An Open Letter to Educated Persons of the Modern World

A Place for Amends

There are those who have listed contemporary political issues that they would like to redress.  I would like to add that what has happened in the past few years has continued a pattern, for those of us who have been watching government injustices across recent decades.  For example, I have been a supporting member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth since 2007, and this is part of a sizable 9/11 Truth movement, seeking justice. More recently, the covid pandemic appears to have brought about some of our greatest modern government injustices to date.

I find civilization traditionally suffers from its complexity, where to remain comprised of our shared infrastructure, people from the private sector have had to dedicate themselves to providing us with a fourth estate, i.e., estate of the media and press.  I find this is why history is filled with the propagandizing of the people, and is accompanied by its SCADs, or “state crimes against democracy”.  This proposition delves into adding democratic method to the fourth estate, for monitoring and redressing government injustices.

Appeal  

We live in the modern world, which I would most highly characterize as a pair of things.  One is its fantastic explosion in knowledge, and the other is its seemingly equally great downfall in politics.  The British colonies of 18^th-Century America saw a degree of unrepresentative taxation; I think far less tyranny than the existential threats we face today.  I think that when we went into our minds, in our departments, we divorced ourselves from our physical community, politics, and world.  

We can rediscover these things.  We can find ourselves as a society of living beings where we do not divorce ourselves from our political realities.  Do not ask to be tucked away, inside of a system that is said to work.  We will have a system, but we will be in charge.  We need to amend the necessary political awareness and participation to ourselves.  As it presently stands, we are tolerating the politics of our leadership; for the future, we may as well endeavor, instead, to tolerate the politics of ourselves.

An honest method may be rekindled.  No one can privately own or operate political success – this must be democratic and overseen at the level of the grassroots individual, as has been known politically for centuries.  There can be a private seed-group at first, and it can define a democratic method and resign to it to follow.

Success in democratic architecture is historically rooted in common, universal causes.  That government which we publicly share, and which we may put on trial in a criminal or civil forum for its actions, serves us with matters of common cause.  In these times, it appears that such injustices run broadly, and are well referenced by available evidence.  We biologically, psychologically, and spiritually share in our motives for redress.

In common cause, each of the local districts of the land may organize itself, and these districts may put forth their delegates to a central body.  In a legislature of its own, at least 2/3 support may be required to uphold any claim of a government injustice.  Universal claims are called nonpartisan, but I think they can be more directly understood when they are called universal.  For example, “rape, rob, maim, and kill” are things which we tend to recognize and respond to universally.  Such an organization can persist indefinitely, as a non-governmental amendment to the publicly shared structure.  It can define itself as an agency which monitors and redresses universally recognized government injustices.  

[Add: A sprawling, privately-owned fourth estate will also no doubt continue.] When we go forward into facing our shared concerns, we can generally do so on one team.  A democratic organization is a living thing; it is not owned or controlled by any individual or group; it is the sum of all of its parts, and it has its own political process.  This is a central promise to the individual and to all.

Expanding Notions of the Fourth Estate

Imagine any publicly available information falling into the fourth estate.  Any specialized area of knowledge can be brought to the forefront in contemporary politics.  In research, we commonly summarize “secondary sources” as “textbooks and periodicals.”  In today’s day and age, we’ll include “media” sources.  Now, we can relate the “fourth estate” in politics to “secondary sources” in research. 

Method will be needed to be worthy of public trust.  This is the method being used to back any statements being made.  Research recognizes the need for primary sources, and the inherent shortcomings of relying upon secondary ones.  Incidentally, one of the most common problems I see in today’s fourth estate is in its errors of omission.  We can’t just take someone from the secondary and call it a good representation; we need to have hearkened back through primary source material, comprehensively, and verify all of this with our own eyes.  Otherwise, someone will be doing this work for us, thus appearing in the secondary.  I think we will have to trust a method (worth trusting) to handle this matter.

Scientific Versus Political Method

The scientific method produces knowledge.  When we may or may not surely know what we are doing, the political method produces laws and actions.  This is a method for backing statements (and actions) – not of knowing, but of occurring.  

I see each of these two methods as epistemic.  A voluntary, democratic organization with a legislature requiring 2/3 support, with transparency and accountability, applies a great amount of political method.  We’ll remove money from elections, as many democratic NGOs do.  Herein, I define our goal as to include being informed; to not undermine, in our democracy, the quality of our votes.  It just so happens that this organization is proposed to compile information on government injustices.

Modern Man Needs Method

People commonly call statements by the government true.  They say this about statements by universities.  There is the common belief among the consumers of the fourth estate, i.e. the media and press; that there is valid method in this “open and free” sector.  There are commonly unrecognized failures in method in modern clinical journals, a variety of NGOs, and our most well-recognized charities. 

For example, a modern journal typically reserves the right for its owners and editors to filter out submissions behind closed doors.  Peer review has turned out to be an epistemic disaster (See James Corbett’s Crisis of Science – 30 mins).  People today do not know of private control in hospitals and universities.  There are NGOs such as Greenpeace and the American Cancer Society, and I have found the capture by private interests to have occurred in every one of the sources mentioned, and more.  

Proper method is in the consensus of a community beyond private interests, which means that method checks man.  I believe that method can make a source more-so primary, revolving around how much man has been checked.  If I have seen all the primary material myself, then I have rivaled it.  Otherwise, there is trust, and the methods of others.  This modern society appears to me to be substantially epistemically challenged.  It is as if trust, reputation, and authority are the only ways to say that anything is true today, for example via the sources mentioned above.  I think it is like living inside of a giant totalitarian machine, and in today’s day and age as though I have to do so as a disenfranchised individual.

This is a proposition for amending method in the fourth estate.  Political method may seem foreign to modern man, but I think that the political world has been operating largely outside of the world that modern man has been operating in.  We may be operating in a system, but there is always “we”.  For example, in the definition of the USA, I think “we the people” is primarily what the nation is all about.  It is we that are important.  

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” – Thomas Jefferson

In the general population, we are who the leadership panders to.  We can rediscover ourselves.  We can see the existential threats to us in our contemporary politics, and that we share these concerns.  As we learn more about method, we can compile and organize our real-world resources, and apply them.  I would also argue that we can use this approach in healing as a species.  Maybe we have become too divorced from our physical world and lives, and maybe we can use this method as a contribution to humanizing our society. 

The Particulars of Political Method

I have been an educated person without familiarity in this area, and now with some research I will break political method down into constitutional writing and parliamentary rule.  We will say that constitutional writing includes laws and bylaws; that it is writing agreed to by all; it is taken to precede the assembly, or group.  Parliamentary rule will include all the rules of democratic function, for purposes previously unspecified.  This will include rules of the creation and conduct of democratic meetings and committees.  

Constitutional writing is limited to what is written, but operation in accordance with it is expected to be steadfast.  (One might consider argumentation behind the writing in parallel with it, such as in the case of the Federalist Papers in parallel with the US Constitution.)  There is a learning curve to using parliamentary rule, but with it, a group is made capable of dynamically providing for any of its ongoing, democratic needs, including the passage of constitutional writing.

Putting political (architecture and) method as just two things may gloss some positive features over.  There are many reusable elements of structure for the necessary bylaws that have been used in laws, and in the bylaws of democratic NGOs.  

Below is an example statement on what voluntary NGOs are.  The UN is quoted on this at one point, and in my next reference, the UN statement appears to have removed saying “to address issues in support of the public good”.  I would like to include that there are credit unions across America which are democratically owned and operated and would classify as worker cooperatives. 

From the American Psychological Association (APA): NGOs, the UN and APA

“[NGOs include] international charities such as OXFAM and Save the Children, research institutes, churches, community-based organizations, lobby groups and professional associations.”…” The United Nations (U.N.) Department of Public Information (DPI) defines the NGO as “a not-for profit, voluntary citizen’s group that is organized on a local, national or international level to address issues in support of the public good.” “…

From the UN currently: The UN and Civil Society (Same quote on the About page)

…”A civil society organization (CSO) or non-governmental organization (NGO) is any non-profit, voluntary citizens’ group which is organized on a local, national or international level. “…

From the US State Dept: The Essential Role of Non-Governmental Organizations in the Development of Democracy

…”U.S.-based NGOs such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the Center for International Private Enterprise, the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute, IFES and Freedom House actively promote democracy across the globe.”…

Ukraine and Venezuela have experienced a great deal of US promotion of democracy abroad, and I’ve given Venezuela its own section further on.  Regarding Ukraine, see Ukraine Crisis - What You're Not Being Told (Mar 2014 - when the war started, 10 mins) for more NGO details.  I have found activities in the State Department list of NGOs to reflect select (private) interests.  

For those who would wish to form a private group that would establish starting rules for a democratic NGO (for the public good), I would recommend looking at parliamentary rule; although a private (seed) group need only be self-managing.  A “district” could be defined, and after the districts have come into existence, they can produce a legislature that can write national bylaws.

For deeper reading on parliamentary rule, here are some books on the topic. 

Robert's Rules of Order Fast Track: The Brief and Easy Guide to Parliamentary Procedure for the Modern Meeting

Robert's Rules For Dummies … Example cheat sheet   

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Parliamentary Procedure Fast-Track

I have also read books on this online at the Open Library

Method Before the Modern World

In 18^th-Century America, a legislature was created outside of British parliament, called the Continental Congress.  A contingent of the people democratically created a legislature of their own.  Of course, at the time, communities were, in relative terms, I think incredibly strong.  They had no telecommunications technology, and there were no corporate workplaces.  In 1791, the third-largest city in a nation of 3.9 million was Boston, at 18,000, and the over 3.8 million remaining lived in smaller communities.  By the 1791 census, 90% of the population lived on farms. 

Revolutionaries felt that taxes being imposed upon them were not representative, and they wanted to have their own representatives.  I would say they gave us a shining example of a democratic uprising against the status quo.  They also felt so strongly about the need for free speech, that they made it the number one item in the original Bill of Rights.

“Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The reason for this example is because they created a legislature outside of the government, which I think we could do again.  This time it would be to remain in the fourth estate, and not to replace the government.  For reference, the history of democratic countries is listed on the Wikipedia’s history of democracy page.  

Method in the Third World Today

In 1996, Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela, and in 1997, he ordered the creation of a new constitution.  This document was drafted and signed into law in 1999, as what has come to be called the “Chavez Constitution”.  It is also called a “Bolivarian” constitution, in dedication to revolutionary leader Simon Bolivar (1783-1830).  [The constitution: Text  Wiki ]

I would call this a second example of trying to establish a more democratic system of government.  In the 1990s, 75% of Venezuelans lived in extreme poverty, and local oligarchs along with foreign interests had much control over the wealth of the nation.  In 2002, Chavez took control of Venezuelan oil from foreign (US) interests, and the US adopted a hostile view towards the country.  Ever since, US NGOs have been working with the political opposition.

I encourage everyone to watch The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (2003; 1 hr, 15 min, 8.3/10 at IMDb), which will help us in understanding what statements I’ve made.  In this documentary, an Irish film crew went to Caracas in 2002 to find out about Hugo Chavez, and as it turned out, they captured a coup and a recovery.   I recall seeing a common man holding a copy of the constitution in his hand, feeling empowered by it, as the people rose up against the tyranny.   For me, this is very much a feel-good film; I feel proud of what the Venezuelan people have managed to do in the name of democracy.

In this period, Venezuela has also experienced a struggle between workers and industrial oligarchs, which has produced worker’s unions, as can be seen in No Volveran (they do not return): The Venezuelan Revolution Now (up to 2012 footage: 1 hr, 29 min).

In 2016, the US backed a puppet-for-president in Venezuela named Juan Guaido.  There was enough opposition built up to cause calling for the exercise of a provision of the Chavez Constitution in defense.  The people’s side was able to call for the election of a national assembly (ANC) to rewrite the national constitution.  This assembly was created, and has existed for a few years, and will end itself at the end of this year.  I think it was successful in showing how far the people could go to stand up against tyrannical opposition.  So far, unlike a number of other nations, with one of the largest oil reserves in the world, Venezuela has survived against US-led desires to change its leadership.  They have also had to deal with heavy sanctions, market manipulation, and black-market currency. 

Here are some links to information on what’s been said:  

Sep 2012: Carter States That the Election Process in Venezuela is “the Best in the World”

Jul 2017: Venezuela Sees “Historic” Turnout in National Constituent Assembly Elections

Apr 2019: How Long Does It Take To Write A New Constitution?

Sep 2020: Venezuela’s Constituent Assembly: No New Constitution on the Way

Abby Martin in Venezuela - Supermarkets to Black Markets (2017, 22 mins)

Summary

In politics, let us begin by stating the problem.  I would say this problem originates in a need for people with their own families and careers to have open, direct access to important public information.  We have to classify the fourth estate as its own department, and as a matter of primary architectural importance, and so our society will have to apply enough method to check it.  Put another way, I think we have to check man here, because we’re mostly in other departments.  By confining an otherwise open legislature to common cause, where at least 2/3 support is required to make a statement, perhaps we can overcome our shared problems. 

This article is posted on this site, which includes further discourse on this approach.  Thank you for reading this.  Please feel free to give a like, or make a comment.