Sunday, March 12, 2017

Day 22 - Reflections on the Cashless Society

In order to properly understand the concept of the ‘cashless society’ it is important to grasp something else: what is currently understood to be money in more than 90% of the cases, is not actually money.

More than 90 % of all the cash amounts that are called ‘money’ in today’s economy, are simply digits on a computer. You may think that this is a very banal statement. Yet, the law is very precise when it comes to the definition of what is money. Money, is the Legal Tender which is printed by a (supposedly) government owned Bank. Thus, legal tender in the sense of the law does not include digits on a computer.

Now, you may say that this has little relevance since the digits on a computer are de facto being accepted as money.

To some extent, yes. However, not in every way.

The majority of people believe that the digits in their current or savings account with the bank, are a reflection of the amount of ‘money’ they own. This is not true.

When you open an account with the bank, you become an Account Holder. Please note that the word Holder is very precise and indicates that you do not own the account. You are merely Holding it. In other words, the account belongs to the bank. But how can this be? And what about ‘your money’?

There is actually no money on your bank account. The numbers that you see, represent the amount of the DEBT that the bank has towards you. And this debt needs to be paid out in Legal Tender, in other words, in official money, such as EUROS or DOLLARS or YENS, depending on the country where you are in. When you withdraw cash from a teller, you are actually requesting the bank to REPAY you some of the MONEY that THEY OWE YOU. This is why it comes out of the machine in the form of Legal Tender and not in any other form. Through paying you that amount in Legal Tender, the amount of the debt which the bank owes you, equally decreases. This is why when you withdraw (‘take back’) 100 EUR from the teller, the number in ‘your account’ will go down with 100 EUR.

Now that you hold the cash money ‘in your hand’ you can say that it is ‘your money’ in the sense of the law.

I will continue on this topic in a next blog. Thanks for reading.

Sunday, March 6, 2016

Day 21 - Behind the curtains in Greece

On the 2th of September, 2015, Zoe Konstantopoulou, human rights lawyer and past president of the Greek parliament held a speech at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. During this speech, Zoe made the following statement:

“The government was forced to accept that Parliament legislates on pre-formulated texts of hundreds of pages with no deliberation and at pre-fixed dates with an emergency procedure and with the banks still closed. This extortion was baptized “prerequisites” for an agreement and Parliament was called to abolish laws it had only voted during the previous 4 months and to refrain from any legislative initiative without prior approval by the creditors.

An over 100 page law construed in 1 article was passed on July 15th in less than 24 hours. A 1000 page law construed in 3 articles was passed on July 22nd in less than 24 hours. An almost 400 page law was passed on August 14, in 24 hours.

Parliament legislated 3 times under duress and coercion.

And after this was done, attesting that a large part of the deputies of the major governing party, including the Parliament’s President, refused to vote such legislation, Parliament was inadvertedly dissolved to ensure a “more stable majority” to implement what the people have rejected.”

Following the events in Greece from a variety of media sources, I have come to realize there is a vast discrepancy between what the ‘fast food’ media presents as ‘facts’ about Greece and what is really going on in that country. 

The brutality with which the Greek government was side-stepped and made irrelevant by the ruling forces in Europe, combined with the normalcy with which this was accepted, proves that humanity has never really transcended the Middle Ages. It still only follows and obeys the ‘rights of the strongest’.

Greece is being forced to cut basic life necessities: pension revenue is being brought down to starvation levels and in some cases hospital surgeries have to be performed without any anesthesia because of a lack of funds.

When a country is threatened with bank closures which could lead to massive humanitarian disasters – this is not reform – it is economic warfare. Despite this, ‘the people’ of Europe appear to be accepting of such acts of treason. Are they willing to endure the same intervention in their own countries?

Is it really true that the system is too complex for the individual to make sense of what is really going on? Of course not! This stuff is not complicated. Go study law or economics to begin to pierce through the bullshit and let’s make a stand.

For additional research, visit:

Sunday, December 20, 2015

The Decision to Bomb Syria is Criminal

In the United Nations charter article 2(4) the members of United Nations have agreed on a prohibition towards violence between states. More specifically it is stated that all members shall refrain in their international relations from threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. From the wording of this paragraph it is clear that violence cannot be accepted in the international relationships between states. Considering the history of the United Nations, and why it was created, it is not strange that such a provision was included in the charter. The charter was agreed upon immediately after the Second World War, a war that claimed more than 60 million people. For the people back than, that first hand had experienced the horrors of war, it was common sense to make sure that states would not anymore be allowed to engage in violent conflict.

Sadly, this provision have many times been abused, misinterpreted, and misused. The charter allows for armed conflict in some instances, and that is as a measure of self-defense, when the Security Counsel approves it, which is when there is a threat to international peace and security, and when the armed forces of another nation are invited. There are no other exceptions but these to the prohibition of the use of force. However, it is obvious that charter has not been respected throughout the years. United States is one of those countries that several times have moved against the prohibition on violence. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now, the bombings in Syria, these are not in alignment with the charter, the Security Counsel has not approved them, and hence, according to international law, they are illegal.

Unfortunately the legality of these actions is debated. Both Britain and the US have claimed that their ‘interventions’ in Syria are legally sound in that the cause of action is self-defense, and that they have an invitation from Iraq to help protect their country from the Islamic State. In terms of self-defense, the argument used is that ISIL represents a threat to both the US and Britain.

The problem with this type of reasoning, this constant nitpicking and interpretation of the UN-charter is that the prohibition on use of force is slowly being drained of all substance and meaning. And what is missed in the judicial debate is the true intention behind the UN-charter. In the preamble of the charter, the very first words written down are the following:

“We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow”

The Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties is the legal instrument that governs how conventions are to be applied and interpreted. How treaties are to be interpreted is laid down in article 31, where is stated that:

‘A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose’

It cannot be made clearer that the purpose of the charter is to abolish bloodshed. War is not an acceptable condition – and that must be the starting point from which the charter is interpreted and applied. It is obvious that if you start nitpicking, and deliberately look for loopholes and ways to legitimize war, you will be able to do that. Though that is not how the charter is supposed to be read and applied. That is not an honest and respectful way of reading and applying the charter, but rather a devious and deceptive way of circumventing principles, and rules placed by previous generations that first hand experienced the horrors of war.

The use of force can never be humanitarian. The use of force can never be justified on the grounds that it furthers democracy and human rights. AND – more importantly – the Use of Force cannot be justified within the bounds of the UN-charter through shaky legal arguments based on nitpicking and deviously interpreting words with a clear meaning, a clear purpose, and a clear context. The UN-charter is and will always stand as an instrument of peace, and by implication does not allow use of force, and any form of leeway from that main rule must be interpreted restrictively.

A problem with the charter is that, even though a country might be found guilty of breaching international law, it does not make state leaders personally liable for their decisions. Hence, in our current system, it is possible for state leaders to make unlawful decisions, causing massive suffering, without consequence. This does not make sense, just as civilians are able to face consequences when they commit murder, so should leaders and decision makers face consequences when they make decisions that, in breach of international and humanitarian laws, cause thousands upon thousands to die.

At the moment, the United Nations is more of a farce than an empowered institution capable of having real impact, and the charter, more of a document with words that sounds nice, rather than a document of principles that are lived for real. This can all be changed. The United Nations does have the potential of becoming a World Organ that can stand as a pillar of stability in difficult and tough times. For that to happen, changes must be made, and those changes must come from within the individual nations themselves. Because the United Nations, is an organization of countries that has united, and will as such only be as impactful as the involved countries allow it to be.

And here, we, the countries located in the western hemisphere have a great responsibility. Because at the moment, we have the means, we have the military strength, we have the influence, and in that, we have the opportunity to change the direction in which our world is currently moving. Even as individuals, we have the opportunity to make a difference. Because it us that elect our leaders, it us that inhabit and make up the constituency of our countries – and thus we are responsible for the actions of our leaders even though we admit that or not.

Peace is a Human Right, and the Use of Force is a Crime against Human Rights as well as International Law, and we all, regardless of where we are born, deserve a life in which our Human Rights are honored.

Sunday, December 6, 2015

Day 19 - The Real Meaning of Referendums

When talking about a referendum it is important to differentiate between a consultative referendum and a decisive referendum. As the word indicates consultative means that the population is merely consulted, and their opinion will have no binding force over the actual decision making process. Within a decisive referendum on the other hand, the word of the population is binding:  it dictates the outcome of a legislative process.

Most if not all of the referendums you hear about in the news are in fact consultative referendums. From a standpoint of democratic participation, they don’t mean much – as the government can do the exact opposite of what the majority expresses through the referendum. This happened very clearly in Greece, where the referendum of 2015 was praised as an astonishing democratic move by the Greek Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras, who then on the next day went ahead and pushed a deal through parliament which was 10 times worse than the proposal to which the population had clearly voted NO.

The Netherlands (and France, amongst other countries) held consultative referendums with regards to the question of whether there should be a European Constitution for the European Union in 2004-2005. The Dutch (and the French) said no. In this instance the Dutch government saw itself forced indeed to give a negative vote towards the project and the European Constitution was stopped on this level. So even though within a consultative referendum the government is not bound to the outcome of the popular vote, it can on it's own accord decide to seemingly honor its outcome. However, with the ratification of the later Lisbon treaty in 2007, basically all the provisions that should have been in the European Constitution were accepted as part of the Lisbon Treaty and through this back door the desired changes were implemented anyways.

The Netherlands has a particular history with referendums.

At this point in time it would not even be possible for the Dutch to have a decisive referendum, in the sense that even if such a referendum were organized, its outcome would be invalid due to a specific arrangement in the Dutch constitution. In short, according to the Dutch constitution, only the government is a capable legislator. Therefore, those who are not the government, cannot vote on legislation. They cannot make laws.

Now let’s keep this in mind and let us look at a definition of democracy that is widely agreed upon throughout the world: «Government of the people, by the people, for the people» This quote is attributed to Abraham Lincoln, and you will find it in all textbooks that talk about the subject of democracy. What is interesting in this definition is that there is as such no differentiation made between the people and the government. The people in essence govern themselves.

The reason why I chose the topic of referendums is that it clearly allows us to see that the countries in Europe are simply not democracies. The Netherlands, which is popularly believed to be a free spirited country, does not even allow for the possibility of a decisive referendum. This per definition excludes the Netherlands from being a democracy. And the same is true for other countries in Europe.

Vigorous attempts in the Netherlands to change the constitution have failed time and time again. This ultimately culminated in the famous ‘Night of Wiegel’ (De Nacht van Wiegel). Wiegel was a senator who voted ‘no’ on the proposal for referendum and through his one vote was able to stop the change in the constitution. This led to a little crisis but once the votes were cast there was nothing that could be done. The constitution remained unchanged. An added ingredient to this whole mix is the fact that senators are actually not elected representatives in the Netherlands. They are voted into office by the provinces…

In the light of all this you will also understand that the 'new' (since 2007) tool utilized by the European Commission, namely the Citizens Initiative, is a highly deceptive instrument. It states that when 1 million signatures are collected throughout Europe on a specific matter, then the Commission will ‘have a look’ at the ‘demand’. This off course in no way obliges the Commission to do anything with this petition. They can simply brush it off their table and this is exactly what they have been doing.

It is important to come to terms with this state of affairs.

It is clear that ours societies have been evolving for some time now in a direction that is authoritarian. The question of the democratic legitimacy within decision making has become less and less relevant. The so-called financial crisis has greatly contributed to this evolution.

It is therefore suggested to rather than to ‘demand change’ to actually start educating oneself and to become an active force within society. There are many people and groups in the world that see what is going on and are starting to form collaborative networks. Instead of asking your governments to change, become the government, start scripting the future, get involved. 

Thursday, November 26, 2015

Day 18: The Right to Life = The Right To Money

It is common knowledge that our Human Rights include a Right to Life. This Right to Life can be found in several notable international instruments. For example article 3 the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Here it is stated that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. A similar provision can be found in article 2 European Convention on Human Rights and article 6.1 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The definition of the Right to Life according to the European Convention on Human rights place both negative and positive obligations on the state. The negative obligation is simply to not – unless it is absolutely necessary – impose deadly violence on its citizens. The positive obligations include having effective law-enforcement machinery. However, the positive obligations should not be interpreted in a way, which impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities. Suffice to say, the current definition of the Right to Life is limited.

If we look at the word Life in the dictionary we find the following definition:

The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

As such, the way we have defined Life currently is simply as being the difference between organic and inorganic matter. In using this limited definition of life, it is easy to see that the Right to Life would merely involve not being killed. But, the word Life does hold more potential than merely being an indicator of what is organic and what is not organic. Life, and living life, entails quality, entails being able to live with dignity, and being gifted the opportunities to create your dreams. Because, is life really life if it cannot be lived to its fullest?

Can we say that a person born into poverty has a life? We can conclude that he is organic, he is breathing and his heart is beating – however – is this sufficient for us to call this person a living being? And this brings us to the word survival – because survival and living is not the same thing, yet they can be easily mixed up.

Survival is defined in the dictionary as follows:

The state or fact of continuing to live or exist, typically in spite of an accident, ordeal, or difficult circumstances.

What stands out is the word EXISTS – and that is the difference between living and surviving. When you are surviving, being of organic matter, you exist, when you are living, you are able to create and build something from your existence. Your able to make yourself bloom, expand and reach your fullest potential and anything less than cannot be defined as living.

For example, by implication, the Right to Life must include a Right to Money, because without Money, you cannot possibly create a life for yourself in this world. Without money you do not have a voice. Thus it is fascinating to observe that in the discussions regarding the Right to Life, and in the various Human Rights conventions – there has been NO mention of the Right to Money.

Though, when you look at it, it is easy to see that for anyone to actually LIVE – they must have money. With money you buy food and clothes, and you pay for rent. To get a decent education, you must have money. All the basic Human Rights require Money in some way or another to be fulfilled and realized – hence the Right to Money should be obvious.

Some might argue that there should not be such a thing as a Right to Money, because apparently, money is earned. However, the truth is that money is manufactured. Money is created by banks, federal and private, and lent out at an interest – and this is the way money is brought into circulation. The idea that money should be earned is as such a fiction pushed by the ruling classes in order to ensure that the way money is created and distributed in society is not questioned.

The Human Right of The Right to Life cannot only be seen as a Right not to be killed – it is also – by implication – a Right to Create Your Own Life – a Right to have Access To Money. Today, we have the notion that money is a scarce resource – this is a artificial scarcity created by the fact that all money are introduced into society as debt with an interest – causing a constant shortage of money. And this is nothing short of a human rights abuse – when we consider how dependent we all are on money to be in our lives for us to be able to live effectively.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Day 17 The Purpose of Criminal Laws

Here I would like to bring some considerations for anyone interested into understand how our criminal law actually functions.

In every single civilization that we have constructed as humanity, it seems like there is always something going terribly wrong, but somehow we perceive that to be outside of ourselves, and this has been going for a quite long period of time in our entire civilization as humanity, the criminal law is at the end, just the reflection of how we search for someone to blame for the current existence of the entire humanity and how is it that we haven´t looked within ourselves to see that which we project outside of us, which to me seems like the most retrograde way of dealing with something that is actually the very reason of our “enslavement to HUMAN NATURE”, in each period, in each ideology, the principle of polarity seems to be what direct this idea that apparently there is someone that is simply evil in this world, and within that, that we are able to justify “our right to live” by removing or punishing that part of ourselves that we have simply projected onto another person so that we are able to preserve our “way of living”…

The fundamental principle of every law is to preserve the social order, this order implies that each and every single human being participating in the system is subdued to the rules imposed onto them by an external will that will only act accordingly to the principles that has been determined to it by the same society who accepts and allows such will to rule and manifest itself as the “law”.

The government is nothing else that the will imposed by the same people in order to preserve the order that they believe that “is how the world works”, this principle is named as “the ought” = what the things should be, I don´t have to tell you how much manipulation has taken place to make the people believe in a certain ideology, which manifestation can be traced way back of the existence of the Greeks and even before with the Codes of Hammurabi and so on, and so on.

Yet the same history repeats itself over and over again, and the systems always see their end with each and every single new ideology, why? Because it’s interesting that a criminal only becomes such as the ideology takes place in the mind of the people, educated to see the world and perceive the reality in a certain way. “As more laws are written more criminals are created” – Lao Tzu – 

The government implies a force given to it by the people, as A RIGHT, given to a particular person “trained and instructed on applying the rules that the same society demands in their search of the preservation of the social order” (The judges in the beginning were isolated from all the society and they were teach to be and live only what the laws demands of them as the “representation of this ghostly manifestation called justice”, this of course had for consequence the manifestation of certain events on the history like the inquisition) this right is called in Latin “Ius Punniendi” which means the right to punish, this right is the power given to the state by the people, to take and improve “the necessary means to resolve the problems to maintain the social order” this also implies the creation and establishments of reforms to the system that the government perceive as necessary as long that this maintains the social order.

It’s fascinating how it seems that we are trying to “fight something or someone out there instead of realizing that is each and every single one of us, that by existing in the search of our self-interests, created the current state in which we live in”, the principle is that “each person is following their desires, therefore as each and every single one of us, has this inner movement of self-interests as desires, wishes, wants and needs, each and every single one of us is a treat to each other and therefore we must incarcerate each other so that we are able to be free…from each other…because our interests are at risk of someone else taking them…all of this because we have not been able to understand that as long as we remain in our little bubble of desires, wishes, wants and needs, everyone is subdued and prisoners of each other, and afraid of each other, and that is why we cannot trust another human being, because we cannot even trust ourselves, because we know what we are capable of doing to get that which we want, that is why wars exist, that is why criminals exist.
The following fragment is from the blog: Day 32 - The Tyranny of Financialization
You can read the complete blog by following the link below:

Frankenstein's Monster

The ability to create money out of nothing and collect interest on lending it out to borrowers, and being able to sell and repackage those debts into financial instruments that could then be used to speculate on and influence other markets such as food, government bonds, and commodities spread like wildfire throughout the financial system - and across the world these financial instruments were sold, repackaged, and then sold again so many times that its original value has can no longer be determined, but the debt that was created when the instrument was sold could not be discharged or forgiven because it was impossible to pay back something that was created out of nothing, and demands more than nothing as repayment.
BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CANNOT GIVE BACK MORE THAN WHAT IS GIVEN TO YOU UNLESS YOU TAKE FROM SOMEBODY ELSE IS THE ONLY KEY THAT ANYONE NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO SEE THROUGH THE TRICKERY AND DECEPTION OF THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM AND ANYTHING THAT HAS COME OUT OF ITS HYBRID BREEDING CHAMBERS THAT HAVE PRODUCED THE ILLUSION OF PROFIT AND GROWTH - because the only thing that has grown is the amount of money the financial elite have been able to keep for themselves while the debt is constantly being pushed onto the majority trying to pay back something that can never be repaid. 

The ultimate purpose of the laws is to preserve the social order, my right ends where the yours begin; our rights is not what we desire, is not “what we demand as our interest”, the rights should be that which is inherent to life, as each and every single living being, has the right of fulfilling their needs, and…I mean ironically, we have come to a planet that provides all of those requirements for free, but we have the audacity to place a tag with a price on it…

Now, here my question is: Is it really that is not enough for everyone in this world or is it just that we have never taken the fucking initiative to share what we have? Being afraid of sharing cannot be justified as “the means to survival”, the social order SHOULD BE for the survival of the group, and not only humanity, but all forms and expressions of life in this world, a world that is best for all, only requires of all of us to realize that, that we are already on a planet that is already and has been always able to sustain all of us, because it has been doing it since our first breath here, that is why we still exist, there is no problem with the planet, or the sun, it is humanity, we know that, we have always known that. But we remained in silence, because we wanted to remain safe, that is why we also accept wars to take place, we see someone interfering with our interests as the evil guy and we accept others to die, and our loved ones to go to their imminent destruction so that we can be safe, so that our interests are safe. We may think that those people are the ones that create the problems in the society, yet, maybe they think the same about us…The “modernity” is the moment when we see consider that “the criminal out there” may be see us as the same treat to their interests, maybe the solution is as simple as just sharing…and to understand this I suggest you to invest in the following interviews to understand this:

My Life as a Robber

Is Crime a Choice?

My Life as a Bully

Next blog will be about Forgiveness and the Law System, “did you know that forgiveness exists on laws?” investigate it.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Day 16: Corporations and Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed, and adopted by the United Nations Assembly in 1948. Looking at history of humanity it’s safe to say that these documents really do represent a revolution in human development, and evolution – because this charter do suggest that human beings are to be treated with care, and given a life of fulfillment. Obviously – as can be seen – none of the provisions of the charter have been honored in reality – the words that expressed a care for humanity as a whole has remained nothing but words – nothing but hope, and good natured intentions. It’s fascinating that it’s so hard for the leaders of our world to agree upon setting our differences aside and instead focusing on how to create a world that is best for everyone – yet history have proved over, and over again, that regardless of how many attempts that have been made to corporate, and place the best of humanity before the self-interest of the individual – it has utterly failed.

In this blog I am going to take a closer look at one of the reasons as to why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have become nothing but empty words – standing as a monument of the failure of humanity to come to a equal agreement on how we should care for each other, and our world – our common home.

This is taken from Wikipedia:

Multinational companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and have been responsible for numerous human rights abuses.[57] Although the legal and moral environment surrounding the actions of governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multinational companies is both controversial and ill-defined.[citation needed] Multinational companies' primary responsibility is to their shareholders, not to those affected by their actions. Such companies may be larger than the economies of some of the states within which they operate, and can wield significant economic and political power. No international treaties exist to specifically cover the behavior of companies with regard to human rights, and national legislation is very variable. Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the right to food stated in a report in 2003:

[T]he growing power of transnational corporations and their extension of power through privatization, deregulation and the rolling back of the State also mean that it is now time to develop binding legal norms that hold corporations to human rights standards and circumscribe potential abuses of their position of power.
—Jean Ziegler[58]

In August 2003 the Human Rights Commission's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights produced draft Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights.[59] These were considered by the Human Rights Commission in 2004, but have no binding status on corporations and are not monitored.[60]


What is the essence of a corporation? In the economic literature it’s given a fascinating definition – it’s called a “nexus of contracts” – meaning that a corporation is in-fact a entity consisting of numerous parties that have joined forces to support their own personal self-interest – and within this they have agreed to follow the forms of a standard-contract – this contract being the corporate law that exist in similar forms in countries all over the world.

The essence of this standard contract as the corporate law is that parties/individuals invest their money into a legal-entity – these people/parties then become the so called shareholders– and they are now in a contractual relationship with each-other – and the clauses of that contract consist of the corporate law.

According to the corporate law – shareholders are not meant to run their company by themselves – but they are to elect a board of directors, and also a chief executive officer (CEO) – these will now become hired by the corporation and be the henchmen, and forefront of the corporation in the world. These henchmen get their specific code of conduct from the contract that is the corporate law – and their main objective is in almost all cases – to ensure that the shareholders will profit on their investment – in other words – they are to make lots of money.

So – here we have to two first parties, and personal self-interests that have been managed through a contract; the management of the company – and then the shareholders of the company. These are the most prominent interests.

Then on top of these basic and fundamental interests of the corporation we have the banks, as the creditor of the corporation – and the interest of the creditor is to make sure that he receives money, and surety for the loan that’s been given; a.k.a. being able to profit on the investment.

More over we have the contractors to the specific corporation – for example – if a corporation has it’s specific field in the construction of new houses – then this corporation must align contractors, and suppliers to it’s business – in order to get the necessary skill, and raw-material in order to be able to build the new houses. The interest, and desire of these contractors, and suppliers is to get paid on the work that they commit to, and also to hopefully be hired again for a new project at a later stage.

What I am trying to show with this walkthrough of the various parts that a corporation consists of – is that it’s a huge spider-web of intermingled, and intertwined interests of various parties – but the one thing that unites them in their movement is that – they all want to have MONEY – they all want to make a profit – and they all benefit when the corporation benefit. Thus – the corporation is in-fact nothing but a faceless, and anonymous mass of people that are hidden behind a legal-entity – that have together formed a contract to together make as much money as is possible. Because remember – that the interests of the corporation can’t be held accountable for the crimes that the corporation commit; they are instead protected behind the mask, and entity of the corporation.

Now – this doesn’t work very well with Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the reason being that profit is never free but always comes at a price – and this price is paid daily by earth, and human beings around the world – that have been abused, and used in order for corporations to be able to make more money. Obviously this is what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is supposed to stop – but this hasn’t happened – and instead the form of the corporation as a contract between people to make money – allows individual parties to hide, and become anonymous, and differentiate themselves from the complete destruction that the corporation creates – and instead say that “it’s the corporation – it’s not me! I am just a shareholder!” – or “I am just the CEO, I just do my job! It’s in my work description to make money!”

Thus – it’s fascinating – that we’ve created a way in this world for people to come together and without any legal responsibility make money by any means necessary – I mean – why is it that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t recognize that in essence – a corporation is merely a group of human-beings that should be held accountable for their actions – and that this so-called legal entity as the corporation is nothing but smokes, and mirrors that simply hides the real driving force of the corporation as several interests coming together to profit?

This is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t function – and will not function in this world – because it’s not about demanding actual accountability – it’s not about demanding human-beings to act with integrity, and respect – it’s about politics – and where politics enter the picture so does the incessant drive to earn more money – greed – and as such it’s obvious that this faceless entity as the corporation has had a say in creating the current definition and understanding of the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights – in order to protect all it’s various individual parts interests.

Within looking at this point – it’s also fascinating to see how the corporation is really a baby that has been breed out of so-called normal, and average human-beings pockets – because when we invest in a stock – we invest in a stock from the perspective of wanting to gain profit – and within that we are the anonymous investor that can’ be seen, and can’t be heard – yet still is a silent driving force behind the corporation – that acts as the henchmen of the stockholder – so that there is a return on the investment – so really – we can’t blame the acts of corporations on anything but ourselves – and by ourselves I mean us as the normal, and average high-level living standard human-being – because we’ve invested in and brought this monster to life – and made it our scapegoat, and our cover-up so that we can commit crimes against human rights and get away with it.


A business attorney called Robert Hinkey has since 10 years back been propagating, and showing that there is a simple solution towards making sure that the corporation starts to care for, and consider human-beings, and human rights – and that is through changing the law of the corporation – to instead of having it’s primary purpose to create profit – to instead having the purpose of creating profit but within the limits that nobody must be harmed.

That is according to me a cool solution as to how to make sure that the faceless entity of the corporation get’s a face that we can see and make sure does not overstep any boundaries. And to enforce this point that chief executive officer, as well as the board of directors can be held accountable if the boundaries are not respected – I mean – this is already currently done but in relation to points that involve wasting the corporations money, or not following the rules of the stock-market effectively – so why not also insist on rules that are created to serve the betterment of humanity?

The simple point to understand is that there is SO MUCH we can do to change what is currently happening on earth – the question we should ask ourselves is WHY DON’T WE? How come that intellectual revolutionaries such as Noam Chomsky, and Chris Hedges are able to write books that specifically outlines, and shows the corrupt nature of our current world-system – yet still NOTHING happens? I mean – it’s fascinating that so little is happening while the problems are very clearly shown – it’s like humanity as a whole do not have the ability to ACT on words – but merely to write down words, read words, and consider words – but not LIVE WORDS!

And that is the problem with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – it’s a cool document yes – but – it’s not been lived! It’s remained as a gesture, and a hope for a better world – but not a actual, and directive push to create a world that is best for all in every way possible.

Thus – the first point the must be established by humanity if anything is ever going to happen is to realize the importance of action – and that words that are not taken into living practical application are worthless – they mean nothing – and will merely remain as a vague hope on a paper that nobody really cares about.

So – the solution is to first – active ourselves as humanity – and stand up within ourselves, and our worlds and make the decision to walk a change – and then – the second point is to change the corporate law – to make corporations responsible for their decisions, and to enable holding CEO’s and board of directors liable for their corporations crimes against human rights – thus making sure that the corporation does not function as a veil to hide from responsibility.


In creating the corporate law – and consequently the corporation – to consider and adhere to human rights – and enable to hold leading key figures in the corporation responsible for any crimes against life, and humanity that the corporation commits – we’re able to utilize the organizational structure of the corporation as a way to product profit for humanity as a whole.

As such we can develop, and experience a life wherein production, and profit-creation is walked within considerations of what is best for humanity, and earth – and thus produce a life for human beings that are fulfilling, and without stress, pressure, and wage-slavery. We will have an employer as the corporation that do care about their employees – and that do care about honoring human rights, and producing the most effective, and effective products possible.

The simple point that must change is the starting point – we must wider our horizons and realize that Life can never be fulfilling when only profit is considered – life – humanity – and earth must always be considered if not it will lead us to certain destruction, and a life of competition, and strives – that is not necessary!

For more information on how to re-form society in a effective, yet simple way in order to produce a populous that do care for human rights – read the following blogs:

Enhanced by Zemanta