we may like to expect.

in goods/services that rule [or those with money, but that equates back to consumerism.

You have strange view about the power structure, and quite naive approach to money. The ones that create money, don't care about "having money". Money is debt, and the whole system is designed to collapse. Money is simply another tool to enslave people and to make sure they comply, like good, little slaves. Willingly.. (the best slave is the one that willingly wears the shackles)

They own the people. They are the actual new leaders.

What a strange thing to say. Do you really think people can be owned? No, at least not without their consent (if even then).

If you have never heard the term, "every man has his price" and understood the truth of it in the world gone mad in which we live, then you have not been paying very much attention. We are currently in the midst of yet another banking scandal which threatens to shake the very foundations of a market BASED on assumed trust. Do you wish to have the oppertunity to recant your statement that people cannot be owned? Whether they choose to be or not is of less than no importance, when the risks which that ownership poses to all of the rest of us are so great.

I don't even think LAND can be owned (because it's very unfair to those who are born AFTER all land has already been acquired - and we are all supposed to be born equal, with equal opportunities). But that's a longer story.

Utter bunkum. Land can and is owned. That is how it can be that a person can be charged for what ought to be a basic human right, that being access to shelter from which no person or group may evict them.
Also, you managed to contradict yourself during your post. That is superbly unhelpful to your ability to get your point across, especially considering how poorly informed the rest of it was.

So why not change again and accept that the time of politicians is over and that the time of global companies and/or rich people has come?

Your post reads like a bad propaganda piece.
What you are talking about is a very naivistic view of things - you don't even mention the bankers, or the whole "strawman" power structure - the very KEY to power, authority and freedom. Search "Freeman on the land", "Common law", "Strawman", "Artificial Person", and try to learn to walk before you attempt to win the olympics 1500 meters race.

edit on 27-6-2012 by Shoujikina because: (no reason given)

The unmentioned items you list are taken as read. We all know the drill. As for learning to walk before attempting olympic gold, you might want to examine your own understanding of the world before you attempt to inflict it on others, especially if you are going to start in by being so damned rude to people based on their site name.