If We Want to Change the World, We Need to Work Together

Hi Everyone,

We live in a very divisive world. We are constantly pressured to always take a side regarding something. This pressure comes from everywhere. It is from our families, our friends, our colleagues, community leaders and groups, mainstream media, social media influencers, and even people we barely know.

Once we have chosen a side, we feel compelled to commit to that side. A part of that comes from pressure from those who have chosen our side. Another part of that comes from ourselves. Many of us are unwilling to admit we might be wrong.

We should not feel that we need to take sides regarding any issue. If we intend to take a side, we should not feel we need to do so immediately. It takes time to understand a situation. Therefore, we should take time to form our own opinions. Sometimes we may even conclude that we do not even need to form an opinion. If eventually we do form an opinion, this opinion is not a life commitment. We will encounter new information. We should not reject something because it appears to conflict with what we believe. Neither should we flip too easily. We should consider this information along with what we already know and believe. If necessary, we can form new opinions based on the new overall picture we have formed.

Differences often gain more attention than similarities. Two people might agree on 90% of things, but the 10% they disagree on will become the focus of their engagement. This leads to more conflict than is necessary. This is particularly true if the disagreement is regarding something that should be trivial to the relationship between these people.

We need to put our differences aside and focus on the big picture. Our societies are not functioning for the benefit of most people. I believe this has now become the opinion of the majority. Our differences in opinion relate more to why this is the case.

Dissatisfaction with Our Leadership

Many people are greatly dissatisfied with their Governments and how their countries are being run. This is particularly true for western countries. Figure 1 contains the trends in US citizens’ satisfaction with the US, and Figure 2 contains the trends in UK citizens’ satisfaction with their Government.

Figure 1: Americans’ Satisfaction with the Way Things Are Going in the US (1980–2023)

Source: Gallup

Figure 2: UK Government’s Approval Ratings (2011–2023)

Source: YouGov

Citizens of many other countries share similar negative sentiments about their leaders and Governments. Figure 3 contains the approval ratings of leaders from several countries based on opinion polls from around the end of 2023 to the beginning of 2024.

Figure 3: Approval Ratings of Various World Leaders

Source: Morning Consult
Note: The latest approval ratings are based on data collected from December 13, 2023 to January 2, 2024. Approval ratings are based on a seven-day moving average of adult residents in each country, with sample sizes varying by country.

Of the 22 countries listed, only four leaders had an approval rating of 50% or higher. One of those four was Poland’s Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, who was elected in December 2023. Therefore, his approval rating is artificially boosted by being new in office. Prior to his election, the previous Prime Minister’s, Mateusz Morawiecki, approval rating was reported to be below 50% (The First News).

The Obvious Decline

Most of the western world has been in decline for a long time. I discuss this in detail in my post, Cost of Living Crisis – A Collection of Symptoms caused by Serious Long-term Political Failure. Many of us were not aware of this decline. Even though salaries had stagnated, standards of living continued to appear to increase. However, much of this improvement came from the creation of debt, not wealth. Typically, people who did not experience any noticeable improvements in their standard of living would blame it on the incumbent Government rather than consider it an overall decline in the country.

In recent years, this decline has become obvious because it has been more rapid. We have experienced crisis after crisis. Each one compounding the impact of the previous one. This decline is impossible to hide. We are faced with two main questions. What are the causes of this decline? What can we do to stop or reverse this decline?

The False Solution

Note 1: Model explained in ‘Exploring the Political Spectrum (Octagon Model)'
Note 2: Placement of political ideologies is subject to my own perceptions

The typical way of thinking would lead people to believe that the incumbent Government had caused the decline and that the solution would be to vote in another Government that would do things differently. Hence, the reason we see two parties or collective groups of parties bouncing back and forth. One claiming to be ‘left-wing’ and the other ‘right-wing’. However, both ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ parties are producing very similar results. Both are failing. This is typically because they are considerably more similar than most voters believe. They create the illusion of difference by focusing on the few, often insignificant, differences they have. Bouncing between the two similar ideologies is not improving our circumstances.

The so-called ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ parties are not what they claim to be. The ‘left-wing’ parties promote themselves as liberal and sometimes social democratic, and the ‘right-wing’ parties promote themselves as conservative. Both are lying. The ‘left-wing’ parties are moving towards global plutocratic socialism, and elements of the ‘right-wing’ are moving towards corporatocracy. Essentially, they are slightly different forms of global authoritarianism. In my post, ‘Is Socialism being used as a path to Fascism?’, I explain how so-called ‘left-wing’ ideology is moving closer to fascist-like authoritarianism, but on a global rather than a national scale.

The outcomes of these two ideologies are so close that many members of the public are struggling to see significant differences. People who typically support ‘right-wing’ ideology are making this observation. Therefore, some so-called ‘right-wing’ politicians are promoting ideology that appears more radically different from what the so-called ‘left-wing’ parties are promoting. This was trialled in the USA with Donald Trump. He claimed to support nationalism over globalism, individualism over collectivism, and freedom of speech over censorship. We could call this national populism, which is close to the opposite of global plutocratic socialism.

National populist parties and leaders have the potential to offer us a better outcome than global authoritarianism, but because of our existing systems, it only offers a temporary respite. The focus of national populist leaders such as Donald Trump and Geert Wilders (Dutch) is nationalism. This is in strong response to the globalist aspect of so-called ‘left-wing’ parties. Their advocacy for freedom is considerably weaker in practice, as national populists often use authoritarian methods to achieve their objectives.

The main purpose of national populism is to support the two party/ideology political systems. The national populist plays the role of controlled opposition. I discuss this to some length in my post, ‘Are the ‘right-wing’ hijacking conspiracy theory to maintain the two party system?’

Truthers

Truthers are an interesting group of people. Truthers are people who challenge the mainstream narratives. Prior to this millennium, there were few truthers. Back then, the only one I paid attention to was David Icke.

After the World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York were destroyed (911 Attack), the truther movement took off. In hindsight, this is not too surprising. This was one of the biggest cover-ups in US history. There are still so many unanswered questions from that day. How were the Twin Towers brought down? How was Tower 7 brought down? What actually hit the Pentagon? What were the US Government’s full motives for the cover-up? Who were the real culprits?

The lack of logical and substantiated answers has caused people to search for their own answers. Many of these 911 sceptics started to wonder about other things that their Governments might be covering up. Many had enough suspicion to become dedicated ‘truthers’.

The intentions of these truthers vary. Some of them are genuinely searching for truth and answers. They want to share their findings for the benefit of others. Some of them are less sincere. They are interested on jumping on the bandwagon for revealing conspiracies. They have more interest in gaining attention than actually revealing the truth. Some of them deliberately spread false conspiracies or make up their own.

The worst and most dangerous ‘truthers’ are the controlled opposition. They are planted to manipulate people. They typically have some inside knowledge and understanding of events. They truthfully share much of this knowledge, but they also misdirect with misinformation, exaggerations, and deliberate omissions. They also tend to focus deeply on certain conspiracies. This is often used to distract attention from more serious or important ones.

The ‘clickbait’ truthers are normally easy to pick out. Their content is often inconsistent and poorly supported by evidence. The controlled opposition truthers are harder to detect. This is because they mostly share facts. They also tend to be more charismatic and better wordsmiths. Thus, they sound more believable. Controlled opposition are often famous or well known before officially announcing themselves as truthers. They typically do not fully break ties with establishment bodies. They do face extensive censorship on all platforms. Some controlled opposition come out of nowhere, but they often become well recognised as truthers within a very short time. Social media algorithms would need to be on their side for this to happen. This is a strong indication that they are not genuine.

Many of the more prominent truthers are fighting among themselves. X has been the platform for many of these disagreements. The arguments have been mostly focused on calling each other out as controlled opposition. The diagram below contains some of the accused.

Note: Compiled by Amazing Polly (X Account)

Different people have called the accused controlled opposition different names. Two names that I frequently come across are new narrative gatekeepers and the mainstream alternative media. Some of the accused are obvious controlled opposition (e.g., Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, and Andrew Tate). They have been famous for a long time and strongly promote Donald Trump.

Some of the other people do not have obvious political agendas. A good example would be Dr. John Campbell. For about the first year of the Covid-19 fiasco, John aligned himself with the approaches proposed by the Government. He even supported the jab. Over time, he became less supportive. He made videos voicing his concerns. He typically did so by using readily available data from recognised sources. Gradually, his content focused on the emerging health crisis that evidence suggested was strongly caused by Government actions and the Covid-19 jabs. He managed to avoid censorship from YouTube by being clever about how he presented his content. He would use data from official documents. He would highlight the wording used without making any claims he did not substantiate entirely in his video.

His following climbed because he was one of the few professionals who persistently challenged the narrative. It is still possible that John Campbell is controlled opposition. He has rapidly grown his channel. This is a possible warning that the system is promoting him. His motive for gaining people’s trust could be so that he could manipulate them more easily later on. However, we could make that claim about anyone. So far, his actions are not indicative that this will be the case. If that is his motive, we will know eventually. In the meantime, we should continue to be enlightened by the content of his videos.

Many of the more successful truthers have enormous egos. They are borderline narcissistic. Their motives for attacking other truthers most likely stem from jealousy and/or sense of entitlement for attention. Such people include Jeff Berwick (Dollar Vigilante), Maram Susli (Syrian Girl), Max Igan (Crowhouse), and many in the Anarchapulco crowd.

Most of their content is good and reasonably accurate. I believe they have good intentions, but good intentions are not or no longer their main motivator. They crave attention and recognition for what they believe is their valuable contributions. They happily want to discredit anyone they believe are encroaching on their accomplishments. Their huge egos also inhibit them from admitting or acknowledging their mistakes. Hence, some of the information they present is far less valuable. This also leads to them attacking people who have a different opinion or perspective about something. Stepping out of line with the truther narrative makes someone uniformed or controlled opposition. A true truther should welcome opposing ideas. This is how we advance our knowledge and way of thinking.

Some people have dedicated themselves to exposing the truth and have done so at great risk. Below is a list of people whose efforts to expose certain secrets might have ultimately cost them their lives.

What’s Important?

We could endlessly argue about every possible conspiracy and its implications. In the grand scheme of things, none of the detail is important. What is important is knowing that the system we are in is broken and rigged against us. The people in the system, regardless of their intentions, cannot meaningfully change anything by operating through the system (I discuss the system/s in my post ‘The Establishment’). The most important contribution a person can make is to challenge the system.

The system that we are most likely to be able to change is the political system. The Establishment uses representative 'democracy' to create the illusion of choice. We can collectively challenge this by not voting for any party or candidate who does not commit to changing the system.

A fundamental change that is necessary is the decentralisation of control and power. This can be done by abolishing political parties. There are only 15 countries that do not have political parties (ResearchGate). However, these countries are mostly monarchies or autocracies. Independent candidates can replace party candidates. They would be accountable to their constituents instead of party leaders.

In my post ‘What would get me to the ballot box?’, I breakdown the changes I believe need to be made to the political system for it to begin to become functional for the people. In another post ‘Blockchain Government – Part 1: Breaking Down the Existing System’, I discuss the changes I believe are necessary for a political system to transition to a decentralised blockchain-based political system.

A decentralised blockchain-based political system is just an idea and a possible approach to change. There are many other possibilities, but they need to have certain qualities to prevent anyone or any group from gaining too much power. Below, I have listed seven qualities that I consider essential for any new political system to uphold.

Transparency
Accountability
Representativeness
Fairness
Fit-for-purpose
Consistency
Effectiveness

I discuss these qualities in detail in my post, ‘Leadership – Prevent, Solve, or Manage’

The other areas of the Establishment (religion, media, banking, and big business) will lose considerable influence if we are able to fix the political system. We would essentially be breaking a critical link in the chain.

Conclusion

Change is difficult. Whether we like it or not, we are heading towards change. Societies and economies around the world are collapsing (see my global collapse series). Change will occur because it has to. Change can follow our current trajectory, which will be disastrous for many. Change can follow the path set out by the Establishment, which will be to their benefit and our detriment.

Neither of these two scenarios needs to play out. We can determine change. We can push for the changes we want. We can build the systems we want so that we are able to ensure that decisions are made for our benefit. This will only be possible if people work together. This can happen if people focus on the big picture rather than the little things.

I have several collections of posts. I have organised these collections based on content and purpose.

The first collection contains six collection posts created before PeakD had the collection feature. Four of these posts relate to the core of my content; one of them contains all my Actifit Posts, and one of them contains my video course, ‘Economics is Everyone’.

The second collection consists of the posts that I consider define my channel. These posts are significant in terms of content as well as how they contribute to the growth of the channel. These posts reveal the most about what I believe in.

The third and fourth collections are what I call my ‘Freedom-based Economics Living Book’. They contain all the posts that support my ideas about the value and power of freedom. Some of these posts explain what we can achieve with freedom and what we need to utilise it for. Some of them explain how we are deprived of freedom and how we often give up freedom for security and comfort. The third collection concludes with possible scenarios depending on what we (society) choose to do.