The Art of Beating Politics The Practice

By Rene Blampain

The average citizens are unaware of the power they already have to control politics in public life, politics which are called "Old Politics" in this eBook.

This control of Old Politics is becoming more important as we evolve and it has reached the stage in which it does not imply an incremental improvement or an incremental deterioration of public life anymore but the very survival of life on the planet.

Controlling politics can be summarised in two words: "controlling greed".

The universal human want of comfort and prosperity is not greed.

But to control greed, which is a matter of intention, countless small details of Old Politics must be restored to their just and sociable characteristics because there is no single rule to achieve this objective.

This eBook shows how this must be done.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Rene Blampain
• Release date: May 27, 2022
• ISBN: 9780648549628

Book preview

The Book

Beating Old Politics

Important Definition

A Summary Of The Book

Why And How

Corrupt From Its Root

Beating Old Politics

Important Definition

The terms Old Politics are used abundantly in this book and refer to the sources of all the problems of humanity lasting for the thousands of years during which it has been governed.

These forces are:

The politicians

Big business

The justice system commonly called the law.

The book is intended to explain the complex and often secret relationship between these forces whose intentions have always been to exploit society.

How to exploit has always been very simple as it was only necessary to promise to society to govern it in exchange.

Governing has for thousands of years been a repetition of leaders promising to govern better than their predecessors who did not govern well.

This was even the case when popular governing consisted of acquiring by force the land and the property of neighbours.

A Summary Of The Book

This book will explain how and why it is necessary to beat Old Politics which can be done with its own tools.

Yes, as surprising as it may seem, we can use Old Politics itself to conquer it.

In fact, it can not be done peacefully in any other way.

The book will also show that to succeed, beating Old Politics must be done from the bottom up and not from the top down.

Trying to beat Old Politics from the top is like declaring war.

This top (the leaders) then feels utterly threatened, it mobilises all its troops, collects all its ammunition's and prepares for a fight to the death.

But trying to beat it from the bottom is manageable to these leaders.

This is because they know that in the worse possible scenario, they can only lose a little something and they are prepared to lose this little something if that is the cost of remaining in government.

However, they could lose a lot more if they, rather than you, were to declare war on the other.

Because it is not a philosophy applied from the top, the book is not written to be an authoritative and professional document.

It only describes a plan and it is from this plan taken as a guide that the professionals will have to deduce the authoritative documents.

The book is also written in the most simple grammar to be easily understood by as many readers as possible but mainly to be as successful as possible in machine translation also called software translation.

Rightly or wrongly, the author has concluded that, the organisation being an international organisation, it was more important to have, as soon as possible, cheap translations of a poor quality, rather than waiting a long time to have sufficient funds to pay for professional translations.

Machine or software translations allow us to produce cheaply translations that give a gist of the original in more than a dozen languages while professional translations in those languages would cost an enormous amount of money that we simply do not have.

Why And How

Why and how to beat Old Politics are simple.

An in-depth explanation (a large book) is necessary only because every aspect or small component of Old Politics had to be distorted for thousands of years by successive generations of politicians.

Nothing in Old Politics could have escaped that requirement because reality has always been something that Old Politics had to hide or distort at any cost to survive politically.

The intentions of Old Politics have always been resented by society and as a result each of its intention always had to look different than what it was, just to be barely acceptable to society.

The consequences have always been that anything political must always look very complicated to disguise what the rulers really intend to do and deceive those who are ruled into welcoming it.

There is no better example than the law (the Justice system) in which Old Politics has made certain that the average person has absolutely no say because there is no room in it for the morality that the vast majority of people want to see in it.

Society and the law are in perpetual conflict because people want to see justice through morality and honesty while the law mostly wants to see justice according to what is not illegal which regularly is completely immoral and completely dishonest.

The simple fact that the law has never been made according to the expectations of society, but always according to the wishes of Old Politics, is proof that it is vital to beat Old Politics.

Corrupt From Its Root

As a simple example, unknown to most people and because it is not illegal, it is legal by inference for the police (the foundation of the justice system) to lie to you when interrogating you for the purpose of resolving a social issue or a crime.

This may sound anodin and look justified if the police says to you that your accomplice has confessed and you think that if the police knows how you have robbed the bank, you may as well confess too and limit your punishment.

But it leads to gross injustice when, in a true case, the police lied and said to a man: We know your little brother has done it and we are going to nail him..

And big brother believes that the police was telling the truth when it was not.

This simple case, repeated often and used by Old Politics as a textbook, shows convincingly that Old Politics has ensured that the justice system can always be manipulated to their advantage at any level.

The complexity of the justice system is such that going to court without a lawyer (or preferably a number of lawyers) ensures that you will be talking to someone (a judge or a number of judges) for whom every word you utter may have a meaning you did not expect.

This judge said to a female self-represented litigant: You realise you are at a disadvantage. to which she candidly replied: I know your honour but I have the truth.

Judges know most litigants think they have the truth.

What the judge was trying to tell this lady was that the truth has very little weigh, if any and that legal proceedings consists of many other things than what she was complaining about and her truth.

The law is throughout history an endless accumulation of patches covering previous patches.

Each patch will only be a small improvement in favour of Old Politics.

What Is Society?

There Is Only Two Classes

The Politician And The Non-Politician

Safety In Numbers

There Is Only Two Classes

The Politician And The Non-Politician

It is critical to understand how our society is formed if we want to understand politics.

Anyone can verify for oneself that the following description is true and accurate and is not a new theory to which one has to subscribe blindly to understand this book.

Our society consists of two classes of people and every citizen belongs mostly to one class but may occasionally and temporarily belong, willingly or unwillingly, to the other.

These classes are the Politicians and the Non-politicians.

Basically and broadly, we can define these classes as follows:

The non-politician earns its main income according to time invested in a paid activity.

The politician earns its main income according to the quantity (of goods or services) the politician is able to influence or control within its activity.

It is almost impossible to be both a politician and a non-politician because the mindset of each are at the extreme opposite of the spectrum.

If one is both, one is inevitably in a transition period going from one to the other by choice (hoping to get richer becoming a politician) or by necessity (having failed in business, or being unsatisfied with it, and returning to a job).

One must emphasise the quality of one's work while the other must emphasise the quantity of one's work and both requirements tend to exclude or oppose the other.

However, having to take quantity into account does not make you a politician because quality and quantity are mutually detrimental and often lead to a natural compromise that determines the level of each in a good or service.

For example a baker needs to attain a level of quantity within his level of quality but quality predominates while a wholesaler (a person or a company) may prioritise quantity over quality.

What makes someone a politician when affecting or profiting from quantity is when artificial methods (dishonesty), rather than natural methods, are used to obtain the result.

Your personality will determine which class you predominantly prefer to live with.

However, being a politician or a non-politician could irremediably determine the way you behave in your entire life.

This is because life presents the choice to us rather early and makes it difficult to change it although changing it is not impossible.

A non-politician is anyone who depends on one's own production to put food on the table.

This is the unskilled worker or the tradesman or the professional or the artists, salespersons, the housewife, the househusband and small business operators.

The amount of money one earns does not determine if one is a politician or a non-politician.

For example a clerk working for a supermarket may not earn much and be a politician if the purpose of his job is selling more.

But a famous singer earning a lot of money is likely to be a non-politician because his future may depend on the time spent on his next song and its quality (at least according to its fans).

A shareholder is a potential politician.

A shareholder does not increase his or her production to increase her or his earning from the shares but regularly resorts to politics to preserve or increase that earning.

You are unlikely to be a politician if you have a job and a small capital invested in shares.

This is because the time required to increase through politics the value or the return of that capital is detrimental to your job.

But you are very likely to be a politician once your shares become the major source of your income.

Then, any job you may have will consume too much of the time needed for the protection and consolidation of those shares through political activity, be it as simple as attending a shareholder meeting.

In one case, you lose money or jeopardise your job if you reduce your working time to boost the value or return of shares you may have.

In the other case, you lose money if you sacrifice the time required by your shares portfolio for the purpose of spending enough time in a job or prioritising its requirements.

However, whatever group you belong to, there is a law from which you can not escape.

That law is that, unlike the tiger or the leopard and many other animals, man can not live alone.

Oscar Wilde said: Society exists only as a mental concept; in the real world there are only individuals..

And the number of individuals that we need just to survive is staggering.

In fact, we would die if we really tried to live independently from society.

That law is one of our main instincts, it is part of our genes and it is called safety in numbers.

However, there is a huge problem when some of that number are not trustworthy AND have succeeded at occupying positions of authority for their own benefit.

Safety in numbers is fine as long as you do not rely on the number for your safety.

As we have seen, political evolution has been extremely slow.

It has taken thousands of years for man to acquire the will to resist with any success the oppression by the rich and the powerful.

It is a fight in which man is progressing but is far from being won yet, if we rely on the political gains made through human evolution alone.

This is due to a simple fact of human nature.

The natural of man is that, when things are peaceful, man wants to enjoy the peace.

Man will never think: Things are quiet and peaceful, surely a fight must be brewing and I must train for it.

Instead, enjoying the peace may be having a good rest rather than reinforcing fortifications.

However, the rich and the powerful may want this resting man to train and mend fortifications, but only its own fortifications.

This rich or powerful may be contemplating its own favourite concept of peace which is often to send others to attack.

G.W. Bush said: I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.

The perpetual mistake that has led to this result is that man has always allowed a ruling class to make laws (legalised practices) favourable to itself that this class claimed to be to the advantage of society.

Once the laws are pronounced (enacted in legalese), man is irremediably subjected to them, having approved them by failing to oppose them.

Then man discovers that the law was not what was promised and it reacts as commanded by its instincts.

But the ensuing conflict becomes unnecessarily disproportionate because man realises that it has allowed things to go too far.

This shows that one can only enjoy peace (and have a rest) under a system of government one can trust.

However, the existence of that instinct alone indicates that, in the end and discounting the possibility of self-extinction, the human society would naturally become just, honest and humane - in another five or ten thousands years.

But what is safety in numbers?

Safety In Numbers

When one talks about safety in numbers, everybody, including the speaker, assumes and implies that it is something peculiar to grazing animals.

People wrongly conclude that it belongs to the African gnu and the zebra trying to escape the lion or the crocodile but it does not apply to man.

But the reality is that safety in numbers is far more important to man and far more developed within our species than it is for the gnu or the zebra or the ape or the birds who all live in number.

And it is easy to understand why.

Once they have escaped because another gnu or another zebra succumbed to the lions or the crocodiles, the gnu and the zebra do not need any help for their food.

But for its food alone, man needs the baker, the butcher, the farmer, the truck driver and the supermarket, to name only the most obvious.

Then man needs clothes and habitat and transport and so many other things that the gnu or the zebra do not need.

Man needs also a job to pay for all this and it has had those needs for thousands of years.

And when exploited, man looks for other exploitation victims to seek justice - and revenge - in number.

Then man senses that the exploitation is a weakening of its protecting society and an attack on it.

If we discover that someone else has been exploited, our emotions will be raised immediately if we also discover that our circumstances are the same than those of the exploited person, making us vulnerable to the exact same exploitation.

When the gnu and the zebra only look for safety in numbers in a small number of situations, man looks for safety in numbers in almost every aspect of its life because its life entirely depends on others for almost everything.

This is why we always expect everybody else to be and behave according to our own image so that we can be protected according to our own tastes, our own aspirations and our own views of life.

For example, a meat lover will have little enthusiasm in sharing a meal with a vegetarian and vice-versa.

Or a deeply religious person will have little interest in having a deep conversation (not an argument) about life with a solid atheist.

The meat lover will only willingly tolerate the vegetarian as long as there are not too many of them.

And the vegetarian, who is already in a minority, is determined to convert as many meat lovers as possible because it still has to reach safety in numbers in that aspect of its life.

And it goes deeper than that because not only do we need others for many things, we need these others to be able (in good health) and willing and as numerous as possible.

We feel safer if we have two bakers to choose from instead of one and much safer again if we have a choice of five bakeries.

This is why we have bred over seven billions of ourselves.

This instinct is ingrained so much in our psyche and growing that we do not even notice it more than we notice our own breathing.

As a part of our subconscious, that instinct takes control of our behaviour despite our reasoning.

Contrarily to common belief (and contrarily to the claims of Old Politics), our spontaneous dislike of the very rich is not triggered by jealousy even if we are jealous.

It is triggered because we all know that the very rich wants to live apart from average people and under different rules.

We also know that the very rich wants a far greater share of what society spontaneously tends to offer than what this rich wants to satisfy its safety in numbers.

And we all instinctively know that this greater share deprives many people of their own safety in numbers, people who may be part of our own safety in numbers.

In doing so, this very rich puts our personal safety in numbers at risk, just by being very rich.

Any spontaneous jealousy we may feel will never trigger any murderous instinct while perceiving a threat to our safety in numbers definitely will.

Old Politics found that they could never accuse you of being jealous of the rich or the powerful because that would be provoking that instinct and it would backfire badly.

Instead, Old Politics found the most insidious way of making you feel guilty of being jealous without touching that instinct.

This consists of glorifying that rich or powerful person or business by exaggerating immensely its fake altruistic intentions and accomplishments.

Old Politics know that, to compensate the frustration of society regarding any excessive wealth, the rich must look generous.

A person or a business may be determined to exploit consumers outrageously and pocket as much as possible - legally - knowing that it is necessary to give to charities, sports, the arts and other groups to diminish or even annihilate their greedy image.

However, they never give to the tax office because the tax office does not call the advertising agencies or the TV crews if it receives a gift.

However, advertising and propaganda can easily make that person or business appear as a type of obsessed benefactor generously disposing of money it collected almost against its own will.

Then you feel guilty of having had animosity toward that person or business and you come to the conclusion that it must be true that it was jealousy that motivated you.

Indeed the powerful, who is also rich, has no hesitation in taking a country to war (as a public distraction to its political problems) just to make sure it remains in power and its own concept of safety in numbers is maintained.

Texas Guinan said:

A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country.

That is exactly what G. W. Bush wanted to do in Iraq.

But we also know that, as