You Must Divorce Your Political Party To See The Truth

[rgray222]

The powerful see the present moment as an opportunity to consolidate their control over society. The obstacles that we have been historically used to seem almost parochial by today's standards. The dilemmas facing mankind are now global in nature, global immigration, global pandemic, global climate change, global freedom, and to a lesser extent global racism.  The only thing missing from the list is a global war and if you don't think that it is possible you're fooling yourself. Anyone who thinks that these global problems just wandered up on the porch one day and knocked on the door is terribly mistaken. Each one of these problems is manmade, this is not an accident it is by design. 
 
Just like a hurricane that gets its power from all the open seas and all the warm waters, the globalists get their power from all of politics. Those attempting to consolidate control could care less what party label you choose to wear, the only thing that matters is that you actually choose a label to wear. It is the division created by politics that gives them power. I can't say it loud enough or fast enough, divorce your political party. Peel off the political bumper stickers, throw away your protest signs and tell your children that they should climb above the political horizon and look down because from there they will learn the truth. 

Once you have seen the truth for what it is a grab for global governance, it makes the tactics (race, pandemic, climate, immigration, freedom, speech, etc) being used to achieve that end seem rather insignificant. 

[Matthew]

Food for thought. I've only recently seen the 'logic' of love your opponent beyond lip-service. I'm convinced anything else is leading us to destruction. I have this sense we are already in a new world war, just not conventional warfare. But my opinion is: unless more of us see the logic of love your opponent, it can/will slide into conventional civil wars and or world war

If you're stuck in this with your annoying sister, the waves of panic don't help to figure out the cerebral solution; it's the most natural thing to get annoyed, but anger is addictive

https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MTc2MjYxMDkwMTE0NTQ0ODEz/chinese-finger-trap.jpg

[East Sun]

I agree totally and have mostly thought that way all my life. My motto is: never allow
yourself to be divided between parties.
That is the biggest controlling mechanism "they" hold over us.

We are on to their scam.
Bye, BYe scammers.

[Kryztian]

There are people who really are liberal, and there are people who really are conservative. It is an aspect of who we are and I think both sides, left wing and right wing, to use the old cliché, are necessary to make the bird fly, to keep the debate going, the ideas flowing, to keep developing and rebuilding our world and make it work better. But both these tendencies have been hijacked by the media, by politicians, by pundits. If you are on the left, the media tells you the problem is the people on the right. And if you are on the right, the media tells you the problem is the people on the left. The problem isn't the people on the other side, the problem is the media that is trying to get you to hate, and the media that is taking your attention away from what are the real problems.

[DeDukshyn]

There are people who really are liberal, and there are people who really are conservative. It is an aspect of who we are and I think both sides, left wing and right wing, to use the old cliché, are necessary to make the bird fly, to keep the debate going, the ideas flowing, to keep developing and rebuilding our world and make it work better. But both these tendencies have been hijacked by the media, by politicians, by pundits. If you are on the left, the media tells you the problem is the people on the right. And if you are on the right, the media tells you the problem is the people on the left. The problem isn't the people on the other side, the problem is the media that is trying to get you to hate, and the media that is taking your attention away from what are the real problems.

There doesn't need to be any "wings". We aren't birds, and nor is a bird any type of relevant symbol for ideologies and solutions.

I don't think of any of my belief structures and ideologies as belonging to any "wing". Once you plot a linear line and are asked to define yourself along that line you have imprisoned yourself into a one dimensional prison of someones else's creation. Why would we do that? Should the shaping and results of our experiences, knowledge, intuition, spiritual values, etc. not always be free to exist within any dimension which is most appropriate?

Not only must we divorce our political party we must stop judging events, ideologies, people, policies, problems, solutions, on this artificially created system for the purpose of control, as belonging to some point on this one dimensional linear "evaluation" system. It is insulting to our core being as free and sovereign humans.

[Kryztian]

There doesn't need to be any "wings". We aren't birds,

I wasn't implying that we all need to eat bird seed, build nests from twigs and saliva or fly south for the winter. I was using this as a metaphor to show how we are all differentiated parts but socially, we are part of an organic whole.

Our economy functions because we have individuals with different skills and problem solving abilities: some of us mechanical, some of us artistic, some of good at solving interpersonal problems, etc. Our world works well because individuals have these different specialized skill sets.

When it comes to fixing our political, economic, legal, educational, health and other systems, through planning and rule making, i.e. "politics" we have some people focused on how these systems leave people behind ("people on the left") and others focus on how these systems can get so bogged down in bureaucracy and regulation ("people of the right"). What we need is a world where both these views and visions are equally appreciated and seen as complimentary, instead of the one we have now, where you are supposed to see on of those sides as the enemy.

[DeDukshyn]

There doesn't need to be any "wings". We aren't birds,

I wasn't implying that we all need to eat bird seed, build nests from twigs and saliva or fly south for the winter. I was using this as a metaphor to show how we are all differentiated parts but socially ...

Lol ... yes I got that, sorry if that came directed at your comment more than intended, just that my point was that we need to lose the limited ideology of a "left wing" and a "right wing" - I feel the path forward can't be restricted into such terms - the two term system was created and has the result of placing people into separate camps, it serves no other purpose, so I choose not to even recognize it, and suggest that others also lose that distinction thereby eliminating its result or power to divide, that's all ... no offense intended. :)

[safara]

A lot to be said for Anarchism. Do away with all forms of government - it is harmful to us.
People are naturally self organising and local communities will take care of themselves.

[DeDukshyn]

A lot to be said for Anarchism. Do away with all forms of government - it is harmful to us.
People are naturally self organising and local communities will take care of themselves.

"Rulers" not required ... nor desired. Nor useful.

[Catsquotl]

Yes. Anarchism.

Unlike popular belief anarchism follows some rules and is applicable in a meridad of methodologies.
Some of which are quite well thought out.

What they have in common is a population size which stays relatively close to communal/tribal.

So those in power. Have a chance of being safeguarded against corruptable influences and a blind eye to the needs of the few.

Although with any system there are costs. Which people have to be willing to pay.

That said they are far fewer and less hurtfully than the cost of living in a community the size of countries.

With Love
Eelco

[Merkaba360]

I would imagine that the most evolved societies would resemble anarchism in many ways.

To explain my thinking, lets take a look at socialism for a moment. I believe even Marx said that socialism shouldn't evolve from feudalism. The true socialistic qualities (not the fake authoritarian scam) i believe are quite advanced and are/will be woven into capitalism as it advances. Transcend and include - not destroy the former but build upon it.
People are always arguing how socialism is great in theory but utterly fails in reality. I think its quite clear that it fails at this stage due to lack of technology and consciousness. The problem is that people keep looking to the horrors of the past to predict the now or future of true socialistic aspects. Soon, I dont think the past applies with technologies such as block chain and others allowing more interconnectedness, sharing, teamwork, and transparency.

We are progressive thinkers and often support the more advanced and ideal ideologies like Anarchy. To me, adopting aspects of socialism is/will work during this century. I think anarchism is still going to be quite unrealistic for now or at least until humans go thru a major consciousness shift.

Yes, small "tribes" can organize and work things out, but some of those tribes will work out to be nasty, imperialistic brutal warlords no? I suspect that society is building a massive system for a reason. Is anarchism going to allow enough organization for the Aquarian age of technology, in order to build fusion reactors or whatever? The aquarian age of technology needs massive organization. Then we can factor in Aliens. Is an anarchist system going to give us the capabilities to deal with and defend against highly advanced ET races? I doubt it.

I am no political science academic, but it seems to me that, for now, we want the top of the system to be Capitalism (Make it less regulated and freer market though). Then on the level of businesses and organizations it should be more socialist. This would make a more fair environment for workers and keep mega corporations from becoming too huge to overpower the Capitalist top. Then, perhaps on a more local level there could exist more anarchy. Not sure what this would look like. Maybe we would have more freedom to create our own local communities and cities deciding more of our social freedoms and what not. Then people would be able to move to those communities/cities that best suit their lifestyle. Las Vegas for example would probably move toward massive freedoms for people who like to party or entertainment. Although, im not sure it would work to do in current massive cities where many who can't move away disapprove. I guess just build new cities and let the migration happen. When visiting new areas, we can just ask our AI assistants about local laws to quickly check whether we can do something or not.

So, from this view, we must divorce our small pigeon hole thinking (political or otherwise), in order to realize that the TRUTH/reality of whats happening is far more complicated and blended than clean cut ideologies. Hopefully our system becomes so complex, that the complex thinking makes it impossible for the elite to trap us into simple mutually exclusive camps that keep us fighting. lol

This thread says " You Must Divorce Your Political Party To See The Truth"
and I would add, "We must divorce ourselves from simpleton dualistic thinking to see the complex integrated blended truths."

This is the yellow meme of psychological development in spiral dynamics. It is where we develop complex systems thinking (like an Elon Musk) and the stage where we reach integration. Integrating the illusion of duality is key.

[palehorse]

I go for Anarchism as well, tired of all the corrupted bastards trying to say what we have to do.

[Catsquotl]

Yes, small "tribes" can organize and work things out, but some of those tribes will work out to be nasty, imperialistic brutal warlords no? I suspect that society is building a massive system for a reason. Is anarchism going to allow enough organization for the Aquarian age of technology, in order to build fusion reactors or whatever? The aquarian age of technology needs massive organization. Then we can factor in Aliens. Is an anarchist system going to give us the capabilities to deal with and defend against highly advanced ET races? I doubt it.




Good points. That's what falls under the price to pay in my ideas.
To be honest, I think that smaller communities will find ways to collaborate on larger scale projects, but evolving into a technologically advanced society may prove difficult.
That said I don't think the Aquarian age should necessarily focus only on technological advancement though. Before Uranus was discovered Aquarius was (and according to some still is) ruled by Saturn.
An Aquarian age in that sense is more a focus on inspiring new ideas (not technology per se). But still holding firm on well established and firm structure.


With Love
Eelco

[DeDukshyn]

Yes, small "tribes" can organize and work things out, but some of those tribes will work out to be nasty, imperialistic brutal warlords no? I suspect that society is building a massive system for a reason. Is anarchism going to allow enough organization for the Aquarian age of technology, in order to build fusion reactors or whatever? The aquarian age of technology needs massive organization. Then we can factor in Aliens. Is an anarchist system going to give us the capabilities to deal with and defend against highly advanced ET races? I doubt it.




Good points. That's what falls under the price to pay in my ideas.
To be honest, I think that smaller communities will find ways to collaborate on larger scale projects, but evolving into a technologically advanced society may prove difficult.
That said I don't think the Aquarian age should necessarily focus only on technological advancement though. Before Uranus was discovered Aquarius was (and according to some still is) ruled by Saturn.
An Aquarian age in that sense is more a focus on inspiring new ideas (not technology per se). But still holding firm on well established and firm structure.


With Love
Eelco


To add my two cents on the points raised ...


First, I want to point out that anarchy is not generally what we have been programmed to believe and feel it is. The dictionary definition is "without rulers". That's it. Not "without rules", not "without organization", etc. Once that definition is properly clarified suddenly a whole new path of thinking and ideas is freed up.

A society that has organized itself in productive methods of self checks and balances, has risk mitigation built in, promotes non rivalrous dynamics that isn't ruled from a top down structure, can be an anarchist society. The only thing it requires to classify as "anarchist" is the lack of top down rule. that's it. Everything else is fair game. Promoting regulation at the individual and familial level and even community level, and having a system that allow an exchange of ideas concepts and actions to occur at any of those levels, will avoid all the issues of corruption that any top down form of governance is susceptible to.

Second thing I want to point out is that non-rivalrous dynamics can fairly easily be shown to be greatly superior to rivalrous dynamics. All that is required is to understand this at an individual level, and keep a critical mass of this understanding. Because non-rivalrous dynamics actually do work in a more superior fashion, when properly understood and implemented within transparent systems, corruption wont have a chance to be effective. It will become a less desirable route. Right now the ever ubiquitous idea that rivalrous dynamics are required to make a "society" work, along with a lack of transparency are the only things that keep corruption being effective. Remove those and the dynamics completely change.




I mentioned this elsewhere but I'll give this example again: I follow computer hardware tech news quite closely. 15 years ago or so when youtube emerged, it became a new platform for PC tech writers and content creators to try to broaden their audience and stay relevant, as magazine popularity dwindled. The competition was quite fierce as each content creator saw things in a rivalrous dynamic, carried over from the previous publication world. So attacks, put downs, one-upmanship, stealing others content and claiming it as their own, etc. etc. were quite common in this arena.

Fast forward to 2020. Such dynamics are now frowned upon by the viewers and backlash can happen in an instant. Tech content creators are now almost all collaborating, giving shout-outs to each other, sharing snippets of each others content with naming and linking their sources for their viewers to check out, holding friendly competitions together, doing fundraisers together, have each other on their content pieces as guests, etc. etc.

Why did this occur? Because someone started the trend and it proved to get better audience approval, and felt better to do it. It is now the norm. And now because the aren't busy fighting each other, they are now working together to keep the big corporations and their shady tactics in check.

As an example, recently one unbiased and honest Australian tech content creator was sent a letter from one of the two main video card manufacturers, stating that unless he "changed his editorial direction on his hardware reviews", he would no longer be sent samples for reviews. The corporation felt that because he was given samples to evaluate that he must review them the way the corporation wanted him to, and threatened to pull his samples if he did not.

The tech community got wind of this and within just a couple days dozens and dozens of the top name tech reviews publicly shamed this company in the worst way. It was incredible. The company issued not one but two apology letters to the content creator in question, and several others to other content creators, and to the public in general, with a full admission of guilt and wrongdoing and a vow to never act like that again.

The non-rivalrous dynamics of the group of tech content creators crushed instantly the shady and corrupt rivalrous thinking and control that the corporation was used to using in trying to "look better" than its competition by using shady marketing tactics. And not to mention the entire tech community of content creators all got more views and subs as a result - the viewers were incredibly pleased by these actions - it is what people want to see. It is now what many people want and recognize as superior.




It is easily and demonstrably a superior way of thinking and working, and by route helps to keep corruption of higher levels at bay. Combining a form of anarchy with the concepts of non-rivalrous dynamics easily indicates a far more superior system than anything we have tried in our "civilizations" by a long shot. Moving from where we are to somewhere there though is the tricky part, but at least now we are in a position to start seeing and realizing the potential possibilities.

People just need to start thinking outside of the box and seeing what is possible -- not what they think is not possible, just because they don't see it.

[Matthew]

Anarchy is whatever people want it to be, an imaginary system with no problems attributed to humans. How can there be problems when the system is gone? Give me a flawed system with transparency, accountability, truth then mercy, and everyone caring about each other. I know right? Pull the other one. That's because people are the issue. Give me transparency and accountability though, yeah. But 'anarchy as a system', not so sure. Wishful thinking and, my opinion: attributing problems to the wrong thing

Make no mistake, I believe I have seen anarchy work well, it was a positive experience (for me) - it worked REALLY well. We protested against the church of scientology anonymously. By design, the collection was unaccountable; it was war. A different leader for each raid project. It was a meritocracy of ability to influence others with nothing but words posted anonymously - rather knowing their name, reputation or social status or even their picture. You just didn't know who was saying that thing you were reading. Sure we'd meet for 'in real life' protests, and lols, then you'd see who was who. But the next 'project', someone else would be leading, because the previous leader burnt out and had enough. Point is this 'ad-hoc', project by project, self-organising collective still had hierarchies, but they were not set in stone, or even last long. Certainly they would not be carried over to their children like royal hierarchies for example.

But it wasn't transparent, or accountable, or a system I'd want to be ruled by. Anarchy is only good for arranging small squads to go to war with institutions imho, like against the Co$. It was a long time ago for me, over a decade now. If civilisation crumbled and reformed from nothing, the short lived anarchy would turn into some kind of hierarchy by typical humans, bringing their typical flaws. It would never be no system.

I love the O.P.; a challenge to reflect on ones hope in political parties, or perhaps hate against the opposing party. Give me small government, a population willing to protest, with dashings of mercy along with their quest for truth, and thirst for accountability any day over so called 'no system', I'm not convinced it ever happens, certainly not for long. Longer post than I thought I'd write... thank you for getting this far xx

[DeDukshyn]

Anarchy is whatever people want it to be, an imaginary system with no problems attributed to humans. How can there be problems when the system is gone? Give me a flawed system with transparency, accountability, truth then mercy, and everyone caring about each other. I know right? Pull the other one. That's because people are the issue. Give me transparency and accountability though, yeah. But 'anarchy as a system', not so sure. Wishful thinking and, my opinion: attributing problems to the wrong thing

Make no mistake, I believe I have seen anarchy work well, it was a positive experience (for me) - it worked REALLY well. We protested against the church of scientology anonymously. By design, the collection was unaccountable; it was war. A different leader for each raid project. It was a meritocracy of ability to influence others with nothing but words posted anonymously - rather knowing their name, reputation or social status or even their picture. You just didn't know who was saying that thing you were reading. Sure we'd meet for 'in real life' protests, and lols, then you'd see who was who. But the next 'project', someone else would be leading, because the previous leader burnt out and had enough. Point is this 'ad-hoc', project by project, self-organising collective still had hierarchies, but they were not set in stone, or even last long. Certainly they would not be carried over to their children like royal hierarchies for example.

But it wasn't transparent, or accountable, or a system I'd want to be ruled by. Anarchy is only good for arranging small squads to go to war with institutions imho, like against the Co$. It was a long time ago for me, over a decade now. If civilisation crumbled and reformed from nothing, the short lived anarchy would turn into some kind of hierarchy by typical humans, bringing their typical flaws. It would never be no system.

I love the O.P.; a challenge to reflect on ones hope in political parties, or perhaps hate against the opposing party. Give me small government, a population willing to protest, with dashings of mercy along with their quest for truth, and thirst for accountability any day over so called 'no system', I'm not convinced it ever happens, certainly not for long. Longer post than I thought I'd write... thank you for getting this far xx


I would respond to the first point with saying that people are the problem in as much as this is because people build systems that easily allow abuse of power and corruption to flourish.

You have a bit of a contradiction in your post. First you say that anarchy can be what ever one wants it to be. Actually, all anarchy means is "without rule" this means not having a top down structure. That's it. It indicates nothing more. You can create any system you wish inside of that, but those systems, what they are and how they work, are neither anarchy or not anarchy. It doesn't apply. Anarchy is only the idea that there isn't a top down governance.

The contradiction lies in the fact that you say "it can be whatever one wants" - which is in the right direction, but with my clarification, then you go on to give an example of some systems that created some actions and got some results, then you say that that is all anarchy is good for - understandably because that was your experience of something you observed interpreted as being anarchy. This comes back around to drive at my point that we need to start thinking outside the box, and begin to see what is possible, not what we have previously observed, interpreted, been taught or thought.

[Matthew]

I would respond to the first point with saying that people are the problem in as much as this is because people build systems that easily allow abuse of power and corruption to flourish.
Couldn't disagree more, but you make up your own mind as I do :P



You have a bit of a contradiction in your post. First you say that anarchy can be what ever one wants it to be. Actually, all anarchy means is "without rule" this means not having a top down structure. That's it. It indicates nothing more. You can create any system you wish inside of that, but those systems, what they are and how they work, are neither anarchy or not anarchy. It doesn't apply. Anarchy is only the idea that there isn't a top down governance.



Yeah the opening paragraph is cancelled by the rest of my monologue, but I stand by what I said in: it isn't no system for long. Give me transparency, and those other things I said along with it, any day over supposed 'no system'


... thinking outside the box, and begin to see what is possible, not what we have previously observed, interpreted, been taught or thought.

Couldn't agree more, but that ain't anarchy. But it is why I love you DeDukshyn *edit: love and value

[DeDukshyn]

... Give me transparency, and those other things I said along with it, any day over supposed 'no system'
...


Agreed. As I indicated in my long winded post, transparency IS a requirement. I proposed transparency along with a system that put regulation on the bottom and center, and removes it from the top, thus: transparency + anarchy, but I did not go as far as to define what all the internal system with built in risk mitigation would look like, but I can imagine them. I spent the majority of my life solving system problems and risk mitigation as a profession :)

EDIT: May I also propose that perhaps you couldn't disagree more with my point #1, because we haven't seen a society where self regulation is properly infused and raised in the human from an early age, that allow proper self regulation to occur where external governance is not needed? Or have you seen this and have an example where it doesn't work?

EDIT2: I also didn't propose "no system" -- again, anarchy is not "no system". ;) ;)

[Matthew]

I'm jealous of how effective you are at holding people to account. I'm afraid I still disagree with point one.... Made this brain picture; elaborates on my point about humans (we are ALWAYS flawed, it's human nature. We just always make a flawed system. If we had a perfect system, we'd screw it up without accountability etc). Gives further kudos to you imho

45959

[Matthew]

I can relate this back to the opening post!!!!

It's more healthy to treat political parties as a collection of flawed humans than heros or saviours.

Phew

[DeDukshyn]

I'm jealous of how effective you are at holding people to account. I'm afraid I still disagree with point one.... Made this brain picture; elaborates on my point about humans (we are ALWAYS flawed, it's human nature. We just always make a flawed system. If we had a perfect system, we'd screw it up without accountability etc). Gives further kudos to you imho

45959

I think our society may have a hand in the programming that causes people to come to such conclusions.

I watched a video just yesterday, and the speaker made the point of questioning, why is it when people are ruthless, corrupted, etc, people just say "well that's human nature". And why is it that when someone acts out of love and compassion, we say "oh isn't that special".

Is it true that acting with love and compassion is not actually human nature and that it only represents "something special"? If we can be programmed by society to the level that we view something like a an act of love as something that is "special" while acts of evil are "just human nature", then can not we possibly have been programmed with the belief itself that abuse and corruption is human nature?

Full circle back to my comment on properly educating and raising people to understand true human nature and the tools and abilities to self regulate.

http://i.stack.imgur.com/l7yW1.jpg

[Matthew]

Yes well put, and as the opening post says "It is the division created by politics that gives them power.". So we are doing our bit with a stoic conversation ;)

Humans are magical. Also, we are flawed, blindsided and prone to corruption. But nice to agree wholeheartedly with you there

edit: even the best human isn't 100% for 100% of the time

[DeDukshyn]

Yes well put, and as the opening post says "It is the division created by politics that gives them power.". So we are doing our bit with a stoic conversation ;)

Humans are magical. Also, we are flawed, blindsided and prone to corruption. But nice to agree wholeheartedly with you there

edit: even the best human isn't 100% for 100% of the time

Agreed. And I would never want 100%. I just would like to see a world where our flaws are celebrated as our diversity in strength, and not taken advantage of or perpetuated to cause human suffering or exploitation. There's an extremely big space between accepting being flawed and having a world run by psychopaths. :)

[Matthew]

Yes well put, and as the opening post says "It is the division created by politics that gives them power.". So we are doing our bit with a stoic conversation ;)

Humans are magical. Also, we are flawed, blindsided and prone to corruption. But nice to agree wholeheartedly with you there

edit: even the best human isn't 100% for 100% of the time

Agreed. And I would never want 100%. I just would like to see a world where our flaws are celebrated as our diversity in strength, and not taken advantage of or perpetuated to cause human suffering or exploitation. There's an extremely big space between accepting being flawed and having a world run by psychopaths. :)

Sooner or later resources get scarce, and hunting parties have a hierarchy based on hunting skill. We're not always handed mana from heaven. To work together successfully to survive, the groups are not divided, in the way we are often divided by politics(*1), or they wouldn't function. But human behaviour switches between those handed food and those who are hungry, thirsty, etc - it's classically not such a pretty picture with the latter, especially after a moment of no system (not trying to argue that anarchy is no system with this, like times after a revolution). It's a good reminder you give that we share REALLY well, but it does depend on levels of desperation.

*1 - sort of back referencing the opening post (O.P.), kinda :/

And right back to the O.P. we are better to hold tptb to account when we are not vehemently divided, even though we have very different outlooks

[DeDukshyn]

Yes well put, and as the opening post says "It is the division created by politics that gives them power.". So we are doing our bit with a stoic conversation ;)

Humans are magical. Also, we are flawed, blindsided and prone to corruption. But nice to agree wholeheartedly with you there

edit: even the best human isn't 100% for 100% of the time

Agreed. And I would never want 100%. I just would like to see a world where our flaws are celebrated as our diversity in strength, and not taken advantage of or perpetuated to cause human suffering or exploitation. There's an extremely big space between accepting being flawed and having a world run by psychopaths. :)

Sooner or later resources get scarce, and hunting parties have a hierarchy based on hunting skill. We're not always handed mana from heaven. To work together successfully to survive, the groups are not divided, in the way we are often divided by politics(*1), or they wouldn't function. But human behaviour switches between those handed food and those who are hungry, thirsty, etc - it's classically not such a pretty picture with the latter, especially after a moment of no system (not trying to argue that anarchy is no system with this, like times after a revolution). It's a good reminder you give that we share REALLY well, but it does depend on levels of desperation.

*1 - sort of back referencing the opening post (O.P.), kinda :/

And right back to the O.P. we are better to hold tptb to account when we are not vehemently divided, even though we have very different outlooks


"sooner or later resources get scarce" -- for a very long time there has been enough resources on the planet for everyone plus a whole bunch - how do you think we got to 7.5 billion of us? Only recently has even the question of too many people had to be taken seriously. If you distributed all the wealth equally, it would end up to being millions for each. If you spent resources to ensure food production was efficient (50% of all food produced in Canada is trashed), everyone could eat. Its the current top down power structures that cause the inequality, the programming we receive and the reinforcing by our "society" that has caused the inequality or at least the lack of rectification.

... If a giant asteroid came and threatened to destroy ... blah, blah, blah ... then eventually, blah, blah ... and in worst case scenario ... blah blah ... :P :P :P (meant with a smile and a poke)



Maybe in this arena, I am an optimist as to what is possible - I am a dreamer, but I dream with reason and passion ... ;)

[ceetee9]

I’ve been M.i.A. for a long while on Avalon, but I have recently began reading some of the “New Posts” again and this particular post provoked me to chime in with my two cents—for whatever it is worth.

First, I completely agree with the thread title premise. Decades ago I “divorced” myself from the political party that I joined when I became old enough to vote because it was my father’s political party and because I thought at the time that I had to join a political party. At that time I didn’t know s#$t from Shinola about politicians (nor did I much care), but my father was a very intelligent physicist and I respected him greatly so I figured his party was the party to join. I suspect that many people joined the party of their parents.

At any rate, after several years of paying some attention to what the politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) said versus what they actually did once elected, I learned that many, perhaps most, politicians would say and do anything to get elected and then do whatever was in THEIR best interest rather than what was in the people’s or country’s best interest. So I left the party.

It seems to me that political parties have done more harm than good because they not only entice members to vote for candidates based on the party’s alleged ideological beliefs, but they also divide us by propagating the myth that one party is good and cares about people while the other party is bad and cares little about people. By design, I believe, they rely on members who will vote for their candidate based upon perceived party ideological alignment rather than learning about the candidate and what they profess they will do once elected. Parties also promote a mob mentality which has never been more evident than what we’ve witnessed in America over the last four years. Mobs are never good and virtually guarantee division and endless fighting. I can’t believe that is what any rational person would want.

I suspect that most people are like myself and have some conservative views and some liberal views. Imagine what might happen if political parties were eliminated and we were forced to learn about a candidate, their background, integrity and ethics, and what they want to accomplish if elected. And then imagine if our representatives had to vote for bills that cited one and only one objective. No more 2500 or 5600 page bills that no one reads that are filled with mostly pork that has nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged intent of the bill. Wouldn’t it be much harder for politicians to become corrupt so easily when they didn’t have a party juggernaut to protect them? When it wasn’t so easy for them to hide payoffs and kickbacks in multi-thousand page bills? When it was obvious what they intentionally voted for or against and could then be held accountable for it?

Sadly, I think we are headed in a total opposite direction in the U.S. We may soon have a single party authoritarian dictatorship with no freedoms or rights and everyone will be fully controlled by a technocracy run by psychopaths, sociopaths and eugenicists. Heaven help us all if that comes to fruition.

[rgray222]

The current fiasco on Wallstreet against the hedge fund managers and the banks is the perfect example of getting rid of political labels. Small investors defeated wall street at their own game by joining together regardless of their political labels. Even if you don't understand stock trading the important takeaway is that in unity we have "ALL" the power.

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/127268790_10158796902283908_4573065613661184112_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=2&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=O01xGykJQ5wAX8jFlnE&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=2b284cbb6bb9fa89bc7b384509f8dd86&oe=6038D070

[Catsquotl]

https://libcom.org/files/AlexanderBerkman-ABCofAnarchism.pdf

Here's a book that made me an anarchist manny moons ago.
It's a bit dated, but made a compelling case back then.

With Love
Eelco

[Gemma13]

Before we can create, let alone sustain, working harmoniously together in symbiotic fully transparent communities of equality and sustainability that are governed/coordinated by meritocratic leaders/spokespersons, who then coordinate on a global platform designed to support sovereign communities, we need an uprising of strong Emotional Intelligence that will stand up to sociopathic intelligence.

That Emotional Intelligence needs to rise above the naive idea that all human beings are good deep down therefore they should all be afforded equal contribution/power within communities. Sociopaths have proven time and time again, ad infinitum, that they cannot control their desires for tyranny and power at the expense of others.

For example, the most ludicrous current affair we have today is the attempt by many countries to work favourably with Communist China.  Communist leaders and sympathizers will never, ever, ever, play nice, let alone fair.  Their ulterior motive will always be expansion of their dictatorship and control.

Pompeo claims the U.S. wanted to give Communist China the benefit of the doubt in relations, but it didn't work.  Of course it didn't f-ucking work.  Communists are terrorists and democratic countries should NEVER play nice with terrorists!  The arrogance of global leadership in thinking they could "influence and change" China's ideology over time, if they extended their hand of friendship and partnership, is mind blowing.

If our democratic countries made a vow to never trade with China for anything, ever, they would be outcast.  And rightly so as this would eliminate their global footprint forcing them to clean house or be left behind.  There is nothing in China that the world needs to survive.

Global unity is a good idea and is inevitable now that the world is intimately connected via technology but not while we continue to let sociopathic leaders roam the planet and certainly not while we have oligarchs in control who are placing their self interests of power ahead of ethical decision making for planet and human symbiosis.

But sadly we have the likes of Xi Jinping making speeches at the World Economic Forum that people are salivating over because they actually believe he is telling the truth with his sugar coated political rhetoric.  (The comments under his speech, which was posted on another thread, are alarming for their blind ignorance, let alone logical common sense which should dictate never to trust or support a mad man and his slippery tongue.)

It isn't any wonder oligarch globalists commenced a campaign to weaken younger generations by convincing them that teenage hormonal mood swings, (which have a use by date), are frightening mental health problems that require them to sever communication with families (elders) and to demand Safe Spaces for discussing global ideas and progress that must not be confronting or triggering to their "fragile emotions".  The plan is working as it continues to retard the Emotional Intelligence of youth growing up in the age of the internet and social media.

Many of our future generations literally refuse to hear, let alone discuss, traumatic, rampant corruption; and the likes of Xi Jinping are laughing uncontrollably at their good fortune.

Absurd naivety from ethically motivated people has got to stop.  It simply isn't enough to keep sticking our heads in a bucket of rainbows hoping that dark agendas, from dark human beings, will miraculously have disappeared when we pop up for a look around. 

It is the Elders responsibility to show strength by recognizing, highlighting and resisting all programs of infantilization (and naivety) that are leading our lambs to slaughter.

Elders who do not align with the contemporary programs of "false global unity" have been forced to the fringe awaiting our death and subsequent eradication from the new world that is emerging under communist idealogy.  Somehow we have got to find a way to break through the barriers imposed on us to help deprogram those who have succumbed to this sinister global cult.

If we can achieve exposure of this birds eye view of what is really going on then perhaps our political parties will eventually unite against the senseless tactics listed in the OP:

Once you have seen the truth for what it is a grab for global governance, it makes the tactics (race, pandemic, climate, immigration, freedom, speech, etc) being used to achieve that end seem rather insignificant. 

[Eva2]

'Communist China should be “given no respect” when it arbitrarily detains and arrests foreign citizens like Australian citizen Cheng Lei, according to former Victorian Liberal Party President Michael Kroger.

Australian Journalist Cheng Lei was detained in China six months ago, Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne has now confirmed she was formally arrested last Friday, accused of leaking state secrets.

Mr Kroger said the Chinese spokespeople push “nonsense and bulldust” and then expect the rest of the world to “believe this drivel” about respecting their processes.

“This is a government where 99 per cent of people charged are found guilty,” he said.

“It is a dictatorial, repressive, communist regime. It’s one of the last and worst communist regimes in the world, and they should be given no respect at all on issues like this”.

Former Labor minister Stephen Conroy told Sky News China is becoming increasingly adept at “hostage diplomacy”.

He said the arrest is a broader more “chilling message” when it comes to issues around Hong Kong, free trade, and Taiwan.

“This is just another little message to the rest of the world.”'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUsntuFS3EY

[palehorse]

Hello,

Nice this thread still rolling.. :)

When I said I go for Anarchism, I should be more specific in that post, well here it goes as a complement..

After reading many posts I saw that when Anarchism pops up, some people associate it with a global system and "automagically" try to fit Anarchism into some sort of hierarchical structure with a leader, and that's where it is all wrong, Anarchism has no leaders, it has rules like any other system and rules can be decided on a consensus base, I do not believe a global anarchic system would be a solution (I mean one huge anarchic system for each country or even worse one global anarchic system - this view is crazy bat ****i in my opinion).

But I do believe in communities elsewhere like "pockets", just like a P2P system work for the internet, how it works and how and why people adhere to the system?

In the last 20 years or so I am seeing an enormous amount of people going into decentralization process just because they can't take anymore of the "classic" government or the usual ****i, and when anyone come to this point in life, for better or worse this person is ready to change. Anarchism can be a solution in terms of community or not (depends on each individual and what they are looking for, Buddhist community for instance would satisfy some, but not others..), I had lived in a community for a few months in full time, I won't deny has a lot of problems, and people normally will oppose to do certain things or obey certain rules, but there must always be a consensus and people should be free to express their own ideas and not only vote in pre-existent old ideas, every and single person in the community should decide alone or in groups what ideas should be voted for (this is what I had faced and mostly disgusted me, because it is the same old **** as electing a new president, people got the option the didn't chose for, and the options in the end will be to fulfill their agenda anyway, and this is what they call democracy).

Doesn't matter what, there will always be flaws, loopholes in the system and people will always exploit it as we can see in many of the greatest novels written in the past.

+----
| Notes from Underground (Russian Novel by Fyodor Dostoevsky in 1864) <<----- source of inspiration for We.
| When the Sleeper Wakes (by Wells in 1899) <<----- source of inspiration for We.
+----
| We (Russian Novel by Yevgeny Zamyatin in 1920) <<----- The inspiration of all that follow in this short list ?
+----
| Brave New World (by Huxley in 1932)
| Burmese Days (by Orwell in 1934) <<---- current situation in Burma is chaotic and getting worse by the day, it is a perfect example of authoritarian regime (with and without US/UK manipulation)
| Darkness at Noon (by Koestler in 1940)
| 1984 (by Orwell in 1949)
| Fahrenheit 451 (by Bradbury in 1953)
+----

All these works/novels, share the same genre: dystopian, political fiction, social science fiction, philosophical fiction, science fiction and there is a few critics out there saying Huxley's works were a product of plagiarism, I don't believe I had read Huxley works and also these other novels, at least partially and they have nothing that suggest that, if that were the case we could perfectly say that `We` was based on Genesis from the Bible, due to many similarities in the very first chapters with Adam, Eve and The Serpert (satan). Ok enough I do not want to go off topic here.

Some people call it utopia for laziness of think and take action in a possibility of a new systems, communities are very real since the ancient times when people trying to escape the tentacles of their authoritarian system (nothing changed, look thousands of years ago and look today, except that we got technologies, but who knows of ancient civilizations had their own technologies as well), but I know from the time of Romans and Egyptians there were communities and they referred to that as "Island" or "Pockets", we also have examples of communities that came into existence, flourished and disappeared, it is all expected behavior, since nothing is permanent in this life, things will come and go all the time even the most powerful systems, new systems arise and die and cycle repeat itself throughout the time, we may be heading to some sort of feudalism again, who knows.. what I know is: the resistance will always exist.

I am in contact with an Anarchist community since 2009, I have to say they have their problems and they settle it all by themselves without involvement of the state (even in case of death, I went to a village funeral once, they burn their own dead in small temples - old style if you know what I mean), they have outside affairs which is a person responsible in the community who speaks for the "law people" to the outside community, affairs like land taxes, planning & constructions, crops sales via cooperatives, etc etc .. this is one example of Anarchism working in practice for centuries (I apologize but I do not expect people living is metro cities to understand what I am posting here, no offense, I myself had a hard time to get around these issues).
Anarchism can be employed in any size of community of watchful citizens, but more the community grows more organized it has to be, the community where we have our piece of land in total has around 3.500 members (including areas of other "districts" that are inter connected) in a large area (our specific surroundings has about 190 people only and the elders are the ones who says the final word for everything based on common rules of the community - they are like mediators not really any authority, they respond with officials but they themselves are not officials, they work for no one but themselves and the community), last year we got new neighbor in the land, a family with 6 or 7 that moved from a closer area and they are building their home, in the other hand the youngest generation are all hushing out to metro cities in the illusion of become rich.

I would like to suggest the book "The Art of Not Being Governed - An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia by James C. Scott" - I do not agree with everything in this book but in general lines it gives a lot of good insights of all those tribes living in southeast Asia in the region they call Zomia and it has a great reference list at the end.

It is sad to see how all these indigenous people are doomed to be extincted because of modern times (slavery, conscription, taxes, hard work, epidemics, and battles) but don't think they are going away without a fight, they are tough people.

The *.ism subject in general is very contradictory per se, this post is in the best of my intention, knowledge and experience with Anarchism and I am completely open to new ideas, I do not take any of these systems as granted, let's keep this thread rolling if we may and thanks for all the posts it is very insightful.

[Matthew]

Saw this tweet and thought of this thread

https://twitter.com/_Kenziepuff/status/1362839194243112961

Copy:
Mack
@_Kenziepuff
Idolizing a politician is like believing that stripper really likes you.

[DeDukshyn]

Saw this tweet and thought of this thread

https://twitter.com/_Kenziepuff/status/1362839194243112961

Copy:
Mack
@_Kenziepuff
Idolizing a politician is like believing that stripper really likes you.

That could not be more accurate ... I'll have to remember this one. :)