If there were no borders anywhere

[thepainterdoug]

Not sure if this has been discussed, but I was wondering everyones opinions on this.

In my common sense, all of us come here to earth as equal beings . The entire earth is ours, each one of us, and we should be able to roam the globe and pitch our tent wherever we decide, co habitant with others.

Yet we humans have cornered off sections for some and not others. Is this a natural and resonable occurrence that unraveled, or should it of been stopped along the way at some more elvoveled point in society? .

Starting today, if all borders were taken down, what would happen? Even though the liberal, fair minded side of me says yes, the reality of this world and what would ensue tells me no can do .

I mean this as a true reality, applied to your own life, home, neighborhood, etc.

opinions and comments , welcome

t y

[Praxis]

I think the discussion will be difficult as it would be tainted by economic issues. The results of dropping all border in our current situation would be disasterous. Those in ecnomically and environmentally destroyed places would flee to non destroyed.

Lets take the example of the Island of Hispanola. The satellite image tells you all you need to know about the island. What would happen to the DR if and Haiti with no border? Now imagine that on a global scale.

Humans under economic stress tend to deplete natural resources(think locusts).

If we could handle that issue( a huge task I know) then I imagine the results would be unexpected to most.

I imagine that many would stay exactly where they are even if they could go anywhere. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems that the main driver of migration is economic circumstances. If people didnt have economics to worry about, do you think many people would leave their locale?

Yes many would take trips but then come back. I am asking about moving to a new place to live.

[Bill Ryan]

I'll start an interesting discussion with this [possible!] analogy.

Doug, the world might then be a little like you not having any wall or fence around your property. Anyone at all could wander along and camp on your lawn, and do whatever they wanted.

Maybe build their own house, right on your vegetable garden.

How would you feel about that? :)

[Blacklight43]

I could see a world without borders if we had a world without governance and money and possessions. Until then my vision doesn't see it happening.

[Sunny-side-up]

Probably utter chaos 0.o

I can understand your desire for border-less world, that would be great but the population would need to be filtered; with like minded/soled living together on their own planets doh.

We are here together for reasons, one of the biggest being 'learn to live together' another being 'experience the pains of living together'.

Here in the material realm some borders/ boundaries have to be I guess.

PS: Just last night I couldn't park my car at home, the whole street was cordoned off because of a stabbing :(

[ulli]

Here is my belief and my honest opinion, which took me many decades to develop. The question “Why are we here?” was haunting me since adolescence and I got the answers via strange coincidences, or what some might call intuition, or downloads.

Our soul essence is eternal, but cannot easily be accessed because of amnesia. We discover when we are born that there is a clean slate to draw or scribble on.
I believe that there are trillions of options where we can go to explore an infinite universe, and chosing this particular planet is done consciously, because it is the one and only, and totally unique planet where our soul can have free will. Here our soul can choose it’s lessons, or its struggles, or its rewards, and even its punishments. Whatever is needed to fulfill our original intent, of why we wanted to be born here. Striving to find the answer as to why will produce a response from the universe, over time.
The restrictions we then encounter, which at the time may appear to some totally unacceptable, and to others protective of their personal needs, are exactly what helps guide us to find our place, or path, for our soul to carry on its exploration of the infinite creation.

The product of our earthly journey only becomes evident after we leave the body. Since we cannot take with us any of our material possessions, we have to look for more spiritual qualities, that remain with our essential identity, and these can only be the virtues we developed during our lifetime. (Or lost, which is the downside of not knowing what we aimed for in the first place).
Idealism to create heaven on earth seems very strong right now, and I can feel it in myself, with my obsession to leave behind for posterity a paradisical botanical garden. I just have to be careful that we put this project into the right hands, by making a will, like a university, or some responsible foundation. The boundaries of our property are essential, as we live in a high crime zone, not only of petty theft, of cell phones, wallets, and bicycles, but even gangs who snatch kids from our neighbor, the local village school, to sell to organ harvestors or sex traffickers. Costa Rica police managed to catch over 20 members of this gang, men and women from the Philippines, who had targeted rural areas of Latin America, where they thought they could operate without being detected.

So my wish for idealists out there is to discover that this world has a vast spectrum of service to self and service to other people, that cannot be changed to a uniformly angelic world overnight, and that is why boundaries are necessary to stop it all becoming a uniform swamp. And perhaps becoming free of boundaries it is not even its destiny in the bigger scheme of things, although I would like to see the extreme ends of that spectrum to be curtailed a bit.

[Satori]

I'll start an interesting discussion with this [possible!] analogy.

Doug, the world might then be a little like you not having any wall or fence around your property. Anyone at all could wander along and camp on your lawn, and do whatever they wanted.

Maybe build their own house, right on your vegetable garden.

How would you feel about that? :)

Or, to take it a step further, come right on into your house and make themselves right at home with no intention of living, or leaving, there peacefully.

[Intranuclear]

Well, borders are not "real" are they? I mean they should be looked upon as territories. If you look at any predatory species of which we are indeed one, they all have territories and jealously guard them until a stronger one comes and takes over. All territories are only as defensible as the local resources allow. Even in counties you have cities where each is "protected" by their own police departments. Gangs do the same, or the different Mafias (larger and more organised gangs).

Looking at it from another angle, our bodies are territories and anything invading like bacteria and viruses are resisted by drugs or whatnot. Without the resistance, well, it is a takeover, right?

Looking even deeper, at the individual cells, well, there are borders there too. When viruses infiltrate, the cell's mechanism is hijacked and then anything can happen.

Language also is a border/territory. Why have all different languages guaranteeing that misunderstandings will be most abundant.
Withing languages you have borders too, like jargon which are intended to encode information to be both efficient and possibly to increase privacy.

As long as there is non-homogeneity, there will be implied borders/territories.

As Bill suggested, if a stranger came unannounced and slept in your bed...well, some might welcome that sometimes, but clearly not all the time.

Looking at larger scales like solar systems, well each solar system is a separate entity.

Even larger scales, galaxies and so on.

Back to borders.
Europe.
Will that work?
Look at Brexit.
Is that the start?

[Ernie Nemeth]

When you get on a roller coaster, you dont get on for lessons learned but for the totally pointless thrill of the ride. And on a roller coaster you know who you are and were, remember your history, and bring all your useless skills with you(useless on the ride at least).

[thepainterdoug]

OK SOME CLARITY FIRST/ from my OP "Starting today, if all borders were taken down, what would happen? Even though the liberal, fair minded side of me says yes, the reality of this world and what would ensue tells me no can do ."

so as you can see above in my OP Im not advocating no borders . My question was spurred on by an Immigration attorney friend I have.

all your responses are great. And I agree, and so we all agree we should have borders. and thus they should be protected, and thus a fence ,a partition, a mote , and perhaps even a wall...

Ulli/ thank you for some of the best writing and summation. I study a Course in Miracles and was just writing a friend something analogous to yours. Well done!!

and Bill, if brussels sprouts, he can build a condo upon them!

[Nasu]

Interesting thought. I think it's a lovely idea on paper, but as Bill and others have rightly pointed out, without any rules for land use the place would be a shambles. The current state of play is more about tax liability than being overly or under restrictive on where people live. Governments seek to tax those within their borders, ergo one's location of residence is where one is taxed and therefore lives, at least for six months out of the year.

Perhaps in some future idyll without the need for tax, or the need for us to exploit other region's resources and without poverty and desperation, such an idea take form?..x.... N

[thepainterdoug]

I read an article on the women of Central America, kids 8 years old being raped, murdered, and the women fleeing towards Mexico, and hopefully to end up here. Well they are turned away, sent back to that life.
So i was born here, this place on the blue ball, and they had the misfortune of being born there.
some roll of the human dice it seems.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

In the Beginning... a Man. Just a simple, rustic man, who owns a small farm, just a little farm that provides well enough for the varied hill-dwellers scattered across the valley. This Man he rises with the break of dawn, sets to his chores, hard, grim, insufferable chores, until weary, lonely, he retires to his well-earned rest with the setting of the sun... and he watches that red sun sink beneath the far edge of the world, and he wonders what it all means.

Quite soon another man appeared across the way, a Stranger beyond a strip of hedgerow and a row of elm and alder trees that defined the border of his little farm, and he is anxious. He watches the Stranger from time to time working on his own little plot of land, feeding his goats, working the hoe, and he cannot shake his misgivings that a scheme is at hand, some intrigue or other, which is out to hurt him, usurp him, and steal his land and living. A plan of war fills his thought, but first the Man will speak to the Stranger and learn exactly what his intentions are.

"Good day," he says one afternoon, poking his head over the hedge. "Who are you, and what may you be doing?!"
"Hello there," answers the Stranger. "I'm ploughing a channel for my crops, what else? Excuse me please, but I'm very busy if you don't mind, I have a wide land here, don't you agree? I've got a lot to do today..."

And the Man looked, and he saw that this was so, and he was jealous. The Stranger's plot was far larger than his own – good land as well, fertile with an abundant lie of deep dark soil. He wished in fact he had found it first.

A novel, and quite advanced idea then impressed itself upon him, and he spoke even before the notion had fully formed. "Say, why don't we divide this land between us?" he suggested thoughtfully. "Two hands will make half the time, and we'll both be better off besides."
"Why should I agree to that?" the Stranger replied sourly. "Half the land means half the profit. Be off with you now, before I stick you with my fork."

The Man was dismayed by this turn of events. Why had the world turned against him? Who was this 'other' who had come, and why did he have so much more than him?

For a long while they both kept to themselves, ploughed their own way, and never a word passed between them. Sometimes, quite by chance, their work brought them to the edge of their fields and they would meet face-to-face, over the hedgerow. And then they would fight. They would grapple and spit and roll in the mud like pigs.

And on one such occasion, even as the blood was drying after the last quarrel, the Man spoke up, having had his fill of the conflict. He had nothing to lose now, except more blood, and he considered that neither one of them seemed to be gaining anything out of it anyway. So he voiced a different idea to his neighbour, the Stranger. "Listen now to what I say," he began in earnest, approaching the hedgerow. The Stranger on the other side looked on suspiciously. "The land you have is wide and fertile, I agree. But I have seen you work that slope yonder, and it seems a difficult toil to me. But listen here. Give me this portion of land near to the hedge, only this nearer field here to make furrows for my seeds. In return I would give you my oxen for that slope of yours. It is long in the hoof and broad in the shoulder, it would make lighter work of it than your own tired beast."

The Stranger thought this a very good idea. For a moment pride almost outmatched his better sense, as he made ready a punch in continuation of the quarrel. But only for a moment. He held out a muddy palm and they shook hands on it. "Very well," he said. "Let us try. It is probably better this way after all..."

It was an excellent arrangement, and both prospered. Very soon two farms became one much larger farm. Both Men took families, and about them others gathered around them to create a small community, and they flourished altogether, triumphant in their accomplishments and in the bounty that was freely produced for all.

Both came to clearly understand that they really were the same after all, and in seeing the wider perspective the earlier distrust of one another had been rather petty, senseless, but it had provided them nonetheless with a valuable insight into who they truly were...

*

Then one day, long after the first Man and the Stranger had passed away, the elders of the community learned of another settlement, like their own, across the valley, and they wondered. Other farms, other people, other Strangers. In fear of what this might mean they built a wide wall around them to protect what was theirs. And that was needed, for a time came when the Strangers across the valley turned on them, jealous of the prosperity of their land, and the wealthy lot in which they flourished.

But, after a long contest of distrust and rivalry the two communities decided it would be better to open their gates to the others after all – to allow merchants to pass back and forth to trade at market, because that way, both peoples would benefit, and thrive together as a whole.

It was an excellent arrangement. It served to profit both parties indeed, and not merely in commerce, but from the exchange of techniques in cultivation that were new to the other, to crafts, customs and ideas. Young and old alike were thoroughly enriched for the experience. Very soon villages yet farther apart entered into the fellowship, and they built a castle and with it created a centralized structure of organization, of leadership... and they made a Kingdom. They flourished altogether, triumphant in their accomplishments and in the bounty that was freely produced for all.

Both communities came to understand that they really were the same after all, and in seeing the wider perspective the earlier distrust of one another had been rather petty, senseless, but it had provided them nonetheless with a valuable insight into who they truly were...

*

And then one day, when the two valley communities were bustling towns; thriving centres in what was now a greater whole, the King and his Lords learned of another Kingdom, like their own, away, in a far strange land, and they wondered. Other kingdoms and realms, other people who were strange to them. In fear of what this might mean they made a garrison of fighting men to protect what was theirs.

The King sent out his men across the plain, and there they clashed with men of the rival Kingdom in battle. Rain battered down. The air was shot with blood. For king and banner they sang their songs of home long into the night; they fought, and they slew, and they died. The land was burned, towns were razed. It was savage campaign almost without end, so it seemed.

After a long and bitter time the Kingdoms at last arrived at a parley, a discourse opened, for it seemed better to find a common ground for the greater good of both, lest both be destroyed. One King's son married the other King's daughter, and a new and prosperous time came to pass.

It was an excellent arrangement. They threw their flags away, those flags and banners which had pitted one Kingdom against the other, and they gathered their resources together, and it served to profit both Kingdoms in wealth and influence, and very soon two Kingdoms became a province, and one province became many, and they made a Country. They flourished altogether, triumphant in their accomplishments and in the bounty that was freely produced for all...

The people who were once of two Kingdoms came to clearly understand that they really were the same after all, and in seeing the wider perspective the earlier distrust of one another had been rather petty, senseless, but it had provided them nonetheless with a valuable insight into who they truly were...

*

A silly little story perhaps, and I'm waffling, but does it not reflect the reality of where we came from? And does not this story continue, and continue? This is just our Journey, I believe, separation evolving into unity. Two farms becoming a community. Two communities a kingdom. Two kingdoms a country. And maybe one day, many countries a planet. And even there it won't end. Not by a long way.

The moral: unity is humanity's destiny. One day we'll knock down all the hedgerows, but we're not quite there yet.

[enigma3]

Open borders would first severely dumb down wages in developed countries. That is one goal of the rich bastards.
Then, with so much holier than thou attitude in so many places, chaos would ensue as each group fights to be king of the pyramid. And that is another goal of the rich bastards who want one world government. Create so much chaos that people will demand a NWO one world government. Satanic of course.

[Wind]

Ideals are peaceful, history is violent. Borders ultimately are artificial, even the astronauts in the space can see that (https://www.historydisclosure.com/a-message-of-unity-from-edgar-mitchell/). All of us ought to see ourselves as citizens of Earth. There is no one nation under God, there is only one Earth under God. However, from a logistical standpoint I do think borders are necessary. Without some rules and structure there would be chaos. Also when people take orderliness to the extreme then they want to be building walls and isolating themselves from the "others".

I'm sure many of us would like to see a united Earth, but considering humanity's current state of collective consciousness, we are just not ready for that yet. One day we will be.

[East Sun]

Sorry I did npt read all the posts and may not be qualified to answer your question. Off the bat I would say there would be total chaos.

People who are now in positions long fought for would be inundated by others not as fortunate and be devastated by loosing mostly all they had. When I say "long fought for" I mean that they reaped the results of an inheritance that they had no control over and should not be blamed for. We should not be blamed for what our direct ancestors did.

What we inherited is rightfully ours, no question. Others also benefit from that. That is not to say that we should not do all we can to help those less fortunate.

The constant problem is the control of our gvts, on others and on us. That is what we need to be aware of constantly.

[AriG]

Great thread Doug and certainly a concept that I have pondered. The ludicrous nature of borders while we live on a sphere.

Perhaps there should be a distinction between borders and boundaries. A border being a fixed space, while a boundary would be a self imposed limit- a line in the sand, either physical, spiritual or intellectual of which, we expect others to respect including Our sovereign selves and any claimed or owned real property attached to that sovereignty. So, is humanity mature enough to respect boundaries, thus eliminating the need for borders? Can mankind live and let live? Can we all accept the vast differences between people without the urge to change or control others? Are we generous enough in spirit to share our resources and work for a greater good independent of our own ideologies?

I don’t think we’re there yet. We would be if our world had not been corrupted and captured by service to self dark forces. It would take a monumental event (think Reagan’s speech about a common otherworldly invader) to unite us in any meaningful action capable of affecting change. Then maybe, perhaps one day.

[Sadieblue]

I think there is too many greedy people in the world for open borders and migration.
One area would be depleted of all resources, then they would move on and deplete another area. The next group would enter the newly growing resources, and re-deplete it again, not giving it time to recover....and on and on it goes until there would be nothing for anyone.

I certainly would not want to leave the area I am in, and if I should have to leave, I would want to return to here.

[rgray222]

Since man has been around borders have been contested a million times resulting in thousands of conflicts and wars. It was not until the 20th century that borders were actually solidified. So contrary to what most people think about borders today they actually serve to lessen conflicts and prevent wars.

Borders are arbitrary and political, nothing more. I think if you look out 100-300 years land ownership (by a country or individual) will seem ridiculous. Only in the last 30 years or so have people come to realize that if they own one acre or one million acres they are only temporary caretakers of land they never really owned in the first place. Also, many people (myself included) believe the earth is a living breathing organism that is very much alive. Trying to put borders on it is simply not right.

I believe mankind is clearly headed towards a borderless world controlled by one world government. A lot of people may be against this concept (I am) but I think it is pretty much unstoppable. In a perfect world without greed, corruption or crime this may be very desirable. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world. Many times before change is accepted we have to go through some outrageously difficult circumstances before people finally settle in and accept a new way of life. I truly believe that is the direction we are inevitably moving.

I think we need to evolve down the road a bit further before we start dropping borders. We must find a way to prevent mankind from war before borders disappear. We must learn to use words, not weapons to prevent conflict. Dropping borders in today's world could put us in an unparalleled mess with regional conflicts and wars all over the globe. So the bottom line (for me) is that borders are not perfect, probably not even desirable but they do work so let's leave them up for now.

We seem to be able to exercise free free will over our daily lives but we don't appear to always have free will over some of the big picture stuff, i.e. a borderless world and one world government. Regardless of what most people want or desire some of these things seem to be pre-ordained.

[Bubu]

I'll start an interesting discussion with this [possible!] analogy.

Doug, the world might then be a little like you not having any wall or fence around your property. Anyone at all could wander along and camp on your lawn, and do whatever they wanted.

Maybe build their own house, right on your vegetable garden.

How would you feel about that? :)

Or, to take it a step further, come right on into your house and make themselves right at home with no intention of living, or leaving, there peacefully.

Oh my, of course we have to dissolve boarders but not to the point where we are close enough to hear other peoples conversation or where someone is using it for their own survival. that is common sense. But there are huge unused lands and natural resources while some people can barely survive on their piece of property. Shouldn't they be allowed to occupy space that no one occupies or no one is using. country boarders should be dissolve, no one should be allowed to occupy vast expanse of land that he cannot manage on his own. Everyone should be entitled to occupy space that one occupies and everyone should be prevented from occupying space that are occupied by someone especially not my bedroom.

What i find chaotic are the opinions stated above. Its so simplistic as if a discussion from high school student. Apologies but that's how I see it.

[HaveBlue]

Pesky fact alert. Bio security. Think about that for not just a moment but really really hard until you can feel the heat coming off the crown of your head.
Now post on how immoral and wrong borders are.

Winston Churchill quote: If you aren't a liberal at 20 y/o you have no heart. If you aren't conservative at 30 you have no brain.

Now that I'm nearly 50 I can add those two together and have a heart and a brain! Or is that too simplistic? It could be my 'foot in mouth' disease. I may be banned from entering Australia like David Icke is for having those hateful feelings!

[AriG]

Pesky fact alert. Bio security. Think about that for not just a moment but really really hard until you can feel the heat coming off the crown of your head.
Now post on how immoral and wrong borders are.

Winston Churchill quote: If you aren't a liberal at 20 y/o you have no heart. If you aren't conservative at 30 you have no brain.

Now that I'm nearly 50 I can add those two together and have a heart and a brain! Or is that too simplistic? It could be my 'foot in mouth' disease. I may be banned from entering Australia like David Icke is for having those hateful feelings!

Couple of points.

1. Polarized thinking would have to become obsolete (liberal/conservative).

2. Bio security went along the wayside with the rapid increase in international travel in the 20th century. There is no bio security, nor will there be a need for such. That’s been working itself out for years.

[AriG]

more evidence that we truly live in a simulated reality and that this simulation is actively working to address deficiencies, thus suggesting that it is likely that this “implied scarcity” is just another tool used to divide humanity:https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/06/20/undersea-freshwater-aquifer-northeast/

[Bubu]

Pesky fact alert. Bio security. Think about that for not just a moment but really really hard until you can feel the heat coming off the crown of your head.
Now post on how immoral and wrong borders are.

Winston Churchill quote: If you aren't a liberal at 20 y/o you have no heart. If you aren't conservative at 30 you have no brain.

Now that I'm nearly 50 I can add those two together and have a heart and a brain! Or is that too simplistic? It could be my 'foot in mouth' disease. I may be banned from entering Australia like David Icke is for having those hateful feelings!

David Icke Banned from entering Australia for having those hateful feelings? Another yet great idea on this thread.

Actually I dont think Doug meant it to be anywhere in a literal sense because very obviously no one anywhere in the world, in their right mind will allow me to camp in their toilet (anywhere) But the community take its liberal meaning started by Bill and then we have this discussion that should have not existed in the first place. Sorry Bill not picking on you. Sorry that I have this "foot in mouth " disease . this kind of discussion is disappointing.

[AriG]

Bubu,

I am not inviting an argument or any polarized discourse, but if you don’t mind my asking? Who exactly do you think you are in even suggesting what conversations should or should not happen? If you don’t like the conversation, stay out of it and quit trying to derail Doug’s thread! :focus:

[Dennis Leahy]

Globalist corporatists have figured out ways to make borders disappear for themselves. There already is a one-world syndicate/network, and the syndicate factions already control individual governments (such as the US.) Still, I believe that national borders and individual governments are important to thwart the overall plan of one-world government. The people that want one-world government are not looking for a "brotherhood of mankind" or egalitarian society - they want it as a consolidation of power.

p.s. Sometimes, I thank every post in a thread, partially for myself as a reminder of what posts I have already read, and partially for saying "thanks for participating in this thread." I try not to just use the "Thanks" button just as a sign of agreement (which of course is sometimes also true.)

[thepainterdoug]

thanks Dennis , not only for your comment but also for your bottom notification.

sometimes Im pressed for time and read thru, hitting a thanks button as a way of saying, hey, I saw and read your post. i often don't have the time to go thru and personally write to everyone .

I wish there was a, new button , that says. * saw it, and will return to respond.

its a good point you bring up. I feel more possessed to answer the most pressing on my mind, and don't respond to all but put a tanks as a marker and acknowledgement .

however, i do thank all for their participation.

[thepainterdoug]

BUBU

I MEANT IT AS , I often do in my posts. As a thought experiment. In and Ideal world what if? But in the situation we all now live, stacked up and quartered off by the rich the powerful the haves etc ,They will hold on to what they have and will not and shouldn't have to give it up, if they earned it in the way the rules were set up.. its ridiculous to think there couldn't be borders as the game is now played.

but in an Idllyic world , one recreated, I ask how would it be to have no borders. it actually makes perfect sense and is most fair.

and Bubu, I know Bill and also I'm sure he knows me, and my love of humor. We need all to remember to laugh. there is a way to be serious, get your message out, but then remember, to laugh, were all in the same boat, the material illusion. We are all out and away from home.

"like a dog without a bone, and actor all alone , riders on the storm"
jim morrison

[Constance]

I get a true sense of where Doug is coming from now. Thank you for sharing Doug.

If we are patient, quite often, a persons intent for sharing will eventually be revealed.

I can see that Doug paints with a broadbrush stroke here and his intent was pure.

VOgFZfRVaww
John Lennon - Imagine

[Ernie Nemeth]

Pesky fact alert. Bio security. Think about that for not just a moment but really really hard until you can feel the heat coming off the crown of your head.
Now post on how immoral and wrong borders are.

Winston Churchill quote: If you aren't a liberal at 20 y/o you have no heart. If you aren't conservative at 30 you have no brain.

Now that I'm nearly 50 I can add those two together and have a heart and a brain! Or is that too simplistic? It could be my 'foot in mouth' disease. I may be banned from entering Australia like David Icke is for having those hateful feelings!

David Icke Banned from entering Australia for having those hateful feelings? Another yet great idea on this thread.

Actually I dont think Doug meant it to be anywhere in a literal sense because very obviously no one anywhere in the world, in their right mind will allow me to camp in their toilet (anywhere) But the community take its liberal meaning started by Bill and then we have this discussion that should have not existed in the first place. Sorry Bill not picking on you. Sorry that I have this "foot in mouth " disease . this kind of discussion is disappointing.

I am surprised too Bubu. I thought it was a serious discussion.

That said, it is most obvious to me that there should not be borders. I understand that it is almost impossible to even comprehend how such an 'idyllic' fantasy world could exist. It would take so much change that where we are right now could not even glimpse the final outcome if the proper protocols were enacted.

It is a difficult topic.

I would point to a thread I once started that I also feel wasn't given a chance and that was actually serious about exactly this topic.
Except that, in order to have no borders there must be...


World Peace

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?13219-World-Peace

[TomKat]

Not sure if this has been discussed, but I was wondering everyones opinions on this.

In my common sense, all of us come here to earth as equal beings . The entire earth is ours, each one of us, and we should be able to roam the globe and pitch our tent wherever we decide, co habitant with others.

Yet we humans have cornered off sections for some and not others. Is this a natural and resonable occurrence that unraveled, or should it of been stopped along the way at some more elvoveled point in society? .

Starting today, if all borders were taken down, what would happen? Even though the liberal, fair minded side of me says yes, the reality of this world and what would ensue tells me no can do .

I mean this as a true reality, applied to your own life, home, neighborhood, etc.

opinions and comments , welcome

t y

Politically, it would mean that there was only one govt and no de facto representation of citizens in that one far-away govt. The laws would be probably draconian and robotically enforced, but often ignored in many respects by the citizenry. Spontaneous local govt's might spring up, known as protection rackets. So it looks like a mixture of anarchy and dictatorship, to me.

[AriG]

Doug,

I am flabbergasted that you would have to explain your hypothetical situation at all. Should that not have been an obvious assumption? Did several here think that you were plotting your own little NWO Coup?

And what’s with all this homage to government speak? As it stands, the fractured and ineffective governments of this world can only control their populations by manufacturing consent. The removal of borders would make it more difficult for them to control us, otherwise, we’d already have open borders.

SMH. Seriously SMH. Beam me up Scotty!

[Seabreeze]

It is interessting to think about...how it could be. But it remindes me of the NWO plans and a ONE world goverment.

It is going into this direction already in Europe very much and causes heavy problems. .... How this planet is organized at the time...I believe the borders are important to keep. To open borders is dangerous I believe...... countries are getting to mixed up.... it weakens the community`s which been there before. Typical cultures are getting lost.

And it makes it more easy for gangsters to just vanish and to continue doing crimes somewhere else.

Living myself in an area which is occupied for to long and to open for many others, which have diffrent roots....I see it every day...which damage is getting done, when the doors are to wide open for to many strangers coming in......

And I guess, if all the borders would vanish quickly...we might would all have to learn chinese.? China has the most population.........:confused:

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/

[thepainterdoug]

Thanks all. Interpretation of language is interesting. Makes me wonder what people are all hearing when we speak in person and so on . Its fascinating to see how some hear this, and some hear that, all within a given topic.

Certainly tolerance is something we all need practice. And were all of a certain mind ,if we are even here at Avalon. Can you imagine what the rest of the world hears?

[Bubu]

BUBU

I MEANT IT AS , I often do in my posts. As a thought experiment. In and Ideal world what if? But in the situation we all now live, stacked up and quartered off by the rich the powerful the haves etc ,They will hold on to what they have and will not and shouldn't have to give it up, if they earned it in the way the rules were set up.. its ridiculous to think there couldn't be borders as the game is now played.

but in an Idllyic world , one recreated, I ask how would it be to have no borders. it actually makes perfect sense and is most fair.

and Bubu, I know Bill and also I'm sure he knows me, and my love of humor. We need all to remember to laugh. there is a way to be serious, get your message out, but then remember, to laugh, were all in the same boat, the material illusion. We are all out and away from home.

"like a dog without a bone, and actor all alone , riders on the storm"
jim morrison

Thanks Doug for clarifying. I didn't see your humor on you OP not a single smiley. If you did put one I would have surely ride on.

[Bubu]

Globalist corporatists have figured out ways to make borders disappear for themselves. There already is a one-world syndicate/network, and the syndicate factions already control individual governments (such as the US.) Still, I believe that national borders and individual governments are important to thwart the overall plan of one-world government. The people that want one-world government are not looking for a "brotherhood of mankind" or egalitarian society - they want it as a consolidation of power.

p.s. Sometimes, I thank every post in a thread, partially for myself as a reminder of what posts I have already read, and partially for saying "thanks for participating in this thread." I try not to just use the "Thanks" button just as a sign of agreement (which of course is sometimes also true.)

One world government does not mean no boarder. They can still prevent people from moving freely. Its as simple as making ridiculous laws to create more restrictions.. Preventing people from moving freely means more poverty suffering and more control. What you are saying is no borders for the gangster. But that does not mean no border for the masses.

[thepainterdoug]

BUBU I have absolutely no issue with anything said by you or anyone. Not all notes of humor are obvious or explainable, and based on differences be they cultural , age and even religious, not all read humor the same way. So don't worry , all is good my friend

[Bubu]

As I have mentioned borders should exist but to a certain point as not to infringe on personal privacy. But borders to prevent people from using unuse natural resources should be dissolve. Of course almost all of us here want this world to be shared by all people. That would be difficult of course. But think about it, If we are doing something wrong shall we continue to do it just because we dont want more temporary chaos. I guess If I have a house that is chaotic and I decided to fix it I have to move every appliance and furniture to fix it ( make it more chaotic temporarily). Not fixing anything because its going to be temporarily chaotic is a cowardice act for me. This is the problem that hounds us ; we are afraid to confront the problem.

[Bubu]

BUBU I have absolutely no issue with anything said by you or anyone. Not all notes of humor are obvious or explainable, and based on differences be they cultural , age and even religious, not all read humor the same way. So don't worry , all is good my friend

Same here Duog, Actually I dont see you having issue to anyone here, before, now and maybe in the future. You're a good man :) I'm smiling but not kidding.

[ulli]

As I have mentioned borders should exist but to a certain point as not to infringe on personal privacy. But borders to prevent people from using unuse natural resources should be dissolve. Of course almost all of us here want this world to be shared by all people. That would be difficult of course. But think about it, If we are doing something wrong shall we continue to do it just because we dont want more temporary chaos. I guess If I have a house that is chaotic and I decided to fix it I have to move every appliance and furniture to fix it ( make it more chaotic temporarily). Not fixing anything because its going to be temporarily chaotic is a cowardice act for me. This is the problem that hounds us ; we are afraid to confront the problem.

Here is a recent example about sharing resources.
A few years ago the people of Costa Rica demonstrated in the streets because a Canadian company wanted to extract gold from a rainforest region, and got the green light from Costa Rica’s then president Dr. Oscar Arias.

This caused a massive upheaval, and the people won, but the Canadian Company took them to court for breach of contract, and the court decided to impose a three billion dollar fine on the Costa Rican government.
Im curious now what happened to the rest of the case.
Anyway, my point is this, you seem to want to do away with national identities, and all the traditions that go with that.
How will that ever work, especially in third world countries? There are tribes in our forests here, all with their own language, customs and costumes. And they dont want to lose those territories, especially to massive mines, that feel they have the right on behalf of the needs of the peoples of the world to extract those resources.
Also ask the people in China why on earth they are so desperate to get a hold of ivory, never mind how many African elephants are killed in the process.

[Bubu]

As I have mentioned borders should exist but to a certain point as not to infringe on personal privacy. But borders to prevent people from using unuse natural resources should be dissolve. Of course almost all of us here want this world to be shared by all people. That would be difficult of course. But think about it, If we are doing something wrong shall we continue to do it just because we dont want more temporary chaos. I guess If I have a house that is chaotic and I decided to fix it I have to move every appliance and furniture to fix it ( make it more chaotic temporarily). Not fixing anything because its going to be temporarily chaotic is a cowardice act for me. This is the problem that hounds us ; we are afraid to confront the problem.

Here is a recent example about sharing resources.
A few years ago the people of Costa Rica demonstrated in the streets because a Canadian company wanted to extract gold from a rainforest region, and got the green light from Costa Rica’s then president Dr. Oscar Arias.

This caused a massive upheaval, and the people won, but the Canadian Company took them to court for breach of contract, and the court decided to impose a three billion dollar fine on the Costa Rican government.
Im curious now what happened to the rest of the case.
Anyway, my point is this, you seem to want to do away with national identities, and all the traditions that go with that.
How will that ever work, especially in third world countries? There are tribes in our forests here, all with their own language, customs and costumes. And they dont want to lose those territories, especially to massive mines, that feel they have the right on behalf of the needs of the peoples of the world to extract those resources.
Also ask the people in China why on earth they are so desperate to get a hold of ivory, never mind how many African elephants are killed in the process.

I'm for giving equal right to all people to all natural resources I have mentioned that a number of times. I dont know how will that affect national identity or where you get the notion that I am for dissolving national identity. One more thing I have mentioned time and again that it should not infringe on anyone's property or privacy. That means also that we can leave the tribes property and privacy for themselves. What I am saying again Is for people to be able to use unused natural resources. Surely we can do that. It just needs some agreement. That agreement comes naturally to us, by instinct or common sense. That is why they are doing all they can to prevent us from accessing our natural selves by giving us all the nuisance; electronics, fear and the likes

[ulli]

As I have mentioned borders should exist but to a certain point as not to infringe on personal privacy. But borders to prevent people from using unuse natural resources should be dissolve. Of course almost all of us here want this world to be shared by all people. That would be difficult of course. But think about it, If we are doing something wrong shall we continue to do it just because we dont want more temporary chaos. I guess If I have a house that is chaotic and I decided to fix it I have to move every appliance and furniture to fix it ( make it more chaotic temporarily). Not fixing anything because its going to be temporarily chaotic is a cowardice act for me. This is the problem that hounds us ; we are afraid to confront the problem.

Here is a recent example about sharing resources.
A few years ago the people of Costa Rica demonstrated in the streets because a Canadian company wanted to extract gold from a rainforest region, and got the green light from Costa Rica’s then president Dr. Oscar Arias.

This caused a massive upheaval, and the people won, but the Canadian Company took them to court for breach of contract, and the court decided to impose a three billion dollar fine on the Costa Rican government.
Im curious now what happened to the rest of the case.
Anyway, my point is this, you seem to want to do away with national identities, and all the traditions that go with that.
How will that ever work, especially in third world countries? There are tribes in our forests here, all with their own language, customs and costumes. And they dont want to lose those territories, especially to massive mines, that feel they have the right on behalf of the needs of the peoples of the world to extract those resources.
Also ask the people in China why on earth they are so desperate to get a hold of ivory, never mind how many African elephants are killed in the process.

I'm for giving equal right to all people to all natural resources I have mentioned that a number of times. I dont know how will that affect national identity or where you get the notion that I am for dissolving national identity.

The only way that could ever work is if a global government extracts and distributes equally those resources to the rest of the world.
Knowing how hard it is for parents to treat all their children with absolute equal fairness I wonder how much harder it would be for the governing bodies of the world to do the same.

[Bubu]

that"s your opinion, My opinion is that it can only work if mankind finally come to term with itself. When the big majority of us finally realize that on the bigger picture we are one.

[ulli]

I dont want to sound like I’m arguing, but still would like you to realize that while yes, I agree with you that we are all one, we are ALSO all separate and unique.
It is the hardest thing to reconcile, I know, but the best analogy I can come up with is that of the tree and its many leaves.

No two leaves get the same amount of rain or sunshine, nor do that fall at exactly the same moment. We are all one tree, but each of us is a seperate leaf.


that"s your opinion, My opinion is that it can only work if mankind finally come to term with itself. When the big majority of us finally realize that on the bigger picture we are one.

[thepainterdoug]

ULLI said " Knowing how hard it is for parents to treat all their children with absolute equal fairness I wonder how much harder it would be for the governing bodies of the world to do the same."

Ulli you think like me. as above so is below. the large to the small. i think parent children analogies to world issues all the time. for example, in classified docs and such. oh how we all want to know. but they perhaps know why everyone shouldn't.

not in all cases of course,

[AriG]

Ulli and Doug,

We are not children nor have we ever surrendered our free will to the nanny state. Old paradigms are wearing out. Each individual must take responsibility for themselvesof and not look above for guidance. We don’t require babysitting or the withholding of information to secure our future. The only thing government does is create fear and divide people. If given the opportunity, mankind could work this out without “parental” oversight.

[ulli]

ULLI said " Knowing how hard it is for parents to treat all their children with absolute equal fairness I wonder how much harder it would be for the governing bodies of the world to do the same."

Ulli you think like me. as above so is below. the large to the small. i think parent children analogies to world issues all the time. for example, in classified docs and such. oh how we all want to know. but they perhaps know why everyone shouldn't.

not in all cases of course,

Im glad you understood, Doug. Some things will just have to remain confidential, and negociating contracts on behalf of the populace by leaders they trust is the only way to go when it comes to managing territorial resources. Not everything can be solved via referendum. I’m very glad when I see people out there with masterful decision-making capabilities, especially as I’m getting older and my mind/ memory is not as sharp as it once was. The biggest step in my life was when I learnt to say “I don’t know”.

[AriG]

Ulli,

This is why we work together as a village. The more enigmatic should definitively look out for the care and interests of the aged and infirmed. That’s what we’re supposed to do. don’t need benign dictators to do that for us. And with today’s tech? EVERYTHING should be via referendum.

[ulli]

Ulli,

This is why we work together as a village. The more enigmatic should definitively look out for the care and interests of the aged and infirmed. That’s what we’re supposed to do. don’t need benign dictators to do that for us. And with today’s tech? EVERYTHING should be via referendum.

Actually, I agree about not needing benign dictators to sort out problems of the weak, elderly, sick, etc. That is up to local communities. Although they often scream the loudest about a far away government not doing its job. But even with consulting about how to solve homelessness issues for instance someone has to first come up with an idea, and then present it in a clear manner, and then perhaps get everyone’s vote via poll on the Internet. Local people of the area will always have a better understanding of the problem than someone on the other side of the globe. Total consensus is the hardest thing to come by, Ive been in those discussions, and walked away disappointed at how many only open their mouths to contradict someone else. Maybe one day.

[Ernie Nemeth]

It's true, many only reply with contradiction. It seems we can't agree on anything. I keep thinking it must be because we are trying to solve problems at the wrong level. Like, I don't know, claiming we need more rainfall because the reservoir is almost dry, instead of coming up with resources to plug up all the leaks in the reservoir itself...

Like homelessness, or poverty in general. Smart and clever solutions can work at the local level, but to solve the problem of poverty requires addressing the underlying reasons for poverty, if there are any. Is it a systemic problem, education perhaps, or training, maybe access to small loans? I don't know.

I think the reason we cannot agree is because the solutions, and therefore the level of agreement, are deep beneath the problems we face today due to centuries of neglect. We cannot put our finger on the fundamental error, the intrinsic flaw, the mote of contention that resides just beyond our ability to comprehend or even imagine anymore. It flickers past in a remark here and there but its import is lost in the noise...

[AriG]

yes, gaining consensus amongst people is like herding cats, but that’s because there are so many other forces working against collaboration. Imagine what could be done if every individual were told that they no longer had to pay taxes to a state, but that 10% of their income had to be reinvested into their community of choice? Perhaps those with real financial resources might open a food bank or a shelter or housing for the elderly? Just one potential example. But I’ll suggest this - no one would choose to invest their 10% in war or nation building on behalf of wall streeet! They couldn’t - make their divestitures public- via searchable database to see where everything went. I could go on and on but I don’t want to monopolize this thread. A thread that IMO, has huge potential to be a real problem solving thread! A great thread!

[Bubu]

I dont want to sound like I’m arguing, but still would like you to realize that while yes, I agree with you that we are all one, we are ALSO all separate and unique.
It is the hardest thing to reconcile, I know, but the best analogy I can come up with is that of the tree and its many leaves.

No two leaves get the same amount of rain or sunshine, nor do that fall at exactly the same moment. We are all one tree, but each of us is a seperate leaf.


that"s your opinion, My opinion is that it can only work if mankind finally come to term with itself. When the big majority of us finally realize that on the bigger picture we are one.


I agree with your analogy But I just don't see how this factors with my argument of giving equal rights. I guess the tree give equal rights to its leaves. And by the way plants share nutrients to each other. Humans hardly ever do that. we could be the plague on earth. If we can only be like plants. I guess plants dont try to control or enslave other plants. No specie on earth that I know do this. Only humans. Therefore we are the problem and the solution is within us.

[Bubu]

ULLI said " Knowing how hard it is for parents to treat all their children with absolute equal fairness I wonder how much harder it would be for the governing bodies of the world to do the same."

Ulli you think like me. as above so is below. the large to the small. i think parent children analogies to world issues all the time. for example, in classified docs and such. oh how we all want to know. but they perhaps know why everyone shouldn't.

not in all cases of course,

This is because you are thinking that the solution lies on some governing bodies. I dont. I think the solution, as I've stated above, is in us. Who is governing us? our own kind. They comes from us. The government is what the people is. The solution as I have stated many times in many years. " be the change you wanted to see" If we want people to share then start sharing. We'll be an education by example. When people starts caring and sharing all bad governments disappear most problems will disappear. I'm not asking everyone to do the heavy lifting of furniture to fix the house. What I wanted is for people to put their efforts and hopes on the correct solution. And its definitely not in any of the governing bodies.

[Bubu]

It's true, many only reply with contradiction. It seems we can't agree on anything. I keep thinking it must be because we are trying to solve problems at the wrong level. Like, I don't know, claiming we need more rainfall because the reservoir is almost dry, instead of coming up with resources to plug up all the leaks in the reservoir itself...

Like homelessness, or poverty in general. Smart and clever solutions can work at the local level, but to solve the problem of poverty requires addressing the underlying reasons for poverty, if there are any. Is it a systemic problem, education perhaps, or training, maybe access to small loans? I don't know.

I think the reason we cannot agree is because the solutions, and therefore the level of agreement, are deep beneath the problems we face today due to centuries of neglect. We cannot put our finger on the fundamental error, the intrinsic flaw, the mote of contention that resides just beyond our ability to comprehend or even imagine anymore. It flickers past in a remark here and there but its import is lost in the noise...

Ernie consider this. The flaw is with our nature our personality , habits or whatever you wanted to call. It happened because of the mind conditioning that we receive for centuries. apparently the controllers know this so as you can see the indoctrination is very much alive everywhere all the time. For them it has to continue if they want to control the masses. I know most people wont like this. Its just so simple or its just to hard to change ones habits.

[thepainterdoug]

well,

we have met the enemy, and he is us

[happyuk]

I think the idea of the itinerant outsider/outlaw is all very well in art and literature, but we simply cannot have convoys of non-tax-paying thieves and itinerant cowboys coming and literally s**ting in people's front gardens. It is what you might call a failure of government and the multi-cultural-ism industry to moderate, assimilate and integrate.

As someone with Irish ancestry, it gives me no pleasure to remark that my every encounter with an Irish tinker, tarmaccer, and lucky charm hustler has been uniformly unpleasant, uncivil, intimidatory and dishonest. This is not pre-judgement, or bigotry, but evidence of my own eyes. Dippy, crystal-gazing, new-age travelers are one thing. Hardcore diddycoy is something else altogether.

[Cara]

There is quite an interesting discussion of borders and boundaries and what they signify in the discipline of anthropology.

Arnold Van Gennep (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Arnold-van-Gennep) wrote a book “Les rites de passage” in 1909 in which he surveyed a wide range of rites and rituals of different cultures and societies. He developed some useful classification of ritual types and structures.

Here are the opening passages from the chapter on “The Territorial Passage” from this book.

Most interesting perhaps is to consider the significance of boundaries beyond economic and material realms and that usually there were defined and developed rites and rituals associated with crossing them.

Perhaps we have lost some of this understanding of borders but a kind of cultural memory remains? This might account for some of the depth of emotional response to the topic of borders.

Anyway, here are the passages:


Territorial passages can provide a framework for the discussion of rites of passage which follows. Except in the few countries where a passport is still in use, a person in these days may pass freely from one civilized region to another.* The frontier, an imaginary line connecting milestones or stakes, is visible - in an exaggerated fashion - only on maps. But not so long ago the passage from one country to another, from one province to another within each country, and, still earlier, even from one manorial domain to another was accompanied by various formalities.

These were largely political, legal, and economic, but some were of a magico-religious nature. For instance, Christians, Moslems, and Buddhists were forbidden to enter and stay in portions of the globe which did not adhere to their respective faiths.

It is this magico-religious aspect of crossing frontiers that interests us. To see it operating fully, we must seek out types of civilization in which the magico-religious
encompassed what today is within the secular domain.

The territory occupied by a semicivilized tribe is usually defined only by natural features, but its inhabitants and their neighbors know quite well within what territorial limits their rights and prerogatives extend. The natural boundary might be a sacred rock, tree, river, or lake which cannot be crossed or passed without the risk of supernatural sanctions.

Such natural boundaries are relatively rare, however. More often the boundary is marked by an object - a stake, portal, or upright rock (milestone or landmark) - whose installation at that particular spot has been accompanied by rites of consecration. Enforcement of the interdiction may be immediate, or it may be mediated by frontier divinities (such as Hermes, Priapus, or the deities represented on the Babylonian kudurru). When milestones or boundary signs (e.g., a plow, an animal hide cut in thongs, a ditch) are ceremonially placed by a defined group on a delimited piece of earth, the group takes possession of it in such a way that, a stranger who sets foot on it commits a sacrilege: analogous to a profane person's entrance into a sacred forrest or temple.

...

The prohibition against entering a given territory is therefore intrinsically magico-religious. It has been expressed with the help of milestones, walls, and statues in the classical world and through more simple means among the semi civilised. Naturally, these signs are not placed along the entire boundary line. Like our boundary posts, they are set only at points of passage, on paths and at crossroads.

A bundle of herbs, a piece of wood, or a stake adorned with a sheaf of straw may be placed in the middle of the path or across it.1 The erection of a portal,2 sometimes together with natural objects or crudely made statues3 is a more complicated means of indicating the boundary. ...

Today, in our part of the world, one country touches another; but the situation was quite different in the times when Christian lands comprised only a part of Europe. Each country was surounded by a strip of neutral ground which in practice was divided into sections or marches.

...

The same system of zones is to be found among the serni-civilised, although here boundaries are less precise because the claimed territories are few in number and sparsely settled. The neutral zones are ordinarily deserts, marshes, and most frequently virgin forests where everyone has full rights to travel and hunt. Because of the pivoting of sacredness, the territories on either side of the neutral zone are sacred in relation to whoever is in the zone, but the zone, in turn, is sacred for the inhabitants of the adjacent territories. Whoever passes from one to the other finds himself physically and magico-religiously in a special situation for a certain length of time: he wavers between two worlds. It is this situation which I have designated a transition, and one of the purposes of this book is to demonstrate that this symbolic and spatial area of transition may be found in more or less pronounccd form in all the ceremonies which accompany the passage from one social and magico-religious position to another.

From: The Rites of Passage, 1909. University of Chicago Press, 1960. pp 15-18

* It’s interesting to see that 110 years ago, when this book was written, passage between countries (in Europe?) seems to have occurred without the formalities of passports etc.

[onevoice]

I agree with your analogy But I just don't see how this factors with my argument of giving equal rights. I guess the tree give equal rights to its leaves. And by the way plants share nutrients to each other. Humans hardly ever do that. we could be the plague on earth. If we can only be like plants. I guess plants dont try to control or enslave other plants. No specie on earth that I know do this. Only humans. Therefore we are the problem and the solution is within us.

Bubu, I like your reference to the fact that trees do cooperate. We humans could learn a lot from the trees. Trees cooperate and older trees nurture younger trees by sending sugar and other nutrients to the trees that are not mature enough to reach enough sunlight to sustain themselves. Trees also form relationships and bonds. This article relates a story of an old beech that was cut down hundreds of years ago and other interesting things about trees.



I'm walking in the Eifel Mountains in western Germany, through cathedral-like groves of oak and beech, and there’s a strange unmoored feeling of entering a fairy tale. The trees have become vibrantly alive and charged with wonder. They’re communicating with one another, for starters. They’re involved in tremendous struggles and death-defying dramas. To reach enormousness, they depend on a complicated web of relationships, alliances and kinship networks.

Wise old mother trees feed their saplings with liquid sugar and warn the neighbors when danger approaches. Reckless youngsters take foolhardy risks with leaf-shedding, light-chasing and excessive drinking, and usually pay with their lives. Crown princes wait for the old monarchs to fall, so they can take their place in the full glory of sunlight. It’s all happening in the ultra-slow motion that is tree time, so that what we see is a freeze-frame of the action.

...

Once, he came across a gigantic beech stump in this forest, four or five feet across. The tree was felled 400 or 500 years ago, but scraping away the surface with his penknife, Wohlleben found something astonishing: the stump was still green with chlorophyll. There was only one explanation. The surrounding beeches were keeping it alive, by pumping sugar to it through the network. “When beeches do this, they remind me of elephants,” he says. “They are reluctant to abandon their dead, especially when it’s a big, old, revered matriarch.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/

[Bubu]

well,

we have met the enemy, and he is us

That's right Doug, we are our best friend as well as our worst enemy. It means we are responsible for ourselves individually and collectively.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Did you check out my link to World Peace?

This modern world is a ruse designed to steal the wealth produced by the masses and concentrate it in the hands of a very few. These few have never produced not the tiniest bit of wealth but spent much time scheming of ways to increase value and leverage that into true wealth via fractional reserve banking and fiat currency sleight-of-hand (not to mention controlling bottle-necks of all sorts like in shipping, information, resource mining, any commodity, and so much more that many books and days of U-tubes have been created to expose them all)

The level playing field is askew. Our coins roll into these scheming shysters' pockets while we have to trudge uphill just to pay the bills. We pay a premium for everything - and we made it all! Only those on the bottom to mid-level rungs produce wealth - the rest leverage their positions in the form of what's called value-added activities. Not that those are not valid pursuits in most cases, they are. What it isn't is wealth. Wealth is tangible goods and tangible services, things we can all recognize represent sweat equity. Value added tactics decrease the cost of things and greatly increases the profit margin. This is because the savings realized by leveraging the value of a product is not passed on to the consumer.

An entry level small car costs less than $1000 to produce, as an example. These tactics disproportionately increases the cost per item to the consumer . I have not even touched on the many outright fraudulent techniques foisted on the masses, the best and most costly being engineered obsolescence - the manufactured product designed to fail after a preset period of time! Our engineers are masters at that...

We pay so much for the goods we produce (that's, WE PRODUCE) that we have set up a small subset of our peers as little potentates.

Now on top of this sad and sorry state of affairs we wish to find solutions to manifest open borders, end poverty, and desecrate our hard won territories by flinging wide the doors? We are being robbed blind and until that is addressed there is no solution possible.

[thepainterdoug]

thanks Ernie/ will do so

and thanks to everyone for their comments. still reading thru

[Bubu]

We are being robbed blind and until that is addressed there is no solution possible.

The solution is to see. Those who can see must guide those who cant. How?

[Ernie Nemeth]

Most of the public are so apathetic, so hopelessly narcissistic, so remarkably shallow, and so incredibly uninformed that solutions are not on their radar. The only way to reach them is one on one with highly sensitive people who can break down their prejudices and blocks to learning. My days doing that are mostly over, although I am working on another person at work. It is very rewarding work but it is taxing on my soul. I have been at this literally for fifty years - since I was ten!

The solutions are information, mostly the correcting of commonly held beliefs that are hindering the assimilation of new understandings more in line with universal truth. But the problem is even once the information has been accepted it must be acted upon. That action is not palatable, scary, filled with unknowns, and requires sacrifice. Most of the awakened or awakening are waiting for someone else to start on the road - and if all goes well maybe they might join in...

To disavow ourselves of this world we must move towards a new world, consciously. We need not all march to the same beat but we do need to comport ourselves with the highest integrity and honor while striving to improve our little corner of the world. We do not need to start a following, become a guru, find enlightenment, or read a manual. The work is all done in the moment, constantly holding the prize in mind. The prize of course is peace.

Only when we are at peace with ourselves and others can the miracles occur.